Islamic Extortion Letter to Obama

On March 30, 2010, Logan's Warning published an article exposing Revolution Muslim's latest assault against our way of life. The article included this video.



The eleven minute video includes several insane rants that should outrage every loyal American. It also includes a reading of the open letter described below.

Revolution Muslim has uttered and published an open letter, in the form of a petition, which threatens the United States of America in general and its President in particular with violent attack.

The petition opens with an arrogant self-identification and barbarian threat emulating the form and style of Islam's damnable Profit.

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Most Merciful¹ - This letter is from the Muslim Nation (ummah), the followers of the Last and Final Prophet to mankind, Muhammad son of Abdullah² (May Peace and Blessings be Upon him), to Barack Obama, the ruler of the United States of America - May Peace be upon those who follow the right path and true guidance.³

1. They claim to speak for Allah, who allegedly had one final spokesman: Moe, who, thank God,was silenced by death in 632.
2. They claim to speak for Ummah al-Islamiyya, which has no Caliph since the dissolution of the Caliphate by Attaturk, and therefore has no one to speak for it.
3. The last sentence of the opening paragraph is a thinly veiled threat. If peace is upon the followers of true guidance (the Qur'an) then by default, war is upon those who reject the Qur'an.

The second paragraph makes the dawa explicit and restates the implicit threat.

We invite you to Islam⁴ and want to inform you that if you become a Muslim you will be safe⁵ and Allah will double your reward,⁶ but if you reject this invitation to Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your subjects and admirers and Allah will humiliate you for warring against His (elevated above all is He) intimate trustees.

4. This is the explicit dawa; President Obama has been invited to publicly embrace Islam and make it the national religion, in contravention of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
5. This is a restatement of the implicit threat, safety and war being the alternative outcomes dependent on the choice of Islam or kufr.
6. This clause is an emulation of Moe's extortion letters. Compare it to this sentence from his letter to Heracles: "... Allah shall reward you doubly...".

The third paragraph quotes the Qur'an 3:64, which demands that we deny Jesus Christ. Read the context or Ibn Kathir's Tafsir to verify this fact.

In the fourth paragraph, the authors criticize President Obama's campaign tactics and the perceived results of his first year in office. While calling him a tyrant, they accuse the United states of having an empire.

In their screed's fifth paragraph, the authors quote Thomas Paine before waxing irrational and inverting fact and logic while bitterly bitching about our and Israel's retaliation against Islamic aggression.

In their sixth paragraph, the authors continue to fulminate irrationally about our foreign policy and denounce our efforts to suppress Islamic terrorism. Their seventh paragraph segues into domestic policy while maintaining the same level of irrationality. The irrational fulminations are followed by an enumerated list of demands that we surrender in Afghanistan & Iraq, shut down our military bases, end our support of Israel and disassociate from the Islamic regimes they seek to overthrow and replace with pure theocracy.

The screed concludes with a dense summation which requires detailed dissection.

If you do this than there will be peace between us and you⁷. Allah says in the Quran, “and if the enemy inclines toward peace, then you incline to it and put your trust in Allah (8:61).”⁸ We call you to peace Mr. Obama, we only want to live under the laws and culture that God has granted us in the Qur’an, free from American dictate, free from empire and colonialism⁹. In the event you establish these policies then over $1 trillion will be available to spend on your own people.¹⁰ They can have food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education and more. The American Empire is going bankrupt and all because of its War on Islam.¹¹ We tell you the Muslim nation has never suffered under occupation for long and that our true creed does not allow us to practice our religion but hand over soveverignty in the realm of politics, economics and society to a foreign force. Islam dominates in every aspect of the word and is never dominated.¹² It is a superior system as it is Divine and from the Creator Himself. We call you to the religion that is the only acceptable way of life in the eyes of Allah and we warn you of a personal and societal humiliation in the event that you obstinately persist and do not heed this call¹³.

7. This is a repetition of the threat: if we do not accede to their demands, they will make war on us.
8. The quote of 8:61 is out of context. 8:60 commands Muslims to build the largest army they can to "strike terror into the hearts of the enemies" [Abdullah Yusuf Ali].
9. They declare that they want to live by the Qur'an, free from American dictate, empire & colonialism. America does not dictate domestic policies in Arabia, nor do we have an empire nor colonies. It is Islam that seeks empire and colonies. If they want to live under Shari'ah, what are they doing in New York City? They should be in Mecca.
10. If we abandon our national defense, nothing will be available for domestic spending, because we will be conquered. Besides which, the dichotomy is false on its face. National defense is a necessity for the preservation of food, clothing, shelter and every other good and service. Those goods and services are created by private enterprise, not by the federal government.
11. We do not have a war on Islam, Islam is at war against us; our government is blind to the fatal fact. This state of denial must come to an end, and soon if we wish to preserve our liberty and prosperity.
12. Islam dominates! Our elected leaders seem to be ignorant of Islamic supremacism. 9:33 tells us that Allah sent Moe to make Islam superior. The concept is repeated in 48:28 and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65 with these words: "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."
13. The demand for surrender and threat of attack is repeated one last time.

The petition has 340 signatures.

The demon spawn rallied on a New York sidewalk, promoting their open letter to Obama, cursing him, cursing democracy; inciting hatred and violence. If the content and style of this video don't outrage you, you need psychiatric care.



What are you going to do about it? While those demon spawn were cursing America, our way of life and our President, a new resolution "Combating Defamation of Religions", complaining of incitement of hatred and violence, was fresh off the presses, with the ink still wet. What will you do about it? Will you roll over and go back to sleep or will you rise up in protest?

It is time for those America haters who threaten us with violent attack to go home. The citizenship of those who were born here should be revoked and they should be shipped out with one way tickets. The Mosques, Madrassas & Islamic Centers should be closed for good. The enemies of America should be removed and kept out.

We can't do it, because Islam wears the false cloak of religion. Because it is assumed to be a religion, it is under the protection of the First Amendment's Free Exercise clause. We must amend the Constitution to acknowledge the fact that Islam is a war cult, not a legitimate religion. The first step in that long process is to sign and promote the Outlaw Islam! petition. After signing the petition, copy it and paste it into an email to everyone you can influence. Urge them to sign and forward it.

At the end of November, the Ad Hoc Committee will meet for the purpose of writing a protocol to ICERD which will make this blog post and all negative information about Islam illegal. There is only one defense, a counter attack. We must take Islam to the World Court for its egregious violations of ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG. Those international human rights covenants, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law for supremacism, incitement & genocide. If you love liberty, particularly free speech, then you will sign and promote the International Qur'an Petition. If you won't take this simple step to preserve free speech, who will? If you won't do it now, it will soon be too late. Now is the time to sign these petitions and send them to your family, friends, associates and acquaintances with an exhortation to sign and forward the petitions.

State Department Principle: Hypocrisy

I have reproduced an excerpt from a speech delivered byHarold Hongju Koh. Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State to the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law in Washington, DC on March 25, 2010. I have added emphasis to some crucial statements and intersperced my commentary.

When the Obama Administration took office, we faced two choices with respect to the Human Rights Council: we could continue to stay away, and watch the flaws continue and possibly get worse, or we could engage and fight for better outcomes on human rights issues, even if they would not be easy to achieve. With the HRC, as with the ICC and other for a, we have chosen principled engagement and strategic multilateralism. While the institution is far from perfect, it is important and deserves the long-term commitment of the United States, and the United States must deploy its stature and moral authority to improve the U.N. human rights system where possible. This is a long-term effort, but one that we are committed to seeing through to success consistent with the basic goals of the Obama-Clinton doctrine: principled engagement and universality of human rights law.

HRC members are elected to the council on a regional basis. The realities of geopolitics dictate the fact that the enemies of human rights will always have a majority on the council. Our side will continue to be out voted, no matter how we pursue our principles. Our engagement is ineffectual.

Our inaugural session as an HRC member in September saw some important successes, most notably the adoption by consensus of a freedom of expression resolution, which we co-sponsored with Egypt, that brought warring regional groups together and preserved the resolution as a vehicle to express firm support for freedom of speech and expression. This resolution was a way of implementing some of the themes in President Obama’s historic speech in Cairo, bridging geographic and cultural divides and dealing with global issues of discrimination and intolerance.

Harold Koh was referring to A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev. which, contrary to his assertion, does nothing to support freedom of expression, which includes these expressions:

Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;

In that context, "racism" & "related intolerance" are code words for criticism of Islam. The right to free expression can contribute to ending "Islamophobia"; yeah, right. "Promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes" is a thinly veiled reference to the Motoons & Fitna. The resolution is, in reality, a demand for censorship.

We also joined country resolutions highlighting human rights situations in Burma, Somalia, Cambodia, and Honduras, and were able to take positions joined by other countries on several resolutions on which the United States previously would have been isolated, including ones on toxic waste and the financial crisis. The challenges in developing a body that fairly and even-handedly addresses human rights issues are significant, but we will continue to work toward that end.

How about the human rights abuses subsequent to the stolen election in Iran? What did you do about that in the council?

At the March HRC session, which ends tomorrow, we have continued to pursue principled engagement by taking on a variety of initiatives at the HRC that seek to weaken protections on freedom of expression, in particular, the push of some Council Members to ban speech that “defames” religions, such as the Danish cartoons. At this session, we made supported a country resolution on Guinea and made significant progress in opposing the Organization of the Islamic Conference’s highly problematic “defamation of religions” resolution, even while continuing to deal with underlying concerns about religious intolerance.

So you flipped three votes on the Defamation of Religions Resolution, big deal; it still carried a majority and it will continue to do so every year unless you can flip the votes of four OIC members. The American delegation recently submitted a draft proposal which they would substitute for the draft resolution before the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards, which would amend ICERD to criminalize all criticism of Islam. I dissected that new draft in a previous blog post.

Where the OIC and its allies are concerned, religious intolerance is not a concern. Islam is extremely intolerant. Truthful exposure of the doctrines and practices of Islam are what they are concerned about. The Motoons depicted Moe as a terrorist, which he was, by his own bragging. Fitna exposed the connection between the doctrines enshrined in the Qur'an and the violence done by Muslim mobs after Juman Salat. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for reviling Allah, Moe, and their war cult. A Muslim who does that, or who questions any Islamic doctrine is deemed an apostate subject to execution. Turn to http://www.nku.edu/~kenneyr/Islam/Reliance.html and read O8.2, O8.7 and O11.5. {Book O, Chapters 8 & 11}
They want to impose that law on us.

Why the Defamation of Religions Resolution is Unacceptable

Two paragraphs of the latest HRC Defamation of Religions resolution contain expressions which clearly demonstrate the reality that makes such resolutions unacceptable.

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience,

9. Reaffirms the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted without a vote by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006 and reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and in which it clearly reaffirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group, as well as the need to reinforce the commitment of the international community to promote, among other things, a culture of peace and respect for all religions, belief`s, and cultures and to prevent the defamation of religions;

Lets get the critical clauses separated from the chaff for examination.

• Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism
• terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group
• need to... reinforce the commitment... to promote... respect for all religions...

Is the association of Islam with terrorism intrinsically wrong? Islam's canon of scripture & tradition contain relevant evidence which answers that question in the negative.

[3:151]
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with God, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

[8:12]
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

[8:57]
If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.

[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.

[33:26]
And those of the People of the Book who aided them - God did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

[59:2]
It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from God! But the (Wrath of) God came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!

[59:13]
Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
...

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), ...

Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers. Allah told the Muslims to make an example of those they defeated. Read 8:57 in the light of the last sentence of 59:2.

Allah commanded Muslims to build and maintain military strength with which to terrorize their intended victims. Then he did cast terror, exemplified in 33:26 and 59:2. Allah told the Muslims that they were stronger than their victims because the victims were afraid of them.

Muhammad bragged about being made victorious by terror. In view of these facts found in Islam's canon, the association of terrorism with Islam is found valid.

General S.K. Malik in The Qur'anic Concept of War, makes the issue crystal clear. His discussion of terror as a strategic concept spans pages 54-60, beginning on page 48 of the pdf file. This quote comes from page 59.

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 opponents 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.

The fact that such terror is discussed as strategy in a Pakistani military training manual puts the lie to Pakistan's assertion that Islam & terrorism are not linked. It becomes obvious that the OIC, on behalf of Islam, has set out to render us defenseless before Islam's onslaught of terror.

Disproving the popular lies about Islam; that it is peaceful, compatible with liberty & democracy, by reference to Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence does not constitute hate speech or incitement to violence. Using loaded terms such as racism, negative stereotyping, intolerance & defamation throws up a smoke screen Labeling us as bigots and hate mongers who incite violence is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down debate and shield Islam from criticism and exposure.

Islam seeks to impose its blasphemy law upon us, to cast us into prison and fine us for telling the truth about their war cult. Geert Wilders in on trial for exposing Islam in his short documentary, Fitna. In that documentary, and a speech to the Dutch Parliament, Wilders quoted the Qur'an. I documented his quotes in another blog post. See Fitna: Supporting Documentation and Moral Standing: the Complaint.

Islamic law imposes a complete prohibition on criticism of Allah, Muhammad and their system of perpetuating warfare. These quotes from Reliance of the Traveller should make it clear to you. These are items in a list of acts which entail apostasy, penalized by death. The list begins at O8.7.

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-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;

-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

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

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

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

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Another list, beginning at O11.10 , includes acts which break the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi to the death penalty. These items should be a clue for you.

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

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

The previous list should be sufficient to indicate what a dhimmi can't say about Islam. When they speak and write about "negative stereotyping" & "defamation", that is what they have in mind.

Our enemies outnumber us in the UN. We can not win the crucial votes. We must counter attack, using their own weapon against them. ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law. The International Qur'an Petition points out those critical provisions and shows how they are violated by fundamental Islamic doctrines. I want you to read and sign that petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence. Exhort your friends, family and associates to sign and forward it. We need to make it go viral.

Islam is not worthy of respect; it denies the sanctity of our lives and property; declares war upon us, and curses us. Why then should we accept demands for promoting respect and tolerance of Islam?

Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 '10

The UN Human Rights Council has once again debated and passed their annual Defamation of Religions Resolution.
The Revised Draft has stricken some words and phrases from the first draaft, but relies on the old boilerplate.

Optimists will assert that there is a positive trend in the votes. After charting the votes, I find little cause for optimism.


The no votes have come at the expense of abstentions, not yes votes. Since the members are elected by regional blocks, there is little chance of reducing the OIC representation on the council.

The current resolution, like its predecessors, consists of itemized lists of boilerplate references to previous documents interspersed with emotive catchwords designed to inculcate guilt in the innocent.

If you want to read four pages of polemical crap, be my guest, I provided links to it. I will present here only the most important segments of the screed which was submitted by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC.

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make towards improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

What the Hell has Islam contributed to civilization other than the legacy of genocidal conquest? Men conquered and enslaved by Muslims translated ancient manuscripts, preserving Greek and Asian mathematics and science during the Dark Ages, preserving but not creating the foundation of the enlightenment.

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence against followers of certain faiths occurring in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia, in addition to the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the introduction and enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds, particularly Muslim minorities following the events of l l September 2001 , and that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Note how careful they are to universalize the concept of defamation by including anti-Semitism & Christianophobia, which they later negate by emphasizing the supposed effects on Muslims. Who, other than Islamic texts and sermons, is negatively projecting Judaism & Christianity?

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

"Defamation of religions" is a nebulous and undefined term without intrinsic meaning. It derives meaning only from the specific examples frequently cited, particularly Fitna and the Motoons. In civil defamation. truth is a defense. Fitna is true, how can it be defamatory?

Human dignity is affronted by adherence to immoral and fallacious beliefs and doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal conquest, not by exposing those doctrines. How the Hell is there human dignity in Islam, which venerates the barbarian warlord who made the statements in this traditional saying?

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."

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights; so much for human dignity!!! What is incitement to violence if not Surah al-Anfal & at-Taubah in the Qur'an?

Noting with concern that defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and, in this context, stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

So they are concerned with defamaition and incitement. Have they read the Qur'an?

98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

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.

If their concern about defamation & incitement were sincere, they'd start with their own scripture instead of trying to criminalize exposure of their doctrines and practices.

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world, which have led to intolerance against the followers of these
religions;

President Obama prefers "negative stereotyping" to "defamation". I'd enjoy hearing him explain the difference. The OIC used both expressions in one sentence.

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments;

This is an obvious veiled reference to certain European political parties that oppose Islamization of Europe.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of` the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of ll
September 200l;

Were the Magnificent Nineteen Jews? Mormons? What were they? How about the perpetrators of the London, Madrid and Bali bombings? And the numerous hijackers; were they Lutherans? They were young Muslim males, but we shouldn't be suspicious of young Muslim males, should we?

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience,

Earlier I quoted Moe, who said that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and his companion who added that we have no rights until we become Muslims. If that ain't a human rights violation, what is? Waging war against people who simply maintain their own religious beliefs in the face of your demand to convert violates the rights to life and freedom of conscience in the most profound way.

What the Hell is wrong about the association of Islam and terrorism???

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).

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."

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh 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.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Wrongly associated with terrorism? Yeah, right.

8. Strongly condemns in this regard the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures, which are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations
concerning freedoms of religion, belief, conscience and expression, and stresses that such discriminatory measures would fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences;

: Help me out with this; banning minarets in Switzerland threatens social cohesion and may lead to violence but prohibiting the construction and maintenance of churches in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is perfectly harmless. What twists of illogic will they take to explain that away?

9. Reaffirms the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted without a vote by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006 and
reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and in which it clearly reaffirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group, as well as the need to reinforce the commitment of the international community to promote, among other things, a culture of peace and respect for all religions, belief`s, and cultures and to prevent the defamation of religions;

Like its predecessors, this resolution is redundant, as if repetition converts fallacy into truth.

10. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious
symbols and venerated persons;

Who does that? Various terrorist groups have web sites that glorify and incite acts of terrorism, most recently Adam Gadahn uploaded a video in which he urged Muslims to terrorize America. Do they really deplore that, or is it only Fitna and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines that they deplore?

11. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, including articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 20 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare;

They are trying to set up a legal basis for restricting our right of free expression. Truthfully describing the doctrines and practices of Islam and its founder is not akin to shouting fire in a crowded venue. Nor is it defamatory. Linking the violent acts of Muslim mobs with Allah's imperatives to genocidal conquest is not defamation, it is truth. Truthful political speech, even if it offends those whose peccadillos are exposed, must be protected by law, as it is by our First Amendment, in order to preserve liberty. Islam is a predator which seeks complete domination of the world. If we can not expose that fact, we can not defend ourselves. It is Islam's intention to render us defenseless in the war of ideas.

12. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

Race, religion and culture are not equivalent concepts. Opposition to Islamic conquest is not racism. Wanting to maintain our own culture is not racism nor is it evil.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah's Apostle said, "You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin."

Got a clue yet?

13. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on
the basis of religion or belief and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity tor those who commit such acts;

They are demanding that laws be passed and enforced to punish us for exposing Islam's doctrines & practices to public view.

14. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

Re-read the clauses I emphasized in ¶14. How in Hell can any sentient and informed person tolerate and respect Islam?? It is not possible for a rational and moral person to tolerate and respect a system of perpetual war! Tolerance and respect must be reciprocal.

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.

What did Allah command Moe to do? What did he say about the sanctity of our blood and property? Got a clue yet?

16. Calls upon all States to make the utmost effort, in accordance with their
national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian
law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and
protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration
or destruction;

How do you define symbols? Stretched far enough, that concept covers Islam's scripture and founder. Remember how they rioted over depiction of Moe in those cartoons? We are supposed to respect a man who, at 52, married a six year old girl; a man who had an elderly poet torn apart by camels?

19. Takes note with appreciation the intention of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence.

If you think that paragraph is innocuous, then take a good close look at Fitna and at what the Secretary General said about it.

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

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

The only incitement in Fitna comes from Allah and his slaves, not from Geert Wilders.

---

External documents referenced in the resolution:

• resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005 (World Summit Outcome Res.A/RES/60/1 )
• United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000¹
• Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (ACONF.189/12) ???
• http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/DDPA_full_text.pdf
  
• World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001²
• Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009,³
• A/HRC/4/19
• A/HRC/6/6
• A/HRC/9/12
• l GA Resolution 55/2
  2 A/CONF.l89/12
  3 A/CONF.2l1l1
• resolution 10/22 of 26 March 2009
• General Assembly resolution 64/156 of 18 December 2009
• report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on
  possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement,
  intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world (A/HRC/13/57)
• report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
  related intolerance (A/HRC/12/38)
• General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006⁴
• resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008
• general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination⁵
• 4 Resolution 60/288
  5 Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/48/18), chap. VIII, sect, B.
• article 20 of the ICCPR
• the intention of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence⁶,
• 6 High Commissioner's Strategic Management Plan 2010-2011
  7 High Commissioner's Strategic Management Plan 2010-2011

Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions

Two new draft resolutions have been submitted by Nigeria and the United States

. The Nigerian draft (Microsoft Word document) outlines four points, the first of which advocates a final outcome consisting of protocols to ICERD. Other points call for the creation of a draft resolution on cyber crime and scheduling the committee's third session for November 30--December 10 of 2010.

The American draft, though highly abstract and vague, hints at shifting the focus from "defamation" & "negative stereotyping" of Islam to acts of intimidation and assault, including those performed or sponsored by governments.

Noting with deep concern continued evidence of intolerance and discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, religion and belief, including government - endorsed discrimination, violence, exclusion and bias.

The draft urges states to put a high priority on ratifying ICERD & ICCPR. It calls on states to strengthen and enhance actions against discrimination and hate crimes. Then, as I anticipated, it slides down the slippery slope of ambiguity toward the swamp of deceit.

Welcomes the role the Ad Hoc. Committee. has played in helping to identify specific proposals for concrete steps to combat racial and religious discrimination, intolerance, and hated.

"Racial and religious discrimination" and "intolerance" do not have common meanings crossing the civilizational divide between Western Civilization and Eastern Barbarism. Used by the West, they should refer to the persecution of indigenous Christian minoritys in Egypt, Nigeria and Pakistan. Used by Muslims, they conflate the terms with criticism & mockery of Islam.

In its final paragraph, the American draft drowns in the swamp of deceit.

Decides to request the Ad Hoc Committee, as an immediate positive step forward, and without prejudice to its mandate, to focus on determining which of those proposals enjoy the consensus necessary for their successful implementation with a view to their adoption by the Human Rights Council at its 16^th session.

Our State Department has endorsed the committee's mission: disarming the defenders in the war of ideas by criminalizing criticism & questioning of Islam.

Related posts:

• Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee
• Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper
• Ad Hoc Committee: African Submission
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission
• AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission
• Ad Hoc Cmte USA Submission
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards

To My Loyal Readers

I regret to inform you that due to circumstances beyond my control, my blogging will be interrupted, perhaps permanently. I obtained my telephone and internet access through my employment Due to economic conditions beyond our control, my employer is closing the business.

It is expected that I will be incommunicado as of Wednesday, March 17. '10. I will investigate the possibility of obtaining a high speed wireless connection , which may be beyond my reach economically.

Facebook Boycott Canceled

While I was composing a new post about the proposed boycott, a message came in announcing the Restoration of the Ban Islam Facebook Groups. Facebook has sent the group's creators a message stating that the closure resulted from a technical glitch.

"Ban Islam!!" & "Ban Islam" have been back for several days, much to the relief of the membership. The latest news is that the creator of "Ban Islam " is closing the group due to time constraints, it seems that he is overloaded.

Crocodile tears from the parents of Jihad Jamie?

Alec Rawls has issued another blogburst, this one reports on an interview with the parents of another native born mujahid. Unfortunately, the WSJ interview which serves as Alec's source is not entirely clear. We don't know the circumstances surrounding either conversion involved in the story nor do we have clarity on when Ms. Paulin-Ramirez broke off contact with her family and left town.

Unlike Alec, I am not comfortable in judging the sincerity of Ms. Paulin-Ramirez's mother and step father with the limited information available. I pass this through to you, and will let you make your own judgment in the fullness of time as more information becomes available.

There is a moral to this and other militant convet stories. Anyone who is dabbling in Islam with a view toward adopting it should read the Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari so as to become sufficiently familiar to understand the cult's doctrines and practices. Anyone who has a female relative who is socializing with male Muslims should make certain that she is aware of the Islamic attitude toward women. I suggest downloading and sharing this flyer: Islamic Misogyny.

http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/BlogburstHTML_3-13-10.htm

Crocodile tears from the parents of Jihad Jamie? Alec Rawls noticed something not quite right about Jihad Jamie's mother and father. Compare these two snippets from their Wall Street Journal interview:

Ms. Paulin-Ramirez's interest in Islam "came out of left field," said her mother, Christine Holcomb-Mott, in an interview at her home Friday, wearing a blue sweatsuit with a silver cross around her neck.

How out of left field?

Mr. Mott, a convert to Islam himself, says he went to Denver to find his stepdaughter but couldn't track her down.

This woman is married to a Muslim, but neither she nor her husband can grok where in the world their murder-plotting daughter/step-daughter ever got exposed to this worrisome religion that subducts so many of its followers into terrorism. Their disgust at daughter Jamie sounds sincere, but their blatant dishonesty about how she could have gotten interested in Islam suggests otherwise. It is possible, however, that the Journal's paraphrase is not precise. If put on the spot, Holcomb-Mott would likely clarify that she has no idea how her daughter ever got interested in murder-cult Islam. There is a way that this could actually happen: if Mr. Mott is some kind of multiculturalist do-gooder who converted to Islam in sympathy with the idea that "Islam was hijacked too" on 9/11. Such a person could have converted without comprehending the well established Islamic pedigree of violent aggressive jihad. Don't scoff. This same "Islam is a victim too" sentiment is right now allowing a giant Mecca oriented crescent to be built on the Flight 93 crash site. After all, it would just be too horrible to reject the Crescent of Embrace memorial simply because it is in the shape of a giant Islamic crescent, not when Islam itself was amongst the victims on that terrible day. No, we must do the opposite and embrace Islam. If Mott is thinking the same way, he has hardly gone any further than the Memorial Project. But then it seems that his step daughter took one step further still and actually read the Koran, with its endless commands to slaughter the unbelievers. Thus did an unhappy misfit finally find a home for the vicious vindictiveness that the religion of her birth had kept in check. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

Indonesia: Blasphemy Law Abuse

From time to time, documents from IHEU, Freedom House, and similar non-governmental organizations will make reference to the abuse of blasphemy laws to deny the human rights of religious minorities. An editorial in the Jakarta Globe, from December 30, is a case in point.

The article calls for the government and religious leaders to take "concrete and substantial steps" to stop the abuse of "religious freedom in Indonesia". The editorial calls for amendments to the laws and reform in their enforcement. The specific reference is to " article 156a of the Criminal Code.

Jakarta Globe 12/30/09
Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless

Interestingly, the government often has turned a blind eye when radical Islamic groups violate this very article. Most of the “deviant” sects and individuals charged under this law practiced their beliefs peacefully, yet it has been conservative groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI) that have incited hostilities against these very groups. If the government was to enforce this law strictly and without bias, those conservatives and radicals proven guilty of spreading hatred against humanity through demonstrations, raids, religious gatherings or jihadi Web sites would have been put behind bars long ago.

Such a change would require revision of the 2006 civil registration bill that requires Indonesian citizens to identify their religion on their national identity cards (KTP). The category for religion could either be removed entirely, or people from minority groups could finally be allowed to acknowledge their real beliefs. This would decrease religious discrimination against those whose beliefs lay outside of the country’s six recognized religions. On this note, the government could further promote religious freedom by no longer officially acknowledging only six religions, but by embracing the multitude of religions and beliefs practiced in Indonesia.

The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Those excerpts from the editorial are sufficient to clarify the issue of undesired side effects of "defamation of religion" resolutions and the proposed protocol to ICERD. The UNHRC is scheduled to take up these Issues March 23. Now is the time for us to make our objections known.

Facebook Censorship

In October of '09, a group of Muslims who demanded the deletion of an anti-Islamic Facebook group organized a boycott of Facebook The blog post I wrote about their boycott is still receiving views from all over the world, long after "Qur'an Toilet Paper Roll" was deleted, recreated and deleted again.

My involvement in Facebook resulted from a Google Alert for "Ban Islam" which linked to a post on the "Ban Islam!!" group. That post included an error which I wanted to correct. That is how I got hooked. I had to register a Facebook account and join the group in order to comment on the post. "Ban Islam!!" grew to more than 3000 members. It was a lively forum with many informative articles.

Then it was gone. No notice, no warning, no chance to save content; it was arbitrarily deleted March 8. I immediately invited my friends to join the smaller, less active group "Ban Islam". Other members invited their friends, and the group grew rapidly. Then, when I refreshed a page after commenting, it disappeared, arbitrarily pulled down just as its larger brother had been. The groups creator started over, and the group was deleted again the next day.

Yes, we did bash Islam. I, for one, cursed it. I tried to concentrate on well documented and logical arguments, but almost everyone backslides occasionally. Muslims joined our groups to comment and sometimes to debate with us. Many of them confined their activities to the wall, posting obscenities, suggestions related to sexually deviant status & activities and insults.

On February 17, two new wall posts appeared, posted by unfamiliar persons: "Ahmad Faris" and "Steve Brule", who posted a list of the administrators of "Ban Islam!!' followed by "they must die", linking the posts to a new Facebook Group "DELETE GROUP = BAN ISLAM!!". One of the members had read the wall posts and saved a screen shot, tagging other members with it. In my haste, I overlooked the death threat, concentrating on the fact that they copied our admin list. I followed the link and saw this.


The Admin list from "Ban Islam!!" in the left sidebar.


Why list our administrators on a page demanding our deletion? There is only one possibility: intimidation. They later added the death threat, in a foreign language. We followed up by reporting them to Facebook, who took no action. At the time of this writing, it is still available. The page has been edited to remove the death threat. I would like to show you the screen shot of the threat. Unfortunately, it was stored in the group's photograph section, which was deleted with the group.

Facebook also deleted several smaller anti-Islamic groups with offensive titles. It appears that Facebook has acted to appease the demands of Muslim groups. Observe the size of some of them. (Click the image for enlargement.)



Unfortunately, Facebook's aversion to "hate speech" seems to be monopolar. Each item in the following list is a link to a Facebook group which attacks Judaism or Christianity. Most of them have an obscenity in their names. Do not click on these if you are easily offended!!!!

• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6727627346
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51606817657
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5217004763
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5495283726
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40252079273
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=352583432196

In protest of this evident bias, members of the deleted groups are organizing a three day boycott of Facebook commencing at 12:01 am March 31 through 12:01 am April 2.

Answering Ima Muslim

Terrorism Fatwa: Feces

That blog post drew a series of comments from Ima Muslim, the most recent of which deserves a post of its own. Due to the target rich environment, I have reproduced the comment in a block quote. I will mark selected important points with superscripts, linking them to my responses in an enumerated list below.

War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193). Therefore, if non-Muslims are peaceful or indifferent to Islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them. ¹

the Qur'an also says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam is an idea that is foreign to Islam in spirit and in historical practice. There is absolutely no question of waging a "holy war" to "spread the faith" and compel people to embrace Islam; that would be an unholy war and the people's forced conversions would not be sincere.

Another of the more repeated fallacies by those who hate Islam, and by those who do not understand.Jizyah is a tribute paid by non Muslims under the rule of the Muslim nation; be that direct or indirect rule.

Like any country, the Muslim territories require money for facilities and running of people's affairs. What we know today as taxation. Those who hate Islam though make it sound like it's something out of the ordinary, and that Islam is unjust because it taxes non Muslims! That is like calling every country in the world unjust because people pay taxes for the running of the country!

Non Muslims on the other hand, pay Jizyah according to the following rules:

1. The non Muslims that will pay Jizyah are only those capable of fighting. The Muslim army is made of Muslims. Therefore non Muslims will not be enlisted -unless they want to- in case of war. So the Jizyah here is to equip a replacement for this fighter.

2. Jizyah is not collected from elderly non Muslims, women, children or anyone who is unable to fight.

3. Jizyah is taken only from freemen and not from slaves .

Successive Muslim scholars and Caliphs made sure this was the case during their lives. Imam Al Qortoby says about Jizyah:"Our scholars said: What the Quran stated is that Jizyah is to be taken from fighters... This is a unanimous opinion of all scholars that Jizyah is to be only collected from free, mature men who are capable of fighting, not women, children, slaves, crazy, dumb or the weak old men".²

Albert Einstein wrote: Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance...

---

1. That statement is the most malignant maundery possible. There are three Islamic dispensations of warfare: forbearance, defensive and offensive. While Moe and his companions were in Mekkah, few in number and overpowered, he preached tolerance & forbearance. In Medina, as he began to accrue an army, he preached defensive jihad. Later, as his army grew in numbers and skill, he preached offensive warfare. These three dispensations are exemplified by 2:256, 2:190 & 8:39 respectively. Download Moe's biography, turn to page 221 and read the first paragraph very carefully. The assertion that Islam only fights defensively is extremely false and malicious. Al;-Baqarah 190 was cited in Ima's first paragraph. Although that ayeh relates directly to defensive jihad, the translators of the Noble Qur'an included a footnote there which defines jihad.

   Al-Jihad (holy fighting) ln AlIah's Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, (His Word belng La Haha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.[...]

   Would defensive jihad establish Islam and make Islam dominant? What will? Offensive jihad!! That is why Moe revealed al-Anfal 39 & at-Taubah 29.

   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 [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
   
   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.

   Those fight until loops are confirmed by this hadith and several variants.

   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."
   

   Those fight until loops are codified into Shari'ah, as proof of which I submit these quotes from Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.
   

   O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad
   
   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,
   
   "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),
   
   the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
   
   "I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"
   
   this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).
   
   O9.9
   
   The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).
   
   

   Those offensive jihad imperatives are amplified by two relevant rulings. the first is from O9.1, which describes the obligation of Jihad.
   

   In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. 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 Muslims are obligated to attack their peaceful neighbors, on Islam's initiative, annually. Did you miss the last clause in the last sentence of the quote? Is its meaning obscure? This ruling from al-Shafi'i should clear it up for you.
   

   "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."

   O25.9 lists eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest because it explicitly defines an obligation to attack neighboring kuffar.
   

   -8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

   
   Allah commanded Muslims to engage in offensive warfare. Moe confirmed that order. It is codified into Islamic law. Islam invaded and conquered nearly half the world. Denial is a token of insanity and/or dishonesty.
   
2. The tax on Dhimmis is called Jizya. Muslims attempt to distract us by falsely equating Jizya with ordinary taxation or taxation in lieu of military service. There is one vitally significant fact which they don't want us to perceive: Jizya is only levied on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who have been conquered or intimidated. Without conquest or intimidation, there would be no Jizya. Scroll up to the quotes from Reliance and re-read them carefully. Jizya is only imposed upon victims with scriptural religions. The polytheists are converted, killed or enslaved. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's footnote to 9:29 is an excellent example of the diversion tactic.

   v.29 : Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi’i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able- bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. But see the next note.
   * ’An Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The hand being the symbol of power and authority. I accept the interpretation "in token of willing submission." The Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated. See the last note.
   

   Complete clarity requires reference to another hadith which describes the orders Moe gave to his commanders in the field I will provide a link to the hadith and quote only the most relevant part.
   

   Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294: [...]If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. [...]
   

   Moe hired scribes to whom he dictated extortion letters which he dispatched by private courier. This excerpt from his letter to the rulers of Aqaba says it all. [Emphasis added.]
   

   I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers. My messengers deserve honour. Treat them with respect. Whatever pleases my messengers, will also please me. These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived. If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners.

While composing my response, I became suspicious; sensing plagiarism, I entered "Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam" into the Google search bar. Google returned 16 matching records. A search for "War is waged only to defend the religious community" turned up 21 matching records. This is one of them.