All The President’s Women

By Nonie Darwish

It is not a coincidence that most of the Obama administration scandals happened under the leadership of women. The Obama administration chooses to surround itself with ‘yes men’ and ‘yes women’, but liberal 'yes women' have an advantage; it is hard to criticize and grill them when a scandal happens without being accused of sexism and/or a bigoted woman hater.  

In our current political environment, Liberal politicians in general, men and women, get away with a lot more than Conservative politicians because of media liberal bias. But liberal female politicians can get away with a lot more than their male counterparts and that explains why almost all the Obama scandals have women faces behind them. Under ordinary conditions, men or women, should end up as fall guys or gals, but many of the women behind the Obama scandals end up rewarded even with a better position.  

The Benghazi scandal supposedly hurt several women; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Ambassador Susan Rice and Charlene lamb among others. It is clear that the White House, for an unknown reason, manipulated the State Department’s decision-making process regarding Benghazi and Clinton went along. Hillary, who wants to be president, have recently stated that she regrets Benghazi, but ‘her regret’ would be more accurately described as ‘her failure’ to be her own boss in the State Department.

When the Benghazi scandal exploded, the administration had to quickly find a ‘yes’ liberal woman, to take Hillary’s place on TV. Susan Rice thus came to the rescue when Hillary refused to face the music in public. The White House and the media did everything they could to shield Hillary from the scandal even from her own investigators, the State Department Accountability Review Board. The Review Board issued their report without interviewing the boss, Hillary, but they accused yet another woman, Ms. Lamb, for failure in leadership when her office denied providing extra security to the US Ambassador in Libya. But low and behold, Ms. Lamb, who was accused of dropping the ball, was never fired and instead was rewarded by the same State Department that gave her another key position.

Few men can, with a straight face, expect to get away with yelling to questions in congress: “What difference does it make?” Only a liberal woman with an entitlement mentality can get away with something like that without becoming the laughing stock of Saturday Night Live. Nothing works better to manipulate public opinion more than an offended woman questioned by a nasty bigoted republican male.

The Affordable Care Act scandal also had many women behind it and could never have passed congress without Nancy Pelosi who, like Hillary feels entitled to immunity from criticism. Pelosi bragged she would stop at nothing to pass the bill when she said: “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn't work, we’ll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the America people." No man could have gotten away without scrutiny for a statement like: "we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what's in it.” Only in the current liberal environment, can the media find a self-made woman like Sarah Palin to be ridicule material, while taking someone like Pelosi seriously!

After Pelosi passed the healthcare bill, another woman took over its implementation, secretary of Health and Human services, Kathleen Sebelius. While only a few have read or comprehended Obamacare, Sebelius happily took over the job and consistently expressed confidence that everything was under control. She never prepared America for a possible disaster until the opening day of October 1st when the disaster exploded.

Women, who don’t like to be questioned, were also the face of the IRS Scandal. Before taking the 5th, Louis Lerner gave herself the right to state she had done nothing wrong. Lerner’s boss at the IRS, Sarah Ingram, was director of the office that oversaw tax-exempt organizations during the targeting of conservative groups. But again, instead of a demotion, she was promoted to lead the Obamacare office.

While Democrats accuse Republicans of a ‘war on women’ they have no problem in using liberal woman as shield from scandal. These women act untouchable and entitled and are guarded by a liberal media who will viciously attack republicans whose job is supposed to be the opposition party. But how can you be an effective opposition if your opponent claims gender discrimination every time you question all these liberal women leaders?

Even if these women are exposed to scandal they act like they have been wronged, deserve to be rewarded, insist on staying the course, claim the 5th and even get promoted. When Hillary Clinton put up with and defended her husband’s accusations of sexual harassment on the job, she managed to appear as the victim who deserved to be elected Senator, Secretary of State and perhaps the Democratic nominee for President. See, we owe her.

The mainstream media and academia have produced generations of American women with a constant chip on their shoulder, with unrealistic expectations and perceive life’s challenges as a personal attack because they are women. Ironically, these are the same women who ignore Islamic scandals of honor killing, female genital mutilation and killing of apostates. Some of them even go as far as accusing critics of Islam as Islamophobes.

It is presumed that only third world tyrannies use and abuse women and children to achieve political goals. Some Muslim countries stage women in front of the media to say they want to give their sons to die in jihad. Obama learned the value of staging women to make him appear as the savior when he staged several fainting episodes of a pregnant woman during his speeches. This happened many times in several of Obama speaking events. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPzboLdqKy4

Some liberal women’s feelings of entitlement end up driving them into exaggeration and lying about their background to get special treatment. One example is senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and State Senator Wendy Davis of Texas. One can only imagine what kind of work environment these women will create around them.

The current leftist political culture regarding women is setting them up either to fail or turn them into female dictators in an authoritarian mommy state that will threaten the fabric of our free society. Under the guise of ‘we are pro-women’ the Left is using women as tools to silence criticism and inquiry of scandals. While the mainstream media places liberal women on a pedestal, it hammers, ridicules and uses vile insults on air to describe conservative women. And we let them get away with it.

Americans’ Stockholm Syndrome With Islam? — on The Glazov Gang

January 21, 2014

This week’s Glazov Gang was hosted by Ann-Marie Murrell and joined by Beverly Zaslow, a documentary film producer, Michael Hausam, a conservative writer and activist, and Nonie Darwish, the author of The Devil We Don’t Know.

The Gang gathered to discuss Americans’ Stockholm Syndrome With Islam? The discussion occurred in Part I and focused on how 9/11 traumatized the U.S. into Jihad-Denial. The dialogue occurred within the context of English-Language Media Ignores Breivik’s Coming-Out As A Nazi. (The title of  Robert Spencer’s recent piece). The mass murderer has recently confessed of wanting to destroy the counter-jihad movement and yet the media is completely silent and no apologies are being made to individuals such as Robert Spencer who were slandered in the whole ordeal. The panel examines the reasons why.

In Part II, the Gang focuses on:Obamacare an “Islamic Trojan Horse.”

Watch both parts of the two-part series below:

Originally Published HERE.

When The Left Loves War — on The Glazov Gang

September 13, 2013

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Karen Siegemund, Founder of Rage Against the Media, Michael Chandler, a concerned citizen and Borek Volarik, a Czech defector.

Author and freedom fighter Nonie Darwish filled in for host Jamie Glazov.

The Gang gathered this week to discuss When The Left Loves War.The discussion occurred in Part II and analyzed progressives’ peculiar track record of indignation about Iraq and silence on Syria.

Part I focused on Striking Syria, shedding light on what America stands to gain — and lose — if Obama launches war.

To watch both parts of the two-part series, see below:

Originally Published HERE.

Obama's Taqqiya Unravels

By Nonie Darwish

I have never entertained the idea that Obama was a Muslim and always believed he was a socialist. But Obama's behavior over the last four years regarding Islam has convinced me that Obama has a Socialist/Islamic centered worldview -- a combination that is not uncommon in many parts of the Muslim world.

Having been a journalist in Egypt for six years in the seventies, I have witnessed socialism with an Islamic twist to be a popular political ideology, especially amongst Arab journalists and intellectuals. Socialism, and even communism, have managed to survive in the ruthless Islamic political system as an alternative to full-fledged Sharia. The two ideologies have blended together in cases including the Baath Party in Syria and Iraq and socialist regimes in Egypt and Yemen. One major difference between the two ideologies is that Islam uses Allah, while socialism uses atheism, to fight the God of Christianity. Free democracies, such as the United States, are alien to Islam and socialism both because they regard government as a servant of the people and hold that human rights are granted by God and not by government or the code of Sharia.

Both Sharia and socialism are united in their envy of Western society and need to change it. That is why Obama has become the savior of both Islam and socialism. He embodies both ideologies. The claim that Obama is a Christian was a silly joke, but a necessary lie for the greater cause of changing America to fit the goals of both creeds.

Obama became the One, the savior of both Islam and socialists. To do that, Obama had to deny who he really was, which explains why his actions and words have never added up. At the recent Alfred E. Smith Catholic Charity dinner speech, Obama did not seem to be just kidding when he said that Romney uses his middle name Mitt and "I wish I could use my middle name." Obama was referring, of course, to his Islamic middle name of Hussein. In Obama's mind, he was not ashamed for having deceived America -- he blamed America for putting him in the position of having to deny his true pride in his middle name.

That brings us to an important discovery by WND in an article by Jerome Corsi titled: "Obama's Ring: 'There is no God But Allah'." The article featured close-up photos of a ring still worn by Obama today in the White House, one that he has worn since his visit to Pakistan as a young man. The ring, which later also became his wedding ring, has very tiny and discrete Arabic calligraphy that means nothing to Americans, but to Arabic-speaking people like myself and Dr. Mark Gabriel, means quite a lot. Such Islamic calligraphy is commonly found throughout the gold markets of the Muslim world. I am not a writing expert, but I can clearly see on the ring the word 'La Ilaha IllaAllah. ("There is no god but god.")' Such a sentence in Arabic has a lot of the letters A and L which in Arabic are simply a straight line like the number one.

The only explanation for Obama's exciting ring secret is that he is a closet Muslim and feels that he can serve Islam best if he denies his being a Muslim for the purpose of a higher aspiration to serve the Muslim world from the White House, in Islamic terms the "higher jihad." Obama has no problem whatsoever in lying for the sake of "Hope and Change" since lying about being a Muslim in a majority non-Muslim country is allowed under Islam. Lying for the purpose of jihad (known as "taqqiya") is not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of and even serves as a reason to blame the enemies of Islam for one's lies. Sharia law states: "Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory." Muslim clerics have no problem in lying not just to the non-Muslim world but even to the Muslim masses, since Islam also allows Muslims to lie in order to bring Muslims together in harmony and friendship.

That brings us to the current debacle in Libya, which can only be understood if we grasp Obama's worldviews as regards the "Muslim World." Like the so-called 'moderate' Muslims, Obama insists Islam in and of itself has nothing to do with terrorism and blames previous American foreign policy (along with Israel), for Islamic anger. Obama narrowed down the problem of Islamism to Al Qaeda while embracing other Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, as moderate. In the process, Obama dismissed the Brotherhood's long history of terror, which in fact gave birth to Al Qaeda and hundreds of other terror groups. Nothing in Obama's world is the fault of Islam, which is why he ordered the Fort Hood massacre to be classified as "workplace violence" and not Islamic terrorism.

Obama believes that he uniquely understands the Muslim world and will bring about a new era of peace with Islam, at least during his administration. There are strong rumors in Egypt that when Obama met with the Egyptian foreign minister, he confided in him that he was a Muslim and that he would assist the Islamic cause in America after he passes the Health Care Bill.

But as president of the United States, Obama was caught in a quagmire between protecting American lives and appearing loyal to Islam. Placing American Marines at US consulates in dangerous terror-infested Islamic countries created the possibility of a bloody confrontation between American security and Islamists. That would discredit Obama's attempt to separate Islam from terrorism. Also, if Obama confronted militant Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his entire claim to opening a new page in American/Islamic relations would fall apart. He would then be no different from his predecessors, Bush or Reagan.

That explains why the demands for American security by U.S. ambassador Stevens went unanswered. Obama did not want to deal with the possibility that American Marines would shoot at Muslim attackers in order to save American lives.

According to Sharia, it is a capital crime for a Muslim individual or leader to shoot at fellow Muslims -- even Islamists -- for the purpose of protecting Americans. That would make Obama a violator of Sharia and an apostate. If Obama considers himself a Muslim and wears an Islamic ring, then he must have had a very hard time deciding on how to protect the consulate without killing Muslim attackers. His solution? Settling for the lesser of two evils: getting Muslims, in the form of Libyan security, to guard the property and in this way, forcing Muslims to shoot other Muslims in order to defend the consulate. But that plan was useless because even the Muslim guards had to follow Sharia, and ran away and left the Americans to be killed rather than violate Sharia themselves by killing other Muslims. Obama gambled with the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others and left them as sacrificial lambs rather than violate the dictates of Sharia.

The Benghazi fiasco merely underlined Obama's failed promises of peace with the Muslim world. The murder of Americans at the hand of Muslims did not even get us an apology from any Muslim leader or cleric. No one is taking responsibility, not even Obama himself.

With the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Islamists and jihadists made it clear to us that they could care less about Obama, his appeasement, his apologies, and even his Islam. They could not put jihad on hold or restrain themselves on behalf of an American president who wanted to help build a better image of Islam. They could not play the game with Obama and refrain from jihad even during the Obama presidency. The jihadists in effect declared that Obama, Muslim or not, is just another American president who should not be trusted. No leader, Muslim or not, can get away from the wrath of Islamic jihad, and that is why angry Islamic mobs were recently seen torching Obama's effigy.

It is unfortunate that it took a tragedy in Libya and the lives of decent Americans to prove that Obama is unfit to be president of the USA. Obama has fooled many Americans for four years and that is why, when he sees the face of Mitt Romney, he is reminded of a reality that he could not fully eliminate. Obama knows the game, and his presidency, is over.

Originally published HERE.

Egypt's Example

By Nonie Darwish

How many revolutions does a nation need to correct its course? Some nations undergo the pain of one revolution and flourish, while others achieve change by allowing themselves to evolve through self-examination, correction, awakening, and enlightenment, followed by a working consensus on the course the country will take. But when it comes to much of the Muslim world, unfortunately, coup d'etat, revolution, bloodshed and violence are a way of life, approved by Islamic law, and in harmony with the example of the prophet of Islam, Mohammed.

Egypt has undergone revolutions in 1919, 1952, 2011 and then a counter-revolution at the present. That does not include periods of instability, wars, and assassinations and attempted assassination on all heads of state. The reason King Farouk abdicated the throne and left Egypt in 1952 was because he refused to engage in bloody confrontation against his own citizens.

And now the United States Government pretends it is perplexed and frozen on how to define the current situation in Egypt; is it or is it not a coup? To define it as a coup, which is correct by Western standards, would mean that the US must end its military aid. In effect, this would support the return of an Islamist government against the wishes of almost half of Egypt's population who wish be free of sharia and the Muslim Brotherhood. Ending US fincncial aid to Egypt in response to the coup is a bad idea that would empower Islamists.

Let the Saudis and the Emirates continue their financial life support for Egypt, perpetually at the brink of being unable to feed itself. Actually Egyptians usually hate and find reasons to despise those who give them aid. So let us stay out of that business in Egypt and let others pay the money and get the hatred.

The violent terror attacks continuing in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kosovo, Nigeria and even Saudi Arabia exemplify what Islam can do to a nation. Islam, as it is preached and practiced today, is not innocent of what is being done in its name. It is the responsibility of Muslims to look at what their books and preachers are saying and judge their religion accordingly. And then reform or leave it. I chose to leave it and others might prefer reform, but what should never be accepted inside US borders is unreformed Islam as it is widely preached and practiced today.

Egypt's situation today is sad and the desperation of Egyptians is heartfelt. But the rebels who started the Egyptian revolution against Mubarak in 2011 and voted in the Muslim Brotherhood candidates should have known better.  The Muslim Brotherhood and any Muslim who understands and takes his religion seriously could never allow a secular government.

It is baffling that Egyptian rebels who call themselves Muslims and who took out Mubarak are now saying they were better off during Mubarak. How could they have thought that the minute Mubarak was out, the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis would sit in the sidelines and allow a secular democracy to establish itself. Egyptian rebels are still avoiding the important topic of what to do with Islam and sharia and would rather blame leaders, foreign conspiracies or the Muslim Brotherhood (who are simply applying what Islam tells them to do). Islam considers any non-Islamic government as illegitimate and is deeply threatened and impotent without the full control of government. That is Islam, love it or leave it.

Unfortunately, the majority of the so-called "moderate Muslims" believe they can be Muslim but have a secular government. But unfortunately that is not what Islam is or ever was designed to be. That is the dilemma moderate Muslims have always avoided and never resolved.  And that is why so many Muslim nations keep revolting and changing leaders in the hope of finding a better life.

Muslim organizations in America are embarrassed by what is happening in the Middle East and how sharia is being exposed for what it is. Their claims that sharia is harmless and that Islam is a religion of peace are no longer credible when Americans see Christians being slaughtered, their churches burning, all in the name of Islam.

The solution for this embarrassment is Islamic distraction and agitation inside America. And the best way to do that is by claiming victimhood to change the subject. It is no coincidence that an Islamist group (AMPAC) is planning an Islamic million man march in Washington DC on 9/11/13 to protest against discrimination against Muslims. There is a saying in the Muslim world: when you are caught in wrongdoing, claim victimhood. AMPAC in their announcement for the march asked with a straight face why Americans are terrified of Islam.

The true purpose of this fake protest over fake discrimination is nothing but the common agitation Islam thrives upon in its never-ending quest for attention, respect and obedience. They are telling Americans 'How dare you be afraid of us and our wonderful religion and sharia? If you don't believe that Islam is a religion of peace, then you are oppressive and racists.' The true purpose of this shameless march is to play with the American psyche and put America on notice of what is to come if Muslim demands are not met.

History has shown us that Islam has taken down great ancient civilizations such as Egypt and Persia, and it is the duty of American citizens and leadership to finally have the courage to reject Islam, but not Muslims. Islam as it is practiced today is a curse on the peace and sanity of nations and must be openly rejected by the civilized world. Some Muslims might be offended by our rejection of Islamic tyranny, but there are many common sense Muslims who are hungry to hear the truth and hear confirmation of what they already suspect -- that something is wrong with their religion as it is practiced today.

Originally published HERE.

"Blaming the Jews" A documentary on Muslim Anti Semitism

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/blaming-the-jews-a-documentary-on-muslim-anti-semitism

The Truth...finally.

The Truth is finally admitted by Arabs themselves:
Ironic, the French and Israelis have Military Ethics that Arabs lack in war.

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/01/why-cant-you-be-more-like-israel/#m

Why Muslims Must Hate Jews

By Nonie Darwish

Recently, a Pakistani religious leader, Pirzada Muhammad Raza Saqib Mustafai, said: "When the Jews are wiped out ... the sun of peace [will] begin to rise on the entire world."  The same preaching is routinely done not only by clerics, but by politicians -- in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and elsewhere.  This is not just Ahmedinijad; it is at the heart of Islamic theology that world peace will be established only when all the Jews are wiped from the earth.  But few people in Western media are alarmed by this kind of rhetoric or care to expose this dreadful dark side of Islam's obsession with Jew-hatred.

I do not believe that one has to be an authority on human behavior or group thinking to find out the obvious pathology in Islamic Jew-hatred.  It is time for all of us to uncover and expose this atrocity against the Jewish people.  We owe that to humanity and the truth.

No true Muslim can see that such hatred is unbecoming and unholy for a world religion to focus on and that the credibility of Islam is tarnished by such hatred.  No Muslim is allowed to go far enough to self-analyze or ask why such hatred.  Muslims defend Jew-hatred by claiming that Jews betrayed Muhammad and thus deserve of this kind of treatment.  Even when I was a Muslim, I believed that the one-sided story against Jews by Islam was enough to justify all the killing, terror, lies, and propaganda by Islamic leaders against Jews.  To the average Muslim, routinely cursing Jews in mosques feels normal and even holy!

After a lot of thinking, analysis, research, and writing, I discovered that Jew -atred in Islam is an essential foundation to the Islamic belief system that Muslims cannot seem to be able to rid themselves of.  Jew-hatred masks an existential problem in Islam.  Islam is terrified of the Jews, and the number-one enemy of Islam is the truth, which must be constantly covered at any cost.  It does not matter how many Muslim men, women, and children die in the process of saving Islam's reputation.  The number-one duty of Muslims is to protect the reputation of Islam and Mohammad.  But why would a religion burden its followers like that?  This is why:

When Mohammed embarked on his mission to spread Islam, his objective was to create a uniquely Arabian religion, one created by an Arab prophet, which reflected the Arabian values and culture.  Yet to obtain legitimacy, he had to link it to the two previous Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity.  He expected the Jewish tribes who lived in Arabia to declare him their Messiah and thereby bring him more legitimacy with Arabs, especially with his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraish.  Because his own tribe had rejected and ridiculed him, Mohammed needed the approval of the Jews, whom he called the people of the book.  But the conversion of Jews to Islam was part of the scenario that Mohammed had to accomplish in order to prove to Meccans that they had made a mistake by rejecting him.

That was one of the reasons Mohammed chose to migrate to Medina, a town that had predominantly been settled by Jewish tribes and a few impoverished Arabs who lived around the Jews.  The Jews allowed Mohammed to move in.  At the beginning, the Koran of Mecca was full of appeals to the Jews, who were then described as "guidance and light" (5:44) and a "righteous" people (6:153-154), who "excelled the nations" (45:16).  But when the Jews rejected the appeasement and refused to convert to Islam, Mohammed simply and completely flipped.  The Quran changed from love to threats and then pure hatred, cursing, and commandments to kill Jews.  Rejection by the Jews became an intolerable obsession with Mohammed.

Not only did the Jews reject him, but their prosperity made Mohammed extremely envious.  The Jewish Arabian tribes earned their living from legitimate and successful business, but Mohammed earned his living and wealth through warfare -- by attacking Arab tribes, some of whom were from his own tribe -- and trade caravans, seizing their wealth and property.  That did not look good for a man who claimed to be a prophet of God.  The mere existence of the Jews made Mohammed look bad, which led Mohammed to unspeakable slaughter, beheading of 600 to 900 Jewish men of one tribe, and taking their women and children as slaves.  Mohammed had the first pick of the prettiest woman as his sex slave.  All of this senseless slaughter of the Jews was elaborately documented in Islamic books on the life of Mohammed -- not as something to be ashamed of, but as justified behavior against evil people.

One does not have to be psychiatrist to see the obvious: that Mohammad was a tormented man after the massacre he orchestrated and forced his fighters to undertake to empower and to enrich himself and his religion.  To reduce his torment, he needed everyone around him, as well as future generations, to participate in the genocide against the Jews, the only people whom hecould not control.  An enormous number of verses in the Koran encouraged Mohammed's fighters to fight, kill, and curse Muslim fighters who wanted to escape fighting and killing Jews.  The Quran is full of promises of all kinds of pleasure in heaven to those who followed Mohammed's killing spree and curses and condemnation to those who chose to escape from fighting.  Muslims were encouraged to feel no hesitation or guilt for the genocide because it was not they who did it, but rather "Allah's hand."

Mohammed never got over his anger, humiliation, and rejection by "the people of the book" and went to his grave tormented and obsessed that some Jews were still alive.  On his deathbed, Mohammed entrusted Muslims to kill Jews wherever they found them, which made this a "holy commandment" that no Muslim can reject.  Muslims who wrote sharia understood how Mohammed was extremely sensitive to criticism, and that is why criticizing Mohammed became the highest crime in Islam that will never be forgiven even if the offender repents.  Mohammed's message on his deathbed was not for his followers to strive for holiness, peace, goodness, and to treat their neighbors as themselves, but rather a commandment for Muslims to continue the killing and the genocide against the Jews.  Killing thus became a holy act of obedience to Mohammed and Allah himself.

Mohammed portrayed himself as a victim of Jews, and Muslims must avenge him until judgment day.  With all Arab power, money, and influence around the world today, they still thrive at portraying themselves as victims.  Sharia also codified into law the duty of every Muslim to defend Mohammed's honor and Islam with his own blood, and allowed the violation of many commandments if it is for the benefit of defending Islam and Mohammed.  Thus, Muslims are carrying a huge burden, a holy burden, to defend Mohammed with their blood, and in doing so they are allowed to kill, lie, cheat, slander, and mislead.

Mohammed must have felt deep and extreme shame after what he had done to the Jews, and thus a very good reason had to be found to explain away his genocide.  By commanding Muslims to continue the genocide for him, even after his death, Mohammad expanded the shame to cover all Muslims and Islam itself.  All Muslims were commanded to follow Mohammed's example and chase the Jews wherever they went.  One hundred years after Mohammed's death, Arabs occupied Jerusalem and built Al Aqsa mosque right on top of the Jewish Temple ruins, the holiest spot of the Jews.  Muslims thought they had erased all memory of Jewish existence.

Mohammed's genocide of the Jews of Arabia became an unholy dark mark of shame in Islamic history, and that shame, envy, and anger continues to get the best of Muslims today.  In the eyes of Mohammed and Muslims, the mere existence of the Jewish people, let alone an entire Jewish state, delegitimizes Islam and makes Mohammed look more like a mass murderer than like a prophet.  For Muslims to make peace with Jews and acknowledge that Jews are humans who deserve the same rights as everyone else would have a devastating effect on how Muslims view their religion, their history, and the actions of their prophet.

Islam has a major existential problem.  By no will of their own, the Jews found themselves in the middle of this Islamic dilemma.  Islam must justify the genocide that Mohammad waged against the Jews.  Mohammad and Muslims had two choices: either the Jews are evil sub-humans, apes, pigs, and enemies of Allah, a common description of Jews still heard regularly in Middle Eastern mosques today, or Mohammad was a genocidal warlord not fit to be a prophet of God -- a choice that would mean the end of Islam.

Then and now, Mohammad and Muslims clearly chose the first worldview and decreed that any hint of the second must be severely punished.  Jews must remain eternally evil enemies of Islam if Islam is to remain legitimate.  There is no third solution to save the core of Islam from collapsing; either Mohammed was evil, or the Jews were evil.  Any attempt to forgive, humanize, or live peacefully with Jews is considered treason against Islam.  How can Muslims forgive the Jews and then go back to their mosques, only to read their prophet's words, telling them they must kill Jews wherever they find them?  It does not add up, if someone wants to remain Muslim.

That is why the number-one enemy of Islam is, and must remain, the truth.  If the truth exposes Islam's unjustified Jew-hatred, Muslims will be left with an empty shell of a religion, a religion whose prophet was a murderer, a thief, and a warlord.  Without Jew-hatred, Islam would self-destruct.

Originally published here.

"If They [Muslims] Had Gotten Rid of the Punishment for Apostasy, Islam Would Not Exist Today"

By Nonie Darwish

The West refuses to be concerned; and when its citizens are concerned, they are suppressed. They are sued, assaulted, threatened with deportation and sometimes murdered.

The most influential Sunni leader in the Middle East has just admitted what many of us who grew up as Muslims in the Middle East have always known: that Islam could not exist today without the killing of apostates. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood and one of the most respected leaders of the Sunni world, recently said on Egyptian television, "If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment [often death] for apostasy, Islam would not exist today." The most striking thing about his statement, however, was that it was not an apology; it was a logical, proud justification for preserving the death penalty as a punishment for apostasy. Al-Qaradawi sounded matter-of-fact, indicating no moral conflict, nor even hesitation, about this policy in Islam. On the contrary, he asserted the legitimacy of Islamic laws in relying on vigilante street justice through fear, intimidation, torture and murder against any person who might dare to leave Islam.

Many critics of Islam agree with Sheikh Qaradawi, that Islam could not have survived after the death of the prophet Mohammed if it were not for the killing, torturing, beheading and burning alive of thousands of people -- making examples of them to others who might wish to venture outside Islam. From its inception until today, Islam has never considered this policy inappropriate, let alone immoral. In a recent poll, 84% of Egyptians agree with the death penalty for apostates; and we see no moderate Muslim movement against this law. That 1.2 billion Muslims appear comfortable with such a command sheds light on the nature of Islam.

Unlike Americans, who understand basic principles of their constitution, most Muslims have no clue about the basic laws of their religion. Most Muslims choose ignorance over knowledge when it comes to Islam, and often refuse to comment negatively out of fear of being accused of apostasy. While in the West it is considered a virtue to try to understand one's religion, ask questions about it and make choices accordingly, in the Muslim world doing the same thing is the ultimate sin punishable by death. What the West prides itself on, is a crime under Islamic law.

The main concern of Muslim citizens in any Islamic state is staying safe, alive and away from being accused of doing or saying anything against Islamic teachings. In such an atmosphere of fear and distrust, harm can come not only from the government, but from friends, neighbors and even family members, who are protected from prosecution for killing anyone they regard as an apostate.

It is not a coincidence that Muslim countries have the highest rate of illiteracy and that they lack education: in an Islamic culture that criminalizes not only apostasy, but also asking questions or doubting, ignorance is a virtue that protects you.

The Islamic and Judeo-Christian cultures are polar opposites when it comes to value systems and moral compasses -- the core divisions between Islamic and Western morality. No religion other than Islam kills those who leave it -- probably a sign of Islamic leaders' lack of confidence in Islam's ability to survive among other religions that do not kill to keep their followers in line.

In a different Egyptian television show on the "Al-Tahrir" channel, in a discussion of Islamic textbooks from Al-Azhar -- the world's premier Islamic University, in Cairo -- students were told that "any Muslim, without permission of the ruler, can kill and barbeque a murtad [apostate] and eat him." This lesson was confirmed to be in official Egyptian government books for high school students. The stunned guest on the TV show could not believe that Egyptian students of Islam are being taught that cannibalism of apostates is halal [permitted].

Policies such as these should be of great concern to the West. The West, however, appears to be in denial. It refuses to be openly concerned; and when its citizens are concerned, they are suppressed. They are sued [Geert Wilders, Lars Hedegaard, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant]; assaulted [Kurt Westergaard in Denmark, Lars Vilks in Sweden, Charlie Hedbo weekly journal in France]; threatened with deportation [currently, Imran Firasat, from Spain to Pakistan, and Reza Jabbari from Sweden to Iran, where both will most likely be either imprisoned or sentenced to death]; issued death threats [Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, M. Zuhdi Jasser], and sometimes murdered [Theo van Gogh].

Instead of soberly facing the threat of Islam, the West has become desensitized to all the murderous videos pouring out of the Muslim world. There is no outrage in Western governments, media or NGOs over what we hear and see sluicing daily out of the Middle East: the photos of hundreds of Christians burned alive by Muslims in Nigeria; the videos of beheadings and burning-alive of apostates to be found all over the internet; or the daily Islamic reminders -- from many political leaders, Arab television, and the pulpits of mosques, Arab television and political leaders -- that, in their opinion, Jews are the descendants of apes and pigs.

If we are to preserve Western freedoms for future generations, it is time to change our dismissal of, and indifference to, the deep-rootedness of these views.

Westerners have been investing a lot of time, effort and money trying to understand Islam, when all they need to do is listen to what Muslim leaders are saying. American foreign policy priorities should not be the appeasement of an Islamic culture desperate for approval, but protecting its citizens, culture and constitution from all morally bankrupt and tyrannical ideologies.

Originally posted here.

Faked Outrage in the Middle East

By Nonie Darwish

In the West, expressions such as "racist," or in Muslim countries "apostate," are intended to silence citizens and keep them muzzled. In Muslim countries, the objective is to keep people under the control of Islamic law through government enforcement. In America, a whole new generation would rather defend terrorists and criminals than be called "racists."

Having spent most of my life in the Middle East, I am sensitive to recognizing artificially-induced, exhibitionistic, whipped-up outrage -- "shaming fits" -- forced upon ordinary people by "the system."

"Shaming," as in, "Have you no shame?" and frequently mentioned in communications among Muslims, is not looked down on, but lifted up as, for example, a fine way of raising children. It is a point of pride to promote a hatred that has been officially designated by officials or the society. Children are "shamed," for example, if they want to befriend Christians or Jews – it would be, in America, something like having your child say he wants to befriend people in some horrendous cult. The Arabic words muayra or khajal come close – but the phenomenon is not really about words; it is about a huge, entire force in a culture.

Every society creates its own taboos: sacred cows in the form of politically correct expressions pressed upon people to encourage them to shrink and cringe whenever certain words are mentioned, and to render whatever or whomever is pointed out as disgusting as an example of what could happen to anyone who dares to "cross the line" of what is considered "correct" in each country In the West, expressions such as "racist," or in the Muslim world expressions such as "apostate" can do the trick: these words are intended to silence citizens, keep them muzzled, and keep them beaten down.

The Muslim world is at the top of the list of cultures that have perfected the art of using this cultural tool in the Middle East, and apparently elsewhere, to stop people from thinking so they will not be able to evolve beyond the officially-provided baggage of group-think.

In Muslim countries, the sacred cow objective -- that for which, above all, "shaming" must be used -- is to keep people under the control of Islamic law through government enforcement, and to prevent any change in that regard. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that Islamic law dictates that the number one job of the Muslim head of state is "to preserve Islam in its original form and never accept any novelty."

The tool of shaming and artificially-induced outrage is nothing new in American politics, either, but its use by the current administration, especially in the Martin/Zimmerman case, has taken America to a new low.

Running out of true racism cases, the current administration had to find a fresh, fake, governmentally-induced outrage to divert attention from its scandals -- similarly to what Islamists do when they call their opponents "apostates." Desperate to change the subject, an administration engulfed in scandals apparently decided it would be politically convenient to distract the public with anything, even the poorest case that only resembles racism, concerning a man who has the opposite of any discernible history of it, and as sometimes sadly happens, a case that, even under scrutiny, lacked any evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Department of Justice, in the oldest trick in the book, even sent down storm troopers under the guise of "keeping the peace" to rally for the prosecution and whip up racial hatred before a fair trial could even begin.

This is the same unjustified outrage that, in the Benghazi scandal, the current administration consciously created over the video "Innocence of Muslims," which, for weeks, it falsely kept alleging caused the murder of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other brave Americans, while knowing all this time that the information they were purveying was not true.

As in many Muslim cultures, the current administration has perfected the technique of shaming to try to claim moral superiority, as well as to close down free speech (the filmmaker is still the only person from those attacks who is in prison).

Attorney General Eric Holder, who describes America as a "nation of cowards," continues his "outrage" over the Martin/Zimmerman case, even though Zimmerman has been found not guilty. It appears that the U.S. Attorney General would like to keep prosecuting a man who has been found not guilty until a court comes up with the answer he wants -- never mind whether or not it is true. That this man might spend a fortune in court costs trying to defend himself against a government that has unlimited funds -- not to speak of serving years in jail for an alleged crime for which there was no evidence -- does not seem to bother him in the slightest.

There are people, it seems, who are determined from time to time to rub America's nose to the ground to keep alive the profitable business of race politics. It is embarrassing and difficult to see these people using every deceitful shaming-tool in the book to preserve their politically useful accusations of racism for the sake of winning elections and probably also "revenge."

Similarly, as with the artificially-whipped-up Palestinian problem in the Muslim world, compared to other problems there, the race problem in America must be perpetuated and kept alive for the sake of covering up bankrupt agendas, resistance to change and lazy thinking. Also, as with the Palestinian problem, those who cannot to be honest about their real intentions most likely do not even want to resolve America's race saga. It does not matter to these race-baiters that slavery in the U.S. was abolished 150 years ago so that no one now could have been involved in it. Their job, as they possibly see it, is to make sure that their "past due" bill never runs out. They also do not seem overly concerned that massive slavery continues to exist outside the U.S., as in Mauritania, perhaps because they see neither a political nor economic pay-off for themselves from that.

And now America, its government media and educational system, have all become experts in the culture of artificially-inducing racial outrage, "shaming," to manage the direction of where the U.S. is heading, at the expense of helping to move America beyond the color of someone's skin. The "shaming" words have now, in the U.S., become so effective, that a whole new generation of young Americans would rather defend terrorists and criminals than be called "racists" or "bigots."

We also have TV anchors and hosts who are behaving on camera like obedient children who get outraged over nonsense -- and seem happy to stay in a state of outrage and use it to exercise power over others to get what they want. They have been trained to defy the scientific obligation to look at matters objectively in exchange for what they have come to believe is the "greater good": protecting the power of the media over government, instead of even pretending actually to report.

The American psyche -- its innocence and respect for free thinking -- have been greatly harmed by the growing culture of name-calling, intimidation and posed politically-correct outrage.

Perhaps the collapse of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, which landed the Egyptian people in the hands of a religious autocracy, stands as a symbol of what can happen to a people who fall victim to the tyranny of group-think that can form a stranglehold on an entire culture.

Just like the dreaded word "apostate," in the Muslim world, the word "racist" in the West has become an insult to the intelligence of the majority of people who would rather discuss difficult or controversial issues as opposed to having attempts to discuss them shut down. Muslims throw the term "apostate" at each other all the time, and occasionally just as an all-purpose way of having someone dispose of a personal adversary. Reasonable people are offended by the wanton use of the word "racist" in America and the use of the word "apostate" in Muslim countries. These highly charged words are nothing but repressive and tyrannical; they should be taken out of our everyday vocabulary and reserved for the real cases of man-on-man abuse.

Originally posted here.

The Nice Muslim Family Next Door

By Nonie Darwish

Where are the articles by moderate Muslims condemning the prominent Muslims who beg Allah to strike infidels with cancer and disease? No practicing Muslim has openly condemned such prayers, or named the sheikhs who urge these brutalities.

The neighbors of the Chechnyan Muslim family whose sons were responsible for the Boston Marathon terror attack said they were stunned by the news and that this nice Muslim family was known for its generosity and kindness. Many Americans often ask, "What about the Muslim family next door? They are really nice people."

Some of the nicest people I know are Muslims, but that must never blind us from understanding the risk we are taking when we allow the building of hundreds of mosques financed by Saudi Arabia, as well as millions of Muslims to migrate into America at a time of a fierce, if sophisticated, desire by Islamist groups to spread Islam throughout the world, and to radicalize impressionable youths by stoking anger against the Western nations, people and values.

The existence of nice, educated Muslims should also never blind us from seeing the deep problems within the ideology of Islam and its jihadist goals. Muslims themselves admit that Islam is more than a religion – that it is, in fact, a state, legal system and a military institution—with the goal, as one's holy duty, of bringing Islam to the rest of the world, a desire often enshrined deep in the hearts of Muslims.

Even though our visible problem is with the Muslim jihadists, the so-called "moderate" Muslims have often been silent enablers and defenders, perhaps from inertia, misinformation or fear of reprisals against them, including death threats to them and members of their family should they speak out.

Terrorists could never be as powerful as they are without the prayers, and especially the material support, of Islamic nations, governments and people. A Muslim Egyptian friend -- one of the nicest people you will ever meet -- visiting in 1994, was crying in front of the television while praying for the people of Chechnya to declare independence from Russia and declare their country an Islamic State ruled by Sharia law.

The critiques of Islam by this author are never written for the purpose of condemning people; naturally, there are good and bad people in every culture. My deep concern springs from the ideology of Islam: it has had such dark implications on Islamic society, forcing many, otherwise perfectly fine people, to enact unthinkable terror, as others stand silently by. Islam is the only religion that requires its followers to kill those who do not believe in Allah, and to take revenge in the name of Allah. In the Quran, holy vengeance and retaliation are commanded for Muslims: "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you. He who transgresseth after this will have a painful doom."
 [Koran 2:178]. Or: "We shall take vengeance (Muntaquimun) upon the sinners." [32:22] The translation of the Arabic word "Muntaquimun" meaning vengeance is often watered down in translation by using the word punishment or retribution instead.

It was frustrating and unsettling to hear the aunt of the two terrorists stating, from Toronto, Canada, that her two nephews were "set up," and the terrorists' father, Anzor Tsarnaev, stating in various interviews with ABC and other stations, first that his son should give up peacefully; then that the son who was killed was framed; then that the son who was not killed should tell the truth; then warning that if the US kills his son: "all hell will break loose."

Having grown up Muslim, I would urge Americans to demand more from the so called "moderate" Muslims, instead of giving them a pass for their silence, which appears a complicit defense of jihad. For too long, with some courageous exceptions, moderate Muslims hear no evil, see no evil and do nothing about it. They stand defiant, behaving as if they were victims, while the cries of Christians suffering under Islam in the Middle East are ignored. (Most Jews were forced out years ago. As the saying in Arabic goes: First the Saturday People, then the Sunday People).

Many moderate Muslims have been insisting that the Boston bombings have "nothing to do with Islam." They deny there is a problem for apostates fleeing Islam, and do nothing about their arrest, the threats against them or their murder. At least 5,000 reported honor killings happen annually in the name of Allah, but moderate Muslims insist that, too, has nothing to do with Islam, and is a hold-over tribal custom, despite the Sura and verses that are used to justify it [Qur'an (18:65-81], and not only speak out against the practice, but go as far as to threaten those who expose it. Moderate Muslims also have nothing to say to the hundreds of Islamic clerics who curse non-Muslims and encourage jihad from the pulpits of mosques.

Where are the articles by moderate Muslims condemning the prominent Muslims who beg Allah to strike infidels with cancer and disease? The holiest mosques of Mecca blast curses at Jews and Christians over microphones -- "Till they pray for death and do not receive it" -- and supplicate Allah to make the lives of Christians and Jews "hostage to misery; drape them with endless despair, unrelenting pain and unremitting ailment; fill their lives with sorrow and pain and end their lives in humiliation and oppression."

No true practicing Muslim, moderate or not, has openly condemned such prayers to pilgrims in Mecca or has named the sheikhs who urge these brutalities. But the majority of moderate Muslims are quick to blame American foreign policy and Israel. If America cooperates with Islamic dictators, Muslims accuse America of empowering dictators; if America removes a Saddam Hussein to give Muslims a chance for freedom, they accuse the US of interfering in their internal affairs.

The day Usama Bin Laden was killed, a friend called from Egypt to say that everyone was in mourning, sad over Bin Laden's death. Does such a response to the death of a terrorist stem from moderate Islam, radical Islam, or Islam?

Originally posted here.

The Gaza Conflict Rooted in Sharia

By Nonie Darwish

With the explosive current events in Gaza, the world needs to understand the roots of this eternal conflict, otherwise we are all kidding ourselves with hopes of peace.

For decades, Arabs had demanded that Israel end the "occupation," and in 2005, Israel did so, disengaging unilaterally from Gaza. With their demands met, there was no ‘cycle of violence’ to respond to, no further justification for anything other than peace and prosperity. With its central location and beautiful beaches on the East Mediteranean, a peaceful and prosperous Gaza could have become another Hong Kong; a shining trade and commerce center. But instead of choosing peace, the Palestinians chose Islamic jihad. They rolled their rocket launchers to the border and started bombing Israeli civilians.

Understanding the reasons why the Palestinians chose violence over peace requires connecting the dots from the behavior of Muslim states back to the laws of Islam: Sharia. Mainstream Sharia books define Jihad as: "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion." (Shafi’i Sharia o9.0). Jihad is not just the duty of the individual Muslim, but it is also the main duty of the Muslim head of State (the Calipha):

"A Muslim calipha is entrusted to take his people into war and command offensive and aggressive Jihad. He must organize Jihad against any non-Muslim government, which prevents Muslim da’wah (meaning preaching and spreading Islam) from entering its land." (Shafii Law o25.0 to o25.9).

Sharia law# o25.9 states:

"(When the caliph appoints a ruler on a region, his duty includes) if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, (he will) undertake Jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants and setting aside a fifth for deserving recipients."

Also:

"The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax provided he has first invited them to enter Islam or pay Jizya, the non-Muslim poll tax, (in accordance with the word of Allah Most High Chapter 9 verse 29)."

Zia-Ul-Haq, former President of Pakistan, said "jihad in terms of warfare is a collective responsibility of the Muslim Ummah."

One of Islam’s eminent 20th century scholars, Sheikh Maolana Maududi said:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program … the objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish instead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

Some people seem to think that such laws are just historical relics, on the books but not in practice or in control of the minds of Muslims. But that is the kind of denial we cannot afford; these laws rule the hearts, minds and actions of a majority of Muslim individuals and states around the world today. These scriptures are taught, preached and promoted as the incontrovertible and eternal word of God and funded by Saudi petrodollars throughout the world, including Western nations such as the U.K. and the United States.

No Muslim leader can survive in a Muslim country if he announces the end of Jihad against non-Muslim countries and states that all references to Jihad in Islamic law do not apply today. Treating non-Muslim neighboring countries and individual as equals, with respect and in peace without trying to convert them to Islam, is simply against Islamic Law.

Muslim leaders who dare to go against this theology are called traitors and puppets of the ‘Great Satan’ West. That is a description that no Muslim leader wants to be labeled with. When president Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, he told his confidants that he knew he was signing his own death warrant. He understood that under Sharia he must have permanent war with non-Muslim Israel.

How can a Muslim leader or individual avoid the hundreds of Quran and Hadith commandments to Muslims to kill Jews and Christians? Q 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." Q 9:5: "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them". Q47.4: "When you encounter the unbelievers, Strike off their heads."

A Muslim leader cannot face his devout Muslim subjects after making a decision to engage in friendship and peace with Jews. Mosques all over the Middle East, after all, recite Mohammed’s commandment to Muslims:

"The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!" (Sahih Muslim 41:6985, also Sahih Bukhari 4:52:177)

This Hadith, issued by Mohammad, makes a whole group of people illegal to exist. It was issued in the 7th century, not after the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. It is not a response to modern-day grievances; it is a permanent commandment.

Many Muslims claim that Arabs and Jews lived well together for many years before 1948. But that claim ignores the fact that Jews had to live as ‘dhimmies’ under Islamic Law and were never allowed to rule themselves separate of the Islamic Sharia. When Muslims were weak they often treated their dhimmi subjects well and ignored the commandments to kill, subjugate and humiliate them. But Jew hatred is intrinsic to Islamic scriptures that do not permit reformation under the penalty of death.

This is the real basis of the Arab/Israeli conflict: not a conflict over land or occupation, but a divine obligation to destroy neighboring (non-Muslim) Israel, where Jews are no longer dhimmis but are free to rule themselves. We cannot ignore the root of the problem in Muslim scriptures. That is the true force behind the hate and propaganda Jihadist machine against Jews in the Muslim world.

Some Muslims tell me that they don’t believe in Sharia and question why am I making a big deal about it. My answer is that Sharia is the law of the land in 54 Muslim countries and many Muslim groups are demanding Sharia in the West. In 1990, 45 Muslim countries signed the Cairo Human Rights Declaration which stated that Sharia has supremacy over the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Muslim world must look within to its sacred laws, scriptures, sermons, teaching and preaching, and reform the obstacles for peace that have condemned them to a permanent state of jihad. The non-Muslim world must have no illusions.

Originally posted here.