Posts

VIDEO: Why ‘The Perfect Man’ billboard was brilliant

Here is an interstate billboard in Indiana that describes “The Perfect Man”. Each statement on the billboard is factual according to the biography & traditions of the “Perfect Man”.

The billboard attacked Islam at its weakest point – the prophet of Allah.  Don’t argue about the Koran, instead use Mohammed.  The Koran is confusing and dualistic, but Mohammed is simple to understand.

My latest video discusses the topic of Islam and inbreeding.

Inbreeding is a crime against future humanity. Inbreeding is both Sunna of Mohammed & in the Koran. Unfortunately, according to Sharia (divine Islamic law) inbreeding is permitted.

Subscribe to my Youtube Channel PoliticalIslam, and access over 150 of my videos. 

News Update

I support this effort. Join with others & take the pledge to read the Koran.

The only way to know for sure what’s true about Islam is to read the Koran yourself.

To understand the Koran requires the historical context of Mohammed’s life. Both An Abridged Koran & A Simple Koran have done this and arranged events in chronological order to provide clarity and meaning for the reader. These books are available below.

When Christianity is Removed All Hell Breaks Out

bus-640x480Just recently, when perusing news stories, I happened upon a most heartbreaking story headline.  It proclaimed “London’s iconic red buses to declare glory to Allah.”  After getting over the initial shock I was a bit embarrassed.  Considering the massive evil in-roads the devoted Muslims have made making deep intrusions into British society for decades, I should not have been shocked one little bit.

The dangerous habit of western societies to sacrifice their own well-being just to appease those who have pledged to convert them or destroy them is miles beyond stupid. Britain’s largest Islamic charity says it wants to “break down barriers” and portray Islam positively by launching a new advertising campaign which will slap the phrase “glory to Allah on the sides of London buses.  Muslims reading the advertisements are told to “gather the rewards of Ramadan,” that they must donate Islamic relief.  That is a Muslim organization which used to have an account with banking giant HSBC.  The accounts were closed due to major “concerns that cash for aid could end up with Muslim terrorist groups throughout the world.”

Public transport has been chosen for the Islamic re-branding in London, Manchester, Leicester, Birmingham, and Bradford.  All of the locations have large growing bigoted Muslim populations.  That the announcement of the new campaign came a day after London “foolishly” crowned it’s first Muslim mayor Sadig Khan.  Islamic Relief called it a “nice irony” that the two events coincided.  “Uh yeah”  Imran Madden, a British traitor “cough” convert to Islam and director of Islamic Relief’s United Kingdom branch said, “there is a lot of negativity around Muslims at the moment involving things such as counterterrorism issues.  “We want to change for the better the perception of Islam.  The London bus campaign is about breaking down barriers and challenging misconceptions.”

I could only laugh at Mr. Imran Madden’s little message about changing the perceptions of Islam.  Because, if Muslims were serious about changing the perception of Islam, they would have to stop being Muslims.  Because Muslims are instructed in the little quaran’ that it is permissible to be cruel to non Muslims.  Whether it is through DHIMMI status, where in Muslim cultures, non-Muslims are not allowed to build new places of worship, not possess arms; they have to allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings.  That is only three out of the 20 major restrictions against non-Muslims who reside where Muslims have taken over.

Ironically, Christian groups have fared less well when it comes to advertising on London buses.  For example, Former London mayor Boris Johnson stepped in to ban a positive message by a Christian organization in response to a pro-homosexual advertising Campaign.  After it is all said and done, Christian groups have for many years been denied access to purchase advertising space on London buses and elsewhere.

The sad thing about all of this that for too long, Christians have been a soft touch in London, throughout Europe, Africa and America.  Unfortunately, Christians have bought into the misnomer that loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek means allowing yourself to be abused and pushed around.

Both Great Britain and the United States at one time were greatly influenced by Christian principles.  Thus both nations were blessed beyond compare.  In fact, at one time the saying was “the sun never sets upon the British Empire.”  Her land holdings spanned entirely around the globe.  Before the ascent of the United States, Great Britain was the standard of the world.  But something very foolish happen in 1957.  Stupidity overtook wisdom and England gave up it’s major Seagate, the Suez Canal which opened the door to the ultimate destruction of British invincibility.  At the same time the Brits  turned away from the God of Christianity as fast as someone turns their nose away from a bottle of bleach.  Thus the decline of Britain became etched in stone.

In life, if you move your feet, you lose your seat.  Or if you give up your God given wisdom and authority, someone else becomes the boss.  It is plain to see that the good elements that paved the way toward building the great city of London and the once mighty empire of Britain have been replaced.  In their place are the deceptive, brutish and nation killing elements that are disintegrating one of the greatest civilizations in human history.  In many cases, both the British and Christians have no one to blame but themselves for the horrors British society is experiencing today.  Gosh do I miss the likes of the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Until Britain and the United States decide to stand up for themselves and reconnect with the principles and the influences of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob they will continue to be torn down by the followers of the death God of Islam.

VIDEO: Donald Trump and ‘The Vicious Snake’

Donald Trump began reciting the lyrics to a Al Wilson song from 1968 entitled “The Snake” at a rally in Iowa, which was reported on by Ali Vitali from NBC News. Many understood that this song related to the influx of Muslim migrants into Europe and the United States. To tell you more would be to give away the below video that is now going viral.

Rust e,  the creator of the video inspired by Trump’s remarks, asks viewers, “Do not allow the Islamification currently happening in Europe to reach America. Act now before its too late.”

RELATED VIDEO: Donald Trump reading the lyrics to Al Wilson’s song “The Snake” on January 12th, 2016 as filmed by NBC News:

eu pessimists by country chart

EDITORS NOTE: Videos like these do take time to create. Rust e, the creator of this video does not monetize them, nor is he getting paid to do them. If you would like to see more videos in the future, or would just like to donate to Rust e, his bitcoin address is: 19c2STV1jKWajYLu5B7qmzkfzSinpgAJpC

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of L.A. Wants ‘Greater Solidarity with Islam’

In PJ Media today I discuss more foolish wrongheadedness and disastrously suicidal naivete from today’s Catholic Church:

The contemporary Catholic Church has wholeheartedly endorsed the ideas that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims are the first victims of jihad terrorism.

This proposition is enforced as an iron dogma, the one non-negotiable point in today’s comfortable suburban Church: anything goes, everything is winked at, moral teaching is discarded or ignored left and right — but whisper that Islamic jihadists point to the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and you’ll be the new Jan Hus.

A recent piece in the Los Angeles archdiocesan newspaper entitled “Our Muslim Brothers and Sisters” is just one example of the endless barrage of nonsense that comes from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on this issue — but this example is noteworthy in being particularly counterfactual. It spends a great deal of time admonishing us that the first victims of Islamic jihad terror groups are other Muslims. Its author, Fr. Ronald Rolheiser, apparently believes — along with Barack Obama and numerous other Western leaders — that this proves that the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and the rest are un-Islamic.

In fact, this point only establishes that they believe their Muslim opponents to be un-Islamic — and because Islam mandates death for heresy and apostasy, they kill those opponents.

Rolheiser also says:

But the Muslim religion is not to blame here. There is nothing inherent in either the Koran or in Islam itself that morally or religiously undergirds this kind of violence.

Apparently Rolheiser has overlooked many passages from the Qur’an, including:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!’”

8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”

Think the Bible is full of violence, too? Sure, but there is actually nothing in the Bible remotely equivalent to the Qur’an’s open-ended and universal commands to wage war against and subjugate unbelievers. Nor will you find calls to violence being taught from authoritative sources of Judeo-Christian religion.

But you will find them coming from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, 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.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam.

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his bookWar and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:

Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.

Nyazee concludes:

This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation [of non-Muslims].

Blissfully or willfully ignorant of all this and much more, Rolheiser says:

It’s time to establish a greater solidarity with Islam.

With Islam, mind you — not with Muslims who genuinely reject all this and want to live in peace with non-Muslims as equals in a secular society without trying to gain hegemony over them….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Convert to Islam set up stall on London street to drum up support for the Islamic State

Taliban at gates of Kabul as their jihad-martyrdom suicide bombers launch new wave of attacks in Afghan capital

San Bernardino: Aftermath of a Failed Political Strategy

In the wake of the terror attack in San Bernardino, California, reports have emerged citing neighbors who noticed suspicious activity at the shooters’ residence but decided against contacting the police so as not to appear racist.

One man who worked in the neighborhood for three weeks said he questioned why day after day, about six Middle Eastern-looking men came to the shooters’ house. “We sat around lunching thinking, ‘What [were] they doing around the neighborhood?’” he said. But he didn’t report the activity because he didn’t want to be seen as racially profiling.

Another neighbor related she watched with unease while multiple packages arrived in a short amount of time at the shooters’ house. At the same time, she noticed a lot of work being done in their garage.

“She was kind of suspicious and wanted to report it,” another neighbor explained, “but she said she didn’t want to profile.”

Speaking just one day after the attack – not to mention just weeks after the attack in Paris, the downing of a Russian commercial airliner in the Sinai and the announcement by the FBI it is involved in 900 homegrown terror investigations, U.S. Attorney-General Loretta Lynch said her “greatest fear” was the “incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric.”

Addressing those engaged in “Islamophobia,” but ironically more aptly describing Islamist extremists, Lynch said, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

Lynch takes her cues from her boss, the president of the United States, as do many of the country’s citizens. The fact that, just 14 years after the September 11 attacks, ordinary citizens are afraid to report suspicious activity that could be related to terrorism for fear of being called racist, is a testament to the Orwellian political atmosphere that now pervades America.

We can look to Europe to see the end result of such an atmosphere, taking as the quintessential example the recent revelations from Rotherham, England, where 1,400 young, white British girls (some as young as 11) were sexually abused by “grooming gangs” of Pakistani Muslim men, while the police and social services looked onover a period of 10 years. In a horrifically-shocking report released last August, it was revealed knowledge of the abuse was repeatedly dismissed by police, social services and even the city council over fears of being labelled “racist.”

In the case of America, the commander-in-chief’s markedly-pronounced decision to refuse to label Islamist terror as such while instead drumming into the hearts and souls of the country’s citizens that Islam has nothing to do with the world’s recent spate of terror attacks has set the tone.

It has been argued Obama’s refusal to call out Islamist extremism for what it is, is part of a strategy to engage the Muslim world in the fight against it. As Hillary Clinton, who has also refused to out “radical Islam” said, it is “not particularly helpful to make the case” to “Muslim countries.”

This convoluted reasoning for this strategy was summed up by Bloomberg journalist Eli Lake, who wrote, “The long war against radical Islamic terrorists requires at least the tacit support of many radical Muslims. Sadly, large pluralities of Muslims in countries allied with the U.S. in the war on terror disavow the tactics of terrorism but endorse the aims of radical Islam.”

Meaning, if we called out Islamist extremism for what it is, our radical Islamist “friends” (i.e., allied countries) would stop cooperating with us which would lead to “a world in which the U.S. stopped waging a global war on terror.”

The major countries Lake is most likely referring to are Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey – all Islamist entities that have aided and abetted these self-same radical Islamists. At a glance, let us consider

The current administration’s engagement of extremists in the Islamic world has also been reflected through America’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and at home.

However, it is a strategy based on the illusion we are working for the same side. We are clearly not.

All of these countries (and by definition, any country that endorses what Lake called “the aims of radical Islam”) are looking to replace democracy and Western values with sharia law.

The willingness to joining with such countries has necessitated the breeding of a culture of political correctness where common sense on the part of ordinary citizen is now questioned as being “racist.”

In reality, the “war on terror” will not be won until we stop being afraid of declaring who we are fighting against. Once that happens, we will be able to start the battle for real.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of Clarion Project.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Consulate in Turkey Under ‘Imminent Security Threat’

France Shuts Down Three Radical Mosques

California Shooting: The Debate Starts Here

Al-Aqsa Mosque Preacher: West Carried Out Paris Attacks

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of mourners praying at a makeshift memorial for the victims of the California terrorist attack. (Photo: © Reuters)

Roman Catholic bishop advocates submission to the Islamic State

This brilliant article sums up not only the myopia of Bishop Robert Barron’s approach to the Islamic State (and to the global jihad in general), but the weakness and wrongheadedness of the entire contemporary Catholic Church when confronted with jihadist savagery.

There is today a wholesale confusion of weakness and submission with compassion and mercy, such that many Church leaders, including but by no means limited to Bishop Barron, believe that Christian charity mandates acquiescence to evil and submission to it. They think it is a matter of “respect” for Muslims as human beings for Christians to bow to violent intimidation from Islamic jihadists, and to assent to restrictions on their behavior that are demanded by way of jihadi threats.

Those who think, on the contrary, that it is more respectful and charitable to Muslims to refuse to enable and reward bullying and bloodlust have no place in today’s Catholic Church.

Bishop-Robert-Barron

Bishop Robert Barron being interview on EWTN Nightly News. Photo courtesy of EWTN.

“The Incredible Shrinking Bishop Barron,” by Maureen Mullarkey, OnePeterFive, November 23, 2015 (thanks to Tom):

I have never been more than an occasional viewer of Fr. Robert Barron’s Word on Fire chats. His recent televised interview with EWTN’s Catherine Szeltner put paid to whatever interest I had.

Newly elevated to an auxiliary bishop in the sprawling L.A. diocese, now-Bp. Barron was in Baltimore for his initial appearance among the USCCB. Ms. Szeltner was on hand to ask how Catholics should respond to the slaughter in Paris. “How should they react?” she wondered, as if Catholics were dependent on guidance in their attitude toward carnage.

This was hardly a spontaneous interview. Chairs had been set. The bishop had not been caught on the run; he was not speaking off the cuff. On the contrary, it is standard practice to establish before air time which questions will be asked. Ms. Szaltner was wide-eyed with anticipation for an answer that had already been rehearsed. Here was the fledgling bishop’s moment to affirm public solidarity with the mantra of love heralding the Year of Mercy. Which—the Vatican just announced—extends to Muslims.

Barron began with a self-reverential response that carried a hint of conceit for having been placed among the great and the good. Our new bishop has ascended above even just anger. The massacre aroused no outrage, not even a wince of distaste. Rather, his first words were on fire with . . . nostalgia. He found the atrocity “especially poignant” because he had studied in Paris for three years. And because he remembered some of the locations involved, the attacks were “moving and poignant.”

Not obscene, not demonic, foul or repellant. Poignant. It is a word appropriate for the death of a kitten. Applied to the murder and maiming of innocents, it is worse than unfitting. It is shameful.

He glided on to a serene tutorial on mercy, on the obligation to “respond to violence with love,” and “to fight hatred with love.” He enjoined Catholics to mercy and “a non-violent stance.” Listening, I realized why I have never been able to cotton to Word on Fire: Barron is smarmy. His genial TV persona has none of the alert, intellectual muscularity of Fulton Sheen whose lead he presumes to follow. This time on camera, he confused Paris in 2015 with Selma, Alabama in 1965.

Sanctimonious appeal to non-violence is typical of middle-brow respect for the strategy of King—learned from Gandhi—minus any grasp of its genius. There is nothing commensurate between the cultural situation of the American civil rights movement and the events in Paris. To try to impose the conditions of that movement onto Islamic jihad is astonishing in its obtuseness. Mercy is vacated of all meaning when it is used as an excuse for blindness to history, or for inaction in the face of present realities.

Genocide was never the end game of either the British or the segregationist forces in the United States. Genocide—mitigated only by conversion or the slavery of dhimmitude— is an objective of Islam. Barron misleads his audience with bankrupt, Vatican-stroking noises about nonviolence.

The limited applications of non-violence were obvious when, in 1938, Gandhi advised Europe’s Jews to practice nonviolent resistance against Nazi persecution. In some mystical way, this would supposedly result in Germany’s moral reformation. Nearly eighty years later, Bishop Barron offers the same futile rationale—in the name of Christ crucified—to Catholics.

Inversion of circumstances between Islam and the West is as bizarre as it is reckless. Non-violence is the resort of the weak against the strong. By inviting Catholics to adopt “a non-violent stance” against jihad, Barron insinuates assent to inferiority. It is a failure of will dressed in Christian idiom. Call it submission.

In practical terms, what does it mean to respond with love to genocidal intention? How is non-violence applicable to a contest of civilizations in which one side is committed to the annihilation of the other? Wherein lies the moral force of non-violence against a bloodlust cultivated for fourteen hundred years?

Gandhi’s notorious advice to Jews was tantamount to telling them to march quietly to the ovens. Whether satyagraha serves freedom or a final solution depends on the variables of situation. Bishop Barron’s inability to discern critical distinctions makes his ministry dangerous.

He remains a cheery, good-natured promoter. Sadly, what he promotes is dhimmitude.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Will Downing of Russian Plane Impact Campaign Against ISIS?

Spencer, PJM: CNN’s Amanpour Shames US for Not Taking Unvettable Refugees…Then Fails to Vet Her Muslim Guest

Video: U.S.-backed Syrian “moderates” scream “Allahu akbar” over body of downed Russian pilot

66 Muslims charged with Islamic State plots in U.S. over last 18 months

The Islamic State can call upon Muslims in the U.S. who accept its claim to the caliphate, as well as refugees loyal to it, to carry out attacks inside the country.

“America’s enemies within: How nearly SEVENTY have been arrested in America over ISIS plots in the last 18 months – including refugees who had been given safe haven but ‘turned to terror,’” by Ben Ashford, Dailymail.com, November 18, 2015 (thanks to Bulldog):

US authorities have charged at least 66 men and women with ISIS-related terror plots on American soil – including a handful of refugees, Daily Mail Online can reveal.

The terror group has set its sights on Washington, D.C. as it vows to further infiltrate the West and ramp up its blood-soaked offensive.

President Obama insists that ‘slamming the door’ on Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS would be a betrayal of American values.

But 34 governors are refusing to take in any more, in case jihadi fighters slip into their states and repeat the carnage of Paris.

Analysis by Daily Mail Online reveals that a handful of foiled plots have already involved immigrants accused of harboring sympathy for ISIS.

The threat also comes from within, with American teenagers and Islamic converts among those seduced by the group’s torrent of chilling online propaganda.

They include a U.S. Air Force veteran accused of waging war on the country he once served and a National Guard soldier who allegedly plotted to gun down his own colleagues.

Others are seemingly ordinary American citizens, including a young nurse, a pizza parlor boss and schoolgirls tricked into becoming shrouded ISIS brides.

Some have conspired to travel or send friends abroad to link up with fundamentalist fighters while others have planned for jihad closer to home – with Capitol Hill among the targets for a foiled bombing raid.

The incidents detailed here are among dozens of alleged disrupted by police and federal agents since ISIS began to rise from the flames of the Syrian civil war. The earliest arrest was 18 months ago.

They include:

BOSNIAN REFUGEES WHO ‘AIDED AMERICA’S ENEMIES WITH CASH FOR EQUIPMENT’

Ramiz Hodzic, of St. Louis County, was charged in a case that accuses him, his wife and others of supporting ISIS terrorism.

Sedina Hodzic of St. Louis County, was charged in a case that accuses her, her husband and others of supporting ISIS terrorism.

They fled the war in Yugoslavia to enjoy new lives in the US – but are now accused of conspiring to help its deadliest enemies.

Six Bosnian immigrants, three from Missouri, two from Illinois and one from New York, were charged in February with sending money and military equipment to extremist groups in Syria including ISIS and the Al Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front.

Among the accused are Ramiz Zjad Hodzic, 40 and his wife Sedina, 35, who allegedly gathered money to purchase military uniforms and tactical gear so they could send it to fighters in Syria.

Also facing trial are Armin Harcevic, 37, Nihad Rosic, 26, and Mediha Medy Salkicevic, 34. Jasminka Ramic, 42, pleaded guilty last month.

According to court documents the group conspired via phone, Facebook and email using innocuous code words such as ‘beach’ for places like Iraq and Syria while using PayPal and Western Union to send funds to fanatics.

‘All six individuals are natives of Bosnia who immigrated to the United States,’ the US attorney’s office said in a statement announcing the charges.

‘Three have become naturalized citizens of the United States and the remaining three have either refugee or legal resident status.’…

Refugees.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Robert Spencer on Hannity on Obama’s disastrous refugee policy

Bosnia: Muslim murders two soldiers

Why Muslim Migrants Always = Terrorism

What’s the point in the West sending troops to the Middle East if we bring the Middle East to the West? The preceding is a money line, one that should be used by Islam realists from Germany to Georgia.

The Paris terror attack has inspired much debate, from conservatives saying we need to confront ISIS aggressively overseas to liberals wringing their hands over rising anti-Islam sentiment that they claim will exacerbate the jihadist problem. And while I’m more sympathetic to the former sentiment than the latter, nothing should distract us from what must be our number-one priority: stopping the Muslim influx into the West cold.

Many say this is a cold position. And, unfortunately, their prescription for (misguided) compassion is seldom sufficiently refuted.

In an attempt to salvage a failing multicultural model and strategy for importing left-leaning voters, we hear that the Muslim migrants must be “vetted” better. A practical problem with this notion is that Syria’s and other Middle Eastern countries’ databases are woefully inadequate, making accurate information on many migrants impossible to obtain. This confronts us with a simple matter of probability: if 1 million migrants enter a nation over time and just 1/10th of 1 percent are terrorists, that’s 1000 dangerous jihadists. Is this acceptable? Note that my estimate may be conservative.

Yet there’s also a fundamental problem with vetting that goes unmentioned: even with complete information, it only tells you about the past.

It cannot tell you about the future.

In other words, even if those one million migrants have “clean records,” how many will become terrorists in the future? Again, 1/10th of 1 percent is 1000.

And what of their children? How many of them will become terrorists? No point repeating best-case-scenario percentages.

One response here is that the children will be more integrated and thus the problem should diminish over time. This is logical, but, unfortunately, also apparently untrue.

Studies have shown that young Muslims in Europe are actually more radical than their elders. This certainly is counterintuitive, but only because the average Westerner’s cranial database also doesn’t contain accurate information. For example and related to this, moderns take as a given that religion is declining in our “enlightened times.” Yet religious belief is actually increasing worldwide, a phenomenon poised to continue. Islam’s adherents are growing in number, and Catholicism’s are, too, slightly in excess of the increase in world population. Religious belief is only declining in the West — and, most significantly, among Westerners in the West.

Another common argument was expressed by Charles Grant, director of pro-E.U. think-tank Centre for European Reform. He said that ratcheting up the anti-Islamic rhetoric would serve ISIS’ ends and that “Europe’s game must be to resist that and not repeat the mistakes we made after September 11 which played right into al-Qaeda’s hands. We must hold our nerve and embrace our values of tolerance of faith and religions which we share in common and against the Islamic State,” reported the Telegraph. Many leftists echo this, the idea being that we must not further “alienate” Muslim communities. This overlooks that you can only alienate those who aren’t already alien.

Note again that the pattern evident is for younger Muslim generations to become more alienated from the West, not less. Some would blame this on the West itself, saying that — despite indulging multiculturalism, outlawing anti-Muslim rhetoric and offering generous government benefits — we still aren’t opening our arms and hearts to these newcomers. Kill ‘em with kindness, the thinking (feeling?) goes.

Of such people ask a simple question: can you cite one time in history in which large numbers of Muslims have willingly assimilated into a non-Muslim culture?

Just one?

While there may be some exception, I can’t think of any. Note here a recent poll showing that a slim majority of U.S. Muslims prefer living under Sharia law to American civil law (and how many wouldn’t admit such a thing to pollsters?). The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, and the historical record informs that “Muslim assimilation” is a contradiction in terms.

In fact, I don’t know of even one instance in which large numbers of Muslims were ever shaken from Islam other than by the sword, and that wasn’t done very much, if at all. There was an attempt by a group of medieval Christian missionaries to peacefully convert Middle Eastern Muslims, but the effort was found futile and abandoned after a short time.

Then there’s the myth of “assimilation.” The term is thrown around thoughtlessly much as is “diversity,” and seldom mentioned is that assimilation is often never complete. For while large groups who immigrate to a nation often do change, they also are agents of change. Did the large waves of Irish, Italian and German immigrants not alter America somewhat? This might have been a good, bad or neutral thing, but it’s assuredly a real thing.

There are also those who don’t assimilate markedly, if at all. Have the Amish or Hasidic Jews assimilated noticeably into the wider culture? Again, I’m not here making a value judgment on their particular different-drummer walk. The point is merely that assimilation is, foolishly and dangerously, taken as a given when there’s great precedent proving it’s not.

And this also is a numbers game. The rare Muslim who contemplated going to the West many years ago had to be a different kind of Muslim, one who understood he was entering a Christian culture that wouldn’t cater to his desires. He and his co-religionists would be so few and far between there’d be no prospect for “Halal” groceries, Islamic interest-free financing or Muslim schools for his children. So he’d be forced to assimilate by having to work within the established institutions of the host nation. But great numbers of Muslims form their own enclaves and their own institutions; this reality not only makes the journey west more inviting to pious Muslims, but also enables them to reinforce each other’s beliefs.

There’s another problem with assimilation: a prerequisite for it is providing something attractive to assimilate into. The communist political activist Willi Munzenberg once reportedly said, “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.” This has been accomplished. Decadence is everywhere, and we no longer even know what marriage is or what boys and girls are. French president Francois Hollande recently canceled a dinner meeting with the Iranian president because he refused to bow to a demand to serve Halal meat and no wine. It’s good he took at least that stand, but one could just imagine his hurling accusations of “intolerance” at Christians who refused to refrain from saying the Lord’s Prayer before a meal with Muslims. It’s an example of how Western Europe has been hollowed out, how it has the superficialities of its culture but not the substance. What are foreigners today supposed to assimilate into in today’s France, Italy, Germany and U.S.? Bread and wine; pasta fagioli; Wiener schnitzel; and baseball, hot dogs and reality TV, all lathered in moral relativism? Are they really going to follow the lead of a dying anomaly in a world of growing religiosity? Heck, I’m a Westerner, and as a believing Christian I refuse to assimilate into my country’s wider culture (although I save my cutting off of heads for broccoli). Thus, with assimilation, even if Muslim migrants were buyin’, they wouldn’t be buyin’ what we’re sellin’.

Of course, none of this means we should toss the post-Christian West from the frying pan into the fire. If you want to destroy liberalism, though — both the suicidal modern ideology and the extant remnants of the classical variety — Islamization is a sure way to do it.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

Refugees and children of refugees have been connected to terror plots in the U.S.

The Expanding Threat Posed by ISIS

GOP Lawmakers, National Security Experts Debate Risks, Syrian Refugee Programs’ Vetting Process

Reports: Syrians headed to the US border as southern border-crossings heat up again

Can Muslims be Loyal to Anything other than Allah?

A great example of the unlikely mix of Islam and civility and the conflict of allegiances is Muslim Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s decision to blast away at his fellow military mates at fort Hood Texas in November 2009.  He chose to kill over a dozen people, because they were not Muslim. While blowing hs victims away, he yelped the Islamic slogan, “Allahu Akbar!” (“god is great”).  For a soldier to viciously turn on his fellow soldiers in arms is incomprehensible enough, especially when one considers that in order to receive his commission as an officer in the Army, Major Hasan had to sign his name to an oath requiring his name to an oath requiring him to swear allegiance to defend the Constitution.  The oath also called for Major Hasan to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion.

Nevertheless, despite swearing an oath to protect the United States and to remain loyal to his compatriots, Major Hasan, most certainly displayed glaring conflicting loyalties.  According to one of his former classmates, Major Hasan would not support the effort to defend against terrorism because he viewed such an effort as a direct war against Islam.  In a way Hasan had a point. After all even if somehow all Islamists are not terrorists, all of today’s terrorists are Islamists.  Oh well!  In fact, Hasan had energetically advocated for a conscientious-objector clause for Muslims serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.  The tug of war between his alleged allegiance to Islam and his so-called loyalty to the United States came to a snapping point, and Major Hasan went to nutsville and followed through on the murderous tradition of Islam and obeyed the tenets of his religion.  Hasan, gleefully killed twelve of his fellow soldiers, with the permission of Allah, of course.

Do you remember the Times Square bomber?  He is another sterling example of the transcendence of loyalty to Islam over loyalty to anything American.  Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born Muslim, became a naturalized United States citizen in April 2009, about one year before he attempted to detonate a bomb in the middle of New York City.  Indeed, the dialogue at trial between the presiding judge and Shahzad demonstrates this completely:

Judge: “Didn’t you swear allegiance to this country when you became an American citizen?”

Shahzad: I did swear, but I did not mean it.”

Judge:  “You took a false oath?”

Shahzad:  “Yes”

Examples like these demonstrates that, to many Muslims, Islam demands single-minded loyalty from its adherents that can admit no other allegiances.  The driving force behind Islamic unity will inevitably seek to eliminate all other contenders for allegiance and will not let the demands of American citizenship stand in its way.

One of the most obvious methods used by Muslims to demonstrate their loyalty to nothing but Islam or Allah is Jihad.  Jihad is commonly described as “to war against non-Muslims.”  The term jihad derives from the word mujahada, which signifies the use of warfare to establish religion.  Those in support of Islam claim that there are three distinct forms of jihad.  The first form is the “greater jihad” of battling against the inner-self to attain private holiness and devotion to the path of Allah.  The second form of jihad is da ’wah, or the invitation to non-Muslims to convert voluntarily to follow Islam and to follow Shari’ ah.  The third, most well-known form of jihad is the violent use of the sword in physical conflict with non-Muslims (“unbelievers” or “infidels”).  The ultimate objective of the three forms of jihad, collectively, is to convert all unbelievers to Islam (either voluntarily or forcibly) and to subject all non-Muslim territories to Islamic rule and government, i.e. shari ‘ah.

All three forms of jihad are mandated by shai ‘ah.  While violent shari ‘ah is the most commonly known form of jihad, political jihad (a type of da ‘wah) is currently the most significant threat facing Americans because it is latent and because it is imminent.  Da ‘wah literally means “call,” invitation,” or propaganda.”  It is a prerequisite to violent jihad because the Qur ‘ran states that Allah does not punish anyone until one has received the invitation to believe and an introduction to Allah’s law (shari ‘ah).   After the call or invitation to believe is extended, non-Muslims have three choices:  convert to Islam, submit to the Islamic ruler and pay a massive tax (jizyah) or fight and die.

My fellow Americans, the threat of Islam against us and our way of life is ever present.  The question is, will we be able to hold on until the imam is finally gone from the White House?  We can ill afford, nor should we tolerate any threat to our republic, including Islam, shari ‘ah, jihad, or whatever those women abusing Christian murdering gumps come up with.  Politically correct butt kissing of Muslims only strengthens their wicked resolve to kill, steal from and destroy any and every non-Muslim they can get away with harming in some way.  Many thanks to the American Center for Law and Justice for their worthy contributions to this column.

May God Bless America an May America Bless God.

Is Allah the worst communicator ever?

A tragic tale of a stuttering, stammering, feeble deity. Another superb video by the great David Wood of Answering Muslims.

RELATED ARTICLES:

“Scottish woman” may have helped recruit 3 missing UK teen Muslimas for the Islamic State

Austin, Texas: Bomb threats against mosque turn out to have come from a Muslim

Minnesota: Muslim teen indicted for attempting to join the Islamic State

Why Jesus’ Name? Why Not Allah When People Curse?

This is An Answer to World Net Daily’s Editor Joseph Farah’s question: What if filmmakers used ‘Allah’ as a curse word? Editor Joseph Farah cites Ray Comfort who interviewed people on the street, asking if they ever cursed using Jesus’ name? Most have, but they deny using Allah’s name that way. Why?

Farah acknowledges a historical figure that Christians know as Jesus Christ. They believe he fulfilled Bible prophecy to die the death that we deserve in our place to reconcile us to God who loves us and forgives our sins when we accept His love and plan of salvation that includes seeking His help to live for Him and truth as we progressively understand it.

But why do people, who don’t even believe in Christ, use his name to curse or swear? We might consider the Bible teaching that as humans, we wrestle against powers of darkness—demons who seek to control us. It’s not hard to find examples of some who have given the control of their lives to demonic forces in areas of alcohol, drugs, appetite, sex, perversions, crime, greed, gambling or hatred.

That’s a reality of life in this world, but why is the name of Jesus connected to a loss of self-control? We are not to take God’s name in vain. We have heard others say, God damn it, vainly asking God to forbid what just happened.

Actually God is a generic word translated from the Hebrew word, El, Eloha,  or Elohim meaning God. But “God” is not a name. According to Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian,  in his classic book, Wars of the Jews, the “sacred name [engraven on the High Priest’s golden crown]…consists of four vowels.”

This impacts our topic of Christ’s name, because Christ said, “I am come in my Father’s name and you receive me not. If another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.” John 5:43.

If the Father’s name was Zeus, then Italians say it right as they pronounce Christ’s name as Yea Zeus! In Latin America they pronounce the Savior’s name as Hey Zeus. We say Gee Zus!

But the Father’s name was not Zeus. Zeus was the savior god of Greek mythology who saved everyone who appealed to him with no need of repentance. Philosophically, this idea appeals to most people in our world and is why, in the end-times, “when another shall come in his own name [Zeus], Jesus will be personated by the devil who will sit in the [rebuilt] temple and claim homage from the whole world as 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 supports, though it does not mention the name.

God’s plan of salvation is not based on a simple appeal and claim in the name of Jesus. It is based on “a deal” we make with Christ to give him our lives so that he becomes Lord as well as Savior. Many don’t understand it that way, but in the end, we must repent of our way of doing things and choose his ways, not living in sin, but saving us from it. A life of repentance is proof of God’s power to save.

Because there are demons struggling for the mastery of every human being (Ephesians 6:12), when we lose self-control and exclaim, Jesus Christ! or God damn it, we may be reflecting a demon force that  acknowledges his master as an odd form of praise.

Moishe Rosen is author of Y‘shua the Jewish way to say Jesus. Why is it a “Jewish way to say Jesus”? Because Jews know the real Messiah could not have been named Jesus. There is no J letter or sound in the Hebrew language. Jesus is a translated name, but names (proper nouns) should not be translated. They should be transliterated to give the same sounds. President Bush was not called “little shrub” in China. They called him Bush so he would recognize his name.

Oddly enough, Christ said “Not one yod” should pass from the law (which had God’s name) but translators removed God’s entire name which began with a yod. As the introduction to the Goodspeed Bible says, Wherever we see LORD or GOD in all caps, translators removed God’s name (four vowels). Can we see a problem for those who think the King James Bible is perfect?

Jerusalem

Jerusalem burning.

The apostle Paul encountered the Greeks on Mars Hill who had many gods–they even had one image to the Unknown God. Paul wanted to tell them about God and he later commented, “the times of this ignorance God winked at, but commands everyone to repent in a time of judgment.” Acts 17:30,31.

When we know better, we should go by the best information we have. This is safe. God knows our intent, and the times ahead will test our willingness to suffer for His name when the vast majority will acclaim the name of Jesus when the savior is impersonated by one working miracles on the throne in Jerusalem. When it happens, the biggest clue to his identity will be his name, a derivative of Zeus.

This is not an issue now, but it will be then, or why would God have taken the trouble to encode the true name of the Savior in the Old Testament prophecies in equidistant letter sequences as explained in a book titled Yeshua Is My Name by Yacov Rambsel? This is explained by Grant Jeffrey in his book, The Signature of God on Jeffrey’s website, though Jeffery does not understand Jesus and Yeshua are not equal, though they are treated as equal for now by those who don’t understand the above issue.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Onderwijsgek. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Netherlands license.