The Law of Saturation, Islam's Trojan Horse - The art of taking over a country without firing a shot

During Muhammad’s early “ministry,” he was merely a preacher spreading Islam by talking about his revelations and spreading the word of Islam peacefully, even though this caused confrontations between him and the Jews and followers of other religions, of which there were 365 or so in Mecca at the time.

So how did every Arab in Saudi Arabia become Muslim by the time of his death? After he became a warrior for Allah and a Jihadist and politician in Medina, his followers increased rapidly. Converted Muslims who engaged in Jihad shared in war booty taken from non-Muslims. This was not a part of Islam in Mecca where he garnered only about 150 converts in 13 years. It was a part of the appeal of Islam, profit and gain of material goods, land and slaves.

Inhabitants were oppressed and persecuted, rights were stripped away from them and they were forced to become Muslims to relieve the pressure on them and their families. Those that wanted to hold onto their former religion were forced to pay a tax, jizya, for the right to do so. And this came with severe restrictions and punishments if they were violated.

These people became dhimmis and Muslims say they are a protected people, but it is merely protection as though they were one’s property. Their rights were limited and they were second-class citizens at best. They were forced to wear strange clothes so they would not be mistaken for a Muslim. They had to cross the street to allow a Muslim to pass. They were often forbidden to leave their house when it rained because they might step in a puddle of water and a Muslim might step in it later contaminating themselves.

They could not ride a horse but a poorly mule was acceptable and at times they were only allowed to ride it backwards. Christians had to wear funny dunce-style hats to distinguish them from Muslims. The yellow patch Adolph Hitler made Jews wear in World War II was inspired by the yellow cloth Jews were made to wear in some Islamic-conquered countries at various times in history. Christians were allowed to wear a cross around their neck, but it had to be too large to conceal and weigh about 2 pounds. Everything they were demanded to do was meant to humiliate them, as the Qur’an suggested. To escape these torturous demands all they had to do was to become Muslims, so after years or generations, they did just that and the Muslim population increased, not by a desire to embrace Islam, but as a means to escape unreasonable financial and societal demands placed upon them.

These tactics have limited success in today’s modern world so how does Islam grow to the point where a country becomes Islamic? Saturation.  is how.

As the number of Muslims in any given country grows, demands begin to be made that the non-Muslims conform to the edicts of Islam even though they are not Muslims themselves. And some compliance always seems to follow. Closing the swimming pool or an amusement park on a certain day reserving it just for Muslims. Remove offensive symbols, such as crosses, from their view. Remove nativity scenes from areas where a Muslim might see them because it is offensive to them. Demanding that women be allowed to cover their faces for driver’s license photos. All these appeasements and more, make us Sharia-compliant and it makes us behave like Muslims, even when we are not.

As the Islamic population grows, more demands are made, more appeasement follows and Muslims begin to gain power. In today’s world, even with the violence we see in Islamic countries, violence isn’t always necessary.

The immigration into non-Muslim countries by thousands of Muslims in the past few years has seen countries readily forsake their own values and in the name of tolerance, accept Islamic traditions and doctrine and even make excuses for crimes committed by Muslims because it is simply their culture to act a certain way. Sharia Law is at first tolerated, then promoted as acceptable and then allowed to become the law of the land for Muslims.

No-Go Zones, places where Muslims are allowed to govern themselves instead of being ruled by the country’s own law, enable the spread of Sharia-compliant communities. Pieces of their own country are given up freely by governments and slowly the country loses its identity.

By sheer saturation and appeasement, entire countries become Islamic. Turkey, for example, used to be a Christian nation called Anatolia. Slowly over a period of about 400 years, it became what it is today, a Muslim country where over 99% of its people are Muslim and the remaining portion of a percent of the population are oppressed inhabitants.

To deny that it could ever happen in America is to deny the historical record of Islam. Every country that allows Muslim immigrants and tolerates their bigotry against non-Muslims and makes excuses for their culture of oppression and domination, eventually succumbs to the growing Islamic influence and becomes Islamic in the end.

After all, once Muslims numbers grow to a majority through continued immigration and birth rates that are some of the highest in the world, cultures dating back thousands of years die and are replaced by an Islamic society.

No country that allows unbridled immigration of Muslims will survive. Coexistence is a myth. Muslims are taught from their Qur’an that non-believers are the vilest of all creatures and that tricking, lying and deceiving non-Muslims is allowed until all become followers of Allah.

There is a point when this saturation can no longer be quelled. When a country reaches that point, becoming a Sharia-compliant country is inevitable. Their culture, values and society will cease to exist and there is no going back to what they once were.

We are seeing that in the UK, portions of Europe and Africa. Australia is under assault as is America. Islam has one goal, to see every human being either bowing to Allah and His government established, or their extinction. There a can be no middle ground, no compromise, and appeasement must come from the non-Muslims, not from Muslims themselves.

Immigration is Jihad. Every time some Muslim moves to a non-Muslim land, he is practicing what Muhammad did. Muhammad’s migration to Medina marked the beginning of the end for that city. It is not about the desire for a better life but it is done in the name of Islam to conquer that city or that country for Allah, and it works. And in today’s climate of appeasement and tolerance of the most intolerable doctrine on the planet, it will always work.

Refusal to see the historic record of Islam for exactly what it has always been, is suicidal for any culture or society. Islam is a Trojan Horse and once allowed behind the walls, no city can survive.

Islam's Most Successful Campaign

Prior to September 11, 2001 most Americans knew little of the second largest religion in the world, Islam, outside of the fact that most Muslims lived in foreign countries. In the decade since we have been acutely aware of Islam's role in the world, almost all of which has been negative in scope.

The term Jihad was not known or understood and for the most part Muslims were seen through Western eyes which provided a distorted view at best. Distorted because we tend to view the world as if it is an extension of our own perceptions. We try and imagine Muslims as "being just like us." Americans tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. When we see conflict we try to invent a cause that puts people in the best light, often excusing behaviors we would otherwise deem unacceptable.

This has caused us to see Muslims as not much different from ourselves. After all, they, like us, are human beings so how different can they be when we get right down to it?

With the rise of various terrorist organizations we have had no choice but to attempt to understand Muslims and get a grasp of just what Islam is. This in itself is a very difficult task seeing as how there appears to be as many views of Islam as there are people trying to explain it. But one thing is certain, we are more aware now than we have ever been that we share a planet with a culture vastly different from ours.

Since its founding in the 7th Century, Islam has been on a campaign of self-promotion. More recently, it has had a great deal of help in public relations as many strive fiercely to make excuses for actions made in the name of Islam, either on behalf of their Prophet Mohammed or their god Allah.

One of the first things that happened following the events of 9/11 was that government agencies began to shape our perception of Islam. Airport security, such as it was before that fateful morning, was instructed not to profile Muslims for special attention. This in itself caught many of us  by surprise seeing as how the 19 hijackers that took the lives of 2,996 Americans, were all Muslims.

In the events that have occurred since then we have seen a refusal to acknowledge even the participation of Muslims even when it was the first obvious conclusion that could possibly be drawn.

Upon taking office as president of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has made it a personal mission to erase obvious connections with Islam when terrorist attacks happen whether here or abroad. Terms like "Islamic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorist" have been removed from official documents in efforts to cover-up connections even a child could make.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been forced to change its training methods that singled out Muslims even though 99% of all the world's terrorist activity is Muslim-related.

The actions of Army Major Nidal Hassen on November 5, 2009, though he shot and killed 14 including an unborn child on the Fort Hood Army base and wounded over 30 others while shouting "Allahu Ackbar," was called "workplace violence" by the Obama administration in efforts to hide the Muslim connection, as obvious as it was.

This attack wasn't the first to happen on American soil. For that one would have to go back to April 14, 1972 when ten Muslims, members of a mosque in New York city phoned in a false alarm only to ambush responding police officers, killing one and injuring three.

A police officer were also killed and another wounded by Muslims on January 19, 1973 in Brooklyn, New York when he responded to a robbery at a sporting goods store where they were trying to steal weapons.

Since then we have had Muslim terrorist attacks in cities across the country, such as Bethesda, MD, three times in Washington, DC, Berkley, CA, eight times in Oakland CA, Ingleside, CA, Savou, IL, St. Louis, MO, Tuscon, AZ, New York City, NY, Langley, VA, Lompoc, CA, and in Atlanta, GA all prior to September 11, 2001. These attacks killed 45 and injured another ten. Most were never reported honestly.

Since September 11, 2001 there have been 32,580 separate deadly Islamic Jihad attacks worldwide as of February 21, 2018. Today the entire world is aware of the Islamic threat, though too often excused or downplayed by the media or government agencies.

But these attacks or campaigns, against the non-Muslim world do not include the most successful Islam has perpetrated since its inception. Here are some contenders:

Jihad today has its roots in both the actions of Islam's Prophet Mohammed and in their Holy Scripture, the Qur'an. For Mohammed's part, when he entered Medina there were three tribes of Jews. As Mohammed's political power grew he began to take the property of those Jews, killing some and exiling others. When he finally dealt with the last tribe he lay siege on them for twenty-five days. Upon their surrender, the women were sold as sex slaves to raise money for his continued Jihad, the children were placed into Muslim homes to be raised as Muslims and 8oo men and boys who had reached puberty were beheaded in the marketplace as their bodies fell into a trench dug for that purpose. This however, was not Islam's most successful campaign.

Following the Battle of Khaybar Mohammed established a new form of status, the Dhimmi. Realizing that a dead Jew brings only so much material and monetary reward, Mohammed created a class of people who were to be granted certain rights. They could, should they choose to, remain a Jew and continue to worship in their religion, although with many very restrictive regulations and if they agreed to pay the jizah, a tax equal to about half their income. They continued to work the land as farmers or operate as businessmen as they had before so they could pay the heavy tax. Of course, not accepting this arrangement meant death. This form of oppression was the last great political creation to rule the world. However, this was not Islam's most successful campaign.

There were many Muslim leaders over the centuries. One such ruler was Al-Hakim (996-1021) who served as Caliph in Egypt. It was under his rule that a special department was created for the sole purpose of keeping track of all the property he confiscated from his murdered victims for the ten years of his reign. Christians and Jews were directed to wear special clothing so they could not be mistaken for Muslims. Many Christians converted to Islam to escape the oppression and his destruction of holy sites and murder of Christians were a part of the reason for the Crusades years later.  He built the House of Science, the first real Islamic university and he was notorious for his regulations on behavior. Chess, musical instruments, gambling, wine, beer, grapes, honey, some vegetables and some fish, singing, the wearing of jewelry by women, and even their leaving the house were all forbidden. Dogs were slaughtered and a hatred for dogs persists until this day by Muslims. He even murdered members of his family, high-ranking officials and drowned his concubines. His power was almost unequaled yet this was not Islam's most successful campaign.

Tamerlane became an Islamic ruler in 1370 and was widely known for his building of citadels, baths, gardens, and markets, much of which still exists today. His military campaigns saw the entire area of Central Asia under his control. In Afghanistan he was known to have removed the heads of his enemies and built them into his towers with the faces turned toward the roads as a warning of any with the idea of resisting his rule.

When one of his garrisons was destroyed he countered by killing one city's entire population of 70,000 including a delegation of children sent to appease him. Later he killed 50,000 Hindu captives as retaliation in a single bloody hour. Still this campaign was not the most successful of Islamic conquest.

Abdul Hamid II was quoted as saying "I will soon settle those Armenians. I will give them a box on the ears that will make them smart and relinquish their revolutionary ambitions." His perception of the Armenian reform that he feared would take place caused him to be true to his word. In 1984, at the sound of a bugle to signal the planned attack, mobs of Muslims and troops attacked Armenian headquarters. Men were murdered in the streets, women were raped, property destroyed and when it was said an done over 200,000 were dead, although the number has been given as high as one million. The world stood silent and scarcely reported the massacre. Still this was not Islamic most successful campaign.

Jihad against the non-Muslim has survived to this day, taking a total of 270 million lives in the process over the past 1400 years. Of those murdered by Islamic Jihad, 120 million were Africans, 60 million were Christian, 80 million were Hindus, and 10 million were Buddhists. But these campaigns were not the most successful for Islam.

The most successful campaign of Islamic advancement and progression began quietly in 1996 when the Runnymede Trust created the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia. The following year in their report entitled "Islamphobia, A Challenge for Us All", Islamophobia, which some believe has been around for decades, took on a more defined face. It was explained to be "an outlook or world-view involving an unfounded dread and dislike of Muslims, which results in practices of exclusion and discrimination."

To describe it in more detail, the report went on to say that Islamophobia is the "dread or hatred of Islam and therefore, [the] fear and dislike of all Muslims." Since that time the term has become so widely used one would think it has been with us for centuries. It has effectively stifled and muzzled any critical view of Islam. It has make it easy for anyone who questions Islam or Muslims in general, to be labeled an Islamophobe and therefore even their comments are forever deemed unworthy of even addressing or replying to. The term has incorrectly been expanded to mean "racist" and this stigma further shelters Islam from any critical review. The opinion of a Islamophobe is considered one which sees no value in Islam either culturally, socially, economically or even in the public forum. Therefore, it is to be disregarded and not worthy of note, no matter how pertinent or important it might otherwise be.

Once identified as an Islamophobe, nothing that person has to say ever reaches the mind of the listener for in fact, they cease to listen at all. Important issues are never intelligently discussed. Debate is impossible when one party refuses to acknowledge the validity of the opposing point of view.

Smearing one person or a whole group of people with the term Islamophobia, effectively silences their opinion. Curiously, personal growth only comes when one is open-minded to other possibilities other than the ones they currently hold. Using the Islamophobia brush to paint anyone or any group has dangerous consequences. It hides the truth and even when it is a matter of life and death.

Like a child holding his or her hands over their ears as they chant "La La La La La La" to drown out he speakers voice, the term Islamophobia has become a childish act to silence dissent and even the asking of important questions. Good people with their hearts in the right place, who seek to warn others of the terrible consequences of their ignorance and lack of knowledge, are not heard.

That is the true purpose of this word, to obscure the truth and protect it from being exposed. In today's world groups like ISIS work their most atrocious evil and for fear of being called Islamophobic, we are subdued into silence. Things that must be said are kept inside. For fear of being called a racist, a bigot, a hater, in other words Islamophobic, good people, with good questions or necessary observations, cower quietly in the corner. The term Islamophobia has won another victory and the evil that should have been displayed for all the world to see is hidden once again from sight, even if it is in plain view.

The creation of the term Islamophobia and its acceptance into our culture is the most successful campaign Islam has ever won. Every time you hear the term used, whether by a talking head on TV, a speaker at a university, in front of the green wall at the United Nations or from the podium of the President of the United States, be assured that Islam just won another victory and their campaign to cloud the issue and hide the truth of what Islam is and what its goals actually are, remain unseen.

That is the most successful campaign Islam has ever engaged in. It will be the most successful tool in Islam's arsenal used to spread its oppression, racism, bigotry and evil across the face of the globe, because we help wield it for them.

Glen Spicer

Bin Laden’s Death – Just a Bump in the Road

While Americans rejoice in their hearts and celebrate in the streets at a perceived victory over radical Islam with the death of Osama Bin Laden, in reality, it is a mere bump in the road for Islam. Though a devout Muslim who followed the Koran and teachings of Islam, Bin Laden was not Islam. Islam did not die with him. Radical world-changing strategies did not die with him. The Islamic quest for global domination is still alive and well, and we will soon have proof of it.

For Muslim apologists to admit to the tie that binds all Islamic terrorists - the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad – they would have to admit that the very philosophy of Islam is what we are at odds with. Few have the stomach for that profession though an increasing number of Americans are coming to that realization.

Bin Laden followed the teachings of the Koran and operated exactly as Muhammad would operate were he alive today. Some say that the attack upon the financial system that occurred on 9/11 is not an Islamic form of warfare. However, Muhammad burned the fig trees of a Jewish community when he attacked them which was a direct attack at their financial means of support.

Destroying the Twin Towers financial district was exactly what Muhammad’s Islam commands. All that study Islam know that if Muhammad did it or said it, it is forever a part of Islam. (The only exception being that Allah gave Muhammad permission to marry as many women as he wanted while “regular” Muslims are only allowed to marry four.)

Suicide is forbidden in Islam so do we conclude that suicide bombers are not following Islam when they destroy themselves? No we can’t. They are not suicide victims in the eyes of Islam, but rather martyrs and as such will have the gates of Paradise swung open for them and 70 virgins eagerly awaiting their arrival.

We must understand the dualism in Islam and true meanings behind its beliefs, which often differ greatly with what our perception is. Martyrdom, especially when it takes the lives of unbelievers in the process, is not only encouraged, but celebrated. Their deaths are not mourned but their “wedding in Paradise” is the celebrated joyous occasion. We have a lot to learn about the motives of Islam, its purpose and goals. Sadly, Political Correctness denies us the truth.

Worshipping at the altar of Political Correctness must stop if we are to survive the onslaught against the freedom and liberty we have always enjoyed as a nation. We are told to tolerate philosophies such as Islam knowing full well that once it has a foothold in America, freedom and tolerance will be the first casualties of war.

Bin Laden followed Muhammad’s example in his attacks upon us on 9/11. Moderate Muslims may disagree but moderate Muslims don’t set policy for Islam or the umma, the Muslim community. The Koran and Muhammad does that.

If the death of Bin Laden brings retaliation upon us, it is to be expected and unavoidable. Yet his death was necessary because negotiation "without preconditions" was never a viable approach to getting Bin Laden to cease his efforts against the United States. And unfortunately for President Obama, who called for such an approach in dealing with Iran in 2009, such a tactic will never be effective against an ideology which allows for no compromise. If anything is to be given up in this war against radical Islam, it will be given up by us, not them.

If Bin Laden was following the Koran, as I state here, which verses led him to treat us with contempt and gave him the motivation to attack innocents when Islam teaches that such an action is forbidden? First understand this: Non-believers, kafirs and infidels are not considered innocent to Islam. Because we have not accepted Allah as the only true God and Muhammad as his prophet, we are fair game.

The Koran states clearly its contempt for the kafir and that contempt guides all of Islam’s actions toward us. Consider that a kafir is cursed by Allah (Koran 2:89), deaf, dumb and blind (2:18), fuel for the Fire of Hell (3:10), headed for severe, shameful and humiliating punishment (3:176,178; 4:151), friends of Satan (4:76), blasphemers (8:35), impure (8:37), worst of beasts (8:55), liars (29:68), deceivers (40:4), delusional (67:20), vain (74:45), stingy (75:31), Doers of Iniquity (80:42), and the worst of creatures (98:6).

Legally a kafir can be mocked (Koran 83:34); beheaded (47:4); schemed and plotted against (86:15); terrorized (8:12); and is cursed by Allah (33:60). Is it any wonder that America is a target for Islamic terrorism? We are the lowest of the low in the eyes of Allah, thus it follows that all devout Muslims see us the same way, no matter what we hear the misleading apologetic “talking heads” say on TV.

There are nine things held by Islam as inherently “unclean”. Listed in order they are: “urine, stool, semen, blood, corpses, dogs, pigs, kafirs and intoxicating liquids”. Number eight, right next to pigs, is the kafir. That is you and I and all those in the world who have not yielded their will and devotion to Allah. We are considered as unclean as the rest on the list, yet Islam and many misinformed, misguided Americans and politicians demand we tolerate it.

Kafir is the “N” word in Islam and we will never be respected as human beings worthy of existence, much less ever be seen as equals.

The origin of the word “kafir” means a “concealer”, or one who conceals the truth of Islam. The dualism of Islam established two sets of rules that govern how people are to be treated. One set for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. They are never melted together into one rule of ethics but are always separate and at odds. Bin Laden operated with this principle in mind.

Osama Bin Laden hated the kafir and he brought to us, who he saw as kafirs, what Allah and Muhammad instructed him to, nothing more, nothing less. It would be foolish to believe, as many do, that our struggle against radical Islam has been struck a mighty blow with the death of Bin Laden. It hasn’t.

Islam’s goal of bringing the entire world under the rule of Allah has not been revoked. The intolerance and racism of Islam against all of those considered less than Muslims has not been rescinded. Islam considers itself the “Religion of Peace” simply because it believes that once the entire world is under Allah and Sharia Law, it will be a world of peace. Peace Islamic style is not peace American style.

If you want a picture of Islamic peace, look at what is happening in any Islamic-controlled country. Chaos abounds, religious persecution is the order of the day, intolerance of any opposing viewpoint is tantamount to supreme order. Men and women convicted of adultery are stoned in public display. Women whose dress doesn’t meet “code” are openly beaten in the streets. Islamic “tolerance” is a myth.

The “Golden Rule” we seek to aspire to follow, though we often fall short, is non-existent in Islam. Likewise, Jesus’ instruction to turn the other cheek does not exist in Islam. Islamic guidelines, as instructed by Allah in Koran 2:190, reads thus: : whoever offereth violence to you, offer ye the like violence to him, and fear God, and know that God is with those who fear Him." Yet we are daily asked to be tolerant of Islamic presence in our communities, schools and government.

Celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden as a final victory is like celebrating your team’s win because they made a basket to end the first quarter. The game isn’t over and victory is yet undetermined at that point. To think so is foolishly premature.

The victory against radical Islam is not over either. The violence will continue. The advancement upon our own soil will continue with certainty. The death of Osama Bin Laden is merely a bump in the road that will barely slow down Islamic advancement toward its eternal goals. Ignoring that will only make us more vulnerable to attack and more open to acceptance of the world’s most intolerant philosophy mankind has ever spawned.

So who is the victor here? That is yet to be seen. Only one question remains: Will Islam’s resolve to see us under Allah’s rule be stronger than our resolve to remain free? Those who desire victory the most and pursue it whole-heartedly and honestly will be the ones who claim it. This is one contest of will and determination in which we cannot afford to come in second.

The Idea of Muslim Loyalty and the Dangers it Poses to America

Although it is slow to gain traction, Americans are beginning to see the signs of a part of the umma, the global Muslim community, which will forever be a thorn in the side of America and consequently that of all Americans. That is the issue of Muslim loyalty, especially Muslims in the military.

Liberals in America don’t see loyalty to ones former homeland or culture a problem. In fact, President Obama calls diversity in America one of our greatest strengths when in reality it is a threat of grave proportions. Immigrants who come to our country to become a part of it, to assimilate and to truly become Americans are not the issue and over the years legal immigrants who gave up their former life to become a part of our culture and society have added much to the development of this nation.

The ones however that come only for the benefits, welfare, special deals and perks while holding onto their citizenship of their birthplace, and who hold to an underlying desire to transform our nation into a mirror of their political philosophy, are a threat to America’s very survival. And nowhere is it becoming more obvious as in the case of Muslim loyalty to Islam and to other Muslims, placing their loyalty to Americans and America itself second.

When choices have to be made, one always chooses in favor of their greatest loyalty, whether it is to simple desire, family, religion, society, humanity culture and tradition, or to a country. We always make decisions based upon our strongest connections and priorities. Muslims have sworn their allegiance to Allah, Muhammad and the Muslim community. When push comes to shove, as it does on national security issues, they will always chose their faith over your friendship or their status as Americans.

In November of 2009, America got its first glimpse into what lengths Muslim Americans will go to when faced with the choice of loyalty to their sworn oath to stand for the United States or to stand against the United States when it clashes with Islamic principles.

Major Nidal Malik Hassan, an Army psychiatrist, had S.O.A. (Soldier of Allah or Slave of Allah depending on who you ask) printed on his business cards. He was known for his radical views against the Iraq war and the actions of the United States against his fellow Muslims and vocalized them in meetings he had while operating as an Army Officer. His rdical views were ignored out of a desire to tolerant of the religion of Islam even though it is an ideology contrary to American values.

During the attack Hassan was reported to have shouted “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great) as he fired his weapon. This was become known to Americans as a battle cry made as terrorists detonate bombs, or as Hassan did, fire their weapons in an attempt to kill in the name of Allah and the defense of Islam against a perceived aggressive enemy.

Sadly, after over a year of “investigation” our government cowardly decided to label Hassan’s killing of 13 people plus one unborn baby and the wounding of over 30 others as “workplace violence”. This exhibits the Obama’s administration’s reluctantly to see facts right in front of them. This is however in keeping with Obama’s mantra that we are “not now or will we ever be at war with Islam”.

With each new terrorist attempt aimed at our citizenry, a great portion of Americans are beginning to see that proclamation as less palatable.

More recently, the American soldier Nasser Abdo has said, “I don't believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don't believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim.”

Abdo is stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky where some 5,000 soldiers are being deployed to fight in Afghanistan against the Islamic Taliban. He has made his choice as to which loyalty he is more commanded to follow. He refuses to go to war against his fellow Muslims even though the ones he is being sent to fight against are actively involved in the killing of his fellow American soldiers. Muslim loyalty trumps American loyalty.

In Abdo’s case he may end up in prison instead of Afghanistan for his “religious convictions”. Watch for liberal organizations to come to his defense as they are prone to do helping anyone taking a stand against America.

Do not soldiers take an oath to defend America if not verbally at least is that not the intent of enlistment in the armed forces in the first place?

What are Muslims taught about oaths in Islam? Islamic traditions found in the Hadith, one of the three sets of writings Muslim faith is based upon, states: “Abu Bakr faithfully kept his oaths until Allah revealed to Mohammad the atonement for breaking them. Afterwards he said, ‘If I make a pledge and later discover a more worthy pledge, then I will take the better action and make amends for my earlier promise’.”

In other words, an oath is good only as long as you don’t later decide there is something better to believe in, making it in effect useless and not worthy to uphold. In the case of military service such switching of loyalties is a threat to our nation security.

Really however, do Muslims ever switch their allegiances? In their hearts did they ever swear to protect America in the first place? Surely they knew where their priorities lay all along.

So what of Muslims serving in the armed forces? In my opinion, based on what I know of Islamic loyalty, I believe that every Muslim soldier who sees himself as a Muslim first and an American second, is a national security risk for sabotage, espionage and even overt attacks against their fellow soldiers.

Is this view supported by the Qur’an? In Surah 5:51 it states, “O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your protectors: they are but protectors of each other. And he amongst you who turns to them is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.”

Qur’an 3:28: “Let not the Believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than Believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that you may guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (to remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.”

There are 14 such verses in the Qur’an admonishing Believers (Muslims) not to take for themselves friends, protectors or even helpers from among the unbelievers and to do so risks the anger and wrath of Allah. The exception being that you can make “fake” friends with unbelievers in an attempt to keep yourself from harm. Deception is widely promoted in Islam.

Qur’an 58:22 shows just how personal it can get. In part it reads: “You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred.”

It doesn’t get much more personal than that. This verse says that you will not find love in anyone who rejects Allah or Muhammad, be they father, son, brother or other kin. The line between Muslims and non-Muslims is a pretty well-defined one. Only Islamic apologists who praise diversity at all costs and tolerance of every culture no matter how perverted seek to blur that line.

A Muslim soldier has dual loyalties, on the surface at least. Inwardly they have only one. A true Muslim never swears loyalty to anyone or anything above Allah, Muhammad, or Islam. Counting on their loyalty to America can be a devastating decision as the Fort Hood shootings proved emphatically.

Muslims were however killed in the attacks of 9/11 and the Qur’ans admonishment against Muslims killing Muslims seems to contradict the idea that Islam permits such killings. However, if you will notice a fine detail in the above mentioned verse 5:51 it says that when Muslims choose associations with unbelievers they become “of them”. This phrase erases all obligation to take care not to kill other Muslims. Once they become one of “them” they themselves become fair game.

This principle was defined in Muhammad’s time when a specific attack was planned for nighttime. His officers were concerned that in the darkness innocent children or women might be inadvertently killed. Muhammad told them not to worry about it because they were “of them”. Collateral damage is acceptable in the advance of Islam through conquest as lines of morality are erased. September 11, 2001 proved that.

Should Muslim soldiers then be restricted to non-combative positions so as not to be placed in a position of having to kill fellow Muslims? Even that will not work as working in the food industry, administrative positions, motor pool or hospital workers gives aid in one form or another to soldiers who will be fighting Muslims. They see this as aiding and abetting the enemy. They will be viewed by Islam as coconspirators in the attacks upon Muslims on any field of battle. The only option is not to allow Muslims to serve in the United States Armed Forces in any capacity.

Muslim loyalty does exist, but only for Islam. If a Muslim says he will defend America against his fellow brother, Muhammad calls him an apostate, a traitor and worthy of the same fate as the unbeliever. So why do they continue to call themselves Muslims if they have indeed turned their back on Islamic teachings? Because in their heart they have not abandoned Islam.

Muhammad’s words recorded in Bukhari 8,73,70 makes it plain. “Harming a Muslim is an evil act; killing a Muslim means rejecting Allah”. Simply put, for a Muslim soldier to kill a fellow Muslim is an act of rejecting Allah and without loyalty to Allah, one is not a Muslim.

In Bukhari 1,2,12 Muhammad explains “True faith comes when a man’s personal desires mirror his wishes for other Muslims”. Since a Muslim’s desire is not to be killed, he cannot seek or participate in the killing of other Muslims and still be a man of faith who follows Islam.

Simply put, Islam divided the world into two camps, dar al Islam, the land of submission of which Muslims are a part, and dar al harb, the land of war, everyone else. It is an impossibility for a Muslim to be a part of both worlds, promoting Islamic goals and purpose on one hand and being a participant in war against those very ideals on the other hand.

But can be believe them if they say they are Muslims yet loyal to America? Hardly. Islam is deceptive is anything at all. The principle of Taqiyya, Sacred Deception, allows for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in the advancement of Islam. We have already seen that an oath is little more than a convenient lie told to deceive since the oath can be retracted when another better idea or cause comes along. Muslims are forbidden to lie, cheat, steal from, harm or kill fellow Muslims. The courtesy does not however extend to you and I as unbelievers and kafirs.

Therefore, although Muslim loyalty does exist, it pertains only to loyalty to Islam and the umma, the global Muslim community. As such allowing Muslims to serve in the protection of the American ideal, society and community is like unquestioningly hiring known spies and saboteurs to fill our ranks. It is absurd and suicidal.

So it appears that the Obama mantra that we are not at war with Islam is as foolish as it is untrue. We are at war with Islam and every American Muslim (forgive the contradiction in terms) soldier in uniform is an enemy soldier behind our lines and needs to be treated a such.

Until and unless we treat Islam as the political philosophy it is, rather than as simply another religion, we will never be successful in the war against terrorism or in the effort to save America as the last free country in the world. It is a fight we cannot afford to lose and one we cannot win with the ranks of our armed forces filled with those loyal only to our enemy.

Burning the Qur'an - The Right Statement Made in the Wrong Way?

The proposed Burn the Koran Day being held by the Dove World Outreach Center is drawing a great deal of attention and correctly placed criticism not only in Florida and America, but worldwide.

I understand the intent of Pastor Terry Jones and his determination to express his view that “Islam is of the Devil”, which is the title of his book on the subject. But there are other things to consider as well, such as the overall goal of this action.

The Qur’an is probably one of the most respected holy books of any religion and it also has the distinction of being probably the most reviled as well. Islam is becoming more of a polarizing subject as Americans ponder the building of an Islamic community center near ground zero and the building of an Islamic-shaped crescent memorial at the site of the Flight 93 airplane crash site.

Muslims go to great lengths to express respect for their book. Their hands must be washed and clean before it is handled and some have been imprisoned in Islamic countries for not treating it respectful enough. A Christian minister had a hand and foot cut off because he spoke about the Qur’an with disrespect. Muslims take this symbol of Islam very seriously.

However, the greatest mistake that Jones’ Church will make is not the actual burning the Qur'an. It is that by doing so they are placing themselves in a position where their exposure of Islam will not be heard or respected after this.

In effect, the truths about Islam that the Dove World Outreach Center will seek to make people aware of will not be heard by those who need it the most. Pastor Jones’ ministry will be forever shaded by perceived bigotry and religious intolerance. In that, Dove World Outreach is aiding the cause and advancement of Islam instead of hindering it.

Anyone that knows me understands that I believe the truth of Islam should be exposed. The fact that it is more of a political system rather than a legitimate religion is one of those truths that we must face in order to effectively confront the threat of Islam in America, although we as a country have yet to do so.

My fear is that the burning of the Qur’an will be counterproductive and do more harm than good. I would imagine that the last thing Pastor Jones wants to do is to aid in the advancement of Islam in the United States.

But this action of burning the Qur’an, even though protected by freedom of speech, isn’t the wise thing to do. It has been said that just because someone has a ‘right’ to do a thing does not mean that doing that thing is the right thing to do.

Much more exposure of Jones’ ideas would be accomplished by a devoted promotion of his book, publication of his sermons on the subject, and the mass distribution of tapes, DVDs and CDs which would disseminate his convictions in far more detail. In effect, his truest expression of his freedom of speech would be to promote more of that – actual speech.

American General David Petraeus, in saying that burning the Qur’an will be used as a possible tool for justification of further attacks upon American troops abroad, is certainly true. The idea that Islamic radicals need a reason to harm Americans is a bit naïve though. Admittedly, burning Islam’s holy book does add more fuel to the already blazing fire.

We should also consider the ramifications of allowing the threats of violence by Muslims around the world to curb free speech where Islam is concerned. Stopping the burning will add to a feeling of victory felt by Islamic radicals but that is the lesser of the two evils, especially in light of the fact that burning the Qur’an will have no positive effect in the fight against the philosophy of Islam.

Promoting the fight against Islamic ideology in a dignified and effective manner is far more important than a single sensational expression of free speech. In this case, not exercising free speech may be the greatest example of free speech after all. Just because someone has a right to say something does not always mean it needs to be said, especially when it is said in inflammatory ways.

All adults who are married learned a long time ago that even the right thing said in the wrong tone will get us into hot water. Burning the Qur’an is an example of the right thing being said in the wrong way.

There are many more effective, valid and dignified ways to expose Islam. After the Qur’an go up in flames on 9/11 in Gainesville, Florida a statement will certainly be made by Dove World Outreach Center. However, the many other statements they could have made in the future will not be possible as they will not be heard nor received, and that is the biggest tragedy of all.

Clearing Up The Confusion Behind the NYC Mosque

With all the confusion surrounding the building of New York City’s Ground Zero mosque, willful blindness seems to prevail. Granted that the building site is over 2 blocks from actual Ground Zero, but a part of one of the planes ended up inside the abandoned building on 9/11. That makes it in my opinion a part of Ground Zero.

The White House has said that the building of the mosque is a “local” issue, forgetting that all of America was attacked on that September morning, not just New York City. This seems to be a fact that NY politicians are willing to over look as they pander to Islam’s whims and wished.

The argument being made by some, mainly Liberal Democrats & Islamic apologists, is that the proposed NYC mosque is not being built on hollowed ground at all since it is a couple of blocks away, like that really makes any difference. ALL America is hallowed ground and I re-emphasize, all of America was attacked on 9/11.

Are we to suppose that had the attack been made Memphis, TN or Lexington, KY that it would simply be their concern. Apparently that perspective might be taken by national leaders as we saw how the devastating floods of Nashville were ignored while Liberal politicians clamored to send aid to Haiti and more recently to Pakistan.

We all know how our national government responded to the Katrina disaster and yet the State Department is currently using our taxpayer money to send a radical Muslim around the Middle East to find funds for the mosque.

Some may disagree with the term radical as opposed to the White House position that he Feisal Abdul Rauf is a “moderate” Muslim. Yet as he still refuses to label Hamas a terrorist organization, and as he has written in his book that this mosque is seen as an outreach tool to advance Islam in America, and since he supports Sharia Law being implemented in the U.S., I find it very difficult to call him a moderate.

Basically I have trouble with the term “moderate Muslim” anyway. A true, practicing Muslim believes the words in the Qur’an are the infallible, incorruptible word of Allah as spoken to Muhammad through the Angel Gabriel and as such cannot be revised or changed. Why change that which is perfect?

To become a Muslim, one must recite the Shahada which is "ASH-HADU ANLA ELAHA ILLA-ALLAH WA ASH-HADU ANNA MOHAMMADAN RASUL-ALLAH". Translated it means "I bear witness that there is no deity (none truely to be worshipped) but, Allah, and I bear witness that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah".

A true Muslim also believes that Muhammad is “an excellent model of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) and an “exalted standard of character” (Qur’an 68:4). All true Muslims are likewise Muhammadians, accepting his example as the purist form of adherence to Allah’s bidding and instruction.

Why is it so important for Islamic apologists to demand acceptance of the myth that Islam is a “Religion of Peace”? Think about the alternative. If Extremists did not hijack the peaceful religion in an attempt to make it violent, then it is in fact violent in nature and our war against terrorism actually IS a war on Islam.

This is a frightening thought to those who would rather ignore 1400 years of historical evidence in an attempt to morph Islam into a sort of modern, watered-down version of simply a benign religious movement promoting peace for all.

Easily seen, this was not at the core of Islam nor was it the motivation of Muhammad who called for, and initiated jihad to promote, Islamic supremacy. Muhammad’s dying words were that all Jews were to be driven from Arabia, and in the following years they were. His last campaign was design to do the same thing to the Christians and though he died before initiating it, his followers have carried on that fight as well for centuries.

It would have been a wonderful revelation if Muhammad had instructed his followers that after his death they were to extend a loving out reach to all people everywhere and use love, compassion and tolerance as a means to bring people to Allah. However, since that is not the truth, his actual instruction negates once again all previous peacefulness from Islam.

The practice of “Abrogation”, the nullifying of former instructions of Allah and previous verses in the Qur’an that conflicted with later revelations, in effect replaces the “peaceful” Muhammad with the warrior Muhammad. Abrogation also replaces the peaceful verses of the Qur’an with the ones calling for punishment of all non-Muslims for their rejection of Allah and his prophet. Whatever came later is the final word of Allah and Muhammad. It trumps all other revelations, instruction or decrees. Period. End of discussion.

That is why the life and practices of Muhammad is of paramount importance in Islam and cannot be neglected in any attempt to understand the philosophy. Based on this truth and the eternal reverence of Muhammad and the Qur’anic text, moderate Muslims exist only in the identity of those who deny Muhammad, deny the instructions of the Qur’an, and question the incorruptible word of Allah. For those I have only one question: What makes you think you are Muslim?

If Islam is radical then all true Muslims are radicals as well, and no apology by wishful thinking political leaders or laymen can ever change that. Islam can only be changed from within, and since such an act would be construed as offensive to Allah and Muhammad, such an individual would probably not live long in an Islamic country. Deviating from the eternal word of Allah carries a death sentence so how can true reform ever become a reality when its advocates are certain to be labeled apostates and have a fatwa (religious proclamation) sworn against them?

When a cartoonist who dares depict Muhammad in any form is targeted for murder, how far would one get who tries to discredit the word of Allah or Muhammad by saying they are less than perfect and need changing? Reform of Islam is simply not possible.

There is one possibility however, and that is to change the “appearance” of Islam to seem peaceful and tolerant. This is done by Taqiyya, a form of Sacred Deception allowed and promoted by Muhammad and Allah so as to advance Islam by resenting a false face before non-Muslims. We see this every time a Muslim on TV claims Islam is a religion of peace or that vocal clerics proclaiming jihad and death to America are not representing the “true” Islam. In all actuality, they are representing it faithfully as commanded by Allah and his prophet Muhammad.

So where does that leave us on the New York City Ground Zero mosque issue? With one understanding, one which recognizes that the “hijackers” of Islam former President George W. Bush referred to that carried out the attacks on America on 9/11/01 do not exist. They were in fact following 1400 year old, unchangeable, perfect orders from Allah and his prophet to “…strike terror into the hearts of the kafirs because they worship others besides Allah, which He gave them no permission to do. Their home will be the Fire, a terrible resting place for the evildoers”. (Qur’an 3:151)

“Moderate” Muslims might say this verse is not correctly interrupted and that such actions are not really required of Muslims. Their Hadith Bukhari 4,52,46 tells a different story. Muhammad said: “A Muslim holy warrior, fighting for Allah’s cause is like a person who does nothing but fast and pray. Allah promises that anyone killed while fighting for His cause will be admitted without question to Paradise. If such a holy warrior survives the battles, he can return home with the captured property and possession of the defeated”.

And what of the Muslim who refuses to fight in Allah’s cause? Muhammad said according to Hadith Muslim 020,4696 that “the man who dies without participating in jihad, who never desired to wage holy war, dies the death of a hypocrite”.

As we understand it, a hypocrite is one who says one thing and acts not in accordance with that believe. Therefore to say one is a Muslim and yet to not desire to participate in jihad makes one a hypocrite. So much for the moderate Muslim.

Some apologists try and deflect the issue by saying the NYC mosque has nothing to do with 9/11 but is merely the Muslim people exercising their right to practice religious freedom. If the NYC mosque has nothing to do with Ground Zero, why do some Muslims say it is a monument to honor the dead of 9/11 attacks? Why did they want to open in on 9/11? That would be a strange coincidence.

Are not “houses of worship” built in areas where there are people to attend them? Why then is the preferred building site of the NYC Ground Zero mosque lower Manhattan where no Muslims live, especially considering the fact that 100 other, more conveniently located mosques, already exist?

David A. Paterson, Governor of New York, sought to diffuse the tension surrounding the issue by offering Muslims another piece of ground farther from Ground Zero to build on and they flatly refused. Why, if it has nothing to do with Ground Zero and the site of the 9/11 attacks?

Also, if the mosque is meant to build bridges between the religions, why are not a Christian Chapel or a Jewish Synagogue being incorporated into it? Why does the design not have a Cross or a Star of David on it if the mosque is considered to be a symbol of multi-cultural outreach? Simple. It is not a symbol of out reach but a symbol of Islamic victory over a destroyed piece of American real estate and a place where the lives of almost 3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Allah and Islam.

All the arguments you are hearing and will continue to hear while this debate ensues in defense of the mosque, is pure Taqiyya, statements of deception designed to make uninformed non-Muslims think it is a religious issue and not a political one. If we can be convinced it is religious freedom being assaulted by those opposing it, then the country will fall in line to promote the building of it. America is all about religious freedom, unless of course, you are promoting Christianity, which has been under attack by Liberals for decades aided by the ACLU and others.

We all know that it is forbidden to place a Christmas manger scene on government property such as a public park or courthouse square because of the myth of “Separation of Church and State”. That makes it even more curious when you discover that taxpayer dollars are used to build foot baths in airport so Muslims can wash their feet before they travel as commanded by their religion. What happened to that so strongly enforced separation in those cases?

If people understand that Islam’s building of the NYC mosque is a political statement, as is evidenced by the facts stated above, and not so much a religious freedom issue, then it should be treated as a foreign political system seeking approval to build a headquarters in the United States. As such it must be denied.

Islam has spread through the ages based on ignorance. Conquered individuals were prohibited from studying the life of Muhammad, (the Sira), and forbidden to read the Qur’an. Islam is designed to keep those it wants to conquer ignorant of its methods and goals. It wants us to rely on what they say and ignore our instincts, and never to question the wisdom of Islam.

In America, we sometimes have the nasty habit of wanting to know the truth and the facts concerning issues that confront us. Sometimes we are mislead by silver-tongued rhetoric and don’t follow our gut. Sometimes we follow the hapless crowd and want to see “history” made at all costs.

We are learning that such adherence to following without questioning is dangerous and leads us down roads we would not have chosen to travel had we only questioned what was being handed us to believe.

America is under assault by Islam all across the nation. Until and unless we refuse to follow the dictates of Political Correctness and question what we are told not to question, we will continue to stumble in the dark, watching our country being dismantled right before our eyes and we won’t even know what happened.

I am certain you have been admonished before, as Thomas Jefferson said, to question with boldness. Only them will Taqiyya be seen for what it is and the truth about this mosque, and about Islam in general, be exposed for the anti-liberty and anti-freedom philosophy it is.

This is about more than a single building being built upon a particular block in New York City that will never be seen by most Americans. It is about the liberty and freedom that is being assaulted daily in every city in America, aimed at every individual in America, by a system that would happily steal those qualities that make America what it is today if we would allow it through our ignorance.

Refuse to be ignorant and refuse to be silent. Your freedoms are at state. America is at stake. Islam, Sharia Law in incompatible with the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights and our much cherished freedom. The only thing necessary for the evil of Islam to triumph is for true Americans to remain silent and do nothing.