Houston: Muslims threaten publisher for describing heretical Islamic sect as Muslims

Violent, supremacist attitude of Islam will begin to creep into American society, and the demands for Sharia and clashes with local laws and citizens will continue as it has in Europe and throughout the world. The values that Muslims bring are completely the opposite of liberal democracies and western traditions. They totalitarian aspect and domination aspect of Islam through Sharia leaves no room for what we value liberty, equality and freedom.

If the USA sees more of these Muslim on Muslim conflicts, it could spill into the non-Muslim community. But these Muslims forget that unlike it in Europe, Americans do carry and bear arms so the Muslims better mind their P's and Q's.

bigcatgirl,

took the words right out of my mouth

The Ahmadiyyas 'are the Muslims of our dreams' (peaceful, open to interpreting their faith) unfortunately they ARE utterly and blatantly HERETICAL. They are a cult as much as any Christian sect where the leader says HE is Jesus come back with 'The Word'.

From the Muslim point of view they are shocking and repulsive and defy the entire message of Islam: The Shahada and the core belief of the Koran as the 'final perfect message' and Muhammad as the last prophet. I don't call them Muslims either. They have forsaken their duty to trample the rest of us underfoot.

Islamophobia!

Whilst the Ahmadi may reject violent Jihad, they still participate in the Islamization of non-Muslim lands, and that makes them a threat. The Ahmadi are actually quite prevalent, in Britain, and having dealt with them before, I've seen them defending other Muslims from criticism, demonstrating that whilst they are persecuted by Muslims throughout the world, they still retain the Islamic sense of brotherhood. In retrospect, whilst the Ahmadi may reject violence, doesn't mean that they don't lend support to other Muslims, in all the shapes and forms of support.

Ahmadiyya seems to have undergone the reformation
everyone in the West had been hoping for.

From Wikipedia:

Mirza Ahmad urged Muslims to follow the spirit of Islam as well as its form, the latter of which according to him, was over-emphasized in his age. It is generally accepted that he was inclined towards the Hanafi school of thought within Islam in matters of religious law

The Hanafi school is the oldest, but it is generally regarded as the most liberal and as the one which puts the most emphasis on human reason.

Ahmad forbade physical fighting for the sake of religion or against a government which gives freedom of religion. According to Ahmad this age did not require defending Islam by the sword but that the Jihad of this age was to be carried out by preaching and defending Islam by speech and by the pen.

"...but that the Jihad of this age was to be carried out by preaching and defending Islam by speech and by the pen.

Posted by: jhimmi at June 21, 2008 10:02 AM

Now that is civilized.

The original Islam is, of course, total barbarism.

Write-ups like this one bring memories back to me of a certain poster by the name of "Naseem". Clamed to have been one of these Muslims. Did what was called "dawa".

"a screening process would at least allow for prosecution and deportation of Muslims who renounced Sharia principles when entering the country and then agitated for them once here"
by RS

Not good enough. They don't have to agitate for Sharia, only support those who do. The "silent majority" of Muslims can play both ends against the middle. Then their children who are born here, American citizens by birth, will be perfectly free to work for sharia. They have a long-term vision, even if we don't. How do we prosecute an American-born Muslim who was never required to renounce sharia? How do we deport an American citizen without first convicting him of treason?
It's been said that the first generation of Muslim immigrants to Europe were peaceful and that their children and those who came later are the ones who endanger us. That has to be the case in the US as well. The Kennedy brothers' immigration "reform" act is more than forty years old. We pride ourselves on our ability to assimilate newcomers and people from other continents have become Americans. Muslims don't have the same mindset as those who came before them - at least, not enough of them do. Otherwise, American mosques wouldn't harbor those who seek to do us harm. They wouldn't even tolerate them in their neighborhoods. This Muslim sect would be able to live in peace.

Mr. Saleh is saying all the right things TODAY. What will he say tomorrow?

Ahmadiyya?

Not impressed. In Germany they want to build 100 mosques. Their leader declares publicly that the consumption of pork leads to homosexuality. We used to have a poster here on JW who posted gems like "resist you may, submit you must".

Kokar (correct me if I'm wrong) always closed his da'awa crap with "love for all, hatred for none", which may be an Ahmadiyya thing, but you won't find it in the Koran or the hadith. So it means nothing.

This here means a lot more:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/06/21/egypt-hundreds-of-muslims-attack-christians-near-cairo/

Rogster,

Thanks for posting that, I had wondered about that, namely, whether Ahmadiyya could, unintentionally perhaps, serve as a sort of Trojan horse for the 'real' Islam.

Very depressing.

'Advertiser Amer Zaheer, owner of a vitamin company called Herbal Pharma, canceled his ad [in the Urdu weekly that made the mistake of describing Ahmadiyya members as "Muslims"] e-mail.

'My suggestion to you is pray to Allah to forgive you and guide you not to commit such a sin in (sic) future''his e-mail reads. He declined to comment..."
-- from the article above

Okay, here's a name to remember: Herbal Pharma. And remember its owner: Amer Zaheer. And wherever you see the name "Herbal Pharma" in a store, do not merely refuse to buy that product but tell the store owner why you will have great difficulty, in the future, patronizing his store and buying other products, if he continues to carry the products of someone whom you believe holds views dangerous to your health.

Perhaps someone can, by careful research, find out who else cancelled ads in that Urdu weekly, published in Houston, and act accordingly.

Write-ups like this one bring memories back to me of a certain poster by the name of "Naseem". Clamed to have been one of these Muslims. Did what was called "dawa".

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 21, 2008 10:44 AM

(S)trolling down memory lane. Ever wondered what became of our Naseem? No? Me neither. But those of you that are can find her being roasted @

http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/

This is humanities future unless we realize that there is something toxic within Islam. First they destroy Christians/Jews/Hindus/Baha'is/etc, then the Muslims fight amongst themselves until we have Taliban Earth! That is the peace that Islam is offering humanity.

"The "silent majority" of Muslims" --PMK

You mean the Covert Sympathizers?

*

"(S)trolling down memory lane. Ever wondered what became of our Naseem? No? Me neither." western infidel

I think he - yes, he - was banned.

"How do we prosecute an American-born Muslim who was never required to renounce sharia? How do we deport an American citizen without first convicting him of treason?"
Posted by: PMK at June 21, 2008 10:50 AM

If the second part of your question includes the first, we don't deport them, and can't; even after a conviction.

As American born, American citizens, they are no more deport-able than any other American born, American criminal.

Let me get this straight. So-called moderate Muslims, the peaceful ones we are told comprise the majority of Muslims, are upset that believers who don't kill people are considered to be Muslim?

I hope Mufti Obama can explain this to me.

Note to self...

BUY MORE AMMO!

Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.

"In America, everybody has a right to exist and worship." How long will that last, if no one stands up to this sort of thing? What is Saleh doing within the Islamic Society of Greater Houston to combat the attitudes of those who have issued these threats?"

It's my guess that the effects of Islamic intimation is more prevalent in this country than anyone would like to admit, with the result that there's already a great deal of self-censorship being practiced by U.S. newspapers.

Of course, no newspaper would admit it, but the kid-glove treatment Islam gets in the U.S. media is due too more than a disire to be sensitive and respectful of a people's belief system.

Odd how reporters can sniff out every little scandal in a Christian church or pick up on an intollerant statement by a Christian Minister, but can't find anything worth reporting about in the Islamic community. If they held the Mosque to the same standards as the church, they'd run out of ink reporting on it.

Could it be Newspaper owners don't want the added expense of hiring guards to protect themselves and their staffs, or paying the cost of more fire insurance?

No doubt they rationalize their lack of attention to what goes on in Islamic schools and Mosques, but in the back of their heads, it's fear of the consequences.

Darcy:
Banned? Now that is a moot point. Many a heated argument has ensued as to whether she walked out or was thrown out by 'The Management' here. However, not detered, she still performs regularly, albeit to a smaller, but by no means less astute audience at the aforementioned. Why not drop in and show you still care.

Actually, the Comments on the article in the Chronicle are quite encouraging. You should go and read them. I've made a few myself.

Check out what General Patton said:

"To me it seems certain that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of women is the outstanding cause for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have kept on developing."

-- General George S. Patton

Those against the ads are displaying their lack of tolerance for other faiths, said Rodwan Saleh, president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston.

My experience with many of the muslims in Houston is that they have the same attitude expressed by Mr. Saleh.

My gut feeling is that this is because they've been there a long time, and are established in the community, and most importantly, they arrived here when assimilation was a good thing in their minds.

I'd really like to see Mr. Saleh and others like him to start a movement of reform within Islam, reforming the violence and superiority out of it.

"However, not detered, she still performs regularly, albeit to a smaller, but by no means less astute audience at the aforementioned." --western infidel

Where?

http://www.sonsofapesandpigs.org/

Looks like those "peaceful Muslims" are at it again.

Just embrace the Perversity of the Diversity already.

"How do we prosecute an American-born Muslim who was never required to renounce sharia? How do we deport an American citizen without first convicting him of treason?"

PRCS,

They're separate but overlapping groups.

Robert suggested going after those who renounce sharia in order to come here and then change their tune later. But what about their children? The parents can claim innocence while the children do the job for them. That was the first one.
You have a Muslim born in America of immigrant parents. His parents had to renounce sharia in order to get here but little Mohammed is free to fight for sharia his entire life just because he was born on American soil.
The second one asks how we get rid of an American citizen. He could have been naturalized or native-born. People in other countries have been stripped of their citizenship and exiled. I know of nothing short of treason that would allow us to do the same, if at all.
You're saying that not even treason gives us the right to dump someone on another shore? If so, then we can always go the traditional route and just hang him. I just don't see a time when people are going to equate sharia with treason.

Much to the chagrin of my wife, spent a good deal of time reading the responses in the Houston Chronicle. I had to laugh. Some got it. Many didn't. And while I did not hold a counter to verify this, I would say it was split roughly 50-50 on those who "get" it and those who are clueless. But the one thing that really made me chuckle was the constant disbelief in how muslims could be so offended. I see the same root problem here from time to time. Rare, but it does happen. The root problem is that too many people don't realize just how different we are from them. Muslims are not, in general, raised in an open, free-thinking society. Instead they are raised never to question the koran, mo, and everything else that goes with them. Now when I was just knee-high to a grasshopper the philosophy of not questioning authority served it's purpose. Children just aren't ready to deal with the intricacies of the adult world. Then as teenagers we are given a bit more reign. Then only as adults are we truly ready for the truth that we all seek. Somewhere that process has been thoroughly circumvented. To the point where we no longer see the differences. Muslims are not brought up under the concept of free-will. So it should be no surprise when they interpret the Bible verbatim. They don't understand that we do not, for the most part, adhere strictly to the written words as, please excuse the pun, "Gospel."
And muslims cannot understand the concept of free-will. They are not brought up under that. So we need to be careful not to look at the koran and subject it to our way of thinking. Now here is the twist. Many in the muslim machine have figured out our concept of free-will and try to use it against us in explaining the koran. After all it's only a few misunderstanders of islam that are causing the trouble. Well I say open your eyes and look at the reality. If muslims truly were allowed to interpret would there be riots over cartoons or a teddy bear? Would the muslims be murdering their own just because they disagree? Now before the anti-religion folks start pointing out how various christian religions did the same, I have one thing to say, WE GREW UP!!!!!! Let me say the again, WE GREW UP!!!! And we continue to grow, and make mistakes. But the muslims, if given the benefit of being the younger of the three main world religion, have not learned anything, sooo those comparative arguments don't hold water. Well I've been verbose and rambling enough. So in closing, to all those who don't fully grasp what's going on, WE ARE DIFFERENT from islam and of course vice-versa. And not in a good way.

"You have a Muslim born in America of immigrant parents."

Those children are American citizens, with no allegiance to their ancestors' countries of origin.

They cannot be deported, and if their parents are natualized U.S. citizens, there are very few circumstances that would trigger even a deportation hearing for them (let alone an actual proceeding): essentially they have renounce their U.S. Citizenship, or engage in behavior that would indicate a desire to renounce same.

Yes, unfortunately, little Ahmed can fight for shari'a his entire life, right here.

Kevin,

I appreciate your arguing against the Religion of Inveterate Sadism, but I would like to offer another perspective on what makes Christianity and Islam so different from each other.

If you approach the Biblical texts objectively and in the way in which they were intended to be taken by their authors (symbolism as symbolism, poetry as poetry, history as history, eyewitness account as eyewitness account), you find a Christ Who died for the sins of even His enemies and Who commands His people to imitate His example.

If you approach the Islamic core texts objectively and in the way in which its god and prophet intended, you find Muslims commanded to use any means necessary -- including offensive violence -- to subjugate all people to the tyranny of Allah.

Adherents of Christianity (and those who've grown up in a society influenced by it) differ from the faithful of Islam -- to the degree that both behave in ways consistent with their gods' commands -- because Allah is the moral inverse of Christ.

"In America, everybody has a right to exist and worship." How long will that last, if no one stands up to this sort of thing?"

Exactly.

The accounts of the Vitamin company should be gone over with a fine tooth comb to find out what he's doing with the money.
It's about time efforts were put into tracking down these anonymous death threat types and deporting them.

Some of the comments posted regrettably bear no semblance to reality.

Living in Haifa we have a whole neighbourhood of Ahmadiyya living in peaceful co existence with the rest of the Haifa residents.

I guess it must be the only thriving Ahmadiyya community in the world.

"In America, everybody has a right to exist and worship," Saleh said. "What difference does it make if the Ahmadiyya group came and claimed whatever they claimed and asked to be part of the mainstream? What if this was a Jewish group or a Buddhist group?"
........................................

Well, we already have the answer to the last part of this question. What if this *was* a Jewish, or Buddhist, or, for that matter, a Christian group?

Well, not much would happen. Many question whether Jehovah's Witnesses, say, or the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) should be considered mainstream Christian--or Christian at all. Discussions can get heated, but no one threatened violence when, say, Mitt Romney was described as Christian, even if they disagreed.

Fred Phelps, the odious cultist who has become quite infamous for picketting the funerals of gay people and service personnel, is described simply as Baptist in about half the articles about him. This despite the fact that both the American Baptists and Southern Baptists deny that he has anything to do with Baptism. In fact, his sect consists entirely of his large extended family. Baptists are quick to disavow him and his methods, but have never threatened those who refer to him as Baptist.

The group Jews for Jesus was very active at Berkeley when I was a student there. I talked to one of the fellows handing out pamphlets one time, as was rather surprised that he still considered himself Jewish, in the religious sense. (I had assumed that he would consider himself a "cultural" or "ethnic" Jew, who had converted to Christianity). He claimed that since Judaism did indeed have a messiah tradition, that they simply believed tha Jesus had fulfilled that promise.

I mentioned this to several Jewish friends, who not surprisingly disagreed quite fervently. The believed that the Jews for Jesus guy should be considered a Christian. They thought the guy wasn't very well versed in Judaism--no one ever suggested that any harm should come to him.

As for Buddhism, every other goofy New Ager claims to be Buddhist. This must irk some genuine Buddhists--it has never driven them to violence.

All of these cases are debatable as to the authenticity of certain groups, and how far one can stretch doctrine before one's beliefs simply should be considered something else. Personally, I couldn't care less as to whether the Amidaya are considered Muslim or not, as long as they and the Houston publisher are left in peace.