• January 2015
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec   Feb »
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 119,964 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 37 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!


  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

  • Advertisements

Why Won’t The White House Name Islamic Extremism?

An Islamist protest in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

An Islamist protest in the UK. (Photo: © Reuters)

By Elliot Friedland | Mon, January 19, 2015

The White House has refused to name Islamic extremism directly as the motivating factor behind the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, instead referring to the ideological motivations indirectly.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary was asked in a briefing why the White House will not speak about Islamic extremism. A reporter asked him “the leader of France, your ally in this effort, has put a name on this ideology, which he calls “radical Islam.” You have bent over backwards to not ever say that. There must be a reason.“

He responded “I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a position where I’m repeating the justification that they have cited that I think is completely illegitimate, right? That they have invoked Islam to try to justify their attacks.” Earnest here is categorically refusing to accept the terrorists’ own explanation for their attacks, seemingly on the grounds that attempting to understand the motivations that terrorists themselves put forward is tantamount to a tacit acceptance or even support for their views.

On being pressed, Earnest detailed two reasons for not wanting to name the ideology behind worldwide Islamist terrorism.

“The first is accuracy” he said. “We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism, and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.”

This proffered explanation is completely devoid of any context or teleological purpose. It is also deceptive. An act of terrorism is only that because of its connection to a political ideology, the advancement of which the spread of terror is supposed to aid. There is no such thing as an act of terrorism shorn of an attendant ideology, that is simply murder. Seemingly the White House is attempting to construct the idea of  “an act of terrorism” in a way that removes any need for the state to identify the causal ideology. That way it is not part of a broader trend, it simply is. Furthermore, Earnest places the act of terrorism first, arguing that the explanations only came afterwards, as if the true goal is wanton slaughter, with any explanation sufficing afterwards in an attempt to cover it up. This line of thinking is palpably false.

Earnest goes on “The second is this is an act that was roundly condemned by Muslim leaders. Again, I’m describing to you the reasons why we have not chosen to use that label because it doesn’t seem to accurately describe what had happened. We also don’t want to be in a situation where we are legitimizing what we consider to be a completely illegitimate justification for this violence, this act of terrorism.”

It is absurd to say that identifying a person’s motivation is the same as legitimizing it. One can speak perfectly easily about apartheid (for example) without legitimizing a legal system which enshrines white people as superior to black people. On the contrary, identifying and deconstructing the ideology behind apartheid was a key factor in ultimately defeating it.

He does not mention that many of those Muslim leaders who condemned the Charlie Hebdo attacks are themselves terrorist sympathizers or supporters. The King of Saudi Arabia, for example, had Raif Badawi, the human rights activist, flogged just after the attack on Charlie Hebdo. The Council on American Islamic Relations also condemned the terrorist attacks, despite being designated by the United Arab Emirates as a terrorist organization themselves. They are a Muslim Brotherhood front group that operates in America and are listed by the State Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terror financing trial in American history.

The point blank refusal to refer to Islamic extremism as such drew criticism. MSNBC covered the issue on its “Morning Joe” show, asking a government spokesman to explain why the government refused to name the issue, in sharp contrast to other world leaders who have defined the driving ideology of global terrorism in no uncertain terms.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, described Islamic extremism as a “poisonous, fanatical death cult.” The British communities secretary, Eric Pickles, has just written to 1,100 Imams and mosques across the country, urging them to do more to tackle “men of hate” within Muslim communities. Responding to criticism of the letter, Cameron said that “Anyone reading this letter who has a problem with it, I think really has a problem. It’s the most reasonable, sensible, moderate letter that Eric could have written.”

Instead of identifying the issue in this way, however, the White House will be hosting a summit in February on countering violent extremism in general.

Earnest said that the summit aimed to “discuss how extremists are using social media platforms to try to inspire acts of violence and inspire extremism — expressions of extremism by other people.” He also said there would be a focus on ”strategies that we can employ to better promote pluralism, inclusion and resilience in communities all across the country.”

Earnest also alluded to the possibility of putting White House pressure on journalists and other media professionals to self-censor when it was deemed to be in the national security interest to do so. He was asked a question about a statement made by a previous White House press secretary regarding the 2012 Charlie Hebdo firebombing. Asked about the cartoon cited as provocation by the terrorists the spokesperson said that the White House “questioned the judgement of the publication of that particular cartoon.”

In response Earnest upheld the previous statement, saying that certain publications can put American soldiers abroad in danger, adding “the President and his spokesman was not then and will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.”

The White House has failed to lay out a either a comprehensive defense of free speech or accurately identify Islamic extremism as the source of international jihadism. It’s inability to do so will severely hamper American efforts to fight global terrorism.

Posted on 19 Jan 15 by The Clarion Project

[Editor’s Note: This does not necessarily entail the beliefs, thoughts, or theories of the local Act chapters nor the National Act office…they are my beliefs, thoughts and/or theories. This shows 2 things…#1 that our government only follows after what they are told to say, which is dictated by our illustrious king, Barack Hussein Islama (when he tries to hide the truth about Islam, his religion and his “Change” for the United States of America), and #2, the federal government is very incompetent and stupid, and does not have a clue concerning Islam. They go by what they are told by their king and leader (BHO)…they (the DEMONcrats) refuse to do any research into what Islam is, nor the history of Islam, to find out what these radical. extremist, Islamic terrorist are doing is actually Islam…in fact, it is OBLIGATED for them to do…

noun: obligation; plural noun: obligations

an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.
“he has enough cash to meet his present obligations”
synonyms: duty, commitment, responsibility, moral imperative; More
function, task, job, assignment, commission, burden, charge, onus, liability, accountability, requirement, debt;
literary trust
“no obligation may be placed upon you without your consent”
compulsion, duty, indebtedness;
duress, necessity, pressure, constraint
“he felt an obligation to tip well”
the condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
“they are under no obligation to stick to the scheme”

So, for the “radical, extremist Muslims to perform these acts, is very much what Islam is…contrary to what the president/mahdi Barack Hussein Islama, or anyone in the White House, or any “Moderate” Muslim leaders say, the true fact concerning Islam IS THAT THESE ACTS ARE ISLAM, AND NOT JUST DEMENTED VERSIONS OF PSYCHOS CALLING THEMSELVES MUSLIMS…it’s like ISIS…they are doing exactly what their final prophet (although a false, demon possessed one) told them to do, more so than any other terrorist group…even destroying the Kaaba, because, marching around the meteorite stone seven times, then kissing/touching/looking at it is worshipping it, which goes against what Muhammed said. ISIS killing Shi’ite Muslims, and even Sunni Muslims as hypocrites, is what Muhammed said to do, because they are not follow, exactly, word for word, what Muhammed said to do…which was perform lesser jihad to terrorize the world into becoming so scared the world submits to allah or dies…

So, for the WH to make such an ignorant statement concerning the extremist Islamic terrorism, is just imbeciles following the wolf in sheeps clothing, that is leading them to their deaths, which BHO is doing that…because the US will not be free, nor Christian by the middle of 2016…due to prophesies of the dollar/economy dying in Sept 2015, and martial law coming around Oct 2015, the once president, but then newly appointed DICKtator will push off his GRAND JIHAD that the Muslim Brotherhood vowed they would perform to conquer America, the Great Satan, and make it an Islamic country.

Yes this is my opinion, but it is based on prophecy that has been put out, as well as watching the signs and seeing the evidence coming out…one more piece of bad news…in my Bible studying, I regret to say that, through symbolism and iconology and such in Revelation, America isn’t really mentioned, and going to back to the Old Testament, when you look at what had happened to Israel/Judah many times that they left God/ Yeshua’s side, Israel/Judah suffered economic destruction, then country destruction/slavery…there is a prophecy against America that sometime in 2017 Russia will attack America, the dominoes are lining up for this to happen, after all we are friends now with Cuba (which is also friends with Russia), and nuclear ICBMs can reach us without a problem from Cuba. And if you do research on Russia and America currently, there is a huge distrust and a new cold war, with reports going on about Obama trying to to do a false flag against Russia using Ukraine, and the mess is just going on between Russia and the United States of Obamamerica.

One thing that the White House (other than Barack Hussein Obama, the WH Imam, because he already knows) does not know concerning the Muslim world leaders that talk against the “extreme Islamists” is that, once again, according to the Qur’an, the Sira, aHadiths and Shari’a, Muslims are to perform taqiyya…]

In Shi’a Islam, taqiyya (تقیة taqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious dissimulation,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] The corresponding concept in Sunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) “coercion”. A related concept is known as kitman “concealment; dissimulation by omission”. Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage.

The Qur’an:

  • Qur’an (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
  • Qur’an (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves.”
  • Qur’an (9:3)“…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…”  The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture.  They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.
  • Qur’an (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who must “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
  • Qur’an (2:225)“Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”  The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.
  • Qur’an (66:2)“Allah has already ordained for you, (O men), the dissolution of your oaths”
  • Qur’an (3:54)“And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.”  The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’.  If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.

From the Hadith:

  • Bukhari (52:269)“The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'”  The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed men by Muhammad’s men after he “guaranteed” them safe passage (see Additional Notes below).
  • Bukhari (49:857)“He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”  Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
  • Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permissible in order to deceive an “enemy.”
  • Muslim (32:6303)“…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
  • Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence.  The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad.  This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered despite putting up a ferocious struggle for his life.

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveller (p. 746 – 8.2) –  “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it.  When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.

H/T to The Religion of Peace

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: