The following is a PLETHORA of information to read and to educate yourselves.
It is up to YOU to read the ENTIRE PIECE.
NOW JIHADISTS PUT BULL’S-EYE ON MUSLIMS
‘So if your Islam is weak you can be killed’
by MICHAEL CARL
October 25, 2012
Now just being a Muslim apparently isn’t good enough for some radicals. A statement issued by a jihadist group in Pakistan labels non-jihadist Muslims as “kafirs” and calls for non-jihadi Muslims to be killed.
The report released on Islam Watch says that non-jihadi Muslims are not following the path of the Prophet Muhammad and should be treated the same as infidels.
Atlas Shrugs publisher and jihad analyst Pamela Geller confirms that the claims in both presentations are correct.
“The Quran quotes are authentic. It has always been true that non-jihadi Muslims have been challenged as not Muslim enough by jihadis,” Geller said.
Center for the Study of Political Islam Executive Director Bill Warnerhas done research into the issue and confirms that jihadi Muslims have a record of targeting Muslims they believe aren’t practicing true Islam.
Warner’s research shows that from 2002 through 2011, the number of Muslim on Muslim attacks has gone from a few hundred per year to over 1,500 per year.
“There has always been the jihad of purification, to act on Muslims who aren’t following their doctrine well,” Warner said.
“However, we have to understand that the Quran speaks of the fact that one Muslim may not call another Muslim a kafir, so in order to kill them they must find their Islam lacking,” Warner said.
“So if your Islam is weak you can be killed, however, the Quran calls them hypocrites because Muslims aren’t supposed to call other Muslims kafirs,” Warner said.
Warner explains that Islam covers both sides of every issue.
“You have to understand that within Islam there’s always a yes and always a no. There are always two answers to every question. What is jihad? It’s the inner struggle. What is jihad? Oh, it’s killing kafirs,” Warner said.
“I don’t know of anything where there’s simply a single answer,” Warner said. “There’s always a way to do anything you want to do in Islam.”
“Muslims kill each other all the time. What do you think is happening in Syria right now?” Warner said.
“I haven’t previously seen an outright call for ‘moderates’ to be killed, but it is consistent with jihadists’ claims to represent Islamic authenticity and to embody the true teachings of the Quran and Sunnah,” Spencer said.
“In Islamic theology heretics and apostates are indeed to be killed, and jihadists regard ‘moderates’ in that camp,” Spencer said.
While Middle East Forum Executive Director Daniel Pipes says he has no reason to doubt that the Pakistan jihadis believe their report, he doubts that this is mainstream Islam.
“This tells us a lot about Islamism, which grows out of Islam but takes its injunctions to an extreme,” Pipes said.
Spencer says that violence is an integral part of Islamic teaching.
Even leading progressives don’t read the Washington Post! From 2006:
Come the caliphate
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The idea of restoring the body that governed and united the world’s Muslims for more than 1,000 years is beginning to resonate again. Karl Vick explains. The plan was to fly a hijacked plane into a national landmark on live television. The year was 1998, the country was Turkey, and the rented plane ended up grounded by weather. Court records show the Islamic extremist who planned to commandeer the cockpit did not actually know how to fly.
But if the audacious scheme prefigured September 11, 2001, it also highlighted a cause that, seven years later, President George W Bush has used to define the war against terrorism. What the ill-prepared Turkish plotters told investigators they aimed to do was strike a dramatic blow toward reviving Islam’s caliphate, the institution that had nominally governed the world’s Muslims for nearly all of the almost 1,400 years since the death of the prophet Mohammed.
Al-Qaeda named its Internet newscast, which debuted in September, The Voice of the Caliphate.
Yet the caliphate is also esteemed by many ordinary Muslims. For most, its revival is not an urgent concern. Public opinion polls show immediate issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and discrimination rank as more pressing.
But while Turks won self-rule, most of the former caliphate was divided among European colonial powers. One Arab scholar called it “the division of Muslim lands into measly pieces which call themselves nations.”
This is what inspired the group most directly focused on the push for a new caliphate, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), or Party of Liberation. The group, which claims to be active in 40 countries, began in 1953 as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. But while the Brotherhood, which also favors a caliphate, embraced realpolitik, growing into a potent opposition force in Syria and Egypt, Hizb ut-Tahrir charted a more subversive path.
In all seriousness, these Progressives are smart enough to know that the Islamist Supremacists want to establish a new Caliphate. Why then are they running interference for the Brotherhood, who by it’s own admission wants to create a global Muslim supremacist Caliphate?
Also, anyone else notice how many “offshoots” of the Brotherhood have made it their mission to slaughter the infidel wherever they live?
The article quoted above is behind a pay per view firewall, but you can access it here for free. Read the whole thing.
Obama’s Radical Connections: making evil respectable
Two separate posts up on Obama’s connection with the Muslim Brotherhood. Of course US Homeland Security Secretary, Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano and her senior staff have already privately met in Washington, DC, in January of last year with a select group of Muslim, Arab, and Sikh organizations, among which were three organizations directly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood, the roots of Al Qaeda.
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Pamela Geller, founder, editor and publisher of the popular and award-winning weblog AtlasShrugs.com. (…) She is the co-author (with Robert Spencer) of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America. >>>
Top members of the Egyptian government say they feel betrayed by President Obama, charging that he is acting against American interests. ”Mubarak’s regime feels Obama is pushing the advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood against U.S. interests,” said WND’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior reporter Aaron Klein. “They are genuinely trying to understand why Obama is seemingly championing the anti-regime protests.”(…) >>>
MORE RELATED ITEMS:
“Obama Most Radical US President ever”(July 2010)
Pakistan-based al Qaeda is Secretly Setting up Sleeper Cells and a Clandestine Network of Jihadists to Destabilize and Take Over Libya. Was Visual and Vocal Propaganda Used to Overthrow Gaddafi?
**If Gaddafi was so “evil” why did Nelson Mandela proclaim Gaddafi “one of the twentieth century’s greatest freedom fighters.” “When our backs were against the wall, Gaddafi stood with us.”**
Has Obama enabled al Qaeda and Islamic jihadist to gain control over Egypt and Libya?
Was visual and verbal propaganda utilized to overthrow Gaddafi?
MUSLIM DAY PARADE IN NYC FEATURES CALLS FOR GLOBAL LAWS AGAINST INSULTING ISLAM AND PROMOTES SHARIA IN USA. Americans Should Educate Themselves…….
Look Who’s Advising Obama
The Obama Administration announced it was officially abandoning use of the phrase “global war on terror”, as well as references to “jihadists”. In fact, the only terminology now accepted by the Obama Administration is a reference to fighting Al-qaeda. As if no other “jihadist” terror organizations exist.
Last February Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal’s “Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, [CMCU], held a panel discussion on the Middle East.
Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D., reported on this panel discussion in an article posted to his minaret blog entitled “Advising Obama on the Middle East”
A few excerpts:
”The panelists were Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center, Hisham Melhem of Al-Arabiyya (who scored the first official interview with President Obama), Prof. Paula Newberg, expert on Afghanistan and Pakistan, newly arrived to the Georgetown campus, and Prof. John Esposito, the founder of CMCU.”
”Hisham Melhem spoke on “Redefining the War on Terrorism and the Freedom Agenda”. He argued that the Middle East is more fragmented than it was eight years ago, weaker,and, except for a few islands of prosperity, more economically depressed. It is mainly without political leadership,, weakened by two wars that have reduced America’s influence. Hope for change lies in the fact that the new president has deep roots in Africa, has lived in Indonesia, and has Muslim family members.”
”Melham explained that terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology nor a well-defined enemy. He asked why borrow terminology with deep European roots to foist a phrase like Islamo-fascism on Muslims?”
[be sure to read the whole thing]
The first announcement by Clinton that team Obama was dropping the “war on terror” phrase occured in March. About a month after the CMCU panel discussion.
Now, more on CMCU:
In 2005 the CMCU received a $20 million donation from Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal. The Arab prince is one of the most wealthy Arabs in the world. According to a report by Forbes, he ranks 2nd behind Warren Buffet in terms of wealth.
Douglass Farah writes on how the Muslim Brotherhood is making inroads of influence in the Obama Administration:
”The architect is Dr. John Esposito, a long time defender of the MB and the head of the Saudi-financed Georgetown University Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service.”
”The same Dr. Esposito who maintained prior to 9/11 that radical Islam was essentially a myth and certainly no danger. It is hard to imagine any academic being so consistently wrong in their professed field of expertise maintaining much influence, but there he is, deeply enmeshed with all the major MB legacy groups in the country.”
Asaph Rowmirowsky wrote in the MEF:
”Even more problematic is the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center forMuslim-Christian Understanding, named for the Saudi prince whose $20 million donation in 2005 gave the Center’s leader, John Esposito, a much louder voice in the Middle East studies community. Since then, the Alwaleed Center has become the locus of academic apologetics for Wahhabism in America. Along with his colleagues Yvonne Haddad, John Voll, and others, Esposito and the newly rejuvenated center arenow in a position to proliferate a glossy vision of Wahhabi Islam to Americans.”
Why is this important?
The wealthy Saudi business man has stated that if “Arabs unite economically” they can influence U.S. policy.
A report at memri on a Saudi newspaper details the extent to which the Saudis have invested $billions to spread wahabbist Islam in the U.S. and around the world:
“The Kingdom has established more than 1,359 mosques abroad at a cost of SR 820million. Other mosques partially financed by the Kingdom included mosques in Zagreb, Lisbon, Vienna, New York, Washington, Chicago, Ohio, Virginia, and 12 mosques in a number of countries in South America.”
An article in the Washington Times two years ago on Saudi Interest in America, noted the purchase of shares in News Corp. by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal:
“The Saudis’ potential influence on U.S. and international media was recently illustrated by the prince’s purchase of 5.6 percent of voting shares in News Corp., the world’s largest publisher of English newspapers.”
The same article noted that government sources estimated Saudi holdings in America to be between $400 to $800 billion dollars.
Citizen Warrior reports the following:
“The Saudis have funded more than 80 percent of the Wahhabi-influenced mosques built in the United States within the last 20 years. Moreover, the majority of Muslim Student Associations at U.S. colleges are dominated by Islamic and anti-American agendas, as are most of the numerous Islamic Centers and schools financed by the Saudis.”
From Paul Revere: Experts Warn of Yale University Saudi Ties
“Yale University has named a man tied to terrorism-sponsoring Saudi prince and Muslim Brotherhood as a “Yale World Fellow,” writes Martin Kramer of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on the Hudson New York web site.”
“Muna Abu Sulyaman, the individual who received the title from Yale, serves as a liaison between universities and Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who has donated to fundraisers for the families of Palestinian “martyrs,” a term often used to describe suicide bombers as well as casualties of the conflict with Israel, according to Militant Islam Monitor.
“Alwaleed has given millions of dollars to controversial Muslim organizations in the U.S. that claim to be “moderate” but have been tied to the radical Muslim Brotherhood group, and has provided universities such as Harvard with tens of millions of dollars. For example, he donated $20 million to Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which is directed by John Esposito, a prominent defender of Muslim Brotherhood, according to the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s blog.”
“Sulayman is also the daughter of a “Muslim Brotherhood kingpin,” according to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report.”
“Can you imagine a better way to set the stage for a major Alwaleed gift? Hosting for a semester the very person who structured the Harvard and Georgetown gifts, and who now directs Alwaleed’s charitable foundation? A stroke of genius,” Kramer writes in his article.”
More from Accuracy In Media
Hizb-UT-Tahrir (HUT)….Islamic Socialism
Political party with cells in more than 40 nations
Outlawed as a terrorist group in Russia, Germany, and many Islamic countries
Seeks to replace all governments with a single Islamic ruler, or Caliph
Hizb-ut-Tahrir (Arabic for “The Party of Liberation”) has its roots in the political party al-Hay’at al-Tahrir al-Islami(“The Islamic Society of Liberation”), which in 1951 was established in Jordanian-controlled East Jerusalem by Sheikh Taqi-ud-deen Al-Nabahani (an associate and contemporary of the pro-Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Haji Amin Al-Housseini).
Hizb-ut-Tahrir defines itself as “a political group and not a priestly one,” a “political party whose ideology is Islam, so politics is its work and Islam is its ideology.” It “works within the Ummah [community of believers] … so that she adopts Islam as her cause and is led to restore the Khilafah [Caliphate, or Islamic kingdom] and the ruling by what Allah revealed.”
Rejecting Western notions of both democracy and capitalism as tools that allegedly have led to the colonization and subjugation of Islamic nations,Hizb-ut-Tahrir’s long-term objective is to replace existing governments with theocratic Muslim rule and to bring about a worldwide Islamic government under a single ruler (caliph). In such an ideal Islamic state, says Hizb-ut-Tahrir, “all of life’s affairs in society are administered according to the Shari’ah rules,” or strict Islamic law.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir states that it accepts “Muslim men and women as its members regardless of whether they are Arab or non-Arab, white or coloured, since it is a party for all Muslims.”
In its self-description, Hizb-ut-Tahrir declares: “Its work is not educational, as it is not a school, nor is its work concerned with giving sermons and preaching. Rather its work is political, in which the thoughts and laws of Islam are presented in order to act upon them and to carry them so as to establish them in life’s affairs and in the State.” Moreover, the organization professes a devotion to ”the struggle against the disbelieving imperialists, to deliver the Ummah from their domination and to liberate her from their influence by uprooting their intellectual, cultural, political, economic and military roots from all of the Muslim countries.”
Hizb-ut-Tahrir asserts that while it “does not use material power to defend itself or as a weapon against the rulers,” nevertheless “jihad has to continue till the Day of Judgement.” “So whenever the disbelieving enemies attack an Islamic country,” says Hizb, “it becomes compulsory on its Muslim citizens to repel the enemy. The members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir in that country are a part of the Muslims and it is obligatory upon them … to fight the enemy and repel them.”
Former Hizb-ut-Tahrir member Ed Husain, who left the organization and denounced it in his 2007 book The Islamist, says: “The only difference between Islamists from Hizb ut-Tahrir and jihadists, is that the former are waiting for their state and caliph before they commence jihad, while the latter believes the time for jihad is now.”
According to Heritage Foundation researcher Ariel Cohen, Hizb-ut-Tahrir is a “totalitarian organization, akin to a disciplined Marxist-Leninist party, in which internal dissent is neither encouraged nor tolerated.” Candidates for membership undergo two years of indoctrination, becoming full members only after they ”mel[t] with the Party.” Members belong to compartmentalized cells and know the identities of only the others in that cell. “When a critical mass of cells is achieved,” writes Cohen, “according to its doctrine, Hizb may move to take over a country in preparation for the establishment of the Caliphate.” Hizb-ut-Tahrir reportedly has cells in 40 or more nations.
Today Hizb-ut-Tahrir, although splintered into four factions (most notably Hizb Waed), reportedly has tens of thousands of secret members across the Muslim world, attracted by its triumphalist Islamic future.
Hizb-ut-Tahrir is outlawed in Russia, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and numerous Muslim countries (including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) that regard it as a radical, subversive, terrorist organization that spreads “hate and violence” and seeks to overthrow their governments.
Barack Obama bowing to Saudi King
Is Huma Abedin, Assistant to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as innocent as people portray her to be?
From Obama Stating in Cairo Speech about Muslims,”I Am One of Them” to This….Obama: “Islam Is Part Of Our National Story”…
**Barack Obama Sr. was an Islamo-Socialist**
Is Obama inept, ignorant or utilizing Taqiyya on the American People?
Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah
30 April, 2007
Lying and cheating in the Arab world is not really a moral matter but a method of safeguarding honor and status, avoiding shame, and at all times exploiting possibilities, for those with the wits for it, deftly and expeditiously to convert shame into honor on their own account and vice versa for their opponents. If honor so demands, lies and cheating may become absolute imperatives.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle” An interpretation of the Arabs, p4]
“No dishonor attaches to such primary transactions as selling short weight, deceiving anyone about quality, quantity or kind of goods, cheating at gambling, and bearing false witness. The doer of these things is merely quicker off the mark than the next fellow; owing him nothing, he is not to be blamed for taking what he can.” [David Pryce-Jones, “The Closed Circle”, p38]
The word “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions or strategies. In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims.
Islamic spokesmen commonly use taqiyya as a form of ‘outwitting’. The skilled taqiyya-tactician doesn’t want the matter at hand to be debated or discussed; so his opponent must be outwitted or preemptively outflanked by the use of taqiyya. The objective is to divert attention away from the subject through duplicity and obfuscation.
Role playing as the victim:
When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the ‘the victims’. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and ‘outwitting’….. Defence by offence.
Manipulative ambiguity and Semantics:
Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) ‘condemning’ the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences .
Islamic spokesmen will rarely unequivocally condemn a specific act of terrorism and direct questions will be skillfully evaded.
(NB: because Muslims regard Islamic attacks as “jihad”, and not terrorism, their spokesmen can truthfully deny any support for terrorism.)
Interviewers would be better advised to ask the more precise question “do you believe in jihad against the unbelievers?