ISIS jihadists gets a taste of their own medicine and get beheaded by Syrian terror group - Isn’t it strange that these “brave” lions of Allah are not smiling when they are to have their heads cut and become martyrs soon to meet their 72 virgins? ...
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Islam = Terrorism
I see the threat level from 'international' terrorism has been raised to severe, but no-one's telling us why.
Well here's why, because...
Terrorism is intrinsic to Islam.
Islam cannot spread or even maintain itself without violence: violence to those who attempt to leave Islam, violence to those who criticise Islam, and violence to those who refuse to be subjugated by Islam.
Islam has been a terrorist cult since it was founded. Mohammed said "I have been made victorious with terror"
Now since Mohammed is 'the perfect man' and role model for all Muslims, it follows that terrorists have divine approval for what they do. All that stuff about a 'tiny minority of extremists' is a load of taqiyya. Terrorism is mainstream, bog-standard orthodox Islam. The more Muslims you have in a country, the greater the incidence of terrorism.
Obsessive hatred of infidels
"Islam is the only religion which is more obsessed with unbelievers than it is with its own followers. Muslims define their own identity solely in opposition to the Kuffar. Islamic accomplishments are so negligible that they have no positive cultural features with which they can identify. Hence the unceasing and implacable aggression toward civilized peoples and envy of their accomplishments. The development and deliberate cultivation of hatred is such a central feature of Islam that there is nothing that we Kuffars can do, or not do, that would make our univited guests hate us any less or any more.
Rage is so intrinsic to Islam that external events are irrelevant. Hatred of non-Moslems is the pivot of Islamic existence. Muslims are bound together by a shared and carefully nurtured animosity to 'The Other' developed from earliest childhood, which ignites a permanent fire of tension between Moslems and non-Moslems. Ever since Jihadists started immigrating into the West, we have become all too familiar with concepts such as 'Killing the unbelievers wherever you find them' and the tribal polarities of Dar al-Harb versus Dar al-Islam , Ummah versus Kuffar etc."
More at http://isupporttheresistance.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-inheritance-with-soon-be-their.html
Mohammed's fixation on infidels
"Very little of the Koran is devoted to how to be a Muslim, the religion of Islam. Instead, the majority of the Koran is about kafirs, non-Muslims. Kafirs are the worst of the creation. Allah hates kafirs and plots against them. Kafirs can be tortured, murdered, robbed, raped and enslaved. The Koran is fixated on kafirs, as was Mohammed.
To measure the Koranic fixation on kafirs, let us measure the fixation by counting the amount of text devoted to them. In Mecca an astounding 67% of the text is devoted to the kafir. In Medina 51% was about kafirs. The amount of text in the entire Koran devoted to kafirs is 61%.
As an aside, Islam excludes kafirs in every way from its religious practice. Since the kafir is outside of Islam, the term political Islam is used to describe the doctrine of Islam as it is applied to the "others", the kafirs. So 61% of the Koran is about political Islam, not religious Islam. (KS Lal gives the figure of 63% in Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, Aditya Prakashan, 1999, N. Delhi, pg. 4).
The Sira shows the importance of Islam's political nature. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and only gained 150 followers. He moved to Medina where he became a politician and warrior. After 10 years of violence he became ruler of all Arabia without a single enemy left standing. He was involved in an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Statistical conclusion-Islam's success came from war and politics, not religion.
Another statistical conclusion: Islam is primarily a political doctrine, not a religion.
Simple statistics also reveal the true nature of the political/religious idea of jihad. When the word jihad is used, Muslims say that there are two kinds of jihad. There is the religious jihad, the greater jihad--the inner struggle against personal problems. The war jihad is the lesser jihad.
The Hadith of Bukhari gives all of the tactical details of jihad. A simple counting method shows that 3% of the hadiths are about the inner struggle, whereas, 97% of the hadiths are about jihad as war. So is jihad the inner struggle? Yes, 3%. Is jihad the war against kafirs? Yes, 97%.
This leads to a very important concept. Islam is based upon contradictory statements. How do we sort them out to get the complete meaning? We measure the amount of text devoted to each side of the dichotomy. That is what we did with the question of which jihad is the real jihad. It gives a complete statistical answer. "
How a Robust and Confident Trinitarianism Can Destroy the Allah Myth
"Unlike most other religions, Islam didn't start off as a coherent body of doctrine. It began as the rantings and ravings of a psychopathic pedophile, which were altered according to the requirements of his debauched lifestyle. The Koran is full of internal contradictions, with the more violent verses 'abrogating' (i.e. cancelling) the more peaceful ones.
Nor was Islam spread by missionary efforts as with other religions. It was imposed by the sword by a thuggish bunch of robbers, rapists and murderers who were attracted by Mohammed's offer of divinely approved raids of rape and pillage.
Consequently, the later Muslims had to try to do a retrofit of theology and philosophy on to what was a pig's breakfast of garbled Jewish and Christian beliefs mixed up with Mohammed's ramblings and ravings. They soon gave up on the philosophy, and didn't do much better with the theology, which is no match for Christian Trinitarianism.
Rivers of Blood and Communalism
"In the days of the Raj, Brigadier Powell argued that India was not ready for independence, because of 'communalism', i.e. an overriding loyalty to a group that would prevent people being rational voters or accepting the majority decision when they were in a minority. The bloody, communal violence that accompanied Indian partition and independence confirmed his worst fears.
Powell feared that immigration would import communalism into Britain, eroding its homogeneous electorate and undermining its parliamentary system. In the early 1950s, Powell abandoned his imperialism, but he never discarded his fear of communalism and its potentially bloody consequences." http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/1968/riversofblood.shtml
Hatred of non-Moslems is the pivot of Islamic existence.
V.S. Naipaul said "Hatred of non-Moslems is the pivot of Islamic existence. It not only declares all dissidents as the denizens of hell but also seeks to ignite a permanent fire of tension between Moslems and non-Moslems; it is far more lethal than Karl Marx's idea of social conflict which he hatched to keep his theory alive." http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/01/islamic-love-of-mankind-is-myth-hatred.html
We are in the Domain of War
Muslims divide the world into Dar al-Islam - the lands where Islam reigns supreme, and Dar al-Harb - the domain of war which is as yet unconquered by Islam.
- Is the term 'Dar al-Harb' destined to be a self-fulfilling prophecy?
- Given this polarised theology, is Muslim aggression against the West inevitable?
- Is there anything we can do, short of abject surrender, that can permanently stop their aggression?
- Is Islamageddon, a clash of civilisations resulting in WWIII, unavoidable?
The Muslim world is seething with a thousand and one real and imagined grievances and resentments against the West.
They feel humiliated by the West's accomplishments compared with their own inbred backwardness. They want revenge for the Crusades, colonialism, cartoons, Israel, ice-cream wrappers, Salman Rushdie, science, piggy banks and all the other humiliations that they believe in their paranoid state that the kuffars have deliberately inflicted on them.
To Muslims, all relationships are of dominance/submission.
If they can't be dominant, they sulk, whine and claim victim status to sympathetic bleeding-heart liberals, while secretly nursing their pent-up fury and humiliation.
Once they think they might get the upper hand, the sulking immediately flips into murderous hostility.
So, kuffars, beware the coming Islamageddon. Once Muslims can take on the West there'll be an orgy of rape, murder, torture and mutilation that will make the two previous world wars seem like a family squabble. We need to shove Islam back into its box and nail the lid down before its too late for all of us.
Too terrible to contemplate
"They think the implications of the possibility that the Koran teaches warfare against unbelievers are too terrible to even contemplate. Thus, many policymakers simply assume the Koran teaches peace without bothering to study the text."
In FrontPage yesterday Jamie Glazov interviewed me about my new book, The Complete Infidel's Guide to the Koran. Here is an excerpt:
FP: Tell us how and why political correctness has made it almost impossible to discuss what is really in the Koran and in other Islamic texts.
Spencer: Political correctness would have us believe that the Koran is a book of peace, and that anyone who says otherwise is "bigoted," "hateful," and "Islamophobic."
But is it, really? What the Koran really says can easily be verified. If the Koran really curses Jews and Christians (9:30) and calls for warfare against them in order to bring about their subjugation (9:29), it is not "Islamophobic" to forewarn Infidels by pointing this out. It is simply a fact. And it should go without saying that it is not a fact that should move any reader of my book to hate anyone. The fact that the Koran counsels warfare against unbelievers should move readers to act in defense of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the legal equality of all people, before it is too late.
FP: How does the misinterpretation of what the Koran and other Muslim texts teach endanger our security?
Spencer: Most Western analysts dogmatically deny that the Koran teaches violence and supremacism. Yet Muslims who believe this comprise a global movement, active from Indonesia to Nigeria and extending into Europe and North America, that is dedicated to waging war against "unbelievers" - that is, non-Muslims - and subjugating them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law. This movement sees in the Koran its divine mandate to wage that war.
In March 2009, five Muslims accused of helping plot the September 11 attacks, including the notorious Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, wrote an "Islamic Response to the Government's Nine Accusations." In it they quote the Koran to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. "In God's book," asserts the letter, "he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God's book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Koran's 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush." http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/10/they-think-the-implications-of-the-possibility-that-the-koran-teaches-warfare-against-unbelievers-ar.html
Moral equivalence is moral cowardice
Those people who use the 'moral equivalence argument' to compare Islam with other religions need to examine their own subconscious psychological motives. They are not only attempting to delude others, but are in deep denial and trying to delude themselves.
The conscious part of the argument takes the form "Christians and Jews have committed atrocities such as the McVeigh, Breivik and King David Hotel bombings, so Christianity and Judaism are just the same as Islam. Therefore Islam poses no special threat."
The fallacies are obvious: Christian and Jewish acts of terrorism are rare and infrequent; they are rejected by the majority of followers of the religions, go against the core teachings of the religions, and are committed by a few isolated loonies. In contrast, Islamic acts of terrorism are commonplace, are encouraged by the Koran and are supported, if not actually carried out, by a substantial proportion of Muslims.
The unconscious and self-deluding part of the moral equivalence argument is the refusal to face the fact that Islam is an intrisically violent totalitarian ideology that has infiltrated our civilization, and is bent on our conversion, subjugation or elimination. To acknowlege this would be deeply disturbing and well outside the comfort zone of most people (remember the popular enthusiasm for appeasement of Hitler and 'Peace in Our Time'?) . So we reassure ourselves, by the moral equivalence argument, that Islam is just like other religions.
It's far easier to stay in denial and regard Islam as being no more threat to our lives and culture than the Quakers or Lubavitcher Hasidim. That way we don't have to worry about the looming global clash of civizations, or think about the unpleasant courses of action that may be necessary to reduce the threat. We can leave that for our children to sort out.
You owe it to your children and grandchildren to understand Islam. Use Everything you need to know about Islam as a handy reference.