Islam’s Secret Santa

Click here to view the embedded video.

From: Acts17Apologetics  | Nov 29, 2011

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/

According to Muhammad, Allah would destroy us for not sinning. Hence, we’re only alive right now because we sin. Why do we sin? Because Satan tempts us. Therefore, Satan saved us from Allah’s destruction.

But wait…there’s more!

See and hear it in the thought-provoking video above.

By Ann Barnhardt

From the YouTube description:

Uploaded by AnnBarnhardt on Sep 15, 2011

Recorded 9/12/2011 in Colorado Springs, CO. Please feel free to mirror and spread. This is in the public domain, and is produced and provided for the public good. This video contains very disturbing content and images. Children should not be present when viewing.

Photography and editing courtesy of www.FreedomTalkNetcast.com
www.Barnhardt.biz

Part 1 of 4:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 2 of 4:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 3 of 4:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Part 4 of 4:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The following article was brought to my attention by Dymphna, at Gates of Vienna and, subsequently, used as an excuse to prohibit me from publishing any more articles about Islam at that forum. It is difficult not to imagine how Dymphna has handed Arab News author, Farha Khaled, a victory on a silver platter. Silencing my voice can only serve the ends of Islam.

Gates of Vienna Incites for Muslim Holocaust

Gates of Vienna the notorious white supremacist blog which published Fjordman and inspired Anders Brievik, recently published a three part essay which calls for the Holocaust of Muslims.

This is the same far right cesspool-of-bigotry-website notorious for publishing Pedar Jensen who vented his Islamophobia for many years under the pen name of Fjordman, and who has now gone into hiding after being interviewed by Norwegian police over the Anders Breivik massacre. Gates of Vienna is run by a couple in the USA, one Baron Bodissey whose real name is thought to be ‘Ned May’ and a woman calling herself Dymphna.

This is not first time Gates of Vienna has published screeds supposedly written by other anonymous contributors calling for the genocide of Muslims. A few years back a similar lovingly written piece inciting for the genocide of Muslims was published as Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs noted in Gates of Vienna Toys with Genocide:

‘If violence does erupt in European countries between natives and Muslims, I consider it highly likely that people who had never done anything more violent than beat eggs will prove incapable of managing the psychological transition to controlled violence and start killing anything that looks remotely Muslim. Our unspoken conviction that we, in 21st-century Europe, ‘

On 20th September 2011, Dymphna Of Gates of Vienna posted a three part series by one Zenster with the introduction:

This is the first of a three part essay dealing with Islamic terrorism and what can be expected regarding Islam’s ultimate fate.

Moving on to Part 1, titled ‘When Will It End?’ the essay begins by setting the tone with:

‘Short answer ― It will end when the tipping point is reached. This tipping point can be defined as follows:

When living with Muslims becomes more trouble than living without Muslims.‘

The only problem being is that Gates of Vienna never published any such line. Dymphna specifically edited it to read:

When living with Islam becomes more trouble than living without Islam

Clearly, Farha Khaled culled this line from the version published here, or at Patriot’s Corner, in order to increase her smearing power against Gates of Vienna. Chalk it up to the usual Islamic taqiyya.

A long rambling justification about the costs of policing airlines from terrorists, and how that money could be better spent on fighting aids and other social ills follows, in an obvious attempt to find some sort of moral justification as to why there is no other way.

Save for the fact that I do propose another far more moral way which Farha Khaled conveniently neglected to mention.

From “How Will it End?“: “Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is. A far less costly program of “wetwork” style targeted assassinations directed at the top echelons of Islam’s clerical, political, scholastic and financial aristocracy could see global jihad quickly screech to a grinding halt.

As can be seen, I do present a clear alternative to the Muslim holocaust. What’s more, in complete contradiction of Farha Khaled’s repeated accusations that I advocate the nuclear destruction of Islam, I make crystal clear about how: “Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is.” Moreover, Farha Khaled demonstrates the usual Muslim inability, or unwillingness, to discern between what is predictive and not normative.

It ends with the ominous warning ‘The tipping point is approaching swiftly’

Part two of the essay has the presumptuous title Why it will End? and answers the question by stating ‘Islam has “unhappy ending” written all over it’ before going on to elaborate with hyperbole and lies including one manufactured on Gates of Vienna by Fjordman:

‘Throughout Europe, Muslims are disproportionately represented in rape, violent crime and imprisonment statistics. The expense of this criminality reaches into extra billions of Euros per year and does not cover property damage, victim rehabilitation and other ancillary expenses. Nor does this speak to the same criminal practices and consequences resulting from ostensibly legal immigration into Europe by tens of millions of Muslims over the past few decades.’

The rapes statistics in Scandinavia that Fjordman published at Gates of Vienna which were then repeated on the Islamophobic blogosphere were proven to be lies.

I’m hoping someone more versed in European crime can examine the linked article, Pat Condell claims all rapists in Oslo are ‘Muslim immigrants’, to see if it fact-based.

Zenster continues his mental masturbation:

The reputation of Muslims as predatory criminals and intensely parasitic occupiers all combines into a damning indictment of Islam. Its presence on earth only promises increased conflict, more atrocities, new genocides and unwarranted diversions of wealth that could better serve far more deserving causes. Finally, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast to where they cannot be expected to keep pursuing their own petty quarrels instead of addressing the overarching threat of jihad. The complete and total inability of Islam to coexist with any legitimate faith or other culture presages a day when its numerous victims will band together in pursuit of an ultimate victory.

That is why it will end.

Except that it is not “mental masturbation” to cite the well-documented and disproportionate representation of Muslims in European crime statistics.

In the concluding Part three, How it will End? Zenster sums it up briefly: ‘The Muslim holocaust.‘ He then continues exhibiting more megalomania and what clearly appears to be a projection of his own fantasies:

Again, Farha Khaled resorts to Islamic misdirection. It is not “megalomania” to assert that Islam intends to impose shari’a law upon the entire world. Actually, it’s right there in the Qur’an. Furthermore, it is an established fact that Muslim military forces are supremely incompetent. Both Israel and America have demonstrated this time and again with lots of help from our supposed ally, Pakistan.

Also, it certainly cannot be construed as “fantasies” that Islam is headed directly towards a nuclear confrontation with the West. Iran’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons is just one of many existing flashpoints that threaten to engulf the MME (Muslim Middle East) in a catastrophic conflict which gives little hope of being conventional in nature. Economics alone indicate this.

‘Suffused with delusions of adequacy, Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare to an extent that Islam can only dream of, despite its supremacist fantasies.’

This could explain why the far right white supremacists see Israel as an ally. They see Israel as doing their dirty work for them, and as if on cue Zenster trots out the Samson option:

‘Neither is this the end of it. Iran’s reckless pursuit of genocide against the Jews could precipitate the Muslim holocaust all by itself. Little known to most people is Israel’sSamson Option. If true, the Jewish state has quietly informed its Arab neighbours that a single WMD strike against Israel will result in the entire MME (Muslim Middle East) being incinerated in nuclear plasma. Hundreds of fusion warheads along with newly acquired Dolphin class submarines and cruise missiles back this up.’

Please notice where Farha Khaled has inserted the British spelling of “neighbours” into my work. It is difficult to imagine why she felt that was necessary.

Contradictions galore! Elsewhere in this three part essay the author talks of the plot to establish the world Caliphate, but here he says he is convinced it won’t come about. Freudian slip? :

How is it a “Freudian slip” to note Islam’s openly avowed pursuit of a global caliphate and subsequently dismiss any such possibility? Of far greater importance is how Farha Khaled seems to constantly dismiss any notion that Islam seeks global supremacy, despite it being a cornerstone of Islamic doctrine.

‘Now, consider how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in two weeks. This is the “reality gap” confronting Islam and its delusory vision of world domination. No such thing will ever happen.’

More ramblings, perhaps to justify his own dreams of nuclear warfare

Again, Farha Khaled handily ignores my own personal revulsion at how “avoidable” the looming Muslim holocaust really is. Clearly, it would not serve her purposes of victimhood to relate my own distaste for such an outcome. Better to portray me as a bloodthirsty warmonger than one who seeks to prevent it. If anything, it is Islam that is driving this entire situation to the precipice of nuclear war. A simple thought experiment proves this.

Would there be anywhere near the potential for a Muslim holocaust if Islam stopped waging global jihad?

‘It is more than safe to say that an industrially and militarily unlettered Islam is notgoing to take over the world using such a feeble tool as terrorism. As was also noted in Part II, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast and that pace far outstrips any ability of theirs to perfect the mass production of intricate nuclear weapons nor muster fighting forces of even marginal proficiency. Chronic overreach is a hallmark of Islam and its habit of poking at the Western nuclear dragon with its terrorist pointed wooden stick bodes especially unwell for Muslims everywhere.’

The essay is full of dire warnings, rants about liberals who are complicit in Islamising the planet, of the political establishment for being too weak, but more gravely, it even condemns the ‘counter jihad’ movement for not calling for a ‘solution’ and for being too soft.

The only problem being is that the word “solution” never once appears anywhere in all three parts of my essay. Using such a freighted word would be all that someone like Farha Khaled needed to screech about the exact accusations that she has manufactured in the absence of facts. That is specifically why the word was never used even once in my essay. This disingenuous attempt to plant it in my work proves my point beyond a doubt.

When you hear of so called ‘counter jihadis’ accused of being ‘soft’ and the whole of western civilization embroiled in a plot whose aim it is to – err- destroy themselves – it is safe to assume you are reading from someone not quite right in the head, to put it politely.

Note the ad hominem attack? When you cannot attack the argument, attack the person. This strategy is constantly used by the Left and Muslims due to how little evidence they can summon to support their own version of reality.

Someone who doesn’t deserve a second thought and should ordinarily be dismissed as a raving loon.

Again, with the ad hominem attack. It is a hallmark of intellectual bankruptcy and a breach of good manners as well. None of which seems to bother Farha Khaled.

Except that it was at this very website, where a writer with the same Islamophobic rhetoric inspired a loner to kill tens of children on a holiday island!

Farha Khaled is a columnist for the Saudi based Arab News.

Perish the thought that Farha Khaled might behave responsibly and note how Anders Breivik could have acted out of disgust at constant Islamic atrocities and the Liberal Norwegian politicians who knowingly harbor terrorists like Mullah Krekar. Islam is responsible for over 17,000 deadly terrorist attacks since the 9-11 atrocity and that is reason, all by itself, for people to harbor severe animosity towards Islam. I suppose that I should be honored at being placed in the company of Fjordman, but I am equally sure it was not Farha Khaled’s actual intent.

While there exist in Islam many lamentable violations of human rights, a primary issue continues to cast ultimate doubt upon its claim as a valid religion. The taking of innocent life through terrorism remains a fundamental deal-breaker with respect to any possible acceptance of Islam as a genuinely legitimate faith.

Clearly, the institutionalized misogyny of purdah ― the Islamic confinement of women ― shall always loom large in any such decision process but many aspects of that dubious practice can be debated on cultural grounds as compared to the indisputable abhorrence of mass murder through terrorism.

Regardless of the damage being done to modern Christianity by its misguided attempts at universalism, the manner in which it is capable of sincerely embracing such noble concepts as universality or the Golden Rule is far more to the credit of Christian faith than the way in which Islam deceitfully channels all advantage to Muslims ― through such religiously sanctioned shams as taqiyya, kitman and hudna ― even while feigning an outward appearance of universality.

At the apex of these questions regarding legitimacy resides one of Islam’s most repugnant practices. Islamic doctrine purports to share with Christianity a similar regard for the sanctity of human life:

Qur’an Surah 4:29 ― (Surat An-Nisā’)

O you who have believed, do not consume one another’s wealth unjustly but only [in lawful] business by mutual consent. And do not kill yourselves [or one another]. Indeed, Allah is to you ever Merciful. [emphasis added]

Ostensibly, Islam condemns murder and suicide. However, a closer reading of its scripture makes clear that there are significant contingencies attached to this proscription. At its most basic, murder is only forbidden when it is committed against other Muslims. No better example of this exists than the original Bali atrocity of October 2002 that claimed over 200 lives. Many in the West welcomed how numerous Muslim religious authorities condemned the perpetrators for taking innocent human life.

What few people realized is that the preponderance of criticism leveled by Muslims at bombers Amrozi, Mukhlas and Samudra was based on how their terrorist act had claimed almost twenty Muslim lives. Throughout much of Islam, nowhere was there any concern or embarrassment over how the deaths of almost 200 non-Muslims went largely unnoticed, save unless they were joyously celebrated.

Further, it is indicative of how Islamic doctrine remains thoroughly imbued with war and hostility when one sees that the bombers themselves were referred to as “martyrs at the battle of Bali”. It requires a stunning degree of disconnection to call such one-sided and brutal mass murder a “battle”. Yet, this epitomizes just how pervasive the entire wartime mindset is throughout Islam.

In a similar manner to its professed condemnation of murder or suicide, Islam also decries any rejection of faith. However, once again, there emerges an essential divergence away from the tenets of Christianity. To this day Islam remains, essentially, a battlefield religion. An example being how, at its most basic level, Islam divides the world into dar al-Islam, “the house of Islam”, and dar al-harb, “the house of war”. Everywhere outside of dar al-Islam is a zone of conflict, struggle and, eventually, war. One need merely examine a map of global conflicts to see that most of them exist at Islam’s “bloody borders”.

Steeped in militancy, Islam extols the warrior spirit and rewards it with a sexual paradise. In diametric opposition is how Islam copes with apostasy. Departing the faith is a capital crime and punishable by death. There is no better analog than how a soldier’s desertion in time of war is an executable offense. The inescapable upshot of this being that Islam is in a perpetual state of war and all Muslims are soldiers. It is this element of death that permeates Islam which is so problematic for those who try and come to terms with it. That there are, in fact, no terms to be had with Islam, is another matter entirely and only cements this entire issue.

So we see that a Muslim’s rejection of Islam becomes an automatic death penalty. It strikes an odd and insincere note for any religion to coerce piousness out of its followers. Faithfulness under duress is hardly the definition of devout belief or even genuine allegiance, for that matter. Yet, this singular aspect of Islam goes largely unquestioned. No other large-scale creed in the world has a death penalty for apostasy.

A Comparison

In total contrast, Christianity’s own examples of believers who were encouraged to give up their faith tell an entirely different tale. Innumerable Christian Saints were cruelly tortured and slain even as they individually refused to abandon their belief. This concept of martyrdom lies at the very heart of a most glaring difference between Christianity and Islam.

It also returns us to the original question surrounding Islam’s legitimacy as a genuine faith. The Islamic definition of “martyrdom” is so diametrically opposed to everything implied by the Christian meaning of this word as to demand intense scrutiny.

Today’s modern Islamic “martyr” usually attains such status by donning a high-explosives laden vest whose charges are usually studded with ball bearings, bolts and other shrapnel that have often been coated with warfarin, a blood-thinning anticoagulant intended to enhance profuse bleeding in victims of the ensuing attack. The assailant typically seeks to enter into a crowded location, be it a disco, popular pizza parlor at mealtime or a commuter-packed city bus. The vest is then detonated in order to maximize loss of human life.

What follows is an excerpt from one of the several fatwan issued by Yusuf Qaradawi that sanction so-called “martyrdom operations”:

The martyr operation is the greatest of all sorts of jihad in the cause of Allah. A martyr operation is carried out by a person who sacrifices himself, deeming his life [of] less value than striving in the cause of Allah, in the cause of restoring the land and preserving the dignity. To such a valorous attitude applies the following Qur’anic verse: “And of mankind is he who would sell himself, seeking the pleasure of Allah; and Allah hath compassion on (His) bondmen.” (Qur’an, 2: 207)

But a clear distinction has to be made here between martyrdom and suicide. Suicide is an act or instance of killing oneself intentionally out of despair, and finding no outlet except putting an end to one’s life. On the other hand, martyrdom is a heroic act of choosing to suffer death in the cause of Allah, and that’s why it’s considered by most Muslim scholars as one of the greatest forms of jihad. [emphasis added]

Please keep in mind that Qaradawi is widely regarded both as the “Pope of Islam” and as a moderate Muslim despite validating “martyr operations” along with his open declarations that wives should be “beaten lightly” and all homosexuals be put to death.

There can be no doubt that such a vicious act flies in the face of traditional Christian martyrdom. It is a total affront to every characterization of those Christian Saints who voluntarily refused to renounce their faith and, alone, paid the ultimate price for it. As can be seen from the above excerpt, both Islam and Christianity forbid suicide. Yet, as is all too often the case with Islam, loopholes are created by which even the most heinous acts can find approbation and religious sanctioning.

Far more disturbing is the notion that Islamic “martyrdom operations” amount to nothing more or less than human sacrifice. The unimaginable hatred of life required to engage in such activities is predictably alien to those in the West who have not been brought up from childhood on such a steady diet of genocidal hatred. Again, in another bizarre inversion of Christian traditions where nuns are wed to Jesus, prior to bomb vest attacks the perpetrator is given a “martyr’s wedding” to one of the virgins that supposedly await him in paradise.

The degree of this hatred is difficult to convey. Imagine a woman expressing pride that more than one of her own sons had committed such horrible acts. That woman would be Umm Nidal Farhat. Known as “mother of the struggle”, she is now an elected legislator and a celebrity in Gaza for voluntarily sending three of her six sons to their terrorist deaths.

Umm Nidal: “Nothing has changed. The strength and honor have only increased. It doesn’t matter to me whether I have two or three Shahid [sons]. [As far as I'm concerned], let all my sons be Shahids. [emphasis added]

To those who respect the sanctity of human life, Fahrat’s mindset may as well be from a different planet. It exemplifies not just a “life is cheap” attitude found throughout the MME (Muslim Middle East), but also reflects upon just how meager Islam’s estimation of human worth continues to be. It may be argued that rewards of the afterlife outweigh any momentary losses but there is a lingering taint of literally cannibalizing intensely devout converts ― as supposed “martyrs” ― who might have peacefully convinced far more people to join Islam had they lived full, productive lives.

Nor is there any sense of embarrassment over the magnitude of this hatred. There are video interviews of Muslim children calmly discussing how they want to become bomb vest murderers. Despite every imaginable gesture of conciliation, Israel is subjected to constant terrorist attacks, in some cases attacks led by those individuals who owe their health to the Israelis. No better example exists than the case of Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss

Wafa Samir Ibrahim al-Biss is a 21 year old Palestinian woman, who lives in the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza strip. In January 2005 she suffered burns in a cooking accident in her home. She was admitted for treatment to the Soroka hospital in the Israeli town of Beer Sheva. She became an outpatient and was issued by the Israeli authorities with a special pass entitling her to cross into Israel to receive medical treatment.

On 21 June 2005 she was arrested at the Erez crossing point, on her way out of Gaza and to Soroka, wearing 10 kgs of explosives in her underwear. On Israeli TV she admitted that she had planned to explode the bomb in the hospital where she was being treated. She stated that she had been recruited by the Fatah Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, and added that she had wanted to target as many children as possible. [emphasis added]

The depth of such ingratitude is beyond conception and remains largely incomprehensible to Western minds.

Military Contradictions

None of this even addresses other attacks by Palestinians — called “no-escape” attacks — as in how the chances of staying alive after, for example, firing on an army position or a settlement are next to zero. Intentionally using a soldier only once — for a martyrdom operation or “no-escape” attack — is not just inefficient but an obscene estimation of human worth. It betrays why Islamic militaries are so unsuccessful.

The level of indoctrination required to program a prospective Islamic “martyr” flies in the face of what a moral, free thinking — as in being able to refuse an order on conscientious grounds — competent soldier should be. It is strong evidence that Muslim terrorists are not fighting for freedom but, as they often will freely admit, abject slavery; in this case, to Allah. Again, it points to why Arabs lose wars.

It is also curious to note how few, if any, Muslims decried such “martyrdom operations” when they were only employed exclusively against Jews. By contrast, examine the Muslim outrage now that the use of bomb vests has been extended to the Sunni versus Shi’ia conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. This is exemplary of Islam’s narrow selectivity in conferring its graces upon Muslims only.

Concomitantly, it beggars the question of why isn’t there any significant outcry against Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi for his almost singlehanded role in sanctifying this ultimately rapacious form of terrorism. Why has there been no death fatwan sworn out by ostensibly “moderate” Muslims against the cleric who has inspired so much bloodshed and loss of Muslim life? One might ask the same question about Osama bin Laden during his last years but that is another matter. The fact remains that terrorism is so essential and irreplaceable in what is otherwise wholly ineffectual Islamic war-fighting capability, that even something so hideous and detrimental to Islam itself cannot be foresworn.

All of this makes it more than apparent that Islamic “martyrdom” is done in the name of political domination — jihad’s mission to impose global shari’a law — and, therefore, it is not a religious act but one that is strictly military in nature. While this is in total concordance with Islamic canon, it is wholly alien to most other religious doctrines, including the Christian Church militant.

Piety and Coercion

Perhaps most telling of all is how Islam remains satisfied with, and by, involuntary conversion. What then to make of its supposed martyrs, are they genuine or false? It makes torturing people for information, along with all the risks of inaccuracy that freight such a sordid practice, seem like some sort of minor ethical lapse compared to how Islam is naively willing to accept forced conversion even as it most cynically punishes even minor blasphemy, an oxymoron in Islamic terms, or other relatively innocuous, transgressions ― whose criminal behavior might be rehabilitated ― with irreversible amputation, or capital punishment.

Unless, of course, it is the case that many Islamic clerics know full well how most rational human beings cannot be persuaded to voluntarily adopt something so patently anti-life as Islamic doctrine and, therefore, they must be coerced and intimidated into accepting Islam rather than charismatically proselytized. Ultimately, this reliance upon coercion provides strong evidence that true love is a foreign concept in Islam. That Muslim women are often treated worse than animals bears this out. With its child brides, sanctioned spousal rape and physical abuse, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and forced marriages, Islam continuously degrades human life and treats with contempt any sense of romantic love.

Another case involves an Iraqi woman named Samira Ahmed Jassim also known by the nickname Umm al-Mumineen or “the mother of believers”. This individual was responsible for enlisting some 80 young women to commit bomb vest attacks. Her method of recruitment involved having these young women gang raped. In Arabic culture they were “impure” and now effectively worthless as mates such that she then used their shattered self-esteem to persuade them how a sole path to “redemption” lay in carrying out so-called “martyrdom operations”.

This abject debasement of human life is a constant theme that permeates Islamic culture and drives out any notion of it being life-oriented. What’s more ― like Umm Nidal Farhat’s willing disposal of her own children ― Samira Ahmed Jassim betrayed her fellow women with brutal sexual assault and death. This is coercion of a most monstrous sort and bespeaks a heartless manipulation that could never succeed if left to stand on its own, admittedly nonexistent, merits.

This callous attitude is betrayed by another hideous practice that has recently come into play. It involves the use of retarded children, or young adults, in bomb vest terror attacks and represents an ultimately cynical method of disposal for all of the human detritus resulting from consanguineous Muslim marriages. If such heartlessness is disturbing, then how to describe the way that an Iraqi car bomber ― using two infants riding with him to get through a check point ― then left them strapped into their car seats to die in the subsequent explosion.

What sort of belief system could possibly accept such heinous acts as demonstrations of piety? Moreover, it demands an even harsher question of Islam. What Creator is worth worshiping that would reward with paradise the wanton destruction of his own creations? This is the sine qua non of any argument concerning Islam and its lack of respect for human life. For whatever shortcomings Christianity may have, it holds human life sacrosanct. No such thing can be said for Islam. It not only eliminates all discussion of moral relativism between these two ancient creeds but drags out into the disinfecting sunlight Islam’s true standing as a political ideology and no sort of legitimate religion.

This glaring and diametric opposition with respect to Christian and Islamic definitions of martyrdom must serve as a touchstone for Western minds as they learn to disassociate Islam from any genuinely religious context and relearn its more accurate status as a political ideology.

Hasan Mahmud is a member of the advisory board of the World Muslims Congress.

Front Page Magazine: Hasan Mahmud: A Muslim for Liberty

In his recent speech in Scotland, Imam Rauf claimed that no Muslim wants stoning or amputation in America. But if that is true, why have Muslims already brought female genital mutilation, “Islamic” finance and the “disciplining” of wives to America? If they have brought these aspects of Sharia, why would they not bring stoning or amputation as well?

Have these laws suddenly somehow lost the approval of Allah?

Many of us Western Muslims are alarmed by this kind of deception by some of our leaders.

We know well that Sharia law legitimizes violence in the name of divinity. We are sad to see countless open and secret Sharia courts across the West — now they are trying to do it in America. TAM (The American Muslims) created the first blueprint of a USA-Sharia court system back in 1993 in the model of Native American courts. Sharia law is more than stoning and amputation.

It sanctions other unjust laws even more devastating. Sharia law destroys family peace by setting brothers against sisters with its codification of half-inheritance. It does the same by setting husbands against wives by establishing the husband’s absolute control over his wife’s person and sexuality.

That is why there is no such thing as the rape of a wife in Sharia law. Sharia law allows child-marriage without caring what the husbands do to the unfortunate little “brides.” Sharia law is a threat to world peace because it thrives on hating others.

By dehumanizing others, it blocks us from sharing this planet joyfully with our fellow human beings. It gives us a false sense of superiority and provokes us to govern the world, whereas in the last thousand years our countries have invented almost nothing.

Many Sharia supporters wouldn’t live a day without the gifts of the West. Still, they come here to enjoy the freedom of the liberal democratic system — while they seek to destroy the same freedom and democratic system.

We must realize that Sharia constantly victimizes every Muslim woman. Whether a husband “disciplines” his wife or not, whether he marries other women or not, his right to do so is an insult to her.

These laws were created based on several fake Hadiths and by violating, abusing or ossifying contextual Quranic verses. Changing the meaning of the Quranic word “Sharia/Shara’a” from “moral guidance” to “state law” was a major conspiracy against Islam. We Muslims have paid heavily for this crime.

Sharia is more than stoning and amputation; it is also an attitude.

This Trojan horse of the West is not a benign legal system; but a malignant provocation to establish global Mullahcracy. It gives the informal ownership of Islam to a certain group of people who use sweet talk to hide violent laws.

Much of the reason for Muslims’ sorry state today is a matter of commonsense that the Prophet warned us about: “What I fear most respecting my people are their misleading Imams” – Sahi Ibn Majah Vol 5 Hadis 3952.

Response by 1389AD:

Here is my problem with this article. I believe that this article promotes the author’s incorrect belief that it is worth making the effort to reform Islam, when I am convinced that all such efforts are futile, counterproductive, and dangerous.

I sympathize with the dilemma of Muslims who are looking for a way out of all the evil that Islam stands for, without actually becoming an apostate. However, I am convinced that there is no possibility of reform and no way out, short of abandoning Islam entirely and accepting the very real risks that this involves.

Many centuries ago, Islam insulated itself against reform. All the schools of Islamic jurisprudence declared that the rules and the theology (such as it was) were frozen at that point, and that no further changes would be permitted. Indeed, Islam has had its “reform” – the Wahhabi movement, which has made everything worse by seeking to “purify” Islam.

I see absolutely nothing whatsoever in Islam that is worth keeping or saving. Islam IS shari’a. And shari’a law is bad even if it is interpreted merely as advice rather than as a requirement.

The only thing that I can say to Hasan Mahmud is this: Be brave. Leave Islam. It is not up to you to save an ideology that is inherently and irredeemably evil. Just get out any way you can, and never look back.

Muhammad promoted his own version of a deity that bears no resemblance to the Jewish or Christian understanding of God. Muhammad put his own words into the mouth of this ‘Allah’ – words that enabled him to satisfy his own greed, lust, and wrath.

Muhammad created Islam for the benefit of no one but himself.

Don’t Obey The Prophet

(h/t: Blazing Cat Fur)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by CreativeFreedoms on Oct 11, 2010

The religion of islam was created by Muhammad, for Muhammad, not for the benefit of the people and not by any god. That is my conclusion. The Quran clearly indicates this.

The so called revelations are not written as if they were spoken by a god reading from an eternal copy of the Quran in heaven, as is claimed. Allah is mainly referred to in third person as if somebody else is describing Allah and his ascribed glory. That person is of course Muhammad himself. The Quran is a collection of his sermons and prescriptions as remembered by his followers.

The idea that the Quran existed in advance in heaven and that everything that happened to Muhammad played out as a kind of predetermined puppet theater by the hands of Allah during the 23 years that Muhammad received his sporadic so called revelations is simply not believable.

The revelations are also overly concerned with Muhammad’s personal affairs and desires. Muhammad set himself up with a mandate for absolute power and demanded unquestionable submission. As with all people who have claimed divine guidance throughout the ages Muhammad had no evidence to present but his own words, as presented in the Quran. Those words are to be honest not very convincing at all. My hope is that muslims will persuade themselves to see this.

Even Muhammad’s child-wife Aisha made a snarky comment about the conveniently self-serving nature of Muhammad’s ‘revelations’:

Muhammad the Privileged

Main Article: Qur’an, Hadith and Scholars:Muhammad the Privileged

Muhammad [through convenient “revelations” from Allah] gave himself rights and immunities that no other Muslim ever received.

Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Apostle and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311

YouTube video by the Shark Tank:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by intub8or on Sep 3, 2011
Excellent words by brilliant patriot and proven warrior!

Rep. West speaks on multiculturalism, learning what the Qur’an is all about, defending western civilization, and the death of Theo Van Gogh.

More about Florida politics at The Shark Tank.

My thoughts:

The historic church of St. George survived until we went in to bring “democracy” to the Libyan people. Ironically, under the despot Saddam Hussein, Christians were allowed to practice their religion. When we went in to save the Iraqi people and to bring “democracy” to them, that is when the destruction of churches and the killing of Christians began. To think that we could bring democracy to “tribes” who have been fighting each other for centuries shows just how naive (or ignorant) we are. Whichever tribe comes out on top in these wars, they will subjugate the weaker tribes and the cycle of oppression begins again and the biggest losers will be the Christians.

“The only true faith in God’s sight is Islam.” (Surah 3:19)

“Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Qur’an: 9:5)

What I really regret is that our kids are being maimed or killed for a religion that wants to kill us. But then, this is just my opinion.

- Sparta

From World Greek Reporter:

Posted on 25 August 2011 by Anastasia Chaini

The historic church of St. George located in Libya, in Tripoli, dating back to 1647 was ransacked. The church is the oldest Orthodox church in North Africa.

The president of the Greek community, Dimitris Anastassiou transferred the news to the Metropolitan of Tripoli Mr. Theophylaktos, who has been in Greece since late June.

“I am feeling heartbroken for what is happening in Libya, this beautiful country which was destroyed and whose people are noted for their hospitality,” stated Metropolitan of Tripoli, who settled in Libya in 1991.

”I was sad to hear the news from Mr. Anastassiou. The thieves stole the shrine of our patron saint which I had brought from Mount Athos . Old Gospels, chalices, cherubim, censers, one of which we had been given by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Those who stole the holy objects contacted the president of the community and asked for money in order to return them. Mr. Anastassiou reported the incident to the police, but as things are at the moment, none will deal with this matter,” he said.

Grover Norquist is a professional Islamoblow who, for many years, under the guise of an anti-tax activist, has made a career out of corrupting the Republican Party with his “Muslim outreach”. The upshot is that the Muslim agenda has reached into the Republican party and has tainted many prominent Republicans, including the Bush family.

We have no need for Norquist to be our spokesman for cutting taxes and spending – we have the Tea Party for that. Norquist is also at the root of the Perry/Aga Khan curriculum controversy in Texas, about which there is much more at the link below.

It is not too late for Rick Perry to show Norquist the door, and to disavow any further efforts to “reach out” to the “Muslim community” – who actually are enemy aliens for all intents and purposes, even (or perhaps especially) those who have sworn an oath of citizenship in violation of the teachings in the Qur’an. We don’t need to “reach out” to enemy aliens – we need to deport them forthwith. The main thing that we need to teach people about Islam is that it is one hundred percent incompatible with the US Constitution and with life in any part of the civilized world.

Yeah, I’m a hard liner if there ever was one. And I will never apologize for that.

The Perry/Aga Khan curriculum: Ace folds, presents as the curriculum material that isn’t the curriculum at all

Ace asks: “Ummm… we’re not allowed to talk with Grover Norquist anymore, Pam? Can’t sign his anti-tax pledges?” Actually, it’s the other way around: is it really necessary to play ball with Norquist in order to come out for cutting taxes? Is there no candidate who will have the courage to endorse his tax policies but distance himself from him because of his Islamic supremacist ties?

Read it all. There’s tons of well-researched information here.

I don’t speak for Pam Geller. But I do say this: No, you’re not allowed to talk with Grover Norquist anymore, unless you want the whole world to know that you are a sellout to the Islamic expansionist agenda. It’s all up to you.

Much more about Grover Norquist here.

Yes, Norquist is married to a Palestinian Muslima, hence his personal reasons for pushing the Islamic agenda every chance he gets. I remember the days when marriage to an enemy alien (which is exactly what she is) disqualified a person from any position of public trust. The above link also details Norquist’s associations with CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood front groups. He should be in prison for aiding and abetting terrorist organizations, not posturing as a “conservative” and corrupting the entire Republican Party.

Update:

As Rodan pointed out:

Why must Rick Perry distance himself from Grover Norquist? The whole GOP should. He’s vile agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. He should be shunned by ALL Republicans, not just Rick Perry.

So singling out Perry is intellectually dishonest. Grover should be purged and shunned by all.

Fair enough. Consider it said.

Obviously, I am not sold on Rick Perry. That said, I am a counterjihad blogger, and it is not my business, nor that of 1389 Blog, to get in bed with any political candidate. We are not part of anyone’s political campaign. Our job is to determine where politicians actually stand on the counterjihad, and to hold every politician’s feet to the fire.

However, if Rick Perry is the GOP candidate, and I’m still alive by then (never a foregone conclusion for any of us over 55), I expect to be voting for him.

If I’m DEAD by then, I expect to be voting for Obama, along with the rest of the deceased-American community. Too bad this isn’t a joke.

More here:

Sultan Knish: Rick Perry and Islam

…and neither is Barack Hussein Obama!

It is inexcusable that any US president celebrate a Muslim holiday in the White House. And yes, we know that Obama was not the first president to do so; it is up to us to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again.

From Political Islam:

Obama said at the latest White House Iftar dinner:

Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life.

These words have no basis in fact. Islam is not part of our civilization because its foundational principles are opposite to ours. Our civilization is built on the foundation of critical thought (how we think) and the Golden Rule (ethics). Islam is built on submission (authoritative thought) and ethical dualism.

Let’s compare the principles, of these different thought systems, starting with authoritative thought and critical thought. Critical thought (also: analytic thought, scientific thought) is the necessary reasoning or intellectual basis for our culture of democracy. Critical thought is objective–no matter who does the work, they get the same results. It is fact-based, uses cause and effect, and is intellectual, not emotional. Critical thought’s tie into morals is that you don’t lie or cheat about data.

Let’s look at some authoritative reasoning. Authoritative reasoning is based on expert opinion and asserts its truth by power. It is so, because the Establishment says it is so.

The Meccan Koran, the early Koran, has one new idea—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. (The ideas found in the Koran are derivative.) The proof of Mohammed’s prophecy is repetition of “Mohammed is the prophet” and what happens if you don’t accept that. The reasoning is circular—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, because Allah says so. (Actually, the archangel of Allah says so.) How do we know what Allah says? Mohammed tells us what Allah says.

The Koran of Medina (the later Koran) contains one new idea—if you don’t believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you can be murdered in jihad. If you are not persuaded, then you can be eliminated. Now that is authoritative reasoning.

More on authoritative reasoning can be found in the Sharia. The Sharia says that apostasy (leaving Islam) is a capital offense. And what entails apostasy?

• To be sarcastic about Allah or any verse in the Koran
• To deny the consensus of the Islamic scholars
• To deny that Islam is to be the world’s only religion
• To be sarcastic about Sharia…

Much more here.

Is this something to be celebrated in the White House?

Indonesia: Halal Sex

(h/t: Winds of Jihad)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by france24english on Jul 25, 2011
INDONESIA : Hallal sex. Saudi men travel to Indonesia for sex tourism. And so they don’t break any religious laws: they marry the prostitute for a day or two…

From Newstime (NZ):

“France 24 TV goes undercover in Indonesia to explore a bizarre trend in the country’s sex tourism industry. A growing number of Saudi Arabian men are temporarily marrying according to Quran Chapter 4 Verse 24 “… agree Mutually (to vary it), …” (Mu’ta marriage 4:24, temporary) Indonesian prostitutes to have sex with so that they don’t technically engage in non-marital sex. Therefore, in their opinion, their sexual relations with a prostitute are religiously lawful.”

According to Wikipedia…

Nikāḥ al-Mutʿah (Arabic: نكاح المتعة‎ “marriage for pleasure”), is an extremely controversial fixed-term marriage system in Shi’a Islam, rejected in Sunni Islam. The duration of this type of marriage is fixed at its inception and is then automatically dissolved upon completion of its term. The marriage is contractual and is subject to renewal. Financial payments may be made between the couple, usually with the male paying the female mahr or dower.

It’s All About the Rupiah and the Rial:

Despite the fact that both Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are both Sunni Muslim countries, when there is money to be made from sex tourism, the supposedly Shi’ite-only practice of Mut’ah is considered halal nonetheless. Go figure.

Mut’ah is a ‘rial’ moneymaker for the imams in Shi’ite Iran:

Winds of Jihad: ‘Muta’, Temporary marriage or legalized prostitution

Holy Shiite! Pious pilgrimage just got more exciting at Imam Reza’s shrine in Iran, where for a reasonable fee (see price list below) a mullah can join any eager pilgrim in holy matrimony of “temporary marriage” with his choice of a lovely, fully hijabed, and properly veiled prostitute for a period between 5 hours to 10 days. Pedophiles welcome: girls as young as 12 years of age are standing by. Not to worry, the mullahs got them covered: all “temps” under 14 must show a written consent from their fathers or male guardians (no doubt on advice from the recently fired, now freelancing ACORN specialists).

We are not making this up…

Ayatollah Khomeini’s ‘temporary marriage’ to a four-year-old girl

Khomeini Sexually Assaulting Crying and screaming 4 year old Girl – with parental consent

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uploaded by blogspotKitmanTV on Sep 6, 2010

More about Khomeini´s sick teachings on marriage and child molestation: http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2010/09/latest-from-kitman-tv-on-youtube.html

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, The Supreme Leader of Iran, the Shia Grand Ayatollah, 1979-89 said in his official statements:

“A man can quench his sexual lusts with a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. Sodomizing the baby is halal (allowed by sharia). If the man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry when her menstruation starts, and at her husband’s house rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.”

Speechless…

Also see:

• NewStatesman: Ziauddin Sardar: Will you marry me – temporarily? Note: This is a truly creepy article by a Muslim who thinks these temporary marriages are a great idea. He contends that males are obligated to care for the offspring of these sexual unions. But as the next article indicates, it doesn’t work out that way in real life.
• She Found Prostitution Among Iran’s Holy Men
• References for Trafficking and Prostitution in Iran

The Tennessean: Davidson sheriff’s booking policy eases rules on religious headwear

A Muslim woman told to remove the veil covering her face to pose for a jail mugshot has prompted the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office to revise its policy regarding religious headwear.

Beginning Friday, a person wearing face-covering religious headwear who is being booked into the jail will have two mugshots — one with the coverings on; the other will be taken with the headwear removed from the person’s face.

The second shot will be taken in the presence only of a same-sex guard, be kept in a confidential file, and opened only through judicial order, said Karla Weikal, sheriff’s office spokeswoman.

The same rule applies at security checkpoints at Justice A.A. Birch Criminal Justice Building, Historic Metro-Nashville Courthouse and Davidson County Juvenile Justice Center. If someone wearing a type of religious headwear sets off a metal detector at the entrance, the person will be taken to a private room by a guard of the same sex. There, the person will remove the headdressing and be screened.

While local civil rights and religious leaders Tuesday applauded the revisions, some Middle Tennessee law enforcement officials said the sheriff’s office might be taking things a bit too far.

“…taking things a bit too far”?

Gee, ya think?

“We respect religious rights, but sometimes common sense has to play in here a little bit,” said Wilson County Sheriff Terry Ashe. “I don’t care if it’s Bubba with a cowboy hat or if it’s a religious situation, for everyone’s safety, we’re going to take a mugshot, and when it comes to booking photos, I’m going to have to see who you are.”

The Muslim woman who was told to remove her veils for her booking photo in Davidson County contacted the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which started in April negotiating with the sheriff’s office about changes to its religious accommodation policy. That policy took effect in 1998 but is modified each year…

Read it all.

This is perfectly ridiculous.

Nobody in the US has any business wearing facial disguise in public to begin with, much less committing a crime with it on.

In the US or any other non-Muslim nation, facial disguise (the burqa, or the hijab and niqab, or anything else) violates our own social mores. As a way of verifying identity and establishing the level of trust that allows our society to function, we expect that persons of both sexes and all ages go about in public with their faces and heads exposed. Not only the face itself, but also the neck, ears, head shape, and hair, form part of the visual cues that we use to recognize and identify one another.

When we see someone whose face is concealed, other than during a masquerade event or in exceedingly cold weather (uncommon in Tennessee), we wonder whether that person is getting ready to loot a store, rob a bank, throw a bomb, join a lynch mob, or commit other violent crimes. Considering the facial disguises worn by many of the recent rioters in the UK, our mistrust is well founded.

Not About Modesty

Burqa-wearers claim that their “modesty” is offended by any attempts to get them to doff their facial disguise. That’s hogwash! In our part of the world, modesty is all about not attracting undue attention to oneself. Going around with a bag over one’s head and body is the antithesis of modesty. It is all about confrontation; it is a test to see whether we will back down. One reason why Muslimas wear the burqa in Tennessee is because it puts pressure on non-Muslims. Even the hijab alone, by which I mean just the head/neck scarf, without the niqab (i.e., the face veil), serves as an “in your face” confrontation. The hijab is a visual sign of the wearer’s rejection of the customs and the community ties of native-born Americans and even of the sensibilities of those immigrants who came to the US because they approve of what we stand for (or of what the US once stood for). It is an implied statement that normal American women who do not cover their heads are somehow “immodest.”

If you cannot cope with the idea of your face being exposed in public, then you do not belong in this part of the world. Just go home immediately, take your friends and family with you, and never come back. Or don’t come here in the first place!

Security Risk

The burqa is an unacceptable security risk, even in Muslim countries! There is no way to know who (male, female, criminal, terrorist) or what (contraband, including BOMBS) might be under that burqa. By the time the authorities apprehend the suspect and remove the disguise, it may be too late to prevent a massacre or other major disaster. This is why the burqa is banned in some countries and cities.

“Religious headgear”?

Calling the burqa “religious headgear” is a whitewash in and of itself. What kind of “religion” expects teenage girls and adult women go around with bags over their heads? I contend that Islam is not a religion at all, but rather, an enemy, totalitarian, expansionist political ideology that seeks to rid the world of everything but itself. There is no reason why we need to give any totalitarian ideology the First Amendment protection that belongs to the free exercise of religion. In fact, according to the Qur’an, the stated goal of Islam is to encroach upon and destroy our own freedom to reject Islam!

Why is Davidson County so important?

Davidson County’s policy on shari’a law is important because Davidson County exercises jurisdiction over a populous metropolitan area that is also the capital of Tennessee.

According to Wikipedia:

Davidson County is a county located in the U.S. state of Tennessee. As of 2010, the population was 626,681. Its county seat is Nashville.[1]

In 1963, the City of Nashville and the Davidson County government merged, so the county government is now known as the “Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,” or “Metro Nashville” for short.

Nashville is also the capital of Tennessee. The upshot is that decisions that are made in Davidson County will not only affect “Metro Nashville” but also exert influence upon the entire State.

Blog admins 1389 and CzechRebel have been to Nashville. We both vehemently oppose the ongoing Muslim attempts to infiltrate the Southern US and to impose a parallel system of shari’a law upon it. We are far from alone in this. The South continues to be a bastion of Judaeo-Christian civilization, which is why the tranzi-progressive/pro-jihadi axis constantly bashes Southerners as “rednecks,” “hillbillies,” “bigots,” and so forth. It is all because the “common folks” of the “Red States” in the South keep getting in the way of their evil agenda.

No mosques in Dixie, and no burqas either!

Click here to view the embedded video.

From the YouTube description:

Uploaded by JerusalemPulseRadio on Jul 26, 2011

In the West’s attempt to remain politically correct, they have failed to identify the source of our problem, our true enemy.

The Evil that the Free World is facing is not radical Islam or militant Islam or any other group within Islam. IT IS ISLAM!

Sure there are good Muslims, but they are not practicing Muslims… if they were they would be seeking the death of ALL infidels. The have an agenda and it is clear. It was handed down to them by their only prophet.

Even the secular Muslims are not speaking out against the atrocities committed by fellow Muslims around the world. Why do they remain silent when Jews, Christians, Buddhists and so many others are oppressed by Islam around the globe?

And disloyalty to every other non-Muslim country.

Abdo’s Loyalty to Muslims Always Meant Disloyalty to Americans

By Raymond Ibrahim

To anyone familiar with Muslim doctrine, Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo’s actions — from refusing to deploy to Afghanistan lest he kill fellow Muslims to plotting a terror attack to kill fellow Americans — make perfect sense and accord well with Islam’s dichotomous doctrine of wala wa bara, often translated as “loyalty and enmity.”

Built atop numerous Koran verses and backed by Sharia, wala requires Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims, and explains why Abdo refused to deploy to Muslim nations.

While loyalty may appear admirable, it has a flipside, bara, which requires Muslims to disassociate themselves from non-Muslims — to be disloyal to them (see al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri’s 60 page treatise titled “Loyalty and Enmity” in The Al Qaeda Reader for details).

For example, Koran 5:51 literally warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them,” i.e., he becomes an infidel; 58:22 states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”

Now consider the progress of Abdo and how his actions reveal great doctrinal consistency:

First, he objected to participating in any war in any Muslim country, claiming “conscientious objector” status:

I don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don’t believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim. … I can’t deploy with my unit to Afghanistan and participate in the war — I can’t both deploy and be a Muslim.

He would not be the first to object to combating fellow Muslims: Major Nidal Hasan, who went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood in 2009, killing thirteen —and who Abdo heroizes — considered himself to be “a Muslim first and an American second”; the idea of deploying to a Muslim nation, his “worst nightmare,” threw him “over the edge.” Then there was Sergeant Hasan Akbar, who killed two American soldiers and wounded fourteen in Kuwait “because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.”

Next, though Abdo had no problem openly evincing loyalty to Muslims, trusting that tolerant or sentimental Americans would indulge him, he hid his enmity and disloyalty for those same Americans, in accordance to taqiyya — a doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive infidels. In fact, the Koran’s primary justification for deception is in the context of “loyalty and enmity”:

Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah — unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions (3:28).

Mainstream Muslim reference Tabari interprets this verse thusly:

Only when you are in their [non-Muslims’] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim.

[…]
More here.

The ONLY answer is mass deportation of Muslims – as politically incorrect as that may seem.

Any American-born individual who embraces Islam should be considered a stateless person and a subversive.

To: media@hermancain.com

Dear Ms. Carmichael:

Your press release, Cain Meets with American Muslim Leaders, was quoted here by journalist R.S. McCain:

UPDATE: The readership does not seem to approve — to put it rather mildly. In the comments below, Bob Belvedere cites references indicating that Imam Magid and ISNA are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

As readers might deduce, I was rather stunned by this press release…

It was a serious mistake for Herman Cain even to meet with Imam Magid or with anyone else affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and its myriad of front groups. It was an even bigger mistake for Mr. Cain to issue any apology for having offended Muslims in any way.

I must point out that most Americans have very little familiarity with Islamic doctrine as it exists in the Qur’an, the Hadiths, and shari’a law. Islam is not a religion in the normal sense of the word as Americans understand it. Instead, by its own definition, Islam is an expansionist, enemy, totalitarian political ideology that controls all aspects of life and seeks to eliminate everything but itself. It is incompatible with the US Constitution, with the oath of citizenship, with the oath of political office in the US, and with civilized society in general.

1389AD (a/k/a blog admin 1389)