The United States and China discussed human rights at a round of high-level talks. One might be surprised that the meeting did not so much focus on the egregious atrocities that have gone on under this Communist tyranny from the time of its founding to this very day. Rather, Obama administration officials allowed America to be berated on issues such as homelessness and the new Arizona immigration law.

Before America as a nation takes this criticism seriously, perhaps we should consider what the law entails and how this compares with what goes on in Red China.

The Arizona law will permit police to ascertain an individual’s identity and thus legality after initial contact. Essentially, this isn’t anything that isn’t already authorized by law and is perhaps an even better guarantor of individual liberty and dignity than what is already permitted.

In a number of decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that police could compel an individual to identify themselves even when it had not been established that the law had even been violated or that there was probable cause indicating such. Interestingly, there were no riotous mobs in the streets when it was thought these kinds of identity checks were only going to be aimed at actual Americans.

Even if scores of those with no legal standing in the United States are removed from the streets of Arizona as a result of the new law, they will still fair considerably better than those taken into custody in dictatorships. In Iran, several American coed tourists straying over the Islamic Republic’s border with Iraq were sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

And unlike illegals here, those there are not fawned over with lavish government handouts with their bureaucratic benefactors hoping the outsiders will recast the entire society in a foreign image.

It could be properly argued that the American students deserved some kind of punishment for violating another country’s sovereign borders. What likely cannot be argued against is that the accommodations they languished in made Camp Gitmo look like a swanky New York City hotel. Guards there are not going out of their way to provide American delicacies or to treat our holy books and founding documents with a nauseating degree of deference.

In China, one house church pastor sentenced to prison was allowed to languish and suffer without access to his diabetic medicine. And it could be argued that he can be considered one of the lucky ones. It has been claimed that organs are regularly harvested from dissident Tibetans and Christians.

If Red China had the illegal alien problem plaguing the United States, do you honestly believe authorities there would do little than look over the papers of these transnational vagrants, whisper sweet nothings in their ears, and release them on their recognizance which many have very little of to begin with given their connections to the drug trade, human smuggling, and assorted gangs. And given the propensity of a certain atrocity to occur throughout Chinese history (be it during the Great Cultural Revolution or in rumors a few years back regarding what was being done to fetuses), if a wife in China told her husband that they would be having a little Mexican later that evening that wouldn’t mean he should expect to have a taco or burrito for dinner.

Many infringements upon human rights stem from an improper understanding of the relationship between social institutions such as government and the individual. In America, the extremes of these have been minimized in part due to the assumption that the individual possesses worth of his own created in the image of God. The individual is not owned by the state.

As an officially atheistic socialist country, the Chinese Communist Party and state see themselves as the highest authority with these determining that it is not so much the individual that counts but rather the group as a whole. After all, if we are simply nothing more than animated primordial ooze as the Darwinian insists and upon which Marxist-Leninism rests, it is kind of hard to get worked up over one person when there are over a billion more walking around easily capable of taking the place of a defective cog in the machine of state.

Since in the Communist system you are less an individual, the more the system provides of those things deemed to be necessities by the overseers (under whom fewer things end up being defined as necessities than in a free market economy) in such command societies such commodities extended only so that the goals mapped out for you by the COMMUNITY might be achieved. In a constitutional republican system, it is believed that the individual is best suited to determine for themselves which needs and desires should take priority for oneself and one’s family. Granted, the system is not perfect, but it is far preferable and more in line with what God intended for humanity.

Thus, that is no doubt why China would rank homelessness as a human rights violation while not batting an eye at putting a bullet in the back of the head of a House Church pastor so that his kidneys might remain undamaged for organ harvesting. In America, those who love liberty must first inquire as to why the individual is homeless before formulating an appropriate policy response.

Though it is not politically correct to mention it these days and even if they represent only a fraction of those without a domicile, frankly there are those that simply refuse to do that which is necessary to maintain a residence or they engage in behaviors that cause their homes to be lost. Of those that went into vapors when Glenn Beck critiqued the subject, tell me where is the social justice to take from those working and scrimping in order to hoe their own path to give it to those living irresponsibly and demanding a standard of living far above a subsistence level with a few basic comforts that they are not willing to exert the labor necessary to acquire?

One might feel sorry for the children of such deadbeats and somehow provide enough for the children to get by without hardly a single bread crumb going to such pathetic excuses for parents. It is preferable that such outreach come from the private sector free to point out the deficiencies of individual character and the blunt steps necessary to correct the situation. Often in these times where we must constantly walk around on eggshells for fear of offending some self-enlightened leftist do-gooder with a law degree or a bullhorn and definitely too much time on their hands, government is unable to articulate those steps necessary for complete restoration.

And while we are at it, perhaps something needs to be said about and to these women that fall for scumbag men. If you find the boozing and carousing attractive when you are young only to have it morph into not knowing how you are going to feed the five kids because he’s blowing the milk money on beer and backhanded you across the face because you dared ask where he was the night before, other than for tossing his rear in jail, don’t expect much pity and especially don’t expect some behaved guy you wouldn’t give the time of day to 15 years ago to take you in as if he has some obligation to provide for another man’s progeny.

One of contemporary liberalism’s most glaring intellectual deficiencies is that it assumes that the remainder of the world, when you come down to it, lives no differently than the people of the United States. Before we pull out the sackcloth and ashes to belittle ourselves embarrassingly on the world stage, let’s at least make sure we don’t waste the effort on autocrats, thieves, cutthroats, and homicidal mass murderers.

by Frederick Meekins

 

WesternFront America

By Mark Pickup

The American Multiple Sclerosis Society http://www.nationalmssociety.org/search-results/index.aspx?q=Stem+Cell+Research+Enhancement+Act&sitesearch=&start=0&num=20 has made the following statements. My comments/translations follow in italics.

Embryonic Stem Cell Lines Available for Federally Funded Research.

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society urges Congress to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (H.R.3 and S.5) at all levels of the legislative process. The legislation would increase the number of approved embryonic stem cell lines that can be used in federally funded research by allowing new lines to be generated from embryos that have been donated for research purposes by people using the services of in vitro fertilization clinics, while establishing important ethical protections.

[Translation: The MS Society was/is just itching to get their hands on stem cells at the cost of human life generated artificially by perverse science. They want legal free rein to be in experimentation involving stem cells taken from human embryos, which kills the embryo. Parents can donate their unwanted children to be experimented upon by perverse researchers to try to find treatments or a cure for multiple sclerosis. The end justifies the means, no matter how corrupt. The MS Society recognizes that many MS sufferers and supporters have moral objections to embryonic stem cell research because it kills a human being for the sake of harvesting its stem cells. Therefore the MS society promises to establish “important ethical protections.” One is drawn to point out that any pretext [of] ethical protections are not extended to the embryonic child.]

Research on all types of stem cells is critical because we have no way of knowing which type of stem cells have [sic] the most value in MS research.

[Translation: The MS Society holds a very narrow definition of moral responsibility to the greater common good. Their only concern is multiple sclerosis. Any previous moral consensus, such as the Nuremberg Code, http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html does not concern them.]

It pains me to publish this on my blog. After all, I have MS. But I would have to refuse any stem cell therapy developed involving embryonic sources. After more than 26 years with this progressive disability, I know what discrimination and exclusion is like. Why would I accept any treatment based upon the belief that other human life is of less value—so much less value that it is expendable?!

Any person who is truly committed to the universality of universal human rights must demand that rights of every human being be respected and protected. True universal human rights begin when human life begins. And the first and highest human right is the right to life. I have said this before: If the right to life is not guaranteed for everyone, then all other rights become arbitrary and uncertain.

The MS Society in America and Canada are wrong to support embryonic stem cell research. Many therapies and treatments for numerous conditions and diseases have been developed using non-embryonic stem cells; no therapies have been developed using embryonic stem cells. None!

From a purely pragmatic perspective, limited research money should be directed where the most promise lies—not the least promise!

Shame on the MS Society. They are prepared to violate proper morality and prudent use of research money.

Reprinted with permission. About the author: In 1984, at age 30, Mark Pickup was diagnosed with aggressive multiple sclerosis; he is now triplegic. Mark has spoken throughout the U.S. and Canada to promote the sanctity of life and the dignity of all human beings, and is also a widely published writer on bioethical and Christian matters. His wife, LaRee, is the provincial director of the Alberta Pro-Life Association. http://www.albertaprolife.com/resources/news.html Mark and LaRee have developed a gripping presentation chronicling their personal experiences titled “The Search for Meaning in Suffering: A Christian Perspective,” a three-part seminar suitable for retreats and conferences. To book them as speakers, call 780-929-9230 or e-mail MPickup@shaw.ca. Read all of Mark’s blogs at http://humanlifematters.org and http://markpickup.org.

 

WesternFront America

“Like many liberals in the past, the administration has come face-to-face with the reality of the dog-eat-dog world of international politics, where some of the pooches in the doggie playground are nothing more than self-interested pit bulls. Unfortunately, if current trends continue, we’re going to end up on the wrong end of someone’s canine teeth.” Peter Brookes

“In a ‘candid and constructive’ human rights dialogue with officials from the People’s Republic of China last week, Obama administration officials brought up Arizona’s new immigration-enforcement law, telling the Chinese Communists it was an example of a “troubling trend” in the United States and an indication of ‘discrimination or potential discrimination’ in American society.”

CNSNews.com

China has fifty-five minority groups, which comprise a mere 8% of the nation’s population. These ethnic groups of China are all Asiatics, with Han Chinese making up 91.9% of China’s population. The Han dominate all of China, both culturally and politically.

Communist China (PRC) is an insular and racially homogeneous society, with the dominant Han culture being restricted as to internal travel within that nation. Red China does NOT recognize the “multicultural” paradigm, much less the freedom of the open road.

In a culture such as China, where saving face is of paramount importance in garnering respect, the Obama administration has proven once again that it is composed of a bunch of rank amateurs in the field of diplomacy and international relations, not to mention domestic ones–where the alleged “president” offends the American people by labeling them “irresponsible” for enforcing federal law.

The subject of “American racism” was not broached by the commie Chinese, but was mentioned repeatedly–as if America had a guilty conscience for repelling Mexican invaders– according to Michael H. Posner, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State.

That guilty conscience comes from a “president” with no paper trail, whose illegal alien aunt just skated on a free pass.

Such base groveling is more worthy of a client state, than a superpower, but the Obama administration has “distinguished” itself by repeated violations of international protocol, in bowing before foreign potentates and apologizing for the many alleged sins of America.

Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) have called on the State Department responsible for human rights issues to “retract and apologize” for informing officials of the Communist government of China–in an indulgent, gut-spilling manner– that Arizona’s new immigration-enforcement law is an example of a “troubling trend in American society.”

Senator John McCain knows a kowtow when he sees it, from his time of suffering as a POW of the North Vietnamese.
In a letter to Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner, the senators indicated that during the recent U.S.-China Human Rights Dialogue, Arizona’s law was implied to be the moral equivalent of the way China treats its own people, so the gut-spilling and kowtowing on the part of the State Department was not only a useless apology by America, but a not so subtle hint that China is a human rights abuser. Thus two gaffes were committed with one stone. The letter also indicated that according to the State Department’s 2009 Human Rights Report, “China remains one of the worst human rights offenders and its record is only worsening.”

America has shown the face of weakness–not strength–by the self-indulgent “admission” that the country which elected a black president, must now apologize to a country which has discriminated in the past against black Americans, during the Chinese Olympics in 2008.

What must Red China now be thinking of a nation which apologizes for defending its borders and electing a black president?

Get Them Darkies Out Of Here!

“Beijing police have been visiting bar owners in the popular Sanlitun area and asking them to sign pledges agreeing to not serve black people or Mongolians and ban activities including dancing.

Bar owners said that police have been clamping down on black people and Mongolians, who are sometimes implicated in drug dealing and prostitution, as part of an Olympic clean-up campaign that they and locals fear will make for a secure but sterile Games.”

“But reporter Amy Beeman of AHN, notes that ‘some Africans reported being charged double what other’s pay as entry fees,’ and others recently told the World Net Daily that they were forced to show their passports prior to being allowed into a bar. No one else had to show such identification.”

“Athletes who display Tibetan flags at Olympic venues — including in their own rooms — could be expelled from this summer’s Games in Beijing under anti-propaganda rules.

Unfurling Free Tibet banners or wearing Save Darfur T-shirts at Olympic venues are acts likely to be regarded as a breach of the charter, which was introduced after the American athletes Tommie Smith and John Carlos gave the Black Power salute on the podium at the 1968 Games in Mexico City. But there are still many grey areas and concerns among human rights campaigners that athletes’ right to free speech will be curtailed to avoid embarrassing their Chinese hosts.”

Maybe the citizens of Arizona should also put an end to the practice of the Mexican occupation army marching in the cities of Arizona at the head of a Mexican flag and running that flag up over federal installations as an overt act of war. If Arizona were to enforce “anti-propaganda rules,” perhaps a truly “candid and constructive” dialogue might be prosecuted, which would not “offend” China.

This writer is “sure” the commie Chinese will be “really sensitive” to the fact that apparent Mexican nationals will now be required to show identification–on the commission of a crime– in Arizona.

The Red Chinese are in fact so “culturally sensitive” that they think nothing of their top generals mouthing off to America that it will be vaporized by Chinese nuclear weapons and that the Chinese are a superior race, in search of lebensraum in America.

China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the U.S. during a confrontation over Taiwan:

“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China’s territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,”

General Zhu Chenghu.

“The State Department is pushing back against allegations that it, in essence, apologized to China over potential human rights violations here in the U.S.. Assistant Secretary of State, Michael Posner, told reporters Friday in a discussion about human rights, the U.S. delegation brought up Arizona’s new immigration law, calling it a ‘troubling trend in our society.’

Both of Arizona’s Republican senators demanded a retraction and apology from Posner, calling his remarks particularly offensive. And Indiana Republican Congressman Dan Burton slammed the comments made to what he called ‘one of the most repressive societies in the world.’”

The only “troubling trend” is the apology tours of the Obama administration.

Resident Obama has failed to learn the lesson he suffered when he made overtures to China, by refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama and then found that those efforts had not been reciprocated by better cooperation on the part of China with North Korea, Iran and other vital U.S. interests.

The Obama administration needs to consult the field guide for chief executives written by the Greatest American, Patrick J. Buchanan. That book is: Where the Right Went Wrong, Chapter Five.

“America must open her eyes. Rulers who brutalize Christians and dissidents, conduct cultural genocide in Tibet and forcibly perform abortions on and sterilize women for becoming pregnant with a second child, speak with forked tongue when they tell us they share our values. What they do to their own, given the power, they will do to us.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

© Thor H. Asgardson

 

WesternFront America

The  UN Human Rights Council has once again debated and passed  their annual Defamation of Religions Resolution.

The Revised Draft has stricken some words and phrases from the first draaft, but relies on the old boilerplate.

Optimists will assert that there is a positive trend in the votes. After charting the votes, I find little cause for optimism.

The no votes have come at the expense of abstentions,  not yes votes.  Since the members are elected by regional blocks, there is little   chance of reducing the  OIC representation on the council.

The current resolution, like its predecessors, consists of  itemized lists of boilerplate references to previous documents  interspersed with emotive catchwords designed to inculcate guilt in the innocent.

If you want to read four pages of  polemical crap, be my guest,  I provided  links to it. I will present here only the most important  segments of the screed which was submitted by Pakistan on behalf of the OIC.

Recognizing the valuable contribution of all religions to modern civilization and the contribution that dialogue among civilizations can make towards improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared by all humankind,

What the Hell has Islam contributed to civilization other than the legacy of genocidal conquest?  Men conquered and enslaved by Muslims translated ancient manuscripts, preserving Greek and Asian mathematics and science during the Dark Ages, preserving but not creating  the foundation of the enlightenment.

Noting with deep concern the instances of intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence against followers of certain faiths occurring in many parts of the world, including cases motivated by Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and Christianophobia, in addition to the negative projection of certain religions in the media and the introduction and  enforcement of laws and administrative measures that specifically discriminate against and target persons with certain ethnic and religious backgrounds, particularly Muslim minorities following the events of l l September 2001 , and that threaten to impede their full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Note how careful they are to universalize the concept of defamation by including anti-Semitism & Christianophobia, which they later negate by emphasizing    the supposed effects on Muslims.  Who, other than Islamic texts and sermons, is negatively projecting Judaism  & Christianity?

Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,

“Defamation of religions”  is a nebulous and undefined term without intrinsic meaning.  It derives meaning only from the specific examples frequently cited, particularly Fitna and the Motoons.   In civil defamation. truth is a defense.  Fitna is true, how can it be defamatory?

Human dignity is affronted by adherence to immoral and fallacious beliefs and doctrines which sanctify and mandate genocidal conquest, not by exposing those doctrines. How the Hell is there human dignity in Islam, which venerates the  barbarian warlord who made the statements in this traditional saying?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights; so much for human dignity!!!   What is incitement to violence if not Surah al-Anfal & at-Taubah in the Qur’an?

Noting with concern that defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and, in this context, stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

So they are concerned with defamaition and incitement. Have they read the Qur’an?

98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur’ân and Prophet Muhammad  from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

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.

If their concern about defamation & incitement were sincere, they’d start with their own scripture instead of trying to criminalize exposure of their doctrines and practices.

2. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping and defamation of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world, which have led to intolerance against the followers of these
religions;

President Obama prefers “negative stereotyping” to “defamation”. I’d enjoy  hearing him explain the difference.  The OIC used both expressions in one sentence.

4. Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions, in particular when condoned by Governments;

This is an obvious veiled reference to certain European political parties that oppose Islamization of Europe.

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of` the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of ll
September 200l;

Were the Magnificent Nineteen   Jews?   Mormons?  What were they?  How about the perpetrators of the London, Madrid and Bali bombings?  And the numerous hijackers; were they Lutherans?   They were young Muslim males, but we shouldn’t be suspicious  of young Muslim males, should we?

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and, in this regard, regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience,

Earlier I quoted Moe, who said that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and his companion who  added that we have no rights until we become Muslims.  If that ain’t a human rights violation, what is?   Waging war against people who simply maintain their own religious beliefs in the face of your demand to convert violates  the rights to life and freedom of conscience in the most profound way.

What the Hell is wrong about the association of Islam and terrorism???

3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).

8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.”

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

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).

Wrongly associated with terrorism?  Yeah, right.

8. Strongly condemns in this regard the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures, which are manifestations of Islamophobia that stand in sharp contradiction to international human rights obligations
concerning freedoms of religion, belief, conscience and expression, and stresses that such discriminatory measures would fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences;

:    Help me out with this; banning minarets in Switzerland threatens social cohesion and may lead to violence but prohibiting the construction and maintenance of churches in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is perfectly harmless.  What twists of illogic will  they take to explain that away?

9. Reaffirms the commitment of all States to the implementation, in an integrated manner, of the United Nations Global Counter-terrorism Strategy, adopted without a vote by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006 and
reaffirmed by the Assembly in its resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008, and in which it clearly reaffirms, inter alia, that terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group, as well as the need to reinforce the commitment of the international community to promote, among other things, a culture of peace and respect for all religions, belief`s, and cultures and to prevent the defamation of religions;

Like its predecessors, this resolution is redundant, as if repetition converts fallacy into truth.

10. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against any religion, as well as the targeting of religious
symbols and venerated persons;

Who does that?  Various terrorist groups have web sites that glorify and incite acts of terrorism, most recently Adam Gadahn  uploaded a video in which he urged Muslims to terrorize America.  Do they really deplore that, or is it only Fitna and blog posts which expose Islamic doctrines that they deplore?

11. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, including articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 20 of the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare;

They are trying to set up a  legal basis for restricting our right of free expression. Truthfully describing the doctrines and practices of Islam and its founder is not akin to shouting fire in a crowded venue. Nor is it defamatory.  Linking  the violent acts of Muslim mobs with  Allah’s imperatives to genocidal conquest is not defamation, it is truth.   Truthful political speech, even if it offends those whose peccadillos are exposed, must be protected by law, as it is by  our First Amendment, in order to preserve liberty.  Islam is a predator which seeks complete domination of the world.  If we can not expose that fact, we can not defend ourselves.   It is Islam’s intention to render us defenseless in the war of ideas.

12. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

Race, religion and culture are not  equivalent  concepts.  Opposition to Islamic conquest is not racism.  Wanting to maintain our own culture is not racism nor is it evil.

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).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 256:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Allah’s Apostle said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”

Got a clue yet?

13. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on
the basis of religion or belief and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity tor those who commit such acts;

They are demanding that laws be passed and enforced to punish us for exposing Islam’s doctrines & practices to public view.

14. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;

Re-read the  clauses I emphasized in ¶14.  How in Hell can any sentient and informed person tolerate  and respect Islam??  It is not possible for a rational and moral person to tolerate and respect a system of perpetual war!  Tolerance and respect must be reciprocal.

3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

What did Allah command Moe to do?  What did he say about the sanctity of our blood and property?  Got a clue yet?

16. Calls upon all States to make the utmost effort, in accordance with their
national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian
law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and
protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration
or destruction;

How do you define symbols?  Stretched far enough, that concept covers Islam’s scripture and founder.  Remember how they rioted over depiction of Moe in those cartoons?  We are supposed to respect a man who, at 52, married a six year old girl; a man who had an elderly poet torn apart by camels?

19. Takes note with appreciation the intention of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence.

If you think that paragraph is innocuous, then take a good close look at Fitna and at what the Secretary General  said about it.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

The only incitement in Fitna comes from Allah and  his slaves, not from Geert Wilders.

• resolution 60/1 of 16 September 2005 (World Summit Outcome Res.A/RES/60/1 )
• United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2000¹
• Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (ACONF.189/12) ???
  • http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/DDPA_full_text.pdf
    
• World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001²
• Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference, held in Geneva in April 2009,³
• A/HRC/4/19
• A/HRC/6/6
• A/HRC/9/12
• l GA Resolution 55/2
  2 A/CONF.l89/12
  3 A/CONF.2l1l1
• resolution 10/22 of 26 March 2009
• General Assembly resolution 64/156 of 18 December 2009
• report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on
  possible correlation between defamation of religions and the upsurge in incitement,
  intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world (A/HRC/13/57)
• report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
  related intolerance (A/HRC/12/38)
• General Assembly in its resolution 60/288 of 8 September 2006⁴
• resolution 62/272 of 5 September 2008
• general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination⁵
• 4 Resolution 60/288
  5 Official  Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 18 (A/48/18), chap. VIII, sect, B.
• article 20 of the ICCPR
• the intention of the High Commissioner to provide further support for the progressive development of international human rights law in respect of freedom of expression and incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence⁶,
• 6 High Commissioner’s Strategic Management Plan 2010-2011
  7 High Commissioner’s Strategic Management Plan 2010-2011

Originally posted at Ben’s Blog © Dajjal

 

WesternFront America

by Kenneth Roberts

“Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.”
So said Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher. Think of North Korea, Stalinist Russia, the Red Guards of China, Hitler’s Germany, etc.

Now consider this: Wherever Mohammed is most admired, there is the lowest regard for human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms, such as Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Tunisia.
The reason for this lack of human rights is something that Muslims deny and block out of consciousness. Plainly, Mohammed was a dictator and an abuser of human rights. But Mohammed is said by Muslims to be perfect. It isn’t abuse if Mohammed did it.

Mohammed took away the human rights of peaceful, pluralistic, cultured people. He insulted, robbed, assassinated, enslaved, and then expelled the rest of them from their properties and ancestral homeland in Arabia. Since the hero Mohammed committed these crimes, they are justifiable and good. Today, we call Mohammed’s political program ethnic cleansing or ‘genocide.’ Aggressive ethnic cleansing is occurring today in Iran and Sudan. It is ‘good’, because the hero Mohammed did it.

Muslims imitate Mohammed, so Islam naturally creates a despotic form of government that represses women and minorities. It’s Islam’s DNA.

Islam, in theory, is a single imperial state. The constitution of Islam is the biography of Mohammed. The Koran calls Mohammed’s life ‘a beautiful example’. Muslims know this is true because Mohammed wrote it in the Koran.

Mohammed struggled (jihad) to create a monocultural society based on the model of the anthill. The queen ant rules; the soldier ants all think the same way, do their dance and attack the same external enemies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are either parasitized by ants or killed or expelled. Ants go out regularly to destroy other anthills.

In the ideology of Mohammed, this is the perfect model for Islamic society. There is even a chapter in the Koran called ‘The Ants’ and another called ‘The Bee’. It is easy to see why Mohammed felt these animals ran ideal societies.

Mohammed didn’t rule by popular vote. Mohammed’s god told Muslims repeatedly to obey him. Whatever Mohammed decided, Gabriel always confirmed it shortly thereafter with a message from Allah himself. Thus Mohammed was never wrong. He ruled by divine decree. Allah constantly confirmed Mohammed’s hero status in the Koran that was written by Mohammed! Mohammed further claimed he was the owner of the earth and that Allah Almighty had created the universe for the benefit of Mohammed alone! This is a universal political claim. Mohammed said so. Mohammed is a hero, so it must be true. A true hero would not call himself a hero.

Muslims are lost in hero-worship.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is defended by law in all Islamic countries. Only hero-worship of Mohammed is ever expressed in the public domain. Dissent about Mohammed’s hero status is never heard in Islamic countries, because ordinary Muslims, like the ants in their hill, immediately and instinctively rush to neutralize aliens, sting and eliminate them. Think of the cartoon riots! Think of the Teddy Bear crisis. Think of the pursuit of critics and apostates from Islam, how they are murdered by their own families or hunted by ordinary Muslims acting as vigilantes. The greatest crime in the world is to express scepticism about the hero status of Mohammed.

If an alien animal enters the anthill, perfect harmony and unity is quickly restored. The alien is surrounded by ordinary ants and cut to pieces. In Islamic countries, there is no real pluralism or the chaotic differences of opinion found in full democracies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are only allowed into an anthill so they may be parasitized for the benefit of the ants. In Islamic countries, the anthill or the beehive is the model for the organization of society. In Islamic countries, kafirs may work for Muslims, but not lead or rule over them. That is Mohammed’s method and thus it is the Islamic ideal.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is everywhere in the Islamic state. So, for decisions to be perfectly acceptable, leaders must constantly appeal to his heroic example. If Mohammed did it, it must be ‘good’. Logic has nothing to do with it.

Mohammed never defended the human rights of kafirs. In Mohammed’s Medina, jihad occurred on the average of every six weeks. Medieval Islamic jurisprudence demanded a minimum of attacks. Unprovoked jihad expeditions against kafirs should be made a minimum of once yearly . The human rights of kafirs are unimportant, since jihad against them must take place so frequently and the very purpose of jihad is to remove the human rights of kafirs. This cannot take place in a democracy.

Ordinary Muslims assume Islam is benign, so they never concern themselves with the human rights of kafirs. Besides, kafirs have misfortunes coming to them, because they did not submit to Islam. Either way, no empathy is ever wasted on kafirs. Supremacists never apologize.

Only the politics of Islam are of concern to the kafirs. The only that kafirs care about are the things that affect our rights and our pluralistic free societies. Mohammed’s method invades and destroys kafirs and their culture, just as anthills expand to annihilate neighboring anthills. This is the traditional jihad method: Invade, colonize, and then annihilate.

Mohammed is a hero, the perfect man, and so ‘good’ Muslims use Mohammed’s monocultural model. This is why Muslims always strive (jihad) to create a monoculture of hero-worshipping wherever they go.
Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

Things are really heating up in California as Pastor Walter Hoye continues his grassroots campaign to help assure that human personhood makes the ballot in the state. The California Human Rights Amendment http://www.californiahumanrights.com/ makes a simple statement that everyone can agree is logical and should indeed have already been part of the state’s constitution. The language reads,

The term “person” applies to all living human organisms from the beginning of their biological development, regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical well-being, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability.

Further, harkening back to the struggle over slavery in the nineteenth century, the CHRA web site quotes the illustrious Joshua R. Giddings, who commented on the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution regarding the fact that human personhood is absolute: http://www.californiahumanrights.com/content/amendment

Our fathers, recognizing God as the author of human life, proclaimed it a “self evident truth” that every human being holds from the Creator an inalienable right to live … If this right be denied, no other can be acknowledged. If there be exceptions to this central, this universal proposition, that all men, without respect to complexion or condition, hold from the Creator the right to live, who shall determine what portion of the community shall be slain? And who shall perpetrate the murders?

What is perhaps most stunning however is not that Giddings was focused on protecting every single individual, but that he made his statement based on the facts about the founding fathers of this nation and their perspective on the Creator and moral absolutes.

Rev. Edward J. Melvin, C.M., in analyzing the problematic nature of a secularist Supreme Court, has written, http://catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0007.html “The Founders placed belief in God and acceptance of natural moral law (derived from reason and corroborated in Judeo-Christian revelation) as the foundation of the American system.”

In fact, Melvin quotes George Washington himself:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports … In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness—these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens … And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It is this very point that makes the case for the current struggle to achieve protection for the least in our midst by constitutionally clarifying through human personhood amendments the identity and the rights of the preborn. There is no question that the fact of human personhood is grounded in those very principles that Washington so brilliantly enunciated, that our founding fathers so artfully included in the United States Constitution and which Giddings reiterated during the 14th Amendment debates.

The California Human Rights Amendment proponents are doing nothing less than carrying on with the agenda George Washington and his peers put in place for this nation and her laws. This is why so many individuals and organizations of national repute have joined Pastor Hoye and his colleagues in this effort.

Dr. Alveda King http://www.kingforamerica.com/Groups/1000031878/King_for_America/Speakers_Bureau/Dr_Alveda_King/Dr_Alveda_King.aspx, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; leaders of BlackGenocide.org http://www.blackgenocide.org/; the Family Research Council www.frc.org; Frederick Douglass Foundation http://www.frederickdouglassfoundation.com/; Theology of the Body Institute http://www.tobinstitute.org/ and others endorse CHRA.

These leaders and organizations represent the majority position of Americans. This is why they are lining up to endorse an initiative that is currently reigniting the pro-life movement. By focusing on the human rights and civil rights of every human person, these efforts embrace a different way of looking at abortion and other threats against human beings’ lives.

That’s the message of the personhood movement and the California Human Rights Amendment lead by black pastor and civil rights icon, Walter Hoye http://www.vac.org/WalterHoyeBio.html.

Hoye knows what is at stake and writes in an essay entitled “The Unarmed Truth”: http://issues4lifefoundation.wordpress.com

When accepting the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10th, 1964, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said, “I believe that ‘unarmed truth’ and ‘unconditional love’ will have the final word in reality. This is why “right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil “triumphant.”

Today, the “unarmed truth” is that the preborn child is a person not property.

I believe personhood is God-given and not government-granted. It is not offered to the elite and denied to the “least of these.”

I believe personhood, addresses the most important RIGHT of all … the RIGHT to LIVE, without which all other rights are meaningless.

I believe personhood is RIGHT.

The “unconditional love” for the preborn child in my heart, is rooted in the love Christ has for all. While the current conditions may have “temporarily defeated” the personhood of the preborn child I believe the “righteousness of personhood” is stronger than the “evil of prenatal murder” and will ultimately prove triumphant.

I believe personhood is the final word in reality of the pro-life movement.

Hoye is joined by such California luminaries as Dr. Jim Garlow http://www.jimgarlow.com/ , Proposition 8 leader and founding director of the California Pastors Rapid Response Team. In his endorsement of CHRA, Garlow said, http://www.californiahumanrights.com/content/endorsements-0

Is it not amazing that we are forced, in our so-called advanced society, to defend the notion of personhood? Is it not shocking that supposedly bright people will not protect the most innocent and helpless person, the one in the womb? Have we not learned from slavery how to properly define a person? Have we learned nothing from Hitler’s Reich regarding the definition of personhood?

Not only that, but the president of the Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, stated in his endorsement: “Other states should draw inspiration from the commitment and perseverance of those behind the California Human Rights Amendment. This is not about party affiliation or ideology. This is about recognizing the sanctity of human life and citizens’ obligation to enact laws to protect it.”

Likewise, Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International, applauded the California initiative: “Let’s start healing this national shame by affirming the personhood of every human being – in law – and start living as if we meant it.”

“Even as Dred Scott was considered less than fully human, such is the case for the preborn babies in the womb,” said Dr. Alveda King in her endorsement of the CHRA.

Dr. Clenard Childress of BlackGenocide.org pointed out that human personhood is the crux of the nation’s struggle against racism. “Our prayer is that personhood would be restored to its proper place in the minds, hearts and legislation of America,” Childress said.

Other endorsers http://www.all.org/newsroom_releases.php of the CHRA include La Verne Tolbert, PhD, former Planned Parenthood board member, Georgia; Rebecca Kiessling, family law attorney, Michigan; Kurt Ramspott, founder, Guys For Life, Inc.; Dana Cody, president and executive director, Life Legal Defense Foundation; Kristen L. Chestnut, RN, JD, member, board of directors, California Nurses for Ethical Standards; Dean Nelson, executive director, Network of Politically Active Christians and vice chairman, Frederick Douglass Foundation; Jennifer Roback Morse, PhD, founder and president, The Ruth Institute; David Bereit, national director, 40 Days for Life and the California Republican Assembly.

It is a blessing for American Life League to be part of this remarkable drive that is moving throughout the state of California like a whirlwind. All who have endorsed this project are of the same mind: PERSONHOOD NOW!

To learn more, to get involved or, if you reside elsewhere, to donate to CHRA, please visit http://www.californiahumanrights.com/content/get-involved .

The time is now, the cause is just.

© Judie Brown

 

WesternFront America

By Kenneth Roberts

[Part One]

Both Sunnis and Shi’ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.

Theologically, mocking Mohammed’s method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah. Allah’s method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah’s Divine Command. In mere human philosophy, Mohammed’s fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.

Mohammed’s method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed’s method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots. It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one’s own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.

Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, “They are of them.” In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.

Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.

Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islamic-mind-major-nidal-hasan of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed’s method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers ‘are of them.’ This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.

Mohammed’s brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed’s method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed’s method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed’s ethical inconsistencies is fitna.

Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed’s violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.

Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean ‘fitna’…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one’s religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called ‘special pleading’. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Inter-Islamic fitna, i.e. dissension or discord between Muslims, is the second class of fitna. Theological disagreements between Shi’ite Muslims and Sunnite Muslims are also called fitna. Both sides believe the other worthy of death for disagreeing with Mohammed. Unfortunately, both sides do not see that their own opinion of Mohammed’s method may also be in error. Only the other fellow is in error and he is obviously a heretic. ‘And Allah knows best.’

Consequently, there is no Sunnite mosque permitted in Teheran and no Shi’ite mosque permitted in Saudi Arabia’s holy cities. Fitna/discord between Muslims themselves and between Muslims and infidels is primarily a political question about who possesses the political upper hand. This right of supremacy cannot be discussed, since it comes from Allah and is defended by sacred violence. What you believe about Mohammed determines your human rights status in an Islamic state.

Moreover, the concept of fitna makes pluralism practically impossible, since only one political party can be in perfect agreement with Mohammed. Having an opposition party in an Islamic country would be the evil of fitna…another opinion would obviously disagree with Mohammed and be condemned. Fitna paints Islamic countries into a philosophical corner where dictatorship is the only government system possible.

The ultimate use of fitna is a military one. Fitna is any utterance that demoralizes or confuses Muslim troops so they become weak as a military force, unconvinced of their political mission of world dominance and hesitant to commit jihad. Fitna undercuts the Islamic chain of command. Fitna destroys the cohesiveness and certainty of jihadists…that unquestioning certainty that makes them ready to kill the critics of Mohammed.

Faint-hearted, non-fanatical Muslims will not defend Mohammed’s method or expand their Allah-given supremacy over the infidels. If Muslims are in doubt about the rightness of Mohammed’s method, they will peter out, while the infidels win the earth for Satan. This must not be. Fitna must be stopped and reversed, since it impedes the Islamic state without borders. Fitna thus becomes a political charge of treason against the Allah-established Ummah (nation) of Islam. Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191). It is every Muslim’s duty to use sacred violence to stamp out fitna and create the utopian Islamic world where disagreement can no longer exist.

“And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (Koran 8.39)

“(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse.” (Koran 9.33)

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America