Do You HEAR....... what I HEAR? Introduction to Islamic Double Speak by Randy McDaniels

Do You HEAR…… what I HEAR?
An introduction to Islamic Double Speak by Randy McDaniels

Over the past few years I have devoted a great portion of my time to educating various TEA Party and other civic groups on “The Nature of the Threat” in regard to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islam.

Terms like terrorism and Jihad have become household names. Islamic groups like HAMAS, Al Qaeda, Taliban and more recently the Muslim Brotherhood are also becoming common topics of interest, especially in light of the collapse of Egypt and the wave of unrest unfolding in the Middle East today.

As a result of these events, Americans are becoming increasingly concerned and want to know more about Islam. Grassroots organizations like ACT! for America, Stop the Islamization of America and The UNITED WEST are answering the call. They are educating the public and confronting those within the Islamic Movement in America head on.

Due to successful outreach and the gravity of the situation, we are beginning to see more involvement from the TEA Party, 912, and other patriotic groups…..which leads me to the topic I want to discuss.

Do you HEAR what I HEAR?

When speaking on Islam, I often ask the audience if anyone has ever heard a Muslim
(or follower of Islam) say that Islam does not condone the killing of innocent civilians? Or that they condemn Terrorism? For that matter, have you heard similar statements?

What do you think when Imam Feisal Rauf (the proponent of the Ground Zero Mosque) says he condemns terrorism?

Do you think the Imam is sincere? If yes, isn’t Imam Rauf a “Moderate” or “good” Muslim?
How about when Feisal Rauf brings up the fact that American Muslims also died on 911, when the WTC towers fell? How does this make you feel? After all, weren’t Muslims victims of the same attack? Are not their dead being mourned by the Islamic community as well?

There is a duality in Islam that we in the West have a hard time wrapping our head around. This fact, accompanied with our society’s tolerant and accepting nature as a whole as well as our Constitutional freedoms, leaves us very vulnerable to goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in accordance with Islamic Doctrine.

When an Islamist speaks, there is often one statement, but there are two messages or meanings, one for the non-Muslim and another for the Muslim.

When an Islamist or even an Islamic Terrorist at times, say they do not condone the killing of innocent civilians, they 100% absolutely mean what they are saying.

However, they do not mean what WE think THEY mean.

For example, according to Islamic Doctrine;

Innocent Civilian: A non-Muslim is not considered innocent merely for the fact they are not a Muslim. Quite contrary to what we HEAR, it is actually an obligation for “good” Muslims to fight and kill disbelievers (refer to the Koran -- Sura 9:5 the final verse on the subject).

Take for instance: Terrorism is defined as the unjust killing of a Muslim ONLY!
So naturally, as a Muslim, wouldn’t I condemn the killing of my fellow Muslim brothers and sisters, or myself for that matter? Does this actually make a believer a “Moderate Muslim”?

Regarding Muslims who perished on that horrific day, forever known as 911, just how do faithful Muslims view their deaths in accordance with Islamic Doctrine?

First, you must understand ALL Muslims killed waging Jihad (Warfare against non-Muslims to establish the religion) go directly to paradise, to include those “good” Muslims who died in the towers.

But what about those Muslims who were NOT considered “good” Muslims or faithful?
Those Muslims were considered Apostates and therefore they were justified in killing them along with other disbelievers or Infidels.

In retrospect, wouldn’t a “Terrorist” or even a “good” Muslim consider this a win – win situation in accordance to Islamic Doctrine?

So I ask…..do Americans really misunderstand Islam?

Does the Media in most cases understand Islam or do they often go the route of political correctness to silence our opinions about these matters?

Americans are being attacked in many ways. The physical ones are easy to identify... (e.g. when an airplane crashes into buildings). The cunning ones are not so easy to detect, but are very real...which is why it is imperative that we educate ourselves to the threats we face.

If we don’t -- our enemies will continue to use stealth JIHAD to attack us in small increments via our social sector, community activism, and demands of cultural acceptance which are diametrically opposed to our Constitutional foundation.

Muslims in Christian Schools: Religious Friction 101 :: Islamist Watch

Very timely article... seeing the RICK WARREN of Saddleback Church is now embracing ChrISLAM along with Charles Schuller... and churches like these are putting Bible and Qurans side by side in pews under the guise of interfaith dialogue.

The Dialogue of course is a one way street...just as the Islamist who approach these well meaning but misguided ministers know all to well. Sayyid Qutb, one of a couple ideologues of the Muslim Brotherhood which promotes most of the Interfaith Dialogue in America, said "The chasm between the Jahaliya (unbelievers) and Islam is vast, we are building "BRIDGES" (always be wary the Muslim building bridges), not so the two may mix... but so we can bring the Jahaliya to Islam.

Interfaith Dialogue is funded mostly by Saudi Arabia a country which has a death penalty for those who proselytize other than Islam, and funnel $$$ to groups like ISNA, ICNA, MSA, CAIR and other for interfaith outreach. Is it working... Read this article and see.

P.S. Ingrid Mattson, Obama prayer leader, is former President of ISNA a Co-Conspirator in largest terrorism case in U.S. history (U.S. vs HLF 2008) and also President of HARTFORD SEMINARY...so you figure it out!


Muslims in Christian Schools: Religious Friction 101 :: Islamist Watch

Rebuttal to PARVEZ AHMED OP ED in FL Times

Mr William S. Morris IVPresident & CEOMorris Publishing Group Dear Mr Morris:

This letter must be read in Rich Text (HTML) in order to utilize the imbedded links.

The recent Parvez Ahmed OpEd in the Florida Times-Union begins as an essay on US-India economic affairs, but wastes no time injecting make-believe Muslim grievances.

This is to be expected, since Mr Ahmed is an Islamic missionary. However, the Times-Union should know better – by now you know that Hamas-linked Ahmed is fulfilling the Muslim Brotherhood’s goal of “strengthening [Hamas’] influence . . . by infiltrating the American media outlets, universities and research centers” (transcribed from the FBI wiretaps); he is doing well on all counts, and, with your conscious assistance, is using the Times-Union as his propaganda tool.

Mr Ahmed begins his article on-topic, but then descends into Islamic grievance – the constant torment of the unhappy Muslim psyche. Grievance, real or imagined, is a compulsory element of all Ahmed articles. Here are examples:

· “Obama did not visit the [Sikh] Temple . . . fear[ing] that a head covering would further fuel . . . persistent rumors that he is a Muslim. Caving into fear-mongers only emboldens them.”

Reply. Mr Ahmed claims that this conjecture is fact. However, we have no idea why Obama skipped the Sikh temple (just as the cost of the Obama excursion is unknown, as Ahmed points out). And, Team Obama certainly would never offer the reason Mr Ahmed claims. This is merely an opportunity to fabricate a Muslim grievance.

Ahmed could have addressed a real affront: Obama shunned the Jewish Chabad House whose inhabitants were among the few Americans butchered by Muslims during the 2008 Mumbai attack. And, Mr Ahmed could have mentioned that, in India and in Pakistan, his Sunni Muslim sect persecutes the Ahmadiyya (Ahmadi) Muslim sect – that is factual, and a true grievance.

· “Sikhs . . . have been targets of anti-Muslim discrimination in the U.S. A few days after Sept. 11, 2001, a Sikh-American was killed in Arizona by a man who mistook him for a Muslim.”

Reply. The events surrounding Mr Balbir Singh Sodhi’s death are described correctly. Nevertheless, in this nation of 350 million people, such occasions are rare. According to the latest FBI hate crime statistics, there were 1,732 offenses motivated by religious bias in 2008. Of those, 66.1 percent targeted Jews; 8.7 percent targeted Christians, and 7.5 percent targeted Muslims.

American Jews were 9 times more likely to be victims of hate crimes than Muslims. Yet, no Jewish economist would ever commandeer a professional Times-Union forum to denounce grievances against his ethnic group (as Mr Ahmed does).

In addition, crimes against Muslims have declined dramatically since 911. A 2008 survey by Human Rights First, entitled “Violence Against Muslims”, found only two assaults based on anti-Muslim sentiment in 2007 and 2008. Nearly all "backlash" against Muslims, following acts of domestic Islamic terrorism, has consisted of unkind blog postings, added scrutiny of mosques and enhanced airport security.

Even the Sikh Coalition, which encourages the reporting of anti-Sikh “hate crimes”, cites relatively few violent events since 1975 – most acts are perceived harassment. The Sikh Coalition records can be searched at http://www.sikhcoalition.org/ListReports.asp. Mr Ahmed is, of course, a Muslim missionary, and Islamic grievance is his bread and butter.

In Europe, most attacks against Jews are perpetrated by Muslims. Entire Jewish communities are fleeing Muslim-caused assaults, depopulating whole Jewish neighborhoods. And, often the news agencies censor the Islamic ethnicity of the perpetrators. The European pattern will occur here. The new anti-Semitism is transported to Europe by means of the new wave of Middle East immigration, which is coming this way.

· “Many Muslims took refuge during their arduous migration to Pakistan.”

Reply. Of course, this is a biased Muslim perspective. A similar number of non-Muslims suffered during the migration. And, the cause of the Partition and subsequent migration can be placed squarely upon the shoulders of Muslims, who opposed the leadership of the India independence movement. Gandhi and his adherents struggled to avoid Partition, and, in the process, enraging both Hindu Nationalists and Indian Muslim nationalists. Gandhi was assassinated soon after Partition by a Hindu nationalist, who believed that Gandhi had appeased Muslims at the cost of Hindus.

· “Prior to colonial rule, India was the world's economic superpower.”

I have a small point to make regarding this Angus Maddison theorem. Please refer to the Post Script.



Former CAIR chairman Parvez Ahmed LIED to your editorial board (an Islamic mandate called “taqiyya”) during your staff’s three-hour meeting with him – the meeting which endorsed his appointment to the Jacksonville Human Rights Commission.

Your related editorial reports Mr Ahmed’s deceit: “Ahmed denies he has supported terrorism or advocated violence in any way, either before, during or after his involvement with CAIR” (emphasis added). On the contrary, Mr Ahmed, a CAIR leader since the mid-1990’s, and national chairman of CAIR (a Muslim Brotherhood organization), has defended terrorists with zeal.

During the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trials, in 2007 and 2008, he defended the criminals (who were later convicted on all 108 counts), stating: "The case against HLF was a political witch-hunt that had nothing to do with America's security”. According to Ahmed, the HLF trial was a "classic case of guilt by association [a false argument he uses in his own local defense] and a political vendetta against American [Muslim] citizens to carry out the agenda of a special interest group, the Israel Lobby." CAIR, which Parvez Ahmed led as Chairman during the two trials, was a co-conspirator in the Hamas-funding conspiracy, which, according to the Court, was an “ unlawful conspiracy . . . from which CAIR never withdrew”.

Further, Parvez Ahmed sought to defend the conspirators by means of his Hungry for Justice organization, which he co-founded and for which he served as media contact. Mr Ahmed was not a novice to CAIR and its operations. He joined in the early 1990’s, knew of CAIR’s origins, and knew well its founders: Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, both of whom were present at CAIR’s 1993 founding meeting with Hamas leaders (in fact, Ahmed replaced Omar Ahmad as the organization’s second national chairman). The 25-member gathering, including both Ahmad and Awad, represented, according to the FBI, “a meeting . . . among senior members of Hamas, the HLFDR and IAP [Islamic Association for Palestine]”. A FBI analysis noted: “all attendees of this [1993 Philadelphia] meeting are Hamas members”.

CAIR founder Nihad Awad in a 2000 AMEU article (who collaborated with Parvez Ahmed) admits to the IAP (and thus Hamas) origins of CAIR. Awad describes how he “worked closely with IAP president Omar Ahmad”; how “Ibrahim Hooper . . . join[ed] the project”, and how together they “open[ed] the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) . . . in June 1994.” More on CAIR’s Hamas origins at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and at CAIR Observatory, a division of the prestigious Center of Security Policy.

According to retired FBI special agent John Vincent, “There is no question CAIR funds Hamas”. A new report maintains that CAIR's national organization in late 1995 contributed at least $40,000 to a Holy Land Foundation (HLF) subsidiary, InfoCom Corp, just months before HLF wired exactly $40,000 to the Islamic Relief Committee, a conduit to Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

Only the Times-Union and the ultra-liberal Huffington Post regularly run Mr Ahmed’s essays. Mr Ahmed is a charming fellow, and he likely has had many meetings and direct conversations with your staff, to gain its trust. He is charming, because that is his job as an Islamic missionary.

It is clear that Mr Ahmed has become an informal member of the editorial staff. And, the Times-Union staff assists Mr Ahmed in “infiltrating the American media outlets” by sanitized his background – hiding his enormously significant CAIR and Hamas connections, and the fact that he is a Muslim missionary. This furtiveness is unprofessional, subversive journalism, and it needs a full evaluation within the local and parent Morris staffs. There is just so much of this Leftist activism and deception that your readers will tolerate before they cancel their subscriptions.

Best Regards,





Post Script. A point of clarification. Ahmed condemns colonialism (and the West, of course) by stating: “Prior to colonial rule, India was the world's economic superpower”. No doubt, colonialism of itself was not a good thing. However, bad institutions sometimes produce significant worthwhile results for the subject peoples, as in the case of Rome’s subjugation of Gaul which benefited from the Pax Romana which followed (and enjoys those benefits till the present time).

Colonialism was the unexpected vehicle which brought to India the blessings of Western civilization, among them the language of freedom – and the tools by which Indians were encouraged to rebel against the British, and eventually gained independence. The Indian leaders were products of Western Civilization. Gandhi studied in England and South Africa; Nehru, India’s first prime minister, was a product of Harrow and Cambridge. By exposing Indians to the ideas of the West, British colonialism prepared India for the global economy and the freedoms of the 21st century.

A common language, roads, shipping docks, railroads, irrigation systems, and government buildings were all British legacies, as well as the British legal system, with all its procedural novelties, like "innocent until proven guilty".

The colonialists brought things to India that have immeasurably enriched the lives of the descendants of colonialism. It is doubtful that India would have acquired those good things by themselves or as quickly. It was the British who, applying a universal notion of human rights, in the early 19th century abolished the ancient Indian institution of suttee – the custom of tossing widows on their husbands' funeral pyres.
Most of the British (and thus Indian) social thought was derived from Christian values. In contrast to the Hindu caste system, Christianity's precept of "universal brotherhood" altered the Indian psyche.
In contrast, Islam adopted Western thought for only a brief 90-year period, during the Mu’tazilah episode of the 9th century, when books of Western philosophy were captured during Islamic conquest, and their ideas adopted. Then, after this short time, Islam banned Mu’tazilah philosophy upon pain of death, and abandoned Western thought forever (as did Pakistan a millennium later).
Contrast India with Pakistan (or Israel with the remainder of the Middle East), and there you have a revealing laboratory experiment: Peoples of the same or similar origins, but different religions. The Outcome: The backwardness of Islamic nations versus the freedom, progress and prosperity of the West.
Of course, missionaries like Parvez Ahmed will complain that this backwardness is caused by a West determined to undermine Islam – with foreign occupations, neglect, affronts to Islamic ideology, personages and literature, and Islamophobia – the never-ending train of grievances from an unhappy people (and unhappy people are predisposed to evil and violence).
A sampling of the West vs Islam disparity (upon request I will send all source links):
· Despite their oil wealth the gross domestic product (GDP) of the 22 Arab nations combined is little more than that of Spain (the smallest economy in Europe), and less than half that of Italy. Italy has 55 million people, whereas Arabs number 300 million.
· The illiteracy rate in the Arab world is higher than that of the backward developing world, and more than three times higher than that of Latin America and the Caribbean. And, illiteracy in the Arab world is increasing.
· In the entire Arab world approximately 330 books are translated into Arabic each year, whereas little Greece translates over 1,500 books into Greek, and Spain translates 100,000 books into Spanish, each year.
· Scientific research and technical developments in the Arab world are less than one percent of the world’s total. Between 1980 and 2000, a total of 370 technology patents were granted to the entire Arab world, while South Korea alone was awarded over 16,000 patents during the same period.
· Although Muslims represent 25 percent of earth’s population, Muslims have won only two Nobel Prizes for science. Jews, which represent 0.2 percent of the world’s population, have been awarded one-fourth of all Nobel science prizes. The entire Muslim world contributes barely 1,000 research articles out of a total 2,000,000 research articles published each year.
· What of Islam’s “historic contribution to science . . . math and engineering”, claimed by the Obama administration? NASA Administrator was instructed by the president to help Muslims “feel good” about their historic contributions to technical.
But, the evidence suggests a minuscule contribution. Toby E. Huff, chancellor professor of policy studies at University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, and author of studies in the rise of science, writes: “Islamic science was almost totally dependent upon translations, frequently made by non-Muslims of the achievements of pre-Islamic cultures, Greeks, Egyptians, Indians, etc. Moreover, a striking number of Muslim thinkers were Persians who owed more of their pre-Islamic heritage than they did to Islam.”
Professor Stanley L. Jaki, author of many books on science, observes that Islamic additions to the Greek body of scientific knowledge were “never substantial.” David Storobik, editor of Global Politician, the journal of international politics, has stated: “[It is] an historical fact that the scientific revolution happened in Europe, not India, China, or the Middle East. There was also nothing quite like the medieval university in the Roman Empire. Whatever existed of real science in Roman times was almost entirely of Greek origin. The medieval [European] University then represented a real innovation.”
· Take away their oil exports (which the West discovered and developed), and what does the Arab world export other than terrorism, suicide bombers and grief – and the celebrations of the deaths of Americans and Jews. While the West pursues labor-saving technology, cures for dreadful diseases and the rescue of earthquake and tsunami victims, oil-rich Saudi sheikhs, instead of alleviating suffering, spend millions on self-aggrandizing mosques, Islamic schools and higher education centers which promote a radical ideology which threatens to cause vast destruction in the Western world.
Education centers? Arab museums, such as the Palestinian Museum at al-Najah University in Nablus, display pictures of savagely mutilated bodies and severed heads in pools of blood, and show videos that glamorize booby traps, spilled blood, and martyrs enjoying the bliss of heaven. The Middle East is lagging behind, not because Arabs are created unequal in God’s eyes. It is lagging because of social and religious values.

Spencer: Gingrich Sounds the Alarm about the Stealth Jihad - Jihad Watch

Spencer: Gingrich Sounds the Alarm about the Stealth Jihad - Jihad Watch

Gingrich Sounds the Alarm about the Stealth Jihad
by Robert Spencer

08/03/2010



Newt Gingrich has become the first major politician to acknowledge that the problem America faces today from Islamic jihadists is not simply one of terrorism, but of a larger attempt to insinuate elements of Islamic law (sharia) into American society, and to assert the principle that where sharia and American law conflict, it is American law that must give way.

The stated goal of Islamic jihadists around the world is consistent: to weaken non-sharia governments through terrorism as well as other means, so as ultimately to topple those governments and install Islamic law in their place. The non-violent means by which they work to achieve this goal were the focus of my 2008 book Stealth Jihad, in which I decried the universal tendency among both Republicans and Democrats to speak solely of the threat of “terrorism,” and to ignore completely the stealthy ways in which the terrorists’ agenda was advancing under our noses.

In a series of discrete initiatives generally advanced as “civil rights” or “religious freedom” issues, Muslim groups linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, an international organization whose stated goal is “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,” have pressed successfully in recent years for numerous special privileges for Muslims in American society. Footbaths for ablutions before Islamic prayers have been constructed in airports and universities; Muslim employees have been given special break times at factories, breaks that non-Muslims are not offered, so that they can pray at the prescribed times; and initiatives have been undertaken in the media and courts to stigmatize and marginalize anyone who speaks honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.



None of these initiatives may seem to amount to much at first glance; however, they should cause concern for two reasons: because in every case they further the principle that American law and custom should give way to Islamic imperatives, rather than that Muslims in America should adapt their behavior to American principles; and because of the connection to the Muslim Brotherhood, the progenitor of Hamas and al Qaeda.

And now Gingrich has become the first national politician to take notice of this threat. Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, he said: “This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form.”

How Gingrich might distinguish “radical Islamists” from Muslims who simply believe in the Koran and the teachings of Muhammad, who declared that “Islam must dominate, and not be dominated,” is unclear. But his words are remarkable not for his maintaining the artificial and arbitrary distinction between Islam and Islamism, but because of his explanation of the stealth jihad: “The stealth form believes in using cultural, intellectual, and political [means]. But their end goal is exactly the same.”

The stealth jihad advances without violent attacks at a time when almost all our “anti-terror” resources and energy are devoted to heading off another violent attack on American soil. Its leaders work within American communities and organizations, and quite often have won the respect and gratitude of their non-Muslim colleagues and peers.

The leaders of the stealth jihad enjoy the respect of the mainstream media, who often aid and abet their efforts to present themselves as benign civil rights advocates and conceal their actual agenda.

The stealth jihad has a good chance to transform American society before most Americans have any idea of what’s happening.

But Gingrich knows. And he also offered a solution: “One of the things I am going to suggest today is a federal law which says no court anywhere in the United States under any circumstance is allowed to consider sharia as a replacement for American law.”

If such laws were adopted around the country and enforced against the many Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic groups in the United States (which include such ostensibly “moderate” groups as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Muslim Students Association, and many others), the stealth jihad could be stopped in its tracks.

We may hope that America’s lawmakers have the courage to heed the words of Newt Gingrich.