Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Posts Tagged ‘Islam’

'ISLAM HATES US' MORE THAN YOU KNOW

If Allah commands Muslims to hate and kill their own non-Muslim families, should Americans be surprised that “Islam hates us”?
gg
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Donald Trump’s latest politically incorrect comment concerning Islam is much truer than most know.

After being asked last week on CNN if he believed the West was at war with Islam, the Republican presidential simply said:

I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.

While millions of Americans undoubtedly agree with Trump’s assertions—at least those who have eyes and ears to see and hear with—few realize that this “tremendous hatred” is not a product of grievances, political factors, or even an “extremist” interpretation of Islam; rather, it is a direct byproduct of mainstream Islamic teaching.

According to the ancient Islamic doctrine of wal’a wa bara’, or “loyalty and enmity”—which is well grounded in Islamic scriptures, well sponsored by Islamic authorities, and well manifested all throughout Islamic history and contemporary affairs—Muslims must hate and oppose everyone who is not Muslim, including family members.

Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this doctrine and speaks for itself: “You [Muslims] have a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, for they said to their people, ‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone’” (Koran 60:4, emphasis added).

Koran 58:22 praises Muslims who fight and kill their own non-Muslim family members: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.”

According to Ibn Kathir’s mainstream commentary on the Koran, this verse refers to a number of Muslims who slaughtered their own non-Muslim kin (one slew his non-Muslim father, another his non-Muslim brother; a third—Abu Bakr, the first revered caliph of Islamic history—tried to slay his non-Muslim son.) As Ibn Kathir explains,[i] the continuation of verse 58:22 demonstrates that Allah was immensely pleased by their unwavering zeal for his cause.

In fact, verses that support the divisive doctrine of “loyalty and enmity” permeate the Koran (see also 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 60:1). There is one caveat, captured by Koran 3:28: when Muslims are in a position of weakness, they may pretend to befriend non-Muslims, as long as the hate carries on in their hearts. (Read here for several recent examples of Muslims living for years at peace and in friendship with non-Muslims, but then violently turning on them once they became stronger.[ii])

Because enmity for non-Muslims is so ironclad in the Koran, mainstream Islamic teaching holds that Muslim men must hate—and show that they hate—even their non-Muslim wives, for no other reason than that they are “infidels.”

If Muslims must hate those closest to them—including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives—simply because they are non-Muslims, is there any surprise that so many Muslims hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans away—such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Islamic world as trying to undermine Islam?

Thus, even our best Muslim friends and allies—such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar—are on record calling on all Muslims to hate us. According to a Saudi governmental run website, Muslims must “oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”

In short, Trump’s assertion that “Islam hates us” is demonstrable by the plain words and teachings of the Koran, by the plain words and teachings of modern Islamic clerics, and by the past and ongoing actions of Muslims around the world.

But, as usual, instead of discussing these disturbing facts, the powers that be are more determined to portray Trump as the one who hates.

Notes:
[i] Koran 58:22 in full reads: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred. Allah has inscribed the faith in their very hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. He will admit them to gardens watered by running streams, where they shall dwell forever. Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him. They are the party of Allah, and surely it is the party of Allah that shall triumph!”

According to Ibn Kathir’s commentary: “It was said that the phrase from the Most High—‘even if they be their fathers’—that it was revealed about Abu Ubayda when he slew his father at [the battle of] Badr; ‘their sons’ was about Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s successor and first caliph] when he intended to slay his son, Abd al-Rahman; ‘their brothers’ was about Mus’ab bin Umayr, who slew his brother, Ubayd bin Umayr; ‘or their kin’ was about Omar, who slew one of his relatives. Also Hamza, Ali, and Ubayda bin al-Harith: They slew Utba, Sheeba, and al-Walid bin Uitba [their kin] at that battle. Allah knows [best]. Moreover, when the Messenger of Allah consulted with the Muslims regarding the captives of Badr, Abu Bakr advised that they should pay ransom, thereby enabling the Muslims to grow stronger. Also, since they [captives] were cousins and relatives, perhaps Allah Most High would have eventually guided them. But Omar said: ‘This goes against my thinking, O Messenger of Allah. Let me slay so-and so (a relative of Omar), and let Ali [slay] Aquil [Ali’s brother], and so-and-so [slay] so-and-so—so that Allah may know that there is no love in our hearts for the idolaters. ..’ This is the whole story.” Excerpted from Ayman al-Zawahiri’s “Loyalty and Enmity,” The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs., 63-115.

Philly Mayor says Muslim Attack on Cop had Nothing to do with Islam – Fox News Host Tells Him to Shut His Mouth

by Onan Coca
In the wake of the attack on a Philadelphia police officer by a Muslim man shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’, the mayor of Philadelphia stood up to tell the citizens of his city that the shooting had nothing to do with Islam! Yes, it’s crazy… until you remember that he’s a Democrat, and Democrats believe crazy things about Islam.

Almost everyone immediately realized that the mayor was wrong because the attack was all about Islam. Thankfully, Judge Jeanine Pirro at Fox News was ready, willing and able to speak out on the insanity of the mayor’s comments.

Thanks, Judge Jeanine – for the intellectual honesty and for using your logic and reason to analyze the situation.

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s Opening Statement:

I planned to talk to you about President Obama and his executive gun action this week, but when I listened to a press conference, in the wake of yet another attack on a police officer I was furious and one of these men has me fuming.

Within hours of the shooting of Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett, who was sitting alone in his police cruiser, Mayor Kenney of Philadelphia makes one of the most astounding asinine statements that I’ve heard since the last time I listened to a White House press conference. Take a listen:

In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on that screen. That is abhorrent. It’s just– it’s terrible. And it does not represent the religion in any way shape or form or any of its teachings

Muslim Shoots Cop PhillyWhat? A hero sitting by himself guarding the community in the City of Brotherly Love. Almost assassinated by this man and you bring your nonsense apologetic politically incorrect baloney to a law enforcement press conference?

Hey, Kenney in case you forgot–Philadelphia is the place where the Declaration of Independence was signed and the Constitution was written. Its location the symbol of freedom where Independence Hall and the liberty bell sit. Last I checked, the First Amendment reigned supreme.

Who are you to tell me what the shooter’s motivations are when your own police department has a video confession of the shooter himself admitting what his motivations are?

We had the suspect upstairs, homicide unit talked to him, right away he didn’t have anything to say but then he stated that he pledges his allegiance to the Islamic state he follows Allah and that is why he was called upon to do this

How dare you take the sympathy away from the victim, Officer Hartnett , and the men and women in blue under siege every day by the haters and turn it into sympathy and understanding for a different group? I don’t need you to tell me or lecture me what I should be thinking because you want to suck up to the commander-in-chief.

So how about you drop your liberal ideological nonsense and stop apologizing and start focusing on the threats to kill those in your department. I don’t know if you need to see an eye doctor, but the man is wearing Muslim garb, he has sworn allegiance to ISIS, he told the cops he did it for Allah and ISIS, his own mother says he’s a devout Muslim. Are you stupid?

And you’re not alone in your stupidity. On December 17, 70 democrats in the House of Representatives introduced House Resolution 569, a resolution condemning violence, bigotry and hateful rhetoric toward Muslims in the United States.

They resolved to express their condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes. No mention of Christians and Jews. Two weeks after an Islamic state inspired massacre of Americans in San Bernardino, California.

Add to that, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, within days of that massacre, expressing her greatest fear is anti-Muslim rhetoric. All of this is a direct violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. Yes, offensive speech is protected. Need I remind anyone that the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or abridging freedom of speech.” These folks don’t seem to understand that they are violating our free speech rights under the First Amendment. Offensive speech is protected. Congress is forbidden from promoting one religion over another.

I have feared for some time that Sharia law is already here. This resolution is an affront to freedom of religion by prioritizing one over others. By the way, this resolution and the names of those who sponsored it are on my Facebook page.

So Mr. Mayor, stop mouthing off when you don’t know the facts. Because you are pandering to either the White House or the political class that is taking us down this road. Why don’t you start by offering your sympathies to Officer Hartnett, his family and the families of those Americans killed in California.

Outrage on Trump Misplaced - Already Illegal for Muslim Fascists, Communists and other Totalitarians to Immigrate to the USA

by Tim Brown
As Barack Obama and his useful idiots in his administration, Congress and the media attempt to immigrate hundreds of thousands of Islamists into the united States, the law needs to be brought to bear and the law is not on their side. Islamists, like all totalitarians, are prohibited by law (yes, American law) from immigrating to the united States.

In 1952, Islam, along with Communism was effectively banned by law.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, which was passed June 27, 1952 revised the united States’ laws regarding immigration, naturalization and nationality. This Act, under Section 313 states the following:

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 405(b) , no person shall hereafter be naturalized as a citizen of the United States-

(1) who advocates or teaches, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches, opposition to all organized government; or

(2) who is a member of or affiliated with (A) the Communist Party of the United States; (B) any other totalitarian party of the United States; (C) the Communist Political Association; (D) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (E) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (F) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt, unless such alien establishes that he did not have knowledge or reason to believe at the time he became a member of or affiliated with such an organization (and did not thereafter and prior to the date upon which such organization was so registered or so required to be registered have such knowledge or reason to believe) that such organization was a Communist-front organization; or

(3) who, although not within any of the other provisions of this section, advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, either through its own utterances or through any written or printed publications issued or published by or with the permission or consent of or under authority of such organizations or paid for by the funds of such organization; or

(4) who advocates or teaches or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization that advocates or teaches (A) the overthrow by force or violence or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or

(5) who writes or publishes or causes to be written or published, or who knowingly circulates, distributes, prints, or displays, or knowingly causes to be circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed or who knowingly has in his possession for the purpose of circulation, publication, distribution, or display, any written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to all organized government, or advocating (A) the overthrow by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means of the Government of the United States or of all forms of law; or (B) the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers (either of specific individuals or of officers generally) of the Government of the United States or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character; or (C) the unlawful damage, injury, or destruction of property; or (D) sabotage; or (E) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship; or

(6) who is a member of or affiliated with any organization, that writes, circulates, distributes, prints, publishes, or displays, or causes to be written, circulated, distributed, printed, published, or displayed, or that has in its possession for the purpose of circulation, distribution, publication, issue, or display, any written or printed matter of the character described in subparagraph (5).

(b) The provisions of this section or of any other section of this Act shall not be construed as declaring that any of the organizations referred to in this section or in any other section of this Act do not advocate the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.

(c) The provisions of this section shall be applicable to any applicant for naturalization who at any time within a period of ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for naturalization or after such filing and before taking the final oath of citizenship is, or has been found to be within any of the classes enumerated within this section, notwithstanding that at the time the application is filed he may not be included within such classes.

(d) Any person who is within any of the classes described in subsection (a) solely because of past membership in, or past affiliation with, a party or organization may be naturalized without regard to the provisions of subsection (c) if such person establishes that such membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or occurred and terminated prior to the attainment by such alien of the age of sixteen years, or that such membership or affiliation is or was by operation of law, or was for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and where necessary for such purposes.

Chapter 2, Section 212 presents a prohibition of entry to the US if the person belongs to an organization seeking to overthrow the US government by “force, violence, or other unconstitutional means.” The Koran and the Hadiths present Sharia and demand submission to Islam, which is antithetical to Biblical law and the US Constitution, as well as to our Republic.

Muslim Islam AmericaWhether one pushes Islam as a religion is irrelevant. It’s ideology is opposed to America and her laws, including her Constitution.

First, consider that Hussein Obama has ignored immigration law, both with regards to those coming across our southern border and those from the Middle East.

Now, consider that this is about immigration and naturalization and its aim was primarily at Communism. However, it also mentions totalitarianism being promoted. That is all that Islam does. They are no different than Communism in their ideology. They just claim to do it in the name of Allah rather than advance the idea of a Creator.

Consider that the Muslims Brotherhood, as well as the Communists, have documented their goals for the destruction of America. Consider the Islamic organizations in the united States like designated terror and Muslim Brother hood front group Hamas-CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), The Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, and plenty of others, including individual Muslims who seek to advance Sharia (which is anti-Christian and anti-American). Sharia falls under the very definition of the ideology of those Barack Hussein Obama wants to flood America with. If the law applies to those wishing to immigrate to the united States, should those same laws against sedition and treason not apply to those already here?

Our Constitution provides certain protections of those who have been born or naturalized in the united States in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clearly, those immigrating are not privileged to those protections, but confined to remain outside the united States. Those inside our borders have certain rights to a trial, but if they are promoting sedition and a totalitarian ideology to overthrow government, then they must be held accountable. Not only does Communism do this, but so does Islam.

And, don’t give me that “freedom of religion” bit, for Islam is nothing more than totalitarianism under a thin veil of religion, but make no mistake, Islamists mean to rule the world apart from the Creator’s law and justice.

Before someone comes at me for pushing the Creator, the Lord Jesus Christ, and His law as something akin to Sharia, you really need to read how I rip down that straw man here. You need to read how our forefathers upheld our rights as attributed to the Creator in the year of our Lord (that’s Jesus Christ, see Bryan Fisher’s excellent article on that). You need to understand the real foundations of America.

However, when we really get down to the issue, we would then have to be rooting out possibly hundreds of Americans serving in Congress and the Obama administration. Lt. Col. Allen West was one that pointed out that there were at least 80 Communists in the House of Representatives in 2012. Why have they not been recalled, indicted, tried, convicted and then summarily brought to justice by the people they represent? Why are Islamic totalitarians like Keith Ellison and Andre Carson still in Congress, pushing America closer to totalitarianism? Why is Barack (Barry) Hussein Obama Soebarkah still in the Oval Office, Valerie Jarrett by his side? It’s simply because the American people have tolerated the very lawlessness that the law speaks against and have failed to bring justice to these criminals against the people of the united States.

America, it’s time to wake up and bring justice to these people!

THIS WILL HAPPEN HERE ...

Islam is a Threat to America


We recently moved to the beautiful state of North Carolina – one of the fastest growing states in the nation. My family attended one of the local churches and a guest preacher was speaking about the church’s outreach to the ever-growing populace from all over the nation, and the world. The preacher explained that North Carolina has changed from a small town feel where everyone assumed his or her neighbor attended a church in the Christian faith. Now, people of many faiths, or no faith at all, have flooded the region. This has caused the church to re-evaluate their methods of outreach to the area. It has also caused great concern for North Carolina natives who desire to maintain the Christian value system of their state.

This got me thinking: America was founded by “immigrants.” Since the early 1600’s, America was known as the place where people could go to start a new life with freedom of religion, the liberty to choose your own occupation, and a place of refuge from oppressive governments.

The Mayflower Compact states why the Pilgrims came to America:

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia…

During the time of our founding, Islam was a major religion in many parts of the world. Therefore, there were numerous Muslims living in America during the time of its founding. Naturally, there was great concern over Muslims taking over America’s Christian value system, especially since America was in a war against Islamic terrorists – the Barbary Powers War – that spanned over the presidencies of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

During this critical point in America’s history, we are facing the same thing today.

The difference is how our elected representatives and influential people confronted this critical predicament. While Obama has stated that we are no longer a Christian nation, our founders stated the opposite.

Concerning the fear of Muslims holding high office in America,

Supreme Court Justice James Iredell (nominated to the Court by President Washington) stated:

But it is objected that the people of America may perhaps choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. . . . But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own.

Theophilus Parsons (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts) also affirmed:

No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government this security.

While the Constitution does not require men to be Christian in order to hold office, the beliefs of our founders’ highly encouraged this…and so did Americans.

[See also, “President Doubles Down: No Islamic Terrorists.”]

John Randolph was a Virginian Congressman during America’s founding. In his early years he held a position “in favor of Mahomedanism” and “rejoiced in all its triumphs over the cross [Christianity].” Francis Scott Key, author of the “Star-Spangled Banner,” befriended Randolph and faithfully shared the Gospel with him. Randolph converted to Christianity and became a strong advocate for the Christian faith. He once stated:

“I am at last reconciled to my God and have assurance of His pardon through faith in Christ, against which the very gates of hell cannot prevail. Fear hath been driven out by perfect love.”

Key shared the Christian faith with many Muslims in America, and even bought them copies of the Bible in Arabic.

Today, in a world of “tolerance” toward anything but Christianity, America is in danger of losing her Virtue unless we, like our founders, uphold the Christian value system and the church obeys the great commission to preach the Gospel to every creature.

Reverend Francis Grimke (1850-1937) once proclaimed,

“If the time comes when America shall go to pieces, it will… [be] from… losing sight of the fact that ‘Righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people… Unless we hold… to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, America will be only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell.”

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/07/is-islam-a-threat-to-america/#m0x38v5Qotj3VvCl.99

HOW ISLAM GOT IT'S AMERICAN PRIVILEGES

BY islam-in-america

by Daniel Greenfield

What is Islam? The obvious dictionary definition answer is that it’s a religion, but legally speaking it actually enjoys all of the advantages of race, religion and culture with none of the disadvantages.

Islam is a religion when mandating that employers accommodate the hijab, but when it comes time to bring it into the schools, places that are legally hostile to religion, American students are taught about Islam, visit mosques and even wear burkas and recite Islamic prayers to learn about another culture. Criticism of Islam is denounced as racist even though the one thing that Islam clearly isn’t is a race.

Islamist organizations have figured out how lock in every advantage of race, religion and culture, while expeditiously shifting from one to the other to avoid any of the disadvantages.

The biggest form of Muslim privilege has been to racialize Islam. The racialization of Islam has locked in all the advantages of racial status for a group that has no common race, only a common ideology.

Islam is the only religion that cannot be criticized. No other religion has a term in wide use that treats criticism of it as bigotry. Islamophobia is a unique term because it equates dislike of a religion with racism. Its usage makes it impossible to criticize that religion without being accused of bigotry.

By equating religion with race, Islam is treated not as a particular set of beliefs expressed in behaviors both good and bad, but as an innate trait that like race cannot be criticized without attacking the existence of an entire people. The idea that Islamic violence stems from its beliefs is denounced as racist.

Muslims are treated as a racial collective rather than a group that shares a set of views about the world.

That has made it impossible for the left to deal with ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali or non-Muslims from Muslim families like Salman Rushdie. If Islam is more like skin color than an ideology, then ex-Muslims, like ex-Blacks, cannot and should not exist. Under such conditions, atheism is not a debate, but a hate crime. Challenging Islam does not question a creed; it attacks the existence of an entire people.

Muslim atheists, unlike all other atheists, are treated as race traitors both by Muslims and leftists. The left has accepted the Brotherhood’s premise that the only authentic Middle Easterner is a Muslim (not a Christian or a Jew) and that the only authentic Muslim is a Salafist (even if they don’t know the word).

The racialization of Islam has turned blasphemy prosecutions into an act of tolerance while making a cartoon of a religious figure racist even when it is drawn by ex-Muslims like Bosch Fawstin. The New York Times will run photos of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” covered in dung and pornography, but refuses to run Mohammed cartoons because it deems one anti-religious and the other racist.

The equating of Islam with Arabs and Pakistanis has made it nearly impossible for the media to discuss violence against Christians in those parts of the world. The racialization of Islam has made Arab Christians, like Bangladeshi atheists, a contradiction in terms.

The ethnic cleansing of the Yazidi could only be covered by giving them a clearly defined separate identity. Middle Eastern Christians are increasingly moving to avoid being categorized as Arabs because it is the only way to break through this wall of ignorance.

While racialization is the biggest Muslim privilege, race provides no protection for many Islamic religious practices. Muslims then seek religious discrimination laws to protect these practices even if it’s often a matter of debate whether their lawsuits protect their religious practices or impose them on others.

Islam is a theocracy. When it leaves the territories conquered by Islam, it seeks to replicate that theocracy through violence and by adapting the legal codes of the host society to suit its purposes.

Islamic blasphemy laws are duplicated using hate crime laws. Employers are obligated to make religious concessions to Muslim employees because of laws protecting religious practices, but many of these practices, such as refusing to carry out jobs involving pork, liquor or Seeing Eye dogs, are really ways of theocratically forcing behaviors that Islam forbids out of public life much as Saudi Arabia or Iran do.

Accusations of bigotry are used to outlaw ideas that Islam finds blasphemous and religious protection laws are used to banish behaviors that it disapproves of. By switching from race to religion and back again, Islamists construct a virtual theocracy by exploiting laws designed to protect different types of groups.

Religions in America traded theocracy for religious freedom. They gave up being able to impose their practices on others in exchange for being able to freely practice their own religions. Islam rejects religious freedom. It exploits it to remove the freedom of belief and practice of others. When it cannot do so through religious protection laws, it does so through claims of bigotry.

Religions were not meant to be immunized from blasphemy because that is theocracy. Instead religions are protected from restrictions, rather than from criticism. Islam insists on being protected from both. It makes no concessions to the freedom of others while demanding maximum religious accommodation.

While race and religion are used to create negative spaces in which Islam cannot be challenged, the creed is promoted positively as a culture. Presenting Islam as a culture allows it easier entry into schools and cultural institutions. Islamic missionary activity uses the Western longing for oriental exotica that its political activists loudly decry to inject it into secular spaces that would ordinarily be hostile to organized religion.

Leftists prefer to see Islam as a culture rather than a religion. Their worldview is not open to Islam’s clumsy photocopy of the deity that they have already rejected in their own watered down versions of Christianity and Judaism. But they are constantly seeking an aimless and undefined spirituality in non-Western cultures that they imagine are free of the materialism and hypocrisy of Western culture.

Viewing Islam as a culture allows the left to project its own ideology on a blank slate. That is why liberals remain passionately convinced that Islam is a religion of social justice. Their Islam is a mirror that reflects back their own views and ideas at them. They pretend to respect Islam as a culture without bothering to do any more than learn a few words and names so that they can seem like world travelers.

By morphing into a culture, Islam sheds its content and becomes a style, a form of dress, a drape of cloth, a style of beard, a curvature of script and a whiff of spices. It avoids uncomfortable questions about what the Koran actually says and instead sells the religion as a meaningful lifestyle. This approach has always had a great deal of appeal for African-Americans who were cut off from their own heritage through Islamic slavery, but it also enjoys success with white upper class college students.

The parents of those students often learn too late that Islam is not just another interchangeable monotheistic religion, that its mosques are not places where earnest grad students lecture elderly congregants about social justice and that its laws are not reducible to the importance of being nice to others.

Like a magician using misdirection, these transformations from religion to race, from race to culture and from culture to religion, distract Americans from asking what Islam really believes. By combining race, religion and culture, it replicates the building blocks of its theocracy within our legal and social spaces.

Separately each of these has its advantages and disadvantages. By combining them, Islam gains the advantages of all three, and by moving from one to the other, it escapes all of the disadvantages. The task of its critics is to deracialize Islam, to reduce it to an ideology and to ask what it really believes.

Islam is a privileged religion. And there’s a word for that. Theocracy.

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/06/11/0650-how-islam-got-its-american-privileges/

OBAMA'S DEAL FAILED AGAIN -U.S. Backed Fighters Switch to Islamic State

free-syrian-army-300x204
by E Michael Maloof
How many times will we arm Muslims who we later have to fight? Getting very old.
Check it out:

Before it even begins, the U.S. training and equipping of Syrian opposition forces to fight the Sunni army ISIS appears to have become more difficult with the decision by a U.S.-backed Syrian rebel group to join an Islamist coalition closely associated with ISIS and the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra Front.

The Hazzm Movement, associated with the Free Syrian Army, is a secular Syrian insurgent group backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. It was one of the last of the non-jihadist opposition groups fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in northern Syria.

Its leadership has decided to join the Islamist coalition of the Levant Front fighting around the key Syrian city of Aleppo, according to Arab news sources, including NOW Lebanon.

The turn of events comes even though Hazzm was viewed by one former Defense Department intelligence officer as a “model candidate for greater U.S. and allied support, including lethal military assistance.”

The Hazzm Movement decided to switch sides after months of battling Nusra fighters and join the Levant Front, which was formed in late December. It reportedly is on good terms with Nusra.

The development further complicates the process of selecting fighters for training. Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby told WND in January some 5,000 members of the Free Syrian Army would receive training in Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia – all Sunni countries – to battle the Sunni group ISIS.

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/02/u-s-backed-fighters-switch-islamic-state/

YOU CAN'T IGNORE REALITY OF RADICAL ISLAM

The following is from the liberal New York Times,, Thomas Friedman:

When you don’t call things by their real name, you always get in trouble. And this administration, so fearful of being accused of Islamophobia, is refusing to make any link to radical Islam from the recent explosions of violence against civilians (most of them Muslims) by Boko Haram in Nigeria, by the Taliban in Pakistan, by al-Qaida in Paris and by jihadists in Yemen and Iraq. We’ve entered the theater of the absurd.

Recently the conservative columnist Rich Lowry wrote an essay in Politico Magazine that contained quotes from White House spokesman Josh Earnest that I could not believe. I was sure they were made up. But I checked the transcript: 100 percent correct. I can’t say it better than Lowry did:

“The administration has lapsed into unselfconscious ridiculousness. Asked why the administration won’t say after the Paris attacks we are at war with radical Islam, Earnest on Tuesday explained the administration’s first concern ‘is accuracy. We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.’

“This makes it sound as if the Charlie Hebdo terrorists set out to commit a random act of violent extremism and only subsequently, when they realized that they needed some justification, did they reach for Islam.

“The day before, Earnest had conceded that there are lists of recent ‘examples of individuals who have cited Islam as they’ve carried out acts of violence.’ Cited Islam? According to the Earnest theory … purposeless violent extremists rummage through the scriptures of great faiths, looking for some verses to cite to support their mayhem and often happen to settle on the holy texts of Islam.”

President Barack Obama knows better. I am all for restraint on the issue, and would never hold every Muslim accountable for the acts of a few. But it is not good for us or the Muslim world to pretend that this spreading jihadist violence isn’t coming out of their faith community. It is coming mostly, but not exclusively, from angry young men and preachers on the fringe of the Sunni Arab and Pakistani communities in the Middle East and Europe.

If Western interventions help foster violent Islamic reactions, we should reduce them. To the extent that Muslim immigrants in European countries feel marginalized, they and their hosts should worker harder on absorption. But both efforts will only take you so far.

Something else is also at work, and it needs to be discussed. It is the struggle within Arab and Pakistani Sunni Islam over whether and how to embrace modernity, pluralism and women’s rights. That struggle drives, and is driven by, the dysfunctionality of so many Arab states and Pakistan. It has left these societies with too many young men who have never held a job or a girl’s hand, who then seek to overcome their humiliation at being left behind, and to find identity, by “purifying” their worlds of other Muslims who are not sufficiently pious and of Westerners whom they perceive to be putting Muslims down. But you don’t see this in the two giant Muslim communities in Indonesia or India.

Only Sunni Arabs and Pakistanis can get inside their narrative and remediate it. But reformers can only do that if they have a free, secure political space. If we’re not going to help create space for that internal dialogue, let’s just be quiet. Don’t say stupid stuff. And don’t hold airy fairy conferences that dodge the real issues, which many mainstream Muslims know and are actually starved to discuss, especially women.

The Arab journalist Diana Moukalled, writing in the London-based Asharq Al-Awsat, asked: “Don’t all these events now going on around us and committed in our name require us to break the fear barrier and begin to question our region and our societies, especially the ideas being trafficked there that have led us to this awful stage where we are tearing at one another’s throats — to mention nothing of what as a result also happens beyond our region?”

And a remarkable piece last week in the Washington Post by Asra Q. Nomani, an American Muslim born in India, called out the “honor corps” — a loose, well-funded coalition of governments and private individuals “that tries to silence debate on extremist ideology in order to protect the image of Islam.”

It “throws the label of ‘Islamophobe’ on pundits, journalists and others who dare to talk about extremist ideology in the religion. … The official and unofficial channels work in tandem, harassing, threatening and battling introspective Muslims and non-Muslims everywhere. … The bullying often works to silence critics of Islamic extremism. … They cause governments, writers and experts to walk on eggshells.”

I know one in particular.

How to Confront the Islamic State

by Geert Wilders

geert_New2
The Islamic State is an Islamic cancer. It is a poisonous snake based on the Quran and the life of Muhammad, a criminal who 14 centuries ago went, murdering and decapitating, from Medina to Mecca. His self-appointed successor Caliph Baghdadi is now at the gates of Baghdad and Damascus. He has followers all over the world, including in our country, our cities and streets.

Again, people are beheaded according to the Koranic commands such as Sura 47 verse 4: “When ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks and when ye have caused a bloodbath among them bind a bond firmly on them.” Even moderate Muslims cannot escape violence because, according to the Koran and the Sharia, they are apostates.

All the gullible minds who say that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam are committing a serious politically-correct error, whether they are Obama, Cameron, Rutte or Samsom.

We are at war. War has been declared against the free West. Our freedom, our culture, the future of our country and our children are at stake. We must strike back hard, in the Netherlands, in the rest of the West and also in Iraq and Syria. Hence, my party supports the Government’s decision to deploy Dutch F16s against the Islamic state. We say: Let us bomb them.

But we have no understanding for the fact that we are only going to bomb in Iraq and not in Syria. Is it OK for the Government that people are beheaded, women raped and genocide committed in Syria because a mandate under international law is missing? What a cowardice. The government says it understands the United States when they bomb the Islamic State in Syria, but it does not participate itself. Understanding, but no participation, what a cowardly half-heartedness.

Even more important than fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is fighting Islamic terrorism in the Netherlands. The security of the Netherlands should be priority number 1. Our citizens have to be safe on the train, in the streets, when walking their children to school and shopping. That is what truly matters. In its letter to Parliament, the Government only devotes two paragraphs to national security. There is even more attention for issues of gender and the position of women in the Arab world. That is a travesty.

Madam Speaker, we must protect the Netherlands. That is why we were elected. To protect our citizens. Not only the citizens of Iraq and Syria, but also and especially our own people here in the Netherlands. Why is the army not deployed to protect our railways stations? And in their uniforms and heavily armed, of course.

And why do we try to stop jihadists when they want to leave our country? Last Sunday, the Minister of Security and Justice proudly said that the passports of 41 jihadists had been canceled so they could not leave to Syria or Iraq. What a stupid act. Now they walk around here, in our streets. People who want to wage jihad elsewhere, decapitate, commit attacks, walk our streets because of the decision of the Minister.

I have been saying it for ten years and I will repeat it once again:

Close the borders to immigrants from Islamic countries. Enough is enough. The Islamic culture of hatred does not belong in the Netherlands. 65 per cent of the Dutch agree with this.

Let jihadists leave the country, but let them never come back. Reintroduce border controls.

Evict everyone who expresses sympathy for the Islamic State, deprive them of their Dutch passports. Let everyone with a passport from an Islamic country to sign an anti-Sharia declaration.

Wake up, I say to the Government. Protect not only the Iraqi people against the Islamic State, protect the Dutch against the Islamic terrorist threat in our own country. That is your job and that is your responsibility.

Take that responsibility. Do your duty.

ISLAM: Producing Thugs Since the Seventh Century

Written by Pete Parker Muslim Thugs
Despite what all the whiny, kiss-ass liberal shills say about Islam–it is a barbaric and nefarious ideology that has produced some of the world’s most violent thugs since the 7th century.

Yeah, that’s right: THUGS!

From its founder Mohammed to the dregs of ISIS–Islam has bred a plethora of rapists, misogynists, pedophiles, decapitators, anti-Semites, torturers and slave masters. And the end result has been nothing short of horrific: Nearly 300 million innocents slaughtered in the name of its moon god, Allah.

And, lest we forget–it was Mohammed who set the vicious paradigm for bloody executions and pedophilia. Not only did the prophet order mass beheadings (such as the one in 627 AD)–but he also sexually molested Aisha (his child bride) when she was all of 9 years old.

Thug? You bet.

But–as we witness the sheer brutality and lawlessness of ISIS– the thugs Islam produces, manifestly–didn’t come to an end with death of Mohammed.

Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi–the leader of ISIS–is a bloodthirsty miscreant who uses Koranic doctrine (Sura 47:4 and 8:12) as well as the barbaric paradigm set by Mohammed as a foundation for the mass beheadings he has perpetrated in Iraq and Syria. From infants to the elderly, Al Baghdadi has decapitated thousands of innocents while shouting “Allah Akbar.”

Al Baghdadi (who holds a PhD in Islamic studies)–along with his fellow thugs– methodically studies Islam’s playbook (the Koran) in order to know the “just” punishment that must be administered to all “pigs,” “infidels” and “unbelievers.”

In short, Al Baghdadi, along with Yusuf ibn Tashfin, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and Abubakar Shekua are all products of an ideology that preaches violent supremacy and subjugation [jihad] against those deemed “inferior” (Sura 2-190).

(In his quest to implement Sharia law–Yusuf ibn Tashfin beheaded 24,000 Spaniards by the end of the 11th century.)

It would be prudent of us to remember that the so-called Islamic World (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Iran) was conquered by Allah’s thugs via the sword. In fact–most of these lands (prior to the first wave of Islamic jihad from 622-750 AD) were Christian.

In the final analysis–Islam is a wretchedly barbaric system that has produced some of planet’s most violent thugs.

And that, my friends–is etched in history.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
SEO Powered By SEOPressor