To be clear, I have evolved into an Isolationist due to
Forever Wars and the idiocy of supporting a corrupt Ukrainian government that
has exploited Globalist interests that provoked Putin’s Russia to invade.
THAT BEING SAID … Iran is among the craziest of
Islamic regimes governed by death-cult Twelver Shi’ite Muslims (SEE HERE
& HERE)
who have spouted Death to America and Death to Israel ever since they came to power
in the late 1970s.
Anything to do with Nuclear Energy being developed in Iran
imperatively should be met with skepticism. If an Iranian Mullah claims
peaceful nuclear energy, I have no doubt it is Islamic Taqiyya
deceptive lying for nuclear weapon development.
And so bombing Iranian nuclear development sites works for
me. A surgical in-and-out operation works for me. The Isolationism I now
embrace DOES NOT want American boots on the ground.
I realize Putin’s Russia blustered about such a Trump
decision. I had little worries about a Russian response. Russia cannot even
close their military deal with corrupt Ukraine.
CCP ruled China is another story. I am curious if the CCP
will respond with anything beyond verbal bluster. Therein could lie the problem
of WWIII sparks. Frankly, my sense is the CCP will not do more than bluster
because it will not be cost-effective to their economy already stung by Trump
tariffs. The next couple of days will demonstrate how bold or the lack thereof
the CCP is.
Then there are the Dem-Marxist
and anti-Trump RINOs at home calling for Impeachment over bombing
Iran’s Nuke capabilities. THAT IS A LOAD OF DEM HYPOCRISY since Dem Presidents
performed military strikes without Congressional approval and not one single (Dumb)
Dem called for the impeachment of their Dem President.
The reference are the characters in the 1942 classic movie Casablanca
starring Humphrey Bogart and Claude Rains among other huge stars of the era.
Rains played the corrupt Vichy France cop (Vichy France was controlled by
Nazi Germany at the time) Captain Louis Renault who was on the take. If you
get a chance watch the entire movie. You will notice a lot of dialogue that
became American trivia slang. Turley’s post ingeniously stamps corrupt Capt.
Renault with present day Dem hypocrisy 7-second clip from the movie:
BUT I really like the argument supporting President Trump’s
actions against Iranian nuclear development from Douglas V. Gibbs at the Canada Free Press entitled,
“President
Trump’s Constitutional Strike Against Iran”. Gibbs points out
the Founders’ perception of the Constitution between the Executive Branch and
the Legislative Branch in dividing “the power to wage war and the power
to declare war”. It is smartly presented and I agree.
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers
to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL - one-time or recurring). YOUR generosity is APPRECIATED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for
Liberty:
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income by
offering healthy coffee products. BETTER YOUR HEALTH with healthy & good
tasting COFFEE and enjoy some weight management supplements. BUY Happy Coffee
& Weight Loss Supplements at the Diana Wellness Store: https://dianawellnessstore.com
Finally, the United States, under President Donald Trump
bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities into oblivion.
Obama and Biden spewed leftist drivel and waffled on what
could be done to stop Iran, AND gave the world’s largest sponsor of terror –
BILLIONS of dollars (A substantial amount of this was in cash) which of course
went to fund Iran’s terror activities, and/or their continuing development of
nuclear weapons.
Sometime late Saturday night (Sunday in Iran), the U.S.
bombed three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordo (Literally built under a
mountain that ONLY the U.S. is capable of destroying), where Iran was enriching
uranium that was very close to being enriched to the level needed to be able to
be used in the manufacturing of nuclear weapons.
Iran has repeated many times over the tale that their
uranium enrichment program is ONLY for peaceful civilian usage. This is a LIE.
Civilian usage of uranium only requires the enrichment level to be at around
3-5%, including for nuclear power plants. Iran’s uranium is/was
above the 80% mark. Iran was obviously intending to build nukes, only an
idiot would think otherwise.
Naturally, leftist morons (As well as a few Republicans),
like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), immediately began
shouting “impeach Trump.” After all, how DARE Trump do this without
congressional approval, or more like AOC’s approval, the nerve.
It’s funny, not really, how the Democratic president, Barack
Obama ordered airstrikes against 7 countries, 3 of those were for
sure done WITHOUT congressional approval, so where was AOC and the rest of the
Dems outcry on those strikes????
The Democrats of course would rather attempt to talk Iran to
death. The October 7, 2023 attack on Israel has shown how effective the
Dems approach to solving the “Iranian” problem is.
Please stop and think about this for one moment if you will:
if Iran was to attack Israel with a nuclear bomb, the chances are high that the
radioactive fallout from the explosion would blow right back into Iran.
Iran’s nuclear program was never about attacking Israel, as much as they would
like to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth, it was and is about attacking
the United States!
Thank God we have a strong president willing to do what it
takes to defend the U.S., unlike the Democrats who talk and try to bribe people
into backing off. That worked well with Iraq, Iran, and ISIS, don’t you
think?
About the
author: Greg is a strong believer in Jesus Christ and is also a
political analyst, and is the Editor-in-Chief for the National War Council. By
day he is a self-employed non-emergency medical transport driver, as well as
being an author and blogger. His articles are first published on Inspirational Christian Blogs,
and I Am Not
Ashamed of the Gospel of Christ!
His articles have
been widely published on many well-known conservative websites. If you
would like to republish his articles, please feel free to do so leaving all
links intact and crediting the author and the website that the article appeared
on.
President Trump’s Constitutional Strike Against Iran
Donald J. Trump means business, and the enemies of
America have just learned what happens when they bet against him. Guaranteed,
Xi Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia were paying close attention
"To be prepared for war is
one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."--George
Washington
Last night President Donald J. Trump has demonstrated what
leadership is all about in the face of global evil. He operated with precision,
iron resolve and cunning when he ordered the bombing of three nuclear sites in
Iran--eliminating key facilities before the Iranian regime could complete the
construction of a nuclear weapon. This was not an act of aggression--it was an
act of necessity. It was an act of peace through strength. It was a move
that no other recent President, nor any member of Congress, would have the guts
to carry out.
In the Articles of Confederation they pointed out that
there are two separate war powers: the power to wage war and the power to
declare war
Joe Biden was literally funding Iran’s nuclear program. A
smart Commander in Chief must sometimes take action--using quick strikes to
preserve the peace--because Islamic extremists were building a nuclear bomb…and
it is all no longer a problem because of President Donald Trump.
And now the Democrats and a certain collection of weak-kneed
Republicans are wringing their hands, quoting Article I, Section 8, and
proclaiming we are in the middle of some kind of constitutional crisis.
Let’s understand what the Constitution actually says. Yes,
the Constitution in Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare
war. But that is not the same as waging war. The Founding Fathers--men who had
just fought off the greatest military power on earth at the time--knew that
distinction. They knew that while war must be declared by Congress, which is an
official announcement to the world that a state of war exists, the execution of
war--the tactical, operational, and rapid-fire decisions--must belong to one
man: the Commander in Chief.
The Articles of Confederation failed because it shackled the
general government, and the executive was just another bureaucrat in the
Congress. Under that system, America was a sitting duck in a world full of
empires--slow to respond, unable to defend herself, vulnerable to enemies who
don’t wait for committee hearings, and unable to take any decisive action with
an energetic figurehead. So, when the Constitution was drafted, they separated
the war powers. In the Articles of Confederation they pointed out that there
are two separate war powers: the power to wage war and the power to declare
war--and they gave both of them to the legislature.
He acted, and he acted quickly, decisively, and
surgically
With the Constitution, those two powers were separated with
the power to declare war going to the Congress and the power to wage war
landing squarely with the President of the United States.
"It will be said that we
should make war only upon formal declaration, but [pirates and tyrants] don’t
wait for formalities."--Thomas Jefferson
President Thomas Jefferson didn’t need a Congressional war
declaration to send American forces after the Barbary Pirates. James
Madison in the Second Barbary War didn’t either. They understood that
enemies who attack commerce and threaten American sovereignty do not deserve a
legislative process before receiving American justice.
Iran, today’s largest global state sponsor of terrorism has
been actively building nuclear weapons. They chant "Death to
America" with religious fervor. They fund proxy armies from Gaza to
Lebanon to Yemen. And while the Leftist Democrats in America obsess over
pronouns and false claims of man-made climate change, Iran was preparing to put
a nuclear-tipped ICBM in the air.
What did Trump do?
He acted, and he acted quickly, decisively, and surgically.
No boots on the ground. No occupation. No
long-term entanglement. Just three strategic strikes with B-2 bombers
under the cover of darkness (Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan were struck at about
2:30 am Iran Time)--eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a matter of
minutes. The element of surprise was critical. If President Trump
had to go to Congress, it would’ve taken months, leaked to the press, debated
in subcommittees, and telegraphed to Tehran before the first vote was cast.
By then, we’d be counting bodies in the millions.
Trump’s actions were not only legal--they were
constitutional, moral, and necessary
Iran’s nuclear program wasn’t just a regional threat--it
was/is a potential global nightmare. And President Trump, along with Prime
Minister Netanyahu of Israel, understands what the armchair critics in
Washington D.C. do not: Evil must be stopped before it becomes unstoppable.
Never mind the hypocrisy.
Every military engagement since World War II--Korea,
Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria--has been done without a formal
declaration of war. But now, because it’s Trump, suddenly the Left wants to hug
the Constitution like they haven’t spent the last 50 years using it for toilet
paper?
Trump’s actions were not only legal--they were
constitutional, moral, and necessary. And let me be clear: if Iran retaliates,
President Trump has not only the authority, but the duty, to finish the
job.
The Founders believed in limited government, but not in
suicidal government. A Commander in Chief must be able to act in the interest
of national defense--and that’s what Trump did.
"A free people ought not
only to be armed, but disciplined…"--George Washington
Thanks to President Donald J. Trump the American people can
sleep well tonight. Iran no longer has the means to build a nuclear bomb.
That’s not thanks to a U.N. resolution, or a meaningless treaty or a deal with
a people who lie, deceive and wish every last American to be dead. The world is
a safer place and the bully of the Middle East is no longer a threat thanks to
a President who doesn’t blink.
Donald J. Trump means business, and the enemies of America
have just learned what happens when they bet against him. Guaranteed, Xi
Jinping of China and Vladimir Putin of Russia were paying close attention.
Douglas V. Gibbs
of Political Pistachio
Conservative News and Commentary, has been featured on “Hannity” and “Fox and
Friends” on Fox News Channel, and other television shows and networks.
Doug is a Radio Host on KMET 1490-AM on Saturdays with his Constitution Radio
program, as well as a longtime podcaster, conservative political activist,
writer and commentator. Doug can be reached at douglasvgibbs [at]
yahoo.com or constitutionspeaker [at] yahoo.com.
Content is
Copyright 1997-2025--the individual authors | Site Copyright 1997-2025 Canada Free Press
If you’ve ever Islamic revered writings such as the Quran,
Hadith, Sira and various Muslim theologians commenting on the big revered three
AND you are not an adherent of Islam, YOU ARE AWARE ISLAM IS EVIL toward all
things non-Islamic.
Even though those revered writings designate Jews and
Christians as People of the Book (because a Muslim dare not say Holy Bible),
it is written of them THAT failure to submit to the superiority of Islam is
death.
I’m a Christian that refuses to relegate my faith to an
inferior position submitting to Muslim lies about Jesus Christ the Son of God
Crucified to death on a Cross and arisen three days later to His Glorified life
fully human and fully God. Christian beliefs labeled as blasphemy in Islam.
It has been quite some time since I have posted on Islam
exposing that belief system as deficient, contrary and downright
anti-Christian. And so I have been saving some posts from other blogs and
websites exposing a nefarious Islam (primarily from Sheaholliman's
Weblog) which I will cross post here (probably with a
little spellcheck applied).
If you are Facebook poster be careful. Sharing may land you
in Facebook Jail. As you will read in an Editor’s note, I’m serving restricted
time in Facebook Jail until April 18. I’m restricted to only Groups I moderate,
but I got a feeling a full restriction is in my future for I also will not
submit to Fascistbook Censors.
JRH 1/25/20
Your generosity is always appreciated - various credit, check
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
During a New Year’s Eve Islamic terror attack that took place in
Russia minutes before the clock struck midnight, two Muslim men—Akhmed
Imagozhev, 22 and Mikail Miziyev, 18—drove their car into and stabbed to death
two police officers, one a married father of four. Other officers
subsequently shot one of the jihadis dead, while hospitalizing the other.
An image of the two Muslim men posing with knives was later
found on social media (right). Beneath it appears the words, “love and
hatred based on Tawhid!”
This is hardly the first time this ostensibly oxymoronic
phrase appears in connection with Islamic acts of terror. After launching
a successful attack that killed two policemen in the Kashmir Valley, the
militant commander of Kashmir’s Hizb al-Mujahidin—“the Party of Jihadis”—justified the murders by saying, “We love and hate for the sake of Allah.”
In this otherwise cryptic motto lie the roots of Islam’s
conflict with the rest of the world. “Loving and hating” is one of
several translations of the Islamic doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ (which
since 2006 I have generally translated as “Loyalty and Enmity”).
The wala’ portion—“love,” “loyalty,”
etc.—requires Muslims always to aid and support fellow Muslims (including
jihadis, for example through funds or zakat). As one medieval
Muslim authority explained, the believer “is obligated to befriend a
believer—even if he is oppressive and violent toward you — while he must be
hostile to the infidel—even if he is liberal and kind to you” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 64 ).
This is a clear reflection of Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the
Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers,
merciful among themselves.”
But it is the bara’—the “hate,” the
“enmity”—that manifests itself so regularly that even those in the West who are
not necessarily acquainted with the particulars of Muslim doctrine sense
it. For instance, in November 2015, after a series of deadly Islamic terror
strikes in the West, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said, “I think
Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous
hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it.
There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
This “tremendous” and “unbelievable
hatred” is not a product of grievances, political factors, or even an
“extremist” interpretation of Islam; rather, it is a direct byproduct of
mainstream Islamic teaching. Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this
doctrine and speaks for itself. As Osama bin Laden once wrote:
As to the relationship between
Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce
you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah
alone” [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from
the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel
submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed
[i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable.
But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great
apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between
the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the
Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. (The Al Qaeda
Reader, p. 43).
Similarly, the Islamic State confessed to the West in the context
of Koran 60: 4 that “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are
disbelievers.” As for any and all political “grievances,” these are
“secondary” reasons for the jihad, ISIS said:
The fact is, even if you were to
stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our
lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you
will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority
of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.
Koran 58:22 goes as far as to praise Muslims who kill their
own non-Muslim family members: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and
the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His
Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their
nearest kindred.”
According to Ibn Kathir’s mainstream commentary on the
Koran, this verse refers to a number of Muslims who slaughtered their own
non-Muslim kin (one slew his non-Muslim father, another his non-Muslim brother,
a third—Abu Bakr, the first revered caliph of Islamic history—tried to slay his
non-Muslim son, and Omar, the second righteous caliph, slaughtered his
relatives). Ibn Kathir adds that Allah was immensely pleased by
their unwavering zeal for his cause and rewarded them with paradise. (The Al Qaeda Reader, 75-76).
In fact, verses that support the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’[Blog Editor: an
excellent post on this doctrine HERE] permeate the Koran (see also
4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 60:1). There is one caveat, captured
by Koran 3:28: when Muslims are in a position of weakness, they may pretend to befriend non-Muslims,
as long as the hate carries on in their hearts (such is taqiyya;
see here, here, and here for examples; for other Islamic
sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir).
Little wonder, then, that America’s supposed best Muslim
friends and allies—such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar—have issued
fatwas calling on all Muslims to “oppose and hate whomever Allah
commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and
other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah
alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace
and blessings upon him.”
If Muslims must hate those closest to them—including
fathers, sons, brothers, and wives—simply because they are non-Muslims, is
there any surprise that so many Muslims hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans
away—such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Muslim world as
trying to undermine Islam?
In short, jihad—or terrorism, war on non-Muslims for no less
a reason than that they are non-Muslims—is simply the physical
realization of an overlooked concept that precedes it: Islam’s unequivocal
command for Muslims to hate non-Muslims.
In this video we: destroy the "Islamic Awareness"
article related to this topic, demonstrate the Quran relies on the Alexander
Myth, respond to more anticipated objections from Muslims (using Maududi), and
explore some of the tangled mess of traditions elsewhere in Surah 18 and
beyond. In doing so, we issue a strong challenge to Muslims regarding their
theology of the Quran.
In this video we demonstrate the sloppiness with which the
Quran mixes various genres of tradition, historical and ahistorical. Patreon
here: www.patreon.com/islamcritiqued. Email here: islamcritiqued@gmail.com
Around the world, people who leave the faith of Islam face
state persecution, imprisonment, torture, and even execution, as well as
violence, death threats, and ostracization from their own communities.
Many ex-Muslims risk so-called honor killing, forced
marriage, kidnap, and communal violence at the hands of their families for
"bringing shame" on their community. In Western countries, ex-Muslims
are often thrown out of the family and face isolation and exclusion.
Mohamad grew up in a devout Muslim home, obediently
following her parents’ orders to practice the rituals of Islam. But God was
calling her to freedom and love. He was calling her to true faith. He was
calling her to give up everything.
His Testimony is a remarkable spiritual journey from Islam
to Christianity. It is also the untold story of how he ran from her father’s
threats to find refuge in America. Most of all, it is the story of a young man
who made life-changing sacrifices to follow Jesus—and who inspires us to do the
same.
“I’d like to talk to you about what I find a fascinating
topic that is the topic of Islamic ethics, but in particular, a part of Islamic
ethics which is called sacred deception or Taqiyya. Let me give you a few
ethical rules that come from the Hadith: a Muslim does not cheat another Muslim
in business a Muslim doesn’t kill another Muslim a Muslim doesn’t touch another
Muslim’s wife and a Muslim doesn’t lie to another Muslim.
You notice something here? That’s right. You and I are
left out because you see Islam is not a symmetric ethical system. The golden
rule is symmetric. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That
is, there’s a balance here; the other and yourself are seen as equal. But in
Islam if you’re a Kafir, you’re never equal to the Muslim. Islam does not have
a golden rule. The Kafir is always inferior.
Now then, let’s talk about lying and deception. First
let’s start with the fact that Allah has 99 names and one of those 99 names is
he is the best of deceivers. But Allah is also the best of plotters and
schemers so given that, it isn’t too surprising that we find in the Koran
16:106 “Those who disbelieve in Allah after having believed, who open up their
hearts to disbelief will feel the wrath of Allah and have a terrible
punishment.” In other words, apostates can be killed or otherwise punished. But
it goes further. “But there is no punishment for anyone who is compelled to
deny Allah in words but whose heart is faithful.” So in other words, a Muslim
can lie about Islam if it serves Islam. And one of the ways he can serve Islam
is that the Muslim is not discriminated against.
Here we have another in Koran 3:28: “Believers should not
take Kafirs (unbelievers) as friends in preference to other believers. Who ever
does this shall have no relationship left with Allah.” (In other words, if
you’re a real friend [to a Kafir], you’re no longer friend of Allah). “ . . .
unless you but guard yourself against them [Kafirs], taking precautions.” What
this is interpreted to mean is that a Muslim can act friendly but he’s not
actually the friend. That’s what is wrong. In other words, a Muslim may never
give preference to a Kafir over a Muslim. There are, by the way, no less than
12 verses which say that a Muslim is not the friend of the Kafir.
Now let’s turn to the Hadith. “Mohammed: ‘Who will kill
Ka’b bin Ashraf who has offended Allah and his prophet?’ A Muslim: ‘I will
Mohammed. Would you have me do so?’‘ Yes. ’‘In order to kill him, I will need
to deceive him. May I do that?’ Mohammed: ‘Yes.’” So, the Muslim deceived Ka’b
bin Ashraf and he did kill him. What is this? This is the Sunna of Mohammed; it
is possible to lie to the Kafir as long as it advances Islam. This is the
nature of Taqiyya.
Now there is another way in which a Muslim can lie.
There’s a hadith, a fairly well-known hadith, in which there are three reasons
for Muslims to lie. One is jihad, that is the struggle against the Kafir. So a
Muslim can lie to you anytime he needs to advance Islam. The other is a Muslim
a lie to another Muslim if it will make the situation better. And a husband and
wife may lie to each other as long as it smooths the relationships in the
household. So deception is part of Islam. Allah is a deceiver. Mohammed was a
deceiver, and therefore, every Muslim can be a deceiver. It is so special that
it has a name, Taqiyya. So the next time you’re hearing something about Islam
that just doesn’t sound right, and it comes from the mouth of a Muslim, you’re
right. It’s not right. It’s a lie. It is Taqiyyah.
Islamic extremism is a term that will cause many of us to
have nightmares, imagining some person in our dreams with a mask and a turban,
screaming Islamic phrases out as they jump with no fear into a crowd of people
and blow themselves up. But what is Islamic extremism?
I imagine what standards you are viewing this against would
change or alter your perception of what is extremist or not, so to keep things
simple, how about we stay within Western Based perceptions. These are rather
simple, an Islamic extremist is anyone that feels their religion gives them the
right to try to dictate to people in the West what our interactions not only
with them should be, but when forceful suggestions don’t work violence is
acceptable.
What is the difference between Islam and the other
Abrahamic faiths
Before I get too much into this, I need all to understand
the differences between the faiths. While Jews believe that their faith is held
sacred, the more orthodox may turn ornery if they feel you are infringing on
their right to practice their faith, but as a rule, they would never dream of
trying to force others to convert, they just want to be left alone. Judaism has
made conversion hard to prevent people from converting for frivolous reasons.
The violence one can read in the time of the early advent of Judaism, such as
the Exodus, the conquering of the land wiping out of the people, this is not
pertinent to Judaism today, the violent parts are rejected universally.
Christianity while more an outgoing faith in the way of
proselytizing, the true teachings of the faith teach that this must be done
with love, violence is rejected, forgiveness is to be handed out freely. Before
anyone says that Christianity was very violent in the past, you are correct,
but this was not due to the teachings, this was due to the politicization of
the faith.
But Islam is different, and please, don’t take this as
saying that all Muslims are violent, in fact, that majority of Muslims are
peace-loving people who as a rule have no problems living with people of other
faiths. But this is where the similarities end, Islam was founded on violence,
it teaches in its core teachings that violence is acceptable, in fact, will be
needed in the end to force all to submit to the faith; if you are truly
going to delve deep into the faith, there is little you can do to get away from
this.
But what is Islam? At its most basic component, you have to
look at what Islam means, it means submission. Submission to whom? It is
submission to Allah, and this was directed and taught by what they consider as
the highest prophet, Mohammad. Mohammad in his teachings that were recorded in
the Quran left little to choice (he never wrote the Quran, he was illiterate,
others recorded what they heard him say), he openly stated he was the final
word on all, what he stated did change over time. Early verses of Islam more
peaceful in nature, later in life Mohammad was far from peaceful, these
teachings take precedence over all others, thus the more peaceful verses when
it was better to live in peace due to a lack of power are superceded
later with verses telling them to be not peaceful, naturally a Muslim will not
ever offer up this information, instead will continue to quote the peaceful
verses even though they know they gave way to the later ones.
Unlike Judaism and Christianity, both which did have parts
that dictated how to treat others, with the Jewish law you have parts
that dictated how a Jew should live, it never gives mention to how a none Jew
should live their life. Judaism wanted their people to live separate, not make
demands on the rest of the world to satisfy their faith. Christianity as well
tells its people to give to G-d what is his, to man what is his, and live your
life within a way that is permitted within the system, that is unless the
system is in direct violation of your faith (you saw this with martyrs in Rome
in the advent of Christianity).
But Islam does not make this distinction, it tells its
rulers how to rule, what their outlook should be towards others. Any land
conquered under the name of Islam is held in holy trust (that has always been
the core of the problem with Israel, not over some imaginary right to heritage
as the “Palestinians” love to claim). To this day materials in Islamic nations
speak of the part of Spain by its Islamic name, Libya’s Gaddiffi made a
statement once about taking back over holy land in Spain, they were going to do
so not by war, rather by using the Europeans own political correctness against
them; sadly this is looking more and more probable as time goes on.
In Islam Sharia is the law of the land, all laws, even in
more secular nations like Egypt are still very much influenced by Sharia. A
good example is if you go to the most moderate of Islamic majority of states,
such an Egypt or Indonesia, it is illegal for one to convert an Islamic person
out of their faith, but it is 100% legal for any Islamic person to convert or
proselytize one from another faith to Islam. Even divorce in Indonesia is
controlled by the Islamic faith. In their 1974 Marriage Law they have laws
for each faith to marry and divorce, they set up the different customs to
handle divorce, but Muslims only have unwritten customary (adat)
law and Muslim religious law.
Another problem is honesty. Judaism and Christianity teach
you should be honest, not lie, but Islam teaches it is perfectly acceptable to
lie your head off, so long as it promotes Islam or is protecting you in some
way. And this is not just my understanding, Islam teaches this rather plainly.
Quran (16:106) – Establishes that there
are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims
not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard
themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may
appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger
are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths is with
pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong but
were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a
personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals – see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already
ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”
Quran (40:28) – A
man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among
those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) – “Allah will not call
you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your
hearts”
Quran (3:54) – “And they (the
disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best
of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara,
which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward
unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to
do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
This is a problem when dealing with Muslims, more so when
doing this with nation states. They are taught that they can lie if it aids
them, they can make treaties with none believers, these should only be used as
a means to build back up strength so you can attack again. I have told many, if
you hear one thing but see another, I would never go by what I hear, rather
what I see.
Treatment of none Islamic people in Muslim Majority
Nations
Quran 9:29 [Blog Editor: My
Word Doc would not acquire the Arabic characters for the below translation. To
read the original you will go to the LINK then scroll to this point.]
Fight those who believe not
in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by
Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they
are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing
submission, and feel subdued.
Dr. Peter Hammond, a researcher that has spent his life
studying Islamic migration, the effect on the surrounding population, the
interaction of the Islamic migrants on the general population, made a rather
startling and troubling find concerning their demands on the nation and the
people. In his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam he breaks
down Islam’s interactions with the society around them as they grow, rather
than give my own quotes, I will quote him:
When politically correct and culturally diverse
societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious
rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it
works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around
1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving
minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in
articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1%-2% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from
other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the
jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate
influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of
halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation
jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature
it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States
).
France — Muslim 8% Philippines — Muslim 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling
government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic
Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to
establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they
will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their
conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam
will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting,
jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres,
chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of
non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of
Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 60% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and
genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the
Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a
Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% Somalia — Muslim 100% Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their
blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
I think one of the best quotes I have seen concerning this
came from Leon Uris:
‘Before I was nine I had
learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother;
me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the
clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us
against the infidel. – Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’
So are all Muslims bad? Of course not, they are far from it,
the problem we have today is the press is so intent on covering for all
Muslims, they either ignore or disregard the bad ones in their midst. In other
cases they try to say incorrectly that groups like ISIS are not true Muslims, I
would beg to differ, they are actually doing nothing that Mohammad himself did
not do.
In other cases they give such low expectations, when places
like Saudi Arabia say that women now have more value than livestock, the left,
and feminist groups for their part, explode in their praise of them for
their enlightened outlook.
Sadly these are the same feminist and women rights activist
that seems to think what they stand for has no bearing with Islamic women or
for Western Women victimized by Muslim males. Rather than stick up for the
Western woman being attacked, sexually molested and raped by Muslim migrants,
they attack them, saying it is somehow their fault, maybe they should have
dressed better (we all know if it was a rape from a Western male, they would
never dream of making this claim, nor would they blame the woman for such a
heinous act).
You see this in the press, rather than say there is a
terrible problem with Islam, they blame it on the economy, lack of jobs,
western ideology being forced on these people. And while doing this they ignore
there are two forces at work within Islam in the present, one is looking to
bring it back to its more radical ways when it was at its height of power, they
dream of recreating a Caliphate again.
The press ignores this, makes excuses for them, or says look
at the peaceful Muslims, what about them? The bottom line is like with many
groups, the peaceful ones are irrelevant, they do nothing to change the
narrative of the radicals, thus giving them power by their silence, the ones
that do speak are quickly attacked or dispatched. In other cases people who
speak out are ostracized by the whole, they are seen as somehow being traitors
to Islam.
In the same way that you had peaceful loving Germans in WW2,
peaceful loving Chinese under Mao, and equally loving peaceful people under
Stalin, they did not drive the narrative, their silence gave power to the
minority, end the end they were irrelevant to what was driving the narrative in
those countries.
By not exposing this you give power to the radicals and make
the voices of the peace and change even more irrelevant. In the cold war, we
did not say look at how peaceful the majority of the Russians were, we took
groups that wanted to bring freedom to the Soviet system, recognized and gave
them both support and resources to do something, they soon became many and
changed the system from within. We need to do the same with Islam, stop
empowering tyrants and radical dictators, we need to start aiding the ones
trying to drag Islam into the 21 century.
You do have heroic people within the Islamic community,
Egypt’s ruler openly called for a dialog to bring Islam into the modern age, to
reject the violent bent seen in the Koran. Sadly most of the press was silent,
the Western powers, for the most part, ignored this, under Obama instead we
have catered to the more violent, then ignoring the radicals, calling them JV
or amateurish; while the US has changed this outlook under Trump, seems he is
more willing to push to call out the radicals, to be fair he is also willing to
embrace the ones that started most of this last wave of radicalness, the
Saudi’s.
But then even within a society as closed off and radical as
Saudi Arabia is, we see cracks in that growing within that society as they try
to move more towards getting away from their radical ideology. Today there are
calls for women to drive, openly having a dialog with Israel, actually allowing
Jews within their nation and having leaders go to Israel. The Saudi’s and other
more orthodox Islamic states seem to be changing, but then there are pulls from
nations like Iran that are pushing to bring more fundamentalism, just what they
see as the proper way.
Islam can pull itself from the past, but if it does not, we
need to be ready to call it out for this, not make excuses for them. We need to
see support, aid and giving open alliance to leaders that are pushing for a
more modern view of Islam, openly call out the ones that aren’t, and in nations
like Saudi Arabia and the other nations around them, we need to let them be on
notice, now more is the West going to turn a blind eye towards spreading of
radicalism, but we will be quick to notice and praise when they make moves to
stop it.
I know some will say that there is no support for this, if
you feel this way, please go to this article that looks at polling around the
world and in the Middle East, it is very enlightening.
0Censor.com
Site owned and operated by Benton Media Corp.
+++++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently
been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after
criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing
Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions.
Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I
choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely.
Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are
banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT
CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in
pop-up on 1/20/20: “You're temporarily restricted from joining and posting to
groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
_________________________
Examine Islam
Don’t be Fooled by
Supremacism, Lies and False Peace
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62799055/GettyImages_1061325392.0.jpg){kind=link}