Moderate Statements from Islam
From Jihad Watch, something to really look closely at and think hard on. We know that the Islamofacists are planners and willing to look into long term plans and organization. So after these statements we need to really take a closer look at the so called moderate Muslims and what they are planning (WORLD DOMINATION)
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald makes some observations about the American Muslim community in the wake of the radiation scandal:
It is forbidden for a Believer to ally with an Infidel against other Believers. The American government should ponder that carefully -- especially the armed services, the diplomatic corps, and the intelligence services. There are people who may be Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims. There may be those who are bad Muslims, and who can be bribed to work against fellow Muslims. But those, one must assume, will be the exceptions. One must assume that when someone identifies himself as a Believer, he subscribes to the central idea of Islam (after monotheism): the idea that there is one division, and one only, that counts in the world: the division between Believer and Infidel.
This division has clear political implications, as the influential and high-profile Imam Muzammil H. Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America reminded us in 2002: “We must not forget that Allah's rules have to be established in all lands..."
And how can one do that when outright military conquest is not possible?
The answer, in the new conditions in which Mr. Siddiqi now finds himself, is clear: "..as Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring about gradual change..."
We "should participate" in order "to safeguard our [Muslim] interests" and "try to bring about gradual change..." which can only mean islamization -- a situation where, even if some Infidels remain, they are subjugated to the rule of Islam.
For a Believer, a True Believer such as Mr. Siddiqi, it cannot be otherwise. A past master, necessarily, at taqiyya and kitman, at obfuscation and speaking with forked tongue so that Muslims will understand clearly what he means and Infidels clearly misunderstand what he means -- this is a Muslim Everyman. For that he has earned what the courts like to call strict scrutiny. Every Muslim spokesman deserves such, especially in this New Season of Muslim Support for "Dialogue" and "Avoiding a Clash of Civilizations" and "Pluralism" -- meaning: let us take advantage of whatever freedoms are innocently proffered us until such time as Islam is fully entrenched and cannot be dislodged, and islamization is well underway through demography and a relentless campaign of Da'wa, aided and abetted by an equally relentless campaign of sweet nothings or when those won't do, intimidation and threat of litigation. It is the same everywhere, with the results we all see -- in Holland today, and in France and England tomorrow.
Is it beyond the wit of Americans to learn from the unhappy experience of others?
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald makes some observations about the American Muslim community in the wake of the radiation scandal:
It is forbidden for a Believer to ally with an Infidel against other Believers. The American government should ponder that carefully -- especially the armed services, the diplomatic corps, and the intelligence services. There are people who may be Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslims. There may be those who are bad Muslims, and who can be bribed to work against fellow Muslims. But those, one must assume, will be the exceptions. One must assume that when someone identifies himself as a Believer, he subscribes to the central idea of Islam (after monotheism): the idea that there is one division, and one only, that counts in the world: the division between Believer and Infidel.
This division has clear political implications, as the influential and high-profile Imam Muzammil H. Siddiqi of the Islamic Society of North America reminded us in 2002: “We must not forget that Allah's rules have to be established in all lands..."
And how can one do that when outright military conquest is not possible?
The answer, in the new conditions in which Mr. Siddiqi now finds himself, is clear: "..as Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring about gradual change..."
We "should participate" in order "to safeguard our [Muslim] interests" and "try to bring about gradual change..." which can only mean islamization -- a situation where, even if some Infidels remain, they are subjugated to the rule of Islam.
For a Believer, a True Believer such as Mr. Siddiqi, it cannot be otherwise. A past master, necessarily, at taqiyya and kitman, at obfuscation and speaking with forked tongue so that Muslims will understand clearly what he means and Infidels clearly misunderstand what he means -- this is a Muslim Everyman. For that he has earned what the courts like to call strict scrutiny. Every Muslim spokesman deserves such, especially in this New Season of Muslim Support for "Dialogue" and "Avoiding a Clash of Civilizations" and "Pluralism" -- meaning: let us take advantage of whatever freedoms are innocently proffered us until such time as Islam is fully entrenched and cannot be dislodged, and islamization is well underway through demography and a relentless campaign of Da'wa, aided and abetted by an equally relentless campaign of sweet nothings or when those won't do, intimidation and threat of litigation. It is the same everywhere, with the results we all see -- in Holland today, and in France and England tomorrow.
Is it beyond the wit of Americans to learn from the unhappy experience of others?
