Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Flight 93 Terrorist Memorial

Moral Muslims don't want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site Blogburst logo, petitionThanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia--Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.'s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave. Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:
We all know who the enemy is. It's Islamic radicals who are guided by the ideology of Islamic supremacy1. Just as Nazis were guided by the ideology of Aryan supremacy. The only difference is that Gihadis consider it their religious duty to impose Islam all over the world and many of them yearn to die (and kill) for Allah. They use lines from the Koran such as "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" or "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" as their guiding principles.2
Islam needs to be reformed so that it rejects supremacism and violent conquest, but trying reform Islam is a difficult and dangerous business3:
Islamic radicals murder more Muslims than Christians, Jews, Hindus and everybody else combined. Gihadis may hate you for being infidels. But they really hate us for not following their demented dogma.
In this struggle for the soul of Islam, the last thing that moral Muslims4 want is any kind of victory for the supremacists, never mind a mind-boggling symbolic victory over the heroes of Flight 93:
What possible reason could be there for including anything Islamic or anything even resembling an Islamic symbol into Flight 93 Memorial? Inclusion of Islamic symbols memorializes murderers who brought down the plane and is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims and their families. United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked in 2001. Let's not allow hijacking of Flight 93 Memorial in 2008.
Muslims know all about facing Mecca for prayer One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be? Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin's pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismi sses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle's original concern about the giant crescent, which remains comp letely intact in the "broken circle" redesign), on the grounds that: "if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you've probably gone too far." We don't need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world's largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch's 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch's mosque. Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:
The shape of the "broken circle" resembles a crescent moon. So does the shape of the tower. Crescent moon is the most recognizable Islamic symbol. When we pray, we face Mecca and Mosques are traditionally built to face Mecca. The case could be made that the proposed design is aligned in North-Easterly direction, which corresponds with Qiblah, a direction to Mecca. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since Mecca is located to the South-East of Somerset, Qiblah cannot possibly have a North-Easterly direction. This assumption would be correct if you're using a flat map. However, if you take a globe, place pins on locations of Somerset and Mecca, and connect those pins with a string, you'll see that the string at the base of the Somerset pin points North-East. This symbolism may not be noticeable to a non-Muslim, and it is also possible, but likely improbable that the designer is ignorant of its significance. The proposed design would be perfect for EgyptAir 990 memorial. But for United 93 memorial, it is simply unacceptable.
Allahpundit is just being careless, but the willful blindness of the Park Service is foundational The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the "coincidences" pile. According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project's many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag. (Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the centerline of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.) Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can't believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can't believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93! This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish. How to distinguish a moral Muslim from an Islamic supremacist Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden's followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims4 reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed. Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest5, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of "abrogation." Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses. The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don't even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a "religion of peace." This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran's own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106)6. Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called "taking takfir," such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation. The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad's accusation against the Jews: that they twist the "allegorical parts" of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment--Thou shalt not murder--is binding on Muslims. Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is "wood for the fire." Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam7 is in systematic violation of the Koran's own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam's strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet. What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty--the great haven from which truth can be spoken--build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site? No helping hand from the land of the free If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils--condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself--thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions. That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad. The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary. Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

The text above the horizontal line originated at errortheory, without the superscripts, which I added. The superscripts are linked to my comments in the following enumerated list.
  1. Islamic supremacy is intrinsic to Islam, established by the Qur'an: 9:33 and Sunna: Bukhari 4.52.65 . Offensive Jihad, genocide and terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam: standard, off the shelf, Islam, not some imagined radicalism. The Banu Qurayzah knew who the enemy was: "Muhammad and his army".
  2. The Qur'an is given as a guide to mankind. In it, Allah issued clear commands, which are to be believed and implemented. 8:39 says "Fight them until..." ; 9:29 says:"Fight those who...until:. Why did Moe say "I have been ordered to fight the people till..."?
  3. Islam can not be reformed because the Qur'an is Allah's perfected word which can not be changed. Supremacism and conquest are intrinsic to Islam, permanent parts of it.
  4. Oxymoron: "moral Muslims". A moral man who adheres to Islam suffers from the most severe cognitive dissonance. He worships a blood thirsty demon as the Almighty Creator. Allah set making "great slaughter" as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. He worships a genocidal war lord as the greatest and best of men.
  5. No such conversion occurred. Moe's preaching evolved as he accrued an army and gained strength. In Mekkah, vastly out numbered, he preached forbearance and tolerance. In Medina, after building an army, he preached conquest.
  6. 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things? For confirmation, see The Meaning of Naskh. Surah At-Taubah, which contains the commands to fight Jews & Christians, was among the last to be revealed, it abrogates the earlier, more tolerant verses.
  7. Traditional Islam is what Moe said, speaking for Allah, and what he did, in obedience to Allah's word. Traditional Islam is authentic Islam, the real thing. The "reformers" seek to create a new religion and call it Islam.

Sunday, April 19, 2009

The Real Attack on the Bill of Rights

The First Amendment is Under Siege

posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:30 PM

Selected excerpts interspersed with my comments.

A dangerous attack on the American Bill of Rights has begun to show up on right wing blogs.
In February of '07, Pedestrian Infidel proposed a 28th Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that blog post to be the first such concrete proposal I encountered on the web. Others had suggested a need for legislation, some had suggested the need for an amendment, but, to the best of my knowledge, there were no concrete proposals. Concern about Islam's threat to our liberties dates back more than two years, it is not a novelty.

The proposed amendment is a counter attack against Islamic supremacism, not an attack against the Bill of Rights. An outline of the proposal follows.
  1. Islam is not recognized as a religion, it is stripped of First Amendment protection.
  2. Declares Islam an enemy of the United States of America and prohibits its public practice.
  3. Muslim institutions are to be closed and propagation of Islam prohibited. Muslim immigration is terminated.
  4. Discrimination, assault & impairment of individual rights (as limited by Art. 3) of Muslims prohibited.
The threat to liberty issues from Islam, not from 'Islamophobes'.
  • Islam denies freedom of conscience.
3:2. Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.
. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
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).
  • Islam denies freedom of speech.
O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam [If you leave Islam, you must be executed: O8.1 -.2]
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
-16- to revile the religion of Islam;
-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

  • Islam denies freedom of religion.
O11.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
-4- must keep to the side of the street;
-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Source:: Umdat as-Salik, the hand book of Islamic law.
Concerning proposals to write Islam out of the First Amendment, deport Muslims and close Islamic institutions, Jonathan responds: " These attitudes are intolerable." Either Jonathan's value system varies greatly from ours or he perceives Islam through a fact filter that prevents him from perceiving Islam's intolerance & violence, which make it intolerable to lovers of life and liberty.

Allah's word must be "made superior", as specified in 9:33 and 48:28. Supremacism & triumphalism are interwoven throughout Islam's canon of scripture. This fatal fact becomes clear when one reads the titles of related topics in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir.

How will Islam conquer us? By Jihad: "Holy fighting in Allah's cause, "ordained" for Muslims,. as the price of admission to Paradise. Jihad continues from the beginning of Moe's prophetic career until Judgment Day. Jihad is the Muslim's "original. religion". Islamic law requires that offensive Jihad be performed at least once in every year[Umdat as-Salik O9.1]. That is confirmed by Al-Shafi'i: "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."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," precludes our government from discriminating against any religions. What could be a worse discrimination against a specific belief system than to legislate that it doesn't "qualify" as a religion at all.
The establishment clause precludes establishing a national church. The founders wisely decided against allowing the government to decide which church, if any, we will join.

The worst course of action is that which has been followed for the last 220 years, giving a piracy cult undeserved constitutional protection. Islam has theology, cosmology, prayer, ritual & charity and it binds men permanently to Allah, so it must be a legitimate religion, right? Wrong! Islam has a mercenary mission! When reading a book one third as long as the Bible, it is difficult to perceive certain patterns. Isolating a few critically important ayat makes the pattern perceptible by removing the chaff which otherwise occludes the pattern.
8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.
8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.
Who gets the spoils? Allah and his Messenger, who takes the top 20% with right of first selection. Since Allah is an impotent idol, Moe got the best of the loot. What did Moe want? "the good of this world" . What does Allah want? "great slaughter"! Making a great slaughter was the price of Moe's ticket to Paradise.

The clear pattern formed by the ayat cited above is confirmed and reinforced by several of the oral traditions of Moe's companions.
Muslim Book 019, Number 4327:
The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294 [...]Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils [...]

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495 [...]When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, [...]
Allah made spoils lawful for Moe because of his weakness and humility. Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world. Allah allocated the spoils to Moe, who kept the top 20% for himself.

How did Allah make Moe victorious? How did Allah make Moe wealthy? Is it possible that Moe was an arrogant, belligerent narcissist, unworthy & unqualified to be a Prophet? Aisha Bewley translated part of Sahih Bukhari which Khan Bowdlerized.
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.
Those are the words of a pirate, not a Prophet. Moe founded a piracy cult, which wears a false mantle of religion as a camouflage and motivational tool. What legitimate religion says 'go to war or go to Hell'?
9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.
9:90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allâh and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.
Those clear and obvious ayat are confirmed by an equally clear hadith.
Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2497:
Narrated AbuUmamah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: 'before the Day of Resurrection".
We have a responsibility to judge individuals by their actions, not by the books they read.
We are judging an institution, not individuals. We must judge it by its doctrines and its fruits. What legitimate religion sanctifies aggressive conquest, genocide & terrorism ? What legitimate religion enslaves people?
O9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.
Whatever any of us believe about the tenets of the Muslim faith, it isn't anyone's place to judge their neighbor's religious beliefs, and American citizens who are Muslim are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American - including the practice of their religion, and obviously, not being deported. This paranoia reminds me of America's imprisoning 70,000 United States citizens during World War II - among a total of 117,000 of Japanese descent who were detained in so-called "relocation centers." Haven't we grown up since then?
What we believe about the tenets of Islam is irrelevant. The reality is relevant, and it is evident on the face of the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir & Shari'ah, which form a congruent pattern of violent, genocidal aggression. In a state of weakness, with numerical inferiority, Islam is relatively docile. As its numbers increase, it becomes increasingly aggressive. In Mekkah, vastly outnumbered, Moe preached forbearance. In Medina, when he amassed an army, he preached Jihad.

A 1400 year death toll of 270 million tells us that objection to Islam is not paranoia. Muslims form a fifth column on our own soil. Trusting them is not possible. A bullet or bomb can come from any direction at any time, as thirteen victims discovered in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area a few years ago. Since that attack, there have been several shootings, vehicular assaults and one attempted bombing.
What's the point of this post? Simply that people will always be people. Whether they read books with messages of peace or books that endorse wrath and vengeance, most people are usually peaceful, but circumstances sometimes push people to violence, and a few people will always be obsessively addicted to violence.
Most Muslims do not read the Qur'an, the last statistic I saw showed a Qur'an literacy rate of 17% among men and 13% among women. They get their ideals from the Mosque, and most Mosques in America are run by Wahhabis. The fact is that Jihad is a mandatory Islamic sacrament, not an option. A Muslim can not be absolutely assured of avoiding Hell & admission to Paradise without participation in Jihad.
If we were to discriminate against Muslims, who's next, Scientologists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormons? Japanese? I'm saddened when fundamentalists of any faith advocate wrath and vengeance, but I support everyone's right to their books, their beliefs, and all their rights as United States citizens. This is a plea for all to put aside fear and prejudice, and to respect our American Bill of Rights and our American way of life.
While Jonathan accuses Islam's critics of paranoia, his penultimate paragraph is a clear example of paranoia. Why should anyone be next? Do they worship a blood thirsty demon who demands human sacrifice? Do they make sacraments of conquest, genocide & terrorism? Do they constitute a security threat? Are their doctrines inimical to liberty? Do they demand that their scripture be substituted for our Constitution?

Sunday, April 12, 2009

Demoting Islam from Religion

Demoting Islam's Religion Status was written by Martel Sobieskey and cross posted by Citizen Warrior.
Here are a few quotes to whet your appetite.

ONE THING is certain, Islam is not a religion by anything Americans believe one to be — not even close. In fact, Islam is the antithesis of what we deem to be religious. Above all, Islam is a totalitarian political machine of bloodthirsty conquest which zealously advocates the downfall of the U.S. government.
It is sheer madness, exceedingly irresponsible, criminally negligent, and strategically suicidal to continue granting religion status to an absolutely aggressive and implacable ideology that demands the destruction of our government and all other religions.
The purpose of this article is to introduce the proposition that Islam’s religion status is undeserving, that it should never have been granted in the first place, and that its religion status should be immediately rescinded.
The root word of religion means "to bind". Islam is binding, it imposes capital punishment for apostasy established by 9:74. Allah also commanded his votaries to attack, kill or wound disbelievers, and "bind a bond firmly" in 47:4.

Religion also involves theology, scripture, ritual and prayer. Islam meets all of those tests, so what disqualifies it as a religion? Mercenary mission is at the head of my of disqualifying factors. The following ayat expose Moe's mercenary motivation for founding Islam: 8:1, 8:41, 8:67, 33:27 & 48:15-21. Al-Anfal 67 is particularly clear about both mercenary motivation and violence.
It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Hilali & Khan]
The phrases emphasized with bold font make two things clear: Moe wanted booty and Allah wants genocide. How can an institution dedicated to pillage, plunder and genocide be worthy of protection as a religion? How can there be a right to practice a 'religion' which mandates making war on members of other religions as Islam clearly does in 9:29?

Is it possible that an unrepentant rapist founded a legitimate religion? When Moe attacked the Jews living at the Khaibar Oasis, he had their chieftain tortured to death and added his widow to his own harem. His act is reported in the oral tradition of his companions: Bukhari 4.52.143. His attitude toward raping captive women is also on record: Bukhari 5.59.459.

What legitimate religion makes aggressive warfare the holiest act a man can perform as Islam does: Bukhari 4.52.41, 4.52.44 ? Follow the link to Sobieskey's article, then follow the links I have provided to the Qur'an and hadith. I have one more link for you, to a blog post describing an on line petition which calls for Islam to be removed from the list of recognized religions: Outlaw Islam Petition.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Al-Nafisi Incites Terrorism

Link to the video.

MEMRI Special Dispatch- No. 2247 02/16/09

Abdallah Al-Nafisi, a Kuwaiti professor, had his speech broadcast by Al-Jazeera TV February 2. The following is a transcript of the English sub titles.
Four pounds of anthrax in a suitcase this big - carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there What a horrifying idea. 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings, and so on. One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this "confetti" all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real "celebration."

The WMD is a problem. The Americans are afraid that the WMDs might fall into the hands of "terrorist" organizations like Al-Qaeda and others. There is good reason for the American's fears, because Al-Qaeda used to have in the Herat region... it had laboratories in north Afghanistan. They have scientists, chemists and nuclear physicists. They are nothing like they are portrayed by these mercenary journalists - backward Bedouins living in caves. No, no. By no means. This kind of talk can fool only naive people. People who follow such things know that Al-Qaeda has laboratories just like Hizbullah.

Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, in which it produces weapons and sells them. Hizbullah has laboratories in South Lebanon, from which it sells weapons to Romania and Hungary.

If they call someone a terrorist, say: "He's a friend of mine." Why? Because these "terrorists" are the world's most God-fearing people. They are the most honorable people in the world, the best people in the world. [Applause.] I have personally met Mullah Omar. I had the honor of meeting with Mullah Omar. This is a man who does not belong to this era. He always refused to meet with Western delegations. He would say to them: "Go to Kabul, I am in Qandahar." "Truly, the polytheists are impure" - if you know what I mean. "Go meet the Foreign minister to talk politics, I am staying here. " This is the kind of people who are suitable for dealing with the West. As for Arafat, Dahlan, and their ilk - they do not benefit the nation in any way.

In the US, there are more than 300,000 militia members, who are calling to attack the federal government in Washington, and to banish the Arabs, the Jews, and the negoes (sic) from the US. These are racist people. They are called "rednecks." The Ku Klux Klan. They are racists. These militias even think about bombing nuclear plants within the US. May Allah grant them success, [Laughter.] even though we are not white, or even close to it, right? They have plans to bomb the nuclear plant at Lake Michigan. This plant is very important. It supplies electricity to all of North Africa (sic). May Allah grant success to one of these militia leaders, who is thinking about bombing this plant. I believe that we should devote part of our prayers to him. We should pray that Allah grants him success, so he can complete this mission, and we will be able to visit him and congratulate him, Allah willing.

Allah stated in the Koran that the hostility between us and (the Jews) is eternal. So whoever talks about Dialogue - cut off his tongue! What Dialogue are they talking about?! There is no room for Dialogue. Allah said that our hostility toward the Jews is eternal, and then along comes someone and talks about brotherhood and so on.... Anyone who contradicts the Koran is an infidel. Accusing people of heresy? Yes. I'm all for it. Yes, I support accusing people of heresy.

We should also defend the resistance, and not remain silent in the face of this organized campaign against the resistance, in the press of the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, and other Arab newspapers. Thee are voices expressing doubts about the leaders of the resistance. We must confront these (journalists) and prevent them from continuing this, even if it means calling them over the phone, and saying to them: "Do not repeat these despicable things in your columns or your articles, or else we will take the following measures against you." We must resort to pressure with these people. We must not remain silent. We must not leave them to their own devices under the pretext of freedom of expression. This is a fifth column. I, abdullah Fahd Abd Al-Aziz Al-Nafisi, am inciting you to confront, using any means possible, anyone who speaks out against the resistance. Any means possible" - get it?

The Hamas ministers are mujahideen, I know a minister who actually participated in operations.

In Special Dispatch- No. 2281, 03/16/09, MEMRI quotes three "liberal" critics of Abdallah Al-Nafisi. One of them, columnist Ahmad Al-Sarraf, had this to say.
"More importantly, what would we, the Arabs and the Muslims, or [anyone else], gain if a religious fanatic carried out to the letter what this 'great thinker' said? For example, would the world be a more just, good, and peaceful place, or would this be this be the first sign of the coming of the awaited Mahdi, [who is said to arrive] when the world is filled with injustice and oppression?

"What would be the response of the U.S. government and its people if we killed 330,000 innocent Americans in a single hour? Would we then become capable of getting Palestine back from the Israelis, the [UAE] islands back from the Iranians, Alexandretta back from the Turks, and Andalus back from the Spaniards? And what good would all that be if nuclear bombs fell on our heads and destroyed the little that is good in our countries?
What are those, if not pragmatic arguments? Concern is expressed about outcomes, expected failure and possible retaliation. Where is the condemnation based on the intrinsic immorality of the proposal?
"And are our feelings and emotions so dead that we are not bothered by [the prospect of] the death of 330,000 innocent Americans in a single hour - among whom may well be some of our own people, and true friends - just because the government of this country has helped one of our enemies? And as though we ourselves haven't been our own enemy for hundreds of years? Oh logic, oh reason: how beautiful you are, and how rare."
The writer implies enmity to Israel, does he object to attacks against her as well? Would he have responded in this manner if Al-Nafsi had suggested an attack on Tel Aviv? Notice the qualifier: "innocent Americans". Are there "guilty Americans" who should be killed? Is Ahmad aware that Allah considers all Non-Muslims to be sinners who must be humiliated, punished and subjugated?

Dr. Al-Nafisi is a citizen of Kuwait, a nation with good reason to have a favorable attitude towards the USA. The speech was delivered to a an approving audience in Bahrain, another supposedly "moderate" Muslim nation.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Free Speech vs Islam

On a recent visit to California, Geert Wilders, Dutch M.P., spoke about freedom of speech and the threat posed to it by Islam & the appeasers. Front Page Magazine published a transcript of the speech: Free Speech vs. Islam in Europe, which I urge you to read. The excerpt below packs a great deal of truth into one paragraph, without furnishing proof. Wilders left it to the audience to read the Koran and verify the truth for themselves.

Allow me to give you a brief introduction to Islam, an Islam 101. The first thing everyone needs to know about Islam is the importance of the Koran. As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. The biggest problem is that the Koran is to be considered as Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. That’s the reason why the Koran is not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once said: “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam”. For once I have to agree with this islamist Turkish Prime Minister.
The Koran is available in many translations, languages and formats. I prefer the Hilali & Khan translation for research. Some prefer Shakir, and many prefer Yusuf Ali. The Resources page at Moe's Murder Cult contains links to sites from which you can download a fair variety of Korans and many other books.
For those who prefer reading on line, the Muslim Student Association at U.S.C. presents three parallel translations of the Koran and four hadith collections. Yet Another Qur'an Browser is a search engine which displays a table of up to ten translations. Search Truth has a hadith search engine which can search any of the four top hadith collections. Qtafsir has a search engine for Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, which explains that which should be obvious to you.

Shari'ah is also available on line; someone went to the trouble of scanning more than 1200 pages of Umdat as-Salik. That large, unformatted text file can be searched with the Windows search function invoked with the Ctrl F key combination. It takes a few minutes to load on dialup. Scribid displays a scanned image of the book. Somehow they arranged a means of searching it, which works much faster than I expected.

Craig Winn synthesized five major texts to produce The Prophet of Doom, which may be described as polemic. Reading it will require some patience and dedication; it stretches to 1000 pages. You can learn a great deal by browsing the Islamic Quotes section.

Monday, April 06, 2009

Obamanation: Treason in Turkey



Turkish Grand National Assembly Complex

Ankara, Turkey April 6, 2009

Because the speech presents a target rich environment this post will
concentrate on the issue of relations with Islam. I will block quote
relevant excerpts from the prepared remarks, linking my comments with
superscripts inserted into the excerpts.

Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges: An economic crisis that recognizes no borders; extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men and women and children1; strains on our energy supply and a changing climate; the proliferation of the world's deadliest weapons; and the persistence of tragic conflict2.

In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: The United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians3,
Israelis, and people of goodwill around the world. That is a goal that the parties agreed to in the road map and at Annapolis. That is a goal that I will actively pursue as President of the United States.

Both must overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment4 to make progress towards a secure and lasting peace.

We must reject the use of terror5, and recognize that Israel's security concerns are legitimate.

Now, I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic
Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on
mutual interest and mutual respect6. We want Iran to play its rightful
role in the community of nations. Iran is a great civilization7. We want them to engage in the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. But Iran's leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon8 or build a better future for their people.

So both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq that does not serve as a safe haven for terrorists9.

Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a
common threat from terrorism10. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and destroy their country. That includes the PKK. There is no excuse for terror against any nation.11 (Applause.) As President, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our support against the terrorist activities of the PKK or anyone else. These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq's Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education and opportunity and democracy for the Kurdish population here inside Turkey.

Finally, we share the common goal of denying al Qaeda a safe haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al Qaeda terrorists13 plot further attacks. That's why we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda14. That is why we are increasing our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to reconcile former adversaries. That's why we are increasing our support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand on the side not only of security, but also of opportunity and the promise of a better life.15

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that
the trust that binds the United States and Turkey has been strained,
and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. So let me say this as clearly as I can: The United States is not, and will never be, at war with Islam16. (Applause.) In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world17 is critical not just in rolling back the violent ideologies that people of all faiths reject18,
but also to strengthen opportunity for all its people.

I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim
community, the Muslim world, cannot, and will not, just be based upon opposition to terrorism19. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect20. We will listen carefully, we will bridge misunderstandings, and we will seek common ground21.
We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith22, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world -- including in my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans23. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country --I know, because I am one of them. (Applause.)

Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership24
with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes and our common dreams.

There's an old Turkish proverb: "You cannot put out fire with flames."
America knows this. Turkey knows this. There's some who must be met by force, they will not compromise. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism26. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy27. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

  1. 'Extremism' is a shibboleth which must be deflated. The violence perpetrated by Muslim 'terrorists' is an intrinsic part of orthodox Islam, founded on several
    ayat, notably 3:151, 8:12, 8:60 & 3:26. The message of those ayat is confirmed by two ahadith: Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.
  2. 'Tragic conflict' persists because it is perpetuated by intrinsic and immutable
    doctrines of Islam. World conquest is mandatory, not optional under 2:216, 8:39 & 9:29.
  3. The charters of the PLO and Hamas indicate otherwise, as does the familiar mantra "from the river to the sea".
  4. The passions date back nearly 1400 years, to Moe's rejection by Jews living in the Hijaz who scorned his plagiarized mix of paganism, Christianity and
    Judaism. Allah said he would continually torment the Jews;
    and Moe said that the Muslims could not collect their reward until they finish exterminating the Jews. There will be no peace while Islam continues to propagate hatred and incite violence.
  5. So genocide & policide are ok with President Obama as long as there is no
    terror; the means justify the ends. Islam's attitude is "we conquered
    it, its ours, and we will reconquer it if it takes till doomsday!".
    Click the link to the Hamas Charter in #3 and read it carefully.
  6. There is no mutual respect. Islam is contemptuous of us and all non-Muslims.
    They are obligated to punish, humiliate and subjugate us, to defeat us
    and gather us into Hell. Is there some part of 8:55 & 3:12 that President
    Obama does not comprehend?
  7. The Persian civilization was conquered by Islam; it is dead and gone, supplanted by pure, unmitigated evil which inculcates hatred and incites violence.
    Cyrus the Great permitted rebuilding the Temple at Jerusalem. Islam demands the destruction of Israel. President Obama seems to be oblivious to the difference.
  8. That decision has been made, irrevocably. They must destroy Israel, and they need the bomb to accomplish that tactical objective.
  9. If it is Islamic, it is a safe haven for terrorists. Islam and terrorism are one and the same. Moe was a terrorist, by his own admission, cited and linked in #1. Shari'ah is
    the primary source of law for the new constitution of Iraq. Get a clue.
  10. Muslims practicing takfir will terrorize anyone they perceive as weak; unable or unwilling to effectively retaliate. Terrorism is intrinsic to Islam; the rule, not an exception. The texts linked in #1 make that perfectly clear.
  11. Is there any excuse for conquest, rape, pillage, plunder & enslavement with or without inflicting terror? Please follow the links in #1 & #2.
  12. Education, opportunity, democracy etc. are irrelevant. Terrorism is a function of
    doctrines, not grievances.
  13. Al-Qaeda means "the base". Ummah al-Islamiya is the base of the pyramid of Islam. Islamic law requires a minimum of one military expedition against Kufar
    in every year. That requirement predates Abd al-Wahhab & co. Read chapter 9 of Book O of Umdat as-Salik.
  14. So long as Islam exists, al-Qaeda can not be defeated, its fallen martyrs
    will always be replaced and resupplied.
  15. They don't want opportunity and a better life, they want to conquer the entire world, obtaining Allah's approval and subsequent admission to the celestial bordello. Shari'ah is the primary source of law for Afghanistan's new
    constitution. Get a clue.
  16. Islam is at war against Dar ul-Harb: the entire non-Muslim world; wherever
    Allah's writ does not rule. Follow the links in #2 and #13; read O9.8 & 9.9 Get a clue.
  17. We have no partnership with Muslims, it is explicitly forbidden by several ayat including 3:118, 5:51, 58:22, & 60:1.
  18. Violence is not part of an external ideology, it is intrinsic to Islam! Read the ayat linked in #2 and get a clue. Islam does not reject violence, it mandates it: "Jihad
    is ordained for you".
  19. Good idea; we should also consider Jihad, genocide, misogyny and subjugation of Kufar, each and every one of which is ample cause for rejecting Islam.
  20. There is no mutual respect. Refer to #6.
  21. There is no common ground with Islam. Islam declares Allah to be the creator of the earth and everything on it; therefore sovereign over it and us. Allah
    has delegated to Islam the right to be regent over the entire world.
    Theologically, Islam denies the divinity, heritage, death & resurrection of Jesus Christ and co-opts him as a genocidal warmonger. These facts are fully documented in another blog post: The Defamation of Jesus Christ.
  22. What does President Obama appreciate about Islam besides the sound of the Adhan at sunset? Could it be the 270 million untimely deaths it has caused?
  23. Contributions made by individuals who may be Muslim in name only are not a legitimate source of pride for Islam.
  24. Refer to #17.
  25. Common dreams? Do we dream of world conquest; ruling and dominating the entire world? If you doubt me, read my blog post: ROPMA.
  26. Extremism is a shibboleth. Standard, off the shelf orthodox Islam is violent because it is a demonic mandate to genocidal conquest using terror as a battle
    tactic. There is no alternative to war when we are attacked by Islam
  27. Islam destroys, it does not create. Allah has pronounced an execration
    against the Muslims if they ever abandon Jihad in favor of productive pursuits.

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Tokens of Treason

In remarks prepared for delivery to the Wilson Center August 1, 2007, then Senator Obama expressed ideas which can only result from extreme ignorance or treason. I became aware of this speech through a quote in a Los Angeles Times opinion article by Jack Miles.

In that speech, Senator Obama expressed his intention to address a major Islamic forum "to redefine our struggle". Jack Miles indicates that the speech is to be delivered to the Turkish Parliament Monday, April 6, 2009.
When President Obama addresses the Turkish parliament on Monday, he will have the chance to fulfill a campaign promise. Before the secular legislature of a Muslim-majority country -- and with the entire Muslim ummahummah listening -- he can state plainly that the United States is not at war with Islam.
I have selected some of the most egregious idiocies from the prepared text, including them here ( in block quotes) differentiated from my comments by font style.
[...]We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support.[...]
There is no new enemy; we are assailed by an old enemy, one which attacked our commercial shipping in the 18th century: Islam. When Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman by what right the Barbary Pirates attacked our ships, he gave them a clear answer, one which should be taken to heart by our present leaders.
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [Wikipedia]
Their "right and duty" to attack us is written in the Koran. Who will bother to read 8:39, 8:60, 9:29 and 9:123? Not our President, neither our legislators, nor our military officers; they can't be bothered with reality, preferring to live in fantasy land.

The "terrorists' base of support" is the Ummah al-Islamiya, ordinary Muslims who contribute Zakat toward their support. Those who stay at home are required to contribute to the support of the Mujahideen at the front.
[...]Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.[...]
Presidents Carter, Clinton Bush & Obama all misrepresented our enemy, claiming that we are assailed by a "tiny minority of extremists" motivated by legitimate grievances. Islam is the enemy, driven by immutable intrinsic doctrines enshrined in the Koran and exemplified in Moe's sunna. Casting terror into the hearts of Islam's enemies is an intrinsic sacrament, clearly established by 3:151, 8:12, 8:60, 33:26 & 59:2 and confirmed by Bukhari 4.52.220 & 1.7.331.

Islam is at war with us, and all non-Muslims not under a treaty of protection imposed upon victims of Islamic intimidation and conquest. The war is dictated by Allah's commands in 8:39 & 9:29, which Moe confirmed in Bukhari 1.8.387, saying "I have been ordered to fight". It is Shari'ah, codified in Umdat as-Salik O9.8.

The "terrorists" do not "distort Islam"; they obey Allah who ordered them to "strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies" and emulate Moe, who said "I have been made victorious with terror". Islam is fighting against us, and we should be fighting to secure life & liberty.
[...]But America must be about more than taking out terrorists and locking up weapons, or else new terrorists will rise up to take the place of every one we capture or kill. That is why the third step in my strategy will be drying up the rising well of support for extremism.[...]
"Extremism" is a shibboleth which must be exposed. The founder of Islam bragged about winning with terror. Allah commanded it, Moe exemplified it: it is the standard, unexceptional. Terrorism's well of support is the Koran, its support flows through the family, Mosque and every structure of Islamic society.
[...]We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim – nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites.[...]
That paragraph alludes to and reinforces another shibboleth: "terrorism is grievance driven". Numerous splodydopes were from middle and upper class families, students of law & medicine, with promising careers in prospect. They chose to end their lives in an effort to kill Kufar, please Allah and gain admission to the Celestial Bordello.

Their "hate-filled websites" reflect the contents of their hate-filled Koran, hadith & Shari'ah. Those Muslims are not hopeless, they hope to conquer and dominate the entire world, as Allah promised they will.
[...]America is at war with terrorists who killed on our soil. We are not at war with Islam. America is a compassionate nation that wants a better future for all people. The vast majority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims have no use for bin Ladin or his bankrupt ideas. But too often since 9/11, the extremists have defined us, not the other way around.[...]

Islam is at war against us, a war declared in 623 and re-affirmed in 2001, 2002 and 2003. If they had no use for "bankrupt ideas" of world conquest, they would be Apostates, not Muslims.

[...]As President, I will lead this effort. In the first 100 days of my Administration, I will travel to a major Islamic forum and deliver an address to redefine our struggle. I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence. I will speak directly to that child who looks up at that helicopter, and my message will be clear: “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”[...]
Their future, promised by Allah, is total world conquest and domination. The Prophet of "hate and violence" was Moe, who revealed Allah's conquest, genocide & terror imperatives. "Your future is our future. And our moment is now." President Barack Hussein Obama is one of them. You fools, what have you done!