Stop the Ground Zero Rajab!!

ACLJ's litigation against the Ground Zero Mosque project is going forward, with oral arguments tomorrow. Jordan seeks to maximize the impact of popular opposition by gaining more signatures on their on line petition.  If you have not yet signed the petition, use this link to go Jordan's note, which has a link to the petition at the end. 

    This is not really an issue of desecration of sacred soil, neither is it an issue of sensitivity.  It is an issue of supremacism. Islamic doctrine holds that Islam must be superior; it must be in a dominant position. 

    Park 51 is not a 'community center', nor is it strictly a mosque; it is a rajab: a fortification built on a site of conquest as a symbol of supremacy and a staging area for further expansion through military expeditions

    Islamic supremacism is best summarized in one ayat: 9:33 and Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65 but it is far deeper and broader than that.  Three blog posts on that subject have been compiled into a chm file: Islamic Supremacism.  Triumphalism  is a similar, related and conjoined concept covered in: Know Thine Enemy Part 11. 

Rub Salt in the Wound: Reissued!!!

Rita Jones has edited Salt in the Wound to remove the copyrighted Getty image, and has permission from the photographers to use the images now included in the video. This video, while extremely entertaining, has a message whose importance can not be over estimated nor exaggerated.

    If you love life, if you love liberty; if you want to preserve  & perpetuate America and the  supreme values enshrined in  our Declaration of Independence & Constitution, then you will, by God and the internet, make this  top notch video go viral!!!  

    The creator of this  wonderful video left a comment on one of my original blog posts alerting me to the re-issue and including a link. Unfortunately, the link derived from the YouTube  form is broken. I fixed it, and have posted the repaired link for you. Who will you email it to first?

    I edited the dimensions to fit  the format of certain blogs where I post.  I will be  cross posting this, on a total of  nine blogs.  One of them will vaporize in a few weeks, but I  am convinced that this is worth the effort. The original, unedited embed code which displays 480X385  is included below. Copy it and paste it into your html code to embed the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuypeen1WuU

For the love of liberty, do everything you can, right now, to make this wonderful video go viral!!!  I  shared it on Facebook.

    The Cordoba House.Park 51/Ground Zero Mosque project, under any name, no matter how disguised, is a symbol of Islamic triumphalism & supremacy, a place where we will be cursed seventeen times each day.  A place where the fard al-kifaya of genocidal jihad conquest will be preached; where Muslims will pray for our defeat and destruction.  .

    Wake up, wise up, rise up and scream NO!!!

Ground Zero Declaration Challenges Muslims

The Ground Zero Declaration came to my attention through a Google Alert that led to a post by Ali Sina at Faith Freedom.org.     The brainchild of Billy Rojas and Centroids, the declaration  begins by affirming the Declaration of Independence & Bill of Rights.

    After the affirmation, it lists four prticular items: freedom of religion, equal protection, human dignity and peaceful assembly & free speech.

    In that fourth item, it specifies freedom to criticize religions, which will stick in Islam's eye like a sharp grain of sand.  

    The next section carries an interesting heading: "The Problem With Cordoba House".  The concluding sentence of that section is particularly interesting.  "Allowing Muslims to build an Islamic center so near the scene of Islam-inspired death implies that neither we nor they have truly learned the painful lessons of 9/11."

    The next section, "What We Want", leads off with a most direct sentence.  "If Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is serious about promoting a new Reformed Islam that divorces itself completely from the ideology that brought down the World Trade Center, we ask him and his colleagues to officially:"

There follows an enumerated list of three things no Muslim can do  without incurring the penalty of apostasy and a demand that the Ground Zero Mosque project be postponed, reconfigured or relocated.

    The concluding sentence has more clarity than I can expect from centrists; this has real merit.  "We do not believe a commitment to freedom means giving our enemies the freedom to destroy us."

    That last sentence is the clincher for me.  I hope it will be for you, too.  Lets make this happen!

Cordoba House: Monumental Incomprehension

The Ottawa Citizen published an article by Andrew Potter: A monument to modernity. I find that article to be a monumental exemplar of ignorance, prejudice & arrogance.  I will reproduce and analyze selected excerpts here. If you desire to read the entire article in context, use the link above.  

    Examine the article's sub headline.

  A mosque near Ground Zero would be the perfect rebuke to Islamic fundamentalists, and demonstrate the power of western liberalism

"Western liberalism" implies freedom of religion.  Religion implies anodyne, eleemosynary institutions with a spiritual mission. Islam does not fit that pattern. Islam is violent, at its core, by design.  It declares perpetual war against pagans, Jews & Christians.  The Muslim's mission is to fight in Allah's cause, to kill others and be killed.  The jihad imperatives linked above are confirmed by hadith and codified in Shari'ah [o9.8 & 9.9].

    Islam's mission is mercenary: the personal empowerment & emolument of its founder: "...The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger...." , "...You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives),... ",  "The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility...",  "When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests...".  Do you require more evidence?  If so,  post a comment requesting it.

    But jihad is the inner struggle against one's ego.  Yeah, right. Islamic law tells us exactly what it is. "Jihad means to war against non-Muslims,
and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion...."

    "Fundamentalists" are not at issue, neither  are "extremists" nor are "radicals".  Only "believers" are significant to this debate. The ignorant fools who will not read the Qur'an do not know what believers do.  Unfortunately, that information is crucial.  I will quote Surah Al-Imran 110 in its entirety, including the translator's parenthetical & bracketed expressions, because it is crucial to  comprehending the critical concept involved.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).

The first bracketed expression identifies the antecedent of the personal pronoun: believers.  Believers are the best of people who enjoin the good and forbid the bad.  To discover the full importance of this ayeh, we must turn to the hadith, one of which explains it explicitly. "...the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam". The believers bring us with chains on our necks until we convert.  What part of this do you not understand?

    Surah Al-Anfal begins with  the disposition of spoils and then defines believers.  Context is required for clarity.

8:2. The believers are only those who, when Allâh is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Qur'ân) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone);

8:3. Who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât) and spend out of that We have provided them.

8:4. It is they who are the believers in truth. For them are grades of dignity with their Lord, and Forgiveness and a generous provision (Paradise).

    Fearing  Allah is a reference to obedience-- to the jihad imperatives. Spending is a reference to participation in Jihad "with your wealth and your lives".
Dignity, forgiveness & generous provision are references to the Mujahid's reward. Once again, full context is required.

3:169. Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allâh as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision.

3:170. They rejoice in what Allâh has bestowed upon them of His Bounty, rejoicing for the sake of those who have not yet joined them, but are left behind (not yet martyred) that on them no fear shall come, nor shall they grieve.

3:171. They rejoice in a Grace and a Bounty from Allâh, and that Allâh will not waste the reward of the believers.

    Another ayeh states the definition with great clarity.

49:15. Only those are the believers who have believed in Allâh and His Messenger, and afterward doubt not but strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh. Those! They are the truthful.

    There are no extremists, only believers. There are no moderates, only hypocrites, who  shirk jihad.  They are described in another hadith. "...During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection."


    Next, Potter accuses conservatives of having more in common with Muslims.

...revealed the basic mean-spiritedness of contemporary American conservatism. But more tellingly, the dispute has revealed the way in which conservatives have more in common with Islamic fundamentalists

Notice how we are labeled as mean-spirited. Is it possible that our LibTard is the mean spirited one?

fat, dumb fish like Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich swimming happily into the barrel to be shot

How did he describe Palin & Gingrich?  "fat, dumb fish"; implying suckers. As a conservative, I demand moral clarity. I will not vote for either of them because they attach unnecessary adjectives to Islam but I do not call them suckers, I call them RINOS and I do not advocate shooting them. .

    Potter invokes  an authority figure to sum up the argument.

Atlantic magazine editor Michael Kinsley probably summed it up best in a widely-circulated blogpost this week, where he asked, "Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn't bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional?"

    The proposed Ground Zero (Park 51) Mosque is a symbol of Islamic triumph & supremacy; a place where Muslims will go to curse us and pray for our defeat five times each day.  It will be a place to celebrate and inculcate the damnable doctrines which impelled the "magnificent 19"  to attack us. It will serve to raise the morale of  our enemies, aiding in their recruitment & fund raising efforts.   There is nothing bigoted about opposing the Mosque on these grounds.

    Is there any reason to support the Mosque that is not demagogic?  LibTards  claim constitutional grounds  of religious liberty while in fact, they seek the votes of Muslims while they calumniate conservatives.  If their conduct is not demagogic, what is?

    How can it be unconstitutional to deny the enemy, which has declared and is prosecuting  asymmetrical warfare against us, the "right" to plant their flag of triumph and erect a recruiting center at ground zero?  The  First Amendment's free exercise clause protects legitimate religions, not mercenary & martial war cults which seek to subvert our system and enslave us.
   
    Potter exposes abysmal ignorance of Islam.

The defining characteristic of Islamic fundamentalism is not its hostility to Christianity. Muslims are pretty convinced God is on their side, and they would easily win an even fight between competing religions. But when it comes to the fight between Islam and modernity, it's another story. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism over the course of the 20th century was driven largely by a growing fear of the secularism, individualism, and consumerism of the modern West.

Islam is intolerant. It demands a global monopoly on faith & practice.  Cursing us begins in the last two ayat of the first surah. Allah commands warfare against us in the ninth surah, and immediately thereafter curses us.  Convinced they can win?  Allah had to reduce a promised 10: kill ration to  2:1 because the Muslims could not cut the mustard.  So "fundamentalism" is a response to our modernity?   LibTards might suffer less embarrassment if they would research before they write.

    The Qur'an is given and accepted as the literal word of Allah, passed to Moe through Jibril.  It is given as the  perfected, final word.  "...This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion.... "  What part of that don't the LibTards comprehend?  Moe had something definitive to say about the issue.  "Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it. ".

    LibTards can not comprehend the fact that  Moe's preaching & practice set the standard of Islam, Muslims are commanded to obey what he preached and emulate what he did.  Offensive conquest, genocide & terrorism are normative Islam, not extremism.

    Potter is generous in exposing his irrationality.

But beyond that, what makes western civilization so powerful is precisely the  fact that people here are free to think, say, and do just about anything.

    This issue boils down to the right to  hold and propagate a conviction that one has a divine commission to conquer and subjugate the entire world, to kill all who resist, rape their widows,enslave their orphans and seize their property.   LibTards can not comprehend the fatal fact that  extending rights to Islam abrogates  all our rights.  Waging war against disbelievers is part of Islamic worship.  It is mandatory, not optional.  LibTards can't comprehend that fact.   Even if they would read the Qur'an, hadith  & Islamic law they would never get a clue.


    Potter is  was not satisfied with that, he continued exposing his irrationality and ignorance.

It is hard not to conclude that the reason conservatives are so upset by the proposed mosque is that they don't have much faith in their own culture

A Muslim who can afford them is allowed to have four wives.  That special privilege, in addition to their large population base, gives them a high reproduction rate.  They can and will out breed us as they are doing to Europe.

    Our culture is superior, but LibTards can't admit that fact.  They are hung up on multiculturalism, blindly assuming that all cultures are equal.  They resist any and all attempts to protect and preserve our culture.   What happened to the Christian and Zoroastrian cultures in Persia, Ethiopia, and other cultures in the surrounding region?  What happened to the Hindu & Buddhist cultures in India?

    Was Churchill conservative? Did he have confidence in his culture?

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
-- Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

    Potter exhibits the hallmark of a damned fool.

Imagine a society that could not just permit, but actually encourage Muslims to build a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero. How fearsome would that be?

    Letting yellow jackets build a nest in your  bedroom would not be a sign of strength, it would be a sign of idiocy.  Put away all spill, choke and fire hazards before clicking the next link. I want you to see what Potter wants to invite to  ground zero. Revolution Muslim 

Are We Wising up to Islam?

Barenaked Islam    quoted  a New York Times article: Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition,  which first lists several locations where opposition  to Mosque construction has arisen and then brings out the key revelation.

"In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law."

Either the opponents have begun to study the enemy's canon or they have been emboldened to  use to a new level of direct counter attack on the ideological plane. The next paragraph trots out the implicit false premise: "Islam is a religion, equal  to Christianity and must be tolerated as such as a matter of First Amendment right."

"These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat." [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Many left wingers are slick in their use of loaded expressions.  "America's democratic values" is heavily laden with all things bright and beautiful.  The use of that expression lays the foundation for accusing Islam's opponents of racism, bigotry & xenophobia.    They are off to a fast start, ahead of the starter's pistol, mis-framing the debate.  Only religions are protected by the First Amendment's free exercise clause.  They have evaded\ the crucial question: "Is Islam a religion worthy of First Amendment protection?".  

    It has a scripture, it has theology, it has cosmology, it prays, it sways, it practices charity; it must be a religion.  Yeah, right.  Islam is a deen: way of life which dictates all aspects of human life. One critical aspect of that way of life makes it incompatible with our Constitution and intolerable in our society.  Open your eyes and prepare to learn; I am about to show you something that nobody else will expose you to.  This oral tradition exposes the reality of the Islamic deen.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Moe presented jihad and agriculture as alternatives, the former being acceptable to Allah and the latter carrying a curse.   Allah will curse the Muslims if they abandon jihad in exchange for agriculture.  Jihad Akbar is striving against your ego and temptations.  Is Jihad Akbar an alternative to farming for a living?  Jihad asghar is defined in Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims".  Is that an alternative to farming as a way of making a living?   For the answer, examine this hadith, which Khan bowdlerized but Aisha Bewley included in her translation of Sahih Bukhari.

Bukhari  Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

   
How did Moe make his living?  By his spear.  Was it by hunting wild game?  Is the life style of a hunter/gatherer consistent with making commands; abasing and humiliating anyone who disobeys? What kind of command is involved in that saying? Here is one sample.

... I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers. My messengers deserve honour. Treat them with respect. Whatever pleases my messengers, will also please me....[LETTER TO THE CHIEFS OF AQABA]

Moe sent a letter to Christians, giving them the choice of conversion to Islam, dhimmitude & Jizya or war.  He commanded people to submit to Islam and attacked them if they refused.   What is consistent with issuing commands and punishing the disobedient?  Pillage & plunder.   Do you see the pattern yet?

    For those who can not perceive the pattern, I have more clues from the Qur'an: Surah al-Anfal:; "Spoils of War".  To whom do the spoils belong? How are they allocated?  What was Moe's motivation?

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad ) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), if you are believers.

8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad ) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Moe gets the spoils; the  best 20% off the top. Moe's motivation was the spoils & ransom for captives.  We  have it on Allah's authority.   But spoilation was taboo among Arabs, how did Moe get away with it?  Allah gave him special dispensation.  Nay more! Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world.  How did Allah make Moe wealthy?  

Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 ...3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs. "
[Emphasis added for clarity.]

    Islam's mission is mercenary, neither spiritual nor eleemosynary. This fact alone is sufficient to disqualify Islam from First Amendment protection.  There is another fact, equally potent as a disqualifier:  Islam is permanent war.  Moe created Islam for his personal emolument & empowerment, which were dependent on constant warfare. He began with razia on camel caravans,  graduated to ghazwat against local Jewish settlements, and went on to conquer Mecca and threaten nearby kingdoms and empires. 

    Since Moe was  the self-appointed spokesman for Allah, he had Allah issue commandments.  Two of them are crucial to the question before us.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

• Ibn Kathir
• al-Jalalayn
• Ibn Abbas
• Maududi
• Reliance of the Traveller

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

• Ibn Kathir
• al-Jalalayn
• Ibn Abbas
• Maududi
• Reliance of the Traveller

   
Those are commands, imperatives, not suggestions; not metaphors, not allegories.  They have neither geographic nor chronological limits; they are outcome oriented, of global scope.  I gave you links to four tafsirs and Islamic law for a reason: so that you can verify what I have written.  Those tafsirs  deny the mercenary motivation clearly exposed by Allah's own testimony in 8:67: "You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives)". None of them denies the fard al-kifaya of annual ghazwat.  None of them asserts limits of time or geography.  None of them asserts an expiration date.

    Besides bing fard al-kifaya, jihad is the essence of the relationship between Allah and the believers; he purchased them as slaves so that "...they kill (others) and are killed.".

        What makes  jihad  holy?  Is it fighting to establish the religion? [Read the footnote to 2:190.] No!  Jihad is only holy if nobody embezzles the spoils!

Sahih Muslim 19.4294: "...Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children...."

Jihad would be profaned by embezzling the spoils, which belong to Moe, fleeing from battle and mutilation  which was another  taboo.  Killing women and children  is prohibited because they were part of the booty, dead bodies had no value on the slave market. If you retain any doubt about this disgusting fact, I have some references for you: 33:26-27, Ibn Kathir and  Ibn Taymiyyah {"property for Muslims"}.

    What is the importance of Jihad?

"Abdullah Humaid (Shaykh). "... Besides these acts of worship, a Muslim is directed to abstain from evil deeds and to perform good deeds, so that he may achieve success in the Hereafter, as well as, in the life of this world. But, as regards the reward and blessing, there is one deed which is very great in comparison to all the acts of worship and all the good deeds-and that is Jihad!"

    By what stretch of the imagination is a mercenary and martial institution which wages war against us to be greeted with a welcome mat and given the protection which the First  Amendment extends to legitimate religions?  Given the fact that offensive jihad is a required  part of the practice of Islam, how can there be a right to practice Islam here?

    The Times tells us that there is a "growing cottage industry of authors and bloggers"  who testify against Islam and "interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths" who defend Mosques.  They don't tell us about the fact that only one side has relevant, verifiable evidence to support its case.  Throughout this post you will find links to source documents.  They are bold, blue underlined text. When clicked, they open  a relevant document in a new window.

    At the end of the article, the times quotes a spokeswoman for one Mosque.

"Camie Ayash, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, lamented that people were listening to what she called “total disinformation” on Islam. ... “A lot of Muslims came to the U.S. because they respect the Constitution,” she said. “There’s no conflict with the U.S. Constitution in Shariah law. If there were, Muslims wouldn’t be living here.”

Does Shari'ah conflict with our Constitution and laws or not?  Reliance of the Traveller is a 1251 page book, translated from Umdat as Salik.  It is acknowledged by the Sheikhs at Al-Azhar University to be an authentic handbook of Islamic law.  We  have freedom of religion. American citizens can choose their own religion, and switch at will.  Muslims governed by Shari'ah can not. A Muslim who  apostatizes must be executed.

O8.1  When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
O8.2  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.  http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html

Does that Islamic law conflict with our organic law or does it not?

    Islamic law concerning marriage and divorce can be somewhat shocking to the western mind.

M3.13: Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent

Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride's father or father's father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.

Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father's father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin's silence is considered as permission.

As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father's father, or someone else.

The father of a prepubescent girl can marry her off without her consent.  Is that or is  that not in conflict with our laws?   What if she refuses

O1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
...
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor's) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

Honoricide, anyone?  But, of course, there is no conflict between Shari'ah and our Constitution.

    Now, back to the topic of divorce.

 Chapter N3.0: The Words that Effect a Divorce
N3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words

derived from it).  When the husband says' "I divorce you,'' or "You are divorced,'' the wife is divorced

whether he has made the intention or not.

(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions such as "The wife is divorced,'' or "The divorce is effected,'' mean just one of the three times (def: n9.0(N:) ) necessary to finalize it, unless the husband thereby intends a two-or threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words three times.)   

    Is the Islamic law of divorce consistent with ours, or does it conflict?

   Lets touch upon a subject which, though not directly  involved in the federal  organic law,  does involve the Constitutions of the several states: duties of the governor.

O25.9  Authority in view of merit is that which is freely invested by the caliph through his own choice, and entails delegating a given limitary function and the use of judgement within a range of familiar alternatives. This investiture consists of the caliph appointing an individual to independently govern a city or region with authority over all its inhabitants and discretion in familiar affairs for all matters of government, including seven functions:

-1- raising and deploying armies on the frontiers and fixing their salaries, if the caliph has not already done so;

-2- reviewing laws and appointing judges and magistrates;

-3- collecting the annual rate (khiraj) from those allowed to remain on land taken b Islamic conquests, gathering zakat from those obliged to pay, appointing workers to handle it, and distributing it to eligible recipients;

-4- protecting the religion and the sacrosanct, preserving the religion from alteration and substitution;

-5- enforcing the prescribed legal measures connected with the rights of Allah and men;

-6- leading Muslims at group and Friday prayers, whether personally or by representative;

-7- facilitating travel to the hajj for both pilgrims from the regian itself and those passing through from elsewhere, that they may proceed to the pilgrimage with all necessary help,

-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

Revisit the last item in that list. The local governor has a duty to undertake jihad against neighboring enemies and dividing the spoils.  Does that or does that not conflict with our federal and state Constitutions?  We have been assured that there is no conflict between Shari'ah and our Constitution.   What is the truth of the matter?  Does our Constitution guarantee freedom of religion?  How about Shari'ah?

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace).  After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ). [Emphasis and link added for clarity.]

 
The caliph makes war upon Jews & Christians until they become Muslim or pay extortion, in obedience to 9:29.  But, we are assured that this does not conflict with our Constitution.  I doubt that many Muslims have read it.  Of course there is a perfect right to build Mosques & Madrassahs wherein to preach the obligation (fard al-kifaya) of jihad. And its perfectly alright to  send 1\8 of the charity collected to those waging war against us.

H8.7: The Eight Categories of Recipients

It is obligatory to distribute one's zakat among eight categories of recipients (O: meaning that zakat goes to none besides them), one-eighth of the zakat to each category. (n: In the Hanafi school, it is valid for the giver to distribute his zakat to all of the categories, some of them, or to confine himself to just one of them (al-Lubab fi sharh al-Kitab(y88), 1.155). ) ...

H8.17: Those Fighting for Allah

The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration).  They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people's families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

Didn't President Obama have something to say about Zakat at Cairo?  "That's why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat."  Who did the Holy Land Foundation send $13. million to?  Why was that a big deal, requiring two trials in federal court?

Brits: Ignorant, Gullible Morons

A British tv station sent undercover agents into British Mosques to record what happens there. Channel 4, after seeing and hearing the preaching in "moderate" Mosques, highly praised as bastions of peaceful multiculturalism by the British government, still falls pray to the false dichotomy of radicalism and moderation.

They listened to preachers, they watched dvds, they visited web sites. They said that hatred, jihad, and everything bad about Islam comes from Saudi Wahhabism. Did it ever occur to those morons that Saudi Arabia is the origin of Islam? Did it ever occur to them to read the Qur'an & hadith to see what Islam really is? Of course not. Instead, they believe the false narrative of the "religion of peace" even after discovering that Muslims say one thing in public and another in private when they think there are no kuffar present.

This informative video has a 48 minute run time. It is a sample of what is preached in every Mosque. That preaching is derived from the Qur'an & hadith. For the short course, containing numerous quotes from Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence, read What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims? For a good study on Jihad, read Jihad: The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War. If you are deeply curious and willing to read a 1000 page book, turn to The Prophet of Doom.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843&hl=en#Please



After watching the video, download this ebook compiled from 13 fact packed blog posts: Know Thine Enemy.chm. It contains copious quotes from the Qur'an & hadith, each linked to source so that you can verify it and explore the context.

Pamela Geller vs Lying Muslim

Bare Naked Islam embedded this video in an article about the Stop The Mosque Rally in NYC, this video illustrates media bias in favor of Islam. The interviewer frequently interrupted Pam Geller rather than allow her to complete her statements. Due to the soft and rapid speech of the interviewer I was not able to get the name of the lying Muslim. This is from the Faces of Faith feature on CNN.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_wqt9edqOQ&feature=player_embedded

The interview with Pamela Geller begins approximately two minutes into this 12: 52 video. This is one of those videos that must be seen to be appreciated fully. Watch the interviewer's facial expressions. It is obvious from her expression and tone of voice that she is adversarial toward Geller. She interrupts before Geller can complete her answers. I believe that the interviewer succeeded in rattling Geller, pushing her off balance so that she was not able to make her usual articulate presentation. I will emphasize the questions with bold face, block quoting the answers and leaving my comments full width. Due to rapid speech, cross talk and poor typing skills, this transcript may contain errors, it will not be word for word perfect.

Bold underlined text is linked to my sources. Links will open in a new tab or window.

We understand that there is a protest today that you are leading, what exactly does your group hope to accomplish today and why are you against the building of Cordoba House, this Muslim and cultural community center?

Well, Ground Zero is a war memorial, its a burial ground, and this Mosque is offensive; its humiliating, its demeaning to the three thousand innocent victims who lost their lives. Without Islam this attack would never have happened. And we are rallying at Ground Zero, at the corner of Liberty and and Church to show the public outcry and we are asking that they be sensitive and tolerant and responsive to this overwhelming ah dissent to this Mosque. the latest polls show that America is against this Mosque. to build a shrine to the ideology which inspired this jihadist attack is insulting, it is...

At this point the interviewer made her first interruption to insert a canned response from the Imam of Cordoba Housed. The Cordoba House project is a symbol of Islamic supremacy. Muslims built a Mosque on Jerusalem's Temple Mount, and deny that the Temples ever existed there, claiming the site for themselves exclusively. Their attitude is supremacism, it is arrogant AssWholliness, totally unacceptable to civilized people. Recent riots were caused by similar conflicting claims over holy sites. You might remember hearing about Ayodhya. The Wikipedia entry will refresh your memory.


One remark is particularly telling: "Without Islam this attack would never have happened." The accursed abomination is a function of orthodox Islamic doctrine. It flows directly from Surah Al-Anfal 39 & Surah At-Taubah 29; from Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and from Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, which codifies them. [http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-8.html http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-9.html]

Another clause needs to be brought forward: "we are asking that they be sensitive and tolerant and responsive". Geller is sticking it in the left winger's eye. Islam is intolerant and unresponsive. In the Muslim world view, we must tolerate Islam, Muslims are privileged to kill us.

I want to read a response here from the Imam of the Mosque and cultural center because they put this out here and they want people like you and others who are criticizing them to understand what is going to take place in this facility. And they say that the Cordoba House seeks to create a community center where all people, Muslims, Jews, Christians and those of every faith can gather in a spirit of honor, respect and peaceful coexistence. And they go on to say that We cannot think of a better expression to promote the peaceful values of our faith than the Cordoba House, where American Muslims stand together with fellow citizens to condemn extremism and terror. It is a project to honor those people who were harmed on September 11th. Why do you object when they say you know, that's not correct what you are saying, this center is not about promoting some sort of hateful ideology, its quite the opposite?

First of all, that statement is deception because it is a Mosque, and only Muslims can pray ...

What's wrong with that?

It is a Mosque, and only Muslims can pray in a Mosque. The only time non-Muslims are allowed in a Mosque is if perhaps they would be able to convert. There is no plurality, there is no tolerance here...

Well thats not true because the Imam says that they would actually welcome people of various faiths to go and check this out and you can, as a non-Muslim, I'm a non-Muslim, I've been to a Mosque before - if you are invited as a guest to go as long as you are respectful...

Right--you're invited to go for proselytizing but it is not-there is no plurality in a Mosque . My question is: why there? How can it possibly be seen as outreach to build a Mosque at the war memorial that is Ground Zero, how ? How could that be perceived, that is a kick in the head, I don't understand how it can be turned into this idea of outreach when it is the opposite .
It is a triumph it is triumphal, we know that the Islamic pattern is to build gigantic Mosques on the cherished sites of conquered lands. We know that this is Islamic history...

Geller is trying to reinforce the concept of Mosques supplanting temples after becoming rattled and selecting the wrong word to inform us that Muslims invite us to Mosques in order to pull the wool over our eyes and, if possible, begin the process of converting us. Once again, the interviewer jumps in to prevent the completion of the thought.

Miss Geller, I'd like to ask you I'd like to ask you there are obviously Muslims scholars and Muslims who disagree with you but also President Bush who made this point time and time again when he reached out andsaid "look we've gotta go after those who attacked Americans on 9/11 --Al-Qaeda " certainly not moderate Muslims and not the faith of Islam, that there is a distinction, there is a difference and if people don't understand it its out of ignorance or misunderstanding. How do you counter that point if even President Bush said that what you're saying is not true?

Shrub said that "Islam is a great religion of peace". What makes him an expert? Who died and made him god? In fact, like Clinton & Obama, he is a damn liar. Peace, to Islam, is the condition of the world after they have finished conquering it. Only those who read Islam's canon know that peace and justice are fruits of conquest. Fitna prevails until Islam rules the world. Muslims attack kuffar because Moe told them that Allah commanded them to, promising eternal bliss in the celestial carnal house and threatening eternal torment in the fire of Hell as his carrot and stick incentives. Geller can't answer this way, if she did it would be her last interview, but look what she said.

I counter that point by saying: read the Qur'an, read the hadith, read the sira, there are some fifteen thousand...

Well, they have countered that as well and say that Islam ...its a perversion of Islam ... its a faith of peace?

Those who say that are Gd'd liars! There is no truth in there false assertions of passivity & perversion. They can not explain why the "religion of peace" has, in its scripture, sanctification of conquest, genocide & terrorism nor why it has rules for distributing spoils of war. They'd black ball Geller if she responded as I do.

Yes, I understand but the prime Minister of Turkey said "there is no extreme Islam, there is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam. there have been fifteen thousand Islamic attacks since 9/11 and it is inspired by the threat doctrine. We have to deal with it. Clearly a better idea would be to build a center dedicated to expunging the Qur'an of the violent texts that inspire Jihad. Every jihadist attack has the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric, I mean, this is a fact. We can't re-write reality, we have to see what is, have to deal with whats in front of us or how are you going to change things ? ...

This is what happens when they get you po'd, anger interferes with clear, concise expression. Threat doctrine is a military term, it really does not belong in this context. Islamic aggression is primarily inspired by the Qur'an's Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah. The hadith which confirm and exemplify them are codified and explained in Riyad us-Saliheen Book 11, Chapter 234. Wasn't there something Geller said you should read?

Miss Geller, how do you counter the reality that there are thousands of Mosques across the United States and they are not points or symbols of jihad or hate?

We know from research done by SANE that four out of five Mosques preach hate and preach incitement to violence, we know this--as I said, its part of the Qur'anic text. And I think it is deeply offensive to build a Mosque on the sacred grounds of 9/11. There is a piece of the plane in that building and I think what we need to do- we are going to file a suit with the federal government to designate that building as a war memorial as a historic landmark, like Gettysburg, like Pearl Harbor . There is a piece of that plane in that building and to pray next to that is repugnant to any decent American, any Muslim of conscience, let me tell you something, I received emails from Muslims who don't believe a Mosque should be there.

It ain't the act of prayer, Pamela, its what they are praying to: the demon whose imperatives inspired the accursed abomination.

We're going to talk to a Muslim who has another point of view, but before you go, have you read the Qur'an ?

Yes I have and I strongly recommend Robert Spencer's The Infidel's guide to the Qur'an and Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Noni Darwish, these are books from former Muslims that must be read by the American people to understand what it is they are facing. They just arrested two more jihadis they were US citizens, they were arrested at JFK Airport. You have to understand the threat doctrine if you are going to address the threat.

---

Is there a portion-are there passages in the Qur'an that promotes what we saw al-Qaeda do on 9/11?

There are, but that Muslim won't admit it. I provided links to the most important such verses within my comments on the interview with Pamela Geller above.

Well first let me thank you for having me on and letting me provide what I call a Muslim perspective. Number one- a few points I want to make real quick. Unfortunately, there is a lot of erroneous translations that are out there. What we have to do is ask ourselves what do they hope to accomplish with this protest today against the Mosque? Asking the government to stop it--well that would be wholly unconstitutional its one of the first things I learned in law school, because it would be a violation of equal protection number one and number two, of the establishment clause of the First Amendment, something I learned in kindergarten as well. In America we have freedom of religion. Point number two, this is a fringe group. A lot of family members of 9/11 as well as public officials and regular Americans who understand American ideals support this initiative because they understand two crucial points: fringe groups like Pamela's- what they're doing number one- spreading the erroneous misinterpretation that the terrorists like al-Qaeda want to spread about Islam and number two: they're simultaneously feeding the propaganda that al-Qaeda uses to recruit which is that America is anti-Muslim. now Miss Geller and her group may be anti-Muslim, but the rest of America for the most part, is not. As far as where it says

http://www.quranbrowser.com/ displays a table of ten parallel translations for easy comparison. The words vary, with the exception of one polemical translation, the meanings do not. http://www.openburhan.net/ will display eighteen English translations if you click the ayeh number. It also displays a word by word breakdown, with links to an Arabic/Engish dictionary.

Besides al-taqiyya and kitman, as a lawyer, he should know that government interference would be blocked by the free exercise clause, not the establishment clause. He should also know that Islam is a standing violation of the establishment clause because it demands that temporal and spiritual power be in the same hands. Islam does not recognize separation of church and state. Islam is a lie. Muslims are liars. This is a wake up call.

What part is Miss Geller not understanding here because she clearly has a point of view here that she feels threatened and she feels that this is going to be dangerous to have this Mosque in that area. What do you want to say to her ?

Well, lets examine why she's threatened. Number one, she's talking about what the Qur'an teaches. There's 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, now there is admittedly probably tens of thousands of al-Qaeda members or members of other terrorist organizations; they have nothing to do with the teachings of Islam. She keeps equating al-Qaeda and their attack against this country to what Islam teaches. I'll take her to my family in Egypt, they'll fill her with food and take her shopping and they'll show her that the vast majority of Muslims around the word and not just in this country follow the teachings of the Qur'an, which state for example, in Chapter 5, verse 32: killing one innocent person is like killing all people saving one innocent life is like saving all people. or another verse that says let there be no compulsion in religion . Another verse that says let there be no tyranny, this is what Islam really teaches when you look at the accurate majority translations that are out there. There are thousands of Mosques already in this country. These are the teachings of Jesus and Abraham and Muhammad That they teach in Sunday schools, its what I learned in Sunday school growing up. So this Mosque that they're going to be building two blocks away from the World Trade Center- lets remember that number one, a lot of Muslims died at the World Trade Center Number two, this is going to be interfaith and open to a lot of non-Muslims to use the pool, use the exhibit facilities, to engage in dialog, just like a YMCA would, and yes, Muslims are going to go pray there because there are over a thousand Muslims who work down town who need a place to pray.

The Qur'an does not teach Jihad, it commands it! Get that straight for once. By the way, argumentum ad numerum and argumentum ad populum are logical fallacies, a lawyer should know that and avoid using them.

"Nothing to do with the teachings of Islam"? How about Allah's imperatives: "fight them until...only Allah is worshiped", "fight those who", "kill them wherever you find them", "I will cast terror", "Allah cast terror" Nothing at all to do with terrorism, nothing at all. Yeah, right. Snake feces!

He quotes 5:32, but not 5:33, why is that? Only because the latter verse details the punishment prescribed for those who "wage war against Allah". Ibn Kathir defines "wage war" as including disbelief. Got a clue yet? If you don't believe in Allah they can crucify you. Islam is a lie. Muslims are liars. Kitman is lying by obfuscation. These apologists for Islam are quick, slick & glib and they leave behind a lump of snake excrement. When you believe what they say, you eat that excrement.

2:256 says there is no compulsion in religion. 8:39 says "Fight them until...only Allah is worshiped.". Such conflicts are solved by naskh. Later revelations abrogate earlier revelations. The eighth surah was revealed later, 8:39 abrogates 2:256. There is something else the slick lawyer concealed from you. 3:110 says that Muslims are " the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind". That ayeh is explained by Sahih Buhari 6.60.80 The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

So there is no tyranny in Islam? That word is not found in the Hilali & Khan translation, but this is, in 33:36: It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.

"A lot of Muslims died at the World Trade Center", 23 out of more than 2700; How is that relevant to the fact that the accursed abomination was inspired by the Qur'an & hadith?

Let me ask you this, she makes the point, she says that this'll be a very important symbol to those who would want to do harm because its close to ground zero do you think that she has any kind of is this point valid at all?

Not at all. The more she talks the more its clear that she does not know what she's talking about. This Mosque is a symbol of the 1.5 billion who respect peace I mean, remember that people go around in the Muslim world saying "peace be unto you" as hello and goodbye. Let alone the Millions of Muslim Americans who including myself, including my brother in law who is an officer in the Air Force stationed in Iraq right now, teachers, doctors, these are peace loving American people, their relatives overseas are peace loving Muslims, This Mosque will provide a place to pray just like several other Mosques in New York City does, for her to say that its offensive is what's offensive to us because there is nothing offensive about our religion, Mosques are no different from synagogues and churches and nowhere in this country would someone go out there and fight against the creation of a church in downtown Manhattan so I mean its really just offensive and there's a lot of ignorance out there and the days when she can go out there and make these untrue statements about the religion are over. We now have native born, English speaking American citizens just like my self with law degrees who can finally go out there on shows like yours that are nice enough to give us an opportunity to respond and say that she's on the wrong side of history where .....

I know what Geller was talking about because I have read the Qur'an & hadith and a significant sample of Islamic exegeses & jurisprudence. Geller knows what she was talking about, so does that lying Muslim.

If Muslims respect peace, it is as the outcome of Islamic conquest. Islam divides the world into two camps: Dar ul-Islam and Dar ul-harb. Dar ul-harb is the house of war, it is wherever Islam is not yet in control. If you harbor any doubt about this, read 13:41.

The Mosque is a symbol of Islamic supremacy. Where Allah's writ runs, dhimmis are not allowed to build higher than Muslim structures and they are not permitted to build new churches. .

"Peace be upon you", ain't that sweet. Moe said something about greeting Jews & Christians, it is in Sahih Muslim 26.5389: "Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it".

"Because there is nothing offensive about our religion"? Islamic law says that:

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

But there is nothing offensive about Islam, no, nothing at all. Islam is a lie. Muslims are liars. Wake up, wise up and rise up!