Well Written Expose on Why islam Can Never and Will Never be Compatible with Western Civilization

Letter to the Muslims of Europe.

If you (reader) are one of the twenty million devout Muslims currently resident in Europe, I’d like to try explain to you why I believe your beliefs are incompatible with the culture of your adopted home. But more than this, I hope also to persuade you that this view (shared by a growing majority of Europeans) does not emanate from ignorance or racism, and why it may not be a defeat or a humiliation for you to agree with it.

You or your parents probably came to Europe initially for economic reasons, seeking a better life and a more secure future. There is nothing dishonourable or unusual about that. Most non-Muslim migrants make the journey with the same ambitions. The West is very wealthy and safe relative to the rest of the world and so it is only rational to want to join it.

Once here, you or your parents probably planned to exist in a peaceful but separate state to the majority, maintaining your beliefs and traditions quietly in the same way that Orthodox Jews and Eastern Orthodox migrants have done in the past. Increasingly, this doesn’t seem to be possible, if it ever was. And in my view, the reasons for that directly relate to the nature of Islamic belief and the sense of mission that is so inseparable from it.

Unlike Christianity or Judaism, yours is a conquering faith, not a persuading one. Relatively little importance is given to peaceful proselytization in Islam. While there are occasionally stalls set out in front of tube stations or elsewhere in city centres to preach Islamic doctrine, this is an imitation of Christian practice and not something organically ‘Muslim’. Rather, Muslims have historically sought to attain dominion over society by violence, sometimes later permitting religious diversity within that society, but never allowing any symbol to enjoy precedence over the crescent. Their hope, indeed their expressed intention, has always been to exalt Islam to a position of cultural dominance and authority. While Christians and Jews have peacefully resided as minorities in many different parts of the world, Muslims have always struggled with the very concept of minority life. Since Allah is supposed to be the only authority to which submission is made, it is seen by most Muslims (and perhaps by you specifically) to be incongruous that a divine authority is subordinate to any non-Islamic regime, whether secular or religious. Minarets are built to tower above all other buildings for grander reasons than amplification. They proclaim symbolically the primacy and authority of Islam over the territory Muslims inhabit. It will simply not do that cathedrals or government buildings are larger or invested with more power and importance. Indeed, it is blasphemous and idolatrous. As Islamists never forget to proclaim before they demolish some priceless artefact – “Nothing and no-one is worthy of veneration except Allah”.

This sense of mission, inherent within Islamic theory, has radically altered human history. The nations of Lebanon, Libya and Syria were once Christian. The territory of what is now Pakistan and Afghanistan was once Buddhist. Persia was once Zoroastrian. That these places are now Muslim is testament to Islam’s conquering urge and military spirit. Islam seeks not only to convert, but to dominate and subdue. It is expansionist by its very nature. It was not designed to be one faith out of many, but to be the one and only faith of all humankind. The Quran itself is not shy of stating this. I would quote the passages urging the subjugation of unbelievers here but this would be so long as to be disruptive to my argument.

Your faith is antagonistic to everything but itself. And since you began settling in Europe back in the 1960s, members of your community have behaved in a way harmonious with that analysis. Just recently in Britain, there has been a wave of serious sexual assault committed by Muslims against exclusively non-Muslim children. Some estimates put the number of girls assaulted by British Pakistanis as high as 200,000. In the town of Rotherham alone, at least 1400 girls are known to have been forced into sexual slavery by Muslim gangs.

And even when it doesn’t lead to assault, your behaviour around women (if you are a man) is infantile and tactless. It would appear customary that upon meeting a woman (Muslim or otherwise, online or in real life) your first words either involve sex or invite a personal relationship that can lead to sex. It might surprise you – it probably has surprised you – but non-Muslim women do not enjoy being asked for their phone number or address by a complete stranger without any preceding conversation. Your lack of charm – indeed, your failure to even understand the idea and purpose of charm – is absolute. To you, women are merely sexual animals, possessing no greater value or agency than cats and dogs. For this reason, perhaps more than any other, I find it difficult to breath the same air as you.

Then there are the acts of extreme violence. Members of your community blew up the train network in Madrid, Spain and the subway in London, England. Members of your community massacred the staff of a cartoon tabloid in Paris. Members of your community have beheaded European citizens, the most recent case occurring only a month ago. You even hunt your own kind! Hundreds of Muslim women have now been killed in Europe in the name of ‘honour’ – and usually by members of their own family. Every year, thousands of Muslim girls are taken abroad to have their vagina mutilated by a shaving razor and then brought back to lead a miserable, painful existence with the perpetrators.

How could we possibly put up with this? What kind of people would we be if we did?

Face the facts, a growing proportion of the native population of Europe actively despises you, and does so without allowing any distinction for your race, Islamic school or individual contribution to European society. After decades of aggressive dysfunction and sickening crime, people simply hate you. They hate you and they fear you. And it is becoming difficult for even the most committed liberal to propose a reason why they shouldn’t.

There is an obvious – some would say cartoonish – contrast between the Islamic conception of society and the hopes and opinions of the Europeans. We value things you view as Satanic. You value things we regard as barbaric. You put faith before reason. We put reason before faith. You regard women as second-class human beings. We regard the sexes as equal. You view freedom of speech as being limited to secular matters. We believe it should permeate every corner of life and thought.

Even if this weren’t the case, your religious tradition is not the one that we are used to and which has inspired and characterised our manners and rituals over centuries. No European books are dedicated to your God. No statues of your Prophet (even if this were allowed) grace the Piazzas of our cities. Few if any Qur’anic phrases have entered our common parlance. We don’t celebrate your holy days, and have no regard for your heroes and saints.

You might reply that Hindu and Sikh mythologies do not inform our ways either, but then Hindus and Sikhs have proven themselves to be comfortable with that. I have never heard of an act of Hindu terrorism, nor any religiously-motivated outrage committed by a Sikh, Buddhist, Scientologist or Jain organisation. Islam has actively distinguished itself in violence, in readiness to fight and to make war where there is peace.

You are wrong if you take us for fools. We know well enough what the phrases Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam mean. We recognise the desire on your part to transfer us from one to the other and by what means. You must have known from the start that a project of this historical magnitude would be resisted with passion and fire. And, please believe me, that passion and fire is already generated in sufficient quantity should we ever be given the excuse to unleash it.

There are people on this (uniquely civilised) continent who would gladly slaughter you like dogs. It is not fantastical anymore to foresee a new Nazi movement emerging in Europe and going on to behave in a Hitlerian fashion. Nobody (save a few lunatics) wishes to go back there. Peace in Europe has been a blessing. Democracy is deserving of all the celebration dedicated to it. But your behaviour is testing the hold of democracy to its white-knuckled limits.

How then can we defuse this bomb? How might we organise a solution that forbids the need for mass violence and the self-destruction of democratic liberalism? This of course is the great question of my generation, and the most important task of the Western World, ahead of the environment, Russia, or any other exaggerated diversion.

That there is – or rather, that you are – an issue in need of resolution can no longer be sensibly denied. We are obliged by everything we hold dear to guarantee that the Islamisation of Europe ceases and that what progress it has already made is reversed. The Western way of life is not just ‘different’ to your own, but a million times superior. We are behaving very rationally by seeking to protect it.

Incidentally, you can deny this last fact as much as you want. It makes no difference to me. Deep down, beneath all the evasions and the layers of self-hypnosis, I’m sure you accept it as much as I do. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t still be here.

And that is the real, embarrassing truth, no? Whatever your friends have scrawled on placards in the past, you don’t ‘hate our way of life’ at all. You are simply jealous of it, and angry that your ancestral lands have failed – and are still failing – to develop in a like fashion.

For an effective and rapid solution to this problem, I propose the following measures – If you are brave, honest and intelligent enough to rid your mind of the numbing circularities of Islamic thinking, a space in the European future can and should be found for you. If not, and if you continue to display the toxic side effects of Islamic belief, then no more kid glove treatment should be forthcoming. If you espouse anti-Semitic, anti-Democratic and anti-Western ideas, you should be arrested and receive criminal records, with all the implications that has for finding employment, pursuing political office and securing tenancy and accommodation. The wearing of the Niqab must be outlawed and repeat offenders deported to a country where it is still the prevailing fashion. All Muslims involved in the mass-rape of British children must hang. Any Mosque preaching violence against Jews, Christians or Homosexuals must be shut down and demolished, and the same with colleges and Islamic faith schools. There must be an end to all immigration from Muslim countries, including from those cultures touted as exceptional (like Tunisia, Turkey or Iran). The culture of the West must be openly celebrated as the supreme culture of the world, and no ‘noble’ savagery must ever be taught as a desirable alternative to our children.

Our foreign policy must also be redesigned to reflect our desire to survive. Turkey should be expelled from NATO and replaced by Armenia. Any sanctions lifted from Iran must be reimposed. Investment in alternatives to Middle Eastern oil, including fracking (in lightly populated areas), fusion technology, nuclear and renewable energy must be radically increased. Western arms should only be exported to regimes which ruthlessly suppress Islamist activity (like Egypt and Jordan) and never to theocratic countries, whether ‘allies’ or not (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait etc…). Needless to say, our support for Israel must be great and unconditional.

In all these efforts, our motivating principle (and final goal) must be that Islam is forever segregated from the Western World.

Finally, reader, I promised at the beginning to tell you why it isn’t a humiliation for you to agree with my arguments… This is for the simple reason that you were a human being long before you were a Muslim, and this will always be the most salient fact about you. You are no more biologically predestined to ignorance and poverty than a Swede or a German. If you wish to become free, you can become free! And if you prefer slavery, well, then there is no defeat in relocating to pursue it, if that is your dream. There can no ‘shame’ in wanting to be where you belong. Nothing is more human.

Whichever condition you choose (and we will make you choose), understand that the West is the homeland of the free, the creative and the happy. A slave will always be foreign here.

D, LDN.

From Defend the Modern World Blog: https://defendthemodernworld.wordpress.com/page/2/

This islamic Evil is not Hard to Figure Out. It is Spelled out plainly in the koran. There is NO moderate islam. Only islam.

Understanding the Tennessee Jihadist

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

“He died doing what he loved.”  No, I am not referring to any one of the five slain U.S. servicemen at the navy reserve center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.  I am referring to their killer, Islamic terrorist Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz.  This young jihadist chose the path of conduct declared by Allah in the Koran to be the right one.  This righteous path requires the removal of nonbelievers who hinder the advancement of Islam and the establishment of the supremacy of Allah.  However, the Obama administration, the FBI, and the mainstream media refuse to call this attack Islamic terrorism.

Abdulaziz fulfilled Islamic law by killing those guilty of the highest crime in Islam, the crime of rejecting Allah and Mohammed.  Punishing this treasonous crime is mandated in the Koran, Hadiths (26), and other Islamic-based doctrines such as the Reliance of the Traveller (f1.3), Islam’s most authoritative book on Islamic law and conduct.  In Islam, nonbelievers, including the slain U.S. servicemen, are viewed as obstacles in the path of Allah.  They are not considered innocent, and therefore require removal.  Killing them, or waging jihad, is therefore justified as an act of defense against those who are hindering the rule of Allah.

Abdulaziz knew he would be guaranteed a high place (4645) in Paradise for waging jihad and defending Islam, and a higher place if he were to die while fighting.  However, waging jihad goes well beyond mere justification.  Waging jihad is a deeply-entrenched duty and commandment from Allah to subjugate non-Muslims worldwide to Islamic rule so that only the rule of Allah prevails.  This is what lies at the heart of not radical Islam, but Islam itself.  Scholars of Islamic law would agree with this.

The attacks at the U.S. military facilities on the last day of Ramadan, the Islamic month rife with jihad right from Islam’s inception, were clearly inspired by the same jihad ideology of the Koran.  It was this ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

It is this jihad ideology that inspired Mohammed and his followers to commit genocide against all Jewish tribes living in Saudi Arabia.  It was this ideology that inspired religious Muslims to commit genocide against the Hindus, killing tens of millions over an 800-year period, and the Christian Armenians, killing up to 1.5 million.  Today this very same ideology continues to inspire tens of thousands of Muslims, like Mohammed Yusef Abdulaziz, to kill non-Muslims, as well as Muslims who are not Muslim enough, on a daily basis worldwide.

However, federal, state and local U.S. law enforcement agencies (headed by the FBI) and news pundits cannot get their heads around this recent attack, and are still trying to figure out what could have possibly driven this young Muslim man to target unarmed innocent men and women.  What these investigators do not understand is that the gunman did not view his victims as innocent.  In Islam, there is no such thing an as innocent non-Muslim.  The meaning of innocence and other terms (such as justice and freedom) used in Islamic law and in Islam’s holy texts do not mean anything like the accepted Western meaning.

The Islamic threat to kill Westerners does not simply “come from the internet, come out of Syria, from ISIS followers, ISIS recruiters, ISIS operators,” as Michael McCaul, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, explained.  This threat stems from the totalitarian ideology of Islam itself.  During the Cold War, Americans perceived the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of communism as a viable threat to their hard-won freedoms, and they reacted accordingly.

Why won’t the U.S. administration see the recent killing spree as one motivated by the totalitarian and supremacist ideology of Islam, an ideology that poses not only a threat to the U.S., but the greatest threat to Western freedom, equality, and the human race?  It is precisely this ignorance that Islam is counting on in order to subjugate Western civilization to sharia law.

The FBI and the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security (HCHS), both U.S. federal law enforcement agencies, refuse to use the terms Islamic terrorism or jihad to define and better understand the shooter, thanks to the Obama administration. In 2011, President Obama issued the removal of any words linking Islam to terrorism from government documents (that include law enforcement and national security training manuals) — words that Muslim Brotherhood front groups, such as the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), claimed were offensive.  Any material that does not portray Islam as a religion of peace was discarded.

Working with the Muslim Brotherhood to control how Islam is discussed in society and how government handles policy so that it veers towards sharia law, is the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC).  This organization is the most influential and largest Muslim organization in the world, dedicated to the imposition of sharia law worldwide.  The OIC is relentlessly pushing to internationally outlaw and criminalize any criticism of Islam, regardless of whether or not that criticism is true.  The OIC’s influence is so pervasive that in some European countries, telling the truth about Islam has become a crime.

The U.S. under President Obama is heading in the same direction.  In his National Intelligence Strategy of the United States issued in 2009, the terms Islam, Muslim and jihad were never, not even once, used.  The OIC’s widespread influence also explains why Obama refuses to call the Islamic State Islamic, despite the fact that Islamic State is what ISIS named itself and its state.

The OIC’s influence has trickled down to U.S. law enforcement agencies.  They deny that Abdelaziz was driven by Islam despite jihadists saying the contrary, and posit that the shootings may have been a result of none other than depression.  If the enemy and his accompanying motivational ideology cannot be identified and understood in terms that define him — because those terms were purged from the American, and European, lexicon — then how can he be defeated?

Meanwhile, as the FBI and HCHS continue their futile search for the mysterious motives of the Tennessee jihadist, hemming and hawing their way through semantics on whether or not this recent attack was ISIS-inspired, other jihadists are busy plotting more terrorist attacks against the West.

The deceptive use of Western terminology by Muslim organizations, as well as the outlawing of truth about Islam and jihad by the Obama administration, is misleading American citizens and lulling them into ignorant complacency about the threat from Islam.  Until Americans take the time to educate themselves about Islamic law in order to recognize and identify the real threat — instead of enable it, as their government is doing — the U.S. will, once again, remain impotent in the face of an Islamic onslaught in the homeland.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/07/understanding_the_tennessee_jihadist_.html#ixzz3gYmbrBhg

The Invasion of Europe

Third World Invasion: The ISIS Threat and Beyond

Past attempts by Islam to overrun and eradicate European civilization, as it had done to the many great civilizations that had previously flourished in the Middle East, were stopped at the Gates of Vienna, or by Charles Martel. If anyone stops the current effort, it will be because enough people listen to Geert Wilders:

The humanitarian disaster unfolding on the Mediterranean is likely already providing a “shield” for Islamist terrorists to infiltrate waves of migrants attempting the perilous crossing from North Africa to Europe, terrorism experts and other strategic observers are warning. And they say a UN plan to resettle 1 million refugees in Western nations would turn the situation into a full-blown security crisis.

The exodus now unfolding, as well as the UN call to take in refugees from war-torn Middle Eastern and African nations over the next five years, is providing a “shield for the passage of jihadists to Europe,” said one analyst. Once absorbed into the societies of Europe and other rich countries such as the United States, ISIS operatives would be set to eventually gain all the freedoms of other citizens of those countries – including the freedom to travel, often without having to go through the extra scrutiny involved in obtaining a passport visa.

“ISIS has threatened to [infiltrate the migrants] and German intelligence already said that this is a real threat,” Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders told FoxNews.com from The Netherlands. “An open door policy would – both for the USA and Europe – mean that the threat of Islamists and terrorists entering our countries would increase to a very dangerous level.”

In the long term, how many of the numberless Third World colonists are actual terrorists is irrelevant. The main danger is that there are too many of them, and that on the whole they are unassimilable.

They do not come to participate, but to sponge and to conquer.

This gives an idea of what is pouring into Europe in vast numbers:

Muslims among migrants trying to reach Italy by boat from Libya tossed 12 fellow passengers overboard this month because they were Christians, Italian police said. All 12 drowned…

They are not immigrants; they are an invasion force. Their desperation, which turns Europeans against themselves by yanking on heartstrings, is a weapon far more effective than tanks and fighter jets.

If Europe has a right to exist, it has a right to defend itself. That entails stopping the invasion now, by whatever means necessary, before Europe is overrun almost exactly as foreseen in Jean Raspail’s prescience The Camp of the Saints.

Wilders is one of the very few with the courage to demand the invasion be stopped. But millions more know he’s right.

Closer to home, Moslem congresscritters Keith Ellison and Andre Carson are trying to ban Wilders from entering the USA. For obvious reasons, the enemy within does not want his voice heard.

the camp of the saints
No longer in the Fiction section.

On a tip from Dragon’s Lair. Hat tip: Refugee Resettlement Watch.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

Signs of the Great Falling Away

Chris-lam?

(Before It’s News)

Chrislam is the merging of apostate christianity and the ideology of Islam, and it is truly a pit of serpents and devils. One of the main founders of Chrislam and one of it’s main drivers is Rick Warren from Saddleback Church in Southern California. Warren at the same time passionately denies his connection with Chrislam while at the same time promoting it through his many ministries and outlets.

To understand where it all started, journey back with us to 2009 where Rick Warren addressed a the annual meeting of the Islamic Society of North America. He opened by telling the audience how much he had in common with Muslims and the ideology of Islam. He preached a pro-globalization message of uniting together at any cost by laying down our differences.

Where Chrislam Was Born: Rick Warren at the ISNA 2009 Conference from Now The End Begins on Vimeo.

He quoted no scripture from the bible, and only mentioned the Name of Jesus Christ once in passing. But what he did repeat over and over was how Muslims and Christians needed to “band together” and start work right away on “interfaith projects”. Warren poured out his interfaith slop, and the Muslims ate it up.

Chrislam Starts To Spread In America
Why does John Hagee’s son use the Muslim crescent moon and christian cross in his logo? That’s Chrislam!

By the time he was done speaking, Chrislam was born. But Warren was only just getting started. The Yale Covenant was right around the corner.

A Common Word Between Us and You

Around this same time, Rick Warren was instrumental in the creation and signing of the Yale Covenant Between Islam and Christianity. This is the preamble to that covenant:

As members of the worldwide Christian community, we were deeply encouraged and challenged by the recent historic open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars, clerics, and intellectuals from around the world. “A Common Word Between Us and You” identifies some core common ground between Christianity and Islam which lies at the heart of our respective faiths as well as at the heart of the most ancient Abrahamic faith, Judaism. Jesus Christ’s call to love God and neighbor was rooted in the divine revelation to the people of Israel embodied in the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18). We receive the open letter as a Muslim hand of conviviality and cooperation extended to Christians worldwide. In this response we extend our own Christian hand in return, so that together with all other human beings we may live in peace and justice as we seek to love God and our neighbors.

Muslims and Christians have not always shaken hands in friendship; their relations have sometimes been tense, even characterized by outright hostility. Since Jesus Christ says, “First take the log out your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Matthew 7:5), we want to begin by acknowledging that in the past (e.g. in the Crusades) and in the present (e.g. in excesses of the “war on terror”) many Christians have been guilty of sinning against our Muslim neighbors. Before we “shake your hand” in responding to your letter, we ask forgiveness of the All-Merciful One and of the Muslim community around the world. Yale Covenant

You will note that the Yale Covenant preamble ends with this esteemed board of Laodicean apostates asking for “forgiviness from the All-Merciful One, Allah”. They have placed the Muslim moon god on the same playing field as the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob from the bible. This Covenant was signed by hundreds of religious leaders from all across America.

So though Rick Warren issues a constant stream of denials about his role in Chrislam, everywhere you look there he is. All the evidence always leads back to him. And he has recruited many others to join him.

Spreading Rapidly

Today in 2013, Chrislam is rising rapidly. John Hagee’s son Matthew has a ministry that uses the crescent moon of Islam and the christian cross as a logo.

Glenn Beck went to Israel and made a video promoting a universal religion with Christianity and Islam as its core. Note how he equates the God of the bible as the same as the moon god of Islam, this is the essence of what Chrislam is all about.

Beck’s universalist message is in perfect harmony with Rick Warren’s global interfaith vision of Chrislam. We are seeing more and more pastors getting in line behind Warren’s demonic vision.

From BIN: http://beforeitsnews.com/religion/2013/11/rick-warrens-chrislam-becomes-one-of-the-fastest-growing-religions-in-america-videos-2458484.html

The Liberal Mind, Evil, Demonic, Death, and allah

Holy Saturday

By David Warren

“Security questions” were the reason so many Christian students were massacred in Kenya this week. This analysis dominates the headlines, as I write, of the BBC, CNN, and so forth.  Owing to “security questions,” Christian students were separated from Muslim students at the Garissa university campus (many of the former identified because they were praying). By some strange and unaccountable coincidence, only the former were slaughtered. But wait, but wait, there were Muslim victims, too! At least four of them: wearing suicide vests, who blew themselves up at the end.

All the dead died because of these “security questions,” which are raised by liberal journalists to deflect attention from the Muslim killers to the Kenyan government. In extenuation, it must be remembered that the typical liberal journalist is also, thanks partly to environmental influences beyond his immediate control, a malicious idiot. He has no clear idea what he is doing. In this case he probably thinks he is promoting multicultural harmony. He is not: Western Christians know perfectly well who is killing whom around the “bloody borders” of the Dar al-Islam, but do not habitually retaliate against harmless and defenceless Muslims in the West.

The truth is that the “liberal” mind (I am using the term in its current sense; or if gentle reader prefers, “progressive” means the same thing) spontaneously identifies more with the perpetrator than the victim, and thus devotes most of its cruelly limited wattage, like the criminal himself, to finding someone innocent or uninvolved to blame.

Of course the Kenyan security agencies are “incompetent.” So are all security agencies, by the standard of Omniscience. They had not yet increased the number of armed guards on that particular university campus, even though they had received intelligence (mostly in the form of threats) that there would be more attacks on Christians in Kenya. As intelligence of this nature is received constantly, today, and the attacks also continue, one may pretend that the security agencies are always to blame. Constant repetition of this vicious lie has conditioned much of the public to react in that way: to blame, without thinking, anyone but the perpetrator.

The secondary level, in the media analysis — that this hit was “payback” for Kenyan government attacks on Muslim terrorists in Somalia — notably cancels the first. For the Kenyan “security questions” are indeed doing what they can. They are tracing their problem of Muslim terrorism to its root cause, which is Muslim terrorists — in this case coming mostly from Somalia.

Godspeed to them in their task, which requires courage from the least of them, along with skill in the use of firearms.

Then we get to the third and most abstract level of this analysis, which takes us out of the direct news reporting, to the cloud cuckooland of liberal pundits and White House flacks. “Poverty and unemployment” accounts for this terrorism. This is fatuous to an extreme that beggars comprehension. It is opposite to the truth at so many points that I’m tempted to write an Idlepost simply listing them. Suffice to say, terrorists seldom come from impoverished families, and even if they did this would not explain why the impoverished, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, so seldom become terrorists. Or, why the ones who do are almost always Muslim.

I find this “media selectivity” — which is to say, constant semi-conscious lying and misrepresentation — almost annoying. Honest reporting in this case would shine light on al-Shabaab, and the explicitly Muslim ideology which accounts entirely for their choice of targets. But I’ve been a journalist myself, and have many years of aggregate experience in newsrooms, and I have observed the root cause of this problem. It is the liberal ideology, or in a word, liberals. They long for destruction of what remains of Western civilization in the same way al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda long for it, but being pant-wetted cowards they restrict their activity to what is within current law. Notwithstanding, at a deeper level, they share with the murderous an allegiance to the “culture of death,” and peristent opposition to the “culture of life.”

The liberal mind naturally identifies with the criminal. This is why, for liberals, freedom of speech and press means licence for pornographers, and human rights reduce invariably to permission for “the transgressive” against civilized norms. They instinctively identify with Muslim fanatics because they share a common enemy: Christians. But when the terrorists do things so utterly repulsive that even they are appalled, they do not attack the motivating Muslim ideology, or a Shariah which is simply a rotation of their own political correctness, but instead “religious fundamentalism” — intending to tar all faithful Christians with the same stinking brush.

We are not dealing here with “another point of view.” We are dealing instead with the satanic. It takes many forms, but when “Allah” is deemed to have commanded massacres of the harmless and defenceless, it may be seen that devil-worship is directly in play. For the poisonously befogged liberal mind, demonic service is less conscious. The liberal is not so much the Devil’s worshipper, as the Devil’s plaything. But this may be rationally demonstrated, by the consistency of his support for the more evil of any two rival causes — for whichever side promises the greater reduction of human life, up to the stage where it becomes so visibly icky that natural mechanisms are triggered, and he throws up.

Jesus was not a conservative, incidentally. He was, and He remains, very purposefully, off the political chart. The true opposite of liberalism is not conservatism, but instead the apolitical — the taking personal responsibility instead of assigning it to others. The trap of liberalism is that only through politics can the political agenda be fought.

And as for Jesus: He is dead at this liturgical moment, the Nietzschean position in the Christian calendar, when one might even say that, “God is dead.” This gives us a chance to consider what is implicit in that proposition. We are in mourning for a Christ who has been judicially murdered. But, too, for a Christ who caught even His own Apostles by surprise, as we will recollect tonight.

If liberals did not love death, they would not so consistently encourage it.

If God did not hate death, He would not have defeated it.

Remember that, and remember that the latest Christian martyrs in Kenya are not dead, despite the terrorists’ best efforts. Like the good thief, they will rise with Our Lord.

From David Warren: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/2015/04/04/holy-saturday/

Why aren’t LGBTs Up in Arms Because muslims Won’t Bake Wedding Cakes for Homo’s?

Muslim Bakers Asked to Bake Gay Wedding Cake

Militant homosexuals have made a sport of using our tyrannically politically correct system to destroy Christian bakers who are not willing to betray their faith (example 1, example 2). The complicit media has even extended a variation this game to pizzerias. But neither the Gaystapo nor the governmedia has any interest in whether politically privileged Muslims would be willing to prepare a cake for a Sodomite parody of marriage. So it was left to Steven Crowder to find out:

Are you on this, gay militants? How about you, “mainstream” media? Discrimination is taking place, right in Dearborn, Michigan. Somebody needs to tell Eric Holder.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

The West Wants to Whitewash islam

Sounding the Alarm on Expansionist Islam

F. W. Burleigh, author of It’s All About Muhammad, A Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet, sounds the alarm on expansionist Islam:

It has consumed a fifth of the human race. Yet the part of the human race that has not yet been devoured is divided between a small number of people who understand it for the carnivore that it is and the greater number who believe it is herbivorous. The ones who understand try their best to warn about it. They shout, jump up and down, pay for ads on buses, write articles and books, and blog about it until their fingers are bleeding. But the rest of the people cross their arms and say, “I refuse to believe what you are saying. It is not at all what you are talking about. It is a religion of peace.”

Even the supposed warmonger W used that preposterous mischaracterization to whitewash Islam rather than acknowledge the existential threat it poses.

It is not playful and cuddly and never will be. It has swallowed entire civilizations, worthwhile creations of humanity that had millennial histories behind them before they were devoured. Western civilization is not immune from being devoured.

Much of it already has been. Vast areas absorbed by expansionist Islam over the centuries used to be Christian.

Islam’s prophet was not a nice guy. People are dying over his vindictive grudges to this day:

He was given the name Muhammad and he grew up with epileptic experiences that led him to believe he was in communion with the divine, a common experience with people who suffer from epilepsy.

What was different about this epileptic was that he did not like being laughed at when he told his compatriots that God talked to him. Or when he came up with verses that he insisted were from God and were transmitted to him by an angel. He did not like to be made fun of and shunned by people who thought he was strange even though he was indeed strange. The more he pushed this idea about himself as someone God talked to, the more people ridiculed him — and the angrier he got.

He threatened to bring them slaughter, and he brought them slaughter after they ran him out of town. He attacked their caravans and defeated them in battles and threw the bodies of their leaders down a well. Then he turned on other people who also ridiculed his claim that God talked to him, particularly the Jews. The Jews saw he was a fraud because he claimed to be a prophet in the line of Abraham, yet he wasn’t even a Jew. And he took their prophet stories and rewrote them so that he was the hero of the narrative, the best and the last of the prophets. The Jews made fun of him, so he murdered them, and he kept murdering until people throughout Arabia were so afraid of him they joined his religion.

The more you know about threats, the more effectively you can defend yourself. Even after 9/11 and the rise of the Islamic State, most people don’t have a clue about Islam, or they would not tolerate Obama’s efforts to facilitate the fanatical Islamic regime in Iran acquiring nuclear weapons — which the ayatollahs will not hesitate to use any more than Mohammad would. Be informed.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

The Cancer of islamic sharia law Explained

ISIS is the Syndrome, Sharia the Real Malignancy

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

As the US-led kinetic war against ISIS continues with indifferent success and less than certain prospects to date, answering the obvious question of what motivates that murderous organization becomes more pressing by the day. Remarkably, there have been no visible efforts in that direction by either the White House or the Defense Department. Indeed, the much touted Obama Administration-sponsored conference on “countering violent extremism” further obfuscated the issue by its oxymoronic definition of terrorism as “acts of violence” committed “against people of different faiths, by people of different faiths.” Neither did the “Team America” high-level Pentagon-sponsored recent meeting in Kuwait help much with its lapidary conclusion that the US strategy against ISIS is correct.

Against that meager analytical background, a much discussed and praised effort to decipher ISIS ideology by journalist Graeme Wood in the March issue of the Atlantic Magazine deserves close scrutiny, because it is a good example of just how muddled and unrealistic our understanding of radical Islam with respect to ISIS has become.

Titled “What Does ISIS Really Want,” the article’s main contribution is its common sense proposition that ISIS is Islamic, indeed, “very Islamic.” Unfortunately, the rest of it is a largely failed effort to explain what drives ISIS to do what it does with a confused exegesis of its Islamic beliefs and interviews with several sympathizers. Key emphasis is given to its ostensible eschatological predilections as a “key agent of the coming apocalypse” and a “headline player in the imminent end of the world” when the messiah Mahdi will show up on Judgment Day. Mr. Wood also makes much of ISIS’s reported faithfulness to something called the “prophetic methodology of the caliphate” and implies strongly that what they practice is a “distinctive variety” and a “coherent and even learned interpretation of Islam,” which aims “returning civilization to a seventh century legal environment.”

Much of this makes little sense to anybody who’s familiar with the foundational texts of Islam. It is true that the Quran does deal with Judgment Day in Sura 75 (Yawm al-Qiyamah), but much of what it says appears to be borrowed from the Bible and Mahdi, an essentially Shia concept, is not mentioned at all. ‘Prophetic methodology’ is a propaganda term used by ISIS and means nothing, especially in connection with the caliphate, which is not mentioned in either the Quran or the traditions (Sunna) of Muhammad. As far as the “seventh century legal environment” is concerned, it’s worth noting that during Muhammad’s life time and that of his immediate successors, there was no Islamic corpus juris in existence and to the extent that a legal system existed at all, it was mostly the old Arab customary law (urf) and arbitration that were practiced. In fact, the codification of sharia as Islamic law did not begin until the middle of the 8th century and was not completed until the end of the 9th century, or 2nd and 3rd century of Islam.

If ISIS ideology thus has little to do with “prophetic methodology” and eschatological propaganda, it has everything to do with sharia. And the reason for that is very simple, for sharia is the most radical possible interpretation of Islam and a real source of legitimacy for those practicing it among the millions of Islamist sympathizers.

So what exactly is sharia? To radical Islamists, salafis and jihadists of all kinds, sharia is ‘God’s sacred law’ to be obeyed to the letter if a Muslim were to end up in heaven. More than that, it is also the constitution of the Islamic state and the guarantee of the perfect synergy between religion and the state (din wa dawla). To reform-minded Muslims and most non-Muslims it is nothing of the kind. Rather it is a post-Quranic, man-made doctrine designed to legitimate the imperialist policies of the hereditary Muslim empires that followed Muhammad and his successors and the open discrimination against non-Muslims and women widely practiced by them. Moreover, sharia was based for the most part not on the Quran, but on secondary and often unreliable sources such as the hadith (Muhammad’s sayings).

To the extent that sharia is based on the Quran, the cornerstone of its interpretation is the doctrine of abrogation (naskh), which invalidates most of the peaceful and tolerant verses of the earlier Meccan period and replaces them with the later violence-preaching Medinese verses. As a result, sharia is not only radical and intolerant, but is also in direct conflict with many Quranic injunctions. Thus, the punishment for apostasy is death in sharia, but 100 lashes in the Quran. The former makes the establishment of the caliphate and sharia a religious obligation for Muslims, while the latter does not mention either one of them at all. In the Quran, Muslims are enjoined to fight in self-defense, sharia makes offensive jihad for the spread of Islam mandatory among many other examples. If one were to characterize sharia today, which Muslims have been obligated to follow blindly (taqlid) since the 10th century, what comes readily to mind is the Catholic faith at the time of the inquisition.

The discriminatory and violent nature of sharia’s injunctions made it impractical as a law early on in Muslim states that were multi-national and multi-confessional, as most of them were, and though it was regularly paid lip service to, it was seldom practiced, except occasionally as family law. In the early Muslim empires, for instance, justice was administered mostly by courts of grievance (mazalim), police courts (shurta) or market judges (sahib al souk), rather than sharia, while in the historically greatest Muslim state of all, the Ottoman empire, the law of the land was kanun osmanly, an essentially secular law.

In fact, sharia’s political fortunes did not change for the better until the patron saints of contemporary radical Islam, Abul ala Mawdudi and Sayyid Qutb, elevated the imposition of sharia as the sole criterion of whether or not a state is Muslim or apostate in middle of the 20th century. Since then, with the help of huge amounts of Saudi money and the spread of Muslim Brotherhood networks, sharia has become the sine qua non of the radical Islamist idiom that currently dominates the Muslim establishment worldwide. It is simply a fact that from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) on down to countless mosques, Islamic centers and Muslim organizations, no rule, regulation or bylaw is viewed as legitimate if it contradicts sharia.

What the widespread support for sharia among Muslims means is that President Obama’s repeatedly expressed belief that there is no radical Islam, but just individual terrorists, is widely off the mark. In just a couple of examples relevant to ISIS, a recent open letter signed by 126 prominent Muslims from around the world, including many US Islamists, denouncing ISIS’ tactics, nonetheless endorses sharia. In another example, a radical Wahhabi preacher and passionate sharia supporter named Mohamed al-Arefe, approved of raping kidnapped Yazidi women in a tweet to his 10 million followers, while the prominent Islamist and member of the influential “senior council of clerics” in Saudi Arabia, Saleh al-Fawzan, issued a fatwa arguing that whoever denies the legitimacy of slavery in sharia becomes an infidel.

For jihadist organizations like ISIS, being sharia-compliant in a self-proclaimed caliphate bestows them huge legitimacy in the eyes of the devout. What we view as barbaric practices, including raping and enslaving “infidel” women, crucifixions, killing homosexuals and Muslim apostates, are fully justified in sharia. Undoubtedly, the ISIS cutthroats believe that some of their more recent gruesome innovations, such as chopping off women’s hands for using cell phones or beheading smokers, are also legitimate under sharia.

Muslims are also obligated by sharia to emigrate to the caliphate, which helps explain the huge number of volunteer jihadists who continue to flock to ISIS. The ISIS’ self-anointed “Caliph Ibrahim” enjoys yet another political benefit under sharia, which orders Muslims to obey him even if he is “unjust,” because “a rebellion against a caliph is one of the greatest enormities.”

What is beyond doubt is sharia’s absolute incompatibility with basic human rights, democratic norms and the law of nations and its highly seditious nature in calling for violence against non-Muslims and non-conforming Muslims both. Until the community of nations and the Muslims themselves come to terms with this malignant doctrine and act to delegitimize it, its poisonous offshoots like ISIS will continue to thrive.

Alex Alexiev is a senior fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center (IASC) in Wash. D.C. and chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) in Sofia, Bulgaria. His latest book on Islamism “The Wages of Extremism: Radical Islam’s Threat to the West and the Muslim World,” is available as a pdf file from the Hudson Institute.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/isis_is_the_syndrome_sharia_the_real_malignancy_.html#ixzz3TzNcIEEz

ISIS is islam.

European Colonialism is the Only Thing That Modernized Islam

Islam never became enlightened. It never stopped being ‘medieval’. Whatever enlightenment it received was imposed on it by European colonialism. It’s a second-hand enlightenment that never went under the skin.

ISIS isn’t just seventh century Islam. It’s also much more recent than that. It’s Islam before the French and the English came. It’s what the Muslim world was like before it was forced to have presidents and constitutions, before it was forced to at least pay lip service to the alien notion of equal rights for all.

The media reported the burning of the Jordanian pilot as if it were some horrifying and unprecedented aberration. But Muslim heretics, as well as Jews and Christians accused of blasphemy, were burned alive for their crimes against Islam. Numerous accounts of this remain, not from the seventh century, but from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Those who weren’t burned, might be beheaded.

These were not the practices of some apocalyptic death cult. They were the Islamic law in the “cosmopolitan” parts of North Africa. The only reason they aren’t the law now is that the French left behind some of their own laws.

Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that were never truly colonized still behead men and women for “witchcraft and sorcery.” Not in the seventh century or even in the nineteenth century. Last year.

The problem isn’t that ISIS is ‘medieval’. The problem is that Islam is…

Read it all at Sultan Knish:  http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/

Violent muslim Immigrants taking over Minnesota. Obama hopes they will take over the entire country.

As Barack Hussein Obama continues to flood the country with mostly illiterate, unskilled and violent Somali Muslims, Minneapolis will soon become a NO-GO zone for non-Muslims

images-22Growing Somali Muslim mall in Minneapolis now boasts one of the state’s largest mosques. But where are they getting the money since more than half of Somali Muslims in America live on welfare?

Star Tribune Developer Basim Sabri says setting out to build one of Minnesota’s largest mosques at his Karmel Square mall wasn’t a vanity project. Instead, the space — part of a major expansion at Karmel — was meant as a goodwill gesture to the local Somalis who rent and shop at the south Minneapolis mall.

SOMALI MUSLIM immigrants demand more funding for the halal-compliant free food bank in Minneapolis

The expansion has tested Sabri’s famously tense relationships with the city and the mall’s neighbors, who have voiced concerns over parking and traffic issues. Part of the construction collapsed in May, cutting off electricity to the neighborhood and briefly stalling the project.

Read it all at BNI: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

Those Who Know The Obvious, Dangerous Truth about islam Must Speak Up.

The obsession to convince us that most Muslims are moderate and that Islam is a religion of peace brings to mind Shakespeare’s “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” Is there any other religion that draws such an incessant chorus of voices proclaiming the religion to be peaceful?

No.

It is only the case with Islam that we hear the ceaseless lie because it is the only religion that warrants explanation on a daily basis. If the explanation reflected the truth, we might actually win this war that has been waged against us – a war that has been raging to a greater or lesser degree for 1400 years.

The fact is, Islam is a political doctrine of war. In the West, it is also a religion of caveats.

The caveats

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, Muslims generally fall into one of two categories. There is the ever-elusive “moderate” Muslim, though it’s not clear what that means.

According to the uninformed or intentionally misleading, moderate Muslims follow a peaceful religion and are presumed to be like any other group of reasonable, law-abiding, freedom-loving folk.

But there is ample evidence to show that moderate Muslims might also represent jihad lite. “Moderate” may describe the kind of Muslims the Obama administration is importing from places like Syria who have had “minor” associations with terrorists. Or perhaps they are American Muslims who believe that drawing a parody of Mohammed should be a criminal offense, with some saying the person should receive the death penalty.

In any case, if there’s a moderate version of a religion, there must be a pious orthodox version. Which brings us to the other category for Muslims: extremists. They are the ones who commit heinous acts of violence by, presumably, misrepresenting Islam. Although that’s a bit confusing because people can’t represent an extreme form of something while simultaneously not representing that something in any way, shape, or form.

So increasingly, the uninformed or intentionally misleading tell us that Islam has nothing to do with these “extremists.” Apparently it’s a gigantic coincidence that these savages keep shouting “Allahu Akbar” while quoting the Quran chapter and verse as they kidnap, rape, behead, burn, execute, and destroy every living thing in their path.

Are we to believe these barbarians have come across an imposter version of the Quran that is different from the real Quran – the one that preaches nothing but love for humankind?

By removing the words Islam/Islamic from descriptions of Islamic terror, all that remains is a vague, generic, and incomplete description of the truth: “Extremist.”

The key word that truly informs is left out: Islam/Islamic.

This verbal manipulation occurs repeatedly. It is embraced and peddled by regular folks, the media, far too many in the GOP, just about everyone on the left, and of course the Obama administration. A recent example among an ever-growing list was Obama’s summit to “fight violent extremism around the world” – as if we are witnessing a strange phenomenon of random worldwide violence perpetrated by random demographic groups targeting random people.

But back to the caveats.

If moderates represent the true nature of Islam and extremists have nothing to do with Islam, that leaves only moderates. In which case, why would those who follow Islamic teachings need an extra descriptor (“moderate”) at all? They wouldn’t. They would just be Muslims – the people who follow a religion called Islam.

So, good. We’ve found some common ground. We can toss out these needless caveats because Islam is Islam is Islam. And Islam by any standard is extreme at its core.

Now, how to awaken the brainwashed masses to this growing problem (understatement) that threatens all of civilization?

The uninformed or intentionally misleading

The uninformed or intentionally misleading willingly spew opinions as facts. The most common refrain we hear is that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

Working in tandem with the daily dishing of lies is the distraction method. This is when “not all Muslims are terrorists” is pulled out of the proverbial closet.

Complicating this disgraceful situation is the fact that the uninformed or intentionally misleading are rarely challenged when they spread this garbage around.

So when someone says that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists do not represent Islam, they need to be called out every single time and asked:

  • Upon what do you base your assertion?
  • Have you read the Quran? If so, do you understand the meaning of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, or what the word taqiyya means?
  • Why do you assume all religions are created equal? Do you think all ideas the same; that none are better than others?
  • Are you afraid to speak the truth because you fear retaliation against you and/or your family and/or your employer?

The truth

First of all, Islam is not so much a religion as it is a political ideology. The ultimate goal is world domination. If that sounds crazy or extreme, I didn’t make it up. It’s written in the Quran and it is central to Islam’s history of conquest over the past 1400 years. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here among a long list of examples.)

Second, while it is often said that not all Muslims are terrorists, the discourse tends to stop there or gets re-routed away from the central point. But it shouldn’t. Because here’s the deal: Some Muslims are terrorists. And given the size of the population of Muslims on the planet, “some” is quite a lot.

But what of the rest of the population of Muslims?

While most do not commit outright acts of terror, many of them support terror. And they do so in a variety of ways, including financial support, political activism, and brainwashing their children. (See here, here, here, here, here, and here among numerous examples.)

Then there are those who are not terrorists and who don’t overtly support terror, but who have attitudes that support it or feel ambiguous toward it, including those who support Sharia law – an oppressive and draconian legal system based on Islamic supremacy.

When you do the math, as Ben Shapiro did, you wind up with quite a few Muslims – millions and millions of them – with a vision for civilization that is at odds with Western values. Shapiro’s analysis of a Pew Research poll revealed that more than half of the total Muslim population on earth hold radical views. Additional polls and analyses point to similar conclusions.

We can speak the truth. Or we can allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the Islamic invasion that is well underway. So far the West is doing the latter. Which makes it all the more urgent that every single one of us step forward to the front lines of this battle. Speak the truth at every opportunity and educate others. Because the propaganda machine runs 24/7.

And it is powerful and effective.

Earlier this month a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus participants revealed that 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats had a positive view of Islam as a peaceful religion. If I had to venture a guess, I’d say most, if not all, of those who make up these numbers are uninformed.

They need to learn the truth.

Who will tell them?

That would be us.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/islams_dangerous_degrees_of_devotion.html#ixzz3SJr9Fn3G

The What????

‘The True Peaceful Nature of Islam’

Posted on | February 18, 2015

That phrase appears in an op-ed column President Obama published in the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps our president hasn’t been paying close attention for the past 30 or 40 years, but it seems to me that the Muslims who want to kill or enslave us all might disagree about the “true peaceful nature” of their religion. More wisdom from our president:

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.

Katie Pavlich:

What, exactly, does Obama mean when he says “legitimate grievances”? The grievances Al Qaeda and ISIS hold are against infidels and Muslims who don’t go far enough to wage jihad on the West.

Muslims want to kill or enslave us all. This is the “true nature” of Islam. It’s in the Koran. That’s their “grievance.” Period.

From TOM: http://theothermccain.com/

Of Course Obama Opposes Egypt’s Plans. He Loves mooslim Terrorists.

Obama Regime Has Opposed Egypt’s Attempts to Fight Islamists in Libya

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi once was a very bad guy, but before his demise he had long since been pacified by Ronald Reagan, had renounced weapons of mass destruction after W’s invasion of Iraq, and was cooperating in the War on Terror. So Obama illegally helped remove him from power, creating a power vacuum that was predictably filled by Islamic radicals. This resulted in the Benghazi fiasco, and in the recent beheading of 21 Egyptian Christians in Libya (whom the Obama Administration pointedly does not refer to as Christians). Meanwhile the current anti-jihadist government of Egypt is picking up some of the slack left by Obama’s lack of interest regarding the Islamic State. This government replaced an Islamic Muslim Brotherhood regime that was enthusiastically backed by Obama, who had helped overthrow our crucial ally Hosni Mubarak. When the Muslim Brotherhood lost power, Obama responded by cutting off military support.

A story from last August helps fill out this picture:

The United States does not support Egyptian and Emirati airstrikes against Islamist militias in Libya because the U.S. believes the crisis in Libya must be resolved politically and without outside interference, a Department of Defense spokesman said…

Libya’s slide into anarchy has alarmed neighboring Egypt and several Gulf states, who have voiced concern that chaos there will help to spread the jihadist threat in the region. An al-Qaeda-linked group, Ansar al-Shariah, controls most of Benghazi and another Islamist faction, Fajr (“Dawn”), seized the Tripoli airport at the weekend.

Qatar, whose backing for Islamists including the Muslim Brotherhood across the region has angered its Gulf neighbors, has funneled support to the Islamists in Libya.

Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia are believed to be supporting a former Gaddafi-regime chief of staff, Gen. Khalifa Hifter, who early this year declared war on the Islamist militias. The Islamists have accused him of being an “American agent,” although the State Department says the U.S. does not support him.

Of course not. Obama’s State Department is squarely on the side of the Islamists.

obama treason

On a tip from TaterSalad. Hat tip: LibertyNEWS.

From MB: http://moonbattery.com/

America has been Had

Obama and the Muslim Gang Sign

Is President Obama a Muslim? A lot has been written about this, but if photographs speak louder than words, then a photo taken at last August’s U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in Washington D.C. might shed considerable light.

It shows Barack Hussein Obama flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates.

Barack Hussein Obama flashes the Muslim shahada to delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington DC in August 2014.

The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain’s Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.

The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.

Thus when believers stick their index finger in the air, they demonstrate they are partisans of Muhammad’s God concept. And they also affirm their belief in Muhammad’s claim he was the interface between God and man. They also demonstrate they are part of the umma, the exclusive transtribal supertribe of believers that Muhammad started 1,400 years ago.

With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe.

ISIS fighter displays the gang sign. To Muslims, the extended forefinger is symbolic of the fundamental belief of Islam: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.

The Daily Mail editors did not understand what they were looking at. They captioned it “finger wagging” by Obama. But the African dignitaries understood, and a range of reactions can be detected among the ones who observed the gesture: amusement, surprise, curiosity, disapproval, contempt. Note the reactions of Abdelilah Berkirane, the prime minister of Morroco pictured just behind Obama’s left shoulder, and Ibrahim Boubacas Keita, the president of Mali in white garb and hat. They are Muslims through and through, and they are all smiles. They knew what Obama’s upright forefinger meant.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/obama_and_the_muslim_gang_sign.html#ixzz3SCCbpqNQ

A “Crusades” History lesson

The Truth About the Crusades

Traitors against Western Civilization reflexively side with its historic enemy, Islam. Those who are ignorant or assume their audience to be ignorant of history will often evoke the Crusades as a great sin against the peaceful Muslim world. Last week Obama appalled decent people when he attempted to justify the Islamic State’s atrocities by denouncing Christianity. Naturally he mentioned the Crusades, as Bill Clinton did right after 9/11 for the same malign purpose.

In reality, the Crusaders were heroes who fought a defensive war against the same menace of expansionist Islam that is on horrific display today. Dr. Bill Warner provides some visual perspective:

First Principles debunks four myths anti-Western liars have propagated regarding the noble Crusades;

Myth #1: The crusades represented an unprovoked attack by Western Christians on the Muslim world.

Myth #2: Western Christians went on crusade because their greed led them to plunder Muslims in order to get rich.

Myth #3: Crusaders were a cynical lot who did not really believe their own religious propaganda; rather, they had ulterior, materialistic motives.

Myth #4: The crusades taught Muslims to hate and attack Christians.

To learn what really happened, read God’s Battalions by Rodney Stark. If you don’t have time for a whole book, there is an excellent historical overview at Crisis Magazine. Highlights:

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity — and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion — has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

And beyond, to the present day (e.g., al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, Iran’s Ali Khamenei, the Islamic State’s Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi).

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt — once the most heavily Christian areas in the world — quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.

We face a similar choice between self-defense and annihilation today. If this isn’t obvious already, it will be when Obama has finished facilitating Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

On tips from Sean C, Troy, Stormfax, Bodhisattva, and Dan. Hat tips: Intellectual Froglegs, NRO, NRO.

Found at MB: http://moonbattery.com/