RUTHFULLY YOURS

As the terror attacks transpired over the weekend in NYC, New Jersey and Minnesota, reports came in that the man who stabbed eight people at Crossroads Center mall in St. Cloud, Minnesota, was screaming “Allahu Akbar” and asking his victims if they were Muslim.

In response to these developments, the Glazov Gang is running its special episode The Real Meaning of ‘Allahu Akbar’ — with Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the editor of Frontpage’s blog, The Point.

Daniel explained why you should be very suspicious of the translation the media provides of ‘Allahu Akbar’ after every Jihadi attack.

Don’t miss it!

And don’t miss the special Mark Christian Moment with Dr. Mark Christian, in which the President of the Global Faith Institutediscussed Hillary’s Islamization of America, focusing on Huma Abedin, the Muslim Brotherhood and other threatening connections:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/711641/Teen-tied-up-gagged-three-men-gang-rape-Eiffel-Tower

The 19-year-old French girl was lured to the monument on the proviso of a ‘date’ set up through Facebook.

She responded to messages from who she thought was a 17-year-old Tunisian boy and initially met him close to her home in the Paris suburbs.

Last Sunday evening she turned up for another date where she expected to have a picnic with the boy at the Champs des Mars, the park where the Eiffel Tower is, and was attacked.

A source close to the case, said: “It was a warm night, and she expected to eat strawberries and grapes, and to drink Coke, but then the attack took place.”

The woman was dragged under a bush behind where a blanket had been laid out.

She was then assaulted by three men who then gagged, beat her up and tied her up.

The victim, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is said to have recently run away from her mother’s home in the Paris suburbs.

She was only found when a couple who were jogging early on Monday morning heard the victim making a muffled sobbing noise.

They raised the alarm after finding her in deep shock, naked and crying.

The French presidential hopeful blasted “arrogant” eco-warriors at a meeting of business leaders this week, claiming human industry was not the cause of climate change.

He said: “The climate has been changing for four billion years. “The Sahara has become a desert, and it isn’t because of industry.“You need to be as arrogant as men are to believe we changed the climate.”

Mr Sarkozy has previously insisted France must stop African migrants coming to Europe if their sole reason for doing so is because their homeland is being turned into desert.

But the 61-year-old, who has vowed to take a tough line on extremism ahead of the country’s presidential election next year, caused outrage from his main rivals.

Fellow contender for the Presidency, Alain Juppé, said he was “convinced that human activity bears a heavy share of responsibility in climate change”.

He added: “Denying it is denying reality.”

The controversial comments come as the former president from 2007 to 2012 lashed out over the European migrant crisis, claiming France is “not the gatekeeper” of England.

During live television debate on France 2 television, he said: “Is that we can accommodate all those who want to come? My answer is no.

And in a blow to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her open-door migrant policy, Mr Sarkozy called for a “limit” on migrants entering Europe.

He added: “We have no jobs, we do not have the means.

“There must be a limit.”

There is hardly any Islamist group out there which does not expressly strive for the restoration of the caliphate. Here’s why.

What do Islamist groups want and what are their aims? Most Westerners know that groups like ISIS are in some way, shape, or form related to Islam. Thanks to the media, they also associate, correctly, Islamist groups like ISIS and al-Qā’ida with violence. Although average Americans may be told by the media how these groups are fundamentally motivated by political and economic grievances, no more than a superficial spotlight is usually cast on their religious ideology and goals.

However, one thing that your average American probably knows is that groups like ISIS are working to establish an Islamic “caliphate.” Images of Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed caliph of the Islamic State, speaking at the Grand Mosque of Al-Nurī in Mosul are likely to be conjured up.

But what exactly is a caliphate? And why do militant Islamist groups like ISIS, al-Qā’ida, Boko Harām, Jabhat al-Nusra, and even less overtly militant Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, want to establish a caliphate? And how important is the caliphate in the overall thought of Islamists? Is it perceived to be a necessary tenet of Islam? Let’s take a look.
What is a Caliphate? Who is a Caliph?

Etymologically, the English word “caliphate” is a loanword of the Arabic term khilāfa. The word khilāfa is derived from the triliteral root kh-l-f (خلف), meaning “to succeed” or to “come after.”[1] Khilāfa (خلافة) denotes a caliphate, and is obviously a noun derived from the verbal root kh-l-f; furthermore, the (slightly different) word ‘khalīfa‘(خليفة) denotes a caliph and is an active participle meaning one who succeeds or comes after another.

The term khalīfa (خَلِيفَةً) occurs in the Qur’ān nine times and is always used by the Qur’ān to denote a successor or viceregent (e.g., “Oh David, we have made you a khalīfa upon the Earth”; Q 38:26). However, there is nothing in the Qur’ān about a khalīfa being a present ruler ruling over the believers or the Islamic umma(community). This specific application of the khalīfa-concept was clearly one that developed after the death of Muḥammad in 632 A.D.

A caliphate is essentially a state where an Islamic ruler or Caliph rules the Muslim umma. That is, a caliphate is an essentially theocratic and Islamic conception of government. It is important to emphasize that the idea of a caliphate is an exclusively Islamic notion. There is no such thing as a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist caliphate. Every caliphate is by definition an Islamic one, and every caliph is or should be a Muslim, as we will see later on.

On September 11, 2016, Raphael Medoff of JNS.org penned a piece, “Denis Ross: If Elected Again, Clinton Should Seek More Israeli Concessions.” One is forced to wonder if a background study of Dennis Ross might help in comprehending how he arrives at this thought.

Dennis Ross is known as one who calculates that public pressure would move the parties, Palestinians and Israelis . He figures that in the Middle East, private negotiations work better. He has thrived under presidents from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan Bill Clinton, both Bushes and Barak Obama. During the 1992 presidential campaign, Ross worked for Jim Baker, the same individual who is credited with saying, F—– the Jews, they didn’t vote for us anyway.”

In 1989, Ross and Miller——along with an Orthodox Jewish Foreign Service officer, Daniel Kurtzer of PLO recognition fame and later to become US Ambassador to Egypt and subsequently US Ambassador to Israel—–were accused of being “self-hating Jews. They had drafted a Baker speech which rocked the American Jewish community. requesting Israel’s leaders to renounce “the unrealistic vision of a greater Israel.” Apparently, an aide to Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir referred to them as “Baker’s Jew boys.”

Now, it is known that Ross was absolutely dedicated to the peace process more so than anything else and obviously still is. Interesting, what in former times was entitled “Land for Peace” became “The Two State Solution”. Yet another questionable euphemism!

At the Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Survive conference which gave rise to Medoff’s article, Ross asserted that “even though negotiations with the Palestinian Authority won’t work now”, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should take steps of his own. “He should at a minimum announce an official policy that there will be no further Israeli construction east of the security barrier.”

When one engages the historical record from the 1979 Camp David Accords to the present day, one can only find many concessions presented by Israel accompanied by dismissal of commitments made by the Palestinians. More than that, in every case the Palestinian reaction has been inhuman and cruel violence. What Israel has been able to achieve with Egypt and Jordan, has not been possible with the Palestinians. Ross surely knows this since his involvement in the overall process dates back to the 1st George Bush.

Professor Gerald Steinberg is of the opinion that Ross and his colleagues “in the excitement of the diplomatic activity closed their eyes to the disconnect between myth and reality,” He observes that while Ross finally recognized Arab rejectionisim of Israel’s existence had not changed, the diplomat in him would not let go. Writing in 2004, Steinberg insightfully notes that process without substance is untenable and another round of good intentions will end again in the hell of suicide bombings. Today, while in fact, suicide bombings have been replaced by knifing and weaponry, the principle remains unaltered.

A full iteration on Israeli concessions is necessary to answer the charge of Dennis Ross. Any discussion on [Israeli] concessions has to consider, as a minimum, The 1979 Camp David Accords, The 1991 Madrid Conference, The 1993 Oslo Accords, The 1994 Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty, The Taba Agreement [Oslo11], The 1997 Hebron Agreement, 1998 Wye River Memorandum, 1999 Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum, August 2000 Camp David ‘Final Status’ Summit, 20o1 Taba Conference and 2005 Gaza Disengagement.

What distinguished the Camp David Accords and the Jordanian -Israeli Peace treaty from the rest was that Israel was negotiating with nation states viz., Egypt and Jordan. In the case of the former, Israel returned 90% of the conquered territory and made provision for an autonomous entity for the Palestinians. In the case of Jordan, it regained its entire sovereignty. Gaza and Judea and Samaria, previously illegally occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively were retained by Israel. Obviously, Ross does not consider land returned in a defensive war a concession.

During the month and a half after July 15, the Turkish government aggressively purged more than 100,000 civil servants and arrested tens of thousands.

Anyone can be the target: journalists, academics, teachers, pilots, doctors, businessmen — even the owner of the small grocery store on the corner, if its owner kept his savings at a bank that the government claims financed Gulen’s illegal activities.

Prominent journalist Ahmet Altan and his brother, academic and columnist Professor Mehmet Altan, were detained for questioning. A prosecutor claims that during a recent TV debate, the suspects had given “subliminal messages suggesting a military coup.”

“A total witch hunt has been launched…” — Kemal Kilicdaroglu, leader of the main opposition Social Democrat Party.

In the twelve days ending on July 2, 1934 Germany saw the “Röhm Putsch,” a purge in which the Nazi regime carried out political executions in order to consolidate Hitler’s absolute hold on power. Hitler moved against the Sturmabteilung (SA), the Nazis’ own paramilitary group; hundreds were killed. The regime did not limit itself to a purge of the SA.

Having already imprisoned social democrats and communists, Hitler used the “Röhm Putsch” to move against conservatives. More killings followed, including Kurt von Schleicher, Hitler’s predecessor as Chancellor, and von Schleicher’s wife. The Gestapo also murdered several leaders of the disbanded Catholic Center Party.

Just a few years later, the Soviets’ own purge would be called Yezhovshchina (“Times of Yezhov”), after Nikolai Yezhov, head of the Soviet secret police. From 1936 until 1953, Yezhovshchina not only meant being expelled from the party; it came to mean almost certain arrest, imprisonment, and often execution.

The purge, in general, was Stalin’s effort to eliminate past and potential opposition groups. Hundreds of thousands of victims faced charges of political crimes such as espionage, sabotage, anti-Soviet agitation, and conspiracies to prepare uprisings and coups. Most victims were quickly executed by gunfire or sent to the Gulag labor camps, where many died of starvation, disease, exposure and overwork.

The animosity of Lebanon towards Israel continues today only because it provides a convenient excuse for Hizballah to maintain a formidable arsenal that it uses to control Lebanon and to help its allies in Syria.

If Lebanon had prevented terrorist attacks from its territory against Israel, not one bullet would have been exchanged between the two countries. Today, Lebanon would be enjoying diplomatic relations with Israel, and the benefits of successful trade.

Lebanon has many problems, including sectarian divisions, Iranian influence, spillover from the Syrian civil war, the weakness of its army, the ineffectiveness of its politicians, and the very existence of Hizballah, but Israel’s existence next door is not one of them.

The animosity of Lebanon towards Israel continues today only because it provides a convenient excuse for Hizballah to maintain a formidable arsenal that it uses to control Lebanon and to help its allies in Syria.

Lebanon has a law forbidding its citizens from interacting with Israeli citizens. As Michael J. Totten wrote:

“Lebanese citizens aren’t allowed to have any communication of any kind with Israelis anywhere in the world. If citizens of the two countries meet, say, on a beach in Cyprus or in a bar in New York, the Lebanese risks prison just for saying hello.”

The Lebanese online news source NOW explains that law in detail. Even a dual citizen (of Lebanon and Canada for example) could be jailed for interacting in the most innocuous way with an Israeli.

The Lebanese delegation, for example, recently refused to share a bus with the Israeli delegation at this year’s Olympic Games in Rio, prompting the Israeli minister of culture and sports to describe the incident as, “anti-Semitism, pure and simple, and the worst kind of racism.” The incident was, however, hardly surprising, considering the history of Lebanese animosity towards Israel.
Only one of many incidents of pettiness and bigotry

The Olympics incident is unfortunately not unique.

Incidents in the entertainment industry have been just as visible. In Lebanon’s only attempt to enter the Eurovision song contest, its contestant Aline Lahoud was forced to withdraw in 2005 after Lebanon would not allow the program to be broadcast because it included a performance by an Israeli. Despite his huge popularity in Lebanon, the Jewish Moroccan-French comedian, Gad Elmaleh, was forced to cancel his performances at a 2009 Lebanese festival due to what Reina Sarkis, a Lebanese psychoanalyst living in France, described as Hizballah’s “intellectual terrorism”. In June 2010, a boycott targeted the British Rock band Placebo, performing in Lebanon, resulting in a lawsuit by the Lebanese concert promoter against the groups that organized the boycott. Popular Belgian-Italian singer Lara Fabian cancelled a concert in Lebanon in 2012, after she was the target of threats for supporting Israel.

Such incidents have occurred in academia as well. In March 2010, Palestinian scholar Sari Hanafi, a professor at the American University of Beirut, was verbally assaulted at the university by a crowd of nearly 300 for having worked with two Israeli scholars on a book, even though the book was critical of Israel.

Even Miss Lebanon 2014, Saly Greige, was implicated in this type of incident in 2015, when a photo of her was taken with Miss Israel, Miss Japan, and Miss Slovenia. Lebanese Tourism Minister Michel Pharaon launched a probe into what was considered an incident of national significance. Greige was allowed to keep her crown only after she made the implausible claim that the picture was taken against her will.