Sunday, January 24, 2010

Geert Wilders On Trial
Jihad Watch also has a five minute video in addition to the transcript.

The trial of Geert Wilders began January 20 '10 and will resume February 3 unless the judge acts affirmatively on Wilders' motion for dismissal.
At the opening of his trial, Geert Wilders spoke briefly. Two paragraphs stand out from the rest

Future generations will wonder to themselves how we in 2010, in this place, in this room, earned our most precious attainment. Whether there is freedom in this debate for both parties and thus also for the critics of Islam, or that only one side of the discussion may be heard in the Netherlands? Whether freedom of speech in the Netherlands applies to everyone or only to a few? The answer to this is at once the answer to the question whether freedom still has a home in this country.

Freedom was never the property of a small group, but was always the heritage of us all. We are all blessed by it.

As I interpret it, Geert Wilders is referring to the great risk that freedom of expression will be lost, never to be recovered, in which case future generations may take a very dim view of our generation. He also raises the issue of special privilege, the exalted status asserted by Islam.

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

He characterized Islam as an ideology that threatens freedom, and postulated a right and duty to speak out against it. This raises necessity as a defense. In his concluding remarks, he expressed hope that the court will allow him to call witnesses who will testify about Islam's threat to liberty and to the truthfulness of his documentary and speeches. Thus he also raised the truth defense. If what he said is objectively true, it can not be slander or defamation.

The importance of this trial can not be exaggerated. Freedom of expression is at risk. While it may be lost to Holland in this trial, this trial may set a precedent for similar trials elsewhere in Europe and perhaps even in the United States.

The ayat quoted by Wilders in Fitna and his speech to the Dutch Parliament were documented in a previous post, part of which is reproduced below, slightly edited. The cited ayat are listed and quoted with links to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir. Reasonable people, reading this evidence, can only conclude that Wilders told the truth; that his speech and documentary are factual, neither slanderous nor defaming to Islam.

In a recent address to the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders cited the following ayat, some but not all of which are quoted in his movie, Fitna.
Each of the above listed ayat is linked to ten parallel translations.

This is the text of the violent ayat in the list above: [Links to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir supplied when available.]
  • 2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
  • 3:139-141 So do not become weak (against your enemy), nor be sad, and you will be superior (in victory) if you are indeed (true) believers. If a wound hath touched you, be sure a similar wound hath touched the others. Such days (of varying fortunes) We give to men and men by turns: that God may know those that believe, and that He may take to Himself from your ranks Martyr-witnesses (to Truth). And God loveth not those that do wrong. And that Allah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers. [Hilali &Khan]
  • 4:91 Ye will find others who seek to gain your confidence as well as that of their own people: So oft as they return to sedition, they shall be overthrown in it: But if they leave you not, nor propose terms or peace to you nor withhold their hands, then seize them, and slay them, wherever ye find them. Over these have we given you undoubted power.[Rodwell]
  • 8:39 And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.[Hilali & Khan]
  • 9:29 Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.[Rodwell]
  • 47:4 When ye encounter the infidels, strike off their heads till ye have made a great slaughter among them, and of the rest make fast the fetters. And afterwards let there either be free dismissals or ransomings, till the war hath laid down its burdens. Thus do. Were such the pleasure of God, he could himself take vengeance upon them: but He would rather prove the one of you by the other. And whoso fight for the cause of God, their works he will not suffer to miscarry;[Rodwell]

Riyad us-Salaheen, Book 11, Ch. 234 cites many ahadith in proving the obligation of Jihad. It does not mention the above cited ayat, but does cite several others. Reliance of the Traveler specifically offers 9:29 as justification for declaring war on Jews and Christians.

O-9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
The caliph (o-25) 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: o-11.4) -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)

Judicial Hypocrisy in India

DNA reports that the Bombay High Court upheld a state ban on the publication of Islam — A concept of Political World Invasion by RV Bhasin.
Freedom of expression granted by the Constitution, the bench said, should not be used to trigger “senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order”.

If a book describing Islamic doctrines and practices is judged to trigger violence, then what about the Qur'an, which sanctifies and mandates genocidal terrorism? The Calcutta Qur'an Petition was arbitrarily dismissed,. yet this case upholds this book banning. Which is worse, a book which perpetuates an order to engage in aggressive warfare or a book which describes its effects? It is obvious that the wrong book was banned.

Monday, January 18, 2010

Censorship and Libel at USC

Having read several articles asserting that Pakistan's delegate had, on behalf of the OIC, submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee on Elaboration of Complementary Standards,[See also: Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document] a proposal containing the text of Ireland's new blasphemy legislation, my curiosity was aroused. I posted a blog comment expressing doubt, and disappointment that the post did not provide a link to the source of the claim. I prepared to compose a blog post about the issue, but after diligent search, I was unable to find specific information.

Serendipitous discovery of a document hosted by Article 19 has brought the truth to light, proving my assumption to be in error. I had assumed that the referenced proposal had been made previous to the recent meeting of the committee. In fact, it was submitted on October 23 and it does, in its first section, include significant text from the Irish blasphemy statute. If Irish Catholics enacted it into law, it must surely be acceptable, right? Not by my standards!

The quote below comes from page 11 of the following document: A/HRC/13/55, the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The link in the UN document system is broken.] Since the pdf is a scanned image, I used Softifree OCR to convert it to text. I have attempted to edit errors introduced by the conversion process but have left original spelling and syntax intact.I have added bold font emphasis to identify the purloined prose.

Friday, 23-10-2009 PM

'l`he Chair opened the sixth meeting on Friday, 23 October 2009 in the afternoon, explaining that further consultations were necessary before the Programme of Work could be adopted, The agreement to continue discussion of issues put forward in alphabetical order as recorded in the draft programme of work not yet adopted was therefore extended. Accordingly, the meeting considered the issue of "discrimination based on religion or belief."

c) Discrimination based on religion or belief.

Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, made the following proposal of text:
  1. States Parties shall prohibit by law the uttering of matters that are grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents to that religion.
  2. States Parties must enact legal prohibitions on publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim of protecting their fundamental human rights.
  3. States Parties shall prohibit public insults and defamation of religions, public incitement to violence, threats against a person or a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin.
  4. States Parties shall provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs.
  5. States Parties shall penalize public expressions with racist aims, or of an ideology which claims the superiority of or, or which deprecates or denigrates, a grouping of persons on the grounds of their race, colour, language, religion, nationality, or national or ethnic origin, and enact legal prohibitions on offences in which religious motives are aggravating factors.
  6. States Parties shall apply and reinforce existing laws in order to combat and deny impunity for all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes applied to them, including on the basis of religion of or belief .

The following quote is from page 26 of the Irish statute.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any
religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion
, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
Of course, there is a little detail which the authors do not tell us about, and which the OIC did not plagiarize: defenses to the charge.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would
find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organisation or cult—
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.
The egregious element of subjectivity stands out in both documents. How do you define and measure "grossly abusive or insulting"? How do you define, measure and establish the existence of "genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value"? How do you establish intent? Is any nation likely to include, in similar legislation, clearly defined and provable offenses & defenses?

Re-read the second item in Pakistan's list. Where did they get the notion of "negative stereotypes"? Last October, our State Department and Egypt cosponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution. [A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1]

Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content; [Pg. 7, ¶'9]

Boilerplate in previous resolutions expressed concern about "defamation". President Obama prefers "negative stereotyping" to "defamation". The OIC can reluctantly drop its demand for the "defamation" clause, Obama can claim victory, and we loose our freedom of expression.

Lets make a close examination of the proposal to censor critics of Islam.
  • grossly abusive or insulting
  • causing outrage
  • a substantial number
  • matters regarded by followers of
    • any religion or belief
    • sacred or inherent to their dignity
  • aim of protecting their fundamental human rights
  • insults and defamation
  • incitement to violence
  • promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs
  • public expressions with racist aims
Is highly refined abuse or insult permissible under the proposed legislation? How does one determine the difference between gross and refined insult?
By what standard is outrage to be established? What constitutes a substantial number?

Sanctity is in the mind of the believers? Why is it not defined by the contents of sacred texts? How are we to know what everyone considers sacred to their dignity? In what charter is the right to be shielded from all potential offense established and enshrined as a fundamental human right?

What constitutes incitement to violence? According to Ban Ki-moon, Fitna is incitement to violence.. The only incitement in the video comes from the Qur'an and Imams. By the UN standard, exposing incitement constitutes incitement.

They are demanding that governments promote tolerance and respect for Islam, which informed and reasonable people consider intolerable because of its intolerance and violence.

How are "racist aims" to be defined and measured? Islam is not a race, it afflicts members of several races. Islam began as a manifestation of Arab supremacism.

One glaring defect stands out in the proposal: subjectivity. Muslims are set up as judge & jury; states as executioners. The offense exists because they invented it. We are guilty of it because they say we are. This is a status offense: not being Muslim.

The thirty third ayeh of Surah Al-Ma'idah lists hudud for waging war against Allah. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir defines that term thusly.
(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. [Emphasis added.]
If you recite a Christian creed, you are guilty of disbelief, opposing and contradicting Islam and may be sentenced to death. The OIC is demanding that the UN and its member states enforce that Islamic law against us. According to Shari'ah, as codified in Reliance of the Traveller, a dhimmi may be killed for several listed offenses including reviling Islam.
O11.10 ...-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam
What is impermissible? The list of acts entailing apostasy includes these items.
O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
-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;

Among other things, dhimmis are forbidden to recite scripture aloud and display crosses.
O11.5 ... -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;
The Ad Hoc Committee is expected to meet in March. We need to send a clear message of rejection to the United States Department of State. This is not an issue amenable to compromise. Our right of free expression must not be abridged! When the protocol is published, we must rise up as one with a loud voice and disrespectfully demand that the President not sign it and the Senate not ratify it.

In the meantime, lovers of liberty have another way to make a clear statement of disrespect and contempt for Islam and demanding effective protection from its evil intentions. The International Qur'an Petition puts the most important evidence before the World Court and prays for injunctive relief. Please sign it and exhort everyone you can hope to influence to sign it and share it with their friends. We must not allow the lamp of liberty to be extinguished forever.

Genocide Hadith Revisited Again

Censorship and Libel at USC

David Horowitz has once again raised the issue of the infamous genocide hadith which was restored to the USC 's database after he had campaigned for its removal. I have added emphasis for the sake of clarity. [An edited transcript of Horowitz's Nov. 4 speech is available, plus a video and a report of the attempts to prevent him from speaking. The speech is a very articulate appeal for free speech on campus, an extremely important issue.]
I was invited to USC to speak about this problem and specifically about an incitement to kill Jews posted on an official USC website and attributed to the prophet Mohammed. The incitement was originally posted by the USC Muslim Student Union. It was removed last spring by Provost Nicias, who called it “disgusting,” over protests from the Muslim Student Union. It was recently restored to a USC website by another campus group. When this re-posting came to my attention, I contacted USC students and said I would like to come to campus to address this and related issues. This led to my invitation from College Republicans.
What incitement?
Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
That saying is part of Islam's canon of codified oral tradition, a prophecy which sets the final genocide of the Jews as a precondition for the Muslims reaping their rewards in Paradise. It is not the cry of "Itbach-al-Yahud" often heard in Islamic sermons, it is part of the basis for those sermons. Variant forms of that saying are common in Islamic literature, including the Charter of Hamas.

A variant remained in the database: Sahih Bukhari 4.52.177. Whether they are published on a university web site or not, those sayings inform us of the genocidal character of Islam. They serve to warn us of Islam's intentions. Removing them is like amputating a snake's rattles or painting a skunk's stripes, depriving us of a warning.

My principle objection to censoring the hadith is that it deprives us of a means of authenticating the evidence of Islam's genocidal character. I frequently cite that hadith, including a link to it so that readers can verify its authenticity and explore related hadith. While such sayings re removed from the web, they remain in thousands of books and articles and in the minds of millions of Muslims. Nothing is accomplished by removing one saying from one web site.

The revival of this issue can serve a purpose by affording another opportunity to reveal the evil at the core of Islam. The Qur'an includes a demonic injunction to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians.
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.
Now you know that Muslims are commanded to make war on Jews and that the Muslims can't enter Paradise until they finish the job. While there is plenty of antisemitism in the Qur'an, one ayeh stands out above the rest.
7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh's Forgiveness).
Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that ayeh brings a new dimension to it.
...In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world....
Another prophesy contains a less explicit confirmation. Read between the lines.
Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

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

When President Obama and others assert that Islam is a "great religion of peace", those of us who have explored its canon of scripture, exegeses, tradition & jurisprudence can use quotes from those sources to refute the lie. Instead of demanding censorship, we should be exposing the core of Islamic doctrine in the harsh light of truth. Expose Islam's violent antisemitism, don't obscure it.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Respect for Religious Differences?

The impetus for the present diatribe came from this article publiched by the U.S. Mission tyo the UN in Geneva.
Promoting Respect for Religious Differences By Suzanne Nossel, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Our government is engaged in subtle, highly polished dissembling. In order to point out the clever lies, I have reproduced excerpts from the article in block quote format, with Helvetica or Arial type face, interspersed with my commentary. I have added bold font emphasis to make the lies easier to spot.

Take a close look at the title of the article, in bold blue text above. Do you spot the lie? The article is about a counter proposal offered as a substitute for the OIC's campaign to outlaw criticism of Islam. It is not about respecting differences, it is about respecting Islam. When the differences between Christianity and Islam are considered, the differences are so stark that respect is impossible.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, sent to save sinners through acceptance of God's grace. We believe that he was crucified, died and was resurrected. Muslims believe that Isa, their name for Jesus, was fully human, Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither died nor resurrected and will return as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslim army in its final conquest, exterminating the Jews. How in Hell can any sentient person exepct us to respect that blasphemy? The details, for those who don't know, are documented in The Defamation of Jesus Christ.

Over the last decade, we have witnessed a campaign to attempt to counter religious hatred through bans on speech under the rubric of prohibitions on the “defamation of religions.” This effort has taken root in a series of resolutions at the U.N.’s General Assembly in New York and its Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Far from attempting to counter religious hatred, the OIC, as the representative of Islam in the absence of a Caliphate, is acting out religious hatred by attempting to impose Islam's blasphemy law upon the entire world through the agency of the United Nations. Religious hatred is not the issue. Defamation is not the issue. Proscribing defamation by law would not reduce hatred in any case, it would only cause it to fester. Take a close look at Islamic law, quoted from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O.
  • O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
    • -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;

  • O11.10 The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
    • -3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

    • -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death.
  • O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
  • O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
The code in O11.10 refers to the treaty of protection afforded to conquered Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who, as an alternative to conversion to Islam, make annual payments of tribute and exist under conditions of humiliation & subjection. When a dhimmi violates those rules, the caliph can kill him at will.

Islam's Hellbent determination to impose its blasphemy law on us is not about defamation, it is about supremacism. Islam claims to have a monopoly on divine truth, all else is false. They are attempting to impose through "international law" what they can not yet impose by force of arms.
Some U.N. member states supportive of these resolutions are banding together to try to impose a global ban on offensive speech in the form of a binding instrument under international law.

Any criticism of Allah, Moe & their doctrines & practices is offensive to Islam. The prime examples they cite are the Motoons and Fitna:. Although the most famous of the cartoons depicts an explosive device, which Moe never had in his possession, he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.
The irony of this effort is that the concept of “defamation of religion” has been used to crack down on religious minorities that espouse beliefs deemed by the State to defame a national or majority-supported religion. Moreover, many of the countries that support the defamation of religion apply the concept to protect one religion only, and are — within their own countries — accepting of hostile language and acts that target minority faiths.
Irony? No, that is the intended result, not a misapplication. Defamation of Islam is a shibboleth created for political purposes, not a real and substantive issue.
These contradictions demonstrate that the drive to impose a global ban on offensive speech will not protect members of all religions on an equal basis, as U.N. resolutions and international legal norms must do. Nor will they address the specific and legitimate concerns about the treatment and mistreatment of Muslim minorities globally. Concerns about the treatment of Muslim minorities warrant concerted action on the international stage, but through steps and measures that actually work, rather than bans on free speech.
Equality of application would not make Islam's blasphemy laws acceptable. If you shield Judiasm, Christianity and other religions from criticism along with Islam, you still make it impossible to accurately identify and characterize the implaccable foe who has declared and is prosecuting war against us. Had Hitler declared Mein Kampf to be divine revelation and National Socialism to be a religion, we would not have been able to use those propaganda posters in WW2 under the proposed regime. The intent is, that in George Washington's words: “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”[]

What legitimate concerns? We have laws against assault & harassment. It is not Muslims who are being murdered, raped, tortured and burned out of their homes, businesses and churches in Egypt,.Indonesia & Pakistan.

It is not mythical assaults and murders they seek to prevent, it is revelation & recognition of the truth about Islam: that it is a war cult which seeks to destroy western civilization and plunge the world into theocratic tyranny. Measures to promote that objective are undesirable, whether or not they are effective.

The United States has worked strenuously to oppose defamation-based approaches on the basis that they are inconsistent with fundamental freedoms of speech and expressions, including the values endorsed by U.N. member states through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The United States has given lip service to the concept of freedom of expression, but, in October of '09, the State Department co-sponsored the Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution, which substitutes "negative stereotyping" for "defamation", a distinction without a difference.
As an alternative to the efforts that would ban speech in order to prohibit “defamation of religion,” we are proposing to achieve the goal of promoting religious pluralism and acceptance of religious difference through the kinds of steps that we have seen be effective in our own country and across the globe: enactment and enforcement of laws prohibiting discrimination; bans on hate crimes; education, training and dialogue to promote religious tolerance.
Get a clue.
  • 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
  • 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
Islam's scripture says that we are going to Hell and curses us in addition to declaring perpetual war against us. Religious pluralism? Acceptance?? In your dreams!! Why would anyone desire to promote tolerance of a "religion" which sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest & terrorism? Tolerance must be reciprocal; Islam is not tolerant. The two ayat quoted above prove this fact without any room for doubt.

Islam is a predator; We are prey. For the sake of safety, we must be allowed to truthfully discuss Islam. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet again in March.. We do not know how long it will take them to produce their protocol to ICERD, but I have no doubt that, barring a miracle, President Obama or his successor will sign it and the Senate will ratify it.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Vote Scam Alert!!

American Thinker
What the Dems Know: Universal Voter Registration By James Simpson

One quote in that extremely significant article brings the matter to a critical head.
In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration. What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states: 'take everyone on every list of welfare that you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver's license holders and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be ... John Fund
Do you remember the ACORN voter registration scandals of '08? The Democrats appear to be prepared to take it to a whole new level. Motor Voter was bad enough, this proposal will facilitate far more multiple voting and other frauds. If they can pack the voter registration roll with phantoms, they can use those registrations to stuff ballot boxes with impunity.

There are too many uninformed morons voting as it is. Why make it easy for more of them to dilute the votes of intelligent, educated and informed voters? The proposal is part of the Democrat Party's plan to convert our representative republic into a tyranny. We must mobilize to derail it! Visit
and send a strongly worded email to your Representative & Senators. Tell them that their vote for universal voter registration will guarantee your vote against them in the next election cycle.

Bridge of Deception

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Christopher of Logan's Warning for his post which alerted me to this. Several years ago, Ibrahim Hooper, National Communications Director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), published a deceptive article which Arab American News republished on December 25, '09. Love for Jesus unites Muslims, Christians

The article makes citations to the following ayat & hadith. By selectively quoting Islam's canon of scripture and tradition, Hooper programs us to accept his al-taqeyya.
  • 3:45. (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allâh gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honour in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allâh."
  • 2:87. And indeed, We gave Mûsa (Moses) the Book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers. And We gave 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), clear signs and supported him with Rûh-ul-Qudus [Jibrael (Gabriel)]. Is it that whenever there came to you a Messenger with what you yourselves desired not, you grew arrogant? Some, you disbelieved and some, you killed.
  • 21:91. And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through Our Rûh ­ Jibrael (Gabriel)], and We made her and her son ['Iesa (Jesus)] a sign for Al-'Alamin (the mankind and jinns).
  • 3:47. She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allâh creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is.
  • 5:110. (Remember) when Allâh will say (on the Day of Resurrection). "O 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)! Remember My Favour to you and to your mother when I supported you with Rûh­ul­Qudus [Jibrael (Gabriel)] so that you spoke to the people in the cradle and in maturity; and when I taught you writing, Al­Hikmah (the power of understanding), the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel); and when you made out of the clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My Permission, and you breathed into it, and it became a bird by My Permission, and you healed those born blind, and the lepers by My Permission, and when you brought forth the dead by My Permission; and when I restrained the Children of Israel from you (when they resolved to kill you) since you came unto them with clear proofs, and the disbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.' "
  • 57:27.Then, We sent after them, Our Messengers, and We sent 'Iesa (Jesus) ­ son of Maryam (Mary), and gave him the Injeel (Gospel). And We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him, compassion and mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them, but (they sought it) only to please Allâh therewith, but that they did not observe it with the right observance. So We gave those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are Fâsiqûn (rebellious, disobedient to Allâh).
  • 2:136. Say (O Muslims), "We believe in Allâh and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Ibrâhim (Abraham), Ismâ'il (Ishmael), Ishâque (Isaac), Ya'qûb (Jacob), and to Al-Asbât [the twelve sons of Ya'qûb (Jacob)], and that which has been given to Mûsa (Moses) and 'Iesa (Jesus), and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in Islâm)."
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 652:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "Both in this world and in the Hereafter, I am the nearest of all the people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one."

So Islam accepts the virgin birth and accords Jesus the status of prophet. Is that really a sufficient bridge to close the gap between Islam and Christianity? Take a close look at 5:110: the apocryphal story about Jesus giving life to a clay bird. Moe got his version of Christianity from literature not recognized as canonical by Christianity,

2:136 makes Jesus out to be the equal of previous prophets. But wasn't he he son of God? Wasn't he resurrected after being crucified? Not according to Islam. By withholding this information from us, Hooper is practicing kitman: deception by obfuscation. Examine the following ayat to which I have added emphasis for clarity.
  • 4:157. And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allâh," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:
  • 4:158. But Allâh raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allâh is Ever All­Powerful, All­Wise.
  • 4:159. And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), but must believe in him ['Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allâh and a human being], before his ['Iesa (Jesus) or a Jew's or a Christian's] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he ['Iesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them.
  • 4:171. O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allâh aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allâh and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rûh) created by Him; so believe in Allâh and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allâh is (the only) One Ilâh (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allâh is All­Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.
In his Qur'an, Moe, speaking in the name of Allah, tells us that Jesus is not God's son, had no share in divinity, and was not crucified. Moe/Allah also tell us that we must accept Jesus as fully human and no more or he will testify against us in the final judgment. How inviting does that bridge of common ground look now?

Before you step onto that bridge, there is something else you should know. Hooper tells us that Muslims "love and revere Jesus as one of God's greatest messengers to mankind". Is that really why they love Jesus? Is there something more, something he is not telling us about? You can be sure of it!
  • Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:

    Narrated AbuHurayrah:

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

Moe is prophesying about the second coming. What will Jesus do? He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. If you have read 8:39, 9:29 & Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387, you will understand what that means. If you have not read them, click the links and read them now. Islam has given Jesus Christ a new role: warlord.

He will break the cross. We don't need to think long nor hard to determine what that means: he will kill the remaining Christians and eliminate Christianity. He will kill swine. Jews are described in the Qur'an as transmuted into monkeys and swine. Jizya will be abolished because there won't be anyone left to pay it.

Moe depicts Jesus as a genocidal warlord, which is what Muslims are in love with about Jesus. Am I judging Islam too harshly? No, and I have proof. In his tafsir of 7:167, in which Allah promises to continually send someone to torment Jews, Ibn kathir lets the cat out of the bag. Perhaps you will hear the cat snarling as you read this excerpt, to which I have added emphasis for clarity.
  • In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world. [Eternal Humiliation placed on the Jews]
Jesus will kill the Jews. Impossible you say? Not to Islam. You have heard of the infamous genocide hadith; take another look at it in the light of the prophesy revealed above.
  • Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
    Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
Judgment Day can't come; the Muslims can not enter Paradise to enjoy rivers of wine and perpetual virgins until they hunt down and kill the last Jew and Jesus will lead them in that final jihad. Islam is a genocidal war cult which has co-opted our Saviour as a genocidal warlord.

Hooper's common ground is quick sand and his bridge will fall apart, plunging you into Hell as you cross it to embrace Islam.

As forces of hate in this country and worldwide try to pull Muslims and Christians apart, we are in desperate need of a unifying force that can bridge the widening gap of interfaith misunderstanding and mistrust. That force could be the message of love, peace and forgiveness taught by Jesus and accepted by followers of both faiths.
Jesus sent his disciples to preach the gospel.

  • Luke 9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.
    9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.
    9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
    9:4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.
    9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

Moe sent his commanders to invite disbelievers to embrace Islam.
  • Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.
  • Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah
  • When you meet your enemies who are polytheists invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm.
    • Invite them to (accept) Islam;
      • if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them
        • Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajirs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs.
          • If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers)
      • 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...
Does Islam accept Christ's message of peace and love? If you answered in the affirmative, please post a comment explaining exactly how you reconcile Christ's teaching and Moe's as outlined above. Jesus sent his disciples, empty handed, to persuade people to follow him. Moe sent an army with swords and spears to extort their victims to embrace Islam and pay tribute. Moe's message is war, not peace. The two can not be reconciled; there is no bridge between them.
The Prophet Muhammad himself sought to erase any distinctions between the message he taught and that taught by Jesus, who he called God's "spirit and word."
Of course he did, because his message of rapine, when compared to Christ's message of love and peace, shines and stinks like a dead carp on the river bank in the light of a full moon.
Disrespect toward Jesus, as we have seen all too often in our society, is very offensive to Muslims.
Depicting Jesus as a genocidal warlord who will lead the Muslims as they exterminate Jews & Christians does not seem to offend Muslims, perhaps, because they worship a genocidal warmonger as Allah's final prophet.
And yes, Muslims and Christians do have some differing perspectives on Jesus' life and teachings. But his spiritual legacy offers an alternative opportunity for people of faith to recognize their shared religious heritage.
Can you smell the aroma of rotting fish in that statement? If not, you need to re-read this post, the truth has not penetrated yet.
America's Muslim community stands ready to honor that legacy by building bridges of interfaith understanding and challenging those who would divide our nation along religious or ethnic lines.

We have more in common than we think.

There ain't much in common between the Christian & Muslim concepts of Jesus, that bridge won't support the weight of Moe's lice.

Monday, January 11, 2010

American Muslims Reject Terrorism ?

North American Muslims Determined to Counter Violence and Terrorism

Sheila Musaji, the editor of The American Muslim tells us that the leadership of the American Muslim community seeks to prevent its youth from becoming radicalized. The community is taking steps to fend off radicalization.
I was unable to find any det.ails about CAIR's new website. My searches all looped back to TAM. I did not find any reference to it on CAIR's site. The MPAC document appears to be oriented toward community policing. The Executive Summary confirms the initial impression. An appendix to the document lists "sources from the Qur'an". The quoted verses do not appear to explain or directly contradict the 'radical' doctrine. As I expected, they are highly selective; 5:32 is quoted, but not 5:33. Building Bridges appears to concentrate on telling law enforcement how to deal with the Muslim community.

The ISNA statement dates back to '06; it consists of the maundering fatwa of '05. In '07, I took that fraudulent fatwa apart point by point in this post.

The new Canadian/American fatwa informs Muslims that attacks on those two nations are forbidden and that they are obligated to step in to prevent such acts if they become aware of them. One point in the fatwa is of particular interest.
“Therefore, it is an obligation upon us (Imams) to inform all Muslims around the world that Muslims in Canada and the United States have complete freedom to practice Islam." [...] “Therefore, any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on the freedom of Canadian and American Muslims. Any attack on Canada and the United States is an attack on thousands of mosques across North America. It is a duty of every Canadian and American Muslim to safeguard Canada and the USA."
It appears that terror attacks on Canada & America are only forbidden because the practice of Islam is unrestricted here. It appears that, if the practice of Islam was restricted by law, that attacks on us would be permitted.

The Detroit Free Press revealed the content of three signs at demonstration in Detroit.
“Not in the Name of Islam,” “We are Americans,” and “Islam is Against Terrorism.”
Isn't Islamic terrorism performed in Allah's name? I distinctly remember hearing "Allahu Akbar" on the Flight 93 cockpit voice recorder. Is Islam really against terrorism? How do Muslims square that assertion with the Qur'an verses which sanctify terrorism and the two hadith in which Muhammad brags about being made victorious by terror? [3:151, 8:12, 8:57, 8:60, 33:26, 59:2, 59:13, Bukhari 1.7.331, 4.52.220]
The American Muslim and Arab communities are attempting to whatever they can to make it clear that we reject violence and extremism as solutions to anything.

Reliance of the Traveller contains a list of acts which have the effect of apostasy. Two of them apply in this case.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

Two verses of the Qur'an mandate perpetual conquest: 8:39 & 9:29. 9:29 is cited as the scriptural basis for Reliance O9.8, which makes conquest a regular item on Islam's agenda.

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) ).

A Muslim who rejects Jihad has, in effect, apostatized. If a Muslim is offended by violence, why does he remain a member of a violent cult? Islamic violence is not a solution to problems, it is a way of life. One hadith from Abu Dawud's collection is most enlightening. [Emphasis added.]

Sunan 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.

Muhammad told his followers that if they turn from conquest to trading and agriculture as a way of life, Allah would curse them until they revert to conquest. The reference to conducting jihad can't be jihad an-nafs, because it would not produce income.

Friday, January 08, 2010

Obamination: Flight 253 Revisited

The White House Blog has links related to the attempted bombing of Flight 253.

In summarizing his national security review, President Barack Hussein Obama trotted out his standard litany of lies. Because those lies must be identified and refuted, I will present them in block quote format interspersed with my commentary.
And finally, I'm ordering an immediate effort to strengthen the criteria used to add individuals to our terrorist watchlists, especially the "no fly" list. We must do better in keeping dangerous people off airplanes, while still facilitating air travel.
Occam's Razor and the KISS rule apply to this issue; only one criterion is required. The no-fly list should consist of the set of persons who profess Islam. Everyone who believes that he has a divine right and duty to conquer & dominate the world or to anger or injure kuffar is dangerous. Anyone whose relationship to his deity is that of hired killer is dangerous. Anyone to whom our blood is not sacred is dangerous.
At the Amsterdam airport, Abdulmutallab was subjected to the same screening as other passengers. He was required to show his documents -- including a valid U.S. visa. His carry-on bag was X-rayed. He passed through a metal detector. But a metal detector can't detect the kind of explosives that were sewn into his clothes.
How do you hope to detect explosives swallowed, inserted or surgically implanted? Are you going to install MRI scanners in every airport and run every passenger through them? How much would that cost and how long would it take?
Over the past two weeks, we've been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands. We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.
You failed to identify the enemy, which is Islam. Al-Qaeda is an offshoot of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, which is Islam. There are only two ways to defeat Islam, and you are not willing to engage in either of them. Islam's war against the human race will end when all the Muslims are apostates, converts or dead. Our defeat and death is the other possibility. Which do you prefer?

Either Muslims cease believing / living or we will suffer continual attacks and eventual conquest. Will you launch an intensive, extensive & prolonged ideological attack against Islam, exposing Allah as the ultimate evil, Muhammad as a pederast, murderer & genocidal warlord and the Qur'an as inculcation of hatred & incitement to war? If not, then how will you kill them all?
And we know that the vast majority of Muslims reject al Qaeda. But it is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations not just in the Middle East, but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding. That's why I've directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by lone recruits. And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death –- including the murder of fellow Muslims –- while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress.
How do you :know" that "the vast majority of Muslims reject al-Qaeda"? Did you conduct a scientific opinion survey? Every Muslim has a terrorist affiliation! Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam; 3:151, 8:12, 8:57, 8:60, 33:26, 59:2, 59:13 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 make that fact crystal clear.

It is Islam that offers the bankrupt vision of misery and death in this world, and a carnal garden with rivers of water, honey, milk & wine and trees full of low hanging fruit always in season with perpetual virgins in the next. To obtain admission to the celestial carnal garden, Muslims must participate in killing and conquering us. To Muslims, world conquest is justice & progress.
To advance that progress, we've sought new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect, and work together to fulfill the aspirations that all people share -- to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security. That's what America believes in. That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists.
How is appeasement a new beginning? There is no mutual interest nor mutual respect. Islam is interested only in conquering us and they do not respect us, to Islam, we rank with corpses and feces.

Muslims do not share your aspirations. They look not to the life of this world, but to the next, where they will enjoy the gardens or suffer in the fire. Participation in Jihad to conquer us determines where they will spend eternity.

The shibboleth: violent extremists implies that Islam is peaceful; that violence is the exception, not the rule. Nothing can be further from the truth. Muslims are purchased by Allah for the purpose of doing his wet work. This fact is documented in Surah at-Taubah 111. Allah's wet work is world conquest, commanded in Surah al-Anfal 39 & Surah at-Taubah 29. Those Jihad imperatives are codified in Shari'ah, Book O, Chapter 9, ¶ 8 & 9 of Reliance of the Traveller. Search for o9.8. Jihad is the "original religion" of Islam; If Muslims abandon it in favor of agriculture as a way of life, they will be cursed with disgrace prevailing over them until they return to Jihad. If you have any doubts about the meaning of Jihad (making war on disbelievers) open Reliance of the Traveller to o9.0 and read it carefully. Compare that text to the definition provided in the translator's footnote to Surah al-Baqarah 190.
Here at home, we will strengthen our defenses, but we will not succumb to a siege mentality that sacrifices the open society and liberties and values that we cherish as Americans, because great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want, and so long as I am President, we will never hand them that victory. We will define the character of our country, not some band of small men intent on killing innocent men, women and children.
It is not possible to win a war defensively. Winning requires taking the offense, destroying enemy assets and killing enemy combatants until the enemy is so devastated that they lose the will to fight. Islam will never lose the will to fight. Promotion and perpetuation of war is Islam's purpose, because Moe designed it for that purpose. Moe got his income through accrual of spoils and tribute. Continuous war was the source of his cash flow. If you doubt the facts exposed in this paragraph, read these resources carefully: Islam's Mercenary Mission, Jihad.chm, Islamic Supremacism. Avoidance of suspicion, distrust & paranoia requires removing Islam's fifth column from our midst. Western Civilization must be made a Muslim free zone.

And in this cause, every one of us -- every American, every elected official -- can do our part. Instead of giving into cynicism and division, let's move forward with the confidence and optimism and unity that defines us as a people. For now is not a time for partisanship, it's a time for citizenship -- a time to come together and work together with the seriousness of purpose that our national security demands.

National security and survival should not be partisan issues. Indeed, they are not, both major parties put traitors in the White House. Both Democrat and Republican Presidents have lied about the identity and nature of the enemy. Both have conducted the war with suicidal idiocy. Our national purpose is to live securely, with liberty and prosperity, as a shining example for the world to emulate. Submission to enslavement is not our national purpose. Pouring our blood and treasure down the sewer is not our national purpose. Defeat is not our national purpose.

That's what it means to be strong in the face of violent extremism. That's how we will prevail in this fight. And that's how we will protect our country and pass it -- safer and stronger -- to the next generation.

We can only prevail in this conflict by making the enemy extinct. Until Islam ceases to exist, either through apostasy, attrition or death, there will be neither peace nor security in this world; both life and liberty will be at risk.