PayPal

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

How to Enable Islam…and Evil



Daniel Greenfield, in his Sultan Knish columns, writes about Islam from a perspective that is 100% objective and rational, a perspective I wish more people were capable of grasping. They don’t need to emulate his writing style or acquire as in-depth knowledge of Islam as his to appreciate the value he offers readers, indeed, offers the nation. Grasping the unchanging and unchangeable nature of Islam is a simple exercise in non-contradictory identification. A is A. Islam is Islam.

A.K.A. Sultan Knish, intellectual enemy 
of all Social Justice Warriors, 
in government and out.

“Bad” Islam is just “Good” Islam in a bad mood, he writes. “Bad” Islam has nothing to do with Islam. It’s as though “Bad” Islam were not quoting from the Koran, but from the Peanuts cartoons and the translation always gets skewed in the process.

Greenfield is not an Islam-basher for the sake of bashing Islam. With his unbeatable gift for irony, he unleashes the same no-holds-barred passion as he bashes phony politicians (is there a difference?), and phony technologies (like solar and wind power), and phony humanitarians who profit from phony charities and leave chump change for the alleged beneficiaries (re Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, the Clintons, George Clooney, and two or three dozen more extraordinarily rich people who want to “do good”). The private organizations “resettling” Muslim “refugees” in American cities, and which are paid and subsidized by the U.S. government, are a case in point.

He recognizes Islam’s root poisons and premises and tactics. And he does this no better than in his recent column “Good Islam and Bad Islam” of February 16th. He writes from the assumption that his readers are conversant in current events that concern Islamic terrorism. He dwells in a different but no less effective and persuasive way on the means and ends of Islamic jihad against the West from Stephen Coughlin’s exhaustive but compelling treatise on the delusional policies of our political and intelligence communities in Catastrophic Failure: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jiahd.

Friends of Islam, collectivists of a variety of stripes, BDS advocates, fiends of the Palestinians, flaccid but repellent Israel-haters, and Democrats (and most Republicans) all share an ideological allergy to reason, objectivity, and facts. It’s as though If they attempted reason, they would probably break out in spots or contract some horrid disease. They would be baffled by Greenfield’s opening line in his column:

Our only hope of defeating Islamic terrorism is Islam. That’s our whole counterterrorism strategy.

Some will remain in a state of bafflement, from either a natural state of inert ignorance or because their minds will slam shut when they smell a truth that must not be acknowledged. Others who exercise their minds and indulge in, for them, rare spates of analysis will understand that the statement is a nose-tweaking of our current “Countering Violent Extremism” policy (CVE), a policy which is chary of even naming Islam as the foremost incubator of “violent extremism.” (See Coughlin’s book for the tortuous road to self-delusion surrounding “CVE”), lest our intelligence agency risk the charge of “Islamophobia.” As a generic term, “extremism” could mean anything from armed American militias to taking the U.S. Constitution seriously to demanding that all dairy products sold in the country be lactose-free.

Islam, however, was waging terrorism against the West for decades and concurrently with that of the IRA, Basque separatists, and the Belgian Walloon separatists. The last three have wilted from just about everyone’s memory. Only terrorism rooted in Islam remains energized. Echoing Coughlin, Greenfield’s next sentence, however, would clarify things for the baffled and the face-makers:

But Islamic terrorism is not a separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives.

That is, it expresses Sharia law. Imposing Sharia on everyone is the end-all and be-all of Islamic Jihad. The triumvirate of Islamic terrorism is jihad, dawah (or proselytizing) and the Ummah (what I like to refer to as the Borg hive or collective, or the Islamic zombie herd). In its quest to thoroughly enfeeble the West’s resistance to Islamic conquest I wrote in “Interfaith Bridges to Islam”:

…No member of the tripartite alliance of jihad, dawah, and ummah in the organizing principle, which is Sharia, can nullify, frustrate, or contradict the other two. They work together as one entity in an aggressive ideological gestalt.  

Greenfield notes:

Muslim religious leaders have occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics, like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism, including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims, has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic religion since the days of Mohammed.

It is important to note that when fatwas are issued by Islamic clerics against terrorism, they are in fact condemnations of Muslims killing other Muslims. The fatwa does not include killing non-Muslims – except if the non-Muslims sue for “peace” and submit. To Islam, it is always open season on infidels, Jews, and other non-Muslims. This has been true for about 1,400 years. And also on Muslims of differing faiths: Sunnis vs. Shi’ites, and vice versa.

Greenfield continues:

Our strategy, in Europe and America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad Islam, as Obama claims [but Bush said it first], “hijacked” a peaceful religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”. ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State must be a bunch of atheists.

Yes. It’s always  a bunch of atheists who repeatedly quote the Koran before, during, or after their latest round of butchery.

Let’s concoct a Saturday Night Live skit to demonstrate how CVE works – or doesn’t work. Say, you are an innocent infidel, out walking your pet armadillo. A female jihadist walks up to you and her burqa shows a suspicious bump beneath it. She says to you, “I hate armadillos! Allahu Akbar!” And she blows herself and you up.

You, the suicide bomber, and the armadillo are but guts and blood all over the place, and basically unrecognizable. The FBI calls in “Dexter,” a blood splatter pattern expert and graduate of CVE Academy. He hands in his splatter report:  With meticulous precision, he details the trail of blood caused by the bomb, and concludes that while your scattered remains and those of the armadillo are identifiable, there was no third person. No suicide bomber. He suggests that you were the unfortunate victim of a renegade quark from an alternate universe that intruded into our universe and exploded on contact. Case closed.  Islam is not indicted. Muslims have not been denigrated. Their “self-esteem” as Muslims has been preserved.

Or perhaps Dexter will offer an alternative explanation for the “violence”: There really was a third person, a suicide bomber who was an armadillo-hating “extremist” who also hated armadillo pet owners.

That’s how CVE works. Blame anyone – anything – but the identifiable perpetrator. But there’s nothing even darkly humorous about how CVE works and how it contributes to the ongoing Islamic jihad with real blood being splattered in Europe and in the U.S.

Greenfield discusses the Mainstream Media version of CVE:

After every terror attack, the media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an “extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes, and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American Dream” was ruined.

So, formerly “Good” Muslims turn “Bad” for every reason under the sun but the non-negotiable moral imperative in Sharia to kill non-Muslims. Let’s hear another doozy: “I killed all those people in the Paris concert hall because I gained 30 pounds, because the Jews and infidels control food distribution and foist non-halal, saturated fat food on Muslims, causing them to have heart attacks.” Is that reason any better – or more ludicrous – than what one can hear mouthed by photogenic talking heads on CNN or Fox?

Greenfield:

Nobody, they conclude, becomes an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist. Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a moderate Islamic Jihadist?), has become a badge of courage on one side and a dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.

One might guess that a “Radical Islamic Jihadists” likes to slaughter people by the dozen; a “moderate Islamic Jihadist” will settle for one or two, perhaps running Jews down with cars, or resorting to the knife; he’s a humanitarian with limited jihadi resources). Greenfield asks:

But what is the distinction between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for women? See above.

What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.

There is no measurable difference between Good and Bad Islam. They are one and the same. They hale from the same malevolent pool of poisonous glop of wanting the unearned, of envy, of jealousy, all insatiable appetites unless corrected by objective justice. Good, non-violent Islam cajoles its auditors into believing Muslims just want to be left alone to follow their faith, and it’s unfair to ascribe the actions of the few to the many. And the next thing you know the cajoled are blood splatters on sidewalks and walls or are crushed smears of flesh in the smoking ruins of the World Trade Center. But sooner or later Bad Islam loses patience and starts sharpening its swords and machetes and giving lessons on how to create bombs and how to fly planes into buildings. And then they do it.

Good Islam is a chiseler, writes Greenfield. It plays its cards with a marked deck, and demands that it be the dealer or banker.

To win over Good Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good standing of Good Islam.

And when the card game is over, Islam is left with piles of chips and all the pot.

Greenfield concludes:

The Jihad isn’t coming from some phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam.

There is no Bad Islam. There is just Islam.

The alternative title for this column, of course, could just as well be, “How to Enable Evil…and Islam.” 

A is A. Islam is just Islam.

Catastrophic Failure:  Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad, by Stephen Coughlin. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788 pp.

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Huma Abedin: Wicked Witch of Islam



I sometimes have the fantasy of approaching Huma Abedin as a scout for Playboy Magazine and offering her a cover and foldout deal with the publication. I’m more curious about her possible response to such a proposition. Perhaps she would cast a voodoo hex on me, or a curse, or turn to a handy Muslim djab or imam to issue a fatwa. Or perhaps she’d just slap my face and sic the Secret Service goons on me. I’ve never seen her in a bathing suit, so I’m not sure about her figure. Perhaps she isn’t Dallas Cheerleader material.

But she certainly is a fashion plate – unlike her boss, that aging Goodyear blimp in pantsuits – and apparently a well-paid one, at that. Huma is always expertly groomed, she looks like she lives comfortably in the nicest, safest neighborhoods, and possesses some poise, almost as much poise as Queen Noor of Jordan (Lisa Halaby) and that regal fox, Queen Rania, wife of King Abdullah.

But one would not be in error to claim that Huma Abedin is a card-carrying member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Or, shall we say, of the Muslim Sisterhood? Not so far-fetched a charge. There is an actual division of the Muslim Brotherhood called the Muslim Sisterhood.  Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are only honorary members of that organization, because they’re not Muslims. But they, too, work against U.S. interests, and against Israel’s. They, too, wish to see Israel wiped from the map and the U.S. beholden to Islam.
.
There is so much dope on Huma Abedin that it could serve as raw material for a Mata Hari movie, and certainly enough to send her to prison at least on charges of treason, for helping Hillary breach national security, together with half a dozen other Federal felonies. She is, after all, an American citizen, born in 1976 in Kalamazoo, Michigan. There are several blog sites that contain all the necessary information that could be used to indict Abedin for at least acting as an agent against the U.S. for a foreign power, particularly Saudi Arabia, and generally, for the Muslim Brotherhood.

But, she’s not a spy. Known spies are not usually invited to embed themselves in an enemy administration; and the Obama administration is definitely an enemy – of the U.S.  Abedin fills the same role that Colonel House played to Woodrow Wilson, and that Harry Hopkins played to Franklin D. Roosevelt – a backseat position, mostly out of the limelight, but able to lean forward and whisper sweet-nothings of policy in the receptive executive’s ear about what was practical and what wasn’t. Abedin could also be compared to a high school driving instructor with his own steering wheel, and actually steer the ship of state in the right direction – “right” being whatever Islamic supremacists think is correct and proper and which conforms with the agenda established by the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. For details on that alliance, see Stephen Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jihad.


Huma Abedin is all for bringing into the U.S. as many Muslim “refugees” as possible. Which is tantamount to endorsing the introduction of Ebola and malaria into the national culture.

Discover the Networks has compiled a rap sheet on virtually every villain in American politics, and Huma Abedin has one of the longest dossiers. Her parental and political antecedents are not murky, but in plain view.

….Her father, Syed Abedin (1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who had worked as a visiting professor at Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz University in the early Seventies.

Huma's mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law. A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood's division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief. This pro-Hamas entity is part of the Union of Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The Center for Security Policy, in a special 2012 report on Abedin’s mother, “Center Report Reveals Radical Islamist Views and Agenda of Senior State Department Official Huma Abedin’s Mother,” among other things lists the Sharia-compliant rules of living in Islamic society.

The Mother Bear, Saleha S.Mahmood Abedin


In light of the escalating controversy over the role being played in U.S. security policy-making by Ms. Abedin and others with personal and/or professional ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (see Part Eight of the Center for Security Policy’s online curriculum at MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), the revelations contained in a new Center reportTies That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mothercould not be more timely, or important….

Excerpts from Women in Islam in Ties That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother include Islamic shariah justifications for the following practices (square brackets mine):

  • Stoning for Adultery when Married; Lashing for Adultery when Unmarried [un-Islamic behavior will not be tolerated]
  • No Death Penalty for the Murder of an Apostate [nor for the murder of an infidel]
  • Freedom of Expression Curtailed to What Benefits Islam [censorship; no criticism by women or men of Islam; criticism of Islam doesn’t much benefit it, does it?]
  • Women’s Right to Participate in Armed Jihad [knifing sprees in Israel, suicide vests, etc.]
  • Social Interaction Between the Sexes is Forbidden [partitioned off from the men during prayers and even in Starbucks]
  • Women Have No Right to Abstain from Sex with their Husbands [men cannot be denied their “rights”]
  • A Woman Should Not Let Anyone Into the House Unless Approved by Her Husband [he wouldn’t want any gays, Dallas Cheerleaders, or service dogs befouling his “castle”]
  • Female Genital Mutilation is Allowed [to ensure that women experience no joy in sex]
  • Man-Made Laws “Enslave Women” [didn’t Allah say man-made laws are an abomination to him? Man-made laws also enslave Muslim men]

Daughter Huma has not repudiated any of this. At least, there is no report of her uttering a single word, pro or con, about her mother’s endorsement of Fatima Umar Naseef’s Women in Islam: A Discourse on Rights and Obligations, originally published in 1999 by International Islamic Committee for Woman & Child (IICWC).

President Barack Obama’s February 3rd Baltimore mosque speech, says Steve Emerson of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, read like a Muslim Brotherhood script, a kind of long-winded pep talk to make Muslims feel good and cause everyone else hang their heads in shame. Who better to write such a speech than Huma Abedin? Her English language skills are impeccable, and beyond the range of Obama’s composition skills.


Discover the Networks traces Abedin’s work life. She has not only been a career Clintonista, but an editor of an anti-West journal.

At age 18, Huma Abedin returned to the U.S. to attend George Washington University. In 1996 she began working as an intern in the Bill Clinton White House, where she was assigned to then-First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton. Abedin was eventually hired as an aide to Mrs. Clinton and has worked for her ever since, through Clinton's successful Senate runs (in 2000 and 2006) and her failed presidential bid in 2008….

From 1996-2008, Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA) as the assistant editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef's active presence at IMMA. Abedin's last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA editorial board member; for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served together on that board.

Throughout her years with IMMA, Abedin remained a close aide to Hillary Clinton. During Mrs. Clinton's 2008 presidential primary campaign, a New York Observer profile of Abedin described her as "a trusted advisor to Mrs. Clinton, especially on issues pertaining to the Middle East, according to a number of Clinton associates." "At meetings on the region," continued the profile, "... Ms. Abedin’s perspective is always sought out."

And today Huma is “vice chair” of Hillary Clinton’s imploding presidential campaign. Given Clinton’s long and consistent record of bare-faced lying, hither-and-yon hiding, bilious blustering, and other crimes of her power-lusting hubris, “vice” is an appropriate name for the position.

It’s all in the family, too, the Abedin dawah against the U.S. and the West. Aside from Saleha Abedin’s literary excursions, as Discover the Networks concludes:

Huma Abedin's brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center's board included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah Omar Naseef.

Huma's sister, Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA, where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter's departure.

Huma Abedin is a witch, a wicked, conniving, embedded agent for Islam. Perhaps her laugh is more of a cackle, similar to that of the “Weird Ladies” in Macbeth. Or, better yet, like that of the Wicked Witch of the East. She’s determined to get us, and our little dogs, too. We all know how Muslims are brought up to hate dogs.