5) Is Islam in the process of swallowing Europe? If any more proof of the danger of Islam to our society and culture is needed, look no further than the downward spiral of Europe.
10 Questions About the Compatibility of Islam with America
Wikipedia defines Islamophobia as the fear, hatred of or prejudice against the Islamic religion or Muslims, especially when seen as a geopolitical force or the source of terrorism. Yes, many people around the globe who identify with Islam are good, hard working, loving people. But that’s a separate issue from Islam itself. Here are 10 questions about the compatibility of Islam in America. Depending on your answers, does that make you an Islamophobe?
10) Are Islam and Sharia Law compatible with American culture? The generally accepted values of modern America stress a wide range of freedoms involving speech, sexuality and life styles as well as equal rights for women, minorities and a long list of others. None of thisfits with the program of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that affirmed Sharia law as supreme, with the death penalty for those leaving Islam, punishing women who are victims of rape, allowing men to be polygamous, permitting wife beating and censoring speech that insults Islam.
9) Does Islam threaten to destroy our system of law and our Constitution? Islam is not merely a religion. It is an entire societal and quasi-governmental structure with its own legal edifice called Sharia. The holy Qu’ran calls for subjugation of infidels or non-believers, if necessary, through armed jihad. Dr. Irwin Lutzer in his book “The Cross in the Shadow of the Crescent,” describes a Muslim demonstrator in Dearborn, Michigan, holding a sign stating: “We will use the freedoms of the Constitution to destroy the Constitution!” That’s the game plan. You see, Sharia law is in direct conflict with the Bill or Rights. The First Amendment, for instance, states Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion. Yet Mohammad said, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. Those who reject Islam must be killed.” Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or saying anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are forbidden to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations or the Star of David. There’s a lot more, but you get the idea.
8) Are Islam and Sharia Law tolerant of other religions? Tolerance is a fundamental American value. That is the polar opposite of Islam. When Muslims are not in a position of authority, they naturally call for tolerance and cooperation. But one only has to look at Muslim societies to understand how far that goes. How many Christian churches are there in Saudi Arabia? Zero. Non-Muslims (infidels) are not permitted to visit Mecca? Christians are routinely attacked or murdered in Pakistan. More than 600 Christians have been arbitrarily arrested and detained in Iran in the past year. Iranian authorities routinely raid church services, threaten church members and arrest and imprison worshipers and church leaders, particularly Evangelical Christian converts. Christian church leaders have been explicitly been targeted by the Iranian authorities charged with ‘unfounded national-security-related crimes.’
7) “When Muslims claim Islam is a religion of peace and love, are they lying to the non-Muslim world?” Ask Hicham Nostik, a former Muslim who now lives in Germany. He understands the prophet Muhammad’s famous quote, 'War is deceit.' Lying is permitted to deceive an "enemy." The Qu’ran defines the 'enemy' as "disbelievers." There is no way to cover up the meaning of that. In fact, apostates who leave Islam are subject to the death penalty. Apostasy is a crime in 16 out 49 Muslim majority countries; in other Muslim nations such as Morocco, apostasy is not legal but proselytizing towards Muslims is illegal. It is subject in some countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, to the death penalty.
6) Has there ever been a period in history fully characterized by peaceful co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims? Apparently not, based on details in Robert Spencer’s new book, ‘The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS” as well as Raymond Ibrahim’s “Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen centuries of war between Islam and the West,” Pamela Geller’s “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance” and similar books written by Jamie Glazov, David Horowitz, Brigitte Gabriel and Amil Imani.
5) Is Islam in the process of swallowing Europe? If any more proof of the danger of Islam to our society and culture is needed, look no further than the downward spiral of Europe. Growing problems caused by Muslims in France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Sweden and Britain continue to be well documented. The Muslim takeover of Britain is so far along I fear only a bloody civil war could reverse the tide. Douglas Murray has spelled this out in detail in his book, The Strange Death of Europe. After 25 years of intense Muslim immigration, Islam features 3,000 mosques, 130 Sharia courts, 50 Muslim Sharia Councils and dozens of ‘no go zones’ where Moslem ‘Sharia’ patrols ensure no one disobeys Sharia Law. Britain has recently released from prison Anjem Choudary, described as the most dangerous Islamic preacher in the UK. Among other pronouncements, he says, “When Sharia law is implemented, maybe in 10 or 15 years’ time, (the Queen] would be expected like all women in Britain to be covered from head to toe, only revealing her face and hands.” Or how about this? “There will be no more pubs, no more gambling houses, no more national lottery. All women would have to be covered up appropriately and wear the niqab or veil and so there will be no prostitution. By 2050, Britain will be a majority Muslim country if demographic trends continue. It will be the end of freedom of democracy and submission to God. We don’t believe in democracy, as soon as they have authority, Muslims should implement Sharia. This is what we’re trying to teach people.” Is there anything about this you don’t understand? Could we get any Muslim leaders to denounce this? The Brits are afraid to.
4) Will Muslim immigrants assimilate? In 1991, James Walsh, former Associate General Counsel of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service said,
“Immigrants devoted to their own cultures and religions are not influenced by the secular politically correct façade that dominates academia, news-media, entertainment, education, religious and political thinking today. They claim the right not to assimilate . . . Such immigrants say their traditions trump the U.S. legal system.”
But please, let the Muslims speak for themselves. Linda Sarsour, a leading Muslim activist, told the North American Islamic Society last year,
“I hope that when we stand up to those who oppress our community struggling against tyrants and rulers that Allah will accept this as a form of jihad not only in the Middle East but here against the fascists, white supremacists and Islamophobes here and reigning in the White House. Our top priority is to protect and defend our community and not to assimilate and please any other people or authority. Our top priority is to please Allah and only Allah.”
3) What is the record of radical Islamic killings since 9/11? The Religion of Peace website counts 34,034 Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide since September 11, 2001. Mosques financed by Saudi Arabia and Iran are primary sources of Jihadist activity. Israel has foiled at least 40 ISIS attacks in Western countries in just the last three years. Since 9/11, an additional 158 Americans have been killed in 53 separate acts of deadly Islamic terror or Islam-related honor killing in the United States. Hundreds of mass murder plots have been thwarted or botched. Between 5 - 25% of Muslims in America believe that violence in defense of Islam is justified.
2) Can there ever be a Muslim Martin Luther? Can Islam be reformed? A titular reform Islam movement in the US led by Zuhdi Jasser, a second-generation Syrian doctor who practices in Phoenix, says yes. But others do not believe that Islam is reformable. Muslims have attempted to reform Islam for 1400 years and have always failed. In Indonesia last month, a rally to promote moderate Islam was cancelled after threats of violence from hardliners. Leaders of such movements have been beheaded for apostasy. Jihad and Sharia are foundational principles of Islam. No mincing of words will change that. Lying, deception and terror as basic Islamic tools to maintain control provide a platform no reformer could possibly build on.
1) Does Islam belong in America? The companion question is, are Americans willing to take steps to neutralize the threat of Islam? In its current form, with the explicit goal of a global caliphate under Sharia, Islam must be regarded as an existential threat. Specific ways are needed to deal with an ideology that openly seeks to destroy Western Civilization. What could be done to deal with this threat? Before it is too late, consider these steps:
• Our political leaders should openly acknowledge the threat of traditional Islam to a pluralistic democracy and insist that Islamic institutions formally and in practice reject violent jihad as a condition for tax exempt status.
• Our schools should teach the violent history and core beliefs of Islam including the strict rules and requirements of Sharia law while contrasting that with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
• Muslim leaders who preach violence should be aggressively prosecuted for incitement.
• Congress should pass laws outlawing foreign financing of mosques or at a minimum require full reciprocity with Muslim countries granting complete religious freedom for Christian, Jewish or other groups to establish houses of worship and to openly proselytize their faiths.
•Conspiracy and accessory before- and after-the-fact laws targeting anyone, including family members of terrorists, failing to report illegal activities of which they had knowledge should be strictly enforced. We can’t afford for America to become another Muslim-dominated nation.
Frank Hawkins is a former U.S. Army intelligence officer, Associated Press foreign correspondent, international businessman, senior newspaper company executive, founder and owner of several marketing companies and published novelist. He currently lives in retirement in North Carolina.
MOSUL AND THE TRUE FACE OF ISLAM
Those pesky verses of abrogation that just won’t go away.
November 7, 2018
I have lived and worked in the Muslim Middle East for the past thirty-five years, and have many dear friends who are Muslims. Most recently, I prayed with a 38-year old Muslim man in the ruins of his house in the old city of Mosul, as he told me his story of surviving the ISIS occupation.
I stumbled upon Azam Nejim Abdallah by accident, while inspecting the devastation wrought upon the magnificent 4th and 5th century churches of West Mosul with an Iraqi police brigadier general and activists from the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, a local group dedicated to protecting Iraqi minorities.
Azam and an older neighbor, Abu Ibrahim Mohsen, were among the hardy few who had returned to the ruins and were attempting to rebuild. Their problem on this particular day was that they had no water, and no electricity. “People just three blocks down the street have water,” they complained to the brigadier general. Why not us?”
To us, the answer was obvious. The fact that Azam and his neighbors were alive was nothing short of miraculous. One neighbor’s house was just a pile of rubble. Bomb squads were still combing through the neighborhood, more than a year after the liberation, for ISIS booby-traps and unexploded ordinance. There was not a single house left standing in the neighborhood. Water? Electricity? Really?
When Azam saw me, he wanted to tell me the story of how his four-year son and father were killed in the final days of the ISIS occupation. He kept pointing to an alleyway, and in the end, I let him take me by the hand to his house a bit further away. He had already started to rebuild the walls, but that wasn’t what he wanted to show me: it was a picture of his four-year old son, Omar, and the jagged hole a coalition bomb had torn through a metal door. “I was crouching, right there,” he pointed. “Omar was crouching here, with my father. They were both killed,” he wept. All I could do as he showed me a photograph of his son was to pray with him.
I am reminded of this story by an encounter with a pastor in an Anglican church in Europe recently, who commented that ISIS and all their barbarity were “such a distortion of true Islam.”
I must have raised an eyebrow, for he went on: “You know, the Koran says to protect the People of the Book.”
“Those are the Meccan verses,” I countered. “In Medina, Mohammad preached violence and conquest.”
“You must read the Koran in its entirety,” he said. “It’s like the Bible: you can’t just take things out of context.”
I was floored by that statement, and not wanting to get into an argument in Church, I left it there. So instead, I am writing this column.
As anyone knows who has actually studied Islam – Islam itself, not the version purveyed by the apologists of the “religion of peace” – Mohammad changed his tune after the hijira or migration from Mecca to Medina.
While in Mecca, he attempted to win over local Christians and Jews, and so preached a doctrine that allowed for a modicum of tolerance, even while relegating the People of the Book to second-class citizen status, or dhimmitude.
But once in Medina, where he built a powerful army, he jettisoned that baggage and verbalized the famous Verse of the Sword proclaimed by ISIS and millions of Muslim warriors over the past fourteen centuries as they slaughtered unbelievers.
He also pronounced the Verses of Abrogation, which explicitly annulled the Mecca verses of relative tolerance. My Anglican friend was either ignorant of the doctrine of Abrogation, or for some reason felt that he, as a Christian, was somehow a better judge of its relative merit than the unanimous verdict of fourteen hundred years of Islamic scholarship, which has always upheld abrogation.
In other words, Islam as a religion explicitly rejects tolerance of others. The Koranic verses proclaiming relative tolerance have been declared null and void by Allah himself, according to Mohammad and 14 centuries of Muslim scholars.
My Anglican friend clearly preferred the illusion of Islam, rather than its harsh and often barbaric reality, the one I had witnessed in Mosul and the Nineveh Plain.
The overwhelming majority of ordinary Muslims I have met have little notion of what the Koran actually says. It is, frankly, an unreadable book. Much of it makes no sense at all. Some contemporary scholars believe this is because it was actually written in Syro-Aramaic, the common language of the time.
So most Muslims believe what their imam tells them to believe, or if they are not practicing, whatever their parents and grandparents have handed down to them. And for the most part, that is a religious code based on what we would call family values, aimed at keeping societies that are 100 percent Muslim from crime and disorder.
Over the centuries, these Muslims have coexisted with Christian and Jewish neighbors because those neighbors brought them prosperity and innovation, something the imams did not. From time to time, roused by Islamic “radicals,” these peaceful Muslims rose up and slaughtered their neighbors. In the most famous of these pogroms, Muslims slaughtered nearly half the Assyrian, Greek, and Armenian Christians in Iran, Iraq, and Turkey during the final years of WWI, just one hundred years ago.
In my experience, there are three broad categories of self-aware Muslims in the world today, all of whom understand the Doctrine of Abrogation.
There are the Reformers, who dare to proclaim that Islam must be better than violence and the sword. These are brave or foolhardy people, most of them men. They have a better chance of surviving in the Shiite world, which has a long tradition of ijtihad – Islamic jurisprudence or interpretation – something that died among the Sunna in the 12th century, if indeed it had ever existed as more than an afterthought.
Then there are the Seducers, the public intellectuals and politicians who proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and that anyone who says the contrary is committing blasphemy. These are powerful people, who have won much support from wishful thinkers in the West.
The wishful thinkers have so thoroughly bought into their denials of the Doctrine of Abrogation that it has now become illegal in Europe to even write about it, something the United Nations General Assembly has not managed to accomplish, despite the best efforts of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to support Resolution 1618.
Finally, there is the Muslim Brotherhood and its evil Salifist spawn, from al Qaeda and the Taliban to Hamas, ISIS, and beyond. They simply point to the Book, shout out “Koran says,” and eagerly behead Christians or Muslims who refuse to adopt their version of Sharia law, which happens to be drawn from authentic Islamic texts and 1400 years of unanimous Muslim scholarship.
Want to know the true face of Islam? Ask the Christians of Mosul and the Nineveh Plain. Or the Christians of Syria. Or the Muslims whose better nature rejected the barbarity of ISIS and who paid for their humanity with their lives.
Or ask Tara Fares, the former Miss Baghdad, who was gunned down last month in Iraq because she was a Christian who dared show her face in an outdoor market.
To my Anglican pastor friend, I say: wishful thinking will only get you dead. If not in this generation, then in the next.
THE UK'S MUSLIM RAPE GANGS AND MAAJID NAWAZ'S HYPOCRISY
The twisted world of the media’s go-to Muslim darling - and ex-terrorist self-promoter.
November 7, 2018
The media’s go-to Muslim darling and ex-terrorist self-promoter, Maajid Nawaz, is currently having a Twitter spat with Lily Allen (that virtuous pop singer who has promised and failed to give a room to even one single asylum seeker in any of her several properties, in spite of breaking down in tears on TV at Calais and apologizing to the world on behalf of the UK).
Maajid is using the usual buzzwords that keep the cash flowing in his direction: “the regressive left,” “Muslim fundamentalists,” and then he ends their debate by stating that Lily is discrediting the work of the three million British Pakistanis who are trying to address and improve the situation of the over-representation of Pakistanis in grooming gangs in the UK. In reality, however, the entire Pakistani community knew, and still knows, about the rape of white British girls. They are a close-knit community. They would have seen gangs of girls hanging around kebab shops. At no point did anyone try on-street intervention. They would have heard their friends bragging about who and how many non-Muslim girls they had raped last night. They would have heard about the rape parties where non-Muslim girls were drugged and passed around the men to be raped. The wives, too, would have heard these conversations on the telephone, in the next room, or in the shops where their husbands work. The taxi drivers who shuttled the non-Muslims girls back and forth to houses and hotels to be raped were also aware of what was going on.
Contrary to Maajid’s claims, none of these three million Pakistani Muslims chose to speak up. A handful of Ahmadiyyas protested on the streets, and the UK media were in a frenzy to let us know that Muslims oppose violence and rape. The media, as usual, neglected to note that Ahmadiyyas are not considered by mainstream Sunni Muslims to be real Muslims. They are considered apostates, who have every chance of being beaten and killed, just the same as any other non-Muslim does. Literature in the Muslim Council of Britain and Kennington mosque declare this sect to be apostates, and essentially fair game.
I remember a radio conversation in which a Muslima was being interviewed and she said that the entire Pakistani communities knew and still know what is going on. She was so sickened and appalled by what her community was doing to non-Muslim girls that she took her infant child and fled, for her safety, and in order that she could speak about it, from the South to the North of England. What a brave soul. A single mother, on her own, running into poverty and uncertainty in order that she could do one single radio interview.
Where are these three million Pakistanis Maajid is talking about? I’m seeing a handful on the TV who all exhibit the same tendency of bringing Jimmy Savile’s name into the conversation that they’re having about solving the Pakistani grooming gang problem. They’re not solving the problem so much as trying to shift the attention away from it. Jimmy Savile is a different problem to be solved. And we will solve it, and we won’t be called racist for doing so. We can’t solve all problems at once, and yet if we focus on Islamic rape gangs we’re racist and using the issue as a political tool. The same thing wasn’t said when the focus was on the Catholic Church. No one hesitated in attempting to get to the bottom and root cause of the pandemic of pedophile priests. Muslims tend to enjoy special status in relation to rape and grooming. If you talk about their behaviour, you’re a racist. Forget the lifetime trauma that the raped girls will never get over. Forget the ruined lives so that a bunch of animals could have five minutes of pleasure. Forget the suicide and drug addiction rates we will be seeing in later years as a result of Maajid’s community’s behaviour.
The other thing to note is that Maajid insists, with his spat on Twitter with Lily Allen (who apparently hasn’t yet been shamed enough to know when to keep her mouth shut), that he himself is a British Pakistani. Now how can this be? Unless you’re brought over to Britain after your formative years in Pakistan where you have been steeped in a cultural tradition, how can you be both things at once? Your roots might lie in Pakistan or Ireland, but if you’re brought up in the UK, then you are British – end of story. Maajid slips up at the end of their Twitter spat. He forgets to call himself a “Brit-Pakistani,” and he calls himself a “Pakistani” instead. Very Freudian.
AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS RACIST, SEXIST AND ANTI-CHRISTIAN THREATENS OUR DEMOCRACY
And the rot is deeper than you think.
The ruthless passions of the political left, which have been on full display in the campaign not just to defeat a Supreme Court justice nomination, but to destroy the nominee and his family, are inspired by an ideology that is racist, sexist, anti-Christian, and fundamentally anti-American. Just how powerful and entrenched this ideology is can be gauged by the following headline on the ABC News website: “Us white male Christians need to step back and give others room to lead.” The headline is explained in the article’s opening sentence: “In the great span of world history, nearly all change and progress has come from an under-served and out-of-power group pushing, prodding, and pounding on those who hold power to expand it to include a wider and more diverse population."
This is pure leftist claptrap. There is not a shred of historical evidence to support it. The greatest progress of the last 250 years, beginning in 1776 and 1789, has been the creation of liberal societies that support the principles of individual liberty and equality, and tolerance. In the case of England and America the supporters of these principles led the world in ending slavery, which is still practiced in Africa today. This progress was entirely the work of white Christian males, who were under no pressure from diverse, under-served and out of power groups. But what is truly striking about these false claims and their racist, sexist and anti-Christian prescription is that they are the words not of some fringe leftist, but of Matthew Dowd, a prominent Republican, who was the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign.
Every American should be concerned that an ideology so antithetic to everything this country has stood for should now be the conventional wisdom of half the country (including all the persecutors of Judge Kavanaugh). The U.S. Constitution does not contain the words “white,” “black,” “male” or “female,” precisely because the Founders believed they were creating a society in which true equality would one day prevail. It took nearly two hundred years to bring about the social changes that would realize that dream.
For the last fifty years, however, the left and the Democratic Party have been working hard to turn back the clock and reverse these gains - to introduce racial and gender categories and quotas into virtually every aspect of social life, to portray white Americans as guilty before the fact, and non-white Americans as innocent even when the facts show they are not. The progressive goal is totalitarian in nature: to erase individuals, their achievements and failures and every aspect of the circumstances in which they find themselves, in order to judge them on the basis of their skin color, their gender and their sexual orientation.
Hatred for whites, males and Christians – falsely portrayed as “privileged” and “oppressors” and thus condemned on the basis of characteristics they were born with - is now the principal curriculum of our schools, starting as early as kindergarten and extending through graduate education. Under the leftist mantra of “social justice,” American society is falsely portrayed as a system of racial, gender and sexual hierarchies. As in Matthew Dowd’s article, the remedy proposed is to reverse the oppression. In other words, to indict, silence, and repress whites, males, heterosexuals and Christians as part of a scheme to establish the vaguely defined utopia of “social justice.” (Can anyone seriously believe that the lynch mob out to destroy Brett Kavanaugh, is capable of even understanding the concept of “justice,” let alone establishing a society committed to it?)
The ideology which now inspires the progressive left, and never Trumpers like Matthew Dowd, is called “identity politics” – a name that should be anathema to every American who cherishes our country’s commitment to individual freedom - to judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or their gender or their sexual orientation. “Identity politics” is a euphemism for cultural Marxism, which takes Marx’s claim that societies are divided into oppressor and oppressed classes and imposes this dangerous and historically refuted claim onto races, genders and sexual orientations. Americans need to reject this destructive ideology as completely as they rejected its forerunner in the Communist movements of the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment