Israel Is the Victim of Mohammed’s War Against the Jews

HAMAS-KORANby :

Hamas isn’t shooting rockets at the Jews because of persecution, isolation or occupation. The Sunni Islamic terrorist group is doing it for the same reason that Sunnis and Shiites are killing each other in Iraq and Syria. And why its Muslim Brotherhood core group is killing Christians in Egypt.

To understand why, let’s step into a time machine and go back to the spring of 632. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius is engaged in the first of a series of wars with Mohammed’s maddened followers. England is divided into seven quarreling kingdoms. Across the water, the Merovingians are killing each other in ways that would give George R.R. Martin nightmares. Meanwhile in a more civilized part of the world, China’s fading Sui Dynasty fields an army of over a million men in a failed effort to invade Korea.

Back in Medina, Mohammed had come down with the sniffles. He had a fever and a headache and there wasn’t any Tylenol around for miles. Mohammed hadn’t been a very good man and he made a very bad patient. Upon being told that he had pleurisy, he claimed that only people possessed by Satan came down with that disease so he couldn’t possibly have it and instead blamed the Jews for poisoning him.

His own homemade cures, such as bathing in seven skins of water from seven different wells, didn’t help. But before he died, he managed to make the Middle East an even worse place by ordering the ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians.

“Two deens (religions) shall not co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula,” Mohammed declared. “If I live, if Allah wills, I will expel the Jews and the Christians from the Arabian Peninsula.”

There could be only one.

Mohammed didn’t live, but that didn’t matter. His bigotry had long ago been coded into the theological DNA of Islam. Islam isn’t built on matters of the spirit, but the sword. Its theological proof is in the Muslim supremacist subjugation of non-Muslims.

The Bible begins with the creation of the universe. The Koran starts off with curses and threats aimed at non-Muslims and Muslims who aren’t Muslim enough. There is no greater contrast between the sublime and the tawdry than G-d creating the universe and Allah yelling at his followers like a frustrated fishwife with a bad temper.

Over a thousand years later, Muslims are still killing each other, along with Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and countless others, to prove that their flavor of Islam is right and everyone else’s religion is wrong.

Theological consensus can only be achieved by the suicide bomber, the sniper, the Sarin nerve gas shell and the death squad. If England and France have come a long way since then, the Middle East hasn’t.  Mohammed’s way or the highway is still the rule of the road. And Mohammed’s way is whatever the man with the most guns and Korans says it is.

Destroying Israel has nothing to do with the so-called plight of the so-called Palestinians. They weren’t an issue in June 632. It was about oppressing and killing Jews then. It’s about the same thing now.

Read more at Front Page

An Historical Critique of Islam’s Beginnings – Jay Smith

Published on Sep 12, 2013 by RealLifeJackHibbs (h/t Bill Warner)

Powerpoint slides for this presentation

Jay Smith is a noted evangelist and apologist to radical Muslims at Speakers’ Corner in London. “Jay has a Masters degree in Islamic studies from Fuller Theological Seminary and is currently working on a Ph.D at London School of Theology. Jay is an expert in Christian-Muslim Apologetics, having worked with Muslims for [over] 23 years. He is famous for his unique evangelistic ministry. Every weekend he leads dozens of Christians to the Speakers Corner in Hyde Park in London, where they meet with hundreds of Muslims face to face, to make friends, answer tough questions, debate the latest research and ideas, and share their faith.”^[1]^ Smith heads up Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, and emphasizes the use of Polemics with Muslims, over Apologetics.

The Glazov Gang-Raymond Ibrahim on ISIS’s Islamic Inspirations

Raymond Ibrahim and Jamie Glazov discuss how the jihadist terror we see in Iraq today, and throughout the world, is founded on Islamic theology. Raymond also discussed Jamie’s Battle on Hannity against the Unholy Alliance, Jihad Denial, Obama’s Enabling of Jihad, Jihadi Foreign Travelers, and much more:

 

Raymond Ibrahim, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, a Middle East and Islam specialist, and the author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).

 

What Possible Good Does It Do To Say Anything Negative About Islam, Even If It’s True?

kabaCitizen Warrior:

One of the most important things we recommend is learn about Islam and share that information with your fellow non-Muslims.

But if you’ve ever tried to tell your friends about jihad, you’ve probably discovered most people don’t want to hear it. They will sometimes argue with you even if they know nothing about Islam, and they don’t understand why you would want to “bash” another religion.

But sharing this information is the best thing a citizen can do to help marginalize, discredit, and disempower orthodox Islam, which is the goal here. So the question is: How can you talk to people about a subject they don’t want to talk about?

There is only one answer: First you must motivate them to listen.

Almost as a prerequisite for this topic, before you can really have a good listener, you will need to explain why it’s important to know more about Islamic teachings. Most people you come across will literally not have a clue why you would even be interested, or why they should be.

So below are the top twelve reasons why it’s a sane, rational, sensible goal to know more about Islam. When you start to talk about jihad or Sharia and you can see the resistance or suspicion on the face of your listener, ask them, “Are you wondering why I’m even interested in this?” If they are curious, let them know about one or two of the reasons below.

While you’re reading the list here, pick out the ones you think would be the most effective, and make it a point to remember them for your next conversation:

1. Orthodox Muslims are immigrating to western democracies.From within our democracies, including the one we are living in, they are setting up terrorist cells right now. Their spokesmen are delivering fiery tirades at mosques and at demonstrations in our own country, calling the faithful Muslims to rise up against the infidels (you and me), telling the Muslims in their congregation it is their holy duty to overthrow the government and to establish Islamic law. They are recruiting native-born westerners into terrorist groups.

They are in free countries now, preaching hatred. And most western democracies allow more in all the time. Why? Because most westerners don’t know much about Islam.

2. The devoted ones will perpetually try to change our laws, from within and from without. They have already done so in Europe and Canada, and all over the world. Islam is a political ideology. It is the duty of faithful Muslims to work toward making every government on earth follow Allah’s law (Sharia law).

They are carefully following a 20-year plan to overthrow the U.S. government, and so far, they are succeeding. Why? Because most Americans don’t know anything about Islam.

If westerners knew what was going on, they could resist it. But our ignorance makes their job very easy.

3. They are having more children than most of us. There are many ways to wage jihad and subjugate infidels. One is through violence. Another is through reproduction. You can out-reproduce the enemy, which Muslims have been doing. They are immigrating in large numbers into western democracies, and having as many children as they can, and teaching them to be devout Muslims.

Devout Muslims will try to turn any country they live into an Islamic state, no matter how long it takes. They have to. It is their religious duty to do so, whether they want to or not.

4. The teenage children of moderate Muslims are being persuaded by terrorist recruiters. Even if many of the Muslims who immigrate are authentically peaceful (ignore the political and intolerant teachings of orthodox Islam), some of their children will be vulnerable to recruitment as they see through the hypocrisy of their parents’ incomplete worship.

The children of Muslims have heard all their lives from everyone in authority that the Koran is a direct message from the Almighty Himself. As teens, if they hear a preacher tell them what’s actually in the Koran, they will be shocked. The Koran contains clear instructions to wage continual war on unbelievers until the whole world submits to Islamic law.

The teens will look at their parents and feel disgusted. Their parents — the ones who have told them repeatedly that the Koran is the perfect word of Allah — ignore much of the book.

So in other words, it wouldn’t even matter if we could somehow screen Muslims who enter western democracies for fanaticism. Even if we only let in casual, half-hearted Muslims (peaceful Muslims), their children are potential “homegrown terrorists.”

Plus, we cannot ignore the added benefit of dying while slaying infidels:You go straight to heaven, and have 72 beautiful wives ready to do your bidding. What 15 year-old boy wouldn’t find that an attractive proposition?

All his life he’s been told the Koran is Allah’s message, and he finally reads it cover to cover (it’s not very long) and discovers those preachers were right: It says quite clearly that if he dies while killing infidels he will go straight to heaven without passing GO, without having to be judged, and there, awaiting him, is his lovely harem.

It doesn’t take any interpreting or “reading into” the Koran to know what it says. There are no vague analogies or stories open to multiple interpretations as there are in the Torah and the Bible. It is a clear, simple, direct message written by one man. Anyone who reads it will know what to do.

5. Confusing current events become understandable. Once you learn what’s really going on, the scary terrorist events that make you think, “Why are they doing this?!” are suddenly illuminated, and you know exactly why they’re doing it, and why most westerners don’t have a clue about what’s going on.

You would think that learning about Islamic jihad would make you hate Muslims, but strangely enough, it does the opposite. Most Muslims are in an even worse situation than the infidels. The more you learn about Islam, the more sympathy you have for Muslims who had no choice in the matter and cannot escape without risking their lives and the lives of everyone they love.

But sometimes learning about the subject is upsetting. It is a shock to learn what’s in the Koran, knowing that one and a half billion human beings believe this is the final message from the supreme ruler of the universe.

But after you get over the shock, it makes world events less upsetting. You will understand what’s going on for the first time. You will no longer feel as exasperated or wonder what the hell is happening in this crazy world. You’ll finally understand.

Good Muslim, Bad Person

By Bill Warner:

A good Muslim is one who practices Islam. Since there is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir, it follows that someone who practices Islam has no unmitigated good for the Kafir. There are good people who call themselves Muslims, but their goodness comes from something other than Islam.

 

Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know

By David Wood at Answering Muslims:

Most Christians (myself included) don’t have Sam Shamoun’s computer-like brain to recall thousands of verses on command. Nevertheless, with a little effort, we can all learn some basic facts about Islam. In this short video, I present three Qur’an verses that every Christian should learn.

 

In case you’d like to copy them down, here are the verses:

Qur’an 4:157—They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

Qur’an 5:47—Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

 

Islam’s ‘Protestant Reformation’

Raymond Ibrahim, July 1, 2014:

Editor’s note: The following article originally appeared in two parts but is being published again as one article due to some confusions prompted by its original appearance as two parts.

In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must reform.   This is the contention of many Western peoples.  And, pointing to Christianity’s Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also reform, many are optimistic.

Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming.  What is today called “radical Islam” is the reformation of Islam.  And it follows the same pattern of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation.

The problem is our understanding of the word “reform.”  Despite its positive connotations, “reform” simplymeans to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western references.

Muslim notions of “improving” society may include purging it of “infidels” and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators.

Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society.

In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their reference points and first premises.  “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great extent products of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation; and so, a priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word.

—–

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible.  With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching.  So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures.  The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world.  Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white words of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).  This is an important point to be revisited later.  Muslims who do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

—–

How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another.   This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scripture together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.

Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).

Suffice it to note some contradictions (which will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):

  • The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike.  Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic).  Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
  • The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity.  Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
  • The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman.  The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves.  More literalist readings treat women as possessions.
  • The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9).  The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.

It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.

—–

Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation has naturally produced a civilization markedly different from the West.

Put differently, those in the West uncritically calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society.

That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.

Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.

Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state.  Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar (temporal) and unto God the things of God (spiritual)” (Matt. 22:21).  For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36).  Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).

On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state.   Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36).   Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).

Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and Hadith—in a word, Sharia.

And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).

Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).

Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless.   After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.”  Submit to what?  Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith.

The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are hoping for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.

Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.

The Not So Golden Age of Islam

Published on Jul 1, 2014 by Bill Warner

We are often told of the greatness of the Islamic Golden Age. But how much actual gold was there? And why does Islam do so poorly in intellectual work today?

Islam’s ‘Protestant Reformation’ (Part 1)

By Raymond Ibrahim, June 22, 2014:

In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must reform.   This is the contention of many Western peoples.  And, pointing to Christianity’s Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also reform, many are optimistic.

Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming. What is today called “radical Islam” is the reformation of Islam.  And it follows the same pattern of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation.

The problem is our understanding of the word “reform.”  Despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply meansto “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western references.

Muslim notions of “improving” society may include purging it of “infidels” and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators.

Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society.

In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their reference points and first premises.  “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great extent products of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation; and so, a priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word.

—-

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible.  With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching.  So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures.  The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world.  Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted with the often black and white words of their scriptures than their ancestors, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).  This is an important point to be revisited later.  Muslims who do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

Part 2 will appear later this week

‘You’re Dangerous!’: Sparks Fly Between ‘Hannity’ Panel on Radical Islam

Fox News Insider:

On a special Hannity, Sean welcomed a panel of national security experts and commentators to examine the rise of radical Islam.

Sean asked Michael Ghouse, from the America Together Foundation, if he thinks enough moderate Muslims are speaking out against extremists who are hijacking his religion.

“They’re not loud enough. We need to gather momentum. Shows like yours have given voices to moderate Muslims like me,” he said.

Things quickly escalated when Fox News contributor Tamara Holder blasted Act for America President Brigitte Gabriel as the “most dangerous person in society.” [Tamara begins at 9 min. into the video and Jamie Glazov gives a a fantastic rebuttal at about 12 min.]

“To say things like moderate Muslims are ‘supposedly’ not terrorists, ‘supposedly’ are not dangerous – the majority of Muslims in this country and in this world are safe, loving people who want peace. Those Nigerian girls were Muslims as well,” Holder said.

Gabriel defended her stance, saying, “I’m not saying the majority of Muslims are terrorists. […] The terrorists are only 15 to 25 percent.”

Holder shot back, saying that percentage is much lower and charged Gabriel with spewing hate.

Go to 32 minutes into the video to see Jamie Glazov courageously stand up to Mike Gouse and Tamara Holder when they try to prevent him from criticizing Islam. 

 

Islam: Is Integration Working? Part II of III

Gatestone Institute, by Denis MacEoin, June 18, 2014:

Some motives of the members of the British Law Society might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

What seems unpardonable is that our Western governments and institutions, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are reinforcing these abuses.

Pressure to incorporate Shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

Another apparent obstacle to integration seems to be the simple act, within circumscribed communities, of questioning. Questioning — as well as free speech and free thought — often seems to appear disrespectful and discouraged. A new effort to criminalize free speech internationally has in the past few years been promoted by, of all countries, the United States — led by then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in three closed-door conferences between 2010 and 2012. Clinton not only dusted off — but co-sponsored and actively promoted — the all-but-dead Pakistani resolution from the United Nations Human Rights Council, Resolution 16/18, misleadingly named “Defamation of Religion.” The resolution is, bluntly, an attempt legally to internationalize Islam’s repressive “blasphemy laws.” Anyone who might wish to question or discuss Islam can be accused of “blasphemy” and possibly sentenced to death. Since the beginning of Islam, anyone who might take steps to leave Islam can be accused of “apostasy,” and sentenced to death. As Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi said at the end of January 2013, “If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment [death], Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

What seems unpardonable is that it is our Western governments and institutions that are reinforcing these abuses.

 

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L), Secretary-General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu (2nd L), Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (3rd L) and EU High Representative Catherine Ashton (4th L) participate in the OIC conference on “Building on the Consensus” in Istanbul, Turkey, on July 15, 2011. (State Department photo)

Moreover, in March 2014, the British Law Society set out guidelines for solicitors (roughly, U.S. lawyers) to help draw up “Shari’a compliant” wills, in defiance of the fact that Islamic rules on inheritance are deeply discriminatory. Muslim women will not be given an equal share of an inheritance. Non-Muslims, illegitimate children, divorced spouses, people who have not had Muslim marriages, and anyone outside the kinship-based set of recognized heirs, may not inherit. The ruling tells solicitors (and from them, the courts) to make exclusions from an 1837 law, which allows gifts to pass to the offspring of an heir who has died. This has been done to provide Muslims with separate laws that do not apply to other British citizens. These separate laws also relegate British law to an inferior position in such matters. The ruling has been done knowingly and for poorly thought-out motives by people who should know better. Some motives might stem from a desire to appease the Muslim community, giving them rights that others do not have, rather than insisting on the basic democratic dictum that the law is indifferent to wealth, poverty, skin color, political belief or religious allegiance.

If this ruling is followed by others affecting marriage, divorce, the custody of children and much else, Britain will become a two-tier society in which Muslim men may marry four wives, keep concubines or, for the Shi’a, contract temporary (mut’a) marriages, while non-Muslim polygamists will be sent to jail. Needless to say, protests are already underway.

Pressure to incorporate shari’a law into broader legal systems is spreading beyond the UK.

In the U.S., in 2011, President Obama appointed Professor Azizah al-Hibri to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF). Hibri, a professor at Richmond University, has a record of involvement in matters concerning the rights of Muslim women and human rights in Islam. But she is on record as saying that Islamic Law “is deeper and better than Western codes of law,” that the Qur’an inspired Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and that the Saudi criminal justice system is more moral than the American one because it accepts blood money from murderers.

Hibri has also argued that Islam is fully compatible with women’s rights, human rights, and democracy, something many in the West would strongly contest. Moreover, to appoint an Islamist to a post as commissioner on a body dedicated to religious freedom, a body that spends much of its time protesting the treatment of religious minorities in Muslim countries seems at the very least indecent. The very idea of religious freedom does not exist in the Qur’an, the hadith literature, or in any book of Islamic law. It is not enough to cite the famous line from the Qur’an 2:256, “la ikraha fi’l-din” [there is no compulsion in religion]. It has to be modified by the laws that enforce belief by threatening death to apostates, or by the conditions imposed on Jews, Christians, Hindus, pagans and other non-Muslims. They are given a choice to convert, die, or live as dhimmis: lower-class, “tolerated” persons, who pay a tribute, or tax, called a jizya, or “reward,” for not being killed. The Qur’an itself is explicit: “Fight those who believe not in Allah… [even] people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

 

Sharia and Human Rights

cairo-1990-declarationBy John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat:

The primary focal point for this week’s daily articles on Sharia (Islamic Law) is to get readers to digest the reality that when Islamic Leaders speak, their words must be translated into what Islamic Law would have them mean. The phrase “Human Rights” is no exception.

To put it as simply and as factually as possible, when Islamic Leaders say “Human Rights” they mean the “Imposition of Islamic Law.”

In 1990, the leadership of the entire Muslim world – at the Head of State and King level – signed the Cairo Declaration. In summary, the Cairo Declaration states the Islamic world agrees with the International Declaration of Human Rights insofar as (1) it does not contradict Sharia, and (2) the Muslim world only understands Human Rights as the Sharia defines it.

In 1993, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) – now calling themselves the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – served the Cairo Declaration as a formal document to the United Nations. This means that at the Head of State and King level, the entire Muslim World has officially defined “Human Rights” as the imposition of Sharia since 1993.

The last two articles in the Cairo Declaration read:
“Article 24: All rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah. Article 25: The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles in this Declaration.”

What is most interesting is that most people at the U.S. State Department have never heard of the Cairo Declaration. The practical reality is, however, that when our leaders call for certain Islamic leaders to be brought before international legal forums for “justice” because of their “Human Rights” violations, the legitimate defense for these tyrants is that they are legally on the record stating Sharia defines human rights. So, homosexuals can be killed, women can be treated as property, those who leave Islam can be killed, and non-Muslims can have less rights under an Islamic government than Muslims – and there is nothing the World Court or the United States can do about it because Sharia unequivocally states all these things are a part of Islamic Law and legally binding.

Notably, the OIC’s Ten Year Programme of Action approved in Saudi Arabia in 2005 reaffirms the entire Muslim leadership’s understanding of “human rights” under section VIII “Human Rights and Good Governance” where it states: “Call upon the Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers to consider the possibility of establishing an independent and permanent body to promote human rights in Member States, in accordance with the provisions of the Cairo Declaration…”

Most disturbing is that the promotion of the “Islamophobia” campaign is not a random occurrence but a part of an international strategy to silence truth-speaking critics of Islam and destroy the freedom of expression in the West and elsewhere. Islamophobia campaign is the imposition of the Islamic Law of “Slander” which Sharia makes a capital crime for saying anything about Islam or Muslims the a Muslim would “dislike.”

In the OIC’s Ten Year Programme it specifically calls for criminal punishments for those who slander Islam (according to the definition of “slander” under Sharia, not Western law). Under section VII entitled “Combating Islamophobia” sentence (3) states: “Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to combat Islamophobia, and to call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.”

Sentence (4) in that same paragraph calls for Muslim countries to be empowered to “help in the war against extremism and terrorism.” Readers of UTT will recall that “terrorism” in Islam is the killing of a Muslim without right. As a bonus for today…”Extremism” in Islam is exceeding your ability or authority. For instance, a few years ago when Islamic jurists contemplated labeling Osama bin Laden an “extremist” our government got giddy assuming THOSE particular Islamic jurists must be “moderates.” In fact, Osama bin Laden’s forces were losing a lot. Since Allah never loses a jihad, the jurist argued bin Laden had exceeded his ability to succeed and was thus putting the Muslim ummah (community) at greater risk, making him an “extremist.”

Words matter in this war. Sharia matters in this war. Knowing something of Sharia matters if we intend to win the war.

It should not surprise us that Parvez Ahmed, the former Chairman of the Board for Hamas in America (dba CAIR), was voted back on as the Human Rights Commissioner by the city council in Jacksonville, Florida last year. His definition of “human rights” is significantly different than the councils. Since being the leader of a designated terrorist organization (Hamas) didn’t stop the Jacksonville City Council from voting him in back in, Ahmed’s support for the imposition of Sharia likely won’t sway them in the future either.

Also see:

The Conditions Of Omar

caliph-omar-conditions-ofCitizen Warrior:

Greg Hamilton came up with another brilliant idea (to see more of his ideas, subscribe to Malsi-Tung). Hamilton lives in a very Muslim area in Britain and he rides the train a lot. He wanted a way to educate his fellow non-Muslims about Islam without endangering his life. His solution is ingenious: To simply wear a button that says, “Enjoy the conditions of Omar.” It is such an innocent message, and somewhat ambiguous. Certainly nothing to get riled up about, even for a Muslim.

 
Of course, most people won’t know what it means. But most people can Google it, and the curious will. What they’ll find is eye-opening.
 
Ideally, they will find the web site Hamilton has created. If enough counterjihad sites link to it, like I am about to do, his site will rise to the top spot on a Google search for “conditions of Omar.” His site is here. And this is what it says:Dear Reader,

The Pact of Omar was a treaty drawn up between Muhammad’s successor Caliph Omar and the conquered Christians and Jews in his domain. The Pact was based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people. It set out the rules Christians and Jews had to abide by in order to be protected from further jihad attacks. This pact formed the basis of the Conditions of Omar.

Verse 9:29 of the Koran sets out the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims. It says,

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture — [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

In Islamic parlance “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews — they have a book (other religions at the time didn’t have a book). Under conquest they had a third choice other than conversion to Islam or death; this was to live under Sharia as inferior people suffering various humiliations, one of which was the jizyah, a tax levied only on non-Muslims. The non-Muslims are known as dhimmis (pronounced dimmees).

The relationship that the Conditions set up has the following characteristics:

  • Jihad violence is held off (like a dragon on a chain) as long as the dhimmis do not breach the Conditions
  • If the Conditions are breached (even by one dhimmi) the jihad violence is resumed against any or all of the dhimmi community
  • Dhimmis therefore lived in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear. Each dhimmi and the dhimmi community as a whole faced a perpetual concern lest anyone breached the Conditions and brought about catastrophe
Other than paying the non-Muslim poll tax or jizyah what conditions had to be kept?Dhimmis were forbidden from:

  • Criticizing or mocking Islam or Muhammad. Only praise for Islam and Muhammad was allowed
  • Criticizing the Conditions of Omar: the very conditions of subjugation under which they lived
  • Testifying against a Muslim in court
  • Studying Islam – thus keeping them ignorant of its teachings
  • Cursing a Muslim
  • Raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, on pain of having it amputated
  • Displaying their religious symbols

These are only a sample of the Conditions, chosen to highlight why they are relevant today — which I will come to later. There were geographical and historical variants on the Conditions but they all held to the same theme — the humiliation and subjugation of non-Muslims and the maintenance of multiple forms of discrimination against them.

The Conditions also worked in conjunction with each other. For example, if a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christians’ own testimony was not valid in their defence.

Dhimmis were ‘protected’ as long as they met the Conditions. If a dhimmi community (or any member of it) broke the Conditions it was the duty of the local Muslim community to restart the jihad against them.

The Conditions also worked in conjunction with each other. For example, if a Muslim accused a Christian of a capital offence, such as trying to convert a Muslim, the Christians’ own testimony was not valid in their defence.

Dhimmis were ‘protected’ as long as they met the Conditions. If a dhimmi community (or any member of it) broke the Conditions it was the duty of the local Muslim community to restart the jihad against them.

A key outcome of this scenario is the desire of non-Muslims to avoid confrontations with Muslims and to police one another to prevent deviant individuals destroying the ‘protection’ of the Conditions.

Pakistan is a Muslim country where the Conditions of Omar are operating to some degree today. In March 2013, because one Christian was accused of blasphemy, some 3,000 Muslims attacked the Christian Joseph Colony of Lahore, burning two churches and 160 Christian homes.

In 2009 in Gojra, eight Christians were burned alive, 100 houses looted and 50 homes set ablaze after another blasphemy accusation.

We can see why dhimmis live in a state of perpetual concern for the potential impact of their personal actions on their whole community.

May 5th 2014, Bangladesh, a 3,000 strong Muslim mob attacked Hindu households and a temple after two youths were alleged to have slandered the ‘prophet’ Muhammad on Facebook.

These are just a few examples to show how the Conditions are applied in practise and that they are still active today. Islam as a body of belief has never discarded them and never will because, realistically, it can’t. You can read many more examples of the Conditions in action today if you look up Raymond Ibrahim’s Bulletin of Christian Persecution online. His book, “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christianity” is also very informative.

You might like to believe that the application of Islamic law or Sharia is receding. It isn’t. Over the last 60 years Sharia worldwide has been extending and intensifying. See here.

And that brings us to the here and now.

Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries have brought Sharia with them. The Conditions of Omar are simply a subset of Sharia which sets out how Muslims should deal with non-Muslims under conquest.

You might well say that what Muslims do to Hindus or Christians or other non-Muslims in Bangladesh or Pakistan is none of our business. That is called the death of conscience.

You might well say that we have not been conquered. That is only partly true. A process of conquest is underway.

The Conditions of Omar are being established today right under our noses. They may not be coming about because we are under occupation but they are being established as norms of behaviour. Sometimes we are imposing the Conditions on ourselves as a gesture of goodwill or to prevent discrimination; sometimes we are imposing them due to fear of jihad terrorism or angry rioting; sometimes they are established by default.

One of the subtle ways we are surrendering to the Conditions is by policing what non-Muslims can say about Islam and Muslims. See thisexample.

Anyone living among Muslims today knows that being openly critical of Islam or Muhammad is risky. Plenty of examples have set the precedent: in 2004 Theo van Gogh was murdered for making a film critical of Islamic attitudes to women; in 1989 Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding after writing The Satanic Verses, his Japanese translator was murdered; in 2004 the Danish cartoons episode erupted in which 162 people around the world were killed during protests, again demonstrating how some Muslims will kill people totally unrelated to the ‘offence’.

These are a small selection but they point to two clear principles: (1) the author of something considered critical of Islam is liable to be killed; (2) anyone can be killed in revenge against the non-Muslim world. Both of these conform to rules set out in the Conditions.

As a result of such actions and threats most publications refused to print the cartoons. Public figures came to the defence of a religion they knew nothing about. Those seeking to rock the boat further by printing the cartoons became the targets of condemnation rather than the Muslims threatening violence.

Again, this conforms to the Conditions and the behaviour of dhimmi populations who feel vulnerable and threatened. The dhimmi populations turn to self-policing in order to prevent deviant individuals triggering violence from Muslims. This strategy buys into the idea that its entirely up to non-Muslims to refrain from behaviour which upsets Muslims — a dhimmi outlook.

The principle has become established that non-Muslims should not confront Muslims about their behaviour or their beliefs. Only praise of Islam is allowed. This is submission – especially in view of the fact that Islamic beliefs call for the conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.

Read more at Citizen Warrior

Sharia, Permissible Lying, and the Duality of the Message

taqiyya1-300x225By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/18/14:

“You send two messages, one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”

Omar Ahmad
Chairman of the Board
Hamas (dba CAIR), 1994-2005

“It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

Um Dat al Salik
Islamic Sacred Law (Reliance of the Traveller)

While there are individuals who identify themselves as Muslims who do not seek to impose Sharia on the world, there still exists a Global Islamic Movement which seeks to do just that through all means possible including armed conflict. Woven into Sharia is the self-protective measure of lying to the unbeliever in order to further the Jihad until the war is won. As a matter of fact, lying to the infidel is obligatory if the goal is obligatory—Jihad is obligatory in the Sharia until the world is claimed for Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (all 57 Islamic States in the world represented at the Head of State/King level) all seek to impose Sharia on the rest of us per their stated doctrine.

So when Western leaders turn to their left or to their right to get advice from their “Islamic Advisors” and these advisors can be easily identified as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, we know our leaders are most likely being lied to. The strategic loss in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq despite overwhelming U.S. military victories there is just one example of the cost of relying on men who we know are not telling us the truth about the reality on the ground.

The US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”) was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (Northern District of Texas, Dallas, 2008). When HLF was indicted immediately after 9/11 it was the largest Islamic charity in America, and it was Hamas. HLF was one of four entities created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) in the United States. The other three organizations were the UASR (United Association for Studies and Research), IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

During a 1993 meeting of the U.S. Palestine Committee in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hamas leaders from all over the country attended including senior Hamas official Omar Ahmad, founder of CAIR. The FBI wiretapped phone conversations, microphones meeting rooms, and conducted physical surveillance the attendees because this was a meeting of Hamas leaders in America. During a meeting on October 2nd, Omar Ahmad – who helped plan and organize this meeting—was recorded discussing his assessment of where Hamas was in the United States and how to move forward. Specifically, he stated:

“I believe that our problem is that we stopped working underground. We will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us…the media person among us will recognize you send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims. If they found out who said that – even four years later – it will cause discredit to the Foundation as far as the Muslims are concerned as they will say ‘Look, he used to tell us about Islam and that it is a cause and stuff while he, at the same time, is shooting elsewhere.’ Then if we want to do something like that it is better that it is an independent, separate and new organization and no one knows any connections it has with Holy Land.”

In very practical terms, Omar Ahmad was restating what Sharia demands – there must be a duality of communications from Islamic leaders. It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is false about Islam, yet it is obligatory for Sharia adherent Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in pursuit of Jihad and the imposition of Sharia globally. Therefore, Sharia adherent Muslims must “send two messages” that necessarily contradict one another – one to the Muslim community and one to the non-Muslim community.

The key to Ahmad’s above mentioned recorded conversation is he is articulating what all of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders understand—if we (Americans) find out these Muslim leaders are lying to us, it will discredit them. Then we would realize the same guys telling us they mean us well and want to help us are actually a part of a larger jihadi organization killing people elsewhere. Well, that wouldn’t be good for business.

Factually, we know the Muslim Brotherhood, in the form of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Fiqh Council of North America (which ensures everything the Muslim Brotherhood does in North America is done in accordance with the Sharia) has its authoritative stamp of approval in the front of the Reliance of the Traveller—14th century authoritative Islamic Sacred Law published in Beltsville, Maryland. As is true with all authoritatively published Islamic Law, this MB-approved Sharia law only defines Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims” (Book O, Justice) and makes it obligatory until the world is under the rule of the Sharia. This same book, quoted above, obliges Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in the pursuit of obligatory objectives (e.g. JIHAD).

Therefore, if we can identify Muslim leaders as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement, we know they are obliged to lie to us regarding these matters. This might explain why 100% of Sharia is in agreement on the matter of Jihad and its obligation by the Muslim community, but why all of our American leaders argue Islam “doesn’t stand for” what Al Qaeda is doing. Despite the fact Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law, our leaders call Al Qaeda’s pursuits “extreme” or a “warped version” of Islamic Law.

When we see Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Imam Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) sitting on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, giving presentations at CIA Headquarters, and briefing the National Security Council, the one thing we know is this—when his lips are moving, he is lying.

Finally, we must ask ourselves a question – at what point do U.S. officials hold these Muslim leaders accountable for providing years of counter-factual information to our National Security apparatus which has led to catastrophic decisions in our war planning, foreign policy, and domestic counterterrorism strategy. More to the point, when do Americans hold our leadership accountable for the criminal negligence of utilizing such enemies to “help” us while citizens are dying on the battlefield and places like Little Rock, Boston, Fort Hood and elsewhere?