As we look to 2012 beware of Islamic Willful Blindness (Romney, Obama,) vs Islamic Understanding (Gingrich, West,); more from an expert on why Gingrich gets it!

Posted on March 18, 2011


17 Aug 2010

America, the Great Melting Pot, Shari’a Law and the Ground Zero Mosque

Noted writer Andrew C. McCarthy, in his article “It’s About Sharia” on National Review Online, has recently summarized and commented on a long speech by Newt Gingrich.  Here are some of his observations:

…Gingrich grasps that there is an enemy here and that it is a mortal threat to freedom.  He knows that if we are to remain a free people, it is an enemy we must defeat.  That enemy is Islamism, and its operatives – whether they come as terrorists or stealth saboteurs – are the purveyors of sharia, Islam’s authoritarian legal and political system.

…Gingrich is going about the long-overdue business of resetting our understanding of the civilizational jihad that has been waged against the United States for some 31 years.  It is a jihad begun when Islamists overran the American embassy in Tehran, heralding a revolutionary regime that remains the No. 1 U.S. security challenge in the Middle East. . . .

The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia.  On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance.  First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions – our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. . . .

Second, that outcome is the death of freedom.  In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society – for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. . . .

…Gingrich offered a salient insight. . . . Islamists devoutly believe, based on a well-founded interpretation of Islamic doctrine, that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia – because they regard Allah as their only master (‘There is no God but Allah’).[i] (emphasis added)

Here is a little description of Saudi Arabia’s political orientation that will help you see Shari’a in context:

The politics of Saudi Arabia takes place in a framework of a particular form of absolute monarchy whereby the King of Saudi Arabia is both head of state and the head of government, but where decisions are to a large extent made on the basis of consultation among the senior princes, with the King functioning as primus inter pares and ultimate arbiter.  The Basic Law adopted in 1992 declared that Saudi Arabia is a monarchy rule by the male descendants of King Abd Al Aziz Al Saud, and that the Qur’an is the constitution of the country, which is governed on the basis of Islamic law (Shari’a).

Saudi Arabia has little formal criminal code, and instead criminal laws largely come out through the kingdom’s adherence to a conservative form of Sunni Islam commonly known as Wahhabism and the desire of the royal family to prevent any type of political opposition. . . .

‘Religious police’ (Mutaween) are employed by the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, a government bureaucracy in Saudi Arabia, to enforce Shari’a Law, including banning the practice (in public) of religions other than Islam. . . .

Saudi courts impose capital punishment and physical punishment, including amputations of hands and feet for serious robbery, and floggings for lesser crimes such as ‘sexual deviance’ (e.g. homosexuality and drunkenness).  The number of lashes is not clearly prescribed by law and varies according to the discretion of the presiding judges.  The number ranges from dozens to several thousand, usually applied over a period of weeks or months.  In 2002, the United Nations Committee against Torture criticized Saudi Arabia over the amputations and floggings it carries out under the Shari’a.  The Saudi delegation responded by defending ‘legal traditions’ held since the inception of Islam in the region 1,400 years ago, and rejected outside interference in its legal system.[ii] (emphasis added)

In my own book, “A Simple Guide:  How Liberalism, a Euphemism For Socialism, Destroys Peoples and Nations,” I take you on a concise economic, governmental, and societal overview of several nations including Saudi Arabia.

So, what is a Mosque?  Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines a mosque as “a building used for public worship by Muslims.” [iii]

And what happens in a Mosque?  We will first address this question with respect to Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, a prominent suburb of Washington, D.C.:

  • Imam Abdul-Malik’s call for “’sabotage’ and terrorists attacks against Israel;”[iv]
  • Imam Adbul-Malik’s “2004 promise of Islamic supremacy in America;”[v]

Alhamdulliah [Praise to Allah] and we will live, will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah will become the dominant way of life . . . . I’m telling you don’t take it for granted because Allah is increasing this deen [religion] in your lifetime.  Alhamdulliah that soon, soon . . . before Allah closes our eyes for the last time, you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America – that’s where we are now – to being the first religion in America.[vi]

  • Imam Abdul-Malik “is also a director of the National Association of Muslim Chaplains (NAMC). . . . NAMC’s founder, Warith Deen Umar, is best known for his glorification of the 9/11 hijackers:  ‘Even Muslims who say they are against terrorism secretly admire and applaud’ them;”[vii]
  • Dar al-Hijra was established in 1991 . . . . the same year American leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood wrote an internal memorandum to their global headquarters in Egypt, explaining that they saw their work in the United States as a ‘grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within. . . .’

The memorandum elaborates that every city should have an ‘axis’ and ‘perimeter’ from which this jihad-by-sabotage strategy is headquartered.  That axis, it adds, will be known as ‘the Islamic Center.’  Islamic centers – just like the one at Dar al-Hijra . . . .

Quite the opposite of assimilation and toleration, the memo envisions each Islamic center as a ‘seed for a small Islamic society’ and a ‘House of Dawa.’  Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, has proclaimed that dawa, the stealth form of jihad, is the method by which Islam will ‘conquer America’ and ‘conquer Europe’ . . . . [T]he Brotherhood memorandum also foretold that Islamic centers would be hubs for networking and cooperation between Islamist groups.  Dar al-Hijra has certainly fit that bill.  Its website, for example, has helped viewers connect to the sites of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood tentacles.

We know about the Brotherhood’s 1991 memorandum because it was seized from the home of an operative named Ismail Elbarasse.  And wouldn’t you know it:  Elbarasse is a founder of the Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center so admired by the State Department.  He is a close friend and former business partner of Mousa abu Marzook, currently the number-two official in Hamas – and a man who ran that terrorist organization from his home in Virginia until he was finally expelled from the U.S. in the mid-Nineties.[viii]

  • Islamic Centers have become a recipient of radical Islamic educational materials that call for violence against non-believers.

As the 2005 study I (Nina Shea) prepared for Freedom House demonstrated, radical Saudi educational materials have been exported to some of America’s largest mosques, including the Washington Islamic Center in the nation’s capital. . . . This literature calls for Muslims to “spill the blood” of apostates, polytheists (which includes Shiites), homosexuals, and adulterers; declares illegitimate any democratic state governed by “infidel” laws; calls for Muslims to work to establish sharia states in the West through both through aggressive dawa and militant jihad; promotes war to eradicate Israel; and are virulently anti-American.[ix] (emphasis added)

  • The King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles was a recipient of radical Islamic educational materials and harbored two of the 9/11 hijackers.

This mosque has distributed radical literature during the past decade, and it was here that two of the Saudi 9/11 hijackers promptly went upon their arrival in America. They made it their base, receiving assistance and friendship while making preparations for the attack on the Twin Towers.  The mosque’s imam, Fahad al Thumairy, a well-known Wahhabi extremist and Saudi diplomat, was finally expelled by the U.S. in 2003 for suspected terror connections.[x]

  • The Al Farouq Mosque in New York City received radical Islamic educational materials calling for violence in the U.S. and was led by the radical Sheik behind the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

The Al Farouq mosque in Brooklyn also has not been shuttered despite its promotion of jihad, both through radical literature on the subject and through sermons by Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik, who was eventually convicted of seditious conspiracy for planning the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. . . .[xi]

  • Some in New York have cried for tolerance for the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.

If there is a silver lining in the fight over Manhattan’s ‘Ground Zero Mosque,’ it is to see that the events of September 11, 2001 remain strong in the public mind. . . .

It will be an irony of a different sort if the $100 million Islamic center rises 13 stories while the new World Trade Center site, nine years after, remains a pit of dust-covered construction struggling to rejoin the life of New York City.  For the most extreme elements of Islam, this must seem a crude, enduring victory. . . .

…[T]he next-best answer that New York City gave recently was to reassert its belief in freedom of religion and legal title.  In an August 3 speech on the Islamic center’s building approvals, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg summarized those freedoms as ‘tolerance. . . .’

Indeed, in the wake of much praise of Mayor Bloomberg’s defense of civil and religious liberty, let me modestly suggest that he next go to Rome in October and deliver a sequel at Pope Benedict XVI’s synod on what the pope recently called the ‘urgent’ plight of Christian minorities in the Middle East.  Here, Mr. Bloomberg was preaching to the choir.  Try it over there, where it really matters.

We didn’t discover tolerance.  Islam coexisted for centuries with Christianity and Judaism.  No more.  Minorities such as Coptic Christians in Egypt or the Chaldeans and Yazidi in Iraq are being punished or driven out.  Churches are destroyed, not built.  In April, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, described the disappearance of Christians from the Middle East as ‘a possibility that appalls me.’  Iran this week sentenced seven Bahá’i leaders, merely for being Bahái’s. . . .

But here’s what’s galling about the Cordoba House affair.  There is a sense in which these unpopular causes and people always free-ride on the rest of us who defend freedom.  It would be good to see them in return doing their part to keep these principles alive, and that includes Imam Feisal’s unambiguous public support for the embattled Christian minorities in the Middle East.[xii]

Now that we are back in New York, we can review again some of Newt Gingrich’s words:  “The single purpose of jihad is the imposition of sharia . . . . In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society. . . .”[xiii] (emphasis added)

In the almost 10 years since the 9/11 terrorist hijackers flew civilian airliners full with innocent travelers into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, we have been at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda almost everywhere, we have liberated Iraq from one of the world’s most vicious dictators, Saddam Hussein, and we have been contending with Iran, the principal sponsor and supporter of terrorist organizations around the globe, to prevent them from becoming a self-sustaining producer of nuclear weapons.

Does anybody with knowledge of this history not believe that we are at war with radical Islam?

How can anybody believe that any new mosque in this country, especially one located triumphantly at Ground Zero, will be anything but another mosque dedicated to spreading jihad for the destruction of Western culture?

If Shari’a is deemed to be a necessary precondition for Islamicizing our society, you could soon have a wife of one of your neighbors, under American law, divorced for committing adultery, while another neighbor’s wife, under Shari’a law, is stoned to death for committing adultery.  What kind of misinformed person could be persuaded that this is just another little friendly community center?


[i] McCarthy, Andrew C.  “It’s About Sharia.”  National Review.  31 July 2010.  Web.  2 August 2010.  <http://article.nationalreview.com/438932/its-about-sharia/andrew-c-mccarthy>.

[ii] “Politics of Saudi Arabia.”  Wikipedia.  2010.  Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.  27 March 2010.  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia>).

[iii] “Mosque.”  Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.  2010.  Merriam-Webster Online.  13 August 2010.  <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mosque>.

[iv] McCarthy, Andrew C.   “More Moderate Muslims.”  National Review.  7 August 2010.  Web.  9 August 2010.          <http://article.nationalreview.com/439002/more-moderate-muslims/andrew-c-mccarthy>.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii] Id.

[ix] Shea, Nina.  “Ground Zero Mosque:  Who’s in Charge?”  National Review.  9 August 2010.  Web.  9 August 2010.  <http://article.nationalreview.com/439008/ground-zero-mosquebr-whos-in-charge/nina-shea>.

[x] Id.

[xi] Id.

[xii] Henninger, Daniel.  “Tolerance at Ground Zero.”  The Wall Street Journal.  12 August 2010.  Web.  12 August 2010.  <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423463411360770.html?KEYWORDS=tolerance+at+ground+zero>.

[xiii] McCarthy, Andrew C.  “It’s About Sharia.”  National Review.  31 July 2010.  Web.  2 August 2010.  <http://article.nationalreview.com/438932/its-about-sharia/andrew-c-mccarthy>.

Romney and Gingrich on Jihad (and Sharia)

Friday, March 04, 2011, 9:20:15 AM | Andrew BostomGo to full article


Islamic Willful Blindness

 

Islamic Understanding

 

During an interview with US News reporter Dan Gligoff published June 3, 2009, Mitt Romney offered the following bizarre observation about the living Islamic institution of jihad, ostensibly to “clarify” remarks made during an earlier speech at the Heritage Foundation:

I spoke about three major threats America faces on a long term basis. Jihadism is one of them, and that is not Islam.

Romney—despite this distressingly ridiculous pronouncement—is still considered a major, even the front running contender for the Republican Presidential nomination.

Yesterday (3/3/11) former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich launched a website to promote his own potential candidacy for President.

Gingrich, in stark contrast to the muddled and craven nonsense uttered by Romney on jihad during his US News interview, delivered an astute and courageous address this past July 29, 2010, which provided an irrefragably accurate, if blunt characterization of the existential threat posed by Islam’s living, self-professed mission: to impose Sharia, its totalitarian religio-political “law,” globally.

With vanishingly rare intellectual honesty and resolve, Gingrich described how normative Sharia — antithetical to bedrock Western legal principles — by “divine,” immutable diktat, rejects freedom of conscience, while sanctioning violent jihadism, absurd, misogynistc “rules of evidence” (four male witnesses for rape), barbarous punishments (stoning for adultery), and polygamy:

Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world, and the underlying basic belief which is that law comes directly from God and is therefore imposed upon humans and no human can change the law without it being an act of apostasy is a fundamental violation of a tradition in the Western system which goes back to Rome, Athens, and Jerusalem and which has evolved in giving us freedom across the planet on a scale we can hardly imagine and which is now directly threatened by those who would impose it.

Moreover, Gingrich warned about efforts — deliberate, or unwitting — to represent Sharia as a benign system:

So let me also be quite clear that the rules are radical and horrific. I think again it’s fascinating that even when people go out and do polling and they say to, for example, Muslims in general, do you believe in Sharia, they don’t then explain what Sharia is. Sharia becomes like would you like to be a Rotarian and it sounds okay.

Gingrich’s unflinching portrayal of the existential threat Sharia represents — whether or not this totalitarian system is imposed by violent, or non-violent means — was accompanied by a clarion call for concrete measures to oppose any Sharia encroachment on the U.S. legal code:

Stealth jihadis use political, cultural, societal, religious, intellectual tools; violent jihadis use violence. But in fact they’re both engaged in jihad and they’re both seeking to impose the same end state which is to replace Western civilization with a [radical] imposition of Sharia.

 

The fight against Sharia and the madrassas in mosques which teach hatred and fanaticism is the heart of the enemy movement from which the terrorists spring forth. It’s time we had a national debate on this. One of the things I’m going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.

Even if Newt Gingrich decides not to seek the Republican Presidential nomination, he has set the standard for honest and informed discussion of Islamic totalitarianism which should be expected of all contenders—a standard Mitt Romney fails, miserably.


All Articles Copyright © 2007-2011 Dr. Andrew Bostom

Advertisements
Posted in: Uncategorized