Freedom Works sent an email over the signature of Dick Armey, urging me to send an email to my Senators condemning the Cap & Trade carbon tax scheme. I did not need much urging to comply with his request.
The email form is set up to send messages to President Obama, Vice President Biden, your Senators & Representative. It is free, quick and easy. And one more thing, it is estimated that the Carbon Tax will cost the average family $3900.00 per year.
An article posted at Islam In Action cited an Associated Press article: US wants Iran hostage suit tossed out which alerted me to the existence of the Algiers Accords, which President Carter ‘ratified’ by executive order. Examine the provisions made in general principle B of the Algiers Accords.
It is the purpose of both parties, within the framework of and pursuant to the provisions of the two Declarations of the Government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria, to terminate all litigation as between the Government of each party and the nationals of the other, and to bring about the settlement and termination of all such claims through binding arbitration. Through the procedures provided in the Declaration, relating to the Claims Settlement Agreement, the United States agrees to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration.
President Carter agreed to:
- terminate lawsuits
- nullify judgments
- prohibit litigation
- end claims by binding arbitration.
That is cemented in Point 10.
Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will promptly withdraw all claims now pending against Iran before the International Court of Justice and will thereafter bar and preclude the prosecution against Iran of any pending or future claim of the United States or a United States national arising out of events occurring before the date of this declaration related to (A) the seizure of the 52 United States nationals on November 4, 1979, (B) their subsequent detention,
The accord clearly bars suits against Iran arising from the hostage taking. Next we discover that the parties to the accord are not on equal terms: Iran is guaranteed the right to recover assets from the Shah and his family.
Upon the making by the Government of Algeria of the certification described in Paragraph 3 above, the United States will freeze, and prohibit any transfer of, property and assets in the United States within the control of the estate of the former Shah or of any close relative of the former Shah served as a defendant in U.S. litigation brought by Iran to recover such property and assets as belonging to Iran. As to any such defendant, including the estate of the former Shah, the freeze order will remain in effect until such litigation is finally terminated. Violation of the freeze order shall be subject to the civil and criminal penalties prescribed by U.S. law.
Further details are provided by a CNS article: Carter Era Agreement Again Cited in Bid to Block Iran Hostage Lawsuit That article quotes Senator Tom Harkin on this issue.
“The Algiers Accord is not a treaty and was never submitted to the Congress for ratification,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said in a late 2001 statement. “It is a kidnapping and ransom agreement that was entered into under duress while the Ayatollah was threatening to put the Americans on trial as ‘spies’ and execute them.”
[..].or (4) the claim is related to a specified case concerning the taking of American hostages by Iran in 1979. […]
Sec 1083 specifically denies immunity to Iran for causes arising from the seizure of hostages.
According to CNS, the litigants cited P.L. 110-181, Sec. 1083, to which the Department of Justice countered with a statement that the act did not repeal the accord.
In this writer’s opinion, the hostages, injured previously by the Ayatollah’s gang, are suffering at the hands of their own government, which is denying their right to seek indemnification.
Moral Muslims don’t want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site Thanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia–Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.’s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son’s grave. Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:
We all know who the enemy is. It’s Islamic radicals who are guided by the ideology of Islamic supremacy1. Just as Nazis were guided by the ideology of Aryan supremacy. The only difference is that Gihadis consider it their religious duty to impose Islam all over the world and many of them yearn to die (and kill) for Allah. They use lines from the Koran such as “kill them [infidels] wherever you find them” or “slay the idolaters wherever you find them” as their guiding principles.2
Islam needs to be reformed so that it rejects supremacism and violent conquest, but trying reform Islam is a difficult and dangerous business3
Islamic radicals murder more Muslims than Christians, Jews, Hindus and everybody else combined. Gihadis may hate you for being infidels. But they really hate us for not following their demented dogma.
In this struggle for the soul of Islam, the last thing that moral Muslims4 want is any kind of victory for the supremacists, never mind a mind-boggling symbolic victory over the heroes of Flight 93:
What possible reason could be there for including anything Islamic or anything even resembling an Islamic symbol into Flight 93 Memorial? Inclusion of Islamic symbols memorializes murderers who brought down the plane and is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims and their families. United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked in 2001. Let’s not allow hijacking of Flight 93 Memorial in 2008.
Muslims know all about facing Mecca for prayer One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be? Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin’s pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismi sses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle’s original concern about the giant crescent, which remains comp letely intact in the “broken circle” redesign), on the grounds that: “if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you’ve probably gone too far.” We don’t need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world’s largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world’s largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch’s 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch’s mosque. Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:
The shape of the “broken circle” resembles a crescent moon. So does the shape of the tower. Crescent moon is the most recognizable Islamic symbol. When we pray, we face Mecca and Mosques are traditionally built to face Mecca. The case could be made that the proposed design is aligned in North-Easterly direction, which corresponds with Qiblah, a direction to Mecca. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since Mecca is located to the South-East of Somerset, Qiblah cannot possibly have a North-Easterly direction. This assumption would be correct if you’re using a flat map. However, if you take a globe, place pins on locations of Somerset and Mecca, and connect those pins with a string, you’ll see that the string at the base of the Somerset pin points North-East. This symbolism may not be noticeable to a non-Muslim, and it is also possible, but likely improbable that the designer is ignorant of its significance. The proposed design would be perfect for EgyptAir 990 memorial. But for United 93 memorial, it is simply unacceptable.
Allahpundit is just being careless, but the willful blindness of the Park Service is foundational The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the “coincidences” pile. According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project’s many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag. (Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the centerline of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.) Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can’t believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can’t believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93! This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish. How to distinguish a moral Muslim from an Islamic supremacist Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden’s followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims4 reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed. Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest5, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of “abrogation.” Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses. The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don’t even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a “religion of peace.” This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran’s own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106)6. Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called “taking takfir,” such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation. The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad’s accusation against the Jews: that they twist the “allegorical parts” of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment–Thou shalt not murder–is binding on Muslims. Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is “wood for the fire.” Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam7 is in systematic violation of the Koran’s own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam’s strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet. What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty–the great haven from which truth can be spoken–build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site? No helping hand from the land of the free If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils–condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself–thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions. That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad. The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary. Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog’s url.
The text above the horizontal line originated at errortheory, without the superscripts, which I added. The superscripts are linked to my comments in the following enumerated list.
- Islamic supremacy is intrinsic to Islam, established by the Qur’an: 9:33 and Sunna: Bukhari 4.52.65 . Offensive Jihad, genocide and terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam: standard, off the shelf, Islam, not some imagined radicalism. The Banu Qurayzah knew who the enemy was: “Muhammad and his army“.
- The Qur’an is given as a guide to mankind. In it, Allah issued clear commands, which are to be believed and implemented. 8:39 says “Fight them until…” ; 9:29 says:”Fight those who…until:. Why did Moe say “I have been ordered to fight the people till…”?
- Islam can not be reformed because the Qur’an is Allah’s perfected word which can not be changed. Supremacism and conquest are intrinsic to Islam, permanent parts of it.
- Oxymoron: “moral Muslims”. A moral man who adheres to Islam suffers from the most severe cognitive dissonance. He worships a blood thirsty demon as the Almighty Creator. Allah set making “great slaughter” as Moe’s price of admission to Paradise. He worships a genocidal war lord as the greatest and best of men.
- No such conversion occurred. Moe’s preaching evolved as he accrued an army and gained strength. In Mekkah, vastly out numbered, he preached forbearance and tolerance. In Medina, after building an army, he preached conquest.
- 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things? For confirmation, see The Meaning of Naskh. Surah At-Taubah, which contains the commands to fight Jews & Christians, was among the last to be revealed, it abrogates the earlier, more tolerant verses.
- Traditional Islam is what Moe said, speaking for Allah, and what he did, in obedience to Allah’s word. Traditional Islam is authentic Islam, the real thing. The “reformers” seek to create a new religion and call it Islam.
posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:30 PMBy Jonathan
Selected excerpts interspersed with my comments.
A dangerous attack on the American Bill of Rights has begun to show up on right wing blogs.
In February of ’07, Pedestrian Infidel proposed a 28th Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that blog post to be the first such concrete proposal I encountered on the web. Others had suggested a need for legislation, some had suggested the need for an amendment, but, to the best of my knowledge, there were no concrete proposals. Concern about Islam’s threat to our liberties dates back more than two years, it is not a novelty.
The proposed amendment is a counter attack against Islamic supremacism, not an attack against the Bill of Rights. An outline of the proposal follows.
- Islam is not recognized as a religion, it is stripped of First Amendment protection.
- Declares Islam an enemy of the United States of America and prohibits its public practice.
- Muslim institutions are to be closed and propagation of Islam prohibited. Muslim immigration is terminated.
- Discrimination, assault & impairment of individual rights (as limited by Art. 3) of Muslims prohibited.
The threat to liberty issues from Islam, not from ‘Islamophobes’.
- Islam denies freedom of conscience.
3:2. Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.
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.
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).
- Islam denies freedom of speech.
O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam [If you leave Islam, you must be executed: O8.1 -.2]
-3- to speak words that imply 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;
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-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). )
- Islam denies freedom of religion.
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:
-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
-4- must keep to the side of the street;
-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.
Source:: Umdat as-Salik, the hand book of Islamic law.
- Allah’s word is law, once Allah and Moe have decided a matter, there is no right to question their decision and no appeal.
Concerning proposals to write Islam out of the First Amendment, deport Muslims and close Islamic institutions, Jonathan responds: “ These attitudes are intolerable.” Either Jonathan’s value system varies greatly from ours or he perceives Islam through a fact filter that prevents him from perceiving Islam’s intolerance & violence, which make it intolerable to lovers of life and liberty.
Allah’s word must be “made superior”, as specified in 9:33 and 48:28. Supremacism & triumphalism are interwoven throughout Islam’s canon of scripture. This fatal fact becomes clear when one reads the titles of related topics in Ibn Kathir’s 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
How will Islam conquer us? By Jihad: “Holy fighting in Allah’s cause, “ordained” for Muslims,. as the price of admission to Paradise. Jihad continues from the beginning of Moe’s prophetic career until Judgment Day. Jihad is the Muslim’s “original. religion“. Islamic law requires that offensive Jihad be performed at least once in every year[Umdat as-Salik O9.1]. That is confirmed by Al-Shafi’i: “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.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” precludes our government from discriminating against any religions. What could be a worse discrimination against a specific belief system than to legislate that it doesn’t “qualify” as a religion at all.
The establishment clause precludes establishing a national church. The founders wisely decided against allowing the government to decide which church, if any, we will join.
The worst course of action is that which has been followed for the last 220 years, giving a piracy cult undeserved constitutional protection. Islam has theology, cosmology, prayer, ritual & charity and it binds men permanently to Allah, so it must be a legitimate religion, right? Wrong! Islam has a mercenary mission! When reading a book one third as long as the Bible, it is difficult to perceive certain patterns. Isolating a few critically important ayat makes the pattern perceptible by removing the chaff which otherwise occludes the pattern.
8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: “The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger.” So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.
8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) – And Allâh is Able to do all things.
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. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.
Who gets the spoils? Allah and his Messenger, who takes the top 20% with right of first selection. Since Allah is an impotent idol, Moe got the best of the loot. What did Moe want? “the good of this world” . What does Allah want? “great slaughter”! Making a great slaughter was the price of Moe’s ticket to Paradise.
The clear pattern formed by the ayat cited above is confirmed and reinforced by several of the oral traditions of Moe’s companions.
Muslim Book 019, Number 4327:
The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.
Muslim Book 019, Number 4294 […]Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils […]
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), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495 […]When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, […]
Allah made spoils lawful for Moe because of his weakness and humility. Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world. Allah allocated the spoils to Moe, who kept the top 20% for himself.
How did Allah make Moe victorious? How did Allah make Moe wealthy? Is it possible that Moe was an arrogant, belligerent narcissist, unworthy & unqualified to be a Prophet? Aisha Bewley translated part of Sahih Bukhari which Khan Bowdlerized.
Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: …It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.
Those are the words of a pirate, not a Prophet. Moe founded a piracy cult, which wears a false mantle of religion as a camouflage and motivational tool. What legitimate religion says ‘go to war or go to Hell’?
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 Allâh is Able to do all things.
9:90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allâh and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.
Those clear and obvious ayat are confirmed by an equally clear hadith.
Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2497:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior’s family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: ‘before the Day of Resurrection”.
We have a responsibility to judge individuals by their actions, not by the books they read.
We are judging an institution, not individuals. We must judge it by its doctrines and its fruits. What legitimate religion sanctifies aggressive conquest, genocide & terrorism ? What legitimate religion enslaves people?
O9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.
Whatever any of us believe about the tenets of the Muslim faith, it isn’t anyone’s place to judge their neighbor’s religious beliefs, and American citizens who are Muslim are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American – including the practice of their religion, and obviously, not being deported. This paranoia reminds me of America’s imprisoning 70,000 United States citizens during World War II – among a total of 117,000 of Japanese descent who were detained in so-called “relocation centers.” Haven’t we grown up since then?
What we believe about the tenets of Islam is irrelevant. The reality is relevant, and it is evident on the face of the Qur’an, hadith, tafsir & Shari’ah, which form a congruent pattern of violent, genocidal aggression. In a state of weakness, with numerical inferiority, Islam is relatively docile. As its numbers increase, it becomes increasingly aggressive. In Mekkah, vastly outnumbered, Moe preached forbearance. In Medina, when he amassed an army, he preached Jihad.
A 1400 year death toll of 270 million tells us that objection to Islam is not paranoia. Muslims form a fifth column on our own soil. Trusting them is not possible. A bullet or bomb can come from any direction at any time, as thirteen victims discovered in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area a few years ago. Since that attack, there have been several shootings, vehicular assaults and one attempted bombing.
What’s the point of this post? Simply that people will always be people. Whether they read books with messages of peace or books that endorse wrath and vengeance, most people are usually peaceful, but circumstances sometimes push people to violence, and a few people will always be obsessively addicted to violence.
Most Muslims do not read the Qur’an, the last statistic I saw showed a Qur’an literacy rate of 17% among men and 13% among women. They get their ideals from the Mosque, and most Mosques in America are run by Wahhabis. The fact is that Jihad is a mandatory Islamic sacrament, not an option. A Muslim can not be absolutely assured of avoiding Hell & admission to Paradise without participation in Jihad.
If we were to discriminate against Muslims, who’s next, Scientologists? Jehovah’s Witnesses? Mormons? Japanese? I’m saddened when fundamentalists of any faith advocate wrath and vengeance, but I support everyone’s right to their books, their beliefs, and all their rights as United States citizens. This is a plea for all to put aside fear and prejudice, and to respect our American Bill of Rights and our American way of life.
While Jonathan accuses Islam’s critics of paranoia, his penultimate paragraph is a clear example of paranoia. Why should anyone be next? Do they worship a blood thirsty demon who demands human sacrifice? Do they make sacraments of conquest, genocide & terrorism? Do they constitute a security threat? Are their doctrines inimical to liberty? Do they demand that their scripture be substituted for our Constitution?
As the Durban II Draft evolved, its redundancy has been reduced, but its objectionable elements remain intact. It singles out Israel for unwarranted condemnation and demands criminalization of truthful criticism of Islam. For those reasons, I urge President Omama and Secretary of State Clinton to stand by the decision to stay away from the Racism Conference We must not lend any legitimacy to that travesty. I urge the House & Senate to pass resolutions condemning the Durban II Draft Document and to refuse to subsidize it with our tax dollars.
1. Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph one is unacceptable because the referenced text singled out Israel for condemnation, ignoring the human rights violations, genocides & racism of other nations. It is also unacceptable because it demands criminalization of criticism of Islam. President Obama recently cited this paragraph as his main reason for deciding not to participate in the conference.
7. Reiterates that poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion and economic disparities as well as foreign occupation are closely associated with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and contribute to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty;
“Foreign occupation” is a code phrase for Israel bashing. The “racist attitudes and practices” which produce poverty flow directly from the Qur’an & hadith.
11. Recognizes with deep concern the negative stereotyping of religions resulting in denial or undermining the rights of persons associated with them and the global rise in the number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism and urges all the UN Member-States to implement the paragraph 150 of the DDPA ;
Paragraph 11 is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black. It complains, by code words, of the Danish Cartoons and FITNA. The cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was, by his own admission. FITNA displays quotes from the Qur’an, juxtaposed with their practical application. The only right impaired by FITNA was the cartoonist’s copyright because one cartoon was used without permission. The intolerance and violence belong to the adherents of Islam, who, stirred up by rabble rousing rants at Friday prayer service, rioted in the streets.
The referenced paragraph from the DDPA reads as follows.
150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities;
Thus paragraph 11 demands, by reference, that national laws be passed and executed to criminalize criticism of Islam. This demand, which is incompatible with our First Amendment, is another reason for non-participation cited by President Obama.
12. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;
The first sentence of paragraph 12 is aimed directly at the Danish Cartoons and FITNA. In actual fact, the Qur’an, Islam’s canon of sacred scripture, is replete with “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s condemnation of FITNA makes the matter absolutely clear, leaving no doubt. The last clause in par. 12 is an obvious lie. The intent is to criminalize all criticism of Islam, including its mandates of perpetual war, genocide and terrorism. If we can not discuss the doctrines and practices of our enemy, we can not effectively advocate national defense against Islam’s campaign of terror.
15. Expresses its appreciation for progress made in addressing the situation of the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance identified in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, while regretting that racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including their contemporary forms and manifestations, still persist;
“Contemporary forms and manifestations” is a code phrase for criticism of Islam. Take note of this declaration contained in the preliminary document. [Emphasis added.]
4. Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;
Objection to Islam’s continual aggression is conflated with racism. You can substitute objection to Islam wherever “racism” or “contemporary forms and manifestations” is printed in the Durban Draft.
16. Acknowledges that there should be no hierarchy among emerging and resurgent forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and that all victims should receive the same necessary attention and protection, and accordingly appropriate treatment;
Paragraph 16 is part of the effort to wrap Islam in the false mantle of victimhood. In their view, Muslims offended by the Danish Cartoons suffer equally with the Jews murdered by Hitler.
38. Urges States parties to the Convention to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and to consider withdrawing other reservations;
The quote below comes from Wikipedia. It describes our reservation to ICERD.
The U.S. has attached a reservation to its 1994 ratification of the treaty noting that specifically the treaty’s restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were incompatible with the guarantees of such freedoms incorporated into the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
SECTION 5: Identification of further concrete measures and initiatives at all levels for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in order to foster the implementation of the DDPA and to address challenges and impediments hereto, including in light of developments since its adoption in 2001
Remember that “related intolerance” means criticism of and objection to Islam’s perpetual aggression.
52. Stresses the need for mobilizing the political will of relevant actors at all levels which is essential to eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
Paragraph 52 is a code expression demanding legislation criminalizing criticism of Islam, in clear contravention of the First Amendment.
53. Reaffirms the positive role that the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
Paragraph 53 praises the condemned man before executing him. The expressions are Orwellian in the extreme.
54. Calls on States to undertake effective media campaigns to enhance the struggle against all manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, inter alia, by disseminating and giving adequate visibility to the DDPA and its follow-up mechanisms; [adopted ad ref]
55. Calls on States to take effective, tangible and comprehensive measures to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph 54 demands a propaganda campaign. Paragraph 55 demands national legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.
56. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, to secure expeditious access to justice, and to provide fair and adequate redress for victims; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph 56 translates into a demand for punishment of the cartoonists and Geert Wilders, with legislation allowing Muslims to sue them for “damages”.
57. Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society and stresses further the role these rights can play in fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance worldwide;
Paragraph 57 shows us how clever the OIC thinks they are;. giving faint praise before wielding their sword.
59. Urges States to punish violent, racist and xenophobic activities by groups that are based on neo-Nazi, neo-Fascist and other violent national ideologies; [adopted ad ref]
Paragraph 59 is obviously a coded attack upon the Dutch Freedom Party and a similar party in Belgium.
66. Calls upon States to ensure that any measures taken in the fight against terrorism are implemented in full respect of all human rights, in particular the principle of non-discrimination and in this context urges all Member-States to implement relevant provisions of the General Assembly resolutions 60/288 and 62/272;
Paragraph 66 is a coded condemnation of our half hearted attempts at homeland security subsequent to 9/11.
67. Expresses its concern over the rise in recent years of acts of incitement to hatred, which have targeted and severely affected racial and religious communities and persons belonging to racial and religious minorities, whether involving the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means, and emanating from a variety of sources;
Paragraph 67 is redundant; restating paragraph 12 above.
68. Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures;
Paragraph 68 is redundant, restating paragraph 12 above.
98. Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination;
If paragraph 98 were sincere and enforced, Islam would be outlawed.
101. Calls upon States not to resort to profiling founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic, and religious grounds and prohibit it by law;
Paragraph 101 is redundant, restating paragraph 66.
133. Takes note of the proposal of the OHCHR, in cooperation with regional stakeholders in all parts of the world, to organize as a follow-up to the OHCHR Expert Seminar on the links between art.19 and 20 of the ICCPR a series of expert workshops to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred, in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement, as stipulated in article 20 of the ICCPR, without prejudice to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards;
Art. 19 of ICCPR declares rights to “hold opinions without interference” & “freedom of expression” and outlines certain limitations thereon. Art. 20 prohibits “propaganda for war” and “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”.
What is the big deal about the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards”? Its report, of course. The committee generated a proposed protocol to be added to ICERD. The protocol would criminalize “defamation of religions”, as demanded by the OIC. I am unable at present to find the text of the proposal. These references hint at it. A/HRC/10/L.8, Press Release , Joint NGO Statement.
W.A.M. ALERT –DREAM ACT as usual means the opposite:
A NIGHTMARE in the works – it will take all of US to stop it!
Legislators Plan Unfair Citizenship Benefits & Unwarranted Advantages to Non-Citizens:
Many activists are already aware that our crazy Congress is currently attempting
to increase immigration rights and citizenship benefits plus other perks – virtually overnight-
to illegal alien youths (defined to age 35!) on the claim that it is not their fault their parents
broke the law!
The insanity of this illogical conclusion can only be construed as a cover for building the un-Democratic
party’s base by up to another 35 million! This figure is based on current projections of the number
of “students” and their families who will apply and receive rapidly implemented rights and benefits
from this bill, if it is signed into law. Because these measures are so unscrupulous – and politically
motivated – W.A.M. has prepared a special NO DREAM ACT PETITION plus ACTION TOOLS!
See informative W.A.M. Take A Stand summary of this bill here including Important Local
Meetings Schedule – which Congress is using to inflate the perception of public support for
these measures. These meetings have not been publicly promoted, specifically, to keep
DREAM ACT opponents away!
It is now up to each and all of us to participate in strategic W.A.M. ACTIONS to stop
this nightmare from happening. Together, we still stand a real chance of blocking
these measures – if we ALL join together in these concerted ACTIONS now.
There is no time for hesitation or delay – with your help, W.A.M. can
impact and influence this outcome before Capitol Hill sails it through-
which they aim to do upon completion of their “spring break.”
ONE THING is certain, Islam is not a religion by anything Americans believe one to be — not even close. In fact, Islam is the antithesis of what we deem to be religious. Above all, Islam is a totalitarian political machine of bloodthirsty conquest which zealously advocates the downfall of the U.S. government.
It is sheer madness, exceedingly irresponsible, criminally negligent, and strategically suicidal to continue granting religion status to an absolutely aggressive and implacable ideology that demands the destruction of our government and all other religions.
The purpose of this article is to introduce the proposition that Islam’s religion status is undeserving, that it should never have been granted in the first place, and that its religion status should be immediately rescinded.
The root word of religion means “to bind”. Islam is binding, it imposes capital punishment for apostasy established by 9:74. Allah also commanded his votaries to attack, kill or wound disbelievers, and “bind a bond firmly” in 47:4.
Religion also involves theology, scripture, ritual and prayer. Islam meets all of those tests, so what disqualifies it as a religion? Mercenary mission is at the head of my of disqualifying factors. The following ayat expose Moe’s mercenary motivation for founding Islam: 8:1, 8:41, 8:67, 33:27 & 48:15-21. Al-Anfal 67 is particularly clear about both mercenary motivation and violence.
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. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Hilali & Khan]
The phrases emphasized with bold font make two things clear: Moe wanted booty and Allah wants genocide. How can an institution dedicated to pillage, plunder and genocide be worthy of protection as a religion? How can there be a right to practice a ‘religion’ which mandates making war on members of other religions as Islam clearly does in 9:29?
Is it possible that an unrepentant rapist founded a legitimate religion? When Moe attacked the Jews living at the Khaibar Oasis, he had their chieftain tortured to death and added his widow to his own harem. His act is reported in the oral tradition of his companions: Bukhari 4.52.143. His attitude toward raping captive women is also on record: Bukhari 5.59.459.
What legitimate religion makes aggressive warfare the holiest act a man can perform as Islam does: Bukhari 4.52.41, 4.52.44 ? Follow the link to Sobieskey’s article, then follow the links I have provided to the Qur’an and hadith. I have one more link for you, to a blog post describing an on line petition which calls for Islam to be removed from the list of recognized religions: Outlaw Islam Petition.
This segment from the Jimmy Z Blog Talk Show is directed to our readers in California. It concerns a tax increase referendum taking place next month. Readers in other states should take it as a warning of things to come where they live. We must be alert and vigilant.
All voters should understand that replacing one leftard with another leftard is not a beneficial change. Be careful when voting and make no mistakes.
While I am completely in agreement with the speaker’s anger, passion and sense of urgency, I am in profound disagreement with three of the ideas he promotes.
- Term limits.
- The draft.
- Eliminating the Electoral College.
Congressional term limits would throw out the statesmen, though they are few, with the demagogues & pork fiends. We do not presently need and can not afford an army of the size that would result from universal service. The Electoral College is needed to prevent the densely populated urban areas along the coasts from running away with power. It should not be tampered with.
Mailing tea bags to Washington seems to me to be a wasteful symbolic gesture. Security procedures instituted after the Anthrax attacks have have hampered important and necessary postal communication with Congressmen. Mailing tea bags would compound that problem.
There are petitions you can sign & promote and tea parties to attend. But, if you really want to instill fear in the hearts of the demagogues, those activities pale before the one act that has real potential: a mass exodus from the corrupt parties to a new startup: the Loyalist Party. When the the corrupt parties phone or write begging for money, turn them down and tell them where your support is going and why. If enough people do that, the parties will be forced to take notice.
MEMRI Special Dispatch- No. 2247 02/16/09
Abdallah Al-Nafisi, a Kuwaiti professor, had his speech broadcast by Al-Jazeera TV February 2. The following is a transcript of the English sub titles.
Four pounds of anthrax in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there What a horrifying idea. 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings, and so on. One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this “confetti” all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real “celebration.”
The WMD is a problem. The Americans are afraid that the WMDs might fall into the hands of “terrorist” organizations like Al-Qaeda and others. There is good reason for the American’s fears, because Al-Qaeda used to have in the Herat region… it had laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists and nuclear physicists. They are nothing like they are portrayed by these mercenary journalists – backward Bedouins living in caves. No, no. By no means. This kind of talk can fool only naive people. People who follow such things know that Al-Qaeda has laboratories just like Hizbullah.
Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, in which it produces weapons and sells them. Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, from which it sells weapons to Romania and Hungary.
If they call someone a terrorist, say: “He’s a friend of mine.” Why? Because these “terrorists” are the world’s most God-fearing people. They are the most honorable people in the world, the best people in the world. [Applause.] I have personally met Mullah Omar. I had the honor of meeting with Mullah Omar. This is a man who does not belong to this era. He always refused to meet with Western delegations. He would say to them: “Go to Kabul, I am in Qandahar.” “Truly, the polytheists are impure” – if you know what I mean. “Go meet the Foreign minister to talk politics, I am staying here. ” This is the kind of people who are suitable for dealing with the West. As for Arafat, Dahlan, and their ilk – they do not benefit the nation in any way.
In the US, there are more than 300,000 militia members, who are calling to attack the federal government in Washington, and to banish the Arabs, the Jews, and the negoes (sic) from the US. These are racist people. They are called “rednecks.” The Ku Klux Klan. They are racists. These militias even think about bombing nuclear plants within the US. May Allah grant them success, [Laughter.] even though we are not white, or even close to it, right? They have plans to bomb the nuclear plant at Lake Michigan. This plant is very important. It supplies electricity to all of North Africa (sic). May Allah grant success to one of these militia leaders, who is thinking about bombing this plant. I believe that we should devote part of our prayers to him. We should pray that Allah grants him success, so he can complete this mission, and we will be able to visit him and congratulate him, Allah willing.
Allah stated in the Koran that the hostility between us and (the Jews) is eternal. So whoever talks about Dialogue – cut off his tongue! What Dialogue are they talking about?! There is no room for Dialogue. Allah said that our hostility toward the Jews is eternal, and then along comes someone and talks about brotherhood and so on…. Anyone who contradicts the Koran is an infidel. Accusing people of heresy? Yes. I’m all for it. Yes, I support accusing people of heresy.
We should also defend the resistance, and not remain silent in the face of this organized campaign against the resistance, in the press of the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, and other Arab newspapers. Thee are voices expressing doubts about the leaders of the resistance. We must confront these (journalists) and prevent them from continuing this, even if it means calling them over the phone, and saying to them: “Do not repeat these despicable things in your columns or your articles, or else we will take the following measures against you.” We must resort to pressure with these people. We must not remain silent. We must not leave them to their own devices under the pretext of freedom of expression. This is a fifth column. I, abdullah Fahd Abd Al-Aziz Al-Nafisi, am inciting you to confront, using any means possible, anyone who speaks out against the resistance. Any means possible” – get it?
The Hamas ministers are mujahideen, I know a minister who actually participated in operations.
In Special Dispatch- No. 2281, 03/16/09, MEMRI quotes three “liberal” critics of Abdallah Al-Nafisi. One of them, columnist Ahmad Al-Sarraf, had this to say.
“More importantly, what would we, the Arabs and the Muslims, or [anyone else], gain if a religious fanatic carried out to the letter what this ‘great thinker’ said? For example, would the world be a more just, good, and peaceful place, or would this be this be the first sign of the coming of the awaited Mahdi, [who is said to arrive] when the world is filled with injustice and oppression?
“What would be the response of the U.S. government and its people if we killed 330,000 innocent Americans in a single hour? Would we then become capable of getting Palestine back from the Israelis, the [UAE] islands back from the Iranians, Alexandretta back from the Turks, and Andalus back from the Spaniards? And what good would all that be if nuclear bombs fell on our heads and destroyed the little that is good in our countries?
What are those, if not pragmatic arguments? Concern is expressed about outcomes, expected failure and possible retaliation. Where is the condemnation based on the intrinsic immorality of the proposal?
“And are our feelings and emotions so dead that we are not bothered by [the prospect of] the death of 330,000 innocent Americans in a single hour – among whom may well be some of our own people, and true friends – just because the government of this country has helped one of our enemies? And as though we ourselves haven’t been our own enemy for hundreds of years? Oh logic, oh reason: how beautiful you are, and how rare.”
The writer implies enmity to Israel, does he object to attacks against her as well? Would he have responded in this manner if Al-Nafsi had suggested an attack on Tel Aviv? Notice the qualifier: “innocent Americans”. Are there “guilty Americans” who should be killed? Is Ahmad aware that Allah considers all Non-Muslims to be sinners who must be humiliated, punished and subjugated?
Dr. Al-Nafisi is a citizen of Kuwait, a nation with good reason to have a favorable attitude towards the USA. The speech was delivered to a an approving audience in Bahrain, another supposedly “moderate” Muslim nation.