Durban II draft document getting worse.

by Findalis


I told you so President Obama. The second Durban Conference on bigotry and racism will be worse than the first.

Not only is Israel the only nation singled out for attack, but the idea of Free Speech will be destroyed too when they meet in April and force the world to accept as International Law that any criticism of Islam is a crime.

The draft document for the United Nations anti-racism conference, dubbed Durban II, is problematic both for Israel and western democracies in general, Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva Roni Leshno Yaar told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

Besides issues relating to Israel, the draft has problematic paragraphs regarding free speech, defamation of religion and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, he said.

"At this stage it is not possible to say what in the text would improve, if at all. In fact I expect the text to get only worse on all issues which are important for western democracy," Leshno Yaar said in a telephone interview from Geneva.

He spoke as representatives from 190 nations have been meeting in Geneva to debate the language for a document in which Israel is alluded to as a "racist" and "apartheid" power.

The final draft will be presented at an April meeting in Geneva, which is the follow-up to the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which took place in Durban, South Africa.

Israel and the United States walked out of the 2001 conference to protest its disintegration into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate-fest. Israel and Canada have already announced they do not intend to participate in this April's conference in Geneva.

On Friday, the State Department stated that it had gone to the preparatory meetings in Geneva "to work with countries that want to achieve a successful review conference" and added that the United States had "strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism, places unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression under the guise of defaming religion, and calls for payment of reparations for slavery."

While in Geneva, US representatives met with 30 national delegations to outline their concerns.

The Americans were present but did not appear to have made improvement in the document, which he said "is getting worse every day."

Irwin Cotler, a Canadian MP and former justice minister, told the Post that the conference had been initially designed to speak about global issues relating to racism without singling out any country or group.

Israel was the only country that was alluded to in this way, he said.

Read the full story here.

Sorry followers of the Great Pedophile. But it will come down to which system of government is better. The backward 7th Century ramblings of a lunatic who hated everyone or the enlightened men of Philadelphia who foresaw this and placed the Freedom of Speech as 1st in the American Constitution.

What will the President do? Support those who follow a 7th Century madman, those who reject everything this nation stands for? Or finally listen to reason and reject not only the Durban II Conference, but anything that comes from it?

President Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution on Jan. 20th. Will he now do that? Or to please the Muslim world will he ignore our laws and impose the UN's on us?

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Will Pack the Supreme Court!

Document Source:

THE SUPREME COURT RENEWAL ACT OF 2009

File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
The proponents do not all agree on all of them, but are unanimous that Congress should soon reconsider the law applicable to the Supreme Court of the United ...
www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/judiciary-act-of-2009.doc -

---

I first learned of the proposal to pack the court through this blog post: http://judgeright.vox.com/library/...
http://judgeright.vox.com/library/post/no-dissent-allowed.html?_c=esv1.
My source apparently learned of it from this blog: http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/world-affairs/...
http://www.bloggersbase.com/articles/world-affairs/politics-and-opinions/effort-to-stack-supreme-court-taking-shape/

---

The Microsoft Word document is about 77kb and contains a set of four proposed "reforms" . The "reform" of greatest concern is one to pack the court.

proposal i: regular appointments to

the supreme court

The following is quoted from the narrative accompanying the proposed code.

One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court's many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.

The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years. A variation on this specific proposal was advanced and widely discussed in 2005. It won approval from many, including bar leaders and former judges. Most opposition rested on a constitutional argument that any term or age limits imposed by Congress would violate Article III and require a constitutional amendment. But no proposal for such an amendment has been advanced, and we see no serious constitutional problem in legislating regularized appointments with diminished but continuing roles for those Justices holding office for very long terms.

Almost everywhere high court judges are subject to term or age limits that prevent the risk of superannuation. Our proposal is not a term limit but a system of rotation to assure some regularity of change in the composition of the Court. If necessary to meet the constitutional objection, the allocation and assignment of duties when there are more than nine active Justices could be left for the Justices themselves to resolve by a rule of court. There is surely no constitutional objection that could be made to that scheme, but it would be more cumbersome than the one proposed.

Two alternatives for avoiding any constitutional problem are available if thought to be necessary. One response would be to provide a large bonus to Justices who retire in good time. It would seem unjust to give such a bonus to Justices and not to circuit or district judges who now tend to surrender their power and accept senior status in good time. Another response to the constitutional question would be to revive the practice of required circuit riding. If each Justice were required to sit on a district court bench a few times a year, that requirement would again serve, as it long did, to keep the Justices in closer contact with the citizens they govern and the realities that citizens perceive. And it would reduce the likelihood that Justices will cling to an office they are no longer willing or able fully to perform. We do not favor either of these reforms but mention them as alternatives to be considered if the more modest proposal we advance is thought to raise a problem under Article III.

---

It appears that the legal scholars object to the presence of Conservatives on the Supreme Court bench.

One question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to diminish the likelihood that the Court's many important policy decisions will reflect the moral and political values of the contemporary citizens they govern.

Were these legal scholars raising this objection during the terms of Presidents Reagan or Bush? So why the push now? Could it be because they have a Socialist in the White House and hope to keep him there for the next 8 years if not longer? Could it be that they desire to grease the skids for changes having irreversible negative impacts upon our Constitutional rights?

Which justice has been on the bench too long? Is it Justice Thomas? Justice Sevens? Justice Scalia? Justice Souter? Justice Ginsburg? Why does the Constitution give them life terms during good behavior? Could it be the value of Judicial Independence? What happens to that vital concept if every new President obtains arbitrary power to name new Justices every two years?

Lets be clear about the context. The Socialists have working majorities in both houses of Congress. They intend to repeal the Presidential term limit, pack the court, gerrymander their districts so that no Conservative will ever be elected to replace any of them and squelch dissent with the 'fairness doctrine' & 'local advisory boards' packed with ACORN activists. They have power and they intend to solidify it; forever.
Examine the quote again; notice the red flag? The intent of this proposal is to dilute the protection of liberty & property ownership by removing the provisions preventing mob rule.

The first reform presented here therefore provides for regular biennial appointments of new Justices selected by the then sitting President and Senate in order to assure timely rotation within the membership of the Court. To assure a Court of nine Justices, this will require a modification of the duties of Justices who have remained on the Court for more than eighteen years.

Does any doubt remain? Does anyone remember President Obama's remarks to the Chicago NPR station in '01? He complained bitterly that the Supreme Court protected 'negative rights'; that the Constitution specified what the Government can't do to us rather than what it must do 'for' us?

Now is the time to rise up and raise Hell, before this unconstitutional scheme is fully hatched and railroaded through Congress. Go at once to http://www.congress.org/ and send an email to your Representative & senators. Tell them that their vote for this proposal to pack the court will seal your last vote for them, regardless of all other policies, positions and votes.

Don't ignore this; don't brush it off. Don't assume that someone else will take care of it.

• Email your federal legislators immediately. Make sure that you absolutely will not tolerate packing the Supreme Court.
• Phone radio talk show hosts and inform them about this issue.
• Send letters to your local newspaper editors.
• Raise this issue on forums and web sites. Copy and cross post this article.
• Copy this article and paste it into an email to your family, friends and associates; urge them to forward it.

---

title 1: the organization of the supreme court

§1. Number of Justices Sitting to Decide Cases on the Merits; Quorum. The Supreme Court shall generally sit as a Court of nine Justices but if necessary six Justices shall constitute a quorum. The Court may by rule authorize a single Justice to make provisional rulings when necessary.

§2. REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. One Justice, and only one, shall be appointed during the first session of Congress after each federal election, unless during that Congress one or more appointments are required by Section 3. Each appointment shall become effective on August 1 of the year following the election. If an appointment under this section results in the availability of more than nine Justices, the nine who are junior in time of service shall sit to decide each appeal certified for its decision on the merits.

§3. vacancies. If a retirement, death or removal of a Justice results in there being fewer than nine Justices, including Senior Justices, a new Justice or Chief Justice shall be appointed and considered as the Justice required to be appointed during that Congress, if that appointment has not already been made. If more than one such vacancy arises, any additional appointment will be considered as the Justice required to be appointed during the next Congress for which no appointment has yet been made.

§4. the ofFICE OF senior justice. A Justice who is senior to nine or more Justices shall unless disabled continue to hold office as a Senior Justice. If there is a vacancy on the Court or if a Justice is recused a Senior Justice shall be called by the Chief Justice in reverse order of seniority to sit when needed to provide a nine-member Court to decide a case. A Senior Justice shall also participate in any other matter before the Court including decisions to grant or deny a petition for certiorari or to promulgate rules of court in compliance with the rules enabling provisions of Title 28.

§5. TEMPORARY DELAY IN COMMENCEMENT OF REGULARITY OF APPOINTMENTS. Justices sitting on the Court at the time of this enactment shall sit regularly on the Court until their retirement, death, removal or voluntary acceptance of status as a Senior Justice. No appointments shall be made under Section 2 of this Title before the Congress that begins after the last of the present Justices so leaves the Court, but any Justice appointed after the date of enactment shall become a Senior Justice in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Title.

Sphere: Related Content

Amnesty International and the Endangered Monsters List

Abu Qatada

Nicola Duckworth

The Story

From CNN.com International/Europe

2/18/09 LONDON, England (CNN) -- The UK's highest court Wednesday ordered that the man known as Osama bin Laden's spiritual ambassador to Europe be deported to Jordan, despite claims that he faces torture.

The court also ordered that two Algerians, known only as "RB" and "U," be deported to Algeria.

Radical cleric Abu Qatada, also known as Omar Othman, has been engaged in a long-running campaign to remain in the UK since he arrived 16 years ago.
UK ministers have described Qatada as an "inspiration" for terrorists such as Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker behind the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.
The government has claimed that he is a national security risk who fundraised for terrorist groups, including organizations linked to bin Laden; and that he publicly supported the violent activities of those groups.
In his judgment Jonathan Mance, one of the law lords, ruled "there is no real risk that his trial in Jordan would be flagrantly unfair in character, course or consequences."
Nicholas Phillips, another of the law lords, added in his ruling: "Just as in the case of Algeria, these assurances were agreed in principle at the highest level in discussions between the prime minister and the king of Jordan and between the foreign secretary and the Jordanian foreign minister."

Qatada has denied the allegations. It is expected that he will appeal the decision to the European Court of Human Rights.

Welcoming the judgment, UK interior minister Jacqui Smith said: "I'm delighted with the Lords' decision today in the cases of Abu Qatada and the two Algerians 'RB and U'. It highlights the threat these individuals pose to our nation's security and vindicates our efforts to remove them.
"My top priority is to protect public safety and ensure national security and I have signed Abu Qatada's deportation order which will be served on him today. I am keen to deport this dangerous individual as soon as I can."

The Background

Qatada came to the UK on a forged United Arab Emirates passport in 1993, according to court documents, and claimed asylum for himself, his wife and their three children.
The UK government recognized him as a refugee and allowed him to stay in the country until 1998.
Qatada applied to stay indefinitely but, while his application was pending, a Jordanian court convicted him in absentia for involvement in two 1998 terrorist attacks and a plot to plant bombs to coincide with the millennium.
By 2002 the UK government said it suspected Qatada was a terrorist and a national security risk. Refusing him leave to stay in Britain, it ordered he be deported and detained him.
Last June a three-judge appeals panel freed Qatada under strict bail conditions, including fitting him with an electronic monitoring tag and ordering that he stay at home for 22 hours each day.
The panel said there was no reason to continue holding him but that he presented a "continuing and significant" threat.
The deportation decision Wednesday by the Law Lords followed the government's appeal against that decision.

Duckworth to the Rescue

But human rights group Amnesty International said it was "gravely concerned" by the consequences of the decision.
"What is not acceptable is to use suspicion of involvement in terrorism to justify sending someone to face a real risk of torture or other serious violations of their rights," said Nicola Duckworth, Europe and Central Asia Programme Director at Amnesty International, in a statement.
"If these individuals in question are reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence relating to terrorism, it is always open to the UK authorities to charge them and give them a fair trial.
"It would be deeply worrying if the Law Lords' decision were to be taken by the UK government as a green light to push ahead with deporting people to countries where they will be at risk of abuses such as torture and unfair trials."Duckworth also said that diplomatic assurances from the governments of Algeria and Jordan about the suspects safety were "completely unenforceable and as such cannot be relied upon."

-----------------------------------------

A note from Radarsite: So how are we in the West doing so far in this Global War on Terror? Are you becoming as troubled and disillusioned as I am by our deeply conflicted and weak-kneed Western Civilization? How many enemies do we really have? Who amongst them are the most dangerous? To what degree have our so-called Human Rights Groups successfully undermined our efforts to prosecute this war for our survival? To what degree have they aided and abetted our sworn enemies? Could the monsters they are so eagerly protecting be any more obvious in their contempt for our self-righteous moral principles, or any more blatant in their sacred mission to destroy us?

If the above story of the embattled UK's continuously thwarted attempts to deal with the monster Abu Qatada is an example of our efficacy in fighting this great existential battle, and I believe that it is, then we might just as well give it all up and, as some of Britain's most prestigious intellectuals have already suggested, start the process of adopting sharia law.

And to Madam Duckworth and all of your contemptible brothers and sisters in the International Red Cross, the ACLU, etc. I must say this. I despise you and everything you supposedly stand for. The only legitimate place for you to even exist would be in a world of unadulterated like-minded liberals; and we live in no such world. In the brutal reality of the world in which we live you and your liberal causes are worse than useless, they are self-destructive. In order to protect the likes of Abu Qatada, in order to promote your absurd vision of international social justice, you are placing the lives of our children in mortal peril. Devastated by this escalating Muslim Blitz, your great nation is falling to pieces all around you, and you steadfastly ignore the chaos and stand amidst the smoldering ruins and call for fair play and amnesty. You, Madam Duckworth, are the enemy, perhaps even more dangerous than the monsters you defend. You are the true Enemy of the State, and in a more rational world you would have already been arrested and summarily prosecuted for treason. How dare you! How dare you jeopardize the precious lives of our children and bring down the very foundations of our great and admirable culture in order to promote your personal ludicrous and delusional agendas.

Put aside your ponderous egos for a moment and listen closely. If you truly want to help this imperiled world of ours survive this present-day onslaught of barbarism, if you truly want to make a safer and more just world for our next generation, then I suggest that you go into your offices tomorrow morning and disconnect all the computers and the fax machines, pull out the plugs for all of your telephones, turn out the lights and lock the door behind you. For it is possible, perhaps still possible that, without your infernal meddling, without your relentless self-satisfied obstructionism, we just might stand a chance of winning this terrible war, this monumental life-and-death struggle, which you have so ingeniously managed to all but ignore. Please, if you truly love mankind, just turn out the lights and go home. - rg

Sphere: Related Content

Every Day Heroes

Army Chief Warrant Officer Steven M. Derry reviews flight schedules in his office at Camp Striker, Iraq. U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Jasmine N. Walthall


Army Staff Sgt. Louis J. Swift takes a break from performing pre-flight inspections on a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter at Camp Striker, Iraq. Courtesy photo

Face of Defense: Vietnam Vets Serve Again in Iraq By Army Pfc. Jasmine N. Walthall Special to American Forces Press Service

CAMP STRIKER, Iraq, Feb. 19, 2009 – Two deployed soldiers who served in the Vietnam War are serving again -- this time in Iraq.

Army Staff Sgt. Louis J. Swift takes a break from performing pre-flight inspections on a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter at Camp Striker, Iraq. Courtesy photo (Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

Army Staff Sgt. Louis J. Swift and Army Chief Warrant Officer Steven M. Derry serve here with the 3-142nd Assault Helicopter Battalion, a National Guard unit from Ronkonkoma, N.Y.


“I enlisted for Vietnam from 1967 to 1973,” Swift, a Detroit native, said. “Then, I enlisted for a one-year term for Desert Storm in 1991.”


Swift serves as a crew chief and door gunner, jobs he has performed for the past 24 years. He is responsible for ensuring his assigned aircraft is safe by performing routine inspections prior to takeoff.


This is Derry’s second tour in Iraq. He serves as the officer in charge of the battalion’s air movement request section. His job includes viewing flight schedules for battalion soldiers and ensuring they have adequate fuel and time to execute missions.


The soldiers are quick to note the differences between serving in Iraq and Vietnam.


“Vietnam was a lot more active,” Swift said. “We got rocketed more often, and this time it is definitely safer. Where we were once flying in T-shirts, we are now wearing 40 pounds of body armor.”


“It is definitely a lot calmer,” Derry agreed. “There are not as many improvised explosive devices, and our aircraft are not under attack as much.”


Swift pointed out the changes he has seen in the force throughout the years.


“The attitudes have changed in the past years,” Swift said. “At one point, soldiers were forced to deploy through the draft, but now that it is an all-volunteer Army, there is more pride and dedication from the men and women who wear the uniform.”


Although it was a different era, the Vietnam experience instilled values pertinent to today’s American soldier, Swift said.


“I gained respect for fellow humans,” he said. “I also gained pride in my country and in the military.”


This will be the last tour for Swift and Derry, and while they are sad to see their careers come to an end, they said, they are proud to have served their country.


“I am proud that I am still a soldier,” Swift said. “I am glad that they had me back. And while I will be retiring at the end of this tour, it has been a good and rewarding career.”

“I set out to make a career in the military, and that is what I did,” Derry said. “The military allowed me to set up a retirement for my wife and children, and it will be missed.” (source)

Amazing! Thank YOU both for your service!

Sphere: Related Content

Ahmadiyya: Peaceful Islam; Fact or Fiction?

The following quote comes from Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam: http://aaiil.org/ .

The main object of this Movement is to present the true, original message of Islam to the whole world — Islam as it is found in the Holy Quran and the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), obscured today by grave misconceptions and wrong popular notions.

Islam seeks to attract the hearts and minds of people towards the truth, by means of reasoning, good moral example, and the natural beauty of its principles. It neither aspires to gain political power, nor allows the use of force in support of the faith.

How will we know Islam as found in the Qur'an without reading it? How will we know the Profit's life without reading his Sira & Sunnah? The quotation contains one egregious lie which I am compelled to expose to the world.

• It neither aspires to gain political power, nor allows the use of force in support of the faith.
• Islam does not aspire to temporal power.
• Islam does not allow the use of force in support of the faith.
  

Islam aspires to gain political power: total world domination. I do not ask you to take my word for this fact, I have sufficient evidence to prove it. I quote from The Noble Qur'an, translated by Hilali & Khan. I link to ten parallel translations at www.quranbrowser.com. Tafsir references are to Ibn Kathir.

• 13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allâh judges, there is none to put back His Judgment and He is Swift at reckoning.
  
• 21:44. Nay, We gave the luxuries of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will overcome.
• 24:55. Allâh has promised those among you who believe, and do righteous good deeds, that He will certainly grant them succession to (the present rulers) in the earth, as He granted it to those before them, and that He will grant them the authority to practise their religion, that which He has chosen for them (i.e. Islâm). And He will surely give them in exchange a safe security after their fear (provided) they (believers) worship Me and do not associate anything (in worship) with Me. But whoever disbelieved after this, they are the Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).
• This is a promise from Allah to His Messenger that He would cause his Ummah to become successors on earth, i.e., they would become the leaders and rulers of mankind, through whom He would reform the world and to whom people would submit, so that they would have in exchange a safe security after their fear. This is what Allah did indeed do, may He be glorified and exalted, and to Him be praise and blessings. For He did not cause His Messenger to die until He had given him victory over Makkah, Khaybar, Bahrayn, all of the Arabian Peninsula and Yemen; and he took Jizyah from the Zoroastrians of Hajar and from some of the border lands of Syria; and he exchanged gifts with Heraclius the ruler of Byzantium, the ruler of Egypt and Alexandria, the Muqawqis, the kings of Oman and An-Najashi of Abyssinia, who had become king after Ashamah, may Allah have mercy on him and grant him honor.... Allah's Promise to the Believers that He would grant them Succession
  
  
• 9:33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâm), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) hate (it).
  

Allah commands Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. He commands them to fight people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments.

• 8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
• 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Only Allah has the right to be worshiped.

• 2:255. Allâh! Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists. Neither slumber, nor sleep overtake Him. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His Permission? He knows what happens to them (His creatures) in this world, and what will happen to them in the Hereafter . And they will never compass anything of His Knowledge except that which He wills. His Kursî extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them. And He is the Most High, the Most Great. [This Verse 2:255 is called Ayat-ul-Kursî.]
• ...(To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth) indicates that everyone is a servant for Allah, a part of His kingdom and under His power and authority. Similarly, Allah said,... Ayat Al-Kursi has Ten Complete Arabic Sentences 1. Allah's statement
• 23:116. So Exalted be Allâh, the True King, Lâ ilâha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Lord of the Supreme Throne!
  
  

By this we learn that Allah is supreme, he rules the world. If any doubt remains after 24:55, then examine this crystal clear gem of exposure.

• 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.
• (It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.) This Ayah is general in meaning and applies to all matters, i.e., if Allah and His Messenger decreed a matter, no one has the right to go against that, and no one has any choice or room for personal opinion in this case. Allah says: (But no, by your Lord, they can have no faith, until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.) (4:65) Hence the issue of going against it is addressed in such strong terms, as Allah says: (And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.) This is like the Ayah:
  (And let those who oppose the Messenger's commandment, beware, lest some Fitnah should befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them) (24:63). ... The Reason for Revelation
• Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

Clearly, the assertion that Islam seeks no temporal power is absolutely false, by the ample testimony of Allah and his Messenger!

Islam not only allows, but mandates offensive violence in obtaining temporal power. I do not ask you to take my word for this, I have ample evidence in Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, jurisprudence & exegeses.

Jihad is mandated by Surah Al-Baqarah 216.

• 2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
• In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, "Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.''... Jihad is made Obligatory

Caution is required in reading that tafsir. this clause the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam might seem to indicate that the mandate is strictly defensive. Transgression against Isnam is not so narrowly defined. I direct your attention to the Tafsir of 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.) `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

Disbelief in Allah is sufficient to subject you to the listed hudud. It is also sufficient to make you a victim of offensive warfare. The primary Jihad imperatives are contained in Al-Anfal 39 and At-Taubah 29 which are quoted above. Al Anfal 60 commands Muslims to maintain strength and preparation for war. Hilali & Khan go slightly overboard in contemporizing in their parenthetic commentary.

• 8:60. And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.

At-Taubah 123 confirms the earlier imperatives.

• 9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

Those imperatives are not anachronistic. Jihad will be performed continuously from the beginning of Moe's mission to Judgment Day. Jihad is the Muslim's 'original religion'; they will be cursed if they abandon it.

• Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526
  
  
  Narrated Anas ibn Malik:
  
  The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.
• Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

  Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

  I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Shari'ah, Islam's canon of jurisprudence, is based primarily on the Qur'an & hadith. Umdat as-Salik contains some vital information which confirms what I have revealed to you. I quote from Umdat as-Salik. Book O, Chapter 9.

O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

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

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

and Allah Most High having said:

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

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

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

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),...

. Take note of the last highlighted phrase in O9.1: meaning upon the Muslims each year. What does it mean? Could it possibly mean that offensive Jihad against Kuffar must be performed at least once each year until Dar al-Harb is entirely conquered? Al-Shaffi'i & Al-Ghazali agree on this essential matter of Shari'ah.

Al-Shafi'i (God have mercy on him) said: "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse." He said: "If he did not undertake the sending of enough troops to fight, those who are absent (must) go out, and consider as an obligation that which God (who is praised) said." I said: "What I have mentioned showed that if a group was needed to carry out an expedition, [f. 175 a] our duty was incumbent on all of them.

Below is what Al-Ghazali actually wrote about jihad war, and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples (from the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.): …one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book - Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...

Scoffers & skeptics are diredted to click these tafsir titles and read the tafsir which confirm the obvious. Therein you will discover the roots of supremacism, triumphalism & offensive Jihad.

• The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them
• The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group
• Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites
• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

Sphere: Related Content