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.
by Raymond Ibrahim
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.
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….
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.
by Uzay Bulut
….In Islamic Sharia law, a free mind is the most inexcusable crime in the Muslim world. Being imprisoned, tortured or put to death for having one is also the reason there are centuries between Muslim countries and the West in the field of human liberation. To Euripides, “Not to speak one’s thought, this is slavery;” to many Muslim countries, free thought is death.
Those who have the courage to try to abolish this “slavery” in the Muslim world are forced to pay a huge price. The young Nobel Prize laureate, Malala Yousefzai, was shot in the head for demanding an education. Lawyers representing people trying to abolish this “slavery” or other allegations — even fraudulent ones — are killed.
You can blow up children at school; deliberately run over innocent people for the sake of jihad; slaughter people at prayer and then distribute sweets to celebrate your “victory;” devalue a woman’s worth in countless ways — by taking four wives, beating them, then with a word divorcing them — and you will be praised by many Muslims for being a “hero,” a “martyr” or a “true Muslim.”
This view has nothing to do with the West or any kind of Western intervention. It was not the Europeans, the United States or the State of Israel that spread these coercive sharia-based laws against blasphemy and apostasy among Muslims.
The Muslim regimes, which do not know even the definition of liberty — and their systematic criminalization of free speech; their suppression of inquiry and creativity; and their unending intertribal fights — are the reason their people have remained in the seventh century.
The rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria; the expanding reach of Iran into four more countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen) as the United States retreats from three (Libya, Yemen and Iraq), and the indifference of much of the Muslim world in the face of this new catastrophe, all indicate that there is not yet much hope for positive change in the Muslim world. Even visionary calls for Islamic reform by Egypt’s President, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, were not publicly welcomed by a single Western leader.
Apart from the defenders of liberty such as Hafeez, Naoot, Arabi, and Badawi, the situation seems to be getting grimmer by the day. A pamphlet handed out by ISIS answers over 27 questions, including: “Can all unbelieving women be taken captive?” and, “Is it permissible to have intercourse with a female slave who has not reached puberty?”
The pamphlet also approves of enslavement, rape (including of prepubescent girls), beating to achieve gratification [darb al-tashaffi], and torture [darb al-ta’dheeb].
An ideology that encourages its adherents to engage in deadly rioting, burn down embassies, and kill people over cartoons, but that shows no great signs of sorrow as little girls are sold and raped, most likely does not have much to contribute to advancing civilization.
An ideology that treats women as property, that murders or imprisons intellectuals and that sentences a blogger to 1000 lashes and ten years in jail — if he survives — has no right to blame its troubles on the West or anyone else.
by Robert Spencer
“…Remember Pastor Niemöller from World War II?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
Well, here we are. Those days are upon us again, and as few, or fewer, people are paying attention to what is happening as were in those days.
First they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out, because they didn’t like “right-wingers.” Or because they wanted to keep appearing on CNN, or because they didn’t want to offend Islamic supremacists, or because they thought her ads were in poor taste, or because they wanted to keep getting invited to the best parties, or because their Leftist Alinskyite friends would have laughed at them.
So first they came for Pamela Geller, and they did not speak out. What they do not realize, or do not care to acknowledge, is that the jihadists will not stop with Pamela Geller. They will not stop with those who had something to do with showing Muhammad cartoons. They will not stop. It is stand now, or surrender.
“This is a showdown for American freedom,” said Geller. Yes, it is.”
Filed under: Freedom of Speech, Islam, Pamela Geller, Sharia Law | Tagged: freedom, freedom of speech, Islam, Pamela Geller, sharia law, submit | Comments Off on First They Came for Pamela Geller, and I Did Not Speak Out