There's a major asterisk next to this one because William Arkin had <a href="https://twitter.com/OrinKerr/status/1557464955602890753">formerly claimed</a> at Newsweek that his sources told him AG Garland hadn't approved the Mar-a-Lago raid.


	And plenty of people got burned by that.


	This story claims that the FBI raid <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/fbi-sought-documents-trump-hoarded-years-including-about-russiagate-1734280">targeted </a>specific documents.

<blockquote>
	
		"The&nbsp;FBI&nbsp;raid on Mar-a-Lago last Monday was specifically intended to recover&nbsp;Donald Trump's personal "stash" of hidden documents, two high-level U.S. intelligence officials tell&nbsp;Newsweek.

	
		To justify the unprecedented raid on a former president's residence and protect the source who revealed the existence of Trump's private hoard, agents went into Trump's residence on the pretext that they were seeking&nbsp;all&nbsp;government documents, says one official who has been involved in the investigation. But the true target was this private stash, which Justice Department officials feared Donald Trump might weaponize."
</blockquote>


	According to Arkin, these documents involved Russiagate.

<blockquote>
	
		"The sought-after documents deal with a variety of intelligence matters of interest to the former president, the officials suggest—including material that Trump apparently thought would exonerate him of any claims of Russian collusion in 2016 or any other election-related charges."

	
		"Trump was particularly interested in matters related to the Russia hoax and the wrong-doings of the deep state," one former Trump official tells&nbsp;Newsweek. "I think he felt, and I agree, that these are facts that the American people need to know." The official says Trump may have been planning to use them as part of a 2024 run for the presidency.
</blockquote>


	Is it true? Who knows. Arkin's sources were wrong about Garland. And that's a very basic thing. But it would provide a certain motive power for the controversy. It would explain why Trump wanted certain documents and why the Biden administration might want to seize them.


	Of course just because something sounds plausible, doesn't mean that it's actually true.

Did FBI Raid Seek "Exonerating" Russiagate Materials?

There's a major asterisk next to this one because William Arkin had formerly claimed at Newsweek that his sources told him AG Garland hadn't approved the Mar-a

Did FBI Raid Seek "Exonerating" Russiagate Materials?

The engine of Holocaust denial is a desire to kill Jews. Otherwise why bother?


	There's a fringe of conspirazoids, the sorts of people who believe that the moon landing was faked,&nbsp;that UFOs can be found in your backyard, and that 9/11 was carried out by the NYPD, and that Bigfoot killed JFK who are attracted to Holocaust denial among the many other conspiracy theory options.&nbsp;But the big leagues of Holocaust denials are associated with Nazism and Communism because they both specialized in the extermination of Jews.


	The "Palestinian" cause is a toxic inbreeding of Nazis and Communists.


	The Muslim Brotherhood, key players in the Arab Revolt, got a lot of their techniques from the Nazis. And the Nazi influence was felt most strongly in Egypt. But the "Palestinian" cause was manufactured by the Soviet Union.


	Mahmoud Abbas, the current dictator-for-life of the PLO, got his <a href="https://www.jpost.com/opinion/abbass-untranslated-book-480751">Holocaust denial training</a> from the USSR. Abbas wrote it as a "student" in the Soviet Union as part of the&nbsp;Palestinian-Soviet Friendship Foundation which was itself <a href="http://www.thetower.org/article/how-holocaust-denial-shaped-mahmoud-abbas-worldview/">crossbred with Nazi propagand</a>a.

<blockquote>
	
		&nbsp;PA President Mahmoud Abbas is profoundly fascinated by Nazi propaganda and has employed it in his own writings, particularly in his doctoral dissertation on the subject of the Holocaust, “The Other Face: The Secret Connections Between Nazism and the Leadership of the Zionist Movement,” which he wrote in Moscow in 1982. Two years later, Abbas published a book based on his dissertation. It is written in Arabic and, tellingly, has never been translated into any other language.

	
		There is a reason for this: The book is inspired by and based on the work of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust. While he was a fugitive in Argentina, Eichmann formulated and disseminated Nazi propaganda according to which the Holocaust was a Jewish-Nazi conspiracy that sacrificed Jewish lives in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine.&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	So what did the Germans really expect when they invited the head of a terror group responsible for the <a href="https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-714943">Munich Massacr</a>e?

<blockquote>
	
		At a news conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin, Abbas was asked by a reporter whether he plans to apologize to Israel and Germany for the 1972 Munich massacre, ahead of its 50th anniversary. Eleven members of the Israeli delegation and a German police officer were murdered after members of the Palestinian terrorist group Black September, which was linked to&nbsp;Abbas’s Fatah party, took hostages at the Olympic Village on September 5, 1972.&nbsp;

	
		“If we want to go over the past, go ahead,” Abbas responded in Arabic. “I have 50 slaughters that Israel committed... 50 massacres, 50 slaughters, 50 holocausts,” saying the last word in English.

	
		While Scholz could be seen wincing at Abbas’s Holocaust reference, he did not immediately rebuke the Palestinian president, although he had earlier rejected his use of the word “apartheid” to describe Israeli policies.
</blockquote>


	Scholtz has since tepidly condemned Abbas' Holocaust denial.


	The debate about Holocaust denial is less important than the motive for it. Abbas responded to his role in the massacre of Jews with Holocaust denial. That's typical. It's the essence of the purpose that Holocaust denial is meant to serve.


	The "Palestinian" cause is about finishing the work that the Nazis began. It's why Hitler is so widely admired in the Palestinian Authority. "Palestinian" Holocaust denial, like most kinds, is about paving the way for justifying the future murder of Jews.

Abbas' Holocaust Denial Tour Hits Germany

The engine of Holocaust denial is a desire to kill Jews. Otherwise why bother?


	There's a fringe of conspirazoids, the sorts of people who believe that

Abbas' Holocaust Denial Tour Hits Germany

Here's the JTA&nbsp;very <a href="https://www.jta.org/2022/08/16/united-states/texas-school-district-orders-librarians-to-remove-a-version-of-anne-franks-diary-from-shelves">deliberately</a> pushing its political agenda of getting sexualized books to kids.

<blockquote>
	
		A school district in suburban Fort Worth, Texas, has ordered its librarians to remove an illustrated adaptation of “The Diary of Anne Frank” from their shelves and digital libraries, along with the Bible and dozens of other books that were challenged by parents last year...

	
		“Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation,”&nbsp;by Israeli filmmaker Ari Folman and illustrator David Polonsky, is a 2019 illustrated adaptation of the bestselling diary by the teenage Holocaust victim.&nbsp;The New York Times called the book&nbsp;“so engaging and effective that it’s easy to imagine it replacing the [original] ‘Diary’ in classrooms and among younger readers.”&nbsp;

	
		The parental challenge against the book came in February, and the district initially dismissed it, Hawes said. Hawes, who is not Jewish, is on a list of parents who can be called in to serve on a committee to review book challenges.

	
		“When we got ‘The Diary of Anne Frank,’ we thought, ‘This is a joke.’ But it wasn’t,” Hawes said, adding that the complaint was that “the book shouldn’t be read without parent supervision.” She suspected that the parent may have objected to the unabridged diary’s references to female genitalia,&nbsp;same-sex attraction&nbsp;and&nbsp;other sexual matters, which&nbsp;have been deemed “pornographic” by parental challenges in the past. But she couldn’t be sure because the parent who challenged the book didn’t show up to the meeting.
</blockquote>


	This is not Anne Frank's diary.


	This is a comic book based on a version of the diary that neither Anne nor her father wanted published.


	I've written about the abuse of Anne Frank's legacy multiple times. There's the famous play that eliminated her Jewishness. There's also the 'unabridged' diary. This is material that Frank wrote when she was younger that she then got rid of. Her father respectfully edited the diary when he fulfilled her wish to have it published. After his death, the "unabridged" diary containing sexual materials that neither the dead girl nor her father wanted to publish was gleefully put out there.


	The material that parents objected to in&nbsp;“Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation”, even assuming it's true to the unabridged version (I have no idea if it is) was also the material that Anne's older self censored and that her father got rid of. It doesn't belong in schools and shouldn't be in public view. It's an insult to her memory.


	Not everything people write as 13-year-olds should be out there. Nor should they be forced to live with it after death.&nbsp;


	The publishing interests pushing this claim that they have some moral right to dig up and publish material that Anne did not want out there for the "greater good".


	Getting it out of libraries and out of publication is a very good thing because it's effectively stolen material that was never meant for publication. It's no different than publishing sexual materials or photos of any other deceased person&nbsp;that they would have not wanted in the public realm.&nbsp;


	Exploiting the Holocaust to push a sexual agenda in schools is despicable. And using stolen writings from a murdered Jewish girl to do so is equally so.


	Anne Frank deserves better. So do our children.

This Version of Anne Frank's Diary Should Be Removed From Libraries

Here's the JTA&nbsp;very deliberately pushing its political agenda of getting sexualized books to kids.


	
		A school district in suburban Fort Worth,

This Version of Anne Frank's Diary Should Be Removed From Libraries

NY Gov Hochul Won't Lock Up Criminals, Will Ban Toy Guns

Toy guns don't kill people, violent criminals who aren't locked up kill people.


	But New York's Governor Hochul has made it clear that, along with

NY Gov Hochul Won't Lock Up Criminals, Will Ban Toy Guns

I remember the controversy over dropping Truth, Justice and the American Way. But that was just the beginning.


	This story involves Spider Man: Remastered, a game for Sony video game consoles that recently came to the personal computer. PCs have a vibrant modding community, much of which is based around a site known as 'Nexus'. While the game's fictional depiction of New York City contained the inevitable 'Pride' flags, a&nbsp;'modder' on that site reportedly figured out how to trigger an alternate graphic used in Muslim countries that would get rid of the flag. And he replaced the Pride flags with American flags.


	Anyone downloading the 'mod' would be able to replace all the 'Pride' flags with the Stars and Stripes.&nbsp;


	Since Spider Man: Remastered is a single-player game, it's an individual choice and nothing they did would have any impact on anyone else playing the game.


	Despite hosting a variety of violent and sexual mods,&nbsp;Nexus, the modding site, responded by banning the 'modder' declaring that sort of thing isn't welcome here. The ban however has only made the mod <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/woup7g/nexus_mods_removes_spiderman_mod_that_replaces/">more popular </a>and it's being distributed across a variety of sites.


	While it's been a while since Gamergate hit the scene, the struggle between the social justice elites and gamers has never actually gone away. Gaming journalism has become much less relevant since, but at the same time corporate wokeness has become more rigidly policed.&nbsp;


	And the one thing you can't do in even the most violent games, as Rockstar's GTA 6 series and its studios are reportedly being remade to be sensitive and politically correct, is be proud of being an American.

Pride Flags, Yes, American Flags, No in Spiderman Game

I remember the controversy over dropping Truth, Justice and the American Way. But that was just the beginning.


	This story involves Spider Man: Remastered

Pride Flags, Yes, American Flags, No in Spiderman Game

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has once again exposed itself as duplicitous or ignorant, and it should be closed down. According to its website, CAIR’s first mission goal is “to enhance understanding of Islam,” followed by protecting civil rights (of Muslims), promoting justice (of Muslims), and empowering American Muslims. It styles itself as “the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization.”


	For the last eleven years, since the arrest and conviction of terrorist Aafia Siddiqui in 2010, CAIR has joined forces with other Muslim activist organizations to demand what multiple Muslim terrorist groups around the world are clamoring for: the release of Siddiqui (known informally as “Lady al-Qaeda”) from serving an 86-year sentence in US federal prison.


	Five days ago, an ethnically Pakistani Muslim man named Malik Faisal Akram with British citizenship popped up on the public radar after traveling from his home city of Blackburn, England, to Colleyville, TX to enter a synagogue and take Jewish hostages. Why Colleyville? Because it is roughly 24 miles from the Federal Medical Center, Carswell, in Fort Worth, where Aafia Siddiqui is being presently receiving medical treatment. Why a synagogue? Because Akram was demanding the release of Aafia Siddiqui, and he believed the widespread fantasy in the Muslim world that Jews control the world, and especially the United States government, and where better to find Jews than at a synagogue. Why take Jews hostage? Because they would serve as his bargaining chips to move the Jewish overlords to force the American authorities to set Aafia Siddiqui free. Besides, Muslims are taught by the Qur’an that Jews are the implacable enemies of Muslims, and Muslim leaders teach their listeners&nbsp;ad nauseam&nbsp;that Jews are behind every evil that has afflicted mankind. Thus, any action by Muslims leading to the humiliation of Jews must be a praiseworthy activity in the eyes of Allah.


	Faisal Akram apparently spoke by phone during the hostage standoff with Gulbar, one of his brothers back in Blackburn, and revealed that he had been planning this assault for two years, that he had come to America on a jihadi mission and that his plan was to “go down as a martyr.” He also revealed that he had recently promised another terminally-ill brother with Covid that he would join him soon as a martyr. When Gulbar tried to convince Faisal to end the standoff and surrender to authorities, the self-styled jihadi refused, saying, “I’ve come to die … I’d rather live one day as a lion than 100 years as a jackal. … I’m coming home in a body bag.” He hoped his example would lead many young Muslim men to follow in his footsteps against America and the Jews.

<blockquote>
	
		“I’m opening the doors for every youngster to enter America and f**k with them…. Why do we need these mother f***ers to come to our country and do f***ing battle, and we cannot come to their country? They come into our f***ing countries, rape our women and f**k our kids, and we cannot come in their country and f**k with them? I am setting the precedent today.”
</blockquote>


	What does CAIR have to do with all this? There is no known link between CAIR and the hostage-taker. Indeed, within hours of the news breaking, the CAIR National Deputy Director Edward Ahmed Mitchell issued a statement denouncing the actions of Akram:

<blockquote>
	
		“We strongly condemn the hostage-taking at Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas. This latest antisemitic attack at a house of worship is an unacceptable act of evil. We stand in solidarity with the Jewish community, and we pray that law enforcement authorities are able to swiftly and safely free the hostages. No cause can justify or excuse this crime. We are in contact with local community leaders to learn more and provide any assistance that we can.”&nbsp;
</blockquote>


	This statement sounds very commendable, and one could wish that all Muslims would sincerely endorse these sentiments. Unfortunately, for anyone who knows the history of Muhammad with the Jews, as well as the teachings of the Qur’an concerning the Jews, this CAIR statement is a smokescreen to mislead the public. Either CAIR knows the anti-Semitic hatred inculcated among the world’s Muslims through Islam’s authoritative religious sources, and so is lying about its “solidarity with the Jewish community”, or it is unaware of the teachings and actions of Muhammad with regard to the Jews, in which case it has no business representing itself as correctly interpreting Islam to American society. Likewise, regarding the strategy of hostage-taking, CAIR either knows of the actions of Muhammad authorizing such activity for the advancement of the cause of Islam and is hiding this from the American public, or it is ignorant of this key part of Islamic strategy in subduing its enemies, as so should fold up shop. Either way, whether through duplicity or ignorance, CAIR is misrepresenting Islam to America, and as a result seeking to prop up the fairy tale that true Islam is a religion of peace.


	For those who doubt what I am saying, let me share with you just a smattering of materials from standard Islamic sources to demonstrate the truth of what I claim.


	The Qur’an teaches that Jews are inveterate liars, taking the truths of God and twisting them to mislead others (3.78). They immerse themselves in falsehood (5.41), fabricating things about God and His commands (2.79; 3.75, 3.181). They cannot be trusted to keep their word to others (2.100), demonstrating their hard-heartedness (2.74). They are unhappy over the good fortune of others (3.120), particularly Muslims. In fact, of all the peoples of the world, Jews harbor the greatest enmity toward Muslims (5.82). They are ever disputing and arguing over the revelations of Allah (2.247), as they opposed and disobeyed God’s past prophets sent directly to them (2.55), even going so far as to kill them (2.61). Because of this behavior, some of their ancestors were transformed by Allah into apes or pigs (2.65; 5.60; 7.166). Instead of embracing the truths proclaimed by Muhammad, they arrogantly prefer to follow their own vain imaginings (2.87). They love to spread corruption over the face of the whole earth (5.64; 17.4)). As a result of all these transgressions, Allah’s curse is fixed on them (9.30). True believers are warned never to take Jews as friends or allies (5.51); indeed, Muslims are to make war against them until they are fully subjugated under the rule of Islam.


	Ibn Ishaq, Muslim author of the earliest, most authoritative biography of his prophet (The Life of Muhammad,&nbsp;trans. Alfred Guillaume), records Muhammad addressing the last of the three Jewish tribes he expelled from Medina in less than five years after he had migrated there: “You brothers of monkeys, has God disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?” (p. 461). When Muhammad finally takes them captive, he orders the men of the tribe (some 600-900) to be beheaded, and then orders the women and children to be taken as slaves for the Muslims. Prior to this event, during the tumultuous five years of agitation between the Muslims and Jews of Medina, Muhammad felt insulted by the crass behavior of some Jewish men and commanded his followers, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power” (p. 369). Ibn Ishaq records that one of the Muslims immediately went to a Jewish businessman with whom he had done many mutually beneficial transactions and summarily murders him.


	Lastly, of the many Hadith traditions that mention Muhammad’s stance toward the Jews, two stand out above all. The first records Muhammad’s final words before his death, and one is not surprised to discover that even at this point his mind is consumed with an execration leveled against Jews and Christians. The spirit of this curse has lived in the hearts of devoted Muslims ever since.

<blockquote>
	
		When the last moment of the life of Allah’s Apostle came he started putting his ‘Khamisa’ [shirt] on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, “May Allah curse the&nbsp;Jews&nbsp;and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done.&nbsp;(Bukhari, 7.72.706).
</blockquote>


	The second is even more poisonous, for it legitimizes anti-Semitic hatred till the end of time:

<blockquote>
	
		Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour [of judgment] will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim!&nbsp;there is a Jew&nbsp;hiding behind me, so kill him.”&nbsp;(Bukhari, 4.52.177).
</blockquote>


	All of this material is well-known to educated Muslims. Given Muhammad’s clear, anti-Semitic teachings and actions, CAIR’s statement that they stand in solidarity with the Jewish community (in opposition to the Qur’an’s command of 5:82) and that they condemn Akram’s hostage-taking as “an unacceptable act of evil” (are there any&nbsp;acceptable&nbsp;acts of evil?) means they will now have to condemn their prophet for his repeated evils. Will this happen? I won’t hold my breath.


	But CAIR’s duplicity is found not only their veiling of Islam’s inherent anti-Semitism. When they feign horror at a fellow Muslim’s hostage-taking of Jews to advance the cause of Islam, they hide the fact that Muhammad practiced hostage-taking himself and left it as an example for the armies of Islam to emulate after him.


	In 47.4 of the Qur’an, Allah commands his faithful:

<blockquote>
	
		When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads.
</blockquote>


	Likewise, prisoners of war can be taken by Allah’s prophet, but only after he has inflicted widespread death on the enemy:

<blockquote>
	
		“It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has made a great slaughter in the land”(8.67)
</blockquote>


	This supremacy over the enemy is meant to instruct them that they are not to oppose Allah and his religion any longer, but rather submit.

<blockquote>
	
		“So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson”&nbsp;(8.57).
</blockquote>


	Muslim scholars over the centuries have debated the degree of options available to the caliph/emir when prisoners have been taken: execution; ransom; retention as slaves; or gracious release. Muhammad utilized all these options over the course of his career. The majority of scholars (including “luminaries” such as Tabari, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Qudama, Ibn Taymiyyah and Al-Suyuti) declare that all these choices are open to the Muslim ruler, as he determines&nbsp;what is in the best interest of the advancement of Islam.&nbsp;This determination of course varies according to the prevailing circumstances.


	Muslim apologists may rightly observe that the decision to take hostages rests with the authority of the caliph/ruler, and is not the prerogative of any Tom, Dick or Harry. That is true, when it comes to offensive jihad, i.e., when the leader of the Islamic world orders an offensive war against non-Muslim forces. No individual Muslim has the right to initiate jihad against others. However, there exists today no recognized “caliph” over the Muslim world. Furthermore, when the Muslim world has been attacked by non-Muslim enemies, it is the responsibility of every Muslim to join in defensive jihad to repel the infidels and recoup whatever has been lost. This has been the logic employed by Osama bin Laden (and countless other jihadi leaders in launching attacks against the West) – “They started it; we’re only defending ourselves.”


	As it turns out, this was also the mindset of Malik Faisal Akram, who intended to take Jewish hostages to force the release of his heroine, Lady al-Qaeda. CAIR may disagree with his tactics, but they cannot deny that such behavior, modeled on the actions and teachings of Muhammad, cannot be condemned as an unacceptable act of evil. Not if you’re a committed follower of the prophet of Islam and his god.


	So what’s it going to be, CAIR? Do you know the history and teachings of your religion? Are you going to come clean and acknowledge that Akbar in his hostage-taking was acting more in accordance with Islam than you in your mealy-mouthed statement of condemnation, dripping with disingenuousness and deceit? It’s time to be honest with us infidels. Or close up shop.

CAIR Condemns Hostage-Taker

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has once again exposed itself as duplicitous or ignorant, and it should be closed down. According to its

Islam, since its very inception, has suffered from a serious inferiority complex.


	Muhammad as an aspiring prophet in his home city of Mecca labored for some twelve years to convince his fellow citizens that they should renounce polytheism and bow before the sovereign rule of Allah. By the time his tribe’s patience had run out and he was finally driven from Mecca in 622 AD, the wannabe prophet had attracted a relatively small number of converts from the people of his city, and the number of his detractors was growing increasingly vociferous.


	Muhammad had hoped to win support for his religious claims and stature from the other main monotheists of the region, the Jewish and Christian tribes known as “people of the Book [i.e., the Bible].” He even included in his preaching repertoire stories he had picked up listening to oral traditions concerning biblical characters. However, as the Jews and Christians learned more of his grandiose claims and eccentric teachings, they concluded he was not a prophet sent by the God of their revelations.


	Rejected by the polytheistic people of Mecca and by the monotheistic tribes in western Arabia, Muhammad turned his growing wrath toward them. His preaching became more antagonistic and defensive, with Allah pledging hellfire against the prophet’s opponents and propping up Muhammad’s ego at the same time. Within his community of believers, his will was unassailable, and even Allah seemed eager to do his bidding, providing him wives and booty and self-serving revelations.


	Muhammad turned out to be rather thin-skinned, which is not unusual for those with an inferiority complex. When opponents mocked him with crude jokes or irreverent songs, he was offended. However, the prophet was surrounded by devotees who were willing to “kill and be killed” in his service (see Quran 9.111), and Muhammad was not above despatching them to assassinate those who had wounded his ego.

<div>
	
		So too, today, those who mock the prophet, or his Qur’an, or who blaspheme against Allah commit a capital offense according to Islamic law, and are executed where Shari’a is fully implemented. What other religion demands a death penalty for those who make fun or draw irreverent pictures of its founder? Those who find criticism (even well-founded criticism) intolerable and seek to eradicate it once and for all are typically hounded by a sense of inferiority. It’s no surprise that in recent years the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) has barraged the United Nations with demands that the world regulatory body outlaw any speech that might conceivably be construed as “Islamophobic.” An inferiority complex dreads freedom of speech.

	
		When the Islamic community cannot get others to shut down its detractors, its response is typically not one of engagement with criticism but rather the turning of a deaf ear and the rising chant of “Allahu akbar” — “Our god is greater than your god.” This is simply a religious intensification of the schoolyard spats that end up with, “Oh yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad,” followed by fingers stuck in ears so as to no longer hear one’s opponents.

	
		Islam reveals its inferiority complex as well whenever Muslims publicly apostatize from the faith. No religion likes to lose adherents, but only Islam resorts to death threats to keep members from leaving. It cannot bear to admit that former Muslims find Islam untrue and unappealing, nor does it wish to coexist with such disbelievers. Instead, Shari’a mandates execution of those who leave the faith, hoping by the imposition of fear to quell the spread of doubt among its masses.

	
		At the other end of the spectrum, if and when a famous kafir (infidel) decides to become a Muslim, such news is trumpeted far and wide by Islamic propagandists as proof of the claims of Islam. The amount of energy devoted to such efforts in the Muslim world dwarfs similar developments in other religions. One wonders whether such fanfare is directed more to shoring up the sagging morale of the Muslim community than to welcoming a new convert into its midst.

	
		Likewise, the use of force to coerce unbelievers to adopt Islam, or failing that, to compel them to live as dhimmis (third-class members of Islamic society) betrays the nagging fear that Islam on its own cannot stand in the marketplace of free ideas. The rules enacted for dhimmis legalize their status as those inferior to Muslims, so that the Muslim world can continue to mask its vexatious inadequacies by pointing to the enforced lowliness of its enemies.

	
		But nowhere is the inferiority complex of Islam more evident than in its unending competition with the Christian gospel. Muhammad could not stomach the stature granted to Jesus within the New Testament and in the lives of Christian disciples so he had to diminish the role of Jesus in his Qur’anic teachings. Jesus could not be divine; he could not be the Son of God; he could not be the Savior of the world; he could not have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. In effect, he could not be greater than Muhammad himself, or even his equal. He was only a prophet, a great one perhaps, but Muhammad was the last and greatest of them all.

	
		And the message of the Qur’an could not be inferior to that of the gospel. In order to prevent that, Muhammad asserted that the true message of Jesus was none other than that which Allah had granted him — to warn humanity of the coming judgment of Allah should human beings refuse to bow before the Almighty as obedient slaves. However, in the years since Muhammad’s death, Muslims have actually had opportunity to compare the New Testament to the Qur’an, in the process of which they have discovered that the message of a God of love certainly eclipses that of a God of vengeance. So Muslim apologists today seek to reframe the teaching of the Qur’an to mimic that of the gospel as much as possible.

	
		The New Testament declares that God loves sinners and sent His Son into the world to save those who would otherwise perish in their sins. Jesus spent much of his earthly ministry among those deemed unworthy in the eyes of the religious elites. The New Testament declares that God loves sinners and sent His Son into the world to save those who would otherwise perish in their sins. Jesus spent much of his earthly ministry among those deemed unworthy in the eyes of the religious elites. The apostle Paul summed up God’s heart with these words: “God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). His love is personal and unending, an intimacy with the human soul deeper than can be found in any other relationship. This truth demonstrates why the gospel has commanded such a prodigious response from the human race from its first proclamation until now.

	
		Muslim apologists know this, and also know that the Qur’an carries no such message. The God of Islam is not a God who loves sinners personally and intimately. Allah has not sacrificed himself in any way to purge the sins of his rebellious creation. He remains aloof from his creation, warning the disobedient of the impending tortures of hell, and promising the obedient the sensual pleasures of paradise. But a message of fear is not as compelling as a message of love, so apologists comb the Qur’an for any signs of Allah’s love. The results are not encouraging.

	
		Forty-two times the Qur’an speaks of Allah with regard to love. Unfortunately, over half of those instances (twenty-three to be exact) refer to that which Allah&nbsp;does not love. For example, he does not love those who do wrong, who make corruption in the land, who reject Islam, who are not generous, who are arrogant, wasteful, treacherous, criminal, and so on. The other nineteen occurrences describe those whom Allah&nbsp;does love: those who do good, who are righteous, who love his prophet, who fight (jihad) in his cause, who are pure and clean (keeping the ritual laws), and so on. Allah’s love is a response to those who “make the grade,” and it is experienced not in terms of personal intimacy but through the abundance of rewards in this life and the next.

	
		Nevertheless, spurred on by a sense of theological inadequacy, Muslim apologists look for revelatory passages to fill what is lacking, and some put forward a Qur’anic text which seems to show promise in terms of divine intimacy and affection. Found in Sura 50:16, triumphal commentators wax eloquent about how Allah’s words unveil that he is nearer us than we might ever imagine:

	
		And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein...

	
		Here is proof, they say, that Allah indeed loves us personally and intimately. The Qur’an matches the New Testament in its “good news.”

	
		But upon closer inspection, that is not at all what this passage means. The entire context of this chapter deals with those who have thumbed their noses at Allah in spite of all the signs he has given them in creation of his power and goodness. He warns them that they cannot hide their thoughts and actions from him. Indeed, he is closer to the slaves he created than their own jugular veins (those blood vessels which when slit quickly drain life from the body). Far from asserting that Allah’s closeness means his personal love for humans, this verse declares that Allah is watching closely the lives of his slaves, and nothing escapes his notice. Judgment will be meted out accordingly. The next two verses (50:17-18) clarify even further what this closeness of Allah entails — it is not his personal presence but the two recording angels he has sent to be seated, one on the right shoulder to record every good act and the other on the left to record every bad deed:

	
		When the two receivers receive, seated on the right and on the left. Man does not utter any word except that with him is an observer prepared [to record].

	
		There is no love, grace or mercy in this Qur’anic chapter. Instead, we find the chilling warning that no evil thought or deed will slip past Allah’s notice. He will punish fully those who disobey him, and reward with paradise those who obey him sufficiently. But, of course, no one obeys Allah perfectly — even Muhammad was commanded four times in the Qur’an to repent of his own sins, and the Hadith traditions show the prophet entreating his followers to pray for him that at the Day of Judgment he would be found worthy.

	
		So the idea that Allah is nearer to us than our jugular vein (which jihadis are ever eager to sever in striking the necks of unbelievers as a sign of Allah’s ultimate judgment) hardly conveys the notion that Islam’s god has a heart filled with love toward sinners. Indeed, it’s quite the opposite: Allah watches with an eagle eye for any slip-up among his slaves, and his sword is poised at any moment to despatch those who displease him to an eternity of roasting in hell.

	
		One might wonder why anyone would remain within such a religion of internal coercion and external tyranny. The answer for most, I believe, is that they don’t know any better. They have grown up in societies that effectively blocked them from exposure to any worldview other than Islam, and at the same time their religion has told them that they are the best of all peoples that Allah ever placed on earth (Quran 3:110) and that non-Muslims are the vilest of all creatures in the sight of their god (98:6). Disgust over the presumed filthiness of the kuffar (infidels) causes them to shun anything unislamic, and fear of the death penalty for apostasy keeps them timidly corralled within the thought-prison of Shari’a orthodoxy….

	
		Continue reading&nbsp;<a href="https://mateenelass.wordpress.com/2019/09/20/islams-inferiority-complex/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">here</a>.
</div>

Islam's Inferiority Complex

Islam, since its very inception, has suffered from a serious inferiority complex.


	Muhammad as an aspiring prophet in his home city of Mecca labored for

U.S Rep. Ilhan Omar presents herself as a practicing Muslim — she wears a head-covering out of religious conviction, talks proudly of her Muslim heritage, speaks at fundraisers for the Muslim Brotherhood front group CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) and often seems to take the side of Islamic regimes over against U.S. interests. (Notably, she has praised her native Somalia, defended Hamas leadership over its rocket attacks on Israel and sided with the mullahs of Iran over against the present foreign policy actions of the United States.)


	Yet, at the same time, she wishes to be seen as a progressive Democrat. So she stands as a proud feminist even though Islam as a worldwide movement is the greatest oppressor of women ever to control human behavior patterns. She claims to be a staunch supporter of LGBTQ rights, even though Shari’a law commands that those declared guilty of homosexual behavior must be executed — this is based on three passages in the Qur’an (7.80-84; 26.165-166, and 4.16) and numerous Hadith traditions such as this one from Sunan Abu Dawud 4462:


	The Messenger of Allah said, “Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot [Lot] (i.e., the people of Sodom), execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.”


	The conflict between settled Islamic law and Western leftist values is inescapable, but it is nonetheless ignored by both Muslim and secular progressives alike so they may harmoniously band together to destroy a larger, common enemy: traditional Western culture founded upon a biblical worldview and ethic. Hence, Ilhan Omar and so many others are able to live a lie without batting an eyelash or being challenged in their hypocrisy.


	Omar’s past life is coming under increasing scrutiny as she dwells in the public spotlight. One area of special interest is her marriage history. She has been married and divorced two times, is married once again but apparently has recently filed for divorce a third time. In our present culture this is not all that unusual, sadly, but it is even more acceptable in Muslim circles since marriage is treated solely as a legal contract, not as the lifelong partnership/covenant envisioned in the Bible. What is a bit surprising, however, is the freedom Omar has had in initiating her divorces. Under Islamic law the husband can procure a divorce instantly for almost any reason, but the wife is extremely limited in her capacity to seek legal exit from the marriage.


	Omar’s marital history is a bit complicated, particularly if she claims to submit to Shari’a, as any good Muslim must. Here’s a timeline of her marriages and divorces, according to civil and legal documents:

<ul style="list-style-type:disc;">
	<li>
		2002 — Islamic religious marriage to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi
		<ul style="list-style-type:disc;">
			<li>
				They have two children before divorcing</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		2008 — They are divorced according to Shari’a law</li>
	<li>
		2009 — A few months after the divorce, Omar marries Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in a state-sanctioned ceremony.
		<ul style="list-style-type:disc;">
			<li>
				no children come from this union; apparently Hirsi, Omar and Elmi all live together in the same house for the next two years.</li>
			<li>
				questions have been raised about whether Elmi and Omar are brother and sister, and the marriage was arranged “for immigration reasons.” Omar denies this.</li>
		</ul>
	</li>
	<li>
		2011 — Omar separates from Elmi in a religious ceremony but does not file for legal divorce.</li>
	<li>
		2012 — Within a few months by Islamic ceremony she enters into a remarriage with Hirsi. Their third child, Ilwad, is born June 11, 2012. You can do the math for yourself.</li>
	<li>
		2017 — Omar files for legal divorce from Elmi late in the year.</li>
	<li>
		2018 — Divorce is granted early in the year. One month later, she marries Hirsi in a civil ceremony.</li>
</ul>


	A few things stand out at first glance. From the perspective of Shari’a law, although a Muslim man can have up to four wives concurrently, a Muslim woman can be married to only one Muslim man at a time. Marriages contracted among Muslims, whether civil or religious, are recognized by Islamic courts as valid.


	Though Omar has attempted to spin her merry-go-round marriages as “religious/cultural”&nbsp; or “legal”, her distinctions fall flat. As a Muslim entering into a religious marriage before Allah, she must consider that marriage even more legitimate than one merely solemnized before the State. Otherwise she places a human authority above Allah. Likewise, if she dismisses her first union with Hirsi as only an affair, not a “true” marriage, then according to Shari’a law, she and Hirsi are guilty of repeated fornication (the penalty for which is death by stoning) and the children of this relationship are ever in a state of disgrace.


	If, on the other hand, she recognizes her relationship with Hirsi as a true marriage, then according to Shari’a, when they are irrevocably divorced (which is accomplished with a threefold declaration by the husband of “talaq”) they cannot be remarried until Omar has been married to another man, consummated that marriage with a sexual union, and then been irrevocably divorced from that husband. At that point she would be able to remarry her first husband Hirsi.


	This bizarre arrangement stems from “revelation” in the Qur’an found in Sura 2:230 —


	After a divorce for the third time, it is not lawful for the husband to resume marital relations with her or remarry her until she has been married and divorced by another husband. In that case, there is no sin for the former husband to marry her if they (both) think that they can abide by the law. These are the laws of God. He explains them for the people of knowledge. (Sarwar trans.)


	That the wife in this case must have engaged in sex with the second husband bef0re being divorced and remarried to the first husband is confirmed by a hadith tradition found three times in&nbsp;Sahih Bukhari&nbsp;(7.72.715; 7.63.187; 8.73.107) as well as in&nbsp;al-Muwatta Imam Malik&nbsp;(28.7.17). Here’s the version from&nbsp;Bukhari&nbsp;7.72.715:


	Narrated ‘Ikrima: Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha [Muhammad’s young and favorite wife] said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (‘Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e., that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”


	The woman in question seeks release from her second marriage so she can go back to her first husband. Apparently, her present husband is physically abusive (she is sporting deep bruises from his beatings, as Muhammad’s wife ‘Aisha points out to the prophet). Additionally, she claims he is impotent and cannot satisfy her sexually, meaning their marriage had never been consummated. The husband, ‘Abdur-Rahman, learning that his wife had gone to the prophet to complain, rushed over to defend himself and his marriage. Disputing her charge of impotence, he claimed that she was rebellious toward him and only wanted to return to her first husband. Muhammad completely overlooks the issue of physical abuse by ‘Abdur-Rahman (after all, the Qur’an gives license to the husband to beat his wife or wives if he “fears rebellion” from them and they have not responded favorably to lesser punishments (see 4:34)), and deals only with the wife’s desire to divorce ‘Abdur- Rahman in order to return to Rifa’a, her first husband. He makes it clear that she is “stuck” with Abdur-Rahman until she allows him to consummate the marriage with her, after which point he can divorce her and she can be permissibly remarried to her first husband.


	This arrangement has come to be known as “nikah halala” or “nikah hilla”. The Arabic word “nikah” literally means sexual intercourse, but more largely refers to the institution of marriage, to which intercourse is largely confined (except for sex slaves and those raped licitly during jihad, according to Shari’a law). “Halala” and “hilla” come from the same Arabic root word used to designate permissible foods to eat (halal) over against forbidden ones (haram). So, nikah halala means “permitted or licit sex” and has come to designate a marriage entered into specifically so as to make a divorced woman “permissible” for her first husband to marry once again, after she has been “enjoyed” sexually by another man in an intervening marriage. In fact, in Islamic Arabic parlance, the intervening husband is known as a “muhallil” (also from the same root for halal), which means “one who makes permissible/lawful.”


	Sadly, in some parts of the Muslim world this has turned into something of a cottage industry with men hiring themselves out as muhallils, all in “a humanitarian effort” to reunite couples divorced through a husband’s impetuous and hotheaded “triple talaq” (talaq is the Arabic word for divorce, and when a husband repeats it three times in succession to his wife, she is immediately and irrevocably divorced). If he regrets his hasty act and wants to keep his wife, his only recourse is to find a muhallil who will marry his wife, sleep with her at least once, and then agree to divorce her immediately.


	According to Shari’a law as found in one popular manual (Reliance of the Traveller), such a “one night stand” kind of marriage is not valid, if the purpose of the sham marriage is only to allow a divorced couple to remarry. But there is a way around this legally — as long as that purpose is not explicitly stipulated in the written marriage contract, then the nikah halala is legal:


	m6.12 The following types of marriage are legally invalid: 
	… 
	(3) or to marry a woman after her threefold divorce solely to cohabit and thus permit her (dis: n7.7) to remarry her previous husband (A: which is an enormity (dis: p29)), though if the marriage agreement is made for this reason but does not expressly stipulate it, then it is legally valid (dis: c5.2).


	So, with regard to practicing Muslim Ilhan Omar, who married and divorced Ahmed Hirsi (2002-08), and then married him again in 2012, such a remarriage would only be allowed to them if she had married and been sexually active with another husband in the intervening years. Omar asserts that this is indeed the case, as she legally married Ahmed Elmi in 2009. However, there are significant questions as to the legality of this marriage since there is growing evidence that Elmi may in fact be Omar’s full brother (from the same parents). If that is the case, then Omar and Elmi might not have consummated the relationship — it would have been a marriage only on paper, to grant him legal status in the USA and the ability to quickly pursue a college degree (which he did). However, if the marriage was never consummated, then Omar’s remarriage to Hirsi would be forbidden according to Islamic law. On the other hand, if she and Elmi did consummate their marriage and are in fact sister and brother, then they would be guilty of incest, a crime in America and a major sin in Islam. Such a marriage would not be regarded as valid by Shari’a law, and would again not qualify as “nikah halala”. In this case, her subsequent remarriage to Hirsi would also be forbidden.


	Read the rest&nbsp;<a href="https://mateenelass.wordpress.com/2019/08/23/ilhan-omar-and-the-revolving-doors-of-marriage/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">here</a>.

Ilhan Omar and the Revolving Doors of Marriage

U.S Rep. Ilhan Omar presents herself as a practicing Muslim — she wears a head-covering out of religious conviction, talks proudly of her Muslim heritage,

Frontpage Mag

mateen elass

CAIR Condemns Hostage-Taker

Islam's Inferiority Complex

Ilhan Omar and the Revolving Doors of Marriage

FPM Series

Disloyal Military

Progressive Fascists

Racist Mayors

The Point

Did FBI Raid Seek "Exonerating" Russiagate Materials?

Abbas' Holocaust Denial Tour Hits Germany

This Version of Anne Frank's Diary Should Be Removed From Libraries

NY Gov Hochul Won't Lock Up Criminals, Will Ban Toy Guns

Pride Flags, Yes, American Flags, No in Spiderman Game

Events