Another 7 minutes of testimony and questioning from the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the threat of terrorism and violence. A spokesperson for a Muslim advocacy group suddenly cannot understand plain english and is then defended by a Senator from the Democrats.

"Why did your organisation request these terms (i.e. Jihad, Muslim, Islam) removed from official reports" and "do you agree that there is no radicalisation among the Muslim community?" Too hard to answer apparently.

Watch and learn, this is how it all too commonly goes. Do you think the questioner is badgering her? Seven minutes.

The admirable whistleblower, Mr Haney testifies concerning the way the current American administration has constrained legitimate pursuit of jihadis and those wishing to advance the cause of Sharia. He brings some fascinating information, I highly recommend this 7 minute video.

It is of interest to also watch the man in the right of the picture beside Mr Haney. This is the President of the far-left Southern Poverty Law Centre, Richard Cohen. Obviously extremely uncomfortable with Haney's talk, he was next to give testimony and spoke about the ongoing threat of.... far right violence. Read the article at Jihad Watch on his testimony. It has some interesting background on the SPLC and Mr Cohen. It quite makes sense of his facial expressions during this video.

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses recent recommendations by David Petraeus and Larry Summers that Americans should censor themselves in order to avoid offending Muslims, and explains why these suggestions are wrongheaded and dangerous for free societies.

Six and a half minutes.

A Canadian Professor of leadership and cultural studies, John Stackhouse, who has taught Islam for 20 years corrects the record. Five minutes.

Must watch.

Five minutes.

Philip Haney, self-proclaimed nerdy entomologist, is the kind of person we need to save us from the deepening swamp of disinformation.

This is inside information concerning the real problem presented by the increase of Muslim influence in the West. Again, it is not Muslims as a group, it is a sub-group which seeks to promote and eventually impose Sharia. Neither Jihad nor the Islamic State are the real problem - jihad is a tactic serving the goal of imposing Sharia.

In America's case it was the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 which presented irrefutable evidence of Muslim Brotherhood influence in America. Such influence should have been swiftly ended after that trial, instead it has steadily grown.When one of Hillary Clinton's top advisors, Huma Abedin, has strong historic ties to Muslim Brotherhood organisations you know that America, and with them all the rest of us, are in deep trouble.

After Mr Haney speaks there are several other informed people that are also well worth listening to.

Grab yourself a coffee and focus on what Haney says for these 27 minutes. This is how things are in the USA and quite likely how things are going in NZ too. As I keep telling people: There's nothing in our water that will magically stop the advance of Sharia. Every attitude we have, our openness, our laws - all major themes are shared with other Western countries. All we have going for us is our geographical isolation and the ability to see what our future may look like by watching other countries in the world today.

We had better be paying attention.

I made brief reference to these verses in the previous post. Here is a more full explanation of them from the wonderful Dr Qureshi.

Seven minutes.

In this twelfth segment of his Basics of Islam series, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer explains hudud punishments, the punishments for that are mandated by Islamic law and considered to have been commanded by Allah.

Spencer refers to Qur'an Sura 5 ayah 33. Let's take a quick look at that. The verse before it, v32, is the one we are quoted incessantly to demonstrate how peaceful Islam is:~

"Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors."

Now go to the next verse and put v32 in context:~
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,"

So, not only is the Qur'an in v32 quoting a teaching given to Jews, not Muslims, but v33 explains that anyone who engages in the loosely defined "corruption in the land" is liable to terrible punishments. Contrary to its popular apologetical usage the passage doesn't mean at all that Islam values human life in a similar way to Judaism or Christianity.

It is Pakistan's hudud laws that have led to Asia Bibi's imprisonment awaiting her death sentence for the last 7 years for drinking water from a Muslim's cup. As I have mentioned before, Spencer stipulates it is important not to discount the Hadith, which leads to stoning for adultery as opposed to the Qur'an's punishment of whipping. Stoning is the punishment under Sharia. There is no place in the 21st century for these laws.

Again, Muslims are not the problem. Sharia, including its hudud laws, are the problem.

Four minute video.

File this under: Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad.

Immediately after the Orlando attack I noted the comment of an LGBT activist, Chase Strangio, who blamed Christians and Republicans for the massacre. At the time I said that after such a traumatic experience we'd be best to give him some time to grieve and then perhaps he'd be capable of a rational response. However it seems the contagion has spread.

The National Review notes that last weekend's annual Gay Pride parade in New York had the above banner at its head - and Hillary Clinton in its midst.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Yesterday, New York City held its annual LGBT Pride parade, one of many such celebrations across the country as part of the LGBT Pride month of June. Ostensibly, the pride parade is a celebration of progress and change — however, love and joy were co-mingled with some mind-boggling rhetoric. A widely circulated picture from the parade shows a group carrying a rainbow banner with the words “REPUBLICAN HATE KILLS” written across in large black letters — obviously reinforcing the post-Orlando leftist narrative that conservatives were to blame for the terrorist attack because of their marginalization of the gay community.
...
[However t]he shooter at Pulse was a registered Democrat. He voted in Florida primaries. He was a big fan of Hillary Clinton, who was marching in the same parade the banner was displayed in. He had no affiliation with the Republican party in any way. ... how can you link a certain political affiliation to a terrorist attack when the perpetrator is known to have been affiliated with the opposing party?"
<<<<<<<<<<

Not to mention that he said he performed the murders for Islam & Allah, pledged fealty to the Caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr, while he was murdering people and afterwards actually had the Islamic State claim responsibility for the attack. All of which seems to mean absolutely nothing in some circles. (Oh, and by the way, we've also since found that his mother-in-law was a HAMAS supporter.)

But wait! There's more! The vile Republican cancer spreads even as we sleep unaware in our beds....

Through their diabolical powers of intrigue and by use of Republican operatives the Islamic State itself has been infiltrated by the villainous Republican scum! What other reason could an informed & unbiased observer find for the following?

From Jihad Watch:~
"Islamic State throws four gay men off rooftop, taunts gays with photos of murders bearing #LoveWins hashtag

While some members of the LGBT community still do not recognize the murderous hatred jihadists have for gay people, the Islamic State demonstrated that hatred by throwing four gay men off of a high rooftop head first in front of thousands of onlookers who had gathered to watch the execution. "
<<<<<<<<<<

I mean, what other reason could there be, right? Unless it was due to guns. Or mental health issues. Right? It has to be Conservative Christian, Republican homophobia!

Even if I have to say so myself, I did a fairly good job of pointing out this sort of nonsense would happen in my very first post on Orlando. But even I wasn't prepared for this.

Here's what I wrote then:~

"Yes he was a real Muslim. Yes he committed mass murder as he saw it as a service to Allah which would gain extra merit if performed during the Holy month of Ramadan. Yes he was endorsed by the Islamic State. Yes he referred repeatedly to Allah and Scripture during the murders. Yes he regularly attended his mosque.

But no, we will be told that he had mental health issues. That he was an outlier and not in community with Muslims. That Islam does not condone the killing of innocents. Or gays. We will be told that we need to protect the Muslim community from violence and hate speech. All this while Facebook and other social media almost immediately actively censored and suspended any user who dares to shine the light on Islamic Shariah teachings following Sunday's attack."

As I say, the contagion's spreading.

Bill Warner's latest video.
"Brain physiology is such that we feel good when we help others. The Golden Rule, treating others as we would be treated, is hard wired into our physical makeup. However, Mohammed attacked each and every neighbor. Attacking your neighbors is not an expression of the Golden Rule. But, there is no Golden Rule in Islam.

A Kafir is worse than an animal and is hated by Allah. Twelve verses in the Koran say that a Muslim can be friendly to a Kafir, but should never be a true friend. Sympathy allows us to put ourselves in the place of others. This sympathy is outside of Islamic doctrine. In Islamic doctrine those Muslims who are true friends with a Kafir are not truly Islamic.

My personal opinion is that this lack of sympathy for Kafirs is the worst part of Islam. The Koran places barriers between Muslims and Kafir, which violates the idea of humanity being of one spirit."

Four minutes.

It is reported that the larger American Muslim community has donated US$87,000 to the family of Omar Mateen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This morning, Hamza Aadil Malak, a representative from the Islamic Cultural Center of Villa Heights, a popular Mosque located in Northern California, ... made the following statement during his interview with Crane, “Though we condemn the actions of Omar Mateen and will continue to stand with the victims of this unexpected tragedy, we must also stand with the members of our community. The family (of Omar Mateen) are unfortunately victims to this tragedy by association and the support we provide will be unwavering during this difficult time.” At this time, additional members or leaders within the Muslim community have largely declined to comment on the donation.
<<<<<<<<<<

Certainly one sympathises with those innocent family members and would want to offer assistance to them. There is a large question though over who among them really is innocent. The father was and likely still is a Taliban supporter. A known Radical in almost every sense of the word. The article states that the wife has absconded and that "It’s clear to authorities that Omar Mateen’s father Seddique Mateen, knows where Noor Salman is and has maintained contact with her since her disappearance on June 15th 2016."

It's also reported that Mateen turned over his share of his house to his sister and brother-in-law for $10 in April. While this may in some instances be a perfectly normal and legal practise, in hindsight, perhaps for an innocent family it might have raised a red flag. It seems not. Mateen's wife drove him to “case” Disney World and the Pulse nightclub. There is a good chance she will be prosecuted for not warning authorities about her husband's intentions to attack the Pulse.

Apart from the couple's small child, an outsider might wonder who it is that is innocent among the family.

It is also reported that he is being buried in an unmarked grave in the only Muslim-only cemetery in the area. At least it is unmarked. But why have him buried among Muslims in the only exclusively Muslim cemetery anyway? Why not bury him somewhere - anywhere - else? Some might see it as a missed opportunity to disown the perpetrator of the worst shooting mass murder in America's history and distance him from a Muslim community sick of the negative publicity.

However, instead of following my helpful suggestions the wider Muslim community, through various Muslim charities, formally donated a lot of money to Mateen's family yet none (that we know of) formally to the family or survivors of the massacre. Local Islamic authorities in Florida also decided that he should still be buried in the only cemetery dedicated to Muslims in the area even though the natural response of many would be to suggest that he be buried anywhere else as the Islamic community disowned him. Mateen's family are not helping authorities.

Why might these things have happened?

I reproduce the following article by the Pakistan born Canadian Muslim Tarek Fatah in full. Like the Kurds of Northern Syria/Iraq Mr Fatah is a Marxist (one of the "left"!), yet still holds to his Muslim faith.

In view of all the lunacy surrounding the imagined motives of Omar Mateen Mr Fatah states the obvious. Yet he cannot be a racist Islamophobe - so perhaps some may listen. From the Toronto Sun.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
West bowing to radical Islam

Almost 10 years ago, Maclean’s magazine published an essay by Mark Steyn titled, “The future belongs to Islam”. In it, he suggested, “the West is growing old and enfeebled, and lacks the will to rebuff those who would supplant it.”

It was an extract from Steyn’s then best-selling book America Alone, where he concluded, “It’s the end of the world as we’ve known it.”
Steyn wrote: “We are witnessing the end of the late 20th-century progressive welfare democracy. The children and grandchildren of those fascists and republicans who waged a bitter civil war for the future of Spain now shrug when a bunch of foreigners blow up their capital. Too sedated even to sue for terms, they capitulate instantly."

There was an outcry among Canada’s Islamists, who took Steyn and Maclean’s to the Ontario and British Columbia Human Rights Commissions. My fellow Sun columnist, Farzana Hassan, and I wrote a rejoinder in Maclean’s titled, “Mark Steyn has a right to be wrong.”

Today, I recognize, Steyn was right and I was wrong.

If there were any doubts the West is abdicating its responsibility to stand up for Western values, the amateur attempts by the FBI to cover up the Islamist nature of the Orlando attack, removed them.

At first, the FBI refused to even mention the fact the Orlando jihadi was inspired by ISIS, but after criticism, released the text of his 911 calls, but not the audio.

It replaced the word “Allah” with “‘God”, despite knowing precise words matter in truth-telling. It was clearly an attempt to make the attack appear homophobic, not Islamist.

President Barack Obama and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton deflected attention from the obvious Islamic nature of the terrorism to a debate about gun control.

An FBI spokesman did the same when he downplayed the role of Islamism in the attack, editorializing that the killer, “does not represent the religion of Islam, but a perverted view, which based on what we know today, was inspired by extremist killers.”

In Toronto, Premier Kathleen Wynne, Canada’s first openly gay premier, also refused to address the Islamist nature of the attack, saying, “one cannot fight homophobia with Islamphobia”, at a vigil for the Orlando victims.

This is nonsense. Orlando was an act of Islamic terror and of Islamofascism, a doctrine of hatred towards the West and what it stands for, including LGBTQ rights. It holds secular liberal democracy in contempt, hates non-Muslims, degrades women and is racist towards non-Arabs, especially black Africans. It is a supremacist death cult that has the end times as its ultimate goal.

Chia Barsen, a 32-year old Canadian Marxist, was 10 when his family fled Islamic Iran, political refugees escaping the murderous rule of its barbaric ayatollahs.

Commenting on the liberal left’s reaction to the Oralando massacre, Barsen wrote on his blog:

“Blaming guns for the Islamist murder of 49 people in the Orlando gay club, is like saying that Zyklon B gas was the cause of the Holocausts and not the Nazis. Gun control is a clear and present issue in the U.S. and there are countless episodes of shootings in the U.S. to justify the removal of all guns (not just automatic weapons), from the streets. However, piggybacking on the gun control debate and not making any mention of the threat of Political Islam and Islamism, is the furthering of a political agenda and not simple ignorance or apathy.”

Exactly.

It's been a tough couple of weeks.

Here is the Reason we do what we do.

>>>>>>>>>>
Jesu, joy of man's desiring,
Holy wisdom, love most bright;
Drawn by Thee, our souls aspiring
Soar to uncreated light.

Word of God, our flesh that fashioned,
With the fire of life impassioned,
Striving still to truth unknown,
Soaring, dying round Thy throne.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Life itself became a man.

A short piece, the most beautiful music.
"Soaring
Dying
Round thy throne"
(not alone)

In light of the two posts I made on the comments of the Malaysian Mufti and the President of al-Azhar I thought I'd write a quick  note to the Federation of Islamic Associations of New Zealand
and seek some clarification. I paste it below.

I'm confident that in a couple of days we'll have some excellent answers from the FIANZ which will either urgently try to explain the comments or try to distance itself from those comments. I really look forward to what they have to say and will make the most of the bridge-building opportunity.

Watch this space.

>>>>>>>
Good afternoon,
I see that in the last few days the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar University in Egypt recently stated that those who leave Islam should be put to death (Arabic here http://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/966122 English here http://www.raymondibrahim.com/2016/06/24/egypts-top-moderate-cleric-apostasy-a-crime-punishable-by-death/ ).

Also a Mufti in Malaysia has said that the secular political party DAP should be considered kafir harbi (http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/346463 ).

I am absolutely sure that the FIANZ is horrified by these statements and completely rejects them as all Kiwis do. But I would like to hear the FIANZ's reasons so that I can do my part to help bridge the gap between Muslims and other Kiwis. Could you please answer the following questions? I think it would be a terrific help.

Can the FIANZ tell me its position on these statements?
Are they acceptable to the FIANZ?
Do they represent true Islam? If they do not represent true Islam can the FIANZ please explain to me why?
What steps is the FIANZ taking to distance itself from such statements and ensure such erroneous beliefs are not being taught in NZ mosques?

Please reply in the comments section on my website www.IslamAndkiwis.com under this heading:~ "QUESTIONS FOR FIANZ"

Thank you very much for you time and kind regards,
Graeme Howarth

An interesting 12 minute video from the wonderful David Wood, who, though a diagnosed psychopath (yes, really) sure doesn't act like one here. Unlike all the critics he quotes. What is real love and does Ramadan and Islam actually lead to it? Strong language warning (unless you avert your eyes), but at the end of it Wood challenges the value of the religious customs of Islam to change human nature into something resembling the nature of the true God. He offers some help.

Funny and witty as usual while making some telling points.

From Jihad Watch.
"The DAP is the Democratic Action Party, which advocates secularism in Malaysia. Pahang mufti Abdur Rahman Osman is saying that members of this party, because they oppose Islamic principles, should be put to death."

Here is the original story. If you're a paid subscriber you can read it all, otherwise there's just this snippet:~

"Pahang mufti Abdul Rahman Osman has confirmed stating DAP is against the implementation of Islamic principles, and therefore falls under the category of kafir harbi.

It is an Islamic belief that kafir harbi refers to non-believers who can be slain for waging war against Islam."
<<<<<<<<<

Kafir=unbeliever in Islam
Harbi=someone who dwells outside house of Islam (dar al Islam)in the House of War (dar al Harb) and who fights against Islam.

Three things:
1) This is not happening in the Islamic State or even Saudi Arabia. It is happening in moderate, tolerant, Malaysia.
2) Like Egypt's previous and current Grand Muftis this man also seems to misunderstand the peaceful teachings of his loving and inclusive religion. Or maybe they really do understand the teachings all too well.
3) Read the comments in the original article. One assumes mainly from fellow Malay Muslims. Not one agrees with him. In fact they're pretty scathing. However, what about the children of these good people in the years to come if this Mufti's interpretation of Islam - and the Grand Muftis' interpretation of Islam - take hold? And why wouldn't they take hold when such authoritative figures are teaching them?

The man in the photo above, Ali Gomaa, though not the subject of this article was Grand Mufti of Egypt from 2003-2013, succeeding the man who is the subject of this article, Ahmed el-Tayeb.

Top Muslim scholars with fine intellects, wonderful educations and great responsibilities apparently misunderstand their peaceful religion. How could that be? And some wonder why Samoa is considering joining other countries as they question banning Islam. My dear Muslim friends, such statements and such people are something you need to publicly denounce. We are waiting.

Please consider that Ahmed al-Tayeb:

• is considered a good-faith dialogue partner by the Vatican (see my previous post here);
• is a renowned "moderate";
• has a PhD in Islamic Philosophy from the Sorbonne;
• is the current President of al-Azhar University in Cairo; and
• was the Grand Mufti of Egypt for 2 years.

Surely one may safely presume that he knows his religion.

Ray Ibrahim contributes again:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
The line between “moderate” and “radical” Muslim continues to fade. On the question of apostasy in Islam—whether a born or converted Muslim has the right to abandon Islam for another or no religion—the radical position is well known: unrepentant apostates are to be punished with death.

Yet one of the Muslim world’s greatest authorities, the Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar University in Egypt recently made the same pronouncement.

Last week on his daily televised show running throughout Ramadan, Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb—who was recently invited to the Vatican and warmly embraced by Pope Francis and is described in Western media as a “moderate”—said that “Contemporary apostasy presents itself in the guise of crimes, assaults, and grand treason, so we deal with it now as a crime that must be opposed and punished.”

While his main point was that those who do not follow Islam are prone to being criminals, he especially emphasized those whose apostasy is apparent as being a “great danger to Islamic society. And that’s because his apostasy is a result of his hatred for Islam and a reflection of his opposition to it. In my opinion, this is grand treason.”

Sheikh al-Tayeb added what all Muslims know: “Those learned in Islam [al-fuqaha] and the imams of the four schools of jurisprudence consider apostasy a crime and agree that the apostate must either renounce his apostasy or else be killed.”

Finally, for good measure, he cited a hadith, or tradition, of Islam’s prophet permitting the killing of fellow Muslims under three circumstances: adultery, murder, and apostasy.

Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb holds a Ph. D in Islamic philosophy from the Paris-Sorbonne University, and has been president of Al-Azhar University since 2003. Between 2002 and 2003, el-Tayeb served as Grand Mufti of Egypt.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I admit it - I have a problem with this doctrine and with people who espouse this doctrine.
Does that make me a nativist, xenophobic, racist, bigot?
Or a realist?

Raymond Ibrahim has a challenging new article, based on the recent consideration of Western Samoa to ban Islam.

As Ibrahim states: "Note the sheer simplicity of the Samoan position: there are dangerous elements within Islam—a simple, obvious fact for anyone with a shred of common sense—and Samoans don’t want this “future threat to the country.”"

He also references Trump's notorious statement about temporarily limiting Muslim immigration until procedures have been sorted out. I need to point out that I am not a great fan of Trump. But what I am a fan of is reality based policy making around Islam. Please - point me to another prominent politician in the West who is even talking about the problem of Muslim Sharia law and radicalisation in anything more than the blandest generalities. I'm listening.

>>>>>>>>>>>
As liberals and progressives continue to portray Donald Trump as an intolerant brute for suggesting a ban on Muslims entering the United States, “until we figure out what’s going on,” left unsaid (perhaps intentionally) is that he’s hardly the first international personage to suggest this.

Most recently, the heads of the Christian church of Samoa called for a complete ban on Islam:
Samoa’s council of churches has welcomed the prime minister’s call to review the religious freedom provisions of the constitution.

Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi recently said the country’s supreme law may be changed to recognise Christian principles and teachings, not just in the preamble.

However the Secretary General of the Samoa Council of Churches, Reverend Ma’auga Motu, said he would go a step further and ban the religion of Islam.

He said even though most Samoans are Christian, Islam poses a future threat to the country.

“We are not going too far, no,” Reverend Motu said. “We are still wanting our own people to be prevented from this kind of influence, even though there are so many people who are good people but still there are some dangerous people among them who might come and threaten our peace.”

There is a small Muslim population in Samoa that gathers at a mosque and there is the Samoa Muslim League based near Apia.  [According to the 2001 census, 0.03% of Samoan residents indicated they were Muslim].

Note the sheer simplicity of the Samoan position: there are dangerous elements within Islam—a simple, obvious fact for anyone with a shred of common sense—and Samoans don’t want this “future threat to the country.”

Samoan Christian leaders understand that if most Muslims will not engage in subversive acts, some always will: “even though there are so many people who are good people but still there are some dangerous people among them who might come and threaten our peace.”

Indeed, even now, ISIS operatives continue to pass for refugees into the West—to say nothing of the many like-minded Muslims, both those entering and born in the West.

Instead of burdening themselves with trying to determine who is who—ultimately an exercise in futility since the “moderate” always morphs into the “radical” without notice—the heads of Samoa’s Christian church seek to ban the whole thing.   They understand that if you ingest a beverage that is only 1% poisoned, it won’t matter that 99% of it was clean.  You will still suffer.  The only sure way to preserve your health is not to put it into your body in the first place.

Unfortunately for the people of the West, most of their leaders are more interested in maintaining feel good narratives than they are in preventing cancerous cells into the body politic.  The thousands of Americans killed by jihadi terror over the years—most recently, 49 in Orlando—are just the price the elite are willing to pay to keep lies like multiculturalism afloat.

More commonsensical Samoans know that the only sure way of not dying from Russian Roulette is: don’t play Russian Roulette.  In this, the Pacific state joins nations as diverse as Hungary and Myanmar, both of which are vociferous in their attempts to ban or minimize Islam’s presence from their soil.

All of these nations get criticized by liberal media and talking heads that have no criticism for worse behavior from Muslim nations.  Non-Muslims are barred from becoming citizens in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Muslim nations.  In the Saudi kingdom, not a single non-Muslim house of worship—not a church, synagogue, or temple—is permitted to exist.  Non-Muslims may labor in these countries, but as undesirable “infidels,” they are denied citizenship.

Yet, to liberal media and talking heads, that’s okay: it’s Muslims’ right to allow and bar whomever they wish.  But when nations like Hungary, Myanmar, and Samoa try to ban Islam—not out of religious bigotry or because Muslims are “undesirable infidels,” but because of its well documented violent and subversive tendencies—then woe, all is woe.

Perhaps the most important lesson here is that Trump is not alone.  The real question shouldn’t be “how dare he propose such a thing?!” but rather, why are growing numbers of diverse nations—European, Asian, now Pacific islanders—all reluctant to let Islam within their borders?
<<<<<<<<<<

If we continue to deny that there is a problem actually resident within the very DNA of Islam then we will face more and more countries and areas simply denying access for Muslims.

Don't like the sound of that? Better get talking.

From the Investigative Project on terrorism.
>>>>>>>>>>
"The father of Orlando mass shooter Omar Mateen has longstanding connections to prominent Islamist groups in the U.S. ... Seddique Matin is listed as president of a then-new American Muslim Alliance (AMA) chapter in Fort Pierce. ... AMA's political activist wing, the American Muslim Political Coordinating Council (AMPCC), includes leading Islamist organizations in the U.S. including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), and the American Muslim Council (AMC).

AMA no longer exists as a registered nonprofit and it last filed tax returns in 2010. But the organization continues to maintain an active Facebook account. In its posts, the AMA refuses to consider any Islamist motivation for the attack and lays the blame for Omar Mateen's massacre which killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub solely on the country's lax gun laws.

The organization has a history of working with radical Islamist groups and has issued statements in support of several terrorists later convicted in the U.S. The FBI cut off outreach communication with CAIR, for example, after uncovering evidence placing the organization and its leaders in a U.S.-based Hamas-support network.
...
Years after working with AMA and its Islamist allies, the senior Mateen, who hosts the Durand Jirga Show from California on the YouTube channel Payam-e-Afghan, has been reported to be an ideological supporter of the Taliban. He can be seen in one video declaring his candidacy for the Afghan presidency. In another video, Mateen can be seen praising the Afghan Taliban and referring to the terrorist group as "our warrior brothers," the Washington Post reports.

While little information is known about Seddique Mateen's work with the AMA, the 1997 newsletter shows the Orlando shooter's father has worked for years with some of the most visible and radical Islamists in the United States.
<<<<<<<<<<<<

There is more, do read the whole thing.
By the way - I tried hard to find a picture of the father smiling. Would you believe the only ones I could find were of him in a uniform with the Afghan flag?

Several days ago a mujahid murdered two police officers, a man and his wife, in their own home in France. After the murders he paused to post a livestream video of his thinking and motivation for this. Part of it appears below.

Note that he appears to be reading from a prepared text and that he could have escaped before the Police arrived and killed him, but chose not to. He refers to the example of the prophet and of the four Rightly Guided Caliphs - we are left wondering the same thing we are always left wondering: How did he so radically misconstrue the "true, peaceful" teachings of the prophet and decide they were violent? Is it now my fault if I  notice that, far from being peaceful, many of the authoritative words of the prophet taught warfare on unbelievers? Should I ignore what this man states as his motivation and look elsewhere?

He pledges allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State. He addresses his fellow Muslims and challenges them to the same level of zeal he displays. Missed out of the video are his musings on whether he should kill the couple's 3 year old child and that he performed the attack because the Europeans were closing the door of Hijra (migration).

Here is a man willing to cut a woman's throat and truly believe he is "doing a service to God". I don't want to make light of all the bloodshed we are increasingly seeing, but regarding these murders, seeing as there were no guns involved should we now blame knives? Maybe the man was gay? Or had a mental illness? Perhaps he was a pudgy kid who was always teased?

What other reasons can be contrived to keep us from the obvious issue - why is it only Islam that produces such people? Another good question might be: Why aren't all Muslims doing these things? Why are they believing and acting differently when they ostensibly follow the same religion?

Judging by the final response to Orlando we seem to have finally decided that any and all murders done by Muslims - in the name of Islam, who pepper their talks with references to Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari & Sahih Muslim (proving they have a more than just cursory knowledge of Islam) and dedicate themselves to the Caliph Abu Bakr - have nothing at all to do with Islam. In fact it's considered rude to mention these things.

Breitbart has an article on the video here. It includes the following:~

"Also in the sights of Larossi Abballa was the government of France and the Euro 2016 football tournament. Abballa laughed off Europe’s attempts to close down mass migration of Muslims into the continent, remarking “as you close your gates, we open the gates of Jihad on your own soil”. Of the football tournament, he said it “will be a cemetery… we will have no mercy”.

Abballa’s final critiques were for “moderate Muslims”, who he warned would be “punished” by Allah, and for Imams of moderate mosques. Criticising them for teaching a different interpretation of Islam, he blasted: “What are you saying? Jihad is an obligation! The original obligation. Muslim lands are occupied. It is obligatory for every Muslim to relieve Islam”.

Just before the video ends, Abballa’s final recorded words before he was shot dead by police marksmen were: “That’s it, the police are around me. I’m keeping some surprises for them. And I’ll do it with the help of Allah. Those who are in contact with the Islamic State, tell them that I obeyed the call. That’s it, my brothers. Call Allah to help me. Call Allah to accept me as a Martyr”.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
 
2+1/2 minute video with English subtitles.

Jim Hanson from the excellent American Centre for Security Policy discusses the failure to screen incoming migrants for terror threats and how to ban Jihadists from entry based on the totalitarian ideology of sharia. Hanson focusses on Sharia compliant Muslims being the problem and differentiates them from moderate Muslims.

The video opens with the Director of the CIA, John Brennan, highlighting the likelihood of mujihaddin infiltrating migrant movements into the West.

Three minutes.

I linked to a video by Bill Whittle on gun deaths in America in an earlier post. In this video Mr Whittle is now really ticked off about the general denial of reason and evidence surrounding Orlando. He reminds me here of the Hulk: "Don't make me angry. You won't like me when I'm angry". This is what an annoyed American Conservative looks like.
 
In his anger though he does a good job of describing some classical Islamic theology. He also provides a stinging critique of President Obama which I think is very well founded. He covers many news items I include on this website. Similarly he advocates on behalf of peaceful Muslims who just want to fit in and get on with their lives. In essence he offers a pithy, more ironic version of Sam Harris' video that I posted earlier today.

It's only 4 minutes but the video contains some truly disturbing images. If you're not comfortable with images of blood & bodies then think twice about watching it. Because of its graphic nature I'm even putting the video button below the fold. Again, like one other post of this nature, and for the same reasons as then, I am rating it MEN ONLY.

WARNING EXTREMELY GRAPHIC IMAGES IN VIDEO BELOW

Leading Atheist Sam Harris weighs in on the responses of Mr Trump, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton to Orlando. This is a wonderful response from a non-religious, rational empiricist. He really has problems with Trump ( the "preposterous candidacy" of a "dangerous incompetent") but he takes huge exception to the overwhelmingly nonsensical response from many quarters of "the left" - who are supposed to champion human rights - and the media and politicians. Being solidly of "the Left" Harris still does not quite understand those of us with genuine Christian faith, so make allowances - but enjoy the remaining clarity.

The chap who posted this video offers a couple of useful insights too.
Nineteen minutes - share with your atheist or agnostic friends..

I post here an article and also a link to a 3 minute video on the seizure of weapons in France subsequent to raids on Mosques there after the Paris attacks.

"From Truth and Action January 2016: 'The Interior minister said French authorities have conducted 2,235 searches, made 263 arrests and seized 334 weapons, including 34 military-grade weapons' ... Those numbers at that time indicated that 11% of the mosque raids turned up radical Islamists."

Perhaps 160 Mosques are in the process of being closed down by authorities due to jihad ties. Full article here, thanks to World News Politics.

Furthermore Germany is having its own problems as this translated article from the Gates of Vienna shows.

NRW: Arsenal of weapons with “heavy war weaponry” uncovered near mosque

An arsenal of weapons of radical Islamists was uncovered in NRW (North Rhine-Westphalia). The “top secret assignment” took one week and brought a heavy war arsenal to the surface. This is what the Hessian delegate Ismail Tipi (CDU) says.

According to information from the Hessian CDU delegate Ismail Tipi, a “top secret assignment” of the SEK (Spezialeinsatzkommandos, special operations commandos) in North Rhine Westphalia was carried out. In the cooler room of a vegetable vendor near a mosque, weapons were found and seized. “According to my information on this particular operation, an arsenal with heavy war weaponry was found. The danger of arming of the fundamentalists and Salafists willing to resort to violence is very high in Germany. This was shown clearly by this secret operation,” said Tipi on Friday at a press conference.

The expert on extremism also assumes that weapons are have been stockpiled in other cities. For instance, the Hamburg intelligence service for the protection of the constitution also speaks of an increased number of supporters of armed jihad.

In the meantime more than 300 people in Hamburg have been identified as supporters of armed jihad. “Information about this is increasing. The fear is that Salafist sleepers, jihadists and IS terrorists in Germany may find support through foreign intelligence services that aren’t friendly to German interests. Through these weapons arsenals, militant jihadists and sleepers will be equipped with weapons in their preparations for attacks,” the Turkish-born delegate says.

“Politicians have to use straight talk”

Tipi warns: “If these worries prove to be true, we can expect that these secret weapons arsenals will be used for terrorist attacks not only in Germany, but in all of Europe. It would be extremely negligent not to address this danger and do everything to find these arsenals.” One problem is that many battle-seasoned young Salafists returned to Germany from combat zones and implanted themselves within the stream of migrants, the press briefing further mentions.

“We have to see this threat and we need to act fast. Here, our security administration is asked to look at this very clearly and vigorously, to investigate precisely, and to share as much of the information as possible among relevant administrations and services,” Tipi says.

And he demands: “Politicians have to use straight talk, they have to address the possible dangers and threats, they have to educate the population and call for a full awakening, and ask them to report to the police any type of suspicious activity. The problem of Salafism and IS terror will get bigger and bigger if we don’t all respond. Here, each and everyone of us is asked to step up.”

Tipi’s political engagement against radical Salafists has already led to death threats against him.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Note that the guy leading this is a Turk who has received death threats from jihadis. So we understand that, while there is within Islam's DNA a core doctrine of using violence to advance the religion, most Muslims are actually either unaware of it, uninterested in it or disagree with it.

This does not let them off the hook for it though. Any more than when I practise a form of Anglicanism that eschews violence and political goals while some other Anglicans engage in assassinations or terror attacks to further "the power of the Church" in the name of Anglicanism. They are still Anglicans and it is not enough to merely issue the occasional strongly worded public denunciation. I, personally, need to be doing all I can to root them out and crush them. Simply by being Anglican they must share some places of worship or know some people who are more mainline - people I might know - if not how could they convince people to agree & support them or possibly join them in reaching what they believe to be scripturally based goals?

Nothing would stop me vindicating my lovely faith and my lovely God. If I don't personally, actively toil to defeat them there may come a day when the whole world holds me, personally, accountable for their growing evil influence.

And if I hadn't done all I could to stop them, the whole world would be right.

Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer explains why the Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist organization, and is not a bulwark against jihad terrorism, as is often claimed.

Five minutes.