The violent, misogynistic Muhammad we read about in Islam’s most trusted sources is very different from the peaceful, inclusive Muhammad we hear about from modern journalists. What happens when the real Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) meets Media Muhammad? Find out in this installment of “Muhammad’s Boom-Boom Room,” starring Vocab Malone as Muhammad and Media Muhammad.
Tonight at 8:00pm (Eastern Time), Sam Shamoun and David Wood will discuss the slow and agonizing death of Muhammad after he was poisoned by a woman whose family he had slaughtered. Everyone is welcome to join the discussion!
“Zakir Naik travels the world debating non-Muslims, and many converts to Islam have claimed that it was his stellar performances in these debates that convinced them of the truth of Islam. I myself would love to debate him, but in light of this story, it may have to be in a prison cell. It is interesting that a person so renowned worldwide for his comprehensive knowledge of Islam would even be accused of complicity in jihad terror strikes. But no Western authorities are likely to ponder the implications of that,” Robert Spencer noted in 2016 when Naik was accused of inspiring Jihadists in Bangladesh.
That same year, Christine Douglass-Williams noted that Naik had been accused of staging his mass conversions.
It keeps getting worse for the wildly popular Islamic preacher Zakir Naik. Described as the “third most popular guru in India,” deemed “the rock star of tele-evangelism and a proponent of modern Islam,” and whose Peace Channel boasts 100 million viewers, Zaik’s reputation has been taking a global flogging lately. Now comes word that Naik, also well known for his “gift” of eliciting mass conversions to Islam, has been actually paying people to convert to Islam. Mumbai Police investigators say Naik and his non-profit Islamic Research Foundation have “illegally converted around 800 people to Islam by paying them using funds received from abroad.”
Washington D.C. has a sizable Muslim population. And while Rep. Ilhan Omar has gotten a lot of attention, there are more Muslim aides and staffers than ever before.
Some of them would like D.C. restaurants to open at 4 AM.
Katherine Ashworth Brandt, a former congressional aide now studying political management at George Washington University who founded the campaign late last year, is urging Washington restaurants to expand their hours next month to accommodate Muslims celebrating Ramadan, the 30 days of fasting that begins May 5 this year for most Muslims.
“I want this to be a common business practice,” said Brandt, 34. “I want customers to be able to expect that places will be open when they need them during Ramadan.”
Restaurateurs participating in Dine After Dark would open around 4 a.m., to give Muslims two hours before sunup to eat before abstaining from food and drink for the rest of the day, or close around 10:30 p.m., about two hours after sunset, when observant Muslims break their fast.
For an eatery to open at 4 AM, the employees have to start work anywhere from 1 AM to 2 AM.
Making this Ramadan accommodation a common business practice would be expensive for employers and miserable for employees.
But, as usual a convenience issue for Muslims seems to trump the comfort and welfare of non-Muslims.
As an Orthodox Jew, we keep fasts certain times of the year. Some of them begin very early in the morning. We don’t expect places to open at 4 AM for our convenience. There’s a great deal of entitlement embodied in such an attitude.
Muslims in Washington D.C. don’t need to go out in the morning. They can prepare their own food ahead of time. Microwaves and toaster ovens make it easy to have a meal without expecting businesses to accommodate you or workers to go without sleep.
But instead, also as usual, an Islamic entitlement is portrayed as a civil rights issue.
Depending on their business models, some restaurants would expand both morning and evening hours. Two extra hours may not be enough to serve all Muslims’ needs, Brandt acknowledged, but it’s a start.
It’s never enough. Everything you give is only a starting point.
“All of us need to be more considerate of other people’s traditions and holidays and know that these are important no matter what religion you subscribe to,” she said
How about being considerate of employees earning minimum wage and having little enough time to spend with their children?
Consideration is never given to infidels. Only demanded from them.
In the West, we’re constantly told that only greasy Islamophobes believe that Allah has issued any such order. Has Khabeebur Rehman Qazi been listening to greasy Islamophobes? How is it that he came to misunderstand his peaceful religion so drastically? Will Pope Francis fly to Pakistan to explain to him how “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran reject any form of violence”?
“Pakistani Cleric Khabeebur Rehman Qazi Says: ‘Allah Has Ordered Muslims To Take Up Weapons And Has Ordered The Use Of Weapons Against Unbelievers,’” MEMRI, March 12, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):
Maulana Mufti Khabeebur Rehman Qazi, preacher in the Department of Preaching of Pakistani jihadi organization Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM), addressed a series of religious gatherings in the city of Sahiwal in Pakistan’s Punjab province….
“Allah has ordered Muslims to take up weapons and has ordered the use of weapons against unbelievers. However, only that Muslim whose heart has the strength of faith can raise a weapon against an unbeliever,” he said, adding: “The sword is raised due to the strength of faith.”
Qazi said: “Our Prophet [Muhammad] has taught us that the sword should be raised against kafirs, for the defense of Muslims, for the defense of our religion, and for the enforcement of the religion of Islam on this earth. All praise be to Allah, the mujahideen are fully performing this duty.”
Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.
Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams — then ambassadors to France and England respectively — met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:
We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise
One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors — who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” — thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.
It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa — specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis — had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe — including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.
The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”
The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”
As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.
After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).
Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).
Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” — including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”
But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.
Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.
When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments — which took up 16 percent of the federal budget — began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released — how many died or disappeared is unclear — and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.
One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag — one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag — in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.
That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 — respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)
Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks — the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.
Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.
The trek was arduous — not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)
Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.
Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” — a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today — the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.
Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).
“A federal grand jury in New Mexico has indicted five Muslims who allegedly trained children to carry out school massacres on terrorism-related offenses, conspiracy to commit murder and kidnapping.”
The children also lived under abusive conditions. The leader of the group is Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, “the son of Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a former board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations” (CAIR). And while the imam is not responsible for his son’s actions, he himself “is on record urging a violent overthrow of the ‘filthy’ U.S. government. The elder Wahhaj gave an opening prayer at an event at the Democratic National Convention in 2012,” and “has been called a spiritual adviser to jihad promoter and Bernie Sanders supporter Linda Sarsour.”
This is all the more alarming given the normalization of Islamic anti-Semitism in the Democrat camp. The Democratic Party changed the wording of a resolution condemning anti-Semitism that was clearly a rebuke of the anti-Semitic Rep. Ilhan Omar, to make it about “Islamophobia” and “white supremacism.” Bernie Sanders has defended Omar and stated “we will stand by our Muslim brothers and sisters.”
The anti-Semitism problem within the Democrat Party is mirrors that of the UK’s Labour Party. Both increasingly turn a blind eye to Islamic anti-Semitism.
With Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the Palestinian jihad has arrived in the U.S. Congress. Ignoring this problem is akin to ignoring the root cause of the global jihad: the Islamic theology of jihad and the imperative to conquer the House of War.
“‘Muslim terrorists’ in New Mexico tied to Democrats,” World Net Daily, March 19, 2019:
A federal grand jury in New Mexico has indicted five Muslims who allegedly trained children to carry out school massacres on terrorism-related offenses, conspiracy to commit murder and kidnapping.
The five were arrested Aug. 3, 2018, after authorities in a raid found 11 hungry children living in squalid conditions in a remote, makeshift training compound.
The leader, Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, is the son of Imam Siraj Wahhaj, a former board member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations who is on record urging a violent overthrow of the “filthy” U.S. government. The elder Wahhaj gave an opening prayer at an event at the Democratic National Convention in 2012, pointed out Matthew Vadum in an column for FrontPage Magazine. The imam also has been called a spiritual adviser to jihad promoter and Bernie Sanders supporter Linda Sarsour. Vadum wrote that the “openly anti-Semitic Sarsour sits on the board of the Women’s March organization and openly admits membership in America’s largest Marxist group, the Democratic Socialists of America.”
The imam has insisted his son’s problems with the law amounted to a domestic conflict that has nothing to do with Islam.
The defendants previously were indicted on weapons and conspiracy charges. The new indictment, issued Thursday, alleges “the defendants conspired to provide material support in preparation for violent attacks against federal law enforcement officers and members of the military,” said Assistant Attorney General John C. Demers.
“Advancing beliefs through terror and violence has no place in America, and the National Security Division continues to make protecting against terrorism its top priority,” he said.
The defendants, along with Siraj Ibn Wahhaj, are Jany Leveille, Hujrah Wahhaj, Subhanah Wahhaj and Lucas Morton. Leveille, Wahhaj’s “Islamic wife,” is an illegal immigrant from Haiti who also is under investigation by federal immigration authorities for overstaying her non-immigrant visitor visa.
During the raid, authorities found the remains of a 3-year-old disabled boy who later was identified as the son of Siraj Ibn Wahhaj. The indictment accused Wahhaj of kidnapping the boy from his legal wife and transporting him from Georgia to New Mexico.
Leveille allegedly told the children the boy would be resurrected as “Jesus Christ” and would tell the group which government institutions they should target.
FBI Special Agent Travis Taylor testified Leveille and her husband “sought to recruit and train persons, including minor children, to be prepared to engage in jihad and train an army of jihad and to die as martyrs.”
According to court documents, the five defendants “established a residence, training camp, and firing range at which they stored firearms and ammunition and engaged in firearms and tactical training as part of their common plan to prepare for violent attacks on government, military, educational, and financial institutions in fulfillment of” Leveille’s “religious prophecies.”….
As Jihadi brides from western countries who joined the Islamic State make news for attempting to return home, it’s been revealed that a New York man who traveled to Syria to join the bloodthirsty group is now working for the Department for Justice.
30-year old Mohimanul Alam Bhuiya left New York City to join with the terrorist organization in 2014, having become radicalized by Islamist propaganda and seeking to pitch a plan to destroy civilian aircraft to the group.
Bhuiya admitted to recieving military training with ISIS and worked in various low-level capacities at what was the height of the caliphate’s existence.
Bhuiya eventually became disillusioned with ISIS, and was able to return to the United States on his own initiative after contacting the FBI and requesting “extraction.” He faced criminal charges that could’ve landed him with 25 years in prison upon returning, but got off easy in part because of cooperation with the FBI, only receiving supervised release.
In a bizarre twist of fate, reporting from the Wall Street Journal now has confirmed that he’s employed by the U.S District Attorney’s office in Brooklyn. This development leaves many critics of prosecutorial misconduct alarmed, as it would normally be assumed that someone who joined the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization would be blacklisted from sensitive government positions.
Bhuiya’s employment for the Department of Justice is emblematic of the dominance of cultural elite progressives within America’s primary federal legal institution. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was described in a recent book by Deep State leaker Andrew McCabe as having bemoaned the employee force of the DOJ, calling them “new people with nose rings and tattoos.”
It’s uncertain how a department credibly accused of systemic political corruption and bias against right-of-center Americans aims to retain credibility among the broader public, especially with a hiring policy that allows former ISIS terrorist wannabes to secure employment within its ranks.
Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?
Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to firstname.lastname@example.org. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.