The Schalit Exchange: Suicidal Stupidity

The title pretty well says it; there is no use trying to conceal my disgust.  Freeing one thousand genocidal murderers in return for one Israeli is not a good deal.

    First and foremost, you get more of what you reward and less of what you punish. Freeing capture terrorists is an incitement to terrorism.  It gives them another opportunity to torment and kill Jews and other innocent people. 

    Yes, I recognize the fact that Schalit is worth millions of zombies.  The answer is to kill a million zombies while demanding his immediate release; not to send  one thousand back to the battlefield.  

    How many shootings, rocket & mortar attacks, suicide bombings, rock attacks and vehicular assaults is Schalit's return worth?   I doubt that his parents can see that price tag.  Surely the media and the politicians will never acknowledge it.  Yet Israel will pay in blood, both in the short and long terms. 

    As each of those zombies is welcomed as a conquering hero, with schools, streets, parks and events named after them and other tributes, the enemy will gain great psychological advantage. 

    There is a difference between living to kill and killing to live.  Too many people are unable to comprehend the difference.  Crack open your Qur'an and read Sural Al-Anfal 67.

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.

Sahih Muslim 19.4345 has a message for us. It is a long hadith, I will include a brief excerpt which contains the most vital information.

So I brought them, driving them along. Among them was a woman from Banu Fazara. She was wearing a leather coat. With her was her daughter who was one of the prettiest girls in Arabia. I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: Give me that girl, O Salama. I said: Messenger of Allah, she has fascinated me. I had not yet disrobed her. When on the next day. the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) ag;tin met me in the street, he said: O Salama, give me that girl, may God bless your father. I said: She is for you. Messenger of Allah! By Allah. I have not yet disrobed her. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent her to the people of Mecca, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca.

What was the narrator planning to do to that woman?  What was more important to Moe?  Taking captives for ransom is part of their tactical manual.  The obvious solution is to quit taking prisoners. When you capture zombies, send them directly to Hell, where they belong.

    The captivity of Schalit and death of his colleagues is a consequence of failure to comprehend and counter the enemy's tactics.  Sending a small force when a large force is required is penny wise and pound foolish.  When they plant bombs along the fence, send in air cover to find their locations and cut them off from escape and reinforcement.  When you send in the patrol to defuse the bombs, give them plenty of cover and backup. 

    Consider the happy homecoming: what if Schalit comes back in a box?  How can you face the families of murdered Jews in that case?  How will you face the survivors of the victims of ensuing attacks?   You should never place yourself in that position.

   

Christie & Palin: Wall Flowers; So What?

I can't get excited about the announcements that Governors Christie & Palin are not candidates for the GOP nomination.  Big deal.  Christie is important because he won in a 'crat heavy state and took on the unions.  Palin is important because she almost pulled McCain's bacon out of the fire. 

    The press, pundits & hierarchy love Christie because he projects a conservative image without being conservative.  The press & pundits would build him up before the nomination is cinched and tear him down afterwards.  They want to select our nominee again; another loser just like last time. 

    The press, pundits & hierarchy hate Palin because she is a conservative.  Her record as Governor of Alaska makes no difference, they want a Socialist in power, preferably one they can manipulate and exploit.  Nothing could stop them from harping on the family issue and Sarah's mis-statements any more than I could be stopped from harping on her insane statements about Islam. 

    The press, pundits & hierarchy seek enlargement of the field for several reasons.  Most importantly, they want pseudo-conservatives; they are more interested in image than substance. They hate the true conservatives and seek the destruction of their campaigns.  A large field reduces the money and media attention available to the back of the field, and that is exactly what the power brokers want. 

    In this election cycle, the party's base of faithful core supporters is more important than ever.  Now is the time for the base to rise up and demand a choice, not an echo.  Goldwater & Reagan are dead; the time of a new generation has come, and its leaders must step up and meet the challenge.

    Our role is to test those leaders and measure their mettle. We must reserve the selection to ourselves in the primaries & caucuses, we must tell the press, pundits & hierarchy to sit down and shut up. If we let them choose, we lose, and we may never recoup.

UN Counter Terrorism: Cognitive Dissonance

In a previous post, I detailed the statements of Allah and his messenger which sanctify, mandate and incite Islamic terrorism, as expressly denied in three statements before the General Assembly's 6^th Committee.  This post concentrates on the cognitive dissonance exemplified by those statements. 

    The fun begins with the double representation of Kazakhstan as a member of the SCO  and a representative of the OIC.  How does Kazakhstan reconcile these polar opposite positions?

• condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, regardless of its
  motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.
• terrorism, irrespective of its motivation, objectives, forms and manifestations,
  committed by whomsoever and wherever, can never be justified.
• without any "double standards"
• ---------------------------------------------------------------------
  
• root causes of terrorism including unlawful use of
  force, aggression, foreign occupation, festering international disputes, denial of
  the right of peoples living under foreign occupation to self-determination,
• outstanding issues including those related to the legal definition of terrorism,
  particularly on the distinction between terrorism and the struggle for the rights of
  self-determination by people under foreign occupation,

    How is it possible at once to condemn all forms of terrorism, regardless of motivation, location &  perpetrator without double standards and to exclude terrorist attacks against Israel from the definition of terrorism?  How can it be permissible to bomb civilian mass transit in Israel but not in Europe?

    The fun continues with cognitive dissonance regarding the root cause of terrorism. 

• The SCO member States express grave concern over the expansion of terrorist ideology.
• We actively support the widespread prevention of terrorism, including countering the ideology that nourishes it.
• ----------------------------------------------------
• No religion or religious doctrine encourage or inspires acts or terrorism.
• improving the living conditions of the poor and unemployed youth and
  people living under political and historical oppression and foreign occupation.
• In this connection, we note that attempts to link terrorism with any particular religion or a particular ethnic
  group are themselves provocative and contributes to the spread of terrorism.

China swerves into the truth by citing terrorist ideology, but does not name or describe it, obviously because of excessive political correctness. China's affiliate, Kazakhstan, assigns economic injustice, oppression & occupation as causes of terrorism.  Which is it: the belief that Allah demands global conquest, sanctifies & mandates terrorism as exemplified by his messenger, or poverty and foreign occupation? 

    Qatar brings another dimension to cognitive dissonance, asserting that exposing the Islamic doctrines that incite terrorism provokes terrorism.  If Islam was not involved, exposing it would not provoke Muslims to engage in terrorism.  With one sentence, Qatar blows up the entire house of cards.

China/SCO

It is my great honor to speak today on behalf of the Members
of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO): the Republic of
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the
Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan , and my own
country the People's Republic of China.

The SCO reiterates its fundamental position of condemning
terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, regardless of its
motivation, wherever, whenever and by whomsoever committed.

In this regard, the SCO Member States
emphasizes that counter-terrorism cooperation should be
conducted on the principle of respect for international law
including state sovereignty and without any "double standards" .

The SCO member States express grave concern over the
expansion of terrorist ideology. Representatives of numerous
ethnicities with different religious beliefs and cultural traditions
live in the territory of this Organization. It is vital that the idea of
condemning terrorism becomes an intrinsic part of the dialogue
between religions and civilizations. We actively support the
widespread prevention of terrorism, including countering the
ideology that nourishes it.

Kazakhstan/OIC

The OIC Group reaffirms that terrorism should not be associated with any religion,
race, faith, theology, values, culture, society or group. No religion or religious
doctrine encourage or inspires acts or terrorism, and, thus, none should be
portrayed as such.

To achieve this objective the OIC Group support a comprehensive strategy to combat
terrorism that must address the root causes of terrorism including unlawful use of
force, aggression, foreign occupation, festering international disputes, denial of
the right of peoples living under foreign occupation to self-determination,
political and economic injustices, and political marginalization and alienation.

We reaffirm our determination to make every
effort to reach a consensus agreement on the draft convention, by resolving the
outstanding issues including those related to the legal definition of terrorism,
particularly on the distinction between terrorism and the struggle for the rights of
self-determination by people under foreign occupation, and colonial or alien
domination, as well as on the scope of the acts covered by the draft Convention.

Qatar/Arab Group

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that a large part of international efforts to
combat terrorism is limited to reactions to terrorism and its symptoms, rather than
discussing and addressing its root causes and eliminating the factors that feed it. For
international efforts to eliminate terrorism to succeed, it is imperative to address its
root causes, as recognized by the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,
and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. This includes several aspects,
including improving the living conditions of the poor and unemployed youth and
people living under political and historical oppression and foreign occupation. We
must also prevent the incitement to hatred, including incitement to violence and
hatred of minorities of ethnic groups, religions and foreigners. In this connection, we
note that attempts to link terrorism with any particular religion or a particular ethnic
group are themselves provocative and contributes to the spread of terrorism.

Root Cause of International Terrorism

Speakers at the General Assembly's 6^th Committee raised the issue of causation, invoking unstated false premises:

• International terrorism can be eliminated by removing a few root causes. 
• The root causes of international terrorism do not include ideology. 

    Examine Qatar's statement, which approaches the Acme of arrogance. [All emphasis added.]

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that a large part of international efforts to
combat terrorism is limited to reactions to terrorism and its symptoms, rather than
discussing and addressing its root causes and eliminating the factors that feed it. For
international efforts to eliminate terrorism to succeed, it is imperative to address its
root causes, as recognized by the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,
and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. This includes several aspects,
including improving the living conditions of the poor and unemployed youth and
people living under political and historical oppression and foreign occupation. We
must also prevent the incitement to hatred, including incitement to violence and
hatred of minorities of ethnic groups, religions and foreigners. In this connection, we
note that attempts to link terrorism with any particular religion or a particular ethnic
group are themselves provocative and contributes to the spread of terrorism.

poverty & unemployment

    Yeah, that's the ticket! Usama bin Ladin formed al-Qaeda because he was impoverished and unemployed. A construction engineer with inherited wealth, bin Ladin was motivated by something else, not poverty.

political and historical oppression

    Were the medical, law & engineering students who were studying in European universities motivated to mount terrorist acts by oppression?  Were they oppressed by the European nations they attacked or were they oppressed by dictatorships in Arabia & Asia?

foreign occupation

    Exactly what foreign nation was America occupying & oppressing September 11,2001?  We were protecting Kuwait & Saudi Arabia from invasion and enforcing UN resolutions in Iraq, we were not engaged in occupation & oppression.

link terrorism with any particular religion

    I provoke terrorism by publicizing the fact that Islamic terrorism flows directly from Islamic doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an & exemplified by Moe's sunnah.  Yeah, right.

     "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve", "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved", "deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind ", "to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah", "Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.", "Indeed, you strike more terror in their hearts than their fear of God".

    "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 (cast in the hearts of the enemy)"

    Lets strip off the chaff and review what Allah & Moe said.

• I will cast terror
• to strike terror
• Allah cast terror
• you strike more terror
• victorious with terror

    Surah At-Taubah 120 contains the smoking fuse, a statement which confirms the rest in the worst possible way. Muslims earn Brownie Points by terrorism: "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."

    Of course, it could not possibly mean that, could it.  But two of the most respected exegetes agree: Tafsir Ibn Kathir & Tafsir al-Jalalayn.
http://www.islam-universe.com/tafsir//9.22174.html

(nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers), by strategies of war that would terrify their enemy,

(nor inflict), a defeat on the enemy,

(but is written to their credit) as compensation for these steps that are not under their control, but a consequence of performing good deeds that earn them tremendous rewards,

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=%209&tAyahNo=%20120&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0

nor tread they any tread (mawti’an is a verbal noun, meaning wat’an) that enrages the disbelievers, nor gain any gain from the enemy, of God, be it through slaughter, capture or plunder, but a righteous deed is therefore recorded for them, that they may be rewarded for it. Truly God does not leave the wage of the virtuous to go to waste, that is, the wage of those [mentioned], rather He rewards them.

Focus on the most significant elements again:

• Exactly what part of 9:120 do you not comprehend?
  
  • raise the anger of disbelievers
  • enrages the disbelievers
  • good deeds that earn them tremendous rewards
  • a defeat on the enemy
  • slaughter, capture or plunder
  • righteous deed is therefore recorded for them

    Lets put it together to make the pattern crystal clear.

• Do Allah's words and Moe's bragging match up in a congruent pattern or not? 
  • I will cast terror
  • strike fear
  • strike terror
  • Allah cast terror
  • you are more of a terror
  • victorious with terror.

    Lets take a closer look at the concluding clauses of 8:57 & 59:2 to make the pattern stand out.

• What do these ayat have in common?
  
  •  so that they may take admonition
  •  so that they may be admonished
  • will always be aware of the threat of your power
  • so that they take a lesson
    • So learn a lesson, O ye who have eyes!
    • take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!
    • Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

    Brigadier General S.K. Malik wrote a strategy manual for Pakistan's army. It is called "The Qur'anic Concept of War". What role might terror play therein?

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only
a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into
the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet
and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely
 cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes
of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness
of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent's
Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary;
spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be
produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the
spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, 
it is essential. in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An
invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads
to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Qur'an has
the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable
us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of
strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective,
be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy
that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks
and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule
is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is
equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion
today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence
must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.

If the first sentence in the quote from page 59 of The Qur'anic Concept of war did not clue you in, you should do the world a favor by removing yourself from the gene pool; you are too stupid to reproduce, much less vote. 

UN Can't Define International Terrorism

While the United Nations pretend to condemn and eliminate international terrorism, they don't know what they are condemning and eliminating.  The United Nations are unable to reach consensus on a definition of international terrorism.   In this post, I will delve into  the divisive issue of defining international terrorism.

    Mr. Yousef Sultan Laram, Deputy Permanent Representative of the State of Qatar to the United Nations raised the issue of definition of terms.

An important step to combat terrorism would be to find a clear and realistic  definition to this phenomenon. In this regard, we must distinguish between terrorism and legitimate resistance movements against foreign occupation.

When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation?  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?

    The Permanent Mission of Kazakhstan on behalf of the OIC Group worded the same concept a bit differently.

We reaffirm our determination to make every effort to reach a consensus agreement on the draft convention, by resolving the outstanding issues including those related to the legal definition of terrorism, particularly on the distinction between terrorism and the struggle for the rights of self-determination by people under foreign occupation, and colonial or alien domination, as well as on the scope of the acts covered by the draft Convention.

    China approaches the issue very carefully, by indirection.

SCO Member States emphasizes that counter-terrorism cooperation should be conducted on the principle of respect for international law including state sovereignty and without any "double standards" .

The "double standards" reference must be to Islam's arrogant implication that  their bloody murders ain't terrorism.  When they blow up an Israeli school bus or a British subway, that ain't terrorism, its "legitimate resistance".  Their arrogance is exposed by two logical fallacies.

    When Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, was that an act of terrorism or an act of legitimate resistance to foreign occupation? No, it was both.  Was Great Britain occupying Israel or not? Did the Balfour Declaration promise Israel independence in their national homeland or not?  The resistance was legitimate, the attack was terrorism. If we accept Islam's definition, the bombing of the King David Hotel was not terrorism.

    Israel is occupied by Arab Muslims, not occupying them. The Levant belongs to Jews, it is their homeland, not the Arab's.  Caliph Umar's conquest in 638 does not confer legitimate title; Israel's recovery of Judea & Samaria as a consequence of Islam's genocidal attack in 1967 conveys legitimate title. 

    Afghanistan is occupied by NATO forces as a consequence of its complicity in the Accursed Abomination. Resistance to that invasion and occupation is not legitimate. 

Un: Eliminating International Terrorism

Eye on the UN published links to three statements to the UN's 6^th Committee on the subject of  measures to eliminate international terrorism. This post will concentrate on publishing those links, which appear below.

     In view of the recent 10^th anniversary of the Accursed Abomination and several recent foiled plots, the subject absolutely must be moved to the front burner. 

    Instead of republishing each of the statements, I will let you read them, then I will tear them apart point by point in a series of posts.  Here are the links to those pdf files. 

• http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Kazakhstan_on_behalf_of_OIC_MEIT2011.pdf
  • China/SCO
    • http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/9708chinameit2011.pdf
  • Qatar/Arab Group
    • http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/aQatar_n_behalf_of_Arab_Group.pdf
  • Iran/Non-Aligned Group.
    
    • http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/Iran_on_behalf_of_NAM2011.pdf

    Those statements contain references to external documents, which, in turn reference others.  So that the inordinately curious may explore the issue in greather depth, I present a list of what I consider to be the most important of those references with the links I was able to find.

• General Assembly resolution 51/210
  • A/RES/51/210
  • 17 December 1996
    • http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/51/a51r210.htm
• Referenced by Qatar
  • High Level symposium on international counter-terrorism
  •  
    • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/sg_symposium.shtml
    •  
      • Chairman's Summary
      •  
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/chairman_summary_sg_symposium.pdf
      • G.A. President's Statement
      •  
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/chairman_summary_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Special Rapporteur on Counter Terrorism and Human Rights
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/sr_on_ct_and_hr_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Ban Ki-Moon
        • http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=1300
      • U.S. Eric Holder
        • http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/172772.htm
      • Bangladesh
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/bangladesh.pdf
      • Bosnia and Herzegovina
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/bosnia_and_herzegovina_sg_symposium...
      • Egypt
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/egypt.pdf
      • European Union
        • H.E. Catherine Ashton, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice president of the Commission
          • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/EU_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Israel
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/israel.pdf
      • NATO
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/NATO_sg_symposium.pdf
      • Pakistan
        • http://www.un.org/en/terrorism/ctitf/pdfs/pakistan_sg_symposium.pdf
• http://www.un.org/terrorism/
  • General Assembly resolution 46/51
  •  
    • http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-46-51.pdf
  • #:OIC/SUMMIT-11/2008/FC/Final)
  •  
    • http://www.un.int/wcm/content/site/palestine/cache/offonce/pid/11988;jsessionid=7C704076BEC37FF0ACF84E16780686A4
  • OIC Group Resolution No. 20137-POL
  • draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism
  •  
    • http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/intlterr.pdf
  • (GA resolution 601288
  •  
    • http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-60-288.pdf

CAIR, Awad and Awlaki: Al-Taqiia

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR, uttered and USA Today  published  remarks about  the life and death of Anwar al-Awkaki.  If you want to read the entire screed, use the link above; I will  use  major points as headings for my  commentary.  Al-Taqiyya is the Islamic practice of self-protection & promotion by active deception. It is based on 3:28 and exemplified by this hadith cited by Tafsir Ibn Kathir: "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.''.

propagandist for violence and extremism

    Yes, Nihad, we can agree that Awlaki was a propagandist. But he was a propagandist for Islam, which is extremely violent, by design, from 622, when Muhammad's army became strong enough to raid camel caravans returning from foreign trade.

    Before calling me a liar, read the Noble Qur'an: 8:7,  its context and its explanation in Tafsir al-Jalalayn.  The  Battle of Badr was the outcome of Allah's promise of the caravan or the Meccan army. On that day Moe said: "O Allah! I appeal to You (to fulfill) Your Covenant and Promise. O Allah! If Your Will is that none should worship You (then give victory to the pagans)." [Sahih Bukhari5.59.289]  "This is the caravan of Quraysh carrying their property, so march forth to intercept it, Allah might make it as war spoils for you."[Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

Real Muslim scholars refuted his twisted interpretations

    Which Muslim scholars?   Please list them and their credentials. What "twisted interpretations" did they refute and on what scriptural basis?  Nihad Awad I call you out:  provide a list of Awlaki's "twisted interpretations" and their refutations by "real Muslim Scholars" if you are truthful.

 American Muslims condemned

    Specifically which "American Muslims" condemned Awlaki's endorsement of attacking Americans and what are their credentials as Alim & Qadi? What is the scriptural basis of their condemnation of Awlaki's message?

No person shall … be deprived

    What did our army do to traitors in the two World Wars? When an American citizen removes himself to the land of the enemy and advocates his cause, exhorting fellow citizens to wage war against their neighbors so that, in three well known cases they attempt  attacks, one of them successful, what should we do?  Should we sit idly by and let them continue inciting terrorism?  Should we mount an invasion at great cost in treasure and blood, with little chance of success or should we use the best means available to dispatch him with minimal waste and collateral damage? 

order the killing of any American   

    Anwar al-Awlaki was not just any American, he was a traitor, an enemy combatant.  He removed himself from our jurisdiction and he uttered and published calls to wage terror against American citizens, peacefully minding their own affairs at home.  Killing him set no precedent for drone attacks on ordinary citizens, any precedent is applicable only to traitors openly advocating the enemy cause, carrying out jihad by the tongue.

Constitution is rendered meaningless.

    Since when does a Muslim care if our organic law is negated?  Islam holds Allah to be the sole legislator; the Qur'an to be the source of legislation.  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. [...]

no-fly or watch lists

    The Magnificent 19 shared a common characteristic; what was it?  Their leader told them, right before the attack, to say something when they attacked; what was it?  What did they say when they slit the throats of the flight crews?  Exactly why did Mohammed Atta direct them to say it?

    Every Muslim should be on the no fly list because there is no way of knowing when they will become true believers and exhibit sudden jihad syndrome. Muslims can not be trusted because they are Allah's slaves, commanded to wage war on the kuffar nearest them.

drone strikes fuel anti-American anger

    Terror attacks are doctrine driven, not anger driven. America was not supporting Israel, neither was it occupying Arab soil when the Barbary Pirates sacked our shipping, resulting in the Barbary Wars. When asked by what right they attacked us, they replied that [...]"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"[...][Wikipedia]

war on terror will not be won through force of arms

    There is no war on terror; terror is a tactic, not an enemy. The enemy is the one using terror as a tactic: Islam.   Allah & Moe said things about terror, perhaps you should review those statements. I will make it easy for you by providing links to translations of authentic Islamic texts.

• 3:151. We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve [Shakir]
• 8:12.  I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve [Shakir]
• 8:57. Therefore, if you overcome them on the battlefield, deal with them very sternly, so as to strike terror among them [Dr. Munir Munshey]
  • then by (routing) them strike terror in those that are behind them per chance they get admonition. [Dr. Kamal Omar]
  • deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them [Pickthall]
• 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 Allah and your enemies[Yusuf Ali]
• 33:26.  Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts [Yusuf Ali]
• 59:2. but Allah came to them whence they did not expect, and cast terror into their hearts [Shakir]
• 59:13. You are a greater cause of terror in their breasts than Allah! That is because they are people who do not understand.[Aisha Bewley]
• Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 . Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. 
• Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220  I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),

winning the war on Islam

    There are two possibilities, one is preferable, the other is possible.  The best way is to destroy their faith; to induce mass apostasy.  To whatever extent a Muslim is unimpaired by the deleterious effects of consanguinity  and has not had every vestige of morality destroyed by Islamic brainwashing, he is vulnerable to being shown the truth about Moe, who was a profiteer, not a prophet.

    If our elected traitors really wanted to win, they would document how Moe received his revelations and what he did in implementing them. They would create a full length feature video and distribute it on dvds and by satellite television world wide.  They would multiply the work of Father Zakaria by one million.

    Fortunately, our nation was the first to implement the power of the atom.  We have the means to wipe Islamic nations from the face of the earth, and we will eventually be forced to use it because we won't fight this war the best way. 

NPR Propaganda Misrepresents Islam

While I was composing another post, NPR's Morning Edition was spewing the standard lies, denying the fatal facts of Islam and condemning FBI training materials which accurately describe Islamic doctrine & practice.  The printed word can not reproduce the arrogant condescension dripping from the narrator's lips as she condemned the training program without demonstrating fallacy or bias.  Lets start with the transcript, when Steve Inskeep introduces the subject.

 Material from FBI courses gives agents a particular view of Muslims in America. It suggests that even mainstream Muslim Americans could be suspect. Rather than being told that terrorists were the problem, some agents were apparently told that Muslims were the problem.

even mainstream Muslim Americans could be suspect

    Define "mainstream Muslim" and enumerate the distinguishing characteristics by which distinguish them from potential suspects.  Do they know and believe Allah's word; his threat and promise? Do they obey Allah and emulate Moe or not?  Can you tell by sight or smell?

terrorists were the problem

    Were the Magnificent 19 Muslims?  The confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad indicates that the plotters are Muslims and proud of what they did in Allah's name. The confession indicates that they acted in conformity to religious obligation: Allah's imperatives and Moe's exemplary conduct.

    Was Muhammad bin Abdullah a Muslim?   His bragging about being a terrorist: victory through casting terror, is recorded in two hadith in the collection of Sahih Bukhari: 1.7.331 & 4.52.220. Is mainstream Islam anything other than what he preached and practiced as recorded in the Qur'an [3:151, 8:12, 57, 60; 33:26, 27; 59:2, 13   & hadith?  Allah said that he would cast terror and that he did cast terror, resulting in the death of the men of a Jewish tribe and the enslavement of their widows and orphans. He said that the Jews were more afraid of Moe and his army than they were of him. He commanded Muslims to deal harshly with their victims to strike terror into "those behind them". He commanded them to maximize their military strenth to "strike terror".  But the self-annointed experts of NPR instruct us  that terrorism is not an element of mainstream Islam.  If Islam's canonical texts do not define Islam, what does?

Muslims were the problem

    Without Muslims, Islam would be nothing more than musty books on library shelves. It is Muslims who are the foot soldiers of  Islam. It is Muslims who, in obedience to Allah; in emulation of Moe, stage terror attacks all over the world.

And it came out recently in Wired magazine that a counterterrorism training session at the FBI training center in Quantico, Virginia was teaching agents that Islam was a violent religion and that basically if you are a Muslim and religious, you should be seen as suspect.

Islam was a violent religion

    Where did the instructors get that idea?  Could it be from the Qur'an? [2:216, 190, 8:39,67;  9:29, 111, 123, 47:4, 48:15-20]  Could it be from the hadith? [Riyad-us-Saliheen Book 11, Chapter 234] Could it be Islamic law? [Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1] Could it be from Moe's biography? [The Sealed Nectar]

Muslim and religious: suspect

    Exactly why should we suspect anyone who is not a Muslim of plotting an act of Islamic terrorism?  Why should we not be suspicious of Muslims?  Who is more likely than a Muslim to obey Allah and emulate Moe by attempting to cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers?  When you hear hoof beats, do you look for horses or unicorns? 

[...] these were classes on Islamic doctrine that talked about the relationship between Islam and terrorism.

relationship between Islam and terrorism

    Apparently there is something wrong with teaching FBI agents about the relationship between Islam and terrorism. FBI agents must be kept ignorant of Allah's sanctification, imperative & Moe's example of casting terror into the hearts of disbelievers.  Of course, they have no need to know about it.

And let's be fair here, there are different interpretations of Islam, some of them certainly would seem to be violent interpretations of Islam, but most Muslims have argued that overwhelming majorities of Muslims are peaceful and that they have a peaceful religion. So did the training overstate what you can know about the different varieties of this religion?

different interpretations of Islam

    What is the difference between Sunni, Shi'ia & Sufi concerning jihad & terrorism?  Which mainstream school of Islamic law rejects offensive warfare against disbelievers and terrorism?  Al-Shafi'i had something to say about the obligation to perform jihad.Compare what he said to Reliance O9.1.

"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."

    How does that Shafi'ite fiqh differ from that of Al-Ghazali, a Sufi?

…one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...

violent interpretations of Islam

    Is anyone better qualified to interpret the Qur'an than the man who first recited it?  How did he interpret it?

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."

    Allah said "fight them until" Moe said "I have been ordered to fight".  Exactly how can anyone dispute and disprove the obvious?  Would you prefer a second opinion? [Sahih Bukhari 9.84.89, Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2635 ]

majorities of Muslims are peaceful

    Have they not been called to fight yet [48:16, Sahih Bukhari 4.52.79] , or are they hypocrites [9:91...129]? How did the conquests of Syria, Yemen, Egypt, North Africa and India happen if most Muslims are peaceful?

they have a peaceful religion

    If they do, it ain't Islam!  Jihad is defined in Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims". Islam is not a religion, it is a way of life: intra-species predation. Its religious component is jihad.

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.

    Jihad, commerce and agriculture are viewed as alternative economic systems; jihad is preferred over the other two. It becomes clear that jihad is their "original religion".

    The outline below has some quotes from the article in the outer node and the reality in inner nodes.

• One email said that the Prophet Muhammad was being portrayed as a warring military leader.
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 285:

    Narrated Abu Ishaq:

    Once, while I was sitting beside Zaid bin Al-Arqam, he was asked, "How many Ghazwat did the Prophet undertake?" Zaid replied, "Nineteen." [...]

  • This Wikepedia page contains a list of Moe's ghazwat & sariyas, paralleling the table of contents of Guillaume's The Life of Muhammad.
  • According to one calculation, Muhammad himself engaged in 78 battles, of which just one (the Battle of the Ditch) was defensive. 
•  It also cited an instructor as saying that a "true Muslim" had to support or take part in the killing of non-Muslims.
  
  • 3:140. If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), We give to men by turns, that Allâh may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allâh likes not the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).[Read the context through #186; testing the believers is one purpose of jihad.]
  • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success . 
  • Sunun Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2497:

    Narrated AbuUmamah:

    The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: 'before the Day of Resurrection".  [See 9:38-39.]

  • Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.1 [...]Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2).  When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others [...] If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. [...]  As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.  The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.[...]
• The instructor also told the class, according to a handful of attendees, that Muhammad was an epileptic and the Quran didn't come to him in a series of heavenly visions, but instead was actually part of an epileptic fit.
  • Sahih Muslim Book 007, Number 2654: [...] 'Umar lifted a corner of the cloth and I looked at him and he was emitting a sound of snorting. He (the narrator) said: I thought it was the sound of a camel. When he was relieved of this he said: Where is he who asked about Umra? [...]
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829: [...]By Allah, Allah's Apostle had not got up and nobody had left the house before the Divine Inspiration came to Allah's Apostle. So, there overtook him the same state which used to overtake him, (when he used to have, on being inspired divinely). He was sweating so much so that the drops of the sweat were dropping like pearls though it was a (cold) wintry day. When that state of Allah's Apostle was over, he was smiling and the first word he said, 'Aisha! Thank Allah, for Allah has declared your innocence.' [...] 
  • Sahih Muslim Book 030, Number 5765: [...] How does the the wahi (inspiration) come to you? He said: At times it comes to me like the ringing of a bell and that is most severe for me and when it is over I retain that (what I had received in the form of wahi), and at times an Angel in the form of a human being comes to me (and speaks) and I retain whatever he speaks.[...]
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 119: [...] the Prophet said, "O Um Salama! Don't trouble me by harming 'Aisha, for by Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman amongst you except her." 

Unholy Derision

I outgrew comic books more than forty years ago, but was drawn to a review of Frank Miller’s Holy Terror  by a Google Alert "Defamation of Islam".  The review by  Spencer Ackerman takes a mocking and dismissive tone towards critics of Islam. 

    One long sentence from the review exemplifies one tactic of al-Taqiyya.

That sentiment has made its way into the halls of the FBI. In January, one of its field offices entertained a lecture on Islamic law from Stephen Coughlin, a former Pentagon consultant on the subject. Coughlin’s typical spiel contends that there’s a “ten-year plan” to make “defamation of Islam a crime” around the world.

    The reference to sentiment is passed forward from the preceding paragraph which labels Pamela Geller as "self-righteous" and rejected by the mainstream. which her ilk supposedly consider as proof of their "self-evident virtue", "a reminder that the rest of the country just can’t handle the reality of the “Muslim threat.”

“ten-year plan”

    It appears that Spencer Ackerman wants his readers to believe that the "ten-year plan" to criminalize criticism of Islam is a fiction invented by a Shari'ah expert. Unfortunately, it is no fiction, it is very real.  While the remainder of the paragraph dismisses the plan, it links to another article in which Ackerman has embedded  video of a lecture by Stephen Coughlin.

    In reality, the OIC formulated a Ten Year Plan of Action in 2005.  The sixth point of that plan bears directly on the issue at hand. [Bold font original, highlight added for emphasis.]

VI.  Combating Islamophobia

1. Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2. Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through establishing an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with international Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) in the West in order to counter Islamophobia.
3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.
4. Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue with the parties concerned in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and terrorism.

    Examine the first and third items in that list. They posit international and national responsibility to ensure respect for Islam. They want the UN to call on all members to enact laws to criminalize "Islamophobia".  In that same year the U.N. Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution "Combating Defamation of Islam". In later years, the CHR,  its HRC successor   and the General Assembly have passed similar annual resolutions.   See this blog post for more detail about one typical resolution.

    Those resolutions are non-binding; they have no enforcement mechanism. But international human rights covenants such as ICERD can be enforced against signatories. In 2007, the HRC formed an ad hoc committee to elaborate complementary standards to be inserted into ICERD through a binding protocol. On September 27, 2012, the committee presented the report on their third session in which they remained bogged down in procedural matters.  For the dirty details, see these blog posts:

• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper  08/04/09  The cmte. President's outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
• AdHoc Committee: African Submission  08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the Africa group's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• AdHoc Cmte USA Submission  08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
• AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission  08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission  08/03/09 Detailed analysis of Iran's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards 08/01/09  They aim to add a protocol to ICERD to criminalize these blog posts.
•  Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions  03/20/10  Competing Nigerian & American drafts in  pursuit of a binding protocol to ICERD for the purpose of outlawing these blog posts.

Islamophobia Observatory

   One result of the ten year plan was the creation of the OIC's Islamophobia Observatory which issues monthly reports. By reading those reports you can discover the fact that their primary concern is centered on criticism of Islam, particularly Fitna & the Motoons.

basis in Shari'ah

    Fitna juxtaposes Qur'an verses and ranting clerics with  the terror attacks & riots they incite.  The Motoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which he bragged about. He died before the invention of gunpowder, but he said that he was made victorious with terror; see Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

The prohibition on criticism of Islam comes from Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shafi'ite fiqh,  specifies the death penalty for apostasy in Book O, Chapter 8, Sections 1 &2.

• O8.1

  When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

• O8.2

  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

    But we are discussing criticism of Islam; what's the relevance of the penalty for apostasy?  The relevance is in the definition of apostasy, which is given in O8.7, which includes a list of 20 "Acts that Entail Leaving Islam". Several of those acts are directly related to our issue.

• -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

• -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

• -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;

• -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

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

    What is the relevance of those rulings; we are not Muslims so apostasy law does not apply to us?  Jews & Christians conquered or intimidated by Muslims and not embracing Islam remain in the Islamic state under a treaty of protection from Islam, for which they pay jizya. Certain acts violate the treaty, subjecting the violator to a harsh penalty. Five items are listed; one is relevant.

• O11.10
  

  The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

• -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

• O11.11

  When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

• O9.14

  When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

  If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

    What would be impermissible to mention about Islam? The items listed in O8.7, of course.  By trivializing the ten year action plan and sending us off to a half hour video which details the relevant part of the plan near the 25 minute mark, Ackerman tries to divert our attention from the fact that the OIC is pressing hard to criminalize truthful criticism of Islam. 

    The UN resolutions specifically condemn associating Islam with "terrorism and human rights violations". When we cite the numerous ayat & ahadith  which sanctify & exemplify terrorism or those which sanction the rape of captive women or the slaughter of men who had surrendered, we would be subject to persecution if those resolutions were binding or if ICERD is amended to include their provisions.

    In his concluding paragraph, Ackerman once again engages in mockery as a an instrument of diversion.

But it wasn’t God who knocked down the Towers. It was fanatics who believed themselves to have deciphered His true message. Miller doesn’t realize that by portraying them as true disciples of Islam, he’s giving the murderers what they want most. That’s the real terror of Holy Terror, the real lie, and the real naïveté.

    Who claims that Allah knocked down the WTC? Atta and his associates were not fanatics, they were believers as defined in 9:111 & 49:15.  The terrorists do not want adulation, they want rivers of wine & honey and 72 virgins to sport with. They believe in Allah's threat & promise.  

    The real lie is in Ackerman's last paragraph.  To fully comprehend it you need to read the statement of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his four co-conspirators, which they submitted to a military tribunal in response to the nine accusations against them.  Muslims do not decipher Allah's message; it is not encrypted. His imperatives are contained in clear verses whose meaning is exemplified by Muhammad's sunnah.  It is confirmed by Islamic exegesis and codified in Islamic law.  Jihad: genocidal conquest which terrorizes its victims is not extremism, neither is it a perversion of normative Islam.  It is normative Islam. Islamic law defines jihad and details the religious obligation to perform it in every year.  Open Reliance of the Traveller to Book O, Chapter 9 and read through 9.9. Of course, you will need confirmation, so open Hedaya to Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1 and read it, too. 

    The useful idiots swear that terrorists are the problem, Islam and Muslims are not the problem. In reality, the doctrines of Islam, revealed in the Qur'an and exemplified by Muhammad's sunnah are the problem. Of course, without believers, they would be no problem. As I write this, NPR's Morning Edition is spewing the standard lies, denying the fatal facts of Islam and condemning FBI training materials which accurately describe Islamic doctrine & practice.

• The Good News that Islam shall prevail
• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book