Posts Tagged ‘islam’

The Huma Muruna?

Posted: August 8, 2013 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

I asked for an Explanation for Huma & the Silence of the Muslims on her situation.

And Godfather Politics gives an answer:

I believe the answer can be found in a Muslim word ‘Muruna’. There are times when Muslim leadership believe it is more important to plant a spy to gain valuable information than it is for that spy to follow all Muslim law. It is not uncommon for Muslim leadership to push a woman into a relationship with a non-Muslim in order to gain the confidence and trust of an infidel. Once that trust has been gained, the Muslim woman can begin to exert some influence into the dealings of her husband and in the process learn important secrets that she can pass on to her Muslim handlers back home.

I believe Huma Abedin is a Muruna and that her marriage to the Rep. Anthony Weiner was planned and sanctioned by the Muslim Brotherhood. At the time, Weiner had high expectations of furthering his political career, possibly a run for senate seat once held by Hillary Clinton or even higher. Having a husband in the US Congress would be a great asset to the Muslim Brotherhood.

and the Western Center for Journalism give the list of moves

Arif Alikhan – Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
-Mohammed Elibiary – Homeland Security Adviser
-Rashad Hussain – Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference
-Salam al-Marayati – Obama Adviser – founder Muslim Public Affairs Council and its current executive director
-Imam Mohamed Magid – Obama’s Sharia Czar – Islamic Society of North America
-Eboo Patel – Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships

Some of these radical Muslim sympathizers go back to the first month of BHO’s first administration.

I think this is a reasonable explanation. If anyone has a better one I’d be delighted to hear it

Looking at these stories I can’t help but think of this poem:

Take up the White Man’s burden–
Send forth the best ye breed–
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives’ need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild–
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child. Kipling 1899

What else can one think when you see headlines like this:

NYT:

Afghans Avenge Florida Koran Burning, Killing 12

Think about what that headline implies, AVENGE. Words mean things. AVENGE suggest a just retaliation for an act. This suggests that the New York Times finds their acts a legitimate response to the burning of a Koran.

Over at the Guardian they actually have a poll asking who is responsible for these actions and as of this moment 9:44 a.m. EST 46% of the respondents blame the killings on Terry Jones.

I don’t have a lot of respect for Jones but I wonder, would those same people who blame him for the killings blame the “artist” who put up the painting of Christ/Palin and Christ/monkey up if he was attacked by a violent Christian Cult?

What’s the bottom line, both the Times, and the Guardian have concluded that we can’t expect better from the people and those who are busy blaming Jones for these murders consider the Afghans inferiors “half devil and half child”. We CAN’T expect civilized behavior from such people.

How is such an attitude by these papers any different that Kipling’s?

I’m not outraged over the burning of the Koran, I’m outraged at the murder of innocent people and the Fatwa against an US citizen for free speech, and if you consider yourself civilized you should too.

I don’t have much use for Terry Jones, his stunt to burn the Koran was nothing but a stunt to get publicity. He may have had a free speech point but I don’t think it’s something you do. I wouldn’t like it done to a bible so I wouldn’t do it to a Koran (I don’t like burning book as a basic principle anyway).

That being said this is MUCH more outrageous.

No sooner had Jones fired up his Bic than an Islamic “court” in Pakistan found him guilty of the crime of desecrating the religion’s most holy book. The court then issued a fatwa—loosely translated as “death order—against him, as is their wont.

But here is where the story gets interesting. Pakistan’s Jamaat-ud-Dawah, a banned Islamic organization and suspected terrorist group, announced a bounty of 10 crore rupees for anyone who fulfills the fatwa on Jones. In case you’re wondering, that amount is equivalent to around $2.2 million—not exactly chicken feed.

Jones is a pain but nevertheless he is an AMERICAN exercising his free speech rights. It is incumbent on Americans to condemn this and inform Pakistan that any attempt to harm an American citizen excerpting his free speech will mean trouble.

A fatwa on one American is a fatwa on all and like him or not we have to stand with him.

Unfortunately judging from the comments sections I’m seeing the left is angry for people mentioning the Fatwa and blaming Jones for promoting hate. If the Catholic Church was exciting those who desecrated the Eucharist I suspect we wouldn’t be seeing the same response.

…at least that would be the headline at Think Progress if they were 1. Consistent 2. Not multicultural cowards, and 3. Covering this story:

“America is not showing its power it’s showing appeasement, they are laughing all the way to the bank” Nonie Darwish

Personally I’ve got no problem with the fixing the Egyptian sewer system (promote the general welfare and all that) but we need to realize that we are earning no brownie points by doing any of this stuff. I really think the whole funding Mosques overseas stuff is just to get us wound up.

Meanwhile ThinkProgress hits Newt Gingrich for opposing Gay Marriage along with the majority of the country, Stacy notes:

Except, of course, that there wasn’t anything “secret” about the “funneling”: It was duly reported as required by law and, as Think Progress itself notes, Gingrich was outspoken in his support of the effort “to oust three of the nine Iowa Supreme Court justices” who had voted to mandate same-sex marriage in that state.

Is it “hate” to oppose same-sex marriage?

It is “hate” to oppose Obama, “Gay Marriage” is just one club to beat his opponents with, additionally Newt is a particular target because he committed the ultimate sin to them, he converted to Catholicism.

Exit question: Under Think Progress’ definition since no president has ever supported Gay Marriage and until the mid nineties no congressman ever talked about the subject would they all be considered “Haters”? I’d ask if they would call Islam “Haters” for the same reason but that one is too easy.