Posted on 05/07/2014 10:20:41 AM PDT by DanMiller
One might hope that the past five years had changed His mind. His views seem to remain the same.
Remember President Obama's 2009 Cairo speech?
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. [Emphasis added.]. . . .
I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. [Emphasis added.]
Negative "stereotypes" of Islam? Such as this?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXL9do9phBc]
Does mentioning that there have been thousand or so Islamist "honor killings" in Pakistan in just one year present a vile "negative stereotype?" That video was posted almost a year ago. Would a comparable piece be aired even now on the "legitimate" media? I don't think it would be, due to political correctness and fear of violent Islamist retribution should Islamic violence be mentioned.
How about Syrian Islamists crucifying Christians for refusing Islam?
Sister Raghad, the former head of the Patriarchate School in Damascus who currently resides in France, told Vatican Radio how she personally witnessed jihadi rebels terrorize Ma‘loula, including by pressuring Christians to proclaim the shehada—Islam’s credo that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger—which, when uttered before Muslim witnesses transforms the speaker into a Muslim, with the death penalty for apostasy should the convert later “renege” by returning to Christianity.
According to the nun, those Christians who refused to embrace Islam were
killed in atrocious and violent ways that cannot be described. If you want examples, they crucified two youths in Ma‘loula for refusing to proclaim Islam’s credo, saying to them: “Perhaps you want to die like your teacher [Christ] whom you believe in? You have two choices: either proclaim the shehada or else be crucified. One of them was crucified before his father, whom they also killed.”
The post also notes,
The fact is, crucifixion is a prescribed form of punishment in the Koran (5:33) and occurs throughout the Islamic world . . . .[list of a few examples.]
Of course, if one delves into Islamic history, one learns that crucifixions were extremely common. For example, Witnesses For Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period 1437-1860 lists crucifixion as one of the many forms thousands of Christians were executed by the Muslim Turks.
And in her memoir, Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described how in the early twentieth century in the city of Malatia, she saw 16 girls crucified, vultures eating their corpses: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands,” wrote the Armenian survivor. “Only their hair blown by the wind covered their bodies.”
Prescribed in the Koran itself, crucifixions are as old as Islam and, with the global revival of the latter, are returning with increased frequency. And, although it is more politically correct to report on jihadis crucifying other jihadis — other terrorists or “spies” — the fact is, many more innocent Christians are being crucified again, including simply for refusing to embrace Islam and thus renounce Christ.
Why reject reality-based "negative" stereotypes and promote fantasy-based "positive" stereotypes instead? Is it a multiculturalistic effort at false moral equivalence as between Islam and Christianity/Judaism? Between evil and good?
The U.S. Commission on International Freedom seems to recognize some of the problems.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom’s new report recommends that eight more countries be designated as Countries of Particular Concern, all but one of which are Muslim-majority populations. The panel repeatedly identified interpretations of sharia as a source for the increasing violations of religious freedom. [Emphasis added.]
The panel suggested designations for Egypt, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Vietnam.
Of these, Pakistan warranted the most concern. The panel said the state of religious freedom “hit an all-time low” last year. In April 2013, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan even said the country is “on the verge” of becoming an undemocratic society where violence is mainstream. [Emphasis added.]
“On the verge?” With "only" approximately one thousand "honor killings" in just one year? Of course, Pakistan is "democratic," i.e, operates in accord with the desires of its Islamists. Is that the type of democracy that President Obama relishes in Islamist nations? Elsewhere?
The report suggested the retention of eight countries previously labeled as Countries of Particular Concern (CPC): Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Uzbekistan.
The panel’s comments on Iran correspond with a United Nations report that found that Christian persecution is at unprecedented levels, even though the new President is supposedly a “moderate.” The Commission states that Sufis, Sunnis and Shiites opposed to the regime are also being victimized. [Emphasis added.]
“[Rouhani] has not delivered on his campaign promises of strengthening civil liberties for religious minorities,” the Commission report states.
One of the most important conclusions in the report is that Saudi Arabia is still promoting radical Islam and religious intolerance in the school system. The Saudi government may be confronting the Muslim Brotherhood, but that has not stopped it from indoctrinating students with a Brotherhood-type worldview.
Has President Obama found enough time (or interest) to read the report? That's doubtful. Has His position changed? If so, I haven't noticed it.
Even comedian Jay Leno -- former host of Tonight show -- protested recently against intensifications of Shari law in Brunei.
Hassanal Bolkiah, sultan of Brunei, began enacting the new Shariah laws this month, which call for a range of punishments, including fines and imprisonment for those who fail to show up for Friday prayers or who get pregnant outside of marriage, the Washington Post reported.
“The decision to implement the [Shariah penal code] is not for fun but is to obey Allah’s command as written in the Koran,” Bolkiah said last week.
Later this year the punishments will ramp up, with flogging and the severing of limbs becoming the punishment for those who rob or commit property crimes. And death by stoning is also scheduled to take effect next year for those who commit sodomy or who enter adulterous relationships.
Most of these punishments can also be applied to the nation’s 440,000 non-Muslims — one-third of the country’s population, as the Associated Press noted.
“This is 2014, not 1814,” Leno told the crowd, according to the Los Angeles Times.
He continued, “Evil flourishes when good people do nothing, and that is pretty much what this is. This is not complicated. These are not crazy left-wing wacko people.”
The comedian and former “Tonight Show” host went on to say that the controversy over Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling should be considered minor when compared to what’s happening in Brunei.
That's a start, but the entire Islamic world awaits his (and our) censure. How about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria and even the "peace loving" Palestinians? Here's a link to an article about Hamas' Independence Day "greeting" to Israel, wishing death to Israel for her widely celebrated sixty - six years of independence.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kj9Bb4VW89Q]
Why not focus on Islamic religious apartheid rather than on Israel's falsely alleged apartheid?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RczBZx5fkvw]
Why not consider Palestinian efforts to derail the Obama - Kerry "peace process" months ago, even before Abbas visited President Obama at the White House, followed by Administration efforts to blame Israel for the collapse? Although the United States of Obama cannot lawfully continue to fund "Palestine" under a Fatah - Hamas power sharing agreement, it seems to be looking for ways to do so even as Hamas insists of having control over military aspects of the Fatah - Hamas coalition government.
How about Iran's influence in Latin America, where it seems to promote the spread antisemitism?
Why not focus on President Obama's support of the Muslim Brotherhood?
The Egyptian people are astounded. They simply do not understand the Obama Administration's efforts to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to power.
In an effort to make some sense of the Obama Administration's policies, Amr Adeeb, a prominent Egyptian commentator, argues that the U.S. is helping the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve power, in order to turn Egypt into a magnet for jihadist fighters. The goal, Adeeb states, is to turn Egypt into another Syria or Afghanistan and discredit Islamism as a viable political movement.
To Westerners, this may seem like a bizarre conspiracy theory, but for Egyptians it helps explain why the U.S. government is supporting an organization that has openly declared jihad against the West, engaged in threats of war with Israel and Ethiopia, demolished dozens of ancient historic churches, set hospitals on fire, and murdered Christians in the streets. The Muslim Brotherhood has no respect for the rule of law, but the Obama Administration treats the Egyptian military that removed the group from power as a threat to democracy itself. [Emphasis added."
The Muslim Brotherhood has done its best to frustrate the Obama - Kerry "peace process."
The link between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas is clear and straight, and confirmed by Article 2 of the Charter of Hamas, which reads: “The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine. The Muslim Brotherhood Movement is a world organization, the largest Islamic Movement in the modern era. It is characterized by a profound understanding, by precise notions and by a complete comprehensiveness of all concepts of Islam in all domains of life: views and beliefs, politics and economics, education and society, jurisprudence and rule, indoctrination and teaching, the arts and publications, the hidden and the evident, and all the other domains of life.” [Emphasis added.]
Iran, with which the United States of Obama and the rest of the P5 + 1 group have been negotiating a nuclear "peace process," seems likely to be permitted to continue its military nuclear progress. It won't happen transparently.
“The fear,” a former senior intelligence official told me, “is that the Iranians are going to pretend to give up their nuclear weapons program — and we’re going to pretend to believe them.” [Emphasis added]
Similarly, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), last week told a large audience at the annual Washington Forum of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (the think tank I head): “No one wants a diplomatic solution more than I do. But it cannot be a deal for a deal’s sake. And I am worried they [Obama and his advisers] want a deal more than they want the right deal.” [Emphasis added.]
The United States now have a "wuss" as President. He is a devious wuss, intent upon pleasing Islamists as they manage to scam an at best naive American President and others, while continuing to conduct jihad against adherents to all non-Islamist religions. President Obama ignores as best He can not only their stated but their denied and poorly concealed aspirations for world conquest, while He mocks those who disagree with His approach. Is His approach anti-American and anti-freedom in the few places where it still exists, albeit tenuously? Yes.
About time for people to take up the rosy cross and push back hard on the Muslim extremists
Obama, I think it a cult of hate and you are a moron to think it is a religion of peace.
Islam, Slavery and Rape
Posted By Jamie Glazov On May 7, 2014 @ 12:20 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | No Comments
Boko Haram’s leader Abubakar Shekau recently made a video in which he taunted the mothers of the girls he kidnapped and bragged, while praising Allah, how he will sell them on the market.
Frontpage editors have decided to shed light on the Islamic context of Shekau’s barbaric acts and words by reprinting a segment of an interview from our November 23, 2007 issue, in which Dr. Bill Warner discussed the inspiration and sanctioning that Muslims find in Islam for slavery and rape:
*
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for politicalislam.com. CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.
FP: Bill Warner, welcome back to Frontpage Magazine. This is the second part in our two-part series with you on the Center’s most recent book. In the first part we discussed Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women. In this second and final part we will discuss the matter of slavery.
Warner: It is a pleasure to work with Frontpage.
FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on slavery.
Warner: Islam’s stand on slavery is based on its political principles of submission and duality. The principle of submission could not be clearer. By definition a slave is the most submissive of all people. You become a slave only when you have no more choices. A slave has completely submitted to a master.
The principle of duality is shown by the fact that Islam does not enslave Muslims, only kafirs (non-Muslims). Since only kafirs are enslaved, it assures that more of the world submits to Islam.
Islamic slavery is based on the Trilogy of the Koran, the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). All three texts say that slavery is permitted, ethical, desirable and a virtue. There is not one single negative word about slavery.
Slavery is seen as a process that brings kafirs to Islam. It is a virtue to free slaves, but Mohammed only freed slaves who submitted to Islam. If the kafir slave does not submit, then their children will. So given enough time, slaves convert to Islam. That is one of the reasons that Islam sees slavery as a positive.
Of course, there is another reason that Islam sees slavery as being so “good” and that is the money. Mohammed and the other jihadists made a fortune out of enslaving kafirs. Mohammed used the money for more jihad. So slavery financed the spread of Islam and jihad from the beginning.
FP: What were the ingredients of Mohammed’s own life in terms of slavery?
Warner: Mohammed is the perfect pattern for all humanity and his life was saturated in slavery. When his mother died, it was a freed slave who nursed him. His first wife owned slaves. One of his first converts was a slave. His closest friend, Abu Bakr, traded one of his black kafir slaves for a Muslim who was enslaved by a kafir.
But all of this was small change compared to his envolvement with slavery once he turned to jihad. In his first major battle at Badr, he stood by and prayed as his henchmen beat and tortured captured slaves to get information about the enemy kafirs.
Slaves made Mohammed’s pulpit. Slaves mended his cloths, cooked his food, and did every thing that a slave does for the master. He gave away slaves as gifts and received them as gifts. He went to war to kill the males so that the remaining people would surrender to be sold as slaves. Mohammed sold slaves on both the retail and wholesale markets.
He offered captured slaves their freedom if they would first agree that he was the prophet of Allah. A kafir slave then became a slave of Allah, because all Muslims are slaves of Allah. For a slave, the religion of Mohammed started and ended with slavery.
FP: Can you talk a bit about Islam and sexual slavery?
Warner: All morality in Islam is patterned after the example of Mohammed. Everything that he did and said defines what is permitted or “good”. Mohammed repeatedly sanctioned forced sex (rape) with kafir females after they were captured. The Hadith clearly reports that he got first choice of the women. In one case, he repeatedly demanded one particular woman for himself and swapped two other kafir slave women for his choice. So if Mohammed was involved in the rape of kafirs, then rape is a virtue, not a sin or error.
When Mohammed destroyed the B. Qurayza tribe, all of the adult male Jews were beheaded, so that no husbands were left. Mohammed then took the children and gave them to Muslims to raise as Muslims and he sold off the Jewish women as slaves.
We know from another story that the women were divided into sex slaves and domestic slaves. In one scene, a jihadist is trying to obtain a high ransom for a woman and he is told that her breasts are flat and her mouth is cold, so her value was less. In short, she was only good for work around the house, not in the bedroom.
The Hadith tells of another story where the Muslims used coitus interruptus to avoid impregnating the kafir sex slaves. The reason was purely for business. If the kafir sex slave was pregnant, then she was worth less money.
Islamic doctrine says that kafir women should not be used for prostitutes, only for the pleasure of the master.
When Mohammed attacked the Jews at Khaybar, many moral precedents were set. Sexual slavery received an entire set of rules. Muslims were not to rape pregnant or menstruating women until they had delivered the child or finished their periods. At Khaybar, Mohammed’s god Allah, announced that even married women were fair game for rape.
Mohammed only killed some of the Jews at Khaybar. The male and female survivors were needed to work the land as dhimmis. (The original dhimmis were semi-slaves with no civil rights. Today, dhimmis are ignorant kafirs who apologize for Islam.) Since Islam needed the men to work, husbands were left alive. That was the reason that the Koran said that in this case, even with the husbands looking on, it was good to rape the women.
Sexual slavery was not only fun and profitable for the Muslim men, but rape was a powerful tactic of war, then and today. The women are forced into submission to Muslim men and the husbands are humiliated. Humiliated men are weakened men, so more kafirs were less able to resist Islam.
For some time Mohammed’s favorite sex partner was a Christian slave from Egypt named Mary. One of Mohammed’s wives caught him in some state of intimacy with Mary in the wife’s bedroom and raised hell. Mohammed promised to not do it again and moved Mary to her own apartment in Medina.
Mohammed had received Mary and her sister as gifts. He gave her sister away to a Muslim poet. He was used to giving away sex slaves. He gave several of his top lieutenants kafir sex slaves. Umar, who later became caliph, gave his sex slave to his son. [As an aside, when he was caliph, his son got drunk and Umar beat him to death.]
REST OF THE HISTORY
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/jamie-glazov/islam-slavery-and-rape/print/
no i really dont actually think he converted- Has anyone ever seen him eat a pork chop?
Of course Islam is peaceful. All the violence in the world is due to the existence of non-muslims. If they didn’t exist, Muslims would not have to attack them.
ipso facto
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.