Malinstruction from Bloomberg & Rauf

Lessons From the Mayor and the Imam
Gde Dwitya Arief

The article in the Jakarta Globe triggered one of my Google Alerts. Like many articles that involve Islam, it contains some outrageous statements which must be refuted. The author is off to a great start with two big lies in the last sentence of the first paragraph

[...] "together remind us that Muslims are part of America and that Islam is not attacking the West."

 

Muslims are part of America

    Muslims who live here are not part of America, they are part of the Ummah al-Islamiyya: "nation of Islam".  Their nationality is Muslim, not American.  America and Islam are irreconcilable polar opposites.

    America cherishes equality; Islam exemplifies Arab supremacism. The second caliph made it clear: "But the Arabs concede supremacy only to us of the Quraysh, who are the centre of the Arab world by heredity and position."

    Equality includes gender; women are not enslaved in our culture, whereas in Islam, 2:223. Your wives are a tilth for you, [...]; 4:34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means.[...]  Women are chattle: fields to be plowed & planted.

    Women are deficient in intelligence; the testimony of two women is required to equal that of one man. 2:282. [...] And if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her.[...] But Christians are not qualified to testify: Reliance of the Traveller o24.2[...]" (e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (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);"[...]

    America cherishes our republican form of government in which the people are sovereign. Islam is theocratic and holds that only Allah has the right to rule; it rejects man made laws.

Islam is not attacking the West

    Has Islam ever attacked anyone?  How did India, Yemen, Egypt & Spain become Islamic?  They were conquered.  Those conquests were performed by Muslims who were motivated by the doctrines of Islam: imperatives recorded in the Qur'an and exemplified by the hadith.  Those curseworthy doctrines are reflected in Islamic law.  Al-Shafi'i gave it the utmost clarity. "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    America fist experienced Islamic aggression when she gained independence from England: the Barbary Pirates sacked our shipping.  Tripoli's Ambassador explained why.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

"But this is only true if we accept the charge that 9/11 was an attack on America by Islam."

 

attack on America

    Where did it happen?  New York City & Washington D.C. were in America when I last examined a globe; did they flee to Canada?

by Islam

    What were the 'Magnificent 19'?    Were they Catholics or Baptists?  How many of them were Buddhists?  And what was it they said while slitting throats?  "Allahu Akhbar!"    If they were not Muslims obeying Allah and emulating Moe, why did they act in his name??

"Here lies the core of the problem: the notion that Islam itself is the attacker. "

Islam itself is the attacker

    What a silly notion. Islam is a set of doctrines which dictate a predatory way of life, it is nothing without Muslims.  Believers perpetrated that attack because of what they believe: Islam.  Allah said "fight them". Moe said that he was "ordered to fight". Moe waged 86 raids & ghazwats.  Why did the Barbary Pirates attack us?  Get a clue.   

"In fact, this is what the terrorists who claim they represent Islam want us to think."

they represent Islam

    Islam is represented by its founder, who said "I have been made victorious with terror." Salafists emulate Moe. Al-Qaeda is salafist. Allah said that he would "cast terror" [8:12].  Allah said that he "cast terror" [33:26] so that the Muslims killed the men of a Jewish settlement and enslaved their widowss & orphans.  Terrorism: its what Islam is; what Muslims do.

"Islam is part of America and is entitled to the same freedom as any other religious group."

entitled to the same freedom

    Freedom of religion is for legitimate religions, not plunder cults.  Jihad is foundational & intrinsic to Islam, it can not be separated or isolated. Islam is all or nothing. 

13:36. Those to whom We have given the Book (such as 'Abdullâh bin Salâm and other Jews who embraced Islâm), rejoice at what has been revealed unto you (i.e. the Qur'ân) , but there are among the Confederates (from the Jews and pagans) those who reject a part thereof. Say (O Muhammad ): "I am commanded only to worship Allâh (Alone) and not to join partners with Him. To Him (Alone) I call and to Him is my return."  [Emphasis added.]

Offensive, aggressive warfare against disbelievers is an intrinsic part of Islam; participation in it is a religious obligation.  9:123. "O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you,[...] "  It is not possible that the Establishment Clause should permit that!

Do we or do we not have a right to be secure in our persons & property?  Do we or do we not have a right to life?  If we do, then there is no right to practice or propagate Islam.  If there is a right to practice or propagate Islam, then all our rights are abrogated.  Get a clue!

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."

The sanctity of our blood and property and our rights are conditional on embracing Islam.  That says it all, exposing the liars.

"The imam has been working with the US State Department in promoting pluralistic and democratic Islam across the world."

 

pluralistic

    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. 
"The Messenger of Allah stated that no two religions should remain in the Arabian Peninsula, and the Jews and Christians should be expelled from it, all praise is due to Allah. " [Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Emphasis added.]

democratic

    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.[Emphasis added.]

    The fatal facts bear repetition and Imam Rauf provides the opportunity.

“Let there be no mistake, Islam categorically rejects the killing of innocent people. Terrorists violate the sanctity of human life and corrupt the meaning of our faith. In no way they represent our religion. And we must not let them define us.”

rejects the killing of innocent people

    Define innocent!  Were the passengers on those airliners and the office workers in the towers innocent or not?

5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!.

What is the meaning of that second exception? Muslims won't quote the next verse; I will.

5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

What is the meaning of "wage war against Allah"?  Tafsir Ibn Kathir has the answer for us. [...]`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. [...]  [Emphasis added] If you contradict Moe or do not believe in Allah, you are waging war against them and may be killed.   Only Muslims can be innocent!

sanctity of human life

    Moe said something, which I already quoted: "then their blood and property will be sacred to us ".  Only Muslim life has sanctity! He was  commanded to fight us until we become Muslim. 

represent our religion

    One man, dead and damned, represented Islam, defining & exemplifying it.  What part of this do you not comprehend?

• I have been ordered to fight the people
• I have been ordered to fight with the people
• I have been ordered to fight the people till they say 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'
• I am commanded to fight with men till they testify that there is no god but Allah
• Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. 
• I have been made victorious with terror

Free Speech Has No Future

Cass Sunstein: The Future of free Speech, serialized in Little Mag, should serve as a warning of things to come if Obamination remains in power or is succeeded by another Socialist.  

    Sunstein discusses the concept of public forums, finding them crucial to our form of government. He hints at considering the means of communication as a public good.  Its a long way from Hyde Park to the internet, but Sunstein wants to conflate them. Examine his central concern.

"In a system with public forums and general interest intermediaries, people will frequently come across materials that they would not have chosen in advance – and for diverse citizens, this provides something like a common framework for social experience."

    In a small village, a single newspaper may serve as the local news source. One church, one fraternity, one school, one theatre  and one coffee shop may give the villagers shared experiences. But the USA is a great nation, not a small village.  There are many different institutions and services.  There are numerous newspapers, radio and television broadcasters, with divergent points of view and market niches.

    Consumers can and do choose, and "birds of a feather flock together", that is the way nature works.  Once the nation stared at Chronkite or Brinkley, and soaked up the same lies together.  Now we soak up lies from many different sources.

"All too many people are now exposed to louder echoes of their own voices, resulting, on occasion, in social fragmentation, misunderstanding, and sometimes even enmity. Perhaps it is better for people to hear fewer controversial views than for them to hear a single such view, stated over and over again. I now turn to this issue."

    Does Sunstein want to force Liberals to listen to Rush Limbaugh and watch Fox News?  Yeah, right.  I have sampled Randy Rhodes, John Hightower, Larry King and others. They raise my blood pressure too much. Keith Olbermann would make my bladder burst. I'll continue to listen to Rush, Sean & Mark; if Cass disapproves, he can go to Hell.

"If greater communications choices produce greater extremism, society may, in many cases, be better off as a result. But when group discussion tends to lead people to more strongly held versions of the same view with which they began, and if social influences and limited argument pools are responsible, there is legitimate reason for concern."

    "Extremism in the defense of liberty..." What is the value in arbitrarily decreasing the intensity or changing the direction of our views? This is all about cementing Scialists in power.

"Consider discussions among hate groups on the Internet and elsewhere. If the underlying views are unreasonable, it makes sense to fear that these discussions may fuel increasing hatred and a socially corrosive form of extremism."

    Who is to judge what 'views' are 'unreasonable'?  Here come the thought police!

"This does not mean that the discussions can or should be regulated in a system dedicated to freedom of speech. But it does raise questions about the idea that “more speech” is necessarily an adequate remedy – especially if people are increasingly able to wall themselves off from competing views."

    What is the remedy?

"The basic issue here is whether something like a “public sphere,” with a wide range of voices, might not have significant advantages over a system in which isolated consumer choices produce a highly fragmented speech market."

    Should we be like a doctatorship with state run media feeding us a steady diet of propaganda? 

"The most reasonable conclusion is that it is extremely important to ensure that people are exposed to views other than those with which they currently agree, in order to protect against the harmful effects of group polarisation on individual thinking and on social cohesion."

    Yeah, that's the solution: remote controlled idiot boxes blasting opinions inimical to our own, holding us as a captive audience!

"For those who believe that the free speech principle has democratic foundations, and is not about consumer sovereignty, government regulation of television, radio, and the Internet need not be objectionable, at least so long as it is reasonably taken as an effort to promote democratic goals."

    The free speech principle is crucial to our form of government. Voters must be allowed to communicate relevant facts and opinion and debate them openly in order to make wise decisions on candidates and related issues. 

    In deprecating 'consumer sovereignty', Sunstein deprecates popular sovereignty as well.  The people are sovereign, we give limited power to the government for limited  amd well defined purposes.  The popular sovereignty and consumer sovereignty are inseverable; if either is lost, both are lost. We can not be free if artificially & arbitrarily deprived of choices.

    Sunstein advocaztes mandates & disclosure reports for broadcasters including: educational programming, closed captioning, free airtime for office seakers, coverage of local issues and allowing opposition views to be heard.

    He does not stop there. he advocates requiring web sites to provide links to web sites with opposing views and "allow competing voices to be heard".

    Adding insult to injury, Sunstein advocates 'voluntary self-regulation'.  The variety of competing viewpoints might be reduced by "a ‘code’ of appropriate conduct".   The code would include, allowing opposing views, avoiding 'unnecessary' sensationalism and offering arguments rather than quick 'sound-bytes'. 

    The 'code ' would be "encouraged but not imposed by government".  If the 'code' is not 'voluntarily' implemented, the government "might impose “must carry” rules on highly partisan Websites".  So much for 'voluntary self-regulation'.  When you urinate on my shoes and tell me "its raining", you insult my intelligence.

    The Unfairness Doctrine is rising from the dead, in a disguised and expanded form.  It is all about squelching dissent under color of improving social intercourse.  They might as well limit us to one political party for the purpose of promoting 'common experience'm unity & social cohesion.

    LibTards kvetch about 'balkanization' while practicing the politics of division: pandering to Mexicans, Queers, abortion fanatics & Islam and engaging in class warfare.  There is something rotten in Washington: Obamination. Wise up, rise up, speak out and turn them out in the next election cycle!