• Religion Of Peace

  • Archives

  • 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

Clear Channel, Intimidated by Terror, Forbids Criticism of Muhammad on Their Billboards

They allowed an ad — from a terror-tied group — that falsely praised Muhammad on “women’s rights.” Then they refused our ad, which countered with the truth.

by Robert Spencer

….After the jihad attack at the Muhammad cartoon contest that Pamela Geller and I hosted in Garland, Texas, last month, we got a taste of those “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming.”

Many people — on both the left and the right — criticized us for gratuitously offending Muslims. Luminaries such as Bill O’Reilly and Laura Ingraham acknowledged the point of our event — to stand for the freedom of speech against violent intimidation — but insisted that just because we could do something didn’t mean that we should do it.

They maintained that demonstrating respect to Muslim sensibilities would in the long run do more to fight jihad terror than defiance in the face of threats and murder.

Events have moved quickly. Now, just weeks later, we have moved from “you can do it, but you shouldn’t” to “you can’t do it” — at least on public billboard space.

If you dare to cross into political incorrectness, you’ll be subjected to “peer pressure and shaming.” As I wrote recently,Muhammad is now the man we all must love, and the billboard giant Clear Channel has now shown what that means.

Clear Channel ran billboards in Atlanta from the Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), stating:

Muhammad — peace be upon him — believed in peace, social justice, women’s rights.

When Geller and I tried to counter this ridiculous deception with the truth, Clear Channel was not so accommodating.

Our initial ad read:

Muhammad believed in war, denial of rights to women, denial of rights to non-Muslims, deceit of unbelievers.

All of these assertions are readily verifiable from core Islamic texts. But Clear Channel nixed this ad, so we developed a new one featuring quotations attributed to Muhammad himself in the Hadith:

I have been made victorious through terror; I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women); I have been commanded to fight against people.

That one got a thumbs-down from Clear Channel as well, even though we readily complied with their request to show the Islamic sources from which these quotes came.

Clear Channel’s Jack Jessen told Pamela Geller that he rejected our ad because:

[It had a] negative connotation to it.

But Clear Channel has no problem with negative ads in general. It readily ran atheist ads criticizing belief in God, and has had no qualms about running Palestinian anti-Israel hate propaganda:

Clear-Channel-atheist-billboard

Clear-Channel-anti-Israel-billboard

More

SHOCK POLL: 51% OF U.S. MUSLIMS WANT SHARIA; 25% OKAY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST AMERICANS

AP Photo

by JOHN NOLTE

The Center for Security Policy released a poll Tuesday that should give all Americans pause. The results show that a startling number of American Muslims, our fellow citizens, agree that violence is a legitimate response to those who insult Islam. A full majority of 51% “agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”…

…A full 25% of those polled agreed that “violence against Americans here in the United States can be justified as part of the global jihad.”

For those who don’t know, Sharia Law is nothing less than the Nazi-ification of a religion. Sharia authorizes murder against non-believers who won’t convert, horrific oppression of women, the execution of gays, the extermination of Jews, and the beheading of anyone who draws Muhammad.

Currently anywhere from 3 million to 7 million Muslims live in America.

More

The Myth of Muslim Radicalization

by DANIEL GREENFIELD

….Radicalization does not go from zero to sixty. It speeds up from sixty to seventy-five.

It builds on elements that are already there in the mosque and the household. The term “extremism” implicitly admits that what we are talking about is not a complete transformation, but the logical extension of existing Islamic beliefs.

Omar Saleh seemed cheerful enough about Hamas dropping Kassam rockets on Israeli towns and cities. Would he have supported his son setting off a bomb in the Statue of Liberty? Who knows, but his son was already starting from a family position that Muslim terrorism against non-Muslims was acceptable.

Everything else is the fine print.

When Usaama Rahim followed the way of the Muslim Brotherhood, he was with a moderate group whose spiritual guide, the genocidal Qaradawi was the godfather of cartoon outrage and had endorsed the murderous Iranian fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

The slope that leads from Qaradawi’s cartoon rage to trying to behead Pamela Geller isn’t a slippery one; it’s a vertical waterfall. And this is what radicalization really looks like. It doesn’t mean moderates turning extreme. It means extremists becoming more extreme. And there’s always room for extremists to become more extreme which turns old extremists into moderates while mainstreaming their beliefs.

In the UK, Baroness Warsi, Cameron’s biggest mistake, blamed Muslim radicalization on the government’s refusal to engage with… radicals. Or as she put it, “It is incredibly odd and incredibly worrying that over time more and more individuals, more and more organisations are considered by the government to be beyond the pale and therefore not to be engaged with.”

The reason why the government is refusing to “engage” with these organizations is that they support terrorism in one form or another. Warsi is proposing that the UK fight radicalization by mainstreaming it.

Mainstreaming extremism is also Obama’s policy. It’s the logic behind nearly every Western diplomatic move in the Middle East from the Israel-PLO peace process to the Brotherhood’s Arab Spring. And these disasters only created more Islamic terrorism.

The Muslim teenagers headed to join ISIS did not come out of a vacuum. They came from mosques and families that normalized some degree of Islamic Supremacism and viewed some Muslim terrorists as heroes and role models. It’s time for Western governments to admit that the ISIS Jihadist is more the product of his parents and his teachers than of social media Jihadis on YouTube and Twitter.

Radicalization doesn’t begin with a sheikh on social media. It begins at home. It begins in the mosque. It just ends with ISIS.
More

Here’s Everything You Need to Know about Islamic Hate for the Christian Cross

by Raymond Ibrahim

abstract_cross_6-11-15-1

Last May in Italy, a Muslim boy of African origin beat a 12-year-old girl during school because she was wearing a crucifix around her neck.  The African schoolboy, who had only started to attend the school approximately three weeks earlier, began to bully the Christian girl — “insulting her and picking on her in other ways all because she was wearing the crucifix” — before he finally “punched the girl violently in the back.”

What is it about the Christian cross that makes some Muslims react this way?

The fact is, Islamic hostility to the cross is an unwavering fact of life — one that crosses continents and centuries; one that is very much indicative of Islam’s innate hostility to Christianity.

Doctrine and History

Because the Christian cross is the quintessential symbol of Christianity — for all denominations, including most forms of otherwise iconoclastic Protestantism — it has been a despised symbol in Islam.

According to the Conditions of Omar — a medieval text which lays out the many humiliating stipulations conquered Christians must embrace to preserve their lives and which Islamic history attributes to the second “righteous caliph,” Omar al-Khattab — Christians are “not to display a cross [on churches]… and “not to produce a cross or [Christian] book in the markets of the Muslims.”

The reason for this animosity is that the cross symbolizes the fundamental disagreement between Christians and Muslims.

According to Dr. Sidney Griffith, author of The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque, “The cross and the icons publicly declared those very points of Christian faith which the Koran, in the Muslim view, explicitly denied: that Christ was the Son of God and that he died on the cross.”  Thus “the Christian practice of venerating the cross and the icons of Christ and the saints often aroused the disdain of Muslims,” so that there was an ongoing “campaign to erase the public symbols of Christianity, especially the previously ubiquitous sign of the cross.”

Islam’s hostility to the cross, like all of Islam’s hostilities, begins with the Muslim prophet Muhammad. He reportedly “had such a repugnance to the form of the cross that he broke everything brought into his house with its figure upon it” and once ordered someone wearing a cross to “take off that piece of idolatry.”   Moreover, Muhammad claimed that at the end times Jesus himself would make it a point to “break the cross” — an assertion the Islamic State regularly makes.

Islamic history ever since Muhammad is riddled with anecdotes of Muslims cursing and breaking crosses.  Prior to the Battle of Yarmuk in 636, which pitted the earliest invading Muslim armies against the Byzantine Empire, Khalid bin al-Walid, the savage “Sword of Allah,” told the Christians that if they wanted peace they must “break the cross” and embrace Islam, or pay jizya and live in subjugation — just as his Islamic State successors are doing today in direct emulation.  The Byzantines opted for war…..

….In light of the above, it should come as no surprise that the Islamic State — “ISIS” — also exhibits violence to the Christian cross.   In its communiques to the West, hostile reference to the cross is often made:  “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah…. [We will cast] fear into the hearts of the cross worshippers….

After carving the heads of Coptic Christians off in Libya, the lead executioner waved his dagger at the camera and said, “Oh people, recently you have seen us on the hills of as-Sham and Dabiq’s plain [Syrian regions], chopping off the heads that have been carrying the cross for a long time.  And today, we are on the south of Rome, on the land of Islam, Libya, sending another message.”  He concluded by declaring: “We will fight you [Christians/Westerners] until Christ descends, breaks the cross and kills the pig” (all eschatological actions ascribed to the Muslim “Christ,” Isa).

Moreover, the Islamic State has committed countless atrocities against and because of the cross:  it made and disseminated a video showing its members smashing crosses in and atop churches in territories under its sway; it beheaded and stabbed a man with his own crucifix after it exposed him as a Christian; and it published pictures of its members destroying Christian crosses and tombstones in cemeteries under its jurisdiction  –  and quoted Islamic scriptures justifying its actions.

Careful readers will note the similar parallels here: destroying crosses in churches and cemeteries and even killing Christian “infidels” for wearing them, as documented above, is not limited to “ISIS” but is happening all around the Muslim world, and even in Europe.

In short, Islam’s age-old hatred for the Christian cross — and what it represents — is not a product of the Islamic State, but of Islam.

More

“Muslims Are Not What Is Wrong With Islam”

By Eric Allen Bell

Muslims are not what is wrong with Islam. This is what has been nearly impossible to communicate to most Liberals today.  The problem with Islam is the Prophet Muhammad.  According to Islamic scripture, in other words, what mainstream Muslims are taught to believe, the Prophet Muhammad was a slave owner, a rapist, committed mass murder, hated Jews with a passion, wanted homosexuals punished, killed his critics, stripped women of all rights and had sex with a nine year old girl, whom he married when she was six, named Aisha.

If the Prophet Muhammad was a Republican Senator from Kentucky, Liberals would oppose him vehemently. But as I have stated before, within the Liberal mind there seems to be a perceptive disability. When I say “Islam” they hear “Muslim”. Such is the nature of the Collectivist mind.

But Muslims are a symptom and not the source of the problem.  The problem is the Prophet Muhammad. If he were alive today, Amnesty International would certainly have a problem with his followers obeying his laws, which demand that certain people have their limbs amputated and their nose cut off. The Democrats would have him in their crosshairs as being at the forefront on the “war against women”. The New York Times would certainly seek to expose him and any whistle blower in his ranks would be celebrated as the next Julian Assange.  

The Huffington Post and Daily Kos would be collecting signatures, to demand that our government do something to stop him. Media Matters would be reprinting all of the outrageous things he said, such as “I have become victorious through terror”.

Michael Moore would probably follow the Prophet around, trying to trick him into a “gotcha” question, then win an Academy Award for his latest documentary, “Muhammad and Me”. The poster would feature Michael Moore gloating in his baseball cap, next to a cut out of the Prophet – and then of course he would be executed, because of thedepiction of the Prophet.

Gloria Allred would be representing all of the women whom the Prophet Muhammad took as sex slaves. Every major women’s rights group in America would send out mailers, asking for donations to stop the Prophet Muhammad from instructing his followers to rape his enemies, as an act of war.  Rachel Maddow would have a field day, every day, with this story – and rightfully so. Organizations for the rights of women would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.

CNN’s Anderson Cooper would profile the Prophet Muhammad in his “Keeping Them Honest” segment of his highly rated show, because of all the contradictions in Muhammad’s best seller, the Holy Quran (look up “Abrogation”).  Cat Stevens would be held in Guantanamo Bay for aiding an enemy of the United States, since he is a follower of the Prophet and Muhammad says that no government is legitimate, unless it follows the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad. And he would be likely be sharing a bunk with Representative Keith Ellison.

The ADL would have an issue with the Prophet Muhammad stating that Jews are all apes and pigs (see Suras 2:65, 5:60, and 7:166), rather than trying to protect the rights of Islam’s female followers to wear black sheets over their bodies, as the Prophet’s laws command. If someone were alive today, calling Jews apes and pigs, while having 1.6 billion followers, the ADL would have something to say about it.

The Daily Show would have more fun mocking the Prophet than taking pot shots at Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  Bill Maher and Sean Hannity would ironically be sharing a Nobel Peace Prize for their brave and pioneering work, in exposing the war crimes of the Prophet Muhammad.  No one would be drawing parallels between the persecuted yet devout followers of Muhammad and the Holocaust, if the Prophet Muhammad were conducting his mass genocide of infidels today (see Quran 9:5).

Gay rights groups would be a little concerned about the Mormon Church, but totally freaked out about anyone who follows the laws of the Prophet, known as the Sharia, because Sharia Law calls for homosexuals to be severely punished.  Every cult awareness website and organization out there would put out an alert, since the penalty for leaving the Prophet’s religion is death.

After the Prophet Muhammad beheaded an entire tribe of Jews, possibly no one would have a problem with waterboarding anyone who knew where to find him.  The Prophet Muhammad had several wives, but the one named Safiyya became his wife after he tortured and killed her father, her brothers, the men in her tribe, told his fighters to take the women of that tribe as sex slaves and then raped Safia that night. Anyone who had a problem with that, which would be anyone in their right mind, would not be called a “bigot”.

Given that the Prophet Muhammad advocated slavery and owned slaves, it would be unlikely that any African Americans would follow him.  Louis Farrakhan’s speeches would end up on a blooper reel, right next to Malcom X and of course the champion of human rights, Ben Affleck.

The young multibillionaire owner of the world’s largest social network would not be able to quietly obey the blasphemy laws of the Prophet Muhammad, were he alive today.  But the Prophet is said to have been told about his impending death by the Angel Gabriel. He was said to have been given a choice between being a great king on Earth and going to meet Allah. Apparently he chose not to remain immortal. However, if we compare the body counts of Pol Pot, Hitler and Chairman Mao against the 270 million people killed in the name of the Prophet Muhammad, I guess you can say he has become immortal after all….

More

Iran Film Series – 5. How to Con America – And Get a Nuclear Bomb!

Islamic Beliefs: In Search of Logic

by LT. COLONEL JAMES G. ZUMWALT, USMC (RET)

A search to understand the teachings that guide Muslims on how to live an Islam-compliant life becomes a search for logic. Just like the 16th century Spanish explorer Ponce de Leon discovered from his endless search for a “Fountain of Youth,” it simply does not exist.

Two recent positions advocated in the Sunni Muslim world underscore this. Interestingly, they seemingly support entirely contrary teachings.

The first comes to us from ISIS-a group not particularly recognized for generating intellectual thinkers.

Apparently, a debate arose among the group’s senior clerics, the nature of which suggests they have a lot of spare time on their hands-at least between intervals of slaughtering innocent men, women and children.

The focus of the debate was whether pigeon breeding is permissible under Islam. One would think for a group embracing the torture and beheading of human victims, such a non-violent activity as pigeon breeding would surely be deemed acceptable. But, not so, according to these clerical intellectual lightweights.

The rationale for banning this activity is mind-boggling. ISIS clerics determined (are you ready for this) such breeding exposes Muslims to the sight of a pigeon’s genitalia as it flies overhead-a sight that is offensive under Islam.

Is it more disconcerting that such teachers of Islam would actually believe a ground observer is capable of observing a fast-moving pigeon’s genitalia (or, for that matter, would even be looking for it) or that such clerical fruitcakes found the issue sufficiently important to raise? Clerics rendering such a finding make clear more than just “one flew over the cuckoo’s nest.”

Apparently, these supposedly learned Islamic scholars find avian genitalia more offensive than the genitalia exposed at slave auctions where females are stripped naked for ISIS buyers to view prior to bidding on them….

…Such thinking does not represent isolated cases of illogical Islamic thinking. In Australia, an Islamic school banned girls from running cross-country as its Muslim principal feared excessive running caused females to lose the measure of their virginity.

Clearly no mental giant, this principal obviously adhered to the reasoning behind Saudi Arabia’s ban against women drivers. That logic, stated by a judicial advisor to a group of Saudi psychologists, is, ”   If a woman drives a car…that could have negative physiological impacts as functional and physiological medical studies show that it automatically affects the ovaries and pushes the pelvis upwards. That is why we find those who regularly drive have children with clinical problems of varying degrees.”

Such outlandish and outrageous teachings represent just the tip of an ideological iceberg defying Western logic while promoting Islam’s lack thereof.

This is but one facet of Islam being taught in the 21stcentury totally insensitive to human dignity and rights.

With Islam, Muslims-plain and simple-practice a religion devoid of humanity. Treating it as an equal among true religions of peace eventually endangers our own values as we gradually yield to theirs.

More

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,776 other followers

%d bloggers like this: