American Border Secrets

Jewish World Review ^ | April 26, 2005 | Daniel Pipes

[jan in Colorado]

What steps should Western border agencies take to defend their homelands from harm by Islamists?

In the case of non-citizens, the answer is simple: Don't let Islamists in. Exclude not just potential terrorists but also anyone who supports the totalitarian goals of radical Islam. Just as civilized countries did not welcome fascists in the early 1940s (or communists a decade later), they need not welcome Islamists today.

But what about one's own citizens who cross the border? They could be leaving to fight for the Taliban or returning from a course on terrorism techniques. Or perhaps they studied with enemies of the West who incited them to sabotage or sedition. Clearly, the authorities should take steps to find out more about their activities, especially given the dangerous jihadi culture already in place in many Western countries, including Canada.

This question arose in late December 2004, after a three-day Islamist conference, "Reviving the Islamic Spirit," took place in Toronto. The event, boasting a host of high-profile Islamist speakers such as Bilal Philips, Zaid Shakir, Siraj Wahhaj, and Hamza Yusuf, alarmed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), America's new border agency..

Excerpt... Read more at http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

[RS]

"I showed you that Muslims read the hadith and follow it."

No, to be precise you showed me a site that claims to have people that follow the hadith, while not explaining by what authority they should. On the other hand I showed you a site that claims that Muslims should not follow the hadith, and quotes extensively from the Koran to show why they should not.


But that is not my point - there are over a billion Muslims, most of them who are NOT trying to kill you.

Look at the numbers... if a lone nut can blow up the OK Federal building, why are their not hundreds of IEDs going off all over Detroit ?

[RS]

I can see you've had a lot of practice cut'n'pasting from what others have writen...

let's look at your tiniest "quote"

"(Q.9:5), slay them "

Now, no way THAT could be taken out of context, right ?



But it comes on the heels of

[9:4] If the idol worshipers sign a peace treaty with you, and do not violate it, nor band together with others against you, you shall fulfill your treaty with them until the expiration date. GOD loves the righteous.

... and explains what the options are if the peace is not extended.

[9:5] Once the Sacred Months are past, (and they refuse to make peace) you may kill the idol worshipers when you encounter them, punish them, and resist every move they make. If they repent and observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), you shall let them go. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.




But you bring up an interesting point, the Koran specifically points out the signing of peace treaties and the righteousness of abiding by them.

http://www.submission.org/suras/sura9.html

[AmericanArchConservative]

(Laughing)

If the best you can do is to question the specific context of two cited verses, and yourself cite a sura pertaining to the signing of peace treaties...then I believe I stand on solid ground yet. Interesting that they must have felt the need to get so specific in delineatingterms relevant to the striking and observation of peace treaties...

By extraction that might lead a reasonable person to infer and believe that:

1) they were frequently at war, and needed guidelines for treating with their avowed religious enemies,

2) that many of the Muslim leaders must have had nasty habits of breaking those treaties, or never honoring them in the first place

3) they must have always encountered significant resistance by non-muslims to obligatory "charitable giving".

(Is the Zagat a requird charitable gift, a "tax" on non-muslims to ensure their personal safety, or just a way for muslims in power to insure that non-muslims stay poor, oppressed, and out of power?)

Sorry but the verses which portray allah as merciful and forgiving, patient and longsuffering, are outnumbered, and superseded, and overshadowed by those which demand intolerance, violence and bloodshed in his behalf.

I stand by what I have presented. Our argument is not against fanaticism only, but against the very foundational tenets of the whole religion of Islam, which are the fountainhead and source of the threat to all non-muslims any and every time those tenets are practiced. It requires no leap of faith or logic to determine that - only a keen grasp of the obvious, attainable with a nominal study of Islam's 1,381 year history.

If they want to fully practice the basic precepts of their religion as they are clearly written and long interpreted, they are welcome to find a muslim country, relocate there, and do so within its borders. They are NOT welcome to do so in America. That would be incompatible with, and inescapably usurp our Constitution. We allow general freedom of worship, and protect it. Islam will not suffer other "competitors" to practice their faith freely; the Koran makes that plain.

A.A.C.

A.A.C.

[Fred Nerks]

I will be speaking to my friends in the next few days and will let you know their reply. Meanwhile, I would be interested to hear from you what you believe a 'militant imam' to be. How can a muslim who attends a mosque for example, tell the difference between an ordinary imam and an imam who is militant?

[Gondring]

I do have homosexual friends, two very nice young men who live in Cairns.

No doubt a "rocky" relationship... ;-)

[Gondring]

Perhaps it's a spurious reference to the Black Panther days....

[Gondring]

Catholics don't behead the opposition.

Good point. I haven't heard of any Muslims using burning at the stake, either, have you?

[Fred Nerks]

psssst...I think he means like yesterday...

[Fred Nerks]

That's cute. I wondered who would be the first to make a comment. Just couldn't help yourself? No umbrage taken, and none meant I imagine.

You might recall the story I told some time ago, about the imam who, reading from the (wahabbe version? of the) koran, stated to the congregation that homosexual men should be killed, by being thrown off a tall building...

In that congregation, was the imam's own son. He took his father's words too literally, gathered up a group of like minded young men and went on a 'poofter bashing' expedition into a park, where they bashed a young cyclist almost to death with baseball bats.

I have always been curious how they might have decided that the cyclist was a homosexual, and why they used baseball bats. Were they simply too lazy to kidnap him, carry him up several flights of stairs ( or use an elevator) and do as the imam instructed?

Islam perplexes me no end.

[RS]

"If the best you can do is to question the specific context of two cited verses...."

No it's just that I've been through this before and replied to those same so=called quotes - you're just getting boring...

I suppose one would have to BE a reasonable person first to be able to guess what a reasonable person might extract -
-a reasonable person might actually read and create their own arguments rather then just cut'n'paste.
- when a reasonable person DOES cut'n'paste, its reasonable for them to provide links so that other reasonable people can verify the info and see it in context...

[RS]

"How can a muslim who attends a mosque for example, tell the difference between an ordinary imam and an imam who is militant?"

Just for starters, if the Iman in question dosent go along with -

[2:256] There shall be no compulsion in religion

or

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

or

[60:8] GOD does not enjoin you from befriending those who do not fight you because of religion, and do not evict you from your homes. You may befriend them and be equitable towards them. GOD loves the equitable.

... and his kid comes to the costume party dressed as a human bomb, he might be militant.

( Move over Jeff Foxworthy ! )

[Gondring]

That's cute. I wondered who would be the first to make a comment. Just couldn't help yourself? No umbrage taken, and none meant I imagine.

Uh, you did get that I was playing on the name "Cairns"...as in rocky markers...right?

[Gondring]

psssst...I think he means like yesterday...

Ah! So you're saying, "those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it" and "if we don't wipe out the Muslims now, we might be making the same mistake as with those Catholics--i.e., we shoulda wiped them out when they were bloodthirsty!" huh?

[SaltyJoe]

Burning at the stake? Not in the past 100 plus years. But that would be a very interesting statistic. How many deaths can be attributed to Muslim/Jewish/Catholic killing and the details for each (different sects for each of the three), and who has apologized for what. I don't think that the numbers would help Islam (since Communists are still in denial about Stalin's madness).

And please don't reference English Protestant historians for what happened during the Spanish Inquisition; otherwise, we'd have to consider Act Up's numbers for how many homosexuals exist in society.

[Gondring]

I have always been curious how they might have decided that the cyclist was a homosexual, and why they used baseball bats.

Because using another sport's bat wouldn't be cricket? <rimshot>

Sorry, Fred... you line 'em up, I can't resist knockin' 'em down!

[Fred Nerks]

You make it sound so pure and so simple. Yet 'islamic scholars' spend an entire lifetime interpreting this hogwash, filled with bits and pieces of every belief system that came before it, a toilet-paper theology based upon plagiarism from the Original Testament, a little Christianity, some Babylonian lore and astrology, a remnant of ancient arabic stone and planetary worship. 'There shall be no compulsion in religion.' LOL! Tell that to the indigenous millions islam has wiped out since mohammad personally took part in the decapitation of 800 men at Medina. Tell that to the dead in Sudan, the Christians massacred by the muslim Turks, tell that to the 40 Christians now being held in Saudi Arabia. "According to Islamic doctrine, Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, meaning that he is the last prophet as well as the final revelation of Allah to humankind. Since Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets, there can be no further development in any judicial matters where the Qur'an and Sunnah provide guidance. Consequently, the Qur'an enshrines the tribal governance of 7th century Arabia into all law for all nations for all time. Sunnah "The second source of Shari'a law is the Sunnah of Muhammad. The Sunnah is the rule of law that is found in the ancient traditions of Muhammad's sayings and behavior. Sunnah means "a normative way of acting, conduct, practice, usage, rule, course, institution and behaviour."4 The hadith (plural, ahadith) is a written record of the Sunnah of Muhammad. Ahmad Hasan wrote, "In fact hadith is the narration of the sayings, doings, and tacit approvals of the Prophet (peace be on him), while sunnah is the rule of law conveyed through the hadith. Hadith is a vehicle which conveys the sunnah of the Prophet. Hence one hadith may contain many sunnahs. Here sunnah means rule of law, practice, or model conduct of the Prophet (peace be on him), which is contained in a hadith.5 "The six major hadith collections are Sahih Al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawud, Sunan At-Tirmidhi, Sunan An-Nisa'i, and Sunan Ibn Majah. These collections are extensive works that preserve the details of the conduct and sayings of Muhammad. It can be rightly said that the ahadith contribute more to Islamic ideology than the Qur'an itself. So, they are vital sources to understand Islam. "The Qur'an states that Muhammad is "a beautiful pattern (of conduct)." As a result, Muslims believe that Muhammad is the ideal prototype of a perfect man, and Muslims look to his sayings and behavior for guidance in their day-to-day lives. Muslims believe that all hope in Allah and the Final day finds its answer in Muhammad. For a Muslim, Muhammad's sayings and conduct sweep aside the light of reason, conscience, and nature as guides for human conduct. "Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. Sura Al-Ahzab 33:21 (Yusuf Ali's translation) áóÞóÏú ßóÇäó áóßõãú Ýöí ÑóÓõæáö Çááøóåö ÃõÓúæóÉñ ÍóÓóäóÉñ áøöãóä ßóÇäó íóÑúÌõæ Çááøóåó æóÇáúíóæúãó ÇáúÂÎöÑó æóÐóßóÑó Çááøóåó ßóËöíÑðÇ. ÓæÑÉ ÇáÃÍÒÇÈ &#1635;&#1635;: &#1634;&#1633; "Since the hadithic literature records the life and sayings of Muhammad, it provides the foundation for Shari'a law and Islamic ideology. Without a study of the ahadith, it is impossible to have an accurate understanding of Islam and its laws. This later thought can hardly be overstated. Too often, when Westerners want to learn about Islam, they only study the Qur'an, and they ignore the more informative ahadith. http://muhammadanism.org/default.htm Sorry about the format, I don't know how to correct it. But really, RS, don't you think it's finally time you read the Biography of the 'Prophet'? Shouldn't you at least be interested enough in the 'religion' you are apologising for, to investigate the life of the horrid, filthy, lying, murdering scum that gave it birth? Hmmmmm?

[truth_seeker]

The method of engagement was solidified on 9/11/2001.

Failure to remember is not prudent. No good reason to "talk about things." Well past talking.

[Fred Nerks]

Yes, I 'got it' but you are beginning to sound rather patronising...not amusing.

[Fred Nerks]

Gondring, don't play that game with me. I said what I said, not one word more, not one word less. Putting words into my mouth DOES NOT WORK.

[Fred Nerks]

I wondered why they used baseball bats when the imam clearly said 'homosexuals should be thrown off tall buildings'

Or is that too much of a stretch even for you to grasp? I know you are trying to be amusing but I find little about islam I can laugh at.