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

What Americans Need to Know About the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/sr0071.cfm

by Ben Lieberman

Special Report #71

Abstract: In December, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will meet in Copenhagen to work on a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. U.S. negotiators should refuse to sign any climate change treaty that does not include meaningful participation by China, India, and other major developing nations or that would harm the U.S. economy or threaten U.S. sovereignty. The 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will be held in Copenhagen in December. It is the most important international conference on global warming since the 1997 Kyoto conference that produced the Kyoto Protocol. As the U.S. and other delegations prepare for this conference, the American people need to know that, in addition to harming the U.S. economically and environmentally, a new global warming treaty would threaten U.S. sovereignty. Why Is the Copenhagen Conference Important? The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which went into effect in 2005, is the major global warming treaty currently in force. Under the treaty, the nations of Europe as well as Japan, Canada, and most other developed countries committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions -- chiefly carbon dioxide from fossil fuels -- which are blamed for global warming. Generally, these nations are supposed to reduce emissions by 5 percent below 1990 baseline levels by 2012. The U.S. has not ratified the treaty. China, India, and other developing nations have ratified it, but are exempted from any obligation to reduce emissions. Notwithstanding questions about the seriousness of global warming, the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and has had no effect on global warming. Because the Kyoto Protocol's provisions will expire in 2012, Kyoto proponents have identified the Copenhagen conference as the critical meeting for extending and expanding the treaty's targets and timetables beyond 2012. Copenhagen is also seen, especially by Europeans, as an opportunity to force the U.S. to join the other developed countries required to reduce emissions. Hopes of achieving this end rose considerably when President Barack Obama took office. The President will be under pressure to keep his promises to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions. What Will Be Different in Copenhagen? The representatives of the nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol and who see it as a success that should be extended have long identified Copenhagen as crucial to the future of global warming policy. Their main objective is to expand the emissions reduction targets set in Kyoto. They also seek to make these stringent targets binding, verifiable, and enforceable and to apply them to the U.S. for the first time. They hope to achieve more meaningful participation from the developing world. However, these goals will make it difficult for many individual nations to agree to any treaty in Copenhagen. U.S. negotiators should stand firm in protecting American interests and not sign any treaty just for the sake of signing a treaty. Is the Kyoto Protocol Worth Extending? No. Even aside from the growing doubts about the seriousness of the global warming threat -- the Kyoto Protocol or any other putative global warming solution is only a solution to the extent that a genuine problem exists in the first place -- the Kyoto Protocol has failed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[1] Emissions are increasing in several signatory nations. In several more countries, emissions are declining more slowly than emissions in the U.S., which ironically is not a party to Kyoto.[2] For example, according to U.N. data, the U.S. reduced emissions by 3 percent from 2000 to 2006, while the 27 European signatories increased their emissions by 0.1 percent.[3] Germany's emissions declined by only 1.7 percent, while Canada's emissions rose 21.3 percent.[4] European Environmental Agency data show that emissions increased in Austria, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain in the decade after the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.[5] One key reason for compliance difficulties in Europe has been the tremendous cost of reducing emissions, estimated at $67.75 billion to $170.84 billion through 2008.[6] Despite these high costs for their inadequate efforts to reduce emissions, these European nations claim to want to enact much tougher targets in Copenhagen. Further, Kyoto's exemption for developing nations has proven a far greater oversight than originally believed because these emissions, especially from China, have increased far faster than had been anticipated in 1997. For example, the Senate Byrd-Hagel Resolution warned that developing-nation emissions would exceed those of the developed world "as early as 2015."[7]According to the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, it happened in 2005.[8] Was the U.S. Correct to Stay out of Kyoto? Yes. The U.S. was correct to refuse to participate in this demonstrated failure, particularly because it would have damaged the U.S. economy. An analysis by the Energy Information Administration put the cost of U.S. compliance at up to $400 billion annually.[9] Beyond the high costs, the Kyoto Protocol has no effective enforcement mechanism: Nothing has happened or will happen to the developed nations that are not in compliance, and developing nations have no obligations. However, U.S. law is unique in that a ratified treaty can have the same status as domestic legislation. Thus, unlike the rest of the world, American businesses would have been forced to comply with U.S. obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, the U.S. Senate recognized the pitfalls of this approach even before the Kyoto Protocol. The 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, which passed 95-0, warned the Clinton Administration not to sign any treaty that exempted the developing world or would harm the U.S. economy. The resolution clearly stated that the Senate would not ratify any such treaty.[10] The subsequent Kyoto Protocol violated both conditions, which is why the President never submitted the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification. The Senate's guidelines remain a policy that the Obama Administration should follow in Copenhagen. Given that emissions from developing nations are increasing far faster than emissions in the developed world and that no nation has found a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions without incurring serious economic harm, the Administration should firmly adhere to these guidelines during the negotiations in Copenhagen. What Are the Economic Concerns? The goal of the Kyoto Protocol, the building block for Copenhagen, is similar to the purpose of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, which narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives in June, and of the Kerry-Boxer bill being considered in the U.S. Senate. All three would set limits on emissions from fossil fuels -- the coal, oil, and natural gas that provide America with 85 percent of its energy. Such limits would act as a large energy tax, driving up the energy costs of individuals and consumers, forcing them to use less energy. More stringent emissions targets would require even larger increases in fossil energy prices to further discourage their use. A Heritage Foundation analysis of Waxman-Markey found that this energy tax would have serious implications throughout the economy. For a household of four, energy costs (electric, natural gas, gasoline expenses) would rise by $436 in 2012 and by $1,241 by 2035, averaging $829 over that period.[11] Higher energy costs would increase the cost of many other products and services. Overall, Waxman-Markey would reduce gross domestic product by $393 billion annually and by a total of $9.4 trillion by 2035.[12] An initial analysis of the Senate bill finds comparable costs.[13] Beyond the increased costs imposed on individuals and households, the Waxman-Markey bill would reduce employment, especially in the manufacturing sector. The Heritage analysis estimates that net job losses would exceed 1 million on average annually through 2035,[14] even after accounting for the overhyped green jobs. Analyses from the Brookings Institution, National Black Chamber of Commerce, and other institutions found roughly comparable effects.[15] Assuming proponents of a Copenhagen treaty want targets at least as stringent as those in the Waxman-Markey bill -- a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 2005 baseline levels in 2020 up to an 83 percent reduction by 2050 -- U.S. compliance costs would be similarly high. Would the Environmental Benefits Be Worth It? No. First, there are growing doubts about whether global warming really is the crisis it was claimed to be heading into the 1997 Kyoto negotiations.[16] For example, global temperatures have leveled off since then.[17] However, putting the scientific doubts aside for a moment, the Kyoto approach seems unlikely to slow global warming effectively. One scientific study estimated that, even if the treaty reached its targeted emissions reductions, it would reduce the earth's future temperature by about 0.07 degree Celsius by 2050 -- an amount too small to make any difference and impossible to verify because natural variability is far greater.[18] Obviously, more stringent targets at Copenhagen would reduce the temperature more, but not by much, especially if developing nations were still exempt from emissions reductions. Is U.S. Sovereignty at Risk? Yes. Kyoto has no international enforcement mechanism with any real teeth. To actually reduce emissions, any successor treaty coming out of Copenhagen would need an effective enforcement mechanism. Domestic U.S. enforcement of the treaty, if ratified, would be problematic enough, but any binding international enforcement provisions would create additional serious problems. Compliance with such a treaty would require massive changes to the U.S. economy, and U.N. bodies would decide many of the details of those changes. For example, one way to comply with Kyoto or subsequent treaties is to purchase so-called offsets to carbon dioxide emissions. Offsets allow regulated entities to pay others to undertake projects that presumably reduce emissions globally, such as paying landowners to plant trees or bankrolling the installation of solar panels in poor countries. In many cases, companies find offsets cheaper than actually reducing their own emissions. However, these projects have been subject to fraud. For example, some offset projects have not actually reduced emissions, while others involved industrial facilities with unnecessarily high initial emissions for the purpose of profiting by lowering them later.[19]Currently, the Clean Development Mechanism under the U.N. decides which offset projects are acceptable. Thus, unelected international bureaucracies would control this critical aspect of a climate treaty, which would have significant implications for the U.S. economy. The largest sovereignty threat is that a subsequent treaty may create an international enforcement authority to determine whether signatories -- including the U.S. -- are in compliance with the treaty provisions and to deal with perceived violations. For example, a non-U.S.-controlled body could decide whether American companies must shut down coal-fired power plants. The Administration should avoid signing any such treaty because it would seriously infringe on U.S. national sovereignty. What Do China and Other Developing Nations Want from Copenhagen? Led by China, the developing world clearly prefers the Kyoto approach, particularly the exemption from emissions reductions.[20]Developing nations recognize the tradeoff between economic development and emissions reductions, and they have chosen economic development. These nations want any agreement in Copenhagen to continue Kyoto beyond 2012. While insisting on continued exemptions, the developing world is demanding that the developed nations undertake stringent new emissions reductions beyond Kyoto and provide massive aid to assist poor countries in voluntarily reducing emissions. What Will Likely Happen in Copenhagen? The Copenhagen conference has been billed as the next major global warming deal, with strong new emissions reduction targets that are binding and enforceable. Yet despite the buildup for more than a year, political and economic realities will likely influence its outcome for the better. The rift between the developed and developing world is still wide. For the most part, developed nations have recognized that the whole process is futile without meaningful involvement by major developing nations, but China, India, and others have refused to agree to such provisions. The prospect for massive aid packages from the developed world is also proving to be a nonstarter among the nations expected to pay the bill. There is also the growing realization that the Kyoto Protocol is a failure and therefore not a good model for Copenhagen. Finally, the obvious harm of imposing such costly measures in the midst of a global recession has also slowed momentum. Thus, Copenhagen presents an opportunity to change the direction of the post-Kyoto debate. What Should the Administration Do? The Obama Administration, although far more in favor of a global warming agreement than the Bush Administration, has acknowledged many of these realities, including the fact that domestic legislation is stalled in the Senate and unlikely to be enacted before the Copenhagen conference. U.S. negotiators at preliminary meetings have stated that they expect China and other major developing nations to undertake new obligations and that any agreement will not include massive wealth transfers to poor countries. Thus, the distance between the U.S. and developing world positions is still significant. The U.S. team has also admitted that the Kyoto approach has proven problematic, suggesting that climate change policy may need to focus more on domestic provisions enacted by each nation than Kyoto-style multilateral agreements. At a minimum, U.S. negotiators should comply with the provisions of the Byrd-Hagel resolution and refuse to sign any climate change treaty that fails to include meaningful participation by China, India, and other major developing nations or that threatens to harm the U.S. economy. They should also refuse to sign any treaty that would threaten U.S. sovereignty. This will likely mean no new treaty from Copenhagen, but negotiators should not agree to provisions that will harm the U.S. solely for the sake of signing a treaty. Ben Lieberman is Senior Policy Analyst in Energy and the Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. [1]. Press release, "UNFCC: Rising Industrialized Countries Emissions Underscore Urgent Need for Political Action on Climate Change," U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 16, 2008, athttp://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_ advisories/application/pdf/081117_ghg_press_release.pdf (December 11, 2008); U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "International Energy Annual 2006," Table H.1co2, athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls(December 11, 2008); Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working," August 2007, athttp://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf (December 11, 2008). [2]. U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2008 Inventory Reports and Common Reporting Formats. [3]. Ibid. [4]. Ibid. [5]. European Environment Agency, Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2007 and Inventory Report 2009, May 27, 2009, p. 16, Table ES.7, at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/european- community-greenhouse-gas-inventory-2009/european- community-ghg-inventory-2014-full-report.pdf (November 10, 2009). [6]. Matthew Sinclair, "The Expensive Failure of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme," TaxPayers' Alliance, October 2009, athttp://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ets.pdf (November 10, 2009). [7]. S. Res. 98, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. [8]. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration,International Energy Outlook 2009, pp. 109-117, athttp://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html (November 2, 2009). [9]. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, "Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and the Economy," October 1998, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html (November 13, 2009). [10]. S. Res. 98. [11]. David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell, William W. Beach, Ben Lieberman, and Nicolas Loris, "The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. 09-04, p. 2, athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda0904.cfm. [12]. Ibid. [13]. David Kreutzer, "EPA's Economic Analysis of the Boxer-Kerry Cap and Trade Bill," The Foundry, October 27, 2009, athttp://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/27/epa%e2%80%99s- economic-analysis-of-the-boxer-kerry-cap-and-trade-bill (November 10, 2009). [14]. Kreutzer et al., p. 2. [15]. Warwick McKibbin, Pete Wilcoxen, and Adele Morris, "Consequences of Cap and Trade," Brookings Institution, June 8, 2009, athttp://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/events/2009/0608_climate _change_economy/20090608_climate_change_economy.pdf (July 9, 2009), and David Montgomery et al., "Impact on the Economy of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454)," CRA International, May 2009. See also Nicolas Loris, "Cap and Trade: A Comparison of Cost Estimates," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2550, July 20, 2009, athttp://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2550.cfm. [16]. See Craig Idso and S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Heartland Institute, June 2009, at http://www.heartland.org/publications/ NIPCC%20report/PDFs/NIPCC%20Final.pdf (November 10, 2009). [17]. See Craig Loehle, "Trend Analysis of RSS and UAH MSU Global Temperature Data," Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 7 (2009), pp. 1087-1098. [18]. T. M. L. Wigley, "The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and Climate Implications," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 25, No. 13 (1998), pp. 2285-2288. [19]. Open Europe, "Europe's Dirty Secret." [20]. David Fogarty, "Senior G77 Members Protest Steps to Change Kyoto Pact," Reuters, October 7, 2009, at http://www.reuters.com/article/ GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE59623R20091007 (November 10, 2009).

The Fallacy & Danger of Equating Islam with Other Religions

http://islam-watch.org/iw-new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255:the-fallacy-danger-of-equating-islam-with-other-religions&catid=86:bill&Itemid=58

Wednesday, 18 November 2009 07:37 Bill Warner

Many well-meaning Westerners and infidels tell us that Islam is just an ancient religion with outdated ethical concepts like many others, or that Islamic scriptures contain violence passages as does other scriptures. Why such judgement is fallacious and what it entails to the future of our civilization???

---

Did you ever hear this argument?

Ancient religious texts like the Koran contain outdated ethical concepts. The Old Testament has brutal laws and violent passages. As a result Christians and Jews don't follow them. Muslims are the same as Christians and Jews; they pick what works and reject what doesn't work. Why should Islam be considered any worse than other religion or cult?

The short answer is that Islam is not similar to anything else, including religions such as Christianity. As far as the Koran having any outdated ethical concepts, that is impossible. According to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is perfect, eternal and universal. It does not contain the slightest error since contains the exact words of Allah. Hence, it can never be outdated.

Also, the Koran is a derivative book. Every idea in the Koran, with two exceptions, can be traced to earlier works. The two novel ideas in the Koran are that Mohammed is the last prophet of god and that violent force, jihad, can be used to harm those who don't agree with Mohammed. Violence against kafirs (unbelievers) is systemic in all of Islam's texts and forms a central theme.

Yes, the Old Testament has violence, but there is no real parallel to the Koran and Islam. Look at the numbers. The violence in the Old Testament is limited to a few verses. The violence in the Koran against the kafir (unbeliever) takes up 61% of the text. Every mention of the kafir is brutal, condemning, pejorative, hateful and threatening. The Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed, has 20% of its text devoted to jihad. The Sira, Mohammed's life, has 70% of the text about Mohammed as prophet devoted to jihad.

These numbers show that the analogy between the violence in the texts of the Jews and Christians is vastly overdrawn.

The next suggested parallel between Islam and Christians is that both pick and choose from their texts. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect down to the last letter. It does not have a single error. This makes it very difficult to ignore.

But a Muslim does have a way to make choices that a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu cannot. Islam has dualistic ethics. Muslims are all brothers and to be treated as such. But there is no Golden Rule and a Muslim may choose to treat the kafir badly or well, depending upon the situation and needs. That is the nature of dualistic ethics.

Dualism also allows the choice of the Meccan Koran or the Medinan Koran. When Mohammed was in Mecca, he was weak and attempted to get along with the Meccans. This gives us the verses of tolerance. Later, in Medina Mohammed had power and the Koran became cruel and vicious towards any person who denied Mohammed. So every Muslim has the choice of tolerance and coexistence from the Meccan verses, or any of the physical violence or hatred found in the Medinan Koran.

There is another choice that a person who claims to be a Muslim can make. They may choose to be a kafir by ignoring an Islamic doctrinal point. It is very odd, but people assume that every action by one who calls them a Muslim is pure Islam. But the Koran condemns Muslims who make choices to imitate kafirs. This condemnation extends to those who choose to apply the Golden Rule to kafirs.

So there are three kinds of Muslim, depending on their choices: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir Muslim.

There is a great danger in trying to understand Islam through Christianity or any other Western idea or concept. The underlying assumption is that Islam is similar or has parallels to kafir culture. This means that Islam does not need to be studied, because it is "like" some kafir concept or institution such as freedom and Christianity. This idea is false and has no supporting facts to prove it. Islam is sui generis, unique, and without parallel.

Islam stands entirely on its own with a separate logic, reasoning and ethical system. Islam must be studied on its own. In the end this means understanding the themes of the Koran and the life of Mohammed found in the Sira and the Hadith.

Why is Islam worse than any other religion or cult? Simple, it is not a religion, but a complete civilization that has a political doctrine of annihilating and subjugating all kafir civilizations. This doctrine had been put into action for the last 1400 years and has caused the deaths of 270 million kafirs.

Islam has annihilated entire civilizations. Take Afghanistan as an example. Before, Islam invaded the civilization of Gandharva, it had been peaceful for four centuries and was wealthy. Buddhism flourished and great art was produced. Then came Islamic jihad and Ghandarva was destroyed down to the last work of art and the last Buddhist. Today we have the armpit of the world-Afghanistan, an Islamic nation based upon Sharia law and Islamic politics. Buddhism and Gandharvan culture have been totally destroyed.

The political theory of Islam and its results correlate 100%. Of course, there are some harmful and creepy cults, but, measured by results, they are not in the same league as political Islam. Islam is the ultimate civilizational predator and should receive most of the attention.

Today we have two choices in viewing Islam. We can see it as based upon its doctrine and history or we can choose to see it on the basis of multiculturalism-all cultures are equally valid. But Islam denies that all cultures are equally valid. Islam insists that it is superior all other cultures. All cultures are not equally valid and all other cultures must submit. It is the will of Allah, and it is Sunna (the way of Mohammed). What is odd is that tolerant multiculturalists defend the Islamic monoculture so much.

This means that we also have two other choices. Will kafirs ignore the threat of total destruction or go on pretending that Islam is similar to other cultures? Will we foolishly apply the Golden Rule to a civilization based on dualism and hope to create an Islam that respects kafirs and treats them well? But Allah hates kafirs and it is Sunna to immigrate, deceive and make the kafirs submit little by little.

Choices: will we choose life or death for kafir civilization?

---

This article (title changed) appeared in Political Islam website.

Brigitte Gabriel Blasts Political Correctness

Iran’s leaders explain the rules of why, when, and how rape and torture should be used.

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/islam-sanctions-rape-and-torture-of-prisoners-yes-islam/

Stand With Israel: Sign the Petition Against the Goldstone Report

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2306

Stand With Israel: Sign the Petition Against the Goldstone Report

Honest Reporting: The United Nations Human Rights Council spends a great deal of time condemning Israel while ignoring real human rights abuses. Now, the U.N. General Assembly has approved a Human Rights Council resolution endorsing the one-sided, biased report of Judge Richard Goldstone accusing Israel of “War Crimes.” The General Assembly recommended that the resolution should now be considered by the U.N. Security Council. Act now to prevent the Security Council from approving this resolution.

Please sign the petition at the end of this short video that will be sent to President Obama and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council urging them to veto this biased resolution.
Even if you have already signed, you can still help by forwarding this e-mail to a friend who may not have seen it.

Click Here

TURKEY: Re-Writing The Middle East?

http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=2304

ISTANBUL (IDN) - In a record time, Turkish diplomacy has managed to put together several pieces in its Middle East puzzle — in fact it has struck strategic deals with three key regional players: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. A new ’quartet’ has been formed. The question is what kind of music can it play?

The Turkish shift towards the Middle East jumped visibly to the news earlier this year, when Prime Minister Recep Erdogan walked out of the World Economic Forum in Davos, to signal his strong protest against Israeli massive attacks on Gaza, which killed around 1,500 Palestinians, many of them civilians, for which the UN charged Tel Aviv with war crimes.

Shortly after, Turkey was invited to attend Arab League’s Foreign ministers meetings as an active observer. The Arab League comprises only the 22 Arab countries.

Last summer, Ankara accepted a challenging plan, promoted by Damascus, to form a new Middle East bloc between Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria itself.

As a starter, and in spite of its threatening drought, Turkey agreed to Syrian and Iraqi petition to maintain the volume of waters (500 cubic meters per second) pouring from its mountains into River Euphrates which flows through its two neighbours.

In September, Erdogan announced the cancellation of the annual joint military manoeuvres with U.S. and Israeli troops. The reason, according to Turkish prime minister, is that his country does not want Israeli war fighters, which killed innocent civilians in Gaza to fly its skies.

In October, Erdogan embarked in a tour through the tree capitals of the new ‘quartet’.

TURKEY-SYRIA: SANS FRONTIERS

In Damascus, he implemented what Syrian Foreign minister Walid Al Moalem characterized as a “historical event”– opening borders between Turkey and Syria, abolishing entry visas, and liberalizing road transport between the two countries.

In addition, Turkey and Syria signed over three dozens of co-operation agreements, ranging from energy to security, defence, water and, of course, political mutual support.

Turkish Foreign minister Ahmed Davutoglu said in Damascus that relations between Syria and Turkey have a “great strategic and economic relevance”.

“These relations are a must as we share the same geography,” he said, adding that “there is a symbolic importance to our relation with Syria: no barbed wires, no mines, no gates, but open borders.”

And Syrian Defence minister Ali Habib announced the participation of his country in joint land military manoeuvres with Turkey. “We agreed to run bigger, more comprehensive joint military exercises” in the future.

TURKEY-IRAQ: WATER, ENERGY AND PKK

Shortly after, Erdogan went to Baghdad. There the two countries signed 48 agreements and memorandums of understating, covering a wide range of issues, from energy to water passing andsecurity.

In Baghdad, Erdogan underlined the firm determination of Turkey to combat the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which according to him, uses the North of Iraq as a backyard base, He stressed that the PKK is a movement that threatens both Turkish and Iraqi security.

In a joint press conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, Erdogan told reporters that Ankara hopes that trade exchanges between the two countries would increase four-fold to reach 20 billion dollars a year.

Reacting to Al Maliki’s insistence on the need that Turkey increases water flow to Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, which an Iraqi official spokesman estimated at 440 millions cubic meters per second, Erdogan announced that his country will raise this volume to 550 million meters per second.

Erdogan and Al Maliki also agreed to launch negotiations to regulate exports of Iraqi natural gas to Europe through Turkey. It is still not clear if the Iraqi gas will pass through the European Nabucco pipeline project.

The Nabucco project will link Turkey with Austria through 3,300 kilometres crossing Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary. It costs 7.9 billion dollars and is expected to be operational by the year 2015. The project aims at reducing European dependence on Russian gas.

Moreover, Turkey and Iraq agreed to reactivate oil pipelines projects between the two countries, as well as the construction of railways linking Iraq to Europe through Turkey.

TURKEY-IRAN: NUCLEAR, GAS, AND POLITICS

Then Erdogan went to Tehran, where he did the same things aimed at strengthening ties as he did in Damascus and Baghdad, and expressed clear understanding towards Iran’s stand vis-à-vis the West in relation to the Iranian nuclear programme.

Erdogan agreed with President Mohamoud Ahmadynijad, whom he called “a friend” to promote trade exchange and do it in their respective local currencies.

In Tehran, Erdogan signalled that Iran is a “friend nation” and reiterated his blames to Western countries for what he called “unfair” and “hypocritical” positions regarding Iran nuclear intentions.

Then he characterised as “act of madness” an eventual Israel attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

With Syria, Iraq and Iran, Turkey set up high-level strategic co-operation councils.

ALL WINNERS?

Once this new Middle East quartet has been agreed upon, what can it do?

So far, all four members of the bloc would be benefiting.

Syria manages to produce a new breach in the tight siege imposed by former White House occupant, who added it to his list of “evil axes”.

In addition, Damascus enjoys full Turkish support and readiness to mediate with Europe, the U.S. and eventually Israel again. It also ensures its much-needed water supplies from Turkey.

Iraq is having dangerous divergence with its Kurdistan region, which wants to enjoy full self-rule, bordering independence, and keep all oil resources and revenues for the Kurds.

Keeping good relations with her powerful Turkish neighbour will help it both harness Kurdish independence aspirations, ensure water provisions, and mediate with Syria, which Baghdad accuses of harbouring Iraqi former Baath party elements, responsible according to Baghdad of fuelling massive attacks in its lands.

Iran could not welcome more the Turkish overture. It helps Tehran break the international isolation imposed by former U.S. administration, which listed it, as well as Syria, on its “axes of evil”.

In exchange of its support, Tehran offers Turkey to explore natural gas in Southern Fares field, against 50 per cent of all gas extracted from it, which Turkey can use and even export.

With this, and in addition to its energy agreements with Iraq, Turkey will become a key energy transportation channel to Europe, but also an exporter.

At the same time, Tehran would not fear that an eventual Turkish strong presence in the region would threaten its own plans. In fact, Turkey is not an Arab country.

In the cases of Syria and Iran, the fact that Turkey is an important member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and ally of Washington and London, could not be more comforting. In fact, Turkish voice is not only heard in the NATO, U.S. and UK, but also listened to.

Turkey also benefits. With its Middle East growing influence, Ankara can offer to Europe a good channel of communication with conflictive Middle East.

This can help Ankara strengthen its arguments for either a European Union membership, to which it aspires, or a significant ‘privileged partnership’ which European big powers offer it instead of fully joining the EU club.

Parallel to all that, a new, strong role and influence in the Middle East proportionate to Ankara’s wide, rich markets, big investment opportunities for its development, and a solid corridor to also oil-rich but under-developed Central Asia countries, are among so many others benefits.

A quick look at a statement by Erdogan on October 29 during his visit to Tehran may help understand better. “Turkey has never neglected any of its neighbouring areas, from Palestine to Lebanon to Syria and Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan”, he said. In fact, Erdogan arrived in Tehran from Islamabad.

There, Erdogan addressed the Pakistani parliament. “Turkey and Pakistan are two influential countries in the region and they will continue efforts to bring comprehensive peace.”

In this first time ever that a foreign high official addressed the Pakistani parliament, Ergodan said: “The remedies are in hands of the countries of the region . . . not outside.”

WHAT NEXT?

This is another question altogether.

If the new quartet pretends to exercise political muscles in the Middle East, it would be strongly exposed to the risk of demolition by the current strongest player on Earth, the U.S.

If instead the four countries are content with enjoying mutual benefits and playing a low-profile game, that might be more than enough to survive.

But George Orwell, in his 1984 masterwork, explained that those who hold power are never happy with having it — they need to show it. (IDN-InDepthNews/09.11.2009)

* Fareed Mahdy is special correspondent of IDN-InDepthNews Service

Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews Service

Related IDN links:
TURKEY: Playing Smart - Both EU and Middle East Games
http://www.indepthnews.net/news/news.php?key1=2009-10-12%2011:39:19&key2=1

IDN Middle East Analysis:
http://www.indepthnews.net/area2.php?key=MM