Posts

Georgetown professor promotes ‘religious discrimination’ against Jews

The radicalization of our nation’s colleges and universities continues apace. Hard-left, antisemitic propaganda has now been institutionalized in academia. The ugliest rhetoric is sanctioned under the guise of “free speech,” while courageous voices for freedom are blacklisted. My colleagues and I are banned from speaking, for the most part. And in the rare instance where we are invited, violent and vicious pandemonium ensues. Robert Spencer’s talk at the University at Buffalo, Milo at Berkeley or mine at Brooklyn College best demonstrate what we face. And yet, Linda Sarsour, a pro-jihad terror activist and vicious anti-Semite is invited to give the keynote commencement address at CUNY (which we are protesting on May 25th here).

Professor Jonathan Brown is a notorious Jew-hater with a long history of anti-Semitic agitation. His wife is the daughter of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian.

“Georgetown professor Jonathan Brown openly rallies for ‘religious discrimination’ against Jews,” Canary Mission, May 18, 2017:

Jonathan Brown [Jonathan A.C. Brown] has demonized Israeli Jews and Judaism. He  has implied that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict could be solved if only “Jews in Israel” were told that “they are not allowed to take stuff that doesn’t belong to them.”

In February of 2017, Brown found himself embroiled in controversy after he was accused of supporting non-consensual sex and slavery in early Islam. The incident is detailed later in this profile.

Brown has endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement’s attacks on Israel, made under the guise of support for “human rights.”

Brown is a tenured Associate Professor of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University (Georgetown). He is the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service (SFS). Brown is also the Director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding (CMCU) within the SFS. The CMCU is known for its links to the Saudi government.

Brown is son-in-law to Sami Al-Arian, a former University of South Florida (USF) professor, who was revealed in 2006 to be a leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a specially designated terrorist organization. The United States government deported Al-Arian to Turkey in 2015. Brown’s wife is Al-Jazeera senior producer Laila Al-Arian.

Demonizing Israeli Jews

On February 26, 2015  — at a multi-denominational symposium hosted by the Policy Studies Organization (PSO) titled: “Religious Politics in the Middle East: The Religious Dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict — Brown said: “The problem is that the Israeli political creature, the Israeli political establishment, has not told Jews in Israel that they are not allowed to take stuff that doesn’t belong to them and that is, I think, a fundamental problem… If you can tell people that your religious belief does not give you the right to take the possessions of someone else. Ok? Then If that were established, I think that would completely change, you know, the reality 180 degrees.”

Promoting Faith-Based Segregation

On February 26, 2015, at the above-mentioned symposium, Brown suggested that Americans would have to overcome their “allergy to the idea of religious discrimination” if they wanted to envisage a realistic end to the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Brown went on to say and that even within the context of a totally secular democratic state, it would be “absolutely disastrous” for Palestinian Muslims or Palestinian Christians if “a Jew’s allowed” to go into the holy places of other religions “and just start praying there.” Brown said that we “need to accept that” Jerusalem might have to become a “very divided city under some kind of international or … external control.”

Later, Brown highlighted the Palestinian’s perception of being “encroached upon” by Israeli Jews and posited that a “clear notion of stable boundaries and separations”  would lead to a “cosmopolitan atmosphere” and help in “building trust.”

Earlier in the symposium, Brown said “I don’t want to say that this isn’t a religious issue, because I think it very clearly is — especially from the Jewish and the Christian perspective — But I think, actually, from the Arab/Muslim perspective not so much.”

Brown argued that even “if you could just erase religion from the minds of Palestinians, they would still have all the problems that they have now” and “the problem would still not be resolved.” Brown also posited that the willingness of fundamental Islamists to fight alongside secular Arabs against Israel showed that the fundamentals of the conflict were not religious.

Brown later posited: I think the religion is the superstructure and the unresolved issues of control and disenfranchisement and land and power and and rights — these are the real issues.”

Presenting BDS as a Muslim Duty

On November 4, 2016, in a podcast titledDiffused Congruence: The American Muslim Experience,” Brown insinuated that Muslims have a religious responsibility to promote BDS. After listing the various religious, cultural and professional affiliations of some people who support BDS — and singling out some Jews, in particular — Brown went on to say: “Who’s the ones who are going against BDS and undermining it now? It’s the young Muslims. Think about that disgrace.” (7:20).

Brown made his comments in the context of slamming a Jewish-Muslim dialogue project known as the Muslim Leadership Initiative (MLI,) which was founded by Imam Abdullah Antepli, the first Muslim chaplain at Duke University. MLI is an educational program for Muslim Americans to “understand why Jews believe what they believe, how Jews see their history, why Jews are so attached to this contested strip of land (Israel) — and thus to better engage with American Jews.” According to Antepli, “MLI aims to put mainstream North American Jewry in conversation with their Muslim counterparts.”

Brown said he had no problem with young Muslims “dialoguing” with Jews or Zionists “anywhere.” However, he said that since the organizers “insisted” that the program be held in Israel, it “should reveal what the actual purpose is… to break the boycott in going there.”

Demanding Israel Surrender “Power”

In the same podcast, after arguing that religious segregation is a necessary prerequisite to trust building, Brown argued the basis for the Arab-Israeli conflict is really a political one, caused by an imbalance of power and resources.

Brown argued that if one group has “armed power… resources and international power” and another group does not, then “until that imbalance is rectified, in some way, there’s not going to be a solution.” Brown said you “can’t have peaceful relations or solving an age-old conflict unless the party that is in power surrenders that – until you have some kind of equitable distribution.”

In his closing remarks, Brown responded to a request for his solution to the psychological-religious divide between the parties. Brown hypothesized that “theoretically for an Islamist” such as “someone in Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)” will assert that his religious goals might be to “establish an Islamic state here” and “have Sharia Law” and to “drive all the Jews into the sea.”

Challenging “Freedom” and “Consent”

On February 7, 2017, Brown’s comments at a lecture titled “Islam and The Problem of Slavery” made national headlines. Multiple media outlets accused Brown of speaking in favor of slavery and rape —  a claim which Brown denied. The controversy began with a blog post by freelance writer Umar Lee, who attended Brown’s lecture.

On February 8, 2017, it was reported that Brown had conservative journalist Andrew Harrod ejected from the lecture hall, prior to the start of Brown’s formal remarks. Brown referenced the ejection at the beginning of his lecture — and publicly derided the ejected reporter.

Below are a selection of controversial statements Brown made during the lecture and the Q&A period that followed:

In response to a questioner who characterized imposed slavery as a “wrong,”  Brown said: “If you’re Muslim, the prophet of God … had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Are you more morally mature than the prophet of God? No, you’re not.”

Brown also said: “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself, because ‘slavery’ doesn’t mean anything. The moral evil is extreme forms of deprivation of rights and extreme forms of control and extreme forms of exploitation. I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody, because we own lots of people all around us and we’re owned by people.”

On August 9, 2015 — according to a February 11, 2017 screenshot on Twitter — Brown said on Facebook: “I think people have a lot of things mixed up in their minds, forming a sort of outrage soup they can’t deal with. I think one has to proceed in an orderly way 1) slavery is, in general, allowed in Islamic law. 2) It’s very possible (and it’s actually happened) to declare that slavery is no longer permissible whether due to consistent failings in treatment of slaves or the decision of governments for the common good of the Muslim community. 3) But it’s not possible to say that slavery is inherently, absolutely, categorically immoral in all times and places, since it was allowed by the Quran and the Prophet. 4) Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them.”

Explaining Non-Consensual Sex

During his February 7, 2017 lecture, Brown challenged modern standards of morality that define human beings as “autonomous agents” and dictate that “the sine qua non of morally correct sex is consent.”

Brown went on to say: “For most of human history, human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity. And second, we fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget – again, who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people? What does autonomy mean?”

Brown then followed up: “We have this obsession with the idea of autonomy” —  and proceeded to equate the servitude of those pressed into sexual slavery or serving as concubines to individuals subject to voluntarily assumed familial obligations, stemming from marriage.

Walking Back Controversial Statements

On February 17, 2017, Brown defended his statements, in the Washington Post, stating: “These people criticizing me don’t know the difference between the past and the present tense. The talk I gave was historical description.”

On February 16, 2017, Brown wrote an article for the online magazine Muslim Matters where he explained his statements. There, Brown wrote: “As a Muslim today, I can say emphatically that slavery is wrong and that Islam prohibits it … It’s easy for me to say this looking back on slavery in American history, because our American slavery was a manifestation of the absolute domination of one human being by another that is, in my opinion, a universal wrong across time and space.”

On February 11, 2017, Brown tweeted: “Islam as a faith and I as a person condemn slavery, rape and concubinage.”

BDS

The BDS movement was founded in 2005 by Omar Barghouti and asserts that it “works to end international support for Israel’s oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law.”

BDS initiatives include compelling institutions and individuals to divest from Israeli-affiliated companies, academic boycotts, anti-Israel rallies and protests.

The movement’s most notable achievement has been the infiltration of university campuses through lobbying for “BDS resolutions.” In these cases, backed by university anti-Israel affiliates, student governments have brought to vote on some form of boycott of — or divestment from — Israel and Israeli-affiliated entities. These resolutions, although non-binding, have been passed by student governments on numerous North American campuses.

BDS activity is often aggressive and disruptive. It has been noted that universities that pass BDS resolutions see a marked increase in anti-Semitic incidents on campus. In 2013, when the student government of the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) debated a BDS resolution, reports emerged of violent threats and the spitting on a student wearing a Star of David necklace. As a result, the student government chose to vote via a “secret ballot” in order to ensure their own safety.

RELATED ARTICLE: Imam in Canada defends imam in Denmark who called for killing of Jews

Unmarried couple buried up to their necks then stoned to death for ‘violating Islamic law’

This is not civilization, but savagery at its worst — because it is religious and “righteous.”

This is what the apologists would bring to your neighborhood.

This is what those who enthuse about sharia want to see happen to you if you don’t obey its brutal code.

Ignore this at your peril — the successful spread of sharia will condemn our children and following generations to unimaginable misery.

UNMARRIED COUPLE ARE BURIED UP TO THEIR NECKS AND STONED TO DEATH FOR ‘VIOLATING ISLAMIC LAW’ IN MALI AS JIHADIST GROUPS TAKE HOLD OF THE COUNTRY

  • It was the first known stoning execution to take place in the country since 2012
  • Extremists dug two holes for the unmarried man and woman who lived together
  • Members of the public invited to take part in execution in Taghlit, Kidal region
  • Four people threw stones at the paur until they had died, local officials claimed

By Jay Akbar For Mailonline,17 May 2017:

An unmarried couple were stoned to death by Islamic extremists in Mali for the first known time since 2012, local officials claimed.

‘The Islamists dug two holes where they put the man and the woman who lived maritally without being married,’ the official said. ‘They were stoned to death.’

The same source said members of the public were invited to take part in the public execution in Taghlit, close to Aguelhok in the Kidal region, adding: ‘Four people threw stones at them until they died.’

An unmarried couple were stoned to death by Islamic extremists in Mali (file photo of Chadian soldiers posing with the flag of terror group Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb in Mali)

Another local official confirmed the information, saying the Islamists had accused the unmarried couple of violating ‘Islamic law’ – which requires punishment by stoning.

Northern Mali fell to jihadist groups linked to Al-Qaeda in March 2012 and although they were driven out of key towns by a French-led military intervention the following year, Islamists have regrouped and now have spread further south.

During their brief control of key towns in the vast north, jihadist groups imposed a version of Sharia law which forced women to wear veils and set whipping and stoning as punishment for transgressions.

It is the first public stoning known to have taken place in Mali since July 2012, when the Ansar Dine group stoned a couple in public in Aguelhok who they accused of having children outside marriage.

The young pair were publicly executed in the remote town of Aguelhok, near the vast West African nation’s northern border with Algeria, on Sunday, a spokesman for the Ansar Dine [‘Defenders of the faith’] group said at the time.

A local official said members of the public were invited to take part in the public execution in Taghlit, close to Aguelhok in the Kidal region, adding: 'Four people threw stones at them until they died

A local official said members of the public were invited to take part in the public execution in Taghlit, close to Aguelhok in the Kidal region, adding: ‘Four people threw stones at them until they died

‘These two people were married and had extra-conjugal relations,’ the spokesman added. ‘Our men on the ground in Aguelhok applied sharia [Islamic law].’

‘They both died right away and even asked for this application.

‘We don’t have to answer to anyone over the application of sharia,’ he said.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Lawyer: Trump Executive Order on Immigration violates First Amendment because honor killings are Islamic

Katyal is right. Honor killings are Islamic. But he is, to my knowledge, the first Western Leftist ever to admit that fact.

Muslims commit 91 percent of honor killings worldwide. A manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that “retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.” However, “not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2). In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law. In this case the victim was the murderer’s sister, a victim to the culture of violence and intimidation that such laws help create.

The Palestinian Authority gives pardons or suspended sentences for honor murders. Iraqi women have asked for tougher sentences for Islamic honor murderers, who get off lightly now. Syria in 2009 scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but “the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour ‘provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.’” And in 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that “Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values.”

Until the encouragement Islamic law gives to honor killing is acknowledged and confronted, more women will suffer.

But Katyal is here arguing that honor killings cannot be opposed or restricted because to do so would restrict Muslims’ religious freedom. He apparently understands the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom as a license to break other laws, including prohibitions on murder. This is a vital point that must be clarified: either the principle of religious freedom overrules everything, and even allows for murder, or it stops where other laws begin. This question is going to have to be answered sooner or later.

“Hawaii Lawyer: Trump Exec Order Violates 1st Amendment Because Honor Killings Are Islamic,” by Raheem Kassam, Breitbart, May 15, 2017:

The lawyer representing the State of Hawaii in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today has stated the collection of data with regards honor killings should be removed from President Trump’s Executive Order in order to “pass constitutional muster”.

In his arguments, Neal Katyal stated today that the collection of such data as outlined by the Executive Order 13780 contravenes the Establishment Clause, in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”.

In doing so, Katyal appears to be making the case that honor killings — murder committed in the name of restoring a family’s dignity following discouraged behaviour within fundamentalist homes — is in itself Islamic.

It is an argument often made by anti-Islam campaigners, but to hear such arguments made by the political left might surprise some, especially when honor killings are also found — though to a lesser extent — in other religious groups like the Sikh community.

“What does [the President] have to do to issue an executive order that, in your view, might pass constitutional muster?” asked Judge Paez of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this afternoon.

Katyal responded at length, stating: “I think there’s two paths that the President could take in order to pass constitutional muster.

“One is the way that our founders thought, Article 1 Section 8 which, as Congress in the driver’s seat with respect to immigration, passes a statute. as Justice Alito said, when Congress passes a statute it’s much less likely to discriminate. It is 535 people versus one, which is why his Mandel point is so problematic. That’s number one.

“Second thing the president could do, or the kinds of things or some of the kinds, removing some of things that the district court found led an objective observer to say that this this discriminates.

“One example would be, what Judge Hawkins said, disavowing formally all the stuff said before. But that’s not it. He could do a lot of things. For example, I’m going to throw out some examples. I‘m not trying to micro manage the President. He could say, like President Bush did, right after September 11th, the face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. that’s not what Islam is about. Islam is peace. Instead, we get, quote, Islam hates us. I think Islam hates us.

“I think he could point to changed circumstances from December 2015, when Congress debated the exact same evidence that the President relies on in his executive order and say, you know, we actually need more than just denying people entry without a visa, which is what Congress required. You need to do more than that.

“It could eliminate the text, which refers to honor killings. There’s a bunch of different things that could be done. And our fundamental point to you is that presidents don’t run into Establishment Clause problems and the reason for that is this is a very limited, you know, in a really unusual case in which you have these public statements by the President. if you affirm the district court there’s not a thing that any president has done in our lifetime that would be unconstitutional”.

For Katyal to advance such an argument may also be detrimental to the public understanding of honor killings in the United States….

RELATED ARTICLES:

US form used to screen immigrants doesn’t ask about ties to groups such as al-Qaeda or the Islamic State

Christine Williams: My personal warning to Icelanders

Italian court rules that migrants must conform to values of their new country

“An attachment to one’s own values, even if they are lawful in the country of origin, is intolerable when it causes violating the laws of the host country.”

That’s simple common sense, but it is by no means settled. In the U.S., the First Amendment freedom of religion is routinely invoked against attempts to outlaw or restrict the application of Sharia. Some people seem to think that religious freedom gives them a license to break other laws. In reality, it doesn’t. But no one in the political class has the guts to say that.

It’s also noteworthy that the Italian High Casssation Court made this ruling against a Sikh migrant, not a Muslim migrant. It seems as if all the Western world is afraid to confront the latter.

“Cassation rules migrants must conform to local values (2),” ANSA, May 15, 2017 (thanks to Insubria):

(ANSA) – Rome, May 15 – The Italian High Casssation Court on Monday ruled against a Sikh Indian migrant who wanted to carry in public a knife that his religion considers sacred, even though it is against Italian law. The Court said migrants who choose to live in the Western world have an obligation to conform to the values of the society they’ve chosen to settle in, even if its values differ from their own. “An attachment to one’s own values, even if they are lawful in the country of origin, is intolerable when it causes violating the laws of the host country,” the Court said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Minneapolis: Muslims littering leads to discovery of their weapons arsenal and bomb-making equipment

Ex-Muslims slam Facebook for shutting down their pages for ‘disrespecting Islam

HALF A MILLION children recruited by ISIS

What is so disturbing is that this will be left for our children to deal with — and the left in the media, academia and culture have thoroughly disarmed them  in the information battle-space. They are sheep to slaughter.

Half a million. And there will be millions more.

TERROR TOTS: HORROR AS EXPERTS REVEAL UP TO HALF A MILLION CHILDREN RECRUITED BY ISIS

THE ISLAMIC STATE HAS MANAGED TO RADICALISE UP TO HALF A MILLION CHILDREN, EXPERTS HAVE DISCLOSED IN A SHOCKING REVELATION OVER THE SCALE OF THE TERROR THREAT. By Zoie O’Brien, May 13, 2017:

Terror experts, psychologists and analysts have been scrambled to assess how the threat from hundreds of thousands of children who served ISIS can be countered.The new find poses a deadly threat to countries such as France, the UK and the USA, all of which have been threatened with mass bloodshed on the streets.Anne Speckhard, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University, has travelled to Iraq to help deal with the crisis facing the country.The expert from The International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE) has also come face to face with the kids of the caliphate.She told Express.co.uk: “There was a lot of discussion about the numbers of youth involved – 250K to 500K.“ISIS banned the books from schools and replaced with their own curriculum and materials encouraging hatred and brutality, many of which were shown to us on a display.

“There is anger and concern about how to regroup in the face of ISIS destruction and worry that the ideology can continue to live in the hearts and minds of Sunnis who lived under ISIS and re-emerge.”

ISIS child beheads captive after being trained in horror terror camps.

Jihadis infiltrated classrooms, destroyed libraries and forced teachers to deliver a programme of hate in areas overtaken by ISIS.The Iraqi Prime Minister opened the Education in the Post-Daesh Iraq conference in April, where experts were told of the true extent of the problem.Before the invasions of towns in Iraq, a group called the ISIS ‘Emni’ planted radical preachers to prepare the ground.They learnt the grievances of local people and played on them to recruit families.

CALIPHATE KIDS: As many as 500,000 children may have been radicalised.

Children of the Islamic State: Teachers forced to throw out curriculum and preach for ISIS

The elite ‘Emni’ – made up of former Iraqi Baathists who served under Sadaam – is believed to be linked to terror attacks in Paris, Brussels and Tunisia.The programmes under which children were indoctrinated were extremely successful.Testimony from young soldiers who served ISIS has revealed they lived to serve the older jihadis who sent boys as young as five to their deaths.

Professor Speckhard said: “Some of the youth were actually recruited into the Cubs of the Caliphate and some were taught to behead.“Likewise some teachers were forced to teach in ISIS schools and what to do with them.In a series of interviews with Daesh jihadis, Professor Speckhard, along with Professor Ahmet Yayla, a former counter terror police chief, established how young boys are recruited.

Their book, entitled ‘ISIS Defectors: Inside Stories of the Terrorist Caliphate’, revealed how ISIS set out to radicalise children in an attempt to bolster its own ranks in 2015.

Within months it had hundreds on its books.

Professor Speckhard said: “The child who told us about kids being tricked and put in suicide vehicles even not knowing they were going to be exploded, an ISIS emir verified that kids are sent both in vehicles and wearing vests.“They are so brainwashed that they cry when they are taken off the list.”One boy named Ibn Omar revealed how training camps and huge knives were named after al-Qaeda leaders.He told the professors: “No. If you don’t join ad-Dawlah and pledge your loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi you are an in infidel.“Some of the local [ISIS] fighters said they now knew that their father was an in del and that as soon as they could, they would take leave and would go kill him.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Senior Citizen Prosecuted for ‘Hate’ for saying on Facebook She Saw Migrants Defecating in Streets, Setting Cars Ablaze

These countries are enforcing Islamic law (sharia), punishing their own people under Islam’s brutal speech laws. As I am oft quoted, “truth is the new hate speech.”

muslims-torching-cars-400x267Swedish Pensioner Prosecuted for ‘Hate’ for Accusing Migrants of Torching Cars on Facebook

Breitbart, May 14, 2017:

A 70-YEAR-OLD SWEDISH WOMAN IN DALARNA IS BEING PROSECUTED FOR HATE SPEECH AFTER CLAIMING ON FACEBOOK SHE SAW MIGRANTS DEFECATING IN THE STREETS AND SETTING FIRE TO CARS.

According to the prosecution, the woman “expressed a disparaging view of refugees” on Facebook. She stands accused of having taken to the social media website in early July 2015 to make the “derogatory” post, alleging that migrants “set fire to cars, and urinate and defecate on the streets”.

Prosecutors in Sweden say the woman’s message violates the nation’s law on incitement to racial hatred (Hets mot folkgrupp, or HMF), a crime with carries a maximum penalty of four years.

Islam is not a race.

The accused admitted that she wrote the post but denied committing any criminal act. The evidence against her consists of a screenshot from Facebook, according to local media.

People took to Flashback, the net’s largest Swedish language forum, to criticise the state’s decision to prosecute the pensioner, with one poster lamenting the accused “has fallen into the clutches of the politically correct”.

A user with the screen name ‘Nospheratu’ pointed out that the original idea behind HMF was “to prevent large-scale propaganda by political parties” against demographic groups, with lawmakers “having 1930s Germany in mind” whilst passing laws. The user slammed the law for being used to “prosecute old ladies on the bus” criticising immigrants.

Another slammed Sweden for hypocrisy, accusing the nation’s media and politicians of condemning restrictions on freedom of speech and expression in other countries “while themselves engaging in the worst kinds of witch hunts of dissidents”.

Sweden’s Justice Minister Morgan Johansson cited freedom of speech when he rejected Gothenburg police chief Erik Nord’s suggestion that the country deports Islamic State-supporting migrants, after the Islamist terror attack in Stockholm last month.

“We have freedom of speech in Sweden. This means people have the right to hold repulsive opinions here,” said Johansson.
“But there are always limits… For example when it comes to hate speech,” added the minister, who called Nord’s policy suggestion “problematic”, and demanded the police chief “explain himself”.

EDITORS NOTE: The column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Bin Laden’s son encourages Muslims to slaughter non-Muslims

He raised his son to continue the family business.

Hamza Bin Laden

“Bin Laden son’s chilling video threat to the West as he encourages Muslim extremists to launch lone-wolf attacks,” by Omar Wahid, The Mail On Sunday, May 14, 2017:

Osama Bin Laden’s son encouraged Muslim extremists to launch lone-wolf attacks against the West in a chilling video released last night.

In the ten-minute footage, Hamza Bin Laden urges his followers to embark on suicide missions that cause most damage and go for ‘the jugular of the enemy’.

Bin Laden relays his message in Arabic with English subtitles, declaring: ‘This is advice for anyone who intends to carry out a martyrdom operation.’

As he speaks, the video shows pictures of terrorists who have launched successful attacks in the West.

Bin Laden, who is thought to be 28, goes on: ‘Be perfect in your choice of targets, so that you may damage your enemies more.

‘If you are able to pick a firearm, well and good; if not, the options are many.’

And he adds: ‘Take lead in inflicting losses, attacking the jugular of the enemy and hitting its joints.’…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sudan: Atheist faces death for leaving Islam

UK: Muslim rape gang victim says “I was made to feel as though I was racist”

Muslim teen girl beaten, shot in face by her father and brother in attempted honor killing

She dishonored her family – of course they had to beat and shoot her, right? The Islamic honor code – respect it, islamophobes!

TEENAGE GIRL FIGHTS FOR LIFE AFTER HER FATHER AND BROTHER SHOT HER IN THE FACE IN ATTEMPTED HONOUR KILLING BECAUSE SHE LOVED A MAN IN HER VILLAGE

  • Ruby, 18, had been in a secret relationship with Ibrahim, 24, for last three years
  • Sister overheard her talking to him on the phone and told her brother and father
  • Ruby’s brother, Iftikhar, 32, and father, Sameraj, 52, confronted her
  • They beat her before shooting her twice – once in her face and once in her chest

By Charnamrit Sachdeva In India For Mailonline, 12 May 2017:

A TEENAGE GIRL IS FIGHTING FOR HER LIFE AFTER HER FATHER AND BROTHER SHOT HER IN THE FACE AND CHEST IN AN ATTEMPTED HONOUR KILLING BECAUSE SHE LOVED A MAN IN HER VILLAGE.

Ruby, 18, from a small village in Sambhal, in Uttar Pradesh, northern India, had been in a secret relationship with Ibrahim, 24, for the last three years.

But yesterday her younger sister overheard her talking to him on the phone and told her brother and father.

Within minutes of finding out, Ruby’s brother, Iftikhar, 32, and father, Sameraj, 52, confronted her.

They brutally beat her before shooting her twice – once in her face and once in her chest.

Video footage showed Ruby being taken to hospital covered in blood with a bandage on her face

Ruby was attacked after her younger sister overheard her talking to the older man on the phone

Neighbours heard loud screams and called the police who rushed to the scene.

They arrived at approximately 4am this morning to find Ruby lying on the floor outside her home, bleeding to death as members of the family did nothing.

Police rushed her to a local government run hospital where her condition was reported as critical.

Due to a lack of facilities she was referred to a private hospital in Moradabad, around 40 kms away, early this morning.

Video footage showed Ruby being taken to hospital covered in blood with a bandage on her face.

Her brother and father were arrested at the scene.

Officer Brahmapal Singh Baliyan, from Asmoli Police Station, said: ‘It’s an honour killing case. The girl told us at the hospital that she was shot by her brother and father after they came to know about her relationship.

‘She also said that her mother was involved as she opposed a marriage between the girl and her boyfriend.

‘She is currently in a critical condition and is being treated at a private hospital with police protection.’

Dr Jitender Singh, Emergency Medical Officer at the District Hospital, said: ‘She arrived in a semi conscious state and was bleeding heavily. Her blood pressure was really low and she was barely able to speak.

‘She had one bullet in the left side of her face, around 3 cm away from ear, and one bullet on the right side of her chest. As we do not have proper surgeons or an ICU ward here, she was referred to a private hospital in Moradabad. She needs immediate treatment as she could die due to heavy bleeding.’

Both father and son are currently in police custody and have been arrested under Section 307 (Attempt to murder) of Indian Penal Code.

Police confirmed other members of the family will be interviewed once Ruby is in a stable state to give an official statement.

Video Player

 EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

James Comey: Not Just Incompetent, But He Placed American Lives at Risk

Also in 2015, two terrorists attempted to kill attendees at an event in Garland, TX hosted by anti-Jihad activist Pamela Geller, at which participants were drawing images of Muhammad, which is considered a sacrilege by Muslims. The terrorists had enough ammunition to kill dozens of people and they did wound one security guard before being shot dead. But the attack could have been prevented because not only did the FBI know the terrorists were planning something but, as 60 Minutes reported, they had an undercover agent working with them who sent an encouraging text to the terrorists three weeks prior to the attack: “Tear up Texas.”

That’s bad enough, but 60 Minutes also revealed that this agent was actually at the location of the terror attack. He was in a car behind the car containing the terrorists but when they opened fire on a security guard, his reaction was to photograph them. He did not intervene. Why not? And why weren’t more FBI agents placed at the event to stop the attack? Or prevent it before it even started? Why did they not even alert Pamela Geller, the organizer of the event? As Geller states, “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the even dead.” This was a display of incredible incompetence, but neither the FBI nor Comey have ever been forced to explain their actions.

Why did they not even alert Pamela Geller, the organizer of the event? Indeed. Comey should have been fired then.

garland texas isis attack.jpgJAMES COMEY: NOT JUST INCOMPETENT BUT HE PLACED AMERICAN LIVES AT RISK

By Steve Baldwin, American Spectator, May 12, 2017:

A record of political correctness in the war on terror.

FBI Director James Comey was incompetent and as FBI Director, his policies placed the lives of American citizens at risk. An in-depth look at his record as FBI Director reveals an incredible naivety toward the Islamic terror threat and a willingness to appease radical Muslims at the expense of protesting Americans. This piece will not address Comey’s handling of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or his failure to investigate the obvious illegal pay-for play schemes concocted by the Clinton Foundation.

Nor will it look at his failure to prosecute anyone associated with the IRS’s effort to silence hundreds of political groups during Obama’s reelection or his refusal to come clean about his knowledge of how numerous Americans were “unmasked” for having the audacity of associating with Donald Trump. No, this is just a peek at how the FBI under Comey handled the Islamic terrorist threat. Thanks to a lazy media, the popular image most Americans have of Comey is that he’s a superb administrator, a straight shooting Boy Scout and an Eliot Ness kind of guy who aggressively puts all the bad guys away.

In 2011, in one of the most incredible acts of stupidity ever by the FBI, the agency agreed to purge its counter-terrorism documents of terms, concepts, and statements that a number of Islamic pressure groups objected to. The government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, forced the FBI to release documents about this purge which revealed that the FBI systematically purged some 900 pages and 392 presentations deemed “offensive” to Muslims. This occurred under the previous FBI director Robert Mueller as a result of meeting with Islamic pressure groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both named in 2007 as unindicted co-conspirators in a case involving raising funds for Islamic terrorists.

This purge crippled the FBI’s ability to track terrorists and many believe the loss of this intelligence caused the FBI to miss clues that could have prevented future terrorist attacks. Indeed, Judicial Watch actually called the purge “part of a broader Islamist ‘influence operation’ aimed at our government and Constitution.”

The purged documents including records linking the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism, probably because the Obama Administration had, by this time, appointed a number of MB sympathizers to key positions and was quietly supporting Muslim Brotherhood political movements in a number of countries such as Egypt and Libya. The purge also deleted all usage of the term “radical Islam,” and any statement that defined “Jihad” as “Holy War,” even though that’s the definition used by Islamic terrorists. Strangely, the FBI also destroyed all documents linking al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombings, despite the fact these are important events in the terrorist timeline.

Judicial Watch also revealed that the purge also “removed references to mosques specifically as a radicalization incubator,” even though every intelligence service in the world knows that mosques are regularly used to plan and organize terror attacks. FBI agents were even told what words they could not use in writing reports on terror threats. Banned words included sharia, jihad, Muslim, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, enemy, Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda. The FBI was basically more concerned about the feelings of radical Muslims than the security of American citizens.

While the file purging occurred under Bureau head Robert Mueller two years before Comey took the helm, there is no evidence Comey made any effort to restore these files and all evidence indicates that he continued to use this politically correct mindset as he investigated the Jihadist threat in the U.S.A. And it soon became a heavy price to pay.

Indeed, one of the FBI documents obtained by JW titled “Guiding Principles: Touchstone Document on Training” stated that “mere association with organizations that demonstrate both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).”

In other words, the FBI was instructing its agents that if a person is found to be involved with a group that advocates “violent extremism,” they are not to assume the person is involved with violent extremism! This give-the-benefit-of-the-doubt-to-potential-terrorists mindset is what may have caused the FBI to ignore clues that could have stopped the Ft. Hood, Orlando, San Bernardino, and other terrorist attacks even though it had prior knowledge about the Islamic extremist connections of those who carried out those attacks.

Again, while this FBI document was produced pre-Comey, it is clear from the FBI’s performance that he never disavowed the “Guiding Principles” mindset and that they continued to follow the philosophy of appeasing Muslim pressure groups even at the expense of protecting Americans.

Indeed, Comey never broke with any of Director Mueller’s appeasement policies. For example, the FBI under Comey continue to maintain friendly ties with radical Islamic groups, namely the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the group mentioned earlier as a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial. Even though the Justice Department banned the FBI from associating with CAIR, a number of FBI Field offices continued friendly relations with this extremist group. Ultimately, the Justice Department’s Inspector General (IG) investigated the FBI and its final report exposed the Bureau’s friendly interactions with CAIR at its Los Angeles, Chicago, New Haven and Philadelphia field offices.

Congressman Frank Wolf wrote, “Today, the Department’s Inspector General… confirms the blatant disregard of Bureau policy as well as multiple enacted Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations reports with respect to interactions by the FBI with CAIR.” The DOJ IG report even revealed that the director of the Los Angeles FBI office urged his staff to disregard this policy: “Please instruct your folks at this time that they are not to abide by the [directive to have no contact with CAIR] but that their direction in regards to CAIR will come from the LA field office front office.” While this occurred at the very beginning of Comey’s term, there is no evidence that Comey did anything to discourage these contacts.

And it gets worse. Judicial Watch reported that the FBI in 2015 created an interactive website called “Don’t be a Puppet,” for the purpose of preventing “susceptible youth from getting recruited online by terrorists,” but they were pressured by Islamic groups to omit all mention of Islamic terrorism. Comey caved and the site was changed to feature white supremacists, militia groups, religious extremists and so on, even though terrorist acts by such groups are quite rare while Islamic terrorists have committed tens of thousands of terror acts worldwide since 9/11. The only time the website mentions Islam is when it explains that Islamic terrorist groups such as ISIS “do not represent mainstream Islam.”

But the idea that obscure militias and white supremacists pose a threat to the national security in the same way as do Islamic terrorists happens to be a favorite theme of the loony left and Comey seems to have bought into this fantasy. Indeed, in 2015, Comey’s g-men stormed into a meeting of the Republic of Texas, a Texan secessionist movement. At the time of the raid, reported WorldNetDaily, the group “was debating issues of currency, international relations and celebrating the birthday” of one of their members. Sounds threatening. None of these guys were wanted terrorists or had ever engaged in any activity remotely threatening national security. Nevertheless, they were all fingerprinted and had their cell phones seized. If Comey’s FBI is really spending time, money and effort investigating and harassing harmless groups like the Republic of Texas, no wonder the agency missed numerous clues on many high profile Islamic terrorist cases under Comey’s watch. Clearly, they are allocating its resources based on political correctness, not reality.

Before Comey became director, the FBI initiated a policy that actually banned the FBI from conducting surveillance of mosques and instructed agents to “remove their shoes” before entering a mosque (what if they have to chase a suspect?), wait for the worship service to be over before entering, and not allow police dogs to sniff for explosives. The rules do not appear to apply to investigations involving Christian churches. Nor did Comey make any effort to change this policy even though Mosques have repeatedly been implicated in Islamic terror plots worldwide.

Moreover, Comey continued Director Mueller’s practice of heavily recruiting Muslims to be agents with apparently very little vetting. Indeed, the FBI placed recruitment ads in the publications of extremist Islamic groups with the slogan “Today’s FBI. It’s for You.” And it paid off. Indeed, WorldNetDaily broke a story that a Muslim agent working for the Los Angeles FBI field office “tipped off a Muslim suspect under investigation for terrorism about FBI surveillance.”

In years past, such a violation would result in not just the agent being fired, but also being prosecuted. However, this agent was allowed to remain with the FBI with only a reprimand! Moreover, other Muslim FBI agents have been exposed for assisting radical Islamic groups but the only consequence has been a transfer to another FBI office. Congressional investigators should review the FBI’s hiring and vetting polices when it comes to Muslims, because it’s likely Comey may have hired a slew of agents who are more loyal to the Jihad than to the U.S.A. Again, there’s no evidence that Comey did anything to change or reform aggressive hiring policies which actually targeted radical Muslims, not moderates.

But let’s take a look at how Comey’s FBI actually handled a few of the more well known domestic terror cases during his tenure.

In 2015, an Islamic couple from Pakistan murdered 14 people and injured 22 others at an after work Christmas party in San Bernardino. The terrorist couple, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, spent time in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and used bomb technology commonly used by al Qaeda. The two jihadists were linked to Tablighi Jamaat, an Islamic extremist sect with a history of supporting terrorism. However, all records related to this particular group were purged from the National Targeting Center database, according to former DHS counter-terror analyst Philip Haney, who stated that “this Administration is more concerned about the civil rights and civil liberties of foreign Islamic groups and foreign nationals than securing the freedom and security of the American public.” NTC’s data is shared with the FBI. Had Comey made any effort to restore these valuable counter-terrorism files, there’s a chance the Bureau could have prevented this attack. But again, there is no record of any push-back by Director Comey to recover counter-terrorism files. Too bad, it would have saved American lives.

Also in 2015, two terrorists attempted to kill attendees at an event in Garland, TX hosted by anti-Jihad activist Pamela Geller, at which participants were drawing images of Muhammad, which is considered a sacrilege by Muslims. The terrorists had enough ammunition to kill dozens of people and they did wound one security guard before being shot dead. But the attack could have been prevented because not only did the FBI know the terrorists were planning something but, as 60 Minutes reported, they had an undercover agent working with them who sent an encouraging text to the terrorists three weeks prior to the attack: “Tear up Texas.”

That’s bad enough, but 60 Minutes also revealed that this agent was actually at the location of the terror attack. He was in a car behind the car containing the terrorists but when they opened fire on a security guard, his reaction was to photograph them. He did not intervene. Why not? And why weren’t more FBI agents placed at the event to stop the attack? Or prevent it before it even started? Why did they not even alert Pamela Geller, the organizer of the event? As Geller states, “It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the Obama FBI wanted me and the other speakers at the even dead.” This was a display of incredible incompetence, but neither the FBI nor Comey have ever been forced to explain their actions.

When Ahmad Kan Rahami set off powerful bombs in Manhattan in 2016, injuring 31 people, it was reported by the New York Times that Rahami’s father had informed the FBI two years previously that “he feared his son was a terrorist.” The FBI investigated and cleared him, even though, as the Times reports, “they never interviewed Mr. Rahami.” Nor did they adequately scrutinize the suspicious trips Rahami made overseas to both Pakistan and Quetta. It is likely those trips were to receive bomb-making training. Why would the FBI not even question him? Is this how the FBI “clears” potential terrorists under James Comey?

In 2016, Omar Mateen, murdered 49 people and injured 53 at an Orlando nightclub. The FBI twice investigated Mateen; one investigation was initiated because Mateen was in contact with a suicide bomber; the 2nd one began because he made threatening comments to co-workers. Both investigations were closed; the later one due to FBI’s belief that Mateen was making terrorist threats only as a reaction to “being marginalized because of his Muslim Faith.”

Yes, the FBI believed that the problem was not Mateen, but rather his “racist” co-workers. The FBI also knew Mateen had traveled to Saudi Arabia in 2011 and that his father posted pro-Taliban videos online. Finally, a gun store owner called the FBI shortly before the attack to report Mateen’s effort to buy body armor and ammunition. But the FBI did nothing. Due to political correctness, the FBI could not or would not connect the dots and 49 people paid the price. Moreover, Mateen attended a radical mosque in Orlando, but since Comey’s FBI refused to investigate terror-supporting mosques, they cut themselves off from finding out any additional information about Mateen. Incredibly, in response to this murderous attack, FBI special agent Ron Hopper announced that “civil rights violations are a priority for the FBI,” referring not to the victims of Mateen, but to anyone who might say anything negative about Muslims. This is not a joke.

Lastly, the FBI under Comey has ignored a large network of domestic terrorist training compounds. In his book, Twilight in America, author and researcher Martin Mawyer documents the existence of at least two dozen compounds in rural areas operated by a terror group known as “Muslims of America (MOA).” MOA’s Islamic name is “Jamaat ul-Fuqra” and its leader is Sheikh Mubarik Ali Shah Gilani, a radical jihadist cleric who mentored the Christmas Day bomber and many other terrorists. He has declared jihad on America and his compounds are clearly involved with training jihadists. Indeed, MOE members were involved with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Before Obama came to power, the FBI prepared a report about these Islamic warriors: “MOA members have participated in ten murders; one disappearance; three fire bombings and one attempted firebombing and two explosive bombings with one attempted bombing…. the leadership of the MOA extols members to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam which Include the U.S. Government.…members of the MOA are encouraged to travel to Pakistan to receive religious and military/terrorist training from Sheikh Gilani.”

 There is little doubt the FBI possesses enough information about MOA’s activities to obtain court warrants to search their compounds or wiretap its phones, but Mawyer says that his sources tell him “the FBI under Comey showed no interest in investigating these compounds.” Mawyer says while a few field agents understand what these camps are really all about, many in the FBI “Think they are just Muslims who want to be left alone.” Sure. Meanwhile, these compounds continue training jihadists unimpeded. Mawyer has spent twenty years researching MOA and its network of compounds but Comey wouldn’t know him from Adam. In any case, the latest chatter from MOA operatives is a fear that Trump will actually close down their compounds. They will miss Comey dearly.

While Comey made quite a media splash informing Americans that the FBI is investigating ISIS-related terrorists in all 50 states, one now has to wonder how many of these investigations are just for show? Or how many cases will the FBI drop for fear of offending Muslims?

If Congress would spend more time investigating the FBI’s competency, rather than phony Russian conspiracy theories, perhaps someday we will have an FBI that’s not driven by political correctness. In the age of terrorism, we need a FBI Director who is fearless and aggressive in investigating Islamic terrorism. Comey has bungled many high profile Islamic terror cases under his watch. Trump did the right thing by firing him and he needs to now hire someone who will ignore political correctness and do what is necessary to keep America safe from Islamic terrorism.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

WARNING: Muslim gang targeting lone female drivers at traffic lights

“Described as Asian” — Media sharia-speak for Muslim. Preying on young women alone in their cars at night. How bloody frightening.

This is the new normal. You must show how evolved and tolerant you are by acquiescing to the age of the primitive in the wake of the hijrah.

Embrace it!

WARNING OVER GANG TARGETING LONE FEMALE DRIVERS AT TRAFFIC LIGHTS

By Adam Boult, Telegraph,  12 MAY 2017 • thanks to Inexion:

Female drivers are being warned about a group of men who have been attempting to get into cars stopped at junctions.

In recent days several women in the Stockport area have reportedly been approached by the men while waiting for traffic lights to change.

One victim, Cala Grant, was approached on Monday this week. Describing the incident on Facebook, she wrote: “Two men attempted to get into my car while I was sat at traffic lights in Offerton.

“As the male was walking towards the driver side he looked like he was just crossing the road then quickly went for my door handle.

“At that time out of nowhere another male was attempting my passenger side.

“Luckily my doors were locked so I just raced off through a red light and nearly got hit by another driver in the process.

“I am ok although shaken up!” she added, warning other drivers: “Please please lock your doors!”

The incident occurred at approximately 7.45pm. The men were described as being Asian and in their early 20s.

Another woman reported a similar incident at the junction of Nangreave Road and Windermere Road. A man jumped in front of her car to make her stop, and then two other men appeared and tried to open the car doors, but found them locked.

The woman’s mother told the Manchester Evening News: “She was absolutely terrified and I think people need to be warned. Aquinas College is nearby where there are 100s of kids, many of them drive but probably don’t have new cars that have self-locking doors.

“I feel threatened myself and worried for my girls.”

Police are appealing for witnesses.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.