Posts

Photos Surface Revealing 2017 ‘Closed-Door’ Meeting Between Rep. Ilhan Omar and Turkish President Erdogan

Conservative Review reporter Jordan Schachtel recently came upon an interesting tidbit in the Tusmo Times, a publication that covers the Somali community in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, area. He found a story there by the Somali-language paper’s founder and editor, Abdirahman Mukhtar, about a “closed-door meeting” that took place in New York City in September 2017 between visiting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and a then-relatively unknown Minnesota state representative named Ilhan Omar.

Omar, a Muslim immigrant from Somalia who won election to the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2018, reportedly led a delegation of Somalis from Minnesota to meet with Erdogan in New York. Erdogan was in town for the annual UN General Assembly meeting and Omar flew in to meet him at a local hotel in downtown New York City.

She even tweeted about the meeting in Somali.

What is most interesting about this meeting, however, aside from the fact that the President of Turkey agreed to meet with a local Minnesota state legislator, is that it took place in the very same hotel room where Erdogan, either just before or just after his meeting with Omar, met with the assembled top leadership of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.

This is obvious from the room’s carpeting and table and chairs arrangement: here is Erdogan posing with Ilhan Omar.

In this second photo with Erdogan are Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR); Osama Abu Irshaid, the national director of American Muslims for Palestine (AMP); Mazen Mokhtar, the national executive director of the Muslim American Society (MAS); and Oussama Jammal, the secretary general of the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), the umbrella political organization of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. Whether Omar herself met with these leading Brotherhood figures in that room is not known, but it seems unlikely that she would not have.

Now, it may be noted that this was not the first time that Omar and the Turkish regime connected. She traveled to Istanbul, Turkey, in early February 2017 to attend a conference organized by the local Turkish government and the British Embassy in Ankara billed as “Human Rights Defenders” that included hardcore leftists and pro-abortion activists. It is not known, however, whether Omar met with Erdogan or any of his senior officials on that trip.

The story continues, however.

The Islamic Association of North America (IANA), formerly known as The North American Council of Somali Imams (NACSI), is a large umbrella organization for the shariah-adherent Somali community of North America (U.S. and Canada). Headquartered on Hiawatha Avenue in the Minneapolis neighborhood often called “Little Mogadishu,” the IANA was founded in 2001 and today includes over 26 member mosques, Islamic centers, and other organizations. Among these are several located in Minnesota, including the Abu Huraira Mosque (Rochester), the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center (Minneapolis), the Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center (Faribault), the Al-Ihsan Islamic Center (St. Paul) and the Dar-us-Salam Cultural Center (Burnsville).

Now, the kicker: the IANA formally joined the USCMO, in effect, the U.S. branch of Erdogan’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood Justice and Development Party (AKP), in 2018—that is, just months after Ilhan Omar, state representative of Minnesota, met with Erdogan in New York—and about one year after her February 2017 trip to Istanbul. That Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) probably helped arrange that development seems hardly surprising now, in retrospect, as her close association with Brotherhood front groups like CAIR (the U.S. branch of the HAMAS terror organization) becomes as difficult to ignore as her blatant antisemitism.

For example, Omar’s own online bio notes that she was a former Advisory Board member for Minnesota Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). Then, on March 23, Omar was met with hundreds of protesters as she arrived at a Woodland Hills hotel in Southern California where she was the keynote speaker for a CAIR-Los Angeles fundraiser. Protesters there carried American and Israeli flags and shouted “Burn the Quran!,” “Ilhan Omar, go to hell!” and “Shame on you, terrorists!” At the event, Omar shared the podium with Hassan Shibly, executive director of CAIR-FL, who has made no secret of his animosity toward Israel and sympathy for HAMAS and Hizballah.

Just a month earlier, on Feb. 23, Omar had headlined an event in Tampa, Florida, advertised as “An Emergency Benefit Dinner for Yemen,” which was sponsored by the terror-connected Islamic Relief USA (IRUSA), a past sponsor of USCMO events.

Finally, although Omar has just run her first national-level congressional campaign, she already has racked up thousands of dollars in donations from an array of individuals with acknowledged Muslim Brotherhood front group connections, including CAIR, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Muslim Students Association (MSA). AMP, CAIR and MAS are all founding members of the USCMO.

RELATED ARTICLE: Official School Records Support Claims That Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) Married Her Brother

EDITORS NOTE: This PJ Media column is republished with permission.

ISIS cheers destruction of Notre Dame cathedral as ‘retribution and punishment’

The bemused pursuers of “Muslim-Christian dialogue” may find this puzzling, thinking that Muslims recognize Christians as fellow monotheists, and will dismiss it as “extremism.” However, the Qur’an itself, which any Christian involved in “interfaith dialogue” should read and study, but which none will, is quite clear that Christians are polytheists:

Those who believe in the divinity of Christ are unbelievers: “They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary.” — Qur’an 5:17 (cf. 5:72)

Jesus is not the Son of God and belief in the Trinity is “excess”: “O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter anything concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and his word which he conveyed to Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say ‘Three.’ Cease! It is better for you! Allah is only One Allah. It is far removed from his transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.” — Qur’an 4:171

And: “It is not befitting to Allah that he should beget a son. Glory be to him! When He determines a matter, he only says to it, ‘Be,’ and it is.” — Qur’an 19:35

“Notre Dame FIRE: ISIS fanatics praise blaze and call it ‘RETRIBUTION,’” by Rebecca Perring, Express, April 16, 2019:

ISIS fanatics have posted a chilling message bidding “au revoir” to Notre Dame after the historic cathedral was ravaged by a devastating fire.

A poster created by an ISIS affiliated propaganda wing shows the cathedral engulfed by flames with the words “have a good day” and describes the inferno as “retribution and punishment”. According to the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium, the Al-Muntasir group created the poster, which reads: “Its construction began in the year 1163 and ended in 1345. It’s time to say goodbye to your oratory polytheism.”

This is not the first time the Al-Munatsir media organisation has revelled in terror attacks that have rocked France over the years.

The Paris prosecutor’s office have ruled out terror-related motives for now and say they are treating the fire as an accident….

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar Must Clearly State She Believes the 9/11 Attacks Were Acts of Radical Islamist Terrorism

What Rep. Omar has not done – and needs to do immediately — is clarify her comment by answering this question: “Do you believe the 9/11 attacks were acts of radical Islamist terrorism.”

There are two important reasons why Rep. Omar must answer this question.

First, her “some people did something” remark suggests she does not believe the 9/11 attacks were acts of terrorism. If this is the case, it means she lives in the 9/11 truther fever swamps where lunatics have put forward numerous ridiculous and offensive conspiracy theories for the 9/11 attacks, such as the U.S. government was involved or that it was some kind of inside job.

Rep. Omar needs to reassure the American public immediately that she is not a 9/11 truther by clearly stating she believes these attacks were acts of terrorism.

Second, Rep. Omar must clearly state that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were acts of radical Islamist terrorism.  Does she acknowledge that these were acts of unspeakable violence motivated by a radical ideology that is at war with modern society or does she subscribe to the reprehensible view by some radical Islamists and leftists that these terrorist attacks were a response to U.S. actions in the Middle East, such as the Gulf War and support of Israel?  While it is hard for me to believe that Rep. Omar holds such extreme views, she needs to explicitly repudiate them by stating that the 9/11 attacks were motivated by radical Islam.

I have previously called for Speaker Pelosi to remove Rep. Omar from the House Foreign Affairs Committee because I believe her anti-Semitic statements and hostility to Israel will interfere with this committee’s important work overseeing U.S. foreign policy.  But if it turns out that Rep. Omar believes the 9/11 attacks were not acts of terror and not motivated by radical Islam, much stronger action must be taken. On behalf of the 3,000 killed by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, if Rep. Omar will not admit the true nature of these attacks, the U.S. House of Representatives should consider a formal reprimand and expelling her from that body. There should be no room in the U.S. Congress for a person who denies and minimizes the significance of the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.

COLUMN BY

About Fred Fleitz

Fred Fleitz is President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy. He recently served as a Deputy Assistant to President Trump and Chief of Staff to National Security Adviser John Bolton. He previously worked in national security positions for 25 years with CIA, DIA, the Department of State and the House Intelligence Committee staff. Read his complete bio here. Follow Fleitz on Twitter @fredfleitz.

View all posts by Fred Fleitz 

RELATED ARTICLE: The New Islamist Lobby

Horrific Honor Killings in Phoenix

A Muslim man in Arizona was arrested for four honor killings — his wife, two daughters and the man with whom he believed his wife was having an affair.

According to Phoenix Police Sergeant Tommy Thompson,

“[Austin Smith] said that the reason he shot these individuals is because in God’s eyes, it was all right for him to deal with someone in this manner who had been involved in adultery, extramarital affairs.”

Smith also told police he killed his seven-year-old daughter because she was “weeping for the wicked.”

According to court documents, he said spared his three-year old who was found hiding under a bed because she reminded him of himself.

As in many cases of honor crimes, some will protest this was merely a case of domestic violence (not withstanding the horrific nature of the crime). And in truth, what is the difference?

Quite simply, even though we don’t know Smith’s psychological profile, we can surmise someone capable of killing his children in cold blood – not to mention his wife and her suspected lover – has to be deranged on a certain level.

Yet, when we look at the underlying ideology that drove his behavior, we also have to conclude that believing that such actions are sanctioned by God is quite motivating. While Smith may be a convert to Islam, those steeped from birth in the honor culture indicative of many Muslim countries have taken in this ideology in a rational way – and when circumstances presented themselves, many have seen fit to act on it.

Take the case of Shafilea Ahmed, who was just 17 when her parents forced her siblings to watch as they stuffed a plastic bag into her mouth and suffocated her to death. Ahmed, whose family had moved to the UK, was horrifically abused by those same parents for years over the fact that she was too Westernized. Her murder was not a spur-of-the-moment decision – a crime of passion in a moment of anger — according to family members.

It took nine years before any family member was willing to break the silence and tell the police (who had never conclusively been able to prove the honor killing) what really happened.

“In a new documentary, ‘When Missing Turns To Murder,’ journalists, investigators and friends of the Ahmed family reveal the harrowing extent of Shafilea’s abuse, and the wall of silence the police were met with from her family and the wider community following her death,” The Sun reported the same week as the Arizona honor killings occurred.

To understand how honor killing is institutionalized in many Muslim countries, one only needs to look at their penal codes:

  • In areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, a man who kills a relative is either pardoned, given a suspended sentence or six months to three years imprisonment which is reduced further once appealed.
  • In Syria, an honor killer was exempt from punishment until 2009 when the punishment for honor killing became a minimum of just two years in prison.
  • Jordan, which has one of the highest rates of honor killings, and in Iraq, punishments are significantly reduced for honor crimes, as directed by the penal code.
  • Since the Islamist government took over in Turkey, the country has the highest rate of honor killings in the world. While Turkey was trying to be accepted as a member of the European Union, the leniencies in its laws regarding honor killings were changed. Now, women who are considered to have violated the family’s honor are often forced to commit suicide (or their deaths are made to look like suicides) so that family members can avoid being sent to prison. The Turkish city of Batman in southeastern Turkey is now called “Suicide City” because of the high incidences of honor killings. Young boys are also often ordered by other family members to do the actual killing so they can get a shorter jail sentence as they are minors.

Until the ideology of honor and its accompanying culture is abolished in the Islamic world (and elsewhere where it is practiced), even women in Phoenix like Dasia Patterson, Austin Smith’s wife, don’t have a chance (even if they aren’t committing adultery, as close friends of Patterson attest).

Those accused can rarely make a case for themselves, like in the case of a newlywed woman in Iraq, who was beaten to death by her brother after being returned to her family by her husband who suspected she was not a virgin. A post-mortem autopsy showed her hymen was, in fact, intact.

RELATED STORIES:

Honor Killings or ‘Suicides’? Turkey’s Distressing Treatment of Women

Turkey: Since Islamist Rule Honor Killing Rate Highest in World

Honor Killing in Houston: 3-Year Mystery Solved

Texas Honor Killer Found Guilty

The Islamization of Europe and the European Caliphate by Rami Dabbas

In the 20th century, the world’s population increased four times and exceeded 6.5 billion people. the demographic change in the recent decades has seen a rapid growth in the number of Muslims. Since 1990, the number of Muslims in the world has increased from 880 million to 1 billion people. Islam became the fastest growing world religion in terms of the number of adherents, and according to current forecasts, by 2030 there will be at least two billion Muslims on earth out of a total population of 8 billion.

Currently, Islam is already the second largest religion in terms  of followers (after Christianity). More than two thirds of Muslims live in Asia, where they constitute over 20% of the population, and almost 30% in Africa (half of the continent’s population). Muslim communities exist in more than 120 countries of the world, in 35 of them they constitute over 80% of the population (most of them are in the countries of North Africa and West Asia). The largest absolute Muslim communities reside in Indonesia, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sociologists predict that by 2025 in the US, the Islamic community will become the second largest after Christians, overtaking the Jewish one.

Especially rapidly increasing is the number of Muslims in Europe. The largest Muslim community is in France: from 5 to 7 million (up to 10% of the total population), Islam became the second largest religion in the country after Catholicism. Numerous communities of followers of Islam were formed in Germany (4 million), Great Britain (1.7 million), Italy and Holland (1 million each). Significant Muslim communities are scattered throughout all Western European countries.

It should be noted that no one knows the real number of Muslims in Western Europe, since along with the legal immigrants and their descendants, there are many millions of illegal immigrants who are absent in official statistics. According to various estimates, between 15 and 24 million Muslims now live in Western Europe. Demographers predict that by 2025  the number of Muslims in Europe will double due to the high birth rate and mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East.

Islam came to Western Europe just a few decades ago. Until the end of the 1940s, there were very few Muslims. (most in France – 120 thousand in the mid-1920s). The first mass migration was associated with the war in Algeria (1954-1962). After the forced consent of France to the declaration of independence of this North African states, hundreds of thousands of local Muslims took advantage of the opportunity to move to their former metropolis.

As a result of mass migrations from developing countries, the level of ethnic and denominational fragmentation of the population of those European states that were quite homogeneous a few decades ago is constantly increasing. It is fundamentally important that, unlike in past years, a significant part of Muslim migrants and their descendants now do not show a desire to integrate into a new environment for themselves.

The former European model of building a single civic nation within the framework of a national state (like the “melting pot” in the USA) in modern conditions ceases to work. Consequences of this are the concepts of building multicultural, multi-religious, and more recently, multilingual communities within individual states of Western Europe. For adherents of liberalism, these concepts seem to be a logical development of democracy, where minority rights are guaranteed and protected by the state. At the same time, no distinction is made between the “old” and the “new” population: their rights to an original existence are equally protected by a democratic state.

Muslim areas and suburbs appeared in Paris, Berlin, London and many other major European cities. Most modern French Muslims are descendants of the Arab Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco). In Germany, Netherlands, Austria and Denmark, the Muslim community is mainly represented by descendants of Turkish immigrants. British Muslims – most descendants of immigrants from British India (Pakistan and Bangladesh).

The increase in the number of European Muslims is promoted by the high fertility rate encouraged by state social programs. In Muslim families, the average number of children is usually not less than four. Large Muslim families contrasts with the small families and the crisis of traditional family values ​​among the indigenous Europeans. The most important democratic achievement of modern Western civilization proclaimed freedom of homosexual relations, and in a number of countries (Holland, Belgium, Canada, Spain and Switzerland, as well as a number of US states) same-sex marriages were legally allowed.

Along with the increase in the number of sexual minorities, the reduction of the indigenous (atheistic or nominally Christian) population of Western Europe is promoted by the conscious rejection of the birth of children, as many Europeans believe that children will interfere with their careers or simply interfere with their usual and comfortable life. Families that have one child, rarely decide on the birth of the second. For simple reproduction of the population, the average birth rate should be 2.1 children. But women in Western Europe, on average, give birth to only 1.4 children. And in the conditions of a progressive decline in the indigenous population of Europe, Muslims successfully fill the demographic vacuum that has formed.

This plays into the feminist propaganda, which asserts that children prevent women from occupying a worthy place in society. The rejection of traditional family values ​​and the moral crisis of society contribute to the growth of the popularity of Islam, even among the indigenous people of Europe. In France, the number of white French Muslims already exceeds 50 thousand, and this far exceeds, for example, the number of Russian Muslims in Russia.

For several decades, the difficulties of a demographic and economic nature have forced the EU countries to legalize and even promote immigration from Muslim countries. European politicians considered it indecent even to ask the question, is modern Europe and Islam compatible in principle? Both did not preached the ideas of tolerance and multiculturalism as for Islam for example unlike what Islam Claims, incompatible with the views of Samuel Huntington, who in his sensational book “The Clash of Civilizations” claimed that Europe and Islam are two antipodes, two initially hostile antagonistic civilizations. On the contrary, the prevailing view was that the integration of the Muslim diaspora into European society would contribute to the rapprochement of Christian and Islamic civilizations.

The rationale for such optimistic ideas were examples when yesterday’s illiterate migrant workers or their descendants successfully fit into European reality, made a successful career, and even became members of the European Parliament. But widely propagated examples of this kind were sporadic; they did not reflect the real picture and only disoriented society, and indeed the political elite of Western Europe.

It is characteristic that, unlike the first wave of immigrants, the rejection of the surrounding reality among Muslims of the second and third generation constantly increased and acquired more and more radical forms. Already in the second half of the 1990s, young Muslims in Europe began to become increasingly intolerant of such European values ​​as sexual equality, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, ensuring the rights of sexual minorities, etc. In schools that were attended by young Muslims, it became increasingly difficult to teach certain subjects. Over the years, in many schools it has become impossible to teach the history of the Holocaust, the theory of the origin of life, the development of species and humanity, as well as a number of other subjects that seemed completely unacceptable for young Muslims and their parents.

Gradually, in schools with Muslim students, sexual segregation was established: the boys sat down in one part of the class, and the girls – in the other, in hospitals the refusals of treatment by a male doctor or a man – by women became more frequent. Only ten years ago, only old women wore Muslim headscarves. Now they are worn by half of the female Muslim population of France, and in some municipalities of France this figure reaches 80%. Hijabs are increasingly common in other European countries.

Young Muslims in Europe no longer limit themselves to living under the laws of the land. In most cases, Muslim girls and women were not free to choose: many were forced to wear hijabs under the pressure of relatives or the community. According to special studies conducted by the French authorities, in some European cities, a Muslim girl who refuses to wear a headscarf “risks exposure to insults, physical aggression, sexual abuse and even collective rape.” In France, such acts of aggression against dissenters within the Muslim community occur regularly. The growth of Islamic fundamentalism among European Muslims created favorable conditions for the politicization of Islam in Europe.

Until the late 1990s Islamist political parties did not exist in Europe. Now they have appeared in France and Belgium. While these parties are not numerous and are not represented in parliament,  they already have their first successes: in Belgium in May 2003, “Parti de la Citoyennete et Prosperite” (PCP, Citizenship and Prosperity Party), which preaches radical Islam, gained more than 8 thousand votes in the Brussels elections.

Over the past four years, hundreds of acts of aggression by Muslim youth have been witnessed  in European cities, and the number of anti-Semitic demonstrations is constantly growing. According to sociologists, European Muslims do not show tolerance for their fellow citizens in precisely those countries that are most tolerant.

As shown by a sociological study conducted by the pew Washington Research Center in 13 western states, in the UK, while there is the most tolerant attitude of indigenous people towards Muslim immigrants in Europe, there is the most open dislike of Muslims towards Europeans.

In most countries, suspicion and contempt for each other, Muslims and non-Muslims are mostly mutual. But in the UK there is a huge gap in this regard. 63% of Britons treat Muslims positively, this figure has only slightly decreased since 2004 due to explosions in the London Underground. In France, such an attitude can be seen among approximately 60% of citizens, while in the USA, Germany and Spain this figure does not exceed 29%.

Only a third of Britons consider Muslims as cruel and hostile, whereas in Spain about 60% of indigenous people hold this opinion, in Germany – 52%, in the US – 45%, in France – 41%. At the same time, it is in Great Britain that the most negative attitude of local Muslims towards European values ​​is noted in the West. Most of the representatives of the British Ummah consider the people of the Western world to be selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. In the rest of the countries, the majority of Muslims share the respect for Europeans towards women, but in the UK, less than half of Muslim citizens agree with this.

In the UK, only 32% of Muslims are tolerant towards the Jewish community, whereas, for example, in France this figure is 71%. Finally, it is British Muslims who less than others believe in the possibility of their existence in Western society while maintaining the traditional way of life and adherence to conservative values.

At the same time, citizens of Great Britain showed the greatest sympathy, in contrast to other states, for Muslims in the context of a “caricature” scandal. Only 9% of the British respondents believe that the conflicts between Islam and the West that arose on this ground were the result of “Muslim intolerance towards Western freedom”, but about three-quarters of the respondents blamed “disrespect of the West towards Muslims” The same is believed in Muslim countries. 55% of Americans and 2/3 of Germans and French believe that relations between people of the West and Muslims in general leave much to be desired. Some optimism can be had only by the fact that, as studies have shown, in the Muslim communities of Europe,  Muslim attitude to the Europeans are still better than in Muslim countries.

At the beginning of the third millennium, European Muslims became an active political force. In the spring and summer of 2001, mass rallies were held by British Muslims in the factory cities of central England. In 2002, during the parliamentary elections in France, mass demonstrations of French Muslims greatly paralyzed the activity of right-wing Populist National Front. European Muslims in many respects contributed to the development by Europe of an independent position on the issue of the war in Iraq in 2003. In the winter of 2003/2004. large-scale actions of European Muslims were held, which were directed against the ban by the French Ministry of Education on wearing the hijab in schools. In European cities, mass marches are constantly taking place in support of the Palestinian people, against the policies of the United States and Israel.

Some Islamic leaders demanded autonomy for European Muslims. Thus, the director of the Muslim Institute Kaleem Siddiqi (one of the leaders of Islamic radicals in the UK) in his “Muslim manifesto” demanded that British Muslims be given the status of an “autonomous community”.

Europe has become an arena for the activities of Islamic terrorists who organized the bombings in Madrid and London, as well as the murder of the Dutch director Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam. At the same time, terrorism is generated not only by internal causes, but also by the processes that occur within the Muslim communities of Europe. Many Muslims who participated in the terrorist attack on the USA on September 11, 2001, were Muslims from European countries. Their worldview was shaped in Europe, where favorable conditions were established for the dissemination of the ideas of radical Islam, which rejects liberal and democratic values.

The majority of those who committed the terrorist attacks on March 11, 2004 in Madrid were also young Muslims belonging to the second or third generation of immigrants. They were not associated with foreign terrorist organizations, although they claimed to be al Qaeda followers. The group included residents of Madrid and full-fledged citizens of Spain (mostly of Moroccan origin), who were inspired by the ideas of jihad, influenced by the information they gathered on the Internet on radical Islamic websites. The same picture was observed in the UK, where the London attacks of July 7, 2005 were also carried out by young Muslims – full-fledged British citizens.

Islam has become a major factor in European public life. Without taking this factor into account, no serious forecast of the future development of Europe, or of the entire modern world, is possible. A significant part of the Muslims of Europe did not integrate into European reality and consciously refuses to accept the Western European way of life, morality and values. Refusing European identity, they make a choice in favor of “pure” Islam in its Arabian variety and feel themselves primarily as part of the global Muslim community.

The current demographic situation strengthens Muslims in the belief that sooner or later Western Europe will become part of the Islamic world. Among them there is the conviction that the womb of a Muslim woman has become the most effective means of Islamizing Europe and the whole world. Some analysts claim that in the very near future, France will become the first Islamic country in Western Europe, from which Islam will begin its triumphal march through the rest of the continent.

European states have achieved great and unconditional success in defending the democratic rights and freedoms of their citizens. This fully applies to the rights of minorities living in them: religious, ethnic, sexual. The result of this liberal policy was the growing ethno-confessional fragmentation of Europe. But after all, such ethno-confessional fragmentation has always been one of the main features of developing countries. In most of them, such a mosaic caused a heightened conflict in society. The internal political instability caused by it still remains the most important cause of socio-economic stagnation, even social degradation, which are observed in many developing countries.

An increasing number of Muslims prefer to live within their own community, solely by their own laws, and not even speak the languages ​​of their countries of residence. It is precisely this behavior of Muslims that is fundamentally different from the behavior of other minorities (Chinese, Indian, Eastern European, etc.), who, while preserving their cultural traditions and identity, still strive to adapt and integrate into the society where they now live.

Obviously, the more numerous the Islamic segments that are not integrated into the local society, the higher the potential for conflict of the society and the more favorable the ground appears for the activities of radical Islamist groups.

It must be emphasized that Islam, like any other religion, does not in itself pose a threat to the world and society. The threat arises only when Islam ceases to be a religion and begins to be used as a political ideology that is designed to seize power in individual countries, regions or on a planetary scale by the name of creating the future World Caliphate.

In the conditions of the development of a special policy towards Muslims built on the liberal values ​​of European society, their very isolation from the number of other minorities seems to be an absolutely unacceptable violation of democracy. The persistent desire to ignore the specifics of Muslim problems led to the fact that such extremists as Egyptian Abu Hamza, without any problems, received British citizenship and for many years lived quietly in the UK, engaging in terrorist activities.

For European liberalism, it would be unthinkable to enact legislation similar to, for example, the recently adopted Australian decree on Arab-Muslim immigrants, from which “the government feels threatened by terrorist attacks.” This decree states that “Muslims who want to live in Australia under Sharia law will have to leave this country.” In Europe, the statements that Islam is a threat to society entail accusations of racism and prosecution.

Catholic priest pere Samuel, popular in Belgium, the rector of the church of St. Anthony of Padua in Charleroi, was accused by the authorities of racism for pointing out the threat of Islamic expansion in Europe in his sermon. “There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim,” said this priest, who was born in the family of Syrian Christians in Turkish Kurdistan. In his speech on local television, he called every Muslim child born in Europe “a time bomb for children of European culture who will soon become a minority here.”

It is noteworthy that the initiators of the prosecution of pere Samuel were not Islamic organizations, but the Belgian government human rights organization Center for Equal Opportunities and Resistance to Racism, which qualified his statements as “incitement to racial hatred” and even recommended that Father Samuel be detained until a court verdict was rendered.

Will the growth of the Muslim population lead to the Islamization of Europe? Many radical Islamic leaders no longer doubt this. As one of them said after the death of Pope John Paul II, “Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and winner after he was twice expelled from the continent.” After that, “only one choice will be presented to Christians – to accept Islam or pay jizya (i.e., a tax levied on non-Muslims for the right to reside in an Islamic country).

European politicians may continue to pretend that Muslims are no different from other minorities. But further mechanical following along the path of liberalism cannot solve the problem, the existence of which is obvious. It leads only to the further isolation of local Muslims, the growth of the influence of radical political Islam in their midst, which may soon become a real threat to domestic political stability and the very existence of modern European civilization. And the longer the local authorities turn a blind eye to the Islamic problem, the more difficult it will be to find adequate methods for the solution.

The future prospects of Europe will primarily depend on whether European states are able to develop an adequate policy in relation to the growing and less and less integrated society of Muslim communities. Such a policy should not only guarantee all rights, preserve the religious and cultural identity of European Muslims, but also harmonize their relations with society and ensure the integration of Muslims into modern European civilization.

If a still prosperous Europe does not find an adequate way out of this difficult situation, then its development can be reversed and take the path of degradation. In this case, it is not at all the current developing countries that will catch up with the developed ones, but, on the contrary, Europe will be at the level of developing states. At present, such a development is still not fatally inevitable, and one would like to hope that Europe (like all humanity) will not be discarded during the darkest Middle Ages and religious wars.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.

Judge allows Muslim migrant to stay in UK because his gang membership shows his ‘integration’

There seems to be a kind of insanity that has overtaken much of the British political and media elite class. Was it because Tolga Binbuga was a Turkish Muslim that Judge Evan Ruth came to the ridiculous and quite spectacularly insane conclusion that “the likely association of Binbuga with this north London gang is a good example of his integration into one of the less savoury aspects of UK life”? Was Ruth afraid of appearing “Islamophobic” if he ordered this serial criminal deported? Was he afraid that this deportation would provoked a violent response from Britain’s Muslim community? Or is Evan Ruth’s head so filled with nonsense about “diversity” and “multiculturalism” that he can no longer do anything close to thinking straight?

“Turkish criminal is allowed to stay in the UK after judge rules his GANG membership shows he is ‘socially and culturally integrated’ in Britain,” by Chris Dyer, Mailonline, April 9, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A Turkish national convicted of a string of offences was allowed to stay in the UK after a judge ruled his gang membership showed he was ‘socially and culturally integrated’.

Tolga Binbuga was convicted of a string of offences including robbery, burglary, assault and a criminal damage.

He was also jailed for a year after pleading guilty to burglary in 2013 after he stole a Mercedes car key along with £3,000 worth of electrical goods from a house in Enfield, north London.

The 29-year-old came to Britain when he was nine and never applied for UK citizenship.

Binbuga was also convicted of cautioned for drug possession and shoplifting.

He joined the north London-based Get Money Gang which the Met Police say are the second most dangerous groups in the country.

When the Home Office tried to deport Binbuga his lawyers appealed saying he was a ‘home grown criminal’, according to the Sun.

In 2016 Judge Evan Ruth ruled Binbuga’s gang affiliation proved he had ‘socially and culturally integrated’ into British culture and he was allowed to stay in the UK, the newspaper reports.

Judge Ruth said: ‘It is a sad and unpleasant fact of life that, in various parts of London, gang culture is an accepted and widespread part of life for many young people.

‘In my view, although it is a sad and unpleasant conclusion, the likely association of Binbuga with this north London gang is a good example of his integration into one of the less savoury aspects of UK life.’

That decision was overturned by the Home Office under appeal in 2017 with judges finding Judge Ruth had ‘erred in law’ by stating that gang membership showed a level of socially integration.

Judges ruled there was no compelling reason to prevent Binbuga’s deportation.

The ruling stated: ‘Membership of a pro-criminal gang shows a lack of such acceptance [of cultural integration]. It demonstrates disdain for the rule of law.’…

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.

Democrats introduce legislation to repeal Trump’s “Muslim ban”

The Democrats have introduced a bill to end President Trump’s temporary ban on visa from several Muslim countries, to which they falsely refer as a “Muslim ban.”

“The legislation, known as the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, “repeals the three versions of President Trump’s Muslim ban, strengthens the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, and restores the separation of powers by limiting overly broad executive authority to issue future travel bans.”

The ban has nothing to do with discrimination on the basis of religion. The countries specified under Trump’s executive order were those identified as “countries of concern” by the Obama administration. The Democrats had no problem with it then.

Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, was not on that list. Neither was Saudi Arabia and Turkey. This measure was about national security, not about banning Muslims as such. The countries on the list could not provide adequate information about people asking to enter the U.S. Trump stated: “Making America safe is my number one priority. We will not admit those into our country we cannot safely vet.”

There is no targeting of Muslims by the Trump administration. Due diligence was applied. Vetting and border protection is needed in America, and all of the West.

“Dems introduce bill to repeal Trump ‘Muslim ban,’” by Rachel Frazin, The Hill, April 10, 2019:

Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.) and Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) on Wednesday introduced legislation to end President Trump’s ban on travelers to the United States from five Muslim-majority countries.

The legislation, known as the National Origin-Based Antidiscrimination for Nonimmigrants (NO BAN) Act, “repeals the three versions of President Trump’s Muslim ban, strengthens the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, and restores the separation of powers by limiting overly broad executive authority to issue future travel bans,” its sponsors said in a statement.

They added that the measure is supported by more than 90 lawmakers and hundreds of civil rights, faith, national security and community organizations, as well as private companies.

“President Trump’s Muslim Ban is a hateful policy, born from bigotry, that denies both our country and millions of aspiring Americans a better future,” Chu said in the statement.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a co-sponsor of the bill, first referenced the legislation Tuesday on Twitter.

“I ran on a promise to end the President’s hateful Muslim ban,” said Omar, one of the first two Muslim women elected to Congress. “No one should be denied basic rights because of their religion, race or national origin. #NoBanAct.”

The measure is also co-sponsored by all the senators in the Democratic field of presidential candidates.

Coons said Wednesday on MSNBC “Morning Joe” that the legislation “would prevent this president or a future president from imposing a similar religiously based ban on folks coming into this country, narrowing his powers.”

Trump and the White House argue the travel ban is not a Muslim ban. The policy prevents travelers from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen from entering the U.S., and the administration argues it is necessary to protect national security.

Trump’s third executive order issuing the ban was upheld in a 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court last year.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, said Trump was well within his authority to impose the ban based on the president’s judgments about national security. Roberts wrote that it was not the court’s place to criticize or pass judgment on comments Trump made on the campaign trail about a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” and that the executive order was neutral in not targeting travelers of a specific religion…..

RELATED ARTICLE: BDS Co-founder, Who Calls for Israel’s Destruction, Leads Annual Anti-Israel Conference

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.

Maryland: Muslim Man Charged in Fatal Hit and Run Attacks at Mosques

I just told you about one Mohamed in West Virginia, and now comes another Muhammad in trouble with the law in Maryland and Virginia this time.

Thanks to reader Gail for sending the story which I see has gotten very little attention in the media.

From local Fox 5,

Man charged in fatal hit-and-run in Virginia also accused of two similar crimes in Maryland

(Of course, as usual, no mention of the “man’s” nationality or immigration status.  Guess we should be glad that there is at least a mugshot!)

GERMANTOWN, Md. (FOX 5 DC) – A man currently behind bars for a fatal hit-and-run in Prince William County is now being charged with similar crimes in Maryland.

Police arrested Muhammad Taha, 29, in March for running over a woman in his car. They now say he was behind the wheel at two violent incidents at Montgomery County mosques.

FOX 5 has confirmed Taha works as a bus attendant for Montgomery County Schools. He has now been placed on unpaid administrative leave and charged with three separate incidents of using his car as a weapon.

Investigators say on March 24, Taha struck and killed 66-year-old Shamsa Begum in Manassas as she was standing outside her home off Clover Hill Road and then sped away.

Neighbors say Taha lured Begum outside before running her over.

“He threw a brick through the window and then jumped in his car and drove up the road, turned around and waited for her to come out,” neighbor Greg Neiss told FOX 5. “When he saw her out in the road, he gunned it…the neighbors that were outside heard the roar of the car.”

Montgomery County Police say earlier that same day, Taha was seen in the same maroon Honda Civic circling the parking lot of the Islamic Society of Germantown before getting out and smashing the window of a parked car with a brick. He struck another car as he drove away.

Police now have also linked Taha to a hit-and-run two days earlier where an elderly man walking in the parking lot of the Islamic Center of Maryland in Gaithersburg was seriously hurt. Surveillance cameras captured the car speeding on the property.

Meanwhile, local Muslim leaders say Taha’s arrest is a relief.

I am sure the local Muslim leaders are relieved to find out that these mosque attacks were not hateful Islamophobic-inspired events.

More here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Minnesota: Trial Opens in Case of Somali Police Officer who Killed Unarmed Woman

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Gay Times lists the 11 countries where being gay is punishable by death — are all majority-Muslim

No surprise here. The Qur’an contains numerous condemnations of homosexual activity: “And Lot when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.’…And We rained upon them a rain of stones. Then see how was the end of the criminals.” (Qur’an 7:80-84)

Muhammad specifies the punishment for this in a hadith: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Loot, execute the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’” (Sunan Abu Dawud 4462)

Will gay rights advocates say a word about this? Of course not. It has long been established that in the hierarchy of politically correct causes, Islam trumps gay rights. When AFDI ran ads highlighting the mistreatment of gays in Islamic law, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors issued a resolution condemning not that mistreatment, but our ads. Gay advocates such as Theresa Sparks and Chris Stedman attacked us for daring to call attention to the institutionalized mistreatment of gays under Islamic law. It was that, or risk not being invited to the best parties.

“Here are the 11 countries where being gay is punishable by death,” by Daniel Megarry, Gay Times, April 5, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

There are currently 11 countries where being gay can get you killed under law.

While LGBTQ rights have made great strides in parts of the world, homosexuality remains illegal in an estimated 70 countries, and 11 countries carry the potential for the death penalty, particularly among men who have sex with men.

It’s difficult to identify which countries actually enforce the death penalty punishment, or how often they do so, but using data from ILGA, we’ve listed the countries where the death penalty is a possibility for LGB people below.

Afghanistan

What the law says: “Those who commit sodomy, shall be sentenced to medium imprisonment not exceeding two years.” (Penal Code, 2017; Section 647) “A person, defending his honour, who sees his spouse or another of his close relations in the act of committing adultery or being in the same bed with another and immediately kills or injures one or both of them shall be exempted from punishment for laceration and murder but shall be imprisoned for a period not exceeding two years.” (Penal Code, 2017; Article 398)

While the act of same-sex intercourse may not result in the death penalty under Afghanistan’s penal code, honour killings of LGBTQ people by family members aren’t treated as murder and those who commit them will not face more than two years in prison. It is also possible that those engaging in same-sex intercourse in Afghanistan may face the death penalty for violating Sharia law, which is more likely to be happen in smaller, rural locations.


Brunei

What the law says: “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.” (Penal Code, 2001; Chapter 22, Section 377)

The newest addition to this list, homosexuality was already punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment in Brunei, but the south-east Asian nation has recently implemented a strict new law that punishes male same-sex activity with death by stoning. Sex acts between women carry a penalty of 40 strokes of the cane along with a possible maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.


Iran

What the law says: “The hadd punishment for livat [sodomy] shall be the death penalty for the insertive party if he has committed livat by using force, coercion, or in cases where he meets the conditions for ihsan [married to a woman]; otherwise, he shall be sentenced to one hundred lashes. The hadd punishment for the receptive party, in any case (whether or not he meets the conditions for ihsan) shall be the death penalty.” (Islamic Penal Code, 2013; Article 234)

The maximum penalty for men who have sex with men in Iran is the death penalty. Women who have sex with women face one hundred lashes.


Mauritania

What the law says: “Any adult Muslim man who commits an indecent act or an act against nature with an individual of his sex will face the penalty of death by public stoning.” (Penal Code, 1984; Article 308)

Mauritania’s Penal Code criminalises same-sex activity for both men and women, but with different punishments. Muslim men may receive a sentence of “death by public stoning” while women may receive between three months and two years imprisonment, as well as a fine of 5,000 to 60,000 UM…

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.

CAIR: Defending the Right to Be Anti-Semitic

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is openly advocating for the government’s right to be anti-Semitic. Here’s how:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued an “action alert” to voice its opposition to the newly proposed “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2019” in Congress.

The act directs Department of Education to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, which has been officially adopted by the U.S. and 31 other nations, including the UK, Germany and other European nations.

The definition addresses traditional and current forms of anti-Semitism, specifically labeling as anti-Semitism anything that “[applies] double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of by any other democratic nation [in the world].”

Accordingly, the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement is by definition anti-Semitic. For example, there are at least 100 land disputes across the globe that are not subject to “BDS” movements.

CAIR’s leaders are heavily invested in supporting the BDS movement, particularly across college campuses in the U.S. The BDS movement aims to strangle the Jewish state economically while at the same time calls for the flooding of Palestinians into Israel to destroy the Jewish character of the state.

While the BDS movement purports to be about Palestinian rights, voices in support of BDS have been deafeningly silent about the horrific abuse of Palestinians who moved decades ago to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon during the Arab states’ war with Israel in 1948.

On a state level, CAIR has been busy bringing law suits against individual states who have passed anti-BDS legislation.

In their current lawsuits against the state of Texas and Arkansas, CAIR has brought the new argument that anti-BDS legislation infringes on their First Amendment right to free speech, essentially saying that legislation against anti-Semitism infringes on their right to be anti-Semites.

However, while it is every individual’s right in the U.S. to hold and express opinions no matter how despicable they are (as long they do not lead to immediate violence), it is not the Constitutional right of the government to act in a way that discriminates based on religion, as specified by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

CAIR is worried that if the U.S. Department of Education adopts this accepted definition of anti-Semitism, it will crimp their style along with other Islamists on college campuses (among other areas of influence) to incite hatred of Israel. As CAIR says, “[The legislation] would dangerously politicize anti-Semitism by equating it with legitimate criticism of Israeli policy.”

This is the canard that CAIR and other Islamists consistently pull out when confronted with their own anti-Semitic statements. For example, after tweeting classic anti-Semitic tropes (that rich Jews control politicians with their money; that Jews have dual loyalty to the U.S. and Israel), newly elected Congresswoman Ilhan Omar lashed out her detractors, claiming that they were trying to prevent her (and other like her) from have a legitimate discussion about America’s policy  toward Israel.

CAIR is listed by the U.S. government among “individuals/entities who are/were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” The Palestine Committee was a secret body set up to advance the Brotherhood/Hamas agenda in the U.S.

In 1993, the committee organized a secret meeting in Philadelphia that was wiretapped by the FBI where participants, including CAIR’s executive director Nihad Awad, discussed how to support the terror group Hamas. The committee decided there was a need to create a new, “neutral” entity for influencing U.S. policy and opinion since “it is known who we are.”

Awad co-founded CAIR the next year. It has since been designated (in 2014) as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates along with a host of other Muslim Brotherhood entities.

In 2007, the U.S. government labeled CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing Hamas, which the U.S. designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997. The Holy Land trial was the largest case of terror financing in the history of the U.S.

RELATED STORIES:

Court Kicks CAIR Out of San Diego School District

Et Tu, CAIR — Why Silent on Brunei?

16 Likely Democratic Presidential Candidates Endorse CAIR