Islamic “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive

Islamic “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive

By Ted Belman (written in Oct ‘07)

On October 26, 2005, Ahmadinejad gave a speech to the “World Without Zionism” conference in Iran. The New York Times’ published a full transcript of the speech in which Ahmadinejad was quoted in part as follows:

    Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.

Iran Broadcasting on its English-language website filed a story entitled: Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the map,

Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over

    “the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power”, and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as “acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world.

There is an attempt in certain quarters to argue that he didn’t mean that all Jews should be killed but that Israel should be removed as a political entity. I want to focus on the latter.

It is not only Iran that takes this uncompromising stand but also Saudi Arabia, the guardian of Mecca and Medina, and all Arab countries in their orbit, do also.

Fatah’s Constitution states

    Article (12)
    Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.

Hamas’ Charter is a religious affirmation of the following principle

    Article Eleven
    The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have the right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations , be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.

Do not think for a moment that Saudi Arabia doesn’t agree with all these articulations. That’s why it wants to unify Fatah and Hamas. They all have the same goal. And remember, “Palestine” includes Israel.

When Ahmedinejad spoke at Columbia he said,

    “And my second question, well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with? [The Balfour declaration preceded the Holocaust by 24 years.] The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn’t have any problems. [They attacked Jews throughout the 24 years.]
     

    And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don’t have any serious problems. [Yes they do.]

    But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself? [The Arabs not the Jews must take responsibility.]

    So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal. What we say is that to solve this 60-year problem, we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. [There is no such people.]

    This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. [The UN created Israel]

Essentially he is saying that the creation of Israel should be undone and that the nation of Palestine including Jews, Muslims and Christians must decide by democratic vote. Of course he includes all Palestinian refugees throughout the ME in such a referendum, knowing full well that the Arabs would outnumber the Jews and thus Palestine, which for Muslims has always included Israel, would replace Israel as the political entity.

Now, when Saudi Arabia or Muslims in general offer “peace”, we must understand what they mean. According to About.com

    Critics and observers must not forget, though, that “peace” here is inextricably intertwined with “submission” and “surrender” — specifically to the will, desires, and commands of Allah, but of course also to those who set themselves up as the transmitters, interpreters, and teachers in Islam. Peace is thus not something achieved through mutual respect, compromise, love, or anything similar. Peace is something that exists as a consequence of and in the context of submission or surrender.

This is an excellent rendition of what Islam holds forth.

Thus “peace” and Israel are mutually exclusive.

Hugh Fitzgerald wrote in The “Two-State Solution” Folly based on folly

    But Bush and Rice and Company are desperate for a “victory”. And whenever a “victory” is needed, it’s Peace Process Time in the Middle East. That’s always good for all kinds of sentimentality, and exaggerated false hopes, and studied inattention to the dismal facts, including the central fact ” the unavoidable fact, the absolutely critical fact ” of Islam, and the impossibility of Arab Muslims ever, ever conceivably accepting the permanence of the Infidel (and what’s still worse, Jewish) state of Israel. Peace treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims are always Truce Treaties, to be broken at the earliest opportunity.

The Arab League has offered “normalization” only and only after Israel retreats will it be discussed. This is just a long word for “Hudna.” What’s worse, neither Israel or the US is demanding an end of conflict peace agreement.

The impetus and the financial backing for the ISM, the PSM, Apartheid Week and all the Boycott campaigns comes from Hamas which comes from the Muslim Brotherhood and they all are against the two state solution and for the destruction of Israel.

If that is not enough there are many people on the left who believe the creation of Israel was a grave mistake and that it should be undone. Recently, the University of Michigan began distribution of a book published in Britain which advocates just that.

Written by a professor of social studies at Bard College, Joel Kovel’s Overcoming Zionism advocates abolishing the State of Israel and replacing it with a single secular state with no ties to the Jewish people.

Now I ask you, why should the Arabs settle for less. Every concession by Israel brings the Arabs closer to their goal.

All of this begs the question of whether Islam is content with wiping Israel off the face of the map or whether it also intends to wipe he Jews off the face of the earth. Francisco Gil-White writes to advise

    Both the Fatah and PLO constitutions call for the extermination of the Jews. The Fatah constitution says that armed combat is a “strategy, not a tactic.” In other words, killing Jews is itself the political goal. And the PLO constitution says in Article 9 that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” By Palestine they mean Israel. In my view, you have misinterpreted the constitutions. They call for genocide. My full analysis of the PLO Charter or Covenant is here.You state that Saudi Arabia wants to unify Fatah and Hamas. The problem here seems to be a short attention span. It was in part through YOUR work, if you recall, that I was able to demonstrate conclusively that Hamas and Fatah have never been rivals, but two branches of the same movement. Saudi Arabia cannot be trying to unify something that is already a unit. You are mistaking the theater of politics for the political reality, even though you know better (this appears to happen repeatedly, the reason being, in my view, that it is just much too difficult to remember that there is a theater of politics, and you keep wanting to take it seriously — you want the world that you think you see to be real).
     

    The best guide the Iranian ruling elites intentions (and, by the way, Ahmadinejad has ZERO power, it is really the Ayatollahs who run things) is, as always, what they do. And what they do is this: they have created and financed Hezbollah, and Hezbollah means to kill every last living Jew.

THERE IS NO DIPLOMATIC SOLUTION.

BETTER JUDEA AND SAMARIA WITHOUT PEACE THAN “PEACE” WITHOUT JUDEA AND SAMARIA.

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rated 5.0 by 3 people [?]
 

 

You might like:

  • The Gilad Shalit Dilemma is Challenging Israeli Society: the Logical vs. the Human Decision (Hebrew Online Blog)
  • Spencer and Geller are leading the fight (this site)
  • Sultan Knish Lists Pro-Hamas, Pro-CAIR Members of Congress (this site)
  • Militant “Islam” Stopped at Tours: 10 October 732 (this site)

 

 

 

 

 

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:38 pm |

How a “Nice American Girl” Became a Jihadist: Dr. Siddiqui Found Guilty

How a “Nice American Girl” Became a Jihadist: Dr. Siddiqui Found Guilty

She studied at MIT and at Brandeis where she received a Ph.D in Neuroscience. Thus, she was both an educated and in some sense, a westernized woman. Both her Pakistani-born father and Pakistani husband are physicians who trained in the West, in England and America, respectively; her brother and sister are also highly trained professionals. Nevertheless, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui learned to hate America, hate Jews, and hate Israel right here in liberal America.

Aafia Siddiqui 

Like a small but increasing number of “westernized” Muslim women, Aafia Siddiqui joined her local mosque (in her case, the Roxbury, MA, mosque) and started to veil, and as she did, her ambitions became aggressively jihadic. This is not a contradiction. Obediently veiled Muslim women can be very aggressive, murderously so. They certainly police other women in savage and self-righteous ways in Iran and Indonesia. In Iraq, veiled Muslim women have blown up other Muslim female religious pilgrims. And, Muslim women who were normatively spurned by their mothers were manipulated by Samira Jassim, an attentive, “loving” Iraqi mother-figure, who carefully turned them into suicide killers.

Samira Jassim 

Women are very aggressive—but usually towards other women. I have written about this in Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. Traditionally, women do not go up against men whom they view as their potential protectors and as more powerful than they are. Ironically, Islamic jihad wishes to reverse, upend, both Nature and human evolutionary history. Just as normatively degraded mothers are “turned” into hero-mothers who publicly praise their suicide killer sons—just so, are normatively self-hating women “turned” into Al-Qaeda heroines who not only directly attack men, but who directly attack infidel male soldiers.

Although Al-Qaeda officially wants its women to breed and bear future male jihadists and to keep the homes and secrets of Al-Qaeda warriors, they have now publicly called for women suicide killers. The West has been threatened with a horde of veiled suicide killers, both male and female.

Today, the Islamic Veil is not a religious symbol—read Marnia Lazreg on this. The Veil is a politically manipulated symbol of jihad. The French understand this and are trying to ban or limit the Islamic Veil, which they view as a security risk as well as a human rights violation. The Americans had better start this conversation now, not later.

Pages: 1 2

 

Islamic mosque built at 9/11 Ground Zero

NEWS OUTRAGE!

Islamic mosque built at 9/11 Ground Zero

Muslim business leader: ‘This has hand of the divine written over it’


Posted: December 17, 2009
8:10 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Wreckage from plane that hit the twin towers fell on the same building that may serve as an Islamic cultural center.

 

A new Islamic mosque will open its doors just steps from Ground Zero where Muslim terrorists murdered 2,751 people in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, 2001 – and its leading imam, who conducts sensitivity training sessions for the FBI, has reportedly blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.

The five-story building at Park Place, just two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory. But a plane’s landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers in 2001.

Now Muslim worshippers currently occupy the building, and they plan to turn it into a major Islamic cultural center.

“The men and women stand up, raise their hands on either side of their head, murmur ‘Allahu akhbar,’ bow and kneel again,” reports Spiegel Online.

“Only in New York City is this possible,” Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.

They have leased the new prayer space as an overflow building for another mosque, Masjid al-Farah, at 245 West Broadway in TriBeCa, where Rauf is the spiritual leader.

The building – vacant since that fateful day when time stood still as millions of Americans grieved the loss of loved ones, friends, family members, co-workers and strangers – was purchased in July by real-estate company Soho Properties, a business run by Muslims. Rauf was an investor in that transaction.

Just down the street, the Museum of Jewish Heritage honors victims of the Holocaust, and St. Peter’s Church, New York’s oldest Catholic house of worship, is located around the corner.

Rauf has announced his plans to turn the building into a complete Islamic cultural center, with a mosque, a museum, “merchandising options,” and room for seminars to reconcile religions, “to counteract the backlash against Muslims in general, ” Speigel reports. The project may cost as much as $150 million.

Rauf told the New York Times purchasing the building “where a piece of the wreckage fell sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.”

“It was almost obvious that something like this had to arise from the ashes of 9/11,” Khan told Spiegel. “In some way, this has the hand of the divine written over it. It’s almost as if God wanted to be involved.” 

(Story continues below)

   

Feisal Abdul Rauf

 

The move is supported by the city. The mayor’s director of the Office of Immigrant Affairs, Fatima Shama, told the Times, “We as New York Muslims have as much of a commitment to rebuilding New York as anybody.”

The city’s Department of Buildings records show the building has been the focus of complaints for illegal construction and blocked exits in the last year. Recent entries from Sept. 28 and 29, 2009, indicate inspectors have been unable to access the building. One complaint states, “Inspector unable to gain access – 1st attempt – No access to 5 sty building. Front locked. No responsible party present.” The second, just a day later, states, “Inspector unable to gain access – 2nd attempt – no access to building. No activity or responsible party. Building remains inaccessible at Park Place.”

Agency spokeswoman Carly Sullivan told the Times the complaints were listed as “resolved” under city procedures since the inspectors were unable to gain access.

Imam Rauf, born in Egypt, has written three books: “What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West,” “Islam: A Sacred Law” and “Islam: A Search for Meaning.”

WND reported in 2003 when, at least four times that year, the FBI’s New York field office held all-day sensitivity training sessions, not far from Ground Zero, featuring Rauf.

Speaking for about two hours each session, “he gave an overview of Islamic culture and some of the differences between what fundamentalist terrorist groups say are the teachings of the Quran and what he believes, as a student of religion, the Quran actually says,” said special agent James Margolin, spokesman for the FBI New York office.

Rauf asserted that the Quran “certainly doesn’t counsel terrorism, murder or mayhem,” Margolin said. And he said terrorists have misinterpreted the Quranic term “jihad” to mean violent, or armed, struggle against nonbelievers. Rauf claims it means internal struggle.

Rauf was invited to speak in Sydney, Australia, by Premier Bob Carr in 2004. According to the Sydney Morning Herald, he said the U.S. and the West must acknowledge the harm they’ve done to Muslims before terrorism can end.

He said the West must understand the terrorists’ point of view – and he blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians.

“The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians. But it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets,” he said.


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (center) poses in a photo with attendees at a 2006 Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. On the far left is Sultan Muhammad, communications coordinator for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Chicago. (photo: CAIR Chicago)

 

According to the report, Rauf said there would be little progress until the U.S. acknowledged backing dictators and the U.S. president gave an “America Culpa” speech to the Muslim world.

On June 4, 2009, President Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world from Cairo, in which he stated:

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

Rauf praised Obama for “embracing Islam in the peacemaking process” in his speech to the Muslim world. He wrote in the Washington Post:

The historic significance of President Obama’s speech to the Muslim world in Cairo cannot be overstated. Never before has an American president spoken to the global Muslim community. His speech marked a major shift in American foreign policy. … In just a few sentences he demolished the phony theory of the ‘Clash of Civilizations,’ which insists that Islam and the West must always be in conflict. Instead, he declared the United States is not at war with Islam and outlined a plan for how the conflict can be resolved. … He captured the attention of Muslims because, unlike most politicians, he was willing to critique both his own country and Muslims where they fell short of their ideals.

In an interview with Beliefnet on Islam and America, a reporter asked Rauf, “Some Islamic charities are being investigated for terrorist ties. Have you seen what you consider to be reputable Islamic charities being financially damaged?”

“We believe that a certain portion of every charity has been legitimate,” he responded. “To say that you have connections with terrorism is a very gray area. It’s like the accusation that Saddam Hussein had links to Osama bin Laden. Well, America had links to Osama bin Laden – does that mean that America is a terrorist country or has ties to terrorism?”

In 2004, Rauf participated in a 30-second advertisement, broadcast on Arabic television, in which he apologized for alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

The Times reported Rauf said he believes “Islamic terrorists do not come from another moral universe – that they arise from oppressive societies that he feels Washington had a hand in creating.”

Readers of various blogs are outraged at the news of the mosque. Comments include the following:

  • Muslims are doing this only to see if they get away with it. It’s the way Islam spreads in every country these days, like a cancer – through incremental totalitarianism. In this case, they’ll quietly open the mosque, then, as they get away with it, they’ll ramp up their outrages until someone finally points it out. At that time, their lawyers, backed by the ACLU and various liberal organizations, will pounce.
  • This is not different than allowing the Nazis to establish their headquarters and propaganda office in NYC in 1938. How come people could tell right from wrong then and not now?
  • What bonehead allowed this to happen?
  • That’s disgusting. That truly is low. I feel bad for the people who lost family members.
  • This is outrageous. I just don’t have word. 
  • This is called “staging” for the KSM trial.
  • You’ve got to be kidding me. If this is true, our beloved country is already gone. We no longer have the America I know and love.
  • Who wants to bet this place becomes a “tourist attraction” for Muslims? This mosque will become one of Islam’s holiest shrines as it sits upon the site of their greatest modern military victory.
  • Good idea. Maybe terrorists will be less likely to bomb this area if there’s a mosque there.

 

Obama, Ahmadinejab, and a Shia Apocalyptic Scenario?

Dr. Michael G. Davis

http://apologetica.us

Obama, Ahmadinejab, and a Shia Apocalyptic Scenario?

By Dr. D | November 18, 2008

President Mahmoud Ahm...

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejab has been talking about an apocalyptic Shia/Islamic scenario for several years now–predicting that ‘ the Hidden Imam‘ would soon return as the end-time Mahdi that establishes Islamic rule over the entire world.

Following the election of Barack Obama, some Shities actually believe that Obama could be a possible fulfillment of an end-time Islamic prophecy.

I found the link to this at SmartChristian.com and in an article by Daniel Pipes. Here is a quote from the original article

by Amir Taheri:

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Commanding “the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.”

In a curious coincidence Obama’s first and second names–Barack Hussein–mean “the blessing of Hussein” in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means “he is with us,” the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama’s rise as another sign of the West’s decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama’s promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat.

Response: This is not good at all. It is the type of scenario that Ahmadinejab might take serious and plan accordingly. If there is a perception that the USA is in decline under Obama’s administration and that he is an actual sign that Islam is about to rise up and dominate, the Iranian leaders might miscalculate and bring about an actual confrontation with Israel, the United States, and the West.

Pres. Ahmadinejab has already threatened Israel’s existence on a number of occasions. The Iranians last week tested some new missiles that could reach Israel and parts of Europe. If and when they actually go nuclear–then this scenario could end up having some serious consequences indeed.

It is doubtful that the Israelis would wait to act until a nuclear missile was actually in the air headed their way. Look for a strike way before the Iranians have that capability. One can only guess what the aftermath would bring–it would not be pretty and it could be apocalyptic!           *Top