Loved this one!
Read "HERE" ROFLMAO!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
9-11 victems I hear you!
Yeah well chalk it up to the bleeding heart liberals is why these thugs are going on after 10 YEARS!!!
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
islam the pathetic lowlifes
Yes well you little bag of camel droppings, you can move out of my country! You insult the very point of my ancestors moving here! You have no respect for me or MY religion then the hell with you all! Our laws protect you and your little cult for Satan, you little morons!!! NO we here in the West don’t care to reform to your sharia back ass cult and it is just that simple!
Just what is it that you pisslamics don’t understand and let us just clarify it for you!
Read more “HERE” if you are a left loon socialist marxist apologetic than you too can pack and leave! I and other normal folks have had enough of your pathetic BULLSHIT!
A letter sent to me from ACT:
They’re desperate and running scared. " NO SHIT! YOU DON'T SAY! I am not going to give these parasites an inch!"
How else to explain the dishonest, irrational and illogical rants coming from those opposed to our efforts to stop sharia law?
How else to explain the dishonest, irrational and illogical rants coming from those opposed to our efforts to stop sharia law?
A recent example of this came in a news conference in Detroit two weeks ago. According to a Detroit News story, State Representative Rashida Tlaib (pictured at right), who is a Muslim, declared that legislation which prohibits courts from using foreign laws is… “…racism at its core.” |  |
| <><>
Americans are waking up to the threat of sharia—and that’s why we’re seeing a desperate push-back by people like Rep. Tlaib. A push-back that is disingenuous and thoroughly devoid of fact and logic.
For instance, how can opposition to a theo-political law system such as sharia be “racist”? Sharia isn’t a “race.” Islam isn’t a “race.”
This graphically illustrates the “information warfare” our opposition is engaged in—and why we must expose it. This is why we have produced an invaluable new resource entitled:
For instance, how can opposition to a theo-political law system such as sharia be “racist”? Sharia isn’t a “race.” Islam isn’t a “race.”
This graphically illustrates the “information warfare” our opposition is engaged in—and why we must expose it. This is why we have produced an invaluable new resource entitled:
“Unmasking the Enemy Among Us:
Information Warfare and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Information Warfare and the Muslim Brotherhood.”
I did from the start and was called a racist!!! Now that you people are screaming it seems I was RIGHT! A craft or knowledge should not be exploited! I am not in it for the money and I hope to hell people wake up PLEASE!!!
We have never made such a resource on the Muslim Brotherhood available before. Today, we are offering it to those who choose to become a Patriot Partner to ACT! for America, making a monthly gift of only $19. Simply log on here, choose the Patriot Partner option, and select the $19 gift level.
The first 400 people who respond to this offer will not only receive the invaluable resources described below, they’ll also receive a bonus—an autographed copy of Brigitte Gabriel’s best-selling book They Must Be Stopped—as an extra “thank you” for your support. |
In this one-of-a-kind resource you will find:
| <><> | • | <><> A DVD containing two powerful and informative presentations.
The first, “Connect the Dots: Information Warfare 101,” is a Power Point presentation featuring ACT! for America Executive Director Guy Rodgers. As those who have attended our conferences or other public events know, Guy is a very engaging speaker who is well-versed in the connections between the ideology of radical Islam, information warfare, and terrorism. Here’s a two minute clip from Guy’s presentation. Yes hello! It's me here in the front row...I have been screaming this all along! "send me some $$$ TOO! Oh will you just wake the hell up people!!! :p
This Power Point presentation is conducted by former FBI counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo. John was a featured speaker at our 2011 National Conference and Legislative Briefing. He is one of America’s leading experts on the Muslim Brotherhood, and even if you are already knowledgeable in this area, we guarantee there will be new information for you in this presentation. So why in the hell are we bending back ward for these little pisslamic shits!? Here’s a two minute clip from John’s presentation. | ||
Sunday, August 28, 2011
islam is crap with their sharia enticement!
Only a moron would find it enticing!!!
"Good one. Chaundry is a pompous asshole. Islam is crap and is an insult to all intelligent people" Nicely put on the first comment of the video at youtube thumbs up on that!
"Good one. Chaundry is a pompous asshole. Islam is crap and is an insult to all intelligent people" Nicely put on the first comment of the video at youtube thumbs up on that!
Monday, August 22, 2011
Hemp fest pot heads in Seattle!
SHAME ON SEATTLE!
Haven’t we got enough problems without having more pot heads running amuck! Yeah you bet I’m against it! I think that if you’re sick you need to go to the doctor and if you need drugs then have a prescription filled out! There is no reason people should be growing it in a community when there are plenty of warehouse buildings sitting empty! It also needs to be monitored and checked by state and authorities! NOT IN MY COMMUNITY! It is an illegal substance! It destroys more then it helps!
I'm guessing most in the crowed are on the socialist system and want more from the hard working Americans!
To everyone at that slime fest: "You all disgust me and like pisslamics I don’t want anything to do with your kind!"
Yer not Americans your all parasites just like that asshole al o butthead you voted for!
Monday, August 15, 2011
Imam Moustafa Zayed lost to Robert Spencer
Nice post Pamela! :+:
I loved the babble of moustafa zayed when he was pissed that he lost! moustafa your ideology is the hate!
No Moustafa we all had your number long ago and now it's finally that someone had the guts to call you on the truth and obviously you are showing your hatred zayed! Very clear more so and this is what will bury you zayed!
If it wasn't Robert it would be ME! I was getting that close God Bless Pamela and Robert! If anything happens to these two the word will be out! Mind you I already had my info and happy for Robert and Pamela to reach out to the brain dead!
I loved the babble of moustafa zayed when he was pissed that he lost! moustafa your ideology is the hate!
No Moustafa we all had your number long ago and now it's finally that someone had the guts to call you on the truth and obviously you are showing your hatred zayed! Very clear more so and this is what will bury you zayed!
If it wasn't Robert it would be ME! I was getting that close God Bless Pamela and Robert! If anything happens to these two the word will be out! Mind you I already had my info and happy for Robert and Pamela to reach out to the brain dead!
Sunday, August 14, 2011
ASSAULT on FREE SPEECH!
The vociferous assault on free speech in the wake of the Norway terrorist atrocity has reached a point where a blogger the Norway terrorist cited was questioned for several hours by Norwegian police officers.
Even more chilling, the police confiscated the blogger’s computer. You can read more about this frightening incident here.
In their column below, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer remind us just what is at stake here.
August 8, 2011
Norway, Free Speech, and the Counterjihad
By Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/norway_free_speech_and_the_counterjihad.html [ACT! for America Editor’s note: highlights added]
Ever since the heinous murders in Norway, we have been subjected to an unrelenting campaign of vilification. It appears that the Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik cited us, along with John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama and a host of others, in his lengthy cut-and-paste manifesto; despite that manifesto's ideological incoherence, his citations of our work have led to an international campaign to blame us for the massacre. The New York Times, NBC, the BBC, CNN, the Washington Post, many European publications, and a host of others have claimed that we are responsible for creating a climate of "hate" in which a Breivik was inevitable. This is not only false, but such charges against us challenge fundamental principles of the freedom of speech.
We submitted this present article defending ourselves to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, National Review, the American Spectator, the London Spectator, the Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal. Most ignored the submission altogether; National Review and the New York Post were the only ones who bothered to inform us that they were turning down the piece. The mainstream media was ready and eager to demonize us, but not so willing to give us a fair hearing and a chance to rebut their false charges.
In the first place, the claim that we are engaged in focusing hatred upon or engaged in demonizing any group is false. In fact, it is more true of our opponents' attacks on our own work than it is of anything we have said or done. We stand and have always stood against the evil of using violence for political and religious goals, and against all political and religious fanaticism. We stand and have always stood against the use of violence to advance any political agenda. We have stood consistently and still stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Anyone who sincerely upholds and wishes to defend those principles, whatever his creed or background, we count as an ally.
Those who claim that we have incited hatred that leads to violence are using an argument that can be used against themselves. Critics of American and NATO foreign policy should note that there have been numerous terror attacks committed by people who oppose that foreign policy. Are such critics responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led such people to commit terror attacks? In the 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan blamed Martin Luther King, Jr. for the Watts riots. King was steadfastly nonviolent, but he agreed with the political perspectives of the rioters. Was he then responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led to the riots? Was his righteous cause delegimitized by the fact that some departed from his express wishes and resorted to violence?
What's more, the media outlets that have blamed us for the Norway murders are practicing a double standard. Just days ago, a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Army, Pfc. Naser Abdo, was arrested with bomb materials. He admitted to plotting another jihad terror mass murder spree at Fort Hood in Texas, in support of Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans in a jihad attack there in November 2009. There have been dozens of such plots thwarted in recent years, and tens of thousands of jihad attacks worldwide. Yet there has been nothing remotely comparable to the intense and obsessive mainstream media coverage that we witnessed immediately after the Norway massacre. There has been no media attempt to determine the motivation behind this explosive plot at Fort Hood or the other jihad attacks. Why aren't Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, and all the rest just as consumed as they were with the Norwegian killer's supposed motivations? Why aren't they investigating the ideology that incited this Muslim soldier to prepare a jihad attack, especially in light of his stated intent last year to fight "Islamophobia" and promote Islam as a "peaceful religion"?
Ultimately, the arguments that have been used to blame us for the Norway attacks can be used against anyone of any ideological perspective, and strike at the very heart of the freedom of speech. By their logic, no one should be critical of anything, for fear that some evil person will misunderstand that criticism and commit violence because of it. The mainstream media itself can be seen as inciting violence in its sharp criticism of our perspective: the murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, as well as the multiple threats against Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and both of us, amply demonstrate that criticism of anti-jihadists can and does often lead to violence. Should that criticism thus be muted?
The constitutional protection of the freedom of speech is designed to protect controversial speech, including political dissent. Innocuous speech needs no protection. The truths that we enunciate are inconvenient for many to acknowledge, and the principles of freedom for which we stand are increasingly assailed. For that reason alone, the international media should be more circumspect in its demonization of us and our perspective; otherwise they may find, after having silenced all dissenting voices, that there is no one left who is able to stand up for the freedoms they now enjoy.
Hat tip to ACT! I am proud to be a member of this fine organization even though the lame stream media hates us all because they haven't got a clue of what they are reporting about!
Even more chilling, the police confiscated the blogger’s computer. You can read more about this frightening incident here.
In their column below, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer remind us just what is at stake here.
August 8, 2011
Norway, Free Speech, and the Counterjihad
By Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/norway_free_speech_and_the_counterjihad.html [ACT! for America Editor’s note: highlights added]
Ever since the heinous murders in Norway, we have been subjected to an unrelenting campaign of vilification. It appears that the Norway mass murderer Anders Breivik cited us, along with John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Barack Obama and a host of others, in his lengthy cut-and-paste manifesto; despite that manifesto's ideological incoherence, his citations of our work have led to an international campaign to blame us for the massacre. The New York Times, NBC, the BBC, CNN, the Washington Post, many European publications, and a host of others have claimed that we are responsible for creating a climate of "hate" in which a Breivik was inevitable. This is not only false, but such charges against us challenge fundamental principles of the freedom of speech.
We submitted this present article defending ourselves to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the New York Post, National Review, the American Spectator, the London Spectator, the Guardian, and the Wall Street Journal. Most ignored the submission altogether; National Review and the New York Post were the only ones who bothered to inform us that they were turning down the piece. The mainstream media was ready and eager to demonize us, but not so willing to give us a fair hearing and a chance to rebut their false charges.
In the first place, the claim that we are engaged in focusing hatred upon or engaged in demonizing any group is false. In fact, it is more true of our opponents' attacks on our own work than it is of anything we have said or done. We stand and have always stood against the evil of using violence for political and religious goals, and against all political and religious fanaticism. We stand and have always stood against the use of violence to advance any political agenda. We have stood consistently and still stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law. Anyone who sincerely upholds and wishes to defend those principles, whatever his creed or background, we count as an ally.
Those who claim that we have incited hatred that leads to violence are using an argument that can be used against themselves. Critics of American and NATO foreign policy should note that there have been numerous terror attacks committed by people who oppose that foreign policy. Are such critics responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led such people to commit terror attacks? In the 1960s, the Ku Klux Klan blamed Martin Luther King, Jr. for the Watts riots. King was steadfastly nonviolent, but he agreed with the political perspectives of the rioters. Was he then responsible for creating a climate of hatred that led to the riots? Was his righteous cause delegimitized by the fact that some departed from his express wishes and resorted to violence?
What's more, the media outlets that have blamed us for the Norway murders are practicing a double standard. Just days ago, a Muslim soldier in the U.S. Army, Pfc. Naser Abdo, was arrested with bomb materials. He admitted to plotting another jihad terror mass murder spree at Fort Hood in Texas, in support of Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan, who murdered thirteen Americans in a jihad attack there in November 2009. There have been dozens of such plots thwarted in recent years, and tens of thousands of jihad attacks worldwide. Yet there has been nothing remotely comparable to the intense and obsessive mainstream media coverage that we witnessed immediately after the Norway massacre. There has been no media attempt to determine the motivation behind this explosive plot at Fort Hood or the other jihad attacks. Why aren't Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, and all the rest just as consumed as they were with the Norwegian killer's supposed motivations? Why aren't they investigating the ideology that incited this Muslim soldier to prepare a jihad attack, especially in light of his stated intent last year to fight "Islamophobia" and promote Islam as a "peaceful religion"?
Ultimately, the arguments that have been used to blame us for the Norway attacks can be used against anyone of any ideological perspective, and strike at the very heart of the freedom of speech. By their logic, no one should be critical of anything, for fear that some evil person will misunderstand that criticism and commit violence because of it. The mainstream media itself can be seen as inciting violence in its sharp criticism of our perspective: the murders of Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn, as well as the multiple threats against Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, and both of us, amply demonstrate that criticism of anti-jihadists can and does often lead to violence. Should that criticism thus be muted?
The constitutional protection of the freedom of speech is designed to protect controversial speech, including political dissent. Innocuous speech needs no protection. The truths that we enunciate are inconvenient for many to acknowledge, and the principles of freedom for which we stand are increasingly assailed. For that reason alone, the international media should be more circumspect in its demonization of us and our perspective; otherwise they may find, after having silenced all dissenting voices, that there is no one left who is able to stand up for the freedoms they now enjoy.
Hat tip to ACT! I am proud to be a member of this fine organization even though the lame stream media hates us all because they haven't got a clue of what they are reporting about!
The Crotch Salute Returns.......unbelievable !
Australia says NO - Second time she has done this!
She's done it again..
She sure isn't backing down on her hard line stance and one has to appreciate her belief in the rights of her native countrymen..
A breath of fresh air to see someone lead. I wish some leaders would step up in Canada & USA ...
Australian Prime Minister does it again!!
This woman should be appointed Queen of the World.. Truer words have never been spoken.
It took a lot of courage for this woman to speak what she had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least she was willing to take a stand on her and Australia 's beliefs.
The whole world needs a leader like this!
Prime Minister Julia Gillard- Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!'
' Mo st Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Yes snoops is half ass about it too however we do need to wake up here in the USA or you won't like what comes after America!
She sure isn't backing down on her hard line stance and one has to appreciate her belief in the rights of her native countrymen..
A breath of fresh air to see someone lead. I wish some leaders would step up in Canada & USA ...
Australian Prime Minister does it again!!
This woman should be appointed Queen of the World.. Truer words have never been spoken.
It took a lot of courage for this woman to speak what she had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least she was willing to take a stand on her and Australia 's beliefs.
The whole world needs a leader like this!
Prime Minister Julia Gillard- Australia
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Gillard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying she supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote:
'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. '
'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'
'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!'
' Mo st Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.'
'We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.'
'This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.'
'If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.'
Yes snoops is half ass about it too however we do need to wake up here in the USA or you won't like what comes after America!
Sunday, August 07, 2011
May our US Seal Teams rest in peace!
Let us never give in and never give up! The war goes on! We know who to blame!
Friday, August 05, 2011
Chris Christy needs to be schooled!
Nine years of knowing someone heh! Ignorance is when you let a pisslamist be the only one armed at Fort Hood! He took an oath to the Military! The thug at Fort Hood was such a nice human being!
Watch here at YouTube
Christy obviously doesn’t see the danger of giving more power to pisslamist! They can take years to take more from the USA. Oh well I hope I am not around when that happens!
After all pisslamists do practice Tekeya?
It's not the religion it's the idiology of pisslam Christy!
Abdo's Loyalty to Muslims Always Meant Disloyalty to Americans
Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On August 3, 2011
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/abdo%e2%80%99s-loyalty-to-muslims-always-meant-disloyalty-to-americans/
To anyone familiar with Muslim doctrine, Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo's actions -- from refusing to deploy to Afghanistan lest he kill fellow Muslims to plotting a terror attack to kill fellow Americans -- make perfect sense and accord well with Islam's dichotomous doctrine of wala wa bara [1], often translated as "loyalty and enmity."
Built atop numerous Koran verses and backed by Sharia, wala requires Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims, and explains why Abdo refused to deploy to Muslim nations.
While loyalty may appear admirable, it has a flipside, bara, which requires Muslims to disassociate themselves from non-Muslims -- to be disloyal to them (see al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's 60 page treatise titled "Loyalty and Enmity" in The Al Qaeda Reader [2] for details).
For example, Koran 5:51 literally warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies ... whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them," i.e., he becomes an infidel; 58:22 states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims -- "even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin."
Now consider the progress of Abdo and how his actions reveal great doctrinal consistency:
First, he objected [3] to participating in any war in any Muslim country, claiming "conscientious objector" status:
Watch here at YouTube
Christy obviously doesn’t see the danger of giving more power to pisslamist! They can take years to take more from the USA. Oh well I hope I am not around when that happens!
After all pisslamists do practice Tekeya?
It's not the religion it's the idiology of pisslam Christy!
August 4, 2011
Sharia and the latest Ft. Hood jihadist
This from ACT:
Sharia and the latest Ft. Hood jihadist
This from ACT:
 |
There hasn't been much news coverage of Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo's planned jihadist attack against Ft. Hood soldiers.
What you haven't read is spelled out well in the column below by Raymond Ibrahim (highlights added).
As you read it, note how Abdo employed several provisions of sharia law.
Sharia law threatens America in numerous ways. Abdo's disloyalty to America is just the latest example.
What you haven't read is spelled out well in the column below by Raymond Ibrahim (highlights added).
As you read it, note how Abdo employed several provisions of sharia law.
Sharia law threatens America in numerous ways. Abdo's disloyalty to America is just the latest example.
REMINDER: RALLY ON AUGUST 30TH IN TULSA ON BEHALF OF CAPTAIN PAUL FIELDS. FIND DETAILS HERE.
Abdo's Loyalty to Muslims Always Meant Disloyalty to Americans
Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On August 3, 2011
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/abdo%e2%80%99s-loyalty-to-muslims-always-meant-disloyalty-to-americans/
To anyone familiar with Muslim doctrine, Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo's actions -- from refusing to deploy to Afghanistan lest he kill fellow Muslims to plotting a terror attack to kill fellow Americans -- make perfect sense and accord well with Islam's dichotomous doctrine of wala wa bara [1], often translated as "loyalty and enmity."
Built atop numerous Koran verses and backed by Sharia, wala requires Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims, and explains why Abdo refused to deploy to Muslim nations.
While loyalty may appear admirable, it has a flipside, bara, which requires Muslims to disassociate themselves from non-Muslims -- to be disloyal to them (see al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's 60 page treatise titled "Loyalty and Enmity" in The Al Qaeda Reader [2] for details).
For example, Koran 5:51 literally warns Muslims against "taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies ... whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them," i.e., he becomes an infidel; 58:22 states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims -- "even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin."
Now consider the progress of Abdo and how his actions reveal great doctrinal consistency:
First, he objected [3] to participating in any war in any Muslim country, claiming "conscientious objector" status:
I don't believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don't believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim. ... I can't deploy with my unit to Afghanistan and participate in the war -- I can't both deploy and be a Muslim.
He would not be the first to object to combating fellow Muslims: Major Nidal Hasan [4], who went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood in 2009, killing thirteen --and who Abdo heroizes [5] -- considered himself to be "a Muslim first and an American second [6]"; the idea of deploying to a Muslim nation, his "worst nightmare [7]," threw him "over the edge." Then there was Sergeant Hasan Akbar [8], who killed two American soldiers and wounded fourteen in Kuwait "because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq."
Next, though Abdo had no problem openly evincing loyalty to Muslims, trusting that tolerant or sentimental Americans would indulge him, he hid his enmity and disloyalty for those same Americans, in accordance to taqiyya [9] -- a doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive infidels. In fact, the Koran's primary justification for deception is in the context of "loyalty and enmity":
Next, though Abdo had no problem openly evincing loyalty to Muslims, trusting that tolerant or sentimental Americans would indulge him, he hid his enmity and disloyalty for those same Americans, in accordance to taqiyya [9] -- a doctrine that permits Muslims to deceive infidels. In fact, the Koran's primary justification for deception is in the context of "loyalty and enmity": Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah -- unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions (3:28).
Mainstream Muslim reference Tabari interprets this verse thusly:
Only when you are in their [non-Muslims'] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities, and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim.
Accordingly, while Abdo did not aid Americans against Muslims, he certainly made use of his tongue: to support his "conscientious objector" status, he pointed to "the peace that Islam preaches [10] 221;; he claimed [11] that he wanted to fight "Islamophobia" and "put a good positive spin out there that Islam is a good, peaceful religion"; and though he tried to murder Americans by emulating the Fort Hood massacre, Abdo originally condemned it [12], calling it "an act of aggression by a man and not by Islam," insisting that it ran against his beliefs as a Muslim.
Even so, anyone reading between the lines should have noticed his enmity: like Hasan before him, who made no secret of his hatred for infidels [13] in statements in front of classmates, Abdo also made anti-American remarks [10] in class.
Unfortunately, few Americans are aware of doctrines like wala wa bara and taqiyya; worse, they often project [14] their own beliefs and values -- from Christianity to secular humanism--onto Islam and Muslims.
For instance, Western people associate piety and religious observance with peace and goodwill: as with Hasan before him -- who was described as an "observant Muslim who prayed daily [15]" and "very serious about his religion [16]" -- acquaintances shocked at Abdo's terror plot argue that he was "very devoutly religious [17]."
Yet, the fact is there is no inconsistency between piety and prayer on the one hand, and jihad and deceit on the other: all are equally codified in Sharia. Moreover, upholding one doctrine often leads to upholding another: thus loyalty to fellow Muslims is a sure sign of disloyalty to non-Muslims.
Even so, anyone reading between the lines should have noticed his enmity: like Hasan before him, who made no secret of his hatred for infidels [13] in statements in front of classmates, Abdo also made anti-American remarks [10] in class.
Unfortunately, few Americans are aware of doctrines like wala wa bara and taqiyya; worse, they often project [14] their own beliefs and values -- from Christianity to secular humanism--onto Islam and Muslims.
For instance, Western people associate piety and religious observance with peace and goodwill: as with Hasan before him -- who was described as an "observant Muslim who prayed daily [15]" and "very serious about his religion [16]" -- acquaintances shocked at Abdo's terror plot argue that he was "very devoutly religious [17]."
Yet, the fact is there is no inconsistency between piety and prayer on the one hand, and jihad and deceit on the other: all are equally codified in Sharia. Moreover, upholding one doctrine often leads to upholding another: thus loyalty to fellow Muslims is a sure sign of disloyalty to non-Muslims.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)