Rush is Wrong about Faisal Shahzad & Islamic Enmity

Rush Limbaugh read from Shahzad's statement on his radio show, and posted this transcript.  Here is the most significant quote from his Wednesday 10/6/10  broadcast.

We chalk up their behavior to our own analysis when we deny what they say to our own peril.  They're not poor.  They're not wandering aimless.  They have not had their futures taken away by the evil United States.  It's not even our support for Israel.  They say that, and I'm sure it irritates 'em, but it's our very existence as a free nation with freedom of religion that irritates 'em, that makes us a target, pure and simple.  It's who we are.  And there's nobody who can persuade them to leave us alone by virtue of his own countenance, his own background, his own history, his own words, his own speeches.  We could have a president even worse than Obama who does nothing but openly criticize and run down and apologize this country each and every day.  Still wouldn't matter.  The fact that we exist is what makes us the enemy.  [Emphasis added.]

    Islamic hatred of America is not a function of our system, our freedom, our foreign policy or our existence.  It is a function of  not being Muslim and rejecting Islam.  The religious component of Islam is a fraudulent blend of  plagiarized & distorted scriptures, apocryphal texts  and ancient paganism.  Because it is an impious fraud, it can not stand up to comparison or criticism.  Islam can only respond with arrogance and violence. It must therefore eliminate all rivals.  Islam can not tolerate the existence of a superior & more successful culture.

    Christians, Jews, Sabeans & Zoroastrians must be converted or subjugated as dhimmis; humbled, humiliated and extorted.   Atheists & pagans must be converted or killed.  Muslims are commanded to march against them and offer three alternatives:

• Embrace Islam.
• Join the jihad and share in the spoils. 
• Remain in place and receive nothing.
• Live as humiliated, subjugated & extorted dhimmis under Islamic domination ("People of the book" only.)
• Die. 

    Islamic law, best expressed in the Shafi'ite manual of Fiqh: Umdat as-Salik,  is based on what Moe said and did; the Qur'an & Sunnah.  Military expeditions against kuffar are a religious obligation binding upon Muslims in every year. If that is too ambiguous for you, I have a quote from Al-Shafi'i that will settle the matter.  "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

    Islamic law also tells us what the caliph does in the regular course of business. [Emphasis and link added.]

o9.8 The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

That is based on Surah At-Taubah 29 which commands waging war against Jews & Christians. Follow the link and scroll down to the second footnote. It quotes the genocide hadith and remarks on the imposition of jizya.  The jihad imperative is so clear and obvious that it is not amplified in the footnote.

    Abdullah Yusuf Ali, in his footnote, concentrates on jizya.  Mohammad Asad, a convert from Judaism, tries to  deceive us with a variation on the Shi'ite assertion of  general conditionality, asserting that all jihad is defensive, never aggressive. Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi explains two grounds for attacking Jews & Christians and spends the next four paragraphs explaining jizya.
.   
    Tafsir Al-Jalalayn  is fairly terse,  adding some details.  Tafsir Ibn Abbas gives nothing more than translation. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir is the most loquacious, giving us this gem of explicit explanation. "This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination." [Emphasis added.]

    The Profiteer is quoted  in a statement which confirms the jihad imperatives and conveys super important information.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have." [Emphasis added.]

Review what we learned from that saying:

• Moe was ordered to fight us until we become Muslims.. 
• Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims.
• We have no rights. 

    Because Moe was ordered to fight us, all Muslims are ordered to fight us.  Moe is their role model, whom they are commanded to emulate. Unfortunately, that has consequences in the real world.  When America won the war of revolution and became independent, her shipping lost the protection previously afforded by the Royal Navy.  The Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping and extorted tribute, which nearly bankrupted the new nation.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked by what right  they attacked us.  The answer is relevant to the present case.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War

• 8:39
• 9:29
• 2:216
• 33:26
• 3:169, 4:74
• Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386

Limbaugh Off Target: Strategic Plan

When I tuned into the Rush Limbaugh show today, Rush launched into a rant about Obama's changes to the National Security Strategy.
I selected three quotes from Rush's rant because they convey and overlook important concepts.

The change would be a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. It currently states, 'The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.'" Obama doesn't like that. He's pulling it out.

Shrub and Obamination are both wrong; Shrub is only slightly closer to objective factual reality. "Militant Islamic radicalism" is a fallacy; no such entity exists. The enemy is Islam; standard, off the shelf, orthodox Islam as Moe preached and practiced it, not some imaginary 'radicals' or 'extremists.

Islam is not defined by the relatively 'secular' or 'moderate' Muslims or 'Muslims in name' only. Islam is defined by what Moe said while speaking for Allah, recorded in the Qur'an. Islam is exemplified by Moe's sunna, as recorded in the collected oral traditions of his companions. Moe had a name for those "secular" Muslims: hypocrites. He said of them that "They recite Qur'an but it does not go beyond their throats (i.e. they do not act on it) and they will desert Islam as an arrow goes through a victim's body, so that the hunter, on looking at the arrow's blade, would see nothing on it;" [Sahih Bukhari 4.56.807]

Allah commanded Muslims to wage war against Polytheists and atheists until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale. The commandment is recorded in 8:39. confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and codified into Shari'ah in Reliance of the Traveller O9.9. The clear and obvious meaning of the command is confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.

Allah commanded Muslims to wage war against Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments. The commandment is recorded in 9:29, confirmed by Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and codified into Shari'ah in Reliance of the Traveller O9.8. the clear and obvious meaning of the command is confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah.

Those commands are not anachronisms; Allah's word has no expiration date. Jihad is defined in Reliance of the Traveller O9.0 as "To war against non-Muslims". Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526 informs us of the duration of Jihad: "jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)."

Between 1783 and 1815, American merchant vessels engaged in trade were attacked by the Barbary Pirates. At that time, Israel was occupied by the Ottoman Empire. There were no American troops stationed in Arabia. So, why did Islam attack our shipping? Because not being Muslim is a status offense.
Jefferson and Adams asked the crucial question and got this answer from Tripoli's envoy to London

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every Muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."[ Wikipedia]

Faithful Muslims have a right and duty to plunder and enslave us. I gave you links to the source of the doctrine. I gave you a quote which illustrates the application of that doctrine. "Its Islam, stupid". No 'radicalism', no 'extremism'; Islam! Its time to drop the p.c. adjectives & pretense; to name and shame the enemy. It is long overdue, so why not do it?

What are we doing having relationships with the Muslim world anyway? Do we have a relationship with the Catholic world? Do we have a relationship with the Buddhist world? Do we have a relationship with the Jewish world? Well, if we did, Obama's taken care of that.

As a Muslim, President Obama has a relationship to Islam and Muslims; he is one of them. He has a right and duty to plunder and enslave us. Yes, Rush, we have an Ambassador to the Vatican. But Islam's relationship to us is inimical. We need to reciprocate.

Now we can't call 'em Islamic radicals. Now we have to have a relationship with the Islamic radical world -- sorry -- Muslim world.

We can call them what they are: Muslims. Their relationship to us is the same as that of Germany & Japan in WW2.

Shrub could not bring himself to name and shame the enemy. Nor would he specify the ideological differences we have with Islam. President Obama won't name and shame the enemy. Nor will he list our most important differences with Islam any more than Shrub would. But, not being President, I will.

Freedom	Islam
right to life	Muslims can kill kuffar
liberty	Muslims can enslave kuffar
equality	Muslims are superior
gender equality	men are superior, own women as chattel
representative government by consent of the governed	theocracy imposed by force
freedom of religion	only Allah has right to be worshiped
peace unless attacked	war as a way of life

Unfairness Doctrine Revisited

An article published on World Net Daily brought an old issue back to the front burner. That article discusses the attitude of Mark Lloyd, recently appointed "chief diversity officer" for the Federal Communications Commission. The article mentions Lloyd's participation in the creation of a report published by the Center for American Progress, which WND describes as "George Soros-funded", indicating a left wing bias. Indeed, the Center describes itself as "progressive", which is a standard code word for Socialist.

The Center for American Progress report, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" discusses the "Imbalance" in talk radio programming. Their attitude holds talk radio to be unfairly dominated by Conservative talk show hosts; they seed ways and means of increasing the number and proportion of Socialist talk show hosts and broadcast hours.

The authors assert that the "Fairness Doctrine" was not repealed.

First, from a regulatory perspective, the Fairness Doctrine was never formally repealed. The FCC did announce in 1987 that it would no longer enforce certain regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine, and in 1989 a circuit court upheld the FCC decision. ¹¹ The Supreme Court, however, has never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine. Many legal experts argue that the FCC has the authority to enforce it again—thus it technically would not be considered repealed.¹²

Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.

License renewal previously required local engagement with the community—the solicitation of local feedback on programming and accountable public reporting of this input so that the FCC could determine if the broadcaster was upholding its public interest responsibilities. Now licenses are renewed by “postcard,” a stamp in the corner of a scrap of paper now substitutes for all of the local interaction, very little of which is still required by law. Without these policies fostering local responsiveness, the move toward lowest common denominator syndicated programming was facilitated.

[Endnotes related to the quoted paragraphs.]

11. See Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC.
12. See Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

While the authors assert that they do not seek to reduce the number of Conservative talk shows, they seek to increase the number of Socialist talk shows. With a limited number of hours in the day and broadcast stations in each market area, this is a zero sum game. Increasing the availability of one side must reduce the other unless some other programming option is reduced.

My position is that broadcast content should be determined by the market place, not by government fiat, either direct or filtered through semi captive advocacy groups.

The print media are dominated by the left wing. Broadcast television is dominated by the left wing. Cable television is dominated by the left wing. NPR is dominated by the left wing. Conservative talk radio is the alternative information & opinion source for Conservatives who are fed up with the free flowing lies and dripping venom offered up by the other media outlets.

The regional talk radio outlet tried Chuck Harder's show, it was not popular. They replaced it with Jim Hightower, who was not popular. Michael Medved lasted a little longer, but was replaced. Larry King was not popular and was replaced. Dr. Laura did not last long either. Likewise Bill O'Reiley. Steve Malzburg is on taped delay Sunday nights. Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity get three hours and Mark Levin is cleanup hitter for two hours.

In a free market, we listeners get what we want in the long term. Setting up minority groups to dictate what we can hear is an end run around the First Amendment. The right to speak implies an equally important right to listen.

This poorly camouflaged attempt to shield President Obama and his allies in Congress from truthful criticism must not be allowed to succeed. Send emails to your Representative & Senators demanding preservation of your right to listen!