For those Americans who naively believe that American Muslims are just like every other religious group, the following story should awaken you. They are not like us!
Shariah law is not American law (although after this week, we wonder what the status of our law is) and should not be allowed to get ANY foothold in the United States. If you give Muslims a inch they will take a mile.
Additionally, when a substantial number of Muslims believe that violence is an appropriate response to anyone or any organization which insults Mohammed. Scary!
Non-Muslim Americans have been duped by pro-Muslim PC advocates that Muslims are just like you. They are not, their belief system is violent and anyone who believes differently deserves the name dimmi.
Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists' Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad
Author(s): Press Release Source: centerforsecuritypolicy.org. Article date: June 23rd, 2015
According to a new nationwide online survey of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.
The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities.
Overall, the survey, which was conducted by The Polling Company for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), suggests that a substantial number of Muslims living in the United States see the country very differently than does the population overall. The sentiments of the latter were sampled in late May in another CSP-commissioned Polling Company nationwide survey.
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.” When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).
More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.
These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Center’s earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
By contrast, the broader survey found that a 63% majority of those sampled said that “the freedom to engage in expression that offends Muslims or anybody else is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and cannot be restricted.”
Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of the land in this country.
Center for Security Policy President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed:
The findings of the Center for Security Policy’s survey of Muslims in America suggests that we have a serious problem. The Pew Research Center estimates that the number of Muslims in the United States was 2.75 million in 2011, and growing at a rate of 80-90 thousand a year. If those estimates are accurate, the United States would have approximately 3 million Muslims today. That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that shariah is “The Muslim God Allah’s law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad.”
It is incumbent on the many American Muslims who want neither to live under the brutal repression of shariah nor to impose it on anybody else to work with the rest of us who revere and uphold the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution in protecting our nation against the Islamic supremacists and their jihad.
After some of its quarter of a million Muslims headed to join ISIS, Quebec decided the answer was a $2 million anti-radicalization center headed by a specialist in cultural sensitivity. But if you’re about to be beheaded by a masked ISIS Jihadist, a specialist in cultural sensitivity isn’t going to help you much.
Western governments nevertheless keep rolling out their culturally sensitive approaches to fighting ISIS.
The key element in Obama’s strategy for fighting ISIS isn’t the F-15E Strike Eagle, it’s a Twitter account run by a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer which claims to “Counter Violent Extremism” by presenting moderate Islamists like Al Qaeda as positive role models for the Islamic State’s social media supporters.
So far 75% of planes flown on combat missions against ISIS return without engaging the enemy, but the culturally sensitive State Department Twitter account has racked up over 5,000 tweets and zero kills.
Cultural sensitivity hasn’t exactly set Iraq on fire in fighting ISIS and deradicalization programs here start from the false premise that there is a wide gap between a moderate and extremist Islam. Smiling news anchors daily recite new stories about a teenager from Kentucky, Boston or Manchester getting “radicalized” and joining ISIS to the bafflement of his parents, mosque and community.
And who is to blame for all this mysterious radicalization? It’s not the parents. It certainly can’t be the moderate local mosque with its stock of Jihadist CDs and DVDs being dispensed from under the table.
The attorney for the family of Usaama Rahim, the Muslim terrorist who plotted to behead Pamela Geller, claims that his radicalization came as a “complete shock” to them.
It must have come as a truly great shock to his brother Imam Ibrahim Rahim who claimed that his brother was shot in the back and that the Garland cartoon attack had been staged by the government.
It must have come as an even bigger shock to Imam Abdullah Faaruuq, the Imam linked to Usaama Rahim and his fellow terrorist conspirators, as well as the Tsarnaev brothers, who had urged Muslims to “grab onto the gun and the sword.” The culturally insensitive truth about Islamic ‘radicalization’ is that it is incremental.
There is no peaceful Islam. Instead of two sharply divided groups, peaceful Islam and extremist Islam, there is a spectrum of acceptable terrorism.
Muslim institutions have different places on that spectrum depending on their allegiances and tactics, but the process of radicalization is rarely a sharp break from the past for any except converts to Islam.
The latest tragic victim of radicalization is Munther Omar Saleh; a Muslim man living in New York City who allegedly plotted to use a Tsarnaev-style pressure cooker bomb in a major landmark such as the Statue of Liberty or the Empire State Building. Saleh claimed to be following orders from ISIS.
Media coverage of the Saleh arrest drags out the old clichés about how unexpected this sudden radicalization was, but what appears to be his father’s social media account shows support for Hamas.
Likewise one of Usaama Rahim’s fellow mosque attendees said that Rahim and another conspirator had initially followed the “teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood” but that he had been forced to cut ties with them when they moved past the Brotherhood and became “extreme”.
Despite the media’s insistence on describing the Muslim Brotherhood as a moderate organization, it has multiple terrorist arms, including Hamas, and its views on non-Muslims run the gamut from the violent to the genocidal.
A year after Obama’s Cairo speech and his outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood, its Supreme Guide announced that the United States will soon be destroyed, urged violent terrorist attacks against the United States and “raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life.”
Despite this, Obama continued backing the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise to power across the region.
There are distinctions between the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda, but the latter is a splinter group of the former. Al Qaeda’s current leader came out of the Muslim Brotherhood. A move from one to the other is a minor transition between two groups that have far more in common than their differences.
And since the Brotherhood controls much of the Islamic infrastructure in the United States, the idea that Munther Omar Saleh or Usaama Rahim became radicalized because they went from a Jihadist group that takes the long view in the struggle against the infidel, putting political structures into place to make a violent struggle tactically feasible, to a Jihadist group that focuses more on short term violence, is silly.
It’s the Pakistani kid down the block deciding that instead of joining the Muslim Students Association and then CAIR to build Islamist political structures in America, he should just cut to the chase and kill a few cops to begin taking over America now. Radicalization is the moderate Imam who stops putting on an act for PBS and the local politicians and moves to Yemen where he openly recruits terrorists to attack America instead of doing it covertly at his mosque in Virginia.
Radicalization is the teenage Muslim girl who forgets about marrying her Egyptian third cousin and bringing him and his fifty relatives to America and goes to join ISIS as a Caliphate brood mare instead.
It’s not pacifism giving way to violence. Instead it’s an impatient shift from tactical actions meant to eventually make Islam supreme in America over many generations to immediate bloody gratification. ISIS is promising the apocalypse now. No more waiting. No more lying. You can have it tomorrow.
Radicalization does not go from zero to sixty. It speeds up from sixty to seventy-five.
It builds on elements that are already there in the mosque and the household. The term “extremism” implicitly admits that what we are talking about is not a complete transformation, but the logical extension of existing Islamic beliefs.
Omar Saleh seemed cheerful enough about Hamas dropping Kassam rockets on Israeli towns and cities. Would he have supported his son setting off a bomb in the Statue of Liberty? Who knows, but his son was already starting from a family position that Muslim terrorism against non-Muslims was acceptable.
Everything else is the fine print.
When Usaama Rahim followed the way of the Muslim Brotherhood, he was with a moderate group whose spiritual guide, the genocidal Qaradawi was the godfather of cartoon outrage and had endorsed the murderous Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
The slope that leads from Qaradawi’s cartoon rage to trying to behead Pamela Geller isn’t a slippery one; it’s a vertical waterfall. And this is what radicalization really looks like. It doesn’t mean moderates turning extreme. It means extremists becoming more extreme. And there’s always room for extremists to become more extreme which turns old extremists into moderates while mainstreaming their beliefs.
In the UK, Baroness Warsi, Cameron’s biggest mistake, blamed Muslim radicalization on the government’s refusal to engage with… radicals. Or as she put it, “It is incredibly odd and incredibly worrying that over time more and more individuals, more and more organisations are considered by the government to be beyond the pale and therefore not to be engaged with.”
The reason why the government is refusing to “engage” with these organizations is that they support terrorism in one form or another. Warsi is proposing that the UK fight radicalization by mainstreaming it.
Mainstreaming extremism is also Obama’s policy. It’s the logic behind nearly every Western diplomatic move in the Middle East from the Israel-PLO peace process to the Brotherhood’s Arab Spring. And these disasters only created more Islamic terrorism.
The Muslim teenagers headed to join ISIS did not come out of a vacuum. They came from mosques and families that normalized some degree of Islamic Supremacism and viewed some Muslim terrorists as heroes and role models. It’s time for Western governments to admit that the ISIS Jihadist is more the product of his parents and his teachers than of social media Jihadis on YouTube and Twitter.
Radicalization doesn’t begin with a sheikh on social media. It begins at home. It begins in the mosque. It just ends with ISIS.
Ann Coulter, who is included in SPLC’s list, tells WND it’s an “honor” to be named alongside 11 other women who speak out against radical Islam
An extreme leftist organization has issued what critics contend is a “starter kit” for jihadists and a “hit list” that paints a target on the backs of a dozen high-profile women who are outspoken in their opposition to jihad and Shariah law.
Likewise, Cathy Hinners, blogger at DailyRollCall.com and also a SPLC target, told WND she is pleased to be listed alongside the other fearless women.
“I certainly didn’t expect something like that, but I’m very proud,” Hinners said. “I think the other 11 women are certainly professional and well established. I look at them as patriots and warriors.”
Cathy Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum, was also featured.
“I think the SPLC list isn’t as important as they’d like it to be,” she told WND. “It surprises me that they’d choose me – so far down the list of others doing much more to sound the alarm against radicals.”
In addition to highlighting Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative and WND columnist, in their list, Potok and Smith describe her as “the country’s most flamboyant and visible Muslim-basher” and a “professional provocateur” with “a long and infamous record of smearing and demonizing Muslims.”
“Who appointed the SPLC the judge of what is a hate group and what isn’t? Its listing about me is made up of one lie after another, and that is no surprise,” Geller told WND.
“The SPLC is the real hate group, using that label to demonize and stigmatize all who don’t share their hard-left agenda. The SPLC smear machine does not profile jihad groups but they target and libel patriots, veterans, tea-party orgs and other groups that work in defense of freedom.”
WND asked several women on the list whether they are concerned for their safety after SPLC released their names and personal information such as their birth years, home towns and other identifying information.
“With three jihadis dead and two jihadis jailed in attempts to kill me, this is just encouraging more jihadis to come after me – and the other women this communist hate group names,” Geller told WND. “At a time when jihad killers are moving actively against those whom they hate in the U.S., this is a quite literal hit list.”
As WND reported on June 8, Pamela Geller now faces additional security expenses of $30,000 a month after two jihadis targeted her in a May 3 shooting attack at a Garland, Texas, event where a prize was awarded for the best cartoon depiction of Muhammad.
The event, called the Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest, was sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative, led by Geller. Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson were killed by a police officer when they arrived at the Garland event and started shooting. They had driven from Phoenix to the event described by organizers as a stand for free speech against attempts to impose Islamic law on the West. A third man, Abdul Kareem, has been named as a suspect in the case.
Organizers of the May 3 Muhammad art event in Garland, Texas, estimate they spent $40,000 for extra security (WND photo)
Shortly after the attack, ISIS confirmed Geller was the main target for “slaughter.” Later, ISIS follower Usaamah Rahim, who was fatally shot by Boston police officers after trying to attack them, was found by the FBI to have plotted to behead Geller.
And now – with a jihadi target already painted squarely on her back – Geller is featured as the fifth woman on the SPLC’s “Women Against Islam” list.
“If any of the people named on this list are attacked or killed by jihadis, the SPLC ought to be shut down and prosecuted for incitement – not that such a thing is likely to happen in Obama’s America,” Geller said.
Another name on the SPLC list is Clare Lopez, former career operations officer with the CIA and current vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy.
“Under Islamic doctrine, all Muslims are obligated to take individual responsibility for enjoining the good and forbidding the evil,” Lopez explained to WND. “That means that under Islamic law, every single individual Muslim has the right and even the obligation to enforce Shariah. Many ignore this obligation – thank goodness – but there are those living among us who take it seriously, and that’s the danger with a list like this.
“No one, law enforcement, or any of us, knows which Muslim will take the next step on the pathway to jihad by deciding to step up to this doctrinal obligation.”
Lopez called SPLC’s list “an incitement to violence.”
“Publishing this list of names – along with artist sketches, birth dates and home towns – is a call to the jihadist enemy to target and attack the 12 of us,” she said. “With this list, the SPLC has aligned itself with Islamic law on slander, a capital crime, which is defined by Shariah as ‘anything that would offend a Muslim,’ including speaking truth about Islam. …
“At a time when champions of our First Amendment like Pamela Geller need 24/7 armed protection – just to stay alive – in America! – due to death threats from the Islamic State and other fifth-column jihadis living among us, for the SPLC to collaborate with that enemy, against our rights as American citizens freely to speak truth, is reprehensible.”
Hinners, a retired police officer, said she is “well prepared” for anyone who might be foolish enough to mess with her.
“I just don’t think the SPLC is worth my time,” she told WND. “I’m not worried. I think they’re cowards. I think most of the Islamists are cowards. My attitude is: Come in my house and you won’t come out of my house.”
Nor did Coulter express alarm at SPLC’s inclusion of her name on the list.
“I think I’m already a ‘person of interest’ to radical jihadists,” she told WND.
‘Starter kit for Islamists’
Washington watchdog Judicial Watch described the list as “a starter kit for Islamists to attack American women who refuse to comply with Sharia law, the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism.”
And Fox News host Megyn Kelly charged on her show Tuesday, “They attack several women on here who have been critical of radical Islam – radical – not all Muslims. You tell me, does that make you an extremist who belongs on a hate list?”
Kelly called SPLC “a careless organization that cares not at all about the safety of the people it condemns, nor reputations, nor the truth.”
See Megyn Kelly’s comments:
WND posed the following questions to SPLC: “While it’s clearly one thing to publicly oppose these women because you have ideological differences – and everyone protects SPLC’s right to do just that – does it concern you that this list could be endangering the safety of these women? Was this a consideration at all when SPLC published the list?”
SPLC hadn’t replied to a WND request for comment at the time of this report.
Kelly also noted, “One of their big sources is CAIR [Council on American-Islamic Relations]. Do you think the Southern Poverty Law Center is concerned about the hate coming from CAIR, which supports Hamas?”
In August 2012, 28-year-old homosexual activist Floyd Lee Corkins II attempted a mass shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, a group that promotes traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs about the family and homosexuality.
Corkins said he intended to kill “as many people as I could.” He admitted he chose FRC because the organization was listed as an “anti-gay” hate group by the SPLC on its website.
The gunman shot and injured FRC facilities manager Leo Johnson, who is credited with heroically stopping the attack.
Corkins fingered SPLC as his inspiration during an interview with the FBI.
Asked how he picked the FRC to attack, Corkins stated, “It was a, uh, Southern Poverty Law, lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.”
He said he spotted FRC on SPLC’s “hate map.”
After the attack, FRC President Tony Perkins said, “I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center should be held accountable for their reckless use of terminology.”
Chief U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts sentenced him to 25 years in prison, saying it was clear Corkins intended to commit mass murder because he had rehearsed his crime, practiced shooting his gun and had brought 95 bullets with him on the day of the crime.
Mark Potok, editor in chief of SPLC’s Intelligence Report and Hatewatch blog
Potok is editor in chief of the SPLC’s Intelligence Report and Hatewatch blog, which claims its mission is “Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right.” Potok previously spent nearly 20 years as a reporter with USA Today, the Dallas Times Herald and the Miami Herald, according to his SPLC biography.
Potok has asserted that the “biggest domestic terror threat” in America today isn’t Islam, but “pretty clearly comes from the radical right.”
In 2010, Laird Wilcox, a researcher who studies political fringe movements, said: “In private [Potok] concedes that there’s no overwhelming threat from the far right, and in public [he] says something altogether different.”
Wilcox added, “Professionally [Potok] is just a shill. It’s his job. That’s what he’s paid for.”
In 2010, Silverstein added, “The SPLC operates on the same basis today. Oh, except its treasury is now up to $175 million or so, bigger than the GNP of some of the world’s smaller nations.”
According to Charity Navigator, SPLC’s 2013 outlays fell into the following categories: program expenses, 65.4 percent; administrative expenses, 12.7 percent; and fundraising expenses, 22 percent.
Some of SPLC’s donors include the Anti-Defamation League, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Hillary for America, Museum of Tolerance, United Farm Workers, United Negro College Fund, the NAACP, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, EMILY’s List.
Cathy Hinners, one of the targets of the SPLC list, told WND Potok made $162,755 in 2013. Details concerning Smith’s compensation were not available. Also in 2013, SPLC President Richard Cohen brought in $359,300.