Kategorie-Archiv: Islamization

The Berlin Attack Is Right Out of the Terror Handbooks

The world’s deadliest terrorist groups are increasingly open about their intentions, tactics, and targets. Last month, Rumiyah, the slickest terrorist magazine on the Internet market, was very precise. The “most appropriate” killing vehicle, the Islamic State publication advised, is a “load-bearing truck” that is “double-wheeled, giving victims less of a chance to escape being crushed by the vehicle’s tires.” It should be “heavy in weight, assuring the destruction of whatever it hits.” It should also have a “slightly raised chassis and bumper, which allow for the mounting of sidewalks and breeching of barriers if needed.” And it should have a “reasonably fast” rate of acceleration.

In the same issue, Rumiyah urged Islamic State members, or sympathizers anywhere in the world, to hop in vehicles—steal them, if need be—and attack outdoor markets, public celebrations, political rallies, and pedestrian-congested streets. “All so-called ‘civilian’ (and low security) parades and gatherings are fair game and more devastating to Crusader nation,” the magazine, which is published in several languages, said.

The rampage in Berlin on Monday—which the German government has now deemed a terrorist attack, though the motive behind the attack was still murky—was right out of the jihadi literature. Around 8 P.M., a black semi-trailer jumped the curb and barrelled at forty miles an hour into an outdoor Christmas market. It plowed some two hundred feet through the wooden stalls of crafts, jewelry, wine, and sweets set up outside Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church. The Scania truck, which had Polish plates, came to a halt after ramming into the “Fascination Christmas” stall, pulling down a huge Christmas tree. It killed twelve people; some four dozen were injured.

The Rumiyah article wasn’t the first jihadi command to carry out truck terrorism. The Islamic State virtually plagiarized the idea from Inspire, the English-language magazine of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which is aimed specifically at audiences in the West. In its second issue, in 2010, Inspire instructed followers and sympathizers on how to carry out an “individual jihad.” Over a picture of a Ford pickup truck, it said, “The idea is to use a pickup truck as a mowing machine, not to mow grass but mow down the enemies of Allah. You would need a 4WD pickup truck. The stronger the better. You would then need to weld on steel blades on the front end of the truck. These could be a set of butcher blades or thick sheets of steel. They do not need to be extra sharp because with the speed of the truck at the time of impact, even a blunter edge would slice through bone very easily.” The rest gets more gruesome.

Inspire notes, candidly, that the prospects of escape after such an attack are low. “Hence, it should be considered a martyrdom operation,” the magazine concludes. “It’s a one-way road. You keep on fighting until you achieve martyrdom. You start out your day in this world, and by the end of it, you are with Allah.” It goes on to urge attacks in the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Denmark, Holland, and other countries that support Israel or the U.S. interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, and where Muslims are defamed.

For all the advance notice, such open-air terrorism seems increasingly hard to stop. The attack yesterday in Berlin was the third since July, when, on Bastille Day, a white Renault cargo truck rammed into crowds strolling along a promenade in Nice, France, shortly after a fireworks display. Eighty-six were killed, and more than four hundred wounded. The truck was driven by a young Tunisian-born resident of France. ISIS claimed credit.

Then, last month, an eighteen-year-old Somali-born student drove a gray Honda Civic into passersby on the Ohio State campus, leapt out with a knife, and stabbed several others. Thirteen were injured; far more could have been hurt had a policeman not been nearby. He shot and killed the Somali youth, who was heralded in the December issue of Rumiyah as a “soldier of the Islamic State, our brother.”

Open-air terrorism is particularly hard to prevent. Airports, hotels, and government buildings can deploy metal detectors and bomb-sniffing dogs. But determining the intentions of drivers in cars, vans, or semi-trailers is virtually impossible. Vehicular terrorism also requires no skills, no training, and no weaponry, not necessarily even a map. The initial reports from Berlin indicated that the driver may have hijacked the Polish truck after it crossed into Germany. Local police reported that a dead Polish man was found in the truck’s passenger seat after the rampage ended and the driver ran off.

Europe now has a growing reservoir of jihadis. About five thousand jihadis left Europe to join various extremist groups fighting in Syria and Iraq. About a third of them have returned, a European Union report said this month. More than eight hundred people with German citizenship have joined jihadi groups in Syria and Iraq over the past two and a half years, according to the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. Some two hundred and seventy have returned to Germany.

The European Union Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2016 warns, “The overall threat to the security of the European Union has increased over recent years and remains on an upward trajectory. The main concern reported by EU Member States continues to be jihadist terrorism and the closely related phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters, travelling to and from conflict zones.” The numbers do not include lone wolves—or copycats—who never formally joined the jihad, including the perpetrators of the attacks in Nice and Ohio State. Truck terrorism is taking a new place in the annals of conflict—with plenty of instructions available on the Web.

Kamel Daoud: The Sexual Misery of the Arab World

Eiko Ojala

ORAN, Algeria — AFTER Tahrir came Cologne. After the square came sex. The Arab revolutions of 2011 aroused enthusiasm at first, but passions have since waned. Those movements have come to look imperfect, even ugly: For one thing, they have failed to touch ideas, culture, religion or social norms, especially the norms relating to sex. Revolution doesn’t mean modernity.

The attacks on Western women by Arab migrants in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve evoked the harassment of women in Tahrir Square itself during the heady days of the Egyptian revolution. The reminder has led people in the West to realize that one of the great miseries plaguing much of the so-called Arab world, and the Muslim world more generally, is its sick relationship with women. In some places, women are veiled, stoned and killed; at a minimum, they are blamed for sowing disorder in the ideal society. In response, some European countries have taken to producing guides of good conduct to refugees and migrants.

Sex is a complex taboo, arising, in places like Algeria, Tunisia, Syria or Yemen, out of the ambient conservatism’s patriarchal culture, the Islamists’ new, rigorist codes and the discreet puritanism of the region’s various socialisms. That makes a good combination for obstructing desire or guilt-tripping and marginalizing those who feel any. And it’s a far cry from the delicious licentiousness of the writings of the Muslim golden age, like Sheikh Nafzawi’s “The Perfumed Garden of Sensual Delight,” which tackled eroticism and the Kama Sutra without any hang-ups.

Today sex is a great paradox in many countries of the Arab world: One acts as though it doesn’t exist, and yet it determines everything that’s unspoken. Denied, it weighs on the mind by its very concealment. Although women are veiled, they are at the center of our connections, exchanges and concerns.

Women are a recurrent theme in daily discourse, because the stakes they personify — for manliness, honor, family values — are great. In some countries, they are allowed access to the public sphere only if they renounce their bodies: To let them go uncovered would be to uncover the desire that the Islamist, the conservative and the idle youth feel and want to deny. Women are seen as a source of destabilization — short skirts trigger earthquakes, some say — and are respected only when defined by a property relationship, as the wife of X or the daughter of Y.

These contradictions create unbearable tensions. Desire has no outlet, no outcome; the couple is no longer a space of intimacy, but a concern of the whole group. The sexual misery that results can descend into absurdity and hysteria. Here, too, one hopes to experience love, but the mechanisms of love — encounters, seduction, flirting — are prevented: Women are watched, we obsess over their virginity, the morality police patrols. Some even pay surgeons to repair broken hymens.

In some of Allah’s lands, the war on women and on couples has the air of an inquisition. During the summer in Algeria, brigades of Salafists and local youths worked up by the speeches of radical imams and Islamist TV preachers go out to monitor female bodies, especially those of women bathers at the beach. The police hound couples, even married ones, in public spaces. Gardens are off-limits to strolling lovers. Benches are sawed in half to prevent people from sitting close together.

One result is that people fantasize about the trappings of another world: either the West, with its display of immodesty and lust, or the Muslim paradise and its virgins.

It’s a choice perfectly illustrated by the offerings of the Arab media. Theologians are all the rage on television and so are the Lebanese singers and dancers of “Silicone Valley,” who peddle the promise of their unattainable bodies and impossible sex. Clothing is also given to extremes: At one end is the burqa, the orthodox full-body covering; at the other is the hijab moutabaraj (“the veil that reveals”), which combines a head scarf with slim-fit jeans or tight pants. On the beach, the burqini confronts the bikini.

Sex therapists are few in the Muslim world, and their advice is rarely heeded. So Islamists have a de facto monopoly on talk about the body, sex and love. With the Internet and religious TV shows, some of their speeches have taken monstrous forms, devolving into a kind of porno-Islamism. Religious authorities have issued grotesque fatwas: Making love naked is prohibited; women may not touch bananas; a man can be alone with a female colleague only if she is his milk-mother, and she has nursed him.

Sex is everywhere.

Especially after death.

Orgasms are acceptable only after marriage — and subject to religious diktats that extinguish desire — or after death. Paradise and its virgins are a pet topic of preachers, who present these otherworldly delights as rewards to those who dwell in the lands of sexual misery. Dreaming about such prospects, suicide bombers surrender to a terrifying, surrealistic logic: The path to orgasm runs through death, not love.

The West has long found comfort in exoticism, which exonerates differences. Orientalism has a way of normalizing cultural variations and of excusing any abuses: Scheherazade, the harem and belly dancing exempted some Westerners from considering the plight of Muslim women. But today, with the latest influx of migrants from the Middle East and Africa, the pathological relationship that some Arab countries have with women is bursting onto the scene in Europe.

What long seemed like the foreign spectacles of faraway places now feels like a clash of cultures playing out on the West’s very soil. Differences once defused by distance and a sense of superiority have become an imminent threat. People in the West are discovering, with anxiety and fear, that sex in the Muslim world is sick, and that the disease is spreading to their own lands.



On this Wednesday, March 23, 2016 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we cover the results of primaries in Arizona and Utah as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz pick up delegates. We also break down the Brussels attack and a discovery by Belgian police the alleged suicide bombers at the Brussels airport were brothers. We also look into strange questions about the terror event the corporate media is not reporting. On today’s worldwide broadcast we talk with former Clinton insider Larry Nichols and Kelli Ward, a physician and politician representing the fifth legislative district as a member of the Republican Party. Ward is running against the neocon John McCain.

Reconquest of Spain – Jan 02, 1492 – When the Moors (Muslims) Ruled Europe


Reconquest of Spain – Jan 02, 1492


When the Moors (Muslims) Ruled Europe: Documentary (full)


The kingdom of Granada falls to the Christian forces of King Ferdinand V and Queen Isabella I, and the Moors lose their last foothold in Spain.Located at the confluence of the Darro and Genil rivers in southern Spain, the city of Granada was a Moorish fortress that rose to prominence during the reign of Sultan Almoravid in the 11th century. In 1238, the Christian Reconquest forced Spanish Muslims south, and the kingdom of Granada was established as the last refuge of the Moorish civilization.

Granada flourished culturally and economically for the next 200 years, but in the late 15th century internal feuds and a strengthened Spanish monarchy under Ferdinand and Isabella signaled the end of Moorish civilization in Spain. On January 2, 1492, King Boabdil surrendered Granada to the Spanish forces, and in 1502 the Spanish crown ordered all Muslims forcibly converted to Christianity. The next century saw a number of persecutions, and in 1609 the last Moors still adhering to Islam were expelled from Spain.


The United States and Islam: What Is Going On?




The irony is that no major power in recent history has gone out of its way as has the United States to help, respect, please and, yes, appease Islam. And, yet, no other nation has been a victim of vilification, demonization, and violence on the part of the Islamists as has the U.S.

The politically correct crowd has turned Islam into a new taboo. They brand any criticism of Islam as racist, ethnocentrist or simply vile, all crammed together in the new category of „Islamophobia.“ Is it Islamophobia to question a religion whose Middle East leaders often preach „Death to America“ and hatred for Western values?

More prevalent than Islamophobia is Islamophilia, as leftists treat Muslims as children whose feathers should not be ruffled. The Islamophilia crowd invites Americans and Europeans to sacrifice part of their own freedom in atonement of largely imaginary sins against Muslims in the colonial and imperialist era.

Many Muslims resent the kind of flattery that takes them for idiots at a time that Islam and Muslims badly need to be criticized. The world needs to wake up and ask: What is going on?

With Americans still trying to absorb the shock of San Bernardino massacre, the perennial debate about „why do they hate us“ is on with more intensity than ever since 9/11. The irony is that no major power in recent history has gone out of its way as has the United States to help, respect, please and, yes, appease Islam. And, yet, no other nation has been a victim of vilification, demonization, and violence on the part of the Islamists as has the U.S.

Both Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson tried to appease the Islamist pirates of North Africa in the hope of persuading them to cease their raids on U.S. commercial ships and stop capturing Americans and selling them as slaves in the Mediterranean. They sent peace missions laden with gifts and cash, and flattered the pirates, successors to Kheireddin, the Red Bearded One, in almost lyrical terms. In the end, however, they had to take military action to cut the head off the snake. However, the episode was soon forgotten, except in the U.S. Marine Corps, where it became part of its folklore, and the U.S., a nation built on the principle of religious freedom, resumed its benevolent attitude towards Islam.

I remember back in the 1980s, the diplomat then in charge of the United Sates counterterrorism program, Robert Oakley, insisted that the U.S. will never be targeted by homegrown Islamist terrorists because it was „their final destination, their last best hope.“

That was the time when groups controlled by Ayatollah Khomeini kidnapped or killed Americans in the Middle East.

So what happened to make that „final destination“ a stopover to paradise for martyrs?

Why do so many Muslims hate Americans to the point of wanting to massacre them in their offices as in 9/11 or at a Christmas Party at San Bernardino — despite the fact that the United States is the only major power in modern times to offer Muslims a helping hand when they needed it?

Wasn’t it President Woodrow Wilson who insisted at the end of the First World War that the main European imperial powers of the day, Great Britain and France, publicly commit to respecting the right of self-determination for nations freed from the Ottoman yoke? The Americans invented the idea of „mandates“ under the League of Nations to prevent the European imperialist world-grabbers from turning their Muslim conquests in the Middle East into a new colonial galaxy. Without that, there would probably have been no independent Arab states in the Levant, at least for decades.

And wasn’t it President Harry Truman who in 1946 used eyeball-to-eyeball diplomacy against Soviet despot Josef Stalin to force him to take Russian occupation troops out of Iran’s northwestern provinces and forget about his plan of creating a Soviet Iranistan? (At the time the Soviets hadn’t yet developed a nuclear arsenal and thought twice before provoking a clash with the U.S.)

It was President Truman again who prevented the British from sharing out mandatory Palestine among their Arab clients, having already taken a big chunk of it to create an emirate for their Hashemite protégés on the east bank of the Jordan.

And it was thanks to U.S. sending the Marines in the nick of time in 1958 that both Lebanon and Jordan managed to retain their independence and avoided becoming early versions of what is Syria today.

Then we had the 1956 crisis, when Britain and France invaded Egypt to prevent the nationalization of the Suez Canal. Wasn’t it President Dwight Eisenhower who went against American’s oldest allies to let the Egyptians assert their national sovereignty?

From 1961 onwards, President John F. Kennedy exerted immense pressure on France and used his charm on General De Gaulle to accelerate progress towards Algeria’s independence. In 1997 Redha Malik, a former Prime Minister of Algeria and key negotiator with France, told me that throughout the Evian peace talks, the Algerian team knew it had „a strong friend in Washington.“

In the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, triggered by Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdul-Nasser’s quixotic attempt at imposing a blockade in the Strait of Tiran, the U.S. used its clout to persuade the Israelis to stop the war after only six days. In his memoirs, the long-standing Soviet apparatchik and future Prime Minister, Yevgeni Primakov, claims that the Israelis wanted to complete their destruction of Arab air forces by wiping out Nasser’s heavy weapons on the ground as well. It was under American pressure that the Israelis agreed to temper their appetite for victory and accepted a ceasefire under the auspices of the United Nations.

The Nasserist regime could live to fight another day, which came in 1973. In the October 1973 war, too, U.S. intervention helped restrain the Israelis, who had built up an invasion force under General Ariel Sharon a stone’s-throw from Cairo.

In the Camp David talks that led to peace between Egypt and Israel, intense pressure by President Jimmy Carter forced the Israelis to abandon plans to maintain „security enclaves“ inside the Sinai Peninsula, thereby helping President Anwar Sadat recover all of Egypt’s lost territory.

In 1982 a multinational force, led by the United States, intervened in Lebanon to stop the Israeli advance beyond the Litani River. That force also helped save the lives of Yasser Arafat and his close associates in the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) when, trapped in Beirut, they risked being captured or killed by the Israelis. President Ronald Reagan even arranged for Arafat and his entourage a safe passage to Tunisia, free of charge.

During the lengthy crisis that led to the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the U.S., having at first hesitated to intervene under President George H.W. Bush, assumed a leadership position under President Bill Clinton and helped save the lives of many Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where a Serbian ethnic cleansing master plan was in full application. Later, it was also U.S. military power that helped Kosovo’s Albanian majority, overwhelmingly Muslim, achieve independence. Ethnic Albanian leader Ibrahim Rugova told me in an interview that he had counted on „Europe’s conscience to wake up“ only to see that it was „the American cavalry“ that in the end came to the rescue, while the Europeans „danced around the dying man.“

The U.S. was the only major power to have no state-owned oil company and thus never used its military clout to obtain a share of the Middle East’s energy resources.

Should Muslims hate Americans because they refused to disband their military bases on Islamic lands? Again, history shows that the U.S. was the only major power prepared to pack up and leave as soon as its hosts showed it the door.

In 1969, an astonished Col. Moammar Khadafy watched as the Americans closed one of their most important military bases in the Mediterranean, Wheelus, located on Libyan territory, as soon as his newly installed military government asked Washington to leave. A couple of years earlier, it had taken months of bloody battles and tens of thousands of lives before South Yemen was able to force Britain to close its base in Aden.

In 1979, the U.S. had 27,000 military personnel in Iran, operating „listening posts“ set up as part of the strategic arms limitation accords to monitor Soviet missile tests. But when the new Islamic regime led by Khomeini asked the U.S. to close the listening posts, which had been approved by the Soviets as well, the Americans did no foot-dragging. The only Americans left behind were diplomats, soon to be seized as hostages by Khomeinist militants.

We witnessed a repeat of that in the 1990s on a grander scale, when the Americans simply packed up and left when the Saudis asked them to close their bases after driving Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, tangentially also saving Saudi Arabia from Iraqi occupation.

That the U.S. was a friend of Muslims and of Islam was again illustrated when American power helped drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan and, later, liberate Afghans and Iraqis, a total of 50 million Muslims, from the vicious domination of Taliban and the Ba’ath Party.

In 2005, Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein Sharestani was publicly wondering why the Americans were not coming to „steal our oil,“ which anti-U.S. propaganda claimed had been Washington’s key objective in toppling Saddam Hussein. We left there, too.

During the past six decades, the U.S. has been by far the largest donor of aid to more than 40 of the 57 Muslim-majority nations. In the 1940s and ’50s, tens of millions of Muslims were saved from starvation and famine thanks to U.S. food aid. And the Point IV program, launched by President Truman, helped eradicate a number of endemic diseases, including smallpox and malaria, which killed large numbers of Muslims each year.

Many Muslims nations have been annually receiving large checks from the U.S. for decades, among them Egypt, which gets $2 billion, and Pakistan, the homeland of San Bernardino killer Syed Farook, which gets $1 billion.

After the San Bernardino massacre carried out by jihadists Syed Farook (right) and Tashfeen Malik (left), the perennial debate about „why do they hate us“ is on with more intensity than ever since 9/11.

When the last Islamic Caliph was driven out of Turkey in 1924, he went into exile first to France and then to the United States, where his descendants lived in New York. In fact, the last pretender to the Islamic Caliphate, Ertugul Osman V, died in Manhattan in 2009.

An open society, the U.S. has always welcomed Islamic exiles of all kinds, including some of its own bitter enemies. The only time that the pan-Islamist Hezbollah movement, founded and led by Iran, has ever held an international conference outside Iran or Lebanon was in Austin Texas in 1986, when a number of Latin American branches of the movement were created. Hundreds of former high-ranking Khomeinist civilian and military officials and clerics have ended up in the U.S. as exiles, while many others have their children attending U.S. schools and universities.

Today, half of Islamic Republic President Hassan Rouhani’s closest aides are holders of PhDs from U.S. universities, among them his Chief of Staff, Muhammad Nahavandian, a Green Card holder, and his Foreign Minister Muhammad Javad Zarif. (The other half consists of former holders of U.S. hostages in Tehran, among them Defense Minister Hussein Dehqan and Environmental director Masoumeh Ebtekar.)

Quite a few of Osama bin Laden’s 50 or so siblings are either holders of U.S. passports or green cards, along with thousands of other Saudis.

Unlike Russia, which has a 200-year history of war against Muslims, having annexed Islamic land at the rate of one square kilometer a day during the 19th century, the U.S. never annexed any Muslim-majority nation. And unlike China, which is still holding its Muslim minority, the Uighurs, in East Turkestan (Xinjiang) surrounded by a ring of steel, the U.S. is not trying to stop a Muslim nation’s aspiration after self-determination.

In the 1990s, when Saudi Arabia normalized ties with the People’s Republic of China, it shut down the offices of the Uighur exiles in Jeddah. Where did the exiles transfer to? The answer is: Washington DC, since neither Muslim nations nor Europeans would agree to host them.

Since the 1970s, the U.S. has been host to more than five million Muslims from all over the world, many of them fleeing brutal Islamist regimes in their homelands. In a conversation in 2002, Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis expressed the hope that Muslims in the United States and other Western democracies could become „beacons of enlightenment“ projecting light back to their old counties. Many of us shared that hope.

Now, however, we see that the opposite is happening. Instead of exporting „light“ back to the Muslim world, a growing number of Muslims in Western democracies have become importers of darkness in their new abodes.

Worse still, the politically correct crowd has turned Islam into a new taboo. They brand any criticism of Islam as racist, ethnocentrist or simply vile, all crammed together in the new category of „Islamophobia.“

Is it Islamophobia to question a religion whose Middle East leaders often preach „Death to America“ and hatred for Western values?

More prevalent than Islamophobia is Islamophilia, as leftists treat Muslims as children whose feathers should not be ruffled.

The Islamophilia crowd does great disservice to both Western democracies and to Islam itself.

They invite Americans and Europeans to sacrifice part of their own freedom in atonement of largely imaginary sins against Muslims in the colonial and imperialist era. They also invite Muslims in the West to learn how to pose as victims and demand the rewards of victimhood as is the fashion in Europe and America. To the Muslim world at large, the message of Islamophilia is that Muslims need no criticism, although their faith is being transformed into a number of conflicting ideologies dedicated to violence and terror.

Never mind if Islamic theology is all but dead. To say so would be a sign of Islamophobia.

Never mind that God makes only a cameo appearance in mosque sermons almost entirely obsessed with political issues.

All that Western intellectuals or leaders need to do is stop flattering Islam, as President Obama has been doing for the past seven years, claiming that virtually anything worthwhile under the sun has its origin in Islam.

Many Muslims resent that kind of flattery, which takes them for idiots at a time that Islam and Muslims badly need to be criticized. The world needs to wake from its slumber and ask: What is going on?

This article originally appeared in a slightly different form in the New York Post.

Amir Taheri was born in Iran and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. From 1972 until the 1979 Iranian Revolution, he was executive editor-in-chief of Iran’s main daily newspaper, Kayhan. He is currently a contributor to the pan-Arab daily, Asharq al-Awsat, and serves as Chairman of Gatestone Europe.

Non olet: the German bank employs in its Department of Shariah Banking meanwhile hundreds of employees


Islamic Finance at Deutsche Bank


Deutsche Bank has been a strong player in the Islamic Finance industry for over a decade. We have been committed to the development of the industry and are recognized as a world-class provider of Islamic financial solutions that caters to our Islamic clients’ funding and risk management needs. Deutsche Bank now has one of the most innovative and efficient structuring teams comprised of specialized Islamic Finance experts with cross product backgrounds and responsibilities enabling clients to benefit from Deutsche Bank’s world class expertise. Deutsche Bank’s core Islamic Finance structuring team is based in Dubai (UAE) and Doha (Qatar) with resources in London (United Kingdom) and Kula Lumpur (Malaysia).

On the Islamic capital markets side, Deutsche Bank has been honored to work with our sovereign, quasi- sovereign and private clients such as the State of Qatar, Saudi Aramco, Saudi Electricity Company, Khazanah, Dubai Islamic Bank, Banque Saudi Fransi, Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company and many others to arrange and book-run landmark Sukuk transactions enabling them efficient and swift access the Islamic capital markets to achieve their funding objectives.

Deutsche Bank has been active in developing innovative Shariah compliant structures across all assets classes, liabilities and derivatives. Offering the full spectrum of Islamic Finance products and services, Deutsche Bank is the partner of choice for key regional and international Clients. With the forecasted growth of the Islamic Finance market, Deutsche Bank is continuously striving to create new and innovative products for its Clients.

Over the years and as an example to Deutsche Bank’s commitment to the Islamic markets, Deutsche Bank has established strong and lasting relationships with some of the leading scholars in the world, including Dr. Hussein Hamid Hassan (UAE), Dr. Ali AlQaradaghi (Qatar), Dr. Mohamed Daud Bakr (Malaysia), Dr. Abdulrahman Al Atram (Saudi Arabia) and Dr. Yousef Al Shobaily (Saudi Arabia).

This video is a must! Rep. Jim Jordan (Republican-OHIO) Qeustions/Answers with Kelli Ann Burriesci of DHS (Department of Homeland Security)

Rep. Jordan
Rep. Jordan

Congressman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) co-chaired a joint subcommittee hearing Thursday titled “Terrorism and the Visa Waiver Program” with Chairman Ron DeSantis (R-Florida) and his Subcommittee on National Security.During the hearing, Rep. Jordan questioned Kelli Ann Burriesci, a deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, about the number of visa waiver overstays in the U.S. and the number of individuals who traveled to Syria before using the visa waiver program. Burriesci was unable to answer his questions during the hearing.

Rep. Jordan responded:

“Ms. Burriesci, I’ve asked you the number of Americans that have traveled to Syria – you don’t know; the number of Americans that may have traveled and returned – you don’t know; the number of Syrian refugees who have entered the country in the last year – you don’t know; the number of Visa Waiver Program overstays – you don’t know; the number of visa waiver overstays who may have been to Syria before they came here – you don’t know; and the number of American citizens on the no-fly list – and you don’t know.”

After the hearing Rep. Jordan said:

“The American people are rightly concerned about two issues right now – our nation’s visa waiver program and our Syrian refugee program. I’m frustrated that the Homeland Security official in charge of screening people coming to our country was unable to answer any of my questions about either program. Congress has a responsibility to use the Omnibus to pass legislation that addresses these issues – particularly pausing our Syrian refugee program until we can be sure that terrorists are not exploiting it.”

Along with Burriesci, Brian Michael Jenkins, president of the RAND Corporation; Janice Kephart, a director at MorphoTrak, LLC; and Ken Gude, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as witnesses.

Click here for video of Rep. Jordan’s Q/A with Deputy Assistant Secretary Burriesci.


VIDEO: ‘Homeland’ Refugee Screening Coordinator Can’t Answer Basic Questions About Program

“I’m sorry, I didn’t bring any of the refugee numbers with me.“


Town Official Resigns After Tree Lighting Ceremony Renamed to Include ‘Christmas’

Town Official Resigns After Tree Lighting Ceremony Renamed to Include ‘Christmas’

Event renamed from „tree lighting“ to „Christmas tree lighting“

170,000 Poles marched through Warsaw to protest against Islamic invasion of their country.

170,000 Poles marched through Warsaw to protest against Islamic invasion of their country.

Check this out:


Did you see this anywhere in our American mainstream media? I don’t think so!

They completely censored it from American eyes, lest they be inspired to stand up against Obama’s sinister plans to import up to 200,000 so-called “Syrian refugees.”