Americans, BAN Shariah Law Before It Is Too Late! Bombard Your Reps & Take A Stand…Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

obamacair

 

This is the true face of Shariah law, as exposed, expressed, at UC Davis’s BDS intifada! Here too… }

BEFORE we proceed, let’s clear up the following whining and opining from Islamists and leftists: since Jews are allowed to arbitrate certain cases via a Rabbinical Bet Din, surely Muslims should have the same right, if they want to utilize their religious court option ala Shariah law, agreed? A fair question, but only if one is ignorant of the major underlying distinctions between the two, or if the questioner is malevolent in intent. That’s a mouthful, but no less true.

IN the main, the Bet Din … בית דין … handles commercial, communal and matrimonial conflicts, but its renderings can never violate the nation’s laws. Not only that, but the purpose of said adjudication is solely for Jewish litigants. On the other hand, Shariah law, while utilized by Muslims, is designed to (eventually) supplant the (western) laws of the land, to impose its basis upon all citizens, like it or not!              

IF you really want to understand what’s what, one must listen to well known hooked up Islamic leaders, as discomfiting as it is. They pull no punches, yet, are Americans, westerners at large, paying attention?

On the Ben Shapiro Show Thursday, Imam Anjem Choudary said the President Obama is “inventing” his own version of Islam to forward his foreign policy agenda and that the “radical” form Choudary espouses simply aligns with the principles of the Koran and Sharia Law.

Shapiro led into the segment by quoting from Choudary’s USA Today Jan. 8 opinion piece titled People Know the Consequences,” which blamed the French government for allowing publications to “provoke Muslims” and argued that Muslims do not in fact believe in the freedom of expression:

Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone. Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.

Shapiro then asked Choudary to discuss the Muslim view on the freedom of expression, specifically with regard to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Choudary explained that Muslim scripture made clear that those who insult the Prophet, like journalists at Charlie Hebdo, must be punished: “Those who would insult the Prophet, kill them.” Sharia Law he said, clearly requires any who would insult those Muslims deem “prophets,” including Moses and Jesus, be tried in court and punished. This a system, he added, that Muslims are willing to “fight for and even die for.”

When Shapiro asked him if he believed that Western governments should ban the blasphemy of Mohammed, Choudary said he wanted Sharia Law in its entirety to be imposed on Western governments because it was a “better” system. However, if that were not possible, laws should be put in place against “provoking Muslims.” As he stressed in his article, Choudary said that killings like those Wednesday are “the consequence of insulting the Prophet.”

Pointing to the incompatibility of the Western and Sharia systems, Shapiro asked Choudary why the West should allow people like him to live in their boundaries. Choudary said he was born in England so he had the right to live there, and that “people always change” and “change is good,” so he believed that it was time for the West to change.

Choudary: The difference between divine law and man-made law—in other words liberal democracy and [inaudible] moralities and liberties—is that divine law can’t be changed. We can’t change the Koran, we can’t change the sayings of the Prophet, which include insulting the Prophet and the consequences. But you can change your laws…

If the West’s laws are not change, he warned, we’ll have a “blood bath.”

Choudary argued that what we’re witnessing is a “clash of two civilizations,” with al-Baghdadi leading on one side and Barack Obama leading on the other, leading Shapiro to ask about Obama’s portrayal of Islam:

Shapiro: President Obama has repeatedly attempted to what he has characterized as “defend” Islam, saying that ISIS is not Islamic. He has said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” […] But the way he characterizes Islam is not the way you characterize Islam […] How many people do you represent versus how many people does President Obama represent when it comes to Islam? Are you in fact representative of a “tiny minority” within Islam or are you representative of something larger?

President Obama, Choudary said, is “lying” about Islam, along with other Western leaders. The Koran itself shows that “Barack Obama is a liar” about the religion’s true nature:

Choudary: Islam for them is whatever they think Islam is in terms of their own interests. Islam is in accordance to the Koran, of the sayings and actions of the Prophet. That’s it. […] I say to you, look at the Koran, look at the sayings of the Prophet, and check for yourself. Is Barack Obama a liar or am I lying? I think that you will find that he’s a liar. He’s only inventing Islam according to what his own foreign policy is.

Shapiro asked Choudary if he took offense to being called a “radical” by the Western media, to which he responded that in Scripture “every prophet of Islam was demonized,” adding that he simply teaches Sharia Law as it truly is.

YUP, you gotta give Choudary props for telling the truth! Always on (Islamic) message. In fact, he has been front and center within counter terrorism analyses for some time. 

IN this regard, those who are truly aghast at their bloodletting must understand that it makes no diff to them if they decapitate, burn alive, etc. in the Mid East, in any city USA or another western locale. The point being, when they reach a certain critical mass (via the activation of sleeper cells, be they ISIS, Hezbollah, or other Sunni branches all over America) it will ensure their deadly swathe.

YET if more evidence is required re the barbarism within Shariah law, this week’s burning of the Jordanian pilot is a prime example. It is explained by an acclaimed scholar of Islam, Dr. Mordechai Kedar:

Islamic State publicized a horrifying twenty minutevideo this week, the high point of which was the execution of a Jordanian pilot, Maaz al-Kassasbeh, by burning him alive. The film attempts to justify the punishment by describing Jordan’s part in the war against ISIS, using photos of ISIS dead, including women, children, men and mainly those burned to death.

The rest of the film has the pilot describing the involvement of the air forces of Jordan, United Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco and United States and notes that American planes take off from Turkish bases.

The film is edited professionally and includes impressive sound and visual effects that attest to the talents and abilities of its editors. Many minutes are spent showing a silent visit the Jordanian pilot makes to the ruins of a large building, which seems to be the staff headquarters of ISIS that was hit by the coalition’s airplanes, possibly even the plane flown by the Jordanian himself.


Anyone who attacks Islamic State will be condemned to Hell on earth – and if he is unsure about how Hell looks and about what happens to the wicked there, he now has a movie that answers both questions.
The entire film is meant to justify the scene that is shown near its end: the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot. The event is carefully staged: the pilot is put in an iron cage so that he has no chance of escaping the fire, and the orange clothes which he wears throughout the film are soaked in gasoline. Even the sand under the cage is full of gasoline and a rivulet of gasoline-soaked sand reaches the spot where a soldier stands carrying a stick to which a gasoline-soaked rag is attached. Another soldier lights the rag, it sets the rivulet on fire, the flames advance towards the cage and set the gasoline under the pilot’s feet ablaze and after the pilot dies in excruciating agony, a bulldozer arrives and covers the cage with rocks.

What the film presents is nothing new to anyone who is familiar with Islamic sources, those that tell about how Ali ibn Abi Talib, the cousin of Muhammed who  married his daughter Fatma and became the fourth Caliph, burned two heretics to death. There is a dispute among Islamic religious figures about whether that is allowed, opponents claiming that only God is licensed to condemn heretics to the flames – that is, to burn in Hell. Islamic State – which sees itself as the force that will reestablish the original Islamic State – uses Ali’s precedent on the burning of enemies, and allows punishment by fire on earth.

This point is extremely important to those in charge of the ISIS propaganda machine: the message the film conveys is that anyone who attacks Islamic State will be condemned to a living Hell – and if he is unsure about how Hell looks and about what happens to the wicked there, he now has a movie that answers both questions. Just for comparison’s sake: several months ago, the web was full of ISIS fighters talking about Yazidi girls that they were going to have their way with, and that, too, was a clear message: that is, instead of waiting for 72 virgins, whoever joins ISIS gets to enjoy Paradise on earth.

Another reason for burning the pilot to death is the Islamic legal principle of mutuality – the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of the Jordanian pilot the video takes pains to show ISIS victims, including children, burned in coalition attacks. Ths presentation of burned victims is meant to justify the method by which the pilot is executed, based on the mutuality principle.

 

RESULTANT, listen up…to two of my close contacts, Tom Trento and Dave Gaubatz:

FIRE JIHAD

 

Britain First's photo.
ONTO…
QUESTION: What are some of the most common techniques that Muslims use to become accepted members of U.S. society?

David Gaubatz 

The vast majority of people who identify with Islam in America do not adhere to Sharia law 100 percent as Islam dictates. They are essentially Apostates of Islam. There are thousands, if not millions, of Muslims who assimilate into the American culture by going to our colleges, obtaining legitimate employment, and swearing by the U.S. Constitution just to avoid scrutiny by the U.S. intelligence organizations. They are known as “Sleeper Cells.” When the timing is right, they will openly support physical Jihad operations against America and Israel. Our Mapping Sharia study shows that 75 plus percent of the mosques and Islamic centers in America have materials calling for hate and violence against non-Muslims and their respective governments.

AND not to get off topic, but is it any wonder that the Islamist-in-Chief is pushing for Shariah law, refusing to identify Islam with terror, regardless of the carnage? Well, stop wondering: he condemned violence committed by ISIS and other Islamic militant groups and called for a “push” against those who “try to distort our religion.”

AIN’T that special…once again via “my Muslim Faith”, he outed himself!

SO what’s to be done? Well, take a page out of the following (Mississippi) lawmaker’s playbook, even though a preponderance are deaf, dumb and blind:

AMERICANS (westerners) must fully internalize that the Islamic barbarism rampaging across the world is sanctioned under Shariah law. Forget about all the lies that ISIS (and every other Islamic-based hydra) is against Islam’s laws! The decapitations, and everything in between, are “Pure Islam”. Simple as that. Horrific.

AS a visual (mind’s eye) foretaste, just imagine what will happen to the “face” of America, if Shariah law becomes the law of the land, whether actually enshrined on the books or via practical application, as FULLY implemented already in Dearborn, Michigan! Did you realize that?

MIND you, this “lovely” young jihadi feels secure enough, an untouchable, to display her support for Hamas/Islamic jihad by screaming Allahu Akbar, as well as outfitting herself in Allah’s warrior garb at UC Davis!

PATRIOTS, please listen up: this jihadi-in-training is not dabbling in face paint, as a youthful rebellious streak or sorority hi-jinx. Not at all. She is portraying her true colors – PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE to Islamic jihad – and is just one aspiring Islamist among countless, all across America. She is DEADLY serious.

FOREWARNED…forearmed!

Barack HUSSEIN Obama, A Sunni Muslim: The PROOFS. Commentary By Adina Kutnicki

 

MUCH has been written, and speculated, about the origins of Barack HUSSEIN Obama. And the fact that his bonafides have been sealed tighter than Fort Knox; that some have been terminated/eliminated who got too close; that the Usurper-in-Chief has paid upwards of 5 mil to hide his records from the public domain, and possesses a fraudulent SS # – one which belongs to a long-deceased gentleman -should raise more questions, rather than less. Suspicious? Sheesh.

BE that as it may, when this investigative journalist started digging, thus, reporting on this and that, leftists went nuts, and even some who should have known better were more than disparaging. In fact, any reference to “The One” being a “closet” Muslim, well, that sent them over the edge.

NEVER mind that his obdurate refusal to release relevant documents paved the way for much of the suspicion. And what about his counter intuitive domestic and foreign fires, having no rhyme nor reason, other than to benefit anti-Americans, especially Muslims? Not only that – aside from so much more – how should his off the cuff remark to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos ,” My Muslim Faith”, be interpreted?

AS if on (musical) cue, his spinmeisters immediately went into full overdrive….yada, yada, blah, blah…no, he didn’t mean it THAT way! Oh dear. Yes, almost like a “catch me if you can”…a cat and mouse, in your face, and up yours scenario.

REGARDLESS, there are countless proofs housed at these pages, as to his Muslim heritage (which in no way obviates his socialist, Marxist, communist roots), but the following should suffice as Exhibit Number One. Its basis allows one to understand why Muslims can plot and plot within America, yet, Obama Inc. minimizes ANY Islamic connection.

ONTO the most BULLET PROOF evidence, bar none: Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Sunni Muslim!

Is President Obama a Sunni Muslim

13 Jan 2015
For several years I have been asked the question on the matter of President Obama being a Muslim or not.  My standard answer has always been that since Obama’s father was Muslim, so in accordance with Islam he is Muslim.  Did he leave the faith of Islam at some point?  This is the question many of us have had.  Of course if he left Islam then he would be considered an apostate. I think it is time leading counter-terrorism folks and the media start giving clear and precise answers in regards to what their professional opinion in about Obama being a Muslim.It is my analysis that Obama never left the Islamic faith and is a strong and active Sunni Muslim, but of course for political reasons he can’t openly admit he is Muslim.  Obama is living true Islam: deceit and hypocrisy.There are several key reasons I have come to the conclusion and can go on record that it is my professional opinion Obama is an active Sunni Muslim (Salafist). 
They are:
1.  During the Presidential election in 2007 and leading up to his being sworn in to office in Jan 2008, Obama/his staff visited CAIR National in Washington DC on at least two occasions.  I had two female researchers inside CAIR National when his team visited CAIR executives.  They provided statements in regards to the above.{blogger’s note: Obama had NO idea that undercover operatives were recording this and that, as revealed within Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America}

2.  It is well-known CAIR leaders are Sunni Muslim (Salfist/Wahhabe).  The mosques CAIR sponsors/supports is Dar Al Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia.  Leaders from this mosque frequent CAIR national as well.  This mosque is a strong Salafist mosque with close ties to Saudi Arabia.  Muslims have told me they call this area the ‘Wahhabe Nation of America’.3.  Since Obama took office he has went above and beyond to support the Muslim Brotherhood and protect the reputation of Prophet Muhammed and the Islamic ideology.4.  It is no coincidence that Obama has invited Al Sharpton to the White House almost 80 times.  CAIR National selected Sharpton as their ‘Man of the Year’.  Since our book ‘Muslim Mafia’ was released in 2009, the FBI was directed to have no contact with CAIR because of their ties to Islamic based terrorism.  Sharpton is now CAIR’s direct contact into the White House with Obama and Eric Holder (U.S. Attorney).5.  Obama’s foreign and domestic policies have always been more aligned with Sharia law than the U.S. Constitution.6.  Obama has had Muslim Brotherhood meetings and supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Eqypt.  Even the UAE has admitted CAIR is a terrorist organization.

7. Obama bows to the King of Saudi Arabia.

8.  Obama did not attend the peace rally in Paris because the theme was targeted toward ‘Radical Islamic based terrorism’.  Of course Obama could not support this because he does not feel the Muslims carrying out terrorist acts are radical.  He believes they are carrying out the plans of Muhammed as Islam dictates.

9.  Obama has released numerous terrorists from GITMO.  Anyone with a basic understanding of national security knows these prisoners being released are a serious national security threat.

People will say that Obama is killing Islamic terrorist fighters in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, so if he is Muslim why is he doing this?  People must understand the implementation of the Islamic caliphate will take many years.  Muslims are taught from birth to support the progression of Islam, even through deceit and giving their life.

It is my analysis Obama has used the U.S. to attack Islamic terrorists for propaganda purposes.  They are simply collateral damage for the betterment of Islam.  Anything is allowed in Islam if it strengthens Islam and leads to the formation of the caliphate worldwide.  It must be noted his attacks in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, are very limited and do little damage.

For many years the U.S. government provided me the highest clearances and paid me a good salary to analyze national security issues. Many of my classified reports were sent via the ‘Blue Line’ which meant they were briefed to the U.S. President. I had a solid track record of being on target with my security analysis inputsI have no doubt I am correct when I go on record now as saying that President Obama is an active Sunni Muslim (Salafist).  The next two years under Obama will be used to destroy America from the inside.

AND those of us who fully understand what is at stake, willing to state the G-d’s honest truth – whether we live in America, Israel or any western nation worth a damn – surely can agree with the following too: to save the planet, the west has to kill the Muslim Third Reich!

BUT for knuckledraggers who still require edification, some intellectual heft, this site presents one of its esteemed professorial associates, Professor Paul Eidelberg.

Images-nazism-0010.jpg

(Arabic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem with Bosnian Muslim SS-soldiers)

 

The Connection Between Islam and Nazism: What is to Be Done?

 Paul Eidelberg and Will Morrisey

Winston Churchill defined Mein Kampf as “the new Koran of faith and war.”[1]  Consistent therewith, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the notorious former Mufti of Jerusalem, declared, “There is a definite similarity between the principles of Islam and the principles of Nazism.”

Although Hitler and Muhammad shared an enthusiasm for military adventurism and a hatred of Jews, still, their world views would seem to be diametrically opposed.  Let us see.

Hitler grounds his Jew-hatred in racism as well as atheism.  His Jew-hatred flows from the sewers of nineteenth-century ‘race theory.’ Its calculated blasphemy, its materialism (despite Hitler’s self-described ‘idealism’), and most obviously its idolatry of a ‘master race,’ ought to offend, and deeply offend, any serious student of the Koran.  Islam calls for the conversion of all ‘races’ to Islam, and it does much more than merely call for such conversion—it conquers for it.  Moreover, the insistent legalism of Islam sets strict limits on any would-be tyrant.  To be sure, Islam is ‘totalistic,’ as are most religions.  Islam seeks to explain and to regulate all of human life. This suggests that Islam is ‘totalitarian.’ Various scholars—Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes among them—deny this.[2] 

One may indeed conclude that Islam is not ‘totalitarian’ in the modern sense, since modern totalitarianism involves the all-encompassing power of the state and the exaltation of its leader.  Hence it can be said that might does not make right for the Muslim, as it does for the Nazi, the Communist, or the Fascist.  Besides, is it not obvious that for the Muslim God rules, not Hitler or Stalin?  It may well be, however, that we are here dealing with half-truths which obscure Islam’s linkage to Nazism.

What links Islam to Nazism is the ethos of jihad.  For both Islam and Nazism war is not merely a means to an end: mere conquest. War for both is a moral imperative: for the Nazi, to purge the world of racial impurity, for the Muslim, to purge the world of religious impurity.  Both have or require an enemy: for the Muslim the ‘infidel,’ for the Nazi the ‘Jew,’  Accordingly, both Islam and Nazism aim at purifying i.e. conquering the world, and there is no limit to the violence that may be used to achieve that aim.  The genocide perpetrated by Muslims against the Armenians preceded the genocide the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews.

The Nazis regarded the Jews as a virus infecting mankind, something that had to be exterminated. Although Muslims reject this racism—for a Jew could convert to Islam—Islam’s contempt for non-believers has much in common with the Nazi’s contempt for non-Aryans, Jews in particular.  As in Nazism, Islam has never respected the sanctity of human life; it has always regarded infidels, Jews or Christians, as devoid of human rights—as subhuman.  Bat Ye’or has documented fourteen centuries of dhimmitude—the degradation and dehumanization of countless Jews and Christians.[3] Dhimmitude is inherent in the ethos of jihad—the most distinctive principle of Islam.

Also inherent in the ethos of jihad, but which has no parallel in Nazism, is the will to martyrdom.  The most horrific manifestation of this jihad ethos is the homicide-suicide bomber. Islam may forbid what may be termed ‘personal’ suicide but not in the ethos of holy war.  That Arab parents can exult in their children being sacrificed as human bombs is of course mind-boggling.  This pagan-like phenomenon indicates that the sanctity of human life is not a normative Islamic doctrine.  Indeed, on page after page of the Koran¸ unbelievers are consigned to Hell—Islam’s crematoria.

If the will to martyrdom is construed in terms of sacrificing the individual for the sake of the community, then Islam converges with Nazism.  While Muslims exalt the umma, the Islamic nation, Nazis exalt the volk, the Aryan race.  Lost in both is the dignity of the individual.

In Jewish law the individual stands on a par with the community, and such is his infinite worth or dignity that he cannot rightly be sacrificed for the sake of his community.  (That Nazism regards Jews as ‘selfish’ should be understood in this light.)  The dignity of the individual has no other rational source than the Torah’s conception of man’s creation in the image of God.  Adam is an individual.  It follows, given Islam’s subordination of the individual to the collective, that Islam, like Nazism, rejects the God of the Bible!  The same God also creates diverse nations, which attests to His infinite creativity.  Both Islam and Nazism reject the existence of diverse nations.  Both would impose on mankind a stultifying uniformity.

The contrast with Judaism could hardly be more striking.  Aside from the Seven Noahide Laws of Universal Morality, Judaism insists on differentiation and individuation.  One nation should not impose order on others by erasing their salutary national differences. Diversity in unity, reflected in the twelve distinctive tribes of Israel, is a basic Torah principle.[4]

Militant nations cannot tolerate much diversity, especially where the militancy is animated by a creed or ideology as in Islam and Nazism.  In the case of Islam, its extraordinary military success and global expansion during the first hundred years of its inception was perceived by Muslims as ‘proof’ of Islam’s validity and superiority.  Might did indeed make right, in Islamic history.  In fact, according to Islamic doctrine, the mere seizure of state power gives religious authority to its leader even if he is not a devout Muslim.

The ethos of jihad has an ethics which is quite pragmatic, as one may expect from a militaristic religion. One might go so far as to say that Nazi militarism is jihad secularized—jihad without religious pretensions and obfuscations. Although literary Islam and Nazism have profound differences, these are of little significance to the victims of these militant doctrines.  The one reduces human beings to dhimmis, the other to slaves. Militarism in a religious as well as in an atheistic creed means expansionism, murder, and degradation.

In Islam, as well as in Christianity, belief in its founder is part of the creed. The Jews have suffered the consequences of rejecting both. Many if not most Christians have forgiven the Jews for their stubborn adherence to Judaism, a religion that does not proselytize and that seeks not external glory but internal perfection. The Jewish rejection of Muhammad always rankled Muslims and aroused their hatred. But with the progress of Zionism, the Balfour Declaration, and especially with the rebirth of Israel, fear began to take hold of Muslim clerics and rulers.  So long as Jews were dhimmis, Muslims did not feel threatened theologically or politically.   This is no longer the case, which is why Muslim leaders throughout the world have held conferences to confront the ‘Jewish and Zionist menace’ and have issued papers which could have been written by Nazis.

Consider, for example, a 1968 international conference of Arab theologians held at Cairo’s Al Azhar University—Islam’s most authoritative university.  The mufti of Lebanon referred to the Jews as the “dogs of humanity.”  They do not even constitute a true people or nation.  Their evilness has been transmitted throughout their history by means of their cultural inheritance.  By their behavior, the Jews have called forth the hatred and persecution of all the peoples with whom they have come into contact.  They deserve their fate.  As for the State of Israel, it is the culmination of the historical and cultural depravity of the Jews.  It must be destroyed, having been established through aggression which is its congenital and immutable nature. This must be achieved by jihad.[5]

The participants at this conference make no distinction between Judaism and Zionism. Their virulent statements against Jews and the State of Israel point to nothing less than genocide and politicide.

For decades Muslim anti-Semitism, worldwide, has outpaced those of the neo-Nazis; “what was historically a Christian phenomenon”—largely transcended—“is now primarily a Muslim phenomenon.”[6]  “The mounting scale and sheer extent of this vehemently anti-Semitic literature and commentary in the newspapers, journals, magazines, radio, television, and in the everyday life of the Middle East [is indescribable] …”[7]  Not only is Mein Kampf a fast-selling title in the region, but even in Egypt, which has a peace treaty with Israel, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has reappeared on a forty-one part Egyptian television program and in recycled form in Arab print media.  And this is actually one of the least toxic of such excrescences.   Palestinian Authority TV had this to say about Jews and Judaism:  “Their Torah today is just a collection of writings in which those people wrote lies about God, His prophets and His teachings …To their prophets they attribute the greatest crimes: murder, prostitution, and drunkenness.  The Jews do not believe in God …” Meanwhile, in countless mosques Muslims are poisoned by recent Islamic sermons denigrating Jews:[8]

“Their tongues never cease lying, [disseminating] abomination and obscenity.… The Jews preached permissiveness and corruption, as they hid behind false slogans like freedom and equality, humanism and brotherhood. They kill Muslim youth, entice the [Muslim] woman with shameful deeds, and act to lure others through her. They defile the minds of adolescents by arousing their urges. They are envious of the Muslim woman who conceals herself and protects her honor; for this reason, they preach to her to expose herself and throw off her values. Their goal is to destroy the Muslim family, to shatter religious and social ties and foundations. They are cowards in battle. They flee from death and fear fighting. They love life.”

“Read history and you will understand that the Jews of yesterday are the evil forefathers of the even more evil Jews of today: infidels, falsifiers of words, calf worshippers, prophet murderers, deniers of prophecies. The scum of the human race, accursed by Allah, who turned them into apes and pigs. These are the Jews—an ongoing continuum of deceit, obstinacy, licentiousness, evil, and corruption.”

“The Jews are miserly and enslaved by money.… Most of the world’s wars, particularly the great modern wars, were planned and started by the Jews so as to disseminate corruption in the land, and to achieve their goals on the ruins of the human race.”

“The Jews are defiled creatures and satanic scum…. The Jews are the cause of the misery of the human race …. The Jews are our enemies and hatred of them is in our hearts. Jihad against them is our worship.”

Der Sturmer is tame compared to the anti-Semitic cartoons of the Arab world.[9]  Such is their hatred and loathing that Arabs depicts Jews as snakes, dogs, spiders, rats, and locusts.

A chilling example of what this zoomorphism signifies may be gleaned from the Syrian celebration of the tenth anniversary of the Yom Kippur War.  In that ceremony, “Syrian militia trainees [male and female] put on a show for Syrian president Hafez Assad.  Martial music reached a crescendo as Syrian teenage girls suddenly bit into live snakes [some four or five feet long], repeatedly tearing off flesh and spitting it out as blood ran down their chins.  As Assad applauded, the girls then attached the snakes to sticks and grilled them over fire, eating them triumphantly.  Others [militiamen] then proceeded to strangle puppies and drink their blood.”[10]

Bearing also in mind that the Syrians exterminated some 18,000 Sunni residents of the city of Hama in 1982 with cyanide—to speak of Arab Nazis is not to succumb to hyperbole.

Some scholars may contend that what has here been imputed to Islam should in truth be imputed to “Islamism.” They allege that Islamism, as distinct from Islam, twists Koranic teachings to un-Koranic uses.  The candid scholar will admit that the Koran lends itself to such twists, and much more clearly so viewed from the Sharia, Islamic law.  Robert Westrich lists Koranic verses condemning a variety of vices imputed to certain Jews, including falsehood, distortion, cowardice, greed, corruption of Scripture.[11]  But the fact that the Koran condemns these vices does not preclude those influenced by the Koran from attributing such vices to the Jews—the more readily so given the Koran’s unrelenting degradation of non-believers.  This degradation was canonized by the Umariyah—the legal code of the seventh-century Caliph Umar—which established dhimmitude.  That dhimmitude was also construed as an act of charity or patronage hardly minimizes its dehumanization of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule.  Indeed, as Bat Ye’or has shown, the condition of the dhimmi was in certain respects inferior to that of a slave.[12]

Turning to the Middle East, if distinctions are to be made between Islam and Islamism, two are in order.  First and foremost, Islamism is a rejection of Arab nationalism and, in this respect, a return to classical Islam.  However, Islamists have been influenced by modernism, which makes the return to classical Islam impossible.  Second, Islamism has adopted the anti-Semitic racism of Nazism.

It is easy to see exactly where Israel stands with respect both to Arab nationalism and Islamism.  Arab nationalism was always an instrument of state-builders, just as nationalism had been in Europe.  It opposes the imperial state (except when a given nation-state decides to take on an empire), but loyally serves whatever state the state-builders envision.  What are the Islamists, but Muslims who seek to seize control of the apparatus of the modern state, which they nonetheless reject as fragmenting the umma?[13]

The existing regimes in the Islamic world are highly unlikely to change (except for the worse) by means of internal forces—‘inside-out.’ Despotism can be quite stable, making victory out of failure. Only a comprehensive geopolitical strategy can transform those regimes, ‘outside-in.’ [According to the first named author of this essay], such a transformation would require the radical transformation of the United States into an all-conquering, benevolent world power – hardly imaginable, unless another 9/11 drove America to desperation, and transformed this complacent democracy into a benevolent universal despotism, something beyond the will and wisdom of the American people, as well as beyond the secular mentality of contemporary political science.◙

DEAR readers, the above brings everything full circle. It is this site’s invaluable gift(s) to you!

{re-blogged at Islam Exposed}

{re-blogged at Joe For America}