ISIL’s view on Hillary, Trump and the US elections

by omouggos

What does ISIL think of Trump? (image from

What does ISIL think of Trump? (image from

It is only one more day till the much anticipated and hotly contested US elections occur, during which the US people decide, that is if the vote is not rigged, whether they want Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Since we are down to the wire, this is the last opportunity to write about issues pertinent to the elections.

One such issue is the narrative propounded by the Democrats that a Trump presidency will play into the hands of ISIL and other jihadi groups, as his outspoken ‘Islamophobia’ will radicalize many Muslims and thereby promote the recruitment efforts of such groups. Hillary has called Trump “ISIS’s best recruiter” and has claimed that ISIL shows “videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists.””1

Since the mendacity of Hillary and the Democratic party is well established at this point, the question naturally arises whether what Hillary and her minions are saying pertaining to Trump and radical Islam has any validity?

Firstly, the claim that ISIL shows videos of Trump as a recruitment tool appears highly dubious. Undoubtedly, Trump does appear in ISIL’s propaganda media, but so do Hillary and Obama. In fact from my own experiencing of viewing such media on MEMRI and other sites, it appears that images of Hillary and Obama are more common than those of Trump. Of course I have not systematically viewed every piece of ISIL propaganda material, but based on what I have seen it is more substantiated to claim that Hillary and Obama are just as important, if not more so, for ISIL’s recruitment propaganda than Trump.

Many people in the West assume that Middle Easterners view Trump’s blunt views on Islam as offensive and conversely that they are somehow are not bothered or are more accepting of the placating speeches given by Obama and Hillary. However, such an assumption is wrong. Many Muslims have equal dislike for Trump, Hillary and Obama, and in fact many have more disdain for the latter two as they view them as hypocrites who are merely feigning openness and understanding towards Islam. In other words, they are not overly bothered by Trump because they believe the likes of Obama and Hillary have similar personal views, but are just more politically correct and do not voice them. If anything they may have a grudging respect towards Trump, for at least he is upfront with his views.

There are numerous examples that support my analysis. For instance a British Islamist by the name of Abu Haleema has said on video:”2

“What Donald Trump said [his ban on Muslim immigration into the US] is a mercy from Allah, because it took a taghout infidel like that to let you people know that they don’t like you, that they don’t want you in their lands, that they hate you. It took a taghout infidel like that. I’d rather have him tell us that than someone like Obama – a snake who hides it. … We would rather have this infidel taghout [Trump] tell us this than someone who hides, someone like Cameron, who comes on eid and gives messages to the Muslims. He says to them: Assalaam Alaykum. Some infidel like that, who tries to hide his hatred… I’d rather have a taghout tell us openly what they think of us, because it can remind all of you that they hate you.”

In the same video another Islamist expressed a similar sentiment:

“Now, Donald Trump, this guy – we have seen recently he has made a lot of comments against Islam, against Muslims, etc. At least with Donald Trump, you know where you stand. He has shown his “loyalty and disavowal”, in his set, obviously for his own disbelief. … At least one thing with Donald Trump – he makes it clear where you stand, rather than Obama, who gives you a smiley face, and then he stabs you in the back.”

Again this is not to imply that these Islamists like Trump, they don’t, as the latter called him “another devil” but the point is neither do they like Obama, Hillary and the other world leaders who are apparently supportive of Islam.

Here are some more examples. In May of this year Haitham Ibn Thbait, a member of Hizb Ut-Tahrir a worldwide Islamist organization, gave a speech in which he was critical of Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama saying, “They have tricked Muslims into voting for Clinton, who went on to starve half a million children in Iraq to death. They tricked Muslims into voting for Bush, who went on to bomb two Muslim countries and kill millions. And they went on to trick Muslims to vote for Obama, who bombed seven Muslim countries and killed millions.””3 Speaking specifically about the current President “Brothers and sisters, Obama is not an Islamic reference. He is a terrorist. He represents a system of terrorism. How dare we allow him to teach us what Islam is?” Oddly enough he made no mention of Trump.

In an article in Al-Masra, the weekly newspaper of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), about the US elections, the author described both Hillary and Trump as “full of flaws.””4 It is interesting that both candidates were criticized and that Trump was not singled out.

Moving on to the Shiite side of the Islamic aisle, Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, had this to say about the US elections:”5We have witnessed Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Obama presidencies. They all treated Iran the same way, and not one of them is different from the others. … One shows the US’s true face, and the other is the face of America with make-up. This gentleman (Trump) is the un-retouched face of America, and that lady (Clinton) is the US’s retouched face.” Again, the Velayati is espousing the view that Trump is overt in his stance towards the Islamic world, while Hillary is no better, but is only better at hiding her supposedly true animus towards Islam.

ISIL has recently expressed its own views towards the US elections through an article published by their Al-Hayat Media outlet.”6 The article had the following take on the two Presidential candidates:

“the only differences between Trump and Clinton are that Clinton is more skilled in ‘political correctness,’ giving her leverage in the sorcery of hypocrisy, that she is a female feminist – and the Prophet said, ‘Never shall a people who give their leadership to a woman be successful’ (Reported by al-Bukhari from Abu Bakrah) – and that Trump is impulsive and unpredictable. As for their stances on ‘Islam’ and the ‘Muslims,’ then Clinton’s doublespeak is meant to spellbind nationalist ‘Muslims’ and liberal ‘Islam,’ for she wants to secure the murtadd vote and believes that American ‘Islam’ is a project that can be projected to other countries, thereby leading more Muslims astray towards apostasy and eternal Hellfire…As for Trump, then he has yet to learn that what he refers to as ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ is nothing but the teachings of Islam, plain and simple. No adjective needs to precede Islam to describe the just terror it incites…”

Again ISIL sees no difference between Hillary and Trump, they dislike both, as do nearly all Islamists throughout the world and I suspect many ordinary Muslims. So when Hillary is trying to portray Trump as “ISIL’s best recruiter”, she fails to tell her audience she could just as easily and possibly more successfully assume that role as well. But either Hillary doesn’t understand how she is perceived by the Islamic world, or she knows, but she cannot let reality get in the way of her political aspirations.

Another problem with the Democrats’ criticisms of Trump in relation to ISIL, is that they seem to be ignoring the ideological roots of ISIL’s enmity towards the West. It seems as if the Democrats and the Left are advocating that if we only are more understanding and more open towards Islam, and if we invest more in creating new economic opportunities in the Islamic world, then somehow the problem of radical Islam will be mitigated to controllable levels. However, such a view point is not consistent with the writings of ISIL.

In the previously cited Al-Hayat article, the majority of it is not focused on either Clinton or Trump but on the incompatibility of Democracy with Sharia Law. Here is what the article has to say say about the relationship between the two:

“Meanwhile, as the U.S. presidential election day draws nearer, it becomes necessary to remind others what the Shari’a ruling on partaking in the rituals of democracy is and that this ruling remains the same whether or not one of the two candidates is ‘the lesser of the two evils’ or even a murtadd claimant of ‘Islam.’… From the pillars of Allah’s tawhid [monotheism] is that He alone has the right to legislate. Hence, the execution of, judgment by, and seeking judgment from any legislation besides His are major shirk [polytheism]…Accordingly, human legislators, manmade laws, modern constitutions, judges who rule thereby, and rulers who enforce such upon others are all tawaghit [tyrants] whom the Muslim must disassociate from and disbelieve in…

There is no rule for Allah in democracy except if His law is in accordance with the desire of the people. Thus, whoever votes in the democratic system – whether or not he himself is a candidate or nominee – has made himself a taghut [an idol], a rival to Allah in rule and legislation. Whoever does this, is an apostate whether he is an open secularist or an alleged ‘Islamist,’ as legislation is Allah’s alone and judgment is His alone, not for the people, nor the constitution of the people, nor the representatives of the people. Accordingly, the person does not disassociate from the taghut of democracy – the ‘people’ – and disbelieve in it if he has not abandoned the democratic vote.

Accordingly, one who votes in the democratic system is an apostate, even if he fears that the victory of one candidate or nominee will lead to the deportation and abuse of Muslims, as coercion recognized by the Shari’a in the case of kufr is unbearable torture, lethal execution, and the kuffar realistically threatening to commit such torture and execution immediately to the subjugated Muslim…Fear of deportation and abuse is not coercion. Also, if supporting the Jews and Christians is apostasy, how much worse is supporting their tawaghit or oneself becoming a taghut by voting and thus consenting to ‘the rule of the people’ shared by all voters?”

In effect, based on ISIL’s interpretation of Islamic Sharia Law, democracy is nothing more than a pagan ritual that abstracts from the power and authority of Allah. Democracy is an idol, which stands in place of Allah, and anyone who has partaken in democracy via voting, whether that person is a Muslim or not, has made themselves an idol and apostate. The punishment for apostasy is as follows, “the ‘Muslim’ voter is a murtadd taghut, whose blood [it] is obligatory to spill unless he repents,” i.e. they are worthy of death.

The problem’s that ISIL has with the West, fundamentally has nothing to do with Islamophobia or how we treat them, their core issue is an ideological one. The Western notion of democracy is, in the view of ISIL and all other Islamists, antithetical to Islamic Sharia Law. Democracy is a pagan and idolatrous affront to Allah, and as such must be either destroyed or subjugated to the primacy of Sharia. Speaking to Muslim voters, the Al Hayat article declares:

“O disbelievers, we do not worship ‘the people.’ We worship only the Lord of all peoples. Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from ‘the people’ you worship besides Allah. We denounce your democratic kufr. Enmity and animosity have forever emerged between us and you until you disbelieve in ‘the people’ and believe in Allah alone. Indeed, we have come to slaughter you and smash your ballot boxes.”

So if ISIL wants to smash the ballot boxes of follow Muslims and slaughter them for partaking in democracy, what do you think they want to do to you as a Christian, Atheist, Agnostic or non-believer? Such a view towards others has nothing to do with Donald Trump. ISIL’s hatred of the West goes beyond Trump or Hillary or Obama. It is not based on personalities, it is based on ideologies. Simply put they are against the ideology of the West and for this reason want to destroy or enslave us. As such their propaganda is not based on what Trump says or how he says it, but is based on the fundamental differences between their form of Islam and our culture.

Hillary may want Americans to believe that Trump will be a boon for ISIL’s recruiting so as to dissuade them from voting for him, but such an assertion is not consistent with ISIL’s actual motives and ideology. Ultimately, ISIL’s recruiting will go on, more or less at the same pace, regardless of who is President. They similarly despise both Hillary and Trump, and more importantly they despise Western civilization.

As a final note it is interesting that when Hillary was criticizing Trump she stated that he “has a great capacity to use bluster and bigotry to inflame people and to make them think there are easy answers to very complex questions.” In this statement Hillary is implying that she has the nuanced answers to these complicated questions. But it is clear, regardless of what one thinks of Trump’s answers to the Islamic problems facing America, that Hillary’s answers, however nuance she wants you to believe them to be, are not in accordance with reality. Either knowingly or unknowingly, she does not account for the ideological component of ISIL’s hatred of the West nor their hatred of her and the Western political establishment. Even if you think Trump does not have the answers to these problems, well I have to inform you neither does Hillary. All I can hope for is that people are not bamboozled by Hillary’s lies, if she is elected President, the hatred of the West by ISIL, other Islamists and Muslims susceptible to radicalization, will remain as fervent as ever.

O Mouggos