Ban Islam

One of my Google Alerts returned a link to a discussion thread at alt.religion.islam. The post was by kangarooistan, who titled it “There’s a group called ” BAN ISLAM ” help us to delete it”. Kangarooistan’s post is intended to initiate a movement to pressure Face Book to delete a discussion board titled “Ban Islam.”

I will not reproduce the complete drivel here, instead I will refute a few key deceptions which need to be addressed directly.

This group is created because there has been a breach of contract by the creator of the Group “Ban Islam” and Face book needs to address this issue as a group demoralizing any religion is disrespectful and encourages religious hatred among people…

The group began with an obscenity in its name, Face Book objected and the organizers changed the name.

  • demoralizing any religion is disrespectful and encourages religious hatred among people

While some posters swing the heavy hammers of condemnation & execration, others post relevant factual evidence to support their conclusions. We tell the truth about Islam and they interpret it as demonization. Yes, kangarooistan chose the wrong word. Islam is immoral and demonic, by design.

  • .encourages religious hatred among people

That is what the Qur’an does, but it goes further, inciting genocidal violence. The Skeptic’s Annotated Qur’an lists 527 ayat which incite religious hatred.

Of course there is a freedom of speech.. BUT, There is no freedom of abusing, spamming, swearing or disrespecting!

Kangarooistan is a clever liar, the sentence quoted above is an exemplar of kitman: lying by commission or concealment. We can discover the truth of this matter by examining Islam’s all purpose handbook of Shari’ah: Reliance of the Traveller.

  • O11.10-5 or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam

Any negative remark about Islam breaks the covenant of dhimmitude and forfeits the dhimmi’s life.

  • O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam
  • -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

  • -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

  • -6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

  • -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

  • -15- to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;
  • -16- to revile the religion of Islam;

Remember the penalty for apostasy!

  • O8.1

    When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

  • O8.2

    In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Every one has a right to oppose & criticize others’ belief but in a positive and gentle way..

If you oppose or criticize Islam in any place where Allah’s writ runs, they’ll kill you for it!

Earth is sweltering with the heat of tyrant and brutality.. Let’s transform it into an oasis of peace and love!.. Let’s say no to hate!
Let’s stand against the racism.. We all are created equal… Let’s respect the differences!.. Neither any religion nor any philosophy preach hate… So let’s join hand and walk together to make the earth a wonderful planet…

  • Let’s transform it into an oasis of peace and love!

Translation: convert the entire world to Islam, by force or deception, then it’ll all be peachy keen.

  • Neither any religion nor any philosophy preach hate

Islam is neither a religion nor a philosophy; it is a way of life: predation! It preaches hate and genocidal violence. 8:37 mandates perpetual war against pagans until only Allah is worshiped. 9:29 mandates perpetual war against Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion. 8:67 sets “great slaughter” as Moe’s price of admission to Paradise. 47:4 commands killing and wounding “many of them”. One Jewish settlement surrendered after a long siege. Moe decapitated the men, then he examined the boys, and decapitated any who had reached adolescence. Genocide, anyone? The historical record is here: Sunan Abu Dawud 38.4390. See also Sahih Bukhari 4.52.280.

Islam is aggressive, offensive, predatory, genocidal and mercenary. I have presented much of the evidence in this post. Click the links and see for yourself. If any doubt remains, read What’s Wrong with Islam/Muslims and follow the links therein contained.

If you are ready to take action, here are some things you can do to advance the cause of human life and liberty against Islam’s genocidal aggression. Please sign and promote the following on line petitions. Send their urls to your Congressman & Senators. Copy these petitions and paste them into emails, urging the recipients to forward them. Learn as much as you can about Islam and share your knowledge with others; each one teach two!


Advertisements

The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars

TSUNAMI MEDIA ALERT


May 29, 2009 The Latest Czar to Regulate Far More than Cars http://www.WAMAction.org

A long-forecast and dreaded announcement came this morning from the head of the “Change” Administration himself.

The astonishing sequence of end-runs, by the “Change” Adminisitration – around traditional and critical structures which
preserve the U.S. Constitution- and its balance of powers – seems about to take its greatest toll to date. The protections provided
by the 3 American branches of government have continued to erode via Obama’s unprecedented installation of “Czars” – i,e, politically hand-picked individuals who are given enormous powers over free enterprise – and whom report directly to the Chief Excutive himself. This newly invented system for expanding Executive branch authority, among its other dangers, eliminates the need for Congressional approval or involvement with these power-packed new authority figures. It also short circuits Capitol
Hill oversight of the activities which they undertake.
Obama has made public today his plan to take control of the Internet – directly from the White House – on behalf of preserving
“cyber-security.” This strategy to expand his authority to encroach further on Americans right to privacy – with warrantless supervision of online activity – has been in the works since the Inauguration. The timing of its current announcement holds notable coincidence to the Chief Executive’s recent decline in public opinion polls (along with the downhill slide of popularity among his key Congressional leadership (Pelosi, Reid and Dodd.)
Former Democratic activists who worked against Obama’s nomination are among those most aware of the alarm bells this current
move to suppress opposition sets off. His online primary campaign, which generated maximum impact via use of high tech applications-is recalled by many for its brutality and vicious conduct against web opponents in 2008. Several reported personal threats while many more indicated repeated disruption of their blogs and large-scale attacks on their forums. Throughout the campaign season, an online army of campaign-paid web thugs were hired for these intrusions, as reported and verified by FOX News. Intimidation, verbal threats, gutter language and even obscene images were the order of the day.
Those in the know, then are acutely aware, then, that the “threats to security” listed by this Head of State in his televised speech today ironically coincide with tactics similar to some his own campaign used to get elected. An Obama small-dollar-on-line donor even reported receiving a phone call on his unlisted cell phone to remind him of a “Meet Up” in his own neighborhood – this despite the fact that the donor had not supplied the campaign with either his cell number nor his physical address! At least one Nigerian husband and wife both confessed last year to using their executive positions with international tech corporations to obtain personal records of U.S. citizens for use in harassment by the “Change” campaign.
In the meantime, while specifics of the new leader’s rationale remain to be seen, it’s already foreshadowed they will be as far-reaching as possible. Obama’s sweeping statements about the urgent need to protect everything from banking records, to online purchases to information exchange. Rumors have indicated that the NSA is also disturbed that this new report-to-President only position would also circumvent this agency’s normal role in cyber-watching. Further evidence of the long-term planning of this eradication of online privacy plan lies in the fact that Senators Rockfeller and Snowe introduced a bill in Congress on April 1st to give the White House these cyber-space powers.
One could ask: How does the rest of Congress feel about turning over their responsibility and authority to the Executive Branch?
Also, if the right to online privacy is allowed follow the path of warrantless phone wire-tapping what does Big Brother have in mindnext? And lest we wonder who might be put on the Cyber Czar’s Watch List, just remember the recent Homeland Security Warningthat “right wing extremists” (ie any citizens identified as”Change administration opponents) are now a grave threat. Even a child could connect quickly connect the dots between that recent DHS Alert and the press conference on cyber-security threats today! it’s not hard to guage whose “security” seems to feel most threatened. The only question that remains is how much more terror – against free enterprise and freedom of speech – will We the People permit the “Change” Administration to undertake?!
For quick valuable information on other current events, come to Wake Up America Movement at: http://WAMAction.org/NewsRoom.html

Right of Free Speech

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle


Hat tip to Miss Beth of Miss Beth’s Victory Dance

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Although it says Congress, the meaning has been made clear over the last 221 years that this august document was ratified and made into the basis of law for the United States of America.

There have been many challenges to this Amendment over the years, but the one point that the courts have all agreed on is that all people have the right to speak their mind, regardless of their race, religion, occupation or political associations. This is a right that many people in the world, even in the Western world, have.

Under the 1st Amendment, the government, whether it is Federal, State or Local, does not have the right to arrest you for your ideas. Even when these ideas are contrary to public belief. Even if they go against the majority opinion. Even if they are bigoted and hateful. You have a right to say and print these ideas.

Until now.

And the censorship has come from Attorneys at that. For in Arizona, the State bar has approved the right to censor private and public speech of the attorneys in that state.

Throwing our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association down the drain, the State Bar of Arizona is considering a revision to the attorneys’ oath of office that would silence conservative viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows:

“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”

The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys wishing to practice law in Arizona. As such, they have the power to revoke the license to practice law in Arizona of any attorney they believe has violated this provision. A clause like this has no place in an oath of office, which should consist of nothing more but generally swearing allegiance to the laws of the land. Adding a controversial restriction on our First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct left wing agenda is inappropriate and a gross abuse of power by the Bar. If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so.

Please call or email the president of the State Bar of Arizona and express your objection to this outrageous infringement upon our rights, Ed.Novak@azbar.org or 602-340-7239.

Full Story

What sounds like a very innocent idea of not discriminating against a person based on certain criteria, can in fact become the basis of limited the rights of an person to speak their mind, in a public forum, as a private citizen. Thus an attorney with deep religious beliefs would be forced to argue a case in favor of abortion. Or in favor of gay marriage. The Bar Association while trying to be non-discriminatory has in fact forgotten the basic law itself. The right to free expression.

If one group of individuals can be forced to violate their beliefs, what is to stop other organizations from doing the same. How much longer will there actually be a Freedom of Speech in this nation?

Right of Free Speech

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle


Hat tip to Miss Beth of Miss Beth’s Victory Dance

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. Although it says Congress, the meaning has been made clear over the last 221 years that this august document was ratified and made into the basis of law for the United States of America.

There have been many challenges to this Amendment over the years, but the one point that the courts have all agreed on is that all people have the right to speak their mind, regardless of their race, religion, occupation or political associations. This is a right that many people in the world, even in the Western world, have.

Under the 1st Amendment, the government, whether it is Federal, State or Local, does not have the right to arrest you for your ideas. Even when these ideas are contrary to public belief. Even if they go against the majority opinion. Even if they are bigoted and hateful. You have a right to say and print these ideas.

Until now.

And the censorship has come from Attorneys at that. For in Arizona, the State bar has approved the right to censor private and public speech of the attorneys in that state.

Throwing our constitutional rights of free speech and freedom of association down the drain, the State Bar of Arizona is considering a revision to the attorneys’ oath of office that would silence conservative viewpoints on gay issues. The oath would be revised to add the language in red as follows:

“I will not permit considerations of gender, race, religion, age, nationality, sexual orientation, disability, or social standing to influence my duty of care.”

The State Bar of Arizona is a mandatory association for attorneys wishing to practice law in Arizona. As such, they have the power to revoke the license to practice law in Arizona of any attorney they believe has violated this provision. A clause like this has no place in an oath of office, which should consist of nothing more but generally swearing allegiance to the laws of the land. Adding a controversial restriction on our First Amendment rights in order to promote a politically correct left wing agenda is inappropriate and a gross abuse of power by the Bar. If they go ahead with this curtailing of our rights, there will be plenty of lawsuits, and rightly so.

Please call or email the president of the State Bar of Arizona and express your objection to this outrageous infringement upon our rights, Ed.Novak@azbar.org or 602-340-7239.

Full Story

What sounds like a very innocent idea of not discriminating against a person based on certain criteria, can in fact become the basis of limited the rights of an person to speak their mind, in a public forum, as a private citizen. Thus an attorney with deep religious beliefs would be forced to argue a case in favor of abortion. Or in favor of gay marriage. The Bar Association while trying to be non-discriminatory has in fact forgotten the basic law itself. The right to free expression.

If one group of individuals can be forced to violate their beliefs, what is to stop other organizations from doing the same. How much longer will there actually be a Freedom of Speech in this nation?

UN Human Rights Council: Curtailing Freedom of Expression

Cross Posted at Monkey in the Middle

Many times NGO’s have been asked to speak in front of many United Nations organizations. And every time a pro-Israel group has spoken, they have been stopped by one or another Muslim nation. Most of the time it hasn’t been recorded, but this time it was recorded.

View at YouTube

Jewish lobby groups have long claimed that United Nations councils that discuss matters related to the Middle East are outright anti-Israel. The UN watchdog organization Eye On The UN has released a 3-minute film of a session of the UN Human Rights Council calling it a blatant case of silencing a pro-Israel speaker.

On September 18, 2008, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva discussed Item 7 on the agenda: “the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.” Time was allotted to hear comments from NGO’s at which time a Joint statement of B’nai Brith International and the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations was read. The B’nai Brith representative said:[the above video starts with his statement]

“The discussions under this agenda item are not only repetitive in the sense that speaker after speaker accuses Israel of all conceivable human rights violations without any reference to human rights violations committed by Palestinians. These are not only committed against Israeli civilians, but against other… “

At this moment in the film clip, the president of the council interrupted and gave the floor to Egyptian representative Elchin Amirbayov, Vice President of the Human Rights Council, who made a point of order:

“When we allowed and welcomed the participation of NGO’s in the work of this council, we expected this to be serious input… But I am sorry, I don’t see any seriousness… No amount of diversion can cover what is happening in Palestine. Those who cannot address the facts and the issues on the ground, should not try to distort and waste the time of the council and waste the time allocated to NGO’s. This is not seriousness… We did not hear a single serious statement thus far.”

The president of the council accepted the point of order by the Egyptian representative.

UN Human Rights Council: Curtailing Freedom of Expression

Cross Posted at Monkey in the Middle

Many times NGO’s have been asked to speak in front of many United Nations organizations. And every time a pro-Israel group has spoken, they have been stopped by one or another Muslim nation. Most of the time it hasn’t been recorded, but this time it was recorded.

View at YouTube

Jewish lobby groups have long claimed that United Nations councils that discuss matters related to the Middle East are outright anti-Israel. The UN watchdog organization Eye On The UN has released a 3-minute film of a session of the UN Human Rights Council calling it a blatant case of silencing a pro-Israel speaker.

On September 18, 2008, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva discussed Item 7 on the agenda: “the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.” Time was allotted to hear comments from NGO’s at which time a Joint statement of B’nai Brith International and the Coordinating Board of Jewish Organizations was read. The B’nai Brith representative said:[the above video starts with his statement]

“The discussions under this agenda item are not only repetitive in the sense that speaker after speaker accuses Israel of all conceivable human rights violations without any reference to human rights violations committed by Palestinians. These are not only committed against Israeli civilians, but against other… “

At this moment in the film clip, the president of the council interrupted and gave the floor to Egyptian representative Elchin Amirbayov, Vice President of the Human Rights Council, who made a point of order:

“When we allowed and welcomed the participation of NGO’s in the work of this council, we expected this to be serious input… But I am sorry, I don’t see any seriousness… No amount of diversion can cover what is happening in Palestine. Those who cannot address the facts and the issues on the ground, should not try to distort and waste the time of the council and waste the time allocated to NGO’s. This is not seriousness… We did not hear a single serious statement thus far.”

The president of the council accepted the point of order by the Egyptian representative.