249 posts tagged “jihad”

Regular readers of my blog posts know that I waste few opportunities to blast Islam with facts. They must be wondering why I have not written about the Nov. 29 referendum which banned new minarets in Switzerland.  There are two primary reasons. First, I am not entirely in agreement with the concept. Second, I wanted to let others write first so that I could take the role of clean up writer.  

    First and foremost, I am opposed to superficial, symbolic attacks which accomplish nothing beyond the counter productive stimulation of Islamic resentment.  Beards, burkas & hijabs  are symbolic, but they are not more important to the wearer as they are to us. Their value is more than symbolic, they are warning signs. Like a skunk's stripes and a rattle snake's noisy tail, they serve to alert us to the proximity of danger.

    Second, I perceive the vote to be a temporary victory.  I have little doubt that the result will be overturned in the courts. The vote serves mainly as a signal of rising public awareness of Islam's true nature and the existential threat it poses to Western Civilization.
   
    My readers know that I will take on anyone, without fear or favor.  While other writings have been more deserving of criticism, My choice did a better job of clarifying some of the issues involved.  Dr. Sami Alrabaa wrote an exclusive for Family Security Matters:  Minarets are Symbols of Bigotry. I will quote some good parts, but you really should click the link and read the entire article because the quotes which follow are taken out of context. .

It is also true that huge lavish mosques funded by petrodollars are being constructed to prove that Islam is omnipresent everywhere and Islam – the best religion on earth! – is increasingly being accepted and practiced all over the world.

The huge mosques & soaring minarets are symbols of Islamic supremacism & domination.  

Minaret construction is an exhibition of political power spearheaded by Islamists. These “towers” are simply aggressive symbols of fanatic defying power. 

Minaret construction has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It is a symbol of bigotry.

If we allow the erection of minarets without offering resistance, our silent acquiescence is a token of surrender. The Swiss electorate decided not to surrender, but they stopped short of effective resistance. They attacked symbolism, not substance.

But when it comes to referendum, the majority in the Western world would also reject Islam as a stone-age “religion.” I am pretty sure that if the Swiss referendum were held in other European countries, the majority would also vote in favor of banning the construction of minarets. The European public is better informed than their self-appointed defenders of Islam.

I am not yet convinced that a majority are fully aware of the nature of Islam. But the Swiss vote may indicate a trend of increasing awareness.  Lapidation may be a stone age execution method, but Moe had weapons made of more advanced materials. 610 was hardly part of the stone age.

It is also true that the Swiss and the rest of the world are not against Muslims practicing their own religion in peace like all followers of other religions.

Islam can not be practiced in peace. Jihad is an intrinsic and inseverable part of Islam. Al-Anfal & At-Taubah are permanent parts of Islamic scripture. If we are not against the practice of Islam, then we are passively surrendering.

If, however, people around the globe, especially in the West, read the Koran and Hadith and realize how this religion incites to hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and discrimination against women, they would classify it as an extremist ideology, as politically incorrect and demand banning it like all extremist organizations. Check out “Is Islam a Violent Faith?” and “Women in Hadith.”

 Nevertheless, the world community, including Switzerland, accepts Islam as a “religion” and allows its followers to practice it under the principle of religious freedom.  

We accept Islam as a "religion" and allow its practice, but if we read Islam's canon of scripture and tradition we would reject it. Will anyone get a clue from those vital paragraphs?

Before the West accepts Islam as a religion it must demand that Muslim states reform Islam; accept/apply universal human rights and religious freedom in their societies.

Preaching hatred and violence must be banned and their perpetrators must be punished. Additionally, the free civilized world must demand from Muslims and their religious institutions and states: Drop all those atrocious passages from your Koran and Hadith if you want to be part of the civilized world.

So Islam must be reformed; the violent passages must be removed from its canon of scripture & tradition. You forgot one, Dr. Alrabaa :  Shari'ah.  Islamic law reflects Islamic scripture & tradition.  How many of those texts exist in book stores and in libraries all over the world?  How many exist in computer hard disks and web pages?  How do you hope to edit all of them?  Who will edit all the copies of Ibn Kathir's Tafsir and Riyad us-saliheen?

    Allah tells us in 5:3 & 11:1 that Islam and its scripture are perfected. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah tells us in 6:115,  10:64 and  30:30 that the Koran and the  "religion" of which it is the foundation can not be changed. In Sahih Bukhari 9.78.174 Moe is on record cursing anyone who changes Islam after his death, saying that they will be far removed from mercy.  Abu Dawud 23.3455 has Moe saying that if Muslims abandon Jihad in favor of agriculture, "Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion." [Emphasis added.]
 

    Muslims who would reform Islam risk fatwa as apostates. Muslims Against Sharia is a prime example.  Their Koran revision leaves As-Saff 10-13 intact.  while Surah At-Taubah has been entirely excised. Surahs 8 & 47  lose context & continuity when the violent ayat are removed.  

    Perhaps you'd prefer to re-interpret the Koran. But the gates of ijtihad have been closed for 900 years. They are not about to spring open.  Who knows the interpretation better than the one who revealed it?  His Sunna & Sira show us what the Koran means.  What does this mean?

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Moe will tell you what it means!

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."  [Emphasis added.]

    Allah's jihad  imperatives mean exactly what they say. They can not be edited, and if they were, they would eventually be restored.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4278:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.

    The Swiss initiative is symbolic, with no effect beyond giving visibility to the rising tide of rejection of Islam. Islam is an intolerable predator which can not be reformed. That leaves Western Civilization  one alternative: Islam must be prohibited by law. Ban the substance, not its symbols.  

    Dr. Sami Alrabaa asserts that we would reject Islam and favor banning it if we understood it from reading the Koran & hadith.   You can test that hypothesis without slogging through thousands of pages of musty text. The ayat most relevant to Islamic aggression, the tafsir which explain them and the ahadith which confirm them are contained in EgregiousAyat.chm, along with the most important part of Shari'ah which codifies them into law.

    The practical application of those texts is found in fiqh: rulings by Islamic jurists. FOMIJihad.chm's Jihad in Fiqh chapter presents a significant sample of relevant rulings.  For those who prefer the hard slog method, the Muslim Student Association at USC maintains a data base containing  three parallel translations of the Koran and four of the six canonical hadith collections.

    For those who need the look, feel, permanence & aroma of printed text:

• The Meaning Of The Holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Hardcover - May 2004) Buy new: $24.95 $20.60 
• The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari With the Arabic Text (9 volume set) by Muhammad Ibn Ismail Bukhari and Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Hardcover - Oct 1996) 2 new from $158.98 2 used from $169.23
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (10 Volumes; Abridged) by Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Hardcover - Sep 1, 2000) Buy new: $279.50
• Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib and Noah Ha Mim Keller (Hardcover - Jul 1, 1997) Buy new: $29.95 $25.60

Regular readers of these posts know that I am an equal opportunity offender, telling it as I see it without fear or favor.  This time I tear off a few pieces from  Don't Let ''Allahu Akbar'' Become A Pejorative by  Jordan Sekulow. [Original at Huffington Post.]  As usual, I will intersperse my comments among excerpts in block quote format.

Islam continues to linger at a crossroads.  After the tragic events of 9/11, the free world has taken pains to differentiate their War on Terror from notions of a war on Islam.  We have repeatedly called Islamic terrorists "extremists" that only represent a small minority within the Islamic faith.  Considering, however, recent news involving Islamic places of worship -- such as the mosque raids and revealed ties between several imams and terrorist cells -- the time is ripe for innocent Muslim-Americans to stand up and prevent "Allahu Akbar" from becoming a pejorative.  In particular, peaceful, innocent adherents to the faith should more strongly challenge members of its leadership who openly condone acts of violence.

We did not start this war; Islam started it in 623.  It is a war of Islam against all Kafir. The declaration includes five verses in the Qur'an: 8:39, 8:60, 8:65, 9:29 & 9:123.  Those verses command fighting pagans, building and equipping an army to intimidate potential victims, urging Muslims to fight, fighting "people of the book" and fighting disbelievers, the closest first.  The commands in 8:39 & 9:29 are confirmed by hadith: Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367 and codified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O 9.8 & 9.9.

    Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tactic, sanctified by 3:151 & 8:12  and exemplified by 33:26 & 59.2.   The founder of Islam was a terrorist, by his own admission: "made victorious with terror" and "Allah made me victorious by awe" . Moe's recitation and sunna set the standard of Islam; terrorism is the rule, not the exception. Terrorists are zealous believers, obeying Allah & emulating Moe,  not extremists.

    Passive Muslims, who neither approve of, participate in nor support Jihad are hypocrites, not believers. Muslims are explicitly forbidden to question their leaders in the manner suggested.

O8.7

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

• -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

• -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

• -14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

Allah made the matter explicitly clear.

33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

Allah decreed the matter and Moe confirmed it.  Then, he exemplified it with a battle every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. No Muslim has a right to question it.

So where is the condemnation?  Where is the outrage?  Sure, we hear from ordinary Muslims who express their disgust at these attacks, but why do we hear nothing from Islamic leaders?  While the controversial Council on American Islamic Relations condemned Hasan's actions, we also learned that a frequent speaker at CAIR events, Zaid Shakir, said that, "Islam doesn't permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people.  If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that's something else."

An Imam or a King would write himself out of Islam, signing his death warrant by condemning what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified.

There is no better time for Muslims to engage in what Salman Rushdie called a "Muslim Reformation".  Muslims, especially Muslim-Americans, should unite and collectively take back their religion.  They should demand that their leaders not only condemn acts of terrorism and jihadist violence, but also actively expel radicals from their mosques.  More importantly, if leaders fail to take the appropriate actions, they should be removed.  Covering up true problems within the faith will backfire -- just ask Catholic leaders.  Democracy's War on Islam is exactly the war Islamic terrorists have been hoping to ignite, and we must not let them succeed.

Muslims can not "take back their religion", they have maintained possession of it; it has not been hijacked nor has it been twisted or perverted.  Muslim leaders can not condemn what Allah commanded them to do and Moe exemplified for them to emulate.  

    The faith is the problem; it is evil by design. The relationship between Allah and the Muslims is master: slave. Allah purchased the Muslims with admission to Paradise so they fight in his cause, kill and are killed. Don't take my word for it, read 9:111. Its all about getting the top 20% of the spoils for Moe. Don't take my word for it, read 8:1 & 8:41.

    Islam can not be reformed. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah's word says "fight them". Allah's word says "cast terror". Allah's word can not be changed.

6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower.

10:64. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present world (i.e. righteous dream seen by the person himself or shown to others), and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the Words of Allâh, this is indeed the supreme success

18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him.

30:30. So set you (O Muhammad ) your face towards the religion of pure Islâmic Monotheism Hanifa (worship none but Allâh Alone) Allâh's Fitrah (i.e. Allâh's Islâmic Monotheism), with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not. [Tafsir At­Tabarî, Vol 21, Page 41]  [Emphasis added for clarity.]

If that is not iron clad enough to convince you, Moe cursed anyone who would change it; without mercy, you are destined for the fire.

[...]"I will say those people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "[...] Sahih Bukhari 9.88.174    [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.
The Twenty-Eighth Amendment
November 24, 2009

    Since the horrific Fort Hood Massacre of Nov. 5, '09, suggestions that Islam should be outlawed increased in frequency and intensity.  The latest call for delegitimization of Islam does not come from a blog or comment, it comes from a freelance writer and think tank fellow,  published by New Media Journal. 

    I found three interesting quotes in the preamble; they are reproduced below, in block quotes, followed by my commentary.

But it is the violent and criminal acts of Muslims...acts which they see as religious imperatives, while to Christians and Jews they are repugnant acts of violence...that concern us most. We are told again and again that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims want nothing more than to live in peace. Although this may be true in most cases, it is entirely irrelevant so long as peace-loving Muslims fail to stand up and expose the radicals in their midst. The Muslim who claims to love peace, but who ignores the radicalism he sees and hears in his mosque is just as guilty of terrorism as those who carry out terrorist attacks against innocents.

    I am not concerned as much by the violent acts as by the immutable, intrinsic doctrines of Islam which motivate and perpetuate a succession of violent acts. The violence prone zealots who obey Allah & emulate Moe have the weapons and will to use them.  The meek wind up dead in a ditch. 

    The Muslim who knows, believes and tacitly accepts the demonic doctrines which sanctify and mandate conquest, genocide & terrorism are just as guilty as those who carry out those evil acts. The ignorant or peace loving Muslim of good will who goes along with the flow is almost as much a victim of Islam as those the terrorists seek to harm. 

 

Today, it is the fanatics who rule Islam; who war against non-Muslims; who slaughter Christians and Jews around the world; who bomb, behead, murder, and honor-kill; who take over mosque after mosque and radicalize its members; who stone and hang rape victims and homosexuals; and who teach young men that they will have eternal joy in paradise...to say nothing of seventy-two virgins...if only they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them in crowded marketplaces. These are the things that the Koran teaches.

    Because the Koran teaches those things, the men who preach & practice them are not fanatics, radicals or extremists;  they are believers.  Those who do not preach  & practice Jihad are hypocrites, not good Muslims.

If Islam, as we know it today, had existed in the day of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and had Muslims been present in large numbers during the early years of our Republic, religious liberty would today be an entirely different matter.

     Islam, as we know it today, existed in  Thomas Jefferson's day. It plundered American merchantmen, killed or enslaved the crews and demanded tribute, which the new nation paid until 1805 when Jefferson summoned his resolve and sent the Marines to Tripoli. Anyone who doubts this should read about the Barbary War.

    Jefferson's contemporary, J.Q. Adams  understood Islam, as demonstrated by this quote. 

“In the seventh century of the Christian era a wandering Arab, of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combing the powers of transcendent genius with the preternatural energy of a fanatic and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.

Adopting, from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God, he connected indissolubly with it the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in the characters, a war of more than twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extincture of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.” John Adams, 1830

–John Quincy Adams, “Christianity—Islamism.” “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,” originally published in The American Annual Register for 1827—1829 (New York, 1830), Chs. X-XIV: 267—402. (source)

    The text of Paul R. Hollrah's  proposed amendment follows. 

“The right of the People to be secure in their persons and property shall not be abridged, and no person, or group of persons, may interfere or attempt to interfere in the right of others to pursue life, liberty, religious practice, or freedom of expression. No religious sect or denomination may advocate violent opposition to any other religious sect or denomination, or to the members thereof. Any religious sect or denomination which utilizes its religious freedoms in pursuit of political ends averse to the general welfare, at home or abroad, shall be in violation of this provision, shall forfeit the right to peaceably assemble, and shall not maintain places of worship.”

   Unfortunately, that text would be in conflict with the existing First Amendment. In my view, it is necessary to exclude Islam from membership in the set of recognized religions.  An institution which is not a religion is not protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause and may be proscribed by law. 

    Closing Mosques, Islamic Centers & Madrassas is not sufficient action to solve the problem. So long as individual Muslims are present among us, free to indoctrinate their children and proselytize, the threat will not be reduced, it will increase.  Resident Muslims constitute a fifth column, each one a sleeper cell of one, capable of activation at any time, unpredictably.  We remain at risk until they die, emigrate or sincerely & finally abjure the doctrines of Islam. 

    Islam is what Moe preached and emulated, enshrined in the Koran & hadith; codified in Shari'ah.  Until you will read a sufficient sample of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence, your knowledge of Islam is speculative and probably false.  Islam is not moderate, it is aggressive, intolerant and violent by design.  

    A Muslim described as moderate, who neither participates in nor approves of Jihad, is one whom Islam's founder described as a hypocrite, whose Islam goes no deeper than his throat. 

    Shari'ah requires Muslims to participate in annual attacks against disbelievers; neglecting to do so when it is possible is sin. I refer doubters & dissenters to Reliance of the Traveller, O9.1   It is the duty of the caliph to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or pay the jizya as prescribed in 9:29. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.8.  It is the duty of the caliph to fight all other people until they become Muslim as prescribed in 8:39. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.9.  Once you have opened and loaded the file, you can use the Windows search function to find the reference letter & numbers  using the Ctrl f key combination. 

    Islam is supremely intolerant. 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.    Islam denies your right to live and own property.  Let doubters & dissenters read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."

    Given the fact that Islam is intolerant & violent, dedicated to the destruction of our system of government & economy and Hellbent on enslaving us,  tolerating Islam is suicidal idiocy. 

    The first corrective measure known to me was proposed by Pedestrian Infidel in the spring of '07: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment.  Although I disagree with the fourth article of that proposal, I  have endorsed it, because it was the first and  remains the best option. 

    The Outlaw Islam! petition languishes with 124 signatures. I urge lovers of life & liberty to sign it, copy it and send it to everyone they can hope to influence with an exhortation to forward it.  When you have signed the petition, use the facilities of http://www.congress.org/ to send a link to the petition to your Representative & Senators. 

 

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D.,Va., issued  the following statement  in regards to comments made by Rev. Pat Robertson. 

“In the week since Mr. Robertson’s statement that Islam is ‘not a religion’ but a ‘violent political system’ whose adherents should be treated like members of the communist or fascist party, I have heard from hundreds of outraged Northern Virginians – Muslim and non-Muslim. Here in the 11th Congressional District of Virginia and, in fact, across our Commonwealth, Muslim-Americans are a vibrant part of our communities. They serve in our nation’s military, contribute to our economic growth, and in myriad other ways, help form the diverse tapestry that is Virginia in the 21st century.

“Some will dismiss Mr. Robertson’s comments as the strange ramblings of a man stuck in a bygone era. But when a prominent Virginian chooses to engage in hate-filled rhetoric that divides us and has the potential to fuel real discord in our polity, leaders cannot remain silent. That is why I am calling on Mr. Robertson to apologize to my constituents – Muslim and non-Muslim – for the hurt he has caused and the damage he has done. It is a week overdue.”

.

The following is my own rough transcription of Rev. Robertson's statement.

Worry about backlash but the truth is this guy was off his trolley and they should have gotten him out but nobody wanted to go after him because of political correctness.

    We just don't talk about somebody's  "religion" even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats. But he wasn't hiding it.

    I tell ya what should happen and I think is going to happen is the families of those soldiers who were killed have an absolute major lawsuit for damages against the United States government.

    There was a failure there was a failure, they should have -- as Senator Lieberman said, this man should have been gone -- he should have been out of the service. 

    But just imagine, how a young man, brave defenders of the freedom we enjoy, having to sit in psychological evaluation in front of this man.   Just think what that means, think what this would do to their psyches.  

    It was a horrible chapter, but if we don't stop covering up what Islam is--Islam is a violent-- I would say religion but its not a religion, its a political system, its a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination. That is the ultimate aim and uh, they talk about infidels and all this but the truth is, that's what the game is so you're dealing with  a political system and I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group.

    Well, its a tragedy, our hearts go out to the families who suffered but those in the army should be held to account for the fact that they let this man loose.
   
   

    I will proceed to take  on Rev. Robertson point by point.

• "this guy was off his trolley"

I do not agree; Major Nidal Hasan  is a Muslim, not insane. His act was motivated by the ideology of Islam imparted in the Mosque. If you doubt that fact, view  the slide show with which he illustrated a lecture on Islam. Muslims shout takbir when slaughtering sacrificial animals and going into battle. Nidal Hasan shouted it when he opened fire on unarmed colleagues. That cinches the matter.

• "they should have gotten him out"

Blessed right; Hasan should have been cashiered and deported!

• "even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats"

Decapitating  disbelievers is Islamic, but drenching them with boiling oil is a reference to  one of the torments of Hell, not something to be done in this world.

• "Islam is a violent"

An estimated 270*10⁶  people have been slain by Islam in the last 1386 years. Is it peaceful or violent?  Allah commanded warfare against pagans and people of the book. Moe said that he was "ordered to fight". One of his 86 wars was defensive, the rest were aggressive, on his initiative. Because of what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified, Shari'ah requires a minimum of one military expedition against Kuffar in every year. Islam is violent, Rev. Robertson is right.

• "its not a religion, its a political system"

Islam is  not a religion,  neither is it a political system. Islam is a deen: a way of life. Islam prescribes everything from conception to burial. Its religious component: theology, cosmology, iman & salat are parts of a control mechanism used to motivate mujahideen to kill and be killed fighting, ostensibly to propagate Islam, in reality, to finance Moe's lifestyle. If you doubt that fact, then read Islam's Mercenary Mission.
   
    Islam's religion is jihad. Jihad is "to war against non-Muslims" [Reliance O9.0].  "Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated."  [Noble Qur'an, Hilali & Khan, footnote to 2:190.]

• "bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

Islam divides the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.  The former is where Allah's writ runs. The latter is every where else; the land of war. In Al-Anfal 39, Allah commands Muslims to fight disbelievers until only Allah is worshiped, on a global scale. If any doubt remains, read these tafsir.

• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

• "treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group"

Muslims are not equivalent to Communists. Islam is at war against us, that makes them equivalent to the Barbary pirates of the 18^th century or the Waffen SS of the 20^th . They should be expelled, not recruited and promoted in the armed forces, FBI & CIA.

• "that they let this man loose"

That is not what they did, they retained and promoted him to the rank of Major, enabling him to slaughter unarmed  enlisted men in a place where they had a right to feel secure. He should have been cashiered and  deported. 

    Muslims residing in Virginia complained to Rep. Connolly, who, in turn issued his statement, which was reported by the Augusta Free Press, where you can read a sampling of public opinion on the issue. From my point of view, complaining to a Member of Congress was the wrong response. Offended  viewers should have responded to Rev. Robertson or through blog & forum posts or CAIR.

    Rev. Robertson's truthful statement of fact is not the proper subject of government action. He has a First Amendment right of free expression, which entitles him to speak the truth about Islam. 

    In  making his inappropriate statement, Rep. Connolly was acting as a follower, not a leader. In doing so, he pandered to a vocal and demonstrative minority which does not have this nation's best interests at heart.  I do not find any "hate-filled rhetoric" in Rev. Robertson's remarks. Instead, I found truthful statements of fact. Instead of division and discord, Rev. Robertson spoke truth: adherents of radical Islam should be discharged from our military services before they  take the opportunity to murder our servicemen.  The same truth was spoken by Major Hasan in his lecture to fellow students.  Evidently someone was not paying proper attention before the fact. Rep. Connolly should have paid proper attention after the fact.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Christopher L. of Islam In Action.

In an article at NewsMax cites an  FBI estimate saying that 10% of American Mosques teach jihad, Ron Kessler made the following statement.

On the other hand, those who condemn Muslims in general because of the actions of Hasan and others like him are engaging in prejudice that has no place in America. Indeed, such stereotyping sets back the war on terror, because we need moderate Muslims on our side.

The problem is not the Quran, which is no more incendiary than some passages in the Bible. (Deuteronomy, for example, prescribes stoning to death for those who “served other gods and worshipped them.”) The problem is the radical element that uses the Quran as an excuse to engage in terrorism and the failure of many moderate Muslims to condemn the extremists. 

    It is Islam we condemn in general, not Muslims. Most Muslims are victims of Islam.  There are Muslims in name only, who do not practice Islam,  but there are no moderate Muslims because there is no moderate Islam.   Those who assert otherwise are suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance. 

    Islam has a standard set by Moe's preaching and practice. Islam is what he said and did in Allah's name. The Qur'an's Surah Al-Anfal contains an imperative to fight disbelievers, specifically the Pagan Meccans, until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. Hilali & Khan offer this bracketed clarification: "[in the whole of the world ]". Abdullah Yusuf Ali  uses a different expression: "faith in God altogether and everywhere".

    Surah At-Taubah has an imperative to fight people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated and extorted.  Those imperatives are outcome oriented, with neither chronological nor geographic limits.

    The Old Testament enjunctions to fight were limited to particular people and places, they were not unlimited.  Jesus Christ neither preached nor practiced warfare. Jews and Christians are not engaged in wars of conquest.  While  Judaism and Christianity have reformed and become passive, Islam is not reformed nor can it. Islam is aggressively attempting to conquer or reconquer on several battlefronts.

    The Qur'an is given as  Allah's word, transmitted to Moe by  Jibril. Allah's religion is perfected for Muslims; perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah's word can not be changed. When Allah abrogated a verse, he replaced it with something better; Surah At-Taubah was revealed next to last, it abrogates earlier, more tolerant and passive verses. Since Moe was Allah's final and greatest 'Prophet',  Allah has no messenger, his word is immutable, fixated in the 7^th century.

    Moe testified that he was "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.'", confirming the imperatives cited above. Muhammad fought in 19 battles. Muslims assert that those battles were defensive, not offensive but only two of them were.  Moe dictated and dispatched extortion letters, which he followed up with his army if the recipients did not comply with his demands. His letter to the Chiefs of Aqaba is the most explicit, it leaves no doubt about his intentions.

    Allah described his relationship with Muslims as that of master: slave, the slave's mission being to fight in his cause, killing and being killed.  Jihad is mandatory, "ordained" for Muslims.  The penalty for refusing to fight is "painful torment", a hint of Hellfire.  The "commerce that will save you from a painful torment" is "that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives".    According to Allah,  any step the believers take to anger or injure disbelievers will be "written to their credit as a deed of righteousness.".

    Islam's canon of jurisprudence is the ultimate confirmation. Reliance of the Traveller, is the handbook of fiqh. Its  Book O is the book of Justice. Its ninth chapter lays down the law of Jihad, defining it, describing its obligatory nature and explaining  the obligation: "Jihad is a communal obligation, meaning upon the Muslims each year. ". Al-Shafi'i clarified the issue with this ruling.

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    I will quote the first sentence from each of the two sections which confirm the obvious.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9:29).

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) .

    Islamic law clearly confirms Allah's Jihad imperatives and Moe's testimony that he was ordered to fight. The caliph has a duty to make war on Kuffar in every year, if possible, until the entire world is conquered. Of course, the caliph's order or permission is required to mount an attack, unless there is no caliph. (O9.6).   

     Contrary to Mr. Kessler's assertion, condemnation of Islam is not prejudicial and the Qur'an is the root of the problem.  Muslims whose personal morality conflicts with orthodox Islamic doctrine should remove Allah's yoke of slavery from their necks and become freemen.  If you do not want to kill Kuffar, rape their widows and enslave their orphans, why are you Allah's slave? Emancipate yourself and rejoin humanity.

    In remarks uttered at a memorial service for the servicemen slain at Fort Hood, President Obama said this.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know -- no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor.  For what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world, and the next.

A Muslim is not permitted to fight and kill another Muslim except in the authorized enforcement of Islamic law.  Major Hasan was reluctant to go into battle against his brethren, but not to go into battle against his  comrades.  Muslims chant Allah-hu Akbar when slaughtering sacrificial animals and attacking Kuffar.  Major Hasan shouted takbir because he was engaging upon the slaughter of his enemies, transferring his fear from himself to them and praising Allah

    Murder can not be justified, it is unjust, but Islam rationalizes it. We learn from Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 that the blood of Kuffar is not sacred to Muslims. Kuffar are considered rebels against Allah, and therefore not innocent. They are fair prey, targets of opportunity. . Islam divides the world into Dar ul-Islam where Allah's writ runs, and Dar ul-Harb, where Kuffar rule. Dar al-Harb is the land of war. It must be attacked until the entire world is Dar al-Islam.

    Allah is sovereign over the world, its divine ruler because, as its creator, he owns it all. Where men are governed by man made law, they are in rebellion against Allah, depriving him of his divine right to rule. Allah has commanded Muslims to overthrow the rebels and extend Allah's rule over the entire world.  Allah has promised them success in that mission. You can verify these facts by reading 13:41, 14:15, 40:51 and 61:9. 

We're a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.

Major Hasan chose to worship Allah by sacrificing 13  Kuffar soldiers.  That is his right because Jihad is a mandatory sacrament, being ordained by Allah. Allah said  "Slay them wherever you find them'".  Is that cherry picking?  Is that out of context? If it is, tell it to the Shafi'ite jurists who wrote Reliance of the Traveller; that quote is part of the scriptural basis of jihad given in O9.0. 

Remarks on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
2009 Report on International Religious Freedom.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 26, 2009

The right to profess, practice, and promote one’s religious beliefs is a founding principle of our nation.

It is the first liberty mentioned in our Bill of Rights, and it is a freedom guaranteed to all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Our founders made an understandable oversight, relying on the traditional acceptance of institutions popularly considered to be religions, perhaps because they did not anticipate the development of modern transportation with its resultant increase in immigration which brought Islam to the West.  

Unfortunately, Islam does not fit the pattern for two reasons. First, it is a war cult, not a legitimate religion, being founded for a mercenary mission. Second, it  is intolerant and violent, denying others the tolerance and respect it demands from them.

The practice of Islam involves Jihad, and Jihad involves  terrorism & genocide. How can that be tolerated?

We commend Jordan’s role in initiating the common word dialogue...

The Common Word Between Us and You, a missive from the Ulema to Pope Benedict XVI, is a pious fraud.  Christianity and Islam have nothing in common except what Islam plagiarized from Judaism & Christianity,

These important efforts build on the shared values and common concerns of faith communities to sow the seeds of lasting peace.  

Christianity values life and peace. Islam values war and death.  We have no shared values.

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

Anti-defamation policies have nothing to do with protecting freedom of religion. Their purpose is to protect Islam from truthful criticism. The OIC and their allies are complaining of and campaigning for the criminalization of "negative stereotyping of  religions", particularly association of terrorism with Islam.

But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

The proper practice of Islam involves warfare for the purpose of making it dominant. Islam perceives our freedom of expression as an impairment of their demonic duty to enforce Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Muhammad and their doctrines & practices.

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.

In its  practical implementation,  "proactive government outreach to minority religious groups"  means appeasement of Islam.

So it is our hope that the International Religious Freedom Report will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world and promote dialogue among governments and within societies on how best to accommodate religious communities and protect each individual’s right to believe or not believe, as that individual sees fit.

If the Secretary would read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, she might learn that only Muslims have rights.  How can we have rights when our  blood and property are not sacred to Muslims?

The secretary called on Assistant Secretary Michael Posner to elaborate further on the report

 Briefing on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom

Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

QUESTION: Can I ask – the Secretary was quite strong in her comments about the defamation laws that – U.S. opposition to – well, perhaps not defamation laws, but I think this refers to something at the Human Rights Council. Is that – that’s correct? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And I thought it was sufficiently watered down or defeated that – and that that met your concerns.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: There are really two separate issues that have been raised and sometimes conflated at the United Nations. I was part of the delegation last month at the Human Rights Council, where we actually joined with Egypt in promoting a resolution on freedom of expression that did, in fact, meet our concerns. There was a debate in the context of that about how to deal with issues of defamation, and we agreed after much negotiation, much discussion, that there is a legitimate subject as to whether or not an individual, an individual of any particular faith, can be defamed and whether that kind of harassment or discrimination is to be condemned. It clearly is.

Assistant Secretary Posner wants us to believe that the concept of defamation was excluded from the recently passed Freedom of Opinion and Expression Resolution.  Like most politicians, his words are deceptive.  The concept is present, slightly disguised. [Emphasis added.]

6. Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, can make to the fight against    racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret about the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of  vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and about the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;

"Related intolerance" is a code phrase for "Islamophobia", which is a code word for any negative expression about Islam, which is considered defamation. "false images and negative stereotypes"  and "racist" are codes for criticism of Islam.  If you have been reading my posts, you know that those codes refer to the Danish Cartoons and  Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders.  See You've Been Mooned for the proof.

There’s a second resolution that was promoted – that’s been promoted by the Islamic Conference at the UN, which is a broader defamation of religion resolution. It’s being debated, in fact, in one form right now. And it goes, we think, too far in restricting free speech – the notion that a religion can be defamed and that any comments that are negative about that religion can constitute a violation of human rights, to us, violates the core principle of free speech which is so central to us in our own system.

There is one little detail he does not tell us: that other forum is working on a protocol to ICERD, which will be enforcible international law, not a non-binding resolution. .

When asked about misogyny, whether it was of religious origin:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: No, I reject that. I think the major religions of the world are all predicated based on assumptions of humanity and ethical behavior. The fact that people take a kind of extreme view and interpret religions in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, I think, is an aberration. That’s part of the purpose of this report. I think we are all mindful of the fact that people of deep faith throughout the world are driven by and motivated by their religious beliefs. We want to encourage that. And we want to discourage people who misuse that faith in a way that’s going to undermine basic human rights.

He thinks that all major religions are predicated on humanity and ethical behavior. He thinks that extremists interpret Islam in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, which are abberations. Does he actually know anything about Islam? I doubt it.  In Islam, women are chatle property,  literally fields to be plowed. Muslims have Allah's permission to beat their wives. Women are inferior in intelligence and religion. 

Violence and discrimination are also intrinsic and foundational. Mr. Posner would know that if he had read Book O of Reliance of the Traveller. 

Introduction

First, religious freedom is the birthright of all people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one's faith must be respected by all societies and governments. The United States takes this obligation seriously. "America will always stand," the President said in his Ramadan message to Muslims, "for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society, and have confidence in the rule of law."

There is an absolute right to profess, practice and propagate, regardless of the substance of the faith; its doctrines and practices. If the doctrines include supremacism & triumphalism and the practices include conquest, genocide & terrorism, that's ok with our Department of State. It ain't ok with me;  is it with you?  What they did in Beslan and are doing in Darfur is foundational to Islam. It is intrinsic and inseverable; impossible to reform.  Who gives a damn?  Certainly not our government.

Al-Anfal 39 commands warfare against pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. Al Anfal 12 declares that Allah will cast terror and orders Muslims to decapitate their victims and cut off their fingers and toes. Al-Anfal 60 orders Muslims to build armies and stock up on weapons with which to terrify their enemies. Al-Anfal 67 informs us that while Moe wanted ransom money, Allah prefers great slaughter.  At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war on Christians & Jews until they are subjugated and extorted. Moe confirmed the order by declaring that he was ordered to fight with men until they became Muslims and that their blood and property were not sacred to Muslims until they did so.  Those doctrines are foundational to Islam [3:7], can't be abandoned and can't be changed.  

By expressing agreement with the false concept of an absolute right to Jihad,  our Federal Government is engaging in civilizational suicide.
Executive Summary

`Multilateral, Global, and Regional Challenges to Religious Freedom

In addition to these country-by-country concerns, the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization comprising 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has worked through the United Nations (UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions" by introducing annual resolutions on this subject at the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam, we do not agree with the "defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and expression.

"While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam"; then the United States deplores this blog post.  because it tells the truth about Islam.  Since when is truth defamatory?  What is wrong; deplorable about naming and shaming the enemy?

The United States understands the primary concern of the resolution to be the negative stereotyping of members of religious groups, particularly minority groups, and the contribution of such stereotypes to disrespect and discrimination. The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence. The United States, however, believes the best way for governments to address these issues is to develop robust legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to defend vigorously the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and to exercise their freedom of expression.

"The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence." Jihad, genocide & terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam. That is a fact, not stereotyping.  The terror attacks at Beslan, London, Madrid & Washington D.C. were perpetrated by young Muslim Males who shouted "Allahhu Akbar" as they murdered innocent victims.  Only a damn fool can tolerate the continued propagation of the damnable doctrines which motivated those men to murder for the promise of eternity in a celestial bordello.

"To condemn hateful ideology"?  Why don't they condemn Islam? Don't they know that it curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Don't they know that it declares genocide as a prerequisite to Judgment Day, when they hope to gain admission to the celestial bordello?

"Proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups"; those are code words for appeasement. A lot of good that foolishness has done Israel in the last 60 years. Are these fools incapable of learning?  

With  their lips, our Department of State pays lip service to freedom of speech. With their pen, they co-authored a UNHRC resolution which erodes that freedom, while ignoring the composition of a protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam, effectively nullifying our First Amendment.  

One paragraph of the Executive Summary of OIC's Islamophobia Report merits close examination.

Almost all international covenants, instruments and treaties clearly emphasize that freedom of
expression should be exercised with responsibility¹.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which enjoys universal application stipulates in Article 19: “… the exercise of these rights [including freedom of expression] carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may be subject to certain restriction¹.”

Article 20: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.²”

Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights stipulates: “The exercise of these freedoms since it carries with it duties and responsibilities may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties¹.”

1. Those remarks are  the Islamic pretext for imposing censorship on criticism of Islam. They are asserting and escalating provisions for limitation on free speech.  Islam, acting through the OIC, is lobbying for the creation of binding international law which will criminalize any and every negative expression about Islam.  The Ad Hoc Committee on Contemporary Standards is meeting to compose a protocol to ICERD for that purpose.  The U.N. General Assembly is expected to take up its annual Defamation of Religions resolution next month. 

2. The prohibition of religious hatred can and must be made to backfire on Islam.  Muslims accuse us of hate speech when we expose  Islamic doctrines & practices to public view.  Their intent is to prevent us from lifting the lid from the septic tank and shining the light of truth on its contents. 

    If Article 20 is to be enforced, then publication of and preaching from the Qur'an & hadith must be prohibited by law; effectively banning Islam.  The Islamic violations of Article 20 include but are not limited to the following verses which incite Muslims to make war upon disbelievers,  Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians. . [Emphasis added.]

• 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

• 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).    

•  47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost, 

•  Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387: 
  Narrated Anas bin Malik:
      Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

• Sunan Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526
      Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

      The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.  

• Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
  Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

• Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
  Narrated Abu Huraira:
  The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

    The Jihad imperatives listed above are mandatory, not optional because of another critical verse.

• 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

Abu Dawud 14.2526 informs us that the Jihad mandate does not expire before the end of the world.  Muslim 41.6985  informs us that Jihad culminates in the extermination of the Jews on the last day.  From 9:38-39 we learn that Muslims will be condemned to Hell for refusing to join the Jihad.

• 9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.
• 9:39 If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.

Likewise, 61:10-13 proclaim salvation through joining the Jihad.

• 61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.
• 61.11.   That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!
• 61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn ­ Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.

    Is there any greater incitement than the threat of Hell and promise of Paradise?  It is obvious on the face of the facts that Islam must be proscribed by law for violation of  Article 20 of ICCPR.  The meaning of the cited ayat is clear, beyond dispute. You can confirm that fact by looking them up at http://www.qutafsir.com/ .  Because of those ayat and Moe's excellent example, personally engaging in 19 battles between 623 and 632, Islamic law requires Muslims to mount a minimum of one attack in every year.

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    Islam is perfected. Allah's word can not be changed. Will we submit and live as slaves under their sufferance? Will we resist and suffer perpetual attacks of asymmetrical warfare ? Or will we rise up and demand that Islam be outlawed as the human rights violator it is?   Let us, for the love of liberty, take the latter course. Endorse the International Qur'an Petition, exhort your family, friends and associates to endorse it, send it to your legislators and be persistent in the pursuit of justice.  The 'right to practice Islam' is not compatible with  our right to live and be free.  If Muslims have a ritht to practice Islam, then we have no rights! Take another long hard look at Bukhari 1.8.387.  It says that our blood is not sacred to Muslims. That means that they can attack and plunder us with impunity.  We only obtain rights and protect ourselves by becoming Muslims.  

    The practice of Islam involves Jihad. Jihad involves genocide and terrorism.  Those are foundational, intrinsic sacraments inseverable from the practice of Islam. Jihad can not be abandoned, to do so would subject Muslims to Allah's curse of disgrace which would not be lifted until they return to their "original religion". Jihad, their "original religion", is defined by Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims"[Reliance of the Traveller, O9.0].

    The conflict imposed by Islam is existential.  Rational debate requires putting away childish concepts of political correctness & multiculturalism. Our rights to live; create, own, use & exchange property and believe and worship as we choose can not be subordinated to an arrogantly declared right to plunder us and enslave our orphans.  How can anyone have a right to teach his children that they have a divine right & duty to engage in aggression & commit genocide? 

Can we find clarity in the Afghan strategy debate?
By Col. Tom Snodgrass

After describing and linking to the Obama administration's idiotic maundering Col. Snodgrass provides  links to diverse sources of opinion before setting forth a list of critical issues.

1) Taliban re-conquest must be prevented so that Afghanistan will be denied to al Qaeda as a base of future operations;

2) to achieve such denial, tribally ruled Afghanistan must be built into a modern state with a democratically elected representative government;

3) this "nation building" will entail robust US counterinsurgency to protect the population from Taliban intimidation and control until the Afghan government can independently maintain civil law and order;

4) while conducting counterinsurgency guaranteeing representative government, US forces must also train and equip Afghani military and police to enforce law and order; and

5) simultaneously with pacifying Afghanistan, US forces must also assist the Pakistanis in subduing the Taliban and al Qaeda who are threatening both the Pak and Afghan governments from regions on the Pak border adjacent to Afghanistan.

    Col. Snodgrass follows up with a list of doubts.

1) the religiously motivated Taliban can be effectively and indefinitely denied power in this 7^th century Islamic culture;

2) that Afghanistan can be lifted from tribal warlordism to a representative democracy;

3) that corrupt Afghani warlords can honestly and successfully administer a regime of law and order that will ensure the loyalty of a very ethnically diverse population;

4) that any Afghani military and police forces we can develop will be sufficient to maintain law and order in a forbidding land consisting of 251,772 square miles of mountains and deserts (about the size of Texas) with a population of 33 million; and

5) that the geographically adjacent corrupt Pak government can prevail over the primal Islamic forces embodied in the Taliban and al Qaeda that are demanding Shariah "justice" for Pakistan.

    The tactical objectives are obviously impossibilities. Those things which are necessary can not be accomplished.  Col. Snodgrass adds that a successful counterinsurgency would require seven to ten years, which, in the current political climate, are not available.

    Having opened that can of worms, Col. Snodgrass dives into the issue of our relationships with Islamic regimes. What he finds at the bottom is unpleasant indeed.

So how does this reality factor into the military strategic equation? Primarily it means that no Islamic government can ever be truly counted on to affirmatively eradicate Jihadist violence against US interests. This in and of itself suggests at the very least that the objective of nation-building in Afghanistan is a fool's errand simply or so remote as to make it foolish. It also means that the likelihood that any Islamic government would be prepared to reject Shariah and embrace Western values is suspect at best.

    It distills down to this.

Our emphasis must be on kinetic operations to destroy this generation of Jihadists and on psycho-social operations that intensify kinetic results.

    Unfortunately, HellFire launches from drones are becoming increasingly unpopular in the region. "Civilians" are being hurt and killed because the Mujahideen do not separate themselves from them, preferring to use them as human shields.  Add th that the lack of will to confront Islam ideologically & psychologically.

    The bottom line:

We are just going to have to "shoot the closest bear" one at a time and reconcile our thinking that Jihad will reappear periodically like Haley's Comet.

    Col. Snodgrass may be able to accept that, but I can't. One WTC attack was enough. Two were a million too many. One Beslan was enough. One London attack was enough. One Madrid attack was enough. One Mumbai attack was enough.  Enough already!  Lets put a permanent end to the Jihad. One year before I was born, the "greatest generation" showed Japan what we could do. Can we still do that?  Do we have the SISU, the stuffing to tell the lilly livered misfits of the world who disapprove of a single, permanent solution  that they can have a piece of the action if they don't like it?

    Is there a divine right to wage war against us,  rape our widows, enslave our orphans and seize our real and personal property ? Or do we have a divine right to live unmolested, free from the threat and actuality of attack, secure in our lives & property?  The two can not coexist.  Why the Hell do we maintain the Declaration of Independence if we are not willing to actualize it ?  Do we really hold those truths to be self evident, or have we forgotten them?  Did we waste the blood of thousands fighting Hitler & Tojo only to submit and surrender to Usama?  Is there any desecration more terrible than wasting the blood of those heroes who fought and died to preserve our liberty?

    Everything that Col. Snodgrass outlined for us in his excellent essay was entirely predictable eight years ago. We could have and should have nuked Afghanistan off the face of the earth.  The invasion is a fool's errand. Allowing reversion to status quo anti is unacceptable.

    If we are going to shoot the target of the moment, why are there still terrorist training camps and staging areas in Iran, Syria & Pakistan?   Why does any sanctuary for terrorists exist?  Why are the Iranian factories that manufacture EFPs still standing?  The answer is that this nation has been and is governed by cowards & traitors, not statesman for too many decades.

    It should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear that either Islam will become extinct or liberty will.  If we will not make Islam extinct, we will not maintain our liberty.  The Kemalist experiment proves that no compromise is possible, Islam must be eliminated.

    If we are not willing to nuke the enemy, then we must use our second best weapon: the fact bomb. We must bombard the Muslims with facts,  beginning with the truth about their Prophet, who was a pederast, lecher, pirate and murderer.  What God would select such a man as his ultimate messenger?  What God promises victory and delivers five successive defeats from an outnumbered and out gunned adversary?  Islam's canon of scripture & tradition contains the ammunition we need to shake the faith of any rational Muslim who retains even a scintilla of  morality.

    If we were led by statesmen instead of traitors, we would begin by creating and distributing a full length feature film documenting the doctrines & misadventures of Muhammad.  If we were led by statesmen instead of traitors, we would hear the truth about Islam, that it is a vicious predatory war cult, not a "great religion of peace".  

    What's that, you say? Islam is a religion; Muslims have a right to believe and practice as they choose? Yeah, right. Muslims have a right to believe that we are rebels against their god who must be killed or enslaved at any cost, that we may be killed, our widows raped and our children sold on the slave market with full impunity. If you believe that, then you might as well commit suicide now rather than wait for them to come for you. We don't need your kind, we need rational people who can think straight.

    It is time for the few remaining intelligent, clear thinking people to unite and rise up as one, demanding rational & effective action from the government we ordained to protect us. Begin by signing these petitions and sending them to your family, friends and associates with an exhortation to endorse and forward them. Then send them to your Representative & Senators.

• International Qur'an Petition
• Congress Debate Qur'an Petition
• Outlaw Islam!

    Those petitions contain the minimal information required to understand the truth about Islam, with links to the source documents for further exploration. They offer a quick and easy means to spread accurate information about the enemy which attacked us eight years ago.  If you need more, such as fliers you can print and distribute and Powerpoint presentations you can attach to emails, you can find them at  http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/  .
   

Tawfik Hamid, writing at NEWSMAX, wants to reform Islam. Here are a few vital points from his article.

• Suspend the traditional teaching that Muslims must wage wars on non-Muslims to offer them one of three options: convert to Islam, pay jizia (humiliating tax paid by non-Muslims to Muslims), or be killed.
• Publish new theologically-based books of Islamic jurisprudence that stand against beating women, slavery, killing apostates, and other violent edicts of Shariah.
• As long as the Muslim world insists on teaching violent principles as mentioned earlier, the gap between it and the West will only increase, and the efforts to bridge the gap of civilizations will be inefficient.
• Once the Muslim world puts an end to the destructive points, the voices that emphasize the “common values” will be able to succeed in their great mission to make our world better.

The aforementioned "traditional teaching" is found in the Qur'an: 8:39, 9:29 & Sahih Muslim 19.4294. There is a problem with attempting to suspend teaching of Qur'anic doctrine. Allah's word describes itself as perfected in 5:3  "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion". 

     Allah's perfect and final words can not be changed, Allah strictly forbids it. Allah said: "And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words." 6:115 & 18:27.  Allah said "No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not." 30:30.  Allah's messenger confirmed it with a curse: "'Far removed, far removed (from mercy), those who changed (their religion) after me."  Sahih  Bukhari 8.76.585.

    The clear and absolute prohibitions are confirmed by Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller contains a list of acts which entail apostasy, which carries a death sentence.  These items are included in that list. O8.7.

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4); 

Allah's imperatives can't be re-interpreted because they are clear, 3:7, requiring no interpretation. Moe's Sunna shows us what they mean; read the book of Jihad or Expedition in any of the canonical hadith collections.

    Jihad can not be abandoned because it is central to Islam; its very core. Too much of the Qur'an must be ripped out, the Sira & Sunnna truncated radically, likewise Shari'ah.  Then there is Moe's execration.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

    Islam will no more be reformed than lions will become herbivores and graze with the sheep..

President Obama celebrated sunset with an Iftar Tuesday, August 1, 2009. Excerpts from his remarks follow,  with my comments interspersed.

Islam, as we know, is part of America.

Islam can not be a part of America. Islam is, by its own intrinsic nature, permanently alienated. In the Islamic world view, only Allah has the right to rule. Any government that rules by man made law instead of Shari'ah is unjust and must be removed by Jihad, if necessary.  Moe prophesied that Jesus Christ will rule by the Qur'an when he returns.

Islam is not compatible with democracy. Allah said "It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision." [33:36] Allah and his Messenger (or Caliph ) make all the decisions; Joe Camel has no choice in the matter. Islam is theocratic autocracy, the polar opposite of democracy.

One of those values is the freedom to practice your religion -- a right that is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.  Nashala Hearn, who joins us from Muskogee, Oklahoma, took a stand for that right at an early age.  When her school district told her that she couldn't wear the hijab, she protested that it was a part of her religion.  The Department of Justice stood behind her, and she won her right to practice her faith.

The practice of Islam entails more than hijab, salat, zakat, hajj & iman. Islam is not complete without Jihad, which is mandatory, not an optional extra. Jihad is defined in Islamic law as making war on non-Muslims. [Reliance of the Traveller, O9.0.] Jihad is a communal obligation, binding upon Muslims in every year. [O9.1]

The annual obligation to perform Jihad is confirmed by fiqh. Observe what Al-Shafi-i said about it.  "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

If Muslims have a right to practice their religion, then they have a right to kill you, rape your widow, enslave your orphans and seize your property. If there is a right to practice Islam, we have no rights.

They all contain truths.  Among those truths are the pursuit of peace and the dignity of all human beings.  That must always form the basis upon which we find common ground.

Islam divides the world into Dar al-Islam, where Allah's writ runs and Dar al-Harb, where Allah's writ does not run. Peace is when Dar al-Harb (the house of war) is conquered and engulfed by Dar al-Islam.  I suggest that you read O9.8 & O9.9 of Reliance of the Traveller. So much for the pursuit of peace.

Islam recognizes the dignity of Muslims, not all human beings. Pagans & Atheists are to be converted, enslaved or killed, people with scriptural religions are to be subjugated and extorted, surviving as sub-humans living at sufferance. One of Islam's codified oral traditions has Moe declaring that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims. [Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.]

Together, we have a responsibility to foster engagement grounded in mutual interest and mutual respect.

There is no mutual interest between prey and predator. Respect is earned, Islam has not earned it. Respect is reciprocal, Islam gives none, see the citation immediately above: our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.

So tonight, we celebrate a great religion, and its commitment to justice and progress.

What is Islam's greatness?  Judaism gave us monotheism. Christianity gave us hope of salvation. Islam gives us predestination & predation. Islam's 'greatness', which it seeks to restore, is the Caliphate which enslaved nearly half the world at its peak.  

What commitment to justice and progress? Shari'ah prescribes hudud, including corporal punishment. Proving rape requires four male witnesses who observed penetration. Rape victims are punished.  The testimony of two women is required to equal that of one man.

    Ten days prior to the eighth anniversary of the Accursed  Abomination, our recently elected President celebrated the month in which the damnable book was "revealed"; the book  whose sanctification of Jihad motivated the nineteen murderers of three thousand of our fellows. He referred to the war cult which sponsored the attack a "great religion", praising its "commitment to peace" & justice.

    Allahu skata!! Camel dung in the desert. Islam: predatory war cult. Moe: profiteering pirate, pretender to prophecy, pederast, lecher & murderer. Obama: traitor. You fools who elected him should burn your voter registration cards and hang your heads in shame.  No words can express my disgust.