Taqiyya about Taqiyya

raqBy Raymond Ibrahim:

I was recently involved in an interesting exercise—examining taqiyya about taqiyya—and believe readers might profit from the same exercise, as it exposes all the subtle apologetics made in defense of the Islamic doctrine, which permits Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Context: Khurrum Awan, a lawyer, is suing Ezra Levant, a Canadian media personality and author, for defamation and $100,000.  Back in 2009 and on his own website, Levant had accused Awan of taqiyya in the context of Awan’s and the Canadian Islamic Congress’ earlier attempts to sue Mark Steyn.

For more on Levant’s court case, go to www.StandWithEzra.ca.

On behalf of Awan, Mohammad Fadel—professor of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law—provided an expert report to the court on the nature of taqiyya, the significance of which he portrayed as “a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America.”

In response, Levant asked me (back in 2013) to write an expert report on taqiyya, including by responding to Fadel’s findings.

I did.  And it had the desired effect.  As Levant put it in an email to me:

It was an outstanding report, very authoritative and persuasive. Of course, we don’t know what the plaintiff’s [Awan’s] private thoughts about it were, but we do know that after receiving the report, he decided to cancel calling his own expert witness [Dr. Fadel]—who happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. After reading your rebuttal, he decided he would rather not engage in that debate.

My expert report follows.  In it, I quote relevant portions of Fadel’s expert report (which can be read in its entirety here).  Most intriguing about the professor’s report is that it’s a perfect example of taqiyya about taqiyya.  By presenting partial truths throughout the report, Fadel appears to have even employed taqiyya’s more liberal sister, tawriya.

Accordingly, readers interested in learning more about the role of deception in Islam—and how to respond to those trying to dismiss it as an “Islamophobic fantasy”—are encouraged to read on.

Raymond Ibrahim’s Expert Report on Taqiyya

Instructions: I have been asked to assess a report concerning the doctrine of taqiyya in Islam, written by one Mohammad Fadel; and, if I disagreed with any parts of it, to explain why—objectively, neutrally, and in a non-partisan manner.  My findings follow.

 Introduction

The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to actively deceive non-Muslims—above and beyond the context of “self-preservation,” as is commonly believed.

One of the few books exclusively devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”) make this unequivocally clear. Written (in Arabic) by Dr. Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya in its opening pages:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[1]

The following report is written as a response to Mohammed Fadel’s report (henceforth referred to as MFR) which deals with the topic of taqiyya and its place and usage in Islamic jurisprudence.   Because MFR is written in a premises-conclusion format, the following report will follow MFR’s numbering schemata, pointing out which premises are agreeable and which are not—offering correctives to these latter resulting in an antithetical conclusion.

Numbers/Premises of MFR in Order:

1-3: Preliminary statements.

4: Agreed.

5:  Agreed, with the following caveat:  To many Muslims, jihad, that is, armed struggle against the non-Muslim, is the informal sixth pillar.   Islam’s prophet Muhammad said that “standing in the ranks of battle [jihad] is better than standing (in prayer) for sixty years,”[2] even though prayer is one of the Five Pillars, and he ranked jihad as the “second best deed” after belief in Allah as the only god and he himself, Muhammad, as his prophet, the shehada, or very First Pillar of Islam.[3]

All this indicates jihad’s importance in Islam—and thus importance to this case, since, as shall be seen, taqiyya is especially permissible in the context of jihad or struggle to empower Islam and/or Muslims over non-Muslims.

6: Agreed.  Qiyas, or analogical reasoning, the practice of finding antecedents in the teachings of the two revelatory sources (Qur’an and Hadith) and rationalizing their applicability to modern phenomena, also belongs to usul al-fiqh, or Islam’s roots of jurisprudence.  It gives more elasticity to Islam’s rules (a major theme throughout this report).  Qiyas, for example, is the way al-Qaeda and other jihadi organizations justify suicide attacks: although killing oneself is clearly forbidden in Islam, in the context of jihad—in the context of trying to empower Islam—suicide attacks are rationalized as legitimate forms of stealth warfare, since those giving their lives are not doing so out of despair but rather for Islam (as in Qur’an 9:111).[4]

7-19: Generally agreed (or indifferent to: some information in these numbers is not necessarily germane to the issue at hand and did not warrant confirmation).

20:  “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth.”

This is the first of many statements/premises that are only partially true.

For starters, Islamic jurisprudence separates humanity into classes.  The rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a fellow Muslim differ from the rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim.

First there is the umma—the “Islamic nation,” that is, all Muslims of the earth, irrespective of national, racial, or linguistic barriers.  Many of the Qur’an’s and Hadith’s teachings that appear laudable and fair are in fact teachings that apply only to fellow Muslims.

For example, although the Qur’an’s calls for Muslims to give charity (zakat) appear to suggest that Muslims may give charity to all humans—in fact, normative Islamic teaching is clear that Muslim charity (zakat) can only be given to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslims.[5]

As for legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims—or kuffar, the “infidels” (kafir, singular)—within the Islamic world, these fall into two main categories: first, the harbi, that is, the non-Muslim who does not reside in the Islamic world; if at any time a Muslim comes across him in the Muslim world, according to classic Islamic doctrine, he is free to attack, enslave, and/or kill him (the exception is if he is musta’min—given a formal permit by an Islamic authority to be on Muslim territory, such as the case of the many foreigners working in the Arabian Peninsula).[6]

Second is the dhimmi, the non-Muslim who lives under Muslim domination (for example, all the indigenous Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Berbers, etc. whose lands were conquered by Muslims beginning in the 7th century).   By today’s standards, the rules governing the dhimmi, most of which are based on the so-called “Conditions of Omar” (sometimes the “Pact of Omar”) are openly discriminatory and include things such as commanding non-Muslims to give up their seats whenever a Muslim wants it.[7]

It is, then, in this divisive context that one must approach the Qur’an, keeping in mind that most of the verses discussing human relations are discussing intra-relations between Muslims, not Muslims and non-Muslims.  For examples of the latter, see Qur’an 9:5, 9:29, 5:17, and 5:73 for typical verses that discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, verses which have further abrogated the earlier, more tolerant ones. [8]

As for the Qur’an verses listed in MFR 20—which are meant to support the statement that “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth,” a close reading, supported by mainstream Islamic exegeses, demonstrates that the true function of those verses is to portray true believers (Muslims) and Islam’s prophets as the epitome of honesty and sincerity.  Significantly, none of the verses mentioned in MFR 20 actually exhort Muslims to be honest and truthful, including to fellow Muslims, in the same vein as, for example, unequivocal statements such as Do not lie to one another” (Colossians 3:9) and “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

The fact is, other Islamic teachings and caveats have permitted Muslims to deceive even fellow Muslims.  For example, the doctrine of tawriya allows Muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically true.

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, “double-entendre” best describes tawriya’s function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker/writer asserts something that means one thing to the listener/reader, though the speaker/writer means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

This is legitimate according to Islamic law, or shari‘a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—and does not constitute “lying.”

In a fatwa, or Islamic decree, popular Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid asserts that, “Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a shari‘a interest.”  As mentioned, empowering Islam is one of the highest shari‘a interests [9] (hence why jihad, so lauded by Islam’s prophet as aforementioned, is sometimes seen as the “sixth pillar”).

Read more at Front Page

Sunna – Deceiving the Politically Gullible

TAQIYYA+SOftening+hearts+of+non+believer+fingers+crossedPolitical Islam, By Bill Warner:

One of the most discouraging things about dealing with Islam is how our leadership has learned nothing in the years since Sept 11, 2001. Leadership’s favorite fantasy is that Islam is whatever a Muslim wants to say it is. So if you want a nice Islam, ask a nice imam. But, would a Muslim deceive the Kafir (non-Muslim)? Mohammed did.

 

London Holocaust Day Speaker Admires Hitler, Despises Jews

hassan-farooq-city-hall-450x254

Arutz Sheva, by Colin Cortbus, Gil Ronen & Ari Soffer 1/27/2014

An interfaith group which works to combat political and religious extremism in the UK has raised awkward questions about the way anti-Semites “use” holocaust memorials to “sanitize” their own images, even as they actively engage in anti-Jewish bigotry.

On Holocaust Memorial Day in 2013, a young British Muslim named Hassan Farouq was a participant in the official Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony at London’s City Hall. During the ceremony he read out a text about the importance of reflecting upon the consequences of the Holocaust and remembering the victims of Nazi persecution.

Yet Stand for Peace today released clear evidence of Farooq’s own rabid anti-Semitic views, including open glorification of Nazism and Adolf Hitler, and questions whether London officials who approved his participation in the ceremony ascribe any value to Holocaust Memorial Day at all.

Hassan Farooq – Nazi sympathiser

 

“I look up to Hitler”

As part of its investigation, Stand for Peace has published a slew of offensive tweets made by Farooq. They include the following:

“The hour will not come until the Muslims kill the Jews.”

“Let’s go Jewish bashing.”

“Oh hypocrisy nothing new its in his blood after all you can’t blame him he’s a Jew”

“I look up 2 Hitler :p”

“Hitler: I can kill 10000 by putting them into gas chambers B-)”

“Gassing is my hobby”

Glorifying Nazism on Twitter Screenshot – Stand for Peace

Support for terrorism

Apart from anti-Semitic tweets, Farooq has also expressed his extremist views on Facebook, including a passionate defense of the infamous Woolwich terrorists who murdered off-duty British soldier Lee Rigby.

In another message on Twitter, he defended extremist preacher Anjem Choudary, who was recently implicated as being a key player behind an Islamist network actively recruiting young British Muslims to fight in Syria.

Farooq also posted messages against women and homosexuals.

One way of “remembering the Holocaust” Screenshot – Stand for Peace

According to Stand for Peace, Hassan Farooq is a “senior member” of the Newham Dawah Team, an East London-based Islamic missionary organization which attempts to spread the message of Islam.

In 2009 students at NewVic Sixth Form College, which Farooq attended, released a video featuring calls in Arabic for a “war against the Jews”.

‘War against the Jews’

 

Newham Dawah Team is part of the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA) Network, and its officials regularly liaise with iERA officials such as Abdurraheem Green. The iERA is an extremist Salafi group, some of whose officials have been banned from the UK. In the past – despite his apparent work with various “interfaith” initiatives – Abdurraheem Green has been quoted as talking of a Jewish “stench” and advocates the killing of homosexuals.

Sam Westrop, Director of Stand for Peace, questioned how “such a solemn and important duty can be entrusted to a vile extremist who does not even try to hide his hatred for Jews, women and homosexuals?” and suggested that the apparently puzzling contradiction in Farooq’s action is actually nothing new.

“Once again, anti-Semitic activists are attempting to exploit the commemoration of the Holocaust to sanitize their public image,” he explained,but added that “the facade is a thin one.”

Westrop questioned the commitment of the event’s organizers, given that Farooq apparently made little effort to hide his anti-Semitism.

“The public officials who chose this extremist clearly do not believe the Holocaust Day Memorial has any real value, or they would have made the minimal effort to ensure suitable speakers were found.”‏

Stand for Peace recently published a comprehensive document detailing how Islamist groups with openly bigoted agendas and support for terrorism are similarly whitewashing their images by “monopolizing” interfaith efforts, and using the opportunity to sideline moderate voices within the Muslim community.

Obama Laughs When Questioned About Benghazi Terror Attack

Barack-Obama-laughing-at-mention-of-Benghazi-and-Susan-RiceWeasel Zippers:

During the interview today, Bill O’Reilly brought up Benghazi and this one makes my blood boil.

O’Reilly says General Carter Ham testified he told Leon Panetta it was a terror attack. Then Panetta went right into speak to Obama. So O’Reilly asked “did Panetta tell you it was a terrorist attack”?

Obama dances this way and that and refuses to answer the question. It’s very simple. Either he did or he didn’t. But Obama refuses to say. O’Reilly says the question about whether it was a terrorist attack matters because of Susan Rice (because she was sent out to lie on the Sunday talk shows and say it was all because of the video). At this point, Obama broadly smiles and laughs dismissively about the question at around 4:10 of the video.

 

 

He repeats that he called it an “attack of terror” the next day, but then says any attack is one of terror by definition. He is thus on all sides of the question at the same time. Yet he still doesn’t explain, if in fact, he knew if was a terror attack why he sent Susan Rice out to lie. They had immediate intel as to the nature of the attack. Yet, even had they not, Sept 11, 2012 was a Tuesday. They would have known by Sunday. Yet still they sent her out.

Around 6:10, Obama also laughs when O’Reilly says that people think he didn’t call it a terror attack for political reasons. “They believe it because folks like you are telling them that”. No one is entitled to question him, and if they do, they must be under someone else’s dictate, the evil Fox News.

He also lies, saying we all said it a week later, that it was a terrorist attack. Well, now, no you didn’t you lied for at least two weeks, until you were forced to admit that it wasn’t what you had been saying. In the interim, Hillary lied to the parents of the dead and Obama talked about the video at the U.N.

CAIR’s Ayloush Gives Dishonest, Bullying Answer to Hamas Question

Orwellian Islamist Tariq Ramadan Delivers Annual George Orwell Lecture

8870130_origBy Daniel Greenfield at Front Page:

The George Orwell Memorial Fund appears to have missed the point of the Orwell lecture. It’s not supposed to be a lecture by someone who embodies Orwellian societies.

But nonetheless the George Orwell Annual Lecture was given by Tariq Ramadan, a Muslim Brotherhood Islamist stooge who misrepresents his affiliations, on a properly Orwellian topic.  ‘Democratising the Middle East: A New Role for the West’

When Tariq Ramadan talks about “democratizing”, he really means allowing a fundamentally undemocratic Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, to take over, in pursuit of its agenda of Islamizing, not Democratizing, the Middle East.

The Muslim Brotherhood is a totalitarian organization dedicated to taking away everyone’s civil rights while manipulating language. Its self-description as the Freedom and Justice Party turns out to mean slavery and injustice.

That’s certainly what we think of as Orwellian.

So the George Orwell Annual Lecture presented a properly Orwellian lecture while being too stupid to realize what it was doing, thereby proving that Orwell really is dead.

The “popularization” of George Orwell by college students helps lead to an absurd situation in which everyone completely misses the point. And that leads to an event like this coming to you in 2014

Emirates Airline Festival of Literature is held under the patronage of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, The Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai.

The Inaugural George Orwell Lecture in Dubai. This event is staged in association with the Orwell Trust

Gavin Esler delivers the inaugural Orwell Lecture at Emirates Litfest. And he points out that The Ministry of Truth, depicted in Orwell’s iconic novel, 1984, was mostly dedicated not to rewriting the past, but to producing dim-witted but catchy pop songs, idiotic TV programmes and newspapers obsessed with crime, sport and sex. Did George Orwell really see into the 21st century world of the X-Factor, tabloid newspapers and Wayne Rooney?

And so we have it.

An employee of a national news outlet which everyone must support by law will deliver a lecture in a totalitarian Islamist state that argues that George Orwell wasn’t writing about totalitarianism… but about catchy pop songs.

It’s so brilliantly evocative of the manipulation of ideas that Orwell was against. And it’s being done in his name. Islamists are using Orwell to promote the Islamization of Europe.

(Note to readers, Islamist does not refer to a separate branch of Islam, as some seem to think, it refers to organized Islamic political groups and individuals who promote Islamization.)

From the Telegraph article Greenfield linked to:

download (35)

George Orwell betrayed: Islamist Tariq Ramadan gives a lecture in his name

The present political chaos is connected with the decay of language. (George Orwell, Politics and the English language, 1946.)

This week in London, the annual George Orwell Lecture was given by the Islamist writer Tariq Ramadan. Where is one to start?

George Orwell was against religious censorship. Tariq Ramadan campaigned successfully to cancel a production of Voltaire’s play Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete in Geneva.

Orwell was a rational man. When Ramadan taught at the College de Saussure he argued in favour of Islamic biology over Darwin.

Orwell risked his life fighting for the Spanish Republic against Franco’s fascists. Ramadan is a coward when it comes to fighting fascism. In November 2003, on French television, the future French president Nicolas Sarkozy invited Ramadan to condemn the practice of stoning women. He would not. Ramadan squirmed: “I have called for — because I know my position is a minority one within the Muslim world today — a moratorium so that there can be a real debate between Muslims.”

Orwell opposed state control and religious indoctrination. Ramadan would like the former to impose the latter. He wants Muslim parents to control the content of state school programmes according to “Islamic values”.

Ramadan pokes fun at feminism with silly jokes. Western society supposedly obliges women to “become brick workers or lorry drivers to show that women are effectively liberated”. (OK, so maybe there is a connection to Orwell, who was a bit of a sexist.)

Orwell was for liberty and justice. By contrast, according to the US essayist Paul Berman “Ramadan reveres [the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide], Sheikh al Qaradawi above all other present-day Islamic scholars, and in one book after another he has left no room for doubt about his fealty. If anyone in the world offers a model of modern enlightened Islam, Ramadan plainly judges Qaradawi to be that person.” That’s the same Qaradawi who, as Peter Tatchell points out, “condones suicide bombing, the killing of civilians, female genital mutilation, forced veiling, wife-beating and the killing of Muslims who turn away from their faith. He also blames rape victims who dress immodestly and supports the execution of LGBT people.”

Orwell’s 1946 essay Politics and the English Language famously observed that most political language  “is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. This is a good description of…Tariq Ramadan. Entire books have been written about Ramadan’s linguistic evasiveness and manipulation. One of those books is even called Brother Tariq: The Doublespeak of Tariq Ramadan. In it Caroline Fourest catalogues all of the ways in which a naive French press have fallen for his manipulations.

One French leftist, Yves Coleman, accuses Ramadan of “using the key words of today’s public relations industry: ‘respect’, ‘tolerance’, ‘communication’ and ‘dialogue’ in the manner of a cynical politician.”  Coleman offers this telling example of Ramadan using language to “make lies sound truthful and murder respectable”.

In 1998 Ramadan wrote a foreword to a collection of fatwas by Yusuf al Qaradawi, published by the European Council of the Fatwa … When Ramadan is asked about this foreword and his “deep respect” for such a reactionary theologian he has an answer which is typical of what is called in French “langue de bois” (or “wooden tongue”, a term used to qualify politicians’ language: something which is vague or impossible to understand): “I quote [his work] when I find it interesting. I also express criticisms or distance myself from some of his positions, which can be explained by the fact that he does not live in Western society. He develops social, political and geostrategic analyses which belong to him, and which I don’t always share.”

The gifted American essayist Paul Berman – why not invite him to give the Orwell lecture, by the way? – has brilliantly explained the deeper meaning of Ramadan’s abuse of political language. In his essential bookThe Flight of the Intellectuals, Berman shows that Ramadan is really a “Salafi Reformist”. In other words, Ramadan believes that an Islamic way of life is pure and authentic (the only really good way of life) but that Muslims are oppressed by “a western aggressive cultural invasion” and a “colonisation of minds”. Muslims must find the road back to a life free of animalistic, decadent western oppression and influence. The road back is textual, via the foundational documents of seventh-century Islam. This Koranic revolution is so large that the modern world will be swallowed whole as it is “reformed” in the light of Koranic revelation.  “Reformism” then means the Islamification or Salafication of modernity. That’s the scale of Ramadan’s ambition in the West.

Ramadan’s project proceeds in the west strategically. It appropriates the language of modern democratic politics, occupying it, infusing it with Koranic meaning. This is why salafi reformists can sound like contemporary western politicians to wilfully naive people like those who invited Ramadan. But as Berman puts it, “the modern rhetorics [of Ramadan] always turn out to be translations, in one fashion of another, of Koranic concepts. They are worldly exteriors with Islamic interiors.”

Ramadan’s project is organised, pro-active and entrepreneurial in advancing its ideas and influence. By contrast the modern Left has mostly lost touch with what the ideas it should positively stand for, knowing only what it is against (Israel and, most of all, America). For Ramadan, one imagines, the encounter resembles the act of taking sweets from a child.

 

 

Misinterpretation or Misdirection?

702_largeBy Justin O. Smith:

On November 3, 2013, a small group of about 25 protesters from the surrounding area met in front of the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, in order to protest the appearance of Dr Jamal Badawi, a fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation. He is one of the founders of the Muslim American Society, a Brotherhood entity. His name is listed in a 1992 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood directory. In 1999, he justified suicide bombings. In 2009, he praised the “martyrs” of Hamas and endorsed “combative jihad” in March 2010. He is also closely linked to Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi. And it was well that we showed up, as I managed to make it inside to listen to the misdirections of Dr Badawi and his explanation that all too often the Q’uran is misinterpreted; this is the same man who minutes into his speech was mesmerizing his mostly white liberal crowd with glib, disingenuous tales of how jihad has nothing to do with “Holy War” and nowhere in the Q’uran does it command Muslims to commit “Holy War.”

Which Dr Badawi are we to believe?… The Badawi praising Hamas and endorsing “combative jihad” or the one telling us that such a thing doesn’t come from the “Holy” Q’uran.

The theme of this conference, ‘God’s Books _ Reading Scripture in Judaism, Christianity and Islam’, appeared to center immediately from the first few words of the first speaker, Sheikh Ossama Bahloul (Imam of ICM), on the frequency of misinterpretation of the Q’uran, which on the face of the argument is quite valid. Anything can be misinterpreted, and many things often are. But how can they reconcile such glaring gaps between their own words and actions, as in the example of Jamal Badawi? They can’t!

Pretty spoken words in front of a crowd of Sunday’s People means little, when with the next breath one hears of them endorsing terrorism abroad and at home. Badawi protested to the crowd that jihad had nothing to do with Holy War, after explaining that jihad was more of a personal battle, and then, in the very next sentence he stated, “Oh…but there is a type of jihad fighting (a military war) for unprovoked aggression or suppression.” And just who makes this determination, if not the imams/sheikhs and Islam’s religious leaders?

Am I misinterpreting Badawi or is he misleading and misdirecting the “dhimmis” of America….those all to willing to place America in harms way for a handful of false promise?

Bahloul and Badawi would have us believe that this clash of civilizations is just all one big misunderstanding stemming from the misinterpretation of the Q’uran by Muslims as well as non-Muslims.In order to fully understand Islam they said one must be well studied in all the verses on any particular topic, so it is seen in its historical context, as well as its entirety. Badawi later expanded on this as he differentiated between “normative” Islam and “the reason behind each revelation”, as decided by Islamic “familiar researchers”, and “interpretive” Islam, as it is practiced by cultural groups within Islam and the various Islamic nations; the same verse of the Q’uran may have several different interpretations, depending upon one’s location.

In one example, Bahloul stated that when the Q’uran says “to kill the Jew, God was talking specifically about the community in Medina.” Little good this has done the Jews across the centuries. I’ll just bet the Jews wish someone had sent out that memo to all the Muslims in Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Jordan and Syria over the centuries, as their property was confiscated and they were murdered by the millions; 750,000 Jews were forced from their homes in Islamic nations in 1948 alone, because of Islam’s “peaceful and tolerant” nature.

In April 2004, radical Muslim Brotherhood ideologue and Hamas spiritual leader, much touted at the ICM,Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi credited Allah with providing Palestinians “human bombs,” instead of the planes,missiles and weapons that Zionists have. In addition, his Friday sermons at the Umar bin al Khattab mosque, a government sponsored mosque in Doha, have been regularly broadcast live on Qatar television.In a 2005 sermon, while speaking about notable Hamas leaders killed by Israel, Qaradawi asserted, “Their fate was paradise. They died martyrs. They met the death that every Muslim wishes for himself, which is martyrdom in the cause of God;” Qaradawi is also influential through a wide network of affiliations. In the U.S., he is the chairman (in absentia) of the Michigan based Islamic American University (IAU), a subsidiary of the Muslim American Society (MAS) , according to the MAS Website. The university aims to provide Islamic higher education, especially to converts and non-practicing Muslims, according to the IAU Web site. Qaradawi is also listed by the IAU as a faculty member.

Is Qaradawi misinterpreting his Q’uran, Allah’s and Islam’s desires for his actions, or is he simply following the true path for any and all devout Muslims, as detailed in the Q’uran?

As I watched the opening address by Ossama Bahloul and the obviously white, liberal, smiling faces in the crowd (see Dr Ron Messier’s 3/18/2011 speech at the International Institute of Islamic Thought), I realized this was pablum for their consumption. Basically he was suggesting that there exist bad and good Muslims. He wanted the crowd to believe he and his crowd are the good Muslims, when he stated: Sunni or Shia…liberal or conservative…they all use the same book. He or she can have their own translation; keep in mind this may not be the true meaning of the Holy Q’uran.”

Misinterpretation or misdirection…increasingly, we also see a number of individuals who find justifications for killing other people by identifying the U.S. and other countries as enemy countries open for war. That is something unfortunately that is inherent in Islam and Islamic scripture; Sayyid Qutb’s writings and legacy are admired by parts of the Muslim Brotherhood and found in Al Qaeda’s ideology in advocating violence against every current government and society because all are in a state of “Jahiliyyah” (Apostasy). Qutb advocated Jihad to force society to submit to God alone.  His book “Milestones” has become a manifesto for Jihadists seeking to free Muslims from Jahiliyyah and to establish “Divine Law” (Sharia) to bring about man’s submission to God, and this influence was heavily felt during the Arab Spring.

It is hard to accept the words of Dr Jamal Badawi as honest, once one learns that he has regularly engaged in terrorist support/finance activities (e.g. Holy Land Foundation conspiracy). But even more troubling was the fact that not too many Muslims felt that this event was important enough to attend, which may suggest that they don’t accept the concept either; all Muslims may not be terrorists or dangerous or bad and cruel, but we see an increasing number of people who are finding in Islamic scripture justifications for cruel behavior toward non-Muslims and even the people of their own respective societies. And, the silent Muslim majority have a hard time condemning fellow Muslims who are violent because they feel they can’t criticize the Koran, since they have all been indoctrinated with the idea the prophet Mohammad is infallible, he can do no harm, he has done no harm, he was a pure man. He’s out of bounds and that’s the predicament: As Badawi uttered, “Peace Be Upon Him”, he stated that in any difference of opinion among Muslims, one must accept Mohammed’s words as the “final interpretation”.

‘Islam, Shariah, and the Brotherhood Make Inroads at Chautauqua’

20130726_feisalabdulrauf__large

 Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf

By Clare Lopez:

The Chautauqua Institution, located amidst lovely natural surroundings on the shores of Lake Chautauqua in southwestern New York State, is home to a “unique mix of fine and performing arts, lectures, interfaith worship and programs, and recreational activities,” according to its online Home Page. Drawing tens of thousands of visitors each year, Chautauqua is also one of the most liberal organizations one could possibly imagine anywhere on earth….especially about topics involving faith-based belief systems, like Islam. Regular summer program speakers who downplay and whitewash the counter-Constitutional aspects of Islamic jihad and shariah are not balanced with others who might address the issue with more honesty. The name of Chautauqua’s 2013 Week Eight lecture theme offers a glimpse of its delusions about Islam-dominated societies: “Turkey: Model for the Middle East.” But the introduction to the 2013 “Pursuit of Happiness” lecture series is the dead giveaway:

“The goal of every religion is to help seekers everywhere learn to cultivate true and lasting happiness within themselves.”

If they were referring to Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, or any of a number of other great world religions, this quote would make perfect sense. With reference to Islam, though, not so much, as its own founding figure, Muhammad made quite clear in everything from the Qur’anic verses Muslims believe he received from Allah, to his recorded biography (the Sirat), to the actions and sayings recounted by his followers (ahadith). A few examples will illustrate:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Qur’an 8:12)

Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.  (Qur’an 98:6)

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”  Hadith of Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)

Putting the seal of immutable law on these authoritative Islamic sources, the shariah (Islamic Law) likewise codifies Islam’s rejection of any other faith, even Christianity or Judaism.

… It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world. (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, ‘Umdat al-Salik, w4.0[2])

And yet, deliriously heedless of what Islam really says about how Muslims should think of non-Muslims, the Chautauqua Institute continues to feature honey-tongued apologists for interfaith dialogue on its annual program line-up. In July 2012, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf spoke to rapt audiences about the non-existent Islamic commandment to “love thy neighbor” while his wife, Daisy Khan is reported to have played the gullible Chautauqua audience with shovels-full of taqiyya about how gender equality is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. She is said to enjoy speaking at Chautauqua because “she has found audiences are mature concerning religious and faith-based arguments.” Utterly clueless about Islam would seem to be a more accurate description.

Read more: Family Security Matters

The Threat of Islamic Betrayal

crossed-finger-liarBy Raymond Ibrahim:

A recent assassination attempt in Turkey offers valuable lessons for the West concerning Islamist hate—and the amount of deceit and betrayal that hate engenders towards non-Muslim “infidels.”

Last January, an assassination plot against a Christian pastor in Turkey was thwarted.  Police arrested 14 suspects.  Two of them had been part of the pastor’s congregation for more than a year, feigning interest in Christianity.   One went so far as to participate in a baptism.  Three of the suspects were women.  “These people had infiltrated our church and collected information about me, my family and the church and were preparing an attack against us,” said the pastor in question, Emre Karaali, a native Turk: “Two of them attended our church for over a year and they were like family.”

And their subversive tactics worked: “The 14 [suspects] had collected personal information, copies of personal documents, created maps of the church and the pastor’s home, and had photos of those who had come to Izmit [church] to preach.”

Consider the great lengths these Islamic supremacists went to in order to murder this Christian pastor: wholesale deception, attending non-Islamic places of worship and rites to the point that “they were like family” to the Christian they sought to betray and kill.  While some may think such acts are indicative of un-Islamic behavior, they are, in fact, doctrinally permissible and historically demonstrative.

Islamic teaching permits deceits, ruses, and dispensations. For an in depth examination, read about the doctrines of taqiyyatawriya, and taysir.  Then there is Islam’s overarching idea of niyya(or “intention”), best captured by the famous Muslim axiom, “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” According to this teaching, the intentions behind Muslim actions determine whether said actions are permissible or not.

From here one may understand the many incongruities of Islam: lying is forbidden—unless the intention is to empower Islam; killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible during the jihad; suicide is forbidden—unless the intention is to kill infidels, in which case it becomes a “martyrdom operation.”

Thus, feigning interest in Christianity, attending church for over a year, participating in Christian baptisms, and becoming “like family” to an infidel—all things forbidden according to Islamic Sharia—become permissible in the service of the jihad on Christianity.

Read more at American Thinker

Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum, is author of the new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians 

 

Will Al Jazeera keep Muslim Apostate Cenk Uygur after Current TV sale?

by :

After the sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera was announced earlier this year, Cenk Uygur, one of Current TV’s political pontificators, told POLITICO that he wouldn’t mind staying with the network when the dust settles:

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks told POLITICO that unlike some of his Current TV colleagues, he’s open to staying with Al Jazeera America.

Cenk_Uygur

In theory, this should pose a problem for Uygur because Al Jazeera is essentially a media arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is extremely fundamentalist. Uygur, on the other hand, is a Muslim apostate by his own admission. In a 2008 op-ed by Uygur that appeared in the Huffington Post, he explained…

I am a fervent agnostic. I have argued vehemently against religion… Worse yet, I was born Muslim. I went to school in Turkey until I was eight (that will be translated as “attended a madrasa” by Fox “News” Channel).

Note how Uygur is not just an agnostic but a “fervent” one. This makes him a Muslim apostate, does it not? Assuming the Current TV sale to Al Jazeera goes through, what should we make of things if Uygur is retained? After all, it would mean that a fundamentalist Arab Muslim network will be prominently featuring a “fervent agnostic” who used to be a “Muslim”.

Perhaps the answer might lie in the teachings of a prominently featured Muslim Brotherhood scholar on Al Jazeera – Yusuf Al Qaradawi. Qaradawi is a “fervent” proponent of Muruna, an Islamic practice that is similar to taqiyya but is far more stealthy in nature.

On the other hand, if Uygur is let go, it will mean that Al Jazeera is being true to Islam instead of to Muruna. Then again, according to Qaradawi, Muruna is true to Islam.

Then again, consider that the “fervent apostate” Uygur, in 2010, mocked Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia legislation. Why on earth would a “fervent agnostic” come to the defense of Islam in Oklahoma?

Read more at Shoebat.com

Spot the ‘Xenophobic Butcher’

Andrew Higgins

Andrew Higgins

By Andrew G. Bostom:

In my earlier blog about NY Times agitprop journalist Andrew Higgins, who calumniated a real journalist and historian, Lars Hedegaard, I mentioned Higgins’ warped hagiography of The Danish Muslim Society, and its two recent leaders, whose role in fomenting the cartoon riot carnage – 200 dead and over 800 wounded — Higgins failed to discuss.

Higgins also singled out for praise Minhaj ul Quran International, which he characterized as “the Danish offshoot of a controversial group in Pakistan that has taken a hard line at home against blasphemy.” Diana West, citing a 2006 article “Free Speech in Denmark“,  which was co-authored by Lars Hedegaard, notes that Minhaj ul Quran’s leader, Tahir ul-Qadri wrote these words, consistent with the Sharia, on the universal application of Islamic “blasphemy” law:

The act of contempt of the finality of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is a crime which can not be tolerated whether its commission is direct or indirect, intentional or un-intentional. The crime is so sanguine that even his repentance can not exempt him from the penalty of death.

Although ul-Qadri, of Pakistani descent, tried to deny his own words, in a failed effort at sacralized Islamic dissimulation, or “taqiyya,” watch the video, below, which captures his proud championing of Pakistan’s blasphemy law and its lethal consequences for non-Muslims, in particular.

 

These liberty-crushing, murder-inciting remarks of ul-Qadri were apparently of no concern to Mr. Higgins. But Higgins did find time to label Anders Gravers (using, perhaps, a deliberately vicious pun on his trade), “a xenophobic butcher from the north,” because Gravers opposes the aggressive efforts of Denmark’s Muslims to Islamize Danish society.  Compare Gravers’ peaceful exercise of free speech,  voicing his strong opposition to Sharia encroachment in his native Denmark, to ul-Qadri’s unabashed call for the murder of non-Muslim “blasphemers”-and then lying about that heinous record of support for the application of Islamic blasphemy law.

Who is the “xenophobic butcher” again, Mr. Higgins?

American Muslim Jurists: Offensive Jihad — Not Yet

156x147x3LPK19nTduHE_png_pagespeed_ic_V7NAL6Wc89By Ryan Mauro:

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opposes offensive jihad in the West, but for reasons that may surprise you. In an Arabic fatwa (religious decree) that doesn’t appear on its English website, it states that “the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time [emphasis added].”

This doesn’t mean that all jihad is to be abandoned. “With our current capabilities, we are aspiring towards defensive jihad, and to improve our position with regards to jurisprudence at this stage. But there is a different discussion for each situation,” it said.

It is important to notice that it was issued in Arabic on the website of its Secretary-General, Salah Al-Sawy. Even though AMJA is based in Sacramento and its mission is to serve their American Muslim audience, it decided against issuing this fatwa in English. If it wasn’t translated by the Translating Jihad blog and reported by Andrew Bostom in 2011, we probably wouldn’t know about it.

AMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy

AMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy

Deception is something that AMJA approves of. In an English-language fatwa on its website, issued by Al-Sawy inAMJA Secretary-General Salah Al-Sawy 2005, Muslims are authorized to lie for the sake of “repulsing evil” if there are “compelling strokes of necessity.” In that case, “he can indirectly say something that his listener can understand something else.”

Read more at Radical Islam

Countering Muslim Disinformation

imagesCANW1XU4By Robert Spencer:

According to Islamic supremacist hate groups such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), no one would have any problem with Islam if it weren’t for bigoted non-Muslims who irresponsibly “link Islam to terrorism” – and this link, they claim, gives rise to acts of violence against Muslims. Hamas-linked CAIR and its allied groups have for years now been pumping out disinformation designed to “clear up misconceptions”about Islam and set the record straight. On its website Hamas-linked CAIR says that it was established in order to “promote a positive image of Islam and Muslims in America,” and declares that “we believe misrepresentations of Islam are most often the result of ignorance on the part of non-Muslims and reluctance on the part of Muslims to articulate their case.”

However, the cure offered by American Muslim groups may be worse than the disease. All too often these groups construct a “positive image of Islam” out of smoke and mirrors. Instead of dealing forthrightly and constructively with the concerns and questions that non-Muslims have about Islam’s relation to jihad terrorism, Islamic supremacist groups in the U.S. are more interested in throwing sand in our eyes.

A quintessential example of this is a publication of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT), a Muslim Brotherhood group: “Q& A on Islam and Arab Americans,” which originally ran in USA Today and circulates widely. It’s a handy compendium of many of the chief claims that Islamic supremacists make in order to lull non-Muslims into complacency and confuse them regarding the nature of the jihad threat.

1. Islam means peace.The flyer notes that “the Arabic word for ‘Islam’ means ‘submission,’ and it derives from a word meaning ‘peace.’” Indeed, in Arabic, Islam and salaam (“peace”) share the same linguistic root, but this in itself is virtually meaningless. All sorts of words share the same roots, and can still have quite divergent meanings — such as the English word love and the related Sanskrit word lubh (lust). Noting the derivation of the word Islam in this brief information flyer can only be an attempt to lend credibility to oft-repeated claim that Islam is a religion of peace. But that idea glosses over Islam’s doctrines of war and subjugation, with the IIIT does not address and pretends do not exist.

2. “Jihad does not mean ‘holy war,’” says the IIIT. “Literally, jihad in Arabic means to strive, struggle and exert effort. It is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self defense or fighting against tyranny or oppression.”

This was a precursor to Hamas-linked CAIR’s deceptive and misleading “#MyJihad” campaign, which attempts to convince non-Muslims that jihad is about making friends and getting exercise. To its credit, the IIIT goes farther than Hamas-linked CAIR by mentioning the battlefield, and in this it is more accurate than CAIR’s preposterously innocuous farrago. Islamic theology distinguishes between the “greater jihad,” which involves “struggle against evil inclinations within oneself,” and the “lesser jihad,” which is hinted at here as “struggle in the battlefield for self defense or fighting against tyranny or oppression.” Still, left unmentioned is the fact that throughout history, Muslims have not stopped at self-defense or fighting against tyranny. Onemanual of Islamic law — certified as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community” by Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious and influential Islamic institution among Sunni Muslims worldwide —calls jihad “a communal obligation” to “war against non-Muslims.” It is an obligation to make war upon “Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians” until they “become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax,” and to fight “all other peoples until they become Muslim.”

Read more at Atlas Shrugs

The Truth About Interfaith Dialogues – Imam Musri Deceives the Audience

building bridges

One Way Bridges

H/T Creeping Sharia

Over the years we at The United West have attended scores of Interfaith dialogues. This video will review how Imam Musri like many before him say how the doctrine and theology of Islam teaches there is pluralism/equality between Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

The majority of Interfaith dialogues follow this script. A Christian, Muslim, and Jew will each address an audience giving their religions teachings. The objective is to present the three faiths side by side and let the audience come to their own conclusions.

The representatives of each faith are not there to interact, argue, or defend their positions, in most cases.

Many believe that academic debate would be “unhelpful” in building bridges of trust, friendship, and unity between the 3 Abrahamic faith doctrines.  The United West believes that talking, dialogue, and debate are important but not the end all for peace and mutual respect or pluralism.

In this video we expose Imam Musri, a Sunni Muslim, telling the audience lies abut Islam’s tolerance towards the “others” Christians and Jews as sourced from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira(life of Mohammed).  I realize “lies” is a strong word but the videos prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Imam Musri’s words are deceptive.  I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

These lies are exposed where in March of 2012 the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia called for the destruction of all the Churches in the region. It is inconceivable a Sunni Imam of Mr. Musri’s importance was not aware what the most powerful Sunni Sheikh said – plus if you google it there are over 30 pages of links and stories.  This was big news back in March of 2012

From there we used current “MIddle East” video footage of Christian houses of worship being attacked in Muslim Lands for the crime of being Christian.  We learned in Egypt the government stopped the building of a new church – illustrating that Islam and State are one in the same.

From there we show video of Christians in America being arrested in 2010 and the escalation of violence in 2012 exposing how Shariah blasphemy laws are being practiced here in America to silence the voice of the “others”.  Western Free Speech and Shariah Blasphemy Laws are not compatible.

Next we show Sunni Muslim Al-Qaeda and Free Syrian Army Muslims burning down a Shia Muslim Mosque.  Muslim on Muslim violence and the destruction of “Muslim houses of worship” further contradicts Imam Musri’s words at this Interfaith Dialogue.

These examples contradict the message Imam Musri was articulating to the audience who would otherwise be pacified by Imam Musri’s message of equality between the faiths.  Imam Musri is telling the non-Muslim audience exactly what they want to hear.

This video exposes the danger of Interfaith dialogue when religious doctrine goes unchallenged and the audience only gets half the truth.

What is the Truth about American Muslims, Part 1

By Bill Warner:

The First Amendment Center, the Muslim Brotherhood and assorted leftists at the Interfaith Alliance have produced a polished piece of apologist propaganda for Islam. It has been getting a lot media play, because it says all the things the public would like to believe about Islam. It is a textbook summary of arguments made by Islam’s apologists and serves as a teaching example of how to refute this propaganda using the scientific method.

The theme of this propaganda brochure is that “truth” about Islam is all about opinions. But, the truth of Islamic ideology is found in the Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (his Traditions). Mohammed’s acts and words are the perfect model of actions (Sunna) for all Muslims.

The grand lie of this propaganda comes from confusing cause and effect about Islam and Muslims. Islam is a concrete doctrine that produces Muslims. This brochure, What is the Truth about American Muslims, argues that we may learn about Islam from Muslims. The beauty of this approach is that you can choose the Islam you want by choosing the right Muslim. Although Islam can be precisely defined, Muslims are all over the map. There is one Islam, but 1.5 billion Muslims and whatever answer you want about Islam, you can find a Muslim who will tell you what you to hear. And that is what this piece is about—finding the Muslims who will tell you what you want to hear.

Here is the truth about Muslims. They will not tell you the whole truth, but only a half truth. Islam is inherently dualistic and holds two opposing truths at the same time. There are two Korans, an early Koran written in Mecca and a later Koran written in Medina. There is no jihad in the early Meccan Koran, but the later Medinan Koran is filled with jihad. So which is the real Islam? Both peace and war are true Islam. A Muslim will only talk about the half he needs. But, there is one Muslim who will tell you the complete truth—Mohammed. Needless to say, this propaganda does not consult him.
Knowing all of this, the following quotes are taken from the brochure, What Is the Truth about American Muslims?

“This resource has been endorsed by 21 diverse religious, secular, interfaith and civil rights organizations…”

Immediately we that learn the authority of this document is based on 21 groups of diverse people. Sounds good? Maybe. But the brochure is supposed to give us the “Truth about American Muslims”. If we are talking about Muslims, then there is no organization that matters. When we talk about Muslims, there is one way to find out the truth about Muslims–Islam. The only place to find the truth about Islam is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith—the Trilogy—Mohammed and Allah.

Think about it. Who cares what some theology graduate of divinity school says about Islam? If he agrees with Allah and Mohammed, then he is redundant. If he disagrees with Mohammed or Allah, then he is wrong. All the organizational “expert” brings is either redundancy or error. Skip the diverse, secular, interfaith and civil rights bureaucracies, and go to the factual basis of Islam—Koran, Sira and Hadith.

The same thing applies to all Muslims. A Muslim is only a Muslim when they follow the doctrine of Islam. When they don’t follow Islam, they are not being a Muslim. It is so simple. Neither a Muslim nor a non-Muslim has an opinion that is worth a hoot, unless it references the doctrine of Islam.

“During the past decade, acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam have raised fears and created confusion about Islam. In the United States, some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims. This has led to a rise in discrimination against American Muslims and those perceived to be Muslims, attacks on American Muslim institutions, and protests against the building of mosques in local communities.”

“acts of violence by extremists claiming to act in the name of Islam”

What are these “acts of violence”? There is a massive amount of violence in the Koran, Sira and Hadith and it is the violence of jihad. Here is a chart of how much violence there is in Islam’s sacred texts.


Nearly a third, 31%, of the complete doctrine of Islam is about violence. And who is committing this violence? Both Mohammed and his warriors. Is Mohammed an extremist? No. His actions, the Sunna, are the very definition of moderate Islam. There 91 verses in the Koran that say that the entire world is to follow his perfect example. The Koran defines moderation, the moderation of Islam. Islam is violent; hence when Muslims are violent against the Kafir, that violence is moderation. So say, Mohammed and Allah.

Most people consider “moderate” to mean non-extreme, normal, or average and hence, peaceful. But, pay attention here. Moderation implies some scale or reference. As an example, the temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit would be extremely hot in your living room. But, if you are talking about stars, then 10,000 degrees is moderate, and not even that hot. In the same way, peaceful relations between people are moderate on the scale of the Golden Rule. But, on the scale of the Koran, murder of Kafirs is moderate. So far as “claiming” to act in the name of Islam, when Major Hassan shoots 42 soldiers in Fort Hood while yelling “allahu akbar”, he is claiming to act in name of Islam. But what he is doing is not violence, it is moderation in the name of Islam—the moderation of jihad.

“some individuals and groups have attempted to conflate all of Islam with extremist violence by disseminating misinformation and distortions about Islam and American Muslims.”

Note that we do not conflate “all” of Islam with jihad. No, it is clear that since 67% of the Sira is about jihad, then 33% of the Sira is not about jihad. This analysis exactly measures the truth of the statement.

What is an “American Muslim”? What is any Muslim? A Muslim is one who follows the doctrine of Islam. What is the American Islam that an American Muslim follows? There is no American Islam because there is no American Koran and no American Sunna. There is only the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. End of story. There is only Islam. Muslims are in America as part of the umma (the Islamic community) first, being American is secondary.

Exactly, what part of the Koran and the Sunna does an American Muslim reject or reinterpret? It turns out the words “American Muslim” cannot be defined in terms of doctrine, only in misdirection campaigns such as this.

“By seeking to provide accurate information about religious freedom and American Muslims, this publication does not ignore or minimize the significant threat posed by extremists who promote and commit acts of violence in the name of Islam. We fully recognize the challenge to peace and justice posed by small factions within Islam who lift up extremist theology and pervert their faith to support their violence. All of the world’s major religions have faced similar challenges. But acts of violence by radical individuals and groups must not be used to condemn Islam itself – or to paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism.”

This paragraph is a target rich environment because it contains so many apologist clichés. Let’s tackle them one by one.

First cliché: “religious freedom”

What every person must care about is political Islam, not religious Islam. As an example, the Sharia dictates that during a part of Islamic prayer a Muslim’s backside must be higher that his head. Who cares? Who is trying to restrict that?

Jihad, a part of Islamic doctrine, is political since it is carried out against non-Muslims, the Kafirs. All of Islamic doctrine that concerns the Kafir is political. The amount of Islamic doctrine that is devoted to Kafirs is astounding. Look at this chart based on word count:


The big picture is that over half of Islam’s foundational texts are about the non-Muslim, the Kafir. Islam has a highly detailed doctrine about the Kafir and that means that most of Islamic doctrine is political. This is the reason that Islam has such political impact in America and everywhere Muslims exist.

So drop the “religious freedom” distraction. Let’s deal with the politics of Islam, let’s keep it political and talk all we want.

Next cliché: “must not be used to condemn Islam itself”

We do not need to condemn Islam. We need to know Islamic doctrine and see how it drives the actions of all Muslims, both peaceful ones and jihadists. Islam is dualistic and contains both peace and war (jihad). That is its true nature and we must not condemn it, but know it. We must know the detailed history of political Islam and how the Sharia has annihilated all Kafir civilizations for 14 centuries. We must understand Islam in both root and branch. It condemns itself; we do not need to condemn it.

Next cliché: “paint all Muslims with the brush of extremism”

No, we do not want to paint Muslims with extremism. We want to paint all Muslims with the brush of Islam. We must ask Muslims where they stand on Sharia, the Kafir, jihad, the beating of women, death to apostates and so on. Every Muslim must be confronted with Islamic doctrine. Do they reject the assassination of intellectuals who oppose political Islam? If so how do they oppose it, because Mohammed repeatedly ordered the assassination of all intellectuals and artists who opposed Islam? Assassination of opponents is Sunna, normative Islam.

“Our purpose here is to inform Americans about the vast majority of their fellow citizens who are Muslim. In doing so, we seek to uphold our shared commitment to religious freedom and contribute to a climate of understanding and respect among Americans of all faiths and none.”

Read more at Political Islam