As part of their “National Sharia Campaign,” the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) will bombard the Kansas City public with billboards and radio ads. In the words of ICNA member Sabeel Ahmed, who is behind the campaign,

“We should use every opportunity presented or created to sensitize non-Muslim peers and school staff with Islam and establish an environment in which every where a non-Muslims turn, they notice Islam by it and eventually accept Islam with Allah’s guidance, insha Allah … Indeed Islam came to tear down the pillars portrayed in a positive way and get influenced of kufr (infidels) and replace them with the pillars of Islam.

ICNA’s press release tells us, “During this campaign, which runs from Jan. 23, 2012, until Feb. 19, 2012, ICNA Kansas City will air messages on Shariah through KMBZ 980 AM (Radio) and post a billboard on Shariah at I-70 and 38th street. The campaign messages are expected to reach over 200,000 people per week. The messages will invite the public to call 1-855-SHARIAH hotline or visit our website at http://defendingreligiousfreedom.com to learn and ask questions about Shariah and Islam. The visitors to the website and the callers to the hotline can request a free copy of the English translation of the Quran and other free literature on Islam and Shariah.

For those wondering just who is “Defending Religious Freedom,” the ICNA was included on a Muslim Brotherhood document entitled “A list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends,” which was submitted (unopposed) into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial. This document identified ICNA as an entity or affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Further, ICNA was named by the Department of Justice (DoJ), which prosecuted the case, an unindicted co-conspirator.

Always nice to know who’s educating us about “Religious Freedom.”

By Robert Spencer

Just before his stunning victory in the South Carolina primary, Newt Gingrich drew the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the deceptive Islamic supremacist group that bamboozles many with its pose as a neutral civil rights organization.  Gingrich, fumed a CAIR spokesman, was "one of the nation's worst promoters of anti-Muslim bigotry."  How did Gingrich earn this dubious honor?  By telling the truth about Islamic law, and making clear his determination to resist it.

It all started last Tuesday, when Gingrich took a question about whether he would ever endorse a Muslim for President.  "It would depend,” Gingrich answered, “entirely on whether they would commit in public to give up Sharia,” the Islamic legal code that mandates stonings, amputations, and restrictions on the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, and institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims.

"A truly modern person who happened to worship Allah would not be a threat,” Gingrich continued, but “a person who belonged to any kind of belief in Sharia, any effort to impose it on the rest of us, would be a mortal threat."   He even came out in favor of a federal law banning the use of Sharia in American courtrooms.

Gingrich also displayed an admirable grasp of the realities of Sharia, noting that the “rising Islamization of Turkey has been accompanied by a 1,400% increase in women being killed,” and pointing out other negative manifestations of Sharia:  “The application of Sharia in places like Iran … churches being burned in Nigeria and Egypt, and … the decline of Christians in Iraq from a million, 200 thousand, when the Americans arrived, to about 500,000 today.”

Gingrich concluded:  "I think the time has come for us to have an honest conversation about Islamic radicalism.  I don't think we should be intimidated by our political elites, and I don't think we should be intimidated by universities who have been accepting money from the Saudis and who, therefore, now have people who are apologists for the very people who want to kill us."

This isn’t the first time Gingrich has challenged politically correct pieties so directly, and spoken so forthrightly about the realities of Islamic law.  In August 2010, Gingrich made a point that our political elites of both the Left and the Right have still largely failed to grasp:  “This is not a war on terrorism.  Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form. … One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law, which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider Sharia as a replacement for American law.”

In response to his statements last week, CAIR, which has several of its former officials imprisoned for various terror-related activities, thundered that Gingrich's “outdated political ideas look backward to a time when Catholics and Jews were vilified and their faiths called a threat."

There is just one problem with this:  Catholic and Jewish immigrants to the U.S. never had a political and social system that they considered superior to the American model.  Catholic and Jewish organizations were never working to undermine the American system in the manner of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated, in its own words, to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house.”

Gingrich would be foolish to ignore that threat or bow to CAIR’s demands to ascribe concern about it to “bigotry.”  CAIR characterized Sharia as teaching “marital fidelity, generous charity and a thirst for knowledge," but left out the unpleasant bits.  Anyone who wants to see what Sharia is like can look to the states where it is implemented, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Western apologists for Sharia claim that it is so multiform that it has no particular character that anyone can point to.  In reality, wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, historically and today, it has looked pretty much the same, and has contained elements absolutely inimical to Western notions of freedom and human rights.

Newt Gingrich is one of the few major politicians to acknowledge that the problem America faces today from Islamic jihadists is not simply one of terrorism, but of a larger attempt to insinuate elements of Sharia into American society and to assert the principle that where Sharia and American law conflict, it is American law that must give way.  Gingrich is determined not to allow this principle to advance.  Bravo.

This article originally appear in Jihad Watch.

By Robert Spencer

The question asked in this headline is never answered in the AP article that reported the story. The AP can't bring itself to consider the possibility that Moeed Abdul Salam read the Qur'an and Sunnah and was "radicalized" in that way. "Why did boarding school graduate join al-Qaida?," by Chris Brummitt and Gene Johnson for AP, January 18.

Moeed Abdul Salam didn't descend into radical Islam for lack of other options. He grew up in a well-off Texas household, attended a pricey boarding school and graduated from one of the state's most respected universities.

What? But doesn't poverty cause terrorism? Isn't that what the learned analysts always tell us? Was Moeed Abdul Salam simply a misunderstander of Islam?

But the most unlikely thing about his recruitment was his family: Two generations had spent years promoting interfaith harmony and combating Muslim stereotypes in their hometown and even on national television.

Salam rejected his relatives' moderate faith and comfortable life, choosing instead a path that led him to work for al-Qaida. His odyssey ended late last year in a middle-of-the-night explosion in Pakistan. The 37-year-old father of four was dead after paramilitary troops stormed his apartment.

His Nov. 19 death went largely unnoticed in the U.S. and rated only limited attention in Pakistan. But the circumstances threatened to overshadow the work of an American family devoted to religious understanding.

And his mysterious evolution presented a reminder of the attraction Pakistan still holds for Islamic militants, especially well-educated Westerners whose Internet and language skills make them useful converts for jihad....

It is not clear to what extent Salam's family knew of his radicalism, but on his Facebook page the month before he died, he posted an image of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American al-Qaida leader who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Yemen, beside a burning American flag.

He had also recently linked to a document praising al-Awlaki martyrdom and to a message urging Muslims to rejoice "in this time when you see the mujahideen all over the world victorious."

After his death, the Global Islamic Media Forum, a propaganda group for al-Qaida and its allies, hailed Salam as a martyr, explaining in an online posting that he had overseen a unit that produced propaganda in Urdu and other South Asian languages....

The family, originally from Pakistan, immigrated to the U.S. decades ago. Salam's father was a pilot for a Saudi airline, and the family eventually settled in the Dallas suburb of Plano. Their cream-colored brick home, assessed at nearly $400,000, stands on a corner lot in a quiet, upper-class neighborhood....

Salam went on to study history at the University of Texas at Austin and graduated in 1996. His Facebook profile indicated he moved to Saudi Arabia by 2003 and began working as a translator, writer and editor for websites about Islam....

Back in the United States, Salam's mother is a prominent resident of Plano, where she is co-chairwoman of a city advisory group called the Plano Multicultural Outreach Roundtable, as well as a former president of the Texas Muslim Women's Foundation....

Salam's brother, Monem Salam, has traveled the country speaking about Islam, seeking to correct misconceptions following the 9/11 attacks. He works for Saturna Capital, where he manages funds that invest according to Islamic principles — for example, in companies that do not profit from alcohol or pork. He recently moved from the company's Bellingham, Wash., headquarters to head its office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

After the 2001 attacks, he and his wife made a public-television documentary about his efforts as a Muslim man to obtain a pilot's license. They also wrote a column for The Bellingham Herald newspaper that answered readers' questions about Islam....

Officers in Pakistan said they pushed through the flimsy door, and Salam killed himself with a grenade when he realized he was surrounded.

The Islamic media group and the al-Qaida contact in Karachi disputed that account, saying Salam was killed by the troops....

Neighbor Syed Mohammad Farooq was awakened by an explosion. Minutes later, one of the troops asked him to go inside the apartment and see what had happened, he said.

"He was lying on the floor with blood pooling around him. One of his arms had been blown off. I couldn't look for long. He was moaning and seemed to be reciting verses from the Koran," he said. "I could hear the children crying, but I couldn't see them."

Hours later, Salam's wife and father-in-law, a lawyer in the city, came to collect the children from the apartment in Gulistane Jauhar, a middle-class area of Karachi, Farooq said. On the night he died, Salam led evening prayers at the small mosque on the ground floor of the apartment building.

"His Koranic recitation was very good," said Karim Baloch, who prayed behind him that night. "It was like that of an Arab."

This post originally appeared in jihadwatch.org

The New Year's resolution for "Sunnis for Da'wa [Islamization] and Jihad"—also known as Boko Haram, or "Western education is forbidden"—is to create a Christian-free Nigeria, beginning, naturally, with the north, where Muslims outnumber Christians.

Right at the start of 2012, Boko Haram issued an ultimatum giving Christians living in northern Nigeria three days to evacuate or die—an ultimatum the group has been living up to, so much so that Nigeria's President Jonathan recently declared a state of emergency.

This, of course, is not to say that Boko Haram has not been long targeting Christians, as the New York Times—which all but apologized for the group's terrorism—would have it.

Boko Haram and other Muslims have been terrorizing Nigerian Christians for years, killing thousands of them, and destroying hundreds of their churches. Just last November, hundreds of armed Muslims, many from the group, invaded Christian villages, "like a swarm of bees," killing, looting, and destroying. At the end of their four-hour rampage, at least 130 Christians were killed. Forty-five other Christians in another village were slaughtered by another set of "Allahu Akbar!" screaming Muslims.

Likewise, another jihadi attack from last November, enabled by "local Muslims," left five churches destroyed and several Christians killed: "The Muslims in this town were going round town pointing out church buildings and shops owned by Christians to members of Boko Haram, and they in turn bombed these churches and shops." In one instance, a local Muslim pleaded with Boko Haram members not to burn down a particular church—not out of altruism, of course, but rather because that Muslim's home was adjacent to the church, and might also have caught fire. The church was spared.

Still, beginning with Boko Haram's church attacks of December 25, where over 40 people celebrating Christmas were killed, the group has definitely upped both the frequency and savagery of jihadi attacks on Christians and their churches. Most recently, armed Muslims stormed a church and "opened fire on worshippers as their eyes were closed in prayer," killing six Christians, including the pastor's wife, and wounding many.

Then, when friends and relatives gathered to mourn the deaths of some of those slain in this most recent church attack, Boko Haram Muslims appeared and opened fire again, killing another 20 Christians, all while screaming "Allahu Akbar!"—Islam's ancient war cry, which at root simply means "my god is greater than your god!"

A number of other sporadic attacks have occurred since: Four Christians were gunned down as they were getting gases, likely so they could flee the north, and another two were slain during a Boko Haram invasion of Christian homes.

Ayo Oritsejafor, head of the Christian Association of Nigeria has accurately characterized this spate of attacks on Christians as "religious cleansing," citing that some 120 Christians have been killed since the Christmas day church attacks.

Worse, but not unexpectedly, President Jonathan recently declared that "some of them [Boko Haram] are in the executive arm of government, some of them are in the parliamentary/legislative arm of government, while some of them are even in the judiciary. Some are also in the armed forces, the police and other security agencies."

This is typical of any number of Muslim nations where Islamists have infiltrated and hold important positions in the government, even where the U.S is not enabling them, such as Nigeria.

At any rate, Sudan offers a glimpse at what may be in store for Nigeria. In July 2011, South Sudan was born, breaking away from Sudan proper, in response to that all too familiar pattern: Sudan's Muslim north, just like Nigeria's Muslim north, was constantly abusing—also to the point of ethnic/religious cleansing—the Christian and animist south.

In the interest of Nigeria's Christian population, then, the nation may well be poised to go the way of Sudan and divide—and thus be the latest example of the difficulty of living peaceably alongside Muslims wherever and whenever they make for large numbers.

This article originally appeared in FrontPageMag.com

By Daniel Pipes

The formal end of the U.S. war in Iraq on Dec. 15 enhanced neighboring Iran as a major, unpredictable factor in the U.S. presidential election of 2012.

First a look back: Iran's mullahs already has had one opportunity to affect American politics, in 1980. Their seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran for 444 days haunted President Jimmy Carter's reelection campaign and – thanks to such developments as yellow ribbons, a "Rose Garden" strategy, a failed rescue operation, and ABC's America Held Hostage program – contributed to his defeat. Ayatollah Khomeini rebuffed Carter's hopes for an "October surprise" release of the hostages and twisted the knife one final time by freeing them exactly as Ronald Reagan took the presidential oath.

Presidents Jimmy Carter and Barak Obama could share an Iranian challenge to their re-election bids.
Today, Iran has two potential roles in Obama's reelection campaign, as disrupter in Iraq or as target of U.S. attacks. Let's look at each of them:

Who lost Iraq? Although George W. Bush's administration signed the status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government, stipulating that "All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011," Obama's decision against keeping a residual force in Iraq made the troop withdrawal his choice and his burden. This puts him at risk: should things go badly in Iraq in 2012, he, not Bush, would take the blame. Iran's supreme guide, Ali Khamene'i, in other words, can make Obama's life miserable.

Khamene'i has many options: He can exert more control over those many Iraqi leaders who are Shiite Islamists with a pro-Iranian outlook, some of whom even lived in exile in Iran. For example, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki fits this mold. The Iranians can also influence Iraqi politics via the country's intelligence services, which they have already substantially penetrated. Or, they can move Iranian troops at will into Iraq, those tens of thousands of U.S. troops now gone from Iraq's eastern border, and engage in mischief of their choosing. Finally, they can support proxies like Muqtada al-Sadr or dispatch terrorist agents.

In 1980, the Iranians manipulated the American political process with hostages; in 2012, Iraq is their plaything. Should Iran's rulers decide to make trouble before Nov. 6, the Republican candidate will blame Obama for "losing Iraq." Given Obama's long opposition to the war, that will sting.

(Alternatively, the Iranians can shift gears and make good on their threat to close the Straits of Hormuz to imperil the 17 percent of world oil that goes through that waterway, thereby creating global economic instability.)

Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamene'i both have the opportunity to affect American presidential elections.
Mullahs chose to harm a weakened Democrat in 1980 and could do so again; or, they could decide that Obama is more to their liking and desist. The key point is, the troop withdrawal hands them extra options. Obama may well rue not having kept them there until after the elections, which would have allowed him plausibly to claim, "I did my best."

Bomb Iranian nukes? Almost two years ago, when Obama still held a threadbare popular plurality among Americans of +3 percent, I suggested that a U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear facilities "would dispatch Obama's feckless first year down the memory hole and transform the domestic political scene" to his benefit. With one action, he could both protect the United States from a dangerous enemy and redraw the election contest. "It would sideline health care, prompt Republicans to work with Democrats, make netroots squeal, independents reconsider, and conservatives swoon."

As Obama's popularity has sunk to -4.4 percent and the elections loom less than a year away, his incentive to bomb Iran has substantially increased, a point publicly discussed by a colorful range of figures, both American (Sarah Palin, Pat Buchanan, Dick Cheney, Ron Paul, Elliott Abrams, George Friedman, David Broder, Donald Trump) and not (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro). Health care, employment, and the debt offer the president little solace, the Left is disappointed, and the independent vote is up for grabs. Current skirmishes over sanctions and drones could be mere distraction; an attack on Iranian facilities would presumably take place in the first half of 2012, not too self-evidently close to the U.S. elections.

In conclusion: Khamene'i and Obama can both make trouble for the other. If they do, Iran and Iraq would play outsized roles in the presidential contest, continuing in their unique thirty-year role as the tar babies of American politics.

                                           *****************************

Mr. Pipes updates:

Well that did not take long. From a New York Times report: ""Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq threatened on Wednesday [Dec. 21] to abandon an American-backed power-sharing government created a year ago, throwing a fragile democracy into further turmoil just after the departure of American troops and potentially tarnishing what has been cast as a major foreign policy achievement for President Obama." It remains to be seen how much of a role the Iranian regime played in instigating this disruptive step.

Al-Maliki's minions are raising the specter of Al-Qaeda in Iraq should the Sunni provinces enjoy more autonomy, a sure sign that matters are going south.

Originally published on Mr. Pipes' website