Doc's Talk: Mosques are the “Trojan Horses” of the Global Caliphate

Friday, August 27, 2010

Mosques are the “Trojan Horses” of the Global Caliphate

Paul Vallely

The Greek siege of Troy had lasted for ten years. The Greeks devised a new ruse - a giant hollow wooden horse. It was built by Epeius and filled with Greek warriors led by Odysseus. The rest of the Greek army appeared to leave whilst actually hiding behind Tenedos and the Trojans accepted the horse as a peace offering. A Greek spy, Sinon, convinced the Trojans the horse was a gift despite the warnings of Laocoon and Cassandra. Helen and Deiphobus even investigated the horse. The Trojans celebrated the raising of the siege hugely, and when the Greeks emerged from the horse the city was in a drunken stupor. The Greek warriors opened the city gates to allow the rest of the army access and the city was ruthlessly pillaged — all the men were killed and all the women and children taken into slavery.

The creator and purveyor of the new radical Muslim Global Caliphate is the Muslim Brotherhood based out of Medina and Mecca in Saudi. Their Troy is the Western World. Their ‘Trojan Horses” are the Mosques funded by front organizations and Saudi money. It is now what many of us call “Stealth Jihad”. Muslims have been dreaming about a Caliphate that can unite the entire Muslim world and rule with strict Islamic code ever since the death of Muhammed. There have been coups, countercoups and civil wars because of disagreements over whether or not to install the Caliph. The dream of a caliphate is what is responsible for the Shia-Sunni split. Several Caliphates existed over time until 1924 when Mustafa Kamal Ataturk abolished the Ottoman Caliphate and established the secular Turkish Republic.

Al-Qaeda has clearly stated that the re-establishing the Caliphate is one of its primary objectives. Although Al-Qaeda has taken the violent path to realize their dream of the massive Islamic Description: Description: islam_caliphate_3.jpgempire, there are many Islamic groups all across the world that use politics to gain influence; Tanzeem-al-Islami and Hizb ut-Tahrir to name a few.

What exactly is a Caliphate?

A caliphate is the Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. The head of state (Caliph) has a position based on the notion of a successor to Muhammad’s political authority. It is a dream that has never been realized by Muslims and it will never be. There will always be Muslims who dream about this empire and on the other hand the power-hungry leaders will prevent any movement that could dissolve their nation-state. Therefore, Muslims are stuck in an eternal conflict between Islamists and nationalists.

What are the goals of this Caliphate?

Besides uniting the Muslims, the goal is to arrange a massive army and call for Jihad against infidel states for the expansion of the Caliphate. Various caliphates have used this strategy to expand their states. The rapid Islamic expansion during the reign of the Caliphs is nothing but staggering.

The reason behind that is millions of eager men willingly joining the fight with the Infidels because they believe that Allah will reward them heftily if they die. There has never been a shortage of recruits in the army. This is the same reason there is no shortage of suicide bombers today. The ultimate goal of the Caliphate would be to bring every square inch of this planet under Islam and convert/subdue all remaining Infidels.

Who are behind this movement?

Various groups around the world are actively advocating the creation of the Caliphate. The growing support for this empire all over the world is evident. In order to spread Wahhabi. Wahhabi Islam is a term commonly given to a strict Sunni sect of Islam. Followers of Wahhabi Islam do not refer to their religion as “Wahhabi” (Anon., Justifying; Bijlefeld; Hardy). Many merely call themselves “Muslim,” for according to their beliefs they are only true Muslims. Some Wahhabists refer to themselves and their religion as “al-Muwahhidun,” “Salafi,” “Salafi Da’wa,” or “Ahlul Sunna wall Jama’a” (Anon., Justifying; Bijlefeld; Hardy). Depending on the region and dialect in use, other names also exist. For the sake of simplicity, I will refer to this religion as “Wahhabi Islam” and its followers as “Wahhabists.” By “Wahhabi Islam”, I am referring to the forms of Islam that share the strict revivalist vision and beliefs that were preached by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab in the late 1700’s.

Wahhabi Islam counts among its adherents such names as Osama Bin Laden and Saudi Prince Nayef (Cline; Haykel; Smith; Hardy). Various groups such as Al-Qaeda, Pakistan’s Jamaat-I Islami, The Islamic Salvation Front, and al-Jihad have also adopted Wahhabism as their official religion (Ahmed; Cline; Haykel; Smith; Hardy). The extremist religion offers many a theological justification and mandate to kill those they deem to be infidels. One should note that according to Wahhabism, the vast majority of Muslims (over 99%) are also to be considered “infidels, heathens, and enemies” (Haykel; Smith; Lopez).

Wahhabists have made their presence known worldwide. From the beheading of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan to the beheading of countless Russian soldiers in Chechnya, from the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq to the beheading of Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia Wahhabists have shown a willingness to use television and the internet to display their gruesome acts of barbarism. To truly understand those that we must fight in this battle against terrorism, one must learn more about Wahhabi Islam and its extremist teachings.

The Origin and History of Wahhabi Islam

Wahhabism started as a movement within Islam founded by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703-1792). To fully understand the militancy of Wahhabi Islam, it is important that one learns of the warlike nature of Wahhabi Islam’s founder and the brutal times of war in which he lived. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Having been born in a small oasis town in central Arabia, al-Wahhab grew up studying Hanbali Law, one of Sunni Islam’s strictest and most conservative schools. He lived and studied with his grandfather until he was in his early teens, at which time he left his home to move to the holy city of Medina, where he continued his Islamic studies.

After completing his studies in Medina several years later and now a young man, al-Wahhab traveled to a city in what is modern day Basra, Iraq. There, he taught Islamic law for approximately four years. Al-Wahhab then traveled to Baghdad where he continued teaching Islamic law. There, he met and later married an affluent woman. She later died and left al-Wahhab a large inheritance, which he used to travel the region. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

The early 1730’s found al-Wahhab residing in Iran. It was here that he first started to preach his new and radical thoughts on Islam. Al-Wahhab virulently attacked the customs and beliefs of the tribes in the region, many of whom were Sufi Muslim. He also extended his criticisms to the practices of the Twelver Shia, such as paying respect at the tombs of holy men. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

With the growing unpopularity of his criticisms against Sufi Islam in Iran, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab moved back to his native town of Uyaynah in the late 1730’s. Upon his return to his birthplace, al-Wahhab began writing the Kitab at-Tawhid, which would later become the main text of Wahhabi Islam’s doctrines. It was about this time that al-Wahhab begun to gather a larger amount of followers. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab’s extremist views and doctrines led to controversy in Uyaynah. Many of the town’s leaders were not fond of his fundamentalist approach to Islam. After all, merely invoking the name of the Muslim prophet Muhammad was, by al-Wahhab’s standards, a grave sin. In 1744, he was expelled from Uyaynah. Al-Wahhab then settled in Ad-Dir'iyah, which was under the control of a powerful tribal leader named Ibn Sa'ud. Ibn Sa’ud became a believer of Wahhab’s doctrines and the two formed a strong alliance. Al-Wahhab and Ibn Sa’ud swore a Muslim pledge with each other in which they vowed to establish a new state that would operate under al-Wahhab’s strict interpretation of Islamic Law. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

And thus began a military campaign that would shake the Arabian Peninsula to its core. The Wahhabi faith provided Ibn Sa’ud with the justification he needed to raid and conquer nearby settlements. Though these settlements were Islamic (and traditional Islamic law prohibits Islamic states from attacking each other), the Wahhabi doctrine viewed all non-Wahhabists as infidels and not true Muslims. It was thus that Ibn Sa’ud found a legitimate purpose to bring the nearby settlements under his control, to spread “true Islam” to the infidels. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

The Wahhabists are indiscriminate in their killings of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They soon garnered a reputation as brutal and fanatical warriors. These Wahhabist warriors were described as being so fanatical that they had little regard for their own lives … their sole purpose, it seemed, was to kill the enemy. By the time of his death in 1765, Ibn Sa’ud had managed to gain control over most of the region and had spread Wahhabism to those conquered lands. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab died in 1792 but the spread of Wahhabism continued under the leadership of Ibn Sa’ud’s son, Abd al Aziz. Abd al Aziz continued the Wahhabi campaign and managed to sack the Shia holy city of Karbala and Sunni towns in Hijaz. The Wahhabists were brutal in their treatment of captured lands and brought destruction upon those who had opposed them. In the early 1800’s, the Wahhabi army even managed to gain control of Mecca and Medina. Viewing the acts of commemorating dead holy men and praying to saints as unholy acts, the Wahhabists destroyed monuments and gravesites in the holy cities. By doing this, they sought to imitate the Muslim prophet Muhammad’s smashing of pagan symbols when he returned to Mecca in 628. Access to the holy sites in Medina and Mecca were severely limited to outsiders. (Ahmed; Anon., Wahhabism; Bijlefeld; Haykel; Hisham; Metz, Kuwait; Metz, Saudi)

Much of the new recruitment of young radicals in the United States, Europe and the Muslim world is done through the local Mosques and is very well documented. Then the radical Islamic cells are developed to carry out the missions of jihad.

Hopefully, many of you will now understand what is happening and how the Global Caliphate is very well planned out and funded. Let us not be naïve ……..just look around the world and keep your eyes on Iran and its proxies. The Mosques are the new ‘Trojan Horses”. No 9/11 Mosque!

Paul E. Vallely

Chairman – Stand Up America

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk