May 17th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

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.

-When God Looked the Other Way
An Odyssey of War, Exile, and Redemption
Wesley Adamczyk

Pakistan, May, 2009:

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.

Shortly before his death, Robert E. Lee wrote to a friend,

“It is history that teaches us to hope.”

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.

May 13th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

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.

The Times of Malta got the story almost right. More detail is provided by GoogleNews.

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.”

Mohammed’s opinion of women is not favorable. Therefor the opinion of Islam itself of women is not favorable.

A nation headed by a woman shall never succeed. (Bukhari, Wars, 4425)

The worst sin and distraction from virtue that I have left for man is woman. (Bukhari, Fornication, 5096)

When I stood on the door of hell, I saw most of its inhabitants were women. (Bukhari, Fornication, 5196)

Women lack brains and religion. (Bukhari, Menstruation, 304)

If a man summoned his wife for intercourse and she refused, the angels will curse her till the dawn. (Bukhari, Fornication, 5194)

-As quoted in “Living by the Point of My Spear” Zaki Ameen, p.109

Clearly, the position of women in Islam is not a good one, particularly in any country under Sharia law. Rape laws in Islam are particularly unfavorable to women.

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].

Even in Afghanistan where our soldiers shed their blood every day to bring freedom to that backward land, the laws built upon Islamic doctrine are shockingly cruel towards women.

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, taqiyyah and 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.

Taqiyyah - sacred deception.

The truth of doctrine of Islam - Sharia Law

May 2nd, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

Islam is so strong because we are so weak.

• Islam is not strong because it is a loving religion; Islam hates all unbelievers (kafirs).
• Islam is not strong because it is inclusive; Islam hates all other religions and political systems, and cultures. No other religion is acceptable to Islam, only Islam is acceptable.
• Islam is not strong because it is forgiving; all unbelievers must become Muslim, this is the mission of jihad – destroy all kafir religions and states so that they become Muslim.
• Islam is not strong because it is kind to women; Islam is a misogynist ideology. Men have multiple wives, women must have one husband. Women are not considered equal to men in any aspect of life in Islam. Men can beat their wives. Women are considered chattel, slaves.

Mohammed was quite clear on the matter of women. 

“When I stood on the door of hell, I saw most of its inhabitants were women.”

“Women lack brain and religion.”

“If a man summoned his wife for intercourse and she refused, the angels will curse her till the dawn.” (Hadiths, Bukhari)

Islam is not strong because it is just; Islam is a slave holding system. Islam believes that all kafirs are potential slaves. Sharia law of Islam is cruel and brutal; Gays and accused adulterers are tortured and executed.

• Islam is not strong because it is compassionate; Islamic charity is reserved only for Muslims to other Muslims.
• Islam is not strong because Islam is friendly; Muslims are forbidden from befriending any non-Muslims, this is a sin in Islam.
• Islam is not strong because it is forgiving; Mohammed held grudges for years, never forgetting a slight and taking revenge years after the slight itself had occured.
• Islam is not strong because it is the religion of peace; all Muslims are obligated to fight the unbeliever forever and everywhere. This is an obligation for all Muslims. Non-participation in jihad is a sin.

Islam is not strong because of anything about Islam itself.

Islam is strong because we are weak. Western nations that do not defend their borders, control immigration, identify Islam as a threat, and protect the institutions and foundational concepts that make them particularly American, British, French, Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, Canadian, Norwegian, etc. are nations in twilight to the rise of Islam.

Islam grows because we will not learn, will not accept the truth of Islam, and will not defend ourselves and our friends from this existential threat.

Islam does not need bombs, or terrorism; Islam needs only for us to not appreciate our own countries and cultures and defend them.

Islam grows because we are weak; we mistake the processes of democracy for Democracy itself and Freedom and thus sow our own disasters and destruction by empowering anti-freedom ideologies (lslam). We cannot allow the processes of democracy to bring about the end of Freedom. This is national and cultural suicide and this is exactly what is happening. There is no ideology or religion that is more intolerant, warlike, cruel, and brutal as Islam. There is no ideology that is more anti-freedom than Islam. This is not opinion, this is the doctrine of Islam itself. All humanity that does not believe in Islam and that Mohammed is Allahs messenger are kafirs; Islam is at war with kafirs forever.

The following quote from a new biography of Mohammed is important. Living by the point of my spear, Zaki Ameen, is written by a former Imam. If anyone should understand the true nature of Islam and Mohammed, an Imam is considered such a person.

Apparrently, they (the Bedouin tribes) did not understand the real meaning of Mohammed saying: ‘I have been sent to kill humans til they say there is no god except Allah and Mohammed, Allah’s messenger.’He did not specificy a single people, he did not say ‘I have been sent to kill ‘Bedouins’ or ‘Arabs’ so he was literally fighting everybody who didn’t believe that he was Allah’s messenger. This was a big misunderstanding by the Bedouin tribes.

page 74
(quoting Ibn Hisham, pt 4, p179.)

Islam is not strong because Islam is great, Islam is strong because we will not defend what is dear and true and good. This is national and cultural suicide it must stop and quickly!

April 30th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

Today in Nashville the government of the United States was involved in undermining the government of the United States.

A case of alleged employee discrimination against a Muslim employee that began in 2006 finally was concluded in this city today. The details of the case are these: a Muslim employee of the Southern Hills Medical Center (an HCA facility) sued because his request to take 20 days leave to attend the Haj in Mecca was refused.  The US government, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the employer on behalf of the aggrieved employee. 

The government’s (EEOC) position was that this was a violation of the employee’s Civil Rights (Title 7violation), and that the employer “failed to accommodate the firmly held religious beliefs” of the employee.  EEOC alleged unfair labor practices. Southern Hills, realistically fearing the power of the US government fighting them in court, bad publicity, and growing legal costs, settled today paying the Haj attendee $70,000 for his troubles.

Accommodation to Islam by a host culture (non-Islam) is foundational in the doctrine of Islam. Islam does not accommodate nor assimilate to a host culture; Islam makes the host culture submit. Islam means “submission”. No other religions, no other forms of government are allowed in the doctrine of Islam, only Islam. Anything that makes the host culture crack, anything that forwards Islam is the sacred duty of all Muslims, this is the doctrine of Islam, and this is jihad.

Today in Nashville, the US government caused an American business to submit to Islam, and thus further eroded the ability of the US government to protect itself and the country at large from the threat of encroaching jihad and Sharia law.

Americans do not understand the nature of Sharia law. It is an all-encompassing code of totalitarianism. Americans are told, falsely, that Sharia is just another form of jurisprudence, a form of religious law that is particularly strict. This is true, but its strictness is more akin to Nazism and Stalinism than it is to anything that any American is familiar with from American experience. 

There is a serious difference though, under Nazism the Jews alone were afraid, but under Sharia law and Islam all non-Muslims have very clear cause to fear; fear of total cultural and religious annihilation which is the purpose of Islam at its core.

It is said in Sharia rules, and the Koran that no kafir can ever be above a Muslim in Civil Affairs.

In America today, we manifest our tolerance by giving Islam just one more small destruction of our culture. We feel that then, Islam will be happy and content as neighbors. But the way of Islam is the way of Mohammed. Only 100% is enough. (Bill Warner, PoliticalIslam.com)

And that is what has happened in Nashville today, the kafir (any unbeliever) was taught that making rules over a follower of Islam will have serious consequences, like legal action. And what a boon to Islam that the United States government itself is a dhimmi, a willing executioner of itself, aiding and abetting those whose doctrine demand its overthrow. Ignorance is a costly matter here. Lack of knowledge of the doctrine of Islam and its purposes make otherwise good Americans do very self-destructive things.

Pandora is laughing. Why? She is laughing because we now must re-examine the limits of the term “religion”; the phrase “firmly held religious belief”, and the concept of what employment means and what it means to be an employer.

This surrender on the part of HCA to the misguided EEOC in giving in to the excessive demands of Islam, that no other religious group would likely be successful in prosecuting, is a victory of jihad; soft jihad - but just as dangerous to our civilization and culture as bombs.

According to one legal website, the definition of religion as recognized by the US government is as follows:

The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

Because the United States is inclusive (not exclusive like some “religions of peace”) the definition of religion is purposefully broad. Even questionable pseudo-religions/cults like Scientology are given religious protections in the United States.

In addition, a belief does not need to be stated in traditional terms to fall within First Amendment protection. For example, Scientology—a system of beliefs that a human being is essentially a free and immortal spirit who merely inhabits a body—does not propound the existence of a supreme being, but it qualifies as a religion under the broad definition propounded by the Supreme Court. (source cited above.)

In light of the surrender of HCA in Nashville to the lawsuit of a Muslim on grounds of “failure to accommodate firmly held religious beliefs” where is the evidence that shows definitively that the employer’s decision to deny 20-days of vacation was based upon the fact that the employee was a Muslim? Where is the evidence that shows failure to accommodate on the part of the employer?

Is it sufficient evidence for the EEOC that because someone who follows (submits to; a Muslim is “one who submits”) Islam has made an allegation about prejudicial and illegal conduct that therefor it is a fact? Where is the evidence?

One can make a strong case that the surrender of the employer is in no way an admission of guilt but rather is an admission that combatingthe federal government in court is too expensive with little upside and little likelihood of a successful outcome. HCA denies wrongdoing in this case.

One can understand the failure of HCA and Southern Hills to fight this case in court. But who will make this fight? Who will fight against Sharia and encroaching jihad? Who will fight this bizarre and self-destructive embrace of Islam by the EEOC and thereby the US government itself? Who will fight this existentialal fight, and challenge the insanity of political correctness that identifies a totalitarian, misogynist, anti-gay, anti-Christian, anti-Jew, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-atheist, anti-democratic, anti-Freedom, anti-all-non-Muslim and claims that it is the “religion of peace” even as the dust of bombs fall to the ground somewhere in the world where violence and war is done in the name of Islam and Mohammed?

Will the next case be from some UFO cultist who, in following in the success today of Islam in Nashville, demands ten weeks vacation from his employer to observe flying saucers at Area 51?

This cultist will have “firmly held religious beliefs” that he must attend UFO observances at Area 51; he will state that his religion requires that he do this; he will state that his belief in his religion is firmly held, and that it is his religious duty to attend this event and that it is a “firmly held religious belief”. He will sue his employer for denying him his requested 10-week leave to attend the saucer observation event.

Will the EEOC sue his employer as they did for the Islam follower in Nashville? Will the EEOC defend this person’s right to embrace and follow the dictates of his “firmly held religious beliefs” and sue the employer for “failure to accommodate”?

This UFO believer’s ”religion” falls within the very liberal range of the definition of religion as understood by the Supreme Court of the United States. You see now where this is leading.

Today’s surrender of American culture in Nashville, quite understandable under the circumstances, as represented by an innocent employer (in this case  HCA) to a Muslim on ground of failure to accommodateIslam is a blow to our economy, a blow to the rights of the employer and a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine and purposes of Islam by the US government. 

A victory for Islam is a defeat for the forces of freedom and compassion everywhere.

Another defeat today in Nashville, but this is a chance to learn, to teach. We must understand why this is a serious case, and teach the doctrine of Islam to all. Every American must know the doctrine of Islam. You will not learn it in school, but you must learn it. The greatest force for servitude, cruelty, violence, slavery, intolerance, and war in the world is political Islam.

Today we inch closer to Islamization of America. This is the purpose of political Islam. 

Muslims are prohibited from befriending non-Muslims; the greatest sin in Islam is two-fold, leaving Islam  (apostasy) or never having been a Muslim. To Islam America is just another country and culture and political system that is in dar-al Harb, the House of War; another country to be conquered for Mohammed.

The outside world, which has not yet been subjugated, is called the “House of War,” and strictly speaking a perpetual state of jihad, of holy war, is imposed by the law.

Islam is at war with America because we are not Muslim. Islam’s purpose is to make America Muslim, and Europe and every country in the world that is not now Muslim. Our denial of this fact is not relevant. As Walid Shoebat, a former Islamist PLO terrorist recently said, “The sheep do not know the wolf; but the wolf knows the sheep.”

April 24th, 2009 by admin

by D. L. Adams

As a species we are very good at denying the truth.

When reality is ugly, or simply too unpleasant to countenance we deny it; often vocally railing against it. Very few now deny the truth of the crimes of the Nazis during WW2 but the denial of the crimes of Islam from its inception to today continues to occur almost universally in western society.

Denial of the reality of Islam, its purposes and foundational doctrine of cruelty, hatred, misogyny, and universal perpetual warfare against unbelievers has brought more than several countries in Europe to the breaking point.

Again, and again we see the violence and cruelty of Islam; we hear the language of hate and intolerance from Muslim leaders and yet we continue to deny the ugly truth of what Islam truly is about. This ability to deny unpallatable truths and our societal ignorance of Islam and its doctrine is the foundation of our failure to respond to the existential threat that Islam represents.

Two recent cases of tragic lovers illustrate denial; denial of individuals to face ugly truths, and denial of Islam to accept any behavior that is outside the doctrine, outside the collective construct of what is acceptable to Islam in life.

In Islam pleasure can only be understood in the way that Mohammed and the doctrine of Islam approve, anything outside this context of absolute control by Islam of its adherents, or those trapped within its borders, is strictly verboten. Time and again, we see that the penalty for human individualism, human questing for freedom and love and happiness outside of Islam is death.

Islam is about a collective reality and has nothing whatever to do with the concept of “the individual” except in so far as the individual conforms to the doctrine and fits into the collective. This is a form of mind-control and a brutality of the spirit that can only be understood in a totalitarian context.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology built upon the denial of the human spirit and the better part of our souls; it is the denial of the individual. Can there be a more contrasting philosophy to democracy and inclusiveness and tolerance than this?

The great historian and analyst of American democracy, Alexis de Tocqueville understood this to be so when he wrote in a letter to Arthur de Gobineau, 10/22/1843, “I studied the Koran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. (source).”

The nature of Islam is clear and cannot be disputed, it is described in detail in the doctrine of Islam – the Koran, Sira, and Hadiths; the violent history of Islam originates directly from the doctrine.

“In fact, an appropriate and statistically acceptable characterization is that Islamic doctrines overwhelmingly preaches dislike, hatred and conquest of unbelievers and that this material constitutes the majority of the content in the Koran.”

The goals of Islam are the same as they have ever been - the complete Islamization of the world and destruction of every religion, culture, and government that is not Islamic; this is indisputable. Because we are not taught the history of Islam, and because we are in the main ignorant of it we cannot respond intelligently nor defend ourselves from this existential threat that is Islam (which is seen clearly in the doctrine and in Islamic history).

Islam is at war with all unbelievers everywhere and forever, this is jihad. Unbelievers are called kafirs in Islamic doctrine and in Muslim speech today. But through ignorance and the failure of our leaders to acknowledge the truth of Islam, and teach their people, “Kafirs are in absolute denial that a history of political Islam even exists. (source)“ 

The majority of Americans do not know history, and cannot therefor place any current events of Islamic violence and cruelty into an understandable and rational context. In many ways, as a society, we are personally outside of the flow of history, though history does not care.

“Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives… The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…”
William Eaton — U. S. Consul to Tunis (1764-1811)

Our leaders and our population continues to deny the truth of Islam, just as we as individuals in our own personal lives shut away the truth and create bubbles of palatable illusion into which we retreat when truth is just too ugly to accept. “‘Denial can be a very intoxicating state,’ said criminal profiler John Kelly.”

The doctrine of Islam encourages and demands a level of cruelty, institutionalized and society- wide, through its concepts of sharia law and jihad that westerners can barely comprehend and accept. The doctrine cannot be more clear: “61 percent of the Koran talks ills of unbelievers or calls for their violent conquest and subjugation, but only 2.6 percent of it talks about the overall good of humanity.” Two similar cases of tragedy illustrate denial in a way that is difficult to …deny.

Ongoing investigations into the so-called “Craigslist Killer” in the Boston area appear to show a young man with an apparently bright future but a predilection to murder and brutality. An unlikely suspect, a 22-year old male medical school student has been arrested for the murder and assault in the case. Police authorities have found a gun in his apartment, which they now say is the murder weapon; they have found articles of clothing belonging to the victims in his apartment, and have tracked his internet use and connected it definitively to at least one victim. The evidence is mounting, and is overwhelming. In addition, surveillance photos from the crime scenes appear to show a man who looks remarkably like the arrested man.

But this picture, this reality of a man who is a predator and a killer is entirely contrasted with how his fiance and most of those who knew him (but not all) understood his character to be. The fiance in fact is now publicly defending the suspect, stating to the press that “he couldn’t hurt a fly”.

There is a great deal of interest in this case and in the denial of the fiance to accept the ugly reality of her boyfriend, the man she was to marry in August. This is an illustrative case; denial of the fiance is roundly criticized. The deluded woman is attacked across the internet. Most people condemn her foolishness and lack of insight in refusing to accept the obvious truth that her fiance is a fiend, a predator, and killer. There is sympathy, too, but mainly astounded disbelief that someone could be so attached to an idea and simply refuse to give it up when reality proves that the idea is false. This is classic denial. “‘People fall in love and want to see what they want to see. It’s a fool’s paradise,’ said family therapist Charles Foster of Cambridge.”

There is little sympathy for those who speak the truth about the history of Islam, the doctrine of Islam, the dangers of Sharia, and the cruelty of this ideology that has killed millions over the course of the centuries. Why? Because the majority of Americans, forgiving, multicultural, tolerant, and ignorant of history and Islamic doctrine live in a “fool’s paradise”.

As we face a growing threat from Islam across the west, those few brave enough to speak the truth are attacked as hatemongers and racists and bigots because the West is in denial about Islam. Worse, those who discuss the history and doctrine of Islam are criticized by the deniers as ignorant, while the ignorant deniers take the high moral ground of knowledge and scholarship – a false “scholarship” based upon ignorance.

We have been warned about the denial of knowledge and learning; about the embrace of ignorance by Huxley, Orwell, and many other authors and philosophers. We have seen in history where denial of truth and the embrace of ignorance leads- it leads to Nuremberg rallies and Sobibor and Treblinka.

One could ask if “ignorance is bliss” why aren’t more people happy? Ignorance is the embrace of a lie. Lies do not bring happiness; the fiance of the Craigslist killer in Boston will tell you.

This denial will see the destruction of our countries, our religions, our cultures over time. Denial is demise, destruction.

Islam also embraces denial but in a very different way. Islam’s denial is the foundation of its ideology, the denial of the individual; denial of the truth of Islam by the West is the denial of our own independence and individuality which is the mission of Islam. We know this because this is what the doctrine says, this is what Mohammed says, this is what the followers of Islam say across the world. If these ugly and unpopular truths are denied perhaps they will go away. Perhaps the poor deluded fiance whose betrothed is a killer can will reality away with her active denial of the truth; perhaps she can will the past to return when everything seemed alright and the future was still before her rosy and bright? Her denial has placed herself outside the flow of reality, but reality does not care.

Islam is very interested in denial although it is characterized as freedom. “Islam” means “submission”, all Muslims (one who “submits”) must submit to Allah and to the doctrine of Islam.  Submission is the opposite of freedom. Freedom through submission is a popular concept in cults, and in totalitarian states and in cultures that believe all cultures are of equal value, merit, and importance (like ours). For those who submit, or who are born into submission to Islam, attempted escape or non-compliance with the rules of Islam can have dire consequences.

Submission is encouraged and required, denial of submission is a death sentence. Two young people in Afghanistan unlucky enough to live in a Taliban-controlled area found this out recently. For every kafir, this is an instructive case. For every denier of the truth of Islam this is an impossible case because what it means is that the truth of Islam is very unpleasant and very dangerous, it is a truth that must be denied, again and again and again by those who hate the truth.

Islam is not known for its tolerance, forgiveness, or acceptance of others. Intolerance is at the core of Islam and its all-ecompassing ideology of control. Leaving Islam, leaving the collective, or disobeying the rules of Sharia are particularly serious matters.

“The consensus among Muslim scholars for a long time — for 14 centuries — was that those who leave the faith should be killed,” said terrorism expert Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.

Gartenstein-Ross has studied Islamic law extensively. He says those who convert out of Islam–especially Christians–lead a lonely and dangerous existence.

He said, “And even today, the view that apostates from Islam should not be killed — that people should be free to convert to another religion — is very much a minority view.”

Within the Islamic world there are at least 14 states that make it illegal to convert out of Islam. In at least eight of those states, it is punishable by death.(source)

Even at America’s supposedly “finest university” the horrific, intolerant idea that leaving Islam is a justifiable death sentence can be found, and only last week! The Islamic Chaplain at Harvard supports this concept. Why? Because it is in the doctrine, and since the doctrine is perfect and absolute he is doing what he is supposed to do as a practicing Muslim- submit to the doctrine of Allah and Mohammed. (”It is clear quite clear that under Islamic Law an apostate must be put to death. There is no dispute on this ruling among classical Muslim or modern scholars.”-Ibn Warraq)

“In a private e-mail to a student last week, Abdul-Basser wrote that there was “great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment [for apostates]) and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand.(source)”

Early in April it was reported that a young couple was executed by a Taliban Sharia court in Afghanistan for attempting to elope. Some reports stated the young woman’s age at 14. “Officials said they were shot by a firing squad outside the mosque in Lokhi, the village where they had lived.”(source, UPI)

The Guardian (UK) states, “Officials from the south-western province of Nimroz say Gul Pecha, in her late teens, and her boyfriend Abdul Aziz, 21, were shot by a firing squad outside a mosque in their home village of Lokhi on Monday.” The execution of these young people is the action of a Sharia court, “who held them for four days in Lokhi’s mosque before putting them on trial” (The Globe UK). This case is illustrative of the cruelty of Islam, the denial of individual freedoms and the savagery of Sharia law. (This case is covered extensively in international media, one could not make up such things.)

It is important not to dimiss this horror as the action of extremists.

The Taliban is comprised of Pakistanis and Afghanis who are considered the true “Mujahideen” or “holy warriors of Allah” because they have established a purely Islamic state which rigidly conforms to the “pious Muslim ideals” which were outlined and set down by Prophet Mohammed. (source)

Islam is about control, a deep, pervasive, obsessive control of all Muslims everywhere, and the desire to control all non-believers. This is a political ideology, a unified brutal way of life. This is totalitarianism.

“…for all its pretensions about ideology and doctrine, militant Islam is first and foremost about power. It is totalitarianism, not ideology. It is the Communism of this era.” (source)

Throughout history there have been totalitarian movements, cruel and harsh systems of total control. Nothing comes close to the all-encompassing desire for control of Islam.

The Greek historian Thucydides, writing about the calamitous war that had destroyed his own world, made an important observation about the causes of historical events: Even though circumstances may change, human nature remains the same…(source)

H.L. Mencken the great American journalist, editor, and iconoclast once said about the Puritans, that Puritanism was “the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” The desire for control of others and the capability to deny truth are two of the more unfortunate components of human nature. In Islam, doctrinally acceptable “happiness” is the only acceptable form. The leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini proved the point; no fun of any kind is allowed.

Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun or joy in whatever is serious.

 

Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, radio sermon, 1979. (source)

The murder of the young couple by the Taliban occured because two young people wanted to find happiness outside of Islam. Hugh Fitzgerald laid out the truth of Islam in a superb article in Jihad Watch recently.

Islam is the most regulating of all faiths. It’s a Total Belief-System. It tells its adherents what to do, and does not suggest but rather offers a complete list of what is Prohibited, and what is Commanded. It does not offer room for possible autonomous moral judgment, for at every step one is discouraged from one’s own questioning, is told to be “a slave of Allah” and to realize that whatever Allah wills must not be questioned.”

Fitzgerald shows clearly that Islam is so attractive to so many because adherents are never required to make moral choices, they are all made already. Islam is the perfect cult.

The mistake that the two unfortunate lovers in Afghanistan made is that they thought that they had some leeway to make decisions for themselves. They did not. They thought that they could make moral and ethical decisions about their own lives themselves; they were wrong. In Islam, there is no room for such things. Anything that is contrary to Islam is offensive to Islam, and must be quashed.

“One submits, one never questions, one never has an occasion to exercise moral sense. And far from being a faith that allows for individual autonomy, Islam is a collectivist faith. One’s sole duty is to Islam. In Islam, it is perhaps most accurate to say that neither Allah nor even Muhammad, that exemplary Perfect Man, is being worshipped, but rather Islam itself. Yes, in Islam one worships….Islam.” (Fitzgerald)

Denial is a very popular philosophy in America in 2009. Its greatest proponents are our political and religious leaders, our uninformed scholars, and the rapidly failing establishment media.

Denial of Islam is taught in the public schools and called “history” or “politics” or “international relations”. The doctrine of Islam is not taught, nor is the history of jihad.

When it comes to Islam and understanding it we are in complete denial as a society. Bill Warner in a March, 2009 interview described this embrace of ignorance as the “NewState”.

The Newstate prohibits the study of political Islam in the Universities. The role of Islam in the history of slavery, the dhimmi (unbelievers living under Islamic rule) history, and the annihilation of kafir (unbeliever) civilizations is forbidden. The curriculum of the Universities only includes small samples from the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his traditions).

Even after 9/11, Beslan, Mumbai, London, Paris, Madrid, Khobar Towers, Kenya, and daily events around the world (here, here, here) that illustrate the implementation of Islamic doctrine and the true nature of the so-called “religion of peace” we sustain our denial.

As a culture we are the characters in history who say “It is not so”, when the survivors of a critical battle return home to warn their countrymen to rise and defend their homes, their country and their lives. Our denial empowers an existentially destructive ideology.

“In July 1942, he, his first wife and their 12 year old daughter lived in the Warsaw Ghetto. ‘I knew what was happening,’ he said.  ‘Many people knew, but most of them wanted to pretend they didn’t.  I knew for certain because, only ten days before, I was finally taken (August 27, 1942), a young man called Friedmann came back from Treblinka hidden under rags. His escape had been carefully arranged so as to have somebody come back to bring us the truth; to warn us. But nobody believed him. It was perfectly extraordinary. But I did.’” (Another source tells how this young man besought the ghetto elders to believe him and how finally they said he was overwrought and needed a rest which they would arrange for him in the ghetto clinic…).” (Sereny, Into That Darkness, p.257, Vintage Books/Random House (1974, 1st Random House edition, 1983))

As we embrace this false peace between Islam and our society (and the West), and lies of a false history and fake present we step aside from the flow of history and are passed by.

Our strongest desire is that Islam is not what its detractors say it is; that the doctrine cannot be real; that Muslims want to assimilate; that Islam is a friend to America. These are the foundations of our denial as a society, the falsehoods that we so desperately want to be true.

We are in denial, none of it is true.

March 27th, 2009 by admin

England’s Independent has a stunning story this evening.

Police identify 200 children as potential terrorists

Two hundred schoolchildren in Britain, some as young as 13, have been identified as potential terrorists by a police scheme that aims to spot youngsters who are “vulnerable” to Islamic radicalisation.

The number was revealed to The Independent by Sir Norman Bettison, the chief constable of West Yorkshire Police and Britain’s most senior officer in charge of terror prevention.

He said the “Channel project” had intervened in the cases of at least 200 children who were thought to be at risk of extremism, since it began 18 months ago. The number has leapt from 10 children identified by June 2008….

Perhaps this is what English police consider good neighborhood “policing”. But there is much more to this.

The programme, run by the Association of Chief Police Officers, asks teachers, parents and other community figures to be vigilant for signs that may indicate an attraction to extreme views or susceptibility to being “groomed” by radicalisers. Sir Norman, whose force covers the area in which all four 7 July 2005 bombers grew up, said: “What will often manifest itself is what might be regarded as racism and the adoption of bad attitudes towards ‘the West’.

The problem in this approach is that the ideology of Islam as written in the doctrine of koran, sunna, and hadith commands all adherents of Islam to hate and conquer all kafirs (non-believers) forever and everywhere.  The entire world, no matter what their beliefs, religion, or political system must live under Sharia law, Islamic law. All Muslims must participate in endless war to bring the entire world under Islam via jihad. This is an obligation incumbent on every Muslim.

What the well-meaning police officials in England are missing is the ideology of Islam that puts all Muslim children at risk of being “radicalised”. This term “radicalised” is entirely inappropriate and problematic because it is a western concept. Muslims who follow the doctrine of koran, sunna, and hadith; Muslims who participate in violent jihad are not at all “extremist” in their conception of the term. They are following their doctrine, which makes them in fact good observant and “moderate” Muslims. Our language of engagement is mistaken. The doctrine of Islam is quite clear… Muslims who follow the violent way of Mohammed are following the doctrine of Islam. This is not “extremism” it is the middle way, the way of Mohammed and the path that Muslims are commanded to take.

2:216-Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not.

 In this Ayah, Allah made it obligatory for the Muslims to fight in Jihad against the evil of the enemy who transgress against Islam. Az-Zuhri said, “Jihad is required from every person, whether he actually joins the fighting or remains behind. Whoever remains behind is required to give support, if support is warranted; to provide aid, if aid is needed; and to march forth, if he is commanded to do so. If he is not needed, then he remains behind.”

Children raised in a violent and intolerant political ideology are not “extremists” when they follow the teachings of the philosophy in which they were raised. In our understanding of civilized behavior, yes, it is extremism. But within Islam, such behavior is moderation and observance. The koran mandates jihad, and permanent war against the non-believers. This is our world.

We are targeting criminals and would-be terrorists who happen to be cloaking themselves in Islamic rhetoric. That is not the same as targeting the Muslim community.”

Nor was it criminalising children, he added. “The analogy I use is that it is similar to our well-established drugs intervention programmes. Teachers in schools are trained to identify pupils who might be experimenting with drugs, take them to one side and talk to them. That does not automatically mean that these kids are going to become crack cocaine or heroin addicts. The same is true around this issue.”

The ideology of Islam must be the target. The ideology of Islam is at the root of jihad, and jihad is a direct threat to the existence of the United States and every non-Islamic country and culture in the world. Until Islam is reformed and the violence is repudiated from the ideology, this is our world, the greatest threat to peace and freedom for the last 1400 years.

March 27th, 2009 by admin

Our friends to the south are having a difficult time absorbing a sizable Somali Muslim community that has no interest in being absorbed. Assimilation is contrary to the purposes of political Islam. Changing the host culture to accept Sharia law is the goal of political Islam. Sharia law (Islam’s “Legal System”) is fundamentally alien and contrary to our democratic concepts of freedom of speech, association, religion, and equal rights under the law. Under Sharia law Muslims are more equal than everyone else.

“Their culture is totally alien to anything the residents are used to,” Mosely added.

The problems extend to local schools–where some Somali students won’t talk to female administrators. There have also been issues with local law enforcement.

“I’m not really sure whether that is because of experiences with the police in their country, or whether that’s just the way their culture is,” said Shelbyville’s Police Chief, Austin Swing.

Shelbyville is home to about 17,000 people. The town’s Somali population is estimated to be between 400 and 1,000.

Mosely says the Somalis have isolated themselves from the rest of the community.

“We’re talking about people who have not had any experience with Western civilization,” he explained. “They don’t know the language. Things like running water are a miracle to some of these folks…you don’t take people from a totally alien culture, put them into a community, and then say ‘alright, you must get along.’

March 26th, 2009 by admin

M.A. Khan the author of the recent published and highly regarded history of jihad, Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery, has written a fascinating study of the appalling plight of women  who have the misfortune to live under sharia in Saudi Arabia. It is not a pretty picture.  Read the entire piece here, on Islam-Watch.org.

What people in the West must make themselves aware of is that Sharia laws are extremely discriminatory, indeed humiliating and degrading, toward non-Muslims. It is also highly discriminatory and humiliating toward Muslim women.

Mr. Khan is a former Muslim, and has a fascinating personal story to tell. He was interviewed on FrontPage Magazine, recently posted here . Mr. Khan is a truth-teller. We support truth-tellers.

You hear from the media that only a small percentage of Muslims, the radicalized ones, support the 9/11 attacks. I can assure you that an overwhelming majority of believing Muslims feel a sense of justification for the 9/11 attacks. However, very few of them will confess it, especially when Western media do the survey.

March 25th, 2009 by admin

Recently an elderly widow in Saudi Arabia, our ally and leading supplier of oil, was sentenced to 40 lashes for “mingling” with two men who are not her relatives. The assumption on the part of the Islamic authorities is that any woman in the company of men who are not related must be doing something “inappropriate”. But this is a kind “take” on the matter.

In actuality this abomination, for which Saudi Arabia should be universally condemned, is Sharia law in action. The implementation of Sharia law across the world is the goal of Islamists and jihadists everywhere.

Spreading of Sharia is in the doctrine of the Koran, Sira, and Hadith; Islam must rule the world. You’ve heard of the terms Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam? Dar al-Harb is the “House of War”; this is the condition of those sections of the planet Earth that are not under Islamic rule. War against kafirs (unbelievers) forever and universal is a fundamental component and commandment of political Islam. Dar al-Islam is the “House of Peace”.

Interestingly, for us kafirs, is how do we get from the house of war to the house of peace? The only way to get to the so-called “House of Peace” is to be ruled by Islam. For kafirs this means conversion, death, or dhimmitude (semi-slavery).

So, everywhere that is not under Islam is forever at war with Islam and its adherents, and whereever Islam is in control, that is the “House of Peace”.

In the so-called “House of Peace” whose capitol must certainly be the Saudi kingdom, old women are lashed for associating with men who are not their relatives. This is not any concept of “civilization” or “justice” that anyone in the West, male of female can possibly comprehend let alone condone.

Sharia law is contrary to universally understood concepts of human rights, contrary to the rights of women; it is anti-Jew, anti-Christian, anti-all unbelievers (kafirs).

The idea of a “legal system” mandating the torture of an elderly widow because she is out of line with the impossible (and impossible to believe) mandates of a brutal and oppressive political ideology is almost too much to believe.

Even the New York Times has covered this shocking story.

A 75-year-old widow living in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, her lawyer said Monday. The newspaper Al Watan said the woman, Khamisa Sawadi, met with two 24-year-old men in April after she asked them to bring five loaves of bread to her home. The two men, her nephew and his business partner, were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread, the newspaper said. They were also sentenced to lashes and imprisonment. The verdict against Ms. Sawadi, a Syrian who was married to a Saudi, also orders her deportation after her sentence is served. Her lawyer said he would appeal. <more>

There is one letter to the editor on this story that the NYT has posted online. It is worthy of our appreciation and our attention. People who know the truth of political Islam, who see the abhorrent things that followers of this cruel and violent ideology do under Sharia, cannot but understand that Sharia and political Islam itself are existential threats to us all. History shows this, and our daily experience of the banality, cruelty, and anti-civilizational actions of the followers of this astoundingly cruel and violent ideology of hatred and misogyny can only awaken people across the planet to this growing threat.

Re “Saudi Arabia: Lashes for Widow, 75” (World Briefing, March 10):

Where is the outrage over the sentencing of a 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia to 40 lashes and four months in jail for an innocuous meeting with a couple of young men, one of whom was her nephew?

Saudi Arabia’s scabrous treatment of women is indefensible. For all its wealth, it is a primitive country. There should be an immediate public outcry, and the United States should threaten to boycott its oil if this sentence isn’t rescinded.

This is the Salem witch hunt of the 21st century. It should not be condoned with silence. <Post can be read here.>