Sheik in Egypt Says: “if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a”

This is the so-called "religion of peace". Huh. How are we of other faiths supposed to negotiate with such a narrow-minded intolerant people? 

Q: “But we Egyptians have never regarded the Christians as infidels. [In fact,] many of us have Christian friends even closer than our Muslim friends.”

Shehato: “As a Muslim, I must support the Muslim and oppose the Christian. If there is a Christian who does me no harm, I will maintain limited contact with him. Islam [discusses] certain degrees of contact with the Christian, namely: keeping promises [that were made him], dealing honestly with him, treating him kindly, and befriending him. The first three are allowed, but the fourth [i.e., befriending the Christian] is deemed dangerous, for it contravenes the verse that says, ‘O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth’ [Koran 60:1]. It is inconceivable that they should serve in judiciary or executive posts, for instance in the army or the police.”

Q: “Are you against blowing up churches?”

Shehato: “Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari’a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation…”

Q: “These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians.”

Shehato: “I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people… We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari’a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions.”

If the Muslims Rise to Power in Egypt, They Will Form Muslim Battalions to Enforce the Shari’a Worldwide

Q: “If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?”

Shehato: “Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari’a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see the shari’a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah’s help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]…”

Q: “You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari’a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?”

Shehato: “No, we will implement the shari’a through da’wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari’a does not call it ‘violence’ but ‘jihad for the sake of Allah.’ There is no other way… because they have power and weapons…”

FYI, U.S. taxpayers have wasted given upwards of $64 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to Egypt - the majority for military assistance. When one reads Shehato, and this US lawmaker, it sure sounds like jizya.

H/T Creeping Sharia 

Robert Spencer debates Moustafa Zayed: "Does Islam Guarantee Women Equality of Rights with Men?"

Robert Spencer does a great job in this debate. He stays on topic and refutes the Imam's misinformation about how women are to be viewed and treated according to Islam.  The last quarter of the video consists of a questions and answers session following the debate.

Teresamerica's News and Views: Muslim Extremism and Delta Airlines' Antisemitism

Bishop Gregori at Let The Truth Be Known has the entire transcript of the The Jeff Katz Show.

Here is The Daley Gator's article, Your Marxist Moron of the Day is.

U.S. Government Treats Koran as "Holy" and the Bible as "Trash" What?!?

This is despicable!! Our government should not be treating the Christian holy book, the bible, as if it was garbage that needed to be thrown out.  That shows an utter lack of respect for Christians and Christians holy book. The U.S. government had many options when deciding what to do with the bibles but yet they treat it as trash?  WTH??? Muslims are so "tolerant" that they won't allow another religious text or holy book to be handed out in the countries where they live, and if that had happened Muslims would have most likely turned to violence to express their discontent because their religious beliefs would have been challenged.  It is so absurd how our military is being forced to bow to Muslims intolerance.  We should not be accommodating Muslims intolerance.  We are supposed to be spreading principles of freedom and certain rights for individuals in the countries that we are helping and not aiding in the spread of their intolerance. The U.S. is not supposed to choose favorites with religious texts or religions. The constitution affords every person the right to freedom of religion and our government has no right to cherry pick which religion deserves special treatment and is holier, better, or more legitimate according to them.  We need to keep on speaking out against this intolerance being perpetrated against Christians or else there is a great chance that all of our religious rights will be stripped away before you know it.  Staying silent would essentially be aiding in the attacks against Christians. Silence is not an option. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion is essential to our Republic and must be defended.

A Cultural Warning - United States Right Behind Europe?

H/T Left-footer 

Islamists Scream "Allahu Akbar" Outside Coptic Church After New Year's Blast

Gates of Vienna reported this from AINA:

The car explosion that went off in front of Saints Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria killed 21 and injured 96 parishioners who were attending a New Year’s Eve Mass. According to church officials and eyewitnesses, there are many more victims that are still unidentified and whose body parts were strewn all over the street outside the church. The body parts were covered with newspapers until they were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping on them and chanting Jihadi chants (video showing dead bodies and limbs covered with newspapers in the street).

According to eyewitnesses, a green Skoda car pulled up outside the church shortly after midnight. Two men got out, one of them talked shortly on his mobile phone, and the explosion occurred almost immediately after they left the scene. On the back of the Skoda was a sticker with the words “the rest is coming” (video of car explosion and Muslims shouting “Allah Akbar”).

This is evil, pure evil. I am praying for those who were killed and for the healing of those who were injured. May justice prevail and retribution be fulfilled. 

H/T Gateway Pundit 

Imam Rauf -- The Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Ibn Warraq has written two articles about the Imam, his multiple messages - mixed messages - and the two faces of Imam Feisal Rauf - the good Imam and the bad Imam.  I am posting both articles below.

From Ibn Warraq:
Journalist and author Fareed Zakaria has made some grave accusations against those who oppose the building of the Islamic center near Ground Zero, and has predicated his own approval of the project on the moderateness of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Zakaria wrote that Abdul Rauf “has said one or two things about American foreign policy that strike me as overly critical — but it’s stuff you could read on The Huffington Post any day.”


Yes, indeed — you are likely to read similar “stuff” on the Huffington Post, since Rauf has written there. But how can that possibly constitute a convincing defense of Rauf? Many Huffington Post writers are anti-American, and believe that the U.S. had 9/11 “coming to it.” They still have not learned that 9/11 had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy.

Rauf evidently has not learned that lesson either. On Sept. 30, 2001, 60 Minutes host Ed Bradley asked him if he thought the U.S. deserved the 9/11 attacks. Rauf replied, “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. . . . We have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the U.S.A.”


It is worth noting Rauf’s words carefully. The atrocity is characterized in the passive: “a crime that happened.” This allows Rauf to avoid stating that it was Islamists who committed it. In his book What’s Right with Islam, Rauf even objects to the term “Islamism” — one that was actually concocted to avoid indicting Islam directly — since, he argues, it falsely implies that Islam is the source of the militancy.
CONTINUED


The problems with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s book What’s Right with Islam begin with the title. As Andrew McCarthy noted on National Review Online, the book, whose full title is now What’s Right with Islam: A New Vision for Muslims and the West, was previously called What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America; before that, it was published in Malaysia as A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America post-9/11. In one edition published by HarperCollins, the copyright page told us that the “edition was made possible through a joint effort of The International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the office of Interfaith and Community Alliance of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Funding for this project was provided by IIIT.” The HarperCollins edition no longer contains this telling information, and with reason. McCarthy reveals that both ISNA and IIIT have promoted Hamas, and were demonstrated “by the Justice Department [to be] unindicted co-conspirators in a crucial terrorism-financing case involving the channeling of tens of millions of dollars to Hamas through an outfit called the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. For the last 15 years, Hamas has been a designated terrorist organization under U.S. law.”

Dawa is the invitation, addressed to men by God and the prophets, to believe in the true religion, Islam. The term can mean propaganda, but more specifically, it refers to Islamic missionary work, which is not limited to efforts to convert individuals but includes efforts to convert entire societies and establish Islamic states. Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, predicts that Islam will “conquer America” and “conquer Europe” through Dawa.


In the book’s chatty and ostentatiously friendly preface, Rauf tells us that he is an American and a Muslim, and proud to be both. Then comes this sentence: “September 11, a day that will live in infamy for having provoked the United States into a war, confused and frightened many non-Muslim Americans about Islam.” Note that in this description of why 9/11 will “live in infamy,” there is not a word about Islamic terrorists killing 2,976 people. We saw earlier how Rauf characterized 9/11 as “a crime that happened”; now it is a provocation.

It is not unusual for Rauf to dismiss or ignore the victims of 9/11. During a lecture he gave in Australia in 2005, Rauf said, “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al-Qaeda has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims. You may remember that the U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was secretary of state and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.”
CONTINUED

Imam Rauf is by no means a moderate Muslim. His words have in fact revealed the true Imam Rauf - extreme in his beliefs.  Rauf is much, much too radical and terrorist sympathizing and must not be allowed to build a mosque at Ground Zero, where Muslim extremists murdered 3000 innocents.  Through his words, as seen in the articles above, Imam Rauf has revealed that he is more akin to our enemy than he is a friend to the U.S.

Does Islam Suck?

Al Qaeda's War Against The Catholic Church

Dave Hartline from The American Catholic has written both an outstanding and a very informative article on Al Qaeda's war against The Catholic Church and I am passing it along to you.

From The American Catholic:

While most of the world mourns the nearly three thousand who were brutally murdered by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001, many assume all of Al Qaeda attacks stem from a warped political motive. Most may not be aware that since the day of its inception many of Al Qaeda’s targets have involved the Catholic Church and her holy sites.


Less than one year before the September 11, 2001 attacks Al Qaeda was planning a spectacular Christmas attack at the large and historic Strasbourg Cathedral in France. While this attack was foiled, an attack on the Catholic cathedral in Jakarta, Indonesia was not thwarted, resulting in the deaths of several churchgoers and those on a nearby street.

Yet, five years before this brazen plan, an even more sinister plan was nearly carried out by the chief planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Khalid Sheik Muhammad, which he coordinated to coincide with the visit of Pope John Paul II to Manila for World Youth Day in January of 1995. The plan called for the pontiff to be killed along with countless of the faithful who was planning to see him in Manila that day. Incidentally, some speculate that the crowd that came to see the Polish pontiff that day was nearly the same size that came to see his funeral some ten years later. Some speculate it may have been the largest religious gathering at one place in our known history, some five to seven million strong.

Thankfully this plot was uncovered by sheer coincidence (providence for those who of us who are believers) The Manila fire department was called after apartment dwellers reported a kitchen fire, which turned out to be bomb making gone awry. Khalid Sheik Muhammad had already left Manila for the Middle East. However, it was due to evidence uncovered at the scene of the fire that security officials began to understand the emerging terror network that would be known as Al Qaeda (the base.)


Though it would be quite some time before terror officials around the world would come to understand Al Qaeda, there were faint glimpses beginning to emerge of the nefarious plans the network had in store for all those, including many Muslims, who would not fit into their ideology. Several smaller attacks others around the world, most notably in the Arabian Peninsula seemed too small or too unprofessional for terror officials to think that Al Qaeda could ever top something of the caliber of an Imad Mughniyeh plot. Mughniyeh was believed responsible for the nearly simultaneous Beirut attacks on US Marines and French paratroopers in 1983 that left hundreds dead. He was believed to live under the protection of the Syrian and Iranian governments, until his reported violent death in February, 2008. No one imagined that Al Qaeda could ever top a plot devised by Imad Mughniyeh.  CONTINUED

Donald Trump Calls Ground Zero Mosque 'Insensitive'

Donald Trump said “I think it's very insensitive to build it there. I think it's not appropriate, a I think it's insensitive and it shouldn't be built there.”

Three Things You Should Know About Islam

Liberals and Muslims Paths Converge

I have been thinking about how much both liberals and Muslims have been working together lately.  Both of their paths seem to converge and now they are working in concert to impose intolerance on other religions such as traditional Christianity and the Jewish faith or those religious peoples' that do not follow the religion of Islam. I mean before this Ground Zero Mosque debate, when have you ever heard or seen liberals defending any person's right to religion?  Liberals are usually attacking Christianity and shouting "separation of Church and State" from the rooftops, pushing the secularization of America to the enth degree, but for some reason now they are defending the Muslims and the religion of Islam when that particular religion was either perverted or correctly applied when 19 Muslims murdered 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001 only a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.  But, separation of Church and State means absolutely nothing to liberals in this intance.

Liberals want to "transform" America and destroy all that America is from within, while Muslims want to destroy the West, especially America, from the outside and create a Caliphate.  Both liberals and Muslims want to destroy America and make it their own -albeit in different ways- but they are committed to working together to destroy America. And, that is where their paths converge, to destroy America by working together to dismantle any trace amounts of America being a Judeo-Christian nation, and our Republic.    

Just recently I found an article written by Michael Youssef that exposes a writer on an Arab website who proceeded to explain to her Arabic readers about the Unitarian Church and many “other Christian denominations,” referring mainly to mainline denominations, and why Muslims should be supportive of them.


She said they are not like those “traditional Christians” who believe in the divinity of Christ. They, like us “Muslims,” believe that Jesus was just a good prophet: ‘To be sure, they do not believe in Mohammad as the true prophet of Allah, but we can get along with them.”

Then, Michael Youssef points out, yet, one more reason why both Muslims and liberals, or Muslims, Unitarians and the liberal mainline denominations are working together -- they all reject Biblical truth.

We must stop both liberals and Muslims

from destroying America!!!

Sacrilege at Ground Zero; Does One Really Have the Right to Build Anywhere?

I am in total agreement with Charles Krauthemmer. He is spot on! And, since Krauthammer is so eloquent and nails it, IMO, I am posting his wise words on the Ground Zero Mosque below:

By Charles Krauthamer:
A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).


When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom, asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation." Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show "special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by "insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter, there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy? CONTINUED

Do the people who want to have a mosque built just a stone's throw away from hallowed ground really have a "right" to build this mosque?  If the proposed building of a particular building on a site can be refused due to zoning laws and aesthetics why couldn't the sensitivity of  the victims families of those murdered on 9/11 hold more clout and overrule the "right" for this mosque to be built? Wouldn't you think that the sensitivity of the 9/11 victims families would be considered far more important to take into account than zoning laws or aesthetics when approving the building of a particular building? I would think so, and in spades.

My Rant on the Ground Zero Mosque

Newt Gingrich is spot on!! We are asked or told to bend over backwards for Muslims and Islam, which is a so-called religion, and yet they won’t respect a majority of the 9/11 families' wishes to stop the building of this mosque, along with a majority of the citizens of the United States who are against this mosque being built so close to Ground Zero  -- 2 blocks from Ground Zero -- where Islamic extremists murdered close to 3000 innocents. If these Muslims really wanted to build bridges and truly respected people of other faiths then they would offer to build the mosque at a different location, further away from Ground Zero or just abandon the building of the mosque altogether. This is pouring salt on the wounds of the 9/11 victims’ families.  This is totally making my blood boil and has me crying inside for both the 9/11 families and our country. This is going to cause many families mental anguish. These Muslims are claiming that they are building this mosque so that they may build bridges with citizens of other faiths but by forcing this mosque down our throats and having this mosque built so, so, so close to Ground Zero they are doing the exact opposite -- breaking bridges and causing tensions to mount.  If these Muslims really respected American citizens they would follow Pope John Paul II's example of how he strove to build bridges in Auschwitz and across Europe.  While I disagree with the notion that there is a similarity between Carmelite nuns and Muslims or Islamic extremists since I don't think any Carmelite nuns murdered innocents, I do think that there is an apt comparison between the Ground Zero Mosque and the abandoned building which was used as a convent in Auschwitz. The Muslims who want this mosque to be built need to reveal all sources of funding and prove that they are getting absolutely NO funding from any terrorist organization.  Then, in my book, it would also be a must for them to change their date that they have planned for opening the mosque, from September 11 to any other day of the year. Just because these Muslims may have a "right" ( which I don't think they do, since they would be building this mosque in a war zone) to build a mosque in this particular location doesn't mean that it is necessarily the right thing to do.  It is simply not right for a mosque to be built so close to Ground Zero.

No Mosque at Ground Zero!

Muslims already have at least one mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero and don't need another.  If we allow Muslims to have yet another mosque, and that one exist within a couple blocks of Ground Zero we are waving the white flag and allowing terrorists to win, letting Muslims rule the world and create a caliphate.  This mosque has nothing to do with freedom of religion or freedom of speech but in having the citizens of the United States be subjugated by the Muslim world.  We must not let Muslims distort freedom of religion to further both their cause of terrorism and further their endgame of having complete control around the world.



H/T CreepingSharia