Obamination: Ignoble Prize

President Obama said some interesting things in Oslo, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Some of those young men will die because of idiotic rules of engagement which you imposed upon them. The relationship between war and peace is that of polar opposites. Replacing peace with war is relatively easy, replacing war with peace requires victory; an overwhelming victory that breaks the will of the aggressor so that they will not soon repeat their imperialistic adventure.

Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Individual terrorists may be motivated by rage or revenge, but Jihad is driven by doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and exemplified in the sira & sunna. What does it matter to the innocent victims whether they were killed by one, ten or a thousand men? What does it matter to them what weaponry was used in their murder? The fact of killing innocents is important, not the scope, scale, method or manpower involved. Islamic doctrine requires "great slaughter"; killing "many of them".

There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

For Islam, imperialistic conquest is required by Allah and justified by our status as kuffar, rebels against Allah. If you search for O9.1, O9.8 and O9.9, and add my byline as a qualifier, you will find posts in which I have quoted Islamic law which requires annual attacks upon Jews & Christians and pagans.

A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

A violent movement could have preempted Hitler's aggression. Nobody had the requisite courage, will & resolve to take action. Nothing short of death can convince mujahideen to lay down their arms. They seek death, and when one is killed, another steps forward to take his place. 'Martyrdom' is their their ticket to Paradise.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.

Torture was already prohibited. Water boarding as practiced by the CIA is not torture. What is the difference where you confine unlawful combatants? Gitmo or Thomson; what is the moral difference? Our adversaries are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions nor do they abide by them. They are not entitled to the protection of conventions they do not recognize. Geneva Conventions are not the ideals we fight to defend. Those ideals are enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

What sanction would have stopped Hitler? What sanction will stop Iran? When an enemy is dedicated and devoted to genocide; when they believe that genocide pleases their demon, they will engage in it, regardless of sanctions. Only death will deter them.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

Unilateral disarmament is suicidal. Dreaming of a world without nuclear weaponry is suicidal idiocy. Avaricious dictators are constantly probing for weakness, seeking opportunities for exploiting those unable or unwilling to defend themselves. Pandora's box has been opened, the demons are loose, and they can not be recaptured. Public expressions of suicidal insanity such as Obama's present temptation to aggressors, inviting war.

Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

They want nukes, give them a few, like we gave them to Japan. Nothing less will stop those who dream of ruling the world. The megalomaniacs and their supporters must be eliminated. What if Hitler had developed the bomb first? Any weapon loses its deterrent effect if those who possess it lack the will to use it.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

Case in point: Somalia; President Clinton sent our armed forces, with suicidal rules of engagement and insufficient material. He pulled them out when too many got killed, telegraphing weakness and lack of resolve to the enemy. The results ain't pretty. Predation is not entirely about the biggest fangs, it is also about attitude: the will to kill. If you don't have it, don't get involved! A Security Council resolution said that Hezbollah would be disarmed. How did that work out? The 'peace keepers' are too timid to disarm Hezbollah. The meek will inherit the earth; only if the aggressive kill each other without first killing the meek.

America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens.

Hitler was elected. The Roman Empire had a Senate. Some people just can't get a clue. Form and substance are not the same. Hamas won an election a few years ago; majority rule decided to perpetuate terrorism. The result would have been the same if their rival had won the election.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

So, what did you do to aid the dissidents in Iran? How effective were your efforts? If those dissidents had prevailed, would their regime be any better than that of the Mullahs? Most revolutions do not produce liberal democracies, they replace one tyranny with another.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

President Obama will be surprised to discover that a few people can analyze his statements and determine their true meaning. He is demanding re-distribution of wealth & income on a global scale. He is demanding that we submit to global taxation for that purpose. President Kennedy's economic development policy had a consequence: foreign competition cost American jobs. Got a clue yet?

And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades.

I will use two words most others won't: International Socialism. That is what President Obama is up to, in plain, direct language. He intends to impoverish us and ruin our standard of living for the benefit of others, so that they can build up great armies and conquer us. Islam does not wage war because it is poor, it wages war to get more. It was founded for the purpose of enriching its founder through accrual of spoils. It is now known that the 'scientists' fudged their data to establish a lie as 'scientific fact' for political purposes. We can't educate our own children & care for our own sick, but President Obama has decided that we must pay to educate and heal the rest of the world. He is a prime example of cranial-rectal juxtaposition.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Tribal & religious conflict long preceded globalization & modernity. Islam has been engaged in it for nearly 1400 years. President Obama slyly puts the onus on Europe for slowly awakening to the fact that Muslims are taking over their continent.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan.

How many times will he repeat that damn lie? Islam has not been defiled, nor has it been distorted. It was designed for genocidal warfare using terrorism as a tactic. Its mission is mercenary and its method is martial. Read Surah al-Anfal, paying particular attention to verses 1, 39, 41 & 67. What does Allah want? What did Moe want? To whom do the spoils belong? What did Allah command Muslims to do? President Obama assumes that nobody will recognize and point out his deception.

Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

When I see a Gd'd lie, I call it, without fear or favor. I don't care who is offended! President Obama is a liar! Islam is a war cult, not a religion. The purpose of Islam is to enrich its founder through the professional practice of piracy. This fatal fact is fully documented in Islam's Mercenary Mission. Here is the concluding paragraph from that blog post. It summarizes the major points documented therein.

What keeps a war from being holy? Embezzling the spoils. That says it all! A summary follows in the form of an outline.

• The spoils belong to Allah and Moe.
• Allah & Moe get the top 20%.
• Allah granted special dispensation to take spoils.
• Allah promised abundant spoils.
• Embezzling the spoils:
  • condemns the embezzler to Hell
  • makes war unholy.
• Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world.
• Allah made Moe wealthy through conquests.
  • Moe got his income by his spear.
• Moe wanted the spoils & ransom; Allah wants genocide.
• Rome & Persia will be defeated and their treasures spent in Jihad.

Each of those points is based on explicit text in an ayat or hadith. Links are provided so that you can verify the quotes and explore the context. Next time, do due diligence and examine the ideology, character & associations of the candidates before voting. We can not afford to repeat the mistake we made in '08!

Sphere: Related Content

Jesus 4 Shari'ah??

A British Muslim web site, whose creators and clients should have long since been expelled from Britain, http://www.islam4uk.com/ polluted the web with a blasphemous suggestion that Jesus Christ was a Muslim and would favor Shari'ah over secular 'democracy'. They want to debate Christians & Jews about Christ's mission one week before we celebrate the traditional anniversary of his birth. They advertise their debate proposal with two graphic images. Thanks and a tip of the hat to Logan's Warning for alerting me to the existence of this drek.




http://www.islam4uk.com/index.php/current-affairs/uk-news/367--the-big-debate-jesus4shariah-181209.html


The three questions propounded in the second image are critical. I will take them on superficially.

1. The message of Jesus was apolitical. His message was directed to his audience jointly and severally as God's creations, not as citizens of the state. He told them how to relate to each other and to God, not how to govern their nation. His kingdom is spiritual, not temporal; he came as a teacher, not a ruler.

• 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
  
  
  
• 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. [John, KJV]
  

2. I have seen no scriptural record of Jesus rebelling against the Romans or the Jewish hierarchy that cooperated with them. Driving the money changers from the Temple was his only recorded violent act; it was not against the hierarchy
3. Islamic arrogance stands out like a wart on the tip of Moe's nose. The question begs the question of oppression. The people of Iraq were oppressed by the Hussein regime, which provoked a war. They suffer the consequences of silently allowing a tyrant to engage in malicious mischief. Afghanistan made the same mistake, by supporting al-Qaeda and refusing to hand them over after they attacked us. Palestine is oppressed by the an occupying force of Muslim Arabs who do not belong there. Jesus would stand with the genuine victims, not the aggressors who pretend to be victims.

Islam blasphemes Jesus, denying his paternity & divinity, assigning him the status of slave, denying his crucifixion, death & resurrection and co-opting him as a genocidal warlord. As-Saff 14 implies that Jesus led his disciples into battle against the Jews who rejected him.

One hadith stands apart from the rest. Pay careful attention to this description of the second coming. What will Jesus do?

• Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:
  Narrated AbuHurayrah:
  
  The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

"He will fight the people for the cause of Islam." According to Islamic prophecy, Jesus will return as a warlord, like Moe. What is the meaning of "break the cross, kill swine":? The answer is in the next sentence: "Allah will perish all religions except Islam. According to Islamic propecy, Jesus, fighting the people, will kill the remaining Christians and Jews.

The wise guiys will claim that I am reading too much into a simple saying, that I am mis-interpreting it. But I have confirmation, which comes from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of 7:167.

• [...]In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world.[...]

So Jesus will impose and enforce Shari'ah. That includes amputation for theft and stoning for adultery. Lets check the scripture again.

• 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
  [John, KJV]
  

Jesus was a Muslim? Did he pray at the prescribed times? How did he know what they were? How did he know the prescribed prayers? How did he know the prescribed ritual gestures? Did he perform hajj and its attendant rituals? How is it possible that Islam's second most important prophet never visited the Kaaba? If he did, why is it not recorded in the Gospels? Why did he fail to teach his disciples to fast during Ramadan and perform Hajj? How would he know the rituals of Islam more than 500 years before Muhammad invented the cult? What Muslim would study the Torah instead of the Qur'an? Does anyone know of a Muslim Rabbi?

The imposition is a blasphemous outrage and an insult to our intelligence. The Church of England should send a qualified theologian to debate the impostors and trim them down to size. I doubt that they will do that; I expect that they will pass up a great opportunity to expose Islam as a foolish imposture.

Sphere: Related Content

Its Time to Face Reality

Regular readers of these posts know that I am an equal opportunity offender, telling it as I see it without fear or favor. This time I tear off a few pieces from Don't Let ''Allahu Akbar'' Become A Pejorative by Jordan Sekulow. [Original at Huffington Post.] As usual, I will intersperse my comments among excerpts in block quote format.

Islam continues to linger at a crossroads. After the tragic events of 9/11, the free world has taken pains to differentiate their War on Terror from notions of a war on Islam. We have repeatedly called Islamic terrorists "extremists" that only represent a small minority within the Islamic faith. Considering, however, recent news involving Islamic places of worship -- such as the mosque raids and revealed ties between several imams and terrorist cells -- the time is ripe for innocent Muslim-Americans to stand up and prevent "Allahu Akbar" from becoming a pejorative. In particular, peaceful, innocent adherents to the faith should more strongly challenge members of its leadership who openly condone acts of violence.

We did not start this war; Islam started it in 623. It is a war of Islam against all Kafir. The declaration includes five verses in the Qur'an: 8:39, 8:60, 8:65, 9:29 & 9:123. Those verses command fighting pagans, building and equipping an army to intimidate potential victims, urging Muslims to fight, fighting "people of the book" and fighting disbelievers, the closest first. The commands in 8:39 & 9:29 are confirmed by hadith: Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367 and codified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O 9.8 & 9.9.

Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tactic, sanctified by 3:151 & 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26 & 59.2. The founder of Islam was a terrorist, by his own admission: "made victorious with terror" and "Allah made me victorious by awe" . Moe's recitation and sunna set the standard of Islam; terrorism is the rule, not the exception. Terrorists are zealous believers, obeying Allah & emulating Moe, not extremists.

Passive Muslims, who neither approve of, participate in nor support Jihad are hypocrites, not believers. Muslims are explicitly forbidden to question their leaders in the manner suggested.

O8.7

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

• -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;

• -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);

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

• -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

Allah made the matter explicitly clear.

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.

Allah decreed the matter and Moe confirmed it. Then, he exemplified it with a battle every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. No Muslim has a right to question it.

So where is the condemnation? Where is the outrage? Sure, we hear from ordinary Muslims who express their disgust at these attacks, but why do we hear nothing from Islamic leaders? While the controversial Council on American Islamic Relations condemned Hasan's actions, we also learned that a frequent speaker at CAIR events, Zaid Shakir, said that, "Islam doesn't permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people. If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that's something else."

An Imam or a King would write himself out of Islam, signing his death warrant by condemning what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified.

There is no better time for Muslims to engage in what Salman Rushdie called a "Muslim Reformation". Muslims, especially Muslim-Americans, should unite and collectively take back their religion. They should demand that their leaders not only condemn acts of terrorism and jihadist violence, but also actively expel radicals from their mosques. More importantly, if leaders fail to take the appropriate actions, they should be removed. Covering up true problems within the faith will backfire -- just ask Catholic leaders. Democracy's War on Islam is exactly the war Islamic terrorists have been hoping to ignite, and we must not let them succeed.

Muslims can not "take back their religion", they have maintained possession of it; it has not been hijacked nor has it been twisted or perverted. Muslim leaders can not condemn what Allah commanded them to do and Moe exemplified for them to emulate.

The faith is the problem; it is evil by design. The relationship between Allah and the Muslims is master: slave. Allah purchased the Muslims with admission to Paradise so they fight in his cause, kill and are killed. Don't take my word for it, read 9:111. Its all about getting the top 20% of the spoils for Moe. Don't take my word for it, read 8:1 & 8:41.

Islam can not be reformed. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah's word says "fight them". Allah's word says "cast terror". Allah's word can not be changed.

6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower.

10:64. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present world (i.e. righteous dream seen by the person himself or shown to others), and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the Words of Allâh, this is indeed the supreme success

18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him.

30:30. So set you (O Muhammad ) your face towards the religion of pure Islâmic Monotheism Hanifa (worship none but Allâh Alone) Allâh's Fitrah (i.e. Allâh's Islâmic Monotheism), with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not. [Tafsir At­Tabarî, Vol 21, Page 41] [Emphasis added for clarity.]

If that is not iron clad enough to convince you, Moe cursed anyone who would change it; without mercy, you are destined for the fire.

[...]"I will say those people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "[...] Sahih Bukhari 9.88.174 [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Sphere: Related Content

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment

No religious sect or denomination may advocate violent opposition to any other religious sect or denomination, or to the members thereof. Any religious sect or denomination which utilizes its religious freedoms in pursuit of political ends averse to the general welfare, at home or abroad, shall be in violation of this provision, shall forfeit the right to peaceably assemble, and shall not maintain places of worship.”

Unfortunately, that text would be in conflict with the existing First Amendment. In my view, it is necessary to exclude Islam from membership in the set of recognized religions. An institution which is not a religion is not protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause and may be proscribed by law.

Closing Mosques, Islamic Centers & Madrassas is not sufficient action to solve the problem. So long as individual Muslims are present among us, free to indoctrinate their children and proselytize, the threat will not be reduced, it will increase. Resident Muslims constitute a fifth column, each one a sleeper cell of one, capable of activation at any time, unpredictably. We remain at risk until they die, emigrate or sincerely & finally abjure the doctrines of Islam.

Islam is what Moe preached and emulated, enshrined in the Koran & hadith; codified in Shari'ah. Until you will read a sufficient sample of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence, your knowledge of Islam is speculative and probably false. Islam is not moderate, it is aggressive, intolerant and violent by design.

A Muslim described as moderate, who neither participates in nor approves of Jihad, is one whom Islam's founder described as a hypocrite, whose Islam goes no deeper than his throat.

Shari'ah requires Muslims to participate in annual attacks against disbelievers; neglecting to do so when it is possible is sin. I refer doubters & dissenters to Reliance of the Traveller, O9.1 It is the duty of the caliph to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or pay the jizya as prescribed in 9:29. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.8. It is the duty of the caliph to fight all other people until they become Muslim as prescribed in 8:39. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.9. Once you have opened and loaded the file, you can use the Windows search function to find the reference letter & numbers using the Ctrl f key combination.

Islam is supremely intolerant. 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. Islam denies your right to live and own property. Let doubters & dissenters read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. "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."

Given the fact that Islam is intolerant & violent, dedicated to the destruction of our system of government & economy and Hellbent on enslaving us, tolerating Islam is suicidal idiocy.

The first corrective measure known to me was proposed by Pedestrian Infidel in the spring of '07: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment. Although I disagree with the fourth article of that proposal, I have endorsed it, because it was the first and remains the best option.

The Outlaw Islam! petition languishes with 124 signatures. I urge lovers of life & liberty to sign it, copy it and send it to everyone they can hope to influence with an exhortation to forward it. When you have signed the petition, use the facilities of http://www.congress.org/ to send a link to the petition to your Representative & Senators.

Sphere: Related Content

Condemning Religious Extremism

On November 15, 09, The American Muslim published Muslims Must Condemn Religious Extremists by Sheila Musaji. She expressed a desire to "go on record as condemning all religious extremism, bigotry, violence, hatred, and terrorism by both Muslims and non-Muslims." [Bold face in original.] She follows up by citing several "false claims" about Islam and sets out to disprove them by listing evil acts and obnoxious statements performed or made by Jews or Christians.

In the process of listing the relatively small number of evil acts & statements, Sheila Musaji tacks around the unpleasant & incontrovertible fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. Extraordinary claims require proof, don"t they? I submit as proof, the ample testimony of Allah and his messenger.

The testimony of Allah as recorded in the Qur'an. [Emphasis added.]

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. 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."
• 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
• 8:60. 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, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. [Abdullah Yusuf Ali; compare with
  Arberry, Rodwell & Sale.]
• 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) 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.
• 59:2.He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! 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. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).
• 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).

The testimony of Moe as recorded in hadith. [Emphasis added.]

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

A counter at Religion of Peace indicates that Muslims have perpetrated 14,392 terror attacks since 09/11/'01. How many have Jews & Christians perpetrated in the last eight years? Besides lists of recent and prior year attacks, that web site lists these facts which help to put things in perspective..

• More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)
• Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)
• More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)
• 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years. (source)
  

Sheila Musaji lists several ayat which guide her understanding of the Qur'an. Her list includes Al-Ma'idah 32 and skips directly to Surah Ghafir 40-43.

“If anyone slays a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people.” Qur’an 5:32.

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree), but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God, for God loves not those who do wrong. But indeed, if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong done to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men with wrongdoing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice. For such there will be a penalty grievous (in the Hereafter). But indeed, if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an affair of great resolution.” Qur’an 42:40-43.

Why did she skip the context of 5:33 and turn so far away to complete the concept? For the same reason that other Muslims skip over that ayeh

: kitman. They don't want you to know its contents or its meaning. Lets take a close look at what they conceal from you. [Emphasis added.]

• 5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

What is the meaning of "wage war against Allah", which subjects one to the listed hudud? Ibn Kathir answers the question in his tafsir of 5:33.

• [...]`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land

If you do not believe in Allah, you are waging war against him and are subject to the listed hudud.

Sheila Musaji lists some actions and attitudes which she condemns. I will sample them out of context.

I condemn any individual who encourages others to commit violence, murder, or terrorism.

Does she condemn Allah & Moe? Qur'anic incitement to terrorism is listed above. Quranic incitement to violence include: 2:216, 8:39, 9:29 & 9:123.

I condemn any organization which encourages extremism, bigotry, or violence

Does she condemn Islam, which not only encourages but mandates violence?

I condemn anyone who attempts to degrade or insult the religion of others!

Does she condemn Allah? 1:7 says that Jews earned Allah's wrath and Christians went astray, 3:85 expresses intolerance, 8:22 expresses contempt for Jews & Christians and 9:33 curses us.

I condemn anyone who thinks that collective punishment, group responsibility, ethnic cleansing, or genocide is the solution to anything!

Does she condemn Allah? 9:14 & 3:12 involve collective punishment, 8:67 & 47:4 sanctify genocide.

I condemn anyone who thinks that membership in their faith group makes them superior to other human beings

Does she condemn Allah, who said that Muslims are the best of peoples in 3:110 and Moe who explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 that it means "the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."?

Sphere: Related Content

Religious Freedom Report: Suicidal Orwellianism

Remarks on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom
2009 Report on International Religious Freedom.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Washington, DC
October 26, 2009

The right to profess, practice, and promote one’s religious beliefs is a founding principle of our nation.

It is the first liberty mentioned in our Bill of Rights, and it is a freedom guaranteed to all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Our founders made an understandable oversight, relying on the traditional acceptance of institutions popularly considered to be religions, perhaps because they did not anticipate the development of modern transportation with its resultant increase in immigration which brought Islam to the West.

Unfortunately, Islam does not fit the pattern for two reasons. First, it is a war cult, not a legitimate religion, being founded for a mercenary mission. Second, it is intolerant and violent, denying others the tolerance and respect it demands from them.

The practice of Islam involves Jihad, and Jihad involves terrorism & genocide. How can that be tolerated?

We commend Jordan’s role in initiating the common word dialogue...

The Common Word Between Us and You, a missive from the Ulema to Pope Benedict XVI, is a pious fraud. Christianity and Islam have nothing in common except what Islam plagiarized from Judaism & Christianity,

These important efforts build on the shared values and common concerns of faith communities to sow the seeds of lasting peace.

Christianity values life and peace. Islam values war and death. We have no shared values.

Now, some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree. The United States will always seek to counter negative stereotypes of individuals based on their religion and will stand against discrimination and persecution.

Anti-defamation policies have nothing to do with protecting freedom of religion. Their purpose is to protect Islam from truthful criticism. The OIC and their allies are complaining of and campaigning for the criminalization of "negative stereotyping of religions", particularly association of terrorism with Islam.

But an individual’s ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others’ freedom of speech. The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions. These differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse.

The proper practice of Islam involves warfare for the purpose of making it dominant. Islam perceives our freedom of expression as an impairment of their demonic duty to enforce Islamic law, which prescribes the death penalty for any negative expression about Allah, Muhammad and their doctrines & practices.

Based on our own experience, we are convinced that the best antidote to intolerance is not the defamation of religion’s approach of banning and punishing offensive speech, but rather, a combination of robust legal protections against discrimination and hate crimes, proactive government outreach to minority religious groups, and the vigorous defense of both freedom of religion and expression.

In its practical implementation, "proactive government outreach to minority religious groups" means appeasement of Islam.

So it is our hope that the International Religious Freedom Report will encourage existing religious freedom movements around the world and promote dialogue among governments and within societies on how best to accommodate religious communities and protect each individual’s right to believe or not believe, as that individual sees fit.

If the Secretary would read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, she might learn that only Muslims have rights. How can we have rights when our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims?


The secretary called on Assistant Secretary Michael Posner to elaborate further on the report

Briefing on the Release of the 2009 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom


Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

QUESTION: Can I ask – the Secretary was quite strong in her comments about the defamation laws that – U.S. opposition to – well, perhaps not defamation laws, but I think this refers to something at the Human Rights Council. Is that – that’s correct? Can you elaborate a little bit more on that? And I thought it was sufficiently watered down or defeated that – and that that met your concerns.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: There are really two separate issues that have been raised and sometimes conflated at the United Nations. I was part of the delegation last month at the Human Rights Council, where we actually joined with Egypt in promoting a resolution on freedom of expression that did, in fact, meet our concerns. There was a debate in the context of that about how to deal with issues of defamation, and we agreed after much negotiation, much discussion, that there is a legitimate subject as to whether or not an individual, an individual of any particular faith, can be defamed and whether that kind of harassment or discrimination is to be condemned. It clearly is.

Assistant Secretary Posner wants us to believe that the concept of defamation was excluded from the recently passed Freedom of Opinion and Expression Resolution. Like most politicians, his words are deceptive. The concept is present, slightly disguised. [Emphasis added.]

6. Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret about the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and about the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;

"Related intolerance" is a code phrase for "Islamophobia", which is a code word for any negative expression about Islam, which is considered defamation. "false images and negative stereotypes" and "racist" are codes for criticism of Islam. If you have been reading my posts, you know that those codes refer to the Danish Cartoons and Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders. See You've Been Mooned for the proof.

There’s a second resolution that was promoted – that’s been promoted by the Islamic Conference at the UN, which is a broader defamation of religion resolution. It’s being debated, in fact, in one form right now. And it goes, we think, too far in restricting free speech – the notion that a religion can be defamed and that any comments that are negative about that religion can constitute a violation of human rights, to us, violates the core principle of free speech which is so central to us in our own system.

There is one little detail he does not tell us: that other forum is working on a protocol to ICERD, which will be enforcible international law, not a non-binding resolution. .

When asked about misogyny, whether it was of religious origin:

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER: No, I reject that. I think the major religions of the world are all predicated based on assumptions of humanity and ethical behavior. The fact that people take a kind of extreme view and interpret religions in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, I think, is an aberration. That’s part of the purpose of this report. I think we are all mindful of the fact that people of deep faith throughout the world are driven by and motivated by their religious beliefs. We want to encourage that. And we want to discourage people who misuse that faith in a way that’s going to undermine basic human rights.

He thinks that all major religions are predicated on humanity and ethical behavior. He thinks that extremists interpret Islam in a way that promotes violence and discrimination, which are abberations. Does he actually know anything about Islam? I doubt it. In Islam, women are chatle property, literally fields to be plowed. Muslims have Allah's permission to beat their wives. Women are inferior in intelligence and religion.

Violence and discrimination are also intrinsic and foundational. Mr. Posner would know that if he had read Book O of Reliance of the Traveller.

Introduction

First, religious freedom is the birthright of all people, regardless of their faith or lack thereof. Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments, the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate one's faith must be respected by all societies and governments. The United States takes this obligation seriously. "America will always stand," the President said in his Ramadan message to Muslims, "for the universal rights of all people to speak their mind, practice their religion, contribute fully to society, and have confidence in the rule of law."

There is an absolute right to profess, practice and propagate, regardless of the substance of the faith; its doctrines and practices. If the doctrines include supremacism & triumphalism and the practices include conquest, genocide & terrorism, that's ok with our Department of State. It ain't ok with me; is it with you? What they did in Beslan and are doing in Darfur is foundational to Islam. It is intrinsic and inseverable; impossible to reform. Who gives a damn? Certainly not our government.

Al-Anfal 39 commands warfare against pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. Al Anfal 12 declares that Allah will cast terror and orders Muslims to decapitate their victims and cut off their fingers and toes. Al-Anfal 60 orders Muslims to build armies and stock up on weapons with which to terrify their enemies. Al-Anfal 67 informs us that while Moe wanted ransom money, Allah prefers great slaughter. At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war on Christians & Jews until they are subjugated and extorted. Moe confirmed the order by declaring that he was ordered to fight with men until they became Muslims and that their blood and property were not sacred to Muslims until they did so. Those doctrines are foundational to Islam [3:7], can't be abandoned and can't be changed.

By expressing agreement with the false concept of an absolute right to Jihad, our Federal Government is engaging in civilizational suicide.
Executive Summary

`Multilateral, Global, and Regional Challenges to Religious Freedom

In addition to these country-by-country concerns, the wide spectrum of efforts to undermine the right to religious freedom extends to multilateral, regional, and global fora. For instance, over the past decade, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), an inter-governmental organization comprising 57 states with majority or significant Muslim populations, has worked through the United Nations (UN) to advance the concept of "defamation of religions" by introducing annual resolutions on this subject at the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam, we do not agree with the "defamation of religions" concept because it is inconsistent with the freedoms of religion and expression.

"While the United States deplores actions that exhibit disrespect for particular religious traditions, including Islam"; then the United States deplores this blog post. because it tells the truth about Islam. Since when is truth defamatory? What is wrong; deplorable about naming and shaming the enemy?

The United States understands the primary concern of the resolution to be the negative stereotyping of members of religious groups, particularly minority groups, and the contribution of such stereotypes to disrespect and discrimination. The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence. The United States, however, believes the best way for governments to address these issues is to develop robust legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to defend vigorously the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and to exercise their freedom of expression.

"The United States shares concerns about the impact of negative stereotypes and believes that such stereotyping, particularly when promoted by community, religious, or government leaders, contributes to disrespect, discrimination, and in some cases, to violence." Jihad, genocide & terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam. That is a fact, not stereotyping. The terror attacks at Beslan, London, Madrid & Washington D.C. were perpetrated by young Muslim Males who shouted "Allahhu Akbar" as they murdered innocent victims. Only a damn fool can tolerate the continued propagation of the damnable doctrines which motivated those men to murder for the promise of eternity in a celestial bordello.

"To condemn hateful ideology"? Why don't they condemn Islam? Don't they know that it curses us and declares perpetual war against us? Don't they know that it declares genocide as a prerequisite to Judgment Day, when they hope to gain admission to the celestial bordello?

"Proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups"; those are code words for appeasement. A lot of good that foolishness has done Israel in the last 60 years. Are these fools incapable of learning?

With their lips, our Department of State pays lip service to freedom of speech. With their pen, they co-authored a UNHRC resolution which erodes that freedom, while ignoring the composition of a protocol to ICERD which will criminalize all criticism of Islam, effectively nullifying our First Amendment.

Sphere: Related Content