September 11, 2019 – 9/11 2001

September 11, 2019

Today we remember September 11th 2001 and 20011

World Trade Center was attacked 2001

BushSEPT11

Islam declared by EDICT a Religion of Peace by a War Powers POTUS

BushEdict

then September 11th 2011 happened and Benghazi was attacked

Benghazi

Islam can not be questioned.  A video is blamed.  This laughable video – a comedy – was blamed

BenghaziVideo

There is a history before 2001.  We are STILL under attack!

Before there was September 11 2001

There was 1993

1993TwinTowerBombing

Yet, there is a history prior to this:

https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Sept–11-Muslim-attacks-at-Malta–Vienna–Zenta–WTC–Benghazi.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=D3z-p87kEgk

 

American Minute with Bill Federer
Sept. 11-Muslim attacks at Malta, Vienna, Zenta, WTC, Benghazi

SEPTEMBER 11, 1565: Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent dominated the Mediterranean, with intentions of not only invading Sicily, Sardinia, Majorca, and southern Spain, but Rome itself.

The only thing standing in his way was the small rocky Island of Malta just south of Sicily, defended by the Knights of Malta.

In March of 1565, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent sent Algerian Admiral Dragut to Malta with 200 ships and 40,000 Muslim soldiers, including 6,500 elite Janissary troops.

Dragut stated:

“Unless you have smoked out this nest of vipers, you can do no good anywhere.”

Queen Elizabeth I of England is said to have remarked:

“If the Turks should prevail against the Isle of Malta, it is uncertain what further peril might follow to the rest of Christendom.”

The Knights of Malta were led by a 70 year old Frenchmen, Jean Parisot de la Valette.

Pleas for reinforcements went out across Europe, but defense seemed futile.

La Valette addressed his men:

“A formidable army composed of audacious barbarians is descending on this island. These persons, my brothers, are the enemies of Jesus Christ…”

La Valette continued:

“…Today it is a question of the defense of our faith — as to whether the Gospels are to be superseded by the Koran. God on this occasion demands of us our lives, already vowed to his service. Happy will be those who first consummate this sacrifice.”

The Turks attacked again and again, even reducing one of their fortresses to rubble, but the Knights kept fighting, resolved to save Western Civilization.

Finally, Dragut was killed and the Muslims sailed away on SEPTEMBER 11, 1565.

Get the DVD Islamic Conquest-Past & Presient

SEPTEMBER 11, 1683:
Sultan Mehmed IV sent over 138,000 Muslim Ottoman Turks to surround Vienna, Austria, led by General Mustafa Pasha.

For two months they starved the 11,000 Hapsburg-Austrian defenders.

Sultan Mehmed IV sent the message to Austrian King, Leopold I:

“Await us in your residence…so we can decapitate you.”

Polish King Jan Sobieski gathered 81,000 Polish, Austrian and German troops and led a surprise attack on SEPTEMBER 11, 1683.

They made one of the largest charges in history, 38,350 cavalry and dragoons. Soldiers had made wings for their backs which made a thunderous noise when they charged, causing the Turks to flee in confusion.

Upon entering the abandoned Turkish tents, Sobieski found bags of beans – coffee beans – revealing how Turks could fight day and night.

The beans came from Ethiopia, the one African country which stayed Christian, and the Muslims called them infidels or “cafir,” from which the word “coffee” was derived.

The legend is that Pope Clement VIII was petitioned to declare coffee “the drink of the devil” due to its association with Muslims, but the Pontiff tasted it and stated:

“This devil’s drink is so good, we should cheat the devil by baptizing it.”

Shortly after the victory of Vienna, Polish General Koltschizky opened Vienna’s first coffeehouses and coffee quickly spread across Europe.

The Pope and European leaders hailed Jan Sobieski as the “Savior of Western Civilization.”

The humiliated Muslim army beheaded General Mustafa Pasha and sent his head back to Sultan Mehmed IV in a velvet bag.

Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) wrote in The Great Heresies (1938):

“Less than 100 years before the American War of Independence a Mohammedan army was threatening to overrun and destroy Christian civilization…

Vienna was almost taken and only saved by the Christian army under the command of the King of Poland on a date that ought to be among the most famous in history – SEPTEMBER 11, 1683.”

Political Islam’s War on the West DVD

SEPTEMBER 11, 1697
Muslim Ottoman Turks dominated Belgrade, Serbia, since 1521.

In 1691, Austria helped free Belgrade, but Muslim Ottoman Turks recaptured it and razed the city’s buildings to the ground.

The Serbian Orthodox Patriarch led thousands to flee to the Austrian Hapsburg Empire in the first “Great Serbian Migration.”

Habsburg Prince Eugene of Savoy led the Holy League to counter-attack.

Losing 500 men, the Holy League killed 30,000 Turks in one of the Ottoman Empire’s worsts defeats in history – the Battle of Zenta, SEPTEMBER 11, 1697.

President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in his 1916 book, Fear God and Take Your Own Part:

“From the hammer of Charles Martel to the sword of Jan Sobieski, Christianity owed its safety in Europe to the fact it…could and would fight as well as the Mohammedan aggressor.”

Get the book What Every American Needs to Know about the Quir’an-A History of Islam and the United States

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001:
Islamic terrorists hijacked passenger jets.

Two were flown into New York’s World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one crashed in Pennsylvania.

President Bush stated:

“Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended,”

That evening, President Bush stated:

“Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. Pictures of planes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing have filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness and a quiet, unyielding anger.”

President Bush continued:

“America was targeted…because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world… I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve…

I pray they will be comforted by a power greater than any of us spoken through the ages in Psalm 23:

‘Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me.'”

On September 13, 2001, President Bush stated:

“In the face of all this evil, we remain strong and united, ‘One Nation Under God.'”

SEPTEMBER 11, 2012:
The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written with the help of Eleanor Roosevelt, was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly, Dec. 8, 1948.

Without referencing the “Creator” as the source of rights, like the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes articles such as:

Article 18.
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief.”

This conflicted with Islamic Shariah law which imposes the death penalty for anyone leaving the Islamic religion.

Many articles in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights were rejected by the leaders of 57 Islamic countries, who formed their own group called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, or OIC.

In 1990, OIC passed the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, affirming Shariah law as supreme, with:

-the death penalty for those leaving Islam;
-punishing women who are victims of rape;
-allowing men to be polygamous;
-permitting wife beating; and
-censoring speech insulting Islam.

On Dec. 12, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began a 3 day closed door meeting with the OIC, promising to support their Istanbul Process to universally “criminalize” speech insulting Islam, effectively enforcing “dhimmi” status on non-Muslims worldwide.

By definition, the Christian Gospel insults Islam. If someone in a Shariah controlled country proclaims Jesus Christ more than a prophet–but also the Son of God who died on the cross to pay for the sins of the world–it would mean the death penalty.

In fact, all speech contrary to Islam insults Islam.

At the end of the meeting, OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu stated:

“The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton…must be carried forward.”

Clinton added:

“We now need to move to implementation.”

In the following months, Hillary Clinton’s State Department ignored repeated requests for security by Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya.

He was killed with several others in the Benghazi attack on SEPTEMBER 11, 2012.

The night of the attack, Secretary Clinton’s State Department blamed a video, and the shortly after sent memos to YouTube and Google recommending they censor speech insulting Islam, consistent with promises made at the OIC Istanbul Process meeting.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice added to this narrative, as did President Obama when he told the U.N. General Assembly, Sept. 25, 2012:

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

The U.S. supported the Muslim Brotherhood’s ousting of Egypt’s President Mubarak.

Then U.S. weapons were used to oust Libya’s President Gaddafi.

Requests made by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act revealed emails of weapons being moved from Benghazi in a “Fast and Furious” gun-running style program to arm Muslim fighters in ousting Syria’s President Assad.

This is part of a larger plan remove current leaders in order to reestablish an Islamic Caliphate.

When Russia came to Assad’s defense, the Muslims armed and trained by the U.S. attacked into Syria and Iraq, calling themselves ISIS, and proceeded to torture, rape, behead and displace hundreds of thousands.

Watch past FAITH IN HISTORY episodes for FREE

RECENTLY UPDATED! – WHAT EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THE QUR’AN – A HISTORY OF ISLAM & THE UNITED STATES 

Bill Federer www.AmericanMinute.com
wjfederer@gmail.com  314-502-8924 
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward, reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement
News from AmericanMinute.com
Invite Bill Federer to speak – large or small groups – email wjfederer@gmail.com or call 314-502-8924
Receive American Minute on your Facebook wall, Twitter feed, or RSS reader.

Invite Bill Federer to speak – large or small groups – email wjfederer@gmail.com or call 314-502-8924
American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to American Minute is a registered trademark. Permission is granted to forward, reprint or duplicate with acknowledgement to http://www.AmericanMinute.com
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Sept–11-Muslim-attacks-at-Malta–Vienna–Zenta–WTC–Benghazi.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=D3z-p87kEgk
https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Sept–11-Muslim-attacks-at-Malta–Vienna–Zenta–WTC–Benghazi.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=D3z-p87kEgk

 

 


Islamist terrorist high fives Muslim resident (person of peace) while on a terror stabbing spree in the name of Allah

September 1, 2019

Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam’s apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don’t stand up to scrutiny.  Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

SHOCK VIDEO: Islamist Killer Paused to Speak to Fellow Muslim and Give Him a High Five During His Stabbing Spree in France

A 33-year-old asylum-seeker from Afghanistan was arrested near Lyon, France on Saturday after killing 1 person and injuring 9 others in a stabbing spree.

French officials told the Associated Press that they don’t believe the stabbing was terror-related.

During the stabbing spree the Afghan Islamist, Sultan Marmed Niazi, paused to talk to a fellow Muslim and give him a high five.

From the video: (translated) Hallucinating: the Afghan assassin from Villeurbanne spares a guy who tells him ‘Inch’Alla’ and pats him in the hand …

This did not make any headlines.
Via Amy Mek:

France is on high alert after countless terror attacks yet they continue to be “shocked” as more ‘asylum-seekers’ and ‘refugees’ carry out terror attacks.

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/09/shock-video-islamist-killer-paused-to-speak-to-fellow-muslim-and-give-him-a-high-five-during-his-stabbing-spree-in-france/

 

 

What Does Islam Teach About…

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

What Does Islam Teach About…

Violence

Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses that sanction violence?

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam’s apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don’t stand up to scrutiny.  Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out those calling for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad’s own martial legacy, along with the remarkable emphasis on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Quran

Quran (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (2:216) – Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)” The Arabic for the word “fight” is from qital, meaning physical combat.

Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle).  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (4:101) – “And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.  Mere disbelief makes one an “open” enemy of Muslims.

Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:12) – “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims.  The targets of violence are “those who disbelieve” – further defined in the next verse (13) as those who “defy and disobey Allah.” Nothing is said about self-defense.  In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – but not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”(See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”

Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…

Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, “Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability.” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”

Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.  (See also: Response to Apologists)

[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers “wherever you find them“. Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those “unbelievers” who are not on the battlefield.  In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the ‘fighting’ of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]

Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “heals” the hearts of Muslims.

Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.

Quran (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.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.  The verse also links physical fighting to the “cause of Allah” (or “way of Allah”). (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and – in this case – on Christian soil, according to the historians).  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today’s devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith.  The inclusion of “hypocrites” (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist’s defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad’s time.  (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can’t Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam’s perpetual internal conflicts).   (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer?  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

Quran (18:65-81) – This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).] (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (21:44) – “…See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?” 

Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it.” – The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse – although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca.  The “it” at the end is thought to mean the Quran.  Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the ‘unbelievers.’  Obviously, this changed with the hijra.  ‘Jihad’ after this is almost exclusively within a violent context.  The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas.

Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.” This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators – those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today’s terrorists do.

Quran (47:3-4) – “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded.  Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.  (See also: 47:4 for more context)  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (47:35) – “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,” (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status.  Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:1040:46and 50:26..

Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause” Religion of Peace, indeed!  The verse explicitly refers to “rows” or “battle array,” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the “cause”: “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.  (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of’Adn- Eternity [‘Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.

Quran (66:9) – “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.   (See also: Response to Apologists)

Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”(Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families.  The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries.  In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).  Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest).  The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous – the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) – and oppression are not used instead of fitna.  Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation.  A strict translation is ‘sedition,’ meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah).  This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.  [Editor’s note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that ‘fighting’ is sanctioned even if the fitna ‘ceases’.  This is about religious order, not real persecution.] (See also: Response to Apologists)

Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org

Hadith and Sira

Sahih Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” 

Sahih Bukhari (52:256) – The Prophet… was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Sahih Bukhari (52:65) – The Prophet said, ‘He who fights that Allah’s Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah’s Cause. Muhammad’s words are the basis for offensive Jihad – spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. (See also Sahih Bukhari 3:125)

Sahih Bukhari (52:220) – Allah’s Apostle said… ‘I have been made victorious with terror’

Sahih Bukhari (52:44) – A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.”

Abu Dawud (14:2526)  (considered daif) – The Prophet said, Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, “There is no god but Allah” and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet…

Abu Dawud (14:2527) (considered daif) – The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

Sahih Muslim (1:33) – the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

Sahih Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally.”

Sahih Muslim (1:30) – “The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”

Sahih Bukhari (52:73) – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords’.” 

Sahih Bukhari (11:626) – [Muhammad said:] “I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes.”

Sahih Muslim (1:149) – “Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause…”

Sahih Muslim (20:4645) – “…He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa’id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!”

Sahih Muslim (20:4696) – “the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: ‘One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'”

Sahih Muslim (19:4321-4323) – Three hadith verses in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: “They are of them (meaning the enemy).”

Sahih Muslim (19:4294) – “Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war… When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them… If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

Sahih Muslim (31:5917) – “Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: ‘Allah’s Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?’ Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: ‘Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger’.” The pretext for attacking the peaceful farming community of Khaybar was not obvious to the Muslims. Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali asked the prophet of Islam to clarify the reason for their mission to kill, loot and enslave. Muhammad’s reply was straightforward. The people should be fought because they are not Muslim.

Sahih Muslim (31:5918) – “I will fight them until they are like us.” Ali’s reply to Muhammad, after receiving clarification that the pretext for attacking Khaybar was to convert the people (see above verse).

Sahih Bukhari 2:35 “The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed).” 

Sunan an-Nasa’i (Sahih) “Whoever dies without having fought or thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy”

Sunan Ibn Majah 24:2794 (Sahih) – “I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.'” Unlike the oft-quoted “Greater/Lesser” verse pertaining to Jihad, this is judged to be authentic, and clearly establishes that the ‘best’ Jihad involves physical violence.

Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.” Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad’s men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

Tabari 9:69 “Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us” The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

Tabari 17:187 “‘By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.’ And they returned to their former religion.” The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: Cutting off someone’s head while shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ is not a ‘perversion of Islam’, but a tradition of Islam that began with Muhammad.  In this passage, a companion recounts an episode in which he staged a surprise ambush on a settlement: “I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting ‘Allah akbar’ and my two companions did likewise”.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” Muhammad’s instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Ibn Kathir (Commentary on verses 2:190-193 – Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. One of Islam’s most respected scholars clearly believed that Jihad means physical warfare.

Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 – “Embrace Islam… If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship.” One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad’s armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

Notes

Other than the fact that Muslims haven’t killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam’s most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier “Meccan” verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change.

Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They prefer a more narrow interpretation that is closer to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Some just ignore harsher passages. Others reach for “textual context” across different suras to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message fits their personal moral preference. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the “risks” of trying to interpret verses without their “assistance.”

The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni’s bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam’s Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today’s Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

Violence is so ingrained in Islam that it has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butcheredcaptives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

The popular apologist argument that many verses of violence apply to war is undermined by the fact that war was started by Muslims, both in Muhammad’s time and since.  For the most part, Islamic armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion’s most dramatic military conquests were made by actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death.

The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islamic hegemony. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to “attack in self-defense”, this oxymoron is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war:

“It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar al-Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected… In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms.”

Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad’s deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as “same day marriage”).

One of Islam’s most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: “In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.”

Qutb wrote: “Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life.” 

The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as “A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], “The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.”

Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time,” tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule – bound only by the capacity for success. (source)

Muhammad’s failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought afterwards to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or ‘Apostasy wars’). Then the violence turned within. Early Meccan converts battled later ones as hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad’s own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter – a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others’ throats to this day.

The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a religion of peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

This is what makes the Quran’s verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them literally, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them – outside of personal opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam’s holiest book either speaks to Allah’s hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it’s little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community – even if most Muslims prefer not to interpret their personal viewpoint of Islam in this way.

Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam’s most respected philosophers, understood that “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force”, many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran’s near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. Believers in the West are often led to think that their religion is like Christianity – preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that the Quran and the bloody history of Islam’s genesis say otherwise.

Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the “culture”, claiming that the father was merely following “the religion” and saying that the couple had to “discipline their daughter or lose respect.” (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutalmurders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious “holy pilgrimage” to Mecca by the Saudi king – without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

The most prestigious Islamic university in the world today is Cairo’s al-Azhar.  While the university is very quick to condemn secular Muslims who critique the religion, it has never condemned ISIS as a group of infidels despite horrific carnage in the name of Allah.  When asked why, the university’s Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: ” Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity.

For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that it is both different and dangerous.

 

 


Just like the rest of Islam’s moral caliber – The Islamist Tlaib is the epitome of Islam’s Mohamed in female form – The petulant child – she flips off Israel AFTER gaining (gaming) entry

August 16, 2019

 

 
Just like the rest of Islam’s moral caliber – The Islamist Tlaib is the epitome of Islam – a petulant child
Rashida Tlaib Begs To Enter Israel, Then Rejects Invitation
<https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/16/rashida-tlaib-begs-to-enter-israel-then-rejects-invitation/&gt;

 

 

 

 

Rashida Tlaib Begs To Enter Israel, Then Rejects Invitation

After Israel granted access to Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., so she could visit her grandmother, Tlaib released a statement saying she would not be visiting Israel because of the “oppressive conditions.”

Tlaib pleaded her case to Israel’s interior minister, Aryeh Deri, asking for permission to visit her 90-year-old grandmother in the West Bank. Tlaib said it may be the last time she sees her grandmother.

Tlaib’s letter reads:

Minister Deri: I would like to request admittance to Israel in order to visit my relatives, and specifically my grandmother, who is in her 90s and lives in Beit Ur al-Fouqa. This could be my last opportunity to see her. I will respect any restriction and will not promote boycotts against Israel during my visit.

In the letter, Tlaib acknowledged she would not promote her boycott, divestment, and sanctions platform against Israel during her visit.

After Israel granted Tlaib approval, she released a statement saying she would no longer be visiting her grandmother, in an effort to prove a point about Israeli oppression.

Deri tweeted about the encounter, saying he approved Tlaib’s request to visit Israel as a “gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis.” However, when Tlaib declined the invitation, Deri ripped into Tlaib, saying, “Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother.”

אריה מכלוף דרעי

@ariyederi

Rep. Tlaib just tweeted that she won’t be coming to Israel.
Just yesterday she sent me a letter, asking to visit her 90 year old grandmother saying, “it might be my last chance to meet her”.

אריה מכלוף דרעי

@ariyederi

I approved her request as a gesture of goodwill on a humanitarian basis, but it was just a provocative request, aimed at bashing the State of Israel. Apparently her hate for Israel overcomes her love for her grandmother.@realDonaldTrump @RashidaTlaib

3,723 people are talking about this

In the letter, Tlaib said the Israeli government is oppressing her because it is fearful of what oppression she might expose during her visit.

This is nonsense. Even if Tlaib were to see happiness and peace in Israel, she likely would still find a problem with the Israeli “occupation.”

She continued by saying, “I have therefore decided to not travel to Palestine and Israel at this time. Visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions meant to humiliate me would break my grandmother’s heart.”

Alex Moe

@AlexNBCNews

Just In — Rep @RashidaTlaib: “I have therefore decided to not travel to Palestine and Israel at this time”

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

 

—-ME — By the WAY – there is no such thing as PALESTINE — or a separate race – Jews were indigenous to the area and ARE the oldest archeological founders and they called the land ISRAEL 

 

Read more on https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/16/rashida-tlaib-begs-to-enter-israel-then-rejects-invitation/


The World wide middle finger to the Globalists – Italy declines the DEMANDS from Germany and France to INVADE themselves

August 4, 2019

THIS is a great example of what would happen if all the European states were dragged in to the EU.  It would be Germany in charge and a few quislings parroting anything that the Globalists demanded of their surfs.  The MILLENNIALS

Here’s a link to Candace Owens and Steve Bannon, who’s discussion is central to this World Wide movement.

 

GERMANY ORDERS ITALY to re-open its ports to the illegal Muslim invasion from Africa

 

Germany’s Interior Minister, Horst Seehofer, has called on his counterpart in Italy, Matteo Salvini, to reopen the country’s ports to the hordes of welfare-seeking illegal alien Muslim migrants posing as refugees, who are once again getting picked up by NGO transport vessels (aka human traffickers funded by George Soros) as they increase their sea taxi operations off the Libyan coast.

 

Voice of Europe   (h/t Maurice) Seehofer, an open borders politician, has asked Italy’s national populist interior minister why he has closed his country’s ports when most of the migrants eventually end up docking and disembarking regardless, Il Giornale reports.

“I want to avoid the same pattern being repeated every time, with a ship with migrants waiting for eight or 14 days in front of Italy’s coasts and Salvini who does not want them to go ashore. But it always ends up docking anyway, either because migrants collapse, get sick, or there are pregnant women,” the German interior minister said.
In a letter sent to French interior minister Christophe Castaner, Italy’s national populist interior minister and deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini declared that his country will NOT bear the brunt of mass illegal Muslim migration into Europe.

“France and Germany cannot decide on migration policies by ignoring the demands of the most exposed countries like us and Malta,” Salvini wrote to Castaner. “The choices made only in Paris and Berlin are enough, Italy is no longer willing to accept all immigrants arriving in Europe,” he added, France Info reports.
Seehofer’s comments come on the heels of an agreement that was reached between the EU and Italy on Wednesday which allowed migrants on board of an Italian coastguard vessel to disembark at an Italian port so long as they would be relocated to other EU member states.
In response to his German counterpart’s words, Matteo Salvini said, “We are not opening anything, the ports remain closed,” adding “We are not the refugee camp in Europe.”
Salvini’s defiant words echo statements he made while responding to French President Emmanuel Macron after Macron condemned him for not showing up to a conference on migration Paris.
“Italy will not be your refugee camp… There is the port of Marseille, don’t come and put pressure on us. If you expect us to sign a document where ships arrive in Italy, you are wrong. Italians are no longer going to be anyone’s slaves,” Salvini retorted.
Recently, NGOs operating migrant transport vessels in the Mediterranean have ramped up their efforts.
French NGO SOS Mediterranee’s new ship announced that it had resumed its collection and transportation of migrants into Europe. The German NGO Sea-Eye’s “Alan Kurdi” ship announced that it too had resumed its migrant collection and transportation service as well.
Earlier in the week, a spokesperson for Sea-Eye Gordon Isler announced that it had picked up 40 migrants while mentioning that the closest safe port was the Italian port of Lampedusa.
Attempts by so-called “charity” ships (human traffickers funded by George Soros to destroy Europe) to rescue migrants from drowning in the Mediterranean have angered Italy, which has taken a hard-line in refusing to allow ships carrying migrants from docking in Italian ports.
In a statement directed at NGOs who claim have migrant’s best interests at heart, Salvini said: “If the NGO really cares about the health of immigrants, it can set a course for Tunisia: if instead, they think of coming to Italy as if nothing had happened, they have the wrong minister.”

 

GERMANY ORDERS ITALY to re-open its ports to the illegal Muslim invasion from Africa

 


Liberal Somalis journalist “goes home” and proves Trump right – its a bad idea and AMERICA is a paradise in comparison. Dies proving it !

July 20, 2019

Somalia is a racist, sexist, xenophobic, Judaeo – Christa phobic sh!* hole.  And the Progressive Communists can’t change it.  They are too weak from all the lies.  Islam is evil and can stay in Africa and the MiddleEast.

Don’t bring it to America – it’s a death sentence

Related image

Mogadishu on JumPic.com

JumPic.com

Sado Ali and Hodan Nalayeh came back to help their nation. However they were killed

Image result for Hodan Nalayeh

Hodan Nalayeh: How she became a voice of a generation of Somalis – CNN

CNN.com

TOPSHOT – A man passes in front of the rubbles of the popular Medina hotel of

Journalist Travels to Ilhan Omar’s Homeland to Prove Somalia is Beautiful, Debunk ‘Stereotypes’ – Gets Killed by Islamic Terrorists


Hodan Nalayeh

Hodan Nalayeh, a Somali-born Canadian journalist traveled to Somalia last week to prove Somalia is “beautiful” and to challenge ‘stereotypes’ ended up being killed by Islamic terrorists.

Hodan Nalayeh returned to Somalia, the place of her birth, to document the beauty and to tell “uplifting” stories, according to WaPo.

Nalayeh often tweeted about Somalia and just last week posted pictures showing how much fun she was having in Kismayo and the neighboring island of Ilisi.

“It’s so clean & breathtaking. A perfect place for a day swim with the family,” Nalayeh tweeted just two days before she was killed.

One of Nalayeh’s Twitter followers praised her for “countering the doom narrative propagated by many about Somalia.”

On July 12, al-Shabaab terrorists stormed Asasey Hotel in Kismayo. 26 people were killed in the terrorist attack and Hodan Nalayeh, 43, and her husband were among the victims.

 

According to a Canadian news outlet, Nalayeh was pregnant when she was killed by al-Shabaab terrorists last week.

Now she’s dead.

So this journalist pretty much proved Trump’s point that Ilhan Omar is ‘lucky to be here’ (even though she defrauded US immigration to get here).

 

Journalist Travels to Ilhan Omar’s Homeland to Prove Somalia is Beautiful, Debunk ‘Stereotypes’ – Gets Killed by Islamic Terrorists


Sweden puts Christian child into foster care with Muslims -father flees and POLAND stands up for civil rights of family

July 16, 2019

Poland refuses to hand over Christian man who fled from Sweden after authorities put his daughters in Muslim foster family

A court in Poland has decided not to extradite Russian Denis Lisov, who fled with his children out of the Scandinavian country, to Sweden.
The decision of the Polish court says that the warrant for the arrest of Lisov, issued by Sweden, violates his civil rights since Lisov was pushed “to a wall, his children were taken away and the impossible conditions for their return were pushed forward.”
In 2017 the Swedish authorities took the children from their father when their mother with schizophrenia was taken to hospital. The guardianship clarified that the man could not cope with the education of their daughters.
————-me
parental rights are not afforded to fathers?
————
The children were placed in a foster family of people from Lebanon.
In March 2019, Lisov took his 12, 6, and 4-year-old daughters, and in April he was detained with them at the airport in Warsaw while on their way to Russia.
According to a psychologist’s opinion, the children are very closely attached to their father and want to live with him.
“They did not feel safe in the foster family, which might have deepened their stress and result in disorders”, said the judge, adding that “the father was unable to watch this and the Swedish authorities’ actions violated the children’s good. The Swedish authorities’ actions glaringly disregarded the sensitivity of children coming from a Russian-European family.”
According to the family’s attorney, the fact that the children were placed in a Muslim family of Lebanese origin despite being raised in the Christian faith was also an important factor in Mr Lisov’s decision to escape Sweden taking them with him.
Now Denis Lisov is awaiting consideration of his application for refugee status in Poland. The children are under his care.
By a court decision, the relevant law enforcement agencies will receive a request and the international search will be removed from Denis in the near future.
According to the court decision, not a single European country will extradite Lisov, arrest will be threatened only in Sweden.
“I am very pleased with this verdict. We have saved the family. Lisov is a father, not a criminal. Everyone in Poland: the guardianship authorities, the prosecutor’s office, the police, the border guards were against the separation of the family and did not allow this possibility”, said the attorney.
Lisov himself in conversation with RT did not hide his joy, although, according to him, he was very worried until the last moment.
He said that he was pleased with the verdict and would now wait for a decision on obtaining a residence permit in Poland.
The Russian expects that his daughters will go to kindergarten and school in Warsaw already in September.
“Now the Swedish side has the opportunity to appeal the court’s ruling, but we hope that they will not do that”, he concluded.

Ilhan Omar – update – added marriage cert – a CONGRESSWOMAN – has ties to the Communist Somali dictator -Mohammed Siad Barre, whom the Omar family served – Media knows and is hiding this information – MEDIA TREASON

May 18, 2019

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/07/must-see-video-alpha-news-exposes-rep-ilhan-omar-on-tax-marriage-and-immigration-fraud-could-result-in-deportation/  via @gatewaypundit

 

Ilhan Omar was 14 years old and interpreting for her grandfather in political affairs.  He was a COMMUNIST and worked for the GENOCIDAL Mohammed Siad Barre regime.  WHY was this person let in to the US?  LET ALONE be allowed in Congress?

 

Family Matters: How a US Member of Congress was Raised by the Red-Green Axis

 

Most people’s worldviews are heavily influenced during their formative years. Those influences, and their roots, are important to discern among our national leaders.

The election of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is often seen as a celebration of diversity: An immigrant from the wasteland of Somalia, and one of the first two Muslim women, elected to the United States Congress.

Omar personifies the Red-Green Axis: an ideological and political combination of Marxism-Leninism and Islamism.

A look at Omar’s upbringing is a key to identifying her extremism, and where she wants to take the country that took in her and her family.

Family beholden to Communist-Islamist Somalia dictator

Somalian dictator Mohammed Siad Barre, whom the Omar family served.

Omar spent the first ten years of her life as a member of a family that owed its livelihood to the regime of Mohammed Siad Barre. Her family is described as “civil servants and educators” – all dependent on the regime and executing its orders.

Her father was a “teacher trainer.” Omar has never explained exactly what a “teacher trainer” in Somalia was or did in the Siad Barre government.

A teacher trainer in any revolutionary communist regime is the political commissar who trains teachers on how to indoctrinate children.

Congressman Omar’s father was a professional propagandist for the Communist-Islamist dictatorship. Of course, the sins of the father cannot be attributed to the child – unless the child carries on the father’s legacy.

This is why it’s so important to look at Ilhan Omar’s formative years.

Combination of Qur’an, Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Mussolini

After seizing power by coup d’etat in 1969, Siad Barre declared a Marxist-Leninist regime that he began to infuse with elements drawn from Islamist political thought. The United Nations country profile of Somalia explains:

“The theoretical underpinning of the state ideology combined aspects of the Qur’an with the influences of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Mussolini, but Siad Barre was pragmatic in its application. ‘Socialism is not a religion,’ he explained; ‘It is a political principle’ to organize government and manage production. Somalia’s alignment with communist states, coupled with its proclaimed adherence to scientific socialism, led to frequent accusations that the country had become a Soviet satellite. For all the rhetoric extolling scientific socialism, however, genuine Marxist sympathies were not deep-rooted in Somalia. But the ideology was acknowledged – partly in view of the country’s economic and military dependence on the Soviet Union – as the most convenient peg on which to hang a revolution introduced through a military coup that had supplanted a Western-oriented parliamentary democracy.”

To supplant that Western-oriented parliamentary democracy in a country defined most by tribes, Siad Barre needed – in addition to tough enforcement mechanisms like property confiscation and a powerful secret police – softer mechanisms like cadres of “teacher trainers.”

Training and indoctrination

The job of the teacher trainers was to indoctrinate teachers in the government-run school systems to impose that Qur’anic-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Mussolini hybrid.

Nur Omar Mohamed, father of Ilhan Omar, was one of those indoctrinators.

As Siad Barre consolidated control, “civil servants attended reorientation courses that combined professional training with political indoctrination, and those found to be incompetent or politically unreliable were fired,” according to the UN country profile. “A mass dismissal of civil servants in 1974, however, was dictated in part by economic pressures.”

Nur Omar Mohamed was loyal enough to save his job.

The regime set out to break apart traditional societal structures and atomize them into powerlessness, while it imposed its own central controls. For this, the teacher trainers were vital.

“Local councils, composed of military administrators and representatives appointed by the SRC [Supreme Revolutionary Council], were established under the Ministry of Interior at the regional, district, and village levels to advise the government on local conditions and to expedite its directives,” the UN country profile says.

“Other institutional innovations included the organization (under Soviet direction) of the National Security Service (NSS), directed initially at halting the flow of professionals and dissidents out of the country and at counteracting attempts to settle disputes among the clans by traditional means,” according to the profile. The UN report continues:

“The newly formed Ministry of Information and National Guidance set up local political education bureaus to carry the government’s message to the people and used Somalia’s print and broadcast media for the ‘success of the socialist, revolutionary road.’ A censorship board, appointed by the ministry, tailored information to SRC guidelines.”

Was Ilhan Omar’s father a part of the “local political education bureaus”? We don’t yet know.  But those bureaus would have required teacher trainers in order to train the existing teachers about what to teach Somalian children.

Red-Green Axis in Somalia

Siad Barre was building what is now called a Red-Green Axis. That is the combination of the red of Communism with the green of Islam.

The UN country profile on Somalia continues:

“Somalia’s adherence to socialism became official on the first anniversary of the military coup when Siad Barre proclaimed that Somalia was a socialist state, despite the fact that the country had no history of class conflict in the Marxist sense. For purposes of Marxist analysis, therefore, tribalism was equated with class in a society struggling to liberate itself from distinctions imposed by lineage group affiliation. At the time, Siad Barre explained that the official ideology consisted of three elements: his own conception of community development based on the principle of self-reliance, a form of socialism based on Marxist principles, and Islam. These were subsumed under ‘scientific socialism,’ although such a definition was at variance with the Soviet and Chinese models to which reference was frequently made.

“One of the SRC’s first acts was to prohibit the existence of any political association. Under Soviet pressure to create a communist party structure to replace Somalia’s military regime, Siad Barre had announced as early as 1971 the SRC’s intention to establish a one-party state. The SRC already had begun organizing what was described as a “vanguard of the revolution” composed of members of a socialist elite drawn from the military and the civilian sectors. The National Public Relations Office (retitled the National Political Office in 1973) was formed to propagate scientific socialism with the support of the Ministry of Information and National Guidance through orientation centers that had been built around the country, generally as local selfhelp projects.

“The SRC convened a congress of the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (SRSP) in June 1976 and voted to establish the Supreme Council as the new party’s central committee. The council included the nineteen officers who composed the SRC, in addition to civilian advisers, heads of ministries, and other public figures. Civilians accounted for a majority of the Supreme Council’s seventy-three members. On July 1, 1976, the SRC dissolved itself, formally vesting power over the government in the SRSP under the direction of the Supreme Council.

“In theory the SRSP’s creation marked the end of military rule, but in practice real power over the party and the government remained with the small group of military officers who had been most influential in the SRC. Decision-making power resided with the new party’s politburo, a select committee of the Supreme Council that was composed of five former SRC members, including Siad Barre and his son-in-law, NSS chief Abdullah. Siad Barre was also secretary general of the SRSP, as well as chairman of the Council of Ministers, which had replaced the CSS in 1981. Military influence in the new government increased with the assignment of former SRC members to additional ministerial posts. The MOD circle also had wide representation on the Supreme Council and in other party organs. Upon the establishment of the SRSP, the National Political Office was abolished; local party leadership assumed its functions.”

Collapse

Siad Barre struggled to stay in power, shifting loyalties from the USSR to the United States by virtue of a strategic naval port, waging the Ogaden war against Soviet ally Ethiopia, and relying purely on foreign handouts to keep the economy moving.

Before long, he ratcheted up political repression, arresting prominent figures and even former allies, and setting Red Beret goon squads into the streets.

“Faced with saboteurs by day and sniper fire by night, Siad Barre ordered remaining units of the badly demoralized Red Berets to massacre civilians,” the UN profile report says. “By 1989 torture and murder became the order of the day in Mogadishu. On July 9, 1989, Somalia’s Italian-born Roman Catholic bishop, Salvatore Colombo, was gunned down in his church in Mogadishu by an unknown assassin. The order to murder the bishop, an outspoken critic of the regime, was widely believed to have had come from the presidential palace.”

Exhumed remains of victims of Somalia’s Isaaq Genocide, 1988-89. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

“On the heels of the bishop’s murder came the July 14 massacre, when the Red Berets slaughtered 450 Muslims demonstrating against the arrest of their spiritual leaders. More than 2,000 were seriously injured. The next day, forty-seven people, mainly from the Isaaq clan, were taken to Jasiira Beach west of the city and summarily executed,” according to the UN report.

The Isaaq genocide of 1988-89 exterminated between 60,000 and 100,000 Somalis.

Without Siad Barre dictator as their patron, the Omar family flees

By 1991, the Siad Barre regime collapsed as the country tore itself apart in civil war. Regime loyalists – families like Ilhan Omar’s – could find no safety any more in Somalia. They fled to Kenya, and ultimately made it to the United States.

When they moved to the United States in 1995, they brought their Red-Green ideological baggage with them.

Two years before, Congress, at the urging of the Clinton administration, abolished the law requiring that would-be immigrants declare whether they had belonged to a foreign Communist party. The Omar family was able to move to America without that important element of screening.

No sooner did the family settle in Minneapolis when Ilhan Omar, at age 14, began to get involved in politics. She interpreted for her grandfather, a Siad Barre servant, at political meetings. In high school, she became active in student politics.

From there, the Red-Green Axis import from Somalia, put down her own political roots, became a community organizer, and laid her path to the United States Congress.

Omar is not known to have been critical of the Siad Barre regime or the horrors it inflicted during her childhood in Somalia.


%d bloggers like this: