By William Kilpatrick
“…Islam invites criticism. Given its bloody past and present, it would be highly irresponsible not to subject it to a searching analysis and critique. Such a critique would not aim at alienating Muslims (although some will inevitably be alienated), but at alerting likely victims of jihad.
One of the basics that non-Muslims need to know is that Islam divides the world in two – the House of Islam, and the House of War (all non-Islamic societies). And every Muslim is expected to do his part to make the House of War submit to the House of Islam. Europeans are now experiencing a “don’t-know-what-hit-me” sense of bewilderment because they never learned this basic fact about Islam.
One reason for our reluctance to analyze and criticize Islam (an idea) is that such criticism seems tantamount to criticizing Muslims (a people). Unfortunately, even if that is not the intention, it is often the result. A person can’t separate himself entirely from his beliefs, and, consequently, we take criticism of our religion personally. That’s a good reason for presenting the critique as tactfully as possible. But it’s not a good reason for offering no critique at all.
If you can’t criticize a belief system because it would hurt the feelings of people who subscribe to that system, then we were wrong to criticize Nazism, Communism, and Japanese imperialism. Ordinarily, we refrain from criticizing other religions. Such a live-and-let-live approach is generally sensible, but when the other religion takes the attitude that you must either convert, submit, or die, then live-and-let-live is no longer an option. That is the position that we are in with regard to Islam. And it is suicidal to pretend that things are otherwise.”
While Americans are lured into a complacent sleep by the constant drum beat of social justice, minority rights, inequality, the need for fairness and tolerance and diversity and to be non-judgmental of others or their views, forces are at work to exploit that sentiment.
While the world is filled with the news of Islamic terror other Islamists are at work to silence the critics by holding informational conferences and conducting public outreach.
One such case is happening in Texas at the Curtis Culwell Center (Garland Independent School District property) which is hosting an Islamic conference titled “Stand with the Prophet in Honor and Respect” that proclaims the need to be “Ready to defeat Islamophobia?” according to the Sound Vision Foundation, “a not for profit organization serving Muslims.” The event is scheduled for Saturday, January 17, at 5:00 pm.
The Sound Vision Foundation’s web site states in part: Ready to defeat Islamophobia? This is not an event. It is the beginning of a movement. A movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message. This benefit will raise funds to establish a Strategic Communication Center for the Muslim community, which will develop effective responses to anti-Islamic attacks, as well as to train young Muslims in media.
And two of the speakers slated for this event are: Imam Siraj Wahhaj and Abdul Malik Mujahid. So just who are these individuals?
Imam Siraj Wahhaj (according to the Clarion Project web site)
Wahhaj was listed as an “unindicted person who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Wahhaj supports the implementation of Sharia (Islamic law) governance, including its criminal punishments. “Islam is better than democracy. Allah will cause his deen [Islam as a complete way of life], Islam to prevail over every kind of system, and you know what? It will happen,” he has preached.
In September 2013, the NYPD justified its surveillance of Masjid at-Taqwa by pointing to evidence of terrorist and criminal activity there. The assistant imam is suspected of using the mosque to raise money for terrorist groups.
Wahhaj has been a Vice President of the Islamic Society of North America since 1997 and was a member of the North American Islamic Trust’s Board of Advisors from 1989 to 1993.
Abdul Malik Mujahid (according to the web site CreepingSharia)
said “Qital [killing] is an essential element of Islam. And sometimes you don’t like it. Qital is ordained upon you, though it is hateful to you, but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you….And one example is, now we have 60 or so Muslim countries, and not a single one of them wants to go for Qital and Jihad for Bosnia. Qital is ordained upon you though it is hateful to you.”
It is absolutely disappointing that a Garland Independent School District would host an event that is aimed at fighting against honest, God fearing Americans who have legitimate concerns about the Islamist movement in America and around the world.
Would Garland host a Nazi Conference? A KKK conference? An Aryan Nation or skinhead conference? An anti-Semitic conference? Then why this one?
Contact the Curtis Culwell Center in Texas and the Garland Independent School District and let them know you think this is an outrage and should be cancelled.
It’s clear Islamists never rest (they lie in wait) and never should non-Muslim Americans rest in the face of such propaganda! Jefferson said to be ever vigilant and educated to the threats of freedom. These groups, like the Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR) are attempting to misinform the public about Islam and teach others how to brand anything anti-Islam as Islamophobia.
When one group of Americans is unable to criticize that with which they passionately disagree they are no longer being treated as equals. They don’t see it this way, why, because Islam doesn’t see non-Muslim as equals. Some might say I know a Muslim, I work with a Muslim, I have a Muslim friend or a Muslim neighbor, they treat me well. They just might, good for them, however Islam, their religion, does not. Muhammad didn’t treat his neighbors well – he killed them. And a conference that calls for honoring and respecting Muhammad is an affront to everything American.
The prophet of Islam was a pedophile, a rapist, a polygamist, a racist, a tyrant and a murderer. I don’t find that worth defending – calling it honorable or respectable is beyond an outrage.
Tolerating evil is evil itself. Islamic law, Sharia, does not recognize let alone respect Democracy, liberty or freedom of speech, so if you do, if you believe in God-given inalienable rights — you had better start using them while you still have them.
Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” When we cannot be critical of an ideology that has been a murdering totalitarian force for 1,400 years something has gone wrong with logic, facts and reason. No matter how many “good” Muslims we might know — Islam is anything but peaceful, it is totalitarian, it is deadly to non-Muslims. Just look around you!
Sharia Law reveals an impassible gulf between Islamic and Western thought and American law. In America, the government derives it’s just powers from the governed and acknowledges the inalienable rights of every individual, of which justice and protection from violence is foremost.
Islam’s legal system is radically different: the father is “governor” or “administrator” of the family. That is, he is a sovereign within his domestic realm, with the right to employ violence to control his wife, children, and others. That alone makes Sharia Law incompatible with the Western concept of human rights.
by Andrew C. McCarthy
…In 2009, the Obama State Department ceremoniously joined with Muslim governments to propose a United Nations resolution that, as legal commentator Stuart Taylor observed, was “all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.” Titled “Freedom of Opinion and Expression” — a name only an Alinskyite or a Muslim Brotherhood tactician could love — the resolution was the latest salvo in a years-long campaign by the 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (now renamed the “Organization of Islamic Cooperation”). The OIC’s explicit goal is to coerce the West into adopting sharia, particularly its “defamation” standards.
Sharia severely penalizes any insult to Islam or its prophet, no matter how slight. Death is a common punishment. And although navel-gazing apologists blubber about how “moderate Islamist” governments will surely ameliorate enforcement of this monstrous law, the world well knows that the “Muslim street” usually takes matters into its own hands — with encouragement from their influential sheikhs and imams.
In its obsession with propitiating Islamic supremacists, the Obama administration has endorsed this license to mutilate. In the United States, the First Amendment prohibits sharia restrictions on speech about religion. As any Catholic or Jew can tell you, everyone’s belief system is subject to critical discussion. One would think that would apply doubly to Islam. After all, many Muslims accurately cite scripture as a justification for violence; and classical Islam recognizes no separation between spiritual and secular life — its ambition, through sharia, is to control matters (economic, political, military, social, hygienic, etc.) that go far beyond what is understood and insulated as “religious belief” in the West. If it is now “blasphemy” to assert that it is obscene to impose capital punishment on homosexuals and apostates, to take just two of the many examples of sharia oppression, then we might as well hang an “Out of Business” sign on our Constitution.
The Obama administration, however, did not leave it at the 2009 resolution. It has continued to work with the OIC on subordinating the First Amendment to sharia’s defamation standards — even hosting last year’s annual conference, a “High Level Meeting on Combatting Religious Intolerance.” That paragon of speech sensitivity, Secretary of State Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton, hailed as a breakthrough a purported compromise that would have criminalized only speech that incited violence based on religious hostility. But it was a smokescreen: Speech that intentionally solicits violence, regardless of the speaker’s motivation, is already criminal and has always been exempted from First Amendment protection. There is no need for more law about that.
The sharia countries were happy with the compromise, though, because it also would have made unlawful speech that incites mere “discrimination” and “hostility” toward religion. Secretary Clinton’s feint was that this passed constitutional muster because such speech would not be made criminally unlawful. Yet the First Amendment says “make no law,” not “make no criminal law,” restricting speech. The First Amendment permits us to criticize in a way that may provoke hostility — it would be unconstitutional to suppress that regardless of whether the law purporting to do so was civil, as opposed to criminal.
But let’s put the legal hair-splitting aside. Knowing her legal position was unsound, and that traditional forms of law could not constitutionally be used to suppress critical examination of religion, Secretary Clinton further explained the administration’s commitment “to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” The government is our servant, not our master — besides enforcing valid laws, it has no business using its coercive power to play social engineer. More to the present point, however, the administration was effectively saying it is perfectly appropriate to employ extra-legal forms of intimidation to suppress speech that “we abhor.”
That is precisely what the Egyptian mob was about to do when the U.S. embassy issued its statement. The Obama administration’s position? The president endorses extortionate “peer pressure” and “shaming,” but condemns constitutionally protected speech. That’s exactly the message the embassy’s statement conveyed.
Mind you, what is playing out in Egypt — as well as Libya, Yemen, and Tunisia — is a charade. It has nothing to do with the dopey movie. There is as much or more agitation to release the Blind Sheikh — which the Obama administration has also encouraged by its embrace of Islamists, including the Blind Sheikh’s terrorist organization. The latest round of marauding is about power.
Islamic supremacists see themselves in a civilizational war with us. When we submit on a major point, we grow weaker and they grow stronger. They win a big round in the jihad. President Obama’s anti-constitutional policy — the one he lacked the courage to stand by when, shall we say, the “chickens came home to roost” — has made speech suppression low-hanging fruit. The Islamists are going for it.
In a situation that called for a president who would actually defend the Constitution, Mitt Romney rose to the occasion. The administration’s performance was, as he asserted, “disgraceful.” Further, Romney admonished,
America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles of our constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
Can you imagine the current incumbent, the guy sworn to defend the Constitution, ever saying such a thing — or, better, saying it and actually meaning it? Me neither. It will be remembered as the moment the race for president finally became about the real job of a president. It will be remembered as the moment Romney won.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: barrack obama, blaspheny, civilizational jihad, defamation standards, freedom of speech, hillary clinton, islamic supremacism, Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), power, sharia | 1 Comment »
Over three years in the making, this powerful documentary is packed with hours of hard-hitting information from former Muslims and experts in Islam: a professor, an apologist, a missionary to Muslims, three ex-terrorists, a journalist who survived Palestinian terror tactics, the daughter of a shahid (martyr) and a victim of holy “jihad” war of polygamy who converted to Islam and has returned to freedom in Christ.
Each of these authors has first-hand experience of the atrocities of Quranic teaching and ideology of constitutional Sharia. (Islamic religious and political law based on its holy books, the Quran and Hadith). Those interviewed offer personal insights into myriad aspects of Islam, give shocking facts and tell of their own, oft times heart-wrenching experiences involving Islam.
This fast moving presentation powerfully unravels the complexity of Islam as not only a forceful Political Constitution, but an overall, engulfing legal, economic, military, dietary, social and religious system of life.
The program reveal Islam’s founder and prophet Muhammad, his teachings, Islam’s 1,400 year blood-thirsty history, Islam’s contemporary threat and growing impact in the West, and its plan for world domination – Ummah.
Renowned authors, authorities on Islam, and former Muslim terrorists, Kamal Saleem, Walid Shoebat and Zachariah Anani present eye-opening information. Three women: former Muslim and author Nonie Darwish, Arab journalist and author Brigitte Gabriel, and former convert to Islam, author W.L.Cati, convey their rich and sobering perspectives.
Lecturers and authors Dr. Ron Carlson, Dr. William Wagner and Dr. Peter Hammond explain the Qur’an’s teachings on holy “jihad” war, abuse of women, children and “infidels”, polygamy, slavery and cruel and barbaric requirements towards Jews, Christians and all who will not submit to allah, Islam’s moon god.
DVD available for purchase from http://www.caryltv.com.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Brigitte Gabriel, Islam, islamofacism, jihad, Kamal Saleem, Muhammad, Nonie Darwish, quran, sharia, Walid Shoebat | Comments Off on Islam Rising: A Call to One World Ummah