If Only Said by Our President

A groundbreaking – but ignored – speech on Islam
Raymond Ibrahim | Monday Jan 12, 2015 6:00 AM

On New Year’s Day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi—the hero of Egypt’s 2013 anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution—made some remarkable comments concerning the need for a “religious revolution.”

Sisi made his remarks during a speech celebrating the birth of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad—which was ironically held on January 1, 2015 (a day not acknowledged or celebrated in the Muslim world as it is based on a Christian calendar)—and he was addressing the nation’s top Islamic authorities from among the Awqaf Ministry (religious endowments) and Al Azhar University.

Although Sisi’s words were directed to Islam’s guardians and articulators, they indirectly lead to several important lessons for Western observers.

First, in just a few words, Sisi delivered a dose of truth and hard-hitting reality concerning the Islamic world’s relationship to the rest of the world—a dose of reality very few Western leaders dare think let alone proclaim.

“It’s inconceivable,” he said, “that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma [Islamic world] to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!”

What a refreshingly honest statement to come from not only a political leader but a Muslim political leader who has much to lose, not least his life! Contrast his very true words with the habitual reassurances of the Western establishment that Islamic world violence and intolerance is a product of anything and everything but Islam.

Even after the appearance of the head-chopping, infidel-crucifying Islamic State, politicians like U.S. President Obama and U.K. Prime Minister Cameron insisted that the “caliphate” is not Islamic, despite all the evidence otherwise. Yet here is Sisi, the pious Muslim, saying that the majority of the terrorism plaguing the world today is related to the holy texts of Islam themselves:

That thinking [that is responsible for producing “anxiety, danger, killing and destruction” around the world]—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the centuries, to the point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

As a Muslim, Sisi will not say that Islam, the “religion,” is responsible for “antagonizing the entire world,” but he certainly goes much further than his Western counterparts when he says that this “thinking” is rooted in an Islamic “corpus of texts and ideas” which have become so “sacralized.”

Recall that here in the West, Islamic terrorists are seen as mere “criminals” and their terrorism as “crimes” without mention of any Islamic text or ideology driving them.

The Egyptian president further invoked the classical Islamic teaching—the “thinking”—that divides the world into two warring halves: the Muslim world (or in Islamic/Arabic parlance, Dar al-Islam) which must forever be in a struggle with the rest of the world (or Dar al-Harb, the “abode of war”) till, in the Koran’s words, “all religion belongs to Allah” (Koran 8:39).

“Is it possible,” asked Sisi, “that 1.6 billion people should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live?”

Sisi made another important point that Western leaders and media habitually lie about: after affirming that Islamic “thinking” is “antagonizing the entire world,” he said that “this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

In other words, Islamic terrorism and chaos is not a product of grievance, territorial disputes, colonialism, Israel, offensive cartoons, or anything else the West points to. It’s a product of their “own hands.”

Again, one must appreciate how refreshing it is for a top political leader in the heart of the Islamic world to make such candid admissions that his Western counterparts dare not even think let alone speak. And bear in mind, Sisi has much to lose as opposed to Western politicians. Calls by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists that he is an apostate are sure to grow more aggressive now.

The critic may ask, “All well and good, but words aside, what has Sisi actually done to help bring about this “religious revolution”? In fact, one popular journalist, Ibrahim Eissa, recently said just this on live television in Egypt:

Five months have passed since he [Sisi] became president, after his amazing showing at elections. Okay: the president has, more than once, indicated the need for a renewal of religious discourse…. But he has not done a single thing, President Sisi, to renew religious discourse. Nothing at all.

Yet it seems that Sisi has an answer for this, too: it is not his job as president of Egypt to reform the thinking of the Islamic world; rather, that role belongs to the ulema—which is precisely why he addressed them with such candid words. Indeed, he repeatedly stressed that it is the ulema’s job to lead this “religious revolution.”

Thus, “I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move…. I am saying these words here at Al Azhar, before this assembly of scholars and ulema—Allah Almighty be witness to your truth on Judgment Day concerning that which I’m talking about now.”

Meanwhile, while Sisi was making these groundbreaking if not historic statements, the Western mainstream media, true to form, ignored them and instead offered puerile and redundant headlines, most critical of Sisi, like:

• “Egypt President Sisi urged to free al-Jazeera reporter” (BBC, Jan 1; to which I respond, “Why, so Al Jazeera can continue lying and misleading the West about Sisi and Egypt’s anti-Muslim Brotherhood revolution?”)
• “Egyptian gays living in fear under Sisi regime” (USA Today, Jan. 2; to which I respond, “Homosexuals live in fear in all Islamic nations, regardless of Sisi.”)
• “George Clooney’s wife Amal risks arrest in Egypt” (Fox News, Jan. 3; to which I respond, “Who cares? Only her innocence or guilt matter, not her husband’s fame”—which is the only reason Fox News chose the story in the first place.)

Whether concerning the true nature of Islam or the true nature of Sisi, here is the latest example of how unfathomably ignorant all those millions of people who exclusively follow the so-called “mainstream media” must surely be.

A very Slippery Slope

Destruction Because of Offense: Je Suis Kelvin Cochran

There is a very provocative article posted by By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | January 9th, 2015, in the Red State. He helps us to understand the intention of radical Islamics, which is to completely destroy any opposing views to their radical understanding of jihad. It is not enough for them to simply destroy businesses; as we saw Paris last week, they are satisfied with nothing less than death. Short of taking lives we see similar tactics employed by the LGBT and other groups sympathetic. They are not satisfied until they crush and destroy anyone who has a different view even to the point of causing property and businesses to be lost. This is a sad day for America on at least two fronts. Read Cochran’s excellent article below. He gives us a great deal to consider as we seek rights for ourselves at the expense of others.

“It is a growing phenomenon, and it was on visible display last week. A group of terrorists was so offended by a publisher that the publisher had to be destroyed publicly as both an act of vengeance and an act of instruction.

The act of vengeance was directed against the publisher directly. He came under attack for his personal actions. He published something that offended the group. He published something that enraged them and, consequently, he needed to be punished.

The punishment could not be minor. It could not be something like heaping scorn on him. It could not be a public disagreement, a challenge or a debate. The subject, after all, is not debatable. The publisher had to be crushed, his livelihood taken, and he had to be ruined.

Ruining him, though, is not enough. There had to be instruction for others. The dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” One of those political aims is to let others know that if they speak out, they will be ruined, too. The terrorist must teach the public that if any of them causes offense, they too will be taken out. It is more than that, though. It is also instruction to self-regulate against offense.

Once a person has been visibly ruined with no grace and no mercy because, in this example, he dared publish something that offended the terrorists, the lesson is clear. Polite society does not want that violence and cannot abide the violence. So the public will step in, as agents of the terrorist under duress, to shut up any others who might stand in the town square and risk offending. The public shuts them up and shuts them down because the public does not want the intimidation, harassment and ruin.

The result is that the conversation ceases. Importantly, it is not because the conversation was out of bounds culturally, civically or politically. It is only out of bounds because of the repercussions from a minority group intent on silencing dissent. Before the conversation stops in the town square, however, it stops in the offices, in the schools and in the academy. Eventually, it stops except between the best and most trusted of friends.

While much of the world focused on terrorists killing cartoonists in France for offending their religion, last week in Atlanta, Georgia, the mayor of Atlanta fired the city’s fire chief, Kelvin Cochran, for his Christian faith. The mayor claimed it was not Cochran’s faith, but Cochran’s judgment. The mayor’s excuse is hard to believe.

In November of 2013, Kelvin Cochran, a former Obama administration official turned chief of the fire department in Atlanta, Georgia, published a book titled “Who Told You That You Were Naked?” The book expounded on the fire chief’s faith and encouraged people to turn their lives over to Christ.

In the book, Cochran said his chief end was “to glorify God.” He said that was his first duty even in his job at the fire department. A reflection of the Westminster Catechism, it is also a summation of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Street Sweeper” speech. In that speech, Dr. King said that men needed to worship God and turn their lives over to God.

Dr. King began, “go on out and sweep streets like Michelangelo painted pictures; sweep streets like Handel and Beethoven composed music; sweep streets like Shakespeare wrote poetry; sweep streets so well that all the host of heaven and earth will have to pause and say, ‘Here lived a great street sweeper who swept his job well.’”

Kelvin Cochran, in his book, also said that any sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong. He said gay sex, like heterosexual sex outside of marriage, is a sin. For saying his job was to glorify God and gay sex is a sin, gay rights activists screamed loudly that he could not do his job. They accused Cochran, with no evidence, of proselytizing on the job.

The offended group of activists had to destroy Kelvin Cochran’s livelihood because his published work offended them. Mayor Reed of Atlanta complied.”

Kerry offers weak defense of US absence in Paris

By Sky News (UK) January 12, 2015 6:50 am

Sunday January 11, 2014 was a reversal of President Roosevelt’s use of the word “infamy.” He used it to describe the barbaric attack on America by the Japanese. It might be used to describe the lack of American leadership and presence  when 1.6 million marched in the streets of Paris (and elsewhere in European cities) to express solidarity against radical Muslims reigning jihad on the free world. Click the Sky News (UK) for the story.

‘Shariah-compliant’ Obama blindly fighting terror?

obama_chairBy President Barack Obama’s refusal to put a finger on the Islamic underpinnings of the Paris jihadist attacks killing a total of 17, experts are rendering the Commander-in-Chief powerless to fight an enemy that he will not identify — exposing his weakness and fear of Islam sensed in both the Western and Muslim world.
As a result, experts are saying that the Obama administration has taken America out of the war Islam has waged to gain world dominance — much like anti-war movement in the United States before World War II that wanted to leave Nazi Germany alone, insisting that Hitler was not a direct enemy of America.

And ex-Central Intelligence Agency Analyst Clare Lopez says that the White House is sitting in a similar positon eight decades later by refusing to identify Islam as a threat to America’s existence as a nation and to the world’s freedom as we know it.

“The United States is essentially hors du combat (French for ‘out of the fight’) in the jihad wars — the wars to stay free of Shariah,” Lopez informed WND. “[Obama and his administration] have withdrawn U.S. military forces, withdrawn U.S. power and influence from critical regions, abandoned former allies — Gadhafi, Mubarak, Israel — in order to favor jihadists, whether al-Qaida or the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria.”

Lopez insists that because the Obama administration strictly adheres to messaging that does not depict Islamic jihadists as the terror threat, America is in danger.

“[The administration refuses to identify the enemy as] forces of Islamic jihad and Shariah — Muslim terrorism, Islamic jihad — some combination of these that demonstrates we know that authoritative, mainstream, orthodox Islamic doctrine drives and justifies what Islamic terrorists do.”

Currently serving with the Center for Security Policy as its vice president for research and analysis in Washington, D.C., Lopez argues that America cannot fight “what we will not name,” insisting that those under attack in the “Dar al-Harb” (Arabic for territory of war) are unwilling to admit openly that war is taking place. She also notes that it is inaccurate for Western nations to call Muslim terrorist attacks “radical” or “extreme” because jihad is not a diversion from the norm in the religion of Islam.

“But jihad is the norm in Islam,” Lopez stressed to WND. “History shows that it has been for over 1,300 years, and we must acknowledge and confront that if we wish to preserve Western civilization for our children and children’s children.”

Lopez then defined jihad as Muslims know it from Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler in Arabic) found in the classic Manual of Sacred Islamic Law.

“Jihad resurgent — Islamic Jihad — by definition is ‘warfare against non-Muslims to spread Islam,’” Lopez stressed, noting that because the Cold War, colonialism and 20th-century wars are no longer in Muslims’ way, jihad is in “resurgence.”

She warns that because Western nations have bowed down to self-condemnation and rejected the very founding principles that have made them strong, they are headed on a one-way road to submission to Islam.

“The West appears to the enemy to have lost its appreciation for itself and its own principles and willingness to defend them,” Lopez observed. “We need to prove them wrong on this, as soon as possible.”

‘Shariah compliant’

Joy Brighton, who penned Sharia-ism Is Here: The Battle to Control Women; and Everything Else last year, contends that Obama’s refusal to call the Paris terrorist attacks Islamic provides more proof that he has resigned himself to a “Shariah compliant” speech code.

“President Obama defends free speech vehemently, and the press lauds him for this; however, he refuses to use the words ‘Islam,’ ‘radical Islam,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘jihad’ or ‘Shariah’ when condemning the Shariah-driven shootings in Paris,” Brighton informed WND, pointing out that Shariah is Islamic law — a strict code of morality by which all Muslims must submit concerning every facet of their lives (personal, economic, political, criminal).

Brighton also used a piece of Obama’s September 25, 2012 speech to the United Nations General Assembly to demonstrate that the President is well aligned with pro-Muslim messaging.

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” Obama declared to the U.N. before remembering to save face by mentioning the religion upon which America was founded. “But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.”

Brighton argues that Obama’s Muslim-leaning policies and rhetoric impede his ability to champion free speech, which he claimed he stood for after the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

“Barack Obama is complying with Shariah law in suggesting that criticism of Islam could be a criminal hate-speech offense,” Brighton argues. “In his statement to the United Nations, Obama does not defend free speech, has given in to Shariah law, and doing so as president is unconstitutional, because with this statement Obama abandons the First Amendment and the defense of free speech.”

The author directs Americans to look at the totalitarian movements of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini and their suppression of free speech to see where Obama’s policies are leading.

“Communism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of communism the same as Nazism succeeded by shutting down free speech criticism of Nazism,” Brighton told WND. “Shariah-ism, what I call the global political movement of radical Islam, will also succeed by shutting down criticism and political debate.”

Brighton extrapolated further to illustrate the link between Shariah and totalitarianism and how they have fed into the current political movement sweeping through the U.N., Europe, the U.S. and the rest of the Western world.

“I don’t condemn Shariah law,” Brighton continued. “If you want to pray five times a day because it’s Shariah law, you are practicing your religion. If you want me to pray five times a day, you are not practicing your religion. You have crossed the line and now what you are doing is unconstitutional, because you’re trying to impose the totalitarian edicts of your political movement on me. ‘Shariah-ism’ uses Shariah law to justify the complete control of others.”

A key distinction was then made that many Americans and especially the Obama administration just don’t get or acknowledge.

“Islam is protected under the First Amendment definitions of free speech and free religion,” Brighton noted. “‘Shariah-ism’ is a totalitarian political movement that is not protected under the First Amendment.”

Refusing for a bruising?

Lopez points to the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre to demonstrate that “individual jihad” has already come to America. This is another jihadist attack the Obama administration denied and covered up, despite the fact that the Islamic Maj. Nidal Hasan yelled the name of Allah while spraying 13 U.S. military members with fatal shots. Obama called it “workplace violence.” Hasan was praised for his attack by al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki, of whom he claimed to be a follower.

The Boston Marathon was another Islamic cover-up by the Obama administration, as Lopez says that the living Tsarnaev brother (about to go to trial) — who was not fatally shot by police — is another example of fardayn, an Islamic doctrine that demands Muslims around the world to fight whenever other Muslims or Muslim lands are under attack by “infidels.”

She contends that if Muslims are not in the midst of jihad, they must travel to it or wage it at their present locale.

“Both Al-Qaida’s Inspire magazine and the Islamic State’s Dabiq (magazine) have been publishing these themes in recent issues,” Lopez reported. “The response both in terms of fighters from dozens of countries going to Iraq and Syria and in terms of those returning from those battlefields and those Muslims who maybe never went but are inspired by those calls to battle has been simply enormous.”

Lopez argues that even though the West cannot change the Islamic principles by which Muslims live, a comprehensive strategy must be implemented if the world does not want to submit to it one day.

“We must defeat it by using every means at our disposal — a whole of civilization response to a whole of Islamic civilization assault,” Lopez insists. “That means we engage with diplomatic measures, economic/financial responses, intelligence operations, legal means, military offensives, political tactics, in cyberspace and most importantly of all in the information battle space, because that is the primary arena of this fight and the one in which we are not even present at the moment.”

She declares that this new war needs to be fought tactically from a number of angles — led by leaders and militias who define and know the enemy and aren’t afraid to offend Islam and use all the innovative resources at their disposal.

“I think we need to begin fighting smart — not just kinetically and not just massively, but in a sophisticated way, that understands we are in a new era of asymmetric warfare that demands new strategy,” Lopez concludes.

—- Copyright OneNewsNow.com. Reprinted with permission.