What Muslim’s think about Sharia law – Pew study

What Muslim’s think about Sharia law – Pew study

Sharia Law and Western Societies – The impact of mass Muslim migration

When it comes Sharia law and how mass Muslim migration will impact our lives as non-Muslims is something I consider a lot. On many occasions, I refer to the work by Douglas Murray (The Strange Death of Europe) because it is such an important work for modern Europe and the world and should be read by all who have an interest in our society and what we will be leaving our children.

Murray quotes Pew research on many occasions because it is such an important resource about how our world thinks and behaves.  One important piece of research is The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society.  This research from Pew looks at how Muslims think about Sharia law and should inform us on how Sharia will impact our lives – the more Muslims we import as migrants the more influence Sharia will have on our daily lives and the lives of our children.

The report that Dr. Warner refers to is Muslim Beliefs and Practices: A Global Demographic Assessment and he summaries its findings (a condensed version of the report can be found here) in this video.

A question that is always on my mind is how this importation of migrants, on such a massive scale, is going to impact the lives of my children once demographics kicks in?  More and more pressure will come to bear to implement Sharia law in our countries.  What will life be like for my children in twenty years?  Having lived in a number of Muslim majority countries that practice Sharia I fear for the future of my children and Europeans, in general, should fear the loss of our way of life and the freedoms that we have.





Please Share on your Social Media

If you have found any of the articles or videos on this site useful or informative please share with your friends and family.

Proverbs 18:15 tells us: An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

Understanding the world is something that we all long for is it not?  As children, one of our favourite words to our parents was WHY?  I am sure as parents we have been driven crazy at times with the incessant questions from our children.  Yet it is a vital part of growing as a person and understanding the world.


Knowledge is like money: to be of value it must circulate, and in circulating it can increase in quantity and, hopefully, in value. - Louis L’Amour

Knowledge enables us to understand the world, so share it with others!

Religion of Peace



Less Islam, Less Terrorism?

Less Islam, Less Terrorism?

Why does eastern Europe have less Islamic terror attacks?


This is a very interesting question and one poised in my own mind a lot.  Why do Eastern European countries have less, significantly less, Islamic terrorist attacks?  Many would say that it is because they have significantly less Muslim’s living in their countries.  What the Poles have realised is that there is a correlation between the number of Muslims in a country and the number of terror attacks a country has to suffer.

Sound racist?  Maybe just stating the obvious?  Douglas Murray raises this very question:

Of course, any connection between the mass influx of people into Europe and the terrorism and other societal problems to which the continent is waking up every day is still frowned upon.

Indeed, there is no faster way to be thrown out of what remains of polite society than suggesting that the immigration and the terrorism may be linked. Yet the link is obvious. For sure there are those who over-egg the point. The Stockholm attacker from April was a recent arrival in that country. As were the axe-wielding train ­attacker last northern summer in Wurzburg, Germany, and the suicide bomber in Ansbach, Germany, that same month.

But then the Paris attackers from November 2015 included people born and brought up in France and Belgium.

So while some of the terrorists may have just arrived, others were born in Europe.

This fact is not quite as soothing as the proponents of weak borders and mass immigration would like it to be. For if Europe is doing such a bad job of integrating people who are already here, then who but a madman would seek to propel immigration from Muslim countries to such a historic high? The question goes unanswered because in Europe’s immigration debate it is still very rarely asked.

Murray makes the point that if we wish less Islamic terrorism we should have less Islam.  Is this not the conclusion the Eastern Europeans have come to?

Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe

Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe

Is Europe committing cultural suicide?

If you have not read Murry’s book you should buy it right away as it is one of the most significant works in recent years.  In this video, he goes through what is happening in Europe today and gives a very clear analysis (as usual) of the consequences of mass (uncontrolled) immigration of peoples that hold to cultural and ethical mores that are contrary to Western liberal democracies.  As Murray points out, do we think that people shed deep-rooted beliefs and values?



Religion of Peace



Fjordman: Islamic Terrorism and Western Betrayal

Fjordman: Islamic Terrorism and Western Betrayal

By Fjordman

On July 1, 2016, a group of seven militant Muslims attacked the Holey Artisan Bakery in the Gulshan diplomatic area of Dhaka, Bangladesh. The attackers shouted “Allahu Akbar!” Bangladesh has been rocked by a wave of deadly attacks on secular writers and against the few Christians, Hindus and Buddhists who remain in the country.

According to witnesses, Islamic radicals stormed the cafe armed with assault weapons, pistols and “sharp objects” before taking more than 30 people hostage. The terrorists then hacked 20 people to death, sparing only those who could recite the Koran. The cafe was eventually stormed by Bangladeshi commandos who killed the attackers. Among those killed were nine Italians, seven Japanese, one Indian and one American citizen. Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina declared two days of mourning for the victims. She added: “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”[1]

Muslim-dominated Bangladesh is estimated to house around 172 million people. That number keeps growing by a couple of million annually. In a poor and already densely populated country, such a rapid population growth is unsustainable.

In the year 2000, Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was asked by the Los Angeles Times how the country was going to feed, house and employ the expected doubling of its population by 2050. She replied: “We’ll send them to America. Globalisation will take that problem away, as you free up all factors of production, also labour. There’ll be free movement, country to country. Globalisation in its purest form should not have any boundaries, so small countries with big populations should be able to send population to countries with big boundaries and small populations.”[2]

Hasina is essentially arguing that her nation needs more Lebensraum, and that other countries should meekly accept this. Several Muslim nations seem to attempt a similar policy of population dumping through mass migration.

The Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack in Dhaka, launched on the final Friday of Ramadan. Bangladesh’s Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan refuted claims that the Islamic State was behind the attack. According to him, the terrorists “are from rich families, they have good educational background.”[3]

The claim that Islamic terrorism is caused by poverty has been disproved many times. Studies indicate that many Islamic terrorists have at least average education and income. Al-Qaida’s leader Osama bin Laden grew up in wealthy Saudi Arabia as the son of a billionaire. Saudi Arabia was never under European colonial rule. It is the origin of one of the world’s most brutal imperialist traditions, the Arab cultural imperialism of Islam, as the author V. S. Naipaul reminds us.

The U.S. State Department confirmed that a U.S. citizen was among those “senselesslymurdered” by Islamic terrorists in the diplomatic quarter of Dhaka, Bangladesh.[4] This mass murder was far from “senseless.” Eyewitnesses clearly state that those who were Muslims were spared by the attackers. Those who were not Muslims were systematically tortured and murdered. This was a Jihadist attack. The pattern was similar to a previous terror attack in East Africa.

On September 21, 2013, a group of gunmen attacked hundreds of unarmed civilians at the upmarket Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya. The attack and siege lasted for several days and resulted in the deaths of 61 civilians, 6 Kenyan soldiers and 4 attackers. Several hundred people were wounded. Al-Shabaab, a Somali militant group with ties to the Islamic terror network al-Qaida, claimed responsibility for this attack.

The specifically Islamic nature of the mall attack in Nairobi was very clear. Even mainstream reporters from the broadcaster CNN stated that the terrorists “took turns to pray, removing shoes to perform the ritual washing in a room stacked with boxes. They bowed down in Islamic prayer, taking a break from incessant gunfire.”[5] In video footage from the shopping mall, the gunmen are seen shooting members of the public and taking breaks for prayers in between their massacre.

An eyewitness said that the attackers had told Muslims to leave and that only non-Muslims would be targeted. Others were asked to name the mother of Mohammad or given other Islam-related questions. Numerous survivors in Nairobi described how the attackers shot people who failed to provide the correct answers. In an email exchange with The Associated Press, Shabaab made its intentions clear: “The Mujahideen [Islamic Holy Warriors] carried out a meticulous vetting process at the mall and have taken every possible precaution to separate the Muslims from the Kuffar [infidels] before carrying out their attack.”[6]

On June 12, 2016, Omar Mateen, an American citizen from an Afghan Muslim family, killed 49 people and wounded 53 others inside a Gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. It was the deadliest terrorist attack in the USA since September 11, 2001. Omar Mateen stated an Islamic motivation for his attack and pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

As the writer Daniel Greenfield noted, the mass shooting in Orlando happened because of Muslim privilege. Omar could have been stopped by the authorities before. However, fear of being “Islamophobic” prevented this. False claims of Muslim victimhood protect Muslim terrorists such as Omar Mateen:

Muslims are not part of the coalition of the oppressed, but of the oppressors. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can deal stop Islamic terrorism and protect the victims of Muslim terrorists. Muslim privilege killed 49 people in Orlando. How many people will it kill next week or next month? How many will it kill in the next decade or the next century? The Muslim genocide of non-Muslims is already happening in Syria and Iraq. Islam has a long genocidal history. And if we continue to confuse the oppressors and the oppressed, the next genocide we fail to stop may be our own.”[7]

Muslim mass murder attacks against Westerners have already claimed many lives in recent years. They seem to escalate in frequency as the number of Muslims in the Western world keeps growing due to mass immigration.

On November 13, 2015, a series of carefully coordinated Jihad attacks were carried out by militant Muslims in the Paris region. The Islamic terrorists massacred 130 people in the bloodiest attacks in France since the Second World War. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the mass murder.

As usual, senior Western politicians immediately claimed that the Jihadist terror attacks in Paris had nothing to do with Islam. Muslim immigration continues. Meanwhile, militant Muslims are plotting ever more inventive ways to murder us and our families. American presidential candidate Hillary Clinton stated in November 2015: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”[8]

The failure to protect Western citizens from Islamic Jihadist violence is one of the greatest betrayals in history. Senior political leaders such as Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, François Hollande and Angela Merkel personify this betrayal. Eight years of President Obama has made lasting damage to the USA.

For all his flaws, the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at last seems to understand that Muslim immigration constitutes a serious security threat. In a previous age, Trump’s suggestion to halt Muslim immigration and strengthen national border controls would have been deemed common sense.

Sadly, we do not live in a rational age. We live in an age of madness, where common sense is being branded as extremism, and betraying your nation is hailed as a great moral achievement.


1. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3671369/American-student-20-people-hacked-death-Bangladesh-ISIS-terrorists-spared-recite-Koran-armored-troops-moved-in.html Three American students among 20 people hacked to death in Bangladesh by ISIS terrorists — who only spared those who could recite the Koran — before armored troops moved in. 2 July 2016.
2. www.opendemocracy.net/people-migrationeurope/article_1193.jsp The folly of mass immigration. Anthony Browne, 1 May 2003.
3. www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/03/bangladesh-prime-minister-says-cafe-attackers-part-domestic-group-not-isis.html Bangladesh prime minister says cafe attackers part of domestic group, not ISIS. July 03, 2016.
4. www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/02/at-least-6-islamist-militants-killed-13-hostages-rescued-after-commando-raid-on-bangladesh-restaurant.html American among the 22 dead in Bangladesh terrorist hostage crisis. July 02, 2016.
5. edition.cnn.com/2013/10/17/world/africa/kenya-mall-attack-footage/index.html Kenya mall attackers prayed, talked on cell phone between shootings. October 17, 2013.
6. www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/29/terror-trivia-al-qaeda-new-tactice-to-spare-muslims-in-attacks.html Terror trivia: Al Qaeda’s new tactic to spare Muslims in attacks. September 29, 2013.
7. www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263201/muslim-privilege-killed-49-people-orlando-daniel-greenfield Muslim Privilege Killed 49 People in Orlando. June 16, 2016, by Daniel Greenfield.
8. twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/667371059885301761 “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Hillary Clinton on her Twitter account, 19 Nov 2015.
How Islamists Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America

How Islamists Are Slowly Desensitizing Europe And America

The freakouts when people raise valid questions over Islamist actions are meant to frighten people into silence so Islamists can continue their attacks.
Megan G. Oprea

By Megan G. Oprea

Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical magazine whose offices Islamists attacked in 2015, published an editorial recently titled “How Did We Get Here?” that has raised some eyebrows. In it, they ask how Europe has become where European-born Muslims have attacked the hearts of Paris and Brussels. Their answer has proved distasteful to many on the Left.

The editorial has been harshly criticized and the magazine accused of racism and xenophobia. The Washington Post says Charlie Hebdo blames extremism on individual Muslims—the veiled woman on the street, the man selling kebabs. There’s some truth to this accusation, and to the extent that there is, Charlie Hebdo is wrong. But this, and other critiques, miss the larger point of the article, which is to demonstrate the gradual and quotidian way in which criticizing Islam has been silenced.

It’s worth quoting Charlie Hebdo at length:

In reality, the attacks are merely the visible part of a very large iceberg indeed. They are the last phase of a process of cowing and silencing long in motion and on the widest possible scale. Our noses are endlessly rubbed in the rubble of Brussels airport and in the flickering candles amongst the bouquets of flowers on the pavements. All the while, no one notices what’s going on in Saint-German-en-Laye. Last week, Sciences-Po* welcomed Tariq Ramadan. He’s a teacher, so it’s not inappropriate. He came to speak of his specialist subject, Islam, which is also his religion…

No matter, Tariq Ramadan has done nothing wrong. He will never do anything wrong. He lectures about Islam, he writes about Islam, he broadcasts about Islam. He puts himself forward as a man of dialogue, someone open to a debate. A debate about secularism which, according to him, needs to adapt itself to the new place taken by religion in Western democracy. A secularism and a democracy which must also accept those traditions imported by minority communities. Nothing bad in that. Tariq Ramadan is never going to grab a Kalashnikov with which to shoot journalists at an editorial meeting. Nor will he ever cook up a bomb to be used in an airport concourse. Others will be doing all that kind of stuff. It will not be his role. His task, under cover of debate, is to dissuade people from criticising his religion in any way. The political science students who listened to him last week will, once they have become journalists or local officials, not even dare to write nor say anything negative about Islam. The little dent in their secularism made that day will bear fruit in a fear of criticising lest they appear Islamophobic. That is Tariq Ramadan’s task.

The Charlie Hebdo editorial correctly points out that in Europe the dominant liberal culture has pounded into us that we must adapt to Muslims who come to our country, and never ask them to adapt to any of our ways. Doing so would be colonialist and wrong. It’s a double standard, of course. As the welcoming countries, Europeans must suppress their own culture and ideals for those of the Islamic immigrant population. But when they go abroad to non-Western countries, either to live or to visit, it’s considered offensive not to adapt to their ways of life.

Learning a Culture Should Work Both Ways

No one who found the Charlie Hebdo op-ed so offensive would ever suggest Morocco ought to welcome McDonalds or Wal-Mart with open arms. They would say the country is being ruined with Western culture. They want non-Western countries to remain exactly as they are—preserved and frozen in time-while the West must endlessly adapt to anyone who makes it their home.

Europe has failed to ask its Muslim immigrant population to assimilate.

The article highlights the important fact that Europe has failed to ask its Muslim immigrant population to assimilate. This fact was demonstrated recently when police discovered that the only surviving terrorist from the Paris attacks, Salah Abdeslam, was able to travel from Paris to Brussels and conceal himself there until a few days before the Brussels attacks. He was aided by a large community of French and Muslim Belgians whose loyalties clearly lie with their own community, not with Belgium, or Europe at large. What’s more, a 2013 study shows the shocking degree to which European Muslims hate the West.

Asking immigrants to assimilate doesn’t mean white-washing their culture and religion, asking them not to wear the hijab, or demanding that they eat pork. But it does mean asking them to accept, to some degree, the culture of the country to which they have willingly moved. These are things like women’s rights, tolerance, free speech, or criticism of religion. It also means not having to apologize for having a culture of one’s own. This is the point that Michel Houellebecq made in his recent novel, “Submission.”

Slow-Boiling Our Brains

Europeans have been lulled into accepting that it’s wrong to criticize Islam or scrutinize it in any way. The Charlie Hebdo editorial points out that it’s a slow process, an insidious wearing away of what is and isn’t acceptable to say or think. The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss. So, you gradually shame them into it.

The process must be slow, because few people would accept a proposal dictating what topics they’re not allowed to discuss.

This establishes a pre-conditioned mindset so the line of acceptability can be moved further and further until the problem of global jihad can no longer be effectively explored because we aren’t even allowed to ask fundamental questions. This is Charlie Hebdo’s point about Tariq Ramadan, whose grandfather founded the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood and whose father was an active member of the group. Through the guise of intellectualism and purported adherence to moderate Islam, he instructs his audience ever so gently that the problem has nothing to do with Islam, and that suggesting so is ugly and base.

We acquiesce, because, as Charlie Hebdo points out, we fear being seen as Islamaphobic or racist. We are made to feel guilty if the thought flashes through our head that we wish that the new sandwich shop run by a Muslim sold bacon, or that a woman wearing a hijab makes us a little uncomfortable. That fear that we feel when we entertain those thoughts, the op-ed argues, saps our willingness to scrutinize, analyze, debate, or reject anything about Islam. And this is dangerous.

Fierce Reactions Aim to Condition Us Into Fear

Although Europe is further along in this process, there is a clear relevance to the United States. We are already being instructed on college campuses and by our own president that Muslims are a sort of protected class regarding criticism. President Obama even went so far as to censor French President François Hollande when he used the forbidden phrase “Islamist terrorism.”

We are already being instructed on college campuses and by our own president that Muslims are a sort of protected class regarding criticism.

The latest incident of shaming those who do push back is happening in Kansas, where the Islamic Society of Wichita invited Sheik Monzer Talib to speak at a fundraising event on Good Friday. Talib is a known fundraiser for Hamas, the militant Islamist Palestinian group that the United States classifies as a terrorist organization. He even has sung a song called “I am from Hamas.” U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo dared to put out a press release objecting to the speech out of concern that it would harm the Muslim community, particularly in the wake of the Brussels terrorist attack.

In response, the mosque claimed Pompeo stoked prejudice and Islamaphobia and that they had to cancel the event because of protest announcements and because some individuals on Facebook made some offhand comments about guns. Cue a local media frenzy, letters to the editor accusing Pompeo of government overreach, and the predictable arrival of two CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) representatives to skewer Pompeo.

This is just one example of how criticizing or questioning the actions of a Muslim community—even one that is supporting a Hamas fundraiser—has become anathema. The line of acceptability has been moved so now it’s Islamaphobic to object to someone with links to Islamist groups being invited to a U.S. mosque while we’re in the midst of a global battle against Islamist terrorism. People don’t even want to discuss it. The conversation is over. Just as Charlie Hebdo asks, so should we ask ourselves, “How did we get here?”

Although the particulars of the Charlie Hebdoeditorial may go too far, and I do not endorse everything the article says, the overarching message is that Europe has slowly let this happen year by year, decade by decade, like a frog in a pot slowly brought to a boil. Post-colonial guilt and shame have stopped Europeans from openly loving and defending their own culture. The state of things in Europe today is the natural conclusion of that neglect. We in America are on the same road.

Megan G. Oprea is editor of the foreign policy newsletter INBOUND. She holds a PhD in French linguistics from the University of Texas at Austin. You can follow her on Twitter here.
Making Excuses for Islamic Crime and Criminals in the West

Making Excuses for Islamic Crime and Criminals in the West

Here in the West there has been a sad history of Muslims coming to our lands, committing crimes, and then getting a slap on the wrist for these crimes. Western judges are failing to do their jobs properly and are making every excuse in the book for these criminals, simply because they are Muslims.

Thus these judges claim they should be excused because they come from a different culture, or do not understand Western ways and values, or are not proficient in the host nation’s language, or face discrimination here, etc. Any lousy excuse will do it seems. I have been documenting cases of this for some time now.

Let me offer 13 of these cases: three older ones from overseas, nine older ones from Australia, and then a brand new Australian example. Let’s begin with three appalling cases from the UK:

sharia law 2“Muslim women not used to drinking walk free after attack on woman”
December 6, 2011
“A gang of Somalian women who repeatedly kicked a young woman [from Leicester] in the head walked free from court after a judge heard they were ‘not used to being drunk’ because they were Muslim.”

“Muslim abuser who ‘didn’t know’ that sex with a girl of 13 was illegal is spared jail”
January 25, 2013
“A Muslim who raped a 13-year-old girl he groomed on Facebook has been spared a prison sentence after a judge heard he went to an Islamic faith school where he was taught that women are worthless. Adil Rashid, 18, claimed he was not aware that it was illegal for him to have sex with the girl because his education left him ignorant of British law.”

“Islamic teacher who sexually abused girl, 11, as he taught her the Koran spared jail because his wife doesn’t speak English”
March 18, 2014
“An Islamic teacher who repeatedly molested a terrified girl of 11 as he taught her the Koran has escaped a jail sentence because his wife’s English is so bad. . . . Preston Crown Court was told Maknojioa had been engaged by the children’s parents in 2012 to teach them about the Islamic faith up to three times a week at their home in Lancashire.”

And in Australia let me just briefly offer another ten examples: nine somewhat older ones and then a brand new case:

“Scared Muslim let off police shooting”
September 9, 2011
“A Muslim terror suspect who wounded a policeman in a gunfight escaped conviction on serious shooting charges after a judge found ‘anti-Muslim sentiment’ made him fear for his safety.”
As commentator Gerald Henderson said about this case: “If the alleged existence of anti-Muslim feeling in the community is relevant to the state of mind of an accused who shoots at police, what about those of other religions? Would a Jew be entitled to cite a climate of anti-Semitism in the community as affecting the intention of an act which he/she had committed with respect to police? What about a Hindu?”

“Are Aussies too biased to try this Muslim man?”
May 9, 2012
“Ismail Belghar is believed to be the first Muslim in Australia to be granted a judge-only trial on the grounds that a jury may be biased because of his religious beliefs. The decision in the New South Wales District Court can be revealed after Belghar, 36, yesterday pleaded guilty to detaining and assaulting his sister-in-law after she ‘dared’ to take his wife to the beach without his permission.”

“All charges dropped against registered sex offender”
February 25, 2014
“Registered sex offender, Ali Jaffari, accused of attempted child-stealing, has had all charges against him dropped after a Magistrate told prosecutors he would have trouble finding Jaffari guilty. Magistrate Ron Saines said if he was hearing the matter, he would have reasonable doubt, citing ‘cultural differences’ as one factor, which would result in the charges being dismissed. Jaffari, 35, an Afghan refugee, was convicted in Geelong Magistrates’ Court on August 22, 2013, of indecently assaulting one boy and attempting to indecently assault another.”

“Adelaide-based Shiekh Sharif Hussein free to preach race hate”
April 13, 2014
“Police say they will not act against a radical preacher who publicly prayed for the slaughter of Hindus and Buddhists, leaving him free to spread his messages of hatred.”

“SA court asked to release Ali Joubouri, accused of bashing Jason Lindsley, on bail for Ramadan”
June 26, 2014
“The man accused of bashing Jason Lindsley outside a city nightclub has asked for bail, saying it is difficult to properly observe Ramadan behind bars.”

“Gold Coast kebab shop owner lives with two ‘wives’ and says polygamy should be legal”
July 11, 2015
“A Gold Coast man who lives with his two wives says polygamy should be legal because he cannot bear the thought of sleeping with the same woman every night.”

“Centrelink ‘legalises’ multiple Muslim wives”
December 11, 2016
“Centrelink is ignoring Islamic polygamy, paying spousal benefits to Muslim families with multiple wives in an effort to save taxpayers’ money. The welfare agency has revealed it refuses to collect data on polygamous marriages under Islamic law, despite the fact some families are claiming to be living in a domestic relationship with more than one woman when claiming welfare.”

“Muslim leader says violence against women a ‘last resort’ for men”
February 23, 2017
“A Senior Muslim leader has said using violence against women is a ‘last resort’ for men. President of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Keysar Trad described beating women as ‘step three’ in a process of dealing with issues in relationships.”

“Bigamist awarded costs over visa cancellation as form ‘not clear’”
January 12, 2017
“A Muslim bigamist will have his court costs paid by the federal government after the Federal Court found he had his visa cancelled because the migration forms did not provide enough or clear options to describe his relationship status. Egyptian man Mahmoud Mahdy Mahmoud Salama moved to Australia in 2003 on a prospective partner visa and married an Australian woman the same year. He was then granted a provisional partner visa and returned to Egypt in 2004 where he married another woman in Cairo, while still married in Australia. In 2006, Mr Salama was granted a permanent partner visa, while married to both women.”

And finally this shocking new example of judicial double standards for Muslims in Australia:

“Teenager avoids jail for sex attacks due to ‘cultural differences’”
April 26, 2017
“A teenager who immigrated to Australia from Afghanistan has escaped jail after a series of sex attacks because he grew up in a different culture. The court heard the teenager, who cannot be named, pleaded guilty to assaulting eight women and girls on a Surfers Paradise beach in January 2016. The judge accepted that seeing girls in bikinis is different to the environment in which he grew up.”

Wow, this is utterly insane. So much so that the case has even drawn international attention. One American commentator, Michael Brown, for example said this in part about the case:

Let’s Take the Judge’s Decision to Its Logical Conclusion
As for the idea that the teen came from a different culture and therefore was not fully responsible, how far will the courts take such logic?
“Your honor, I killed my daughter because she disgraced the family by dating a non-Muslim boy.”
“Your honor, I poisoned my son because he apostasized from the Islamic faith and became a Christian.”
“Your honor, I burned down the TV station because one of the hosts made disparaging comments about the Quran.”
“Your honor, I butchered the cartoonist because he mocked the prophet Muhammad.”
“Your honor, that’s just what we do in our culture. Please understand I wasn’t used to your way of doing things, and I’ll do better next time.”
Would the judge accept arguments like these? Hardly. (Or perhaps this same judge would accept such arguments. That’s what is really scary.)
What if you came from a cannibalistic culture where tribal disputes were settled with knife fights, and the winners ate the losers? How would this play out in court?
“Your honor, yes, it’s true that I roasted and ate my neighbor, but it’s a cultural thing. If I had lost the fight, I assumed he would have done the same to me. So, can I go home now?”

The Message It Sends
It’s bad enough that these girls and women have to deal with the trauma of being assaulted and groped. It’s even worse when the court sympathizes with their attacker rather than with them, finding a reason to look the other way. And what kind of message does this send to other Muslim immigrants, who will surely hear of this court case in the days to come?
Ironically, if an Australian woman living in Afghanistan decided to dress as she did in her home country, she’d be lucky to escape a mob assault on the streets, let alone experience leniency from the court. Yet in Australia, a young man guilty of multiple sexual assaults is let off the hook because of his Muslim background.
This is being open-minded to the point of utter foolishness. It sets a very dangerous precedent too.


So here I have been foolishly warning all these years that unless we are vigilant, we will have sharia law in Australia. Um, foolish me. As the above examples should make perfectly clear, we ALREADY DO have sharia law operating here. We have in effect a two-tiered legal system in operation.

Muslims seem to be exempt from Australian laws and are being judged by a different standard for their crimes – by an Islamic standard. They are getting away with murder – or almost. It seems that any rape, sexual assault, polygamous marriage, or under-age marriage can be excused here because it is simply ‘what Muslims do’.

Well, they can do it all they like where they come from, but they certainly should not be doing it here in the West. The only thing worse than these Muslim immigrants who refuse to abide by Western values and laws are those dhimmi judges who are siding against their own countries as they side with law-breaking Muslims.

Shame on them – they should be given the sack immediately and replaced with real judges who will uphold and defend Western laws and values. If not, say goodbye to the West.

Should Different Religions Be Treated Differently?

Should Different Religions Be Treated Differently?


Anti-Mosque Protest

When the planning board of Bernards Township, New Jersey, turned down a plan to build a mosque, the local Islamic society turned around and sued the town for discrimination. Now, a federal judge has ruled that a parking requirement imposed by the township on the mosque was discriminatory.

Adeel Mangi, the Islamic society’s lawyer, praised the decision, saying “this is a landmark ruling…that will have national impact in reaffirming that townships cannot treat applicants differently based on their religion.”

Andrew Bieszad, an Islam scholar, has a different take. In an article titled “landmark federal court ruling opens the way for explosion of constructing mega-mosques across America,” he states that “the issue here is not about parking spaces or religious freedom—it is about the presence of Islam.” He goes on to observe:

Islam does not come into a society to co-exist with others. Islam comes with the intention of invading, dominating, and eventually either assimilating or enslaving the area.

Harsh words. But if they are true, then doesn’t it make sense to discriminate against Islam? Adeel Mangi says that applicants shouldn’t be treated “differently based on their religion,” but if a religion aims to subjugate other religions (and cultures) then wouldn’t it be foolish not to treat it differently?

Islamic leaders may complain about discrimination, but they can’t very well base their case on Islamic principles. That’s because Islam is built on discrimination—discrimination between halal and haram (permitted and forbidden), between male (superior) and female (inferior), between Muslim (superior) and non-Muslim (inferior), and between the House of Islam and the House of War (non-Muslim societies).

That last distinction is perhaps the best argument for heightened concern about the spread of mosques. According to Islamic doctrine, there can be no peace on earth until non-Muslims are subjugated by Muslims. Although not every Muslim is aware of this obligation, the vast majority of imams and mosque leaders are.

Whenever and wherever Muslims gain sufficient power, this is what they do. And if 1400 years of history is any guide, this is what they will sooner or later attempt to do in America. So why shouldn’t cities and townships be wary about facilitating the spread of this most discriminatory of religions?

The problem with Islam is not discrimination per se, but rather the severity of the discrimination and the reasoning behind it. For example, all societies make distinctions and discriminations (in the original sense of the word) between the sexes; but in Islam the harsh discrimination against women is based on the belief that they have less value than men. According to Islamic law, the value of a woman is one-half that of a man. But that’s not so bad when you consider that the value of a Jew or Christian is one-third that of a Muslim male.

If resistance to the spread of mosques were based on a belief that Muslims are of less value than non-Muslims, that would be reprehensible. But such resistance (in Europe, the UK, the US, and elsewhere) is usually based on concerns over Islamic beliefs and the behaviors that often flow from them. Which raises a question: is it ever legitimate to discriminate against institutions based on their belief systems?

In its original sense, discrimination means choosing between two or more different things. In that sense, discrimination is a necessary feature of every society. A society cannot exist without discrimination—without being able to differentiate between enemies and friends, between right and wrong and, on a more mundane level, between things that are edible and things that are poisonous.

Many of the discriminations that we make are so taken for granted that we don’t give them a second thought. For example, we don’t give driver’s licenses (or marriage licenses) to nine-year-olds, and we think it legitimate to discriminate between those who obey the law and those who break it. The main business of courts, after all, is to make discriminations. We expect judges and juries to discriminate; we expect police to discriminate; we expect teachers to discriminate (e.g., between right and wrong answers on an exam and between appropriate and inappropriate behavior); and we expect pastors and rabbis to help us discriminate vice from virtue.

Which brings us back to the religion of Islam. Many of the things we in the West consider to be vices are considered to be virtues in Islam and vice versa. We don’t give away nine-year-olds in marriage, but in some Islamic societies they do. We give driver’s licenses to women, but in Saudi Arabia they don’t. We abhor wife-beating, but many Muslims believe that wife-beating improves a woman’s character. We believe that freedom of religion includes the right to leave your religion, but the consensus of Islamic scholars is that apostates should be killed.

In short, there are many striking differences between Islamic values and Western values, and in some cases these differences are so profound that applicants for building mosques might reasonably be “treated differently based on their religion.” Discrimination based on religious practices is not as un-American as it may sound. In the late nineteenth century, Congress outlawed the Mormon practice of polygamy in the territories, and when the Mormons appealed the law on religious grounds, the Supreme Court upheld the ban.

Come to think of it, you can add polygamy to the list of differences between Islam and Western religions. And as the number of Muslims in a given society increases, you can expect that demands for multiple wives will also increase. Muslims in Italy are already demanding that right. And although polygamy is officially against the law in Britain, it is tacitly accepted in deference to Muslim sensibilities. Police in the UK are too busy uncovering terror plots to be bothered with something as minor as polygamy.

Speaking of minors, we can also expect that the incidence of child marriage will increase as the Muslim population increases. Child marriage is common in the Muslim world. In Saudi Arabia there is no minimum age for marriage. And in Yemen, Bangladesh, Iran, and Northern Nigeria, attempts to ban child marriages have been blocked on the grounds that such a ban would be un-Islamic. In Germany, the UK, and Canada, forced marriages and underage marriages have increased dramatically in the Muslim communities. So has the incidence of female genital mutilation.

It doesn’t matter if the local imam swears on a stack of Korans not to officiate at an underage wedding, these are the sorts of things that will start to happen as Islam spreads. Likewise, it doesn’t matter if laws are passed to prohibit specific behaviors. The United States, along with other Western nations, already has laws that, in effect, prohibit the free exercise of Islam. There are laws against polygamy, child marriage, cruel and unusual punishments (such as amputation for theft), wife-beating, and so on.

But our society’s commitment to the rule of non-discrimination works to undermine such laws. Such laws, it will be claimed, are unfairly biased against people from non-Western cultures. And as long as the principle of non-discrimination remains the dominant one, exceptions to the laws will be made.

In Europe, the laws against polygamy, child marriage, spousal abuse, and even rape have already begun to erode. If Muslims are involved in such activities, authorities tend to look the other way, or else they mete out very lenient punishments. In Austria, a Muslim migrant who raped a 10-year-old boy had his conviction overturned on the grounds that he didn’t understand that the boy was not consenting to the act. A German court gave a suspended sentence to three Muslim men who attacked a synagogue with Molotov cocktails. In another German court, four al-Qaeda terrorists who plotted a massacre involving anti-personnel bombs received sentences ranging from only four and a half to nine years. Law-abiding Germans refer to the kid-glove treatment of Muslims as “Kuscheljustiz” (“cuddly justice”).

Having been soaked in multiculturalism and cultural relativism for decades, Western authorities don’t have any defense against the “this-is-permitted-in-my-culture” plea. Having succumbed to the belief that all values are equal, Western courts are now faced with the logical implications of that belief. Societies that can’t discriminate between natural marriage and same-sex “marriage” can’t be expected to defend the “discriminatory” notion that exclusive marriages are better than polygamous marriages. And legislators who can’t discriminate between the men’s room and the ladies’ room won’t have a leg to stand on (so to speak) when the newly-elected Muslim-dominated legislature proposes amputation as a remedy for theft.

These days, the word “discrimination” has come to be associated almost exclusively with “bias,” “prejudice,” and “injustice.” However, some dictionaries still list the original sense of the word as the primary definition—that is, “to make a clear distinction; distinguish; differentiate.” In its primary sense discrimination is an act of discernment about the nature of reality—a judgment about the similarities and differences between things.

While it’s wrong to prejudge people and issues, prejudice is not the greatest danger to a society. Rather, it’s the failure to make any judgments that erodes and eventually ruins a society. In the words of essayist and social critic Lawrence Auster, “the principle of non-discrimination must, if followed consistently, destroy every society and institution.”

If we continue to insist that discrimination is the worst sin in the world, we will soon find that there are far worse things. Cultural survival depends on the ability to discriminate against pernicious ideas and behaviors. Luckily, the twentieth-century struggles to resist Nazism, communism, and Japanese imperialism took place before the age of non-discrimination set in. Unluckily, the resurgence of militant Islam comes at a time when cultural relativism is all the rage. The idea that all cultures are roughly equal prevents us from looking at Islam as it really is, and prevents us from taking action accordingly. Islam is essentially a religion of conquest. It bears striking similarities to other totalitarian ideologies such as communism and Nazism. In fact, prominent Islamic leaders such as Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, actively collaborated with the Nazis and encouraged them to speed up the “final solution”—the extermination of European Jews. Moreover, the chief modern theorists of Islam—Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Maulana Maududi—all acknowledged their theoretical indebtedness to Nazism and communism.

If theory is not your cup of tea, just look at the facts on the ground. As Islam spreads, so does Islamic violence—not just terrorist violence, but the everyday violence done to women, children, and non-Muslims. Mosques are not the only means by which this culture of violence is spread, but it is one of the chief means. As Moorthy Muthuswamy, author of Defeating Political Islam, writes: “[it is] the teachings of its clerics and its mosques which make up the nodes of the social network responsible for spawning jihad.”

This is well understood in Islamic countries. Thus, on Fridays in many Islamic countries, mosques are supervised by police. That’s because violence is often launched during the Friday khutba (sermon). Indeed, many of the 2011 Arab Spring demonstrations were set in motion from mosques following Friday prayers.

How do the authorities in Islamic countries react to acts of violence and terrorism? One of the first things they do is shut down suspected mosques. For example, after a terrorist attack on a beach resort that left 39 dead, Tunisian Prime Minister Habib Essid ordered that 80 mosques be closed because “some mosques continue to spread their propaganda and their venom to promote terrorism.”

Meanwhile, in France—that bastion of liberty, equality, and fraternity—dozens of mosques have been shut down in the wake of terrorist attacks. Raids on several of these mosques revealed a “staggering” number of weapons and ammunition.

Most Americans, I venture to say, assume that such things won’t happen in American mosques. But that may not be a good assumption to make considering that almost a dozen terrorists (including the Tsarnaev brothers) have been associated with the Islamic Society of Boston’s two mosques, and nearly half a dozen (three of the 9/11 hijackers, the Fort Hood assassin, and terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki) were associated with the supposedly moderate Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. And let’s not forget that Omar Abdel Rahman, the “Blind Sheik” who masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center, preached jihad in three different mosques in the New York/New Jersey area.

Do I think this radicalization process is about to commence in every small-town mosque in New Jersey, Kansas, and Tennessee? No. Not necessarily. But as mosques spread, Islam spreads. And Islam, I think it can be safely said, is not conducive to a healthy society. Because Islamic institutions are bound up with a dangerous belief system, it would be irresponsible not to subject them to extra scrutiny.

The ultimate act of discrimination takes place on the Last Judgment. On that fearful day the sheep will be separated from the goats, and the faithful from the wicked. One of the things we will be judged on is our courage to judge rightly according to realities and not according to the fashionable opinions of the day.

Can America Ban Immigrants Who Reject Our Constitution for Sharia Law?

Can America Ban Immigrants Who Reject Our Constitution for Sharia Law?

In their legitimate concerns over believers being forced to cater same-sex weddings or religious schools getting sued for upholding biblical morals, Christians may forget that there are and should be limits to religious freedom, especially when it comes to the question of whom to admit to our country. Remember that there is no Constitutional obligation to admit anyone at all, and that courts have found that the U.S. may turn away immigrants (for instance, Communists) who reject our Constitution.

Nothing brings the religious liberty question more sharply into focus than the spread of Islam into the West. Does religious liberty mean that a religion that advocates stoning for adulterers and death for apostates must be placed on an equal footing with non-violent religions? Or could religious liberty for large and growing numbers of Muslims endanger freedom for everyone else?

The Mormons Gave Up Polygamy

There are, in fact, a number of Supreme Court decisions that have put due limits on religious freedom. Perhaps the most notable case is Reynolds v. United States (1878), which upheld a federal law banning polygamy. The court ruled against the Mormon Church which had claimed a right on religious grounds to continue the practice of polygamy.  “To permit this,” wrote Chief Justice Morrison Waite,” would be to make the professed doctrine of religious belief superior to the law of the land.”

More than a century later, the ruling was reaffirmed in Employment Division v. Smith (1990).  The court upheld the firing of an Oregon public employee who’d illegally smoked peyote in a Native American Church ceremony.  Justice Antonin Scalia explained that granting a religious exemption for peyote use would undermine the law. It may seem surprising that Scalia sided with the majority, but that’s only if you assume that Christians must automatically favor a free pass for all behavior that’s labeled “religious.”

The First Church of Human Sacrifice

Typically, Constitutional scholars make a distinction between beliefs and practice, and most say that although beliefs are protected, religious practices may be restricted or prohibited. Thus, you can believe in the benefits of polygamy if you like, but you can’t take two wives. You may sincerely believe that virgin sacrifice contributes to social stability, but you may not practice it.

This distinction sounds good in theory, but there are problems with it. While the government shouldn’t try to control what you believe, it might legitimately take an interest in your attempts to spread your beliefs.  Suppose there were a First Church of Human Sacrifice (aka the Sacrificians) in the U.S. And suppose that although its members refrained from actual human sacrifice in deference to the Constitution, they extolled it in sermons, books, pamphlets and Sunday school classes. “We do not practice human sacrifice in this society, and we do not encourage it,” say the Sacrifician elders, “but it is, nevertheless, the best way to offer service to God.”

One may think that there’s no harm in allowing the Sacrificians to praise the beauty of human sacrifice, since no one in his right mind would want to join such a cult. But suppose, contrary to expectations, that the elders manage to present human sacrifice in such an appealing way that many are drawn to the religion. As a result, the First Church of Human Sacrifice grows rapidly, and soon Human Sacrifice temples are popping up all over the landscape.

With numbers comes respectability. Pretty soon, the media begin to run human interest stories about the human face of Sacrificians, and major denominations declare their solidarity with them. After a while, the Sacrificians get involved in politics, and end up as judges, police commissioners, mayors and legislators. As time goes by, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist the full Sacrifician agenda — especially when the elders assure the authorities that, for the time being, only volunteers, the terminally ill and the mentally deficient will be sacrificed.

Trump’s Executive Order Protects American Freedom

In short, it might not be a good idea to let millions of Sacrificians move into our country. By the same token, it might not be wise to let sharia law take root in our culture. That’s because the full application of sharia does, in effect, call for human sacrifice. All sharia law books agree that adulterers may be stoned to death, that apostates must be killed, and that blasphemers should be jailed or executed. Moreover, non-Muslims can be killed for a variety of reasons.

Needless to say, sharia law is patently unconstitutional. But for a strict Muslim, sharia supersedes the Constitution. As the influential scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, puts it, “the Sharia is for all time to come, equally valid under all circumstances.”  Why?  Because sharia law is God’s law.  Man-made laws — such as the Constitution — are nullified if they contradict sharia.

Which brings us to President Trump’s recent executive order on immigration and refugees.  One section is particularly significant:

In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.

The ban itself is limited to a few months and to only seven countries, but the principle has wide application. It means that any Muslim who puts sharia above American law can be barred from entry to the U.S. But according to al-Qaradawi and other Muslim scholars, putting sharia first is what pious Muslims must do.

Sharia First

Because of sharia’s inherent conflict with the Constitution, it would be unwise to let Islam get a foothold in the U.S. It might be a different story if American Muslims were able to practice an American brand of Islam stripped of sharia, but that, in the long run, is unlikely. The political/legal side of Islam is inextricably bound up with the religious side. Can you be a good Muslim if you ignore Allah’s law?  Most Muslim scholars and jurists would say no.

It might be objected that we already have laws on the books that prohibit the uglier aspects of sharia law such as wife-beating, amputations for theft and the like. Therefore, it can be argued, there’s no need to keep out adherents of sharia: Muslims will simply follow those tenets of sharia that are not in conflict with American law, and ignore those that are.

Once again, it’s not so simple. Europe also has laws against polygamy, child marriage, spousal abuse and rape, but as I have noted elsewhere, the enforcement of those laws has begun to erode due to the pressures created by a growing Muslim population.

Sharia is the “Sexy” Aspect of Islam

Sharia laws and the sense of supremacy that goes along with it are among the main attractions of Islam — especially for the young. The sudden resurgence of Islam following the Iranian Revolution corresponded with a re-emphasis on sharia and jihad. That’s because Islam minus sharia and jihad has very little to offer. Islam was dying a slow death during the Colonial period and the era of the secular strongmen that followed, precisely because the ruling authorities made sure that the practice of Islam was largely confined to acts of prayer and piety.

Once the genie of jihad was released from the bottle, however, Islam took off. When young Muslim men discovered that Islam was not only about praying in mosques, but also about slaying or subjugating God’s enemies and thereby meriting the reward of virgins in paradise, they began to pay attention.

Christ told his followers that “the time is coming when anyone who kills you will think they are offering a service to God (John 16: 2).  That’s what Muslim radicals think they are doing when they kill infidels:  they are offering service to Allah, and Allah most gracious, they believe, will return the favor in paradise.

A Religious Duty to Kill the Infidel

How else do you explain the religious fervor with which jihadists speak of their exploits? A captured ISIS soldier told a journalist that he felt joyous because “I was killing infidels.” After twenty-eight Christians were killed in a bombing attack on St. Peter’s Cathedral in Cairo, social media were filled with comments such as “God bless the person who did this blessed act.” Before murdering an Israeli policewoman, Ahmad Zakarneh sent a text message to his parents urging them not to grieve, because “I yearned for a saint’s death … I am a martyr by Allah’s assistance. Rejoice.” In the West Bank, streets, squares, parks and schools are named in honor of “martyrs” — whose victims often include women and children.

Islamic beliefs have predictable consequences. From kindergarten on up, Palestinian children are taught to hate Jews and to aspire to martyrdom. The Egyptian Ministry of Education incites hatred for Christian Copts. In Iran, children as young as eight are recruited into paramilitary groups and trained to hate the U.S. and Israel. Like the hypothetical Sacrificians, not every Palestinian, Egyptian, or Iranian wants to kill, but the ideal of serving Allah through martyrdom suffuses their culture. In America, children are introduced to the warrior code through video games. But while American youth only play at being warriors, Muslim youth are given incentives to actually live out Islam’s warrior/martyr code.

The question is, do we want that sort of culture to take root and grow in our society? When you think about it, the notion of extreme vetting of Muslim immigrants and refugees makes a lot of sense. As the recent executive order cautions, “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.”

It’s time to shut all Islamic schools, says anti-radical Islam campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali

It’s time to shut all Islamic schools, says anti-radical Islam campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Internationally renowned author and campaigner against radical Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, says Sydney’s Islamic schools should be shut down to stop the indoctrination of children.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph Hirsi Ali, who is under constant security protection and lives with the daily fear of being killed by terrorists, said Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s weakness in calling out the threat of Islamic fundamentalism risked pushing Australians into the arm of fringe groups, like Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali is living with the constant fear of assassination.

“I think the Australian government is not very different from other liberal governments. The Government just wants to be fair but in attempting to do so they end up ignoring the problem fermenting under the surface,” she said.

“They should stop insulting the intelligence of the public by going around saying Islam is a religion of peace.

“The population is thrown into the hands of the populists. It’s not so much that these populists say, it’s this negligence of the establishment parties to address the problem, to recognise there is a problem with Islam.”

Speaking about Islamic schools, where the science curriculum is censored and music and art classes are banned, Hirsi Ali said: “It is child abuse pure and simple. Muslim schools should not be allowed in liberal society.”

Ms Ali said the Turnbull government needed to call out the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.

One of Sydney’s largest Islamic schools, Al-Faisal College in Auburn, has modified the official PDHPE textbook to remove material about reproduction, instead giving credit to Allah.

The Year 9 science teaching material extensively quotes the Koran while students in Years 8-12 are not taught music.

It is child abuse pure and simple. Muslim schools should not be allowed in liberal society — Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The school is named after Saudi Arabia’s former king Al-Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and the Saudi Arabian ambassador has attended several school functions, but the school claims it does not receive funding from Saudi Arabia.



“Everyone says we allow Christian and Jewish schools but they are different. The Muslim schools are political ideology masquerading as a religion infiltrating the institution of learning, preying on really small children and filling their heads up with these extreme ideas,” Hirsi Ali said.

“These Muslim schools they take opportunity away from the children, they should be banned.”

Referring to issues of radicalisation arising at public schools, Hirsi Ali said the agents who promoted Islamic extremism need to be identified and stopped.

“They want to take over the curriculum. Sometimes they are individuals, sometimes they are organisations or governments like Saudi Arabia, Qatar could be financing these attempts,” she said.

Hirsi Ali grew up as a Muslim in Somalia, where she was forced to undergo a genital mutilation procedure, before seeking asylum in Holland to escape an arranged marriage.

She became involved in politics and collaborated on a film with producer Theo van Gogh about the oppression of women in Islam.

Van Gogh was killed by an Islamic terrorist while cycling to work — his body had a death threat to Hirsi Ali pinned to it.

Hirsi Ali said she has become accustomed to being vigilant about her security and living with the constant fear of assassination.

“I think you kind of get used to it. Sometimes I forget there are things I would like to do that I can’t do because of security,” she said.

Hirsi Ali will visit Australia next week for a series of talks on radical Islam.

At this stage, she has no meetings set up with Australian politicians, although during Tony Abbott’s time as prime minister, she met with him.

Hirsi Ali grew up as a Muslim in Somalia, where she was forced to undergo a genital mutilation procedure.

At its core, Hirsi Ali thinks the political dimension of Islam is not, and will never be, compatible with democracy.

She said religious rituals, like visiting Mecca, not eating pork and fasting during Ramadan, were compatible with a democratic society because they caused others no harm.

“But if you’re talking about the political dimension, sharia and the quest to impose sharia law on society, that is not compatible with democracy, especially if you measure it by the metrics of human rights, freedom and economic prosperity,” she said.

“It’s (sharia law) presented by the radical Muslims as an alternative to democracy.”

Hirsi Ali endorses developing a counter message about freedom and equal opportunity in the face of a radical ideology that seeks to indoctrinate young, vulnerable people.

“Our message, or classical liberals, is about life before death,” she said.

Schoolteacher Mrs A reveals her experiences with radicalism at Punchbowl Primary

“The message of the radical Muslims is all about death and the afterlife. Theirs is a message of death, oppression of women, vilification of jews, they preach intolerance to people of other faiths.”

Knowing what it is to live in fear, Hirsi Ali said Australians, along with Europeans — except the French — and Americans, take freedom for granted and it was a vulnerability.

“When I first came to Holland, for me all these freedoms were brand new. I was stunned and wanted to understand it,” she said.

“The people around me had never known anything else so I think people quickly take freedom for granted and that’s a vulnerability. It’s good to be free but it’s not good to take it for granted.”

em.’ Tony

Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting

Smoking Out Islamists via Extreme Vetting

by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Quarterly

Donald Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 27 establishing radically new procedures to deal with foreigners who apply to enter the United States. Building on his earlier notion of “extreme vetting,” the order explains that

to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.

Donald Trump signing an executive order at the Pentagon on Jan. 27, 2017.

This passage raises several questions of translating extreme vetting in practice: How does one distinguish foreigners who “do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles” from those who do? How do government officials figure out “those who would place violent ideologies over American law”? More specifically, given that the new procedures almost exclusively concern the fear of allowing more Islamists into the country, how does one identify them?I shall argue these are doable tasks and the executive order provides the basis to achieve them. At the same time, they are expensive and time-consuming, demanding great skill. Keeping out Islamists can be done, but not easily.

The Challenge

By Islamists (as opposed to moderate Muslims), I mean those approximately 10-15 percent of Muslims who seek to apply Islamic law (the Shari’a) in its entirety. They want to implement a medieval code that calls (among much else) for restricting women, subjugating non-Muslims, violent jihad, and establishing a caliphate to rule the world.

For many non-Muslims, the rise of Islamism over the past forty years has made Islam synonymous with extremism, turmoil, aggression, and violence. But Islamists, not all Muslims, are the problem; they, not all Muslims, must urgently be excluded from the United States and other Western countries. Not just that, but anti-Islamist Muslims are the key to ending the Islamist surge, as they alone can offer a humane and modern alternative to Islamist obscurantism.

Identifying Islamists is no easy matter, however, as no simple litmus test exists. Clothing can be misleading, as some women wearing hijabs are anti-Islamists, while practicing Muslims can be Zionists; nor does one’s occupation indicate much, as some high-tech engineers are violent Islamists. Likewise, beards, teetotalism, five-times-a-day prayers, and polygyny do not tell about a Muslim’s political outlook. To make matters more confusing, Islamists often dissimulate and pretend to be moderates, while some believers change their views over time.

Finally, shades of gray further confuse the issue. As noted by Robert Satloff of The Washington Institute, a 2007 book from the Gallup press, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, based on a poll of over 50,000 Muslims in 10 countries, found that 7 percent of Muslims deem the 9/11 attacks “completely justified,” 13.5 percent consider the attacks completely or “largely justified,” and 36.6 percent consider the attacks completely, largely, or “somewhat justified.” Which of these groups does one define as Islamist and which not?

Faced with these intellectual challenges, American bureaucrats are unsurprisingly incompetent, as I demonstrate in a long blog titled “The U.S. Government’s Poor Record on Islamists.” Islamists have fooled the White House, the departments of Defense, Justice, State, and Treasury, the Congress, many law enforcement agencies and a plethora of municipalities. A few examples:

  • The Pentagon in 2001 invited Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Islamist it later executed with a drone-launched missile, to lunch.
In 2001, the Pentagon invited Anwar al-Awlaki to lunch. In 2011 it killed him by a drone strike.
  • In 2002, FBI spokesman Bill Carter described the American Muslim Council (AMC) as “the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States” – just two years before the bureau arrested the AMC’s founder and head, Abdurahman Alamoudi, on terrorism-related charges. Alamoudi has now served about half his 23-year prison sentence.
  • George W. Bush appointed stealth Islamist Khaled Abou El Fadl in 2003 to, of all things, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
  • The White House included staff in 2015 from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in its consultations, despite CAIR’s initial funding by a designated terrorist group, the frequent arrest or deportation of its employees on terrorism charges, a history of deception, and the goal of one of its leaders to make Islam the only accepted religion in America.

Fake-moderates have fooled even me, despite all the attention I devote to this topic. In 2000, I praised a book by Tariq Ramadan; four years later, I argued for his exclusion from the United States. In 2003, I condemned a Republican operative named Kamal Nawash; two years later, I endorsed him. Did they evolve or did my understanding of them change? More than a decade later, I am still unsure.

Uniform Screening Standards

Returning to immigration, this state of confusion points to the need for learning much more about would-be visitors and immigrants. Fortunately, Trump’s executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” signed on Jan. 27, 2017, requires just this. It calls for “Uniform Screening Standards” with the goal of preventing individuals from entering the United States “on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission.” The order requires that the uniform screening standard and procedure include such elements as (bolding is mine):

  1. In-person interviews;
  2. A database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants;
  3. Amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent;
  4. A mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be;
  5. A process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and
  6. A mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.

Elements 1, 3, 5, and 6 permit and demand the procedure outlined in the following analysis. It contains two main components, in-depth research and intensive interviews.


When a person applies for a security clearance, the background checks should involve finding out about his family, friends, associations, employment, memberships, and activities. Agents must probe these for questionable statements, relationships, and actions, as well as anomalies and gaps. When they find something dubious, they must look further into it, always with an eye for trouble. Is access to government secrets more important than access to the country? The immigration process should start with an inquiry into the prospective immigrant and, just as with security clearances, the border services should look for problems.

Most everyone with strong views at some point vents them on social media.

Also, as with security clearance, this process should have a political dimension: Does the person in question have an outlook consistent with that of the Constitution? Not long ago, only public figures such as intellectuals, activists, and religious figures put their views on the record; but now, thanks to the Internet and its open invitation to everyone to comment in writing or on video in a permanent, public manner, and especially to social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), most everyone with strong views at some point vents them. Such data provides valuably unfiltered views on many critical topics, such as Islam, non-Muslims, women, and violence as a tactic. (Exploiting this resource may seem self-evident but U.S. immigration authorities do not do so, thereby imposing a self-restraint roughly equivalent to the Belgian police choosing not to conduct raids between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.)In the case of virulent, overt, outspoken jihadis, this research usually suffices to provide evidence to exclude them. Even some non-violent Islamists proudly announce their immoderation. But many Islamists adopt a milder and subtler tone, their goal being to appear moderate so they can enter the country and then impose Shari’a through lawful means. As suggested by some of the examples above, such as Abou El Fadl or CAIR, research often proves inadequate in these instances because cautious Islamists hide their goals and glibly dissimulate. Which brings us to entrance interviews.

Perhaps Inspector Jacques Clouseau really worked for the Belgian police.

Entrance Interviews

Assuming that lawful Islamists routinely hide their true views, an interview is needed before letting them enter the country. Of course, it is voluntary, for no one is forced to apply for immigration, but it also must be very thorough. It should be:

Recorded: With the explicit permission of the person being questioned (“You understand and accept that this interview is being recorded, right?”), the exchange should be visibly videotaped so the proceedings are unambiguously on the record. This makes available the interviewee’s words, tone, speech patterns, facial expressions, and body language for further study. Form as well as substance matters: does the interviewee smile, fidget, blink, make eye contact, repeat, sweat, tremble, tire, need frequent toilet breaks, or otherwise express himself in non-verbal ways?

Polygraph: Even if a lie detector machine does not, in fact, provide useful information, attaching the interviewee to it might induce greater truth-telling.

Under oath: Knowing that falsehoods will be punished, possibly with jail time, is a strong inducement to come clean.

Public: If the candidate knows that his answers to abstract questions (as opposed to personal ones about his life) will be made public, this reduces the chances of deception. For example, asked about belief for the full application of Islamic laws, an Islamist will be less likely to answer falsely in the negative if he knows that his reply will be available for others to watch.

Multiple: No single question can evince a reply that establishes an Islamist disposition; effective interviewing requires a battery of queries on many topics, from homosexuality to the caliphate. The answers need to be assessed in their totality.

Specific: Vague inquiries along the lines of “Is Islam a religion of peace?”, “Do you condemn terrorism?” “How do you respond to the murder of innocents,” depend too much on one’s definition of words such as peace, terrorism, and innocents to help determine a person’s outlook, and so should be avoided. Instead, questions must be focused and exact: “May Muslims convert out of Islam, whether to join another faith or to become atheists?” “Does a Muslim have the right to renounce Islam?”

Variety in phrasing: For the questions to ferret out the truth means looking for divergence and inconsistency by asking the same question with different words and variant emphases. A sampling: “May a woman show her face in public?” “What punishment do you favor for females who reveal their faces to men not related to them by family?” “Is it the responsibility of the male guardian to make sure his women-folk do not leave the house with faces uncovered?” “Should the government insist on women covering their faces?” “Is society better ordered when women cover their faces?” Any one of the questions can be asked in different ways and expanded with follows-up about the respondent’s line of reasoning or depth of feeling.

Repeated: Questions should be asked again and again over a period of weeks, months, and even longer. This is crucial: lies being much more difficult to remember than truths, the chances of a respondent changing his answers increases with both the volume of questions asked and the time lapse between questionings. Once inconsistencies occur, the questioner can zero in and explore their nature, extent, and import.

The Questions

Guidelines in place, what specific questions might extract useful information?

The following questions, offered as suggestions to build on, are those of this author but also derive from a number of analysts devoting years of thinking to the topic. Naser Khader, the-then Danish parliamentarian of Syrian Muslim origins, offered an early set of questions in 2002. A year later, this author published a list covering seven subject areas. Others followed, including the liberal Egyptian Muslim Tarek Heggy, the liberal American Muslims Tashbih Sayyed and Zuhdi Jasser, the ex-Muslim who goes by “Sam Solomon,” a RAND Corporation group, and the analyst Robert Spencer. Of special interest are the queries posed by the German state of Baden-Württemberg dated September 2005 because it is an official document (intended for citizenship, not immigration, but with similar purposes).

Zuhdi Jasser (L) with the author as teammates at a 2012 Intelligence Squared debate in New York City.

Islamic doctrine:

1. May Muslims reinterpret the Koran in light of changes in modern times?

2. May Muslims convert out of Islam, either to join another faith or to be without religion?

3. May banks charge reasonable interest (say 3 percent over inflation) on money?

4. Is taqiya (dissimulation in the name of Islam) legitimate?

Islamic pluralism:

5. May Muslims pick and choose which Islamic regulations to abide by (e.g., drink alcohol but avoid pork)?

6. Is takfir (declaring a Muslim to be an infidel) acceptable?

7. [Asked of Sunnis only:] Are Sufis, Ibadis, and Shi’ites Muslims?

8. Are Muslims who disagree with your practice of Islam infidels (kuffar)?

The state and Islam:

9. What do you think of disestablishing religion, that is, separating mosque and state?

10. When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for female drivers’ license pictures), which gets priority?

11. Should the state compel prayer?

12. Should the state ban food consumption during Ramadan and penalize transgressors?

13. Should the state punish Muslims who eat pork, drink alcohol, and gamble?

14. Should the state punish adultery?

15. How about homosexuality?

16. Do you favor a mutawwa’ (religious police) as exist in Saudi Arabia?

17. Should the state enforce the criminal punishments of the Shari’a?

18. Should the state be lenient when someone is killed for the sake of family honor?

19. Should governments forbid Muslims from leaving Islam?

Marriage and divorce:

20. Does a husband have the right to hit his wife if she is disobedient?

21. Is a good idea for men to shut their wives and daughters at home?

22. Do parents have the right to determine whom their children marry?

23. How would you react if a daughter married a non-Muslim man?

24. Is polygyny acceptable?

25. Should a husband have to get a first wife’s approval to marry a second wife? A third? A fourth?

26. Should a wife have equal rights with her husband to initiate a divorce?

27. In the case of divorce, does a wife have rights to child custody?

Female rights:

28. Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)?

29. Does a woman have the right to dress as she pleases, including showing her hair, arms and legs, so long as her genitalia and breasts are covered?

30. May Muslim women come and go or travel as they please?

31. Do Muslim women have a right to work outside the home or must the wali approve of this??

32. May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men?

33. Should males and females be separated in schools, at work, and socially?

34. Should certain professions be reserved for men or women only? If so, which ones?

35. Do you accept women occupying high governmental offices?

36. In an emergency, would you let yourself be treated by or operated on by a doctor of the opposite gender?

Sexual activity:

37. Does a husband have the right to force his wife to have sex?

38. Is female circumcision part of the Islamic religion?

39. Is stoning a justified punishment for adultery?

40. Do members of a family have the right to kill a woman if they believe she has dishonored them?

41. How would you respond to a child of yours who declares him- or herself a homosexual?


42. Should your child learn the history of non-Muslims?

43. Should students be taught that Shari’a is a personal code or that governmental law must be based on it?

44. May your daughter take part in the sports activities, especially swimming lessons, offered by her school?

45. Would you permit your child to take part in school trips, including overnight ones?

46. What would you do if a daughter insisted on going to university?

Criticism of Muslims:

47. Did Islam spread only through peaceful means?

48. Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam, even if it casts doubt on the received history?

49. Do you accept that Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks?

50. Is the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh Islamic in nature?

Denying the Islamic nature of ISIS reveals much about a Muslim.

Fighting Islamism:

51. Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight Islamism, even if this might mean extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?

52. When institutions credibly accused of funding jihad are shut down, is this a symptom of anti-Muslim bias?

53. Should Muslims living in the West cooperate with law enforcement?

54. Should they join the military?

55. Is the “war on terror” a war on Islam?

Non-Muslims (in general):

56. Do all humans, regardless of gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or religious beliefs, deserve equal rights?

57. Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims?

58. Do you accept the validity of other monotheistic religions?

59. Of polytheistic religions (such as Hinduism)?

Praying at the Hindu Temple in Dubai, founded 1958.

60. Are Muslims superior to non-Muslims?

61. Should non-Muslims be subject to Islamic law?

62. Do Muslims have anything to learn from non-Muslims?

63. Can non-Muslims go to paradise?

64. Do you welcome non-Muslims to your house and go to their residences?

Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Islam):

65. May Muslims compel “Peoples of the Book” (i.e., Jews and Christians) to pay extra taxes?

66. May other monotheists build and operate institutions of their faith in Muslim-majority countries?

67. How about polytheists?

68. Should the Saudi government maintain the historic ban on non-Muslims in Mecca and Medina?

69. Should it allow churches to be built for Christian expatriates?

70. Should it stop requiring that all its subjects be Muslim?

Non-Muslims (in Dar al-Harb):

71. Should Muslims fight Jews and Christians until these “feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

72. Is the enslavement of non-Muslims acceptable?

73. Is it acceptable to arrest individuals who curse the prophet of Islam or burn the Koran?

74. If the state does not act against such deeds, may individual Muslims act?

75. Can one live a fully Muslim life in a country with a mostly non-Muslim government?

76. Should a Muslim accept a legitimate majority non-Muslim government and its laws or work to make Islam supreme?

77. Can a majority non-Muslim government unreservedly win your allegiance?

78. Should Muslims who burn churches or vandalize synagogues be punished?

79. Do you support jihad to spread Islam?


80. Do you endorse corporal punishments (mutilation, dismemberment, crucifixion) of criminals?

81. Is beheading an acceptable form of punishment?

82. Is jihad, meaning warfare to expand Muslim rule, acceptable in today’s world?

83. What does it mean when Muslims yell “Allahu Akbar” as they attack?

84. Do you condemn violent organizations such as Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Shabaab, and the Taliban?

Western countries:

85. Are non-Islamic institutions immoral and decadent or can they be moral and virtuous?

86. Do you agree with studies that show non-Muslim countries such as New Zealand to be better living up to the ideals of Islam than Muslim-majority countries?

87. Is Western-style freedom an accomplishment or a form of moral corruption? Why?

88. Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries?

89. Do you accept living in Western countries that are secular or do you seek to have Islamic law rule them?

90. What do you think of Shari’a-police patrolling Muslim-majority neighborhoods in Western countries to enforce Islamic morals?

91. Would you like to see the U.S. Constitution (or its equivalents in other countries) replaced by the Koran?

This interview:

92. In an immigration interview like this, if deceiving the questioner helps Islam, would lying be justified?

93. Why should I trust that you have answered these questions truthfully?

Observations about the Interviews

Beyond helping to decide whom to allow into the country, these questions can also help in other contexts as well, for example in police interrogations or interviews for sensitive employment positions. (The list of Islamists who have penetrated Western security services is a long and painful one.)

Note the absence of questions about highly charged current issues. That is because Islamist views overlap with non-Islamist outlooks; plenty of non-Islamists agree with Islamists on these topics. Although Leil Leibowitz in contrast sees Israel as “moderate Islam’s real litmus test,” Islamists are hardly the only ones who demand Israel’s elimination and accept Hamas and Hezbollah as legitimate political actors – or believe the Bush administration carried out the 9/11 attacks or hate the United States. Why introduce these ambiguous issues when so many Islam-specific questions (e.g., “Is the enslavement of non-Muslim acceptable?”) have the virtue of far greater clarity?

You don’t have to be an Islamist to be anti-Zionist.

The interviewing protocol outlined above is extensive, asking many specific questions over a substantial period using different formulations, probing for truth and inconsistencies. It is not quick, easy, or cheap, but requires case officers knowledgeable about the persons being interviewed, the societies they come from, and the Islamic religion; they are somewhat like a police questioner who knows both the accused person and the crime. This is not a casual process. There are no shortcuts.


This procedure raises two criticisms: it is less reliable than Trump’s no-Muslim policy and it is too burdensome for governments to undertake. Both are readily disposed of.

Less reliable: The no-Muslim policy sounds simple to implement but figuring out who is Muslim is a problem in itself (are Ahmadis Muslims?). Further, with such a policy in place, what will stop Muslims from pretending to renounce their religion or to convert to another religion, notably Christianity? These actions would require the same in-depth research and intensive interviews as described above. If anything, because a convert can hide behind his ignorance of his alleged new religion, distinguishing a real convert to Christianity from a fake one is even more difficult than differentiating an Islamist from a moderate Muslim.

Too burdensome: True, the procedure is expensive, slow, and requires skilled practitioners. But this also has the benefit of slowing a process that many, myself included, consider out of control, with too many immigrants entering the country too quickly. Immigrants numbered 5 percent of the population in 1965, 14 percent in 2015, and are projected to make up 18 percent in 2065. This is far too large a number to assimilate into the values of the United States, especially when so many come from outside the West; the above mechanism offers a way to slow it down.

As for those who argue that this sort of inquiry and screening for visa purposes is unlawful; prior legislation for naturalization, for example, required that an applicant be “attached to the principles of the Constitution” and it was repeatedly found to be legal.

Finally, today’s moderate Muslim could become tomorrow’s raging Islamist; or his infant daughter might two decades later become a jihadi. While any immigrant can turn hostile, such changes happen far more often among born Muslims. There is no way to guarantee this from happening but extensive research and interrogations reduce the odds.


Truly to protect the country from Islamists requires a major commitment of talent, resources, and time. But, properly handled, these questions offer a mechanism to separate enemy from friend among Muslims. They also have the benefit of slowing down immigration. Even before Trump became president, if one is to believe CAIR, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) asked questions along the lines of those advocated here (What do you think of the USA? What are your views about jihad? See the appendix for a full listing). With Trump’s endorsement, let us hope this effective “no-Islamists” policy is on its way to becoming systematic.


On January 18, 2017, just hours before Donald Trump became president of the United States, the Florida office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed ten complaints with the Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP) for questioning Muslim citizens about their religious and political views. Among the questions allegedly asked were:

1. Are you a devout Muslim?

2. Are you Sunni or Shia?

3. What school of thought do you follow?

4. Which Muslim scholars do you follow?

5. What current Muslim scholars do you listen to?

6. Do you pray five times a day?

7. Why do you have a prayer mat in your luggage?

8. Why do you have a Qur’an in your luggage?

9. Have you visited Saudi Arabia?

10. Will you every visit Saudi or Israel?

11. What do you know about the Tableeghi-Jamat?

12. What do you think of the USA?

13. What are your views about Jihad?

14. What mosque do you attend?

15. Do any individuals in your mosque have any extreme/radical views?

16. Does your Imam express extremist views?

17. What are the views of other imams or other community members that give the Friday sermon at your mosque?

18. Do they have extremist views?

19. Have you ever delivered the Friday Prayer? What did you discuss with your community?

20. What are your views regarding [various terrorist organizations]?

21. What social media accounts do you use?

22. What is your Facebook account username?

23. What is your Twitter account username?

24. What is your Instagram account username?

25. What are the names and telephone numbers of parents, relatives, friends?

CAIR also claims a Canadian Muslim was asked by CBP the following questions and then denied entry:

1. Are you Sunni or Shia?

2. Do you think we should allow someone like you to enter our country?

3. How often do you pray?

4. Why did you shave your beard?

5. Which school of thought do you follow?

6. What do you think of America’s foreign policy towards the Muslim world?

7. What do you think of killing non-Muslims?

8. What do you think of [various terrorist groups]?

Finally, CAIR indicates that those questioned “were held between 2 to 8 hours by CBP.”

Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. This analysis derives from a chapter in What Is Moderate Islam? ed. Richard Benkin (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington, 2017). © 2017 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.

Jan. 31, 2017 updates: (1) CAIR’s Florida Chapter is advising U.S. citizens who are Muslims not to answer additional questions at inspection points because the Trump administration continues to “disproportionately target American Muslim citizens.” NBC News reports:

CAIR-FL says all American citizens of the Muslim faith make up 50 to 75 percent of those selected for secondary inspection when traveling – despite being just one percent of the population. The organization encourages members to comply and be truthful with officials and give basic information when asked.

(2) An employee of the U.S. Department of Defense working in a Muslim-majority countries writes me concerning the appendix that the department “worldwide uses many of the questions cited above for vetting local hires” and adds: “I personally believe this is an important tool in screening the bad guys out of US facilities overseas.”

(3) One reader commented in response to the costliness of the procedure outlined above that financial burden can be shifted to applicants wishing to enter the United States.

(4) Another reader pointed out the benefit of requiring the Pledge Allegiance to the United States and all is stands for, including assimilation, no ties to other nations, their forms of government, or their leaders.

(5) The U.S. immigration questionnaire, USCIS Form N-400, already includes a number of intrusive and political questions.

Feb. 10, 2017 update: Yassine Aber, a 19-year-old kinesiology student at the University of Sherbrooke, recounts his failed attempt yesterday to enter the United States at the land border at Derby Line, Vermont. He was questioned for five hours and his smartphone was searched; on it, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection found a photo on Facebook in which he was tagged along with Samir Halilovic, who is believed to have gone in 2014 to Syria for jihad.

Yassine Aber passing the baton.


Aber told CBC News that he didn’t know Halilovic well, but the two had friends in common and attended the same mosque. He said the group photo was taken at a wedding four years ago.

Aber was travelling to the U.S. to attend a track meet in Boston with other members of the university’s track-and-field team. Aber, who was born in Canada to parents originally from Morocco, was travelling on a valid Canadian passport.

The 19-year-old was travelling in a vehicle with five other athletes and their coach. The others were made to wait five hours while he was questioned by border guards.

“They made me fill in papers and made me talk about myself, where I’m from, where I was born,” Aber told CBC News. He said he was also asked about his parents and their origins, and what countries he has recently visited. Aber said he was then made to hand over his phone and its password. He was also fingerprinted.

When the border agents returned, Aber said they took him in for another round of questions, which were more pointed about his Muslim faith, the mosque he attended, and people he knew there. “They asked me, ‘Do you go to the mosque?’ I said, ‘Yes, sometimes.’ They said, ‘How often? Which mosque do you go to?’ They asked me about specific people,” he told CBC News.

In a subsequent interview late Friday afternoon, Aber revealed that one of the people he was asked about was Halilovic. Ultimately, Aber was told he wasn’t allowed to enter the U.S., but his teammates and coach were permitted entry. …

Aber said he was refused on the pretext that he didn’t have the right travel documents. “I received an official paper saying I didn’t have papers, a passport or an immigration visa that was valid.” But he said he was travelling on a Canadian passport that expires in 2026.

He requested more information, he said, but was not given any. “I was told it’s a privilege for people from other countries to come to the United States and that privilege can be taken away at any time.”

Comment: Good to see that U.S. border agents are vetting for Islamists. But this last-minute border interrogation can hardly substitute for the process I recommend above. It’s vetting but not extreme vetting.

Feb. 24, 2017 update: Muhammad Ali Jr., 44, son of the boxer Muhammad Ali, reports having been detained for hours by immigration officials at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on return from speaking at a Black History Month event in Montego Bay, Jamaica. He was pulled aside while going through customs because of his Arabic-sounding names, says family friend and lawyer Chris Mancini. Quoting the Louisville Courier-Journal:

Mancini said officials held and questioned Ali Jr. for nearly two hours, repeatedly asking him, “Where did you get your name from?” and “Are you Muslim?” When Ali Jr. responded that yes, he is a Muslim, the officers kept questioning him about his religion and where he was born. Ali Jr. was born in Philadelphia in 1972 and holds a U.S. passport.

Mar. 2, 2017 update: Ahmad Amiri dislikes these questions, as he explains in “Why Is the West Afraid of Muslims” (ماذا يخيف الغربَ من المسلم؟) in the Emirates newspaper Ittihad.

Pin It on Pinterest