Illegal Immigration and "What If America?"

Those of you who are regular readers of this blog know I live in Arizona, a border state. I'm also a die-hard advocate of ending illegal immigration, building the mandated fence and enforcing existing border laws.

Too bad if that offends you. I happen to like American sovereignty. I also don't want to hear the whining I can already hear warming up in the wings regarding "all of us were immigrants or are descended from immigrants". Before you start the whining, understand this--I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE WHO WISH TO EMIGRATE HERE LEGALLY. MY PROBLEM IS ILLEGALS. If you are incapable of comprehending that distinction, stop reading right here and leave the blog. Mexico--and all other countries for that matter--enforce their standing immigration laws; we need to follow and enforce ours. Whiners can follow the advice given below as well.


I am not pleased with the stance of any of our presidential candidates regarding the illegal issue.
Neither Hillary nor Barack Hussein Obama want to enforce existing laws and are all for giving all kinds of taxpayer money to all illegals. It follows their stated globalist agendas.

McCain co-sponsored the McCain-Kennedy Shamnesty. At this point in time he states he heard the people loud and clear and learned his lesson; however, once bitten twice shy and I will have to see him in action on this issue in order to trust him again.

In Arizona, a new law went into affect January 1, 2008. This law--The Legal Arizona Worker's Law, more commonly known as the Employer Sanctions Law, has already faced court challenges regarding its validity. It has proven very effective in a very short period of time.

The challenge came from--SURPRISE--the ACLU as an "unconstitutional statute" (their press release is dated February 7, 2008) For more information on the ACLU's stance, check out their site here. Newsflash, ACLU, the Constitution only applies to LEGAL citizens. Apparently, various and sundry courts and judges see this the same way SANE people see it. A Federal judge upheld the merits of the law on February 8, 2008 (article here). On February 28, 2008, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling (article here). Keep in mind, people, this is the 9th Circuit--the most liberal circuit out there.

How is this affecting illegals here in Arizona? It's huge. Homes and apartments are being abandoned. People suddenly aren't showing up for work and their children are no longer in school. Businesses catering to illegals are closing and filing for bankruptcy. Phoenix has declared it will no longer consider itself a "sanctuary" city and all bets are off for demanding proof of citizenship. ICE will be called whenever an arrest is made and the arrestee is an illegal.

There has been another effect, a rather comical effect. Mexico has issues with the return of its citizens. It doesn't like the new law. It's not equipped to house, educate or employ its returning citizens. It sent a delegation to Arizona to bitch. I blogged about this here and there are articles here and here.

What does all this have to do with the title of this post regarding "What If America?"

Glad you asked that, Skippy.

I listen to talk radio and a particular, locally hosted, show in the morning, "The Jon Justice Show". Jon had an idea and that idea has become "What If America?". Essentially, this idea asks What if those who are receiving their "stimulus" check turn around, pledge that money, and the fence gets built using that stimulus money? Would YOU be willing to use your stimulus check to make sure a private company built the mandated fence Congress is dragging it's feet on? How much would that cost?

Jon thought about all those questions and came up with the "What If America?" site. The link to this site is here. However, I'm flat going to post the front page (I promised Jon I would).

WELCOME TO "WHAT IF AMERICA"
By alee @ 11:12 AM :: 265 Views :: 24 Comments ::

WHAT IF AMERICA TOOK THE TAX REBATE STIMULUS MONEY AND USED IT TO SECURE THE U.S. MEXICO BORDER? On Wednesday 2/20 we had a meeting with members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) about what could be done to secure the border of US and Mexico if only they had the proper funding? I am pleased to say that we are one step closer to presenting a transparent and comprehensive plan for What If America? Within the next few weeks we should be sending out the "What If America Border Security Plan" to everyone who has pledge some if not all of their Tax Rebate money to do what our government has failed to do....Secure our Border! (use the comment link above to share ideas) Email WhatIfAmerica@gmail.com How much will you pledge to secure our US Mexico Border? Listen to all 3 hours of the 1/28/08 Jon Justice Show about "What If America?" Listen the 1/30/08 interview with the Minuteman Co-founder Chris Simcox Chris Simcox explains that the MMCDC has been building a fence and can build more, it just takes the funds and the will to do it. This started on Jan 24th 2008 while I was printing the story of President Bush and Congress agreeing on a stimulus package. Being married with 2 boys I could certainly use the $1800.00 that I will be getting this summer. But then I thought "what if"? What if enough people decided to pledge some if not all their Tax Rebate money to secure the US Mexico Border? What if we sent a message back to our government that said "Since you failed to secure our border, we will do it for you". It would take a one time cost of roughly 3 billion dollars to put the entire fence up. Our government is going to hand the tax payers 150 Billion! A fraction of that could save us billions in Illegal Immigration costs for years to come. Now how do we do it? Plans are currently being drafted by non-profit NON GOVERNMENT organizations on ideas of various ways we could secure our nations US MEXICO Border given the right funding. With this kind of money we have lots of options. Groups like the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps have already done tremendous work making our nation safer. We could create jobs for people to go and secure our border, put up fencing, vehicle barricades, man power etc. Why use this money to buy products from overseas, when we could create jobs and secure the country at the same time? If enough people pledged enough money what would our own government do? What would the candidates do? If the people of america took the border security in their own hands the problem could no longer be ingnored. One major point of concern is the obvious "How do we avoid any fraud'? I believe that the only way is to create a plan for complete transparency. Setting up a single fund for the money to be placed. Then we will present a plan showing exactly what and where the money will go to those who have made the pledge. At this point the door is open for ideas. How much would you pledge of your government tax rebate to secure the US Mexico Border? This is only a pledge to help, nothing more, nothing binding. Email WhatIfAmerica@gmail.com We have 6 months to spread the word and find out potentially how many people and how much money we could gather together. It starts with the actions of very few to make a difference. This is what made our country great. The government is ready to send the people of america a 150 billion dollar blank check. What if the people of these United States used that money to TAKE THE COUNTRY BACK!? Copy and send this link to as many people as you can: www.WhatIfAmerica.com Spread the word! Expanding the approved 370 miles of border fence by 1,630 miles at a cost of $2.5 billion would seal the border completely for a one-time cost. Total fencing 1969 miles. All information below are estimates based off of the 2006 US census and various other sources. One time cost total of between 2.5 and 3 billion to build the whole fence. 1969 miles of fence at a cost of 1.5 million per mile 131 million taxpayers who will recieve money from Government this year in rebates =150 billion Total cost for each taypayer for a one time cost to build fence = $22.00 Yes only 20 bucks! Polls show 70% of american public what to see our border secure = 92 million want border fence Total cost per person for the 92 million who want the fence = $32.00 ARIZONA 5.5 million AZ taxpayers Total cost for entire U.S. fence per AZ taxpayer $571.00 Total AZ Mexico border miles= 389 Total cost per AZ tax payer to put up 389 miles of AZ mexico fence =$105.00 Total cost per year for tax payers in Arizona because of Illegal Immigrants 1.3 Billion. It SOUNDS like a great idea--non violent, no one gets hurt, we get our fence, private sector has money going back into it, and the government stays out of it. We can enhance the progress already being made with enforcement of current laws on the books and illegas self deporting. Go check out the site. For those truly concerned about keeping Canada, Mexico and America separate, this is a solution. Posted at Digg! here; GOP Hub here and Real Clear Politics here.

Sphere: Related Content

Myth vs Fact-Part 255

Myth	Fact
Islam: Religion of peace.	Sahih BukhariVolume 5, Book 59, Number 404: Narrated 'Aisha: Regarding the Holy Verse: "Those who responded (To the call) of Allah And the Apostle (Muhammad), After being wounded, For those of them Who did good deeds And refrained from wrong, there is a great reward." (3.172) She said to 'Urwa, "O my nephew! Your father, Az-Zubair and Abu Bakr were amongst them (i.e. those who responded to the call of Allah and the Apostle on the day (of the battle of Uhud). When Allah's Apostle, suffered what he suffered on the day of Uhud and the pagans left, the Prophet was afraid that they might return. So he said, 'Who will go on their (i.e. pagans') track?' He then selected seventy men from amongst them (for this purpose)." (The sub-narrator added, "Abu Bakr and Az-Zubair were amongst them.")
Tafsir

Sphere: Related Content

Stop the ACLU! Weekly Roundup 02/04-03/02/2008

Once again, it's been while since I've posted Jay at Stop the ACLU!'s linkfest. A lot of interesting stuff (and check out the comments sections on some of them). So, without further ado, here are all the great links and articles from Jay at Stop the ACLU! Enjoy!

Articles:

Rush Endorses Romney
Plus...James Dobson says he will sit out if the nominee is McCain! Plus, Huckabee takes WV after McCain supporters told to throw it to Huckabee to keep Mitt from winning. Lots of good stuff.

The Case Against Casting a Republican Vote In November
Personally, I won't vote democrat just because I don't like the Republican. I'll just sit out. However, my co-blogger Gribbit makes a passionate case for voting democrat depending on the eventual nominee. It's thought provoking.

Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?
It's long-winded, but I put a lot of thought into it. Basically, the conservative blogosphere is not happy with the choices we are left with. It's pretty upside down to most of us. Now what do we do? Some say sit it out. Some say rally behind the Republican. Some even say vote democrat. They all have their points. I'm saying to everyone, follow your instincts and do what you think is right. Don't follow the crowd, whether that be the conservative pundits or the Republican establishment.

What If McCain Chooses Fred Thompson For VP?
I ask the question because it isn't out of the question. They are good friends with a history. It would be a smart move on the Maverick's part to stilt up his lacking on conservative credentials. Could Thompson serve as the conservative concience? The ideological gravitas? Even…power behind the throne? How would the conservative base/blogosphere react?

James Dobson to Endorse Huckabee
Finally, the evangelical gets the evangelical anointment.

Fred Thompson Endorses McCain
I think it comes down to the war on terror for most of these guys. A Thompson endorsement isn't surprising since they are old friends. It doesn't seal the deal though. I'll start thinking about getting off the couch when I see who McCain picks for VP.

The ACLU And The Candidates
With the presidential elections going on it is easy to get off focus with things. My co-blogger Basil gets things back on track by giving us the ACLU ratings on each of our candidates. Interesting to note the high score Ron Paul gets. However, the highest score goes to Obama and the lowest to McCain.

Huckabee Won't Concede Washington State
I'm not a McCain fan, but I'm not really a Huckabee fan either. Nevertheless, what is going on in Washington State does sound fishy, and it was a very close race. Huckabee is talking about legally challenging McCain's so-called win there. I say, good for him...I don't blame him at all. Something weird happened up there for sure.

ACLU Condemns Senate FISA Vote
I was glad to see that he was playing hardball with the House on this, and that part of the legislation went to protect third party companies that participate patriotically in protecting America from insane lawsuits. Most of these lawsuits, of course, can be traced back to the ACLU, so it is no surprise that they were quite upset when the Senate passed this legislation.

The American Civil Liberties Union today slammed the U.S. Senate for not only authorizing the president's warrantless wiretapping program but for granting immunity to his accomplices, the telecommunications companies. By a vote of 68 to 29, the Senate passed legislation amending and, in the end, gutting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The bill now must be conferenced with the House's version of the bill – which contains no immunity and stricter Fourth Amendment protections – by February 16th, the recently extended expiration date of the equally disastrous Protect America Act.

The ACLU go on to give "kudos" to Feingold and Dodd for trying to make the bill more "palatable". Of course the ACLU claim to be upset over "privacy" issues, yet we know their hypocrisy on this issue. No doubt they are more upset by the protection of telecom companies from their million dollar lawsuits.

Meanwhile Bush is playing hardball on this important legislation.

A main sticking point is a provision included in the Senate legislation that would provide retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government. Bush said the companies "won't help protect America" without such liability protection.

The president stated that terrorists must communicate with each other and exchange information to carry out their plans and argued that enlisting the help of telecommunications companies is crucial in uncovering their activities.

Indeed, this has slipped the grasp of the minds at the ACLU. They are suggesting to the House to let the Protect America Act expire.

The ACLU exhorts members of the House to let the unconstitutional Protect America Act expire and stand strong on not letting the phone companies off the hook for law breaking.

I agree with John Boehner's statement:

"Our terrorist surveillance laws are critical to keeping our nation safe from attack, and until we modernize them, our intelligence officials will be at a significant disadvantage against the terrorists who threaten our way of life. The Senate-passed bill would modernize these laws in the long-term so intelligence officials – not government lawyers – are entrusted to protect our national security. President Bush has said he will not sign another temporary measure that only kicks the can farther down the road, and I stand behind that decision.

"The Majority has played games with FISA modernization for months on end, and today, those games must end. Delaying action on a long-term modernization bill puts our national security at risk. It's time for House Democratic leaders to do the right thing and allow the House to consider the Senate's bipartisan bill so President Bush can sign it into law."

My Pet Jawa points out that Obama just may be the ACLU's candidate of choice…the dangerous kind.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup on this.

Barrack Obama's "change" is more than a silly slogan, it's dangerous. For Obama "change" means moving American to a pre-9/11 stance where law enforcement's hands were tied. 9/11 was not a failure of individuals–Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are not to personally to blame–it was systemic failure. Barrack Obama wants to take us back to that system that failed us.

WSJ:

It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had "acted in good faith." Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told "no way" when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory.

AJ Strata breaks it down, and everything he says of Obama can be applied to the ACLU:

This upside down world, where terrorists who make it to our shores are then considered untouchable because of some bizarre fear of a new Nixon abuse of power, is what Obama voted FOR! Obama wants to give terrorists carte blanche freedom to communicate with their agents in the US once they get here. What is so wrong with the current system? Why do NSA leads have to be relegated back to some kind of impure status simply because the NSA detected them and not the FBI (who doesn't listen in on our enemies overseas)? What is wrong with the leads being passed to the FBI to assess, which then takes those which show to be troubling to the FIS Court for full surveillance? This program has stopped attacks and saved lives, and yet "Big Bird" Obama and his Sesame Street view that 'we can all just hold hands and get along' is opposed to it and wants to expose us to unnecessary risk?

And this is EXACTLY what Osama wants us to do, lower our guard again so he can hit us hard and show the Muslim world he is still relevant and not on the brink of being destroyed. Even Hillary has not been this suicidally delusional about the threat to America. The enemy is not the phone company Big Bird, it is all those Jihadis working to die a glorious death by taking out thousands of Americans in one blow. And this is why Obama is a naive and unwitting ally of Osama, as are most Surrendercrats.

Michelle Malkin has a great roundup.

Multiple People Shot at Northern Illinois University

Please pray for these families! I'm not sure if there is a Valentine Day connection to this, but it sure gives us one more reason to hug our children and loved ones. Thank God we still have them. Keep these families in your thoughts and prayers.

ACLU Against Amnesty...For Americans
...for American telecomm companies that is. Maybe it isn't so "breaking" after all. I just found it funny they chose to use the term "amnesty" to describe what the Protect America Act would provide for patriotic American telecomm companies in the FISA legislation. They are praising the House democrats for letting the Act expire. If only they would use the same argument on the border problem.

ACLU Thanks House of Representatives For Letting FISA Law Expire
While the President plays hardball on FISA legislation, the House puts politics over security. Meanwhile, the ACLU sing their praises of the House!

Supreme Court Rejects ACLU Domestic Spying Case
ACLU gets slapped with common sense!

How the House Hurt Our Intel Capabilities
The failure of House democrats to vote on the FISA law last week has resulted in reducing cooperation from the telecomm companies now. Basically, the telecomm companies don't want to be subjected to lawsuits defending what they are doing from groups like the ACLU. Even if the telecomm companies win the lawsuits, they are costly. Democrats don't want to give them any immunity, and in the process are putting us in danger.

ACLU Refuses to Meet With Day Laborers
Double standards at their best....after participating in a "teach in" with "illegal alien" day laborers and teaching them that they can refuse to talk to the police, the ACLU "close the border" on legal American day laborers and threaten to call the police on them.

AP Urges Supreme Court to Give Military Detainees Access to US Courts
The AP throw all objectivity out the window once again as the urge the Supreme Court for detainees to have acess to American courts. They are worried about their own Bilal Hussein. There was no mention of how Bilal Hussein staged anti-war propaganda photos, or how in April of 2006 American forces detained him with al Qaeda terrorists and a cache of weapons. They shed any shred of doubt that they can report on such an issue with any objectivity at all.

Rumor: FISA Deal Reached In The House
I'm having fun watching the hard left meltdown over this one! Two separate votes? Oh my! Heh.

Videos:

Huckabee: This is a Two Man Race and I'm In It!
Huckabee is the shocker tonight as he sweeps the south. This could just end up a brokered convention after all. Huckabee has definitely shaken things up. Here is the video where he gets smug and cocky.

None of The Above
A little humor. This is how many conservatives are feeling right now.

Bolton Makes a Case for McCain
It's a pretty good speech.

David Shuster Apologizes For Angering Clintons
What is this guy apologizing for?

Obama Accused of Plagiarism
Two videos, one of Deval Patrick, 2006, the other of Obama, 2008. Compare and decide. I think this news will fade fast.

Reagan's "Yes We Can"
A video of Reagan that is an answer to Obama's empty socialist phrases of optimism. It's actual optimism that isn't empty. This is the kind of stuff we should be hearing from our conservative leadership today.

Obama's Terrorist Friends
It seems that Obama is good buddies with the leaders from the 60's radical terrorist group, the Weather Underground. Of course the media is ignoring this, but it seems pretty important to discuss being that he wants to be President.

Obama on Nuclear Disarmament
Hey everyone, this Obama guy is insane! This video needs to go national and spread far and wide! Will he replace our nukes with butterflies and unicorns?

McCain's Freudian Slip
This is absolutely hillarious! You will get a kick out of this one!

The Cactus Cuties Sing the National Anthem
In my opinion, this is the prettiest version of our National Anthem I've ever heard. Even more amazing, its performed by some very young and talented girls. Perfect for a slow news Sunday afternoon. Warning: You may need a tissue or two.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Hussein Obama And The Flag

TITLE 36 > Subtitle I > Part A > CHAPTER 3 > § 301 § 301.

National anthem (a) Designation.— The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem. (b) Conduct During Playing.— During a rendition of the national anthem— (1) when the flag is displayed— (A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; (B) men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart; and (C) individuals in uniform should give the military salute at the first note of the anthem and maintain that position until the last note; and (2) when the flag is not displayed, all present should face toward the music and act in the same manner they would if the flag were displayed.

'Nuf said.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack Hussein Obama: What's In A Name?

Cross posted from A Newt One by the author.

Hussein: what's the big deal? That name is an honorific, after Husayn ibn 'Ali ibn Abi Talib, grandson of Moe, who was martyred at Karbala in 680. When ranks of Shi'ia cut & flagellate themselves in the streets, they are commemorating his death.

Barack means blessed, similar to the Jewish name: Baruch. The infant son of an American atheist and an African Muslim, allegedly an apostate, was given those names, which indicate Islamic origin. The big deal is this: Senator Obama claims to be Christian, not Muslim. What difference would it make if is Muslim?

Muslims are obligated to raise their children as Muslims and instruct them in the tenets & rituals of Islam. [See Reliance of the Traveler, Book a4.6.] Instructing them is necessary to save them from Hellfire.

Muslims are obligated to obey Allah and his Messenger. [Reliance, Book B7.3] What did Allah order them to do? Most important to us are his orders to:

1. Make war on Pagans until only Allah is worshiped altogether and everywhere.
2. Make war on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subdued and pay extortion.
3. Terrorize their victims.
4. Prepare every instrument of war to terrify the disbelievers.
5. Make a great slaughter.

Using the Senator's full name is considered to be an implication that he is, in fact a Muslim, and as such, inimical to the interests of this nation.

Is there any indication of his leanings in his public statements? From Wikipedia:

At a meeting with Palestinian students two days later, Obama stated opposition to Hamas in favor of rival party Fatah, noting his desire to "consolidate behind a single government with a single authority that can then negotiate as a reliable partner with Israel." In a comment aimed at Hamas, he said that "the US will always side with Israel if Israel is threatened with destruction.

What is the strategic difference between Hamas & Fatah? Which one does not use violence? Which one does not give high praise to shaheed? Which one does not demand the erasure of Israel? Which one does not incite terrorism? Which one is not Muslim? The leader of Fatah was the bag man at the Munich Massacre; some moderate!

...on March 11, 2007, Obama said that "if we could get some movement among Palestinian leadership, what I'd like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on providing aid directly to the Palestinian people.

On March 11, 2007 Obama said: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."^[48] On June 4, 2007 Obama stated that "resolution [to the conflict] and a better life for all people" "is something that can be achieved, but it's going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel's right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, 'Let's move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security.'"^[49]

Were Senator Barack Hussein Obama not a Muslim, his statements about Iran, Darfur and the Armenian Massacre would bring down upon him universal condemnation from Muslims, as would his superficial appearance of support for Israel.

Because he is in favor of the "road map", we know that his 'support' for Israel is not genuine. Demanding concessions to Islam in exchange for empty promises is not support!!

Because of his urge to pull out of Iraq and abandon it to al-Qaeda, it is obvious that he sides with our enemy in the global war on terror. Iraq would replace Afghanistan as the staging area for new attacks prompted by the Qur'anic commands listed above. Terrorism would only increase as a result of our demonstrated weakness and lack of resolve, as it did when we fled Tehran, Beirut & Mogadishu.

Were Senator Barack Hussein Obama a genuine convert to Christianity, Muslims the world over would be howling for his head. Apostasy carries a death sentence. Again, I quote from Reliance

O8.1

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

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Why then does Senator Barack Hussein Obama have Muslim supporters?

From Belief Net:

This year, the bulk of Muslim support is likely to go to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said Mukit Hossain, a political consultant to the Muslim American Society, which has taken a leading role in mobilizing Muslim Americans to vote and be active in political life.

Obama, whose Kenyan relatives include Muslims and who lived in majority-Muslim Indonesia as a child, has courted Muslim voters, saying he would be more understanding of their concerns because of his background.

If he is not now and never was Muslim, why would Senator Barack Hussein Obama "be more understanding of their concerns because of his background"? And what difference would that understanding make? Would he reverse Shrub's paltry & superficial security measures? Would he prosecute the war effectively or would he surrender to Islam?

If he is a Christian, not a Muslim, let him stand and recite the Nicene Creed. Let him declare Jesus Christ crucified, dead & resurrected as his savior. Let him expressly abjure Islam's evil imperatives to conquest, genocide & terror as laid down in :

1. 2:216
   
2. 8:12
3. 8:39
4. 8:67
5. 9:29
6. 47:4

Let him expressly abjure the explicit declarations of those commands found in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, as outlined in my blog post: ROPMA.

At the same time, I want to hear Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton and Governor Mike Huckabee acknowledge the existence of those same immutable Islamic doctrines and denounce them as inimical to human life & liberty.

Islam is neither a religion nor peaceful; it is a war machine. I disrespectfully demand that anyone seeking my vote for high office acknowledge that fact! I can not place trust in anyone who refuses.

Ben 03/02/08

Blue, underlined text in my posts is linked to source material. Click the links and see the true nature of Islam, exposed by authentic sources. When I declare that Islam is a war machine, I am not engaging in hyperbole, I am stating a proven fact. The Tafsir titles revealed in ROPMA clearly demonstrate the true nature of Islam. Click those titles and see Ibn Kathir's combination of Qur'an & Hadith quotes which make things abundantly clear, beyond dispute. The orders and commands to fight disbelievers are explicit & indisputable.

For the doubters, I have one more surprise: a Swedish forum called FOMI where a poster has published copious quotes from Islamic Jurists. Revelation, tradition, exegesis & Fiqh form a congruent pattern, which reinforces the truth which is obvious on the face of the revelations.

Sphere: Related Content