Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Obamination: Continuing Defeat in Iraq

Fox News provided a transcript of  President Obama's remarks, click the link to read  the lies in context.  I will quote and refute the worst of the lies.

"I'd like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home."

end of our combat mission in Iraq

    We still have troops on the ground in theater, and they will be targeted by suicide bombers and IEDs. The casualties; waste of life and limb have moved into a new phase, they have not ended.  

ongoing security challenges

    Islamic terrorism, both home grown and international remains a serious threat to our security.  Iraq and Afghanistan remain members in good standing of the set of terrorist sponsoring states.  Iran continues on  the fast track to nuclear ascension, while China rapidly expands its military might.  North Korea continues to threaten renewed conflict.

rebuild our nation here at home

    That kind of malignant malarkey has no place in a message about national security.  President Obama is mixing domestic demagoguery with national security demagoguery.  We do not need to rebuild, we need to reverse the government policies & actions that have stifled  economic activity.

"But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment."

confidence and commitment

    Insufficient confidence & commitment is what got us into this mess.  The war is lost precisely because Shrub lacked the confidence & commitment to accurately identify and engage the enemy.  He tried to do an invasion on the cheap, and it proved costly.

"A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart."

war to disarm a state

    LibTards continue to  ignore the distinction between dynamic and static conditions.  If we disarm a state, it will eventually rearm  if we do not continually occupy and dominate it.  If we destroy a state, and completely eliminate it, it will not return to threaten us again.  LibTards just can't figure that out.

Terrorism and sectarian warfare

    Both were entirely predictable and were predicted.  Both could have been at least partially suppressed had we employed sufficient force from the outset.  Shrub, fearing both domestic and international criticism, tried to do it on the cheap and failed miserably.  Enemy assets fell into the hands of those most willing to use them against us because we failed to secure them in a timely manner.

"Because of our troops and civilians -and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people - Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain."

opportunity to embrace a new destiny

    When you can't identify the enemy, you can't win the war.  Islam is the enemy.  The majority of Iraq's population  remains  Muslim. Iraq's new constitution makes Shari'ah the primary source of its law.  Iraq remains in the same rut, only the regime has changed.

"This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security."

Iraqi responsibility

    That idiocy, a leftover from Shrub, would be comedic if it were not so tragic.  By some legerdemain of arrogance & conceit, Shrub set out to train the enemy to prevent terrorists from using Iraq as a staging ground. He set out to train Shi'ia & Sunni not to slaughter each other.  The Iraqui security forces are thoroughly infiltrated by terrorists.  Obama maintains Shrub's tradition of cognitive dissonance.

"Tonight, I encourage Iraq's leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people."

just, representative,  accountable

    And Islamic?  The combination is impossible, and Obama knows it.  Corruption abounds, and there is great division and no will to compromise.

"...the Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq's future is not."

strong partner

    They are Muslims, idiot. Allah explicitly commands them not to take Kuffar as partners.

"This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq-one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect"

mutual interests

    We have no mutual interest with Islam. Islam's interest is total world conquest and domination, so that only Allah is worshiped altogether and everywhere; so that Shari'ah is enforced globally. Our interest is in liberty, security, prosperity & peace. There is no intersection, no convergence; nothing shared.

mutual respect

    There is no mutual respect and can be none.  Islam is contemptuous of everything un-Islamic. Islam hates our way of life without reservation and seeks to destroy it. It labels us Kuffar: rebells against Allah who must be defeated and gathered together into Hell.

"Ending this war is not only in Iraq's interest- it is in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We have persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it is time to turn the page."

our own interest

    Our interest is in victory, not ignominious defeat thinly disguised. We wasted blood and treasure because we were unwilling to name and engage the enemy.

belief we share with the Iraqi people

    How can anyone be stupid enough to believe that?  We got rid of Saddam and replaced him with Shi'ites. We gained nothing.

met our responsibility

    We failed to secure  Iraq's arsenals and ammunition dumps.  We failed to secure their banks, museums and oil infrastructure.  We failed to eliminate Islam from Iraq because we made no effort at all.

"The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against Al Qaeda."

learn from our experience

    We did not learn from Vietnam. We should have learned to seize and hold territory 24/7. We should have learned to secure borders and eliminate sanctuaries & supply lines.   We did not learn from Tehran. We should have learned to use massive, disproportionate  force  early on.  We did not learn from Somalia either.  

fight against Al Qaeda

    Our enemy is Islam, not a sub set of Islam.  What part of 8:39 & 9:29 does President Obama not comprehend?  What part of "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High..." does he not comprehend?

"Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what's at stake. As we speak, Al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists."

those who attacked us on 9/11

    We were attacked by Muslims, motivated by the damnable doctrines of Islam which sanctify & mandate genocidal conquest  & terrorism.  Who has the courage to state the fact that security and peace are functions of eliminating Islam from the world?  Certainly not our President!

disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda

    Which availeth naught, because its parent organizations: al Ikhwan al-Muslimeen & Islam remain undaunted.

base for terrorists

    So long as the population and government of Afghanistan or any other nation remain Islamic, they will be a base for terrorists.

"Within Afghanistan, I have ordered the deployment of additional troops who-under the command of General David Petraeus -are fighting to break the Taliban's momentum."

break the Taliban's momentum

    Idiot!  We need to kill them!  When you go on the offensive, you kill the enemy and destroy their infrastructure.  Breaking their momentum is the wrong objective.

"A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow."

    They never learn. You can't push a piece of string.  You must put it around Islam's neck and pull it tight.  If you want peace anywhere  on the globe, eliminate Islam from that place.  Foundational Islamic doctrine requires the elimination of Israel and Jews.  No matter  what demands you make against Israel, she will never obtain peace and security without first eliminating Islam from the region.  Peace can only be obtained through victory, and victory by extinction of Islam.

 "America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people."

defeat on the battlefield

    Islam can not be defeated on the battlefield.  It must be destroyed by emancipating Allah's slaves.  We will have victory when they are all emancipated or dead, not before. Until that happy day there will be neither peace nor security.  Islam is perpetual war.   We must stop electing stupid people who can not recognize that fatal fact.

willing to work together

    The set of people willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity and the set of Muslims are mutually exclusive.  There is no intersection of those sets. Islam is slavery, the polar opposite of freedom.  Islam is plunder, the polar opposite of productivity & opportunity.

"And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class."

growing middle class

    How swiftly and smoothly president Obama segues from defense deception to domestic deception; from military warfare to class warfare. The imprudent spendthrift policies and economic meddling of Obama's party have brought us to our present low state.  Yes, Republicans who lacked the courage to resist aided them in their demolition of our economy.

    We need economic expansion, not redistribution! Get your boot off our necks!  Make Shrub's tax cuts permanent. Enact further tax cuts. Save the funds unspent in the imprudent "bail out"  & "stimulus".  Open all domestic oil fields to exploration and production both on and off shore.  And repeal  the potentially disastrous  "health care reform"!

"Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. "

honor our commitments to veterans

The Obama administration plans to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the treatment service related injuries of military personnel 

    Is that any less than the ultimate arrogant demagoguery?  He blathers about commitments, expecting us to forget how he tried to screw the veterans!  We've got to impeach that creep!!!

"In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation."

age without surrender ceremonies

    There was a surrender ceremony the year before I was born.  Why should it be the last? 

Monday, August 30, 2010

Treasonous State Department Condemns Wrong Prayer

In '02, World Net Daily published translations of several  prayers delivered by Muslim clerics.  Yemen televised Sheik Akram Abd-al-Razzaq al-Ruqeihi praying at their Grand Mosque in Sanaa.

"O God, destroy the United States and its allies and let them suffer, particularly tyrant and arrogant Americans. O God, destroy the Jews, for they are within your power."

    Saudi Arabia televised a prayer by Sheik Sa'ud Bin-Ibrahim al-Shureim's from the Grand Mosque in Mecca. What would he pray for?

"O God, strengthen Islam and Muslims, humiliate infidelity and infidels, destroy your enemies, the enemies of Islam, and protect this country."

Whose destruction was he praying for?

    Sheik Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barakat spoke from Al-Rawdah Mosque in Damascus,  the government radio broadcast this prayer.

"O God, help Arabs and Muslims score victory over your enemy and their enemy and destroy the treacherous Zionists and their followers. O God, support our mujahedin brothers in the occupied Arab territories."

Islam Commentaries has a more extensive list of official execrations and source link.

    Who gives a damn?  Certainly not the U.S. State Department.  Google search:

But the first result without the quote marks is to an August 29 '10 Fox News report about condemnation of a Rabbi who suggested that the Almighty should strike  Israel's Muslim enemies with a plague.

"We regret and condemn the inflammatory statements by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef," State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said ... "These remarks are not only deeply offensive, but incitement such as this hurts the cause of peace. As we move forward to re-launch peace negotiations, it is important that actions by people on all sides help to advance our effort, not hinder it,"


Google gave me 53 results, none of them reported State Department condemnation of Muslim execrations.   In further searches, I was unable to find any record of State Department condemnation of prayers for the destruction of America and Israel.

    When a Jew prays for deliverance from evil, he is condemned, when Muslims pray for Israel's destruction, broadcast by state media, they are ignored.  Why are we governed by AssWholes & traitors?  Elections have consequences.    Be careful when voting and make no mistakes!

What Goes on in Mosques: Terrorist Fund Raising

Tom Trento o the Florida Security Council has a revelation for you.   You are about to view  Imam Mahdi Bray & George Galloway raising funds for HAMAS at the Al-Rahman Mosque in Orlando Florida.  

    In this video, you will see Mahdi Bray  making a physical expression of his support for HAMAS & Hizbollah. You will see Geoge Galloway remitting funds to HAMAS at a terrorist pep rally.  You will hear the leader shout Takbir and the crowd respond with Allahu Akhbar!!  You will see and hear evidence of extreme enthusiasm for institutions of great evil, institutions with blood on their hands.
    Later in the vidio, you will hear them shout Takbir and the congregation reply  Allahu Akhbar!! with the same enthusiasm  displayed in the HAMAS rally.  You will see them raising money for HAMAS in a Florida Mosque.

    Zakat is obligatory charity, a 2.5% tax on accumulated wealth and financial transactions. Zakat is detailed in Book h of Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shafi'ite Fiqh, essentially Shari'ah.  This is a recognized part of Islamic law.  There are eight classes of recipients, each of which receives one eighth  of the total Zakat collected.  The seventh category  is detailed in h8.17 to which I have added emphasis. One eighth of zakat goes to the terrorists.

h8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for
Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military
operations for whom no salary has been allotted in
the army roster (0: but who are volunteers for
jihad without remuneration). They are given
enough to suffice them for the operation, even if
affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and
expenses (0: for the duration of the journey,
round trip, and the time they spend there, even if
prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned
here of the expense involved in supporting such
people's families during this period, it seems clear
that they should also be given it).

    A special zakat is due at the end of  Ramadan.  Do they collect it in food in urban areas, or do they collect it in cash, divide it and send 1/8 to HAMAS & co.?

h7.5 The zakat of 'Eid al-Fitr becomes obligatory
when the sun sets on the night before the 'Eid
(n:- meaning on the evening of the last day of


Sunday, August 29, 2010

Esposito's Question & My Answer

On August 27, John Esposito uttered and the On Faith Panel of  News Week & The Washington Post published  Is Islam a primary driver or cause of terrorism? which attracted my attention while I read an article by Jordan Sekulow:  Imam Rauf should apologize. While I generally agree with Sekulow, I admit that an apology from the Imam would not alter my attitude, even if I thought it to be sincere.  Nor would I be satisfied by relocation of the Park 51 project.

    I skimmed Esposito's article and discovered a spew of al-Taqiyya which deserves refutation. As is my habit, I will quote the most egregious passages and let those who want to read the  entire article use the link above.

"Islam, like all world religions, neither supports nor requires illegitimate violence." [Emphasis added.]

illegitimate violence

    Allah, through his conquest imperatives, legitimatizes  aggression.  Is it legitimate  to wage war because your intended victim does not share your beliefs & ritual practices?  Surah Al-Anfal 38 identifies "those who have disbelieved"  as the target of violence commanded in the next verse :  8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone... .  The explicit casus belli is disbelief.  Allah & his slaves think that is legitimate, do you?

    In Surah At-Taubah, Allah commands Muslims to fight  Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments called jizya.
9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.  Is disbelief a legitimate casus belli?  You be the judge.  In my opinion, John Esposito practiced kitman to convey a false impression. 
"The Quran does not advocate or condone terrorism."

Quran does not advocate  terrorism

    That is not what Allah said. In Surah  Al-Imran 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).  What did Allah say he would do?  That could be a reference to the afterlife, is it? Here is the answer from Tafsir Al-Jalalayn. "We will cast terror (read ru‘b or ru‘ub) into the hearts of the disbelievers: after departing from Uhud they resolved to return in order to exterminate the Muslims, but they were terrified and did not return;..."

    Islam does not get off so easily, the reference is temporal, not eterna. In Surah Al Anfal, Allah again says that he will cast terror.  8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

      Yeah, right, Allah issued the command to the angels; so why was he reminding  his companions of  the command?  Obviously it was something he wanted them to do.  Examine verse 57 carefully. 8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.  The meaning reaches full clarity in the light of  Surah Al-Hashr 2.

 59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Banî An-Nadîr) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allâh! But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).     Allah terrorized the Bani An-Nadir so that they destroyed their own settlement, so you should take admonition.  Learn a lesson : take admonition. Get it?  By what agency did Allah cast terror?  Verse 13 has a clue for you.  59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allâh).
    The Jews were  more afraid of Moe's army than of Allah.  Ain't that the general idea?  Examine Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of 8:60.  Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. [Emphasis added.]
    Maximize your army to strike terror.  Got that clue yet?  

"As with other faiths, a radical fringe distorts and misinterprets mainstream and normative Islamic doctrines and laws."

distorts and misinterprets

    What did Allah command Muslims to do?  What did Moe and his "rightly guided caliphs" do?  Just how did Islam expand to rule  all of Arabia, northern Africa,  southern Europe and nearly half of Asia?  Sahih Bukhari's books of  Jihad, Khumus & Expedition have some clues for you.  Sure, there is an injunction against suicide.  There is a difference between wasting your death and killing Jews or pagans.  Get a clue.  The phrase "fought until he was killed"  occurs in several ahadith. Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2567, Sahih Muslim 19.4413, 20.4678,4679,4681,4683.
"They pay no attention to Islamic law which draws on the Quran to set out clear guidelines for the conduct of war and provides no support for hijacking and hostage taking."

no support for  hostage taking

    A search of Hilali & Khan's Noble Qur'an turned up ten matching Surahs for "ransom".  Most of them are not relevant, but one is particularly relevant.
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.

    The parenthetical expressions come from tafsirs used in the translation.  Allah reprimanded Moe for not killing enough of the enemy because he wanted ransom money.   Tafsir Al-Jalalayn makes matters abundantly clear.  "The following was revealed when they ransomed those taken captive at Badr: It is not for any Prophet to have (read as an takūna lahu or an yakūna lahu) prisoners until he has made slaughter in the land, going all the way in fighting disbelievers. You, O believers, desire the transient things of this world, its ephemeral gains, by ransoming, while God desires, for you, the Hereafter, that is, its reward, through your killing them; and God is Mighty, Wise: this was abrogated by His words [and set them free] afterward either with grace or by ransom [Q. 47:4]."     Surah Muhammad 4, as mentioned in the tafsir, reinforces the concept beyond all doubt.  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,
    Moe was given permission to release captives for ransom after he had killed a sufficient number.
"Islam's relationship to violence and terrorism, as well as the primary causes of global terrorism, are often concealed and confused by the religious language and symbolism that extremists use."

Islam's relationship to violence and terrorism

    What is that relationship, if not that which is revealed in the Qur'an & hadith?  What texts do the "extremists" quote?

causes of global terrorism

    Islamic doctrine. Not poverty, not repression, not occupation, not ignorance, not illiteracy; Islamic doctrine. What did Allah command them to do?  What did Moe do?  The objective is accumulating   "good deeds"  to weigh against their sins on judgment day. If one does not die in battle, his sins are weighed against his "good deeds".   Allah has a clue for you in Surah At-Taubah 120, I will emphasize the crucial clause for clarity.  9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn

    Muslims earn Brownie points by angering or injuring disbelievers.  That is the cause of terrorism.

"Religiously legitimated violence adds divine, authority that increases a terrorist leader's authority as well as moral justification, obligation, certitude, and heavenly reward, all of which enhance recruitment and a willingness to fight and die in a "sacred struggle." "

Religiously legitimated violence

    The most effective lies have a little sliver of truth mixed in to disguise them. That last quote is exemplary.  I already detailed the religious legitimation.  The obligation is fard al-kifaya, outlined in Reliance of the Traveller, o9.1.  The minimum requirement is one attack per year. The word reward occurs in 60 surahs.  Surah As-Saff 12 mentions the reward for participation in jihad. 61.12 (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn ­ Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success. To see their reward, begin reading at 56:10.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Hector Aleem Update 08/27/10

Hector Aleem Update 08/27/10

This video was shot on the 23rd, the intervening days were used in creating the sub titles.  The tape was made  on the occasion of a court hearing. Hector was speaking softly because the taping was clandestine.  I expect that when the Paki's find out about it, he will pay in pain.

    There is no justice for Christians in Islam dominated areas. I do not know the extent to which Pakistani law mirrors Shari'ah, I only know that this is the standard set by Umdat al-Salik.

024.2 Legal testimony is only acceptable from a
witness who:

(a) is free;
(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def:
c8.1) (0: as testimony is not accepted from a child
or insane person, even when the child's testimony
regards injuries among children that occurred at
(e) is able to speak;
(d) is mentally awake;
(e) is religious (0: meaning upright (024.4)
(A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,
"Let those of rectitude among you testify"
(Koran 65:2),
and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as
goes without saying);  [Emphasis added.]


Thursday, August 26, 2010

Iftar AssWholliness: Bloomberg's Excrement

When ABC Radio News came on, they broadcast a sound byte which sent me on an urgent mission to the bathroom. The sound byte was from Mayor Bloomberg's Iftar.  I found Bloomberg's  prepared remarks at The Page.  I am not going to reproduce Mark Halperin's article here,  I will quote the most  egregious excrement out of context & out of sequence; if you want to read it all in context, use the link above.

    Here is the sound bite that pissed me off.

“Islam did not attack the World Trade Center – Al-Qaeda did. To implicate all of Islam for the actions of a few who twisted a great religion is unfair and un-American. Today we are not at war with Islam – we are at war with Al-Qaeda and other extremists who hate freedom."

Islam did not attack

    When the hijackers slit the throats of the flight crews, they pronounced the takbir, praising the demon whose name is Allah.  Allahhu Akhbar means "Allah is greater.". They murdered the flight crews in Allah's name, that makes it an Islamic act.

Al-Qaeda did

    Al-Qaeda is only a name, an artificial subdivision of the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood is only a name, an artificial subdivision of  Ummah al-Islamiyya.  I refer damned fools, liars, doubters, deniers & dissenters to the Charter of HAMAS, which defines the Falestinian branch of  al-Ikhwan-al-Muslimeen.
  • Article One:

    The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.
  • Article Eight:

    Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its  wishes. [Emphasis & link added.]
    Who is the Brotherhood's target?  Who is its model? What is its constitution?  What is its highest aspiration?  How in Hell does that differ from Islam! Al-Ikhwan-al-Muslimeen, HAMAS & al-Qaeda are Islam, nothing more, nothing less.  Their ideology is Islam's ideology.

implicate all of Islam

    What the Hell did they say?  In whose name did they slit throats?    What did he command them to do?
  • 9:5. ... then kill the Mushrikûn (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush....
  • 9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. 
    Allah commanded Muslims to  wage war against us until we are subjugated and make annual extortion payments. What did Moe say?
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah's Apostle said, "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." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." [Emphasis added.]
    Why did Moe say that he was ordered to fight the people?  Who gave him that order?   What is the practical application of that order? How is it implemented?
  • ...Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand.... [The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah]
  • 09.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others...
  • o9.8 Thc caliph (025) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice,
    and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim  poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (0: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the  non-Muslim poll tax (0: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High, "Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax  out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9:29),...
    Why is neglecting jihad sinful?  Why is jihad required in every year?  Why  did Al-Shafi'i rule that jihad must be performed annually, if possible?

actions of a few

    Jihad is fard al-kifaya; communally binding until a sufficient number have responded to the front. (Undat al-Salik o9.1)  Full mobilization is only required (fard ayn) when Dar ul-Islam is invaded.  Those few are the believers [8:2, 49:15 ] who have been purchased by Allah as slaves to fight in his cause, kill and be killed.

twisted a great religion

    I showed you Allah's imperative, Moe's confirmation, and their codification in Shari'ah.  What was twisted?  It is Islam, stupid; it ain't Judaism and it ain't Christianity. It ain't al-Qaeda. It is Islam, stupid!

we are not at war with Islam

    True, Islam is at war against us, but  our elected leadership is too stupid, dishonest, cowardly & treasonous to acknowledge the fact and reciprocate.

at war with Al-Qaeda 

    Shrub declared "war on terror", which is a tactic of Islam, not an enemy.

and other extremists

    The founder of Islam revealed the Jihad imperatives.  The founder of Islam exemplified compliance with them and bragged that he was "made victorious with terror".  Moe is the standard.  What Moe preached and practiced is normative Islam, not extremism!

who hate freedom   

    They hate kufr: rebellion against Allah (disbelief).  They hate everything not Islamic.

“But if we say that a mosque and community center should not be built near the perimeter of the World Trade Center site, we would compromise our commitment to fighting terror with freedom."

    The Burlington Coat factory took a direct hit; part of one aircraft projected through the tower and penetrated the roof,  passing through two floors.   That makes it part of ground zero.

    Terror is not an enemy, it is a tactic.  Islam is fighting us and we need to fight Islam.  Freedom is our highest value, not a tactic, neither is it a weapon.  If we desire to remain alive and free, then we must retaliate and eliminate the enemy which attacked us in the 19th century and resumed attacking us in the 20th .

    Freedom must be reciprocal.  Islam does not reciprocate, it enslaves.  We  are not obligated to give our enemy a staging ground and weapons from which and with which to attack us.

"First, that Muslims have a constitutional right to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan..."

"...And above all of that, we are Americans, each with an equal right to worship and pray where we choose...."

    The First Amendment's free exercise clause is meant to protect legitimate religions, not war cults.  Islam sanctifies conquest, genocide & terrorism.  How in Hell can there be a right to perform genocidal conquest, which is a "religious obligation" in Islam?  If there is a right to practice Islam, then Muslims have  a right to kill us, rape our widows and enslave our orphans. If such rights exist, our rights are abrogated.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Ground Zero Declaration Challenges Muslims

The Ground Zero Declaration came to my attention through a Google Alert that led to a post by Ali Sina at Faith Freedom.org.     The brainchild of Billy Rojas and Centroids, the declaration  begins by affirming the Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights.

    After the affirmation, it lists four prticular items: freedom of religion, equal protection, human dignity and peaceful assembly & free speech.

    In that fourth item, it specifies freedom to criticize religions, which will stick in Islam's eye like a sharp grain of sand.  

    The next section carries an interesting heading: "The Problem With Cordoba House".  The concluding sentence of that section is particularly interesting.  "Allowing Muslims to build an Islamic center so near the scene of Islam-inspired death implies that neither we nor they have truly learned the painful lessons of 9/11."

    The next section, "What We Want", leads off with a most direct sentence.  "If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is serious about promoting a new Reformed Islam that divorces itself completely from the ideology that brought down the World Trade Center, we ask him and his colleagues to officially:"

There follows an enumerated list of three things no Muslim can do  without incurring the penalty of apostasy and a demand that the Ground Zero Mosque project be postponed, reconfigured or relocated.

    The concluding sentence has more clarity than I can expect from centrists; this has real merit.  "We do not believe a commitment to freedom means giving our enemies the freedom to destroy us."

    That last sentence is the clincher for me.  I hope it will be for you, too.  Lets make this happen!

What is Islam: Religion? Terror Ideology?

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Logan's Warning for alerting me to this opportunity to expose Islam.

CNN published an article by Jocelyne Cesari entitled  Islam is a religion, not a terror ideology. The writer asserts, without submitting proof, that Islam is a religion.

    Cesari  mentions the sensitivity issue in passing, pointing out opposition to Mosque construction projects at generic locations. She generalizes, attributing opposition  to: "growing unease toward Islam, fueled by security fears".  Is it possible that there is a growing interest in and knowledge of the doctrines & practices of Islam, fueled by the writings of Bostom, Pipes, Ibrahim, McCarthy, Gabriel & Spencer and other sources of information?

    She remarks on the similarity between American and European  anti-Islamic movements, identifying one common element: "...they increasingly justify their opposition by arguing that Islam is not a religion.".   Here is her defining example from Europe.

"For example, in his campaign preceding Holland's recent elections, extreme right-wing parliamentarian Geert Wilders repeatedly argued that Islam is a political ideology."

    I added emphasis to make one phrase stand out. Cesari appears to be attempting to discredit Wilders by attaching the "right-wing label.  But Wilders is not a Nazi, he is a supporter of democracy.  For the American side of the equation, she throws a spear at an American politician.

"Tennessee Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, in his failed gubernatorial bid, suggested that the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment might not apply to Muslims. "You could even argue whether being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, a cult," the Republican candidate told an audience in Murfreesboro."

I added emphasis to make one phrase stand out. Cesari appears to be attempting to discredit Ramsey by  reference to his loss in the primary election, employing the ad populum fallacy. Despite the grammatical error, Ramsey actually arrived at the truth: Islam is a way of life and a cult.   Here there are two common elements: the ad hominum argument and the lack of evidence to disprove the European and American positions. Cesari simply dismisses them without proof.

    The sewer sludge flows in the next paragraph.

"Disturbingly, these assertions are often embraced by people looking to justify their intolerance. Counterclaims and evidence from religious leaders, intellectuals, government officials and others have little impact on this misperception."

Note the  phrase to which I added emphasis.  "justify their intolerance" is used to label us as bigots and our realization that Islam is not a religion is dismissed as misperception.  No evidence  was supplied to support the dismissal.

    Next, Cesari propounds an important question, which should raise  a counter-question.

"Why is Islam no longer considered a religion?"

Why was Islam considered a religion?  Islam was considered a religion because it was self-identified.  In 5:3, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Hilali-Khan, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa,  Arberry, Palmer, Rodwell and Sale all use "religion"  in the declarations of perfection and imposition. But at http://www.openburhan.net/ , in the expanded display, Malik uses deen.  At http://www.islam-muslims.org/Quran/2/217/default.htm , Aisha Bewley & Shabbir Ahmed use deen. Free Minds' literal translation uses system.  M. Taqi Usmani spells it din and also uses religion.

    In the Arabic,  word #43 is  دينكم  dīnakum and word #50 is  دينكم  dīnan. A visit to Wikipedia turns up this:

"Thus, although secular Muslims would say that their practical interpretation of Dīn conforms to "religion" in the restricted sense of something that can be carried out in separation from other areas of life, both mainstream and reformist Muslim writers take the word to mean an all-encompassing way of life carried out under the auspices of God's divine purpose as expressed in the Qur'an and hadith. As one notably progressive Muslim writer puts it, far from being a discrete aspect of life carried out in the mosque, "Islam is Dīn, a complete way of life"[2]  "

    A great deal of searching turned up   Four Basic Quranic Terms  by Abu Ala Maududi.  Chapter 4 of that 60 page book discusses deen.  After citing several verses, Maududi summs it all up.

"In all these verses, the word Deen stands for the complete way of life, including man's beliefs, his moral principles, and his behaviour in all walks of life.
In the first two verses it is said that the right and proper way of life intended by God for man is that founded on obedience to Him and conformity to His Laws. Any other way of life, based on someone else's supposed right to ultimate authority and submission to it, has not the slightest place in Allah's scheme for man and is hence as wholly unacceptable to Him. And this is but natural. Man is God's creature and lives in His Domain and God is his Master and Sustainer. How then, can God be expected to consent that man may spend his life in obedience to someone else similarly His creature and dependant, and look to that someone for guidance?

    The third verse proclaims that Allah sent His Messenger (may peace be upon him) with the true Deen, the way of life meant by Him for man, which is known as Islam, and it was the primary purpose of the Prophet's mission that he should make this Deen prevail in their stead and triumph over all other ways of life.

    In the fourth, the believers have been ordered to fight all non-believers until mischief-that is, every system of thought, belief, and action which is not based on recognition of Allah as the Supreme Authority, and which therefore will perpetually remain the source of all strife and unrest-has been wiped out, and entire humanity adopts the approved way of life, Allah's Deen.

    The fifth verse was revealed when, after 23 years of prolonged struggle the Islamic Revolution had overcome all resistance in Arabia, when Islam had established itself and been universally accepted as a system of belief, thought, morality, culture, etc., in all its details and in all walks of life, and delegation after delegation from all parts of the country was arriving to pledge allegiance to it, and the Holy Prophet (on whom be peace) was thus witnessing the fulfillment of his mission."

Maududi does not use the term deen in his Tafsir, but he does use way of life in  4:125 & 5:48

    Islam is not a religion, neither is it an ideology.  Islam is a way of life, encompassing all of human activity.   Examine the table of contents for Sahih Bukhari, the most authentic of the canonical hadith collections. You will find "religious" matters such as prayer and ritual purity.  But you will also  find  temporal matters such as taxes, loans, mortgages, fighting and military expeditions.  Islam encompasses everything from conception to burial.

    Islam includes religion, but it is more than religion. It combines religion and government. It wages war. Its war against us began when we threw off England's tyranny and became independent. The Barbary Pirates sacked our shipping in the name of Allah.   When asked by what right they attacked us, they answered by Allah's law.

    What religion levies war on us because we are Christian?  That link opens Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shari'ah, to the page containing o9.9.  Read it carefully.  What does the caliph do?  What is the scriptural basis for his action?  

    How is it possible that an institution which has declared and prosecuted war upon us can be  included under the  umbrella of protection offered to religions by the First Amendment's free exercise clause?   Attacking disbelievers, aggressive warfare, is a religious obligation, fard al-kifaya which must be carried out in in every year when possible.

    How is it possible that we should tolerate the propagation of a belief in a religious obligation to attack and subjugate us, a belief that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims? How is it possible that we  should tolerate the propagation of the idea that we have no rights until we become Muslim?

  Bear in mind how  deen and religion are interchangeable terms while reading this hadith.

Sunan abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.  [Emphasis added.]
    What are the two alternative ways of life named in that hadith? What is their original way of life?   What is jihad?  What will Allah do  to Muslims if they abandon it?

    Cesari  tries to isolate Islam from  one of its  intrinsic sacraments: jihad.

"No doubt, some political groups are at war with certain Muslim regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan, and with the West."

    Al-Qaeda is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928.  Who was doing Jihad before Hassan Al-Banna was born?  Who conquered Arabia, North Africa,  Turkey, Syria, Southern Europe and half of Asia?   Were Muhammad and his four "rightly guided  caliphs"  extremists separate from the institution he founded?  

    Cesari  asserts that the threat of terrorism  is not Islamic.

"Westerners see the threat from terrorists who are driven by ideology and politics as a threat from a culture and religion."

    What was Muhammad driven by when he attacked the Byzantine Empire?  What was he driven by when he sent an extortion letter to the  emperor of Persia? What is the source of the ideology of terrorism?   Who said "I will cast terror"?  Who "cast terror"?  Who said "I have been made victorious with terror"  By what miracle of sophistry do you separate the statements of Allah and his Messenger from Islam?

    Cesari deftly weaves a web of code words with which to calumniate us as bigots and racists.

"Those people who were already suspicious of Islam can justify their hostility because, instead of a religion, Islam is considered an ideology emanating from Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Turkey and the rest of the Muslim world to threaten the West."

We are brushed off as "already suspicious", obviously, our suspicions must be unfounded.  Where does Islam emanate from?  That's the ticket; must be racism!!! 

    Next,  she segues into the double standard.

"It's worth noting that we did not seek to explain the violence and terrorism of Northern Ireland through the lens of Catholicism and Protestantism only; nobody scoured the Bible for verses about violence and war. Observers, instead, cited political, economic and historic factors to explain the conflict"

Where in the New Testament did Jesus Christ command his disciples to wage war?  In what Book, Chapter & Verse did he exemplify terrorism for them to emulate?  Compare and contrast what Jesus said with what Allah &  Moe said.

    Are there any economic factors to explain Moe's battles?  To whom do the spoils belong?  What was Moe's motivation; what did he seek?  What did Allah promise him?  What did Allah deliver?  Why did Moe say "while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." ?  Why did he say  "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause."

Monday, August 23, 2010

Hector Aleem Update 08/23/'10

Hector Aleem Update 08/23/'10

The language barrier  is  obviously at play in this update.  If I interpret it correctly, a stay had been issued in conjunction with an appeal to the High Court but the Judge pressed forward regardless.

    It becomes clear that there is little or no justice for Christians in Pakistan.  The section of Reliance of the Traveller which explains  who is qualified to testify in court exposes the horrific truth. Note the words which I emphasized.

o24.2 Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:
(a) is free;
(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1)
(0: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane
person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries
 among children that occurred at play);
(e) is able to speak;
(d) is mentally awake;
(e) is religious (0: meaning upright (024.4)
(A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,
"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),
and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying);

Mehwish Aleem August 23 at 3:46pm 
Dear group members.

21st August 2010 was the hearing of Hector Aleem, so here is the update about the hearing. First of all our lawyer asked the judge for the stay, because the High Court has given the stay for the quashment of the case and advised the lower court not to proceed until the High Court allows the lower court but as the judge of the lower court is very discriminative, he was not ready to give the stay even after the order of the High Court but after our lawyer gave some legal points and told him to wait until the judgment of the High Court he agreed not to proceed but the Mullahs and the Lawyer of the plaintiff pressurized him to proceed other wise they will protest and will destroy the court, the judge than started the proceeding. All the witnesses were available and our lawyer had to question them but the Investigation officer of Hector’s case was not available, so the judge has ordered the IO (investigation officer) to come on the next hearing. During the argument of both lawyers (our and plaintiff’s) they both argued so harshly and were about to had a physical fight. But the judge ordered both of them to calm down. And gave the next date of hearing. This all situation tells us that our lawyer is quiet brave and is ready to face any situation.

Thank you for all your moral and financial support. Those who can donate please use the following methods.

For PayPal use the following link: http://tinyurl.com/hectoraleem

And to pay through Western Union please contact Mehwish Aleem in the admin list of this group