Created on Monday, 28 November 2011 17:17
Written by Staff Editor
Koran 4:93 He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell for ever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will lay His curse on him and prepare for him a mighty scourge. Bill Warner - Political Islam
Tennessee State Representative Rick Womick, a former fighter pilot, unleashed some firepower in a speech
in which he said that Muslims should not serve in the US military. Needless to say, the usual suspects, including the morally corrupt ADL
, howled that Representative Womick is a hater and Islamophobe. Muslims were offended.
Representative Womick’s suggestion does not go far enough, but it is a good first step. How can this be? Why shouldn’t a Muslim serve in our military? A good Muslim must obey Allah and imitate Mohammed. And Allah and Mohammed divide the world into two classes—believers (Muslims) and non-believers. The whole group of non-believers--Christians, Jews, pagans and all others are named Kafirs. The majority
of the Koran is about Kafirs and nearly of it is negative . Mohammed became successful when he turned to total war against the Kafirs. He was involved in an act of violence against them on the average of every 6 weeks over the last 9 years of his life. A Muslim can kill Kafirs, but he is not supposed to kill other Muslims.
Koran 4:93 He that kills a believer by design shall burn in Hell for ever. He shall incur the wrath of God, who will lay His curse on him and prepare for him a mighty scourge.
When the US sends troops to fight against Muslims, what must the follower of the Koran do? Whose commands will he follow—Allah’s or Kafir officers’?
An American soldier takes an oath
to defend the Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic. But, we have a problem here. A Muslim is one who follows the religious and political doctrine of Islam. What does political Islam say about the Constitution? Islamic political and religious doctrine says that Sharia is sacred law, and must supplant our manmade Constitution. Will a Muslim protect our Constitution against political Islam? Maybe, but according to Islamic doctrine, he should not.
We must see the fallacy of: “I know of Muslims who serve in the military and they do a good job.” But do they do a good job because of Islam or by overlooking Islam? All Muslims have three modes of behavior—Meccan Islam (generally religious), Medinan Islam (political, jihad) and Kafir. Most of those who call themselves a Muslim do not follow Islam at all times. They may be cultural Muslims who overlook the political aspects of Islam and enjoy living in Kafir civilization.
But, and this is a big but, every Muslim, no matter how moderate, believes that there is no god but Allah and that the Koran is His perfect manifestation in this world. The majority
(64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir and it is massively negative, bigoted, murderous and hateful. Islam is profoundly and eternally anti-Kafir. So, serving in a Kafir military has a built in contradiction for any Muslim. Why should he serve those whom Islamic political doctrine denigrates in every way?
There is another contradiction about Muslims serving in our military—the more adherent they are to the Koran, the more apt they are to see their fellow soldiers as Kafirs and treat them as such. Mohammed would treat a Kafir nicely at first. But, there always came a time when the Kafir had to submit to Mohammed. The Koran has 13 verses
that say that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir when it comes to Islam, so this is not a trivial problem.
But the major problem is that we Kafirs are not supposed to talk about whether a Muslim can serve in our military or not. We are supposed to obey the Establishment’s decree that Islam is an equal member of our civilization and cannot be questioned. The Establishment’s politically correct rules are that it is bigoted to want to talk about what it means to have someone in a critical security position who believes a text that is dedicated to the annihilation of Kafir civilization. It is frightening to read Islam’s sacred texts and see how cruel they are to Kafirs. The Establishment says that Kafirs cannot talk about their fears, because fears are irrational and immoral.
Why is it that the Establishment suppresses all attempts to talk about the true nature of Allah and Mohammed and those who follow them? Why can’t we talk about this and stop with the self-censorship? We don’t ask for the suppression of Establishment apologists. We Kafirs only want a forum to talk about Islam beyond the apologist/Islamo-philic bias. We want critical thought and debate, and fact-based reasoning, not insults and denial. Kafirs want a seat at the public forum, and not be shoved aside with insults. Kafirs want to talk about the implications of Sharia, the fruit of Islamic doctrine without being condemned, out of hand. Kafirs have always been the victims of political Islam and its Sharia. It is time for our side to be heard.
Why is the Kafir-centric view of Islam called bad/wrong/immoral? Why is talking about Islam’s hateful attitude about Kafirs wrong? Why can’t we talk about those who hold a political doctrine that includes violence against the very people who they are supposed to protect? Representative Rick Womick has started the conversation. But, we need to talk about a lot more than just Muslims in our military. Let’s talk about Sharia and political Islam in all aspects of our nation from the Kafir’s point of view.