Hello Friends,

We've all heard the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. I've read many definitions of peace and Islam doesn't fit any of them.

Daniel Greenfield gives an excellent breakdown of what Islam means by "peace". A good read and well worth reading.

Shalom,

Peter

Religion of Peace

Words are tricky things. Virtually every tyrant, no matter how bloody, has talked about his plans for conquest in terms of "peace". For example in 1939, Nazi Germany and the USSR signed a declaration in which they described their conquest of Poland as creating "a sure foundation for a lasting peace in Eastern Europe". The same year that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he delivered a speech at the Amman Summit in which he insisted that; "the Arabs seek peace and justice throughout the world". And how can one argue with peace?

The Romans had the Pax Romana, which meant peace under Roman dominion. The "peace" that Hitler, Stalin and Saddam have in mind, was of that same nature. Dictators and tyrannies, national or ideological, frame the world as chaotic and requiring order. Only under their leadership and only their way will the world finally experience peace.

When Lenin stated that; "without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace", he was laying out the same basic thesis of every tyrant, and of Islam as well. That there can be no "true peace", without the creation of a society that follows his ideology. For Lenin, everyone had to submit to Communism. For Hitler, to Nazism. For Mohammed, to Islam. Each spoke about peace, but they defined peace only in terms of their own ideology and rule.

When apologists insist that Islam is a religion of peace, they are correct. Insofar as it believes in peace through conquest, and its intended state of peace is to reduce non-Muslims to second class status. But since Islam is global and it recognizes no limit to its borders-- its form of "peace" is to engage in constant wars to conquer the territory of non-Muslims and Muslims whose legitimacy they do not recognize in order to achieve "peace".

Islam's peace has as much in common with what most people think of as peace, as Hitler and Stalin's assurance that they had laid a foundation for a lasting peace, by conquering Poland does with reality. Islam's peace, like Hitler's peace, was and is an expression of a Will to Power, a belief that the world would not be right without Mohammed or Adolf, or their followers running it.

Where most people define peace as the absence of war, Islam sees war as the means of creating peace. The Pax Islamica covering the globe is the aim of the Jihad. And so the Pre-Orwellian doubletalk of Islam turns war into peace, and violence into mercy-- so long as they are practiced by Muslims, and against non-Muslims. Muslims may kill, but they cannot be killers. Muslims may terrorize, but they cannot be terrorists. They may commit genocide, but they are only the better for doing it. Because their object is always "peace".

In this way the Islamic system turns black into white, and white into black. Nations that try to defend themselves against Islamic terror are the real villains because they are obstructing peace. And the terrorists themselves only want peace, which can only come about when their victims accept their authority. Much the same way as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union laid that "lasting foundation for peace" by ending the threat from Poland.

When Westerners talk about peace, and Muslims talk about peace, they may use the same translated English word, but they mean different things. To Westerners, peace does not depend on any ideology. To Muslims however, peace is indivisible from Islam. Just as in Russian, Mir meant both "peace" and "world", resulting in an ironic interpretation of any pronouncements on peace by the USSR, in Arabic the linkage between Islam and Salaam creates its own linguistic complications.

Aslim, Taslim was the message that Mohammed sent to non-Muslim rulers, literally meaning, "Submit and you will be well". Since then that message has been sent by Muslim leaders, political and religious, to Western leaders. The multiple meanings of "Peace", "Submission", "Wholeness" and "Security" connecting to the name of the religion itself, play on the ambiguity of ideas. Peace becomes surrender. Islam becomes safety. And security means submission.

For Westerners peace can exist apart from religion, for Muslims, peace is a theological state, rather than a political one. A political peace will never be considered by Muslims as anything but a temporary truce to gain strategic advantage. A true peace must be theological, in that non-Muslims must concede the superiority of Islamic law and the Koran. To achieve "wholeness" with the Dar-Al-Islam, one must first submit to it. Aslim, Taslim.

Western apologists for Islam highlight that Islam is a "Religion of Peace." The implication is that Islam preaches peace, when in reality Muslims see peace as existing only within the context of Islam. This theology of Pax Islamica makes any notion of peaceful co-existence into an absurd joke, because it defines peace only in terms of itself, and treats everyone else as wayward heretics who must be suppressed and made obedient to Islam.

Islam is certainly not peaceful. It just claims to be the only means through which peace can be achieved. And it sees no paradox in using war to achieve that peace. No more than Lenin did, when he denounced pacifists for giving up the struggle against the capitalists who were the real cause of war. So too Muslims see non-Muslims as the cause of war. A Muslim may be a Jihadist, but that only means that he is fighting for peace. Much like the Red Brigades. And so Muslims incorporate their means into their ends. Murder becomes a peaceful act, much like the religion which commands it.

Any mention of the Religion of Peace should only remind us that Islam views even peace as a Zero-Sum Game, in which only Muslims and to those who submit to them may be at peace. While everyone else remains a source of war and conflict. When Israelis try to show their good faith by singing "Shalom, Salaam", they only make a laughingstock of themselves, because though the words may be similar, the ideas are not. And non-Muslims who speak of peace are treated as either signaling submission or a temporary truce. Since a non-Muslim country cannot be allowed to exist in the Dar-Al-Islam, just as a synagogue was not allowed to be taller than a mosque, Israel can never achieve a peace that Muslims will recognize. Only temporary truces, if even that.

As the Caliphate goes global, this will begin to hold true not only for countries such as Israel or India, who cannot win true peace on any terms, but for every country, no matter how much it is eager to appease. Truces will expire and war will come in their place.

The hysterical violence of terrorism is the response of Muslims who identify their personal honor with that of Islam as a whole. It is the intersection of the tribal and the theological, the same family honor that causes fathers to kill their daughters, is behind the suicide bombings in the name of the Jihad. A non-Muslim who is in any way better than a Muslim, dishonors him individually. A country of infidels superior to Muslim countries dishonors all of Islam. A Muslim leader who makes a deal with an infidel, dishonors Islam, and is murdered for it. A Muslim country that lives in peace with infidels, will have terrorists rise up to try and overthrow it.

The two faces of Islam, the violence and that distant peace which never arrives, mark the border between its actuality and its mythology. Much as the USSR insisted on the misery and deprivation of workers, so that they may one day live under true Communism-- Islam cultivates violence in the name of a peace that will never come. Because the underlying dirty secret of Islam is that it has been nothing more than a tool for conquest, robbery, rape and murder from the very beginning. From Mohammed to the present day, the leaders of Islam are men who want power. Islam is their means of getting it. Just as Nazism and Communism were for others. Islam is an ideology of power that can only imagine peace in terms of conquest.

"Give me your money and no one gets hurt," the mugger says. He's expressing the same basic idea. He's promising peace in exchange for cooperation. Mohammed's agreements with non-Muslims were of the same variety of peace. But where the mugger robs and leaves, Mohammed instead created permanent systems of obligated, which required non-Muslims to become Dhimmis, to pay protection money to Muslims, and which made him the final arbiter of all arguments. Eventually despite any agreements, Mohammed wound up killing, enslaving and expelling the remainder of the non-Muslims in the area. Thus was the first Dar Al Islam born.

Hello Friends,

It's unbelievable to what extent the dhimmis will go to silence those that oppose the mega mosque planned to be built close to the 911 site. The fix was in for the approval and Mayor Bloomberg publicly said he doesn't care who will fund this travesty. It's a well known and documented fact that the Saudis and other Islamic countries funded the majority of the mosques built in the United States but Bloomberg doesn't care about that. He also doesn't care about the majority of New Yorkers that oppose this travesty (as do the majority of Americans nation wide).

That said they now are trying to silence those that oppose the mega mosque. SIOA planned and paid for a bus campaign and the city and federal authorities denied them the right to advertise with ridiculous claims as you'll see in the below article. Advertising is a form of freedom of speech and creeping jihad is succeeding in infiltrating and influencing the authorities to deny these basic rights to those that oppose them to suit their purposes.

Read the whole story below.

Shalom,

Peter

SIOA Lawsuit against NYC: Bloomberg's MTA Refuses to Allow 911 Images: Bans Ground Zero Bus Campaign

Today we filed a lawsuit against the city of New York. Here is the complaint: Download Complaint--FDIvMTA--Filed_Stamped

The city has refused to run my SIOA "Preservation of Ground Zero" bus campaign.

It seems that Mayor Bloomberg invokes certain freedoms when it serves his 2012 agenda. Doing away with term limits wasn't enough (which is why we are still suffering under his no-salt, no-transfat regime). He is now widening his ayatollah-like power grab to imposing blasphemy laws (Islamic sharia laws) on the secular marketplace. Bloomberg's frenzied Ground Zero mosque push may have inspired Al-Azhar clerics to oppose the Ground Zero Mosque, calling it a "a zionist plot."

Last month, I signed a contract with CBS Outdoor to run a "Preservation of Ground Zero" bus ad campaign. The campaign was paid for in full.

Here is the ad I submitted:

The ad was refused. I asked on what grounds. CBS Outdoor told me that the city said that "images of 911 were not allowed." I was floored. I said, "It is American history. How can it be banned? What about Pearl Harbor? Is that censored too?" I said, "On what grounds is 911 images banned?" It is unconscionable. Will of CBS said, "You can't run the plane."

I asked CBS/MTA to provide me with the guidelines for these seventh-century censorship restrictions. They never did. And so, with the help of talented and singular Big Fur Hat, I removed the plane and submitted this ad with the following note:

Will, Still waiting for the MTA guidelines. Please respond to my previous queries. Here is the new art ...... please know that I strenuously object to you changing my artwork and my message in the process. It's American history. I am floored. However, since you and/or the MTA are unwilling to change your position, I have no choice but to run the advertisement with your edits.

CBS refused this ad as well. They said I had to remove the smoke. "The smoke?"

When I spoke to CBS's representative concerning the second rejection of my Ground Zero bus ad, he said that the MTA "doesn't want to associate the new building with Ground Zero." The showing of the burning buildings "hurts people." "Hurts people?" I find bus ads proselytizing for Islam hurts apostates, are you going to take those bus ads down?

I said, "Are you saying images of the largest attack on American soil are censored? Are Pearl Harbor images censored? Gettysburg,too?"

He said, "The people behind the new building say it has nothing to do with Ground Zero." I said, "So what? That's what they say. Others think differently. You are telling me they have said it has nothing to do with Ground Zero. But they are on record repeatedly as saying they want it there for Ground Zero 'healing' and 'outreach.'"

I said, "Who cares what they say, what do they (Imam Rauf and Daisy Khan) have to do with running my ad? They dictate what can and cannot run?"

He said, "It's controversial." I said, "How? Where are the guidelines that point to this, where are the guidelines that I have been asking for over a month? Give me the guidelines and I will adhere to them."

He said "I have been having a hard time getting the guidelines out of the MTA." I said, "A hard time? Aren't they written somewhere or posted somewhere? What are they?"

I said, "Andw hat's controversial? The ad merely says, 'Why there?'" He said, "You are implying..........." I said, "Implying what? You are now going to tell me what I am thinking? Who is making these decisions? Who at the MTA or CBS is making these decisions? The MTA is a government agency -- and you can't provide me with guidelines but I am being held hostage to the capricious whim of some flak at the MTA? I am an advertiser. I bought and paid for an ad a month ago and you cannot point me to any substance or set of rules for the basis of ad rejection."

I said, "I took out the plane as requested -- now what's the problem?" He said, "the flames." I said, "What would be ok? Just the towers alone?" He said yes. I said "OK, I will create another ad with just the towers." He said, "Before you do that, let me run down the hall and ask if that's OK." I said, "With who?" He said, with "his VP."

And so I took out the smoke and submitted this ad:

CBS, on behalf of the MTA, said, "Remove the plane."

Will of CBS said he was "meeting obstacles" but he was "trying to help me." He said, "Get me an ad a/s/a/p without smoke, without any flames -- just the towers."

And so, I submitted another planeless ad, stating emphatically,

"I object to this censorship, which is effectively editing the viewpoint I am attempting to express in my message, but if this is the only choice you are giving me, then run the ad without the plane. It's a plane in the sky, far removed. Planes do fly in the sky."

Needless to say, I am still awaiting approval from the MTA.

Today my legal team of David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise filed suit on our behalf against NYC.

The complaint against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority has now been filed. It alleges violation of FDI’s (and Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencer’s) Free Speech rights under the First & Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

In essence, and it is laid out clearly in the complaint with clear illustrations in the exhibits, the MTA decided that it was going to accept the “viewpoint” of Imam Rauf and his Islamist co-conspirators – to wit, that their plan to develop the Ground Zero Mosque has nothing to do with marking the “victory” marked by the destruction of human life and property on 9-11. Literally, the MTA made it its business to decide which of many viewpoints it would deem politically correct speech for advertisements on its buses.

What makes this jihad against free speech so egregious is that the MTA has run any number of controversial religious and political ads without batting an eyelid. But as soon as the Shariah-faithful cowed Mayor Bloomberg and the MTA into dhimmi-like submission, the First Amendment to the Constitution gave way to Shariah’s blasphemy laws. How long before the Mayor’s office begins issuing fatwas against those who dare counter the “noble and peaceful outreach” narrative?

Mr. Mayor and your colleagues at the MTA and the Landmark Commission: New Yorkers will not forget 9-11 and we will not be cowed into submission or silence. You might not want to hear our voices, but the federal courts will require you to listen. You claim the mantle of the Constitution as a basis for supporting a Shariah-Islamist mosque at Ground Zero, yet the MTA—a government agency of the City—cavalierly denies “infidels” freedom of speech. Enough is enough. (David Yerushalmi)

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal reports:

Meanwhile, on Friday, a group sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in federal court, saying the agency has refused to run its bus advertisement in opposition to the proposed mosque.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative sought to run an ad that said "Why There?" and depicted the Twin Towers burning and a plane headed toward them, according to the lawsuit.

An MTA spokesman said, "No decision has been made on this ad."

Hello Friends,

Ground Zero is sacred ground to all Americans especially to those that lost loved ones in that terrorist attack. There is no doubt that the sensitivities of many were injured by the Cordoba house mega mosque to be built very close to the hallowed ground.

Throughout history conquering Muslim armies systematically destroyed Churches, Temples, Synagogues etc. and replaced them with mosques. This is recorded throughout the world and Spain, Turkey and Israel are but a few examples of this behavior. It is their way to eradicate cultures and their attempt to change history.

What's sad is that they are "conquering" the United States by different forms of jihad and succeeding. This travesty mega mosque is just that. Their attempt to erase the Islamic terrorists that attacked the WTC and replace the culprits with American culpability and most probably the Jews. Changing history is their forte and the dhimmis are allowing them to do just that starting with Mayor Bloomberg in NYC.

The below article gives a historic perspective of this issue and shows that the ultimate goal is Islamic world domination.

Shalom,

Peter

Hello Friends,

I believe even the dimmest of the dhimmis and the sheeples will understand the message in today's Dry Bones.

Shalom,

Peter

This is comical but the closing line should have been. "Sell the Saudi Arabians $30 Billion dollars worth of Fighter Jets"

Quote:
Hello Friends,

I believe even the dimmest of the dhimmis and the sheeples will understand the message in today's Dry Bones.

Shalom,

Peter

The Obama administration has managed to alienate America's friends without picking up any new allies. Most intriguing is his loss of popularity on the Arab Street and in the Muslim world. According to a report published three days ago by the Christian Science Monitor:

New poll: angry at US, Arabs support an Iran nuclear bomb
A majority of Arabs said it would be a positive development if the Iran nuclear program built a bomb – a first in the Arab Public Opinion Poll. Pollsters say it's part of an anti-US Arab backlash.

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / August 6, 2010
Washington

"A new poll of Arab opinion finds that for the first time a majority of the public across the region – including a sizable minority in Saudi Arabia – believes a nuclear-armed Iran would be a positive development in the Middle East.

The portion of the Arab population thinking that way has doubled since a similar survey a year ago, in part because of huge majorities this year in Egypt and Morocco. Egypt, which makes up a quarter of the Arab world, was not in last year’s survey.

The findings, however, say less about a change in Arab opinions of Iran than they do about a change in opinions about another country, say the organizers of the 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll: Arabs have soured on the United States of Barack Obama."

-more

* * *

Your thoughts?

-Dry Bones- Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973