Islam to reign over Britain, US, rest of world: test of freedom of religion.
“Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America,” he asked in an attempt to explain. “Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none.”
Humphries asked: “Do you call for that?”
“Of course,” he replied, “we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam.”
Abu Saif explained Islam, like Christianity, has a prophetic tradition.
“One of the prophecies of the message of Muhammad was the hour will never come, i.e., the last day – which you also believe in – will never come until a group of the Muslims … will rise and conquer the white house.”
See, here’s the thing: MY religion calls for the eradication of fundamentalist Islam. Do the American laws allow me to do this? No. Where, then, is this so-called freedom of religion? There is none.
(Just kidding about the “eradication” thing. The recursive iterations of irony got the better of me.)
My religion frowns on genocide, but these bastards are gonna force it on us. Somebody’s gonna have to sell some indulgences.
My religion is a bit wishy-washy on self-preservation, but I’m pretty sold on it. I guess I’m just not fundamentalist enough.
“….And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam.”
And PW commentors such as Semanticleo, timmyb and heet would welcome their Islamic overlords. Hey, Anybody But Boosh!
Cordially…
TW magic: level England’s. Really tuned in to the Sharia doctors there.
Moonbatosphere translation: We’re just really pissed at Reagan over the whole Iran-Contra scandal.
Tw: “deflect” your attention from the plain meaning of their words, and substitute any random American (Republican) foreign policy bugaboo that could be a “plausible” trigger for Islamist blowback.
The essence of why boutique multiculturalism is such a feel-good bit of western arrogance: we pretend to allow for the “Otherness” of various groups, but we are suddently stunned — and demand something be done — when that Otherness asserts itself in ways essential to the world view.
Exoticism is great until someone loses an eye. Or a head.
I mean, I like hummus as much as the next guy. But that doesn’t mean I’m comfortable with allowing Sharia law — which is the essence of “true” Islam, and which is incompatible both with the western concepts of inalienable universal rights and pluralism.
“Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America?”
Of course you can, you dumbass. It’s just that everyone around you ALSO gets a vote. And I don’t think your idea is as popular as you seem to think that it is.
“So where is the freedom of religion?”
Displayed quite clearly in the fact that you aren’t sent to jail for “breathing while Muslim”, or forced to partake in Communion on pain of death, or having to worry whether the Lutherans down the street will be firebombing your mosque.
“One of the prophecies of the message of Muhammad was the hour will never come, i.e., the last day – which you also believe in – will never come until a group of the Muslims … will rise and conquer the white house.â€ÂÂ
Mohammed spoke about the White House? I call shenanigans…
Meanwhile, I’m signing up with Phinn’s religion…
At some time or another those on the left pooh poohing Islamic radicalism need to start believing what the jihadists are saying.
Unlike Christianity there is nothing, nada, zilch in the quran or any of the widely recognized hadiths that allow for anything ressembling separation of church and state. Thus when a Muslim jihadist says his vision is to conquer the world and convert all forms of government to Islamic authority (re. Sha’ria) he really means it AND he is fully supported by his scripture. Christians (except fot a tiny, pathetic group of idiots) understand what Jesus meant when he said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.” The vision of Ataturk was a departure from the faith or an innovation, not an extention or re-interpretation of islamic scripture.
I’m not saying that most Muslims feel this way but it is a sad truth that ALL Muslims living in democracies have to deal with the basic incompatibility of their religion with Western liberal governmental principles.
Test2 test2
Hate the new TT
Well, ya see Abu Saif (nice name, BTW, “Father Sword”) the term “religious freedom” means the government can’t force you to become a Presbyterian or something. You have the right, enshrined in our Constitution, to believe as you choose.
You do NOT have the right to force all the Presbyterians to convert to Islam on pain of death. Clear?
Good. Now fuck off, there’s a a good little nutter.
I’m with Drumwaster on this – of course Abu Nutqais can call for the destruction of the US government in favor of a 7th Century theocratic despotism. The line is drawn when cars start detonating and throats are slit. Don’t be surprised when folks start shooting back at that point, Abu.
It’s a circle. So circular. Just circles.
Hmmm, well that resolves the question of whether or not I’m going to take advantage of Sportsmans’ Guide’s latest sale on ammunition – I’ll put a couple of cases of 7.62×51 ball ammo on my credit card.
tw: uneasy coloni – uh, yes that is the point
If the muzzies force shari’a law on the US, what happens to all the Hooter’s? Not to mention the strip clubs, bbq pork rib restaurants, etc. I don’t think that’s gonna play too well down in Peoria.
nikkolai – Big Al’s would go out of business, quickly.
See, we once had a situation where a sad little man wrote and said clearly what he was going to do once he got power. We laughed, and ignored him. Until, that is, 6 million orders of oven-baked Zyklon-B tenderized kosher Long Pig showed up at the door.
At which point some of us made a quiet little resolution, to believe that someone meant what they said, to believe that the next-door neighbors who heard this and didn’t bury the speaker under the asylum (or at least tell him loudly and repeatedly that he was crazy, and no, they wouldn’t help) were either in agreement or so useless that allowing them to waste oxygen any longer was a Bad Thing, and that stopping him early was preferred to having to clean up later.
SDN, odd how fast people forget.
Actually, the way Arab naming conventions work, Abu Saif just means his eldest son’s name is Saif. His wife would be named Um Saif, meaning the Mother of Saif. Once you have a son you pretty much give up your own name and are Abu or Um so-and-so to everyone but very close friends and family.
Actually Gidgi, the way I understand it is, that would be one of the ways he would be known. He’d still have his given name, and he’d also have his “son of” name honoring his father.
As for “Abu” always referring to his son, that’s not the case either. Some Arab men, especially fanatics, adopt “father of” formulations for political effect. Thus “Father of the Sword.”
nikkolai – Big Al’s would go out of business, quickly.
Good Lord, someone else who’s been to Peoria.
“I’m with Drumwaster on this – of course Abu Nutqais can call for the destruction of the US government in favor of a 7th Century theocratic despotism. The line is drawn when cars start detonating and throats are slit. Don’t be surprised when folks start shooting back at that point, Abu.”
Well, this does raise an interesting point.
It all depends how he phrases the rant as to whether or not he crosses the line and violates the Terroristic Threats statute. I’m not a lawyer but I do know that this statute was originally put into place to prevent people from threatening bodily harm to others and was strengthened after the Columbine killings to include internet threats. Here’s a brain quiz for the memebership:
1) “We hope someday for the destruction of the American Government and the rise of an Islamic Theocracy!”
Nope, probably doesn’t rise to the test for Terroristic Threat (or treason for that matter.)
2) “We call on the faithful to rise up and kill those in power so that Islam will rule supreme in America.”
Clearly, knock on the door, hello, we’re from the FBI and you need to come with us.
3) ” We call for Jihad from all the faithful to insure the destruction of th American Government and the establishment of an Islamic State!”
Now does the above phrase raise itself to the level of #2? I would argue that it does, as the intention of the speaker in using the word “Jihad” indicates violence will be done.
So, do we arrest everyone who uses the word “Jihad” in a like matter? In other contexts? I don’t confess to have a definitive construct but it is an interesting exercise vis a vis Freedom of Speech.
while we are at it, let’s keep in mind that this thug doesn’t have sole responsibility for defining Freedom of Religion within his own, fevered vision.
“One of the prophecies of the message of Muhammad was the hour will never come, i.e., the last day – which you also believe in – will never come until a group of the Muslims … will rise and conquer the white house.â€Â
Funny, I thought it was in Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177 (and other versions) where they laid out what God expects Muslims to fulfill in order to bring “the hour” (of resurrection):
The Hour will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them, and the rock and the tree will say: “Oh, Muslim, servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, kill him!”
And this by the way is the real and only reason that the Palestinians (and other Arabs) are completely unwilling to make peace with Israel.
I love this site, so thank you