Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Crescent of Peace: Who Broke the Circle?
Blogburst logo, petition
Memorial Project officials insist that it was the passengers and crew, not the terrorists, who broke the peace on 9/11 The official explanation for the Crescent of Embrace design is that the path of Flight 93 breaks the circle, turning it into the giant crescent. They call it the Circle of Embrace now, but the Memorial Project’s own website acknowledges that the circle is still broken


In summary, the memorial is shaped in a circular fashion, and the circle is symbolically “broken” or missing trees in two places, depicting the flight path of the plane, and the crash site…

The fact that the Circle of Embrace is really a broken circle means two things. First, it means that the giant crescent is still there. Architect Paul Murdoch always described the Crescent of Embrace as a broken circle. Our circle of peace was broken on 9/11, with the unbroken part of the circle, what was symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11, being the giant Islamic shaped crescent. Adding an extra arc of trees that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle leaves the unbroken part unchanged. What is symbolically left standing on the Flight 93 crash site is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca. This prompts the question of WHO is being depicted as breaking the circle of peace on 9/11. Of course it can only be the terrorists. Who else can be charged with breaking the peace? The murdered passengers and crew? Once you realize that it can only be the terrorists who are being depicted as turning the circle into a crescent, it is obvious that this is actually a memorial to the terrorists (if that wasn’t obvious enough already from the Crescent name and the crescent and star flag configuration). The Memorial Project finally answers our question: insists that it was the passengers and crew who broke the circle Last spring a couple hundred emailers (thanks!) demanded to know “Who broke the circle?” The Memorial Project issued a boiler-plate response that never got around to answering the question. At the Memorial Project meeting last summer, however, Alec Rawls was able to pigeon-hole Memorial Project Manager Jeff Reinbold and Deputy Superintendent Keith Newlin.

“You can’t just say it was ‘the flight path’ that broke the circle” Rawls admonished. “This is a story of human action. So who did it? In your depiction, who is breaking the circle?” “The passengers and crew,” said Reinbold. “But the circle is a symbol of peace,” Rawls continued. “Who broke the peace? It was the TERRORISTS who broke the peace on 9/11.” Reinbold countered that that the circle is also a Druid symbol, and a Christian symbol. “But it is still a symbol of peace,” said Rawls, especially as the Memorial Project is using it, with the circle being broken on 9/11, “so who breaks it?” “It was the passengers and crew,” Newlin repeated, elaborating that: “They are the one’s who brought the plane down.” “You don’t think it was the terrorists who broke the peace?” Rawls asked. “They TRIED to break the peace,” said Newlin, “but they failed.” “Really?” asked Rawls: “They failed to break the peace? What about the 40 murdered heroes?” But Reinbold and Newlin were done talking.

February 12, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | 3 Comments

Cultural Difference: Jihad Imperatives

Now comes Victoria News with a one sided approach to inter-cultural dialog. Google alerted me to the existence of their editorial from which I have quoted a few excerpts out of context  with my comments.

EDITORIAL: Conversations about ethnic and cultural differences right way to go

This arises in context of Lorenzo Bouchard’s campaign to ban Islam from Canada. He allegedly posted demands for an Islam ban on bulletin boards at a local university. Subsequently, Muslim students claimed to be in fear for their physical safety because of those postings.

Fears about safety have been churned up in the Muslim student community at the University of Victoria recently

Is there any rational basis for those ‘fears”, or are they the product of paranoia or political expediency? Does Lorenzo Bouchard have a proven history of making or carrying out threats of physical violence?  Was there any threatening language in those posters?  While those questions remain unanswered, I will presume that the claims of “fears” are the product of political expediency.

There are violent passages in virtually all sacred religious texts, including some that target specific groups and some simply declaring the omnipotence of the god figure.

I am only familiar with Christian & Islamic scripture. Are Buddhists & Hindus engaging in Jihad? Did they perpetrate the attacks at Beslan, London, Madrid or New York?  Then why bring up other scriptures?

The fact is that Islam’s scripture contains open ended, outcome oriented Jihad imperatives without chronological or geographic limits. I present the text of those ayat as translated by Hilali & Khan, with links to parallel translations and to Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir. [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.

Those are fight…until loops with compound terminal conditions; without time limits. They are not anachronisms. Their revelator prophesied that Jihad would continue until the last day.

  • …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)…. Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526

The entire world must be conquered, no matter how long it takes, and Muslims will be cursed if they abandon their duty, as made clear in this hadith.

  • 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.

Can you connect the dots?

  • and give up conducting jihad
    • until you return to your original religion

Conducting Jihad is their religion.  I do not find in the Christian Gospels any direct equivalent to Islam’s Jihad imperative. If you find one, please submit the book chapter & verse.

We must be careful as a society not to encourage the ignorance-based idea that everyone who adheres to a particular faith will interpret those passages the same way.

Muslims are not empowered to interpret their scripture, which includes two types of verses: clear and unclear.  The clear verses contain Allah’s commands, including those cited above, and his rules, etc. which are to be believed in and implemented. The clear verses do not require interpretation.  The meaning of the clear verses has been fixed by scholars, based upon Moe’s sunnah.  The unclear verses have meanings known only to Allah, and are to be believed but not implemented. To fully comprehend this, you need to read 3:7 and its tafsir.

  • 3:7. It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur’ân). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), Al-Farâ’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allâh. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord.” And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabarî).
    • …The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented…. The Mutashabihat and Muhkamat Ayat

Moe demonstrated the meaning of 8:39 & 9:29 by waging numerous wars, as reported in his sunnah. Follow the links to the hadith cited above and use the links in the left side bar to go up to the next few levels and read the several books of Jihad in the four collections at USC.  While Ibn Kathir goes into detail about the orders to fight, other exegetes find them so obvious that no elaboration is required. Examine these examples; note how Maududi goes into great detail about Jizya, but not the order to fight.

The ban Islam campaign also calls for the destruction of the Qur’an, the Islamic holy book. On some levels, that’s like saying we should ban other religions because their holy texts refer to non-believers as heathens who should be destroyed.

Please substantiate this assertion. Lorenzo’s petitions* call for Islam to be banned, they do not mention destroying the Qur’an. They also explicitly state the grounds on which Islam should be outlawed.





But in this day and age, we must be vigilant when individuals or groups with a certain viewpoint threaten – either implicitly or directly – the well-being of others who are minding their own business.

It appears to this reader that your editorial is casting innuendo against Lorenzo Bouchard, accusing him of threatening Muslims. If you have evidence of any threat, why don’t you publish it?

The business of Islam; of Muslims is Jihad. Must we be vigilant against those who explicitly threaten our well being? It appears that you have no clue concerning the application of your own expression. I will therefore cite Islamic law, which requires a minimum of one military attack against Dar al-Harb in every year. The following quotes are from Umdat as-Salik. [Book O, Chapter 9.]

O9.1 …As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims. The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year….

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),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,”

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

When Muslims carry out demonstrations, they frequently display signs urging our decapitation and proclaiming that Islam will conquer and dominate us. What do you say about those threats?

February 12, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: