Tag Archives: Islamists

Dealing With the Islamic Threat to America: Part I

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D.

In a previous article, I outlined the threat that unfettered immigration poses to America. Starting with this article, I want to provide more details and give examples of what we are facing and how to deal with that threat. First, let me state that I am not against the practice of any religion. I agree that America should allow the practice of any religion. However, an Islamist is someone who supports a political ideology that advocates for a society governed by Islamic law and values. The central goal of Islamism is the establishment of a state governed by Sharia law. A person can follow the Muslim religion and not be an Islamist. This distinction is critical to remember. I am opposed to any group that wants to fundamentally change America (as Barack Obama famously once said). Islamists are committed to using any and all means to create an Islamist state, including violence.

I would like to start off with an exploration of what Sharia law entails. The laws we follow in this country are derived from Western civilization sources such as the Roman Empire, Judeo/Christian beliefs like the Ten Commandments, and the historical British legal system. Sharia law derives solely from the writings of the prophet Muhammed. Also, our legal system focuses on the sphere of public interaction; Sharia law controls public interactions and also controls private behavior and beliefs. While an internet search will provide information about all of the elements of Sharia law, I am going to address some that are most concerning. Sharia law advocates drastic physical punishments for violators, as well as being especially restrictive to women. A few examples:  amputation of a person’s hand for theft; a woman who alleges she was raped must present four male witnesses in order to seek justice; a woman found guilty of adultery is punishable by death; Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman that does not wear a Hijab (covering of neck, head, ears, except face) in public; a man can have up to four wives, whereas a woman can only have one husband; a man can physically beat his wife for insubordination; a woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative; women and girls should be genitally mutilated; a Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by  death; criticizing Muhammed, the Quran (i.e. their Bible), or Allah is punishable by death.

While these rules are obviously not the laws that Americans want to live by, the majority of people in many Muslim majority countries find them very acceptable. For example: 74% of Egyptians; 71% of Jordanians; 72% of Indonesians; 86% of Malaysians and 91% of Iraqis are in favor of living under Sharia law. Of course, that is their heritage, and they have a right to any legal system that they choose. The problem is that many of the immigrants from these and many other Muslim majority countries want to have Sharia in the country to which they immigrate. A good example of what can happen when large numbers of Islamists immigrate is the current situation in Europe. European countries have experienced higher numbers of Muslim immigrants over the past few decades than we have here in America (at least until Biden opened up our borders to all comers). As of 2024, 8.5% of the population of Sweden are Muslim immigrants; Britain at 6.9%, France 10.5%, Germany 7.2%, and Austria 8.6%. Estimates show that about 2%, or 5 million people in the United States are Muslims. One thing to note is that among Muslims, the birthrate is much higher than for native born Americans (which is now at 1.6 children per woman), so even if all immigration were stopped, the percentage of Muslims in America would continue to increase. As shown above, with a high percentage of Muslims committed to Sharia law coming to America, what is the likelihood that they will assimilate and become committed to America as we have known it? Very slim to say the least. Part II of this article will address the impact and what we should expect if the Islamic philosophy is permitted in this country. Stay tuned.

Spending That Undermines Our National Security

Posted on by

On Friday, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about a program funded by the Biden administration that was supposed to protect Jewish institutions against the rising anti-Semitism in America and around the world.

The article reports:

The Biden White House and Senate Democrats have touted their funding for an anti-terrorism initiative they say “has been critical to the security of Jewish institutions.” But the program has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent months to mosques whose clerics have preached anti-Semitic hate, cheered Hamas’s Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel, and been accused of raising money for terrorist groups.

The Department of Homeland Security has awarded $150,000 in grants since November to Masjid Jamaat al Mumineen, the Islamic Society of Akron and Kent, and the Islamic Center of Bothell as part of its “Nonprofit Security Grant Program,” according to federal records. The program gives taxpayer funds to nonprofits and religious groups deemed “at high risk of terrorist attack” to help enhance security.

President Joe Biden touted the program last year as an example of the administration’s “aggressive” actions to counter anti-Semitism and “protect Jewish institutions.”

But the mosques have condoned the kinds of violence the grant program aims to prevent. In a sermon last month, Nader Taha, the imam of the Islamic Society of Akron & Kent, called the Oct. 7 attacks a “miracle” that “planted the seed of freedom in the heart of not just only the Muslim world, but the whole world.”

Mosques that preach Islamism are common in America. An Islamist is someone who supports the idea of a world-wide caliphate with sharia law. There are already sharia courts in Britain, and the goal of the Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood) is to bring sharia law to America. All of this is outlined in the government exhibits in the Holy Land Foundation Trial. If you are unfamiliar with that trial, the search engine at the top of this page will provide you with information.

There are many Muslims who simply want to practice their religion in peace. Unfortunately, you only need one or two terrorists to create a problem. Mosques that preach the doctrine of the Muslim Brotherhood are scattered throughout America and should not be given any money for any reason by our government.

The article concludes:

The Department of Homeland Security provides little insight into how it selects grant recipients. According to a DHS fact sheet, Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas makes all “final funding determinations” about which organizations will receive grants. The agency screens applicants for red flags by checking U.S. intelligence agencies for any “derogatory information.” The agency also prioritizes organizations that are deemed to be in “disadvantaged” areas.

The White House, the Department of Homeland Security, and the mosques did not respond to requests for comment.

Stealth Jihad vs. Kinetic Jihad

Posted on by

There are two basic types of jihad–stealth (can also be called cultural) and kinetic. Kinetic is the one that involves acts of terrorism. Stealth jihad is done through lawfare, propaganda, and cultural changes. Generally stealth jihad continues until the jihadists have enough of a majority to overthrow a society or government; at that point, you generally see kinetic jihad–acts of terrorism.

On September 12th, The Times of Israel posted an article about the recent elections in Jordan.

The article reports:

Jordan’s leading Islamist opposition party has won 31 out of 138 seats in the kingdom’s parliament, tripling its representation in legislative elections dominated by frustration over Israel’s war against the Hamas terror group in Gaza.

The Islamic Action Front (IAF), a political offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, came ahead of other parties and factions in the legislature after Tuesday’s vote, but was far from clinching a majority, according to official election results released on Wednesday.

The result is a historic win for the Islamists and their largest representation since the Muslim Brotherhood in 1989 gained 22 out of the 80 seats that existed then.

The article concludes:

Jordan in 1994 signed a peace treaty with Israel, becoming only the second Arab state to do so after Egypt, but regular protests have called for the treaty’s dissolution since the war erupted on October 7 when Palestinian terror group Hamas led a devastating attack on southern Israel that killed 1,200 people, mostly civilians.

Israel responded with a military offensive to destroy Hamas in Gaza and free 251 hostages who were abducted by terrorists in the Hamas attack.

Oraib Rantawi, head of the Amman-based Al Quds Center for Political Studies, described the Islamists’ gains in the election as “astonishing in their magnitude.”

The Islamists won “nearly half a million votes,” a figure he said was unprecedented in their history in Jordan.

“Gaza played a major role in this,” he added, as well as a feeling among voters that other competing parties “were created in haste… to reduce the chances of success of the Islamic Action Front.”

The people of Jordan are not part of the terrorist movement. In the 1970’s the Palestinian Liberation Organization was kicked out of Jordan after they tried to overthrow the government. In recent years Jordan has supported Israel. Unfortunately, if the Islamist presence in Jordan’s parliament increases, it will pose a threat to possible peace in the Middle East.

America, Pay Attention!

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Geller Report reported the following:

Germany: Muslim party DAVA wins 41 per cent in Duisburg in the European Parliament elections

The fact that Germany no longer looks like Germany in certain areas is evident after the EU elections in voting districts in the highly Islamised city of Duisburg, where Erdogan’s hardcore Muslim party, DAVA, was able to collect 41.10 per cent of the vote.

Voting district 1001 in the city of Duisburg – like many districts in Germany – has already been lost to Islam. There, the Muslim party founded in January, which operates under the bogus name ‘Democratic Alliance for Diversity and Awakening’ (DAVA), was able to mobilise its Islamic voters and achieve a shocking election result. With 41.10 per cent of the vote, the Muslim party did best by far. In second place was the AfD with 14.16 per cent, followed by the SPD with 10.96 per cent. The CDU achieved 8.68 per cent.

So exactly what is this about? The goal of Islam is create a caliphate (the Ottoman Empire was the most recent caliphate which ended in 1922) ruled by Sharia Law that will dominate the world, eventually conquering the entire world. It this seems farfetched to you, please examine the government exhibits from the Holy Land Foundation Trial. One of those exhibits is “An Explanatory Memorandum: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America.” This exhibit explains the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan to use the American legal system to introduce Sharia Law into America.  We already have courts in America using Sharia Law. If the Islamists can do in America what they did in the German elections, we will have more courts using Sharia Law.

Sharia Law is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. We have already had a number of ‘honor killings’ in America, which are acceptable in Sharia Law but not acceptable under the U.S. Constitution. (for further information on honor killings in America, go here). Honor killings are justified under Sharia Law if a person converts from Islam to another religion or in the case of a daughter who refuses to marry the person her parents have chosen for her or becomes too “westernized.” We already have ‘no go’ zones in certain areas of America where the police are hesitant to go or to enforce the law. Be aware that the same people who have managed a 41% election victory in German have the same plans for America–one city at a time.

When Making Peace Isn’t Possible

Posted on by

On March 18th, The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the futility of trying to make peace with radical Islamists.

The article reports:

A California synagogue axed its leadership and is struggling to retain members after leasing its facility to a Muslim group that brought in an anti-Israel speaker who compared Israel to Nazi Germany.

Hamakom synagogue, a conservative congregation of around 900 families located in an upscale Los Angeles suburb, says it was trying to ease tensions between the Jewish and Muslim communities when it decided to lease its space this month to the Islamic Society of West Valley, a neighboring Muslim faith group that needed space to hold services during the holy month of Ramadan.

Hamakom entered into an agreement with the Islamic Society that allowed it to take over the synagogue’s main campus, pushing Jewish members onto a smaller satellite branch. In anticipation of the lease’s commencement, the synagogue’s leadership covered up pictures of Israeli hostages captured by Hamas during its Oct. 7 attack on Israel, according to photographs reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon, sparking anger among Jewish congregants.

Soon after the Islamic Society began using Hamakom’s facility, it hosted anti-Israel activist Hussam Ayloush, who said last year that Israel did not have a right to defend itself following the Oct. 7 attack and compared Israel to Nazi Germany. The invite led many Jewish members to threaten to resign from the shul, according to internal emails viewed by the Free Beacon, and prompted Hamakom to sever its rental contract with the Islamic Society within days of inking it.

I am sure that there are moderate Muslims in America who behave themselves better than the group that rented the synagogue. However, there is a major thread of anti-Semitism that runs through the Muslim faith. Until the Muslims themselves cut that thread, I would strongly suggest that no religious group lease space to Muslims.

One Of The Biggest Obstacles To Peace In The Middle East

Posted on by

On Thursday, Breitbart posted an article about a recent statement by Imam Abdou Zindani in a sermon at the Islamic Center of Warren, Michigan, in January.

The article reports:

Muslims will yet “slaughter” the Jews “like sheep” when the opportunity arises, according to a Michigan Islamic cleric who appealed to Allah, seeking to become “soldiers” for Islam in any form desired, including death.

In a sermon at the Islamic Center of Warren, Michigan, in January, Imam Abdou Zindani warned of the fate of Jews everywhere, pointing to a Palestinian businessman who told a Jewish New Yorker what Muslims have in store for the Jews. 

This statement is in keeping with statements in the Hadith, one of the guiding documents in Islam.

The article continues:

“Don’t worry, don’t worry, Jewish man,” he said. “One day will come, and we will slaughter you like a sheep and the stone and the tree will work… undercover for us, [saying:] ‘Hey Muslim, come, there is somebody hiding here, get up and kill him.’”

The Sheikh was apparently referencing a grisly passage in the Islamic text, known as the Hadith, that reads as follows: “Judgement Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews. The Jews will hide behind the stones and the trees, and the stones and the trees will say, oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me — come and kill him.” The same excerpt is cited in the Hamas terror group’s charter.

He later made an emotional appeal to Allah, begging that Muslims be made his “soldiers.” 

“Every way you want us to be — with the tank, with the eye, with the money, with the hand, make us soldiers for Islam,” he said. “Make us die the way you want us to die.”

The clip, which was originally streamed live on the mosque’s YouTube channel, has gone viral in recent days, with many expressing outrage over the radical rhetoric being espoused on American soil.

“They are here. Islamists are in the US. They are preaching Islamic supremacy, terrorism and the destruction of our culture,” warned one X user. “Is the FBI on the job? Do you care about uncontrolled, illegal immigration? How long will people wait?” 

“It’s getting late,” he added.

I don’t think a peace treaty is worth anything when one of the parties has this theology as the basis of their culture.

.

Misquoting The Constitution For Your Own Gain

Posted on by

It’s amazing to me how some politicians ignore the U.S. Constitution until they want to make some sort of attack on their opponents. Then they freely misquote it. We have seen a lot of recent examples of this, but there is one that really bothers me.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today illustrating how Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton either misunderstands or chooses to misuse the U.S. Constitution.

The article reports:

Of all the ignorant pronouncements in the 2016 presidential campaign, the dumbest may be that the Constitution forbids a “religious test” in the vetting of immigrants. Monotonously repeated in political speeches and talking-head blather, this claim is heedless of the Islamic doctrinal roots on which foreign-born Islamists and the jihadists they breed base their anti-Americanism. It is also dead wrong.
The clause said to be the source of this drivel is found in Article VI. As you’ll no doubt be shocked to learn, it has utterly nothing to do with immigration. The clause states, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” (emphasis added). On its face, the provision is not only inapplicable to immigrants at large, let alone aliens who would like to be immigrants; it does not even apply to the general public. It is strictly limited to public officials — specifically to their fitness to serve in government positions.

Just a few personal observations…If your religion requires that your religious rules supersede the U.S. Constitution, maybe you should find another place to live. If your religion has its own set of strict rules that condone honor killing, female genital mutilation, stoning of rape victims, marriage of women under the age of thirteen, and killing of homosexuals (all against American laws), maybe you should not come to America and expect to follow your religious rules. The obvious question here is, “What is the difference between a religion and a political movement?” Which is Islam?
The article concludes:
Promotion of assimilation and fidelity to the Constitution have been historical bedrocks of immigration policy. Indeed, before immigrants are naturalized as citizens, they must swear what is pointedly called an “oath of allegiance.” It calls on them to renounce any foreign sovereigns by whom they have been ruled, and to honor our Constitution — principles that are inimical to sharia supremacism. We should resist a categorical ban on Muslim immigration; but nothing in the Constitution prohibits the commonsense vetting of immigrants for beliefs that are antithetical to our principles, regardless of whether the immigrant perceives such beliefs as religious or political in nature.
We should welcome immigrants who embrace our principles, seek to assimilate into our society, and are value-added for — rather than a strain on — our economy. But if, in an era of jihadist violence, we cannot seriously vet immigrants to determine whether they fit this bill, it would be better to have a categorical ban. And if, based on an illiterate construction of the Constitution, the political class insists that its fictional “no religious test” rule forbids not only a categorical ban but the heightened scrutiny of Muslim aliens, it would be better to prohibit immigration across the board.
The United States government’s first obligation is to shield the American people from foreign threats, not to shield foreign threats and render the American people defenseless.

We should welcome refugees who want to come here and become Americans. We should encourage those who want to bring their culture with them and not assimilate to immigrate to a country with a culture similar to the one they left.

Some Good News About ISIS

Posted on by

The U.K. Daily Mail reported yesterday that three ISIS leaders have been killed within ten days of each other by a sniper in the Libyan city of Sirte.

The article reports:

The leaders are said to have been picked off one-by-one in Sirte, the Libyan coastal city where Muammar Gaddaffi was born, which the militants took control of last year.

According to unconfirmed social media reports, ISIS fighters are now sweeping the city for the man ordinary Libyans are said to be dubbing ‘Daesh hunter’. 

The article further reports:

…social media is ablaze with reports of rumours of the sniper, who has become somewhat of a hero to those living under the control of the evil terror group, according to the Libya Herald. 

The Islamists are not popular in the city, and days after the first assassination a ‘photo report’ emerged, showing the terror group executing at least three men and whipped another for drinking alcohol.

ISIS reportedly has 3,000 fighters in Sirte and has imposed the strict rules familiar with residents in their defacto capital in Raqqa, Syria.

Beheadings and crucifixions plague the town, which has been deserted by citizens by the thousands.  

My only hope is that the sniper will continue his work.

This Is Supposed To Be A Solution???

Posted on by

Last week we lost four valiant men in an attack on a recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and there are reports this morning that a fifth man has died. This is not the first time a recruiting office has been attacked by someone with links to Islam. In 2009, an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, was attacked by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, born Carlos Leon Bledsoe. There is a documentary about how Carlos Bledsoe became Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad and how his family and the family of Andy Long, the soldier killed in the attack, have struggled with the loss of their sons. It is called, “Losing Our Sons,” and is worth watching.

We have a problem. The policy of making military bases a gun-free zone was signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush. Frankly, I think we have lost more soldiers because of this policy than we would have without it.

So what is the military going to do about the problem of Islamists shooting American soldiers in America? Well, the answer is further proof that government is not the solution–it is the problem.

Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday about the military’s response to the shooting in Chattanooga.

This is a tweet sent by ABC News Pentagon reporter Luis Martinez on Friday evening:

chattanoogatweet

The article further reports:

Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno said on Friday he has no plans to arm recruiters or add security patrols to military recruitment centers in the wake of the Islamist terror attacks on unarmed, unguarded military offices in Chattanooga, Tennessee on Thursday. Odierno basically said he doesn’t trust his troops to handle their weapons properly.

Also on Friday, the Marine Corps ordered recruiters to not wear their uniforms at work for ‘force protection.’

The whirring sound you hear is John Wayne spinning in his grave.