Doc's Talk: Un-merry Christmas to Christians from Islam

Monday, December 24, 2012

Un-merry Christmas to Christians from Islam

Is Islam tolerant of Christianity? Muslims say yes, but what are the facts?

Mullahs around the world warn Muslims not to respond to the words 'Merry Christmas'. If Jesus is the 'prince of peace', it makes Mohammed look bad. In the last years of his life, Mohammed led and commanded violent aggression every six weeks. Mohammed was the 'prince of jihad'.

Muslims believe angels announced the birth of Jesus, but Muslims do not believe the Gospel where the angels said, "Peace on earth." Peace with Kafirs is not possible. The Christmas greeting to Christians around the world is still the same as it was in 630 AD: "Aslim, Taslam!" (Surrender to Islam and be safe). Where Christians do not surrender to Islamic terrorists, their lives are now in danger.

For the Muslim, the world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah. The duty of Muslims is to create the conditions that drive non-Muslims into the arms of Sharia law, 'whether by persuasion or by force' as ibn Khaldun wrote.

If Christians won't voluntarily change their laws to Shari'a, then it is the duty of every Muslim to induce Christians in three ways: violence, extortion or enslavement.

Muslims around the world are particularly aware of Christianity at Christmas time when they become even more determined to impose Sharia. This leads to jihad attacks in churches in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia. Attacking worshipping Christians is jihad. The purpose is to discourage them from their non-Islamic worship. In Nigerian churches, most women have been asked not to bring a purse and armed guards stand at the door with metal detectors to screen every worshipper. This is because jihadists are taught in the hadiths to lull enemies of Allah into trust before betraying them. Every person entering a church might be a jihadist.

The purpose of jihad is to implement discriminatory Sharia. Sharia is not benign to Christians.
The purpose of Sharia is to destroy Christian and other cultures and replace them with theocratic totalitarianism. Jihad is the method for imposing Sharia. Jihad is aggressive: it can take the form of deception or disinformation, robbery, lawsuits or it can be violent with the destruction of property or assassination of church leaders. All jihad is good because it is Mohammed's sacred method.
Since 1990 in Nigeria, some 1000 Christians have been murdered by jihadists every year. Probably, the number is much higher with many jihad-motivated murders being put down as ordinary homicides or accidental manslaughters. Most of the jihad murders take place in northern Nigeria where Islamist want to impose Sharia law.

Nigeria has one of the highest scholarship rates in Africa. As Nigerians gain graduate and post-graduate degrees, they often leave Islam and switch to Christianity which they identified with Western progress. Islamists see going to university as the problem. Better to stay at home, memorize the Koran and remain loyal to Mohammed, the perfect man, than to learn to improve society, build infrastructure, services, health sciences or engineering in the country.

Boko Haram (meaning 'Western education is taboo') is the main Islamic terror group fighting the rapid Christianization of Nigeria. They are now allied with Al Qaeda. Their trademark is to attack congregation while they are worshipping or throw bombs into restaurants where Christians eat after services. This is ethnic cleansing and genocide. Mohammed ethnically cleansed the Jewish tribes in Arabia, so it is normative Islam. Boko Haram wants to ethnically cleanse Christians from northern Nigeria. Mohammed's ethnic cleansing method goes like this: intimidate, humiliate and expropriate until you can annihilate.

Most of the countries that are now Islamic were once Christian. The Christian presence in Turkey is almost nil, and in most of North Africa it is tiny, but it was once close to 100% in all of them. What changed things was Sharia law. Under discriminatory Sharia law, Christians must live in an inferior social status to Muslims, they must wear clothing that humiliates them, they must never ride on a horse, they must pay a punitive tax, they must never speak about Islam or the Koran, they must never ring their church's bell, they must never have an outdoor religious ceremony or speak to a Muslim about Christianity, they must move aside when a Muslim walks down the street. As well, no new churches may be built and old ones may never be repaired unless hefty bribes are given to the authorities. The policy of Sharia is to systemically make life difficult for Christians to practice their faith, all the while encouraging them to convert.

Then there is the 'love jihad'. Mohammed started this with the comment 'marry one woman (out of four wives) for the religion'. Muslim men have taken this as a commandment to abduct a Christian girl, confine her and then declare her to be married without her consent. The girl's family is then told she has converted to Islam and they may never see her. Police do nothing, because it's Sharia and Sharia trumps any man-made law. No one can estimate how many Christian girls have been abducted and sequestered in the 'love jihad', but the fact that many African Christians tattoo a cross on the forehead and cheeks of their girls speaks volumes.

The reason Christians were not substantially cleansed from Islamic countries until the Turkish genocides of 1915-1924 is because Christians were used for a supply of jizzya [dhimmi tax] and they were very useful in medicine, the arts, building and garbage removal. Turkey ethnically cleansed three million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians to confiscate their wealth and properties for a government at war that was strapped for ready cash. The Young Turks were also jihadists hoping to make Turkey the capital of a global caliphate promoting Sharia law. Discriminatory Sharia law is like a ratchet that only tightens a bolt even though it apparently moves back and forwards. Sharia only benefits Islam.

So when Americans hear the church bells ring on Christmas Eve, remember that Christians worshipping in Islamic regions like northern Nigeria may hear the sound of bombs thrown in the church door, guns shooting down the main aisle or the sound of fire on the church roof.
Merry Christmas.
Written by Kenneth Roberts

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/un-merry-christmas-to-christians-from-islam/

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