Demoting Islam from Religion

Demoting Islam’s Religion Status was written by Martel Sobieskey and cross posted by Citizen Warrior.
Here are a few quotes to whet your appetite.

ONE THING is certain, Islam is not a religion by anything Americans believe one to be — not even close. In fact, Islam is the antithesis of what we deem to be religious. Above all, Islam is a totalitarian political machine of bloodthirsty conquest which zealously advocates the downfall of the U.S. government.

It is sheer madness, exceedingly irresponsible, criminally negligent, and strategically suicidal to continue granting religion status to an absolutely aggressive and implacable ideology that demands the destruction of our government and all other religions.

The purpose of this article is to introduce the proposition that Islam’s religion status is undeserving, that it should never have been granted in the first place, and that its religion status should be immediately rescinded.

The root word of religion means “to bind”. Islam is binding, it imposes capital punishment for apostasy established by 9:74. Allah also commanded his votaries to attack, kill or wound disbelievers, and “bind a bond firmly” in 47:4.

Religion also involves theology, scripture, ritual and prayer. Islam meets all of those tests, so what disqualifies it as a religion? Mercenary mission is at the head of my of disqualifying factors. The following ayat expose Moe’s mercenary motivation for founding Islam: 8:1, 8:41, 8:67, 33:27 & 48:15-21. Al-Anfal 67 is particularly clear about both mercenary motivation and violence.

It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Hilali & Khan]

The phrases emphasized with bold font make two things clear: Moe wanted booty and Allah wants genocide. How can an institution dedicated to pillage, plunder and genocide be worthy of protection as a religion? How can there be a right to practice a ‘religion’ which mandates making war on members of other religions as Islam clearly does in 9:29?

Is it possible that an unrepentant rapist founded a legitimate religion? When Moe attacked the Jews living at the Khaibar Oasis, he had their chieftain tortured to death and added his widow to his own harem. His act is reported in the oral tradition of his companions: Bukhari 4.52.143. His attitude toward raping captive women is also on record: Bukhari 5.59.459.

What legitimate religion makes aggressive warfare the holiest act a man can perform as Islam does: Bukhari 4.52.41, 4.52.44 ? Follow the link to Sobieskey’s article, then follow the links I have provided to the Qur’an and hadith. I have one more link for you, to a blog post describing an on line petition which calls for Islam to be removed from the list of recognized religions: Outlaw Islam Petition.

Advertisements

Defamation Resolutions: Enough Already!

I learned about the existence of this CNS News article through a link at Eye On the UN.

UN Passes Islamic ‘Defamation’ Measure, But Critics Hail ‘Backlash’
Thursday, December 18, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

In that article, I found a link to a statement by four human rights experts, named in the last page of the document.

International Mechanisms for Promoting Freedom of Expression
JOINT DECLARATION ON DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS, AND ANTI-TERRORISM AND
ANTI-EXTREMISM LEGISLATION

Having read that statement, I now endorse it, reserving the exception of the following quoted points, to each of which I dissent. [Emphasis added.]

Recognising the importance to democracy, as well as to holding social institutions accountable, of open debate about all ideas and social phenomena in society and the right of all to be able to manifest their culture, religion and beliefs in practice;

Since Islam sanctifies & mandates genocidal1 conquest2 using terrorism3 as a battle tactic, manifesting its practice is a wrong, not a right.

The definition of terrorism, at least as it applies in the context of restrictions on freedom of
expression, should be restricted to violent crimes that are designed to advance an ideological, religious, political or organised criminal cause and to influence public authorities by inflicting terror on the public.

Advocacy of casting terror, incitement to cast terror and glorification of the act & those who perform it are essential to the perpetuation of terrorism and must be condemned as part and parcel of it.

The criminalisation of speech relating to terrorism should be restricted to instances of intentional incitement to terrorism, understood as a direct call to engage in terrorism which is directly responsible for increasing the likelihood of a terrorist act occurring, or to actual participation in terrorist acts (for example by directing them). Vague notions such as providing communications support to terrorism or extremism, the ‘glorification’ or ‘promotion’ of terrorism or extremism, and the mere repetition of statements by terrorists, which does not itself constitute incitement, should not be criminalised.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. Moral condemnation of conquest in which men are killed, their widows raped4 and orphans sold into slavery5 is not consequent upon the terror inflicted, it is consequent upon malum in se; the pure evil of aggression against innocent persons. Sanctification of conquest, with a divine mandate to perform it until the entire globe is dominated by Islam6, would be sufficient cause to outlaw the propagation of Islam, even in the absence of its 1398 year history of rapine.

Not withstanding those reservations, I endorse the rest of the statement, particularly the following:

The concept of ‘defamation of religions’ does not accord with international standards regarding
defamation, which refer to the protection of reputation of individuals, while religions, like all beliefs, cannot be said to have a reputation of their own.

Restrictions on freedom of expression should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding individual rights and social interests, and should never be used to protect particular institutions, or abstract notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones.

Restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent intolerance should be limited in scope to advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

International organisations, including the United Nations General Assembly and Human Rights
Council, should desist from the further adoption of statements supporting the idea of ‘defamation of religions’.

In my opinion, that last sentence was poorly written, introducing an ambiguity which should not be allowed to persist. The named bodies should rescind their previous resolutions as listed in the statement, and refrain from passing further resolutions condemning or attempting to outlaw criticism of Islam.

  1. Genocide:
  1. until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. [8:67]
  2. smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them [47:4]
  3. those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed [Abu Dawud 38.4390]
  • Conquest:
    1. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [8:39]
    2. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allahamong the people of the Scripture … until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. [9:29]
    3. The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
  • Terrorism:
    1. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve [3:151]
    2. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes. [8:12]
    3. Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts [33:26]
  • Rape:
    1. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess…. [4:24]
    2. …”We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. … [Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459]
  • Slavery: and a group (of them) you made captives. [33:26]
  • Global domination:
    1. …) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]…. [8:39]
    2. to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it). [9:33]
    3. The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book

    The State of Nevada v. Daryl O. Clark, NDOC Prisoner Id 24347

    Before I go on to current events, I’m wrapping up (for now) my abortion rants. I often hear how abortion should remain legal for rape and incest victims. This is one such TRUE story (and can be investigated through the State of Nevada) and illustrates why I don’t believe it should be legal even in situations such as rape and incest. I stand firmly behind my conviction abortion in any form is murder.

    Read on dear readers.

    In the State of Nevada, there exists an division of the Division of Parole and Probation that writes Pre-Sentence Investigation (“PSI’s”) reports once a defendant has been adjudicated guilty and prior to sentencing. These reports encapsulate the defendant’s prior criminal history, familial background, “instant” offense and sentencing recommendations to the judge based on all of those factors.

    According to Daryl O. Clark’s PSI, he had a criminal history of 2 prior Breaking and Entering and Occupied dwelling (convicted on both), 1 prior Unlawful Driving Away of Motor Vehicle (convicted) and the instant offense was 1) Burglar; 2) Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon; 3) Sexual Assault with Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime (8 counts) (instant offenst).

    In the State of Nevada, use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime is an automatic enhancement with a sentence equal to and consecutive to the actual crime. So, in this case, he committed and was convicted of Sexual Assault, with and equal and consecutive enhancement for Use of a Deadly Weapon.

    The offense report reads as follows:

    “Records of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Clark County District Attorney’s Office reflect that the instant offense occurred substantially as follows:

    On March 3, 1987, between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., the defendant entered the residence of the victim, a 25-year-old female. This residence was also occupied by her 5-year-old daughter. The suspect entered by lifting out the kitchen window. The victim woke up in her bedroom and observed a male adult, subsequently identified as the defendant, wearing a brown and black ski mask with holes cut out over his face and also wearing a blue nylon windbreakertype jacket and high top tennis shoes that wrapped around the ankle area with red shoe laces. The suspect was pointing a small snub-nosed, blue steel revolver at her head threatened to kill her and her daughter if she did not submit to his demands.

    The suspect forced her to perform oral sex on him. After this was completed, he got into bed and performed normal vaginal sex on her, then turned her over and sodomized her. After this, he got up and ransacked her entire house and took several pieces of jewelry, $6 in cash, and two cartons of Benson & Hedges cigarettes. The suspect then left by the front door and stated that he would kill her and her daughter if she reported the crime to the police. She immediately reported the crime.

    On 3-4-87, the victim, while walking to her apartment, saw a suspect whom she believed to be the perpetrator, standing in the same apartment complex near her apartment. She telephoned the police, who responded to apartment #280, which the victim saw the suspect enter. The officers questioned a female, who stated that Darryl clark was her cousin and had been living with her for several months.

    She advised that Clark was not in the apartment. While this investigation was going on, security advised the officers that they had located the suspect and had him in custody. He was advised of his rights and questioned by the officers. At this point, Clark began smoking a Benson & Hedges cigarette. He extinguished the butt and placed it in his right jacket pocket. This cigarette butt was retrieved at booking and placed into evidence.

    Clark was further asked if he had any prior arrests in the United States, and he stated that he had an arrest for Breaking and Entering in St.Louis, Missouri. After several attempts to gain information from the suspect, he was questioned as to where he had obtained the cigarettes, and he stated that he had bought them at the Green Valley Grocery. This was determined to be false information.

    Thereafter, the officers obtained consent to search the apartment being occupied by the defendant’s cousin, Terrie Jones. The search revealed: One unopened carton of Benson & Hedges cogarettes, one Smith & Wesson .38 caliber blue steel revolver with a 2 inch barrel, bearing serial no. D32219. The gun was loaded with five rounds of .38 special wadcutters. Also found was a blue cloth jacket, one pair of Adidas blue high top sneakers with red shoelaces. Also found was one gray and blue ski cap. All of these items were impounded into evidence.

    As Clark matched the general height and build of the described suspect, he was arrested for Sexual Assault, Burglary, and Robbery With Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. He was also booked for False Information to a police officer. Clark was transported to the Clark County Detention Center, where a blood kit was obtained from him as well as hair samples.

    Clark made no admissions and claimed no knowledge of any sexual assault. The victim positively identified the defendant through the sound of his voice and his physical description. She had remembered that his penis was uncircumcised. This characteristic was also noted of the defendant.

    Victim Information:

    According to the victim, she is afraid that the defendant will be released from custody and will come and get her and her daughter. She wants him to go to prison for as long as possible. She further revealed that she became pregnant as a result of the repeated assaults and had to have an abortion. She indicated that she has had law enforcement training and can identify suspects through voice and physical description.

    In her written statement, the victim indicates that he left, but returned again and took her purse and other personal property. She indicates that her pride, her self-confidence, and her security has been threatened. She indicates that she has been threatened by the defendant’s friends since he has been in custody. She lives in constant fear. She and her daughter are seeking counseling, but this cannot erase the trauma that they both suffer.

    Those two sections were taken directly from the PSI regarding this defendant. Unfortunately, victim’s aren’t allowed to see a PSI before it’s submitted to the Court and there were errors in both sections.

    In the “OFFENSE REPORT” section, it neglected to mention that Clark had actually broken in two months prior and stolen all the jewelry and the victim’s purse. It also failed to mention how Clark had forced the daughter into bed with the mother, covered both their heads with a pillow and then left, with the mother not knowing and fearing the gun would be firing any second.

    In the “VICTIM INFORMATION” section, the pregnancy was misreported. The victim was not pregnant; however, due to the extreme stress of the situation had missed periods and thought she was. She did not obtain an abortion, but had prepared for one. She had even asked her father for the money for one, after agonizing over whether she should raise the child herself (would she be able to divorce the child from his/her father’s actions) or put the child up for adoption (did she want to inflict another couple with this child’s aberrant genetic anomalies).

    As stated, she did not, in fact, obtain an abortion.

    This was also in the early days of AIDS–for the next 10 years, the victim had to be tested every six months to see if she had contracted AIDS from the rape. This added to the anger and frustration the victim suffered and, had she tested positive at any given time, it would have been possible to re-try Clark for attempted murder. Fortunately the victim tested negative at all times.

    Clark was sentenced to four consecutive life terms–two terms for sexual assault and two equal and consecutive terms for Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. At the time, he was eligible to attempt parole after serving 5 years on one sentence, and roll-over to the next term. Optimally, he would have been out in 20 years (the 20th anniversary just passed). At this time, he is still on term 3 and has yet to “roll over” to term 4. He will not be eligible to apply until June, 2009.

    Now, with all the talk about abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Unless you have been there, done that as in this victim’s case, you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    To indulge yourself in such rhetoric sounds good, makes it look as if you are an “informed” person with an “informed” opinion–however, it’s nothing more than mental masturbation, designed to make you look good, sympathetic to the victim, up to date and “hip” to the rhetoric currently raging. You are, however, ignorant of the true facts surrounding such circumstances.

    You cannot possibly understand what goes through a rape victim’s mind. The victim has the initial trauma; the skipped periods, the “Oh my GOD what if….” to deal with, the possibility of AIDS, the investigation, the trial and the sentencing. The victim has it resurrected repeatedly when the defendant comes up for parole and the nightmares start again. The victim has gone through counseling and still the anger and rage return.

    This victim was “lucky” in that she WAS NOT pregnant. She agonized; as she grew older and learned more about the issues of abortion, she realized under no circumstances would that child (had there been one) have deserved a death sentence for what its father did. Even though it would have been hard to carry a child conceived in these circumstances, she could have given that child a chance with a loving family.

    Yes, it would be difficult to carry a child to term under these circumstances; however, knowing the child would be given life, knowing the child would have a loving home, would make it easier than living with a murder for the rest of the victim’s life. It would also, ultimately, make it easier on the victim as the victim grew and matured, to know in her heart she hadn’t compounded the crime with another, more heinous crime.

    Now, Miss Beth, how did you get access to this information? How do you know so much about this crime and this rapist? How do you know so much about the whole subject? What makes YOU the reigning opinion-maker on this subject?

    It’s quite simple, really. I AM THIS victim and this is MY story.

    I now KNOW, deep in my heart, that had I been pregnant and gone through with the abortion, I would be in deep mourning for murdering my child. I have had the advantage of age and wisdom, as well as hindsight, to mature and to know the facts.

    No child, regardless of the circumstances of his or her conception, deserves to be murdered.

    The State of Nevada v. Daryl O. Clark, NDOC Prisoner Id 24347

    Before I go on to current events, I’m wrapping up (for now) my abortion rants. I often hear how abortion should remain legal for rape and incest victims. This is one such TRUE story (and can be investigated through the State of Nevada) and illustrates why I don’t believe it should be legal even in situations such as rape and incest. I stand firmly behind my conviction abortion in any form is murder.

    Read on dear readers.

    In the State of Nevada, there exists a division of the Division of Parole and Probation that writes Pre-Sentence Investigation (“PSI’s”) reports once a defendant has been adjudicated guilty and prior to sentencing. These reports encapsulate the defendant’s prior criminal history, familial background, “instant” offense and sentencing recommendations to the judge based on all of those factors.

    According to Daryl O. Clark’s PSI, he had a criminal history of 2 prior Breaking and Entering an Occupied dwelling (convicted on both), 1 prior Unlawful Driving Away of Motor Vehicle (convicted) and the instant offense was 1) Burglar; 2) Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon; 3) Sexual Assault with Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime (8 counts) (instant offenst).

    In the State of Nevada, use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a Crime is an automatic enhancement with a sentence equal and consecutive to the actual crime. So, in this case, he committed and was convicted of Sexual Assault, with an equal and consecutive enhancement for Use of a Deadly Weapon.

    The offense report reads as follows:

    “Records of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Clark County District Attorney’s Office reflect that the instant offense occurred substantially as follows:

    On March 3, 1987, between 5:30 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., the defendant entered the residence of the victim, a 25-year-old female. This residence was also occupied by her 5-year-old daughter. The suspect entered by lifting out the kitchen window. The victim woke up in her bedroom and observed a male adult, subsequently identified as the defendant, wearing a brown and black ski mask with holes cut out over his face and also wearing a blue nylon windbreakertype jacket and high top tennis shoes that wrapped around the ankle area with red shoe laces. The suspect was pointing a small snub-nosed, blue steel revolver at her head threatened to kill her and her daughter if she did not submit to his demands.

    The suspect forced her to perform oral sex on him. After this was completed, he got into bed and performed normal vaginal sex on her, then turned her over and sodomized her. After this, he got up and ransacked her entire house and took several pieces of jewelry, $6 in cash, and two cartons of Benson & Hedges cigarettes. The suspect then left by the front door and stated that he would kill her and her daughter if she reported the crime to the police. She immediately reported the crime.

    On 3-4-87, the victim, while walking to her apartment, saw a suspect whom she believed to be the perpetrator, standing in the same apartment complex near her apartment. She telephoned the police, who responded to apartment #280, which the victim saw the suspect enter. The officers questioned a female, who stated that Darryl clark was her cousin and had been living with her for several months.

    She advised that Clark was not in the apartment. While this investigation was going on, security advised the officers that they had located the suspect and had him in custody. He was advised of his rights and questioned by the officers. At this point, Clark began smoking a Benson & Hedges cigarette. He extinguished the butt and placed it in his right jacket pocket. This cigarette butt was retrieved at booking and placed into evidence.

    Clark was further asked if he had any prior arrests in the United States, and he stated that he had an arrest for Breaking and Entering in St.Louis, Missouri. After several attempts to gain information from the suspect, he was questioned as to where he had obtained the cigarettes, and he stated that he had bought them at the Green Valley Grocery. This was determined to be false information.

    Thereafter, the officers obtained consent to search the apartment being occupied by the defendant’s cousin, Terrie Jones. The search revealed: One unopened carton of Benson & Hedges cogarettes, one Smith & Wesson .38 caliber blue steel revolver with a 2 inch barrel, bearing serial no. D32219. The gun was loaded with five rounds of .38 special wadcutters. Also found was a blue cloth jacket, one pair of Adidas blue high top sneakers with red shoelaces. Also found was one gray and blue ski cap. All of these items were impounded into evidence.

    As Clark matched the general height and build of the described suspect, he was arrested for Sexual Assault, Burglary, and Robbery With Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. He was also booked for False Information to a police officer. Clark was transported to the Clark County Detention Center, where a blood kit was obtained from him as well as hair samples.

    Clark made no admissions and claimed no knowledge of any sexual assault. The victim positively identified the defendant through the sound of his voice and his physical description. She had remembered that his penis was uncircumcised. This characteristic was also noted of the defendant.

    Victim Information:

    According to the victim, she is afraid that the defendant will be released from custody and will come and get her and her daughter. She wants him to go to prison for as long as possible. She further revealed that she became pregnant as a result of the repeated assaults and had to have an abortion. She indicated that she has had law enforcement training and can identify suspects through voice and physical description.

    In her written statement, the victim indicates that he left, but returned again and took her purse and other personal property. She indicates that her pride, her self-confidence, and her security has been threatened. She indicates that she has been threatened by the defendant’s friends since he has been in custody. She lives in constant fear. She and her daughter are seeking counseling, but this cannot erase the trauma that they both suffer.

    Those two sections were taken directly from the PSI regarding this defendant. Unfortunately, victims aren’t allowed to see a PSI before it’s submitted to the Court and there were errors in both sections.

    In the “OFFENSE REPORT” section, it neglected to mention that Clark had actually broken in two months prior and stolen all the jewelry and the victim’s purse. It also failed to mention how Clark had forced the daughter into bed with the mother, covered both their heads with a pillow and then left, with the mother fearing the gun would be firing any second.

    In the “VICTIM INFORMATION” section, the pregnancy was misreported. The victim was not pregnant; however, due to the extreme stress of the situation had missed periods and thought she was. She did not obtain an abortion, but had prepared for one. She had even asked her father for the money for one, after agonizing over whether she should raise the child herself (would she be able to divorce the child from his/her father’s actions) or put the child up for adoption (did she want to inflict another couple with this child’s aberrant genetic anomalies).

    As stated, she did not, in fact, obtain an abortion.

    This was also in the early days of AIDS–for the next 10 years, the victim had to be tested every six months to see if she had contracted AIDS from the rape. This added to the anger and frustration the victim suffered and, had she tested positive at any given time, it would have been possible to re-try Clark for attempted murder. Fortunately the victim tested negative at all times.

    Clark was sentenced to four consecutive life terms–two terms for sexual assault and two equal and consecutive terms for Use of a Deadly Weapon in Commission of a Crime. At the time, he was eligible to attempt parole after serving 5 years on one sentence, and roll-over to the next term. Optimally, he would have been out in 20 years (the 20th anniversary just passed). At this time, he is still on term 3 and has yet to “roll over” to term 4. He will not be eligible to apply until June, 2009.

    Now, with all the talk about abortion in the cases of rape and incest. Unless you have been there, done that–as in this victim’s case–you don’t have a leg to stand on.

    To indulge yourself in such rhetoric sounds good, makes it look as if you are an “informed” person with an “informed” opinion–however, it’s nothing more than mental masturbation, designed to make you look good, sympathetic to the victim, up to date and “hip” to the rhetoric currently raging. You are, however, ignorant of the true facts surrounding such circumstances.

    You cannot possibly understand what goes through a rape victim’s mind. The victim has the initial trauma; the skipped periods, the “Oh my GOD what if….” to deal with, the possibility of AIDS, the investigation, the trial and the sentencing. The victim has it resurrected repeatedly when the defendant comes up for parole and the nightmares start again. The victim has gone through counseling and still the anger and rage return.

    This victim was “lucky” in that she WAS NOT pregnant. She agonized; as she grew older and learned more about the issues of abortion, she realized under no circumstances would that child (had there been one) have deserved a death sentence for what its father did. Even though it would have been difficult to carry a child conceived in these circumstances, she could have given that child a chance with a loving family.

    Yes, it WOULD be difficult to carry a child to term under these circumstances; however, knowing the child would be given life, knowing the child would have a loving home, would make it easier than living with a murder for the rest of the victim’s life. It would also, ultimately, make it easier on the victim as the victim grew and matured, to know in her heart she hadn’t compounded the crime with another, more heinous crime.

    Now, Miss Beth, how did you get access to this information? How do you know so much about this crime and this rapist? How do you know so much about the whole subject? What makes YOU the reigning opinion-maker on this subject?

    It’s quite simple, really. I AM THIS victim and this is MY story.

    I now KNOW, deep in my heart, that had I been pregnant and gone through with the abortion, I would be in deep mourning for murdering my child. I have had the advantage of age and wisdom, as well as hindsight, to mature and to know the facts.

    The very simple fact is this: NO CHILD, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS OR HER CONCEPTION, DESERVES TO BE MURDERED.