The Truth Will Set You Free Revisited


Justin Smith takes a walk down the memory lane of a past essay applicable to today’s current events pertaining to Left-Speak and protecting culture-destroying Islam.

 

JRH 5/25/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Truth Will Set You Free Revisited

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/23/2018 5:35 PM

 

(Author’s Note: I am sending this out as a reminder of what America still faces today.)

 

Many of my community’s fine patriots, many of them U.S. Armed Forces Veterans, were all protesting against the building of a 52,000 sq. ft. mosques in Murfreesboro, TN, in 2009, and Muslim appeasers and apologists, who were ignorant of the machinations of the ideology of Islam, such as Eric Allen Bell came in from California and attacked us as bigots and racists. He came with a TV camera and later sold his footage to CNN. And his rabble- rousing, misrepresentations of fact and outright lies did more harm to our cause than I can fully explain, since he had ties to Leftist propaganda media, like CNN, and he used them.

Needless to say, for a litany of other reasons and many other factors too, like the Obama administration Department of Justice interceding in the matter on the side of Islam and Murfreesboro’s Muslims, the mosque was built; and, now we have an abundance of Muslims in the area, with known ties to known terrorists, which I myself, along with other investigative journalists such as Steve Emerson have proven, since we started proving it, as soon as We knew who the sponsors of this mosque were.

Supposedly, after all was said and done, Bell went back to California and during a conversation with a Coptic Christian who had experienced the evil of Islam first hand, Bell came to see the truth of Islam. But this rings hollow and FALSE in my ears, because we were all armed with the truth, documentation and verified and authenticated photographs that we showed Bell at the time, and still, he attacked us and aided the commies and Muslim apologists who entered our community from across the country and worked night and day against Us.

Bell is also an atheist and he regularly trashes Christianity in his numerous articles.

 

After our battle in Murfreesboro, Bell sold his footage to CNN which used it in a documentary, ‘Unwelcome: Muslims Next Door’, put out by Soledad O’Brien.

 

(I can be seen at the 13 second, 7:57 and 8:05 marks saying “I didn’t say to hate them… I just said we didn’t need them here”

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JRzeZMw6LM

 

[VIDEO: CNN’s Unwelcome – Muslims Next Door – Soledad O’Brien

 

Posted by Justin Case

Published on Jan 24, 2012])

 

He profited from his own lies and the lies he perpetuated against our community, since our stance was never anti-Arab and we understood that many Arabs were also Chaldean, Coptic and Assyrian Christians and Yazidis; our stance was always that Islam is an evil and violent ideology, not “a religion of peace”, and it should not be allowed to grow and spread in America.

 

Essentially, our opposition was continually and consistently silenced and pushed out of any public forum from inside the government, due to the undue sympathetic coverage from Gannett Press, The Tennessean and The Daily News Journal, although Fox News (Newspaper, Businesses Feud in Tennessee Over Claims of ‘Hate Rhetoric’) did try to give a somewhat “fair and balanced” view of our fight. On the flip side, disingenuous statements by Muslims such as Lema Sbenaty [her bio at very bottom of webpage HERE] and representatives of the Council on Islamic Relations [CAIR] were given wide and constant coverage and presented as virtually the gospel facts, even when rife with lies.

 

This very same tactic is being utilized today in regards to each and every important topic of the day that is split along Conservative — often Christian — American Patriot vs Communist “Progressive” Democrat lines, from the weaponization of the FBI and intelligence agencies in the attempt to take down a president to the continuation of blocking any effort to halt Muslim immigration, as seen in the activist Court’s rulings even against common sense national security travel measures; and groups like the fascist ANTIFA are held up by the media as “anti-fascists” and “warriors for justice”.

 

Try speaking out in Your community at any City Council or Town Hall meeting or getting any ‘Letter to the Editor’ published and just watch how quickly the “progressive” illiberal “liberals” move to squash and silence anything You say or write; the proof is unfolding even on our university campuses as Antifa, BLM, La Raza and many others act violently against anything and anyone who attempt to counter their false victimhood narratives and their demands for what they mistakenly call “justice”.

 

The Leftists of America wouldn’t recognize Justice if it bit them square on the ass.

 

Do Not Sit Down. Do Not Shut Up. In The Face Of Any Adversity.

 

Stand Up. Speak Out And Stand Firm. Keep Fighting the Good Fight And Keep The Faith.

 

de Oppresso Liber ___ Voire Dei ___ In Liberty ~~~ Justin O Smith

 

++++++

Printed in ‘The Rutherford Reader’
August 18, 2011

The Truth Will Set You Free

 

No apologies should ever be made for hating something, because certain people, activities and ideologies have full well earned any hatred directed towards them. The term “hate-speech” is the Progressive Democrats’/Communists’ catch-phrase assault on the Truth, when the Truth exposes one of their nefarious agendas or allies. And I hate with a passion, and I love with a passion, as is my God-given right to think as I believe and feel about issues as I choose. It is a part of all human psyche to hate and to love, as well as to experience anger and joy. No thought police will ever keep me from speaking my mind through their own hypocrisy in the use of the term “hate-speech”!

 

This definition is from ‘Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary’ (1977):

 

hate 1a: intense hostility and aversion usually from fear, anger or a sense of injury

 

2a: extreme dislike or antipathy. I fear very little, so my hatred stems from anger, a sense of injury and an extreme dislike. The poet Maya Angelou shouts: “Be angry. It is right to be angry. It is healthy.”

 

Do I hate?…Damn straight I hate! Psalms 97:10: You who love the Lord hate evil!

 

I hate the small-minded miniature Joe Stalins who are stealing ‘The Rutherford Reader’ from its racks, in order to prevent it from reaching the community, and I hate those others trying to persuade business owners to boycott it, because they do not like or agree with some of the opinion columns. These people exemplify the liberals’ hypocrisy, because they are not interested in arriving at solutions through debate and free-flowing information, a free society or even a democratic society; they are of the same ilk as know-nothing Sen. John Kerry who recently suggested to MSNBC that the media should not report the “absurdities” from the Tea Party, even though the majority of Americans currently support Tea Party initiatives. These thieves and liars are symptomatic of a Leftist mindset that seeks to censor and completely squash conservative and Christian speech through intellectual terrorism.

 

I loathe those Muslims and Muslim sympathizers who advocate the spread of Sharia Law across the entire U.S., such as Dalia Mogahed (Advisor to the Pres.) and Harold Koh (Head of Legal Counsel-U.S. State Dept.). Sharia Law is evil; Islam is not a religion, because it has little to do with God and primarily promotes Mohammed’s doctrines and policies. Psalms 119:104: I gain understanding from Your precepts; therefore I hate every false way.

 

Eric Bell, Anthony Mijares and Rick Bennett cannot cogently debate any topic truthfully, and they often omit and misrepresent the facts. Bell has accused Mr. Pete Doughtie (‘Reader’ editor/owner) of endangering Mijares by calling him a “terrorist”; Mijares was actually referred to as an “economic terrorist” due to his boycott efforts directed at ‘The Rutherford Reader’. These misinformed, misguided “citizens” use a certain verbal nimbleness rather than actual evidence and logic in their assertions. They use this talent to hide from the reality of many impending crises rapidly descending upon the U.S., and they would not recognize the Truth if it was sitting in their laps!

 

Romans 8:35: Who can separate us from the love of Christ (or keep us from loving America)…can affliction or anguish…persecution…or nakedness or danger or sword? Because of the Progressive Communists, the Muslim sympathizers and these men are we simply to await slaughter by the Islamic fascists entering America daily?

 

Due to the Obama Administration’s refusal to name Islam and its Sharia Law doctrines as an ideology diametrically opposed to the U.S. Constitution and an enemy to America and freedom, and its further refusal to profile, Muslims live in the heart of America, for the most part and until just the past few years, without having their differences questioned, without checking their bad intentions, and without being penalized for their sullen fanaticism. When pointing out the fascism inherent in Islam to those like Bell, Mijares and Bennett, they are like the idiot in Mao Tse Tung’s proverb:

 

“If you point at the Moon with a finger, the idiot looks at the finger and sees the finger, not the Moon.”

 

If by chance they see the Moon, it’s the same because not having the guts to oppose the intellectual terrorism of the liberals and their conformity, or agreeing with it, they pretend to see the finger. Point at Islamofascist threats to America and all the idiots see only a finger.

 

The Progressives, Muslims and Communists of the world can mock Christianity, the Virgin Mary or Jesus and nobody touches their right of thought or expression, but if myself or Pete Doughtie or anyone else simply states facts concerning Islam. the Koran and the Prophet Mohammed, we are called bigots, xenophobes and racists. Progressive Democrats/Communists and Code Pink can yell anti-American slogans, call our soldiers “murderers” and “baby-killers”, fly the Mexican or any other nationality flag over the U.S. flag or even burn our beloved American flag and nothing happens; but if anyone does the identical thing against Islam, all Hell breaks loose! This conflict is ideological and has no racial quality whatsoever.

 

If we can condone Islamofascism and Sharia Law within the U.S. in the name of broadmindedness, understanding and pluralism, why did we fight Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin? Why did we organize the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba? Why did we go to Korea and Vietnam? Why does the U.S. send soldiers, such as Seal Team Six, to kill and die in wars declared against the enemies of freedom, of democracy and of civilization? Are these principles valid in certain cases only, with certain nations only? Aren’t Islamic tyrannies as unacceptable as the communist and fascist ones? I’ve had enough of this Leftist duplicity, ambiguity and hypocrisy! I am a free spirit, a free individual, and I refuse any form of tyranny such as Islamic Sharia; I refuse to listen to the clamor for the Theocratic State.

 

The Leftists and the Muslim sympathizers would exterminate the right of dissent within our representative democratic Republic. They would see us punished and our admonishments against Islam made criminal, just as the case in Europe, where we witnessed numerous notable people, such as Bridgette Bardot and Geert Wilders, prosecuted for “hate-speech” against Muslims. They would silence America’s children, hand them to the enemy and abandon them to a minority that swaggers and blackmails as it re-establishes heresy and burns the free minds on the stake. They would build a non-democracy…a deceit…a lie!

 

Upon their death, I full well suspect that all Progressive Democrat/Communists will plunge headlong into Hell and down Lucifer’s throat due to multiple un-repented sins, but especially their intellectual terrorism. They presume and assume to hold the Truth in a dogmatic manner; if you do not think as they do, you are an idiot and an outcast. And now, Hollywood, public education, university professors and pseudo-intellectuals have poisoned the minds of two generations, as they work on the third. Let’s state facts. The mendacious pacifists who disseminate the most obtuse illiberalism and the most bullying fascism were spawned by the Left; anti-Americanism originated with the Democratic Party, and now they are engaging in an even more despicable sin, as they foster Islamism and Sharia Law in America!

 

What kind of freedom would allow us to be invaded or muzzled or prevented from thinking, speaking or rebelling? What kind of freedom would allow Americans to live in fear of being prosecuted and convicted as criminals for the fiction of “hate-speech”? What kind of freedom seeks to censor my thoughts and feelings, to decide whom I must love and whom I must hate, so that if I hate my country and my fellow Americans I go to Heaven and if I hate Muslims I go to Hell? A non-freedom, I say…a mockery…a farce!

 

Like love, hate belongs to human nature…to Life…and cannot be forbidden by some article of some penal code. It can be judged, adversed or condemned, but only on a moral basis. I have the right to love whom I want, and I also have the right to hate whom I want. Let’s start with those who hate me. Yes, I hate the Bin Ladens, the Zawahiris and the kamikazes and suicide bombers who blow our people up; I do hate the bastards who smear the facades of churches and urinate on them. I do hate the Michael Moores, the Ward Churchills, the Noam Chomskys, the George Soroses, Cloward and Pivens, the Barack Obamas, their accomplices and the domestic traitors who sell us to the enemy. I do hate them as much as I hate the Ayatollah Khomeini, Putin, Ahmadinejad, Hu and Chavez. I hate them as I always hated any murder of Freedom. It is my sacrosanct right…my sacrosanct duty.

 

John 8:32: You will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free. Millions of American patriots, such as myself, Pete Doughtie, Kevin Fisher, Lou Ann Zelenik, Rebecca Bynum, Pam King, Sam Solomon, Bill Warner, Jerry Gordon, Frank Gaffney and Bill Ketron, have led the battle against the introduction of Sharia Law and Islamofascism within the U.S. through the use of honest facts. All of us are fulfilling a very difficult, a very grievous duty…the duty of speaking the Truth. And in speaking the Truth, giving voice to the voiceless!

 

by Justin O. Smith

____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by both Justin Smith and the Editor. Text embraced by brackets are by the Editor. Bold emphasis is by the Editor. I chose not to source Justin’s 2nd half he dated as 2011 in The Rutherford Reader.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

 

Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey


By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

… There is MUCH MORE TO READ

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

JRH 3/29/18

Please Support NCCR

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

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Book Review Article by Dwight D. Murphey

Wichita State University, Retired

Summer 2017; pp. 251-272

The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies

DwightMurphey-CollectiveWritings.info

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

Hoshang Noraiee

Hoshang Noraiee, 2016

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Many Faces of Islam

 

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

 

The Sunni

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Shia

 

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

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

 

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

 

Others

 

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

 

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

 

The Rivalries 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad

Leo Hohmann

WND Books, 2017

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Civilization Jihad and the Myth of Moderate Islam

Paul Sutliff

Tate Publishing and Enterprises, LLC, 2016

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

ENDNOTES

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

_________________________

Intro to Book Review of 3-Authors by Murphey

By John R. Houk

© March 29, 2018

_______________________

Jihadism and Muslim Immigration: Three Recent Books

 

Murphey info in the Intro 

 

Intro to ‘The Gravity of Mohammed’ & ‘Professional Ignorance’


Intro by John R. Houk

Titles by Bill Warner, PhD

© January 12, 2018

I am on Dr. Bill Warner’s Political Islam email list. Warner has a Doctorate from North Carolina State University in Physics and Mathematics from 1968. Yet his present-day bread and butter is exposing the darker side of Islam. Indeed, Warner is one of the foremost researching experts on Islam today.

 

Exposing Islam comes with a price in this day and age of Leftist inspired political correctness. Leftists and Muslim Apologists do their utmost to disqualify Warner with the accusations of hate mongering racist. These Leftist/Muslim critics rarely take a critical argument Warner uses in exposing Islam to contradict him. Rather the basis for their criticism is Warner’s enlightening essays, books and videos that directly take Islam in the actual context of the Quran, Hadith and Sira (Sunnah = Sira + Hadith) from the days those manuscripts became accepted and revered by Muslims and demonstrates Islam is much more political in objectives rather than religious.

 

Warner’s critics claim he takes the revered writings out of context which is a taqiyya/kitman lie. It is the Muslim Apologist that their theopolitical assertions out of context by cherry picking a Surah or a revered comment from the Hadith or Sira to appear as religious, yet when read in the original context the religious aspect becomes subservient to Islam’s political aspect.

 

Next the Leftist/Muslim Apologist coalition will criticize Bill Warner by exposing his legit name as Bill French. I don’t have specific knowledge for the reason for the pseudonym Bill Warner, but I have an excellent guess.

 

Critics of Islam have faced death and the threat of the death from practitioners of the Religion of Peace. Until exposed publicly, a pseudonym helps in the protection of life and limb. An example of other famous Counterjihadists with pseudonyms are Fjordman and Brigitte Gabriel.

 

Well, this is meant to be an intro to the Political Islam email received 1/12/2018 7:46 AM. The email begins with a short essay about Sharia in Iran and the eruption of Iranian protestors displeased with the rule of a theopolitical Ayatollah (let’s call it a Mullahcracy). Warner compares Iran under the Westernization under the Shah and the medieval Sharia instituted in the Mullahcracy.

 

The second part of the email is a link to a teaching video on which essentially reflects on the idiotic Leftist/Muslim Apologist race-baiting manipulation of the word Islamophobia framing political correctness. Along with the video there is a transcript of said video. All provided below.

 

JRH 1/12/18

Please Support NCCR

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

The Gravity of Mohammed

 

By Bill Warner

January 11, 2018

Political Islam

 

The protests in Iran are not only about economics and politics, they’re also about Islam. Iran in the 1960’s saw mini skirts, smiling women with uncovered hair, men and women freely holding hands on university campuses, and in the air, there was a sense that progress was possible. Then the Shah was deposed during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and the Ayatollah and imams came to power. Iran had been purified, returned to its Islamic roots of Mohammed. Today, we are witnessing the Persian people rise up again against the Iranian Islamic regime and say “no more”. How will this play out?

 

Over the 1400 years of Islam, there is a pattern that can be observed that I call THE GRAVITY OF MOHAMMED. It can be visualized as a cycling wave graph, or a sine wave (see figure below). An Islamic nation will cycle between secularism and hard line Sharia, a push and pull of modernity vs Mohammed or civilizations retracting and embracing the perfect example of Mohammed. It is hard to escape the Sunna of Mohammed which the Sharia implements. As long as you have the remnants of Islam in a society, Mohammed will always return. Said another way, as long as a society believes Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, Sharia will return.

 

Examples of this are Turkey and Iran. Turkey under Ataturk pulled away from Mohammed, only to return with Erdogan. Iran pulled away from Sharia under the Shah only to return under the Ayatollah, and now there is a good possibility that the Persians may push away from the Sharia again. However, this will surely be temporary as the only way to destroy rule by Sharia is to destroy the belief that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah (the Shahada). Thus, the Gravity of Mohammed predicts that although Iran will pull away from Sharia for now, and maybe for years to come, it will fall back again to its Islamic roots. Like gravity, Mohammed is always there.

 

Gravity of Mohammed – Iran Now & Then

+++++++++++++

VIDEO: Bill Warner, PhD: Professional Ignorance

 

Posted by Political Islam

Published on Jan 11, 2018

++++++++++++++++

Professional Ignorance [Transcript]

 

By Bill Warner

January 10, 2018

Political Islam

 

This is a talk given to political leaders. It covers how universities, law enforcement, clergy, politicians and military are not protecting our civilization via their professional ignorance.

 

Institutions are failing and not doing their due diligence to learn and explain the true nature of political Islam. The problem is not Islam. We are the problem.

 

The transcript (done with automatic speech to text software):

Well if any of you all have seen me before you know what I’m going to talk about the same thing I always talk about which is political Islam. I thought I would talk about it this time with what was going on in local politics and in our local school system. For those of you who don’t know me you’re looking at one of America’s most famous. Actually at one time I was in the top 10 of racist or bigot Islamophobia in America. And that ain’t easy. But we did it anyway. Now the reason I’m called a racist hater bigot Islamophobia is what I do as I talk about what Muhammad said and did what Allah says in the Koran.

And for these telling these stories is what gets me the benefit of being a racist hater bigot Islamophobia. And I’ll put it to you that if you’re not a racist hater bigot Islamophobia you’re not doing your political job. Well. In local politics. Recently when Ray asked me to talk I said what I want to talk about. So I decided to talk about the first thing that popped up in front of me which was we had another multicultural moment in the schools and education which was TMAG school went to the Twelfth Avenue mosque to receive their dose of moderate Islam.

And what I want to tell you is what happened what didn’t happen and why it should happen. All right here’s what did happen. The person who gave the lecture to the children from the school was a former Christian convert to Islam. And she tells me that Muslims honor Jesus they honor that this whole event is about critical thought Abraham as the prophet of the Jews Christians and Islam. They honor all the prophets and that the children in front of her were her brothers and sisters. Mary wore a job Jesus will return and fight the anti christ. Jihad is an inner struggle and that Islam is all about the free will. And conservative politicians are haters. So you didn’t know you were being talked about down the cloth have any mosques. So this is what happened. Now what is wrong with this.

I don’t mind somebody standing and staying there. But here’s what did not happen. No one stood up and was able to ask her any questions or tell her you call us your brothers and sisters and yet there are 12 verses in the Koran which say that a Kaffir a non muslim is never the friend of a Muslim. How does this work out? So this is the kind of question that should be asked if this were all about critical thinking and critical learning. Now then. They would also if they were trained well enough to ask questions would find out that although a creature called Jesus is in the Koran His name is Isa. And he is not the Jesus of the Gospels. But no one was able to ask this question nor did the students even know to ask this question. Nor did they even know to ask the question if Abraham is the father of your religion how come the Abraham in the Koran is not the same as the Abraham in the Old Testament. Just a small question perhaps. Now then critical thought involves debate.

You made.

You may remember debates I don’t know but anyway debate is involved in critical thought and sitting there listening to one side of an argument not the other is not what you call critical thought. Now then.

Let’s talk about the jihad.

That’s the J word.

She told them that jihad was the inner struggle and that all members of all religions have an inner struggle to lose weight to not lose their temperature lose their temper or something else. We all have things and we want to correct in our life and this is the inner struggle but no one was able to ask the question if jihad is the inner struggle how common the Hadith which are the traditions of Muhammad. Only 2 percent of the Hadith involving jihad are about inner struggle. Ninety eight percent of the jihad is traditions are about killing gaffer’s but no one was there to ask that question. And by the way on the question of free will there is a verse or two in the Koran which states that an individual has free will but. 98 percent roughly is everything is in Allah’s hands. So if all is determining what I’m to say next to my sentence whereas my free will.

Now then who is going to Islam succeeds to the method of not telling lies and telling half truths. There is a similarity to Isa in the Koran with Jesus. It’s just that he’s not the same person. By the way when Isa returns Jesus is supposed to return. Isa is going to kill the pig and break the cross. And those who do not convert to Islam will be sent straight to hell under his rulership. He’ll get married have children and then die and he prays behind Mohammad. When the imams pray in front of the law. So we don’t get the full story. And I don’t object to them telling half sorry what I object to is that no one was there to tell them the other half of the story.

I’m not for a suppression of speech I’m just for having the whole speech talked about. Now then. This is part of a civilizational war. And I use this term and that precise definition. This is a war between our civilization has as its ultimate foundation two principles and intellectual principle critical thought.

Or debate and argument. The other principle is an ethical principle of a uniform ethical unitary ethic. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you which others all others. So that is the corner the ethical cornerstone. And by the way this ethical Cornerstone only lets us have a form of government. Which is quite flexible and adaptable. When the Constitution was written slaves were not able to vote and of slavery was permitted. But what has happened through the application of the golden rule is that blacks were freed from slavery all slavery was prohibited because if you think about it who here wants you can put an ad for a slave on Craig’s List. And who’s going to respond to it. Nobody wants to be a slave. So the application of the Golden Rule to our constitution as an ethical principle allows us to adapt and change always on the basis. If I were a woman would I want to vote yes, I would. Therefore I think women should have a vote. This is an ethical principle.

Islam teaches a different form of ethics which using the Sharia ethics of dualism. That is a Sharia court Kafir a non Moslem cannot even appear and talk in front of the court is not allowed to bear witness. So if you’re a kafir and you want to appear in court you have to find a Muslim who’s willing to stand in your place. You actually pay him to be your witness and you don’t know if he’ll testifies you’d like to or not. So our civilisation is based on unitary ethics and critical thought. Islam is based on dualistic ethics were how you treated it depends on who you are and it depends not on critical thought but are authoritative thought in Islamic civilisation. No idea is allowed to contradict what is in the Koran and the Sharia. So therefore this is two different civilizations.

And they cannot coexist. It just doesn’t work. If we’re if we’re to find out if knowledge is to be based on the Koran why debate about it. That is there’s no room for critical thought and authoritative thought. There is no room for a golden rule. And in a dualistic form of ethics. So this is a civilizational war that’s being fought and it is a civilizational war because Islam is the most brilliant political power political group you’ve ever met. They change headscarves into war. They change food halal food they change prayer whether it’s in the street or in a mosque or a school. Everything is adaptable for pushing against the Kaffir. Now then. This should not be a problem.

The problem is not Islam. We are the problem because who is not there for instance when they are the major carriers of our civilization our government law enforcement military churches and schools all of these are failing all of them are failing. They’re not doing their job. Many of these children who went to the Maggs mosque.

Have a church they go to and they were not explained to them the true nature of Islam. Because inside the churches there’s been a decision we just don’t talk about that. It upsets people so as a result the church does not prepare children for what they experience. There was Dawa the AWB no church teaches the principles of Dawa to its congregation. So therefore children are secretly joining Islam even in the schools because they were not prepared for what they were being told. These children should have been able to stand up and ask questions if they had gone to a church. That’s just what I think. But they are not told to do that at church. Now let’s talk about. And I call the pastors and most churches being professionally ignorant. They’re not just amateur and ignorant. You can read Yahoo News and learn more about Islam. The average pastor will tell you that he knows. Now then.

Here’s a story from what happened in Tennessee advised one university to reflect what the churches are doing or not doing. Remember this was an event by the Muslim Student Association and they brought in an FBI counterterrorism expert.

We’ll deal more of that in a moment. They also stood and sat in front of the audience. The head of the NSA Muslim Student Association said We have one in Tennessee. All the churches including the fundamentalist churches now accept Islam as a form of religion. So the Muslims are telling their own we’ve defeated the church in Middle Tennessee. Now in.

This kind of terrorism expert let’s talk about why law enforcement is doing or not doing. We explain a little bit about how the counterterrorism aspect of law enforcement was done in the FBI after 9/11 George Bush said to the FBI. We know 110 percent of the FBI agents to be put in the new counter-terrorism unit. Now. Let’s say that you’re an agent in charge in China. You have agents working on the FBI agents are difficult to fire and get rid of because of Civil Service protected but now then you have a way to get rid of the bottom 10 percent of all your law enforcement agencies and the FBI. So this is the cold hard truth of what happens to the counterterrorism because it seems sensical. Of course it does. Now then at the same time I say that there was someone who stood up and asked this counterterrorism expert says Have you ever read the hadith. No didn’t know what it was. Have you read the Koran? Well I’ve had an e-mail from explained some verses to me.

So this is what we have in this one no Muslim Student Association meeting is we have an FBI agent said I don’t. But I’m an expert and we have the Muslims bragging about the fact that they have defeated the churches in Middle Tennessee. And you know what. I don’t think they’re bragging.

Here’s another thing about the churches. I. Bobbie portray taught me how to do lobbying the legislature not to tag along behind her for a while. When she moved to the wake swinish told me I do lobbying and so I tried. I says you know what I want a resolution to come out of the Tennessee legislature condemning the persecution of Christians in Islamic countries. So I went to a legislator who is favorable to the cause gave her my idea and she wrote it up for me. She says this is great this will be easy to pass. Well there was one thing that was not easy to pass and that was Turkey who was mentioned as a persecutor of a Christian. There was a big pushback from the legislators about naming turkey. You see the Turkish Chamber of Commerce has a heavy influence on the legislature.

Now then here’s what I did not do. I did not go under the direction of pastors or anything and say Can you help push on the legislators so that we can include Turkey because they kill the Armenian Christians. I didn’t even bother thinking about that. Why. Because it’s useless to do.

So therefore I just said take Turkey out. So this is an example of what’s going on because the churches are not properly trained and by the way there is a story about the legislature model books which I sell in the back of the room or a little because of being down to the legislature. We were trying to pass a bill that was about Sharia law. And I realize in listening to the senators that they had too much to read. So when I got through the thing I went home to call our printer says how many pages are in one eighth of one inch 62 pages.

So I wrote a 62 page reload book I’ve sold tens of thousands of them. So when you get down to the legislature you can learn a lot that can be very useful to you. And as a consequence it took all my big books and made little books out of them as well. Now I’ve said them 10 and 20 to 1. So it was not a total loss for me. But do you understand what I’m telling you that I wouldn’t even try to go out and raise that pastor’s trouble about a resolution talking about condemning persecuting Christians. What do you think about doing that.

Why bother. They don’t want to get involved. The Muslims want to get involved. Oh yes they do. Big time. Now then. This was a school event. What’s the school’s actually be teaching. You’re going to be surprised when I tell you I think the schools should teach Koran zero hadith and Sharia. Straight up. You don’t need to. You don’t even need to comment about it. When you read sir for 24 and it says that a Muslim can beat his wife. You know you really don’t do a lot of explanation of that and I think that every child should know that that is possible to do. So I am not for suppression of speech. I am for all out speech including let’s read the Koran and see what’s in it. You can read for yourself the 12 verses say that a Muslim is never your true friend. We’re read to comment about that. Just teach the actual facts.

60 million Christians have died and yet when you go to a church school you won’t learn anything about it. And by the way it’s true to my knowledge of all church schools. Speaking of schools I did a little research project for a senator and my research project was to find out how Islam was being teach the teacher. I can do better. That was being taught. In our school system. I was surprised at the insolence and arrogance. Of the universities in dealing with the senator. There were like What do you want this catalogue for. Who’s doing this. Why should we give you one? Who is this.

This was the senator. So a gentleman who was here earlier I don’t see him now.

When he talks about the fact that UT is not under the control of the legislature. It is not. To my knowledge no one is controlling our state universities. Think about that. And I think that is our own problem as well.

I talked to a Vanderbilt professor who teaches Sharia law. She doesn’t know Hadith from haggis. But she does. She said. She was simply a law professor and the head of the department said you’re going to be teaching Sharia law. I said Well that’s interesting. So you teach Sharia law and you don’t teach Koran. You don’t teach Siri don’t teach hadith. Now. I said What do you teach about jihad. She says no we don’t teach you about that. Is. What we teach about women’s rights. We don’t teach about that. What do you teach. She says Wills and business law. So this is from Vanderbilt University. This is what being taught there. What I would like to see is that the state schools would teach the Koran and Hadith of private schools will do it.

Then as we have here Jackie can tell you more about this than I can the textbooks in Tennessee now do not reflect our civilization but they reflect the civilization of Islam. Jackie.

Who did this. We did it to ourselves in the sense that when you look notice something about Islam how brilliant it is that Muslims don’t do the actual work. We do the work for them. The textbook company was owned by cappers. This money went to cavern’s everyone Kaffir is a non Muslims. And yet here they are hiring any mom to vet everything that they do. So Islam is not the problem. We are the problem. I just keep coming back to that. We’re getting the short end of a stick because we even grab the stick.

I want to say something about homes schools and private schools that are bad idea for the civilization. There is a good idea for your family. But there is a bad idea for the civilization because those who are powerful enough and wealthy enough to put their children in their own school then just sort of say bye bye to the school system. So as a result those who could be politically powerful in influence the school system is saying nope we’re taking our children out of it. Now this is the best decision for your family. But it’s a bad decision for the civilization because it’s a fortress kind of concept instead of controlling all the territory.

We just put up a wall and say we controlled what’s in this wall that wall will get smaller and smaller and smaller. Now then. Tell us something about the media that affects me. Right now. I’m a presence on the Well my idea of doing my business and by the way if I’m going to deal with Islam I have to have a source of money. I’m not paid with taxes. If I’m going to get money it comes from this. So what I did was I started myself a business on books. The idea was that the Web would be a place in which I would try to get the newsletters out of videos. It was a level playing field and I could succeed. And I did. I created a quite profitable tax book company you a textbook company although I do view them as textbooks. Not so much anymore. You know why. We you what’s happening on the web. I invented the term political Islam.

And if you put it in google the actual search engine Google that used to be six months ago that I own the top three screens outdid all.

It was all my turf. Not so much anymore. Two thirds of those are gone. He hung on paranoid. Well of course I’m paranoid but there’s another issue which is Google has stated as a matter of corporate policy that they will suppress those who criticize Islam and elevate those who praise Islam. So therefore a corporate policy is the playing field is not level anymore. I used to get about a thousand new members of Twitter every month. Now 300. I post on Facebook. Now then I get a peculiar kind of phone call an e-mail from people, Bill how come you are putting out a new video every two weeks? Oh I am. Oh well I’m a follower of yours on YouTube and Facebook and I don’t get notified. So what they’re doing is not banning me they’re just cutting off the oxygen. Facebook Twitter Google. All of them. Have. And it’s not just me in particular.

It’s anybody who’s on the southern poverty law centers handbook of hatred bigot Islamophobia press the Southern Poverty Law Center has a different concept now. The first concept was will shame these people put them on a list. And so it used to be when I was on the Southern Poverty Law Center was like finding my name on a truckstop say for a good time call Bill. Yeah yeah but now then the Southern Poverty Law Center has a new idea that’s driving these bigots out of business. And so they’ve gone to the Silicon Valley Megatron Mega Man mega manias and they’ve said let’s put these guys out of business. So I’m not the only one who’s getting bad calls on the web. So as a result and I have to look at another way of selling my books. Let’s talk about the military.

Juman [???] not mention the dirty word of the military now with the military supposed to defend us right. The dirty word McMaster.

Our military does not study the history of jihad. West Point and Annapolis do not teach the history of jihad. They don’t teach the major Jihad riders. They should because you’ll find some interesting things to learn a general in the military and that includes the Islamic State sees all combat as virtually civilizational war and a religious war and that the critical thing is to destroy the enemy’s faith. Let’s go back to what I was saying about the churches.

That the churches have committed suicide on their own faith. They’re lukewarm than either hot or cold. And in Islam that is the first place to try to take down a civilization is in its religion.

But military doesn’t study this. The military studies kinetic war bullets and bombs. Are not against bullets and bombs but there are other forms of fighting wars. And if all your military is capable of doing it’s fighting with bullets and bombs they’re going to lose because the enemy is going to defeat him with another method. General Stanley McChrystal who is there for a while under Obama was his top man for Afghanistan wrote up an entire paper on how to defeat Islam how to win in Afghanistan. I think it was a title that was heavily redacted for tactical purposes. That is personal names were taken out. There were three words that did not occur in this document. Those three words are Islam jihad and Muslim. They are going to defeat an enemy in the longest lasting war we’ve had. And you’re never going to mention those three words.

This is not to demean McMaster. I’m not a master. Stanley McChrystal he probably has never been told about this himself or if he knows about it he knows he can’t talk about it. So the military is not doing a good job either. As a matter of fact. The only people who are doing a good job in resisting Islam are rooms filled to people like yourself. Oh.

Another personal thing by the way is an attribute to who I am. There’s been recently some talk about one of the things that the FBI used to do is they used to train people. People like myself and Spencer would write position papers white papers for the FBI.

Then under was it Bush or Obama. They were pretty much the same on this issue. I forget who it was. No no. I mean I hate to break that to you about the first man who was fired from being in the military knowing what Islam was with Steve Kathlyn. And he was fired under Bush. So anyway I think that law enforcement you know what Islam is I think the military should know what Islam is. I think the churches should know what Islam is. I think the average citizens you know what Islam is. And if you do all of these things you’ll be like me you’ll become a racist hater bigot.

Now by the way I laugh at the concept that this is a very effective weapon. It keeps most people shot up. The average pastor does not want to be seen in print that he is an Islamophobic although he can’t. No one can define that term for me. Can you. What is an Islamophobic. You’re afraid of wife beating and jihad. Torturous death. Me too. Now then. I want to say a couple things about myself because I can’t win this war. I’ll go into small groups I go to Europe and I give talks like this Some better some worse. I can’t do this. I mean who else is beating the bushes on Islam here in Tennessee. Well there’s Kathy Henares. And we might and you in jail. Maybe a half a dozen people but we cannot possibly win this war because you see we’re just irritants.

So we have to have a way of bringing in groups and that’s the reason I’m saying that in particular the church should become our most powerful weapon. A winning feels good. I recommend it. But the idea of becoming a racist hater bigot will suppress most people’s opinions that just shut up because they don’t want to be called that. Now let me give you a little good news because everything I told you here is bad news. The reason I tell you nothing but bad news, is I do not know any good news about Islam in America. I mean I had some hope when. Trump won but he’s turned out to be not so good on the subject other than putting off another occasional irritating tweet. But he chose McMaster to be charge of basically what is it intelligence. What is MacMasters actual right. National security adviser. When your national security adviser thinks there’s good Muslims and bad Muslims and the Islamic State are not really Muslims you’re not going to go anywhere.

The good news is this an organization in Europe and there are several attributes it has which this group does not. It’s called Center for the Study of Political Islam international and it’s centered in Czech Republic Slovakia Poland Hungary and Austria and Germany. Now when I talk to them the room looks very different. They’re all under the age of 35.

All of them. I’m the oldest man in the room. I usually I’m the oldest man in the room anyway. But in this case I’m by far the oldest man in the room. And so I was curious why is it that in Central Europe they oppose this law. Why is it that Orbán who’s the head of Hungary will say we do not want any migrants? We don’t need them. How come they tell the truth. In Central Europe. We see Central Europe remember something called the Soviet Union. They were under the boot heel of Soviet Union. And the group and Bruno check. One man told me the story of how his father could not go to college because he was a merchant under the Soviets. Another man told me how his uncle was killed by the KGB as they said we know tyranny.

We have seen tyranny. We remember tyranny. And Islam is tyranny with a god. So there is hope. What’s happening is they’re translating my books into for my books like Sharia law for non Muslim who translated into 20 languages now. Being translated and also we have influence there with political parties. Not fringe elements like this meeting at a fairground meeting in Legislative Plaza. I gave a talk to the F.D. which is now the third ranking party in Germany executive committee and the title of the talk was using proper language. TOI gave them a talk on how to not how to talk not about Muslims but about Islam political Islam. Not religious Islam. How to talk about the principles of Islam and its political principles. When the talk was over. One of the members came up and said to me I can now see after your talk we will never defeat Islam using our methods and that the only method will work are yours.

Now this isn’t a personal attaboy it’s just that I was the first person ever to talk to him and knew anything about Islam and using proper words. So there are freedom parties now which are rising in Europe France Germany Austria Poland Czech Republic Slovakia and Romania. So what I’m saying is in Europe it’s different because they’re the threat is.

It is in your face. It is interesting to walk see a bunch of women pushing strollers with a black bag on. It’s demoralizing.

And now then Austria has made it illegal to wear the niqab. So we find that where people are closer to the edge work is being done.

So I think what is happening in America is right. They are not here yet. OK. I’ll tend to that later. I’m going on a diet after Christmas and it starts I’m gonna stop smoking in the fall. So dealing with Islam has this quality to it.

________________

Intro to ‘The Gravity of Mohammed’ & ‘Professional Ignorance’

Intro by John R. Houk

Titles by Bill Warner, PhD

© January 12, 2018

_______________

The Gravity of Mohammed

 

AND

 

Professional Ignorance

 

[Blog Editor: I attempted to edit some of the transcript put together from “automatic speech to text software”. If I couldn’t figure it out, I left it alone. I also left most words that needed a hypen.]

 

© 2007-2018 CSPI, LLC. all rights reserved.

 

About Political Islam

 

What is Islam?

 

Islam is a cultural, religious and political system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated. The Islamic political system is contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira.

 

CSPI

 

Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) is an educational organization dedicated to enlightening the general public about the doctrine of political Islam based on the works of Dr. Bill Warner.

 

Our Mission

 

Political Islam has subjugated other civilizations for 1400 years. Our mission is to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.

 

The Five Principles

 

Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the  READ THE REST

 

Bill Warner Bio

 

One Belief that should Unite Left & Right


John R. Houk

© October 5, 2017

 

I am on the email list of ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie. She resides in the UK. I don’t often cross post info from Ms. Namazie because she not only an ex-Muslim, I get the impression she is anti-religion in general representing the values of Leftist Secular Humanism.

Her views on Islam are notable as to exposing the reality of Islamic theopolitical ideology. Since I believe and follow the values of Biblical Christianity. I am quite certain this would rub Ms. Namazie to a sense of unpleasantness toward me.

 

Nevertheless, this particular email alerts about the existence of International Blasphemy Day. That’s a big finger point to how Islam treats those who have disagreed with Sharia Law. If you violate Sharia particularly as to relating to their moon deity Allah, Muhammad or departing away from Islam; is a violation that labels you a blasphemer worthy of death.

 

Although the day was initiated over the insane Muslim response to cartooning Muhammad in Danish news periodicals such as Jyllands-Posten, the day has been managed by atheist Secular Humanists against all religions. This means Christians are as much a target for ridicule as Muslims. The major difference being Christians don’t go out on murderous rampages as a Muslim would offended over an ascertained blasphemy.

 

Here is a bit of a bio from Maryam Namazie’s webpage:

 

Maryam Namazie is a political activist, campaigner and blogger.

 

She is the Spokesperson for Fitnah – Movement for Women’s Liberation, Equal Rights NowOne Law for All Campaign against Sharia Law in Britain and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. She hosts a weekly television programme in Persian and English called Bread and Roses broadcast in Iran and the Middle East via New Channel TV.

 

She is on the International Advisory Board of the Raif Badawi Foundation for Freedom; Humanist Laureate at the International Academy of Humanism, Central Committee member of the Worker-communist Party of Iran; National Secular Society Honorary Associate; Honorary Associate of Rationalist International; Emeritus Member of the Secular Humanist League of Brazil; a Patron of London Black Atheists and Pink Triangle Trust and a member of the International Advisory Board of Feminist Dissent.

 

The Islamic regime of Iran’s media outlets has called Namazie immoral and corrupt and did an ‘exposé’ on her entitled ‘Meet this anti-religion woman‘.

 

Maryam was a character in DV8 Physical Theatre’s Can We Talk About This?, which deals with freedom of speech, censorship and Islam.

 

She was awarded Atheist of the Year by Kazimierz Lyszczynski (2014); Journalist of the Year at the Dods Women in Public Life Awards (2013); selected one of the top 45 women of the year by Elle magazine Quebec (2007); one of 2006’s most intriguing people by DNA, awarded the National Secular Society’s Secularist of the Year Award (2005); selected ‘Iranian of the Year’ by Iranian.com readers (1997 and 1998); International Rescue Committee medal recipient (1988); and received the Julia B. Friedman Humanitarian Award (1987).

 

In the past few years, she has (Biography; MaryamNamazie.com; © 2015)

 

Except relating to Islam, Namazie is the kind of person that wants to transform the world into a Secular Humanist Marxist utopia. This translates into a despotic dictatorship where people are told how to live for the good of State principles and ideologies.

 

In the name of Multiculturalism, the global Left is brainwashing people into accepting Islam as an equal ideology in society because the Leftist elite are fully aware Islam will destroy the West’s heritage built upon the foundation of Greek, Roman, Judaism and Christian influences that has developed into a society of humanity which individual Liberty.

 

The Freedom that Liberty provides individuals drives both Islamic and Leftist ideologues nuts. Thus both ideologies are watching their backs due to their differences while advantage is being taken place Biblical Western Values.

 

The ideologues of the Left appear clueless of Islamic history and the 270 million people murdered since a guy named Muhammad synthesized religious ideologies to form a monotheistic death-cult that initially enriched Islamic prophet with personal wealth, sex slaves and brutal despotism to all those opposed to him.

 

To be honest the globe’s Marxist Left has done their share of murders in the name of forming a fake utopia. The Left’s heinous murders covered up from their populace knowing the revulsion it would cause. Islam could care less about a non-Muslim’s revulsion of the slaughter of people in the name of Allah/Muhammad.

 

It is my opinion Leftist-Marxists will lose to rabid Muslim culture of death because they brain wash devoted followers. Marxists are only capable of brainwashing a few disciples that will oppress the majority of humanity. The majority would eventually overthrow the despots as history has shown.

 

Unfortunately, the Muslim brainwashing tact turns the majority into the minority who become helpless servants of Islam. If you look at history, the Middle East and North Africa were Christians. After the Muslim conquest, oppression caused the majority to grow weary and transform to the darkside of theopolitical Islam for a better life for the sake of families. Islam actually became a viable choice.

 

Marxism has little interest – no matter what a Communist might tell you – to transform the hearts and minds into a global community. Rather Marxism relies on controlling society through promoting fear inside the community. Meaning no one really knows who is an authentic friend or foe.

 

As a simple matter of choice, the global Left should adopt an anti-Islam paradigm for the fear of Muslim rulers wiping the memory Marxism as they did to Christianity in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

JRH 10/5/17

Please Support NCCR

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

The Future Belongs to Blasphemers

 

Sent By Maryam Namazie

Email Sent 10/5/2017 1:28 AM

Sent Via One Law For All

 

International Blasphemy Day has just past. Watch this inspiring video made by ex-Muslims in various countries: The Future Belongs to Blasphemers.

 

[Blog Editor: below is the video from the above link but not embed in the email.]

 

VIDEO: The Future Belongs to the Blasphemers – a Message from Ex-Muslims

 

Posted by Nano GoleSorkh

Published on Sep 30, 2017

 

Also see the world’s first group bodypaint captured by both ground and drone in solidarity with ex-Muslims.

 

[Blog Editor: Here is the “bodypaint” video from the above link. I don’t really get the body paint thing. My guess, it has something to with Secular Humanist ex-Muslims.]

 

VIDEO: Bodypainting in Solidarity with Ex-Muslims and CEMB

 

Posted by Nano GoleSorkh

Published on Sep 30, 2017

 

Created as a finale to the groundbreaking International Conference on Freedom of Conscience and Expression, the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, this is the world’s first group bodypaint captured by both ground and drone. Conceived by award-winning bodypainter Victoria Gugenheim in support of and solidarity with ex-Muslims and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB).

 

www.ex-muslim.org.uk

www.secularconference.com

www.gugenheim.co.uk

 

SUPPORT BREAD AND READ THE REST

 

Some will ask why we must celebrate blasphemy when it is “hurtful” and “offends”.

 

The answer is simple:

 

Because people can be killed for blaspheming and human life is more important than hurt sensibilities and offence.

 

As the Jordanian atheist, Mohammed Al Khadra said at the largest gathering of ex-Muslims in history, “Where are your priorities? While we die, you are all thinking about Islamophobia?

 

Islamophobia is a political term used to scaremonger people into silence; it imposes de facto blasphemy and apostasy laws where none exist. Where such laws exist, there are no accusations of “Islamophobia” but rather imprisonment, persecution and execution.

 

Another speaker at the July conference, Zineb El Rhazoui, who survived the attack on Charlie Hebdo because she was back in Morocco says “the right to blasphemy [marks] the boundary between barbarism and civilisation.”

 

As the new edition of CEMB’s publication: “The Political and Legal Status of Apostates in Islam” shows, it is especially dangerous for ex-Muslims living under Sharia.

 

CEMB is organising a protest at the Pakistani and Iranian embassies in London on 10 November to highlight a number of cases facing the death penalty such as that of Sina Dehghan, Soheil Arabi and Ayaz Nizami.

 

We are also campaigning for activists like Iraqi atheist Karrar Al Afsoor who has fled to Greece where he is being detained in awful conditions.

 

Despite the targeted persecution and slaughter of freethinkers, though, it is we who are still being blamed for the threats we receive and even when we are murdered – like the woman whose rape is blamed on the length of her skirt.

 

We are outrageously even compared to Nazis for marching for LGBT and ex-Muslim rights at Pride in London by “progressives” who prefer to side with Islam and Islamism than with dissenters. (As an aside, Pride in London is still deciding whether to allow CEMB back at Pride next year given complaints(!) by the homophobic East London Mosque. CEMB has called on Pride to do the right thing.)

 

Spokesperson Maryam Namazie exposed the hypocrisy, double standards and racism of lower expectations at the 40th convention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when she accepted the Freedom from Religious Fundamentalism award.

 

Thankfully, there are many who continue to support our work and the right to freedom of conscience and expression. This support has meant a great deal to us and enabled us to continue the important work we do.

 

Please continue to support us via donations (no matter how small), volunteering your skills (we especially need help with film editing and graphic design), as well as attending our protests and events. Sadia Hameed and Maryam are speaking at a number of events in Belgrade, Cambridge, Koln, Massachusetts, Melbourne, Nottingham, Pennsylvania and Rome.

 

In London, at our monthly meet-ups, we have everything from an ex-Muslim art workshop to “coming out parties” for ex-Muslims who decide to go public.

 

We hope you can join us at some of our events, including our 10 December End-Year event with food, drinks, speeches, music and dancing. Get your tickets to join us as soon as you can.

 

By the way, Deeyah Khan’s film, Islam’s Nonbelievers, [Blog Editor: I am posting this 46-minute document about UK ex-Muslims at the end of this cross post] which was about the work of CEMB and the situation of ex-Muslims in Britain and internationally has been shortlisted for the Asi an Media Awards in Investigative Journalism.

 

Thanks again for your support.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you or seeing you at some of our events.

 

Warmest wishes,

Maryam Namazie
Sadia Hameed
Spokespersons
CEMB
BM Box 1919
London, WC1N 3XX
United Kingdom
exmuslimcouncil@gmail.com
ex-muslim.org.uk

++++++++

VIDEO: Exposure: Islam’s Non Believers (2016)

 

Posted by Abdullah Begg

Published on Oct 23, 2016

 

Documentary focusing on Ex-Muslims in Britain and the discrimination they can face.

_________________

One Belief that should Unite Left & Right

John R. Houk

© October 5, 2017

_______________

The Future Belongs to Blasphemers

 

Campaign against Sharia law in Britain

 

Join our facebook page

 

Declaration

 

We, the undersigned individuals and organisations, call on the UK government to bring an end to the use and institutionalisation of Sharia and all religious laws and to guarantee equal citizenship rights for all.

 

Sharia law is discriminatory

 

Sharia Councils and Muslim Arbitration Tribunals are discriminatory, particularly against women and children, and in violation of universal human rights.

 

Sharia law is unfair and unjust in civil matters

 

Proponents argue that the implementation of Sharia is justified when limited to civil matters, such as child custody, divorce and inheritance. In fact, it is civil matters that are one of the main cornerstones of the subjugation of and discrimination against women and children. Under Sharia law a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man’s; a woman’s marriage contract is between her male guardian and her husband. A man can have four wives and divorce his wife by simple repudiation, whereas a woman must give reasons, some of which are extremely difficult to prove. Child custody reverts to the father at a preset age, even if the father is abusive; women who remarry lose custody of their children; and sons are entitled to inherit twice the share of daughters.

 

The voluntary nature of Sharia courts is a sham

 

Proponents argue that those who choose to make use of Sharia courts and tribunals do so voluntarily and that according to the Arbitration Act parties are free to agree upon how their disputes are resolved. In reality, many of those dealt with by Sharia courts are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under British law. Many, particularly women, are pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions. More importantly, those who fail to make use of Sharia law or seek to opt out will be made to feel guilty and can be treated as apostates and outcasts.

 

Even if READ THE REST

 

Speaking about Islam is Hate-Speech in Canada


Ask Wild Bill for America

 

By John R. Houk

© June 28, 2017

 

William Finlay – Wild Bill for America

 

European style hate-speech laws protecting the evils inherent in Islam have made it to the shores of the North American Continent; i.e. CANADA.

 

William Finlay, better known as Wild Bill for America, was arrested at a Canadian airport on his way to a speaking engagement accused of hate-speech towards Islam. World Coalition Against Islam invited Wild Bill to speak at Calgary’s Olympic Plaza called the “Patriotic Unity Mega Festival” about Islam and Sharia. Wild Bill had not even given a speech yet on Canadian soil.

 

Apparently, the arrest was based on a speech he had given in Jacksonville, Florida USA. Again apparently, Canadian hate-speech laws can be enforced as a criminal act for speech given outside the borders of Canada.

 

Below is the Youtube video of Wild Bill talking about his Canadian detainment followed by another video set in Florida that Canadian authorities based their hate-speech detainment. Then I found an awesome article about Wild Bill’s inhospitable treatment by the Canadian government at Fortress of Faith.

 

JRH 6/28/17 (Hat tip: Noisy Room, Trevor Loudon – New Zeal, Oath Keepers, Gates of Vienna & Vlad Tepes)

Please Support NCCR

__________________

VIDEO: Smuggler Bill’s Canada Blues

 

Posted by Wild Bill for America

Published on Jun 25, 2017

 

Wild Bill was arrested in Canada for “smuggling hate speech” on his IPAD….here is Bill’s video report on what happened.

 

+++

VIDEO: Wild Bill’s ANTI HATE Hate Speech Arrested by Canada Border Police

 

Posted by Wild Bill for America

Published on Jun 25, 2017

 

This is the speech I was to give in Canada. The cops read the script and ARRESTED ME FOR HATE SPEECH……..watch and decide if this is hate speech.

Support Bill at www.outlawschapel.com/

 

+++

Canada Has Already Lost The Right Of Free Speech

American Arrested in Canada for Smuggling “Hate Speech”

 

By Pierre Coovert

June 27, 2017

Fortress of Faith

 

An American was arrested at the airport in Canada for “Smuggling hate speech” on his iPad. William Finlay was invited to speak at a at an event at Calgary’s Olympic Plaza called the “Patriotic Unity Mega Festival” on Islam and Sharia Law. He was also fighting for freedom of speech. He was met at the airport by the police and his materials were taken from him as hate speech.

 

This is of special interest to me because the very same thing happened to us in our ministry about 3 or 4 years ago. My pastor was helping me by taking some of my DVDs to our dropshipper in Canada. He was detained at the border crossing and our materials were seized as hate speech. Later they returned the material without apology, but they did admit that the material was not “hate speech.”

 

William Finlay goes by the name, “Wild Bill for America.” He was a policeman for more than 20 years. He is a Christian, and he travels around proclaiming truth. His topic at the festival was titled “Preserving Your Freedom Of Speech, and Not Becoming Sharia Compliant.”

 

[Blog Editor: At this point Pierre Coovert places the Wild Bill video posted above entitled, “Smuggler Bill’s Canada Blues”.]

 

This incident shows that freedom of speech is already dead in Canada. They will not allow anyone into their country who is concerned about organizations and religions, like Islam, that don’t want you to have freedom of speech. Those who stand for freedom against those who want to take away freedom, are considered hateful.

 

The day after this happened to us I did a broadcast on What if Muhammad came to the Canadian border, and the border police went through his materials the same way they are going through the material of Christians, would they find material that would incite people to kill those of another belief system? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES! The Qur’an is full of such statements. The problem is, they are protecting Islam from scrutiny. They are trying to silence people who are warning about what Islam really teaches. Those who show that Islam is a religion of hate and incitement to violence are the ones being targeted as hate mongers. Islam doesn’t just teach violence against unbelievers, it actually carries it out.

 

Somehow, those who are warning of the danger are the criminals, and those who are preaching and practicing violence are the “innocent victims.” We need to stand up against this because if we don’t we will wake up one day and find that all of our freedoms are gone. The first right we will lose is our freedom of speech, and before long we will find we have lost the right to practice our faith. If you are paying attention, you know that it has already started.

 

Related Articles

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________

Speaking about Islam is Hate-Speech in Canada

Ask Wild Bill for America

 

By John R. Houk

© June 28, 2017

____________

Canada Has Already Lost The Right Of Free Speech

 

© Fortress of Faith

 

sharia law in America!


A couple of weeks-ago I ran across a great video of David Wood teaching about the dangers of Islam’s Sharia Law. I found it at a G+ Community called Anti-Islam. If you are not concerned about the Islamophobe label, then check it out.

 

Here’s Wikipedia on David Wood:

 

David Wood (Christian apologist)

 

David Wood (born April 7, 1976)[1] is an American evangelical missionary and a Christian apologist.[2][3][4] He is currently head of the Acts 17 Apologetics Ministry.[5] He is a member of the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Evangelical Philosophical Society.[2]

 

Contents

 

 

Early life and education

 

Wood has stated that he was an atheist[1] in his youth, during which he had run-ins with the law by breaking into homes and later going as far as attempting to take his father’s life at the age of 18, all due to the belief he was above societal rules that subsequently conditioned a lack of empathy within Wood. [6][7][8] After the attempt on his father’s life Wood was sentenced to ten years in prison for malicious wounding. While in prison, he was confronted with a fellow prisoner named Randy[8] who was a devout Christian. Wood often challenged Randy’s Christian beliefs, initially claiming that Randy was only a Christian because he was born into a primarily Christian society, specifically the United States.[7] Wood began to read the Bible in order to respond to Randy’s rebuttals but it eventually led Wood to convert to Christianity in 1996 himself, and to eventually reconcile with his father.[8]

 

After five years between jail and prison,[7] he was released in 2000 and went to college earning a degree in philosophy.[9][10][11] While in college, he was challenged to convert to Islam by his roommate, Nabeel Qureshi, a Muslim, and went about investigating the life of Mohammed using the earliest sources including Ibn Ishaq‘s epic the “Life of Muhammad” (the earliest biography of Muhammad); the hadith collections of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim (considered by Sunni Muslims to be the two most reliable or sahih collections of Muhammad’s statements, actions, and example); and the History of the Prophets and Kings by Al-Tabari (one of Islam’s greatest historians).[9] Concluding that the Quran and Mohammed’s example did not simply describe violence in the past (as in the Christian Bible per his assertion), but rather commanded ongoing violence, he took up the mantle as a Christian apologist.[9] His roommate Nabeel, eventually went on to become a Christian apologist as well.[1] Wood would later earn a Ph.D. in the philosophy of religion at Fordham University.[2]

 

Christian apologetics

 

Wood has participated in numerous public debates with Muslims and atheists,[12][13][14] usually in a public hall or in front of a university audience[15][16][17][18] including debates with Sunni Muslim apologist Shabir Ally.[2] Wood was invited on several ABN shows, in inter-religious discussions against atheism and Islam, where among other things he regularly appears on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network.[19] He has produced YouTube videos presenting his views on religion.[20]

 

Wood opposed the Park51 Islamic Center, arguing that it was not meant to honor the victims’ families, but instead was a symbol of Islamic victory and named READ THE REST

 

The person who actually posted calls herself Laura the [profane name which I won’t use]. She does have an interesting bio on her Youtube About Page.

 

JRH 3/25/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Blog Editor: Video updated on post 6/4/17. The previous video’s Youtube Channel was suspended by Youtube.

VIDEO: sharia law in America! by David Wood

Posted by Laura Y

Published on Feb 17, 2017

 

Oklahoma Rep., Marine Too, Rocks: Busted Through Civilizational Jihad …


I came across a post six days ago from Adina Kutnicki about John Bennett a State Congressman from Oklahoma. To pique your interest in the post let me to get to the point that Kutnicki builds up to.

At the third annual Muslim Day Bennett Muslim constituents are given the opportunity to “interact with state legislators” that are constituents. Prior to the interaction, Bennett required his Muslim constituents to fill out a survey.

 

That should be enough to inspire you to read the entire post to find out what was in the survey and for its reason.

 

Oh yeah, did I mention I live in Oklahoma.

 

JRH 3/12/17

Please Support NCCR

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

Oklahoma Rep., Marine Too, Rocks: Busted Through Civilizational Jihad Via “Muslim Capital Day.” A Template. Commentary 

 

By Adina Kutnicki

March 6, 2017

Adina Kutnicki – A Zionist & Conservative Blog

 

FULL disclosure: this Muslim Brotherhood expert has a sweet spot for patriotic men who have the stones to stand up and be counted. For the most part, they fiercely protect those they hold near and dear, as well as the core values of national import. Yes, wishy-washy, PC bull-crap doesn’t factor in, nor cloud their (moral) vision. And, more often than not (of course, there are always rotten apples), behind many such men lies a stint in the U.S. Marines. There you have it…. “The Few. The Proud.”

 

BUT not to veer too far off (historical) course, think about this tidbit: how many know that Thomas Jefferson recognized what’s what and who’s who, as he understood the Muslim score to a historical tee? Indeed, that westerners could never, ever – in any way, shape or form – negotiate with followers of Islam. Mohammedans. Period.

 

RESULTANT, as noted within “BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad” (pg. 48): “when called upon to deal with the Barbary pirates, as Muslim kingdoms engaged in piracy and kidnapping on the high seas, Jefferson read the Qur’an to see if it was possible to negotiate with them. Hence, America’s first foreign conflict and the source of the line in the “Marine Corps Hymn”, “to the shores of Tripoli.”

 

INHERENTLY, have Americans forgotten their history to the degree that too many are incapable of drawing the salient parallels between militant jihad of yesteryear and that of today, that which are really one and the same? Most significantly, above all else, it will be through a non-sanitized version of the political, cultural and quasi-religious basis of Islam that western civilization will be saved. Rest assured, without the proper lessons learned, as always, it is verily impossible to fight back. It’s a bit like chasing ghosts.”

 

WHICH brings the discussion straight back into the path of Republican Rep. John Bennett of Oklahoma, you know, the rockin’ Marine too!

 

SO without further ado……

 

Oklahoma Rep. John Bennett asked his constituents taking part in the state’s third annual Muslim Day on Thursday — in which Muslims have the opportunity to interact with state legislators at the capitol — to fill out the questionnaire.

 

Adam Soltani, executive director of Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) Oklahoma, said that high school students from Tulsa’s Peace Academy visited Bennett’s office to either meet with him or schedule a meeting. The students were met by a legislative assistant, Soltani said, who gave the students a questionnaire, telling them it must be filled out in writing.

 

Some of the questions in the document included the following:

“Sharia law says that it must rule over the kafirs, the non-Muslims. Do you agree with this?”

 

“The Koran, the sunna of Mohammed and Sharia Law of all schools say that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?”

 

“Mohammed was a killer of pagans, Christians and Jews that did not agree with him. Do you agree with this example?

 

“I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at age of 49, married a 6-year-old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?”

 

Bennett, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, made headlines in 2014 when he made anti-Islam comments on social media, later adding that Islam is a “cancer in our nation that needs to be cut out.” He also said there is no difference between moderate and radical Islam.

 

“How can I be racist against Muslims or Islam when the ethnicity is actual Arab?” he said at the time, adding, “This is kind of confusing.”

 

Last year, Oklahoma lawmakers approved a proposal Bennett submitted to study the “current threat posed by radical Islam and the effect that Sharia Law, the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist indoctrination have in the radicalization process in Oklahoma and America.”

 

Jihad Linked U.S. Muslim Orgs & People

 

BUT in order to internalize the depth of his patriotism and outside-the-box thinking, let’s first examine how Brotherhood Mafia front groups continuously pave the way for overturning America; step-by step, phase by phase. Then, and only then, can patriots recognize the depth of their infiltration and penetration, thus, exposing how Bennett (and a few other stalwart reps) outfoxed Islam’s stealth jihadists. Yes, aside from all else, they slither from capital to capital, feigning to assert their democratic “right” to influence respective leaders, as if stealth aka civilizational jihad is part of the American fabric and contract between the citizens and the government!

 

Written sometime in 1987 but not formally published until May 22, 1991, Akram’s 18-page document listed the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends” that shared the common goal of dismantling American institutions and turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation. These “friends” were identified by Akram and the Brotherhood as groups that could help convince Muslims “that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

 

Akram was well aware that in the U.S., it would be extremely difficult to promote Islam by means of terror attacks. Thus the “grand jihad” that he and his Brotherhood comrades envisioned was not a violent one involving bombings and shootings, but rather a stealth (or “soft”) jihad aiming to impose Islamic law (Sharia) over every region of the earth by incremental, non-confrontational means, such as working to “expand the observant Muslim base”; to “unif[y] and direc[t] Muslims’ efforts”; and to “present Islam as a civilization alternative.” At its heart, Akram’s document details a plan to conquer and Islamize the United States – not as an ultimate objective, but merely as a stepping stone toward the larger goal of one day creating “the global Islamic state.”

 

In line with this objective, Akram and the Brotherhood resolved to “settle” Islam and the Islamic movement within the United States, so that the Muslim religion could be “enabled within the souls, minds and the lives of the people of the country.” Akram explained that this could be accomplished “through the establishment of firmly-rooted organizations on whose bases civilization, structure and testimony are built.” He urged Muslim leaders to make “a shift from the collision mentality to the absorption mentality,” meaning that they should abandon any tactics involving defiance or confrontation, and seek instead to implant into the larger society a host of seemingly benign Islamic groups with ostensibly unobjectionable motives; once those groups had gained a measure of public acceptance, they would be in a position to more effectively promote societal transformation by the old Communist technique of “boring from within.”

 

“The heart and the core” of this strategy, said Akram, was contingent upon these groups’ ability to develop “a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions.’” That is, by working synergistically they could complement, augment, and amplify one another’s efforts. Added Akram: “The big challenge that is ahead of us is how to turn these seeds or ‘scattered’ elements into comprehensive, stable, ‘settled’ organizations that are connected with our Movement and which fly in our orbit and take orders from our guidance.” The ultimate objective was not only an enlarged Muslim presence, but also implementation of the Brotherhood objectives of transforming pluralistic societies, particularly America, into Islamic states, and sweeping away Western notions of legal equality, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.

 

Akram and the Brotherhood understood that in order to succeed in this endeavor, they needed to appeal to different strata of the American population in different ways; that whereas some people could be influenced by messages delivered from a religious perspective, others would be more responsive to messages delivered by educators, or bankers, or political figures, or journalists, etc. Thus, Akram’s blueprint for the advancement of the Islamic movement stressed the need to form a coalition of groups coming from the worlds of education; religious proselytization; political activism; audio and video production; print media; banking and finance; the physical sciences; the social sciences; professional and business networking; cultural affairs; the publishing and distribution of books; children and teenagers; women’s rights; vocational concerns; and jurisprudence.

 

By promoting the Islamic movement on such a wide variety of fronts, the Brotherhood and its allies could multiply exponentially their influence. Toward that end, the Akram/Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum” named the following 29 groups as the organizations they believed could collaborate effectively to destroy America from within – “if they all march according to one plan”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By setting up these many front groups, the Muslim Brotherhood was emulating the Communist Party tactic of creating interlocking front groups during the Cold War in order to confuse its enemies and make it more difficult to combat.

 

VIDEO: Dr. Bill Warner Moment: How to Use the Elements of Islam to Vet Muslim Migrants.

 

Posted by The Glazov Gang

Published on Feb 13, 2017

 

IN light of the above (and so much more), how frightening is it to know that Allah’s Muslim terrorists have been wildly successful within all American spheres, and with their political muscle displayed within: 

 

US Council of Muslim Organizations logo

 

The US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a coalition of leading national and local American Muslim organizations, today announced plans to host the first-of-its-kind National Muslim Advocacy Day on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. on April 13, 2015.

 

ALAS, is it any wonder that Iraqi-American Christians, Chaldeans, are petrified in their adopted homeland – yes, they are true refugees – due to the massive inroads carved out by followers of Islam, despite the fact that Shariah Law adherents are tied to every terror attack, bar none? Not only that, the very same Chaldeans already won an initial round in 2015 in Sterling Heights, Michigan, when they protested against a mega mosque – another! barracks within – being built in the midst of their community! But lo and behold, once again, Islamic pressure tactics – ala lawfare – turned justice upside its head.

 

In the end, the Iraqi Christians of Sterling Heights, Michigan, say they felt abandoned and left vulnerable by their government.

 

It didn’t matter that they had escaped genocide in the Middle East.

 

It didn’t matter they had 180 people at the City Council meeting Tuesday to voice their concerns about a large mosque being proposed in the middle of their neighborhood.

 

It didn’t matter, they say, that Donald Trump is their new president or that Jeff Sessions is the new attorney general.

 

They lost. The Muslims won.

 

The city on Tuesday night agreed to a settlement with a Muslim group that wants to build a mega-mosque on 15 Mile at Mound Road, in the heart of a residential area filled with Christians who escaped Muslim persecution in Iraq.

 

The nearly 200 people who packed city hall in protest of the mosque were limited by Mayor Michael C. Taylor to two minutes of speaking time.

 

“There were people crying, complaining about not being given enough time to speak,” said Nahren Anweya, spokeswoman for the approximately 50,000 Chaldean and Assyrian Christians living in the area.

 

“The mayor was literally acting like a dictator, wouldn’t let people finish their statements,” she told WND. “As soon as they said something about the persecution their family experienced from Muslims in Iraq, he would shut them down.”

 

Anweya said her own great-grandfather was crucified by Muslims in Iraq because he refused to remove the large gold cross he wore around his neck. Her family immigrated to the U.S. in 1989, when she was 6 years old.

 

Sensitivity training

 

Nahren Anweya’s family fled Iraq in 1989 after being decimated by Muslim community there.

 

According to the settlement deal, the city of Sterling Heights will grant the American Islamic Community Center a permit to build a 20,800-square-foot mosque and will send city employees to classes teaching them how not to discriminate against Muslims in the future.

 

The city planning commission had denied the mosque permit in September 2015, but nearly a year later the mosque sued the city claiming discrimination. In December 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice joined in with a similar suit claiming the city violated the Religious…..read the whole devastating betrayal….

 

AS the precipitating dangers creep closer and closer, the backbone of the aforementioned Oklahoma rep (and like-minded leaders), heartening as it is, is only a first step towards halting the final infiltration and penetration of Allah’s Muslim terrorists into the U.S. body politic. In tandem, post haste, President Trump MUST sign Bill S.2230 to designate the Brotherhood Mafia a terror organization, while millions of Americans MUST commit to join the struggle before it is too late. How late is it?

  

VERY!!

 

Marines: Mess with Best then Die with Rest

 

_____________

About Adina Kutnicki

 

In addition to being an investigative journalist, op-ed contributor and blogger, my first book,  BANNED: How Facebook Enables Militant Islamic Jihad,  is available online and in major bookstores.  In under 24 hours at AMAZON, it jumped to Number One in HOT New Releases!

 

For the most part, my work product revolves around militant Islamic jihad, with a particular emphasis on the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia. My geo-political analysis appears at various Zionist and Conservative media outlets. As an example of my long-standing efforts, I contributed to an in-depth investigative series at FrontPage Magazine with Lee Kaplan from 2003-2007We are still working together.

 

Segue over to his interview at Iran’s Press TV (one of many tv debates/interviews) where he debated a rabid self-hating Israeli, a so-called Jew, one who supports every manner of terror against Israelis/Jews, regarding the kidnapping (subsequent murder) of 3 Israeli Jewish teenagers. It can be found here. Head over to READ THE REST