Crocodile tears from the parents of Jihad Jamie?

Alec Rawls has issued another blogburst, this one reports on an interview with the parents of another native born mujahid. Unfortunately, the WSJ interview which serves as Alec's source is not entirely clear. We don't know the circumstances surrounding either conversion involved in the story nor do we have clarity on when Ms. Paulin-Ramirez broke off contact with her family and left town.

Unlike Alec, I am not comfortable in judging the sincerity of Ms. Paulin-Ramirez's mother and step father with the limited information available. I pass this through to you, and will let you make your own judgment in the fullness of time as more information becomes available.

There is a moral to this and other militant convet stories. Anyone who is dabbling in Islam with a view toward adopting it should read the Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari so as to become sufficiently familiar to understand the cult's doctrines and practices. Anyone who has a female relative who is socializing with male Muslims should make certain that she is aware of the Islamic attitude toward women. I suggest downloading and sharing this flyer: Islamic Misogyny.

http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/BlogburstHTML_3-13-10.htm

Crocodile tears from the parents of Jihad Jamie? Alec Rawls noticed something not quite right about Jihad Jamie's mother and father. Compare these two snippets from their Wall Street Journal interview:

Ms. Paulin-Ramirez's interest in Islam "came out of left field," said her mother, Christine Holcomb-Mott, in an interview at her home Friday, wearing a blue sweatsuit with a silver cross around her neck.

How out of left field?

Mr. Mott, a convert to Islam himself, says he went to Denver to find his stepdaughter but couldn't track her down.

This woman is married to a Muslim, but neither she nor her husband can grok where in the world their murder-plotting daughter/step-daughter ever got exposed to this worrisome religion that subducts so many of its followers into terrorism. Their disgust at daughter Jamie sounds sincere, but their blatant dishonesty about how she could have gotten interested in Islam suggests otherwise. It is possible, however, that the Journal's paraphrase is not precise. If put on the spot, Holcomb-Mott would likely clarify that she has no idea how her daughter ever got interested in murder-cult Islam. There is a way that this could actually happen: if Mr. Mott is some kind of multiculturalist do-gooder who converted to Islam in sympathy with the idea that "Islam was hijacked too" on 9/11. Such a person could have converted without comprehending the well established Islamic pedigree of violent aggressive jihad. Don't scoff. This same "Islam is a victim too" sentiment is right now allowing a giant Mecca oriented crescent to be built on the Flight 93 crash site. After all, it would just be too horrible to reject the Crescent of Embrace memorial simply because it is in the shape of a giant Islamic crescent, not when Islam itself was amongst the victims on that terrible day. No, we must do the opposite and embrace Islam. If Mott is thinking the same way, he has hardly gone any further than the Memorial Project. But then it seems that his step daughter took one step further still and actually read the Koran, with its endless commands to slaughter the unbelievers. Thus did an unhappy misfit finally find a home for the vicious vindictiveness that the religion of her birth had kept in check. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Sphere: Related Content

Indonesia: Blasphemy Law Abuse

From time to time, documents from IHEU, Freedom House, and similar non-governmental organizations will make reference to the abuse of blasphemy laws to deny the human rights of religious minorities. An editorial in the Jakarta Globe, from December 30, is a case in point.

The article calls for the government and religious leaders to take "concrete and substantial steps" to stop the abuse of "religious freedom in Indonesia". The editorial calls for amendments to the laws and reform in their enforcement. The specific reference is to " article 156a of the Criminal Code.

Jakarta Globe 12/30/09
Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless

Interestingly, the government often has turned a blind eye when radical Islamic groups violate this very article. Most of the “deviant” sects and individuals charged under this law practiced their beliefs peacefully, yet it has been conservative groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI) that have incited hostilities against these very groups. If the government was to enforce this law strictly and without bias, those conservatives and radicals proven guilty of spreading hatred against humanity through demonstrations, raids, religious gatherings or jihadi Web sites would have been put behind bars long ago.

Such a change would require revision of the 2006 civil registration bill that requires Indonesian citizens to identify their religion on their national identity cards (KTP). The category for religion could either be removed entirely, or people from minority groups could finally be allowed to acknowledge their real beliefs. This would decrease religious discrimination against those whose beliefs lay outside of the country’s six recognized religions. On this note, the government could further promote religious freedom by no longer officially acknowledging only six religions, but by embracing the multitude of religions and beliefs practiced in Indonesia.

The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Those excerpts from the editorial are sufficient to clarify the issue of undesired side effects of "defamation of religion" resolutions and the proposed protocol to ICERD. The UNHRC is scheduled to take up these Issues March 23. Now is the time for us to make our objections known.

Sphere: Related Content

Tony Blair deserves kudos

It wasn't big news on this side of the pond, but back in February, former British prime Minister Tony Blair was called to testify at an enquiry being held - in England - on the Iraq theatre of this Global War on Terror. Via The Thunder Run, I came across a wonderful assessment of Mr Blair's testimony. Christopher S Carson writes in the New English Review:

The Worst of Intentions

by Christopher S. Carson (March 2010)

“Dr. Spertzel, it is not a lie when you are ordered to lie.”
–Dr. “Germ” Rihab Taha, former head of Saddam’s bioweapons program, in response to UNSCOM inspectors when asked why she continued to lie in the face of proof, 1995

Although it hardly made the American news, the Rt. Hon. Anthony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 to 2007, was called to the hot seat in London in February, testifying before Britain’s Chilcot “Iraq Inquiry” in what was ubiquitously referred to as his “Day of Judgment.” It seemed the political and media classes in Great Britain expected him to beat his breast in biblical lamentation for his vile sin of deposing Saddam Hussein’s monstrous regime in 2003. Perhaps the media and political classes at least hoped to see him sweat, or even see him beg for forgiveness, the way Richard Clarke did when he testified histrionically before the 9-11 Commission just as his Bush-bashing book hit the stores.

A ferocious crowd of some 400 protesters, outside the front entrance of the Queen Elizabeth Centre, bayed for his blood like animals—yelling that he was a murderer and a liar. Blair’s car slipped in the back entrance, in what the media all referred to as a “sneaky” maneuver. (Evidently Fleet Street thought it more honorable for him to be pelted with the fake blood and then lynched for real at the front doorway.)

The prospect of actually destroying Mr. Blair’s life as he knows it is not as far-fetched as it might sound. Earlier, the Inquiry heard from two senior Foreign Office lawyers, Sir Michael Wood and Elizabeth Wilmshurst. They told the Iraq inquiry the invasion was against international law and amounted to a “crime of aggression”. For his part, “Human rights lawyer” Sir Geoffrey Bindman yesterday said there was a case for taking action against Mr Blair for waging an unlawful war. He said: “I would not be surprised if a prosecution were attempted in the UK. The difficulty would be to establish his personal responsibility for specific crimes against UK law.” Sir Geoffrey added that there would be serious difficulties in making the case but these were not “insurmountable.”

But Mr. Blair disappointed them all. "The decision I took - and frankly would take again - was if there was any possibility that he could develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) we should stop him," he said. "That was my view then and that is my view now." [ emphasis mine]...

Go read the rest here.

Sphere: Related Content

Facebook Censorship

In October of '09, a group of Muslims who demanded the deletion of an anti-Islamic Facebook group organized a boycott of Facebook The blog post I wrote about their boycott is still receiving views from all over the world, long after "Qur'an Toilet Paper Roll" was deleted, recreated and deleted again.

My involvement in Facebook resulted from a Google Alert for "Ban Islam" which linked to a post on the "Ban Islam!!" group. That post included an error which I wanted to correct. That is how I got hooked. I had to register a Facebook account and join the group in order to comment on the post. "Ban Islam!!" grew to more than 3000 members. It was a lively forum with many informative articles.

Then it was gone. No notice, no warning, no chance to save content; it was arbitrarily deleted March 8. I immediately invited my friends to join the smaller, less active group "Ban Islam". Other members invited their friends, and the group grew rapidly. Then, when I refreshed a page after commenting, it disappeared, arbitrarily pulled down just as its larger brother had been. The groups creator started over, and the group was deleted again the next day.

Yes, we did bash Islam. I, for one, cursed it. I tried to concentrate on well documented and logical arguments, but almost everyone backslides occasionally. Muslims joined our groups to comment and sometimes to debate with us. Many of them confined their activities to the wall, posting obscenities, suggestions related to sexually deviant status & activities and insults.

On February 17, two new wall posts appeared, posted by unfamiliar persons: "Ahmad Faris" and "Steve Brule", who posted a list of the administrators of "Ban Islam!!' followed by "they must die", linking the posts to a new Facebook Group "DELETE GROUP = BAN ISLAM!!". One of the members had read the wall posts and saved a screen shot, tagging other members with it. In my haste, I overlooked the death threat, concentrating on the fact that they copied our admin list. I followed the link and saw this.


The Admin list from "Ban Islam!!" in the left sidebar.


Why list our administrators on a page demanding our deletion? There is only one possibility: intimidation. They later added the death threat, in a foreign language. We followed up by reporting them to Facebook, who took no action. At the time of this writing, it is still available. The page has been edited to remove the death threat. I would like to show you the screen shot of the threat. Unfortunately, it was stored in the group's photograph section, which was deleted with the group.

Facebook also deleted several smaller anti-Islamic groups with offensive titles. It appears that Facebook has acted to appease the demands of Muslim groups. Observe the size of some of them. (Click the image for enlargement.)



Unfortunately, Facebook's aversion to "hate speech" seems to be monopolar. Each item in the following list is a link to a Facebook group which attacks Judaism or Christianity. Most of them have an obscenity in their names. Do not click on these if you are easily offended!!!!

• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6727627346
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51606817657
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5217004763
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5495283726
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40252079273
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=352583432196

In protest of this evident bias, members of the deleted groups are organizing a three day boycott of Facebook commencing at 12:01 am March 31 through 12:01 am April 2.

Sphere: Related Content

Answering Ima MuslimJihad,jizya

Terrorism Fatwa: Feces

That blog post drew a series of comments from Ima Muslim, the most recent of which deserves a post of its own. Due to the target rich environment, I have reproduced the comment in a block quote. I will mark selected important points with superscripts, linking them to my responses in an enumerated list below.

War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193). Therefore, if non-Muslims are peaceful or indifferent to Islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them. ¹

the Qur'an also says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam is an idea that is foreign to Islam in spirit and in historical practice. There is absolutely no question of waging a "holy war" to "spread the faith" and compel people to embrace Islam; that would be an unholy war and the people's forced conversions would not be sincere.

Another of the more repeated fallacies by those who hate Islam, and by those who do not understand.Jizyah is a tribute paid by non Muslims under the rule of the Muslim nation; be that direct or indirect rule.

Like any country, the Muslim territories require money for facilities and running of people's affairs. What we know today as taxation. Those who hate Islam though make it sound like it's something out of the ordinary, and that Islam is unjust because it taxes non Muslims! That is like calling every country in the world unjust because people pay taxes for the running of the country!

Non Muslims on the other hand, pay Jizyah according to the following rules:

1. The non Muslims that will pay Jizyah are only those capable of fighting. The Muslim army is made of Muslims. Therefore non Muslims will not be enlisted -unless they want to- in case of war. So the Jizyah here is to equip a replacement for this fighter.

2. Jizyah is not collected from elderly non Muslims, women, children or anyone who is unable to fight.

3. Jizyah is taken only from freemen and not from slaves .

Successive Muslim scholars and Caliphs made sure this was the case during their lives. Imam Al Qortoby says about Jizyah:"Our scholars said: What the Quran stated is that Jizyah is to be taken from fighters... This is a unanimous opinion of all scholars that Jizyah is to be only collected from free, mature men who are capable of fighting, not women, children, slaves, crazy, dumb or the weak old men".²

Albert Einstein wrote: Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance...

---

1. That statement is the most malignant maundery possible. There are three Islamic dispensations of warfare: forbearance, defensive and offensive. While Moe and his companions were in Mekkah, few in number and overpowered, he preached tolerance & forbearance. In Medina, as he began to accrue an army, he preached defensive jihad. Later, as his army grew in numbers and skill, he preached offensive warfare. These three dispensations are exemplified by 2:256, 2:190 & 8:39 respectively. Download Moe's biography, turn to page 221 and read the first paragraph very carefully. The assertion that Islam only fights defensively is extremely false and malicious. Al;-Baqarah 190 was cited in Ima's first paragraph. Although that ayeh relates directly to defensive jihad, the translators of the Noble Qur'an included a footnote there which defines jihad.

   Al-Jihad (holy fighting) ln AlIah's Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, (His Word belng La Haha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.[...]

   Would defensive jihad establish Islam and make Islam dominant? What will? Offensive jihad!! That is why Moe revealed al-Anfal 39 & at-Taubah 29.

   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.

   Those fight until loops are confirmed by this hadith and several variants.

   Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
   Narrated Anas bin Malik:
   Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
   

   Those fight until loops are codified into Shari'ah, as proof of which I submit these quotes from Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.
   

   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),
   
   the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
   
   "I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
   
   this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).
   
   O9.9
   
   The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).
   
   

   Those offensive jihad imperatives are amplified by two relevant rulings. the first is from O9.1, which describes the obligation of Jihad.
   

   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 Muslims are obligated to attack their peaceful neighbors, on Islam's initiative, annually. Did you miss the last clause in the last sentence of the quote? Is its meaning obscure? This ruling from al-Shafi'i should clear it up for you.
   

   "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."

   O25.9 lists eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest because it explicitly defines an obligation to attack neighboring kuffar.
   

   -8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

   
   Allah commanded Muslims to engage in offensive warfare. Moe confirmed that order. It is codified into Islamic law. Islam invaded and conquered nearly half the world. Denial is a token of insanity and/or dishonesty.
   
2. The tax on Dhimmis is called Jizya. Muslims attempt to distract us by falsely equating Jizya with ordinary taxation or taxation in lieu of military service. There is one vitally significant fact which they don't want us to perceive: Jizya is only levied on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who have been conquered or intimidated. Without conquest or intimidation, there would be no Jizya. Scroll up to the quotes from Reliance and re-read them carefully. Jizya is only imposed upon victims with scriptural religions. The polytheists are converted, killed or enslaved. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's footnote to 9:29 is an excellent example of the diversion tactic.

   v.29 : Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi’i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able- bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. But see the next note.
   * ’An Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The hand being the symbol of power and authority. I accept the interpretation "in token of willing submission." The Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated. See the last note.
   

   Complete clarity requires reference to another hadith which describes the orders Moe gave to his commanders in the field I will provide a link to the hadith and quote only the most relevant part.
   

   Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294: [...]If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. [...]
   

   Moe hired scribes to whom he dictated extortion letters which he dispatched by private courier. This excerpt from his letter to the rulers of Aqaba says it all. [Emphasis added.]
   

   I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers. My messengers deserve honour. Treat them with respect. Whatever pleases my messengers, will also please me. These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived. If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners.

While composing my response, I became suspicious; sensing plagiarism, I entered "Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam" into the Google search bar. Google returned 16 matching records. A search for "War is waged only to defend the religious community" turned up 21 matching records. This is one of them.

Sphere: Related Content