Does the First Amendment Protect the Religious Duty of Jihad?

Source: The Tennessee Council 4 Political Justice

The First Amendment protects our freedom of religion and speech. Does our Constitution also protect preaching the duty of jihad to Muslims?

The certified English translation of codified Islamic sharia law is “Reliance of the Traveller, the Classic Manual of Sacred Islamic Law.” The compilation was authenticated by both the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) and Al Ahzar University in Cairo, the preeminent teaching center of sharia law.

Islamic sharia law says that both the greater and lesser jihad are mandatory for believers. Islamists call violent jihad the “lesser jihad” and the spiritual struggle the “greater jihad.” But according to the Reliance of the Traveller, Section o9.0 the discussion of “jihad” begins this way:

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…”

“Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet…,including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. o9.0

Sharia law imposes a communal obligation regarding this “lesser jihad” recounting that “[i]n the time of the Prophet jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina.” (o9.1). Is the law’s emphasis on the violent jihad because it was Mohammed’s violent Medinian jihad (the offensive jihad), that helped spread Islam? Is it because every Muslim has a religious duty to convert “non-believers” either by persuasion or force?

If Mohammed is the perfect Muslim that all Muslims are to emulate and an imam in a mosque preaches jihad and a worshipper then commits jihad, is the imam’s speech protected religious speech or speech that incites violence which may not be protected by our constitution? For example:

former Islamic Center of Tennessee Imam Abdullah al Ansari directed his listeners (at 5:12), that “He [Allah] told us to fight the Jews and Christians. Fight them until they give jizya.  They give this protective tax from their hands and they are humiliated and subdued. If Islam, true Islam and true Muslims do not rule there will never be justice.” (almost word for word Koran 9:29; Reliance o9.8 – Objectives of Jihad p.602

Boston Imam Abdullah Faarooq exhorted the listening worshippers that “[y]ou must grab on to this rope, grab on to the typewriter, grab on to the shovel, grab on to the gun and the sword, dont be afraid to step out into this world and do your job.”

In 2009, the FBI estimated that “Imams preach jihad and extremism in 10 percent of the 2,000 mosques in the United States.” A 2011 random survey of 100 mosques by the Terrorism Research Initiative, found that 80% of the mosques preached jihad either through sermons and/or materials.

The California based Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) issues fatwas,(authoritative religious rulings that guide Muslims living in the West) on issues such as condoning death for apostates, marital rape and female genital mutilation.  AMJA also hosts an annual Imams training conference.

Regarding the instigation of offensive jihad in America, an AMJA fatwa translated from Arabic states that the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time. With our current capabilities, we are aspiring towards defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation. Allah Almighty knows best.

Memphis Imam Yasir Qadhi is a frequent speaker at the AMJA imams training conference. Shaykh Waleed Basyouni, the vice-president of Qadhi’s AlMaghrib Institute, is also on the AMJA fatwa committee.

In Incitement in the Mosques: Testing the Limits of Free Speech and Religious Liberty, University of Baltimore Law professor Kenneth Lasson explains that according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brandenberg case on free speech, “…the government could limit speech that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action that is likely to incite or produce such action.”

He notes that the First Amendment does not protect what he calls “camouflaged incitement” – “…language that can be considered coded speech, guns for hire, inducement by simulation or supplying how-to plans are all suspect.” He suggests that clerics deliver sermons with the intent to “encourage action… Religion moves followers to act on their beliefs.”

Bill Warner’s “Statistical Islam” shows that 98% of the Hadith and roughly three-quarters of the Siras references are to jihad of the sword (the “lesser jihad”).

So, against the backdrop of violent jihad like 9-11, the Boston marathon bombings, the Chattanooga murders, the Fort Hood killing spree, the murder of Pvt. Andrew Long by Abdulhakim Mohammed, is it incitement to violence when imams read from the Quran, the Sira and Hadith, and claim that Mohammed is the example for all Muslims to follow? Or press believers to follow Islamic sharia law? So, how close in time does the violent jihad have to be to be considered “imminent”? And last but not least, should these imams be protected by the First Amendment if they preach the religious duty of the “lesser” jihad?


Law professor Kenneth Lasson gives a pragmatic answer: “[t]errorism creates a kind of permanent imminence. When messages advocating murderous violence are heard by large numbers of people, the government should have the authority to stop the speakers. There is no democratic value in protecting clerics who exhort their listeners to kill Jews and Americans wherever you can find them.” [END]

More on the misconception of a lesser and greater jihad…from Islamic sources:  Jihad: The Highest Peak of Islam

Jihad an-Nafs

Some have attempted to justify their stance on this concept with what is apparently intended as a daleel (Islamic evidence), and so have used a narration to justify this concept of Jihad an-Nafs or dealing with all the political and military problems we face by becoming introspective or looking inwardly as opposed to looking at the Ahkam Shari’ah and seeing what Allah (Subhanahu Wa ta’ala) has demanded from us.

So they use what they claim is a hadith, or saying of Muhammad (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), “We have returned from the lesser Jihad to the greater Jihad, that is the struggle against the evil of oneself.” This is in fact a fabrication and is known as Mawdu’ (spurious). Hafidh al Iraqi and Ibn Hajar al Asqalani, who were hadith masters and muhaditheen, who memorised one hundred thousand hadith by Isnad and were qualified to scrutinise hadith and their authenticity, stated that this was not a saying of the Messenger of Allah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) but was in fact a statement that was made by someone in the later generation named Ibrahim ibn Abi Yabla. Hence, this is not considered an evidence in the Islamic Shari’ah.

To elaborate further, it is in contradiction with the subject matter of Jihad that has been elaborated in over a hundred ayat of the Qur’an that have come with the meaning of Jihad being Qitaal, which means to slay or to kill or to fight. This was how the Prophet (Sallallahu Sallallahu “>Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah (ra) understood it. To give an example from the Seerah that was narrated by Ibn Majah with a source in Bukhari, woman came to the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and asked “O Messenger of Allah! Is Jihad obliged upon the women?” To which he responded, “Yes, a Jihad without Qitaal (fighting), it is the Hajj and the Umrah!”

This clearly demonstrates that Jihad is Qitaal i.e. Jihad is undertaking the physical fighting and this is how it was understood by the woman and the Prophet (Sallallahu Sallallahu “>Alaihi Wasallam), as explained in the Prophet’s (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) answer i.e. Jihad in Islam means fighting.

It’s long but worth the time to see what Muslims teach each other.

New York: Murderer turned prison imam wages legal jihad after smuggling razors into prison

Source: Black jail imam says discrimination, not razors in his bag, got him fired | New York Post  h/t TROP

A former New York jail chaplain who was axed in 2010 after security officers at the Manhattan Detention Complex downtown found razor blades and scissors in his bag is now suing the city and the Department of Correction for at least $2 million, saying he was unfairly ousted because he is Muslim and black.

In the Manhattan Supreme Court suit filed Tuesday, Imam Zulqarnain Abdu-Shahid claims he thought he had surrendered the items as he left security at the jail, known as The Tombs, and was then “surprised” to find the contraband “had been placed” back in his satchel when he stopped by the locker room.


The 56-year-old father of three immediately returned to security to surrender the items, the papers say, but was promptly cuffed and paraded through the facility.

He was then arrested and charged with four felony counts of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, and four misdemeanor counts of promoting prison contraband in the second degree.

Following Abdu-Shahid’s arrest, a videotaped search of his room at the facility was conducted, the papers say.

On the recording, the corrections officer directing the search can be heard snidely asking if they might find “jihad” on some of the recovered tapes.

The Staten Island resident was later cleared of any wrongdoing by two grand juries, but was still terminated.

Abdu-Shahid charges that, during his 20 years as a chaplain for the facility, he “witnessed numerous fellow employees mistakenly bring through security items that were considered contraband.”

Abdu-Shahid — formerly named Paul Pitts — has done time himself, serving 14 years in prison for murder after he and three others held up a Harlem supermarket in 1976 and left a customer dead. He was also arrested on rape charges in the 1960s, but those charges were dismissed.

A spokesman with the city law department said they “will review the complaint.”

Why did he wait six years to wage his jihad?

Texas: Muslim refugee, former Army interpreter who joined ISIS gets 4 years

He should get an immediate deportation. But no mention of that in the article. So what happens when he is out in a year or two? How many jihadis will he recruit and train in prison? At the mosque after his release? Source: Man Who Admitted To Lying To FBI About ISIS Sentenced To 4 Years In Prison « CBS Dallas / Fort Worth

The Mesquite man who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his travels to fight with ISIS has been sentenced to four years in prison and three years supervised release.

Bilal Abood told FBI agents he intended to travel to Iraq two years ago to visit family when his real intentions were to go to Syria and take up arms.

I.e., wage jihad…to create an Islamic state…governed by sharia law.

Abood never made the trip, because he was stopped before boarding a plane at Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. But weeks later he got on a plane in Mexico City, traveled to Syria, then Turkey, and fought alongside the terrorist group ISIS. He later pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State.

From a previous post, this Muslim refugee was formerly an interpreter for the U.S. Army.

Abood pledged allegiance over social media to the leader of ISIS and forwarded propaganda from the terrorist network, prosecutors said. He also traveled to Syria, against the warning of the FBI, according to prosecutors.

He was stopped at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport and in San Antonio the first two times he tried to travel abroad but later crossed into Mexico and traveled to Syria through Turkey to fight with the Free Syrian Army, authorities say.

When the FBI questioned him in March 2013 about his travel plans, he told agents he was going to Iraq to visit family.

A week later, FBI agents asked whether he was going to travel to Syria to fight. Abood denied that at first but later “admitted that his intent was to go to Syria to fight [Syrian President Bashar] Assad’s regime,” documents show.

But the FBI said Abood’s real reason for trying to travel abroad was to fight jihad and die a martyr.

In July 2014, the FBI searched Abood’s computers and found that he pledged an oath to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State.

The search also found that he had been viewing Islamic State propaganda, such as beheadings, and had used his Twitter account to share information about al-Baghdadi. Prosecutors said the material could be used to recruit others to the ISIS cause.

Abood, who came to the U.S. in 2009 from his native Iraq, has no family in the U.S. but was living with his girlfriend in a Mesquite apartment since 2010, according to court testimony. He is a former security guard who’s been unemployed for the past two years.

He worked as an interpreter for the U.S. Army in Iraq during the Gulf war and took advantage of a benefit that’s offered for that work to emigrate to the U.S. and gain citizenship here.

Abood went through the U.S. Army’s basic training but did not end up a soldier for some reason. The government said his military training in weapons, communications and other areas made him a threat.

More from the link above:

The fact the 37-year-old made it out of the country, returned, and then wasn’t arrested until two years later is not what former Dallas FBI chief Danny Defenbaugh would expect. “I’m extremely concerned, but I’ve been concerned anyway,” he said. “You look to your southern border and it’s still completely porous, even after what 14 years with them knowing [what happened on] 9/11/2001.”

Defenbaugh says the crime of Making a False Statement to a Federal Agency is an old charge that is gaining new traction. “At one time it is very rarely used, now I think that they’re [federal officials] using it greatly because you get a lot of these individuals who are going to make false statements and think that they can get away with it.”

According to court documents, Abood is a naturalized U.S citizen who immigrated to the United States from Iraq in 2009.

This case covers several, but not all, key reasons why banning Muslims is imperative:

  • the military can’t vet them
  • the FBI can’t vet them
  • they will lie during the vetting process anyway (taqiyya)
  • the FBI can’t prevent them from going to wage jihad nor track them after they go and wage jihad
  • they use U.S. military training as jihad training
  • they probably cannot be trusted as interpreters
  • judges won’t deport them even after they are caught red-handed
  • they will recruit and convert others to wage jihad

Shall we go on? Are these they types of translators that Congress cut U.S. Veterans’ Benefits to Pay for Muslim Immigrant Visas?

PS: Ted Cruz’s state is a top destination for Muslim immigrants and refugees and the list of jihadis caught there is growing. Houston in particular.

Vermont: Military College Changes Uniform Code for Muslim Hijabi


Source: The Citadel rejected her hijab, but another military school embraces Muslim student’s request – The Washington Post

Norwich University, a nearly 200-year-old private military college in Vermont, has granted an accepted student’s request to wear hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, a decision that was welcomed by some but also provoked outrage for some alumni and cadets.

The same student requested a similar exception to the required uniform from The Citadel, touching off a highly charged debate at the public military college in South Carolina where loyalty to the corps is a fundamental value and individual preferences are set aside to encourage unity. The idea that the first exception might be for a Muslim student was particularly polarizing, given the national discussion and starkly divergent views about the role of Islam in U.S. culture.

The Citadel denied her request.

It was the first formal request for a religious accommodation to the uniform at Norwich, spokeswoman Daphne Larkin said, so they reached out to peer institutions “and came to the conclusion that it makes sense for Norwich to continue to be dynamic in how we serve our students.”

“Regardless of their spiritual or religious affiliation, all students and employees should feel welcome and comfortable at Norwich University,” Norwich President Richard Schneider wrote in announcing the exception to the required Corps of Cadets uniform. “Norwich University is a learning community that is American in character yet global in perspective.”

Jewish cadets will also now be allowed to wear a yarmulke.

[Removed comment by terror group the Council on American Islamic Relations aka CAIR]


Some alumni were quite upset. “It’s the first private military academy” in the country, said Spencer Jacobs, who just graduated from a place that has been abiding by “the same guiding values for the last 200  years. The fact that this is changing right now is totally crazy.

“We have a common goal: Allegiance to the Corps of Cadets. …  You have to live by the Norwich founding values. We encourage service to the nation and to others before ourselves. We put our uniformity before our self and work as a team.”

Jacobs, who was raised Jewish and converted to Christianity, said he respects the student’s religious convictions and her desire to practice her faith, and he respects the decision of the commandant. He loves Norwich, which he said taught him leadership, courage, honestly and selflessness. “But if you allow one person to come in and wear the hijab I’m sure anyone can come in and request any kind of accommodation.”

The university has a civilian program, he said, but those who elect the challenge and unity of the Corps of Cadets arrive on campus with little other than a few pairs of white boxers, white T-shirts and socks. “If you have a cross outside of your uniform you’re out of uniform…. Everyone is supposed to look the same because everyone is the same. Everyone is treated the same.”

Benjamin Polizotti, who attend Norwich for his undergraduate and graduate education, designed a multicultural center in Boston for his master’s thesis for the architecture degree he just received; “I’m all for diversity, all for coexistence, all for equality among all people,” he said. “… But my overall stance is the military is not a social experiment. It serves a single purpose – to ensure the safety and freedom of Americans and humans around the world. Norwich is no exception. It’s an asset to the U.S. military. Its job is to train responsible and capable leaders, not to cater to special interests.”

Allowing one exception will inevitably lead to more, he said. “It’ll start to spiral out of control … eventually people will say, ‘I don’t want to wear the uniform because it’s uncomfortable, or infringes on my right to express myself.”

Arriving on campus is like basic training, he said. “It strips one of individuality in order to promote being part of a dynamic team. It instills service before self as a guiding value of Norwich University. Camaraderie and cohesiveness, in my opinion, are the two traits that bind the team together. And individuality is corrosive to those values. This isn’t an argument against Islam or wearing a hijab. It’s all cultures, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism. The reason everyone in the military and at Norwich wears a uniform is everyone is equal – everyone is the same – and everyone is part of something bigger than themselves.

Unless you are Muslim – then it’s only about Islam…and all the rules are changed. Even if The Qur’an Does Not Mandate Hijab writes Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. President Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.

“… as long as the dresses are not revealing or too tight, cultural variations can add tremendous diversity in the fulfillment of this guideline.  Hijab, a terminology that is NOT to be found in the Qur’an or Hadith in the context of dress code.”  Ibrahim Syed refers to Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl’s studies of the Qur’an and Islamic law.  Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl is an accomplished Islamic jurist and scholar, and a Professor of Law at the UCLA’s School of Law.  He previously taught Islamic law at the University of Texas, Yale Law School and Princeton University.   A high-ranking Shaykh, Dr. Abou El Fadl also received formal training in Islamic jurisprudence in Egypt and Kuwait.  Ibrahim Syed writes “Abou El Fadl argues that in contemporary Muslim societies people tend to become authoritative by imposing a single viewpoint to the total exclusion of others. Shariah (Islamic law) is then invoked to quash debate by people who are themselves not adequately qualified to do so.”

Pew Research found that only forty three percent (43%) of American Muslim women wear hijabs according a National Public Radio report.  The majority of American Muslim women do NOT wear hijabs.    Rasmieyh Abdelnabi, 27, grew up attending an Islamic school in Bridgeview, Ill., a tiny Arab enclave on Chicago’s southwest side. It’s a place where most Muslim women wear the hijab.  Abdelnabi explains why she stopped wearing the hijab.  She says that Islam teaches modesty — but wearing the hijab is taking it a step too far.  “I’ve done my research, and I don’t feel its foundation is from Islam,” she says. “I think it comes from Arab culture.”  Read more at

There is little debate online as to whether the Qu’ ran mentions hijabs because it does not.  Wearing a hijab is clearly driven by culture and custom and is not a religious requirement.  However, Islamists who want to Islamize America instead of assimilate into American culture are pushing these Sharia style customs.

The hijab is a symbol of oppression that is fostered by strict adherents of Sharia law which is antithetical to the rights afforded under the United States Constitution.  Changing the dress code to accommodate the wearing of the hijab dangerously elevates Sharia over the United States Constitution.


Confession: ‘I was Raised by an Islamic Terror Cult in America’

Source: Exclusive: ‘I was Raised by an Islamist Terror Cult in America’ | Clarion Project  h/t

The Clarion Project has been in contact with a woman who grew up within Jamaat ul-Fuqra, a cultish Sufi Islamist terrorist group that now goes by the name of Muslims of the Americas.

The group is best known for establishing “Islamic villages” on U.S. soil, for example, its “Islamberg” headquarters in New York state.

She has agreed to anonymously come forward with her heartbreaking story. We have removed details for her safety. She provided photographs and specific facts that are unavailable in the public sphere that we subsequently confirmed.

The following is her testimony provided to Clarion Project national security analyst Ryan Mauro. It is one of the very few first-hand testimonies from someone who was inside Jamaat ul-Fuqra when it committed terrorism under that name:

I still know many Muslims and I know that Jamaat ul-Fuqra is nothing like them, but there are violent ones who will take issue with what I say and do. They believe you should be killed if you decide not to be Muslim or practice Islam the way they do because, to them, it’s “apostasy,” and that’s a capital offense under Islam. I do believe some of those violent Muslims may attempt to kill me.

From my point of view as a kid in Michigan, everything was great even though my mom and dad got a divorce and I was living with my mom. My first introduction to X [a Fuqra member] was when he hit me for breaking rules I knew nothing about. My name was also changed to be Islamic.

We lived at 52 Ferris Street in Highland Park, Michigan, a three-story building with six apartments on each floor. The entire building was occupied by black Muslims, some who came from Detroit. Non-Muslims were not allowed to move in. Armed guards were at the front entrance.

Living in the building was like living in a Muslim country.

There’s much more, read it all at Clarion Project.

Creeping Sharia archives on Jamaat ul-Fuqra here.

Hollywood Chooses Swank Sharia-Owned Hotel Over LGBT Boycott


Source: Polo Lounge Rises Back to Heights of Power Lunch Ranks After Fizzled Boycott – Hollywood Reporter

Hollywood shunned the beloved Beverly Hills Hotel spot in 2014 over its owner the Sultan of Brunei’s implementation of anti-gay laws, but the industry gradually has crept its way back to the old-school eatery, now at No. 6 on THR’s annual list.

“It’s back,” declares WME partner Richard Weitz.

The movie musical? Jazzercise? The Hummer? No, what Weitz is referring to is the Polo Lounge.

For a while, it wasn’t looking too good for the old-school haunt at the Beverly Hills Hotel. It had plummeted in The Hollywood Reporter‘s annual Power Lunch survey to No. 22 from No. 2 between 2014 and 2015.

That was after a boycott led by the Human Rights Campaign — in response to the Sultan of Brunei’s new anti-gay policies in his country — gained traction.

At the height of the protest, in May 2014, the restaurant was a ghost town, as evidenced by a THR lunchtime visit. Stars like Jay Leno showed up to protest the implementation of Sharia law in Brunei and major philanthropic events chaired by the likes of J.J. Abrams and Jeffrey Katzenberg relocated to other facilities.

Ellen DeGeneres tweeted that she wouldn’t visit until the issue was resolved. Longtime guests Elton John and David Furnish stated, “We can’t lie in a suite at the Beverly Hills and ignore the fact that the hotel is stained with the blood of gay people.”

Yet the shunning was short-lived, whether due to questions over its efficacy or merely the lure of those McCarthy salads (“a favorite,” says philanthropist Barbara Davis).

By last year, visitors who are either out or maintain close ties to the LGBTQ community had returned to the hotel, including Megan Ellison, Miley Cyrus and Dita Von Teese.

Now the love fest is fully in session once again for what awards consultant Lisa Taback calls the “iconic” patio and reality TV producer Arthur Smith describes as “an hour of vacation in the middle of day.”

Previous posts on the boycott here:

Hollywood catches sudden case of Islamophobia, protests sharia

John Legend catches Islamophobia, boycotts Beverly Hills Hotel, sharia law in Brunei

Muslim Congressman (D – Caliphate) Bullies Muslims Who Don’t Want Terrorists in the US

Remember, there is no freedom in Islam, only submission. Keith Hakim X. Ellison (D – Caliphate) is doing his best to remind Muslims who prefer to keep Muslim terrorists out of the U.S. that should not think on their own. Ellison presides over the top Muslim terror recruiting hotspot in the U.S. and has done nothing but aid and abet the recruiters and those who have gone overseas to wage jihad. Yet he verbally bullies and attempts to intimidate Muslims who support Donald Trump.



Source: Dem Rep Ellison: ‘Muslims Who Support Trump Is Like Chickens for Colonel Sanders’ – Breitbart

Tuesday at an event at the National Press Club, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) took aim at Muslims who support presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, likening them to “chickens for Colonel Sanders” of Kentucky Fried Chicken fast food restaurant fame.

Ellison said, “Muslims who support Trump is like chickens for Colonel Sanders. You know what I mean? You think that you are going to be the chicken who doesn’t get fired up?  Well I think you better guess again.”

So, what do you call a Muslim congressman who supports Muslim terrorists? 


Keith Ellison petitions Congress for jailed Muslim Brotherhood member

Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison Introduces Bill to Import More Muslim “Refugees” Faster

Muslim Congressman Ellison doesn’t want investigation into Muslim radicals

Keith Ellison’s Stealth Jihad



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56,202 other followers

%d bloggers like this: