RSS

understanding why and how sides are picked.

13 Sep

The Specter of Muslim Disloyalty in America

From Raymond Ibrahim at PJM:

Islamist enmity for infidels, regularly manifested in the jihad, is by now moderately well known. Lesser known, however, but of equal concern, is the mandate for Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims and Islam — a loyalty that all too often translates into disloyalty to all things non-Muslim, including the American people and their government.

This dichotomy of loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels — which, incidentally, corresponds well with Islamic law’s division of the world into the abode of war (deserving of enmity) and the abode of Islam (deserving of loyalty) — is founded on a Muslim doctrine called wala’ wa bara’ (best translated as “loyalty and enmity”). I first encountered this doctrine while translating various Arabic documents for The Al Qaeda Reader. In fact, the longest and arguably most revealing document I included in that volume is titled “Loyalty and Enmity” (pgs.63-115), compiled by Aymen Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two.

I say “compiled” because most of the words are direct quotes from the Koran, the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and Islam’s jurists (i.e., this doctrine is not an “al-Qaeda” phenomenon but rather permeates Islam’s worldview). Those interested are urged to read the whole treatise. For our purposes, however, a few key scriptures must suffice: Koran 5:51 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.

According to authoritative Muslim exegete, al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community.”

Similar scriptures include Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims — “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.”

Conversely, according to Muhammad, “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him. … All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor” — precisely those three things Islamic law singles out as not being vouchsafed to free infidels.

The problem here is that these scriptures are not mere words; American Muslims act on them. Consider the ongoing case of Nasser Abdo, an infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan:  “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.” And why is that? “Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Quran [no doubt such as the above] as reasons for his decision to ask for separation from the Army.” Indeed, his loyalty to Afghanistan’s Muslims is such that, if he does not get discharged, “he will, apparently, be facing a prison sentence.”

Rather than going quietly to prison, Major Nidal Hasan went on the infamous Fort Hood killing spree, slaying thirteen Americans. Maintaining that “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims,” he was, like Abdo, adamant about not being deployed to a Muslim nation, his “worst nightmare.” He was also “very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second,” thereby showing where his true loyalty lay. Tabari’s words come to mind: the Muslim who “allies with them [e.g., Americans] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” i.e., he too becomes an infidel, the worst thing in Islam.

And of course there was sergeant Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.” Previous to the attack, he confessed to his diary: “I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill.”

Nor is Muslim loyalty simply limited to the fear of killing fellow Muslims; rather, it is loyalty in the tribal sense (not surprising, since Islam transferred the tenacity of Arab tribal loyalty onto the umma, whereby Islam became a “super tribe,” transcending race and language). Thus, for helping convict five Muslims who were plotting to kill American soldiers in the Fort Dix terrorism trial, Mahmoud Omar has been ostracized by the Muslim community. Why? Because “in a twisted way … their [the terrorists’] actions are understandable in the Muslim community.” Omar adds, “For Muslims, we are all brothers, and I betrayed a brother”— echoing Muhammad’s ancient injunction: “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim.”

Prominent American Muslim jurists have further proclaimed that “it is forbidden to work for the FBI or for U.S. security services because these harm Muslims.” Another Muslim jurist said it is permissible for Muslims to serve in the U.S. military — provided they are not “involved in fighting, harming, or even bothering Muslims at all.” Similarly, the authoritative Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America issued a fatwa stating that it is “not permissible” for American Muslims to send aid, even food, to American troops serving in Muslim countries.

At this point, one may justly ask: if Muslim disloyalty to non-Muslims is a ubiquitous phenomenon, why are most examples limited to the military? Simple: Islam is primarily concerned with actual deeds; and the military is one of those rare institutions that requires people to demonstrate their loyalty through action, that is, by going to the frontlines and, if need be, combating America’s enemies — even if they be one’s coreligionists. It is therefore only natural that Muslim loyalty/disloyalty is primarily revealed in military related scenarios, including instrumental support via food or other aid. Concerning this latter, Muhammad said, “One [Muslim] who equips a person on his way to raid [the enemy’s camps] in Allah’s path [jihad] is considered to have the same status as the raider [jihadist].” The willing Muslim financial enabler of the infidel American soldier thus acquires the same infidel status.

As for all other instances that require Muslims to indicate their loyalty, the doctrine of taqiyya, which revolves around deceiving non-Muslims, offers relief, and is in fact essential for Muslim minorities living in America who want to uphold the doctrine of loyalty and enmity. Indeed, the Koran’s primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: “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” (Koran 3:28). Tabari explains this verse: “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.”

In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words of Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Nearly fourteen-hundred years later, American Muslim Tarik Shah, after being arrested for terrorist-related charges, boasted: “I could be joking and smiling [with infidels] and then cutting their throats in the next second.”

At any rate, such is the symbiotic relationship that Islam’s doctrines share: when the deceit, the charade is to no avail and the lives of fellow Muslims, whom are deserving of loyalty, become endangered, Muslims must then stand their ground, come what may. Thus an Akbar, Hasan, or Abdo may appear as perfectly loyal American citizens, until being required to prove their loyalty against Muslims.

you must finish his article go now.

and this from Rhymes with right

Both Pat Buchanan and Donny Deutsch have advocated the arrest of Pastor Terry Jones to prevent his possible burning of Korans and the danger to US troops such act would threaten. The paleo-conservative and the New York liberal made common cause on today’s Morning Joe. They were outnumbered by Mika Brzezinski, Dan Senor and John Heilemann, all of whom opposed the arrest-the-pastor proposal on First Amendment grounds. Buchanan and Deutsch expressed disregard for the First Amendment implications.

Like I said the other day – we seem to have reached the day when dissent against America is deemed the highest form of patriotism but dissent against Islam borders on treason. I therefore weep for my formerly free homeland.

my reply to this is,~~~

pukeannon is an absolute scumbag history revisionist and apologist for hitler and anti semite.

so im not surprised to here he has thrown in his lot with the next fascist wave coming down the pike, islam.

dont start weeping yet, they are just unmasking themselves. sides are being chosen now more than ever and its allways a good idea to know just where everyone stands.

and speaking of where everyone stands, Micheal crap weasil moore as wieghed in to this. now we know where this mental midget propagandist self promoting barnum asshole stands, as usual it is not in defense of western civilization or in defense of our fallen.

Posted: September 11th, 2010 01:53 PM ET
Moore is urging supporters to help fund the planned controversial Islamic Center near Ground Zero.

Moore is urging supporters to help fund the planned controversial Islamic Center near Ground Zero.

(CNN) – Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore is weighing in on the proposed Islamic Community Center in New York City, stirring the the pot by saying he doesn’t want it to be built near Ground Zero but rather on Ground Zero.

“I want it built on Ground Zero. Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice,” Moore writes in an open letter on his website. “I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship.

“And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you,” he added.

Mr. Moore’s statements are his opinion but not based on facts. No one has stolen anything from Muslims. Their holy book commands them to do what took place on 9/11. and so, they did. it was muslims who perpetrated the mass murders of 911 and unfortunately evil leftists like moore-on love to take sides with other fascists witness his love of murderers fidel and chavez, both neck deep in blood and opression. now he sides with islam also kneck deep in blood and oppression

basically leftists like moore beleive that if your a minority than even if your thrashing about murdering people you are the good guy in the scenerio and the one with the power, even if its our military or police or the american public fed up with being pissed on by leftists and islamists and told its raining are the bad guys.

he’s is a simple first stage thinker. a moron. but a dangerous one. his heart attack will come none too soon.

hey moore! its not our job to make excuses for islam or to “take it back” (it wasnt stolen anyway) the muslims need to do that themselves and in 9 years they have done nothing!!!!

unless you count killing more innocent men women and children.

islam is without shame. and so are liberals. that is why they make fine fellow travelers…

and thus full circle, censorship:

sides are being chosen, and as long as we can continue to tell the full story of humanity and what is happening to it, we have a chance. but all the people choosing the side of islam end up wanting one thing.

Censorship

and Censorship Strengthens Islamists

Guest Commentary by Joshua Lipana:

The prospect of another semi-free country falling to Islam is in danger of happening. In the Philippines a bill that would criminalize the use of words like “Muslim” and “Islamic” to describe criminals has been filed by Sen. Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. The Senator wishes to pass this bill while the Philippines is facing down numerous Islamic insurgencies in its southern islands.

The Southern Islands of the Philippine are infested with violent Islamic Totalitarian groups such as the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), the Abu-Sayaf and even elements of Al-Qaeda are present. Unfortunately such bills that run contrary to the principle of Freedom of speech is a worldwide trend. At the start of the 21st century the world witnessed the U.N pass resolution after resolution condemning the “Defamation of Religion.” And even now many member countries of the U.N are pushing for global “Blasphemy Laws.” Censorship it seems is gaining ground the world over.

The biggest beneficiary of all this is Totalitarian Islam. For example in the Philippines, the country where I live, and much like the U.S, the army is incredibly capable of crushing the various pip-squeak terrorist insurgencies. Whether they be communist or Islamist in nature. But due to the fact that “sensitivity” and “respect” is shown to our enemies, the military has had to pull its punches time after time. The prevailing ideas of the culture have led to this prolonged struggle where many innocents have died. Now the nail in the casket is being hammered, once censorship becomes widespread and good ideas are no longer possible to advocate, once Sen. Revilla’s bill passes; we’re all open for slaughter.

The war with Totalitarian Islam is not just a conventional war, it is also an Ideological war. Bills like the one Sen. Revilla wants to pass will accomplish what is most crucial in this war, the Ideological disarming of Islam’s opponents. Things like this basically say to the Islamists “keep spreading your deadly ideology, you will encounter no resistance.”

Burke once said “Evil will triumph when good men do nothing.” What happens to a country when good men are barred from doing something? The victory of Totalitarian Islam will not come because of its violent attacks of murders and bombings. Their victory, if ever such a tragedy would befoul the world, will come because of censorship. If we seek to keep our freedoms and advance the cause of liberty; the primary evil we must defeat is censorship. Till good men can talk, good ideas can still win. If we lose the ideological battlefield to Islam, we will also lose militarily. We must fight censorship, like our life depends on it. Because it does.

and closer to home:

“Justice” Steven Breyer: Maybe The First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Burning the Koran

Ace of spades

This is a liberal justice on the Supreme Court. I mention “liberal” because they tend to be First Amendment absolutists — and yeah, they are chiefly absolutists about pornography and so on, but usually they have enough sense of shame to extend (grudgingly) that absolutism to speech they don’t like.

Not any more. Even a Justice on the Supreme Court is now ready to revive blasphemy laws, at least for the nation’s de facto state religion.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on “GMA” that he’s not prepared to conclude that — in the internet age — the First Amendment condones Koran burning. “Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

“It will be answered over time in a series of cases which force people to think carefully. That’s the virtue of cases,” Breyer told me. “And not just cases. Cases produce briefs, briefs produce thought. Arguments are made. The judges sit back and think. And most importantly, when they decide, they have to write an opinion, and that opinion has to be based on reason. It isn’t a fake.”

Deciders.

Oh my God.

Let the word go out: In America, your right to be free of religious critiques is dependent on how willing you are to kill for it.~~~ace of spades

Advertisements
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on September 13, 2010 in Uncategorized

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: