Thoughts and Truth from the Impossible Life

Refuting The 10 most Islamophobic moments in the 2012 elections from Salon dot com

The 10 most Islamophobic moments in the 2012 elections

(Salon.com)

10. Allen West is Allen West – Florida Rep. Allen West is known for making inflammatory statements about pretty much everyone, but he has particularly targeted Muslims. This cycle alone, he’s commemorated 9/11 by screening an anti-Islamic film,said that Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison “really does represent the antithesis of the principles upon which this country was established,” and another time theorized that “George Bush got snookered into going into some mosque, taking his shoes off, and then saying that Islam was a religion of peace.”

100% Correct, We need more politicians and people in general to state the truth specifically when it is not “politically correct”

9. Republicans go after one of their own – When David Ramadan, a longtime Republican Party activist and protege of Grover Norquist,  ran for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates in 2011, the Islamophobia network sprang into action. Norquist, of course, is a secret Muslim Brotherhood agent according to these people, so his actual Muslim bud must be worse. Pam Geller called him an “Islamic supremacist,” David Horowitz warned Virginia Republicans not to “lie down in the camel’s bed,” and Frank Gaffney accused him of having ties to Hezbollah. There were nasty ads and exchanges at town halls, but Ramadan won the GOP primary and eventually a seat in the House of Delegates.

100% Correct – lets hope the voters in the district are educatable

8. And again, but this time they call him a “terrorist” – The Islamophobia trickles down all the way to the local level, we found, in the case of Nezar Hamze, a Republican from Florida who tried to join the Broward County Republican Executive Committee but got turned down by a vote of 158 to 11. He met all the requirements, but people in his own party distributed pamphlets labeling him a “terrorist.” The basis? Hamze is head of the local chapter of CAIR.

As CAIR is a terrorist organization, it makes perfect sense to decline to include the local terrorist in chief. Good work Broward County Republican Executive Committee.  Any active member of CAIR is automatically a terrorist supporter.

7. Obama the closeted Muslim – Plenty of people have suggested that President Obama is a secret Muslim this cycle, but California Republican congressional candidate Sam Aanestad wins the award for his remarkable forthrightness: “I was asked, do I think [Obama]‘s a Muslim, and the answer is yes, that is his background. That is his beginning. Is he a Christian today? There’s no way that you or I can tell that. But his background, his upbringing, his tradition, his holiday observances all come from a Muslim background.”

Congratulations Sam Aanestad for the bravery to state what any thinking American already knows is fact.

6. Even worse than Allen West – After Allen West fled his old district after redistricting, the good people of Florida’s 22nd got a new Islamophobe to kick around: Adam Hasner, the former Florida House majority leader. The Republican is a close personal friend of anti-Islam bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, has invited notoriously anti-Muslim Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders to speak in Florida, and once skipped the Florida Legislature’s opening prayers because they were being delivered by an imam. When Salon highlighted his Islamophobic record in August, Geller said it was only a matter of time before we were “getting measured for a suicide vest.”

Another intelligent and brave American Patriot.  Congratulations for refusing to sit for the opening prayers delivered by the imam of a false religion.  The rest of the Legislature should be embarissed that only One brave person stood firm against the religion of hate.

5. A real-life Muslim in Congress! – Democratic Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison was the first Muslim elected to Congress, so he’s used to it, but his Republican opponent, Chris Fields, accused him this year in a mailer of being “militantly anti-America.” That’s nothing compared to how Fields’ GOP primary opponent came right out and called him a “radical Islamist” in the statement announcing her candidacy for his seat. In fact, Ellison’s religion was her primary motivation for running.

By definition Muslim means anti-Constitution, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, replace all laws with Sharia (Islamic Law).  And he is supported by and a supporter of the terrorist group CAIR.  Thus, Keith Ellison is anti-American. (There is no such thing as “radical Islamist”.  There is only Islam or not Islam.  All of Islam is radical.)

4. A real-life Muslim in Congress! Part 2 —Democratic Rep. Andre Carson of Indiana was the second Muslim elected to Congress and has so far attracted less hate than Ellison, but when he was  praising the innovative ways parochial schools remain relevant, including Muslim schools, it caused a grade-A right-wing freakout, complete with hyperventilating from Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh about how Carson wanted to force students to learn the Quran. One assumes that if Carson had praised St. Mary’s Junior High School instead of a madrassa, no one would have batted an eyelash.

“Madrassa = emphasis on indoctrination in the qu’ran and islam.”  There is no place for this indoctrination in the school system.  How many young, brainwashed terrorists have already come out of the Saudi Madrassa in maryland near Washington DC?  Why do ALL the textbooks call Jews pigs and teach that Jews and Christians are to be subdued and pay a “donot molest me” tax or killed?

3. Islamophobia-off 2012 – Rep. Diane Black managed to beat out Lou Ann Zelenik in the Republican primary in Tennessee thatbasically came down to an Islamophobia-off. The debate mostly centered around the planned mosque in Murfreesboro, which has become a lightning rod for anti-Muslim sentiment in the area and across the country. In fighting the mosque, Black charged that communities need to protect themselves from the “jihadist viewpoint.” But Zelenik, the executive director of the reliably Islamophobic Tennessee Freedom Coalition, thought Black’s stance didn’t go far enough, firing back: “I will work to stop the Islamization of our society, and do everything possible to prevent Shariah law from circumventing our laws and our Constitution.”

Two intelligent Patriotic Americans.  Too bad both couldn’t be elected.

2. Joe Walsh (probably) causes a hate crime – Rep. Joe Walsh, the Tea Party darling poised to lose his seat in November, warned  in August that “a radical strain of Islam in this country … trying to kill Americans every week.” “It’s here. It’s in Elk Grove. It’s in Addison. It’s in Elgin. It’s here,” he added. Hours later, a man shot at a mosque in the district, narrowly missing a security guard outside as 500 people prayed inside.

All Islam is radical.  There is no moderate Islam.  There is only Islam or not Islam.  And, Patriot Rep Joe Walsh can not be held accountable for the actions of one misguided individual, nor is there any relationship to the truth he stated and the actions of the assailant. 

1. Michele Bachmann’s witch hunt – Then there’s the Tea Party queen herself, Minnesota Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann. Bachmann is facing a tighter-than-expected race against Democratic hotel magnate Jim Graves, and she has possibly even outdone herself this cycle with allegations that Huma Abedin, a senior aide to Hillary Clinton, is tied to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and potentially part of a conspiracy to influence U.S. policy through her position. Bachmann also used a speech at theValues Voters conference to fear-monger about President Obama’s policy in the Middle East: “The fact is this administration is virtually outlawed understanding who the enemy is and at every turn the enemy the president is persistent on apologizing for who we are as Americans,” she said.

Of course Huma Abedin is a terrorist sympathizer.  Every thinking informed person knows this fact as well.  Her ties to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood are not a secret.  And calling out the failed pro-islamist foreign policy of President Obama is again simply making a statement of truth.  Not one thinking knowledgable American is deceived into thinking Obama’s policies have been anything except a dismal failure.

 

October 22, 2012 Posted by | Christianphobia, Constitutional Issues, Islamorealism, Israeli-Palestinian Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Muslim Opinion Polls

Muslim Opinion Polls

A “Tiny Minority of Extremists”?

“Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be
unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination.”
Quran 9:73

Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and that only a “tiny minority of extremists” practice violence? That’s like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.

In truth, even a tiny minority of “1%” of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers – which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the “minority” of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn’t even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined.

The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in “discovering” agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern.

(These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active. We will continue adding to this).

Terrorism

ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html

NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06
http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY

People-Press: 31% of Turks support suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq.
http://people-press.org/report/206/a-year-after-iraq-war

YNet: One third of Palestinians (32%) supported the slaughter of a Jewish family, including the children:
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/06/32-of-palestinians-support-infanticide/
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4053251,00.html

World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans
32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans
41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans
38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans
83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose)
62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose)
42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose)
A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans:
(Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%)
About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf

Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah
30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah
45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative)
43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative).
49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative)
49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative)
39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative)
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Pew Research (2010): 15% of Indonesians believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
34% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified.
http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops.
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified.
35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall).
42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall).
22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall).
29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall).
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never).
28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never).
http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/muslim-americans-no-signs-of-growth-in-alienation-or-support-for-extremism/

Pew Research (2007): Muslim-Americans who identify more strongly with their religion are three times more likely to feel that suicide bombings are justified
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities.
27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate.
http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1956912005
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html

Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack.
http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police.
http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified.
37% believe Jews in Britain are a “legitimate target”.
http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist

See also: http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_(Terrorism) for further statistics on Islamic terror.
what does not surprise me is that these fools have created many societies that are crumbling. now include the many who have emigrated to far & distant lands, never to mix with different cultures. it helps to blame america & israel for the world’s problems, including their own. the results are the facts on the ground & the ever increasing deaths from around the muslim world. Mohammed must be proud — at Wadi Al Joz.

Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK – Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a new survey reveals.
English: Osama bin Laden interviewed for Daily...

English: Osama bin Laden interviewed for Daily Pakistan in 1997; behind him on the wall is an AK-47 carbine. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

July 23, 2012 Posted by | Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Video: Whitewashing Islam in Public Schools

See on Scoop.itIslam Revealed

via Stakelbeck on Terror The “Education or Indoctrination” report focuses on what students in grades 6-12 are learning about jihad, Islamic sharia law, Muhammad, Israel, 9/11 and much m…

See on creepingsharia.wordpress.com

May 8, 2012 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Facebook Adopts Sharia

FULL ARTICLE HERE: Facebook Adopts Sharia

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Greetings my fellow infidels.  It is my sad duty to inform you that Facebook has adopted sharia.  A bold claim to be sure, so here is the proof.   

Obama says “respect it!”  And Facebook says “don’t criticize it!”  What is the ‘it’ in question?!  It is sharia, the legal system associated with islam, a totalitarian political ideology disguised as a religion. 

One of the tenets of islam is that criticism of islam, mohammed and sharia itself are prohibited. 

May 7, 2012 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Official Palestine Quiz

Official quiz for all who want to understand the truth regarding the State of Israel, the Israeli people, the displaced arabs incorrectly called palestinians, Yesha  (the Gaza), Judea and Samaria (incorrectly called the West Bank due to its location on the westbank of the Jordan river), the Six Day War, etc.

May 1, 2012 Posted by | Politics/Government/Freedom, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Anti-Islam gathering in Dearborn protested, defended

See on Scoop.itIslam Revealed

Anti-Islam advocates from across the U.S. gathered Sunday in Dearborn for a conference to bring attention to what they say is a problem of Muslim honor killings.

See on www.freep.com

April 30, 2012 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

About The Investigative Project on Terrorism

See on Scoop.itIslam Revealed

About The Investigative Project on Terrorism…

See on www.investigativeproject.org

April 27, 2012 Posted by | Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muslims complain about cartoon in NY Post Newspaper

The complaints lodged against this cartoon in the NY Post newspaper includes the false accusation of racism.  Islam is NOT a race.   That the characters are emulating the founder of islam, mohammad seems to be also offensive.  Of course, mohammad did teach he was to be copied as the most perfect example of human behavior.

Fortunately, few follow this teaching or the world would be so much worse than it is.  Exponentially increased violence, aggression, all sorts of sexual pervasion including rape and child molestation, crimes of person and property, murder, etc.

Does the cartoon generalize, well sure.  The truth is that a terrorist can’t be identified by looks and can just as easily be “hidden amongst us”.  But, who wants to see a cartoon of a terrorist that looks like anyone.  It is the evil the dwells inside that provides the evil of terrorism, not any nationality or ethnic group or race.    This evil is islam.

February 25, 2012 Posted by | Pending Classification, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

SIOTW Interviews Walter Brown ADL Founder

SIOTW Interviews Walter Brown – ADL Founder

JANUARY 21, 2012

Open in new window

This is an interview with Walter Brown, founder of The American Defense League (ADL)

When and why did you get involved in the anti-Islamic movement?

I am not just opposed to Islam, I also oppose any and all philosophies which are detrimental to the founding (natural-law) principles of the United States. I took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic in 1986 when I joined the US military and again in 1987 when I was commissioned.  I am no longer in the US military but military oaths don’t have an expiration date.

Islamophobia is an irrational fear or prejudice towards Islam and Muslims. Are you an irrational Islamophobe?

I am not afraid of Islam; I am opposed to Islam because it has produced an uninterrupted track record of violence and repression traceable directly to the dictates and practices of Mohamed. Islam is a mess; it has been used as the justification for more murder and misery than any other political philosophy. If Muslims want to continue worshipping Islam, they need to reform it – and fast. The world is catching on to the true nature of Islam and the time to reform Islam and prevent the world from dealing with it like the world dealt with Fascism is running out. I could care less if people want to worship Mohamed’s philosophy as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others – which has clearly not been the case.  Mohamed spread Mohamedism with the sword and his minions continue to spread it using violence and every other criminal and repressive method known to man. I am neither irrational nor afraid – I am completely rational and opposed.
Did you receive any threats from Muslims or others because of your involvement in the anti-Islamic movement?

No, I don’t.  I don’t consider all or even most Muslims to be threatening; like most rational people I am opposed to the results of the same defective parts of Islam that any other reasonable person would be opposed to. I could care less about the clothes they wear, what they eat, where or how they pray – as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others.

What aspects of Islam do you find most problematic and disturbing?

I find the political and legal nature of Islam to be most problematic. Islam is an ideal system for establishing an absolute dictatorship, in that it entrusts total authority for governance in one individual empowered to decide any and all issues that are not specifically covered by Mohamed’s ramblings in the Koran or his personal idiosyncrasies found in the Sunnah. As Mohamed was extremely violent, vindictive and self-centered, his dictates and practices included many activities such as murder and robbery that were and still are wrong. To make matters worse, there are many situations that Mohamed didn’t specifically address and much of what he decreed wasn’t intended to establish broad legal principles but rather to provide narrow justification for the crimes he had just committed or intended to commit. Consequently, there are many undefined issues and no limits on the power entrusted to frequently self-appointed and violently installed religious leaders. All of which is an ideal machine for producing absolute theological dictators.
I am also troubled by the fact that the terrorist’s Islamic supremacy world view is a correct and logical conclusion that any serious methodical study of the Koran following tenets of Islam will produce. This is particularly troubling because it makes Islamic terrorism a self-starting phenomena, all you need to do is study, have the intelligence to understand what you are reading and the naiveté to think it’s true.

Do you think Israel is a good ally in the struggle against Islamization?

Israel is an important ally in this struggle, they have managed to survive a continuous Islamic onslaught since the first wave of Zionists began buying land and returning to Palestine to escape the pogroms in Eastern Europe in the 1880’s. Israel is a big thorn in the side of Islam because it is an economic success and by far the best place to live in the Middle East and it is very decidedly not an Islamic country. Israel’s sectarian western style government has produced a much better quality of life for its residents than any of its much larger neighbors including those with immense natural resource wealth, a fact that Islamists don’t want to be recognized. Islamists have made Israel and the US enemies number one and two, for this and many other reasons Israel and the US need to be strong allies. In general, Islam has chosen virtually the entire world as its enemy and there should be no shortage of allies – nor little chance of Islam prevailing once the other 80% of the world decides they have had enough of its antics.

Who is a moderate Muslim?

I suspect that most Muslims in non-Muslim societies are moderate. Studies have shown that Muslims become more fundamentalist as their demographic percentage increases, there is a ton of evidence to support this and I have no reason to doubt it.
Moderate Muslims, fortunately and contrary to their own claims, truly don’t understand Islam. They don’t see the whole picture because the mosques they attend fortunately and thankfully give precedence to the peaceful aspects of Islam and downplay the violent aspects. Unfortunately, virtually all of them teach that the Koran, which contains both peaceful and violent decrees, is the unadulterated word of god. Legally, the most recent positions abrogate earlier positions, which has the effect of giving the later violent decrees precedence over the earlier more peaceful ones.

Another group of moderate Muslims are those that recognize that Islam has serious problems and seek to reform it, these are extremely courageous individuals, what they are seeking to do is patently blasphemy and it is punishable by death in many places if not specifically by law then by mob justice.

Mohamed was not a moderate by any stretch of the imagination, he invented Islam and it’s safe to say he understood it. In the Koran, Mohamed established himself as the ideal model for a Muslim and that’s also a big problem considering his many immoral practices.

How do you see the future with current immigration policies? And what needs to be changed?

I worry about cutting off the escape route for Christians and Jews suffering persecution in Muslim dominated countries. Our immigration policies since 1965 have focused primarily on reuniting families, which caused the infamous “chain immigration problem”, versus providing an open door to persecuted peoples. It is more difficult for a Coptic Christian in Egypt to emigrate to the US than it is for a fundamentalist Muslim.  We need to stop being so politically correct and pretending that a person’s philosophical orientation isn’t important. I am not in favor of ending immigration from Arab, Asian or North African nations because they are exactly the place where the worst persecution is occurring. I am in favor of tighter restrictions on travel, temporary worker and student visas from all of these places and a more open policy towards victims of persecution. I don’t believe that any resident or citizen should expect the government to take care of them and it is exactly this welfare-state mentality that keeps America’s doors tightly shut to people that would be good to have in the US. Imagine the size of the pool of language and culture specialists that would be available to US military and intelligence services if we allowed more of the persecuted people into our country. These are people that really understand what is going on, where it is happening, who is doing it, when and why. The inscription on the statue of liberty explains what our immigration policy should be, open and welcoming to the down trodden victims of persecution and a brick wall to their persecutors.

What do you see as the biggest challenge when it comes to informing people about the dangers of Islamization?

Patience is the biggest challenge. It takes time to digest the facts and information needed to get to the bottom of the Islam problem. Trying to do something before you’re ready is a recipe for bad results. Most people, Americans included, don’t have a lot of time to study and understand the issue. There is a lot of sounds-good, feels-good, superficial denial and apologetic propaganda hiding the truth that a person must overcome before accepting the truly grotesque realities of Islam.
Allied soldiers that liberated the Nazi concentration camps literally couldn’t believe their eyes and they had seen a lot of death and killing before arriving there. Humans have a protective mechanism that blocks out things that are beyond our ability to deal with.

Islam is the biggest mass murdering philosophy in the world, it has been the proximate cause for the systematic killing of well over 270 million people. Nothing else even comes close, for comparison purposes, Communism (Marxism & Socialism) has less than half as many victims at 110 million (median estimates).
During WWII, few people were able to accept let alone believed the rumors about the holocaust because it was too horrible to accept, and this is part of the problem we face in informing people about the dangers of Islam. It’s a completely foreign subject, it takes time to assimilate and the nature of the material naturally turns a lot of people away.
To help people overcome these barriers, we focus on publishing current news, historical and analytic articles associating terrorism, genocide and other human rights violations with Islam to provide an overwhelming and irrefutable causal connection between them. It is our belief that Islam as it currently exists is unacceptable and incompatible with civilized society, moreover it won’t change on it’s own, it’s going to take massive public pressure. We aim to help people understand what Islam really is and help bring about change.

What do you say to people calling you a racist or a Nazi because you oppose Islamization?

Doesn’t happen very often, I just ignore it. Considering that the Nazis and Islamists were partners it doesn’t make much sense to call someone a Nazi for opposing Islam.
There are a number of people working together as administrators on our FB page and we work hard to keep racist sentiment off our wall. We have deleted tons of followers for making racists comments. We’re not playing baseball, you don’t get three strikes if you make racist or violence inciting comments your history. We are also not a debate group, if someone wants to defend the merits of Islam they can do that on their own wall or page.

Do you think mainstream media is pro-Islam biased?

I think the mainstream media is out of touch with reality and in denial. Those that understand don’t want to touch this issue because it’s a political hot-potato and being seen as coming out against Islam is taboo for our mainstream media which jumps onto the bandwagon of every cause that has a chance of helping them advance their Socialist/Marxist world views even if they don’t recognize or admit that’s what they support. I think they work hard to hide the Islam connection to criminal activity in the same way they hide the juvenile to criminal behavior prevalent in all virtually the groups they favor.
They think they are doing Muslims a favor by helping them hide their problems when they are in actuality just depriving them of moral support that they need to reform Islam.

Muslims want to use Sharia (Islamic law). In what way does it clash with our Western civilization and our laws?

The degree to which Muslims want to live under Sharia law is not universal and if you pick and choose the ordinances it could be quite reasonable; the problem is, it is general public doesn’t get to pick the ordinances and it isn’t their opinion that matters. What matters is their religious leaders interpretation of Sharia and consequently passivity can turn to aggression overnight. Full blown Sharia doesn’t recognize equality and as such it is fundamentally incompatible with all Western civilization, it also doesn’t accept the validity of any contradictory laws.
A lot of people, myself included, have argued that teaching Islam is sedition. Unfortunately, it’s not the only seditious philosophy threatening the US and at least for the moment the likelihood of using a sedition strategy to constrain Islam is not good.

How do you see the future for ADL and how can ADL help stop islamization of America?

For the moment we are focusing on education I think that this the most effective thing we can do for now. We get calls to do EDL type events but I am very reluctant to do them because they would almost certainly end up doing more harm than good. As long as we’re not threatening anyone and just building a case against Islam in the court of public opinion, we are on solid ground. I am strongly opposed to hooliganism and getting a whole bunch of people together and riling them up over something that they can’t do anything about at the moment is worse than short sighted, it’s dangerous. This is how the Pogroms of Europe and Asia and the KKK got started. We are opposed to Islamists in part because they do this kind of thing, if we will not stoop to their level.

Is Islam a religion of peace? 

Islam is neither a religion nor is it peaceful. There are a lot of peaceful Muslims that practice a limited, technically-incorrect and consequently blasphemous form of Islam that is peaceful, but there are also entire countries that commit immense violence up to and including crimes against humanity because it is not only justifiable but the duty of faithful followers of Mohamed.
Muslims still consider Korans to be the unadulterated word of god even with all of the internal and external contradictions. Considering that God is all knowing and Korans provided contradictory answers to the same question based on which ever position was more convenient for Mohamed at that moment, the net effect of all this effectively makes god a liar or Islam a fraud.
The Italians removed tax-exempt status for Islam because it was becoming too much to pretend that it was a religion and not a political organization. Islam is the philosophy that operates numerous countries, it has religious aspects but calling it a religion is like calling an invading army a benevolent organization because it serves free lunches to its soldiers.

Visit ADL’s site!

Join ADL’s Facebook Page! 

January 22, 2012 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Islam’s doctrines of deception

The below article from the The Middle East Forum reveals in vivid details the truth regarding Islam’s official policy of deception and lying to achieve its end of spreading itself and achieving a world wide caliphate in which all non-muslims are forced to convert or killed.

When ever a website or any media exposes any truth that puts Islam in its true light, muslims immediate dismiss it as a “hate” site.  Obviously, they HATE the truth being revealed.  Even this blog has been called a hate site for exposing the truth.  That is really a compliment as it shows that the truth on this blog has touched the accusers in some small way with the truth. (For a further understanding of the Islamic “hate” card being played please see:   http://paulmarcelrene.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/islamophobia-watch-website)

In any case, the The Middle East Forum is a respected and fair website and I recommend it for the article below and every other article I’ve read on it for its accuracy.

The Middle East Forum

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst
October 2008

To better understand Islam, one must appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of the religion. According to sharia (Islamic law) every conceivable human act is categorised as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory.

“Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. Only what Allah (through the Quran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the Hadith) have to say about any given issue matters; and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists – collectively known as the ulema, literally, “they who know” – have articulated it.

According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as ‘taqiyya’, based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.

Origins of taqiyya

As a doctrine, taqiyya was first codified by Shia Muslims, primarily as a result of their historical experience. Long insisting that the caliphate rightly belonged to the prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali (and subsequently his descendents), the Shia were a vocal and powerful branch of Islam that emerged following Muhammad’s death. After the internal Islamic Fitna wars from the years 656 AD to 661 AD, however, the Shia became a minority branch, persecuted by mainstream Muslims or Sunnis – so-called because they follow the example or ‘sunna’ of Muhammad and his companions. Taqiyya became pivotal to Shia survival.

Interspersed among the much more numerous Sunnis, who currently make up approximately 90 per cent of the Islamic world, the Shia often performed taqiyya by pretending to be Sunnis externally, while maintaining Shia beliefs internally, as permitted by Quranic verse 16:106. Even today, especially in those Muslim states where there is little religious freedom, the Shia still practice taqiyya. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Shias are deemed by many of the Sunni majority to be heretics, traitors and infidels and like other non-Sunni Muslims they are often persecuted.

Several of Saudi Arabia’s highest clerics have even issued fatwas sanctioning the killing of Shias. As a result, figures on the Arabian kingdom’s Shia population vary wildly from as low as 1 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. Many Shias living there obviously choose to conceal their religious identity. As a result of some 1,400 years of Shia taqiyya, the Sunnis often accuse the Shias of being habitual liars, insisting that taqiyya is ingrained in Shia culture.

Conversely, the Sunnis have historically had little reason to dissemble or conceal any aspect of their faith, which would have been deemed dishonorable, especially when dealing with their historic competitors and enemies, the Christians. From the start, Islam burst out of Arabia subjugating much of the known world, and, throughout the Middle Ages, threatened to engulf all of Christendom. In a world where might made right, the Sunnis had nothing to apologise for, much less to hide from the ‘infidel’.

Paradoxically, however, today many Sunnis are finding themselves in the Shias’ place: living as minorities in Western countries surrounded and governed by their traditional foes. The primary difference is that, extremist Sunnis and Shia tend to reject each other outright, as evidenced by the ongoing Sunni-Shia struggle in Iraq, whereas, in the West, where freedom of religion is guaranteed, Sunnis need only dissemble over a few aspects of their faith.

Articulation of taqiyya

According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: “Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream…Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.”

The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.)

Al-Tabari’s (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels'] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them… Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.”

Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels'] evil, may protect himself through outward show.”

As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s companions. Abu Darda said: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Al-Hassan said: “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment [in perpetuity].”

Other prominent ulema, such as al- Qurtubi , al-Razi, and al-Arabi have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Muslims can behave like infidels – from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses to even exposing fellow Muslims’ “weak spots” to the infidel enemy – anything short of actually killing a fellow Muslim.

War is deceit

None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception. For instance, Muhammad permitted deceit in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties; husband to wife and vice-versa; and in war (See Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an “authentic” hadith).

During the Battle of the Trench (627 AD), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes collectively known as “the Confederates”, a Confederate called Naim bin Masud went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered the Confederates were unaware of Masud’s conversion, he counseled him to return and try somehow to get his tribesmen to abandon the siege. “For war is deceit,” Muhammad assured him.

Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowledge that he had switched sides and began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded and lifted the siege. According to this account, deceit saved Islam during its embryonic stage (see Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).

More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception with respect to non-Muslims is the following account. A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, had offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse about Muslim women. Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?”

A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed.

Maslama traveled to Kab and began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough for Kab to take him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab’s guard was down, they assaulted and killed him. They ran to Muhammad with Kab’s head, to which the latter cried: “Allahu akbar” or “God is great” (see the hadith accounts of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Sad).

The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the “best deceiver” or “schemer.” (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.

The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia’s worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses “revealed” later in Muhammad’s career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.

Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.

According to this standard view, circumstance dictates which verses are to be implemented. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh.

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.

However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”

The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam’s dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: “In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the “peace-treaty” (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427).”

This might be what former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat meant when, after negotiating a peace treaty criticised by his opponents as conceding too much to Israel, he said in a mosque: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.”

On several occasions Hamas has made it clear that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel destroyed. Under what context would it want to initiate a “temporary” peace with the Jewish state? When Osama bin Laden offered the US a truce, stressing that “we [Muslims] are a people that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying,” what was his ultimate intention?

Based on the above, these are instances of Muslim extremists feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to bide time.

If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world – which need not be physical, as radicals among the ulema have classified several non-literal forms of jihad, such as “jihad-of-the-pen” (propaganda), and “money-jihad” (economic) – and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty to the infidel to further their war efforts, offers of peace, tolerance or dialogue from extremist Muslim corners are called into question.

Religious obligation?

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.

Bin Laden castigated them, saying: “As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most High’s Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – till you believe in Allah alone’ [Quran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility – that is battle – ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi – a non-Muslim subject living as a "second-class" citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.”

This hostile world view is traceable to Islam’s schools of jurisprudence. When addressing Western audiences, however, Bin Laden’s tone significantly changes. He lists any number of grievances as reasons for fighting the West – from Israeli policies towards Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women and US failure to sign the Kyoto protocol – never alluding to fighting the US simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. He often initiates his messages to the West by saying: “Reciprocal treatment is part of justice.”

This is a clear instance of taqiyya, as Bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault garners him and his cause more sympathy. Conversely, he also knows that if his Western audiences were to realise that, all real or imagined political grievances aside, according to the Islamic worldview delineated earlier, which bin Laden does accept, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be compromised. As a result there is constant lying, “for war is deceit”.

If Bin Laden’s words and actions represent an individual case of taqiyya, they raise questions about Saudi Arabia’s recent initiatives for “dialogue”. Saudi Arabia closely follows sharia. For instance, the Saudi government will not allow the construction of churches or synagogues on its land; Bibles are banned and burned. Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Muslim converts to Christianity can be put to death in the kingdom.

Despite such limitations on religious freedom, the Saudis have been pushing for more dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. At the most recent inter-faith conference in Madrid in July 2008, King Abdullah asserted: “Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions.”

Days later, it was revealed that Saudi children’s textbooks still call Christians and Jews “infidels”, “hated enemies” and “pigs and swine”. A multiple-choice test in a book for fourth-graders asks: “Who is a ‘true’ Muslim?” The correct answer is not the man who prays and fasts, but rather: “A man who worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the infidels”. These infidels are the same people the Saudis want dialogue with. This raises the question of whether, when Saudis call for dialogue, they are merely following Muhammad’s companion Abu Darda’s advice: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them”?

There is also a philosophical – more particularly, epistemological – problem with taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophet’s example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education. Deception becomes second nature.

Consider the case of former Al-Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammad. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terrorism network, Mohammed’s confidence at dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. People who knew him regarded him “with fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism”, according to Steven Emerson. Indeed, this sentiment sums it all up: for a zealous belief in Islam’s tenets, which, as has been described above, legitimises deception, will certainly go a long way in creating incredible self-confidence when deceiving one’s enemies.

Exposing a doctrine

All of the above is an exposition on doctrine and its various manifestations, not an assertion on the actual practices of the average Muslim. The deciding question is how literally any given Muslim follows sharia and its worldview.

So-called “moderate” Muslims – or, more specifically, secularised Muslims – do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, “radical” Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39).

November 23, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: