• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

An Islamic NATO, and Other Dreams (Part 1)

Aug 5, 2019 10:00 am By Hugh Fitzgerald

A Pakistani  newspaper has called for Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to lead a NATO-Like “Security Council Of Muslim Countries.” MEMRI.org provides the details here:

An article in an Urdu-language daily called on Muslim leaders to establish a security council of Muslim countries like the United Nations Security Council and NATO to deal with the affairs of the Muslim ummah and to resolve conflicts, if necessary, by force.

Roznama Islam, which is an Islamist daily, is published from the Pakistani cities of Karachi and Lahore. The article, titled “The Security Council of Muslim Countries” and published in the July 18, 2019 issue of Roznama Islam, is by Saeed Ahmad Hasan.

The author outlines a framework in which the religious power Saudi Arabia, the economic power Turkey, and the nuclear power Pakistan could play an influential role in establishing a security council of Muslim countries to be guided by a shura (“advisory council”).

Muslims Are Ordered [In Koran 49:9] To Establish An International Security Council… Where Arrangements Are Made To Save All Of Humanity, Including Muslims, From All Conflicts And Riots.”

The Qur’anic verse cited (49:9) refers to peacemaking among the members of the Umma, and says nothing about fighting against the Infidels. If this were the only verse relied on, it would make a “Muslim NATO” into a very different organization from the original  NATO, which was established not to deal with conflicts within its member states, but to defend against both transnational subversion and military aggression by the Soviet Union and its satellites in Europe.

Saeed Ahmad Hasan, the author, explains: “In other words, Muslims are ordered [by Allah in this verse] to establish an international security council… where arrangements are made to save all of humanity, including Muslims, from all conflicts and riots, whose basis is completely fairness and justice, where the weak and victims find security, [and where] effective action is taken against oppressor and aggressor forces.” He adds: “This is an order of Allah and its fulfillment is obligatory upon Muslims.”

Quite a program. Muslims will save all of humanity, end all conflicts of every kind, ensure complete “fairness and justice.” Who could object? But how is it that it has taken 1,400 years, and the piercing insight of Saeed Ahmad Hassan himself, to discover the real significance of 49:9, which is that Allah ordered Muslims to establish an “international security council” to dispense justice, Muslim-style? In this paragraph, Hasan seems to suggest that non-Muslim actors — groups and states — will also be disciplined, yet in the very next sentence he goes back to his initial notion of dispensing justice only within the umma, and keeping non-Muslim countries from interfering in strictly Muslim affairs.

“It has been ordered in the aforementioned verse, whichever Muslim group even if it  is in the form of a country, or in the form of a tribe, if it commits aggression, then it first be convinced through talks to desist; and if it doesn’t listen, it be [sic] put in its place [through the use of force]. Due to the aforementioned verse not being implemented, our disputes [between and within Muslim nations] are resolved by non-Muslim countries, which are our political, cultural, civilizational and religious adversaries,” the author observes.

What worries Saeed Ahmad Hasan the most is the failure of Muslim states to solve their own disputes, allowing an opening for non-Muslims to interfere in intra-Islamic conflicts, whether they are civil wars within Muslim lands or between Muslim countries. He cannot conceive of non-Muslim countries as possibly being helpful, for they are “our political, cultural, civilizational and religious adversaries.” Remember that remark, so unapologetically anti-Infidel, the next time you are subject to interfaith reassurances of how splendidly we should all get along if only we stopped listening to extremists “on both sides” — such as Al-Qaeda and its mirror image Jihad Watch.

He says: “In addition to the wars between Muslims, there is a long history of oppression and atrocities on Muslims by non-Muslim countries… [The atrocities] are spread from Bosnia to Burma and India, in which Muslims can be seen burning in the furnace of atrocities; there is no one to inquire about them. The United Nations and the organizations working under it have proved to be totally biased and irresponsible with regards to the problems of Muslims.”

The U.N. and the organizations working under it have indeed “proved to be totally biased,” but not in the way Saeed Ahmad Hasan thinks; the bias has been all on the side of the Muslims. Think of the hundreds of resolutions passed against Israel, the perennial whipping boy of Muslims, at the General Assembly, the U.N. Economic and Social Council, and the U.N. Human Rights Council. As of 2013, Israel had been condemned in 45 resolutions by the United Nations Human Rights Council. Since the creation of the Council in 2006, it has passed more resolutions condemning Israel than on the rest of the world combined. How is the U.N. biased against Muslims when it makes their anti-Israel cause its very own?

As for Bosnia, it’s the same story: the U.N. voted consistently against the Serbs. There was, for example, U.N.Security Council Resolution 913, which passed unanimously; it condemned the Bosnian Serbs and took no notice of atrocities committed against them by Muslim Bosnians. Years later, long after the NATO bombing of the Serbs, we discovered that Serbs had indeed been the victims of terrible crimes at the hands of Bosnian Muslims.

And then there is Myanmar (Burma), which has been consistently condemned by the U.N. Security Council and by the General Assembly for its treatment of the Muslim Rohingya, without Myanmar’s Buddhists ever being able to present their side of the conflict, including the historical context without which Buddhist anxieties and attitudes cannot be understood. Despite the U.N.’s record of near-total  support for Palestinians, Bosniaks, and Rohingya, Saeed Ahmad Hasan has convinced himself that that organization has always been deeply biased against Muslims.

The “history of oppression” of Muslims by non-Muslims, and of “atrocities” committed against Muslims by non-Muslims, pale in comparison to the 1,400 years of oppression of non-Muslims, and to the atrocities non-Muslims have suffered at the hands of Muslims. In India alone, 70-80 million Hindus were killed during the centuries of Muslim rule. Buddhism was nearly wiped out in India, the land of its birth. When Muslim Arabs conquered Persia, Zoroastrian places of worship were desecrated, shrines were destroyed and mosques were built in their place. Many Zoroastrian libraries were burned, and much of their cultural heritage was lost. Forced to live as dhimmis, a status that required them to endure systematic abuse and discrimination and included the required payment of the Jizyah, many Zoroastrians converted to Islam. But for Saeed Ahmad Hasan, the Muslims have  always been the oppressed, never the oppressors.

Muslim conquerors subjugated many lands and many peoples. From Arabia in the 7th century, Muslim warriors swept west, all across North Africa, into Spain, and then into France, until they were halted near Tours by the victory of Charles Martel in 732 A.D. Those Muslim Arabs who swept to the east conquered Sassanian Iran, and went as far as Hindustan, where Mahmoud of Ghazni, first of many Islamic conquerors, from 998 to 1030 A.D. ruled over a military empire that extended from Iran across all of northern India. During the next few centuries, Muslim warriors conquered ever more territory, in Hindustan, always after much slaughter, and founded several Muslim states.

From 780 to 1180, there were a series of Arab-Byzantine wars that ended finally in several Byzantine victories and the recapture of lands that had been lost to the Muslims in the 7th century. A series of conquerors took Anatolia from the Byzantines: the Seljuk Turks, then the Mongols, and then the Osmanli (Ottoman) Turks. The most important Muslim victory was the conquest by the Osmanli Turks of Constantinople, for half a millennium the richest and most important city in Christendom, after a long siege that ended on May 29, 1453. Ottoman forces then pushed northward into Europe. They seized the Balkans and managed to conquer lands as far north as central Hungary. Everywhere the Muslims conquered, they were the oppressors, not the oppressed. Saeed Ahmad Hasan is convinced that it was the Muslims who were subject to “oppression” by the Infidels, though he does not offer any examples of such oppression.

“The imperative of this situation is that Muslims should have their own security council in which there is a system of shura [a consultative council] and through collective and majority decisions, all countries together make arrangements for their security and internal stability,” he notes.

It’s hard to see how this Muslim “security council” or “Islamic NATO” — Hasan mentions both — would work in practice. Several important Muslim countries are at daggers drawn, and show no signs of conceivable compromise. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt are steadfast in their opposition to Qatar because of that country’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood and friendliness toward Iran. Turkey, however, is Qatar’s ally. Furthermore, according to Lorenzo Vidino, who specializes in the study of the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan), Turkey has become the greatest supporter of the Ikhwan in the world, while Saudi Arabia remains the Brotherhood’s most potent enemy. Yet Saeed Ahmad Hasan dreams of Turkey and Saudi Arabia working in harmony for his fantastical Muslim version of NATO.

The Muslim Arab world is riven with conflicts and civil wars. In Yemen, the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is both a civil war, with the Shi’a Houthi rebels fighting the Sunni-dominated government, and a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is hardly amenable to solution, so ferocious has the enmity become between those two states. Many Muslim countries are riven with internal conflicts. In Algeria, the demand is for real democracy, now that street protesters have forced out Abdelaziz Bouteflika, and an end to “le pouvoir,” the shadowy political, military, and economic elites who have run Algeria since independence. Also in Algeria, the Berbers in Algeria have another demand as well: they want more autonomy, and a greater recognition of Berber culture and the Berber language. In Libya, the forces of General Khaftar, a secularist based in Benghazi, are trying to wrest control of Tripoli from the Islamist forces who claim to be the Libyan “government.” There are other local militias in Libya, that control Misrata and Zintan, and have yet to be challenged. In Egypt, there is a continuing struggle between the authoritarian General El-Sisi and the Muslim Brotherhood. In Syria, the civil war that began in 2011 has been winding down, but the hatreds engendered by that war have not decreased; the largely Sunni opposition will never be reconciled to Assad’s Alawites. Half of the country’s population of 22 million has either fled Syria or has been internally displaced. In the Gulf states, there is still a land, air, and sea blockade of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt; all diplomatic relations with Qatar have been suspended by those states; the conflict shows every sign of getting worse. How would an Islamic NATO cause that enmity to soften? Would Saudi Arabia defer to the decree of such a group? Would Qatar? If it were a Muslim “security council,” wouldn’t all the important members have the right to veto any resolution that threatened them?

In the author’s view, such a security council [or NATO] can be established if three powerful Muslim countries rise to the occasion and play an effective role. “In this regard, three countries can be considered responsible. It is incumbent upon them to play an international role with regards to the integrity and unity of the world of Islam. These countries are Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan,” he says.

“Due to the Haramain Sharifain [i.e., the cities of Mecca and Medina], the world of Islam has deep reverence for Saudi Arabia. This is a big reason which can be used for the unity of the ummah. Saudi Arabia has God-given oil wealth. And it has influence and reach in the nearby Arab countries,” the author says.

Saudi Arabia’s “influence and reach” does not quite extend to “nearby” Iraq, where Iranian-supported Shi’a militias, implacable enemies of Saudi Arabia, are the most powerful military force, nor to Syria, were Assad’s forces fought, among other groups, Saudi-financed Salafists. It is hard to see how Turkey and Saudi Arabia could work together, since they have been enemies for several years, due to Turkey’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood, its friendship with Qatar and, especially its ties to Iran, the arch-enemy of Saudi Arabia. So deep is the Saudi hostility toward Turkey that the Saudis have even demanded, as part of their price for ending the blockade of Qatar, that that country cut its diplomatic ties with Turkey. Saeed Ahmad Hasan is clearly unaware of how deep that Saudi-Turkish animosity runs. And that is not his only error.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: Featured, Hugh Fitzgerald, Sharia Tagged With: Saeed Ahmad Hasan


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. mortimer says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 10:09 am

    An Islamic version of NATO would fall into fratricidal quarrelling in the afternoon after they declared their undying support for each other.

  2. Angemon says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 10:16 am

    An article in an Urdu-language daily called on Muslim leaders to establish a security council of Muslim countries like the United Nations Security Council and NATO to deal with the affairs of the Muslim ummah and to resolve conflicts, if necessary, by force.

    Like it is happening in Yemen?…

    • mortimer says

      Aug 5, 2019 at 10:24 am

      Yes, the very first thing a Sunnite ‘NATO’ would do would be to attack Shi’ites.

      • gravenimage says

        Aug 5, 2019 at 7:43 pm

        So true.

      • elisa says

        Aug 6, 2019 at 12:43 pm

        and people are still NOT understanding the danger and the PROGRESS of this

    • jarmanray says

      Aug 5, 2019 at 11:57 am

      Angemon, I was thinking the very same thing as I began reading the article. It is really odd that a Pakistani newspaper advocate for a union when the Pakis have yet to really supply the troops which the Saudis have requested in Yemen.

      • jarmanray says

        Aug 5, 2019 at 12:29 pm

        Here is an article from NightWatch the article states: “Houthi missile attacks. On 1 August, the Houthis claimed that a Badr-F ballistic missile hit a Saudi military base near Najran and killed at least 45 people.

        On 31 July, they claimed one of their missiles hit a military target in Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

        Comment: The Saudi-led coalition has failed to stop the missile attacks despite four years of operations. Missile supplies from Iran continue to reach the Houthis. Some Arab entities are making a fortune from the smuggling.”

  3. mortimer says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 10:21 am

    The United Arab Republic (UAR; Arabic: الجمهورية العربية المتحدة‎ al-Jumhūrīyah al-‘Arabīyah al-Muttaḥidah) was a sovereign state in the Middle East from 1958 to 1971. It was initially a political union between Egypt (including the occupied Gaza Strip) and Syria from 1958 until Syria seceded from the union after the 1961 Syrian coup d’état, leaving a rump state. Egypt continued to be known officially as the United Arab Republic until 1971.

    (OK … you people in the back row … stop laughing.)

  4. Buraq says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 10:57 am

    There is an old Arab Bedouin saying: “I, against my brothers, I and my brothers and my cousins against the stranger.”

    Arabs have had this mentality for 1,000s of years. It’s tribal. So, when they are not fighting the stranger, they are fighting each other. There is never peace! Fighting is all they know. That guarantees the failure of this project at the discussion stage!

  5. Eric Jones says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 12:12 pm

    Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as a alliance would be a threat to the USA. In spite of their divisions they will unit to do Jihad and promote Sharia. Pakistan has nukes, Saudi has modern American weapons and Turkey has a large armed forces and a leader who wants to lead a Islamic empire. This combined threat should not be taken lightly. A Muslim NATO is not welcomed.

    Eric

  6. Anjuli Pandavar says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 4:23 pm

    While this might well be the dream of some Muslim fantacist, it is not entirely far-fetched. In 2015, Saudi Arabia managed to cajole 34 Muslim countries into forming the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC, otherwise known as the Islamic Military Alliance) with it (see https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-led-islamic-military-alliance-counterterrorism-or-counter-iran/a-41538781). As Fitzgerald rightly speculates, any such initiative on the part of Saudi Arabia would steer well clear of Iran, Iraq and Syria, exposing the IMCTC agenda as that of a Sunni Military Alliance, rather than an Islamic one, the very reason Pakistan was initially rather stand-offish (see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/02/world/asia/pakistan-general-saudi-alliance-raheel-sharif.html?_r=0).

    As Fitzgerald further correctly point out, Qur’an 49:9 is entirely inappropriate for any NATO-style alliance, given its exclusive concern with intra-Muslim fighting:

    “And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable,” (Qur’an 49:9).

    On the face of it, the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition would appear to be premised on 49:9, except, of course, that it did absolutely nothing about ISIS. How could it, when one of the IMCTC’s founding and most important members, Turkey, supported ISIS all along and continues to do so to this day? Another leg of the Saudi agenda, rapprochement with Israel and contemptuous dumping of the Palestinians, could not have been more explicit than in the IMCTC’s launch video showing exactly what kind of terrorists the Saudis had in mind: Palestinians fighting Israeli forces.

    The Arab Center Washington DC, in its milque-toast grandstanding (http://arabcenterdc.org/policy_analyses/missing-considerations-of-the-counterterrorism-alliance/), manages, “Only when the touted counterterrorism alliance fully comprehends the importance of Palestine to its mission of defeating extremist violence will it have a semblance of a chance at winning its mandate,” thus completely passing over the fourteen-year often bloody inter-terrorist feud between Fatah and Hamas. Of course, for the Arab Center to draw attention to this hypocrisy on the part of the IMCTC would be to expose its own hypocrisy.

    Whether as 49:9 or as NATO, a unified global Muslim military force is a pipe dream.

  7. SAFI says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 6:35 pm

    Muslims consider themselves to be oppressed every time they’re not allowed to conquer and oppress others.

    • Anjuli Pandavar says

      Aug 5, 2019 at 6:52 pm

      This is true. Along the same lines, Muslims consider themselves discriminated against every time they’re not allowed to discriminate against others.

    • gravenimage says

      Aug 5, 2019 at 7:46 pm

      So true, SAFI.

  8. SAFI says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 6:50 pm

    This isn’t even a new suggestion. The Turks had proposed it first, except they were a bit more explicit that such an alliance would be targeting Israel.
    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13559/turkey-army-of-islam

  9. Anjuli Pandavar says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 6:55 pm

    Hi Robert,
    I posted a substantial comment before 5:23pm. Has it lost its way in the ether?
    Thanks.

    • Angemon says

      Aug 6, 2019 at 3:20 am

      If it had more than two hyperlinks it’s automatically flagged for manual moderation.

      • Anjuli Pandavar says

        Aug 6, 2019 at 3:56 am

        Ah, and it has. I’ll hang in there. Thank you for the advice.

        • Angemon says

          Aug 6, 2019 at 6:01 am

          If, for whatever reason, it’s rejected (no one is immune to misclicking) split it in smaller posts, each with two links.

  10. Nathan Dunning says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 7:35 pm

    Bible Prophecy predict’s this will happen and then they will invade Israel. Only to be destroyed by God himself but it also says Russia will be part of that alliance.

    • CRUSADER says

      Aug 6, 2019 at 3:44 am

      Ezekiel 38

  11. gravenimage says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 7:51 pm

    An Islamic NATO, and Other Dreams (Part 1)
    ………………….

    This would be chilling, save for the fact–which other posters have noted–that Muslims constantly fight with each other. This is why all the Caliphates were run by tyrants.

  12. sheliak says

    Aug 5, 2019 at 7:52 pm

    This article prompted me to think of a question. What will become of the nuclear arsenals of Britain and France following the Islamization of the governments of these nuclear powers in the not to distant future? The Russians have probably already anticipated this development. Has NATO?

  13. CRUSADER says

    Aug 6, 2019 at 3:46 am

    Although terrorism in the 21st century has become nearly synonymous with Islamist extremism, the United States has suffered from many non-Islamist domestic terrorist attacks over recent decades. In fact, over two-thirds of terrorist attacks in the US since 1980 have been carried out by non-Islamic extremists. These attacks have been the ferment of extremist ideologies on both the far left and far right of the political spectrum and have been carried out by religiously affiliated and non-affiliated individuals alike. Until September 11th, the most deadly terrorist attack on American soil was the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, an attack that still claims the highest death toll among “home-grown” terror attacks.

    According to the FBI, there were a total of 482 terrorist incidents, suspected terrorist incidents, and prevented terrorist incidents in the US between 1980 and 2001. Of these, 164 were “International,” 130 were “Left-Wing,” 85 “Right-Wing,” and 81 “Special Interest.” Noteworthy individuals and groups include the Unabomber (Ted Kaczynski), the Jewish Defense League, and the Earth Liberation Front. For a more comprehensive look at key terms and a history of militant extremists in the US, see Council of Foreign Relations publication….

  14. Christopher Watson says

    Aug 6, 2019 at 9:41 am

    OK, so we let them have a United Moslem Nations and chuck all moslems out of Europe and America.They should last peacefully until 4 p.m. this afternoon.

  15. Anjuli Pandavar says

    Aug 6, 2019 at 10:20 am

    While this might well be the dream of some Muslim fantacist, it is not entirely far-fetched. In 2015, Saudi Arabia managed to cajole 34 Muslim countries into forming the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC, otherwise known as the Islamic Military Alliance) with it (see https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-led-islamic-military-alliance-counterterrorism-or-counter-iran/a-41538781). As Fitzgerald rightly speculates, any such initiative on the part of Saudi Arabia would steer well clear of Iran, Iraq and Syria, exposing the IMCTC agenda as that of a Sunni Military Alliance, rather than an Islamic one, the very reason Pakistan, with its substantial Shia minority, was initially rather stand-offish, not to mention Iran looming over its restive Western border. It’s a balance Pakistan has no interest in upsetting. But it has the bomb, enough of an incentive for Saudi Arabia to make a special effort, hence its offering the position of Commander-in-Chief to Pakistani General Raheel Sharif (see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/02/world/asia/pakistan-general-saudi-alliance-raheel-sharif.html?_r=0).

  16. Anjuli Pandavar says

    Aug 6, 2019 at 10:23 am

    As Fitzgerald points out, Qur’an 49:9 is entirely inappropriate for any NATO-style alliance, given its exclusive concern with intra-Muslim fighting:

    “And if two parties or groups among the believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both, but if one of them rebels against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that which rebels till it complies with the Command of Allah; then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them justly, and be equitable. Verily! Allah loves those who are equitable,” (Qur’an 49:9).

    On the face of it, the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition would appear to be premised on 49:9, except, of course, that it did absolutely nothing about ISIS. How could it, when one of the IMCTC’s founding and most important members, Turkey, supported ISIS all along and continues to do so to this day? Another leg of the Saudi agenda, rapprochement with Israel and contemptuous dumping of the Palestinians, could not have been more explicit than in the IMCTC’s launch video showing exactly what kind of terrorists the Saudis had in mind: Palestinians fighting Israeli forces.

    The Arab Center Washington DC, in its milque-toast grandstanding (http://arabcenterdc.org/policy_analyses/missing-considerations-of-the-counterterrorism-alliance/), manages, “Only when the touted counterterrorism alliance fully comprehends the importance of Palestine to its mission of defeating extremist violence will it have a semblance of a chance at winning its mandate,” thus completely passing over the fourteen-year often bloody inter-terrorist feud between Fatah and Hamas. Of course, for the Arab Center to draw attention to this hypocrisy on the part of the IMCTC would be to expose its own hypocrisy.

  17. UNCLE VLADDI says

    Aug 6, 2019 at 11:10 pm

    Re: “OUR LARGEST AND MOST SUPPORTIVE NATO ALLY:”

    Video Confirms Russian S-400 Anti-Air Missile System Delivery To Turkey, US Prepares Response

    https://www.teaparty247.org/video-confirms-russian-s-400-anti-air-missile-system-delivery-to-turkey-us-prepares-response/

    • SAFI says

      Aug 7, 2019 at 6:23 am

      To whom does this saying belong?

  18. siyawardas says

    Aug 7, 2019 at 1:35 am

    The article referred to appears to be insane rants of self proclaimed Sipah-e-Salar of Ghazwa e Hind, Zaid Hamid

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • janicevanguilder on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Boycott Turkey on Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, France and UAE conduct joint military exercises amid rising Turkish threat
  • Yogi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe
  • Hoi Polloi on Why so many Muslims can’t wait for Biden to get inaugurated
  • Hoi Polloi on EU Parliament members call for firing of border agency director for preventing illegal migrants from entering Europe

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.