Islamophobia

CAIR Video: One Man's Fight Against Islamophobia
CAIR's National Executive Director, Nihad Awad was interviewed by Dan Harris of ABC News April 20, '10, stemming from CAIR's objection to an interview with Wafa Sultan. I found this eight minute, 55 second video at Bare Naked Islam.



The video begins with brief excerpts from a speech and interview with Wafa Sultan. I suspect that the excerpts come from the Freedom Defense Initiative at CPAC in March. Video from that interview was found at Atlas Shrugs. The video confirmed my suspicion. Of course, the only "islamophobia" in the video was in brief cuts from her appearances on Al Jazeera.



I hope to select and transcribe the most egregious lies from Nihad Awad's interview. Do not assume that my transcription is word for word perfect, my hearing is poor, Awad speaks softly, and my computer's sound card is weak.

Wafa Sultan was shown telling FDI that "We must deal with the evil of Islam right now" so that our children won't have to deal with it..."so that the next generation can live in peace". Harris wanted to know what bothered Awad about that interview. .

"From the beginning we strongly believe in free speech. People are entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they are. But when a person of this nature is interviewed and not challenged; is not opposed or there is no balance in the presentation, you feel that something was missing and that the racist remarks she made and allegations that she made against Muslims as a whole defies logic--defies common sense and basic knowledge... people learn about Islam--they know about Islam--she just reinforces stereotypes and mis-information and she was not challenged."

Islam does not believe in free speech. Islam forbids denial, questioning, sarcasm & reviling Allah, his messenger, the Qur'an and the doctrines derived from it.
Mentioning anything "impermissible" about Islam is one of the violations of dhimma which can cause a dhimmi to lose his protection from Muslims and be killed. The list of attitudes and acts entailing apostasy is documented here; the list of acts prohibited to dhimmis is documented here.

There was nothing inflammatory in the brief interview with Wafa Sultan. The closest she came to "Islamophobia" was in the clip from her speech at FDI when she mentioned "the evil of Islam". There wasn't anything concrete to counter in that interview, which lacked ideological detail.

The allegation of racist remarks is absolutely unfounded. Sultan explicitly stated that her opposition was to Islam, not to Muslims. Islam is not a race; it has enslaved and victimized people of several races. What allegations did she make "against Muslims as a whole"? She said that Islam is evil, and it is. Islam is violent, ordaining warfare, praising self sacrifice in battle against disbelievers as the best deed. Allah sanctifies terrorism and demands genocide. Islam declared war, permanent war, until the entire world is conquered.

Asked about intolerance, of which Islam is accused, Awad replied:

" That is just dead wrong, because Islamic history shows different than what people claim and the Qur'an...the best answer is from the Qur'an, otherwise, if you hear from someone as he would say... trying to spin the issue... the Qur'an emphasizes freedom, freedom of thought and religion...'let there be no compulsion in religion' this comes direct from the Qur'an, nobody can misunderstand it, nobody can misinterpret it. You can not force people to believe and act ... these are the words in the Qur'an. "

Islamic history shows extreme intolerance. I refer to the Pact of Umar. Hitler did not invent distinctive clothing for Jews, he adopted it from Islam. 3:85 clearly declares that choosing a religion other than Islam will never be accepted. Muslims are instructed, when encountering Jews & Christians on the road, not to gree them first and to shove them into the ditch. Doubt me? Then look it up: Sunan Abu Dawud 41.5186.

"No compulsion..." comes from 2:256. 3:110 declares believing Muslims to be the "best of peoples"; the meaning of that verse is explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 : " means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam. ".

Asked about the treatment of women in KSA, for example:

" You have to differentiate between culture and religion and sometimes there is a big difference between the two. My understanding of my faith ... women are not only protected but they can be leaders in the Muslim World, when you look at Pakistan, Turkey and Bangladesh, they can be leaders in the Muslim world. "

Awad is playing a subtle semantic game. Islam is not a religion, it is a deen: way of life. It encompasses all aspects of human activity, culture included. Women are chattel property, "tilth", literally a field to be plowed and seeded. They are inferior to men, deemed deficient. Moe had something pertinent to say about female rulers : When Allah's Apostle was informed that the Persians had crowned the daughter of Khosrau as their ruler, he said, "Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful."


Asked about the aftermath of 9-11; Islamophobia :

"Our job is getting more difficult every day although we see a new tone in the new administration, we see a hand extended to the Muslim world, ...we see a positive speech toward Muslims and a tone of reconciliation; but I believe the situation overall is getting worse. Islamophobia is being accelerated in the United States, I haven't seen clergy or political leader who stands up and pushes against bigotry against Muslims. "

"Islamophobia" implies irrational fear and loathing of Islam. After 9-11, considering the untimely deaths of approximately 270*10⁶ people in the last 1400 years, fear and loathing of Islam is not irrational. Muslims label well documented blog posts such as this "Islamophobia".

If the media were more responsible, and our leaders were better, isn't your job made more difficult by the identity of the terrorists ...

"Its important to recognize that the majority of Muslims and organizations including ours, leaders and clergy in the United States and around the world have condemned 9-11 and I believe we were the first organization on the face of the earth to condemn 9-11 but months and years after that we are always confronted on some national television show: 'where are the moderate Muslims--where is the condemnation' and we say we did, but who is listening? Which national network has displayed or communicated or shown our condemnation? I think our voices are somehow excluded and ignored because as we say 'if it bleeds, it leads' . Maybe our statements are not amusing to the ear of people who are accustomed to seeing violence on television but they do not see Muslim leaders coming to condemn this violence. We are condemning the violence, but we do not want to be defined by condemning violence. There are seven million Muslims in the United States. There are engineers, doctors, public servants, educators, they do great work to make America better every day; I'd like to see stories about these people ... I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

So they condemned the attack on the World Trade Center. Wonderful, now we should form a circle, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Yeah, right. Malicious malarkey! They condemn attacks on "innocents"; another semantic game tactic. Only Muslims can be innocent. Anyone who is not Muslim is a rebel against Allah, who deserves to be killed. 5:33 prescribes hudud for those who "wage war against Allah". That expression is defined in Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that verse:

"`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. ".

Take note of the word I highlighted in that definition; disbelief = waging war against Allah. They will not denounce, condemn and abjure the damnable doctrines which sanctify and mandate offensive conquest, genocide & terrorism because that would be an act entailing apostasy.

Seven minutes and forty eight seconds into the interview, Awad tells the big lie: " I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

Islam has not been hijacked. As previously documented, casting terror is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam and offensive conquest is a permanent mandate, in the course of which genocide must be performed. The founder of Islam was a terrorist. Have you read the Qur'an? Try 33:26-27. Even if you never read another hadith, read Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220.

Eight minutes and twelve seconds into the interview, asked if he gets threats, Awad answers in the affirmative, during which statement, he is framed in the camera's viewfinder as if to simulate the view through an assassin's telescopic rifle sight. he says that when he speaks sincerely, from his heart people listen and believe him. Those must be rare occasions, rare indeed.

Judicial Hypocrisy in India: Critical Update

Update!! New information has been discovered which I was not able to find at the time of the original publication of this article.

BNET ran a Times of India article dated April 17, '10, which reports that India's Supreme Court ruled in favor of banning a book titled "Islam A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims".

Upon further research, I found that the article heralds the finalization of a ruling issued earlier this year. I also discovered two resources which should prove to be of inestimable value in the search for truth.

• Mark Humphrys posted this link to the text of Islam, a concept of political world invasion by Muslims by R.V. Bhasin (2003) .
• V. Sundaram uttered and published a seven page analysis of the injustice performed by the Supreme Court of India in this case.

Particular complaint was made, illegally, according to Sundaram, of the author's quotes from the Qur'an and his interpretation of their meaning. The court appointed a special master to translate the Qur'an for them. I found that chapter 7 contains a quote of 9:29 which, while imperfect, transmits the essential meaning of the verse without distortion. Chapter 15 contains additional quotes.

After examining the second listed chapter, I find that the quotes are sufficiently full and accurate to convey their meaning. I also find this among the concluding paragraphs. It speaks directly to the issue involved in the ban.

Whereas there are yet many more Ayats that go on to speak against the non-believers in Islam. India having declared itself a secular country believes also in guarding the religious feelings of the minority communities, The Constitution of India and many laws made thereunder are specially enacted to keep the internal atmosphere within the country free of communal tensions. 1 have therefore laboured to keep away many of of the positively provocative Ayats to which all Muslims must owe their allegiance. Hence, while it is possible to add to the above number of 16 Ayats, material declared in Quaran as binding to the Muslims yet it may not be conducive for a non-Muslim writing this book to state more than what 1 have done. Indeed, It is possible for many critics to draw my own chosen path not to have included them in this publication for the reason that such further inclusion could cause bitterness in the society comprising of Hindus and Muslims living in India.

I find in chapter 16 that 18:22 is mis-cited. Other than that, the quotes are reasonably accurate. I find further that my guess that the author was influenced by the Calcutta Qur'an Petition appears to be vindicated. I presume that the book was written in another language and translated into English.

I can not dispute such of the author's conclusions as I have encountered in my brief survey of a few chapters. I am more convinced that the book was banned unjustly; the ban should have been reversed on appeal.

The rough translation and selection of background and foreground colors make the book difficult to read. In my opinion, it is well worth reading and ought to receive a wide audience.
-------------------------

DNA reports that the Bombay High Court upheld a state ban on the publication of Islam — A concept of Political World Invasion by RV Bhasin.

Freedom of expression granted by the Constitution, the bench said, should not be used to trigger “senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order”.

If a book describing Islamic doctrines and practices is judged to trigger violence, then what about the Qur'an, which sanctifies and mandates genocidal terrorism? The Calcutta Qur'an Petition was arbitrarily dismissed,. yet this case upholds this book banning. Which is worse, a book which perpetuates an order to engage in aggressive warfare or a book which describes its effects? It is obvious that the wrong book was banned.

Jihad-in-Islam-by-Maududi

S. Abul A'la Maududi gave a lecture about Jihad in Lahore, April 13, 1939, Jihad In Islam. Sayed means that Maududi was a direct descendant of one of Moe's daughters. He was a theologian and philosopher who founded Jamaat-e-Islami.

His major work is Tafhim al-Qur’an which explains the meaning of the Qur'an. A quick survey of his tafsir should convince you that he knew his subject matter. [Qur'an links in this post are to Tafhim al-Qur’an.]

Jihad In Islam brings up some important concepts which deserve careful consideration. On the first page, Maududi brings up the concept of Jihad, and turns it against Islam's detractors with a reverse projection. He accuses the West of making war for economic gain, contrasting that with Jihad in the way of Allah, for the holy purpose of making things right in the world. Of course, he overlooks Moe's mercenary motivation, which was revealed by Allah in 8:67.

On the second page, Maududi punches a large hole through the fiction of Islamic passivity. [Emphasis added.]

We have now officially denounced armed. struggle of all sorts just to convince and satisfy our overlords. Now the term Jihad only refers to word-war through spoken or written word.

Another significant revelation, on the third page, could be overlooked too easily. A misunderstanding of the nature of Islam is partially responsible for misunderstanding Jihad.

The first misunderstanding is that Islam is taken as a religion in the conventional I sense of the term ‘religion’.

Maududi proceeds to define that conventional sense. Pay close attention to this.

Religion as a common term means nothing more than a hotch potch of some beliefs, prayers and rituals.

Maududi told his audience that, under this definition, religion should be "a private affair". ... "There is no occasion- and justification to take up arms in this process. "

If we quit reading there, we miss the message. On the next page, Maududi deflates the balloon.

...if Islam is taken as a conventional type of religion, the institution of Jihad cannot be justified.

So why was Maududi lecturing about Jihad?

In fact Islam is neither a religion, nor the Muslims are a nation in the conventional sense of these terms. Islam, instead, is a revolutionary concept and ideology which seeks to change and revolutionise the world social order and reshape it according to its own concept and ideals.

This concept is further developed beginning on page 9.

It is the .most important, rather fundamental ideal of the Muslims, the most outstanding revolutionary party to sacrifice its life and and all the resources at its command to fight, against the evil forces. of the world, not to take their place but completely eliminate the evil and to enforce the word of Allah all over the world.

Islam is a revolutionary program to impose itself upon the entire world by force if necessary. But there is more. At the end of the page 10, another important concept is introduced: Allah's sovereignty.

No one has the right to become self-appointed ruler and order and prohibit whatever he likes on his own volition and authority.

Any ruler not ruling by the Qur'an is an evil tyrant who must be overthrown. The following verses are cited to support these ideas: 26:151-152, 18:28, 11:18-19, 12:39, 28:38, 79:24, 2:258 and 41:15.

Page 15 of the lecture spells out the intention of Islam with some clarity. [Emphasis added.]

...Islam is not merely a religious creed or a set of rituals but it is a comprehensive system that tends to annihilate all tyrannical and evil systems in the world and to enforce its own reformation programme which it deems best in the interest of mankind.

Any system that is not Islamic is necessarily tyrannical and evil. Islam decides what is good for us and imposes it by force of arms, annihilating our system of government and way of life.

On page 16 we learn that the purpose of the Party of Allah is

to eliminate the hegemony of un-Islamic aystems replacing them with a balanced social and cultural order called the Word of Allah by the holy Quran,

To support this, Maududi cites 3:110, which describes Muslims as the best of peoples. Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 explains what makes them the best: bringing us with chains on our necks until we embrace Islam.

In the lecture's next page, Maududi cites three ayat as the scriptural basis for Jihad: 2:193, 8:73 and 9:33. On that basis, the Party of Allah must "capture power".

On page 18, Maududi explains why the Muslims living among kuffar is compelled to strive for "the extirpation of the rule opposed to their ideology and bring their own ideology into power". They can't tolerate the ideological conflict.

Maududi restates Islam's strategic objective on page 20.

...that the objective of ‘Jihad’ in Islam is to liquidate the suzerainty of an un-Islamic system of life and replace it with the rule of Islam.

We learn next that Islam must be expanded, that it must be imposed globally. This is made plain on page 21.

...no State can fully implement her ideology without expanding it to her neighbouring States.

Maududi presents the example of Islam's founder, who invited the rulers of neighboring states to embrace Islam and "resolved to take military action" against those who refused. It should become clear to you that Islam is violent, not peaceful; that it seeks to impose its will upon the entire world, destroying our way of life in the process. Islam is waging an existential conflict against us; what are we going to do about it?

While I urge everyone to read translations of the original sources: the Qur'an & Sahih Bukhari and their derivatives such as Reliance of the Traveller and Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, much can be learned from Jihad In Islam, Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah and The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad and from many secondary sources. “Radical Islam: A Threat America Must Take Seriously” will be web cast Saturday, April 24, '10 from 10 to 5 EDT.

Jihad in the Way of Allah

This Facebook page was linked on the wall of the Ban Islam!! Group. The image above is an actual, unedited clip from a screen shot of the Wall of
Jihad in the way of Allah is best way which boasts 76 fans.

That constitutes advocacy of waging war against anyone who rejects Islam and refuses to submit to extortion. This exposes Islam for exactly what it is: a piratical predator.

Jihad is defined in Islamic law as war against non-Muslims. Jizya is a humiliating extortion demanded from conquered "people of the book". The subject is introduced in Surah at-Taubah 29.

Now there is another boycott movement, calling for a boycott of Facebook from June 9-11 if they do not remove all of the anti-Islamic groups. The group boasts 10,855 members. Meanwhile, a five month old post about a boycott protesting the Qur'an Toilet Paper Group is still getting hits.

Syria Spews al-Taqeyya

On April 12, 2010, Syria's U.N. Ambassador addressed the 14^th session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Measures to eliminate international terrorism on behalf of the OIC. I have selected three crucial excerpts from his prepared remarks.

It has been very well known to the international community that the OIC Group strongly condemns all acts and practices of terrorism and remains convinced that terrorism, irrespective of its motivation, objectives, forms and manifestations, committed by whomsoever and wherever, can never be justified. [Pg. 2]

That statement needs to be juxtaposed with another which came later in the speech.

To achieve this objective the OIC Group supports 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.[Pg.3]

First they condemn terrorism, then they make excuses for it. The cause of Islamic terrorism is not included in that list. Islamic doctrine is the cause of Islamic terrorism. Islam's strategic objective is total world conquest; to impose its system upon the entire world. Terrorism is a tactic in pursuit of that strategic objective.

Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote The Qur'anic Concept of War as a training manual for the Pakistani Army. The book reflects Pakistan's military doctrine. Pay close attention to this quote 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.

Another quote from the third page of the prepared remarks contains the camel excrement which provides boilerplate for several U.N. resolutions.

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 encourages or inspires acts of terrorism, and, thus, none should be portrayed as such.

The pernicious institution which perfected terrorism continues to deny the connection, assuming that we are too stupid, ignorant and gullible to perceive the truth. Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers.

• We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve,...[3:151]
• ...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. ... [8:12]
• ...Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. ...[59:13]

Allah cast terror into the hearts of 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.[33:26]
• ...But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see). [59:2]

Take a close look at the last sentence in 59:2 )Then take admonition, O you with eyes) another ayeh will make its meaning crystal clear.

• So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson. [8:59]
  

Muslims are commanded to punish their victims severely in order to disperse those behind them; observers are told to take admonition. Got a clue yet?
I have a clue for you, it is found in Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of 8:60.

• Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know....

"To strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies"; the purpose of maximal armed force. I have another clue for the clueless; Moe bragged about his practice of terrorism.

• ...1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.... [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
• ...I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),... [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220]

Lets put the two horns of this dilemma together for easy examination.

• "NO religion or religious doctrine encourages or inspires acts of terrorism,"
• "We shall cast terror"
• "I will cast terror"
• "Allâh ... cast terror into their hearts"
• " a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives."
• "He cast terror into their hearts"
• "victorious by awe"
• "made victorious with terror"

If you believe that Islam and terrorism are not cause and effect, please explain your belief in a comment and tell us your IQ score. How stupid must one be to believe such absurd al-taqeyya?

Why Islam Is Intolerable

Islam is intolerable because of its unholy sacrament: Jihad, defined in Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims". Suhas Majumdar called it The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War. Jihad is not an anachronism, the demonic command to perform it does not expire until Judgment Day, as evidenced by this quote from Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526 "...jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)....".

The following quotation comes from Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, Chapter 3.31.

In the Muslim community, the holy war¹ is a religious duty², because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission³ and (the obligation to) convert everybody⁴ to Islam either by persuasion or by force⁵.

1. What makes a war holy? The mission: to establish Islam⁶ and make Allah's word superior⁷. What would profane a holy war? Embezzling the spoils⁸, which includes killing enemy women and children because "they are property for Muslims"⁹.
2. What makes holy war a religious duty? Surah al-Baqarah 2:216 "Jihad is ordained for you"... and the commands to fight found in Surah al-Anfal 8:39 and Surah at-Taubah 9:29. They are confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.
3. What makes the Muslim mission universal? This saying of Moe found in Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331: "Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind."
4. What is the basis of the obligation to convert everybody? In Surah al-Anfal 39, one of the compound terminal conditions is that only Allah be worshiped ["and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone"].
5. What is the basis of conversion by force? In Sahih Muslim 19.4294, Moe's order to his commanders in the field is quoted. He told them, when they meet the enemy, to offer three choices, to submit, submit and join Jihad or to pay jizya and live as second class citizens. If the demand for Jizya was refused, he ordered his commanders to fight the disbelievers. In Surah al-Imran 3:110, Allah refers to believing Muslims as "the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind". That ayeh is explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 "...means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."
6. The translators of the Noble Qur'an define Jihad in a footnote to Surah al-Baqarah 2:190. Establishment of Islam is one of the elements of that definition: "...By Jihâd Islâm is established..."
7. In the footnote cited above, the quote continues with: "Allâh’s Word is made superior...". That objective is clearly stated in Surah at-taubah 9:33 "...to make it superior over all religions...". This is confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 9.93.550 "..."The one who fights that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."...
8. The orders in Sahih Muslim 19.4294 include " ... Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils...".
9. The quote comes from The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad by Ibn Taimiyyah .

Muslims are obligated to make war on us, some by the heart through dua, some through the tongue and pen with propaganda, some with the purse by financing Jihad and others with whatever weapons they can acquire. The Qur'anic imperatives cited above are codified into Shari'ah in Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9. "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians ...". "The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim...".

American Congress for Truth Webcast

The next American Congress for Truth webcast “Radical Islam: A Threat America Must Take Seriously.” will take place April 24, 2010 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. EDT. The webcast is intended for federal, state and local legislators, their staffers and other elected officials. Everyone who wants to learn more about the threat of Islamic global Jihad is welcome to attend.

If your internet connection will support You Tube videos, you will be able to view the webcast.

Featured speakers include:

Brigitte Gabriel Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch and author of Stealth Jihad Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad John Guandolo, former FBI agent and expert on the Muslim Brotherhood

The previous webcast from Nov. 7, 2009 is still available, click this link to view it. If you have contact with influential public servants, now is the time to alert them to these learning opportunities.

Limbaugh Off Target: Strategic Plan

When I tuned into the Rush Limbaugh show today, Rush launched into a rant about Obama's changes to the National Security Strategy.
I selected three quotes from Rush's rant because they convey and overlook important concepts.

The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, 'The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.'" Obama doesn't like that. He's pulling it out.

Shrub and Obamination are both wrong; Shrub is only slightly closer to objective factual reality. "Militant Islamic radicalism" is a fallacy; no such entity exists. The enemy is Islam; standard, off the shelf, orthodox Islam as Moe preached and practiced it, not some imaginary 'radicals' or 'extremists.

Islam is not defined by the relatively 'secular' or 'moderate' Muslims or 'Muslims in name' only. Islam is defined by what Moe said while speaking for Allah, recorded in the Qur'an. Islam is exemplified by Moe's sunna, as recorded in the collected oral traditions of his companions. Moe had a name for those "secular" Muslims: hypocrites. He said of them that "They recite Qur'an but it does not go beyond their throats (i.e. they do not act on it) and they will desert Islam as an arrow goes through a victim's body, so that the hunter, on looking at the arrow's blade, would see nothing on it;" [Sahih Bukhari 4.56.807]

Allah commanded Muslims to wage war against Polytheists and atheists until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. The commandment is recorded in 8:39. confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and codified into Shari'ah in Reliance of the Traveller O9.9. The clear and obvious meaning of the command is confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.

Allah commanded Muslims to wage war against Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments. The commandment is recorded in 9:29, confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and codified into Shari'ah in Reliance of the Traveller O9.8. the clear and obvious meaning of the command is confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah.

Those commands are not anachronisms; Allah's word has no expiration date. Jihad is defined in Reliance of the Traveller O9.0 as "To war against non-Muslims". Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526 informs us of the duration of Jihad: "jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)."

Between 1783 and 1815, American merchant vessels engaged in trade were attacked by the Barbary Pirates. At that time, Israel was occupied by the Ottoman Empire. There were no American troops stationed in Arabia. So, why did Islam attack our shipping? Because not being Muslim is a status offense.
Jefferson and Adams asked the crucial question and got this answer from Tripoli's envoy to London

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."[ Wikipedia]

Faithful Muslims have a right and duty to plunder and enslave us. I gave you links to the source of the doctrine. I gave you a quote which illustrates the application of that doctrine. "Its Islam, stupid". No 'radicalism', no 'extremism'; Islam! Its time to drop the p.c. adjectives & pretense; to name and shame the enemy. It is long overdue, so why not do it?

What are we doing having relationships with the Muslim world anyway? Do we have a relationship with the Catholic world? Do we have a relationship with the Buddhist world? Do we have a relationship with the Jewish world? Well, if we did, Obama's taken care of that.

As a Muslim, President Obama has a relationship to Islam and Muslims; he is one of them. He has a right and duty to plunder and enslave us. Yes, Rush, we have an Ambassador to the Vatican. But Islam's relationship to us is inimical. We need to reciprocate.

Now we can't call 'em Islamic radicals. Now we have to have a relationship with the Islamic radical world -- sorry -- Muslim world.

We can call them what they are: Muslims. Their relationship to us is the same as that of Germany & Japan in WW2.

Shrub could not bring himself to name and shame the enemy. Nor would he specify the ideological differences we have with Islam. President Obama won't name and shame the enemy. Nor will he list our most important differences with Islam any more than Shrub would. But, not being President, I will.

Freedom	Islam
right to life	Muslims can kill kuffar
liberty	Muslims can enslave kuffar
equality	Muslims are superior
gender equality	men are superior, own women as chattel
representative government by consent of the governed	theocracy imposed by force
freedom of religion	only Allah has right to be worshiped
peace unless attacked	war as a way of life

John Brennan:Treachery @ NYU

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Logan's Warning for this red flag. John Brennan, Assistant to the President For Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, spoke at NYU.



It is clear from the video that John Brennan was pandering to Islam in his address to the law school students. The Obamination concentration on identity politics comes through loud and clear in this speech. In the end, Brennan asserts that there is no conflict or exclusivity between Muslim and American identity.

I have selected a few critical lies from the spew for refutation.

• the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam

Islam is intolerance. The Qur'an reflects Allah's attitude in this matter.

3:19. Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh, then surely, Allâh is Swift in calling to account.

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.

If you don't believe in Islam, Allah will punish you and selection of a religion other than Islam won't be tolerated in this world or the next. Allah does not cater to diversity, he demands that you be Muslim. going so far as to declare war against you if you don't submit to him. Refer to 8:39 & 9:29 .

• American Muslims ... have always denounced violent extremism

"Violent extremism" is frequently mentioned in this speech, implying that orthodox Islam is passive and benign. The implication is both false and malicious. Allah and Moe set the standard for Islam. Allah said that he would cast terror in 3:151. He commanded Muslims to terrorize their victims in 8:12. In 8:60, he ordered Muslims to build a great army to strike terror into the hearts of their victims. In 33:26-27 he detailed the results of casting terror. In Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 Moe bragged about being made victorious by terror.

• frequent misrepresentations of your faith

Islam is misrepresented as a "religion of peace" even though its scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence are full of war as it its history. Brennan implies that associating Islam with aggression & terrorism misrepresents it while the real misrepresentation is performed by its apologists who claim that it is passive and benign.

• my respect for a faith that has helped to shape my own world view

How can anyone respect an evil institution responsible for the early deaths of an estimated 270*10⁶ people , an institution founded by a murderer, pedophile, warlord and rapist?

• goodness and beauty of Islam

What is good and beautiful about a war cult that sanctifies and mandates genocidal conquest using terrorism as a battle tactic? What is good and beautiful about a war cult that engages in ghazwat, enslaves women and children captivated therein and considers wives to be tilth, literally fields to be plowed and seeded?

• 270A faith of peace and tolerance

Allah is so peaceful and tolerant that he cursed Jews & Christians and commanded Muslims to wage war against them. Did you know that Muslims can not open the gates of Paradise until they hunt down and kill the last Jew?

• these faiths can and will live in peace

Brennan spoke of Jerusalem, declaring it to be his favorite city. He asserted that Islam, Judiasim and Christianity can coexist in peace. Has he read the Qur'an?

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.

How can they coexist in peace when Muslims are commanded by their demon to wage war against Jews & Christians? I suggest that doubters and dissenters open Reliance of the Traveller to Book O, Chapter 9 and read it carefully. If Muslims are capable of waging war against kuffar and fail to do so they are in sin, in jeopardy of eternal damnation. Read O9.1 very carefully if you doubt this.

• violent extremism is neither unique nor inherent to any one faith; indeed, violence is something that every faith rejects but that every faith has had to confront.

What is extreme about obeying the commandments of your deity and emulating the founder of your cult? Muslims engaging in terrorism do so in obedience to Allah and in emulation of Moe. The KKK acted in contravention of Christ's teaching and example. Islam does not reject violence, it sanctifies and mandates it.

• As Muslims, you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak themselves in religion try to distort your faith, though they clearly are ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam.

Anyone who does not comprehend the enormous falsity of that statement can get a clue by reading Surah al-Anfal, Surah at-Taubah and Surah al-Fath of the Qur'an and Sahih Bukhari 's Books of Jihad, Khumus and Expedition. I have provide links that will give you access to those documents, the rest is up to you.

• there is nothing, absolutely nothing, holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.

If you do not submit to Allah, you are in rebellion against him, waging war and therefore subject to the hudud listed in Surah al-Ma'idah 33. Those hudud include exile, crucifixion, decapitation and amputation of one hand and one foot. As a kuffar, you are not innocent. The Islamic proscription of killing women and children is economic, not moral, Dead women and children have no value on the slave market.

• And so devout Muslims like you, as well as members of other faiths have frequently been forced to defend and define your faith.

Islam is defined by Allah's word and Moe's example. Moe showed Muslims the true meaning of Allah's word by what he did in obedience to it: one major battle every six weeks on average for the last nine years of his life.

• al Qaeda and its hateful ideology

Allah gave Muslims a mission: total world conquest and domination. He promised them victory, conditioned on faith and righteous conduct. When Muslims are victorious, they have Allah to thank for it. When they are defeated, their own doubt and sins are to blame for their failure. Al Qaeda is not a deviation from Islam, it is a return to the foundation of Islam: Jihad.

• President Obama declared in his address at Cairo that he considers it part of his responsibility as President to to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.

By "negative stereotypes" he means any and all truthful descriptions of orthodox Islamic doctrine and practice, particularly Fitna and the Motoons.

• So it is very clear: ignorance is a threat to our national security, prejudice is a threat to our national security discrimination is a threat to our national security and those who purport to be religious are frequently the most egregious purveyors of ignorance, prejudice and discrimination and it must stop.

How can you ignore the mandate of Jihad contained in 2:216? "Jihad is ordained for you...". Ignorance of Islamic doctrine is a threat to our national security because it prevents us from recognizing the fact that our nation is occupied by an enemy fifth column. Thirteen good men and women are dead because their superior officers ignored the signs of Jihad evident in the speech and conduct of Maj. Hasan, who presented a slide show and lecture detailing the Islamic doctrines relevant to the evil act he committed Nov. 5.

• Creating an unhealthful atmosphere around many Muslim charities that made Muslims hesitant to fulfill their sacred obligation of Zakat.

The President's National Security adviser really should have a clue. Islamic law requires that Zakat be divided into eight shares, with one share going to the terrorists.

• We are at war with al Qaeda and its extremist allies and any comment to the contrary is just inaccurate

Al Qaeda is nothing more than a name, an alias for Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood is a group of zealous Muslims. Hamas and al Qaeda are spin offs from the Brotherhood. The Charter of Hamas tells us everything we need to know about those names. Islam is at war against us; we need to recognize that fact.

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.