Virginia pol jumps at Hamas-linked CAIR's command, but not high enough

Please, please, Robert; can you try to make your blog entry into a guest opinion column in the Washington Post or at the least, a Letter-to-the-Editor, so that it's read by more of the less-informed?

Gerry Connolly is an ass.

Besides, he accepted at least some CAIR monies in his campaign for the Congressional seat he won in 2008.

Add to the above Connolly's calling those concerned about the expansion of the Islamic Saudi Academy "slanderous bigots," or some such. This epithet hurled at longtime citizens of Fairfax County!

what Pat Robertson needs to do is just add the quotes and islamists who spew out to his speechs. he needs to get out in the open those facts and demand honest ibe to renounce those islamist scholars of their words from the koran.

Pat Robertson said: "If we don't stop covering up what Islam is. Islam is a violent...I was going to say religion but it's not a religion...it's political system; it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

By God, he's got it right! Now I know that there are at least two of us that are willing to proclaim the truth! Islam can never be properly dealt with until everyone stops accepting the premise it is a religion.

I do not often agree with Pat (evolution is just a theory) Robertson. However, in this case, I will. As to Honest Ibe, Islamic history is chock full of violence. Is Mr. Hooper denying that this occurred? Just read some of the Muslim accounts of the jihad against India.

From article...A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that.

That is the root idea that qualifies Islam as a religion...It's hard to shake that one...It gives the false notion that all religions are good and all religions are equal. Not only that it fosters the illusion that everyone's purported God is equal to everyone's purported God...
This is why uninformed kufrs believe that Allah, and the God of the Bible are the same God...Mahoundians would prefer that we continue to labor under that delusion...Islam is fake from its roots...It is a religion, but it is a fake religion...
Wicca had to go to court to get accepted as a 'religion'...
Islam gets a free pass because it has been lying for so long, the lie has become the reality...

Robertson is correct. Islam is not a religion.

Islam, which has its own system of law and its own ordering of society, does not recognize separation of church and state. That makes it "not a religion" under the laws, conventions, and social understandings of this land.

Of course Islam fully intends to overturn those laws, conventions, and social understandings by any and every means.

Islam, a fascist political cult, is in a state of permanent war against our Constitution, including especially our Bill of Rights. Islam is at war with the people of our land--our nation. Islam is waging a relentless war to subjugate every one of us along with our friends and our neighbors.

Will all you feds and pols out there please wake up already? Or are you just too comfortable in your own lavish, narcissistic existence to care?

Robert: "I disagree. I don't think Islam is not a religion. A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that."

But why? I believe that Mohammed only used religious doctrine to further his goal of creating an empire, not because he particularly believed in an all-powerful deity. He chose Allah, one of many pagan gods, as his vehicle to frighten and encourage people to believe and follow him. In other words, the religious piece of Islam is only a practicality to further the aims of Islam's worldwide goal of domination. It is not there to encourage people to become better human beings and to lead better lives. Your thoughts?

PS: I support Pat Robertson irrespective of his view that Islam is not a religion but a political system. It is both in my view. Judaism is also a religion and a political system.

Let the district of Gerry Connolly be flooded with copies of the article above, so that his constituents, or at least the non-Muslims among them, can judge for themselves if what Pat Robertson said needs in any way to be "repudiated" or if, rather, it should be disseminated, and the accuracy of its contents recognized, and intelligently endorsed.

If Gerry Connolly thinks we will all continue to participate in ignoring what a detailed examination of the texts and tenets of Islam reveals, if he things we can all continue to be mollified or assuaged by bland assurances that "of course" Islam must not be this and must not be that because, you see, it is a "religion" and "religions" are, bien entendu, always and everywhere simply wonderful, when Islam is in fact not only a religion but a politics and a geopolitics, a Total Belief-System, then he's a fool. And we already have too many fools in public life. Let's have at least one less.

While I personally despise Pat Robertson, and don't think HE believes in separation of church and state at all (if he did, he'd stick to his pulpit and wouldn't have run for president), I can't say anything about his pronouncement here - except to wonder if it isn't just the competition he doesn't like, since I'm sure if he had any power at all, people like me, and homosexuals, and others he deems "immoral", would be under jackboots - though maybe "kinder, gentler" jackboots - like the Muslims would do. He's no less a religio-political animal than the imams, imo.

As a resident of Connelly's district, I think we might safely say that the tide has turned. Too many Virginians (and 54% of all who voted) blindly drank the Nov 2008 kool-aid and turned the reins over to the current crop of "leaders". The recent election of McDonnell supports the old adage about "fool me once...". I fervently hope Gerry will be a single-term Congressman. His tenure on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors was notable for slavish pandering to ISA and other Islamic front organizations. There is some hope that we can dump his sorry butt next year.

Connolly said, "I, for one, am not going to be silent in the face of that kind of unbridled intolerance."...He could have added, "But I will be silent in the face of Islamic unbridled intolerance. In fact, I'll help it along..."

I was going to say religion but it's not a religion...it's political system; it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination." -- Pat Robertson

I disagree. I don't think Islam is not a religion. A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that. But is Islam a political system that teaches world domination? -- Robert Spencer.

Obviously, as Spencer intimates, Islam is both: a religion and a political ideology. I could never understand the Either/Or mentality that cannot rub its stomach and pat its head at the same time, as Pat Robertson evidently cannot do. If the West cannot muster the elementary rationality needed to identify Islam as a religion and then, based on the mountain of historical and present data readily available, pronounce that religion also a political ideology essentially characterized by a militantly expansionist supremacism, and then begin to take appropriate actions based upon that elementary rationality -- if the West cannot thus rub its stomach and pat its head at the same time, but rather insists stubbornly on puerile logic as the only way to galvanize itself, the West may no longer be worth defending.

Sarah Palin bucks decades of US policy; maybe even the US Constitution itself and the Separation of Powers:

http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/11/18/1009285/palin-on-settlements-jews-flocking-to-israe

Palin on settlements: Jews ‘flocking’ to Israel need a place to live

Islam leaves no choice, it sets itself up as a cult.

Be one of us, or be wrong and subject to our will.

No "faith" other than islam has this tribe ideals. Born a muslim, always a muslim, No choice but islam or death. This is a cult, and even a cult has rules for the faithful.

One must accept Jesus to be a Christian, you become born again, nobody is born a Christian. A gift is accepted, or not, it is a choice.

This is key, the choice of ones path. Our laws here are based on choice, freedom, that is a path that islam has never, or will ever allow.

The cult of death is islam.

Dadcito,

I also live in Connolly's district and agree, one term and one term only, and I look forward to helping make that happen.
Anyone who ignores the will of the people and tells longtime citizens of Fairfax County that they are hatemongers and bigots, while simultaneously accepting over $18,000 in campaign contributions from CAIR executives and the government of Saudi Arabia, has not only got to go but should be tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail. (That number was verified by internal CAIR documents.)

There are many strong and courageous men who live in Fairfax County. Any one of them would be a better Congressman than this dhimmi pantywaist.

Wildjew,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. My apologies, in advance, for any disjointedness below. I will try to tie things together.

I will take your description of what is in the Torah as a given, since I am not religious and not an expert on scripture. There is nothing in what you wrote, and nothing I have ever heard of, that suggests that Jewish law requires Jews to aggressively conquer the earth, to sabotage and obliterate all competing societies, and to enslave humanity, including especially the non-believers. Those tyrannical goals—which are the Islamic goals--have nothing to do with the relationship between Man and his Creator. They are political—defining who is in charge of earthly territory and who makes the rules there. Neither are there any goals like that in Christian law (as promulgated by the Pope, for instance). The specific example you gave was “not surrendering land” to enemies. That sounds pretty defensive to me, and somewhat allegorical.

You say that Moses (and other prophets) presented thoughts on how to organize a government. Having thoughts on how to organize a government over a limited geographical group of believers is different from saying that those believers must fight to impose their law by force on other societies across the globe. Jesus and the Christian prophets said to spread the Word—to proselytize. They didn’t say anything about conquering physical territory. So the answer is no, I don’t think either Judaism or Christianity is political.

Our Constitution is the highest law of the land. It protects freedom of conscience and the practice of religion. Islam does not recognize the authority of that Constitution, nor does it recognize the right of Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists (etc.) in America to live free of Islamic “higher” law. The Constitution says you can believe anything you want. And you can try to convince others that you are correct. But you may not harm or shanghai others, no matter what your “higher religious law” says. Islam does not accept that restraint. It is political.

We are a nation “under God.” That means we take inspiration from faith and pray for the wisdom and strength to do the right thing in the face of great temptation and great evil. Even a non-believer in any faith wishes for those things. We use that wisdom and strength to craft just laws (like Moses, I suppose) and we grant limited authority to government agents who act on our behalf to protect society and to facilitate peaceful commerce. Our “nation under God” means that the government works for us--we do not work for the government. That is, we are not “under the Government.” But Islam says yes, in fact, we are—and the only legitimate government to be under, no matter what your faith, is a Muslim Sharia (fascist) government. Islam is political.

The Constitution is not divine, but it was written by men of Christian, some say divine, inspiration. At the moment, it is the only protection we have--not just for us Americans, but for pretty much the whole planet--from the Islamic fascist juggernaut. The Muslims know this, and that is why they are here and that’s why they are attacking the Constitution, directly and indirectly, from all azimuths. Islam is political.

RS wrote:

"I disagree. I don't think Islam is not a religion. A religion purports to relate human beings to a deity, and Islam does purport to do that."

I disagree with his disagreement.

As Nazra Quraishi-an American Muslim woman, living in East Lansing, Michigan, wrote in her July 2006 letter to the editor of the Lansing State Journal, titled 'Islam or Death', she asserts:

"Islam is not only a religion, it is a complete way of life."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/07/islam-or-death.html

In addition,the Muslim Students Association West website
notes, in their 'Misconceptions about Islam' section:

"Islam is the name of a way of life which the Creator wants us to follow. We avoid the word religion because in many non-Islamic societies, there is a separation of "religion and state." This separation is not recognized at all in Islam: the Creator is very much concerned with all that we do, including the political, social, economic, and other aspects of our society. Hence, Islam is a complete way of life.

http://www.msawest.net/islam/
http://www.msawest.net/islam/notislam/misconceptions.html

I may be splitting hairs with the Quraishi letter, but the MSA website is pretty specific.

I personally see Islam as a complete way of life in which religion is but one component; a complete way of life in which there is no separation of mosque and state--making Islam absolutely incompatible with the U.S. Constitution.

As Robert notes in the Rifqa rally video above, "...there is no solving this problem, there is only managing it..."

That given, we all need to to throw what Muslims themselves say right back at them.

How does Islam purport to relate human beings to the deity to whom Allah the Magical Sky-Troll prays in Sura 17?

wildjew,

RS wrote that he does not believe Islam is not a religion; i.e. he believes it is a religion. That is his opinion.

I disagree, and so, apparently do Nazra Quraishi and the MSA.

My car has an engine in it. Is is one of its components. But the sum of all its parts makes it a car. Not an engine.

I, too, have visited leftist sites; finding even polite attempts to rationally address Islam's true teachings with the morons who live their clueless lives at those sites to be a complete waste of time, as such events almost always devolve, so quickly, into childish assertions that 'Christians, do it toooo; Christians do it toooo! Remember McVeigh? How about Hitler? And what about those crusades. And haven't we already killed 27 billion inocent Iraqis just to steal their oil?

They're just not going to admit that Irshad Manji is not not the best source of Islamic knowledge.

Have a good day.

Pat Robertson should do both his fellow countrymen
and Christian right by saying, " I stand by what I said about
Islam and if somebody doesn't like it they kiss my #$** !

Re Hesperado and PRCS, you both make interesting points.

Islam is a politico-religious system. Yet in a sense it is a third thing that is neither political nor religious, but rather a fusion of those, a fusion PRCS has referred to as a whole way of life. So I see something to both sides of the debate on this thread. Hesperado and PRCS both have a point. Hesperado is right that Islam is both political and religious. And yet tax-exempt status should be in doubt for Islam, insofar as religious and political are not distinguishable in Islam, and it constitutes a whole way of life that seeks political power.

wildjew,

1. "She concedes Islam is indeed a religion. I'm not following you."

As I said, I may be splitting hairs with her letter to the editor, but it is apparent from that letter that Islam--as a complete way of life--is a step up from mere religion. The MSA is specific.

Amputating thieves' hands goes beyond spirituality.

2. You're not going to like this.

No.

My car has an engine, and I call it a car.

Of course, the question here partly depends on how you are using the term "religious," whether in the loose sense or in a more rigorous way. For example, if one successfully demonstrates that Islam is a false or pseudo-religion, then in that sense, Islam could not be considered a religion. Then someone might ask, well, what is it then? And might then answer, It must be a political system, masquerading as a religion, an attempt to seek earthly power. But that answer remains inadequate. Even if Islam is a false religion, it remains in some sense a "spiritual" system, an ethos that surely has hidden behind it the collusion of countless non-physical or spiritual beings and forces. Islam is not just a political system. It is an invisible landscape, a hidden kingdom, apparently a strange and dark one led by a something like a fallen angel. This aspect we cannot see with our physical eyes, but invisible landscapes are as real or more real than physical ones; the physical ones were at some point slowly born out of the invisible ones. Even now, the visible world comes to birth out of invisible worlds, but we are mostly unaware of that. But the point is, even as a false religion, Islam is a sort of religion, but one that worships corruptly a corrupted being of some sort and a corrupted realm of being.

As far as the Constitution is concerned, it refuses to define what shall and shall not be defined as a religion. That's the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment. Thus whoever on this thread imagines he can look to the traditions of the U.S. or to the Constitution to define Islam out of existence as a religion, is looking in the wrong place. With regard to Islam, the U.S. could only do what it did to Shinto in Imperial Japan on surrender: permit any private forms of Shinto religion provided they do not include political aspirations, and ruthlessly root out any and all political aspects of Shinto. The U.S. cannot, without a radical change in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, take away Islam's religious status. But the U.S. could ruthlessly root out any and all political aspects of Islam, including in its private forms.

Traeh wrote:

"But the U.S. could ruthlessly root out any and all political aspects of Islam, including in its private forms."

The non-Muslim U.S. population, and any other non-Muslim nation, would likley fail to root the political aspects out of Islam.

We could, conceivably, make the entire U.S. population aware of those political aspects, but actually rooting them out would be a task for Muslims themselves.

And I can't imagine them doing that.

And supposing that they ever could do that, the rest of the Muslim world would very probably refuse to do so.

The free exercise clause, IMO, was intended to accomodate the purely religious aspects of the various Christian sects, as it rendered unto...; I could be wrong, but I don't think its authors considered Judaism in their thinking. As wildjew noted, there is no separation of temple and state and the free excercise clause would not have accomodated that--and would thus have been written much differently. And I'll go out on a limb and declare that it did not cover, and was not intended to cover, the amputation of thieves' hands.

Pat Robertson: "...but [Islam is] not a religion...it's political system; it's a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."

As others have noted, Islam has both religious and political aspects. I would add, in correcting Robertson further, that it employs not only violent means but also non-violent means of establishing sharia government and law. Of course, the non-violent means are usually supported indirectly or directly by the threat of violence (explicit or implied) and other forms of coercion.

Regarding Islam's classical policy of wiping out non-Islamic governments and laws and replacing them with Islamic ones, until the whole world is Islamic or under Islamic rule, there are at least two issues that need to be addressed.

1. Do a significant percentage or number of Muslims actually believe in this policy of world domination and want to implement it? (I.e., the "Why should this matter today?" question)

2. Is there clear support for such a policy of world domination in the original core Islamic texts? (I.e., Is this really "Islam," or some perversion, distortion, or addition?).

The answers to both questions are "yes."

Here is some evidence for "yes" to question 1:

The majority of Muslims in the largest Muslim countries want “strict” sharia to be imposed and want a caliphate set up (World Public Opinion surveys). Even among Muslims in Western countries, most of them want at least some major sharia laws to be imposed on non-Muslims, such as laws criminalizing any criticism of Islam or Muhammad.

The trend in Islamic countries over the past approximately 40 years has been toward increasing Islamization of daily life, government, and laws, with increasing tendency toward harsh classical sharia (as noted by Rudolph Peters in his book Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law). The trend is away from secularization and towards medieval sharia.

Muslims have voted in increasingly "Islamist" and hard-line Islamic governments and leaders in many places in recent years. In addition, Islamic countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Turkey--which were as recently as a few years ago routinely referred to as "moderate"--are increasingly moving toward fuller implementation of sharia.

57 Islamic countries, which includes all of the major Muslim countries and numerous countries that have large Muslim minority populations, are members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), which seeks to impose sharia standards such as Islamic blasphemy laws on all Muslim and non-Muslim nations of the world. The members of the OIC have agreed to the Cairo Declaration, which states that sharia and Islam are the only legitimate sources of laws and rights, thus overruling the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Hence, there is no doubt that the majority of Muslims want to impose at least some major forms of sharia upon the whole world, including a sweeping and comprehensive purging and reconstruction of the language in all aspects of life, not just of Islam criticism per se, in order to protect and promote Islam, while punishing the perceived or potential "enemies of Islam."

I will finish my answer for question 1, and support my answer for question 2, in subsequent posts.

traeh and Wellington et al.:

Imagine a religion came along (perhaps it had existed for years, decades, even centuries, but only came across the radar recently) that had as one of its central tenets the destruction of the USA. Imagine further that more and more members of that religion had actually engaged in violence against Americans toward that end, and that innumerable other members had been found out to be aiding and abetting those violent fellow members, and/or passively enabling them. In that case, it would be eminently reasonable to suppose that not one of the Founding Fathers nor any subsequent Supreme Court Justice would bother considering such a religion protected by the First Amendment -- and that, furthermore, that they were endowed with the elementary logic to perceive that a religion can still be a "religion" yet have tenets that make it intolerable. I.e., just because a religion is a "religion", that does not make it impossible nor forever inconceivable for it to have intolerable tenets. To insist otherwise is perversely peculiar in the extreme.

At that juncture, the next task would be determining how many members of this seditious religion believe in its seditious tenet. But protecting it would not be an option, and denying such protection would not be seen to violate the Constitution. The architects of the Constitution were reasonable men, not literalistic fanatics.

Popular Muslim leaders of various sorts in recent times support and promote Islamic supremacism and imperialism, and world dominance:

"We will export our revolution throughout the world . . . until the calls 'There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world" --Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini

"If the objective circumstances materialize, and subjective, there are soldiers, weapons, and money--even if this means using biological, chemical, and bacterial weapons--we will conquer the world, so that “[t]here is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah” will be triumphant over the domes of Moscow, Washington, and Paris."
--Iraqi ayatollah Ahmad Husseini

"I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah and his prophet is Muhammad"
--Osama bin Laden, 2001.

"Allah revealed Islam in order that humanity could be governed according to it. Unbelief is darkness and disorder. So the unbelievers, if they are not suppressed, create disorder. That is why the Muslims are responsible for the implementation of Allah's Law on the planet, that humanity may be governed by it, as opposed to corrupt man-made laws. The Muslims must make all efforts to establish the religion of Allah on the earth." -Muhammad 'Abdus Salam Faraj, Jihad: The Absent Obligation, p.43

“The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in the world.”
–from the website of the Islamic Affairs Department, Saudi Arabia.

“Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.”
-Saudi Professor Nassar bin Suleiman al-Omar on al-Majd TV.

New York imam Siraj Wahhaj, in a sermon: "In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam."

“Moderate” cleric, Zaid Shakir quoted in the New York Times: "I would like to see America become a Muslim country."

“Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. ….the goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam.”
--Maududi in ‘Jihad in Islam’

"Sheik Al-Qaradhawi argued that there are two types of Jihad: "A Jihad which you seek, and a Jihad in which you repulse an attack." In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way.” --source MEMRI

The above are just a few examples. Regular readers of JihadWatch know there are almost daily pronouncements by various Muslim leaders, scholars, imams, personalities, etc., praising various forms of jihad to establish dominance of Islam over non-Islamic systems and peoples.

These pronouncements not only occur on obscure Muslim extremist websites, but are also made on mainstream Islamic, highly popular sites. For example, on his IslamOnline site (Alex traffic ranking of 3639), Qaradawi wrote, citing "sahih" hadiths:

"1. In his Sahih, Imam Muslim recorded that Thawban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings upon him) as saying: “Almighty Allah has gathered the earth for me so that I could see all its corners. My nation will rule over all that which Almighty Allah has gathered for me.”

"2. Ibn Hibban quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying: “This matter (i.e. Islam) will spread to cover all areas where there is night and day. Allah will never leave a house in a rural area or in urban community without its people being Muslims. Honor is for those who embrace it (i.e. Islam) while disbelievers are doomed to disgrace and humiliation.”"

"This hadith, along with many others, give us glad tidings that the patch of the Muslim state will expand to cover the whole earth and that the strength of this state will grow and become obvious to all. This also denotes good news for the long-cherished hope of revival of Muslims’ unity and rebirth of Islamic Caliphate.""

End of quote.

On another popular Islamic website, Islam Q and A, an Islamic scholar writes:

"[...]Undoubtedly taking the initiative in fighting has a great effect in spreading Islam and bringing people into the religion of Allaah in crowds. Hence the hearts of the enemies of Islam are filled with fear of jihad. In the English-language Muslim World Magazine it says: There should be some kind of fear in the western world, one of the causes of which is that since the time it first appeared in Makkah, Islam has never decreased in numbers, rather it has always continued to increase and spread. Moreover Islam is not only a religion, rather one of its pillars is jihad. Robert Bean says: The Muslims conquered the entire world before and they could do it again […] Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 28/263. The purpose is that all religion should be for Allaah alone, and that the word of Allaah should be supreme…””

Another popular Islamic site Understanding-Islam.com explains some of the religiously-based "reasons" for the political policy of extermination and subjugation of non-Muslims:

" [...] The Qur'an tells us that Muhammad (sws) was not only a Prophet (nabi) but also a messenger (Rasu'l) of Allah. The Qur'an tells us that when Allah sends His messenger in a people, these people are not allowed to live on Allah's earth if they reject the messenger […] then Allah directs his prophet to migrate from the area and then he destroys all those who have rejected his messenger.”

The popular Muslim student site, run by the Muslim Students Association at USC, posted a Muslim student's notes on the duties of the khalifa / Muslim government, among other things:

"[...]-Defend the rights of Muslims abroad, and to see to it that Islam can spread freely in non-Muslim lands (including the use of force).

-Organize jihad against any non-Muslim government which prevents Muslim da'wah from entering its land.[...]"

(Note, the above has apparently been removed, but the Islamic supremacist hadiths remain on the site).

Zafar Bangash (on the “IslamicThought” website, in an article about following Muhammad’s example from the Sira):

“The essence of the Seerah is the exercise of power and authority to achieve the divine purpose, and this is linked to leadership. Allah says twice in the noble Qur'an: "He it is who has sent the Prophet with guidance and the Deen of Truth so that it may become dominant over all other systems, however much the mushrikeen may be averse to it" (Al-Qur'an 9:33, 61:09). To make Islam dominant again, Muslims will have to acquire power by repeating the method of the noble messenger of Allah; i.e. following his Sunnah (life-example) and Seerah. Even when he was without power in Makkah, the Prophet was the leader of the small group of Muslims, over whom he exercised authority. After the hijra (migration) from Makkah to Madinah, he established the Islamic state and became its ruler. The Prophet thus combined in his person the authority of the messenger, head of state, and commander of the army. The Seerah, therefore, offers an important lesson in leadership, an essential pre-requisite for transforming any society into an Islamic state. This process of transformation is the quintessential model for all Muslims as they struggle to transform their societies.”

There is much more along these lines, and there are many more such sites.

In finishing my answer to question 1, I will just mention the polls which showed that large percentages of Muslims agree to such things as "supporting bin Laden," supporting Hizballah, supporting various forms of attack against non-Muslims, etc. There is no question that the majority of Muslims want some major elements (or more) of sharia to be imposed upon the whole world. The polls show this. There is also no question that this is happening, bit by bit, in present times, as documented in the news and highlighted on this site.

To question 2, is world domination an Islamic concept? I've cited the hadiths cited by Qaradawi above, and here are some more of the key verses and hadiths supporting Islamic supremacy and imperialism:

Quran

34:28. "And We have not sent you (O Muhammad SAW) except as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most of men know not."

7:157. "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong. He will make lawful for them all good things and prohibit for them only the foul; and he will relieve them of their burden and the fetters that they used to wear. Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him: they are the successful.
7:158. Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no God save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright."

9:33 "He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse."

Ibn Kathir begins his commentary of 9:33, "Islam is the Religion That will dominate over all Other Religions […]”

48:28 "He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness."

Ibn Kathir begins his commentary of 48:28, "The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World […]”

61:9 "He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse."

33:27. “And He caused you to inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and land ye have not trodden. Allah is ever Able to do all things.”

Ibn Kathir (33:27): “…(And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches,) means, `He gave these things to you after you killed them.' (and a land which you had not trodden.) It was said that this was Khaybar, or that it was the lands of the Persians and Romans. Ibn Jarir said, "It could be that all of these are referred to””

8:39. "And fight them until persecution [fitnah] is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do."

Some hadiths

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). [Also see Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 1062, 1063, 1066, 1067; Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 127 and 141].

Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 33 (see 30-35): It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4717 (see 4715-4724):
It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir b. Samura that the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) said: This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight for its protection until the Hour is established.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258:
Narrated 'Abdullah: The Prophet said, "A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it. (See Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 178:
Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya: We entered upon 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, "May Allah make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet and by which Allah may make you benefit?" He said, "The Prophet called us and we gave him the Pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the Pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:
Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 3, Number 125:
Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What kind of fighting is in Allah's cause? (I ask this), for some of us fight because of being enraged and angry and some for the sake of his pride and haughtiness." The Prophet raised his head (as the questioner was standing) and said, "He who fights so that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, then he fights in Allah's cause." (also see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 355; and Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Number 4684 (also 4685, 4686, 4687)

"Marry women who will love their husbands and be very prolific, for I wish you to be more numerous than any other people."
--the prophet Mohammad, quoted in the Mishkatu 'l-Masabih, book xiii

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2045:
“Narrated Ma'qil ibn Yasar: A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: No. He came again to him, but he prohibited him. He came to him third time, and he (the Prophet) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall outnumber the peoples by you.”

From the Sira:

Ishaq, pp. 470-471.
“Many a woman will ask of our fight.
Had she been there she would have seen that we were steadfast.
We were steadfast trusting in Him;
We saw nothing equal to God in the hour of our danger.
We have a prophet, a true helper,
By whom we will conquer all men.”

Ishaq, p. 204-205.
“ ‘O men of Khazraj, do you realize to what you are committing yourselves in pledging your support to this man [Muhammad]? It is a war against all and sundry.* If you think that if you lose your property and your nobles are killed you will give him up, then do so now, for it would bring you shame in this world and the next (if you did so later); but if you think that you will be loyal in your undertaking if you lose your property and your nobles are killed, then take him, for by God it will profit you in this world and the next.’ They said that they would accept the apostle on these conditions. But they asked what they would get in return for their loyalty, and the apostle promised them paradise. They said, ‘Stretch forth your hand,’ and when he did so they pledged their word.”
* “Lit. ‘red and black men.’ ” [Ibn Kathir, in his tafsir of the Qur’an’s verse 34:28, interprets that same phrase as follows: “It was also recorded in the Sahih that the Messenger of Allah said: (I have been sent to the black and the red.) Mujahid said, "This means to the Jinn and to mankind.'' Others said that it meant the Arabs and the non-Arabs. Both meanings are correct."”] An English dictionary states that “all and sundry," means "everybody; one and all.” In this context, the men were not pledging to wage war against Jinn, so this phrase means that 'It is a war against all humankind.'

Ishaq, p. 208. “ When God gave permission to his apostle to fight, the second ‘Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of fealty. Now they bound themselves to war against all and sundry, while he promised them for faithful service thus the reward of paradise.

Islamic historians and scholars support the Islamic supremacist policies. Numerous examples are cited in Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad. Here are just a few examples:

Ibn Khaldun:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. […] It is conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death."

From al-Amili’s manual of Shia law, Jami-i-Abbasi:

“Islamic holy war against followers of other religions, such as Jews, is required unless they convert to Islam.”

Sufi scholar Al-Ghazali (1058–1111) said the objectives and methods of Islam are to:

"…suppress the enemies of religion through the jihad in His cause, and to gain their wealth, women, and lands until they surrender to Islam."

And from one of Islam's heroes:

“I shall cross the sea to their islands to pursue them until there remains no one on the face of the earth who does not acknowledge Allah" --Saladin, 1189.

And from Islamic law.

Hanafi school of Sunni Islam on the subject of Jihad, as given in the Hidayah, vol. Ii. P. 140:

"...If the infidels, upon receiving the call [to embrace Islam], neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do."

The Reliance of the Traveller mentions that to reject that 'Allah' intended Islam to be the religion followed by the entire world (i.e., Islam's goal of world dominance) constitutes apostasy [o8.7(20)], and the same source notes that the punishment for apostasy is death.

Lastly, CAIR's focus on Pat Robertson is rather convenient, considering that even the apologist John Esposito acknowledges the classical Islamic imperialist policy, which involves dominance and violence. As Robert has quoted before, Esposito admits in Islam: The Straight Path that "As Islam penetrated new areas, people were offered three options: (1) conversion, that is, full membership in the Muslim community, with its rights and duties; (2) acceptance of Muslim rule as ‘protected’ people and payment of a poll tax; (3) battle or the sword if neither the first nor the second option was accepted" (p. 35)

Everyone knows that Islam claims to be a continuation of the faith of Abraham. But Jews and Christians, who do follow the faith of Abraham, don't agree. In this case, Islam is an impostor religion, since it claims to follow the faith of Abraham,Issac, Jacob, Moses and Jesus, but it doesn't. Islam is a continuation of the polytheistic pre-Islamic religions of Arabia. Just because Mohammad chose to be monotheistic doesn't mean he was choosing to follow the one true God. At the birth of Jesus, the angels announced "peace on earth, good will to men," but peace with God could only come through Jesus and the message of the cross, which Islam denies. If you want to call Islam a religion, you cannot at the same time say that it is a religion of peace in the same sense that Jesus meant, when he said, "Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you" (John 14:27). Islam does not spread the peace of Christ on earth, but it claims to offer peace to everyone who submits to Islam and Shariah law! That's not my kind of religion.

The worship of Kali is also a religion, but who wants to give it equal rights with Christianity and Judaism in the West?

http://go.to/islamhistory

Kinana of Khaybar mentions the modern Muslim scholar Maududi as a proponent of Islamic militant supremacism.

A fuller quote from him only dismays all the more:

"Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the Earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. . . Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution."

One strong indication of the respect for Maududi among mainstream Muslims is that Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, as well as director of the Macdonald Center for the Study of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations at the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut -- in which capacity she helps accredit Muslim chaplains for U.S. prisons and our military by teaching classes using the Koran -- has commented approvingly of Maududi (as well as of Sayyid Qutb, one of the godfathers of modern Islamic terrorism). On Maududi, Ms. Mattson has said that his writings on the Koran constitute “probably the best work of [Koranic commentary] in English.”

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/26/democrats-soft-jihadist/

Hesperado, PCRS, etc.,
Except in very extreme circumstances, outlawing a religion is not likely to happen in the U.S. It would face probably insurmountable constitutional obstacles. But what can constitutionally be outlawed are any seditious elements and any political elements of a religious doctrine that make it a plan for theocracy.

That is what the U.S. did in Japan at the end of World War II. We did not simply outlaw Shinto. We outlawed all its political elements. We enforced a separation of religion and state. That separation is something the U.S. could increasingly find ways to impose on Islam, especially within the U.S. Imposing that separation would be in accord with the U.S. Constitution, whereas outlawing a religion would be difficult if not impossible, except in extreme circumstances.