Infiltration, Subversion, Obfuscation, Treason, Terror & Deceit:
The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all religions. It is a Muslim’s destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny ……..
Excellent observations by Raymond Ibrahim/Pajamas Media
Islamist enmity for infidels, regularly manifested in the jihad, is by now moderately well known. Lesser known, however, but of equal concern, is the mandate for Muslims to be loyal to fellow Muslims and Islam â€” a loyalty that all too often translates intoÂ disloyalty to all things non-Muslim, including the American people and their government.
This dichotomy of loyalty to Muslims and enmity for infidels â€” which, incidentally, corresponds well with Islamic law’s division of the world into the abode of war (deserving of enmity) and the abode of Islam (deserving of loyalty) â€” is founded on a Muslim doctrine calledÂ wala’ wa bara’ (best translated as “loyalty and enmity”). I first encountered this doctrine whileÂ translating various Arabic documents forÂ The Al Qaeda Reader. In fact, the longest and arguably most revealing document I included in that volume is titled “Loyalty and Enmity” (pgs.63-115), compiled by Aymen Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two.
I say “compiled” because most of the words are direct quotes from the Koran, the Muslim prophet Muhammad, and Islam’s jurists (i.e., this doctrine is not an “al-Qaeda” phenomenon but rather permeates the Islamicate worldview). Those interested are urged to read the whole treatise. For our purposes, however, a few key scriptures must suffice:
Koran 5:51 warns Muslims against “taking the Jews and Christians as friends and allies … whoever among you takes them for friends and allies, he is surely one of them,” i.e., he becomes a non-believing “infidel,” the worst thing in Islam. According to authoritative Muslim exegete, al-Tabari, Koran 5:51 means that the Muslim who “allies with them [non-Muslims] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community.” Similar scriptures include Koran 3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 58:22; the latter simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims â€” “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin.” Conversely, according toÂ Muhammad, “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim. He neither oppresses him nor humiliates him nor looks down upon him…. All things of a Muslim are inviolable for his brother in faith: his blood, his wealth, and his honor” â€” precisely those three things Islamic law singles out asnot being vouchsafed to free infidels.
The problem here is that these scriptures are not mere words; American Muslims act on them. Consider the ongoing case ofÂ Nasser Abdo, an infantryman assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, who refuses to deploy to Afghanistan: “I don’t believe I can involve myself in an army that wages war against Muslims. I don’t believe I could sleep at night if I take part, in any way, in the killing of a Muslim…. I can’t deploy with my unit to Afghanistan and participate in the war â€” I can’t both deploy and be a Muslim.” And why is that? “Abdo cited Islamic scholars and verses from the Quran [no doubt such as the above] as reasons for his decision to ask for separation from the Army.” Indeed, his loyalty to foreign Afghani Muslims is such that, if he does not get discharged, “he will, apparently, be facing a prison sentence.”
Rather than going quietly to prison, majorÂ Nidal Hasan went on the infamous Fort Hood killing spree, slaying thirteen Americans. Maintaining that “Muslims shouldn’t kill Muslims,” he was, like Abdo, adamant about not being deployed to a Muslim nation, his “worst nightmare.” He was also “very upfront about being a Muslim first and an American second,” thereby showing where his true loyalty lay. Tabari’s words come to mind: the Muslim who “allies with them [e.g., Americans] and enables them against the believers, that same one is a member of their faith and community,” i.e., he too becomes an infidel.
And of course there was sergeantÂ Hasan Akbar, who was convicted of murder for killing two American soldiers and wounding fourteen in a grenade attack in Kuwait: “He launched the attack because he was concerned U.S. troops would kill fellow Muslims in Iraq.” Previous to the attack, he confessed toÂ his diary: “I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill.”
Nor is Muslim loyalty simply limited to the fear of killing fellow Muslims; rather, it is loyalty in the tribal sense (not surprising, since Islam transferred the tenacity of Arab tribal loyalty onto theÂ umma, whereby Islam became a “super tribe,” transcending race and language). Thus, for helping convict five Muslims who were plotting to kill American soldiers in the Fort Dix terrorism trial,Â Mahmoud Omar has been ostracized by the Muslim community. Why? Because “in a twisted way…their [the terrorists’] actions are understandable in the Muslim community.” Omar adds, “For Muslims, we are all brothers, and I betrayed a brother”â€” echoing Muhammad’s injunction: “A Muslim is the brother of a Muslim.”
ProminentÂ American Muslim jurists have further proclaimed that “It is forbidden to work for the FBI or for U.S. security services because these harm Muslims.” Another Muslim jurist said it is permissible for Muslims to serve in the U.S. military â€” provided they are not “involved in fighting, harming, or even bothering Muslims at all.” Similarly, the authoritativeÂ Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America issued a fatwa stating that it is “not permissible” for American Muslims to send aid, even food, to American troops serving in Muslim countries.
At this point, one may justly ask: if Muslim disloyalty to non-Muslims is a ubiquitous phenomenon, why are most examples limited to the military? Simple: Islam is primarily concerned with actualÂ deeds; and the military is one of those rare institutions that requires people to demonstrate their loyalty through action, such as, by going to the frontlines and, if need be, combating America’s enemies â€” even if they be one’s coreligionists. It is therefore only natural that Muslim loyalty/disloyalty is primarily revealed in military related scenarios, including instrumental support via food or other aid. Concerning this latter,Â Muhammad said, “One [Muslim] who equips a person on his way to raid [the enemy’s camps] in Allah’s path [jihad] is considered to have the same status as the raider [jihadist].” The willing Muslim financial enabler of the infidel American soldier thus acquires the same infidel status.
As for all other instances that require Muslims to indicate their loyalty,Â the doctrine of taqiyya, which revolves around deceiving non-Muslims, offers relief, and is in fact essential for Muslim minorities living in America who want to uphold the doctrine of loyalty and enmity. Indeed, the Koran’s primary justification for deception is in the context of loyalty: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels [non-Muslims] instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah â€” unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions” (Koran 3:28). Tabari explains this verse: “Only when you are in their [non-Muslims’] power, fearing for yourselves, are you to demonstrate friendship for them with your tongues, while harboring hostility toward them. But do not join them in the particulars of their infidelities,Â and do not aid them through any action against a Muslim.”
In other words, when necessary, Muslims are permitted to feign friendship and loyalty to non-Muslims, or, in the words ofÂ Abu Darda, a pious companion of Muhammad, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Nearly fourteen-hundred years after these faithless words were uttered, American MuslimTarik Shah, who was arrested for terrorist-related charges, echoed them in boast: “I could be joking and smiling [with infidels] and then cutting their throats in the next second.”
At any rate, such is the symbiotic relationship that Islam’s doctrines share: when the deceit, the charade is to no avail and the lives of fellow Muslims, whom are deserving of loyalty, become endangered, Muslims must then stand their ground, come what may. Thus an Akbar, Hasan, or Abdo may appear as perfectly loyal American citizens, until being required to prove their loyalty against Muslims. As Zawahiri puts it in his treatise, the Muslim may pretend, so long as he does “not undertake any initiative to support them [non-Muslims], commit sin, or enable [them] through any deed or killing or fighting against Muslims” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p.75).
The ramifications of this doctrine are clearly troubling, especially since far less than .1% of America’s Muslims will ever be required to enlist in the U.S. military and deploy to Muslim nations. Yet this is the only scenario that determines whether Muslim loyalties lie with fellow Muslims or with fellow, albeit infidel, citizens. Moreover, it is one thing if the average American Muslim harbors loyalty to fellow Muslims, including terrorists such as al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. It is quite another if that Muslim happens to be in a position of authority in the United States. This observation naturally leads to a president who up toÂ 24% of Americans andmany Muslims believe is a clandestine Muslim and who at least appears to have beenÂ raised a Muslim: Barrack Hussein Obama.
While there is no proof that he is a Muslim â€” indeed, no less an authority thanÂ Jeremiah Wright, the fellow who used to bellow “God damn America!” recently vouched for Obama’s Christianity â€” the point here is simple:Â ifan American president was a secret Muslim, andÂ if he was lying about it, and evenÂ if he was secretly working to subvert the U.S. to Islam’s advantage â€” not only would such an approach comport with Islam’s doctrines on loyalty and deception, but it would have ample precedents, stretching back to the dawn of Islam. Such as when Muhammad commanded one Na’im bin Mas’ud, a convert from an adversarial tribe that refused to submit to Islam, to conceal his new Muslim identity, go back to his tribe â€” which he cajoled with a perfidious “You are my stock and my family, the dearest of men to me” â€” only to betray them to Islam.
Here’s a second article on this subject, thanks to Mullah
Islam’s Invasion Ideology
In the same way that a fake $100 bill is not legitimate currency, Islam is a counterfeit religionand therefore does not qualify for first amendment status. It is extremely incorrect to categorize Islam as a religion when its coreÂ literatureÂ and bloody trackÂ recordÂ prove a thousand times over that it is an –Â Invasion ideology, a shrewd and cunning predator — disguising itself as a religion.
Irrefutable evidence proves Islam to be a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” and a “Trojan horse” hell bent upon destroyingÂ all religionsÂ and nations worldwide. This irrefutable evidence is a book called the Koran where Allah commands that all Muslims mustÂ wageÂ Jihad until the entire world and every single person is either converted to Islam, enslaved, murdered, tortured or abused.
“Fight them until all opposition ends, and all submit to Allah” (Koran: 8:39)
The Koran is a Manual of War
It is an error for anyone to call Islam a religion, but for those who insist, it’s best referred to as a “Religion of War” that has arrived on our shore as an enemy invader for the sole purpose of conquering our nation. This point cannot be overemphasized.
The Koran vows to vanquishÂ all religionsÂ and nations worldwide.Â Allah himself is the protagonist who relishes the role of a “hit man” vowing to knock off every person who rejects Islam — sending them to burn in everlasting hell.Â For Allah, there is nothing more heinous and loathsome than those infidels (non-believers) who refuse to convert, and there is nothing he will not do to eradicate them.
“I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore, smite them on their necks and everyÂ jointÂ and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off their fingers and toes.” (Koran 8:12)
“Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: Wipe the infidels out to the last.” (Koran: 8:7)
Read the Koran for Yourself
Don’t take my word on it.Â Read the Koran.Â By so doing you will be outraged and ask, “Why in heavens name would any person with integrity and intellectual objectivity call such a blood thirsty and homicidally bigoted “tirade” — a sacred and holy book?”
Below are two sources for authentic passages from the Koran. The first is entitledÂ Â Â “Islamic Quotes” taken fromÂ prophetofdoom.net .Â It provides a few hundred quotes organized into 30 different categories and is very “digestible” giving immediate insight into the malevolence of the Koran and related Islamic texts. The second is an article byÂ Citizen Warrior encouraging everyone to read the Koran, especially “An Abridged Koran” by CSPI. The advantage of the abridged version is that it eliminates monotonous repetition and provides commentary giving a comprehensive perspective and meaning to the text.
One does not need aÂ crystal ballÂ to foretell that Islam will turn America into a living hell if left unchecked.Â 9/11 was America’s initiation into the so called “religious rites” of Islam. Millions of Americans are outraged that the real culprit in this attack has been given a “free pass” to continue its rampage.
Since 9/11, theÂ religion of peace website has documented 16,124 deadly attacks committed by Islam as mandated by the Koran. These prove that Islam does not deserve the status of a religion and that America has been hoodwinked by so doing. We need to face reality, and implement effective methods if we wish to protect our nation from this religious imposter.
One writer bringing clarity to the situation is Daniel Greenfield. In his article: “Can We Ban Islam? Legal Guidelines for the Criminalization of Islam in the United States” he states in the affirmative that America can legally ban Islam because:
“Organizations aimed at the overthrow of the United States can be banned andÂ membershipÂ in them can even be criminalized.”
They key word here is “overthrow”.Â Any group that wishes to overthrow the United States can be banned. It is well past time for open debate and discussion upon this issue in regards to Islam.
To reiterate, Islam does not qualify for religion status in the USA because it anÂ Invasion Ideology which absolutely mandates the conquest of the United States.Â Please see my related article entitled“Demoting Islam’s Religion Status” it provides the basic elements for discussion and reflection. Â Also, a must see “you tube” video namedÂ “3 Things about Islam” provides a concise summary of the challenge we face.Â It is imperative for all Americans to learn the truth about Islam or it will eventually destroy us.
Martel Sobieskey has 36 years research experience in the field of religiousÂ conditioningÂ and its relationship to warfare.Â He is greatly alarmed that American politicians, militaryÂ commanders, educators, journalists, intelligence analysts, andÂ securityÂ and police personnel have failed to comprehend the deeply entrenched jihadistÂ conditioningÂ inherent in all of Islam â€“ moderates included