Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

See Innocence of Muslims Fully Documented!


This is for everyone who has been frustrated in the attempt to find and view the short video falsely blamed for the Benghazi massacre: “Innocence of Muslims“. Not being a movie conneseur  I don’t give a damn about production values, editing or acting. My concern is with the conceptual content, which is essentially true as I have documented below. If the embed code fails to display, use the link above to view the video.

View this document on Scribd

July 6, 2014 Posted by | Islam, Islam Distorted?, Islam Twisted?, Islamic Radicalism?, Jihad | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Watch Innocence of Muslims Here


People from all over the world are searching for Innocence of Muslims , the short video falsely blamed for the Benghazi Massacre.  Unfortunately, YouTube pulled it down due to frivolous litigation and the one remaining server hosting it is difficult to find.

Searchers are finding my review of the video at Islam Exposed, but Blogger will not allow embeding or linking to the video, so they remain frustrated.

http://www.prochan.com/view?p=ca5_1347821774

My initial attempt at posting it on this blog failed, so I am trying again with a different technique. I am also attempting to embed a pdf containing my review in which i document the accuracy of the conceptual content of the video.  The review also includes a link to the script.

At minimum, I will give you links to the video and my review.

View this document on Scribd

 

July 6, 2014 Posted by | Islam, Islamic Terrorism, Religion of Peace | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Geert Wilders Trial: Truth is No Defense


Google published an article from Canada Free Press about recent developments in the trial of Geert Wilders.  One prosecutorial qoute  stands out like sore thumb and must be addressed.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to Jihad Watch.

“You can expect a politician to be aware of the impact of his words and in any case, the legal limit may not be crossed, no matter how important it may be to address supposed problems and to contribute to matters of general interest,”   Prosecutor Birgit van Roessel [Emphasis added.]

The relevant statutory provisions are revealed in the summons.  Expressions which “insult a group of people”  and/or ” incites hatred or discrimination” against them are arbitrarily prohibited.  No defenses are allowed.

If Muslims, motivated by the normative doctrines of Islam enshrined in the Qur’an and exemplified by Muhammad’s Sunnah, murder film makers, assault homosexuals, threaten members of parliament and pose an existential threat to the cultural identity and continuance of a free & democratic Netherlands, public disclosure of the facts is prohibited and can not be excused on grounds of necessity.

Besides mandating national suicide, the prosecutor has a severe cognitive dissonance problem. She moved for dismissal of charges of insulting Muslims because the insult was to Islamic ideology, not to Muslims.  If the insult was to Islam, then the incitement &  discrimination must also be against Islam,  not Muslims.  All of the charges should be dropped, they should never have been filed.

October 13, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Imam Rauf’s Veiled Threat


In the fog of ideological & psychological warfare, with conflicting claims of  a face saving compromise which would relocate the Ground Zero Mosque  of triumph and save the Florida Qur’ans from a fiery fate,  we need to get back to basics and focus on the significant core issues.

The Imam behind the Ground Zero Mosque of Triumph, Feisal Abdul Rauf, issued a  thinly veiled threat in an interview with The Larry King Show. The Washington post included a video clip in their article., headlined: “Imam Rauf: National security hinges on Mosque debate“.

The Post placed this quote  above the video: “Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it.”

This was a particularly difficult interview to transcribe because both the interviewer and interviewee spoke rapidly and  with soft voices.  The video buffers too slowly on my connection, my  eustachian tubes were not clearing, and my hearing aids are incompatible with my headset.  I had to use the telecoils, and my monitor is louder than my headset.  I did not get everything, but this should be close enough to convey the important meaning.

…”But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse, the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack. And I am less concerned by the radicals in America than I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. … the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security–to the nationals security of our troops- I have a niece who works in the Army in [inaudible] Iraq– the concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened. 

If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression. The idea of [inaudible] is to create something like a Muslim Y. The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions by having young men and young women, of course they were separate at that time; YMCA/YWCA, common bond you know, by doing sports together and other programs together. [inaudible]
And that second street Y was an attempt by the Jewish community  to create a center where you’d create that kind of bonding.   We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that.

(What’s on the table now?)
The biggest issue is the national security issue.
(How do you pull out without looking like you’ve lost?)

Without making it look both in this country and in the Muslim world.  You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world.  And we are very engaged with the Muslim world.  And our security is really number one, our national security, our personal security is extremely important. And this issue has become now a national security issue. And therefore in our conversations, in our decision making process, we have to weigh many many factors and that has been dominant among them.

(Is there a middle ground that has you pull out of the center and do something else? that’s what it sounds like you are saying.)  We are discussing many things right now but, you know, we haven’t found yet an option  that would work in a safe way.

(What are … what you are considering?)

As I said,. we consider everything in life. but we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation.

(Given what you know now, would you have built?)

As I mentioned it, this story is not new. People knew about it.  …(Right, but given what you know now would you have said ‘listen, lets not do it there because…’  because it sounds like  you are saying, in retrospect , you wouldn’t have done it? )

Well,yes, if…if…(You would not have done it?)
If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,

(…There are so many people who say… if you are saying it was a mistake, then why can’t you get out of it and not do it?)

because we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict.

(Why do you think this structure is causing all this controversy now? )

Well there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country (what now?) and we have seen it in the attacks upon mosques in various parts of the country in the last several weeks. So it is clear that this issue is not just about our center which is an attempt to create peace between Muslims and  non-Muslims but this has aroused a certain anti-Islam sentiment which is unfortunate in this country–we need to look at it and have a discourse about it and make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms.  So this is the conversation we need to have right now.

(Lets talk about money: one hundred million dollars is the price tag for this Islamic cultural center, where are you going to get the money?)

Well we have yet to raise a capital campaign…(You have no money for it yet?)

We haven’t raised any money for it yet.  .

(Where will you get the money?)

We’ll get the money from whatever sources we can, domestically especially, and be very transparent about how we raise the money. This has been something that we have committed ourselves to . (Meaning you will list whoever is giving you money?) Yes.  ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) Absolutely. (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do.

(Which means what exactly? Because that’s an extra condition?)  You see, I’m the visionary behind it, I’m not the actual builder, I’m not the financial expert, I’m not  the legal expert on these things, but I have a vision here of  establishing something which I know, in my heart of hearts, will be a powerful instrument of peace.

(  Who would you not take money from, who would you say no to, who would you turn away?)

We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process.  (People I think, here in New York and around the country would say ‘ that is sacred land, that is a special place for everyone in America– is that a step toward peace?) As Clyde Haberman [sp?] and many many people have said, “look what exists in that neighborhood”, look what exists around the corner.  ( Oh, I believe you, I’ve lived downtown, so I know the neighborhood very well. )

So lets be clear, calling this particular block sacred  ground is and what exists there… you know…(strip clubs and delis, I’ve been there a million times, but I think when people call it sacred ground, they’re saying something terrible  happened on this spot and and we’ve…)

We’ve got to be fair you can’t say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground. We’ve got to be just, we’ve got to speak the truth we’ve got to have justice for everybody,  we’re a country of justice for all, not just for non-Muslims only or some groups and not for others This is what America is all about, Solidad. We’ve got to really mean what we say and say what our values  are truly about.

This isn’t… the discourse has been hijacked by people who say “no”.

(you’ve heard about this Pastor in Florida, Terry Jones,who is proposing burning Qur’ans on 9/11,  what do you think of that?)

I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. …
.
(Do you  think he has a right to do it?)

And more importantly, well, we have freedom in this country, freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility.  It is a famous saying to shout fire in a crowded theatre, this is dangerous for our national security, and also the un-Christian thing to do.  Jesus Christ didn’t teach us to do that, we Muslims have a … we look to the example of our Prophet- to our Prophet’s sunnah. Many Christians say, ‘What would Jesus do”
Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, Jesus taught us to love your enemy, we are not your enemies.  This is what Jesus taught us to do, and I would like to suggest that  you know–we all have to live  by the highest principles of our faith traditions

  • “If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse”

I presume he means  us, the Americans who resist the erection of a victory Mosque on the scene of the  accursed abomination.

  • “the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack.”

The finger of blame switches from those who are poking a gigantic middle finger in our eye to those of us who are vociferously resisting  the attack.

  • “I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. “…
    • “the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security”

“Radical” Muslims are likely to throw stones and bombs at our troops, assault tourists and businessmen overseas, and terrorize us at home because we vocally resist the erection of  their symbol of triumph in the place where they murdered 2700 people nine years ago.   We are accused of provoking our tormentors by resisting them.   Does anyone else perceive the moral inversion performed in this case?

Muslims are taught that any step taken to injure or anger us is imputed to their credit as a deed of righteousness, to be weighed against their sins on Judgment Day.  You’d learn that fun fact in 9:120, if you’d read that damn Qur’an instead of ignoring or burning it. They don’t need any incentive from us to attack us.

  • “If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression.”

If they relocate the project, moderate Muslims will be radicalized and recruited by terrorists.  The difference between a moderate and a radical is that the latter is fully aware of Allah’s imperatives and seeks to implement them.  Moderates are either ignorant or indolent,  those whom Muhammad called hypocrites whose Islam goes no deeper than their throats.  They profess but do not practice.   We have been told that  relocating the project from Ground Zero will cause more Muslims to seek to implement Allah’s imperatives.  In that case, is there any real difference in the beliefs of radicals and moderates?

  • “The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions”…
    • “We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that.”

A Young Muslim’s Christian Association?  Oh, right, a Young Muslim’s Association.   The Y serves 45 million people in 120 countries. Guess which countries ain’t served.  No Y in Arabia or North Africa, why is that?  But we need another Muslim (terrorist) recruiting station in New York. Yeah, right.

  • “The biggest issue is the national security issue.”

How big is it?  How many more attacks, how much increase in the scale of those attacks? If that face saving compromise Pastor Terry Jones thought he had worked out was genuine, would that result in a national security problem?

  • “You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world.”
    • this issue has become now a national security issue.

The question was one of  relocating the project without the appearance of defeat. How about the reality?  It would be a strategic setback because any alternative location would not have the psychological effect of the Ground Zero location, it would contribute much less to the Muslim’s sense of triumph.  The answer speaks volumes.  Rauf is concerned about defeat in the eyes of the Ummah.  But anything that deflates their egos should bring about some reduction in recruitment and enthusiasm for terrorism. That would make a positive contribution to peace and security.  Strategy is inverted along with morality.

  • “we haven’t found yet an option  that would work in a safe way”

No options that would not increase the security risk?  We get more attacks unless the symbol of Islamic supremacy is erected on the site of the abomination?

  • “we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation”

The emphasis is on “radicals” and “moderates”. The moderate voice is quiescent because “moderates” are not zealots; they are not empowered and motivated to speak out and act; they are passive.  The “radicals” have the mission, motivation and machine guns; they are activated.

Did anything escape your attention in that quote? Look again.  Who is Rauf concerned with?  Only Muslims; our perceptions, attitudes, feelings and interests don’t count, they are not under consideration. He ain’t interested in anyone but Muslims.

  • “If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn’t have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,”

Rauf was not expecting a vigorous, vociferous reaction.  He was not expecting intensive and extensive news coverage.  Did he make a war?  No, he made a controversy, and that ain’t exactly the polar opposite of “peace making”.  Of course, Muslims make peace by subjugating disbelievers. Peace follows victory.

  • “we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict.”

He can not admit defeat and back down because that would result in “greater conflict”.  If we surrender, that results in peace; if he surrenders, that results in conflict.  Got a clue yet?

  • “there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country”
  • ” it is clear that this issue is not just about our center”
  • “make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms.”

Nineteen Muslims hijacked four airliners and flew three of them into office buildings.  Their act was motivated by the preaching and example of Muhammad bin Abdullah, the founder of Islam.  Their act was celebrated by Muslims all over the world.  What sort of fool expects us to have a neutral or pro-Islamic sentiment after that?   A cockpit voice recorder was recovered, exposing  exclamations of “Allahu akhbar” as the flight crew was murdered.   People wondered why, and research was done; books and movies were created which expose the doctrines and practices of Islam.  Some of us looked up the Barbary Wars, and what we discovered in  the historical recored confirmed what we learned  from your texts and outraged us.

How is it possible to have a discourse not dominated by the fact that your demon demands that you conquer and subjugate us?   Freedom of religion means that we can choose any religion or none at all. Islam demands that it have a monopoly, that only Allah be worshiped.  The two are not compatible, they are polar opposites.

Separation of Church and state means that the two institutions are independent, they do not interfere in each other’s affairs. Islam demands that all law be Allah’s law, Shari’ah, not man made legislation.  That is the polar opposite of separation of church and state.   Freedom of religion and separation of church and state do not serve as your license to wage war on us or dominate us by out breeding us, subversion & sedition.

  • ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) “Absolutely”. (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) “We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do.”
  • “We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process.”

Wear your black dot garden gloves to keep a grip on this snake. Why is HAMAS an issue?  Rauf will not acknowledge the fact that it is a terrorist organization.  Neither would he acknowledge the fact, if asked, that there is no difference between HAMAS  and Islam.

Giving money to HAMAS is illegal. Taking money from HAMAS donors is not illegal.  Their willingness to donate to you  as well as  to HAMAS tells us  who & what you are. The fact that you want to disassociate yourself from them provides the same information.  But we already knew that you are Muslims.  What constitutes a “danger to this process” ?  The implication is that you would reject money from anyone whose reputation or associations would impair your false image of peaceful  moderation.

  • “We’ve got to be fair you can’t say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground.”

What makes any ground sacred?  What desecrates it?  If the flesh, bone & blood of your family and associates is finely divided and splattered over several city blocks by an aircraft  impact   and the subsequent collapse of  the impacted building,  are that place, those scattered remains and their memories any less sacred  to you than they would be in a consecrated cemetery  in your church yard?  In fact, there was a church on that site.  Is the site desecrated by the presence of strip joints and other business establishments which pre-existed the accursed abomination?

If your loved one and  colleagues were murdered by assassins motivated by the damnable doctrines of an accursed war cult, what is the effect on your psyche of the erection, on the site where the ash and smoke of your loved one settled, of a shrine where the war cult’s devotees will remind their  demon seventeen times every day of how your loved one and you have “earned” his wrath & “gone astray”; a place where they will curse us and supplicate their demon for “victory over the disbelieving folk”?  Does that or does that not impair the sanctity of the site more than a strip club around the corner?

  • “I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. …”

Burning a Qir’an as a symbol of objection to the damnable doctrines enshrined therein and the accursed actions inspired thereby and to the erection of a  shrine to them  in a place where those  damnable doctrines and accursed actions resulted in more than 2000 deaths  “feeds radicals”  but burning the American flag, the symbol of liberty and justice for all, chanting “death to America” ,  and bearing signs reading “Islam will dominate the world” and “freedom go to Hell” along with “behead those who Insult Islam”  are innocent acts of no import or impact whatsoever, though they are carried out by thousands where as Terry Jones has fifty in his congregation.  Proportionality, anyone?  Can you perceive moral inversion??

  • ‘What would Jesus do”

He lectures us  by Jesus?  Unholy sacrilege!!! The Islamic version of Jesus is Allah’s slave, not God’s son, was not crucified, neither was he killed nor resurrected.  And he will return to lead the Muslims in  battle against us, the final and ultimate genocide.  He will rule the world by the Qur’an.   The arrogance of Muslims knows no bounds.  If you have any doubt about the veracity of this paragraph, read this blog post: The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

September 10, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Islamic Radicalism?, Political Correctness | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Islam vs. Kuffar: Adv. War


Barenaked Islam posted an article about a campaign to counter SOIA’s  Refuge From Islam bus advertisements.  BNI linked to Atlas Shrugs, where large, clear photos of the bus advertisements are displayed.

Geller also posted a video of a joint interview with Dr. Waseem Sayed, an Ahmadiyya leader. The video is not pleasant viewing.  The interviewer is shrill and frequently interrupts Pamela, not allowing her to finish her answers.  Dr. Sayed got away with making  gross misstatements of material fact, unchallenged.

Muslimsforpeace.org claims:

  • love for all
  • hatred for none

A visit to http://www.muslimsforpeace.org/ discloses the fact that the outfit is part of  Ahmadiyya, a heretical sect.  On that site, they make more malignant claims.

  • Islam is peace
  • we condemn terrorism
  • Jihad: self defense only
  • separation of church and state
  • universal human rights

Regular Muslims pronounced takfir on Ahmadiyya, because its founder claimed to be the Mahdi.  The sect is a persecuted minority in Asia.

Love for all they say; what does Allah say? Who does Allah love?

  • Al-Muhsinûn those who do good, defined as participating in and financing jihad.  2:195
  • Al-Muttaqûn the pious who fulfill their contracts 3:76
  • As-Sâbirin the patient ones who fight without weakening and degrading themselves  3:146
  • those who put their trust in him 3:160
  • Allah cursed the Jews but loves the  Al­Muhsinûn 5:12-13
  • those who are equitable among the believers 49:9
  • those who fight in His Cause in rows (ranks) as if they were a solid structure  61:4

Allah only loves Muslims.

Hatred for none, they say; what did Moe say?

  • “None loves the Ansar but a believer, and none hates them but a hypocrite. So Allah will love him who loves them, and He will hate him who hates them.” Sahih Bukhari 5.58.127
  • Allah , the Exalted, hates the eloquent one among men who moves his tongue round (among his teeth), as cattle do. Sunan Abu Dawud 41.4987

Islam is peace they say.  What did Allah say?

  • Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh’s Cause) is ordained for you” 2:216
    • “The Prophet said, “He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.” Sahih Bukhari 4.52.625
      • “to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) hate (it). 9:33
  • “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 ]. ” 8:39
  • “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy” 8:60
  • “O Prophet (Muhammad)! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve” 8:65
  • “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. ”  9:29

What did Moe say?

  • “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 ” Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387
  • “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).  Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2523
  • “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. ” Sunan Abu Dawud  23.3455

Islam is peace: in a pig’s anus.

Islam says “we condemn terrorism”.  What  does Allah say?

  • “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve” 3:151
  • “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.” 8:12
  • “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies” 8:60
  • “Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. ” 33:26
  • ” But Allah’s (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers.” 59:2

What did Moe say?

  • “Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey. ” Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331
  • ” have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)” Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220

Terrorism: Islamic sacrament

Islam says Jihad is only for self-defense.  Allah and Moe said  it was offensive, on Islam’s initiative, their “original religion”.  What does Islamic law say?

Jihad is offensive

Islam says that Mosque and state are separated. What did Allah say?

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

Moe united spiritual & temporal power

Islam says that it supports universal human rights.  What did Moe say?

  • 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.”

Are our blood and property sacred to Muslims?  Do we have the same rights that Muslims have?  How do we obtain those rights?   If you can correctly answer those three crucial questions, then you have learned something; important knowledge which you must  share with others.  If you can not answer those questions, you need to read the hadith reproduced immediately above.  If that does not solve the problem, you need a remedial reading course.

You now know that each and every one of the claims made by “Muslims for peace”  in their advertisement and on their web site is malignant malarkey.  Lets review:

Allah only loves Muslims.

Islam is perpetual war

Terrorism: Islamic sacrament

Jihad is offensive

Moe united spiritual & temporal power

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims

We have no rights.

August 5, 2010 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

All We Want Is Peace


All We Want Is Peace

Sometimes drama, like the novel, can, with a little literary license, make plain that which is normally obscured from view.  This is one of those occasions.  Caroline Glick’s  Latma has done it again.  The source is in Hebrew, fortunately, the sound track is English.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to
Tal Seraph, who posted a link  in the Ban Islam!! Facebook group.

The text prologue sets up the scene better than I can, pay close attention to it.  Despite the serious nature of the subject matter, the actors are obviously having fun, and experience difficulty in maintaining  a serious demeanor.  I expected them to break into song at the end, but that did not happen.



Bashir Assad–“We should call this : Operation Death to the Jews.”  Moe Ahmadinejad –“No, bad name”–“Why? “–“If we call it that, how will people understand that all we want is peace?”

Islam’s peace is the condition appertaining after all their intended victins are in graveyards, when Dar ul-harb is engulfed by Dar ul-Islam.

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

July 1, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , | 1 Comment

Ignorant Comment Answered


One  reader comment appended to a New York Times article about the  Times Square bomber deserves a detailed reply.   The article included a photograph of the bomber’s copy of the Noble Qur’an.  That translation is available on the web,  it can be downloaded in pdf format. The chm  version is more than 29mb, I don’t know the size of the pdf version.  If you don’t want to clutter up your hard disk, you can read it on line at the King Fahd Complex.  The Hilali & Khan translation  does contain parenthetical  expressions from tafsir to clarify ambiguous verses. It also includes the translator’s  commentary. The link to the on line version is to 2:190, which is about defensive jihad, but the translator’s comment defines offensive jihad with extreme clarity and accuracy.

It is important to note that this book is not the Koran, but “The Noble Koran”, which is a version of the Koran with commentary woven into the text. It is widely distributed by Wahabis and extremists in the U.S. Its intention is to distort the Koran and spread an extremist view of Islam. This book does not represent the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Muslims, and we should not make them the enemy.

Muslims consider all translations  of the Qur’an to be non-canonical.  They assert that it is impossible to translate it from Arabic to another language without sacrificing accuracy.

The true meaning of the Qur’an can only be discovered by observing how  the man who revealed it followed its dictates.  The experts who explain the Qur’an in tafsir compare parallel verses and hadith to determine their meaning.

The comment author asserts that the Noble Qur’an is intended to distort the Qur’an with an extreme slant.  The assertion is offered without evidence to prove it.

The assertion can be tested by comparing multiple translations. http://www.quranbrowser.com/ displays a table of ten parallel translations.  http://www.openburhan.net displays  17 translations including a literal translation and a word by word breakdown of the Arabic text  linked to an Arabic/English dictionary.

The ayat most significant to the jihad issue are  2:216, 8:39, 8:60 & 9:29.  When you compare the translations, you will discover that the main difference is that Hilali & Khan tried to modernize 8:60 by inserting a parenthetical list of modern weapons.

The titles of Ibn Kathir’s explanations of 8:39 & 9:29 make  their meanings extremely obvious:

The jihad imperatives are confirmed in this hadith:  Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387.  Allah said “fight them”; Moe said “I have been ordered to fight”.  The ultimate confirmation is found in Shari’ah. Reliance of the Traveller,  Book O, Chapter 9 tells us what the caliph does as a normal course of action.

  • O9.8 The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice,…
  • O9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim…

The Qur’an may not represent the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Muslims, but it sets the standard of conduct for more than a billion Muslims.  It commands them to wage war against us.  Why did Muslims march from Mecca to conquer the Arabian peninsula, North Africa, Southern & Eastern Europe and nearly half of Asia?

The issue is not moderate :  extremist, it is hypocrite : believer.   The hypocrite’s Islam “will not go beyond their throats“.  Believers are only those who “strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh“. What does that mean?  The answer is in 9:111.

  • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

Got a clue yet?  “They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed.”  I have two more ayat for the terminally clueless.

  • 4:57. But those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, We shall admit them to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), abiding therein forever. …
  • 9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh’s Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh’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 Allâh, 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.  …

Angering and injuring disbelievers  are deeds of righteousness.  Re-read 9:120 , paying close attention to the clause I emphasized with bold face.

Islam is the enemy.  Without Muslims who believe in it and attempt to implement it, Islam would be harmless words in musty old books.  But so long as there are Muslims, the risk remains that some of them will believe in and attempt to implement Allah’s jihad imperatives.

May 6, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness, Uncategorized | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Obamination Flight 253 Part 2


On December 31, ’09, President Obama issued this press release:

This morning, I spoke with John Brennan about preliminary assessments from the ongoing consultations I have ordered into the human and systemic failures that occurred leading up to the attempted act of terrorism on Christmas Day and about our government-wide efforts at continued vigilance on homeland security and counterterrorism efforts. In a separate call, I spoke with Sec. Napolitano to receive an update on both the Department of Homeland Security review of detection capabilities and the enhanced security measures in place since the Christmas Day incident.I anticipate receiving assessments from several agencies this evening and will review those tonight and over the course of the weekend.  On Tuesday, in Washington, I will meet personally with relevant agency heads to discuss our ongoing reviews as well as security enhancements and intelligence-sharing improvements in our homeland security and counterterrorism operations.

NOTE: John Brennan is Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

Big deal. President Obama consulted with his experts. No heads rolled. Nobody did anything realistic to prevent another attack. There is no practical way to detect bombs swallowed, inserted or surgically implanted.  Are we going to put  MRI scanners in every airport and run every passenger through them?  How much would that cost and how long would that take?:  How about we just scan the Muslims?

I have a better idea. Just keep Muslims off all flights to or over our territory. Clip Their Wings.

January 5, 2010 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: