It Won’t Pay To Be A Non-Muslim In Seattle

On Monday, the Christian News reported that the Mayor of Seattle, Washington, has proposed Sharia law-compliant housing loans for Muslim residents. In case you are not aware of what a Sharia law-compliant loan is, it is a loan without interest. How many of us would like to take out a mortgage without interest?

The article reports:

“For our low—and moderate—income Muslim neighbors who follow Sharia law—which prohibits the payment of interest or fees for loans of money—there are limited options for financing a home,” the proposed plan reads. “Some Muslims are unable to use conventional mortgage products due to religious convictions.”

The City will convene lenders, housing nonprofits and community leaders to explore the best options for increasing access to Sharia-compliant loan products to help these residents become homeowners in Seattle,” it says.

Arsalan Bukhari, chapter executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the Puget Sound Business Journal that he believes that there are approximately two hundred Seattle residents who identify as Muslim that avoid taking out home loans because of their religion.

“[T]hey don’t want to pay interest,” he said.

Mayor Ed Murray mentioned the proposal at a recent press conference, which will go to city counsel for consideration.

“We will work to develop new tools for Muslims who are prevented from using conventional mortgage products due to their religious beliefs,” he said.

Non-Muslim Americans will still be paying interest on the loans they take out. Aside from the fact that one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is to bring Sharia Law to America slowly, so that we won’t object to it, what about the Americans who will be paying more for their loans because of the Muslims who will not pay interest? This is stupid on many levels. Is beating your wife (legal under Sharia Law) now going to be legal in Seattle?

Thank God We Didn’t Feel That Way About The Nazis

The Daily Caller posted an article today about President Obama’s latest speech about ISIS.The President stated, “Ultimately, in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaida is gonna also require us to discredit their ideology, the twisted thinking that draws vulnerable people into their ranks. As I’ve said before, and I know our military leaders agree, this broader challenge of countering violent extremism. Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they are defeated by better ideas. A more attractive and more compelling vision.”

“So the United States will continue to do our part by working with partners to counter ISIL’s hateful propaganda, especially online. We’ll constantly reaffirm with words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam, we’re fighting terrorists who distort Islam and whose victims are mostly Muslims.”

First of all, when someone is chopping your head off, that may not be the time to debate their theology with them. Second of all, until you take the weapons away from ISIS, they will continue to kill people and chop their heads off. Third, it is in the basic tenets of Islam to kill infidels or those who do not believe in Islam.

The problem here is that Islam is not being distorted. What we are seeing is in accordance with the Koran. The following is a quote from the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin:

Again, the people killing us claim they do so to wage jihad in the cause of Allah, to impose Islamic law and reestablish the Caliphate.

…The intention of sharia authorities today is to limit the knowledge of non-Muslims to what they are allowed to know about Islam. If we read the books which the enemy declares are the basis of his intentions, we will better understand the nature of the threat. Because the enemy knows he lacks the kinetic ability to defeat us in battle, it is of utmost importance that he prevent us from properly defining him. The primary objective of the enemy in the War on Terror is to keep us from understanding his threat doctrine by keeping us from looking at the fact of Islamic law–“the one organizing principle”–that he, in fact, states is the driver of his threat doctrine. Once we understand his threat doctrine, the game is up. This is true even if he is wrong in his interpretation of Islam and shariah.

This is a battle for western civilization. We need to fight it. I don’t want to send troops to the Middle East, but I am willing to seriously bomb all areas ISIS controls. I am sorry for civilian casualties, but ISIS is killing the non-Muslim civilians. This is a time to use excessive force, not to discuss theology. If Muslims who do not want to establish the Caliphate want to stand with us, that is fine. Otherwise, they need to understand that we will not let them establish the Caliphate or continue to kill innocent people.

Not All Religious Traditions Are The Same

Last Sunday, Fox News reported on the arrest of youth counselor Ahmad Saleem, one of twenty-two people arrested in an undercover child sex sting.  Ahmad Saleem is a Muslim youth coordinator and former CAIR community organizer. He is accused by police of traveling to the home of a minor he met online to have sex.

Unfortunately, Muslim men having sex with underage girls has been a problem in Britain. It looks as if the problem may have arrived here. In November I posted an article about Birmingham, England, where political correctness and fear of being called racist prevented the exploitation of teenage girls there since the 1990’s.

The article reported:

Britain’s Birmingham Mail reported last week that Birmingham’s City Council buried a report about Muslim cab drivers exploiting non-Muslim girls back in 1990.

…“The sad part of this story,” Jesson concluded, “is not the suppression of evidence but that the relevant organisations have failed to address this problem.”

Indeed so – and that is because of its racial and religious aspects. British authorities persist in seeing this as a racial issue, when in fact these cabbies only preyed upon these girls because they were non-Muslims, and thus eligible to become “captives of the right hand” (cf. Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50) and used as sex slaves.

CAIR and similar organizations will try to put the best face on the arrest of Ahmad Saleem as they can, but remember, according to Sharia Law, he did nothing wrong. Remember also, that the U.N. Human Rights law supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is compliant with Sharia Law (see previous article on this blog). This is what America is opening itself up to when it embraces the idea of Sharia Law. Human Rights under Sharia Law are not the same as Human Rights under the U.S. Constitution. Keep that in mind when you hear Muslim organizations and American politicians saying that Sharia Law will peacefully co-exist with the U.S. Constitution–it will not.

Islam Has A Problem With Free Speech

I am currently reading the book Catastrophic Failure by Stephen Coughlin. In the book, the Mr. Coughlin explains the Islamic view of free speech and human rights. One of the things he makes clear in the book is that in Islam, human rights and free speech must be subject to Sharia Law. Simply stated, this means that apostasy or slander can be punishable by death. Under Sharia Law, slander is defined as anything that makes the person hearing it unhappy–truth is not relevant in the definition. A recent story posted at Dr. Rich Swier’s blog illustrates this. The headline of the story is, “UC Berkeley Student’s Article Pulled Over Fears For Her Safety.”

This is the article:

If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.

I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.

Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.

A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.

At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.

Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.

After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.

Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.

The publishing of this article put the author’s life in danger.

The American First Amendment is at risk. According to the book Catastrophic Failure, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been working with the United Nations since 2005 to subtly change the definition of free speech.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that America would not “criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.” (Page 309) Secretary Clinton supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18. The resolution calls upon states to protect freedom of religion, to counter offensive expression through education,, interfaith dialogue, and public debate, and to prohibit discrimination, profiling, and hate crimes, but not to criminalize speech unless there is an incitement to imminent violence.

Since the Muslim community seems to be the community that reacts to free speech with violence, we can see what this resolution is actually about. It is a quiet imposition of Sharia Law on non-Muslim countries. If my speech causes violence, I do not have the right to free speech. If my speech does not cause violence, it is acceptable. Logically it follows that since Christians and Jews do not kill people in response to negative statements, criticizing them must be acceptable as free speech. Since Muslims often respond to negative statements with violence, criticizing them is no longer legal.

This is the enemy we need to be aware of in America–the enemy that attacks our Constitution and freedom. It is a subtle attack that needs to be countered with truth and education. Unfortunately, our government and our mainstream media are not familiar with either of those concepts.

 

When You Decide To Move To Another Country, You Need To Respect That Country Or Leave

We live in a world where people can often vote with their feet. They can decide if they want to remain in their country of origin or immigrate to another country. Hopefully they do whatever they do legally, but generally that can be an option. When a person decides to immigrate to another country, they would do well to learn the customs of that country and respect them. Otherwise, why would they remain there? Unfortunately, there are some people who have come to America with the idea of changing America to resemble the country they just left. In that case, please go home. It will be easier for everyone in the long run.

TopRightNews posted an article today that illustrates a problem with some of the people who have chosen to come to America.

The article reports:

The Muslim Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has decided that Memorial Day should not honor those American soldiers who have died, instead, it should honor those Muslim terrorists who were killed by American soldiers.

You read that right. As nearly all Americans come together on Memorial Day to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the country’s freedom and safety, two CAIR officials spent the holiday weekend differently: questioning whether U.S. troops deserve to be honored and tweeting that the country was “established upon white supremacy.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group labeled by the Justice Department as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and “un-indicted co-conspirator” in a terrorism-financing trial, disingenuously claims that it is a moderate organization.

Yet, on May 23, Zahra Billoo, the radical executive-director of CAIR’s San Francisco Bay Area chapter, tweeted that she “struggles with Memorial Day each year” about whether to honor American soldiers who died in wars.

If you do not like the way things are done in America, please feel free to go someplace that is more to your liking.

A Very Interesting Alliance

Front Page Magazine reported yesterday that CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) coordinated its response to the terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The stated purpose (although in reality this is not necessarily the case) of the ACLU is to protect the civil liberties of Americans. I would assume that those civil liberties include free speech.

The article quotes a New York Times article:

Then she took calls from those she views as allies — other Muslim advocates, a Methodist minister, an organizer for the American Civil Liberties Union — to come up with a response that would walk a fine line: clearly condemning the extremists behind the attack, while also calling to account what they see as hatred decked out in free speech finery.

I know this may come as a shock to some people, but there is no law against hatred. There is also no reason to see a draw Mohammed contest as hatred–it is simply an exercise of free speech. The exercise of free speech is part of American law. If Muslims want to speak freely, they need to extend that right to those around them. If they don’t support free speech, I suggest they live somewhere other than America.

The article at Front Page Magazine observes:

You don’t normally denounce someone after they were nearly killed in an attack by your people, but that’s exactly what was going on here. As with Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo, elements of Muslim organizations that weren’t openly shouting “Death to America” instead doubled around to destroy sympathy for the targets of the terrorists.

And Salem is now pushing the ‘incitement’ line whose goal is to criminalize criticism of Islam. The ACLU’s organizer is apparently okay with that.

The New York Times swiftly spins this into Muslims being persecuted by being denied the power to impose Sharia law. Denying the power to oppress women is not usually considered oppression by the left… but there’s a special exception in there for Muslims.

I sense a double standard.

The Canadians Get It Right

The Center for Security Policy posted an article yesterday about one aspect of the Countering Violent Extremism Summit hosted by President Obama. The Canadian Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness The Honorable Steven Blaney outlined the Canadian view on Islamic terrorism.

The article reports that view:

1. The threat is global: Unlike President Obama, whose Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against ISIS seeks to limit U.S. options to just Iraq and Syria, we must recognize  the global element of the threat is vital. Jihadists from Somalia to France and from Mali to Norway are all looking to harm the U.S. and their allies wherever they can. Unless our response is equally global, it can not succeed.

2. The threat is jihad: Our enemies say they are called to wage jihad, a term which is defined by Islamic law. Reliance of the Traveller (a reputable book of Shafi’i Islamic law) establishes that, “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.” That many individuals who identify as Muslim may not subscribe to this doctrinal requirement is a positive, but nonetheless the preference of individuals does impede the significance of a doctrinal requirement that motivates a large segment of a population..

3. The threat is a movement. It is not merely ISIS which has declared war against us and must be combated. Rather our fight is with all those who subscribe to the movement’s ideology which obliges them to wage war in order to “establish the religion.” Individual groups and leaders may morph, change or evolve, but the ideological heart of the movement remains the same, and until that is addressed, we will not prove victorious. And as a movement, those responsible for spreading and indoctrinating the ideology are as important (if not more so) than the frontline jihadists who engage in fighting or acts of terror.

Our Canadian neighbors understand the threat and are ready to fight back, even as our President is still quibbling over what to call it.

Knowing The Goal Of The Conference By The Attendees

Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review about President Obama’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism.”  Mr. McCarthy pointed out that one of the attendees at the summit was Salam al-Marayati, leader of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Let’s take a look at the history of Salam al-Marayati. Andrew McCarthy  explains:

Marayati and MPAC figured in my 2010 book on the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. operations – The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (“grand jihad” and “sabotage” are lifted verbatim from an internal Brotherhood memo that describes the Islamists’ objective to infiltrate and destroy our country). And three years ago, I profiled Marayati and MPAC in this NRO column.

 There is a reason why Obama’s summit is striking all the wrong chords with the public: strangely sympathetic to Islamist sensibilities and grievances at the very time when rampaging jihadists, while quoting Islamic scripture, are barbarically slaughtering their enemies and conducting a pogrom against Christians (there being no Jews left to mass-murder in Syria, Iraq and Libya).

 The reason is that the summit serves exactly the same purpose as is served by MPAC and Marayati: It is the nexus between Islamists and Leftists.

We need to remember that President Obama’s only real leadership experience has been as a community organizer. His job was to cause people to recognize grievances (real or otherwise) and address them. This is the perspective he brings to the war on terror.

The article explains how that works:

 For the Left, radical Islamic terrorism cannot be called “radical Islamic terrorism”; it must be called “violent extremism,” to avoid offending the Left’s Islamist allies. Still, while the labeling of terrorism may be problematic, the fact of terrorism is an opportunity – a crisis that, like all crises, can be used to advance the “social justice” agenda.

Just have a look at President Obama’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times this week. ISIS and al-Qaeda are on the march, so what does the president suppose this is the occasion for? “Our focus [in the “summit on countering violent extremism”] will be on empowering local communities.”

Note to President Obama–the local communities are empowered–they are cutting people’s heads off.

Please read the entire article at the National Review. It explains how radical Islam has infiltrated American politics and intends on undermining our freedom and security. The President’s “summit” on “Countering Violent Extremism” was not only not helpful, it was part of the problem.

Poverty?

PovertyInIslamThe violence in Islam is not the result of poverty. Those practicing violence are in agreement with the basic tenets of Islam as espoused in the Koran and the Hadith. If you doubt that killing infidels is part of basic Islam, please read Reliance of the Traveller. This book is the accepted translation and explanation of Islamic beliefs. Islam can be practiced without violence, but violent Islam is part of the Koran.

The Politics Of Destruction

Bobby Jindal is one of America‘s most successful state governors. He has been a major player in cleaning up Louisiana politics, he has worked to rebuild education in the state following the shambles left by Hurricane Katrina, and he has generally done an awesome job as governor. He is not yet running for president, but is considering it. Therefore, the Democrat-biased press must work to discredit him. Recently, Governor Jindal stated the there were ‘no-go zones’ in Europe. The press decided that was their point of attack. Never mind that much of the major media had reported on these zones in recent years.

Breitbart.com posted an article today weighing in on the subject.

The article states:

This has been reported for years. The New York Times reported in April 2002, “Arab gangs regularly vandalize synagogues here, the North African suburbs have become no-go zones at night, and the French continue to shrug their shoulders.” And Newsweek said in November 2005: “According to research conducted by the government’s domestic intelligence network, the Renseignements Generaux, French police would not venture without major reinforcements into some 150 ‘no-go zones’ around the country–and that was before the recent wave of riots began on Oct. 27.

Just two weeks ago, the New Republic wrote: “The word banlieue (‘suburb’) now connotes a no-go zone of high-rise slums, drug-fueled crime, failing schools and poor, largely Muslim immigrants and their angry offspring.”

No-go zones are not new news. There have been times in American history when certain areas were controlled by gangs or gangsters and similar things occurred. However, for the press to lie to Americans as if these zones did not exist and to minimize the threat that these zones may eventually come here is to fail to do the job the press is supposed to do. Our Constitution protects us to some extent, but even in America there have been incidents where American’s rights have not been upheld. In September, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a group of Christian evangelists who were forced to leave an Arab-American street festival in Dearborn, Michigan, in 2012. Their First Amendment rights were clearly violated.

Yes, there are no-go zones in many countries in the world, and yes, the purpose of this dust-up was to make sure Bobby Jindal would not be a credible candidate for president.

UPDATE:

Act for America posted the following map of the Paris no-go zones on Facebook:

nogozonesFrance

Is The Islamic State Islamic?

From 10 News Denmark:

ComparingQuranIS

I really think we need to wake up and smell the coffee. Reliance of the Traveller is the renowned explication of sharia’s provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. It is available in English. It needs to be read by all of the leaders of western countries. It it the source for the rules of Islam. It calls for killing of infidels, killing of people who slander the prophet, etc. That is not Islamaphobia–that is truth. (Even my spell check does not recognize Islamaphobia as a word!)

A Voice Of Reason In The Middle East

Abdel Fattah el-Sisi became President of Egypt in June 2014. He was elected by the Egyptians after the removal of President Morsi, who was attempting to move Egypt in the direction of a caliphate–including Sharia Law and persecution of Christians. The Obama Administration has not been overwhelmingly supportive of President el-Sisi, but has promised to deliver the military aid previously promised to Egypt.

During his presidency, President el-Sisi has moved to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, blaming the group for much of the political unrest in the country. Recently, he called for a revolution in Islam that would discourage the current violent aspect of the religion.

The Washington Free Beacon reported yesterday:

In a speech on New Year’s day, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi called for a “religious revolution” in Islam that would displace violent jihad from the center of Muslim discourse.

“Is it possible that 1.6 billion people (Muslims worldwide) should want to kill the rest of the world’s population—that is, 7 billion people—so that they themselves may live?” he asked. “Impossible.”

Speaking to an audience of religious scholars celebrating the birth of Islam’s prophet, Mohammed, he called on the religious establishment to lead the fight for moderation in the Muslim world. “You imams (prayer leaders) are responsible before Allah. The entire world—I say it again, the entire world—is waiting for your next move because this umma (a word that can refer either to the Egyptian nation or the entire Muslim world) is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands.”

I am sure President el-Sisi speaks for many Muslims when he says, “We have to think hard about what we are facing. It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing, and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible.”

We need more Middle Eastern leaders like President el-Sisi.

Giving Your Enemies The Rope To Hang You

Americans need to understand that Islam is not a religion that promotes tolerance of other religions. Saudi Arabia does not allow the building of Christian churches. In Muslim countries, Christians are routinely persecuted. Where Sharia Law is in force, Christians are killed or enslaved. That is the practice of Islam in its true form (when it is in control). When Islam is not in control, it appears to make peace with Christians until it gains control. Unfortunately, some American churches are being duped into believing that Islam is a friend of Christianity and that the two can work together. Since Islam regards Christianity as blasphemy against the prophet (punishable by death), working together should not be an option for Christians. However, some of us haven’t figured that out yet.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line reported yesterday that the Washington National Cathedral will host a Muslim prayer service this Friday.

The Washington Post reported the story on Monday. The Washington Post story included the following:

The service, which will begin around 12:20 and is for invited guests only, developed out of a relationship between the cathedral’s director of liturgy, the Rev. Gina Campbell, and the South African ambassador to the United States, Ebrahim Rasool, who is Muslim. The two worked together on a memorial service for Nelson Mandela, Jaka said.

“This is a dramatic moment in the world and in Muslim-Christian relations,” Rasool said in a prepared statement. “This needs to be a world in which all are free to believe and practice and in which we avoid bigotry, Islamaphobia, racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Christianity and to embrace our humanity and to embrace faith.”

The story at Power Line reminds us:

Deep into the Post’s story we learn that among the organizations sponsoring the prayer event are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The Post does not mention it, but both ISNA and CAIR are Islamist advocates of sharia law with a history of supporting terrorism.

An article posted at the Daily Caller yesterday fills in some of the blanks:

The Islamists expected at the cathedral include representatives from the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). In 2009, both groups were confirmed as co-conspirators in a conspiracy to deliver funds to the Gaza-based Hamas jihad group, which regularly launches attacks to kill Jews in Israel.

This year, Hamas launched more than 4,000 rockets at Jews in Israel, often from within civilian areas.

Hamas is an affiliate of the Egypt-based Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood, which was ousted from power in Egypt by huge public protest in 2012. Both CAIR and ISNA have close ties to the brotherhood movement.

The Episcopal Church is allowing Muslims to hold a worship service in the Washington National Cathedral. What are the chances of a mosque in Saudi Arabia allowing the Catholics to hold a worship service there? I really think we need to take a closer look at this.

If you doubt that ISNA and CAIR are working against America, please follow the link to one of the exhibits in the Holy Land Foundation Trial. The first part of the exhibit is in Arabic, but the English translation starts on Page 16. Please read it. The Holy Land Foundation Trial began after a man and women were stopped on a bridge in Maryland where the woman was filming the structure of the bridge. Their home was searched as a result of an outstanding warrant, and a hidden basement revealed the documents outlining the plan to turn America into a country ruled by Sharia Law. The document lists the organizations involved and the plans. Things are actually moving forward in their plan and will continue to do so until more Americans wake up and begin fighting for the principles America was founded on.

This Is The Outcome Of Political Correctness

On Wednesday, Investors.com posted an article about recent events in Sweden. Sweden has an open-border immigration policy which resulted in the arrive of 100,000 refugees fleeing the conflict in the Balkans in the 1990’s, and  more recently, refugees from Iraq and other Arab countries settling there. Unfortunately, rather than rejoice in their new-found freedom, many of these refugees have brought the oppression of their former homelands with them.

The article explains what has happened:

The perils of multiculturalism and open borders have reached critical mass in Sweden. There are Muslim enclaves where postal, fire and other essential services — even police officers themselves —require police protection.

A police report released last month identifies 55 of these “no-go zones” in Sweden. These zones are similar to others that have popped up in Europe in recent years. They formed as large Muslim populations emigrating to politically correct and tolerant European states refuse to assimilate and set up virtual states within a state where the authorities fear to tread.

Soeren Kern of the Hudson Institute has documented the proliferation of these zones. They are de facto Muslim micro-states under Shariah law that reject Western values, society and legal systems. In these districts non-Muslims are expected to conform to the dictates of fundamentalist Islam or face violent consequences.

“A more precise name for these zones,” says Middle Eastern expert Daniel Pipes, “would be Dar al-Islam — the House of Islam or the place where Islam rules.”

This is not an imaginary tale about a small percentage of Muslims–this is something that is actually happening with the consent of a majority of the Muslim community. There have been no-go zones in France for decades.

Islam is as much a political system as it is a religion, and those Muslims who believe they are correctly following the Koran strive to set up Sharia Law in whatever country they settle. We have already had a court case where Christians were arrested for preaching near the site of a Muslim event in America (rightwinggranny). Many of our states have passed preemptive laws outlawing Sharia Law in their states. We need to aware of the fact that Islam is a conquering religion. Political correctness is not our friend in this matter.

This Is Just Unbelievable

Last month a website called qpolitical posted a story about Somali Muslims in America demanding a food bank that meets their religious standards.

The article reports:

I think I am even more confused. Not only do they want an American program to change due to their islamic standards, they also expect $150,000 for it. Oh and keep in mind that’s only to start the food shelf up. There isn’t a plan yet, get this, on how much will sustain it.

Keep in mind that this is a government program being asked to bend to religious requirements. Would the government do this for Christians, Jews, or any other religion? If the Islamic community wants free food that meets their religious requirements, they need to be responsible for setting up their own food banks. If they want Islamic food, they also have the option of finding a job and earning the money to buy it.

The article includes a video:

A Step In The Right Direction?

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about Mohamed Elibiary, who has left his position as a senior member of DHS’ Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). Mr. Elibiary’s recent statement that about the “inevitable” return of the Muslim “caliphate” may have played a role in his departure.

In October 2013, the Center for Security Policy posted an article about Mohamed Elibiary.

The article describes Mr. Elibiary’s role at the DHS:

Elibiary’s official functions have been the focus of congressional and media attention, particularly in light of his controversial associations with leading American Islamists.  These include the radical Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America and convicted Hamas fundraiser Shukri Abu Baker.

Troubling as such connections are, the implications of the policies Elibiary has espoused are even more worrying.  For example, Elibiary’s promotion of the narrative that the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists are “moderates” appears to have been influential in encouraging the Obama administration’s blindness to what is, in fact, an unbroken continuum between the ideology and goals of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda.

Moreover, Elibiary has insisted that even the most basic information about the doctrinal drivers of jihadist terror be purged from U.S. government training materials. Pursuant to the guidance he has helped President Obama promulgate, even quoting the Brotherhood’s own written statements can be portrayed as “Islamophobia.”

The article includes a link to an An Annotated Interview with DHS Advisor Mohamed Elibiary, which explores some of his connections to the Holy Land Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. Elibiary has done considerable damage to the security of America. His purging of government training materials of valid information about the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic goals for America will take years (and a willing administration) to correct. The difference between the Muslim Brotherhood and AlQaeda is method–not goal. The Muslim Brotherhood uses the American judicial system to quietly bring the principles of Sharia Law into America; Al Qaeda simply wants to conquer by physical destruction. Sending Mr. Elibiary packing is a step in the right direction, but he should have never been allowed anywhere near the Department of Homeland Security–he has strong ties to people whose goal is the destruction of America.

 

Misinformed Or Lying?

In his speech last night, President Obama said, “Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.”

I beg to differ. The Koran states in Q9:5:

“So when the sacred months have passed, then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent and establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, then leave their way free to them; for surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.”

‘Pagans’ are to convert of die. The Christians have fled in every town ISIS has taken–they have been told to convert of be killed. The killing of infidels is commanded in Islam. We need leaders who understand that. Obviously, President Obama does not, or he is lying.

Unfortunately, ISIS is not a local problem

Various members of the press and the Obama Administration have stated that ISIS is a local problem limited to the Middle East. I wish that were true, but there is mounting evidence that it is not.

Breitbart.com posted a story today about the growing international threat of ISIS.

The article reports:

The latest indicator that ISIS just the latest label slapped on the growing phenomenon of radical Islamism comes courtesy of Great Britain, where Palmira Silva, an 82-year-old great-grandmother, was beheaded, allegedly at the hands of a charming character called “Fat Nicholas.” Obese Nick is reportedly a Muslim convert.

This is not the first public beheading in Britain, unfortunately. In May 2013, two young British Muslims, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, ran over British soldier Lee Rigby in a car before Adebolajo attacked him with a machete, attempting to decapitate him. Adebolajo then stuck around to brag to passersby, threatening the rule of Islam. The day before, Adebolajo bought a set of five knives. A copy of the Koran was found on his person.

There is ISIS recruiting going on in the United States as well as around the world. Last week an ISIS member who was killed in Iraq was identified as an American who had a security clearance and worked at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Meanwhile, we have no idea who is streaming across our southern border.

The article concludes:

The Obama administration’s response to the threat of ISIS recruiting inside the United States has been to release an anti-ISIS video over the weekend, featuring images of ISIS beheading people, blowing up mosques, and executing Muslims. Which, coincidentally, is exactly the stuff that ISIS uses to recruit its friends, demonstrating once again that the disconnected Obama administration simply does not understand the attraction of the radical group to radical Muslims.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration, in the name of political correctness, has removed the advisers to our government and our military who understand the terrorists. Hopefully when the Obama Administration leaves office, we can bring back the advisers who will be part of the solution–not part of the problem.

Some Thoughts On Isis

There seem to be some differences within the Obama Administration as to how to deal with ISIS. ISIS is a rather nasty group of violent people who want to set up a Caliphate in the Middle East, as opposed to Iran–a rather nasty group of violent people attempting to develop nuclear weapons who want to set up a Caliphate in the Middle East. Keep in mind the aims are the same–the discussion is about who will be in charge. Just for the record, neither group’s plan includes Israel’s (or the Jewish people‘s) continuing existence. When the Caliphate expands past the Middle East, it will not include the continuing existence of Christians or any other non-Muslim people. That much both groups agree on.

So I got to thinking about how we should be dealing with ISIS. I was reminded of the book (and movie) Jurassic Park. I have always been fascinated by dinosaurs. I think T-Rex is an amazing animal. When I read the book and later saw the movie, I marveled at how the scientist involved had taken all precautions to ensure the safety of those visiting Jurassic Park and seeing the dinosaurs. He made every effort to manage any threat posed by the creatures so that no one would be at risk. We saw how that all worked out. Well, I wondered if a scientist could recreate a T-Rex in a size that would make it a fascinating house pet, what would a manageable size be? You are dealing with a carnivore, so it can’t be big enough to eat your children or pets. If you make it mouse-size, it is quite likely to chew on your toes. It becomes very obvious that there is no manageable size for a T-Rex as a house pet. It also should become very obvious to all of us at this point that there is no manageable size of ISIS. Let’s stop talking and act before any more innocent people are killed.

Why American Isolationism Is A Really Bad Idea

On July 18th, Gates of Vienna posted an article explaining why ignoring the establishment of a caliphate in the Middle East is a major mistake. In the eyes of Muslims who believe in the Koran, there are certain privileges that come with the establishment of a caliphate and the existence of a caliph in charge of that caliphate. I need to explain here that there are no ‘moderate Muslims’ who believe in the Koran–the Koran makes very clear that the obligation of Muslims is to wage war on the infidels. There are many ‘moderate Muslims’ who discount what the Koran says and have no desire to wage war on the infidels, but unfortunately, they tend to be rather quiet.

The article at Gates of Vienna explains the dangers of a Muslim caliphate. The article quotes Egyptian-American scholar of Islam and Middle East history Raymond Ibrahim:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the “disbelieving” world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the “Muslim world”-from Morocco to Pakistan-was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.

A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions — economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or “dhimmis” — who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax [jizyah]; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim’s; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses-the jihad continues.

A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish — before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is also quoted in the article:

And now it [the caliphate] is here, although it is by no means clear, of course, that The Islamic State will be viable or long-lasting. If it is, however, the world could soon be engulfed in a much larger conflict with Islamic jihadists even than it has been since 9/11. For in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized — and indeed, has the responsibility — to declare offensive jihad against non-Muslim states. In his absence, all jihad must be defensive only, which is why Islamic jihadists retail laundry lists of grievances when explaining and justifying their actions: without these grievances and a caliph, they have to cast all their actions as responses to Infidel atrocities. With a caliph, however, that obligation will be gone. And the bloodshed in that event could make the world situation since 9/11, with its 20,000 jihad attacks worldwide, seem like a harmless bit of “interfaith dialogue.”

Unfortunately, there will come a time in the near future when America and Western Europe will have to stand up to a Muslim caliphate. It will have to be done before the population demographic in Europe changes enough to make it automatically part of the caliphate. If we wait too long, the Muslim population in Western Europe will reach a point where it represents the majority of the people in Western Europe. At that point, America (and Canada) will stand alone.

Meriam Ibrahim Has Been Released From Government Custody Again

CBN News is reporting today that Meriam Ibrahim has been released from government custody again in Sudan.

The article reports:

“She was seized at the airport by the National Intelligence and Security Services of Sudan who do not answer to criminal courts – they are outside the judicial system,” Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, said.

Marie Harf, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department, says the Sudanese government has assured the U.S. that the family has now been released again. Harf said U.S. officials are continuing to work on getting them out of the country.

…The 27-year-old Ibrahim was originally sentenced to 100 lashes and execution by hanging because the government says her father was a Muslim. Therefore, under Islamic law known as Sharia, she’s not allowed to become a Christian, even though she contends she was never a Muslim in the first place.

It is becoming obvious that Mrs. Ibrahim will not be safe until she is out of Sudan. It is also quite possible that radical Muslims will be a threat to her safety if she comes to America. However, the right thing to do is to bring her, her husband and her children here and put them in the witness protection program to protect their identity. Sharia Law is nasty, and many Muslims believe in it. They believe that they would be serving their god by killing this woman because she is a Christian. Many years ago I knew someone who left an abusive Muslim husband and was put into the witness protection program to avoid an Honor Killing–her brother had vowed to kill her in the name of allah. Sharia Law is not something we want to allow in America.

Free Speech Is Still Part Of The U.S Constitution

The Foundry at Heritage.org posted a story yesterday (with a video) about the efforts of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to block the showing of the movie “Honor Diaries” from being shown on college campuses.

The article reports:

Kelly last night questioned CAIR Chicago representative Agnieszka Karoluk on “The Kelly File” about the group’s opposition to “Honor Diaries,”  a documentary that addresses abuses  such as female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and the oppression of women in Muslim society – what one commentator in the film calls “systematic, institutionalized misogyny.”

Karoluk, herself a Muslim woman, said that although CAIR  doesn’t oppose raising awareness, the source of funding for the film, the Clarion Project, is “Islamophobic.”  The film’s backers, she said, “use it to promote their own hate-filled agenda.”

…Kelly also spoke Monday night about the film. The documentary, she reported, features “a diverse group of women with different faiths, backgrounds, and nationalities, all of them focused on promoting women’s rights, especially in countries where women and girls are often subjected to something known as honor violence.”

There is nothing hate-filled about showing a film that reveals the abuses of women under Islam. There is everything hate-filled about trying to prevent people from learning about those abuses.

Here is the video:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Political Correctness Gone Amok

Yesterday Michael Graham posted an article on his blog about a planned television series that was cancelled. That’s not all that unusual, but in this case the reason for the cancellation was interesting.

According to the article:

Cyrus McGoldrick — a Muslim activist and former civil   rights manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in New York — is lauding the quick death of what was ABC Family’s planned TV pilotAlice in Arabia.”…

“Getting ‪#‎AliceInArabia‬ cancelled was a good move – I’m glad it got done so quickly, too. These skirmishes with Zionist Hollywood should be easy and decisive, and I’m so pleasantly surprised that this was. S/o to ADC, CAIR, and the many individuals who stormed the internet and handled this,” he posted on Facebook.

What is–or rather, was– Alice In Arabia? It was a drama based on the premise of a young woman in America being dragged into fundamentalist Islam culture (it’s actually happened) by Muslim relatives (has happened), in this case by being kidnapped and taken to Saudi Arabia (it’s happened, too) and not being allowed to leave (yep–it really happens).

Muslim activists Rabia Chaudray finds the show outrageous and (of course) racist.  In a screed on Time’s website, he writes:

Not only will “Alice in Arabia” exacerbate the marginalization of Muslim and Arab men, it perfectly reflects Western attitudes towards Muslim women. Hear that sound? It’s millions of Muslim women snorting as Alice attempts to survive “life behind the veil.” The very idea that the veil is something to be survived strips Muslim women of their intellect and agency and makes them the subjects of this practice rather than sentient protagonists of it.

I wonder if the movie “Not Without My Daughter” could be made today. Whether it is allowed to be shown in a television series or not, women are horribly mistreated in Muslim countries. In most Muslim countries they are not allowed to leave their homes unless escorted by a male relative and they are not allowed to drive. If a woman is the victim of rape, she is stoned to death–there is not penalty for the man involved. It is a shame that the American public will not be allowed to see what life for an American woman in a Muslim state is like.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unfortunately This Is Probably Coming Our Way

At one point in my childhood I lived in an apartment building not in the richest part of town. Part of the experience was the smells that came from the surrounding apartments. It was a place where people from various nationalities lived, and sometimes the smells seemed very odd. Sometimes the smells seemed unpleasant. It was part of the experience. Unfortunately, some people in other countries seem to have lost their ‘tolerance’ gene.

The story I am about to report goes back to 2010. I was not able to find an update to the story, but I thought the original story was worth noting.

On October 22, 2010, the U.K. Telegraph posted a story about a small restaurant in Cale Green, Stockport.

The article reports:

The couple took over the take-away on Adswood Road in Cale Green, Stockport, in 2007 from the previous owner and replaced the exisiting extractor fan, which had been there for six years, with a new modern one.

They claim they received no complaints about the cafe which is open from 7.30am-2.30pm six days a week, until around eighteen months ago when they received a letter from environmental services to say Mr Webb-Lee had complained about the smell.

“We’ve never had a problem about the smell because everything is pre-cooked,” said Mrs Akciecek.

Mr. Webb-Lee complained that his Muslim friends had felt ”physically sick” due to the ”foul odour.” That odor of course was the smell of cooking bacon.

I couldn’t find an update on this story. It would be interesting to know how it all turned out. Unfortunately, the fact that I could not find a follow-up story leads me to believe that the complaint stood. Western countries eat (and cook) bacon. If a Muslim moves to a Western country, he needs to adapt–he is the alien. He doesn’t have to eat bacon, but he needs to be more tolerant of those who do.

UPDATE:  COMMON SENSE WON OUT!!!

On March 30, 2011, the U.K. Mail online posted a follow-up story.

The article reports:

The Lib Dem-run council originally ruled the smell from the fan, which has been in Bev’s Snack Shack for more than three years, was ‘unacceptable on the grounds of residential amenity’ and told her to take it down.

But Beverley and her husband appealed the decision.

After a six-month legal battle, the Planning Inspectorate finally announced they had won their case.

She said today: ‘The council have got to pay our legal fees which is a great relief because we were beginning to struggle.

Unfortunately, the neighbor who originally filed the complaint is continuing to complain.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Major Obstacle To Peace In The Middle East

On Tuesday, Israel Today reported on a billboard put up in Nazareth by local Muslims.

The article quotes the billboard which features a picture of an Israeli stop sign:

The poster (and Koran 4:171) reads:

“O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits of your religion. Say nothing but the truth about Allah (The One True God). The Christ Jesus, Son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God and His word conveyed to Mary and a spirit created by Him. So believe in God and His messengers and do not say: ‘Three gods (trinity)’. Cease! It will be better for you. Indeed, Allah is the One and the Only God. His Holiness is far above having a son.”

The article further reports:

Evangelical Christians from Nazareth have become a growing and integral part of the overall Messianic body in the land, while traditional Christians (Catholics, Greek Orthodox, etc) have been waking up to their historical and religious connection to the Jews and are joining the Israeli army in ever greater numbers.

People of different faiths can live together only if the people involved respect each others’ right to their beliefs. This poster is an example of why there will not be peace in the Middle East until the Muslims accept the existence of Israel and accept the fact that everyone should not be forced into Islam. Unfortunately, the Koran encourages evangelism by the sword.

Enhanced by Zemanta