• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • Muslim Mafia: The book CAIR wants banned – Order your copy now

  • Elisabeth was found guilty of hate speech crimes for speaking the truth about Islam. Click to donate to her legal defense fund

  • Categories

  • Meta

  • This blogsite / website is not the official website of ACT! for America, Inc. This blogsite / website is independently owned and operated by that ACT! for America chapter named on this site. The statements, positions, opinions and views expressed in this website, whether written, audible, or video, are those of the individuals and organizations making them and and do not necessarily represent the positions, views, and opinions of ACT! for America, Inc., its directors, officers, or agents. The sole official website of ACT! for America, Inc. is www.actforamerica.org
  • Statements, views, positions and opinions expressed in articles, columns, commentaries and blog posts, whether written, audible, or video, which are not the original work of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite, and is named on this website / blogsite are not necessarily the views, positions, and opinions of the ACT! for America chapter that owns and operates this website / blogsite

Jihad Comes To Europe

by Guy Millière

French politicians fear mass riots in the violence-prone suburban “no go zones” that surround major cities. In this photo, a car burns in Sèvres, France, during the 2005 riots. (Source: WikiMedia Commons)

….The governments’ leaders also know that they would have to run the risk of losing elections. In the major cities of Belgium and France, the Muslim vote has an increasing weight. Brussels, the city where Medhi Nemmouche murdered, is now 30% Muslim. Roubaix, the city where he was born, is 60% Muslim. The number of cities where the Muslim population is a majority continues to rise.

The governments’ leaders know that what is happening in France and Belgium can be found to varying degrees in all European countries, and that the problem that overwhelms them is really a European problem.

Government leaders in all major European countries know that hundreds of well-trained European jihadists are in Syria and that some of them will return. They do not ignore that some are already back in Europe and that attacks are likely. They do not ignore that if European jihadists are in the hundreds, those who support jihadism in Europe are probably in the tens of thousands. In recent demonstrations in support of the “Palestinian cause” all over Europe, flags of Hamas, Hizbullah and the Islamic State were abundant, and slogans explicit.

Governments in all major European countries do not ignore that many of the countries they lead are in financial dire straits, faced with sclerosis, stagnation, wretchedly controlled immigration, policies that retard economic growth, and the results of multiculturalism.

They do not ignore that many prisons in Europe are jihadi hotbeds, and that (mostly Muslim) no-go zones are proliferating.

They do not ignore that risks of riots are very real, and that judges under the influence of ideas that for a hundred years have been proven not to work — in Russia, Cuba and everywhere — nevertheless still serve everywhere in Europe.

They cannot ignore the existence in every European country of “anti-racist” organizations and Islamic lobbies, imams and journalists, almost exactly similar to those which exist in France and Belgium.

They cannot ignore the growing weight of Muslim votes in many parts of Europe.

They can break up some networks, thwart some attacks, symbolically strip some jihadists of their citizenship.

They know they are largely hostage to a situation they no longer control.

Their attitude is dictated by the fear of being confronted with more serious problems than murders: some European counter-terrorism services say that a Mumbai-style armed attack in Europe is possible, even probable.

The attitude of governments can be defined by a word often used to describe the attitude of Daladier and Chamberlain in 1938: appeasement….

 

….A few days ago, British PM David Cameron expressed concern that the Islamic State could become strong enough to “target people on the streets of Britain”, but added that he was not considering military intervention. That the man who savagely beheaded James Foley on camera spoke with an East London accent prompted British authorities to search for his identity: the beheading was immediately considered a criminal case, not a barbaric act of war.

The murder of Lee Rigby, on May 22, 2013, was considered a simple criminal case: the judge who sentenced the two killers said that the “extremist views” they both expressed during the trial were a “betrayal of Islam”. In the European media, the Islamic State is now defined as a “terrorist organization”, never as an Islamic organization. Saudi Arabia’s grand mufti recently said that “the Islamic State is the enemy of Islam”. Many European newspapers immediately ran headlines obediently repeating what he said. In mainstream European newspapers, Hamas is never defined as Islamic or even terrorist; and is called a “resistance movement”.

European Jews perceive the smell in the air, and many of them are packing their bags. Seeing that journalists may call them “traitors” and followers of “Beelzebub” does not inspire them to change their minds.

Europeans who are neither Jewish nor Muslim perceive that the situation is rapidly becoming extremely unsafe and unstable. They also feel, with good reason, that their political leaders are not telling the truth.

Recent polls show that in almost every European country, a large majority of the people is pessimistic, expects the worst, and feels a deep lack of trust in politicians, governmental institutions and the media. Recent polls also show that in most European countries, an even larger majority of the people rejects and loathes Islam. Xenophobic parties are on the rise.

In Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, published in 2009, Christopher Caldwell noted that “Europe could not stay the same with a different population in it”. He added that any debate in Europe on the impact and dangers of Islam is impossible because “violent Islamists intimidate and threaten”. He also added that the demographic trends and the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East do not indicate that the situation will improve. Five years later, it is clear that he was right.

Europe is heading towards an increasingly uncertain future. Debates on the impact and dangers of Islam are even less possible today than five years ago. Demographic trends are irrepressibly moving in a direction that is Muslim. Radical Islam in the Middle East and in Europe is rising ever more rapidly, with no one lifting a finger to stop it.

Read it all

The Glazov Gang-Gavin Boby’s Fight Against Muslim Rape Gangs

Part 1:

Part 2:

The Islamic-Supremacist Enclave in Minnesota

by Andrew C. McCarthy

….The questions came rat-tat-tat at this townhall meeting for Amy Klobuchar. A member of Minnesota’s hard Left Democratic Farm Labor Party, she was campaigning as the Democrats’ nominee for the United States Senate. Her answers sounded like babble, or perhaps clipped laughter: Haa, haa, haa. But she wasn’t laughing. Klobuchar was speaking Somali.

And she was saying “yes”: Yes to “comprehensive immigration reform”; yes to foreign language programs; yes to helping Somali money-service businesses that her constituents used to send the American dollars they learned back “home”; yes to meeting regularly with the Somali community so they could monitor that she was producing on the commitments that, absolutely haa, she was making.

The two hundred Somalis in the audience seemed pleased. They were no doubt happier still when Klobuchar won in a landslide. She rode the same wave that carried Keith Ellison into Congress. Another Farm Labor Party member, Ellison became the first Muslim to sit in the House of Representatives. He credited his victory to the enthusiastic support of Somalis. He took the oath of office, swearing on the Koran, to represent Minnesota’s fifth congressional district. In that district lies the entire City of Minneapolis. It is the Muslim enclave.

The local Somali population that has been estimated at 100,000, representing somewhere between half and two-thirds the the total number of Somalis now living in the United States. There may be many more. The actual population size is unknowable because of rampant illegal immigration, widespread identity and documentation fraud, and what the FBI gingerly describes as “a cultural reluctance to share personal information with census takers [that] has prevented an accurate count of the ethnic Somali population inside the United States.”…

…Implementing Sharia

Beyond what they hear from al Qaeda in Kismayo, Somali immigrants certainly get plenty of stoking once they get here. Besides agitators like Congressman Ellison and the “traditional leader” Abdullahi Ugas Farah, there are such priceless academics as Abdi Sheikhosman, a professor of Islamic law at the University of Minnesota. “We have a saying in Somalia,” he said to the Star Tribune in 2008. “He who approaches the lion does not know what a lion is.” That’s how it is for Somali immigrants, the good professor groused. They “arrive here not knowing the history of racial divide in this country. They don’t know the lion they are up against.” And what abuse had the lion heaped on them that might make them long once again to be in the placid bosom of Mogadishu? It seems the tortilla factory in New Brighton adopted a company uniform, which Muslim workers decided was a violation of their religious beliefs. “For me,” said Fatuma Hassan, a twenty-two-year-old Somali immigrant, “wearing pants is the same as being naked.” The company was also resistant to accommodating prayer breaks throughout the work day.  But Minnesotans would have to adjust to such novelties, opined another academic, Bruce Corrie, of Concordia University. “The Somali community is highly assertive and politically engaged. . . .  It’s part of who they are as a people.”

American travelers found that out soon enough. At the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. That, by the way, is the same place where the Flying Imams decided it was opportune to play out their hijinks. [ACM: These were Islamic prayer leaders who frightened airline passengers and crew by imitating some of the 9/11 hijackers’ preparations, covered in an earlier chapter.] Somali taxi drivers, who make up three-quarters of the busy terminal’s 900 cabbies, began refusing service to passengers who were carrying alcohol (shopping bags from the duty free are a tell-tale sign). (See here, here and here.)

The ball, it turned out, got rolling in 2006 when the local chapter of the Muslim American Society issued a fatwa admonishing Muslim taxi drivers that transporting passengers with alcohol in their baggage was a violation of sharia. As one learns to expect, the resistance soon expanded to other sharia culprits:  passengers accompanied by dogs, and even some who appeared overtly homosexual. The reluctance to ferry dogs—which are often needed by passengers with disabilties—was predictable.  In 1997, Daniel Pipes has reported, a New Orleans taxi driver, Mahmoud Awad, was so incensed when a passenger tried to bring a dog into his cab that he yanked her out of the vehicle by her broken arm screaming, “No dog, no dog, get out, get out!” CAIR rushed to his defense, helpfully pointing out that “the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer.” Good to know that.

The transportation authorities, who would not for a moment countenance a driver’s refusal to serve Muslim passengers (to name just one form of discrimination), reacted to this affront by . . . consulting the [Muslim American Society (MAS) – as explained in an earlier chapter, it is the Muslim Brotherhood’s quasi-official presence in the United States].  With their sensitivity thus enriched, the authorities opted to respond not by withdrawing licenses but by engaging the cabbies on the finer points of sharia. To wit, Muslim law, they counseled, proscribed the consumption of alcohol, not itstransportation. Of course, this fecklessness served only to imply that, in clearer cases of sharia violation, American equal-protection principles would yield as necessary to give sharia its newfangled due. Adroitly, the MAS had first provoked a controversy, taken the measure of the spineless opposition, and come away with a precedent that American law could be trumped by sharia—which, it cannot be stressed enough, is a corpus of political and social directives, not just religious commandments.

Sharia, the Muslim aversion to canines, and the traditional Islamist focus on dominating the education system proved to be too toxic a brew for Tylar Hurd.  Because the twenty-three-year old St. Cloud State University student was prone to seizures, he attended school in the company of his service dog. The black lab, called “Emmit,” was specially trained to protect Hurd, toting a pouch that contained items that would help passersby aid him in the event of an episode. Hurd was enrolled in a teacher-training program that required field work at local high schools. At Technical High, this brought Hurd into communion with scores of Somali students. Their Muslim faith, the St. Cloud Times deferentially reported, “forbids the touching of dogs.” As a result, there was much taunting and, finally, threats to kill the dog.

Fearing for himself and his animal, Hurd complained to officials at his college. St. Cloud State bravely resolved . . . to waive Hurd’s remaining training hours: giving him credit for completing the course without doing the required work in order to avoid a confrontation with menacing Muslims. A university official, the paper recounts, opined that it was “important to respect different cultures and the rights of disabled students.” He added, “I think this is part of the growth process when we become more diverse.” [The St. Cloud Times removed its report from the Internet after I cited it in apost at National Review.)

The growth process also includes suspending students out of fear for their safety. That’s what happened to an Owatonna High School senior who, in an assignment to write a class paper, chose the topic “Somalian Privileges,” complaining that the Muslim students were not required to adhere to various school rules. He and his mother were promptly summoned to the school and advised that he would be suspended, officially for “language and inappropriate comments,” but unofficially because school officials feared he would be attacked. After a few days that officials hoped would be a “cooling off period,” the boy returned to school . . . and was mauled by a gang that grew to somewhere between twenty and forty Somali students. He had to be hospitalized for head injuries. (See here and here.)

Jihad in the Classroom

In the classroom, Islamicization is seeping into the learning process as well—and not only in Minnesota. The American Textbook Council (ATC) has released a jaw-dropping study called “Islam in the Classroom.” (See Gilbert T. Sewall, Director of the American Textbook Council, “Textbook Lies about Islam” and five-part series “Islam in the Classroom: What the Textbooks Tell Us”, available at Family Security Matters, here.) History and “social studies” texts routinely indoctrinate children of middle and high school age that the prophet of Islam was a trader who “taught equality” and was animated by the desire to “help the poor.” The texts “feature manifold contributions of Islam to the arts and science”—including “textiles, calligraphy, design, books, city building, architecture, mathematics, medicine, polo, and chess.” Students are informed that music, and particularly singing, was “an essential part of Muslim Spain’s musical culture”—which is said to have “undoubtedly influenced later musical forms in Europe and North Africa” . . . though the text in question later admits that this music is “lost,” so just how much “undoubted influence” it actually had can only be imagined.

The concept of jihad is whitewashed in a way that would surely bring an envious smile to government experts. Gone is the once straightforward recitation that Islam spread by the sword. Now, as the pages turn, Islam “moves peacefully with traders.” It is “brought” to seemingly willing populations and spontaneously “spreads” throughout the Middle East to people who simply “become” Muslims.  A McDougall Littell volume explains, “There was much blending of cultures under Muslim rule. Over time, many peoples in Muslim-ruled territories converted to Islam. They were attracted by Islam’s message of equality and hope for salvation.” Islamic tolerance is a leitmotif. Students are informed, for example, that “[a]nother factor in helping the Arabs [in the “spread of Islam”] was their tolerance for other religions.” As the study summarizes, “Once non-Arabs have been conquered, students learn, those societies and civilizations with non-Islamic systems of belief live in a wonderland of interreligious cooperation.” A teacher’s edition of the McDougal Littell text poses the “Essential Question”:

Q:  How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim empire treat those the conquered?

A:  They treated them with tolerance.

Review:

Q: Why were the caliphs tolerant of the people they conquered?

A:  Because the Qur’an did not allow Muslims to force people to convert to Islam.

Islam’s legacy of dhimmitude and enslavement is assiduously suppressed, as is its official sanction of booty-taking. Indeed, what the Koran did and did not allow is left a mystery.  On sharia, children are vapidly taught that Islamic law “makes no distinctions between religious beliefs and daily life,” and that “Shari’ah sets rewards for good behavior and punishments for crimes”—but they are informed neither of how profound a departure the melding of mosque and state is from Western traditions of religious freedom, nor of the particular rewards (such as an orgiastic paradise for martyrdom in the cause of jihad) and punishments (such as stoning, decapitation, dismemberment, for such offenses as apostasy, a woman’s refusal to enter an arranged marriage, and petty theft).

Since the mid-1990s, the message that it is a “common misrepresentation” to frame jihad as “holy war” has been drummed into students. A widely used Prentice-Hall high school text says: “Some Muslims look on jihad, or effort in God’s service, as another duty.  Jihad has often been mistakenly translated simply as ‘holy war.’ In fact, it may include acts of charity or an inner struggle to achieve spiritual peace, as well as any battle in defense of Islam.” Seventh graders in California and Arizona are schooled that jihad represents the human struggle to overcome difficulties and do things that are pleasing to God. Muslims strive to respond positively to personal difficulties as well as worldly challenges.  For instance, they might work to become better people, reform society, or correct injustice.

As the ATC incisively observes, since jihad is so often described as a “struggle against oppression,” how can students who hear of repeated calls to jihad against Christians and Jews not consider that the United States and Israel are likely the culprits?

ACM note: Reliance of the Traveller, the sharia manual endorsed by scholars at al-Azhar University and the Muslim Brotherhood’s American think-tank (the International Institute of Islamic Thought), explains that “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” As the “Mapping Sharia” study elaborates, jihad is etymologically derived from the wordmujahada, signifying warfare to establish Islam. For more on the manual and the repressive elements of sharia, seehere and here.]

As combustible as the clash of cultures is, it may be the least of the education problem.  There is also the elevation and subsidization of the single Muslim culture.  To accommodate Muslims, the state of Minnesota is using its charter school law to operate an Islamic public school, a benefit accorded no other religious group. Taxpayers foot the bill for the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy in suburban St. Paul, to the tune of nearly $4 million per annum. That is the allegation of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, which has filed a suit, claiming a breach of the First Amendment’s proscription against establishing a state religion.

Besides information derived from the lawsuit, much is known about the school because of dogged investigative reporting by the Star Tribune’s Katherine Kersten. “TIZA,” as it is known for short, is named after the Muslim general who conquered medieval Spain in the Eighth Century. It was founded by a pair of imams who doubled as top leaders of the Muslim American Society of Minnesota: MAS-MN Vice President Asad Zaman served as principal, while MAS-MN President Hesham Hussein chaired TIZA’s board until being killed in car accident in Saudi Arabia. The school is physically located in the MAS-MN headquarters, as is a mosque. Besides the MAS-MN, the most important backer of TIZA is its sponsor, Islamic Relief-USA. While Islamic Relief is likened to the Red Cross in several TIZA documents, the Israeli government observes that its parent organization, Islamic Relief Worldwide, “provides support and assistance” to Hamas.

Minnesotan law requires its public schools to be nonsectarian. Visitors to TIZA, however, found themselves greeted by a Muslim prayer posted in the entryway. The school sports a centrally carpeted prayer room, and the ACLU alleges both that MAS-MN has conducted prayer sessions there during school hours, and that—after teachers encourage students to partake in Islam’s pre-prayer ablution ritual—the school breaks for a half-hour of prayer service on Fridays (time that is not made up). Moreover, the MAS-MN runs a Muslim studies program for an hour immediately after school has officially concluded for the day. In effect, this makes Muslim studies part of the regular curriculum: Although school officially ends at 3:30pm, buses don’t depart from TIZA until 4:30. Further, the school requires girls (but not boys) to cover their bare arms, and the uniform for older girls (as well as the dress code for female teachers) calls for them to be covered from the neck to the wrist and ankle, with virtually all wearing headscarves.  Students refer to their teachers as “Brother” or “Sister.” The cafeteria serves halal food only, and students fast from dawn until dusk during Ramadan.

Publicly, TIZA claims to conform to the standard secular curriculum.  A different picture, though, is painted for Muslim audiences.  Katherine Kersten explains:

At MAS-MN’s 2007 convention, for example, the program featured an advertisement for the “Muslim American Society of Minnesota,’ superimposed on a picture of a mosque. Under the motto ‘Establishing Islam in Minnesota,” it asked: “Did you know that MAS-MN … houses a full-time elementary school”? On the adjacent page was an application for TIZA…. Meanwhile, MAS-MN offers on its web site “beneficial and enlightening information” about Islam, which includes statements like “Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr.” At its 2007 convention, MAS-MN featured the notorious [Sheikh] Khalid Yasin, who is well-known in Britain and Australia for teaching that husbands can beat disobedient wives, that gays should be executed and that the United States spreads the AIDS virus in Africa through vaccines for tropical diseases. Yasin’s topic?  “Building a Successful Muslim Community in Minnesota.”

[ACM: TIZA was shut down in 2011 based on a new state law that disqualified out-of-state authorizers for charter schools – TIZA having been authorized by the Washington, D.C.-based Islamic Relief organization.]…

More

Declare War on Shariah

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

losers

….Nearly thirteen years after 9/11, it is past time to recognize that we are at war not with one group of “terrorists” or another. Rather, adherents to a doctrine or ideology they call shariah are at war with us. Shariah is, at its core, about power, not faith. While some small percentage (some estimates suggest ten-percent) of its dictates prescribe the religious practices, the rest of it defines comprehensively how every relationship must be ordered – between individuals, families, neighbors, business associates, all the way up to how the world is governed.

Most importantly, shariah obliges its followers to engage in jihad (or holy war). Don’t be misled by those who argue jihad means “personal struggle.” The Koran makes clear that jihad is “holy war.” And for shariah-adherent Islamists that war has two goals: the triumph of shariah worldwide and the establishment of what is, for want of a better term, a theocratic government to rule the entire planet according to that doctrine.

The jihadists may disagree among themselves about some points of theology (notably, differences that divide Sunnis and Shiites). They may be committed to the use of terrifying violence under all circumstances. Or, as in the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, they may believe it is to be used where practicable, but insist on employing not so much non-violent as pre-violent, subversive techniques where terrorism will be counterproductive.

Whatever the banner under which these shariah-adherents wage jihad – for example, the Islamic State, al Qaeda, Taliban, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, Ansar al-Shariah or Muslim Brotherhood – all these Islamists are our avowed enemies. That is not because of how we view them. That is because of their own doctrine which is endlessly reinforced in their mosques, via the Internet, through social media and other vehicles.

We can no longer kid ourselves, or otherwise avoid a harsh reality: While perhaps hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world – including it seems the majority of those in America – practice their faith without regard for shariah (they don’t want to live under it themselves and they do not seek to impose it on others), the authorities of Islam regard shariah as the true faith and consider these co-religionists to be apostates.

At the moment, fortunately, only a relatively small number are actively engaged in violent jihad. Many more, though, are doing what shariah demands of those unable or unwilling to wield the sword in holy war: underwriting those who do, through the practice of zakat(Islam’s obligatory contributions to approved charitable causes, one of which is jihad).

Unless and until we understand that shariah-adherent Muslims are inherently dangerous, we will be unable to define our enemy correctly. Unless and until we hold such Muslims accountable, we will not only restrict unduly the focus and effectiveness of our countervailing efforts….

More

The Islamic State Has Nothing to Do With Islam?

by Robert Spencer

An-image-from-the-jihadist-Twitter-account-Al-Baraka-news-on-June-11-2014-allegedly-shows-militants-from-ISIL-hanging-the-Islamic-Jihad-flag-AFP

Whatever they may disagree about, Western leaders are in complete agreement about one thing: the new self-styled caliphate, the Islamic State, has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. It’s a comforting, reassuring vision for Western non-Muslims facing a massive influx of Muslim immigrants and jittery about the prospect of Islamic terrorism, except for just one problem: it’s entirely false.

Barack Obama has made it clear: “ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” David Cameron intoned: “What we are witnessing is actually a battle between Islam on the one hand and extremists who want to abuse Islam on the other. These extremists, often funded by fanatics living far away from the battlefields, pervert the Islamic faith as a way of justifying their warped and barbaric ideology – and they do so not just in Iraq and Syria but right across the world, from Boko Haram and al-Shabaab to the Taliban and al-Qaeda.”

State Department spokesperson Marie Harf emphasized that Obama meant what he said: “ISIL does not operate in the name of any religion. The president has been very clear about that, and the more we can underscore that, the better.” British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond declared: “[ISIL]’s so-called caliphate has no moral legitimacy; it is a regime of torture, arbitrary punishment and murder that goes against the most basic beliefs of Islam.” The British opposition agrees: Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said that Islamic State “extremists are beheading people and parading their heads on spikes, subjugating women and girls, killing Muslims, Christians and anyone who gets in their way. This is no liberation movement — only a perverted, oppressive ideology that bears no relation to Islam.”

Cooper’s statement was a bit more specific than most others of its kind, and shows up the weakness of all of them. For every Islamic State atrocity she enumerated, there is Qur’anic sanction:

Beheading people: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (Qur’an 47:4).

Subjugating women and girls: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them” (Qur’an 4:34)….

More

Quotes from Non-Muslim Thinkers on Islam/Religion

by Ayesha Ahmed

DR M. SABIESKI (PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY)

“The militant Muslim is the person cutting the head of the infidel while the moderate Muslim holds the victims feet”.

MARCO POLO (WORLD TRAVELLER)

“The law which their prophet Mohamed has given to muslims is that any harm done to any one who does not accept their law and any appropriation of his goods, is no sin at all”.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS (U.S. PRESIDENT)

“THE ESSENCE OF MOHAMMED’S DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE”.

PROF BERTRAND RUSSELL (PHILISOPHER)

“Over a billion people believe in Allah without truly knowing what Allah supposedly stands for or what he really demands of them. And the minority that do understand continue to be Moslems because they have redefined their morality and ethics to fit within the teachings of Islam, which are floridly lacking in morality. They therefore redefine what is good and evil in order to fit their lives into what is preached by Islam, instead of examining Islam to see if it fits within the good life. Backwards thinking, imposed by a backward religion”.

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (BRTI PRIME MINISTER)

Churchill, W – The River War 1899:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”

ALEXIS DE TOCQVILLE (FRENCH THINKER/HISTORIAN)

“I studied the Kuran a great deal … I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed”

EARNEST RENAN (FRENCH THINKER)

“Muslims are the first victims of Islam. Many times I have observed in my travels that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain others in the practice of this religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him”.

WILL DURANT (U.S. HISTORIAN)

“The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within.”…

More

ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FIGHTS FOR MUSLIM WORSHIP SPACES

BY JOHN HINDERAKER

The government of the United States is suing the town of St. Anthony, Minnesota, a Twin Cities suburb with a population a little over 8,000, to force the town to allow development of an Islamic center in an area reserved for industrial development. It is a minor news story, but one that sheds light on broader legal and cultural trends. The Minneapolis Star Tribunereports:

The federal government on Wednesday sued the small north-metro city of St. Anthony, contending that its City Council violated federal law in 2012 by rejecting a proposed Islamic center. …

“An injustice has been done,” U.S. Attorney Andy Luger said at a news conference in Minneapolis. “I will not stand by while any religious group is subject to unconstitutional treatment that violates federal civil rights laws.”

Actually, DOJ happily stood by when the city previously denied a Christian group the use of the same space. Mr. Luger didn’t mention that in his pretentious announcement….

…“Religious uses of any type are allowed in the vast majority of the city,” he said. “They are just not allowed in the roughly five percent of the city reserved for industrial uses. … An industrial zone is designed to create jobs and be an economic engine.”

Once upon a time, that would have been considered a reasonable zoning decision. But now, the full weight of the federal government–that is, the Obama administration–has come down on the side of Islam. And Islam only:

Lindgren said that the city denied another Christian organization’s request in the past few years that was similar to that of the Islamic center.

It isn’t hard to understand what is going on here. While I wish the town of St. Anthony well, it is pretty obvious that they will be ground underfoot by the powers that be, i.e., Eric Holder’s Department of Justice. Not because the administration has any particular regard for religion in general, as Christians and Jews can readily attest–just look at the Obamacare regulations. Rather, because the administration wants to display favoritism toward Islam.

If an administration could be shown to consistently favor one religion over others, would that constitute a violation of the First Amendment? Of course. But, as with so many other Obama administration scandals, long before the judicial system could even begin to address the issue on its merits, the malefactors will be long gone.

More

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,692 other followers

%d bloggers like this: