“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”—Muslim Brotherhood

Mohamed El-Baradei has been acting of late as though he wanted “Barack Obama” to act as a dictator or supreme commander, depose Egypt’s lawful leader, and install El-Baradei as president, yet he sees this as a blueprint for “democratic” reform?

El-Baradei really needs to take his irony supplement.

Fortunately for him, the John Doe calling himself “Barack Hussein Obama” is equally irony deficient! On Tuesday, “Obama,” while spouting democratic rhetoric, ordered Mubarak to abdicate: “An orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.”

“Obama”: That would be the world’s most famous devotee of genocidal, Black Liberation Theology.

The early news reports I read either ignored the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in the rioting, or said the group was keeping a low profile, and though some mentioned that it supports imposing shariah, none that I saw mentioned that it was the Muslim Brotherhood that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. In fact, some sites ludicrously reported that the Brotherhood has “renounced violence.” Sure, and Al Qaeda is just a Koran study group.

The Brotherhood has now agreed to support El-Baradei as the “lead spokesman” (elsewhere described as “leader”) of pro-democracy forces, but if Mubarak surrenders power, the Brotherhood will sweep El-Baradei away like so much dust.

Another voice in favor of “democracy” comes from our Marxist friends at The Daily Beast, who tell us,

Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood The secretive Islamic opposition group has long renounced violence and may be the most reasonable option….

The prospect of change in Egypt inevitably raises questions about the oldest and strongest opposition movement in the country, the Muslim Brotherhood , also known as Ikhwan. Can America work with an Egypt where the Ikhwan is part of a transition or even a new government?

The short answer is it is not our decision to make. Egyptians will decide the outcome, not Washington. We should not try to pick Egyptians’ rulers. Every time we have done so, from Vietnam’s generals to Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai, we have had buyer’s remorse. But our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome. Understanding the Brotherhood is vital to understanding our options….

After the army seized power in 1952, [the Brotherhood] briefly flirted with supporting Gamal Abdel Nasser’s government but then moved into opposition. Nasser ruthlessly suppressed it.

Nasser and his successors, Anwar Sadat and Mubarak, have alternatively repressed and demonized the Brotherhood or tolerated it as an anti-communist and right-wing opposition….

[“Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood,” by Bruce Riedel, The Daily Beast, January 27, 2011.]

Bruce Riedel’s claim that we have always had buyer’s remorse when we picked rulers is not true. Not in South Vietnam, and not in Iran. The former CIA officer also somehow neglected to mention that Nasser’s brutal suppression of the Brotherhood followed their assassination attempts on him, or that the group assassinated Sadat.

Note the non sequitur:

“Can America work with an Egypt where the Ikhwan is part of a transition or even a new government?

“The short answer is it is not our decision to make.”

The answer to what? Riedel’s answer is to a different question, whether America should have any say in the governing of a country that gets $1.5 billion in annual aid from us, and he admits that “our interests are very much involved so we have a great stake in the outcome.” Beyond that, as he well knows, Egypt is essential to regional stability.

Riedel never answers his question, because the answer is “no,” but he does not want to come clean with his true loyalties.

He also ignores the fact that the democratic Egyptian El-Baradei wants America to intervene, and “to pick Egyptians’ rulers.”

The notion that America should be passive in the face of a possible Islamist takeover in Egypt, and in much of North Africa, is completely inimical to America’s interests. Then again, Riedel’s orientation clearly is anti-American: He supported the Communist takeover of South Vietnam, and supports an Islamist takeover of Egypt and North Africa.

You might as well say, “Don’t Fear Al Qaeda.” Alinskyite Marxist Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also calls, like her black liberationist boss, for “a transition that will meet the needs of the Egyptian people and that will truly establish democracy…”

Eight years ago, Zeev Chafets observed that Arab Moslems don’t march in favor of more democracy, but for less of it. They don’t march for peace, but for war. Mohamed El-Baradei may have fallen in love with his press clippings, but Bruce Riedel and Hillary Clinton know these truths better than I do. Democracy is not an option.

© Nicholas Stix

 

WesternFront America

In a discussion on this topic, it is essential that we draw some distinctions and define terms. We must distinguish between Muslims and Islamists. Muslims represent perhaps 1/3 of the population of the planet. Being a Muslim occurs by birth. If your father is a Muslim, you are considered a Muslim.

Islamists, on the other hand, are so by profession of faith. They have chosen to adhere to the doctrines, dogmas and dictates of the Islamic faith and its leadership.

Indulge me for a moment as I refer to an old Baptist Minister friend’s estimation of the Mission Field – he felt there were 3 separate fields to be reached. The “heathen” (not an insult, but a reference to those living in places where they have never had opportunity to hear the Gospel); the “unchurched” (which he defined as those who had been exposed to the gospel but had not committed to it); and the “Churchgoing Heathen” (which he also referred to as “Pew Polishers” – those who’s butts occupied the seats but whose hearts were elsewhere.) He felt that the IN-Reach to the churchgoer who was committed to attendance but not to God or the Bible was the most important mission field, because these people were nominally Christian but were both self-deceived and would receive a rude awakening… and because they were CALLED Christians by the rest of the world, but they were a poor representative of Christ.

Why did I bring this up in a discussion of Islamophobia?

Because just as there are both faithful and committed Christians – and nominal Christians who wear a cross but are not committed to the doctrines, dogmas and dictates of Christianity… There are Islamists who are the faithful, committed adherents to Islamic teaching, and there are the Muslims who have nominal connection to Islam culturally, but who have less than a personal commitment to full “submission” (The word “ISLAM” means “submission”) to all the tenets of the faith.

The subject of this discussion is NOT the nominal Muslim who lives his life; makes a living; provides for his family and lives in peaceful co-existence with his neighbors whether they share his faith or not.

The Islamist, by virtue of his commitment to the doctrines taught in the Quran, is and MUST BE what is commonly referred to as a “radical” by the Politically Correct Media. Radicalism and Jihadism is the NORM amongst FAITHFUL Islam; as it cannot be otherwise! Muslims who are NOT committed to Jihad – who reject the idea of Dhimmitude, conversion, or death for all “infidels” – who are willing to peacefully engage with the western world – are APOSTATES to the “pure” teaching of Islam. They are “churchgoing heathen” in the eyes of the Islamic world.

So, we discuss here those who fit the above-defined “ISLAMIST”.

While the Islamic world (and our own liberal press) will cast those who question the motives or oppose the actions of Islamists as Islamophobic , let me point out the obvious:

If you use TERROR to advance your agenda… and your “philosophy” is responsible for more than 90% of ALL terror acts worldwide for the last several decades; then why would you cry “ISLAMOPHOBIA!” when the rest of the world is leery of you? ISLAM-O-PHOBIA = fear of Islam. Isn’t the very point of Terrorism to instill fear? Mission accomplished, Jihadis! As the joke in Psychiatric circles goes… It isn’t paranoia if they really ARE after you, y’know!

Americans have learned, from the experiences of Israel from 1948 to the present; to the Lebannon Barracks; to the Achille Lauro, to Lockerbie, to the USS Cole; to the first WTC bombing in 1993, to 9/11 to the beheading of Daniel Pearl, to the Ft Hood massacre and more: Islamists will utilize terror against innocents to advance their agenda. They have also become familiar with the dictates of the Quran demanding the violent subjugation of those who do not accept and submit to Islam. So is there any wonder that we are at least cautiously apprehensive when it comes to dealings with the “faithful” within Islam?

Let me again emphasize here that I have NO BEEF with the common Muslim who lives his life in obscurity. However it is impossible to co-exist peacefully with one who embraces the Fundamental Wahhabist , Caliphate seeking, Jihadist mindset of the Islamist. As I try to tell my liberal acquaintances sporting that goofy “COEXIST” bumper-sticker… Coexistence is ONLY possible if none of the parties is fatally committed to the utter destruction of any other!

So, then; Are Americans Islamophobic? Well, in a word, YES! We have a healthy caution; a leery apprehension; a distrust and suspicion when it comes to those who claim adherence to Fundamental Islam.

Are Americans Bigoted Xenophobes because the above statement is true? Judge for yourselves – but I think not.

© 2010 by Doug Edelman

Doug Edelman is a conservative political analyst and commentator, and has been a contributing editor for The Conservative Voice. His work is also seen on Western Front American, Small Government Times, Western Journalism, News By Us, The American Daily, The Post Chronicle, New Media Journal, Capitol Hill Coffee House and more. Mr. Edelman is also an IT Consultant/Contractor and owner of a Computer Services Business.  He has taught PC Maintenance & Repair and Networking at his local Community College, and maintains a blog at http://starboard.blogtownhall.com.

 

WesternFront America

By Bill Warner

When you read the comments section of an article about Islam, you will see the argument: I have some Muslim friends and they are good people. The conclusion: good Muslims mean that Islam is good. If the talk is face-to-face, the person may ask: Do you have any Muslim friends? There is a hidden implication that if you do not, then you don’t really know anything about Islam and you could be a bigot.

What is actually going on? The Kafir (non-Muslim) with Muslim friends does not know any real facts about Islam and wants to move the argument to feelings, not facts. If the Muslim friend is nice, Islam is nice. There is no need to know any facts about Islam. And, if Islam is nice, then speaking against it is bigotry.

It is amazing how much people can talk about Islam and never mention a single fact. It is easy to tell if someone is speaking about Islam factually. A fact-based discussion will include the Koran and the Sunna, which means that the words Mohammed and Allah will be heard. If there is no Mohammed or Allah, then the discussion is not about the facts of Islam; it is about opinions that come from the media, authorities and the web.

Here are questions to ask people with Muslim friends.

· Do you have any Muslim apostate friends?

An apostate is one who has left Islam and under Sharia law may be murdered. Who would know more about the true nature of Islam than someone who knows it at the core of their being? The apostate knows both sides of the story.
Here are other questions to ask those with Muslim friends:

· Do you have any Christian friends from the Middle East?
· Do you have any Armenian, Serbian or Coptic friends?

These people have suffered cultural and religious annihilation by Islam over the past 1400 years, shouldn’t you also meet them? About 60 million Christians have been murdered over the last 1400 years, and Armenians, Serbians, Copts (Egyptians) and the rest of the Christians of the Middle East furnished the body count. Doesn’t it make sense to talk to who has personal experience in engaging Islam?

There are other questions to be asked. There are 13 verses in the Koran that say that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir. How can this not be talked about? According to Islam, we are Kafirs. Why can’t friends talk about such things?

Koran 4:144 Believers! Do not take kafirs as friends over fellow believers. Would you give Allah a clear reason to punish you?

What this means is that a Muslim may be friendly with a Kafir, but if a Muslim has a choice between favoring a Kafir or a Muslim, he will favor the Muslim. Why can’t this be discussed among friends?

Now to the most critical question: Is a Muslim ever really the friend of a Kafir? Any Muslim who fully accepts the doctrine of Islam cannot be the true friend of a Kafir—friendly, yes, but not a true friend. If he is a true friend, then he is not obeying the Koran and not following the Sunna of Mohammed.

The difference between friendly and a friend is that a Muslim who is true friend will sometimes choose the Kafir’s side in a dispute about it. A friendly Muslim will be pleasant, but will always choose Islam’s side in any politics or dispute about Islam. A Muslim friend who is a true friend will listen to reasonable criticisms and occasionally tell you that you have a point there. The Muslim Arabic FBI translators who cheered on 9/11 were quite friendly, but chose Islam over the Kafirs on 9/11.

This does not mean that a person, who calls himself or herself a Muslim, cannot be a real friend. They may see the Golden Rule as more attractive than Islam’s dualistic ethics. If they can see the other person as not being a Kafir, but a human being, then they can be a true friend.

It is important to see that these ideas concern implications about the practical application of Islamic doctrine. In this case the Islamic doctrine of friends is examined. These ideas are not about any particular person who calls themselves a Muslim. Generally, to be a Muslim, you must act according to Islamic doctrine. However, the term Muslim has come to mean anybody with any degree of adherence to Islamic doctrine, however if such a person adopts the Kafir Golden Rule then they can be a fine person and a fine friend.

This friend business is perhaps one of the worst parts of the Islamic ideology and shows how great the divide is between Islam and all other doctrines.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

By Selwyn Duke

Now that Barack Obama has decided to be for the Ground Zero mosque before being implicitly against it (perhaps), discussion about his faith has once again reached a fever pitch. To many, his stance proves he’s a Muslim, with a recent poll showing that almost 20 percent of Americans hold that opinion; to others, it just reflects a desire to be faithful to the Constitution (now, that would be change). The truth, however, is a bit more nuanced. Obama is not religiously Muslim. Culturally, though . . . well, that’s a different matter altogether.

In reality, calling Obama a “Muslim” gives him too much credit. As G.K. Chesterton once said, “We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.” The truth, however, is that few people have thought thoroughly and to a definite end. And Obama is no exception. He hasn’t even thought matters through enough to understand the folly of statism. Even more to the point, he is a moral relativist, a position the antithesis of any absolutist faith. Inherent in Islam is that belief that Allah, not man, has authored right and wrong and that, consequently, it isn’t a matter of opinion. Thus, Obama cannot truly believe in Islam — or in Christianity or Judaism, for that matter (he could perhaps be a Buddhist, but Buddhism isn’t truly a faith but a way of life).

Oh, and since some will ask, how do I know Obama is a relativist? It’s simple: Virtually all leftists are, as the denial of moral reality that is relativism lies at the heart of liberalism.

Speaking of relativists, this matter of Obama’s “faith” much reminds me of Adolf Hitler and paganism. Like Obama, Hitler sometimes feigned a belief in Christianity, but in reality he held the religion in contempt. He believed it was “the greatest trick the Jews ever played on Western civilization” and lamented that it was not a warrior creed like Islam or the ancient Germanic paganism with which the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity (I wrote about this here). Yet, while Hitler’s second in command, Heinrich Himmler, certainly believed in the ancient pagan myths — going so far as to launch expeditions to the Far East to prove them, à la Raiders of the Lost Ark — it’s silly to think that the leader himself viewed them as anything but a utilitarian device. He wasn’t quite that romantic.

But what about culturally? For sure, Hitler preferred seeing Swastikas and runes (respectively, pagan symbols and letters) to crosses and crèches, rebuilt Germanic pagan temples to churches. That was where his passions lay. (If some are upset at a comparison between Hitler and Obama, know that I’d never call the president a National Socialist. He’s an international socialist. Also, Hitler was patriotic.)

Obama also has passions, and there is no question as to where they lie. As journalist Todd Fitchette wrote in “The un-faith of Obama”:

he continues to openly praise Islam; he bows to Muslim leaders; he claims that the Muslim call to prayer is “the most beautiful sound in the world;” he regularly quotes from the Koran and cites it for directing his life . . . .

In the past year alone he made a big deal out of hosting a celebratory dinner to open the month of Ramadan — held in the state dining room; he refused to attend the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts (an avowed Christian organization), and, refused to attend the National Day of Prayer because he claimed to do so would be offensive to non-Christians.

Then there is that king of Freudian slips, when Obama matter-of-factly said to interviewer George Stephanopoulos, “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith,” and didn’t seem headed for a correction until Stephanopoulos interjected. (Note: This doesn’t contradict my assertion that Obama has no real faith. Nancy Pelosi has spoken of her Catholic faith, but, also being a relativist, it can be nothing more than part of her cultural tapestry.)

And are Obama’s passions surprising? He spent some of his formative years in the world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, where he was registered as a Muslim in both schools he attended and sometimes prayed on Fridays in a mosque. Moreover, there is another factor, one most people don’t consider.

As many know, there once was a great boxer named Cassius Clay. He converted to Islam in 1964, seemingly bothered that Jesus was portrayed as “a white with blond hair and blue eyes,” as he put it, and took the name “Muhammad Ali.” Of course, the irony of this is that, despite being intensely aware of his slave roots, he rejected the name of an abolitionist (Clay) and took the name of a slave owner (Muhammad). It also perhaps eluded him that Christians were the first ones to outlaw slavery while Muslims give black Africans rope and chains to this day.

But I mention this because Ali’s path is a common one in the black community; it is why we’ve long had the Black Muslims and why Islamic names are so common among American blacks. Many blacks have bought the bill of goods that Christianity is the white man’s religion, the faith of oppressors. And they embrace Islam as part of a rejection of “white” society.

Obviously, being part of this milieu could only have reinforced Obama’s affinity for things Muslim and antipathy for things authentically Christian — of which Western Civilization is one. And if Americans hadn’t been brainwashed with political correctness, they would have understood this. With foreign and domestic Muslim influence, attendance at a Black Liberation Theology, pseudo-Christian church and alliances with ex-terrorists and declared communists, Obama perfectly fits the profile of an America hater. The wolf never really wore sheep’s clothing; it’s just that Americans had wool pulled over their eyes.

As for Obama’s eyes, they cannot look heavenward when they’re so busy looking down on little people who “cling to guns and religion.” I sense that Obama is a certain kind of person, one much like Hitler — who wanted to create a new German pagan religion with himself at its center — in a particular sense. This type of person essentially says the following to God, “The Universe just isn’t big enough for the two of us.” And his little world certainly isn’t, filled to all corners as it is with his bloated, power-hungry ego. This, by the way, has been acknowledged by more honest secularists. For example, Friedrich Nietzsche, the 19th-century poster boy for atheism who is rumored to have been a philosopher (in reality, he is someone who helped discredit the field), once said through his version of Zarathustra, “If there were gods, how could I endure it to be no God? Therefore there can be no gods.” I have a feeling that Obama cannot endure it to be no god.

It is, again, unwise to give Obama too much credit. Good faith is defined as “an act of the will informed by the intellect,” and any kind of faith requires submission to something higher than yourself. Obama is neither that intellectual nor that humble. But all humans have passions, and his aren’t hard to discern. He is anti-American, anti-western, anti-Christian (the traditional variety), anti-white and anti-life. He is more comfortable dining with Bill Ayres than the Queen of England, more internationalist than nationalist, and perhaps more at home in Dar al-Islam than Dar al-Harb. He has lived abroad and traveled much, but he is a lover of nations like a Casanova is a lover of women: He has known many but loves, and is faithful to, none — not even the one to which he should be married. He is a cultural traitor, and, as Cicero said about traitors two-thousand years ago, “A murderer is less to be feared.”

To quote Chesterton again, he once said, “There was a time when men weren’t very sure of themselves, but they were very sure of what the truth was. Now men are very sure of themselves but not at all sure of what the truth is.” The latter describes Obama. If he does have faith, it is in himself. And that is a faith terribly misplaced.

Selwyn Duke is a writer, columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show and has been a regular guest on the award-winning Michael Savage Show. His work has appeared in Pat Buchanan’s magazine The American Conservative and he writes regularly for The New American and Christian Music Perspective.  He is a regular contributor to Ether Zone.

Selwyn Duke can be reached at: SelwynDuke@optonline.net

“Published originally at EtherZone.com

 

WesternFront America

My recent article, “The Liberal-Muslim Axis,” provoked such sycophantic ranting from the Alinsky left that I thought it prudent to write a follow-up article on the same subject.

Ayers in Egypt

Florida radio host Pam Geller wrote of President Obama’s Chicago mentors who launched his political career in Chicago, Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, who recently took their Jew-hating rampage to the Middle East.

The protests were led by Jodie Evans, co-founder of Code Pink, a far-left activist organization formed in 2002 to protest America’s war in Iraq. Code Pink recently met with terrorist groups, Hamas and with leaders of the Taliban. Evans was also a fundraiser and financial bundler for Obama’s presidential campaign.

Ayers and Dohrn, 1960s radicals both, have the ear of the evangelical left. A number of mainline liberal churches have proposed boycotts and divestment from any company that does business with Israel, including the United Church of Christ, the denomination of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and President Obama.

Understand leftists’ dedication to tyranny and tolerance of terror in Jamie Glazov’s “United in Hate”

The protesters in Gaza are merely Islamic propagandists spewing taiqiya (lies to advance Islam). Thus, the Obama-Ayers-Wright Axis is congruent to the Liberal-Muslim Axis.

‘Palestinian Christians’ against the Jews

Old South Church in Boston (United Church of Christ) has hosted conferences of an anti-Zionist organization that calls itself “Friends of Sabeel, Christians.” In a landmark decision on Sept. 17, 2009, Britain’s trade unions voted unanimously to participate in a mass boycott movement, disinvestment and sanctions not against Iran, Syria or Saudi Arabia, but against little Israel – demanding a negotiated settlement based on “justice” for Palestinians.

Map of the Middle East showing Muslim countries in green and tiny Israel (1/6 of 1 percent) in red.

The motion was passed at the 2009 Trades Union Annual Congress in Liverpool by unions representing 6.5 million workers across the U.K. Britain’s trade unions, together with those of South Africa and Ireland, voted to use a mass boycott campaign as a tool to bring Israel into line with international law and pressure it to comply with U.N. resolutions that seek to support an independent Palestinian state by damaging the state that feeds and protects them, Israel.

Here you have liberal Christian denominations in America and throughout Europe allied with Palestinian Christians boycotting against the tiny nation of Israel – a fragile, embattled country that is one war away from Hitler’s Holocaust, part 2. These global, anti-Semitic boycotts against the Jews are indeed a major part of the vast Liberal-Muslim Axis.

The Liberal-Muslim Axis owns all

The Liberal-Muslim Axis is much more complex than the name would denote. The axis powers consist not only of liberal Democrats, but include RINO Republicans, feminists, socialists, unionists, anarchists, academics and many others seeking to fulfill the Machiavellian motto, The end justifies the means. Remember, in both liberalism and Islam, morality and truth are relative terms, meaning truth is subjective. These religious-political ideologies define what is truth, and their “truth” is always on a shifting scale to rationalize and justify whatever means necessary to fit their ultimate ends – absolute political, economic and religious hegemony over the world.

Consequently, the Liberal-Muslim Axis is free from political, societal and religious accountability because the end always justifies the means as defined by their leaders; this unappeasable monster was referred to as “Leviathan” (1651) by 17th-century English political philosopher John Hobbes.

Under Islam, this ends-means paradigm is expressed in the idea that land once possessed by Muslims, if subsequently lost to an invader, remains land that is holy to Islam, e.g., Dar al-Harb – “the Land of War.” It is especially imperative that such lost lands be restored to the rightful rule of Islam. Historically, these lands are not limited to Israel and the Middle East but also large areas of southern Europe, Spain and North Africa. Since Allah’s will is for the entire world to come under subjection to the rule of Islam, Muslims are known for their zeal in spreading their religion, whether by peaceful means or by the sword.

Conversely, since liberals (like Muslims) hate American exceptionalism, their worldview facilitate Islamic hegemony as frequently demonstrated in Democrats’ local criminal approach to combating international Muslim terrorism – a failed policy of Neville Chamberlain appeasement painfully evident in President Obama constantly bowing, kowtowing and apologizing to despots, socialists and terrorists around the world in his failed efforts to covet universal adoration.

Hatred of absolute truth (God)

Liberalism (progressivism) and Islam both have a visceral hatred against any religion or philosophy claiming to hold absolute truth (God). That’s why historically the Liberal-Muslim Axis has always attacked Judaism and Christianity and has used all of its powers to destroy objective truth. For example, National Review editor and writer Jonah Goldberg, in his pathbreaking 2007 book, “Liberal Fascism,” exposed the cult foundations of liberalism, writing: “It is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion.”

Later, writing about the world’s first fascist, President Woodrow Wilson (1913-21), a forefather and champion of progressivism, Goldberg asserted: “The militarization of society and politics was considered simply the best available means toward this end. Call it what you like –progressivism, fascism, communism, or totalitarianism – the first true enterprise of this kind was established not in Russia or Italy or Germany but in the United States, and Woodrow Wilson was the 20th century’s first fascist dictator.”

How does Goldberg’s idea about liberal fascism differ from hegemonic Islam? There are no substantive differences here. In other words, the more one takes a rational, analytical approach to these revolutionary political-religious cults, the more an existential Liberal-Muslim Axis is evident at work destabilizing American society. However, this diabolical duo’s ultimate target is “global governance,” i.e., world domination through the organ of the United Nations and their innumerable international organizations, which share these three diabolical beliefs:

• hatred of the Jews and the nation of Israel;
• hatred of America’s Judeo-Christian traditions like natural law, capitalism, liberty, a republic; and
• the idea that the fewer people on the planet the better.

Only a willful drumbeat of truth can expose and defeat this Liberal-Muslim Axis.

DR. Ellis Washington, authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr. Michael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage.com), is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including “The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law” (2002). See his law review article “Reply to Judge Richard Posner.” Washington’s latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust.”

 

WesternFront America

By Bill Warner

After a murderous jihad at Fort Hood or the Christmas day airplane bombing attempt, did you hear: “Of course, not all Muslims are bad?” That brings up the question of how do you even tell if a Muslim is bad? Or good?

First off, what is a Muslim? A Muslim is a person who follows the doctrine of Islam. When that same person, does something that does not follow the doctrine of Islam, they are not a Muslim. The common idea is that anyone who says that they are a Muslim has their every action and word dictated by Islam. Put another way, every Muslim is seen as perfect follower of Islam at all times and circumstances. However, the truth is that a “Muslim” is not always a Muslim. When they do not follow Islamic doctrine, they are no longer a Muslim, but are a kafir (non-Muslim).

Now, how do we know if a Muslim is good or bad? If they are following the Koran and the Sunna (the perfect example of Mohammed), they are a good Muslim. If they don’t follow the doctrine, then they are not a Muslim. That means that from the stand point of Islam there is no such thing as a good or bad Muslim. You either are a Muslim or you are not. When anyone follows the Koran and the Sunna, they are Muslim. When anyone does not follow the doctrine of Islam then they are a kafir.

This means that a person called a Muslim has two modes of being-Muslim and kafir, or kafir-Muslim. The same person can be a Muslim in one moment and a kafir in the next.

What do kafirs mean by a good Muslim? Simple, the same way we judge all other people as good and bad-the Golden Rule. Do they follow the Golden Rule when they are with us? If so, then they are a good person.

Since the Koran and the Sunna do not have the Golden Rule, how are Muslims to treat us? Islamic doctrine lays out an alternative to the Golden Rule. Those who do not believe Mohammed are kafirs, and kafirs are treated differently from Muslims.

Islamic doctrine says a great deal about the kafir. Most of the Koran is about kafirs, 61%, only 39% is about Muslims. About 20% of the Hadith is about kafirs and 98% of the Sira is about kafirs. Mohammed was fixated on kafirs and annihilated every kafir by violence, exile or conversion. When Mohammed died, there was not a person alive in Arabia who would argue with him.

Mohammed’s actions are pure Islam; therefore, annihilating kafirs and kafir culture is pure Islam. A Muslim has to be, in some way, in some form of action, eliminating kafirs and their world. The action against kafirs is jihad. There are four flavors of jihad and murder is only one. Deception, conversation, articles and TV appearances can be jihad of speech and writing. There is always the option of giving to an Islamic charity, since one of the Koranic uses of charity is jihad.

Every Muslim believes that all nonbelievers are kafirs. The Koran says that kafirs may be hated, plotted against, deceived, murdered, raped, enslaved, mocked and tortured. All of those actions are Islam and perfect doctrine. When a person is being a good Muslim, they are following Islam and that means that you are a kafir. Hate, deception, murder, mockery and torture are bad for kafirs, but good for Muslims.

Kafirs are pure other. Muslims treat other Muslims as brothers and sisters, but they can treat a kafir well or they can treat them as less than an animal. Islam has dualistic ethics, one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for kafirs. Dualism is bad. When a Muslim practices dualism, they are bad. There is no good in Islam for a kafir and therefore, there is no good in a Muslim for a kafir.

Does this mean that the Muslim at work is bad? Yes, when they are following the doctrine of Islam. Whenever they are not following Islam, that person can be as good as any other. It is not about people, but about doctrine. It is the doctrine of Islam to be bad to kafirs. When anyone is practicing Islam around a kafir they must be bad, since Mohammed was never good to kafirs.

Wait! What about the nice, pious Muslim at work? He is good, isn’t he?

Is he nice because of the Golden Rule or is he practicing the Sunna of the charming Mohammed we find in the early Meccan days? Mohammed could be very polite with kafirs, however, if charm did not work, then other methods were used. Islam is a process of increasing force that can start out pleasantly.

We are left with an ethical confusion around any Muslim. They can seem pleasant, but nothing changes the fact that they see Mohammed as the perfect person to imitate. Nothing changes the fact that we are kafirs. Kafir is the worst word in the human language.

Who are we to believe-the Muslim at work or Mohammed? Every Muslim wants to imitate Mohammed; every Muslim is a Mohammedan. The problem is that Mohammed annihilated every kafir he ever met. It was a process. The process started out nice and when nice did not work, it ended in annihilation of the kafir. In Islam, nice is the beginning of bad for the kafir.

So how do you tell if a nice Muslim is good or bad? From the kafir point-of-view, there is only the fact that a Muslim is following Mohammed’s example. And that is bad, very bad.

Bill Warner

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

By Bill Warner

Ancient religious texts like the Koran contain outdated ethical concepts. The Old Testament has brutal laws and violent passages. As a result Christians and Jews don’t follow them. Muslims are the same as Christians and Jews; they pick what works and reject what doesn’t work. Why should Islam be considered any worse than other religion or cult?

The short answer is that Islam is not similar to anything else, including religions such as Christianity. As far as the Koran having any outdated ethical concepts, that is impossible. According to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is perfect, eternal and universal. It does not contain the slightest error since contains the exact words of Allah. Hence, it can never be outdated.

Also, the Koran is a derivative book. Every idea in the Koran, with two exceptions, can be traced to earlier works. The two novel ideas in the Koran are that Mohammed is the last prophet of god and that violent force, jihad, can be used to harm those who don’t agree with Mohammed. Violence against kafirs is systemic in all of Islam’s texts and forms a central theme.

Yes, the Old Testament has violence, but there is no real parallel to the Koran and Islam. Look at the numbers. The violence in the Old Testament is limited to a few verses. The violence in the Koran against the kafir (unbeliever) takes up 61% of the text. Every mention of the kafir is brutal, condemning, pejorative, hateful and threatening. The Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed, has 20% of its text devoted to jihad. The Sira, Mohammed’s life, has 70% of the text about Mohammed as prophet devoted to jihad.

These numbers show that the analogy between the violence in the texts of the Jews and Christians is vastly overdrawn.

The next suggested parallel between Islam and Christians is that both pick and choose from their texts. Every Muslim believes that the Koran is perfect down to the last letter. It does not have a single error. This makes it very difficult to ignore.

But a Muslim does have a way to make choices that a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Hindu cannot. Islam has dualistic ethics. Muslims are all brothers and to be treated as such. But there is no Golden Rule and a Muslim may choose to treat the kafir badly or well, depending upon the situation and needs. That is the nature of dualistic ethics.

Dualism also allows the choice of the Meccan Koran or the Medinan Koran. When Mohammed was in Mecca, he was weak and attempted to get along with the Meccans. This gives us the verses of tolerance. Later, in Medina Mohammed had power and the Koran became cruel and vicious towards any person who denied Mohammed. So every Muslim has the choice of tolerance and coexistence from the Meccan verses, or any of the physical violence or hatred found in the Medinan Koran.

There is another choice that a person who claims to be a Muslim can make. They may choose to be a kafir by ignoring an Islamic doctrinal point. It is very odd, but people assume that every action by one who calls them a Muslim is pure Islam. But the Koran condemns Muslims who make choices to imitate kafirs. This condemnation extends to those who choose to apply the Golden Rule to kafirs.
So there are three kinds of Muslim, depending on their choices: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim and kafir Muslim.

There is a great danger in trying to understand Islam through Christianity or any other Western idea or concept. The underlying assumption is that Islam is similar or has parallels to kafir culture. This means that Islam does not need to be studied, because it is “like” some kafir concept or institution such as freedom and Christianity. This idea is false and has no supporting facts to prove it. Islam is sui generis, unique, and without parallel.

Islam stands entirely on its own with a separate logic, reasoning and ethical system. Islam must be studied on its own. In the end this means understanding the themes of the Koran and the life of Mohammed found in the Sira and the Hadith.

Why is Islam worse than any other religion or cult? Simple, it is not a religion, but a complete civilization that has a political doctrine of annihilating and subjugating all kafir civilizations. This doctrine had been put into action for the last 1400 years and has caused the deaths of 270 million kafirs.

Islam has annihilated entire civilizations. Take Afghanistan as an example. Before, Islam invaded the civilization of Gandharva, it had been peaceful for four centuries and was wealthy. Buddhism flourished and great art was produced. Then came Islamic jihad and Ghandarva was destroyed down to the last work of art and the last Buddhist. Today we have the armpit of the world-Afghanistan, an Islamic nation based upon Sharia law and Islamic politics. Buddhism and Gandharvan culture have been totally destroyed.

The political theory of Islam and its results correlate 100%. Of course, there are some harmful and creepy cults, but, measured by results, they are not in the same league as political Islam. Islam is the ultimate civilizational predator and should receive most of the attention.

Today we have two choices in viewing Islam. We can see it as based upon its doctrine and history or we can choose to see it on the basis of multiculturalism-all cultures are equally valid. But Islam denies that all cultures are equally valid. Islam insists that it is superior all other cultures. All cultures are not equally valid and all other cultures must submit. It is the will of Allah, and it is Sunna (the way of Mohammed). What is odd is that tolerant multiculturalists defend the Islamic monoculture so much.

This means that we also have two other choices. Will kafirs ignore the threat of total destruction or go on pretending that Islam is similar to other cultures? Will we foolishly apply the Golden Rule to a civilization based on dualism and hope to create an Islam that respects kafirs and treats them well? But Allah hates kafirs and it is Sunna to immigrate, deceive and make the kafirs submit little by little.

Choices: will we choose life or death for kafir civilization?

Bill Warner, CSPI

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

The Miami Herald published the prepared text of President Obama’s Inaugural Address. For the purpose of this blog post, I present one paragraph excerpted from the transcript for dissection.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

• To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.

Anything other than seeking to emancipate them from Allah’s yoke of slavery is a step backward. Peaceful coexistence with Islam is not possible because Islam is permanent war.

• based on mutual interest

We have no mutual interest with Islam. Islam’s interest is total world conquest and domination, so that only Allah is worshiped altogether and everywhere; so that Shari’ah is enforced globally. Our interest is in liberty, security, prosperity & peace. There is no intersection, no convergence; nothing shared.

• and mutual respect.

There is no mutual respect and can be none.  Islam is contemptuous of everything un-Islamic. Islam hates our way of life without reservation and seeks to destroy it. It labels us Kuffar: rebells against Allah who must be defeated and gathered together into Hell.

• To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict,

That is what Islam is all about: total world conquest; to make Allah’s word superior; his writ run on a global scale. That is why the Qur’an contains open ended, unlimited imperatives to fight pagans and make war upon people with scriptural religions. That is why Muslims first attacked our merchant vessels in the 18^th century.

• or blame their society’s ills on the West -

Such projection is standard operating procedure for tyrants, Muslim & Kuffar alike. We serve as a handy focus of popular resentment to prevent it turning inward against the tyrants.

• know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

Islam measures glory by building empire, not peace & prosperity. Islam is about power & predation, not about construction, production & consumption. The Muslim who reconquers Israel will receive the highest honors, superceeded only by the Muslim who conquers America.

• To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Those hands always have been, are now and always will be clenched upon swords. Islam seeks conquest; nothing else. The contest among Muslims is over who will sit upon the throne, wield power and reap the spoils. While they hold power, they will be stirring up Jihad. Whoever holds power among Muslims will be rousing the rabble to fight; that is their divine mission which will only be completed when the entire world is ruled by Moe’s Caliph. The Muslim ruler who drops his sword will be overthrown eventually by one who will grasp and wield it.

Giving foreign aid to Islamic nations is the ultimate in idiocy; it allows them to dedicate more of their own resources to preparation for Jihad.

President Obama’s remarks to the ‘Muslim world’ are based upon false premises; assumptions of mutual interests and respect, both of which are purely mythological. His remarks assume that Islamic aggression is a function of nationalism & personal leadership, while it is actually based upon Islamic doctrine. Bold blue underlined text in this blog post is linked to sources of vital information, particularly the Qur’an and Jihad: The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War.  Read them and know the magnitude of the blunder you participated in November four of last year.

Originally Published at Ben’s Blog

 

WesternFront America