Monday, June 27, 2011
Is Islam Poised to Take Over?
Is Islam Poised to Take Over?
Posted By The Anti-Jihadist On June 8, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 98 Comments
The great 19th century British naturalist Charles Darwin’s singular contribution to the annals of science was his still provocative idea of “survival of the fittest.” In other words, the species best adopted to its environment tends to survive and thrive, while those less than ideally suited tend to perish. Furthermore, changing conditions can and do cause the emergence of newly dominant organisms. The fossil record is full of the remnants of species — dinosaurs, mammoths, dodo birds, et al — that were, for whatever reason, not up to the task of surviving in a changing world.
Darwin’s theory can also be extended to fields outside the natural sciences. Other entities also rise and fall in their respective realms depending on their ability to cope with a dynamic environment and how they deal with their competitors. For example, corporations succeed or fail based on how well they have ‘read’ their chosen marketplaces and operating conditions. What happens if companies are not able or no longer able to perform these functions well? Well, just ask anyone who used to work for Eastern Airlines or Air America Radio.
Other human organizations also must cope with the same dynamics. They must attract new members, care for and retain existing ones, address funding, resource and logistical issues, handle other administrative matters with reasonable levels of efficiency, manage their own culture/ideology over time, and effectively deal with competitors.
Islam is a belief system as well as an organization, and it too faces these issues. Whatever can be said about Islam’s supposed merits, Islam works. By ‘works’, I mean that Islam has proven itself to be rather effective in recruiting or adding new members, and dealing with competing belief systems. Islam manages these and other functions, simply put, through coercion, intimidation, fanaticism, deception and violence. Muslims, once ‘born into’ or converted to the belief system, cannot leave under pain of death. Other belief systems that Islam bumps up against are mislead, oppressed, exploited, marginalized, or outright annihilated, as the followers of Zoroaster in Persia, Buddha in Afghanistan, or YHWH in Arabia could readily attest to. If they could still testify to anything, that is. Islam’s murderous Jihad, having utterly liquidated all of them, has relegated many of its competitors to the dusty and forgotten pages of history.
By accident of geology, many Muslim nations sit on top of vast quantities of oil, which requires little processing, is in high demand, and thus can be sold at vast profit. This not only takes care of fundraising, but also finances additional growth and offensive operations (information warfare, lawfare, ‘martyrdom’ operations, etc.) against competing ideologies. Such sales also have the added bonus — for Islam of course — of draining the coffers of non Muslims.
Is Islam fated to dominate the world by out-muscling or destroying all others in its path? The followers of Mohammed can certainly be encouraged by the historical record. Wherever Islam invades, it conquers and rules supreme. Half of the Hindu world, the Buddhist states of Central and Southeast Asia, the vast majority of Jews and Christians in Asia Minor, North Africa and the Middle East…all destroyed utterly by the sword of Mohammed and ruled by Muslims to this day. Only two major territorial setbacks for Islam can be found in its 14 centuries of existence– the Reconquista (the Christian-led reconquest) of Spain, completed in the late 15th century, and the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1947. And theUmmah — the global gang of believers — has every reason to believe that these two setbacks are only temporary.
I would love nothing better than to be proven wrong, but Islam, with its murderously simple totalitarian ideology, contemptibly ruthless methods, and enfeebled opposition, appears to be winning the survival of the fittest. Muslims, of course, would see this as divine providence, but the reality is far less sanguine — a global ‘victory’ for Islam would amount to a catastrophe, nothing less than a ‘nakba’ for all of humanity.
Unlike the West, the Islamic World, has a surplus of manpower — a by-product of polygamy and the banning of birth control. While the West struggles with recession and unsustainable government entitlement programs, the Believers also possess trillions in oil-funded capital. They are more than ever confident in their belief system — that it is destined to rule the world. Why should they doubt it, with it coming true before our eyes?
This must be avoided. Whatever the price.The Anti-Jihadist is the pseudonym of a counter-jihad writer, activist and critic of Islam who resides in a majority Muslim country. His work can also be found at Jihad Watch, Infidel Bloggers Allianceand Pedestrian Infidel.Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.comURL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/08/is-islam-poised-to-take-over/
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Islam's unholy trinity: Qu'ran Sunnah & Hadith.
One key element in Islamic doctrine is the denial of God the Father, Son & The Holy Ghost. Since the inception of Islam, Christianity along with Judaism have had a tremendous influence on Mohammed's teachings. Yet as Mohammad found initial rejection in Medina to his fantasy of being a prophet, his self serving "visions" allowed him to develop an entirely new approach to expand what he had already begun: Violent Conquest. The entire Judea-Christian identity, while beginning to emulate it, Mohammad chose to decimate it. And adherents to Islam, to this day, are merely pursuing the elements of their own unholy trinity: Qu'ran Sunnah & Hadith.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
PRESS RELEASE: Letter from a Serviceman to Dr. Terry Jones
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 10, 2011
MEDIA CONTACT: 352-371-2487 or 352-871-2680 (Stephanie Sapp) or INFO@STANDUPAMERICANOW.ORG
LETTER FROM A U.S. SERVICEMAN, April 9, 2011; 1:01pm
Rev. Terry Jones,
I am an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces currently serving in Afghanistan. I want to write you and personally thank you for standing up and using your rights as a U.S. citizen to express your views under our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. When people are too afraid, too pressured, or just don't care enough to use their rights they allow servicemembers to give their lives for nothing. More than anything else, not knowing and not using their rights is the most un-American act ever committed by a U.S. citizen.
Many countries do not believe in free speech even though it is a guaranteed right given to all their citizens. In the U.K., speech is only free as long as it doesn’t offend anyone or contradict what those is power want you to say. Had you burned the Quran in the U.K. you surely would have been put in jail. In Afghanistan, speech is only free as long as it doesn’t violate the Quran, which, according to their constitution, is the highest law of the land and no law can be made above it. If you were in Afghanistan, you and the 12 people who acted as a jury during the Quran trial would have been put to death for your actions. Neither of these countries protects their citizens’ freedom of speech or their right to express themselves.
Now, I have been keeping a close watch on the situation from here in country in regards to the actions to burn a Quran at Dove World Outreach Center on March 20. Given what I am about to later in this letter, you and others will understand why I can write to you and say I feel in no more danger now than I did before the Quran was burned. I have also been keeping a close eye on popular opinion of what people are saying about those actions, and I am very happy to say that the people in America have been largely supporting your rights.
Major media outlets have been editorializing their hard news stories to twist the facts and describe you in the most unfavorable ways possible. Some of this is political posturing by news outlets is because they are afraid of people or concerned for the lives of servicemembers here in Afghanistan and the backlash of violence they perceive has come from your actions. Some are trying to isolate you in hopes of reducing that backlash. Others have very unhealthy agendas. But let me share some facts with you, facts you already know but those who read this letter may not know. And maybe, coming from a servicemember here on the ground in the fight, people may listen just a little better.
Here in Afghanistan, senior military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, commander, International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, have predicted for months now that the radical insurgents were planning a strong spring offensive that was expected to start in late March/early April of this year.
Furthermore, Afghan provincial governors, Afghan military and police generals, as well as coalition senior officials have all stated that the radical insurgents are using the peaceful protestors as human shields. Official reports of the events indicate that a relatively small number of radical insurgents are high-jacking the protests for their own twisted goals. An example is the protest where 4 Nepalese guards were murdered. This protest was attended by approximately 2000 peaceful protestors and high-jacked by about 15 radical insurgents.
These insurgents have had the same goals since long before the events of September 11, 2001 – to kill, steal, and destroy. They would have carried out these actions regardless of whether or not the Quran was burned; the burning of the Quran served only to ignite protests which the insurgents cowardly used to shield themselves. The insurgents knew that Nepalese soldiers are forbidden by their superiors from defending themselves against a civilian crowd, even if their life is in danger. And they used this fact to their advantage. While this unnerving idea that a person doesn’t have the right to self-defense is foreign to many Americans, it is very common among our coalition partners whom I have to trust my life to daily.
Now people have made many comparisons to you and to your actions, trying to describe how the actions at the Dove World Outreach Center on March 20th were wrong and illegal. I have heard people say what you did amounts to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. To them I would say that your actions in no way gave Muslims any reason to believe that their life was in immediate danger. Other peoples say those actions were akin to handing a murderer a loaded gun knowing full well that the murderer would immediately use that gun. To them I would say that they are assuming that Muslims are murders and I know from personal experience that is the farthest thing from the truth.
The radical insurgents who carried out these dastardly acts to murder innocent people, burn their own government’s buildings, and destroy their friends’ private property are not the same people who were angry over the burning of the Quran. If they were, the same acts of violence would have happened all over the world, not just in Afghanistan. And even if they are, they are people – not animals – with a will and a conscience. They had a choice to control their anger or let it control them. Their lack of self control and anger management was the direct cause of those deaths.
Now the burning of any symbol – flag, book, effigy or other – I believe is a poor method of communication. But it is a method. And it was a method you felt necessary to bring attention to the problems caused in the name of Allah through the Muslim religion. Your four-hour trial brought many of these problems to light. Let me share with your readers a few more of those problems I have heard about and encountered during my time here in Afghanistan.
Children have had their hands and feet forced into boiling water as punishment for disobeying their parents. Women who are beaten by their husband and run away from him are later caught and thrown into prison; there are approximately 400 women currently in the Afghan prisons for this reason. People of both genders have been wrongfully imprisoned and forced into arranged marriages at very young ages, often as part of a deal. These are just a few more in addition to all the many crimes against humanity that were brought to light during the trial at Dover World Outreach Center on March 20, 2011.
To the readers, please do not get the wrong impression of all Muslims. Just like Americans, many Muslims are very peace loving, good-hearted people. But there is a radical extreme group among them that feel it is their right and responsibility to force their views and will on others. The defense of individual rights in Afghanistan is paramount – but it must start at home in the States.
Servicemembers risk their lives to defend the rights you enjoy as Americans. That risk, and the deaths of everyone who has given their lives to defend those rights is for nothing if you are too afraid, too pressured, or too ignorant to use your rights and defend others who use their rights. If you believe you are supporting the troops, then use the rights we are dying to give you. If you don’t, then we are dying for nothing. Not using your rights is the most un-American thing anyone can do for their country.
Please financially support us as we continue our stand against radical Islam:
www.standupamericanow.org
You can also PARTNER with Stand Up America Now by making a monthly donation. DONATE HERE
Or donations may be mailed to:
5200 NW 43rd St
Ste. 102 #188
Gainesville, FL 32606-4486
United States
Phone: 352-371-2487
Fax: 352-371-6511
Email: info@standupamericanow.org
APRIL 10, 2011
MEDIA CONTACT: 352-371-2487 or 352-871-2680 (Stephanie Sapp) or INFO@STANDUPAMERICANOW.ORG
LETTER FROM A U.S. SERVICEMAN, April 9, 2011; 1:01pm
Rev. Terry Jones,
I am an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces currently serving in Afghanistan. I want to write you and personally thank you for standing up and using your rights as a U.S. citizen to express your views under our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. When people are too afraid, too pressured, or just don't care enough to use their rights they allow servicemembers to give their lives for nothing. More than anything else, not knowing and not using their rights is the most un-American act ever committed by a U.S. citizen.
Many countries do not believe in free speech even though it is a guaranteed right given to all their citizens. In the U.K., speech is only free as long as it doesn’t offend anyone or contradict what those is power want you to say. Had you burned the Quran in the U.K. you surely would have been put in jail. In Afghanistan, speech is only free as long as it doesn’t violate the Quran, which, according to their constitution, is the highest law of the land and no law can be made above it. If you were in Afghanistan, you and the 12 people who acted as a jury during the Quran trial would have been put to death for your actions. Neither of these countries protects their citizens’ freedom of speech or their right to express themselves.
Now, I have been keeping a close watch on the situation from here in country in regards to the actions to burn a Quran at Dove World Outreach Center on March 20. Given what I am about to later in this letter, you and others will understand why I can write to you and say I feel in no more danger now than I did before the Quran was burned. I have also been keeping a close eye on popular opinion of what people are saying about those actions, and I am very happy to say that the people in America have been largely supporting your rights.
Major media outlets have been editorializing their hard news stories to twist the facts and describe you in the most unfavorable ways possible. Some of this is political posturing by news outlets is because they are afraid of people or concerned for the lives of servicemembers here in Afghanistan and the backlash of violence they perceive has come from your actions. Some are trying to isolate you in hopes of reducing that backlash. Others have very unhealthy agendas. But let me share some facts with you, facts you already know but those who read this letter may not know. And maybe, coming from a servicemember here on the ground in the fight, people may listen just a little better.
Here in Afghanistan, senior military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, commander, International Security Assistance Force/U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, have predicted for months now that the radical insurgents were planning a strong spring offensive that was expected to start in late March/early April of this year.
Furthermore, Afghan provincial governors, Afghan military and police generals, as well as coalition senior officials have all stated that the radical insurgents are using the peaceful protestors as human shields. Official reports of the events indicate that a relatively small number of radical insurgents are high-jacking the protests for their own twisted goals. An example is the protest where 4 Nepalese guards were murdered. This protest was attended by approximately 2000 peaceful protestors and high-jacked by about 15 radical insurgents.
These insurgents have had the same goals since long before the events of September 11, 2001 – to kill, steal, and destroy. They would have carried out these actions regardless of whether or not the Quran was burned; the burning of the Quran served only to ignite protests which the insurgents cowardly used to shield themselves. The insurgents knew that Nepalese soldiers are forbidden by their superiors from defending themselves against a civilian crowd, even if their life is in danger. And they used this fact to their advantage. While this unnerving idea that a person doesn’t have the right to self-defense is foreign to many Americans, it is very common among our coalition partners whom I have to trust my life to daily.
Now people have made many comparisons to you and to your actions, trying to describe how the actions at the Dove World Outreach Center on March 20th were wrong and illegal. I have heard people say what you did amounts to yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater. To them I would say that your actions in no way gave Muslims any reason to believe that their life was in immediate danger. Other peoples say those actions were akin to handing a murderer a loaded gun knowing full well that the murderer would immediately use that gun. To them I would say that they are assuming that Muslims are murders and I know from personal experience that is the farthest thing from the truth.
The radical insurgents who carried out these dastardly acts to murder innocent people, burn their own government’s buildings, and destroy their friends’ private property are not the same people who were angry over the burning of the Quran. If they were, the same acts of violence would have happened all over the world, not just in Afghanistan. And even if they are, they are people – not animals – with a will and a conscience. They had a choice to control their anger or let it control them. Their lack of self control and anger management was the direct cause of those deaths.
Now the burning of any symbol – flag, book, effigy or other – I believe is a poor method of communication. But it is a method. And it was a method you felt necessary to bring attention to the problems caused in the name of Allah through the Muslim religion. Your four-hour trial brought many of these problems to light. Let me share with your readers a few more of those problems I have heard about and encountered during my time here in Afghanistan.
Children have had their hands and feet forced into boiling water as punishment for disobeying their parents. Women who are beaten by their husband and run away from him are later caught and thrown into prison; there are approximately 400 women currently in the Afghan prisons for this reason. People of both genders have been wrongfully imprisoned and forced into arranged marriages at very young ages, often as part of a deal. These are just a few more in addition to all the many crimes against humanity that were brought to light during the trial at Dover World Outreach Center on March 20, 2011.
To the readers, please do not get the wrong impression of all Muslims. Just like Americans, many Muslims are very peace loving, good-hearted people. But there is a radical extreme group among them that feel it is their right and responsibility to force their views and will on others. The defense of individual rights in Afghanistan is paramount – but it must start at home in the States.
Servicemembers risk their lives to defend the rights you enjoy as Americans. That risk, and the deaths of everyone who has given their lives to defend those rights is for nothing if you are too afraid, too pressured, or too ignorant to use your rights and defend others who use their rights. If you believe you are supporting the troops, then use the rights we are dying to give you. If you don’t, then we are dying for nothing. Not using your rights is the most un-American thing anyone can do for their country.
Please financially support us as we continue our stand against radical Islam:
www.standupamericanow.org
You can also PARTNER with Stand Up America Now by making a monthly donation. DONATE HERE
Or donations may be mailed to:
5200 NW 43rd St
Ste. 102 #188
Gainesville, FL 32606-4486
United States
Phone: 352-371-2487
Fax: 352-371-6511
Email: info@standupamericanow.org
Saturday, November 13, 2010
The dilemma as I see it
I get informed these days primarily by two leading news broadcasts: First: Fox News for the secular complacent yet, honest and realistic media spin of world events. And second: Mosaic World News from the Middle East. The latter provided by Link TV, a leftist, Anti-Israel, Muslim Brotherhood supported, pro-Hamas network. Link TV proudly sees American forces fighting foreign wars as “occupation forces”. And of course in stride, Israel, as a mere entity, is “occupying” Arab Islamic conquest won soil. I myself am not of the secular complacent variety of Americans; therefore I see society through an apparent prism. This very prism is like a cage. I, like very few I’ve encountered in society, have seen America’s present decline into globalist intentions coming and have been warning of it long before 9/11. I feel fortunate to bear witness to what is coming yet, I see Constitutional America being consumed by a mere ideology, in all its political correctness towards Islam. Islam in all its present capacity will come to dominate America one day. I believe it’s practically destined to take place under the guise of a “solar flare”. Today’s popular media is already setting us up to accept what is coming as such. All that is required to deceive America into believing a solar flare destroyed our electrical infrastructure is for a rouge nuclear armed sub off a US coast to launch its payload skyward – EMP attack. In the blink of an eye, for no apparent reason, there goes everything we’ve relied on for the past century: Electricity. Months on end may pass. Rumors will abound about solar flares amongst the panicking masses taking to the streets. Islam is poised and ready for this occurrence. Islamic Clerics, Imams and Mullahs are already here in America to console the masses and to have the appearance that Islam is the solution. I am not unaware of what is forthcoming, yet I must say I am unprepared. I see a solution to finally eradicate the cultic ideology known as Islam. Yet I am unable to even attain an income today. Why? The time is drawing near; but what destiny awaits beyond? There is appropriate method that would discredit, delegitimize, defile and desecrate Islam today. No casualties involved either. All Islamic holy sites must be desecrated with pork and swine excrement. All previously adherent Muslims would recognize the lies their “prophet” taught them. Pork, according to Islamic teachings, has this potential! I believe this simple procedure must be adopted in order to finally eradicate an ideology that has oppressed, degraded and delegitimized females of our species for nearly two millennia! An ideology created by a madman to serve his own pathetic personal desires. Islam can and must be eradicated for the good of humanity.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Attack Evil To Defend Freedom
The Jews and Christians like to whine, complain, procrastinate, retreat in fear, huddle together like sheep. Our adversaries i.e. the Islamic inspired terrorists, Muslim leaders and even Muslim “allies” act with pride, insult the USA and West without fear, they are aggressive in tone and have no problem taking to the Middle East street in the tens of thousands and sometimes in the hundreds of thousands to show their anger and distain for us.
Is America not THE super power, is not Israel the military super power of the Middle East, so why do we act with such weakness when it comes to advancing Israel’s solid case against the lies and Nazi like propaganda? Why does America not advance its strength to advance freedom not just on the battlefield but also with good aggressive public relations strategies?
Even when a Jewish organization has the courage to actually issue some sort of Press release it usually is to complain about the behavior or actions of the enemy only to react to something they have said or done. Now we are complaining even more about our own government’s positions on the Middle East due to the pathetic weakness, appeasement as well as the bias against Israel.
To give you an example of this would be to point our recent Press release from the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Before I critique the ZOA let me say we mostly agree with their view and position on the Middle East and Israel, they are one of the few that have the courage to take a stand but what we disagree is the strategy they employ. The recent Press release was to complain about Obama’s double standard when it comes to dealing with the leader of Israel versus Arab and Muslim leaders, especially Karsai of Afghanistan. We agree with the point but this is typical of the “best” PR we have which is not the general way to approach the issue.
Israel and the Jewish community take a position of “We want peace.” While this is nice and admirable, it is not something the Arabs understand, nor will it gain the respect of the world. When it comes to winning the arguments you either have to make your case as a victim or you need to gain respect as a major power. The position of “We want peace” provides neither scenario. For a PR victory for Israel and for the USA diplomatic efforts internationally one needs to advance victimhood or honor, shame and appeasement never works. Hitler employed victimhood at the start and when he had the military power he advanced this instead, the Islamic leaders employ the exact same strategy.
The Jews suffering from the Holocaust used successful PR campaign from the suffering from the “illegals” and stories like the Exodus gained world opinion in favor of the reconstituting of Israel. The Arabs have learned that the similar story of victimhood is what works. They have stolen the Jews narrative with a lie of the created victimhood of the “Palestinian People” and have cynically used the propaganda and gained the upper hand in the PR when it comes to the Israeli Arab conflict, which they have changed to the “Israeli Palestinian” conflict. Muslims advance victimhood and employ terror to twist the West’s hand. Now Iran looks to flex its owner with the securing of nuclear bombs as a lever to blackmail the world.
The Jewish community both in Israel and the Diaspora are unwilling to attack the hatred that comes from the mosques and the media of the Middle East, they are afraid to have former Muslims advance their case because of political correctness. They act with fear and use “interfaith dialogue” which makes them feel good but all that does is provide the Muslims a platform to deceive and lie. I would equate the lies by the Imams with the music that was played and the soap provided by the Nazis before the Jews went into the gas chambers.
No arguments are put forward by our leaders in the USA and Israel against a Jew free Gaza or the West Bank that is always proposed by the Arabs. If the conflict is about sovereignty why do Jews have to leave Judea and Samaria on about 2-4% of the land they have built on? The only solution screamed by the Arabs is expulsion of the Jews from the land. I thought liberals Jew or non-Jew would be against such a racist position?
To win the PR war - advance your case, do not be afraid to be controversial, speak boldly the truth. The founders of Israel and the United states risked all for freedom, now is the time my fellow Jews and Americans advance the truth and to speak boldly, so that we can remain free.
Keith Davies
Director Walid Shoebat Foundation
Is America not THE super power, is not Israel the military super power of the Middle East, so why do we act with such weakness when it comes to advancing Israel’s solid case against the lies and Nazi like propaganda? Why does America not advance its strength to advance freedom not just on the battlefield but also with good aggressive public relations strategies?
Even when a Jewish organization has the courage to actually issue some sort of Press release it usually is to complain about the behavior or actions of the enemy only to react to something they have said or done. Now we are complaining even more about our own government’s positions on the Middle East due to the pathetic weakness, appeasement as well as the bias against Israel.
To give you an example of this would be to point our recent Press release from the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Before I critique the ZOA let me say we mostly agree with their view and position on the Middle East and Israel, they are one of the few that have the courage to take a stand but what we disagree is the strategy they employ. The recent Press release was to complain about Obama’s double standard when it comes to dealing with the leader of Israel versus Arab and Muslim leaders, especially Karsai of Afghanistan. We agree with the point but this is typical of the “best” PR we have which is not the general way to approach the issue.
Israel and the Jewish community take a position of “We want peace.” While this is nice and admirable, it is not something the Arabs understand, nor will it gain the respect of the world. When it comes to winning the arguments you either have to make your case as a victim or you need to gain respect as a major power. The position of “We want peace” provides neither scenario. For a PR victory for Israel and for the USA diplomatic efforts internationally one needs to advance victimhood or honor, shame and appeasement never works. Hitler employed victimhood at the start and when he had the military power he advanced this instead, the Islamic leaders employ the exact same strategy.
The Jews suffering from the Holocaust used successful PR campaign from the suffering from the “illegals” and stories like the Exodus gained world opinion in favor of the reconstituting of Israel. The Arabs have learned that the similar story of victimhood is what works. They have stolen the Jews narrative with a lie of the created victimhood of the “Palestinian People” and have cynically used the propaganda and gained the upper hand in the PR when it comes to the Israeli Arab conflict, which they have changed to the “Israeli Palestinian” conflict. Muslims advance victimhood and employ terror to twist the West’s hand. Now Iran looks to flex its owner with the securing of nuclear bombs as a lever to blackmail the world.
The Jewish community both in Israel and the Diaspora are unwilling to attack the hatred that comes from the mosques and the media of the Middle East, they are afraid to have former Muslims advance their case because of political correctness. They act with fear and use “interfaith dialogue” which makes them feel good but all that does is provide the Muslims a platform to deceive and lie. I would equate the lies by the Imams with the music that was played and the soap provided by the Nazis before the Jews went into the gas chambers.
No arguments are put forward by our leaders in the USA and Israel against a Jew free Gaza or the West Bank that is always proposed by the Arabs. If the conflict is about sovereignty why do Jews have to leave Judea and Samaria on about 2-4% of the land they have built on? The only solution screamed by the Arabs is expulsion of the Jews from the land. I thought liberals Jew or non-Jew would be against such a racist position?
To win the PR war - advance your case, do not be afraid to be controversial, speak boldly the truth. The founders of Israel and the United states risked all for freedom, now is the time my fellow Jews and Americans advance the truth and to speak boldly, so that we can remain free.
Keith Davies
Director Walid Shoebat Foundation
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Two Models for the Encounter Between Islam and the West
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/01/two-models-for-encounter-between-islam.html
There are essentially two models for the current encounter between Islam and the West. The Clash of Civilizations, the first model is held by a narrow slice of the population in First World countries, and an even smaller slice within the political and academic world. This model holds that we are experiencing a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. A clash of civilizations resulting from the desire of Muslims to create a global civilization based on their religion and culture, by displacing all competing civilizations, primarily (but not limited to) Western Civilization.
The second model is the Assimilationist Model, this model is the most widely held one, not only on the left, but among many on the right as well. The Assimilationist Model holds that the tensions between Muslims and the West, both in the West and in the Muslim world, are the product of the incomplete assimilation of both sides into a global society.
Under the Assimilationist Model, clashes in Europe or terrorism in America result from a failure by their host countries to properly assimilate Muslims within their borders. This "failure to assimilate" results primarily from Western racism, ignorance about Islam, and disrespect for Muslim values, leading to economic and social injustice. This economic and social injustice is then said to marginalize Muslim moderate leaders, who are more prepared to assimilate into their host society, and strengthens Muslim extremists.
On a global scale, violence from the Muslim world is said to be produced by the failure of First World countries to respect and adapt to Muslim culture and religion, as well as the left's old standbys of racism, and economic and social injustice. With the same results as on local level. Muslim extremists are strengthened, Muslim moderates are weakened, and stuff blows up all because we didn't spend enough time learning about other cultures.
Both locally and globally, the Assimilationist Model's prescription for curing terrorist ills is the same. For the affected countries to learn about the values of their attackers and strive to accommodate them. To provide financial benefits and various forms of affirmative action to neutralize Islamic grievances and show respect by promoting and normalizing Islam, both locally and globally. This will harmonize Muslims and non-Muslims together within the emerging global society. And then everyone can join hands and live peacefully together under the enlightened rule of a vast global bureaucracy.
While the Assimilationist Model emerged out of attempts by First World countries to actually assimilate Muslims, in its present state it is essentially a prescription for what is at best mutual assimilation, and what is at worst, a Muslim takeover. And what is worse, the Assimilationist Model is the dominant model used by politicians, academics, business leaders and the political and intellectual elite of almost every society currently targeted by Islam.
And there is a reason for that. Where the Clash of Civilizations model presents a global showdown in which not only is there no avoiding a global conflict, but that conflict will also disrupt emerging trade, international cooperation and global governance mechanisms-- the Assimilationist Model is an essentially optimistic one that says that if we all "buckle down" and make some cultural sacrifices, censor our cartoons, pay fealty to the cultural importance of Mosque and Koran, and avoid eating in public around Ramadan time, in exchange we'll benefit from from globalism abroad and multiculturalism at home (read as a dirt cheap workforce that can help fund our already bankrupt socialist systems). It's no wonder that the Assimilationist Model is so popular among the ruling elite, since it assumes that with a little cultural tinkering, everyone can be made happy. Even if it's under Sharia law. The details don't really matter to them, only the big picture does.
The different viewpoints inherent in these two models, the Clash of Civilizations and the Assimilationist Model underlie virtually all of the debate going on about Islam and the West. And what is so insidious about the Assimilationist Model is that it represents the "easy shortcut" in which societies begin trying to win over Muslims, and by the time they realize it isn't working they see no other alternative short of civil war for dealing with the problem, and this only reinforces their commitment to the Assimilationist Model as the only remaining option.
It is easy to understand why the Assimilationist Model is so dominant, given two choices, most people will choose the "easy way" out. Most people will also try to choose the nicer one, in order to feel better about themselves. The Assimilationist Model offers a minimum of sacrifice up front. There's no need to fight wars or contemplate international alliances against a rising evil. All you really have to do is run some ads, meet with some Muslim leaders, address their concerns and you're done for the day. It seems easy and at first it is. But then the demands get worse and worse, and even when you address them the violence increase. And you're caught inside the trap, and the only way to get out is chew your own leg off, on a national scale. But how many modern leaders are prepared to do that? And so they keep repeating the same futile gestures, putting more and more on the table, in the hopes that at some point the Assimilationist Model will kick in and their society will be saved. Of course the only thing that finally kicks in, is Sharia law and another addition to the Ummah, once the tipping point has been reached.
The difference between the Assimilationist Model and the Clash of Civilizations is the difference between a slot machine that asks for a quarter and a training course in electrical engineering that asks for ten thousand dollars. The first seems tempting, because it asks for very little up front and offers a huge reward. While the other asks for a lot up front and doesn't offer nearly as much down the road, and requires a lot of hard work. And much of the West's political leadership is no longer geared up for sacrifices and hard work, but for socialist bread and circuses, and the Assimilationist Model fits nicely into that mold.
But the intellectual failure of the Assimilationist Model goes even further back, because it's really the model that the West adopted for use against Communist and other far left wing workers' movements, which focused on depriving them of their base by improving conditions for workers. Since then the First World has adapted that same model for use in pacifying virtually any form of dangerous social discontent. But there's a basic disconnect between applying a model meant to deal with an ideological threat to a religious and cultural war. Because while Islam functions at the ideological level, its primary appeal functions at a cultural, national and religious level.
Islam is not simply a manifestation of discontent due to economic or social barriers, but the Manifest Destiny of Muslims in building a global Caliphate. It cannot be waved away with aid money, affirmative action or even showing respect for Islam. The Assimilationist Model is based on the fallacy that Islamism can be neutralized by coddling Muslims. It is profoundly and deeply wrong in this regard, because it fails to understand the power and appeal of Islam. But the fault lies in the left which following its Marxist model of class warfare has coded every social movement as coming in response to economic inequality. And the level of acceptance for the Assimilationist Model demonstrates the level of penetration by the basic ideas behind Marxism... even when those ideas were used to counter the rise of Marxist groups.
The left's intellectual dominance in the First World has wedded its political elite to a worldview in which local and global conflicts can be reduced to either greed on the part of developed nations and groups, or outrage against economic inequality by undeveloped nations and groups. The latter half of the 20th century has overlain those ideas with dollops of tolerance and respect, but the underlying idea remains the same. That you resolve a conflict by divide the Haves from the Have Nots, and assuming the latter can be appeased by remedying the wrongs done to them by the Haves.
The "Have and the Have Not" formula so vital to the Marxist worldview is so thorough embedded that it cannot envision actual Islamist motives as anything except as an insanity that can be pacified by weaning away their followers with economic, social and cultural incentives, or the inventions of intolerant conservative elements within their own society who are seeking to disrupt their attempt at national and global harmony.
This is why the Assimilationist Model has become a fact of life, whether it's in Europe, where governments seek to charm Muslims by showing them respect, or America, where the government is planning to spend billions to lure away Taliban fighters from their machine guns, to Israel, where the endless peace process continues dangling a limited state before terrorists who remain committed to destroying their country.
Because it is easy, because it accommodates the facile worldview of the left and provides minimum disruption to their plans for a global order-- the Assimilationist Model remains very hard to shake. Its optimism and humanism makes it seem morally indefensible to its followers. But its fatal flaw, like that of all utopian delusions, is that it is completely unreal.
The core meaning of utopia is a place that cannot exist. The Assimilationist Model too posits a mythical place brought to life by the ideological will and intellectual laziness of a civilization at war, but refusing to acknowledge it. The rate of global Muslim violence has been steadily increasing, and while the proponents of the Assimilationist Model will always defend it by finding new sources to blame for growing Muslim outrage, almost as quickly as Osama bin Laden's videotaped ghost does (US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Global Warming, Western Culture, the WTO), this sort of intellectual sloppiness cannot even begin to explain why Muslim violence is not limited to the West, why it is not limited to developed countries, why in fact its only distinctive characteristic is the Muslim violence itself.
The Clash of Civilizations remains the only rational explanation and prescription for action. But it is also a difficult one, both practically and morally for many people to accept. But understanding the other side, requires understanding the flaws of the Assimilationist Model. For it is by understanding the nature of another's delusion, that we can begin to show them the truth.
There are essentially two models for the current encounter between Islam and the West. The Clash of Civilizations, the first model is held by a narrow slice of the population in First World countries, and an even smaller slice within the political and academic world. This model holds that we are experiencing a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. A clash of civilizations resulting from the desire of Muslims to create a global civilization based on their religion and culture, by displacing all competing civilizations, primarily (but not limited to) Western Civilization.
The second model is the Assimilationist Model, this model is the most widely held one, not only on the left, but among many on the right as well. The Assimilationist Model holds that the tensions between Muslims and the West, both in the West and in the Muslim world, are the product of the incomplete assimilation of both sides into a global society.
Under the Assimilationist Model, clashes in Europe or terrorism in America result from a failure by their host countries to properly assimilate Muslims within their borders. This "failure to assimilate" results primarily from Western racism, ignorance about Islam, and disrespect for Muslim values, leading to economic and social injustice. This economic and social injustice is then said to marginalize Muslim moderate leaders, who are more prepared to assimilate into their host society, and strengthens Muslim extremists.
On a global scale, violence from the Muslim world is said to be produced by the failure of First World countries to respect and adapt to Muslim culture and religion, as well as the left's old standbys of racism, and economic and social injustice. With the same results as on local level. Muslim extremists are strengthened, Muslim moderates are weakened, and stuff blows up all because we didn't spend enough time learning about other cultures.
Both locally and globally, the Assimilationist Model's prescription for curing terrorist ills is the same. For the affected countries to learn about the values of their attackers and strive to accommodate them. To provide financial benefits and various forms of affirmative action to neutralize Islamic grievances and show respect by promoting and normalizing Islam, both locally and globally. This will harmonize Muslims and non-Muslims together within the emerging global society. And then everyone can join hands and live peacefully together under the enlightened rule of a vast global bureaucracy.
While the Assimilationist Model emerged out of attempts by First World countries to actually assimilate Muslims, in its present state it is essentially a prescription for what is at best mutual assimilation, and what is at worst, a Muslim takeover. And what is worse, the Assimilationist Model is the dominant model used by politicians, academics, business leaders and the political and intellectual elite of almost every society currently targeted by Islam.
And there is a reason for that. Where the Clash of Civilizations model presents a global showdown in which not only is there no avoiding a global conflict, but that conflict will also disrupt emerging trade, international cooperation and global governance mechanisms-- the Assimilationist Model is an essentially optimistic one that says that if we all "buckle down" and make some cultural sacrifices, censor our cartoons, pay fealty to the cultural importance of Mosque and Koran, and avoid eating in public around Ramadan time, in exchange we'll benefit from from globalism abroad and multiculturalism at home (read as a dirt cheap workforce that can help fund our already bankrupt socialist systems). It's no wonder that the Assimilationist Model is so popular among the ruling elite, since it assumes that with a little cultural tinkering, everyone can be made happy. Even if it's under Sharia law. The details don't really matter to them, only the big picture does.
The different viewpoints inherent in these two models, the Clash of Civilizations and the Assimilationist Model underlie virtually all of the debate going on about Islam and the West. And what is so insidious about the Assimilationist Model is that it represents the "easy shortcut" in which societies begin trying to win over Muslims, and by the time they realize it isn't working they see no other alternative short of civil war for dealing with the problem, and this only reinforces their commitment to the Assimilationist Model as the only remaining option.
It is easy to understand why the Assimilationist Model is so dominant, given two choices, most people will choose the "easy way" out. Most people will also try to choose the nicer one, in order to feel better about themselves. The Assimilationist Model offers a minimum of sacrifice up front. There's no need to fight wars or contemplate international alliances against a rising evil. All you really have to do is run some ads, meet with some Muslim leaders, address their concerns and you're done for the day. It seems easy and at first it is. But then the demands get worse and worse, and even when you address them the violence increase. And you're caught inside the trap, and the only way to get out is chew your own leg off, on a national scale. But how many modern leaders are prepared to do that? And so they keep repeating the same futile gestures, putting more and more on the table, in the hopes that at some point the Assimilationist Model will kick in and their society will be saved. Of course the only thing that finally kicks in, is Sharia law and another addition to the Ummah, once the tipping point has been reached.
The difference between the Assimilationist Model and the Clash of Civilizations is the difference between a slot machine that asks for a quarter and a training course in electrical engineering that asks for ten thousand dollars. The first seems tempting, because it asks for very little up front and offers a huge reward. While the other asks for a lot up front and doesn't offer nearly as much down the road, and requires a lot of hard work. And much of the West's political leadership is no longer geared up for sacrifices and hard work, but for socialist bread and circuses, and the Assimilationist Model fits nicely into that mold.
But the intellectual failure of the Assimilationist Model goes even further back, because it's really the model that the West adopted for use against Communist and other far left wing workers' movements, which focused on depriving them of their base by improving conditions for workers. Since then the First World has adapted that same model for use in pacifying virtually any form of dangerous social discontent. But there's a basic disconnect between applying a model meant to deal with an ideological threat to a religious and cultural war. Because while Islam functions at the ideological level, its primary appeal functions at a cultural, national and religious level.
Islam is not simply a manifestation of discontent due to economic or social barriers, but the Manifest Destiny of Muslims in building a global Caliphate. It cannot be waved away with aid money, affirmative action or even showing respect for Islam. The Assimilationist Model is based on the fallacy that Islamism can be neutralized by coddling Muslims. It is profoundly and deeply wrong in this regard, because it fails to understand the power and appeal of Islam. But the fault lies in the left which following its Marxist model of class warfare has coded every social movement as coming in response to economic inequality. And the level of acceptance for the Assimilationist Model demonstrates the level of penetration by the basic ideas behind Marxism... even when those ideas were used to counter the rise of Marxist groups.
The left's intellectual dominance in the First World has wedded its political elite to a worldview in which local and global conflicts can be reduced to either greed on the part of developed nations and groups, or outrage against economic inequality by undeveloped nations and groups. The latter half of the 20th century has overlain those ideas with dollops of tolerance and respect, but the underlying idea remains the same. That you resolve a conflict by divide the Haves from the Have Nots, and assuming the latter can be appeased by remedying the wrongs done to them by the Haves.
The "Have and the Have Not" formula so vital to the Marxist worldview is so thorough embedded that it cannot envision actual Islamist motives as anything except as an insanity that can be pacified by weaning away their followers with economic, social and cultural incentives, or the inventions of intolerant conservative elements within their own society who are seeking to disrupt their attempt at national and global harmony.
This is why the Assimilationist Model has become a fact of life, whether it's in Europe, where governments seek to charm Muslims by showing them respect, or America, where the government is planning to spend billions to lure away Taliban fighters from their machine guns, to Israel, where the endless peace process continues dangling a limited state before terrorists who remain committed to destroying their country.
Because it is easy, because it accommodates the facile worldview of the left and provides minimum disruption to their plans for a global order-- the Assimilationist Model remains very hard to shake. Its optimism and humanism makes it seem morally indefensible to its followers. But its fatal flaw, like that of all utopian delusions, is that it is completely unreal.
The core meaning of utopia is a place that cannot exist. The Assimilationist Model too posits a mythical place brought to life by the ideological will and intellectual laziness of a civilization at war, but refusing to acknowledge it. The rate of global Muslim violence has been steadily increasing, and while the proponents of the Assimilationist Model will always defend it by finding new sources to blame for growing Muslim outrage, almost as quickly as Osama bin Laden's videotaped ghost does (US Troops in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Global Warming, Western Culture, the WTO), this sort of intellectual sloppiness cannot even begin to explain why Muslim violence is not limited to the West, why it is not limited to developed countries, why in fact its only distinctive characteristic is the Muslim violence itself.
The Clash of Civilizations remains the only rational explanation and prescription for action. But it is also a difficult one, both practically and morally for many people to accept. But understanding the other side, requires understanding the flaws of the Assimilationist Model. For it is by understanding the nature of another's delusion, that we can begin to show them the truth.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
The Israel of YHWH
Hat tip to Scot Dryer of profoundprophecy.com
It is important to pray and desire the peace of Jerusalem all while realizing it is the Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace, Y'shua) that will bring the peace. There are really two competing "laws" that are diametrically opposed to one another. One will prevail and one will fail. The teachings and instructions of YHWH, enforced by His Son will prevail over the traditions of men and the teachings of the adversary. Whether lies found in Christendom, Islam or Judaism...a lie is a lie and the adversary is the founder of such.
One of the hot topics as many of you know is The Temple Mount. Who does this chunk of real estate belong to? It belongs to Abba and He set as stewards over it, the Israel of God. Immediately, I begin to ruffle feathers with that statement as opposed to just, Israel. What do I mean? Israel vs. "the Israel of YHWH" can mean two very different things. On the one hand we have natural descendants of the 12 tribes and on the other we have grafted branches (or gentiles that have joined themselves to YHWH, keeping the feasts, sabbaths & commandments as they are led by the Spirit). Consider the parable:
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
As I was pondering this little parable, it dawned on me...the three types of people to whom "the parables" are addressed. Parables are for the believer and all believers fall into one of THREE categories.
1.Believers from Judah - Southern Kingdom
2.Believers from Israel - Northern Kingdom
3.Grafted in believers from "the nations" or former Gentiles
The "flipside" is also important in that each of these groups also has those who are "cut off" in unbelief and as a result are not "the Israel of YHWH." So Paul's enigmatic quotation "All of Israel will be saved" is 100% spot on...because all who ARE saved ARE ISRAEL, the Israel of God. This also explains Paul's riddle regarding the following statement:
Notice the "of Israel" statement...He is referring to natural branches that have been "CUT OFF" because of not believing or not abiding in the vine. This also explains the former verse:
Notice "the adoption" pertaineth to Israel. Wait a minute!!! I thought Israel was the "heir by birth," NOT SO! It is by adoption or the rebirth and "grafting into" the commonwealth.
I hope this little nugget is a blessing.
One of the hot topics as many of you know is The Temple Mount. Who does this chunk of real estate belong to? It belongs to Abba and He set as stewards over it, the Israel of God. Immediately, I begin to ruffle feathers with that statement as opposed to just, Israel. What do I mean? Israel vs. "the Israel of YHWH" can mean two very different things. On the one hand we have natural descendants of the 12 tribes and on the other we have grafted branches (or gentiles that have joined themselves to YHWH, keeping the feasts, sabbaths & commandments as they are led by the Spirit). Consider the parable:
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
As I was pondering this little parable, it dawned on me...the three types of people to whom "the parables" are addressed. Parables are for the believer and all believers fall into one of THREE categories.
1.Believers from Judah - Southern Kingdom
2.Believers from Israel - Northern Kingdom
3.Grafted in believers from "the nations" or former Gentiles
The "flipside" is also important in that each of these groups also has those who are "cut off" in unbelief and as a result are not "the Israel of YHWH." So Paul's enigmatic quotation "All of Israel will be saved" is 100% spot on...because all who ARE saved ARE ISRAEL, the Israel of God. This also explains Paul's riddle regarding the following statement:
"For they are
not all Israel, which are of Israel" - Romans 9:6Notice the "of Israel" statement...He is referring to natural branches that have been "CUT OFF" because of not believing or not abiding in the vine. This also explains the former verse:
Who are Israelites; to whom pertainieth
the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; - Romans 9:4Notice "the adoption" pertaineth to Israel. Wait a minute!!! I thought Israel was the "heir by birth," NOT SO! It is by adoption or the rebirth and "grafting into" the commonwealth.
I hope this little nugget is a blessing.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Islamic Christianophobia: The world ignores the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world.
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/2010/January08/0862.html
In Egypt, seven Coptic Christians were murdered yesterday by a Muslim gunman as they filed out of a midnight mass in the southern town of Nag Hamadi. In Pakistan, more than 100 Christian homes were ransacked by a Muslim mob last July in the village of Bahmaniwala. In Iraq that same month, seven Christian churches were bombed in Baghdad and Mosul in the space of three days.
Such atrocities—and there are scores of other examples—are grim reminders that when it comes to persecution, few groups have suffered as grievously as Christians in Muslim lands. Fewer still have suffered with such little attention paid. Now a new report from the non-profit ministry, Open Doors USA, shines a light on the scale of oppression.
In its annual World Watch List, Open Doors ranks eight Muslim countries among the 10 worst persecutors of Christians. The other two, North Korea (which tops the list) and Laos, are communist states. Of the 50 countries on the list, 35 are majority Muslim.
Take Iran, which this year ranks as the world's second-worst persecutor of Christians. Open Doors reports that in 2009 the Islamic Republic arrested 85 Christians, many of whom were also mistreated in prison. In 2008, some 50 Christians were arrested and one Christian couple was beaten to death by security officials. At least part of the reason for the mistreatment appears to be the result of Muslim conversions to Christianity: Apostasy carries a mandatory death sentence in Iran.
In Saudi Arabia (No. 3), all non-Muslim public worship is forbidden. The state forbids the building of any type of non-Muslim house of worship, and Christian expatriates in the kingdom must practice their faith in private. The same goes in the Maldives, where the report notes that all citizens must be Muslim; "the handful of indigenous Christians are forced to believe in complete secrecy." Similarly in Mauritania, conversion to Christianity or any other religions is formally punishable by death.
Little wonder, then, that once-thriving Christian communities in the Muslim world have now largely voted with their feet by fleeing to safer havens, often in Europe or the United States. That's true even in religiously important communities such as Bethlehem, where the Christian majority has largely fled since the arrival in the 1990s of Yasser Arafat's repressive government and the ascendancy of Islamist groups such as Hamas. By contrast, Christians practice their religion freely and openly in Israel, just a few miles distant.
It might seem natural that at least some attention would be paid in the West to the plight of these Christians. Instead, attention seems endlessly focused on "Islamophobia," not least at the U.N.'s misnamed Human Rights Council. In November, much of Europe went berserk over the Swiss referendum to ban the construction of minarets (though not of mosques). But the West's tolerance for its large Muslim populations stands in sharp contrast to the Muslim world's bigotry and persecution of its own religious minorities. That's a fact that ought to be borne in mind the next time Westerners berate themselves about their own supposed "intolerance."
Questions for Every Muslim
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2009/12/questions-for-every-muslim.html
The following was written by Bill Warner and originally published December 14, 2009
WHEN YOU STUDY the incident of Major Hasan at Fort Hood, you realize that there were some questions that needed to have been asked. But, no one knew what to ask, since the wrong questions might seem, well, politically incorrect. No one wants to be politically incorrect. We don't want to offend.
If you look around you will find that no one is asking any Muslims hard questions. Never mind the Major Hasan types, no one asks questions to the Muslim at work. It turns out that there are many questions that each and every Muslim should be asked. These are simple ones that deal with the core of Islam. Every Muslim knows the answers.
"Do you believe that the Koran is perfect?" This is not offensive. Muslims must believe that the Koran is perfect, without error. They also believe that it is eternal and universal. Most of all, it came from the lips of Mohammed.
"Is Mohammed the ideal Muslim? Should Muslims pattern their life after Mohammed?" Again, don't worry that Muslims will find this awkward. Mohammed is admired, looked up to, and idealized. He is the perfect father, husband, friend, warrior, wise elder and best companion that could be.
These questions establish the Islam of the believer. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect, and Mohammed is the ideal human.
Islam is only partially based on the Koran. Far more of a Muslim's life is governed by Mohammed than the Koran and Allah. Why is this so important? The practical way to understand Islam and what Muslims believe and think is to know about Mohammed. This is very good news. Anyone can understand Mohammed's life.
However, once you get to know Mohammed, the perfect Muslim, Islam becomes problematic. From the first days of being a prophet Mohammed not only preached a better way of life, but he attacked all those who did not believe him. He created a new type of human being called the kafir, usually called unbeliever, but this is not an accurate translation. A kafir is the worst person in the world; an unbeliever is just someone who does not believe. A kafir can be mocked, deceived, tortured, enslaved, murdered, robbed, raped, and plotted against. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.
Now we are ready to ask a Muslim another question. "Am I a kafir?"
The only answer is yes, but that is not the answer you will get. If you are a Christian you will be told no, you are a person of the Book. That sounds nice, but if you don't believe that both Jesus and Mohammed were the prophets of Allah and that the Gospels are false, then you are a Christian kafir. They also might say that you are a non-Muslim, but that is not what the Koran says. The Koran says that you are a kafir.
Now we come to more questions that should be asked, but most people do not have the knowledge to ask them, since the questions are based on knowing Mohammed's life. As an example, Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive kafirs if it would advance Islam. So: "Have you ever deceived a kafir?" is appropriate to ask.
Mohammed assassinated kafirs, tortured, enslaved, robbed and plotted against them. His entire life as a prophet was an attempt to make kafirs submit to Islam by any means possible. It is proper then to ask: "How do you feel about what he did?"
If you are a Christian, ask: "Over 60 million Christians have been killed in jihad. Christians are persecuted daily in Islamic lands. Have you ever apologized for this?"
If you are a black American, ask: "Islam sold slaves on the West coast of Africa, the east coast of Africa and the Mediterranean. You enslaved over a million Europeans. Why do you never take any responsibility for slavery?"
If you are a Jew, ask: "How do you see the war against Israel as jihad?"
The other reason we do not ask questions is that we have become a nation of deceivers under political correctness. We don't ask Muslims any question that would make them feel "uncomfortable."
It is completely reasonable to ask anyone about their ideology. Christians, Jews, liberals, conservatives and every other ideology have to answer questions about what they believe. Why not Muslims?
That is the true question for kafirs: "Why are Muslims the only people in the world who don't have to be asked difficult questions about what they believe?"
All Muslims must answer questions about Islam, questions about Mohammed and the Koran for the only way to know a Muslim is to know their Islam.
Bill Warner
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
SELECT VERSES PORTRAYING ISLAM IN THE BIBLE
Genesis 16: 11-12 KJV
11. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Behold, thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
12. And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Daniel 7:25 KJV
25. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws.
Daniel 11:37-39 KJV
37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38. But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.
39. Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.
John 16:2-3 KJV
2. They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
1 John 4:1-3 KJV
1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Revelation 20: 4 KJV
4. And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Axis of evil
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/axis_of_evil.html
By Alexander Levkovsky
The wide sidewalk in front of that majestic building was occupied, on both sides, by stacks of books, leaving just a narrow path for numerous visitors, obviously interested in literature. Not any literature, but ultra-nationalist, chauvinistic one, and, particularly, the most popular brand of it - the anti-Semitic writings.
From 1994 to 2003, whenever I found myself in the capital of my former homeland, Moscow, I used to come without fail to that place in order to replenish my library of paperback and hardcover books, devoted to elaborate and multifaceted Jew-hating. This marketplace of bigotry and hatred (which, by the way, didn't attract even the slightest police attention) was located in downtown, in front of an institution, whose name sounded lofty, dignified, and even noble - The Moscow Museum of History.
It was an old structure, sitting at the intersection of Red Square and Manezh Plaza. Before the collapse of "the first proletarian state" in 1991, the museum was abundant in exhibitions of spectacular past of the Imperial Russia and glorious present of the Soviet Union.
Nobody, however, could have imagined at the time the filthy nature of this anti-Semitic market/exhibition, which would occupy, several years later, the sidewalk next to the museum entrance.
In my mind, I've long ago invented a name for it - The Axis of Evil Exhibition.
Remember the famous Axis of Evil speech, pronounced by President George W. Bush? On January 29, 2002, Mr. Bush proclaimed: "...States like these [North Korea, Iran, and Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, [threatening] the peace of the world..." With just three states, denounced by the former President, it seemed to be quite a short axis, indeed. Even with the additional roster of such patented evildoers as Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Sudan, and Al-Qaida, the axis is still not very long.
Not so with my axis. Both in space and time, this axis is as long as the history of the world itself. And it's not the history of states I'm talking about; it's the history of book authors - some famous, others obscure; some ancient, others contemporary - who devoted so much time and effort accusing, belittling and denigrating Jews as people and Jewish faith as religion.
They all sit on a shelf in my room, side by side, as if feeling some sort of camaraderie -- the old company of famous Jew-haters. I see their names on the spines of the books: the Roman historian Tacitus, the French philosopher Voltaire, the American inventor Thomas Edison, the Russian writer Dostoyevsky, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the Russian Emperor Nicolas II, the American industrialist Henry Ford, the British playwright George Bernard Shaw, the American writer Theodore Dreiser...
I remember how I selected these authors. Standing in the crowd of jingoistic Muscovites, I leafed through the books, reading with the increasing sense of disgust the most outlandish and outrageous anti-Semitic declarations.
Then why did I pay my hard-earned money for all that mud? Why did I continue to collect this muck?
Because I had to see -- face to face -- the bigots and jingoes who hated me. Because in order to fight your enemies, you should know them.
An emaciated, wrinkled, and toothless old man, known as Uncle Vasya, was one of the regular peddlers at this foul market. On my last visit to Moscow, in 2003, he sold me a hardcover tome of Hitler's Mein Kampf and a paperback edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Of course, he didn't know I was a Jew, and he had no idea he was dealing with an American. As usual, he was half-drunk. Waiving his hand, he greeted me, grabbed me by the sleeve, and shoved two books into my hands. I glanced at the covers: Richard Wagner, Jewry in Music and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Two Hundred Years Together.
"You'll like the books, believe me," said Uncle Vasya; the strong smell of vodka emanated from his mouth.
I knew beforehand what kind of "love" I would feel toward these books. Nevertheless, I readily paid for the volumes, and left.
On my return home, I went through each and every page, trying to comprehend what on earth had forced those famous figures to take up the pen and add their loud voices to the centuries-old anti-Semitic choir.
One writer spent a lot of energy trying in vain to prove that Jews, just because they were Jews, couldn't be good composers.
The other produced more than one thousand pages filled with numerous libelous distortions of two hundred years of Russian-Jewish coexistence in the Imperial Russia and its heir, the Soviet Union.
Both books are now sitting on a special shelf in my room, within a comfortable company of other bigots and jingoes. Both have now become "honorable" members of my Axis of Evil.
Lately, the Russian authorities decided to remove the foul-smelling market from downtown. Obviously, there had been complaints on the part of some bewildered tourists, not accustomed to see such an open exhibition of bigotry. Now the flourishing market and its branches are scattered around the capital, some only a couple of blocks from downtown.
I have the feeling that very soon (probably, on my next visit to Moscow) my collection of Jew-hating books would be replenished. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that some stories, appearing on several Ukrainian Web sites, had claimed that Israel had brought 25,000 Ukrainian children into Israel over the past two years in order to use their organs for medical purposes. And a certain Sergey Ratushnyak, one of the current Ukrainian presidential hopefuls, publicly blames the Holocaust on the Jews, saying they has stolen German property, and warns of the same thing happening now in Ukraine. I think he would probably write a book, with a foreword most likely to be penned by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or David Irving.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Don't Slack Now — Our Efforts Are Working
Posted: 28 Nov 2009 01:37 PM PST @ citizenwarrior.com  WE'RE IN a difficult fight. Many of our own fellow citizens are resistant to hearing about Islamic Supremacism, and until a large number of us know about the terrifying brilliance of Islam, we can't protect ourselves from its relentless encroachment.In any difficult fight, it is important to celebrate the successes, to keep up our courage, to prevent discouragement. And to answer this need, in a recent article at PajamasMedia.com, Phyllis Chesler listed some of the recent successes in the free world: 1. Canada explicitly spelled out in its citizenship guide for immigrants that it will not tolerate barbaric practices, spousal abuse, honor killings, or female genital mutilation. This is a specific injunction against the importation of Islamic practices. This barely scratches the surface. The tide is changing. It is slow-going because so few non-Muslims know anything about the teachings of Islam. As more people find out, the momentum will increase. So don't stop your efforts. We're having an effect. But you know from personal experience that a vast majority of our fellow citizens still know almost nothing about Islam, and some of what they think they know is dead wrong. So keep up your education and persuasion efforts. Some people have told me the media needs to do it. They implied, "I'm just one person and I can't reach a vast audience, and since that's what we need, it's futile to try." But nobody made a greater mistake, wrote Edmund Burke, than he who did nothing because he could only do a little. Here's how it's going to work: You educate your friends and family, even if it takes a year. Some of them educate their friends and family. The process starts to accellerate. The market for this kind of information will grow, and the media will respond (they follow the money), and the process will accellerate even more. As more people understand what's happening, the pressure on politicians will increase to change policies to protect our freedoms. This process is already well underway. What can you do to help? Start here: What One Civilian Can Do To Stop Islam's Relentless Encroachment. |
Sunday, November 29, 2009
‘Window to the Future’
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2342
Newsweek: Expect to hear a lot more of the name Ahmet Davutoglu. The former university professor who became Turkey’s foreign minister last year is the man behind Ankara’s landmark new diplomatic outreach, including a previously unimaginable rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia and a new warmth with Syria.
Some Western analysts are dismayed at these developments, interpreting them as a sign that Turkey is turning East at the expense of the West. The mild-mannered Davutoglu typically gets angry at these suggestions, saying these comments come from those who begrudge Turkey its expanding role in the region.
Yet while Davutoglu is no stranger to Turkish politics—he began serving as chief foreign-policy adviser to the ruling AKP in 2002—he remains something of a cipher, even in his home country. To remedy that, NEWSWEEK’s Turkish-language partner, NEWSWEEK Türkiye, recently examined the forces that shaped Davutoglu and how he is changing relationships with Turkey’s neighbors in the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasus.
Some of the highlights from the magazine’s comprehensive profile, written by Yenal Bilgici with reporting by Semin Gümüsel and Nevra Yaraç:
Davutoglu risked the deadly Izmit earthquake to save the manuscript of his signature book, Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Position, which lays out the conceptual framework for what he now calls his “zero problems with neighbors”policy. When the shaking started on Aug. 17, 1999, he managed to flee his endangered Istanbul home unharmed—but then ignored warnings of aftershocks to dash back into the house and eject the computer disk containing his years of work. Now in its 30th printing, the book brought him national and international recognition.
The foreign minister is a somewhat reluctant politician. After Turkey’s ruling AKP won the elections of 2002, he turned down requests to serve in the government and opted instead to continue his university work while serving as an adviser to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Five years later, he was on the verge of a full-time return to academia when rebels from the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) attacked the Daglica military post in Turkey’s eastern city of Hakkari, killing 13 soldiers. “I cannot leave now,” Davutoglu told his inner circle. Instead, he stayed on to take up the position of foreign minister and facilitate recent agreements aimed at granting long-denied rights to the Kurdish minority and ending two decades of attacks by the PKK.
The peripatetic minister went to 13 countries in October alone, raising Turkey’s diplomatic profile to its highest level in years. Indeed, Davutoglu won unprecedented praise in Arabic media, like the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, where a columnist begged the foreign minister to help solve Lebanon’s problems as well. “You carry ideas, aspirations, solutions, and medicine in your luggage,” wrote the columnist. “You are the window to the future.”
Davutoglu may be known for his temperate demeanor, but he has little patience with Ankara’s political elites and their unassertive approach to diplomacy. “These rootless elites are conditioned to not being noticed and not taking initiative rather than coming to the front and being decisive during critical periods,” he wrote in an uncharacteristically sharp tone in Strategic Depth. “They think of being passive as a safer and risk-free policy.” These criticisms, writes Bilgici in NEWSWEEK Türkiye, are a beginner’s guide to understanding Davutoglu and his policy. The second pointer to his character: the minister’s constant use—and embodiment—of the term “self-confidence.”
Davutoglu is also known for his work ethic and self discipline. A family friend told NEWSWEEK Türkiye that, while working on his book, the professor once spent three straight days without leaving his chair. A former student says Davutoglu believes that sleeping eight hours a night is a luxury. “We do not have the right to sleep this much,” he frequently told the student.
Davutoglu’s conscientiousness manifested itself at a relatively early age. As a high-school student at the prestigious Istanbul High School for Boys, where he was taught by German teachers who had come to Turkey during World War II, he presented his teachers with ambitious reading lists of dense philosophical and scientific works that he thought would serve him well in the future. His instructors advised him and his friends to go out and play ball for a while instead. Davutoglu took the advice to heart; even after he’d become a professor, he continued to play soccer with his students (as a highly regarded forward), right up until he was appointed foreign minister.
While honing his soccer prowess, Davutoglu was refining his language and academic skills too. In addition to the German learned in high school, he took all-English programs to graduate from the economics and political sciences department of Bogazici University. He learned Arabic while studying on a scholarship in Jordan, worked on his doctoral thesis at Cairo University, and learned Bahasa Malaysia while a professor at Malaysia’s International Islamic University. His thesis, a comparative analysis between Western and Islamic political theories and images, was published in 1993 by American University Press with the title Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory. Davutoglu’s postdoctoral work included critiques of the theories of Samuel Huntington (clash of civilizations) and Francis Fukuyama (end of history).
Colleagues say that Davutoglu’s oratorical skills are equal to his writing ability. “There is no one the minister cannot make drop their guard in 10 minutes,” one high-ranking team member told NEWSWEEK Türkiye. One example: when Ankara refused to allow U.S.-led forces cross Turkish territory for the 2003 invasion into Iraq, a local Jewish leader came over to read Davutoglu the riot act. The visitor initially said he could only stay 10 minutes—partly because he needed to prepare for a fast the following day—but ended up spending three hours with Davutoglu after being won over by the minister’s erudite discourse about Jewish culture, history, and the background to the upcoming fast. Next time, the Jewish leader said, he’d like to stay for the day.
Davutoglu is not without his critics, who have accused him of double standards for criticizing Israel’s actions in Gaza while failing to condemn the approach of a fellow Muslim—Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir—in Darfur. But even those who don’t support him see him as a statesman who is both a thinker and a doer. And right now, he’s the talk of more than just Ankara.
Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224713
Triumph of the Turks: Turkey is the surprising beneficiary of U.S. misadventures in the Middle East.
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2341
Newsweek: Archibald Wavell himself could scarcely have imagined how horribly accurate his prediction would prove to be. Having watched in dismay as the victorious European powers carved up the Ottoman Empire after World War I—”the war to end war”—the British officer commented that they had instead created “a peace to end peace.” And sure enough, the decades since have spawned a succession of colonial misrule, coups, revolutions, and an epidemic of jihadist violence. The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 could be viewed as a last-ditch attempt by the world’s sole remaining superpower to impose order on the region. Instead, the net result was to create a power vacuum, leaving Iraq too weak to counterbalance its neighbors and threatening to destabilize the whole map.
Turkey, the old seat of Ottoman power, did its best to stay out of that fight, refusing even to let U.S. forces cross Turkish soil for the 2003 invasion. Still, it’s the Turks—not the Iranians, as many observers claim—who are now emerging as the war’s real winners. In economic terms Turkey is running neck and neck with Iran as Iraq’s biggest trading partner, even as most U.S. businesses sit helplessly on the sidelines. And in terms of regional influence, Turkey has no rival. The country’s stern-faced prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is working to consolidate that strength as he asserts Turkey’s independence in a part of the world long dominated by America. Next week he’s in Washington to meet with President Obama, but only a few weeks ago he stood shoulder to shoulder with his “good friend” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran and defended Iran’s nuclear program.
That’s only one example of the behavior that’s disturbing many of Turkey’s longtime NATO partners. Among the biggest worries has been the souring of ties with Israel, once Turkey’s close ally, over the military offensive in Gaza earlier this year that human-rights groups say killed more than 1,400 Palestinians. Erdogan walked out of the World Economic Forum in protest over the deaths, and recently scrapped a decade-old deal allowing the Israeli Air Force to train over Turkish territory. At the same time, the Turkish prime minister has repeatedly supported Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, claiming he couldn’t possibly be guilty of genocide in Darfur because he’s a “good Muslim.” Right now there are “more points of disagreement than of agreement” between Washington and Ankara, says Philip Gordon, Obama’s point man on Turkey at the State Department.
What scares Washington most is the suspicion that Ankara’s new attitude may be driven less by the practical pursuit of Turkey’s national interest than by thinly concealed Islamist ideology. Erdogan has always denied mixing religion and politics, but his ruling Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish initials, AKP) has been investigated repeatedly by Turkey’s top courts on charges of undermining Turkey’s constitutional commitment to a strictly secular state. But official policy notwithstanding, Turkish attitudes toward Europe have displayed a marked cooling over the past five years, and a corresponding rise in hostility toward Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund. “No one in the government has made any attempt to reverse rampant anti-Americanism in Turkey,” says Kemal Köprülü of the independent ARI think tank. “The government cannot admit it, but most decision making in foreign and domestic policy simply doesn’t take Western values into account.”
On the other hand, Turks could be excused for thinking that Western decision makers don’t always lose sleep over Turkish interests. During the Cold War, Washington did anything necessary to stabilize the region and keep the Kremlin from gaining ground, often backing nominally pro-Western despots like the Shah of Iran and the Turkish generals who seized power from civilian governments three times in as many decades. The result was a disaster for America; it ended up with unreliable allies who were hated by their own people. In Turkey, the cumulative anti-U.S. resentment peaked in 2003 when the Bush administration pressed Ankara to let U.S. forces invade Iraq through Turkish territory—a plan that was derailed only at the last moment by a parliamentary revolt.
That was the low point of Turkey’s relationship with the United States. But it was also the start of Turkey’s rise to economic recovery and regional influence, and the beginning of a new kind of relationship with Washington. Indeed, Turkey’s new standing in the region has a chance of transforming the country into something far more valuable to Washington than a subservient tool or proxy. The Turks say they’re seeking to become what Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu calls a “partner to solve the region’s problems.” Whatever ambitions they may have harbored in earlier years, it’s only in this decade—especially since 2002, when Erdogan and the AKP came to power—that Turkey has had the economic and political strength, as well as the military presence, to fill such a position.
Turkey’s economy has more than doubled in the past decade, converting the nation from a backwater to a regional powerhouse. At the same time, its financial focus has moved closer to home: Turkey now conducts more trade with Russia, Iraq, and Iran than it does with the EU. Energy politics have also favored the Turks, who find themselves astride no fewer than three competing energy supply routes to Europe—from Russia, from the Caspian, and from Iran. Years of reform and stability are paying off as well. Ankara is on the verge of a historic deal with its Kurdish minority to end an insurgency that has left 35,000 dead in the past quarter century. In turn, Turkey is making peace with neighboring countries that once supported the insurgents, such as Syria, Iran, and Armenia. The principle is simple, says a senior Erdogan aide who’s not authorized to speak on the record: “We can’t be prosperous if we live in a poor neighborhood. We can’t be secure if we live in a violent one.”
The advantages keep compounding. Thanks to judicious diplomacy and expanding business ties throughout the region, Turkey is close to realizing what Davutoglu calls his “zero-problems-with-neighbors policy.” The new stance has boosted Ankara’s influence even further; the Turks have become the trouble-ridden region’s mediators of choice, called in to help with disputes between the Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah, between Iraq and Syria—even, before Erdogan’s outburst in Davos, between Israel and Syria. Speaking at a recent press conference in Rome, Erdogan expressed little hope that Turkey could do more for Syria and Israel. “[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu doesn’t trust us,” he said. “That’s his choice.” But others in the region still welcome Ankara’s assistance: Turkish diplomats are excellently trained in conflict resolution.
That can scarcely be said for Iran. The Tehran regime remains paralyzed by infighting and is far from loved in most of the Arab world. Saudis in particular think back fondly to the Ottomans facing off against the Persians, not to mention their feelings about Sunni Turks versus Shiite Iranians. “Saudi Arabia is welcoming the new Turkish comeback,” says Jamal Khashoggi, editor of the influential Jidda daily Al-Watan. Not the least important part of the charm is that Erdogan’s government has a distinctly Islamic (and by Saudi lights, a distinctly Sunni Islamic) coloration—”even if no Turkish officials would say that publicly, because it is politically incorrect,” says Khashoggi.
Still, the Turks believe they’re wise not to play an antagonistic role, and officials in Ankara insist that Erdogan’s warm words to Ahmadinejad are no more than atmospherics. At base, they say, Turkey shares the West’s goals regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions; it’s just doing things in its own way. “We have been dealing with [Iranians] for centuries,” says the Erdogan aide. “We show them the respect and friendship they crave. Would our being hostile to Iran do anything to solve the problem of their nuclear program?” When the International Atomic Energy Agency offered Iran the option of exporting most of its low-enriched uranium in return for French-made fuel rods in October, Erdogan offered Ahmadinejad a deal (apparently with Washington’s blessing): Iran could store its uranium in Turkey rather than send it to a non-Muslim country.
Tehran ultimately said no, but the effort demonstrated that Turkey is prepared to do its part to keep the region peaceful and safe. Ankara insists that its new friendships in the region are no threat to its longstanding ties to the West. “NATO is Turkey’s strongest alliance, and integration with Europe is the main objective of Turkish foreign policy,” insists Davutoglu. “But it doesn’t mean that because of these strong ties, we can ignore the Middle East, we can ignore Asia, Central Asia, North Africa, or Africa.” The world has changed radically since the fall of the Ottomans, and Turkey is unlikely ever to regain the imperial power it wielded for 350 years, from Algiers to Budapest and Mecca. But as the world tries to move, at last, beyond the 90-year-old peace that ended peace, no other country is better positioned to pick up the pieces.
With Sami Kohen in Istanbul
Find this article at
http://www.newsweek.com/id/224676
How America Will Fall To Islam
http://faithfreedom.org/islam/how-america-will-fall-islam
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Schools will instruct pupils on the
"religion of peace," Islam. Now Islamic speakers are invited into
school systems to teach faculty and principals about the goodness of
Islam.
Mosque clerics will be regarded the same as the Methodist minister down the street. After all, a cleric is a cleric.
Liberal
groups such as the Episcopal Church, Unitarian-Universalist Society,
and United Church of Christ (Congregational) will look upon Islam as a
world religion among religions, thus deserving equal space with
Christianity and Judaism.
Local clergy associations will welcome Muslim clerics into their fellowship.
Liberal
politicians will champion Islam as compatible with America because they
will believe the lies on 4000 Muslim web sites. After all, America
welcomes all equally.
Theologically conservative leaders
such as Billy Graham’s son, Franklin Graham, will be black listed for
publishing factual books exposing Islam as a violent cult. He already
has suffered such. He has been silenced by the liberal element in the
United States.
Politicians and religious liberals will
regard "peace religion" Islam as being highjacked by "insurgents" and
"terrorists" rather than realizing that all Muslims are aligned with
the same killing passages replete in the unholy book, the Koran.
Schools
will set aside rooms for Muslim prayers during school hours. Airports
will follow suit. Independent living residential communities will
follow suit. Just as they have chapels, they will have mosque centers.
Public
buildings will provide prayer rooms for Muslim prayers just as a local
athletic building in New Jersey has done so for Muslim sports figures
there.
Newspapers’ religion pages will place mosque
advertisements for meetings and so forth right alongside the
advertisements for churches. They will also provide regular feature
articles on Islam as a "peace religion," just as the local city paper
already does where I live.
The sharia will become legal fare
in most countries, including America. This Koran-based judicial system
that enhances murder and maiming as well as discrimination against
females will be set aside as proper for the Muslim community.
Islamic
professors will pepper the universities and colleges throughout the
nation, propagating the message that Islam is a "peace religion." They
will likewise blackball Christianity and Judaism, as is presently the
fashion. This takes place presently.
Religious colleges that
are theologically liberal will have Muslim instructors and personnel on
staff in order to give the public relations image that they are open to
all beliefs.
Chapel services on theologically liberal
religious-oriented campuses will have Muslim speakers to balance out
theologically liberal "Christian" preachers. Already at Bates College,
Lewiston, Maine, the campus chapel is decorated with flag banners of
all world religions, including Islam. The banners hang from the
sanctuary ceiling.
Islamic so-called holy days will be
legitimatized as holidays necessitating celebration and days off from
work throughout the nation
Islamic symbols will decorate our stamps..
Islamic authors will become popular in "reading America."
Peace themes focusing on Islamic actors will be placed in television sitcoms.
TV series such as "Sleeper Cells" will become passe and regarded as out of date and out of fact.
Legislation will be passed stating that anything truthfully negative about Islam will be regarded as a "hate crime."
Certain Islamic personages will run for political offices and will win their elections. This takes place now.
The National Council of Churches will welcome Islam into its membership.
Liberal
seminaries such as Harvard Divinity School will baptize Islam as a
legitimate religion among world religions, just as HDS does already in
its world religions building / courses.
It will become posh for Islamic speakers to be featured on talk shows and at book forums in local communities.
The
Koran will be placed alongside the Bible in hospital chapels, just as
it already is placed in the chapel in the city hospital near where I
live.
The headscarf used by Muslim women will become
fashionable for non-Muslim women in America. Already the headscarf clad
young women appearing in various advertisements on the Internet.
Advertisements will include in their human figures not only whites and blacks and Hispanics but also obviously garbed Muslims.
"Jihad"
will change its meaning from murder and maiming to improving the inner
self, just as it is now defined on the Council for American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) lying web site.
Muslims will establish
charitable causes to which the public will be asked to contribute,
moneys used to enhance Islam and thereby overtake the nation.
Christians
and Jews will be relegated to a lower status than Islam. Christians and
Jews will be informed to be quiet, hold no meetings or seminars
teaching the facts about Islam, and squelch any preaching against Islam.
Political
liberals such as "Rev." Jesse Jackson will come to the fore as comrades
of Islam, presenting Christianity and Islam as monotheistic religions
of common foundation. It will become posh for Islam and Christianity
and Judaism to be presented as the three great monotheistic religions
of the world, thus giving Islam equal footing with the other two
religions.
There will be much talk about all three religions having Abraham as "the father of the faith."
Regarding Islam as a killing cult will expose the offender as committing a "hate crime."
University and college commencement addresses, particularly those on the state level, will feature Islamic speakers.
Islamic killers in America will be regarded as an anomaly and embarrassment to Islam as the true "religion of peace."
Sunday school curricula in liberal denominations will feature Islam as a legitimate world religion.
Islam
will become a highlight article feature in theologically liberal
publications. Already such articles have appeared in the Harvard
Divinity School Bulletin.
Islamic literature will be
distributed widely freely throughout the nation, similarly to such
literature distributed by Moonies at airport terminals.
Koran
killing passages will be rephrased so as to erase the Koran
killing-passages just as such quotes are changed on the Muslim Public
Affairs Council (MPAC). These changes will appear in the American
publication of the Koran placed in public buildings.
Government
agencies, particularly in Washington DC, will cower before Muslim
demands just as they did as set forth in the article above.
Muslims
elsewhere on the planet will cause such mayhem that America will fear
such coming to this country and therefore will give Muslims anything
they want in order to keep the blood from flowing our USA streets
Schools will instruct pupils on the
"religion of peace," Islam. Now Islamic speakers are invited into
school systems to teach faculty and principals about the goodness of
Islam.
Mosque clerics will be regarded the same as the Methodist minister down the street. After all, a cleric is a cleric.
Liberal
groups such as the Episcopal Church, Unitarian-Universalist Society,
and United Church of Christ (Congregational) will look upon Islam as a
world religion among religions, thus deserving equal space with
Christianity and Judaism.
Local clergy associations will welcome Muslim clerics into their fellowship.
Liberal
politicians will champion Islam as compatible with America because they
will believe the lies on 4000 Muslim web sites. After all, America
welcomes all equally.
Theologically conservative leaders
such as Billy Graham’s son, Franklin Graham, will be black listed for
publishing factual books exposing Islam as a violent cult. He already
has suffered such. He has been silenced by the liberal element in the
United States.
Politicians and religious liberals will
regard "peace religion" Islam as being highjacked by "insurgents" and
"terrorists" rather than realizing that all Muslims are aligned with
the same killing passages replete in the unholy book, the Koran.
Schools
will set aside rooms for Muslim prayers during school hours. Airports
will follow suit. Independent living residential communities will
follow suit. Just as they have chapels, they will have mosque centers.
Public
buildings will provide prayer rooms for Muslim prayers just as a local
athletic building in New Jersey has done so for Muslim sports figures
there.
Newspapers’ religion pages will place mosque
advertisements for meetings and so forth right alongside the
advertisements for churches. They will also provide regular feature
articles on Islam as a "peace religion," just as the local city paper
already does where I live.
The sharia will become legal fare
in most countries, including America. This Koran-based judicial system
that enhances murder and maiming as well as discrimination against
females will be set aside as proper for the Muslim community.
Islamic
professors will pepper the universities and colleges throughout the
nation, propagating the message that Islam is a "peace religion." They
will likewise blackball Christianity and Judaism, as is presently the
fashion. This takes place presently.
Religious colleges that
are theologically liberal will have Muslim instructors and personnel on
staff in order to give the public relations image that they are open to
all beliefs.
Chapel services on theologically liberal
religious-oriented campuses will have Muslim speakers to balance out
theologically liberal "Christian" preachers. Already at Bates College,
Lewiston, Maine, the campus chapel is decorated with flag banners of
all world religions, including Islam. The banners hang from the
sanctuary ceiling.
Islamic so-called holy days will be
legitimatized as holidays necessitating celebration and days off from
work throughout the nation
Islamic symbols will decorate our stamps..
Islamic authors will become popular in "reading America."
Peace themes focusing on Islamic actors will be placed in television sitcoms.
TV series such as "Sleeper Cells" will become passe and regarded as out of date and out of fact.
Legislation will be passed stating that anything truthfully negative about Islam will be regarded as a "hate crime."
Certain Islamic personages will run for political offices and will win their elections. This takes place now.
The National Council of Churches will welcome Islam into its membership.
Liberal
seminaries such as Harvard Divinity School will baptize Islam as a
legitimate religion among world religions, just as HDS does already in
its world religions building / courses.
It will become posh for Islamic speakers to be featured on talk shows and at book forums in local communities.
The
Koran will be placed alongside the Bible in hospital chapels, just as
it already is placed in the chapel in the city hospital near where I
live.
The headscarf used by Muslim women will become
fashionable for non-Muslim women in America. Already the headscarf clad
young women appearing in various advertisements on the Internet.
Advertisements will include in their human figures not only whites and blacks and Hispanics but also obviously garbed Muslims.
"Jihad"
will change its meaning from murder and maiming to improving the inner
self, just as it is now defined on the Council for American-Islamic
Relations (CAIR) lying web site.
Muslims will establish
charitable causes to which the public will be asked to contribute,
moneys used to enhance Islam and thereby overtake the nation.
Christians
and Jews will be relegated to a lower status than Islam. Christians and
Jews will be informed to be quiet, hold no meetings or seminars
teaching the facts about Islam, and squelch any preaching against Islam.
Political
liberals such as "Rev." Jesse Jackson will come to the fore as comrades
of Islam, presenting Christianity and Islam as monotheistic religions
of common foundation. It will become posh for Islam and Christianity
and Judaism to be presented as the three great monotheistic religions
of the world, thus giving Islam equal footing with the other two
religions.
There will be much talk about all three religions having Abraham as "the father of the faith."
Regarding Islam as a killing cult will expose the offender as committing a "hate crime."
University and college commencement addresses, particularly those on the state level, will feature Islamic speakers.
Islamic killers in America will be regarded as an anomaly and embarrassment to Islam as the true "religion of peace."
Sunday school curricula in liberal denominations will feature Islam as a legitimate world religion.
Islam
will become a highlight article feature in theologically liberal
publications. Already such articles have appeared in the Harvard
Divinity School Bulletin.
Islamic literature will be
distributed widely freely throughout the nation, similarly to such
literature distributed by Moonies at airport terminals.
Koran
killing passages will be rephrased so as to erase the Koran
killing-passages just as such quotes are changed on the Muslim Public
Affairs Council (MPAC). These changes will appear in the American
publication of the Koran placed in public buildings.
Government
agencies, particularly in Washington DC, will cower before Muslim
demands just as they did as set forth in the article above.
Muslims
elsewhere on the planet will cause such mayhem that America will fear
such coming to this country and therefore will give Muslims anything
they want in order to keep the blood from flowing our USA streets
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
