Recent efforts to torpedo the New English Review’s symposium on “Understanding the jihad in Israel, Europe, and America” were unsuccessful. The recent Nashville Symposium was a great success.
The symposium was originally intended to be held at the Loews Vanderbilt hotel formerly considered a superior establishment; no longer. With contract in place and arrangements made months in advance, the management of the formerly respectable Loews Vanderbilt hotel cancelled the event only four days before it was to begin. One can only assume that the purpose of the cancellation on the part of the formerly respectable hotel previously mentioned at that late date was to cause the symposium to fail (i.e., cancelled). They were unsuccessful.
With attendees from across the United States and Europe and speeches by world class scholars and writers, the New English Review symposium was a very special event that the city of Nashville and the formerly respectable hotel should have welcomed with open arms. The Symposium does a great honor to the city of Nashville and speaks volumes about the quality of scholarship and leadership that currently resides in this great city. There could be few events anywhere in the world on the subject of political Islam, its doctrine, purposes, strategies and tactics and the dangers that it presents to the west better than the New English Review symposium which ended last Saturday evening.
The issue of jihad across the world is not an issue whose existence is open to debate though those who prefer not to discuss it would like to shape the debate on such terms. It is not a debatable matter; Islam is at war with the West; the doctrine of Islam is antithetical to women’s rights, the rights of the individual, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the essential concepts that are the foundations of American liberty. The only debate on the matter is if one accepts reality or if one does not. For those who accept reality and can see that jihad is happening, and growing and that we in the United States are under threat by it then the Symposium was for you. For those who do not believe that jihad is real, who do not listen to the followers of Islam who talk about jihad then kill in its name then the symposium would have been an eye-opening experience.
This is the crux of the matter, to open the eyes of the people of the west, to all non-believers (kafirs) as to the existential threat that jihad and Islam represents. We believe the adherents of Islam when they say that no other religion or political system is acceptable other than Islam. We have evidence upon evidence that proves the point, and no contrary evidence that shows that they are lying. Jihadists, those who supposedly have “hijacked” Islam do not make up doctrine to then follow; they do not make up stories of Mohammed to then emulate – there is no need. The doctrine of Islam is clear, the jihad against us is obvious and what is at stake is simply… everything.
The event kicked off on Friday evening with a reception and gathering. All the speakers were present at the reception. This was a fantastic opportunity to speak informally with some of the finest scholars of Islamic doctrine, history, politics, tactics, and strategies working and writing today. The feeling at the reception was informal and friendly with new friendships and associations being made.
Saturday’s schedule was an aggressive one with lectures and panel discussions the entire day from 9am and ending in the late evening with a pre-recorded greeting by Geert Wilders the famous Dutch politician (and creator of the important documentary “Fitna“). Noted for his outspoken and entirely accurate views on Islam, Wilders is one of very few politicians and public figures in the world today ringing the bell of warning about the Islamization of Europe and the US and the existential danger that Islam represents to the west.
Wilders made the case that Islam is imcompatible with democratic concepts of freedom, tolerance, and individual rights. As the final event of the day, Wilders’ speech reiterated the message given by every speaker – that of rising concern with the growth of Islam across the west and its inherent antagonism towards all cultures that are not Islam. It does not matter that, as president Obama says, “We are not at war with Islam.” What matters is that they are at war with us.
The staff and writers of New Enlish Review educated the audience on current events in the United States, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Islamic history, doctrine, politics, and terrorism was also covered in detail. In light of the negative opinion held of all non-Islamic societies by the doctrine of Islam and those who follow it, the news of increasing immigration from Islamic countries to the United States was particularly alarming. At the least the United States government should more strictly limit if not entirely freeze immigration from all countries that are under Islamic domination.
At a time in our not-so-distant past we were very choosy about who could come to this country and partake of the opportunities and freedoms available here. We fundamentally want people who will come here and become Americans, who will assimilate and adhere to our laws and customs; we do not want people whose ideology tells them that they owe no allegience to any political system other than Islam; that they cannot befriend Jews and Christians; that unbelievers are to conquered, converted or killed; that all host countries and cultures must eventually submit to Islam and that the host system must be overturned and replaced by Islam. Our unfettered immigration policies, particularly those that open our doors so wide to those who adhere to an ideology whose purpose is our destruction is nothing short of national insanity and cultural suicide.
Indepth analysis on political, cultural and international issues including review and analysis of Islamic doctrine, history, and politics was delivered throughout the day. For those in the audience with a deep background on the subject of political and religious aspects of Islam to people quite new to the issue there was a great deal to learn.
Compliments are due to the editors and staff of New English Review for their highly successful symposium held under intense pressure by the last minute cancellation of the management of the original venue (a once respectable hotel). One can only think that moral and ethical cowardice are the foundations of their decision to cancel this event almost literally at the last moment which had been arranged months in advance. Breach of contract is a serious matter, one would think.
Among several stories on the web regarding this event, these are among the first. If you have some interest to see the heated nature of the debate around even the discussion of political Islam, review the comments on one or all of the following.
New English Review is a strong pillar of the intellectual life of Nashville and of the country and beyond. The superb thinkers, analysts, educators, and writers who are published there are at the pinnacle of quality regarding history, politics, literature, religion, and most importantly, understanding and opposing the totalitarian ideology of political Islam. I hope that when the leadership of New English Review decide to have another symposium that they will again allow Nashville to host them, their writers and their readers.
Thank you to New English Review, their staff and writers, and everyone involved in this very special event, and to those who travelled many thousands of miles to attend this symposium in our excellent city. There is hope certainly when some of the finest minds in this field in the United States (and from beyond our borders) get together to educate on the subject of political Islam, the greatest threat to the west and to our freedoms and national identity. As one blogger is fond of saying “It’s not ‘Islamophobia’ when they really do want to kill you!”
The greatest difference between the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis in Germany and that of the endless Jihad against kafirs perpetrated by the so-called “religion of peace” is that the German Holocaust ended. Second only to the difference in longevity between these abominations is the body count.
The Nazis killed millions of innocent Jews, and millions of Russians and Europeans and Americans and British and French and people of many nations during the war in addition to all the millions of Germans they caused to die. Some say the total body count of WW2 is approximately 60 million. The death toll of universal Jihad courtesy of the “religion of peace” since its inception by Mohammed, the greatest example of humanity for all Muslims to forever follow is approximately 270 million.
Though the unity of these two holocausts is in the massive death that they brought to innocents, there is a great difference in how history and successive generations have chosen to deal with them.
There are thousands of books about the Nazi holocaust, there are few about the endess jihad of Islam. The jihad of Islam, “fighting in the cause of Allah” as the Koran puts it, is rarely spoken about. When jihad is discussed currently it is only in the context of “the hijackers” rather than the truth of jihad which is that it is a foundational component of the doctrine of Islam itself. Jihad is endless war against the unbelievers until the entire world is under Islam. This is the doctrine of Islam.
Jihad is fundamental to Islam, this is why 9/11 happened and countless acts of killing, violence, hatred, brutality before and since. We very rarely hear the truth of jihad and its core importance to Islam. When it is discussed in this way, those who discuss it are labelled as “racists” though Islam is not a race. The majority in the West cannot separate the political aspects of Islam from the religious, and this is exactly what Islam desires – the complete inability of kafir cultures to respond to jihad. Muslims are completely motivated for jihad; it is foundational to their doctrine.
“Jihadism is a message of salvation. For one to die in the cause of Allah is an assurance of salvation and entry to paradise.” (Walid Shoebat, Why We Want to Kill You, p51)
Islam is at war with all non-Muslim peoples and cultures, and all non-Islamic governments forever. This is in the Koran, Hadith, and Sira, the doctrine of Islam. Islam considers the kafirs losers who will burn in Hell forever. They are not to be given succor.
Then if they will endure, still the fire is their abode, and if they ask for goodwill, then are they not of those who shall be granted goodwill. (Koran, 42:24)
The great sin of the unbelievers is that they are not Muslim. If they are Jews and Christians, Islam is angrier with them because they rejected the Koran and the Prophet of Islam and retained their identities. Being a non-Muslim is one of the great sins of Islam.
Many Messengers who came before you were mocked. For a long time We allowed the unbelievers to go unpunished, but finally We punished them. Then how terrible was Our punishment! (Koran, 13:32)
Every day we see violence that is Islamic in origin. Only last week 4 American Islamic converts plotted to blow up a synagogue in New York. These men were converted to Islam in prison, the place where Islam is gaining its greatest ground in the United States. While this may not have been a suicide mission for these people, suicide killing is directly in line with Islamic doctrine, and is demonstrated in the actions of Islamists almost every day around the world.
“Some Westerners find it difficult to comprehend that Muslims aspire to die. So, they blame suicide bombings on poverty or human rights issues. But if poverty and human rights issues are the cause of suicide bombings, again we must ask, why do we never hear of a Palestinian Christian suicide martyr?” (Shoebat, p54)
The men in the bomb plot were violently angry, their anger mainly directed at the Jews. This again is directly in line with Islamic doctrine. Hatred of, and violence towards the Jews is foundational in Islamic ideology.
“They wanted to make a statement,” a law enforcement source said. “They were filled with rage and wanted to take it out on what they considered the source of all problems in America – the Jews.”
The group’s alleged ringleader, James Cromitie, according to the complaint, discussed targets with an undercover agent. “The best target [the World Trade Center] was hit already,” he allegedly told the agent. Later, he rejoiced in a terrorist attack on a synagogue.
“I hate those motherf—–s, those f—ing Jewish bastards. . . . I would like to get [destroy] a synagogue.” (NY Daily News)
The hatred of Jews in Islam is documented in both Islamic history and in Islamic doctrine. Mohammed hated the Jews, so all Muslims must do the same. Allah hated the Jews, so all Muslims must do the same. Mohammed viciously killed Jews, so Muslims must do the same. As Mohammed is the Prophet of Allah, and he is considered the finest example of humanity for all to follow forever, whatever Mohammed did those who follow him also do. This is not an ideology of right and wrong, but of expediency.
This confusion of morality is consistent throughout the doctrine of Islam. What is forbidden and allowed is by far more important than what is moral and what is immoral. The confusion is so ingrained that if Mohammed beheaded innocent people (he did), particularly Jews, then it is alright for Muslims to do the same forever. This is an ideology that is amoral.
It is an ideology of submission, admittedly so by those who submit to the doctrine and to Allah and Mohammed. (”Islam” means “submission”; a “Muslim” is one who “submits”.) Islam is a self-perpetuating ideology of violence and cruelty whose history and deeds are hidden in plain site, continuously ignored and covered over because Islam has its one god Allah so Islam is characterized as one of the three “great religions of the world”. But submission is not reserved for Muslims, the entire world of unbelievers must also submit as no other religion or political system is allowed in the doctrine of Islam.
We see the culture of death that is Islam every day. Yet we pretend it is not so. We use the “hijack” term to describe the horrors that its adherents commit from Pakistan to India to Israel, Iraq and in New York City and across Europe and the world.
We excuse it all because we cannot conceive that such an ideology of cruelty and conquest can be real. But it is.
“…In order to become a martyr, one must die, and by coming a shaheed, one would have an assurance of his or her salvation. In Islam, the idea of Christ dying for all humanity is rejected and is one of the reasons why Islam was founded. This is the major difference between Muslim salvation and Christian salvation; it’s not the death (and resurrection) of Christ which provides entrance into heaven, but your own death.” (Shoebat, p57)
How can an ideology that elevates death over life be a “religion of peace”? Our ignorance about the ideology of this brutal political system is our undoing. Why are kafirs are not allowed to study Koran (as commanded in Koran)? It is all so painfully obvious, and so brutally clear what is to happen to kafirs, that is why.
When we discuss Islam and its doctrine we are not discussing a race of people, as the Germans did the Jews during the Holocaust. Those who discuss and study the doctrine of Islam are not demonizing those who follow the doctrine; the doctrine demonizes itself. There is no issue in this discussion with individuals or races, only a doctrine that is hostile to our culture and way of life.
Those who speak of the Islamic causations of violence and terror, and honor killings and wife beating, and the implementation of Sharia law do so to warn our fellow Americans to an existential threat from a hostile political ideology.
The Jews of Germany had no agenda but to be “good Germans”; almost entirely assimilated the majority of the Jewish community in Germany absolutely refused to believe that the Holocaust was real even as they stepped inside the “showers” of Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, and Auschwitz and other killing centers (”concentration camps”). This ability to deny, this desperate need to deny is the foundation of our own denial ideologytowards this brutal political doctrine that is Islam.
So many in the West confuse the religion of Islam with its politics and ideology towards unbelievers; the majority of the Koran is not about how to be a good Muslim but is rather about how Muslims are to interact with unbelievers, the kafir. There are three choices for kafirs in the Koran- conversion, dhimmitude (semi-slavery), conquest/death. These are all choices that involve the complete destruction of American society, government, and religions. There is no Constitution under Islamic law but Sharia, the savage, barbaric law of the doctrine of Islam. Sharia is entirely contrary to every foundational concept of freedom that we Americans hold dear.
This is not a discussion about a race of people; this is a discussion of a brutal and cruel political ideology masquerading as a religion of peace whose followers are obliged to follow. If this ideology were inclusive rather than exclusive there would be little cause for discussion but curiosity; if the doctrine of Islam accepted other religions there would be no violence every day across the world. If this doctrine did not elevate death over life there would not be suicide murders almost every day. But it is all these things. It is our responsibility to ourselves and our country to study this doctrine and oppose it just as we did Nazism and Communism.
Many confuse this discussion with bigotry or racism. It was never bigotry or racism to discuss and oppose Nazis and Communists though both ideologies involved religious components of a cult of personality (similar to the elevation and concept of Mohammed in Islam).
This discussion involves the total acceptance of the fact that there are good people who follow Islam but who do not know the doctrine, and when they learn it – what will they do? They must make a decision that will affect their lives, and possibly the lives and deaths of others. And what of those Muslims who know the doctrine but are “devout” Muslims regardless?
When faced with an ideology of brutality, cruelty and a total lack of respect for women and the individual it is our duty to learn about it and tell others of the dangers that it represents.
We do not pretend that 9/11 and the myriad other Islamic attacks were not related to Islam, they were. As in Israel, the front line of global jihad, our culture celebrates and elevates life, the culture and ideology of Islam elevates death.
Can there be a reformation of Islam when the Koran with its exhortations to violence and hatred are the literal words of Allah? How can this reformation be done? It cannot be done by unbelievers.
Why are those who study Islamic doctrine dismissed as bigots and racists when the discussion is centered on the doctrine of Islam entirely? There is no desire to demonize any group of people in this discussion because of their race or national origin; there is no race hatred, no race bating, only a desire for the truth.
What is the doctrine of Islam really about? What does it mean to non-believers that over a billion people follow this doctrine? Is it not clear that the responsibilities of those who submit to Allah, Mohammed, and the doctrine are great? The word of the Koran is (in Islam) the literal word of god, Allah, and must be followed.
Unfortunately, for all non-Muslims, the word of the Koran (and the rest of the doctrine of Islam) says that Islam is at war with kafirs forever. This is important information, yes?
We live in a society with freedom of speech, this is guaranteed to us by our Constitution. While the Koran expressly forbids the kafir from studying Koran, we are not bound by this requirement. We are not bound by any Islamic, Jewish, or Christian requirements because we live in a secular state in which religion is separated from the church(es). Yet, we impose a self-censorship when it comes to Islam, why?
This censorship is encouraged by Islam and its apologists because it aids them in their mission and undermines our ability to understand and respond. There are no such strictures against discussing Nazis and Communists; are they a threat in the same definitive immediate way that Islam is a threat? No.
We claim to be interested in the past, yet learn little from it. We are obsessed with the future but are entirely unprepared for it because we cannot learn from history.
Faced with an existential threat we are comfortable instead discussing dead Nazis and their destroyed doctrine, and armaments and tactics and strategies but shush those who speak of Islam; we speak of the defeat of Communism with pride but refuse to discuss the ongoing victories of Islam and its cruel and thoroughly anti-human ideology as being impolitic, politically incorrect, unpopular, distasteful.
We must stop mislearning the lessons of history. We must discuss threats to our way of life whereever they are and in whatever form they take – to do otherwise is literally insane.
We cannot defend ourselves when we will not discuss the threat, name the threat, and talk of defense. We must value what we have then take steps to secure what we have as it of immense value and we want to pass it down to our children.
The history of jihad is lengthy, much longer by far than the history of democracy. Jihad has been highly successful across the world for millenia and longer. Jihad is deception, Mohammed said it was so. Deception is the tactic of an enemy in war. We must stop deceiving ourselves. It must stop here, now.
There is no Amish Jihad. There is no Jewish Jihad and no Christian Jihad. There is only Islamic Jihad. Why?
The failure to acknowledge the unpleasant truths of Islam, its intolerance, violence, cruelty, misogyny, and hatred is fundamental to multiculturalism. Moral relativism is multiculturalism. We are told that we cannot discuss Islam because Islam is a religion and that therefore what Islam is about is the business of Muslims only. This is a confusion of purpose and a lack of understanding of daily events whereby Muslims kill and abuse non-believers with Western multiculturalists defending their right to such activity on the basis of ”its their religion”.
The greatest mistake of President Bush’s administration was in stating that Islam is a “hijacked” “religion of peace”. The statement is false. Acceptance and tolerance of a political political ideology that is existentially opposed to everything that Americans say that they hold dear in the name of “tolerance” is national suicide and nothing less.
A recent ethical and core mission failure on the part of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is illustrative. Geert Wilders the Danish parliamentarian and creator of the film Fitna has been a lightning rod of controversy across the world for his outspoken views on the dangers that Islam and the ever-increasing Muslim population of Europe and in the US (and the concomitant shrinking of the populations of host countries) pose to the West. Wilders is only one of very few European politicians who are speaking out on these issue. He is several years ahead of the curve, though Europe is probably ten years late in responding to this very serious problem. At a recent speech in Florida Mr. Wilders was condemned by the state director of the ADL.
The Florida area director of the ADL, one Andrew Rosenkranz, attacked Wilders who has been speaking at synagogues across Florida. Rosenkranz condemned Wilders’ alleged “message of hate” which refuses to distinguish between the religion of Islam and Jihadism. A great many scholars of Islam would not affirm Mr. Rosenkranz’s simplistic bifurcation (however civic-minded). Making that distinction is, in fact, a far more difficult intellectual and theological undertaking than he recognizes. While in a narrow sense Islamism with a capital “I” is a recent historical development – we associate the derivation of the term with the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 under the leadership of Hasan al-Banna – Islamism/Jihadism has been a foundation stone of Islam from its inception, and any close reading of the Qur’an, the Hadith, or familiarity with the Sunnah or the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence makes the point incontestable.
The ADL’s embrace of tolerance for all includes tolerance for those whose ideology tells them to kill Jews wherever they are found. It is a moral and ethical failure to recognize a conflict between good and evil.
Without an apology by the ADL, the ADL’s effectiveness as a defender of Jews is at an end, and their new mission of defending liberal concepts of multiculturalism and inclusiveness has now come to the fore. The irony of defending those whose ideology promotes absolutism and intolerance under the banner of tolerance is likely lost on the leadership of ADL.
Americans confuse tolerance and inclusiveness far too often with a complete laissez-faire political and cultural milieux that simply does not exist; it pretends that the world is not what it is and immediately forgets 9/11, Mumbai, London, Paris, Beslan, Khobar, USS Cole, Pentagon, Flight 93, Kenyan embassies, Bali, etc.
This blind tolerance of intolerance is founded upon anti-intellectualism and a firmly held disconnect from the realities that surround us and of those forces of brutality and death whose goal is our destruction. Only a society in danger can actively defend those whose mission is the destruction of that society. We did not defend the rights of Nazis during the Second World War; we fought them.
We have dealt with absolutist and cruel ideologies in the past; and we have gone to war against those ideologies. Americans oppose ideologies that value death over life or, at least we did so in the past. Cultures that cannot identify cruelty and violence as something to be opposed are fertile ground for absolutist ideologies, be they cults or “religions”.
Many multi-culturalists and defenders of Islam, those who generally know nothing of Islam and its doctrine, often look to the Holocaust. They say that criticism of Islam is akin to the criticism of the Jews by the Nazis prior to the Holocaust. They say that criticism of a religion or group of people must then inevitably result in some horrible reaction against adherents of such groups.
But there is no underlying hatred of Muslims in the United States, nor in Europe, as there was extreme Jew hatred across Europe prior to the war, and now resurgent again today. The West opposed Communism and Nazism because the ideologies of these movements were fundamentally antagonistic to our own American culture and political system. These were ideologies of cruelty and expansion and a total deconstruction and debasement of the individual to the system. The doctrine of Islam is similar.
In Islam the individual Muslim is not alone with God. Instead, he is a “slave of Allah” and the rules of his mental and moral and other kinds of servitude are all set out in the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam. So you’ve Got Friends. Every Muslim is your new true-blue friend. And, because of how Muslims are taught to view the world, every Infidel who somehow makes problems for Islam, who insists, for example, on the right of free peoples in the West to exercise their freedoms — freedom of speech, freedom of conscience — is now your enemy. (Fitzgerald)
This is not to say that there aren’t nice Muslims; there are. This discussion is not about individuals but about a political ideology of warfare, conquest, cruelty, and intolerance.
Many Muslims know less of their doctrine than non-believers. But, since the Koran is the actual word of Allah the Koran cannot be changed, ever. Because the Koran is very clear that Jews are to be killed; that no religion can exist other than Islam; that Islam is at war with all unbelievers everywhere and forever; that those captured in war can be enslaved; that slaves can be raped and sold; that torture and brutality, theft, murder, pedophilia, and a demand for total submission to this doctrine by all adherents are fundamental requirements; and that leaving the religion is a sin punishable by death – what is the nice Muslim who does not know the doctrine to do when he/she finds out about it?
Because the doctrine of Islam is locked in time and cannot be changed or reformed, the nice Muslim must make a decision to behave according to the rules laid down by Allah and Mohammed in the Koran or become an apostate and leave the religion. For many, this is a very, very difficult decision. But many have left and are speaking out about the truth of Islam and its doctrine.
The context of world events in which cruelty and barbarism are seen daily as perpetrated by Islamists is the doctrine of Islam. The majority of the Koran is not about how to be a Muslim but is about how Muslims are to interact with non-believers. This means that Islam is a political ideology.
Because Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion adherents must behave towards the unbelievers as commanded by Koran (the never-changing perfect word of Allah) to war against them forever until they are conquered or until they submit to Islam. This means that an observant Muslim must embrace the political concepts and commands of the doctrine if they are to be a devout religionist in Islam and properly submit to Allah and the commands of Mohammed.
According to statistical analysis, “the amount of text in the entire Koran devoted to kafirs is 61%.” A kafir is non-believer, all non-Muslims are kafirs.
Defenders of Islam, mainly those who know nothing of the doctrine, say that the violence in the Koran is echoed by similar violence in the major religious books of Judaism and Christianity. This is not so.
The violence in the old and new Testaments is temporaryand localized; the violence in the doctrine of Islam is permanent and universal. Islam is always at war with the unbelievers, forever and everywhere; Islam is always desirous of the death of Jews, everywhere and forever; Islam requires kafirs to be conquered, converted, or killed, everywhere and forever. Those multiculturists and leftists who defend Islam and its doctrine usually know nothing of its doctrine and usually explain away all terror attacks and daily events of cruelty and violence done because of the doctrine of Islam as further evidence of the “hijacking” of Islam rather than further proof of its actual cruel and barbaric nature.
It is critical to bear in mind that Muslims cannot view the Qur’an as Westerners do their Holy Scripture as a smorgasbord from which to pick and choose in the interest of the most humane exegesis. In Islam, one cannot retain the nice bits and leave out the nasty ones. That’s because there’s no parallel between the status of the Qur’an in Islam and that of the Hebrew Bible in Judaism or the New Testament in Christianity. The great majority of Jews and Christians (excluding the relative handful of true literalists in both faiths) understand scripture as the divinely inspired words of human beings who were children of their time, whose values were historically conditioned. If an ancient text has become an ethical anachronism (such as passages in Leviticus recommending stoning homosexuals or adulterers) we no longer consider them binding. But Muslim believers see the Qur’an in very different terms. It is the literal word of God transmitted whole and perfect – perfect for all time – to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. It is thus an extension of God himself; the analogy would not be the Hebrew Bible or New Testament but rather to the Christian Eucharist. No human being can change what is written or reinterpret it in light of contemporary understanding. It is neither historically nor socially conditioned. What was true when the revelation was allegedly made to Mohammed in the seventh century is equally true now. Passages that strike a modern Western ear as utterly barbarous and malevolent – because they are – retain all their sanctity for an authority over believers. (Stephen Steinlight, FrontPage Magazine, source)
Defenders of Islam, those who say that Islam is “peaceful”, are generally unaware that there were previous holocausts perpetrated by Islam against Jews, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, and many other religions and cultures. The body count of jihadis in the hundreds of millions since the inception of this cruel ideology 1400 years ago. The extreme cruelty of Islam is ignored by multiculturalists who prefer to see Islam and the world itself as they would prefer it to be rather than acknowledge the truth.
Tolerance of ideologies that oppose our existence is not rational. Opposing an ideology that is brutal and cruel and intolerant itself is not hate-mongering or “racism” or “bigotry”. Islam is not a race.
The discussion of the doctrine of Islam, in particular Islam’s holiest book the Koran, holds all the answers. The cruelty of the Koran and its almost unbelievable commands to adherents for perpetual war, slaving, barbarity and hatred is too much for many in the West to accept. Every day we see proofs that the ideology of Islam is alive and well, and motivating many across the world to do deeds that we consider outside the family of humanity.
There are no Amish jihadis. If there were, would they hassle you with annoying encomiums of their religion and suggest strongly that you convert, and give you a headache? Yes. This is not the approach of Islam. In Islam, all kafirs(non-believers) must submit to Allah and Mohammed – they will not give you a headache, they will remove your head.
We have daily reports of the brutality of the ”religion of peace”, but many will not listen choosing not to believe it. Read the Koran yourself.
We have fought cruel ideologies in the past. We have faced Nazis and Communists, and destroyed them. We destroyed them because if we did not, they would destroy us.
All kafirs are to be conquered, converted, or killed. Any philosophy that raises death over life we have in the past and should today condemn and oppose. Amidst a devastating ideological war that involves the killing and brutalization of Jews, Christians, Americans, and non-believers across the world it is absurd that we should pretend that such a conflict does not exist.
Suggesting that this conflict is not real, and that Islam is the “religion of peace” is contrary to the doctrine of Islam and the daily activities and stated aims of those who submit to Islam. Suggesting that Islam is the religion of peace – hijacked, is akin to suggesting that there are Amish jihadists.
There is no Amish jihad.
Walid Shoebat, the former PLO terrorist, recently said about the Jews, “The sheep do not know the wolf, but the wolf knows the sheep.” It is not only the Jews who do not know the sheep, it is the majority of western society that does not oppose those whose mission is the destruction of everything that we hold dear. Our lack of knowledge of Islam is a moral failure, our failure to oppose cruelty and barbarity is the seed of our national destruction. Knowledge is the foundation of any response to this existential threat that is political Islam. Pretending that Islam is the “religion of peace” is a convenient sop for the majority but it is not so.
Too many in the West prefer to fight dead Nazis, and Amish jihadists while the real battle continues without them. The forces of Islamic jihad prefer that we fight Amish jihadists. If only we should be so lucky in that Islam’s foundation would be non-violence (instead of warfare and cruelty) like those concepts embraced by the Amish. We are not so blessed. We must accept the world for what it is, and the nature of Islam for what it is also. To do otherwise is national suicide.
The late 1970s conversion to Islam of Cat Stevens, the most popular singer-songwriter in the world at the time, came as no surprise to those who followed the deep threads of searching that he wove throughout his songs. Cat had always been a searcher, searching for “something” as was the popular motif during those days.
Always searching, he finally found what he didn’t know he had been looking for, Islam. His embrace of religion was the not-surprising conclusion to his extensive songbook of yearning and searching for “something”, his selection of Islam and his subsequent and continuing embrace of jihad is a profound disappointment and a deep betrayal of the entirety of western culture and the finer concepts of love and brotherhood, forgiveness and humanity about which he so consistently wrote and sang.
For me personally, I learned the guitar because of my affection for Cat Stevens’ music. I learned his songs, playing them for hours at a time. His conversion to Islam and his embrace of Islamic domination of all others; his support of the death of Salmon Rushdie, his financial support of terrorist organizations that eventually got him placed on a US “no-fly” list was a personal disaster to me. Owning all his records, and now CDs as I do, they sit now unlistened.
But it is also a cultural disaster for the world because his music was so stunningly beautiful and so indicative of acceptance and love. I do not listen to the music of pseudo failed artists who support global jihad - neither should you.
Last week, Cat Stevens played a venue in Los Angeles for the first time in 20 years. The review in the LA Times was sycophantic, fawning, and as out-of-context as it possibly could have been. There was no mention of his Islamism, Rushdie, terrorism links, nothing. They failed to mention this:
He also courted controversy by allegedly funding charities that were fronts for the Islamic militant group Hamas. Israeli authorities have barred Islam twice from entering the country because of his alleged ties to Hamas. (source)
There were some Hollywood glitterati in attendance. There is no question, his voice is astounding, but his ethics are revolting. The Hollywood types cared not a whit.
It was an invitation-only event, potentially a prelude to an actual concert tour, and the audience was dotted with celebs, including Josh Groban, Colin Farrell, Rosanna Arquette, Cameron Crowe and Jake (Body by Jake) Steinfeld.
In the now obvious theme of journalistic ignorance, intellectual dishonesty (bias) and white-washing the “reviewer” commented that Cat Stevens, now an entirely different entity named “Yusuf Islam” was not proselytizing but was “reconnecting” with his old fans who appeared to know nothing about his new self, or don’t care. The truth is that everything “Yusuf Islam” does in public is dawa, converting people to Islam with propaganda and falsehoods.
He also made it effortless for fans to reconnect with him personally, even for those who can’t fully comprehend the scope of his conversion three decades ago to the Islamic faith. His new songs reflect a perspective of one who, unlike Bono, has found what he’s looking for spiritually, but never in a proselytizing or patronizing way. (Source: LA Times)
Mr. Stevens/Islam is now two people; he is a man with a laudable past, a man who once embraced brotherhood and peace but now an emissary of a totalitarian ideology who embraces a brutal and intolerant way of life whose purpose is global expansion and the destruction of every culture and form of religion or government that is not Islamic. This is the doctrine of Islam, and as a total believer Mr. Stevens/Islam embraces this horrific ideology in its entirety.
In 2007, Mr. Stevens/Islam received an “award” from MEDEA for his work in bridging the gap between the Arab world and Europe. Unfortunately, the Islamic concept of “peace” only includes a world in which there are no other religions; this is the concept of “dar al-Islam”. There is only “peace” where Islam reigns; everywhere else is war “dar al-harb”.
Yusuf is being awarded the prestigious award as a result of the work he has done to increase peace in the world. (Source, Gates of Vienna)
Stevens/Islam said that he has read the Koran and that is why he converted to Islam, you know, for the message of peace that he found there. He said, in August, 2005, that
The message I picked up from the Qur’an was quite different. I found the light of knowledge and godliness shining from the verses and stories, linking mankind together as one family, regardless of color, status or nationality. It told me of the wondrous universal teachings of peace and unity advocated by the greatest of educators, people such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others. (source)
The Salmon Rushdie affair is illustrative of the profound change that has occurred within this person formerly known as Cat Stevens. Once a global spokesman for peace, understanding, tolerance, love, and goodwill, Mr. Stevens/Islam called publicly for the death of a writer whose book he does not approve (because his new “ideology” does not approve it). This is anti-art, anti-intellectualism, anti-creativity, and anti-human, all foundational principles of the doctrine of political Islam. This is the polar opposite of what Cat Stevens used to be.
May 22, 1989: The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.” …
He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ”I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.”
”I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is,” said Mr. Islam, who watched a preview of the program today and said in an interview that he stood by his comments. (source)
Interviewed on Larry King’s show in early October of 2004, Mr. Stevens/Islam let it “all hang out”.
“And the first thing that came so clear to me was this declaration in the belief in one God in this universe. You know, now that’s powerful. That’s powerful. Of course, in the Jewish faith, you know, that’s fairly well known but — but here, it was a universal approach. It wasn’t now, you know, if you like a racial approach where it was only owned by Arabs. The Quran was talking to me in terms of humanity. I’d never heard that before.
When I saw the name of Jesus and Moses, Abraham, along with the prophet Mohammed, of all these prophets mentioned in the Quran, that was quite startling. I never expected that.” (Larry King interview, transcript)
This is taqiyyah, sacred deception. Mr. Stevens/Islam must know that the Koran is very clear about universality, in that there isn’t any. Muslims are not allowed to befriend Jews and Christians and any unbelievers; the Jesus, Moses, and Abraham stories of the Old and New Testaments are lifted from the original holy books so that all of them are Islamic prophets in Islam. Mr. Stevens/Islam’s education in Koranic studies perhaps was not as thorough as it should have been. And, after all this time, one would think he would have done his homework and “caught up”. This is likely.
He is “caught up” now but he is no longer Cat Stevens the lover of humanity; he is now the creature “Yusuf Islam”, the perpetrator of deception and falsehoods, and the proponent of global jihad. There have been fewer more public transformations than his.
The Larry King interview performance is textbook taqiyyah.
KING: So a Muslim who commits terrorism is going totally against his faith?
ISLAM: Yes. I mean, this is obvious. And the Quran is very clear about it. You know, if you look at the teachings of Quran, which I learned when I became a Muslim, you know, what does it say? It says belief, you know, and good deeds. Well, you tell me how to do good deeds. Good deeds is prayer, it’s charity, it’s fasting, it’s speaking the truth. It’s being honest.
So you know, it’s an antithesis of what Islam stands for, and therefore, you know, we completely condemned it. It’s abhorrent.
And if you study the history of Islam — when it was correctly applied in this world, it was tolerant, there’s always the room for people of different faiths living together.
If only this were truth. It is not.
There is no tolerance in Islam for unbelievers, and little for Muslims themselves. The 1.5 million people fleeing the Taliban, the great implementers of the doctrine of Islam, is evidence of this. The doctrine is cruel and brutal to everyone, believers and unbelievers alike. Those who know it, flee.
The suggestion that Islam is tolerant is false. Islam is not tolerant of any other faith, culture or political system. Islam is a form of totalitarianism akin to Stalinism and Nazism. Mr. Stevens/Islam knows this, but he does not care. He is a believer, woe to the unbeliever. (Was “Woe to the Unbeliever” ever a Cat Stevens tune? No.)
A statistical study of Islam recently undertaken by Mr. Bill Warner shows that there is a peaceful component of Islam.
The Sirais Mohammed’s biography (sira is an Arabic word that means biography, but Sira is reserved for Mohammed) and has three versions by three authors. The most definitive is by Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by A. Guillaume as The Life of Muhammad….
Based upon the Sira, Islam is 2% peace, 28% argument and threats, and 70% jihad. If the Sira were a two-hour movie, then the peaceful part would last for nearly 3 minutes, the fist fights, brawls, arguments and threats would last 34 minutes and the killing would take up 83 minutes. But the movie ends with the beaten kafirs saying that they will do whatever Mohammed wants, if he will only stop the jihad. (Bill Warner, PoliticalIslam.com)
A great deal of the doctrine of Islam deals with the Jews. Islam does not like the Jews. The Jews rejected Mohammed’s prophethood, Mohammed hated them for it, so then do all Muslims. Mr. Stevens/Islam has another interpretation for those who know nothing of the matter.
KING: Does the Quran at all attack Judaism? I’ve never read the Quran, but I’ve heard this through the years that the Quran — parts of the Quran are anti-Semitic.
ISLAM: Well, I think part of the New Testament would be too if you analyze it. I mean, Jesus is reported at some point to have been correcting certain Pharisees and scribes and saying, oh you, whatever.
Of course, there are verses in the Quran which try to, if you like, correct maybe some deviations, but as far as the Jewish faith is concerned, let me tell you a verse in the Quran, a very important verse. It says: “Those who believe,” means Muslims in this case, “and those who are Judized (ph) and those Sadains (ph) and the Christians, whoever believes in God and the last day and does good works, no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve.”
That is a verse of the Quran, Larry. Now, a lot of people don’t get to that part. They look at some of the sections, which, yes, they talk about certain wars which took place. Again, some of those are historical and have to be read in context. But the general principle is that there is no compulsion in religion and life is sacred, simple as that.
Islam hates all non-believers (kafirs), but reserves a special hatred for Jews. There is this “PeaceTrain” for all unbelievers, it is a train to Auschwitz:
Koran, 2:191 – And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (source)
For the Jews, there are many doctrinal comments about killing:
Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’” Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (source)
Things are not much better for those who want to leave Islam. Islam is something like LaCosaNostra, or “the Company” – nobody leaves:
Koran: 4:089 – They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (source)
One wonders which Koran Mr. Stevens/Islam read when he converted to Islam. There is one Koran, wherein it says to kill Jews and hate the unbelievers and kill and hate those who want to leave Islam. There is but one God this God says the same, there can be no religion but Allah’s religion. All kafirs must convert, be enslaved, or die.
Where is the beauty in Koran? Perhaps there is some small speck left of what was Mr. Cat Stevens. Perhaps the Islamic concepts of charity are what got him so interested in Islam, interested enough to embrace its totalitarian concepts of existence. Many searchers finds absolutism attractive, this is likely what happened with Cat Stevens. It does not matter that Islam is opposed to everything he ever said, ever sang about prior to his conversion; what matters is that his searching is over, his questions (every one of them forever) are now answered, and he can rest.
You learn fasting. You learn — well, you might already be giving charity, but here you learn how to give — you have to give charity. It’s not a question of an option or a voluntary choice. You have to give charity. (Larry King interview, see above)
Islam believes in charity… but only for Muslims; the kafir, the unbeliever is not considered worthy of Islamic charity.
A person who calls himself or herself a Muslim might offer help to a kafir out of true generosity. But let’s closely examine the psychology of this event. The only way for a Muslim to give freely to a kafir is to not see him as a kafir, but as a fellow human being, an equal deserving compassion and empathy. But a kafiris not ever equal to a Muslim. Seeing humanity as one is contrary to the Islamic doctrine of kafir and believer found in the Koran. Humanity-as-one is a kafir concept, not an Islamic concept. ….
The zakat is the Islamic charity.
The zakat is to be given to eight categories: the poor, those short of money, administrative costs, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, slaves to buy their freedom, those in debt, jihadists, and travelers who need assistance. A kafir (a non-believer) is forbidden to receive money from the zakat.
So Islam, as a corporate body, does not give charity to kafirs. (Warner, PoliticalIslam.com)
What Mr. Islam has lost is his soul, what we have all lost is a great artist and humanitarian. Cat Stevens is gone, he is a wisp in YouTube movies and captured on CDs and LPs around the world. His lyrics are beautiful as are his guitar work, and singing. Mr. Stevens repudiated and abandoned the principles and moral/ethical concepts that are the foundation of his music and artistic output. So much of his lyrics talk of searching. Mr. Islam believes he is found, but he is truly lost.
Now theres a way and I know that I have to go away.
Koran, Jihad:
Koran, 3:156 – O you who believe, do not be like those who disbelieved and said of their kinsmen who traveled or mobilized for war, “Had they stayed with us, they would not have died or gotten killed.” GOD renders this a source of grief in their hearts. GOD controls life and death. GOD is Seer of everything you do. (source)
Koran, 3:157 – The forgiveness and mercy they, who die or are killed for Allah’s cause (jihad), will receive from Allah will be far better than anything they could have gained. If you die or are killed, then surely you will all be gathered before Allah.
Well, if you want to sing out, sing out
and if you want to be free be free
’cause there’s a million things to be
you know that there are, you know that there are
Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”
Qur’an (24:32) – “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…”
She must be hurt very badly.
Tell me what’s making you sadly?
Open your door, don’t hide in the dark.
You’re lost in the dark, you can trust me.
cause you know that’s how it must be.
Islam, Wife Beating
Koran, 4:34 - “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (source)
Muslim (4:2127) – Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”
Oh, baby, baby, it’s a wild world
I’ll always remember you like a child, girl
You know i’ve seen a lot of what the world can do
And it’s breakin’ my heart in two
Because i never wanna see you a sad, girl
Don’t be a bad girl
But if you wanna leave, take good care
Hope you make a lot of nice friend out there
But just remember there’s a lot of bad and beware
Islam - Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 years old, consummated the marriage when she was 9. In the Islamic doctrine whatever Mohammed has done, since he is the perfect example of humanity, is the right thing to do, even if it’s wrong.
Interview with Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-’Ubeidi, an Iraqi expert on Islamic law, which aired on Al-Rafidein TV on March 14, 2008:
Many criminals, the enemies of Islam, ask: “How could the Prophet Muhammad, at 52 years of age, marry ‘Aisha when she was only 8 years old, and consummate the marriage when she was 9 years old?” I say to them: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Why do you permit your young girls to fornicate? They consider it one of their liberties. Therefore, in these stupid countries, you rarely find girls aged 10 or 12 who are still virgins. They permit this. They have even legislated laws stating that if a girl is under the age of 18, and her girlfriend [sic] or whatever has had sex with her, she has the right to have an abortion. How can you permit the outcome without accepting the cause? Why do you allow your girls to have sex and say this is an individual liberty? It is okay to fornicate with girls there or force them to have sex, and so on, and they have the right to have an abortion. If you permit all this before the age [of 18], without a marriage contract and without any legal grounds – how come you forbid marriage? (source)
Everyone jump upon the peace train
Come on now peace train
Get your bags together, go bring your good friends too
Cause its getting nearer, it soon will be with you
Koran, endless war against unbelievers everywhere, universal Jihad
Koran, 2:190: – ..fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you…[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (source)
Koran, 4:89- …take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back [to their homes], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them… Koran, 4:91 – seize them and kill them wherever you find them…(source)
Koran, 5:51 – Oh, believers, do not take the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you takes them for his friends, he surely is one of them. Allah will not guide the evildoers. (source)
There is no Peace Train; there is only Universal JihadTrain. This is a train that must be derailed. Cat Stevens is gone, don’t let Yusuf Islam tell you otherwise.
What is Lost
What Remains
Note: This is not Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, the placard represents the belief system of his adopted ideology. Cat Stevens is gone.
The violent conflict between orthodox and non-orthodox Islam that is ongoing in Pakistan is instructive. If the purpose of Islam is to live life according to the Koran, Sunna, and Hadith, and follow the perfect example of Mohammed, why do hundreds of thousands flee the Taliban, instead of embracing them as they advance on the capitol?
According to M. A. Khan, author of Islamic Jihad, the Talibanization of Pakistan is nothing less then the fulfillment of the founders’ vision of that country. Khan suggests that the failure of Pakistan’s government and conquest of the Taliban are essentially “inescapable”.
“Pakistan” means “land of the pure”. In Islam, non-Muslims are filthy, impure (Quran 9:28). So the name “Pakistan” was carefully chosen to make it exclusively an abode of a pure people, Muslims—completely disconnected from the filthy non-Muslims. And Jinnah’s tool to create this pure, organically Islamic, state was “Jihad” or holy war: he tried to emulate Prophet Muhammad’s model of Jihad that he had applied to create the first Islamic State in Arabia by slaughter, expulsion, enslavement and forced conversion of the infidels en masse. (M. A. Khan, Talibanization of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers, Islam-Watch.org)
Khan, one of the top scholars of Islamic history and jihad explains that the purpose of Pakistan was to be a “pure” Islamic state. The purpose of the Taliban is to be the purest Islamic movement. It seems a perfect fit; a purist Islamist movement is significantly challenging the non-purist Pakistani government for supremacy.
The recent treachery of the cancellation of the Swat Valley peace agreement after the Taliban was granted ownership of that region and the right to implement Sharia law is easily understood in the context of Islamic history and from the actions of Mohammed himself.
In Islam, if Mohammed “did it”, because Mohammed is the perfect example for all humans to follow, then it is “good” and something that should be emulated; it’s ok for you to do it, too (if you’re a Muslim – in fact, Mohammed is your model). If Mohammed breached a treaty, then so can you, and that is exactly what the Taliban did after they got what they wanted in Swat. When Islam is strong, it is to be unrelenting and unforgiving; treaties are a means to an end, and the end is not peace. the “end” is the total supremacy of Islam. Khan shows that Pakistan is now fulfilling its original purposes.
Pakistanis have been fooled for too long by Jinnah [Muhammad Ali Jinnah, one of the "founding fathers" of Pakistan] to begin with, depriving them of a truly Islamic state. Thanks to the Taliban, they are about to realize their ‘dream state’, for which they relentlessly fought and sacrificed immensely. On this, the words of Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the ever-honest leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, is most instructive:
“Complete Islamisation of Pakistan has been the genuine and long-standing demand of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Not only that, it is also the appropriate answer to the lurking fears of Talibanisation, growing rapidly with every passing day, as a natural response to the suppression of this public demand at the state level.” (M. A. Khan, Talibanisation of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers, Islam-Watch.org)
If, as Khan suggests, the current rise of the Taliban in Pakistan is the fulfillment of the original concept of the kind of Islamic state that Pakistan was always meant to be – why then are so many thousands of Pakistanis fleeing the Taliban? The answer is that though Islamic doctrine is a monolith, the implementation of it is not.
Speaking to thousands of followers in an address aired live from Swat on national news channels, cleric Sufi Mohammed bluntly defied the constitution and federal judiciary, saying he would not allow any appeals to state courts under the system of sharia, or Islamic law, that will prevail there as a result of the peace accord signed by the president Tuesday.
“The Koran says that supporting an infidel system is a great sin,” Mohammed said, referring to Pakistan’s modern democratic institutions. He declared that in Swat, home to 1.5 million people, all “un-Islamic laws and customs will be abolished,” and he suggested that the official imprimatur on the agreement would pave the way for sharia to be installed in other areas. (Washington Post, 4/20/2009)
It is clear that though the doctrine of Islam commands adherence to Sharia and the law of Allah and Mohammed as forwarded to all the world by jihad; not all Muslims embrace this idea. Because they do not embrace this idea, they are considered something less than Muslim by orthodox absolutist Muslims like the Taliban.
It would be wrong to think that all Muslims adhere to the ideology of jihad for, in fact, many Muslims reject it. Some have fallen victim to it, as is the case in Algeria, where jihadists carry out violence against moderates in an attempt to enforce Shari’a (Islamic law). There are many other Muslims around the world fighting for values of freedom.(Bat Ya’or)
The brutality of life under the Taliban was clear to the world, prior to the American invasion of that country in 2001. The Taliban are the strictest adherents to Sharia and insist on a literal interpretation of the commands of Allah and the doctrine of Islam. This is orthodoxy, but it is also moderation (this is duality, fundamental to Islamic doctrinal logic) as implementation of Sharia and the rule of Allah is commanded in the doctrine.
The Koran is clear on these points.
“We bring misfortune to mankind in turns so that Allah can discern who are the true believers, and so that We may select martyrs from among you.” Koran, 3:140
“If you follow the unbelievers, they will cause you to reject the faith and lead you to eternal damnation.” Koran, 3:149
“Anyone who opposes the Messenger after having received Our guidance and follows a path other than that of the true believer will be left to their own devices. We will lead them into Hell, an evil home.” Koran, 4:115
Muslims who are not as exacting in their implementation of Koranic law are not considered proper Muslims by the Taliban. Therefore, the Taliban can make war upon them to bring them into alignment with the way of Islam as it is written in the Koran, Sira, and Hadith.
In fact, people under the Taliban who are outside of the doctrine of Islam often face the death penalty. The brutality of the Taliban has made the world cringe since their activities in Afghanistan became widely known prior to 9/11. Cruelty is an ongoing theme in the Islamic world. This is the way of Mohammed, if Mohammed was cruel, then so can Muslims be cruel as Mohammed is the perfect example of humanity for all Muslims to follow. This is particularly seen often with torture and beheading cases across the Islamic world. The recent case of the torture video that shows a UAE prince brutally torturing a man (a fellow Muslim) is only the most current in this nauseating, anti-human theme of cruelty that runs throughout Islamic history and current practices.
Daniel Pipes, noted authority on Islamic and Middle East politics and culture wrote recently on this case,
That cruelty, usually at a remove from outsiders, became cinematically vivid on April 22, 2009, when ABC News aired a tape of a prince from the United Arab Emirates sadistically torturing an Afghan merchant he accused of dishonesty. No less instructive were the passive reactions of his government and of American officials. The story reveals much and is worth pondering. (The Culture of Cruelty, Daniel Pipes, May 15, 2009)
When put in context of Pakistan and the cruelty of the Taliban against their fellow Muslims, the UAE torture tape is illustrative. It does not matter that the torture victim in the tape is a fellow Muslim, just as it does not matter in Swat, or anywhere in Pakistan that a victim of Taliban brutality is a fellow Muslim. Islam is a brutal ideology to both believers and non-believers.
Cruelty is at the foundation of Islamic doctrine. Mohammed tortured people, so the UAE prince feels it’s alright to torture. This is the way of Mohammed, the perfect example for all Muslims to follow.
“Muhammed therefore ordered his fellow Zabeer Bin Awwam to torture Kinanah until he confessed. He burned Kinanah’s chest and body until he fell unconscious. When Kinanah woke up, Muhammed ordered another follower called Muhammed Bin Mosalamh to torture Kinanah and eventually behead him. (Bukhari,6947; quoted in Living by the Point of My Spear” by Zaki Ameen, p116)
Islam is totalitarianism. When Islam is implemented according to the doctrine it is a system of cruelty and injustice that is rarely if ever surpassed for brutality. Those unfortunate enough to live under Sharia know its cruelties and savageries. We see the Taliban and their cruelty, and its defense in Islamic doctrine. The United States drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan just for this brutality and savagery as well as their support of the terrorists/jihadists who attacked the US on 9/11. We are not the only ones who watch the Taliban with growing concern.
Those whose fate it will be to live under Taliban orthodoxy flee in the hundreds of thousands to escape a form of civilization whose cruetly and violence is mandated in the doctrine of Islam. The fact that the civilization they flee is their own, is cause for deep reflection in the Muslim world, and a cause for hope in the west. The New York Times puts the number of those fleeing the Taliban at 1.3 million. The high cost of jihad has been documented.The cruelty of Islam comes directly from the doctrine. The brutality of its followers can be seen daily.
Mr. John David Lewis, in a lecture presented at the Ayn Rand Institute’s OCON conference “The Jihad Against the West,” in Boston, MA, on October 21, 2006 states the case quite clearly. He explains why political Islam is inherently contrary to freedom and the rights of individuals, and why everything in the world is subsumed to the purposes of jihad and the spread of this cruel ideology as described in the doctrine of Islam. This is why the people of Pakistan flee the Taliban.
A government that turns its force against its own citizens, especially to impose an ideological doctrine on them, subordinates the rights of individuals to the demands of the State. This is statism—the elevation of the State over the individual, and the inversion of the very purpose of government. Statism is the greatest killer in history—dwarfing all attacks by criminals—precisely because it is motivated by some form of mystical political ideology. Because statists claim an authority that is above the rights of man—whether the Fuehrer’s master race, the communists’ dialectic, or the theocrat’s God—they do not recognize the principle of individual rights or the self-ownership of men on earth; rather, they claim the right to rule men, and to kill with impunity anyone who disobeys the ideology or regime.
…The all-encompassing, totalitarian nature of Islamic Law—its claims to divine origin, its commitment to uphold “Allah’s” will, and its ultimate goal of making everyone on earth submit to it—leaves no room for individual rights or freedom. This code is barbaric and tribal, frozen in time for over a thousand years, not open to rational scrutiny but only to unquestioned obedience (as the Indonesian cleric emphasized). To impose this primitive code by force is to inject religion into every aspect of human thought and action—which is the ultimate goal of Islamic Totalitarianism. (Source)
If Muslims reject Talibanism and flee from them, preferring not to live under their rule, what then does this mean about the nature of Islam itself? Hundreds of thousands of people are running from the Taliban but the Taliban promises a true implementation of the commands of Allah and Mohammed. Wouldn’t most if not all Muslims want to live in this way, live according to the foundational concepts of Islam and the commands of Allah and Mohammed? Apparently, the answer is “No”.
The Taliban is extraordinarily unattractive because of their rigidity, brutality, and totalitarian absolutism. There are fewer less attractive political groups in the world today. But the Taliban are Islamic foundationalists, they implement what they are told to implement according to the doctrine of Islam. The knock on the door by the Taliban, is similar to the knock on the door of the Gestapo. Brutality and barbarism are the same throughout time; a total disregard for morality, ethics, and a total devaluation of others, particularly those who do not follow the ideology of the oppressor.
Gestapo, WW2:
The pounding on the door became louder, and we heard male voices shouting something in a language I did not understand. As we started toward the door its latch shattered and it swung open; soldiers rushed in with rifles and fixed bayonets extended before them.
Suddenly she heard shots, and the screaming grew louder: “Long live Taliban! Death to infidels!”
The men forced their way into her house, hurled loose tiles and a glass at her and fired a shot. She fainted.
-GoogleNews, Pakistan’s religious minorities report violence
The rise of the Taliban in Pakistan may indeed be the fulfillment of the original concepts of Pakistan the “state” as envisaged by its founders as M. A. Khan stated above. But perhaps there is something else going on in Pakistan. Perhaps the rejection of the Taliban by so much of Pakistan’s population is a wider rejection of the brutality of the doctrine of Islam itself by Muslims.
The conflict in Pakistan may actually be cause for hope in these dark times of global jihad and cruelty. If the thousands of people fleeing from Taliban brutality have rejected what the Taliban stand for, haven’t they also rejected the cruel nature of the doctrine of Islam itself? Events in Pakistan are a cause for soul-searching in the Muslim world and a time for awareness of an existential danger in the kafir (unbeliever) world.
Lee himself repudiated one of the foundational components of the Confederacy for which he fought when he wrote,
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished.”
In that case, the society that perpetuated slavery (the society that Lee fought for) was destroyed and overturned, and those who supported it often came to very different realizations after the war than could have been expected from them during the war itself. Lee’s rejection of slavery and embrace of the union after the Civil War in the United States gives us hope generations later that those who fight and kill for an idea can change.
The rejection of the Taliban is a rejection of the fundamentals of Islamic doctrine, its cruelty, its barbarity and absolutism. We do not know for certain why so many have fled the Taliban, but it is easy to venture a guess.
Most people, Muslim or kafir, prefer not to live under totalitarianism if they can avoid it. So, they run, and fight.
If Lee is right perhaps this is a moment of hope. There is little in the history of jihad that provides any cause for hope for kafirs; the death toll from jihad is in the hundreds of millions. Rarely have we seen a rejection of Islam from Muslims as wide spread as the rejection of the Taliban by so many Pakistanis, the pure Islamic state. Perhaps the cycles of history are turning, and Lee’s idea is again in force and this is the moment where those after us will say, “This was an important moment when we had cause to hope.”
We are not all ignorant of the purposes and history of political Islam. Our greatest weapon is understanding why Islam does what it does. And when we understand, we can and must reject it.
Recently, the David Horowitz Freedom Center released a very disturbing online video about the ongoing Muslim persecution of Christians. The news is very bad, and the images in this movie are very disturbing. If you are squeemish, do not watch this video.
To Islam, Christians are people of the book, those who have rejected the message of the prophet Mohammed and his god Allah. Just as the Jews have done, they have refused to convert to Islam. For this reason, Islam hates Christians and Jews… passionately.
This is a very old hatred that began when Mohammed was rejected by the Jews of Medina, and was not embraced by Christians in Arabia. But this hatred is still very much alive.
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” (Ayatollah Khomeni, 1942; the founder of the Iranian Islamic Revolution)
For followers of Islam, befriending non-believers is a sin.
“O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.” (Koran, 3:118)
“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Koran, 5:51)
It is a sin to befriend unbelievers unless such friendship is false and furthers Islam. What is mandated is jihad against the unbelievers.
“We will strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers because they worship others besides Allah, which He gave them no permission to do. Their home will be the fire, a terrible resting place for the evil doers.” (Koran, 3:149)
If you’ve ever wondered why Islamic jihad mobs burn down churches and homes, the above quote explains it. Read the following, and put them into the context of the images you will see in the following film, if you can handle it.
“The flames of Hell are sufficient punishment for them [the people of the book]! Those who reject Our revelations We will cast into the fire. As soon as their skins are burnt away, We will give them new skins so that they will truly experience the torment.” (Koran, 4:53)
“As for the unbelievers, they will be punished with excrutiating agony in this world and the world to come. They will have noone to help them.” (Koran, 3: 54) (source)
Jihad is about bringing agony, terror and death to the unbelievers everywhere in this world and the next. Followers of Islam take the Koran, Hadith (traditions of Mohammed), and Sira (the biography or Way of Mohammed) very, very seriously. This seriousness is an existential threat to all kafirs (unbelievers) everywhere.
A final warning: Please do not watch this movie if you are squeemish or if horrible, violent, murderous images disturb you. Jihad is upon us. We must learn and respond.
Jihad was first developed from the eighth century by theologians and jurists who divided the world in two: Muslims and infidels. Infidels, as they saw it, included all non-Muslims and those Muslims not pious enough according to them. The jihadists concluded that Muslims have a sacred duty, mandated by Allah, to defeat the infidels and to impose Qur’anic law [Sharia] upon them. – Bat Ye’Or, Global Jihad and America’s War.
Click the image, a new window will launch. Allow a few moments for the movie to load.
If you thought contrary thinking, good=bad, war=peace, hate=love, evil=goodness was codified so nicely by George Orwell in his novel 1984; think again.
For believers in Islamic doctrine, this is all good; for all kafirs (non-believers, non-Muslims) everywhere, this is very, very bad.
This (jihad) is coming our way if we do not stop it. We will find ourselves living in an Islamified version of Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale or, of course, George Orwell’s 1984 or Animal Farm.
Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.
She was right, but not right enough.
A better way to say how peace will come is that peace will come when Islam values life more than it values death. An ideology that values death over life is fundamentally opposed to our American values of the sanctity and value of human life.
There can be no greater and discrete line in the sand; we value life, Political Islam does not.
Yesterday, CNN posted a lengthy condemnation of a Saudi judge by a female Saudi doctor. Titled, “Wife Slapping Not OK in Islam”, CNN led with this story on their website for a part of the afternoon. The photogenic doctor was condemning the judge in very strong language for having stated publicly that husbands may beat their wives but only if the wife was guilty of lavish spending.
The Arab News, as quoted in the Times of Malta said this of the story from early May.
Arab News says a Saudi judge’s remarks that that a man could slap his wife for lavish spending, have sparked an outcry at a seminar on the role of judicial and security officials in preventing domestic violence. Saudi women have become more vocal about the problem of husbands beating wives and fathers mistreating children. But the judge said some of the blame must be shouldered by wives for their behaviour.
RIYADH (AFP) — A Saudi judge has told a seminar on domestic violence that it is okay for a man to slap his wife for lavish spending, a local newspaper reported on Sunday.
Jeddah judge Hamad al-Razine gave the example of overspending to buy a high-end abaya, the head-to toe black shroud Saudi women have to wear in public, as justifying a smack for one’s wife, Arab News said.
“If a person gives 1,200 riyals (320 dollars) to his wife and she spends 900 riyals (240 dollars) to purchase an abaya from a brand shop, and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” he said.
The judge in this case is entirely wrong. He is astoundingly wrong, but not in the way that you might think (if you are a non-Muslim reading this post). The judge is wrong because it is perfectly OK for husbands to beat their wives in Islam, but they must never strike them in the face. This is an astounding error for a Saudi judge to make because it shows that he is (apparently) not knowledgable on the doctrine of Islam and Sharia law. As Saudi Arabia is under Sharia Law, one would think that this would be a serious problem for the judge but he, like the doctor in the CNN story may be stretching the truth (i.e., lying/practicing taqiyyah) rather than demonstrating ignorance of the ideology of Islam.
The doctrine of Islam is clear on this point.
Koran 4:34 – “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.” (Click here to see Imams talking about how beating of wives is to be done.)
One of the foundations of Islamic doctrine is the submission of women. The Saudi doctor can say all she wishes, but it does not change the truth of the doctrine and the reality of life for women across the Islamic world. The judge can mistakenly say that wife beating is not ok unless the wife has over-spent and she can only be struck in the face.
But it’s all wrong, all a lie, all taqiyyah. A husband in Islam is allowed to beat his wife whenever he wishes and he cannot be questioned about it, though he must not strike her in the face.
Beating the Muslim wife is not to be done in outrage. No, the husband is putting the world into Islamic order of duality and submission. The husband submits to Allah and the Sunna of Mohammed. The wife must submit to Allah, the Sunna and her husband. Her lack of submission is a fault in the world and the beating restores the proper order of submission. Beatings are justice. So when the husband beats his wife, both are partaking in a sacred moment of good (what is permitted). (Warner.)
In the Muslim world the example of Mohammed the prophet is the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. His perfect example is one of the core components of Islamic doctrine; if Mohammed did it, it’s alright (no matter how horrible it was); if Mohammed saw others do it, and said it was alright, then it is. Unfortunately, Mohammed’s concepts of morality were very different from ours.
A woman came to Mohammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. (Bukhari, Hadith, 72:715)
Our understanding of Mohammed is limited because we are not taught his history and his ideology in school and we are not taught it by our religious and political leaders. They have entirely failed us. We must learn this ideology, and quickly.
The purpose of Islam is submission. The meaning of the word “Islam” is submission. This message is very clear. The message is for all unbelievers. All unbelievers must submit to Islam.
Koran 8:38 “Tell the unbelievers that if they change their ways, then they would be forgiven for the past. If, however, they continue to sin [ed. not accept Islam and convert], let them remember the fate of those who came before them. Fight against them until they stop persecuting you, and Allah’s religion reigns sovereign over all others. If they cease, Allah knows all they do, but if they turn their backs know that Allah is your protector-an excellent helper.”
A man can divorce his wife as he wishes; Muhammad bin Laden, father of Osama, accumulated more than twenty wives—married and divorced—in his house. Since a Muslim man can only take four wives at a time, he would divorce one of the four wives, not attractive any more, to add a new one in his harem. The divorced wives stayed in his house as unwanted slaves; men are divinely sanctioned to keep unlimited number of slave-concubines in Islam [Koran, 70:29–30, 23:5–6].
As a result of the Personal Status Law enacted by the Afghan parliament in February and signed by President Karzai in March, Shiite men may force their wives to yield to intercourse, bar them from going to work or school and even demand that they wear cosmetics. Widely viewed as a ploy to attract Shiites’ support in his upcoming re-election bid, the statute was passed in an atmosphere of strong pressure and scare tactics.
Specifically, the marital rape provision compels a woman submit to sex with her husband every four nights. Its proponents note in its defense that the law excuses her from this duty if, for instance, either party suffers from a sexually transmitted disease or the woman is preparing to go on a pilgrimage or fasting for Ramadan.
Now that the foundation has been established we can close the circle and return to the photogenic Saudi doctor and the confused Saudi judge. There are two Islamic terms that must be learned, taqiyyahand kitman. Taqiyyah allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers. Since Muslims are not allowed to take unbelievers as friends, this is not a difficult matter. A total separation from non-Islamic life is fundamental in Islam.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:
“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ ”
Do not take unbelievers as friends; caution is necessary to befriend the unbelievers (the foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman;). (Do not befriend the deniers, even if they are among the closest relatives. In case of danger, Allah allows Muslims to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. The taqiyya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection. Allah has reserved unremitting torment for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends.-ibn Kathir; it is all right to tell lies/ adopt deception (taqiyya and kitman) for the sake of Islam. Maududi 3/25: This means that it is lawful for a believer, helpless in the grip of the enemies of Islam and in imminent danger of severe wrong and persecution, to keep his faith concealed and to behave in such a manner as to create the impression that he is on the same side as his enemies. A person whose Muslim identity is discovered is permitted to adopt a friendly attitude towards the unbelievers in order to save his life. If he considers himself incapable of enduring the excesses to which he may be subjected, he may even state that he is not a believer.)…3:28 (Warner.)
Taqiyyah and kitman are Islamic concepts that allow the followers of Islam to lie to non-believers whenever such lying may forward the purposes of Islam. This explains how Yassir Arafat could speak peace in english, then talk of jihad in Ramallah the following day.
Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) ‘condemning’ the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences . (source)
There is no basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse of any kind and specifically none pertaining to the matter of a wife’s spending pattern.
Now that we have the background doctrine and history explained we can see the Saudi doctor’s comments of taqiyyah in a clearer light.
Islam is very clear on this issue: Both a husband physically chastising his wife for “overspending” and a judge “upholding justice” by sanctioning this abuse would be acting counter to Islam’s ideals of compassion and justice., she says on CNN.
This is a lie. The doctrine of Islam specifically hates women, considers them far beneath men, and gives specific permissions and directions for husbands to beat their wives. There certainly is a great deal of basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse. We see this daily, if we look. It is almost impossible not to see.
Abuse of women is sanctioned by the doctrine of Islam. The doctor continues at length on CNN describing all the opportunities for women in Saudi Arabia and suggests that women own 40% of the country’s wealth. She does not hint or explain that women are 2nd class citizens in Saudi Arabia; she does not explain the horrors of Sharia for women in her country and across the Islamic world; she does not explain that her husband, if she has one, has every right to beat her upon her arrival home from her CNN interview, for whatever reason he wishes. He is not allowed to strike her in the face.
On January 14, 2004, Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, was sentenced by a Barcelona court to a 15 month suspended sentence and fined € 2160 for publishing his book ‘The Woman in Islam.’ In this book, the Egyptian-born Sheikh Mustafa writes, among other things, on wife-beating in accordance with Shar’ia law.
On pages 86-87, Mustafa states: “The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman].” He adds, “It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs,” using a “rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused.” Similarly, “[the blows] must not be hard.”
What is this lying about? Why tell falsehoods about the doctrine of Islam? This is called jihad. Jihad is the obligation of all Muslims. There are several kinds of jihad – through violence, the pen, words, and money. All are commanded to fight, if they cannot fight, they must support those who do; there are many ways to do this.
Telling untruths and sugar-coating the unpleasant and violent history and doctrine of Islam is one kind of jihad. Taqiyyah, in this case is the doctor’s jihad against the kafir, can be a kind of jihad; she is fulfilling her duty to Islam. She must know, as the judge must know, that what she has said on CNN will be read by many unknowing and uneducated kafirs; she is doing her duty in falsifying the truth of Saudi Arabia, and the truth of the doctrine of Islam.
Taqiyyah is a weapon of Islam that is used against the kafir. Islam is so strong not because it is great or grand, but because we are ignorant of it. The adherents of Islam use our ignorance against us. Political Islam uses dhimmis like CNN to advance their message of taqiyyah, their false telling of conditions in their cultures and living under Sharia law. CNN is a dhimmi organization because they publish Islamic taqiyyah without comment. Some will be fooled. We are not.
At this time knowledge is our greatest defense; learn.
Bravo to a Texas judge (precint judge Dorrie O’Brien) and ACT member for his courage and self-lessness in travelling the state to teach the people about the threat of political Islam. He is giving lectures across his county, warning people and teaching them about the doctrine of political Islam, its history and purpose. This is a brave man; we applaud and support his efforts.
“[The] Quran demands believers wage Jihad against the infidel, again, everybody who isn’t Muslim,” O’Brien is captured telling the north Tarrant County Republican club. “… A grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the western civilization from within.”
O’Brien is a local representative for a Florida-based group called “Act for America,” which warns that Muslims want to undermine the United States government.
This judge does not mince words, he is a truth teller.
“And this is what the ultimate goal is is to replace the United States’ flag and the United States’ government with the half moon and the star,” O’Brien said.
Qaddura said the messages prey on fears, which have a way of spreading and doing a lot of harm.
“This is a good community,” he said. “We are Texans, and Texans don’t put up with that stuff.”
The author/”journalist” of this article mistakenly puts this ACT member’s efforts in a political (Republican) context, but this is not accurate. Teaching Americans about a fundamentally anti-American ideology, an ideology of hate, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-gay, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-atheist, anti-human doctrine that promulgates universal never-ending jihad (fighting the unbelievers/kafirs for allah) is not a Republican position. Opposing this doctrine of hatred and violence is an American position that is far above any political partisanship. It should not be seen in any partisan political context except that of the defense of our country, our culture and our people from totalitarianism.
Learn the doctrine of Islam. Listen to Bill Warner’s excellent lectures posted here on this blog. These are the foundational lessons of doctrine, history, politics, and purposes of political Islam. Learn, then teach others. Bravo to our friends in Texas!
Please click “Warner Lectures” in the banner at the top of the site.
Bill Warner has kindly given ACT West Nashville permission to post these superb and foundational lectures on the history and doctrine of Political Islam. Feel free to send the link to your friends. This lecture series covers material that you will not see or hear elsewhere. Your education on Political Islam will be advanced significantly by listening to these lectures.
The doctrine of Islam and the untaught, largely unknown violent and brutal history of Political Islam is the core of understanding why Islam is at war with all unbelievers everywhere. You will learn what the doctrine says, and more importantly what believers have done because of it for the last 1400 years. The story is massive, and not a pretty one.
We cannot respond to Political Islam if we do not know what it is about; we cannot defend our country and our culture if we do not understand the threat. As Islam rises across the world and Sharia law is discussed seriously by non-assimilating Muslim communities across the country, we must educate ourselves.
