Islamofascism: Islam is as Islam does
The barbarians are no longer at the gate. They’re inside the fort, and it’s time for the insanity to stop. This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.
Time to get an education and for Washington to get their noses out of their derrierers! Jihadist action in America and our military is more dangerous than even Washington realizes as they are captive to political correctness regarding Muslim prisoners (e.g. giving them toothbrushes to be turned into shanks, uncuffing them for prayers, etc.).
Please read some of the best articles on this subject. The first is historical data, but worth the initial read. Continue on and please sear the terrorists’ faces into your memory so that when they are released into the population due to government folly, you can know them well enough to call the vigilantes…
You say Islamism and I say Islam, you say Islamist and I say Islamic … let’s call the whole thing jihad!
Islamism or Islam?—Islamist or Islamic? By Dr. Andrew Bostom (posted by Atlas Shrugs)
Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan (with his colleague, Iranian President Ahmadinejad): “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”
During the autumn of 1843, in the heart of Istanbul, Turkey, Sir Henry Layard , the British archeologist, writer, and diplomat, witnessed the punishment mandated by the Shari’a, i.e., Islamic Law for apostasizing from Islam. He described this abhorrent spectacle as follows:
“An Armenian who had embraced Islamism [emphasis added] had returned to his former faith. For his apostasy he was condemned to death according to the Mohammedan [Islamic] law. His execution took place, accompanied by details of studied insult and indignity directed against Christianity and Europeans in general. The corpse was exposed in one of the most public and frequented places in Stamboul [Istanbul], and the head, which had been severed from the body, was placed upon it, covered by a European hat.”
Layard’s narrative demonstrates how in mid-19th century parlance, “Islamism” and “Islam” were synonymous, and meant to be equivalent to “Catholicism,” “Protestantism,” and “Judaism”—not to “radical” or “fundamentalist” sects of any of these religions. Moreover, through at least the mid-1950s, scholars devoted to the formal study of Islamic doctrine and history were still referred to as “Islamists.”
Turkey’s current Prime Minister Erdogan, commenting in August, 2007  on the term “moderate Islam,” frequently used in the West to describe his ruling political party, the AKP, stated, “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.” Erdogan’s displeasure is ironic, even somewhat humorous, given the contemporary Western apologetic obsession to recast the terms “Islamism,” and “Islamist,” to denote, exclusively, “radical” or “immoderate” Islam, and its adherents. But the irony of Erdogan’s ire aside, artificial distinctions between “Islamism” and Islam, “Islamist” and Islamic are logically incoherent, obfuscating irrefragable truths about living Islamic dogma, and its modern manifestations.
The 1990 Cairo Declaration , or “Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Islam”—not Islamism—was drafted and ratified by all the Muslim member nations of the Organization of the Islamic—not Islamist—Conference (OIC ), a 57 state collective including every Islamic nation on earth. The OIC, currently headed by Turkey’s Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu , thus represents the entire Muslim ummah (or global community), and is the largest single voting bloc in the United Nations.
Its preamble and concluding articles (24 and 25) make plain that the OIC ’s Cairo Declaration  is designed to supersede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights . The preamble repeats a Koranic injunction affirming Islamic supremacism, (Koran 3:110 ): “Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made the best nation…” The gravely negative implications of this Islamic Law (Shari’a)-based document  (“There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’a”) are most apparent in its transparent rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10 , while articles 19  and 22  reiterate Shari’a principles stated throughout the document, which clearly apply to the “punishment”—death—for so-called “apostates” from Islam.
The Cairo Declaration —entirely consistent with Islamic Law—also introduces unacceptable discrimination against non-Muslims and women, while sanctioning the legitimacy of dehumanizing, Shari’a-compliant punishments, from flogging, to mutilation, and stoning.
And polling data from a rigorously conducted WorldPublicOpinion.org survey  released April, 2007 demonstrate the Cairo Declaration’s Islamic Law principles—antithetical to Western formulations of human rights—are embraced by the preponderance of the world’s Muslims. Fully 2/3 of a representative sample of 4400 Muslims from Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia desired the ultimate jihad conquest imperatives: to re-create a unified supra-national Islamic state, or Caliphate, ruled by “strict application of Shari’a.”
These quintessential goals of jihad were reiterated by the mass murdering jihadist psychiatrist Nidal Hasan as part of an erstwhile “medical grand rounds ” given on June 27, 2007. Although Hasan merely reiterates salient aspects of classical jihad theory  (i.e., see slides 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 49 ), this reality is understandably “shocking” to our willfully uninformed elites in the media, military, and government. Nidal Hasan’s presentation concludes, in full accord with classical Islamic doctrine regarding jihad war, (slide 49 ), “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please Allah, even by force is condoned by (sic) Islam.”
Unapologetic observations from 1950 by a great 20th century “Islamist” scholar of the Shari’a, G.H. Bousquet , contextualize these ominous trends. Bousquet described Islam itself as “as a doubly totalitarian system,” which, “claimed to impose itself on the whole world and it claimed also, by the divinely appointed Muhammadan law…to regulate down to the smallest details the whole life of the Islamic community and of every individual believer.”
Former NYC prison guard blinded, nearly raped by al-Qaeda inmates warns against plan to try jihadists in city
Is anyone in D.C. listening, or are they too busy playing politics and putting the supposed symbolism of the trial over the array of obvious security concerns? Louis Pepe Update, and an update on this story. “Blinded Prison Guard: Don’t House Terror Suspects in NYC,” by Joseph Abrams for Fox News, November 16 (thanks to Sam): [WHY ARE WE TRYING NON-CITIZENS IN OUR COURT???]
The high-security prison in New York City where 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is expected to be sent to await his trial has a supermax wing to keep even the most notorious criminals quiet — but it isn’t perfect. Just ask Louis Pepe.
Ten months before Al Qaeda in 2001 struck a deathblow in the heart lower Manhattan, one of the terrorist group’s founding members plunged a sharpened comb through Pepe’s left eye and into his brain, blinding the 42-year-old prison guard and causing severe brain injuries that plague him to this day.
Pepe told FoxNews.com he worries that sending Mohammed and four of his alleged fellow 9/11 conspirators to New York could compromise the safety of the guards at the MCC prison. Keeping the prisoners in one location, he said, was especially dangerous.
Sedition! O-Liar! Busted! BOMBSHELL Uncovered: Obama said on the senate floor: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is going to get “full military trial with all the bells and whistles” “justice will be carried out in his case” (Atlas)
In a stunning act of denial and capitulation to Islamic jihad, the Obama administration submits by bringing the masterminds of the shocking invasion of America into a New York courtroom, to try the Muslim masterminds of the most brutal attack on American soil in modern history — joining “over a millennium of jihad wars, land expropriations, enslavements, and humiliations of the conquered non-Muslim populations on three continents.”Khalid Sheikh Mohammed decapitation of Daniel Pearl
(Could you imagine GW Bush doing this after 9-11?)
The latest incomprehensible outrage from the muhammedan president. Whose side is he on? It sure ain’t America’s.
The President is attempting to halt an investigation into the largest attack on a military base in US history? The first since 911, on Hussein’s watch? Is that not treason? Aiding and abetting the enemy. He warns of “political theater”? Uncovering the facts behind an Islamic attack on our soil is “political theater”. He is political theater. He is the Lawrence Olivier of political theater.
The Democrats have subjugated themselves to Islam and assumed the role of de facto political party of Islam. Every day multiple gut wrenches in post America. The most devastating angle in all this is how even senior Democratic Members of Congress submit to the Muhammadan president. Islam is a political party and we know now they are the Democrats. Khalid Sheik Mohammad, now this…
It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday’s killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses. Nidal Malik Hasan had told fellow soldiers that the Muslim who killed two recruiters last summer in Little Rock, Arkansas had done the right thing. He spoke openly of his belief that the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq should rise up and fight the aggressor, by which he meant the U.S. military of which he inexplicably was a part. [Thanks to The American View*] http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=1519
By Bryan Fischer
American Family Association
Director Of Issues Analysis
It became evidently almost immediately that the mass murderer in yesterday’s killing spree at Fort Hood was a Muslim who was motivated by jihadist impulses.
Nidal Malik Hasan had told fellow soldiers that the Muslim who killed two recruiters last summer in Little Rock, Arkansas had done the right thing. He spoke openly of his belief that the Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq should rise up and fight the aggressor, by which he meant the U.S. military of which he inexplicably was a part.
He wrote blog entries urging jihad, entries which six months ago attracted the attention of the FBI. Bizarrely, its investigation was closed, he was allowed to continue serving in the military, and as a result, 11 innocent soldiers are now dead, cut down in cold blood on one of their own bases on U.S. soil.
It is time, I suggest, to stop the practice of allowing Muslims to serve in the U.S. military. The reason is simple: the more devout a Muslim is, the more of a threat he is to national security. Devout Muslims, who accept the teachings of the Prophet as divinely inspired, believe it is their duty to kill infidels. Yesterday’s massacre is living proof. And yesterday’s incident is not the first fragging incident involving a Muslim taking out his fellow U.S. soldiers.
Of course, most U.S. Muslims don’t shoot up their fellow soldiers. Fine. As soon as Muslims give us a foolproof way to identify their jihadis from their moderates, we’ll go back to allowing them to serve. You tell us who the ones are that we have to worry about, prove you’re right, and Muslims can once again serve. Until that day comes, we simply cannot afford the risk. You invent a jihadi-detector that works every time it’s used, and we’ll welcome you back with open arms.
This is not Islamophobia, it is Islamo-realism.
And don’t give us reassurances about the oaths that Muslim soldiers take to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Hasan took that oath, and it proved meaningless. In fact, the more devout a Muslim is, the more likely he is to lie to you through his teeth, since lying to the infidel to advance the cause of Islam is commended, not just permitted, in the Koran.
It’s time we all got over the nonsense that all cultures and religions are equally valid or worthy. They most certainly are not. While Christianity is a religion of peace, founded by the Prince of Peace, Islam is a religion of war and violence, founded by a man who routinely chopped the heads off his enemies, had sex with nine-year old girls, and made his wealth plundering merchant caravans.
And just as Christians are taught to imitate the life of Christ, so Muslims are taught to imitate the Prophet in all things. Yesterday, Nidal Malik Hasan was simply being a good Muslim.
The military is not about social engineering or diversity or multiculturalism or about proving what open-minded people we are. It’s about being ready to break things and kill people so that Americans can sleep securely in their beds at night. The mission is too important to be compromised by enlisting possible jihadi warriors and giving them the weapons and training to gun down our own soldiers and paying them all the while.
The barbarians are no longer at the gate. They’re inside the fort, and it’s time for the insanity to stop. [emphasis mine]
* The [previous] article makes many good points. But, we [The American View] do not agree with the “mission” of today’s military including the unGodly, unConstitutional Iraq/Afghanistan wars. We do not support a standing military. We believe that any “military” force we have must be made of Godly men only because God does not bless unGodliness. — J.L.
by John Nampion
Bill O’Reilly has been doing it a lot lately: In his November 11th Talking Points Memo he makes a reasonable case for why Nidal Malik Hasan should be called a “…Muslim terrorist, period. He killed out of blind hatred. He is a villain and there is no excuse for his rampage.”
All well and good.
But then Mr. O’Reilly takes great pains to make sure we comprehend what his central belief is:
“We do, however, continue to believe that most Muslims are good people, and I understand they must be protected, but not to a ridiculous degree”.
May I ask whom they need to be protected from?
O’Reilly and Skinner are in total agreement that they disavow Reverend Pat Robertson’s thesis that “Islam is a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world.”
O’Reilly poses the following inquiry to Ms. Skinner:
“So Jane: Does that do any good for America, or for anybody, slamming Islam like that?”
“Certainly not”, she replies.
“Obviously, Hasan isn’t a representative American Muslim, nor is his act an indictment of Muslims in the military. We can acknowledge both those things without laboring to obscure the nature of his crime in childish evasions.”
But it is awful tough to believe a religion whose stated goal is to destroy or enslave anyone who is a non-believer is capable of putting out a lot of devout followers who want to co-exist peacefully with the rest of us.
There might be a couple, or even 10 or 20, or for that matter, more than 2,000. I wish them well and salute their bravery.
But to think that “most” Muslims don’t subscribe to the deadly theology that its Imams and seers and Mullahs advocate is to be, well… a tad naive.
Don’t you think?
Imagine for a moment that there was a political movement that advocated:
That it must dominate the entire world with its unifying ideology –
That the entire world must come under the rulership of its single dictator –
That the United States Constitution and all American laws must be replaced by the laws promulgated by this particular political movement and its leader –
That it was proper for members of this political party to kill all who did not submit to their rule, and take from them everything they own –
That women must be eternally subjugated, and deprived of education, the right to work, the right to vote, and the freedom to choose their husbands –
That representational art, music, dancing, and theatrical performances (including films) must be abolished –
That banking, mortgages, a free market in securities, and commercial credit all be eliminated –
That sovereign states which refused to submit to this political movement be destroyed –
And so on.
Do you think for a New York minute that adherents of that political philosophy or members of such a political party would be enrolled in the United States Armed Forces? That the United States would encourage political organizers for such a party to have official establishments on American military bases, in American prisons, or on the campuses of government-supported American universities? That the American president would go out of his way to coddle, praise, stroke, and conciliate such a political party?
But if you call such a political movement a “religion” and say that its tenets were given it by its God, then you’ll be free to infilitrate, subvert, and attack our American way of life, again and again and again.
There was no madness at Fort Hood. That was just the worldwide jihad in action. [emphasis mine]
The madness is in Washington.
It is past time to recognize that whether or not you want to be at war with the jihad, the jihad is at war with you.
Jihad Watch – http://www.jihadwatch.org/
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran by Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch
- The true meaning of celebrated and seemingly benign verses, such as “Strive in the way of Allah” and “Persecution is worse than slaughter”
- How the Koran sanctions domestic abuse, honor killing, and murder
- How the Koran not only discourages Infidels from reading it, but mandates that they don’t even touch it
- Why President Obama is dangerously close to supporting a multiculturalism based on an ideology that aims to destroy the principles America
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam by Robert Spencer
About the Title: Everything (well, almost everything) you know about Islam and the Crusades is wrong because most textbooks and popular history books
are written by left-wing academics and Islamic apologists who justify their contemporary political agendas with contrived historical facts that you won’t be
taught in school and will never hear on the evening news. He supplies a revealing list of “Book You’re Not Supposed to Read” (as far as the PC left is concerned) and takes you on a fast-paced, politically incorrect tour of Islamic
teaching and Crusade history that will give you all the information you need to understand the true nature of the global conflict America faces today.
Islamofascism: Islam is as Islam does: http://wp.me/pzfHB-iY