• 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

Islamic blasphemy law enforced against Houston pastor

The Chaplain for the Harris County Republican Party was fired from his dhimmi Houston City Councilman’s staff after raising objections to a Muslim being sworn in as a Republican Precinct Chairman during a May 2016 meeting of the party executive committee. Rev. Trevor Gordon stated that a Muslim cannot practice Islam and agree to the foundational principles of the Republican Party, because the party platform and Islamic teachings are in opposition.

Subsequent to Rev. Gordon’s firing, the Harris County Republican Party and the Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson held a “Muslim pep rally” in southwest Houston. This pep rally was actually a celebration of the enforcement of Islamic blasphemy laws—Rev. Gordon was striped of his right to free speech for daring to criticize Islam or Muslims.

harrisco

Harris Co DA Devon Anderson, front left, on the far right is Harris Co GOP Chair Paul Simpson. Sheriff Ron Hickman,  behind the speaker. Speaker is Syed Shahid Ali Sunni.

The Muslim in question, Syed Shahid Ali Sunni, is the founder of an organization called Muslim Council of USA, which engages in “inter-faith dialogue.” According to author Stephen Coughlin, the interfaith dialogue movement has been methodically co-opted as a prime vehicle for pro-shariah Islamic influence operations, and that the true purpose of IFD is to neutralize opposition to the shariah agenda.

MCUSA has partnered with both the Houston chapters of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Islamic Society of North America, both Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Recall the strategic goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in America:

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’, the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’”

Until proof surfaces that Syed Shahid Ali Sunni has publicly denounced the sharia agenda and any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood in America, Rev. Gordon stands exonerated.

http://bigjollypolitics.com/firing-trebor-gordon/

Bridge Building to Nowhere by Stephen Coughlin

BOOK RELEASE: “Bridge-Building” to Nowhere

Islam: A Blind Spot of the Left

Their moony embrace of multiculturalism has rendered modern liberals unable to connect the dots between beliefs and consequences. Rooted in moral relativism, multiculturalism is the notion that all moral codes are valid within their respective cultures, with no people group privileged to make moral judgments of others.

The person boorish enough to criticize the mores of another culture will quickly find himself banished from polite company for being racist, bigoted, intolerant, or (fill in the blank)-phobic. Just ask Sam Harris and Bill Maher, both establishment liberals, who were excoriated by Ben Affleck on an HBO panel discussion for their illiberalism. Their offense: calling Islam dangerous for the atrocities committed by Islamists.
To remain a member of the left in “good standing,” one can never, but never, attribute evil to the belief system that spawned it, even when the perpetrators themselves do so. One must stick to the liberal script, characterizing the actors as fringe, radical, extremist, misguided, and not representative of the true beliefs of their culture—except, that is, when those actors are Christian.

Double standards

Had the target of Harris’s and Maher’s criticism been Christianity, I doubt it would have elicited so much as a raised eyebrow from Affleck. Indeed, it has become standard practice in liberal circles to blame Christianity for hate crimes against gays and abortion clinic bombings, among other things.

But when the crime in question is a suicide bombing by ISIS, Al Qaeda, or other Islamist group, the well-bred liberal will respond, first, with appropriate outrage, then, with an ever-so-reassuring explanation that such is not the action of Muslims, but of religious fanatics; because Islam, “true” Islam, is a religion of peace and Muslims are a tolerant people.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, who sided with Affleck on the HBO panel, commented that ISIS militants who cite Islamic teaching to justify their barbarism “give all Islam a bad name.” Former Muslim Ibn Warraq knows better.

In a statement made shortly after the September 11 attacks, Warraq wrote,

“There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind. All the tenets of Islamic fundamentalism are derived from the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the Hadith—Islamic fundamentalism is a totalitarian construct derived by Muslim jurists from the fundamental and defining texts of Islam. The fundamentalists, with greater logic and coherence than so-called moderate or liberal Muslims, have made Islam the basis of a radical utopian ideology that aims to replace capitalism and democracy as the reigning world system.”

Ibn Warraq is not alone. In an interview in the New England Review, Mohammed Asghar, another former Muslim, said this about the Fort Hood massacre,

“Major Hasan’s action was in accord with the concept of Jihad, as it has been laid down in the Quran. Though the Jews and Christians are called the People of the Books, even then they are Unbelievers, as they do not believe in the prophethood of Muhammad. For this refusal of theirs, Muslims must kill them ‘for the sake of Allah.’”

False equivalence

What critics like Warraq and Asghar understand is that despite the benign attitudes and behaviors of moderate Muslims, it is the fundamentalists who take Islamic tenets seriously.

Islam teaches that sin is the result of man’s forgetfulness, forgiveness is attained through good works, and paradise is certain only when those works include dying in holy war. The end game is a utopian state where every aspect of political, economic, and social life is governed by Islamic law under a church-state theocracy. To that end, the holy texts of the faith as well as the life of its founder Muhammad teach that the use of forceful means, when called for, is commendable. As Mohammed Asghar explains,

“There are at least 109 verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war, and to kill those who do not believe in both Allah and Muhammad. ‘. . . . Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).’ (The Quran; 9:5).”

It’s a point that Kristof acknowledges—“it is true that the Quran has passages hailing violence”—but not without attempting a moral equivalence, “but so does the Bible, which recounts God ordering genocides, such as the one against the Amalekites.”

Kristof’s effort at equivalence fails because, unlike the Quranic teachings, which apply to all Muslims at all times, the biblical directives alluded to were provincial, teleological, and transient—that is, they were given to a certain people group, for a certain purpose, for a certain time only. None apply today, to anyone, especially Christians who are under the authority of Jesus’s teachings, as summarized in His Sermon on the Mount and exemplified by His life.

The liberal sympathizer who suggests that the Jihadist is no more representative of Muhammad than the Klansman is of Christ, hasn’t made a studied comparison of the two or ignores their differences, starting with how they came unto their own: Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey with a few hundred followers bearing palm branches to be crucified; Muhammad entered Mecca on a stallion with 10,000 warriors bearing swords to be victorious. Whereas Jesus gained followers by overcoming evil with good, Muhammad gained subjects by overcoming cities with the sword.

Although the Islam fundamentalist can rightly claim to follow the teachings of the Quran and the life of Muhammad in using oppressive force to gain converts, the Christian would have to disregard the clear teachings and life of Christ to do so.

Another consequential difference concerns the view of mankind. The Christian teaching of man as Imago Dei (created in God’s image) gave birth to the Western notions of human dignity and the unalienable rights of all persons. With no such view of man promoted by Islam, the ideals of democracy, equality, and individual liberty are non-existent in Islamic states, which explains why they consistently top the lists of bad actors in human rights violations.

Mainline Muslims

Folks like Affleck and Kristof are right to say that religiously motivated violence is prosecuted by a small segment of the Muslim population. What they don’t say, or know, is that it enjoys considerable support in the wider Muslim community.

As reported by the Pew Research Center, Muslims who believe that “suicide bombing and other attacks against civilians” are justified include “26% of Muslims in Bangladesh, 29% in Egypt, 39% in Afghanistan and 40% in the Palestinian territories.” Even in the U.S., only 81% of Muslims say such acts are never justified, which means a fifth of them say they are justifiable—levels of belief exceeding what could be soberly characterized as “fringe.”

What’s more, many “mainline” Muslims who publicly denounce such violence privately support it, knowingly or unknowingly, through the “zakat.” One of the five pillars of Islam, the zakat is a tithe (designated as almsgiving) that functions as an income tax used to fund social services—but also jihad, which, according to classical Islamic jurists, is the duty of faithful Muslims everywhere in the struggle against the enemies of Islam.

Read the rest at http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/26419

Robert Spencer at Global Faith Institute’s Call To Action Seminar

 

In 50 years they will kill your grandchildren before your eyes

A message for America

Sister Hatune came to America last week to seek donations for her ministry to the persecuted minorities of Iraq, Syria, Egypt and India. Most of these minorities are Christian but many in Iraq and Syria are of the ancient Yazidi sect. In one video Sister Hatune appears in a Yazidi refugee camp surrounded by families who have nothing but the clothes on their backs.

She came to America with a plea for help. But she also came with a message for Americans.

“America is inviting its own slaughterers to its door,” she said, referring to the U.S. policy of taking in Muslim refugees through the United Nations refugee program.

WND reported Dec. 11 that the U.N. has assigned 9,000 mostly Muslim refugees from Syria for resettlement in U.S. cities and towns and the U.S. has accepted nearly 2 million from Muslim countries since 1992.

“You have already a parallel society in America,” Sister Hatune said. “In 50 years they will kill your grandchildren before your eyes. The Middle East is already here. It is here. It is not far from here. It is at your door.”

That’s a message many churches in Minnesota were not ready to hear, said Debra Anderson, who heads a local chapter of ACT! For America and sponsored Sister Hatune’s recent visit.

“She wanted to do something active. She felt faith without works was dead,” Anderson said. “But it was rough trying to get her invited to speak at the churches in Minnesota. Some of it was her message. She is very critical of the Muslim governments.”

One church group that invited her to speak gave her a reception that Anderson described as “cool.”

They visited an order of Catholic nuns and “five or six of them walked out near the end of her presentation,” she said.

“Some of the photos of human suffering she showed in her presentation; I think they were really shaken,” Anderson said. “I don’t know that they had ever been challenged in their way of thinking like that. But it was all facts. We told them to check out other experts.

“But I had this one nun just interrupt me and say, ‘I am not going to listen to her anymore,’” Anderson said. “I had a hard time getting her into the churches. I really did.”

Anderson said she put out a request for speaking venues to some 800 people on her email list representing various Christian denominations.

Only a few responded with invitations.

One of the nuns from the convent in Minnesota interrupted Sister Hatune’s presentation with a specific concern.

“Sister, that’s enough,” she said, voicing her concern about a potential backlash against Muslims in the community if Sister Hatune’s documentation were to ever get widely disseminated.

But while some were repelled by the stories of thousands of girls being raped and the images of Christians being crucified by ISIS or Muslims playing soccer with the heads of their victims, others responded by coming up afterward and asking how they could get more information and possibly get involved in helping these persecuted Christians.

“My mission is to help the suffering people where they are,” Sister Hatune said. “They cannot come to me, so I go to them. One hundred percent of donations go to the suffering people. We are all volunteer. We are total independent. We have no big donor now. I wish. We have two fish and five loaves, and God is multiplying.”

The work is carried out by 5,000 volunteers with no paid staff, Sister Hatune said.

An elderly German man left the Orthodox nun a small stipend to live on when he died. She pays out of her own pocket for travel, or has a sponsor pay for her flight, as was the case with her trip to Minnesota.

Now she is making plans to return to the Middle East for Christmas, hoping to bring some gifts for children.

One of those who heard her message asked her if she was afraid.

“Everyone has fear,” Sister Hatune said. “But I am called to show solidarity. You do that, not with talk, but with action, with duty. Jesus is my body guard.”

The nun says Islamic culture is basically “like a dog,” in that it must be confronted. If there is a void or a weakness in the Christian culture, the Muslims will sense that weakness and continue to march through and intimidate the native culture.

“You cannot be afraid of Islam culture,” she said. “If you run, they will come after you like dog culture. You must stand your ground. I don’t say fight. I say resist. I say to them, ‘Stop. I don’t want you. I have my own God.’ They come here thinking to conquer the country. If they don’t accept the American way of life, go back to your home. The government has to understand this.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/nun-pleads-for-christians-raped-sold-killed-by-isis/#3rkgAmfgirZk8Egw.99

Western Ignorance of the ‘Conditions of Omar’

Syrian Christians are being forced to convert, subjugate themselves, or face death.

By RAYMOND IBRAHIM

A jihadi group occupying the Syrian town of Raqqa recently gave Christian minorities living there three choices: 1) convert to Islam; 2) remain Christian but pay tribute and accept third-class subject status; or 3) die by the sword.

According to the BBC, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria issued a directive:

[The directive cites] the Islamic concept of “dhimma,” [which] requires Christians in the city to pay tax of around half an ounce (14g) of pure gold in exchange for their safety. It says Christians must not make renovations to churches, display crosses or other religious symbols outside churches, ring church bells or pray in public.  Christians must not carry arms, and must follow other rules imposed by ISIS (also known as ISIL) on their daily lives. The statement said the group had met Christian representatives and offered them three choices — they could convert to Islam, accept ISIS’ conditions, or reject their control and risk being killed.  “If they reject, they are subject to being legitimate targets, and nothing will remain between them and ISIS other than the sword,” the statement said.

Because several Western media outlets uncharacteristically reported on this latest atrocity against Syrian Christians, many Westerners are now shocked and amazed to hear of such draconian conditions.

In reality, however, these three choices are fully grounded in Islamic teachings, as shall be demonstrated below.

Why is the West, especially in the “information age,” utterly if not abhorrently ignorant of the teachings of Islam? Because those responsible for making such knowledge available — specifically academia, media, and government — are more interested in whitewashing Islam and bemoaning Islamophobia (see pgs. 219-249 of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians for specifics).

Western Dissembling

A symbolic example of this situation: around the same time that news of jihadis subjugating and extorting jizya-money from Syrian Christians appeared, the Saudi-funded Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Christian-Muslim Understanding at Georgetown University held a seminar discussing how Islam is misunderstood and being demonized by so-called “Islamophobes.”

I have direct experience of this. Many years ago as a graduate student at Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, my interest in medieval Islamic history, Sharia, and jihad received askance looks from professors — not least because most classes offered were about the evils of colonialism and Orientalism, or Islamic “feminism.”

The same situation existed when I worked at the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress, a governmental institution; there, our conferences regularly focused on the purported achievements of Islamic civilization.

As for the endemic Muslim persecution of Christians — past or present — apparently only an “Islamophobe” would raise that topic.

Also around the same time that jihadis were giving Christians the three classic choices of Islam — conversion, subjugation, or death — a delegation of Syrian Christian clergy came to the Senate Arms Services Committee meeting room to offer testimony concerning the sufferings of Syria’s Christians:

Sen. John McCain marched into the committee room yelling, according to a high-level source that attended the meeting, and quickly stormed out. “He was incredibly rude,” the source told Judicial Watch “because he didn’t think the Syrian church leaders should even be allowed in the room.” Following the shameful tantrum McCain reentered the room and sat briefly but refused to make eye contact with the participants, instead ignoring them by looking down at what appeared to be random papers. The outburst was so embarrassing that Senator Graham, also an advocate of U.S. military intervention in Syria, apologized for McCain’s disturbing outburst. “Graham actually apologized to the group for McCain’s behavior,” according to the source, who sat through the entire meeting. “It was truly unbelievable.”

Less dramatic but equally revealing, CIA chief John Brennan recently declared that the ideology of those offering Christians three choices is “a perverse and very corrupt interpretation of the Koran,” one that has “hijacked” Islam and “really distorted the teachings of Muhammad.”

If the attempts to suppress the reality of Christian suffering under Islam by academia, media, and government were not enough, months and years back — when the plight of Syria’s Christians was becoming known — even random (but supposedly nonbiased and independent) think tanks and writers also tried to suppress it.

Is it any wonder, then, that Christians in Syria being offered three choices — Islam, subjugation, or death — is mindboggling to the average person in the West, appearing as a wild aberration? ….

More

 

Syrian Christians sign treaty of submission to Islamists

BY ELHANAN MILLER

Christian leaders in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, captured by an organization formerly affiliated with al-Qaeda, have signed a submission document this week banning them from practicing Christianity in public in return for protection by their Islamist rulers.

The document, dated Sunday and disseminated through Islamist Twitter accounts, states that the Christian community in the province of Raqqa, captured last March by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), was recently given three options: to convert to Islam; to remain Christian but pledge submission to Islam; or to “face the sword.” They opted for the second of those choices, known as dhimmitude.

Earlier this month, al-Qaeda’s central command distanced itself from ISIS, saying it was “not a branch of al-Qaeda.”

The authenticity of the document, displaying the stamp of al-Qaeda, could not be independently verified. The signatures of 20 Christian leaders at the bottom of the document said to have been party to the agreement were blotted out, ostensibly at their own request.

According to classic Islamic law, Christians and Jews living under Muslim sovereignty must pay a tax known as jizya in return for the Muslim ruler’s protection, known as dhimma.

The Christians of Raqqa chose to sign the dhimma treaty over war, the document stated, receiving a commitment by local ISIS commander Ibrahim Al-Badri, also known as Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, not to be subjected to physical harm or religious targeting.

ISIS commander Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (photo credit: AP)

In return, the Christians agreed to a list of conditions: to abstain from renovating churches or monasteries in Raqqa; not to display crosses or religious symbols in public or use loudspeakers in prayer; not to read scripture indoors loud enough for Muslims standing outside to hear; not to undertake subversive actions against Muslims; not to carry out any religious ceremonies outside the church; not to prevent any Christian wishing to convert to Islam from doing so; to respect Islam and Muslims and say nothing offensive about them; to pay the jizya tax worth four golden dinars for the rich, two for the average, and one for the poor, twice annually, for each adult Christian; to refrain from drinking alcohol in public; and to dress modestly.

“If they adhere to these conditions, they will be close to God and receive the protection of Mohammed his prophet … none of their religious rights will be detracted nor will a priest or monk be wronged,” the document ended. “But if they disobey any of the conditions, they are no longer protected and ISIS can treat them in a hostile and warlike fashion.”

ISIS has previously banned the sale of cigarettes in Raqqa and enforced the veil for women in public. Last week, the Daily Star Lebanon reported, it changed the official weekend in the province to Thursday and Friday from Friday and Saturday, as practiced in “faithless countries.”

Link

First-Class Islam: Eric Holder Puts Muslims Above Terror Suspicion

By TIMOTHY FURNISH

From 2008 to 2011, I was a guest lecturer at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (the primary DHS training facility, located in coastal Georgia) and at Joint Special Operations University (which brings foreign officers to learn of U.S. irregular warfare, located in Tampa). At both venues I was asked to lecture on the history of terrorism.

I did so in an even-handed and comprehensive manner, exploring the issue across place (Europe to East Asia), time (ancient Assyria to al-Qaeda), and ideology (religious: pagan, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Muslim; and political: right-wing, left-wing, anarchist, environmentalist, etc.). Only 14 of the 44 PowerPoint screens in my presentation dealt with Islamic terrorism, although several of those actually mitigated against the concept.

Nonetheless, in June 2009 I was told that I could no longer lecture at FLETC, because the edict had come down from the new Obama administration that “no trainer who uses the term ‘jihad’ shall henceforth be used.” (This was over two yearsbefore the Obama administration was openly hostile to realistic training about Islam.)

JSOU continued to utilize me until late 2011, when I was told by the course instructor that Muslim student officers had complained that “I talked too much about Islamic terrorism.”

I was actually surprised that I had not been yanked the year before, when references to Islam and jihad were strickenfrom Obama’s kinder, gentler National Security Strategy document. That same year, noted Islamic studies expert Eric Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that foiled Islamic suicide bombers in the U.S. were motivated by “Islam that is not consistent with” that religion’s “true teachings.”…

….The University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database tracks terrorism incidents from 1970 to today: search for “Islam” and you find almost 5,000 entries. Search for “Christianity” and you will find a grand total of 14.

The NSA could probably save a lot of money — as well as abide by the Constitution — if it simply acknowledged the following:

A person with neither a first nor a last Muslim name stood only a 1 in 500,000 chance of being a suspected terrorist. The likelihood for a person with a first or a last Muslim name was 1 in 30,000. For a person with first and last Muslim names, however, the likelihood jumped to 1 in 2,000 (Levitt & Dubner, Super Freakonomics, 2009, p. 93).

Clearly, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear, Islam is the world’s major ideological motivator of terrorism and violence. (I have neither the time, nor the patience, to yet again demonstrate the legitimate Islamic roots of violence. Ray Ibrahim’s brilliant article should be all the proof needed for those able to handle the truth.) Yet Eric Holder and his boss would have the federal authorities most responsible for protecting the public — led by the FBI — pretend that up is down, freedom is slavery, and Islam is peaceful except when “twisted” by a “handful of extremists.”

Instead of ardent Islamic beliefs being treated as a clear marker for potential terrorism, they are now a talisman protecting the holder not just from scrutiny, but suspicion.

Obama and Holder are transforming the U.S. into a dhimmi nation: one that cowers before Islamic law and demands that its non-Muslim citizens — especially its 240 million Christians — meekly accept their second-class status and never broach the glaringly obvious fact of Islamic violence, even if this means making all non-Muslims less safe. The question for those of us in the majority, then: just how long will we put up with such a dangerous policy?

More

%d bloggers like this: