Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

Islamophobia- Koran Burning-Censorship

When it comes to Islamophobia, there is no end of craven cowardice. Our elected and appointed leaders seem devoid of spinal & testicular fortitude. They demonstrate their abject fear of Islam by attempting to appease it through condemnation and censorship of free speech.

Texas v. Johnson,  stands as precedent for protecting flag burning as a mode of free speech. [Wikipedia]   The flag is a symbol of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.  Burning it in protest demonstrates enmity to our precious rights & liberties.  If that act is protected free expression, how can expressing contempt for a war cult that inculcates hatred and incites genocidal jihad/terror be any less protected?

Bare Naked Islam sounded an early warning: Reid & Graham consider ban on Koran burning.

“I  wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war,”

“During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy,” Graham said, adding that he wanted to do “anything we can to push back here in America against acts like this that put our troops at risk.”


put our troops at risk

Pastors Jones & Sapp did not put our troops at risk; President G.W. Bush sent them into harm’s way. The accursed abomination should have been answered with tactical nuclear warheads, not boots on the ground.  Sending troops to “liberate” people who prefer to remain slaves is a fool’s errand of the worst sort.  So long as the population of Afghanistan remains Muslim, we have lost; our blood and treasure has been wasted.

Provocations are desired and sought to rationalize jihad and motivate the rabble to participate, but they are not the cause of Islamic violence.  Islamic violence is doctrine driven, not grievance driven.

  • 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
    • Footnote to 2:190. (V.2:190) Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allâh protect us from that) Islâm is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islâm on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
      Narrated ‘Abdullâh bin Mas‘ûd رضي الله عنه: I asked Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم “O Allâh’s Messenger! What is the best deed?” He replied, “To offer the Salât (prayers) at their early fixed stated times.” I asked, “What is next in goodness?” He replied, “To be good and dutiful to your parents.” I further asked, “What is next in goodness?” He replied, “To participate in Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause.” I did not ask Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more. (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.4, Hadîth No.41).
  • 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
  • 9:29.Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
  • 9:120.  It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allah’s Messenger (Muhammad SAW when fighting in Allah’s Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allah, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allah wastes not the reward of the Muhsinun
  • 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).
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
  • Reliance of the TravellerO9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

    Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2).  When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

    “He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”

    and Allah Most High having said:

    “Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good” (Koran 4:95).

    If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. 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.

    The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

  • Al-Hedaya Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1
    • Page 141 The destruction of the sword  is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the  sacred writings which are generally received this effect.
    • Marginal note: Page 140
      • War must be carried on against the Infidels, at all times, by some party of the Muslims.
“During World War II, we had limits on what you could do if it inspired the enemy,” Graham said, adding that he wanted to do “anything we can to push back here in America against acts like this that put our troops at risk.”

Flip your calender back  66 years. Should an American citizen be punished for criticizing, condemning or burning Mein Kampf?  Why, exactly?  The     major difference between Mein Kampf and the Qur’an is the latter’s purported divine origin.

Our troops and our society were put at risk by the weakness of previous Presidents.  Carter responded with dithering timidity when our Embassy was seized. When he finally acted, his action was poorly planned and ineffectually implemented.  Displaying weakness to a predator invites further attacks.

Reagan sent the Marines to save Arafat’s bacon, a fool’s errand if there ever was one. Hundreds of Marines died as a result. Reagan reacted with a few artillery shells; he should have erased the Hezbollah enclaves in Lebanon.

The Wall Street Journal reveals some interesting remarks from Gen. David Petraeus.

“This was a surprise,”

The event was publicized months in advance on a web site, in press releases and a Facebook page.  I know that the government knew about it because the Department of Homeland Security read my blog posts about it well in advance of the event.  The OIC was aware of it immediately and held an emergency meeting four days after the event to draft a  letter to Ban Ki-moon.

“hateful, extremely disrespectful and enormously intolerant.”

In view of the doctrine outlined above, hatred disrespect & intolerance of Islam’s demonic scripture is certainly well warranted.  Bitter kvetching about those attitudes is evidence of extreme intellectual incapacity or inactivity.

From Newsmax we learn that the Majority leader of the Senate is aroused.

“We’ll take a look at this of course. As to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”

Read more on Reid: Probe of Quran Burning Considered

George Washington said it best: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
That is exactly what Islam demands. Islamic law forbids any and every negative expression about itself.

  • 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.)

If a Muslim says any of those things, he is an apostate, and must be killed.

    • O8.1

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


      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.

How does that apply to non-Muslims?  When Muslims conquer Christians, the Christians must agree to a treaty of protection and pay Jizya. The treaty imposes certain limitations on them, and if they violate it, they are subject to execution.

    • 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.

    • O11.11

      When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

      • O9.14

        When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

        If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

The list of impermissible expressions is contained in O8.7, reproduced above.  That is what they seek to impose upon us at the UN through resolutions and a binding protocol to ICERD.  The mobs demand that Pastor Jones be executed.

April 4, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Jihad, Petraeus, Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

OIC: Playing the Victim Card – Qur’an Burning

OIC: Playing the Victim Card- Qur’an Burning

The OIC propaganda machine grinds on. I accept their machinations as an
opportunity to expose their al-Taqiyya.  They held an emergency
meeting after International Judge the Qur’an Day.  The primary
output of that meeting was a letter to Secretary General Ban

The letter is reproduced below. Due to the target
rich environment, I once again resort to footnoting.  The
footnotes are linked to my commentary which follows below the
horizontal line. Clicking a superscript will bring the comment into
view.  After reading my comment, press the Back Space key to
return to your place in the text.


General Assembly

Security Council

Sixty-fifth session


Agenda item 68 (b)

Promotion and protection of human rights: human

rights questions, including alternative approaches for

improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and

fundamental freedoms


Letter dated 29 March 2011 from the Permanent Representative of
Tajikistan to the United Nations addressed to the

On behalf of the Ambassadorial Group of the
Organization of the Islamic

Conference in New York, I have the honour to convey that the Group held

emergency meeting on Friday, 25 March 2011, to discuss the despicable
act of the

burning of a copy of the Holy Koran1 by two pastors, following
a mock trial in a

church on 20 March 2011 in Florida, United States of America.

This provocative act2, which has hurt the sentiments of
the 1.5 billion Muslims

of the world, was strongly condemned by the OIC Group as an act of
advocacy of

incitement to religious hatred3, discrimination and violence4 against
Islam and

Muslims. The OIC Ambassadors urged the international community in
general and

you in particular to openly and strongly condemn this act of extreme

religious hatred.6

I am enclosing the text of the statement issued by
the OIC Ambassadorial

Group in New York on this subject, with a request for circulation to
the entire

United Nations membership (see annex).

As you will see in the statement, the OIC
Ambassadorial Group called upon

you, as well as reiterated the call made by the OIC Group in Geneva to
the High

Commissioner for Human Rights, to express unequivocal condemnation of

insidious desecration of the holy book7 of Islam and show action-oriented

to tackle the growing manifestations of religious intolerance and
discrimination and

incitement to hatred and violence9 based on religion.

The OIC Group strongly believes that the United
Nations has an important role

to play in ensuring peace and harmony among the peoples and nations of
the world10.

Accordingly, in your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, we

expect you to take the necessary steps to fight such insidious
tendencies, to protect

multiculturalism and promote peace and harmony that are fundamental to

peaceful coexistence of mankind11.

I should be grateful if you would have the present
letter and its annex

circulated as a document of the sixty-fifth session of the General
Assembly, under

agenda item 68 (b), and of the Security Council.

(Signed) Sirodjidin Aslov


Permanent Representative

Annex to the letter dated 29
March 2011 from the Permanent
Representative of Tajikistan to
the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General


Group of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference in New York
strongly condemns the
sacrilegious act of burning of the Holy
Koran in Florida as an act of
advocacy of incitement to religious
hatred, discrimination and

25 March 2011

The Ambassadorial Group of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference at the

United Nations, New York, at an emergency meeting convened today,
expressed its

strong condemnation of the despicable act of the burning of a copy of
the Koran by

Pastors Wayne Sapp and Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida, United
States of

America, on 20 March 2011. Calling it an act of extremists guided by
their hatred

towards other cultures and religions, the OIC Group regretted that it
took place in a

church, a sacred place itself, reserved for prayers and remembrance of

The OIC Group shared the disappointment and concern
expressed by the

Secretary-General of the OIC over this reprehensible act of extreme
bigotry, which

has severely hurt the feelings of 1.5 billion Muslims all over the
world, and

cautioned that if necessary conditions were not created by the

community to prevent a recurrence of such Islamophobic acts, it would
have grave

repercussions over interfaith harmony as well as global peace, security
and stability12.

The Group urged the international community to
unanimously condemn these

acts that are clear examples of advocacy of incitement to hatred,
discrimination and

violence based on religion13. It was further highlighted that
such acts, when left

unattended, provide fuel to extremist thoughts and elements in
different societies

that lead to undermining peaceful coexistence and harmony among peoples

societies. While appreciating the condemnatory statement issued by the

States in the general debate of the Human Rights Council on 22 March
2011 and

other statements by interfaith and community leaders in the United
States, the Group

hoped that the United States Administration would take appropriate
actions against

the perpetrators of these acts in accordance with its national and


The OIC Group also called upon the Secretary-General
of the United Nations

and the High Commissioner for Human Rights to express their unequivocal

condemnation of the insidious desecration of the holy book of Islam and

action-oriented leadership to tackle the growing problem of religious

discrimination and incitement to hatred and violence based on religion
and belief.

The Group stated that at a time when Muslims around
the world continue to be

confronted with ever-increasing instances of intolerance, negative

stigmatization, discrimination and violence on the basis of their
religion, the OIC sponsored

resolution adopted by consensus on 24 March 2011 by the Human Rights

Council in Geneva, entitled “Combating intolerance, negative
stereotyping and

stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and
violence against

persons based on religion or belief”, should be seen as the
confirmation of the

sincere commitment16
of OIC to the promotion of a global culture of respect17,

tolerance and peace among all, irrespective of religious and cultural

and traditions.

OIC Ambassadors further reiterated the strong
commitment of OIC to the

promotion of interfaith and intercultural dialogue18 and the
need to preserve the

multicultural fabric of our societies that is fundamental to peaceful

among peoples, cultures and nations.


  1. Pastor Wayne Sapp burned  an English
    translation of the meaning of the Qur’an, which Islam does not consider
    authentic or holy. As man’s word, not Allah’s, was burned,  the
    act was not despicable; no offense was committed.
  2. As a provocation, how does judging and
    burning a Qur’an translation compare to the act of sacking a U.N.
    office, murdering ten people and burning a church?  Is the act
    somehow more provocative than the curse worthy content of the book,
    which cursesI
    Christians and commands Muslims to wage perpetual warII against them?
    The Qur’an was burned precisely because it is a provocative book: it
    inculcates hatred and incites violence
  3. Pastor Terry Jones judged the Qur’an, Pastor Wayne Sapp burned
    it. Exactly how does that constitute “advocacy
    of incitement to religious hatred”? Did they tell their congregants to
    hate Muslims?  Did they pray for the death of Muslims?  They
    simply examined the content of a book and its consequences, judged it
    to be evil and burned it.  The OIC is miscasting the act without
    any objective basis in fact.
  4. What incitement to violence?  What
    violence?  Did the pastors tell their congregation to riot?
    Did they riot?  Did they kill Muslims or destroy Islamic property
    on their way home from the church?
  5. Bigotry: closed minded persistence in false
    opinion in the face of the facts, commonly understood in a racial
    context. What race is Islam?  If Islam is a race, why are there
    Caucasian, African, Arabian\ and Asian, Muslims?   The
    pastors  heard the facts in the form of reading  verses from
    the book and testimony of  its victims.  They acted after
    consideration of  the facts brought out at trial.  How
    is that bigotry?   Did they advocate hatred of or
    discrimination against Muslims?  Did they generalize about
    Muslims?  With what evidence do you  hope to substantiate
    your accusation of  “extreme bigotry”?
  6. What is the object of hatred?  It is
    the damnable doctrines enshrined in the Qur’an, which sanctify &
    mandate genocidalIII
    & terrorismIV.
    Exactly what is wrong with hatred of absolute evil?
  7. How can the profane be desecrated?
    They burned a translation, not an Arabic Qur’an.  Even the Arabic
    Qur’an is profane, not sacred to those who examine it
    objectively.  The Qur’an consists largely of situational scriptureV and
    its mission is mercenaryVI.
  8. Condemnation is verbiage, not action.
    The real demand is for legislation to impose Islam’s blasphemy lawVII on us;
    to make questioning & criticism of Islam punishable by fine and
  9. The usual code word is
    Islamophobia.  Take a look at the March edition of the
    Islamophobia ObservatoryVIII and
    see what they are kvetching about.  They consider the House
    Homeland Security Cmte. hearing into ‘radicalization’ as ‘incitement to
    discrimination… .
  10. The UN was created to maintain
    peace; prevent war. Islam was created to initiate and perpetuate warII,VI. To fulfill
    its mission, the UN must eliminate Islam from the world.
  11. That distills down to: promote surrender
    to Islam. Peace is what pertains after Dar ul-Islam conquers Dar
  12. That distills down to a threat: “silence
    our critics or we will go to war”.
  13. The sentence is redundant
    boilerplate.  The Qur’an was burned precisely because it
    inculcates hatred and incites genocidal violence. They accuse us of
    their own course of conduct (they obey Allah & emulate
  14. The United States is obligated to
    protect the rights of its citizens.  We have a right to truthful
    communication of information, including information about the content
    and consequences of Islam’s damnable scripture. Their demand that Jones
    & Sapp be punished for exercising their first amendment rights is
    parallel to their oft repeated demand that the creators of the Motoons
    & Fitna be punished for communicating the truth about their curse
    worthy war cult.
  15. So, religious intolerance is a
    problem?  Is it really?? The Qur’an defines Islam, and it ain’t
    tolerant!  Islam is extremely intolerant! Allah  says that
    only Islam will be acceptedIX.  Anyone who tries to quit
    Islam is to be killedX.
    Cursing us and mandating war against us are not signs of
    tolerance.  They are demanding that we tolerate the propagation of
    a doctrine which demands that we be conqueredII and declares
    open seasonXI
    on us.
  16. Sincere commitment to tolerance &
    peace? Yeah, right. Egypt, Indonesia & Pakistan are so committed to
    peace & tolerance that they allow Muslims to subject Christians to
    assault, murder, malicious persecution & destruction of property
    with impunity.
  17. Respect is given where respect is due, we
    have to
    earn it; so do you. Islam is unworthy of respect; reasonable men will
    give it none.
  18. If you are so committed to interfaith dialogue,
    why did you not send someone to International Judge the Koran Day to
    act as defense counsel and present evidence to prove that it does not
    inculcate hatred, incite war and institutionalize misogyny?
  1. 2:161, 9:30
  2. 8:39, 9:29, The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They
    give the Jizyah
  3. 8:67, 47:4
  4. 3:1518:12, 8:57, 8:60, 8:60, 59:13, Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220
  9. 3:85
  10. 4:89
  11. Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387

April 4, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: