Monday, November 30, 2009

Its Time to Face Reality

Regular readers of these posts know that I am an equal opportunity offender, telling it as I see it without fear or favor. This time I tear off a few pieces from Don't Let ''Allahu Akbar'' Become A Pejorative by Jordan Sekulow. [Original at Huffington Post.] As usual, I will intersperse my comments among excerpts in block quote format.
Islam continues to linger at a crossroads. After the tragic events of 9/11, the free world has taken pains to differentiate their War on Terror from notions of a war on Islam. We have repeatedly called Islamic terrorists "extremists" that only represent a small minority within the Islamic faith. Considering, however, recent news involving Islamic places of worship -- such as the mosque raids and revealed ties between several imams and terrorist cells -- the time is ripe for innocent Muslim-Americans to stand up and prevent "Allahu Akbar" from becoming a pejorative. In particular, peaceful, innocent adherents to the faith should more strongly challenge members of its leadership who openly condone acts of violence.
We did not start this war; Islam started it in 623. It is a war of Islam against all Kafir. The declaration includes five verses in the Qur'an: 8:39, 8:60, 8:65, 9:29 & 9:123. Those verses command fighting pagans, building and equipping an army to intimidate potential victims, urging Muslims to fight, fighting "people of the book" and fighting disbelievers, the closest first. The commands in 8:39 & 9:29 are confirmed by hadith: Sahih Bukhari 1.8.367 and codified in Reliance of the Traveller, Book O 9.8 & 9.9.

Terrorism is not an enemy, it is a tactic, sanctified by 3:151 & 8:12 and exemplified by 33:26 & 59.2. The founder of Islam was a terrorist, by his own admission: "made victorious with terror" and "Allah made me victorious by awe" . Moe's recitation and sunna set the standard of Islam; terrorism is the rule, not the exception. Terrorists are zealous believers, obeying Allah & emulating Moe, not extremists.

Passive Muslims, who neither approve of, participate in nor support Jihad are hypocrites, not believers. Muslims are explicitly forbidden to question their leaders in the manner suggested.
  • -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

  • -6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

  • -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

  • -14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

  • -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

  • -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

Allah made the matter explicitly clear.
33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error.

Allah decreed the matter and Moe confirmed it. Then, he exemplified it with a battle every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. No Muslim has a right to question it.

So where is the condemnation? Where is the outrage? Sure, we hear from ordinary Muslims who express their disgust at these attacks, but why do we hear nothing from Islamic leaders? While the controversial Council on American Islamic Relations condemned Hasan's actions, we also learned that a frequent speaker at CAIR events, Zaid Shakir, said that, "Islam doesn't permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people. If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that's something else."

An Imam or a King would write himself out of Islam, signing his death warrant by condemning what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified.

There is no better time for Muslims to engage in what Salman Rushdie called a "Muslim Reformation". Muslims, especially Muslim-Americans, should unite and collectively take back their religion. They should demand that their leaders not only condemn acts of terrorism and jihadist violence, but also actively expel radicals from their mosques. More importantly, if leaders fail to take the appropriate actions, they should be removed. Covering up true problems within the faith will backfire -- just ask Catholic leaders. Democracy's War on Islam is exactly the war Islamic terrorists have been hoping to ignite, and we must not let them succeed.
Muslims can not "take back their religion", they have maintained possession of it; it has not been hijacked nor has it been twisted or perverted. Muslim leaders can not condemn what Allah commanded them to do and Moe exemplified for them to emulate.

The faith is the problem; it is evil by design. The relationship between Allah and the Muslims is master: slave. Allah purchased the Muslims with admission to Paradise so they fight in his cause, kill and are killed. Don't take my word for it, read 9:111. Its all about getting the top 20% of the spoils for Moe. Don't take my word for it, read 8:1 & 8:41.

Islam can not be reformed. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah's word says "fight them". Allah's word says "cast terror". Allah's word can not be changed.
6:115. And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice. None can change His Words. And He is the All­Hearer, the All­Knower.

10:64. For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present world (i.e. righteous dream seen by the person himself or shown to others), and in the Hereafter. No change can there be in the Words of Allâh, this is indeed the supreme success

18:27. And recite what has been revealed to you (O Muhammad ) of the Book (the Qur'ân) of your Lord (i.e. recite it, understand and follow its teachings and act on its orders and preach it to men). None can change His Words, and none will you find as a refuge other than Him.

30:30. So set you (O Muhammad ) your face towards the religion of pure Islâmic Monotheism Hanifa (worship none but Allâh Alone) Allâh's Fitrah (i.e. Allâh's Islâmic Monotheism), with which He has created mankind. No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism), that is the straight religion, but most of men know not. [Tafsir At­Tabarî, Vol 21, Page 41] [Emphasis added for clarity.]

If that is not iron clad enough to convince you, Moe cursed anyone who would change it; without mercy, you are destined for the fire.
[...]"I will say those people are from me. It will be said, 'You do not know what changes and new things they did after you.' Then I will say, 'Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! "[...] Sahih Bukhari 9.88.174 [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Elimination of Racism and Related Intolerance

The sixty-fourth session Third Committee Agenda item 67 (a) Elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance A/C.3/64/L.53. echoes certain of its predecessors. After the customary bs boilerplate& arcane references to external documents, they get down to brass tacks.[Emphasis added, spelling original.]

15. Reaffirms also that, as underlined in paragraph 13 of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law, that the dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority, hatred, acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offences punishable by law, and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;
13. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression; []

16. Underlines at the same time the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

17. Encourages those States that have made reservations to article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to give serious consideration to withdrawing such reservations as a matter of priority;

Article 4

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;

(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.

The United States of America does not regard the Convention as creating any obligation incompatible with the United States Constitution. It does not accept any obligation to enact measures under Article 4, which it views these as incompatible with freedom of expression, or under Articles 2, 3, and 5 with respect to private conduct. The Convention is not self-executing in US law.[4] [Wikipedia] [Emphasis added.]

¶15 quotes and cites ¶13 of the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. In reading that text, recall the report of the preliminary meeting, which equates criticism of Islam with racism: "anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism".

The terms therein referenced require clear definition.

  • advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred
  • constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence
  • ideas based on racial superiority,
    • hatred,
    • acts of violence or incitement to such acts
Those terms are broadly defined by the OIC and its factotum. Examine the Secretary General's condemnation of Fitna.
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]
A 17 minute documentary video which displays verses from the Qur'an, rabble rousing sermons by Muslim clerics and the results thereof is:
  • hate speech
  • incitement to violence.
By that standard, all negative exposure of Islamic doctrines & practices must be outlawed. We must not state the fact that Islamic scripture declared war on us, Islamic tradition makes it perpetual, and the outcome, as it relates to Jews is genocidal. How can we defend ourselves if we are prohibited by law from revealing the identity, intentions, motivation & actions of the enemy which assails us?

¶16 is an Orwellian way of telling us that only expression that praises Islam and conceal its intentions and effects can be permitted. ¶17 is a demand that we yield our First Amendment right to free speech to Islam's blasphemy law.

I invite all parties to carefully consider ICERD's fourth article, which is reproduced above. The signatories condemn all propaganda and organizations based on ideas of racial superiority. But racial no longer applies only to skin color, it applies to religion since Durban II conflated them. Those nations which signed ICERD must condemn all propaganda and organizations based on ideas of religious superiority. Of course, you don't have a clue. I will give you one.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

3:110 declares Muslims to be the best of peoples, clearly an expression of religious superiority. As Muslims and their factotums define the term, that is racial superiority, which must be condemned.

Sub paragraph a compels signatories to proscribe by law:
  • all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred
  • incitement to racial discrimination
  • all acts of violence or incitement to such acts
Recalling the conflation of race with religion, (a) requires the outlawing of the Qur'an because it is based on religious (racial) superiority and incites violence against people of other religions (races).
Sub paragraph b requires signatories to proscribe by law:
  • organizations which promote racial discrimination
  • all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin
Bearing in mind the conflation of race with religion, Islam must be proscribed by law because it declares war on pagans, Jews & Christians and discriminates against conquered Jews & Christians by imposing a special tax on them and placing them under extraordinary legal & social limitations which are specified in Islamic law. Doubters & dissenters should turn to Reliance of the Traveller O9.8, O9.9 & O11.5.

Of course, ICERD specifies race, it does not specify religion. But ICERD is not the only applicable international human rights covenant.


Article 20

  1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
  2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Who can deny the fact that Surah At-Taubah is propaganda for and advocacy of religious hatred and war? It must be prohibited by law! Unfortunately, it is Allah's perfected, immutable word, incapable of reformation. Proscribing the practice & propagation of Islam is the only alternative.


Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:
8:37. In order that Allâh may distinguish the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) from the good (believers of Islâmic Monotheism and doers of righteous deeds), and put the wicked (disbelievers, polytheists and doers of evil deeds) one on another, heap them together and cast them into Hell. Those! it is they who are the losers.

17:16. And when We decide to destroy a town (population), We (first) send a definite order (to obey Allâh and be righteous) to those among them [or We (first) increase in number those of its population] who are given the good things of this life. Then, they transgress therein, and thus the word (of torment) is justified against it (them). Then We destroy it with complete destruction.

17:17. And how many generations have We destroyed after Nûh (Noah)! And Sufficient is your Lord as an All-Knower and All-Beholder of the sins of His slaves.

Allah speaks of heaping disbelievers together and casting them into Hell in 8:37. In 17:16, he brags about making complete destruction. In 17:17 he brags about destroying multiple generations. He is setting a pattern and precedent. Observe how he fleshes it out.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

In 8:67, Allah sets great slaughter as the prerequisite for releasing captives for ransom, telling Moe that he must put slaughter ahead of profit. That tells us that Allah favors genocide. This is confirmed in Surah Muhammad.

47:4. So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,

"Till when you have killed and wounded many of them" confirms Allah's quest for genocide. Moe besieged the Banu Qurayzah until they surrendered. What he did after they surrendered serves to confirm the message of 8:67 & 47:4.

Sahih Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah." [For more complete detail, refer to 5.59.448]

Moe arbitrarily slaughtered about 700 prisoners of war. What he did next should make your blood boil with outrage.

Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

First he decapitated the men, and cast them into a trench, then he did the same to their adolescent sons. Allah wants genocide and he gets it. Islam's practice of genocide, mandated by Allah, is obviously not in conformity with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The Banu Qurayzah, Armenian, Assyrian and Hindu genocides demonstrate a pattern of continuing crime against humanity. Islamic prophecy projects it far into the future: to the end of the world. The following hadith is one of the clearest among several with similar content.

Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4310:

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.

This saying, distilled to its essence, means that Jesus will return to make genocidal war upon the remaining remnant of Jews & Christians, destroying both populations. Besides being blasphemous, it is a token of Islam's genocidal intent.

Confirmation of Islam's intention is found in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir of 7:167.
[...]In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world.[...] Eternal Humiliation is Placed on the Jews
The violation of Article 1, 2.1 and 3.1 is obvious. Likewise, violation of 3.3 is easy to demonstrate by quoting one popular hadith.
Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

That hadith tells Muslims that they can not obtain admission to Paradise and enjoy their rivers of wine and 72 houris until they exterminate the Jews.

ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG condemn Islam and require its proscription by law. Who will enforce those international human rights covenants? Do you have the courage and conviction to demand that the World Court enforce international law against Islam? For the sake of justice, sign the International Qur'an Petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward it.

Friday, November 27, 2009

U.S.A. vs Durban Declaration

A press release distributed by Press Zoom appears to be taken from the records of the Third Committee, describing the debate and voting on several resolutions before the committee.

Those resolutions included the five-part draft text on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action ( document A/C.3/64/L.54/Rev.1 ), which was introduced by the representative of Sudan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

32. Calls upon all States, in accordance with the commitments undertaken in paragraph 147 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,1 to take all necessary measures to combat incitement to violence motivated by racial hatred,
including through the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies
, and, in collaboration with service providers, to promote the use of such technologies, including the Internet to contribute to the fight against racism, in conformity with international standards of freedom of expression and taking all necessary measures to guarantee that right;

33. Encourages all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes at all levels, as appropriate, knowledge of and tolerance and respect for all cultures, civilizations, religions, peoples and countries, as well as information on the follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action;
[Emphasis added.]
Paragraph 32 quoted above is aimed directly at all criticism of Islam. Its practical implementation is best illustrated by the words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement. The pending trial of Geert Wilders on charges of hate speech is a prime example of the violation of freedom of expression intended by the sponsors of this resolution.

Paragraph 33 encourages turning our schools into instruments of propaganda & indoctrination, bordering on proselytizing. It is impossible for an informed and rational person to tolerate or respect Islam because Islam is supremely intolerant and denies our rights and dignity in addition to declaring perpetual war against us.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country was deeply committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at home and abroad. Its founding commitment to the principle that all people were created equal was manifested in its own legislation and its work around the world. Among other things, the United States had, in October, presented an action plan during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards. [Emphasis added for clarity.]
The bold faced clause is composed of three code phrases for 'Islamophobia'. The preliminary meeting to prepare for the Durban II Racism Conference redefined racism to include criticism of Islam.
Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities; [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]
Obamanation is "deeply committed to fighting" criticism of Islam. Their whining about freedom of expression is a smoke screen to cover their actual intent: to silence all criticism of Islam and the regime's Socialist agenda.

He said the United States had been unable to support the Durban Review Conference because it supported the 2001 World Conference, in toto. The United States was deeply concerned about hateful speech, but did not agree that the best way to combat such speech was by its prohibition. Rather, the United States believed an effective approach was based on three key elements, including robust legal protections against hate crimes, outreach to religious groups and vigorous defence of freedom of expression. It regretted having to vote “no” on this text and looked forward to working together with the international community. It remained deeply committed to ongoing, thoughtful dialogue on combating racism and racial discrimination.
[Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]
"Hateful speech" is code for any negative expression about Islam, including Fitna: and the Danish Cartoons. Notice that the regime is concerned about the outcome: silencing all criticism, they seek an "effective approach", a method that will result in silence.

"Hate crimes": if any expression should be criminalized, that is the one. Assaulting, killing or harassing anyone is a crime, regardless of the victim's identity, religion, gender, etc. There is no group of persons more deserving of protection than any other.

"Outreach to religious groups" is code for pandering to Islam, submitting to its outrageous demands. Islam's most outrageous demand is that we submit and become Muslims. We might as well be bitten by Dracula and become vampires. Islamic law forbids any and all negative expression about Allah, Moe, the Qur'an & the laws they issued. If you doubt this, open Reliance of the Traveller to O8.7 and read the list of acts which entail leaving Islam, the penalty for which is death (O8.2). For the law's applicability to non-Muslims, see O11.10(5).

Far from being a saintly Prophet, Moe was a pedophile who married the six year old daughter of his best friend. He solicited the murder of critics. He was guilty of genocide; preaching and practicing it.

Far from being a "great religion of peace", Islam is a mercenary war cult, contrived for the purpose of enriching and empowering its founder by perpetuating war so that he could accrue the spoils.

Islam's objective in demanding blasphemy laws & censorship is to disarm us in the war of ideas so that, in the words of George Washington, "dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter".

If you are a lover of liberty and the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights, then do your part to preserve them by signing and propagating these petitions. Send their links to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward them.

View Obsession Now

An important message from the Clarion Fund:

This Year, America has witnessed an increased number of radical extremist incidents. The recent tragedy at Fort Hood is only one of many alarming plots carried out on our soil. The threats are very real.

This Thanksgiving, we commemorate the one year anniversary of the attacks in Mumbai.

We must pause on this day to acknowledge our liberties and recognize those that actively seek to destroy our values. To mark this day, the producers of the award-winning Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West are making the film available for free viewing online.

The free stream campaign will run from Monday November 23 until December 10 at

This campaign follows a highly successful free stream of The Third Jihad to mark the anniversary of 9/11. Over 35,000 viewers watched the film over the course of the 2 1/2 week campaign.

Together, these films represent the best educational tools available for informing the public about the true threats of radical Islam.

Clicking the red hot spot band at the bottom of the graphic will open this site, which displays the Obsession video just right of center. They are also offering a combined package of Obsession and The Third Jihad on cd for $19.95.

I saw Obsession on t.v. about two years ago. I was not favorably impressed by the p.c. disclaimer. I do not deny the fact that the video depictions of the 'Arab Street' are accurate. My problem is with adding adjectives to Islam. Standard, off the shelf Islam as Moe preached and practiced it is violent and aggressive. Adding adjectives projects a false image of aggression as an exception to a passive standard.

The fact that CAIR loudly objected to distribution of Obsession in newspaper inserts stands as an excellent testimony to its value. I have not seen The Third Jihad and my dialup connection is too slow to watch the trailer. I have the impression that The Third Jihad delves deeper into the non-violent threats of conquest by demographics, litigation, intimidation & deception.

Fitna exposes the scriptural roots of Islamic violence. What the West Needs to Know is a longer but slower paced exposure of the scriptural basis for Jihad, revealed by experts Once you have seen any or all of those videos, you can delve deeper into the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah to learn more or turn to these resources for a more condensed version.
  • Islamic Terror.chm [30.4KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free.
  • Jihad.chm [45KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free.
  • What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims.chm [23KB]. New 10/11/08
  • Islamic Supremacism [49KB] A 3 part series from Freedom Ain't Free
  • FOMIJihad.chm [163.4KB] The Offensive Jihad thread from the once defunct FOMI anti Islam forum. This thread contains several significant quotes from Fiqh, both ancient and modern.
  • EgregiousAyat.chm: 4 tables containing the most egregious Qur'anic verses [Hilali & Khan]; 1 table containing the most egregious sayings. & the most important segment of Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Ch. 9. 6.723MB Zipped.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

The Twenty-Eighth Amendment

Paul R. Hollrah, O.E.
The Twenty-Eighth Amendment
November 24, 2009

Since the horrific Fort Hood Massacre of Nov. 5, '09, suggestions that Islam should be outlawed increased in frequency and intensity. The latest call for delegitimization of Islam does not come from a blog or comment, it comes from a freelance writer and think tank fellow, published by New Media Journal.

I found three interesting quotes in the preamble; they are reproduced below, in block quotes, followed by my commentary.

But it is the violent and criminal acts of Muslims...acts which they see as religious imperatives, while to Christians and Jews they are repugnant acts of violence...that concern us most. We are told again and again that Islam is a religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims want nothing more than to live in peace. Although this may be true in most cases, it is entirely irrelevant so long as peace-loving Muslims fail to stand up and expose the radicals in their midst. The Muslim who claims to love peace, but who ignores the radicalism he sees and hears in his mosque is just as guilty of terrorism as those who carry out terrorist attacks against innocents.

I am not concerned as much by the violent acts as by the immutable, intrinsic doctrines of Islam which motivate and perpetuate a succession of violent acts. The violence prone zealots who obey Allah & emulate Moe have the weapons and will to use them. The meek wind up dead in a ditch.

The Muslim who knows, believes and tacitly accepts the demonic doctrines which sanctify and mandate conquest, genocide & terrorism are just as guilty as those who carry out those evil acts. The ignorant or peace loving Muslim of good will who goes along with the flow is almost as much a victim of Islam as those the terrorists seek to harm.

Today, it is the fanatics who rule Islam; who war against non-Muslims; who slaughter Christians and Jews around the world; who bomb, behead, murder, and honor-kill; who take over mosque after mosque and radicalize its members; who stone and hang rape victims and homosexuals; and who teach young men that they will have eternal joy in say nothing of seventy-two virgins...if only they will strap bombs to their bodies and detonate them in crowded marketplaces. These are the things that the Koran teaches.

Because the Koran teaches those things, the men who preach & practice them are not fanatics, radicals or extremists; they are believers. Those who do not preach & practice Jihad are hypocrites, not good Muslims.

If Islam, as we know it today, had existed in the day of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and had Muslims been present in large numbers during the early years of our Republic, religious liberty would today be an entirely different matter.

Islam, as we know it today, existed in Thomas Jefferson's day. It plundered American merchantmen, killed or enslaved the crews and demanded tribute, which the new nation paid until 1805 when Jefferson summoned his resolve and sent the Marines to Tripoli. Anyone who doubts this should read about the Barbary War.

Jefferson's contemporary, J.Q. Adams understood Islam, as demonstrated by this quote.

“In the seventh century of the Christian era a wandering Arab, of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combing the powers of transcendent genius with the preternatural energy of a fanatic and the fraudulent spirit of an imposter, proclaimed himself as a messenger from heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.

Adopting, from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God, he connected indissolubly with it the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion against all the rest of mankind. The essence of his doctrine was violence and lust; to exalt the brutal over the spiritual part of human nature.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in the characters, a war of more than twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extincture of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute are encouraged to furnish motives to human action, there never can be peace on earth and good will toward men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.” John Adams, 1830
–John Quincy Adams, “Christianity—Islamism.” “Unsigned essays dealing with the Russo-Turkish War, and on Greece,” originally published in The American Annual Register for 1827—1829 (New York, 1830), Chs. X-XIV: 267—402. (source)

The text of Paul R. Hollrah's proposed amendment follows.

“The right of the People to be secure in their persons and property shall not be abridged, and no person, or group of persons, may interfere or attempt to interfere in the right of others to pursue life, liberty, religious practice, or freedom of expression. No religious sect or denomination may advocate violent opposition to any other religious sect or denomination, or to the members thereof. Any religious sect or denomination which utilizes its religious freedoms in pursuit of political ends averse to the general welfare, at home or abroad, shall be in violation of this provision, shall forfeit the right to peaceably assemble, and shall not maintain places of worship.”

Unfortunately, that text would be in conflict with the existing First Amendment. In my view, it is necessary to exclude Islam from membership in the set of recognized religions. An institution which is not a religion is not protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause and may be proscribed by law.

Closing Mosques, Islamic Centers & Madrassas is not sufficient action to solve the problem. So long as individual Muslims are present among us, free to indoctrinate their children and proselytize, the threat will not be reduced, it will increase. Resident Muslims constitute a fifth column, each one a sleeper cell of one, capable of activation at any time, unpredictably. We remain at risk until they die, emigrate or sincerely & finally abjure the doctrines of Islam.

Islam is what Moe preached and emulated, enshrined in the Koran & hadith; codified in Shari'ah. Until you will read a sufficient sample of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence, your knowledge of Islam is speculative and probably false. Islam is not moderate, it is aggressive, intolerant and violent by design.

A Muslim described as moderate, who neither participates in nor approves of Jihad, is one whom Islam's founder described as a hypocrite, whose Islam goes no deeper than his throat.

Shari'ah requires Muslims to participate in annual attacks against disbelievers; neglecting to do so when it is possible is sin. I refer doubters & dissenters to Reliance of the Traveller, O9.1 It is the duty of the caliph to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or pay the jizya as prescribed in 9:29. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.8. It is the duty of the caliph to fight all other people until they become Muslim as prescribed in 8:39. Let doubters & dissenters read O9.9. Once you have opened and loaded the file, you can use the Windows search function to find the reference letter & numbers using the Ctrl f key combination.

Islam is supremely intolerant. 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers. Islam denies your right to live and own property. Let doubters & dissenters read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah."

Given the fact that Islam is intolerant & violent, dedicated to the destruction of our system of government & economy and Hellbent on enslaving us, tolerating Islam is suicidal idiocy.

The first corrective measure known to me was proposed by Pedestrian Infidel in the spring of '07: A Proposed Constitutional Amendment. Although I disagree with the fourth article of that proposal, I have endorsed it, because it was the first and remains the best option.

The Outlaw Islam! petition languishes with 124 signatures. I urge lovers of life & liberty to sign it, copy it and send it to everyone they can hope to influence with an exhortation to forward it. When you have signed the petition, use the facilities of to send a link to the petition to your Representative & Senators.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Defamation of Religions: World Opoinion Survey

World Public Opinion reported the results of an international survey of opinion on defamation of religions taken between April 25 and July 9, '09. As I would expect, support for free expression is greatest in western democracies and support for censorship is greatest in Islamic nations.

A five page pdf file revealing the survey's methodology has one surprise: the U.S.A. was surveyed on line.

In the United States, the poll was an online survey drawn from a nationally representative sample of the Knowledge Networks online panel. This panel is probabilistically-based, selected from the population of US telephone households and subsequently provided with an Internet connection if needed.

img: chart of results

The Methodology Report reveals that Hong Kong & Taiwan results were excluded from the averages, but does not explain the exclusions. There is a trend toward heavy coverage of urban areas, which could result in a more liberal result.

Several nations stood out from the crowd with high levels of indecision/non-response.
Russia 26
Ukraine 30
Iraq 17
Indonesia 20

How would they have responded in an anonymous, non-confrontational setting? What effect, if any, will this report of majority support for free expression have on the General Assembly vote on the Defamation of Religions resolution?

If you are on the side of freedom of expression, these on line petitions need your support Sign them and urge everyone you can hope to influence to sign them.
To join a counter attack in the war of ideas, sign and promote the International Qur'an Petition.

Flight 93 father denounces civilian trial for 9/11 terrorists

How would you feel about the Civilian court trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad & assoc. if you were the surviving parent, child or spouse of one of the victims of the Abomination? How would the continuous news reports about jury selection, pretrial motions and outrageous statements by the defendants affect you?

What if the guilty get off on a technicality, having been granted undeserved Constitutional immunities and privileges reserved for citizens? If, like me, you are ready to scream "HELL NO!!!", then sign this petition sponsored by the ACLJ.

Flight 93 father denounces civilian trial for 9/11 terrorists Blogburst logo, petitionTom Burnett Sr:
A military trial will do the same thing--give them justice, give them a chance to talk--but not out, you know, in the public.
Nicely framed and edited by KSTP Minneapolis: Second Burnett interview here. If only our government, with all its resources, could make 1/100th the sense of this honest patriot, but honesty and patriotism seem to be completely absent from the Obama/Holder makeup. Mr. Burnett says he will fight. Mr. Burnett is also trying to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave Video expose of what was originally called the Crescent of Embrace design, contains footage of Mr. Burnett and Alec Rawls (author of this blogburst post) at last year's Memorial Project meeting: To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Connolly vs Robertson

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D.,Va., issued the following statement in regards to comments made by Rev. Pat Robertson.
“In the week since Mr. Robertson’s statement that Islam is ‘not a religion’ but a ‘violent political system’ whose adherents should be treated like members of the communist or fascist party, I have heard from hundreds of outraged Northern Virginians – Muslim and non-Muslim. Here in the 11th Congressional District of Virginia and, in fact, across our Commonwealth, Muslim-Americans are a vibrant part of our communities. They serve in our nation’s military, contribute to our economic growth, and in myriad other ways, help form the diverse tapestry that is Virginia in the 21st century.

“Some will dismiss Mr. Robertson’s comments as the strange ramblings of a man stuck in a bygone era. But when a prominent Virginian chooses to engage in hate-filled rhetoric that divides us and has the potential to fuel real discord in our polity, leaders cannot remain silent. That is why I am calling on Mr. Robertson to apologize to my constituents – Muslim and non-Muslim – for the hurt he has caused and the damage he has done. It is a week overdue.”


The following is my own rough transcription of Rev. Robertson's statement.
Worry about backlash but the truth is this guy was off his trolley and they should have gotten him out but nobody wanted to go after him because of political correctness.

We just don't talk about somebody's "religion" even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats. But he wasn't hiding it.

I tell ya what should happen and I think is going to happen is the families of those soldiers who were killed have an absolute major lawsuit for damages against the United States government.

There was a failure there was a failure, they should have -- as Senator Lieberman said, this man should have been gone -- he should have been out of the service.

But just imagine, how a young man, brave defenders of the freedom we enjoy, having to sit in psychological evaluation in front of this man. Just think what that means, think what this would do to their psyches.

It was a horrible chapter, but if we don't stop covering up what Islam is--Islam is a violent-- I would say religion but its not a religion, its a political system, its a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination. That is the ultimate aim and uh, they talk about infidels and all this but the truth is, that's what the game is so you're dealing with a political system and I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group.

Well, its a tragedy, our hearts go out to the families who suffered but those in the army should be held to account for the fact that they let this man loose.

I will proceed to take on Rev. Robertson point by point.
  • "this guy was off his trolley"
I do not agree; Major Nidal Hasan is a Muslim, not insane. His act was motivated by the ideology of Islam imparted in the Mosque. If you doubt that fact, view the slide show with which he illustrated a lecture on Islam. Muslims shout takbir when slaughtering sacrificial animals and going into battle. Nidal Hasan shouted it when he opened fire on unarmed colleagues. That cinches the matter.
  • "they should have gotten him out"
Blessed right; Hasan should have been cashiered and deported!
  • "even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats"
Decapitating disbelievers is Islamic, but drenching them with boiling oil is a reference to one of the torments of Hell, not something to be done in this world.
  • "Islam is a violent"
An estimated 270*106 people have been slain by Islam in the last 1386 years. Is it peaceful or violent? Allah commanded warfare against pagans and people of the book. Moe said that he was "ordered to fight". One of his 86 wars was defensive, the rest were aggressive, on his initiative. Because of what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified, Shari'ah requires a minimum of one military expedition against Kuffar in every year. Islam is violent, Rev. Robertson is right.
  • "its not a religion, its a political system"
Islam is not a religion, neither is it a political system. Islam is a deen: a way of life. Islam prescribes everything from conception to burial. Its religious component: theology, cosmology, iman & salat are parts of a control mechanism used to motivate mujahideen to kill and be killed fighting, ostensibly to propagate Islam, in reality, to finance Moe's lifestyle. If you doubt that fact, then read Islam's Mercenary Mission.

Islam's religion is jihad. Jihad is "to war against non-Muslims" [Reliance O9.0]. "Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated." [Noble Qur'an, Hilali & Khan, footnote to 2:190.]
  • "bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."
Islam divides the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The former is where Allah's writ runs. The latter is every where else; the land of war. In Al-Anfal 39, Allah commands Muslims to fight disbelievers until only Allah is worshiped, on a global scale. If any doubt remains, read these tafsir.
  • "treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group"
Muslims are not equivalent to Communists. Islam is at war against us, that makes them equivalent to the Barbary pirates of the 18th century or the Waffen SS of the 20th . They should be expelled, not recruited and promoted in the armed forces, FBI & CIA.
  • "that they let this man loose"
That is not what they did, they retained and promoted him to the rank of Major, enabling him to slaughter unarmed enlisted men in a place where they had a right to feel secure. He should have been cashiered and deported.

Muslims residing in Virginia complained to Rep. Connolly, who, in turn issued his statement, which was reported by the Augusta Free Press, where you can read a sampling of public opinion on the issue. From my point of view, complaining to a Member of Congress was the wrong response. Offended viewers should have responded to Rev. Robertson or through blog & forum posts or CAIR.

Rev. Robertson's truthful statement of fact is not the proper subject of government action. He has a First Amendment right of free expression, which entitles him to speak the truth about Islam.

In making his inappropriate statement, Rep. Connolly was acting as a follower, not a leader. In doing so, he pandered to a vocal and demonstrative minority which does not have this nation's best interests at heart. I do not find any "hate-filled rhetoric" in Rev. Robertson's remarks. Instead, I found truthful statements of fact. Instead of division and discord, Rev. Robertson spoke truth: adherents of radical Islam should be discharged from our military services before they take the opportunity to murder our servicemen. The same truth was spoken by Major Hasan in his lecture to fellow students. Evidently someone was not paying proper attention before the fact. Rep. Connolly should have paid proper attention after the fact.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Christopher L. of Islam In Action.