The religion of peace executes another woman... 
What happens when muslims are shown to be liars?
Monday, May 30, 2005
If you're on their blog, they ban you. I had a recent discussion with one such duplicitous muslim on his blog called http://avari.blogs.com/
Our discussion went like this:
Flanstein said:
Who wants their religion to rule the earth? Not me. That would be you folks...
AA Pakistani Mulah said on "60 Minutes", "One day, God willing, we will live to see the flag of the Islamic Nation flying on top of America's buildings."
An American muslim student said at a Muslim student forum at the College of Staten Island (NYC) a week after the attacks of Sept. 11: "It is the duty of every Muslim to struggle for Islam to DOMINATE the world."
Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad.
Omar Ahmad Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations
Posted by: Flanstein May 30, 2005 07:52 AM
So because some guy on TV said it, I believe it. You're stupider than you look, Flanstein, and I don't even know what you look like.
Posted by: haroon May 30, 2005 08:17 AM
Haroon,
Stop clenching your little fists, you'll give yourself a stroke. These were just a few small examples of the duplicitous nature of muslims and their expansionist ideals for this nation.
Let me ask you a simple question; do you agree of disagree with Omar Ahmad that "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant?"
At this point, our intrepid little jihadi had to answer my question or ban me. Guess which option he chose?
Mohammed's Believe It or Else!
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Thanks to the Infidel Army for pointing me to this site. This hilarity can be found at: http://islamcomicbook.com/
A conversation with muhammad
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
From Ali Sina at Faith Freedom
Muhammad:-Hey people I am a prophet!
People: - Where are your credentials?
Muhammad: - Here is a letter that I have written that says I am a prophet.
People: - But this is your own words.
Muhammad: -No this is what Allah dictated and I wrote it.
People: - How can we know you are not lying?
Muhammad: - You are deaf, dumb and blind and you’ll burn in hellfire. 2.171, 6.39, 8.22, 17.97
Stupid people aka Muslims: - Whoa! What a convincing argument! We believe.
Muhammad: - Now let us go and raid merchant caravans.
Muslims: - But isn’t stealing unethical?
Muhammad: - No! Because you became poor after following me and are no more working, Allah has given you the right to lay hand on other people’s property. Also they oppressed you. You can kill them. Oppression is worse than killing 2:217 Now let us attack villages without warning and take the population by surprise while they are heedless and their cattle is being watered at places of water. We will kill their fighting men and take their women and children as captives. Remember that the prettiest of the captives is my share. [Bukhari 3.46.717 ]
Muslims: - But isn’t raping married women sin?
Muhammad: -No! Incidentally Allah sent me a verse this morning saying it is okay to have sex with your right hand possessions. 4:24 So rape them with clear conscience. But always remember that the prettiest captive belongs to Allah and his messenger. [Bukhari1.8.367]
Also from now on you don’t have to practice coitus interruptus. Go ahead and ejaculate inside your victims "for if any soul is predestined to exist, it will exist". [Bukhari 3.46.718, 5.59.459 Abu Dawood 29.29.32.95, 29.29.32.96]
Islam has always been about attacking and conquering others, enslaving or killing them, and then living off their slave labor, as disguised in pseudo-religious babble to both embolden the believers and fool the non-believer.
Apply the Golden Rule to Islam and treat it and Muslims as it and they would treat you in Saudi Arabia (the epicenter of the disease.)
Creepy American muslims - what they really think...
This was found on a blog written by an average american muslim - who takes the benefits of civilized society - and dumps them in the toilet...
Yeah, so they recently had the elections in Britain, and Muslims were having these debates all over the Internet and elsewhere about whether voting is permissible or not. They're still having the debates on a bunch of message boards. So I feel as though I need to throw in my two cents, even though I'm pretty late.
Anybody that knows me, knows that I side with the opinion that voting is shirk (wrong). But what's different about me is that I prove my argument from a different angle than other people who also hold the same opinion. In other words, we come to the same conclusion (that voting is shirk), but with a slightly different angle. But what I find strange is that I don't think I've ever seen anybody else present this angle for this opinion. Usually, the argument that they use goes something like this:
"Democracy is a system based on shirk because it gives the absolute right of legislation to someone other than Allah (that is, to the parliamentarians). Agreed? So when you vote, you are voting in another legislator instead of Allah, and since legislation is exclusively a right of Allah, it's almost as though you are voting in another god (or object of worship) instead of Allah. And since you took part in voting him into the parliament, you are therefore partly responsible in the crime."
I may not be wording it the best, but it goes something like that. If somebody could correct me or word it better, I'd be more than happy. It's a strong argument I think, but I think that my angle of argument is somewhat better. My argument goes something like this:
"Democracy is a system based on shirk because it gives the absolute right of obedience to someone other than Allah (that is, to The People). According to this system, ultimately, anything the people want should be implemented, in the absolute sense. We believe that such a right only belongs to Allah. And we believe that the vehicle through which we determine what our object of worship (ilaaha/deity/god), Allah, wants from us is through revelation. On the other hand, the vehicle through which they (the parliamentarians) determine what their object of worship (ilaaha/deity/god), The People, want from them is through voting. So, in a way, when you vote, you are willingly accepting their worship of you, The People. Even though that thing which you may be telling them to do is in line with Islam, they won't be doing it because Islam said so or because Allah said so, but rather, they'll be doing it because you said so. In other words, they won't be doing it out of worship of Allah, but rather, they'll be doing it out of worship of you."
Does that make sense to you? Allow me to give the following analogy:
Suppose there are five of you in a group. And suppose that one person comes to you and says that he will obey you in the absolute sense, no matter what you tell him to do. He says he will implement the majority vote. Meaning, if you tell him to pray five times a day, he'll do that. If you tell him not to drink, he'll do that. If you tell him not to commit adultery, he'll listen to you. On the other hand, if you tell him to do the opposite of any of these things or to do anything in disobedience to Allah at all in general, then he'll listen to you on those things also. God is not an issue here. In other words, like I said before, he agrees to obey you absolutely. So then he comes up to you one day and asks you all to "vote" on a certain issue. Let's say the issue is something that has a bearing in Islam, like drinking. So would you vote "No, you should not drink" (knowing that he would only be doing so out of complete submission and worship of you)? Or would you say to him "Why are you asking me as though I am some moral criteria for you to determine what's right and what's wrong?! Why are you taking me as an object of worship?! You shouldn't care about what I say or don't say, but rather, you should look to what Allah has already revealed in the Qur'aan, and you'll find that he has forbidden drinking and that is what you should really consider!".
Do you see what I'm trying to say and the point that I'm trying to make? There's a difference between absolute obedience (At-Taa'a), which is supposed to be only for Allah, and between regular obedience (Taa'a), which can't be considered worship.
At the same time, I want to clear a common misconception that some people have when they hear somebody say that something is shirk. Just because I consider voting to be shirk does not mean that I do takfeer (declare as a disbeliever) of every single Muslim who votes. In fact, I find that this is the point many people give to disagree with this opinion that voting is shirk, from the beginning of your discussion with them til the end. They'll say, "Yeah, but I just can't see how it would make sense to accuse a huge Muslim population of shirk, so I just can't agree with that view". In this regard, Shaykh Abu Muhammad a-Maqdisi writes the following in his book, This is Our Aqeedah! (Haadhihi Aqeeduna!):
Having said that, we do not declare as Kuffār, the generality of people who participate in the elections, for not all of them seek legislating lords in their participation in it. Rather, from them are those that seek to choose representatives for worldly services for living. In this matter the tribulation has spread far and wide. And the motives of the candidates for election differ - among those that do not directly take part in or practice legislation, such as the representatives. For that reason, we do not proceed to pronounce Takfīr of the individuals among them as we do with those that directly perform clear Kufr such as legislation and its likes.
And we say: taking part in legislative elections is an action of Kufr and we do not make general Takfīr. Rather, we differentiate between a persons performance of an action of Kufr, and placing the ruling of Kufr upon him, of what that implies of establishing the evidence if the affairs become confused and the matters become mixed up, as well as the consideration [given to] the motives in the likes of these issues.
Are we at war with Islam?
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald considers the common claim by Muslim leaders that the West is at war with Islam:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/006100.php#more
The more accurate formulation would be: the adherents of Islam, following correctly its tenets, as expressed in the Qur'an and Hadith, and in the example of Muhammad set out in the Sira, have been making war, whenever and wherever possible, and employing whatever instruments at the time are available (combat, wealth, "pen, tongue," and now demography) to spread Islam, to prevent non-Muslims from setting up any obstacles to the further spread and ultimate dominance of Islam, and to ensure that any non-Muslims permitted to remain alive without being forcibly converted will, nonetheless, have to live lives of deliberate humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity. During some long periods when Islam was weak, and the awareness of the outside world also feeble, the only kind of Jihad that was practiced against the outside world were expeditions by slavers and looters to Western Europe (a million whites seized, and many villages destroyed, over several centuries, Eastern Europe and Russia -- several million victims, including Circassian and Georgian and other Christian women seized for their noted beauty), and to Africa (tens of millions of black Africans, mostly young males castrated at the point of seizure, and then marched overland, and then taken often by sea for part of the journey, to the slave markets of Islam: Jeddah, Constantinople, Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad, Algiers, Constantinople, even as far as Ottoman-ruled Smyrna). The mortality rate was 90%.
That has been the history of Islam's relations to all non-Muslims. Conquest, destruction, slavery, demands from within the lands conquered for jizyah. It is little different today, though disguise is of the essence. The Bumiputra system used against Hindus and Chinese in Malaysia is simply a disguised jizya tax by the Malaysian Muslims. Yet Muslims now demand foreign aid from Infidel states, and act as if it is theirs by right and must not either be stopped or have any strings attached to it: see the fury of the P.A. over the American Congress's attempt to funnel aid through American aid agencies; see the Egyptian government's complacent belief that no matter what it did to help Iraqi weapons projects, no matter what nuclear projects it is up to itself, no matter how completely it ignores its solemn commitments under the Camp David Accords and has become a world center of antisemitism, no matter how much anti-Americanism its people display in that most hostile of countries, it will still continue to receive, for no conceivably sensible reason, some $2 billion a year from American taxpayers, apparently helpless to prevent their government from paying what has now become a jizyah tax, just like all the others we pay to every Muslim country that does not have oil revenues.
Islam is at war with Buddhists in Thailand and in Burma, and at war with Confucians and atheists in China. It is at war with Hindus in Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and Kashmir, and India itself. It is at war with Christians in the Philippines, and in Indonesia, and in Malaysia, and in Bangladesh, and in Pakistan, and in Iran, and in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq, and in Lebanon, and in Egypt, and in Algeria. Islam is at war with whatever Jews can be found, in and out of Israel, since so very few remain, after years of persecution and murder, within the lands ruled by Muslim Arabs. Islam is at war with everyone, for Islam divides the world between Believer and Infidel. Anyone who reads and re-reads the Qur’an, and then reads the commentators, and the jurisconsults, and the muhaddithin, and then looks at the history of Islamic conquest -- reading, for example, "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" which is perhaps Bat Ye'or's greatest work of history -- and then looks at Muslim attitudes and behavior today, can come to only one conclusion: Muslims are at war with, and remain a permanent danger to, all non-Muslim societies. If some are not fervent in their Islam, we still do not know what might set off such fervency. Those who place such abstract principles as "tolerance" and "pluralism" above the reasonable need to preserve civilizations, such as our own, which first created and promoted such principles, against those who do not in truth believe in those principles and in the long run would destroy them and the civilization that developed them, are wrong. Lincoln was not the first, nor the last, to understand that in war-time, the same measures do not necessarily apply as during peace-time.
Those who see things aright, and who have taken the trouble to study Islam, know that this war can be contained, and that it need not involved large-scale military conflict. But that conflict can be avoided, across national borders, and within the borders of European nations, only if Muslim countries and groups are kept from acquiring major weaponry, or forced to disgorge what they have, and are kept from migrating in greater numbers to the West (they have little desire to go elsewhere), and those here limited in their sinister campaigns of Da'wa (in which Islam is not fully spelled out until, for the convert, he or she has already signed up for the Army of Islam), which are aimed first at the most marginal and therefore most vulnerable populations -- marginality defined as both economic and psychic.
Far from making war on Islam, the United States has repeatedly rescued Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, extended aid for decades to Turkey and Iran, always been prompt to offer other kinds of aid (the aid post-tsunami rushed to Aceh, the most Muslim part of Indonesia), protected Muslim Kuwait and even-more Muslim Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein (a choice that looks, in retrospect, not quite as obviously right as it once did), and continues to give aid, against its own best interests, to Pakistan (a recipient for decades of American military and political support), to Egypt, and to the "Palestinian" Authority. And of course tens of billions, even hundreds of billions, have been spent to rescue the Iraqis from their own latest Lord of Misrule, and to build up the country -- all the while taking casualties because of the inability of Iraqis to do the job themselves. They are unable to fight for their own country though there are 25 million of them. So very few of them capable of feeling, among the rumors and lies and crazed through-the-prism-of-Islam perceptions of the universe, any real or lasting gratitude.
Muslims make war, with or without military means, because Islam itself is suffused with a war-like and aggressive doctrine. Refusal to see this does not make the doctrine go away. Imaginary "Muslim moderates" who are then imagined to be a "majority" do not make the texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira change. They do not make the massacre of the Banu Qurayzah prisoners disappear. Or the assassination of Asma bint Marwan. Or the attack on the Khaybar Oasis. Or little Aisha. Or a hundred other events in Muhammad's life, Muhammad who is uswa hasana, in the Qur'anic phrase, the very model for all Muslims, for all time.
Islam makes war and calls it "peace" and "justice." From a Muslim perspective, of course, this is perfectly true. Islam brings with it a pax islamica, and the "justice" of Islam. Quite right. No Muslim should really disagree.
But those of us who have made the choice not to accept Islam, and who find that the more we discover about it, the more horrified we become (and let's face it: a few years ago, we knew almost nothing about it, and were prepared, for example, to assume that the last word on the subject might be, for the more naive, John Esposito, and at a slightly lesser level of naivete, Bernard Lewis). Now we have studied, and are trying as best we can to get others to study. It would even be nice if a few journalists, before offering their platitudes and plongitudes, at least admitted they knew little about Islam. It would be nice if the cheerleaders of the "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations" Project in Iraq would stop to consider and even study the nature of Islam, and begin to ask themselves if Iraq is not in fact the obvious place, almost a god-given place, to exploit -- merely by leaving, for nothing more is called for -- the fissures between Arab and non-Arab Muslim, between Sunni and Shi'a. And then to concentrate on preventing the islamization of Europe -- not by throwing Israel to the wolves, which is the hollow and self-defeating strategy of the Alastair-Crooke-and-Patrick-Seale variety, urged on by the deplorable men now in charge of the E.U. bureaucracy and foreign policy, but by waking Europeans up to their betrayal, by their own elites in the government and the press, to the long-term interests of the indigenous Infidels.
Again, this sentence is either true or false:
"The large-scale presence of Muslims within Western Europe has already made the lives of the indigneous Infidels, and non-Muslim immigrants as well, far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than they would have been without such a large-scale Muslim presence."
No one, not even those who utter such silly phrases as "but what can we do? what can we do know?" can deny the truth of that easily verifiable remark.
Verify it yourself. Talk to Europeans. Walk around the streets of European cities. Find out the cost of monitoring Muslims, at train stations and bus stations, at metro stations and at airports, at chemical plants and at nuclear plants. At churches, and at synagogues, and at Hindu and Buddhist and Sikh temples. And parliaments. And city halls. And police stations. And fire stations. And schools, beginning with, but hardly limited to, the Jewish schools. And of course those spies in the mosques, those wire-taps, those agents who must be paid, and the police, and the security guards, and the lawyers, and the judges, and the whole apparatus that grows and grows, only to monitor a problem that need not ever have been allowed to be created, much less be permitted to continue to grow because leadership is lacking, the articulation of the problem is seldom to be heard.
And of course, the United States must watch Western Europe carefully, and its own Infidels learn from the unhappy experience of France, and Belgium, and Germany, and England, and Spain, and...well, fill in the names yourself.
And draw the right conclusions yourself.
The horror of islamic law
Friday, May 06, 2005
This is what is in store for those nations that allow sharia law to creep into their judicial systems... WaPo calls this: "A Killing Commanded by Tradition."
Within an hour, the entire village would learn that the 25-year-old married woman had been discovered in a darkened nearby hut with her lover.Within two days, Amina was dead -- killed by her fellow villagers April 20 after the men of the community ruled that she had violated Islamic law by having an affair with a neighbor....
Soon Amina's father, the elders and a crowd of villagers had gathered outside. Mohammad unlocked the chain and flung open his front door. At the back of the room sat his son, Karim, on a floor cushion.
Next to him sat Amina. Her expression was once again blank, Aslam said.
It threw Aslam into a rage.
"I shouted, 'What is she doing here? Give her to me! I will kill her!' " he recounted last week. "I was so shocked, and my Islamic dignity was so offended."
But the other villagers restrained him, Aslam and other witnesses said.
"We told him, 'No, no! This should be handled by sharia now,' " his brother Hashem recalled, referring to the Islamic legal code.
"Fine, I will give her over to sharia then," Aslam said he responded. "Whatever sharia says, I will do it."...
Under sharia, the punishment for adultery is death by stoning. But the code requires that there be undeniable proof of the crime -- for instance, multiple witnesses to the sex act, a confession, or other signs such as an inexplicable pregnancy....
But no one involved disputes that the villagers were unanimous in their view that according to the dictates of Islam, the proper resolution of the case would be for Karim, as an unmarried man, to be lashed and Amina, as a married woman, to be stoned to death.
Early that afternoon, one of the mullahs went to fetch a stick with which to whip Karim as Yousaf took his leave of the villagers.
Then they watched Yousaf's turban slowly vanish over a mountain path and, along with it, Amina's last hope.
Punishment
There are two, conflicting accounts of Amina's death.
According to her great-uncle Assan, after the shura reached its verdict, a group of villagers came to the dark storage room and took her away to be stoned.
"She knew what was going to happen to her," Assan said softly. "She was screaming and sobbing."
Amina's paternal uncle, Mohammad Azim, said he watched as the villagers forced Amina down a muddy path toward a patch of soft earth along a riverbank surrounded by stones, a few yards from the edge of the village.
It was a beautiful spot, shaded by an enormous tree and offering a charming view of the village clinging to the mountainside.
It was also an ideal place for a stoning.
"They dug a hole in the ground right here," Azim said, pointing to a spot in the clearing six days later. "Then they buried Amina up to her waist, with her arms pinned by her side."
Azim said Amina's hair was covered in a head scarf, and that she was crying in terror as nearly a hundred men gathered in a circle around her and began throwing small rocks at her head.
"I couldn't watch for more than a few minutes," Azim said. Instead, he said, he walked up to Amina's parents' house and waited with them in silence during the two hours it took to kill her.
Several villagers and Amina's mother said that they, too, believe she was stoned. And a few said they had seen the bloody hole after she was removed from it.
But no one else would admit to witnessing the actual stoning, much less participating in it. And the ground where Amina was allegedly buried to her waist showed little sign of disturbance six days after her death -- possibly because, as Azim and other villagers contend, they had refilled the hole and then the river had flooded over it, or possibly because the stoning never happened.
Several other villagers, including Amina's uncle, Hashem, tell a very different story.
Hashem said the villagers handed Amina over to her uncles, including himself and Azim. Their original intention was to hang her, Hashem said. But as they were leading her away, they became increasingly angry and started to beat her with their fists.
"It was dark," he said. "All of us were striking her, and then she fainted and we saw that she was on the ground and not breathing. Maybe she had a heart attack."
Whatever the means of her death, Amina's parents said her bruised corpse was returned to them sometime between afternoon and evening prayers that day.
Amina's mother, Nessa, said she did not grieve.
"My daughter was a criminal and a sinner who brought dishonor on my name," Nessa said hotly several days later. "And I should be blamed for her death, not anyone else, because I told my tribe they could kill her. I forgave them for spilling her blood."...
If Amina had been allowed to live, Nessa added, the shame of it would have forced Nessa to leave the only home she had ever known and a valley in which her family had lived for generations.
"But now I can walk everywhere in the village with my head high. . . . I'm happy. Extremely, extremely happy," she shouted. The tone in her voice betrayed no joy.
Then Nessa covered her face with her hands....
Amina's father Aslam, however, was released from police custody in Faizabad after a night of questioning, on grounds that he was not directly responsible.
Just before embarking on the long walk back to Gazon, he sat on a metal chair in a room in the police station, reflecting on all that had happened in the last several days.
Unlike the feelings of his wife Nessa, Aslam's anger at Amina had by now given way to sorrow.
"I feel so sad for her. She was so young," he said, as his eyes grew glassy with tears. "I really miss her now. . . . I will miss her voice, and our conversations in the evenings."
There was much he wished he could go back and change. "If only she had told me that she did not want to go back to her husband," he said. "I would have done something about it. I would have counseled her."
But he said he harbored no doubt that she deserved to die after she admitted to committing adultery.
"There was no option. This is what Islam commands us."
"hey flanstein you jew fuck go back to your oven"
Monday, May 02, 2005
This is the response that I got from a "moderate" muslim on a discussion on another board called "http://angryiranian.blogspot.com
You scratch the surface on many muslims and this is what you get - vicious Jew-hatred.
Religion of peace?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)