Jihadism: The Fear That Dare Not Speak its Name

One of the most troubling aspects about “peace and justice” activism in the current era is that the very same institutions that condemn Israel so vociferously have had a difficult, if not impossible time confronting the terrible misdeeds of the Assad regime in Syria, ISIS in Iraq and Boko Haram in Nigeria with the same force with which they assail the Jewish state.

Yes, they issue condemnations, but their statements are lamentations that really do not approach in ferocity of the ugly denunciations these institutions target at Israel. In the United States, the problem is most pronounced in liberal Protestant mainline churches such as the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA and the United Methodist Church, denominations that have to varying degrees of intensity support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement that singles Israel out for condemnation — in a transparent effort to eradicate the country by economic means — while remaining shamefully silent about the genocide of Christians in the Middle East.

We also see a tendency in institutions such as the World Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches and to my dismay as a Catholic, the Vatican and other parts of the Roman Catholic Church, to assail Israel while remaining silent about the problem of jihad.

The Catholic Church, which has condemned anti-Semitism in a document called Nostra Aetate in 1965, also has a difficult time dealing with the problem of Muslim anti-Semitism and anti-Christian hostility in Muslim communities and the religious sources they hold dear.

One source of the problem is that it is simply a lot easier and safer to speak out about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians than it is to confront the violence against Christians in the rest of the Middle East.

Source: for MORE

Security chief says UK is home to 35,000 Islamic jihadis

The European Union’s counter-terrorism coordinator, Gilles de Kerchove, “singled out the UK as having more radicalised Muslims than any other country in Europe,” with as many “35,000 fanatical Islamists.” France has around 17,000, he says, and other areas of Europe, “tens of thousands.”

This is what trusted authorities are subjecting their citizens to in the UK and elsewhere in the West. It is an appalling neglect of duty. De Kerchove also issues a dire warning:

that radicals were increasingly using the islamic concept of “taqiyya” – concealing their religious beliefs from those around them – in order to prevent detection.

Aiding jihadists even more is the abuse of the word “Islamophobia,” which aims to shut down criticism of Islam and beat up critics.

Britain is also home to up to a million young girls being raped by Muslim grooming gangs, and some 85 sharia courts, which are returning women to abuse in “marital captivity.”

Meanwhile, this has been reported about Hungary and Poland: “no refugees, no terror”.

Source: for MORE

Jihad Means More than “A Peaceful Self-Struggle”!

Linda Sarsour, a Muslim activist, has called for jihad against U.S. President Donald J. Trump. In her speech addressing the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) on July 6, 2017, she said: “when a man asked prophet Muhammad about the best form of jihad, he replied it is a word of truth in front of tyrant ruler.” And then she said:

“I hope that … when we stand up to those who oppress our communities, that Allah accepts from us that as a form of jihad, that we are struggling against tyrants and rulers not only abroad in the Middle East or on the other side of the world, but here in these United States of America, where you have fascists and white supremacists and Islamophobes reigning in the White House.”

One may disagree with her views on President Trump, but Sarsour has every right to express her opinion. However, calling for “jihad” against our president is an extremely serious red flag that we should not ignore.

What Sarsour said is technically correct, but simply not accurate. It is just half of the truth. What she did not, and probably will not, say is that the concept of jihad in Islam, as it is widely taught and understood in Islamic jurisprudence, is not only self-struggle or peaceful opposition, but also using force and violence to defend Islam, as well as to spread and impose it on non-Muslims.

Source: for MORE

The Saudi Islamist conundrum

The vast majority of Islamic terrorism is Sunni. How do the governments in Sunni Muslim societies tackle Islamic jihadism that threatens to overthrow existing Sunni governments which the jihadis label “apostates?” A fascinating example is what happened in Saudi Arabia when what the Saudis would call “Islamic extremist jihadis” took control of the holy mosque in Mecca in 1979.

The Saudis follow a strict version of Sunni Islam—Wahhabism—which was itself an 18th century Islamic Reform Movement based on the already most strictly applied school of Sunni Islam—the Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence, “the strictest of the strict.” But was it “strict enough?”

To ISIS and al-Qa’ida, the Saudi government, supported by the Saudi Wahhabi religious establishment, are apostates. They allow Western influences into the kingdom, allow non-Muslims to live and work on Islam’s most holy place on earth, and thus are serving the interests of the non-Muslims. They are therefore guilty of apostasy; the punishment for which in Islam is death. From ISIS, al-Qa’ida, and other extreme Muslim jihadi groups, the Saudis must be eliminated because they are Muslims.

How did these groups come into existence? In short, the Saudis themselves gave birth to them.

Source: for MORE

France: “Jihad by Court”

A silent jihad is under way in France. Spread by a constellation of Muslim organizations allied to powerful (non-Muslim) “anti-racist” associations, “jihad by court” is attacking freedom of press, and freedom of speech. Any journalist, politician, lawyer or intellectual who talks or writes either about Islam or some of its representatives in a critical way, is at risk of being taken to court for “racism” or “outraging a group of people because of their religion.”

The so-called “jihad by court” began in an experimental way in France at the beginning of the century. In 2002, the famous French writer Michel Houellebecq was sued for “incitement to hatred” by Islamic organizations allied to the Ligue des droits de l’Homme, (“Human Rights League”), a prestigious “anti-racist” organization. Houellebecq was sued for having said in an interview with Lire magazine that, “of all existing religions, Islam is the dumbest. We read the Coran, we all collapse.” Houellebecq was acquitted.

In 2007, a similar lawsuit was initiated by the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF) and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, because it republished the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The plaintiffs accused Charlie Hebdo of “racism”. Charlie Hebdo was acquitted. In 2011, unknown arsonists burned Charlie Hebdo‘s offices. The magazine was sued again in 2012 and in 2013. Each time, the plaintiffs were different Muslim organizations claiming different instances of “racism” or “blasphemy”. January 7, 2015, two Muslim terrorists stormed into the offices of Charlie Hebdo and murdered 12 people.

Two years after that, jihad by court is everywhere.

Source: for MORE