Hints of Compulsory U.N. Censorship

Yesterday I received a fund raising email from the American Center for Law and Justice. The following inflammatory paragraph was included in that missive.

Meanwhile, at the United Nations, a drastic move is reportedly underway to make the anti-Christian measure, ''Combating Defamation of Religions,'' BINDING - MANDATORY - for member nations, including America.

It would criminalize proclamation of the Gospel around the globe. Speaking out against Islam, for example, would be an international crime.

The inordinantly curious can find a copy of the missive at Free Republic. I spent several hours searching for more detailed information with little success. Most of the information traces back to one blog: U.N. May Try to Criminalize Criticism of Islam which contains the following interesting paragraph.

In November, when the most recent version of the anti-blasphemy resolution was introduced, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan told the Human Rights Council the OIC wants to see a "new instrument or convention" that addresses the issue of blasphemy, one that would be binding on member states, according to Canwest News Service.

I was unable to find any evidence of such a message being delivered last November. Instead I discovered a statement delivered by Masood Khan April 1 of '08, which includes the quote cited above. [Emphasis added.]

We fear that such incidents are the tip of the iceberg. We should not let them spin out of control. Collectively, we should use political and legal instruments, and develop new ones, to stop willful and mischievous defamation of religions. The Council should explore new space to address this issue beyond condemnations and adoption of resolutions. The OIC has consistently called for drafting a new instrument or convention to combat defamation of religions. [Statement of Ambassador Masood Khan]*

In reality, the statement on behalf of the O.I.C. only mentions one "incident": the publication of Geert Wilders' Fitna. [First Ed. 03/27/08] Both Fitna and the Danish Cartoons have been alluded to in recent resolutions.

UN Watch issued a press release today.

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.) [Emphasis added by UN Watch.]

While the press release recognizes the fact that the proposal is in the form of a non-binding resolution, it states that the resolution:.

would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."

It is my understanding that U.N. resolutions & conventions are only binding on those states who sign & ratify them. Why should the U.S.A. sign & ratify a blasphemy convention which would contravene the first amendment? Do Islam the U.N.H.R.C. have any pedestal of moral suasion to stand upon?

*[To read my detailed dissection of a previous screed by Masood Khan, visit Islamophobia Exposed and read Jihad Means, Violence is Alien to Islam, Extremism is Integral to Islam, Terrorists Don't Speak for Islam, Violated Islamic Law, Islam Forbids Violence, Spread by the Sword, and Moe's Legacy of Violence.]

Obamination: Treacherous Idiocy

One News Now alerted me to a hint that President Barack Hussein Obama "says he hopes U.S. troops can identify moderate elements of the Taliban and move them toward reconciliation.". That story did not include the actual statement. A search through Google turned up a Deseret News story , derived from the New York Times News Service. The Deseret News included questions and answers from the NYT interview, including this, which appears to be the source of the many articles suggesting the possibility of "reconciliation" with the Taliban.

Q: Do you see a time when you might be willing to reach out to more moderate elements of the Taliban, to try to peel them away, toward reconciliation?

A: If you talk to Gen. Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq.

There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region. But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex. You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes. Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.

The problems associated with the Sons of Iraq short term strategy are discussed in this AP article published by the Washington Post:. U.S. Unsure About the Future of Iraq's 'Sons'. The same principles of common sense should apply to Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

• You can rent loyalty, you can't purchase it.
• You can be outbid.
• You can not trust those whose loyalty you have rented.

Taliban means students of the Qur'an. Taliban member are Muslims first. They have studied the Qur'an & hadith and practice Salafism. The bottom line: total world conquest & domination, so that only Allah is worshiped on a global scale.

• Jihad is:
• "holy fighting in Allah's cause"
• to make Islam dominant
• the means of propagating Islam. {"His Religion (Islam) is propagated."}
• "the original religion" of Islam
• Islam's "highest peak"
• mandatory, not optional.

Under Islamic law offensive Jihad, when Muslims invade Dar al-Harb, is fard kifaya: obligatory on all able emancipated adult male Muslims until a sufficient number have answered the call to battle. Defensive Jihad, when Dar al-Islam is invaded by Kuffar, is fard ayn: obligatory on all Muslims jointly and severally regardless of age, gender or condition. Muslims who sincerely side with us in Afghanistan & Iraq have signed their death warrants; they will be killed when we pull out.

If they are Muslims, obedient to Allah, emulators of Muhammad, they are not our friends nor are they our allies. Friendship and alliance with disbelievers is explicitly forbidden by the following ayat.

• 3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
• 3:118
• 4:89
• 4:144
• For context, begin with 4:135.
• 5:51
• Continue context to 5:56.
• 5:57
• 58:14
• Continue context to 58:22
• 60:1

Allah grants implicit permission to trick & deceive Kuffar through al-taqeyya & kitman.

• 2:225. Allâh will not call you to account for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will call you to account for that which your hearts have earned. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Forbearing.
• 3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
  
• 5:89. Allâh will not punish you for what is uninentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; ...
• 16:106. Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allâh, and theirs will be a great torment.
  
• (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''
• "War is deceit'"

Do you have a clue yet, or are you one of the lemmings? There can be neither compromise nor alliance with Islam. This is an existential conflict; them or us. They started it, let us finish it. There is nothing to discuss with Islam except the time, place and manner of their induction into Hell.

Real Men Aren't Pretenders, Like Obama

"So I said to him, 'Barack, I know Abe Lincoln, and you ain't him.'"

Change That is Overthrowing America

In the process of attempting to destroy the United States of America as it has been for 200 years, or Obama's Change We Can Count On, the radical liberal elite oligarchy has become the Change That is Overthrowing America.

Evidence of this can be seen in how commonly-understood English terms have been overthown and over-turned by them them as well.

Whether from the lips of former Senator, and present hack, Barack Obama, plastic-surgery queen-witch, Nancy Pelosi, or any other of the emperor's lemmings, right has become wrong, white has become black, and evil has become good in their hijacking of American words, norms and values.

They have stolen words and terms and have changed their meanings in an attempt to redefine them to suit their aggressive socialistic political goals. Toward that end, their new meanings have become polar opposites of the actual meanings. Here are some examples:

- Slavery has now come to mean: Freedom
- Success has now come to mean: Slavery
- Irresponsibility has now come to mean: Right
- Liberty has now come to mean: License
- Economic Stimulation has now come to mean: Economic Suicide
- Free Speech has now come to mean: No Dissenting Speech
- Diversity has now come to mean: Conformity to Liberal Ideas

Meanwhle, some terms have been rendered completely irrelevant. Ideas such as ethics, integrity, truthfulness and honesty have been eliminated from having any bearing in the political arena. Instead, hypocrisy is overlooked, lying is allowed, cheating is acceptable, partisanship is said to be bi-partison, and We the People has been replaced with We the Powerful.

This country will not survive the seditious and intentional re-engineering of its economic framework by those with alien agendas, and in some cases, agents with alien birth certificates. Never before in the history of this country have so many un- and anti-American traitors held so much political power. This country is now on the brink, with its very survival in the balance.

Either Mr. Obama and his radical usurpers are stripped of their power, overturned in their ambitions, or blocked in their agenda or the people of the United States will have been overthrown, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be obsolete. For the ones sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States are now its greatest enemies.

It is a matter of survival now. Mr. Obama and his overthrowers have made it clear that their interests are not the interests of We the People. They must be stopped now. Call your Senators and your Representatives. Organize protests, demonstrations and peaceful assemblies to let these clowns and their intoxicated sheep that you will not stand by quietly as the Powerful Elite continue to attempt to destroy the United States of America.

They can Keep Their Change, for it is killing this country.

UJVSS Targets Anti-Islam Sentiments

The Martlett.ca, The University of Victoria's Independent Newspaper published an article "titled UVSS Letter targets anti-Islam sentiments", dated March 01/2009, under the byline of Kailey Willetts.

The article discusses a letter from the UVic Students' Society to the Equity and Human Rights Office. It quotes the letter as saying that the anti-Islamic materials posted by Lorenzo Bouchard "promote discrimination and hate toward Muslims".

The article does not explain how a cartoon depicting the IDF protecting a baby contrasted with Hamas using a baby as a shield promotes discrimination and hate. Neither does it explain how Mr. Bouchard's petition to the World Court promotes discrimination and hate.

The posting of the cartoon & petition is described as dreating "such a hostile and hateful environment which student, staff and faculty should not be subjected to".

Another quote:"It goes against the policies and it goes against our university culture as well. We want to have those tough discussions and tough talks, but it also nreets to be in a way that is respectful and in a way that won't prevent others from being heard, and we feel that this material does."

How do the cartoon and petition prevent anyone from being heard? Did Lorenzo remove any other postings? Did he muzzle anyone? Only Lorenzo's speech is being squelched in this case.

A request was made that anyone finding potentially hateful material on campus present it to Campus Security. I wonder how many Korans will be turned in?.
Most likely, enjunctions to fight Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and extorted don't threaten or offend anyone under University standards of hate speech.

The article reports that a Human Rights forum called "Equity and Speech--Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk" will be held Tuesday, March 10 in Room C122 of the David Strong Building from 4:30 to 5 p.m. I hope that some of our Canadian readers will see fit to join in that discussion and tell us about their experiences there.

A Martlet article dated Feb. 6 describes the one discovery and removal of the cartoon and launches into a hateful anti-Israeli screed.

War on Civilization

Google alerted me to this article at Islam World :

The war on terror equals a war on Islam!

The article is attributed to Tom Fowler, founder of the Conservative Constitutionalist Party.

There is no war on Islam, there is a war, initiated by Islam, against all non-Muslims. This war flows directly from Allah's Jihad imperatives recorded in Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which are reflected in Umdat as-Salik O9.8 & O9.9.

These two paragraphs precede the conclusion of the article.

In America we must start by banning Islam and outlawing Muslim schools and the Quran. Then we must deport or imprison those who teach and/or practice Islam. Drastic? Absolutely, but there is no other way. This is not a freedom of religion issue. It is a survival issue. If this makes me a bigot then so be it. I believe it makes me a realist. I think deep down you all know that what I say is true, but you are too afraid of being labeled a bigot to admit it. But from where I stand, the security and preservation of America is much more important than what someone thinks of me.

Does the banning of Islam run counter to the constitution? Certainly. That is why we need a constitutional amendment which would specifically ban Islam within the borders of America.

I must take issue with a few points.

• This is not a freedom of religion issue.

In part it is, but primarily a right to life issue. This is how freedom of religion is involved: If Muslims have a 'right' to practice Islam here then we have no freedom of religion neither do we have a right to life or property.

Only Allah has the right to be worshiped.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

If you worship any other than Allah in any other manner or form than Moe did, then you are a rebel against Allah, to be punished, humiliated, tormented and gathered into Hell.

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."...

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslims. Allah declared open season on us. Have you not read 9:29?

9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

Muslims are obligated to make war upon us, to mount a minimum of one military expedition in every year. Failing to do so when it is possible is sinful. But of course, I'm a liar. Yeah, wrong! Umdat as-Salik, the hand book of Shari'ah:

O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"

and Allah Most High having said:

"Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

• Does the banning of Islam run counter to the constitution? Certainly. That is why we need a constitutional amendment which would specifically ban Islam within the borders of America.

We need to amend the Constitution to acknowledge the fact that Islam is a war cult, not a legitimate religion, and, as such, not covered by the umbrella of first amendment protection. If you doubt that, then read What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims? If any doubt remains, then consider the fatal fact of Islam's mercenary mission, which is detailed in Know Thine Enemy: Religion of Peace?? .

Pedestrian Infidel has the proposed amendment 28. Much of the information contained in this blog post is summarized and documented in the Outlaw Islam! Petition. Please read it, copy it, click through to sign it, and paste it into an email to your family, friends & associates exhorting them to sign and forward it. Canadian citizens should sign and promote the Ban Islam petition to Stephen Harper. Everyone should endorse & promote the petition to the World Court. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Open Letter to the U.S. SenateDear Senators:

Dear Senators:

Bloggers who write about critical public issues invest a great deal of time and effort in the hope of effectively sharing vital information with our fellow citizens and elected officials.

It is frustrating to discover that the fruits of our labor is being passed over with a cursory glance. For example:

1 6th March 2009 17:40:51 0 seconds Firefox 3.0 WinXP unknown

0 Washington, District Of Columbia, United States U.s. Senate Sergeant At Arms (156.33.54.37) snooper.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/un-resolutions-revisited-defamation-of-religion/ snooper.wordpress.com/2008/07/11/un-resolutions-revisited-defamation-of-religion/ No referring link

Some Senator or staffer looked and left, apparently without checking any of the dozen links to vital information contained in that post.
That post is one of the most visited posts on the blog. Because it is outdated, I have updated it with links to more recent posts.

• Quit Aiding Our Enemies!

• Defamation Resolutions: Enough Already!

• Defamation of Religions Resolution Revised

• UN Renews Censorship Demand

• UN: Eliminating Intolerance or Protecting it?

The General Assembly "Combating Defamation of Religions" resolutions are only one facet of Islam's campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam. The Human Rights Council has passed similar resolutions, and similar text is included in the Durban II draft document. All of those resolutions share common fallacies & hypocrisy which I expose and document in these blog posts.

The same conflict continues on another parallel front: "Inter-religious Dialog". You will find posts about that battle front as well as the UNHRC & Durban II in this list of related posts which I urge you to read.

• Durban II: Revised; Reject it!
• UN Resolutions Revisited: Defamation of Religions
• U.N. Bans Criticism of Islam: Pretext
• More UN AssWholliness
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 1
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 2
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 3
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 4
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 5
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 6
• Durban II: Egregious Arrogance Part 7
• U.N. Interfaith Dialogue Conference
• Abdullah: On the Level or Sneaky Devil?
• Monologue: Prince Saud Al Faisal Spills the Beans
• Culture of Peace Conference
• You’ve Been Mooned!

In the interest of public education, I will reproduce parts of Book O of Undat as-Salik, which will demonstrate exactly what Islam seeks to accomplish: imposition of its blasphemy laws upon the entire world.

Note the penalty for apostasy:

O8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Emphasis added to make the most important list items stand out: these are acts which will get you decapitated under the rule stated above.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-8- to mockingly say, ``I don't know what faith is'';

-9- to reply to someone who says, ``There is no power or strength save through Allah''; ``Your saying `There's no power or strength, etc,' won't save you from hunger'';

-10- for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, ``This is through the decree of Allah,'' to reply, ``I act without the decree of Allah'';

-11- to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also ``kafir'');

-12- when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, ``La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah'' (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah) ), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;

-13- to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak'a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.)

The following list applies primarily to Kuffar who have been conquered and submitted to a "treaty of protection" as hinted at in 9:29.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.1

A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are:

-1- Jews;

-2- Christians;

-3- Zoroastrians;

-4- Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity;

-5- and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

O11.2

Such an agreement may not be effected with those who are idol worshippers (dis: o9.9 (n:) ), or those who do not have a Sacred Book or something that could have been a Book.

(A: Something that could have been a Book refers to those like the Zoroastrians, who have remnants resembling an ancient Book. As for the psuedoscriptures of cults that have appeared since Islam (n: such as the Sikhs, Baha' is, Mormons, Qadianis, etc.), they neither are nor could be a Book, since the Koran is the final revelation (dis: w4). )

O11.3

Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples:

(a) follow the rules of Islam (A: those mentioned below (o11.5) and those involving public behavior and dress, though in acts of worship and their private lives, the subject communities have their own laws, judges, and courts, enforcing the rules of their own religion among themselves);

(b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya).

O11.4: The Non-Muslim Poll Tax

The minimum non-Muslim poll tax is one dinar (n: 4.235 grams of gold) per person (A: per year). The maximum is whatever both sides agree upon.

It is collected with leniency and politeness, as are all debts, and is not levied on women, children, or the insane.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.6

They are forbidden to reside in the Hijaz, meaning the area and towns around Mecca, Medina, and Yamama, for more than three days when the caliph allows them to enter there for something they need).

O11.7

A non-Muslim may not enter the Meccan Sacred Precinct (Haram) under any circumstances, or enter any other mosque without permission (A: nor may Muslims enter churches without their permission).

O11.8

It is obligatory for the caliph (def: o25) to protect those of them who are in Muslim lands just as he would Muslims, and to seek the release of those of them who are captured.

O11.9

If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated (dis: o11.11) (A: though if only one of them disobeys, it concerns him alone).

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-1- commits adultery with a Muslim woman or marries her;

-2- conceals spies of hostile forces;

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-4- kills a Muslim;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

This is a link to the resolution passed 12/18/08 http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7201.doc.

19. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;

Durban II: (A/CONF.211/PC/WG.2/CRP.2)

NEW PARA: Calls on States to prohibit by law and adopt necessary policy measures to combat [in accordance with norms of international law] the dissemination of all ideas based on racial superiority or hatred and incitement to hatred; (Racist crimes, hate crimes, urban violence)

152. Calls on States to combat impunity for acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, [and to grant appropriate redress for victims] [by securing access to justice, by granting [and maximizing] [maximum] [fair] [just and adequate] [appropriate] redress for victims];

159. Urges States to take effective measures to address contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and to take firm action against negative stereotyping of religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures and symbols;

160. Calls on States to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation;

Will you accept Dhimmitude and allow these tyrranical edicts to be imposed upon us by the U.N. and its agencies, abandoning our first amendment rights, or will you rise up and raise Hell?

U.S. Citizens reading this post are urged to include a link to it in an email to their Representative & Senators by copying and pasting this html code into the email form at http://www.congress.org .

Open Letter to the U.S. Senate.

More or Fewer Parties Ain't the Solution

In response to:

Do we Really Need Political Parties?

March 3, 2009 by Jonathan Simeone

If there were no political parties Congressional elections would tend to be much more local, because there would be no national parties to pump millions into local races. This change would go a long way to make running for Congress more about ideas and qualifications and less about wealth.

There won't be "no parties" because the Constitution guarantees the right of free association; to peaceably assemble to petition for redress of grievances. The Republican & Democrat parties are not creatures of the state, nor do they have a state ordained monopoly. They garner the most activist support and money, so they are most able to field candidates and win elections. If no parties existed, their function would probably be assumed by other organizations: unions & the Chamber of Commerce, for example.

If there were no political parties the influence of the wealthy over our nation’s politics would be greatly diminished, because they would not be able to buy off entire parties simply by writing a few checks. Instead, they would have to make direct contact with every politician they wished to influence. Obviously, a more daunting proposition.

In that case, they would operate through section 527 organizations as Soros does already.

If there were no political parties Congressional committee assignments would not be handed out based on ridiculous criterion like party loyalty and seniority. The houses of Congress would individually meet and have to vote as whole groups—rather than parties as it is done now—to choose their body’s leadership and give out committee assignments. As an extra benefit this would do away with the designations of majority and minority; thus, creating a much better climate for compromise.

Differences of appearance, not function. Most of those elected would be incumbents who would maintain their previous associations with like minded colleagues.

If there were no political parties the American public would need to be more involved in the electoral process. No longer could they simply show up on Election Day and pull a lever for the party they have always supported.

Most would vote on the basis of name recognition, the rest would vote based on what the preacher in their church or their union boss directed them to do. Very few would take the effort required to study issues & candidates more extensively than they do now.

If there were no political parties the influence of special interests would be greatly reduced. This has much to do with money, but I thought it was deserving of a special mention because of how important it is.

In the abscence of parties, the influence of special interest groups would be intensified and expanded; they would take over many of the functions now performed by the parties.

If there were no political parties we would be done with stupid polls that tell us how Republicans and Democrats view different issues. After all, the only thing that matters is how Americans view the issues that are impacting our nation.

Polls are a means of metrication and manipulation. In the abscence of parties, they would be sponsored by special interest groups and individual campagins instead of by parties. The news media would also continue to commission voter opinion surveys.

In closing, I strongly believe that our system of political parties, more than anything else, is responsible for the corruption that plagues our system and the polarization that makes getting anything done very difficult. If we want to make sure that the politicians start considering what we want we need to eliminate as many of the barriers that exist between us and them as we can. And while eliminating the party system will not solve all of our political problems it’s a good start in that direction.

Corruption is primarily a function of greed acting upon opportunity. The larger the government budget, the more graft there will be. The founders had ample reason for creating a limited federal government. When the Constitution was largely abandoned, opportunities for graft & corruption vastly increased.

"Getting things done" is supposed to be difficult. The system of checks and balances was designed to slow the process so that the press and public could inspect and evaluate the process and the product. The Founders did not want mob rule, nor did they want important decisions to be made on the spur of the moment without debate & careful reflection on the consequences.

Eliminating barriers between pols & voters is best done by keeping government local: the greatest knowledge, familiarity & interaction occurs in the school district, township, city & county; less at the state level and much less at the Congressional district level.

What you want probably is not best for the nation's long term welfare; after all, you wanted Obama, which does not testify well to mature judgment and a deep knowledge base. The founders wisely avoided the mob rule attendant to direct democracy by creating a representative republic with limited government powers.

Parties ain't the source of the problem. Excessive concentration on perceived self interest, ignorance of the system, ignorance of economics and insufficient attention to crucial details are major contributors to the problem. The European multi-party / prime minister system leads to unstable, divided short term administrations. The results of excessively fine divisions are most clearly displayed in Israel & Lebanon.

The reforms we need are in expectations, attitudes, knowledge, information & logic skills. The most important reforms are restoration of the Constitution and the voter qualification examination, in that order.

Why Free Speech & Why Not

I received an email titled "Properly Understanding The Times - Part 2" from Act! for America. If you haven't joined yet, you can read the article by clicking the title above.

In the article, Guy Rodgers points out the risk inherent in tolerating relatively minor impositions against liberty. Islam's demand for censorship though national & international imposition of its blasphemy law is one such imposition which threatens our freedom of expression. He illustrates his point with mention of an Austrian M.P. recently prosecuted & convicted of "hate speech" and the pending prosecution of Geert Wilders, Dutch M.P. He shows us that the issue is not novel, with a censorship anecdote more than 200 years old.

Rodgers follows up by reproducing Andrew Bostom's article: "Wilders' Defense of Free Speech". Dr. Bostom goes into some detail concerning the accuracy of Wilders' citation of the Qur'an.

The Organization of the Islamic Conference is pressing for censorship in the U.N. and its append ant bodies. Recent resolutions by the General Assembly & Human Rights Council demand global imposition of Islam's blasphemy laws. That demand is echoed in the Durban II Draft Document.

What consequences would ensue from criminalizing criticism of Nazism before and during the Second World War or Communism at the peak of the Cold War? Accurately identifying and characterizing our enemy is vitally necessary to preparing and executing defense against aggression.

In a representative republic, the electors need to be free to hold open and honest discussion of all facets of current officials, aspirants to high office and their legislative programs. The Democrat Party seeks, through re-imposition of the 'fairness doctrine', 'ownership diversity' and 'community advisory boards' to intimidate broadcasters so that Conservative talk radio hosts will be silenced.

In an article entitled "Why Freedom of Speech?" Baron Bodissey reminds me of a statement by President Barack Hussein Obama in his first international television interview.

Quoted, from msnbc out of context, emphasis added.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives.

The highlighted expression indicates to this writer that President Obama is in sympathy with the OIC campaign of censorship. It raises severe doubts concerning his supposed withdrawal from the preparations for the U.N. Racism Conference because objections to proposed censorship were cited as one reason for pulling out. The remainder of the excerpt would give the impression that Islam is, as President George W. Bush described it, a 'religion of peace'. In actual fact, it is a war cult. For documented proof of that fatal fact, download and read Know Thine Enemy.chm.

By reading the U.N. resolutions linked above, you can discover how the O.I.C. couches its demands in terms of 'respect' for sanctities and association of Islam with terrorism & violence. By reading the appropriate sections of Shari'ah, you can discover the law they intend to impose. These quotes are from Umdat as-Salik, Book O. [Enter the reference letter & numbers in the search engine in the frame surrounding the text image to locate the text for further exploration. ]

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam...
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

Those are acts of apostasy, punishable by death, prescribed in this statement.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Dhimmis, conquered Jews,Christians & Zoroastrians submitted under a 'treaty of protection' suffer a similar imposition.

Chapter O11.0: Non-Muslim Subjects of the Islamic State (Ahl Al-Dhimma)

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

O11.11

When a subject's agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

O9.14

When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner's death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

If the enormity of that has not sunk in, re-read the portions I emphasized until it does. A dhimmi may be killed for criticizing Islam. Like it or not, that is Islamic law, which the O.I.C & President Obama seek to impose upon us. Respect is given where respect is due; not to a war cult. If you don't understand that Islam is a war cult, read O9.1 through O10.3.

Obama is Killing America to Build Nanny-State

It is becoming ever more clear that former Senator Barack Obama has an agenda to overthrow the United States of America, as it has been for 200 years, and to replace it with a nationalist/socialist nanny-state.

The spending in his first month in office alone is enough to wake up even the most incompetent Democrat, if a liberal could indeed be awakened. A billion here, a trillion there, another thirty-billion over here again - Obama is burning our ability to create capital, and stealing our finances, our children's finances, and the finances for all generations of Americans forever,

Think I'm exagerrating? Let's do some math:

Let's say that you get to spend one million dollars per day on whatever you want. How long do you think it would take you to spend a trillion dollars, which was basically the amount of Obama's recent 'Stimulus' [read: eternal bankruptcy] package?

Do you think that you would spend a trillion dollars in a week? A month? Perhaps a year?

Well, the answer is that by spending a million dallars a day, it would take you more than a decade to spend a trillion dollars. Yet Obama and all the blind brown-nosers in league with him [read: Democrats] bound you and your offspring to nearly incalculable debt in a heartbeat WITHOUT ONE OF THEM EVEN HAVING READ THE DOCUMENT WHICH BINDS YOU TO THIS INSANITY.

And the truth is if you spent a million dollars a day it would take you longer than a decade to spend a trillion, it would take at least a century. Wayy more than a century, actually. It would take you more than a thousand years to spend a trillion dollars.

To be specific, it would take you about THREE-THOUSAND YEARS TO REACH A TRILLION DOLLARS IF YOU SPENT A MILLION DOLLARS A DAY.

And Obama is signing off on these types of things every single week. And Democrats are handing him the pen!

People, this is MADNESS!! This HAS TO STOP! Obama is KILLING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

He is taking away your rights and the sovereignty of the people of the United States and handing it to an oligarchical elite who now own you, your children and your children's children for millenia to come.

You are no longer free because you were no longer brave.

You did not scrutinize this fool of fools, Barack Obama, and you allowed him to beguile his way into a critical position with his treasounous ideology and agenda. And you LET him.

You gave up everything that every soldier in the last 200 years fought (or died) to protect and preserve.

And he is now shutting the doors on the greatness of this country, exposing us to our enemies, attempting to disarm us, enslave us and tell us what to do, how to think, and regulate what you can say and to whom and where, just like a good nanny would do.

You have let this thief in the door and handed him the keys to the kingdom, you Democratic fools! He has since proceeded to squat down, take a bowel movement on the heads of the American people (while you held him up) then he used you as toilet paper, and he is reaching over to flush us all in a very short time.

Good-bye America. We hardly knew thee; before the liberals gave you away to un-American masters. Anathema!

Ema's Deception

Ema Nymton said... .

Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul,

"It is not possible to be a Muslim and oppose violence & terrorism, ... Islam is all or nothing; you can not pick and choose."

Tommyrot. Of course you can. No one can live today within the absolute constrictions of texts written by dead people thousands of year ago in far away lands.

Even the most fundamental christian bible thumping religious leaders acknowledge the need to 'pick and choose' selective parts of their holy books. The most extremist followers of jewish literature choose which part of their holy books they apply to their lives.

____

"Your facts are fallacies!" Honestly. Do you realize how utterly _DUMB_ yo make yourself when you say things like this? Just because you do not like the fact does not mean the fact is not true.

The person who wrote, "There are plenty of people, for example the far right in this country, or Geert Wilders' outfit in Holland, who would wish to conflate the two in order to stir up race hate." was talking about you.

*@:o?

• Tommyrot. Of course you can. No one can live today within the absolute constrictions of texts written by dead people thousands of year ago in far away lands.

Islam's imperative violence is prescribed by Allah's commands expressed in clear verses. Ibn Kathir tells us that those commands are to be believed and implemented. See what Allah said about his book.

3:4. Aforetime, as a guidance to mankind, And He sent down the criterion [of judgement between right and wrong (this Qur'ân)]. Truly, those who disbelieve in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh, for them there is a severe torment; and Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Able of Retribution.

3:7. It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'ân). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), Al-Farâ'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allâh. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabarî).

5:3. ...This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion. ..

Disbelievers and disobedient go to Hell, Ema. Allah's book contains his commands, in clear verses, to be believed and carried out. It is perfected. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved.

Without standards and means of maintaining them and promoting uniformity, Islam would fall apart. The Qur'an & hadith are Islam's standards, by which it measures faith and practice, by which Allah will judge you amd decide where you will spend eternity. Take a good long clear eyed look at what Moe said.

Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2497:
Narrated AbuUmamah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: 'before the Day of Resurrection".

Why did Moe say that, Ema? Get a clue!

9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.

A search for "Obey Allah and his Messenger" turns up four Surahs. Here is one example.

8:20. O you who believe! Obey Allâh and His Messenger, and turn not away from him (i.e. Messenger Muhammad ) while you are hearing.

• Even the most fundamental christian bible thumping religious leaders acknowledge the need to 'pick and choose' selective parts of their holy books. The most extremist followers of jewish literature choose which part of their holy books they apply to their lives.
  

Your argument is irrelevant, this is about Islam, not Christianity. It concerns the Qur'an, not the Bible. The Qur'an contains commands in clear verses which must be obeyed and implemented. Allah said:

• Fight them...
• Fight those who...
• And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war...
• ...Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you...
• ...I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.

Once again, I direct your attention to a ruling by the founder of the Shafi'ite school of Shari'ah.

"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.

It is Islamic law because Allah commanded it and Moe did it. You can't disprove it. It ain't a musty old book, Ema, it is Allah's path to life giving waters.

• "Your facts are fallacies!" Honestly. Do you realize how utterly _DUMB_ yo make yourself when you say things like this? Just because you do not like the fact does not mean the fact is not true.

Here is the pertinent part of what the M.P. said:

You can't ignore the facts that this ideology is rooted in a twisted reading of Islam. The academics, scholars and imams I meet to discuss these issues tell me that the message of Islam is one of peace; and the followers of Islam I meet oppose the single narrative promulgated by Al-Qaeda, and certainly oppose violence.

• that this ideology is rooted in a twisted reading of Islam

How could Allah's Messenger, who received Allah's revelation by agency of Jibril, mis-read it? Re-examine 3:7, cited above. Clear verses containing commands. I quoted them and linked to them above. The meaning of the words is obvious on sight. No interpretation is required. What Moe did matches what Allah said. He made war, committed genocide and terrorized his victims.

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."

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...

Only an ignoramus or a damned fool will deny the obvious!

• the message of Islam is one of peace

2:216, 8:12, 8:39, 8:60, 8:67, 9:29, 9:123 & 33:26-27 clearly prove the the M.P. to be a damned fool. The message of Islam is highlighted in this hadith

Muslim Book 019, Number 4380:
...From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Hiraql, the Emperor of the Romans. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. After this, I extend to you the invitation to accept Islam. Embrace Islam and you will be safe. Accept Islam, God will give you double the reward. And if you turn away, upon you will be the sin of your subjects." ...

• Peace if you obey the Qur'an, otherwise: war.
• Be safe if you embrace Islam, otherwise: invaded.
• Reject Islam and be damned, after we kill you.

This fatal fact will become clear if you will read the sequence of message & action. In the case cited above, it was first the letter, then the march upon Tabuk. Here is another case: Khaibar Oasis. Read it and curse Islam.

LETTER TO THE JEWS OF KHYBER In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful From Muhammad, the Prophet of Allah who is like Moosa (Moses A.S.) a prophet and messenger and he testifies to what Moosa (A.S.) had brought. 0 people of Torah, has Allah not stated in the Torah that "Muhammad (Sal Allaho Alehe Wasallam) is a Prophet of Allah. The people who will be with him, shall be harsh towards the enemies of Allah. And amongst themselves, they shall be kind and loving. They shall bow and prostrate before Allah. And they shall seek His bounty and goodwill". I ask you to swear by Allah, who sent Torah for you and who made your forefathers eat 'mann, and 'Salva' and dried sea for them and rid them of the tyranny of pharaoh. It is not written in Torah that you should believe in me? After the explanation about me in the Torah, do guidance and transgression become apparent? Therefore I invite you towards Allah and His Prophet.' Seal: Allah's Prophet Muhammad

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet said to Abu Talha, "Choose one of your boy servants to serve me in my expedition to Khaibar." So, Abu Talha took me letting me ride behind him while I was a boy nearing the age of puberty. I used to serve Allah's Apostle when he stopped to rest. I heard him saying repeatedly, "O Allah! I seek refuge with You from distress and sorrow, from helplessness and laziness, from miserliness and cowardice, from being heavily in debt and from being overcome by men." Then we reached Khaibar; and when Allah enabled him to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,' where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah's Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah's Apostle and Safiya. Then we left for Medina. I saw Allah's Apostle folding a cloak round the hump of the camel so as to make a wide space for Safiya (to sit on behind him) He sat beside his camel letting his knees for Safiya to put her feet on so as to mount the camel. Then, we proceeded till we approached Medina; he looked at Uhud (mountain) and said, "This is a mountain which loves us and is loved by us." Then he looked at Medina and said, "O Allah! I make the area between its (i.e. Medina's) two mountains a sanctuary as Abraham made Mecca a sanctuary. O Allah! Bless them (i.e. the people of Medina) in their Mudd and Sa (i.e. measures)."

Moe sent extortion letters by private currier and followed up with his army. Message of peace my ass!

• the followers of Islam I meet oppose the single narrative promulgated by Al-Qaeda, and certainly oppose violence.

Either her sample is composed of hypocrites or deceivers practicing al-taqeyya. If you reject violence, you must reject Islam because the religion of Islam is Jihad. This fatal fact is made abundantly clear in one hadith collected by Abu Dawud.

Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

• The person who wrote, "There are plenty of people, for example the far right in this country, or Geert Wilders' outfit in Holland, who would wish to conflate the two in order to stir up race hate." was talking about you.

Islam is not a race, nor is it a religion; it is a war cult. Geert Wilders displayed the truth in Fitna, and spoke about it to the Dutch Parliament. To see who is stirring up hate, read the Qur'an, which condemns, curses & declares war upon Christians & Jews. Read 9:29 and the ayat which follow it.

Ema, every time you tap the keyboard with your forked tongue, you display the ignorance of a damned fool & liar to the world wide web. You stand the truth on its head, but you can't disprove it. The evidence supports my case, not yours, that is why I cite evidence and you can't.