Advertisements
Home

Video: Robert Spencer on why the Islamic State is Islamic

2 Comments

This is from Jihad Watch.

I wonder how many lists Robert Spencer is on?

I wonder how many lists I am on?

The Islamic State: Is It Islamic? And Why It Matters

Robert Spencer, author of 13 books on Islam and Director of Jihad Watch spoke to a local gathering of ACT! for America, to give his thoughts on Why ISIS is Islamic.

Al Qaeda has been replaced with the “JV” team, ISIS, as the world’s leading terrorist organization. Our government seems incapable of identifying the growing threat of radical Islamists and is unwilling even to name it. Robert shows, using the Quran, why ISIS is Islamic, and why so many other seemingly benign Islamic groups fail to live up to the true nature of the Quran and life of Muhammad. He lays out this growing threat and what we need to know about their doctrine, goals, and strategies, if we are to have any hope in destroying them!

 

Advertisements

Obama: Media Overstates Terror Threat

Leave a comment

This is from FrontPageMagazine.

I do not think the terrorist threat gets enough press coverage.

Man child Obama is cadet oblivious to the threat of terrorism.

You notice I did not say Captain Oblivious Obama will never rank that high.

Obama’s timing couldn’t be worse. Just as a new report has demonstrated yet again that global warming is a hoax, he has backed it in a new interview as a “longer-term” problem than jihad terror.

During a lengthy conversation published over two days by the far-Left publication Vox, interviewer Matthew Yglesias asked Obama: “Do you think the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease?”

Obama readily agreed – and his full answer was revealing in several ways: 

Absolutely. And I don’t blame the media for that. What’s the famous saying about local newscasts, right? If it bleeds, it leads, right? You show crime stories and you show fires, because that’s what folks watch, and it’s all about ratings.…And climate change is one that is happening at such a broad scale and at such a complex system, it’s a hard story for the media to tell on a day-to-day basis.

Unfortunately for Obama, it isn’t really even happening at all. Christopher Booker wrote in the Telegraph on Saturday that “official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.” He noted that a researcher had “checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.”

But Obama is entirely oblivious – and worse. He refers to “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” No one was randomly shot in that “deli in Paris.” It was a kosher supermarket, and the people who were murdered there were murdered because they were Jews. They were murdered by people who were animated by the Qur’an’s relentless Jew-hatred and labeling of the Jews as the worst enemies of the Muslims (5:82). But that, too, is a threat that Obama dares not name.

Throughout the interview, Obama maintains his carefully cultivated and sustained obliviousness about the jihad threat – an obliviousness that is now, thanks to Obama, official U.S. policy. It was not at all surprising that in the section of the Vox interview that was devoted to foreign policy, Obama never once mentions Islam, or even “Islamist.” He does refer to “violent extremism,” which seems to be his euphemism of choice these days, as it is also the name of his Countering Violent Extremism summit, which should be renamed Countering the Threat We Dare Not Name.

It’s also significant that he gave this massive, detailed, extensive interview to Vox, a hard-Left publication that just last Saturday was claiming that those who took issue with Obama’s reprehensible moral equivalence regarding the Crusades were just looking for an excuse to hate Muslims. That is the milieu from which Obama comes, and in which he is most comfortable. Vox’s perspective is, almost certainly, his world view as well: that those who believe that Islam uniquely teaches and justifies violence in a way that Christianity and other religions do not are motivated solely by hatred of Muslims. This is the line that Hamas-linked CAIR and its henchmen have promoted for years. In the White House today, they have their most powerful champion ever.

Neither Vox nor Obama appear prepared to acknowledge that resistance to jihad terror is not “hate,” or that the Crusaders did not justify violence by invoking Christian texts and teachings, because there were no such texts and teachings justifying those terrible deeds – a sharp contrast to the Islamic jihadists who regularly invoke the Qur’an to justify their actions.

Nor do Vox or Obama appear aware or interested in the fact that the Crusaders’ atrocities are entirely irrelevant to any jihad conflict today. Even if the Crusaders were the twelfth-century equivalent of the Islamic State, with equivalent atrocities (although they weren’t, really), that would not free Obama and his Administration from the responsibility to identify the true nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and deal with it realistically.

But that is about as likely as his naming Michele Bachmann the next Secretary of Defense.

*

Don’t miss Robert Spencer on The Glazov Gang discuss How Islam Inspired the Charlie Hebdo Massacre:

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: 7 Reasons Why the Oklahoma Beheading Has Everything to Do with Islam

Leave a comment

This is from Jihad Watch.

Islam is a cancer on the backside of the world that needs to be eliminated.

But sadly the world is bowing to Islam.

 

Here are some clues that Jah’Keem Yisrael acted on the Qur’an’s hatred and contempt for non-Muslims, and its calls for violence against them. My latest in PJ Media:

A convert to Islam who named himself Jah’Keem Yisrael (formerly Alton Alexander Nolen) beheaded one of his coworkers and was shot while trying to behead another on September 26 at his place of work, Vaughan Foods in Moore, Oklahoma. Despite the numerous indications that Yisrael was inspired to choose his manner of murder and to carry it out by his immersion in Islam, authorities profess to be puzzled as to why he did it, or at least certain that his actions had nothing to do with that most misunderstood of religions, Islam.

The UK Daily Mail reported Tuesday that “while the FBI is investigating his links to Islam, and while he believed Nolen was using Arabic terms during the attack,” Cleveland County prosecutor Greg Mashburn “said the attack seemed to be tied more to the complaints against him” by coworkers at Vaughan Foods. Traci Johnson, whom Yisrael tried but failed to behead, said that not long before the attack, she got into an argument with the soon-to-be beheader “about him not liking white people.” Mashburn accordingly jumped at the chance to report that the attack was racially, not religiously motivated: “It had more to do with race rather than trying to convert people.”

Likewise Tony Blinken, Obama’s deputy national security adviser. When he was asked whether the beheading was an act of terror or, as the Obama administration notoriously classified the Fort Hood jihad massacre of November 2009, workplace violence, Blinken responded: “We don’t know. The FBI has an active investigation. I’m not going to get ahead of it. Let’s see what they find.” And as for the FBI, Special Agent in Charge James E. Finch said that the bureau hadn’t yet figured out what Yisrael’s motive was.

Here’s some help

behead28n-1-web

1. His hatred for America and proclamation of a Sharia future.

Jah’Keem Yisrael’s Facebook page, recently taken down, was extraordinarily revealing. According to the New York Daily News [6], it was “riddled with phrases like ‘Sharia law is coming’ and calling America ‘wicked.’”

2. His admiration for jihad terrorists.

The New York Daily News also reported that the Facebook page had “photos of various terror groups and their leaders, including bin Laden, who was killed by U.S. forces operating in Pakistan in 2012.”

3. His positive view of beheadings.

His page also featured a graphic photograph of a beheadings accompanied by this Qur’an quote:

“I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them” (Qur’an 8:9-13).

4. His Qur’anic quotes and Islamic exhortations.

Jah’Keem Yisrael filled his Facebook page with quotations from the Qur’an and exhortations to his fellow Muslims to be more rigorous and correct in their observance of Islamic ritual and morality.One of these read:

JahKeemYisrael3

jahkeem-yisrael-isis-salute-facebook

5. His Islamic State hand signal.
Also on Yisrael’s Facebook page was a photograph of him with two members of the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City; Yisrael stands between them holding up his index finger in the sign of the Islamic State, signifying Islam’s uncompromising monotheism…

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: 10 Things We Should Have Done Since 9/11 to Defeat the Jihad

Leave a comment

This is from Jihad Watch.

Robert Spencer is spot on with his comments.

Sadly, political correctness would have stopped this plan from being revealed and implemented.

 

 

if I had been President of the United States. My latest at PJ Media:

Speaking from the Oval Office on the evening of September 11, 2001, I gave the American people and the world at large a brief explanation of the 1,400-year history of Islamic jihad, its ultimate goal of imposing Sharia upon the world, and how that would mean the denial of basic rights to women, non-Muslims, and others.

Looking straight into the camera, I said: “We do not seek war with Muslim nations. If war is brought to us, however, we will defend our nation, our allies, our freedom, and our families. We will not be subjugated. This is a different kind of war from the wars we have fought in the past. It is an ideological war and a war fought by believers in certain ideas rather than by soldiers from particular nations. We will, therefore, fight this new kind of war in a new way. No nation of the world will be a friend to the United States if it holds the beliefs that led to this heinous attack today and allows them to be taught. I invite and call upon the Muslims of the world to choose a society based on the principles of the freedom of speech and the equality of rights before the law. Make no mistake: we will defend those principles. And we will prevail.”

That evening I also instructed Secretary of State Bolton to start working in these directions (and seriously, if America had a sane and open-eyed political culture today, and an effective opposition to the ruling party, it would implement measures like these):

1. Tell the truth about Islamic jihad and supremacism.
Already on September 11, 2001, we were hearing that the attack had nothing to do with Islam. Thirteen years later, it is a constant crescendo. On Wednesday, Australian police raided an Islamic bookstore and arrested two Muslims on terror charges relating to their activities in recruiting Muslims for the jihad in Syria. Australian Federal Police National Manager Counter Terrorism Assistant Commissioner Neil Gaughan insisted: “This has got nothing to do with Islam, this is criminal behaviour by Australians involved in terrorist activity.” That same day, Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Islamic State’s “hateful ideology has nothing do with Islam.”

Gaughan and Kerry are just the latest in a steady stream of non-Muslims who know more about Islam than the leader of the Islamic State, the caliph Ibrahim, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who has a PhD in Islamic Studies. This denial and willful ignorance about the fact that Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify their actions and make recruits only fosters complacency among non-Muslims and makes them more vulnerable.

This denial and willful ignorance must be decisively rejected. Why? Because it kills. Thirteen people were killed at Fort Hood because U.S. Army officials were afraid to buck the politically correct culture and act against a Muslim officer who was in touch with Anwar al-Awlaki and had frightened his coworkers with his talk of jihad.

Ultimately, no good comes from evading and obfuscating the truth. Reality will always impinge upon fantasy, no matter how cleverly constructed.

2. Take pride in our own culture.

The U.S. today faces an even stronger enemy than the Islamic jihadists – and stronger than Russia and China as well. That enemy is the entrenched culture of self-hatred that denigrates anything and everything American, and exalts the most inveterate America-haters as heroic underdogs struggling valiantly against a brutal and blind behemoth. That entrenched culture is the foremost obstacle to our defense against jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, in a never-ending tale of obfuscation of a genuine threat and slander of those who call attention to it.

In the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush should have called upon the education establishment to reject the revisionism and self-hatred that dominates the textbook view of American history and Western civilization today, and to recognize that Western culture and civilization are seriously threatened today and are worth defending.

American citizens should stop spending so little time learning the history of their own country, and the civilization of the Western world, and so much more on a mishmash of practically everything — which, in the case of Islam, also has become a carefully devised method to impart misinformation. Islamic supremacists calculatedly employ the rhetoric of inclusion and multiculturalism to gain for themselves the right of final edit of discussion of Islam in American history textbooks. We must re-learn our own history. We need to take pride in much of it, and to revere, not find new ways to deride, those who built the political and legal institutions of this country, with its unrivaled freedoms and concern for individual rights.

It should also be made a requirement in public schools to teach that there is an ongoing Islamic jihad against the United States, and what a jihad is, and what it means to accomplish, and why it should be resisted.

3. Enforce existing laws.

Section 2385 of the federal criminal code states that,

whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government…shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.[1]

It could be that the proviso in this statute that the overthrow of the government must be planned as taking place by “force and violence” may prevent this law from being applied against Muslim Brotherhood groups that are intent on subverting America from within. Legal minds should study that issue. But surely – somehow — working toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” as the Muslim Brotherhood has stated its own strategic goal for America, ought to be a prosecutable offense.

4. Challenge Muslim organizations.

It is remarkable that thirteen years after 9/11, not a single mosque or Islamic school in the U.S. has any organized program to teach Muslims why the al-Qaeda/Islamic State understanding of Islam is wrong and should be rejected. Yet they ostensibly reject this view of Islam, so why don’t such programs exist? Even more remarkable than their absence is the fact that no government or law enforcement authorities are calling upon Muslims to implement them.

Such programs must be instituted, and made transparent and open to inspection, so as to ensure their sincerity and thoroughness.

5. Call on Muslim groups to renounce the aspects of Sharia that contradict constitutional freedoms.

The U.S. government should call upon Islamic advocacy groups in this country to renounce, in a sincere and genuine manner, any intention now or in the future to replace the Constitution of the United States with Islamic Sharia. The sincerity of this renunciation should be demonstrated by transparent action to teach in mosques and Islamic schools against this intention, and against the elements of Sharia that contradict American freedoms.

Those that refuse to do this, or are found to be teaching these aspects of Sharia, should be immediately reclassified as political organizations, not religious ones, and made subject to all the accountability to which political groups are ordinarily held. Those that continue after this to teach political Islam should be closed and prosecuted.

6. End U.S. government cooperation with groups linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Thirteen years after 9/11, Muslim organizations with proven ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), exercise extraordinary influence in Washington (particularly the Holder Justice Department), as well as in the mainstream media.

A Spencer administration would have banned government officials from having any contact with organizations that the Justice Department had designated unindicted co-conspirators in cases involving jihad terror activity. Would the Roosevelt Justice Department in 1943 have held outreach programs with groups that had demonstrable ties to the Nazis?

Read the rest here.

Robert Spencer in PJ Lifestyle: 5 Things You Should Know About the Latest Military Jihadist

Leave a comment

This is from Jihad Watch.

Our multiculturalism and culture diversity will be the death of America.

 

 

In PJ Lifestyle today I draw five lessons from the strange case of Muhammad Abdullah Hassan, formerly John Thomas Booker, who recently wrote: “I am going to wage jihad and hopes that i die.”

The story was overshadowed by Wednesday’s shooting at Fort Hood, but last Monday Fox News revealed that the FBI and the U.S. military had issued an alert for a Muslim former Army recruit who was planning a “Fort Hood-inspired jihad against U.S. soldiers.” This was more than just an eerie foreshadowing of the Wednesday shooting, although the story almost immediately got murky: on Tuesday the FBI responded to the Fox story with more or less a full denial, declaring that there was no manhunt and that the Muslim recruit named in the alert was not a threat. Nonetheless, enough details emerged to reveal some key facts:

5. Conversion to Islam can make a military man into a traitor.

The would-be Fort Hood-style jihadist was John Thomas Booker, a convert to Islam who now goes by the name Muhammad Abdullah Hassan. According to the alert that the FBI and U.S. military distributed, Hassan was,

“recruited by the U.S. Army in Kansas City, Mo., in February 2014 and was scheduled to report for basic training on April 7. But he was discharged last week, apparently after law enforcement authorities learned of his alleged plan.”

The alert didn’t make clear whether Booker was already Hassan when he was recruited into the Army, or whether he converted while in the Army, but unless he entered the Army with the intention of subverting it and killing American soldiers, he probably entered the military with at least some patriotic sentiment, all of which he lost as he learned about his new faith.

In this Hassan resembles last month’s military jihadist, Ased Abdur-Raheem, formerly Nicholas Teausant, a member of the Army National Guard who called for respect for the military uniform just three days before he was arrested, and almost a year after he wrote on Instagram,

“don’t get me wrong I despise america and want its down fall but yeah haha. Lol I been a part of the army for two years now and I would love to join Allah’s army but I don’t even know how to start.”

This change may be because Islam calls for loyalty to the umma, the global Islamic community, above all other loyalties, and teaches (in the words of the twentieth-century Pakistani Islamic scholar and politician, Maulana Maududi) that non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.”

Such words can turn an American soldier into an America-hating jihadist….

2. The U.S. military makes no serious attempt to determine if Muslim recruits might be jihadists.

Army officials stated that Muhammad Abdullah Hassan never said anything anti-American while he was being recruited, and that was apparently enough for them. There is no indication that the military makes any serious attempt to determine the views, allegiances and loyalties of Muslim soldiers.

Indeed, to do so would be “Islamophobic.” Perish the thought! Instead, the military is anxious to find and showcase Muslim personnel – so anxious that, as I reveal in my book Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In, Nidal Malik Hasan rose swiftly through Army ranks even as he justified jihad-martyrdom suicide bombing and spouted hatred for America. In an evaluation dated March 13, 2009, a bit less than eight months before his jihad attack, Hasan’s superiors stated that his “unique insights into the dimensions of Islam” and his “moral reasoning” could be of “great potential interest and strategic importance to the U.S. Army.”

A July 1, 2009 report noted that Hasan had “a keen interest in Islamic culture and faith and has shown capacity to contribute to our psychological understanding of Islamic nationalism and how it may relate to events of national security and Army interest in the Middle East and Asia.” He did indeed contribute to our psychological understanding of Islamic nationalism, on November 5, 2009, as he shouted “Allahu akbar” and began shooting.

Nor did his shooting change anything. Army Chief of Staff George Casey even said that barring Muslims from the military or subjecting them to additional scrutiny would be worse than the massacre itself:

“Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Casey will get what he wants: diversity in the military, along with its inevitable byproduct, more Fort Hood-style jihad massacres….

 

JUDGE: ‘GAY RIGHTS’ TRUMP 1ST AMENDMENT

1 Comment

This is from World Net Daily.

This ruling sets a dangerous precedent.

It has opened the door to more lawsuits by the homosexual

activists thugs claiming discrimination.

Orders Colorado baker to violate beliefs, submit to homosexuals’ demands.

Another judge has ruled homosexuals have a right not to be offended that supersedes First Amendment religious rights.

In the latest case, a Denver cake baker must make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding even if the message being conveyed in the ceremony violates his religious beliefs.

“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs,” Nicolle Martin, an attorney with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said.

“Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free. If the government can take away our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away.”

The ruling came from Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer in Denver against Jack Phillips, a Christian who owns Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colo.

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., cited conflicting religious beliefs when he declined in July 2012 to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception. Photo/Denver Post

Phillips told the homosexual couple he couldn’t make the cake because he believes marriage between a man and a woman. The couple subsequently filed a discrimination claim arguing that Phillips’ refusal was based on their sexual orientation.

However, Phillips insisted he refused because of the message conveyed by the wedding cake.

“I told them I don’t do wedding cakes for same-sex marriages,” Phillips told WND. “I then let them know I would make any other kind of cake for them, just not a wedding cake.”

He explained to WND there are cakes for other circumstance he also would refuse to make.

“If a couple were to come in and ask me to do an erotic cake for a wedding I would refuse to do that as well,” he said. “These are my personal standards taken from Jesus Christ and the Bible.”

The case centers on whose rights take precedence.

Judge Spencer said the view that Phillips’ First Amendment rights are primary “fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

In his ruling, Spencer noted Phillips’ argument that he also would have refused a request by a heterosexual couple to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

However, Spencer granted homosexuals a special standard.

“Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not ‘because of’ their sexual orientation,’” Spencer wrote.

In Wednesday’s hearing on the case, the American Civil Liberties Union argued that while the government had the right to force a Christian to use his artistic talents to design a homosexual wedding cake, the standard should not be applied to other groups – such as asking a Muslim baker to make a cake criticizing his faith.

Spencer lined up behind the ACLU and said that while Phillips is expected to give up his religious beliefs regarding marriage to avoid offending homosexuals, if a Muslim baker were to be asked to design a cake denigrating the Quran or if a black cake maker was asked to do a cake for the KKK, neither would be under any compulsion to do so.

“In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse,” Spencer said.

“That, however, is not the case here, where respondents refused to bake any cake for complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech.”

Spencer bluntly offered cake makers an alternative: They can quit.

“If … respondents choose to quit making wedding cakes altogether to avoid future violations of the law; that is a matter of personal choice and not a result compelled by the state,” he suggested.

Spencer’s arguments are similar to statements by other government officials regarding homosexuality and same-sex ceremonies.

Raymond Sexton, executive director for the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission in Kentucky, told WND that it might be perfectly fine for a printing company run by “gays” to refuse to print anti-”gay” literature, but a Christian company refusing to print T-shirts for a “gay” event would not have that same right.

Hands On Originals, a company in Lexington, Ky., refused a request to print T-shirts for a local “gay” pride festival, citing religious beliefs.

But Sexton told WND that if a “gay” printing company was asked to print T-shirts from someone wanting the statement “Homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God,” the “gay” group would have the right to refuse to print the order.

“If the company does not approve of the message, that is a valid non-discriminatory reason to refuse the work,” he said.

He also said a black business owner would have the right to refuse to print a flyer for a Klan rally.

However, when asked if the same would apply to Hands On Online if officials said “we don’t support ‘gay’ pride festivals, but we won’t discriminate against a person because they are ‘gay,’” Sexton was not as committed, simply saying “possibly.”

“This is a gray area, but possibly. I can’t say definitively, but it possibly could pass the test,” he said. “I would recommend they take the word ‘gay’ out of there and say they simply don’t approve of the message.”

A New Mexico judge ruled that a Christian wedding photographer must surrender her religious beliefs as the price of good citizenship.

Elaine Huguenin, co-owner of Elane Photography with her husband Jonathan, was asked to commemorate a same-sex ceremony by Vanessa Willock.

Huguenin refused, saying that while she does not discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of their orientation, her Christian beliefs prohibited her from sanctioning the marriage of two members of the same sex.

The state Supreme Court ruled that the Huguenins did not have any right to refuse to express sentiments contrary to her beliefs, ordering the couple to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees to Willock and her partner.

That case remains on appeal.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/judge-gay-rights-trump-1st-amendment-for-christians/#Jja863PGHu124lZb.99

%d bloggers like this: