Ad

jihad

Mar 162015
 

By James Lewis — March 16, 2015

We are financing the jihad against us.

By far the largest funding source for Jihad is oil sales.

By far the largest funding source for Jihad is oil sales.

Jihad war is paid for by OPEC oil regimes, including the Saudis and Iran, and by mandatory “charitable” contributions from fundamentalist Muslims.  In the case of the soi-disant Palestinians, jihad is paid for by our own tax dollars, through the kindly United Nations.

We are financing the jihad against us.

bloodforoil-xGulf oil has been the biggest source of jihad blood money for forty years.  Our dollars go to the Gulf, to prop up war preachers in Iran and Arabia, with billions coming back to sabotage and corrupt our politicians and media, driving massive Muslim immigration, and of course giving the world a steady flow of throat cutting barbarians.

But – we are beginning to see the shape of an answer.

The biggest untold story today is that the Arabs and Iran are losing power over the lifeblood of the industrial world.

The United States is fast becoming energy independent – no thanks to Obama and the Democrats.  We are now net exporters of oil and natural gas, all due to the miracle of new oil extraction methods.  It’s a Texas success story, because Texas is where engineer George P. Mitchell modernized the technology of shale oil extraction.

What’s more, you and I, as individuals, now have a clear shot at squeezing Gulf oil-dependent economies to the point of surrender.

The answer is a grassroots Buy American Oil & Gas campaign, so that millions of consumers can keep their money from going to our primitive enemies in the Jihad War.  Just don’t buy Gulf oil and gas.  It used to be impossible, but today it can be done.

Buying only American Oil and Gas will bring the world Jihad machine to its knees.

Buying only American Oil and Gas will bring the world Jihad machine to its knees.

Oil marketeers might tell you that oil is “fungible” – you can swap a tankerful of heavy crude in the Gulf for a equal tankerful in the Pacific, just by means of an electronic transaction.  Oil is oil.  There’s no practical difference between American and Qatari crude.

The answer is to change that, using existing technology.  Today we can easily mark oil by its origin.

The United States – and our few remaining allies – can “brand” our oil and natural gas, exactly the way ranchers brand their cattle – as a mark of ownership and origin.  If you order a U.S. Prime steak in a restaurant, you can bet that traders in the beef supply chain have ways of making sure they’ve got the right product.  If that steak doesn’t taste right, they will lose their customers.

Chemical engineers know dozens of ways to add tiny amounts of chemicals to oil and gasoline, including nanoparticles that are too small to harm your car.  The same kind of tech has been used for decades to give that distinctive odor to natural gas, to make sure people can smell a gas leak in their homes.syria_oil

With a Republican majority in both houses, the U.S. Congress can pass a law today, making it a legal requirement that domestic oil and gas be doped with tiny amounts of a safe chemical tracer.

Americans and Canadians could then voluntarily choose to use our own oil and gas.  Right now, you do it for fresh milk.  Don’t tell me it can’t be done for fuel.

If Republicans passed a bill today, we could watch Obama try to justify a veto.  Nothing would show more clearly what kind of man we have today in the White House.

It’s a perfect campaign slogan: Who vetoed U.S. oil and gas independence?

Or, in the presidential race, “Who kept the Jihad War fueled up?  Hillary!” 

If GOP candidates run a strong campaign to kill off the jihad money supply, they can beat the Democrats hollow in 2016.  Just think – wouldn’t it be well-deserved?  The Democrats could use forty years dwelling in the desert, to reconsider their hate-America strategy.

Once oil companies see consumers rising up against Suicide Oil, they will stop selling it, if they can find alternative sources – in Montana and Canada.  Gulf oil could be sold to Egypt or Japan, but not here.  As long as we are energy independent, we don’t care where that oil goes.  It will not be as profitable to the gulfies, because the price will stay low as long as more and more nations embark on shale exploitation.

Qatar may become a ghost town, which would be a kind of divine justice for their funding of ISIS mass killers.  Or they might simply choose to purge their war preachers.Not a single U.S. soldier’s life would have to be put at risk.

saudi-oil-production

Gulf regimes would still own big oil fields, but the price would be controlled by the market.  Oil companies stay in business by predicting next year’s sales, and if they see a vigorous consumer boycott of Gulf Suicide Oil, along with a big consumer campaign for Buy American Oil & Gas – they will make the right choice.

When that happens, we can watch the Islamic war preachers turn their rage on each other.

And because they are still trying to kill us, a reverse embargo is an historic opportunity for payback.

  Let them go back to the Dark Ages.  Simply starve their ability to make war on us.

 

via Articles: Buy American Oil: How to Starve the Jihad War of Money.

Apr 012014
 

by Raymond Ibrahim — March 28, 2014 (Originally printed in CBN News)

At a time when terrorism committed in the name of Islam is rampant, we are continuously being assured—especially by three major institutions that play a dominant role in forming the Western mindset, namely, mainstream media, academia, and government—that the sort of Islam embraced by “radicals,” “jihadis,” and so forth, has nothing to do with “real” Islam.

Koran bint

True Islam is synonymous with destruction of the infidel (non-Muslim) by violent means.

“True” Islam, so the narrative goes, is intrinsically free of anything “bad.” It’s the nut-jobs who hijack it for their own agenda that are to blame.

More specifically, we are told that there exists a “moderate” Islam and an “extremist” Islam—the former good and true, embraced by a Muslim majority, the latter a perverse sacrilege practiced by an exploitative minority.

But what do these dual adjectives—“moderate” and “extremist”—ultimately mean in the context of Islam? Are they both equal and viable alternatives insofar as to how Islam is understood? Are they both theologically legitimate? This last question is particularly important, since Islam is first and foremost a religious way of life centered around the words of a deity (Allah) and his prophet (Muhammad)—the significance of which is admittedly unappreciated by secular societies.

Both terms—“moderate” and “extremist”—have to do with degree, or less mathematically, zeal: how much, or to what extent, a thing is practiced or implemented. As Webster’s puts it, “moderate” means “observing reasonable limits”; “extremist” means “going to great or exaggerated lengths.”

It’s a question, then, of doing either too much or too little.

The problem, however, is that mainstream Islam offers a crystal-clear way of life, based on the teachings of the Koran and Hadith—the former, containing what purport to be the sacred words of Allah, the latter, the example (or sunna, hence “Sunnis”) of his prophet, also known as the most “perfect man” (al-insan al-kamil). Indeed, based on these two primary sources and according to normative Islamic teaching, all human actions fall into five categories: forbidden actions, discouraged actions, neutral actions recommended actions, and obligatory actions.

In this context, how does a believer go about “moderating” what the deity and his spokesman have commanded? One can either try to observe Islam’s commandments or one can ignore them: any more or less is not Islam—a word which means “submit” (to the laws, or sharia, of Allah).

The real question, then, is what do Allah and his prophet command Muslims (“they who submit”) to do? Are radicals “exaggerating” their orders? Or are moderate Muslims simply “observing reasonable limits”—a euphemism for negligence?—when it comes to fulfilling their commandments?

In our highly secularized era, where we are told that religious truths are flexible or simply non-existent, and that any and all interpretations and exegeses are valid, the all-important question of “What does Islam command?” loses all relevance.

Hence why the modern West is incapable of understanding Islam.

Indeed, only recently, a Kenyan mosque leader said that the Westgate massacre, where Islamic gunmen slaughtered some 67 people, “was justified.  As per the Koran, as per the religion of Islam, Westgate was 100 percent justified.” Then he said: “Radical Islam is a creation of people who do not believe in Islam. We don’t have radical Islam, we don’t have moderates, we don’t have extremists. Islam is one religion following the Koran and the Sunna [emphasis added].

Note his point that “Radical Islam is a creation of people who do not believe in Islam,” a clear reference to the West which coined the phrase “radical Islam.”  Ironically, the secular West, which relegates religious truths to the realm of “personal experience,” feels qualified to decide what is and is not “radical” about Islam.

Moderate Islam is an oxymoron....

Moderate Islam is an oxymoron….

Consider one example: Allah commands Muslims to “Fight those among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth [i.e., Islam], until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued”  [Koran 9:29].

How can one interpret this verse to mean anything other than what it plainly says?  Wherein lies the ambiguity, the room for interpretation?  Of course there are other teachings and allusions in the Koran that by necessity lend themselves over to the fine arts of interpretation, or ijtihad.  But surely the commands of Koran 9:29 are completely straightforward?

In fact, Muhammad’s 7th century followers literally acted on this and similar verses (e.g., 9:5), launching the first Muslim conquests, which saw the subjugation of millions of Christians, Jews, and others, and the creation of the “Muslim world.”  Such jihadi expansion continued until Islam was beaten on the battlefield by a resurgent West some two or three centuries ago.

Western scholarly works, before the age of relativism and political correctness set in, did not equivocate the meaning of jihad.  Thus the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam’s entry for “jihad” states that the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general …  Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated. Islamic law expert and U.S. professor Majid Khadduri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, wrote that “jihad … is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligation of the whole Muslim community.”

(As for the argument that the Bible contains similar war verses, yet Jews and Christians are not out to conquer the world—so why say Muslims are?—see “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a detailed breakdown of the similarities and differences.  Also see “Islamic Jihad and the Doctrine of Abrogation” to understand how the Koran’s more tolerant verses have been abrogated by its more militant ones, such as 9:29.)

kaaba

To be a true Muslim is to be a fanatic….

In short, how can a sincere Muslim—by definition, one who has submitted to the teachings of Allah—“moderate” verses like 9:29?  How can he “observe reasonable limits” vis-à-vis these plain commands to combat and subjugate non-Muslims?

Must Muslims not, at the very least, admit that such teachings are true and should be striven for—even if they do not personally engage in the jihad, at least not directly (but they are encouraged to support it indirectly, including monetarily or through propaganda)?

Just recently, reports appeared telling of how Islamic groups in Syria were following Koran 9:29 to a tee—forcing Christian minorities to pay them jizya, i.e., extortion money, in exchange for their lives.  In fact, all around the Islamic world, Christians and other minorities are regularly plundered by Muslims who justify their actions by referring to the aforementioned verse.

Are all such Muslims being “extreme” in light of the commands of Koran 9:29—which specifically calls for the taking of money from Christians and Jews—or are they simply upholding the unambiguous teachings of Islam?

One may argue that, if Muslims are to take Koran 9:29 literally, why are Muslim nations the world over not declaring an all-out jihad on all non-Muslim nations, including America? The ultimate reason, of course, is that they simply can’t; they do not have the capability to uphold that verse (and Islamic teaching allows Muslims to postpone their obligations until circumstances are more opportune).

It would obviously be silly, if not suicidal,  for, say, Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam, to issue a statement to the West saying either accept Islam, pay jizya/tribute, or die by the sword.  But just because Muslim nations do not currently have the capacity to actualize Koran 9:29, does not mean that they do not acknowledge its veracity and try to actualize it in other places when they can.

A quick survey of history before the meteoric rise of Western military might put Islam in check makes this especially clear.

Bottom line: If Islam teaches X and a Muslim upholds X—how is he being “extreme”?  Seems more logical to say that it is Islam itself that is being “extreme.”  Similarly, if a self-professed Muslim does not uphold Islamic teachings—including prayer, fasting, paying zakat, etc.—how is he being a “moderate”?  Seems more logical to say that he is not much of a Muslim at all—that is, he is not submitting to Allah, the very definition of “Muslim.”

It’s time to acknowledge that dichotomized notions like “moderate” and “extreme” are culturally induced and loaded standards of the modern, secular West—hardly applicable to the teachings of Islam—and not universal absolutes recognized by all mankind.

See the video below where Raymond Ibrahim discusses this idea that “moderate Islam” is an oxymoron.

via Why ‘Moderate Islam’ Is an Oxymoron | FrontPage Magazine.