Nonie Darwish : Urgent Messages to the Muslim World

Urgent Messages to the Muslim World

by Nonie Darwish
March 22, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10036/messages-to-muslim-world

• A dangerous message is being sent to the Muslim world by the West: There is nothing that moderate Muslims or anyone else should fear from radical Islamic terrorism! Look at us Western governments! We are bringing in refugees who cannot be vetted even if they are ISIS infiltrators. In fact, we in the West are so goodhearted that we are encouraging many organizations to operate legally in the West under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood -- even organizations that are sympathetic to the terrorist group Hamas and that are pledging to overthrow us!
• The West, by taking all the Syrian refugees, is emptying Syria of any kind of resistance to the Caliphate (ISIS). The West's compassion, by taking in the refugees escaping ISIS, will end up leaving only the radicals to rule unopposed in Syria and Iraq. This, in US foreign policy, is not compassion; it is gross negligence and reckless endangerment.
• "Tough love" is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We must say: No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot accept you forcing your way of life on the world; your way of life is unacceptable to us. Before you send your refugees, you must end your "us against them" jihadist culture. The civilized world no longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.

The first reaction of the U.S. after 9/11 should have been to stop visas from all majority-Muslim countries, except for those of utmost importance. But our politicians' hands were tied -- not by fear of a backlash from Islamic countries, which probably expected a U.S. boycott, but by fear of a backlash from the Western media and Western progressives.

The decision to keep Muslims, refugees and others pouring into the US after 9/11 was wrong and has not done Islam and Muslim reformers a favor. Here is why:

The chaos and bloodshed in the Muslim world, even in the most moderate of Muslim nations, such as Turkey, is between Muslims who want to enforce Islamic sharia law, totally and upon everyone by a theocratic government, and those who want less sharia by installing military rule. The West does not understand that the only form of government that can stand up to a totalitarian Islamic theocracy is a military one and no other. Who could imagine that a military junta could be considered the only savior from Islamic tyrannies that require everyone to live totally, 100%, under the laws of sharia?

When former U.S. President Barack Obama honored the Muslim Brotherhood with his first major speech as president, who were his guests of honor in the first rows? Leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The less-radical Islamist military form of governments in the Middle East were left out and thus weakened.
Then Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who had a murky relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, got the message. He did not attend. With Obama's move, the balance of power between the two combative forces over control of government immediately favored the Muslim Brotherhood. It officially, for the first time since its founding in 1928, took control of the Egyptian government after the 2011 chaos of the "Arab Spring."
A year later, 22 million Egyptians had to undergo a bloody counter-revolution to bring back the type of government Egyptians have always favored over an Islamic theocracy.

When former U.S. President Barack Obama gave his first major Presidential speech in Cairo, in 2009, his guests of honor in the first rows were leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. The less-radical Islamist military form of governments in the Middle East were left out and thus weakened. (Image source: White House)

Now, another, dangerous, message is being sent to the ordinary citizens of the Muslim world by the liberal West: There is nothing that moderate Muslims or anyone else should fear from the possible infiltration of radical Islam! Look at us, Western governments! We are bringing in refugees who cannot be vetted even if they are ISIS infiltrators. Although the Muslim Brotherhood is illegal and considered a terrorist organization in several Muslim countries, we in the West do not mind them at all. In fact, we in the West are so kind-hearted and welcoming that we are encouraging many organizations to operate legally in the West under the banner of the Muslim Brotherhood -- even organizations that are sympathetic to the terrorist group Hamas and that are pledging to overthrow us! See how we are courageous, self-confident and free of "Islamophobia"!

By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood as not dangerous to free societies and by bringing in refugees from terror-infested areas of the Middle East, we are sending a message to moderate Muslims in the Middle East: Citizens in the West are not even bothering to protect their free system from being conquered by sharia-lovers, so perhaps the dreams of the Caliphate are not that bad after all.

The West, by taking all the Syrian refugees, is not just sending the above "unintended" message; it is also emptying Syria of any kind of resistance to the Caliphate (ISIS). The West's compassion, by taking in the refugees escaping ISIS, will end up leaving only the radicals to rule unopposed in Syria and Iraq.

A US foreign policy that recommends absorbing unvetted Muslim refugees has been advocated as compassion, but in fact it is gross negligence and reckless endangerment to U.S. citizens, Western freedoms and democracy.
There are unintended consequences to rescuing all Muslim refugees:

• We are telling Muslim reformists, wrongly, especially in the Middle East, that there is nothing to fear from ISIS infiltration.
• By not declaring the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization we are yet again legitimizing and empowering it.
• By not showing the proper angry response to Islamic terrorism, the West is not perceived as gracious, but as weak.

By taking in Islam and its refugees without proper vetting, the West is not doing either Islam or Muslims any favor: for the reformists, it is shutting out any hope of reform.

Tough love is badly needed when dealing with the Muslim world. We must say: No, we cannot accept your jihadist aspirations. We cannot accept you forcing your way of life on the world; your way of life is unacceptable to us. Before you send your refugees, you must end your "us against them" jihadist culture. The civilized world no longer finds your aspirations for an Islamic Caliphate tolerable.
If the West has the courage to do that, perhaps one day history will attribute the reformation of Muslim world partly to strength and conviction of Western resolve against tyranny and human suffering.

Nonie Darwish, born and raised in Egypt, is the author of the new best-selling book, "Wholly Different; Why I chose Biblical Values over Islamic Values".

================

Canada: Bring on the Islamization!

by Judith Bergman
March 23, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10083/canada-islamization

• The mayor of Brampton, Ontario, Linda Jeffrey, was also seemingly unconcerned about the calls in Toronto to murder Jews.
• The political establishment also does not seem concerned that imams are saying that the Islamic ruling allowing slaves is still in force. Meanwhile, statistics show that when it comes to hate crimes, Jews are by far the most targeted group.
• No one -- neither media, nor politicians -- even bothered to ask whether there is a significant connection between the virulent Jew-hatred being preached in mosques and the disproportionately high occurrence of hate crimes against Jews. Instead, the entire Canadian parliament is preoccupied with banning "Islamophobia".

Imams in Canadian mosques have been inciting the killing of "infidels", primarily Jews, for years. This agitation appears to have had no visible impact on Canadian parliamentarians, evidently too busy with petitions and motions banning alleged "Islamophobia".
In 2009, for example, Toronto-area imam Said Rageah, at the Abu Huraira Centre, called on Allah to "destroy" the enemies of Islam from within and "damn" the "infidel" Jews and Christians.
"Allah protect us from the fitna [sedition, affliction] of these people; Allah protect us from the evil agenda of these people; Allah destroy them from within themselves, and do not allow them to raise their heads" prayed the imam.
In 2012, Sheikh Abdulqani Mursal, imam at Masjid Al Hikma mosque in Toronto, explained that Jews are destined to be killed by the Muslims. Citing text from a hadith, he said:

"You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them... Muslims [will] kill them until the Jews [will] hide themselves... and a stone or a tree [will] say: Muslim... there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him...."

In 2014, imam Sayed AlGhitawi, at Al Andalous Islamic Center in Montreal, prayed for success in jihad and the total destruction of the Jews:

"O Allah, give victory to our brothers who engage in jihad... destroy the accursed Jews... make their children orphans and their women widows... kill them one by one... do not leave any of them [alive]".

During the Muslim holiday of Ramadan in 2016, Imam Ayman Elkasrawy, of the Masjid Toronto mosque, said the following:

"...O Allah! Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them... Give us victory over the disbelieving people... Give victory to Islam... humiliate the ...polytheists... Destroy anyone who displaced the sons of the Muslims...Count their number; slay them one by one and spare not one of them... Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!"

Another imam in Toronto, Shaykh Abdool Hamid, recited similar prayers on at least eight occasions in 2015 and 2016.
In February 2017, after being exposed as an extremist by CIJ News, imam Ayman Elkasrawy apologized for his words, which, despite being posted on YouTube, were apparently not meant to reach non-Arabic speaking Canadians:

"Neither I, Masjid Toronto or the congregation harbour any form of hate towards Jews. And so I wish to apologize unreservedly for misspeaking during prayer last Ramadan... "

The head of the mosque, Dr. El-Tantawy Attia, assured the Toronto Sun that his mosque was not a radical mosque:

"It was a mistake. It was not authorized. It should not have happened and we have apologized and I have personally reached out to my Jewish friends... I was so upset. I was surprised. In 45 years here, I had never heard anything like that."

He also assured the Toronto Sun that he and the mosque would "get to the bottom of this through their own investigation". He also said that, pending the probe, the imam had been "suspended". The head of the mosque, however, then said that he doubts if Ayman Elkasrawy "really meant it". "We are about peace", he added.
Of course they are.
Even more astonishing than the disingenuous, mock-shock apology from the imam, was the staggering willingness on the part of the public to believe it. Instead of waiting for the police investigation, the Toronto Sun reported that, "People of all walks of life, and faiths, formed a 'ring around' the mosque to protect it from 'Islamophobia'".

Ayman Elkasrawy, imam of the Masjid Toronto mosque (front row, wearing white), said on video: "... slay them one by one and spare not one of them... Give us victory over the disbelieving people... Give victory to Islam... Purify Al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews!" (Image source: Video screenshot from Masjid Toronto via The Rebel)

The mayor of Brampton, Ontario, Linda Jeffrey, was also seemingly unconcerned about the calls in Toronto to murder Jews. Instead, she found time to criticize parents who were protesting Muslim Friday prayer sessions -- taking place on public school grounds, on school time and including prayers and sermons, usually in Arabic -- as "purveyors of misinformation and hateful speech."
While the political establishment is busy vilifying those who have legitimate reservations about the potential Islamization of the public school system, the University of Toronto at Mississauga employs a Muslim convert, Dr. Katherine Bullock, as a lecturer in the Department of Political Science. In November 2014, Bullock participated in a panel discussion organized by the Muslim Law Students Association at York University on counter-radicalization in Canada.
In her presentation, Bullock said that the West has it all wrong when it comes to the definition of Muslim radicals:

"So if you're an Iraqi nationalist who doesn't believe that the United States should be occupying your country and you fight against them, and you believe in the Caliphate, and you believe in Sharia, you are a radical, you've been radicalized. But from an Islamic point of view [there is] absolutely nothing radical about wanting Caliphate or wanting Sharia. These are completely normal traditional points of view".

At least Bullock is being honest.
The political establishment also does not seem concerned that imams are saying that the Islamic ruling allowing slaves is still in force. Dr. Ewis El Nagar, head of the Islamic Edicts Committee of the Quebec Council of Imams and leader of dawah (outreach, "call to Islam") at the Canadian Islamic Centre in Montreal, says that the Islamic ruling on marrying slave girls[1] was not abrogated and is applicable when "legitimate jihad" is launched against unbelievers.
Canada's political establishment also does not seem concerned with prominent imams who advocate wife-beating. The Muslim chaplain of the Canadian army, Dr. Mohammad Iqbal Masood Al-Nadvi - who is also the Chairperson of the Canadian Council of Imams and the President of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) Canada, a nation-wide organization with close ties to the terrorist group Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood -- explained the Quranic verse on wife-beating[2] in February 2015: "This is the point where for example Quran says... and Hadith says, if you are doing this thing, you can beat or can leave [avoid sleeping with the wife]... Just keep the issue among each other". In other words, it is fine to beat your wife, just keep it behind closed doors.
Meanwhile, statistics show that when it comes to hate crimes, Jews are by far the most targeted group in Canada. According to the Toronto Police Service Annual Hate/Bias Crime Statistical Report for 2015:

"The three most targeted groups since 2006 have been the Jewish community, the Black community and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ) community. In 2015, the Jewish community, followed by the LGBTQ community and the Muslim community were the most victimized groups. The three most reported criminal offences motivated by hate/bias in 2015 were mischief to property, assault and criminal harassment. The Jewish community was the most victimized group for mischief to property occurrences, while the LGBTQ community was the most victimized group for assault occurrences. The Muslim community was the most victimized group for criminal harassment occurrences".

According to the most recently available national data, between 2011 and 2013 Canadian Muslims suffered 15.1 hate crime incidents per 100,000 people. Canadian Jews, on the other hand, were the victims of 185.4 incidents per 100,000 people. That means, Jews were 12 times more likely to be targeted in hate crimes than Muslims.
Not only are Canadian politicians evidently unconcerned about this, despite the longevity of the problem, but no one -- neither media, nor politicians -- even bothered to ask whether there is a significant connection between the virulent Jew-hatred being preached in mosques, such as those mentioned above, and the disproportionately high occurrence of hate crimes against Jews. Instead, the entire Canadian parliament is preoccupied with banning "Islamophobia".

Judith Bergman is a writer, columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

---

[1] "O Prophet, We have made lawful for you your wives whose bridal dues you have paid, and the slave-girls you possess from among the prisoners of war..." — Quran 33:50.
[2] "Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them..." — Qur'an 4:34.

==============

Will the West Please Stop Siding with Criminals? (Women in Islam)

Will the West Please Stop Siding with Criminals?

by Khadija Khan
March 24, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10098/siding-with-criminals

• What is agonizing is that people either enjoyed or criticized the joyful act of a teenager, but no one seems to be noticing that this public trial and her forced apologies only mean further isolation for the young Muslim women.
• Most horrifying is that it seems that even the West has started to buy into the version of "modesty" that these extremists in the Middle East have been forcing on women.
• Why has no one -- especially politicized, self-absorbed women's groups -- come to help? Instead, as in the recent Women's March, they have been advocating for more women's imprisonment.
• It is important for as many people as possible, both in Britain and world-wide, to say how much they love her beautiful spirit and that they totally stand by her right to dance, sing, play or have fun.

The growth in systematic abuse of women, especially by Islamists in the West, requires democratic governments to introduce strong measures to stop this abuse, before abusive mullahs start harassing women of all faiths, to force them to submit to their wishes.

The recent threats and harassment of a British "Hijabi girl" by Islamists in Birmingham, England, merely for a video showing her dance, have re-exposed the ugly face of this autocratic mindset that owes its existence to extremist states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Enslaving women in general and inflicting repressive agendas -- such as domestic violence, sexual abuse, segregation, allowing no say in choosing a partner, education or profession, with abysmal living standards often part of the abuse -- is just a small measure of the jihad that the Islamists have managed to unleash across the globe.

The video of "Hijabi girl" (her name is not known), happily dancing in public, was recorded and uploaded to the internet by bystanders.
The video led to aggressive shaming and harassment of the girl by the local Islamist "morality police": men who ranted against her "impious" act and reportedly made her apologize publicly online.
Sobbing, she admitted how supposedly evil and shameless she was to have brought such dishonor to her family and religion.

It is important for as many people as possible, both in Great Britain and world-wide, to say how much they love her beautiful spirit and that they totally standby her right to dance, sing, play or have fun. These are very normal human activities.
Have things come to such a pass that now. even in Britain, only the most courageous can spontaneously express feelings of fun?

What is agonizing is that people either enjoyed or criticized the joyful act of a teenager, but no one seems to be noticing that this public trial and her forced apologies only mean further isolation for the young Muslim women.

To accept this coercion would be just a call on young Muslim girls to be quiet and submit, rather than ever even to think about showing their normal, lighter side. Most horrifying is that it seems that even the West has started to buy into the version of "modesty" that for centuries these extremists in the Middle East have been forcing on women.

The human rights groups seem to have become so apologetic towards the extremist abusers that they now turn their backs on the victims of these abuses -- the people who need human rights groups the most. Perhaps they believe that supporting the poor girl would mean offending Muslims or the "symbol of Islam" (hijab) -- which means they endorse the extremist version of Islam and the abuses that come with it.

The poor girl was shown no solidarity by any supposed champions of liberal causes. Instead, she was thrown to the hounds and left to face her torment alone.
It is also sad that the girl's family has probably also given up, possibly due to the threats, and possibly out of fear of these extremists.

The massively destructive, wrong-headed political policies of Western governments -- such as keeping silent on the abuses of women by Muslim extremists involving, for example, underage and forced marriages, female genital mutilation (FGM), sharia courts in the UK and accepting the existence of no-go zones where the extremists enjoy impunity and thrive -- are also to be blamed for the increase in violations of women's rights. Politicians and the policy-makers are apparently too scared of being accused of committing some fabricated "Islamophobia" or "infringing on the rights of Muslim citizens", so they choose to keep their eyes shut to the plight of these women.

An image from the video "Right to choose: Spotting the signs of forced marriage - Nayana", produced by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office. In 2013, 1,302 victims of forced marriage sought help from the British government's Forced Marriage Unit.

This is not an isolated incident in which a young Muslim girl was victimized by the extremists just for innocently being herself. In Canada, famous video blogger named Froggy, of Pakistani origin, suffered similar harassment. She was also vilified by puritanical extremists for wearing a hijab but living a Western lifestyle by hanging out with young men and uploading videos of teenage fun.

In Darmstadt, Germany, 19-year-old Lareeb Khan was killed in 2015 by her parents when she decided to take off her hijab and pursue a normal life. Her father, Asadullah Khan, claimed that he had killed his daughter to save the honour of his family. He alleged -- whether it is true or not we do not know -- that the girl was having sexual relations with a boy of whom her family disapproved.
Her mother admitted to being present at the time of Lareeb's murder, but claimed she could not rescue her due to both fear and illness. Lareeb's sister, Nida, however, stated that her mother was an accomplice to the crime, and used to thrash her.

In a pathetic attempt at exculpation, Lareeb's parents claimed that they were victims of the extremist Pakistani state and society. However, they chose, when they were given refuge and protection by a Western state, to impose similar abuses.
Extremists use shaming and harassment as punishment and deterrence for any woman in their communities who tries to break a barrier to regain her life.
This double edged-sword not only silences the victims of the abuse but also sends a message to the other women also not to try to escape their imprisonment.
Why has no one -- especially politicized, self-absorbed women's groups -- come to help? Instead, as in the recent Women's March, they have been advocating for more women's imprisonment.

The notion that a hijab or a conservative lifestyle is a matter of choice for Muslim women might sound sympathetic to Westerners. It is not. In reality, there is no choice. The supposed choice is, in fact, a one-way street from which trying to exit can cost a woman her life.

These extremist Muslims need to be taught by society itself that they must respect individual freedoms and equality -- by law.
Many liberal women, doubtlessly well-intended, seem love to wearing hijabs supposedly "in solidarity"; what they do not understand is that for millions and millions of Muslim women, who dare not say so, it is not a symbol of freedom and "protection" -- like a slave-owner "protecting" his property -- but of repression and imprisonment. It is forced upon women, now even in the West, and, worse, with the wholehearted complicity of the West.

It is also a time for governments purportedly in favour of human rights no longer to sweep these mafia tactics under the carpet.
It is time for politicians, governments, policy-makers, clerics, human rights groups and "liberals" to stop siding with criminals who commit assault, battery, and even murder, and to start protecting their citizens.

Khadija Khan is a Pakistan-based journalist and commentator.

================

Iran's Massacre and Rising Crimes Against Humanity

by Majid Rafizadeh
October 5, 2016 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9062/iran-massacre

• "You [Iranian officials] will be in the future etched in the annals of history as criminals. The greatest crime committed under the Islamic Republic, from the beginning of the Revolution until now, which will be condemned by history, is this crime [mass executions] committed by you." — Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
• Intriguingly, all those people whom Montazeri is addressing and warning in the audio, currently appear to enjoy high positions.

Iran's massacre of more than 30,000 people was recently disclosed by Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri's son, Ahmad, a moderate cleric, who posted a confidential audio of his father on his website but was ordered by Iran's intelligence service to remove it.

Born in Esfahan, Iran, Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri was one of the founding fathers of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He is a human rights activist, an Islamic theologian, and was the designated successor to the Islamic revolution's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, until the very last moments of Khomeini's life. His pictures were posted next to Khomeini's in the streets.
In the recording, Montazeri states:

"You [Iranian officials] will be in the future etched in the annals of history as criminals. The greatest crime committed under the Islamic Republic, from the beginning of the Revolution until now, which will be condemned by history, is this crime [mass executions] committed by you."

While some international human rights organizations, the Obama Administration and the United Nations appear to have turned a blind eye this massacre and other crimes against humanity, several officials have taken steps. A U.S. House of Representatives Resolution condemning the massacres and other executions was introduced by the House Homeland Security Chair, Mike McCaul, and cosponsored by Chairman Ed Royce, Ranking Member Eliot Engel, and Rules Committee Chair Pete Sessions. The resolution was introduced when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who heads a government that is ranked number one in the world for executions per capita, was addressing the 71^st Session of the United Nation General Assembly. During his speech, according to the Associated Press, an unprecedented number of protesters gathered in Dag Hammerskjold Plaza outside the UN -- including Senator Joe Lieberman, and Sir Geoffrey Robertson, former Head of the UN war crimes tribunal for Sierra Leone, who wrote a report on Iran's 1988 massacre that was published on the United Nations Arts Initiative website.
The House resolution states:

Whereas over a 4-month period in 1988, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran carried out the barbaric mass executions of thousands of political prisoners and many unrelated political groups;
Whereas according to a report by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, the massacre was carried out pursuant to a fatwa, or religious decree, issued by then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, that targeted the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI), also known as the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK);
Whereas according to a November 2, 2007, report by Amnesty International, "between 27 July 1988 and the end of that year, thousands of political prisoners [in Iran], including prisoners of conscience, were executed in prisons nationwide.";
Whereas according to Amnesty International, "the majority of those killed were supporters of the PMOI, but hundreds of members and supporters of other political groups ... were also among the execution victims.";

The resolution goes on to detail some of the most egregious crimes against humanity and "the greatest crime committed during the Islamic Republic, for which history will condemn us":

... the killings were carried out on the orders of a judge, an official from the Ministry of Intelligence, and a state prosecutor, known to the prisoners as "Death Commissions" which undertook proceedings in a manner designed to eliminate the regime's opponents;
Whereas those personally responsible for these mass executions include senior officials serving in the current Government of Iran;
Whereas prisoners were reportedly brought before the commissions and briefly questioned about their political affiliation, and any prisoner who refused to renounce his or her affiliation with groups perceived as enemies by the regime was then taken away for execution;
Whereas the victims included thousands of people, including teenagers and pregnant women, imprisoned merely for participating in peaceful street protests and for possessing political reading material, many of whom had already served or were currently serving prison sentences;
Whereas prisoners were executed in groups, some in mass hangings and others by firing squad, with their bodies disposed of in mass graves;

In addition: "the families of the executed were denied information about their loved ones and were prohibited from mourning them in public," and more fundamentally:

"The current Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was reportedly aware of, and later publicly condoned the massacre; Whereas in violation of its international obligations, the Government of Iran continues to systematically perpetrate gross violations of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian people;"

Intriguingly, all those people whom Montazeri is addressing and warning in the audio -- all of those who were involved in these crimes -- currently appear to enjoy high positions. Mostafa Pourmohammadi was a representative of the intelligence ministry at the notorious Evin Prison, and he was recently appointed by the so-called moderate President Hassan Rouhani to be justice minister. Ebrahim Raeisi was a public prosecutor and was appointed under Rouhani government to be the head of Astan Quds Razavi, which has billions of dollars in revenues. Hussein Ali Nayeri was a judge and is now a deputy of the Supreme Court of Iran.
In his memoir, Montazeri writes that he told Hussein Ali Nayeri to stop the executions at least in the month of Moharram, but Nayeri said: "We have executed 750 people in Tehran so far... once we finish the job with [execute] another 200 people, then we will listen to whatever you say". Montazeri wrote several letters to the Supreme Leader Khomeini as well, warning him.

Jahangir Razmi's Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of the execution of Kurdish men and others by the Iranian Islamic regime in 1979.

We should not solely view Iran from the prism of the nuclear deal.
To be on the right side of history and to stand for individual rights, human rights, social justice and liberty, Congress needs to take action, condemn the Iranian government, pressure Iran to provide more information for the families of the victims, and urge the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran and the UN Human Rights Council to open a full investigation, and create a commission, to follow up with this matter.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

===================

Iran's Monstrous Record in 2016

by Majid Rafizadeh
December 27, 2016 at 4:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/9621/iran-monstrous-record

• Tehran has not become a rational and moderate state. Iran has instead become more empowered and emboldened to pursue its revolutionary ideals of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
• When it comes to the JCPOA nuclear deal -- which Iran never signed -- Iranian leaders violated the deal three times in the past year.
• UN Security Council resolution 2231 is clear. The resolution "calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology."
• Iran also increased strategic and tactical cooperation with Russia to undermine US interests, strengthening the Russia-China-Iran axis.
• Iran ranks top in the world for executions per capita. Iran also became the world's leading executioner of juveniles.

In 2016, Iran reached an unprecedented level when it comes to breaking international laws. It expanded interventionist policies in the region; pursued revolutionary principles of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism; ignored several UN resolutions and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between the P5+1 and Tehran, which Iran never signed; continued regional hegemonic ambitions, and abused human rights.
With billions of dollars of revenue pouring into the pockets of Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Tehran did not become a rational and moderate state. Iran instead became more empowered and emboldened to pursue its revolutionary ideals of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.
Iran was listed as the top state sponsor of terrorism -- "providing a range of support, including financial, training, and equipment, to groups around the world."
When it comes to the JCPOA nuclear deal -- which Iran never signed -- Iranian leaders violated the deal three times.
The first violation was reported by Germany's domestic intelligence agency, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, in July 2016. The agency stated that the Iranian government was pursuing a "clandestine" path to obtain illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies "at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level." German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Iran, but no action was taken.
According to the nuclear deal, Iran should request permission from a UN Security Council panel for "purchases of nuclear direct-use goods", but Tehran did not. Another report by the Institute for Science and International Security drew attention to Iran's violation as well:

"The Institute for Science and International Security has learned that Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) recently made an attempt to purchase tons of controlled carbon fiber from a country. This attempt occurred after Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The attempt to acquire carbon fiber was denied by the supplier and its government. Nonetheless, the AEOI had enough carbon fiber to replace existing advanced centrifuge rotors and had no need for additional quantities over the next several years, let alone for tons of carbon fiber. This attempt thus raises concerns over whether Iran intends to abide by its JCPOA commitments. In particular, Iran may seek to stockpile the carbon fiber so as to be able to build advanced centrifuge rotors far beyond its current needs under the JCPOA, providing an advantage that would allow it to quickly build an advanced centrifuge enrichment plant if it chose to leave or disregard the JCPOA during the next few years. The carbon fiber procurement attempt is also another example of efforts by the P5+1 to keep secret problematic Iranian actions."

The next violation came in February 2016 as Iran exceeded its threshold for heavy water, used to produce nuclear weapons. In addition, in November 2016, according to a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran again violated the deal by holding more heavy water than permitted. Iran was let go free both times with no consequences.
Third, when it comes violating several UN resolutions, in 2016, Iran significantly ratcheted up its production of ballistic missiles.
Iran test-fired at least eight ballistic missiles, capable of carrying multiple nuclear heads, an act in violation of the nuclear deal, as well as United Nations resolutions 1929 and 2231.
The JCPOA states that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missile activity "until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier."
The UN Security Council resolution (Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231 of 2015) is clear. The resolution "calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology."
Another UN Security Council resolution, 1929, also states:

"Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities."

It is accurate to argue that if not for the Obama Administration's appeasement policies towards Iran, Tehran would not have received tremendous financial relief. Nevertheless, Iran's Supreme leader Khamenei who enjoys the final say in Iran's domestic and foreign policy, instigated more anti-American sentiments and continued lashing out at the "Great Satan". Iran publicly harassed the US Navy, detained US sailors, and imprisoned several American citizens. Khamenei also repeatedly threatened Israel and made incendiary remarks about wiping Israel from the face of earth in less than 8 minutes. In December 2016, Khamenei stated that Israel would not exist in 25 years. He also published a book laying out a plan on how to destroy Israel.

Regionally speaking, as Tehran became more heavily armed with additional revenues and weaponry, it has increased its military interventions in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and intensified its advisory, financial, weapons and intelligence assistance to its Shiite proxies and Bashar al Assad, bolstering the "Shia axis". Iran also increased strategic and tactical cooperation with Russia to undermine US interests, strengthening the Russia-China-Iran axis.
Finally, and more fundamentally, when it comes to human rights, Iran set some of the worst records since its establishment in 1979. According to the Human Rights Watch, 2016 saw Iran escalating the mass executions of minorities, and the imprisonment of human rights and political activists. Now, Iran ranks top in the world for executions per capita. Iran also became the world's leading executioner of juveniles, according to Amnesty International.
These are only some examples of Iran's disregard for international laws and its human rights abuses.
There is definitely a positive correlation between, on the one hand, Iran gaining more dollars and, on the other hand, breaching international laws, committing egregious human rights violations, spreading its revolutionary values of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, destabilizing the region, intensifying regional conflicts and humanitarian tragedies, and pursing its regional ambitions.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientists and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

==============

Majid Rafizadeh : As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals and Leftists

As a Muslim, I am Shocked by Liberals and Leftists

by Majid Rafizadeh
 

March 25, 2017 at 5:00 am

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10091/muslims-liberals-leftists

• It is the fear of this violence, torture and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.
• If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran, which execute people for expressing their opinion? And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them or even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say? They seem, in fact, like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.
• As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.
• Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values.

If you had grown up, as I did, between two authoritarian governments -- the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria -- under the leadership of people such as Hafez al Assad, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, you would have seen your youth influenced by two major denominations of Islam in the Muslim world: the Shia and the Sunni. I studied both, and at one point was even a devout Muslim. My parents, who still live in Iran and Syria, come from two different ethnic Muslim groups: Arab and Persian.

You also would have seen how the religion of Islam intertwines with politics, and how radical Islam rules a society through its religious laws, sharia. You would have witnessed how radical Islam can dominate and scrutinize people's day-to-day choices: in eating, clothing, socializing, entertainment, everything.

You would have seen the tentacles of its control close over every aspect of your life. You would have seen the way, wielded by fundamentalists, radical Islam can be a powerful tool for unbridled violence. It is the fear of this violence, torture, and death, wielded by extremist Muslims, that keeps every person desperate to obey.

My father was brutally tortured -- justified by some of the fundamentalist Islamic laws of the ruling governments in both Iran and Syria. The punishment extended to my mother, my family, and other relatives, who were tormented on a regular basis.
What was even more painful was, upon coming to the West, seeing the attitude of many people who label themselves liberals and leftists, towards radical Islam.

These liberals seem to view themselves as open-minded, but they have a preconceived way of thinking about Islam: to them, it seems, there is no radical Islam, Islam is only a force for the good, Islam can do no evil.

How could they not see the way extremist Muslims exploit some aspects of the religion of Islam to legitimize its acts? How could they not even acknowledge that radical Islam, a force that threatens to destroy the planet, let alone my family, exists?

Instead, many liberals would criticize me or attempt to turn a blind eye, as if I were accidentally making some embarrassing mistake. They seemed instead to love being surrounded by Western Muslim "scholars", those who are apologetic towards radical Islam and -- notably -- have never actually lived in a Muslim country under the strangling grip of the official fundamentalist laws, sharia.

Why do many liberals, who criticize Christianity and religious conviction in general, appear to open their arms to radical Islam so affectionately? Why are so many liberals, who call themselves the robust defenders of peace, social justice, and freedoms, apologetic for all types of fundamentalist Islamist laws?

If, as liberals argue, they support women's and LGBT rights, why, by their silence, do they condone gays executed and women subjugated on a daily basis throughout most of the enormous Muslim world?
If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech, why do they turn a blind eye to Islamist governments such as Iran that, based on the government's radical, theocratic laws, execute people for expressing their opinion?
And why do they not let people in the West express their opinion without attacking them before even giving them the respect of hearing what they have to say?

Liberals argue that they are in favor of critical thinking, but they do not like anyone challenging their "comfort zone". They seem, in fact, to be just like the autocratic people from whom I was fleeing, who also did not want their simplistic, binary way of thinking to be threatened by logic or fact.

Even if a person is from a Muslim country, and has direct experience with extremist Islam, many liberals will strenuously avoid this information. They seem not to want their apologetic view of radical Islam to be questioned or contradicted. They apparently have no desire to open their closed minds on the subject. The thought of a question evidently wounds them, as if an answer would mean that they were turning their backs on the ongoing crimes against humanity. How come, then, that so many liberals appear resistant to seeing that the crimes of radical Islam are those crimes against humanity? And at present, the largest?

Second, these liberals -- indulging in faulty, sophisitic, logic -- seem to think that if they criticize Christianity and Islamists criticize Christianity, then Islamists will like them for hating the same thing. In the same vein, many liberals hate the U.S. Republican government and many radical Muslim groups hate the U.S. Republican government, so perhaps many liberals think that Muslims will like them for hating the same government? Sadly, as these liberals will soon find out, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Third, and more fundamentally, sympathizing with all kinds of Islamist practices and radical Islam seems to fit a wider narrative of bashing the West and white people for "imperialism, colonialism, and any sense of superiority". Unfortunately that view fails to take into account that there have been no greater imperialists the Muslim armies; they conquered Persia, the great Christian Byzantine Empire in Turkey, North Africa and the Middle East, virtually all of Eastern Europe, most of Spain, and Greece.

As, in Islam, one is not allowed to attack except to defend the prophet Muhammed or Islam, extremist Muslims need to keep either finding or creating supposed attacks to make themselves appear as victims.
Many liberals, not knowing the background, buy into this claim. By siding with the "other", they probably feel a moral superiority: they are helping a cause, championing the "other" and rescuing a "victim"! But this moral superiority is both superficial and misplaced. It is more like that of the proverbial boy who murders his parents and then asks the judge for mercy because he is an orphan.

Maybe that is why, when many liberals hear criticism of radical Islam and the nuances of some aspects it, they refuse to hear it. For them, as radical Islam is not being depicted as a victim anymore, this view does not offer them the comfort of being morally superior defending victims. Ironically, that is the same motive for many radical Islamists: feeling morally superior defending Islam. The liberals then become confused, and do not know how to answer because I am a Muslim, have grown up there -- not a Western Muslim who has never lived in a Muslim society.
I am not even a Western conservative, with whom the liberals are also at odds. Many liberals, like all people happily married to a fantasy, and despite towering evidence, will stick to the fantasy and to their binary way of thinking. It is like trying to tell your friend that the stripper he wants to marry might not want to stay home, make babies and cook. He is so emotionally addicted to his dream that he will do anything to protect it.

Finally, it goes without saying that, as with all of us, liberals too attempt to preserve their financial and political interests. These material and social investments are also threatened by hearing from Muslims who have endured oppression and torture under radical Islam. Those liberals seem to suspect, correctly, that this new information might create some kind of conflict of interest, so possibly decide it might be safer not to hear it in the first place. Instead, again to protect their investment, many liberals and leftists ignore or criticize Muslims such as these.

Finally, a short message to liberals might go: Dear Liberal, If you truly stand for values such as peace, social justice, liberty and freedoms, your apologetic view of radical Islam is in total contradiction with all of those values. Your view even hinders the efforts of many Muslims to make a peaceful reformation in Islam precisely to advance the those values. In addition, sadly, your view towards radical Islam actually contributes to the violence and the repression of millions of people -- women, children, slaves, and all those people whom you claim you want to protect. These are the true victims. They are subjugated, dehumanized, terrorized, tortured, raped and beaten on a daily basis by the practitioners of radical Islam and the religious laws of sharia, which are at the core of that fundamentalism. It is time to open your eyes and your minds and see what is staring at you.
-----------

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientist and Harvard University scholar is president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu.

• Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

====================

Neil Godfrey : Management of Savagery — The Plan Behind the Terror Killing

Management of Savagery — The Plan Behind the Terror Killing

by Neil Godfrey

Several times I have urged anyone interested in understanding modern Islamist terrorism to read the manuals and other literature that the Islamist terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic State have taken as their guides. Recently I went one step further and posted an overview of the seminal Islamist writing by Sayyid Qutb: The Founder of Islamist Extremism and Terrorism.
Another major work whose influence is very clear throughout Islamist writings and public announcements is The Management of Savagery, published online in 2004 under the pseudonym Abu Bakr Naji.
There is no need to wonder why Islamist terrorists target civilians in the West for horrific deaths. Naji set out the tactic and its rationale for all to read. There is no secret. No mystery.
I will copy and paste a few relevant sections from this manual. The translation is by (oh no, here’s that name again William McCants. The copy I am using requires me to acknowledge the following:

Funding for this translation was provided by the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University, and any use of this material must include a reference to the Institute.

That’s the formalities covered.

The management of savagery is the next stage that the Umma will pass through and it is considered the most critical stage. If we succeed in the management of this savagery, that stage (by the permission of God) will be a bridge to the Islamic state which has been awaited since the fall of the caliphate. If we fail – we seek refuge with God from that – it does not mean end of the matter; rather, this failure will lead to an increase in savagery!!

I skip the sections where Naji pinpoints times and places of supposedly comparable operations of savagery in history (e.g. resistance by numerous small bands to the Crusades).

A – The first goal: Destroy a large part of the respect for America and spread confidence in the souls of Muslims by means of:
(1) Reveal the deceptive media to be a power without force.
(2) Force America to abandon its war against Islam by proxy and force it to attack directly so that the noble ones among the masses and a few of the noble ones among the armies of apostasy will see that their fear of deposing the regimes because America is their protector is misplaced and that when they depose the regimes, they are capable of opposing America if it interferes.

 Then….

B – The second goal: Replace the human casualties sustained by the renewal movement during the past thirty years by means of the human aid that will probably come for two reasons:

(1) Being dazzled by the operations which will be undertaken in opposition to America.

(2) Anger over the obvious, direct American interference in the Islamic world, such that that anger compounds the previous anger against America’s support for the Zionist entity. It also transforms the suppressed anger toward the regimes of apostasy and tyranny into a positive anger.

And C

(C) – The third goal: Work to expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and the war by proxy until it fights directly.

There is discussion of the appropriate targets of terrorist attacks. The aim is to spread the defensive forces of the State powers so thin as to be effectively useless as a guarantor of safety.

Hitting economic targets will force (the enemy) to goad the regimes, who are (already) exhausted from protecting the other remaining targets (economic or otherwise), into pumping in more forces for its protection. As a result, feebleness will start to appear in their forces, especially since their forces are limited . . . .
Thus, their forces are limited and select and the regimes have to put in place the following priorities:
First: Personal protection for the royal/ruling families and the presidential institutions.
Second: Foreigners.
Third: Petroleum and the economy.
Fourth: Entertainment spots.
. . . . .

There is an important principle which states, “If regular armies concentrate in one place they lose control. Conversely, if they spread out, they lose effectiveness”. . . .

When the best forces are positioned to protect thousands of petroleum or economic locations in a single country, the peripheries (of that country) and the crowded regions will be devoid of forces.

Organization is taken seriously. They are not amateurish hobbyists:

The most important skill of the art of administration that we must use is learning how to establish committees and specializations and dividing labor. . . .
We must make use of books on the subject of administration, especially the management studies and theories which have been recently published . . . .

And not only books on administration . . . .

— General books on the art of war, especially guerrilla wars . . .

Section three, page 28:

Section Three

Using the Time-Tested Principles of Military Combat . . . .
Following the time-tested principles of military combat will shorten for us the long years in which we might suffer the corrupting influences of rigidity and random behavior. Truly, abandoning random behavior and adopting intellectual, academic methods and experimental military principles and actually implementing them and applying military science will facilitate our achievement of the goals . . .

Page 31 brings us to our main interest:

Section Four

Using Violence
Those who study theoretical jihad, meaning they study only jihad as it is written on paper, will never grasp this point well. Regrettably, the youth in our Umma, since the time when they were stripped of weapons, no longer understand the nature of wars. One who previously engaged in jihad knows that it is naught but violence, crudeness, terrorism, frightening (others), and massacring——I am talking about jihad and fighting, not about Islam and one should not confuse them.

“Not about Islam”? “One should not confuse them”? That should not be surprising after reading Qutb’s Milestones. Qutb set out in black and white clarity the difference between Islamism and mainstream Muslims.
But never mind for now, let’s pick ourselves up and move along as if we never read that bit. . . .

We are now in circumstances resembling the circumstances after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and the outbreak of apostasy or the like of that which the believers faced in the beginning of the jihad. Thus, we need to massacre (others) . . .

Media savvy

A large section of Management is devoted to media management. Example scenarios (e.g. hostage taking) are presented and appropriate ways to communicate with the media/public before, during and after such an operation.

Therefore, the first step in putting our plan in place should be to focus on justifying the action rationally and through the sharia and (to argue that) there is a benefit in this world and the next (for undertaking the plan).

That justification, as implied in the above words, means stressing the idealistic motives, the conformity to “true Islam” (contrary to mainstream “apostates”) — the appeal to win more idealistic jihadis.

Why Attack the Innocent?

“Paying the price” in the following refers to revenge attacks. Any hostile action by a Western power or a proxy of a Western power (e.g. Egypt) but be met by savage retaliation, to ensure a price is paid. Bolding emphasis is my own.

Here is an important point: It is best if those that undertake operations of “paying the price” are other groups in other regions against which no hostility has been directed. There are a number of benefits in this, which we will expand on in the section concerning “power” [shawka]. Among the most important benefits is making the enemy feel that he is surrounded and that his affairs are exposed. If the enemy undertakes a hostile action against a region in the Arabian Peninsula or in Iraq, then the response will occur in Morocco or Nigeria or Indonesia. This will cause embarrassment for the enemy, especially if the region in which the operation of “paying the price” occurred submits to the control of the regimes of unbelief or the regimes of apostasy. Thus, (the enemy) will not find a good arena in which to respond. Further, that operation will work to raise the morale of those who had received (the initial) hostility and communicate a practical message to Muslims in every place that we are one Umma and that assistance is not limited by borders.

And against Muslim targets, too:

In the preceding depiction, “paying the price” is not limited to the Crusader enemy. By way of example, if the apostate Egyptian regime undertakes an action to kill or capture a group of mujahids, the youth of jihad in Algeria or Morocco can direct a strike against the Egyptian embassy and issue a statement of justification, or they can kidnap Egyptian diplomats as hostages until the group of mujahids is freed, and so forth. The policy of violence must also be followed such that if the demands are not met, the hostages should be liquidated in a terrifying manner, which will send fear into the hearts of the enemy and his supporters.

The Aim is to Polarize Society

What follows is the tactic that enabled the rise of Islamic State in Iraq, or at least the precursor of the Islamic State. The following also shows that it doesn’t matter if the tactic succeeds in actually producing an Islamic State — failure will only mean more violence.
The section begins with another tirade against “mainstream Muslims”, those who call for “national unity”, who are classed with the enemy:

These groups (Muslim leaders calling for unity) are like the (Arab) Christians and the propagandists of nationalism among the secular, apostate parties; their like is legion. . . .
They even directed some people to hold meetings with the Arab Christians and the secular parties in order to find fault with the activities of the groups of jihad. . . .

The following is exactly what transpired in Iraq when Zarqawi terrorized Sunni regions so that the “silent majority” kept their heads down until a clear winner was evident. Others in fear for their lives chose to join the terrorists at an earlier stage of the campaign. Some — the few ideologues — joined willingly. This way the terrorists maximized their numbers and candidates for more martyrdom operations.

By polarization here, I mean dragging the masses into the battle such that polarization is created between all of the people. Thus, one group of them will go to the side of the people of truth, another group will go to the side of the people of falsehood, and a third group will remain neutral, awaiting the outcome of the battle in order to join the victor. We must attract the sympathy of this group and make it hope for the victory of the people of faith, especially since this group has a decisive role in the later stages of the present battle.
Dragging the masses into the battle requires more actions which will inflame opposition and which will make the people enter into the battle, willing or unwilling, such that each individual will go to the side which he supports. We must make this battle very violent, such that death is a heartbeat away [lit. “the closest thing to the souls”], so that the two groups will realize that entering this battle will frequently lead to death. That will be a powerful motive for the individual to choose to fight in the ranks of the people of truth in order to die well, which is better than dying for falsehood and losing both this world and the next. This was the policy of battle for the pioneers: to transform societies into two opposing groups, igniting a violent battle between them whose end is either victory or martyrdom, whose emblem is either glorious war or humiliating peace. One of the two opposing groups is in Paradise and the other is in Hell: “Our fallen warriors are in Paradise and their fallen warriors are in Hellfire “. [A statement attributed to `Umar, a Companion of the Prophet.] This battle alone, through its vehemence and its (ability to) separate (people), is that which will enable us to polarize the largest number of individuals toward our ranks such that we will not grieve afterwards over those who are destroyed in the other rank.

The same applies in places far away from the Middle East:

When savagery happens in several regions—whether we administer them or they are neighboring regions or further away—a spontaneous kind of polarization begins to happen among the people who live in the region of chaos. The people, seeking security, rally around the great personages of the country or a party organization or a jihadi organization or a military organization composed of the remainders of the army or the police of the regimes of apostasy.

Fulfilled Prophecies

The attacks encourage sympathizers to come out and join the jihad, especially the youth. The efforts by youth to leave their homes in the Europe, North America, Australia and join Islamic State were predicted (this is published in 2004; Islamic State was born in 2014):

We will find (by the permission of God) that along with this first step there will be a continuous emigration of the youth of other regions to our regions in order to assist them and live in them, despite the loss of lives and worldly gains [lit. “fruits”] or the pressure of the enemies upon these regions.

And the current mass emigration of refugees from the regions of violence — Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan — was also the anticipated “dream” of Naji and his Islamist thugs:

On that day we will see millions of people emigrating from the regions, fleeing the violence of battle with the regimes of apostasy or the Crusader-Zionist regimes, as happened when the battles flared up in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

His call here is to the youth who “sit at home” doing nothing about the injustices around them and goading them to join the revolutionary movement.
Idealistic and courageous youth have responded just as Naji predicted; societies have been polarized just as predicted.
And ten years after the publication of Management of Savagery the Islamic State emerged:

If we succeed in the management of this savagery, that stage (by the permission of God) will be a bridge to the Islamic state which has been awaited since the fall of the caliphate.

Terrorism is clearly not diminishing since 9/11. Everything seems to be going exactly according to the plan set out in Management of Savagery.

If we fail – we seek refuge with God from that – it does not mean end of the matter; rather, this failure will lead to an increase in savagery!!

Simply defeating them militarily will not work — at least if we can go by the plan set out here. Loss of areas of administration will simply mean renewed energies in terrorist attacks anywhere and everywhere. Isn’t that just what we are witnessing now as ISIS is suffering setbacks in Syria, Iraq and Libya?
I think that means we need to fight (a lot) smarter, not just harder

 http://vridar.org/2016/09/08/management-of-savagery-the-plan-behind-the-terror-killing/#more-66314
=================