JUST AS EGYPTIAN secularists have long argued, taquiyya-possessed Islamists like the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood hide behind a mantle of piety and moralityyet, when it comes to it, such piety and morality is apparently not something they strive to live by, but rather a weapon to use against non-Islamists, who are always portrayed as immoral and corrupt. Quick to grow beards and have a zibibathe callous forehead mark produced by head-banging on the floor during Muslim prayersIslamists like Sheikh Ali Wanis, an Egyptian parliament member and prominent figure in the Nour Party are more concerned with outer signs of morality, even as they engage in forbidden sexual relations, which are banned on pain of death by their own Sharia.
Yet there is more to it than this than simple taqiyya. After all, in the words of their prophet Muhammad, "War is deceit"—and the Islamists have certainly been treating the elections as war.
Such piety and morality is apparently something they strive to live by, but rather a weapon to use against non-Islamists, who are always portrayed as immoral and corrupt.
Speaking of equivocation and sex, immediately before this scandal, another prominent Egyptian Salafi, Osama al-Qusi, declared that it is permissible to view sex scenes in movies—"so long as the plot calls for it," concluding, in the words of Muhammad, that "deeds are judged according to intentions."
Sex scandals can strike any politician's career. What is important, here, however, is that a sex scandal has just struck the one political party whose only appeal is that it stands for morality, religion, and "family values." It has nothing else to offer—and now it doesn't even have this, as its thin veneer of piety continues to slip away.
We might add that most Muslims adhere to the principle that not only is lying to the infidel or kafir okay in the name of furthering Islam, but that ALL lying is good because any shameful act that gives the infidel or believer a chance to ridicule Islam is worth covering up so as to keep Islam pure from any taint. Apparently Allah is easily fooled.
IT IS AN ERROR FOR ANYONE to call Islam a religion, but for those who insist, it's best referred to as a "Religion of War" that has arrived on our shore as an enemy invader for the sole purpose of conquering our nation even unto ruin. This point cannot be overemphasized.
The Qur'an vows to vanquish all religions and nations worldwide. Allah himself is the protagonist who relishes the role of a "hit man" vowing to knock off every person who rejects Islamsending them to burn in everlasting hell.
For Allah, there is nothing more heinous and loathsome than those infidels (non-believers) who refuse to convert, and there is nothing he will not do to eradicate them.
"I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore, smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off their fingers and toes." (Qur'an 8:12)
"Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: Wipe the infidels out to the last." (Qur'an: 8:7)
“In this great country of ours and in the state of Kansas, women have equal rights,” Wagle said during the Senate’s debate. “They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”
A BILL DESIGNED TO PREVENT Kansas courts or government agencies from making decisions based on Islamic or other foreign legal codes has cleared the state Legislature after a contentious debate about whether the measure upholds American values or appeals to prejudice against Muslims. The Senate approved the bill Friday on a 33-3 vote. The House had approved it, 120-0, earlier in the week. The measure goes next to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who hasn’t said whether he’ll sign or veto the measure.
The measure doesn’t specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says that courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can’t base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.
But several supporters specifically cited the potential use of Shariah law in Kansas as their concern. Though there are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law, supporters of the bill cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law. The bill’s supporters said it simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, said a vote for the legislation is a vote to protect women.
“We don’t have any intolerance in this bill. Nobody’s stripped of their freedom of religion,” stipulated Sen. Ty Masterson, (Andover-R) adding, “This is talking about the lawAmerican law, American courts.”
“In this great country of ours and in the state of Kansas, women have equal rights,” Wagle was quoted to have said during the Senate’s debate. She also noted that “They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”
The bill passed both chambers by wide margins because even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn’t represent a specific political attack on Muslims. Several senators noted that supporters of the bill have singled out Shariah law in talking about it, but we at the Project must ask what particularly is the fault in that? Wagle's comments point precisely to the inducements of foreign invasion, and if it were not an issue of concern, Americans would not foster this concern. So we must applaud agle's remarks.
“This bill will put Kansas in a light that says we are intolerant of any other faith,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican who voted against the bill. “I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning if I didn’t stand up and say I don’t want to be that kind of person and I don’t want to be in a community or a state that is that way.”
Both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the National Conference of State Legislatures say anti-Shariah proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.
“It is an effort to demonize Islam,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based council. “As Muslims are seen participating in a positive way in society, that really irritates some people.” No. It is the Muslims who push for favoritism and brutality in society that really irritate some people. What we can't figure out is why it doesn't irritate ALL people. We are shocked that at this late date, only 20 states have moved to protect its sovereignty from this danger of creeping sharia.
Last year, 45 Kansas House members, led by Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican sponsored a bill aimed at Shariah law. The House approved it overwhelmingly, but it stalled in the Senate; this year, the House pushed another version, and pressure built on senators.
Mast had a news conference Thursday to highlight the Sedgwick County case, in which Hussein Hamdeh, a Wichita State University physics professor, filed for a divorce in November 2010 from his wife, Hala. Their Islamic marriage contract, made in Lebanon, promised her a $5,000 payment should they split. He argued that the contract settled property issues, while Islamic law limited spousal maintenance payments to her to three months. Her attorney said in a court document that following Islamic law would leave her “destitute.”
Hussein Hamdeh’s attorney declined to comment on the case which is pending, and did not return a telephone message seeking comment.
Sen. Garrett Love, a Montezuma Republican, said even if no Kansas court has yet based a decision on foreign legal codes, “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still protect Kansans from those foreign laws being used in the futurea future that really may not be that far away.” But several senators questioned whether the legislation is necessary, arguing Kansas judges and officials already must adhere to the U.S. and state constitutions. Hooper derided it as “an anti-unicorn” bill.
“All it does is increase hostility toward Islam and suspicion of Muslims,” Hooper said.
And you know something Ibrahim? Should you and your Muslims friends actually begin to fit into American society, drop your allegiance to sharia, honor killings, and street takeovers for prayer displays, begin showing your love for your new country and her citizenry, I'll grant you can count on this "hostility" and "suspicicion" simply melting away here in America. Give it a shot. You might be surprised...
Of course, given your doctrinal penchant for taqiyya, it will take some time, maybe a hundred years.
IN THE WEST THERE ARE NO organized groups that will side with Muslims or organized groups that will oppose Islam. No such groups exist at the moment. The only organised group at the moment are Muslims, organised around the mosques. It was instructional to see Muslim gangs from London driving the distance to Windsor to help their brothers.
Leaving America aside for the moment, consider what will happen if right wing parties like the BNP and UKIP in Great Britain or the DVU and NPD in Germany take power and start getting really tough with Muslims. Muslims will not sit back and take it. What if Denmark and other tough-minded European nationals finally rise up and take a stand against the destruction of their cultural heritage by the steady invasion of outsiders who appear to be on the move not just in the West, but globally, just as their mullahs have instructed them to do?
In all likelihood, mimicking the civil unrest in France last year, these already radicalized agitators will quickly resort to bombings and shootings to register their demands for more cultural appeasementsthey are preparing for this type of warfare, for they know that it is how the Jihad is carried into susceptible foreign lands where they are easily outnumbered. Westerners will continue to act surprised, confused, accommodating and fearing confrontation, will choose to leave the matter to the authorities. The left-wing media will muddy the situation with its blind allegience to the foreign and ever slowly will the population decide on a tactic and which side to support.
Some will decide that fighting against these Muslim insurgencies is the best way to defend freedom, tolerance and democracy, and others will decide those same virtues are best defended by supporting the underdogsMuslims, who invariably will be stressing that they are being victimized.
Note how quickly the West acquiesced to the lies of Izetbegovic and the KLA. The West, a slow learner with a genuine drive for cultural inclusion, is now dealing with the result a thirty year flood of Muslim immigration. The Muslim agenda will be less easier to dodge, as many Muslims are now born and brought up in Western cultures, speak the language fluently and have learned how to exploit the local mores.
That is why none should wish a civil war. The thing when it comes will be messy. Predicting the outcome of war is difficult, particularly if it is a civil warthere are far too many variables.
Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that.
Here's a report from a young soldier who served in Ireland with the Queen's Lancs. Having once patrolled UK streets with an SA80, he had this to say:
"It's not too far-fetched to imagine a future Tory government that would not rule out putting troops on the streets of London or Bradford, if the Muslims are allowed to plunge the country into ghettos of violent insurgency. It was not long ago that the SAS was heavily involved in Ireland. If a Prime Minister as recent as Thatcher was able to deploy the SAS on UK streets then why would a future center right leader feel unable to deploy the same force in defense of the homeland?
"There does seem to be an assumption that the left wing lunacy will continue unabated unless it is replaced by a far right monster that will tear up the country in a frenzy of foreigner hate. But I don't think that as to be the case. The Tories are in limbo at the moment. They pledged to give soldiers tax relief and Labour stole their idea. I am sure that they meant for Labour to steal that idea but it does illustrate the futility of making firm policies for labour to attack for another two years. But the Tories are in a good position. They are ahead in the polls and the press has stopped ignoring them and are now lambasting them for not giving enough policy meat for the papers to chew on."
And while apologists from the Left and Muslims themselves plead innocense, news stories are beginning to surface that paint todays's Muslims as pre-WWI Jews, suggesting that any protectionism by Westerners is simply a reflection of 20th century fascism except that the Jews have been replaced by the Muslims and that eventually the Muslims of Europe need to organise and fight back before they land up in the twenty-first century equivalent of concentration camps and a new holocaust begins.
Others take exception to the characterization of their honest desires to protect their homelands from hateful invasion, claiming, "Except for the part where the Jews of pre-Nazi Germany weren't rioting or blowing things up. And how they never tried to impose their religious law on the larger populace. And how they had no problem with free speech or pluralism. Except for that. Wasn't a crowd of Muslims protesting in downtown London just the other day at Westminster Cathedral clamouring, "Rome Will Fall! Rome Will Fall!"
Face it. Conservative DNA is patriotic and when the thief is at the door, most Westerners become conservatives.
THERE WAS INDEED GREAT NEWS for America from an old lefty rag that landed on newstands last month. Sure, Newsweek has long ago lost its way, its dignity, its circulation, its point of view, but its ailing circulation might have gotten a boost with a cover story from the unassailable Ayaan Hirsi Ali. In fact, I'm going to try to find one. No doubt her essay on the global war on Christianity (particularly harsh in Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East) will be precious reading for those of us who are accustomed to the shunning of anything Christian or Western and everything Islamic or foreign, and the issue's liable to become a collector's item, perhaps for signifying a paradigm shift in the way the news operations are seeing, analyzing and recording the world. What a breakthrough! Bravo!
IN 2004, Ms. Ali worked with Theo van Gogh, a grand-nephew of the famous painter and a renown film director in his own right, on a film depicting the specific plight of women in Islamic countries. Van Gogh was assassinated by a typically outraged knife-wielding Muslim, who left the knife and a paper note in the crumpled body of his victim, who he attacked on the streets of Amsterdam. After The Netherlands curtailed her security, citing costs, Ali immigrated to America and has been in hiding, fearing for her life since then. Here is her opening salvo...
We hear so often about Muslims as victims of abuse in the West and combatants in the Arab Spring’s fight against tyranny. But, in fact, a wholly different kind of war is underway—an unrecognized battle costing thousands of lives. Christians are being killed in the Islamic world because of their religion. It is a rising genocide that ought to provoke global alarm.
From one end of the Islamic world to the other Christians are being murdered.
The portrayal of Muslims as victims or heroes is at best partially accurate. In recent years the violent oppression of Christian minorities has become the norm in Muslim-majority nations stretching from West Africa and the Middle East to South Asia and Oceania. In some countries it is governments and their agents that have burned churches and imprisoned parishioners. In others, rebel groups and vigilantes have taken matters into their own hands, murdering Christians and driving them from regions where their roots go back centuries.
The media’s reticence on the subject no doubt has several sources. One may be fear of provoking additional violence. Another is most likely the influence of lobbying groups such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—a kind of United Nations of Islam centered in Saudi Arabia—and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Over the past decade, these and similar groups have been remarkably successful in persuading leading public figures and journalists in the West to think of each and every example of perceived anti-Muslim discrimination as an expression of a systematic and sinister derangement called “Islamophobia”—a term that is meant to elicit the same moral disapproval as xenophobia or homophobia.
We can only aspire that Newsweek continues to look at the geo-political landscape without relying upon the extreme liberal bias cancer that has engulfed most of the world media and positions of power, a position which tends to distort facts and the language it uses to describe the distortion so as to better ignore inconvenient details in their wretched march to create a brave new world, one without borders, liberty, or good sense.
Here in the West, even wholesome Christianity is being systematically shunned and marginalized by the Left and its friends, in favor of these unimpressive Islamic newcomers to its shores, despite all evidence of this welcoming being a huge mistake.
Here's another thoughtful article from Citizen Warrior revisiting the question on how we are to treat Muslims living in our midst, now that we are familiar with what confronts both them and us in the everyday bustle of life, and life's enemy they, and now we, must call jihad:
"Living among us, we have many Muslims who are undoubtedly as innocent of terrorism, political subversion, and Islamic supremacism as we are. But we have a problem, don't we? These innocent fellow countrymen—and the terrorists, subversives, and supremacistsall call themselves "Muslims."
Many non-Muslims explain the situation to themselves that "there are extremists in every religion" and let it go at that. But those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine and Islamic history have discovered that "letting it go at that" would be a big mistake. And of course, those who simply look at the news can see that there must be something about Islam that produces more "extremists" than other religions."
We certainly do not wish to live in a perpetual state of fear nor do we desire to live in a world rooted in hatred and suspicion. But we can avoid neither by ignoring the harsh realities on the ground, and we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that everyone is our friend. So what do we do?
Here is one writer's compact rebuttal to this whole concept of trying to figure out who is a peaceful Muslim and to what limits his own responsibility to Muslims goes. Consider this:
I no longer consider it my responsibility to determine who is a muslim. If someone claims to be muslim then I assume they support the socio-political ideology of islam which is imperialistic, based on apartheid, decrees human chattel slavery as a legal and valid economic activity, and degrades all women as breeding and fornicating beasts in a man's personal bordello.
If a person who claims to be muslim does not support these tenets then it is his/her responsibility to leave islam and no longer be a muslim.
TAKE A DEEP BREATH, FOLKS. I'm going to tell you a secret. Islam, peaceful Islam, is all about the destruction of ALL Kafir civilization. Only if the Kafirs realize the goal of Islam is annihilation of their culture, can the slow rot and ultimate destruction be stopped. Islam allows for nothing else. This has been the repeated inheritance of the Islam way for 1400 years. Total population control and total eradication of the existing culture of lands it has either conquered or infiltrated. Look around the populated centers of the world. But the immigration strategies of this cult doesn't stop with urban and affairs of state infiltration. In the jungle and in the sands, wherever non-Muslims toil, this aggressive group is on the march. Islam is at war with Kafirs, and Kafirs are trying to “nice” their way out of destruction. Islam is at war, while we in the West are basking in the glow of our own niceness.
In short, political Islam exists to promote the annihilation of all civilization except what Islam can create or sustain under a stifling "anti-knowledge" system, which is next to nothing. Bill Warner has written another compelling essay full of statistics, graphs, and other data that makes this historical (no, not hysterical) point.
Death to the Jews! Death to the Christians! is a chilling chant already being heard in the ghettos of the Middle East and jungles of Africa, followed by rapes, hangings, beheadings, burnings, and other mayhem brought to you by the followers of the "book of death and conquest" grotesquely called the Noble Qu'ran by worshippers of said faith.