A View From The 9/11 "Stop The Mosque" Rally At Ground Zero

Joseph Nassralla, Coptic Christian human rights activist, made a heart wrenching speech on behalf of the much persecuted Christians of Egypt. Robert Spencer wrote:

“Nassralla garnered national attention last June at the first rally Geller and I hosted against the Ground Zero Mosque, when Keith Olbermann and other hard-Left pseudo-journalists trumpeted and misrepresented a misunderstanding between Nassralla and some others in the crowd as a racial incident.”
The liberal left media turned what was shrugged off by those involved into a yarn about intolerance in America. Nassralla’s startling speech put the lie to the leftist spin as he told of how, after escaping from Egypt, he is terrified by the growth of intolerant Islam in New York City and America.

In heavily accented English Nassralla spoke of the persecution and atrocities that are suffered by the Christian population of Egypt:

Wake up America! I came from Egypt. Egypt was Coptic, was Christian. 1,400 years Islamists conquered our country. You know it’s written in the Koran that war is deceiving. They can lie to build this mosque here — on my dead body. I escaped from Egypt for freedom here. Where I can go? You need me to go to the moon now? . . .

I’m sorry to show you my picture. This is one of our dear friends in Egypt. One of eight — eight of them on the Christmas night. In the name of Islam, they said “Allah hu akhbar,” and they killed them in front of the church.

Three thousand persons buried here, in this same area. . . . In ten years, if this mosque built here, using taqiya, using islamize of this country, you cannot stop them. It’s gonna be too late. . . . I’m saying to you, “WAKE UP AMERICA!!” You don’t need to be like this picture. Stop islamization of America.”

The Crusades - An Overview

Ed. note: the following summary of the crusades is taken from Thomas Madden's excellent Concise History of the Crusades, published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Ltd., 1999, pp. 213-215, and is reprinted here by kind permission of the author and the publisher. The entire book is a fine and up-to-date survey of crusading, suitable for students and the general reader alike.

For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love; but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place.

It is easy for moderns to dismiss the crusades as morally repugnant, cynically evil, or as Runciman summed them up, "nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God." Yet such judgements tell us more about the observer than the observed. They are based on uniquely modern (and, therefore, western) values. If from the safety of our desk we are quick to condemn the medieval crusader, we should be mindful that he would be just as quick to condemn us. Our infinitely more destructive wars waged for the sake of political and social ideologies would, in his opinion, be lamentable wastes of human life. In both societies, the medieval and the modern, men fight for what is most dear to them. That is a fact of human nature that is not so changeable.

It is common today to brand the crusades a failure even at attaining their original goals. Jerusalem was conquered, it is often asserted, but the crusader kingdom was short-lived. It may seem so from our own day, but it is not so. Jerusalem remained in crusader hands for 88 years, and the kingdom lasted in Palestine for 192 years.  ¼ only distracted Muslim powers; they also formed a buffer between the Arabs and Turks and the vulnerable Byzantine Empire. It is true that the Fourth Crusade did immeasurable damage to the city of Constantinople, but it was Byzantium's subsequent weakness that made it permanent. It cannot be said (although it is often said) that the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 was responsible for the fall of the empire in 1453. Byzantium survived 192 years after it regained its capital. It is in those years that the seeds of the empire's downfall can be found. Despite the many tragedies, the crusades may well have added years to the life span of the Byzantine Empire.

For good or ill, the crusading movement did have long-term effects. In the judgement of the Enlightenment historian Edward Gibbon, the crusades sapped from western Europe wealth and human lives that would have been better spent at home working hard and fostering friendly relations with the Muslim world. Like all scholars of that era, Gibbon saw medieval Christianity as a vile superstition, and those who fought for it as ignorant or deceived. It is highly questionable, however, whether Europeans would have beaten their swords into ploughshares merely because they lacked an external enemy. More likely they would simply have continued to wage internal warfare with greater vigor. Given the steady Muslim conquest of Christian lands over the centuries, it also seems unlikely that good relations could have been forged between the two religions without first establishing firm and secure borders.

There can be little doubt that the crusades slowed the advance of Islam, although how much is an open question. The presence of the crusader states in the Near East for almost two centuries certainly destabilized Muslim power, and therefore hindered unification into a single Islamic state. Even the crusades that failed or did not materialize forced Muslim powers to divert resources from conquest to their own defense. At the very least, then, the crusades bought western Europe some time. Judging by the number of occasions it narrowly escaped Turkish invasion in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, Europe had need of that time.

In a less direct sense, the crusades did play a part in the eventual neutralization of the Muslim threat. In Spain, where traditional crusade chivalry lasted longer than anywhere else, veterans of the reconquista and crusades in North Africa became the conquistadors of the New World. Although the conquests of Mexico and Peru were not themselves crusades, crusading culture played a crucial role in them. Popes, Spanish monarchs, and conquistadors naturally viewed the people of the New World through the lens of four centuries of crusading. The conquistadors were warriors of Christ in an infidel land. There, they carved out new Christian states. Without hesitation, they raised their swords against the barbaric cruelties of Aztec human sacrifice, which, they were convinced, were Satanic in origin. And they were desirous of booty, which the New World had in abundance. These were all well-established characteristics of the crusades.

Spanish galleons laden with New World gold and silver financed more than one Holy League against the Turks. But more than that, the new wealth, coupled with a rise in industrial technology, allowed Europe to purchase raw materials from the Ottomans and sell back to them the finished goods at a bargain price. The resulting trade deficit, and the repeated failure of the Ottoman Empire to embrace technological advances in anything other than military applications, ultimately doomed the Turkish economy. Europe never did win a decisive war against the Turks until World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was already a dilapidated shell. Unable to compete with Europe's skyrocketing economy, the Ottoman Empire slowly bled to death. In the end, the discovery and exploitation of the New World not only saved western Europe, but propelled it to world hegemony. The Muslim threat was neutralized not by the crusades to the East, but to the West.

---

Copyright (C) 1999, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents,including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Read The Report - Sharia - The Threat To America

Shariah - The Threat to America (Team B Report) 09142010

Soon To Be Made Public - Sharia - The Present Threat To America

In-Depth Report To Be Released on Capitol Hill

Washington, D.C.—Team B II, a group of highly accomplished civilian and military national security professionals, is releasing a major new national security assessment examining the threat posed by Shariah to America. The 177-page report, Shariah: The Threat to America, will be released at a Capitol Hill press conference on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at 12:30 p.m. EDT in U.S. Capitol Room HC-6. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), and Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) will offer remarks, along with leading Team B II authors including Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin and terrorism expert and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew C. McCarthy.

Team B II Report, sponsored by the Center for Security Policy,offers a compelling and comprehensive “second opinion” on the dominant threat of our time: the totalitarian legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah. The authoritative report, which is based on six months of intensive study, takes inspiration from the original 1976 “Team B” report that challenged the then-prevailing U.S. government intelligence estimates about the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union during a period of “détente.” Similarly, the Team B II report challenges the status quo and conventional wisdom in Washington by elucidating the grave threat posed by Shariah to America’s legal system, Constitution, national security, and way of life.

The full report on Shariah: The Threat to America will be available as a softcover book in October, 2010, and can be downloaded from the website www.shariahthethreat.com as of 12:30 pm, Wednesday September 15, 2010.

Distinguished members of Team B II include R. James Woolsey, former Director of Central Intelligence, Lieutenant General Harry “Ed” Soyster, former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Lieutenant General William G. “Jerry” Boykin, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Andrew C. McCarthy, former Assistant U.S. Attorney.

Frank Gaffney states, “With this policy study, the Center intends to catalyze national awareness about Shariah and the peril America faces absent informed and concerted action to confront and defeat the agenda of all who support the encroachment of this alien legal system at the expense of established U.S. law and traditions.”


The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to securing freedom by applying the Reagan philosophy of “Peace through Strength.” For more information about the Center please visit www.SecureFreedom.org. The full “Shariah: The Threat to America” report can be read online at www.shariahthethreat.com at 12:00 noon EDT on September 15, 2010.

The list of contributors is impressive, based on those whom I know personally or through their writings. They include:

• Clare Lopez, Christine Brim, and Frank Gaffney of CSP
• Steve Coughlin, the pre-eminent expert on Islamic law
• Andrew C. McCarthy, prosecutor of the Blind Sheikh and the author ofThe Grand Jihad
• Diana West, author of The Death of the Grown-Up
• David Yerushalmi, who has done so much valuable legal work on behalf of the Counterjihad
• Patrick Poole, who wrote the ground-breaking report on “The Project”
• Brian Kennedy of the Claremont Institute
• Tom Trento of Florida Security Council
• James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA

I haven’t read the entire document yet — it’s 177 pages long — but below are some excerpts from the introduction:

The Contemporary Threat

Today, the United States faces what is, if anything, an even more insidious ideological threat: the totalitarian socio-political doctrine that Islam calls shariah. Translated as “the path,” shariah is a comprehensive legal and political framework. Though it certainly has spiritual elements, it would be a mistake to think of shariah as a “religious” code in the Western sense because it seeks to regulate all manner of behavior in the secular sphere — economic, social, military, legal and political.

Shariah is the crucial fault line of Islam’s internecine struggle. On one side of the divide are Muslim reformers and authentic moderates — figures like Abdurrahman Wahid, the late president of Indonesia and leader of the world’s largest libertarian Muslim organization,Nahdlatul Ulama — whose members embrace the Enlightenment’s veneration of reason and, in particular, its separation of the spiritual and secular realms. On this side of the divide, shariah is a reference point for a Muslim’s personal conduct, not a corpus to be imposed on the life of a pluralistic society.

By contrast, the other side of the divide is dominated by Muslim supremacists, often called Islamists. Like erstwhile proponents of Communism and Nazism, these supremacists — some terrorists, others employing stealthier means — seek to impose a totalitarian regime: a global totalitarian system cloaked as an Islamic state and called a caliphate. On that side of the divide, which is the focus of the present study, shariah is an immutable, compulsory system that Muslims are obliged to install and the world required to adopt, the failure to do so being deemed a damnable offence against Allah. For these ideologues, shariah is not a private matter. Adherents see the West as an obstacle to be overcome, not a culture and civilization to be embraced, or at least tolerated. It is impossible, they maintain, for alternative legal systems and forms of governments peacefully to coexist with the end-state they seek.

The Team B II Consensus

- - - - - - - - -

[…]

Like their counterparts a generation ago, the members of Team B II collectively bring to this task decades of hands-on experience as security policy practitioners and analysts, much of it involving shariah’s proponents of both the violent jihadist and pre-violentdawa stripes. They have distinguished backgrounds in national defense policy-making, military, intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement communities, in academia and in the War of Ideas. Thanks to their expertise and dedication, this new report represents an authoritative, valuable and timely critique of the U.S. government’s present policy towards shariah and its adherents, an assessment of the threat it entails and a call for a long-overdue course-correction. It reflects consensus on the following significant points:

First, the shariah adherents who comprise the supremacist camp constitute a mainstream and dynamic movement in Islam. Importantly, that characterization does not speak to the question of whether this camp is or is not representative of the “true Islam.” There are over a billion Muslims in the world, and their understandings about their belief-system, as well as their practices with respect to it, vary. In light of this, there may not be a single “true Islam.” If there is one, we do not presume to pronounce what it holds.

What cannot credibly be denied, however, is that:

a.		shariah is firmly rooted in Islam’s doctrinal texts, and it is favored by influential Islamic commentators, institutions, and academic centers (for example, the faculty at al-Azhar University in Cairo, for centuries the seat of Sunni learning and jurisprudence);
b.		shariah has been, for over a half-century, lavishly financed and propagated by Islamic regimes (particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran), through the offices of disciplined international organizations (particularly the Muslim Brotherhood); and
c.		due to the fact that Islam lacks a central, universally recognized hierarchical authority (in contrast to, say, the Roman Catholic papacy), authentic Islamic moderates and reformers have an incredibly difficult task in endeavoring to delegitimize shariah in the community where it matters most: the world’s Muslims.

Consequently, regardless of what percentage of the global Islamic population adheres or otherwise defers to shariah (and some persuasive polling indicates that percentage is high in many Islamic countries), it is punching well above its weight. For that reason, it is a serious threat to the United States even if we assume, for argument’s sake, that hopeful pundits are correct in claiming that shariah Islam is not the preponderant Muslim ideology.

A second point is that it is vital to the national security of the United States, and to Western civilization at large, that we do what we can to empower Islam’s authentic moderates and reformers. That cannot be done by following the failed strategy of fictionalizing the state of Islam in the vain hope that reality will, at some point, catch up to the benign fable. Empowering the condign elements of Islam requires a candid assessment, which acknowledges the strength of shariah — just as defeat of Twentieth Century totalitarian ideologies required an acknowledgment of, and respect for, their malevolent capabilities.

To do this, it is paramount that we no longer allow those who mean to destroy our society — including to sabotage it from within — to camouflage themselves as “moderates.” The definition of moderationneeds to be reset, to bore in on the shariah fault-line. Only by identifying those Muslims who wish to impose shariah can we succeed in marginalizing them.

As this study manifests, the shariah system is totalitarian. It imposes itself on all aspects of civil society and human life, both public and private. Anyone obliged actually to defend the proposition that shariah should be adopted here will find few takers and be properly seen for what they are — marginal and extremist figures. That, and only that, will strengthen true proponents of a moderate or reformist Islam that embraces freedom and equality.

Third, we have an obligation to protect our nation and our way of life regardless of the ultimate resolution of Islam’s internal strife. We can do a far better job of empowering non-shariah-adherent Muslims, who are our natural allies, but we cannot win for them — they have to do that for themselves. Irrespective of whether they succeed in the formidable task of delegitimizing shariah globally, we must face it down in the United States, throughout the West and wherever on earth it launches violent or ideological offensives against us.

Shariah is Anti-constitutional

If we are to face down shariah, we must understand what we are up against, not simply hope that dialogue and “engagement” will make the challenge go away. Those who today support shariah and the establishment of a global Islamic state (caliphate) are perforce supporting objectives that are incompatible with the U.S. Constitution, the civil rights the Constitution guarantees and the representative, accountable government it authorizes. In fact, shariah’s pursuit in the United States is tantamount to sedition.

Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as “dawa“ (the “call to Islam”), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:

a.		the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;
b.		the republican democracy governed by the Constitution;
c.		freedom of conscience; individual liberty (including in matters of personal privacy and sexual preference);
d.		freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);
e.		economic liberty (including private property);
f.		equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);
g.		freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate “resistance”); and
h.		an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of federalism and democracy, not wanton violence.

The subversion campaign known as Civilization Jihad must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework. In fact, we get this concept of “civilization jihad” from, among other sources, a document that was entered into evidence in the 2008 United States v Holy Land Foundation terrorist finance trial titled the An Explanatory Memorandum: On the General Strategic Goal for the Group.

The Explanatory Memorandum was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the U.S. and a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America (MB, also known as the Ikhwan). The document makes plain that the Islamic Movement is a MB effort, led by the Ikhwan in America. TheExplanatory Memorandum goes on to explain that the “Movement” is a “settlement process” to establish itself inside the United States and, once established, to undertake a “grand jihad” characterized as a “civilization jihadist” mission that is likewise led by the Muslim Brotherhood. Specifically, the document describes the “settlement process” as a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated….”

To put it simply, according to the Muslim Brotherhood, the civilization jihad is the “Settlement Process” and the “Settlement Process” is the mission of the “Islamic Movement.” And that mission entails “eliminating and destroying” our way of life. Author Robert Spencer has popularized this concept with a term that captures both the character and deadly purpose of the Ikhwan’s efforts in America: “stealth jihad.”

The “Explanatory Memorandum” — the Holy Land Foundation smoking gun — is the key document in the case against “moderate” Muslims in America. It exposes more than 90% of their organizations as fronts and shell groups for al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen, the Muslim Brotherhood, whose publicly-stated aim is to overthrow by subversion the secular constitutional government of the United States and replace it with Islamic law.

They have succeeded very well so far in their efforts, thanks to penetration, disinformation, the co-optation of existing organizations, and the willing collaboration of the Socialist Left.

The Team B II document will shine a major light into those dark corners of our national political process which the Left and the Ikhwan would prefer to remain hidden.

The Religion Of Peace Offers Something For Everyone

Islamophobe (is-slahm-o-fohb) - A non-Muslim who knows more than they are supposed to know about Islam.

Islamophobia is a fear of losing life or liberty to Islamic rule merely because the laws, sacred texts, and modern practices of Islam demand the submission of culture, politics, religion and all social expression.  It tends to afflict those most familiar with the religion, while sparing the more gullible.

In Muhammad's day, Islamophobia was treated with a practice known as beheading.  Since this is now impractical outside of the Muslim world, the condition is best addressed by means of prevention.  Such preventive measures include willful ignorance - which is best assisted with a strong dose of taqiyya.

The fact is that when Islam checks in, a lot of folks wind up checking out... permanently.  Therefore Islamophobes are a pretty broad group.

Islamophobes include:

Hindus, Christians, and Jews who don’t want to be forced into a political system in which they are treated as third-class citizens.  (Islamic teaching)

Atheists who want the freedom to live openly as such and publicly challenge religious orthodoxy.  (Islamic teaching)

Women who don’t want to be draped in black bags.  (Islamic teaching)

Heterosexual males who don’t want to see women draped in black bags.  (Islamic teaching)

Drinkers (this one's important).  (Islamic teaching)

Artists (not quite as important). (Islamic teaching)

Homosexuals who don’t want to be beaten to death.  (Islamic teaching)

Anyone else who believes that consenting adults should not be killed or tortured over sexual practices.  (Islamic teaching)

Liberals who don’t believe that cultural and moral values should be established by a state-sponsored religion.  (Get past The Religion Barrier, for god's sake)

Dog lovers.  (Islamic teaching).

Mothers who don’t want their daughters killed over a man’s “honor.”  (Islamic teaching)

Intellectuals who value freedom of conscience and public dissent.  (Islamic teaching)

Feminists who believe that women should not be made subordinate to men by a religion which openly insists that females are the intellectual and legal inferior of males.  (Islamic teaching)

Anyone else who objects to a religion in which a woman’s identity is defined by her relationship to a man.  (Islamic teaching)

The left-handed (Islamic teaching).

Conservatives who believe in preserving the Western heritage responsible for the civil freedom, political liberty and economic success which has attracted the flood of immigrants from Muslim nations, where such values are conspicuously lacking.  (Islamic teaching)

Muslims who would like the freedom to leave Islam.  (Islamic teaching) 

And many more...

The Religion of Peace offers a little something for everyone.

Islam 101 - Watch What You Say & Do

Islam has two forms of apostasy ; the ordinary and the extreme. The ordinary pertains to situations in which the perpetrators did not intend to bring harm and insults to Islam. Under such circumstances most schools of Muslim jurisprudence would give the guilty person three days to express repentance. Those who fail to do so can incur severe punishments including imprisonment, torture and execution. Those who are charged with extreme apostasy aren’t given opportunities to express repentance. There is no waiting period for anyone who is indicted for purposely attempting to bring harm or insults to Islam, the Quran, and Mohammad. We have heard of people executed by family members, Islamic city councils and through the auspices of National Religious-State Islamic governments. In recent years there have been reports of the aforementioned executions from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Egypt and Afghanistan. Unquestionably, some have been carried out secretly in Western democracies.

The various sects within Islam normally have similar policies about the severity of verdicts for female apostates as they would for men. The only difference would be that Shafiites, Malikites and Hanbalites would punish the woman exactly as they punish the man ; she would be given 3 days to repent or be executed. However, the Hanafites would be more lenient. They would permit a woman to serve out her sentence through life in prison until she either comes to repentance or dies.

Awaken America - And Be Reborn

This blog was inspired by the works of Robert Spencer. He has written extensively on Islam and the distortion of religious history by the Politically Correct League as it pertains to the eight Crusades waged by Christians against the onslaught of Muslim warriors.

We intend to educate and enlighten our followers as to the consequences of our failure to come to grips with the true message and implications of Islam.  We also intend to help destroy the spirit of masochistic self-loathing that permeates the the elite class in Western society today. Only in a re-birth of patriotism and pride in western culture will we have the strength and political will to repel the invasion of Islamic fundamentalism that is creeping across the western world.

In a normal and sane world, the upholders of sharia should be treated as political radicals and be subjected to appropriate supervision not elevated to minority status and be given special rights and media attention.

With the release of Sir Ridley Scott's "Kingdom Of Heaven" in 2005, a new clash of civilizations arose to haunt politicians. In the aftermath of 9/11, America must come to realize that the slow, steady march of Islam across the globe was only damped down by the eight Crusades mounted to stop it. With the oil dependent economies of the post war years enriching Arab countries beyond the widest dreams of Muhammad, a new army of Islam is rising.

Our mission is to expose an aggressive, violent Islamic creed that waged war against the infidel Western world for 14 centuries, a scourge of conquest and persecution that finally aroused the Crusaders to restore the Near East to the Christian and Hellenic culture long devastated by the armies of Muhammad.

Follow us and share our mission to squelch the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder.

Pope Urban II - The First Crusader