• 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

Washington plans favor for Shariah-run society

During the Cold War, Democrats and Republicans restricted trade with countries that denied their citizens basic freedoms.

For example, the Jackson-Vanik amendment cut off trade with communist nations that did not allow citizens to freely emigrate. It was approved unanimously in both houses of Congress in 1974 over the objections of Henry Kissinger, who saw it as an obstacle to a smooth-running global order.

Jackson-Vanik and similar measures used America’s economic power as the world’s largest consumer market to promote American values and reward countries that respected them. Over 1.5 million Christians and Jews were allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union alone following the adoption of Jackson-Vanik.

Now that the threat is not communism, but Islamist totalitarianism, Obama and the GOP congressional leadership are ready to embrace a Shariah regime as a privileged trading partner under the rubric of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

The TPP is a trade and global governance agreement the Obama administration is negotiating with eleven Pacific Rim nations: Vietnam, Brunei, Singapore, Chile, Malaysia, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Mexico and Peru.

Brunei is not the only nation in the proposed agreement with a record of persecuting Christian believers. In neighboring Malaysia, Christians are sent to concentration camps for forced conversion to Islam. Vietnam requires churches to register with the Communist authorities and monitors all prayer services. House churches are routinely attacked and priests have been murdered.

A most-favored-nation trade agreement with a regime that tramples on religious freedom signals the world that the U.S. government believes religious freedom is not important, critics contend.

The Trans Pacific Partnership is being negotiated in secret by the Obama administration. President Obama has said he hopes to conclude negotiations by mid-2015. Sen. Mitch McConnell has said he will work with the White House to give Obama so-called “fast track” trade promotion authority. Under fast track rules, the president would sign the agreement before submitting it to Congress where a filibuster and any amendments would be barred.

Once approved, the Trans Pacific Partnership would establish a precedent for accepting Shariah religious persecution under international law.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/washington-plans-favor-for-shariah-run-society/

Advertisements

Islam Is Neither a Religion Nor Peaceful

It’s misleading to call Islam a religion. While Islam, literally translated, means “submission” [to Allah—or death], it’s very much a political ideology.

The Qur’an, Hadith, and the Sunnah all clearly articulate Islam’s goal to implement worldwide totalitarian rule through implementing Shari’a Law.

This is why President Obama’s White House Homeland Security advisor Mohamed Elibiary (a Muslim Brotherhood member) asserts, “America is an Islamic country” with an “Islamic Compliant Constitution.” He views America within what will soon be a Muslim majority world.

This is why Obama’s close friend, Omar Ahmed, Chairman of the Board of CAIR (Council on America-Islamic Relations), says, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Qur’an should be the highest authority in America.”

The political ideology of Islam is why many Islamists work in the Obama Administration. Two notables are Mohamed Magid, a member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Board (Magid is president of the Islamic Society of North America [ISNA, founded by the Muslim Brotherhood]), and Louay Safi, the Pentagon’s Muslim military chaplain (and ISNA’s Director of Leadership Development).

This is also why the Muslim Brotherhood recently announced it is creating a political party to engage Muslims in U.S. politics and has attempted to add Shari’a Law to each U.S. state constitution.

Muhammad explicitly states that no Muslim can alter or ignore any part of his clear and direct commands in the Qur’an, throughout which he refers interchangeably to Islam and Shari’a Law. They are one in the same. Islam’s totalitarian political ideology specifies a mandatory legal system to oversee all areas of society.

Islam orders “religious worship,” financial transactions and contracts, morality, philosophical and other beliefs, and criminal and civil law. Islamic Shari’a Councils exist throughout European societies to institutionalize and regulate honor killings, child marriage and domestic violence. Child marriage is more than accepted because Muhammad, when in his fifties, added to his many wives by marrying six-year old Aisha, with whom he consummated his marriage to her when she was nine years old. (Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 62, Number 64, 65, 88; Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

Islamic law rejects every aspect of western law. Drinkers, gamblers, and unmarried sexual partners must be whipped; all gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people are to be executed. Free speech, freedom of the press, freedom to worship or not worship, do not exist in Islam.

As Belgian leader Abu Imran explains, “democracy is the opposite of Islam. A Muslim who supports democracy is equivalent to a Jewish Muslim. It’s impossible to be both Jewish and Muslim and impossible to be a Muslim against Shari’a.” It is a Muslim’s duty to transform all governments to Shari’a Law.

The Qur’an, written over the course of Muhammad’s lifetime, instructs violence. The passages written later in his life are understood to supersede the earlier written passages. Because the “peaceful” or “tolerant” passages were written first and the violent and “intolerant” passages were written later, the latter are prioritized.

Muhammad commands in the Qur’an 9:29:

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth [Islam], out of those who have been give the Book [the Bible, given to Christian and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of [Muslim] superiority and they [Christians and Jews] are in a state of subjection [dhimmitude, i.e. third-class legal status for non-Muslims].

Like ISIS, Muhammad was barbarically violent. The earliest, most comprehensive, and widely respected biography about Muhammad, written by Ibn Ishaq, Sira of Ibn Ishaq, reveals that Muhammad and his followers were brutally and mercilessly violent.

Ishaq describes one of Muhammad’s first acts, ordering the torture and beheading of a man Kinana b. al-Rabi’ to take his gold. After he stole al-Rabi’s wealth, he killed him, and took his new widow Safiya to consummate his marriage to her (English transl. p. 511-517).

The Hadith tells of Muhammad’s soldiers who raped “some excellent Arab women” because they “were suffering from the absence of [their] wives.” Muhammad told them it didn’t matter if they practiced ‘azl because “every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born” (Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3371).
Ishaq writes that Muhammad warned, “if you do not follow him [Allah] you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell” (English transl. p. 222). (Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4348; Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57).

This is why those who reject or leave Islam are “liable to be killed,” beaten, stomped on, stabbed, burned, imprisoned, and killed.

In fact, the majority of Muslims surveyed in a 2010 Pew Research poll support the death penalty in their country for those who leave Islam. The Qur’an orders death for anyone who criticizes Muhammad, Allah, and the Qur’an.

Following the Qur’an led to the beheading an Oklahoma woman because she rejected Islam. Both a Harvard Chaplain who supports death to non-Muslims and the Ground Zero Imam who openly claims those who leave Islam should be imprisoned, follow the Qur’an.

Following the Qur’an has resulted in Muslims killing more than 3,000 Americans on American soil in more than 75 terrorist attacks over the last 40 years. Not to mention the hundreds of millions of women, children and blacks enslaved in 57 Islamic countries.

Muslims who claim Islam is peaceful are following taqqiya, Qur’an-instructed deceit, or are not Muslims at all. As Abu Ad-Darda, Muhammad’s companion explained, “we can smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” And the Qur’an 3:185 states, “The life of this world is only the enjoyment of deception.”

Any reference to peace in Islam only means the world will be at peace when every country is Shari’a ruled. Obama supports this goal in both word and deed. He has said and written, “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam,” and “I will stand with the Muslims if the Political Wind shifts in an ugly direction.”

Bethany Blankley worked in politics for over ten years, on Capitol Hill for four U.S. Senators and one U.S. Congressman, and in New York for a former governor. She also previously taught at the New York School of the Bible and worked with several non-profits. She earned her masters degree in theology from The University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and her bachelors degree in politics from the University of Maryland. She is a political analyst for Fox News Radio, and she has appeared on television and radio programs nationwide. Follow her: @BethanyBlankley http://www.bethanyblankley.com
Source: http://www.christianpost.com/news/islam-is-neither-a-religion-nor-peaceful-131779/

A year of jihad in review

Author Mark Steyn interviewed on Byline with Brian Lilley on Canadian television Sun News about Islam & jihad in 2014.

 

Islam is primarily a political ideology

This is Part 4  of a series on Statistical Islam by Bill Warner:

Religious Islam is defined as doctrine concerned with going to Paradise and avoiding Hell by following the Koran and the Sunna. The part of Islam that deals with the “outsider”, the Kafir, is defined as political Islam. Since so much of the Trilogy is about the Kafir, the statistical conclusion is that Islam is primarily a political system, not a religious system.

Mohammed’s success depended on politics, not religion. The Sira, Mohammed’s biography, gives a highly detailed accounting of his rise to power. He preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and garnered 150 followers. He was forced to move to Medina and became a politician and warrior. During the last 9 years of his life, he was involved in an event of violence every 6 weeks. When he died every Arab was a Muslim. Mohammed succeeded through politics, not religion.

An estimate can be made that there were 100,000 Muslims when Mohammed died. Using this information allows a graph to be drawn:

There are two distinct growth processes-religion and politics. Teaching and religion grew at a rate of about 12 new Muslims per year. Politics and jihad grew at a rate of 10,000 new Muslims per year, an enormous increase. This is a process yield improvement of over 800%. Politics was almost a thousand times more effective than religion.

If Mohammed had continued with preaching religion we can extrapolate that there would have only been 265 Muslims when he died, instead of the 100,000 that resulted from his politics and jihad. This gives us an estimate of 265 conversions due to religion and 99,735 conversions to due the political jihad process. We can calculate the relative contributions of religion and politics in growth. Islam’s success was 0.3% religion and 99.7% politics at the time of Mohammed’s death, 632 AD.

This political importance is reflected in the text of the Sira. There are many more pages devoted to a year of jihad than there are devoted to preaching Islam. It is instructive to see the amount of the Sira text devoted to these stages of development .

The Sira devotes about 5 times as many words to politics than religion on a yearly basis. It gives politics 5 times the coverage because it is that much more important.

Islam’s political nature is also found in the Hadith that devotes 37% of its text to the Kafir.

There would be no Islam today, if it were only a religion. Statistics show that Islamic politics is what brought Islam success, not religion. To say that Islam is the religion of peace misses the point, since the religion is not the core of Islam’s power. It is politics that count, not religion.

The statistical conclusion: Islam is primarily a political ideology.

http://www.politicalislam.com/statistical-islam-part-4-of-9/

 

Michele Bachmann – Obama Has Embraced “Agenda of Islamic Jihad” At Every Turn

In a radio interview with the Family Research Council on December 23rd, Rep Michele Bachmann reflected on her eight years in Congress and offers some blunt observations about the current state of affairs of our nation as well as the tumultuous events of the last eight years.

…She also describes her experience of being in the thick of things on the House Intelligence Committee at a time when radical Islam has been in a strong growth phase, labeling it a spiritual battle. She remarks, “While the ‘president’ continues to say that this is not about the religion of Islam, I beg to differ. This has everything to do with the tenants of Islam and it is a new state that is being put together for the purpose of destroying Israel and to turn the United States, also into an Islamic caliphate.”

She adds, “Wild and fantastic as that sounds, that is their goal and that is their motivation. And I have been very surprised, to answer your question, to see the ‘president’ of the United States at every turn, cut the legs off of our ally Israel. And in fact embrace and lift up the agenda of Islamic Jihad. Now when in the world, and by that I mean the goal of the Islamic State.”

She also brings up the curious and worrisome courtship of Iran by the occupier of the White House, in spite of their desire to obtain and use a nuclear weapon against America and Israel.

She addresses the charm offensive of Hussein Obama to Iran as ludicrous and laughable.

Click here to listen (segment on this topic begins at 10:22): http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/12/26/michele-bachmann-obama-has-embraced-agenda-of-islamic-jihad-at-every-turn/#

The Islamic Dilemma by Kamal Azmy with Dr. Bill Warner

Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6syrM-ncyU8

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XA-Pk9r89c

Part 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SW9EKG51Rco

Part 4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGTebuSNIlo

Part 5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZdaQjgoZFI

Part 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_3xiIi4lE

Part 7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZipmPId7es8

Part 8: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnjUNQwhtOA

Part 9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNjtdQzkzt4

Part 10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bShFhDHNcgY

 

Islam or Islamism: A Distinction without a Difference?

By DAVID SOLWAY

….In other words, a lapsed Church is foreign to essential Christianity and a corrupt Temple is alien to essential Judaism. But such regressions are actually integral to Islam, bred in the unabrogated scriptures which permit, approve and ratify such depravities as slavery, child marriage, polygamy, gynophobia, deception (taqiyya), the breaking of treaties, the doctrinally sanctioned acquisition of booty and of women as the spoils of war, dhimmitude and, most terrible of all, wanton slaughter of unbelievers. As Koran 8:39 commands, “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.” It is not difficult, then, to see that ancestral Islam is demonstrably contemporary Islam since the Koran is understood to be an eternal book, coterminous with Allah, and thus does not allow for revision.

Further, critics of Islam who wish to spare the individual communicant, commendable as their attempt at fair-mindedness may be, are caught in a contradiction. In separating the institution of the faith, which they denounce, from peaceable and decent individual Muslims, whom they profess to applaud — even Geert Wilders has taken this route — they succeed only in undermining their own argument. Who or what can a “good” or moderate Muslim possibly be if he or she has no connection with or relation to the institution — the structure, practice, canons and prescripts — of the very faith from which he or she is said to be divorced? There is a blatant conundrum of identity at work here, which our charitable detractors apparently refuse to countenance or explain. Can there be such a chimera as a “Muslim” absent the institution of Islam? What is left but an empty jalabiya?

Muslims must be equally conflicted. Raheel Raza, whose film Honour Diaries  decries some of the worst practices of her co-religionists, remains a pious Muslim who is comforted and nourished by her faith. What, we may ask, defines that merciful and solacing faith for her if it is based on the Koran, the ahadith, the sirah, the shariah and the diverse schools of a grim and stringent jurisprudence governing every detail of quotidian life? And if it is not predicated on authoritative Islam, what can possibly be left over from so aliquant a commitment except a few abrogated tropes and a number of rituals and customs? Perhaps it is a private faith she is espousing, but a private faith is not a religion and does not merit a historical name.

The noted Islamic scholiast Salim Mansur lobbies in his 2011 book Delectable Lie for an end to or reduction of Muslim immigration to Canada, which he sees as disruptive of social harmony and democratic principles. Yet he is contemptuous of renowned and honest critics of Islam like Robert Spencer and Andrew Bostom, and cleaves to what he regards as the true core of Islam (personal communication). The question immediately presents itself: what is the true core of Islam? How much cherry-picking must one diligently perform in the orchard of the sacred text to arrive at the real Islam? How high up the cherry tree must one’s ladder climb? Mansur is surely teetering. “How great the distance is now,” he laments in an obsequious article for the Wall Street Journal, “between many of those who wear the mantle of Islam and the message Muhammad delivered.” The distance this expert mourns, as we have seen, is too negligible to be measured. The larger, Medinan portion of the Koran consists to an alarming extent of messages that would make any harbi (non-Muslim living in a country not subject to Islam) or apostate fear for his safety, freedom and very existence.

Mansur strains to justify his faith by quoting an enigmatic if not utterly baffling hadith in which the Prophet himself supposedly deplores those who will violate his message: “Islam began as a stranger and will become once more a stranger.” The trouble is that, according to Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, 1/130, among a chain of transmissions, Muhammad concludes by saying, “so blessed are the strangers.” This hadith, narrated by Abu Hurairah, an early companion of Muhammad, is best left to its obscurity since it only confuses Mansur’s redemptive folly as well as the reader he is laboring to seduce. Mansur’s predicament is an unenviable one, shared by all like him who try to rinse the mantle of its indelible blemishes. When you have thoroughly bowdlerized the historical muniments and expurgated the near-entirety of the theological, political, legal, philosophical and narrative foundations of the faith, what remains to inspire one’s devotion except an embarrassing caricature or, at best, a beautiful fiction?

One thinks of other pacifist, socially conscious and highly intellectual Muslims like Tarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Zuhdi Jasser and the Ahmadi Qasim Rashid,* contorting themselves into conciliatory knots to justify their continued loyalty to that which stubbornly resists explicative laundering. They cannot admit that al-Qaeda, ISIS and similar terrorist outfits are the pure, Koran-abiding communicants of the faith they persist in trying to salvage. Where this leaves the Western critic of Islam who condemns the faith but extols the enlightened Muslim individual, or the devout Muslim who eschews violence,shariah, the supremacist impulse and the rebarbative dictates of scripture defies all the postulates of rational thinking. One cannot help but contrast former Muslims like Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Ali Sina, Nonie Darwish and Wafa Sultan who, at great personal risk, did the myth, so to speak, and followed their consciences.

* – The Ahmadis derive their version of Islam from the teachings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who believed he was appointed by God to disinter the true message of Muhammad from the darkness into which it had fallen; he is therefore a problematic spokesperson for mainstream Islam, whether of the Sunni or Shia variety….

More

%d bloggers like this: