Monday, October 31, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: What do we want in the Muslim lands?

Jihad Watch - Articles by Hugh Fitzgerald

Hugh Fitzgerald: What do we want in the Muslim lands?

The multifarious geopolitical messes in the Middle East, the almost comical variety of resentments, hostilities, mutual denouncements, and hatreds in the Muslim lands that are presented to us each day on some news channel’s platter, the confusion worse compounded that overcomes us when we look at any part or aspect of the Camp of Islam — all this beggars belief, but you’d better nonetheless believe it. You’d better believe, for example, that the Uber-Sunni Saudis, who gave rise to Al-Qaeda, who provided Al-Qaeda not just with Osama bin Laden but with a host of other members (including 11 of the 19 who went on that 9/11/2001 mission), are now dead-set on executing members of that same Al -Qaeda, and have just done so, and are also prepared to make war on the uberest-Sunnis of them all, the members of the Islamic State. And at the same time as those Saudi rulers execute, in the same galere, both those Al-Qaeda and Islamic State anti-Shi’a fanatics, they also can — and did — execute a leading Shi’a cleric in Saudi Arabia, one Nimr Al-Nimr. Those who like things kept simple, and not complicated, will be disappointed by the Muslim Middle East, where every (geopolitical) prospect teases, and only man is vile.
Let’s see what we can do to improve our chances of seeing things steadily and whole, by standing a bit back from the radio, and limning the broad outlines of Islam.
Let’s begin with the all-encompassing nature of this faith. Islam is a Total System, a Complete Regulation of Life, a Compleat Explanation of the Universe. The True Believers in Islam are consumed by their demands of their faith. There is no such thing as “wearing one’s faith lightly” when that faith is Islam. Even those whom one might have suspected to be Islamic “moderates” turn out too often on closer inspection to believe in the uncompromisable rightness of Islam, the ingratitude and perfidy of non-Muslims, the need or duty to engage in the Struggle or Jihad, using chiefly combat (qitaal) or terrorism, but not excluding the use of other instruments to promote the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam everywhere. And among those instruments are economic warfare (less of a threat now that the “oil weapon” has so obviously faltered, and oil producers are desperate for customers), propaganda and diplomatic warfare, and the latest instrument of Jihad, demographic conquest, through the large-scale movement of Muslims into non-Muslim lands, where through their mere presence they gain political power and inhibit the freedom to maneuver of political leaders and the freedom of speech of people who become too fearful to speak out about Islam: if they dare to do so, they are promptly attacked by all the bien-pensants.
But, as Muslims like to say, meaning something quite different, “Islam is not a monolith.” By that phrase they attempt to inhibit non-Muslims from ever speaking about something called “Islam” because — since it is “not a monolith”– any such generalizing attempt would be false. Yet in the basic tenets and teachings, in the centrality of the Qur’an, in the agreement as to which are the most authoritative collections of Hadith, in the understanding of what constitute the Five Pillars of Islam, the faith called Islam is indeed a “monolith.”
But that is not the end of the story. As Professor Bernard Lewis pointed out long ago, Muslims in the Middle East have “multiple identities.” A man may be a Muslim “and an Arab” or a Muslim “and a Berber” or a Muslim and a “black African in the southern Sudan.” A man may be a “Sunni Muslim” or “Shi’a Muslim” or — so as not to overlook a very small group found mainly Oman and in some Algerian oases — an “Ibadi Muslim.” And some Muslim peoples possess the awareness of and tug from a particular national history — I am thinking of Egypt and Iran especially, as those nations (along with Israel) have the strongest sense of national identity in the Middle East. An Egyptian is “Egyptian” or an Iranian an “Iranian” in a way that a Qatari is not a Qatari, nor an inhabitant of Abu Dhabi an Emiratian.
Islam is a universalist faith. It is meant for everyone to accept. And those who among the Ahl al-Kitab, or People of the Book (that is, Christians and Jews), do not accept the full message of Islam — i.e., become Muslims — are required to pay a tax, or Jizyah, in conditions that bespeak humiliation, in order to be allowed to continue to practice their religion.
The universalism of Christianity does not admit of favoring of one group of Christians over another. In Islam, however, Arabs are privileged. If Muslims are “the best of peoples,” then among Muslims, “Arabs are the best of peoples.” Islam was revealed to a 7th-century Arab, in western Arabia, and written down in the Arabic language, the same language in which, ideally, the Qur’an ought to be read. Indeed, it was not until Ataturk in the 20th century ordered a Turkish translation of the Qur’an, and a Turkish-language commentary or Tafsir, that a non-Arabic version was available. Non-Arab converts to Islam are encouraged to, and often do, assume Arab names. Some even give themselves — this is particularly common in Pakistan — made-up genealogies that make them descendants of the Prophet, and therefore entitled to use the honorific “Sayed.” Muslims are taught to dismiss their own non-Islamic or pre-Islamic histories (personal and collective), as being identified with what in Islam is called the Time of Ignorance, or Jahiliyya. These pre-Islamic pasts are to be regarded with contempt and dismissed, for they have nothing to do with Islam. Muslims should ideally dress like, and emulate the mores of, 7th century Arabs, of Mohammed and his Companions. And Muhammad, who for all Muslims, and for all time, remains the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil) and Model of Conduct (uswa hasana), was, of course, an Arab. No wonder that Islam itself is called “the gift of the Arabs.”
While this privileging in Islam of the Arabs leads some non-Arabs to play the sedulous ape, and to re-imagine themselves as Arabs — all those Pakistani “Sayeds” — at the same time other non-Arabs react differently, and come to resent their treatment at the hands of the o’erweening Arabs. Think of how the Arabs of the northern Sudan treated the non-Arab Muslims of Darfur (rape, pillage, sexual slavery); what they did to the non-Muslim black Africans was, of course, even worse.
Or think of how the Arabs of Algeria for many years attempted to prevent the Berbers, about 30% of the population, from speaking the Berber tongue, or from observing Berber ways, even forbidding the public reading by a Berber poet back in 1980, a suppression that led to riots in Tizi Ouzou, in the Berber-inhabited Kabyle. And in Morocco, where half the population may be Berber, the Berber movement takes on an anti-monarchical aspect. The Moroccan Arabs, like the Algerian Arabs, have been conducting, in slow motion, a forced arabisation to which not all Berbers wish to succumb.
And in the immediate Middle East, think of the Kurds, a non-Arab Muslim people treated by the Arab Saddam Hussein with great ferocity. His Arab troops killed 182,000 Kurds, employing chemical warfare at Halabja, and he moved hundreds of thousands of Arabs into the Kurdish areas to “arabise” the Kurds.
And outside the Middle East, the cultural imperialism of the Arabs has caused resentment among the local Muslims, all the way to Bangladesh and to Indonesia, especially in Java.
Ideally, non-Muslims should be working to increase the fissures within Islam. They should seize the language, and control the debate. And the central thesis, which they should be repeating again and again, can be expressed thus: Islam Is A Vehicle For Arab Supremacism. And they can fill the airwaves, and the Internet, with the supporting evidence. Is it not true that Muslims pray five times a day Mecca-wards, that they emulate the mores of 7th-century Arabs, that upon conversion they assume Arab names, that they — ideally — read the Qur’an only in Arabic, and with an ArabicTafsir (Commentary)? All this is so very different from those Christian missionaries who translated the Bible into every tongue they could, including some that had never before been reduced to writing. Is it not true that the Arabs, through Islam, have discouraged any local interest in pre- or non-Islamic histories, but have encouraged interest, among so many isnon-Arab Muslims, in Arab and Muslim history? Our aim should be to always and everywhere seek to find existing or potential fissures within the Camp of Islam, and to steadily widen them merely by adducing the truth.
But there is another great divide in that Camp of Islam even more obvious and of more immediate significance than the ethnic fissures: it is that between Sunni and Shi’a. Bob Woodward has reported on President George W. Bush as having plaintively asked a member of his staff to fill him in, after being told the Iraqis were divided into “Shi’a and Sunnis,” which information confused him because he, President Bush, thought “they were all Muslim.” We have come some way from that early exclamation of ignorance. Everybody and his brother now knowingly refers to the “Shi’a and the Sunnis,” but without any suggestion of knowing when the schism occurred, and what it was about, and why it matters.
In a sense, it doesn’t matter to us, the Infidels, when and where and why the Sunni-Shi’a split arose. What matters is our attitude toward that split: whether we deplore it or welcome it.
So far, American policymakers have made enormous efforts to minimize that split. They use that all-purpose word “destabilizing.” Anything that “destabilizes” in the Muslim Middle East is bad. And especially in Iraq, where the Shi’a inherited the power that had been stripped from the Sunni Arabs when the Americans invaded, the vast American effort was dedicated to keeping Iraq a single and prosperous country, where Shi’a and Sunni (and Arab and Kurd) could take part in a joint adventure to rebuild the country. Did this make sense, from an Infidel point of view? Why would one not wish Iraq to be subject to centripetal forces, and to break apart, possibly in partes tres, with a Kurdish part corresponding roughly to the old Ottoman vilayet of Mosul, the Sunni part to the old Ottoman vilayet of Baghdad, or possibly only Anbar Province (given that so many Sunnis have been pushed out of Baghdad by the Shi’a), and a Shi’a Arab part corresponding to the old Ottoman vilayet of Basra?
Again and again over more than a decade, we heard how important it was not to allow Iraq to split into Sunni and Shi’a regions. But no one explained why keeping Iraq in one piece was in the American, or general Infidel, interest. And if the Sunnis in Lebanon, perhaps with their numbers increased by Sunni refugees from Lebanon, attack the Shi’a, that is, attack Hizballah, the military and terrorist organization that claims to represent the Lebanese Shi’a, why is that a bad thing?
And if the Saudi incursion into Yemen, on the side of Yemen’s Sunni tribes fighting the Iran-backed Houthi (Shi’a) rebels, why is that something to deplore? At the very least, this conflict might use up Saudi money and materiel and keep the Saudis occupied, and less able to cause mischief elsewhere; ideally, neither side will win, but both sides will continue to go at it, losing men, money, materiel, destroying infrastructure, and in general creating a mess in one more Muslim country. And in one more such country, mistrust and hatred between Sunni and Shi’a in Yemen can only deepen. Again, why would that be — from our point of view — a bad thing?
And this brings us to the news of the week: the execution by the Saudis of a leading Shi’a cleric, Nimr Al-Nimr, and the severing of all diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and then between Iran and Iraq, Iran and Bahrain, Iran and Qatar, Iran and Oman, Iran and Kuwait, and the downgrading of relations between Iran and the U.A.E. All the stories in the Western press are full of dire warnings, of worry and despair expressed at this state of affairs, and fears as to “what willh appen next.”
I can’t understand this worry, this fear. Which was the Roman who laid down the law: Divide et impera? I am perfectly open to being persuaded that the deepening of the Iran-Saudi Arabia rift is a terrible thing for us. I am equally eager to be persuaded that whipping up the resentment of non-Arab Muslims for Arab Muslims is a Bad Thing. But I just can’t figure out why.
Perhaps, among this post’s readers, someone will enlighten me, and explain why ethnic and sectarian fissures in the Camp of Islam are a terrible thing for us, the Infidels. I’ll stay right here, ready to listen. I’m all ears.

Bob Price, Breitbart: FBI Investigation Into Bribery With Clinton Foundation Spans Nation, Multiple Field Offices, Says WSJ

To read the entire item, kindly click on this link:

FBI investigators from across the country have been following leads into reports of bribery involving the Clinton Foundation. Multiple field offices have been involved in the investigation.

Trey Gowdy on FBI Finding 650,000 Clinton Emails

Understanding the Threat: How Islam Instructs Lying to Non-Muslims: TAQIYYA

Islam commands followers to deceive non-believers into a false sense of friendship before striking. These are not UTT's words, it's directly from Islam.
Go to 
Get your copy of "Raising Jihadi Generation" today at
See the evidence of the jihadi network in America by picking up your copy of the DVD at

The Veil Erases the Woman and Her Mind

Please read full description for sources and additional information.

Jordanian Author Zulaikha Aburisha: The Veil Effaces (Erases) the Woman and Her Mind

In a TV interview, Jordanian author Zulaikha Aburisha said that there is no consensus about the woman's hijab among jurisprudents and that the niqab "effaces the woman and her mind."

Speaking on the A1 Jordan TV channel on March 10, she said that "the writing off of women, their effacement, the insistence upon covering women with veils, and the focus on the details of their body... are all manifestations of the sexual inhibitions experienced by our Arab societies."

Please contact us for any queries.
Video owned by - MEMRITV Institution

The Middle East Media Research Institute is a not for profit press monitoring and analysis organization with headquarters in Washington, DC

Saudi Born Atheist Rana Ahmad: Family Would Have Killed Me If I Hadn’t Fled

Please read full description for sources and additional information.

Saudi-Born Atheist Rana Ahmad: My Family or the State Would Have Killed Me If I Hadn’t Fled; The Hijab Robbed Me of My Childhood
Rana Ahmad, an atheist who renounced her Sunni Muslim upbringing and fled Saudi Arabia for fear of execution, talked about her previous life and her "awakening" in a Deutsch Welle TV interview on August 16.

Forced to wear the hijab at age 9 and the niqab at age 13, Ahmad said that this "robbed her of her childhood."

She said that she was living "in a stupor" until she became aware of the world of knowledge through the Internet and began to read and do research. "How come the education systems in Islamic countries do not provide this information?... What are they afraid of?" she asked.

Please contact us for any queries.
Video owned by - MEMRITV Institution
Haram Sheikh
The Middle East Media Research Institute is a not for profit press monitoring and analysis organization with headquarters in Washington, D

Camel Urine Consumption In Morocco

Moroccan Oncologists Blast Camel-Urine Cancer Treatment Project: Urine Is Urine

Following a Moroccan TV report on the use of camel urine as a cure for cancer, Moroccan oncologist Dr. Tashjin Said rejected the claims, saying that "camel urine is urine" and not meant for human consumption. A camel farmer interviewed in the report, which aired on February 6, recommended drinking up to a liter of camel urine to fight cancer and other abdominal diseases. Dr. Said Bencheqroun, Head of the Society for Support of Children with Cancer, also rejected the claims as "illogical and unacceptable."

Please contact us for any queries.
Video owned by - MEMRITV Institution

The Middle East Media Research Institute is a not-for-profit press monitoring and analysis organization with headquarters in Washington, DC

Birmingham Imam: Criticizes World Leaders and Music, One of Satan’s Biggest Weapons

Birmingham Imam Al-Thabati Criticizes World Leaders for Attending Peres Funeral, Adds: Music One of Satan’s Biggest Weapons
In a video posted on October 1 on the YouTube channel of Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, England, Abu Usamah At-Thahabi, an imam at the mosque, criticized Obama and other world leaders for attending the funeral of Shimon Peres in "occupied Palestine." "Obama wore the Jewish hat, and he praised that war criminal," said At-Thahabi, who added that "Obama killed a lot of Muslims." In his lecture, which was dedicated to hiphop culture, the American-born Al-Thahabi criticized Western music, such as R&B, saying: "Music is one of the biggest weapons of Satan."

Please contact us for any queries.
Video owned by - MEMRITV Institution

The Middle East Media Research Institute is a not-for-profit press monitoring and analysis organization with headquarters in Washington, DC

Mona Walter som tidigare var muslim föreläser om islam på Clarion Hotel, 16 April, 2016

Mona Walter berättar öppet om Islam.
Varför väjer inte en muslim när ni möts i köpcentret?
Var Muhammed en krigsherre och gör IS rätt enligt koranen?
Hatar Svenska Kyrkan den som berättar sanningen om islam?
Kan man lita på en imam?
Är det tillåtet att ljuga om islam?
Får en muslim låta sig integreras i Sverige?
Får man slå sin hustru om hon inte lyder?

Hemlig utredning avslöjar polisens kris: Tusentals brott läggs på hög - Nyheter Idag

För att läsa texten, klicka vänligen på länken.
Hemlig utredning avslöjar polisens kris: Tusentals brott läggs på hög
I bara det lilla området sydöstra Götaland ligger hela 6000 anmälda brott på hög varav flera hundra rör grova brott som våldtäkter, mord och mordförsök. Uppgifterna, som läckt från en intern utredning om polisens omorganisation, har polisfacket nu tagit del av, rapporterar SVT. – Belastningen är så pass hög att utredarna inte hinner med ärendena, säger Thomas Stjernfeldt, vice ordförande i Polisförbundet region Syd, till SVT.

The Basics of Islam 9: Robert Spencer on The Status of Jews and Christians Under Islamic Law

In this ninth segment of his Basics of Islam series, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the status that the Qur'an and Islamic law delineate for Jews and Christians living in an Islamic state.

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Mia Tottmar: "DN/Ipsos: Majoriteten vill ha förbud mot tiggeri"

För att läsa hela texten, klicka vänligen på länken:

DN/Ipsos: Majoriteten vill ha förbud mot tiggeri

Mer än hälften av stockholmarna vill förbjuda tiggeri. Det är en markant skillnad mot förra årets mätning, då 32 procent var för ett tiggeriförbud.

Från texten:

55 procent av stockholmarna tycker att tiggeri ska vara förbjudet i staden medan 31 procent tycker att det ska vara tillåtet. Det visar DN/Ipsos mätning. 13 procent har ingen uppfattning.
Resultatet indikerar att opinionen i Stockholm rört sig i mer restriktiv riktning. Frågan om tiggeri ställdes också i förra årets stockholmsmätning, då svarade en majoritet – 58 procent – att tiggeri bör vara tillåtet.
I årets mätning svarar 66 procent att de inte ger pengar till tiggare, i fjol var det 54 procent. 17 procent svarar att de brukar ge pengar till tiggare någon gång i månaden eller oftare. I förra årets telefonundersökning svarade 35 procent att man brukar ge pengar till tiggare någon gång i månaden eller oftare.
Ipsos ställde också frågan ”hur tycker du att man bör agera för att lösa situationen med tiggare i Stockholm?”. En stor majoritet, 65 procent, tycker att man bör stödja organisationer som hjälper på plats i länder som Rumänien.
Fakta. Undersökningen
Ipsos har under perioden 27 september till den 11 oktober intervjuat 768 röstberättigade väljare i Stockholms kommun genom digitala intervjuer i en slumpmässigt rekryterad respondentpanel.
Tycker du att tiggeri ska vara tillåtet eller förbjudet i Stockholm?
Tillåtet: 31 %
Förbjudet: 55 %
Hur tycker du att man bör agera för att lösa situationen med tiggare i Stockholm? (flera svar går bra)
Skänka pengar till de som tigger: 11 %
Skänka pengar till organisationer som hjälper tiggare i Sverige: 31 %
Skänka pengar till organisationer som hjälper på plats i länder som Rumänien: 65 %
Inte skänka pengar alls: 25 %
Annat: 20 %
Vet ej: 4 %

Katrine Marçal, Aftonbladet: Löfven måste sluta att hålla ”taliban-tal”

För att läsa hela texten, klicka vänligen på länken:

Löfven måste sluta att hålla ”taliban-tal”


Från texten:

Tänk dig att du inte får gå till snabbköpet utan tillstånd. Tänk dig att du blöder efter en trafik-olycka men ambulansen vägrar ta dig till sjukhuset eftersom din manliga förmyndare först måste godkänna saken. Tänk dig att du är en läkare
i fyrtioårsåldern och varje gång du åker utomlands måste du fråga din tonårsson om lov. Tänk dig att du är lärare på en skola omgärdad av låsta metallgrindar och att du inte får gå hem förrän den manliga vakten släpper ut dig.
The New York Times publicerade i veckan vittnesmål från ett urval av 6 000 saudiska kvinnor. Detta är deras bild av livet som kvinna i Saudiarabien. 
Stefan Löfvens är en annan.
Under sitt kontroversiella besök i Saudiarabien träffade den svenske statsministern en äldre kvinna på ett företag i Riyadh. Hon sa att Saudiarabien var ett religiöst land och därför kommer det att ta tid att förändra situationen för kvinnor där: ”Om kvinnor här i Saudiarabien säger det, vem är jag då att säga att ni ska göra på ett annat sätt?” sa då Sveriges statsminister.

Ledare, DN: Regeringen överger de bortgifta barnen

För att läsa hela texten, klicka vänligen på länken:
DN 30/10 2016. Socialtjänsten hjälper vuxna män att behålla greppet om barn som de gift sig med. Det hade varit otänkbart om barnen fötts i Sverige.

Från texten:

Hur många gånger kan man säga att man tar ett problem på allvar utan att göra någonting åt det?
Det är inte längre någon nyhet att barnäktenskap accepteras av svenska kommuner och myndigheter. Migrationsverkets egen utredning har visat att asylsökande barn har bemötts som ena halvan av ett gift par, snarare än som barn med rättigheter. På samma sätt har socialtjänsten i flera kommuner valt att placera barn i samma bostad som hennes inte sällan vuxne man – trots att barnäktenskap är olagligt.
Men till skillnad från Migrationsverket, som har påbörjat ett arbete för att förbättra rutinerna kring de här barnen, fortsätter socialtjänsten att lämna bortgifta barn hos deras män.
En förklaring finns i Socialstyrelsens onödigt diffusa riktlinjer, vilket riksdagsledamoten Tina Ghasemi (M) och Stockholms oppositionsborgarråd Anna König Jerlmyr (M) påpekade i SvD tidigare i veckan.
Riktlinjerna är inte bara lite luddiga, de är så diffusa att de går att använda för att fatta helt olika beslut. Socialtjänsten i Jönköping har tolkat det som att flickan i regel ska placeras med maken, medan ansvariga i Göteborg har dragit slutsatsen att barnet ska separeras från sin man.
Så vilken bedömning är då korrekt utifrån riktlinjerna? Det förblir oklart även det. Besluten har nämligen inte stött på patrull – alldeles oavsett hur de har sett ut.
Den myndighet som ansvarar för tillsynen är IVO, Inspektionen för vård och omsorg. Men IVO saknar statistik på hur många fall som tidigare har granskats. Eva Kågström, nationell samordnare för barnfrågor på myndigheten, känner inte till ett enda. Däremot pågår just nu tre ärenden, berättar hon.
Att granskningarna fram till nu har varit obefintliga, och att det även efter årets avslöjanden fortfarande är så få, beror på att granskningar inleds efter att en anmälan har kommit in. Trots de stora skillnaderna inom landet har ingen tillsyn av gruppen som helhet skett

Nick Hallett, Breitbart: Top Cardinal: Islam Wants To Dominate The World

To read the entire item by Breitbart reporter Nick Hallet, kindly click on this link.

Top Cardinal: Islam Wants To Dominate The World

by NICK HALLETT23 Jul 2016

A senior cardinal has said there is “no question that Islam wants to govern the world” and the only way to save Western civilisation is to return it to its Christian roots.

Cardinal Raymond Burke said that while Muslims were “lovely people”, their religion teaches that it should dominate the state, and any country with a Muslim majority must submit to Islamic law.

Speaking to Religion News Service, the American cardinal criticised Christian leaders who “simply think that Islam is a religion like the Catholic faith or the Jewish faith.”
“That simply is not objectively the case,” he claimed.
“When they become a majority in any country then they have the religious obligation to govern that country,” the cardinal added. “If that’s what the citizens of a nation want, well, then, they should just allow this to go on. But if that’s not what they want, then they have to find a way to deal with it.”

James V. Schall, S.J., Catholic World Report: Realism and Islam

Realism and Islam

April 17, 2016
Our leaders cannot comprehend what is going on, either when a whole Western civilization loses its faith and moral standards or when Islam reawakens to the implications of its own faith and its vision of world conquest.

Political realism, long associated with Augustine, constrains us to consider what Machiavelli later recommended to us—namely, to look at what men “do” do and not at what they “ought” to do. This advice would be more persuasive if, in fact, some men did not do what they ought to do or others do what they ought not to do. Both sides usually persuade themselves that they ought to follow their convictions. Machiavelli thought that if men did what they “ought” to do they would not survive the onslaughts and cunning of those who did what they had power to do whatever they could do. However, Augustinian realism did not, as in the case of Machiavelli, justify this careful look at what men “do” do as a reason to deny the distinction between good and evil so that any means could be used to accomplish their purposes.

The “realistic” look was “realistic” for Augustine precisely because good and evil wereincluded in the look itself, in the reality as seen. To see and act on the reality of good or evil is to see reality in its fullest dimensions. Practical truth, in terms of acting according to an accurate description of what is there, is the first principle of realism as well as of political action. Thus, Maritain could rightly maintain in the Augustinian tradition that “justice, brains, and strength” need not be separated. They belong together. Or, to refer obliquely to Lord Acton, the lack of power can also corrupt absolutely. Not to possess and use responsible power in defense of what is right is itself an evil, a cowardice.

With this background in mind, we recall recent events from “9/11”, the bombings in Spain, England, Mumbai, Bali, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, twice in Paris, Lahore, and Brussels, not to mention the persecutions and beheadings in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia, Chad, Syria, and the Sunni/Shiite inner-Muslim battles. What is the most plausible way to judge such continuing violence and its origins? To make this assessment, we have to acknowledge that Islam, in principle, is actually and potentially violent throughout its entire history. The basic reason for this method is obedience to the Law of Allah, not love for violence itself.

On the basis of evidence and theory, we cannot conclude from the fact that Islam is a “religion” that therefore it is not “violent” or is so only by abuse of its own founding. It is possible to be a religion and to espouse violence. (Were this not so, we would have to exclude many key passages on the Old Testament itself.) We cannot obscure what is there and affirmed to be there by Muslims themselves. Realism means that we can and should call what happens by its proper name. It also means that, if we cannot or will not make this proper naming, we are not realistic. We will inevitably suffer the consequences of our failure to state the truth of what is there.

These things are said not to promote counter violence against Muslims or to justify Muslim violence against others. Rather it is to respect Islam’s insistence that all those inside and outside of its enclosure be subject to the law of the Prophet. Whether we like it or not, this vision of world rule that is proper to Islam can only be called “religious” in nature. It is rooted in and promoted as a worship of the god called Allah. Not to take this wording seriously is unrealistic. The Muslims who claim that they can read their religious texts as if such violence is not advocated and justified may be applauded for trying to mitigate the historic record. But the fact is that those who see this violence as essential to the religion have the better side of the argument and are the better witnesses to what historic Islam stands for.


What is argued here, then, is not to be unfairly “critical” of Islam. On the contrary, it is written with considerable admiration for the zeal, consistency, and effectiveness displayed over the centuries by Islamic armies and law. And while it may be politically incorrect to state these things, they need to be stated and are in fact the truth—things that both Muslims and non-Muslims need to hear and consider. The designated and determined goal of the conquest of the world for Allah has been reinvigorated again and again in world history from the time of Mohammed in the seventh century. These revivals and expansions, which have only been temporarily halted by superior counterforce, have roots in the Qur’an itself and in its commentaries.

What we witness today, much to our surprise, is but another step in the historic world mission that Islam envisions for itself as the will of Allah, a goal that inspires the real and recurrent vigor that is found in its history. The reason we do not call it what it is lies not in Islam but in our own very different concepts of philosophy, religion, and law. In this sense, it is our own culture that often prevents us from being ourselves political realists.

Many believing Muslims, likely more than we are willing to admit, are tired and frustrated at having their religion’s principles denied. Outside observers are unwilling to believe or imagine that what Muslim advocates say about themselves, both in their founding texts and in their historic actions, is true. World conquest over time is what they hold must be achieved.

In other words, whether they be Muslim or otherwise, many people refuse to acknowledge that violence is proposed and carried out in the name of Islam. Outside Islam, it is called by the peculiar word “terrorism”. It is rarely called what it is, namely, a religious endeavor to conquer the world as an act of piety. Muslims, in this central tradition, are not “terrorists” just for the fun of it. That is insulting and resented. They practice what we call “terror” because they see themselves carrying out the will of Allah, even sometimes to their own death in doing so. Those who, in the process, kill “infidels”—that is, any non-Muslim or Muslim who does not accept true Islam—is considered to be a “martyr” to the cause of Islam. Only if Islam is not true can these ritual killings be seen as the objective evil that they are.

A subtle philosophic theory (called “voluntarism”) purports to justify this usage of what we call terror for religious purposes. The principle of contradiction cannot hold in a “revelation” that contains, in its texts, contradictory commands, as does the Qur’an. Allah then must become pure will, not bound by Logos or reason. Hence Allah is not limited by any distinction of good and evil. The Muslim blasphemy laws that threaten with death anyone who violates this claim arise from this source.

Allah’s mandate to Islam is progressively to subject the world to his will and to the law based on it. Terror will end and true “peace” will result only when all are submissive to Allah and live under Muslim law in all its details. What we outside of Islam call acts of violence are considered within it to be the carrying out of Allah’s will. Gruesome beheadings of Christians, however innocent, are seen as acts of justice. They are acts of “virtue” in this sense. The people who cannot understand this religious charge given to Islam, whether they be themselves Muslim or not, are themselves both unrealistic and dangerous. Their own presuppositions prevent them from recognizing and judging the real issue. They also prevents them from doing anything effective to hinder this expansion of Islam into Europe, Asia, Africa, and America.


Back in 1975, I wrote an essay in the Modern Age entitled “On the Teaching of Ancient and Medieval Political Theory”. The gist of this essay was that unless we understand the content and history of religions—their truth claims and aberrations—we will be unable to see the actual forces that swirl through the political world. An education that lacks a proper and accurate study of the theology and theologies peculiar to each different religion is not really an education. It could not prepare anyone to deal with a world in which religions, in their differences, are a reality. Both in Europe and America in the last half century or longer, this sanitized education is what decades of students have been given. With it, most citizens are simply not equipped to face the forces now reappearing in the world. Indeed, even to propose a realistic look at Islam, as is proposed here, is almost everywhere forbidden and excluded from any consideration, however valid the analysis.

This neglect of or hostility to religion has come back to haunt us. We have lumped all “religions” together as illusions or myths. They are to be defanged and wholly subject to state power. Our political, academic, and cultural leaders cannot comprehend what is going on, either when a whole Western civilization loses its faith and moral standards or when Islam reawakens to the implications of its own faith and its vision of world conquest. The two—the loss of faith and the rise of Islam—are connected. The decline of the birth rate and civil undermining of the family in the West is one thing. Muslim immigration or invasion has engulfed this same area. Muslims, especially young males, did not seek power and prosperity in other adjoining Muslim lands. The expansion of Islam was justified also by its charge of moral decadence against the West.
We see well-equipped modern armies, with inept and not seeing political leadership and with little motivation of forces, out-fought by young armed zealots in pick-up trucks who can, with their followers, threaten every train station and public building in Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. As they planned, they have managed to turn the whole world into a battleground of fear. The cry “Allah be praised!” is heard after every act of destruction. It is quite clear by now, or should be, that no cultural artifacts—be they books, buildings, statues, or paintings—will be allowed to exist. They are seen to be contrary to Allah’s will, no matter what they are or when created. In this sense, the Pyramids, the Buddhist statues, the library in Timbuktu, the Vatican, and the monasteries in the deserts, Canterbury, the towers in New York, the kosher markets in Paris, and the airports in Brussels are equally subject to destruction. Everything must be protected because everything is now threatened.

Not only are individual Christians eradicated but so are the statues of their saints. The reason for this destruction is “religious”. Such things ought not to exist. We have here a literal application of the belief that nothing should be allowed public or private space that does not correspond with strict Muslim beliefs. Provisional tolerance of Christians and Jews if they accept second class citizenship and pay heavy fines is merely temporary until the conquest is complete. Such zealous destruction to do the will of Allah, in other words, is considered to be an act of piety. If someone is going to oppose such acts, it cannot be done on the grounds of opposition to “terror” or that it is unreasonable. Ultimately, it depends, as Augustine learned with the Donatists, on a conversion and rejection of the theology that justifies it.


Whether Islam, in its origins, is a rereading of Jewish, Nestorian, and Christian texts (as it probably is) can be disputed. First, Islam claims to be a literal revelation of what is in the mind or being of Allah. In this sense, what is in the text must always remain in the text. It cannot be changed or “reinterpreted” to leave out those multiple passages that propose and justify violence in the name of the expansion of this religion. This advocacy of violence, which has been practiced in Islam from its seventh century beginning, has a purpose. This purpose is, ultimately, religious and pious. Whether the Muslim notion of “heaven,” where its martyrs go, is primarily this-worldly or transcendent, can also be disputed. In any case, the concept of heaven is very earthy sounding. This picture is not, as such, an argument against its truth.

The message contained in the Qur’an is that the world should bow in submissive worship to Allah. This purpose abides and recurs over the centuries because it is there in the text. Men may temporarily neglect its zealous pursuit, but the text itself always contains the mission for others to find and pursue. There will always be those who realize that the mission of world conquest in the name of Allah is not complete. This realization is why, so long as it exists unrefuted, the Qur’an will always produce what we call “terrorists”. What we see now is little different from what has been seen throughout the centuries wherever Islam is found.

In this view, the world is divided into an area of peace and an area of war. The former is where the law of Allah rules politically, religiously, and culturally, where no other philosophy or faith has any right to be present. All signs of alien religion, art, artifact, and people are eliminated through forced conversion or death. Sometimes, Christians and Jews can be allowed to stay alive provided that they accept second class citizenship and pay taxes. This situation, in practice, is the basic constitutional rule in all existing Muslim states, even in those that reject ISIS or other approaches to eventual conquest of the world. Once Islam has conquered, it has always followed the same principles. In its history, certain famous battles have turned back Muslim conquests for a time, sometimes for centuries. But this relative inertness is only on the surface. As long as the book exists, its goals will again and again inflame prophets, imams, politicians, and the young men to recommence the conquest of the rest of the world.

In conclusion, what is argued here in terms of political realism is that we must understand the religious nature of Islamic expansion and the methods used to achieve it. By trying to abstract these motivation from the soul of this particular religion, which is, on this score, unlike most others, only makes it impossible to describe what in fact is going on in the mind of the adversary that is Islam. Wars are first fought in minds—and this is a war. It is not World War III; rather, it is an extension of the wars that Mohammed first launched against Byzantium, Persia, Syria, eventually North Africa, even to India, Spain, the and Balkans.

The Muslim protagonists of today realize how close they were several times in the past to conquering Europe as the next step in world conquest. What they see today is a very realistic opportunity to succeed where their ancestors failed. They, though also idealists, are (often unlike ourselves) realists. That is, they see what our minds really hold. And they see that they are largely empty of what really counts in this world: a true conception of God. Their only fault is that of choosing a false understanding of the real God. Aside from this “small” issue, one cannot help but admire, and fear, a blind faith that so abides over time and place without the real presence of the Logos whose incarnate presence in the world is explicitly denied.

About the Author

James V. Schall, S.J. taught political philosophy at Georgetown University for many years until recently retiring. He is the author of numerous books and countless essays on philosophy, theology, education, morality, and other topics. His most recent book isReasonable Pleasures: The Strange Coherences of Catholicism (Ignatius Press). Visit his site, "Another Sort of Learning", for more about his writings and work.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

David Wood: Why the Quran Was Revealed in Arabic

Support my videos on Patreon:

Muslim preachers invite their listeners to Islam. However, when non-Muslims challenge or question the Quran, Muslim preachers often insist that the Quran can only be understood in Arabic. How can Islam be the religion for all people if its central text can only be understood in a single language? In this video, David Wood examines what the Quran says about why it was revealed in Arabic. The answer thoroughly contradicts the Muslim position.

For more on Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur'an, watch these videos by David Wood:

"What Is the Quran?":

"Ten Fast Facts You Need to Know about the Quran":

"Who Killed Muhammad?":

"The Sheepgate Conspiracy":

"A Brief History of the Qur'an":

"Inside the Kaaba":

David Wood and Sam Shamoun, ABN: Islam and the Deification of Muhammad
Our Muslim friends tell us that Islam is the religion of submission to Allah alone. But when we open the Qur'an, we find that Islam demands complete submission to Muhammad (Quran 4:65; 33:36). Moreover, Muhammad commanded his followers to address him directly in their prayers ("Peace be upon YOU, O Prophet"), so Muslims around the world, even in our time, speak to Muhammad in their prayers. And this is the religion that condemns other religions for idolatry?

Dr. Ali Sina: Muhammad: A Misogynist

From ex-Muslim Dr. Ali Sina`s famous Challenge:

Muhammad: A Misogynist

I am accusing Muhammad of misogyny. Far from being a champion of women’s rights, as Muslims often present him, Muhammad insulted women and worsened their situation in Arabia who before Islam had more rights and freedoms. Muhammad took away the rights that the tribal societies of Arabiahad granted their women. Consequently Muslim women are abused. They have fewer rights than slaves and animals. They are the property of men, be it their fathers, brothers, husbands or sons. In no society and in no moment of history, women were/are as denigrate and belittled as they are in Islam. 

To read the entire item, click here

Friday, October 28, 2016

Chang Frick, Nyheter Idag: Totalt tokras för MP – Centern slår nytt rekord i Sentio

För att läsa hela texten, klicka vänligen på länken:

Nästa valnatt kan komma att förvandlas till totalskräck för Miljöpartiet om siffrorna i Sentios oktobermätning blir verklighet. Med endast 2,4 procent av väljarnas stöd borde det råda krisläge i partiet. Samtidigt slår Centerpartiet nytt rekord i en mätning från Nyheter Idag / Sentio med otroliga 8,7 procent.

Från texten:

De extremt dystra siffrorna för Miljöpartiet ligger utanför den statistiska felmarginalen vilket betyder att nedgången är statistiskt säkerställd.


För Sverigedemokraterna backar stödet med 2,8 procentenheter vilket är precis innanför den statistiska felmarginalen. SD är fortsatt andra största parti och går alltså om Moderaterna om siffrorna skulle bli verklighet i nästa val.

Mätningen är utförd med webbpanel mellan 20 och 26 oktober. Totalt har 1040 personer intervjuats varav 792 uppgett partipreferenser.

Hela mätningen för oktober månad — septembermätningen inom parentes
Moderaterna 19,5 (21,0)
“Liberalerna” 5,9 (4,9)
Centerpartiet 8,7 (6,8)
Kristdemokraterna 4,1 (2,8)
Socialdemokraterna 23,5 (21,5)
Vänsterpartiet 9,7 (8,6)
Miljöpartiet 2,4 (4,8)
Sverigedemokraterna 21,7 (24,5)

Fi 2,4 (2,8)
Piratpartiet 1,9 (1,0)