Appeasing the crocodile with Chrislam, or a failure to heed history

Of late there has been a rush to spread the word about an error prone and wrong direction movement within the Christian community called 'Chrislam.'

What is it about islam these well intentioned but deluded people do not get or understand? There will never be nor can there ever be peace with islam. There can never be another religion equal to or supreme to islam as it is forbidden in the qur'an. Jesus Christ is not an equal in the qur'an or to mohammad. He is not even a prophet. How can there even be a discussion with islam and muslims when the qur'an has what it does inisde of it's covers? The ONLY way this misguided movement called Chrislam can move forward is if infidels believe all the taqiyya and deceptions peddled by those in the muslim community who are out to once again snooker those Christian and Jews who think there can be a joint, happy melding of islam and Christianity.

As I have siad before and will repeat until I am called home:

"There is no peace within islam and with islam, there can NEVER be peace."

As islam is NOT a religion, Chrislam falls even farther into the abyss of pandering to the dope of hoping we can build peace with islam,.

I have read several rebuttals or refutations to Chrislam and rejected all of them as too apologetic and leaving the door open. Then our good friend D.L.Adams sent this my way and I knew this needed to be posted for all here to read. This appeared in Big Peace several days ago and I have had a horrible week and needed a

couple of days to recover from. Posts will be gradually coming back as I rest up and I sincerely apologize for the absence of new posts and thanks to HermitLion and other contributors.

Chrislam, as the name suggests, is a growing movement wherein some Christians are seeking to find common ground with Muslims. Indeed, it actually seeks to combine Christianity with Islam. It is a syncretistic movement that speaks about “spirituality without boundaries”. Whenever you hear that sort of talk, you should start heading for the hills.

Much like the surge in conversions to Islam after 9/11 this extreme denial of the core tenets of both religions in order to seek a pleasant (but altogether fictional) middle ground of “understanding” is nothing more than a bizarre extension of the “coexistence” theme that entirely denies a conflict exists at all between Islam and every other religion on the planet. The process works like this:

1. Remove context.

2. Deny the fundamental values and concepts of Christian doctrine.

3. Deny the fundamental values and obligations of Islam (including hatred of Christians and Jews, denial of the divinity of Jesus, and the universal requirement of jihad).

4. Ignore context, history, and common sense.

5. Create movement of surrender and pretend that it is a boon and a way to “peace and coexistence.”

While Winston Churchill’s bust was unceremoniously returned to England when the current administration took power and old alliances and friendships were cracked and denied, Churchill’s insight will forever give us a boost to whit

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

This new denialist movement is important because it might someday lead to a kind of peace. However, the “peace” between Islam and Christians that is understood by Muslims is not the same as that understood by Christians. There is likely no sign on the door of these “Chrislam” churches that says, “Surrender hope and your Christianity all ye who enter.”

************************************************************************

‘Chrislam’ – Core Values Without a Core

By D.L. Adams

Two great challenges facing the West in our nasty and brutish post 9 -11 world are how to interact with Muslim states and if it is possible to integrate Muslim citizens into our open, too often self-destructive, hyper-tolerant cultures. The European model of unfettered Muslim immigration to foster further multicultural deconstructions of the character of the host societies has now been shown to be a misguided and disastrous error.

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. (The Telegraph, 10/23/2009)

Angela Merkel’s comments several months ago that multiculturalism in Germany is an “utter failure” illustrate the point clearly. Upheavals across Europe centered around Islamic violence and Muslim demands for the host culture to submit to Islam, in Britain, Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, etc., are illustrative.

An extraordinary speech by David Cameron at the Munich Security Conference on February 5th, (which may or may not have purposely coincided in timing with an English Defence League rally), suggest that even in Britain the Utopian multicultural edifice, pushed to breaking by Islamic demands, violence, and failure to integrate, is beginning to finally crack.

“Let’s properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights – including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

“These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with (those) organisations,” he added. (BBC, 02/05/2011)

Europe must stamp out intolerance of Western values within its own Muslim communities and far-right groups if it is to defeat the roots of terrorism, British Prime Minister David Cameron said Saturday. (AP)

“If we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past,” Cameron said. “Instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we – as governments and societies – have got to confront it, in all its forms.” (AP, 02/05/2011, see above for link)

The great conundrum appears to be how can we in the West best get along with the followers of a cruel, brutal, misogynist and intolerant ideology of submission and supremacism. Those of good will refer to their Muslim friends who are kind and gentle and forswear violence and, most importantly, would “never do jihad” as illustrations and even proof of the “true Islam.” Such inevitably unhappy and frustrated folk reference the now failed assertion that Islam has been hijacked (by terrorists and killers) and that “true Islam” is “the religion of peace.” How much easier things would be if only they were right. But, they’re not.

The kind Muslim friend, a friend of kafirs/non-Muslims, may well be a “good person” and forswear jihad, but this is not what being a “good Muslim” is about. Allah and Mohammed both command that all adherents of Islam (slaves of Allah); all those who have “submitted” must participate in jihad and/or support those who do. To abjure this obligation for jihad is considered a grave sin with serious consequences.

And what is jihad but war against non-Muslims everywhere forever until the entire world is under Islamic rule and Allah’s religion is the only religion on the planet. After all, Mohammed’s mission was to convert the earth to Islam.

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah ’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”

(Bukhari, Hadith, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)

There seems to be a terrible disconnect and ignorance where Islamic doctrine is concerned. Allah and Mohammed are found only in the doctrine. The doctrine can be read and understood by anyone, Muslim or kafir (non-Muslim). A “good/moderate Muslim” according to Islamic doctrine is someone like Osama Bin Laden because he actively fights against the kafir to advance the cause of Islam as per the commands of Allah and Mohammed.

Our deep confusion about “moderate” Islam and “extremist/hijacked” Islam versus “the true Islam” originates in our mistaken use of terminology. We have taken the term “moderate” out of its proper context – a context which can only be found in the doctrine of Islam – Koran, Sira, and Hadith.

Those kind Muslims who are friends to kafirs, while such friendships are strictly forbidden in the Islamic doctrine, are extremistsbecause they are ignoring the commands of Allah and Mohammed. The moderateMuslims are those who blow up our aircraft and kill our innocent civilians and scream Islamist slogans as they shoot their unarmed fellow soldiers at US Army posts. Our misuse of terms is one of our greatest errors as it confuses the issue and prevents us from understanding and responding effectively, or at all.

Americans are tolerant people. We live in an open society. When newcomers arrive in the United States it is assumed across the cultural spectrum that they are here to be American and to partake of the freedoms that we enjoy here. We also hate war, though our long history of warfare would suggest that when we do fight – we are very serious about it and mainly successful.

Our military history means that we have a strong martial spirit and heritage. Our Civil War in particular showed the world the kind of hardy stuff of which Americans are made. The western democracies are lucky that this is so as the outcomes of WW1 and WW2 would have been different if it were not so.

Since the end of WW2 and certainly through the 60s and to the present time we seem to have forgotten much of this heritage of certitude and definitiveness -and what it means. Our desire as a society to be open, welcoming and even enlightened has brought us now to a point where we refuse to be discriminating. Everyone is welcome in America – even those whose doctrine tells them that our laws and government are illegitimate and must be replaced with Islamic Sharia and a new caliphate.

Fundamentally, our now-broken culture of multiculturalism, post-modern denialism and guilt would have us believe that ours is a culture no better than any other and that, as a rule, no culture is any better than another. A radical form of equivalence has overtaken us so that we find it difficult if not impossible to make any value judgment (that is, a discrimination) based upon comparisons between ideologies, foundational concepts, and beliefs.

What this means is that we have abandoned our core beliefs in favor of multiculturalism, post-modernism, guilt and despair which has brought us the now ubiquitous fraud of radical equivalence.

This silliness without doubt also brought us the nightmare at Fort Hood and similar horrors. After all, the ridiculous protectors of multiculturalism in our institutions must have said to one another, just because Hasan declared himself a jihadist and expressed anger and hatred toward the country he served in uniform didn’t necessarily mean that he was a potential threat. Obviously, they could not have been more wrong.

We know the bloody results of this absurd non-thinking which continues to keep us mired in Iraq and Afghanistan – both countries having Sharia law and Islam as the foundations of their new “states.” We helped them write their Constitutions. These documents are foundationally in opposition to our own core concepts of freedom, tolerance, and decency that have always characterized American society. This is all a national nightmare of ignorance, wishful thinking, confusion and despair from which we must awaken quickly.

If one is observant one can see the famous “COEXIST” bumper-sticker on vehicles in most every state. Each of the letters in the word “COEXIST” is a symbol; the Islamic crescent is there, the Jewish star, the Christian cross, the “peace sign”, etc., – but it is all a multicultural dream/fraud, and a lie. Coexistence requires that all parties share in the desire for it, and actively work toward it. Peaceful coexistence absolutely must be a “two-way street.”

There is a great deal of outreach, “bridge building” and “interfaith dialoguing” from the Jewish and Christian communities, but mainly silence from those who have submitted to Allah and Mohammed, (unless the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is considered a “bridge” rather than a cruel, tone deaf affront). The new self-defeating absurdist “Chrislam” movement is perhaps the most egregious of all.

In the same wishful thinking/ignorance mode of the “coexist” bumper sticker marketing program, “Chrislam” appears to be gaining traction in some Christian churches. This profoundly confused new Christian movement of appeasement/surrender to Islam, masquerading as “dialogue” and “bridge building,” should be the cause of great alarm. Bill Muehlenberg, a theologian, describes it succinctly:

Chrislam, as the name suggests, is a growing movement wherein some Christians are seeking to find common ground withMuslims. Indeed, it actually seeks to combine Christianity with Islam. It is a syncretistic movement that speaks about “spirituality without boundaries”. Whenever you hear that sort of talk, you should start heading for the hills.

Much like the surge in conversions to Islam after 9/11 this extreme denial of the core tenets of both religions in order to seek a pleasant (but altogether fictional) middle ground of “understanding” is nothing more than a bizarre extension of the “coexistence” theme that entirely denies a conflict exists at all between Islam and every other religion on the planet. The process works like this:

1. Remove context.

2. Deny the fundamental values and concepts of Christian doctrine.

3. Deny the fundamental values and obligations of Islam (including hatred of Christians and Jews, denial of the divinity of Jesus, and the universal requirement of jihad).

4. Ignore context, history, and common sense.

5. Create movement of surrender and pretend that it is a boon and a way to “peace and coexistence.”

While Winston Churchill’s bust was unceremoniously returned to England when the current administration took power and old alliances and friendships were cracked and denied, Churchill’s insight will forever give us a boost to whit

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

This new denialist movement is important because it might someday lead to a kind of peace. However, the “peace” between Islam and Christians that is understood by Muslims is not the same as that understood by Christians. There is likely no sign on the door of these “Chrislam” churches that says, “Surrender hope and your Christianity all ye who enter.”

It is understood that Jesus appears in the Koran; Muslims make much of this when trying to convert kafirs to Islam – that is, when they do “dawah.” But Jesus is not divine in the Koran, in fact he did not die on the cross – this means that Islam denies the two core concepts of Christianity – Christ’s divinity and the resurrection.

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger – they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Koran: 4:157

Disturbingly, the central concepts of Christianity are denied in Islamic doctrine. According to the Koran, there is no Trinity, and Allah never had a son. This begs the question that all “Chrislam” proponents must ask themselves: Is the god of Islam the same god of Christianity? The answer is “no.” The concept that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are all co-believers in a kind of unified “Abrahamic tradition” is the foundation of “interfaith dialogue” – unfortunately, it is not so.

O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three” – Cease! (it is) better for you! – Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

Koran: 4:171

Those who suggest (Christians) that Jesus Christ was the Son of God are committing a great blasphemy according to the Koran.

And they say: The Beneficent hath taken unto Himself a son. Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! Whereby almost the heavens are torn, and the earth is split asunder and the mountains fall in ruins, that they should invoke a son for ((Allah)) Most Gracious.

Koran, 19:88-91

Where is the “middle ground” between these diametrically opposed ideologies? What can be the tolerance and “understanding” basis for theological discussions within the walls of a church or synagogue during “Chrislam” events or “bridge building” meetings or “interfaith dialogues?”

Does it give comfort or confusion to Christians (and Jews) who participate in these denialist dawa facades that according to Islamic doctrine Christ returns to earth following the Islamic messiah – but then proceeds to destroy crosses, end Christianity, and kill Jews?

Jesus will descend from heaven and espouse the cause of the Mahdi (Islamic Messiah). The Christians and Jews will see him and recognize his true status. The Christians will abandon their faith in his godhead (sic). (Al-Sadr and Mutahhari “The Awaited Savior,” as quoted in “The Islamic Antichrist” by Joel Richardson, p.55)

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts).

Hadith: Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656

Jesus , the son of Mary will soon descend among the Muslims as a just judge… Jesus will, therefore, judge according to the law of Islam… all people will be required to embrace Islam and there will be no other alternative. (Valiankode, “Doomsday Portents and Prophecies,” 358, as quoted in “The Islamic Antichrist” by Joel Richardson, p. 56, (see above).

Sophie Scholl and her friends of the White Rose are among the few great German heroes of WW2. All freedom loving people, all those who love justice and revere bravery, selflessness, and goodness consider Sophie Scholland her friends true heroes. With few exceptions (e.g., Colonel Stauffenberg), they are among the very few of their countrymen to whom Germans can forever refer back with pride for having actively opposed the Nazi regime.

Susanne Zeller-Hirzel is one of two surviving members of the White Rose group. She spent 6 months in a gestapo jail for her White Rose activities.

Zeller-Hirzel, now an opponent of jihadism, believes that defending our cultures and countries against a rising Islam requires the active participation of the church. In an October, 2009 interview, she said,

I think something terrible needs to happen before Germans awaken. 9/11 was too far away from the German people. The churches fail miserably in the task of informing people about Islamic ideology. That can only happen through grassroots activism, education and instruction. Even if in Europe the churches play an increasingly smaller social role, the people ought to be agitating in church institutions, in the parishes and so forth.

There are core principles that make a Christian a Christian; there are core principles that make an American. Understanding and re-embracing our core principles will make us able once again to be discriminating (in a healthy, self-supporting way) so that our cultures and way of life will not be overrun by an intractable, violent, supremacist ideology that views our tolerance, our silly denialism, our “coexistence” bumper stickers and institutional appeasements as nothing more than societal decline and weakness.

We cannot acknowledge and understand (nor defend ourselves against) an oppositional and hostile ideology if we pretend that it is something that it is not. As the saying goes, “It is what it is” and Islam is nothing if not about Islam itself.

Denialism and our failure to discern and discriminate, the inability to make value judgments based upon our understanding of ourselves and what we stand for and believe make us ripe fodder for the aggressive cultural, ideological, and terror war that is being waged against us. Those people and institutions that pretend an enemy isn’t, and that refuse to discriminate between survival and political correctness and cannot appreciate the quality of their own values versus those of others are the foundations of the deconstruction and ultimate fall of our culture.

We should take the message of Zeller-Hirzel and ignore the dawa and accusations of those whose purpose is our destruction. We always have a choice, and denial of the truth should not be one of them. By way of encouragement Zeller-Hirzel, once of the White Rose, said, “Strive for unity. It makes resistance powerful and courageous.”

Original article is here.

Radical islam and moderate muslims

In my last article on the topic of moderates, I've established that the term 'moderate' is defined by its relativity to what is considered 'extreme', which by itself is a notion quite open to interpretation, and that both of them are used in today's political climate to label people, much like 'bigot', 'racist' and all the other terms used to silence opposition.

The second part of these series will delve deeper into the mentality of islam and muslims, in an attempt to explain why islam itself is a belief system that creates extreme mindsets, and rewards extreme actions. To think otherwise of it is an incorrect assumption at best, and a dangerous wishful thinking at worst.
To a first-world person unaquainted with the islamic world and its scripture, it is natural to assume that muslims are people just like him, who wear different clothes. Decades of relativism have instilled the false notion that 'all religions are the same'; that there are no deep, unbridgeable gaps between different cultures, beliefs, and values. That is why many Hindu girls naively marry muslims, thinking they are 'moderate', only to wake up in a nightmare.
But the quran is nothing like the Bible and the Torah, save for the early verses that were stolen directly from them. It is not a collection of stories about different people from different times, mixed with moral fables and ancient mythology. The Torah commands men to believe in God alone, not his messengers, or the book; nor does it claim to be holy and unchangeable - these are all Rabbinical teachings from later centuries, that came as result of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
In harsh contrast to that, the quran reads more like a series of direct commands, in which one man - mohammed, gives explicit orders to his followers on how to expand and enforce islam. Commands such as "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Quran 9:29) are not vague metaphores open to interpratation. Moreover, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of allah.
Not only is more than 60% of the quran about the kafir (unbeliever), but conflicting verses are solved by the rule of abbrogation, which means that if something in a later part of the quran contradicts a passage appearing earlier in it, the later part takes precedence. Historically, as mohammed became more militarily successful and power hungry, so did the quran become more violent and hateful, since he saw no more need to seek co-existance with the defeated kuffar.
To someone who isn't particularly religious, it may seem funny to take these commands seriously, but to a muslim these are the words of allah, and he has no right to doubt them - because to doubt allah is to become an apostate, to whom hell awaits, and who lives in fear of being murdered by devout muslims. Therefore, verses like "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (Quran 5:33) should worry us all.
These words were not written just so mohammed can vent his anger and frustration - there is a purpose, and a strong, primordial element behind them.
The purpose was given in the most plain sense by Caliph Abu Bakr, mohammed's successor, when at the Battle of Qadisiyya, in the year 636, he sent a message saying:
"Convert to Islam, and then you will be safe, for if you don't, you should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life."
The goal of islam to create a warring supernation, whose members are either prepared to die in battle, or give birth to those who do.
For a true muslim, jihad is inseparable from islam, because islam was spread through warfare. That is its only merit, and the only 'proof' of its supremacy. Personal enlightenment, such as in Buddhism, is not a factor at all in islam, but killing non-muslims is, because a nation of wise meditation-practitioners is not a good base for a death-seeking army that hungers for conquest. I repeat, the only proof muslims have of their warlord being a 'prophet', and that the quran is a holy book, is islam's ability to conquer and infest vast parts of this globe.
The muslim supernation (ummah), therefore, must constantly fight enemies - real or imaginary, from within or without, because islam is actually about only one thing, and that thing is - domination.
Understanding this one notion is key to understanding both islam, and its followers.

The mentality of a bully is based upon the notion that "I am better because I can dominate someone else", and Islamic societies are based upon domination: the leaders dominate the people; men dominate women (and camels, and sheep... and goats); muslims as a whole dominate minority groups (just ask these Egyptian Copts).
Notions like honesty and truth are foreign to them, because they do not assist in dominating others, which is why the local merchant in a Moroccan or Turkish bazaar will take as much money from a tourist as he can get away with, unless being forced to lower the price through barter; why they have no problem criticizing the 'decadent west' and plot its destruction, through the same tools it has shared with them, like the internet, television, radio, and comercial airliners. Barter, diplomacy, propaganda, bribery, humiliation, murder and warfare - everything serves only to dominate others, muslim or kuffar.
This is not merely the tradition of desert nomads, but a deliberate design: young men are not allowed to have sex, or drink alcohol, while mosques fill their minds with hateful beliefs, in order to turn them to frustrated human beings, willing to vent on anyone they are allowed to.

The last basic islamic belief I would like to bring here is that of allah being the direct cause of everything, which leads to a lack of personal responsibility: if something goes bad, it is allah's will, and if something goes well, even more so; victory in war is a sign of allah's favor, and defeat is the opposite; a bullet or an arrow do not hit their target because you have aimed well, but because allah wanted your target to be hit; and if you happen to hit someone over the head and kill him, it is not your fault, because it was allah who made your hand move and land the blow.
Some more examples are given to us by Bill O'reilly, author of The Closing of the Muslim Mind:
"For instance, former British Islamist Ed Husain relates that “Hizb ut-Tahrir [an organization dedicated to the restoration of the caliphate] believed that all natural events were acts of God (though in some actions man could exercise free will), hence insurance polices were haram . . . Hizb members could not insure their cars.” Likewise, the use of seatbelts is considered presumptuous. If one’s allotted time has arrived, the seatbelt is superfluous. If it has not, it is unnecessary."

So, what do we get when we combine all these factors - the holy duty of jihad, the culture of dominance, and the belief that allah is the direct cause of everything - together?

First of all, they create a closed circle that cannot be reformed from inside. Any reforms to Islam only made it more extreme (Wahhabism is only 200 and some years old), and whenever a 'moderate' islamic sect is willing to negotiate with non-muslims, even when these negotiations are extremely demanding and one-sided, it is being seen by other muslims as weak.
In accordance with the belief that allah controls everything, leaders who cannot dominate the enemy by warfare, are necessarily not favored by him - that is why yasser arafat and abu-abbas say one thing in English to westerners in peace conferences, but convey an entirely different message to their Arab supporters; why a clever snake like Anuar Sadat, who managed to deprive Israel of Sinai and its oil fields, was still assassinated shortly thereafer; and why Al Zarqawi was betrayed soon after losing the support of local chieftains in Iraq
In fact, the very search for a 'moderate' islamic group to negotiate with, in order to sign papers with, pushes it to radicalize, in order not to lose support from the people it rules over, and at the same time creates even more extreme factions, who see themselves as 'true muslims'.
That is why when the PLO negotiated with Israel, even though its goal remained the destruction of the Jewish state, the Arab settlers still drifted towards the more extreme Hamas, which even now enjoys so much support that the US and Israeli governments won't dare allow its men into Judea and Samaria, knowing full well they will take control from Fatah, whose only real difference is, as put by Daniel Greenfield, "that the extremist wants to cut our head off without talking to us, while the moderate wants to tell us exactly why he wants to cut our head off, and how many heads we can give him to satisfy his bloodlust".
Which is their only choice, really. Because domination is so important for the self-esteem of muslims, both as individuals and as a group, any treaty or compromise are seen as a humiliation by the kuffar - which is why the population of Egypt and Jordan are more hostile to Israel than ever.
Where is moderation in a society that has no middle grounds? Where the only options are to dominate, or be dominated?

And as for the possibilities of islam turning more extreme, Daniel nails it again: "While the term 'Islamic Extremism' is commonly bandied about, the fact of the matter is that Islam possess an endless reservoir of 'extremism', simply because it's always possible for a cleric to dig up more stringencies, and denounce those who don't keep them as heretics. Somalia and Afghanistan, where Islamists beheaded Muslims for watching soccer games, teaching girls to cut hair, men for not having beards or for playing music-- demonstrate just how boundless the reserve of extremism is. With historical bans on everything from playing chess to owning a dog to playing a musical instrument-- there is always a new extreme to push toward."

But I hear you say - "they're not all like that! What about moderate muslims, like my neighbor who prays to mecca five times a day but didn't yet cut my throat?"
This last group of people is who I'll devote the rest of this article to.
As put in Citizen Warrior:
"The majority of Muslims ignore the Qur'an's instructions to subjugate infidels. People are people, and in many places in the world, Muslims did not choose to be Muslims. Somewhere along the line, they lived in a place that was converted to Islam by whatever means, and now they are Muslims, but may have never read the Qur'an in their own language, don't really know what's in it, and don't follow most of the things prescribed in it.
They are casual Muslims. They're just living their lives, going about their business, raising their families, and are not interested in taking over the world."

These casual muslims would gladly deny everything you've just read, say you misinterpreted the quran, that islamic nations are havens of tolerance and puppies, and laugh at your face for ever thinking otherwise. It is their only defense, because, like I mentioned earlier, culturally muslims are not keen on telling a truth that doesn't suit them, or at taking responsibility.
And what does the quran say about such nominal (or casual) muslims?
"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Quran (9:73)
The 'hypocrites' mentioned above, who get lumped together with unbelievers, are those muslims who do not follow the quran correcly, and as you've seen, to follow it correctly one must take part in the global jihad, one way or another.

In their defense, some nominal muslims are truly making their claims out of ignorance, unknowingly helping the devout muslims mislead us, but just because they're uncomfortable with facing the truth, doesn't mean any of us should indulge them. In fact, it is better to confront them about it sooner, rather than later, because at any point in life, these people may become radicalized, either by their own study of islam, through a charismatic imam, or (in the case of women) by marrying a more devout muslim man.
Here is one such story, which proves that the sons 'liberal muslims' are not immune to going that route.
While they may be nice enough people, not taking any stance against devout islam at this time, is simply not enough. Calling us names without denouncing other muslims is as good as agreeing with the countless crimes these brutes commit on a daily basis, and then there's always the tendency of such amiable 'moderates' to go with the flow, when there are dominant muslims around. The two unfortunate, unarmed Israeli soldiers that accidentally drove to Ramallah 10 years ago (video) might have been tortured and murdered by a few brave jihadis, but it was the whole crowd that cheered in an orgy of bloodlust, before lynching their bodies.
Even if the nominals aren't personally interested in bloodshed, 'radical' elements happily murder 'hypocrites' who don't measure up to their standards of islam, and under threat of murder, humans tend to become very obedient. Not all Germans were hardcore Nazis, but many decided to play it safe. Likewise, don't expect the nominals to take a risky stand.

Others are less innocent, and practice taqiyya - that is, telling you an outright lie, because it serves the higher purpose of islam (conquering and dominating all other cultures).
Frankly, there's no sure way to tell one from the other, because muslims have no rules-of-conduct when it comes to debate. You cannot guilt them into telling the truth, because they have no concept of personal guilt, and you cannot trust their display of emotions, because muslims, and arabs in particular, love putting on a show: their leaders are in love with grandiose displays of wealth (like golden hummers, or the tower of Dubai - which, by the way, is the result of muslims insisting on having the tallest building in the world to 'prove' their superiority [despite being unable to design, or engineer such a construct]); their films feature absurdly exaggarated acting; their imams carry fiery speeches that send whole crowds into fits of rage; their common women cry and scream on camera when describing imaginary war-crimes; and their men gather like locust for ceremonial public funeral of fallen shahids.
The situation becomes much worse when cameras are involved. In this video, notice the circus revolving the kid, and how he's being forced into the 'evacuation' van, despite not suffering any noticeable injury.

Therefore, the only muslims you can actually trust are ex muslims, who constantly live in fear of reprisal from the 'peaceful communities' they once resided within.

So, hopefully you can see by now that Islam was not hijacked by terrorrists - they are merely the armed wing of islam, which is complemented by its cultural, political, and financial onslaught on all non-muslim nations, as mandated by the quran and the hadith. We may say that some of their methods are moderate, but they all serve to achieve one extreme goal.

I would like to conclude with the immortal words of a great American patriot, Alexander Hamilton, who said:
"Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option;
that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others. ...
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."

Oh, and a happy thanksgiving!   

---

For more on the subject of moderate islam and muslims, check Exposing the Myth of Moderate Islam, Praying for a Moderate Terrorist, and How the Western Pursuit of Muslim Moderates Actually Promotes Extremism.

No muslims at this church service? obama gets busted, not by the LSM

So obama attended church this last Sunday, with his family all in tow. Was that him out walking in front, holding hands with one of his daughters? Details, details, let's not be concerned with details here. It was all about PR, the pics, the fact of going to church like the Christian he proports to be. Wearing his Christianity out on his sleeve for all to see. The LSM was all over this like AJ is on a fresh deer or elk bone. Now about those details, the LSM 'forgot' to mention, like the guest speaker at this church. Was it another Pastor or someone from the local food bank who has been helping all those citizens still out of work even though the recession is over? Or was it some other benevolent individual from a cause or organization that actaully helps people like Help Hospitalized Veterans, or someone from the Veteran's Administration, well you catch my drift. Not even close Komrades! The guest speaker was none other than Dr. Ziad Asali, a Muslim and the founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine. This is a man who has taken shots at Israel and accused Israel of using disproportionate use of force” in Gaza and other times Israel has responded to blatant outright attacks of terrorism on the Jewish state. Asali was there to lecture on this subject, "Prospects of the two-state solution in the Middle-East." You can bet his idea of a two state solution(ridiculous at best, poisonous and fatal at it's worst)was not one most Jews, supporters of Israel or those in the know about islam and sharia law wanted to hear. But obama, the first muslim potus, the mullah who is in the White House was hanging on Asali's every word, ready to incorporate this message into his policy against Israel. Funny how this got 'overlooked' by the LSM. Here for your reading pleasure is Jim Kouri's take on this watershed event. From Examiner.com. There should be absolutely no confusion about this. obama was born of a muslim
father and under islamic law, he is a muslim, period, end of story.

---

Exposed: Obama's bait and switch covered up
By Jim Kouri

Facing rapidly falling poll numbers and the prospect of losing his edge in both houses of the U.S. Congress, President Barack Obama provided a photo opportunity for the fawning news media of his attendance at an Episcopal Church.


As if following a script written by Obama's speechmakers, the denizens of U.S. newsrooms reported that the President and First Lady, as well as their kids, attended a service at Saint John's Episcopal Church. What the Amen choir of reporters failed to mention is that there was a specific reason for Obama's church attendance.


Besides his attempt to stifle reports of his questionable religious practices including his failure to routinely attend a Christian church on Sundays, President Obama chose to attend a particular service at a particular church to hear a particular member of the clergy give a particular message.


It is reported by this writer's colleague, Los Angeles-based talk show host Chuck Wilder, that Dr. Ziad Asali, a Muslim and the founder and president of the American Task Force on Palestine, was the guest speaker at the church service attended by the Obamas.


Dr. Asali was there to lecture on the subject of Prospects of the two-state solution in the Middle-East, according to Wilder, who is heard coast-to-coast on Cable Radio Network.


According to their own web site, the ATFP is a “non-profit, non-partisan organization based in Washington, DC.” The web site claims the organization is “dedicated to advocating that it is in the American national interest to promote an end to the conflict in the Middle East through a negotiated agreement that provides for two states -- Israel and Palestine -- living side by side in peace and security.”


Dr. Ziad J. Asali himself is identified as “a long-time activist on Middle East issues” who provided testimony to congressional committees to about Palestinian interests, increased U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, and his claims of “Israel’s disproportionate use of force” in Gaza.


Each year, the Palestinian Authority is given more than a billion dollars in aid. The United States alone last year gave them $575 million of US taxpayers' money to people who siphoned off millions of dollars and left scraps for the Palestinian people living in poverty.


(During his reign of terror, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat alone stole millions of dollars and stashed the money in Swiss bank accounts. And the world -- including the US -- looked the other way at best, or winked at Arafat's larceny at worst.)


Now under President Obama, United States aid for Palestinians -- especially taxpayers cash -- falling into the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah to be used to purchase weapons continues to be a primary concern for many American officeholders and citizens.


The U.S. government is one of the largest donors to Palestinians. This assistance is provided through the U.S. Agency for International Development and through contributions to international organizations, primarily the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.


And the US government has always been aware of this scenario, yet each year the US continues to fork over more than a quarter-billion dollars of taxpayer money to ingrates, bandits, and Islamofascists.


"When some Americans question Obama's religious affiliation, they are ridiculed and vilified by the news media elites. However, with such incidents as described herein occurring repeatedly involving Obama and Islam, is it any wonder there is confusion regarding his religious persuasion?" said political strategist Mike Baker.




Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

Original article is here

Dhimmi stupidity two blocks from the site of the WTC.

I remember reading about this at Gates of Vienna last year. Unfortunatley, the plans for a giant mosque and 'community center' have been approved. I can hear the gasps and see the tears of the almost 3,000 that were murdered in cold blood by Muslims assasins on September 11th, 2001. I can hear the weeping and shouts of anger from the the families, friends and co-workers of those who lost loved one on that horrific day. What's next? How about getting the first Muslim president of the United States and Louis 'Little Hitler' Farrakhan to dedicate this newest house of Islamic perversion and violence upon it's completion? Just two blocks from the WTC. Will this be another mosque that is home to preaching radical Islam one night and then preaching the lies of Islam is so good and beautiful on the other nights? I make no apologies. This just sickens me and is wrong on so many levels.


But other members of the community, who did not attend Wednesday’s meeting, want the mosque to find a different home.


“It doesn’t belong down here,” said Rosemary Cain, whose firefighter son was killed on 9/11. “It makes me sick to think the city would allow such a thing.”


While Cain acknowledged that “not every person who is Muslim is a terrorist,” she thinks the Muslim community as a whole never sufficiently declaimed the attacks.


John Schmidt, 29, a construction worker who is rebuilding the World Trade Center, also got angry when he heard about the plans.


“No way,” he said. “Muslims bombed the towers. Why would they put a mosque next to the Freedom Tower?”

---

Mosque to Open Two Blocks From World Trade Center
By Julie Shapiro

FINANCIAL DISTRICT — The old Burlington Coat Factory building on Park Place has sat shuttered and empty since the landing gear from a hijacked plane crashed through the roof on 9/11.

The downtown community has mixed feelings about plans for an Islamic center near Ground Zero, but Community Board 1 approved the plan Wednesday night.

Now, a Muslim group hopes to build a mosque and cultural center there, replacing what they see as the worst of Islam with the best.

“We have a vision that is opposite the vision of the extremists,” said Daisy Khan, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, the group behind the center. “We want to be a driving force for the rebuilding of Lower Manhattan.”

Community Board 1’s Financial District Committee embraced the center’s message of tolerance and voted unanimously Wednesday night to support the project.

“Finally we can get that ugly space taken care of,” said Pat Moore, a member of the committee who lives nearby.

A preliminary rendering of the 13-story Cordoba House on Park Place.But other members of the community, who did not attend Wednesday’s meeting, want the mosque to find a different home.

“It doesn’t belong down here,” said Rosemary Cain, whose firefighter son was killed on 9/11. “It makes me sick to think the city would allow such a thing.”

While Cain acknowledged that “not every person who is Muslim is a terrorist,” she thinks the Muslim community as a whole never sufficiently declaimed the attacks.

John Schmidt, 29, a construction worker who is rebuilding the World Trade Center, also got angry when he heard about the plans.

“No way,” he said. “Muslims bombed the towers. Why would they put a mosque next to the Freedom Tower?”

Khan envisions the $100 million, 100,000-square-foot Cordoba House as much more than a mosque: She wants it to be a gathering place for the entire downtown community, including residents, workers and tourists, whether they are Muslim or not.

The 13-story center, which could open as soon as 2013 at 45 Park Place, will include a 500-seat auditorium, a basketball court, a swimming pool and a kitchen for cooking classes. Khan hopes to host interfaith conferences and panels along with more lighthearted events like a Muslim Idol talent competition.

Community Board 1’s Financial District Committee unanimously supported the project Wednesday night. (DNAinfo/Julie Shapiro)Iqbal Hossain Chowdhury, 42, who runs a newsstand on Park Place, said the center would provide much-needed education for Muslims as well as non-Muslims.

“People read the Koran and they don’t know the meaning,” said Chowdhury, who is Muslim. “It is good for them to learn — to learn is best.”

Matt Migeal, 39, who was selling 9/11 photo books in front of the World Trade Center on Wednesday, also thought it was good for the mosque to move in.

“This didn’t happen because of Muslim people,” Migeal said, gesturing toward the site. “Terrorism and Islam have nothing to do [with each other].”

No, you are wrong, Matt Migeal. Islam and terrorism have everything to do with each other.1400 years of Islamic history just proves you and every other fool who believes this lie totally wrong. Over 95% of ALL terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. Many of us have read the Qur'an and we do not need any Islamic apologists to explain it's meaning to us. It is quite clear what the Qur'an is saying and what is expected of those who follow Islam, Muslim or not. Islam is not about peace and love. It is a violent, perverted cult of death that kills the individual from the inside out. PatriotUSA

The Cordoba Initiative already runs a mosque on West Broadway and started holding weekly services in the new Park Place space last year. As the services grow, they could attract up to 2,000 people, Khan said.

The Cordoba Initiative is already working with the NYPD on security.

Khan said she has heard very little criticism of the center so far, though she added that Saturday’s attempted Times Square bombing didn’t help.

“Events like [Times Square] always set us back,” Khan said. “Leaders have to push back in the other direction, and that’s what we’re trying to do.”

Original and complete article from DNAInfo is here.

It is all right to lie and deceive the unbelievers in Islam

Taqiyya has often come up here at the 'Corner and Traveler has put together how, why and where the justification comes from for this in Islam. Islamic organization are old hands at using this method of lying and deception. CAIR is one of the worst offenders. What is even more tagic is how our elected officlials and most of the public in the United States are fooled by this tactic. Taqiyya is used to disarm Islam's enemies. The phrase 'smoke and mirrors' fits quite nicely. I have yet to meet a Muslim I would trust, and yes I have met quite a few. I know there are good, honest ones out there. I just wish they would speak up. We know why they cannot.

---

HOLY LIES OR TAQIYYA, AS SANCTIONED IN THE KORAN
By Traveler

Most religions respect the truth and forbid lying. However Islam is different.

Allah is 'the best of deceivers' (Qu’ran 3.54), and since the highest goal of Islamic ethics is to spread Islam by any means whatsoever,
it is hardly surprising that lying and deceit should be quite acceptable if carried out for the benefit of Islam.

"War is Deceit", said Muhammad, and Islam is always at war with the infidel until Islam dominates.

This 'Holy Lying' is known as taqiyya (sometimes spelled taqiya or taquiya) - This may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Infidel while rejoicing with fellow Muslims.

♦ From the Qur’an:

Qur'an (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Qur'an (3:28) - This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves."

Qur'an (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Qur'an (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Qur'an (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts"

Qur'an (66:2) - "Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means deceit. If Allah is deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose.


♦From the Hadith:

Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad's men after he "guaranteed" them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an "enemy."

Bukhari (52:271) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

♦From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 - 8.2) - "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible ( when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

♦Here are some of the ploys, arguments, logical fallacies and diversionary tactics used by taqiyya tacticians:

[1] Taqiyya about taqiyya.

Muslims deny that taqiyya exists, or that it is used to deceive infidels. 'There is no such thing as Taqiya' (or 'Taqiyya is something I never heard of and I had to go and look it up')

[2] Playing the race card and guilt by association.

An accusation of racism is such a trump card that Jihadists will play it whenever they can. Despite Islam not being a race, any criticism of Islam immediately gets the knee-jerk retaliation of 'racism'.

For example; 'You are expressing the same views about Islam as racists, therefore you are a racist.' This is similar logic to to 'Communists believe two and two make four. You believe two and two make four. Therefore you are a Communist'.

[3] Godwin's Law

a special (and inevitable) version of guilt by association with racism used in online discussions, whereby the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis wins the argument. The 'logic' is something like: CRITICISM OF ISLAM = RACISM = NAZISM
Therefore, if you criticise Islam you are a Nazi.

[4] Circular reasoning

'The Koran says it is the word of God. So whatever it says must be true. Therefore it is true that the Koran is the word of God because it says so'

[5] The infidels' quotes from the Koran are always taken out of context.

For example 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them' is taken out of context, and really means 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them setting fire to your house' - or something similar.

[6] Infidels can't understand the original Arabic of the Koran.

So 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them' is actually a Medieval Arabic expression meaning 'Help old ladies across busy streets and remember to feed the birds in winter'.

[7] Tu Quoque (you also).

'We blow people up/ behead them but you do the same,' - Normally used in attempts to refute arguments that Islam is intrinsically violent. Often refers back to the Crusades, Inquisition etc. Also 'There are equally nasty bits in the Bible'.

Yes, there are violent episodes in the Bible, but the Bible is descriptive of battles and massacres long ago, whereas the Koran is prescriptive of battles and massacres yet to come.

[8] 'Abrahamic/monotheistic faith' false kin argument.

This scam usually take the form of 'Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic/ monotheist faith.'

Of course it isn't. Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the pedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea. (Mark 9:42). In Islam stoning of women is still a major spectator sport, whereas Jesus forbade it (John 8:7). Human sacrifice is an abomination in Judaism and Christianity, but is encouraged in Islam.

[9] Quoting abrogated verses from the Koran in order to appear moderate.

A favorite one is 'Let there be no compulsion in religion'. This verse and many like it are actually null and void and disregarded by all Muslims (though not by gullible infidels). They are peaceful Meccan verses which are competely cancelled by later and much more violent Medinan verses.

[10] 'You owe us a debt of gratitude because Islam is the basis of Western civilisation'.

This sort of statement is usually backed up by revisionist arguments that Muslims invented everything and were responsible for the Renaissance (Sheikh Speare was a Muslim playwright etc).
In some ways this is a rather pathetic quest for significance.

Muslim culture has been moribund for the past 600 years, whereas the West has forged ahead. Muslims now want a stake in the success story by claiming they were somehow responsible for the West's development.

[11] 'A third of the world's population believe in Islam, so it deserves respect.'

- But not so long ago a third of the world's population believed the earth was flat. Numbers don't mean anything, especially when the Islamic population is the most backward and illiterate on earth.

Muslims are very keen on 'respect', but someone should tell them that respect needs to be earned.

[12] 'We are victims of Islamophobia'.

Muslims are always playing the victim, if not of racism then of the even more heinous thought-crime of ISLAMOPHOBIA. Of course there is no such thing as Islamophobia, since a phobia is an irrational fear, whereas fear of Islam as a clear and present danger is a totally rational reaction from any infidel.


From Islam: The Religion of Peace (thats a lie, right there)

Muslims discovered America? Saudi funded text books say so.

Here is a five minute video to show you how stealth jihad is subverting the truth in American schools. Saudia Arabia invests millions of dollars into many of our big publishing companies of text books. That leads to this type of lying and subverting of the truth. Watch and pass this on.

---