I once again rise to issue a warning that seems to be wasted on our politicians and all of the multi-culturalists who insist that the Muslims who are carefully referred to as "insurgents" or "Islamofascists" are in the minority. Well this "minority" should be referred to as the "silent minority" because I have yet to see any condemnation of the events in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. etc. The local Imam did come out and condemn the acts of terrorism as opposed to Islam but then he pointed out that while the terrorism was wrong it was caused by the Jews. Naturally there was no condemnation of his anti-semitism because THAT would be wrong and opposed to multi-cultural values. The reality is the Qur'an is filled with exhortations to fight all non-believers:
4:76
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who choose disbelief fight in the cause of the transgressors; fight you, therefore against the friends of Satan, surely, the strategem of Satan is ever weak.
4:89
They would like you to reject the faith as they have done themselves, that you may be all alike; therefore, make no friends with them until they emigrate in the cause of Allah. but if they turn back (to hostility ) then capture them and kill them whereever you find them, and do not take any one of them as a friend or helper.
5:51
O you who believe! Do not take these Jews and Christians for Allies. They are allies of one to another and whoso from amongst you takes them for allies is indeed one of them. ...
There are dozens of quotes similar to these and even more damning. The point is that if you are a Muslim and are truly committed to the faith then you cannot be an American or even live in a free and democratic society without resisting that society by force. We see this in England where the Muslims are becoming evermore violent and anti-democratic. We see it in Canada where the Muslim community insists on living under Shar'ia Law. In Minnesota the cab drivers are refusing to take passengers who carry or have consumed alcohol even though it is against the local law for them to do so.
Now this morning we are greeted with the an article describing how Hassan Abujihaad, 31, of Phoenix, has been arrested as a traitor and who has provided classified military information to Islamic Terrorists. The time has long past for America to wake up and recognize we are in the midst of a Religious War -- not a secular war of freedom versus tyranny but of Christendom versus Islam -- a war that has been raging for a thousand years. Muslims are duty bound to kill all non-muslims and to take their possesions -- of course not all Muslims are "good" Muslims like all Christians are not "good" Christians but the Muslim community in general does not condemn the terrorists and many either passively or actively support them. The almost total lack of understanding by our media, officials, the ACLU, and the multiculturalists of Islam and its teachings is appalling and is actually harming us because the terroists rely on this ignorance. They use our very freedoms and morality against us. A Muslim's first loyalty is to Islam, not some secular or national authority and this is a point which Westerners simply fail to grasp. Given a situation where the Muslim must choose between government and Islam, Islam wins and to this point I offer the recent arrest of former Sailor Hassan Abujihaad.
This man is a traitor and should be shot but punishment for traitors is no longer death but imprisonment regardless of the damage they may have caused. Here is a man who provided iinformation on American Fleet positions, their susceptibility to attack, and suggestions on how to attack them. He did not act alone but in concert with an international Islamic organization dedicated to the destruction of America as well as all non-Islamic people and states. Among his co-conspirators was Derrick Shareef of Chicago another Muslim who we would view as an American but who would undoubtedly view himself as a Muslim living in America. THESE PEOPLE DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE SUPERIORITY OF THE STATE OVER THE RELIGION. Nevertheless we continue to hear apologists point out that not all Muslims are radical nor do they support terrorism. Well that may be but then they do not actively oppose it either do they? Where is the hue and cry? How many send dollars to Muslim front organizations or to their relatives who pass it on to the terrorists? We are under threat domestically but instead of recognizing this threat and working to quash it, we find the ACLU and other left wing organizations working to thwart efforts to identify, arrest, and imprison these Muslims.
We need to wake up an recognize we are being inflitrated. We now have a congressman who is a Muslim and what was his first act? To complain about the Bible and to insist on taking the oath on the Qur'an. Not a terribly bad thing but it is the camel's nose, just as the Cab drivers in Minnesota are a first step in the Islamic Drive to install Shar'ia Law. We find Christian symbols being stripped from all buildings both public and private for fear of offending Muslims. No one seems to recognize that Bibles are forbidden in all Muslim countries and the possession of one in Saudi Arabia could bring death. The Muslims demand equality and freedom of religion but are not willing to provide it for others. This is a religious war and right now we are losing through ignorance and a refusal to recognize the threat.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Monday, March 05, 2007
Forecasts and Past Observations
Periodically I review what I have written and sometimes I am surprised at what I have forecasted or described. In this case this is an excerpt from a larger series of comments and observations that I did for Madonna University in 1993. I think my comments are still timely and some of what I have described seems to be coming true. The acceptance of same sex couples seems to have grown and this in turn seems to have reduced the expectation that an executive should have a wife or husband. The rampant racism inherent in the civil rights movement seems to be coming under increased pressure and more and more people see organizations like the NAACP as racist and counter productive. Affirmative action is under attack and is gradually being repealed -- which demonstrates that racial divisions are eroding and that preferential treatment of blacks is eroding the progress they have made. The acceptance of women in the workplace is certainly present today and many top level executives are women. While not all of this has come to pass I think many of these observations have turned out to be relatively accurate.
OCT 15, 1993
I read an article last night titled "Women In Management: The Spare Sex". For the most part this is the same tired old litany of complaint and abuse put out by the feminist movement in increasing quantities. Nevertheless, it does have some points which caused me to think about things.
"Top jobs are designed for people with wives". This is a true statement. They are also designed for people with mistresses, low morals, and a complete disregard for the feelings of others. From personal experience, I have found very few top corporate executives worthy of respect. But this is beside the point. The point is "What is the role of women in business in the future?". Will top jobs then be designed for women with "consorts" ? I think not. We owe the feminist movement our thanks for killing the business suit, for rearranging our priorities, and I think for changing the way we do business. Personally, I think we will see more and more women in top jobs, not because they are women, but because women are nurturing by nature. As our management style changes to one of team play and peer-to-peer relations, women seem to be better at this. I think families and personal priorities will come to the forefront. This means that the forced participation of wives and husbands will fall by the wayside. Why you ask ? Because many top executives will not have wives or husbands. Many will not have any consort, others will have homosexual partners. The logistics and protocols will simply become too difficult.
This same article also quotes a study of contributions made by men and women in meetings. The basis of measurement was the amount of time spent speaking. I was reminded of the sign outside of Cuyama, Calif. which states:
Founded: 1870
Population: 200
Elevation: 910
_____________
Total 2980
From the fact that the women spoke for a shorter total time, the author draws the conclusion they were intimidated and contributed less. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You could just as easily conclude they expressed themselves better or that the subject being discussed was prostate problems. Yet I am confident the average feminist doesn't see this article and its conclusions as an insult to women, but as verification that they are abused and subjugated. This raises the question " What is the future of the feminist movement?". Again I don't know. I think the feminist movement, multi-cultural diversity, political correctness, and racism are tied very closely together and the fate of one is a harbinger for them all. Perhaps a better question might be "What is the future of the White Male ?" Personally, I am offended by much of the press, the media, and the universities and I am not alone. I think there could be a rebound effect with white males becoming much more militant. For instance are any of these institutions racist?
The White Horsemen's Association ?
The Governor Wallace Academy
The White Students Collegiate Scholarship Fund
If I substitute the word Black for White are they still racist? Is the movie "Blackmen Can't (fill in the blank)" racist ? Why are Negroes " Afro-American" and I am "White" Why aren't I "Euro-American" Why is the "Citadel" wrong for being all male while all women's colleges are necessary and needed. Why are organizations and seminars dealing with women and women's issues correct and those dealing with male issues are not ? The list can go on and on, but it leads me to the conclusion that the growing unrest among males in general and white males in particular may manifest itself in the future.
OCT 15, 1993
I read an article last night titled "Women In Management: The Spare Sex". For the most part this is the same tired old litany of complaint and abuse put out by the feminist movement in increasing quantities. Nevertheless, it does have some points which caused me to think about things.
"Top jobs are designed for people with wives". This is a true statement. They are also designed for people with mistresses, low morals, and a complete disregard for the feelings of others. From personal experience, I have found very few top corporate executives worthy of respect. But this is beside the point. The point is "What is the role of women in business in the future?". Will top jobs then be designed for women with "consorts" ? I think not. We owe the feminist movement our thanks for killing the business suit, for rearranging our priorities, and I think for changing the way we do business. Personally, I think we will see more and more women in top jobs, not because they are women, but because women are nurturing by nature. As our management style changes to one of team play and peer-to-peer relations, women seem to be better at this. I think families and personal priorities will come to the forefront. This means that the forced participation of wives and husbands will fall by the wayside. Why you ask ? Because many top executives will not have wives or husbands. Many will not have any consort, others will have homosexual partners. The logistics and protocols will simply become too difficult.
This same article also quotes a study of contributions made by men and women in meetings. The basis of measurement was the amount of time spent speaking. I was reminded of the sign outside of Cuyama, Calif. which states:
Founded: 1870
Population: 200
Elevation: 910
_____________
Total 2980
From the fact that the women spoke for a shorter total time, the author draws the conclusion they were intimidated and contributed less. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You could just as easily conclude they expressed themselves better or that the subject being discussed was prostate problems. Yet I am confident the average feminist doesn't see this article and its conclusions as an insult to women, but as verification that they are abused and subjugated. This raises the question " What is the future of the feminist movement?". Again I don't know. I think the feminist movement, multi-cultural diversity, political correctness, and racism are tied very closely together and the fate of one is a harbinger for them all. Perhaps a better question might be "What is the future of the White Male ?" Personally, I am offended by much of the press, the media, and the universities and I am not alone. I think there could be a rebound effect with white males becoming much more militant. For instance are any of these institutions racist?
The White Horsemen's Association ?
The Governor Wallace Academy
The White Students Collegiate Scholarship Fund
If I substitute the word Black for White are they still racist? Is the movie "Blackmen Can't (fill in the blank)" racist ? Why are Negroes " Afro-American" and I am "White" Why aren't I "Euro-American" Why is the "Citadel" wrong for being all male while all women's colleges are necessary and needed. Why are organizations and seminars dealing with women and women's issues correct and those dealing with male issues are not ? The list can go on and on, but it leads me to the conclusion that the growing unrest among males in general and white males in particular may manifest itself in the future.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Islam - The Religion of Peace?
Once again the issue has been raised regarding Islam and whether or not it is a religion of peace or violence. The Christian Bible uses the word “love” 409 times[1] with 223 of those in the New Testament. The Qur’an uses the word 79 times in these five categories:
(1) Man's love of things. (15 times)
(2) Human love. (15 times)
(3) Man's love for God. (7 times)
(4) God's love in the negative sense, i.e. "God loveth not ..." (22 times)
(5)God's love for man. (20 times)
While the Bible was written in Aramaic it has been translated into Greek, Latin, and a host of other languages including English. Although there have been disputes at various times over the translation of the original text, there is general agreement overall. This is much the situation with the Qur’an which is written in Arabic and translated into English. The above references are from a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, but the translation by Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar which is sanctioned by the Noor Foundation (similar to Gideons) has some significant variances. For example in verses 14:3 and 16:107 Abdullah Yusef uses the word “love” while the Amatul translates the same word as “preferred”. In fact there are some very significant variations between these two translations, with the former translating the Arabic more liberally than the latter. In fact in checking various translations, I have found some very significant variances in the translation which significantly change the meaning.
The failure of the Qur’an to use the word “love” is not in itself an indication that Islam is more violent than Christianity but the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically states (5:51) that a Muslim is NOT to take Jews and Christians for allies and any Muslim who does so becomes one of them. Then again in Chapter 9 there are multiple verses exhorting Muslims to fight the non-believers and those “who have been given he scripture” but do not follow it. In Chapter 22:39 Muslims are given permission to fight in self-defense against those who have attacked them for no reason. Certainly this verse can be stretched to justify the current attacks by Muslims on all non-Muslims on the basis that these people and their governments have wronged or otherwise “attacked” Muslims.
The treatment of prisoners is specifically spelled out in various treaties and in the Geneva Convention in particular, but these are Western views established by secular governments. Within the world of Islam, secular governments are secondary to the religious structure so the Qur’an takes precedence over laws or agreements made by these secular governments. The Qur’an specifically (4:81 and 4:91) calls the killing of captives permissible. Nevertheless Western governments continue to act as if treaties and agreements between them and these Islamic governments carry weight – they do not. The Western Governments continue to abide by the Geneva Convention and act shocked when the Islamofascists do not but instead murder innocent civilians, execute captives in barbaric ways, and hide behind human shields. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically directs Muslims to not take Jews and Christians as allies (5:51) because they are in league against Islam. And 5:101 specifically forbids Muslims from inquiring into divine laws (i.e. Qur’an and Shar’ia) lest they become disbelievers. Of course this simply reinforces the control the Imam’s have over the believers who are kept ignorant by disallowing and rejecting any education outside of the Qur’an.
Now the Muslim Imam’s insist that Islam is a religion of peace and go to great lengths to demonstrate this. But the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence to fight, to kill, to destroy. Certainly the word love is found in the Qur’an but the usage of this word is largely an matter of interpretation and certainly does not exhort the reader or believer to “love” their fellow man or to forgive trespasses. While it is true that there are many passages in the Qur’an that deal with forgiveness that are just as many that preach violence against non-believers. An example of this dichotomy is found in chapters 5:32 and 5:33
If anyone slays a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -it would be as if he slew all people.And if anyone saves a life,it would be as if he saved the life of all people.
However this quote does not include the entire verse and the beginning of this verse states “
Because of this incident we laid down for the Children of Israel that he who kills a human being – unless it be for murdering a person or for (reforming) disorder in the country ....
The next verse (5:33) is a little more specific and states:
The only recompense of those who make war against Allah and His Messenger and who strive hard to create disorder in the land, is (according to the nature of the crime) that tehy be executed or crucified to death, or that their hands and feet be cut off on account of their opposition, or their free movement in the land be banned ...”
So the reality is that these verses are taken out of context and thus can be interpreted in various ways. These verses are part of Section 5 of Chapter 5 which deals with the sin of murder as described between Cain and Abel. But it also puts this crime and others into the framework of crimes against Allah and describes the punishments for those who commit crimes against Allah.
There are various verses that exhort the believer to violence but 9:29 through 9:35 generally encourage or direct the true believer to attack Christians and Jews as non-believers. So while Islam may view itself as a religion of peace it does not require much of a stress for a radical Muslim to find that it instructs him to attack and destroy all non-believers. The fact is that the current war on terror is simply another Crusade between Islam and Christendom.
[1] www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Themes/love.htm
(1) Man's love of things. (15 times)
(2) Human love. (15 times)
(3) Man's love for God. (7 times)
(4) God's love in the negative sense, i.e. "God loveth not ..." (22 times)
(5)God's love for man. (20 times)
While the Bible was written in Aramaic it has been translated into Greek, Latin, and a host of other languages including English. Although there have been disputes at various times over the translation of the original text, there is general agreement overall. This is much the situation with the Qur’an which is written in Arabic and translated into English. The above references are from a translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, but the translation by Amatul Rahman Omar and Abdul Mannan Omar which is sanctioned by the Noor Foundation (similar to Gideons) has some significant variances. For example in verses 14:3 and 16:107 Abdullah Yusef uses the word “love” while the Amatul translates the same word as “preferred”. In fact there are some very significant variations between these two translations, with the former translating the Arabic more liberally than the latter. In fact in checking various translations, I have found some very significant variances in the translation which significantly change the meaning.
The failure of the Qur’an to use the word “love” is not in itself an indication that Islam is more violent than Christianity but the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically states (5:51) that a Muslim is NOT to take Jews and Christians for allies and any Muslim who does so becomes one of them. Then again in Chapter 9 there are multiple verses exhorting Muslims to fight the non-believers and those “who have been given he scripture” but do not follow it. In Chapter 22:39 Muslims are given permission to fight in self-defense against those who have attacked them for no reason. Certainly this verse can be stretched to justify the current attacks by Muslims on all non-Muslims on the basis that these people and their governments have wronged or otherwise “attacked” Muslims.
The treatment of prisoners is specifically spelled out in various treaties and in the Geneva Convention in particular, but these are Western views established by secular governments. Within the world of Islam, secular governments are secondary to the religious structure so the Qur’an takes precedence over laws or agreements made by these secular governments. The Qur’an specifically (4:81 and 4:91) calls the killing of captives permissible. Nevertheless Western governments continue to act as if treaties and agreements between them and these Islamic governments carry weight – they do not. The Western Governments continue to abide by the Geneva Convention and act shocked when the Islamofascists do not but instead murder innocent civilians, execute captives in barbaric ways, and hide behind human shields. Furthermore, the Qur’an specifically directs Muslims to not take Jews and Christians as allies (5:51) because they are in league against Islam. And 5:101 specifically forbids Muslims from inquiring into divine laws (i.e. Qur’an and Shar’ia) lest they become disbelievers. Of course this simply reinforces the control the Imam’s have over the believers who are kept ignorant by disallowing and rejecting any education outside of the Qur’an.
Now the Muslim Imam’s insist that Islam is a religion of peace and go to great lengths to demonstrate this. But the reality is that the Qur’an is filled with exhortations to violence to fight, to kill, to destroy. Certainly the word love is found in the Qur’an but the usage of this word is largely an matter of interpretation and certainly does not exhort the reader or believer to “love” their fellow man or to forgive trespasses. While it is true that there are many passages in the Qur’an that deal with forgiveness that are just as many that preach violence against non-believers. An example of this dichotomy is found in chapters 5:32 and 5:33
If anyone slays a person- unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land -it would be as if he slew all people.And if anyone saves a life,it would be as if he saved the life of all people.
However this quote does not include the entire verse and the beginning of this verse states “
Because of this incident we laid down for the Children of Israel that he who kills a human being – unless it be for murdering a person or for (reforming) disorder in the country ....
The next verse (5:33) is a little more specific and states:
The only recompense of those who make war against Allah and His Messenger and who strive hard to create disorder in the land, is (according to the nature of the crime) that tehy be executed or crucified to death, or that their hands and feet be cut off on account of their opposition, or their free movement in the land be banned ...”
So the reality is that these verses are taken out of context and thus can be interpreted in various ways. These verses are part of Section 5 of Chapter 5 which deals with the sin of murder as described between Cain and Abel. But it also puts this crime and others into the framework of crimes against Allah and describes the punishments for those who commit crimes against Allah.
There are various verses that exhort the believer to violence but 9:29 through 9:35 generally encourage or direct the true believer to attack Christians and Jews as non-believers. So while Islam may view itself as a religion of peace it does not require much of a stress for a radical Muslim to find that it instructs him to attack and destroy all non-believers. The fact is that the current war on terror is simply another Crusade between Islam and Christendom.
[1] www.answering-islam.de/Main/Quran/Themes/love.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)