TERRORIST I.S., AIDED BY WESTERN RECRUITS & APOLOGISTS, LEADS GLOBAL ISLAMIST JIHAD

We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 –

Contents:

Thank You, ISIS: David Horowitz, National Review, Oct. 9, 2014— Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us.

Is the Islamic State a Good Thing?: Raymond Ibrahim, Frontpage, Oct. 2, 2014— The Islamic State (IS) continues expanding its territory and influence through jihad. 

Western Civilization Must Rally Against the Threat of a New Medievalism: Tasha Kheiriddin, National Post, Sept. 4, 2014— The barbarians are not at the gates; they are inside them.

Radical Islam, Israel and Agitprop: Guy Millière, Gatestone Institute, Sept. 28, 2014— Understanding radical Islam requires going back to its roots.

On Topic Links

Canadian Jihadist Unmasked: Stewart Bell, National Post, Sept., 2014

The I-Word: Rex Murphy, National Post, Aug. 23, 2014

What The "Two State Solution" Has to Do with the Rise of Islamic Extremism: Zero: Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 20, 2014

You Can’t Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims: Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage, Oct. 21, 2014

THANK YOU, ISIS

David Horowitz                                                                                                              

National Review, Oct. 9, 2014

Beheadings of innocent human beings are unspeakable acts reflecting the barbaric savagery of the Islamic “holy war” against the West — against us. Yet despite the intentions of their perpetrators, they have had an unexpected utility. Their gruesome images have entered the living rooms and consciousness of ordinary Americans and waked them up. The barbarity of the Islamic movement for world domination has actually been evident for decades: in the suicide bombing of the Marine compound in Lebanon in 1982, in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, in the suicide attacks on Jews — men, women, and children — during the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000, in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, and in the beheadings perpetrated in Iraq by al-Qaeda’s Abu al-Zarqawi and the Salafist group known as Ansar al-Islam during the Iraq War.

Unfortunately, the response to these barbarities on the part of the Democratic party and the liberal elites has been to condemn and marginalize anyone who called them barbarous. In their eyes, it is racist to use the word “barbarism” to describe the acts of any Third World people. To associate Islam with the Islamists was Islamophobic. President Obama is still trapped in this time warp, denying in so many words that the Islamic State is Islamic. For America’s commander-in-chief to make such an obviously moronic statement about his country’s enemy in wartime reflects how deeply settled is the ideology of protecting the Islamists (and jeopardizing the innocent). Even Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, could not bring himself to describe the enemy as Islamic. Settling on “War on Terror” as a descriptive term was a way of eliding the fact that the savagery was motivated by not by nihilism but by Islamic faith. The Obama Democrats have gone even deeper into denial, eliminating “War on Terror” from the government vocabulary and replacing it with “overseas contingency operations.”

For more than a decade, a handful of conservatives, of whom I was one, tried to sound the alarm about the Islamist threat…In 2006 and 2007, I organized nearly 200 “teach-ins” on American campuses, which I called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness” weeks. The idea was to legitimize the term “Islamo-fascist” as a description of the enemy confronting us. These demonstrations were attacked by the Muslim Students Association, which is a recruiting organization for the Muslim Brotherhood, and by Students for Justice in Palestine, a front for the terrorist party Hamas. They also inspired the contempt of the liberal Left… Resolutions denouncing critics of Islamic misogyny and terror as “Islamophobes” were unanimously passed by leftist-run student councils at UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, and a dozen other elite schools. Lengthy reports on the menace of Islamophobia targeted me and other speakers at our campus demonstrations, including Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes…

And then came ISIS. The horrific images of the beheadings, the reports of mass slaughters, and the threats to the American homeland have accomplished what our small contingent of beleaguered conservatives could never have achieved by ourselves. They brought images of these Islamic fanatics and savages into the living rooms of the American public, and suddenly the acceptable language for describing the enemy began to change. “Savages” and “barbarians” began to roll off the tongues of evening-news anchors and commentators who never would have dreamed of crossing that line before, for fear of offending the politically correct. Virtually every major Muslim organization in America is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the fountainhead of Islamic terror. Huma Abedin, who was deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (and is still Clinton’s confidante and principal aide), comes from a family of Muslim Brotherhood leaders. Yet legislators who have the power to investigate these matters are still intimidated from even raising them. Representative Michele Bachmann, who did raise them, was excoriated as a racist not only by the Left but also by John Boehner and John McCain.

Language is a weapon in the battle against the threat we face. We cannot fight a war effectively when we cannot name the enemy or describe his methods or examine his influence on our own policy. The Islamic State has created an opportunity for common sense and realism to prevail. The tragedy is that it has taken the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and the ongoing extermination of the Catholic presence in Iraq to begin to wake people up. And, unfortunately, the president is still asleep or, less charitably, is hostile to American purposes, is hostile to the military that defends us, and identifies more with the Islamic world that has produced these forces who would destroy us than with the country he is sworn to defend.

Contents     

IS THE ISLAMIC STATE A GOOD THING?                                                          

Raymond Ibrahim                                                                                               

Frontpage, Oct. 2, 2014

The Islamic State (IS) continues expanding its territory and influence through jihad. Religious minorities that fall under its sway—at least the fortunate ones—continue to flee in droves, helping make the Islamic State what it strives to be: purely Islamic. Left unfettered, with only cosmetic airstrikes by an indecisive Obama administration to deal with, IS continues growing in strength and confidence, as Western powers again stand idly by. More and more Muslims around the world, impressed and inspired by what they see, become convinced that the Islamic State is in fact the new caliphate deserving of their allegiance.  Such Muslims—the most “radical” kind, who delight in the slaughter and subjugation of “infidels”—continue leaving Western nations and migrating to the Islamic State to wage jihad and live under Sharia. In other words, a sizable chunk of the world’s most radicalized/pious Muslims all become localized in one region.  There they openly and proudly display their anti-infidel supremacism.

Throughout, Western media have no choice but to report objectively—so thoroughly exposed for its barbarity has IS become that it is an insurmountable task to whitewash its atrocities.  The world has seen enough about IS to know that this is a savage, hostile, and supremacist state without excuse. Even Obama, after originally citing “grievances” as propelling the Islamic State’s successes, recently made an about face, saying “No grievance justifies these actions.” Put differently, the “Palestinian card” will not work here.  Western media, apologists, and talking heads cannot portray IS terror—including crucifying, beheading, and raping humans simply because they are “infidels”—as a product of “grievances” or “land disputes.” Indeed, the Islamic State itself, which is largely composed of foreigners, is the one invading other territories (Iraq, Syria), massacring and driving out their most indigenous inhabitants, from Christians to Yazidis.

In time, the Islamic State’s borders are fully consolidated and the “caliphate” is a fact of reality.  Its war on fellow Muslim “apostates”—its current excuse for not engaging the greatest of all “infidels” in the region, Israel—eventually comes to a close or stalemate. Then the inevitable happens: another conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas; Muslims around the word, including those under IS authority, drunk with power and feelings of superiority, demand that the time to wipe out the Jewish infidel has finally come; that the second phase of the caliphate is now or never—conquest of “original infidels.” As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently declared during his U.N. speech, “ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree. ISIS and Hamas share a fanatical creed, which they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their control.” Thus the Islamic State will eventually be compelled to start saber rattling and worse against Israel.  After all, its entire legitimacy is founded on its namesake—that it is the “Islamic state,” the state that magnifies and protects Islam and Muslims.   It must eventually confront Israel or else be proven the greatest of all hypocrites or munafiqun—a term of great rebuke in the Koran, which some Muslim authorities are already applying to IS for not confronting Israel now.

Conflicts inevitably ensue between Israel and its neighboring Islamic State. But unlike the Jewish state’s war on Hamas—which the mainstream media can manipulate and portray as a war on innocent Palestinian women and children—world governments and media will find it exceedingly difficult to criticize Israel should any conflict between it and IS arise…Moreover, the argument habitually used against Israel—that its war on Hamas creates innocent Palestinian casualties—loses all legitimacy in any war on the Islamic State.

After all, IS, the state itself—not some terrorist organization ensconced within the state—is beheading, massacring, and enslaving humans solely on the basis of their religious identity.  Its citizens—who went there of their own accord, unlike “displaced” and “trapped” Palestinians—are fanatical, extremist Muslims, whose greatest aspiration is to decapitate an infidel. No one can apologize for this. The best that can be said is that this is not “true” Islam. This is why, even now, the pro-Islamic Obama administration is forced to condemn IS and even (if perfunctorily) militarily engage it. In short, conventional war becomes very justifiable against IS—especially because there is no longer any worry of accidentally killing this or that moderate or non-Muslim, as they have all been driven away, replaced by Islamic terrorists from around the world. And conventional war has traditionally been the bane of Islamists, who prefer terrorism, hiding among civilians, using them as shields, and playing the victim. Safe from international censure and pushed to the edge, Israel eventually obliterates the Islamic State, while even Islam’s greatest apologists in the West must hold their tongue or else be seen as defenders of the state responsible for the greatest atrocities—crucifixions, beheadings, rapes, slavery, and wholesale massacres—so far committed in the 21st century…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

Contents            

WESTERN CIVILIZATION MUST RALLY

AGAINST THE THREAT OF A NEW MEDIEVALISM                                         

Tasha Kheiriddin                                                                                                 

National Post, Sept. 4, 2014

The barbarians are not at the gates; they are inside them. In middle-class Canada, America and Britain, Islamic radicals scoop up young recruits to practice jihad against the countries that nurtured them. Others commit atrocities against those who do not share their faith, such as the horrific case of Muslim gangs in Rotherham, England, sexually abusing 1,400 non-Muslim schoolgirls over the past 16 years. Still others kill women and girls from their own faith community, for staining the family honour by daring to date a person of their own choosing, or leave an abusive husband.

The Western world is embroiled in a war of civilizations, not only overseas, but on its own soil. And right now, it is losing. It has become undone by the very quality that underpins its own religious morality: mercy. In modern times, mercy has morphed into political correctness. Turn the other cheek, even if it gets slapped repeatedly. Treat everyone as an equal, even if they think it’s acceptable to kill or abuse others in the name of one’s faith. But this type of extremism is not religion, naysayers retort: It’s culture. There is nothing in the Koran that mandates the beheading of infidels, the gang rape of children, the genital mutilation of girls, or even the wearing of burkas. Those are cultural perversions, and it’s wrong to tar Islam, and all Muslims, with one bloody brush. One can debate the texts of Islam ad nauseum: What matters are not the actual words, but the use to which they are put. It is true that there are many peaceful Muslims who reject these ideas. But there are many who do not. And more worrisome still, many of them come to their beliefs as young adults, radicalized by those who use the religion for their own purposes. Fear of being labelled “Islamophobic” prevents both discussion of and action against the problem. But the harsh truth is that the organizing principle of Islamic violence is Islam. Without it, there would be nothing to pervert in the first place. Without the call for the creation of an Islamic State, James Foley and Stephen Sotloff would still be alive. Without the belief that women, and non-Muslim women in particular, are second-class citizens, Rotherham would not have become a cesspool of child rape.

To be fair, Islam is not the only religion which has been used for violent ends. Catholicism provided the backdrop for the Spanish Inquisition, and Calvinism for the Salem Witch Trials. Christians treated women as inferior to men for centuries, based on the “word of God”; some modern-day religious sects, such as the polygamists of Bountiful, B.C., still do. But over time, mainstream Christianity changed. The Enlightenment spurred an evolution in Western thought. The value of personal freedom gained prominence, while church and state became increasingly separate entities. Over time, these changes begat rights for various social groups, including women, gays and lesbians, and racial minorities. You would think that the inheritors of the Enlightenment would be camped out on the White House lawn demanding that the Islamist threat to Western liberties be stopped. You would think that feminists would storm the gates of 10 Downing Street and demand that the police in Rotherham be jailed for failing to protect their girls. You would think that the LGBT community would realize that the real threat to equality is not the café down the street that doesn’t have transgendered washrooms, but the imam at the local mosque preaching that homosexuals are perverts and should be jailed. Don’t get me wrong: the answer to Allahu Akbar is not Deus vult. The West need not reenact a 21st-century version of the Crusades. But it must rally against the threat of a new medievalism. It cannot allow religious extremists of any faith to turn back the clock of civilization. Calling out crimes based in religion is not racist, but reality — and the first step to stopping them.

Contents               

RADICAL ISLAM, ISRAEL AND AGITPROP                                                         

Guy Millière                                                                                                         

Gatestone Institute, Sept. 28, 2014

Understanding radical Islam requires going back to its roots. The Christian idea of rendering "unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" never existed in Islam. Its absence has had consequences, including, possibly, the decline of the Muslim civilization and the feeling of humiliation that resulted. During the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when Muslim clerics observed that the Islamic world was not keeping pace with the West and was on the verge of collapse, they may have decided they needed answers. Some of these clerics turned to the West, where they chose to study Western political ideas. They spoke of necessary reforms, and created secret societies and nationalist organizations. Other clerics chose dogmatic, strict readings of the Quran. They found inspiration in the writings of Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab and in the established fundamentalist movements. Several secret societies gained strength and came to power: the Young Ottomans staged a coup d'état in 1876; the Young Turks ruled the Ottoman Empire from 1908 to 1918. Nationalist revolts took place: Colonel Ahmed Urabi led a mutiny in Egypt in 1879. A secret society, calling Arabs to recover their "lost vitality," was created in Beirut by Ibrahim al-Yaziji in the late 1870s. The House of Saud, led by Wahhabis, mounted military campaigns against other tribal rulers and the Ottomans in order to seize the Arabian Peninsula. From 1855-56 until his death in 1897, Sayyid Jamāl ad-Dīn al-Afghānī travelled throughout the Muslim world to call desperately for a return to the "original principles" of Islam.

But the decline did not stop and the collapse occurred. The First World War led to the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, the emergence of modern Turkey, and the creation of kingdoms and Mandates in the Arab World. In 1923, the Ankara-based Turkish regime, founded by Mustafa Kemal Pasha [Atatürk], became the officially secular Republic of Turkey. Arab nationalists, whom Britain had used as a weapon against the Ottoman Empire, felt betrayed when Britain and France settled on the division of Arab territories and did not satisfy Arab demands. The leader of the Arab revolt, Emir Faisal ibn Hussein, for example, asked during the 1919 Paris Peace Conference in Versailles that, "the Arabic-speaking peoples of Asia" be recognized as "independent sovereign peoples," and that "no steps be taken inconsistent with the prospect of an eventual union" of Arab "areas under one sovereign government." As Arab nationalists grew bitter, pan-Arab nationalism emerged throughout the Arab world. The House of Saud united the kingdoms of the Hejaz and Nejd, and created the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in 1932. Around the same time, radical Islam arose. The Muslim Brotherhood (al-Ikhwān al-Muslimūn), established in 1928, quickly became the main radical movement.

Radical Islam soon took on a different color. Although it is sometimes described as a by-product of fundamentalism, it is really fundamentalism influenced by Western totalitarian dogmas: Marxism, Leninism, fascism, National-Socialism. The borders between radical Islam, Islamic fundamentalism, and Arab Nationalism have always been porous. Fundamentalist Islam "must have power in this world. It is the true religion—the religion of God—and its truth is manifest in its power…. [I]f Muslims now return to the original Islam, they can preserve and even restore their power." In the late 1950s, the political landscape of the Muslim world was relatively easy to describe. Saudi Arabia was fundamentalist. Some moderate kingdoms existed: Jordan, Morocco, Iran. Turkey was a secular republic. Lebanon was a "unitary confessionalist" Republic: a Republic resting on a power-sharing mechanism based on religious communities. Arab nationalists had taken power in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Tunisia, and were about to take power in Algeria. The major Muslim countries in Asia — Pakistan and Indonesia — were not especially present in the news. Pakistan declared Islam as its state religion in 1949: most Pakistani Muslims belonged at the time to the Barelvi movement, much influenced by Sufism.[6] The Deobandi movement, inspired by Wahhabism, was not politically influential. And in Indonesia, the main Muslim groups — Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah — advocated religious moderation.

Meanwhile, radical Islam was growing in the shadows. In the 1960s, Arab nationalism was still gaining ground: Libya and Algeria were added to the list of countries ruled by people calling themselves Nationalists. In the 1970s, a civil war erupted in Lebanon. Palestinian militias were expelled from Jordan. They settled in South Lebanon and began fighting Christian militias. As central government authority quickly disintegrated, Shi'a militias that were beginning to form joined in the fighting. The great change occurred on April 1st 1979: Iran, with its version of radical Shi'a Islam, became an Islamic Republic. From then on, radical Islam spread rapidly. In 1985, various violent Lebanese Shi'a extremist groups founded Hezbollah, apparently in the hope of establishing an Islamic State in Lebanon. Two years later, in 1987, Hamas, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, was founded in Gaza City. Al-Qaeda, a radical Wahhabi movement calling for global jihad, was created in 1988-1989 by Osama bin Laden and Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. In Algeria, the Islamic Salvation Front started its bloody activities in 1989. Afghanistan became an Islamic State in 1992. The Taliban established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996. Countless more violent and deadly developments have taken place since. Radical Islam is now present on every continent. It has many names, various appearances, and is now a global threat.

In the meantime, as nationalism was on the rise all over the world and the idea of national liberation filled the atmosphere, Zionism emerged as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, urging Jews scattered all over the earth to come back to "the Land of Israel." The movement began during the collapse of the Muslim world. The First Aliyah [lit. "going up"] to Israel took place in 1881; the First Congress of the World Zionist organization took place in Basel, in 1897, and the Second Aliyah began in 1904. In the 1920s, as the Ottoman Empire was dismantled, and the secret societies, nationalist organizations and fundamentalist movements rose in the Muslim world, Zionism also gained strength. In 1917, the Jewish Legion, a group of Zionist volunteers, assisted the British Army in Palestine (the name given to the land by Roman Emperor Hadrian in 135 A.D., to try to rid it of its Jewish roots). The same year, the Balfour Declaration confirmed support from the British government for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1922, the League of Nations granted Britain a mandate over Palestine to establish the "national home for the Jewish people." The official document explicitly states that "a recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine."

Zionism was compatible. It could coexist with moderate kingdoms, such as Morocco, with secular republics such as modern Turkey, and with republics such as Lebanon before its civil war. Islamic fundamentalism and Arab Nationalism, however, are not compatible with Zionism. In the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, Jews are ahl al-ḏimmah, people of the dimmah: inferiors who are allowed to survive in an Islamic-conquered land only if they accept being subjugated and deprived of any legal or human rights. Further, in fundamentalist Islam, the entire world is divided into either the Dar al-Islam [The House of Islam] or the Dar al-Harb [The House of War], where Islam does not yet dominate. In the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, therefore, every territory — whether Israel or Spain's al-Andalus — that has ever been under the rule of Islam must remain irreversibly under the rule of Islam — a waqf, or religious endowment, held in trust for Allah as part of his dar al-Islam [the House of Islam]. Originally, Arab nationalists wanted to end the Ottoman domination of Arab lands; then, after the Ottoman Empire was dissolved in 1918, they wanted the end of all Western presence in the Arab world…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]

Contents                                               

On Topic

Canadian Jihadist Unmasked: Stewart Bell, National Post, Sept., 2014—Adept at using social media and fluent in English, Abu Turaab is part of the new generation of jihadists who have stormed the Internet to spread the dark message of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham.

The I-Word: Rex Murphy, National Post, Aug. 23, 2014—“What’s in a name?” That famous question came from the mouth of Shakespeare’s Juliet Capulet while under her rhapsodic infatuation with Romeo Montague.

What The "Two State Solution" Has to Do with the Rise of Islamic Extremism: Zero: Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, Oct. 20, 2014—U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's claim that the lack of a "two-state solution" has fueled the rise of the Islamic State [IS] terrorist group reinforces how clueless the U.S. Administration is about what is happening in the Arab and Islamic countries.

You Can’t Reform Islam Without Reforming Muslims: Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage, Oct. 21, 2014—Every few years the debate over reforming Islam bubbles up from the depths of a culture that largely censors any suggestion that Islam needs reforming.

Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research/ L'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.wpsitie.com