Pamela Geller: Obama surrenders., Pamela Geller points out the obvious fact that Obama has never acknowledged: while the U.S. is not at war with Islam, as he constantly reminds us, a "significant part of Islam that is at war with us."Robert Spencer said, “The Muslim American community has consistently rejected terrorism? Four separate studies since 1998 have all found that 80 percent of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. … And in the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19 percent of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacist.”

In "Obama surrenders" at WND, May 26, Pamela Geller points out the obvious fact that Obama has never acknowledged: while the U.S. is not at war with Islam, as he constantly reminds us, a "significant part of Islam that is at war with us."

The president decided last Thursday – five years into his presidency – to finally address the gravest threat to our nation and the West in the wake of a bloody wave of jihad attacks under his sloppy and feckless watch.

He said, “Victory will be measured in parents taking their kids to school; immigrants coming to our shores; fans taking in a ballgame; a veteran starting a business; a bustling city street.”
What does that even mean? He speaks of “victory” when he is the architect of defeat. He speaks of victory while the Fort Hood victims languish and slaughtering jihadist Nidal Hasan still has not been brought to trial, but has received more than a quarter-of-a-million dollars in compensation. He speaks of victory when he won’t even call the jihad attack on a London street “terrorism,” instead terming it “senseless violence.”

Jihad beheading victim Lee Rigby will receive the same tribute as soldiers who die in action, but Fort Hood jihad victims are victims of a “criminal act of single individual,” not international terrorism. Why would Obama authorize a drone hit on Anwar al-Awlaki (who never killed anyone) but not give the victims of his Islamic preachings the same military designation?
What is his plan? It’s to partner with Muslim Brotherhood groups in America that work feverishly to “eliminate and destroy” America from within. Obama said Thursday that “the best way to prevent violent extremism is to work with the Muslim American community – which has consistently rejected terrorism – to identify signs of radicalization, and partner with law enforcement when an individual is drifting toward violence.”

Work with the Muslim American community? Just as Obama said this, former Hamas-CAIR official Cyrus McGoldrick urged Muslims not to talk to law enforcement. “And never let them in your home.” This is Hamas-CAIR’s policy as well. They urge Muslims not to cooperate with the authorities. Really, Obama? You’re counting on these Islamic supremacists?

Robert Spencer said, “The Muslim American community has consistently rejected terrorism? Four separate studies since 1998 have all found that 80 percent of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. … And in the summer of 2011 came another study showing that only 19 percent of mosques in U.S. don’t teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacist.”

But Obama wants to work with the Muslim American community – despite the fact that all the major Muslim groups in the U.S. are linked in various ways to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is dedicated in its own words to “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within.” What’s his plan? To close Gitmo and release the killers, when we know the recidivism rate is extraordinarily high. He stands by his drone attacks while having denied the motive of jihadic doctrine. He is killing Americans and yet he whines that we “compromised our basic values – by using torture to interrogate our enemies.”

He is denigrating the Bush administration’s waterboarding of three killers that saved thousands of lives and led to the killing of Osama bin Laden. Our soldiers are waterboarded so they understand the process. Who does this poser think he’s kidding? He kills people, spies on journalists and abandons our ambassador and other Americans in Libya, and he is preaching to us?

Obama says that there have been no large-scale attacks in the U.S. I disagree. Scores of large scale attacks were thwarted. That counts. And Fort Hood and Boston were large scale. Hundreds of people living with shrapnel, broken flesh and bone – and the dead.
Our delusional president claims our standing in the world is what it was. I beg to differ. We are much weaker under his reign. Obama’s abandonment of our allies in Egypt, Libya, Israel and Eastern Europe has weakened our hegemony and influence in those regions. And he has effectively surrendered to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Obama claims that “unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria.” That, too, is a deliberate misrepresentation of what happened. Obama backed jihadists. That’s what happened in the Muslim world. Did he think that backing jihadists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and now Syria would end well?

What’s his plan? Why didn’t Obama mention that his administration scrubbed all counter terrorism materials and manuals of jihad and Islam – disarming law enforcement and counter terrorism officials? Where did that get us? Boston.

When Obama speaks of the threat on our shores, he only cites the rare non-Muslim attacks: “Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the federal building in Oklahoma City.”

He doesn’t say a word about the hundreds of thwarted, and in some cases successful, acts of jihad. He goes on to explain that jihadists are lying when they quote Quran chapter and verse and wage war in the case of Islam. Obama said, “This ideology is based on a lie, for the United States is not at war with Islam.” No, it is Obama who is lying about the ideology. And while we may not be at war with Islam, clearly there is a significant part of Islam that is at war with us. Are we going to fight back?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/05/pamela-geller-obama-surrenders.html

Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi: New study shows that only 19% of mosques in U.S. don't teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism: 

n 1998, Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, a Sufi leader, visited 114 mosques in the United States. Then he gave testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999, and asserted that 80% of American mosques taught the "extremist ideology."

Then there was the Center for Religious Freedom's 2005 study, and the Mapping Sharia Project's 2008 study. Each independently showed that upwards of 80% of mosques in America were preaching hatred of Jews and Christians and the necessity ultimately to impose Islamic rule.
And now comes yet more confirmation that mosques in the U.S. are teaching these things, and again the percentage is remarkably similar: around 80% of mosques are found to be teaching jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism.

This study is extensive and detailed. Look over all the data. Above all, call upon your elected officials and the media to take notice -- at very least, to ask pointed questions from local mosque leaders about the books they're using and what they're teaching in general. Call on them to require honest, verifiable answers.
It is likely, however, that this study, like the three preceding ones that I mentioned above, will be ignored. But don't let that happen. Our freedoms depend on it.

"Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques," by Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi in Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2011:

Works by several respected jurists and scholars from the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, dating from the eighth to fourteenth centuries, are all in agreement that violent jihad against non-Muslims is a religious obligation.[19] Such behavior is normative, legally-sanctioned violence not confined to modern writers with a political axe to grind. Nor does its presence in classical Muslim works make it a relic of some medieval past. While Umdat as-Salik (Reliance of the Traveler) may have been compiled in the fourteenth century, al-Azhar University, perhaps the preeminent center of Sunni learning in the world, stated in its 1991 certification of the English translation that the book "conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community."[20] While addressing a host of theological matters and detailed instructions as to how Muslims should order their daily routine to demonstrate piety and commitment to Islam, this certified, authoritative text spends eleven pages expounding on the applicability of jihad as violence directed against non-Muslims, stating for example: The caliph … makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax.[21]

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim … because they are not a people with a book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax.[22]
The Fiqh as-Sunna and Tafsir Ibn Kathir are examples of works that were rated "moderate" for purposes of this survey. The former, which focuses primarily on the internal Muslim community, the family, and the individual believer and not on violent jihad, was especially moderate in its endorsement of violence. Relatively speaking, the Fiqh as-Sunna expresses a more restrained view of violent jihad, in that it does not explicitly call for a holy war against the West even though it understands the Western influence on Islamic governments as a force that is destructive to Islam itself.[23]

Nonetheless, such texts do express positive views toward the use of violence against "the other," as expressed in the following:

Ibn Abbas reported that the Prophet, upon whom be peace, said, "The ties of Islam and the principles of the religion are three, and whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever, and his blood becomes lawful: testifying that there is no god except God, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan." … Another narration states, "If anyone leaves one of [the three principles], by God he becomes an unbeliever, and no voluntary deeds or recompense will be accepted from him, and his blood and wealth become lawful." This is a clear indication that such a person is to be killed.[24]

Similarly in Tafsir Ibn Kathir:
Perform jihad against the disbelievers with the sword, and be harsh with the hypocrites with words, and this is the jihad performed against them.[25]

The survey's findings, explored in depth below, were that 51 percent of mosques had texts that either advocated the use of violence in the pursuit of a Shari'a-based political order or advocated violent jihad as a duty that should be of paramount importance to a Muslim; 30 percent had only texts that were moderately supportive of violence like the Tafsir Ibn Kathir and Fiqh as-Sunna; 19 percent had no violent texts at all.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/mordechai-kedar-and-david-yerushalmi-new-study-shows-that-only-19-of-mosques-in-us-dont-teach-jihad.html