ISIS-flag-propaganda-640_1

Soldiers of the Islamic State solidly middle class, better educated than average

Meanwhile, Western governments are throwing huge amounts of money at the idea that Islamic State jihadis are poor and uneducated. They are financing jobs programs for young Muslims and building schools in jihad-saturated Muslim countries such as Afghanistan. This study shows why such efforts are foredoomed.

“New report shows the real face of Islamic State terror converts,” by John Stapleton, The New Daily, February 10, 2017:

Solidly middle-class, better educated than average, likely to be in a stable relationship and either studying or employed: that’s the face of an Islamic State convert.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute recently released a report titled The American Face of ISIS, which it commissioned in the hope of better understanding terror converts in Australia.

The larger number of converts in America charged with an Islamic State-related incident or travelling to the Middle East in order to fight with the terrorist group provided more statistical certainty than could be achieved using Australian data only. The report is to be followed with a study of the societal traits of Australians charged with terror-related incidents.

The evidence roundly contradicts Australian government messaging on Countering Violent Extremism which has painted converts to Islamic State as impoverished, lonely outsiders with little education and low job prospects.

The study examined 112 cases of individuals who perpetrated ISIS-related offences. The majority were US citizens.

The report found that Islamic State videos, well known for their high production values and cinematic qualities, played a central role in radicalisation and all offenders were likely to have watched execution videos, including the infamous burning alive of a Jordanian pilot.

The ultra-violence of the videos, including crucifixions, stonings, graphic beheadings and ritualised mass shootings, attracted recruits worldwide.

Walker Gunning, the executive director of the Chicago Project on Security and Threats which conducted the research, told The New Daily those charged with terrorist activities looked much like average Americans, including frequently having spouses and families.

The research confirms the Australian experience: 18-year-old suicide bomber Jake Bilardi left behind a blog showing him to be thoughtful and highly intelligent; the 17-year-old son of a doctor was among an affluent group of teens arrested in 2015 for plotting a Mother’s Day massacre.

“While it is common to claim that terrorists are societal outcasts, we didn’t find that to be the case,” Mr Gunning said. “This information is important because without knowing who is attracted to ISIS, the US or Australian governments cannot effectively craft counter-messages.

“Stopping online propaganda represents an unprecedented challenge for law enforcement. Whereas before, Al-Qaeda had to recruit members face to face, American ISIS supporters are self-radicalising through viewing videos in the privacy of their own homes, sometimes with small groups of friends or family.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

UN top dog: “Islamophobia” fueling terrorism

Orban: Hungary will welcome European refugees fleeing multicultural West

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Kathleen-Wynne

Lesbian Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne forced to sit in the back corner of a Mosque

This was simply in accord with Islamic law, as several hadiths have Muhammad saying that if a woman is in front of a man as he is praying, his prayer is invalidated:

“Abu Dharr reported: The Messenger of ‘Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When any one of you stands for prayer and there is a thing before him equal to the back of the saddle that covers him and in case there is not before him (a thing) equal to the back of the saddle, his prayer would be cut off by (passing of an) ass, woman, and black dog. I said: O Abu Dharr, what feature is there in a black dog which distinguish it from the red dog and the yellow dog? He said: O, son of my brother, I asked the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as you are asking me, and he said: The black dog is a devil.” (Sahih Muslim 1032)

“Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: A woman, an ass and a dog disrupt the prayer, but something like the back of a saddle guards against that.” (Sahih Muslim 1034)

“‘Urwa b. Zubair reported: ‘A’isha asked: What disrupts the prayer? We said: The woman and the ass. Upon this she remarked: Is the woman an ugly animal? I lay in front of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) like the bier of a corpse and he said prayer.” (Sahih Muslim 1037)

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Qatadah said: I heard Jabir ibn Zayd who reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas; and Shu’bah reported the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) as saying: A menstruating woman and a dog cut off the prayer. (Sunan Abu Dawud 703)

“Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas: Ikrimah reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas, saying: I think the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: When one of you prays without a sutrah, a dog, an ass, a pig, a Jew, a Magian, and a woman cut off his prayer, but it will suffice if they pass in front of him at a distance of over a stone’s throw.” (Sunan Abu Dawud 704)

Wynne didn’t complain about this degradation of women. Nor did she, although gay, say a word about the statements of the imam at the mosque she visited. The Toronto Sun article referred to below says:

As quoted in the CIJ News in 2015 from a question and answer session on Onislam.net, Imam Wael Shehab said “homosexuality is a sinful act in Islam … I’d cite the following fatwa of Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, president of the Fiqh Council of North America:

‘We should consider them people who get themselves engaged in a sinful act. We should deal with them in the same way we deal with any people who are involved in alcoholics, gambling or adultery. We should have deep repugnance to their acts and we must remind and warn them.”

If they persist he said “we should certainly avoid those people.”

Awkward.

And yet, there was Wynne being bigger than that, offering a heartfelt message of unity to him and his fellow Muslim followers….

Would the Toronto Sun have praised Wynne for “being bigger than that” if she had passed over in silence similar words spoken by a Baptist pastor?

Meanwhile, Sun reporter Joe Warmington showed himself to be touchingly naive and credulous:

As horrible as his previous quotes are, Shehab said he very much cherished the premier’s visit and her warm words and humanity. He explained although he’s on record for teachings in previous sermons, his views are not as they appear.

“They are taken out of context,” he told me gently. “They are not my views. My views are clear on my Facebook page. We stand for freedom, equality and justice for all. I support for human rights for all.”

Gently! He trotted out the brazen all-purpose scoundrel’s refuge excuse, that his words were taken out of context, and relied on Warmington’s apparent ignorance of Islam’s death penalty for homosexuality, but he did it gently!

“Female Ontario Premier Forced To Sit In A Corner While Visiting Mosque,” by Chris Menahan, Information Liberation, February 12, 2017:

Before she was allowed to deliver a message that “we’re all the same,” Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne was forced to sit in the back corner of a Mosque all by herself while the Muslim men prayed.

From the Toronto Sun:

While the men prayed, she sat patiently in the back corner of the mosque waiting to say the words many in the room were so thankful to hear.

“There should be no fear ever in worshipping your God, our God, in Ontario or in Canada,” Premier Kathleen Wynne said to the worshippers who came for noon-hour prayers at the Muslim Association of Canada’s Masjid Mosque on Dundas St. W [on January 30th].

[…]“As-Salam-u-Alaikum (Peace be unto you). Thanks for welcoming me into your house, your home,” said Wynne, who also visited the “sisters” section of the mosque on the second floor. But other than media and her staff, she was the only female in the room for the male prayer.

“Our government stands with you. We are not different. We are the same. We are all Canadians.”

Wynne is Canada’s first openly gay head of government in Canada and the first female Premier of Ontario.

The mosque she spoke at is run by an anti-gay Muslim preacher…

She didn’t bring it up and ignored the issue entirely when the media questioned her on it.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Denmark: 16-year-old Muslima plotted jihad bombings at schools, including Jewish school

Obama official admits: “Violent extremism” is really “radical Islamic extremism”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Jihad Watch.

Mansoor-Shams

‘I’m a Muslim — Ask Me Anything’ — Answers 1-6 by Hugh Fitzgerald

Last Friday I offered 38 questions to ask those carrying signs proclaiming, “I’m A Muslim — Ask Me Anything.” Here are answers to the first six of those questions.

“M.I.” refers to the Muslim Interlocutor who has invited others to “Ask a Muslim” any questions they may have about Islam. Once the M.I. has answered (or tried, or refused, to), possible responses to him are given below, merely as a guide and not meant to be exhaustive:

1. What is the meaning of Jihad?

“Jihad” in Arabic means “struggle.” More specifically, it is the central duty of all Muslims, the “struggle” to spread Islam all over the globe until all Unbelievers either convert to Islam or accept the status of dhimmis and pay the Jizyah, or capitation tax. Jihad can take many forms, such as defending Islam from its critics, migrating to foreign soil for the purpose of propagating Islam, demographic conquest, and supporting its growth financially. a central duty of all Muslims. But Jihad’s main meaning involves violence. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrine of armed Jihad. Violent Jihad is founded on many verses in the Qur’an, but in the Ask-the-Muslim context, have at the ready to quote, especially, the Verse of the Sword: (9:5, “Then when the sacred months are past, slay the idolaters wherever you find them…”).

M.I. will claim that the “real” meaning of Jihad is something like a “struggle within one’s soul” to become a better person, or “self-improvement.” He may offer that hadith where it is written that “Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad’ (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one’s soul).” But this hadith is of doubtful authenticity. It does not appear in any of the six sahih sittah (“reliable collections”) of hadith. One Muslim authority speaks for all of them when he writes that “this hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind.” And he concludes that the evidence used as proof that Jihad on the battlefield is Jihad Asghar (lesser Jihad) and Jihad against the desires and Shaitan is Jihad Akbar [greater jihad] are weak if not false hadith. (Then urge onlookers, who will have been suitably impressed with your response, to google “Lesser Jihad” and “Greater Jihad” to find out more about this canard.)

2. Why are Christians and Jews required to pay the Jizyah to Muslims?

“Jizyah” is the capitation or poll tax that non-Muslims must pay to the Muslim state in order to be allowed to stay alive and practice their faith. It is the main, but not the only disability, inflicted on those non-Muslims who are the ahl al-dhimma, the People of the Pact, or dhimmis. While your Muslim propagandist will argue that the “jizyah” is not now exacted everywhere, it remains a permanent part of Islamic doctrine (and is, in fact, collected in the Islamic State). Remind your listeners that some Muslims in the West, such as Anjem Choudary, gloating over the vast amounts of benefits Muslim immigrants receive, call these benefits “the Jihad seekers’ allowance.”

3. Why does it say in the Qur’an that Muslims should not take Christians and Jews as friends, for they are friends only with each other?

Here you hope that your Muslim interlocutor simply denies this passage’s existence altogether. You then quote in full Qur’an 5:51, which is at the ready on your smartphone or on notecards. And to get to the reason for 5:51 (and many other passages of similar import, as 3:28, 3:85, 3:118, 7:44, 9:23 could also be quoted), Muslims are in a state of permanent war – violent Jihad, but Jihad conducted by whatever means, including peaceful ones. To prevent any relapse into Unbelief, to keep the Jihad fervor up, they are taught to distrust, and distance themselves from, all non-Muslims, who are depicted as if in a conspiracy (“they are friends only with each other”) against Muslims. It makes no sense for the “best of peoples” (Qur’an 3:110) to become friends with the “vilest of creatures” (Qur’an 98:6).

4. It says in the Qur’an that “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2.256). If there is no compulsion in religion, then why are people who leave Islam threatened with death?

The M.I. will have no answer to this, except possibly to claim what is being punished is not an apostate’s loss of belief but, rather, with that apostate’s proclaiming that turn to unbelief and thus harming Islam. The implication is that if an apostate does it quietly then there will be no punishment. But you can have ready 4:89: “They wish that you should reject faith as they reject faith, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.” 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, 9:66 are ready examples from the Qur’an and Hadith that make no mention of an apostate only being killed if he makes public his apostasy. Have at the ready as well some of the hadith, as for example these:

Sahih Bukhari (52:260) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ “

Sahih Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

Sahih Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’”

To which M.I. has NO reply.

5. Why did the Ayatollah Khomeini lower the marriageable age of girls to 9?

The Ayatollah Khomeini was a learned cleric, and he knew that Muhammad, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) and Model of Conduct (uswa hasana) had consummated his marriage to little Aisha when she was nine (she was betrothed to him at the age of six). What’s right for Muhammad is right for every Muslim, forever. Hence his eagerness to reduce the marriageable age to that of Aisha. Under the secularizing Shah, of course, the marriageable age of Iranian girls was 18 – for a good Muslim like the Ayatollah Khomeini, that was an abomination. Others, but possibly “not my Muslim friend here,” no doubt feel differently.

Again, NO reply.

6. What is the surest way for a Muslim to get to Heaven?

The surest way to Jannah (Muslim Paradise) is by engaging in violent Jihad and dying as a “martyr” while fighting in the path of Allah.

Such people go directly to Paradise,

Quran (8:15-16) – “O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day – unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!” Not only does Muhammad lay down the principle that a Muslim can serve time in Hell, but they may find themselves there for neglecting to kill unbelievers when directed to do so.

Quran (9:39) – “If ye go not forth He will afflict you with a painful doom…” It isn’t enough to believe. Muhammad is telling his soldiers (who do not want to fight) that they will be sent to hell if they do not join the battle.

Quran (3:169-170) – “Think not of those who are slain in Allah’s way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the bounty provided by Allah: And with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve. Martyrs go directly from life to paradise, where they wait for those who must first go through the Day of Judgment.

There are other ways to get to Paradise, some not requiring violence. But if he does so, you must come back to those Qur’anic passages, especially 3:169-170, that rank dying in Jihad as the SUREST AND FASTEST way.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: No more weekend Changing of the Guard ceremonies due to fears of jihad attacks

Robert Spencer: Trump Protects U.S., World Gets Enraged

isis-child-executioner

WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO: ISIS Child Executioners

Children, pulled away from an amusement park, execute ISIS prisoners by shooting and beheading. This is the face of the next generation of jihadis.

This extremely graphic Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) video titled “He Made Me Alive With His Blood” features children as young as three years old executing ISIS prisoners from Deir Ez-Zor in Syria. The children have been “pulled away from their games” and sent to “do jihad” by “killing agents with their bare hands.”

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Paradox of “Allahu Akbar” (God is greater)

Should Parents Ransom Their Children From Terrorists?

Istanbul New Year’s Attack Could Inspire Attacks in US, West

Istanbul: Does It Matter Who Did It?

Profiles of 9 Virginians Aiding ISIS Pose Tough Questions

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a three-year-old child executing an ISIS prisoner (Photo: Screenshot ISIS video)

muslim-france

Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took ‘too many prayer breaks’

The future of France, and of Europe in general, can be glimpsed in this episode.

“The Aulnay site closed because Muslim employees were constantly taking unscheduled prayer breaks and had become unproductive. It’s the truth. A Peugeot official told me that it was one – but obviously not the only – of the reasons the plant was shut down.”

They may have considered it their due to receive payment from unbelievers even while not working. In Islamic law, non-Muslims have the duty to provide for the upkeep of Muslims. British jihadist Anjem Choudary said in February 2013:

“We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, We take the Jizya (protection money paid to Muslims by non-Muslims) which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the Kafir (non-Muslim), isn’t it? So this is normal situation. They give us the money. You work, give us the money. Allah Akbar, we take the money. Hopefully there is no one from the DSS (Department of Social Security) listening. Ah, but you see people will say you are not working. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the Kuffar (non-Muslim) So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”

This is, of course, based on the Qur’an: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

“Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took ‘too many prayer breaks’, claims official,” by Romina McGuinness, Express, January 5, 2017:

THE head of the France’s centre-right Union of Democrats and Independents (UDI) political party, Jean-Christophe Lagarde, has claimed a PSA Peugeot Citroen car plant had to close because it had hired too many “unproductive” Muslim employees.

The hardline centrist, who is also deputy mayor of Drancy, a suburb northeast of Paris, said that the carmaker’s Aulnay plant, which closed in 2013, had been forced to shut its doors because of “problems arising from never-ending religious demands by Muslim employees”.

He said: “The Aulnay site closed because Muslim employees were constantly taking unscheduled prayer breaks and had become unproductive. It’s the truth. A Peugeot official told me that it was one – but obviously not the only – of the reasons the plant was shut down.”

The shocking claims were made in French newspaper France Info.

Mr Lagarde added that he wasn’t trying to “irk” Muslims and spark a controversial debate about religion at work, but said he wanted to “end the Omerta”.

He said: “Some Muslim employees are proselytising at work and harassing their non-Muslim co-workers.

No one should feel under pressure to convert to Islam or accommodate religious colleagues. Because religion has no place in the workplace.: [sic]

A Peugeot spokesperson, however, has denied Mr Lagarde’s “inflammatory” claims and said that, at the time, the automobile behemoth had been on the brink of bankruptcy and that bosses had decided to close the Aulnay plant to “cut losses”.

PSA Peugeot Citroen Trade union CGT representative Jean-Pierre Mercier also condemned Mr Lagarde’s “nasty lies”….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egypt: Muslim screaming “Allahu akbar” cuts Christian shopkeeper’s throat

Video: Robert Spencer on the War on the First Amendment

prince-charles-saudi-arabia-sword

Prince Charles and Islam’s ‘Sacred Spirituality’ by Hugh Fitzgerald

On December 13th, at Wilton Park, the Prince of Wales explained how the Muslim critique of materialism helped him to rediscover the sacred spirituality of Islam and explain the decline of the West.

I start from the belief that Islamic civilization at its best… has an important message for the West in the way it has retained an integrated and integral view of the sanctity of the world around us. I feel that we in the West could be helped to rediscover the roots of our own understanding by an appreciation of the Islamic tradition’s deep respect for the timeless traditions of the natural order.

What Prince Charles calls an “integrated and integral view of the sanctity of the world” in Islam is not exactly clear, and one wonders if perhaps Charles has confused Muhammad with the Dalai Lama, or possibly with the Natural Resources Defense Council. What is clear is that many Muslims have a most peculiar way of demonstrating their belief in the “sanctity of the world,” by engaging in endless warfare, of every conceivable type (not limited to qitaal, or combat), in order to subjugate all those who are not Muslims. Perhaps Charles has been impressed with the way that Islam offers both a Total Explanation of the Universe, as formulated by 7th century Arabs, and a Complete Regulation of all aspects of life. Islam is a “totalitarian” ideology in the original sense of that term, but in the Newspeak favored by Prince Charles, the ideology of Islam would no doubt be described as “holistic.”

And while Charles claims to find a deep respect in Islam for “the timeless traditions of the natural order,” he does not think to include among those “timeless traditions of the natural order” of Islam the “natural” (right, proper) submission of non-Muslims to Muslims, and of Muslim women to Muslim men. Nor, I suspect, is he aware of the “timeless tradition” of Muslim men marrying girls as young as 9 (this “timeless tradition” begins with Muhammad, the Perfect Man and Model of Conduct, and is thus as old as Islam itself), or the “timeless tradition” of slavery (that particular “timeless tradition” in Islam had largely to be abandoned, but only because of Western pressure, and still continues in Mali and Mauritania), and of course there is the “timeless tradition,” central to Islam, of engaging in Jihad, the “struggle” of Muslims to expand Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb, until ultimately, Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.

I believe that process could help in the task of bringing our two faiths closer together.

What is keeping “our two faiths” from coming “closer together” is that Islam views Christianity as a distorted and therefore unacceptable version of the true faith of Islam, with Muhammad’s message misunderstood, and there is no question, for Muslims, of Islam and Christianity “coming together” through any kind of compromise. Christian belief would have to change completely in order to attain to the condition of Islam, while Islam, according to its adherents, must always remain relentlessly itself. And how does one bring these “two faiths together” when Muslims are told in their Qur’an that they are the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims “the vilest of creatures”?

It could also help us in the West to rethink, and for the better

…in case you might have thought we should do it “for the worse”…

our practical stewardship of man and his environment in fields such as health-care, the natural environment and agriculture, as well as in architecture and urban planning.

Here Prince Charles is alluding to several of his pet peeves, including modern architecture, which he finds predictably “soulless,” and environmental degradation, which he attributes to Western man not being a good “steward” of the natural environment. He thus overlooks the fact that the greatest polluter has for years now been China, not the West, and that North America and Western Europe, precisely through technological innovations such as more efficient solar collectors and electric cars, have been steadily reducing their energy use, and become better environmental “stewards.” By “agriculture” he is obliquely referring to the use of GMOs (genetically modified organisms), which he dislikes because they are “not natural,” even if they improve crop yields. He thinks that we can learn from the Islamic world’s supposed hewing to the traditional, in everything from architecture to agriculture. But plenty of “soulless” skyscrapers have been built all over the Arab oil states – see the skylines of Riyadh, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Kuwait — while two of the major GMO producers are the Muslim states of Egypt and Pakistan. Apparently many Muslims prefer “soulless” Western architecture and “unnatural” GMOs to what Prince Charles assumes that Muslims favor.

Modern materialism is unbalanced and increasingly damaging in its long-term consequences. Yet nearly all the great religions of the world have held an integral view of the sanctity of the world.

Charles liked “an integral view of the sanctity of the world” so much that he repeated this vague verbiage verbatim, two paragraphs after its first appearance.

To have Western man’s “unbalanced” and “damaging” “materialism” denounced by one of the materially most cossetted people on earth, who is surrounded by every possible luxury, who denies himself nothing, is hard to take. How many millions does this royal deplorer of “materialism” spend in a year – money the British taxpayers provide him so that he can show the Union Jack here, cut a ceremonial ribbon there, and make pronouncements on everything under the sun, all Luddite-and-Green-Partyish, as is his wont, and as he does here, delivering a quite unnecessary paean of praise to supposedly un-materialist, “spiritual” Islam, from which, he claims, the West has so much to learn. This “spiritual” Islam, he needs to know, is the only major faith that in its holiest books — Qur’an and Hadith — contains rules on how to divvy up the loot from raids on the enemy. Not quite dalai-lama material.

Prince Charles seems to think that in the Islamic world, people are somehow less “materialistic” than in the West, failing to realize that that was a function of poverty, and not a guarantee of spirituality. The question to be asked is this: when Muslims became rich, did they keep the “spirituality” that Charles thinks is part of Islam, and that we, the Westerners who have been in thrall to “materialism,” ought to emulate, or did they, when given a chance, become as “materialist” as anyone in the Western world?

Let’s look at the behavior of those Muslims and Arabs who, through an accident of geology, found themselves sitting on top of huge oil and gas deposits which Infidels had discovered, and for which Infidels had found a use. Did these suddenly rich Muslim Arabs remain true to their supposed “spirituality”? Look at Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Kuwait, Qatar. The rich Arabs in those places have engaged in fantastic spending, satisfying their lust for every luxury, including the building of private Xanadus, some of them containing a half-dozen restaurants to satisfy the owner’s every culinary whim, that rival anything built for the most self-indulgent of Western billionaires.

But even those palaces were not enough. The richest of these devout Muslims also have enormous yachts, awaiting them in the Mediterranean, and customized 747s on the tarmacs of Arabia, ready to fly them everywhere, around the world, or to their fabulously appointed houses, villas, and estates in Paris and the Riviera, in London, and New York. In the Arab states of the Gulf, shopping is the main, and for many the only pastime, and along with the endless souks dedicated to gold and jewelry are local branches of every famous purveyor of luxury items in the Western world. The “spiritual” Muslims Prince Charles wants us to emulate live in a world of shop-till-you-drop that outdoes anything on Fifth Avenue or Rodeo Drive. Perhaps he is confusing Islam, a most worldly religion, with Buddhism or Hinduism, where asceticism is esteemed, given his habit of lumping Islam with those two as “Eastern religions.”

But during the past three centuries, in the Western world at least, a dangerous division has occurred in the way we perceive the world around us. Science has tried to assume a monopoly even a tyranny over our understanding. Religion and science have become separated, so that now, as Wordsworth said, “Little we see in nature that is ours”. Science has attempted to take over the natural world from God; it has fragmented the cosmos and relegated the sacred to a separate and secondary compartment of our understanding, divorced from practical, day to day existence.

We are only now beginning to gauge the disastrous results. We in the Western world seem to have lost a sense of the wholeness of our environment, and of our immense and inalienable responsibility to the whole of creation. This has led to an increasing failure to appreciate or understand tradition and the wisdom of our forebears, accumulated over the centuries. Indeed, tradition is positively discriminated against as if it were some socially unacceptable disease.

Again, Prince Charles is all for “tradition,” but without bothering to distinguish, as one must, between good and bad traditions. Islam itself is the most immutable of faiths; what was set down in the Qur’an, what was the practice of Muhammad and his Companions as recorded in the Hadith (or “Traditions”) – these, Qur’an and Sunnah, are not to be changed. How many of us find admirable the “traditional” Muslim attitude, fixed in amber, toward non-Muslims, toward women, toward homosexuals, toward the institution of slavery?

Prince Charles seems to think we in the West have failed to “appreciate or understand…the wisdom of our forebears, accumulated over the centuries,” a “wisdom” that we’ve managed to lose in the last few decades. That’s true, but not in the way he thinks. One very important bit of wisdom from our forebears that we have lost is about Islam itself, a forgetfulness that is causing us much unnecessary confusion and grief today. Over more than a millennium, Western man was on the receiving end of attacks by Muslims, and clearly recognized Islam as a mortal threat. The West, conscious that the Muslim duty to wage Jihad was permanent, strove to keep Islam contained. There was Charles Martel in 732, who stopped the invading Muslim army at the outskirts of Poitiers. There were the Christian warriors who, over 770 years of the Reconquista, managed to retake Spain from its Muslim rulers. There were the two successful Christian efforts to repel sieges of Vienna by Ottoman Muslims in 1529 and again in 1683. By the 19th century, and into the 20th, the superior military technology of the West allowed it to conquer large parts of the Muslim world. But even when the military tables were turned, at no time did the Western world regard the ideology of Islam as anything but a threat.

Yet today, adherents of the same Islam that threatened Europe for centuries are now on the march, not with conventional armies, but through Muslim migrants entering Europe by the millions, and bringing Islam with them in their mental baggage. These Muslim migrants are coming not to assimilate, but rather to impose, wherever they can, their views on the indigenous non-Muslims, in whose lands they have been allowed to settle, deep behind what they, as Muslims, have been taught to regard as enemy lines.

A century ago, permitting such a movement into Europe could never have been imagined. The threat of Islam was then well understood in the Western world. Think only of what Winston Churchill, Tocqueville, John Quincy Adams, and many others less celebrated wrote, accurately and without any need for political correctness, about Islam. How the West forgot the “wisdom of its forebears” about Islam, and what that forgetfulness has led to, makes for painful reading, and the willful ignorance of Islam now being displayed by those whose responsibility it is to instruct and protect us – including Prince Charles — is difficult to explain and impossible to forgive.

In my view, a more holistic

This modish word, a sure sign of mental muddle, dropped into a sentence to give it a greater semblance of sense, means nothing much (“emphasizing the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts” according to the on-line dictionary’s definition), but not surprisingly, it’s a favorite of Prince Charles.

approach is needed now. Science has done the inestimable service of showing us a world much more complex than we ever imagined. But in its modern, materialist, one-dimensional form, it cannot explain everything. God is not merely the ultimate Newtonian mathematician or the mechanistic clockmaker. As science and technology have become increasingly separated from ethical, moral and sacred considerations so the implications of such a separation have become more sombre and horrifying as we see in genetic manipulation or in the consequences of the kind of scientific arrogance so blatant in the scandal of BSE.

Unclear what this refers to.

I have always felt that tradition is not a man-made element in our lives, but a God-given intuition of natural rhythms, of the fundamental harmony that emerges from the union of the paradoxical opposites that exist in every aspect of nature…. That is why I believe Man is so much more than just a biological phenomenon resting on what we now seem to define as “the bottom line” of the great balance sheet of life, according to which art and culture are seen increasingly as optional extras in life.

This view is quite contrary, for example, to the outlook of the Muslim craftsman or artist, who is never concerned with display for its own sake, nor with progressing ever forward in his own ingenuity, but is content to submit a man’s craft to God. That outlook reflects, I believe, the memorable passage in the Koran, “whithersoever you turn there is the face of God and God is all-Embracing, all-Knowing”. While appreciating that this essential innocence has been destroyed, and destroyed everywhere, I nevertheless believe that the survival of civilized values, as we have inherited them from our ancestors, depends on the corresponding survival in our hearts of that profound sense of the sacred and the spiritual.

What “civilized values” have Muslims inherited from their ancestors?

The main difference between the Muslim craftsman or artist, and the non-Muslim artist or craftsman, is not that the former is more “spiritual” and “never concerned with display for its own sake,” as Charles seems to think. The most important art form of Islam, mosque architecture and decoration, is all about display, making an impression on Believers with the magnificence, imposing size, elaborate ornamentation, and play of color, of the mosque walls and interior. The main difference between the Muslim and the non-Muslim artist is not that the Muslim has some superior sense of the “sacred,” but that Islam limits the creativity of the Muslim artist, by forbidding him from depicting living creatures. That is why there is no portrait painting in Islam, nor any statuary. Perhaps this severe limit on creative expression in Islam has escaped Prince Charles’s notice, or perhaps he thinks it adds, in some inexplicable way, to that superior “spirituality” he claims to detect in Islamic art.

Traditional religions, with their integral view of the universe, can help us to rediscover the importance of the integration of the secular and the sacred. The danger of ignoring this essential aspect of our existence is not just spiritual or intellectual. It also lies at the heart of that great divide between the Islamic and Western worlds over the place of materialism in our lives. In those instances where Islam chooses to reject Western materialism, this is not, in my view, a political affectation or the result of envy or a sense of inferiority. Quite the opposite. And the danger that the gulf between the worlds of Islam and the other Eastern religions on the one hand and the West on the other will grow ever wider and more unbridgeable is real, unless we can explore together practical ways of integrating the sacred and the secular in both our cultures in order to provide a true inspiration for the next century.

Where in the Islamic world, whenever some have become rich enough even to have a choice, has anyone or any group chosen to “reject” what Prince Charles calls “Western” materialism? Where is that supposed “great divide between the Islamic and Western worlds over the place of materialism in our lives”? If anything, Islam is more of this world than Christianity. Islam does not advocate ascetic denial, as is done in Hinduism and, even more, in Buddhism. Many Islamic websites insistently repeat that “Islam in no way encourages deliberate excessive asceticism, poverty and passivism.” As for the accumulation of wealth, as long as it is used for good aims – to help fellow Muslims, to help spread Islam – it is never to be discouraged. When Prince Charles deplores a widening of “the gulf between the worlds of Islam and the other Eastern religions on the one hand” and “the West on the other,” it is clear that he thinks of Islam as being akin to Buddhism and Hinduism in their emphasis on the “spiritual,” because he thinks of all three as similar “Eastern religions.” He’s failed to grasp that Islam is the most material-minded of all major faiths. Rules about Muslims helping themselves to the property of subjugated Infidels, which includes not just goods and gold but also humans – with the women taken as sex slaves – and rules about how to divide up the spoils of Jihad (with one-fifth to be reserved for “Allah and His Apostle,” which is to say for Muhammad), are all set out in the Qur’an and Hadith.

Prince Charles expresses an intense interest in the “spiritual” in Islam, but it is clear that what he thinks he finds in Islam is to be found, rather, in those “other Eastern religions” –Buddhism, Hinduism – whose “spirituality” does indeed allow for the rejection of materialism. Indeed, if he wishes to descant upon the virtues of “sacred spirituality,” he would do better to visit a Buddhist or Hindu temple than a mosque, where, as the British police long ago discovered, he might stumble upon caches of forged passports, credit cards, and a “mini-arsenal” of weapons. Yes, this Islam that so impresses Prince Charles has another side than the “spiritual,” one that is certainly open to his investigation, if only he has eyes to see, and a mind to comprehend.

On the death of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles will become both King of England and head of the Church of England. Will he seek to transform that Church, to have it emulate aspects of Islam, from which, he claims, Christianity has so much to learn? Or will he be true to Christianity, and the “wisdom of his forebears” about Islam, and seek to meet, while there’s still time, the Muslim demographic challenge which is the latest instrument of Jihad? It’s a choice between “get ready to roll” and “get ready to roll out those prayer rugs.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Australia: Terrorism squad arrests “man” at Sydney Airport over New Year’s Eve threat

Italy: Church displays Nativity Scene with Mary and Joseph in Muslim garb

uk-muslim-about-to-leave-islam

VIDEO: Muslim ‘ex-extremist’ explains why he is on the brink of leaving Islam

“Saracen 786” asks a number of questions in this video about whether various Islamic teachings and acts of Muhammad are really moral and ethical. He repeatedly asks Muslim scholars how they would explain these aspects of Islam. If any respond, they will say that Allah decides what is moral and ethical, and thus these aspects of Islam cannot be questioned, but are simply to be accepted. That just leads to the further question of why Allah would command what are clearly hateful and immoral acts.

He also refers to books by Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and me. In response, Islamic scholars will say we are hateful, bigoted “Islamophobes” — but will not say anything about the content of any of our books or refute any of the points we make.

Note also that his face is covered. He knows he could be killed for leaving Islam.

This young man is clearly anguished, but is reasoning through to a pathway out of violence, supremacism, and hatred. He deserves our support.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Twitter: “Robert Spencer should be exterminated immediately”

Death to the vase! Iran military parade turns awkward as special forces repeatedly fail to break flowerpot

lionel-williams

Virginia Muslim bought AK-47 the day after San Bernardino jihad massacre

Clearly Harun Ash-Shababi was inspired by the feats of his coreligionists in San Bernardino, and wanted to emulate them.

And here again we have a convert to Islam who got the idea that his new religion commanded him to commit treason and mass murder. Yet there is no study of conversion to Islam in connection with terrorism in any branch of government or law enforcement.

“Suffolk man arrested for attempting to provide support to ISIL,” WTKR, December 22, 2016:

SUFFOLK, Va. – A local man was arrested Wednesday for attempting to support a terrorism organization.

According to an affidavit filed in court by the FBI Thursday, FBI agents arrested Lionel Williams around just before 1 p.m. Wednesday based on probable cause that he “knowingly attempted to provide material support and resources” to ISIL.

The affidavit also indicated that in March 2016 a member of the public told the FBI that Williams had been posting videos and content in support of ISIL on Facebook. The individual also told the FBI that Williams had recently acquired an AK-47 assault rifle.

Specifics of some of the Facebook posts are detailed in the affidavit here.

In late April 2016 Williams, who also goes by the name of Harun Ash-Shababi, was “friended” on Facebook by an FBI-controlled persona.

Williams met with and FBI Undercover Employee in mid June when he reportedly stated that he supports attacks on “hard targets.” The FBI believes “hard targets” are police officers, military and other targets that have the ability to defend themselves. Williams also allegedly stated that if he were to conduct an attack, he would target someone who could fight back. He also told the FBI employee that he had not carried out an attack because his grandmother is still alive and he needed to care for her….

In addition, the court documents state that the investigation revealed that Williams ordered an AK-47 assault rifle the day after the December 2015 terror attack in San Bernardino, California. Two firearms, including an AK-47 and a semi-automatic handgun, were recovered in a post-arrest search of Williams’ Suffolk home.

A neighbor says she never suspected this. “Lionel has been a good young man. He converted to Islam about five years ago,” said Irene Stewart. “I just don’t see it. I just really don’t see it. To me, he he’s a good man.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rookie Italian cop guns down Berlin jihad killer as he screamed “Allahu akbar” after shooting another cop

Germany: Austrian embassy menu bans mention of Christmas for fear of offending Muslims

child-suicide-bomber

8-Year-Old Muslim Girl Carries Out Suicide Bombing

The girl was strapped with a homemade bomb. When she entered a police station, the bomb was detonated by remote control.

An eight-year-old girl carried out a suicide bombing attack at a Damascus police station, according to SANA (the Syrian Arab News Agency) and as reported by RT.

The agency cited a source in the Damascus Police Command that reported, “Terrorists sent an eight-year-old girl with a small homemade bomb to a police station in the Midan neighborhood. When she entered the building, militants activated the explosive device with a remote control, the child died at the scene, one police officer suffered light injuries.”

The bombing has not been claimed by any group as yet. The girl reportedly came to the police station and said she was lost.

The blast killed her and lightly injured one policeman.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Should I Kill My Wife to Prevent Her Rape?

How Was ISIS Able To Carry Out 52 Chemical Weapons Attacks?

Four Things You Need to Know About Syria Today

Five Policy Issues for Donald Trump

mayor-de-blasio

De Blasio ‘really angry’ with Muslim hate crime hoaxer because it’s really Trump’s fault

“There is an obvious spike in hate crimes. We can’t have deniers telling us that the rhetoric of many people, including Donald Trump, didn’t lead to that.”

De Blasio is enraged that this girl has cast doubt on the flimsy and fictional Leftist narrative that Trump has led to a spike in hate crimes. He is not “really angry” with the girl’s parents for shaving her head and publicly humiliating her, and showing that she is in obvious danger for straying from Islamic norms. De Blasio can’t be angry about that: to do so would be “Islamophobic.”

“De Blasio says he’s ‘really angry’ about Muslim teen’s attack tale,” by Rich Calder, New York Post, December 16, 2016:

Mayor Bill de Blasio said Friday he’s “really angry” at the Muslim student who cops say lied about a bias attack on a Manhattan subway — because real victims will now be met with more skepticism.

“I am really angry at this young woman for, in effect, doing a huge disservice to everyone,” the mayor said, speaking of accused hoaxer Yasmin Seweid during his weekly call-in show on WNYC radio.

Seweid, 18, of North New Hyde Park in Nassau County on Long Island, admitted to cops Wednesday that she’d made up a story of being accosted on a subway on Dec. 1 by three white drunks who called her a terrorist, taunted, “Donald Trump!” and tried to pull off her headscarf.

The Baruch College business major told cops she’d actually been out drinking with friends and lied about the attack to distract her strict Islamic father, who’d been furious over her being out late, sources told The Post.

The mayor said, “She did a disservice to the NYPD, who put real time and energy into investigating a claim, which is another example of how diligent the NYPD is when it gets reports of hate crimes.

“She did a disservice to the taxpayers” who have to pay for the investigation, he said.

“She did a disservice to the truth and you are exactly right,” he said. “There is an obvious spike in hate crimes.

“We can’t have deniers telling us that the rhetoric of many people, including Donald Trump, didn’t lead to that. And she in effect is enabling those who say, ‘Oh, this is not a big deal,’” the mayor complained….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Noam Chomsky: Idea of “Islamic terror as seeking to destroy us” is “scapegoating”

Germany: 12-year-old Muslim boy targets Christmas market with nail bomb