After the terrors in Paris, Bill Whittle asks if we should just listen to our President and accept Islam as a progressive path for America… Can Sharia Law and The Constitution coexist?
After the terrors in Paris, Bill Whittle asks if we should just listen to our President and accept Islam as a progressive path for America… Can Sharia Law and The Constitution coexist?
The recent Democratic debate where candidates were challenged to use the phrase “radical Islam” has stirred up a lot of discussion over political correctness in naming the enemy. The problem with most of these debates is that everyone keeps conflating individual Muslim beliefs with Islamic doctrine. As Dr. Kedar points out, Muslims follow Islamic doctrine in varying degrees. And adding to the confusion is the duality of the texts due to abrogation and the fact that the Quran is not written in chronological order. What must be understood is that Islamic doctrine, when followed to the letter is exactly how ISIS is conducting itself.
Israeli National News, by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, November 12, 2015
Beginning more or less with 9/11, the expression “radical Islam” became the accepted way for the media, politicians and public to define the religious and ideological foundations of Islam-based violence when referring to what the world calls “terror.” This expression was meant to be contrasted with “moderate Islam” which presents Muslims as ordinary people who wish to live in peace with all of mankind – Christians, Jews, Buddhists, unbelievers and the rest of us. The world created the image of two Islams, one radical and impossible to live with, and one moderate and “just like us.”
This differentiation between “radical” and “moderate” Islam is what gave rise to the claim that Islam had been “hijacked” by the radicals, implying that the real and original Islam is the moderate, not the false, radical one.
This is what allows today’s Europe to relate positively to the wave of mostly-Muslim illegal immigrants washing up on its shores – they represent “moderate Islam” and all they want is to live in peace and harmony with their European neighbors.
Permit me to raise some doubts concerning the psychological mindset that claims the existence of two types of Islam. In order to do this, let us clarify an important point: Islam is a text-based framework of ideas and behaviors, covering religion, culture, strictures, politics, law and economics. It is an all-embracing way of life. The most basic text is the Qu’ran, followed by the Hadith (oral law) and the Sura – biography – of Muhammad. The Sharia, Muslim law, is a system of binding laws and injunctions that Muslims are obliged to obey.
There are no two Islams, no moderate one and no radical one, there is just one Qu’ran that includes everything: verses on Jihad and all out war against unbelievers along with verses that speak of recognizing the “other” and living beside him.
There are no two types of hadith, one radical and the other moderate; there is just one body of hadith that includes everything, both violent and moderate ideas.
Muhammad does not have a moderate biography and a radical one; there is only one life story of the prophet of Islam and it has stories that express a radical, violent approach and others presenting a moderate one.
There is also just one Sharia that includes everything, from the radical cutting off of a thief’s hands to the unquestionably moderate admonition to care for the poor and indigent.
That being the case, there is no “moderate Islam” and no “radical Islam”, just one Islam that incorporates both terms, ranging from extreme radicalism to extreme moderation. In practice, we see people with different cultures, some of them extremists and some moderates, all finding verses, ideas, precedents and laws that support their views on life and society in the same Qu’ran, Hadith, Sura and Sharia. The radical Muslim chooses to quote sources that support his extremist approach, while the moderate Muslim finds sources to buttress his moderate approach. [emphasis added]
Those two Muslims, the most extreme and the most moderate, are “kosher”, because they both rely on legitimate Islamic sources, and neither can claim that the other “hijacked” Islam. All the Muslims in the world, all one and a half billion of them, men, women and children, are to be found somewhere on the moderate-extremist continuum. They may live alone or as part of families, tribes, organizations and societies.
Islamic State is a state established and continuing its operations with the participation and cooperation of a large body of Muslims and converts to Islam who are on the extremist tip of the continuum. Al Qaeda is right there next to them, as are Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other terrorist organizations. On the other end of the continuum, the moderate one, are the members of the “Muslims for Tomorrow” organization, a totally moderate group of Muslims living in Toronto, Canada.
Along the scale connecting the endpoints of the continuum, one can find all the other Muslims in the world, each one on a point of his choosing, somewhere between radicalism and moderation. His place on the continuum is a dynamic, not a static one, and a once moderate Muslim can undergo a process of radicalization, while another, who was an extreme radical can change his views and become more moderate. Life has a way of moving people along the continuum, making it harder to predict the future of an individual or group.
Moderate Muslim migrants live in harmony with the foreign societies to which they have migrated. They blend in nicely, work for a living, are law abiding and contribute to the economy and society that absorbs them. More radical Muslims who migrate to new societies tend to live in the enclaves that preserve their culture and way of life, only partially blending into society and the work force and constantly attempting to influence and change for their own ends the society that let them in. If they are on the violent side of the continuum, that violence will be turned on the society that accepted them – a fact that is most evident in today’s Europe.
Written for Arutz Sheva, translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, Arutz Sheva Op-ed Editor.
Brigitte Gabriel: 15 to 20 percent of all Muslims are radical…you’re looking at 180 to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western Civilization…the peaceful majority are irrelevant”
The murder of some 127 innocents in Paris by a jihadi gang on Friday has again shocked the French and led to another round of solidarity, soul searching, and anger. In the end, however, Islamist violence against Westerners boils down to two questions: How much will this latest atrocity turn public opinion? And how much will it further spur the Establishment to deny reality?
As these questions suggest, the people and the professionals are moving in opposite directions, the former to the right, the latter to the left. In the end, this clash much reduces the impact of such events on policy.
Public opinion moves against Islamists specifically and Islam more generally when the number of deaths are large enough. America’s three thousand dead on 9/11 stands out as by far the largest mortality but many other countries have had their equivalent – the Bali bombings for Australia, the railroad bombing for Spain, the Beslan school massacre for Russia, the transportation bombings for Britain.
Sheer numbers are not the only consideration. Other factors can multiply the impact of an assault, making it almost the political equivalent of mass carnage: (1) The renown of those attacked, such as Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands and the Charlie Hebdo office in France. (2) The professional status of the victim, such as soldiers or police. (3) High-profile circumstances, such as the Boston Marathon bombing.
In addition to the over 27,000 attacks globally connected to Islam since 9/11, or more than 5 per day (as counted by TheReligionOfPeace.com), a huge increase in illegal immigration from the Middle East recently exacerbated feelings of vulnerability and fear. It’s a one-way street, with not a single soul ever heard to announce, “I used to worry about Islamism but I don’t any more.”
These cases make more Westerners worried about Islam and related topics from the building of minarets to female infibulation. Overall, a relentless march rightwards is underway. Surveys of European attitudes show 60 to 70 percent of voters expressing these concerns. Populist individuals like Geert Wilders of the Netherlands and parties like the Sweden Democrats are surging in the polls.
But when it comes to the Establishment – politicians, the police, the press, and the professors – the unrelenting violence has a contrary effect. Those charged with interpreting the attacks live in a bubble of public denial (what they say privately is another matter) in which they feel compelled to pretend that Islam has no role in the violence, out of concern that to recognize it would cause even more problems.
These 4-P professionals bald-facedly feign belief in a mysterious “violent extremist” virus that seems to afflict only Muslims, prompting them to engage in random acts of barbaric violence. Of the many preposterous statements by politicians, my all-time favorite is what Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said about the Charlie Hebdo jihadis: “They’re about as Muslim as I am.”
This defiance of common sense has survived each atrocity and I predict that it will also outlast the Paris massacre. Only a truly massive loss of life, perhaps in the hundreds of thousands, will force the professionals to back off their deeply ingrained pattern of denying an Islamic component in the spate of attacks.
That pattern has the very consequential effect of shutting out the fears of ordinary voters, whose views thereby have negligible impact on policy. Worries about Shari’a, rape gangs, exotic diseases, and bloodbaths are dismissed with charges of “racism” and “Islamophobia,” as though name-calling addresses these real issues.
More surprising yet, the professionals respond to the public’s move to the right by themselves moving to the left, encouraging more immigration from the Middle East, instituting more “hate speech” codes to suppress criticism of Islam, and providing more patronage to Islamists. This pattern affects not just Establishment figures of the Left but more strikingly also of the Right (such as Angela Merkel of Germany); only Eastern European leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán permit themselves to speak honestly about the real problems.
Placing the murderous rampage in Paris into this context: it will likely move public sentiments substantially in one direction and Establishment policies in quite the opposite way, therefore ultimately having only a limited impact.Eventually, to be sure, voters’ views will make themselves heard, but decades later and more weakly than democratically should have been the case.
We Need to Talk About Islam, by Paul Cooper, Nov.14, 2015:
Yet again the sheer horror and barbarity of Islamic terror visits the streets of Paris. Yet again the synchronized response from the mainstream media has been lacklustre in nature, demonstrating pitiful levels of cowardice.
The intellect mainstream media bring to this scenario is meagrely constrained and limited to, “oh ok, they were ISIS.” Petrified and crippled by political correctness, they feign obliviousness which is cringe worthy, disconcerting and embarrassing all in perfect harmony. It is intolerable for media outlets to haphazardly dismiss ideological rationale behind this atrocity. People deserve more. The innocent people massacred in Paris deserve more.
Attributing the entire process of Islamic indoctrination, commitment to political Islamism and ultimately violent Jihadism as “just ISIS” may be blissful ignorance for many, however hazardous for all. Assigning the label ‘ISIS’ or ‘Daesh’ to anyone who is willing to engage in literal Islamic narratives debilitates opportunities to progress resolving the issue. The ideology and inherent complexities of literal Islamic narratives receive a ‘get out of jail’ free card. It was “ISIS” we hear them say. Sure, perhaps they were ISIS affiliated but there was a journey they undertook to get there which must be openly discussed, not swept under the rug as would be the preference of our media and politicians.
The cowardly media and politicians – to the detriment of everyone – fervently refuse to give literal Islamic narratives the attention they desperately require. The issue of home grown Jihadists in particular must not be dismissed. The media remain petrified of mentioning the I word, Islam, and the M word, Muhammad. The regressive left sit in wait, ready to berate anyone willing to broach the issue as ‘Islamophobic”. The regressive left, forever a roadblock in achieving progress.
Will the media enlighten its viewers of the martyrdom concept within Islamic ideology. Most of the Islamic attackers detonated suicide vests. You would think the concept of martyrdom is something the media would perhaps broach in their 24 hour a day analysis. To question the concept of martyrdom would be to question and enquire on Islamic ideology itself, which of course political correctness paralysis prevents. People yet again sit around watching the television hearing how these attacks are ‘nothing to do with Islam’. Yet again everyone is expected to swallow the effluent the media regurgitate, that martyrdom – or anything for that matter – has nothing to do with the religion which has nothing to do with itself.
Are the media going to provide a platfrom for debate, one which pragmatically breakdowns and categorises intricacies involved in the journey to progress from a Muslim male just attending the local Mosque to becoming a violent Jihadist. No they won’t. Political correctness mandates we sit around like pathetic lame ducks waiting for the next attack to occur. Discussing Islamic ideology and its associated literal narratives would be just too Islamophobic wouldn’t it.
If a Christian man walked into a restaurant and prior to barbarically executing everyone stated, “in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit,” the entire political and media establishment would irrefutably state a Christian terror attack had occurred. Why is Islam entitled to an ISIS ‘get out of jail free card’? The next time such a Christian attack happens I’ll write an article about it, however I suspect you may be waiting a while.
There are thousands of Muslims in France embracing the attacks, claiming it as a victory for Allah. Social media is rife with gleeful celebrations of what occurred. Media willingness to provide coverage of the condemnations of the attacks is not in question. At the other end of the spectrum, to provide an impartial perspective they must cover the many people rejoicing. There are millions of people thinking this way. Isn’t it kind of important to talk about it?
Condemnation from prominent Islamic community groups continue to be disappointing, demonstrating the customary magnitude of ambiguity. Meagre statements such as, “this is not Islam” are so ambiguous it’s hard not to question their integrity. Is it “not Islam” because the attacks were not approved by representatives of their specific community, or is it “not Islam” because they condemn violence in no uncertain terms. In fact, have we ever witnessed Islamic community leaders unambiguously condemn violence in no uncertain terms and in any given scenario?
Ideology cannot be beaten with violence, of that I am sure. It will only be strengthened with violence. We need to address the core and fundamental ideology. As long as our cowardly media and politicians continue to avoid discussing Islamic ideology – in a manner in which you’d expect someone to avoid the bubonic plague – how can we address anything? You guessed it, we’ll sit around feebly waiting for the next appalling attack on our freedoms, which undoubtedly will have ‘nothing to do with Islam’.
Frontpage, by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, Nov. 12, 2015:
For many years we in the United States have regularly heard from a small number of Muslim American “reformers” who aspire to change Islam in ways that will make it more “modern” and compatible with American values such as freedom of speech and religion, and the equality of all people. According to these reformers, such change would rescue Islam from the “perverted” and “radical” interpretations of thejihadists, and return it to the way the reformers claim Muhammad originally taught it: as a religion that commanded peace and tolerance toward all, and promoted the rights of women.
These aspiring reformers seem to be generally Muslim males who were either born in the United States, or have spent a significant portion of their life in the United States. They have used the freedoms in the United States to explore Islam and to strike out on their own in providing an interpretation of that religion that conforms largely to American values. These personal interpretations commonly focus on Islam as a religion of peace that has been perverted by a few radical jihadists, and the aspiring reformers present Islam as such to non-Muslim audiences. I use the term “Americanized Muslim reformer” as a general reference to these aspiring Muslim reformers.
But what most non-Muslims don’t realize is that Islam prohibits exactly what these Americanized Muslim reformers are trying to do. Let’s look in the Koran, the holy book of Islam considered by Muslims to consist of the timeless, perfect, unchangeable words of their god Allah.
Islam was Perfected during the Time of Muhammad
Allah states in 5:3 of the Koran that the religion of Islam was perfected and finalized during the time of Muhammad:
This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion[.]
In 15:9 Allah states that the Koran cannot be changed. According to Muslim scholars, 2:85 of the Koran prohibits picking and choosing among its verses (e.g., Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, p. 88).
And to reiterate this, the prophet Muhammad said the penalty for denying a verse of the Koran was death:
It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “Whoever denies a Verse of the Qur’an, it is permissible to strike his neck (i.e. execute him)[.]”
Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 2539
And Muhammad talked about being in Paradise to greet the Muslims who died after him, and seeing some of those Muslims taken away because of changes they had made to Islam after he died:
“There will come to me some people whom I know and they know me, and then a barrier will be set up between me and them.” Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri added that the Prophet further said, “I will say those people are from me (i.e. they are my followers). It will be said, ‘You do not know what new changes and new things (heresies) they did after you.’ Then I will say, ‘Far removed (from mercy), far removed (from mercy), those who changed, did new things in (the religion) after me!'”
Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 7050-7051
And once an issue has been decided in the Koran and/or in the teachings of Muhammad, it is blasphemy for a Muslim to disagree with that decision. This is plainly stated in the Koran, e.g:
It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger, have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error. (33:36)
Their god and their prophet say that Islam cannot be changed after the time of Muhammad, so what are the Americanized Muslim reformers to do? Below are some of the major approaches I have found taken among these reformers. These approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the use of more than one of these approaches, or variations thereof, is not uncommon.
The Koran Only
There are Muslims known as “Koranists.” They believe that the only source of Islamic Doctrine is what is found in the Koran. The Koranists reject the Sunnah (the teachings and example of Muhammad).
But the Koran itself specifically rejects the premise of the Koranists. These are some of the Koran verses that stress the importance of the Sunnah of Muhammad:
In the Koran Allah specifically commands Muslims to obey and follow the teachings and example of Muhammad. So where does a Muslim find such teachings and example, including in matters such as how to pray, actions to be taken during the Hajj, or ablution? They are not in the Koran, they are in theSunnah.
The Koranists not only ignore the words of Allah, but they ignore the words of their prophet Muhammad:
Yahya related to me from Malik that he heard that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “I have left two things with you. As long as you hold fast to them, you will not go astray. They are the Book of Allah and the sunna [sic] of His Prophet.
Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 46.3
So in defiance of the commands and teachings of their god and prophet, the Koranist Muslims ignore theSunnah.
Personal Interpretations of Salad Bar Islam
This approach is probably the one most used among the aspiring Americanized Muslim reformers and was the genesis for my first article about Fantasy Islam. With this approach, changing Islamic Doctrine runs the gamut from a few tweaks here and there, to Islam being simply whatever the individual Muslim wants it to be. The common denominator is that the changes are based on the personal opinion of the aspiring reformer.
With this approach, hadith collections that have been considered authoritative since the 9th Century are questioned, with certain hadiths among them actually being deemed false, solely on the basis of the individual Muslim’s opinion.
Verses of the Koran that are specific can be deemed allegorical, the eternal words of Allah can be judged applicable only to a specific time period, and verses of the Koran can be completely dismissed, solely on the basis of the individual Muslim’s opinion.
With this approach, the Doctrine of Abrogation, based on 2:106 of the Koran, is frequently dismissed. This Doctrine is fundamental to understanding Islam, and it states that if there is a conflict between the messages of two “revelations” in the Koran, then the most recent “revelation” is the one to be followed. Consequently, a “revelation” made in Medina would supersede a similar, earlier “revelation” made in Mecca if there was a conflict between the messages of the two. The significance is that the “revelations” in Mecca tended to be more peaceful and accommodating toward non-Muslims than the verses later “revealed” in Medina. The verses from Medina are generally more belligerent and intolerant, and more inclined to make sharp differentiations between Muslims and non-Muslims. By ignoring the Doctrine of Abrogation, the aspiring Muslim reformer can concentrate on the Meccan verses, which, however, while more appealing to non-Muslim ears, simply don’t carry the weight of Islamic Doctrine anymore.
These aspiring reformers apparently ignore the fact that Muhammad had his own opinions about Muslims following this approach:
Muhammad bin Jarir reported that Ibn ‘Abbas said that the Prophet said, ‘Whoever explains the Qur’an with his opinion or with what he has no knowledge of, then let him assume his seat in the Fire.’
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 1, pp. 32-33
Muhammad said: The most truthful speech is Allah’s Speech, and the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad. The worst matters are the newly invented (in religion), every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is a heresy, and every heresy is in the Fire.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 2, p. 588
Inaccurate Historical Information
It is not unusual to find Americanized Muslim reformers presenting historical information that is simply inaccurate. Here are three common examples:
The peaceful conquest of Mecca: You will hear that when Muhammad led an army of 10,000 Muslim warriors against Mecca in 630 AD, the Meccans surrendered peacefully and there was no bloodshed. You might even hear that Muhammad specifically prohibited the killing of any individuals. In reality, there was some resistance by the Meccans that resulted in the battle deaths of 2-3 Muslims and 12-13 Meccans. And before entering Mecca, Muhammad had ordered the killing of nine specific individuals, including four women. Some of these individuals were subsequently captured and killed, while others saved themselves by converting to Islam before they could be killed. As Muhammad explained it:
If anyone should say, The apostle killed men in Mecca, say God permitted His apostle to do so but He does not permit you.
The Life of Muhammad, p. 555
The Verse of the Sword is a pejorative term created by non-Muslims: You might hear Muslims claim that non-Muslims created the term “Verse of the Sword” to disparage 9:5 of the Koran. Here is the first part of that verse:
Then when the Sacred Months have passed, then kill the Mushrikun [non-Muslims] wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush[.]
In reality, Muslim scholars have referred to this verse as the “Verse of the Sword” for centuries (e.g.Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, pp. 375 and 377).
The Verse of the Sword was revealed before it was revealed: You might hear Muslims claim that 9:5 was among the verses “revealed” during the early period of Islam, when aggressive threats by militarily strong non-Muslims were being made against the young, weak Muslim community. You might also hear the claim that this verse was applicable only to a particular time period and/or circumstance in the past (e.g., Zuhdi Jasser claimed it was “revealed” in and applicable only to 623 AD).
In reality, 9:5 was among the verses “revealed” in late 630 AD and early 631 AD. By this time Muhammad had already conquered Mecca, and the remaining non-Muslim tribes on the Arabian Peninsula, confronted by the burgeoning Muslim armies, were flocking to Medina to convert to Islam. And these verses were not related to a specific battle or to a specific tribe, but rather were directed toward all non-Muslims (Life of Muhammad, pp. 617-619; The History of al-Tabari: The Last Years of the Prophet, pp. 77-79; and Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Vol. 4, pp. 370-376).
And there is no basis in Islamic Doctrine for the claim that 9:5 has no relevance today. Such a claim ignores the facts that Muslims believe the Koran consists of the eternal words of Allah, and Chapter 9 of the Koran was the last chapter to be “revealed” to Muhammad. Consequently, the commands found in Chapter 9 were Allah’s final, timeless instructions to the Muslims on how to deal with non-Muslims.
Their Audience Appears to be Mainly Non-Muslims
Americanized Muslim reformers appear on non-Muslim media and in front of non-Muslim organizations on a frequent basis, and almost always after a major jihadist attack.
But what I have yet to hear about is the number of mosques and Muslim organizations that allow these aspiring reformers to come in and advocate for their personal version of Islam. The Muslim reformers are vocal about their appearances on non-Muslim media and in front of non-Muslim organizations, but when it comes to any occurrence of similar appearances in mosques and in front of Muslim organizations, there seems to be silence.
Based on my research into the Tri-Faith Initiative in Omaha, Nebraska, I think these Americanized Muslim reformers are silent because they seldom, if ever, are allowed to present their personal version of Islam in a mosque or in front of a Muslim organization. The Tri-Faith Initiative is an experiment in interfaith dialogue and coexistence between Muslims, Jews, and Christians. However, in a series of articles I have shown that Islamic doctrine prohibits such a venture and actually maligns, and preaches violence against, Jews and Christians (here, here, here, and here). And I have also shown that most of the money for this initiative comes from non-Muslim organizations and a few aspiring Muslim reformers, with apparently no support for the initiative from mosques and Muslim organizations in Nebraska (hereand here).
When I have corresponded with Tri-Faith partners and proponents, and Nebraska mosques and Muslim organizations, about what Islamic Doctrine teaches and the lack of support for the Tri-Faith from the greater Muslim community in Nebraska, there has been only silence from the Muslims and character attacks on me from the non-Muslims.
Here are reasons why Americanized Muslim reformers are failing:
Does it really matter that Americanized Muslim reformers are going around trying to create personalized, “modern” versions of Islam? Yes, because they are relying on non-Muslims for support. And to get that support, the reformers are presenting “the true” Islam as a religion of peace, similar to Christianity and Judaism, and able to be modified and modernized. And the reformers are presenting the jihadists as outliers who have perverted and hijacked that religion. But the reality is that the Muslim reformers are perverting and hijacking the religion, and it is the jihadists who are following the Islam taught by Muhammad.
How one understands a religion, whether correctly or incorrectly, is a major factor in how one welcomes it adherents. In terms of the mass migration of Muslim “refugees” into Europe, the European leadership and many Europeans in general appear to think that Islam is as the aspiring reformers have presented it. So the Muslim “refugees” have been generally welcomed with open arms. But would there have been such a welcome if the realization had been more wide spread that the reformers are heretics with little support in the greater Muslim community?
There is support in the United States for the Obama administration’s call to bring in tens of thousands of these Muslim “refugees.” But before allowing this to happen, we must ask the question that the Europeans should have asked, but for whom now it is too late to ask: Will these Muslim “refugees” follow the Islam of our Americanized Muslim heretics or will these “refugees” follow the centuries-old intolerant, supremacist, violent teachings of their god Allah and their prophet Muhammad? The fate of Western culture lies in the answer.
Just as it is obligatory to accept the commandments proven by the textual evidence from the Qur’an, and that it is utter disbelief to reject them, so are the commandments proven by the hadeeths of the Messenger of Allah. It is obligatory to act by them, and it is sheer disbelief to deny them.
Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 1, pp. 622-623
Frontpage, by Danusha V. Goska, Nov. 11, 2015:
The Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the individual, apart from the mob. That individual is invited to meet and talk, face to face and utterly spontaneously, with God, without interruption from any earthly authority. That encounter is the life spark of Western Civilization.
We define, and recognize, by contrasts. I learn much about Christian prayer and Christian monasticism by comparing them with their opposites. I think of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” and what it says about my faith – specifically, what it says about the Judeo-Christian concept of God, of man, and of prayer. I think of how that artwork and its implications contrast with other belief systems: modern Atheism, ancient Paganism, and Islam.
Between 1508 and 1512, on the ceiling of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo depicted the spark of life in the fingertip-to-fingertip, eye-contact encounter between one, loving, creator God and one human being – not a teeming mass – just one person. In Michelangelo’s fresco, we see Adam’s full naked form, from head to toe. God looks like Adam, and Adam looks like God. They are the same size. Every detail here matters – that Adam is just one man, that he is naked, that he is anatomically detailed, that he is the same size as God, that God and Adam are fundamentally structured the same, that Adam is making eye contact with God, that God looks upon Adam with fiercely attentive love – every detail here has an impact on the life anyone can live in a Judeo-Christian society.
Organized Christophobes and anti-Semites have targeted Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” for attack. They call themselves “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” They blather, “Oh, you Christians and Jews are so stupid; you think God is an old man in the sky with a long, white beard.” They insist that it doesn’t matter what story a society tells itself about its origins. They say that the Judeo-Christian God may as well be a monster made of spaghetti. They are ignorant and childish enough to believe that if we told ourselves that story, we’d be able to have the same society that we have now. They are wrong on every count.
“God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them”: Sofers, ancient Jewish scribes, committed these words to print in the book of Genesis thousands of years ago. Each individual person is the image of a loving God – “tzelem elohim” in Hebrew, “imago dei” in Latin. Michelangelo used the language at which he was fluent – his gift for accurately depicting anatomy and physiology – to communicate the essence of the relationship between the Judeo-Christian God and each individual person.
Adam and God meet face to face, eye to eye, in the Sistine Chapel fresco. Exodus 33:11 tells us that “The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, just as a man speaks with his friend.” Deuteronomy 5:4 tells us that “the Lord spoke to his people Israel” face to face as well. In Numbers 6:25, God blesses thus “The Lord let his face shine upon you.” The Bible repeatedly adjures us to seek God’s face. “When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek” Psalm 27:8. “Face to face:” this metonym has meant intimate connection – human and spiritual – for the past four thousand years. “To face” means “to meet.” The sixth amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to face one’s accuser. “Face” often means “dignity,” e.g. “To save face.” This is true not just of English, but of many languages. In Medieval Slavic languages, “without face” means “shame.” In China and other Asian cultures, face is reputation, honor, and dignity.
Adam is an individual, apart from a mob. The Talmud teaches that God created only one Adam, rather than a group of men at once, to emphasize the value of each, individual life. One man, in himself, is an entire universe. The Bible teaches: you matter. Not some ideal you. Not you as a cog in a big machine. You who you are, right now. You matter. The God who created the universe wants contact with you. Bring your moment-by-moment concerns to God. Suffering? Pray. Rejoicing? Pray. Sick? Pray. Worried about someone else? Pray. Anxious for yourself? Pray. (James 5 13-18, Philippians 4:6). David, Mary, and Jesus model candid, spontaneous prayer. David nags God in the Psalms, Mary spikes the ball in the Magnificat, and Jesus on the cross holds back nothing. No prayers are as poignant as the prayers of desperate women. Hannah is reprimanded for the intensity of her prayer – “Lady, are you drunk?” – and the woman with a hemorrhage prays her tentative, tiny prayer silently, “If only I can touch the hem of his garment.”
American Thinker, by Carol Brown, Nov. 12, 2015:
Taqiyya is an Islamic doctrine that allows Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. As in lie to them. Dr. Sami Mukaram, author of Taqiyya in Islam, writes: “Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it… Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.” (Specific references to taqiyya in the Quran, the Hadith, and in Islamic law, can be found here.)
One of the most common and persistent forms of taqiyya we are witnessing today is noted at Islam-Watch:
When placed under scrutiny or criminal investigation, (even when there is overwhelming, irrefutable evidence of guilt or complicity), the taqiyya-tactician will quickly attempt to counter the allegation by resorting to the claim that it is, in fact, the accused who are the ‘the victims’. Victims of Islamophobia, racism, religious discrimination and intolerance. Currently, this is the most commonly encountered form of distraction and ‘outwitting’….
Indeed. We see this manifest just about every day as Muslims claim to be victims when it is they who are the aggressors. And the goal is always the same: deceive the non-believer in order to advance Islamic supremacy. Of course, the non-believers can only be outwitted if they are also non-thinkers.
Here are three among a seemingly infinite number of examples of taqiyya in action.
The first example is of taqiyya played out at the highest levels of politics and world affairs, as Raymond Ibrahim recalled an anecdote brought to his attention by Daniel Pipes.
Back in the 1980s, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the president of Pakistan, explained to Ronald Reagan how it was no problem for the Pakistanis to sign the Geneva agreements and yet continue supplying weapons to the Afghan jihadis (“freedom fighters”) combating the Soviet Union.
Why wasn’t it a problem? According to Zia, “We’ll just lie about it. That’s what we’ve been doing for eight years.” He added, “Muslims have the right to lie in a good cause….”
The second example is when Boston bombing jihadist, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, became a suspect (posthumously) in an unsolved triple murder that took place on 9/11/11. The Boston Globe reported:
It was one of the most gruesome killings in Greater Boston in many years: three young men found with their throats slit inside a Waltham apartment….
Now, police and prosecutors are stepping up their investigation into the unsolved 2011 triple homicide at the request of victims’ relatives who believe that suspected Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have played a role, noting that Tsarnaev had been close friends with one of the dead men.
What is more, the grieving relatives say the killings took place on a highly symbolic date for Islamic extremists: the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
What the Boston Globe article omitted was that all three of the young men were Jewish. The fact that one of them was Tsarnaev’s “friend” is a classic example of how some Muslims may outwardly befriend non-believers, only to turn around and kill them. (For more examples of this pattern, see here.)
The third example is when, most recently, Muslim academics claimed that Ben Carson’s comments on taqiyya were false (which they weren’t), as reported by Raymond Ibrahim covering a Washington Post story:
…according to the Muslim professor, “there is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a complete invention.” (snip)
Apparently it never occurred to the WaPo’s Kessler that El Fadl himself may have been exercising, in Zia’s words, his Muslim “right to lie in a good cause” — in this case, to prevent Americans from ever being suspicious of Muslim individuals and organizations in the U.S.
Taqiyya about taqiyya.
The obvious problem with lying is that once you know a group of persons will intentionally deceive, everything they say or do is called into question. And therein lies one of the rubs with Muslims. How can any non-Muslim know when a Muslim is telling the truth or telling a lie? We can’t. For the sake of self-preservation, one must err on the side of caution and maintain skepticism at all times. Because taqiyya can only work if the person being lied to is uninformed.
As Daniel Pipes wrote (emphasis mine): “…Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split ‘the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.”
And there you have it. Deny jihad and invite your demise.
The Islamic world has got the West coming and going. When they truthfully tell us what they plan to do (such as with ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood), the West opts for deaf, dumb, and blind. When the Islamic world deceives us, the West falls for it every time.
How can any nation survive such willful stupidity?
Hat tips: Front Page Magazine, Jihad Watch, The Religion of Peace, Atlas Shrugs, Counterjihad Report
Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Nov. 9, 2016:
Islam’s Rule of Numbers holds that, wherever and whenever Muslims grow in numbers, the same acts of “anti-infidel” violence that are endemic to the Islamic world grow with them.
This has become especially evident in one Western institution that has a disproportionately large number of Muslims: prisons. Several anecdotes just surfaced last month alone.
Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire recently became the first Muslim-majority prison in Britain. Between the ages of 22 and 39, Muslims now represent 56 per cent of the population there. “Prisoners and staff found the Muslim presence overwhelming” says a recent report. Non-Muslims “were often bullied into converting to Islam, and those who resisted were too scared to cook pork in communal kitchens in case it caused offence.”
As for those non-Muslim inmates who refuse to convert, they are being pressured to pay a “protection tax”—or in Islamic parlance, jizya—to Muslim gangs. Along with Whitemoor prison, the collection of jizya is taking place in at least three other of Britain’s largest prisons. According to a new investigation “religious extremists in prison are using bullying tactics and violent threats to force prisoners to convert or pay money. Tobacco and other luxury commodities smuggled inside prisons are often used by non-Muslims to pay the tax, while some victims said they had to ask friends and family for money…. Faced with the option of paying up or suffering at the hands of the radicals, some prisoners have been pressured into converting to Islam to ease their time in prison.”
A Whitehall source said that “the tax may have been inspired by the actions of ISIS, who are well known to demand jizya from non-Muslims living in Syria and Iraq.”
In fact, it is the Koran, Islam’s holy book, that calls for the collection of jizya from subdued Christians and Jews:
Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued” (Koran 9:29).
In other words, Muslim prisoners are not copying ISIS; rather, both they and ISIS are obeying the Koran.
Meanwhile, down under, in Australia’s highest security prison, “an extremist ISIS gang … has threatened to behead correctional officers and inmates unless they convert to radical Islam.” At least 30 Muslim gang members residing in Goulburn jail “have engaged in warfare against ‘infidel’ that oppose their religious ideologies.”
“They were going to take a hostage — one of the six Christians in the yard — and behead them,” reported a prison guard.
Bullying and threatening non-Muslims into converting to Islam or else demanding money (jizya) from them if they refuse is a regular occurrence around the Muslim world, wherever “infidel” minorities live side by side with Muslim majorities. As Muslims make for disproportionately large numbers in Western prisons—another fact that speaks for itself—it should come as no surprise that coercion, threats, and extortion in the name of Islam are also becoming a regular occurrence.
Ironically, one may have supposed that, if anywhere, it would be in prisons that the Muslim sense of supremacism would be broken. Far from it; Western prison policies—whether banning pork for all inmates to appease Muslims (in an Ohio prison), allowing prayer mats where knives are concealed and used, spending thousands of tax payer dollars to rebuild toilets to face away from Mecca, apologizing for serving non-halal food to Muslim criminals, or possibly accommodating the Salafi beard against prison policies—all serve to confirm Muslims in their sense of supremacy.
This is to say nothing about the fact that lax and politically correct policies have made prisons prime recruiting grounds for the jihad. One U.S. prison was referred to as a “terrorist university” for the Islamic State and one U.K prison allowed the distribution of a jihadi book calling on the slaughter of non-Muslim “infidels.”
Thus prisons have become microcosms of Islamic behavior vis-à-vis “infidels”—replete with a sense of violent Islamic supremacism on the one hand and craven political correctness on the other.
Citizen Warrior, Oct. 29, 2015:
“…if anyone killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…”
Have you heard this quote? It is from the Koran (5:32). It seems like a straightforward quote, and Muslim apologists use it all the time to illustrate that the Muslims beheading people or blowing up non-Muslims are going against the teachings of Islam. This is misleading. And anyone who knows the Koran and Islam knows it is misleading.
Given that Muslims often respond to violent quotes from the Koran by saying they are quoted out of context, it is ironic that one of their mainstay “positive” Koranic quotes is itself taken out of context.
When Muslims (and news organizations) use this quote, they’re trying to convey the idea that in Islam, murder is wrong and saving lives is good. But that’s not the meaning of the passage. In fact, it’s really the oppositeof what the verse conveys.
This is the whole verse (5:32): “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person — unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land — it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”
In other words, this was a commandment to the “Children of Israel” (Jews). This is not a commandment to all people. It is definitely not a commandment to Muslims, so using it as a quote from the Koran showing how peaceful Islam is definitely qualifies as misleading.
And even if this were a commandment to Muslims, it has the qualification, “unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land.” So according to this verse, someone “spreading mischief” can be killed.
That’s bad enough. But the very next verse of the Koran (5:33) goes even further. It says: “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”
This explains that the correct punishment for mischief is execution, crucifixion, etc. This is a command given to Muslims from the Almighty Himself.
As you can see, this adds up to a much different message than the one so often misleadingly quoted.
I believe that simply sharing the information above wherever that quote is used — this, all by itself — would go a long way to opening peoples’ eyes to not only the true nature of Islam, but to the effort being made to deceive us about Islam.
For more information about this passage, check out the excellent site, Answering Muslims.
The article above is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.
Offensive Jihad: the insurmountable obstacle between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Oct. 15, 2015:
During a recent televised interview with Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi, the leading Shia cleric of Iraq made clear why Islam and the rest of the world can never peacefully coexist.
First he spent some time discussing “defensive jihad,” saying that all capable Muslims are obligated to fight for the “liberation” of “occupied” territory, for instance, Israel (see here for a list of European countries also deemed “occupied” in the eyes of Islam).
He then explained “offensive jihad,” Islam’s primary bloodline, which forged what we now call the “Muslim world” over the centuries.
According to the ayatollah, when they can—when circumstance permits it, when they are strong enough—Muslims are obligated to go on the offensive and conquer non-Muslims (a fact to be kept in mind as millions of Muslim “refugees” flood the West).
The Muslim cleric repeatedly yelled at the secularized host who kept interrupting him and protesting that Islam cannot teach such intolerance. At one point, he burst out: “I am the scholar of Islam [al-faqih]. You are just a journalist. Listen to me!”
If they are people of the book [Jews and Christians] we demand of them the jizya—and if they refuse, then we fight them. That is if he is Christian. He has three choices: either convert to Islam, or, if he refuses and wishes to remain Christian, then pay the jizya [and live according to dhimmi rules].
But if they still refuse—then we fight them, and we abduct their women, and destroy their churches—this is Islam!… Come on, learn what Islam is, are you even a Muslim?!
As for the polytheists [Hindus, Buddhists, etc.] we allow them to choose between Islam and war! This is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi, but the opinion of all five schools of jurisprudence [four Sunni and one Shia].
Towards the end of the interview, because the clean-shaven, suit-and-tie-wearing host kept protesting that this cannot be Islam, the ayatollah burst out, pointing at him with contempt and saying, “Who are you? You’re going to tell me what to believe? This is the word of Allah!”
Indeed. Not only is it the word of Islam’s deity, but it is the fundamental, insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Al-Baghdadi—and the countless other Muslim clerics, Sunni and Shia, that hold these views—are not “radicals.” For offensive jihad is no less codified than, say, Islam’s Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.
The 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 can be eliminated.”
Islam has yet to “completely be made over.”
Renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) explained jihad as follows:
In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.
Here it’s worth noting that even the most offensive jihad is seen as an “altruistic” endeavor, not unlike the “white man’s burden” of the 19th century. After all, the ancient argument that “we must reform your ways, with our ways, for your own good” has been one of the most cited justifications for offensive jihad since the 7th century.
Indeed, soon after the death of Islam’s prophet Muhammad (634), when his jihadis burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They reportedly replied as follows:
Allah has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of Allah, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of Allah.
Fourteen hundred years later, in March 2009, Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:
As a member of the true religion [Islam], I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Sharia], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.
Even al-Qaeda partially justified its jihad against America for being “a nation that exploits women like consumer products”; for not rejecting the “immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury.”
If the “white man’s burden” was/is to “civilize” Muslims, by bringing them “democracy,” “human rights,” and “secularism,” the “Muslim man’s burden”—captured by Allah’s word to Muslims, “Jihad is ordained for you, though you dislike it” (Koran 2:216)—has long been to “civilize” Westerners by bringing them under the umbrella of Sharia.
This positive interpretation of jihad ensures that, no matter how violent and ostensibly unjust a jihad is, it will always be vindicated in Muslim eyes: the ugly means will be justified by the “altruistic” ends.
Finally, as Grand Ayatollah Ahmad al-Baghdadi pointed out, the need for Muslims to wage offensive jihad “is not the opinion of Ahmad al-Husseini al-Baghdadi… This is the word of Allah!”
Nor is it the “opinion” of ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr, al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, or any of the other countless past and present jihadis. No, jihad to conquer and bring Sharia to non-Muslims is the command of Allah.
The Glazov Gang, by Jamie Glazov, Oct. 27, 2015:
This special edition of The Glazov Gang was joined by David Kupelian, the author of the new book, The Snapping of the American Mind and vice-president and managing editor of the online news giant WND.
David discussed Stealth Jihad vs. America, unveiling the Left’s enabling of the Muslim Brotherhood’s offensive. He also outlined the numerous ways the progressive agenda has spawned The Snapping of the American Mind.
If the West cannot learn about Islam from doctrine, history, and current events, then let it learn from up close and personal contact.
Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Oct. 26, 2015:
A silver lining exists in the dust cloud being beat up by the marching feet of millions of Muslim men migrating into the West: those many Europeans and Americans, who could never understand Islam in theory, will now have the opportunity to understand it through direct and personal experience.
Perhaps then they will awaken to reality?
The fact is, most Western people have had very little personal interaction with Muslims. Moreover, because Muslims in the West are still a tiny minority—in the U.S., they are reportedly less than one percent of the population—those few Muslims that Westerners do interact with are often on their best behavior, being surrounded as they are by a sea of infidels (according to the doctrine of taqiyya).
And although there are a few media outlets and websites that document the hard but ugly truths of Islam, these are drowned out by the overarching “Narrative” that emanates from the indoctrination centers of the West (schools, universities, news rooms, Hollywood, political talking heads, et al).
According to the Narrative, there is nothing to fear from Islam. If violence and mayhem seem to follow Muslims wherever they go—not to mention plague the entire Islamic world—that is because Muslims are angry, frustrated, and aggrieved, usually at things the West has done.
Although Islamic doctrine calls on Muslims to have enmity for and strive to subjugate non-Muslims whenever possible; although Muslims initiated hostilities against and were the scourge of Europe for a thousand years, until they were defanged in the modern era; although most of the so-called “Muslim world” rests on land that was violently seized from non-Muslims; although reportedly some 270 million non-Muslims have been killed by the jihad over the centuries; and although many modern day Muslims maintain the same worldview that animated their ancestors—most people in the West remain ignorant.
In this context—or absolute lack thereof—how is the average Western person to know the truth about Islam?
Enter mass Muslim migrations. That is, let the barbarians at the gate in.
When discussing Western and Muslim interactions in the modern era, it’s my custom to provide historical precedents to show that Muslim hostilities—whether hate for Christians and their churches and crosses, or whether violent lust for “white” women—are not aberrations but continuations.
In this case, however, I have none to give. For never before in history have the peoples of one civilization been so divorced from reality as to welcome millions of people from an alien civilization—one that terrorized their ancestors for centuries—to come and dwell among them.
The only “history” one can cite is the modern day experiences of those European regions that already have significant Muslim populations, and are taking more in.
In Germany and the United Kingdom, crime and rape have soared in direct proportion to the number of Muslim “refugees” accepted. Sweden alone—where rape has increased by 1,472% since that country embraced “multiculturalism”—is reportedly on the verge of collapse.
The price of the Islamic influx into Western lands is violence and chaos, in accordance with Islam’s Rule of Numbers: women and children will be exploited and raped; the elderly will be mugged; churches and other institutions will be attacked; terror will set in. Look to the plight of non-Muslims living alongside Muslims to get an idea of what is coming.
But alas, at this late hour, such appears to be the price that must be paid for decades of willful ignorance. If the West cannot learn the truth about Islam from theory, from doctrine, from history, and now even from ongoing current events, then let it learn from up close and personal contact.
And if after such firsthand experiences, any Western nation is still too politically correct to act in the name of self-preservation, then let it die. For it will be evident that there is little left worth saving.
by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
October 23, 2015
Women sold as slaves. Women beaten in the streets. Women raped for sport. Girls as young as 8 or 9 years old forced into marriages with strangers, and bound to sexual servitude.
The reports of the atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic State against girls and women – most of them Yazidi – seem as unending as they are despicable and senseless. But the latest may yet be the most depraved: women and girls being raped repeatedly as a way to “make” them Muslim.
According to a CNN report, a new directive from ISIS’s self-appointed caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, instructs men to rape the women that they capture. A woman who is raped 10 times, it says, will then become a Muslim.
That this represents an extraordinary manipulation of Islamic law, or sharia, seems to be of no concern to ISIS soldiers despite their professed devotion to upholding and imposing those very laws. And it presages even greater danger for the girls than the rape itself. One Yazidi woman, identified only as “Noor,” told CNN that the soldier to whom she was enslaved raped her and then allowed 11 others to do the same, meaning that she was in fact twice raped after “becoming” Muslim.
But a Muslim woman who is raped is guilty of adultery according to sharia, and is a dishonor to her family and her tribe. Their only redemption is to kill her – a so-called honor killing. Will this new directive then allow ISIS members to legitimize the murders of Yazidi women and young girls who – unlike Yazidi men – have largely been allowed to live so long as they remain concubines and slaves to ISIS warriors? Or is it simply a new form of Islamic conquest, legitimizing rape while expanding the Muslim population? Or something else?
Other victims have also said they were told their rapes were a form of worship, encouraged in the Quran. Indeed, in an extensive investigation, the New York Timesdescribed a “theology of rape,” in which militants often pray before molesting their victims. One victim, a 12-year-old Yazidi girl, told the Times: “He said that by raping me he is drawing closer to god.”
“Repeatedly,” the Times reports, “the ISIS leadership has emphasized a narrow and selective reading of the Quran and other religious rulings to not only justify violence, but also to elevate and celebrate each sexual assault as spiritually beneficial, even virtuous.”
Even more shocking, the Times investigation shows, “child rape is explicitly condoned” by Islamic State leaders, who have victimized Yazidis more than other religious minorities, as Yazidis practice a non-Abrahamic religion that ISIS considers a form of devil worship.
Such tactics might lead those otherwise repelled by the idea of raping helpless girls to believe that such depravities are not only sanctioned by their religion, but holy. And if raping a girl ten times will bring her to Islam, then indeed each rapist becomes, in this perverted vision, not her diabolus but her savior.
But it isn’t only non-Muslim women who are victimized. Similar tactics have emerged among Muslim communities in Libya, where, according to Britain’s Express, parents in the ISIS stronghold of Sarte are being forced to marry off their daughters to ISIS rebels or face public flogging or worse. In Derna, girls as young as 12 have also reportedly been married off, traded for a promise of protection to the family. Consequently,according to the Independent, “the number of under-age girls forced to marry has increased 15 percent since an IS local branch seized a large part of the coastal city” last October.
Many Western Muslims decry the rapes and forced marriages, arguing that, as Pakistani-American counterterrorism expert Farhana Qazi said in an interview, “rape and any form of abuse is against the tenets and practice of Islam.” But others point to a legacy of enslavement in Islam, particularly during war, and note that there are even rules regarding the treatment of slaves and the taking of women as concubines outlined in the Quran. It is that legacy, they maintain, that ISIS leaders use to justify their actions as part of their revival of a true, “pure” Islam.
Such is the evil cunning of the Islamic State and its leadership: with a single weapon – rape – they penetrate not just the bodies of young women, but, too, the hearts and minds of men. Not only are 99 virgins waiting for you in Heaven, but if you join us, you can rape your way across the Levant.
And with its powerful propaganda machines, it is possible that the “holy rape” fable could even help recruit more young Muslim women from the West, urging them to join the jihad in Syria and, in their already-distorted thinking, to give their bodies to the militants. It will make them “more holy.” It will bring the soldiers closer to Allah in their strife.
Should the propagandists of ISIS endure long enough, they can shape the ideas and visions of the next generation and the very depths of their inhumanity. It seems almost beyond the reach of Western, post-Enlightenment minds, a way of thinking we cannot begin to comprehend. How can we possibly begin to combat it, let alone to build a humane culture in its place?
Frighteningly, Farhana Qazi says it may not even be possible. Yet somehow we will have to. Because each of these young women, these girls enslaved for sex, will soon become a mother. And what they teach their children – daughters as well as sons – will be left to their ISIS masters if we fail.
UTT, by John Guandolo, Oct. 12, 2015:
Saturday at the Nation of Islam event titled “Justice or Else!” President Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright stated Jesus was a “Palestinian.” This is historically untrue, but it opens up a door for a deeper discussion.
In light of a nationwide push by Muslim Brotherhood organizations to propagate the message that Jesus of Nazareth was a Muslim, it is time to bring some much needed light onto this subject.
This billboard, and many like it, are funded and sponsored by groups such as ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) which is a leading jihadi organization in North America and a driving force in Interfaith Outreach here.
Since Islamic jihadis attacked the United States on 9/11/2001, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has led a large-scale information operation (“propaganda campaign” if you prefer) to convince Americans – especially religious leaders – Islam is a one degree off from Christianity and Judaism. Almost the same really.
We are told by leading Muslim scholars in America (who just happen to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood), there is “One God” and “Three Abrahamic Faiths” – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. We are also told “Muslims respect Jesus too.” The first is a lie according to Islamic doctrine. The second is true if you understand Islam through the lens of Islam.
Islam and Sharia
Islam divides the world into the Dar al Islam (“House of Islam” where Sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (“House of War” – everywhere else). The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the Dar al Islam. The vehicle to do this is called Jihad. Once the entire world is under Sharia, there will be “Peace.”
Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life governed by Sharia (Islamic Law).” Sharia comes from the Quran and the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet Mohammad).
The Quran can only be understood if “Abrogation” is understood. The Quranic concept of Abrogation comes from Quaran 16:101 and 2:106, and is understood by all Sunni Islamic scholars to mean that whatever comes chronologically last in the Quran overrules what comes before it.
It should be noted that all Islamic scholars agree Sura (Chapter) 9 of the Quran is the last (chronologically) to discuss Jihad, and Sura 5 is the last to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.
An example: the Quran says “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256). However, that is abrogated when Allah says all people who do not convert to Islam will go to hell (Quran 3:85), which is why Muslims are commanded never to take Jews and Christians for their friends (Quran 5:51). Therefore, Muslims are commanded to “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war.” (Quran 9:5) In addition to converting to Islam or being killed, people of the book (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastians) get the third option of submitting to Islam, paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and living under Sharia with lesser rights than Muslims. (Quran 9:29)
In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. His sayings, actions, and example are codified in authoritative Hadith and in the Sira (biographies of Mohammad). The most authoritative Hadith scholar is Bukhari. This is critical to understanding Islam and how Muslims relate to the world.
The reason it is okay for a 60 year old Lebanese Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl, is because Mohammad married a 6 year old and consummated the relationship when she was only 9. The reason Muslims wage war on non-Muslims until Islam rules the world is because Allah commanded it (9:5 et al), Mohammad repeated this command as related by Bukhari, and then Mohammad waged war on non-Muslims and made them convert, submit, or die. This is why there is no disagreement among the scholars on these matters.
One God, Three Abrahamic Faiths?
So let us go back to the question: Can Allah be the same God of the Christians and Jews? Can the same God who calls the Jews his chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6-8 for example) be the same God who calls for a holocaust of the Jews?
“The Prophet said, ‘The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’ (Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926).
How can the God of the Bible who calls us to love one another (Leviticus 19:18 and John 15:12) be the same God (Allah) who calls Muslims to “Fight them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them.” (Quran 9:14)
Allah will “punish” non-Muslims through the hands of the Muslims. This verse (9:14) creates a requirement for Muslims to punish non-Muslims.
Is Jesus a Muslim?
As seen through the eyes of Islam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others are Muslim prophets. How can that be? We must first begin by understanding Islam teaches that no authentic Torahs, Old Testaments, or New Testaments exist on the planet today.
Islam teaches the Quran has existed for all time in Paradise. When the authentic Law of Moses was given to the Jewish people, those who did not follow it were lost (condemned). When Jesus brought the Gospel, those who did not follow it were lost. When Mohammad came with the “final” revelations as the “seal” of the prophets, those who did not follow Islam were lost.
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Quran 5:46) [emphasis added]
Islam teaches that corrupt Jews and Christian priests changed the original Old and New Testaments which, according to Islam, predicted the coming of Mohammed.
“And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed provision from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them – evil is that which they do.” (Quran 5:66)
Historical accounts, biblical manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, archeology, and other tangible sources of evidence be damned. This is what Islam teaches.
To the point…
Can the Jesus who said to his followers “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) be the same guy about whom this is said: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya. Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425)
No one comes to our Father in heaven except through Jesus OR will Jesus return to cast all Christians into hell for not converting and kill the Jews (pigs)? It cannot be both.
Can it be true that Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30 and 14:9), the Holy Spirit guides his disciples since Jesus ascended to heaven, and can disciples of Jesus say the Apostles Creed with integrity while this is true: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Quran 5:73)
Jesus was either the Messiah and the Son of God who was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended as Christians teach and believe or he is merely a prophet as Islam believes. It is one or the other. He cannot simply be a “nice” guy. Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God and the Son of Man. If that is not true he was a liar.
This is not a theological debate. This is a discussion of logic and reason. These two worlds are completely incompatible with one another in the realm of Logic 101.
Christians believe God is the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. One God, three persons in a heroic fellowship into which mankind was invited to participate relationally. God promises his inheritance and his Kingdom to his children whom he loves because he created them in his image. Jesus gave all who believe in him all the authority his Father in heaven gave him to continue his work (John 14:12, Mark 16:17-18), and lifted all believers, spiritually, to sit with him at the Father’s right hand in heaven when he ascended.
Islam teaches Allah is the ultimate lawgiver and humans must obey the law or suffer punishment. Islam teaches those who do not follow the Sharia are Apostates or unbelievers and must be converted, subjugated, or killed. Islam teaches Allah is unknowable.
From a rational, reasonable, and logical perspective, there is a difference here between love and hate – good and evil.
Islam is not a one-off of Christianity. It sits in direct opposition to it.
Citizen Warrior, Oct. 9, 2015:
The only problem with that answer is that the ideology from which a jihadi is made would still exist, even if every last one of them were killed. So it’s like trying to destroy a particular plastic toy rather than destroying the factory that makes them.
And really, you can’t destroy this factory. There will always be Korans in this world. What you can do, however, is expose the game while non-Muslims are still a majority. The non-Muslims of the world could realistically expose, contain, and marginalize Islam. But to do that, they would have to understand what Islamic doctrine says. As long as they stay in the dark about that, they are vulnerable to being “scammed.” They’ll go along with things likepublic calls to prayer, Muslims having their own no-go zones, or whateverspecial consideration is being demanded.
But once the general public is aware of the true and disturbing nature of core Islamic teachings, they will be willing to do what needs to be done: To stop all concessions to Islam, period. Islam will wilt on the vine. It will have no air to breath, no sunshine to grow.
Don’t get me wrong: Orthodox Muslims committing violence need to be stopped — jailed or killed. But that will not solve the problem of Islam. Only the education of non-Muslims can do that.
Non-Muslims who don’t know what Islam really is are vulnerable to being bamboozled. Those who know can see right through taqiyya and will not be moved by it. Consider the latest scam that cons money out of U.S. taxpayers. Almost 300,000 people in the last two years have been called by someone claiming to be an IRS agent. The taxpayer is told they owe taxes and must pay right now or face dire consequences. Believe it or not, some people pay right on the spot. So far these scam calls have conned taxpayers out of 14 million dollars.
A person who doesn’t know about this scam is vulnerable. But if you know the IRS always contacts people by mail if they owe money, it would be impossible to fool you with such a call.
People who see what ISIS and Boko Haram are doing get upset. It’s completely understandable. And a feeling of anger makes people want to lash out. Also understandable. The education of our fellow non-Muslims may seem too mild a remedy for such horror in the world, but in the long run it can push back Islam better than anything else.
And it’s not such a mild remedy. If you think talking to your fellow non-Muslims about Islam is easy, you haven’t tried it yet.