<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Radical</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/tag/radical/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 14:36:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Return of the 1960s</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/return-of-the-1960s/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=return-of-the-1960s</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/return-of-the-1960s/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 05:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1960s]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shootings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=248435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A dark past revived under America's Radical-in-Chief. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1379512720-OaklandCopCar2.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-248436" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/1379512720-OaklandCopCar2.jpg" alt="1379512720-OaklandCopCar2" width="348" height="260" /></a>In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama signified that he represented a sea-change in the nature of American politics. Obama proclaimed that as a member of the younger generation — born in 1961, at the tail end of the baby boom — he no longer wanted to participate in the stale and tired politics of the 1960s. Instead, he wanted to thrust America forward into a &#8220;different kind of politics,&#8221; one beyond the &#8220;psychodrama of the baby-boom generation — a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago — played out on the national stage.&#8221;</p>
<p>Like most of what President Obama said, this turned out to be a lie. President Obama isn&#8217;t merely a reflection of 1960s politics. He represents a return to those ugly politics: the nastiness of anti-cop sentiment, the divisiveness of generalized anti-Western foreign policy, the idiocy of a war between the sexes and against the exclusivity of the traditional family structure. President Obama isn&#8217;t representative of a new breed. He is the child of the 1960s politics he once claimed to abhor.</p>
<p>Those politics, at least, had the excuse of an uglier America — one fresh with the wounds of Jim Crow, the sins of sexism, the controversy of Vietnam. Today&#8217;s 1960s reruns seem wildly out of context. But that&#8217;s the point: For the radicals of the 1960s, just as for the establishment Obamaites of today, context simply does not matter. When you are attempting to craft utopia, context is irrelevant — and human beings become either tools or obstacles toward the creation of that utopia. The vision never changes. Only the calendar does.</p>
<p>And so we&#8217;re watching racial tensions on a scale unseen since the 1970s play out across America — with the support of the political establishment. The images of police officers turning their backs on New York Mayor Bill De Blasio mirror the images of officers booing New York Mayor John Lindsay in 1972 at the funeral of Officer Rocco Laurie.</p>
<p>The images of rioters burning down Ferguson mirror the images of rioters burning down Detroit in 1967. Never mind that America of 2014 is not the America of 1967 or 1972 — if Obama and his allies have to recreate that chaotic era to forward their own political ends, they will.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re watching the foreign policy of the hard-left McGovernites re-establish itself, this time from the Oval Office. The images of Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., railing against the CIA on the floor of the Senate over the CIA&#8217;s use of enhanced interrogation techniques mirror the images of Senator Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., railing against the American military in the aftermath of the Winter Soldier hearings of 1971. The images of the Yazidis starving on mountaintops in Iraq mirror the images of Vietnamese rushing onto boats to escape the horrors of the communists in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.</p>
<p>We&#8217;re watching the divisive domestic politics of the social radicals reassert themselves. The images of failed Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis standing in pink sneakers to list the glories of late-term abortion mirror the images of Gloria Steinem blathering about &#8220;reproductive freedom&#8221; in 1971. The images of Nancy Pelosi touting freedom from &#8220;job lock&#8221; thanks to Obamacare mirror the images of President Johnson effectively doing the same thanks to the war on poverty.</p>
<p>President Obama and his ilk quest for a return to hopier, changier times — times like the 1960s. And so they will take us all back to the future. Sadly, our future will then be no more than a reversion to insanity of our past.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ben-shapiro/return-of-the-1960s/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Muslim Reformers’: Forever Talking the Talk, Never Walking the Walk</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-reformers-forever-talking-the-talk-never-walking-the-walk-1/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=muslim-reformers-forever-talking-the-talk-never-walking-the-walk-1</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-reformers-forever-talking-the-talk-never-walking-the-walk-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2014 05:29:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Raymond Ibrahim]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moderate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sisi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=247569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Al-Azhar won’t denounce ISIS as “un-Islamic.”]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CP-BTV-21.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-247529" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/CP-BTV-21-432x350.jpg" alt="CP-BTV-21" width="316" height="256" /></a>Due to its rarity, it’s always notable whenever a top Islamic leader publicly acknowledges the threat of Islamic radicalism and terror.   And yet, such denunciations never seem to go beyond words—and sometimes not even that.</p>
<p>Thus, in “<a href="http://www.danielpipes.org/15286/bahrain-islamists"><span style="color: #0433ff;">An Arab Prince Denounces Islamism</span></a>,” Daniel Pipes highlights “a remarkable but thus-far unnoticed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIBgsazvaOE"><span style="color: #0433ff;">address</span></a> on Dec. 5” by Salman bin Hamad Al-Khalifa, the crown prince of Bahrain.  In his address, the prince “candidly analyzed the Islamist enemy and suggested important ways to fight it.”</p>
<p>After discussing the positive aspects of this speech, Pipes remarks:</p>
<blockquote><p>So far, perfect. But Salman avoids the bitter reality that the “twisted” and “barbaric” ideology he describes is specifically Islamic and the theocrats are all Muslim: “this war that we are engaged in cannot be against Islam, … Christianity, … Judaism, … Buddhism.” So, when naming this ideology, Salman dithers and generalizes. He proffers an inept neologism (“theo-crism”), then harkens back to World War II for “fascist theocracy.” He implicitly rejects “Islamism,” saying he does not want a “debate about certain political parties, whether they’re Islamist or not.”</p></blockquote>
<p>In fact, this sort of equivocation is typical of ostensibly moderate leaders and institutions throughout the Islamic world.  Consider Egypt.   One of the most appealing characteristics of President Sisi has been his outspokenness concerning the need for a more modern, moderate Islam.<b> </b></p>
<p>For example, months before Sisi was elected president, I <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/gen-sisi-religious-discourse-greatest-challenge-facing-egypt/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">reported/translated</span></a> the following:</p>
<blockquote><p>During his recent speech at the Dept. of Moral Affairs for the Armed Forces [in January 2014], Gen. Abdul Fateh al-Sisi—the man who ousted former President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood in response to the June Revolution and who is seen as the nation’s de facto ruler—declared that “Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people, and pointed to the need for a new vision and a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam—rather than relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years.”</p>
<p>Sisi further “called on all who follow the true Islam to improve the image of this religion in front of the world, after Islam has been for decades convicted of violence and destruction around the world, due to the crimes falsely committed in the name of Islam.”</p></blockquote>
<p>As with the pronunciations of Bahrain’s crown prince, so far so good.  Yet what has Sisi actually <i>done</i> about renewing Islamic discourse since becoming president?  “Absolutely nothing,” says one prominent Egyptian journalist.  Speaking recently on his popular TV show, Ibrahim Eissa said:</p>
<blockquote><p>What is the position of the Egyptian government concerning religious radicalization among the religious parties?  And now I specifically refer to the position of President Sisi concerning this matter.  Five months have passed since he became president, after his amazing showing at elections.  Okay: the president has, more than once, indicated the need for a renewal of religious discourse….  But he has not done a single thing, President Sisi, to renew religious discourse.  Nothing at all.</p></blockquote>
<p>Actually, if anything, it appears the Sisi government has done the reverse, for instance, allowing Salafis—those Egyptian Muslims most similar in ideology to ISIS—<a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/salafis-return-to-egypts-mosques-and-media/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">to return to the podium</span></a>.  One political activist called this move</p>
<blockquote><p>a major setback that will make it that much harder for the government to combat reactionary thinking—and this, after the Egyptian public had made great strides against such thinking….  Permitting the Salafi sheikhs to ascend to the pulpits again revives the bitter experiences of confronting this form of thinking, bringing us back to square one.</p></blockquote>
<p>Individuals aside, what about important Islamic institutions that ostensibly condemn terrorism?  How influential are they?  This last December 5, the embassy of Egypt issued a press release <a href="http://www.egyptembassy.net/news/al-azhar-conference-calls-for-muslims-to-combat-extremist-ideology/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">saying</span></a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>Al-Azhar, the oldest center for Islamic learning, pressed for Muslims to combat extremist ideology at an international conference [possibly the same one that the crown prince of Bahrain spoke at] ….  Delegitimizing the ideology of ISIS is an important pillar of the global effort to combat the group. Egypt’s religious leaders play a critical role in that effort.</p></blockquote>
<p>Good words.  Yet, for all its talk about “combatting extremist ideology,” Al Azhar University—perhaps Islam’s most authoritative voice—will <a href="http://www.vetogate.com/1374000"><span style="color: #0433ff;">not</span></a> even denounce the Islamic State as “un-Islamic.”</p>
<p>When pressed on it, an Al Azhar spokesman, Abbas Shouman, recently said: “As an official entity, Al Azhar has never in all its history proclaimed anyone or any organization as un-Islamic …. [B]eing occupied by this question will not lead to anything,” because “Al Azhar <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/the-islamic-state-and-islam/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">will not judge ISIS or its Islam as un-Islamic</span></a>, for it is not its right, neither concerning ISIS nor anyone else.”</p>
<p>But, as one human rights advocate in Egypt was quick to <a href="http://www.light-dark.net/mobile/post.php?id=198953"><span style="color: #0433ff;">quip</span></a>: “What, didn’t the ulema and sheikhs of Al Azhar denounce as un-Islamic Naguib Mahfouz and Farag Foda and others from among the intellectuals and writers whose activities were stopped and some of whom were assassinated due to Al Azhar’s position?”</p>
<p>Indeed, Farag Foda was a prominent Egyptian professor, writer, and human rights activist who was assassinated after being denounced by none other than Al Azhar.  And although Naguib Mahfouz won the Noble Prize for Literature, his literature was denounced by Al Azhar and, predictably, he was stabbed in the neck with a knife when he was 82-years-old outside his home.</p>
<p>What accounts for this stark double standard—that Al Azhar will vent against secular/humanist Muslims, thus inciting the mob against them, while refusing to denounce the cancerous Islamic State?  Or that it will denounce terrorism, but praise jihad (as in <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/jihad-vs-terrorism-listen-to-what-islams-authorities-say/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">this bizarre article full of twisted logic and semantic quibbling</span></a>)?</p>
<p>Muhammad Abdullah Nasr, <a href="http://www.mcndirect.com/showsubject_ar.aspx?id=58518"><span style="color: #0433ff;">coordinator</span></a> of a group of former Al Azhar graduates who support a civil government, explains:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Islamic State can never denounce the Islamic State as un-Islamic.   For the Islamic State is the working, postgraduate project for graduates from Al Azhar.  And after this statement [refusing to denounce IS as “un-Islamic”], Al Azhar’s mask has fallen….  Everything that the Islamic State does exists in the curriculum of Al Azhar and is taught to students, including apostasy [punishing Muslims who leave Islam], <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/islamic-jizya-protection-from-whom/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">payment of jizya</span></a>, <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/muhammad-and-islams-sex-slaves/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">sex slaves</span></a> and the <a href="http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/muslims-sexually-enslaving-children-a-global-phenomenon/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">captivity of women</span></a>.</p></blockquote>
<p>At this late point in the game—as I write, Islamic jihadis are terrorizing Sydney, Australia—all purported Muslim moderates and reformers, individuals and organizations, need to understand—or rather, be made to understand by their Western counterparts—that talking the talk is no longer enough: they must walk the walk before they can ever be taken seriously.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/muslim-reformers-forever-talking-the-talk-never-walking-the-walk-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Saul Alinsky Lives in Ferguson</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-perazzo/saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-perazzo/saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2014 05:46:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Perazzo]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alinsky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[community]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ferguson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=246725</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Obama has implemented Alinsky's tactics of social revolution to tear a city – and a nation – apart. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Saul_Alinsky_271.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-246727" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Saul_Alinsky_271-450x341.jpg" alt="Saul_Alinsky_27" width="355" height="269" /></a>If the late Saul Alinsky—the America-hating godfather of community organizing—had fathered a black son, he&#8217;d look like Barack Obama.[1]  Obama has embraced, revered, and employed Alinsky&#8217;s philosophy and tactics of social revolution <i>for decades</i>. Indeed, he even <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/behind-a-class-warfare-charge-the-shadow-of-saul-alinsky/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">taught</span></a> Alinsky&#8217;s <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/study-saul-alinsky-to-understand-barack-obama/article/243226"><span style="color: #0433ff;">methods</span></a> in community-organizing workshops and seminars in Chicago, when he was a much younger Marxist. As we witness the continuing racial unrest sparked by the shooting of Michael Brown and the Ferguson grand jury&#8217;s subsequent decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson, it is vital to understand that <i>everything </i>the protesters/rioters are doing—in Ferguson and elsewhere—is straight out of Alinsky&#8217;s most famous publications, <i>Rules For Radicals</i> and <i>Reveille For Radicals</i>. And Obama has encouraged them, every step of the way.</p>
<p>Obama and Alinsky never actually met in person, as Alinsky died when Obama was just 11 years old. Happily for the future president, by that time he had already been introduced to the man who would mentor him throughout his adolescent years—the America-hating, pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin, Communist writer Frank Marshall Davis. Thus, when Obama eventually encountered Alinsky through the latter&#8217;s writings, the young community organizer was well prepared ideologically to soak up Alinsky&#8217;s message.</p>
<p>In his quest to cultivate the type of chaos that would spark social revolution against America&#8217;s capitalist system, Alinsky exhorted activists to constantly “rub raw the resentments of the people” and “fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression”—but to do this in measured tones, so as not to “scare off” middle-class Americans.</p>
<p>Thus did Obama dutifully and blandly call for “unity” and calm in the immediate aftermath of Michael Brown&#8217;s “heartbreaking and tragic” death, even as he repeatedly reminded us that: “police should not be bullying or arresting” anyone without cause; “in too many communities, too many young men of color are left behind and left as objects to fear”; “there is no excuse for excessive force by police”; “the justice gap” between whites and nonwhites is unacceptable; “the criminal-justice system doesn&#8217;t treat people of all races equally”; and “too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement, guilty of walking while black, or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness.” And when the grand jury in Ferguson subsequently chose not to indict Darren Wilson because the officer obviously had shot Michael Brown in self-defense, Obama pronounced the black community&#8217;s indignation to be “an understandable reaction.”</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s carefully chosen words—all delivered in the type of nonthreatening tenor advocated by Saul Alinsky—clearly communicated a single, foundational theme to African Americans: <i>In the racist cesspool known as the United States, black people are routinely treated like second-class citizens, if not subhumans. Oh, and by the way, please remain calm. Wink, wink.</i></p>
<p>Alinsky also taught that in some cases activists must be completely willing—for the sake of the moral principles in whose name they profess to act—to turn up the proverbial heat and watch society descend into chaos and anarchy; to “go into a state of complete confusion and draw [their] opponent into the vortex of the same confusion.”<span style="color: #680900;"> </span>“Wherever possible,” Alinsky counseled, “go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.”</p>
<p>Mobs of shouting protesters can accomplish that objective quite effectively—even if, as in the present case, they are oblivious to the irony that the poster-child of their crusade is a multiple felon who tried unsuccessfully to murder a police officer. Such demonstrations tend to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is not only well underway, but may actually be preparing to shift into an even higher gear at any moment. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating. Thus did President Obama recently meet at the White House with Al Sharpton, his leading advisor on race-related matters, and other protest <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/obama-told-civil-rights-activists-keep-ferguson-staying-on-course/"><span style="color: #680900;">leaders</span></a> from Ferguson, urging them to “<a href="http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/11/obama-meets-with-ferguson-activists-says-hes-concerned-they-stay-on-course/"><span style="color: #680900;">stay on course</span></a>” with their activism.</p>
<p>Yet another highly noteworthy observation by Alinsky was this: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.” “The threat,” he explained, “is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Thus, “if your organization is small in numbers,… raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does.”</p>
<p>This can be well achieved by orchestrating a host of simultaneous demonstrations in multiple cities or venues, exactly as the highly organized Gentle Giant crusade has been doing. The stature of these rallies is magnified by the fact that they receive lots of media attention, while scores of millions of ordinary Americans who view them with contempt and dread are busy quietly going about their lives, caring for their families, working at their jobs, and pursuing their personal aspirations as they see fit. Such people are many thousands of times more numerous than the perpetually aggrieved rabble-rousers of the Left, but Alinsky understood—as Obama understands today—that a spraying skunk inevitably gets all the attention when it intrudes unexpectedly upon a picnic.</p>
<p>The America-hating Alinsky also taught that activists, in order to cast themselves as defenders of high-minded principles, must theatrically convey “shock, horror, and moral outrage” whenever any of their demands—however inconsequential—are not met. And no one conveys such emotions more convincingly than Obama&#8217;s aforementioned racial “advisor,” Al Sharpton, who vows to continue the Michael Brown/anti-police brutality crusade until the end of time if necessary. Alinsky understood quite well that even <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1527"><span style="color: #0433ff;">a pathetic moral degenerate</span></a> like Sharpton can be an effective revolutionary if he is skilled in the otherwise worthless arts of bluster and righteous indignation.</p>
<p>Lest anyone think there might be a way to bridge the gap between civil society and the revolutionaries in the vanguard of the current Gentle Giant Brigades, a dose of reality is in order: Alinsky emphasized that the overarching objective of any crusade is <i>never</i> to promote peace or reconciliation, but rather to be unwaveringly “dedicated to an eternal war” in which “there are no rules of fair play” and “no compromise” whatsoever; to mercilessly “pulverize” people with “fear”; and ultimately to “force their capitulation.”</p>
<p>We got a glimpse of this mindset recently when we <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/393380/get-ready-super-bowl-outrage-ferguson-deroy-murdock"><span style="color: #680900;">learned</span></a> that two New Black Panther Party members were plotting not only to blow up St. Louis&#8217;s famed Gateway Arch, but also to <a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/ferguson-murder-plot-black-panthers-planned-killing-police-chief-prosecutor"><span style="color: #680900;">assassinate</span></a> Ferguson police chief Tom Jackson and the city&#8217;s prosecuting attorney Bob McCulloch. And a shrieking Louis Farrakhan, for his part, has been busy <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/29/farrakhan-on-ferguson-well-tear-this-gdamn-country-up-video/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">urging</span></a> black Americans to throw Molotov cocktails at white people in order to fulfill a scriptural “law of retaliation”; condemning whites for allegedly “killing us” in large numbers; and warning that “we’ll tear this goddamn country up!”</p>
<p>Like all Marxists, Obama, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and the rest of their fellow revolutionaries seek to tear society apart by pitting the “races,” the “classes,” and the “genders” against one another—“rubbing raw” their respective “resentments” until hatred abounds in every person&#8217;s heart and mayhem fills the streets. Michael Brown&#8217;s corpse is merely a building block for these rabble rousers. They know that someday another African American will be killed by a white police officer and thus be anointed as their movement&#8217;s next martyred saint. Bit by bit, the inconvenient fact that Brown was a violent, abusive criminal whose death was brought about entirely by his own actions will be airbrushed out of public memory. And the grievance mongers of the “civil rights” movement will wistfully remember him as just another innocent black victim whose life was tragically cut short by white depravity.</p>
<p>Saul Alinsky would be proud.</p>
<p><strong>NOTE:</strong><br />
[1] In March 2012, not long after the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida, President Obama famously <a href="http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/03/obama-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon-118439.html">said</a>: &#8220;If I had a son, he&#8217;d look like Trayvon.&#8221;</p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Dinesh D&#8217;Souza</strong> on <strong>The Glazov Gang</strong> discuss the role <strong>Saul Alinksy</strong> plays in Obama&#8217;s ideology and tactics:</em></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/h1DQjj1VxHw" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/john-perazzo/saul-alinsky-lives-in-ferguson/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>71</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The British Royal Family and the Islamist Terrorists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-rotberg/the-british-royal-family-and-the-islamist-terrorists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-british-royal-family-and-the-islamist-terrorists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-rotberg/the-british-royal-family-and-the-islamist-terrorists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2014 05:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Howard Rotberg]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Extreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prince Charles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royal Family]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Are British Royals committed to defending the homeland? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/prince-charles.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-245325" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/prince-charles.jpg" alt="prince-charles" width="338" height="278" /></a>Four men aged 19-27 were arrested by British police on Thursday, November 6<sup>th</sup>, for allegedly planning a terror attack in London against Queen Elizabeth during the Remembrance Day ceremony that took place on Friday, November 7th.</p>
<p style="color: #323333;">The terrorists were seized by the police following months of surveillance and police were said to be interrogating the suspects – who are thought to have hatched a plot to assassinate the Queen with a knife.</p>
<p style="color: #323333;">England, of course, under Prime Minister Cameron is a leader in tolerance and respect for Islam and even allows Sharia Law-governed “no-go” areas. After the ISIS beheading of British citizen David Haines, Cameron was quoted as feeling the need once again, just as after every terrorist murder, to emphasize that such terrorism was not done by the “religion of peace”:  <span style="color: #101010;">&#8220;They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people… they boast of their brutality… they claim to do this in the name of Islam, that is nonsense, Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.&#8221;</span></p>
<p style="color: #101010;">In my book, <i>Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed </i>(Mantua Books, second edition), I discuss how the endless tolerance of the intolerant illiberals endangers us all if these intolerants take power and end all tolerance.  Britain has quite an ambivalent relationship with Islam and especially those who commit violence, or otherwise attack British historic liberties and freedoms, for the purpose of conquest and a jihadist caliphate.</p>
<p><span style="color: #101010;">Britain, of course, had its own version of 9/11, t</span>he July 7, 2005 London bombings (often referred to as 7/7)  which were a series of coordinated <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack"><span style="color: #0433ff;">suicide attacks</span></a> in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_London"><span style="color: #0433ff;">central London</span></a>, which targeted civilians using the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_London"><span style="color: #0433ff;">public transport system</span></a> during the morning rush hour.</p>
<p>As well as the four bombers, 52 civilians were killed and over 700 more were injured.</p>
<p>So, when threats were discovered against the Queen, British police and armed forces took the matter seriously and thwarted the proposed attack.    It all brought to mind, however, just how the British have related to radical or militant Islam, or Islamism, however you term it.</p>
<p>In view of the recent thwarted attempt against the Queen, perhaps, we should take a look at the views of Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne. Is there anything that should concern us?    Has he become what I call a “tolerist” – one whose tolerance of evil seems to have been exacerbated by terrorism; that is, do we have another case where we see terrorism being successful in creating <i>more </i>tolerance and more submission to the demands of radical Muslims both inside and outside Britain, with every terrorist attack?</p>
<p>The royal wedding between Prince William and the beautiful Kate Middleton on April 29<sup>th</sup>, 2011, seemed, to many, a turning back in time to when the British monarchy really mattered, and Britain itself mattered.   The Queen herself, resolute in her dedication to duty and country, with a mother who had lived to 101, seemed to be ready to carry on for years to come.</p>
<p>The striking young couple and the 85 year old monarch, brought the monarchy into a perhaps unexpected place of honour and excitement in a Britain, beset by economic problems and social tensions relating to its increasing Islamic population. The very popularity of the young couple and the elderly monarch made the public’s disdain of William’s father and Elizabeth’s son, Charles, all the more apparent. It prompted me to research a bit about Prince Charles and his views.</p>
<p>Charles was the one who was mostly famous for ditching the popular and beautiful Diana for the plain and somewhat unappealing Camilla. An eccentric, seemingly in search of a cause in life, his interest in architecture and the environment was about to come into fashion again, when he made the turn in his career which seems somewhat puzzling:  his interest in promoting the cause of Islam.</p>
<p>In this, he might be seen by his critics as taking after no one so much as his eccentric uncle Edward, the Nazi sympathizer who abdicated the throne to marry the divorced American Wallace Simpson.</p>
<p>In both cases, it did not help that the public was not at all enthralled with the choice of woman.   Neither did the uncle or the nephew appear to be a strong and ideal candidate to lead the British  people (even though the monarchy’s power is symbolic only) in a time of crisis in world affairs – with the Nazis in Edward’s time, and with Radical Islam, terrorism, and attempts to create a new caliphate to include Europe, in Charles’ time.</p>
<p>Charles seemed to latch onto the defence of Islam as his pet project and his standing in the Islamic world increased accordingly, at least until Islamist demands, as they do invariably, start to increase with every step of tolerance.</p>
<p>By the time of William’s engagement, polling showed an overwhelming majority of the British public believed Prince Charles should make way for his eldest son and allow him to be the next king.</p>
<p>The story of Charles’ infatuation with Islam was not followed closely by the press, but here are the basics:</p>
<p>The grand mufti of Cyprus has said: &#8220;Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes, yes. He is a Muslim. I can&#8217;t say more. But it happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right. When you get home check on how often he travels to Turkey. You&#8217;ll find that your future king is a Muslim.”</p>
<p>Assuming that Charles remained a member of the Church of England, however, he made many worrying statements that seemed to go above and beyond wishes for peaceful relations:</p>
<p>1. Charles made several strong public statements endorsing Islam as the solution to the spiritual and cultural ills of Britain and the West. In 1989, when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a British citizen, for blaspheming the Prophet Muhammad in his novel <i>The Satanic Verses. </i>Charles did not defend Rushdie&#8217;s freedom of speech, but reacted to the death decree by reflecting on the positive features that Islam has to offer the spiritually empty lives of his countrymen.</p>
<p>2. Similarly, in the matter of the riots after the publication of cartoons about Mohammed, Prince Charles again took the Muslim side:   The Times of London reported that in front of an audience of more than 800 Islamic scholars at Cairo&#8217;s Al-Azhar University, Charles made a &#8220;serious, impassioned 30-minute speech&#8221; that &#8220;The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilised society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers.&#8221;   He of course made no comments on how minorities are treated in Muslim countries.</p>
<p>3. Back in March 2000, Prince Charles visited the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/743894.stm"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Islamia Primary School</span></a> in North-West London. This, Britain&#8217;s first state-funded Muslim school, was founded and is headed by Yusuf Islam (a.k.a. Cat Stevens), an Islamist who threatened Salman Rushdie&#8217;s life during the <i>Satanic Verses</i> controversy and has since been banned from entering the United States. The Prince told the children: &#8220;You are ambassadors for a sometimes much misunderstood faith. I believe that Islam has much to teach increasingly secular societies like ours in Britain.</p>
<p>4. The idea that Christians and Jews must learn from Islam became a recurring theme from Charles:   “Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost. At the heart of Islam is its preservation of an integral view of the Universe. Islam-like Buddhism and Hinduism refuses to separate man and nature, religion and science, mind and matter, and has preserved a metaphysical and unified view of ourselves and the world around us. . . . But the West gradually lost this integrated vision of the world with Copernicus and Descartes and the coming of the scientific revolution. A comprehensive philosophy of nature is no longer part of our everyday beliefs.”</p>
<p>5. In a speech at the Foreign Office Conference Centre at Wilton Park in Sussex on December 13, 1996, he called on Islamic pedagogy and philosophy to help young Britons develop a healthier view of the world.   Praising Islamic culture in its traditional form for trying to preserve an &#8220;integrated, spiritual view of the world in a way we have not seen fit to do in recent generations in the West,&#8221; he went on to say:  “There is much we can learn from that Islamic world view in this respect. There are many ways in which mutual understanding and appreciation can be built. Perhaps, for instance, we could begin by having more Muslim teachers in British schools, or by encouraging exchanges of teachers. Everywhere in the world people want to learn English. But in the West, in turn, we need to be taught by Islamic teachers how to learn with our hearts, as well as our heads. The results of this study will help Westerners to rethink, and for the better, our practical stewardship of man and his environment-in fields such as health-care, the natural environment and agriculture, as well as in architecture and urban planning.”</p>
<p>6. As noted by Gordon and Stillman, “Prince Charles of Arabia”, <i>The</i> <i>Middle East Quarterly, </i>September, 1997, Charles took steps to give Islam a special status. He set up a panel of twelve &#8220;wise men&#8221; (in fact, eleven men and one woman) to advise him on Islamic religion and culture.  This caused much talk, especially as the group was reported to have met in secret. Some noted that no comparable body exists to inform the crown prince about other faiths practiced in his future realm.</p>
<p>7. To Charles, it was Islam that can best implement his cherished environmentalism: In an hour-long speech on &#8220;<a href="http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&amp;id=22350511"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Islam and the Environment</span></a>&#8221; at Oxford University&#8217;s Sheldonian Theatre on behalf of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, reported Rebecca English of the<i> Daily Mail</i>, &#8220;the heir to the throne argued that man&#8217;s destruction of the world was contrary to the scriptures of all religions &#8211; but particularly those of Islam.&#8221; He &#8220;spoke in depth about his own study of the Koran which, he said, tells its followers that there is &#8216;no separation between man and nature&#8217; and says we must always live within our environment&#8217;s limits.&#8221; He also said:  “The inconvenient truth is that we share this planet with the rest of creation for a very good reason &#8211; and that is, we cannot exist on our own without the intricately balanced web of life around us. Islam has always taught this and to ignore that lesson is to default on our contract with creation.”  He did not comment on the environmental aspects of Islamic harvesting of its vast oil wealth, nor the environmental aspects of suicide bombing and other violent acts of Islam as it implemented Jihad at its every border.</p>
<p>8. In 2007, after watching ten whirling dervishes perform at a cultural centre in Turkey, Charles stated:  &#8220;Whatever it is, it seems to me that Western life has become deconstructed and partial.&#8221; The East, on the other hand, he went on, had given us &#8220;parables of the soul.&#8221; He also cited the Koran and Hadith.</p>
<p>9. Among the many titles borne by the British sovereign is &#8220;Defender of the Faith,&#8221; a reference to the fact that the monarch heads not only the government but also the Church of England. But the prince had reservations about this title. In a June 1994 television documentary he declared his preference to be known as &#8220;Defender of Faith&#8221; rather than &#8220;Defender of the Faith,&#8221; which prompted then Prime Minister John Major to quip, “it would be a little odd if Prince Charles was defender of faiths of which he was not a member.’</p>
<p>10. We note that in 2004, the Sultan of Brunei awarded Charles a $50,000 prize chosen by an international jury set up by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies for his contribution to understanding Islam in the West, being the first non-Muslim to receive the prize.  Some years earlier, at a private dinner with prince Charles in May 1997, Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia announced a donation by King Fahd of $33 million to Oxford University to construct a new Centre for Islamic Studies at Oxford, a gift designed &#8220;to establish Islamic studies at the heart of the British education system.&#8221;</p>
<p>11. Finally, it appeared that Charles made dozens of trips to Muslim countries (Turkey being a special favourite), but when invited to visit Israel (no member of the Royal Family has made an Official Visit to Israel), Charles’ advisors were quoted in a 2007 story in Israel’s <i>Ha’aretz </i>newspaper as saying that there was &#8220;no chance&#8221; the prince would ever visit Israel &#8211; so as not to boost Israel&#8217;s international image.  One famous trip of Charles was the eight day tour of the U.S. in 2005 where he tried to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam because he thought that the United States had been too intolerant of the religion since September 11. The Prince voiced private concerns over America&#8217;s &#8220;confrontational&#8221; approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam&#8217;s strengths.</p>
<p>However, Charles&#8217; efforts to promote Islam did not do his mother any good in Al-Qaeda&#8217;s eyes. The organization&#8217;s number two, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1869849,00.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Ayman al- Zawahiri</span></a>, called Queen Elizabeth II &#8220;one of the severest enemies of Islam&#8221; and blamed her for what he called Britain&#8217;s &#8220;crusader laws.&#8221; In addition, he criticized British Muslims who &#8220;work for the pleasure of Elizabeth, the head of the Church of England&#8221; and ridiculed them for saying (his words, not theirs): &#8220;We are British citizens, subject to Britain&#8217;s crusader laws, and we are proud of our submission . . . to Elizabeth, head of the Church of England.&#8221;   Such was the attitude towards a woman Ruler who failed to “submit” to Islam, in contrast to her son who knew how to plead Islam’s case.</p>
<p>Moreover, there was an earlier plot to assassinate his mother, the Queen.   In 2007, Al-Qaeda plotted to kill the Queen during her state visit to Uganda.  Security services foiled the plot, which involved hiding inside two vans belonging to the Ugandan Broadcasting Corporation and setting off bombs, as the Queen came to Kampala on an official visit in November.</p>
<p>Lately, the world has been stunned by the violence and murder and torture of religious minorities by the brutal Islamists of ISIS – beheadings, rapes, mass killings.   And it has finally dawned upon people that Christians, as well as Yzedis, Kurds and Jews, are being targeted by Islamists.</p>
<p>And so, Prince Charles woke up: After the release of a new report which concludes that Christians are the “most persecuted religious minority” in the world and that Muslim countries dominate the list of places where religious freedom is most under threat, Prince Charles was forced to speak out.</p>
<p>Muslim leaders have a duty to warn their own followers about the “indescribable tragedy” of the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11027065/Video-shows-scale-of-Yazidi-suffering-on-Iraqs-Mount-Sinjar.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">persecution of Christians in the Middle East</span></a> and around the world, the Prince of Wales has insisted.</p>
<p>He said that faith leaders must ensure their followers respect believers in other faiths “rather than remaining silent.” But again Charles espoused a supposed role of Defender of (all) Faith(s), rather than the monarchy’s historic role as Defender of the (Christian) Faith.</p>
<p>While emphasizing the importance of his own personal Christian faith, he also signalled that he saw his role as to “defend” followers of other faiths including Islam.</p>
<p>Britain’s “future as a free society” depends on recognizing the “crucial role” played by people of faith, he said.  “First and foremost, rather than remaining silent, faith leaders have, it seems to me, a responsibility to ensure that people within their own tradition respect people from other faith traditions.</p>
<p>Prince Charles is to be praised for noting that:  “Sadly, in many other countries, an absence of freedom to determine one’s own faith is woven into the laws and customs of the nation.”</p>
<p>But even this modest criticism of Islam, in the context of a speech emphasizing that he sees himself as a Defender of all religions, including Islam, was too much for some British Muslim leaders:   Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said: &#8220;Prince Charles is somebody who is deeply respected in the Muslim community and he is absolutely right about Christians being oppressed &#8211; but the point is when innocent Iraqis were being killed by British bombs Prince Charles was quiet silent.</p>
<p>&#8220;I would like him to have spoken about Muslims being oppressed in a stronger way.&#8221;</p>
<p>And so in the context of the increasing number and influence of Muslims in Britain, we must scrutinize the words of the man next in line for the throne. And we note, that after showing such extreme tolerance, and much advocacy for Islam, Prince Charles is still criticized for making comments about ISIS and the murder of Christians.</p>
<p>For those of us in Britain (or myself in Canada, a member of the British commonwealth), it is apparent that the Queen remains a target for Islamist terrorists even as her son, the heir apparent, leans over backwards to compliment the religion of Islam and seeks to “Defend” it as well as the Monarchy’s (Church of England) Christianity. Whether his actions are naïve and foolish “tolerism” or an example of moderation and peaceful dialogue, only time will tell.</p>
<p><b><i>Howard Rotberg</i></b><i> is a Canadian writer with a special interest in ideologies, values, and cultures.   His latest book is </i>Tolerism:  The Ideology Revealed (Second Revised Edition, 2013).  <i>He is founding president of publishing company Mantua Books.</i></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/howard-rotberg/the-british-royal-family-and-the-islamist-terrorists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Democratic Party’s Civil War Is Here</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2014 05:55:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Election]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[loss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Progressive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reid]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gall.reid_.pelosi.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244664" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/gall.reid_.pelosi-450x293.jpg" alt="gall.reid.pelosi" width="301" height="196" /></a>There are really two Democratic parties.</p>
<p>One is the old corrupt party of thieves and crooks. Its politicians, black and white, are the products of political machines. They believe in absolutely nothing. They can go from being Dixiecrats to crying racism, from running on family values to pushing gay marriage and the War on Women.</p>
<p>They will say absolutely anything to get elected.</p>
<p>Cunning, but not bright, they are able campaigners. Reformers underestimate them at their own peril because they are determined to win at all costs.</p>
<p>The other Democratic Party is progressive. Its members are radical leftists working within the system. They are natural technocrats and their agendas are full of big projects. They function as community organizers, radicalizing and transforming neighborhoods, cities, states and even the country.</p>
<p>They want to win, but it’s a subset of their bigger agenda. Their goal is to transform the country. If they can do that by winning elections, they’ll win them. But if they can’t, they’ll still follow their agenda.</p>
<p>Sometimes the two Democratic parties blend together really well. Bill Clinton combined the good ol&#8217; boy corruption and radical leftist politics of both parties into one package. The secret to his success was that he understood that most Democrats, voters or politicians, didn’t care about his politics, they wanted more practical things. He made sure that his leftist radicalism played second fiddle to their corruption.</p>
<p>Bill Clinton convinced old Dems that he was their man first. Obama stopped pretending to be anything but a hard core progressive.</p>
<p>The 2014 election was a collision course between the two Democratic parties. The aides and staffers spilling dirt into the pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and Politico reveal that the crackup had been coming for some time now. Now the two Democratic parties are coming apart.</p>
<p>Reid is blaming Obama. The White House is blaming Reid. This isn’t just a showdown between two arrogant men. It’s a battle between two ideas of what the Democratic Party should be.</p>
<p>Senate Dems chose to back away from Obama to appeal to Middle America. Obama wanted to double down on his 2012 strategy of energizing the base at the expense of moderate voters. Reid and his gang are complaining that Obama didn’t back away far enough from them. Instead he reminded voters in the final stretch that the senators were there to pass his agenda. Obama’s people are dismissing them as cowards for not taking him to battleground states and running on positions even further to the left.</p>
<p>Reid’s people think that Obama deliberately tied them to him and that’s probably true. It’s not just about Obama’s ego. His campaigns and his time in office were meant to showcase the progressive position that the only way to win was from the left. Obama and his people would rather radicalize the Democratic Party and lose, than moderate their positions and stand a chance of winning.</p>
<p>The left isn’t interested in being a political flirtation. It nukes any attempt at centrism to send the message that its allies will not be allowed any other alternative except to live or die by its agenda.</p>
<p>Obama deliberately sabotaged Reid’s campaign plans, as Reid’s chief of staff discussed, because that strategy involved disavowing Obama and his legacy. In the time honored tradition of the radical left, Obama would rather have a Republican senate than a Democratic senate won by going to the center.</p>
<p>Republicans benefited from a Democratic civil war. They were running a traditional campaign against a more traditional part of the Democratic Party. They didn’t really beat the left. They beat the old Dems.</p>
<p>The old Dems were crippled by the progressive agenda. They were pretending to be moderates while ObamaCare, illegal alien amnesty and gay marriage were looking over their shoulders. They married Obama and it was too late for them to get a divorce. And it doesn’t look any better down the road.</p>
<p>The Clintons became the public face of the Democrats, but instead of turning things around, they presided over a series of defeats. Bill Clinton couldn’t even save Mark Pryor in Arkansas. Not only that, he had to watch Republicans take every congressional seat in Arkansas and the governor’s mansion.</p>
<p>Bill had wanted Hillary to play Sarah Palin, turning her into a kingmaker and building on a narrative of female empowerment by having her back female senators. Instead Kay Hagan, Michelle Nunn, Alison Lundergan Grimes and Amanda Curtis lost. Not only did Hillary Clinton fail to deliver, but the War on Women narrative was turned inside out by the rise of Joni Ernst.</p>
<p>Ernst’s emergence as the definitive new senator of the election killed any chance that Democrats had of spinning the election results as sexist; even if Harkin’s Taylor Swift crack hadn’t done that on its own.</p>
<p>The Dems had gambled that the War on Women could offset Obama’s unpopularity, but voters were more concerned about the economy than the culture war. Not only novelty candidates like Wendy Davis, but incumbents like Mark Udall, tried for what they thought was a winning strategy. But the War on Women wasn’t a strategy, it was a fake talking point that their own consultants had forgotten to tell them was disinformation that they had created to seed the media and spread fear among Republicans.</p>
<p>Romney had won white women in every age group. Increased turnout by minority women had skewed the numbers, but those numbers reflected racial solidarity, not a gender gap. Progressives had not bothered to tell their old Dem cousins what they were doing. The Senate Dems marched into political oblivion by adopting the Wendy Davis platform to the bafflement and ridicule of female voters.</p>
<p>The War on Women meme was greeted with laughter in New York and Colorado. Senator Udall was dubbed Mark Uterus by his own supporters and performed worse with female voters than in 2008. Meanwhile in Iowa, Joni Ernst had split the female vote which Harkin had won by 64 percent in 2008.</p>
<p>Not only did Hillary Clinton do more damage to her brand by failing to deliver white and women voters, but the Democratic Party is stunned, confused and divided. And the damage is self-inflicted.</p>
<p>The Clintons thought that they could reunite a splintering Democratic Party by taking on a Republican midterm election wave. Obama sabotaged Reid to keep the Democratic Party leaning to the left. Reid is now attacking Obama openly in a way that would have been inconceivable a year ago. Obama’s people are returning the favor by going after Reid and Schumer. The war of the two parties has begun.</p>
<p>The old Dems have no ideas and no agenda. The progressives want to get as much of their agenda done even if it’s by executive order and even if it makes them even more unpopular than they are now. The old Dems have realized that they are the ones who will pay a political price for progressive radicalism.</p>
<p>And waiting in the wings is the 2016 election.</p>
<p>Obama has made it clear that he is willing to nuke his own party to get amnesty done. But for the first time his party seems less than eager to sacrifice its short term greed for the agendas of the left. And the only man who could tie the two wings together has emerged weakened from the Battle of Arkansas.</p>
<p>Amnesty promises radical demographic change, but red state Dems want to protect their positions today. They aren’t doing it for the ideology. They want to stay in office. The mutual backstabbing ended in disaster for the Democrats and there’s no reason to think that the backstabbing is going to stop.</p>
<p>Obama won’t just have to fight Republicans for the next two years. He’ll also have to fight Democrats.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/the-democratic-partys-civil-war-is-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>303</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama and the Definition of &#8216;Islamic&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/obama-and-the-definition-of-islamic/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-and-the-definition-of-islamic</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/obama-and-the-definition-of-islamic/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2014 05:50:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Caroline Glick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[violence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The fatal flaw in the administration's strategy of mainstreaming radical political Islam. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/obama.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244454" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/obama-384x350.jpg" alt="obama" width="298" height="272" /></a>Originally published by the <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-World-Obama-and-the-definition-of-Islamic-380696">Jerusalem Post</a>. </em></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In his speech on September 11 announcing that the US would commence limited operations against Islamic State, US President Barack Obama insisted, “ISIL, [i.e. Islamic State] is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">To be sure, it is hard to see how any human faith can countenance IS’s actions. For the past several months, on a daily basis, new videos appear of IS fighters proudly, openly and wantonly committing crimes against humanity. This week for instance, a video emerged of an IS slave market in Raqqah, Syria, where women and girls are sold as sex slaves to IS fighters.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Despite the glaring contradiction between divinity and monstrosity, the fact is that IS justifies every single one of its atrocities with verses from the Koran.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">IS referred to its sex slave market in Raqqah for instance as the “Booty Market&#8230; for what your right hands possess.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The phrase “what your right hands possess” is a Koranic verse (4:3) that permits the sexual enslavement of women and girls by Muslim men.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Whether it is mainstream Islamic jurisprudence or not to embrace the enslavement of women and girls as concubines is not a question that Obama – or any US leader for that matter – is equipped to answer. And yet, Obama spoke with absolute certainty when he claimed that IS is not Islamic.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Obama speaks with similar conviction whenever he refers to Iran as “The Islamic Republic of Iran.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Obama’s consistent deference to the Iranian regime, exposed by his studious use of the regime’s name for itself whenever he discusses Iran indicates that at a minimum, he is willing to accept the regime’s claim that it is an Islamic regime. In other words, he is willing to accept that everything about the Iranian regime is authentic Islam.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">And that the Islamic Republic then, in keeping with his assertion that “no religion condones the killing of innocents,” similarly does not condone the killing of innocents.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Of course, there is a problem here. In fact, there are two problems here.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">First, in its treatment of its own people, the Iranian regime condones and actively engages in the killing of innocents, the vast majority of whom are Muslims. The Islamic regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran invokes the Koran to justify its killing.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Likewise, the political imprisonment, torture and general repression of Iranians from all faiths are justified in the name of Islam.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Consider two recent examples.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">On October 25, 27-year-old Reyhaneh Jabbari was hanged for allegedly killing a man who was trying to rape her. Jabbari was imprisoned for seven years prior to her execution.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Although her suffering was a cause celebre for advocates of human rights in Iran, the regime didn’t care. In contempt of the international community, it murdered her a week ago.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">As her attorney Mohammed Mostataei explained at a conference held by UN Watch in Geneva last week, Jabbari was tried under Islamic law – the law of the land in the Islamic Republic of Iran. And under Islamic sharia law, intent in adjudication of criminal offenses is irrelevant. As a consequence, once regime inquisitors force a person to confess, he or she is doomed.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Forced confessions are the stock in trade for Iranian investigators.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Last month, 25 women in Isfahan, Iran’s tourist capital, were reportedly victims of acid attacks.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The women had acid thrown in their faces while they were driving in their cars.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The public immediately suspected that they were targeted because their faces were not covered sufficiently to satisfy Islamic goon squads that drive around the city seeking – with the tacit if not open support of the regime – to terrorize the public into obeying their repressive, inhumane interpretation of Islam.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">On October 22, human rights activists in Iran held demonstrations against the acid attacks outside the judiciary building in Isfahan and outside the Iranian parliament in Tehran. In both instances, protesters insisted that there is no difference between the repression inherent in the radical Islam propagated by IS and that practiced by the Iranian regime.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In both cities, demonstrators were attacked by regime forces with tear gas. Many were arrested.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">After the acid attacks were first reported, the Iranian parliament passed measures to strengthen the authority of the regime’s Basij shock troop squads to enforce repressive, misogynist Islamic dress codes on women and enforce other socially repressive aspects of the regime’s Islam.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">As Baron Alexander Carile of Barriew, a member of the British House of Lords and expert on terrorism explained last Friday in The Washington Times, “In essence, the regime responded to the acid attacks that have seriously injured 25 people so far by legitimizing the motives of their attackers.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">According to the UN, Iran executed 852 Iranians for various offenses from July 2013 through June 2014.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">This of course is just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of the regime’s killing is carried out by its proxies.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">IS’s persecution of those who have had the misfortune to fall under its control is a blight on the human race. And so is the persecution committed by Iran’s puppets – the Assad regime in Syria, and its Lebanese terror army Hezbollah.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Since the Syrian civil war began three years ago, the Iranian-controlled regime has killed somewhere between 120,000 and 200,000 people.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, nearly 10,000 of the dead are children, another 6,000 are women. Other groups place the number much higher.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">More than 2.14 million Syrians are now refugees in neighboring countries. Half of the refugees are children. Another 4.25 million Syrians are internally displaced.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">If it hadn’t been for Iran’s support for the regime, the vast majority of the victims of Syria’s civil war would still be alive and living in their homes.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Thanks to Iran and its Hezbollah army, Lebanon is on the brink of sharing Syria’s fate.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Hezbollah has played a major role in the war in Syria, and over the years, with Iran’s total backing, it has murdered thousands of people in Lebanon, Israel and throughout the world.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Hezbollah has trained sister Iranian supported or commanded terrorist groups like Islamic Jihad and Hamas. With the blessing, and often acting on direct orders from the Islamic Republic, these groups have killed hundreds of innocents. Like Hezbollah, Assad and the mullahs in Tehran, they have also repressed their own people in the name of their Islamic devotion.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">And this brings us back to Obama and his insistence that IS is not Islamic, but the Iranian regime is Islamic. How are we to understand this seeming anomaly? Throughout his tenure in office, Obama has gone out of his way to mainstream Muslim extremists.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">This has taken the form of granting senior appointments to people aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. For instance, amid a Congressional investigation into suspected leaks, Mohamed Elibiary, a senior fellow at the US Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council, resigned his position.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Just before his resignation, Elibiary tweeted that the rise of the caliphate is “inevitable.” In 2004 he spoke at a conference in Dallas celebrating the legacy of Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khomeini. As Robert Spencer has reported, the conference was titled, “A Tribute to a Great Islamic Visionary.”</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">Moreover, Obama had befriended radical Islamic leaders who openly support terrorism, including Turkish dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">And of course, as we see more and more clearly each day, the centerpiece of Obama’s foreign policy has been appeasing the Islamic Republic of Iran in the hope of achieving détente with the nuclear weapons pursuing state sponsor of terrorism.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">The likes of IS, with its love of the video camera, discredit Obama’s narrative that radical, terror- supporting Muslims are peaceful. Since IS is openly evil, it is un-Islamic.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">On the other hand, despite the fact that it is nearly as barbaric as IS, the Iranian regime is Islamic, because as far as Obama is concerned, it is good. And it is good because he wants to make a deal with the mullahs.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">In other words, Obama is neither an expert on Islam, nor a man moved by moral indignation.</span><br style="color: #000000;" /><br style="color: #000000;" /><span style="color: #000000;">He opposes IS because IS makes it hard for him to defend Islam from bad public relations. And he coos about the “Islamic Republic of Iran” because he is dedicated to his mission of whitewashing and mainstreaming the regime born of an Islamic revolution.</span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/caroline-glick/obama-and-the-definition-of-islamic/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Ehr Daw&#8217; &#8212;- They&#8217;re Here</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/rabbi-schlomo-lewis/ehr-daw-theyre-here/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ehr-daw-theyre-here</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/rabbi-schlomo-lewis/ehr-daw-theyre-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2014 04:38:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rabbi Shalom Lewis]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holocaust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nazi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242514</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A dangerous enemy is on the march and closing in. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #1a1a1a;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/muslim-nazi-youth.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242517" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/muslim-nazi-youth-450x335.png" alt="muslim-nazi-youth" width="316" height="235" /></a><strong>Editor&#8217;s note: Below is the transcript to Rabbi Shalom Lewis&#8217;s sermon marking Rosh Hashanah at the Etz Chaim synagogue in Marietta, Georgia. </strong></p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">I thought that maybe I’d start with a rendition of Paul McCartney’s plaintive masterpiece “Yesterday”… “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks as though they’re here to stay, oh I believe in yesterday” – but then I thought, too romantic. And then I thought, how about the favorite classic we all learned as children – “Frere Jacques, Frere Jacques, Dormez-vous, Dormez-vous, Sonnez les matines, sonnez les matines, Ding Daing Dong, ding daing dong. Are you sleeping, are you sleeping, Brother John, Brother John” but then I said to myself…too French. Perhaps the story of Chicken Little – “The sky is falling. The sky is falling” and I thought, getting closer but too childish. What about Santayana’s “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Maybe, but too philosophical. And then I remembered Joseph Conrad’s sadly, cynical observation – – “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary. Men alone are quite capable of every wickedness,” and sadly it felt right.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">And so, here were are in a place of unimagined chaos and cowardice, paralysis and brutality. The beast roams the earth; we are stymied, stunned and continue to fiddle. My friends, “Ehr Kumpt Part 2, the Sequel.” This is not a time for delicacy. For tiptoeing. It is not a time to parse words nor worry about offending someone with unfiltered vocabulary. Time is no longer a luxury we possess. Distance no longer provides protection. We are being threatened like no time before, by an enemy obsessed with an apocalyptic endgame that will bring only disaster. An enemy that worships savagery. An enemy that celebrates depravity. An enemy that glorifies the death of the young. There has been a seismic shift in our world. We feel it. We see it. We know it. We dare not deny it. Pick up any newspaper on any day, the first page, the second page, the third page, the fourth page and beyond – – most of the articles are about radical Muslims, not just ISIS, immersed in a vicious culture of blood and slaughter. Skip to the sports page or the crossword puzzle if you wish, but that doesn’t make the uncomfortable news go away. In fact, it brings joy to the jihadists who hope for our indifference. If we deny evil then we need not fight it. It doesn’t exist – just a few lunatics, thousands of miles away, pounding sand, blowing each other up and occasionally beheading an unlucky journalist. Not so bad.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">For years, we have been mercifully spared the ugliness and intimacy of war. The Battle of the Bulge and Iwo Jima were a black and white MovieTone newsreel after Tom &amp; Jerry and before the Pride of the Yankees. We planted victory gardens, rolled up tin foil, bought Liberty Bonds, said goodbye to fathers, sons and brothers. But the trenches were on the other side of the Atlantic and Pacific. So too, every other subsequent conflict. The Yanks were coming but the shooting was “over there.” We suffered little. But today, war has been redefined and relocated. Geneva is finished. We are all combatants in the cross hairs. We are all on the front lines, like it or not. The battlefield has no boundaries and the war, no rules. The enemy targets deliberately, fiendishly, any place of innocence. All are vulnerable and so we must recalculate our strategy, re-examine our tolerance, re-energize our resolve and unequivocally identify the evil doers. Let us not be silenced by fear, by feckless goodwill, by reckless hope, by meaningless rhetoric.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">There are one billion Muslims in the world and authorities agree that 5% are committed Islamists who embrace terror and wish to see, by any means possible, the Muslim flag fly over every capital, on every continent. I was relieved when I heard only 5%. Thank God it’s only 5%. Now I could sleep soundly. But wait, let me figure this out, 5% of a billion is… 50 million Koran-waving, Allah Akbar-howling Muslim murderers out there planning to slit our throats, blow us up or forcibly convert us. It only took 19 of Osama bin Laden’s disciples to bring down the Twin Towers, plow into the Pentagon and crash a plane into Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Over 3,000 dead. Over $10 billion in damages on that sad day. 19 Al Qaeda. 50 million Islamists. Do the math.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">But what disturbs me is, where are the other 950 million Muslims who are not terrorists? Who are not bomb-blasting, acid-throwing zealots? Where are the other 950 million Muslims who tuck their children in at night with a lullaby, who are okay with Christians and Jews, crave a peaceful world and wish nothing more than a tasty bowl of hummus and a friendly game of Shesh Besh with a neighbor? I want to believe they are out there, for their sake and for ours. I want to believe they weep in pain over the desecration of their faith. I want to believe that we have partners who dream the dreams we do and wish upon the same star. I want to believe – – but where are they? A silent partnership is no partnership. Sin is not just in the act of commission – it is also in the act of omission. Most Germans were not Nazis – but it did not matter. Most Russians were not Stalinists – but it did not matter. Most Muslims are not terrorists – but it does not matter. Stand up righteously or get out of the way. Perhaps in every mosque, in every midrassah, in every Muslim neighborhood, Edmund Burke’s powerful warning should be chiseled on a wall in Arabic, in Farsi, in Pashto, in Urdu, for all to read and heed. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.”</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">A couple of months ago, 3 young Israelis were kidnapped by Hamas terrorists and killed. And so began Operation Protective Edge. But the Gaza war was much more than shooting down rockets and blowing up tunnels – it was the preview, the soft opening, for a much more serious war – a genuine world war. It was a test of resolve, of fortitude. It was a test watched carefully by the indecent forces of a rising Islamist world. Israel is only the beginning. The first prize sought in what promises to be a protracted, multi-generational Kulterkampf. Israel made the headlines, but the front lines are all over the map – we just don’t know it yet. The whole world was watching and our performance was pathetic. We, the good guys, stumbled at the gate; tripped clumsily in an embarrassing display of moral confusion and ineptitude. It was amateur hour and the bad guys were licking their chops. I say the following unapologetically and with a heavy heart. When the war began, the President of the United States, the leader of the Free World, should have immediately, instinctively invited to the Oval Office, the leading Democrats and Republicans of the Senate and the House, his cabinet and all significant Washington political players. Every domestic and international news organization should have been notified and the following talk broadcast across the planet.</p>
<blockquote>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Fellow Americans – a crisis has erupted once again in the Middle East and I have been told that the war between Israel and Hamas is complex and nuanced. I have been told that our great nation must be evenhanded- but I am here to say with no equivocation, with no hesitation, this war is not complex. This war is not nuanced and we will not be evenhanded in this confrontation of good and evil, of right and wrong, of civilization and savagery. We Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives from sea to shining sea, stand together in unshakable support of Israel against foul, corrupt, murderers who sacrifice the lives of children in their pursuit of power. To Israel we say – do whatever you must. To Israel we say, take whatever time you need to crush this vile enemy and whatever you require, you can count on us. To the world we say, Israel is fighting for all of us – for our values, for our principles, for our civilization. Support her efforts, as we do, in every way possible. I will not tolerate any words of disparagement against our greatest ally and friend in the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless the United States of America.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">But these words did not ring forth from the White House, the capital of the free world. What we did hear was “No victor, no vanquished.” This statement was our President’s strategic plan. No call for triumph over terrorism, but a weak kneed, stalemate with butchers – a tie between good and evil. Right and wrong. Civilization and savagery. This did not go unnoticed. Media coverage during the war was biased and shameful with a few notable exceptions. To permit Hamas spokesmen and Hamas sympathizers to speak and to defend their monstrous deeds to millions of viewers is morally shocking. To promote equivalency between Israel and Hamas is morally appalling. With my remote, I would channel surf, go from station to station and I could not believe what I was hearing on CNN, CBS, BBC, ABC, MSNBC, and all the rest. The grotesque propaganda, the repulsive distortions – the tolerance of the wicked. And this did not go unnoticed. As I sat through these numbing broadsides, I wondered if our mainstream media during WWII would have invited the Germans and the Japanese to share their perspectives on the hostilities in Europe and in the Pacific. As they moaned about Dresden and the Doolittle Raid, would the anchors have nodded in sympathy? When the Germans and Japanese explained the need for the V1 and V2 bombardment of London and the necessity for the Bataan Death March, would the anchors have expressed understanding? The obscenities and outright lies given airtime and legitimacy should be sickening to any person of conscience.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Words distinguish us from the beast. In a powerful Holocaust tale, Eli Wiesel painfully writes that when words lose their meaning, disaster follows. In today’s Middle East lexicon; restraint means suicide. Terrorists have become militants. Self-defense is a war crime. Democracy is apartheid. Israelis and Jews have become Nazis. Warning civilians to get out of harm’s way has become genocide. 38 Muslim countries – 22 Arab countries and Israel, the only Jewish nation, must constantly defend her right to exist. Russia invades. Nigeria enslaves. China oppresses. Pakistan rapes. Iraq slaughters. North Korea starves. Iran nuclearizes. Syria massacres. Venezuela plunders. Afghanistan tortures. Sudan annihilates. ISIS beheads and Israel is the pariah state, put under the microscope by the morally noxious. And this did not go unnoticed. Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosopher, wrote the following in 1968 – 46 years ago. His words have not grown stale with the passage of time. To the contrary, they are every bit as relevant and meaningful today, nearly 1/2 a century later. I quote: “The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out 1,000’s, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it. Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey drove out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But, in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single Arab. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations, when victorious on the battlefield, dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious on the battlefield, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in the world…Other nations when they are defeated, survive and recover, but should Israel be defeated, it would be destroyed…” Hoffers’ final words are chilling and prophetic. “I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us.”</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">To those who are morally obtuse, I say shame on you– from university professors to the useful idiots of the media, from liberal churches to Hollywood, from the United Nations to the clueless left – let me remind all the ‘misguided do-gooders” – your deeds do not go unnoticed. The world does not like a righteous Goliath especially if Goliath speaks Hebrew.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Let’s leave the Middle East and head to Europe. For those who have not been recently, it has changed. It has changed dramatically. The sights. The sounds. The crowds. The streets are much different than when we backpacked with our Eurorail passes – strolling down the Champs-Elysees, chasing pigeons at Trafalgar Square, wandering the backstreets of Amsterdam after dark. The continent that gave birth to Western civilization, the continent that defined high culture is crumbling before our very eyes. Because of well-intentioned tolerance and an undisciplined pluralism, Europe is returning to the dark ages. By most estimates, Europe will be unrecognizable by the middle of this century – crushed by a demographic tsunami. The birthrate of the Brits, the French, the Dutch and the rest of the EU is well below ZPG. The Muslim community’s birthrate is prolific.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">The danger, however, is that Europe has not been a melting pot, assimilating new Muslims. And these new Muslims, for the most part, are not interested in respecting the great democracies of Europe. They want Sharia law and Islamic culture to be ascendant, and with their birthrate, the ballot box and their disdain for the West, in time they will get it. The element that is surging and redefining Europe are not the democracy-respecting Muslims, but those who are rampaging in nearly every capital. They are preaching hate for Jews, for Christians, for Israel, for America, for the entire Western world. It is not our grandfather’s Europe and it will not be a Europe our grandchildren will recognize. For the record, Europe is being flooded not by freedom loving, tolerant, assimilating Muslims who wish to share in Western freedom, in Western tolerance, in Western culture but rather by violent Islamists, extremists who reject every value we treasure.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">We love ethnic communities – they are vibrant, exciting, magical faraway places only a walk away. Chinatown, Little Odessa, Greek town, Little Havana, Lower Eastside, Little Italy, but what is spreading across Europe are not charming, quaint neighborhoods enjoyed by locals and camera toting tourists in search of a charming restaurant. These are beachheads for invasion. Want to stare down a guard at Buckingham Palace? Do it soon. Want to see the Follies-Bergere dance the Can Can? Do it soon. Want to sip wine at the vineyards of Tuscany? Do it soon. Want to sunbathe on the beaches of San Tropez? Do it soon. The sun never set on the British Empire, but now there is a cold darkness settling on Europe. A nihilism. A corruption. A perversion in the name of Allah. A Kristallnacht of European and Western culture is coming that will destroy a millennia of creative genius. Don’t listen to me. Listen to what the Islamists preach.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Don’t listen to me. Look at what the Islamists do. It is not a leap into fantasy to perceive a dystopian future that is irretrievably ugly and inconceivably vile.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">• The Sistine Chapel demolished for portraying God’s image.<br />
• The Pieta, Venus de Milo, David smashed. Idolatry.<br />
• Botticelli’s and Goya’s and Renoirs and Rubens torched – paintings of women not wearing a hijab and chador.<br />
• The Guttenberg Bible. The Magna Carta. Tossed into a bonfire. Profane literature.<br />
• Museums all across Europe vandalized by marauding Islamist fanatics.<br />
Even the Nazis saved the masterpieces.<br />
• Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart silenced.<br />
• The end of opera. Rossini, Verdi, Puccini gone.<br />
• For Shakespeare, Cervantes, Moliere. The Final curtain, a dark stage.<br />
Even the Nazis enjoyed the classics.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">I must assume there are skeptics out there – folks who disbelieve my warnings and might label me an alarmist – a Paul Revere wannabe – galloping across the Pyrenees through the European heartland in the shadow of the Alps crying out “The Muslims are coming. The Muslims are coming.” I weighed each and every word carefully. Repeatedly. Was I treading into bigotry? … Into melodrama? Speak with the ‘canaries in the mine’, the Jews of Europe, fleeing in record numbers. Synagogues fire bombed. Jewish businesses vandalized. Children threatened on their way to school. Kippot buried in their pockets. Mezuzot. Hamsas. Magen Davids dangling on chains tucked under shirts and under blouses to hide Jewish identity. Israeli products pulled off store shelves. This is not the 1930’s nor the 1940’s and yet it is. 68 years since the Nazis defeat but their descendants are making Hitler proud picking up where he left off. “I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us.” Slip in the word “Jew” for Israel and we see the future of Europe. This ever-growing tragedy doesn’t end neatly in Europe, in the Middle East, in Mumbai or the Philippines.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Most of us have never tasted the bitterness of war. Witnessed its horror. Clawed our way out from beneath tons of rubble. But we dare not be complacent and cry out confidently – “we have 2 oceans and the TSA to protect us.” We live in a shrunken world. In a porous country. In an open society. We have become perilously naïve. Recklessly evenhanded. Unacceptably tolerant. Dangerously comfortable. The greatest generation has spawned the clueless generation. I say it again loudly, slowly and clearly – we are at war, here in America as well, with radical Islamists. We have been attacked repeatedly and yet we continue to turn away. We euphemize the enemy. Disguising his identity and his intent. There will not be armadas chanting “Allah Akbar” landing on the beaches of Malibu and Boca. No vast battalions chanting “Allah Akbar” while crossing the Rio Grande or the 45th Parallel – but make no mistake – we are at war, right now, this very minute. The tactics have changed. The battlefield is different. The rules of engagement have been redefined but we dare not make the mistake that all is well and that Islamic terrorists are simply violent criminals. That Islamic terrorists are just a bunch of unemployed losers, not part of a vast network hell bent on destroying our country. Their disunity in numbers but their unity in purpose is their power. The Lone Wolf is deadly and we are the prey.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Ask the man or woman on the street when did this all start and most would reply: “On 9/11.” That was a catastrophic day, but not the start. For us here in America, the war began in Teheran in 1979 when our embassy was taken over. It has continued ruthlessly and without pause ever since. Lockerbie and Scotland, TWA Flight 840, the USS Cole, embassies and American interests bombed and Americans killed in Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Spain, Kenya, Germany, Egypt, Kuwait, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. Connect the dots. Here on American soil, before 9/11, the Twin Towers were attacked in 1993. The Times Square bomber. The Tsarnev brothers in the Boston Marathon bombing. The Fort Hood massacre was not work place violence but the calculated, cold blooded murder of 13 American soldiers by a Muslim Jihadist yelling “Allah Akbar.” The shooting up in Little Rock, Arkansas of an army recruiting station. The murder of 2 CIA agents outside Langley by a Pakistani whose final words before meeting his maker were “There is no God but Allah.” The indignant, impious, arrogant claim by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic relations, that anyone who commits an act of violence is by definition, not a Muslim. Therefore, a Muslim terrorist, a Muslim killer, a Muslim suicide bomber, is a misleading term of bigotry and Islamophobia. The slick, masterful ISIS recruitment in Minneapolis. New York. Colorado. On Facebook. On Twitter and across the country. Connect the dots.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Let’s get Jewish-personal. A Zim Line cargo ship was prevented from offloading it’s cargo for 3 days because of pro-Palestinian mobs in Oakland, California. A young man from our shul on his 1st day of university was taught by his PhD, tenured professor that Israel committed ethnic cleansing in 1948… In Dade County a synagogue was defaced with swastikas and the words Hamas scrawled on its walls. A JCC in Seattle was attacked. A pro-Palestinian rally in Miami called for “the massacre of the Jews.” University campuses across the country, hot beds of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish hostility. A local merchant in Roswell told one of our members (not realizing she was Jewish and vocal) that she was fed up with Israel’s brutal treatment of the children of Gaza. We are not Europe, but connect the dots. I am concerned, as we all should be, of the alarming surge in Islamist rhetoric, violence and influence. I am equally concerned, as we all should be, of the alarming silence and inaction of mainstream Muslims. I fear political correctness run amuck. I fear the worship of multiculturalism. I fear progressive voices of repression. I fear a distorted media tolerant of intolerance. I fear politicians who prefer the easy, still of the night to the noble, necessary struggle of the day. I fear we are not so far away from where we thought we would never be.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">Three thoughts to ponder. This past year, many of us saw the Book of Mormon at the Fox. An irreverent, vulgar, hysterically entertaining musical about the Mormons. We parked our car at the Georgian Terrace and crossed Peachtree Street. In front of the theater were a half dozen, well dressed, mannerly Mormons handing out literature. “Sir, if you would like to know more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints,” a young woman said to me as I took her brochure, “Please go to our website.” I thanked her. She smiled, wished me a pleasant evening and turned to speak with another ticket holder. I thought, “God bless these folks. This is how we disagree in America.” At the same moment I had another thought. What if Trey Parker and Matt Stone came out with a tasteless, bawdy musical that was hysterically entertaining entitled “The Quran, Allah’s Holy Book.” What would happen? It doesn’t take much imagination to answer that question. Jeff Foxworthy correctly wrote, “Have you ever wondered why it’s okay to make jokes about Catholics, the Pope, Jews, Christians, the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Chinese, the French (including French Canadians)…but it’s insensitive to make jokes about Muslims?” A few years back, a Danish newspaper “Jyllanns-Posten” printed 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad to illustrate an article. If the photos published were of Moses or Buddha or of the Apostle Paul, the event would have been met with a yawn. But not so with our Islamist friends. The reaction? Not a letter to the editor. Not a request to submit an op-ed. Not a friendly visit to the publisher – – but worldwide rage. Riots. Boycotts. Embassies burned. Ambassadors recalled. Attacks on Christians and on churches. 200 killed. Soon after, a professor from Brandeis wrote a book on this outrageous event entitled, “12 Cartoons That Shook the World.” It was published by Yale University Press, located at 302 Temple Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06511, United States of America. But what was missing in the book? What Yale University refused to print were the 12 cartoons and images of Muhammad. This self-censorship was shameful, cowardly, un-American and a sniveling submission to Islamic narcissism and intimidation. Where is a great university’s courage? Where is Freedom of the Press? This happened in America. In the land of the free and in the home of, I hope, still the brave.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">I recall, as we all do, the good old days when air travel was a pleasure. When I flew here to Etz Chaim in my commuting, student days, I’d catch a cab outside my apartment on the upper West Side and be at LaGuardia in about 20 minutes. I’d check my bags in 2 minutes and be at the gate in 4 minutes, just in time to board my flight. I even got a meal. In those days, flying was an adventure, even in coach. Today it is irritating and exhausting. What happened? What changed? Who’s to blame? Who has created the need for a multibillion dollar security industry? Who has created a tedious need for us to remove our shoes and belts, empty our pockets, pack only 3-1/2 ounces of Listerine, go through metal detectors and x-ray machines, submit to frisks and wand searches? Arrive hours before departure? Who is responsible? Let’s see – – not the Italian Mob, not skin heads, not neo Nazis, not Columbian drug cartels, not the Russian mafia, not the Crips nor the Bloods nor the Aryan Brotherhood, not the Ku Klux Klan. So who is it that has irretrievably ruined worldwide air travel? So, think of a Muslim play on Broadway. Think of a scholarly text on Muhammad. Think of flying Delta or United or AirTran. Think about it and connect the dots. For us, WWII lasted 4 years. It has been 13 years since 9/11. 35 years since the invasion of our Iranian embassy and like it or not, we are still at war with radical Islam. Declaring we are not at war with radical Islam does not make it so. Roosevelt and Churchill got it and understood that the stakes were not just the Sudetenland and a few islands in the South Pacific. From the White House and 10 Downing Street, they understood it was planet earth. Today, the radical Islamists seek the same prize – not just Bagdad or Benghazi – but planet earth.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">This is not dramatic fiction, but the real thing. A handful of us here today, experienced the real thing about 11 weeks ago in Israel. We didn’t see the real thing on the nightly news nor read about it in the evening paper or hear about it in a long distance phone call from uncle Moshe in Tel Aviv. We were there as Kassam rockets rained down on Israel, on us, targeting, not military bases, not Merkava tanks, not IDF divisions, but children at play, families enjoying dinner, friends laughing over a beer, lovers strolling through a park, teenagers playing volleyball on the beach. The world watched and preached and judged and only now has begun to stir from their slumber of hypocrisy and inaction. Hamas is ISIS. ISIS is Hamas. They are all the same. Hezbollah. Islamic Jihad. Al Shabab. Muslim Brotherhood. Boko Haram. Al Qaeda. Taliban. Iran. The only difference is the length of the knife they use in their butchery. Israeli blood bleeds the same red as the blood of James Foley, of Steven Satloff, of David Hawthorne Haines, of Christians, and Yazidis. Let’s reason, some suggest. One last Hail Mary negotiation. Maybe we can figure out what’s bothering these troubled Muslims and perhaps they’ll tell us what we can do to resolve the friction. I am all for dialogue, but we are dealing with a moral species that eats its own, kills it’s young and celebrates innocent death as homage to God. Osama bin Laden eluded capture for 10 years. Ever wonder why? There was a $25 million bounty on his head. That’s a lot of money. $25 million can by a lot of plastic surgery. A new identity. Rosetta Stone tapes. Elocution lesson. A suburban home. A Brooks Brothers wardrobe. New partners. New friends. Surf and turf every night and a round of golf every day. In 10 years, there was not one betrayal of Osama bin Laden – – not one. And I asked myself, “why not?” – $25 million is a great amount of money and can easily facilitate a luxurious disappearance. The answer is simple. These Islamist criminals are unlike us in the most basic of ways and we have yet to accept and understand their total immersion in moral debauchery.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">The enemy has eyes and ears. Fingers and toes. Speaks with lips. Runs with legs. Eats. Drinks. Has the face of a human being – but, has a much different heart and a much different soul. Three years ago on this bima, on this very same day, standing at this podium, I cried out, “Ehr Kumpt – they are coming.” 3 years later on this bima, on this very same day, standing at this podium, I cry out not “Ehr Kumpt – they are coming,” I cry out, “Ehr daw – they are here.” The fury of ultimate evil is upon us and we must act – not to contain it. Not to degrade it. Not to manage it. Not to tolerate it, but to exterminate it utterly and absolutely. If we fail in this holy crusade, we will live in a world bereft of color. Empty of music, of art, of romance, of laughter, of freedom, of invention. A world barren of all beauty. Depleted of all virtue. We are divided today not by faith nor holy book. We are divided today by decency and indecency. By right and wrong. By moral and corrupt. By courage and cowardice. By righteousness and evil. The good citizens of earth must rise up. Gather on the mountain top and proclaim in thundering unison the words of Isaiah: “Hoy ha’omrim lera tov v’la’tov rah – woe to them that call evil, good and good, evil. Who present darkness as light and light as darkness. Who call bitter, sweet and sweet, bitter. We must turn back the evil. We must turn back the darkness. We must turn back the bitter.</p>
<p style="color: #1a1a1a;">My friends – Ehr daw – they are here.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/rabbi-schlomo-lewis/ehr-daw-theyre-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>62</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Oklahoma Beheader’s Radical Environment</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/the-oklahoma-beheaders-radical-environment/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-oklahoma-beheaders-radical-environment</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/the-oklahoma-beheaders-radical-environment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2014 04:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alexander Nolen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[beheading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jah’Keem Yisrael]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vaughan Foods]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The secrets of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City exposed. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/140927140307-beheading-suspect-oklahoma-facebook-alton-alexander-nolen-01-horizontal-gallery.png"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242272" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/140927140307-beheading-suspect-oklahoma-facebook-alton-alexander-nolen-01-horizontal-gallery-435x350.png" alt="140927140307-beheading-suspect-oklahoma-facebook-alton-alexander-nolen-01-horizontal-gallery" width="329" height="265" /></a>Jah’Keem</span><span class="zw-portion"> </span><span class="zw-portion">Yisrael</span><span class="zw-portion"> (formerly Alton Alexander Nolen), who beheaded one of his coworkers and was shot while in the process of trying to behead another on September 26 in Vaughan Foods, a food processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma, didn’t live in a vacuum.</span><span class="zw-portion"> His mosque, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, worked hard to distance itself from him before its leaders stopped talking to the media altogether, and has denounced his actions. That will probably be good enough for the clueless and politically correct </span><span class="zw-portion">Obamoid</span><span class="zw-portion"> FBI, which has forgotten what the “I” stands for in its name, but it leaves too many questions unanswered. Chiefly this one: when </span><span class="zw-portion">Jah’Keem</span><span class="zw-portion"> </span><span class="zw-portion">Yisrael</span><span class="zw-portion"> went to his mosque, what kind of teachings did he hear?</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">Unfortunately, the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City</span><span class="zw-portion"> doesn’t offer tapes or transcripts of Friday </span><span class="zw-portion" style="font-style: italic;">khutbas</span><span class="zw-portion">. And while they have been affecting a pose of being as moderate as the day is long, some clues to the contrary have appeared. Last week </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/oklahoma-beheaders-mosque-taught-caliphate-destruction-of-us-and-israel" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">I received this insider report</span></a><span class="zw-portion"> from a former member of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">I went to the same mosque the Oklahoma Muslim who beheaded his co-worker today. I live ten minutes away!</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">The Imam was </span><span class="zw-portion">Imad</span><span class="zw-portion"> </span><span class="zw-portion">Enchassi</span><span class="zw-portion"> the last I heard. He was a friend of mine. He is a Lebanese-born Sunni who hates Israel. He once gave a sermon that the Israelis were trying to collapse al-Aqsa mosque by digging tunnels underneath it. They have no issue with Palestinian suicide bombings because, as it was explained to me, that is the only weapon the Palestinians have.</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">They sold </span><span class="zw-portion" style="font-style: italic;">Milestones</span><span class="zw-portion"> in the </span><span class="zw-portion">book shop</span><span class="zw-portion"> while I was there, which as you know calls for replacing all non-Islamic governments with Islamic ones. I remember listening to a tape a friend of mine, </span><span class="zw-portion">Yahya</span><span class="zw-portion"> Graff, another white convert to Islam, had that prayed for the destruction of Israel and America.</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">The imam when I first converted, </span><span class="zw-portion">Suhaib</span><span class="zw-portion"> Webb, is hailed as a moderate by liberals in the United States but he was the one that explicitly told me that according to Islam, three choices are to be given to non-Muslims: convert, pay the </span><span class="zw-portion">jizyah</span><span class="zw-portion"> tax and live under Islamic rule, or jihad. They try very hard to whitewash Islam when the media is around, but they believe in their religion and the ultimate goal of an Islamic caliphate.</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">Then o</span><span class="zw-portion">n September 30, </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RH_DQHCsghs" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">I interviewed this man</span></a><span class="zw-portion">, who has left not only the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City but also Islam as a whole. </span><span class="zw-portion">He gave more details to demonstrate that </span><span class="zw-portion">th</span><span class="zw-portion">is</span><span class="zw-portion"> mosque was not at all as “moderate” as its leaders claimed in the wake of the </span><span class="zw-portion">beheading:</span></p>
<p><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RH_DQHCsghs" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">Among the explosive revelations: Mosque members said that if Osama bin Laden showed up at the door and needed help, he would help him because he is a Muslim brother. Once this former member went target shooting AK-47’s with two other Muslim converts — the targets were labeled George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon. </span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">Has the mosque changed since this man stopped going there? That’s unlikely. The current imam, </span><span class="zw-portion">Imad</span><span class="zw-portion"> </span><span class="zw-portion">Enchassi</span><span class="zw-portion">, is a friend of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)</span><span class="zw-portion">. In a sermon he preached on September 19, just a week before the beheading, </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/09/29/Deleted-Sermons-Reveal-Close-Ties-Between-Muslim-Brotherhood-Group-CAIR-and-Beheader-s-Mosque" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">Enchassi</span><span class="zw-portion"> said</span></a><span class="zw-portion"> that CAIR Oklahoma City Executive Director Adam </span><span class="zw-portion">Soltani</span><span class="zw-portion"> “doesn’t do anything without consulting me.”</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">While CAIR is quite mainstream these days, this self-styled “civil rights group” was </span><span class="zw-portion">actually</span><span class="zw-portion"> named an </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016754.php" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case</span></a><span class="zw-portion"> by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014963.php" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">refused</span></a><span class="zw-portion"> </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016017.php" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">to</span></a><span class="zw-portion"> </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014790.php" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">denounce</span></a><span class="zw-portion"> Hamas and </span><span class="zw-portion">Hizballah</span><span class="zw-portion"> as terrorist groups. Several </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2003/06/cairs-legal-tribulations.html" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror</span></a><span class="zw-portion">. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53303" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">Islamic supremacist statements</span></a><span class="zw-portion">. Its </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/01/cairs-honest-ibe-hooper-admits-dont-talk-to-the-fbi-poster-crossed-a-line-but-those-who-noticed-that.html" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">California chapter distributed </span><span class="zw-portion">a</span><span class="zw-portion"> poster</span></a><span class="zw-portion"> telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented.</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">In sum, </span><span class="zw-portion">Imad</span><span class="zw-portion"> Enchassi’s association with CAIR doesn’t speak well of his moderate bona fides.</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">Enchassi</span><span class="zw-portion"> also claimed, just days before Jah’Keem Yisrael’s jihad rampage at Vaughan Foods, that “Islamophobes” in Oklahoma were </span><a style="color: blue;" title="" href="http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/09/27/Beheader-s-Imam-Claimed-just-days-before-incident-that-people-were-threatening-to-Behead-Muslims-and-their-Children" target="_blank"><span class="zw-portion link">plotting to behead Muslims</span></a><span class="zw-portion">. </span><span class="zw-portion">This was the environment in which </span><span class="zw-portion">Jah’Keem</span><span class="zw-portion"> </span><span class="zw-portion">Yisrael</span><span class="zw-portion"> lived and moved. His Facebook page contained numerous photos of himself at the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, and it has since been revealed that he attended frequently, at least once a week. While there, he would likely have heard about the anti-Muslim machinations of the </span><span class="zw-portion">kuffar</span><span class="zw-portion"> (unbelievers)</span><span class="zw-portion">, and come out seething with resentment and righteous rage. Maybe he even beheaded Colleen </span><span class="zw-portion">Hufford</span><span class="zw-portion"> at Vaughan Foods before the Infidels could behead him.</span></p>
<p class="zw-paragraph" style="color: #000000;"><span class="zw-portion">The Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City should be thoroughly investigated, and if found to be fomenting hatred, violence and sedition, shut down. Instead, however, Obama’s </span><span class="zw-portion">politically correct </span><span class="zw-portion">Keystone Kops will likely only go there to conduct an “outreach” program.</span></p>
<p>*</p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Robert Spencer</strong> on The Glazov Gang discussing<span id="productTitle" class="a-size-large"><strong> The Fog of Jihad-Denial</strong>:</span></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/S8kxWhX0S50" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><a id="js_10" class="profileLink _5f0v" tabindex="0" href="https://www.facebook.com/annmariemurrell" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/user.php?id=1258545911"></a></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/the-oklahoma-beheaders-radical-environment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Save the Environment from the Socialists</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/save-the-environment-from-the-socialists/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=save-the-environment-from-the-socialists</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/save-the-environment-from-the-socialists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2014 04:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drought]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmentalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[flood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USSR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Warmunists are creating droughts and floods.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/earth-on-fire-global-warming.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242035" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/earth-on-fire-global-warming-418x350.jpg" alt="earth-on-fire-global-warming" width="333" height="279" /></a>The <a href="http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/publications/docs/soviet_whaling_the_devil_is_in_the_details.pdf"><span style="color: #0433ff;">USSR killed 338,000 whales</span></a>. Its relentless illegal whaling fleets drove the blue whale into extinction in the North Pacific and caused population crashes in a number of other species.</p>
<p>Some have labeled it the worst environmental crime of the century, but it was really just a slow day for the USSR whose other contributions to the environment included destroying one of the four largest lakes in the world (“One of the worst environmental disasters of the world”: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7554679/Aral-Sea-one-of-the-planets-worst-environmental-disasters.html"><span style="color: #0433ff;">UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon</span></a>) and multiple nuclear disasters culminating in Chernobyl (the world’s worst nuclear disaster).</p>
<p>The USSR was determined to show that communism could defeat capitalism and while it couldn’t beat the United States in industrial production, it took home the gold medal for environmental disasters. By the end, <a href="http://countrystudies.us/russia/25.htm"><span style="color: #0433ff;">75 percent of its surface water was</span></a> polluted and its air was among the dirtiest in the world.</p>
<p>The only ones to give the old USSR a run for its money when it came to environmental disasters were their fellow Communists across the border in the People’s Republic of China.</p>
<p>But the only thing that the left does better than wreck economies and the environment is rewrite history. Its three-legged roaches crawl out from underneath the rubble and pretend that nothing ever happened. The left claims historical inevitability while refusing to learn anything from history.</p>
<p>Like mutated cockroaches in Chernobyl, its red-shirted acolytes converged in the People’s Climate March chanting that the only solution for the environment was to replace capitalism with Socialism.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/see-the-10-dumbest-idiots-from-the-peoples-climate-march/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Party for Socialism and Liberation</span></a> carried a banner proclaiming that “Climate Change is the Symptom, Capitalism is the Disease, Socialism is the Cure.” The PSI is a Marxist splinter group from the even more insane Workers World Party. It thinks that the collapse of the USSR was the real disaster.</p>
<p>The Communist Party of the United States, whose logo still includes a sickle and gear, announced that it was <a href="http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">now concentrating on</span></a> nature. But it will take a lot of greenwashing to turn those reds green.</p>
<p>The International Socialist Organization, another Marxist group, came promoting its “Eco-socialism” while bearing posters of a globe dripping with oil. “<a href="http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014/09/23/climate-movement-drops-mask-admits-communist-agenda/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Capitalism is Killing the Planet</span></a>; Fight for Socialism.”</p>
<p>But when it came to killing the planet by drilling for oil, the Socialists were the champs. Other countries just drilled for oil. The USSR tried to drill for oil using nuclear bombs. It also tried to use nuclear bombs to search for gas and coal making it the only country in the world whose coal was also radioactive.</p>
<p>When it came to drilling for oil, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the drunken fisherman trying to catch a trout with dynamite. This was, not coincidentally, a favorite hobby of its Party bosses.</p>
<p>But the USSR wasn’t completely neglectful of the environment. It also tried to use nuclear bombs to create holes for storing toxic waste. There’s no doubt that if the USSR could have thought of a way to improve the environment by exploding a bunch of nuclear bombs, it would have done it.</p>
<p>The Workers World Party showed up handing out literature calling for a ban on fracking. The WWP won’t be carrying that same literature to its friends in the Chinese government which leads the world in coal mining and oil pipeline disasters and which has already managed to kill people using fracking.</p>
<p>The People’s Republic even figured out how to kill people using solar panels. Solar panel pollution production has <a href="http://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/entry/the-true-cost-of-chinese-solar-panels-part-3"><span style="color: #0433ff;">already killed large numbers of fish</span></a> and local villagers are suffering from kidney and liver damage. It takes a Socialist and a five-year-plan to figure out how to kill people with solar panels.</p>
<p>Leftists in New York marched under the hashtag #FloodWallStreet claiming that only stopping capitalism would end the climate crisis. There’s no doubt that Socialists are really good at flooding things.</p>
<p>Soviet and Chinese dams failed more often than they worked. When the dams weren’t failing, then their Socialist planners were building pointless canals that didn’t work. The Stalin White Sea Canal killed 100,000 workers and can only accommodate small boats. Wall Street could have made it work without piling up a mountain of corpses. China’s Banqiao Dam however took home the prize for killing the most people in any dam failure in history; 171,000. But they did have the help of their fellow Soviet Socialists.</p>
<p>China’s current Three Gorges Dam has displaced over a million people and flooded 13 cities, 140 towns and 1,350 villages. There’s no way the capitalists of Wall Street could compete with that flooding.</p>
<p>The Revolutionary Communist Party wore stickers reading, “Capitalism is Destroying the Planet… We Need Revolution.” As Maoists however they ought to know that if anyone is going to destroy the planet, it will be them. Mao’s industrial and agricultural experiments very nearly destroyed China, killing tens of millions of people with a famine caused by his attempts at environmental engineering.</p>
<p>Today China isn’t just wrecking its own environment, but is also colonizing Africa with disastrous industrial projects. Chad recently <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/13/us-energy-chad-china-idUSKBN0GD21P20140813"><span style="color: #0433ff;">handed China a $1.2 billion</span></a> bill for illegal dumping of crude oil. Gabon has accused China of polluting its country. If anyone is going to destroy the world, the smart money is still on China which has the capacity and the determined rigidity to make it happen.</p>
<p>All these Socialist environmental disasters happened because of central planning. The key to Socialism is also a formula for endless human and environmental disasters. The USSR and Communist China saw human resources and natural resources as fuel for their vast centrally planned economies. It was capitalism without responsibility, human rights or independent points of views. And the left is determined to recreate these same environmental disasters in the name of the environment.</p>
<p>Socialist governments in the United States and California <a href="http://naturalresources.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=5921"><span style="color: #0433ff;">have already created a man-made</span></a> drought.  <a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/how-a-fanatical-environmentalist-deliberately-caused-uk-flooding/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Warmunism in the UK</span></a> led to massive flooding there this year. Environmental disasters created in the name of the environment are a reality as the same inflexible collectivist bureaucracies that wrecked the environment for industrial Socialism are wrecking it all over again for eco-Socialism.</p>
<p>The combination of rigid ideology, bureaucratic guidelines and experts with no real life experience led to droughts and floods in the USSR and the PRC. Now the same combination of big plans, clueless experts and mindless slogans are creating droughts and floods in the US and the EU.</p>
<p>The ideologues of the USSR and the PRC believed that nothing could go wrong if they drew their inspiration from Lenin, Stalin and Mao. The new ideologues are convinced that they have to be right because they are “on the side of the environment”; as if the air, the sky and the sea have a “side”.</p>
<p>Environmental disasters aren’t caused by capitalists or communists. They are caused by people who don’t think about the consequences of their actions.</p>
<p>The left has long since proven that it is incapable of thinking about consequences in any terms other than those of its ideology. A factory owner can recognize a toxic waste spill. A Socialist is incapable of recognizing that his ideology’s plan caused a spill. He will deny that it exists, denounce the witnesses, accuse critics of waging war on his ideology and then spend the next twenty years making it worse.</p>
<p>The planet doesn’t need saving from capitalists. It needs saving from Socialists.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> on The Glazov Gang discussing <strong>&#8220;ISIS Rising&#8221;</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9E8gGysQZzU" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/save-the-environment-from-the-socialists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>83</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Turkey: The Jihadists’ Fifth Column in NATO?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/turkey-the-jihadists-fifth-column-in-nato/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=turkey-the-jihadists-fifth-column-in-nato</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/turkey-the-jihadists-fifth-column-in-nato/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:18:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Klein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[border]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241922</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new passageway of ISIS terrorists into Syria. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PJ-Erdogan-1.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241923" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/PJ-Erdogan-1.jpg" alt="PJ-Erdogan-1" width="293" height="230" /></a>Turkey may well be the jihadists’ fifth column in NATO.</p>
<p>Turkey’s autocratic Islamist president, Tayyip Erdogan, has allowed Turkey’s border to become a passageway for jihadist fighters streaming into Syria to join ISIS and the al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.</p>
<p>Oil from fields in Iraq and Syria under ISIS control has been regularly transported into Turkey, and sold to black market traders at below international oil market prices. Turkey itself is reportedly a major buyer of the cheap black market oil. The income from ISIS’s oil sales through the black market, as much as $30 million a month, helps finance ISIS’s expansion, making Turkey one of ISIS’s key bankrollers and enablers.</p>
<p>Turkey has also allowed ISIS recruiting networks operating online and through religious study groups to flourish within its borders. Turkey’s Milliyet newspaper reported that as many as 3,000 Turks have joined ISIS. For a government that has cracked down harshly on Kurdish dissidents and on journalists reporting inside Turkey who dare to question Erdogan’s policies, Erdogan’s regime has not appeared to have discouraged ISIS recruitment within its borders or the flow of recruits from Turkey, and the flow of recruits from other countries traveling through Turkey, who are joining ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria.</p>
<p>Despite pressure from the United States, Erdogan has held back from making any significant contributions to the U.S.-led anti-ISIS coalition, fearing that Syria’s Assad regime and Kurds would benefit to Turkey’s detriment.  Even after Turkey secured the release of its citizens held by ISIS – reportedly through a prisoner exchange with ISIS – Turkey is not acting like an active NATO partner.</p>
<p>Turkey may now decide to provide a show of token support to the coalition to humor Obama and win U.S. support for Turkey’s bid to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council next year. However, the fact is that Erdogan is on the side of the jihadists and will use a seat on the Security Council to push an agenda that is both pro-Islamist and anti-Israel.</p>
<p>Erdogan’s active support of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood speaks for itself. And if there were any doubt where Erdogan’s sympathies lie, one only need to take a look at his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last week.</p>
<p>Instead of expressing moral outrage at the jihadists’ slaughters in Iraq and Syria, for example, Erdogan engaged in a gratuitous attack on Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who had responded to mass demonstrations in Egypt demanding an end to the theocracy that the jihadists were seeking to impose forcibly on Egyptian citizens. Erdogan was upset that his Muslim Brotherhood jihadist buddy Mohamed Morsi was no longer Egypt’s leader:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The United Nations as well as the democratic countries have done nothing but watch the events such as overthrowing the elected president in Egypt and the killings of thousands of innocent people who want to defend their choice. And the person who carried out this coup is being legitimized. If we are going to defend people who come to power through coups, then I ask the question why we exist as the United Nations.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Erdogan’s pettiness was evidenced by reports that he refused to attend a luncheon hosted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week when he learned he would be sitting at the same table as President Sisi.</p>
<p>Instead of playing a constructive role, like Egypt did, in trying to bring an end to the conflict in Gaza on terms that were not a complete give-away to Hamas’s demands, Erdogan did what he could to undermine Egypt’s efforts. He has previously referred to President Sisi as a “tyrant” who could not be trusted to broker a cease-fire.</p>
<p>Egypt&#8217;s foreign ministry put out a statement after Erdogan’s General Assembly speech exposing Erdogan’s hidden agenda to restore the Ottoman Empire’s glory days of the past:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;There is no doubt that the fabrication of such lies and fabrications are not something strange that comes from the Turkish President, who is keen to provoke chaos to sow divisions in the Middle East region through its support for groups and terrorist organizations. Whether political support or funding or accommodation in order to harm the interests of the peoples of the region to achieve personal ambitions for the Turkish president and revive illusions of the past.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Erdogan told the Council on Foreign Relations, in a speech he delivered a day before his General Assembly address, that everything would have been hunky-dory if only the Ottoman Empire had remained intact. He said that “we see significant crises taking place in the Middle East and Eastern Europe today, and up until 100 years ago, these areas were governed from the Ottoman capital, Istanbul. The Palestinian issue, the problems in Iraq and Syria, Crimea, the Balkans are all issues that emerged following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.”</p>
<p>Erdogan has in the past evoked the imagery of the Battle of Manzikert as a symbol for Turkish youth to look up to and emulate. The Battle of Manzikert occurred in 1071, when the Seljuk Turks decisively defeated the leading Christian power of that era, the Byzantine Empire.</p>
<p>In sum, Erdogan shares the same goal as ISIS – the restoral of an Islamic caliphate – even if they ultimately spar over who will control the caliphate.</p>
<p>Erdogan said in his General Assembly speech that Turkey stands against terrorism. But Erdogan’s concept of whom qualifies as a terrorist is focused on the Jewish state.  “Israel is a terror state; they are creating a wave of terror with what they’re doing now,” he told CNN in an interview last July, referring to Israel’s military actions to defend its civilian population against Hamas’s rocket attacks and terror tunnels. “Right now, we are a member state of NATO and we are a country which acts within the framework together with our partners in NATO. We have an international identity, a character. We never got involved with terror – we have always fought against terror.”</p>
<p>Erdogan is engaging in taqiyya, the Islamic doctrine of deceit. Turkey, for example, actively supports Hamas, a jihadist group that engages in terror against civilians and is the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood which Turkey supports as well. While denying in his remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations that he harbored any anti-Semitic feelings, Erdogan condemned Israel for what he called its ”massacres” in Gaza. He said the Palestinian issue “is an important issue that has an impact not just on the Palestinians, but on all the Muslims and everyone who has a conscience in the world.”</p>
<p>But Turkey’s “conscience” is very selective. Turkey has a double standard when it comes to the issue of “occupation” and “settlers.”  While consistently condemning Israel for alleged occupation of Palestinian lands and allegedly illegal settlements, Turkey continues its own illegal occupation of northern Cyprus following its invasion of the island in 1974. Tens of thousands of mainland Turks have settled on Cypriote land that does not belong to them, under the protection of thousands of Turkish soldiers who do not belong in Cyprus.</p>
<p>At a UN press briefing by Republic of Cyprus President Nicos Anastasidades on September 26<sup>th</sup>, I asked him to comment on Turkey’s evident hypocrisy regarding the occupation and settlements issue, which it raises in every available forum with regards to Israel but evades when it comes to itself. President Anastasidades agreed that Turkey was displaying a double-standard.  This exchange was later removed from an official UN video record of the press conference. Did Turkish officials, who several years ago made UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon apologize for an alleged incident involving an altercation between UN security personnel and Turkish personnel, demand a censoring of the video to remove the criticism of Turkey’s hypocrisy on the occupation and settlements issue? Given the Turkish government’s regular anti-press campaign of intimidation in its own country, it would not be surprising if they did, but we will probably never know for sure.</p>
<p>However, one thing is for sure. Turkey is not a reliable member of NATO or U.S. ally. Its president’s sympathies lie with the jihadists and the enemies of Western style democracy. If Turkey does not unequivocally change its ways, steps should be considered to end its membership in NATO and to re-align the U.S. strategic relationship in the region further away from Turkey.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/turkey-the-jihadists-fifth-column-in-nato/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Islamic Republic vs. the Islamic State</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-islamic-republic-vs-the-islamic-state/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-islamic-republic-vs-the-islamic-state</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-islamic-republic-vs-the-islamic-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:10:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Majid Rafizadeh]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241925</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Which is the bigger threat? ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/APTOPIX-UN-General-As_Horo-e1411668283485.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241926" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/APTOPIX-UN-General-As_Horo-e1411668283485-384x350.jpg" alt="APTOPIX-UN-General-As_Horo-e1411668283485" width="317" height="289" /></a>Although the Islamic State has gained the global spotlight in the media due to its brutality and barbarism, it is critical not to be distracted from the larger threat posed from the ruling Ayatollahs and politicians in the Islamic Republic of Iran. As former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger stated in an interview with NPR, Iran &#8220;is a bigger problem than ISIS.&#8221;</p>
<p>On other other hand, while Iranian leaders proclaim that they are fighting the Islamic State, there are many similarities between the Islamic Republic and the Islamic State. Let us unravel the commonalities and differences between the Islamic Republic and the Islamic State from several angles such as ideological, strategic, geopolitical, military, as well as human rights perspectives.</p>
<p>Ideologically and religiously speaking, although the fighters of the Islamic State are predominantly Sunnis and the ruling politicians of Islamic Republic of Iran are Shiite, there exist several underlying similarities between these two entities.</p>
<p>Both groups believe that Islam should be a dominant element in the political, social, cultural and economic affairs of the territories they govern. By Islam, they mean the literal application of Quranic verses and the Hadith &#8212; Muhammad’s sayings, his way of life, etc.</p>
<p>When it comes to specific Islamic and Shari’a laws and rules, Iran and ISIS apply the same doctrine. For example, if an adulterer is arrested, she or he should be stoned. Body amputations, tortures, rapes, executions, religious discriminations,  oppressions, and the elimination of any one who disagrees with their ideology are prevalent in the activities of both groups.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the Islamic Republic has enshrined its Islamic and Shari’a laws in its Islamic judiciary, legislative, and executive branches, in a more sophisticated matter in order to legitimize its actions and in order to avert any global outcry and attention.</p>
<p>Both the Islamic Republic and the Islamic State are attempting to spread their version of Islam to other territories in the Muslim and non-Muslim world. The Ayatollahs in Iran fulfill this action in a more clandestine way by funding Shiite and religious schools and movements (such as Hezbollah) in other countries, as well as by interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations through their Quds forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Islamic State carries out these objectives by their offensive attacks to various territories.</p>
<p>In other words, the religious objective of both groups is maintaining an Islamic state, ruling by the religion of Islam and Muhammad, and spreading their version of Islam to other nations.</p>
<p>When it comes to human rights violations, the Islamic Republic enjoys a much heftier file of  human rights abuses with regard to executions, persecution of religious minorities, tortures, amputations, etc. While the Islamic State has been carrying out these atrocities in the last few years, the Islamic Republic began its barbarism with its establishment in 1979.</p>
<p>Militarily speaking, the Islamic Republic of Iran poses a much more serious threat than the Islamic State due to the fact that Iranian clerics possess much more stronger and sophisticated armies, ballistic missiles (which can reach Israel), nuclear programs, and defense systems.</p>
<p>While it remains to be seen whether the Islamist militants of the Islamic State are yet capable of establishing a state and capturing more territories, the Islamic Republic had already established a state run by Islamic doctrine of Shiism, with a large territories – approximately 640,000 square miles excluding their influence and dominance in Lebanon, Iraq, and Syria. As Kissinger pointed out,</p>
<blockquote><p>The borders of the settlement of 1919-&#8217;20 are essentially collapsing… That gives Iran a very powerful level from a strategic point of view. I consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS. ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more territory before they can became a strategic, permanent reality. I think a conflict with ISIS — important as it is — is more manageable than a confrontation with Iran.</p></blockquote>
<p>Strategically speaking, while the Islamic State might pose some threats in some parts of Iraq, the Islamic Republic presents a more serious threat through its control over the Strait of Hormoz, where approximately 20 percent of the world’s petroleum (and nearly 35% of the total petroleum traded through sea), passes through the strait. Iran has threatened repeatedly that it will shut down the strait. Iran already possess an advanced nuclear program that is a step away from developing an atomic bomb. In addition, the Islamic Republic is quietly attempting to significantly alter the military balance of power in the Gulf more to its favor. As <a href="http://www.janes.com/article/42880/pentagon-report-says-iran-is-fielding-anti-ship-ballistic-missiles"><span style="color: #0433ff;">IHS Jane&#8217;s Defence Weekly</span></a> stated, “Iran&#8217;s Khalij Fars anti-ship ballistic missile (AShBM) &#8211; a weapon that could shift the military balance in the Gulf region &#8211; is being delivered to operational units, according to the US Department of Defense&#8217;s annual report to Congress on the Islamic Republic&#8217;s military capabilities.&#8221;</p>
<p>While the politicians and mainstream media have concentrated on the threat of the Islamic State, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is a much more critical threat militarily, strategically, religiously and ideologically, is quietly enjoying and continuing its nuclear program and developing more sophisticated anti-ship ballistic missile, and weaponries which are also being exported to other terrorist groups.</p>
<p>More fundamentally, the Islamic State has averted the world&#8217;s attention from the Islamic Republic’s efforts to build an atomic bomb. This year’s United Nations General Assembly in New York focused mainly on the threat of the Islamic State, while the Islamic Republic enjoyed not being criticized for its nuclear program. As Israel’s ambassador to the United States pointed out, a nuclear Iran is “<a href="http://azjewishpost.com/2014/israeli-envoy-nuclear-iran-is-a-thousand-times-more-dangerous-than-isis/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">thousand times</span></a>” more dangerous to the world than the Islamic State. Nevertheless, we still need to wait for a robust leadership from the United States to take a strong stance against the Ayatollahs and ruling politicians in Iran who continue to carry out gregarious human rights abuses, support terrorism, and threaten the security of other nations.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/majid-rafizadeh/the-islamic-republic-vs-the-islamic-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eric Holder, A Legacy of Race-Based Radicalism</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/eric-holder-a-legacy-of-race-based-radicalism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=eric-holder-a-legacy-of-race-based-radicalism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/eric-holder-a-legacy-of-race-based-radicalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 04:59:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Matthew Vadum]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Race]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharpton]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama's body man calls it quits.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hold.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241853" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hold-413x350.jpg" alt="hold" width="291" height="247" /></a>Attorney General Eric Holder is at long last relinquishing his cabinet post after nearly six unprecedented, catastrophic years of racial demagoguery and gangsterism.</p>
<p>Holder, who announced yesterday that he will leave office when a replacement is selected, will leave behind what is probably the most ugly and toxic legacy of any attorney general ever in the history of the republic.</p>
<p>Although he has all the moral authority of disbarred Duke Lacrosse prosecutor <a href="http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Nifong%20Disbarred%20Now%20How%20About%20Some.html">Mike Nifong</a>, Holder knows he is immune to criticism because he is black and a radical leftist. He is a protected, pampered member of the ruling class and his arrogance knows no bounds. He ignores court orders and gives congressional overseers the finger.</p>
<p>Holder has transformed the U.S. Department of Justice into a racial grievance incubator, an intensive care unit for kooky, authoritarian ideas that should have died after the 1960s. The DoJ, especially its rotten, totally corrupt Civil Rights Division, is a lawyerly commune for revolutionaries who oppose the very idea of the rule of law. Critical Legal Theory and Critical Race Theory govern much of what goes on in the department.</p>
<p>It is no exaggeration to say that Holder leaves death and destruction behind after saturation-bombing the Constitution, orchestrating criminal activity in order to whip up public support for policy changes, fomenting racial tension and violence, persecuting political opponents and disfavored industries, obstructing justice, and enforcing laws arbitrarily and capriciously and in a manner calculated to benefit his friends and allies.</p>
<p>It was all too predictable. Holder was the official assigned to vet President Bill Clinton&#8217;s 176 last-minute pardons in January 2001. Among those pardoned were former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans. He was deeply involved in Clinton&#8217;s pardons of fugitive financier Marc Rich and Puerto Rican terrorists. Holder is an archetype, a living, breathing embodiment of American political corruption.</p>
<p>&#8220;The news that Holder is going to resign should be bittersweet to anyone who cares about racial equality and the rule of law,&#8221; <a href="http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/09/25/goodbye-eric-and-goodridance/?singlepage=true">says</a> <em>Injustice</em> author J. Christian Adams, a lawyer who used to work at the DoJ.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The damage he has already done to the country leaves a turbulent wake that is ill-matched to the financial reward awaiting him at a shameless and large Washington, D.C., law firm. Our country is more polarized and more racially divided because of Eric Holder. He turned the power of the Justice Department into a racially motivated turnout machine for the Democratic Party. That was his job in this administration, and he did it well.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Holder’s time in office &#8220;represents the beginnings of a post-Constitutional era, where the chief law enforcement officer of the United States serves to dismantle legal traditions,&#8221; according to Adams.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Holder is the first attorney general to whom law seemed to be an option, a suggestion on the way to a progressive future. Most folks, and most lawyers, who didn’t devote daily attention to him might not have noticed the ground shifting during his tenure. But shift it did, and very deliberately.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Activism, as opposed to enforcing the law, is the proper role of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, according to Holder. “Any attorney general who is not an activist is not doing his or her job,” he pontificated earlier this year.</p>
<p>Holder is about race, race, and race. It&#8217;s what gets him up in the morning. His sick fixation on skin color is notable even in an administration jam-packed with racial obsessives and identity politics-driven Marxists. He brands those who oppose him as racists. This is usually enough to shut up most Republican lawmakers.</p>
<p>Holder has called America “essentially a nation of cowards,” because most Americans don’t share his radical left-wing multiculturalist views on race.</p>
<blockquote><p>“We, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race. It is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation’s history, this is in some ways understandable…. This nation has still not come to grips with its racial past … ”</p></blockquote>
<p>So America remains a deeply racist nation, just as biased against blacks as it was in the Jim Crow era, as Holder sees it. Government-mandated racism such as affirmative action programs and other special treatment for minorities is desperately needed, in his view.</p>
<p>As attorney general, Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panther Party members who openly brandished weapons at a Philadelphia polling station in 2008 in order to intimidate white voters. He also refused to enforce electoral integrity laws and ferociously opposes voter ID laws because he alleges they discriminate against minorities. He supports affirmative action programs, which by definition, of course, are racist because they discriminate against white Americans. He stood behind the egregious &#8220;Pigford&#8221; settlement, a vote-buying scheme that handed out government cash to black farmers whether or not they suffered discrimination at the hands of federal agriculture officials.</p>
<p>Justice isn&#8217;t blind with Holder. It has rose-colored eyeglasses.</p>
<p>Under Holder, the Department of Justice sent taxpayer-paid community organizers down to Sanford, Florida, to generate mobs to agitate against the so-called white Hispanic, George Zimmerman, since-acquitted of the murder of black juvenile delinquent Trayvon Martin. The agency has done the same thing in the case of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old black man shot dead after accosting a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.</p>
<p>Of course, Holder is the first black U.S. attorney general, a fact he loves to repeat over and over again in speeches and media interviews, as if his race were a <em>bona fide</em> job qualification.</p>
<p>But he is also the first U.S. attorney general in memory to openly declare that he works only to protect the interests of what he calls &#8220;my people,&#8221; or those who share his skin color. White Americans with civil rights complaints are not a priority in Holder&#8217;s Justice Department.</p>
<p>Holder possesses an off-putting combination of creepy self-righteousness, cockiness, hatred of country, and racist contempt for white Americans that makes him the darling of the activist Left and the mainstream media that refuses to report on his many, many misdeeds.</p>
<p>Holder is not We The People&#8217;s lawyer. He is a talented political fixer who would be perfectly at home in Al Capone&#8217;s Chicago. He serves as a personal <em>consigliere</em>, or mob lawyer, to President Obama, the highest elected gangster in the land. And he will never double-cross the <em>capo di tutti capi</em>. He will bend and twist any statute into pretzels, torture any legal precedent into obedience, and strong-arm anyone who gets in his way.</p>
<p>Holder is the legal ringleader for today’s Democrats and their culture of corruption. After being held in criminal contempt of Congress in June 2012 –the first such citation against a sitting attorney general in American history– he is just a few steps away from being impeached in the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate for the high crimes and misdemeanors he has committed against the American people.</p>
<p>A formal impeachment resolution, H.Res. 411 accuses Holder of wrongdoing in connection with his involvement in the Fast and Furious scandal (that reportedly left hundreds of Mexicans and a U.S. border patrolman dead), refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, refusing to prosecute IRS officials who leaked confidential GOP donor tax information, and providing misleading testimony to Congress about whether he approved invasive investigative tactics against reporters like James Rosen of Fox News.</p>
<p>This morally bankrupt racketeer ought to spend the rest of his life in prison. Probably nothing will happen to him. Rumor around Washington has it that President Obama wants to put Holder on the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Holder ally and professional racial huckster Al Sharpton <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/al-sharpton-says-hes-helping-pick-the-next-attorney-general-2014-9">boasts</a> that he is playing a significant role in selecting Holder&#8217;s successor.</p>
<p>He says his so-called civil rights group, the tax-evading National Action Network, is &#8220;engaged in immediate conversations&#8221; with the Obama White House as officials consider a replacement for Holder.</p>
<p>Sharpton drooled over Holder, calling him the &#8220;best&#8221; attorney general ever on civil rights-related issues.</p>
<p>&#8220;The resignation of Attorney General Eric Holder is met with both pride and disappointment by the Civil Rights community,&#8221; said the Jew-hating man who orchestrated the Tawana Brawley rape hoax years ago.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;We are proud that he has been the best Attorney General on Civil Rights in U.S. history and disappointed because he leaves at a critical time when we need his continued diligence most.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The fact that racial arsonist Sharpton holds Holder in such high regard speaks volumes.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/matthew-vadum/eric-holder-a-legacy-of-race-based-radicalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>177</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Muslim Scholars &#8216;Refute&#8217; Islamic State’s Islamic Case — While Endorsing Jihad, Sharia, Caliphate</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/muslim-scholars-refute-islamic-states-islamic-case-while-endorsing-jihad-sharia-caliphate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=muslim-scholars-refute-islamic-states-islamic-case-while-endorsing-jihad-sharia-caliphate</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/muslim-scholars-refute-islamic-states-islamic-case-while-endorsing-jihad-sharia-caliphate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 04:50:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Spencer]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[moderate islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241767</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exposing CAIR's deceptive campaign. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ibrahim-hooper-mahdi-bray-nihad-awad-2009-12-10-10-10-18-300x199.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241770" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/ibrahim-hooper-mahdi-bray-nihad-awad-2009-12-10-10-10-18-300x199.jpg" alt="ibrahim-hooper-mahdi-bray-nihad-awad-2009-12-10-10-10-18-300x199" width="276" height="183" /></a>The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Fiqh Council of North America <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="https://www.facebook.com/CAIRNational/posts/10152420219572695" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">held a press conference</span></a></span> in Washington today at which they declared that they had refuted the religious ideology of the Islamic State. They issued this lengthy “<span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://lettertobaghdadi.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">Open Letter</span></a></span>” (not, interestingly enough, a fatwa) addressed to the Islamic State’s caliph Ibrahim, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, explaining how he was misunderstanding Islam. Is this an Islamic case against the Islamic State’s jihad terror that will move Islamic State fighters to lay down their arms? Or is it a deceptive piece designed to fool gullible non-Muslim Westerners into thinking that the case for “moderate Islam” has been made, but which will not change a single jihadi’s mind? Unfortunately, it is the latter.</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">To be sure, Hamas-linked CAIR and the Fiqh Council and all the signers of this Open Letter really do oppose the Islamic State. But they don’t oppose it because it is transgressing against the commands of what they believe to be a Religion of Peace. They oppose it because they want to establish a caliphate under the auspices of or led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic State constitutes competition. This is clear from their sly endorsements in this document of jihad, the Sharia, and the concept of the caliphate.</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">It begins with an “Executive Summary” which is then filled out in greater detail. I will intersperse commentary below, first in general terms on the Executive Summary, and then taking up the arguments on each point in detail.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Executive Summary</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 1- It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry- pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This is a null argument designed to appeal to non-Muslims who don’t know what is in the Qur’an. For unless one quotes the entire Qur’an and Hadith, this argument can be leveled against anyone: anyone can be accused of leaving out important points and ignoring contradictory material. Whether or not one has actually done so, however, is another matter.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">2- It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Red herring. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph of the Islamic State, is a native Arabic speaker with a Ph.D in Islamic Studies.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">3- It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Again, this is an empty charge, as it can be leveled against anyone.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">4- It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">No doubt the caliph would agree with Hamas-linked CAIR and the Fiqh Council on this. He might differ with them on what exactly constitutes “fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This one is quite telling. It suggests that there is a certain accommodation Muslim believers must make to the times and to circumstance, without changing core principles — i.e., the problem with the Islamic State is not its beliefs, but their application, and the time may be right for the application of those beliefs at some other time, but not now.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Indeed, but who is innocent? The Islamic State jihadis don’t believe they are killing the innocent.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">None of these are blanket prohibitions; infidels considered to be at war with Islam can be killed and, according to Islamic law, must be killed.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">8- Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Disingenuous. Islamic law holds that the caliph alone has the authority to wage offensive jihad. The Islamic State considers itself to be the caliphate, and thus considers its caliph to have that privilege and responsibility.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">What constitutes an open declaration of disbelief? The Sudanese government executed Mahmoud Mohammed Taha for heresy after he said that the Qur’an’s Meccan suras, which are more peaceful, should supersede the Medinan suras, which are more violent. He wasn’t expressing disbelief in Islam, but was nonetheless executed as someone who had departed from the faith of Islam.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">The Qur’an says to fight against and subjugate them (9:29). Once they submit, they should not be harmed or mistreated. But if they are considered to be in rebellion or war against the Muslims, they must be fought.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">11- It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Here again, in a hadith, Muhammad instructs Muslims to invite the unbelievers to Islam, and subjugate them or go to war with them if they refuse. If the Yazidis refused the invitation to convert, they could lawfully be fought.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">12- The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This is flatly false. Slavery is still widely practiced in North Africa, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere because it is sanctioned in Islam.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">13- It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">True, but the laws of dhimmitude are designed essentially to make life miserable for non-Muslims until they opt to convert as their only means to a better existence. Thus the boundaries of what constitutes coercion are somewhat blurred.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">14- It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Indeed. But what are those rights?</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">15- It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Indeed. But what are those rights?</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">16- It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This one is noteworthy, for by it Hamas-linked CAIR and the Fiqh Council and all these scholars affirm that hudud punishments — stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, death for leaving Islam, etc. — can be enacted as long as one is following the correct procedures.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">17- It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">At Khaybar, Muhammad ordered that a fire be lit upon Kinana’s chest until he told the Muslims where the Jews’ treasury was hidden. So what constitutes “torture” is, like so many things in Islam, subject to interpretation.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">18- It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“When the prophet ordered that the corpses of the polytheists be dropped in to a well… He stood over the bodies of twenty-four leaders of Quraish, who had been thrown into one of the wells and started call them by name and by the names of their fathers…” (Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, The Battle of Badr, p. 271)</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">19- It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Once again, a subjective and empty argument — no doubt the Islamic State would deny doing this.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">20- It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“Ali ibn Abi Talib said to me: “Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allah sent me? Do not leave any statue without erasing it, and do not leave any raised grave without leveling it.” (Muslim 969).</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">The Islamic State has stated that the rulers against whom they are fighting have expressed clear disbelief.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This is pure fiction. None of the historic caliphates were established by consensus from all Muslims. Even the first three “Rightly Guided” caliphs were chosen over bitter opposition from the party of Ali, the shiat Ali, which ultimately became the Shi’ites. Also, note that Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars take for granted that the concept of a caliphate is legitimate; they just don’t like this particular one.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This one is rich in light of Hamas-linked CAIR’s opposition to all counter-terror measures. And you never hear them affirming this when it comes to “Palestinians” living in Israel.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">24- After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Not required. I.e., permissible.</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">And now to the fuller document:</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds,</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> Peace and Blessings be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> By the declining day, Lo! man is a state of loss, Save those who believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to endurance. (Al-‘Asr, 103: 1-3)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Open Letter</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">To Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, To the fighters and followers of the self-declared ‘Islamic State’, Peace and the mercy of God be upon you.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">During your sermon dated 6th of Ramadan 1435 AH (4th July 2014 CE), you said, paraphrasing Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq: ‘If you find what I say and do to be true, then assist me, and if you find what I say and do to be false, then advise me and set me straight.’ In what follows is a scholarly opinion via the media. The Prophet said: ‘Religion is [rectifying] advice [1].’ Everything said here below relies completely upon the statements and actions of followers of the ‘Islamic State’ as they themselves have promulgated in social media—or upon Muslim eyewitness accounts—and not upon other media. Every effort has been made to avoid fabrications and misunderstandings. Moreover, everything said here consists of synopses written in a simple style that reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Sunni scholars over the course of Islamic history.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In one of his speeches [2], Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani said: ‘God bless Prophet Muhammad who was sent with the sword as a mercy to all worlds.’[3] This statement comprises compounded confusions and a mistaken paradigm. Yet it is often repeated by followers of the ‘Islamic State’. Now God sent the Prophet Muhammad as a mercy to all worlds: ‘We did not send you, except as a mercy to all the worlds.’ (Al-Anbiya’, 22: 107). This is true for all time and place. The Prophet was sent as mercy to people, animals, plants, to the heavens and to subtle beings—no Muslims disagree about this. It is a general and unconditional statement taken from the Qur’an itself. However, the phrase, ‘sent with the sword’ is part of a Hadith that is specific to a certain time and place which have since expired. Thus it is forbidden to mix the Qur’an and Hadith in this way, as it is forbidden to mix the general and specific, and the conditional and unconditional.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> Moreover, God has prescribed mercy upon Himself: ‘… Your Lord has prescribed for Himself mercy …’ (Al-An’am, 6:54). God also states that His mercy encompasses all things: ‘… My mercy embraces all things …’ (Al-A’raf, 7:156). In an authentic Hadith, the Prophet said: ‘When God created Creation, He wrote in place above His throne, with Himself “Truly, My mercy is greater than My wrath [4].”’ Accordingly, it is forbidden to equate ‘the sword’—and thus wrath and severity—with ‘mercy’. Furthermore, it is forbidden to make the idea ‘mercy to all worlds’ subordinate to the phrase ‘sent with the sword’, because this would mean that mercy is dependent upon the sword, which is simply not true. Besides, how could ‘a sword’ affect realms where swords have no effect, such as the heavens, subtle beings and plants? The Prophet Muhammad’s being a mercy to all the worlds cannot possibly be conditional upon his having taken up the sword (at one point in time, for a particular reason and in a particular context). This point is not merely academic. Rather, it reveals the essence of much of what is to follow since it erroneously equates the sword and Divine mercy.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Muhammad is represented as having said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords” (Bukhari 4.52.73). This is in Bukhari, the hadith collection considered most reliable by Muslim scholars. Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars say that “the phrase, ‘sent with the sword’ is part of a Hadith that is specific to a certain time and place which have since expired” and ask, “How could ‘a sword’ affect realms where swords have no effect, such as the heavens”? So was Paradise once under the shades of swords but is no longer? Or are the authors ignoring this inconvenient hadith because it doesn’t fit their argument? The problem with that is that the Islamic State jihadis read Bukhari.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">1. Legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and Qur’anic exegesis: With regards to Qur’anic exegesis, and the understanding of Hadith, and issue in legal theory in general, the methodology set forth by God in the Qur’an and the Prophet in the Hadith is as follows: to consider everything that has been revealed relating to a particular question in its entirety, without depending on only parts of it, and then to judge—if one is qualified—based on all available scriptural sources. God says: ‘… What, do you believe in part of the Book, and disbelieve in part? …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2:85); ‘… they pervert words from their contexts; and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of…’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5:13); ‘… those who have reduced the Recitation, to parts’ (Al-Hijr, 15:91). Once all relevant scriptural passages have been gathered, the ‘general’ has to be distinguished from the ‘specific’, and the ‘conditional’ from the ‘unconditional’. Also, the ‘unequivocal’ passages have to be distinguished from the allegorical ones. Moreover, the reasons and circumstances for revelation (asbab al-nuzul) for all the passages and verses, in addition to all the other hermeneutical conditions that the classical imams have specified, must be understood. Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point. The reason behind this is that everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired, so it is not permissible to ignore any part of it. Indeed it is imperative to reconcile all texts, as much as possible, or that there be a clear reason why one text should outweigh another. This is what Imam Shafi’i explains in his Al-Risalah, with a universal consensus among all usul scholars. Imam al-Haramayn, Al-Juwayni, says in Al- Burhan fi Usul Al-Fiqh: Regarding the qualities of a mufti and the disciplines that he must master: … it is imperative that the mufti must be a scholar of language, for the Shari’ah is [in] Arabic. … it is imperative that he be a scholar of syntax and parsing … it is imperative that he be a scholar of the Qur’an, for the Qur’an is the basis of all rulings … Knowledge of textual abrogation is indispensable; and the science of the fundamentals of jurisprudence (usul) is the cornerstone of the whole subject … He should also know the various degrees of proofs and arguments … as well as their histories. [He should also know] the science of Hadith so that he can distinguish the authentic from the weak; and the acceptable from the apocryphal … [He should also know] jurisprudence…. Moreover, having ‘legal intuition’ (fiqh al-nafs) is needed: it is the capital of anyone who derives legal rulings … scholars have summarized all this by saying that a mufti is ‘someone who independently knows all the texts and arguments for legal rulings’. ‘Texts’ refers to mastering language, Qura’nic exegesis and Hadith; while ‘arguments’ indicates mastering legal theory, analogical reasoning of the various kinds, as well as ‘legal intuition’ (fiqh al-nafs). Al-Ghazali has said similar things in Al-Mustasfa (Vol. 1, p.342), as did Al-Suyuti in Al- Itqan fi Ulum Al-Qur’an (Vol. 4, p.213).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">A null argument unless they make the case that the Islamic State is really disbelieving in part of the book or ignoring inconvenient data. They don’t make this case.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">2. Language: As mentioned above, one of the most important pillars of legal theory is the mastery of the Arabic Language. This means mastering Arabic grammar, syntax, morphology, rhetoric, poetry, etymology and Qur’anic exegesis. Without mastery of these disciplines, error will be likely, indeed inevitable. Your declaration of what you have termed ‘the Caliphate’ was under the title ‘This is God’s Promise’. The person who phrased this declaration intended to allude to the verse: ‘God has promised those of you who believe and perform righteous deeds that He will surely make them successors in the earth, just as He made those who were before them successors, and He will surely establish for them their religion which He has approved for them, and that He will give them in exchange after their fear security. “They worship Me, without associating anything with Me”. And whoever is ungrateful after that, those, they are the immoral.’ (Al-Nur, 24: 55). But it is not permissible to invoke a specific verse from the Qur’an as applying to an event that has occurred 1400 years after the verse was revealed. How can Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani say that ‘God’s promise’ is this so-called Caliphate? Even if it were supposed that his claim is correct, he should have said: ‘this is of God’s promise’. Moreover, there is another linguistic error; wherein he has appropriated the word ‘istikhlaf’ (succession) to refer to the so-called caliphate. Proof that this is not the correct usage of the word can be seen in the following verse: ‘He said, “Perhaps your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you successors (yastakhlifakum) in the land, that He may observe how you shall act”.’ (Al-A’raf, 7:129). Succession (istikhlaf) means that they have settled on the land in place of another people. It does not mean that they are the rulers of a particular political system. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, there is no tautology in the Qur’an [5]. There is a difference between ‘khilafah’ and ‘istikhlaf’. Al-Tabari says in his exegesis (tafsir) of the Qur’an: ‘make you successors (yastakhlifakum): Meaning He will make you succeed them in their land after their destruction; do not fear them or any other people. [6]’ This proves that the meaning of ‘istikhlaf’ here is not rulership but, rather, dwelling on their land.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“It is not permissible to invoke a specific verse from the Qur’an as applying to an event that has occurred 1400 years after the verse was revealed.” Doesn’t the Qur’an apply to all times, according to standard Islamic belief? And Islamic apologists see contemporary events in it all the time — scientific discoveries, the Moon landing, etc., and Hamas-linked CAIR never denounces them. And the whole argument about “istikhlaf” is ridiculous, for “khalifah” means “successor.” They bring up Qur’an 7:129, which uses a related word in a different context, as if it refuted the idea of the caliph as the successor of Muhammad. Yet this, too, is standard Islamic belief.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">3. Oversimplification: It is not permissible to constantly speak of ‘simplifying matters’, or to cherry-pick an extract from the Qur’an without understanding it within its full context. It is also not permissible to say: ‘Islam is simple, and the Prophet and his noble Companions were simple, why complicate Islam?’ This is precisely what Abu Al-Baraa’ Al-Hindi did in his online video in July 2014. In it he says: ‘Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear … all the scholars tell me: “This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad” … forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.”’ People need to understand that the Prophet and his noble Companions made do with as little material means as possible, without complicated technology, but they were greater than all of us in understanding, jurisprudence and intellect, and yet only a small number of Companions were qualified to issue fatwas. God says in the Qur’an: ‘… Say: “Are those who know equal with those who do not know?”…’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 9). God also says: ‘… Ask the People of the Remembrance if you do not know.’ (Al-Anbiya’, 21: 7); and: ‘… If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them; those among them who are able to think it out, would have known it from them …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 83). Thus, jurisprudence is no simple matter, and not just anyone can speak authoritatively on it or issue fatwas (religious edicts). God says in the Qur’an: ‘… But only people of cores remember.’ (Al-Ra’d, 13:19). And the Prophet Muhammad said: ‘Whoever speaks about the Qur’an without knowledge should await his seat in the Fire [7].’ It is also high time to stop blithely saying that ‘they are men, and we are men’; those who say this do not have the same understanding and discernment as the noble Companions and the imams of the Pious Forebears (al-Salaf al-Saleh) to whom they are referring.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This is another subjective argument: the Qur’an says that it is a “clear book” (5:15), and that there are parts of it that are clear and parts that are not clear (3:7). The Islamic State spokesmen are asserting that the jihad passages are clear. Telling them that jurisprudence isn’t simple doesn’t exactly refute that.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">4. Difference of Opinion: In regards to difference of opinion, there are two kinds: blameworthy and praiseworthy. Regarding blameworthy difference of opinion, God says in the Qur’an: ‘And those who were given the Scripture did not become divided, except after the clear proof had come to them.’ (Al-Bayyinah, 98: 4). As for praiseworthy difference of opinion, God says: ‘… then God guided those who believed to the truth, regarding which they were at variance, by His leave…’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 213). This is the opinion expressed by Al-Imam Al-Shafi’i in Al-Risalah, the other three imams and all the scholars for over a thousand years. When there is a difference of opinion among eminent scholars, the more merciful, i.e. the best, opinion should be chosen. Severity should be avoided, as should the idea that severity is the measure of piety. God says: ‘And follow the best of what has been revealed to you from your Lord …’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 55); and: ‘Indulge [people] with forgiveness, and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.’ (Al-A’raf, 7: 199). God also says: ‘[Those] who listen to the words [of God] and follow the best [sense] of it. Those, they are the ones whom God has guided; and those, they are the people of pith.’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 18). In an authentic Hadith, it is related that the Lady Aisha said: ‘Whenever faced by more than once choice, the Prophet always chose the easiest one [8].’</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The more severe opinion should not be considered more pious, religious or sincere to God. Indeed, in severity there is exaggeration and extremism; God says in the Qur’an: ‘… God desires ease for you, and desires not hardship for you …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 185). Moreover, the Prophet said: ‘Do not be severe with yourselves lest God be severe towards you. A people were severe with themselves and then God was severe towards them [9].’ There is delusion and vanity in severity, because severe people naturally say to themselves: ‘I am severe. Anyone less severe than me is deficient’; and thus: ‘I am superior to them.’ Herein lies an inherent attribution of ill-intention to God, as if God revealed the Qur’an to make people miserable. God says: ‘Tā hā. We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you should be miserable’. (Ta Ha, 20: 1-2).</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">It is worth noting that most of the people who became Muslims throughout history, did so through gentle invitation (da’wah hasanah). God says: ‘Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and dispute with them by way of that which is best. Truly your Lord knows best those who stray from His way and He knows best those who are guided.’ (Al-Nahl, 16: 125). The Prophet said: ‘Be gentle, and beware of violence and foul language [10].’ And while Islam spread politically from Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these lands remained Christian for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion. Indeed large countries and entire provinces became Muslim without conquest but through invitation (da’wah), such as: Indonesia; Malaysia; West and East Africa, and others. Hence, severity is neither a measure of piety nor a choice for the spread of Islam.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This again is a subjective argument: who judges what is gentle and what is severe? The Islamic State is applying Islamic law, which they consider to be justice; how could that be too severe? And as for this: “And while Islam spread politically from Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these lands remained Christian for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion,” it is false. These people were subjected to the deprivations and humiliations of dhimmitude; they converted to Islam to be able to be free of all that and live a decent life.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">5. Practical Jurisprudence (fiqh al-waq’i): What is meant by ‘practical jurisprudence’ is the process of applying Shari’ah rulings and dealing with them according to the realities and circumstances that people are living under. This is achieved by having an insight into the realities under which people are living and identifying their problems, struggles, capabilities and what they are subjected to. Practical jurisprudence (fiqh al-waq’i) considers the texts that are applicable to peoples realities at a particular time, and the obligations that can be postponed until they are able to be met or delayed based on their capabilities. Imam Ghazali said: ‘As for practicalities that dictate necessities, it is not far-fetched that independent reasoning (ijtihad) may lead to them [practicalities], even if there is no specific origin for them [11].’ Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah said: ‘Indeed, [a jurist] must understand people’s propensity for plotting, deception and fraud, in addition to their customs and traditions. Religious edicts (fatwas) change with the change of time, place, customs and circumstances, and all of this is from the religion of God, as already elucidated. [12]’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Again, the Islamic State clearly doesn’t consider itself to be misapplying Islamic law or straining people beyond their capabilities. This point isn’t going to make any of its adherents think twice.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">6. The Killing of Innocents: God says in the Qur’an: ‘And do not slay the soul [whose life] God has made inviolable, except with due cause …’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 33); and ‘Say: “Come, I will recite that which your Lord has made a sacred duty for you: that you associate nothing with Him, that you be dutiful to parents, and that you do not slay your children, because of poverty – We will provide for you and them – and that you do not draw near any acts of lewdness, whether it be manifest or concealed, and that you do not slay the life which God has made sacred, except rightfully. This is what He has charged you with that perhaps you will understand.”’ (Al-An’am, 6: 151). The slaying of a soul—any soul—is haraam (forbidden and inviolable under Islamic Law), it is also one of the most abominable sins (mubiqat). God says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32). You have killed many innocents who were neither combatants nor armed, just because they disagree with your opinions [13].</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Outstandingly disingenuous. Qur’an 5:32 is followed by 5:33: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,” The Islamic State is killing those whom it considers to be striving on earth to cause corruption. Telling them that they’re killing innocents, without explaining why its victims are innocent, will not convince them.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">7. Killing Emissaries: It is known that all religions forbid the killing of emissaries. What is meant by emissaries here are people who are sent from one group of people to another to perform a noble task such as reconciliation or the delivery of a message. Emissaries have a special inviolability. Ibn Masoud said: ‘The Sunnah continues that emissaries are never killed [14].’ Journalists—if they are honest and of course are not spies—are emissaries of truth, because their job is to expose the truth to people in general. You have mercilessly killed the journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, even after Sotloff’s mother pleaded with you and begged for mercy. Aid workers are also emissaries of mercy and kindness, yet you killed the aid worker David Haines. What you have done is unquestionably forbidden (haraam).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">The problem with the verse I quoted regarding the previous point, Qur’an 5:33, is that “striving to cause corruption on the earth” is an extremely vague and elastic charge. It can give an Islamic justification for killing virtually anyone — including emissaries and journalists.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">8. Jihad: All Muslims see the great virtue in jihad. God says: ‘O you who believe, what is wrong with you that, when it is said to you, “Go forth in the way of God’, you sink down heavily to the ground”’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 38); and: ‘And fight in the way of God with those who fight against you, but aggress not; God loves not the aggressors.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 190); and many other verses.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">These passages refer only to defensive jihad. There is also offensive jihad, which is the prerogative of the caliph to initiate: “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, ‘Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled’ (Koran 9.29)” (<em>‘Umdat al-Salik</em>, o9.8). The Islamic State considers itself to be a caliphate, and thus exercises that prerogative.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Imam Shafi’i, the other three imams, and indeed all the scholars see that jihad is a communal obligation (fard kifayah) and not an individual obligation (fard ayn) because God says: ‘yet to each God has promised the goodly reward, and God has preferred those who struggle over the ones who sit at home with a great reward’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 95).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">The inclusion of this sentence seems to be to suggest that the Islamic State is wrong in exhorting everyone to wage jihad. But in Islamic law, while only the caliph can declare offensive jihad, all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that when a non-Muslim force enters a Muslim land, defensive jihad becomes the individual obligation of every Muslim (fard ayn) rather than a collective obligation of the entire umma, and need not be declared by anyone. As the Islamic State is being warred against by the U.S., it considers both offensive and defensive jihad to be in order. <em>Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masalik fi madhhab al-Imam Malik</em> (“The Sufficiency of the Traveller on the Best Path in the School of Imam Malik,”) says this: “Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah [obligatory on the community] once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn [obligatory on every Muslim individually], like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.” The Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i schools of Sunni jurisprudence further declare that jihad, once it is fard ‘ayn, is no different from prayer and fasting — in other words, to engage in warfare with non-Muslims in that case is a religious devotion that cannot lawfully be evaded. <em>Hashiyah Ibn `Abidin</em>, an authoritative text of the Hanafi school, says that jihad is “fard ‘ayn if the enemy has attacked part of the Islamic homeland. It thus becomes an obligation like salah [prayer] and fasting which cannot be abandoned.”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">The word ‘jihad’ is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim; this much is a firmly established principle.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Indeed, Muslims are forbidden in the Qur’an (4:92) to kill other Muslims. But if they’re apostates or heretics, then they must be killed: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (4:89)</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Furthermore, all scholars agree that jihad is conditional upon the consent of one’s parents. The proof for this is that a man came to the Prophet asking him to permit him to perform jihad, upon which the Prophet asked him: ‘Are your parents alive?’ to which he replied: ‘Yes.’ And the Prophet told him: ‘Then perform jihad (struggle) through [serving] them. [15]’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">But if defensive jihad becomes obligatory on every Muslim if an Islamic land is attacked, then parental consent is not needed: “If jihaad becomes fard ‘ayn, then it is not obligatory to seek permission, because in the case of things which are fard ‘ayn, there is no need to seek the permission of anyone.” (<span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://islamqa.info/en/5493" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid</span></a></span>)</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Moreover, there are two kinds of jihad in Islam: the greater jihad, which is the jihad (struggle) against one’s ego; and the lesser jihad, the jihad (struggle) against the enemy. In regards to the greater jihad, the Prophet said: ‘We have returned from the greater jihad to the lesser jihad [16].’ If you say that this Hadith is weak or apocryphal,</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">It doesn’t appear in any of the <em>Sahih Sittah</em>, the six hadith collections that Islamic scholars consider to be most reliable.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">the answer is that evidence for this concept is in the Qur’an itself: ‘So do not obey the disbelievers, but struggle against them therewith with a great endeavour [lit. a great jihad].’ (Al-Furqan, 25:52). ‘Therewith’ in this verse refers to the Qur’an, which is ‘a healing for what is in the breasts’ (Yunus, 10: 57). This is clearly understood from the Hadith in which the Prophet said: “‘Shall I tell you about the best of all deeds, the best act of piety in the eyes of your Lord which will elevate your status in the Hereafter and is better for you than spending gold and paper and better than going up in arms against your enemy and striking their necks and their striking your necks?’ They said: “Yes.” The Prophet said: “Remembrance of God. [17]”’ Thus, the greater jihad is the jihad against the ego and its weapon is remembrance of God and purification of the soul. Furthermore, God has clarified the relationship between the two kinds of jihad in another verse: ‘O you who believe, when you meet a host, then stand firm and remember God much, that you may succeed.’ (Al-Anfal, 8: 45). Thus, standing firm is the lesser jihad and is dependent on the greater jihad which is the jihad against the ego through the remembrance of God and purification of the soul.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Even granting all this, the greater jihad does not preclude or cancel the lesser jihad.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">In any case, jihad is a means to peace, safety and security, and not an end in itself. This is clear from God’s words: ‘Fight them till there is no sedition, and the religion is for God; then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). In your speech of July 4th, 2014, you said: ‘There is no life without jihad’. Perhaps this was based on Al-Qurtubi’s exegesis of the verse: ‘O you who believe, respond to God and the Messenger, when He calls you to that which will give you life …’ (Al-Anfal, 8: 24). True jihad enlivens the heart. However, there can be life without jihad, because Muslims may face circumstances where combat is not called for, or where jihad is not required, and Islamic history is replete with examples of this.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This is quibbling over minutiae. Clearly the Islamic State is waging jihad in order to establish an Islamic state, within which jihad will no longer be waged. Jihad will continue, however, outside its borders. Note also Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars affirming that “jihad enlivens the heart.”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">In truth, it is clear that you and your fighters are fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad. No truthful person following events—friend or foe—can deny this. However, jihad without legitimate cause, legitimate goals, legitimate purpose, legitimate methodology and legitimate intention is not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">a. The Intention Behind Jihad: God says: ‘and that man shall have only what he [himself] strives for’ (Al-Najm, 53: 39). Prophetic Tradition relates that on the authority of Abu Musa Al- Ash’ari, a man came to the Prophet and said: ‘A man may fight out of zeal, out of bravery or out of pride. Which of these is in the path of God?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Whoever fights for the Word of God to be supreme is in the path of God [18].’ The Prophet also said: ‘The first to be judged on the Day of Resurrection is the man who died as a martyr. He will be brought forth and [God] will make His favours known to him, which he will recognize. He will be asked: “What did you do with them?” to which the man will reply: “I fought for your sake until I was killed.” He [i.e. God] will say: “You have lied. You fought so that it would be said that you are bold, and so it was said.” He will then be ordered to be dragged on his face and flung into the Fire …[19]’.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Another null argument, as the Islamic State clearly considers itself to be fighting for “the Word of God to be supreme.”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">b. The Reason behind Jihad: The reason behind jihad for Muslims is to fight those who fight them, not to fight anyone who does not fight them, nor to transgress against anyone who has not transgressed against them. God’s words in permitting jihad are: ‘Permission is granted to those who fight because they have been wronged. And God is truly able to help them; those who were expelled from their homes without right, only because they said: “Our Lord is God”. Were it not for God’s causing some people to drive back others, destruction would have befallen the monasteries, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which God’s Name is mentioned greatly. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is truly Strong, Mighty.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 39-40). Thus, jihad is tied to safety, freedom of religion, having been wronged, and eviction from one’s land. These two verses were revealed after the Prophet and his companions suffered torture, murder, and persecution for thirteen years at the hands of the idolaters. Hence, there is no such thing as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imams Malik and Ahmad and all other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school [20].</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“Hence, there is no such thing as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imams Malik and Ahmad and all other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school.” The key phrase here is “with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school.” If some Shafi’i scholars allow for “offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions,” can it really be said to be un-Islamic? The Shafi’i school is one of the four great schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Is Hamas-linked CAIR pronouncing takfir on the Shafi’i school? Or just deceiving gullible non-Muslims? The answer is clear.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">c. The Goal of Jihad: Scholars are in agreement regarding the goal of jihad, because God says: ‘Fight them till there is no sedition, and the religion is for God; then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). The Prophet further said: ‘I have been ordered to fight people until they say: “There is no god but God”, so whoever says: “There is no god but God” is safe in himself and his wealth except as permitted by law, and his reckoning is with God [21].’ This is the goal of jihad once war has been waged on Muslims.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Extraordinary that they would quote that, as it is a call for endless warfare against all who do not profess Islam, and a license for them to be plundered.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">These texts specify what victory looks like in the case that Muslims are victorious, and that the reason for jihad must not be confused with the goal of jihad; all scholars are in agreement on this matter. The Hadith above refers to an event that has already taken place and is conditional upon God’s words: ‘It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all religion. And God suffices as witness.’ (Al-Fath, 48: 28). It took place in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, for God says: ‘… and that you may warn the Mother of Towns [Um al-Qura] and those around it …’ (Al-An’am, 6: 92); and: ‘O you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 123). The Prophet also said: ‘Evict the idolaters from the Arabian Peninsula.[22]’ How could this not have come to pass when God promises the Prophet: ‘It is He Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all [other] religions, though the disbelievers be averse.’ (Al-Saff, 61: 9). What is meant here must be the Arabian Peninsula since this is what happened during the life of the Prophet.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Yet Muhammad is the supreme example of behavior for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21). Here the authors make the case that these verses apply to the expulsion of the non-Muslims from Arabia, which they clearly endorse, but do not make the case that they apply <em>only</em> to the expulsion of non-Muslims from Arabia. The Qur’an is supposed to apply to all times and places, and Islamic scholars going back to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s first biographer, and including Ibn Qayyam, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Taymiyya and many others, have that the Qur’anic verses mandating warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers are not just valid for the 7th century, but for all time. The Islamic State jihadis know this.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">In any case, if the commanders of jihad see that it is in the best interest of Muslims, it is permissible for them to cease combat, even if this goal has not been achieved, because God says: ‘… then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). The circumstances and events of Sulh al-Hudaybiyah are proof of this.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“Permissible.” I.e., not required.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">d. The Rules of Conduct of Jihad: The rules of conduct of jihad are summarized in the words of the Prophet Muhammad: ‘Wage war but do not be severe, do not be treacherous, do not mutilate or kill children …[23].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Mutilate: “‘Abdullah bin Masood found him on the verge of death breathing his las… Ibn Masood then cut off his head and took it to Allah’s Messenger who, on seeing it, began to entertain Allah’s praise: Allahu Akbar.’ (<em>Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum</em>, 267)</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Kill children: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321)</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4390) Pubescent boys were thus killed, whether they had been combatants or not.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">The Prophet also said on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: ‘Those retreating are not to be killed, nor are the injured to be harmed, and whoever shuts his door is safe [24].’ Similarly, when Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq prepared an army and sent it to the Levant, he said: ‘You will find people who have devoted themselves to monasteries, leave them to their devotions. You will also find others whose heads are seats for devils (i.e. armed deacons [25]), so strike their necks. However, do not kill the old and decrepit, women or children; do not destroy buildings; do not cut down trees or harm livestock without good cause; do not burn or drown palms; do not be treacherous; do not mutilate; do not be cowardly; and do not loot. And truly God will support those who support Him and His Messengers while not seeing Him. Truly, God is Strong, Mighty [26].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Again: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321)</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">As for killing prisoners, it is forbidden in Islamic Law. Yet you have killed many prisoners including the 1700 captives at Camp Speicher in Tikrit in June, 2014; the 200 captives at the Sha’er gas field in July, 2014; the 700 captives of the Sha’etat tribe in Deir el-Zor (600 of whom were unarmed civilians); the 250 captives at the Tabqah air base in Al-Raqqah in August, 2014; Kurdish and Lebanese soldiers, and many untold others whom God knows. These are heinous war crimes.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests … (of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.” (<em>‘Umdat al-Salik</em> o9.14)</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“As for the captives, the amir has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first, to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale or manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them.” (<em>Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah</em> (The Laws of Islamic Governance), 4.5)</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">If you claim that the Prophet killed some captives in some battles, then the answer is that he only ordered that two captives be killed at the Battle of Badr: Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt and Nadr ibn Al-Harith. They were leaders of war and war criminals, and the execution of war criminals is permissible if the ruler orders it. This is also what Saladin did upon conquering Jerusalem, and what the Allies did during the Nuremberg trials after World War II. As for the tens of thousands of captives that fell under the jurisdiction of the Prophet over a span of ten years and 29 battles, he did not execute a single regular soldier; rather, he entrusted that they be treated with kindness [27]. The Divine Decree regarding captives and prisoners of war is in God’s words: ‘…Thereafter either [set them free] by grace or by ransom …’ (Muhammad, 47: 4). God commanded that captives and prisoners of war be treated with dignity and respect: ‘And they give food, despite [their] love of it to the needy, and the orphan, and the prisoner.’ (Al-Insan, 76: 8). Indeed, the true Sunnah of the Prophet regarding captives is pardon and amnesty, as was demonstrated during the Conquest of Mecca when the Prophet said: ‘I say as my brother Joseph said: “There shall be no reproach on you this day”. Go, for you are free! [28]’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">As quoted above, Islamic law clearly allows for the killing of captives if the ruler deems it advantageous for the Muslims.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Finally, one of the most important principles when it comes to the manner of jihad is that only combatants may be killed; their families and non-combatants may not be killed intentionally. If you ask about the instance when the Prophet was asked about bystanders and women being killed with idolaters and he said: ‘They are from them [29]’, this Hadith refers to the killing of innocents by accident and in no way indicates that the intentional killing of innocents—such as in bombings—is permitted. As for God’s words: ‘… and be harsh with them …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 73); and: ‘… and let them find harshness in you …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 123), this is during war, not after it.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">I quoted the “They are from them” hadith twice above. Look at it again. The Open Letter says: “this Hadith refers to the killing of innocents by accident and in no way indicates that the intentional killing of innocents—such as in bombings—is permitted.” But the hadith says that the women and children of the polytheists were being killed during the night raid. They were collateral damage of the raid, just as they today might be collateral damage of a bombing — and Muhammad allows for that. Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars are here obscuring the plain meaning of the passage.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">9. Declaring People Non-Muslim (takfir): Some misunderstandings about takfir are a result of the exaggeration of some Salafi scholars in matters of takfir (declaring people non-Muslim), and in their exceeding of what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim have said in many important aspects. In brief, takfir can be summarised correctly as follows:</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> a. Quintessentially in Islam, anyone who says: ‘There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ is a Muslim and cannot be declared a non-Muslim. God says: ‘O you who believe, when you are going forth in the way of God, be discriminating and do not say to him who offers you peace: ‘You are not a believer, desiring the transient goods of the life of this world. With God are plenteous spoils. So you were formerly, but God has been gracious to you. So be discriminating. Surely God is ever Aware of what you do.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 94). The meaning of ‘be discriminating’ in the above verse is to ask them: ‘Are you Muslims?’ The answer is to be taken at face-value without questioning or testing their faith. Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad  said: ‘Woe to you! Look! After I die, do no return to being non-believers, striking each other’s necks [30].’ The Prophet also said: ‘… so whoever says: “There is no god but God” saves himself and his wealth except as permitted by law, and his reckoning is with God. [31]’ Ibn Omar and the Lady Aisha also said: ‘Declaring the people of the Qiblah as non-Muslim is not permissible [32].’</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> b. This issue is of the utmost importance because it is used to justify the spilling of Muslim blood, violating their sanctity, and usurping their wealth and rights. God says: ‘And whoever slays a believer deliberately, his requital is Hell, abiding therein, and God is wroth with him and has cursed him, and has prepared for him a mighty chastisement.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 93). Moreover, the Prophet said: ‘Whoever says to his brother “O disbeliever”, it will certainly be true of one of them [33].’ God has warned, in the strongest terms, against killing anyone who verbally declares his Islam: ‘… And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God does not allow you any way against them.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 90). The Prophet warned against accusing people of polytheism and of taking up the sword against them; he said: ‘The person I fear for you the most is the man who has read the Qur’an … cast it off and thrown it behind him, and taken up the sword against his neighbour and accused him of polytheism [34].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Here Hamas-linked CAIR contradicts itself quite brazenly, for it has declared the Islamic State to be the anti-Islamic State, and yet the Muslims of the Islamic State say, “There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">It is not permissible to kill any Muslim, (nor indeed any human being), who is unarmed and a non-combatant. Usamah Ibn Zayd narrated that, after he killed a man who had said: ‘There is no god but God’, ‘the Prophet asked: “He said: ‘There is no god but God’ and you killed him?!” I replied: “O Messenger of God, he only said it out of fear of [our] arms.” He said: “Did you see inside his heart to know whether or not he meant it? [35]”’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This only establishes that unarmed Muslims must not be killed, and doesn’t supersede the Qur’an verse enjoining the death of someone who joins the Muslims and then leaves them (4:89, quoted above).</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Recently, Shaker Wahib—who was affiliated with what was known at the time as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—appeared in a YouTube video where he stopped unarmed civilians who said they were Muslims. He then proceeded to ask them the number of prostrations (rak’ahs) in specific prayers. When they answered incorrectly, he killed them [36]. This is absolutely forbidden under Islamic Law and is a heinous crime.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">He killed them because their wrong answers revealed them to be Shi’ites, whom Sunnis consider heretics, or non-observant Muslims, i.e., apostates. Both heretics and apostates are to be killed according to Islamic law.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">c. Peoples’ deeds are tied to the intent behind those deeds. The Prophet said: ‘Actions are but by intention, and every person will have what they intended …[37].’ Furthermore, God says: ‘When the hypocrites come to you they say: ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of God’. And God knows that you are indeed His Messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites truly are liars.’ (Al-Munafiqun, 63: 1). God thus describes the words of the hypocrites regarding the Prophet’s message—an indisputable fact—as lies, because their intention when saying it was to lie even though it is true in itself. It is a lie because they uttered with their tongues a truth that God knows their hearts reject. This means that disbelief requires the intention of disbelief, and not just absentminded words or deeds. It is not permissible to accuse anyone of disbelief without proof of the intention of disbelief. Nor is it permissible to accuse anyone of being a non- Muslim without ascertaining that intention. It is, after all, possible that the person was coerced, ignorant, insane or did not mean it. It is also possible that he misunderstood a particular issue. God says: ‘Whoever disbelieves in God after [having affirmed] his faith—except for him who is compelled, while his heart is at rest in faith—but he who opens up his breast to unbelief, upon such shall be wrath from God, and there is a great chastisement for them.’ (Al-Nahl, 16: 106).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Hamas-linked CAIR again contradicts itself: it has called the Islamic State un-Islamic, thus essentially calling its leaders unbelievers, and yet it does not know their hearts or have proof of the intention of disbelief.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">It is forbidden to interpret the implications of a person’s deeds; only the person himself or herself may interpret their own deeds—particularly when there is a difference of opinion among Muslims regarding that particular deed. It is also forbidden to declare others non-Muslim (takfir) based on any matter in which there is a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/hamas-linked-cairs-nihad-awad-calling-the-islamic-state-the-islamic-state-tarnishes-the-image-of-islam" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">Hamas-linked CAIR is guilty of that</span></a></span>.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">It is forbidden to declare an entire group of people non-Muslim. Disbelief applies only to individuals depending on their deeds and intentions. God says: ‘No laden soul will bear another’s load.’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 7). Finally, it is forbidden to declare people who do not doubt the disbelief of others, or refuse to declare them non-Muslim, as non-Muslim.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The reason this point has been discussed in such detail is because you distributed the books of Muhammad bin Abdel-Wahhab as soon as you reached Mosul and Aleppo. In any case, scholars— including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah—distinguish between the actions of a disbeliever (kafir) and declaring people non-Muslim (takfir). Even if a person performs a deed that has elements of disbelief, this does not necessitate that that person be judged as a disbeliever for the reasons presented earlier. Al-Dhahabi [38] related that his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, used to say near the end of his life: ‘I do not declare any member of the ummah non-Muslim … The Prophet said: “Anyone who maintains his ablution is a believer”, so whoever observes the prescribed prayers with ablution is a Muslim.’</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">This is a crucial point; the Prophet said: ‘Subtle shirk [i.e. associating partners with God] is when a man stands to pray and embellishes his prayer for an onlooker [39].’ He thereby described ostentation in prayer as ‘subtle shirk’, which is minor shirk. This minor shirk, which some worshippers fall into, is not considered major shirk and cannot lead to takfir or to being cast out of the fold of Islam. For other than prophets and messengers, everyone else worships God according to their capacity, and not as God deserves. God says: ‘They measured not God with His true measure …’ (Al-An’am, 6: 91); and: ‘And they will question you concerning the Spirit. Say: “The Spirit is of the command of my Lord. And of knowledge you have not been given except a little”.’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 85). Nevertheless, God accepts such worship. And people are not able to conceive of God, because: ‘…There is nothing like Him …’ (Al-Shura, 42: 11); and: ‘Vision cannot attain Him, but He attains [all] vision …’ (Al-An’am, 6:103). Nothing is known of Him except for what He has revealed through revelation (al-wahy) or He imparted to the Prophet Muhammad: ‘… He casts the Spirit of His command upon whomever He will of His servants …’ (Ghafir, 40: 15). So how can anyone take up a sword against others just because he or she believes that they do not worship God as He deserves? No one worships God as He deserves except by His permission. More fundamentally, the issue of shirk among the Arabs is moot, as the Prophet said: ‘The Devil has lost hope that those who pray in the Arabian Peninsula will worship him, but [aims] to sow discord among them [40].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“If we want to stop ISIS, we must deny it any claim to represent Islam…” — <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/hamas-linked-cairs-nihad-awad-calling-the-islamic-state-the-islamic-state-tarnishes-the-image-of-islam" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad</span></a></span>. In this, he essentially accuses Islamic State jihadis of apostasy and heresy, which is just what the authors here are saying is so wrong.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">10. People of the Scripture: Regarding Arab Christians, you gave them three choices: jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam. You painted their homes red, destroyed their churches, and in some cases, looted their homes and property. You killed some of them and caused many others to flee their homes with nothing but their lives and the clothes on their backs. These Christians are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it, indeed they are friends, neighbours and co- citizens. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they all fall under ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them. Some of their ancestors fought alongside the Prophet’s army against the Byzantines; and thus have been citizens of the State of Medina since that time. Others are under agreements that were guaranteed to them by Omar ibn Al- Khattab, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans and their respective states. In short, they are not strangers to these lands, but rather, of the native peoples of these lands from pre-Islamic times; they are not enemies but friends. For the past 1400 years they have defended their countries against the Crusaders, colonialists, Israel and other wars, how, then, can you treat them as enemies? God says in the Qur’an: ‘God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly and deal with them justly. Assuredly God loves the just.’ (Al- Mumtahanah, 60: 8).</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">As for jizyah, there are two types of jizyah in Shari’ah (Islamic Law). The first type is that which is levied while the subjects are ‘readily being subdued’. This applies to those who fought Islam, as is understood from God’s words: ‘Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor do they practise the religion of truth, from among of those who have been given the Scripture, until they pay the jizya tribute, readily being subdued.’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 29). As is clarified by a preceding verse in this Surah (chapter of the Qur’an), those intended by this verse are parties who pre- emptively attacked Muslims: ‘Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger – initiating against you first? Are you afraid of them? God is more worthy of your fear if you are believers.’ (Al-Tawbah, 9:13) [41]. The second type of jizyah is levied on those who do not wage war against Islam; it is levied on them instead of zakat (which only Muslims pay and which is higher in percentage than the jizyah) through a covenant and without harshness. Omar ibn Al-Khattab agreed to call it ‘charity’ (sadaqah). The jizyah is then deposited to the state treasury and is distributed among citizens, including needy Christian citizens as Omar did during his caliphate [42].</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This point is self-contradictory. First it says that the Arab Christians are friends of the Muslims, they “did not wage war against you” and thus should not have been subjugated as dhimmis. Then in the next paragraph it says that “the second type of jizyah is levied on those who do not wage war against Islam.” Thus how is the Islamic State transgressing against Islam by levying the jizya on those who did not wage war against Islam. In this the authors also contradict their earlier claim that jihad is only defensive; now “those who do not wage war against Islam” are to be made to pay the jizya, which results from Muslims fighting the People of the Book: ““Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Qur’an 9:29)</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">11. Yazidis: You fought the Yazidis under the banner of jihad but they neither fought you nor Muslims. You considered them satanists and gave them the choice to either be killed or be forced into Islam. You killed hundreds of them and buried them in mass graves. You caused the death and suffering of hundreds of others. Had it not been for American and Kurdish intervention, tens of thousands of their men, women, children and elderly would have been killed. These are all abominable crimes. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they are Magians, because the Prophet said: ‘Treat them as you treat People of the Scripture [43].’ Thus they are People of the Scripture. God says: ‘Truly those who believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, and the Magians and the polytheists – God will indeed judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Assuredly God, over all things, is Witness.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 17). Even if you doubt that they are People of the Scripture, from the legal perspective of Shari’ah, many scholars of the Pious Forebears considered them to be commensurate with Magians based on the aforementioned Hadith. The Umayyads even considered Hindus and Buddhists to be dhimmis. Al-Qurtubi said: ‘Al-Awza’i said: “Jizyah is levied on those who worship idols and fire, as well as on unbelievers and agnostics.” This is also the Maliki position, for Imam Malik’s opinion was that jizyah is levied on all idol worshippers and unbelievers, be they Arab or non-Arabs … except for apostates [44].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">So these “moderates” are saying that the Yazidis should have been subjugated as dhimmis instead of killed. How wonderfully moderate! And if they are not People of the Book, “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” — that is, or are killed (<em>‘Umdat al-Salik 09.9).</em></span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">12. Slavery: No scholar of Islam disputes that one of Islam’s aims is to abolish slavery. God says: ‘And what will show you what the obstacle is?, the freeing of a slave, or to give food on a day of hunger’ (Al-Balad, 90: 12-14); and: ‘… then [the penalty for them is] the setting free of a slave before they touch one another …’ (Al-Mujadilah, 58: 3). The Prophet Muhammad’s Sunnah is that he freed all male and female slaves who were in his possession or whom had been given to him [45]. For over a century, Muslims, and indeed the entire world, have been united in the prohibition and criminalization of slavery, which was a milestone in human history when it was finally achieved.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">This is absolutely false. <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://islamqa.info/en/94840" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">Neither the Qur’an nor Muhammad ever say that all slaves must be freed</span></a></span>. And this statement, “For over a century, Muslims, and indeed the entire world, have been united in the prohibition and criminalization of slavery,” is a howler. Saudi Arabia only abolished slavery in 1962. Yemen and Oman both ended legal slavery in 1970. Mauritania only abolished it in 1981 and made it a crime in 2012, but it is still widespread there — because it has Islamic sanction. Niger only abolished it in 2004. In Niger, the ban is widely ignored, and according to a Nigerian study, <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4250709.stm" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">as many as one million people remain in bondage there</span></a></span>.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">The Prophet said regarding the pre-Islamic ‘League of the Virtuous’ (hilf al- fudul) during the time of Jahiliyyah: ‘Had I been asked to fulfil it in Islam, I would oblige [46].’ After a century of Muslim consensus on the prohibition of slavery, you have violated this; you have taken women as concubines and thus revived strife and sedition (fitnah), and corruption and lewdness on the earth. You have resuscitated something that the Shari’ah has worked tirelessly to undo and has been considered forbidden by consensus for over a century. Indeed all the Muslim countries in the world are signatories of anti-slavery conventions. God says: ‘… And fulfil the covenant. Indeed the covenant will be enquired into.’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 34) You bear the responsibility of this great crime and all the reactions which this may lead to against all Muslims.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“After a century of Muslim consensus on the prohibition of slavery…” As shown above, this consensus does not exist, and has never existed.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">13. Coercion and Compulsion: God says: ‘you are not a taskmaster over them’ (Al-Ghashiyah, 88: 22); and: ‘There is no compulsion in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error …’ (Al- Baqarah, 2: 256); and: ‘And if your Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Would you then compel people until they are believers?’ (Yunus, 10: 99); and: ‘And say, “The truth [that comes] from your Lord; so whoever will, let him believe, and whoever will, let him disbelieve”.’ (Al-Kahf, 18: 29); and: ‘You have your religion and I have my religion’ (Al- Kafirun, 109: 6).</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">It is known that the verse: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca, hence, no one can claim that it was abrogated. You have coerced people to convert to Islam just as you have coerced Muslims to accept your views. You also coerce everyone living under your control in every matter, great or small, even in matters which are between the individual and God. In Al-Raqqa, Deir el-Zor and other areas under your control, armed groups who call themselves ‘al-hisbah’ make their rounds, taking people to task as though they were assigned by God to execute His commandments. Yet, not a single one of the Companions did this. This is not enjoining the right and honourable and forbidding the wrong; rather, it is coercion, assault, and constant, random intimidation. If God wanted this, He would have obliged them over the minutest details of His religion. God says: ‘… Have they not realised, those who believe, that had God willed, He could have guided all mankind? …’ (Al-Ra’d, 13: 31); and: ‘If We will We will send down to them a sign from the heaven before which their necks will remain bowed in humility.’ (Al-Shu’ara’, 26: 4).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Coercion, like so many things in Islam, is a matter of subjective judgment. A belief system that mandates systematic discrimination against unbelievers but promises the lifting of that discrimination for those who convert is already practicing coercion, but this would not be judged coercion by Islamic jurists. So likewise it is unlikely that the Islamic State considers itself to be practicing un-Islamic coercion. Also, contrary to the claim that 2:256 was never abrogated, according to an early Muslim scholar, Mujahid ibn Jabr, it was actually abrogated by Quran 9:29, which commands Muslims to fight the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, agree that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">As a side note, Islamic apologists routinely claim that the principle of abrogation cannot be applied to Qur’an verses at all. Yet here, the authors take for granted that it can.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">14. Women: In simple terms, you treat women like detainees and prisoners; they dress according to your whims; they are not allowed to leave their homes and they are not allowed to go to school. Despite the fact that the Prophet said: ‘The pursuit of knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim [47]’, and despite the fact that the first word revealed of the Qur’an was: ‘Read’. Nor are they allowed to work or earn a living; nor allowed to move about freely and they are forced to marry your fighters. God says: ‘O people, fear your Lord, Who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them scattered many men and women; and fear God by whom you claim [your rights] from one another and kinship ties. Surely God has been watchful over you.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 1). And the Prophet said: ‘Treat women well [48].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“They dress according to your whims”: “A majority of scholars (n: with the exception of some Hanafis…) have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation.” (<em>‘Umdat al-Salik</em> m2.3)</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“Not allowed to leave their homes”: “A husband may permit his wife to leave the house for a lesson in Sacred Law, for invocation of Allah (dhikr), to see her female friends, or to go to any place in the town. A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin … accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to….The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home (O: because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said. ‘It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse’).” (<em>‘Umdat al-Salik</em> m2.3-4) If women can be forbidden to leave the house, obviously they can be forbidden to go to school or work.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">15. Children: You have made children engage in war and killing. Some are taking up arms and others are playing with the severed heads of your victims. Some children have been thrown into the fray of combat and are killing and being killed. In your schools some children are tortured and coerced into doing your bidding and others are being executed. These are crimes against innocents who are so young they are not even morally accountable. God says: ‘What is wrong with you, that you do not fight in the way of God, and for the oppressed men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, bring us forth from this town whose people are evildoers and appoint for us a protector from You, and appoint for us from You a helper”.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 75).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">The Qur’an verse doesn’t establish what they claim it establishes. The Islamic State obviously does not think that its training of children to be jihadis constitutes “oppression.”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">16. Hudud (Punishment): Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law. However, they are not to be applied without clarification, warning, exhortation, and meeting the burden of proof; and they are not to be applied in a cruel manner. For example, the Prophet avoided hudud in some circumstances, and as is widely known, Omar ibn Al-Khattab suspended the hudud during a famine. In all schools of jurisprudence, hudud punishments have clear procedures that need to be implemented with mercy, and their conditions render it difficult to actually implement them. Moreover, suspicions or doubts avert hudud; i.e. if there is any doubt whatsoever, the hudud punishment cannot be implemented. The hudud punishments are also not applied to those who are in need or deprived or destitute; there are no hudud for the theft of fruits and vegetables or for stealing under a certain amount. You have rushed to enact the hudud while, in reality, conscientious religious fervour makes implementing hudud punishments something of the utmost difficulty with the highest burden of proof.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law.” This is a telling admission, since usually Islamic apologists in the West deny that these punishments — stoning amputation, etc. — are really part of Islam or Sharia at all. Hamas-linked CAIR has led campaigns against anti-Sharia laws that depend in large part on the claim that these punishments are not part of Sharia. Now Hamas-linked CAIR has admitted otherwise. The claim that the Islamic State has not implemented them properly is just a judgment call, not a refutation of the Islamic State’s practices.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">17. Torture: Your captives and some of those who were under your control have said that you tortured and terrorized them through beatings; murder and various other forms of torture, including burying people alive. You have decapitated people with knives, which is one of the cruellest forms of torture and is forbidden in Islamic Law (Shari’ah).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (Qur’an 47:4)</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">In the mass killings you have committed— which are forbidden under Islamic Law—your fighters mock those they are about to kill by telling them that they will be killed like sheep, bleating and then indeed butchering them like sheep. Your fighters are not satisfied with mere killing, they add humiliation, debasement and mockery to it. God says: ‘O you who believe, do not let any people deride another people: who may be better than they are …’ (Al-Hujurat, 49: 11).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Humiliation is promised by Allah to the unbelievers: “They have been put under humiliation wherever they are…” (Qur’an 3:112)</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">And Muhammad indulged in obscene mockery: “Ubayy b. Ka’b told that he heard God’s messenger say, ‘If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, and do not use a euphemism.’ It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna.” (<em>Mishkat Al Masabih</em>, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers &amp; Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV — General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021) And: “Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” — al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship — “Would we flee and leave him?” “ (<em>The History of al-Tabari — The Victory of Islam</em>, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76)</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to ‘Urwah: ‘Suck Al-Lat’s clitoris!’ — there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: ‘Bite your father’s penis!’ And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying.” (<em>Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma’ad)</em>, by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers &amp; Distributors, First Edition: September 2003]</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">18. Mutilation: Not only have you mutilated corpses, you have stuck the decapitated heads of your victims on spikes and rods and kicked their severed heads around like balls and broadcast it to the world during the World Cup—a sport that is permissible in principle in Islam and which allows people to relieve stress and forget their problems. You jeered at corpses and severed heads and broadcast these acts from the military bases you overran in Syria. You have provided ample ammunition for all those who want to call Islam barbaric with your broadcasting of barbaric acts which you pretend are for the sake of Islam. You have given the world a stick with which to beat Islam whereas in reality Islam is completely innocent of these acts and prohibits them.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Note that no Islamic authority is quoted to back this up. The authors are just arguing that the Islamic State has made Islam look bad: “You have provided ample ammunition for all those who want to call Islam barbaric…”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">19. Attributing crimes to God in the name of humility: After tying Syrian soldiers of the 17th Division in North-eastern Syria to barbed wire, you cut off their heads with knives and posted a video of this on the internet. In the video you said: ‘We are your brothers, the soldiers of the Islamic State. God has favoured us with His grace and victory by conquering the 17th Division; a victory and favour through God. We seek refuge in God from our might and power. We seek refuge in God from our weapons and our readiness.’ You thus attributed this heinous crime to God, and made as if this were an act of humility to God, by saying that He did it and not you. But God says: ‘And when they commit any indecency they say, “We found our fathers practising it, and God has enjoined it on us”. Say, “God does not enjoin indecency. Do you say concerning God that which you do not know?”’ (Al-A’raf, 7: 28).</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Yet another null argument, as the Islamic State would argue that this is not indecency.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">20. Destruction of the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions. You have blown up and destroyed the graves of Prophets and Companions. Scholars disagree on the subject of graves. Nevertheless, it is not permissible to blow up the graves of Prophets and Companions and disinter their remains, just as it is not permissible to burn grapes under the pretext that some people use them to make wine. God says: ‘… Those who prevailed regarding their affair, “We will verily set up over them, a place of worship”.’ (Al-Kahf, 18:21); and: ‘… Take to yourselves Abraham’s station for a place of prayer …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 125). The Prophet said: ‘I had previously prohibited you from visiting graves. Permission has been granted for Muhammad to visit his mother’s grave, so visit them [i.e. graves] for they remind [one] of death and the Hereafter [49].’ Visiting graves reminds people of death and the Hereafter; God says in the Qur’an: ‘Rivalry [in worldly things] distracts you until you visit the graves.’ (Al-Takathur, 102: 1-2).</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Your former leader, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi said: ‘In our opinion, it is obligatory to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry) and to prohibit all means that lead to it because of Muslim’s narration in his Sahih: on the authority of Abu Al-Hiyaj Al-Asadi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “Should I not tell you what he [i.e. the Prophet] sent me to do: not to leave a statue without obliterating it nor a raised grave without levelling it.”’ However, even if what he said were true, it does not apply to the graves of Prophets or Companions, as the Companions were in consensus regarding burying the Prophet and his two Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, in a building that was contiguous to the Prophet’s Mosque.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“Scholars disagree on the subject of graves.” Indeed, and the Islamic State can point to Islamic authorities who justify the destruction of graves and shrines. The graves of prophets are destroyed as being temptations to idolatry.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">21. Rebelling against the leader. It is impermissible to rebel against the leader who is not guilty of declared and candid disbelief (al-kufr al-bawwah); i.e. disbelief that he himself admits to openly and where all Muslims are in consensus regarding such a person being a non-Muslim—or by his prohibiting the establishment of prayers. The evidence of this is in God’s words: ‘O you who believe, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 59). The Prophet also said: ‘Listen and obey even if an Abyssinian whose head is like a raisin is given authority over you [50].’ The Prophet also said: ‘The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God’s blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): “Shouldn’t we overthrow them by the sword?” He said: “No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them, you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience [51].”’ As for a ruler who is a reprobate or corrupt, he is to be removed by those qualified to elect or dispose a caliph on behalf of the Ummah (nation) (ahl al-hall wal- ‘aqd)—if possible— without sedition (fitnah), armed rebellion or bloodshed. However, he is not rebelled against. It is forbidden to rebel against a leader even if he does not implement the Shari’ah or a portion of it, for God says: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed – such are the disbelievers.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 44); and: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed, those are the evildoers.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 45); and: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed – those are the wicked.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 47). So, there are three levels of those who do not implement the Shari’ah: disbelief (kufr), evildoing (fusuq) and wickedness (dhulm). Whoever prevents the Shari’ah from being practiced at all in a Muslim country is a disbeliever, but one who does not implement part of it or only implements its higher purposes is merely an evildoer or wicked. In some countries, the implementation of Shari’ah is restricted due to matters of sovereignty on which national security depends, and this is permissible. In summary, Ibn Abbas52 says that whoever does not implement Shari’ah is a wicked evildoer, but he is not a disbeliever and rebelling against him is forbidden. Ibn Abbas said that ruling by other than God’s commandments is ‘disbelief short of disbelief.’ He also said: ‘It is not the disbelief that they mean; it is not a disbelief that casts one from the fold of religion.’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">“It is impermissible to rebel against the leader who is not guilty of declared and candid disbelief” — but the Islamic State asserts this about those leaders against whom they are fighting.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">22. The Caliphate: There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">A notable and extremely important admission.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE. However, a new caliphate requires consensus from Muslims and not just from those in some small corner of the world. Omar ibn Al-Khattab said: ‘Whosoever pledges allegiance to a man without due consultation with Muslims has fooled himself; and neither he nor the man to whom he pledged allegiance should be followed for he has risked both their lives [53].’Announcing a caliphate without consensus is sedition (fitnah) because it renders the majority of Muslims who do not approve it outside of the caliphate. It will also lead to many rival caliphates emerging, thereby sowing sedition and discord (fitnah) among Muslims. The beginnings of this discord reared its head when the Sunni imams of Mosul did not pledge allegiance to you and you killed them.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Throughout Islamic history, no caliphate has ever been established by universal consensus, and there have been rival caliphates. The Abbasids, for example, defeated the Umayyads at the Battle of the Zab in 750 and supplanted them not by universal consensus, but by force.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">In your speech you quoted the Companion Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq: ‘I have been given authority over you, and I am not the best of you.’ This begs the question: who gave you authority over the ummah? Was it your group? If this is the case, then a group of no more than several thousand has appointed itself the ruler of over a billion and a half Muslims. This attitude is based upon a corrupt circular logic that says: ‘Only we are Muslims, and we decide who the caliph is, we have chosen one and so whoever does not accept our caliph is not a Muslim.’ In this case, a caliph is nothing more than the leader of a certain group that declares more than 99% of Muslims non- Muslim. On the other hand, if you recognize the billion and a half people who consider themselves Muslims, how can you not consult (shura) them regarding your so-called caliphate? Thus, you face one of two conclusions: either you concur that they are Muslims and they did not appoint you caliph over them—in which case you are not the caliph—or, the other conclusion is that you do not accept them as Muslims, in which case Muslims are a small group not in need of a caliph, so why use the word ‘caliph’ at all? In truth, the caliphate must emerge from a consensus of Muslim countries, organizations of Islamic scholars and Muslims across the globe.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">The Islamic State is appealing to so many young Muslims in the West because of its claim to reconstitute the caliphate. Caliphates are established and sustained on the principle of Might Makes Right. If the Islamic State sustains itself and survives, more and more Muslims will pledge allegiance to it.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">23. National affiliations: In one of your speeches you said: ‘Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis54.’ In the same speech, you called on Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant. By doing so, you take the rights and resources of these countries and distribute them among people who are strangers to those lands, even though they are of the same religion. This is exactly what Israel did when it invited Jewish settlers abroad to immigrate to Palestine, evict the Palestinians and usurp their ancestral rights and lands. Where is the justice in this?</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Simply, patriotism and loving one’s country does not contradict Islam’s teachings, rather, loving one’s country stems from faith, being both instinctual and a Sunnah. The Prophet said, addressing Mecca: ‘How goodly a land you are, and how beloved you are to me. Were it not that my people forced me to leave, I would not have lived anywhere else [55].’ Patriotism and love for one’s country have many proofs from the Qur’an and Sunnah. God says in the Qur’an: ‘And had We prescribed for them: “Slay yourselves” or “Leave your habitations”, they would not have done it, save a few of them …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 66). Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi commented: ‘Leaving one’s land is equal to slaying oneself [56].’And on the authority of Anas Ibn Malik, the Prophet ‘would, upon seeing the walls of Medina when returning from travel, hasten the pace of his she-camel. If he was riding a mount, he would move it out of love for [Medina] [57] .’ Ibn Hajar said: ‘This Hadith is proof of the virtue of Medina, and of the legal validity of loving one’s country and longing for it [58].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">The authors are on extremely shaky ground here, for according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad wasn’t from Medina. He was from Mecca. He moved to Medina and called on Muslims to immigrate there. The Islamic State is imitating him.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">24. Emigration. You invited Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant. [59] Abu Muslim Al-Canadi, a soldier of the ‘Islamic State’, said: ‘Come and join us [in Syria] before the doors close [60].’ It suffices to repeat the words of the Prophet Muhammed who said: ‘There is no emigration after the Conquest [of Mecca], but jihad and [its] intention [remain]. And when you are called to war, march forward [61].’</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">As they so often accuse others of doing, Hamas-linked CAIR is taking this out of contect. It actually refers to the emigration to Medina: “It has been reported on the authority of Mujashi’ b. Mas’ud as-Sulami who said: I came to the Prophet to offer him my pledge of migration. He said: The period of migration has expired (and those who were to get the reward for this great act of devotion have got it). You may now give your pledge to serve the cause of Islam, to strive in the way of Allaah and to follow the path of virtue.” (Muslim 4594). Emigration elsewhere, especially to further the cause of Islam, is not forbidden.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Conclusion</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">In conclusion, God has described Himself as the ‘Most Merciful of the merciful’. He created man from His mercy. God says in the Qur’an: ‘The Compassionate One has taught the Qur’an. He created man’ (Al-Rahman, 55: 1-3). And God created man for His mercy: ‘Had your Lord willed, He would have made mankind one community, but they continue to differ, except those on whom your Lord has mercy; and that is why He created them …’ (Hud, 11: 118- 119). Linguistically, ‘that’ refers back to the closest noun, which is ‘mercy’, not ‘differ’. This is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, who said: ‘He created them for mercy [62].’</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The soundest way to attain this mercy is the worship of God. God says: ‘And I did not create the jinn and mankind except that they may worship Me.’ (Al-Dhariyat, 51: 56). Worshipping God is not a favour that one bestows upon God, but rather, sustenance from Him: ‘I do not desire from them any provision, nor do I desire that they should feed Me. Indeed it is God Who is the Provider, the Lord of Strength, the Firm.’ (Al-Dhariyat, 51: 57-58). Furthermore, God revealed the Qur’an as a mercy from Him: ‘And We reveal of the Qur’an that which is a cure, and a mercy for believers …’ (Al-Isra’, 17:82). Islam is mercy and its attributes are merciful. The Prophet, who was sent as a mercy for all the worlds, summarized a Muslim’s dealings with others by saying: ‘He who shows no mercy, will not be shown mercy [63]’; and: ‘Have mercy and you will be shown mercy [64].’ But, as can be seen from everything mentioned, you have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder. As elucidated, this is a great wrong and an offence to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world.</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Harshness? “O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness.” (Qur’an 9:123) The Open Letter quotes this twice above, and never quite manages to show why the Islamic State should not behave this way.</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Reconsider all your actions; desist from them; repent from them; cease harming others and return to the religion of mercy. God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Say [that God declares]: “O My servants who have been prodigal against their own souls, do not despair of God’s mercy. Truly God forgives all sins. Truly He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.”’ (Al-Zumar, 39:53).</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">And God knows best.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 24th Dhul-Qi’da 1435 AH / 19th September 2014 CE</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">The Saying of Ali bin Abi Talib (k.)</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Nu’aym ibn Hammad narrates in Al-Fitan, that the 4th Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib said:</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet. Thereafter there shall appear a feeble insignificant folk. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron. They will have the state. They will fulfil neither covenant nor agreement. They will call to the truth, but they will not be people of the truth. Their names will be parental attributions, and their aliases will be derived from towns. Their hair will be free-flowing like that of women. This situation will remain until they differ among themselves. Thereafter, God will bring forth the Truth through whomever He wills65 .</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">People are asking: does this narration by Ali bin Abi Talib (k.)—that is related by Al- Bukhari’s teacher (Nu’aym bin Hamad) over one thousand two hundred years ago in his book Al- Fitan—refer to the ‘Islamic State’?</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #000000;">Is it possible to understand the narration as follows?</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘When you see the black flags’: The flags of the ‘Islamic State’ are black.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘Remain where you are’: i.e., stay where you are, O Muslims, and do not join them.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘And do not move your hands or your feet’: i.e. do not help them financially or with equipment. ‘Thereafter there shall appear a feeble insignificant folk’: i.e. ‘weak’ and ‘insignificant’ in terms of understanding of religion, morality and religious practice.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘Their hearts will be like fragments of iron’: i.e. they will ruthlessly kill prisoners of war and cruelly torture people.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘They will have the state’: For almost a century, no one has claimed to be an Islamic Caliphate other than the current ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘They will fulfil neither covenant nor agreement’: The ‘Islamic State’ did not fulfil its agreement with the Sha’etat tribe after the tribe pledged allegiance to them; indeed the ‘Islamic State’ slaughtered them by the hundreds. They also killed journalists.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘They will call to the truth’: The ‘Islamic State’ calls to Islam.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘But they will not be people of the truth’: The people of the truth are merciful. The Prophet Muhammad  said: ‘Have mercy and you will be shown mercy.’</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘Their names will be parental attributions’: Like: ‘Abu Muthanna’, ‘Abu Muhammad’, ‘Abu Muslim’ and so on.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘And their aliases will be derived from towns’: Like: ‘Al-Baghdadi’, ‘al-Zarqawi’, ‘al-Tunisi’ and so on.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘Their hair will be free-flowing like that of women’: ‘Islamic State’ fighters have hair precisely like this.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘Until they differ among themselves’: Like the differences between the ‘Islamic State’ and its parent, the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria). The fighting between these two has led to around ten thousand deaths in a single year.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘Thereafter, God will bring forth the truth through whomever He wills’: through a clear and correct Islamic proclamation (like this open letter).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> The sage Luqman says in the Qur’an:</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> ‘O my son! Even if it should be the weight of a grain of mustard- seed, and [even if] it be in a rock, or in the heavens, or in the earth, God will bring it forth. Truly God is Subtle, Aware.’ (Luqman, 31: 16)</span></p></blockquote>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Disingenuous. They quote a weak (if not forged) hadith of Ali about the group with black flags but ignore the other sahih (reliable) hadiths that say that the group with black flags should be joined, not shunned,<a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.amara.org/en/videos/BW5Ejat8GdE0/url/195228/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #000000;">such as this</span></a>: “The black banners will come from the east, with hearts like iron bars. So whoever hears of them, let him go to them and give them bay’ah, even if he must crawl over ice.”</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Then there are the signers, which includes:</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> Prof. Mustafa Abu Sway, The Integral Professorial Chair for the Study of Imam Ghazali’s Work, Jerusalem — and a <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/01/hamas-in-the-florida-classroom" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">Hamas activist</span></a></span>; Nihad Awad of Hamas-linked CAIR; Dr. Jamal Badawi, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case; Prof. Mustafa Ceric, Former Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, who has <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/08/bosnias-muslim-spiritual-leader-calls-for-incorporation-of-sharia-into-bosnian-constitution" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">called for Sharia in Bosnia</span></a></span>; Prof. Caner Dagli, Professor of Islamic Studies, USA, a venomously hateful Islamic apologist at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts, who <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/01/why-cant-muslims-debate-again" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">traffics in Nazi imagery about “unclean” unbelievers</span></a></span>; Sheikh Dr. Ali Gomaa, Former Grand Mufti of Egypt, who <a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/07/egypts-top-cleric-denies-saying-that-muslims-could-leave-islam-without-punishment" target="_blank"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="color: #0000ff;">endorses wife-beating, Hizballah, and the punishment of apostates from</span> <span style="color: #0000ff;">Islam</span></span></a>; Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Founder and Director of Zaytuna College, USA, who<span style="color: #0000ff;"> <a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/12/hamza-yusuf-muhammad-teddy-bear-madness-was-our-fault" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">blamed the West for Muslim riots over a teddy bear named Muhammad</span></a></span>; Ed Husain, Senior Fellow in Middle Eastern Studies, (CFR), UK, who <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/09/uk-moderate-muslim-ed-husain-seizing-jihadis-passports-would-only-increase-jihad-threat" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">recently claimed</span></a></span> that seizing British jihadis’ passports so that they couldn’t return to the UK from the Islamic State would only create more jihadis; Dr. Muhammad Tahir Al-Qadri, Founder of Minhaj-ul-Qur’an International, Pakistan, who drafted Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy law and <span style="color: #0000ff;"><a style="color: #336699;" href="http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/12/24/the-hypocrisy-of-the-fatwa-against-terrorism/" target="_blank"><span style="color: #0000ff;">issued his own disingenuous and hypocritical Fatwa Against Terrorism</span></a></span>; and Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, Chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, USA, and former head of the Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).</span></p>
<p style="color: #003b0c;"><span style="color: #000000;">Hardly a group that inspires confidence in their “moderation.”</span></p>
<blockquote style="color: #003b0c;"><p><span style="color: #000000;">Notes</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 1 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Iman, no. 55.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 2 Published by SawarimMedia on YouTube on April 3rd, 2014.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 3 Ibn Taymiyyah says in Majmu’ Al-Fatawa (Vol. 28, p. 270), ‘The Prophet said, “I was sent with the sword as a sign of the Final Hour so that none would be worshipped save God, alone, with no partner. My sustenance has been placed under the shadow of my spear. Lowliness and humiliation will come to those who disobey my teachings. Whosoever imitates people is one of them.” Ahmad narrates this hadith in his Musnad [Vol. 2, p.50] on the authority of Ibn Umar, and Bukhari cites it.’ However, the Hadith has a weak chain of narrators.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 4 Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab al-Tawhid, no. 7422, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Tawbah, no. 2751.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 5 Ibn Taymiyyah says in Majmu’ Al-Fatawa (Vol. 13, p. 341), ‘Tautology in [the Arabic] language is rare and in the Qur’an, it is even rarer or nonexistent.’ Al-Raghib Al-Asfahani says in Mufradat Al-Qur’an (p. 55), ‘This book is followed … by a book that informs the use of synonyms and their subtle differences. By doing so, the uniqueness of every expression is distinguishable from its synonyms.’</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 6 Tafsir Al-Tabari (Vol. 9, p. 28).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 7 Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi in Tafsir Al-Qur’an, no. 2950.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 8 Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab al-Hudud, no. 6786, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Fada’il, no. 2327.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 9 Narrated by Abu Dawood in Kitab Al-Adab, no. 4904.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 10 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Adab, no. 6030.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 11 Al-Ghazali, Al-Mustasfa fi Usul Al-Fiqh, (Vol. 1, p. 420).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 12 Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, I’lam Al-Muqi’een ‘an Rabbil-‘Alamin, (Vol. 4, p. 157).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 13 The Prophet did not kill the hypocrites who disagreed with him, nor did he permit that they be killed. Indeed the Prophet said: ‘So that people do not say that Muhammad killed his companions.’ Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab Tafsir al-Qur’an, no. 4907, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Birr wal-Silah, no. 2584.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 14 Narrated by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad, (Vol. 6, p. 306).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 15 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 3004.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 16 Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Kitab al-Zuhd, (Vol. 2, p. 165), and by Al-Khatib Al-Baghdadi in Tarikh Baghdad, (Vol. 3, p. 523).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 17 Narrated by Imam Malik in Al-Muwatta’; Kitab al-Nida’ Lissalah, no. 490, also narrated by Al-Tirmidhi in Kitab al- Da’awat, and by Ibn Majah in Kitab al-Adab, no. 3790, and corrected by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak (Vol. 1, p. 673).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 18 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Tawhid, no. 7458, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Imarah, no. 1904.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 19 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab Al-Imarah, no. 1905.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 20 Cf. Wahbi Al-Zuhayli’s Ahkam al-Harb fil-Islam.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 21 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 2946.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 22 Narrated by Bukhari in his Sahih, Kitab al-Jihad, no. 3053, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Wasiyyah, no.1637.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 23 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 1731, and by Al-Tirmidhi in Kitab al-Diyyat, no. 1408.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 24 Narrated by Ibn Abi Shayba in Al-Musannaf (Vol. 6, p. 498).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 25 The deacons were armed, combatant priests.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 26 Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 90), and by Al-Marwazi in Musnad Abi Bakr, no. 21.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 27 Narrated by Ibn Abdullah in Al-Isti’ab (Vol. 2, p. 812), and by Al-Qurtubi in his Tafsir (Vol. 19, p. 129): ‘Qatada said: “God ordered that prisoners be treated well.”’</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 28 Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, (Vol. 9, p. 118); Cf Fayd Al-Qadeer Sharh al-Jami’ al-Sagheer, (Vol. 5, p. 171).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 29 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 1745.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 30 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Maghazi, no. 4403, and by Muslim in Kitab al-Iman, no. 66.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 31 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 2946.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 32 As related in Al-Hafiz Al-Haythami’s Majma’ Al-Zawa’id, (Vol. 1, p. 106).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 33 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Adab, no. 6104.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 34 Narrated by Ibn Habban in his Sahih, (Vol. 1, p. 282).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 35 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Iman, no. 96. Another narration reads: ‘“Did you kill him after he said: ‘There is no god but God”. I said: “He was trying to save himself”. [The Prophet] kept repeating his words …’. Narrated by Al- Bukhari in Kitab al-Maghazi, no. 4369.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 36 YouTube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yrVPE_-f9I , June, 2014.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 37 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab Bad’ al-Wahy, no. 1; also narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Imarah, no. 1907. 38 Al-Dhahabi’s Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’, (Vol. 11, p. 393).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 39 Narrated by Ibn Majah, Kitab al-Zuhd, no. 4204.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 40 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab Sifat al-Qiyamah wal-Jannah wal-Nar, no. 2812.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 41 Al-Tabari says in his Tafsir (Vol. 6, p. 157): ‘In God’s  words: “Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day …” there is no negation of the meanings of pardon and amnesty … If they agree to being subdued and pay the jizyah after combat, it is permissible to order that they be pardoned for intended treachery or oaths they planned to break as long as they do not wage war without paying the jizyah or refuse to follow laws that apply to them.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 42 Jurists permitted the lifting of the jizyah if some of them joined the Muslim army, as happened in the time of Omar bin Al-Khattab.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 43 Narrated by Al-Imam Malik in al-Muwatta’, in Kitab al-Zakat, no. 617, and by Al-Shafi’i in his Musnad, no. 1008.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 44 Al-Qurtubi’s Tafsir, (Vol. 8, p. 110).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 45 Cf Ibn Kathir’s Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah (Vol. 5, p. 284) in which he says: ‘The Prophet  freed male and</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> female slaves … and after the Prophet  died, there were absolutely no slaves of his to be inherited.’</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 46 Ma’rifat as-Sunan wa Al-Athar, Bayhaqi (Vol. 11, p. 135); As-Sunan Al-Kubra, Bayhaqi (Vol. 6, p. 596); Sirah Ibn Hisham (Vol. 1, p. 266).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 47 Narrated by Ibn Majah, no. 224, and by Al-Tabarani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabir (10/195).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 48 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Nikah, no. 5186; and by Muslim in Kitab al-Rida’, no. 1468.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 49 Narrated by Muslim in his Sahih, no. 977, and by Al-Tirmidhi, no. 1054 and by others.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 50 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Ktab al-Adhan, no. 693.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 51 Narrated by Muslim in Kitab al-Imarah, no. 1855.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 52 Narrated by Al-Hakim in Al-Mustadrak ‘ala as-Sahihayn, (Vol. 2, p. 342).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 53 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Hudud, no. 6830.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 54 BBC news online, 1st July 2014.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 55 Narrated by Al-Tirmidhi in Kitab al-Manaqib, no. 3926; and in Sahih Ibn Hibban (Vol. 9, p. 23).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 56 Mafatih Al-Ghayb, Al-Razi (Vol. 15, p. 515) in the exegesis of Al-Anfal, 8:75.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 57 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Hajj, no. 1886.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 58 Fath Al-Bari, Ibn Hajar (Vol. 3, p. 621).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 59 BBC news online, on 1st July 2014.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 60 He appeared in a recruitment video produced by Hayat Media Center, August, 2014.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 61 Narrated by Al-Bukhari in Kitab al-Jihad, no. 2783.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 62 Cf Mafatih Al-Ghayb, Al-Razi (Vol. 18, p. 412).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 63 Narrated by Bukhari in Kitab al-Adab, no. 5997, and by Musim in Kitab al-Fada’il, no. 2318.</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 64 Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (Vol. 2, p. 160).</span><br />
<span style="color: #000000;"> 65 Narrated by Nu’aym ibn Hammad in Kitab Al-Fitan, Hadith no. 573.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><b>*</b><br />
<b></b></p>
<p><em>Don&#8217;t miss <strong>Robert Spencer</strong> on this week&#8217;s Glazov Gang discussing<span id="productTitle" class="a-size-large"><strong> The Fog of Jihad-Denial</strong>:</span></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/S8kxWhX0S50" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><a id="js_10" class="profileLink _5f0v" tabindex="0" href="https://www.facebook.com/annmariemurrell" data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/user.php?id=1258545911"></a></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/robert-spencer/muslim-scholars-refute-islamic-states-islamic-case-while-endorsing-jihad-sharia-caliphate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hillary Will Be Alinsky’s Third Term</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-will-be-alinskys-third-term/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=hillary-will-be-alinskys-third-term</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-will-be-alinskys-third-term/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:55:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saul Alinsky]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The radical plot to destroy America continues.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hillary-clinton.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241549" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/hillary-clinton-427x350.jpg" alt="hillary-clinton" width="283" height="232" /></a>After two terms in the White House by one Alinsky disciple, the United States is divided as never before. One in four Americans are ready for their state to secede from the United States. Three quarters of Americans don’t believe that their children will have a better future than they did.</p>
<p>To anyone else this would be a failure, but to an Alinskyite despair and doom are a success story. Saul Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that the organizer must “rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression.”</p>
<p>He must make the people “feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future.”</p>
<p>Obama has made Americans feel frustrated, defeated, futureless and lost. And if they were hoping that the next Democrat will actually bring hope and change, instead of hatred and despair, they will be deeply disappointed. While Obama learned his community organizing skills at the feet of Alinsky’s twisted disciples, Hillary Clinton learned them from Alinsky. Hillary is even worse than Obama.</p>
<p>In the introduction to her senior thesis on Alinsky, Hillary Rodham thanked him for his time and for offering her a job. But those dispassionate words were covering up a much deeper relationship.</p>
<p>The Free Beacon’s <a href="http://freebeacon.com/politics/the-hillary-letters/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">recent release of an exchange of</span></a> letters begins with Hillary anxiously waiting for the release of Rules for Radicals.</p>
<p>“Has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?” the former Methodist “Goldwater Girl” turned radical leftist wonders.</p>
<p>“You are being rediscovered again as the New Left-type politicos are finally beginning to think seriously about the hard work and mechanics of organizing,” she writes.</p>
<p>In her thesis, Hillary had attempted to depict Alinsky as a mainstream American icon, writing, “His are the words used in our schools and churches, by our parents and their friends, by our peers. The difference is that Alinsky really believes in them”. The media attempted to defend her Alinsky ties by claiming that he was not ideologically of the left. Hillary’s letter however gives the lie to that.</p>
<p>Alinsky was not mainstream. There was nothing American about him. He was a man of the hard left.</p>
<p>For Alinsky, Hillary Rodham represented a connection to the future.</p>
<p>In the introduction to Rules for Radicals, he wrote of her generation of leftist radicals, “It is what they do and will do that will give meaning to what I and the radicals of my generation have done with our lives.”</p>
<p>That is what the last six years have been. The misery, the rising prices, the racial hatred and despair were the meaning that Barack Obama brought to Saul Alinsky’s life. They are the fertile dark territories on which Hillary Rodham Clinton means to build a horrifying future.</p>
<p>Alinsky was more than a thesis subject to Clinton. And vice versa. Her letter to him is cheerfully intimate. His secretary’s response references “his feelings about you”. The year was 1971. Hillary was deep in her political activities and had begun dating Bill Clinton. Three years earlier, Alinsky had offered her a job. Hillary however had chosen to go on working through the system. That continues to be her tactic today.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton didn’t reject Alinsky, as she and the media have tried to claim. His tactics and worldview continue to inform her own. But Hillary, Rodham or Clinton, understood the importance of adaptation.</p>
<p>But so did Alinsky.</p>
<p>“As an organizer I start from where the world is,” Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals. “That means working in the system.”</p>
<p>“If the real radical finds that having long hair sets up psychological barriers to communication and organization, he cuts his hair,” he added.</p>
<p>Hillary’s pantsuits, her $1,500 haircuts and her time with the Democratic Leadership Council were not a rejection of Alinsky. They were the tactics of a Rules for Radicals leftist working within the system.</p>
<p>Alinsky would have understood and approved.</p>
<p>In her first memoir, Hillary Clinton claimed that she had broken with Alinsky over her “belief that the system could be changed from within.”</p>
<p>But Alinsky had believed that as well. Hillary never broke with him, but she had to maintain the appearance of having left behind a radical flirtation to become a mainstream Democrat. That appearance, like everything else about her, was and is a lie.</p>
<p>Quoting Lenin, Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals, “They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.”</p>
<p>“And it was,” he added.</p>
<p>For now it’s still reformation through the ballot, overseen by a propagandist media and its campaigns of dirty tricks. But the radicals still dream of the day when they have the guns and Americans have nothing.</p>
<p>Despite the media’s attempts to dismiss Hillary Clinton’s ties to Alinsky, the way that they had tried to wave away Obama’s ties to Bill Ayers, she maintained her dirty political connections with Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation even inside the white walls of the White House.</p>
<p>A year after the letter, Alinsky was buried in the cold hard ground of Cook County after an attack of the heart that no one knew he had. By then Hillary Clinton was campaigning for George McGovern.</p>
<p>“The key word for an Alinsky-type organizing effort is ‘power.’” Hillary wrote in her thesis. “’As he says: ‘No individual or organization can negotiate without power to compel negotiations.’&#8221;</p>
<p>The Clintons have gathered enormous wealth and power to themselves. As Obama’s radical fires burn across the heartland, as factories close, unemployment lines bulge and the people despair, the Clintons are positioning themselves as the sensible moderates who will take a step back from his radical ways. For the scam to work, they had to play the long game of pretending not to be radicals.</p>
<p>Hillary had to be seen as leaving Alinsky behind to truly fulfill his vision of a ruined nation brought to its knees.</p>
<p>In 1971, on the cusp of her latest meeting with Alinsky, Hillary Rodham was coming to some crucial decisions that would determine the expression of her radicalism and extremism. Influencing her in this regard was none other than Saul Alinsky.</p>
<p>From his teachings, Hillary came to understand that power mattered more than symbolism and that effectiveness came before integrity.</p>
<p>“All effective actions require the passport of morality,” Alinsky wrote. Hillary carries the passport of morality. Its pages however are blank. Radicals of the left are not citizens of any country or members of any religion. Their only nation is their own ideology. Their only allegiance is to their radicalism.</p>
<p>“We have the serious business and joy of much work ahead,” Hillary wrote to him. Alinsky would soon be dead, but Hillary would be carrying on his work by abusing her advisory position with the House Committee on the Judiciary to bring down the President of the United States.</p>
<p>McGovern had lost, but Hillary Clinton would have her way no matter what the ballots said. And her way was the Alinsky way.</p>
<p>Now the White House has been reserved for her. The Democratic Party is waiting to anoint another of Saul Alinsky’s disciples for a third term of misery and terror in the radical plot to destroy America.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p style="text-align: left;"><em>Don&#8217;t miss Shillman Journalism Fellow <strong>Daniel Greenfield</strong> on this week&#8217;s Glazov Gang discussing <strong>&#8220;ISIS Rising&#8221;</strong>:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9E8gGysQZzU" width="460" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/hillary-will-be-alinskys-third-term/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>104</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Learning to Love Our Terrorist Friends</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/learning-to-love-our-terrorist-friends/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=learning-to-love-our-terrorist-friends</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/learning-to-love-our-terrorist-friends/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 04:35:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISIS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moderate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=240005</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS are the new moderates.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/a140625-iraq-isis-mosul-street-445a_82f23afee3a82a104ef51a50474e30c6.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-240006" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/a140625-iraq-isis-mosul-street-445a_82f23afee3a82a104ef51a50474e30c6-450x334.jpg" alt="a140625-iraq-isis-mosul-street-445a_82f23afee3a82a104ef51a50474e30c6" width="300" height="223" /></a>Israel was told not to take down Arafat or Hamas would take over. Now Israel is being warned that if it destroys Hamas, ISIS will take over.</p>
<p>The distinction between Hamas and ISIS is obvious. One is a violent Islamic terrorist group that is determined to destroy Israel. And the other is a violent Islamic terrorist group determined to destroy Israel. Hamas is funded by Qatar. So is ISIS. Hamas likes to wear green. ISIS sticks to black and white.</p>
<p>If you have to choose between genocidal Islamic terrorist groups, go with the one that has a wider range of color in its wardrobe. Your civilians will regret it, but at least their killers will look fabulous.</p>
<p>Also ISIS hates Shiites while Hamas accepts Iranian weapons.</p>
<p>Clearly Hamas is moderate and ISIS is extremist. Maybe if ISIS also agrees to accept Iranian weapons with which to kill Jews, we will all be able to breathe a sigh of relief at its new moderate attitude.</p>
<p>The good news is that in the last few months Al Qaeda also became moderate. Numerous news stories tell us that Al Qaeda thinks that ISIS is “crazy”. Al Qaeda has less to say about it than the Western pundits speaking on its behalf, but it’s rumored that Zawahiri beheaded a Western aid worker without inviting Baghdadi which is considered a major snub in the high society codes of top terror groups.</p>
<p>That raises the question, should we have destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan?</p>
<p>Wouldn’t it have been better to leave it intact to prevent ISIS from taking over? Indeed didn’t weakening Al Qaeda make it possible for ISIS to emerge as a dominant global Jihadist force? Look for this to become a major theme of mainstream media foreign policy commentary and of Obama’s new Iraq strategy.</p>
<p>The only way to defeat terrorists is by not fighting them. Only by doing nothing can we hope to prevail.</p>
<p>And who is to say that ISIS is as extreme as it gets? Shouldn’t we be careful not to bomb ISIS too much or it will be replaced by an even more extreme group such as SuperJihad or “Behead Anyone Who Isn’t a Salafi”? It not only could happen, it probably will. Islam is good at replacing one bloody maniac with another bloody maniac. If Baghdadi lives long enough, he’ll end up in a house with three wives, a dozen cans of Viagra and an email account that no serious Jihadi forwards fatwas to… just like Osama.</p>
<p>Every Muslim terrorist is potentially a moderate, not because he moderates his position, but because tomorrow someone will chop off twice as many heads. If Malik has a six-year-old chop off three heads, Mohammed will have a three-year-old chop off six heads and Abdallah will have a one-year-old shelling Kurdish villages. And then Hamid will get his hands on some WMDs and a bunch of two-month- olds and we’ll realize that Malik, Mohammed and Abdallah were really moderate Muslim terrorists after all.</p>
<p>Imagine if we decided that Charles Manson really wasn’t so bad compared to later successors like John Wayne Gacy. We would have to free Manson and set him up with a new cult and a bunch of weapons. And then when the Green River Killer showed up, we would have to reconsider whether maybe Gacy wasn’t the lesser evil. And it’s not like any of them hold a candle to Abdul Djabar who raped 300 men and boys while strangling them with a turban back in 1970s Afghanistan.</p>
<p>But wait, sure Abdul seemed like a bad guy then but compared to the Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIS, he was really a moderate. It’s a shame he was executed. Maybe we could have negotiated with him in Qatar.</p>
<p>It’s not just a joke; it’s also our foreign policy.</p>
<p>Obama did his best to negotiate with the “moderate” Taliban and they not only raped boys, but they also inflicted horrifying tortures that made Abdul with his turban strangling seem like a nice guy.</p>
<p>We can’t define democracy by the popular vote and we can’t define moderates in relation to the bloodiest murderer on the block. But that’s the kind of common sense that rarely enters the heads of policymakers who keep trying to make friends with Abdul even while he’s strangling them with a turban.</p>
<p>Hamas, we are now told, is the only thing keeping ISIS out of Gaza. But ISIS is already in Gaza since anyone can become ISIS by affiliating with it. The Fort Hood Jihadist announced that he wants to join ISIS last week, but that doesn’t mean much as long as he’s locked up in prison and needs help going to the bathroom.</p>
<p>A practical approach to keeping ISIS out of Gaza would be to ‘Nidal Hassan’ both Hamas and ISIS until they need help going to the bathroom, let alone launching rockets at the Golan Heights or Tel Aviv.  A completely insane approach is believing that we need Hamas to launch rockets at us so that ISIS doesn’t launch rockets at us.</p>
<p>And if SuperJihad ever shows up, we’ll have to turn Gaza over to ISIS before you can say the Shahada six times fast so that it can bomb Tel Aviv before SuperJihad bombs Tel Aviv.</p>
<p>Hamas and Al Qaeda in Iraq have historically enjoyed positive relations. If Hamas decides, it can join ISIS whenever it pleases. Without Hamas, ISIS is unlikely to take over Gaza since it would need to spend decades building a political infrastructure. Without that it would be stuck trying to fight the same kinds of battles as Hamas, but without any local or international support. It would lose and lose badly.</p>
<p>But let’s set aside these practical considerations.</p>
<p>The very notion that we should continually choose to support the lesser terrorist evil to hold at bay the bigger terrorist evil (until it too becomes the lesser evil) isn’t policy; it’s an untreated mental illness.</p>
<p>If you accept the premise that Hamas is the lesser evil, then Israel has to leave it intact, endure the rockets falling on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the huge numbers of civilians packed into bomb shelters, because if ISIS takes over Gaza it will be even worse. And Israel taking over Gaza would somehow be even worse than that, even though there were no rockets falling on Tel Aviv or Jerusalem back then.</p>
<p>This isn’t a strategy. It’s learned helplessness.</p>
<p>Hamas shut down Israel’s international airport, forced residents from its major cities into bomb shelters and dug tunnels meant for major incursions into Israel. Now Hamas has become the buffer zone against ISIS while Abbas is the buffer zone against Hamas and ISIS will one day be the buffer zone against the Martyrs Brigades of Abdul Djabar who strangle and rape their victims; not necessarily in that order.</p>
<p>An Islamic terrorist group that shells your major cities is not a buffer zone.  One serial killer is not more moderate or extreme than another. Neither of them should be on the loose.</p>
<p>The options were always clear and they were laid out during the Disengagement; Israel can be in Gaza or it can be attacked from Gaza.</p>
<p>There is no third option except wishful thinking.</p>
<p>The new moderate reimagining of Hamas and Al Qaeda is the work of the same diseased minds that got us into this mess and can’t wait to drag us in even deeper. It needs to be rejected if we’re ever going to break the cycle of arming and funding the “moderate” terrorists to stop the “extremist” terrorists.</p>
<p>Either that or we can start climbing into bed with the ISIS moderates now.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/learning-to-love-our-terrorist-friends/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>56</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Moderate Islam Is Multiculturalism Misspelled</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/moderate-islam-is-multiculturalism-misspelled/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=moderate-islam-is-multiculturalism-misspelled</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/moderate-islam-is-multiculturalism-misspelled/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 04:35:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Greenfield]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extremism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moderate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=240049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why liberals are the real moderate Muslims.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Koran.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-240051" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Koran.jpg" alt="Koran" width="320" height="207" /></a>I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.</p>
<p>There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.</p>
<p>You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.</p>
<p>You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.</p>
<p>Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.</p>
<p>The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.</p>
<p>Take Islam, turn it inside out and you have moderate Islam. Take a Muslim who hasn’t been inside a mosque in a year, who can name the entire starting lineup of the San Diego Chargers, but can’t name Mohammed’s companions and you have a moderate Muslim. Or more accurately, a secular Muslim.</p>
<p>An early generation of Western leaders sought the affirmation of their national destinies in the divine. This generation of Western leaders seeks the affirmation of their secular liberalism in a moderate Islam.</p>
<p>Even if they have to make it up.</p>
<p>Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.</p>
<p>Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.</p>
<p>If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.</p>
<p>Flash back to Obama in his tan suit wearily saying that he has no strategy for ISIS. The original plan was to capture Osama alive, give him a civilian trial, cut a deal with the moderate Taliban and announce the end of the War on Terror before the midterm elections.</p>
<p>So much for that.</p>
<p>Moderate Islam is a difficult faith. To believe in it you have to disregard over a thousand years of recorded history, theology, demographics and just about everything that predates 1965. You have to ignore the bearded men chopping off heads because they don’t represent the majority of Muslims.</p>
<p>Neither does Mohammed, who did his own fair share of headchopping.</p>
<p>The real Islam is a topic that non-Muslims of no faith who hold sacred only the platitudes of a post-everything society are eager to lecture on without knowing anything about it.</p>
<p>Their Islam is not the religion of Mohammed, the Koran, the Hadiths, the Caliphs or its practitioners in such places as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq or Indonesia. Their Islam is a religion that does not exist, but that they fervently believe must exist because without it their way of life is as doomed as the dodo.</p>
<p>They aren’t Muslims. They have no faith in Allah or the Koran. Instead they have faith in the goodness of an Islam that exists without resort to scriptures, theology or deity. This may seem strange to actual believers, but after all their own poor tattered scraps of Christianity or Judaism don’t bother paying too much attention to deities or scriptures except when it comes to cherry-picking quotes about tolerance.</p>
<p>Is it any wonder that they treat Islam the same way?</p>
<p>The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.</p>
<p>Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.</p>
<p>Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.</p>
<p>Dissuading a believer in moderate Muslims from his invented faith by citing the long trail of corpses or the hateful Hadiths that call for mass murder is futile because these are not the roots of his religion. He doesn’t know what a Hadith is nor does he care. As a social justice man in good standing, he attributes the violent track record of Islam to European colonialism and oppression.</p>
<p>He has never read the Koran. He has read a thousand articles about how Muslims are oppressed at the airport, in Gaza, in Burma and in Bugs Bunny cartoons. They are his new noble savages and he will not hear a word against them. Having colonized their identities in his imagination (despite the marked up copy of Edward Said’s Orientalism that he keeps by his bedside) he treats them as reflections of his ego.</p>
<p>When you say that moderate Muslims don’t exist, you are calling him a bad person. When you challenge Islam, you are attacking multiculturalism and he will call you a racist, regardless of the fact that Islam is as much of a race as Communism, Nazism or the Mickey Mouse Fan Club were races.</p>
<p>The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.</p>
<p>And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.</p>
<p>The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until then they find it necessary to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/moderate-islam-is-multiculturalism-misspelled/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>204</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Watchman: Jihadists on the March</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-watchman-jihadists-on-the-march/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-watchman-jihadists-on-the-march</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-watchman-jihadists-on-the-march/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2014 04:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Watchman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=236205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shillman Fellow Raymond Ibrahim discusses what can be done to counter rising Islamic radicalism. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shillman fellow Raymond Ibrahim recently appeared on Erick Stakelbeck&#8217;s television program, The Watchman. The description and video follow:</p>
<blockquote><p>On this week&#8217;s edition of The Watchman, we sit down with Middle East experts Raymond Ibrahim and Tawfik Hamid to discuss the latest developments with the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Iran and what can be done to counter the jihadist &#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p><iframe src="http://cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=3653575960001" width="640" height="360" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/the-watchman-jihadists-on-the-march/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Activism: The Ideal of a ‘Liberal Arts Education&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jack-kerwick/activism-the-ideal-of-a-liberal-arts-education/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=activism-the-ideal-of-a-liberal-arts-education</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jack-kerwick/activism-the-ideal-of-a-liberal-arts-education/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2014 04:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jack Kerwick]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liberal arts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[University]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An ideal that’s bad for the academy and bad for the world.
]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/6231486313_489935fc2e_b.sm_.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235485" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/6231486313_489935fc2e_b.sm_.jpg" alt="6231486313_489935fc2e_b.sm" width="278" height="226" /></a>Dinesh D’Souza’s latest documentary, <i>America: Imagine a World without Her, </i>features interviews with such leftist academic rock stars as Howard Zinn. However, it’s crucial for Americans, and particularly those American who are parents, to realize that the contemporary academic world is chock full of lesser known Zinns.</p>
<p>The traditional academic ideal of the disinterested pursuit and dissemination of knowledge has fallen on hard times.  Professors in the humanities and social sciences have spent no small portion of the 20<sup>th</sup> century lambasting it as, at best, incorrigibly naïve.  Usually, though, they’ve gone further, rejecting the traditional ideal as a noxious, indeed, an <i>oppressive,</i> fiction.</p>
<p>In its stead, academics have replaced it with a new ideal, one more suited to their own ideological agenda: the purpose of academia, it is now widely held, is to promote the pursuit of “<i>social justice.” </i></p>
<p>In other words, a “liberal arts education” should have as its aim the production of, <i>not </i>“well rounded” individuals, as had been traditionally thought, but <i>social activists—</i>i.e. committed leftists.<i> </i></p>
<p>A more disastrous turn of events couldn’t have been imagined for academia.  For centuries, it was recognized that the academic world’s contribution to the preservation and enrichment of Western civilization lay precisely in the fact that, unlike most of our activities, <i>its</i> activities were most decidedly not <i>utilitarian </i>or <i>practical.  </i>Vocational schools, for example, are utilitarian in that students are <i>trained</i> for the sake of accomplishing some predetermined <i>goal: </i>mastery in one’s vocation and the monetary benefits that are expected to accrue from this.</p>
<p>College and university students, in stark contrast, are supposed to receive, not training, but an <i>education.  </i>This education, in turn, is no more oriented toward some goal over and above itself than is friendship so oriented.  The education is <i>its own reward</i>: learning for learning’s sake—not the sake of money, fame, fortune, or any other extrinsic goal.</p>
<p>Given this vision of academia, even the traditional ideal of the disinterested <i>pursuit</i> of <i>truth</i> is problematic, for it suggests that the raison d’ entre of university learning is some transcendent purpose—the acquisitions of knowledge—that can be attained only <i>after </i>students acquire an encyclopedic collection of “facts” or “propositions.”</p>
<p>But if the traditional ideal is problematic, the activist ideal is ruinous.  It isn’t just that, in its current manifestation, the latter is enlisted in the service of a <i>leftist </i>political agenda.  The primary problem is that it promotes a <i>political </i>agenda of any sort.</p>
<p>The activist ideal transforms academia into a political institution.  Education is now “politicized,” as we say, but say confusingly, for a “politicized education” is a contradiction in terms.   <i>Education</i> has been jettisoned in favor of <i>training</i>.  Only the training in question is not training in a vocation, but in an <i>ideology, </i>and in the methods and ways by which this ideology can be spread to the four corners of the Earth. <i> </i></p>
<p>“Education” has now been rendered a thoroughly <i>practical </i>or <i>utilitarian </i>matter like any other political endeavor.</p>
<p>This being so, it promises to cultivate in students intellectual and moral habits that are anything but virtues.</p>
<p>The political activist is forever focused on <i>the future.  </i>The past—specifically the past of Western civilization—is treated as a history of unmitigated oppression. The present is considered to be either an impediment to a brighter tomorrow or the means by which the promised land of the activist’s imaginings will be brought to fruition.</p>
<p>But it is from exactly <i>this</i> temporal orientation—this future-centered vision—that a liberal arts education is meant to <i>emancipate </i>students.</p>
<p>For one, a training in social activism renders students ignorant of their inheritance by essentially severing them from their past and immunizing them against delighting in the nuances of the present.  That is, when it isn’t tempered with an understanding of the past and an appreciation for the present—a knowledge of its location in the time continuum—this eagerness for the future embodies a shallowness that impoverishes the imagination.</p>
<p>This in turn breeds arrogance—an invincible arrogance—insofar as it nourishes the belief that humanity’s liberation from the darkness in which it remains mired will only be achieved once this present generation drags the rest of us—kicking and screaming, if need be—to our salvation.</p>
<p>And this brings us to another critical point: Because every utopia requires for its realization an activist <i>government, </i>the activist ideal encourages in students a partiality toward coercion over persuasion, a disposition—no, a <i>determination</i>—to use <i>force </i>rather than engage in <i>dialogue.  </i></p>
<p>Simply put, the activist ideal inculcates <i>bellicosity. </i></p>
<p>D’ Souza’s film features footage in which Howard Zinn unabashedly declares that his scholarship and teaching is driven by a desire to <i>change the world</i>.  In doing so, he expresses the activist ideal of the contemporary academy.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the ideal is bad for academia and bad for the world.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jack-kerwick/activism-the-ideal-of-a-liberal-arts-education/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s Dance With Radical Islam</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/daniel-mandel/obamas-dance-with-radical-islam/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obamas-dance-with-radical-islam</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/daniel-mandel/obamas-dance-with-radical-islam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2014 04:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel Mandel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ally]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[turkey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235356</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The defining feature of the administration's Mideast policy. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/obama-grasp.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-235437" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/obama-grasp-450x337.jpg" alt="obama-grasp" width="299" height="224" /></a>Last month, President Barack Obama chose to support and fund a Palestinian Authority (PA) government that includes Hamas, a U.S. and EU-designated terrorist group that calls in its charter for the destruction of Israel (Article 15) and the murder of Jews (Article 7). Also last month, Obama freed five senior Taliban terrorist commanders in exchange for an American serviceman who may have been a deserter.</p>
<p>Obama could have cut funding to the PA, which would have made sense strategically, and could have supported a close, long-standing American ally, Israel. He could have refused any exchange of senior Taliban leaders. Why didn’t he?</p>
<p>Because he supports engagement with radical Islam – not merely moderate Muslims, Arab liberals, or secular reformers. Al-Qaeda notwithstanding, Obama believes radical Muslims are potential allies and friends. This is confirmed by his decisions at every important point in his presidency.</p>
<p>Thus, when Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo in June 2009, he insisted on inviting members of the parliamentary bloc of the (then-banned) radical Muslim Brotherhood over the objections of U.S. ally, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak – though the Obama administration later <a href="http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/obamas-muslim-brotherhood-links/">denied</a> that it did so. (A furious Mubarak refused to attend.)</p>
<p>It was no secret that numerous surveys had shown before 2011 that large majorities of Egyptians favor discriminatory <em>sharia</em>, the death penalty for apostates and so on – meaning that it was almost certain that radical Muslims would triumph in elections. Yet, when a groundswell of opposition to Mubarak’s rule arose in February 2011, Obama <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/02/01/president-obama-transition-egypt%23transcript%23transcript">called</a> for Mubarak to step down “now” while his spokesman <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/31/press-briefing-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-1312011">called</a> for early elections involving “non-secular actors.”</p>
<p>When the Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi was, unsurprisingly, elected president, Obama did not discontinue arming the regime, even though its future policies were as yet entirely unknown. Yet, when in July 2013, Morsi was ousted by the Egyptian military under Field Marshal Abdul el-Sisi, Obama <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/obama-cuts-military-aid-egypt">suspended</a> military aid.</p>
<p>The Iranian regime is one whose leaders have called for the destruction of both America and <a href="http://jcpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IransIntent2012b.pdf">Israel</a>. Tehran has been developing a nuclear weapons capacity that would give it the means to act on these designs. Yet, Obama has not sought to undermine or replace the regime. In 2009, when Iranians were brutalized on Tehran’s streets for protesting the rigged re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama did not call for Ahmadinejad to step down – he pointedly <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-President-Lee-of-the-Republic-of-Korea-in-Joint-Press-Availability/">refused</a> to get involved, saying “it&#8217;s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.”</p>
<p>For over a year upon becoming President, Obama prevented any new congressional sanctions on Iran coming to a vote. He subsequently <a href="http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/06/administration_tries_to_water_down_iran_sanctions_legislation">diluted and delayed</a> those that in the end passed. The 2010 UN Security Council sanctions Obama did support did not cover Iran’s vital oil, financial, and insurance sectors, and included huge exemptions for numerous countries like China, which has huge contracts in Iran’s energy sector developing oil refineries, and Russia, which supplies S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran.</p>
<p>Then, in 2013, having at least tightened UN sanctions, Obama agreed to immediately undo them, granting Iran some <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.562824">$20 billion in sanctions relief</a> (not merely $6-7 billion, as the Administration initially claimed) under the terms of the Geneva interim agreement. That agreement permitted Iran to retain intact all the essential elements of its nuclear weapons program – its Arak plutonium plant; continued uranium enrichment; intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) programs, even retention of its enriched uranium stocks. (Iran was simply required to reduce them to an oxide which can be restored in weeks to weapons-grade uranium.)</p>
<p>The conclusion is clear: Obama, contrary to his oft-repeated promise to do “everything, everything” to prevent Iran going nuclear, is willing to let Tehran become the next nuclear power. That’s why in July 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-slams-clinton-statement-on-nuclear-iran-1.280505">said</a> that the U.S. would extend a “missile shield” over the Middle East if that occurred. It also explains why Obama in 2013 nominated as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, an outspoken opponent of stopping Iran by military or even economic means.</p>
<p>In Syria, Obama is arming the opposition to Bashar Assad’s Baathist regime. It might indeed be welcome if Assad fell, but some 80% of the forces fighting him are Islamists, including al-Qaeda. Where will that leave Syria and the region should Islamists succeed in replacing Assad?</p>
<p>Turkey long ceased to be a close U.S. ally. In June 2010, it opposed U.S-supported UN sanctions on Iran. In 2012, it excluded Israel from two counter-terrorism conferences in Istanbul, and Madrid. Its Islamist Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has called Israel a “terrorist state” and Zionism “a crime against humanity.” He has also a record of <a href="http://zoa.org/2013/03/10192622-erdogan-a-vitriolic-anti-semite-who-is-not-as-pleasant-as-he-sounds/">anti-Semitism</a> that goes back to the 1970s. Yet, by Obama’s own admission, Erdogan is <a href="http://www.todayszaman.com/news-269076-obama-names-turkeys-erdogan-among-top-five-international-friends.html">one of Obama’s closest friends</a> among foreign leaders.</p>
<p>Now, having chosen not to penalize Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah/Palestinian Authority for forming a unity regime with Hamas, a package of $440 million in U.S. aid to the PA is set to proceed, even though we now know that Hamas members kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers.</p>
<p>The record shows that Obama favors accommodation with radical Islam, their regimes and their leaders. He has less interest in traditional U.S. allies and is willing to pick fights with them or abandon them.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, </strong><em><strong>The Glazov Gang</strong></em><strong>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/daniel-mandel/obamas-dance-with-radical-islam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Video: Raymond Ibrahim Discusses &#8216;Islam&#8217;s Protestant Reformation&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/video-raymond-ibrahim-discusses-islams-protestant-reformation/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=video-raymond-ibrahim-discusses-islams-protestant-reformation</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/video-raymond-ibrahim-discusses-islams-protestant-reformation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2014 04:20:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Frontpagemag.com]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[christianity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moderate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protestant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Radical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=235335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Those hoping for an “Islamic reformation” need to look elsewhere…]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the Center, recently appeared on Sun News’ Byline with Brian Lilley discussing his recent article, &#8220;<a href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/raymond-ibrahim/islams-protestant-reformation/"><span style="color: #0433ff;">Islam&#8217;s &#8216;Protestant Reformation</span></a>.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/sLDGl-ccJIE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/frontpagemag-com/video-raymond-ibrahim-discusses-islams-protestant-reformation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1453/1542 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 10:20:43 by W3 Total Cache -->