The real threat to the United States is not terrorism. The real threat is Islamism, whose sophisticated forces have collaborated with the American Left not only to undermine U.S. national security but also to shred the fabric of American constitutional democracy—freedom and individual liberty. In The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, bestselling author Andrew C. McCarthy offers a harrowing account of how the global Islamist movement’s jihad involves far more than terrorist attacks, and how it has found the ideal partner in President Barack Obama, whose Islamist sympathies run deep.
For years, McCarthy warned of America’s blindness to the Islamist threat, but in The Grand Jihad McCarthy exposes a new, more insidious peril: the government’s active appeasement of the Islamist ideology. With the help of witting and unwitting accomplices in and out of government, Islamism doesn’t merely fuel terrorism but spawns America-hating Islamic enclaves in our very midst, gradually foisting Islam’s repressive law, sharia, on American life. The revolutionary doctrine has made common cause with an ascendant Left that also seeks radical transformation of our constitutional order. The prognosis for liberty could not be more dire. …”
From Pronk Palisades ,Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos
Does this constitute Hate Speech - Is his book meant to incite violence
Cover of Bat Ye'or's book Eurabia in which she contends European nations have already sold out to Islam and it is only a matter of time when Europe will be under an Islamic Theocratic State enforcing Sharia/ Islamic Law.
Anti-Muslim Islamophobes Provocateurs Andrew Bostom, Geert Wilders, Robert Spence and Pam Geller
Nazi propaganda poster promising to remove Jewish teachers from Germany's classrooms and universities.Andrew McCarthy and Daniel Pies et al want all leftists , Muslims, liberals and progressives removed from the public schools and the Universities. They believe they are all part of an insidious conspiracy to radically transform America and Western Civilization.
"Woe is (unto) us ,if soon the Mosques will be burning here
Then once again no one (will) accept any blame."
Quote from Hagen Rether German cabaret artist on Islamophobia (w/ english subs)
Multicultural coddling or cudgeling??
The Nazis cudgeled we are supposed to be more enlightened so we Coddle
So what's so evil about being tolerant, patient,indulgent and understanding
Hagen Rether even though he is in Germany he is not reluctant to compare the rise in Islamophobia and their propaganda methods to that of the Nazis . In both cases they begin with raising suspicions about the targeted groups which then becomes an elusive all powerful at least in their strategies of lies and deception and eventually this turns into hate and loathing and a dehumanizing of the group in question. Once they are dehumanized like the million or so Iraqis then as in Nazi Germany or Serbia next step is ethnic cleansing which could mean incarceration and deportation .
German cabaret artist Hagen Rether talking about Islamophobia in German media & public discourse.
kackn0ob | April 08, 2008
Aired on ARD television, December 29th, 2007.
Some explanations on the allusions made in the video:
- "a guest of friends" is the literal translation of the motto of the 2006 football world championship in Germany
- Henryk M. Broder is a German journalist who wrote a book on what he perceives to be the Islamisation of Europe called "Hooray, we're capitulating!"
- A "Hauptschule" is a secondary school which mostly students with bad grades in elementary school go to afterwards.
- Ralph Giordano is a Jewish Holocaust survivor and well-known writer who recently started to speak out (among other Islam-related topics) against the construction of a mosque in Cologne.
- (Wolfgang) Schäuble is the German minister of the interior
- "grabbing one's own nose" is a German proverb meaning that you have to deal with your own mistakes before you can criticise others
Taqiyya -lies and deception
Kitman
Sharia as the new red menace? By Eugene Robinson at loonwatch
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Boy, I really hate it when American judges try to impose harsh Islamic sharia law. You know, with all those grisly lashings, stonings and beheadings. What’s that you say? No such thing is happening, and you wonder where I got such a crazy idea? Why, Newt Gingrich told me.
On Saturday, speaking at the conservative Values Voter Summit, Gingrich issued a thunderous call for action against an imminent threat that exists only in his fevered imagination — or, perhaps, in his political machinations.
“We should have a federal law that says sharia law cannot be recognized by any court in the United States,” Gingrich declared, to a standing ovation.
Anyway Newt Gingrich has now moved into the loony camp that is those who are either convinced Obama is a secret Muslim or are hinting at this in order to undermine Obama , his administration and the Democratic Party.
Gingrich is at the very least the lowest form of political opportunist or political animal. Does he give a damn if his constituency of angry as hell right wingers and Christian fanatics go out and stat beating up Muslim Americans or burning Mosques or lynching Muslim Americans.
Gingrich has joined the anti-Ground Zero Mosque of Know Nothings, Nativists & bigots to what? win a few votes ? or to take a run at the 2012 Presidential Election ?.
But where is Gingrich and others getting these bizarre ideas about President Obama. Well at the moment the Islamophobic cottage industry in the USA and Europe have decided to turn on Obama first merely claiming he was an appeaser to Islam and now accusing him of taking part in a conspiracy to replace traditional American law with Sharia.
For instance Daniel Pipe argues Obama is allowing Islamic law/ Sharia to replace traditional American laws. Is he nuts.
Daniel Pipes accuses Obama of enforcing Sharia law at Islamophobia today Saturday, September 25, 2010
Over at the Washington Times Daniel Pipes opines that he found Pastor Terry Jones’ plan to ban the Qur’an “distasteful”. But actual the object of his attack is the Obama administration, who Pipes claims capitulated to the threat of “Muslim violence” when they persuaded Jones to call off his book-burning stunt. Pipes explains: “That violence stems from Islamic law, Shariah, which insists that Islam, and the Koran in particular, enjoy a privileged status. Islam ferociously punishes anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who trespasses against Islam’s sanctity.”
Pipes concludes with the following charge against the Obama administration: “Its pressure on Mr. Jones further eroded freedom of speech about Islam and implicitly established Islam’s privileged status in the United States, whereby Muslims may insult others but not be insulted. This moves the country toward dhimmitude, a condition whereby non-Muslims acknowledge the superiority of Islam. Finally, Mr. Obama, in effect, enforced Islamic law, a precedent that could lead to other forms of compulsory Shariah compliance.”
Pipes has found himself rather sidelined recently by more newsworthy Islamophobes like Pamela Geller or Newt Gingrich. Maybe this is Pipes’ attempt to show he is still a major player when it comes to whipping up hysteria against the US Muslim community.
One of the more recent books added to the Islamophobes Must Read list is is Andrew C. McCarthy's Grand Jihad published in May this year. The book like so many others such as Bat Ye'or's Eurabia are at their core anti-Islam screeds. The scholarship is dubious slip-shod and shallow.
And these authors do not just criticize certain aspects of Islam but in facts uses the worst examples possible in the history and theology and scriptures of Islam to then claim that Islam has no redeeming features whatsoever. Meanwhile they write about Christianity as if its flaws were minor. These all encompassing attacks on Islam , the Holy Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad are the very definition of what is referred to as Islamophobia.
For instance someone could be critical of some aspects of Islam such as some of the punishments given out under the guise of Islamic jurisprudence or comparing Islam to other religions in a fair and balanced manner.
But rather these mean-spirited hate-filled critics of Islam are not unbiased objective scholars in any sense of the word. They begin with the proposition that Islam and most Muslims are downright evil and then scour the literature to prove their point.
These individuals such as Pam Geller, Robert Spencer ,Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz , Andrew Bostom or groups ie Jihad Watch, Stop Islamization of America and their Major Media outlet Fox News are no longer as they were even a year ago out on the fringes but have become part of the mainstreams attempt at having an adult conversation and civilized debate over related issues. Instead we get hysteria and constant comparisons to the Nazis and Hitler and distorted history .
Andrew McCarthy in his book Grand Jihad characterizes Islam as a real and present danger to America and Western Civilization.
"Jihad" it is said has two meanings for Muslims -
The Greater Jihad is that of struggling to become a better Muslim or a more virtuous person as defined by the Holy Qur'an.
The second form of Jihad is referred to as the " lesser Jihad" which is the struggle to defend and promote Islam which includes the waging of war against the enemies of Islam.
According to Andrew McCarthy in his book about Islam The Grand Jihad All muslims are required to take part in both forms of Jihad.
McCarthy argues that the lesser Jihad is not merely a defensive posturing but is also offensive and aggressive in nature .
He argues that the goal of Islamic Jihad is to spread Islam throughout the world by peaceful or violent means. (in Christianity this is called the Great Commission)
Mccarthy and other critics of Islam argue that it is the duty of all Muslims to further the Jihad ie to proselytize on behalf of Islam.
There is therefore at this little difference between Islam and other proselytizing religions.
According to its critics what sets Islam apart is that this proselytizing is to be carried out according to peaceful means, violent means and where necessary through stealth and deception (Taqqiya)
This form of aggressive Jihad using violence and or deception began with the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh century and has been ongoing ever since.
McCarthy argues that all sincere good Muslims whether in Islamic ruled countries or in non-Muslim countries are involved in Jihad in one way or another.
The genius of this move in Mccarthy's argument is that by being permitted by the Qur'an to lie and deceive non-Muslims to further the spreading of Islam.
McCarthy then argues that because of this over-arching command from the Holy Qur'an the Muslims in non-Muslim countries owe their allegiance first to Islam and the spreading of Islam and their loyalty to the nation in which they reside is secondary and therefore dubious and questionable.
Now the crux of McCarthy's conspiracy theory is that and as he says wait for it is that President Obama is in fact a Muslim who is working to further the goals, aims agenda of Islam by transforming America into a state more compliant with Islamic principles of justice and governance in preparation for becoming an Islamic and Sharia ruled state.
The beauty of all this is that of course Obama is going to deny being Muslim because as a Muslim he is permitted to lie to and deceive non-Muslims that is the Dhimmi.
This is also the case for all Muslims at all times no matter what nation they reside in. I say reside because Muslims have no allegiance or loyalty to any state except one that is fully Islamic in which Islam is the national religion and all laws are in accordance with the Holy Qur'an and Sharia.
So according to McCarthy the Obama administration and all Muslim Americans are involved in one way or another in a stealth campaign or Jihad to fundamentally transform American society and government .
These stealth Jihadists represent a 5th column embedded in America to slowly transform its traditions, values and its religion and the complete take over of the government creating a theocratic state.
This strategy McCarthy and other critics of Islam refer to as "creeping Sharia" by which one law after another is made more compliant with Islamic principles of Sharia.
So Islam according to mcCarty is involved in a war being fought on various fronts and by various strategies given the context of the nation in which they reside. In some places various forms of violence is used in others stealth seems a better strategy.
The mistake that past administrations in the United States have made is believing that America is only at war with Islamic extremists and terrorists such Al Qaeda and brutal authoritarian Islamic governments such as The Taliban whereas in fact America should consider Islam and all Muslims as the enemy. Muslims are the rot at the core of Western Civilization. If we accept Andrew McCarthy's analysis the Clash of Civilizations is in fact all too real.
Andrew McCarthy, Robert Wright, Moderate Islam and the Fundamentalist Mindset at CupO' Joel Sept 15, 2010
The uberconservative right wing anti-Muslim crowd give Andrew McCarthy 's book stellar reviews. For example Michelle Malkin is fawning and effusive her short review . Michelle Malkin is best known for her apologetics on the Internment of Japanese Americans in WWII and the dropping of Nuclear bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
Exposing the Grand JihadBy Michelle Malkin at her website May 25, 2010
Former top federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy has been one of America’s bravest and most stalwart warriors against Islamic jihad. He’s battled them in court. He’s exposed them here at home and around the globe.
His new book, The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America, is out today, and I urge you all to get a copy — and then share it with all your friends and family. If you care about the survival of our country, McCarthy’s work is must-read. He thoroughly demonstrates how our external Muslim enemies join with out internal Alinskyite enemies to destroy all we hold dear.
His latest piece at NRO asks trenchantly as always: How long can a people remain a People when its leaders side with its foes? McCarthy writes:
A number of years ago, at some risk to myself and my family, I prosecuted savage jihadists who had made themselves enemies of the United States. I was lauded for doing so by the Clinton administration. Though I disagreed with that administration philosophically, and particularly with its conception of international terrorism as a crime problem, I praised the much-needed overhaul by which it put teeth in our counterterrorism laws. Our disagreement was over the best way to protect the country, not over the imperative that the country be protected. Our debate was the traditional Right-Left debate.
Moreover, as a New York lawyer who made no secret of having conservative views, I was a decided minority, even among my fellow prosecutors. But that only mattered in the occasional, friendly joust over a beer. Day to day, our politics had nothing to do with how we went about our jobs. At the office, I had friends across the ideological spectrum. Most of them were from the political left, but we liked and respected one another. The bond we shared, the sense that we were doing something good for the nation we all loved, was stronger than any ideological divisions.
Why does that matter now? Because, for the first time in our history, we have a president who would be much more comfortable sitting in a room with Bill Ayers than sitting in a room with me. We have a governing class that is too often comfortable with anti-American radicals, with rogue and dysfunctional governments that blame America for their problems, and with Muslim Brotherhood ideologues who abhor individual liberty, capitalism, freedom of conscience, and, in general, Western enlightenment. To this president and his government, I am the problem.
Bullseye.
The Meaning of the Koran
By ROBERT WRIGHT Opinionatot blogs NYT, Sept. 14, 2010
Test your religious literacy:
Which sacred text says that Jesus is the “word” of God? a) the Gospel of John; b) the Book of Isaiah; c) the Koran.
The correct answer is the Koran. But if you guessed the Gospel of John you get partial credit because its opening passage — “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God” — is an implicit reference to Jesus. In fact, when Muhammad described Jesus as God’s word, he was no doubt aware that he was affirming Christian teaching.
Extra-credit question: Which sacred text has this to say about the Hebrews: God, in his “prescience,” chose “the children of Israel … above all peoples”? I won’t bother to list the choices, since you’ve probably caught onto my game by now; that line, too, is in the Koran.
I highlight these passages in part for the sake of any self-appointed guardians of Judeo-Christian civilization who might still harbor plans to burn the Koran. I want them to be aware of everything that would go up in smoke.
But I should concede that I haven’t told the whole story. Even while calling Jesus the word of God — and “the Messiah” — the Koran denies that he was the son of God or was himself divine. And, though the Koran does call the Jews God’s chosen people, and sings the praises of Moses, and says that Jews and Muslims worship the same God, it also has anti-Jewish, and for that matter anti-Christian, passages.
The regrettable parts of the Koran — the regrettable parts of any religious scripture — don’t have to matter.
This darker side of the Koran, presumably, has already come to the attention of would-be Koran burners and, more broadly, to many of the anti-Muslim Americans whom cynical politicians like Newt Gingrich are trying to harness and multiply. The other side of the Koran — the part that stresses interfaith harmony — is better known in liberal circles.
...The Koran’s exhortations to jihad in the military sense are sometimes brutal in tone but are so hedged by qualifiers that Muhammad clearly doesn’t espouse perpetual war against unbelievers, and is open to peace with them. (Here, for example, is my exegesis of the “sword verse,” the most famous jihadist passage in the Koran.) The formal doctrine of military jihad — which isn’t found in the Koran, and evolved only after Muhammad’s death — does seem to have initially been about endless conquest, but was then subject to so much amendment and re-interpretation as to render it compatible with world peace. Meanwhile, in the hadith — the non-Koranic sayings of the Prophet — the tradition arose that Muhammad had called holy war the “lesser jihad” and said that the “greater jihad” was the struggle against animal impulses within each Muslim’s soul.
-------------------
Robert Spencer
Silencing Spencer: Taqiyya and Kitman are part of Judeo-Christian Belief Islamophobia today via Loonwatch.com Aug. 15,2010.
However, Spencer argues in his book that while lying is generally prohibited, “Islam allows for lying…in certain circumstances.” [4] Having established this, Spencer boldly entitles the chapter “Islamic Law: Lie, Steal, and Kill,” arguing that Islam is the one religion on earth that advocates lying. On the same page, Robert Spencer opposes “the idea that Islam shares the general moral outlook of Judaism and Christianity.” In particular, “Islam doesn’t have a moral code analogous to the Ten Commandments.” By this, he means to say that the religion of Islam does not hold fast to the 9th Commandment, which prohibits lying: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Before we proceed, it should be very clear that it is Robert Spencer himself who opens up the chapter by comparing the Judeo-Christian belief system to Islam. Therefore, when we question this comparison, let our opponents not cry “tu quoque, tu qouque!” as they always do whenever we point out their bold-faced hypocrisy and double standards. What Spencer is saying is quite clear: unlike other religions, Judaism and his own Christianity in particular, Islam advocates lying in certain circumstances.
The revelation, that Islam allows for lying in certain circumstances, is supposed to shock the mind. Ohmigosh, how could a religion sanction lying!? But if we move past sanctimonious outrage, we realize that any moral code, be it based in religious faith or atheistic humanism, should allow for lying in certain circumstances. That’s the most obvious thing in the world. If, for example, the Nazis knock on your door and ask you “are you hiding any Jews in your attic?”, would Robert Spencer demand you to be truthful and say “yes”? In that circumstance, lying should not only be allowed, but encouraged or even obligated. A moral code that did not allow for a lie in this circumstance would be highly flawed. This is simply common sense. No moral code, be it religious or otherwise, ought to command honesty without exception. It’s common sense that there should be some exceptions to truth-telling.
-------------------
Robert Spencer appears to practice his own form of deception.
Facts Don’t Matter to the “Scholar” Robert Spencer at Spencer Watch Sept. 22, 2010
Everyone keeps claiming that Robert Spencer is this big time “scholar.” Yet, it seems that he could care less when it comes to the facts. In a recent rant about the Chicago man who was arrested after planting what he thought was a real bomb in a dumpster outside of Wrigley Field, Spencer penned this:
Got to watch out for those “Chicago men,” especially during yet another long summer of frustration at Wrigley, as Sweet Lou Piniella has ridden off into the sunset with no end in sight for the Cub Fan’s frustration. It would drive anyone to plant a bomb, now, wouldn’t it? Wouldn’t it?
He seems to lament the fact that the media, quite responsibly, called the suspect, Sami Hassoun, as a “Chicago man,” rather than identifying him by his religion. Presumably, looking at his Facebook page, he is Muslim since he did have a status saying “eid mubarak.” Still, Spencer seemed to not like the fact that the news reported him as he is: a Chicago man.
Once again, however, Robert Spencer’s “scholarship” shows in his total disregard for the facts. Had he bothered to even do a simple Google search, rather than just post the headline and move on, he would have found that this “Chicago man,” Sami Hassoun, had absolutely no religious motivation for his alleged attack:
Authorities said Hassoun wasn’t motivated by religious or political views but rather by a bizarre desire to undermine the mayor’s political support and allow an associate to take control of the city. He also hoped to profit from the scheme by being paid for his terrorism work by supporters, the charges alleged.
In fact, according to the authorities, Hassoun had even suggested that they blame the attacks on Muslim extremists:
Hassoun suggested the plotters attempt to put blame for the attack on Muslim extremists.
When undercover agents told Hassoun their group wanted to change how the U.S. treated people “back home,” Hassoun seemed uninterested in ideology.
“Mine is a different kind of concept than this,” Hassoun said. “We’re floating same boat, you know. … We’re doing the same thing, but everybody has their own interest. … The results of this is a benefit to everybody.”
So, this man had absolutely no religious motivation behind his plot to bomb Wrigleyville. He never mentioned Islam or “jihad,” or the Qur’an as his motivation. No “taqiyya,” or “kitman,” or any other term that Spencer uses to mislead the public. He told his informants why he wanted to commit terrorism:
Hassoun was critical of Daley, telling the informant that the mayor’s policies had weakened security in the city and once saying he wanted to foment a “revolution” in the city, according to the charges.
But, that doesn’t matter to Robert Spencer. It seems that if any criminal commits a crime and happens to be a Muslim, then “poof” he becomes a “Islamic Jihadist” bent upon destroying the West. Facts just don’t matter to the “scholar” Robert Spencer.
and so it goes,
GORD.
No comments:
Post a Comment