CAIR vs. Pompaeo: Both are Wrong
The video clip of the speech is embedded below, followed by my transcription of the remarks. I have placed superscripts in the text, linked to a list of comments. To read a comment, click its superscript. To return to the transcript, use your backspace key.
Its been just under two months since
the attacks in Boston and in those intervening weeks, the silence of
Muslim leaders has been deafening. And that is sad, but perhaps
most importantly it's dangerous1.
There have now been at least a dozen attacks by Muslim terrorists on U.S. soil since Ramzi Yousef's parked rental van exploded in the basement of the World Trade Center on February 26 of 1993. Some have caused death and injury such as the 9-11 attacks in 2001 and Nidal Hasan's mass shooting at Fort Hood Texas. Other attacks such as Faisal Shahzad's fizzled Times Square bombing or the unsuccessful underwear bombing of a flight were thwarted or aborted.
Yet failed or not, all of these attacks were successful in scaring Americans; successful in reducing our freedom, in the most freedom loving nation on earth. Successful in slowing our economy and successful in demonstrating that a free and open society can potentially be vulnerable. They were, in the former Attorney General Mike Mukasey's words, crimes2 that are none the less meant to send a terrorist message.
When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last twenty years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith3 and are performed in the name of that faith4, a special obligation falls on those who are the leaders of that faith. Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit5 in these acts and, more importantly still, those that may well follow.
If a religion claims6 to be one of peace, Mr. Speaker, it's leaders must reject violence that is perpetrated in its name. Some clerics today suggest that modern Jihad is non-violent and is only about making oneself a better Muslim. Perhaps that's true7 for moderate Muslims, but extremists seek to revive the era when most Islamic scholars8 understood Jihad to be holy war.
Mr. Speaker, for decades Middle Eastern oil money have [sic] propounded this more extreme violent interpretation9 in mosques around the world. Less than two months after the 9-11 atrocities an Egyptian Brotherhood preacher who is probably the most influential Sunni cleric today, declared suicide bombing to be legitimate. He said "these are historic heroic commando and martyrdom attacks and should not be called suicide.".
So, what is it that these Islamic leaders must say? First, that there is never any justification for terrorism10. No political goal legitimizes terrorism11. Terrorism is never excusable as 'resistance'12. Imams must say unequivocally13 that terrorist actions- killing and maiming [unintelligible- may be: solely is wrong].
They must also publicly and repeatedly denounce radical14 clerics who seek to justify terrorism.
There is a battle of interpretation15 within Islam, its not enough to deny responsibility saying one's own interpretation doesn't support terrorism. Moderate16 Imams must strive to ensure that no Muslim finds solace for terrorism17 in the Qur'an. They must cite the Qur'an as evidence that the murder of innocents18 is not permitted by good believing19 Muslims and must immediately refute all claims to the contrary.
Finally, Muslim leaders must say that there is no room for militant Islamism in the religion of peace20. These statements must be made frequently, publicly and in the mosques. Yes, in the mosques and in the madrassahs where many learn their Islamic religion.
You know we have to call evil by its name in order to stamp it out21. Downplaying atrocities and rampages assures more of them. Every Muslim leader must unequivocally proclaim that terror committed in the name of Islam violates the core tenets of the prophet Muhammad22 and they must do so repeatedly, period.
My own faith has occasionally been hijacked in the name of violence and cruelty including in Kansas my home state by Fred Phelps and his Westborough Baptist Church. In response, hundreds of protestant ministers preached that Mr. Phelps' actions violate the most fundamental Christian traditions and denounced he [sic] and his church's evil acts. Pope John Paul II similarly apologized for the Catholic Church's failure to do more to speak out against the evils of Nazism and to protect Jews from the Holocaust.
Just as these religious leaders have called up those who have acted cruelly and brutally in the name of their faith, so too must Muslim religious leaders refute terrorist theology23.
We are now two decades into Islamic radicals attacking Americans on U.S. soil; I know that not every Muslim supports these actions. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy has spoken out in a clear and consistent way so has Zainab Al-Suwai of the American Islamic Congress but the silence in the face of extremism coming from the best funded Islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across America is absolutely deafening. It casts doubt upon the commitment to peace by adherents of the Muslim faith. This is utterly unacceptable, it is dangerous24; it must end. I yield back, Mr. Speaker.
There have now been at least a dozen attacks by Muslim terrorists on U.S. soil since Ramzi Yousef's parked rental van exploded in the basement of the World Trade Center on February 26 of 1993. Some have caused death and injury such as the 9-11 attacks in 2001 and Nidal Hasan's mass shooting at Fort Hood Texas. Other attacks such as Faisal Shahzad's fizzled Times Square bombing or the unsuccessful underwear bombing of a flight were thwarted or aborted.
Yet failed or not, all of these attacks were successful in scaring Americans; successful in reducing our freedom, in the most freedom loving nation on earth. Successful in slowing our economy and successful in demonstrating that a free and open society can potentially be vulnerable. They were, in the former Attorney General Mike Mukasey's words, crimes2 that are none the less meant to send a terrorist message.
When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last twenty years come overwhelmingly from people of a single faith3 and are performed in the name of that faith4, a special obligation falls on those who are the leaders of that faith. Instead of responding, silence has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit5 in these acts and, more importantly still, those that may well follow.
If a religion claims6 to be one of peace, Mr. Speaker, it's leaders must reject violence that is perpetrated in its name. Some clerics today suggest that modern Jihad is non-violent and is only about making oneself a better Muslim. Perhaps that's true7 for moderate Muslims, but extremists seek to revive the era when most Islamic scholars8 understood Jihad to be holy war.
Mr. Speaker, for decades Middle Eastern oil money have [sic] propounded this more extreme violent interpretation9 in mosques around the world. Less than two months after the 9-11 atrocities an Egyptian Brotherhood preacher who is probably the most influential Sunni cleric today, declared suicide bombing to be legitimate. He said "these are historic heroic commando and martyrdom attacks and should not be called suicide.".
So, what is it that these Islamic leaders must say? First, that there is never any justification for terrorism10. No political goal legitimizes terrorism11. Terrorism is never excusable as 'resistance'12. Imams must say unequivocally13 that terrorist actions- killing and maiming [unintelligible- may be: solely is wrong].
They must also publicly and repeatedly denounce radical14 clerics who seek to justify terrorism.
There is a battle of interpretation15 within Islam, its not enough to deny responsibility saying one's own interpretation doesn't support terrorism. Moderate16 Imams must strive to ensure that no Muslim finds solace for terrorism17 in the Qur'an. They must cite the Qur'an as evidence that the murder of innocents18 is not permitted by good believing19 Muslims and must immediately refute all claims to the contrary.
Finally, Muslim leaders must say that there is no room for militant Islamism in the religion of peace20. These statements must be made frequently, publicly and in the mosques. Yes, in the mosques and in the madrassahs where many learn their Islamic religion.
You know we have to call evil by its name in order to stamp it out21. Downplaying atrocities and rampages assures more of them. Every Muslim leader must unequivocally proclaim that terror committed in the name of Islam violates the core tenets of the prophet Muhammad22 and they must do so repeatedly, period.
My own faith has occasionally been hijacked in the name of violence and cruelty including in Kansas my home state by Fred Phelps and his Westborough Baptist Church. In response, hundreds of protestant ministers preached that Mr. Phelps' actions violate the most fundamental Christian traditions and denounced he [sic] and his church's evil acts. Pope John Paul II similarly apologized for the Catholic Church's failure to do more to speak out against the evils of Nazism and to protect Jews from the Holocaust.
Just as these religious leaders have called up those who have acted cruelly and brutally in the name of their faith, so too must Muslim religious leaders refute terrorist theology23.
We are now two decades into Islamic radicals attacking Americans on U.S. soil; I know that not every Muslim supports these actions. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy has spoken out in a clear and consistent way so has Zainab Al-Suwai of the American Islamic Congress but the silence in the face of extremism coming from the best funded Islamic advocacy organizations and many mosques across America is absolutely deafening. It casts doubt upon the commitment to peace by adherents of the Muslim faith. This is utterly unacceptable, it is dangerous24; it must end. I yield back, Mr. Speaker.
Islamic condemnation of terrorism:
http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/
Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide,
Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami
Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami
Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic
Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President,
Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS – Parti
Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and
politicians:
We condemn, in the strongest terms, the
incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is
grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks
on innocents.
Islamic condemnations of terrorism are the worst sort of malignant malarkey. Islam can not condemn its own sacraments! I have dealt with this crap before, in detail. Some links to the Qur'an, hadith & tafsir may be broken, but the quotes are still accurate.
- The OIC Remembers the Victims of 9/11 on its 10th
Anniversary 09/17/11 The OIC Remembers the Victims of 9/11 on
its 10th Anniversary
The OIC did not condemn the Accursed Abomination, it celebrated it, smirking & snickering at your gullibility. Read between the
lines and between the words, scratch the surface and delve into Islam’s canon to discover the unpleasant objective factual reality.
The OIC’s malignant pretense is reproduced below with superscripts linked to my revelatory evidence and comments. Click any
superscript to read the comment, then use your Backspace key to return to your place in the septic spew. - "Condemn in the Strongest Possible Terms” 04/07/11 “We condemn the attack on innocent civilians in southern Israel in the strongest possible terms as well as ongoing rocket fire from Gaza,” Do you have the fortitude to view a cleaned up version of the strongest possible terms, terms the Traitors won't use?
- Terrorism Fatwa: Feces 03/04/10 A Sufi Sheikh living in Britain issued a 88 page summary of a 600 page fatwa supposedly ruling terrorism & suicide bombing harram. I exposed his malignant malarkey.
- Silence is less dangerous and
threatening than false assurances of passivity. False assertions
that Islam is the "religion of peace" lull some listeners into
inattention and apathy.
- Islamic terrorist attacks are acts of war,
not civil criminal offenses. The crime-investigation-trial-punishment
model does not fit; the war-victory model is required. Because Muslims
are motivated to terrorism by Allah's imperatives,
threat & promise, Muslims will never cease from attacking
until they become extinct. Extinction is victory; anything less is
defeat.
- Muslims engage in terrorism because it
is Allah's battle tactic: to so
brutalize victims
that those "behind them" will "learn a lesson"; so that they will be
terrorized and thereby rendered unable to mount an effective
resistance. The use of terms such as "fearsome example" &
"strike terror" used in the parallel translations of Surah Al-Anfal 57
will afford a clue to the intelligent reader.
- Islamic terrorism is performed in
the name of Allah: "Allah hu akbar": the takbir which is
exclaimed when the attack is commenced, attaches the brand. They
shouted the takbir when they slit the throats of the flight crews; just
as they shout it when sacrificing the hadi at the eids. They
sacrificed their victims to Satan.
- Imams are not complicit in terrorism
because they fail to condemn it, they are complicit because they teach,
preach and encourage it; they are Muslims--believers. Look up the
definition of believers in the Qur'an! 9:111
, 49:15.
- Islam does not mean peace, it means
submission. 'You will submit or we will make peace by waging war
and exterminate you. ' Imams can not reject anything that is part
of the Qur'an or part of Moe's Sunnah. I disrespectfully direct
doubters, dissenters & deniers, damn fools one and all, to The Reliance of the Traveller, Book O8.7. Tell
those Islamic leaders to denounce attacks against Jews & Israel and
observe their reaction. What is the difference between the many
bus and restaurant bombings in Israel and the Boston bombing?
Open the Qur'an to 2:85, and read it repeatedly until you understand it. Are Muslims allowed to pick what they like from that book and reject the rest? Islam is an all or nothing, bundled package deal; take it or leave it. Study 9:29; what does it command Muslims to do? Does it have geographic limits? Does it have an expiration date? What the Hell does it mean?
http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//9.20980.html
http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo= 9&tAyahNo= 29&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
http://www.muslimaccess.com/sunnah/hadeeth/bukhari/008.html#001.008.387
- The Qur'an does not define Jihad.
Go to Corpus Qur'an and look up the Arabic terms used for it,
the third word in 2:216.. Hilali & Khan defined Jihad in a
footnote to 2:190. The legal definition is given in The Reliance of the Traveller O9.0. Is it
Jihad an-Nafs? Now, Smart Ass, explain to me exactly how a
Mujihideen gets
killed
in Jihad an-Nafs!!! And, being so God blessed smart, explain in
another comment exactly what Moe meant when he said he would love nothing better than multiple martyrdom!!
What did Jihad mean to Moe? What did he do about it? Why does each of the six canonical hadith collections have a "Book of Jihad"?
- Islam is static, defined in the
immutable
Qur'an and exemplified by Moe's Sunnah. It is and always will be
what it was when Moe died.
- There is only one authentic
interpretation of the Qur'an: Moe's. Read his Sunnah! He
said that he was ordered to fight with men. He fought. He dictated extortion letters and dispatched them to
neighboring kings by private courier.
- Allah sanctified terrorism.
He said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers. 3:151,
8:12.
He said that he did cast terror: 33:26, 59:2. He commanded Muslims to take actions
designed to strike terror into the hearts of disbelievers: 8:57,
8:60.
- Moe's tactical objective was to keep
the loot flowing. His strategic objective was global domination;
read 8:39
with particular attention to the compound terminal conditions stated
therein. What part of "altogether and everywhere" or"in the
entire world" do you not understand?
- Of course, resistance is their
rationalization for terrorism in the reconquest of Israel.
Demanding that their sophistry will accomplish nothing.
- Moe is considered by Muslims to be the perfect
role model, to be emulated by all Muslims, in all places; at all
times. Moe was a terrorist, by his own testimony: Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331, 4.52.220. To see examples of Moe's terrorism, read
the oldest extant biography: The Life of Muhammad;
page 368, page 523 and page 676. Rep. Pompeo demanded that Imams
renounce Moe's terrorism, which would be, under Shari'ah, a death
penalty offense.
- When applied to Islam and
Muslims, terms such as "radical" & "extremist" are superfluous.
Normative Islam, as Moe preached and exemplified it, is genocidal,
terrorist & imperialist. Believers are
only those who "fight in Allah's cause": 9:111,
49:15.
The rest are hypocrites, whose Islam does not reach beyond their throats.
- Moe interpreted Allah's word with
every word he spoke and act he performed. Refer to Sahih Bukhari's books of Jihad, Khumus &
Expedition and to Guillaume's The Life of Muhammad.
- If they are moderate,
they ain't Muslims; they are hypocrites,
to be killed and gathered
together with us into Hell.
- Yes, of course, so nobody can
find these: 3:151, 8:12,39,57,60,65,67,
9:5,29,38, 39,111,120,123,
33:26,27,
47:4,49:15,
59:2,13, 61:10-13;
Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220. What part of "None
can change His Words." does the Congressman not comprehend?
- Define innocent!
Extract a definition of innocent from an Imam, Alim or Qadi. Then
plant your foot in his butt because he is
a damned liar. Killing believers is expressly
forbidden. 5:32
does not mean what you think it does. Muslims will not cite 5:33
because it revels the awful truth: only Muslims are
innocent! Non-believers are not innocent, they are guilty
of rebellion: "waging war against Allah and his Messenger". Tafsir Ibn Kathir
gives us the definition of "wage war" as an inclusive set, any member
of which is sufficient to condemn us. That set includes "disbelief"
The blood and property of kuffar are not sacred to Muslims and kuffar have no human rights until they become Muslims. The Jizya is imposed in lieu of destruction and a species of punishment for infidelity.
- Believing Muslims wage war
against us. Refer to the ayat linked in #14. Imams can not refute
objective factual reality.
- "Only Allah has the right to be worshiped". Only Allah and his Messenger have the right to
legislate and rule. Non-Islamic governments are tyrannical and must be conquered. The original religion of Islam is Jihad!
- Its name is ISLAM!
Islam is intrinsically evil, by design. Its mission is mercenary and its method is
martial.
- Repetition does not convert a
lie into truth, even if it is believed and accepted as truth, it
remains a falsehood.
- Muslim leaders must
refute Islam. Yeah, right.
- Painting over a skunk's stripes or
amputating a rattle snake's rattles would be a dangerous act: removing
warning signs. Urging Muslims to misrepresent their war cult as
something else is equally irrational and dangerous.
Sphere: Related Content
at
2:35 AM
|