Have a comment?

Jan 10, 2016:

Islamapologia -- and the truth about Muslim activist and terrorist
sympathizer Rose Hamid who was "kicked out" of a Trump rally:

Rose Hamid is a Muslim activist and terrorist sympathizer who came to the Trump rally wearing a Muslim symbol colored in yellow that mocks the yellow stars the Muslims for centuries, and later the Nazis, made the Jews wear. The purpose of this publicity stunt (somehow she was ejected, albeit not by Trump -- it's unclear if he even was aware of her), was to imply that the Muslims are somehow the new Jews and that Trump supporters are akin to Nazis. What propagandizing filth.

At http://shoebat.com/2016/01/09/90806/:

[W]hat makes this particular example sickening is it is (a) pinned on her shoulder and (b) it is yellow... a reference to the infamous Star or Cross patches, bands, hoods, and other insignia that Muslims forced Jewish and Christian dhimmis to wear as a sign of their second-class citizenship in Muslim lands for centuries and was later adapted for use in 20th century German for reasons we all know why...

Ms. Hamid is likening herself to a "persecuted minority" in a non-Muslim country using the very same imagery that her own co-religionists used to persecute and exterminate non-Muslims...

Make no mistake. Ms. Hamid knew exactly what she was doing. This was a planned publicity stunt that more than a few people were in on to try an make Trump look bad. But they failed miserably, and Trump continued on like a champ...

FULL DOCUMENTARY OF OBSESSION:

It is the politics. In this full interview with Bill Kristol, she discusses how young Muslims become "radicalized" ("more pious, more actively observant"), as she claims she was when in her late teens, and the difference between the very observant inIslam and in other religions. In Islam, politics and religion have never been separated. First come the identity politics (from "Somali" to "Muslim"). Being taught to do the supplication prayer instead of jumping up after praying: "Please destroy the Jews". The psychology of the personal level and the social level. Becoming "aware" of what Islam actually stands for as the children strive to emulate more -- not "extremist" but -- "pure" Muslims. Halal versus haram. "Don't ask questions." Constant references to Mohammed. Constant prayer. Constant consulting of the Koran as the worldview becomes narrower and narrower. The separation of men and women. Fear of the notion of "hellfire". And how the agents of this agenda are in mosques and Muslim communities throughout Europe and the United States.

She talks about how in her Dutch education over five years (she majored in political science and the point of view was from European history), her professors insisted on critical thinking and questioning, and reading primary sources as well as their critics. When 9/11 happened, she realized that this had happened because of her religion, and the importance of understanding that the Koran is NOT "the true word of God".

In her book "Heretic", she strives to differentiate "Meccan Muslims" -- those few who focus only on the few years after the founding of Islam in which Mohammed preached theological theory, from "Medina Muslims" -- the vast majority, whether or not they themselves are currently "violent", whose Islam includes the totalitatian militarized political ideology that Mohammed established when he took over Medina. "Medina Muslims indoctrinate their children in... a cult of death. Even if they are not violent... [because what is more important] is what happens after death."

She points out that relativist "multiculturalism" must cease or we will not be able to address the problem. "It is now the liberal blasphemy to say that cultures are not equal." This is "dangerous" and we must not buy into these nonsensical ideas and, since one in five people on earth believe in Islam, we must be careful of who and what we allow, accept and let into our open, liberal societies, spelling out "what it is that they must accept and what it is that they must reject". There is an organized Islamist lobby in America, and it has the ear of our current president.

"America is exceptional, and must lead". "We should be proud of what it is that makes America exceptional and superior. We must reject multiculturalism" and "political correctness". Our president should be talking to those few Americanized Muslims who reject all political dimensions of Islam, and giving them the resources to compete with those who preach that sharia law is superior, and that Americans are racist. We must stop the "well-meaning laziness", and the deference, and not hold belief systems somehow special, and apart from criticism and questioning. In this same vein, she discusses the current "nonsense" on campuses of "trigger warnings", exaltation of minority or gender status, "microagressions" and "safe spaces", and the tolerating of student misbehaving and even rioting (e.g. Dartmouth library) to shut up opposing viewpoints.

"We cannot win the war on Islamic terrorism if we don't understand Islam -- a totalitarian ideology... [This is a fact] that we must recognize."

The below video illustrates the chilling political trajectory of various countries around the world -- from Asia to the Middle East, Africa, Australia, Europe, and the western hemisphere -- as the percentages of Muslims in their respective populations increase. Since the pattern remains consistent both historically and currently, how can we say that it will not happen here. The end result is Dar-el-Salam ("peace".)

Thus, it is technically "truthful" for an Islamic propagandist to claim that "Islam is the Religion of Peace" because what is meant by "peace" is not what you think is meant. Ask: what do you mean by "peace"?

It's really irritating beyond words that Obama, and now Hillary Clinton, keep preaching at us "who we are as Americans". What qualifies either of these lying, cheating, corrupt, incompetent and out-for-themselves politicians, neither of whom ever did any productive work that I can discern, to tell anyone else "who they are".

I guess it's meant to shut down conversation when they actually do not have any rationales for their various proposals to which they publicly can admit. $$$$$$$...

The only one where all players on the field
are willing to die for the spectators.

GO ARMY!

UPDATE: Feh, goats again.

...is eternal vigilance". -- Thomas Jefferson

liznotes:

Verse 9:5 is considered to be the last-written verse of the Koran. Violent jihad. Anyone quoting a conflicting earlier verse (even if that verse is accurately and completely translated -- a dubious assumption), should be told to cut the crap. The first part frequently is recited by terrorists.

Later-written verses of the Koran abrogate anything earlier that conflicts with them:

Verse 9:5:

But when the forbidden [sacred, holiday] months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans [idolaters, e.g. Christians] wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem [of war.] [B]ut if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Verse 9:29 explicitly requires Muslims to fight the "People of the Book" (Christians and Jews), notwithstanding earlier verses that seem to say that Muslims should fight only defensive actions. "Defensive" is quite broadly used in the Koran, such as against the offensive aggression of nonbelief. There is "no compulsion in religion" (a frequently-quoted phrase from an earlier-written verse, 2:256) provided the dhimmis are not so aggressive as to think that they can hold the reins of power in any part of the earth. (And it is not considered to be "compulsion" if a person "voluntarily" chooses to die or, if of "the Book", just submit to Islamic rule) rather than convert to Islam.

Verse 9:29:

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 themselves subdued [subjugated and abased].

Verse 48:29:

Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.

Not quite the same sort of thing as "love thy neighbor" (a sentiment, along with similar sentiments such as "Do unto others..." frequently found in Judaism, Christianity, and the other major religions, that is nowhere in the Koran). (And no -- nothing above has been "taken out of context".)

Speaking out against Islam is not religious "discrimination". It is speaking out against violence-inciting hate speech and the intolerant and despicable ideology of a hate cult that holds itself supreme, and that continuously has been violent since its inception. Moreover, being "Muslim" is not any individual's immutable characteristic. It is a choice, a choice in the same way that it is a choice to be a member of the Nazi Party and adhere to the precepts of Mein Kampf, or join the KKK.

For more information, see the websites linked below on this page, as well as the website Answering Islam, at http://www.answeringislam.org/. And if you're a Jewish apologist who still won't accept this, read this (pdf), and some of the writings of Nonie Darwish and others on Islamic Jew hatred.

To say "radical Islam" is like saying that the Pope is a "radical Catholic". The word "radical" connotes sweeping or revolutionary change, and as a synonym of "extremism" usually is only apt as a modifier of an action or actor seeking to create change. Muslim terrorists are not trying to change Islam.

You could call it "fundamentalist" or "orthodox Islam" -- but save for some tiny obscure little sects here and there that have mixed up Islam with tribalism and other religions, there are no actual ideologies of "moderate" or "reform" Islam, so neither of these terms is entirely accurate either.

You could say "extremist Muslim" but again, that's like calling the Pope an "extremist Catholic", or a rabbi an "extremist Jew".

You could call them "Muslim jihadists" or talk about jihadi, but that ignores that the expression of the faithful's struggle that is called "jihad" (which applies to "spiritual" things as well as pugilism) is integral to Islam, so that's like trying to identify fanatic Christians by saying that they are believers in Christ.

You could call them "violent jihadists", but you do so at your own risk, since violent overthrow and submission of non-Muslim cultures and nations is but only one form of jihad, and it's repeatedly encouraged in later-written sections of the Koran. (Unlike the Bible, later verses of the Koran supersede earlier verses, so don't be a credulous patsy and fall for the dissimulation pointing to this or that isolated earlier verse in the Koran to make the specious argument that Islam is a "religion of peace").

There is something fundamentally wrong with a religion that through the centuries even into modern times consistently has attacked others, from the days Mohammed forcibly took over Medina and killed the Jews who lived there who wouldn't submit to him (yes, it was a Jewish community first), to the invasions of Europe that gave rise in turn to the Crusades, to the Barbary pirates, to the sympathizing with the Nazis in WWII, to the continuous insane 10 or 20 percent of violent, suicidal lunatics who blow up themselves and others thinking they are doing God's will.

The only "peaceful" or "moderate" Muslims are those who just don't pay all that much attention to their religion, who are culturally Muslim but otherwise basically non-believing and non-practicing, or practicing only superficial cherry-picked bits, such as a holiday here and there. Most of these people, however, still share a kinship, loyalty and identification with Islam, the warm nostalgic fuzzies inculcated in childhood. And that's alarming when one considers human nature and the repeating history of tyranny in the world. It takes only a small percentage of the committed, and then the mildly sympathetic or previously indifferent majority just goes along with the program. (For example, only seven percent of Germans pre-WWII were Nazis.)

If someone wants to believe in their "religion", that's all good and well if acting on those beliefs doesn't cause harm to anyone else. But that -- and only that -- is what the First Amendment freedom of religion is about. In constitutional law "your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose."

Islam is not merely a religion, however. It is a political ideology. That political ideology is incompatible with, and stands for the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of the entire legal and philosophical foundations of every western society and government. In this regard, it is the world's largest hate cult. But because this political system and these beliefs are entwined with religion, Islam, as all religions, inevitably and continuously will give rise to some percentage of the inculcated who are "very devout". In Islam, though, "devout" becomes something dangerously much more than the Catholic devotee who goes to church every day, or the Jainist who rescues errant worms in the soil when he harvests his carrots, or the Orthodox Jew who wears medieval-like attire, or the Christian fanatic who preaches about the end of the world on the street corner.

Given this reality, the only appropriate response to those who disavow that they adhere to the political blatherings of the megalomaniac who made up stories about "Allah", who do not yell (or think) "Death to America", and who claim that they do not belong to or support any organization whose members bomb, stone, behead, burn, knife, hang, whip, and otherwise murder other people is: "PROVE IT".

Stop carrying on in defense of this nonsense parading as a "belief system". Stop exalting it, stop excusing it, stop lying about it, stop taking pride in its symbols, and just renounce Islam.

We don't put up with people claiming to be "peaceful" or "moderate" members of the KKK, or of the Nazi party, etc. So no thinking person should swallow these very same claims vis a vis Islam just because its founder justified his power to credulous primitives by claiming that he had received edicts from God.