In FrontPage for Monday I examine a recent event at the University of Central Florida, and its implications:
Last week the Muslim Student Association (MSA) of the University of Central Florida invited the Imam Siraj Wahhaj to give an address on campus – funded by UCF’s Student Government Association. It was an invitation that raised no eyebrows: after all, Siraj Wahhaj is one of the most sought-after speakers on the Muslim circuit, and has addressed audiences all over the country. In 1991, he even became the first Muslim to give an invocation to the U.S. Congress. After 9/11, his renown as a moderate Muslim grew when he declared: “I now feel responsible to preach, actually to go on a jihad against extremism.” But with Siraj Wahhaj, as with so many other Muslim leaders in the U.S., things are not always as moderate as they seem.When Siraj Wahhaj spoke at UCF, he was asked whether he would condemn Hamas and Al-Qaeda. Instead of answering directly, Wahhaj launched into a lengthy complaint against his having been designated a “potential unindicted co-conspirator” in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. With obvious annoyance in his voice, Wahhaj complained that that designation essentially meant nothing; an audience member drew sympathetic laughter when she asserted that it meant that Wahhaj was “innocent.” Wahhaj did not explain to his UCF audience that he earned the designation by sponsoring talks in the early 1990s by the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, in mosques in New York City and New Jersey; Rahman was later convicted for conspiring to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.
Apparently no one pressed Wahhaj about whether he condemned the jihad terror groups. Apparently also no one in the UCF audience asked Wahhaj how his view of Islam differed from that of Omar Abdel Rahman; however, if anyone had actually done so, probably Wahhaj would have supplied yet another windy non-answer, generating a great deal of righteous indignation from the Muslims in the crowd but little to nothing in the way of actual information.
Siraj Wahhaj’s contacts with the Blind Sheikh are not the only blots on his reputation as a “moderate.” He has warned that the United States will fall unless it “accepts the Islamic agenda.” He has also asserted that “if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.”...
"One might reasonably expect that a student group founded by members of the Ku Klux Klan would meet an icy reception from university officials on any campus in the United States today, and rightly so; but a Muslim Brotherhood organization on campus doesn’t seem to trouble anyone." That's the spirit Mr. Spencer - the Big J spoke in parables, you can get your points across with comparisons.
MOST people have neither the inclination nor the background to understand Islam as in depth as you - MUST KEEP IT SIMPLE.
Next time on radio/TV Mr. Spencer - feel free to use following:
Do good and evil, love and hate, right and wrong exist?
Is tolerance of evil a good thing for 21st century Western civilization?
Are some cultures, religions, societies, and people morally worse than others?
If no, then a culture that allows female infanticide based solely on XX chromosomes is morally no better or no worse than a culture that does not.
If no, then a religion that forbids rape is morally no better or no worse than a religion that allows rape.
Moral relativists and multiculturalists often say, "Who are we to judge?"
If we DO NOT JUDGE, then it is impossible for good and evil, love and hate, right and wrong to exist.
We MUST JUDGE to know good from evil, love from hate, and right from wrong.
Do you hate evil? Is it a "hate crime" to hate evil?
Do you hate truth? Is it a "hate crime" to tell the truth?
Is hatred of vegetables, fruits, and foods that can do us no harm a "hate crime?"
Is hatred of a "religion" that can harm, torture, enslave, or kill us a "hate crime?"
Should hatred of a belief system that allows others to torture us, enslave us, persecute us, rape us, and kill us be considered a "hate crime?"
Are minorities guilty of hate crimes for hating the KKK?
Are Jews guilty of hate crimes for hating Nazism?
Are Infidels guilty of hate crimes for hating Islam?
Why is it OK to hate things such as fruits and vegetables that can do us no harm, yet NOT OK to hate a belief system that allows others to torture us, enslave us, persecute us, rape us, and kill us?
Which of the following acts DON'T YOU HATE and why don't you hate them?
If God and angels in heaven exist, which of the below acts would they approve of?
Pre-Pubescent Child Rape (65:4), Sex Slaves (4:24), Rape (24:13), Amputation and Crucifixion (5:33), Beheading (8:12, 47:4), Wives Beating (4:34) and Wives Raping (2:223), Theft and Robbery (entire Chapter 8 of Koran called Booty), Extortion (9:29), Lying (3:28, 5:51), Stoning to Death for Adultery (Sahih Muslim 17.4206),..etc.
If Satan and devils in hell exist, which of the above would they approve of?
Which of the above verses in the Koran, Hadith, Sira, etc. do the Islamic Supremacist Hate Organization CAIR hate or disapprove of?
It is NOT a "hate crime" to hate evil.
It is NOT Islamaphobic to HATE the above atrocities that Muslims are allowed to commit in Islam per the Koran, Mohammed, Hadith, and Sira against us Infidels.
Which of the below verses from the Koran do the Islamic Supremacist Hate Organization CAIR hate or disapprove of?
Islamic Allah is the greatest deceiver of all (3:54) and leads people astray (14:27).
The Koran was made by Allah (10:37) and always been in heaven with Allah (85:21-:22).
The Koran is flawless (39:28) and only in Arabic (39:28, 43:3).
Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them (47:4)
The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them (8:65)
Muslims must not take the infidels as friends (3:28)
Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an (8:12)
Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels (8:60)
Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (2:191)
Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood (9:123)
When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them (9:5)
Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax (9:29)
Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable (3:85)
The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them (9:30)
Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam. (5:33)
The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque (9:28)
Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies (22:19)
How can one hate the KKK and Nazism, yet not hate Islam?
Why don't you hate Islam?
How about a radio show, Spencerman, something like this:
Infidel Radio - Hosted by Mad Mo Episode 1
Caller - How Ya'll Doin? I'm Joe SixPack from Al Gore's state of Tennessee and I'm tired of all this green nature and I was fixin to travel and check out some sand and I was wondering':
Q: Why can't we Infidels (non-Muslims), even presidents, prime ministers, VIPs, dignitaries, etc. visit the cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia?
A: Because you non-Muslims would defile these two cities as Infidels are diseased (2:10), evil (2:99), deaf dumb and blind (2:171), can't be our friends (3:28), are our enemies (4:101), losers (5:53), pigs and apes (5:60), evil (5:59), worst beasts (8:55), filthy (9:28), perverts (9:30), and the vilest of creatures (98:51). Next caller.
Caller - Wassup 'homie, this is Tyrone from South Central LA
Q: You mean we can't visit Mecca and Medina because we're the wrong religion. Man, that sounds even worse than racial apartheid to me. That sh*t was banned even in South Africa.
A; Regarding racial apartheid, as you know, our Prophet Mohammed was a white man with red hair who called blacks "Raisin Heads" (Bukhari 9:39:256). Next caller.
Caller - Yes Sir. I'm a correctional officer at an unnamed facility and many inmates are here for statutory rape (having consensual sex with underage girls - under 18).
Q: Is it true that Mohammed when he was 51 got married to child bride Aisha when she was 6?
A. Yes, it's true. But he didn't deflower her until she was 9.
Q. 9? That made Mohammed 54 when he raped poor Aisha at 9. He was 6 times older than she was.
A. Yes and no. Married at 6, Deflowered at 9. 6 X 9 is 54 (Mohammed's age) but it wasn't statutory rape because our Holy Koran allows any Muslim to not only have sex with pre-pubescent girls, but also marry them and divorce them (Koran 65:4).
/More episodes to come.
I saw the picture of the guy at the top of the article and I instantly thought "janitor."
It even looked like he might have been reaching for his mop, or something...
These homegrown (black) Muslims don't impress me, they are just tripping out on the costumes they get to wear. Real Muslims come from Iran and Arabia. The realist Muslim is down in the hole, I mean well, the 13th Imam who has tiger blood same as Charlie Sheen
I believe the word for "black person" and "slave" are the same in Arabic: "Abd."
Someone please correct that if it's wrong...
Sorry, meant "Abid" not "Abd."
@ arabianmoondog - Sir/Ma'am - if that's true, that the word for "slave" and "black person" are the same in Arabic, Abid - that MIGHT help change some minds. Looking forward to other JWers comments on that. Thank you Sir/Ma'am.
It's a "sir," and you, Sir/Ma'am, are very welcome! Like I said, I could be wrong. I copied a blurb on it from somewhere once and went back to my notes to find it when dennisw posted a comment about black Muslims. I looked online just a bit ago and saw conflicting info that term, so...?
Hopefully someone more in-the-know will step in and set the record straight.
When I see someone like this Siraj Wahhaj; and the members of Somalia's al Shahad, or maybe al Shahhahaada, or al Habibi, or al Sherazad, or (more like it) al Abed; and Louis FarraKKKhan, and useful idiots for jihad like Rev. Jeremiah Wrong and Jesse Jackson, I simply pity the self-hating foooooooooooooos.
Hello Jew-Lover:
Thanks for the information,I have copied it down for better analysis,your effort is appreciated.
It is obvious that somebody who b>won't condemn Hamas and Hizbullah with a direct yes is not serious.I can prove Hamas is bad citing from its Hamas Charter:
"The Really Weird Ideas of the Muslim Terrorist Group Hamas"
http://www.antisharia.com/2011/02/24/the-really-weird-ideas-of-the-muslim-terrorist-group-hamas/
Also:
Must watch,abnsat.com has done it again,another great debate,it is "Does Islam violate Basic Human Rights?"
Between Sami Zataari(Muslim)and Tony Costa(Christian),.It is about 90 minutes and at the end they give time to the viewers to call and ask the debaters questions.
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fcqoo9p5NCk
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urmP4nnqhUQ
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IFlzWCjqSk
Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL0cZArMuOw
Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctAEtsU6HOY
Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5tAgp4tpKU
Also read:
antisharia.com and:
1.avraidire.com (in French and English),you can translate the French by copying and pasting with Google Translate:
http://translate.google.com/#
2.answeringmuslims.com
3.answering-islam.org
4.thereligionofconquest.com
4.See the videos (click on "online videos") of abnsat.com(like "Jihad Exposed","Debate","Jesus or Muhammad").
The videos are also on youtube,write "abnsat".
5.http://pyemministry.blogspot.com/
(very critical of Islam)
6.The blog "Debunking Quranic Science":
http://debunkingquranicscience.blogspot.com/
@ arabianmoondog
Yes, the word 'abd' means slave. So, the King of Saudi Arabia is called Abdullah, which means 'slave of allah'. A king who is a slave! Oh well, that's Islam.
To be fair, I suppose I could refer to myself Abdcaffeine.
Nice to see Robert exposing more academia/islamist links.
Back here the proverbial is hitting the fan over the nice, cosy relationship between Ghaddafi's son, Saif and once prestigious, now totally discredited London School of Economics. (LSE).
It turns out that this fetid hotbed of Marxist politics fixed a PHD for said son based on plagiarised work and they knew all along what was going on. And in the grand tradition of the oil wealthy, comfort loving kleptocrats, Ghaddafi Jnr. even had his own team of paid researchers to do the hard work for him.
Adding to this magnificent bonfire of the islamo-socialists, Son of Ghaddafi delivered the LSE Ralph Miliband Memorial Lecture last year.
Uber Marxist Ralph's sons happen to be David and Ed Miliband. David was our Foreign Secretary before Labour was ousted and Ed is now Leader of the Labour Shadow Cabinet.
Course, prior to the political and reputational defenestration of the evil tyrant, all was well in this cosy melange and any query was met by protest of racism or islamophobia. Now all that chaff of nonsense is blown away and these, once pillars of respectability are denounced as the grovelling, islamophile money grabbing marxists they really are.
My conclusions? Although this little comparison may be slightly off the specific topic, it illustrates the level of collusion between the corruption of the cash rich ME oil barons and our western schools of learning which have been infiltrated by wahabist hard line Arab ideology.
When a Yale professor's book on the outragous phenomena of the Cartoon Riots excludes the cartoons themselves because of intense Arab pressure (and threat) we have to examine the so called academic independence of these institutions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy
A root and branch, no excuses purge is needed.
There's whole wind of change in the air, not only in the upheaval of the ME but back here too as layers of corruption and the islamist strata which feeds it are exposed. Whole establishments whether political, governmental or educational have been infected by Saudi money and ideology.
They, in effect, are buying our culture and our youth's minds. Young muslims residing in the West are being brainwashed into a them and us groupthink mindset which is designed to infiltrate and separate. In effect, to pit them against the very country they choose to live in and which has nurtured their upbringing in a way they'd never experience in the lands they came from.
It has to stop. There's a simple choice, if you want Shariah enabled Islam there are penty of places falling over themselves to provide it. Conversely if you want the benefits western thought enables you're quite welcome.
As we are finding, like oil and water, the two are completely incompatible.
Hello minoria,
Thank you for the interesting links, I'm into the 3. part of the first debate right now (pity that Mr Costa's position seems to be weaker at this point), so I decided to make a break and ask you some questions.
My opinion about the debate so far: the events of this kind are very enlightening indeed, but whatever the outcome may be, the strongest arguement against Islam is not what the Quran says, it is the result of its teachings - or as the New Testament tells us, "You will know them by their fruit". Every single day the world witnesses countless atrocities performed by the adherents of this religion IN THE NAME of Islam. The debates with all these Muslim clerics remind me of the documentary "Hafner's paradise", where the former Nazi argues that the Jews were put into concentration camps in order to protect them from British and American bombing raids. That being said, of course I am confident that such exposing of Islam's ugly face is absolutely necessary. What I can't understand is why Western media do nothing to spread this message. I watch BBC (the only English language news channel available via sattelite here) - they seem to be in a kind of conspiracy of silence about the issue, why? The same thing with CNN. Why do these people, willingly or unwillingly, directly or indirectly, help the green fascism, which aims to destroy our civilization (and in many cases even speaks openly about this goal) to flourish?
One more thing came to my mind eventually after reading this and similar websites for quite a while: is democracy a viable form of a human society? I live in Russia, we are at this point as far from the real democracy as it gets, and I can't help thinking, whether it's worth to strive for the democracy if it renders (as it seems now)the society unable to protect itself from evil and hence survive? My first doubt about this issue came when I watched the Muslim outrage on Youtube in London, February 2006 - mobs chanting "Bomb, bomb US, bomb, bomb UK"... In August the same year muslims yelled "God bless Hitler" - in England, for Christ's sake, the first country to stand up against fascism! What are the democratic means to prevent such Death Eaters from infiltrating the society and poisoning the hearts and minds? I don't see any. Do you? Mind you, with Muslim fertility rates they are going to be in majority in some decades in Europe! And then they will be able to impose their barbaric rules upon the whole society using democratic institutes of this very society. It looks like democracy at a certain stage has a certain potential for self-destruction. Very depressing.
There are no moderate Mahoundians...You can see pictures of unicorns, but you will never see a real one...All Mahoundians are 'obligated' to jihad as a 'duty'...There is no moderate jihad...You might see a picture of a moderate Mahoundian, but you will never see a real one...
Would a good starting point for defining a "moderate" Muslim, one who's beliefs are compatible with individual freedom, be a self-identified Muslim who argues within OIC-affiliated countries for the removal of Sharia supremacist provisions in those county's constitutions? It is, after all, a perfect corollary to whether they seek instead to drape a blanket of Sharia theocratic supremacist jurisdiction over top of all the blasphemous secularism (a jurisdictional challenge) embodied in the US Constitution.
If "Islam" is the issue, then a proper time and place for offering evidence of "moderateness" of any "moderate" Muslim is today in Pakistan over the issue of whether it is blasphemous to even hint at the prospect of eliminating any and all punishment for mocking Islam and/or Muslims, such as eliminating (or even reducing) the punishment for blasphemy.
There are at least 55 countries in which a moderate Muslim could prove themselves worthy of the label of moderate, if they somehow manage to survive an extended period of running the gauntlet among their co-Islamists.
Jew_Lover:
On judging:
The writer and philosopher said this:
Judge and be prepared to be judged.
--------------------------------------------------------
I am prepared to judge and be judged as, I'd bet, the vast majority of JWers.
To Jew_Lover:
The writer and philosopher Ayn Rand said,
"Judge and be prepared to be judged."
I agree with her and I have the feeling that the majority of JWers would also agree.
Keep up the good work!
There are no moderate Mahoundians...There never were, and there never will be...Islams laws are set in cement, with little room for variation...Islams laws are Allah's laws...Anyone who tries to moderate Allah's laws is an apostate...Allah's laws, sharia, says so...The penalty is death...
The primary and paramount concern of all pious Mahoundians is to get into Allah's paradise...Not one of them is going to stand up to Allah and say, 'I didn't like some of the things you wrote in your book, so I will ignore them or modify them'...Jihad is an 'obligatory duty' to all Mahoundians, it is not an elective...
"Siraj Wahhaj ... asserted that 'if only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate.'”
Open your eyes and look around, Siraj, the U.S. under BHO is already at least half-way towards the caliphate. If re-elected in 2012, he'll complete the job, and in 2016 he'll go from being the last President to being the first Caliph.
Concerning the Arabic word 'abd (plural: 'abeed), the following sources indicate that this word has a semantic range of meaning that denotes "slave", "worshipper" or "Negro".
An Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane (Beirut: Libraire du Liban), vol. 5, p. 1935:
"...[but ['abd] is now generally applied to a male black slave; and [mamluuk] to a male white slave; and this distinction has long obtained;]...."
Arabic-English Dictionary by William Thomson Wortabet (Beirut, 1893), p. 399:
"Servant, slave, worshipper. [Negro]"
The Student's Arabic-English Dictionary by F. Steingass (London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, n.d.), p. 665:
"...slave, negro, servant; man;..."
Thanks, Jew_Lover--(I is one also)-- for your very wise posts. The one thing I might add to your "following acts" list are the horrendous acts of pre-pubesent female genitle mutilation.
Hello Nina:
I am glad you like the link.You said
"My opinion about the debate so far: the events of this kind are very enlightening indeed, but whatever the outcome may be, the strongest arguement against Islam is not what the Quran says,
it is the result of its teachings - or as the New Testament tells us, "You will know them by their fruit".
Every single day the world witnesses countless atrocities performed by the adherents of this religion IN THE NAME of Islam."
You are right.For example in the Hamas Charter they blame the Jews for:
1.The French revolution,Communist revolution,WW I and WW II
2.The creation of the UN,the Lion's Club,Rotary Club,Freemasons,most of the wars in the world,etc.
Why?
In the Charter itself they cite partially from sura 5:64 which says Allah put enmity and hatred in the Jews till the Day of Resurrection.
Here is a direct religious influence on the Jewish Conspiracy idea:the Jews control Europe,the US,the media.
Check out this video of an earlier UCF Muslim sponsored event.
Incredible!
http://bigpeace.com/jguandolo/2011/02/23/university-of-central-florida-stifles-discussion-of-terrorism-and-muslim-brotherhood/
A comment on "Which of the following verses from the Koran do the Islam supremest hate organization CAIR hate or disapprove off." For the most part the interpretation from Arabic to English conveys the same meaning. However there is hundreds of different translations of how the Koran word translates Example 3:24 you use the word "deceiver" other people have used the term planner and contriver in the same translation. When someone writes verses of the Koran I use "THE KORAN-Simple search" or THE KORAN-PROWSE to checkout how accurate someone is quoting the Koran. I have read the Koran 4 times trying to understand the religion. What struck me the first reading I had of the Koran is the philosophy taught. The Koran teaches its followers to OBEY the Koran. Christianity teaches its followers to LOVE one another. The Korans that I have read are the George Sale translation which was made around 1750 (The Koran or Alcoran of Mohammed) The Koran penguin classic of 1965 and The Penguin Classic of 1956 (TWICE). Before I read the Koran I came across a book by a writer named Tarek Fatah called "Chasing the Mirage" which I believe is a must read to understand Islam Psyche
Regards D