Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Sunday, Bill Whittle at the WCS July 28, 2013

Progressives stress three things:
1. All wealth is unearned:  thus tax rates can go to 120% and it's OK, because the wealthy have "stolen" the wealth anyway!  A natural extension is that people with wealth are "evil" because they "have more than their fair share"! This is why the President stresses the "good fortune" of wealthy people and why they should pay more taxes. Putting in 18 hour days for years of course has NOTHING to do with success, right?

2. Everyone's "special"....meaning NO ONE is special! Therefore, no reason to strive to excel, right? No reason to set goals or engage in hard work "to get ahead", (after all, that would make those whom you've gotten ahead of "look bad"! That makes you a "selfish" person)!
All you have to do is "show up", and everyone gets a trophy, we all waltz across the finish line at the same time, holding hands, singing "Kum Bah Yah!" After all, we don't want winners and losers, because it might "hurt someone's  feelings"....It's why the progressive women in British schools have done away with intramural sports.

3. "We're just here to help!" But it all boils down to we give YOU "free shit", and in exchange, you give us your vote and your freedom!

The Conservative answer:
1. Freedom
2. Private Property
3. Virtue

1. Freedom: do you want to be "left alone" or do you want someone "telling you what to do?" Or better yet, do YOU like "telling people what to do?" This is what "Freedom" is all about! One must NOT take it for granted!

2. Private Property: if you are a true socialist, then you subscribe to "from all according to their ability, to each according to their need", right?  Well, then, give us your smart phone. We will sell it and give the $100 to some homeless person downtown!  What? You are reluctant to give up your smart phone? You're being "greedy, selfish, and not caring for the poor!" Maybe you're more conservative than you'll admit! It's not OK to be "generous with someone else's money"!

3. Virtue:  this means "don't be a jerk"!Have respect for someone's space, property and to keep your word. Everyone hates a "Buddy fucker", do they not? Yet the Progressives teach the school kids to inform on their parents and their friends if they are "not environmentally sensitive" by not recycling the trash or if they say politically incorrect things.  Is this not akin to the Communist Young Pioneers, or the Hitler Jugend?  Totalitarianism and freedom are incompatible.


Thursday, July 11, 2013

Friday, July 5, 2013

Egyptian Street Reaction to Obama's ties to the vicious Muslim Brotherhood.


 

The Radical Salafists over reached, and thought that they could pass laws that would institute an Islamic State in Egypt.  They expected the law abiding secular middle class to just roll over and accept their enslavement.  The Marxist-Salafist coalition currently in the White House believe the same thing about the American people. 

Pictures of the Egyptian street of a few days ago that were not seen in mainstream media sources.  
http://directorblue.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/15-photos-from-tahrir-square-protests.html

ISLAMOPHOBIA


A Proposed Definition of Islamophobia by EMISCO[1], Warsaw, 8 October 2012


We will highlight the proposed definition in Green.

Islamophobia is a form of intolerance and discrimination motivated with fear, mistrust and hatred of Islam and its adherents. It is often manifested in combination with racism, xenophobia, anti-immigrant sentiments and religious intolerance.

Religious Intolerance: the West must be “tolerant” of Islamic intolerance! The West must tip toe around Islamic “sensitivity” concerning pictures of Muhammad, the Qur’an, and other things. Yet the Muslims routinely burn churches, kill Christians and desecrate Holy sites of the religions of others. How can the Muslims accuse the West of “Intolerance” when they will not allow Christian churches built in Saudi Arabia or even allow non-Muslims in Mecca itself? What about the attacks against Christians in Nigeria, Pakistan, Iraq and elsewhere that occur almost daily?

Fear, mistrust and “hatred of Islam”: there have been over 20,000 attacks[2] by Muslims since Sept 11, 2001 that have killed thousands. Can the Muslims expect people to disregard this wonton butchery? Most of the attacks have been in the name of Islam. Why would rational people NOT fear and mistrust Muslims who continually tout Islam as a “religion of peace” and then turn around and kill innocent people? Murdering non-believers in the name of Islam makes “Hatred of Islam” a rational natural step leading to self-preservation.

Another aspect of  “religious intolerance” : Islam is hardly a “religion” per se, but a vicious totalitarian political system. But the Muslim Jihad groups hide behind the veil of “religion” when it suits them.  They preach “death to America and death to the Jews” from Mosque pulpits. Yet if anyone takes exception to this overt political stance, the Muslims howl “interference with their religious practice”.

 The key: there is NO separation between religion and politics in Islam. Therefore, we need to treat Islam as the subversive political movement that it really is!

Manifestations of Islamophobia include hate speech, violent acts and discriminatory practices, which can be manifested by both non-state actors and state officials.

“Hate speech” is an amorphous term that is hard to define. The OIC is working hard to undermine our Constitution’s First Amendment by passing laws forbidding “denigration of religion”, calling this a form of “hate speech”.  The key here is understanding that “denigration”, “insult”, “demeaning” or any other such terms fall under the rubric of “slander”. The definition here is crucial.

The West defines “slander” as saying something untrue that damages someone’s reputation. But this is NOT the Shari’a definition!

 In Islam, merely to say something about Islam they don’t like is “slander[3]”! Or revealing something about Islam that Muslims don’t want revealed is “slander”. The truth or falsity of what’s being said has nothing to do with it!

By contrast, in the West truth is an absolute defense against charges of slander and liable!

 To pass such laws would take the discussion and/or criticism of Islam off the table in our society. This would render the West defenseless in this our free market place of Ideas, (which, of course, is the whole point!)

Violent Acts: considering the 20,000 attacks of Jihad by Muslims since Sept 11, 2001, who are they to complain about “violent attacks” by “Islamophobes”? For 2011, the FBI report on Hate Crime Statistics[4] classified most of the hate crimes as against Jews (63.2%) and not against Muslims (12.5%). Even at that, many of the so-called “hate crimes” against Muslims were phony, perpetrated by Muslims themselves to generate “victimhood righteous indignation”![5]

Discriminatory Practices: What the Muslims mean here is our not accommodating their demands that we discontinue our cultural practices and institute theirs! We must suspend Labor Day and replace it with “Eid al Fitr” celebrations! If Muslim women can’t wear burkas that shows only their eyes for their driver’s license photos, that’s “discrimination”! If a school system fails to celebrate Muslim holidays and to discontinue Christian ones, or fails to force halal food on everyone in the school cafeteria, that’s “discrimination” against Muslims!


Islamophobic rhetoric associates Muslims with terrorism and portrays them as an international and domestic threat. It makes stereotypical allegations about Muslims as a monolithic group of people whose culture is backward and incompatible with human rights and democracy.

The catch here again is in the definitions. What we define as “terrorism” the Muslims define as “Jihad”, which is NOT terrorism in their book! Jihad is defined as “War against non-Muslims to establish the religion…..”[6], and is a “communal obligation”[7] of all Muslims. Muslims define “terrorism” as killing Muslims without right[8].

Sura 9:5 in the Qur’an states “…then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war);” Is there any reason the world should not take them at their word, judging from the 1400 years of warfare against the non-Muslim world?  Why would non-Muslims, domestic and international, NOT feel threatened?

The Muslims themselves strive to be a ‘monolithic group’! The Organization of Islamic Co-operation(OIC) continually refers to the world-wide “Ummah”, defined as “those who accept the call of the Prophet.”[9] Why would stating this fact be a sign of “Islamophobia”?

And as for “being backward and incompatible with human rights and democracy” , Muslims consider “human rights” as defined under the Shari’a.  This means non-believers and women have no rights at all. That should be enough to show its incompatibility with our Western concept of democracy. The Shari’a dates from the Seventh Century, complete with medieval barbarous punishments ( like the cutting off hands and feet as well as beheadings). So yes, we in the West DO consider such things “backward”!

Other examples of Islamophobic rhetoric in political discourse, the media, schools, work place and in the religious sphere involve, but are not limited to:

- Calling for banning and/or restricting visibility and practices of Islam in public space on the grounds that Islam is not a religion but an oppressive ideology;

Throwing acid in the faces of women who aren’t wearing Burkas is a “practice of Islam in a public space” that should be banned!

Mosques habitually shut down traffic in the middle of New York or Paris on a Friday, illegally taking over a couple of square blocks to “pray”. This is to demonstrate Islam’s dominance, not a legitimate religious practice.  This should be banned. What other “religious groups” do such things? This is an abuse of our tradition of freedom of religion.



- Accusing Muslims of not willing to integrate in the society where they live in, but imposing their own values and culture;

Yet to quote from an OIC document:[11]

“…to firmly establish the tolerant values of Islam, to coordinate all genuine efforts, and to preserve Islamic identity in the Muslim immigrant communities and minorities in the West, the Organization believes that serious cultural action can only have its objectives accomplished by constructive dialogue.”[12]

To “preserve Islamic identity” is the definition of not integrating into the Host society. This includes keeping their children in Madrassas and isolated  from non-Islamic children and non-Islamic influences.

What Muslims mean by “constructive dialogue” are threats and intimidation of the host society in their demands for accommodation!

The progressive assumption is that Muslims will integrate into Western society just as has every other immigrant community. But to quote further the same document:

“This has driven these countries to put forward certain plans relating to social, cultural and educational fields, all of which target the “integration” of immigrant communities and in the existing system with its secular options and morals. However, these plans have always been resisted, especially when they involve Muslim communities. This resistance is motivated primarily by the insistence of these Muslim communities on standing by their identity and the authentic Islamic peculiarity.”[13]

It’s clear, then, that the Muslims themselves work diligently to preserve their “authentic Islamic pecularity”, to NOT assimilate and to preserve their “values and culture”. To accuse people who state these facts as being “Islamophobes and haters” that somehow disparage the Muslim community is disingenuous and counter-factual. It’s more a case of “revealing something about Islam that Muslims don’t want revealed”, (which is the Shari’a definition of “slander”[14]).

 

 Describing Muslims as a demographic time-bomb which will become a numerical majority where they are minority for the time-being;

Here is a relevant article on the subject by a Western scholar:

America’s Future Belongs to Islam


by PAUL L. WILLIAMS, PHD February 6, 2013

(Author of Crescent Moon Rising)

Islam, according to newly released data from the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, is now the fastest growing religion in America, verifying President Barack Obama's claim that the United States is "no longer a Judeo-Christian country."

How many Muslims now live within the country remains anyone's guess, since the U.S. Census Bureau neglects to collect data on religious identification. A 2008 study by Cornell University projected that the number of Muslims in America had climbed from 1.6 million in 1995 to 7 million.[i] A U.S. News and World Report survey, which was conducted at the same time, placed the figure at 5 million,[ii] while the Pew Research Center set the number at 2.35 million.

But Pew researchers admit that their survey was not thorough since it neglected to take into account immigrant and poor black Muslims.[iii] What's more, these researchers only contacted Americans with telephone landlines and failed to take into account the fact that nearly 50% of U.S. residents and age 18-35 and the nearly 100% of the illegal immigrants who communicate exclusively by cell phones.[iv]

Muslim organizations, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), supported the Cornell University projection of 7 million - - based on mosque attendance.[v]

In any case, all demographers agree that throughout the coming decades, the faith of the Prophet Mohammed will continue to impact and transform all aspects of American life: social, political, and economic. They further maintain that, save for a cataclysmic sea-change in population trends, Islam by 2050 will emerge as the nation's dominant religion.[15]

Yet in another newspaper article in the UK one of the British Jihadi leaders speaks of a “Tsunami of immigrants” that will deliver the UK to Islam:


Choudary urges fanatics to scrounge for holy war [16]

In the spotlight ... Anjem Choudary was filmed by The Sun at 3 meetings.

SCROUNGING hate preacher Anjem Choudary has told fanatics to copy him by going on benefits — urging: "Claim your Jihad Seeker's Allowance." He cruelly ridiculed non-Muslims who held down 9-to-5 jobs all their lives and said sponging off them made plotting holy war easier. The Sun secretly filmed him over three meetings also saying leaders such as David Cameron and Barack Obama should be KILLED, grinning as he branded the Queen "ugly" and predicting a "tsunami" of Islamic immigrants would sweep Europe. Father-of-four Choudary, who has praised terrorist outrages, pockets more than £25,000 a year in benefits — £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. He laughed as he told supporters: … Former lawyer Choudary — twice banned from running organizations under the Terrorism Act — said some revered Islamic figures had only ever worked one or two days a year, adding: "The rest of the year they were busy with jihad (holy war) and things like that."…

This shows that Muslims assure their followers that demographics will deliver Europe and the West into their hands, yet they ridicule anyone in the West who comments on this as an “Islamophobe and hater”, spreading lies about Islam.

They even pay co-opted intellectuals to write books such as “The Myth of the Muslim Tide”[17] to assure the West, ridicule the “Islamophobes” and lull the target society back to sleep, continually beating on the “persecuted and misunderstood Muslim” false narrative.


- Charging Muslims with not being loyal to the country that they live in but to the Muslim community as a whole;

To quote Muhammad al-Sanna’ani: “We say to the Kuffār:The borderless loyalty is a religious sentiment of the people in your midst. As long as the Muslims remain in your focus, you will remain in ours. No matter the security precautions you may take, you cannot kill a borderless idea.”[18]

And Major Nadal Hasan, the Ft Hood shooter, on slide 48 of his slide show:[19]

·       If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against the injustices of the “Infidels”: ie, enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.

Then on Slide 49:

·       God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens hell.

·       Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not.

What Westerners need to comprehend is that when Muslims say they only want to “practice their religion” this includes the Qur’anic mandate to conduct Jihad against all non-believers! There cannot be loyalty to the “Kafir” host society!


- Advocating collective expulsion of Muslims based on the accusation that they are enemies within;

Expulsion of Jihadists is societal common sense considering their mandate and intention to destroy our society as enumerated in Q9:5, Q9:29, Q8:60 to name but three Ayats of many.

- Dehumanizing and demonizing Muslims as a collective "other" defined only on religious basis, leading to the racialisation of the "Muslim category";

This is merely an attempt to accuse of “racism” those who call out Muslims for their policy of Jihad. It is also an attempt by Jihad groups to hide behind the curtain of “religion” to obscure their goals.

“Race” is a biological attribute, whereas Islam is a belief attribute. Muslims come in all races, from black Africans in Northern Nigeria to Caucasian Bosnians to Asian Indonesians. Charges of “racism” are a misdirection and red herring. To hold Muslims accountable for their murderous Jihad against a civilized world is NOT “racism” but the truth!

And yes, suicide bombing innocent civilians IS demonic and dehumanizing!  To say that objections to such Muslim attacks is ”only on a religious basis” is a twisting of definitions. Are we supposed to be prohibited from objecting to Islamic murderers because they are committing their crimes in the name of Allah?

- Accusing Muslims of being responsible for wrongdoing committed by other Muslim individuals or groups;

The Muslim leaders advocate the unity of all Muslims as the “Ummah” or a united world-wide Islamic Nation without regard to national borders. They intimidate the West with language such as “you cannot insult 1.2 billion Muslims!” Therefore, they cannot disavow Jihadist outrages committed by Jihadist groups who state these acts are committed “in defense of the Ummah”.

- Denying contributions that Muslims made and have been making to the society and World;

Islam is a raider society borne of the deserts. The Qur’an is filled with instructions concerning slaves and booty. Islamic society does not traditionally create wealth but takes it from others by force. Most Muslim immigrants climb onto welfare and consider it “Jizya from the kuffar to which they are entitled”. To quote Anwar al – Alwlaki: [20]

“The greatest form of income is that of the spoils of war and the greatest profession is being a soldier in the path of Allah. The income generated from booty taken by force from the enemies of Allah is purer and more virtuous than income generated  from being a businessman, an engineer, a physician, or a farmer, simply because that was the source of income that Allah destined for his Messenger Muhammad.”

In the UK, the main contribution of Muslims is filling the permanent burgeoning welfare roles and practicing “Civilizational Jihad” on the host society. This undercuts the Dhimmi[21] apologists that attribute Jihad to poverty and “blame the West” for not providing more economic opportunity to young Muslim men.

 According to Wikipedia, over 800 Jews have been awarded the Nobel Prize over a vast array of subjects: for Muslims, only ten. And half of this number has been awarded since 2000; and at that, only the Peace Prize.

- Rejecting any possibility of co-operation between Muslims and non-Muslims.

When the basic stance of Islam is that of Jihad against non-believers, what basis is there for co-operation?  To quote Q5:51:

“O ye who believe! Take not Jews or Christians for your protectors: they are but protectors to each other. And amongst you that turn to them is one of them.”

Acts of Islamophobia, which can be committed by non-state actors or state officials, include:

- Physical attacks, which are carried out spontaneously by individuals or organized groups, on individuals, community institutions and property that are rightly or wrongly associated with Muslims or Islam;

Again: there have been 20,000 Qur’anically inspired Jihad attacks world-wide against non-Muslims. They have all been done in the name of Islam. How can Muslims then whine about these physical attacks being associated with Islam itself?

Here is a suitable metaphor: if you have a Muslim setting fire in a theatre, shouting “fire” and trying to warn theatre goers of the growing blaze is considered “Islamophobia” and “hate speech” against the Muslim who’s setting the blaze! The Muslim will then have you arrested for “bigotry”, stating that “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” would be an abuse of free speech!

Discriminatory immigration and naturalization procedures directly or indirectly excluding Muslims or placing them in a disadvantageous situation in comparison with people of other religious origin;

This is a perfect example of Muslims hiding behind a religious cloak for political purposes!

Excluding Muslims from entering the West is entirely justified when Muslims immigrate to the West as “Civilizational Jihadists” with the intent of destroying Western society. Their writings demonstrate they have no intention of integrating and contributing to the West save to “destroy its miserable house”.[22]

Their actions show they are building enclaves of Islamic State within the body politic of Western societies which are intended to displace and destroy the Host civilization. Perfect examples are the French “Zones Urbaines Sensible”[23]. They are 751 areas in France that Muslims have occupied, and into which French authorities no longer venture. They are areas in which the Shari’a law is enforced by the local Sura Council and French law and culture no longer apply.

- Racial/religious profiling measures, including stop and search, surveillance of religious and cultural Muslim organizations, and no flight lists, which have disproportional impact on Muslims;

Profiling Muslims is neither racial nor religious: as we have said, Islam is a belief attribute, not a biological one. Islam is a vicious totalitarian political ideology that has religious aspects. The fact remains that all Jihadists are Muslim because Islamic Doctrine calls for Jihad against unbelievers,(see Q9:5, Q9:29, Q8:60 and others). Therefore, it makes perfect sense to profile Muslims at airports, and to exclude from aircraft those individuals who espouse acts of violent Jihad or have ties to Jihad organizations.

- Restrictions, by either legislative or administrative means, on the visibility of religious symbols targeting at exclusively Muslims, as in the case of prohibition of minarets.

Historically, Muslims have always built triumphalist Mosques in conquered lands. This is why the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul is being converted to a Mosque, and why the Cathedral of Cordoba in Spain has gone back and forth from Church to Mosque over the centuries.

 There is an Arab word: “Tamkeen” which means “enablement or empowerment”[24]. When the Muslim groups make their demands for Halal foods in schools, or want to build a Mosque in a Western City bigger than any of the local Cathedrals, it is to further “Tamkeen” which is “empowering” the Muslims in the host society.

Mosques are a symbol of and a center for domination of the host society, a “Fortress of Faith”. Most people in the West think of a Mosque as only a “Muslim Church” in a Western context. But a Mosque in the West to us is as a US Army Frontier Fort was to the Indians..

When they are built, they are intentionally designed to be bigger than the neighboring churches and cathedrals to symbolize this domination,(tamkeen.) A good example is the huge Mosque currently under construction in Ft Collins, Colorado. Anyone opposed to this symbol of domination are accused of  “ opposing Faith, discriminating against Muslims, of hatred, Islamophobia and bigotry!”

Institutional Islamophobia is state policies and systematic practices discriminating Muslims based on their religious identity. It poses a serious threat to the security of Muslims because such policies and practices can lead to spreading bias, and therefore be a fertile ground for hate crimes.

There wouldn’t be “bias” against Muslims if they would join the world community of the twenty first century and forsake their seventh century “religious identity” that wages Jihad to impose their Shari’a on all mankind.

Note here how the Muslims twist the argument by capitalizing on the Western confusion over the concept of “religious identity”. Western thought has difficulty NOT separating church and state. If the West defends itself against violent Jihad, the Muslims howl “religious discrimination”. Apologists in the West can’t seem to grasp that the violence IS religious to the Muslims!

Anwar al-Alwaki was correct when he said “America wants an Islam according to its own taste: with no Jihad and no Shari’a!” If Muslims would treat others with respect for their lives and their traditions, they would be treated like any other religious group. But then they wouldn’t be in compliance with Islamic Doctrine.


RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMBAT ISLAMOPHOBIA

In order to combat Islamophobia and foster tolerance and mutual understanding based on the international human rights standards, States should:

- Take all necessary measures in their legal systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment, violence and discrimination in all walks of life;

This is utter nonsense: the majority of the violence, hate crimes, and discrimination is against the Jews[25]. Muslim hatred of Jews is built into Islamic Doctrine, as Q5:51 shows.

 The Muslim motive with the Courts is to conduct “lawfare” with their vast petro-billions, using our own court system to silence, cripple and bankrupt anyone who speaks the truth about Islam.

When Muslims reference “International Human Rights Standards” they mean “The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights under Islam[26]”. It is a document that codifies Islamic supremacy, and deprives women and non-believers of the Western definition human rights. For example:

ARICLE 1(b) All human beings are Allah's subjects, and the most loved by Him are those who are most beneficial to His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.

Thus, believers are superior to non-believers, and more loved by Allah.   Out the window goes the Western concept of equal protection under the law.
- Develop and implement comprehensive educational strategies and programme for combating Islamophobia;


Translation: to use the schools to whitewash Islam and to rewrite their bloody history of conquest and enslavement of millions over the centuries.


- Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia;

Translation: use their petro-billions to build organizations, buy influence with officials and intimidate anyone who opposes them.


- Include in their integration policies programmes and activities addressing Islamophobia and its roots causes;

The “root cause” of “Islamophobia” is Muslim behavior: to wit, Jihad against unbelievers! It is bizarre that Muslims intimidate and kill people, yet seek to label any adverse reaction as “Islamophobia” and something to be outlawed.  But even more bizarre is that the Muslim groups get a free pass from the Mainstream Media in the West and are getting away with it!

- Record, monitor and maintain reliable information and statistics about Islamophobic hate crimes committed within their territory and make such reports publically available;

As we have shown, most of the “hate crimes” are against Jews, as FBI online statistics show[27].

- Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;
Muslim groups recently put out bounties on the lives of webmasters who maintain websites that publicize Muslim threats, intimidation and other outrages[28]. Do the Muslims consider such behavior reassuring and acceptable to Western society? Is this another example of “The Religion of Peace”?


- Take all necessary measures in order to prevent racial/religious profiling and other forms of institutionalized Islamophobia;

- Conduct public awareness campaigns and specific programmes for governmental officials in order to combat Islamophobia;

 

Translation: sue, intimidate and harass individuals, organizations and government officials to the point that Muslims become untouchable! This strategy enabled Major Nidal Hasan, the Ft Hood shooter, to remain in his position. His obvious radicalization and disloyalty were overlooked, lest any Superior Officer mentioning the subject be accused of “Islamophobia”. Only after 13 soldiers lost their lives were authorities forced to do something.

 Even though Major Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he fired into his victims, Army authorities were STILL intimidated into silence concerning Islam. The Jihad attack was whitewashed in the Official Report as “workplace violence”[29]. Nowhere is Islam mentioned.

- Encourage and support intergovernmental human rights agencies and non-governmental organizations dealing with Islamophobia;


- Strive to develop necessary mechanisms and standards to increase international co-operation in combating Islamophobia.

One of the eight categories of those who can receive Zakat are “Those whose Hearts are to be Reconciled”[30]. Muslim groups spend a lot of time and money in the UN, the EU, the OCSE and elsewhere  holding  and attending Conferences, buying influence, and passing resolutions overriding  Western traditions of Free Speech.

 A prime example is from the 39th OIC Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, held in Djibouti, November 2012: Resolution 1/39,  Action paragraph 7:

7. Notes with grave concern the increasing trend of Islamophobic measures in Western countries, stresses the responsibility of those States to insure full respect to Islam and all divine religions and the inadmissibility of using freedom of expression or press as a pretext to defame religion, and calls for refrain from imposing restrictions, in any form whatsoever, on cultural and religious rights and freedoms.

Translation: You can see clearly in this paragraph the blatant attack on free speech. Again, the “defamation of religion” refers to the Shari’a definition of “slander” previously defined, that of saying something about Islam Muslims don’t like, or revealing things about Islam Muslims don’t want revealed.[31] People in the West need to be attentive to the differences in definitions!

 


This proposal is supported by: European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (Denmark-France), Jewish-Muslim Cooperation Platform (Belgium), Austrian Muslim Initiative, Collectif Contre l'Islamophobie en France (CCIF), JPL MONDE (France), Federation of Western Thrace Turks in Europe (ABTTF - Germany), Ethnic Debate Forum and Fair Play (Denmark), The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP-UK), Western Thrace Minority University Graduates Association (Greece), Muslim Community of Bulgaria, Muslim Committee on Human Rights in Central Asia (Kazakhstan), Turkish Community in Germany (TGD).

A closer examination of all these groups reveals less than meets the eye. With the petro-billions the West provides them, the Salafists form many front groups.  The last figure I heard was that the Muslim Brotherhood had formed no fewer than 4100 front groups in the United States.

Conclusion:

Muslims know they cannot risk an open debate on Islamic Doctrine and the Shari’a with the West. This appalling brutal seventh century legal system would be rejected wholesale in the twenty first century were it examined honestly in the full light of day.

 If the true nature of Islamic Doctrine and the historical treatment of non-believers were to become known, the societal instinct for survival in the West should begin to restrict the Islamic strategy of “Civilizational Jihad”, (assuming that the self-loathing suicidal multiculturalists could be overcome).

Muslim groups have no choice but to force a change in subject by attacking and intimidating those who dare mention the realities of Islamic Doctrine.

 




 



[1] European Muslim initiative for Social Cohesion
[3] “Reliance of the Traveller”, Amana Publications, Beltsville, MD USA, 1991 §r2.2 , r3.1
[6] “Reliance of the Traveller” Amana Publications, Beltsville, MD USA, 1991 §o9.0
[7] Ibid, §o9.1
[10] <tastyinfidelicacies.blogspot.com>
[11] “Strategy of Islamic Cultural Action in the West” IESCO – Rabat Morocco 2001
[12] Ibid, preface
[13] Ibid, page 9
[14] See “Reliance of the Traveller” §3.1
[16] EXCLUSIVE By STEPHEN MOYES The Sun (UK) Feb 16, 2013
http://www.investigativeproject.org/ext/10363 IPT NOTE: Video link posted with article.

[17] http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Muslim-Tide-Immigrants-Threaten/dp/0307951170/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1365637394&sr=1-1&keywords=myth+of+muslim+tide
[18] “Inspire Magazine” Winter 1431|2010 page 24
[20] “Inspire Magazine” Winter 1431 | 2010 page 55
[21]  A non-Muslim living under the protection of a Muslim State “500 + Islamic Words You Should Know”, Dorrie O’Brian, Dobrian Global Enterprises, Inc. April 2013 p.64  ISBN978-0-988612-0-6
[22] See “An expalatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” Muhammad Akram, 5/22/1991 page 7 of 18, paragraph 4
[25] Accessed June 29, 2013
[27] See footnote 25
[30] See “Reliance of the Traveller” Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Amana Publications, Beltsville MD, 1991 §h8.14 (1) page 270
[31] Ibid, §r2.2, page 730 and §r3.1 page 740

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me