And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Posts Tagged ‘Muslims

I received this from a reader as a comment, but feel it is never wrong to reiterate the dangers to us of the hate filled religion of Islam.  Over the last four years I have blogged on most of this information and can verify that it is correct.  A great deal is known about Muhammad which followers of his dictates refuse to accept.  He was indeed a pedophile and he condones this despicable act  in the Koran.  I have stated that I can not understand how any human being can follow this man and this religion.  They must be truly sick people or deluded people to accept this cess.  BB

____________________________________________________

From a reader and commenter:

 

wdednh

Hello Brenda , I pray and Hope that ALL is well with you, I have to cut antd paste the followings for im not that smart to write articulate the truth in writting….

Letter to the Reader

To Muslims
May the Truth Set You Free

Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. Muhammad, its lone prophet, conceived his religion solely to satiate his lust for power, sex, and money. He was a terrorist. And if you think these conclusions are shocking, wait until you see the evidence.

The critics of this work will claim that Prophet of Doom is offensive, racist, hatemongering, intolerant, and unnecessarily violent. I agree – but I didn’t write those parts. They came directly from Islam’s scriptures. If you don’t like what Muhammad and Allah said, don’t blame me. I’m just the messenger.

Others will say that I cherry-picked the worst of Islam to render an unfair verdict. They will charge that I took the Islamic scriptures out of context to smear Muhammad and Allah. But none of that is true. Over the course of these pages, I quote from almost every surah in the Qur’an – many are presented in their entirety. But more than that, I put each verse in the context of Muhammad’s life, quoting vociferously from the Sunnah as recorded by Bukhari, Muslim, Ishaq, and Tabari – Islam’s earliest and more trusted sources. I even arrange all of this material chronologically, from creation to terror.

Predicting what he called the “Day of Doom” was Muhammad’s most often repeated prophecy. While it did not occur as he foretold in 1110 A.D., it nonetheless came true. Muslims and infidels alike have been doomed by Islam.

To discover why, we shall dive into the oldest surviving written evidence. These official works include: the Sira, Ta’rikh, Hadith, and Qur’an. Ishaq’s Sira, or biography, called Sirat Rasul Allah, provides the lone account of Muhammad’s life and the formation of Islam written within 200 years of the prophet’s death. While the character, message, and deeds portrayed within its pages are the antithesis of Yahshua’s and his disciples, the Sira’s chronological presentation is similar in style to the Christian Gospels. The Ta’rikh is the oldest, most trusted and comprehensive history of Islam’s formation and Muhammad’s example, called Sunnah. It was written by Tabari. His History of al-Tabari is formatted like the Bible. It begins with Islamic creation and ends with the acts of Muhammad’s companions. Tabari is a compilation of Hadith quotes and Qur’an passages. As such, it provides the best skeleton upon which to flesh out the character of Muhammad and the nature of fundamental Islam. A Hadith is an oral report from Muhammad or his companions. Muslims believe that Hadith were inspired by Allah, making them scripture. The most revered Collection was compiled in a topical arrangement by Bukhari. Allah’s Book, the Qur’an, lacks context and chronology, so to understand it, readers are dependent upon the Sira, Ta’rikh, and Hadith.

All that can be known about Muhammad’s deeds, means, motives, god, and scripture is enshrined in these books. In their pages you will see them as they saw themselves. My only point of departure from Ishaq and Tabari will be the comprehensive review of the early Meccan surahs, a period in which they had very little to say. Our paths will join again as we approach Islam’s midlife crisis: the Quraysh Bargain, Satanic Verses, Night’s Journey, and Pledge of Aqaba – a declaration of war against all mankind. At this point, the Sunnah speaks more clearly than the Qur’an.

So that there will be no confusion, I have set the passages from Islam’s scripture in bold-faced type . When quoting from the Qur’an and Hadith, I have elected to use a blended translation. No language transfers perfectly – one word to another. Five of my twelve translations of the Qur’an were combined to create the most accurate conveyance of the message possible. However, the writing quality is so poor, the proofreaders of this manuscript suggested that I help Allah and Muhammad out by cleaning up their grammar, punctuation, and verbosity. So for clarity and readability, I have trimmed their unruly word patterns and meaningless repetitions, being careful not to alter the meaning or message of any passage. Insertions within parenthesis (like this) were added by the Arabic translators to fill in missing words or to clarify the text. Insertions within brackets [like this] represent my observations.

I have elected to present Islam’s original source material in juxtaposition to my evaluation of its veracity. This format is similar to that used by the first English translators of Mein Kampf as they attempted to warn America about the dangers lurking in Hitler’s manifesto. They, as I, found it necessary to hold the author accountable. A great deal was at stake then, as it is today. The last time the world was ignorant of such a hateful and violent doctrine, 55 million people died. If we don’t shed our ignorance of Islam, many more will perish.

My quest to understand Islam began on the morning of September 11th 2001. I wanted to know why Muslim militants were killing us. So I went off to Ground Zero for Islamic terror – Israel. The West Bank is home to more suicide bombers per capita than anywhere else on earth. I arranged to meet with the terrorists themselves. I asked members of al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, and Hamas why they were killing us. They said, “Islam. We are following Muhammad’s orders.” That adventure is recounted in Tea With Terrorists . It covers a wide range of material and serves as a companion volume, connecting fundamental Islam to terrorism. Prophet of Doom focuses strictly on what the Islamic scriptures have to say.

So, could it be? Could a prophet and a religion be responsible for today’s terrorist attacks? I invested 10,000 hours in pursuit of that answer. I wish everyone had. But knowing that not all are able, I have distilled what I discovered into these pages.

Now for a word of caution: this journey of discovery is ordered chronologically. It is not prioritized by relevance. Explaining the root cause of Islamic terror is the biggest priority; yet it is not exposed until the last half of the book. I want you to know Muhammad, Allah, and Islam before you judge their legacy. So to keep you turning pages, I have endeavored to make Islam’s early years as entertaining as possible. While Prophet of Doom is meticulously researched, documented, and accurate, it’s written as if you and I were old friends having a lively chat about the most important and lethal issue of our day.

One last thought before you head down this perilous path. I pray that when you have reached the journey’s end, you will share my heart for the plight of Muslims. I want nothing more than to free them from Islam, and in so doing, free us from the terror their doctrine inspires.

Craig Winn
November 2003
ProphetOfDoom.net

Advertisements

Non-Believers Under Muslim Law.

There is sure to be a show down between Muslims and Christians in this country and I believe it will come sooner rather than later.  The President and Democrats are all for the take over of the United States by Islam  as we have been shown again and again by their actions.  Only fools would invite the  avowed murderer into their home; are we Americans fools?   For those of you who preach tolerance and understanding  perhaps this article will enlighten you as to just what your tolerating.

It is a long article but contains much information you need to know.   Below is the writer’s final conclusions.  BB

The enormous difference between ideas of equality and fairness that separate the Islamic world and the West are so colossal it defies easy explanation. In fact, we must study Islam in pieces to really understand the whole. This matters, because—before long—each big US city will undoubtedly have Muslims similar to Rauf seeking to influence policies and get involved in political life, and put the imprint of Muhammad upon all they touch.

Unless we understand the grave differences between the two world views, representing not just rules, but also principles and values, we will be at severe disadvantage in defending our ancestral freedoms against incursion of foreign belief. This matters because Islam has always been a missionary religion, propagated by force and invasion. If we don’t understand its virulence and fatalistic determination, and that there is no alternative peaceful view in traditional Islam, great and quick may be our fall.

What Is ‘Shariah’?.

Again and again I have tried to warn my readers that Islam is at war with the world of “non-believers” and there is no such thing as Islam being a peaceful religion.  It is a religion of hate and an admonition from their supreme being to kill.  This article may help some of you finally get the facts of just what Islam is and why we must stand firm against Islams law which is called “shariah”.  BB

NOTE: The United States is under attack by foes who are openly animated by what is known in Islam as shariah, or Islamic law. According to shariah, every faithful Muslim is obligated to wage jihad – whether violent or not – against those who do not adhere to this comprehensive, totalitarian, political-military code.  A team of experts coordinated by the Center for Security Policy has recently produced a ground-breaking report, Shariah: The Threat to America, describing in detail precisely what shariah is and what it means for all of us. What follows is extracted from that report, issued on September 15.

How Does Shariah Define Jihad?

Posted by Team B Sep 19th 2010 at 4:21 am in Featured Story, Islam, Islamic extremism, Justice/Legal, sharia | Comments (32)

Shariah – the law derived from Islam’s foundational documents – defines the Islamic doctrine of the universal obligation to jihad against non-believers.

The question is, What is meant by “jihad”? Is it merely a personal struggle to sacrifice for God and be the best possible Muslim? Or does jihad mean holy war, the pursuit of a global Islamic state known as a caliphate, that rules in accordance with shariah?

The Center for Security Policy’s “Team B” studied the question in its recent report, Shariah – Threat to America. On September 17, BigPeace ran Team B’s answer to the question, “What is Shariah?“  Today we summarize the Team B report’s findings on shariah and jihad.

Team_B_Avatar

The answer to the question, “What is Jihad?” is readily accessible to those willing to seek it – not from critics of Islam, but from the Quran and other foundational Islamic sources.

Shariah scholars typically cite as authority for jihad from the Quran any of the 164 verses that specifically refer to jihad against non-Muslims in terms that include military expeditions, fighting enemies, or distributing the spoils of war. By describing the warfare of jihad as something sanctioned by Allah himself, Islamic authorities set it apart from the common tribal warfare of the time and elevated it to a superior status of something sacred.

In addition to the Quran, which Muslims believe is the text of words delivered directly from Allah to Mohammed, the hadiths (accounts of the actions and sayings of Mohammed) are a second primary source governing jihad in Islamic doctrine. A third principal source is made up of recognized compilations of classical Muslim writings that systematize and codify Islamic law. They spell out the duty of jihad as holy war, which all Muslims, according to shariah, must advance in one or more carefully delineated ways.

Islamic jurisprudence, known as fiqh in Arabic, forms the legal context for shariah and its rulings. As such it relies first and foremost on the Quran and cites its verses to support the caliphate and jihad. Simple citation of the verses themselves, without the context provided by how sharia scholars (who guide and enforce Islamic thought and action) interpreted these verses, provides an incomplete and incorrect understanding.

The Team B report on Islamic threat doctrine specifically cites the sources. Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (Umdat Al-Salik) written in the 14th century by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, states, “Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.” According to this authoritative doctrinal text, the “greater” jihad is the struggle for the spiritual self – what the Muslim Brotherhood wants the non-Muslim world to understand as the “real” meaning of jihad.

When Reliance refers to the greater and lesser jihad, it indicates that this differentiation is not a part of the law of jihad – leaving us with no alternative but to understand that, under shariah, the meaning of “jihad” connotes force and violence.

In the 20th century, Muslim Brotherhood ideologues such as Hasan al-Banna (1906-49) and Sayyid Qutb (1906-56) recast modern jihad on the fiery language of revolution and anti-colonialism of the times and not just strictly warfare to expand Islamic and legal political dominance – whether against oppressive colonialist forces of Muslim rulers (“the near enemy”) who were judged apostates because of their failure to uphold shariah.

Qutb, the chief theoretician for the Muslim Brotherhood, declared in his capstone book Milestones, “The reason for jihad which have been described in . . . verses [from the sacred texts] are these: to establish God’s authority in the earth; to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God; to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life; to end the lordship of one man over others since all men are creatures of God and no one has the authority to make them his servants or make arbitrary laws for them. These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming jihad.”

By “Satanic systems of life,” Qutb was referring to the way of life practiced in Western-style, secular, liberal democracies. The reference to “the lordship of one man over others” was not reserved for dictators, but to any man-made law – including Muslim leaders who did not rule under the shariah code. The assassins of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat acted on Mawdudi and Qutb’s injunctions with respect to jihad.

The Quran (verse 2:216) obligates all Muslims to wage jihad, “though it be hateful to you.”

Most Americans are familiar with the violent form of jihad as waged by the terrorists. There is a second kind of jihad that is not violent – at least not for the moment – that the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” Civilization jihad is “pre-violent.” And it is all around us.
Part two:

David    Yerushalmi

Is Shariah the Same as Jewish Law?

At the recent press conference on Team B II’s report, Shariah: The Threat to America, a reporter from UPI asked the following question:

I’ve always thought Shariah was a body of Islamic religious law much like Jewish Halacha, governing peoples’ personal affairs. So I’m wondering, what is it in your view? What is Shariah, and why, specifically, is it a threat to our country?

Below, you can see my response.

embedded by Embedded Video

This line of argument follows a long tradition of Muslim Brotherhood agents in the West and other apologists for the brutality of Shariah. For example, just recently, many of the press reports announcing that England has recently granted Shariah courts on its home soil formal authoritative status as a recognized arbitration panel concluded identically as follows: “Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: ‘The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.’”

Consider this, then, a tutorial on why the active and purposeful pursuit of Shariah in the U.S. has implications for the federal criminal law of sedition (notably Title 18, Section 2385 of the U.S. Code) and why Jewish law and Christian dogma or Catholic canon do not. Specifically, I present here a brief discussion of whether such application of federal criminal law to Shariah would have an impact on the practice of Jews who observe Jewish law and the private adjudication of religious and commercial matters before a bais din or Jewish court of law (or, for that matter, Christians or Catholics submitting arbitral matters before private ecclesiastical boards or panels).

To begin, by Shariah we mean the authoritative and authoritarian corpus juris of Islamic law as it has been articulated by the recognized Shariah authorities over more than a millennium. The term Shariah as used herein, therefore, does not refer to a personal, subjective, pietistic understanding of the word or concept of Shariah. This latter understanding of the word Shariah is closer to its literal meaning in Arabic without any of the legalistic connotations it has developed as an authoritative institution in Islamic history; as it is currently practiced in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan; and as it is meant when referred to in the various laws and constitutions of most Muslim countries.

I have written extensively on the question of the practice or advocacy of Shariah by Shariah authorities as a violation of the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385) on the grounds that throughout the long 1200-year history of the development of Shariah, and across all five major schools of Shariah jurisprudence, five salient facts are embedded in a deep consensus among all authoritative Shariah authorities:

  1. The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.
  2. Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non- violent means. But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.
  3. The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.
  4. The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,
  5. Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.

Much of my work in this area has drawn upon original Shariah-based works and the academic scholarship relating to that body of work, but also includes the scholarship of others. I especially owe much to Stephen Coughlin (Major U.S. Army Reserves, military intelligence) and his work for the Joint Chiefs while assigned to USCENTCOM.

Because Jihad necessarily advocates violence and the destruction of our representative, constitution- based government, the advocacy of Jihad by a Shariah authority presents a real and present danger. This is sedition when advocated from within our borders; an act of war when directed at us from foreign soil.

This is especially true because a Shariah authority commands the absolute allegiance of the Shariah faithful Jihadist. As Professors Frank Vogel and Samuel Hayes explain, both distinguished professors at Harvard University and proponents of Shariah-compliant finance, Shariah is not some personalized, subjective, pietistic approach to Islam but an institutionalized legal-political-normative doctrine and system:

Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the next, church and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual conscience from rules enforced by a judge or by the state. Since scholars alone are capable of knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are expected to seek an opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in doubt; if they follow that opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the opinion is in error.[1] (Emphasis added.)

Shariah, as it is described on its own terms, is fundamentally and critically unlike Jewish law and any form of Christian canon or ecclesiastical law. Specifically, because neither Jewish law (halacha) nor Christian canon or ecclesiastical law obligates the Jew or Christian, respectively, to violently impose theo-political tenets in lieu of the Constitution, there is simply no basis to apply the laws of sedition to the application of Jewish law or Christian dogma within private religious or commercial contexts. While Jews and Christians may advocate and petition their government for laws that reflect their moral and theological worldview (as may Muslims or atheists), neither Jewish law nor Christian dogma permits the forceful imposition of a theocracy in lieu of representative government or the replacement of our constitution with theocratic legislation.

The contrast between Jewish law and Shariah makes this point vividly. After the fall of the Jewish Commonwealth and the dispersion of the Jews into lands ruled by non-Jews following the Roman destruction of the Second Holy Temple (the current Exile, which includes the modern State of Israel), Talmudic and Jewish legal authorities developed several fundamental principles of Jewish law. The first is dina d’malchuta dina – or, the law of the land in commercial matters is the law (see, e.g., BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Baba Kama 113a, Baba Basra 54b, Gittin 10b, and Nedarim 28a). In other words, the sovereign’s secular commercial laws control Jewish law.

The second post-Exilic legal ruling which separates Jewish law from traditional and still quite contemporary Shariah is that Jewish law on its own terms no longer grants jurisdiction over criminal matters or any form of civil or administrative penalty to a Jewish bais din or court. At best, a Jewish court established by the community may render decisions about money judgments for actual damages as a kind of private arbitration (see, Rabbi Joseph Caro, SHULCHAN ARUCH, Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 1:1-2.) Thus, Jewish law does not allow a bais din, even in modern Israel, to issue a ruling that could have any penal or even compensatory function for non-money damages – such as embarrassment or shame.

It is also worth noting that there is no Jewish legal or normative doctrine for taking lives – others’ or one’s own – as a martyr in fulfilling Jewish law. Specifically, Jewish law requires a Jew to violate Jewish law and to follow the law of the land rather than suffer death except in three cases[2]: (i) if the local law requires a Jew to murder someone (fighting and killing in a legal war of the nation is of course not murder so Jews have no basis for resisting a military draft); (ii) if the local law requires the Jew to engage in some sexual perversion (incest, rape, or homosexuality); and (iii) if the local law requires the Jew to worship idols. But even in these three cases, a Jew must simply allow himself to be punished or martyred by the authorities for his refusal to violate one of these fundamental sins. That is, Jewish martyrdom is a passive act of resistance. There is no concept of a Jewish martyr who dies murdering his enemy.

Shariah turns the Jewish legal doctrine of martyrdom on its head. As noted above, Shariah demands that its law dominate and it is a fundamental crime under Shariah for a Muslim to adhere to a secular law that does not make clear that Shariah is the “highest law of the land”. If a Muslim adheres to a secular constitution deemed the “highest law of the land”, even if the secular constitution and the laws of the land allow for Shariah adherence, the Muslim is considered a Mushrik or polytheist – subject to capital punishment because he has implicitly acknowledged a law giver higher than Allah.[3] Moreover, according to Shariah, a Muslim is a martyr when he dies killing/murdering the infidel. There is nothing passive about the act which awards the Jihadist this appellation.

And, returning to the Jewish legal concept of “the law of the land is the law”, this Jewish legal doctrine is true according to most authorities precisely because a legitimate sovereign acting as a representative of its people passing laws for just and peaceful relations is participating itself in the divine plan for human existence. Jewish law recognizes this divinity and does not seek to deligitimatize secular or foreign law by rendering it, as Shariah does, an affront and illegal challenge to supreme divine law and punishable by death.

Further, the only method available to the contemporary bais din to enforce its rulings is by the imposition of a kind of communal excommunication (i.e., herem, niddui, or nezifah).4 As a practical matter, because the post-Exilic Jewish legal structure is not hierarchical, no bais din can force its ruling on any other and this leaves even this enforcement action as little more than local, voluntary censure.

To a Shariah-adherent Muslim, however, contemporary Shariah has lost none of its political clout and continues to have the power of state action. Thus,

Since Islamic law reflects the will of [Allah] rather than the will of a human lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution (sic) matters, as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established under divine law.[5]

To conclude, it should be clear with but a cursory analysis, because Shariah calls for the destruction of our constitutional republic and for our conversion, subjugation, or murder it is criminal. There simply is no basis to suggest that either Judaism or Christianity, or in fact any other well-known religious dogma or doctrine, falls within the statutory coverage of our extant laws criminalizing sedition.

References

[1] Frank E. Vogel & Samuel L. Hayes, III, Islamic Law and Finance: Religion, Risk, and Return 23 (1998).

[2] Excepting a case of general oppression of the Jewish people qua Jews or the requirement for a Jew to publicly desecrate Jewish law because he is a Jew. In these two cases, a Jew is also required to passively resist violating Jewish law, even to the point of suffering death. See, generally, Maimonides, MISHNE TORAH, Chapter 5 in the Laws of the Foundation of the Torah.

[3] See, e.g., the newly minted constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Crafted by U.S. “Islamic law scholars” who insisted on the importance of inserting a Shariah-supremacy clause, these constitutions provide explicitly that no state law may contravene Shariah. 4 See, e.g., Maimonides, MISHNE TORAH, Chapter 6 of the Laws of Talmud Torah, Halacha 14; Rabbi Joseph Caro, SHULCHAN ARUCH, Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 334:43.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf predicts violence.

Talk about inciting riots  among the ignorant Muslim mobs around the world!  The Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, back from his US tax payer tour of the Muslim countries to  drum up support and money to build his edifice to Muslim Victory over the Infidel, sure knows how to stir up trouble.  He told the head of the relatives of the victims of 9/11  group the “demands” would  inflame the Muslim world.   He went on to say that if the mosque was not built on that site then American troops would be in danger.  As if American troops are not already in danger trying to protect the very Muslim butt heads who would be rioting and trying to kill American troops!  And yes, I have no doubt that the Muslims mobs will  march thru the streets of their cities and burn American flags and effigies of  those who are simply asking that the Muslims in charge of building the Mosque consider another location as this is the Muslim request to any action or request for a bit of civility.    A simple request for some consideration and sensitivity to the feelings of the relatives of the victims of September 11, 2001 and the rest of the citizens of the United States who consider  Ground Zero as sacred ground.  This is BLACKMAIL!

He has made  that mosque a matter of victory not only to celebrate the violence of Muslims killing Infidels as THEY ARE TOLD TO DO IN THEIR HOLY BOOK THE KORAN, it will be another victory of Muslims being able to do anything they want to do on American soil!

Do I dislike Muslims? Well just so you know where I stand:  Yes, I consider any human beings who knowing follow a religion   whose  holy book the Koran  states all thru the book ( yes I have indeed read it!) that Muslims are to kill, rape and destroy all humans who do not follow the teachings of their Koran are inhuman creatures.  I harbor no liking for creatures of any kind and Muslim are among the worse.

I have yet to hear individuals like Rauf or the CAIR crowd categorically condemn violence and loudly proclaim that it is anathema to Islamic law

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf predicts violence

By Klaus Rohrich  Thursday, September 9, 2010

I know that everyone was shocked and surprised that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told Soledad O’Brien on CNN yesterday that if the “Cordoba Initiative” mosque adjacent to Ground Zero were to be relocated, then violence would surely follow throughout the Muslim world.  Who’d have thought it?  Violence committed by Muslims?

But then, the good Imam is playing this by The Book in threatening that Islam would be offended if it couldn’t build a victory mosque next to the former World Trade Center site.  The Book, in this case, is the playbook Muslims have learned to use against the West, ever since the Nancyboy liberal elites asked, “Why do they hate us so?” on Sept 12, 2001.

The thing that makes the Imam’s admonition so ominous is that we know Islam appears to be the only world religion currently advocating violence against its enemies and non-believers (infidels).

Surely there are “moderate” Muslims who abhor violence.  But they don’t seem to be getting the press these days, as news reports of suicide bombings, beheadings, stonings, honor killings and all sorts of other barbaric crimes committed on behalf of some form of Islam creep their way into our consciousness.

Already there are violent and rabid demonstrations against Christians throughout the Muslim world protesting the Rev. Terry Jones’s plans to burn Korans on Saturday as an act of remembrance of the 9/11 victims.  Jones may be a whack job from the far reaches of the lunatic fringe, but like Rauf who has a legal right to build a mosque next to Ground Zero, Jones has the right to burn as many Korans as he can legally acquire.

Rauf’s admonition that violence might ensue should the mosque be moved, was made with the same clear-eyed innocence as the warnings put forth by American Muslims against Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of the South Park ‘Muhammad’ issue, which was subsequently censored by Comedy Central, the cable channel carrying the show.

“We’re not advocating violence.” they say, “We’re just concerned that there might be violence.”  And of course violence will follow each and every time these wide-eyed innocents warn of its possibility.

I have yet to hear individuals like Rauf or the CAIR crowd categorically condemn violence and loudly proclaim that it is anathema to Islamic law and I don’t recommend that anyone hold their breath waiting for them to do so.  What you will hear is some politically correct drivel, such as is found on the Cordoba Initiative’s web site.

“In recent years the global public has shown an increased interest in Islam and the Muslim world. Many facets of Islamic life, religious, cultural and artistic, remain underrepresented and misunderstood. The Muslim community must provide an opportunity to educate individuals about Islam through education and organized experiences of art, culture and entertainment.”

I can readily understand why in recent years the global public has shown increased interest in Islam and the Muslim world.  Don’t quote me, but I think it has to do with bombings in Places like London, Madrid, Bali, New York, Washington and numerous other locales.  People would be quite foolish if they did not display “increased interest” in a movement, religious or secular, that could lay claim to as many deaths as can be attributed to Islam in the last decade or two.

I believe Rauf to be an agent provocateur who presents a perfectly reasonable and smiling face to those whom he despises.  I doubt that the mosque he wishes to build will ever become a reality.  But then again, maybe this whole thing isn’t so much about building a mosque as it is about inciting more hatred against America.  (A possibility!  BB)


Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law.

We Americans need to get straight just what Islam is.  It is NOT a religion!  And yet our governments  have always treated it as a religion.  Of course we were following the European countries in this fallacy and now if anyone would care to take a look at where this treatment by the governments of the European countries has gotten them you will see the future of the United States.  Right here on our continent  Canada is already falling.

This is an important article if you want to understand Islam.  BB

*********************************************************

Islam: Socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law

Islam Is Not A Religion, It Is Foreign Law

By JR Dieckmann  Wednesday, September 1, 2010

The time has come to question if Islam is protected under our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion. Yes, everyone in America has the right to freedom of religion, but Islam is not a religion. Religious faith is only a part of Islam. The rest is a socially engineered society with its own laws and customs that seriously conflict with American law.

//
//

Is Great Britain a religion because they have the Church of England? Of course not. Britain has an established charter, civil and criminal laws, and a society that respects those laws. Islam has the Qur’an that provides the governing charter, complete with laws, punishment, and social behavior for its people in addition to its religious teachings. If Islam is a religion, then Britain is also.

We must recognize that religion is only one aspect of Islam‘s Qur’an. The rest of this charter advances ideas, social behavior, and laws that are in direct conflict with American and western laws and values. Teddy Roosevelt once said that to live in America, immigrants must have undivided loyalty to America and to no one else. How is that possible for Muslims who swear loyalty to Islam where their governing laws are found in the Qur‘an?

What legitimate religion would demand that its members either kill or convert people of other faiths? What legitimate religion is intent on imposing its own laws on the rest of the entire world? If Islam were just about praying to Allah and worshiping Mohammed and nothing more, we would not be having a problem with Islamism and Islamic terrorists. Islam has a global mission to take over and run the world according to Islamic Shariah law. How can we call that a religion?

What legitimate religion in this country comes with its own civil laws that take precedence over national, state, and local laws? No, Islam is not a religion. It is a governing doctrine that not only dictates religious beliefs, but also social behavior that includes laws, penalties and punishments, not by God, but by people if the laws are not obeyed. Islam is a form of government, not a religion. It does not belong here. We already have government under our Constitution (sort of).

As Muslims build their mega-Mosques in our nation – financed by Saudi Arabia – they laugh at the stupid Americans who are selling out their fellow citizens by allowing Islam to take over our country a little bit at a time. It is the same method used over decades by the Marxist Progressives who now have control of our government – take away our liberties one little piece at a time until full control and submission is achieved.

We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom

Islamists know they cannot destroy us militarily, but they also know that they can do it with political correctness and insisting that we respect their freedom of religion, even though they have no respect for ours. We are extending a welcoming hand to the enemy of our country and western culture under the pretense of religious freedom.

What religion recruits killers and terrorists in their place of worship, then sends them off to foreign training grounds to become proficient at mass murder? I know of only one. They are taught to kill in the name of God, but this is not the law of God who commanded “thou shall not kill” – it is the law of Mohammed who commanded “kill them all who will not convert.”

The Qur’an blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God’s law

The Qur’an blurs the lines between religion and government and teaches that Islamic government is God’s law. It certainly is not. Why do we tolerate this abomination in America where our laws maintain a separation between church and state? To accept Islam in America is to accept Islamic law as well.

Are we out of our minds? Did anyone notice that we are at war with these people? Terrorists feed on the same rulebook as other Muslims who have so far remained peaceful. Will they be making the same decision that Barack Obama made when he wrote in “Dreams Of My Father” – “When the political winds shift in an ugly direction, I will side with the Muslims?” It is always nice to know that our president is on our side when America goes to war. Too bad this one is not.

L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country

The same thing is happening in the southern Border States where Mexicans are taking over cities one by one. You need look no further than the Los Angeles boycott of Arizona to realize that the city government in L.A. now sides with Mexico and Mexican Nationals over the legal citizens of this country.

The strong Democratic population has even elected a Mexican mayor to run the city, and half of the city council members have Mexican surnames, as do many in the California state legislature. Although most of these legislators were born here in America, their loyalties seem to lie more with Mexico and Mexican citizens who are now invading our state along with other Border States.

These people of Mecha and La Raza believe this land is rightfully theirs and they intend to govern it for their people. Any objections are met with charges of racism aimed at Americans who simply want to preserve the American language, culture, values, and way of life. Los Angeles has changed a great deal since this invasion began and many American have moved out to find a new homeland.

What are we going to do when we see the same thing happening in the federal government? What are we going to do when Muslims demand that the United States respect and enforce Shariah law? They are already doing it in England and other European countries. It is only a short time before we see it here too. Shariah is already creeping into the courts and local laws in some states.

Is that the kind of country we want? Or do we want the country that our founders created? I have no problem with Muslims living in Islamic countries overseas where they can have the kind of society they desire, as long as they leave us alone and free to enjoy the kind of society that we desire. The two cannot be reconciled into one united society any more than capitalists can unite with communists. It must be one or the other.

Some people think we should be bending over backwards to make nice with Muslims and make sure they feel welcome in our country because that is what America is all about, they say. Immigrants built America, they say. To an extent, this is true if we are talking about the immigrants who migrated here to become Americans and help to build this great country over 200 years ago.

Today we have way too many foreigners coming to America not to become Americans, but instead to change America. They want to dominate instead of assimilate. They want us to accept their culture instead of them accepting our culture and becoming productive members of it.

Are you tired of being called “an immigrant” right here in your home country? I know I am. “America is a nation of immigrants,” they say. Let me state this for the record. I am not an immigrant, I am a natural born American. My parents were born here. My grandparents and great grandparents were born here. How many others in this country have the same family history? How many people reading this have known no other flag than the American flag?

We are not immigrants, we are Americans – and America is a nation of Americans – not a nation of immigrants. How much longer will we be able to call ourselves “Americans” with foreign cultures and emphases on diversity encroaching on our country? People naturally gravitate toward their own kind, not because they are racists, but because they seek the company of others with whom they have things in common.

It’s becoming increasingly difficult to relate to people here in Los Angeles who don’t even speak our language. This creates an atmosphere of mistrust, resentment and hostility when we see our city being taking over by foreign invaders. Now we have to lock our doors both at home an in our cars.

When America was being built, most everyone was an immigrant – from Europe. That was over 200 years ago. We still welcome immigrants who want to become a part of America and become American – but where do we draw the line between welcoming friends and embracing our enemies? Obviously, to those running our government, there is no line thanks largely to Ted Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and a Congress full of Democrats when they passed The Hart-Celler Act of 1965.

“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs,” Kennedy said. Oh really?

image

If Muslims want to live and work in America and worship their prophet and God, that is not a problem. But when they try to go beyond their own personal worship and demand that we change our society to accommodate them, then that is where we need to draw the line. It is not we who should change, it is they. Just like people migrating from Mexico, they need to discard their old country ways, adapt to America, assimilate into our society, and become Americans.

Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not

Muslim worship is protected under the First Amendment, Islamic law is not. Until Muslims – and our own government – can accept that, then Islam cannot be considered a religion and Islamic culture does not belong here in America.

Ground Zero Mosque Goes Radioactive.   ()Update video)

3:38

Added to
queue
Dr. Jim Garlow on the Cordoba Initiative (7/19/10)621 viewsrealaction13

I have never made any excuses for my hatred of Islam.  I believe it is a religion spawned by the devil and is pure evil.  Anyone who would  accept this religion  whether they practice all the laws or not is a pathetic soul.  I have also shown again and again on this site that Islam has one goal: to take over the world.  this is what their religious book tells them in no uncertain words they are to do.  I have also shown you what the children are taught in their schools.

On September 11, 2001 Muslims following their holy book killed 3000 people; now to celebrate their victory they are planning on building a 13 story mega mosque just  a short distance from ground zero.  In fact the building they have purchased for this monument to their attack on America was in the path of toxic dust from the Twin Towers as they fell. The mayor of new York is claiming that the building of the mosque is a local issue.  It is not!   September 11, 2001  and anything having to do with that date belongs to all Americans.

The Muslims have always taken over and then turned others religious buildings into mosque.  This is the way of showing the world they have conquered.   Don’t allow it to happen to this sacred ground where murderers killed 3000 people because a pedophile monster who lived 1500 years ago decreed that it be done and that all people forevermore on Earth worship him.  BB

Ground Zero Mosque Goes Radioactive

Posted by Frank Gaffney Jul 22nd 2010 at 12:01 pm in Culture/Art, Featured Story, Islamic extremism | Comments (64)

The latest assault of the stealth jihadists has suddenly gone national.  And so has the push-back by freedom-loving Americans.

With help from two of our country’s most prominent leaders – former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich – Americans are being alerted to a truly horrifying prospect:  The site where nearly 3,000 of our countrymen were murdered on September 11, 2001 is at risk of being defiled by a 13-story, $100 million megamosque.

More importantly, people across the Nation are learning about the true purpose of this complex:  It is intended to be a symbol of America’s defeat on 9/11 – and a beachhead for the toxic program that animated the perpetrators of that murderous attack, the program authoritative Islam calls “Shariah.”

A new 1-minute video just released by the Center for Security Policy shows how the Ground Zero mosque would fit the pattern of other mosques built elsewhere as permanent manifestations of Shariah’s triumph over its enemies.  The ad powerfully describes how our acquiescence to this initiative will be seen by the jihadists as proof not of our “religious tolerance,” but of what it is:  Our submission to Shariah.

Unfortunately, such a perception will only have the effect of inducing Shariah’s adherents to redouble their efforts to kill, terrorize and use more stealthy means – like the Ground Zero Mosque – to achieve the ultimate triumph over us, replacing our Constitution with the barbaric, totalitarian law of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Newt Gingrich put it so well:  “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.  Sadly, too many of our elites are the willing apologists for those who would destroy them if they could.

“No mosque. No self deception. No surrender. The time to take a stand is now – at this site on this issue.”

Amen.

See also:

‘COEXIST?’ You First. and

Kagan, Shariah, and Cultural Relativism

» Mosque and State: The Greater Implications of the 9/11 Islamic Center – Big Government.

The grand monument to Islam being built near our nations worst  wound from people who follow this heinous theopolitical religion  is an insult and outrage.  Our Constitution and beliefs allow all religious freedoms in the United States and therefore our laws are being used against us by people who do not allow religious freedom in their own countries.  So how can we allow a place to stand right near our fallen innocence and heros that will teach the tenenants of this vile religion/political system?

What does Islam stand for and the Koran teach?  And what are the real implications of the location of this mosque/monument to terrorism?

The 9/11 mosque however has far greater implications with regard to the fundamental principles of our nation.  As reflected by the guffaws of many in the crowd when one of the speakers at the rally argued in favor of the mosque on Constitutional grounds regardless of the abhorrence of its location, many find it hard to reconcile that Islam is allowed to use our freedoms to subvert or mock our freedoms.  The religious tolerance of our culture alone deems us largely unable to prevent against mosques in which Islamic supremacism is preached, creating fertile protected grounds for jihadists both peaceful and violent.

If in fact we are unable to safeguard against such institutions, or even criticize the ideology of Islam at all, then we are going to be neutered in a war against those who use Islam to justify murdering innocents and implementing universal Sharia law both overtly and stealthily.

To adequately combat jihad and Sharia generally runs up against the Constitutional separation between church and state, which in addition to the commitment to our cultural values is why we have been largely ineffective to this point in countering terrorists and their sympathizers here in America.

I would like to present an alternative view of Islam, that it fundamentally differs from other religions, thus making the relationship between mosque and state a fundamentally different one from that between church and state.

The key to understanding Islam is that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam is a theopolitical ideology.  It is a legal system wrapped in a religion. The imposition of Sharia law as the supreme law of all lands and all peoples is required by the Koran.

For the word “Islam” itself means submission to Allah.  Muslims must compel the non-believer infidels to either convert, live as oppressed, second-class citizens, forced to pay a special jizya tax to the ruling Muslims and unable to freely practice their own faith, or face the sword.

The Sharia state as we know is anathema not just to the United States but to all Western Civilization.  It sanctions the beating of women, oppression of gays, honor killings and a host of other restrictions on our natural rights.

Lest one think that Sharia need only be imposed by force, the Koran contains a tenet known as taqiyya, which says that Muslims are allowed to use any useful means, including lying and deception to advance the supremacy of Islamic law. This leads Muslims dedicated to imposing Sharia to ironically become Alinsky-ites (ironically given Saul’s Jewish faith), which explains well the similarities between organizations like CAIR and ACORN, and the broader ties between Islam and Leftism as “fellow travelers” on the road to totalitarianism.

Moreover, even beyond the political implications of Sharia, and in no small part due to the ignorance if not sympathy of our political leaders, academia and media, we have not had an open discussion as to the tenets of the religion itself.  Eric Holder cannot attribute terrorism to Islam, our top schools are cesspools of jihadism and our media believes that terrorists attack us because they are late on their mortgages.

One crucial part to understanding Islam is the notion of abrogation.  This refers to the fact that as Muhammad revealed his truth over a long period of time, his later words abrogated his earlier ones.  This effectively means that the peaceful verses of the Koran that came chronologically earlier in the book are supplanted by the violent calls to impose Islam later in the book.  This violence manifests itself not just in acts against non-Muslims but Muslims as well – for apostates, along with those who shame their families for example in dating non-Muslims are liable to be killed in accordance with Islam.

But since we in the West fail to understand this either out of ignorance or fear, we are left believing that it is just a percentage of violent misinterpreters of the religion that threaten us, when in reality it is not just violent jihadists but stealth jihadists, their sympathizers and those who refuse to condemn these people who are all complicit in the war against our civilization.

If we are to win this war, we must study the ideology that is used by those fighting against us, and devise policy consistent with our understanding of it.

Because Islam is not just a theology, but a theology that requires a universally imposed political system, this has manifold implications with regard to our Constitution and our way of life.  Until and unless we are able to grapple with this truth, Muslims peaceful and violent will continue to be able to exploit our freedoms by hiding behind the separation of church and state, regardless of the stark differences between what is taught in the church and what is taught in the mosque.

//


See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

Advertisements