Collision between Islam and the West?

Paraphrasing Daniel Greenfield's article in Right Side News, "Mohammad's Ghost and the Incompatibility of Islam and the West," he notes that historically, Islam conquered infidels by the sword. He also notes that Muslims are currently sweeping across Europe to create what some call "Eurabia;" enabled by Saudi wealth, a non-normal high birth rate among Muslims, and a decaying Western world. As the fanatical determinism of the Muslim world collides with the secularized West, there seems to be only two ways for this clash to end -- will it be liberty and freedom, or subjugation and Sharia? We, by our words and deeds, will help determine which will stand and which will fall.

Waking up to Radical Islam

The following article addresses the issue of America being "asleep" when it comes to the dangers posed by radical Islam and creeping Sharia Law. The highlighting provided by the author.

The original article is posted in HumanEvents at:

[

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39006 ]

Waking Up to Radical Islam

by Brigitte Gabriel (more by this author)

Posted 09/16/2010 ET

In spite of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s recent New York Times op-ed written to calm American concerns about the Ground Zero mosque, as the bright light of public scrutiny shines on this proposed mosque, Americans are discovering elements of radical Islam previously unknown to them.

The controversy has led countless Americans, puzzled and disturbed by the motivation and insensitivity of Imam Rauf and his backers, to begin evaluating the threat of radical Islam beyond the isolated context of terrorism.

Islam’s history has shown, for example, there is powerful symbolism in choosing where to construct mosques. Built on sites of military victories, mosques have traditionally symbolized the triumph and supremacy of Islam over all other religions and people: Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem was built on top of Solomon’s Temple; the Umayyad mosque in Damascus is over the church of St. John the Baptist; more than 2,000 mosques are on the footprints of Hindu Temples in India.

While America does not have a religious center per se, in the eyes of radical Islam our “religion” is capitalism and the destruction of the World Trade Center was like the sack of Constantinople.

Does Ground Zero mosque Imam Rauf view his proposed mosque through this lens? Honestly, we can’t know for sure.

But even if he doesn’t, there is no doubt that many in the Muslim world will regard the construction of a mosque at Ground Zero as a tribute to Islamic victory over “infidel” America. Islamist leaders worldwide will employ the symbolism of a mosque at Ground Zero as a recruiting tool to jihad, swelling their ranks and escalating the threat against America.

This debate is forcing the American people to take a long- overdue look at the harsh reality of a political ideology which is in its very nature antithetical to the fundamental values of liberty and justice as practiced in America and Western societies.

People are asking the kinds of questions I had to confront decades ago: What exactly is “sharia law?” Why is there such an increase in homegrown jihadists today than ten or even five years ago? Who are the “moderate” Muslims, and why aren’t they speaking out more aggressively against the “radicals?”

Rauf and his supporters certainly did not anticipate the degree and intensity of the blowback they are getting. On the contrary, he quietly greased the skids for this project, meeting behind the scenes with various elected officials and opinion leaders to get their blessing.

Unfortunately, those he met with failed to do the due diligence that would have exposed his real agenda. They accepted at face value his soothing platitudes of tolerance and interfaith dialogue, platitudes for which he has shown contempt in writings and statements in the Arabic world.

Imam Rauf repeats these platitudes in his lengthy New York Times op-ed, clearly hoping that Americans will believe him. But thanks to probing investigations done by investigative reporters, bloggers and watchdog organizations, a robust debate has surrounded the proposed mosque.

More Americans now know that Rauf, as recently as March, said in Arabic that he opposes interfaith dialogue. They know he is a vocal supporter of sharia law, that he says governments which do not employ sharia law are “unjust” and that he has refused to label Hamas a terrorist organization. They know he has refused to sign the “Freedom Pledge,” issued by Former Muslims United, which pledges to oppose retaliation and punishment toward Muslims who leave Islam. The more Americans learn, the more concerned they become.

As a Lebanese immigrant I am as proud to be an American as at any time since I arrived in this great nation. Grassroots America is rising up in opposition to this symbol of Islamist victory, ignoring the hectoring and name-calling of our politically-correct “elites.”

Undoubtedly there are different reasons for why 70% of Americans oppose the building of the mosque. But whether the motivation is concern for the 9/11 victims or concern about the advance of sharia law that Imam Rauf advocates, the American people are saying “enough is enough.”

That is the only language Islamists understand.

Terrorists are only one manifestation of radical Islam. As Americans look even closer they will come to realize that the same ideology that produces a terrorist also produces a seemingly moderate Muslim who is dedicated to the advancement and imposition of sharia law. They will learn that the Islamist in a suit and tie, who wants to replace the Constitution with sharia law, differs from the terrorist only in the means to the end, not the end itself.


Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and a two-time New York Times best-selling author of Because They Hate and They Must Be Stopped. She is the president of ACT for America.org, the largest national security grassroots movement in the U.S.

Conflict Between Sharia and US State & Federal Laws

The following information has been paraphrased from an article on Sept 21, 2010 by William Kilpatrick called “The Road to Sharia.” He notes that U.S. law already prohibits the free exercise of Islam because it encompasses a complete political, legal, and moral system called “Sharia law.” Devout Muslims believe these laws are divine commandments and must be complied with without question; full practice of Islam requires compliance with them. Problem is, many shariah laws violate state and federal laws.

1. Under shariah law a Muslim girl can be contracted for marriage at any age. The marriage can be consummated when she is eight or nine. The laws of the United States frown upon such arrangements.

2. Under Sharia a man may marry up to four wives (simultaneously). U.S. law prohibits the practice of polygamy.

3. Under Sharia law, a man can easily divorce his wife, but a woman cannot divorce her husband without his consent. U.S. divorce courts don’t see things in quite the same way.

4. Sharia law: Muslim women are forbidden from marrying a non-Muslim. U.S. law: In this, as in so many other respects, Islamic law is null and void. American citizens are free to marry outside their religion.

5. Sharia law: the testimony of a woman in court is worth half the value of a man’s testimony. U.S. law: “Tell it to the judge!”

6. Sharia law: Muslim men have permission to beat their wives for disobedience. U.S. law: In U.S. law this Sharia provision is referred to as “domestic abuse battery.”

7. Sharia law: adultery is punishable by lashing and stoning to death. U.S. law: “Let he who throws the first stone be prepared for life behind bars.”
8. Sharia law: homosexuality is punishable by death. U.S. law: “Abdul, meet your cellmate, Butch.”

9. Sharia law: thieves may be punished with amputation. U.S. law: the Eighth Amendment prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.”

10. Sharia law: a Muslim who rejects Islam must be killed. U.S. law: under U.S. laws this form of Islamic justice is referred to as “first- degree murder.”

11. Sharia law: non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. U.S. law: “all men are created equal.”

12. Sharia law: Sharia law supersedes any system of man-made laws. U.S. law: Article VI. “This Constitution shall be…the supreme law of the land.”

Because of these and other conflicts, the free exercise of Islam is prohibited in America. To allow full practice Islam, the U.S. Constitution and Criminal Code would have to be re-written to make them Sharia compliant. Thus, to allow free exercise of religion for Muslims would necessitate the abrogation of constitutional rights for U.S. citizens—including the right to freedom of religion.

[Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/21/the-road-to-sharia/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_campaign=6c58bc156e-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email]

A good article is provided below that details a word-count analytical comparison of political violence advocated by the Bible and the Koran; conducted by Bill Warner of the Center For The Study Of Political Islam. Among other interesting topics, note that Islam grew by about 10 converts per year during the first 13 years of Mohammad's peaceful ministry, and then grew by about 10,000 converts per year during the next ten years when politics and violence was used. In my opinion, this latter process is still at work throughout the USA and other parts of the world, as evidenced by the destruction of the Twin Towers in NYC on 9/11/01 and numerous other attrocities by radical Islamist Fundamentalists who follow Mohammad's "perfect" model as spelled out in the Islamic Triology (the Koran, Sira and Hadith). Following Mohammad's model, these Islamists are masters of violent and non-violent jihad, with deceit and use of taqiyya (lying to non-Muslims), to advance their vision of Islam over us infidels (kafirs); they smile to our faces while stabbing us in the back.

=============================================

September 09, 2010

The Political Violence of the Bible and the Koran

By Bill Warner

One of the most frequently used arguments in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument suggests that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but the analogy is very popular since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. "See, Islam is like Christianity; Christians are just as violent as Muslims." If this is true, then you don't have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.

However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Koran? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison, and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of Islam, Christianity, or Judaism is what they do to the "other," or political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note that regardless of whether a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions violent, neither constitutes violence against vegans or PETA members.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called "fighting in Allah's cause," or jihad.

We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira, and Hadith, or the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed's biography. The Hadith are his traditions -- what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, also called the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text[1]. This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam's sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed's is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every six weeks for the last nine years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of ten new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of ten thousand per year. All the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad -- world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual, and the Hadith is a tactical manual, of jihad.

Now let's go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy[2] and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible[3]. The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is also the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts and that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics, and intellectuals. What artist, critic, or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats against and/or murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortune, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic, or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the responses to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruits from the two trees are as different as night and day.

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

- Bill Warner, Director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

http://www.politicalislam.com

bw@politicalislam.com

---

[1] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/The_Relative_Sizes_of_the_Trilogy_Texts.html

[2] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/TrilogyStats/Percentage_of_Trilogy_Text_Devoted_to_Jihad.html

[3] http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/pdf/OldTestamentViolentPassages.pdf

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_political_violence_of_the.html at September 11, 2010 - 12:01:03 PM CDT

A Window of Opportunity Regarding Islamist Doctrine

A public discussion of mainstream Islam has finally opened in mainstream America because of something as simple as a proposed mosque near Ground Zero in NYC. Oddly enough, the proposed mosque has had an unfavorable effect upon Islamist doctrine by non-Muslims; After 9/11, only about 9% of the US population had an unfavorable view of Islamist doctrine.

Now, because of the proposed mosque, up to 45% of non-Muslims have an unfavorable view of this doctrine. The question is: what is there to like about an Islamist doctrine that advocates the subjugation of all non-Muslims, pay heavy poll tax, or accept death? Since the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, many non-Muslims are learning about such Islamist doctrine; it has become an acceptable topic of discussion in newspapers, radio, and TV.

The big question is: do the Muslims who are planning this mosque share the same hateful ideology as the highjackers on 9/11? Do they believe in the same jihadist objectives and methods, or are they lying to us using the principle of taqiyya? Now that the “veil” has been lifted; there are numerous books that non-Muslims can read on political Islam, jihad, sharia, and dhimmitude that highlight the characteristics of Islamist doctrine. Once the “facts” are known, you can begin to form an honest opinion about that doctrine.

What are the Important Elements of Radical Islam Fundamentalist (Islamic) Ideology?

Below are some important elements of radical Islamic fundamentalist (Islamic) ideology.
These are useful to help us infidels (non-believers) understand some of the reasons that
we are having problems with some of our Islamic friends today. This information has
been adapted from "CitizenWarrior.com"

============================================================

Posted: 20 Aug 2010 11:17 PM PDT

1. There is only one God, and Mohammad is His prophet.

2. Islam is a better religion than any other religion.

3. Islam has a better government and system of law than any other.

4. Anybody who is not a Muslim is worth less than a Muslim, deserves less respect, and under Islamic law, should be treated as a second-class citizen with fewer rights and a heavy tax burden.

5. Every Muslim should strive to make the whole world and everyone in it follow Islamic law. This is the prime directive.

6. Striving for this prime directive is the most important thing a Muslim can do. It is his (or her) most important religious duty. It is the most important expression of his religious faith.

7. He should strive to accomplish the prime directive with his time, his money, his speech and writing, and with weapons if necessary.

8. If he is in a place where Muslims don't have dominant political power, he can and should deceive non-Muslims if it helps Muslims accomplish the prime directive.

9. Any efforts by non-Muslims to inhibit the spread of Islam should be considered an attack on Islam.

10. Whenever Islam is attacked, it is a Muslim's holy duty to defend Islam by any means necessary.

11. A Muslim should never stop striving for the domination of Islam until it has been achieved.

If you don't already know this about Islam, you have some learning to do. Start with the Quran (and make sure the Quran you use has been unscrambled). Then take the pledge and read the Quran. [Source: CitizenWarrior.com]

Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom

Below is a powerful article that argues that when religious freedom and tolerance accommodates Islam and Sharia law, Islam will end up eradicating that freedom and replacing it with intolerance like that found in Mecca. Mecca once had religious freedom, it doesn't now. The same can be said for other cities and governments that have embraced Islam and Sharia law. Sharia and freedom are incompatible. One cannot exist with the other.

========================================================================

Islam Means the End of Religious Freedom
by Daniel Greenfield, August 14, 2010

At an Iftar dinner in the White House, Barack Hussein Obama proclaimed that he supports the building of the Ground Zero mosque as part of his "unshakable commitment to religious freedom". Which of course sounds very noble and good, until you ask a single question, Where is the religious freedom in the Muslim world?

Obama has made the case for Islam in America, on the grounds that America's religious diversity promotes the religious freedom of all. Islam no less than any other belief system. Yet if introducing Islam into America promotes religious freedom, then why is there no religious freedom in the Muslim world? Why are churches firebombed in Malaysia because Christians presumed to use the word Allah? Why are non-Muslims forbidden to enter the city of Mecca, from which Jews and Christians were ethnically cleansed by Mohammed? Why are Coptic Christians being oppressed and humiliated by the Egyptian government? Why are Muslims murdering Buddhist teachers in Thailand? There are a thousand examples, all of which add up to a single conclusion-- Muslims demand religious freedom, yet are not willing to give it to others.

This has ominous implications for the prospects of religious freedom in America. Nor is this a theoretical issue. Jews are fleeing European cities in record numbers because of Muslim persecution. The recent case of Malmo, highlights the fact that Islam actually threatens religious diversity. Simply to protect themselves, Malmo's 650 Jews were forced to spend half a million Kronor a year. The situation is much the same across Europe, as Jewish institutions are forced to become fortresses. What the Nazis did not succeed in accomplishing in Europe, the rise of Islam seems to be doing.

Nor are Christians safe, they are simply in the majority for now. But Christians and other religions were once in the majority in the Middle East. Until they were massacred and repressed by the tidal wave of Islam. Today the religions that were once a majority, whether it is Jews in Israel, Christians in Byzantium or Zoroastrians in Persia, have become oppressed minorities. Some may take comfort in the notion that "It can't happen here." But the fate of Europe's Jews, shows that it can happen here. And that it is happening here.

Religious freedom requires that the religions which enjoy it, agree to tolerate each other. If they do not, instead of religious freedom, there is a religious war.

Looking at the religious map of the world today, Islam has grown in non-Muslim countries, while non-Muslims continue to dwindle in Muslim countries. And even the number of non-Muslim religious believers in non-Muslim countries dwindles, when Muslims are introduced into the equation. If Islam were a fish in a fish tank, it's clear that it would be a piranha. If you put it into the fish tank, very soon you have a lot of Islamic piranhas and only a handful of other fish that survive, only because the piranhas need to keep some of them alive in order to feed on them. If you don't like that picture, take an honest look at the Muslim world, with its dominant Muslim caste and inferior non-Muslims living in the cracks of their walls, and draw a better one.

The question is do we want to import this into the United States? Because history and current events show that there is no better way to insure the end of religious freedom in the United States, than to introduce Islam into the picture. Over and over again, the rise of Islam has meant the eradication of religious freedom. And those who fail to learn from that past, will be doomed to repeat it.

Obama attempted to position his remarks as being against religious intolerance, but yet he spoke in defense of religious intolerance. Because what greater act of religious intolerance could there than building a mosque in a place where Muslims had previously murdered 3000 Americans? Nor are such actions unique on the part of Muslims, who have routinely hijacked other people's sacred areas and structures to make a statement about Islamic supremacism. If Islam were truly as tolerant as Obama claims, its adherents would not attempt to build a massive mosque complex that they do not actually need in this place.

And what of the Iftar dinner itself which Obama spoke at. The Iftar dinner is the nightly break in the fast of Ramadan. And what is Ramadan? It commemorates the revelation of the first verses of the Koran to Mohammed. And those first verses of the Koran conclude with, "Guide us the straight way, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians)." That same verses appears in the daily prayers of Muslims.

Seen in that light, Ramadan marks the beginning of Islam's intolerance for other religions, as embodied in its scriptures. When Muslims schools teach pupils that Jews are apes and Christians are pigs, they are relying on the wellspring of hate already in the Koran. A non-Muslim country holding an event to mark any aspect of Ramadan is as mad as sheep celebrating their own slaughter.

Let's look at how some of the participants in Obama's Iftar dinner embody that famous Islamic tolerance. There is Hassan Jaber, Executive Director of ACCESS. "ACCESS paid for commercial driving lessons and attempts at hazardous material hauling certificates for two men convicted as part of the Detroit Al-Qaeda sleeper cell. Testimony at their trial revealed that the men planned to bomb the MGM Grand Casino and a host of other prominent US sites." (Debbie Schlussel). Access has funded a conference at which Sami Al Arian, of Islamic Jihad, spoke. There's also Ingrid Mattson, who is against any reform of Islam and places loyalty to Islam before America. There's MPAC's Salam Al Marayat, who has defended Hezbollah who has been described as having "disturbing sympathies for Islamic terrorists". Dalia Mogahed, an apologist for Sharia law and the subjugation of women. And those are only some of the names in attendance.

Finally let's turn to Obama's own enthusiasm for religious freedom. That enthusiasm was markedly absent when Caplin and Drysdalelawyers were intimidating conservative. churches. They even intimidated Jewish non-profit groups who wanted Palin to speak at an Anti-Ahmadinejad rally, by threatening their tax exempt status. Mortimer Caplin was a major supporter of Obama, and part of Obama for America. But Obama was not upset when his supporters were silencing the religious freedom of Christians and Jews.Which suggests that his "Unshakable Commitment to Religious Freedom" is actually rather shaky indeed. And appears to be reserved for Muslims. Which would reaffirm what Obama himself said in his own book; "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction".

His endorsement of the Ground Zero mosque is another case of Obama standing "with the Muslims" and against Americans of all other faiths, who want the freedom to practice their religion in peace without harassment, persecution and violence from the followers of Islam, who believe that all other religions are invalid, and that all forms of government and law that are not governed by the Koran, have no right to exist.

Religious Freedom must be defended, from all those who would take it away. The history of Islam is the history of genocide, oppression and ethnic cleansing practiced by Muslims against non-Muslims. Islam is the death blow to religious diversity and freedom. And nowhere better is that seen than Mecca, a city that was once a mecca for different religions, which is now barred to all but Muslims. Mecca is the Muslim ideal. And it exemplifies what they hope to accomplish.

Meanwhile, Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Mecca, has praised terrorism saying "Allahu Akbar! These are signs of victory: Jihad has remained the only wining card and the light of hope in the hands of those sincere people among the Ummah". He has called Jews "scum of the earth" and "rats of the world", Christians, " cross-worshipers" and filled with "rotten ideas and poisonous culture" and had similarly charming things to say of Hindus. This is how the world looks from Mecca, the heart of Islam. And this is why Islam and religious freedom are incompatible.

Obama concluded his remarks by saying: "And we can only achieve “liberty and justice for all” if we live by that one rule at the heart of every great religion, including Islam — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us." But that is not the rule at the heart of Islam. [NOTE: Instead of the Golden Rule, the Koran says: "Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (48:29); AND " Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve." (8.55) AND "The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy." (4:101).] And this is not the first time that he has tried to sell that particular lie. But Islam never equates Muslims with non-Muslims, as Obama pretends it does. Its offer of brotherhood is only open to fellow Muslims. Its tolerance is only for fellow Muslims. And that is at the heart of the problem. And it is why the rise of Islam means the end of liberty and justice for all. To stand for liberty and justice is to take a stand against Islamic bigotry.