Sharia Law For Dummies

Sharia For Dummies
By Nonie Darwish
Original link

Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf claims that the US constitution is Sharia compliant. Now let us examine below a few laws of Sharia to see if Imam Rauf is truthful or a fraud:

1-  Jihad defined as “to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion” is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (Caliph). Muslim Caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Sharia and unfit to rule.

2-  A Caliph can hold office through seizure of power meaning through force.

3-  A Caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

4-  A percentage of Zakat (alms) must go towards jihad.

5-  It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

6-  A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

7-  The Muslim public must remove the Caliph in one case, if he rejects Islam.

8-  A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

9-  A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of : 1) an apostasy 2) an adulterer 3) a highway robber. Making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10-  A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim.

11-  Sharia never abolished slavery and sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12-  Sharia dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging and other forms of cruel and unusual punishments even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13-  Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims and must comply to Sharia if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he commits adultery with a Muslim woman or if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14-  It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. However, the opposite is not true for Muslims.

15-  A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16-  Banks must be Sharia compliant and interest is not allowed.

17-  No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or a bathhouse attendant. Women in such low level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18-  A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslims minority.

19-  Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20-  There is no age limit for marriage of girls under Sharia. The marriage contract can take place anytime after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21-  Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband’s obligation to support her, gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22-  Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying: “I divorce you” and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23-  There is no community property between husband and wife and the husband’s property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24-  A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25-  A man has the right to have up to 4 wives and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26-  The dowry is given in exchange for the woman’s sexual organs.

27-  A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married her marriage is annulled.

28-  The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29-  A woman looses custody if she remarries.

30-  To prove rape, a woman must have 4 male witnesses.

31-  A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32-  A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body which is considered “Awrah,” a sexual organ. Some schools of Sharia allow the face and some don’t.

33-  A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife caught in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he “could be married to the woman he was caught with.”

The above are clear cut laws in Islam decided by great Imams after years of examination and interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Mohammed’s life. Now let the learned Imam Rauf tell us what part of the above is compliant with the US constitution?

August 27, 2010 at 11:34 pm 2 comments

Historical Context for Ground Zero Mosque Plan

A loyal follower of Muhammad, Omeir, crept into the house of a Medina poetess named Asma and pinned her to the couch with a sword while she lay sleeping with her baby in her arms. Omeir asked if this deed was a cause for concern, offensive to the prophet of Islam. Muhammad assured Omeir there was no cause for concern and added, “A couple of goats will hardly knock their heads together.”

What did the poetess, Asma do to deserve such wrath? She implored her fellow Medina citizens to expel Muhammad because he was recruiting the hooligans of Medina, and who under his direction, robbed, terrorized, and murdered the locals unless they converted to  Islam. 

Asma felt that the presence of Muhammad in Medina was a threat. Her poem, offensive to Muhammad, follows:

“Gutless men of Malik and Nabit,
And of Nawf,
Gutless men of Khazraj,
You obey a stranger who has no place among you,
Who is not of Murad nor of Madhhij,
Do you when your own chiefs have been murdered
Put your hope in him
Like men greedy for meal soup when it is cooking?
Is there no man of honor among you
Who will take advantage of an unguarded moment
And cut off the gull’s hopes?

Another poet named Kab went to Mecca to recruit help for the people of Medina. When he returned to Medina, Muhammad gave the order to have his tongue cut out. In all, four poets were killed in Medina, and Islam began to spread out to the rest of the world in such a manner. . So much for free speech!

Contrast Asma’s poem to some of Muhammad’s own poetic verses  emblazoned in the Koran to this day:

When you meet the unbelievers in battle strike off their heads. (47.4)

The unbelievers among the People of the Book, Christian and Jews, and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of creatures. (98.6 )

God has cursed the Jews, transforming them into apes and swine and those who serve the devil. (5.60)

Those who make war against Allah and his Apostle shall be put to death or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides. (5.33)

Kill those who join other gods with God (the Trinity) wherever you may find them. (9:5)

I will instill terror into the hearts of the Infidels , strike off the heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip. (8:12)

Allah has purchased of their faithful lives and worldly goods and in return has promised them the Garden. They will fight for his cause, kill and be killed. (9:111)

“Then when the sacred months are over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them, take them captive, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every point of observation.” (9:5)

Such are the imperialistic poetic verses that Muhammad claimed were inspired by  a god who he insisted was named Allah, the same name as the ancient Moon God of Arabia.

Jihad spread across the Middle East and North Africa before any of its inhabitants understood what Islam was. After  building  a mosque on sacred ground in Jerusalem, the jihad advanced on to  Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Sicily, Austria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Rumania, Wallachia, Albania, Moldavia, Bulgaria, Greece, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, Ukraine, Constantinople, and to Persia and India in the east. 

Jihad arrived in Spain in 711 AD, where it remained for over 700 years.  Spain was easy prey, with no knowledge of Islam, and the Jews there believing that the Muslims would save them from the Christians. Additionally, the Spanish youth were no longer practiced  in war. In Spain, Muslim sects fought against each other for power, as they still do today in the Middle East.

In the early days of the Spanish conquest,  the Abbasids, vague descendents of Muhammad’s uncle, Abbas, murdered what was presumed to be the last of the Umayyads, the former rulers of Islam in Syria, Iraq, and Arabia when 90 remaining Umayyads managed to escape the fate of having their bodies dumped in the outskirts of Basra to be eaten by wolves and wild dogs.  Abbas coaxed 89 of the 90 Umayyads back by claiming that the attack had been an unfortunate error, a misinterpretation of his orders, by inviting them to a banquet to show his “true” intentions. Believing  Abbas was sincere, 89 of them accepted the invitation. Once settled around a big table, Abbas’ soldiers surrounded the 89 at Abbas’ command and flogged them to death. The faithful soldiers of Abbas then wrapped the dead Umayyad bodies in the carpet on which they had perished, and proceeded to dine on the food on top of the carcasses.

The remaining Umayyad, Abd al-Rahman made it to Cordova, Spain where the Abbasids ruled. He executed their leaders and sent their decapitated heads– with identification notes attached to their ears, back to the caliph in Baghdad. As Paul Fregosi writes in Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries, “From then on, al-Andalus (Muslim Spain) was safe from the Abbasids.”

Abd-al Rahman’s successor, Hisham I (788-796) sent his armies to Syria, Arabia, Algeria, and France. In France, they set fire to the city of Narbonne and were halted by the Christians in a battle at Carcassonne. After they returned to Cordova, Hisham I built a mosque to the glory of Allah with the plunder his armies returned with.

Al-Hakim II (796-822), the son of Hisham I, gave the sincere Christians a break. He invited all the new converts from Christianity to Islam, many of who were among the sophisticated and intellectuals, to a reception in a large new building. Anxious to greet the Emir, they lined up to go in one at a time.

A bystander who was a physician waited outside for his friend to come out. “Strange that no one has come out yet, “ he thought. Suddenly he realized that the smell of blood in the air was not that of roasting hind quarters for the feast, but the blood of  5,000 headless Toledans, who had converted to Islam.

On a church alter in Salerno, Italy , a Muslim chief sacrificed the virginity of a nun every night. One night, before his sacrifice was complete, a wooden beam fell from the roof and landed on his head.

In 846 AD, the Pope made peace with the Muslims after they  looted the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul by promising a tribute of 25,000 silver coins per year.

Almanzar, a Saracen,  succeeded Al-Hisham II. He was not particularly religious but he carried a Koran with him. Almanzar took advantage of differing political camps in Leon, France to help both sides destroy themselves. Knowing the French were in turmoil, and a master of public relations, Almanzar marched on Catalonia in Spain with a troupe of artists and poets, and then on to Barcelona which he plundered and burned. On his return to Cordova,  he rolled up his sleeves to personally help build a new mosque before going back to devastate Leon.

In the Balkans, Muslims had Christian allies in the Eastern orthodox Serbs over their disagreements with the Hungarian Catholics. Timurlane, a Mongol Muslim destroyed 700 towns and villages in Georgia after the Georgian prince refused a summons. In the town of Sivas, Timurlane’s men covered the mass graves of 4,000 live Christian Armenians with planking so they could breathe a while longer.

The Sunni Sultan, Selim the Grim, a very religious man, had a census made of the 70,000 Shiites in his realm. Knowing where they were, he had 40,000 of them beheaded and the rest imprisoned. In Cairo, Selim the Grim had 50,000 citizens put to death including 153 treasury officials—for incompetence.

Eventually the Christians were able to remove the Muslims from Spain in 1492, often with the help of the French. The heads of a  French contingent defeated by the Muslims  in the late 11th century were stacked into a high pile, a makeshift minaret, for a muezzin to give the call to prayer.

 The Spanish Christians, believing that Islam was no longer a threat after their defeat in Granada in 1492, did not know that a stockpile of shipments of arms from the Near East and North Africa, were hidden in the mountains.

Documents in Granada revealed  a plot  to revolt contingent on 8,000 Turk arrivals. A Captain General Spaniard named Inigo Lopez de Mendoza warned Madrid of the possible revolt, but his warnings were ignored. Then, on Christmas Day, 1568, while the Christians Spaniards were celebrating mass, 200 homegrown Spanish Muslims dressed up in Turkish turbans ransacked the countryside, gaining ranks from more homegrowns along the way. Priests were burned, tortured and murdered. Christian girls were raped and sent off to harems in Morocco and Algeria, where a healthy population of Christian slaves had served for centuries past, and well into the 1800’s, until they were liberated by the French, Americans, and eventually the British.

In America, Muslims claim a mosque on Ground Zero, “will improve their relationship with Americans.” An improved relationship with the people of Islam is conditional on the premise that Islam be allowed to rule independently and authoritatively. A lesson in taqquiya (deception allowed to advance Islam) –Incremental submission to Islam is required for an incremental improvement in relationship.  Historically, a mosque and call to prayer from its minarets on conquered territory is a symbol of victory and conquest

REFERENCE

Fregosi, Paul; Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1998

Suggested Reading

Walking the Plank: To a Dhimmi Nation

By Mary Christina Love

June 23, 2010 at 2:46 am 3 comments

History of the Balkans

By Judy Morris

There can be no discussion on Islamic terrorism and its hunger for real estate without understanding the Balkans.   With Balkan proximity to both Europe and Russia and as a remnant of the Ottoman Empire, we should all anticipate that the survival of both Western and Orthodox Civilization (our sister Christian civilization) will ultimately come to roost in the Balkans.  Although ignored and disdained by the world at large, the Balkans remains a critical front of two vital civilizations under dire threat.

Interestingly, as America is currently engaged in chasing various Islamo-maniacs around the globe, the Balkans represent the greatest un-detonated bomb on earth.   All roads will eventually lead us back to the Balkans, where unfinished business awaits.

The Balkans are one of the most fascinating places on earth because the area is truly the epicenter of the world’s woes and have always been so.   Islam, distraught over the loss its Ottoman Empire and the ruthless subjugation of Christians, considers the Balkans a springboard from which to launch Islamic jihads to re-conquer its former empire.  Moreover, Islam also considers the Balkans a strategically critical base for further Islamizing jihads against Western Europe and Russia.    As the world’s most prolific battleground and politically fractious fault line, three distinctive religions and cultures collide and continuously erupt in this area.   This is nothing new.  Clearly, the Balkans represent the ultimate jihad and the ultimate crusade because, geographically, control of the Balkans gains one access to both Europe and Russia.   Its strategic location has never gone unnoticed by Islam, Western Christianity and Orthodox Christianity. 

While understanding the Balkans is a task that is avoided by the attention deficit disorder crowd (American media), the Balkans represent far more to American and European interests than is acknowledged.   Europe, despite hurling rather nasty and accursed accusations at America over Iraq, is far more cerebrally advanced in assessing the Balkan situation.   America is clueless and its forays into Balkan meddling have viciously sapped America of European and Balkan respect and rendered American judgment hopelessly deficient, murderously so.   Indeed, the ghosts of the colossal errors of American foreign policy in dealing with the Balkans, particularly those of former President Clinton and his Secretary of State, Madeleine “Halfbright” Albright, a pair of new world disorder neophytes, will ultimately cause horrific pain and suffering.  But despite the extensive complexity and carnage of Balkan history, it too can be reasonably sorted out in the context of today’s most threatening global issues.

Essentially, the issues of the Balkans evolve around various groups of Slavic peoples and in particular, the Serbs, who established the nation of Serbia during the first millennium.   Furthermore, Orthodox Christianity, Western Christianity and Islam are all components of the dreadful ghosts that continually haunt the region.   Most of the Balkan peoples, including the Serbs, were culturally advanced Eastern Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire.

Everything changed in 1389 AD at the Battle of Kosovo when Islam conquered Kosovo.  The rest of Serbia was conquered by the mid 15th century.   Islam also proceeded to gobble up other neighboring Christian lands in the area known as the Balkans, then a component of the great Greek Byzantine Empire.  Typically, conquest, though not a welcoming event, is not always an event of barbarous cruelty and even occasionally imparts something worthwhile.   The superiority of Greco-Roman culture and its extraordinary achievements permeated every corner of the Roman Empire and civilized a largely barbarian population. 

In 1389 when the Serbs and other Christian Balkan lands were conquered, Islam continued with its historical policy of subjugation, humiliation, desecration of Christian holy sites and Islamic population expansion.  Besides the typical plunder and rape that accompanies military conquest, Muslims take it a bit further.   Many Islamic Sultans and upper echelon leaders maintained huge harems, sometimes in the thousands, which were often populated with stolen non-Muslim women.   Frequently, women not deemed sufficiently desirable for inclusion in an Islamic harem were sold into slavery, along with their children.   But besides forced marriages and/or being carted off to the master’s harem as sex slaves, the Islamic assault on those conquered peoples extended far beyond anything ever witnessed in the evolving world.  In Serbia and other Balkan areas, Christian churches were destroyed or converted to mosques.  Libraries housing centuries of a peoples’ history and culture were destroyed and many schools were closed and replaced with Islamic schools.  By the time Islam finished with its Islamization process, what remained of the local population was a total and complete annihilation of human achievement, pride, dignity and culture.

Islamization as a political and social process is quite similar to Nazification.   Conquered peoples were also reminded, over and over, that Islam and Muslims were superior to other religions and peoples.   Although Christians and Jews were granted protection under the Koran as people of the Book (Old and New Testaments), they were constantly reminded of their inferior status and, accordingly, the subjugated peoples were not granted the same bundle of civil rights granted to the superior Muslims.   In India, the Muslims murdered the Hindus in much large numbers than the Christians and Jews.

So, from 1389 AD at the Battle of Kosovo up to and including the Islamic conquest of Constantinople in 1453, the final death blow to the Byzantine Empire by the Muslim Turks, Turkish Islamic rule was solidified in the Balkans and Greece.   Various Greek empires had existed for thousands of years including the empires of the ancient Greeks, the empire of Alexander the Great and the Greek Byzantine Empire (founded by the Christian emperor Constantine), which was the last Christian empire prior to Islamic conquest.  Moreover, the Byzantine Empire lasted over a 1,000 years, history’s longest empire.

During the period of Islamic rule over Eastern European Christian lands, many battles raged as Muslim armies attempted to Islamize Western Christian lands through assaults on Western Europe and they also warred frequently with Russia.   The classic Islamic Dar al-Harb which is the Islamic practice of waging perpetual jihad.  Dar al-Harb translates to House of War.  Throughout its long history, many of Russia’s wars were Russo-Turkish wars that were valiantly fought over a 200 year period to prevent Islamization.   The Russians succeeded in delivering Islam a series of decisive defeats and with each successful defeat of the Turks, the Russians gained land.  Russia’s huge landmass is (was) partially attributable to defending herself against the Islamic onslaught, thereby preserving Russia, the Eastern Orthodox religion and culture.  In Western Europe, the decisive blow to the Islamic expansion into Roman Christianity was heroically delivered at the gates of Vienna (1683), clearly one of the most significant and momentous events in Western Christian history. 

The Islamic conquest of the Balkans is an interesting juncture in history because until the Islamic conquest, the Balkan peoples loosely associated with a developing and slowly modernizing Europe.   After the conquest, the Balkan peoples were forced into languished and impoverished isolation as Islam attempted to eradicate the Greek/Byzantine culture.  For this reason, the peoples of the increasingly advancing Western Civilization ultimately came to regard the Balkan peoples with disdain.  Indeed, Western Christianity exerted little, if any, effort to prevent the Islamic expansion and the Papacy was more inclined to witness the disintegration of Orthodox Christianity rather than to expend any effort to halt the spread of Islam.  The Balkan peoples were labeled savages, robbers, lawless and a myriad of other harsh adjectives, adjectives that today succinctly describe many Islamic nations like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Algeria and others.    The varied issues and problems in the Balkans, however, were far more complicated than ruthless Turkish rule, Islamization and European rejection.

The Balkans had the geographic misfortune of being located between the vast and powerfully competing empires of a rising Russia and Austria Hungary, both of whom possessed ravenous appetites for conquest, some defensive and some aggressive.   Although both claimed a profound and sincere desire to liberate Christians from oppressive Turkish Islamic rule, the emancipation of Orthodox Christians was not a seriously motivating factor, especially for the Roman Catholic Austria Hungary Empire.  The superpowers of Austria and Russia were dedicated enemies themselves with neither wanting the other to become a significantly larger empire and accordingly, a more threatening power.  Also, Russia and Austria/Hungary practiced competing brands of Christianity and both factions detested each other.   

So the unfortunate Balkan residents were sandwiched between political and ecclesiastical enemies while under the maniacal rule of yet another foreign and oppressive religion.   Over hundreds of years, there were chronic revolts against the Ottomans, usually spearheaded by the Greeks and the Serbs, who despised Islamic rule. 

Wars and revolts under Ottoman rule culminated in Greek independence (1831) and later that century, the Serbs succeeded in creating the State of Serbia (1878), the first independent Serbian state since the Muslim conquest.  As revolts in Ottoman lands became more and more successful, its power declined as other ethnic groups also clamored for independence.    Islam commenced its declining influence over a Christianity starved for liberation.   The end of World War I (1918) also marked the final blow to Ottoman Empire, though it had been in serious decline for several hundred years having been battered by a Christian world rising to preserve itself.

Although the Greeks obtained their independence in 1831, wars with the Ottomans continued over disputed land and borders as the Greeks sought to liberate other imprisoned and abused Greek populations still under Ottoman rule.   The Turkish Muslims slaughter of 1,500,000 Armenians is among the twentieth century’s worst horrors.  Newly liberated peoples long buried under weighty Islamic oppression also resulted in massive population transfers.   Greeks were gathered up and re-settled in the newly established nation of Greece; Muslim populations in newly established Greece were gathered up and re-settled somewhere in the Empire under Muslim rule.  Herein lies the greatest obstacle to peace with Islam.  Muslims are not accustomed to politically adapting to secular, tolerant and non-Muslim rule because Muslims worldwide consider any form of governance other than Islamic rule to be an affront to Islam, ungodly, infidel and even Satanic.

Modern concepts of human rights and freedom radically conflict with the Islamic model of civil governance.  By definition, a free and tolerant society automatically abolishes theocracy and dictatorship.

During the extensive periods of Balkan wars and uprisings prior to WW I, European leaders attempted mightily to guide the Ottoman leadership toward more humane, tolerant and just policies.  Since Europe was experiencing its own version democratic inspiration, Europe attempted to coax the floundering Ottoman Empire to “get with the program” and recognize that religious and political oppression was rapidly dying a natural death.   In fact, the Ottoman Empire would have desisted long before its actual demise as its division among Russia and Austria was contemplated many times.   Some European nations, particularly Britain and France, objected to strengthening the already huge Russian and Austrian empires and actually encouraged maintaining, in tact, the Ottoman Empire as a balance of power.  They erred grievously.   By the time the Ottomans made some feeble attempts at reform, it was too late but the Ottomans also resisted reform based on its very real concern that its Muslim residents would themselves revolt against the empire at the prospect of even the mere suggestion of equality and civil rights for the subjugated infidel populations.   Moreover, there were actual Muslim revolts protesting any liberalization of rights for the subjugated dhimmis. 

What is life like under Islamic rule?  If one happens to be Hindu or Buddhist, like so much of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, being slaughtered was a far more probable fate.  Under Ottoman rule, where approximately 80% of Ottoman subjects were Christian at one time, mostly Balkan and Greek peoples, the odds of avoiding Islamic slaughter improved dramatically as Islam affords nominal protection to the people of the book (Christians and Jews) pursuant to a Koranic mandate.   During the period of the 19th century when Balkan and Greek civil unrest picked up serious steam, 90% of the owners of all assets and lands were Muslim.  Not surprisingly, 90% of the serfs were Christian.  Under Islamic rule, all land was owned by the Sultan and while the cronies of the Sultan received free and hugely profitable estates, these estates were not permanent as such gifts were conditional upon loyalty to the Sultan and accordingly, revocable at any time.  An even more interesting statistic of the Ottoman Empire is that 2/3 of the entire tax revenues of the Empire were derived from the Christian peasants.    Considering the vast size of the Ottoman Empire during the 19th century, it is an interesting observation that the Muslim overlords were dependent upon the Christians for productivity and revenues.   Tax paying slaves?   Only under Islamic rule.   

During the turmoil of Ottoman rule and decline, the Balkans became sort of lost in history as real estate frequently shifted to various empires, Austrian, Ottoman or Russian.  Being cut off from Europe for hundreds of years, the Balkan peoples of central Europe were little more than subsistence level agrarian farmers lacking a modern and viable economy.  The Ottomans, having failed at the gates of Vienna in the late 17th century to spread Islam into Western Europe and also failing to Islamize Russia, started suffering annihilating defeats thereby halting conquests and looting of Christian lands, peoples and assets.  They were forced to focus military operations within their own borders to quell unrest and revolt.   The decline had commenced.  The fall was eminent as revolts and wars inundated and weakened the Ottoman Empire: 

1736  Russo/Austrian-Turkish War            1815  Second Serbian uprising

1768  Russo-Turkish War                         1821  Greek War of Independence begins                      1770  Revolt in the Peloponnese       1877  Russo-Turkish War

1787  Russo/Austrian-Turkish War            1912  First Balkan War

1804  First Serbian uprising                       1913 Second Balkan War                                                                                                       

After World War I, the West proceeded with the dismantlement the Hapsburg Austria Hungary dynasty and the Ottoman Empire as punishment for allying themselves with Germany.  Although Serbia was granted sovereign nation status in 1878, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was created after World War I (1918), a nightmare of a mistake.   In 1929 the name was changed to Yugoslavia.   Struggling and poor, the new federation wasn’t given much of an opportunity to become much of anything as World War II broke out and all hell broke loose.  At the conclusion of World War II, the communist dictator, Tito, seized power, abolished the monarchy in 1945 and created a federation of 6 republics which consisted of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, (all formerly part of Austria Hungary), Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia, plus 2 autonomous republics, Voyvodina and Kosovo.   Although the federation was mixture of diverse peoples harboring centuries old resentments and hostilities, Tito managed to ruthlessly hold the federation together with totalitarian communist style rule.

Not a dedicated Stalinist, Tito ran amuck of the Soviet dictator by asserting Yugoslavian independence and attempted to mold the nation into a modernized nation state.  To a large extent, he succeeded as standards of living increased and the various peoples experienced peace, stability and some level of economic prosperity for the first time.

Yet, the scars of history were deeply imbedded within their psyches and evolved around the ambitions of three religions.  Tito’s policies further exacerbated an already stressed situation.  If the Balkans were a play, it would be Broadway’s longest running show, and the actors upon the stage would be:

1.  Croatia and Slovenia, predominately Roman Catholic republics and formerly                   governed by the Roman Catholic Hapsburgs of Austria-Hungary.

2.  Bosnia and Herzegovina, (40% Muslim, called Bosniaks, 31% Serbian   

Orthodox, 15% Roman Catholic, 14% Protestant), a component of the Ottoman

Empire until the province was annexed by Austria-Hungary in 1878 which

became part of Yugoslavia in 1918.

3.  Serbia and Montenegro, all predominantly Serbian Orthodox.

4.  Macedonia, an ethnically separate Orthodox group of people.

5.  Albania, a primarily Muslim nation (70%) under Stalinist type rule.

6.  Kosovo, once overwhelmingly Serbian Orthodox but after Islamic and    

     Albanian ethnic cleansing, Kosovo is nearly devoid of Serbs.

7.  Tito, a Croatian Roman Catholic who feared a Serbian uprising. 

Tito despised the Orthodox Serbs and implemented policies to reduce their influence and temper their aspirations.   The worst legacy of Tito was the deliberate act of encouraging Albanians to overflow Albania and relocate into Kosovo, a policy that inflamed the sensitive Serbs.  This constituted the cruel infliction of Tito Roman Catholic policies wherein he would rather see Kosovo overrun by Albanians Muslims than recognize Kosovo as a Serbian Orthodox province.   At the beginning of the 20th century, Kosovo was two thirds Serbian Orthodox and one third Albania.  Over time, the Albanian Muslims succeeded in reducing the Serbian population to practically zilch.    With the highest birthrate in the area, Muslim Albanians also overflowed into Macedonia as well. 

Although the creation of Tito Yugoslavia was marginally successful, reasonably peaceful and surprisingly ethnically tolerant under his leadership, there were two festering wounds of history that became gangrenous.  One of the wounds possessed the capacity to slowly heal over time whereas the other wound festered into a terminal state.

The healable wound dates to World Wars I and II and Nazism.   The pre-World War I Germans, always in search of that elusive global empire, shied away from directly trampling the interests of the British, the French, the Dutch and the Russians.  Accordingly, they concocted their own empirical vision and staked their claim on building an empire running from Germany through the Middle East and the Germans even started building the Berlin to Baghdad railroad.   The plan was devious as it was deliberately devised on the premise that Germany could inflict great harm upon British interests by allying with the Middle East and Turkey (the Ottoman Empire) to threaten India, a British possession, and British trade.  The Germans even looked west toward Egypt, another British possession, and dreamed of controlling the Suez Canal (built and paid for by the French and British). 

The Germans negotiated alliances with everyone in the Berlin to Baghdad corridor except Serbia, who refused to ally themselves with the Germans.  When World War I exploded, various nations allied themselves with their own guess as to who would emerge victorious.   Every greedy lunatic throughout Europe was literally lusting for the spoils of war—land.   German animosity toward Orthodox Christian Serbs is attributable to German sympathy toward the Ottomans and the Balkan Muslims, whom they sought as an ally, in furtherance of their own empirical dreams.   The Ottomans, well aware that they were militarily impotent and floundering, and made a gamble on holding the empire together by allying with the Germans.  After having already suffered the loss of Greece, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Ottomans were desperate.  

Although Austria-Hungary controlled Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Catholic Austrians primarily fostered and used Islamic hatred of the Orthodox Serbs to expand their own empire.  The Austrian Roman Catholics created Bosnian Muslim military divisions to fight the Serbs, who weren’t even bothering anyone.  The Serbs were never expansionist and only aspired to be Serbs on Serbian lands.  The Ottomans obviously encouraged Bosnian Muslims to fight the Serbs, having never forgiven them for successfully shedding Islamic rule.  World War I ended badly for Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans. 

By the time World War II rolled around, German anti-Semitism reared and roared its ugly head and, yet again, the Germans sought allies in the Middle East.   Since post WWII Germany under Hitler considered itself heir apparent to the now defunct Austria-Hungary Empire, the Germans were also impressed that the Austrians had successfully used the Bosnian Muslims to fight the Serbs in World War I.  The Nazis also found an ally in Roman Catholic Croatia.

The Nazis proceeded to recruit and train, in Germany, Muslim Waffen SS and Wehrmacht divisions.   Many of the Muslim volunteers heralded from Bosnia, Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia and the Middle East.  One of the Islamic Bosnian SS divisions was called the “Handzar” division.  Handzar is Arabic for “slit the throat”.   These Bosnian/Muslim German divisions were comprised of fanatical Muslim jihad warriors dedicated to annihilating all infidels, especially the Serbs and others who liberated themselves from cruel Islamic rule.   The Muslim religious leadership considered Nazism compatible with Islam as they were both fighting the same enemy, Judeo-Christian civilization.    The Germans financed Muslim religious schools, their imams and special diets.             

Germany invaded Yugoslavia and occupied Sarajevo.   Although the Serbs were committed to fighting against the Nazis, the Roman Catholic Croatians were allied with the Nazis.   In furtherance of the eradication of the Jews, Serbs and gypsies, the German trained Bosnian/Muslim SS and Wehrmacht divisions were quickly deployed to Croatia (another battle front in Yugoslavia) to slaughter those deemed undesirable.  The ensuing bloodbath was so appallingly gruesome, even the bloodthirsty Nazis were so sickened by the human slaughter that they dispatched some of the Muslim divisions to the Russian front, where the Germans were losing badly.  The Croatians even had their own Gestapo type secret police, called the Ustashi, whose members included Nazified Roman Catholic Croatians and Muslims.  The Ustashi liberally indulged in horrific genocide.  The primary targets of Croatian/Nazi/Muslim genocide squads were the Serbs, the Jews and the gypsies.    Even more revoltingly horrendous, Roman Catholic priests advocated from the pulpit the murder of Serbs and Jews. 

Politically, the Germans abolished the nation of Yugoslavia and created a Greater Croatia, called the NDH, which also included Bosnia.  The Vatican supported the creation of a Nazi protectorate under the horrifically brutal and bloody rule of the Nazis and the Ustashi.

This particular World War II bloodbath, consisting of entire villages of innocent men, women and children being exterminated by the Nazis/Croatians and sliced and diced by Bosnian Muslims exhibiting their “slit the throat” method of killing, resulted in an estimated 750,000 dead civilians, most of whom were Serbs.   The Croatians also forced the Jews to wear yellow armbands and various Serbs were forced to wear either red or blue identifying armbands.

Moreover, Croatia has the dubious distinction of being the only non-Nazi controlled European nation to create its very own concentrations camp, Jasenovac.   The Bosnian Muslims also operated a concentration camp. 

The Serbs despised Nazism.  Despite the fact the Bosnian Muslims under the banner of Nazism/Islam and the Croatian Catholics under the murderous spell of the Vatican/Nazism committed genocide against the Orthodox Serbs, the Serbs held firm and were dedicated to fighting with the Allies.  Granted, Serbian efforts were disorganized and frequently unreliable but their contributions toward the allied cause are well documented.  Having no sophisticated military, the Serbs were more of a guerilla force who attempted to defend their land and people. 

While nearly everyone else in Europe was gladly turning over its Jews to the Nazis for extermination, especially the French, the Serbs refused.  Such tactics not only infuriated the Fuhrer, Hitler was so incensed with Serbian refusal to capitulate to Nazi demands that he made the decision to send a chunk of the German Army to Yugoslavia to teach the Serbs a few lessons.   In so doing, Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of Russia, was delayed a few weeks.   While most consider a few weeks inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, this was perhaps the grandest “few weeks” in modern history as it was just enough time to prevent the Germans from quickly overrunning Moscow in warm weather and forced the German Army to suffer its first major defeat at the hands of the Russian weather. 

 Accordingly, the wonderfully awful Russian winter and Serbian obstinacy were decisive contributors to the Russian victory over the Nazis.  Ultimately though, Russian military prowess defeated the Nazis.   The Serbs, nevertheless, fought bravely against the Nazis as an effective but wildly disorganized resistance movement, sometimes with competing loyalties, but overall the Serbs contributed to the Allied victory over Nazism, just as they contributed to the halt of Islam into mainstream Western Europe by providing a buffer of resistance that benefited Vienna.

Although the Serbian memory of Croatian/Muslim atrocities committed in both Croatia and Bosnia have justifiably lingered, the Serbs were not vengeful.  Post World War II, they emerged as a people willing to let the war wounds heal and built a better life for themselves and their nation.  This healable wound was no different than European nations forgiving the Germans for the infliction of so much misery and cruelty.   Such wounds take time and effort but are achievable. 

The festering wound that never healed was the Islamic wound.  But the wound that refused to heal wasn’t the Serbs or other Yugoslavians refusing to heal, but Islam itself refused to heal, accept the loss of its empire and agreeing to co-exist peacefully with its neighbors sharing the same language and ethnic identity.   While the break-up of the Ottoman Empire was a bitter pill to swallow in 1918, Islam was far more devastated by Germany’s defeat in World War II because the finality of reality forever banished any immediate hopes of Islam and Nazism rising to control the world under a joint totalitarian state. 

However, the world’s Muslims were not entirely pleased with the Germans either.  Prior to the outbreak World War I, various fundamentalist Islamic organizations flourished.  As Muslims consider it an abomination to live under secular and non-Islamic rule, these militant groups were dedicated to the prevention of any Islamic nation from adopting the principles of the modern nation state, the rule of law, modernity and tolerance.  They sought a revival of the time honored practice of imposing Islamic rule over large non-Muslim populations.   During World War II, Muslims leaders pleaded with the Germans to create a Greater Islamic Bosnian state.  Even the Nazis weren’t that crazy and Nazi interest in Muslims only extended to the exploitation of natural Muslim instincts to slit throats. 

Throughout the period following the end of World War I and all the way through the end of World War II, Muslims were organizing in droves to halt what they considered to be a Western assault on Islamic aspirations.  In the 1920’s, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt and this organization birthed many more movements.  The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el Husseini (Arafat’s uncle), personally met with Hitler, visited Albania, Bosnia and other Islamic areas.  The Mufti effectively functioned as an organizer and spiritual leader of various militant Islamic movements, which had been flourishing.  Arafat emerged from this quagmire of Islamic militant movements.   Most of these groups, though religiously and philosophically imbued with a radical sense of a global Islamist destiny, lacked the financial and military resources to strike a serious blow at the West.

Post World War II oil discoveries in the Middle East created sudden and colossal Islamic wealth.  As a potential blessing for an impoverished Arab/Muslim world, oil wealth came to be the greatest curse as it wasn’t utilized as financial capital to develop productive and flourishing modern economies.   Besides obscenely enriching various Stalinist Islamic states and the House of Saud, the oil wealth financed the Islamic dream of global conquest, financed radical clerics, established schools preaching hate and also funded a rash of extremist groups and their training facilities. 

The dedicated Islamists of the jihad movement seeking a “reconquista” of previous Islamic controlled lands now had money and lots of it. 

The issue of Islamic jihad cannot be ignored.  With regard to Yugoslavia and its prospects for a modern and cultural Judeo-Christian future, the terminal and festering wound of Islamic hatred and resentment never vanished.   Yet, the local Muslims in the Balkans were reasonably secular and agreeable.   They weren’t militant Muslims dreaming of Islamic conquest nor were they desirous of Islamization.   The agitation movements did not fester within the indigenous Balkan Islamic communities but were imported into the area by various Islamist movements and Islamic nations attempting to re-establish Muslim rule in the Balkans.   Under Tito’s rule, however, challenges to his power were ruthless suppressed. 

When Tito died in 1980, the Balkans became unhinged.  As the unhinging following Tito’s death commenced, it became even more acute with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  As a Soviet style socialist state, Yugoslavia was ideologically aligned with the Soviet authoritarian political system and the collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in confusion, pronounced abandonment issues, chaos and, once again, a revitalization of various national ethnic aspirations.    Essentially, no leadership emerged to effectively govern the delicately balanced and competing aspirations of various ethnic and religious groups.   The breakup of Yugoslavia was thundering, violent and unleashed a torrent of pent-up hostilities. 

In 1991, Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia declared and achieved independence.

In 1992, Bosnia-Herzegovina declared and achieved independence.

At the instigation of Germany, Croatia was the first province to declare independence (1991).   Germany and the Vatican (a sovereign nation itself) illegally recognized the sovereignty of Croatia in violation of international law.  Although the 1975 Helsinki Agreement specifically guaranteed the inviolability of a nation’s borders, neither Germany nor the Vatican were much concerned with the law.   Furthermore, many observers are also of the opinion that Germany and the Vatican deliberately engineered the collapse of Yugoslavia by supporting the Croatian separatist movement.   The religious friction between the Roman Catholic Croatians and Serbian Orthodox Christians was another unresolved issue and dates back to Nazi, Bosnian, Vatican and Ustachi atrocities.  The Balkan Wars of the 1990’s are essentially categorized, simplistically, into 3 phases.

Phase 1.   Croatian alignment with Bosnia to effectively ethnically cleanse Croatia and Bosnia of Orthodox Serbs.

Phase 2.  Bosnian demands for independence (Muslim state).                  

             Phase 3.  Kosovo demands for independence to create a Muslim state.

Phase 1 Croatia not only declared an illegal independence, it was not militarily capable of effecting the succession from Yugoslavia.  Accordingly, Croatia teamed up with Bosnian Muslims to capitalize on ancient hatred and to create a joint fighting force.  Their goal: Cleanse Bosnia and Croatia of all Orthodox Serbs and create a Greater Croatia consisting of Croatia and Bosnia.  The Serbs, with strong and vivid memories of the WW II Ustachi/Croatian/Muslim atrocities, found themselves once again being ruthlessly brutalized, murdered and evicted from their ancient homeland.   An area of Croatia called Krajina was perhaps the worst or one of the worst ethnic cleansings of the conflict as Croatians/Bosnian Muslims brutally evicted and/or murdered innocent Serbs.

With German, U.S. (Bush 41), European, U.N. and Vatican blessings, the stage was set for one of the most violent eruptions of ethnic/religious slaughter experienced in Europe since the days of Nazism.  The Germans, more so than anyone, knew precisely what they were unleashing as the Germans alone fully understood the complexity of the ethnic and religious animosity which they themselves exploited during World War 1 and II.   What the foolish Germans failed to comprehend, in 1941 and 1991, was the depth of Islamic disdain for anything Western or Christian.  Had Germany won World War II, their next war would have been the defense of an enslaved and totalitarian Christianity against rising Islamic jihad aspirations.  The Muslim world never intended to become vassals of Christian Nazism as they were committed to a higher religious calling.    Both the Nazis and the Muslims used each other in furtherance of achieving their own goals.

The Germans and the Croatians of the 1990’s recklessly believed that Bosnian Muslims would welcome being incorporated under the banner of Roman Catholicism into a German vassal state.   That’s because the Germans always thought, throughout history, that they alone possessed the capacity to control and manipulate the Muslim world.  Obviously, their grievous miscalculation raised the exact same issue in 1991 as it did in 1941.  The Muslims were only desirous of creating a Muslim state, which brings us to phase 2 of the conflict.

Phase 2.  The Muslims quickly abandoned their allegiance to Croatia, after both Croatian Catholics and Bosnian Muslims decimated Serbian Orthodox populations.  Not surprisingly, the Bosnia Muslims under the leadership of an Islamist named Izetbegovic, a darling of the Clinton Administration, proceeded to bellow for his own version of a Bosnian Islamist nation.  Izetbegovic was a member of various Islamist organizations since his youth and had even been imprisoned on several occasions by Tito for inciting the Muslims against secular rule.  A booklet written by Izetbegovic titled “The Islamic Declaration” clearly defined his goals for the area.   Among other things, Izetbegovic discusses:

“Incompatibility of Islam and non-Islamic systems¼.

There can be no peace or co-existence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic societies and political institutions¼

The state should be an expression of and should support the moral concepts of the religion¼.

Izetbegovic was clearly an Islamist with strong ties to the Middle East, where he undoubtedly received an abundance of the Islamic version of foreign aid—jihad money to destabilize the Balkans, re-conquer it and, again, Islamize the area which had become quite secular under communist style Tito rule.   Moreover, it must also be emphasized that Izetbegovic’s aspirations were not the aspirations of most of the Balkan Muslims, who became victims themselves in the Islamist induced Balkan nightmares. 

Izetbegovic and the Muslim world fully realized that the creation of an Islamic state in the Balkans was not a reality as they lacked the military resources.  Even more astounding, the real estate demanded by the Islamists, Bosnia-Herzegovina, was only 40% Muslim with the rest being Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian.  The Muslim Islamist leadership wanted to impose Islamic rule over the majority of the non-Muslim population.    Yet, their dream could only be realized if they could entice the West to fight the war for them. 

Although hundreds of events unfolded, the situation really deteriorated when Izetbegovic declared his willingness “to sacrifice peace for a sovereign Bosnia”.  Moreover, as Europe and America scrambled like the guilty wimps that they were, they also attempted to broker a peace wherein the area would be divided into 3 constituent states within a newly created nation of Bosnia-Herzegovina (B-H).  Izetbegovic refused the deal and gambled that he could actually succeed in achieving an undivided Islamic nation of B-H by conning the West and NATO into fighting the jihad for him.   

Meanwhile, money, jihad warriors and weapons poured into the Balkan jihad from nearly every Islamic nation on earth, including Turkey.   The Islamist cause recognized, however, that Western support would only be forthcoming if it could succeed in rousing the greatest of Western sentiments—sympathy and moralistic consternation.   Accordingly, gulf money was poured into launching a glitzy public relations campaign (corrupt American PR outfits) to portray the area’s Muslims as the victims.  In pursuit of this cause, the Muslims even committed atrocities against fellow Muslims and invited the Western media to view the alleged “Serbian” slaughter (an old Arafat trick).  The media was conned.  America was conned.  Europe was conned.  The Islamist Muslim leadership succeeded in demonizing the Christian Serbs.  

The Croatians, however, also suffered the humiliation of having their partner in crime, the Bosnian Muslims, turn against them.  No longer a deliberate German induced conflict of Croatians/Bosnians against the Serbs, under Izetbegovic Bosnian Muslims rallied against Croatians Catholics as well as Orthodox Serbs.   The worst possible nightmare violently erupted, a three way religious and civil war.

Perhaps one of the greatest lapses of morality occurred right in the United Nations where Muslim nations succeeded in imposing the most crippling and devastating sanctions ever issued against any nation, Serbia.   Although NATO and some U.N. personnel were aware of the real truth that was unfolding, the U.N. deliberately lied and withheld the truth.  The only journalists that succeeded in getting the truth out were some savvy Europeans.  As the American public had been indoctrinated by its own media to accept the encapsulation of every global occurrence within the parameters of a 30 second spot, the attention deficit disorder that permeates our media and ignorant public has devastatingly rendered us somewhere between cerebrally challenged and too deficient in cerebral capacity to challenge.  Even today, some of the best assessments of the Balkans are written by American and European military experts who witnessed the truth first hand and who were well aware that the truth was being withheld. 

The Islamist campaign of victimization worked splendidly.  NATO, America and Europe plunged into a resolvable civil war to defend the “oppressed” Muslim Jihadists.  Fighting right beside NATO, America and Europe were bin Laden and mujahadeen warriors from every Islamic nation on earth.   The Holy War was well received and they sensed victory.   America’s greatest cheerleaders for the Islamist cause was Bill Clinton, a moral weakling of a man perennially obsessed with flexing his mighty muscle against defenseless peoples. 

The carnage escalated to horrific nightmares as the Bosnian Serbs, Croatians (of Bosnia and Croatia) and Bosnian Muslims commenced a bloody civil war.  Without America and Europe flexing its NATO muscle, the civil war would have fizzled as jihadic Muslims lacked a military of any significant capacity.  The Serbian President Milosovic had even agreed to the further dismemberment of Yugoslavia by acquiescing to Croatian President Tudjman’s proposal to transfer nearly all non-Serbian lands of Bosnia to Croatian sovereignty.   The Serbs have never sought autonomy over any non-Serbian lands.   America, Europe and the United Nations, propelled by an Islamic lobby hell bent on the creation of an Islamic state in Europe, ignored the peace propositions of both Tudjman and Milosovic.   Peace was rejected and military intervention was demanded.  Why make peace when one can hold out for a bigger prize, the creation of an Islamic state?

When the dust settled, Yugoslavia laid in waste.  The Dayton Accords (1995) resulted in a peace of sorts, though more properly dubbed a temporary cease fire because the West tired of supporting the very war it sought, armed, financed and encouraged.    The Dayton Accords resulted in the creation of a multi-ethic nation of Bosnia-Herzegovina consisting of two republics, the Bosniak Croat Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (RS) or a Serbian entity of sorts.   No one was happy.    It was also a most interesting ending because in 1992 the European Community sponsored a similar multi-ethnic state solution (rejected by the Islamist led Muslims).   Another similar agreement had been reach in 1992 in Spain, called the Lisbon Agreement.   When the Islamist leader Izetbegovic renounced the Lisbon Agreement in 1992 (which he signed) while planning a much wider Islamic jihad, timid Europe collapsed and recognized the sovereignty of Islamist Bosnia-Herzegovina and the vicious Europeans even choose the ignoble date of 4/6/92 to deliver the news to the Serbs.  On April 6, 1941, the Nazis commenced “Operation Punishment” against the Serbs and virtually destroyed Belgrade.  The day after Europe caved into Islamist demands, President Clinton also caved in a recognized the sovereignty of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992.   American and European recognition of a sovereign Bosnia-Herzegovina ultimately exploded in the faces of the Western rogues who engineered the deal and laid the groundwork for more violence, death and destruction.

The Muslims and their Islamist leaders had all the NATO support they needed, for a while.  But in the end, the solution that prevailed, the multi-ethnic state solution (Dayton), was the same solution rejected by Bill Clinton, Europe and Islamist Bosnian Muslims in 1991-1992.  Had Europe and Bill Clinton held firm and demanded the multi-state solution, the civil war would have collapsed.  But thanks to the misguided actions of America, Europe and the U.N., deadly irresponsibility only breeds more intense and deadly Islamic jihad, which brings us to Phase 3.

Phase 3 The uneasy peace of 1995 was supposed to be enforced by 60,000 U.N. peacekeeping troops and it’s no secret that UN troops are worthless and miserable failures.   Muslim jihadists and various other holy warrior factions from nearly every Islamic nation, particularly Albania, convened to create a Greater Islamic Albania.   They were supported by a consortium of Islamic nations, as well as the drug trade.    Iran was a notoriously generous supporter.  Humorously, during Phase 2 of the American/Clinton/Albright induced catastrophe, the American media hung out with the Bosnian Muslims and sucked up their propaganda.  While in Sarajevo, most of our media was just a few short blocks from the Iranian Embassy.  Yet, the road to the Embassy was blocked off and everyone was denied access.  Clearly, the Islamist Bosnian regime dreaded the possibility that the America media, who they were successfully romancing, would observe the flurry of activity at the Iranian Embassy.   Iran and its wacko ayatollahs were running the jihad from their embassy, although nearly every Islamic nation provided money, arms and warriors. 

After the Dayton Accords in 1995, Islam and jihad warriors commenced with cleansing Kosovo of its remaining Serbs.  Albania started clamoring for a Greater Albania, consisting of Albania, Kosovo, Western Macedonia, parts of Southern Serbia and other areas.  Although Balkan Islamists, through their own violence, ended up losing total domination of Bosnia-Herzegovina, they were not in the least deterred.  They figured they will eventually succeed in Islamizing Bosnia and radicalizing its Muslims, and if a Greater Albania can be achieved, most of the Balkans will be restored to Islamic rule.  

Again, many of Bosnia’s benign and tolerant Muslims were innocent victims of the Islamist induced carnage.  Izetbegovic and his Islamist agenda only prolonged the agony with the help of NATO and America.  

The jihad battles raged in the late 1990’s as the war front was relocated to Kosovo and Macedonia.  The Serbian nationalistic leader, Milosovic, affectionately known as just plain Slobo, was forced to fight the Islamic aggression.  Though no saint, Slobo was no worse than any others in the conflict.  Unlike the murderous offensives of the Catholic Croatians and the Bosnian Muslims, Slobo was a defensive player and committed himself to protecting the Serbs and their homes.   Slobo wasn’t even a politician throughout most of his life, but a banker, whose nationalistic fervor became inflamed when he observed the coming war.   Slobo, however, was also an authoritarian hard line communist style ruler who envisioned absolute power, Tito style.    He also intimidated and taunted Western nations.   Even so, as any Serb will tell you, Slobo achieved power because the Kosovo Albanians refused to participate in the political process by refusing to vote.  If they had exercised their civic duty, the Albanians had sufficient voting power to sway Slobo’s election.   The Albanians wanted Slobo in power because they knew they could provoke a war of succession with him and attempt, yet again, another secessionist movement with Western backing. 

It worked.  Bill Clinton, yet again, jumped to the defense of the Albanians and the Islamist movement.  His co-conspirator was Madeleine Albright.   The Kosovo Muslims continued to increase the violence, Slobo defended the Serbs and the Muslims used the western media as its propaganda lapdog. 

Clinton bombed the hell out of Serbia for over 78 days, day and night.  Some of his detractors have even argued that he attempted to draw attention away from his sex scandals by starting another Serbian war to diffuse a declining public image.  What more can be expected of a President with a distinct preference for knee pad queens? 

Clinton also enjoyed flexing his muscle to agitate Moscow, who always supported the Serbs against Islamist aggression.   The world’s Muslims enjoyed the carnage of yet another Balkan jihad and rooted for the complete destruction of Yugoslavia to make room for the rebirth of an Islamic empire.   The Europeans, still dreading the appearance an Islamic nation on European soil, were growing even more nervous over the 15-20 million Muslims roosting in Western European nations.  

Although the Serbs lamented the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the ensuing violence, they were primarily concerned with maintaining Serbia, Montenegro and hoped to retain their beloved Kosovo.  Moreover, Kosovo represents to the Serbs what Jerusalem represents to Jews and Christians and the Serbian dream of a greater Serbia that included Kosovo was alive.   The Serbs have been waiting patiently since 1389.    The mere thought of Kosovo becoming part of an Islamic republic again is, understandably, more than the Serbs can bear.  The Muslims, however, fully recognize the emotional torment to the Serbs relative to Kosovo and its agonizingly torturous history.  Moreover, they delighted in rubbing another potential Islamic conquest into the much stressed Serbian psyche.  

The Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an Islamist mafia style terrorist organization financed with Gulf money, Saudi money and drug money, began clamoring for a separate state.  When Clinton and Albright intervened on behalf of Islamic terrorists and to the detriment of the Christian Serbs and Macedonians, the Clinton administration sanctioned the transfer of weapons from Islamist Iran to the Islamist KLA to fight and kill more Christian Serbs and Christian Macedonians.   This dirty deal of Clinton was clearly in violation of U.N. sanctions, in addition to supporting genocide against the Serbs.  Shockingly, no one objected to Clinton unilaterally bombarding a sovereign nation who committed no transgressions against America or Americans.  As the war intensified, Macedonia, with a significant Islamic population on its Western border, became caught up in the nightmare.   The entire area became a humanitarian war zone with massive refugees fleeing battle zones.  The Muslim zealots and their holy warriors, after their small win at Dayton (failing to achieve an Islamic state but succeeding in substantially weakening Serbia with NATO support) just trudged along toward another Islamic goal.  They still are. 

But the true horrors in the Balkans and Serbia have yet to be realized.  Bill Clinton authorized the use of depleted uranium shells to bomb Serbia.  Bridges, churches, power plants and much needed infrastructure were not only utterly, unnecessarily and deliberately destroyed but vast areas of Serbia are now contaminated with carcinogenic poison that will have long term health consequences for the pulverized Serbs and render significant land masses little more than U.S. inflicted toxic waste dumps (ditto for Iraq).   The U.S. military, however, vehemently denies that depleted uranium shells are toxic.   The issue remains unresolved and conflicting scientific opinions abound.   

Also, throughout the wars of the mid and late 1990’s, economic sanctions against Serbia caused profound human suffering, death and misery as much needed fuel, foods and medicines were denied the Serbs but not the murderous Catholic Croats or the Bosnian Muslims.   Thanks to America and Europe, the Serbs froze, starved and died of disease.  Yet, when the Bosnian Muslims ignored sanctions against the importation of arms, the world ignored their deeds.   As a final testament to the morally defunct nature of Clinton’s affair the with Islamists, Clinton ordered the American military to train, finance and arm a Muslim Bosnian army for, obviously, killing anyone in the way of another Islamic revolution.

Considering the Iraq anti-war rallies and Hollywood’s venomous assaults on President Bush, one can only wonder where these supposed “humanitarian” peaceniks were when Clinton illegally and immorally pulverized the Balkan peoples, starved them and bombed their homes and lands.   Because of American aggression against a nation that inflicted no aggression against America or American interests, a minimum of a 100,000 people died (estimates range from 100,000 to over 250,000).    Throughout years of Balkan nightmares, not one Hollywood degenerate objected to Clinton induced genocide.   The Balkan situation is best summarized by Harry G. Summers, a soldier, military historian and a journalist:

U.S. policy in the Balkans is worse than a crime—it is a blunder.  Not only is   

             America working against her own best interests by fostering a Muslim terrorist

base (Kosovo/Albania) in Europe, it is defeating the purpose of its Balkan 

intervention, ostensibly designed to promote stability in the region.  American

foreign policy is doing the exact opposite by its support of Muslim revolution.

(Washington Times 1/26/99)

In Islamic strongholds, the number one Islamist priority is to break-up any peace that may have existed among various faiths and peoples, create enough misery so that non-Muslims will leave and eventually create an area with a Muslim majority ripe for radicalization.  It’s a successful formula.   Listed below is a chart showing the population distribution in Bosnia in 1991 and 1998:

1991                 1998                 % Change

Serbs (Orthodox)     1,593,332             944,104             40.7%  decrease

              Croats (Catholic)          585,932             424,430             27.6% decrease

As indicated above, massive declines in native Serbian and Croatian populations in Bosnia resulted during a 7 year period and most of these folks were forcibly evicted from their homes and/or murdered.   A combination of Islamic induced war, misery and “you are not welcomed in Islamic lands” has caused the non-Muslim populations to dramatically shrink.  Obviously, it is the hope of Islam that the trend continues because it will be considerably easier to radicalize and Islamize an entire Muslim population with secular leanings than would otherwise occur with substantial non-Muslim members within the populations.   

Throughout the Balkan nightmares and its horrendous wars of the 1990’s, various events triggered worldwide attention and Western intervention, thereby elevating the Balkans to the status of daily news.  Initial reports by the media claimed that the Serbs were responsible for Muslim massacres estimated at 6,000 or 8,000 and even upwards of 12,000.   No concrete proof or evidence existed to support the reported massive Serbian massacres.  None exists today.   Nevertheless, unsubstantiated massacres (Islamic propaganda) were used by Clinton as justification to bomb and pulverize Serbia. 

Even today, there is still a total lack of evidence to support the alleged number of massacres used as a pretext destroy Serbia and its military.  In fact, the U.N. has so much as admitted that its estimates were exaggerated and unsubstantiated.   Even more appalling is the acknowledgment by U.N. and NATO representatives that many of the “massacres”, “bombings” and alleged Serbian inflicted “atrocities” were in fact self-inflicted and staged by Muslims for the express purpose of insuring Western military action against Serbia.    Even the elusive Western media has gone into hiding for its own emotionally judgmental and fictitious reporting to America and Western Europe of massacres that have yet to be proven.  Moreover, evidence is now accumulating to prove that massive Serbian inflicted massacres never occurred, the massacres were staged by Islam for Western sentiments and sympathy, and fanatical Islamists and Saudi/Iranian/drug money are indeed responsible for the horror in the Balkans.  However, there are acknowledged massacres committed by all sides on smaller scales but evidenced has never surfaced that Serbian massacres were any worse than Croatian massacres, Bosnian massacres and Islamist massacres.   

Today, Yugoslavia no longer legally exists.  Its name has been abolished.   Serbia survives survive as a beaten down and bombed out nothing of a nation.  Montenegro is no longer part of Serbia.  The fate of Kosovo is in diplomatic limbo but the U.N. and NATO, who now allow Islamist terrorist organizations to freely operate and proliferate, have applauded substantial ethnic cleansings of native Serbs.  Effectively, the West has delivered the Balkans to jihad Islam.  Even worse, UN and NATO troops have permitted Islamist gangs to freely roam Serb areas of Kosovo to murder Serbs and burn churches.   Islam, with the highest birthrate on earth, has numerically increased its Balkan populations while much lower birthrate populations of the Balkan non-Islamic peoples have significantly decreased as a percentage of the total population in some areas.   Because of numerical supremacy of Muslims in various areas, the potential to install Islamic rule represents a clear and present danger.   Meanwhile, the frustrated non-Islamic Balkan peoples view the prospect of Islamic rule and expansionism as a return to Islamic conquest, something they have been attempting to shed since the year 1389.   They see it.  They feel it.  They know it.  It’s coming, as more Christian lands convert to Islamic rule.  

So, America and the West have successfully supported and financed the Islamic re-conquest of the Balkans.  There are even photographs of Madeleine Albright all cozy and happy with terrorist KLA leaders.   Big smiles for the victorious.  They ruthlessly and savagely crushed the Christian Serbs.   One can only imagine the sound of the high fives being slapped around in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Islamic nations as they celebrate the success of the grandest scheme ever concocted to snooker the West into spending Western money and expending Western lives to create potential Islamic states.  What a coup – using Western money and their militaries to launch an Islamic jihad in the Balkans.

The Balkan wars are far from over.  In fact, they’ve only just begun. 

As information, Milosevic mysteriously died in 2006 while imprisoned in the Netherlands during his farce of trial for crimes against humanity and genocide.  In February 2007 Serbia was exonerated of the crime of genocide during the Balkan Wars by an international tribunal.   Muslims protested the verdict. 

If anybody deserves to be languishing in a prison cell for crimes against humanity, it is the Germans, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and the American media.   The Germans started the carnage.  Bill Clinton escalated the carnage.  Madeleine Albright provided typical U.S. State Department diplomatic capitulation to the Islamist agenda as a cover to moralize the carnage.  The left wing and loyal American press merely supported every despicable Clinton deed, no matter how horrific, because Clinton was a deity they fanatically worshiped.  

Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and the Balkans are no different than the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or the India/Kashmir conflict or the Russian/Chechnya conflict or the Islamist brutality in Nigeria committed against the Christians struggling under oppressive Islamic law or the slaughters of Christians in the Sudan by Muslims (2,000,000 murdered/starved by Muslims) or the bloodbath in Algeria as the Muslim nation struggles against fanatical Islamic rule or the Philippines Islamist secessionist movement or a myriad of other extreme Islamic movements proliferating around the globe.  The Islamists are truly sailing the globe on sails manufactured by Western capitulation to the Islamic agenda while racking up sweet victories and the winds that propels their sails blow from Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

Unquestionably, the sheer magnitude of Islam’s global tentacles has temporarily paralyzed the world.   To achieve an even greater global reach, many Islamic terrorist organizations who previously operated independently have now become better organized, despite religious differences (Sunni vs. Shiite), as they have discovered that the Western concept of a joint venture is quite productive, efficient and significantly more deadly.   How did all this start?

It’s been happening for decades but a clear precedent setting indication arrived in 1974 when Turkey invaded the island of Cyprus on July 20, 1974.  The Greek Cypriots (82%) of the population and the Turkish Cypriots (18%) occupied the island that was granted independence from Great Britain in 1960.  The Muslim Turks invaded and occupied 38% of the island.  There was massive rape, savagery and looting committed against the Greek Cypriots by the Muslims who attempted to conquer them and the Muslims even went so far as to declare occupied Cyprus a “Federated Turkish State”.  The United Nations squawked.   Turkey responded by initiating another invasion in August of 1974.  Today, Cyprus remains the United Nation’s oldest peace keeping mission.  As a result of Turkish Islamic aggression, 200,000 Greek Cypriots were ethnically cleansed from their homes and businesses (now occupied by the Turkish Muslims).   Approximately 8,000 Greek Cypriots were killed by Islamic induced violence.   To add insult to injury, the Turks continued to import more Muslims to the island.   The primary point of clarification, however, was a distinct message to Islam that neither the West nor the United Nations would intervene in Islamic aggression.  The strategy has worked quite well for Islam. 

But the Balkans, India, Kashmir, Israel, Chechnya, the Philippines, Cyprus and other hotbeds of Muslim aggression not withstanding, another battle waging is an entire continent, an achievement Islam has yet to achieve in its 1400 year old bloody and militant history.    Africa.   Libya’s psychotic Colonel and other leaders of the Arab/Muslim world have vowed to Islamize the entire continent of Africa, claiming they have the money and the will to accomplish such a feat.  Presently, the mix between Muslims and Christians is roughly 50/50.    For Africa, with an already beaten down population of poverty infested peoples, many of whom are starving and dying of AIDS, an Islamic conquest of Africa is indeed a reasonably achievable goal.  After all and to varying degrees, Africa consists of peoples and tribes who have no concept of freedom anyway and the largely tribal mentality of Africa’s citizenry plays well into the tribal mentality of the oil wealthy tribes of the Arab/Muslim world who come bearing gifts.  Such gifts include madrassahs, psychotic Wahhabi style clerics, lots of mosques and just enough food to keep a future warrior of Allah alive to fight the infidels as the jihad wages on and on.  One Islamist declared that even South Africa is within Islam’s reach, even though only 2% of the population is currently Muslim.   Supposedly, Nelson Mandela is reported to have been heavily financed with gulf money.  Capitalizing on racial hatred and keeping such hatred fervently burning is the core of Islamic success.

Although wacko ideologies are not lacking throughout the globe, most self-destruct and a few, like Nazism and Japanese Imperialism, afflicted  modern, civilized, technologically advanced and highly cultured populations who, for whatever reason, utterly succumbed to fanaticism and temporary insanity.   The Germans merely embraced an already existing Christian anti-Semitism whereas the Japanese considered themselves the saviors of various Asian peoples who were suffering under European imperialism.   Both liberally indulged in unspeakable horror and savagery as they fanatically embraced the concept of racial superiority.   But post WW II, it was not that difficult to get the Germans and the Japanese back on the right track.   

Considering life under Islam and its debilitating harsh realities, there is a story and a truth that must be told.   Furthermore, there is an ideology that must be exposed and eradicated.   Even more puzzling, why is the simple truth an exceedingly uncomfortable situation for nearly all American journalists, our media and our government officials?  The real answer is, of course, rather oily.   If we fail to address the real issues, learn the truth, learn from the truth and vanish in the process, will it make us feel any better if our epitaphs read “murdered by Islam but died politically correct”?

There can be no question that China is more than capable of ruthlessly suppressing Islamist aggression on its own home soils.   The Russians, though far more committed than Western nations, have a lot of other problems to deal with but are taking measures to neutralize Islam.   While the actual tactics of the Chinese and Russians may not garner them any human rights awards, they may, in fact, experience greater success than a Western approach and ultimately play a significant role in saving Western Civilization.  Clearly, Western Civilization does not appear to be the least bit motivated to save itself, an unfortunate and historically repetitious event.  Considering our deeply innate propensity to ensure civil liberties, due process and humanitarian care to all human beings, regardless of their inhumane crimes and psychotic ambitions, our task is considerably more repugnant and reprehensible because of psychological barriers.  However, if what lies ahead is placed in a proper prospective, particularly after 9/11, then we should be able to accept that we are fighting theocratic Nazism, a holy war, and more importantly, recognize that the survival of Western Civilization, Asian Civilization and Orthodox Civilization are very much at stake. 

Besides, the fact that America and Europe have aided and abetted in spreading Islamism by failing to recognize the dangers and agendas of people “just practicing their religion”, we have clearly failed to differentiate a valid religion from a mission of jihad in the name of a religion.  In so doing, we have capitulated to thug regimes and tyranny and we are now faced with the consequences of cleaning up one ugly mess.   But has the situation gone beyond routine housekeeping (diplomacy) to tear down the house of horror (military defeat) and rebuilt it in our image (Germany/Japan)?  Before making that decision, perhaps we should consult with Israel, India, Russia and the Serbs who have exhaustively attempted every possible diplomatic appeal for peaceful co-existence.    They’ve been there, done that.    Apparently, only in Islam does the extension of the olive branch get one killed.

March 28, 2010 at 9:14 am Leave a comment

The Nazi Socialist-Islamic Alliance

Available Now

In Paul Fregosi’s book, “Jihad,” there is a photograph of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem reviewing the Nazi “Handzar SS division in Yugoslavia in 1944. The picture caption says “In an address to the Muslim troops, the mufti put Islam and Nazism on the same level, claiming ‘there were considerable similarities between Islamic principles and National Socialism.’ ”
 
Osama bin Laden declared in a March 2003 fatwa that “The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders.”

I believe Resident Obama is the personification of this unholy alliance.

March 23, 2010 at 5:30 am Leave a comment

Time for a Memorial to the British Victims of Islamic Slaving

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is reasonable to assume that over the 250 years in question that the number of men, women and children either seized from coastal shipping or coastal villages in the West Country must be numbered in the tens of thousands.

During the period 1530 to 1789 it is estimated that 1.25 million European men, women and children were kidnapped by Islamic pirates from around the coasts of Britain and continental Europe to be sold into slavery in North Africa — yet there is no memorial in Britain recording for posterity the suffering of so many of our forebears.

According to early 17th century observers there were around 35,000 European Christian slaves in the Barbary Coast towns of Tripoli, Tunis and Algiers at any one time.

In the first half of the 17th century, Barbary corsairs from North Africa, authorised by their governments to attack the shipping of Christian countries — ranged all around Britain’s coasts, but the West Country in particular.

During this fifty-year period Admiralty records show that the slavers plundered British shipping pretty much at will, capturing almost 500 vessels between 1609 and 1616, including 27 from around Plymouth alone in 1625.

A list, printed in London in 1682, listed 160 British ships captured by “Algerians” between 1677 and 1680 yielding the Islamic slavers between 7,000 to 9,000 men, women and children for sale in the North African slave markets.

In June 1636 “Turkish” slavers off the Cornish village of St. Keverne seized seven Cornish fishing boats; the fifty-strong crew of men and boys who manned these vessels were never seen again.

Shortly before the St. Keverne incident 5 empty fishing boats from the Cornish port of Looe were discovered; graphic details are recorded of boats seen drifting unmanned and without sails, of weeping women, of constant fear of the raiding and the possible destruction of the port.

A few years later, in 1640, the records contain numerous references to Barbary pirates on the Cornish coast, including the taking of three ships “in the open view of Penzance” and a further three ships the same night at Mousehole, near Land’s End.

About the same time a raid on the town of Penzance by Barbary slavers resulted in a “catch” of some sixty men, women and children.

In 1640 Barbary pirates seeking ransom in respect of some of their English captives allowed a petition to be sent to King Charles I, it details their plight:

Here are about 5,000 of your subjects, in miserable captivity, undergoing most unsufferable labours, as rowing in galleys, drawing in carp, grinding in mills; with divers such unchristian like works, most lamentable to express and most burdensome to undergo, withal suffering much hunger and many blows on their bare bodies, by which cruelty many not being able to undergo it, have been forced to turn Mohamedans, so that these burdensome labours will cause many good seamen and others your subjects to perish unless some course be by you taken for our release, which we of ourselves cannot procure by reason of our great losses, and the extraordinary ransoms imposed on us.

To this petition dated 3rd October 1640, was appended a list of a further 957 prisoners taken since May 18th, 1639.

It is reasonable to assume that over the 250 years in question that the number of men, women and children either seized from coastal shipping or coastal villages in the West Country must be numbered in the tens of thousands.

Yet not only are there no memorials to the “Disappeared”, the subject isn’t even included in the history curriculum of West Country schools.

The British National Party says it’s high time these “oversights” were rectified and the suffering of our ancestors given the recognition it deserves?

March 4, 2010 at 11:19 pm Leave a comment

Walking the Plank to a Dhimmi Nation– “A U.N. Declaration of Religion?” –Chapter 10

   Available Now!!  

   

   

  

 
 
10
A  United Nations Declaration of Religion?
 
A controversial resolution at the UN called “Defamation of Religion,” ultimately aims to enforce recognition of Islam under the guise of racism and xenophobia. Even though sponsors of the resolution maintain it is for all religions, the wording says quite the opposite.
                                                                                                                                                                        For starters, the title of the resolution substantiates disingenuousness, using the singular, “Religion” rather than the plural “Religions.” Islam is the only religion that the resolution mentions by name, and sponsors of the U.N. Defamation of Religion view Islam as the only true religion. The Defamation of Religion resolution seeks to protect a totalitarian legal system–with mandatory beliefs and rituals–from question, debate, or critical inquiry worldwide. Using Orwellian vernacular to distort the true and expected definition of human rights and religious freedom, the Defamation of Religion resolution might more appropriately be titled “The Declaration of Religion.” 
                                                                                                                                                                               
The totalitarian ideology of Islam only recognizes Shari’ah Law, which violates the Constitution in several ways. Islamic Shari’ah Law violates the First Amendment granting freedom of speech and the press, and the separation of church and state. It violates the Fifth Amendment requirements for a grand jury and due process of law. It violates the Sixth Amendment granting legal council and an unbiased jury for criminal offenses. It violates the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. And finally, since rights in Islam are only relative to Shari’ah Law, it violates the tenth amendment guaranteeing that powers not delegated to the federal government belong to the states or to the people.
                                                                                                                                                                                   The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 57 Muslim majority nations, holds the largest voting bloc in the UN. The OIC Secretary General, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, is the one who congratulated Obama on his inauguration, and appealed for the new president’s help to work out problems that face the Muslim world. In 1990, the OIC adopted the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam at the nineteenth Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers on August 5, 1990 dictating that Islam is the only legitimate religion.  

Article Two of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights is repeated from Chapter One to stress its severity:

“(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason. 

(b) It is forbidden to resort to such means as may result in the genocidal annihilation of mankind.  

(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.  

(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Sharia-prescribed reason.”[1]   

The OIC and its allied organizations have aggressively engaged in efforts to expand Islamic Shari’ah law in the West. If adopted, the UN Defamation of Religion resolution would  make it illegal in Islamic dominated countries, and countries that reach them via the Internet,  to hold discussions, to debate, have opinions, or point out historically accurate information that describe Islam unfavorably. Cruel and unusual Islamic punishment methods of stonings, hangings, amputations, honor killings, punishments for blasphemy, executions of apostates, sanctioned wife-beatings, female genital mutilations, and the legitimization of modern Islamic slavery could be practiced worldwide regardless of ones religious persuasion.  

The OIC’s Declaration on Human Rights in Islam makes it clear that the UN Defamation of Religion resolution is based on, and would adhere to Islamic Shari’ah law, legalizing discrimination against women and non-Muslims, criminalizing free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. In persistent efforts by the OIC, the so far non-binding UN Defamation of Religions resolution has received landslide votes every year since 2005. The OIC has declared its intention to seek a binding resolution requiring UN member states to criminalize criticism of Islam.  

The Defamation of Religion resolution is rightly viewed by concerned non-Muslims as contradictory to human rights. The purpose of the UN as set forth in its charter is “to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms; and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in attaining these ends.” Peace, security, and human rights are for people, not belief systems, therefore religious opinion is not susceptible to the dictates of the UN.  

On March 28, 2008, the U.N. Human Rights Council voted for a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report on cases where freedom of expression is “abused.” Such “abuse” of freedom includes using free speech to analyze Islamic doctrine, and criticizing Islamic doctrine that somehow “justifies” violence against non-Muslims.  

The U.S., Canada, and European countries abstained from voting on the 2008 Special Rapporteur Resolution, but no nation voted against it. What would cause them to not take a stand? Perhaps they do not take Islamic doctrine at its word, or perhaps they are intimidated by the presence of OPEC nations. Any sane human being would have to wonder if they are terrified cowards, the recipients of bribery, dangerously naïve, extorted; or all of the above.  

The UN resolution threatens those who try to inform others about the Islamic manifesto to Islamize the world. Geert Wilders, a Dutch Parliamentarian, is an example of a victim of the twisted definition of freedom of expression. GeertWilders lives in hiding for producing “Fitna,” a forthright documentary that accurately reveals the aggressive Islamic manifesto to make the world submit to Islam according to the dictates of the Koran.  

Geert Wilders and Robert Spencer wrote an article together when Geert Wilders was prosecuted by the Amsterdam Court of Appeals for his statements about Islam. Wilders and Spencer wrote that:  

 “Civilized states have no business participating in a forum that has been hijacked by the Islamic-supremacist agenda to replace fundamental human rights with the barbaric strictures of sharia.” [2]   

Justifiable concerns are that the resolution will eventually criminalize the practice of Christianity and Judaism under international law. According to the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ), a United States non-profit organization that launched a campaign to defend freedom of religion worldwide, anti-defamation started as a plan to specifically ban defamation of Islam, but wording in the document was later modified to sound like it includes all religions. [3]  

An article, “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals,” by Bob Unruh, dated September 10, 2008, for World Net Daily, said that the ACLJ’s European division, the European Center for Law & Justice (ECLJ), submitted arguments in June 2008 to the UN opposing the proposal:  

 “The position of the ECLJ in regards to the issue of ‘defamation of religion’ resolutions, as they have been introduced at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly, is that they are in direct violation of international law concerning the rights to freedom of religion and expression.”  

 The brief noted that in Islamic dominated countries, the laws protect Islam and harass religious minorities with penalties up to and including execution. Unruh’s article revealed concerns of many who understand the definitive consequences of the resolution, citing an ECLJ quote that said:   

“The implementation of domestic laws to combat defamation of religion in many OIC countries reveals a selective and arbitrary enforcement toward religious minorities, who are often Christians. Those violations are frequently punishable by the death penalty.”   

The ACLJ said, in promotion of its petition opposing the resolution, that:   

“They’re attempting to pass a sinister resolution that is nothing more than blatant religious bigotry.”  “This is very important to understand. This radical proposal would outlaw Christianity … it would make the proclamation of your faith an international crime.” [4]  

 The resolution draft submitted in March 2008 only claimed discrimination against Muslims specifically. It condemned a growing trend of “Islamophobia,” which is itself a derogatory term for those who oppose Islamic standards. It hypocritically expressed concern over negative stereotyping, urging a provision of “adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion results from the defamation of any religion.” Without mentioning any other religions, it would make the proclamation of other faiths an international crime because in Islam, it is a crime to have any other faith except Islam. This is itself an act of hatred, discrimination, intimidation, coercion. Actually, it is extortion.  

Durban I, a committee preparing for a conference held in Durban, South Africa, April 2009, was principally incompatible with U. S. interests and the Constitution because the plan contained offensive references to limits on free speech, contained anti-Israel and anti-Jewish provisions while alleging the victimization of Muslims are a result of counter-terrorism “racists.” The U.S. and Israel walked out of Durban I—but without standing up for the U.S. Constitution and Israel.  

Durban II was held in Geneva in April 2009. Its planning committee consisted of a Libyan chair, an Iranian vice-chair, a Cuban rapporteur, with Russian Yuri Boychenko presiding.[5] Anne Bayefksy, an observer of the UN who runs the EyeontheUN.Org website, wrote about the U.S. State Department team Barack Obama sent to the February 2009 planning conference for Durban II in a Forbes column:  

 “The Obama administration’s decision to join the planning of the UN’s Durban II ‘anti-racism’ conference has just taken a new twist: ‘cover-up’. On Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. The trouble is that they didn’t. The Feb. 20[2009] State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in Geneva ‘outline our concerns with the current outcome document’ and in particular ‘our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism.”  

 Baefsky wrote further that a member of the delegation told The Washington Post that Obama’s delegation did not object to framing Israel in “an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific claims.” Baefsky also wrote that:  

 “Obama’s Durban II team slipped easily into the UN’s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, taking the approach that ‘fitting in’ was best accomplished by staying silent.”[6]   

European states to boycott Durban II were undermined when the US agreed to participate. France, England, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands were considering boycotting but found it unrealistic for ally countries to disengage because U.S. participation effectively legitimized it.  

A Human Rights Council session in March 2009 preparing for Durban II opened with Human rights authorities from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Venezuela, Russia, Yemen, the Arab Group, the African Group, Malaysia, Bahrain, Senegal, and the OIC. The opening statement given by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Secretary-General of the Durban II Conference had a demeaning tone:  

 “The Review Conference has also been the target of a disparaging media and a lobbying campaign on the part of those who fear a repetition of anti-Semitic outbursts. This, in my view, is completely unwarranted…Narrow, parochial interests and reflexive partisanship must be cast aside in the interest of a greater common good.”   

Iran’s representative who spoke next, contradicted himself by saying:  

 “The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes the timely decision of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council for holding the Durban Review Conference in 2009. We are of the view that the Durban Review Conference and its preparatory process can provide the international community with an ample opportunity to take stock of the Durban commitment as well as to further strategize in the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance and to address their contemporary forms and manifestation with a view to adopting further initiatives and actions. The struggle against racism has led to a persisting manifestation of racism and intolerance including racial and religious profiling and the rise of Islamophobic incidents in certain parts of the world.”  

 The last statement is illogical and hypocritical, as it clearly says the struggle against racism begets more racism. It further labels those who disagree with Islam as “Islamophobes”, while blurring the distinction between race and religion.          

At the exclusion of followers of every religion except Islam, the draft adopted in March 2009 mentions the word “Muslim” four times, and the plural “Muslims” one time. Near the end of the document, a request was made for the Special Rapporteur to report cases of Islamophobia in particular.  

Then, the April 2009 Durban Review Conference, or Durban II, did not include the word religion in its name as it previously had. Its official name was “World Conference Against Racism” (WCAR). The conference was boycotted by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and even the United States. Twenty-three European Union countries sent low-level delegations, and the Czech Republic discontinued its attendance on the first day. Concerns were that the conference would be used to promote anti-Semitism and laws contrary to free speech.  

On the first day of the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made a speech condemning Israel as “totally racist.” Ahmadinejad’s attendence was controversial because of his past statements on Israel and the Holocaust, such as statements accusing the West of using the European Holocaust as a “pretext” for aggression against Palestinians.[7]  

The UN-sponsored “Alliance of Civilizations” reflects the views of the OIC and mimicks the UN Defamation of Religion resolution.  A 2005 statement issued after a summit in Mecca explains the Alliance mission to internationally criminalize defamation of Islam as a form of racism:  

 “The Conference underlined the need to collectively endeavor to reflect the noble Islamic values, counter Islamophobia, defamation of Islam and its values and desecration of Islamic holy sites, and to effectively coordinate with States as well as regional and international institutions and organizations to urge them to criminalize this phenomenon as a form of racism.” [8]   

Along with various sovereign states, members of the Alliance include the OIC, the Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (set up by the OIC), the Arab League, and the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization. There is no representation from Israel in the Alliance.[9] Obama was scheduled to attend an Alliance meeting in April 2009, but the White House did not confirm if he actually did.  

 After Bush resisted years of such initiatives at the UN, the Obama Administration is co-sponsoring with Egypt, another anti-free speech resolution at the UN. This resolution has no immediate effect in law but provides Muslim countries with ammunition when they feel central tenets of Islam are being challenged.  Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council in early October 2009, it calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” [10]  

The real hate and discrimination is directed against non-Muslims in the UN Defamation of Religion. The U.S. has no business participating in alliances and organizations that endorse a specific religion or in any way limits free speech. Against all the freedoms enjoyed and valued in the West, if we remain members of the UN, we will not only be assimilated into a one-world government, but a Shari’ah one-world government that dictates everything from finances to personal and religious rights. All that the Constitution stands for is being mocked and abused by even allowing such an organization to convene on American soil.

Avaible Now!!!


  

[1] Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,” http://www.oicun.org/articles/54/1/Cairo-Declaration-on-Human-Rights-in-Islam/1.html
[2] Wilders, Geert & Spencer, Robert; “2009: A Year to Defend Free Speech,”  January 26, 2009, http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODBhOTYyZWYzYjQ2MDUxOWI2OTU2YTY4Yjc2ZmFlMTk=&w=MA
[3] “Petition Opposing The Organization of Islamic Conference,”, https://www.aclj.org/petition/Default.aspx?AC=DNE0807017&SC=3359
[4] Unruh, Bob; “U.N. Schemes to Make Christians Criminals” ,  July 10, 2008, http://propheticnews.net/content/view/6380/67/
[5] Bayefsky, Anne; “A Foreign Policy of Obsequiousness,” February 17, 2009, http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTNlNmE3NDdkMTc0M2I4ODYyYjI1YTNlMmM2N2VjYzU
[6] Bayefsky, Ann; “The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel,” February 22, 2009,  http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-israel-holocaust-durban-opinions-contributors_united_nations.html
[7] “Durban Review Conference,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_II, May 11, 2009
[8] Gaffney, Frank Jr.; “Gaffney: “Friends of the Muslim Brotherhood are no friends of America,” March 16, 2009, http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025266.php
[9]  Rosett, Claudia; “The UN’s Alliance of Civilizations,” March 26, 2009,    http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/25/alliance-of-civilizations-opinions-columnists-obama-un.htm
l
[10] Spencer, Robert; “Obama Declares War on Free Speech,” October 8, 2009,  http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33869

January 15, 2010 at 7:11 am 4 comments

“The Agenda of Islam”

By Professor Moshe Sharon
Link to original article

A War Between Civilizations

The war has started a long time ago between two civilizations – between
the civilization based on the Bible and between the civilization based
on the Koran. And this must be clear.

There is no fundamental Islam. “Fundamentalism” is a word that came
from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by
the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going with the
Bible, does not mean going around and killing people. There is no
fundamental Islam. There is only Islam full stop. The question is how
the Koran is interpreted.

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are
politicians in the western world. They know better than all the
speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against
anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians
know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to
differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to
read a word of Arabic.

The Language of Islam

You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in
fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam
in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak
about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of
parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own
dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists
in the world says that doing is like a cricket reporter describing a
cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or
civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the
language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam

Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam.
Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only
one God.

But it’s not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to
acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohamed is his prophet.
These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one
cannot be a Moslem.

But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave
first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the
individual, society and nations with rules of behavior. If you are
Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are
set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings
of the Bible.

The Bible

Let me explain the difference.

The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very
long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar, and let
me remain scholarly. But there is one thing that is important in the
Bible. It leads to salvation. It leads to salvation in two ways.

In Judaism, it leads to national salvation – not just a nation that
wants to have a state, but a nation that wants to serve God. That’s the
idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible.

The New Testament that took the Hebrew Bible moves us toward personal
salvation. So we have got these two kinds of salvation which, from time
to time, meet each other.

But the key word is salvation. Personal salvation means that each
individual is looked after by God, Himself, who leads a person through
His word to salvation. This is the idea in the Bible, whether we are
talking about the Old or the New Testament. All of the laws in the
Bible, even to the minutest ones, are, in fact directed toward this
fact of salvation.

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly
important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God.
Therefore, you don’t just walk around and obliterate the image of God.
Many people, of course, used Biblical rules and turned them upside
down. History has seen a lot of massacres in the name of God and in the
name of Jesus. But as religions, both Judaism and Christianity in their
fundamentals speak about honoring the image of God and the hope of
salvation. These are the two basic fundamentals.

The Essence of Islam

Now let’s move to the essence of Islam. Islam was born with the idea
that it should rule the world.

Let’s look, then, at the difference between these three religions.
Judaism speaks about national salvation – namely that at the end of the
story, when the world becomes a better place, Israel will be in its own
land, ruled by its own king and serving God. Christianity speaks about
the idea that every single person in the world can be saved from his
sings, while Islam speaks about ruling the world. I can quote here in
Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a
verse in English. “Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that
it should rule over all the religions.”

The idea, then, is not that the whole world would become a Moslem world
at this time, but that the whole world would be subdued under the rule
of Islam.

When the Islamic empire was established in 634 AD, within seven years –
640 – the core of the empire was created. The rules that were taken
from the Koran and from the tradition that was ascribed to the prophet
Mohammed, were translated into a real legal system. Jews and Christians
could live under Islam provided they paid poll tax and accepted Islamic
superiority. Of course, they had to be humiliated. And Jews and
Christians living under Islam are humiliated to this very day.

Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Moslems

Mohammed did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before
him. However he also said that all these prophets were Moslems. Abraham
was a Moslem. In fact, Adam himself was the first Moslem. Isaac and
Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Moslems, and
all of them had writings similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history
is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Moslems.

Furthermore, Moslems accept the fact that each of these prophets
brought with him some kind of a revelation. Moses, brought the Taurat,
which is the Torah, and Jesus brought the Ingeel, which is the
Evangelion or Gospel – namely the New Testament.

The Bible vs. the Koran

Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran?

Mohamed explains that the Jews and Christians forged their books. Had
they not been changed and forged, they would have been identical to the
Koran. But because Christians and Jews do have some truth, Islam
concedes that they cannot be completely destroyed by war [for now].

Nevertheless, the laws a very clear – Jews and Christians have no
rights whatsoever to independent existence. They can live under Islamic
rule provided they keep to the rules that Islam promulgates for them.

Islamic Rule and Jihad

What happens if Jews and Christians don’t want to live under the rules
of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called
Jihad. Jihad means war against those people who don’t want to accept
the Islamic superior rule. That’s jihad. They may be Jews; they may be
Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don’t have too many
Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East – their war is
against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world
by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the
Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but
because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There
are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet
there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are
desecrating the home of the prophet.

Two Houses

The Koran sees the world as divided into two – one part which has come
under Islamic rule and one part which is supposed to come under Islamic
rule in the future. There is a division of the world which is very
clear. Every single person who starts studying Islam knows it.

The world is described as Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam) – that’s
the place where Islam rules – and the other part which is called Dar
al-Harb – the house of war. Not the “house of non-Muslims,” but the
“house of war.” It is this house of war which as to be, at the end of
time, conquered. The world will continue to be in the house of war
until it comes under Islamic rule.

This is the norm. Why? Because Allah says it’s so in the Koran. God has
sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that the truth will
overcome all other religions.

Islamic Law

Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that govern
the lives of the Moslems themselves, and these rules are very strict.
In fundamentals, there are no differences between schools of law.

However, there are four streams of factions within Islam with
differences between them concerning the minutiae of the laws. All over
the Islamic world, countries have favored one or another of these
schools of laws.

The strictest school of law is called Hanbali, mainly coming out of
Saudi Arabia. There are no games there, no playing around with the
meanings of words. If the Koran speaks about war, then it’s war.

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations
over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened
in Islam that tried to understand things differently. They even brought
traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should
not be killed in war.

These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is
very important for us to remember. The Hanbali school of law is
extremely strict, and today this is the school that is behind most of
the terrorist powers. Even if we talk about the existence of other
schools of Islamic law, when we’re talking about fighting against the
Jews, or fighting against the Christian world led by America, it is the
Hanbali school of law that is being followed.

Islam and Territory

This civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about
territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-
Islamized. Even if at one time or another, the [non-Moslem] enemy takes
over the territory that was under Islamic rule, it is considered to be
perpetually Islamic.

This is why whenever you here about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you hear
– territory, territory, territory. There are other aspects to the
conflict, but territory is highly important.

The Christian civilization has not only been seen as a religious
opponent, but as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for
which it was created.

Islam was created to be the army of God, the army of Allah. Every
single Moslem is a soldier in this army. Every single Moslem that dies
in fighting for the spread of Islam is a shaheed (martyr) no matter how
he dies, because – and this is very important – this is an eternal word
between the two civilizations. It’s not a war that stops. This was is
there because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is
a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace

Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only
be between Moslem and Moslem.

With the non-Moslem world or non-Moslem opponents, there can be only
one solution – a cease fire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an
eternal war until the end of days. Peace can only come if the Islamic
side wins.

The two civilizations can only have periods of cease-fires. And this
idea of cease-fire is based on a very important historical precedent,
which, incidentally, Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in
Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

Let me remind you that the document speaks of peace – you wouldn’t
believe that you are reading! You would think that you were reading
some science-fiction piece. I mean when you read it, you can’t believe
that this was signed by Israelis who are actually acquainted with
Islamic policies and civilization.

A few weeks after the Oslo agreement was signed, Arafat went to
Johannesburg, and in a mosque there he made a speech in which he
apologized, saying, “Do you think I signed something with the Jews
which is contrary to the rules of Islam?” (I have obtained a copy of
Arafat’s recorded speech so I heard it from his own mouth.) Arafat
continued, “That’s not so. I’m doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed
did.”

Whatever the prophet is supposed have done becomes a precedent. What
Arafat was saying was, “Remember the story of Hodaybiya.” The prophet
had made an agreement there with the tribe of Kuraish for 10 years. But
then he trained 10,000 soldiers and within two years marched on their
city of Mecca. He, of course, found some kind of pretext.

Thus, in Islamic jurisdiction, it became a legal precedent which states
that you are only allowed to make peace for a maximum of 10 years.

Secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must renew the
jihad [thus breaking the “peace” agreement].

In Israel, it has taken over 50 years in this country for our people to
understand that they cannot speak about [permanent] peace with Moslems.
It will take another 50 years for the western world to understand that
they have got a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is
virile and strong. This should be understood: When we talk about war
and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German
terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms.

Cease-fire as a Tactical Choice

What makes Islam accept cease-fire? Only one thing – when the enemy is
too strong. It is a tactical choice.

Sometimes, he may have to agree to a cease-fire in the most humiliating
conditions. It’s allowed because Mohammed accepted a cease-fire under
humiliating conditions. That’s what Arafat said to them in
Johannesburg.

When western policy makers hear these things, they answer, “What are
you talking about? You are in the Middle Ages. You don’t understand the
mechanisms of politics.”

Which mechanisms of politics? There are no mechanisms of politics where
power is. And I want to tell you one thing – we haven’t seen the end of
it, because the minute a radical Moslem power has atomic, chemical or
biological weapons, they will use it. I have no doubt about that.

Now, since we face war and we know that we cannot get more than an
impermanent cease-fire, one has to ask himself what is the major
component of an Israeli/Arab cease-fire. It is that the Islamic side is
weak and your side is strong. The relations between Israel and the Arab
world in the last 50 years since the establishment of our State has
been based only on this idea, the deterrent power.

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War

The reason that we have what we have in Yugoslavia and other places is
because Islam succeeded into entering these countries. Wherever you
have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic
civilization.

What are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What’s
happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltration

Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic
world has not only the attitude of open war, but there’s also war by
infiltration.

One of the things which the western world is not paying enough
attention to is the tremendous growth of Islamic power in the western
world. What happened in America and the Twin Towers is not something
that came from the outside. And if America doesn’t wake up, one day the
Americans will find themselves in a chemical war and most likely in an
atomic war – inside the U.S.

End of Days

It is highly important to understand how a civilization sees the end of
days. In Christianity and in Judaism, we know exactly what is the
vision of the end of days.

In Judaism, it is going to be as in Isaiah – peace between nations, not
just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more
need for weapons and nature will be changed – a beautiful end of days
and the kingdom of God on earth.

Christianity goes as far as Revelation to see a day that Satan himself
is obliterated. There are no more powers of evil. That’s the vision.

I’m speaking now as a historian. I try to understand how Islam sees the
end of days. In the end of days, Islam sees a world that is totally
Moslem, completely Moslem under the rule of Islam. Complete and final
victory.

Christians will not exist, because according to many Islamic
traditions, the Moslems who are in hell will have to be replaced by
somebody and they’ll be replaced by the Christians.

The Jews will no longer exist, because before the coming of the end of
days, there is going to be a war against the Jews where all Jews should
be killed. I’m quoting now from the heart of Islamic tradition, from
the books that are read by every child in school. They Jews will all be
killed. They’ll be running away and they’ll be hiding behind trees and
rocks, and on that day Allah will give mouths to the rocks and trees
and they will say, “Oh Moslem come here, there is a Jew behind me, kill
him.” Without this, the end of days cannot come. This is a fundamental
of Islam.

Is There a Possibility to End This Dance of War?

The question which we in Israel are asking ourselves is what will
happen to our country? Is there a possibility to end this dance of war?

The answer is, “No. Not in the foreseeable future.” What we can do is
reach a situation where for a few years we may have relative quiet.

But for Islam, the establishment of the state of Israel was a reverse
of Islamic history. First, Islamic territory was taken away from Islam
by Jews. You know by now that this can never be accepted, not even one
meter. So everyone who thinks Tel Aviv is safe is making a grave
mistake. Territory, which at one time was dominated by Islamic rule,
now has become non-Moslem. Non-Moslems are independent of Islamic rule;
Jews have created their own independent state. It is anathema.

And (this is the worse) Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over
Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems.

I believe that Western civilization should hold together and support
each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don’t know. Israel finds
itself on the front lines of this war. It needs the help of its sister
civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe. It needs the
help of the Christian world. One thing I am sure about, this help can
be given by individual Christians who see this as the road to
salvation.

This article is adapted from a lecture presented at the Feast of
Tabernacles Celebration 2001* by Professor Moshe Sharon. Sharon
received his Doctorate in Medieval Islamic History from the Hebrew
University in Jerusalem. He has served as an Advisor on Arab Affairs to
former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin as well as the Ministry of
Defense. Prof. Sharon is a former director of the World Zionist
Organisation branch in Johannesburg, South Africa and currently
lectures as professor of Islamic History at the Hebrew University.

Other on-line articles by Prof. Sharon:

· “Palestinian Ideology And Practice: 5 Years After Oslo” · Word
Wizards

Other resources on Islam:

· the Muslim-Christian debate website · Reaching out to Muslims

* Feast of Tabernacles Celebration 2001 was sponsored by ICEJ

This article is provided for information purposes only. It does not
necessarily represent the views of the MJAA

Moshe Sharon has studied Islam for 35 years, and he believes Americans
need to understand the fundamentals of the faith. “They ought to know
that Islam divides the world into two parts: one part that is already
under the rule of Islam, the other part which must come under the rule
of Islam in the future. And this can happen either if the rest of the
world, which is non-Islamic, succumbs to Islam or is conquered by
Islam.”

This division of the world was reflected within bin Laden’s recent
statement. He said, “These events have divided the whole world into two
sides. The side of believers and the side of infidels.”

International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues Young
Messianic Jewish Alliance Messianic Conference

January 11, 2010 at 9:47 pm 4 comments

Older Posts Newer Posts