Revolution Muslim has uttered and published an open letter, in the form of a petition, which threatens the United States of America in general and its President in particular with violent attack.

The petition opens with an arrogant  self-identification and barbarian threat  emulating the form and style of Islam’s damnable Profit.

1. They claim to speak for Allah, who allegedly had one final spokesman: Moe, who, thank God,was silenced by death in 632.
2. They claim to speak for Ummah al-Islamiyya, which has no Caliph since the dissolution of the Caliphate by Attaturk, and therefore has no one to speak for it.
3. The last sentence of the opening paragraph is a thinly veiled threat.  If peace is upon the followers of true guidance (the Qur’an) then  by default, war is upon those who reject  the Qur’an.

The second paragraph makes the dawa explicit and restates the implicit threat.

1. This is the explicit dawa; President Obama has been invited to publicly embrace Islam and make it the national religion, in contravention of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
2. This is a restatement of the implicit threat, safety and war being the alternative outcomes dependent on the choice of Islam or kufr.
3. This clause is an emulation of Moe’s extortion letters. Compare it to this sentence from his letter to Heracles:  ”… Allah shall reward you doubly…”.

The third paragraph quotes the Qur’an 3:64, which demands that we deny Jesus Christ. Read the context or  Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir to verify this fact.

In the fourth paragraph, the authors  criticize President Obama’s campaign tactics and the perceived results of his first year in office. While calling him a tyrant, they accuse the United states of having an empire.

In their screed’s fifth paragraph, the authors quote Thomas Paine before waxing irrational and inverting fact and logic while bitterly bitching about our and Israel’s retaliation against Islamic aggression.

In their sixth paragraph, the authors continue to fulminate  irrationally about our foreign policy and denounce our efforts to suppress Islamic terrorism.  Their seventh paragraph segues into domestic policy while maintaining the same level of irrationality.  The irrational fulminations are followed by an enumerated list of demands that we surrender in Afghanistan & Iraq,  shut down our military bases,  end our support of Israel and disassociate from the Islamic regimes they seek to overthrow and replace with pure theocracy.

The screed concludes with  a dense summation which requires detailed dissection.

1. This is a repetition of the threat: if we do not accede to their demands, they will make war on us.
2. The quote of 8:61  is out of context. 8:60 commands Muslims to build the largest army they can to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies” [Abdullah Yusuf Ali].
3. They declare that they want to live by the Qur’an, free from American dictate, empire & colonialism.   America does not dictate domestic policies in Arabia, nor do we have an empire nor colonies.  It is Islam that seeks empire and colonies.  If they want to live under Shari’ah, what are they doing in New York City?  They should be in Mecca.
4. If we abandon our national defense, nothing will be available for domestic spending, because we will be conquered. Besides which, the dichotomy is false on its face.  National defense is a necessity for the preservation of food, clothing, shelter and every other good and service. Those goods and services are created by private enterprise, not by the federal government.
5. We do not have a war on Islam, Islam is at war against us; our government is blind to the fatal fact.  This state of denial must come to an end, and soon if we wish to preserve our liberty and prosperity.
6. Islam dominates!  Our elected leaders seem to be ignorant of Islamic supremacism.  9:33 tells us that Allah sent Moe to make Islam superior. The concept is repeated in 48:28 and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.65 with these words:  ”He who fights that Allah’s Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause.”
7. The demand  for surrender and threat of attack is repeated one last time.

The petition  has 340 signatures.

The demon spawn rallied on a New York sidewalk,  promoting their open letter to Obama, cursing him, cursing democracy; inciting hatred and violence.  If the content and style of this video don’t outrage you, you need psychiatric care.
[If the embeded code does not work, click this link to watch the video on YouTube.]
What are you going to do about it?  While those demon spawn were cursing America, our way of life and our President,  a new resolution  ”Combating Defamation of Religions”, complaining of incitement of hatred and violence, was fresh off the presses, with the ink still wet.   What will you do about it?  Will you roll over and go back to sleep or will you rise up in protest?

It is time for those America haters who threaten us with violent attack to go home. The citizenship of those who were born here should be revoked and they should be shipped out with one way tickets. The Mosques, Madrassas & Islamic Centers should be closed for good.  The enemies of America should be removed and kept out.

We can’t do it, because Islam wears the false cloak of religion.  Because it is assumed to be a religion, it is under the protection of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause.   We must amend the Constitution to acknowledge the fact that Islam is a war cult, not a legitimate religion.  The first step in that long process is to sign and promote the Outlaw Islam! petition.  After signing the petition, copy it and paste it into an email to everyone you can influence. Urge them to sign and forward it.

At the end of November, the Ad Hoc Committee will meet for the purpose of writing a protocol to ICERD which will make this blog post and all negative information about Islam illegal.  There is only one  defense, a counter attack.  We must take Islam to  the World Court for its egregious violations of ICERD,  ICCPR & CPPCG.  Those international human rights covenants, if enforced,  require that Islam be proscribed by law for supremacism,  incitement & genocide.  If you love liberty, particularly free speech, then you will sign and promote the International Qur’an Petition.  If you won’t take this simple step to preserve free speech, who will?  If you  won’t do it now, it will soon be too late.  Now is the time to sign these petitions and send them to your family, friends, associates and acquaintances with an exhortation to sign and forward the petitions.

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,

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;

Lets get the critical clauses separated from the chaff for examination.

• Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism
• terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or group
  • need to… reinforce the commitment… to promote… respect for all religions…

Is the association of Islam with terrorism intrinsically wrong?  Islam’s canon of scripture & tradition contain relevant evidence which answers that question in  the negative.

[3:151]
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with God, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!

[8:12]
Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

[8:57]
If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.

[8:60]
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

[33:26]
And those of the People of the Book who aided them – God did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.

[59:2]
It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from God! But the (Wrath of) God came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!

[59:13]
Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
…

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),  …

Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers. Allah  told the Muslims to make an example of those they defeated. Read 8:57 in the light of the last sentence of 59:2.

Allah  commanded Muslims to build and maintain military strength with which to terrorize their intended victims.  Then he did cast terror, exemplified in 33:26 and 59:2.  Allah told the Muslims that they were stronger than their victims because  the victims were afraid of them.

Muhammad bragged about being made victorious by terror.  In view of these facts found in Islam’s canon, the association of terrorism with Islam is found valid.

General S.K. Malik  in The Qur’anic Concept of War, makes the issue crystal clear.  His discussion of terror as a strategic concept  spans pages 54-60, beginning on page 48 of the  pdf file.  This quote comes from page  59.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in  itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

The fact that such terror is discussed as strategy in a Pakistani military training manual  puts the lie to Pakistan’s assertion that Islam & terrorism are not linked.  It becomes obvious that the OIC, on behalf of Islam, has set out to render us defenseless before Islam’s onslaught of terror.

Disproving the popular lies about Islam; that it is peaceful, compatible with liberty & democracy,  by reference to Islam’s canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence does not constitute hate speech or incitement to violence.  Using loaded terms such as racism, negative stereotyping, intolerance & defamation throws up a smoke screen  Labeling us as bigots and hate mongers who incite violence is a thinly veiled attempt to shut down debate and shield Islam from criticism and exposure.

Islam seeks to impose its blasphemy law upon us, to cast us into prison and fine us for telling the truth about their war cult.  Geert Wilders in on trial for exposing Islam in his short documentary, Fitna. In that documentary, and a speech to the Dutch Parliament, Wilders quoted the Qur’an. I documented his quotes in another blog post.  See Fitna: Supporting Documentation and Moral Standing: the Complaint.

Islamic law imposes a complete prohibition on criticism of Allah, Muhammad and their system of perpetuating warfare.  These quotes from Reliance of the Traveller should make it clear to you.  These are items in a list of acts which entail apostasy, penalized by death. The list begins at  O8.7.

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-8- to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);-15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

Another list, beginning at  O11.10 ,  includes acts which break the treaty of protection, subjecting the dhimmi to the death penalty. These items should be a clue for you.

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The previous list should be sufficient to indicate what a dhimmi can’t say about Islam.  When they speak and write about “negative stereotyping” &  ”defamation”,  that is what they have in mind.

Our enemies outnumber us in the UN. We can not win  the crucial votes.  We must counter attack, using their own weapon against them.  ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG contain provisions which would, if enforced, require that Islam be proscribed by law.  The International Qur’an Petition points out those critical provisions and shows how they are violated by fundamental Islamic doctrines.   I want you to read and sign that petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence. Exhort your friends, family and associates to sign and forward it.  We need to make it go viral.

Islam is not worthy of respect; it denies the sanctity of our lives and property; declares war upon us, and curses us. Why then should we accept demands for promoting respect and tolerance of Islam?

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

The article calls for the government and religious leaders to take “concrete and substantial steps” to stop the abuse of “religious freedom in Indonesia”. The editorial calls for amendments to the laws and reform in their enforcement.  The specific reference is to “ article 156a of the Criminal Code.

Jakarta Globe 12/30/09
Abuse of Religious Freedom Hurts Indonesia And Renders God Defenseless

Interestingly, the government often has turned a blind eye when radical Islamic groups violate this very article. Most of the “deviant” sects and individuals charged under this law practiced their beliefs peacefully, yet it has been conservative groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and the Indonesian Mujahideen Council (MMI) that have incited hostilities against these very groups. If the government was to enforce this law strictly and without bias, those conservatives and radicals proven guilty of spreading hatred against humanity through demonstrations, raids, religious gatherings or jihadi Web sites would have been put behind bars long ago.

Such a change would require revision of the 2006 civil registration bill that requires Indonesian citizens to identify their religion on their national identity cards (KTP). The category for religion could either be removed entirely, or people from minority groups could finally be allowed to acknowledge their real beliefs. This would decrease religious discrimination against those whose beliefs lay outside of the country’s six recognized religions. On this note, the government could further promote religious freedom by no longer officially acknowledging only six religions, but by embracing the multitude of religions and beliefs practiced in Indonesia.

The government also must address the violation of religious freedom and human rights made possible by the existence of religious institutions such as the Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs in Society (Bakor Pakem) and the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI). Tasked with monitoring and resolving instances of deviant interpretation of religious doctrine, Bakor Pakem’s authority has increased state intervention in religious issues in a way that clearly violates the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Those excerpts from the editorial are sufficient to clarify the issue of undesired side effects of  ”defamation of religion” resolutions and the proposed protocol to ICERD.  The UNHRC is scheduled to take up these Issues March 23.  Now is the time for us to make our objections known.

Taken at face value, the fatwa appears to condemn violence against civilian populations without reservation. It places the greatest emphasis on condemning attacks against Muslims, particularly against Mosques.  Unfortunately, I can not accept the fatwa at face value.

Cherry Picking: quote out of context

Beware of trickery: quoting the Qur’an out of context to distort the meaning of an ayeah, giving it a false application.
This occurs on page 52 of the description & summary where, writing about the terrorists, this citation is made:

The Holy Qur’an has vividly described them in this verse:
“It is those whose entire struggle is wasted in worldly life, but they presume they are doing very good works.” (Al-Qur’an, 18: 104)

In fact, that verse describes disbelievers; Jews & Christians. Observe the context. [Hilali & Khan quoted, linked to Pickthall, Shakir & Yusuf Ali; links below to Hilali & Khan and ten parallel translations Emphasis added for clarity.]

18:100. And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,

18:101. (To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Qur’ân), and who could not bear to hear (it).

18:102. Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allâh's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliyâ’ (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism).

18:103. Say (O Muhammad ): “Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?

18:104. “Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!

18:105. “They are those who deny the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.

18:106. “That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.

Hilali & Khan
Qur’an Browser

Al-Taqeyya

On page 33, a new section begins, entitled “THE QUESTIONS THAT SPRING TO  MIND AND THEIR BRIEF ANSWERS”

Q: The first question in this connection that concerns all relates to use of force to spread beliefs: is it lawful for a group or organisation to use force to promote and put into effect their own creed and beliefs in the name of reforming others’ beliefs and ideologies, presuming themselves to be on the right path? Does Islam allow, somehow, the killing of people because of  ideological differences, looting their wealth and properties and destroying mosques, religious places and shrines?.

A: Islam is a religion of peace and safety that champions love and harmony in society. According to Islamic teachings, only such a person will be called a Muslim at whose hands the lives and properties of all innocent Muslims and non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt. The sanctity of human life and its protection occupies a fundamental place in Islamic law. Taking anyone’s life for  nothing is an act that is forbidden and unlawful. Rather, in some cases, it amounts to infidelity.[...]  [Emphasis added, spelling original.]

Is it lawful for Islam to use force to promote and establish itself’; to make it superior over all other religions? Let us consult Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shari’ah.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

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

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

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

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

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

Does Islam allow killing people because they are not Muslims and seizing their  property?  Once again, we turn first to Shari’ah for the answer. Book O, Chapter 9, Section 25 lists  eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest to us.

O25.9-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

Of course that could only refer to established enemies of Islam who have been harassing & attacking Muslims, right?  Wrong!

O9.1The Obligatory Character of Jihad

[...] In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year. [...]

Muslims have an annually recurring communal obligation to attack disbelievers even though they are in their own countries, peacefully attending their own domestic affairs.  Allow killing people and taking their property?  No, it is required, not allowed.

According to the Sheikh, ” Islam is a religion of peace…at whose hands the lives and properties of all …innocent non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt”. The truth is that Allah issued imperatives to wage jihad against pagans until resistance ceases and  Allah has a monopoly; against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments.  When we read Surahs al-Anfal & at-Taubah, we learn that Islam is permanent war.

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

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.

So all innocent people remain safe and secure in their property?  Caution!  Words spoken by Muslims do not mean what you want them to mean, their meaning is assigned by the Muslims who speak them. Innocent means Muslim.  If you are not Muslim, you are a rebel against Allah, waging war against him.

Another question and answer, found on pages 36 & 37 respectively,  provides more proof   that the fatwa is malignant maundery.

Q: The third question arises: does Islam offer clear commands on the sanctity of human life? Is it lawful to
kidnap and assassinate foreign delegates and innocent  and peaceful non-Muslim citizens to avenge the
injustices and disruption of the non-Muslim global powers?

A: The importance Islam lays on the sanctity and dignity of human life can be gauged from the fact that
Islam does not allow indiscriminate killing even when Muslim armies are engaged in war against enemy
troops. The killing of children, women, the old, infirm, religious leaders and traders is strictly prohibited. Nor
can those who surrender their arms, confine themselves to their homes and seek shelter of anyone
be killed. The public cannot be massacred. Likewise, places of worship, buildings, crops and even trees
cannot be destroyed. On the one hand, there is a clear set of Islamic laws based on extreme discretion, and on
the other, there are people who invoke the name of Islam to justify the indiscriminate killing of people,
children, and women everywhere, without any distinction of religion or identity. It is a pity that such
barbaric people still refer to their activities as Jihad.

Lets see what Muhammad, the founder of Islam said about the sanctity of human life.

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 until we become Muslim.  Now let us examine the proscription on killing women and children; surely it must  be founded on morality?

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. [...]

Note the acts which would defile and profane a holy war; two of them are relevant to our quest for truth.

• Make a holy war
  • do not embezzle the spoils
  • do not kill the children

What do embezzlement and killing children have in common?  Our first hint will come from Shari’ah.

O9.13

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Is it clear to you yet?  If not, Ibn Taimiyyah  has the final clue for you, from The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad.

As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare].

Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.

I emphasized the most critical clause in case there might be some readers with limited comprehension skills. The proscription on killing women and children is economic, not moral.

In the matter of those who surrendered; the Sheikh asserts that they must not be killed. Muhammad’s excellent companions reveal the truth.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad’s judgment, Allah’s Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah’s Apostle said (to the Ansar), “Stand up for your leader.” Then Sad came and sat beside Allah’s Apostle who said to him. “These people are ready to accept your judgment.” Sad said, “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.” The Prophet then remarked, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”

So, what did Muhammad do?

Sunan  Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

They surrendered after a long siege, Muhammad decapitated them and threw them into a trench, then he did the same to their adolescent sons. Can you say genocide?  Can you recognize the fact that, like all Muslims, the learned Sheikh is a liar; that his fatwa is  malignant manure?  If not, then do the nation a favor, burn your voter registration card.

Many, if not most UN documents contain references to other UN documents.  Tracking down those references can be extremely difficult unless you have the right search engine.  Most of the search engine results will be to documents which reference the one you seek, few if any of them will provide a link to the desired document.

United Nations Publications has several interesting categories to check and a search window at the top of the page. That search produced irrelevant results.  It did, however, display a link to  another General Assembly  Document Search. which produced a report declaring that there is no matching document.

By removing the suffix from the search term, I got this result, a 151 page pdf. file; a report on the Third Committee’s Human Rights Protection & Promotion efforts.

If  you can not find  the document you need with that search engine,  and it is  directly related to human rights, there is another search engine you can tap. It is not my first choice because its output is in the form of a multi page table of descriptions and links. If you have the document symbol, try using it first to narrow the search results.

I recently discovered this resource: United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library which offers  a wide variety of search categories but requires omission of all punctuation from the search phrase. I was not able to find the Third Cmte. report there.  By back checking the link to the main library, I discovered a new resource: UN Pulse, which  alerts users to newly released documents. This may prove to be an extremely valuable resource for those who are interested in specific issues before UN bodies.

Someone jumped the gun with the link to UN Pulse. The page is blank;  there is nothing within the body tags. I will check it periodically and  issue a new post about it after it goes live.

Many readers should be aware that the trial was postponed to allow time for the  witness list to be polled to determine  the trial schedule.  The  tentative schedule was set  for maximum interference  from the anticipated  parliamentary campaign so that  national politics would push  reports of expert witness testimony off of the front page.

The disintegration of  the coalition throws clog into the gears. The election is likely to happen before the trial  resumes.  Publicity surrounding the trial has helped rather than hurt Wilders’ popularity and the other parties are in panic mode.  A few crucial quotes point out the  vortex of venom.  A Labor Party spokesman is quoted as  rejecting coalition with Freedom Party.

“The Labour party stands for a completely different Holland than the party of Wilders, and for that reason we cannot be in a government with him,”

The Socialist Party seems to indicate the formation of a potential split over the issue. It does not agree to excluding VVP.

“This is unbelievably stupid. What Timmermans is saying is undemocratic, the voter can surely make up their own mind,” said SP leader Agnes Kant in the Dutch daily Trouw. “Wilders can now say there is a barrier being built around him.”

One critical question may go unanswered:  to what extent was the decision to persecute Wilders influenced by a desire to keep him out of the Prime Minister’s office?   Defend Geert Wilders also links to The Political Origins of the Witch-Hunt against Wilders, which links to  an article by Dutch journalist Carel Brende which identifies the organizations who pestered the appeals court to persecute Wilders.

The Court of Appeal then decided that Wilders would indeed be tried, and Dutch freedom of speech and the legality of criticizing Islam are now in danger because the Court caved to an unholy alliance of extreme Muslims and leftists.

In a controversial report about radicalization made for the Dutch minister of the Interior, four researchers labeled Wilders and his PVV as “new right radical.”

Perhaps that is our answer; it may be that the Dutch electorate will have a different opinion, which they will express in the upcoming vote.  To  keep abreast of this unfolding mix of issues, visit the Defend Wilders  blog and sign up for their email updates.

[Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in quotes is mine.]

The proposal aims to give the American people and small business owners more control over their health care choices by building on the progress Congress has already made, and including new ideas from both parties and the President himself.

With the exception of that one idiotic statement,  the walk through page lacks substance. It has only a few links:

• the President’s proposal in a new section of WhiteHouse.gov.
• what the President’s proposal means to you in plain English
• Read specifically about the President’s proposal,
• the Republican ideas included the President’s proposal.
• more background on the meeting itself

The White House press release begins with this exemplar of demagoguery:

President Barack Obama used his weekly address to call on Democratic and Republican leaders to attend next week’s health care meeting in good faith to find reforms that work for American families and small businesses.

At no point in this process has the President or the congressional leaders of his party spoken or acted in good faith.  Does anyone remember the promise to broadcast the deliberations on CSpan?  The promise was made but not kept.  Republicans were excluded from the committee markup process.  They were not allowed to offer substantial amendments.  Parliamentary rules and procedures were stretched and violated with abandon.  A provision was inserted to prevent future congresses from repealing or amending critical parts of the legislation.  The whole process has been an exercise in tyrannical arrogance and deception.

Planning to circumvent the Senate’s deliberative process is not a sign of good faith. Releasing the President’s proposal four days prior to his so called bipartisan meeting so that the CBO will not have time to analyze its costs is not a sign of good faith.  These are signs of the arrogance of absolute power gone mad.

Consumers can neither retain nor increase their control over their health care options by allowing bureaucrats to decide what tests, procedures and drugs will be available.  Nor can consumer options be increased by allowing bureaucrats to set prices or allocate resources.  Consumer options can only be increased by removing artificial barriers to the free market.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by price controls and restricting entry into medical professions, those policies can only lead to rationing; reduced and delayed access to care.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by increasing inflation.  Irresponsible fiscal policies can only result in increased inflation and stagflation, such as we experienced under the Carter regime.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by increasing demand for medical services.  By moving new demand into the market, from  uninsured  and indigent consumers, seeking care for increasingly minor conditions, can only increase over time costs and require construction of new infrastructure and increased staffing,  resulting in increased, not decreased costs.

There is no free lunch, there is no magic wand.  The fixed and variable costs of clinics and hospitals must be met or they won’t be able to remain open in the long term.  If average premiums do not exceed average benefits in the long term, insurance companies will not be able to stay in business.

Cost controls requires increased  supply & competition and tort reform. The high cost of malpractice insurance can not be reduced without curbing excessive  and unreasonable malpractice litigation & settlements. That is not going to happen because the majority party is firmly ensconced in the tort lawyer’s pockets.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by doubling energy costs. Hospitals and clinics need lights and HVAC. Cap & Tax will double those costs, which can only be passed on to consumers.

With several health insurance companies announcing steep hikes in their rates – from 10 to over 30 percent – it is clear that the status quo, while good for the insurance industry, is bad for the American people.  After a year of exhaustive debate, it is time to move forward on reform.

Insurance premiums must exceed payouts for benefits, otherwise the insurers will go out of business.  We live in the real world, not fantasy land.  To the extend that insurers are profitable, premium reduction can only result from increased competition.  That means making  the insurance market national instead of limiting it to the 50 states.

Now, after their announcement stirred public outcry, Anthem agreed to delay their rate hike until May 1st while the situation is reviewed by the state of California. But it’s not just Californians who are being hit by rate hikes. In Kansas, one insurance company raised premiums by 10 to 20 percent only after asking to raise them by 20 to 30 percent. Last year, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield raised rates by 22 percent after asking to raise them by up to 56 percent. And in Maine, Anthem is asking to raise rates for some folks by about 23 percent.

What do you expect, Moron?  Insurers make money by charging more than they pay out, investing their reserve funds in stocks and bonds for income and growth of principal.  Your party facilitated the creation of a real estate  inflation bubble. When the bubble burst, the stock and bond markets plummeted,  drastically reducing the income of the insurers. They must make up the difference through premiums or go out of business.

The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.

President Obama is setting up a straw man to be burnt. The name of this game is anti-corporatism; a form of class warfare.  It is an old Communist tactic.
Visit the Aug. 5 ’09 Wall Street Journal for a reality check.

“For every premium dollar that they take in, about 83 cents goes out in medical costs — doctors, hospitals, and drugs,” says Carl McDonald, health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The rest is spent on overhead. Net income comes to just a few cents per dollar of premiums.

Consider WellPoint, the biggest private health insurer on Wall Street, which has about 35 million customers nationwide. Last year, it paid out 83.6% of revenues in expenses. Net, after-tax income as a percentage of total revenue came to a princely 4.1%.

According to analysis by FactSet, WellPoint’s ROA has averaged 5.8% over the past five years, Aetna‘s, 4.2%.

Brett Arends compares that modest ROA to 9.2% for Wal-Mart and  12.4% for Dell.

Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do. I think both of these are good ideas – so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people.

It would be better to substitute those Republican suggestions for the whole damn package rather than adding them to the worst legislation ever.  When you add a pint of ice cream to a gallon of manure, its still going to taste like manure.

To members of Congress, I would simply say this. We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system.

Last month, the electorate of Massachusetts sent a different message, but the President was not listening. They elected a Republican to a Senate seat that has been in Liberal Democrat possession for nearly 50 years.   Opposition to Health Care Destruction was the main issue in that election.

It’s our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they’ll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most.

The promise is false, because it is impossible to fulfill,  and anyone who passed Econ. 101 should be able to figure out why.  In Britain & Canada, there are long waiting periods to get care and the systems are starved for money.  That should tell us something.

What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem. Right now, Americans are understandably despairing about whether partisanship and the undue influence of special interests in Washington will make it impossible for us to deal with the big challenges that face our country. They want to see us focus not on scoring points, but on solving problems; not on the next election but on the next generation. That is what we can do, and that is what we must do when we come together for this bipartisan health care meeting next week. Thank you, and have a great weekend.

President Obama is demanding that the Republicans abandon their principles and allow the LeftTard majority to ruin our health care system, bankrupt the treasury, enslave the population in a state of permanent dependency on government and abandon the Constitution all to give him the privilege of saying that he “solved” a problem. In reality, his solution is no solution, but will make matters far worse.  His ‘cure’ will kill the patient.  It must be stopped!

Throughout the debate, President Obama has spewed a litany of lies which have been frequently refuted.  He has tried to rush legislation through so fast that the opposition can not read and comprehend what they are voting on.  Those behaviors should be red flags in the eyes of a skeptical electorate.  The time has come to make a final push to resist tyranny.

We must impress the depth and intensity of our revulsion and outrage upon our elected representatives. We must tell the Democrat Congressmen that they will be replaced in the next election if they continue to push their flawed packages.  We must tell the Republican Congressmen that they will have well financed primary opponents in their election cycle.  The spineless, neutered  Republican  ’leaders’ who  were reluctant to use every possible parliamentary tactic to stop the demagoguery  must be told that they can and will be replaced.

http://www.congress.org/ makes it easy to send a single email to President Obama, your Representative & Senators. You don’t need to know their names or district numbers, you only need to know your Zip Code.  You enter your Zip Code, and the web site looks up  your elected officials. You click the Federal Officials link, and  it presents a simple form

Tell them that you see through their lies.  Tell them that you want to keep your own insurance and care providers.  Tell them that you do not want any bureaucrats between you and your doctor. Tell them that you do not want artificial restrictions on medical services, you don’t want price controls, you don’t want to be put on a waiting list and you don’t want to be told to go home and die quietly.  If you don’t want escalating costs coupled with delays and denials of care, then act now, before they jam their  irrational, counterproductive  and unconstitutional  plans down our throats.

As soon as I get this posted, I will go to congress.org, and I will insert the following link into my email:

<a href=”http://snooper.wordpress.com/hell-no/”>Gd’d HELL NO!!! </a>

If the recipient or a staffer clicks on that link, they will see a brief explanation of my  objections to their plans, followed by  the biggest, brightest, boldest flaming execration the blog format will bear.

Our lives, liberty and prosperity are on the line. We must spare no effort in their defense.  Please join me in cursing our Congressmen!!! We have no other recourse.

a letter to the court

De Volkskrant, the  Dutch newspaper used by the prosecutors to document what Geert Wilders allegedly said in violation of Dutch hate speech law, published  a letter from a group of six Islam experts. It appears that this is the first of four “fact sheets” they intend to issue on the subject.

Unfortunately, the experts have engaged in the  Islamic art of al-taqeyya & kitman.  This blog post  exposes their lies.

Deen Research Center posted the original Dutch letter and an English translation on their blog . Their translation is easier to read than the Google translation.

• Dr. Fred Leemhuis, Arabist, professor emeritus University of Groningen, vertaler De Koran, Unieboek 2007 The Koran translator, Union Book 2007
  • Published Dutch translation of the Qur’an in 1989. http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2008/opinie20_08?lang=en
• Dr. Jan Michiel Otto, Recht en bestuur 3e wereld, Sharia,  Directeur van Vollenhove Instituut, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid,  Universiteit Leiden
• Dr. Gerard Wiegers, hoogleraar Religiestudies aan de Faculteit der -Professor Gerard Wiegers, Professor of Religious Studies at the Faculty of  Geesteswetenschappen van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) Humanities of the University of Amsterdam (UvA)
• Dr. Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus hoogleraar islamologie Univ.Leiden Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus professor of Islamic studies Univ.Leiden
• Dr. Ruud Peters, Arabische Taal en Cultuur, Sharia expert, UVA -Professor Dr. Mr. Ruud Peters, Arabic Language and Culture, Sharia expert, UVA
• Dr. Marlies ter Borg, auteur Koran en Bijbel in Verhalen, Unieboek 2007, redacteur Marlies ter Borg, author Koran and Bible Stories, Book Union in 2007, editor

Islam is a violent religion.

Rebuttal:

Mr Wilders refers, in support of its truths, often to the Koran. Please bring our professional knowledge of the Koran, to review his statements and method of quoting. We rely on taking the authoritative view of Professor F. Leemhuis, (Union Book 2007, www.bijbelenkoran.nl).

• Wilders said: “Islam means submission and conversion of non-Muslims.” “A religion that seeks to eliminate others.” Dv 14
  • But in the Qur’an: “No compulsion in religion.” K. 2:256

The experts like Pickthall’s translation, so I will quote it, with a link to a table of ten parallel translations.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

To discover the circumstances behind the revelation of this ayeh, read Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: No Compulsion in Religion.  Some of the Ansar had sworn to raise their children as Jews. When those Ansar converted, Muhammad did not force them to convert their children.  Despite this specificity, Ibn Kathir says that the ayeh has general applicability.  Another ayeh bears directly on this issue.

10:99. And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?
10:100. It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.

Unfortunately for the experts,  other ayat contradict  those three cited above.  At first glance,  Surah Al-Imran 110 appears to be irrelevant. But there is a hadith which clearly explains the meaning of the clause I have highlighted.

3:110. Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.

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.

The wording varies slightly because Khan prefers his own translation of the Koran.  It is obvious that bringing disbelievers  to Islam in chains is not congruent with “no compulsion”.  It is also obvious that  hadith which contradict the Koran can not be authentic. How then do you explain its inclusion in the most authentic of the six canonical collections?  Is there something more?  Of course there is.

8:39. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

This ayeh answers two questions:

1. Is Islam violent?
2. Is Islam compulsive?

The verb is clear and obvious: fight.  Al-Anfal 39 is in the form of a fight until loop, with a compound terminal condition.

• persecution is no more
• religion is all for Allah.

Persecution is a reference to the Meccan habit of hassling Muslims, who were viewed as a threat to their livelihood. The second part of the compound terminal condition is absolutely clear:  only Allah is worshiped.   Click through to the parallel translations and observe the wording of the other translations.  The obvious meaning is  confirmed by confirmed by Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.

One hadith confirms the meaning of  this ayeh with extreme clarity. I have added emphasis to make the critical sentence  stand out.

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.”

Besides  several variants of that hadith, there are two others which remove all doubt. I will quote  excerpts, linking them to the hadith at USC-MSA for those who wish to read the context.

…If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them...

…Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” …

Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Islamic law, provides the ultimate confirmation. The clause I emphasized says it all.

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21), 6.48-49) ).

The six eminent professors  claimed to refute Wilders with a single ayeh. Is it possible that those scholars with doctoral degrees in the field are unaware of the conflicting ayat, hadith and Shari’ah, or were they practicing the art of kitman, lying by obfuscation?

• Wilders says: “And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of a religion that seeks to eliminate others …”
  • Mein Kampf (My struggle) calls for no more war.  The Koran is sometimes called for violence, in other cases to peace and reconciliation, for example:
    • “You will not shed each other’s blood.” K.2: 84-
    • “God calls for the house of peace.” K.10: 25
    • “Does God not an obstacle …  to …  peace among the people. “K.2: 224
    • “Think of God’s mercy to you when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and by His grace you became brethren;” K.3: 103

It seems that Hitler was intent on  imposing his racist system by force, invading much of Europe.  History shows us that Muhammad and his rightly guided caliphs  acted the same way in Arabia, Africa, Asia & Eastern Europe.

Take a good close look at the expert’s citation to 2:84.   What does it mean? Perhaps we should examine the full ayeh.

2:84. And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto).

This ayeh is about  infighting among the nation,  it is not about attacking other nations.  Lets give the next citation the same treatment.

10:25. And Allah summoneth to the abode of peace, and leadeth whom He will to a straight path.

This ayeh is explained in  Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: Invitation to the Everlasting Gifts that do not vanish.

…(And Allah calls to the Abode of Peace) When Allah mentioned the swiftness of this world and its termination, He invited people to Paradise and encouraged them to seek it. He called it the Abode of Peace.…

See how passive Islam is?  Allah invites people to Paradise, the house of peace. Do the experts understand what a Muslim must do to gain admission to Paradise?  He must fight in Allah’s cause, participating in Jihad, killing and being killed to gain one of the best seats. See At-Taubah 111 & As-Saff 10-13 for the gritty details.  Would they try to fool us again?  Examine their next citation to find out.

2:224. And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Ordinarily, I would quote the context to show you the egregious nature of the expert’s  deception, in this case I will not, because of the sexually explicit nature  of the ayeh which proceeds 224. Instead, I will provide a link to three parallel translations hosted by USC-MSA, which you can easily scroll to view the context without clicking extra links. 2:223.  Once again, Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir gives us a vital clue to the meaning of the ayeh in question: The Prohibition of swearing to abandon a Good Deed.

…Allah commands, `You should not implement your vows in Allah’s Name to refrain from pious acts and severing the relations with the relatives, if you swear to abandon such causes.’… (And make not Allah’s (Name) an excuse in your oaths) means, “Do not vow to refrain from doing good works. (If you make such vow then) break it, pay the Kaffarah and do the good work.”…

Click the link to the tafsir, click the previous button, scroll to the bottom of the page and read the ayeh which is explained on the page I linked to. If you did not read the full context earlier, click the next button in the tafsir, scroll down to the bottom and read 2:226. It will then become clear to you that the experts misquoted an ayeh out of context for the purpose of deceiving the court by perverting the meaning of the verse.  Lets check the next citation.

3:103. And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah’s favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided,

To discover the context, begin at 3:98 and  keep reading through 3:198.  Ibn Kathir explains this ayeh in his tafsir: The Necessity of Holding to the Path of Allah and the Community of the Believers. I have removed the Arabic script and emphasized the key part of this excerpt.

(And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves.) It was said that,  (to the Rope of Allah) refers to Allah’s covenant, just as Allah said in the following Ayah,  (Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah, and from men;) ﴿3:112﴾, in reference to pledges and peace treaties. … (and remember Allah’s favor on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His grace, you became brethren) ﴿3:103 ﴾.This was revealed about the Aws and Khazraj. During the time of Jahiliyyah, the Aws and Khazraj were at war and had great hatred, enmity and ill feelings towards each other, causing long conflicts and battles to occur between them. When Allah brought Islam, those among them who embraced it became brothers who loved each other by Allah’s grace, having good ties for Allah’s sake and helping each other in righteousness and piety.

This  ayeh is about Muslims being united in warfare against disbelievers, not about making peace with disbelievers. Another ayeh, which Muslims will not quote to us, exposes the reality of Islam’s attitude toward peace.

47:35.So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions.

The meaning should be obvious to you. If it is not, refer to Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: Nullifying the Disbelievers’ Deeds and the Command to chase Them.

(So do not lose heart and beg for peace while you are superior.) meaning, in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the other hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah’s Messenger did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years. Consequently, he agreed to that.

Fitna

The experts advance to charges related to the short documentary created and published by Geert Wilders.

• In the film Fitna quotes below were presented, together with “images of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York (11/9/2001), and the attacks by Muslim extremists in Madrid and London, accompanied by images of victims.” DV7
• Wilders cites a half sentence from Surah 47 verse 4
  “If you have an encounter with those who disbelieve than hew the necks of them and when ye have caused a bloodbath bind them in chains.” (Translation unknown, Theo van Gogh in focus)
• Wilders suggests that this called for a Muslim in peacetime ‘infidels’ to kill. This suggestion is reinforced by the images of bombings of civilians in peacetime. With this half quoting of the Quran verse, he in trouble: the enemy is apparently slain first and then be bound in irons. Why corpses seem to be put in chains is not clear.

  The same verse, is now complete:

  “And when you have those who disbelieve [in battle] meet, turn them dead, but if you then prevail over them have obtained fascinates them firmly,
  later as a favor to them or release them or to buy them separately, when the burden of the war are made. “Sura 47 verse 4 Leemhuis:

  The full quote shows:

  • that this is a war is to kill enemy troops on the battlefield, and not to attack civilians in peacetime,
  • according to the Koran quote must stop killing one soldier when once more prevails. There is no elimination of the enemy.
  • the enemy from that moment must be captured to him after the war to be released.

This is in line with modern international law on war prisoner of war.

Lets take a close look at the cited ayeh.

47:4. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Did  the experts quote the full verse?  Is the translation accurate?  Several translators use different expressions:

• when you have killed and wounded many of them
• made wide slaughter among them
• until ye have massacred them
• till ye have made a great slaughter among them
• until ye have made a great slaughter among them

http://www.openburhan.net/ displays a break down of the Arabic text:      اثخنتموهم – you (p) exceeded in killing them/you weakened them;  the dictionary they link to  defines the Arabic word as subdued.  Note the phrase I highlighted; how does it compare to the variant expressions in the other translations?

Ibn Kathir has something important to tell us about this ayeh. The Command to strike the Enemies’ Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

…It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy’s soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them.… (It is not for a Prophet to have captives of war until he had made a great slaughter (among the enemies) in the land. You desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. Allah is Mighty and Wise. Were it not for a prior decree from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took.) (8:67-68)…

The experts have played fast and loose with the facts. They cited page 7 of the indictment as linking the images of the devastation in London, Madrid & New York  to 47:4.  The Koran references on that page, associated with those images, are: 8:60 and 4:56, associated with the next frame.

47:4 is not displayed until three frames later.  The learned expert professors took the Koran out of context, but were not satisfied with that trick, they  also took the indictment out of context!

8:60, which is associated with the images of devastation, commands Muslims to accrue weapons and war horses to strike terror into the hearts of enemies, both known and unknown. 8:57, not cited in the documentary, commands Muslims to punish their victims severely to serve as an example for others they wish to threaten.

If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.

• Wilders Sura 8 verse 60: “Make preparations against them with what you can to force people to take this horse and to terrorize, terrorize Allah’s enemy and your enemy.” Dv7
• Surah 8: 60-61 Pickthall: “And to make them as good as you can and deployable armaments horses ready for God’s enemy and your enemy so intimidating and apart from those others that you do not know, but God knows . And what you also helping to give God’s way, you will be reimbursed and you will not be wronged. And if they are inclined to peace, make this tendency and also put your trust in God; “
• The translation of Wilders appears without a source, wherein ‘terrorize’ ie “the systematic instill terror by violence, by terrifying violence and control.” Leemhuis translates ‘instill fear’ “This is equal to scare away someone: a proven military strategy by means of war drums, production of weapons-without actually use – to persuade the enemy to refrain from violence. The deterrence strategy shown to prevent weapons of war. Compare the NATO strategy against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The slogan of the NATO armed to the teeth at the time was “Peace is our Profession”. It worked.

Lets compare translations.

Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.[Pickthall]

• to strike terror into . [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
• frighten thereby the enemy [Shakir]
• terrify thereby [Arberry]
• strike terror into [Rodwell]
• strike a terror into [Sale]

Lets see what  Muhammad had to say about terrorism.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.
I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),

What is the practical application of this tactic?

33:26. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.

• “Destroy the infidels and polytheists, your (Allah’s) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them until the very end. And let no one about. “Dv 7

  This sentence, with no source, is contrary to the Koran above quotes in their entirety in that direction, rather than a controlled ‘total war’ pages, and contrary to the Koran quote “no compulsion in religion. 2:256

But it is not contrary to 8:39 & 9:29 nor is it contrary to the infamous genocide hadith.  The quote is from a video of an Imam rousing the rabble to Jihad.

• The comparisons between the texts as presented by Mr Wilders and the existing scientific knowledge of the contents of the Koran, we conclude first that the conclusion of Mr Wilders is not based on facts, but only on improperly constructed “facts”.

Scientific knowledge? Being Muslim makes them scientists, no reference to tafsir, hadith or  jurisprudence is required, just scientific expertise.

• Second, a more general question arises about the statement of Mr Wilders that Islam is a violent religion. Could it actually be true that a religion is violent?

So Islam is peaceful, not violent?  How then do you explain the title of the 8:^th surah: “The Spoils” ? Why does the “religion of peace” need rules for allocation and division of spoils of war?  Why does it need terms such as fei & ganimah to describe spoils of war?  Why did Allah give Muhammad special dispensation to accrue spoils?  Why did Allah say “Ye desire the lure of this world” to Muhammad in 8:67?    Why did Allah promise “abundant spoils that you will capture“. Why does Shari’ah say :”the caliph makes war on Jews and Christians”  and “the caliph fights all other peoples”?

• Religion is a set of values, norms, and writings. Religion is preached and adhered to by people. Violence is an action committed by people and groups of people, not a religion. Religion itself is not violent or peaceful.

How do you explain the existence of Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which are entirely dedicated and devoted to warmongering?  How do you explain the existence of books of jihad  or expedition in four of the six canonical hadith collections?   How do you explain the communal obligation to attack disbelievers at least once in every year?  Doubt this?  Click the link above to Reliance of the Traveller, Search for Book O, Search for Chapter 9 and start reading.

• Claiming a  religion as violent is a suggestive way to accuse a group of people, some believers, as being violent.

How did Hindu Kush get its name?  What does it mean?  Why are Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Egypt Islamic?  Was violence involved?

• Scientific research indicates that in the Quran, as in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, both incitements to violence and peace are to be found. This can be verified by anyone.

Show me the New Testament book, chapter and verse  in which Jesus Christ issues open ended, outcome oriented commands to engage in conquest  without geographic or temporal limits; the equivalent of 8:39 & 9:29.   The ancient Hebraic conquest/genocide imperatives were limited to particular places and people, once they were completed, they expired.  Islamic jihad continues from 610 to Judgment Day.

The lesson learned: Islam is not more violent than Christianity.

• Christianization and Islamization have been globally accepted voluntary and partly by force, if .., because fair to say that much about that history is not known.
• It is known that many more victims died in internal conflicts among Christians, than the relatively few wars between Christians and Muslims. Conflicts such as the Thirty Years War or the war between Turkey and Persia dragged on longer and cost more casualties than the war against the Turks eg culminating in the Battle of Vienna.
• The time when it was generally accepted that one faith is spread by the sword has passed. This applies to both Islam and Christianity. Extremists are an exception to the general consensus.

Christianity was co-opted by the Roman Empire.  Unlike Islam, it has no intrinsic war imperative.  Islam has a 1400 year record of rapine, accruing an estimated total of   270*10⁶ victims.

Those are not extremists, they are salafists, emulators of Muhammad.  Muslims are commanded to  obey Allah and his Messenger. “Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow” .  What did he do?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 285:

Narrated Abu Ishaq:

Once, while I was sitting beside Zaid bin Al-Arqam, he was asked, “How many Ghazwat did the Prophet undertake?” Zaid replied, “Nineteen.” They said, “In how many Ghazwat did you join him?” He replied, “Seventeen.” I asked, “Which of these was the first?” He replied, “Al-’Ashira or Al-’Ashiru.”

Terrorism

• Terrorists are not representative of Islam

  Radical Islamists committing attacks and now regularly seek to acquire state power in Muslim-majority countries. The latter, however, they very rarely succeed, what makes them resentful, and leads to new attacks. Most of the terrorist attacks by Islamists, have Muslim victims. Logically, the vast majority of Muslims disapproves of this violence.

Islam is not logical, it is a way of life imposed on people by force. 3:151 & 8:12 sanctify and mandate terrorism. 33:26 & 59:2 exemplify it. Islam’s founder declared that he was made victorious by terror.

• There are also peaceful sounds within Islamic circles.

  Every Muslim knows that the word “Islam” comes from the same root as the word ‘salaam’ (Hebrew: “Shalom”), in both languages it means ‘peace’. With this knowledge, 138 (grown to 307) authoritative Muslims, political and spiritual leaders and intellectuals, have sent in 2007 an open letter to their Christian counterparts.

  “The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians. The basis for peace and understanding already exists … the love of God and neighbor in both religions and preached in both the Bible and the Koran can be found. “

Wikiislam has an etymology chart which makes the matter clear:

The Ulema’s missive “A Common Word between Us and You”. is an obvious deception,  it is an extortion letter cleverly  disguised as an overture of peace.  One blog: Go Burn With Muhammad is entirely devoted to pointing out the malignant malarkey in that missive.

The letter of retired professors, Wilders on the process, about the peacefulness of Islam, a trifle late to be desired. There are no references to sermons in the mosque, to manuals of Sharia, or Koranic commentaries. Also, the letter was not by Muslim religious leaders meeondertekend. The most important Muslim theologian is Tofiq Dibi agrees. The letter is a dream: if only that Islam is like the letter writers make.

In sermons in the mosque, in the manuals of the sharia and the Koran commentaries calling for the harassment, murder and make war on dissent. It is very easy to control. The Koran itself can very easily be interpreted as an instruction to intimidation, assassination, murder, and war – but when the Amsterdam court says that the true meaning of the Qur’anic text is just very peaceful, then all the problems with Islam course solved in one stroke. It is inconceivable for Muslims the Koran as a license to kill would dare conceive as the Amsterdam court maintains that the Koran is not actually a license to kill is.

I have transcribed the video because Condell’s pace makes contemplation difficult. Some of  the concepts involved need a little time to be absorbed properly. The title is “The Crooked Judges of Amsterdam“.  I wonder if they can reach across the channel to haul him up on charges of contempt of court?   His words leave no doubt about his attitude toward political correctness, multiculturalism, Islam, the Dutch law under which Wilders is charged and the legal process involved.

Condell is attributing two murders to p.c. and multiculturalism, implying  that  they set the stage for the murders.  He attributes the trial to immorality and cowardice, accusing European governments of selling the citizen’s birthright: free speech, out from under them.   By his lights,  a cowardly regime is persecuting  a heroic parliamentarian for defending his civilization against an invading parasitic predator.  They are pandering to Islam out of intimidation.

As you  watch the video and read the transcript, bear in mind that the process taking place in Amsterdam is one the OIC  wants to see duplicated in every Western nation where free speech once prevailed.  They are demanding that criticism of Islam be outlawed nationally and internationally.

We have no lever of power with which to affect the travesty unfolding in Amsterdam.  We can observe and criticize, venting as Condell has done, but we need to do more. We need to be vigilant to  prevent or reverse the enactment by our own legislatures,  of legislation patterned after that of the Netherlands  or modeled on the resolutions passed by the UN and Human Rights Council in recent years.

We need to turn Islam’s own weapon against it in a legal counter attack by pointing out the fact that  orthodox Islamic doctrines and practices violate provisions of ICERD,. ICCPR & CPPCG which require that it be proscribed by law.   The International Qur’an Petition is our way of turning the tables on Islam. We must exploit it to the hilt. Sign it, copy it, paste it into an email to everyone you can hope to influence and exhort the recipients to sign and forward it.

This week in an Amsterdam courtroom, we saw the beginning of  what could be both the trial of the century and the crime of the century. What an honor for the Netherlands so early in the century.  Well this determined statement of dhimmitude we’ve yet seen in Europe, and thats saying something, the Dutch Authorities are pushing ahead with  the prosecution of an elected parliamentarian for the crime of embarrassing them with the truth.

There’s an ideological fervor about this prosecution thats almost religious in its intensity.  because lets be clear that this is a heresy trial by any other name. They can’t refute Mr. Wilders’ statements since they’ve resorted to the kind of cheap legal stunt that we’d expect from the likes of Mugabe to shut their opponent up.

They’ve accused him of being divisive and inflammatory  and yes, sometimes the truth can be divisive and inflammatory but its been suppressed for long enough and its become sufficiently taboo as it clearly has in the Netherlands because, according to the prosecution, it doesn’t even matter that what he says is true, what matters is that its illegal.

Well, when the truth is against the law, then there’s something seriously wrong with the law. Because when the truth is no defense, there is no defense. and the law has no anchor, so it  may drift wherever the wind of political expedience blows. And this week it blew straight into a crooked courtroom in Amsterdam, where Justice will now be made to fight for its life, starved of the oxygen of truth that gives it life.

These are desperate tactics from desperate people who’ve tied themselves up in such knots of relativist  guilt they’re incapable of acknowledging the truth let alone dealing with it. They’re like somebody whose prepared to chop off their  own hand to avoid being seen scratching their ass in public. What makes it worse is that clinging to something that doesn’t even exist–the multicultural bubble burst  a long time ago when Pim Fortuyn: was murdered, when  Theo van Gogh. was murdered, both for the crime of expressing an opinion in what’s supposed to be one of the world’s leading liberal democracies.  It was then that the Dutch people, better than anybody else in Europe, came face to face with multiculturalism–what it really is and what it  really means.

On the surface, it sounds like  a pleasant word , invoking a kind of rainbow society of mutually enriching cultural perspectives, and what could be better than that?   But that’s not what it is at all and that was never the intention. If they’d been honest from the start about what it really is: Islamization, they know that they’d never have been allowed to get away with it. But people are beginning to realize that now   Islam is in fact what they’re getting and  and its all they’re getting and that’s why the Freedom Party is leading the opinion polls in the Netherlands from nowhere in just a few short years.

And its also why the ruling class is so desperate to destroy Mr. Wilders before  the next election, because they know that   his views are popular enough to change things,  to put an end to the multicultural lie and give the Dutch people back their country and that’s why he is facing trial.  Can I say that?

Maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised its come to this, after all they do have a history of ganging up  on their popular politicians in the Netherlands. Isn’t that how Pim Fortuyn: was  murdered? Some leftist lunatic took the establishment and the press at their word that he was a public menace for opposing Islamization and killed him for it.  The next day, all the people  who’d been vilifying him were suddenly his best friends, they were shocked — how could this have happened?  But they all know how it happened, the whole world knows how it happened and if it hadn’t happened this trial wouldn’t be taking place today.because Islam wouldn’t be   the problem it is today and maybe Amsterdam would still be the  one of the world’s favorite cities and not the kind of place where gay people are afraid to go out for fear of being beaten up by gangs of Muslim youths. .

The Dutch ruling class has shown that its prepared to stoop to anything, even as far as undermining the very cornerstone of Western Civilization, freedom of speech to prop up a rotten ideology that is not only dead but whose corpse is now beginning to smell. and you know that smell, its that pungent mix of authoritarianism and cowardice that we’ve all become depressingly familiar with.

Certainly, here in Britain, we know all about it, we’ve had twelve years  of it and we haven’t forgotten the shameful events of this time last year when Mr. Wilders was refused entry to Britain because our government allowed itself to be bullied and threatened by a handful of Muslim loud mouths who took it upon themselves to suppress free speech in a free country and and were allowed to get away with it because otherwise they might have been offended oh, perish the thought!

Why the Hell shouldn’t Muslims be offended, what are they anyway, babies?  Nobody gives a damn how offended the rest of us are at having our culture squatted on by an aggressive religious totalitarianism and being told to shut up about it. And that’s why this trial is not just about the Netherlands, it affects all of us.  Now the Dutch people have got a well deserved reputation for tolerance and open mindedness, the very qualities many  argue have gotten us into this mess in the first place so they’re a bit further down the road of multicultural dhimmitude than most countries, but its a road that we’re all traveling in the West and if we stay on it, we’ll all arrive at the same unhappy  cross roads in another court room in another country;  its only a matter of time.

Fear of free speech is a symptom of a profoundly neurotic  and dishonest society which is what  we’ve got on our hands now.  All over the Western world its the same sorry story. We have governments and police forces  who cringe before Islam while fiddling away our civil liberties because of Islam. We have a media that can’t even use the word Islam  in connection with terrorism when the two things couldn’t be more intimately connected if they were Siamese twins yet they’re quite happy to label Mr. Wilders as a “far right  politician”  in the kind of casual slander that passes for journalism these days. especially at the wretched  BBC who have been too politically correct even  to acknowledge that this trial is taking place.

Anyone who isn’t angry and ashamed that it is taking place doesn’t deserve to live in a free society.  The trial has already left as dark a stain on Dutch history as McCarthyism left on American history and its only going to get worse because not only have the crooked judges denied Mr. Wilders the witnesses he needs to defend himself, but they’ve also made sure that the trial will coincide with the election campaign making it as difficult as possible for him to put his case to the people.

This man is a hero, not a criminal and its time the rest of stood up and said so  loud and clear because there is too much at stake to be polite anymore. And there’s too much at stake to be afraid anymore.  This intellectual terrorism has got to stop. Our birthright is being  deliberately sold from under us  by people who don’t have the right of ownership.and we are now on the verge of   bequeathing our children and grandchildren the kind of society that we wouldn’t want to be born into; it doesn’t get any more immoral or cowardly than that.  You know, in the English Language we have an expression “Dutch courage”, its not really courage at all, its the kind of courage you get when you’ve had a bit too much alcohol to drink– well there is this new expression: “Dutch justice” its not really justice at all,  its the kind of justice you get when you’ve overdosed on cultural relativism and your spine has completely disappeared.

Shame on the Netherlands; shame on the Western media for not raising a howl of protest against this outrageous attack on our basic freedom and shame upon shame on the crooked judges of Amsterdam.  Was there something else? Oh yeah, peace, would be nice, wouldn’t it?