• 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

Robert Fulford: No matter how much Muslims despise it, the truth is that ISIS has grown out of their religion

By Robert Fulford

 A militant topples an ancient artifact in the Ninevah Museum in Mosul, Iraq in this image made from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State.

It offends many Muslims that their religion is connected automatically to the terrorism and cold-blooded massacres that are currently creating chaos in Iraq, Syria and Libya. They believe that terms like “Islamic terrorism,” “Jihadism” and “Islamo-fascism” carry an unfair implication that all Muslims are likely to support such crimes.

“Stop saying these words, they hurt,” a Toronto imam, Hamid Slimi, urged the federal government at a recent conference. He’s the former chairman of the Canadian Council of Imams, currently at work on a global campaign, Muslim Messengers of Peace.

Everyone can sympathize with law-abiding, peace-loving Muslims when they feel accused by implication of atrocities committed far away by people with whom they have no real connection except their religion. But the connection is not as distant as they might like to think.

Recently ISIS has brought further disgrace on itself by adding vandalism to its atrocities. In Mosul, Iraq, its followers burned 8,000 books they found in libraries. “These books promote infidelity and call for disobeying Allah,” according to one ISIS soldier on the scene. “So they will be burned.”

ISIS believes in exhibiting evidence of its ability to obey passages in the Koran literally and thus purify the world. Piles of books were burned in the streets, proving to everyone the spiritually powerful work ISIS does. And Islamic State soldiers used an electric drill to attack a major archaeological site, the huge sculpture of a mythical beast at the Nergal Gate at Nineveh. Hakim al-Zamili, the head of the Iraq parliament’s security committee, said that ISIS “considers culture, civilization and science as their fierce enemies.”

How did they arrive at that belief? Their leaders are not, we should understand, crazed psychopaths. Nor has anyone the right to say (as Barack Obama did) that they are not Islamic.

“What ISIS Really Wants,” by Graeme Wood, a richly informative article in the currentAtlantic, describes ISIS theorists as articulate Islamic scholars with carefully considered beliefs, one of which is that the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, is a new caliph ruling over a new caliphate.

Interviewing several of them, Wood found that these believers are learned human beings, curious and intellectually alive. A conversation with them about their ideas felt like a graduate seminar, he reported. Rather to his horror, he was tempted to like them.

What would make such people turn against the civilization they studied in universities? Their version of Islam is clearly extreme but it is Islam nevertheless. No matter how much Muslims despise it, ISIS has grown out of their religion….

More

ISIS DEMANDS WOMEN WEAR DOUBLE-LAYERED VEILS, ALLOW 9-YEAR-OLDS TO MARRY

by MARY CHASTAIN

Reuters

….But mass confusion is caused when all the women are covered from head to toe.

“I went once with my wife to one of the old souqs [open-air marketplace] to do some shopping, and after a short while I lost her among the crowd,” said Sabah Nadiem, a resident of Mosul, Iraq. “The problem was that all the women were wearing veils and it was hard to know who was my wife. I was utterly scared to make a mistake and go for the wrong woman. It would be a disaster to fall into Hisbah hands. I could not even use my mobile as the network was down.”

The Islamic State has published numerous manuals concerning the “proper” behavior for women in their caliphate. In December, the group released a manual for fellow jihadists on how to beat, rape, and fail to impregnate their female slaves. Another manual, titled Women of the Islamic State: Manifesto and Case Study, specifically details to women how to behave.

“It is always preferable for a woman to remain hidden and veiled, to maintain society from behind this veil,” it said.

Marriage rules are the most disturbing part of the manifesto.

“It is considered legitimate for a girl to be married at the age of nine,” it claims. “Most pure girls will be married by 16 or 17, while they are still young and active. Young men will not be more than 20 years old in those glorious generations.”

An all-female Islamic State brigade is known to also enforce Sharia law within the caliphate. In December, they used a bear trap known as a “biter” on women’s breasts who defied the protocols of the terrorist group. The torture device was used on one woman who was arrested in public for breastfeeding with a transparent niqab. After the jihadists took over Mosul, Iraq, they demanded all shopowners place a veil on mannequins, even the males, since “the human form is not depicted in statues or artwork.”

More

What ISIS Really Wants

By Graeme Wood

Anjem Choudary, London’s most notorious defender of the Islamic State, says crucifixion and beheading are sacred requirements.

…The Koran specifies crucifixion as one of the only punishments permitted for enemies of Islam. The tax on Christians finds clear endorsement in the Surah Al-Tawba, the Koran’s ninth chapter, which instructs Muslims to fight Christians and Jews “until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” The Prophet, whom all Muslims consider exemplary, imposed these rules and owned slaves.

Leaders of the Islamic State have taken emulation of Muhammad as strict duty, and have revived traditions that have been dormant for hundreds of years. “What’s striking about them is not just the literalism, but also the seriousness with which they read these texts,” Haykel said. “There is an assiduous, obsessive seriousness that Muslims don’t normally have.”

Before the rise of the Islamic State, no group in the past few centuries had attempted more-radical fidelity to the Prophetic model than the Wahhabis of 18th‑century Arabia. They conquered most of what is now Saudi Arabia, and their strict practices survive in a diluted version of Sharia there. Haykel sees an important distinction between the groups, though: “The Wahhabis were not wanton in their violence.” They were surrounded by Muslims, and they conquered lands that were already Islamic; this stayed their hand. “ISIS, by contrast, is really reliving the early period.” Early Muslims were surrounded by non-Muslims, and the Islamic State, because of its takfiri tendencies, considers itself to be in the same situation.

If al-Qaeda wanted to revive slavery, it never said so. And why would it? Silence on slavery probably reflected strategic thinking, with public sympathies in mind: when the Islamic State began enslaving people, even some of its supporters balked. Nonetheless, the caliphate has continued to embrace slavery and crucifixion without apology. “We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women,” Adnani, the spokesman, promised in one of his periodic valentines to the West. “If we do not reach that time, then our children and grandchildren will reach it, and they will sell your sons as slaves at the slave market.”

In October, Dabiq, the magazine of the Islamic State, published “The Revival of Slavery Before the Hour,” an article that took up the question of whether Yazidis (the members of an ancient Kurdish sect that borrows elements of Islam, and had come under attack from Islamic State forces in northern Iraq) are lapsed Muslims, and therefore marked for death, or merely pagans and therefore fair game for enslavement. A study group of Islamic State scholars had convened, on government orders, to resolve this issue. If they are pagans, the article’s anonymous author wrote,

Yazidi women and children [are to be] divided according to the Shariah amongst the fighters of the Islamic State who participated in the Sinjar operations [in northern Iraq] … Enslaving the families of the kuffar [infidels] and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Koran and the narrations of the Prophet … and thereby apostatizing from Islam.

II. Territory

Tens of thousands of foreign Muslims are thought to have immigrated to the Islamic State. Recruits hail from France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Holland, Australia, Indonesia, the United States, and many other places. Many have come to fight, and many intend to die.

Peter R. Neumann, a professor at King’s College London, told me that online voices have been essential to spreading propaganda and ensuring that newcomers know what to believe. Online recruitment has also widened the demographics of the jihadist community, by allowing conservative Muslim women—physically isolated in their homes—to reach out to recruiters, radicalize, and arrange passage to Syria. Through its appeals to both genders, the Islamic State hopes to build a complete society….

Read it all

Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?

The Last of England

By Mark Steyn

On Monday I wrote about a curious British reaction to theCharlie Hebdo massacre:

The other day Wiltshire Police went to a local newsagent and demanded that, in the interests of “community cohesion”, he hand over the names of every customer who bought a copy of Charlie Hebdo… This is Mother England in 2015: You can still read samizdat literature, but your name will be entered in a state database.

The Daily Mail‘s Amanda Williams reports today that this was not a one-off idiosyncracy by some bozo coppers in one county, but came from the very top:

National Anti-Terror Unit Handed List Of Charlie Hebdo Stockists To Local Forces Who Then Went Round Demanding To Know Who Bought Copies

The man responsible for this decision is Sir Peter Fahy, Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, who holds the additional responsibility of “national police lead for preventing extremism“. A Chief Commissar for Preventing Extremism is a title that not so long ago one would have had to go to Eastern Europe or a banana republic to find. But it is now held by a British policeman. Nevertheless, Sir Peter would like us to know that he thinks, somewhere way down the chain of command, some of the lads may have gotten a little carried away:

Anti-terror units handed local police officers the names of British newsagents who stocked the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in the wake of the Paris attacks.

But the decision by some forces to then visit the outlets and quiz shopkeepers about who bought the publication was ‘overzealous and unnecessary’, Britain’s anti-terror police chief has said.

Sir Peter Fahy, chief constable of Greater Manchester Police (GMP) and national police lead for preventing extremism, said he was now urgently clarifying guidance to all UK forces.

It comes after police were caught asking British newsagents which sold copies of the satirical magazine for details of the customers who bought it.

Shopkeepers in Wales, Wiltshire and Cheshire reported that police approached them and demanded personal information on readers of the magazine.

In a letter to the Guardian, Sir Peter said that the move to provide details of newsagents to local police was intended to ‘provide community reassurance’.

This is the same Sir Peter Fahy who, only two months ago, was warning that Britain could “drift into a police state” in which his officers wound up having to act as “thought police”. But why drift into a police state when you can put your foot on the gas and get there in the fast lane? My tireless compatriot Blazing Cat Fur comments:

This is how a Police State operates. The same police state that turned a blind eye to Muslim Rape Gangs.

I don’t think that’s an exaggeration. The wretched David Cameron was happy to march in Paris under the #JeSuisCharlie banner, but, if he were an honest man, he’d be parading under #JeSuisTheGuyWhoTakesDownTheNamesOfEveryoneWhoBuysACopyOfCharlie. Like most of the European political class, Mr Cameron recognizes he has a problem on his hands – a problem he and the rest of the Euro-elite have created: They have imported a huge population that, even discounting those who wish to join ISIS or slaughter British soldiers on the streets of Woolwich, has no great enthusiasm for English liberties. With the characteristic arrogance of an insulated ruling class, Cameron thinks the solution to the problem is an enhanced security state mediating relations between his fractious citizenry. And, if that means reigning in English liberties, such as the freedom to read a magazine without being monitored by the state, so be it….

….I was born in Canada, and just about everything that works in my own deranged Dominion (as Stephen Harper once suggested to his befuddled London hosts) came from the Mother Country. Germany, Italy, France et al gave us better art, music, food, women, but it is the English-speaking world that has seeded and grown liberty on every corner of the earth – property rights, self-government, fair courts, laws of contract, free speech… And through the last century it is the English-speaking world that has defended and fought for those liberties when the rest of the west has turned to dark and crude perversions.

So the death of England is not like the death of Sweden or Belgium. It represents the foulest betrayal of a glorious inheritance. I have quoted before my old National Post comrade George Jonas – that things aren’t wrong because they’re illegal, they’re illegal because they’re wrong. If an English policeman no longer knows it’s wrong to ask a newsagent for the names and addresses of those who purchased a particular magazine, no amount of “clarifying” “guidance” from Sir Peter Fahy can help him. And if an English Chief Constable no longer knows it’s wrong to demand the national distributor cough up the names of all the stockists he’s shipped it to, no amount of bland soft-totalitarian blather about “providing community reassurance” can alter the fact that an English public servant is subverting a core liberty – an English liberty. A society can survive losing this or that liberty as they ebb and flow across the centuries, but there are no easy roads back when it loses thespirit of liberty. And that is what Sir Peter Fahy and his ilk are missing.

When David Cameron appeared with David Letterman a couple of years back, he knew the date Magna Carta was signed, but didn’t know what it meant. In this 800th annniversary year, in the coercive hyper-security state over which he presides, that no longer seems so surprising.

Read it all

The Dilemma of Islamic Terrorism – by Ali Sina. When ex-Muslims speak – we’d better listen.

By Ali Sina

16_rise_of_islam_in_europe

The recent massacres in Paris of the staff of Charlie Hebdo and the Jews in a kosher supermarket, and the increasing incidences of butchering young people coming out of pubs have made more people concerned about the rise of terrorism. Tens of thousands have come out to demonstrate.

Since the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon in 2001, there have been close to 25,000 terrorist attacks worldwide, all of which were perpetrated in the name of Islam. That is about 5 terrorist attacks every day. So far two million people have been killed and a similar number are maimed and injured. These attacks are becoming more frequent. Yet something is not changing.

  • Immediately after the attack, the president or the prime minister of the country in which the attack has taken place goes on TV and declares that this attack had nothing to do with Islam.
  • Right after that the chief of police announces that he has taken all the measures to protect Muslims from any imaginary backlash and nonexistent reprisal.
  • In the evening of the same day the mainstream media interviews an imam or a Muslim spokesperson who emphasizes that Islam does not condone violence.
  • We are then told that extremists exist in all religions and reminded that some thirty years ago a few Christians killed a few abortionist murderers of unborn babies.
  • Then the pundits are called to pontificate that the root cause of Islamic terrorism is not in what the terrorist themselves say, and nothing to do with the Quran (that in hundreds of verses calls on the believers to kill the unbelievers), but in the injustice done to Muslims in other parts of the world, such as in Abu Ghraib prison and particularly in Palestine where half a century ago Israelis defeated the Arab invaders who had vowed to drown them in the sea.
  • A few days after that the police and the politicians of the victim country hold meetings with the leaders of the Muslim community where they conclude that more money should be given to the “moderate Muslims” to persuade the “radicals” to not take their religion seriously.
  • The experts also conclude that emblems like Christmas and Christmas trees hurt the religious sentiment of Muslims and they should be removed from public institutions, shopping malls and schools, while at the same time Muslims should be given some concessions, like not requiring them to wash their hands before performing operation on patients, designating a room and Islamic toilets for them in public institutions, and allow them to apply for driving license without requiring them to show their face.
  • Also, in the spirit of integration and community cohesion, everyone should be forced to eat halal meat, which involves extra cruelty to the animals, without their knowledge, whether they want it or not.

This tune is replayed every time there is a terrorist attack. The narrative never changes, despite the unequivocal assertion of the terrorists themselves who make it clear they are motivated by the teachings and examples of their prophet and his promise of virgins. Methinks, the record of history is broken. How else can we explain that after a repetition of 25,000 times one would not question the validity of this narrative?

While politicians in western countries and the mainstream media are stuck in the above narrative, the truth is not hidden from the Muslims. Al Sisi, the president of Egypt, in his 2015 New Year’s speech in Al Azhar University, addressing top Sunni clerics said, “it is not possible that 1.6 billion people [reference to the world’s Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that they themselves may live.” Sisi did not blame Abu Ghraib, Israel, nor made other silly excuses for Islamic terrorism. He blamed the “ideology” of it. But the ideology—which says, kill the unbelievers so you go to paradise—comes straight from the Quran.

Sisi cannot go further than that. What he said is already too much and if he did not have the military behind him, he would have been thrown into jail. However, if a non-Muslim raises the same concerns raised by Sisi, they will be called racist and denounced as an Islamophobe.

We are told, “You can’t paint an entire group of people with the same wide brush.” But there is a war going on. People are being killed. We have to know our enemy. Who is the enemy?

Of course not everyone is the same. Although each individual is unique we can classify Muslims in three broad categories. In practice, an individual often belongs to more than one category. The proportion of the overlap varies, and just as 18 decillion colors are created by the combination of just three colors and their intensity, the degree to which Muslims belong to each category gives rise to infinite diversity among them. No Muslim exists out of these three categories.

The first category is that of good Muslims. By good I mean true believers—those who follow the teachings of their prophet, the Quran and the Sunnah to the letter, who try to emulate him in every way and are strict and pious Muslims. Since the teachings and the examples of Muhammad are full of violence and terror, the more one follows and emulates him the more radical one becomes. Muhammad raided and butchered people merely because they were not his followers. The good Muslims do the same. All the bombings and terrorism perpetrated by Muslims are replicas of Muhammad’s raids, orghazwa, as he called them. Taking women as sex slaves, which the Islamic State and Boko Haram practice was also practiced by Muhammad and he sanctioned it in the Quran (33:50; 23: 1-6; 70:30; 4:24; 66:1-2). He ordered the assassination of his critics stoning the adulterers, chopping the hands of thieves and killing the apostates. So, the terrorists are actually good Muslims.

The second category is of bad Muslims. These are those who don’t practice their religion and are often ignorant of it. They may pray or chant the Quran, but have no clue of its content. They read it for thawab (reward) without understanding it. These Muslims are ordinary people we all know. Like everybody else, some are good and some are not so good. Some of them are friendly, but they see themselves as superior, by virtue of their faith, and of “higher morals.”

Morality in Islam has nothing to do with what others understand by this word. Morality for women is to cover their hair lest it arouse sexual feelings in men. For men, it is not to shake hands with Muslim women lest it arouse them sexually, or not to masturbate, etc. Morality in Islam is primarily about genitals and their use. For example, while having sex out of marriage is considered immoral, stoning people caught in such act is not immoral. While looking at bare arms and legs of Muslim women is considered immoral, raping non-Muslim women is not immoral. Homosexuality is immoral, but pedophilia is not.

These Muslims migrate to the west to better their lives, but they segregate themselves, form isolated communities and warn their children to not learn the ways of unbelievers or take them as friends unless they intent to convert them to Islam. They give huge amounts of money to charity. But Islamic charity has nothing to do with charity. All that money goes to build mosques, print Islamic materials and promote Islam. If any of that is spent for the needy, it is to enlist them for jihad or support the families of the suicide bombers. The bad Muslims are the lifeline of Islam and the breeding ground for good Muslims. All Muslim terrorists, unless they are converts, are born in and emerge from this group. Without the moral and financial support of the bad Muslims Islam will cease to exist.

Then we have the ugly Muslims. As we learned the good Muslims are not good at all, and the bad ones are not really bad people, the ugly Muslims actually look beautiful. Islam is a world down the rabbit hole. Nothing is what it is because everything is what it is not. The ugly Muslims are clean-shaven, handsome or attractive, eloquent, articulate, and highly intelligent, just the kind of people you want to hang around with. They are journalists, professors, regular guests and contributors to mainstream media. They know what to say to gain your approval and your applause. They are charming. Their words are reassuring and their faces are familiar. You like them and trust them. So why do I call them ugly? Because they lie! Their job is to deceive you and to make you believe that the “real Islam” poses no threat to you. These wolves in sheep clothing are the most dangerous group. Deception is deadlier than terror. Do you fear more a ferocious animal that you can see or a deadly virus that you can’t? The enemy within is a lot more dangerous.

Unlike the bad Muslims the ugly ones are not ignorant of their religion. They know of Muhammad’s raids, rapes, assassinations, genocides, tortures, beheadings, but they deny them, twist the facts and defend him. They accuse the good Muslims of having hijacked their religion of peace when they know they lie. They claim to be reformers when they know that Islam cannot be reformed. Islam is what it is. To reform Islam one has to change the Quran. Over 70% of it must be scrapped, and the other 30% is just sheer nonsense.

These self-styled reformers don’t want to change the Quran. They just want Muslims to practice it less. In theory it works. Even the deadliest poison in small doses is not lethal. But how can they convince all Muslims to not take their holy book seriously? This project is doomed from the start. This is either naiveté and wishful thinking, or a ruse to deceive the non-Muslims, to give them false hope so they can buy more time for Islam to take over the world, which is the goal of every Muslim, the good, the bad and the ugly.

Every Muslim falls within these three categories. Just as virtually all colors are combinations of the three primary colors, elements of the three categories of Muslims exist in all of them.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but a substantial percentage of them are, and a greater percentage, condone terrorism. But does it really matter who is and who is not? If I give you 1,000 cups of good wine and tell you only one of them contains cyanide will you drink any of them? The terrorist are born, raised and protected by the “moderates.” They are indistinguishable from each other. It is delusional to think that the non-terrorist Muslims have nothing to do with terrorism. Where do the terrorists come from if not from the so-called moderate Muslims?

All Muslims support the ideology that wants to kill us. There are also good people (bad Muslims) among them, like al Sisi, who want to change this. They can’t, because the ideology against which they speak is Islam itself. They will likely be assassinated before they succeed. The belief that Islam can be reformed from within is wishful thinking. Other religions allow change and adapt with times. Islam is like a fossil. What is written in the Quran cannot be changed and the problem with Islam is the Quran.

Islam cannot be reformed, but it can be eradicated. It cannot be molded, but it can be smashed and pulverized. This cannot be done from within. Growth happens from within. But if you want to demolish a building you have to get out of it. You can’t cut a branch while sitting on it.

The question is how to stop Islam. There are three ways, incidentally, one is good, one is bad and the other is ugly.

The good way to stop Islam is to spread the truth about it. Like darkness that cannot stand the light, lies cannot stand the truth. If we tell the truth about Muhammad and reveal his crimes, Islam will fall in no time. We can actually destroy Islam in less than two decades. All we need to do is tell the truth. Yes, truth will set us free. It really does! I myself have left Islam and have helped thousands to leave it with nothing but truth.

There are countless books and websites that tell the truth. The problem is that Muslims don’t read. Also many non-Muslims don’t read. The majority of people get their facts from the media. The ugly Muslims’ jihad is to muddy the waters so no one can learn the truth about their religion. When we quote passages from the Quran to show how vile and evil they are, they say we quote them out of context. But they never tell us in what context the hundreds of verses that call for killing the unbelievers can mean something else. The fact is that they are the ones who quote their book out of context to make it look tolerant. For example, the Sura 109 that says, “To you your religion and to me mine,” or the verse 2:256 that says, “There is no compulsion in religion,” or the verse 5:32 that says, “Whoever kills one person is as if he has killed all mankind,” are taken out of context. They have nothing to do with tolerance.

But there is a way to overcome this hurdle and that is to make a biopic of Muhammad, something beautiful that everyone wants to see for its artistic value and is factual and truthful. Most people have never read the Bible, but they know about Jesus and Moses through movies. We need to do the same for Muhammad. This is our best option and my preferred choice.

The second option is bad. It is to deport all Muslims back to their country of origin. It does not matter if they are second or third generation immigrants. Muslims do not see themselves as citizens of any non-Muslim country and their allegiance is not and cannot be to a country that is not controlled by them. If they tell you otherwise they would be going against the Quran 9:23 that says Muslims should not accept the guardianship, i.e. the rule of the unbelievers. Muslims believe the Quran is the word of God and the Quran says, “We made you an exalted nation, that you may be guardians over the people” (2:143). The only status that is acceptable to Muslims is that they should rule over others while others are reduced into dhimmis, second class citizens who would labor and support their Muslim masters.

The third option is really ugly. It consists in doing to Muslims what they do to others, and give them a taste from their own holy book, i.e., “to cast terror in their hearts” (Q. 8:12; 3:151). Treat Muslims the way they treat non-Muslims. Make life unbearable for them, just as they make it unbearable for non-Muslims wherever they are in power. Muslims are still a minority in the west. Once they see their lives is in danger, they will leave on their own accord, just as millions of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Bahais and Hindus have left their ancestral homelands because Muslims made life unbearable for them. When kept at bay in their own countries, Muslims pose no threat to the world. They will fight among each other and self-destruct. They are a problem only when they migrate to non-Muslims countries and strive to conquer them as their religion requires it from them.

As you see the last two options are really bad and really ugly. But there is one that is even worse. It is to do nothing. If we do nothing, in just a generation, Muslims will become powerful enough to do to us what they do to non-Muslims wherever they are powerful. If we do nothing our grandchildren will suffer the same fate that non-Muslims suffer in Islamic countries, with the difference that there will be nowhere left in the world as safe haven to accept them as refugees.

I am not in favor of mass deportation, and less in favor of casting terror in the hearts of Muslims. I hope to set them free with truth so they can be our friends, instead of our enemy. But the last thing I want is for the entire world to become Islamic State. I rather see Muslims expelled from Europe, America and Australia, even by force and coercion, than billions butchered by them a generation from now. I witnessed Shah’s cowardice when he failed to gun down a few hundred protesters in the Islamic uprising of 1979 and as the result over a million Iranians were killed by the Islamic regime and the country has become a giant prison. So I know a thing or two about pragmatism. If Islam is allowed to win it means the end of human civilization. If Islam wins, humanity will enter a dark age from which it can never emerge.

Let us hope we come to our senses and do the right thing. Let us hope we rescue Muslims from their faith of hate and bring them back to the fold of humanity. But if all fails. Let us pay attention to one of the most profound passages ever written.

“There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3).

Link

Sharia Adherent Muslims Are Not “Extremists”

By John Guandolo

The U.S. government continues to label the Islamic terrorists we face as “violent extremists” who commit acts of “workplace violence.”  Here at Understanding the Threat (UTT) we prefer to live in reality because it is the only place our enemies can be defeated.

The phrase “violent extremism” is a non-sensical term and was brought to the U.S. via the FBI and DHS who were convinced by our British counterparts it identifies our enemies.  In fact, it identifies anyone who is willing to support their beliefs with violence.  In this light, U.S. military forces and any American willing to defend a just cause can be classified as a “violent extremist.”

Unfortunately, those participating in the global Islamic jihad do not call themselves “extremists.”  They call themselves “Jihadis” who wage jihad until the entire world is under Sharia (Islamic Law).  American war fighting doctrine states we begin our analysis of any enemy by how that enemy describes itself.

This enemy specifically states it seeks to impose Sharia and it is the blueprint for everything it does.  Jihad is total warfare.  It is Civilization Jihad per the Muslim Brotherhood’s own strategic plan for North America, and the MB’s global strategy.  Jihad is warfare that comes at a society in a hundred different ways:  politically, economically, psychologically, spiritually, culturally, societally, and it includes violence of many kinds both in the community and on the battlefield.

Sharia is the filter through which this enemy communicates and understands the world.  This is why it is crucial that we also use Sharia when we hear our adversaries speak so we can properly understand what the enemy intends.  In the Sharia, “Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without right; “Human Rights” is the imposition of Sharia (per the Cairo Declaration, a formal document served to the UN by the entire Muslim world via the OIC in 1993); and “Extremism” is when a Muslim exceeds his ability or authority.

Nowhere in the Muslim world do Islamic jihadi organizations call themselves “extremists” – they call themselves “Jihadis.”…

More

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,752 other followers

%d bloggers like this: