You are here


  • Summary: 

    Any honest and objective appraisal of Islam’s historic jihad on the Christian world must be eye-opening, to say the very least.  In the first century of its existence (between 632-732) Islam permanently conquered, Arabized, and Islamized nearly three-quarters of the Christian world, thereby permanently severing it.  Europe came to be known as “the West” because it was literally the remaining and westernmost appendage of Christendom not to be swallowed up by Islam.

    For roughly a millennium thereafter, Arabs, Berbers, Turks, and Tatars—all of whom called and saw themselves as Muslims—launched raid after raid, all justified and lauded as jihads, into virtually every corner of Europe.  They reached as far as Iceland and provoked the U.S. into its .  The devastation was indescribable; some regions in Europe, particularly in Spain and the Balkans, remain uninhabitable due to the incessant raiding.  Some  during this perennial jihad and, according to contemporary records, treated .

  • Country: 
    Iran (Islamic Republic of)
    News Date: 

    Verse 5:33 specifies crucifixion, amputation and banishment as the punishments for 'causing corruption' in the land. Corruption means opposing Islam in some way.

  • Summary: 

    Buried in the concluding paragraphs of a Christmas Eve  report about Muslims in Uganda forcing Christians to convert to Islam was the extraordinary revelation that in that country, Muslims now consider any public statement of the Christian Faith to be a calculated insult to Muslims, for which they can justifiably exact revenge. This is, or should be, sobering news for the comfortable Christians of the West who have made an idol out of “interfaith dialogue” and fastidiously avoid saying anything remotely critical about Islam, even as the Muslim persecution of Christians continues worldwide.


    The Christians appealed to the Muslims to have respect for those of other faith; the Muslims responded with contempt. One Muslim, Abubakar Yusuf, declared: “We have now declared a jihad against them. We are not going to allow anybody to despise Islamic teachings at their church or crusade. We will seek revenge.”

    How did the Christians “despise Islamic teachings”? By preaching aspects of Christianity, such as the divinity of Christ, that Islam denies. The Christians, knowing how delicate their situation was, would never have dreamed of actually saying something critical about Islam itself; but to the Muslims who heard them, just enunciating the tenets of their Christian faith was criticism enough. And they refused to stand for it.

  • Country: 
    News Date: 

    An ugly truth of history has just been acknowledged.  On October 29, the US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly (405 to 11) in favor of 

  • Summary: 

    In a new video, an Islamic State (ISIS) spokesman named Abu Abd al-Azeem, “whose speech,” , “is peppered with Koranic recitations,” complained about the bad rap his cuddly group has gotten. “Why are we bombed by planes,” he asked plaintively, “why do all the nations of the unbelieving world come together to fight us?…What is our guilt? What is our crime? We (just) wanted to apply the sharia of Allah.”

    Indeed. And now, in light of that statement, here are some questions that mainstream counterterror analysts should ponder deeply: did the Islamic State actually apply Sharia? ISIS is routinely dismissed as un-Islamic, but what exactly did they do that cannot be backed up by specific citations from the Qur’an and Hadith? And if the Islamic State just wanted to apply Sharia, and Sharia is entirely benign and compatible with Western values, as Western analysts also regularly insist, then why did the whole world regard the Islamic State as a criminal entity that must be destroyed? Why was it not welcomed into the family of nations, alongside other Sharia regimes including Saudi Arabia and Iran?

  • Summary: 

    The following article is excerpted from a paper delivered at an Israeli Knesset Forum on Holocaust Remembrance Day, 2012.

    The titular leader of the Palestinian Arab community in the previous generation, Haj Amin Al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, forged a pact with Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941, one week before the Wannasee conference, originally scheduled for December 7, 1941, yet was postponed by one month, due to the attack on Pearl Harbor on that very day.

    The protocols of the Hitler-Mufti pact that were presented as evidence against the Mufti in the Nuremberg war crimes trials explicitly state that Hitler would exterminate the Jews in Europe, while the Mufti would enlist Nazi aid to exterminate Jews in Palestine, so as to establish a “Judenrein” state of Palestine.

    To that end, the Mufti ensconced himself in Hitler’s bunker, from where he recruited an Islamic unit of the Waffen SS, which actively engaged in the mass murder of Jews, while issuing Arabic language appeals on Nazi radio which incited Moslems to join the Nazi cause and to prepare for mass murder of Jews in Palestine.

  • Summary: 

    There she goes again. British Prime Minister Theresa . Last Monday night,  at the United Jewish Israel Appeal dinner, and included in it the same libel of me that she put in the first one. Could Theresa May herself really believe this nonsense? Does she really believe that standing against jihad terror is essentially equivalent to plotting jihad mass murder?


    So as far as May is concerned, Pamela Geller and I are the “Islamophobic” equivalents of Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. May expects her audience to be familiar with Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, and for good reason, since both are notorious in Britain, although n neither lives there now. Abu Hamza  in a super-max U.S. for, among other things, conspiring to set up a training camp for jihad terrorists in Bly, Oregon. Abu Qatada  of plotting the jihad massacre of Americans and Israelis in Jordan, to which he has returned.

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

  • Summary: 

    About four years ago, in August 2014, ISIS began slaughtering the Yezidis in Iraq and committed a genocide against this ancient community, massacring over 5,000, abducting 7,450 women and girls who were then sold into sexual slavery and driving over 500,000 out of their ancestral homes.   Although the Yezidi genocide has received widespread international recognition due to the indisputable evidence that has been presented including the existence of mass graves, witness testimonies and ISIS publications online inciting against Yezidis and documenting massacres of them, four years on, the Yezidis have not yet received justice for the horrific atrocities that were committed against them.  The question remains, why is this the case and when will there be justice for the Yezidi people?

    In Iraq and Syria, where the crimes of the Yezidi genocide were perpetrated, it is unlikely that the Yezidi victims will get justice.  In Syria, rebels allied with Turkey have destroyed Yezidi holy sites and forcefully converted Yezidis in Afrin to Islam.  There are also reports of Yezidis being forced to wear the hijab in these areas.  So far, Turkey’s allies have been able to act against the Yezidis in Afrin with impunity, without any interference from the outside world. 

  • Summary: 

    The exchange between Steve and Anni is crucial for us to highlight and examine, because the accusations and slanders that Steve hurled at Anni are the key falsehoods and smears that hate groups like CAIR and SPLC hurl at her and at other truth-tellers and freedom fighters. These malicious libels and slanders are at the core of the Jihad Denial that is now controlling our culture and its boundaries of discourse. And it is precisely this denial that clouds the threat we face in the terror war -- and pushes what propels it into invisibility.

    Because Jihad Denial achieves this destructive feat, it disables our civilization from making a proper threat assessment. It prevents us, therefore, from gauging clearly what is actually killing us and, therefore, from properly defending ourselves against it. The Jihad Denial practiced , after all, enabled and  on our territory, such as the San Bernardino, Orlando and Boston Marathon Jihadist massacres -- which could have  if the Obama administration had allowed our intelligence agencies to make a proper threat assessment, .

    Thus, what we see in this  between Anni and Steve very much reflects the core of our battle against the Unholy Alliance, for we witness the lies and deceptions that the enemy uses to smear the heroes trying to protect our civilization and to blur the truth -- so that our vision is blinded and our ability to act decapitated.

  • Author(s):


    The myth of an Islamic Golden Age is needed by Islam’s apologists to save it from being damned by its present squalid condition; to prove, as it were, that there is more to Islam than the terrorism of Bin Laden and the decadence of the oil sheiks. It is, frankly, a confession that if the world judges it by what it is today, it comes up rather short, being a religion that has yet to produce a democratic or prosperous society, or social and cultural forms admired by neutral foreign observers the way anyone can admire American freedom, Japanese order, Israeli courage, or Italian style.

    Some liberal academics openly admit that they twist the Moslem past to serve their present-day intellectual agendas. For example, some who propound the myth of an Islamic golden age of tolerance admit that their goal is,

    "to recover for postmodernity that lost medieval Judeo-Islamic trading, social and cultural world, its high point pre-1492 Moorish Spain, which permitted and relished a plurality, a convivencia, of religions and cultures, Christian, Jewish and Moslem; which prized an historic internationality of space along with the valuing of particular cities; which was inclusive and cosmopolitan, cosmopolitan here meaning an ease with different cultures: still so rare and threatened a value in the new millennium as in centuries past."

    In other words, a fairy tale designed to create the illusion that multiculturalism has valid historical precedents that prove it can work.

  • Summary: 

    FP: So this is why Sharia is the backbone of Islam, right?

    Kasem: Yes, it is the heart and soul of Islam. Without Sharia Islam is a toothless tiger or a poisonless snake. Sharia empowers Islam with the legal power to enforce its draconian, barbaric, uncivilized, and cruel provisions. Sharia gives Islam the arms and legs to force the world to submit to Islam.

    In many verses of the Koran Allah steadfastly announces that whoever deviates from Sharia is a kafir and he/they must be fought upon (i.e., killed) by the Muslims.

    According to ibn Kathir, in verse 2:151, Allah declares that He had sent Muhammad (as a favor) to preach the Qur'an and to teach Sharia laws which the pagans of Mecca did not know

    According to verse 4:64 Allah had sent Muhammad to invite people to obey Allah's orders, that is, Sharia laws.

    To provide more fire power, ibn Kathir say that in verse 5:44, Allah declares that whoever does not want to abide by Allah's law, Sharia, is a kafir. This includes the Christians ( 5:47 ). Mind you, in Islam, a kafir must be fought upon (killed) or forced to submit to Sharia laws.

    In verse 9:73 Allah urges the believers (i.e., the Muslims) to make war on unbelievers and hypocrites and show firmness (be harsh) against them. The eminent exegete of the Qur'an, ibn Kathir writes that Allah has commanded the Muslims to fight with sword the disbelievers, to strive against the hypocrites with tongue and has annulled lenient treatment of them. According to ibn Kathir perform with sword jihad against the disbelievers and be harsh with the hypocrites with words; this means establishing Islamic penal laws, i.e. Sharia laws against them. Ibn Kathir further says that verse 9:73 cancels verse 2:256, the so-called verse on `no compulsion' on religion.

    Here are few more Qur'anic verses which unambiguously declare the supremacy of Sharia.

    Allah will decide by His law (judgment, Sharia) between various sects (between the Jews and the Christians-ibn Abbas).27:78

    Allah is the Law-giver; He has appointed Muhammad to implement the only correct laws (Sharia laws).45:18

    Allah created the heavens and the earth to implement justice to all (Sharia law).45:22

    Muhammad is to strike hard against the unbelievers (fight them with weapons and armaments-ibn Kathir. Fight them with swords-Jalalyn), hypocrites (punish them according to Sharia laws-ibn Kathir) and to be firm (harsh) against them; the abode for the unbelievers and the hypocrites is hell...66:9

    The absolute supremacy of Sharia is upheld in the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990). Article 22 of this declaration concludes that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the  , which is the declaration's sole source.

    Strangely, Sharia gets furher boost when the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Willams submits to dhimmitude by espousing that certain provisions of Sharia are inevitable in the United Kingdom .


    Kasem: The most unfair element of Sharia is that it repudiates the fundamental principle of justice, that is: equality in the eye of law. In Sharia, Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal. This inequality extends even to the treatment of Muslim women. Muslim women are not treated as equal to Muslim men in the tenets of Sharia. Here is a glaring example: According to Saudi law (strictly based on Islamic Sharia) the life of a Muslim male is much higher than a non-Muslim man, and the life of female Muslim is much lower than that of Muslim man.

    For instance:

    WALL STREET JOURNAL: - The Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2002). In Saudi Arabia, the concept of blood money as per Islamic Shariat (If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation), as follows:


    100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man

    50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman

    50,000 riyals if a Christian man

    25,000 riyals if a Christian woman

    6,666 riyals if a Hindu man

    3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman

    That is, a Muslim man's life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman

    The inequality of Muslims and non-Muslims is enshrined in the Qur'an and hadis. Here are a few examples:

    A Muslim must not be killed for killing an infidel (Hadis and ibn Kathir's interpretation of verse 5:45 ).

    Believers and non-believers are not equal.6:50, 28:61, 32:19, 35:19-22, 38:28, 39:9, 40:58, 45:21, 59:20, 67:22, 68:35

    That is why Sharia is a great insult to a civilized world

  • Summary: 

    Dr. Eric Ormsby, a Professor of Islamic Studies at McGill University wrote a book review of Feisal Abdul Rauf's  which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, August 4, 2004.

    Ormsby's review displays the two overlapping tiers of apologetics which pervade contemporary print media presentations of Islam, distorting or fully concealing basic historical realities. The treacly apologism of Feisal Abdul Rauf and his ilk persuades only those who are devoid of any understanding of Islamic theology and history; however, the faint-hearted "critique" of Abdul Rauf provided by Professor Ormsby, is more damaging, because in the end, it serves only to further obfuscate the truth. I will support this contention by elaborating on four specific points Ormsby addresses in his review.

  • Summary: 

    Radical Islam’s takeover of the lives of Egypt’s educated women.

    These photos represent the gradual but steady Islamic radicalization invading the Middle East and the rest of the world in the last three decades. I lived in Egypt until the year 1978 and have never wore a head cover, neither did my mother or grandmother. And this is thanks to a feminist movement that started in Cairo in 1919 under the leadership of the famous Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi.

    Shaarawi had attended women’s conferences in Europe and Turkey, which was undergoing major reforms by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who wanted to be more like Europe and less like Muslim Arabia. Upon her return from a trip to Rome in 1923, Shaarawi performed a bold act that became the central symbol of her life: with the support of several upper class Egyptian women, she removed her veil in public, at the crowded Cairo train station.  If such an act of defiance had happened today in Iran or even Egypt, she would be executed by the Iranian government and, as to Egypt, she could be killed by an Islamist on the street for defying or insulting Islam.

  • Summary: 

    Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

  • Summary: 

    Why the Koran and the Sword are inextricably linked.

  • Summary: 

    Where does it come from, and why does it matter so much?

    The Islamic Sharia is a system of law. It is a collection of prohibitions, admonitions and commands about human behavior. The Sharia is not an internal matter that only concerns Islam and Muslims. The Sharia includes a large number of provisions about people who are not Muslims. These rules are usually prohibitions that carry severe penalties if violated. These provisions of the Sharia make life unsafe and uncertain for someone who lives under Sharia law and who is not a Muslim.

  • Summary: 

    Is ISIS eccentric in this idea, or twisting and hijacking the peaceful religion of Islam? The Qur’an says: “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties, for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed” (9:111).

    This is essentially a guarantee of Paradise to those who “kill and are killed” for Allah. This verse has become in the modern age the rationale for suicide bombing. The mainstream and revered Qur’an commentator Ibn Kathir explains: “Allah states that He has compensated His believing servants for their lives and wealth — if they give them up in His cause — with Paradise.” 

  • Summary: 

    But let's put the question aside for the moment. Let us assume, for an interlude, that "moderate Muslim" is an accurate label. Far more important than any label or title is the meaning that we ascribe to that label or title. Currently, there is no cohesive formulation as to what a moderate Muslim is. If we rely on the media, and misguided Western policy makers (and influencers) we see a distorted picture. We need to develop aclear understanding of what we mean by a moderate Muslim. Basically we need an objective test. Without a basic litmus test, it is impossible to understand the Muslim enemies of civilisation. So the starting point is to look at the characteristics of these people. In my view, a moderate Muslims, in order to be considered as such, must believe that:


    • the sources of Islam are organic, that is, capable of contextual interpretation and hermeneutics.
    • the recognition that Islam, as it is currently understood in terms of jurisprudence, is generallyinconsistent with fundamental human rights.
    • the fundamental human rights of all persons, as enshrined in the international bill of rights (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Convention Against All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women) are respected without reservation
    • that Islam, and its sources, should be open to unfavourable comment, research and debate; and
    • Islam should be separated from the state, and that the implementation of shari'ah, at a legislative or policy level, must be opposed in order to protect fundamental human rights or all

    See also:


Subscribe to FrontPage