Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Islam or Liberty?


An  editorial in the Wall Street Journal raises critical issues. Lets examine them carefully.
Geert Wilders
‘Our Culture Is Better’
Champion of freedom or anti-Islamic provocateur? Both.
By JAMES TARANTO

Mr. Wilders is right to call for a vigilant defense of liberal principles. A society has a right, indeed a duty, to require that religious minorities comply with secular rules of civilized behavior. But to demand that they renounce their religious identity and holy books is itself an affront to liberal principles.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

    Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Laws prohibiting the free exercise of Islam are unconstitutional.  Congress can not outlaw: 

  • Jihad: [Translator’s footnote to 2:190.]
  • Jihad means to war against non-Muslims [Reliance of the Traveller: O9.0 (Islamic law.)]
    • Mandatory:
      • against pagans
        • 8:39  And fight them until there is no more Fitnah…and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone…
        • Reliance of the Traveller O9.9
          • The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim…
      • against Jews & Christians
        • 9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah,…among the people of the Scripture…until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
        • Reliance of the Traveller O9.8
          • The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…
  • Genocide:
    • 8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. …
    • 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihad 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 Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam…
    • Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
      Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
      I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
  • Terrorism:
    • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, …
    • 8:12. … I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.“
    • Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
       Narrated Abu Huraira:

          Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),…

  • Rape of captive women:
    • 4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess.
    • Bukhari 5.59.459 

    Jihad, genocide, terrorism & rape (of captives) are intrinsic sacraments of Islam; religious practices under the umbrella of first amendment protection.  That does not square with liberal principles:

  • right to life
    • liberty
    • freedom of religious belief & practice.

If Muslims have the right to practice Islam, then you do not have any rights.

  • life
  • liberty
    • Pagans & atheists  must be killed, converted or enslaved. 
    • People of the Book may be converted or live as less than second class citizens under a “treaty of protection“.
    • Dhimmis may not:
      • pray or recite scripture aloud in public
      • build new churches
      • repair existing churches
      • own or carry weapons
      • testify in court against a Muslim

    Muslims can not renounce the Qur’an or any part thereof without becoming apostates subject to the death penalty.

  • Reliance 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; [Acts which entail apostasy.]
    • O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
    • O8.2  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

    The Qur’an can not be edited to render Islam anodyne.

  • Allah has perfected it. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. 
  • 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

    An irreconcilable conflict exists between the imperatives of Islam and the rules of civilized behavior & rights of man enshrined in the Declaration of Independence & guaranteed by the Constitution.  The preservation of our lives & liberties requires the removal of  Islam from our society.

  • Close the Mosques.
  • Close the Madrassahs.
  • Close the Islamic Cultural Centers.
  • Deport the Muslims already here. 
  • Prevent the entry of Muslims. 

    None of those necessary actions can be taken without first amending the Constitution to recognize the fact that Islam is a war machine, not a legitimate religion worthy of first amendment protection.  Pedestrian Infidel has posted a proposed 28th amendment. An on line petition calling for a generic amendment is explained here and is posted at petition on line.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

November 29, 2008 Posted by | Religion | Leave a comment

Islam or Liberty?


An  editorial in the Wall Street Journal raises critical issues. Lets examine them carefully.
Geert Wilders
‘Our Culture Is Better’
Champion of freedom or anti-Islamic provocateur? Both.
By JAMES TARANTO

Mr. Wilders is right to call for a vigilant defense of liberal principles. A society has a right, indeed a duty, to require that religious minorities comply with secular rules of civilized behavior. But to demand that they renounce their religious identity and holy books is itself an affront to liberal principles.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

    Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Laws prohibiting the free exercise of Islam are unconstitutional.  Congress can not outlaw: 

  • Jihad: [Translator’s footnote to 2:190.]
  • Jihad means to war against non-Muslims [Reliance of the Traveller: O9.0 (Islamic law.)]
    • Mandatory:
      • against pagans
        • 8:39  And fight them until there is no more Fitnah…and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone…
        • Reliance of the Traveller O9.9
          • The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim…
      • against Jews & Christians
        • 9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah,…among the people of the Scripture…until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
        • Reliance of the Traveller O9.8
          • The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…
  • Genocide:
    • 8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. …
    • 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihad 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 Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam…
    • Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
      Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
      I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
  • Terrorism:
    • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, …
    • 8:12. … I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.“
    • Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
       Narrated Abu Huraira:

          Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),…

  • Rape of captive women:
    • 4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess.
    • Bukhari 5.59.459 

    Jihad, genocide, terrorism & rape (of captives) are intrinsic sacraments of Islam; religious practices under the umbrella of first amendment protection.  That does not square with liberal principles:

  • right to life
    • liberty
    • freedom of religious belief & practice.

If Muslims have the right to practice Islam, then you do not have any rights.

  • life
  • liberty
    • Pagans & atheists  must be killed, converted or enslaved. 
    • People of the Book may be converted or live as less than second class citizens under a “treaty of protection“.
    • Dhimmis may not:
      • pray or recite scripture aloud in public
      • build new churches
      • repair existing churches
      • own or carry weapons
      • testify in court against a Muslim

    Muslims can not renounce the Qur’an or any part thereof without becoming apostates subject to the death penalty.

  • Reliance 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; [Acts which entail apostasy.]
    • O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
    • O8.2  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

    The Qur’an can not be edited to render Islam anodyne.

  • Allah has perfected it. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. 
  • 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

    An irreconcilable conflict exists between the imperatives of Islam and the rules of civilized behavior & rights of man enshrined in the Declaration of Independence & guaranteed by the Constitution.  The preservation of our lives & liberties requires the removal of  Islam from our society.

  • Close the Mosques.
  • Close the Madrassahs.
  • Close the Islamic Cultural Centers.
  • Deport the Muslims already here. 
  • Prevent the entry of Muslims. 

    None of those necessary actions can be taken without first amending the Constitution to recognize the fact that Islam is a war machine, not a legitimate religion worthy of first amendment protection.  Pedestrian Infidel has posted a proposed 28th amendment. An on line petition calling for a generic amendment is explained here and is posted at petition on line.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

November 29, 2008 Posted by | Religion | Leave a comment

Islam or Liberty?


An  editorial in the Wall Street Journal raises critical issues. Lets examine them carefully.
Geert Wilders
‘Our Culture Is Better’
Champion of freedom or anti-Islamic provocateur? Both.
By JAMES TARANTO

Mr. Wilders is right to call for a vigilant defense of liberal principles. A society has a right, indeed a duty, to require that religious minorities comply with secular rules of civilized behavior. But to demand that they renounce their religious identity and holy books is itself an affront to liberal principles.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

    Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.  Laws prohibiting the free exercise of Islam are unconstitutional.  Congress can not outlaw: 

  • Jihad: [Translator’s footnote to 2:190.]
  • Jihad means to war against non-Muslims [Reliance of the Traveller: O9.0 (Islamic law.)]
    • Mandatory:
      • against pagans
        • 8:39  And fight them until there is no more Fitnah…and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone…
        • Reliance of the Traveller O9.9
          • The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim…
      • against Jews & Christians
        • 9:29 Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah,…among the people of the Scripture…until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
        • Reliance of the Traveller O9.8
          • The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…
  • Genocide:
    • 8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. …
    • 47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihad 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 Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam…
    • Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
      Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
      I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.
  • Terrorism:
    • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, …
    • 8:12. … I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.“
    • Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
       Narrated Abu Huraira:

          Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),…

  • Rape of captive women:
    • 4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess.
    • Bukhari 5.59.459 

    Jihad, genocide, terrorism & rape (of captives) are intrinsic sacraments of Islam; religious practices under the umbrella of first amendment protection.  That does not square with liberal principles:

  • right to life
    • liberty
    • freedom of religious belief & practice.

If Muslims have the right to practice Islam, then you do not have any rights.

  • life
  • liberty
    • Pagans & atheists  must be killed, converted or enslaved. 
    • People of the Book may be converted or live as less than second class citizens under a “treaty of protection“.
    • Dhimmis may not:
      • pray or recite scripture aloud in public
      • build new churches
      • repair existing churches
      • own or carry weapons
      • testify in court against a Muslim

    Muslims can not renounce the Qur’an or any part thereof without becoming apostates subject to the death penalty.

  • Reliance 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; [Acts which entail apostasy.]
    • O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
    • O8.2  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

    The Qur’an can not be edited to render Islam anodyne.

  • Allah has perfected it. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. 
  • 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

    An irreconcilable conflict exists between the imperatives of Islam and the rules of civilized behavior & rights of man enshrined in the Declaration of Independence & guaranteed by the Constitution.  The preservation of our lives & liberties requires the removal of  Islam from our society.

  • Close the Mosques.
  • Close the Madrassahs.
  • Close the Islamic Cultural Centers.
  • Deport the Muslims already here. 
  • Prevent the entry of Muslims. 

    None of those necessary actions can be taken without first amending the Constitution to recognize the fact that Islam is a war machine, not a legitimate religion worthy of first amendment protection.  Pedestrian Infidel has posted a proposed 28th amendment. An on line petition calling for a generic amendment is explained here and is posted at petition on line.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

November 29, 2008 Posted by | Religion | Leave a comment

Why?


This  is in response to a blog post at Monkey In the Middle.

Don’t ask Why; ask “What In Hell Will You Do About it?!”. The origin of Islamic terrorism is well known and easily accessible.

3:151.We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong­doers).

Allah sanctified terrorism.  Examine this quote from Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of this ayeh.

Allah next conveys the good news that He will put fear of the Muslims, and feelings of subordination to the Muslims in the hearts of their disbelieving enemies, because of their Kufr and Shirk.

Allah commanded terrorism in Surah Al-Anfal.

8:12. Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”

Does Allah mean what he said? Ibn Kathir has the answer.

Ibn Jarir commented that this Ayah commands, “O believers! Strike every limb and finger on the hands and feet of your (disbelieving) enemies.”

Did Allah cast terror?

33:26-27. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.  And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allah is Able to do all things.

How did Allah cast terror?

59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah – Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).

Did Moe exemplify terrorism?

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)

Why attack Jews?

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

Why: the damnable doctrines of Islam enshrined in Surat Al-Anfal & Al-Taubah, not poverty, ignorance, disease, illiteracy, repression, suppression nor occupation.  Allah’s Gd’d commands & Moe’s Gd’d example enshrined in Qur’an, hadith, sira & Sharia. Nothing else!

Since Islam is perfected, and his word can not be changed, Jihad, genocide & terror are immutable intrinsic sacraments of Islam; Islam can not be reformed, nor can  it be rendered anodyne.

Until Islam is eradicated from the earth, there will be neither peace nor security.  This is the fatal fact which none dares contemplate. What in Hell Will You Do about It? I will continue to expound these fatal facts as long as I live or until my fellow citizens join me in loudly, disrespectfully  & effectively demanding the eradication of the enemy which plagues civilization.

November 28, 2008 Posted by | Politics, Religion | , , , , | 3 Comments

Errata


On occasion, during searches, one finds interesting errors.

AMERICA HAS NO DUTY TO DESTROY ISLAM

By Doug Newman

Yes, Islam is an anti-Christ religion, but no it is not intent on world domination. It has been centuries since a Muslim country conquered a non-Muslim country.

  • Islam is an anti-Christ religion

Islam pretends to revere Jesus Christ as a Prophet. Islam denies his deity, declaring him to be only a man, Allah’s slave and messenger. Islam prophesies about Christ’s return, saying that he will lead the Muslims in killing the remaining Jews and rule the world by Allah’s book, not his Gospel.  For the details, refer to: The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

  • it is not intent on world domination

Evidently Mr. Newman has not read the Qur’an or Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir.

  • It has been centuries since a Muslim country conquered a non-Muslim country.

What was the declared intention when the Arab League invaded Israel in 1948?  How long ago did the Armenian Genocide occur? Even if it was true, the assertion would still be irrelevant. Islamic law, codified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9 dictates that:

  • “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year.” [O9.1]
  • “The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians” [O9.8]
  • “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” [O9.9]

We can either destroy Islam or suffer interminable terrorism and attacks probing for weakness. Islam will neither reform nor quit Jihad. Allah’s perfected, immutable word commands Jihad. Allah will curse the Muslims if they abandon Jihad in favor of productive pursuits.

November 27, 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , | Leave a comment

Tell EPA: Go to Hell! BEFORE They Ruin the Economy.


The EPA is considering green house gas regulations that will cripple the economy and reduce the food supply. We have two choices.

  1. Fight the proposed regulations before they are passed into law.
  2. Rise up in rebellion; a second American Revolution.

Because I prefer the first choice, I visited the American Energy Alliance and sent an email to the EPA arguing against the Socialist idiocy.

EPA wants to increase the price of gasoline, electricity, and anything that uses oil, coal, or natural gas by regulating eighty-five percent of the energy we use in America.  You only have until Friday to let EPA know that you think this plan should be stopped dead in its tracks—click here to send your message.

Here is the text of the stock message, which can be edited on the site.

I am writing in response to EPA’s Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. EPA should not find that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare and EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. To quote EPA Administrator Johnson himself, the Clean Air Act “is ill-suited for the task of regulating global greenhouse gases.”

EPA Should Not Find that Greenhouse Gas Endanger Human Health and Welfare

The ANPR seems to presume that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare. There is little evidence for this claim and historical data show the opposite. Over the past 100 years, as temperature and greenhouse gas concentrations have increased, global GDP has increased 18 fold, average life span has doubled, and per capita food supplies have increased even as global population has quadrupled. What is more, these increases in human welfare have been due to economic growth, which necessarily went hand in hand with greenhouse gas emissions. Had such emissions been capped in 1908, human health and welfare would certainly have suffered during the 20th century. EPA should examine actual historical data to put the model projections into their proper context.

EPA argues the Clean Air Act is precautionary in nature. This is true, but EPA should not regulate greenhouse gases without compelling information that they are causing harm to human health and welfare. This information does not exist today.

EPA should be very cautious about inflicting harm on the economy through increased regulation because, as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell argue in their 1999 paper, every additional $15 million in regulatory costs leads to an additional statistical death. This is because regulatory costs impose costs on society that reduce income and in turn reduce expenditures on health and safety.

The regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would cost billions, if not trillions of dollars, and as Lutter, Viscusi, and Morrell point out, lead to great harm to human health and welfare.

There is Profound Scientific Uncertainty Concerning the Impact of Increasing Greenhouse Gases on Human Health and Welfare

The science of climate change is far more unsettled than EPA explains in the ANPR. EPA should fully examine the state of climate change science. Here are a few examples of issues EPA needs to address and understand before it can accurately state that greenhouse gases harm human health and welfare:

  • The leveling off of global temperature. Since 2001, there has not been a statistically significant increase in temperature, even as carbon dioxide levels increased by 4 percent during this period. This leveling-off of global temperatures was not predicted by the global climate models. It is true that the climate is a complex system with many cyclical variations, but each passing year with flat temperatures (in spite of rising greenhouse gas concentrations) renders the most alarming projections less and less credible.
  • Heat-related mortality. EPA argues that warmer temperatures will lead to greater heat-related mortality. While this makes intuitive sense, EPA should examine actual data on heat-related mortality. For example, in the United States heat-related morality has decreased even as temperatures increased from the 1970s through the 1990s. EPA fails to consider the countervailing economic and health-related improvements that have caused heat-related mortality to fall as temperatures have increased.
  • Worse air quality. EPA argues that “the IPCC projects with virtual certainty” that warming will lead to worse air quality. This is highly unlikely. Instead of relying on the IPCC’s projections on air quality, EPA needs to examine its own air trends website. The website states that, “National average air quality continues to improve as emissions decline through 2007.” These improvements have occurred in spite of increasing population growth, GDP, vehicle-miles traveled, temperature, and greenhouse gas concentrations. There is no reason to believe the air quality trends will reverse.
  • Sea level rise. There is nothing new about rising sea levels. Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years—since the end of the last ice age. The real question is whether the rate of sea level rise is increasing. Recent papers by Holgate, Berge-Nguyen et al., and Unnikrishnan et al. all show no increase in the rate of sea level rise. If increased greenhouse gas levels were driving sea level rise, we should see an increase in the rate of sea level rise, but that has not happened.
  • A national solution will not solve a global issue. The Clean Air Act is not an appropriate way to regulate greenhouse gases because greenhouse gases are a global issue, not just an issue for the United States. We could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to zero, but even this dramatic result would not have much of an impact on global temperatures in the long run. The vast majority of increases in greenhouse gas emissions come from the developing world, not the United States. National policies can give incentives for manufacturers to move their operations to unregulated regions, paradoxically leading to higher emissions to produce the goods in question.
  • EPA’s models should be open and transparent. EPA should not use closed-source models for critical projections and modeling. All the models EPA references should be available for public inspection and download. EPA should also detail all of the assumptions and documentation for the models. EPA should not hide key assumptions and projections from the public.
  • The ANPR has many legal problems. For example, EPA writes that it has the authority under the Clean Air Act to implement a cap-and-trade scheme for greenhouse gases. This claim is unlikely to pass muster with the courts. The DC Circuit, in the recent CAIR decision, ruled that EPA does not have the authority to implement cap-and-trade under the Clean Air Act.

Conclusion: These are just a few of the reasons EPA should not use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, nor should it make a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Although many climate scientists endorse man’s role in rising temperatures, there is no comparable consensus among economists, medical doctors, and other experts on the impacts such warming may have on human health and welfare. Indeed, poorly designed regulations could cause harms (in lost economic output) that far outweigh the modest benefits of lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Read the footnotes: http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/PDF/EPA_footnotes.pdf

Time is short; please go immediately and tell them off!

November 26, 2008 Posted by | Politics | , , | 1 Comment

Sharia: Threat or Promise?


http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/press_release_billboard_11_25_2008.pdf FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Billboard sparks controversy in Detroit The non-profit group United American Committee has erected a controversial 48 ft. long billboard on Interstate 75 south of Detroit, MI with a statement in opposition to Islamic Sharia Law, a legal system that many believe is a growing threat to the U.S. Constitution. DETROIT, MI (November 25th, 2008) – The billboard, located just south of Luna Pier Rd. on the south bound side of the Detroit-Toledo Expressway, states “Sharia Law Threatens America”. Sharia Law is a legal system recognized in many Islamic countries such as the former Taliban regime of Afghanistan, and currently Saudi Arabia, and is a legal system which dictates beheadings, stonings, and other punishments for what are listed as crimes under Sharia such as homosexuality and adultery, and according to critics views women as inferior granting them little rights. Days after the billboard went up, emails from angry Muslim residents began coming in to the offices of the United American Committee, the organization behind the billboard. “Muslims are the biggest victims of Sharia Law in the world.” remarked Tom Trento, a spokesperson for the UAC. Trento continued “We hope this message inspires the Muslims of America who came to this country to escape Sharia, to stand up against it.” If one goes to the website listed on the board ( http://www.UnitedAmericanCommittee.org ) they will find a video of Wafa Sultan, a Syrian Muslim who escaped from the middle-east and has become an outspoken critic of Sharia Law. “At times, it feels to me, that Sharia is following me to the United States” Sultan says in the video, referring to Islamic charities and organizations in America who have pushed for support for Sharia Law in parts of America. Sultan also points out that in Great Britain and France, Sharia Law is being enforced in various ways in certain communities. Most recently Great Britain has officially sanctioned the establishment of Sharia courts for civil matters among Muslims. “Our constitution is not compatible with Sharia” Sultan states, a view shared by many in America. The United American Committee is a leading non-profit educational group dedicated to awakening the nation to the threats of radical Islam and works to educate Americans on the nature of Islamic extremism. Its mission is to fight the ideological aspects of the War on Terror to counter elements of radical Islam in America. ## MEDIA CONTACT Tom Trento 561-767-0982 info@unitedamericancommittee.org I say it is both threat & promise; a threat to the entire non-Muslim world and a promise to Muslims. Allah has promised them victory; that they will obtain succession to rule the world; total domination. Allah has commanded perpetual war against all who do not embrace Islam or submit to its dominion as Dhimmis. The primary commands are contained in two verses: 8:39, which commands Muslims to fight pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped everywhere in the world and 9:29, which commands Muslims to fight “people of the book” until we are subjugated and extorted. Because Allah uttered those commands and Moe obeyed them, they are forever enshrined in Islamic law. Malik’s Muwatta was an early attempt to codify Sharia, but it is basically a collection of sayings; oral tradition about Moe’s words & works. “Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik (Reliance of the Traveller and Tools of the Worshipper, also commonly known by its shorter title Reliance of the Traveller) is a classical manual of fiqh for the Shafi’i school of Islamic jurisprudence.” Here is the Wikipedia entry. Scribid displays a scanned image of the book with a search engine so you can look up any reference. Justice is the subject of Book O. The imperatives of war are found in O9.8 & 9.9.

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),

Regular readers of this blog have seen extensive quotations from Reliance of the Traveller, a relatively small but extremely important sample of a large volume. There is more; much more. Sharia dictates almost everything Muslims and Dhimmis do, wife beating included. M10.11: Dealing with a Rebellious Wife When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz, dis: p42) (O: whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (O: without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, “Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,” or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me [def: (3) below] is religiously obligatory”). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (O: and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (A: bruise her,) break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (O: It is unlawful to strike another’s face). He may hit her wether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness. (N: To clarify this paragraph, we mention the following rulings: -1- Both man and wife are obliged to treat each other kindly and graciously. -2- It is not lawful for a wife to leave the house except by the permission of her husband, though she may do so without permission when there is a pressing necessity. Nor may a wife permit anyone to enter her husband’s home unless he agrees, even their unmarriageable kin. Nor may she be alone with a nonfamily-member male, under any circumstances. -3- It is obligatory for a wife to obey her husband as is customary in allowing him full lawful sexual enjoyment of her person. It is obligatory for the husband to enable her to remain chaste and free of want for sex if he is able. It is not obligatory for the wife to serve her husband (dis: w45.1); if she does so, it is voluntary charity. -4- If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed “rebellious’‘ (nashiz), and the husband takes the following steps to correct matters: (a) admonition and advice, by explaining the unlawfulness of rebellion, its harmful effect on married life, and by listening to her viewpoint on the matter; (b) if admonition is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her, by which both learn the degree to which they need each other; (c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family; (d) if the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.) Honor killing is also mentioned peripherally.

O1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation: -1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances (O: whether Muslim or non-Muslim. The ruling for a person intermitently insane is that he is considered as a sane person when in his right mind, and as if someone continously insane when in an interval of insanity. If someone against whom retaliation is obligatory subsequently becomes insane, the full penalty is nevertheless exacted. A homicide committed by someone who is drunk is (A: considered the same as that of a sane person,) like his pronouncing divorce (dis: n1.2) ); -2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim; -3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences); -4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;

Sharia also dictates what you do in the privy, which pales in importance to the laws of war, which require it to be prosecuted against us. Now is the time to begin learning about the real, proximate & continuing threats posed by Islam, both that of Jihad and that of infiltration & subversion. Why not join the UAC and participate in our Jihad Resistance forum?

November 25, 2008 Posted by | Jihad | Leave a comment

Welcome JudgeRight


I am pleased to be joined by a friend from VOX, and honored to be included on his jury panel.

JudgeRight brings a sharp powers of observation, keen insight and clear logic framed in a Christian world view.

I do not desire to derail a friend’s motivation for joining me in this venue, nor can I leave him in the dark, except to the extent that I am also in darkness.

Judge, when you buy a domain and server space, you are on your own. In that situation you can, but should not be required to use WordPress.org as the user interface for your web site.  It appears that the WordPress.org user interface is very similar to this one. I have only encountered it at Grizzly Groundswell, but I have seen many sites powered by it.

The alternative is to use Front Page, Yahoo’s site builder, or my preference: Kompozer to do your creating & editing and Ace FTP Pro to upload to your server. You can upload with Kompozer or Nvu, but I haven’t learned how to do it.  Generally, the home page is index.html and you can give subsidiary pages whatever names you desire. You must, unfortunately, keep their names & urls straight when building links between them.

I am composing this in WP, but I usually use Kompozer for all my blogs on various services and my web site. Copy & paste is a great invention.  One word of caution: Kompozer is a bit unstable. The probability of a crash is directly proportional to:

  1. file size
  2. duration of the creative process
  3. the density of the research involved
  4. the importance of the file.

Save early and often.

November 25, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

UN Renews Censorship Demand


Update Nov. 5, 2009:  A new edition of the resolution has been tabled in the Third Committee.  Two new posts will bring the reader up to date. The first of these was written before I found the draft document. It contains extensive links to earlier resolutions and related documents.  The second contains considerable detail about the new resolution and links to items in the footnotes found in the draft.  It also has links to petitions you can sign and promote and a Sense of Congress resolution opposing the OIC’s current tactics.

 

I am informed by a press release from UN Watch that the General Assembly adopted the Defamation of Religions Resolution by a vote of  85:50 with 42 abstentions. At the time of this writing, the link to the resolution does not work. The link provided in my previous post on this subject also fails.

UN Watch counts as a gain the shift of 23 votes from support to abstention compared to last year’s vote. Big deal.  I would consider it a gain if they had voted against the resolution. Abstention displays a lack of conviction and courage, two characteristics vital to the survival of western civilization.  Without courage and conviction, our cause is lost and the lamp of liberty will be extinguished.

My most recent post on this subject, Stop Sharia!!!,   includes links to previous posts related to this subject and extensive quotes from relevant Islamic law.

The following statement from the resolution was pointed out in the UN Watch press release:

Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

To which feces I respond:

  • Is there any deception more egregious than this? No intelligent & sane person who has read the Qur’an & hadith can be fooled by such lies. Terrorism is sanctified by 3:151, mandated by 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26. Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror.
    • How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperatives to genocidal conquest and claim that Islam is not associated with rights violations?
    • How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperative to cast terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
    • How in Hell can anyone read Moe’s bragging about being made victorious with terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
    • How in Hell can anyone have knowledge of  Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 11, Paragraph 5 and claim that Islam does not violate human rights?

Ignore the flowery rhetoric and examine exactly what Islam seeks to impose upon us through national & international law as revealed by Reliance of the Traveller.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

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

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-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;

-8- to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

-9- to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah”; “Your saying `There’s no power or strength, etc,’ won’t save you from hunger”;

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah”;

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir”);

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-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);

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

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

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Examine the Islamic law as it applies to Dhimmis (that’s us after we are conquered by Muslims). Pay close attention to the clauses I have emphasized.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

O11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’ is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

O11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

O11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year).  The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

O11.8

It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

O11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

Exactly what part of  O11.10.5 do you not comprehend?  Please expose your full ignorance in the comment section; I will try to help you to understand what they are attempting to impose upon us.

Any negative statement about Allah, his Messenger, his commands or their activities carries the death penalty.  Am I a liar? Am I in error? Read the bold red text in the Shariah quotes again, then read the following quote.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The resolution uses broad, amorphous terms without narrow, predefined common meanings, conflating opposition to Islam with racism.

Urges States to take action to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these
rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject
to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights
or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;

Expresses its deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief
still in evidence in the world;

In a previous post: You’ve Been Mooned! I revealed the real intention behind that ambiguity. The Secretary General made remarks condemning FITNA, a short video created by Geert Wilders. Fitna quotes the Qur’an and displays the relationship between its commands, rabble rousing kutbah and riots & terrorism. It is neither false, distorted nor out of context.  In FITNA:  Supporting Documentation, I listed the ayat cited by Wilders in a speech to the Dutch Parliament, linking each ayat to source and providing tafsir links for many of them. Some but not all of those ayat are cited in the video.

Observe now what Ban Ki-moon said about FITNA.

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The only hate speech or incitement to violence contained in FITNA is in the Qur’an and kutbah quoted along with it. Wilders neither expresses hate nor incites violence.  The right of free expression is very much at stake:

  • Muslim organizations & regimes attempted to suppress the video.
  • The Dutch government attempted to suppress the video.
  • The Kingdom of Jordan charged Wilders with blasphemy and is demanding his arrest and rendition for trial.

According to Reuters, Ban described FITNA as “offensively anti-Islamic”.   Now we know the true standard: that laid down in Reliance of the Traveller.  Quoting the Qur’an and Jumah Sermons is “offensively anti-Islamic”.  The same standard would outlaw my blog posts.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 24, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

UN Renews Censorship Demand


Update Dec 20, 2009:

The first article linked above discusses the substance of the final draft, the second discusses the trend toward reduced support for the concept of defamation of religions.

I am informed by a press release from UN Watch that the General Assembly adopted the Defamation of Religions Resolution by a vote of  85:50 with 42 abstentions. At the time of this writing, the link to the resolution does not work. The link provided in my previous post on this subject also fails.

UN Watch counts as a gain the shift of 23 votes from support to abstention compared to last year’s vote. Big deal.  I would consider it a gain if they had voted against the resolution. Abstention displays a lack of conviction and courage, two characteristics vital to the survival of western civilization.  Without courage and conviction, our cause is lost and the lamp of liberty will be extinguished.

My most recent post on this subject, Stop Sharia!!!,   includes links to previous posts related to this subject and extensive quotes from relevant Islamic law.

The following statement from the resolution was pointed out in the UN Watch press release:

Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

To which feces I respond:

  • Is there any deception more egregious than this? No intelligent & sane person who has read the Qur’an & hadith can be fooled by such lies. Terrorism is sanctified by 3:151, mandated by 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26. Muhammad bragged about being made victorious with terror.
    • How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperatives to genocidal conquest and claim that Islam is not associated with rights violations?
    • How in Hell can anyone read the Qur’an’s imperative to cast terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
    • How in Hell can anyone read Moe’s bragging about being made victorious with terror and claim that Islam is not associated with terrorism?
    • How in Hell can anyone have knowledge of  Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 11, Paragraph 5 and claim that Islam does not violate human rights?

Ignore the flowery rhetoric and examine exactly what Islam seeks to impose upon us through national & international law as revealed by Reliance of the Traveller.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

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

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-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;

-8- to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

-9- to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah”; “Your saying `There’s no power or strength, etc,’ won’t save you from hunger”;

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah”;

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir”);

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-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);

-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

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

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Examine the Islamic law as it applies to Dhimmis (that’s us after we are conquered by Muslims). Pay close attention to the clauses I have emphasized.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

O11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha’ is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

O11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

O11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year).  The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with “as-Salamu ‘alaykum”;

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims’ buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

O11.8

It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

O11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

Exactly what part of  O11.10.5 do you not comprehend?  Please expose your full ignorance in the comment section; I will try to help you to understand what they are attempting to impose upon us.

Any negative statement about Allah, his Messenger, his commands or their activities carries the death penalty.  Am I a liar? Am I in error? Read the bold red text in the Shariah quotes again, then read the following quote.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

The resolution uses broad, amorphous terms without narrow, predefined common meanings, conflating opposition to Islam with racism.

Urges States to take action to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of these
rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject
to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights
or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public
health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs;

Expresses its deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief
still in evidence in the world;

In a previous post: You’ve Been Mooned! I revealed the real intention behind that ambiguity. The Secretary General made remarks condemning FITNA, a short video created by Geert Wilders. Fitna quotes the Qur’an and displays the relationship between its commands, rabble rousing kutbah and riots & terrorism. It is neither false, distorted nor out of context.  In FITNA:  Supporting Documentation, I listed the ayat cited by Wilders in a speech to the Dutch Parliament, linking each ayat to source and providing tafsir links for many of them. Some but not all of those ayat are cited in the video.

Observe now what Ban Ki-moon said about FITNA.

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The only hate speech or incitement to violence contained in FITNA is in the Qur’an and kutbah quoted along with it. Wilders neither expresses hate nor incites violence.  The right of free expression is very much at stake:

  • Muslim organizations & regimes attempted to suppress the video.
  • The Dutch government attempted to suppress the video.
  • The Kingdom of Jordan charged Wilders with blasphemy and is demanding his arrest and rendition for trial.

According to Reuters, Ban described FITNA as “offensively anti-Islamic”.   Now we know the true standard: that laid down in Reliance of the Traveller.  Quoting the Qur’an and Jumah Sermons is “offensively anti-Islamic”.  The same standard would outlaw my blog posts.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 24, 2008 Posted by | Politics, Religion, United Nations | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries