The United West:
Jay Smith, Christian Apologist and Islamic expert provides a detailed expose’ and explanation fom the Quran as to why the two Muslim jihadis savagely killed British soldier, Lee Rigby. Do not miss Jay’s powerful insight which he gained from many years of confrontational debates with Muslim supremacists.
Gates of Vienna:
The following video from Germany, originally posted at Politically Incorrect, contains excerpts from an interview with an apostate from Islam.
Nassim Ben Iman warns his audience that Westerners are being dangerously naïve about Islam and blind to the Islamization of Europe, which has been planned for a long time and is now well underway. As PI notes:
Nassim Ben Iman is one of the best-known apostates of Islam in Germany.
He has written a book of his own experiences entitled: “Der wahre Feind… warum ich kein Terrorist geworden bin” / “The true enemy…why I did not become a terrorist”. In view of the present Islamic terror threat in Germany, his statements about the danger of Islam are more topical than ever.
This ex-Muslim of Arab origin has a lot to tell, and offers us a deep insight into the most peaceful of all religions. As one of only a very small number, he managed to extract himself from the strict Islamic indoctrination. He tells brutal truths such as “Every Muslim is a potential terrorist”. We have distilled the most important points of an extensive interview with this courageous man which we conducted in May of this year into a ten-minute video, because of the acute terrorism danger.
Warning: this video is not recommended for “do-gooders” whose carefully constructed worldview could, when they watch this film, disintegrate.
Many thanks to Oz-Rita for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:
Go to Gates of Vienna for the Transcript
CWN: Every year 105,000 Christians are killed because of their faith.
This shocking figure was disclosed by Italian sociologist Massimo Introvigne, representative of the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians, at the “International Conference on Inter-religious dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims,” sponsored the Hungarian presidency of the European Union (EU) in Gödöllo, near Budapest.
“Every five minutes”, Introvigne said in his speech, “a Christian is killed for his faith.” The figure does not include the victims of civil wars, or wars between nations, but only the people put to death because they are Christians.
“If these figures are not cried out to the world, if this massacre is not stopped,” Introvigne continued; “if it is not recognized that the persecution against Christians is the first worldwide emergency with regard to religious discrimination and violence, dialogue between religions will only produce wonderful symposia but no concrete results.”
WHEN YOU talk to people about basic, easily-validated information about Islam, more often than not you will get an argument. But the strange thing is the person will argue with you and yet clearly not know anything about Islam.
Why is this? What is happening? I mean, this doesn’t exist for other things, does it? If the person doesn’t know anything about how to fry chicken and you do, more often than not the person will listen to you politely and thank you for the information.
Why do you get such a different kind of response about Islam?
Because the person you’re talking to has already gotten a great deal of “education” about Islam from mainstream media. Mainstream “news” organizations not only present themselves as unbiased, but they all agree with each other on Islam. I don’t know if that’s because the Islamic PR machine is so effective, or just because somehow the “anti-Islam” position has been associated with conservatives and most people in the mainstream media are liberals, or what. But the upshot is that the person you’re talking to has heard everyone in authority that he listens to — NPR and PBS and NBC and CBS and ABC and even the last two presidents — all presenting an identical point of view. Namely, that Islam teaches peace and terrorists are just wackos who have mistakenly attributed their violence and political actions with Islam, but really it has nothing to do with Islam, and besides, most Muslims are peace-loving people, and they are a persecuted minority so not only should we not criticize them, but we should bend over backwards to make them feel welcome in this country because that’s the kind of people we are.
When someone gets the same message from so many different sources, and only hears people with your point of view in little clips on mainstream news — clips long enough to make the person look like a madman, but short enough to give the commentator something to belittle — then they feel completely certain their point of view is right.
That’s why he will argue with what you’re saying about Islam, even though he actually knows nothing about Islam.
But we need to talk to these people. We need to reach them and influence them and convince them. I know it is hard work. I know it can be upsetting. But it needs to be done. If it isn’t done by you, it probably won’t get done at all with the people you know. And then all those people with that point of view are not only not on our side in this fight, they are actually unwittingly fighting on the side of the enemy (the orthodox Muslims who are working to achieve Islam’s prime directive).
by Abigail R. Esman:
As the number of converts to Islam grows around the world, little is more surprising than the fact that the vast majority of those converts are women – by some counts, as many as four times the number of women in the United States as men. And over and over, as if reciting dogma, these women offer the same bizarre explanation: Islam, they say, with its “modest” dress code, frees them from the “oppression” of Western society and a culture that judges women on their looks alone. It is, in fact, as if they have bought into the religion not for its precepts, but for its costumes.
Perhaps you could even believe their reasoning if most of these women actually dressed in full chador or burqa. But they don’t. Rather, they simply cover their heads – and occasionally their bare necks – in hijabs, or headscarves, arguing – with flawed logic and misrepresentations of the principles supporting Western notions of equality and feminism – that even this is a sign of “liberation” as much as it is of their allegiance to a religion.
And evidently, more and more non-Muslims are buying it, especially as legal battles erupt in Europe — and in some American cities — over the right to wear a hijab in the public realm.
Latest among them, it seems, are the editors of the International Herald Tribune, who earlier this summer ran an op-ed by Ayesah Nusrat, a self-described “Indian Muslim,” defending her decision to don a hijab at the age of 23. (What the editors evidently failed to notice was that the pious young author of the piece lifted all of her ideas and a reasonable portion of her words directly from a previously-published essay by a Canadian Muslim, Naheed Mustafa, which is widely available online,)
Poorly written, speckled with faulty grammar and plagiarized clauses, Nusrat’s piece presents a downright bizarre depiction of Western media and public opinion (among other things, she describes Western feminism as being defined by “a skewed perception of women’s equality as the right to bare our breasts in public”). Nonetheless, her commentary places in full view of a wide public one of the biggest obstacles we face in combating the growth of Islam in the West, and, even more, of political, aggressively Islamist Islam as it masquerades as a faith – and a doctrine – based on justice and equal rights, slinking its deceitful, theocratic destructiveness into the secular humanism of the West.
And it is exactly that deceit which makes it all so dangerous, especially to young women struggling with their own body image and sexuality: what easier escape, what simpler coping mechanism, than to throw a sheet over your head before heading out in public, and convince yourself that no one either sees what you look like underneath, or cares? (Indeed, Dutch psychiatrist Carla Rus, who works closely with young Muslim women – including converts – notes that the ease of dress and discomfort with cultural emphases on appearance is behind much of the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam, and contributes to the radicalization of Muslim women in Western countries.)
But Islam is not about garments, any more than a hijab actually covers anything but a woman’s hair. In fact, to the contrary, a hijab-wearing woman in the West attracts attention to herself merely by the fact of the scarf itself, and to the political statement it really represents: “I am not-you. I am Muslim. I am other, and I reject what is not me.” It pronounces the “us” of “us and them” in a gesture of arrogance and isolationism, while ignoring the greater truth of any faith: that it exists in your heart and in your behavior, and no more.
Read more at IPT
Abigail R. Esman is the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy In The West (Praeger, 2010). A columnist at Forbes.com, her articles have also appeared in The New Republic, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy, and others.
Sorry, no picture with this… decided against a google search for one.
As a possibly convenient way of rationalizing what one desires while still being able to feel “pure,” anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that supposedly matters is one’s intention, or niyya.
Not only did the original “underwear bomber” Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old holy warrior “feigned repentance for his jihadi views“—but al-Asiri apparently had fellow jihadis repeatedly sodomize him to “widen” his anus in order to accommodate the explosives— all in accordance with the fatwas [religious edicts] of Islamic clerics.
A 2010 Arabic news video that is making the rounds on the Internet gives the details. Apparently a cleric, one Abu al-Dema al-Qasab, informed jihadis of an “innovative and unprecedented way to execute martyrdom operations: place explosive capsules in your anus. However, to undertake this jihadi approach you must agree to be sodomized for a while to widen your anus so it can hold the explosives.”
Others inquired further by asking for formal fatwas. Citing his desire for “martyrdom and the virgins of paradise,” one jihadi, (possibly al-Asiri himself) asked another sheikh, “Is it permissible for me to let one of the jihadi brothers sodomize me to widen my anus if the intention is good?”
After praising Allah, the sheikh’s fatwa began by declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam,
However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.
Two important and complementary points emerge from this view: 1) that jihad is the “pinnacle” of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme (based on a hadith, the formerly oral history of the life of Muhammad); and 2) that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” These axioms are not limited to modern day fatwas, but in fact, were crystallized centuries and ago agreed to by the ulema [Islam's leading religious scholars]. The result is that—because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority—anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one’s intention, or niyya.
From here one may understand the many ostensible incongruities of Islamic history: lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam; intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible when performed during holy war, or jihad; suicide is forbidden—but also permissible during jihad, only then called “martyrdom.”
Read more at Gatestone Institute
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Iranians are leaving Islam behind. If any country is ready to leave Islam, it is Iran. Good luck to all Iranians fighting for freedom.
Amil Imani is an Iranian-American writer, poet, satirist, novelist, essayist, literary translator, public speaker and political analyst who has been writing and speaking out about the danger of radical Islam both in America and internationally. He has become a formidable voice in the United States against the danger of global jihad and Islamization of America. Imani is the author of the riveting book Obama Meets Ahmadinejad and a new book “OPERATION PERSIAN GULF.
Link to original post by Amil Imani: http://amilimani.com/2011/11/islam-was-not-for-me/
Through an examination of the Koran, other Islamic texts and the example of the prophet Muhammad, this documentary argues, through a sober and methodical presentation, that violence against non-Muslims is and has always been an integral aspect of Islam.
Features interviews with noted experts on Islam including Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Bar Ye’or, Abdullah Al-Araby, and former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat.
