Source: The Daily Herald, By STEPHEN ROWLAND Special to The Daily Herald, September 19, 2017
Last week, an investigative journalist published an expose on a mosque in New Hampshire that apparently is preaching “jihad.”
Investigator Dave Gaubatz found a lot of material promoting jihad — it’s not the peaceful type of jihad in gaining control over one’s own character. It’s the violent conquer-the-world type.
As an example, one pamphlet states “Islam is a revolutionary ideology and program which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world… Jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle and utmost exertion which the Islamic Party brings into play to achieve this objective… Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution …”
What did the chairman of the Islamic Society of New Hampshire (Mohammed Ewiess) have to say about it?
“These unsubstantiated charges are full of lies and have spread distrust of his community.”
What did Alderman Chairman Patrick Long have to say about it?
“Personally this hate talk has no place in this city.”
Alderman-at-Large Dan O’Neil chimed in with, “There is no need in the city of Manchester for hatred. I know this board won’t stand for it; our citizens won’t stand for it.”
New Hampshire Police Chief Nick Willard echoed those sentiments by stating, “Gaubatz stokes the flames of fear, but he does so through hatred, bigotry and intolerance. His Islomophobia has no place in our country …”
Political correctness produces this typical knee-jerk reaction whenever a mosque is investigated for promoting violent jihad.
What prior research has shown definitively is that violent jihad literature is more the norm in American mosques than the exception.
Back in 1998, a Sufi leader by the name of Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani personally visited 114 mosques in our United States. In his testimony at a State Department Open Forum (Jan 1999), his opinion was that about 80 percent of mosques taught “extremist ideology.”
In 2005, the Center for Religious Freedom conducted a study and found that upwards of 80 percent of the mosques here in our freedom loving United States were preaching hatred toward the Jews and Christians along with the necessity of imposing Islamic rule.
In addition they discovered that in 84.5 percent of mosques, the violence-positive texts were recommended for study by the imam’s, and 58 percent of mosques had invited guest imam preachers who had already promoted violent jihad.
Considering the larger context of four different independent studies done over 13 years, all obtaining that same approximate 80 percent startling figure, just how intelligent do those remarks now appear by the New Hampshire alderman, police chief, and chairman of the Islamic Society?
When another mosque is investigated, why is it that the first thing out of local officials mouths is the ever so predictable “hatred” and “Islamophobia” charges?
I always had thought independent studies and facts were what we were supposed to base our opinions on rather than political left propaganda.
Can you imagine the public outcry that would ensue if a Christian church was found to be promoting hatred toward Muslims and violence towards non-Christians along with the overthrow of Islamic governments?
The headlines would fill TV screens for days. It wouldn’t matter a whit if it was only one or two churches; the mainstream media would have a field day with it.
However, when the shoe is on the other foot, 80 percent is non-newsworthy.