Made in America Muslim Terrorists.

 

by Lori Averick

 

It's time to connect the dots

The past year has seen a serious and alarming increase of violent extremist activities throughout the United States. Contrary to what some in the media would have you think, this clear and present danger is not coming from the radical "right" or the liberal "left." It is coming from Muslim terrorists whose activities are frightening and well-documented.

Authoritative Islam is a radical theo-political ideology that openly aims to kill Jews, Christians and other non-believers who do not convert or submit to Islam. This threat should be the primary concern of leaders and citizens alike. Unfortunately, we are living in a country where political correctness has trumped all security threats. Therefore, how can we aggressively fight our enemy, when some of us refuse to even identify them as such?

So the question that begs to be answered is: Is America at war with radical Islam and those who seek to carry out its doctrine?

To help answer that question, take a closer look at some of the recent jihadi activities that have been glossed over and labeled as isolated occurrences. Click on the hyperlinks to read more details about each story:

• October 2008 — Shirwa Ahmed, a 27-year-old born in Somalia, became the first American citizen suicide bomber. He left his home town in Minnesota to return to Somalia and commit jihad. FBI officials believe he was radicalized in Minnesota, one of 20 Somali men who disappeared from the state.
• May 2009 — Four Muslims in New York were arrested as they attempted to bomb two New York synagogues and shoot down military planes in New York State. Three of the four terrorists converted to Islam in a U.S. prison.
• June 2009 — A Muslim convert, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, gunned down two men outside an army recruitment office in Little Rock, Arkansas. One young soldier was killed. The terrorist said the shooting was in retaliation for the mistreatment of Muslims in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• July 2009 — An organization called Hizbut-Tahrir, a politically extreme Islamist group that is banned in Russia and Germany for inciting violence and preaching anti-Semitism, held a recruitment conference at the Hilton in Oak Lawn Illinois. Hizbut-Tahir openly claims Sharia Law should replace the U.S. Constitution and aims to restore the Caliphate as it was during the Ottoman Empire in Turkey.
• July 2009 — Daniel Patrick Boyd, his two sons, and four other North Carolina men were arrested and accused of plotting "violent Jihad" through a series of terror attacks abroad. Also included in the charge sheet are claims that the group visited Israel in 2007 with the intent of waging "violent Jihad." They returned home, unsuccessful in their mission.
• September 2009 — An al-Qaeda terror cell was busted in New York. Najibullah Zazi, a 24 year old Afghan-born immigrant who drives a shuttle bus at the Denver airport, was arrested as part of this cell and charged with "conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction." This is the first operating al-Qaeda cell to be uncovered inside the U.S. since the 9-11 attacks.
• September 2009 — Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year-old Jordanian illegally residing in the U.S., was arrested for attempting to use weapons of mass destruction. He parked an SUV he believed to be loaded with explosives in a parking lot outside the 60-story Fountain Place building in downtown Dallas. Smadi expressed his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and says he came to the U.S. to wage Jihad against America.
• October 2009 — Luqman Ameen Abdullah, the imam of Detroit's Mosque of Truth, was killed by FBI agents as they were trying to arrest him on charges of conspiracy, receipt of stolen goods, firearms offenses and more. According to the indictment, Abdullah was preaching "offensive jihad" in his mosque, and the establishment of a Sharia state (Islamic law) in North America.
• October 2009 — Faleh Hassan Almaleki, an Iraqi man living in Arizona, ran down his daughter with his car because she had become "too westernized." She died as a result of her injuries. He was able to flee the country through Mexico and fly to London where he was denied entry and returned to Phoenix.
• November 2009 — Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood Military installation in Texas, killing 13 and wounding 42. The U.S.-born Muslim of Palestinian descent shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he began shooting. Hasan had been the subject of terrorism probes, but Federal authorities dropped the inquiry after deciding that his communications to radical imams and al-Qaeda warranted no further action.
• November 2009 — Federal prosecutors seized five buildings including mosques, schools and a Manhattan skyscraper because of their alleged financial ties to Iran. Prosecutors claim that the Alavi Foundation, a Muslim organization that owns the buildings, is engaged in money-laundering — sending the cash back to Tehran.
• November 2009 — Federal authorities in Philadelphia announced charges against four men for their alleged participation in a two-year plot to funnel money and weapons to the terrorist group Hezbollah. Authorities say these men are linked to additional support networks in Brooklyn and the Bronx.
• December 2009 — Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old Nigerian man educated in London, attempted to blow up a Northwest flight headed from Amsterdam to Detroit. He had explosives attached to his leg which he ignited toward the end of the flight. He was apprehended by passengers and crew after they heard what sounded like fireworks and saw his leg and the wall of the plane on fire. Abdulmutallab claimed that he was carrying out the act for al-Qaeda.

 

Waking Up

There is an abundance of evidence that suggests that America is indeed under attack and that Muslim terrorists have declared war on the U.S. Charles Jacobs, named by the Forward as one of America's top 50 leaders, notes that "These are extraordinary times. We face daunting challenges for which there are no known answers. Chief among them are Islamic anti-Semitism and the global jihad that pose enormous, unanticipated threats to Jews around the world."

There are too few among us who are willing to connect the dots of these events and honestly acknowledge the gravity of our situation. Now is the time to band together and educate ourselves and our communities — before it is too late.

The methods of dealing with this threat must be elevated to a priority national debate. But in order to do so, the first step is that we must all — in the words of renowned historian Bernard Lewis in the must-see documentary film on this issue, The Third Jihad[*], "Wake up!"

[*] The Third Jihad can be seen at www.TheThirdJihad.com
 

Lori Averick is a Campus and Community consultant for two non-profit organizations; JerusalemOnlineUniversity and the Clarion Fund. She writes for Jewish websites on relevant and contemporary Jewish issues.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Galileo and Geert Wilders: EPPUR SI MUOVE!

 

by Fjordman

  

Introduction by Baron Boddesy of the Gates of Vienna website "The trial against Galileo didn't change physical reality or threaten the survival of European civilization; the forces that Wilders is warning against could indeed destroy European civilization if left unchecked." In 1633 the great Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei was forced by the Inquisition to recant his heliocentric model of the solar system and affirm that the Earth was actually the motionless center of the Universe. Legend has it that immediately after his conviction, Galileo was heard to mutter "Eppur si muove" — "And yet it moves". The old man was unable to restrain himself entirely from speaking the simple truth. In Amsterdam the day after tomorrow, another great man will be hauled before a court and charged with speaking the simple truth. The outcome of the Geert Wilders trial — like Galileo's — is fixed in advance. Mr. Wilders is indeed guilty of speaking the truth about Islam, and he will undoubtedly be convicted. Fjordman has written a brief essay outlining the parallels between Galileo Galilei and Geert Wilders, and examines the current trial's enormous significance for the Netherlands, the continent of Europe, and the whole of Western Civilization.

 

Geert Wilders as Galileo

 

Eppur Si Muove

 

 

by Fjordman

 

Some observers have compared the ongoing trial against the prominent Dutch Islam-critic Geert Wilders in the Netherlands to the case against Galileo Galilei in seventeenth century Italy. There is no question that the trial against Galileo represents a dark chapter in the history of the Roman Catholic Church, but there are some popular misconceptions regarding it.

The Italian philosopher and occultist Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) was a supporter of the Sun-centered model of Copernicus and championed the idea that the universe is filled with an infinite array of stars similar to our Sun and that life exists elsewhere in this vast universe. He was embroiled in a long trial with the Roman Inquisition and burned at the stake in 1600. His case remains controversial to this day. In author John Gribbin's view he was a religious heretic rather than a "martyr for science", and his execution, while certainly deplorable, happened mainly because of his unorthodox theological ideas, not his scientific ones:

But after 1600 Copernicanism was distinctly frowned upon by the Church, and the fact that Bruno was a Copernican and had been burned as a heretic was hardly encouraging for anyone, like Galileo, who lived in Italy in the early 1600s and was interested in how the world worked. If it hadn't been for Bruno, Copernicanism might never have received such adverse attention from the authorities, Galileo might not have been persecuted and scientific progress in Italy might have proceeded more smoothly.

In 1624, Galileo[1] was assured by Pope Urban VIII that he could write about the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical proposition. However, in his 1632 book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems he clearly sided with Copernicanism by ridiculing the Aristotelians who clung to the Ptolemaic theory. Because of this he was called to Rome in 1633 to face the Inquisition. He was interrogated[2] for 18 days and threatened with torture. The Pope eventually decided that he should be imprisoned indefinitely.

According to Robert Spencer in his book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't,[3] "Jesuit astronomers were among Galileo's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters. When Galileo first published supporting evidence for the Copernican heliocentric theory, Cardinal Maffeo Barberini sent him a letter of congratulations. When Galileo visited Rome in 1624, Cardinal Barberini had become Pope Urban VIII. The pope welcomed the scientist, gave him gifts, and assured him that the church would never declare heliocentrism heretical. In fact, the pope and other churchmen, according to historian Jerome Langford, 'believed that Galileo might be right, but they had to wait for more proof.' And that was the ultimate source of Galileo's conflict with the church: he was teaching as fact what still at that time had only the status of theory. When church officials asked Galileo in 1616 to teach heliocentrism as theory rather than as fact, he agreed; however, in 1632 he published a new work, Dialogue on the Great World Systems, in which he presented heliocentrism as fact again. That was why Galileo was put on trial for suspected heresy and placed under house arrest. Historian J. L. Heilbron notes that from the beginning the controversy was not understood the way it has been presented by many critics of the church since then."

Here is what author James Evans says in his book The History and Practice of Ancient Astronomy, page 424:

Copernicus's book did not produce an immediate upheaval. However, it certainly did offend the sensibilities of conservative religious thinkers, as well as professors of Aristotelian natural philosophy. With the crackdown on freethinking associated with the Catholic Counter-Reformation, any heterodox opinion became more dangerous than it had previously been. But it was not until 1616 that heliocentrism was officially declared erroneous. De revolutionibus was placed on the Index of books that were prohibited 'until corrected.' In principle, De revolutionibus could be circulated and read only if erroneous passages (asserting the mobility of the Earth) were removed. Four years later, a list of ten specific corrections was issued. Owen Gingerich has examined nearly all the surviving copies of the 1543 and 1566 editions of De revolutionibus, which total more than 500 books. The majority of copies in Italy were censored in conformity with the decree. But the decree had almost no effect elsewhere. Not even in Catholic Spain or Portugal were copies censored. The condemnation of De revolutionibus had very little impact on the acceptance of the heliocentric hypothesis. Even the famous trial of Galileo for continuing to advocate heliocentrism after the condemnation only served to popularize the new cosmology.

The case against Galileo may have had a negative impact on Italian science, but its long-term impact on Europe as a whole was quite meager. One of Europe's greatest comparative strengths has always been that no single authority, secular or religious, could successfully censor the flow of ideas throughout the entire continent. This was very different from, say, Imperial China at the same time. Yet today we have the European Union, which has powers of censorship and indoctrination that the Roman Inquisition could only dream of.

Galileo faced the possibility of torture during his trial, which Wilders currently does not. It was also possible to be executed for heresy in the seventeenth century, as had happened to Bruno a few years before. Many people will say that this is not the case with Wilders today, but the truth is that he risks his life every single day by saying what he is saying, and the security at the Dutch trial is not good. The trial itself exposes him to an elevated risk of assassination, in a country where several critics of Islam have been assassinated. In my view, the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was executed as a Multicultural heretic. The political elites killed him by whipping up hatred against him, even if they didn't physically pull the trigger.

Another major difference is that as bad as the case against Galileo was, he was at least allowed to talk about the Copernican hypothesis as long as he presented it as a mathematical hypothesis only. Wilders isn't even allowed to say, hypothetically speaking, that Islam might be an unusually violent religion, which arguably means that there is even less freedom of speech under the Multicultural Inquisition in 2010 than there was under the Roman one in 1633. Also, the stakes are far greater now than they were back then. The trial against Galileo didn't change physical reality or threaten the survival of European civilization; the forces that Wilders is warning against could indeed destroy European civilization if left unchecked.

Galileo was found guilty of heresy and remained under house arrest for the remainder of his life, but he nevertheless managed to publish a masterpiece in 1638, the Discourse on Two New Sciences, of a history of physics in which he presented the laws of accelerated motion and falling bodies. Symptomatically, it was smuggled[4] out of Italy and published in the Netherlands. Could Italians return the favor and publish the defense from the trial against Wilders, in the spirit of Oriana Fallaci? Perhaps the Vatican itself can make up for its old sins?

Unfortunately, I fear that the Roman Catholic Church is currently too dhimmified to do such a thing, but it would undoubtedly have a tremendous symbolic value if the Church dared where the secular and so-called liberal authorities of the Netherlands and the EU dare not.

Footnotes

[1] http://galileo.rice.edu/bio/narrative_7.html

[2] http://physics.ucr.edu/%7Ewudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html

[3] http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Peace-Christianity-Islam-Isnt/ dp/1596985151/

[4] http://www.mcm.edu/academic/galileo/ars/arshtml/galileo3.html
 

 

Fjordman is a Norway-based writer. He is a noted blogger who writes analytic and original essays on Islam, Scandinavian affairs and global politics. He is a frequent contributer to Brussels Journal, Gates of Vienna, Faith Freedom International and Jihad Watch, among other websites.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

A God who Hates.

 

by Fern Sidman

  

This a book review of Wafa Sultan's new book A God Who Hates.

The Courageous Woman Who Inflamed The Muslim World Speaks Out Against The Evils of Islam

In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States, it became abundantly clear to the Western world that there was a new and pernicious nemesis in town. Radical Islamic suicide bombers had jolted us out of our torpor as we confronted the stark and frightening realization that our cherished democratic values, principles, code of ethics and very lifestyle were in existential danger. In order to eradicate the visceral feelings of resentment of Muslims that were ruminating in the psyches of Americans and other westerners; the media, along with those in academic and "politically correct" circles initiated a campaign of "re-education". Extolling the virtues of the religion called Islam, they put forth the notion that Islam is a genuine religion of peace; a religion that places a sacred value on the sanctity of life. We were told that only a few extreme "radical Jihadists" belonging to an obscure organization called Al Qeada were responsible for tainting and maligning the purity of Islam.

Wafa Sultan, an ex-Muslim dissident from Syria, offers a wholly different take on this sophistical premise in her shocking new book, "A God Who Hates" (St. Martin's Press - 2009) as she portrays a searing portrait of Muslim culture. The subtitle of the book describes Sultan as "the courageous woman who inflamed the Muslim world" as she "speaks out against the evils of Islam." The reader is left with no doubt that Sultan is way more than a doughty and intrepid advocate of the truth, but a woman who is willing to place her life in mortal danger in order to preserve, protect and defend Western civilization as we know it. She raises the narrative to a highly profound level as she essentially reveals that, contrary to popular opinion, it is not a few "radical Jihadists" who are guilty of distorting otherwise warm and fuzzy Islamic precepts, but rather the culprit in engendering this kind of vitriolic hatred and bloodlust is none other than the Koran itself, along with the paradigm of the prophet Muhammad and the "god" known as Allah. She refers to Islam, as "the ogre" as she explores the psychological roots of a nomadic people who invented this religion in order to assuage their own paralyzing fears and overwhelming feelings of desperation and helplessness.

Wafa Sultan knows from whence she speaks. Having grown up in a devoutly Muslim home in Syria, she recalls her very personal stories of the barbarism of Islam and how it impacted on her and her family. Being born female in a Muslim culture that enforces a male hegemony, Sultan recalls the humiliating degradation imposed on her grandmother, mother and sisters who were virtual slaves to their husbands and their fathers. Contempt and loathing for women as inherently inferior beings permeates the Muslim world as is evidenced in today's alarming escalation of "honor murders" in which Muslim men brazenly murder their womenfolk for alleged transgressions of Sharia law.

Women's inhumanity to other women is also discussed here as Sultan tells us of the abusive treatment of daughter-in-laws by their own mother-in-laws who punish them in the same way that they themselves were tormented as young brides. Education for girls and women in Islamic society was sorely lacking and discouraged in order to keep them locked in a permanent state of servility. Their treatment of children is also spotlighted as abusive as the Koran mandates that they mete out corporal punishment to their children who do not pray or adhere to the tenets of Islam.

Sultan herself was fortunate in a sense. She was educated as a physician in Syria and her headstrong, independent nature compelled her to extricate herself from the draconian dictates of an oppressive religion. Moreover, as a physician in Syria she takes note of the glaring inequities of medical care as it pertains to gender. Dr. Sultan viewed Muslim men as anathema but as luck would have it, she met an educated man who respected her. After their marriage they made their way to the United States where she now raises her children and practices medicine in the Los Angeles area.

Citing a gamut of Koranic verses and providing concrete historical evidence dating back to the 7th century, Sultan proves that the predicate for Islam is unadulterated fear, violence, hatred of the other, theft and murder. From the genesis of the Islamic movement, the author informs us of Arab nomadic tribes raiding one another in bloodthirsty rampages that left sheer devastation in their wake. Describing the terror and desolation that the Arab peoples felt so acutely during centuries of desert dwelling, Sultan tells us that the fear of dying in the arid and harsh desert from hunger, thirst, illness and the always imminent attack by another tribe created an anxious and violent nation whose sole objective was daily survival at all costs. Says the author, "Arabs who lived in the environment that gave birth to Islam were powerless in the face of the challenges presented by this environment, which threatened their lives and their welfare. Because they felt so helpless they felt a need for forcefulness and created a god who would fulfill this need. When the Arab male lost his power he felt the need for a forceful god. And so he created a forceful god in the image of his need - but this god was not powerful."

Thus, the religion of Islam instills a hatred of the infidel, "the other" and anyone who does not subscribe to the tenets of their bellicose belief system. History has recorded that scores of heinous murders of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs were perpetrated by the hands of Allah's followers. Because their god is described in the Koran as "The Harmer:, "The Avenger", "The Compeller" and "The Imperious", it is Sultan's view that the Islamic people have internalized such labels and have sought to emulate the rudimentary character of their deity. Brutal savagery towards anyone they perceive to be a threat and even against one another is one of the modalities through which Muslims actualized these "godly" traits. She describes the prophet Muhammad as a man bereft of moral authority; a pedophile and a purveyor or violence and falsehood; He gives his tacit approval to his followers to continue on the trajectory of "holiness" by engaging in hostile acts of religious zealotry, without regard for human life.

Offering eclectic insights into Muslim culture, Sultan tells us that because Islam is so riddled with strife, negativism and banal hatred it's language readily reflects this all encompassing disposition. As such, Muslims do not speak in a calm and reasoned manner but rather are vocally strident; resorting to constant shrieking, yelling, bellowing and shouting while engaging in acrimonious, ad hominem attacks against those who they are purportedly conversing with.

And that, of course, segues into a chapter called, "Who is that woman on Al Jazeera?". As a world renowned essayist, Dr. Sultan's opinions were well known through the Arab and Muslim countries. For that reason, the Al Jazeera television network invited her to debate a domineering Islamic cleric on the topic of "the connection between Islamic teachings and terrorism." It was in this venue that Dr. Sultan, having been denied the right to express herself or given enough time to state her case by the male moderator, did so anyway in an erudite and eloquent fashion without raising the volume of her voice; in contrast to her adversary who engaged in ear popping dialogue.

Given the last few seconds of the show to conclude her thoughts, Dr. Sultan was once again interrupted by the clergyman but this time told him in no uncertain terms to "Be quiet! It's my turn!". This kind of rejoinder is considered common parlance to us Westerners who enjoy watching television debates but these few words sent shock waves throughout the Muslim world. "I uttered this sentence without realizing it would open a new chapter in Arab and Muslim history. Never in the history of Islam has a woman clearly and forcefully asked a Muslim man to be quiet because it was her turn to speak", says Dr. Sultan.

Throughout this engrossing and compelling book, Sultan generously heaps praise on her adopted country. She acknowledges her appreciation for the plethora of rights, individual freedoms and liberties that she has enjoyed in the United States for the last 21 years. She urges America to stand strong in the face of the proliferation of global radical Islam and suggests that it confront the burgeoning threat to our civilization that "the ogre" represents in a pro-active fashion. "I love America as few people do" says Sultan, and "my love for it makes me feel concern for it. I do not want any danger to threaten the safety or beauty of this country that rescued me from my fears and fed me when I was hungry. America, to put it very briefly indeed, is my freedom."

 

Fern Sidman

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Is a nice Muslim a good Muslim?

 

 

by Bill Warner

 

PART 1. IS A NICE MUSLIM A GOOD MUSLIM

After a murderous jihad at Fort Hood or the Christmas day airplane bombing attempt, did you hear: "Of course, not all Muslims are bad?" That brings up the question of how do you even tell if a Muslim is bad? Or good?

First off, what is a Muslim? A Muslim is a person who follows the doctrine of Islam. When that same person, does something that does not follow the doctrine of Islam, they are not a Muslim. The common idea is that anyone who says that they are a Muslim has their every action and word dictated by Islam. Put another way, every Muslim is seen as perfect follower of Islam at all times and circumstances. However, the truth is that a "Muslim" is not always a Muslim. When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are a kafir (non-Muslim).

Now, how do we know if a Muslim is good or bad? If they are following the Koran and the Sunna (the perfect example of Mohammed), they are a good Muslim. If they don't follow the doctrine, then they are not a Muslim. That means that from the stand point of Islam there is no such thing as a good or bad Muslim. You either are a Muslim or you are not. When anyone follows the Koran and the Sunna, they are Muslim. When anyone does not follow the doctrine of Islam then they are a kafir.

This means that a person called a Muslim has two modes of being — Muslim and kafir, or kafir-Muslim. The same person can be a Muslim in one moment and a kafir in the next.

What do kafirs mean by a good Muslim? Simple, the same way we judge all other people as good and bad — the Golden Rule. Do they follow the Golden Rule when they are with us? If so, then they are a good person.

Since the Koran and the Sunna do not have the Golden Rule, how are Muslims to treat us? Islamic doctrine lays out an alternative to the Golden Rule. Those who do not believe Mohammed are kafirs, and kafirs are treated differently from Muslims.

Islamic doctrine says a great deal about the kafir. Most of the Koran is about kafirs, 61%, only 39% is about Muslims. About 20% of the Hadith is about kafirs and 98% of the Sira is about kafirs. Mohammed was fixated on kafirs and annihilated every kafir by violence, exile or conversion. When Mohammed died, there was not a person alive in Arabia who would argue with him.

Mohammed's actions are pure Islam; therefore, annihilating kafirs and kafir culture is pure Islam. A Muslim has to be, in some way, in some form of action, eliminating kafirs and their world. The action against kafirs is jihad. There are four flavors of jihad and murder is only one. Deception, conversation, articles and TV appearances can be jihad of speech and writing. There is always the option of giving to an Islamic charity, since one of the Koranic uses of charity is jihad.

Every Muslim believes that all nonbelievers are kafirs. The Koran says that kafirs may be hated, plotted against, deceived, murdered, raped, enslaved, mocked and tortured. All of those actions are Islam and perfect doctrine. When a person is being a good Muslim, they are following Islam and that means that you are a kafir. Hate, deception, murder, mockery and torture are bad for kafirs, but good for Muslims.

Kafirs are pure other. Muslims treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters, but they can treat a kafir well or they can treat them as less than an animal. Islam has dualistic ethics, one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for kafirs. Dualism is bad. When a Muslim practices dualism, they are bad. There is no good in Islam for a kafir and therefore, there is no good in a Muslim for a kafir.

Does this mean that the Muslim at work is bad? Yes, when they are following the doctrine of Islam. Whenever they are not following Islam, that person can be as good as any other. It is not about people, but about doctrine. It is the doctrine of Islam to be bad to kafirs. When anyone is practicing Islam around a kafir they must be bad, since Mohammed was never good to kafirs.

Wait! What about the nice, pious Muslim at work? He is good, isn't he?

Is he nice because of the Golden Rule or is he practicing the Sunna of the charming Mohammed we find in the early Meccan days? Mohammed could be very polite with kafirs, however, if charm did not work, then other methods were used. Islam is a process of increasing force that can start out pleasantly.

We are left with an ethical confusion around any Muslim. They can seem pleasant, but nothing changes the fact that they see Mohammed as the perfect person to imitate. Nothing changes the fact that we are kafirs. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Whom are we to believe — the Muslim at work or Mohammed? Every Muslim wants to imitate Mohammed; every Muslim is a Mohammedan. The problem is that Mohammed annihilated every kafir he ever met. It was a process. The process started out nice and when nice did not work, it ended in annihilation of the kafir. In Islam, nice is the beginning of bad for the kafir.

So how do you tell if a nice Muslim is good or bad? From the kafir point-of-view, there is only the fact that a Muslim is following Mohammed's example. And that is bad, very bad.

PART 2. 'AGHAST' SCHOLARSHIP

Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at "Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?" newsletter. He replied with his Scourge of 'Islam Experts' (see here) but he missed my point.

The point of the Nice Muslim newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times. A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:

• The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted, enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir does not have any positive attributes.
• There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir.
• Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances Islam.
• Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose to make all kafirs submit to Islam.
• A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule, a non-Islamic principle.

The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case the so-called good verses are abrogated later.

Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine. Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:

• On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.

So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply: I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.

• There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.

What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine, not one who is likable.

  Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.

This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect. A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology, a sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Sharia law is learning about Islam.

• He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.

I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since Islam does not have a Golden Rule.

All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create the Islamic civilization.

His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.

Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good reason for their appearance. The university trained 'experts' are apologists for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood and never refer to Islam.

The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa, Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course would be bigotry.

It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official Islam (see here) that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff — Official Islam. Too bad it does not exist.

So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told.

When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.

It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right. If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.

Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.

The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology.

Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.
 

Bill Warner is Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

What About The Arab Apartheid? Part II.

 

by Khaled Abu Toameh

The Palestinian Authority and most of the Arab governments have not missed a chance since US Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel to remind us that construction of 1,600 new apartments in the Jewish neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, as well as the renovation of an ancient synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem, would trigger a "third intifada" or, even worse, an all-out war in the Middle East -- and is the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East.

It is funny to see countries such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Egypt condemn Israel for being an "apartheid" state and for restricting freedom of religion. These countries, along with the Palestinian Authority and predominantly Islamic countries, should be the last to talk about "apartheid," freedom of religion bad persecution of minorities.

Of all Arab and Islamic countries, Saudi Arabia is often described as a "glaring example of religious apartheid."

Although Saudi authorities allow Christians to enter the country as temporary workers, they don't permit them to practice their faith. Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are prohibited. Conversion by a Muslim to another religion is considered apostasy, a crime punishable by death. Saudi Arabia does not allow non-Muslim clergy to enter the kingdom country for the purpose of conducting religious services. Christians, and other non-Muslims, are prohibited from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina.

In Riyadh, the death sentence against a Lebanese charged with "sorcery" has just been re-confirmed. The man, Ali Hussein Sibat, a father of five, is a former host of a popular call-in-show that aired on a Lebanese satellite TV channel. H was arrested by Saudi Arabia's religious police and charged with sorcery while visiting the country in May 2008. According to his lawyer, Sibat's only crime was the he used to predict the future on his show and give out advice to his audience.

The real threat to peace in the Middle East is the absence of freedom, democracy and transparency in the Arab and Islamic world.

But the media's obsession with Israel has diverted attention from other news that could also be seen as a threat to stability and peace:

In Cairo earlier this week, a court postponed the trial of three Egyptian Muslims accused of murdering six Coptic Christians and a police officer in southern Egypt last January. The murderers sprayed worshippers with bullets as they emerged from services on the eve of the Coptic Orthodox Christmas in the village of Nagga Hammadi. Egypt's Copts are an endangered minority. Over the past few decades, hundreds of thousands have emigrated, while many of those who are left behind are forced to convert to Islam every year to escape persecution.

In Baghdad earlier this week, Iraqi Christians took to the streets to protest against increased attacks and to demand government protection. The demonstration was held after nine Christians were killed in the past two weeks in the city of Mosul. The United Nations says more than 600 Christian families have fled the city since the recent attacks. Attacks on Christians in Iraq are not a new phenomenon. In 2004, five churches in Baghdad were bombed, and any Christians have since been kidnapped, murdered and maimed.

Earlier this month, more than 200 villagers, most of them Christians, were slaughtered by Muslims in a Nigerian town called Jos. The perpetrators were reported to have set homes on fire and slashed peoplke with knives and machetes.

In Rabat, Moroccan authorities last week expelled some 70 foreign Christian aid workers for allegedly trying to convert local Muslims. Many of those targeted in the nationwide crackdown cared for 33 Moroccan orphans at the Christian orphanage Village of Hope in the town of Ain Leuh. Morocco's government defended the decision by claiming that the Christians had violated the Islamic country's religious traditions and legislation banning proselytizing.

Earlier this month, more than 200 villagers, most of them Christians, were slaughtered by Muslims in a Nigerian a town called Jos. The perpetrators were reported to have set homes on fire and slashed people with knives and machetes.

In Sudan, Christians, especially those living in the southern part of the country continue to complain about persecution and murder.

In Lebanon, Christians continue to flee the country in search of a better life in North America and Europe.

In Bethlehem last week, the Palestinian Authority closed down the only Palestinian Christian TV station in the West Bank. The station, called Al-Mahed (Nativity) TV, had been operating for the past 14 years and was known as the only mouthpiece for the Christian minority in the Holy Land. The Palestinian Authority claimed that the station was shut because it did not have a proper license.

The Egyptians and Jordanian authorities who in the past few days denounced Israel's measures and policies have also been arresting activists who collected donations for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

Many newspaper readers and TV viewers in the US, Canada and Europe by now know where Ramat Shlomo is, although many Jews and Arabs had not heard about this relatively small and neighborhood until the announcement that was made during Biden's visit.

Ironically, the protests that followed have thus far led to a fresh wave of violence in Jerusalem and some parts of the West Bank, prompting Israel to impose temporary security restrictions on Palestinians wishing to pray at the Aqsa Mosque or visit Jerusalem.

 

Khaled Abu Toameh

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Obama, Israel, and Iran.

 

by  Edward Olshaker

 

Last Saturday, while the nation's attention was focused on health care, President Obama sent New Year greetings to Iran that contained a promise our ally Israel would envy.

 

Although he condemned the Iranian regime's belligerence toward the international community and murderous crackdown on pro-democracy activists, Obama pledged that his administration "does not meddle in Iran's internal affairs." (This echoed the non-interference theme of his celebrated Cairo speech, when he assured the Muslim world, "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone.")

 

Not long ago, the concept of "evenhandedness" between our democratic allies and terror-sponsoring regimes was widely considered a betrayal of our most fundamental values. Yet, incredible as it sounds, evenhandedness now would be an improvement. Imagine Prime Minister Netanyahu requesting of Obama, in their Tuesday meeting, that the US apply its "Iran standard" of no internal meddling to Israel's housing decisions. Imagine Obama seeing the logic and basic decency of such a request, and agreeing to it.

 

Evenhandedness would dictate that Obama greet Netanyahu by bowing down to him, as he did to the Saudi king, after which Netanyahu would ask for and receive a promise that "America does not meddle in Israel's internal affairs." Unfortunately, there is virtually no chance of obtaining the same assurance granted to Iran.

 

Yet it's also true that Obama made a profoundly valuable promise to Israel in 2008: "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Never mind that he reversed himself two days later; this was a solemn vow on a life-and-death issue, and as the President himself has emphasized, "Don't tell me words don't matter." Netanyahu and other Israeli officials could help their cause immeasurably by repeating Obama's pledge like a mantra in every speech and interview.

 

Obama's pledge to Iran on Saturday reveals the administration as unaware of -- or simply unconcerned about -- the inexplicable double standard it applies to Israel alone. Oddly enough, his next major order of business is likely to be the Schumer-Graham legislation to grant amnesty to millions of people who are "illegal settlers" in the truest sense of the term. Regardless of the pros and cons of granting them legal status, it is unlikely Obama will realize the irony when he leads the amnesty-for-illegals fight while continuing to condemn lawful construction in Jerusalem.

 

 

Edward Olshaker

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.