On Friday, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) sent out a tweet condemning President Trump&#8217;s alleged &#8220;Muslim ban.&#8221;
<div class="embed tweet">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Daily reminder that we have a **Muslim Ban** in this country made out of the President&#8217;s hostility to Muslim people w/ little-to-no supporting evidence, and a Republican Party that tolerates it.
There is so much work to do. Repealing the Ban is square 1.<a href="https://t.co/dqrCsedMrt">https://t.co/dqrCsedMrt</a>
&#8212; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1106584578687406081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 15, 2019</a></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote>
Daily reminder that we have a **Muslim Ban** in this country made out of the President&#8217;s hostility to Muslim people w/ little-to-no supporting evidence, and a Republican Party that tolerates it. There is so much work to do. Repealing the Ban is square 1.
</blockquote>
In her tweet, Ocasio-Cortez linked to an article from the Brennan Center, a left-leaning public policy institute, titled &#8220;The Fight Against Trump&#8217;s Muslim Ban Isn&#8217;t Over.&#8221;
Here&#8217;s the problem: the &#8220;Muslim ban&#8221; isn&#8217;t quite what Ocasio-Cortez and the president&#8217;s critics claim it is.
Let&#8217;s start with some recent history. In December 2015, former President Obama <a href="https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/">signed</a> legislation that would restrict travel for individuals from certain countries. The &#8220;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text/pl">Restriction On Use Of Visa Wavier Program For Aliens Who Travel To Certain Countries</a>&#8221; legislation was part of a larger appropriations bill.
The pertinent <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187">text</a>, which amended 8 U.S. Code 1187, reads in part (citations omitted):
<blockquote>
(i) the alien has not been present, at any time on or after March 1, 2011&#8212; (I) in Iraq or Syria; (II) in a country that is designated by the Secretary of State &#8230; or any other provision of law, as a country, the government of which has repeatedly provided support of acts of international terrorism; or (III) in any other country or area of concern.
</blockquote>
In 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program">added</a> Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list of &#8220;countries of concern.&#8221; The updated list of countries from which travelers could not use the Visa Wavier Program was as follows: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
In January 2017, the Trump administration <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html">issued</a> a 90-day travel ban on individuals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The ban was almost immediately <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/trump-travel-ban-timeline/index.html">halted</a> by a district court judge. Shortly thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/trump-travel-ban-timeline/index.html">blocked</a> the ban, reports CNN.
In March 2017, the president issued an updated version, which left Iraq off the list. The updated ban was again <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/us/trump-travel-ban-timeline/index.html">blocked</a> by a district court judge.
In September 2017, the administration <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/trump-travel-ban-country-list-map/">issued</a> another updated ban, adding the counties of Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela to the list, while removing Sudan and Iraq. Additionally, the ban was made indefinite.
At the time, <a href="https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/trump-travel-ban-country-list-map/">Politico</a> wrote: &#8220;Under the new system, existing visa holders, dual citizens and people already legally admitted to the U.S. are exempt. Waivers will be granted on a case-by-case basis, though exemptions appear to be narrowed under the new directive.&#8221;
In June 2018, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trumps-travel-ban-673181">ruled</a> in a 5-4 decision to uphold the travel ban, which had by that time removed Chad from the list.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that &#8220;the text says nothing about religion,&#8221; <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/26/supreme-court-upholds-trumps-travel-ban-673181">adding</a>:
<blockquote>
The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices.
</blockquote>
One can certainly doubt the personal motivations of the president, but from a legal standpoint, the travel ban has been ruled viable. Moreover, if it were a &#8220;Muslim ban,&#8221; as Rep. Ocasio-Cortez claims, one has to ask why majority-Muslim nations such as Afghanistan, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Guinea, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, and a number of others were left off the list.
As to Ocasio-Cortez&#8217;s claim that there is &#8220;little-to-no supporting evidence&#8221; for the travel ban, the Trump administration has provided a list of reasons as to why certain nations are on the list.
According to a September 2017 White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-enhancing-vetting-capabilities-processes-detecting-attempted-entry-united-states-terrorists-public-safety-threats/">proclamation</a>:
<blockquote>
&#8230;the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, has determined that a small number of countries &#8212; out of nearly 200 evaluated &#8212; remain deficient at this time with respect to their identity-management and information-sharing capabilities, protocols, and practices. In some cases, these countries also have a significant terrorist presence within their territory.
</blockquote>
The press release details the reasons behind each nation&#8217;s ban. For example, despite Yemen being &#8220;an important and valuable counterterrorism partner,&#8221; it &#8220;faces significant identity-management challenges, which are amplified by the notable terrorist presence within its territory. The government of Yemen fails to satisfy critical identity-management requirements, does not share public-safety and terrorism-related information adequately, and fails to satisfy at least one key risk criterion,&#8221; according to the White House.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Inaccurately Calls Trump’s Travel Ban A ‘Muslim Ban’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Democratic Party

Donald Trump

Muslim Ban

Travel Ban

Trump Administration

On Tuesday, liberal author and former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz set the record straight on the Supreme Court ruling of President Donald Trump&#8217;s so-called &#8220;travel ban,&#8221; which temporarily bans most travel from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen to the United States for national security reasons.
Dershowitz, a liberal who has made it clear that he disagrees with the ban, said the policy should have been upheld by the Supreme Court and is indeed constitutional. This assessment comes in stark contrast to leftists&#8217; child-like hissy fits over the ruling, which included a call to &#8220;<a href="https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/06/26/bravo-thinkprogress-ian-millhiser-goes-for-ratio-gold-with-this-scorching-take-on-scotus/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget">abolish SCOTUS</a>.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t support the policy,&#8221; Dershowitz clarified, adding, &#8220;But it&#8217;s constitutional.&#8221;
The legal mind called the ruling accurately over a year ago. &#8220;I think that the Trump administration will ultimately win on that issue, at least as it relates to people who have never been in the United States,&#8221; he <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/02/09/dershowitz_trump_will_win_travel_ban_case_at_supreme_court.html">told</a> NewsMaxTV in February of 2017.
The Supreme Court ruled 5&#8211;4 in favor of the ban on Tuesday, with liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting. Justice Sotomayor, along with Ginsburg, <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/6/26/17505906/sonia-sotomayor-dissent-travel-ban-muslim-trump-ginsburg">said</a> the ban was &#8220;motivated by anti-Muslim animus&#8221; and &#8220;now masquerades behind a façade of national-security concerns.&#8221;
Asked about the dissent, Dershowitz explained, &#8220;Not all the countries are Muslim and not all Muslim countries are within the ban. Look, the vast majority of terrorist activities around the world, massive terrorist activities around the world, have come from countries like Saudi Arabia, and we&#8217;re now seeing Syria; Iran is the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world, so I think the opposition is a little overwrought.&#8221;
Dershowitz added that he doesn&#8217;t agree &#8220;with the extent to which Justice Sotomayor condemned the policy of the administration.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t support the policy, but I don&#8217;t believe that it violates basic civil liberties or constitutional law or human rights,&#8221; the scholar reiterated.
WATCH:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen frameborder="0" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aIxQYOsBhv0" width="854"></iframe></div>

WATCH: Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz Sets Record Straight On Travel Ban Ruling. Liberals Will Not Be Happy.

Immigrants

Migrants

Supreme Court

The White House attempted some damage control late Wednesday, after the President re-tweeted videos appearing to show Muslims pushing a teenager off a building, destroying a statue of the Virgin Mary, and pummeling a blonde boy on crutches.
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/24101/trump-retweets-anti-muslim-tweets-british-far-hank-berrien">The videos were originally posted to social media by Jayda Fransen</a>, the vice president of a far-right group in the U.K. called &#8220;Britain First.&#8221; Although the first two videos are authentic (though from 2012 and 2013, respectively), the third video &#8212; of dark-haired &#8220;Muslims&#8221; beating up a blonde-haired boy toddling around on crutches is, for lack of a better term, &#8220;fake news&#8221; &#8212; actually shows a fight between two Dutch boys.
Trump received criticism for the retweets even from &#8220;alt-right&#8221; figures who claimed &#8220;Britain First&#8221; is far worse than they are.
Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told media late Wednesday that, while the videos may not have been an authentic portrayal of Muslim violence, the threats they represented are very real.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
At WH, <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a> defends Pres Trump retweets today of videos purporting Muslim violence saying &#8220;these are real threats we have to talk about.&#8221; Whether the videos are real or not, Sanders says &#8220;the threats are real &#8211; no matter how you look at it.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/K8JMqHctp5">pic.twitter.com/K8JMqHctp5</a>
&#8212; Mark Knoller (@markknoller) <a href="https://twitter.com/markknoller/status/935901231188447232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 29, 2017</a></blockquote>
Sanders echoed statements made earlier in the day by deputy press secretary Raj Shah, who told media aboard Air Force One that the videos were <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-defends-trumps-muslim-tweet-by-mentioning-travel-ban/">emblematic of the president&#8217;s commitment to national security</a> and that journalists should not focus on the videos so much as the safety and security of the American people.
<blockquote>
&#8220;A lot of folks want to focus on videos,&#8221; Shah said. &#8220;We want to focus on the issues. It&#8217;s about safety, it&#8217;s about security.&#8221; Shah also said.
When a reporter pointed out Mr. Trump retweeted videos, Shah responded, &#8220;Yeah, but he&#8217;s raising the issues.&#8221;
</blockquote>

White House: Trump’s Tweeted Videos Were ‘Fake News,’ But Muslim Threat Is Real

Islam’s growth as a social force across the West is a threat to the pillars of Western Civilization, said Gad Saad in a July-published discussion with Joe Rogan.
Both Saad and Rogan lamented the lack of an &#8220;honest conversation&#8221; within the popular culture about the impact of growing Muslim demographics across the West:
<blockquote>If you look at a long-term view of the issue of Islamic immigration; if what you focus on is — “Do we have the proper vetting processes to stop ISIS terrorists from getting in?” — that’s a very short-term view of the problem. But if you recognize that societies will take, often, a very long time before they become Islamized, it’s not as though every single country that today is Islamic became instantaneously overnight Islamic. In some cases it was a very quick invasion. In other cases it took five hundred years before the demographic realities shifted.
So, if you look at it from the perspective of ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred years, the US [faces] no threat. But take a long-term view, I love this quote, I think it was from the Taliban: “The United States have all the clocks and watches. We have all the time in the world.”
In other words, “Insha’Allah, eventually, God-willing, we will conquer you.”</blockquote>
Saad invited viewers to consider whether Islam is, on balance, a helpful, innocuous, or harmful ideology:
<blockquote>Do you wish to have a society become more Islamized or less? …
When Islam comes into a place, either the society gets better, nothing changes, or it gets worse. Do we have enough data at this point after fourteen hundred years to suggest that we can try to bet what will happen to a society? The answer, regrettably, is yes. Again, I hate to have to preface [my assessment with], of course most Muslims are lovely and peaceful and simply wish to raise their kids, but Islam as an ideology, when it comes into a new society, is it a good thing? If yes, then let’s all turn Islamic. If no, then maybe we should have an honest conversation about this.</blockquote>
Islamism and Islam cannot be separated from one another, said Saad. Those drawing a clear delineation between Islam and Islamism are offering a false sense of hope to others, he added:
<blockquote>Some people are now trying to draw a distinction between Islam and Islamism. … Islam has two elements, there’s the spiritual part — which is kind of like your Oktoberfest; pray this way and believe in [Allah], and so on — but then within Islam is a much larger component of politics; political Islam.
So when you say, “We should be attacking Islamism,” as if it’s something that is outside of Islam, that is simply false. Islamism is Islam.
[Turkish Prime Minister Tayyipe] Erdogan — and I can quote many other Islamic experts — said Islam is Islam. The term “moderate Islam,” “Islamism” and all these other qualifiers are nonsensical.
[Subscribing to incoherent delineations between Islam and Islamism] gives people a false sense of hope; “Islam is wonderful, but we need to attack this separate thing called Islamism.’” Well, from day one, fourteen hundred years ago, Islam was Islamism. …
There is no such thing as “radical Islam.” There are no books called “radical Islam.” There is a set of doctrines called Islam. …
Why should we tolerate this kind of stuff? Come in, my Muslim brothers, but keep out the stuff that you yourself escaped from out of our country. We don’t want it. … Why should I be tolerant toward the intolerable?</blockquote>
Rogan noted that conversations pertaining to Islam are often shut down by leftists and those who fear left-wing hostility. Racism, he added, is reflexively used by leftists to deride those who critique Islam.
Religious dogma, said Rogan, is “very problematic” in that it prohibits critical analysis of religiously-prescribed tenets.
Watch the discussion below (relevant portion begins at 10:37):
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rks0RpzXhzI" width="854" height="480" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

Gad Saad and Joe Rogan Discuss Islam And Islamization

Islam

Islamic State (ISIS)

Joe Rogan

Muslim Immigration

Radical Islam

Radical Islamic Terror

“The word Trump is a modern-day swastika,” said Dean Obeidallah on Monday during an MSNBC segment.
Obeidallah hosts a radio show on SiriusXM’s Progress station and is a columnist for The Daily Beast; he is also a CNN alumnus.
Obeidallah credited President Donald Trump with having “emboldened” bigots, waxing historical by drawing on the 1962 gubernatorial election of Democrat segregationist George Wallace in Alabama:
<blockquote>Since January, we’ve had five mosques burned down in America by arson. That’s according to the police. We’ve had swastikas written on mosques. We’ve had the word “Trump” painted on mosques in New Jersey, Iowa, and New York. For some, the word “Trump” is becoming a modern-day swastika.
I wrote a few days before the election, saying if Trump wins, I fear the bigots will be emboldened, and I looked at our history. In the Civil Rights Movement, when white segregationists won elections, like in George Wallace, within months of him being elected, the 16th Street Baptist Church was blown up and four young girls were killed. This is the climate, they’re emboldened.</blockquote>
Obeidallah framed President Donald as ushering in a “climate” of fear around Muslims predicated on two assertions: (1) Muslims are generalized victims of a broad-based and unjustified animosity directed toward them, and (2) America is broadly hostile toward Muslims.
Muslims now fear being &#8220;attacked or killed&#8221; because of their religion, said Obeidallah:
<blockquote>I don’t expect Donald Trump to stand up for the Muslim-American community. This is a man who campaigned in ways we’ve never seen; demonizing our community, saying, “Islam hates us,” saying thousands of Muslims cheered on 9/11 in New Jersey, which was such a lie — Rudy Giuliani said it was not true — calling for a “complete shutdown” on Muslims. He demonized our community where what we’re seeing today, the climate we live in, is thanks to a man named Donald J. Trump who is President of the United States. So I don’t expect him to stand up for us. Our community feels very alone, and not only alone, we feel like we have a president who demonizes us to win votes, doesn’t care about us, and it’s a time of fear that’s palpable, and it should not be something in 2017; should worry about because of your faith you or your family might be attacked or killed.</blockquote>
Supposedly rising hostility toward Muslims is connected to the political rise of Trump, said Obeidallah:
<blockquote>We can’t look at this in a vacuum. That’s the biggest thing. That’s why I wrote the article at The Daily Beast. My Facebook page is filled daily with Muslims around the country — young Muslims — talking about being harassed, being bullied, attacks on the mosque, death threats.</blockquote>
<blockquote>You know, you live in a country now where if you’re a parents of Muslims, you fear your kids going out because they might be attacked at the mosque. This is a place of worship. There should be a zero tolerance policy about any of this.</blockquote>
Watch the segment below:
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WM_yvveoypE" width="854" height="480" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>
<a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/1345/cnn-contributor-trump-makes-me-fear-my-muslim-robert-kraychik">Last November</a>, Obeidallah hyped “fear” among Muslims, framing Muslims as terrified of the incoming Trump administration. CNN’s Van Jones <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/10628/van-jones-trump-win-whitelash-against-black-robert-kraychik">echoed this narrative</a>, alleging that Muslim friends of his feared for the safety of their families upon hearing the news of Hillary Clinton’s defeat.
Obeidallah regularly uses the term &#8220;Islamophobia.&#8221; He also regularly denies the overlaps between Islamic terrorism, Islam, and Muslims.
H/T David Edwards at <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/2017/08/the-word-trump-is-a-modern-day-swastika-msnbc-guest-rips-trump-for-ignoring-minnesota-mosque-attack/">RawStory</a>.
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

WATCH: MSNBC Guest Says ‘The Word Trump Is A Modern-Day Swastika’

Media

Media Bias

MSNBC

Most anti-Semitic incidents — threats, vandalism, assaults, and murders — in Western Europe are coming from leftists and Muslims, according to June-published <a href="http://www.hlsenteret.no/publikasjoner/digitale-hefter/antisemittisk-vold-i-europa_engelsk_endelig-versjon.pdf">research paper</a> from Norway&#8217;s University of Oslo.
Key findings and excerpts below:
IN FRANCE:
<blockquote>It is no secret that in France individuals of Arab Muslim background have been responsible for much of the antisemitic violence committed there.
Young French men of Arabic origin came together over the Palestinian cause, turned French Jews into symbols of Israel, and launched a wave of attacks on Jewish targets. The prominent role of Franco-Arab Muslims in French antisemitism over the past 15 years is also confirmed by researchers who have studied the phenomenon.</blockquote>
IN THE UNITED KINGDOM:
<blockquote>[Testimony from victims of anti-Semitism] appear to confirm the disproportionate representation [in the perpetration of anti-Semitic acts] of individuals with backgrounds from presumably Muslim countries.
British Muslims scored two to four times higher than the general population on several antisemitic statements.</blockquote>
IN GERMANY:
German authorities categorize anti-Semitic incidents as being motivated by &#8220;anti-Israel&#8221; sentiment, allowing them to categorize such incidents, including crimes, as belonging to &#8220;right-wing ideology.&#8221; This is presumably done to obfuscate the overlaps between anti-Semitism, leftism, and Islam/Muslims.
<blockquote>Could it be that German police considers antisemitism a right-wing type of ideology and thus categorises most antisemitic attacks as right-wing, regardless of the perpetrator’s ethnic or religious background? Another issue is the nature of violent incidents categorised by German authorities as anti-Israeli and not antisemitic. In 2014, German police registered 91 violent anti-Israeli incidents (most of them perpetrated by “foreigners”), and one of them, controversially, involved the fire-bombing of a synagogue. The question is how many of the other “anti-Israeli” incidents should really be considered acts of antisemitism. More research is required to clarify this issue.</blockquote>
IN SWEDEN:
<blockquote>[Upon examining state authorities&#8217; data and victim/witness testimony, it is likely that] individuals with backgrounds from Middle Eastern/Muslim countries are behind most [anti-Semitic] incidents.</blockquote>
<div></div>
<div>IN NORWAY:</div>
<blockquote>10 of 21 Jewish informants mentioned having personally experienced antisemitism coming from Muslims, and half of these had experienced violence.
In 2004 Christine Mohn, then head of the Norwegian Association against Antisemitism, stated, “the harassment largely comes from Muslims and left-wing radicals”.</blockquote>
IN DENMARK:
<blockquote>In the cases involving violent assaults on Jews, perpetrators are typically described as boys or men “of Arab appearance”, “Palestinian”, “Middle Eastern” or “Muslim”.
Jewish spokespersons in Denmark have given the impression that perpetrators are most often individuals of Muslim and/or Arab background.</blockquote>
ON ISLAMIC RELIGIOSITY AS A DRIVER OF ANTI-SEMITISM:
<blockquote>Muslim respondents’ high level of religiosity was therefore a key factor in explaining the high level of antisemitism among Muslims.
Antisemitic attitudes are more widespread among more devout Muslims and particularly among Muslims with a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion.</blockquote>
IN THE MAIN:
<blockquote>Muslim respondents’ high level of religiosity was therefore a key factor in explaining the high level of antisemitism among Muslims.
Antisemitic attitudes are more widespread among more devout Muslims and particularly among Muslims with a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion.</blockquote>
Contrary to neo-Marxist narratives pushed by Democrats and their news media allies, material want is not a driver of anti-Semitism:
<blockquote>The high level of antisemitic attitudes among Muslims cannot be explained by differences in education level, income, age, gender or perceived discrimination.</blockquote>
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/quds_day_toronto_muslims_protest_0.jpg" alt="" width="780" height="518" /></div>
Muslim women chanting slogans and waiving banners and placards during the International Al-Quds day rally on July 11, 2015 in Toronto, Canada.
Despite presenting itself as an organization committed to combatting anti-Semitism, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) — a left-wing and Democrat-aligned tax-exempt organization — <a href="https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-supreme-court-ruling-on-presidents-travel-ban-poses-risk-to-worlds-most">actively agitates</a> to admit endless Muslims as refugees, immigrants, or temporary visitors. The ADL refuses to acknowledge anti-Semitism as a social, cultural, religious, and political pathology among Muslims.
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

quds_day_toronto_muslims_protest_0

Non-Shocker: Most Anti-Semitism Coming From Leftists/Muslims

Anti-Semitism

Europe

Evolutionary biologist and popular new atheist figure Richard Dawkins doesn’t mince words when it comes to the threat Islam poses to Western civilization. In a speech at the <a href="http://www.cheltenhamfestivals.com/science">Cheltenham Science Festival</a> in the U.K., Dawkins slammed the moral idiocy of cultural relativism, arguing against the ill-conceived notion that all religions are more or less the same.
“It’s tempting to say all religions are bad, and I do say all religions are bad, but it’s a worse temptation to say all religions are equally bad because they’re not,” he <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/06/11/richard-dawkins-religious-education-crucial-british-schoolchildren/">stated</a>.
Refusing to submit to de facto blasphemy laws, Dawkins then dropped the bomb.
“If you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam,” he said in no uncertain terms.
The fact that Dawkins will likely require a round-the-clock security detail to protect him against retribution by religious fanatics is testament to just how bold such a public declaration can be in the West.
At the time, Dawkins was promoting his new book, Science in the Soul. The popular new atheist figure has courted controversy before, angering Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike. Nevertheless, it’s his critiques of Islam that have attracted the attention of the Islalmophobia industry, with “tolerant” progressives and professional Muslim grievance mongers labeling him as a “bigot.”
The problem, of course, is that Dawkins is as liberal as they come; contrary to his detractors characterizations, his denouncements are far from “racist.” In fact, Dawkins makes a point of separating race from religion, arguing that all ideas, all beliefs should be debated in an open and honest public forum.
“It’s terribly important to modify [Islam] because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else,” Dawkins noted during his speech. “They suffer from the homophobia, the misogyny, the joylessness which is preached by extreme Islam, ISIS and the Iranian regime.”
“So it is a major evil in the world, we do have to combat it, but we don’t do what Trump did and say all Muslims should be shut out of the country,” he added. “That’s draconian, that’s illiberal, inhumane and wicked. I am against Islam not least because of the unpleasant effects it has on the lives of Muslims.”

Richard Dawkins: Islam Is ‘The Most Evil Religion In The World’

Atheism

“CNN is one of the greatest purveyors of fake news,” said Sebastian Gorka to CNN’s Chris Cuomo on Monday’s New Day, later describing CNN as “fake news propaganda.”
Cuomo and Gorka’s exchange focused on President Donald Trump&#8217;s executive orders relating to &#8220;extreme vetting&#8221; of foreigners seeking entry to the homeland.
“Your order is about Muslims,” said Cuomo, “about targeting Muslims and keeping them out,” describing Trump’s executive orders regarding “extreme vetting” as manifestations of then-candidate Trump’s campaign calls for banning foreign Muslims from entry to America. In December 2015, Trump called for a “complete and total shut down of Muslims entering the United States.”
Cuomo noted that President Donald Trump used the term “travel ban” — a term coined by left-wing and Democrat-aligned news media outlets — on Twitter in reference to the “extreme vetting” executive order:
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/donald_trump_travel_ban_tweet_twitter.jpg" alt="" width="739" height="420" /></div>
Trump’s use of the term “travel ban,” suggested Cuomo, was evidence of the “extreme vetting” executive order’s illegality.
Trump&#8217;s statements and policies, suggested Cuomo, would alienate Muslims. Alienated Muslims, he continued, would not cooperate with authorities to combat Islamic terrorism. In other words, otherwise patriotic Muslims in Western countries would not make efforts to prevent mass murder Islamic terrorist attacks in the absence of the president&#8217;s adoption of CNN&#8217;s preferred language and policies pertaining to Islam and Muslims.
Gorka maintained that Trump&#8217;s executive orders were not de facto bans on Muslims, noting that the majority of the world&#8217;s Muslims are not nationals of the seven Muslim-majority countries affected by the &#8220;extreme vetting&#8221; executive orders.
&#8220;I just think it&#8217;s fascinating that you will go to any degree not to criticize the last administration, but you will opine and spin conspiracies [relating to the Trump administration],&#8221; said Gorka. &#8220;That&#8217;s why your viewing figures are in the tank. &#8230; Unless you&#8217;re being mandatory in every airport in America, you&#8217;re in the tank, Chris. &#8230; You&#8217;re just comedy now, Chris.&#8221;
Cuomo presents himself as a politically objective and non-partisan news media figure. CNN similarly presents itself as a politically objective and non-partisan news media outlet, billing itself as “The Most Trusted Name In News.”
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bYbpKdeqivw?feature=oembed" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

donald_trump_travel_ban_tweet_twitter

Gorka To Cuomo: CNN Is ‘Fake News Propaganda … You’re Comedy, Now’

Fake News

Immigration

In the immediate aftermath of the London terror attacks, President Trump ran to Twitter to share his thoughts with the country. Here they were:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We need to be smart, vigilant and tough. We need the courts to give us back our rights. We need the Travel Ban as an extra level of safety!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871143765473406976">June 3, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Whatever the United States can do to help out in London and the U. K., we will be there &#8211; WE ARE WITH YOU. GOD BLESS!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871145660036378624">June 3, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don&#8217;t get smart it will only get worse
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871325606901895168">June 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is &#8220;no reason to be alarmed!&#8221;
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871328428963901440">June 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That&#8217;s because they used knives and a truck!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871331574649901056">June 4, 2017</a></blockquote>
He then added this morning, after receiving blowback from London Mayor Sadiq Khan:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Pathetic excuse by London Mayor Sadiq Khan who had to think fast on his &#8220;no reason to be alarmed&#8221; statement. MSM is working hard to sell it!
&#8212; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/871725780535062528">June 5, 2017</a></blockquote>
Trump isn&#8217;t actually wrong about any of this.
While the travel ban isn&#8217;t sufficient to protect Americans &#8212; as <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/445894/trump-travel-ban-executive-order-muslims-islam-sharia-supremacism-judge-derrick-watson">Andrew McCarthy</a> points out, we&#8217;d be far better off strengthening vetting standards than imposing blanket bans from countries where most terrorists have not sprung &#8212; it isn&#8217;t unreasonable to suggest that we&#8217;ll be safer if we&#8217;re not importing unvetted Muslim immigrants from terror-rich societies. Trump is absolutely correct about political correctness, of course, which prevents us from having necessary discussions about how to separate Muslims with shariah law aspirations from Muslims who believe in separation of mosque and state. Trump&#8217;s slam against Khan may have been uncalled-for &#8212; of course Khan called for calm in London &#8212; but he&#8217;s not technically wrong that it&#8217;s hard to tell your citizens to calm down while the entire police force is on the streets. And Trump is correct about the deleterious effects of gun control on self-defense capacity &#8212; Londoners were attempting to stop knife-wielding terrorists by hurling beer mugs at them, apparently.
Now, the question: was any of this particularly useful? Answer: no. It didn&#8217;t shift the debate. We could have had this debate on terms Trump would have liked had Trump waited 24 hours to make a well-crafted speech about the West&#8217;s need to keep its citizenry safe from the threat of Islamism.
Instead, the Left is glomming into Trump&#8217;s tweets to avoid talking about the real issues: the nature of radical Islam and the extent of its spread in the West; how to distinguish radical Muslims from reformers and moderate Muslims; what government policies are best calibrated toward these ends. The Left spent the first day following the London attacks fulminating over Trump&#8217;s tweets so they didn&#8217;t have to talk about this issues. Instead, CNN&#8217;s Reza Aslan called Trump a &#8220;piece of s***,&#8221; Sally Kohn tweeted about why political correctness is necessary, and most of the mainstream media wondered about the global political impact of Trump&#8217;s twitter account.
This says more about the Left than it says about Trump.
Trump says what comes into his head. That&#8217;s not useful. It&#8217;s counterproductive. But the Left uses Trump&#8217;s penchant for sounding off as a target because they don&#8217;t want to face up to the challenges faced by the West in the form of Islamism. That&#8217;s repulsive. It would be one thing to discuss the merits and demerits of Trump&#8217;s take on Islamism. But the media instead decided to focus on the appropriateness of Trump&#8217;s response while the bodies in London were still warm. That smacks of political opportunism. They&#8217;re more concerned with anti-Trumpism than anti-Islamism.

The Left Is More Interested In Fighting Trump Than In Fighting Islamism

On Sunday&#8217;s GPS, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria described his search for a “silver lining” in an analysis of Saturday’s Islamic terrorist attack in London, heralding the U.K.’s broad criminalization of firearm ownership (emphases added):
<blockquote>What is interesting about [the methods of the Islamic terrorists in London] to me is, it’s in many ways very low-tech. A van going into crowds, people brandishing knives and using them as weapons. Of course, guns are very hard to get in Britain. All of that, I’m maybe just trying to look for a silver lining — here, all of that means that they’re finding it hard to do big bombs at symbolic locations and that kinda of thing, and what they are reduced to is driving vans and using knives — which is of course terrible and tragic — but you can only kill so many people [without guns], particularly if the police respond as they did in this case.</blockquote>
On May 22, an Islamic terrorist detonated a suicide bomb at an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, killing 22 people and injuring 119 others. This did not involve firearms.
None of Zakaria’s “expert” guest panelists considered the preventative or deterrent aspects against Islamic terrorism of an armed citizenry lawfully possessing firearms.
Zakaria opposes the Second Amendment&#8217;s codification of the right to keep and bear arms. <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/10338/zakaria-data-clearly-proves-gun-house-makes-people-robert-kraychik">Last October</a>, he postured as a data-driven policy analyst by claiming that “data clearly proves” that household firearm possession “makes people less safe.” He will not, however, openly call for repealing the Second Amendment.
Despite hosting a weekly flagship show ostensibly dedicated to in-depth analyses of global affairs and international relations, Zakaria did not inquire about the overlaps between Islamic terrorism and Islam as a religion and ideology. He similarly neglected to examine the overlaps between Islamic terrorism and Muslims, or the calibration of contemporary immigration and refugee admission policies pertaining to Muslims.
At one point, Zakaria asked of Islamic terrorists in the U.K.: &#8220;Who are these people and why are they doing this?&#8221; He later described Islamic terrorism as &#8220;nihilistic&#8221; and &#8220;purposeless,&#8221; as if its perpetrators do not adhere to a coherent religious and political ideology.
Zakaria presents himself as a politically objective and non-partisan news media figure. CNN similarly casts itself as politically objective and non-partisan in its presentation of news and information, marketing itself as “The Most Trusted Name In News.”
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.
<div></div>
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rk0X9dhjNf4?feature=oembed" width="480" height="270" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></div>

Zakaria’s ‘Silver Lining’: At Least London Terrorists Didn’t Have Guns!

Ariana Grande

Gun Control

London

On Sunday, CNN&#8217;s Jake Tapper claimed that recent Islamic terrorist attacks in London had no analogues in America. He also refused to qualify Saturday night&#8217;s mass-murder Islamic terrorist attack in the U.K.&#8217;s capital as related to Islam or Muslims.

Tapper made his claims and omissions during a State of the Union interview with Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA).

Tapper stated that mass-murder Islamic terrorist attacks as were recently seen in London &#8212; which he did not qualify as related to Islam or Muslims &#8212; had not happened in the homeland:

<blockquote>
Why do you think it is that we see these attacks in London, but we have not &#8212; knock on wood &#8212; seen such a thing happen here in the United States?
</blockquote>
Warner accepted the premise of Tapper&#8217;s question, claiming that Muslims were better &#8220;integrated&#8221; in America than in Europe. He did not explain the mechanism(s) of better integration.

Tapper and Warner repeatedly omitted adjectives such as &#8220;Islamic&#8221; or &#8220;Islamist&#8221; in their references to jihadist attacks.

At no point did Tapper ask any questions pertaining to recalibration of existing immigration or refugee admission policies relating to Muslims. Tapper also refused to inquire about the relationships between Islamic terrorism and Islam as an ideology and religion.

Tapper asked if Twitter, Facebook, and other internet-centric technology companies are &#8220;doing enough&#8221; to combat Islamic terrorism. No similar questions were asked about government authorities or Muslim communities. 

Warner suggested that internet-centric technology companies should &#8220;curate&#8221; content carried by their platforms &#8212; almost always created and owned by their users &#8212; to combat Islamic terrorism. Tapper did not ask him to explain how this could or should be done.

Tapper regularly describes himself as a politically objective and non-partisan news media figure. CNN similarly presents itself as an objective and non-partisan news media outlet, billing itself as &#8220;The Most Trusted Name In News.&#8221;


Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.
<div class="embed video fluid-video"><iframe loading="lazy" width="480" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lcioCaQRxpI?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

Tapper On London Attacks: ‘We Have Not Seen Such A Thing Happen’ In America

Jake Tapper

Below are five takeaways for political observers to note of President Donald Trump&#8217;s weekend trip to Saudi Arabia. His <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/19/world/middleeast/schedule-for-trump-first-trip-overseas.html">first foreign trip</a> will include time in Israel, the Vatican, Belgium, and Italy. He is joined by various administration officials, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
1. $350 BILLION U.S.-SAUDI DEAL
Tillerson and his Saudi counterpart Adel al-Jubeir announced the signing of a series of deals — a combined total value of over $350 billion — between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia during a joint Saturday <a href="https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2017/05/271005.htm">press conference</a>.
Most of the funds appear to be designated for the procurement of arms and related technologies by Saudi Arabia from U.S.-based companies.
The $350 billion is scheduled to be spent over a decade, with <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/05/20/president-trump-and-king-salman-sign-arms-deal">$110 billion</a> slated to be spent “<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/us-saudi-arabia-seal-weapons-deal-worth-nearly-110-billion-as-trump-begins-visit.html">immediately</a>” on arms.
Al-Jubeir described the costs as “investments” that will create “hundreds of thousands of jobs:”
<blockquote>In addition to the signing of this Strategic Vision Declaration, the two countries signed a series of agreements, both commercial as well as government to government; that involve trade, investment; that involve infrastructure, that involve technology, that involve defense sales; that involve Saudi investments in American infrastructure as well as American investments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, whether in the form of building up our defense manufacturing capability or other areas. The total value of those investments is in excess of $380 billion. I will not get into the details because I believe our colleagues have briefed the media about this extensively. We expect that these investments over the next 10 years or so will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in both the United States and in Saudi Arabia. They will lead to a transfer of technology from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, enhance our economy, and also enhance the American investments in Saudi Arabia, which already are the largest investments of anyone.</blockquote>
Tillerson also described the deal as a series of “investments” leading to the creation of “literally hundreds of thousands of American [and Saudi] jobs.”
<blockquote>As you heard Foreign Minister Jubeir mention, today we announced 23 foreign investment export licenses leading to upwards of more than $350 billion of historic direct investment; 109 billion of that is in arms sales to bolster the security of our Saudi partners. And these are going to result in literally hundreds of thousands of American jobs created by these direct investments in purchases of American goods, American equipment, American technology, but also investment into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as well.</blockquote>
The reason for the $30 billion discrepancy between the estimated totals provided by Tillerson and al-Jubeir is unclear.
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg/public/uploads/2017/05/rex_tillerson_adel_al-jubeir.jpg?itok=q8xfJ06c" alt="" width="780" height="500" /></div>
Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs Adel al-Jubeir (R) and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hold a press conference following a bilateral meeting in Riyadh on May 20, 2017.
2. TARGET: IRAN
Contrary to his predecessor’s <a href="https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2015/02/obamas-secret-iran-strategy/">approach toward Iran</a>, Trump — at least ostensibly — seeks to increase security cooperation with Saudi Arabia in an effort to counter Iran’s pursuit of regional hegemony. Iran was specifically mentioned in his Sunday speech in Riyadh, framed as a state sponsor of Islamic terrorism and aggressively belligerent in the Middle East:
<blockquote>But no discussion of stamping out [Islamist extremism] would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three — safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking of course of Iran.
From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.
It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.
Among Iran’s most tragic and destabilizing interventions have been in Syria. Bolstered by Iran, Assad has committed unspeakable crimes, and the United States has taken firm action in response to the use of banned chemical weapons by the Assad Regime — launching 59 tomahawk missiles at the Syrian air base from where that murderous attack originated.
Responsible nations must work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, eradicate ISIS, and restore stability to the region. The Iranian regime’s longest-suffering victims are its own people. Iran has a rich history and culture, but the people of Iran have endured hardship and despair under their leaders’ reckless pursuit of conflict and terror.
Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.
The decisions we make will affect countless lives.</blockquote>
Al-Jubeir and Tillerson also described the Iranian state as a threat to American and Saudi interests, with the former noting the Iranian government&#8217;s &#8220;support for terrorism&#8221; and the latter commenting on its &#8220;malign influence.&#8221;
&#8220;If Iran wants to be a normal country,&#8221; said al-Jubeir, &#8220;it has to act in accord with international law and the values and the morals of the international system that have existed for centuries.&#8221;
&#8220;Iran [must] cease its support for terrorism, adhere to the UN Security Council resolutions with regard to ballistic missiles, and cease its human rights violations. [It must end] its interference in the affairs of the country — of the region,&#8221; added al-Jubeir.
3. NO NATION-BUILDING
Barack Obama framed Islamic terrorism as a function of broad phenomena (&#8220;income inequality,&#8221; &#8220;climate change,&#8221; and &#8220;intolerance [of] minorities&#8221;) rather than a manifestation of a Islam in accordance with Islamic doctrine. Addressing these real or imagined phenomena in order to combat Islamic terrorism, in Obama&#8217;s view, requires social engineering programs both on state-by-state bases and via multistate collaborative efforts.
George Bush called for Western exportation of the values of human freedom. Liberty, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803.html">he said</a>, is &#8220;God&#8217;s gift to humanity.&#8221; Citing Natan Sharansky as a hero of his, he subscribed to the Soviet dissident&#8217;s and refusenik&#8217;s vision entitled, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Case-Democracy-Freedom-Overcome-Tyranny/dp/1586483544">The Case for Democracy: The Power Of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny And Terror</a>.&#8221; Defeating terrorism to usher in a new era of global peace, according to the 43rd president, would be best served by toppling totalitarian political systems and facilitating their replacement with liberal democracies. The values of human freedom and liberty, he said, are universal:
<blockquote>Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America&#8217;s gift to the world; it is God&#8217;s gift to humanity.</blockquote>
Trump&#8217;s declared foreign policy ethos is less ambitious that those of his predecessors&#8217; with respect to the proselytizing of his view of American values to non-Western societies. It is more narrow, or humble, in terms of pursuing America&#8217;s national interests:
<blockquote>America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all.
Here at this summit we will discuss many interests we share together. But above all we must be united in pursuing the one goal that transcends every other consideration. That goal is to meet history’s great test — to conquer extremism and vanquish the forces of terrorism.</blockquote>
4. MUSLIM REFUGEES SHOULD MOVE TO MUSLIM SOCIETIES
Muslims fleeing failed states such as Syria, suggested Trump, should regionally resettle in Muslim-majority and/or Islamic states where they can more easily integrate. Breaking from the calls of Democrats and the <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/12904/tapper-trumps-muslim-ban-might-get-somalis-killed-robert-kraychik">broader</a> <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/15253/tapper-uses-dead-babies-call-more-refugees-syria-robert-kraychik">left</a> to admit thousands, if not millions, of Muslim refugees and migrants from war-torn Muslim societies, Trump placed responsibility on the regional Middle Eastern states and societies to address the &#8220;<a href="https://www.worldvision.org/refugees-news-stories/syria-refugee-crisis-war-facts">Syria refugee crisis</a>:&#8221;
<blockquote>This region should not be a place from which refugees flee, but to which newcomers flock &#8230; Responsible nations must work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, eradicate ISIS, and restore stability to the region.</blockquote>
5. WHAT ABOUT ISLAM AND JIHAD?
Neither Trump nor Tillerson spoke directly to cultural, social, or political pathologies within Muslim societies that foment Islamic terrorism. Barack Obama, Democrats, and the broader left regularly deny the overlaps between Islam, Muslims, and Islamic terrorism; framing Islamic terrorism as an aberration or corruption of Islamic theology and/or ideology.
Obama described the Islamic State (ISIS) as &#8220;not Islamic.&#8221; Bush said, &#8220;Islam is peace.&#8221; Trump sought to link Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as belonging to a trio of &#8220;Abrahamic faiths.&#8221;
Despite Tillerson&#8217;s recent descriptions of Islamic terrorism as &#8220;violent extremism&#8221; (a term deployed by Obama and his political allies to divorce Islamic terrorism from Islam and Muslims), Trump did <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16687/djts-saudi-arabia-speech-full-text-and-video-daily-wire">depart from his speech&#8217;s text</a> to specify the threat of &#8220;Islamic terror.&#8221;
Ayaan Hirsi Ali <a href="http://www.dailywire.com/news/16267/ayaan-hirsi-ali-quranmuhammed-central-islamic-robert-kraychik">describes</a> Islamic terrorism as a feature of Islam, rather than an anomaly. Understanding the origins of Islamic terrorism requires understanding Islamic doctrine, she says.
Trump did not directly acknowledge the role of the Saudi government and Saudi-based organizations in international promulgation of brands of Islam such as Wahabism.
<div class="image"><img decoding="async" loading="lazy" src="https://www.dailywire.com/sites/default/files/styles/wysiwyg/public/uploads/2017/05/donald_trump_saudi_arabia_king_salman.jpg?itok=vsX0wKHJ" alt="" width="780" height="705" /></div>
U.S. President Donald Trump (L) and Saudi Arabia&#8217;s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (R) attend the Arabic Islamic American Summit at King Abdul Aziz International Conference Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on May 21, 2017
Follow Robert Kraychik on <a href="https://twitter.com/kr3ch3k">Twitter</a>.

Menu