In 2013, LTC (Ret) Allen West was included in the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) “2011-2012 Worst List Inductees” for his “intentional efforts to spread fear and prejudice” about Islam. The following article will do him no favors in that regard (or me for that matter).
Recently, Iraq’s Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, the leading Shia cleric of Iraq, made it absolutely crystal clear why Islam and the rest of the world can never peacefully coexist – so you might think about scratching off that bumper sticker. Just sayin’…
As Frontpagemag.com reports, during a television interview, the Ayatollah spent some time discussing “defensive jihad,” saying that all capable Muslims are obligated to fight for the “liberation” of “occupied” territory.
According to the ayatollah, when they can—when circumstance permits it, when they are strong enough—Muslims are obligated to go on the offensive and conquer non-Muslims (a fact to be kept in mind as millions of Muslim “refugees” flood the West). More on that in a bit.
If they are people of the book [Jews and Christians] we demand of them the jizya—and if they refuse, then we fight them. That is if he is Christian. He has three choices: either convert to Islam, or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya [and live according to dhimmi rules].
But if they still refuse—then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches—this is Islam!
This is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, but the opinion of all five schools of jurisprudence [four Sunni and one Shia].
So would any moderate Muslims like to explain why this guy is wrong about their “religion of peace?”
And by the way, on the subject of “occupied” lands, once Muslims have conquered a territory, they believe it forever theirs – and merely occupied in the meantime. Which is why the Islamic State released a map of the areas it plans on expanding into over the next five years, including Portugal, Spain, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Greece, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, Armenia, Georgia, Crete, Cyprus, and parts of Russia, according to Arab-American scholar Raymond Ibrahim.
But it would be Islamophobic to mention that too.
As Ibrahim writes, “because the U.K., Scandinavia, and North America were never conquered and occupied by the sword of Islam—unlike those southeast European nations that are resisting Muslim refugees—they feel free to rewrite history according to their subjective ideals, specifically, that historic Christianity is bad and all other religions and people are good (the darker and/or more foreign the better).
Even otherwise sound books of history contribute to this distorted thinking. While such works may mention “Ottoman expansion” into Europe, the Islamic element is omitted. Thus Turks are portrayed as just another competitive people, out to carve a niche for themselves in Europe, no differently than rival Christian empires. That the “Ottomans” (or “Saracens,” or “Arabs,” or “Moors,” or “Tatars”) were operating under the distinctly Islamic banner of jihad—just like the Islamic State is today—that connection is never made.
Generations of pseudo history have led the West to think that, far from being suspicious or judgmental of them, Muslims must be accommodated—say, by allowing them to migrate into the West in mass. Perhaps then they’ll “like us”?
The result of Western fantasies and Islamic history is that Muslims are now entering the West, unfettered, in the guise of refugees who refuse to assimilate with the “infidels” and who form enclaves, or in Islamic terminology, ribats—frontier posts where the jihad is waged on the infidel, one way or the other.
Ibrahim offers a final warning: “History is not repeating itself; sword waving Muslims are not militarily conquering Europe. Rather, they are being allowed to walk right in.”
And ENCOURAGED to walk right into America. The Obama administration already has plans to welcome tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” while Christians facing certain death in their home countries are being turned away.
What am I missing here? There must be some articles or speeches by moderate Muslims who say they reject the tenets expounded on by the Ayatollah. Anyone? Anyone?
[Note: This article was written by Michele Hickford]