Ekstremistiske handlinger, Erna Solberg og resten av Vesten

Europa og vesten ligger i villrede, i dyp indre uro og med spenninger som ingen kan se noen løsning på. Det reageres med hysteri og undring, med hat, skepis, lammelse – og håp, tross alt.

Men Europa og Vesten ligger i splid med seg selv. Europa, spesielt, ligger i indre uro og forvirring.

Hvorfor islamsk terror? Huh, muslimsk terror? Eh - Ekstemistiske handlinger? som Erna Solberg kaller det, nå like etter «Sri-Lanka-teroren».

Erna Solberg uttalte dette ifb me terroren p New Zealand, som alle kjenner til:

DETTE ER HØYREEKSTREM TERROR MOT MUSLIMER

Hun har nettopp sagt dette om terroren på Sri Lanka:

DETTE ER RELIGIØS TERROR MOT TROENDE

Jeg overlater til tolkningseksperter selv å forså og tolke disse utsagn fra Norges Statsminister. Kilden er uviss, men funnet på Faceebook. Jeg skal i det følgende forsøke å forklare ikke bare hvorfor det går så galt, men også hvordan det kunne ha gått bedre og hvordan man bedre kan forstå «den globale situasjon» i og for fremtiden. Vi vil servere flere «ordblomster» som kan avsløre de underliggede, radikale dillemmaene, og forvirringen rundt dem, og under, dillemmaer som ligger å verker, spenninger som må få sin utløsning før eller siden, på en eller annen måte, og alle de lidelsene som komme i flukt med alt dette. Vi har noe «å se frem til».

Vi skal i denne posteringen ta for oss en rekke eksempler fra det virkelige liv på hvor vanskelig det er for Vesten og Vestens ledere å forholde seg til «ytterpunktene» som ligger innbakt i selve islam, i islam proper, og de manglende tankemessige og holdningsmessige «mothaker» vi selv måtte ha innebygd, for om mulig å kunne forsvarere oss, ikke bare horisontalt, i bredden og materielt, men også vertikalt, åndelig, metafysisk eller trosmessig. Det er i det siste perspektivet vi i fremtiden må henter krefter og motstandskraft fra.

Vi skal se at Vesten har store problemer med å forholde seg til islams to – eller flere – ansikter. Vi skal se at Vesten er veldig fortåelsesfull, full av pluralistiske forhåpinger, tolerant, liberal og åpen, for islam, bare islam oppfører seg pent og legger seg inn i folden, de vestlige folder, forsøksvis på Vesens premisser, i hvert fall overflatisk sett.

 Men vis kal også se at Vesten ris av en mare, en frykt som rammer Vesten i Vestens innvoller, for ikke å si innerste sjel eller ånd.

Vi viser til andre artikler og postering her på boggen som viser hvor vanskelig Vesten har for å nærme seg tilværelsen via vesensdefinisjoner eller essentialisering. Å essensialisere islam er en dødssyn i visse ledende akademiske sirkler og miljøer. Det er min påstand at vi aldri vil forstå hva islam er og hv islam innebærer og hva islamisme er, uten å være tillatt å gå ned på vesensefinisjoner.

Ser vi ikke fenomenenes, tingenes og relasjonenes vesen, ser vi rett og slett ikke problemet med dets vesen, og da heller ikke hverken problemet eller forløsningen i denne forbindelsen. Vi blir stående uten ord og begrepsløse overfor selve virkeligheten, og her hjelper intet «verdisyn» som snakker om virkeligheten, som om den reell definisjon av virkeligheten var fastslått en gang for alle i og med «verdisynet». For verdisyn slik vi snakker om det i dag, er et høyst eksternaliserende begrep, en definisjon som ikke trenger inn i den enkelts essensielle karakater og personlighet, annet enn skoleboksmessig og overflatisk, læren om verdisyn tendrer mot det overflatiske og akademiske, ikke det indre levde livet, hvor «subjektiviteten» for så vidt er sannheten.

Vi tenker SAP  som jeg skriver andre steder, vi tillater oss ikke lenger å tenke det juridico-religico mennesket. De mest «arge og nyttige idioter» gjør seg til hypermagikere, se tablå på google her og  «Bangstad»  her.

I en slik «overlappende situasjon" – i et slikt videre scenario - sier det selv at vårt kollektive underbevisste fort kan skades i sin grunnvoller av frykt og hysteri, «størrelser» eller substanser som har lett tilgang når døren står på vidt gap og verten byr dem inn, for å gjøre angsten utholdelig og frykten til noen man kan servilisere seg under og som man tror man bruke for å kontrollere inntrengerne, som altså er velkomne …

Vi skal se at Vesten er hensynsfull, velmenende, men med en like sterkt driv mot selvdestruksjon som mot politisk, kulturell og religøs dialog. Det hele koker ned til spørsmålet: Hva er sivilisasjon? Hva er kultur? Hvem er Gud, og hvilken gud vil vi ha? Og hvlken Gud bør vi ha. Ja, hvem er Gud? Og hvem er Allah – hvis Allah i det hele tatt er en «hvem», altså en Person?

Men vi skal også se dette: For se hva de islamske statenes OICs representanter sa etter Christchurch:

– Vold med utspring i islamofobi må bli møtt med «seriøse, omfattende og systematiske tiltak», heter det i en uttalelse fra de 57 muslimske landenes utenriksministre.

OIC uttaler at angrep mot moskeer og drap på muslimer viser «det brutale, umenneskelige og grusomme resultatet» av islamhat. Organisasjonen ber vestlige land som har muslimske innbyggere, minoriteter eller migranter om å avstå fra «uttalelser og handlinger som forbinder islam med terror, ekstremisme og trusler» mot samfunnet.

Vi skal se mer omkring dette nedenfor, men først må forsøke å sette et visst fugleperspektiv på det og hvor vi tar utgangspunkt i selve grunnlagsproblemattik og de tankeforutsetninger som ligger under i alt dette, i håp om å få frem en viss presiserende klargjøring over avgrunner og over grunnfjellet i selve tragedien, for å si det mildt.

1

Å sette ord på «ting» kan være en av den vanskeligste oppggaver mennesket har fått. Ifølge skapelsesberetningen i Bibelen – som ikke er utgått på dato, for øvrig – legger Gud det på mennesket å sette navn på alle de ulikeartene Adam ser og opplever i Edens Hage, i den i dag syndig verden, som omgir oss, og som vi ogir oss med. Vi er ikke ferdig med å ordfeste, spørsmålet er om vi er oppgaven voksen.

I islam er det Allah som har med ordsettingen å gjøre: Han presenterer et fullt ferdig vokabular som Adam skal bruke, og det gjelder det jo å lystre eller underkaste seg. Mennesket kan ikke tiltros ansvaret for ordene, eller for å tenke selv, det kan komme ut på ett, Kant kaller det forstand når mennesket er i stand til å formulere begreper.

Dét vil etter Allah’s mening ende i kaos, ja, synd, hvis mennesket skulle få lov og armslag til å operere på egen hånd. Det ville for Allah bety at han selv tømte seg selv inn i verden, men dette ligger ikke til Allah. Muslimer har derfor bare å holde sg til Koranen – og det arabiske språket – så vil mennesket ha den rette standard å bli dømt ut fra, når syndekataologen skal fremlegges dommens dag.

Jøden og den kristne – som Adams etterkommere - har altså fullmakt til å være verbale bidragsytere i Guds fremadskridende skapelse, (hvis vi for et øyeblitt antar at skapningen faktisk er under utvikling og påvirkning fra oss mennesker). Som representant for Adam, blir jøder og kristne i dag altså pålagt det største ansvar, fordi det har språklig frihet. Islam, derimot, fratar mennesket denne høye status i skapervekerket, den setter menneske på et lavere nivå, det kan ikke holdes ansvarlig på samme måte, menneskets frihet begrenses og det meste overlates til Allah’s vilje, ikke til Allah’s kjærlighet og Guds spesifikke nåde, Guds soning for syndene og Guds ensidige inngripen i den menneskelige eksistens og den enkeltes hjerte, som den store Forløser.

Sagt på en annen måte: I islam blir hovedregelen deduksjon. Mennesket – som Allah’s kalif eller forvalter – blir henvist til å slutte fra ordkonstruksjoner allerede gitt som sannhter en gang for alle til fakta. I jødedom og kristendom åpner Gud opp for en induktiv holdning til skaperverket: Man kan slutte fra materien eller tingene til ordene, som mennesket altså ifølge Gud selv kan og bør gjøre. Vi kan dermed si at vitenskapen prisipielt eller i utganspunktet har meget dårligere kår innen islam enn i den judeokristne tradisjonen. Det samme gjelder i forhold til litteratur osv. Når vi så i tillegg vet at okkasjonalisme som filosofi nærmest er enerådende som filosofisk utgangspukt i islam, forstår vi at muslimer får en helt annen forhold til både mennesket selv og tingene, fenomenene og relasjonene.

Okkasjonalismen bøyer seg for den tanke at Allah så å si skaper verden på nytt for hvert milliontedeler av et nanosekund som går. Det har bydd på stor problemer innen islam å dele opp tingene, fenomenene og relasjonene i primære og sekundære årsaksrekker. Islam er redd for at Allah i neste øyeblikk kan skape en helt ny situasjon, fordi alt avhenger av Allah’s vilje til enhver tid, og det gjelder alt og alle til enhver tid. Samtidig ligger det her en nifs fristelse for muslimer i det hele: Det den enkelte troende – spesielt troende i høye maktmakposisjoner – tenker, vil og liksom må gjøre eller fefale i øyeblikket, det er er det eneste riktige å gjøre, hvis det bare ikke strider eklatant mot Koranen og de andre hellige skriftene i islam, skrifter som kan være mer eller mindre hellige. (Vi hopper over de mindre betydningsfulle kontadiskjonene som Koranen er stappet av).

I jødedom og kristendommen legger Skriften tydelig at universet og verdens lover ligger fast, og at de ligger fast fordi Gud har gjort en pakt om dette med mennesket, dvs Adam. En pakt som skal stå til evig tid, fordi Gud har sagt det, og Gud kan ikke bryte sine løfter. Mennesket i jødedom og kristendom kan derfor drive vitenskap i den fortrøstning at virkeligheten grunnvilkår ikke endrer seg vilkårlig så å si for hvert minutt som går. Mennesket har fått en fast grunn å forske på, en grunn han kan ta for gitt og ikke fykte.

Når det kommer til terror, kan det innen islam ikke være forbudt å drive nettopp terror, hvis det kan fremme islams sak til enhver tid. Sier noen lærde at islam er under angrep, har de troende straks en guddommelig hjemmel for å drive terror. (Og få vestlige forstår hva som ligger i dette tilsynelatende overflatiske faktum). Ordet terror er selv gitt av Allah og utgått fra Allah og resitert ordrett av hans sendebud – ikke profet – Muhammed. Det er brukt av sendebudet Muhammed flere ganger i Koranen, boken som er det nærmeste man kan komme Allah’ vilje, (og karakter, om man vil, se sure 9. 111 bl a).

Terror i seg selv blir dermed legitimert på aller høyeste plan. Terror blir da en plikt, et påbud gitt ut fra ufravikelige og uigjenkallelige forordniger. Det heter da også at den troende skal ofre både liv og eiendom for Allah og «profetenes» sak. Og dette er det altså en sådan anlagt muslim kan identifisere i sitt innerst inne, i hans vesen dypeste samvittighet, en samviten med Allah, som er hu achbar – den som er større enn .. .

Når muslimer vil ha seg frabedt beskyldninger om å drive terror mot ikkemuslimske mål i dag, har det sammenheng med at «ordene» ikke er fastsatt av mennesker, men av Allah. Ordet «terror» har en helt annen klang og en helt annen emosjonell og kognitiv mening for muslimer enn for jøder og kristne. Terror i Vesten blir assosiert med noe umoralsk og noe man ubetnget må ta avstand fra og fordømme. Terror både som ord og fenomen innen islam må imidlertid oppfattes som noe nobelt, som et hellig verktøy gitt av Allah selv, et ord som ikke må besudles, misfortås eller misbukes. Allah’s ord er rent og ubesudlet, det kan ikke neglisjeres, dempes eller avkortes. Det vil dermed oppfattes og fordømmes som blasfemisk å nevne eller å bruke terror som noe negativt eller destruktivt og meningsløst, slik ordet terror i dag brukes i Vesten.

For å si det enkelt: Når urhistorien – rotmyten – i islam og jødedom og kristendom er så – dramtisk - forskjellige som det er, så vil det ha enorme konsekvenser for hvordan et menneske som underlegger seg eller tror denne hsitorien eller myten tenker.

Myten bestemmer tankeforutsetningene og dermed også de generelle holdninger og oppfatninger, i forhold till alle ting, alle relasjoner og alle fenomener, ja, og til og med i forhold til alt genuint og autentisk emosjonelt liv, i islamsk «optikk», altså.

De ulike mytene konstituerer menneskets grunnvilkår ned til minste detalj, til og med følelsesliv «dikteres» av den myte man vokser opp med og den aktualle situasjon mennesket til enhver tid og på ethvert sted står i, både overfor menneskene, tingene og fenomenene, og avgjørende – i forhold til Allah og «profeten» og Gud.

For å si det enkelt: Innen islam er det orduniverset som teller, ikke tingene, materien og fenomen-universet. Islams gud befaler mennesket å slutte fra hans ord til tingene. Den judeokristne Gud tillater mennesket å slutte fra fenomene, tingene og relasjonene til ordet og ordene, fra enkelttingen til det allmenne, fra res til universalia. I islam er det motsatt. Islam tillater ingen primær korrespondanse-tenkning eller korrespondanse-holdning til verden og menneksne. Den er tvert imot helt avhengig av en mer eller mindre klart forutsatt koherens-holdning til verden. Den indre sammhengen i islam og islams skrifter, blir avgjørende og alltid tilstedeværende i den muslimske tro, i alle relasjoner. Det adekvate forhold til virkeligheten, til mennesket, tingene og fenomenene bestemmes av det som står i Koranen, og det som er koherent innen islam. Islam er med andre ord fundamentalt et deduktivt system, ikke et induktivt system. Tankeforutsetningen i de to «populasjonene» islam og ikke-islam, blir deretter. I islam er det intet koherensbrudd når Koranen uttaler motstridende eller kontradiktoriske og preskriptive utsagn. Inkoherens innebærer inkoherense, uten problemer for den islamske tro, derav også dualismen i islam, dette at noe er skart innenfor mens annet er skarpt utenfor og dette gjenspeiler seg i det ulike menneskeverd islam gir ikke-Allah-troende.

Det sier seg selv at dette er et svært rigid system, et system som man kan tro var klekket ut av en tyrann som et redksap for å holde sine troende slaver på plass, slik at overkalifene – de som representerer Allah og proften på denne jord - kan få sitte trygt på sitt «tilkommende harem», sine koner, diamanter eller olje, og sine mer eller mindre medfødte maktposisjoner. (Det er stor ære og nærmest en nødvendig forutsetning å kunne «bevise» at man er en etter kommer etter Muhammed i islam ww hvis man vil være et menneske med tyngde. Saddam Hussein brukte mye penger for å forfalske sin anetavle til å inkludere Muhammed som en av sine anefedre).

Islam legger, sagt på en annen måte, store forpliktelser på sine troende. De forutsettes å handle i strid med det de «ser» eller «føler» er riktig og i samsvar med virkeligheten og virkelighetens lover uti alt fra det følelsesmessige til det rent tankemessige. Den riktig fromme muslim må både føle og føgle boken og bokstaven i stedet for å forholde seg fordomsfritt til tingene osv, slik de i seg selv taler til oss, og, når det gjelder mennesket, slik det formelig trygler om fleksibel kjærlighet, miskunn og nåde nær sagt for hvert øyeblikk som inntreffer, (bortsett fra når seksualdriften, lykken og saligheten overstyrer alt destruktivt, all lidelse - og ondt).

For å si det enda enklere: Islam er et analytisk paradigme eller system, jødedom og kristendom baseres på det motsatte, et syntetisk system. Det første systemet trekker slutninger ut fra «universalia» som en gang for alle er fastsatt av Allah, ikke sett ut fra skaperveket i seg selv. Det andre systemet – det judeokristne -  trekker slutninger ut fra enkelttingene, fra skaperverket til «ordet», dvs normene, lovene, tanken, følelsene og holdningene.  

Enklest forklart ligger jødedommen og kristentroen så å si kronisk åpen for at «idéen» - det virkelige, ifølge Platon – både kommer før tingen samtidig som den ligger i tingen, slik Aristoteles tolkes å hevde. Thomas av Aquinas mener universalia kommer før, i og etter tingene. Jeg for min del ser her at Jesus er den virkelighet som - reelt, konkret og praksis - formidler sammenhengen, troverdigheten eller dialketikken mellom de to grunntilnærmingene til væren og tingene. Men mer om dette, må jeg la ligge her.

I islam blir moralen helt avhengig av koherensen i sitt eget fastlåste a priori gitte ordsystem eller begrepsunivers. Moralen baseres så formallogisk ut fra systemet. I virkeligheten kan dette perspektivet gjelde alle andre tankesett, alle andre tankeforutsetninger, alle andre ideologier eller torer, men islam er det systemet som selv betegner seg selv som absolutt.

Det finnes bare en indre logikk i islam, en logikk tingene har å rette seg setter. Moralen fundamenteres i «ordene», dvs tekstene, og ikke ikke i realitetene, i enkelttingene.

Slik sett innebærer dette også at islam baserer seg på a priori-forestillinger, kristendommen og jødedommen på a posteriori slutninger. Islam slutter fra en på forhånd gitt «historie» som ikke bygger på fakta, mens kristendommen og jødedommen bygger en – stor frelsesfortelling som er sann fortelling og sann historie, ja, også reell fremtid –  sin «fortelling» fundamentert på det virkelige – men ikke på en platonsk forestilling om det virkelige, og da det virkelige sett som kun idéverden i seg selv, riktig nok – nei, på fakta-historie, noe som virkelig og uforbeholdent har skjedd.

Det helt fantastiske i dette er at denne ulikheten og grunnleggende og prisipielle forskjellen stammer fra de ulike grunnmyter islam og kristendommen og jødedommen har som konstitusjoner og metafysike og reelle fundament. (Og den som ikke vil forstå eller annamme dette, bør ta seg noen kurs på de dyreste utelandsk universiteter han kan finne, for om mulig å kunne skaffe seg mer innsikt og evner, ikke bare ferdigheter).

Men innebærer ikke dette frislipp av alle relativisme, skadelig så vel som nyttig, og vakker relativisme? Jo, for så vidt. Det fins en relativitet i den judeokristne Gud. Det fins indre relasjoner i Gud, Gud er ikke «alene». Det fins et knippe indre relasjon i Gud som manifisterer seg i enkelttingene, som bryr seg om og bryr seg med alt og alle, alle individer, alle personer. Gud står ikke i selvvalgt isolasjon overfor skaperverket og menneskene. Det foreligger en personlig relasjon mellom Gud og mennesket. Derfor Guds forsyn, ikke Allah’s determinisme. Allah har utvalgt sine én gang for alle og Allah har bare utvalgt de han på forhan skapaer til å bli muslimer. Allah’s moral er derfor dualistisk, muslimer inntar en høyere posisjon både etisk og ontologisk i islam. Dette i skarpt kontrast til kristendommen som eksplisitt sier at her finnes «hverken jøde eller greker, hverken fri mann eller slave».

I seg selv gjenspeiler dette Allah’s egen essens, eller karakter: Allah er en monolitt, en ubevegelig enkelhet eller helhet, en monark som ikke kjenner enkelttingene, (med mindre dette blir et noe selvstendig produsert aksiom i islam, slik som hos den kjente og akk så innflytelsrike sufien al Gahzhali, som sterkt hevder at Allah kjenner enkeltingene og at brudd mot dette aksiomet, som han selv har formulert, vil medføre dødsstraff).

Allah har på sitt eget vis gjort seg «ferdig» med menneskene, i og med overleveringen av Koranen. (For så vidt kan Allah minne om liberalistiske foreldre som overlater sine barn til seg selv, i en slags evig hjemme-alene-fest, men da en fest som er nådeløst regulert av de strengeste normer, forskrifter, regler og uforanderlige standarder og lover. Det blir ikke større kjærligheten av slikt!)

Allah’s karakter kjenner ingen pluralitet, det er selve grunndogmet, selve det ortodokse startpunkt for all filosofi, alle moral og all ontologi, all episteme, all hermeneutikk i islam. I kristendommen forutsetter selve gudsbegrepet en pluralitet, det viser seg i treenighetsdogmet og dette at Jesus var og er fullt ut menneske og samtidg fullt ut hellig, allmektig og altseende Gud. Gud er like vel Én og Jesus er ett med Faderen og selve dette faktum undergraver hverken fornuft eller logikk, slik mange vil ha oss til å tro.

Jesus – inkarnasjonen og treenigheten - er sannheten in personae. Muhammed kommer ikke i nærheten av å oppfylle hverken denne rollen eller denne evige loven i alt dette.

Vi skal også huske at Jesus var enkel og pur, dvs syndfri, mens Muhammed etter eget sigen var en synder, dvs delt og ikke hel, og derfor nettopp ikke pur. Muhammed ba sogar til Allah om tilgivelse, men kunne selv ikke tilgi visse syndere, ikke engang nære slektninger, som han påsto hadde svekte ham, selv om de ba om tilgivelse.

2

Esam Omeish:

Enhver som bruker de følgende termer, uttrykker islamofobi:

Islamsk terror

Islamistisk terror

Jihadist

Voldelig jihad/jihadisme

Muslimsk terrorist

Islamistisk ekstremist

Islam er ikke en religion

Islam hater oss

Radikal islam

Forby shharia lov

Sharia er uforenlig med Den amerikanske konstitusjon

“Islamist extremist” is itself a phrase that attempts to distance Islam from the violence perpetrated in its name and in accord with its teachings. So is “Radical Islam.” But as far as Esam Omeish is concerned, any speech that suggests that there is any connection between Islam and jihad violence must be stigmatized and silenced. This is the clearest example yet of how the New Zealand massacre is being exploited in order to shut down any criticism, no matter how mild, of jihad terrorism and Sharia oppression of women and others.U.S. Islamist Leader Calls for Stigmatizing Words He Calls ‘Islamophobic,'” by John Rossomando, IPT News, March 20, 2019:

    Anyone who uses terms including “jihadist,” “violent jihad,” “Islamist terrorism” or “Islamic extremist” is a hater who deserves to be shunned, an influential Muslim political leader argues.

    Esam Omeish issued this call Friday on Facebook, in the emotional wake of the Christchurch mosque massacre in New Zealand.

3

Allerede så tidlig som i 2016 ønsket Europarådets komite mot rasisme og intoleranse, ECRI, ledet av svensken Christian Åhlund, at mediene ikke nevner at terrorister er muslimer. Kravet ble fremmet overfor den britiske regjering, som avviste det. Ifølge ECRI har det blitt mer hatprat og fremmedfrykt i Storbritannia og mediene har noe av ansvaret.

The report, from the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) body, said there had been an increase in hate speech and racist violence in Britain between March 2009 and March 2016.

(In an audacious move, the report recommends the British media be barred from reporting the Muslim background of terrorists. And it comes after multiple terror atrocities by Muslim extremists across Paris, Brussels, Munich and other German cities over the last year.

ECRI mener å ha registrert at motviljen mot muslimer vokser i takt med terrorangrepene. Det er kanskje ikke så rart? Det vil ECRI ha slutt på og foreslår at mediene ikke skal få lov å nevne deres motivasjon eller bagatellisere den.

The 83-page report states: ‘ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety.

‘In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teeside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators’ motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations.’ (…)

ECRI Chair Christian Ahlund, said: ‘It is no coincidence that racist violence is on the rise in the UK at the same time as we see worrying examples of intolerance and hate speech in the newspapers, online and even among politicians.’

European human rights chiefs order the British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims in crackdown on freedom of speech

4

-

“… what we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms. … America is not — and never will be — at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security — because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as president to protect the American people.”  – President Barack Obama, Cairo, June 2009

“The United States is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise. … Resistance is the only solution. [Today the United States] is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles, and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance.”  – Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad al-Badri, Cairo, September 2010

5

The people U.S. President Donald J. Trump has chosen to lead his foreign policy team may complicate efforts to fulfill his inaugural pledge to eradicate «radical Islamic terrorism» «from the face of the Earth» — a Herculean task even under the best of circumstances.

Among recent personnel decisions, arguably the most fateful has been to select Army Lieutenant General Herbert Raymond «H.R.» McMaster to replace retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as national security advisor. This change is setting into motion a cascade of other personnel decisions that, far from draining the swamp, appears to be perpetuating it.

Flynn, who resigned on February 13 after leaked intelligence reports alleged that he misrepresented his conversations with a Russian diplomat, has long argued that the West is in a civilizational clash with Islam, and that the war on terror must be expanded and intensified to reflect this reality.

By contrast, McMaster emphatically rejects the notion of a clash of civilizations. His statements on Islam are highly nuanced and not materially different from those of former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

Flynn, in a speech delivered at a synagogue in Stoughton, Massachusetts in August 2016, warned that the ultimate goal of radical Islam is world hegemony:

    «We are facing another ‘ism,’ just like we faced Nazism, and fascism, and imperialism and communism. This is Islamism, it is a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised.»

That same month, Flynn addressed a Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas:

    «I don’t see Islam as a religion. I see it as a political ideology that will mask itself as a religion globally, and especially in the West, especially in the United States, because it can hide behind and protect itself by what we call freedom of religion.»

McMaster, however, has openly repudiated Flynn’s — and Trump’s — views on Islam. He rejects any connection between terrorism and Islam, even though Islamic scripture clearly states that true Muslims are duty-bound to wage jihad on non-Muslims until the entire world is brought under the submission of Islam and Sharia law.

On February 23, during his first staff meeting as the newly minted national security advisor, McMaster reportedly urged National Security Council employees to avoid using the term «radical Islamic terrorism» because, according to McMaster, groups such as the Islamic State represent a «perversion of Islam» and are therefore «un-Islamic.»

McMaster urged Trump to remove references to «radical Islamic terrorism» from the speech the president was to deliver to Congress on February 28. The president nevertheless prevailed. «We are also taking strong measures,» he said, «to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.»

Mar 23, 2019 1:00 pm By Robert Spencer 24 Comments

    As a true supporter of IS Abbas wanted to see the introduction of Sharia Law to Australia, and believed he was obliged to carry out jihad.

    “If Sharia was applied in Australia … all the people would fall under a contract. They would have to sign a contract to live with, among Muslims in peace,” he told police.

    “Whoever does not sign that contract either leaves the country or is executed. He’s given the chance to leave the country. If he doesn’t want to leave he gets executed.”

Spencer: Obama Administration Scrubbed 'Jihad' and 'Islam' from Counterterrorism Manuals

21 May 20142

The Director of Jihad Watch told Breitbart News Sunday that, although Islamic terror is increasing, the Obama administration has “systematically removed any mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training manuals for the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies.”

His instruction all came to an end in October 2011 when fifty-seven Muslin organizations wrote to John Brennan, who was then the Homeland Security Advisor and is now the head of the CIA, demanding that they fire Spencer and other trainers who “spoke about Islam in connection with terrorism” and that they cleanse all counter-terrorism training material of any mention of Islam and jihad.

Spencer explained that Brennan immediately complied and wrote back on White House stationary to underline how important the Obama administration considered this issue to be. The former trainer to the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group asserted that the Obama administration gave in to the pressure of Islamic advocacy groups because they did not want to be considered “Islamaphobic.”

-

6

A more compelling disqualifier for Brennan is that he consistently says that “jihad” is a good thing. For example, in 2009, Brennan said: “Nor does President Obama see this challenge as a fight against ‘jihadists.’ Describing terrorists in this way—using a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal—risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” And in 2010, he said: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.”

None of what Brennan says is true regarding the legal definition of jihad in Islamic law. The opening sentence in the Reliance of the Traveller chapter on jihad is crystal clear: “o9.0 – Jihad. Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” (Italic emphasis in original.)

Hence Brennan is either, as explained above, too stupid to live and shouldn’t be DCI, or lying about the true definition of jihad (which deception is also obligatory according to Shariah), in which case he is guilty of treason and again shouldn’t be DCI, but rather prosecuted.

This is not a religious issue. Americans believe in freedom of religion for religions that believe in freedom. Rather, it is a national security issue. It is a statement of fact that pious, observant Muslims are required to adhere to Islamic law, which is not scripture, but legal texts written by men. A cursory examination of Reliance of the Traveller will show that it uses the word “obligatory” hundreds of times, and enumerates mandatory acts for all Muslims which are felony violations of the U.S. Code, including terrorism, material support of terrorism, perjury, espionage, treason, making war against the United States, sedition, and misprision of treason. Please let that sink in.

Every American should have a problem with this.

And why don’t we? Because blame isn’t limited to John Brennan. America’s political and national security elites, and especially our mainstream journalists, are guilty of professional malpractice, dereliction of duty, and worse, for being willfully ignorant of these easily verifiable facts.

The net result is that America has not only lost this war, but we changed sides and are aiding our enemy. We need look no further than what Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration did to Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Syria, and tried to do to Egypt, for evidence of that.

Michael J. Del Rosso is a Senior Fellow for Homeland and National Security for the Center for Security Policy.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/10/john-brennan-is-completely-unqualified-to-be-director-of-central-intelligence

-

7

    “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance,” observed Pres. Obama in Cairo. “We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.”

-

    Emma Webb, a research fellow, told The Daily Telegraph: ‘In the wake of negative publicity damaging the CPS, Max Hill has vowed that through his appointment he will “restore trust”. But it is difficult to see how this will be possible given his habit of meeting disproportionately with extremist and intolerant groups.

    ‘He has shown himself to have bad taste and judgment in the company he keeps. This is certainly not a man who can be trusted to ensure justice is done when it comes to Islamist extremism.’

    In February Mr Hill declared that it is ‘fundamentally wrong’ to use the phrase ‘Islamist terrorism’ to describe any attacks carried out in Britain and elsewhere.

    Max Hill QC said that the word terrorism should not be attached ‘to any of the world religions’.

    His comments put him at odds with Prime Minister Theresa May, then Home Secretary Amber Rudd, the police and MI5 who all spoke about the threat posed by ‘Islamist terrorists’.

    The former terrorism watchdog takes charge of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) after months in which it has been heavily criticised for a catalogue of disclosure failings that led to cases collapsing.

-

UK’s top prosecutor refuses to use the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” meets with pro-jihad Islamic apologists, Nov 9, 2018 11:31 am By Robert Spencer 13 Comments

The intrepid Hill says it would be “‘fundamentally wrong’ to attach terrorism ‘to any of the world religions.”

All right. But who, exactly, is doing the attaching here? Islamic jihadis routinely point to the Qur’an and Muhammad to justify their actions and appeal to peaceful Muslims. And the Qur’an itself exhorts Muslims to “strike terror in the enemies of Allah” (8:60), and also says that Allah will also strike terror in them (3:151), as well as command the angels to do so (8:12).

“He said that the term ‘Daesh-inspired terrorism’ should be used instead.”

Unfortunately for Hill, Islamic terrorism is a lot older than “Daesh,” The history of Islam includes an unbroken record of jihad violence, including terrorism. Wherever Muslims have gone in the world, some of them have waged jihad warfare against non-Muslims. Terrorist acts against Christians, Jews, Hindus and others were frequent. The whole shocking record of this, hardly known at all in the West and obscured by mountains of propaganda, is in my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS, the first and only one-volume narrative history of jihad in the English language. Arm yourself against the propaganda, which just keeps on coming — order the book here.

8

“New top prosecutor is slammed for refusing to use the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ after meeting with apologists who described Jihadi John as a ‘beautiful young man,'” by Martin Robinson, Mailonline, November 9, 2018:

    The new CPS chief has been accused of using ‘deeply unhelpful’ language about extremists by refusing to say ‘Islamic terrorism’.

    The Henry Jackson Society (HJS) is unhappy about Max Hill QC’s appointment as the Director of Public Prosecutions because he believes it is ‘fundamentally wrong’ to attach terrorism ‘to any of the world religions’.

    He said that the term ‘Daesh-inspired terrorism’ should be used instead.

    Today he was accused of ‘apeing’ the language used by CAGE, who said Mohammed Emwazi, ISIS’ executioner-in-chief until he was killed in a drone strike, was ‘beautiful’ and ‘extremely gentle’.

    Mr Hill, who replaced Alison Saunders last week, met with Cage last autumn just a month after director Muhammad Rabbani was convicted of a terror offence after refusing to hand over passwords to his mobile phone and laptop at Heathrow Airport.

    Today the HJS claimed Mr Hill has been ‘influenced, inaccurately, by the Islamist group’s agenda’.

    Emma Webb, a research fellow, told The Daily Telegraph: ‘In the wake of negative publicity damaging the CPS, Max Hill has vowed that through his appointment he will “restore trust”. But it is difficult to see how this will be possible given his habit of meeting disproportionately with extremist and intolerant groups.

    ‘He has shown himself to have bad taste and judgment in the company he keeps. This is certainly not a man who can be trusted to ensure justice is done when it comes to Islamist extremism.’

    In February Mr Hill declared that it is ‘fundamentally wrong’ to use the phrase ‘Islamist terrorism’ to describe any attacks carried out in Britain and elsewhere.     Max Hill QC said that the word terrorism should not be attached ‘to any of the world religions’.

-

(CNN)In the wake of the hideous murder spree in Orlando, Republicans are once again hating on Democrats for describing America as in a battle against terrorism rather than "radical Islam." Their charge displays, as it has in the past in response to similarly tragic incidents, a striking lack of maturity.

Their gripe is that President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others, in refusing to say we are battling radical Islam, are too caught up in political correctness to even call our enemies by name. Although in this case Clinton has said she's "happy" to call the gunman's actions "radical Islamism," she has also rightly noted, "From my perspective, it matters what we do more than what we say." And today, President Obama stated, "Calling a threat by a different name doesn't make it go away."

Still, the right claims the two are ignoring the fact that a disproportionate number of men who perpetrate acts such as Mateen's are Muslims infuriated at the West.

Obama goes on tirade against Trump over 'dangerous' Muslim ban, 'radical Islam'

They assert further that as long as we say "radical Islam" rather than "Islam" alone, we are suitably specifying that we don't hate Muslims. But that isn't how it would appear to Muslims themselves, and -- if we break the language down to its structure and meaning -- they're right.

In a sentence such as "We must eradicate radical Islam," the object of the verb eradicate is technically "radical Islam," yes, but the core object, the heart of the expression "radical Islam," is "Islam." Radical Islam is a kind of Islam. The object of the eradication in the sentence is "Islam," modified -- not redefined into something else -- by "radical."

Obama goes on tirade against Trump over 'radical Islam'.

That truth affects how one processes such a sentence. The adjective can come off as a kind of decoration -- it feels parenthetical, even when talking about something innocuous. Take the sentence, "I'm thinking about one of those juicy steaks." We process the speaker mainly as thinking about steak, not steaks with the particular quality of being juicy.

We must take heed of such qualities of language, especially when the object in question is already loaded with pungent associations. Perhaps if Islam were something most of us had had little reason to think about, then qualifying its name with an adjective could qualify as neutral expression. "Restorationist Zoroastrianism" -- OK, maybe.

But this is the real world. Let's face it: These days, most of us need reminding that Islam is a religion of peace. Human beings generalize; we harbor associations. In such a climate, it's particularly easy to interpret "radical Islam" as a summation of Islam in general. It's how many of us might guiltily hear it, and how many Muslims would process it. Certainly Islamist terrorists would: Of all the qualities one might attribute to them, subtlety of interpretation is not one of them.

Suppose someone decided to battle "radical Christianity"? Note that whatever justifications that person offered along the lines of "We don't mean all Christians," they'd sound a little thin. Note also that in modern American English, "radical" can mean not only "extreme," but also, by extension, "genuine." After all, the "radical" Islamist considers himself to be the "true" Muslim just as the "radical" feminist might consider herself more devoted to her cause than someone who would shirk that label. Meanwhile, with the pop-culture exclamation "Rad!" thrown into the mix, there's an even finer line between its connotation "Amazing!" and the implication "That's the way it should be!"

Obama fights back against terrorism rhetoric critics;

There actually is room for terminological compromise here. "Radical Islam" is an unhelpful term because it sounds too much like "Islam" and has been used so much that it practically sounds like "Islam" alone at this point. However, one could get the point across with something like "violent Islam" as some have tried. "Violent Islam" actually sounds like a subset of Islam rather than the thing itself, and "violent" has no alternate connotation of "authentic," as "radical" does.

It's important to stress, however, that semantics -- used one way or another -- will not change any terrorists' minds. Omar Mateen did not shoot up the Pulse because people said "radical Islam" instead of "Islam." Accounts of ordinary, seemingly secular Muslims mysteriously but implacably deciding to leave comfortable existences in Western Europe to join ISIS in Syria likewise make it plain that word choice will not win or lose this battle for us.

Moments from Clinton and Trump's CNN face-off 01:35:

Rather, we must maintain the cognitive equipoise that refuses to revile members of a worldwide religion because of the actions of a small band of amoral true believers. In doing so, we are embodying a more enlightened worldview than ISIS and its sympathizers.

We must resist overgeneralization -- a tendency hardwired into human nature -- not because we think it would have restrained an Omar Mateen, but because it makes us better human beings, and possible models for future ones. Virtue, Aristotle called it. And not in the sense of stalwartly refusing to call someone a dirty name a la Dudley Do-Right, but in the sense of cultivating personal excellence simply because, in the end, it's a perfect foundation for an existence, especially if as many people do it together as possible.

US President Barack Obama speaks on the Orlando shooting at the Treasury Department after convening with his National Security Council on June 14, 2016:

So, the indignant right-wing columnists who yearn for America to express a more direct, religiously inflected contempt for terrorists are missing the strength in what they misread as a sign of weakness. In saying we are battling "terrorists" rather than "radical Islam," we reveal ourselves as better than the barbarians who wish to harm us.

The alternative that the right would prefer would be a nyah-nyah contest, what we might euphemistically call a competition in the distance one can cover via the act of urination. Make no mistake: I detest what people like Mateen do -- the mere thought of that man this week, for example, nauseates me. Neither Sykes-Picot, nor American support for Israel, nor brown skin, nor any other historical or present-day factor justifies actions like his. But that's why we must do better than they do, including in how we use language. I'm glad that many of us are.

And I, for one, am not against using language that allows us to refer to the painfully obvious fact that so many of these attacks stem from a perversion of the doctrine of a particular religion. Those who feel that the mere observation of this reality constitutes racism or incivility carry their own burden of justification here.

However, I highly suspect that the people who despise the President and Hillary Clinton for not saying "radical Islam" wouldn't be quite satisfied with "violent Islam." Why? Because it doesn't sound like an insult, and that would reveal, again, what these detractors are really seeking -- to win a competition, not to solve a problem. Like I said, we can -- and must -- do better than that.

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/14/opinions/dont-call-it-radical-islam-john-mcwhorter/index.html

Islamic terrorism, From Wikipedia:

Islamic terrorism, Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism is defined as any terrorist act, set of acts or campaign committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals.[1] Islamic terrorists justify their violent tactics through the interpretation of Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions.[2][3] The idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula, "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it."[4]

The highest numbers of incidents and fatalities caused by Islamic terrorism occur in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.[5] In 2015 four Islamic extremist groups were responsible for 74% of all deaths from terrorism: ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, according to the Global Terrorism Index 2016.[6] In recent decades, such incidents have occurred on a global scale, affecting not only Muslim-majority states in Africa and Asia, but also several other countries, including those within the European Union, Russia, Australia, Canada, Israel, India and the United States. Such attacks have targeted Muslims and non-Muslims.[7] In a number of the worst-affected Muslim-majority regions, these terrorists have been met by armed, independent resistance groups,[8] state actors and their proxies, and elsewhere by condemnation coming from prominent Islamic figures.[9][10][11]

The literal use of the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is disputed. Such use in Western political speech has variously been called "counter-productive", "highly politicized, intellectually contestable" and "damaging to community relations".[12]

However, others have referred to the refusal to use the term as an act of "self-deception", "full-blown censorship" and "intellectual dishonesty".[13][14][15][16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism

-

Why Trump’s subtle mistake during his important Islam speech is so revealing

The difference between “Islamic” and “Islamist” matters.

By Zeeshan Aleem@ZeeshanAleemzeeshan.aleem@vox.com,  May 22, 2017, 1:40pm EDT

During his hotly anticipated speech in Saudi Arabia on Sunday, President Trump made a big pivot on his relationship with the Muslim world. He dropped the use of the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” the inflammatory phrase he frequently criticized Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for being unwilling to say. Instead, he chose to go with a less antagonistic phrase: “Islamist extremism.”

Or, well, he was supposed to.

According to his prepared remarks, he was supposed to use the terms “Islamist extremism” and “Islamist terror” in his speech. Instead, as reporters noticed, he used the term “Islamic extremism” and “Islamic terror.”

Those terms might seem similar, but there’s a significant difference between them — and it’s big enough that a senior White House official tried to justify the slip-up by saying the president tripped up because he was “exhausted.”

The term Trump used, “Islamic,” means anything having to do with the religion of Islam. The term he was supposed to use, “Islamist,” refers to matters relating to the political project of reorganizing the state and society in accordance with the laws of Islam that can be deduced from Islamic texts. Put another way, “Islamic” is a bigger umbrella that signifies anything tied to the religion, while “Islamist” is a smaller umbrella that covers issues tied to political Islam.

So why does this matter?

By using the term “Islamist extremism,” the Trump White House is implicitly acknowledging that there is such thing as moderate Islamism, which is a real phenomenon.

Consider, for example, the largest political party in Tunisia, Ennahda. It was inspired by Egypt’s Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, but it’s a moderate party that’s grown far more secular in recent years and is known for being a compromiser in Tunisian political life. Its ideology shouldn’t be placed in the same category as, say, ISIS’s ambition to conquer the world and subject it to a harsh, militant interpretation of Islamic law.

More importantly, the term “Islamist extremism” is also slightly further away from a description of Islam as the problem. For some English-speaking Muslims, fighting Islamist extremism sounds more nuanced and targeted than Islamic extremism, and takes the fight slightly further away from the cultural sphere. It’s a term that stands more in accordance with Trump’s new position that his anti-terror campaign “is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.”

Whether a militant group that carried out terrorist violence identifies itself as Islamist or Islamic doesn’t really matter that much. But Muslims in the US and around the world look at Trump as the most Islamophobic figure in American political life in recent memory, and watch his words closely — the nuances matter. The absence of the word “Islamic” would be a more concrete, even if modest, sign of progress.

It’s possible this is the first and last time Trump will make this slip-up, and that it was indeed a product of fatigue. (That should in and of itself be a source of huge embarrassment for Trump, who places great value on “stamina” and enjoys vanquishing “low-energy” rivals.)

But a more plausible explanation is that he doesn’t understand the difference between the two terms and glossed over the word while reading it off a teleprompter without realizing it. That makes it seem more likely that he’ll slip up again in the future, whether during meetings or at future speaking events, and continue to cause confusion by breaking from his administration’s formal stance on the matter.

Some would call the Islamic-Islamist point a distinction without a difference. During his presidency, Barack Obama was opposed to using either variation — radical Islamic or radical Islamist — because he felt that invoking the religion’s name at all was a smear to Islam and alienated Muslims across the globe.

George W. Bush consistently referred to Islam as a religion of peace and framed his counterterrorism agenda as a “war on terror.” Whether Trump uses the old term, radical Islamic terrorism or the new term, Islamist extremism, he’s still putting Islam front and center compared with his predecessors.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, his deeds will likely resonate more than his words. His repeated attempts to stanch the flow of travelers from Muslim-majority countries will likely ring louder than any subtle shifts in rhetoric.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/22/15674392/trump-speech-islamic-islamist-saudi

Political correctness shuts down any reasonable critiques of Islam

by Louis Sarkozy,  | March 19, 2018 05:51 PM

On Feb. 23, 2017, national security adviser H.R. McMaster reiterated his stance that Islamic ideology is essentially irreligious, and that Jihadi terrorists are not true to the religion they claim to be part of.

He discouraged the use of the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” because “terrorist organizations like ISIS represent a perversion of Islam, and are thus un-Islamic.” In December, McMaster warned us to “never buy in or reinforce the terrorist narrative that this is a war of religion.”

Although commonplace, this argument is simply wrong. While I rightly acknowledge it's perfectly possible to follow Islam without committing or encouraging terrorism, we cannot ignore the link between doctrine and behavior.

It is impossible to deny the role that Islam, as a set of ideals, plays in international terrorism and gross abuse of human rights in the countries where it is enacted by law.

When it comes to religion, doctrine matters. And how can anyone hope to have a productive discussion about the tenets that make up Islam when even the mildest criticism of the doctrine labels you bigoted, racist, or (gasp), Islamophobic?

As an atheist, I stand outside the reach of all religions equally, and recognize that religious history and doctrinal differences matter.

Generally, public criticism of any religion, ancient or contemporary, is completely acceptable, and should be encouraged. It is noteworthy, then, that criticism of any other religion nowadays will earn you at worst a dose of invective, whereas saying the wrong words or drawing the wrong cartoons about Islam will get you killed in any country where Islam is the official religion, and liable to earn you physical repercussions in countries where it is not.

Why is that it in Western countries, merely pointing out the similarities between the writings of the Quran and the Hadiths and the violent and intolerant preachings of groups such as the Islamic State is cause for censure?

We certainly have no problem holding Christianity responsible for its part in the horrific Spanish Inquisition, nor do we stutter at recognizing Christian scripture as having encouraged anti-Semitic attitudes along European history.

Ah, I can hear the rebuttal already: “Of course there are horrible passages in the Quran. It was written at a different time, and there are similarly horrible ones in the Bible!”

Without a doubt, the Bible is a bloody, violent book filled with unspeakable atrocities. But then, why is it that no Christian feels personally targeted when Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which encourages the public stoning of disobedient children, is criticized?

It is because Christianity has gone through, over the past few hundred years, a modernization process where it has been ejected out of civil law, and where its most vile and intolerant preachings are no longer ordained as official doctrine by the church’s institutions.

With some exceptions (such as enduring Medieval attitudes toward homosexuality and fundamentalists' rejection of science in favor of creationism) the most vile, intolerant, and backward parts of Christian practice have been abandoned.

Islam, on the other hand, has become more intolerant than it was a millennium ago, when Muslims were creating algebra and algorithms and naming the celestial bodies. The result is that Christians can shake off most criticisms of their own scripture and their beliefs, but the Islamic world seems a lot more thin-skinned.

I, however, reject the often-brought-up and dangerous notion of this conflict being a “war of civilizations,” pitching the united secular West against the similarly united dogmatic Islamic world.

This is wrong simply because it is an inaccurate depiction of both sides. This particular struggle is far more complicated and it is certainly not contained by international borders or racial origin. This is a war of ideas, not of skin color.

Which is why the first victims of Islamic extremism are almost always Muslims: women, apostates, homosexuals, modern Muslims seeking the evolution of their faith, and yes, even just Muslims who belong to the wrong traditional Islamic sect.

Similarly, the people often most opposed to helping the victims of Islamo-fascism, those who refuse to hold Islamic ideas accountable for their role in these crimes, are not Muslims at all, but westerners brandishing multiculturalist arguments.

Meaningful change can only come from within the Islamic world, from the reformist voices that want to modernize Islam to fit today's standards of human decency and compassion. These are the people whom we must try to empower today by giving them coverage, a platform to speak out of, and most importantly, by acknowledging their suffering and struggle.

It is for this reason that we must not delude ourselves with the idea that all cultures are equally good in every way. We should not shy away from sensitive conversations about the role of religious dogma, even at the risk of being called racist or Islamophobic. Such insults are minor and insignificant compared to the atrocities that the victims of this violent and intolerant doctrine suffer every day.

Louis Sarkozy is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a student in philosophy and religion at New York University. He is the youngest son of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/political-correctness-shuts-down-any-reasonable-critiques-of-islam

"I mean the key thing is, as you highlight the real risk these terrorists pose to our citizens, that we make sure we never buy into or reinforce the terrorist narrative, this false narrative that this is a war of religion," McMaster said.

When Wallace interjected and pointed out that Trump's tweets were "about Muslim violence," McMaster did not answer the question, but instead argued that religious terrorists are warping religion to suit their violent tactics.

"Well, those who adhere to this ideology are really irreligious criminals who use a perverted, what the President has called a wicked interpretation of religion, in an effort to recruit young, impressionable people to their cause, to foment hatred," McMaster said.

Figures across the political spectrum in the UK and US condemned Trump's decision to retweet the videos.

"I am very clear that retweeting from Britain First was the wrong thing to do," British Prime Minister Theresa May said on Thursday.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also said the videos "elevated the conversation," and that it didn't matter whether the anti-Muslim videos were factually accurate.

"Whether it's a real video, the threat is real," Sanders said on Wednesday. "His goal is to promote strong border security and strong national security."

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/chris-wallace-grills-hr-mcmaster-trump-anti-muslim-videos-2017-12?r=US&IR=T

Does Jihad Really Have "Nothing to do with Islam"?, by Denis MacEoin, February 24, 2018 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11623/jihad-islam

    "National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors." — Richard Higgins, NSC official.

    At the heart of the problem lies the fantasy that Islam must be very similar to other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, out of which it was, in fact derived.

    The use of force, mainly through jihad, is a basic doctrine in the Qur'an, the Prophetic sayings (ahadith), and in all manuals of Islamic law. It is on these sources that fighters from Islamic State, al-Qa'ida, al-Shabaab, and hundreds of other groupings base their preaching and their actions. To say that such people have "nothing to do with Islam" could not be more wrong.

Recently, US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster once again downplayed the significance of faith by claiming that Islamic ideology is "irreligious"; meanwhile, up to 1.5 billion Muslims continue claiming, as they have done for 1400 years, that it is.

As Stephen Coughlin, an expert on Islam, told Gatestone, "It is the believers who define their religion, not the non-believers. If someone says his religion is that the moon is made of green cheese, that has to be your starting point."

On February 20, 2017, President Trump appointed McMaster, a serving Lieutenant General of the US Army, to the important position of National Security Advisor, after the forced resignation of Michael T. Flynn. McMaster came to the post with a reputation for stability, battlefield experience, and intelligence. According to the Los Angeles Times:

    "It is not an overstatement to say that Americans and the world should feel a little safer today," tweeted Andrew Exum, an author and academic who saw combat in Afghanistan and writes widely about military affairs."

After the controversies surrounding McMaster's predecessor in office, McMaster came as a safe hand.

It was not long before divisions opened up within the NSC, however, with quarrels, firings, and appeals to the president. Many controversies remain today. By July, it was reported that Trump was planning to fire McMaster and replace him with CIA Director Mike Pompeo. By August, however, McMaster's position seemed secure.

U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

It is not the purpose of this article to discuss issues McMaster's spell at the NSC has brought to light, except for one: McMaster's position on Islam and terrorism. It became a cause for contention early in McMaster's incumbency and continues to engender divisions, not just among NSC staff, but also with the president. The general's viewpoint, which he has often expressed, is that international terrorism has nothing to do with the religion of Islam, a notion he seems to believe to the point where he has banned the use of the term "radical Islamic terrorism" -- a term that Trump uses often.

In an all-hands meeting of the NSC on February 23, 2017, three days after his appointment as NSC Director, McMaster said jihadist terrorists are not true to their professed religion and that the use of the phrase "radical Islamic terrorism" does not help the US in working with allies to defeat terrorist groups:

    "The phrase is unhelpful because terrorist organizations like ISIS represent a perversion of Islam, and are thus un-Islamic, McMaster said, according to a source who attended the meeting."

More recently, on December 3, in an interview with Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace, McMaster stated that "we make sure we never buy into or reinforce the terrorist narrative, this false narrative that this is a war of religion". He followed this by elaborating on the criminality and supposed secularism of Muslim terrorists:

    "Those who adhere to this ideology are really irreligious criminals who use a perverted, what the President has called a wicked interpretation of religion, in an effort to recruit young, impressionable people to their cause, to foment hatred".

In taking that stance, McMaster has broken with many members of his own staff, several of whom he was later to fire, and with the Trump administration itself. This desire to deny a connection between Islam and terrorism or to distinguish between a "pure" Islamic religion and "perversions" of it had been for many years a characteristic of the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations, as well as Hillary Clinton's tweets, when "this has nothing to do with Islam" was an oft-repeated refrain.

One of the people whom McMaster fired is Richard Higgins, a top NSC official who had written a memoir in which he warned of the dangers of radical Islam and its alliance with the far Left. In a lengthy document, Higgins wrote:

    Globalists and Islamists recognize that for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political identity, must be destroyed...Islamists ally with cultural Marxists...[but] Islamists will co-opt the movement in its entirety...

    Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives...

    These attack narratives are pervasive, full spectrum, and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies.

Clearly, Higgins did not mince his words, yet what he wrote seems entirely appropriate for the NSC, a body charged with the protection of the United States from radicalism of all kinds. According to Meira Svirsky, writing for the Clarion Project

    Lamenting the lack of education given to government officials about radical Islam, Higgins previously wrote, "National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood cultural advisors." [1]

Higgins's stress on the lack of education about Islam is a vital recognition that something has been going wrong for years when it comes to American and European official responses to the religion and its followers. Rightly cautious about genuine Islamophobia, the growth of hate speech and intercommunal strife, governments and their agencies have adopted policies and measures to preserve calm even in the face of growing levels of terrorism by Muslims. Europeans in Paris, Barcelona, Manchester, London, Brussels, Berlin and Nice, to name just a few places, are at the forefront of attacks inspired by Islamic State, al-Qa'ida and other radical groups. But the US has suffered the heaviest casualties, with thousands slaughtered in the 9/11 attacks.

In the face of a renascent and at times violent Islam, politicians have adopted the policy of denying any connection between terrorist events and Islam. Many religious leaders have done the same. McMaster has adopted this policy, keeping him in line with established approaches:

    "HR McMaster, a respected army lieutenant general, struck notes more consistent with traditional counterterrorism analysts and espoused consensus foreign-policy views during a meeting he held with his new National Security Council staff on Thursday".

According to Svirsky:

    McMaster believes the "Islamic State is not Islamic," going so far as to describe jihadists as "really irreligious organizations." As did former president Obama, he opposes use of any language that connects Islam to terrorism.

    McMaster also rejects the notion that jihadists are motivated by religious ideology. Instead, he says they are motivated by "fear," a "sense of honor" and their "interests," which he describes as the roots of human conflict for thousands of years. He believes U.S. policy must be based on "understanding those human dimensions."

There may be signs that McMaster, though he still has some way to go, at least recognizes that some deeply religious Islamic organizations are a threat to the West. Writing on December 13, Meira Svirsky cites a speech McMaster gave at Policy Exchange in Washington:

    "Declaring the ideology of radical Islam an obvious and 'grave threat to all civilized people,' U.S. National Security Adviser General H.R. McMaster singled out the Muslim Brotherhood and its brand of political Islam as a specific threat".

In that speech, the general spoke of Turkey and Egypt as two major sources of support for the Brotherhood, including its Palestinian branch, Hamas. He clearly sees the threat, but does not, as yet, fully understand the meaning of its religious dimension (however much other factors play a role in terrorism).

I have no wish to be disrespectful towards McMaster, who carries out a vital task in securing the lives and property of so many Americans, but I fear his statements show that he has little or no knowledge of Islam, its teachings, or its history. Either that or he has invented a form of Islam that bears no resemblance to the religion that many of us have spent most of our lives studying. Not implausibly, he has given ears to advisors, possibly including Muslims, who have sought to play down any possible link between violence and the Muslim faith.

This willingness, even eagerness, to misrepresent Islam plays directly into the hands of anti-Western Muslims, radicals who anticipate the coming of an apocalyptic global Caliphate. In a recent article, Professor Richard Landes of Boston University lists the many ways in which this is done:

    Only the most fervent of true believers could think that, even with Allah's help, the global Caliphate was possible. In order to succeed, da'wa [outreach; proselytizing] Caliphaters needed the assistance of the targeted kuffar population to:

        Disguise their ambition to subject the kuffar, by downplaying jihadi acts of war and their deployment among the targeted population.

        Insist that "except for a tiny minority," the "vast majority" of Muslims are moderate and peaceful, and Islam is a "Religion of Peace" that has nothing to do with the violence of jihadists.

        Accept those who fight for the Caliphate with da'wa as "moderates" who have "nothing to do" with "violent extremists."

        Engage these "moderate" Caliphaters as advisors and consultants in intelligence and police work, as prison chaplains, community liaisons, college teachers, and administrators.

        Present Caliphater war propaganda as reliable information, as news.

        Attack those who criticize Islam (including Muslims) as xenophobic and racist Islamophobes.

        Adopt the Caliphater's apocalyptic enemy as their own, so that the kuffar join in an attack on one of their key allies.

        Legitimate jihadi terrorism as "resistance" and denounce any recourse to violence in their own defense as "terrorism."

        Respect the dignity of Muslim beliefs even as Muslims heap disdain on their beliefs.

        Take seriously Caliphater invocations of human rights when, in reality, they despise those rights for women, slaves, and infidels.

        Welcome an angry "Muslim Street" in the heart of their capital cities.

At the heart of the problem lies the fantasy that Islam must be very similar to other religions, particularly Judaism and Christianity, out of which it was, in fact derived. This would mean that Islam consists only of doctrines about a single God, heaven and hell, sin and punishment, spiritual endeavor, together with practices such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and alms-giving. There would be nothing to concern us were that the case, and certainly no reason to connect the faith with a few supposedly fanatical people who have misguidedly distorted it and turned to violence.

But that would be to ignore the totality of Islam. Apart from 12 years at the start of Muhammad's mission, Islam has encompassed far more than worship and moral behavior. From the moment Muhammad led his followers from Mecca to Medina in the year 622, his religion became a system of government, of law, and of war. Several battles were fought with his Meccan opponents; the Jews of Medina were either driven out by force or executed and enslaved, and Muhammad returned to Mecca as its conqueror. On his death, his first successor embarked on a two-year war to bring recalcitrant tribes back within the fold, sent out armies to the north and, in just a few years, began the wave of invasions that made Muslims victorious across most of the known world. Of the first four "rightly-guided" caliphs, one was assassinated by an Iranian captive and the other two by other Muslims. Muhammad's grandson, Husayn, was killed with his family in Karbala in 680 by the second of the Umayyad caliphs, before further internal wars. Jihadi wars continued, year in and year out, after that; they are still invoked by modern terrorists. Islam has never been at peace with the non-Muslim world.

The use of force, mainly through jihad, is a basic doctrine in the Qur'an, the prophetic sayings (ahadith), and in all manuals of Islamic law. (For examples, see here, here, here and here.)

If jihad were permitted only in self-defence, then excuses implying aggression, as we have seen, would need to be readily available to justify attacks. As the Washington Post wrote a fortnight after the attack on the United States on 9/11/2001:

    At the heart of the bin Laden opus are two declarations of holy war -- jihad -- against America. The first, issued in 1996, was directed specifically at "Americans occupying the land of the two holy places," as bin Laden refers to his native Saudi Arabia, where 5,000 U.S. troops have been stationed since the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The two holy places are Muslim shrines at Mecca and Medina.

    In 1998, he broadened the edict to include the killing of "Americans and their allies, civilians and military . . . in any country in which it is possible to do it."

It is on such Islamic sources that fighters from Islamic State, al-Qa'ida, al-Shabaab, and hundreds of other groupings base their preaching and their actions. To say that such people have "nothing to do with Islam" could not be more wrong.

It is not only wrong, it is demeaning to the many ex-Muslims such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Ibn Warraq and reformist Muslims who are fully aware of the connection, but are often apparently considered delusional or even fanatical. Last year saw the publication of Ibn Warraq's detailed study, The Islam in Islamic Terrorism: The Importance of Beliefs, Ideas, and Ideology, which takes the reader through all the violent or violence-promoting individuals and groups in Islamic history, with discursions on the thinking behind them. With few exceptions, these individuals and groups are far from minor or obscure.

In chapter one of his book, Ibn Warraq examines what he calls the "Root Cause Fallacy", whereby politicians, security advisers, and others deflect attention from religion as a motivator for terrorism. He shows that most radicals and terrorists are not primarily inspired or justified by poverty, lack of knowledge of Islam, lack of education, the Arab-Israeli conflict, Palestine, anti-Semitism, U.S. Foreign policy, Western Imperialism, or revenge for the Crusades. He refers (p. 31) to David Wurmser of the American Enterprise Institute and his view that:

    "Westerners attribute too many of the Arab world's problems 'to specific material issues' such as land and wealth. This usually means a tendency 'to belittle belief and strict adherence to principle as genuine and dismiss it as a cynical exploitation of the masses by politicians. As such, Western observers see material issues and leaders, not the spiritual state of the Arab world, as the heart of the problem'".

Overall, Ibn Warraq draws on an extensive body of scholarship, mainly from leading Western scholars of Islam and authoritative sources such as The Encyclopedia of Islam. McMaster and others, who repeat the mantra that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, are hardly in a position to override comment by individuals who have spent a lifetime deeply involved in the study of Islam through its original sources.

Ibn Warraq, moreover, cites (pp. 139-140) several Western and Muslim scholars who have said repeatedly that the idea that the "true jihad is a spiritual struggle" is completely unauthentic. It is arguments based on a reading of texts in Arabic, Persian, Urdu and other languages that deserve to be treated as the basis for policy-making, identifying which people may be potential terrorists, or evaluating the true intentions of US-based Muslim associations such as CAIR or ISNA.

Clare Lopez, vice president of research and analysis at the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has commented on the broad lack of knowledge about Islam and how it has distorted thinking within national bodies. Beginning with criticism of McMaster, she raises broader issues:

    McMaster is just wrong for NSC on so many counts. I think at least in part because, like others across national security at his level, who made rank in years post-9/11, he was systematically denied fact-based training about Islam, jihad, Shariah and the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] – whose affiliates, associates, operatives, fellow travelers and useful fools remain embedded within and close to the federal government and local law enforcement at various levels.

    Now, of course, anyone who's ever taken the oath to the Constitution has an affirmative obligation to know the enemy and that McMaster did not do this is his responsibility alone.

    Those who got promoted within the military-security establishment over the past eight years got there precisely because of a "willful blindness about Islam".

The problem for the United States government, Congress, Senate -- and many important agencies which find themselves called on to discuss, monitor, report on, or make policies about Islam, American Muslims, Muslims worldwide, and more -- is knowing where to look for accurate and authentic information. In the past, all of these have depended on Muslim academics, uncritical and cosmetic non-Muslim professors and commentators such as John Esposito, Karen Armstrong and the many teachers identified by Campus Watch; numerous university and college Islamicists with vested interests in posts funded by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim states (see here); self-appointed Islamic authorities such as CAIR, and amateurs within US institutions.

Criticism of Islam has become taboo and has been denounced as a right-wing or even far-right prejudice. The present writer, however, a political centrist, sees nothing wrong in bringing reasoned and fact-based criticism to bear on Islam, just as one would to every other ideology, from Marxism to Fascism. One can also appreciate the stunning contributions Muslims have made to science, art, architecture, calligraphy, music, and the spiritual endeavors of Sufis and Shi'i mystical philosophers. It is important for everyone to step back and bring accuracy and balance to the way we regard a large and expanding religion.

    Denis MacEoin has an MA in Persian, Arabic and Islamic History from Edinburgh University and a PhD (1979) in an aspect of Shi'i Islam in 19th-century Iran. He taught Arabic and Islamic Studies in the Religious Studies Department of Newcastle University and has published many books and articles on Islamic topics.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/11623/jihad-islam

By Robert Spencer March 28, 2018, John Bolton speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Friday, Feb. 24, 2017, in Oxon Hill, Md. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

The Left is in hysterics over John Bolton replacing H.R. McMaster as President Trump’s national security adviser: He will start a war with Iran! He once wrote a foreword for a book written by Pamela Geller and me! He is a right-wing extremist! Back in the real world, however, Bolton replacing McMaster is a victory for realistic analysis of the jihad threat, and a defeat for the fantasy-based policymaking that has prevailed throughout the Bush and Obama eras, and beyond.

McMaster has insisted: “The Islamic State is not Islamic.”

A source that has asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals informed me that he was present in August 2014 when McMaster was the featured speaker for the President’s Lecture Series at National Defense University in Washington, D.C. McMaster addressed an assembly of all the students in the colleges of the National Defense, including the National War College, the College of International Security Affairs (CISA), the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy (formerly the Industrial College of the Armed Forces), and the others. In his address, McMaster said flatly: “The Islamic State is not Islamic.”

That was during the Obama administration. One may forgive McMaster for following the company line, but McMaster did not change his tune when Donald Trump became president. On the contrary, he doubled down.

In February 2017, according to CNN, “at an all-hands meeting of the National Security Council,” McMaster “said jihadist terrorists aren’t true to their professed religion and that the use of the phrase ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ doesn’t help the U.S. in working with allies to defeat terrorist groups.”

Speaking in May 2017 about President Trump’s trip to the Middle East, McMaster dug even deeper, observing that “the entire civilized world expects our Muslim allies to take a strong stance against radical Islamist ideology.” Those who were aware of how badly U.S. foreign policy has run off the rails over the last fifteen years should have been deeply disturbed. McMaster added that jihad terrorists were operating according to “an ideology that uses a perverted interpretation of religion to justify crimes against all humanity.”

How many times since 9/11 has an American spokesman declared that “the United States and the entire civilized world expects our Muslim allies to take a strong stance against radical Islamist ideology”? And what do we have to show for this expectation?

How many years must we expect this before we realize that our “Muslim allies” have vastly different priorities from what mainstream counterterror analysts would wish to believe?

McMaster’s pollyannish views were a holdover from the Obama regime, which established fantasies about Islam having nothing to do with terrorism as the official policy of the U.S. government. This was in contrast to President Trump, who repeatedly criticized his predecessor (and his 2016 election opponent) for not being willing to call the problem of jihad terror by its right name.

McMaster was therefore a disastrous pick as national security adviser. He continued the willful ignorance of the Obama administration, hamstringing efforts to understand, and counter effectively, the motives and goals of the enemy.

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/good-news-mcmaster-bolton/

UK Prime Minister May again equates Robert Spencer with jihad terrorists Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, Sep 18, 2018 8:31 am By Robert Spencer 101 Comments

May gave a very similar speech in December 2016. This one is just recycled, but she included in it the same libel of me that she put in the first one.

“And I acted to keep those who peddle hatred and extremism out of our country. I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones – because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred. And I stopped people like Dieudonne coming to Britain. Because nothing excuses antisemitism – not comedy, not satire, not even irony. Antisemitism is just hatred. And it is just wrong.”

So as far as May is concerned, Pamela Geller and I are the “Islamophobic” equivalents of Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. Abu Hamza is in solitary confinement in a super-max U.S. for, among other things, conspiring to set up a training camp for jihad terrorists in Bly, Oregon. Abu Qatada was convicted of plotting the jihad massacre of Americans and Israelis in Jordan.

Now have I plotted to fly a jetliner into Big Ben, or blow myself up in a crowd of Britons? No, I’ve never plotted, called for or approved of any kind of terrorist or vigilante violence against anyone. And thus May’s speaking of me as the flip side of Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada is beyond outrageous: it’s so ridiculous that it should lead any competent member of the British Parliament to question not only her fitness to remain in office, but her sanity.

“Islamophobia,” she says, of which I am guilty and thus barred from the U.K., “comes from the same wellspring of hatred” as anti-Semitism. And so she is boasting to a Jewish group about banning me, a wholehearted supporter of Israel, and Pamela Geller, a Jewish woman, from Britain, and then claiming that she is against anti-Semitism. Pull my other leg.

Her implication is that “anti-Muslim rhetoric” — that is, public discussion of the jihad threat and what can be done about it — leads inexorably to the demonization of Muslims and ultimately to genocide. This is ridiculous, overheated rhetoric that only hinders the prospects of any genuine discussion of the salient issues, and that is probably the goal all along. The purpose of May’s equivalence of “Islamophobia” with anti-Semitism is designed to intimidate people into thinking that criticism of Islamic jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others leads to the concentration camps, and thus there must be no criticism of these things. The unstated assumption is that if one group was unjustly accused of plotting subversion and violence, and was viciously persecuted and massacred on the basis of those false accusations, then any group accused of plotting subversion and violence must be innocent, and any such accusation must be in service of preparing for their subversion and massacre.

This is simply a method to foreclose on any criticism of jihad terror and Sharia oppression. By equating me with jihad terrorists, May is essentially saying that opposing jihad terror is as bad as plotting jihad terror. And that is exactly how May is acting now in her shabby little police state: British authorities are hounding and persecuting foes of jihad terror, while jihad preachers roam free and act with impunity. How will Britain look in five years, or ten, as this continues? Future generations of free Britons, if there are any, will curse the name of Theresa May, as one of the chief betrayers of their nation.

“PM’s speech at the United Jewish Israel Appeal dinner: 17 September 2018,” Gov.uk, September 17, 2018 (thanks to the Geller Report):

    I have come here tonight as Prime Minister of our country to say that I stand with you.

    I stand with the UJIA. I stand with Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. And I stand with the entire Jewish community in Britain.

    In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher shop attacks in Paris I came to a Board of Deputies meeting and joined you in defiance of that horror to say “Je suis Juif.”

    And in the face of any kind of hatred against the Jewish people – in any form and anywhere, whether overseas or right here in our own country – I say with that same defiance: “Je suis Juif.”

    And I say that tonight, not just speaking for myself, and not just speaking for my political party, but also as Prime Minister, speaking for our whole country.

    I know some in our Jewish community say they are fearful of the future. I saw that poll on the front page of the Jewish Chronicle and it sickens me that anyone should feel like that in our country. I do not underestimate the threat posed by those who promote antisemitism, or hatred in any form. Nor the pernicious nature of what those people say and what they stand for.

    But I do not believe those voices speak for the vast, overwhelming majority of people in our country.

    I do not believe they speak for the liberal, tolerant democracy where we – together – have made our home.

    And most importantly, I do not believe that those voices will ever win.

    For the sake of our children and grandchildren, they cannot win.

    And – together – we will not let them win.

    Together, we will stand up for the values we share.

    Together, we will defeat the scourge of antisemitism and hatred in all its forms.

    And together, we will proudly support Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.

    Tonight I want to talk about how we do all of these things. And there is no better place to start, than by supporting the work of the UJIA.

    If we are to stand up for the values that we share – then one of the things we need to do is give young Jewish people the confidence to be proud of their identity – as British, Jewish and Zionist too.

    There is no contradiction between these identities – and we must never let anyone try to suggest that there should be.

    Indeed one of the most sickening aspects of the antisemitism that tries, abhorrently, to suggest Israel is a racist endeavour – is that those voices seek to separate the Jewish diaspora in our country from their connection with Israel.

    We must never let that happen.

    So UJIA’s work here is absolutely vital, because it gives young Jewish people in Britain the confidence to develop their connection with Israel.

    Through formal and informal education programmes it helps to cultivate their understanding and appreciation of Jewish culture and identity.

    And through Summer visits and exchange programmes – which this year alone have seen more than 1600 young people spend time in Israel and many Israelis spending time here in the community – UJIA gives young people the chance to learn about Israel and to forge a deep and personal connection with it.

    But UJIA does not stop there. It also does important work to strengthen communities within Israel itself and to build social cohesion.

    By backing the UJIA tonight you can help fund programmes which support ultra-orthodox men and women to secure higher education qualifications and ultimately new opportunities in the workplace. And you can support programmes which work to integrate Israeli Arabs into Israel’s high tech industry and bring new business to the Galil.

    Programmes like these are vital – because a more socially cohesive and more prosperous Israel has a better chance of securing the long-term peace we all want to see.

    And UJIA is also at the forefront of new models of social impact investing, the cutting edge of philanthropy, where you don’t just give capital away, you invest it for a social return and sometimes then reinvest that capital in further projects – meaning that money you give tonight can go even further than before.

    By supporting UJIA, you are also helping Britain and Israel to deepen our own bi-lateral ties too.

    Earlier this year, we saw the wonderful visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, the first official Royal visit in Israel’s 70 year history.

    And I am delighted that UJIA played your part in that visit through your presence at the Duke’s game of football with the Equalizer, an inspiring project that – with your support – brings together Jewish and Arab boys and girls.

    The Duke’s visit was a celebration of our contemporary partnership with Israel. And it was absolutely right that that the Duke also met other young people from Israeli civil society, including LGBT leaders, those working on mental health issues and those helping the less fortunate in society. And I applaud the work UJIA does to support such groups.

    We deeply value our connections with Israeli civil society as part of the fabric that binds two democracies together.

    And it was great to see another example of the strong bonds which extend beyond the Jewish communities in our two countries – with the Tel Aviv in London Festival last year, showcasing the rich culture of Tel Aviv and its citizens of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. And we look forward to plans for a London in Tel Aviv Festival to showcase London’s cultural diversity to all Israelis.

    The last year has also seen us mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.

    I will never forget standing with Prime Minister Netanyahu to view the original version of that historic letter. It was very special moment and it encapsulates for me how I feel about Israel.

    For I am not just proud to support Israel; I am proud of our role in the creation of Israel. And I want to build the strongest and deepest possible relationship between our two countries.

    Indeed, as the United Kingdom forges a bold new future outside the European Union, we will be seeking free trade deals with our partners around the world. And as a great start-up nation, an engine of enterprise, a world leader in technology, and a great friend of Britain, I want to see an ambitious free trade deal between our countries.

    The UK is already Israel’s second largest trading partner and its number one destination for investment in Europe with more than 340 Israeli companies already operating here.

    While our bilateral trade is already worth over $9 billion – up by more than a quarter on last year alone.

    And as I have said to Prime Minister Netanyahu I want to build on this – deepening our links in particular in sectors like agriculture, health, science, technology and innovation.

    But my support for Israel goes beyond economics.

    You can also count on my commitment to Israel’s security.

    I understand Israel’s vulnerability because I have been there and seen it for myself. Indeed, it was during my last visit in 2014 that the bodies of the murdered teenagers Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah were discovered.

    So I am clear that we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself.

    And in a world where Britain and Israel increasingly face the same shared challenges and threats, I am just as clear that our security services will continue to deepen their already excellent co-operation to keep all our people safe.

    You can also count on me to defend Israel’s values – because Israel is a country like ours that believes in liberty, democracy and the rule of law.

    Like Britain, Israel is also prepared to act in support of the international community, just as we saw this Summer. For when the White Helmets found themselves in grave danger in South-Western Syria, it was the Israeli Defence Force which worked with the international community to get them out.

    But none of this means, of course, that we don’t also have some disagreements with the government of Israel.

    And like everyone here tonight, I want to see progress towards a lasting peace – a peace that must be based on a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian State.

    There will need to be courage and vision from each side if we are to have a realistic chance of achieving this goal – including an end to the building of new settlements and an end to Palestinian incitement too.

    The UK has – and will – also stand by Israel whenever it is treated unfairly at the United Nations – as we have shown at the Human Rights Council.

    And as we work together towards what was Balfour’s vision of a peaceful co-existence – we must be equally clear that there can never be any excuses for boycotts, divestment or sanctions: they are unacceptable and this government will have no truck with those who subscribe to them.

    Under my leadership the UK will always be a real and trusted partner for Israel, supporting Israel’s security and prosperity, not just through our words but also through our actions.

    So too, will I act to stand with our Jewish community by rooting out the scourge of antisemitism here in our own country – just as I will stand with every community in Britain to fight racial and religious hatred in any form.

    Let me be clear: you cannot claim to be tackling racism, if you are not tackling antisemitism.

    And that mission begins by being clear about what antisemitism is.

    That is why the government I lead was the first in the world to adopt the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

    Because of this definition, no-one can plead ignorance or hide behind any kind of excuse.

    Let me say it very clearly.

    Criticising the actions of Israel is never – and can never be – an excuse for questioning Israel’s right to exist; any more than criticising Britain’s actions could be an excuse for questioning our right to exist.

    And criticising the government of Israel is never – and can never be – an excuse for hatred against the Jewish people – any more than criticising the British government would be an excuse for hatred against the British people.

    There are no excuses for any kind of hatred towards the Jewish people.

    Just as there are no excuses for hatred towards any community of any race or religion.

    No excuses, means no excuses.

    And we will not stop at calling out those who spread this hatred, whether against the Jewish community or any other racial or religious community in our country.

    We will record it and punish those responsible for it.

    That is why as Home Secretary I required all police forces to record religious hate crimes separately, by faith.

    And I acted to keep those who peddle hatred and extremism out of our country.

    I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.

    I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones – because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred.

    And I stopped people like Dieudonne coming to Britain. Because nothing excuses antisemitism – not comedy, not satire, not even irony.    Antisemitism is just hatred. And it is just wrong….

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/09/uk-prime-minister-may-again-equates-robert-spencer-with-jihad-terrorists-abu-hamza-and-abu-qatada

Robert Spencer at Breitbart: Theresa May’s Tories Targeted Critics of Islam Instead of Terrorists,

May 30, 2017 12:12 pm By Robert Spencer

Theresa May is a criminal traitor. As the Englishman puts it in the video here: “Our own protectors are turning against us. Because the people that are bloody tellin’ them the rules ‘ave got it all wrong, THERESA MAY.” He pronounces the Prime Minister’s name with all the contempt she so richly deserves.

My latest at Breitbart:

    The United Kingdom and the world are still reeling from the jihad terror attack in at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester that murdered 22 people and injured 59, and the country remains on high alert as police have uncovered and are hunting for the members of an entire jihadi network connected with the Manchester attack.

    MI5 has also revealed that there are as many as 23,000 jihad terrorists on the streets of Britain today.

    That’s an army. And Britain is indeed at war. But this is not just a problem that Prime Minister Theresa May has the responsibility to solve. It is also a problem that she and her colleagues have created.

    This Britain of troops on the streets and high tension over another imminent jihad attack is the Britain that Theresa May and her ilk have chosen. This is the Britain of the policies that she and her predecessors, David Cameron,Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair have followed for years. They now have the Britain they have made. In getting to today’s traumatized, bloodied, nervous, frightened Britain, they followed a multi-pronged strategy.

    One chief element of this strategy was to demonize and marginalize anyone who spoke too clearly about the motivating ideology behind jihad terrorism.

    For years, May and her cohorts have hounded, stigmatized, and demonized foes of jihad terror, falsely claiming that they represent a “far-right” equivalent to jihad terrorists, while appeasing and accommodating Muslim groups in Britain, many of which were by no stretch of the imagination “moderate,” and allowing numerous jihad preachers to operate without hindrance.

    Meanwhile, Britain has a steadily lengthening record of admitting jihad preachers without a moment of hesitation. Syed Muzaffar Shah Qadri’s preaching of hatred and jihad violence was so hardline that he was banned from preaching in Pakistan, but the UK Home Office welcomed him into Britain.

    The UK Home Office recently admitted Shaykh Hamza Sodagar into the country, despite the fact that he has said: “If there’s homosexual men, the punishment is one of five things. One – the easiest one maybe – chop their head off, that’s the easiest. Second – burn them to death. Third – throw ’em off a cliff. Fourth – tear down a wall on them so they die under that. Fifth – a combination of the above.”

    May’s government likewise admitted two jihad preachers who had praised the murderer of a foe of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. One of them was even welcomed at the airport by no less illustrious a personage than the Archbishop of Canterbury.

    What can one conclude from all this than that the British government is indifferent to the preaching of jihad terror and Sharia oppression in the country?

    But toward Christian preaching it is not so charitable.

    The UK government last December banned three bishops from areas of Iraq and Syria where Christians are persecuted from entering the country. And of course, May also has banned me from entering the country for the crime of saying: “[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers.”

    Yet that is a manifest and readily demonstrable fact. It was tantamount to banning me for saying that human beings need oxygen to live.

    In sum, May and her predecessors for years have been effectively encouraging the preaching of jihad, while energetically discouraging and stigmatizing resistance to jihad.

    That road leads to Manchester.

    When you ban foes of jihad and allow jihad preachers to enter and preach all over the country, you’re going to get more jihad. And so that is what Britain has today, and will have a great deal more of in the near future.

    Events canceled for security concerns, heavily armed troops roaming the trains and the streets, the candle and flower industries booming as more and more impromptu monuments spring up to an ever-rising number of victims of jihad — this is Theresa May’s Britain. This is the Britain she wanted. This is the Britain she has.

    If Britain survives as a free nation, which is quite reasonably in question at this point, Theresa May will not be remembered as a statesman. She will be excoriated as the useful idiot she is, one among the small group that is chiefly responsible for the downfall of British society.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/05/robert-spencer-at-breitbart-theresa-mays-tories-targeted-critics-of-islam-instead-of-terrorists

Theresa May’s New Approach: More of the Same,

“Enough is enough,” she says after the London attacks, but clearly she wants more.

June 5, 2017, Robert Spencer

The United Kingdom has just suffered its second major jihad massacre in as many weeks, and Prime Minister Theresa May, facing an unexpectedly tough electoral challenge, is talking tough. “It is time,” she proclaimed, “to say enough is enough….Our society should continue to function in accordance with our values but when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism things need to change.”

Indeed they do. Nothing is clearer at this point than the catastrophic failure of the approach to jihad terrorism that May and her predecessors David Cameron, Gordon Brown, and Tony Blair have pursued since 9/11. For years, the British government has hounded, stigmatized, and demonized foes of jihad terror, falsely claiming that they represent a “far-right” equivalent to jihad terrorists, and has appeased and accommodated Muslim groups in Britain, many of which were by no stretch of the imagination “moderate,” and allowing numerous jihad preachers to operate without hindrance.

What has been the result? The jihad massacre at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester in May, and Saturday night’s jihad attacks in London. And there is much, much more to come. The British government’s approach has failed so dismally that “when it comes to taking on extremism and terrorism things need to change” may be wisest thing Theresa May has ever said, or ever will say, during her tenure as Prime Minister.

One of the chief things that needs to change, if May is really serious about “taking on extremism and terrorism,” is the official denial of the jihad terrorists’ motivating ideology. No one can defeat an enemy that he doesn’t understand, much less one that he refuses to understand, and yet that is the position of the May government (and of the U.S. government as well, although we may hope that this swamp will eventually be drained): jihad terror has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Yet the London attackers were hardly shy about what motivated them. One eyewitness recounted: “They went, ‘This is for Allah,’ and they had a woman on the floor, and they were stabbing her, all three, constantly.” The mother of a young man who was wounded in the attacks said: “He just stepped outside the bar for a second and a man ran up to him and said: ‘This is for my family, this is for Islam’, and stuck a knife straight in him. He’s got a seven-inch scar going from his belly round to his back.”

But Theresa May is convinced that they didn’t do it for Allah or Islam at all. She said that the jihadis were “bound together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam. It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

“A perversion of Islam.” May didn’t bother to explain how killing non-Muslims was a “perversion” of a religion with a holy book that thrice exhorts believers to kill those who dare to worship others besides Allah (cf. 2:191, 4:89, 9:5), tells them to “strike the necks” of the unbelievers (47:4) and to fight “the People of the Book” (primarily Jews and Christians) “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued” (9:29). She didn’t elucidate the mysterious process by which Muhammad, who is supposed to be the founder of Islam, ending up holding a “perversion” of it, as he directed his followers to invite unbelievers to accept Islam or pay the jizya, or to go to war with them if they refused both options (Sahih Muslim 4294).

May’s continuing willful ignorance will doom to defeat her effort to change things, if she really attempts one at all. The main thing she needs to change is her mindset, and that of the British political and law enforcement establishment. But the mindset of denial and willful ignorance is deeply entrenched in Britain, such that if she loses the upcoming election, the new Prime Minister, Jeremy Corbyn, will make her look, of all things, tough on terror.

And so it is likely that in the near future, the British people will look back on the good old days when Islamic jihadis hit Manchester and London within two weeks, and marvel that they waited so long between terror attacks. Jihad mass murder is going to be an increasingly common feature of the British landscape for a considerable period to come, and for that, Britons have no one to thank more than…Theresa May

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/266895/theresa-mays-new-approach-more-same-robert-spencer

-

Pamela Geller om May, pluss hele talen til jødisk kongress e l:

UK Prime Minister May likens Pamela Geller to jihad terrorists Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada

By Pamela Geller - on September 18, 2018

“And I acted to keep those who peddle hatred and extremism out of our country. I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones – because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred. And I stopped people like Dieudonne coming to Britain. Because nothing excuses antisemitism – not comedy, not satire, not even irony. Antisemitism is just hatred. And it is just wrong.”

This is how viciously out of touch and divorced from reality Theresa May is. Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada were preachers of jihad who were implicated in jihad terror plotting. I have never called for or condoned any violence. And “Islamophobia” does not remotely come from the same wellspring as antisemitism. Antisemitism is the hatred of the Jews because they are Jews. Jews aren’t and never have been staging terror attacks and calling upon individuals to attack innocent civilians. “Islamophobia,” by contrast, is an invented propaganda term designed to intimidate people into thinking that opposing jihad terror and the sharia oppression of women, gays and others is somehow wrong.

By drawing an equivalence between me and violent jihad terrorists, May is essentially saying that to oppose jihad is the same thing as to plot jihad. This is as insane as it is libelous. May is boasting to a Jewish group that she banned me, a proud Jew and indefatigable supporter of Israel, and expecting applause from them for doing so. Given the Jewish leadership in Britain, she will probably get it. But that doesn’t excuse this absurd libel.

“PM’s speech at the United Jewish Israel Appeal dinner: 17 September 2018,” Gov.uk, September 17, 2018:

    I have come here tonight as Prime Minister of our country to say that I stand with you.

    I stand with the UJIA. I stand with Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. And I stand with the entire Jewish community in Britain.

    In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher shop attacks in Paris I came to a Board of Deputies meeting and joined you in defiance of that horror to say “Je suis Juif.”

    And in the face of any kind of hatred against the Jewish people – in any form and anywhere, whether overseas or right here in our own country – I say with that same defiance: “Je suis Juif.”

    And I say that tonight, not just speaking for myself, and not just speaking for my political party, but also as Prime Minister, speaking for our whole country.

    I know some in our Jewish community say they are fearful of the future. I saw that poll on the front page of the Jewish Chronicle and it sickens me that anyone should feel like that in our country. I do not underestimate the threat posed by those who promote antisemitism, or hatred in any form. Nor the pernicious nature of what those people say and what they stand for.

    But I do not believe those voices speak for the vast, overwhelming majority of people in our country.

    I do not believe they speak for the liberal, tolerant democracy where we – together – have made our home.

    And most importantly, I do not believe that those voices will ever win.

    For the sake of our children and grandchildren, they cannot win.

    And – together – we will not let them win.

    Together, we will stand up for the values we share.

    Together, we will defeat the scourge of antisemitism and hatred in all its forms.

    And together, we will proudly support Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.

    Tonight I want to talk about how we do all of these things. And there is no better place to start, than by supporting the work of the UJIA.

    If we are to stand up for the values that we share – then one of the things we need to do is give young Jewish people the confidence to be proud of their identity – as British, Jewish and Zionist too.

    There is no contradiction between these identities – and we must never let anyone try to suggest that there should be.

    Indeed one of the most sickening aspects of the antisemitism that tries, abhorrently, to suggest Israel is a racist endeavour – is that those voices seek to separate the Jewish diaspora in our country from their connection with Israel.

    We must never let that happen.

    So UJIA’s work here is absolutely vital, because it gives young Jewish people in Britain the confidence to develop their connection with Israel.

    Through formal and informal education programmes it helps to cultivate their understanding and appreciation of Jewish culture and identity.

    And through Summer visits and exchange programmes – which this year alone have seen more than 1600 young people spend time in Israel and many Israelis spending time here in the community – UJIA gives young people the chance to learn about Israel and to forge a deep and personal connection with it.

    But UJIA does not stop there. It also does important work to strengthen communities within Israel itself and to build social cohesion.

    By backing the UJIA tonight you can help fund programmes which support ultra-orthodox men and women to secure higher education qualifications and ultimately new opportunities in the workplace. And you can support programmes which work to integrate Israeli Arabs into Israel’s high tech industry and bring new business to the Galil.

    Programmes like these are vital – because a more socially cohesive and more prosperous Israel has a better chance of securing the long-term peace we all want to see.

    And UJIA is also at the forefront of new models of social impact investing, the cutting edge of philanthropy, where you don’t just give capital away, you invest it for a social return and sometimes then reinvest that capital in further projects – meaning that money you give tonight can go even further than before.

    By supporting UJIA, you are also helping Britain and Israel to deepen our own bi-lateral ties too.

    Earlier this year, we saw the wonderful visit of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, the first official Royal visit in Israel’s 70 year history.

    And I am delighted that UJIA played your part in that visit through your presence at the Duke’s game of football with the Equalizer, an inspiring project that – with your support – brings together Jewish and Arab boys and girls.

    The Duke’s visit was a celebration of our contemporary partnership with Israel. And it was absolutely right that that the Duke also met other young people from Israeli civil society, including LGBT leaders, those working on mental health issues and those helping the less fortunate in society. And I applaud the work UJIA does to support such groups.

    We deeply value our connections with Israeli civil society as part of the fabric that binds two democracies together.

    And it was great to see another example of the strong bonds which extend beyond the Jewish communities in our two countries – with the Tel Aviv in London Festival last year, showcasing the rich culture of Tel Aviv and its citizens of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. And we look forward to plans for a London in Tel Aviv Festival to showcase London’s cultural diversity to all Israelis.

    The last year has also seen us mark the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.

    I will never forget standing with Prime Minister Netanyahu to view the original version of that historic letter. It was very special moment and it encapsulates for me how I feel about Israel.

    For I am not just proud to support Israel; I am proud of our role in the creation of Israel. And I want to build the strongest and deepest possible relationship between our two countries.

    Indeed, as the United Kingdom forges a bold new future outside the European Union, we will be seeking free trade deals with our partners around the world. And as a great start-up nation, an engine of enterprise, a world leader in technology, and a great friend of Britain, I want to see an ambitious free trade deal between our countries.

    The UK is already Israel’s second largest trading partner and its number one destination for investment in Europe with more than 340 Israeli companies already operating here.

    While our bilateral trade is already worth over $9 billion – up by more than a quarter on last year alone.

    And as I have said to Prime Minister Netanyahu I want to build on this – deepening our links in particular in sectors like agriculture, health, science, technology and innovation.

    But my support for Israel goes beyond economics.

    You can also count on my commitment to Israel’s security.

    I understand Israel’s vulnerability because I have been there and seen it for myself. Indeed, it was during my last visit in 2014 that the bodies of the murdered teenagers Naftali Frenkel, Gilad Shaer and Eyal Yifrah were discovered.

    So I am clear that we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself.

    And in a world where Britain and Israel increasingly face the same shared challenges and threats, I am just as clear that our security services will continue to deepen their already excellent co-operation to keep all our people safe.

    You can also count on me to defend Israel’s values – because Israel is a country like ours that believes in liberty, democracy and the rule of law.

    Like Britain, Israel is also prepared to act in support of the international community, just as we saw this Summer. For when the White Helmets found themselves in grave danger in South-Western Syria, it was the Israeli Defence Force which worked with the international community to get them out.

    But none of this means, of course, that we don’t also have some disagreements with the government of Israel.

    And like everyone here tonight, I want to see progress towards a lasting peace – a peace that must be based on a two-state solution with a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian State.

    There will need to be courage and vision from each side if we are to have a realistic chance of achieving this goal – including an end to the building of new settlements and an end to Palestinian incitement too.

    The UK has – and will – also stand by Israel whenever it is treated unfairly at the United Nations – as we have shown at the Human Rights Council.

    And as we work together towards what was Balfour’s vision of a peaceful co-existence – we must be equally clear that there can never be any excuses for boycotts, divestment or sanctions: they are unacceptable and this government will have no truck with those who subscribe to them.

    Under my leadership the UK will always be a real and trusted partner for Israel, supporting Israel’s security and prosperity, not just through our words but also through our actions.

    So too, will I act to stand with our Jewish community by rooting out the scourge of antisemitism here in our own country – just as I will stand with every community in Britain to fight racial and religious hatred in any form.

    Let me be clear: you cannot claim to be tackling racism, if you are not tackling antisemitism.

    And that mission begins by being clear about what antisemitism is.

    That is why the government I lead was the first in the world to adopt the definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

    Because of this definition, no-one can plead ignorance or hide behind any kind of excuse.

    Let me say it very clearly.

    Criticising the actions of Israel is never – and can never be – an excuse for questioning Israel’s right to exist; any more than criticising Britain’s actions could be an excuse for questioning our right to exist.

    And criticising the government of Israel is never – and can never be – an excuse for hatred against the Jewish people – any more than criticising the British government would be an excuse for hatred against the British people.

    There are no excuses for any kind of hatred towards the Jewish people.

    Just as there are no excuses for hatred towards any community of any race or religion.

    No excuses, means no excuses.

    And we will not stop at calling out those who spread this hatred, whether against the Jewish community or any other racial or religious community in our country.

    We will record it and punish those responsible for it.

    That is why as Home Secretary I required all police forces to record religious hate crimes separately, by faith.

    And I acted to keep those who peddle hatred and extremism out of our country.

    I kicked out Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.

    I stopped Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones – because Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred.

    And I stopped people like Dieudonne coming to Britain. Because nothing excuses antisemitism – not comedy, not satire, not even irony.

    Antisemitism is just hatred. And it is just wrong….

https://gellerreport.com/2018/09/may-geller-hamza.html/

London’s Muslim mayor slams Trump for retweeting videos of Muslims being violent

By Pamela Geller - on December 1, 2017

I am banned from the UK, but this jihadi is Mayor of London. London Mayor Sadiq Khan once shared a platform with Borough Market jihad attacker’s “close friend” who “trained one of the 7/7 bombers.” He downplayed this by saying it was a long time ago. But imagine if Sadiq Khan had shared a platform with me or one of my colleagues — a foe of jihad and champion of human rights. It would be part of the rap sheet the left would have on him forever, and he would never live it down. Britain is much more hospitable to jihad mass murderers than to warriors for freedom such as President Trump.

Here again we see a British governing official blaming the messenger. Britain has a massive problem with jihad, and instead of doing something about it, Theresa May and Sadiq Khan are blaming Trump for calling attention to it. There have been over 30,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11, each with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric. But no, the problem is all Donald Trump and Britain First — and me. The Huffington Post and the Guardian both blamed me for Trump’s retweets. Insane.

“London mayor hits Trump over anti-Muslim videos,” by Maegan Vazquez, CNN, November 30, 2017:

    Washington (CNN)The mayor of London slammed President Donald Trump on Thursday for retweeting anti-Muslim propaganda from a British far-right party, and suggested UK Prime Minister Theresa May shouldn’t welcome Trump into their country for a state visit.

    The statement from Sadiq Khan adds another notable voice to the growing list of leading British officials who have expressed outrage over Trump’s retweets, which have created an international incident and opened a rift between the US and its closest ally.

    Khan, who is Muslim, called Britain First, the far-right party Trump retweeted on Wednesday, “a vile, extremist group that exists solely to sow division and hatred in our country.” He added that the videos make it “increasingly clear that any official visit at all from President Trump to Britain would not be welcomed.”

    Trump caused outrage in Britain by retweeting three videos posted by Jayda Frandsen, the deputy leader of Britain First. The inflammatory videos showed people purported to be Muslims carrying out assaults and, in one video, smashing a statue of the Virgin Mary.

    “Many Brits who love America and Americans will see this as a betrayal of the special relationship between our two countries,” Khan continued. “It beggars belief that the President of our closest ally doesn’t see that his support of this extremist group actively undermines the values of tolerance and diversity that makes Britain so great.”

    Following Trump’s retweets on Wednesday, a spokesperson for May said Trump was “wrong” to share the videos.

    Trump took aim at May following the statement, tweeting: “@Theresa_May, don’t focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine!”

    On Thursday, a spokesperson at Downing Street said May is standing by her criticism of the President, but said the offer of a state visit seems to be on track.

    “The Prime Minister is very clear that it was wrong to tweet those videos,” the statement said. “But the US is one of our longest, closest and most trusted allies. The offer of a state visit has been extended and accepted. Further details will be set out in due course.”

    British Ambassador to the US Kim Darroch said Thursday he raised his concerns about the tweets to the White House.

    “British people overwhelmingly reject the prejudiced rhetoric of the far right, which seek to divide communities & erode decency, tolerance & respect. British Muslims are peaceful and law abiding citizens. And I raised these concerns with the White House yesterday,” Darroch tweeted

https://gellerreport.com/2017/12/london-mayor-slams.html/