Islam: The Religion of Discrimination and Sexual Perversion

Prophet Muhammad and his six year-old child bride, Aisha. Source: http://www.hr.nielsen.dk/mohammed/jyllands-posten_cartoons/

Prophet Muhammad and his six year-old child bride, Aisha. Source: http://www.hr.nielsen.dk/mohammed/jyllands-posten_cartoons/

By Paul Wilkinson:

Muslims attempt to claim superiority over non-Muslims in every aspect, even in sexual morality. Whereas many Westerners are generally not too worried about people over the age of consent having sex though their own free-will, they do however have legitimate concerns about how sections of the Muslim community behave.

Muslims tell non-Muslims that ‘Islam is perfect’ and in the instances of when irrefutable evidence is offered, the ‘Islam is perfect, Muslims are not’, excuse is often made. We even see apologists like Iftikhar
Ahmad
 blaming non-Muslims for Muslims’ sexual depravity. For example:

“Sexual grooming is nothing to do with Masajid, Imams and Muslim schools. Muslim youths involved in sexual grooming (and terrorism) are the product of the western education system which makes a man stupid, selfish and corrupt. They find themselves cut off from their cultural heritage, literature and poetry. They suffer from identity crises and I blame British schooling.”

That’s a bold statement! However Dr. Mark Currie outlines in his ‘Understanding the Ideological Foundation of Sexual Abuse in Islam’ talk at the Australian ‘Q Society’, that there is clear grounding within the Qur’an, other Islamic texts and also with the example of Prophet Muhammad, that demean both non-Muslims and women in general, and this also leads to a culture of sexual deviancy by Muslims.

Islamic View on Infidels and Sex

There are far too many examples of verses from Islamic texts to discuss here, but the Qur’an’s earlier, more peaceful verses that are often used by apologists, are superseded by later chronological verses purporting to be Muhammad’s last commands from his death bed. These verses concern fighting disbelievers and using any means available to make Islam victorious.

Here are just a few examples.

Muslims are also told that Prophet Muhammad was the perfect example of humanity and are instructed to emulate him, for example Qur’an 33:21: “There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern for anyone whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day and [who] remembers Allah often.” Or Qur’an 68:4: “And indeed, you are of a great moral character.”

Besides robbing caravans in the Arabian Peninsula and being a brutal warlord who ordered many people to be killedMuhammad’s marriages and sex life leave much to be desired. For example:

There are deep and concerning roots of paedophilia within Islam as described in this article from ‘Islam Watch’ here.

Muhammad is hardly a great role model, is he? Amongst many things, the Qur’an permits the keeping of sex slaves (and slavery in general); Muhammad approved of his fighters raping captive women (or suggested they masturbate if they could not control their urges); the Qur’an justifies wife-beating; makes it virtually impossible for a woman to prove rape; allows polygamy, giving men the right to have up to four wives; makes it easy for men to divorce their wives; and calls for the stoning of adulterers and killing of homosexuals – which exists in some Islamic countries to this day.

However the Qur’an is believed by Muslims to be the unalterable word of Allah, so this gives way to an Islamic culture that believes non-Muslims are of an inferior status. Shia Islam even states non-Muslims are ‘Najis’ and due to their ‘impurity’, puts infidels in the same bracket as blood, excrement, pigs, urine and semen. Shia Islam allows prostitution via temporary marriages known as ‘Nikah mut’ah’. (The night before suicide missions Muslim terrorists are often known to drink alcohol and frequent prostitutes.)

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Jihad in Wichita Highlights the Massive Threat and the Ignorance of American Leadership

Terry Lee Loewen

Terry Lee Loewen

Understanding The Threat, By John Guandolo:

On Friday December 13, the FBI arrested 58-year-old avionics technician Terry Lee Loewen, an employee of Wichita Mid-Continent Airport (ICT), as he attempted to enter the airport apron through a perimeter gate so he could detonate a vehicle laden with explosives in a “martyrdom operation” in the cause of AllahJihad.  His plan was to blow up an passenger-filled airplane on the tarmac, killing as many people as possible, including himself.

What is typical, yet noteworthy, is the media’s dubbing of his plan, “radical,” and FBI leadership calling him a “lone wolf“—both of which demonstrate gross ignorance on the part of the media and our National Security community about the jihadi threat, that continues to this day, more than twelve years after 9/11.

To be clear, the work done by the Special Agent leading the investigation and the undercover employees involved was superb. These people deserve our praise and our appreciation. Because of their diligence, the FBI was able to insert themselves into the operation and provide Loewen with inert explosives and diffuse this martyrdom operation.

In the FBI complaint, the following portion of an email from Loewen to an undercover FBI employee stated in part:

As time goes on I care less and less about what other people think of me, or my views of lslam. I have been studying subjects like jihad, martyrdom operations, and Sharia law. I don’t understand how you can read the Qur’an and the sunnah of the Prophet (saw) a and not understand that jihad and the implementation of Sharia is absolutely demanded of all the Muslim Ummah.

In fact, Loewen did a significant amount of studying of the requirements of Islamic Law (Sharia) to come to the conclusion that Jihad is obligatory for Muslims. He came to this conclusion because all published Islamic Law obliges Jihad until the world is conquered for Islam and under the rule of the Sharia. There is no such thing as a “version” of Islamic Law which does not oblige Jihad, which is only defined as “warfare against non-Muslims” in 100% of published Islamic Law.

In Islamic Law, the entire world is divided into the Dar al Harb, “the house or abode of war,” and the Dar al Islam, “the house or abode of peace.” All lands which are not under Muslim control and ruled by Sharia, are considered Dar al Harb—enemy lands. “Harbi” means enemy personnel, or inhabitants of the Dar al Harb. All non-Muslims, not submitted to Islamic Law in Muslim lands are considered “enemy persons, persons from the territory of war.” The term “non-combatants” does not exist in Islamic Law. All lands occupied by Muslim forces at any time in history are considered “Muslim Lands.”

Jihad defined in authoritative Islamic Law:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims…signifying warfare to establish Islam” and is “obligatory for every Muslim.” [Umdat al Salik, Classic Manual of Islamic Law (Shafi), Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, d. 1368.]

“War…is obligatory on men who are free, have attained puberty, who find the means for going to war, are of sound health, and are neither ill nor suffer from a chronic disease…the jurists agreed, with respect to the people who are to be fought, that they are all of the polytheists, because of the words of the Exalted, ‘And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.” [The Distinguished Jurist's Primer (Maliki), Ibn Rushd, d. 1198]

“Fight the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every strategem of war…’I have been commended to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah…’ This honorable Ayah (verse) 9:5 (Qur’an) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Kahhak bin Muzahim said, ‘It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.’” [Tafsir of ibn Kathir, d. 1373]

Even text books used in Islamic elementary and junior high schools in America teach this.

“The word jihad is most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing…if anyone dies in a Jihad they automatically go to Paradise. A Shaheed or Martyr, is described this way by Allah, ‘Don’t think that those who were killed in Allah’s Cause are dead. No they are alive, finding their bounty in the presence of their Lord…the Law of the Land is the Shari’ah of Allah…the duty of the Muslim citizen is to be loyal to the Islamic State.” [“What Islam is All About” (most popular Islamic junior high school text in the U.S.—printed in English), 1997]

The FBI’s complaint defines “Jihad” as “an Arabic term meaning ‘holy war’” and “Sharia” as “the moral code and religious law of Islam.”

Yet American media outlets reporting the story of Terry Lee Loewen’s jihad say he had “radical ideas” and the FBI leadership told the public Loewen is a “lone wolf.” The term “lone wolf” does not exist in the Law of Jihad in Sharia. “Individual Jihad”—however—does exist.

While there are individuals who self-identify as “Muslim” in America who do not want to participate in jihad, there is no such thing as a “version” of authoritative Islamic Law which does not define Jihad as stated above.

In a letter Loewen left for his family, he stated: “By the time you read this I will—if everything went as planned—-have been martyred in the path of Allah.”

The problem is not the increasing number of Muslims in the community who are willing to commit to martyr themselves in jihad against America and the West. The problem is the growing number of American leaders who are failing to adhere to their Constitutional and legal duties to “know the enemy,” address this enemy, and defeat this enemy.

Terrorist Killed British Soldier to “Make it to Paradise”

article-2520719-19FB211600000578-362_634x484by IPT News:

A British court Monday heard yet another first-hand statement that jihadist terrorist attacks are motivated by radical Islamic religious beliefs.

Michael Adebolajo is one of the two men charged with hacking British soldier Lee Rigby to death in a brutal, daylight attack in London last May. He testified Monday, telling the court he did kill Rigby.

While Islamist groups and even the United States government argue religion should not be part of the conversation when it comes to terrorist attacks, Adebolajo – a convert to Islam – made it clear it was the driving force behind his actions.

“My religion is everything,” he said. “When I came to Islam I realised that… real success is not just what you can acquire, but really is if you make it to paradise, because then you can relax.”

‘To fight Jihad for the sake of Allah, it’s not something that is to be taken lightly, fun or something like this,” Adebolajo said.

That is consistent with what he said moments after Rigby’s murder. “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he said, still carrying the meat cleaver, his hands covered in Rigby’s blood.

And it is consistent with what other killers and would-be terrorists have said for years.

Faisal Shahzad’s car bomb parked in Times Square in May 2010 turned out to be a dud. But he told his sentencing judge that he had hoped to fire a salvo in “the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah … which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order.”

Naser Jason Abdo was caught before he could try to bomb a restaurant popular with personnel from Fort Hood, Texas in July 2011. “The reason is religion, Mom,” he later said in a jailhouse visit with his mother.

Farooque Ahmed scouted Washington, D.C. area Metrorail stops, believing he was helping an al-Qaida terrorist plot.

“There’s an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam,” his own lawyer told the judge at Ahmed’s sentencing, “that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action … that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don’t do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith.”

Too often, the reaction to such brutality is to say it has nothing to do with the terrorist’s interpretation of Islam.

So whose message should we heed – the bureaucrats and activists promoting a politically correct ideal? Or the individuals who attempt to kill, or succeed in killing people because they believe Islam compels it?

Wilders to Pope Francis: Contrasts Papal Ecumenism, With Jew/Infidel-Hatred of Current Sunni Pope Al-Tayeb

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent

by Andrew Bostom:

In a blog yesterday (12/5/13), I analyzed recent statements and actions by the two most recent Catholic Popes, Benedict XVI, and his successor, the current Pope, Francis. I further contrasted their ecumenical words and deeds with the overt, canonical Jew-hatred espoused by their Sunni Muslim  counterparts, Al Azhar University Grand Imam Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi (d. March, 2010), and his successor, the current Grand Imam of Al Azhar University, Ahmad al-Tayeb. My conclusions are reproduced, below:

Former Pope Benedict XVI, and current Pope Francis have openly expressed their ecumenism toward Jews and Judaism, while acknowledging Christianity’s indebtedness to Jewish ethical values. This ecumenical message has been coupled to frank, mea culpa-based contrition for the tragic legacy of Christian antisemitism. The disparity between their attitudes and their two contemporary Sunni Muslim equivalents, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi and Ahmad Al-Tayeb—the latter having emphatically and triumphantly re-asserted the modern relevance of canonical Islam’s conspiratorial Jew-hatred—could not be more striking.

Both Tantawi’s and his successor Ahmad Al-Tayeb’s career trajectories to the pinnacle of Sunni Islamic religious education, despite their own public endorsements of virulent, if “sacralized” Islamic Jew-hatred, reflect the profound moral pathology at the very heart and soul of mainstream, institutional Islam.

Now, in a welcome follow-up to my discussion, Geert Wilders has boldly ventured where no Western leader has gone heretofore: openly contrasting Papal ecumenism with the virulent Jew-hatred publicly spewed by Sunni Islam’s Vatican and its Papal equivalents.  Reproduced below is Wilders’ Open letter to his Holiness Pope Francis posted at The Gates of Vienna:

Your Holiness,

In your recent exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (Paragraphs 247-248) you draw the world’s attention to the indebtedness of Christianity to the Jews and their faith. The exhortation also contains a sharp condemnation of the terrible persecutions which the Jews have endured from Christians in the past.

Your words are words which might inspire many.

Unfortunately, they are in sharp contrast to the expressions of hatred which were voiced last October by the spiritual leader of Sunni Islam, Ahmad Al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar Institute in Cairo.

During an interview, aired on Egyptian television on October 25, Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayeb reaffirmed the relevance of Koranic verse 5:82, which states that of all people the Christians are closest to the Muslims, while the Jews are strongest in enmity towards them. This verse has inspired centuries of Islamic hatred of Jews.

Al-Tayeb’s invocation of Koranic Jew-hatred is in line with fourteen centuries of Islamic teaching. Grand Imam Al-Tayeb’s predecessor at Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, even wrote a book, entitled The Children of Israel in the Koran and the Sunna, in defense of Jew-hatred based on Koranic teachings.

The current suffering of Christians from Islamic persecution in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Indonesia, and so many other countries, clearly indicates what Christians have to endure from the followers of the Koran. What atheists and Jews, who are considered the worst enemies, have to endure from Islam is even worse.

In your exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (paragraphs 252-253) you state that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Koran are opposed to every form of violence.”Reality does not confirm this statement.The Koran is full of bellicose and hate-mongering verses against non-Muslims. Your Holiness will be able to find them if he reads the Koran, but I will name just a few:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, […] Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s.”

4:89: “If they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, […]: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land.”

 8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy.”

 9:5: “When the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.”

 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah.”

 9:30: “The Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the God-fearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.”

I hope that the Holy Father will help us defend the West’s Judeo-Christian and humanistic civilization, to which even atheists and agnostics owe their freedom and democracy.

Nothing will be gained by a refusal to face reality.

We must speak the truth about Islam — the largest threat to mankind in this present age.

Very respectfully,
Geert Wilders

Member of the Dutch Parliament
Leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV)

See also:

How to Speak to the Politically Correct Bigots

By Ali Sina:

2005/10/21

I’ve been a fan of your work for a while Mr. Sina.  So tell me how can I put forward the mental will to deal with an extremely politically correct class on Islam?  

pcThis extremely and in fact fanatical political correct class on Islam is our main problem. We must defeat them at any cost. Their stupidity could bring the world to destruction. The best way to handle them is to expose their ignorance right from the start. Show them the facts. Facts are:

Muhammad had sex with a 9 year old child. Ask them what they think about it. Are they willing to at least condemn his pedophilia? They will bring all lame excuses and  moral relativistic arguments to dodge the question. Ask them if Muhammad claimed to be a prophet of God why he followed the bad examples of the people of his time? Furthermore, is there any evidence that in those days 50 year old men married 6 year old children? This is not even natural. Normal men do not get sexually attracted to children. Only a pedophile can become sexually aroused by a child. One friend wrote: “even in the animal kingdom where animals respond to their animalistic instincts, pre-puberty animals and birds are spared and not desired by the male animals in heat.  I would think that it is a biological reaction that is ingrained in all of us not to lust after or desire or be turned on by any child immaterial of what kind of perverts we may be.” Having sexual feelings for children is unnatural and it is a sickness of mind. It has nothing to do with morality. Any adult who lusts after a child is not normal. Muhammad was sick in the head.

Tell them about the Bani Quraiza, the Jewish tribe that resided near Medinafor 2000 years. Muhammad massacred all their men and enslaved their women and children. To separate boys from men, he inspected their genitals. If they had grown pubic hair he decided they are men and kill them. Ask these politically correct bigots to justify that. Are they willing to condemn at least his genocides? The only guilt of the Bani Quraiza was their unwillingness to accept Muhammad as their prophet. But suppose they were guilty of something terrible. Was every single person of them including the children guilty?  Is having pubic hair evidence of guilt?

Tell them about Asma Bint Marwan, the mother of five small children and Abu Afak, a 120 year old man, who were assassinated in the middle of the night at the order of Muhammad for composing poems that he found insulting. Isn’t this bigot politically correct class willing to condemn even Muhammad’s assassinations?

They will tell you that there are gory stories in the Bible as well. Tell them the Bible is a book of fables. No one knows which parts of those tales of battles are true and which parts are the boastful bragging of its writers to boost the morale of a defeated people in captivity. But even if these stories were true, would one wrong justify another?

There are hundreds of stories of assassinations, genocide, torture, raids, rapes, lootings, and all sorts of crimes of Muhammad that are recorded in the authentic Islamic annals. Present those evidences to them in their gory details and demand explanation. Be brave! Don’t let them overpower you with their bigoted condescending look. Political correctness is a cult, and the politically correct people can be just as vicious as any cultist. Stand firm and tell them they are ignorant. Don’t let any one bully you. They will back off once they see you know things they don’t. They are the bigots not you. Don’t be afraid to speak out. Tell them that during the 1930s there were idiots who wanted to be nice to the Nazis and were just as politically correct about that ideology of hate as they are about Islam. Ignorance and cowardice go hand in hand. Behind every ignorant bully there is a coward. Expose their ignorance and you’ll see they run for cover like one whose nakedness is exposed. Don’t speak about generalities, hand them one of the episodes of the savagery of Muhammad and demand explanation. Don’t let them tell you “we must respect people beliefs”. Ask them whether they respect the beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan and the skinheads? Who said beliefs have to be respected? This is the most absurd statement that is often pushed by those whose beliefs cannot stand scrutiny. Stunt them with your knowledge of Islam and ask them what they know about Islam. Of course they know nothing! Then tell them shouldn’t they learn something before opening their mouths?  They back off only when they see strength in you, otherwise they take your silence as sign of defeat and start lecturing you the virtues of being idiot and respecting the cults of hate and the beliefs of people who think it is their God given duty to kill you.

The politically correct people are the “useful idiots”. They must be put to shame for siding with evil and defending terrorism. Islam is terrorism. If they don’t know it they better learn it. Ignorance is not an excuse. They know nothing about Islam and speak out of ignorance. Give them the URL of faithfreedom.org. Tell them come and listen to the apostates of Islam. Are we also Islamophobes? Is our aversion to Islam based on ignorance and misconceptions? That charge does not stick to us, does it? I have challenged every Muslim in the world to come and prove us wrong. Where are these soldiers of Allah when it comes to logics? Why these jihadis who are so brave when it comes to blowing up innocent civilians are so chicken when it comes to prove the truth of their creed with logics?

Dr. Ali Sina is a former Muslim from Iran who is atheist and currently residing in Canada. He is the author of Understanding Muhammad, and is the founder of Faith Freedom International. Visit his personal website.

Sharia’s War on Music

ban_on_musicby :

We can all point to things that brighten our day, but as diverse as those lists may be, music, of one sort or another, finds its way onto most people’s lists.

Alarmingly, any engagement in music is becoming illegal in some corners of the globe, and the ideology behind this snuffing out of a beautiful art form threatens to affect the rest of the world as well. We are referring to Islamic Sharia law.

Already, in countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali, musicians have been killed or threatened with removal of their fingers or tongues simply because they make music. Music stores and instruments have likewise been destroyed in the hopes of silencing virtually all styles of music.

Lest you think that these acts are confined to non-Western areas, the picture below shows one of a multitude of “Sharia Controlled Zone” signs that have gone up in neighborhoods in Great Britain. The signs detail the sharia prohibitions against such vices as alcohol, drugs and smoking, gambling, porn and prostitution, and….wait for it…..music and concerts. Yes, this scourge is affecting our neighbors and allies “across the pond.”

sc1

As one views the spread of Sharia, it is vital to understand the supremacist nature of Islamic law:

Qur’an 8:39  “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

“But,” you may say, “there’s no Sharia law in the U.S.” Though to date our music industry here in America appears not to have been impacted, we’re seeing many examples of cultural, financial and legal jihad, not to mention violent physical jihad such as we experienced with 9/11 and the Ft. Hood massacre.

For several years now, financial giants such as Citibank and AIG have dealt in Sharia-compliant products; when we invest in such products, a significant portion of the profits flow into vehicles selected by radical Islamic scholars to help finance jihad. School textbooks have been consistently written over the past twenty years to whitewash the history of Islamic Jihad and expansionism over the past fourteen centuries. (For an extensive research study on the subject, visit actforamericaeducation.com ). There is even a Sharia court in Texas, of all places. And the list goes on.

The treatment of women and gays in particular, coupled with death sentences for apostates, suggests that there are likely many Muslims who would much prefer to live under our Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom than under Sharia. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with those folks. The appropriate object of any objections to Islam  is the ideology with its repressive political laws and, by extension, those who seek to force Sharia on the rest of us.

Where does the concept that music is bad come from? While there is tremendous disagreement among Islamic scholars on whether (or what type of) music is prohibited by the Islamic doctrinal trilogy, the section on music in “The Reliance of the Traveler,” the compendium of Islamic law, is clear and enforceable in the minds of many religious Muslims:

MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

r40.1 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for the condemnation of musical instruments,flutes, strings, and the like by the Truthful and Trustworthy (Allah bless him and give him peace), who “does not speak from personal caprice: it is nothing besides a revelation inspired” (Koran 53:3-4), let those who refuse to obey him beware lest calamity strike them, or a painful torment. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

1)      Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”

2)      “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”

3)      “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”

4)      “This Community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”

5)      “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine , and musical instruments to be lawful….”

All of this is explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful (Kaff-al-ra’a’ ‘an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama’ (y49), 2.269-70).

r40.2 Nawawi:) It is unlawful to use musical instruments – such as those which drinkers are known for, like the mandolin, lute, cymbals, and flute – or to listen to them. It is permissible to play the tambourine at weddings, circumcisions, and other times, even if it has bells on its sides. Beating the kuba, a long drum with a narrow middle, is unlawful. (Mughni al-muhtaj ila ma’rifa ma’ani alfaz al-Minhaj (y73), 4.429-30).

SINGING UNACCOMPANIED BY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS

r40.3 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for listening to singing that is not accompanied by instruments, one should know that singing or listening to singing is offensive except under the circumstances to be mentioned in what follows. Some scholars hold that singing is sunna at weddings and the like, and of our Imams, Ghazali and ‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam say that it is sunna if it moves one to a noble state of mind that makes one remember the hereafter. It is clear from this that all poetry which encourages good deeds, wisdom, noble qualities, abstinence from this-wordly things, or similar pious traits such as urging one to obey Allah, follow the sunna, or shun disobedience, is sunna to write, sing, or listen to,  as more than one of our Imams have stated is obvious, since using a means to do good is itself doing good (Kaff-al-ra’a’ ‘an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama’ (y49), 2.273).

Thus, though there may exist geographical areas under Islamic rule where at least some forms of music are allowed – witness the fact that Cat Stevens (a.k.a. Yusuf Islam) has, after a long post-conversion hiatus, resumed performing -  nonetheless, the events of recent years show clearly the global support for restrictions upon and silencing of music.

Read more at Front Page

A Month of Horror for Christians under Islam: September, 2013

by Raymond Ibrahim:

“We shall come for you…you are polluting our religion.” — Note apparently from al-Shabaab, Somalia

“It seems great crackdowns on churches and extraordinary waves of arrest of Iranian pastors and Christian converts have not been effective.” — Mohabat News, Iran

811The same month that Obama tried to wage war on behalf of the jihadi rebels in Syria (citing “human rights” concerns), some of the war’s worst atrocities were committed against that nation’s Christian minority, most notably in Ma’loula, an ancient Christian region where the inhabitants spoke Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

There, al-Qaeda-linked jihadis fired mortars and missiles into at least two ancient churches before looting them; some 80 Christians trying to defend their homes were killed. Others who could not flee were forced, on pain of death, to convert to Islam.

One man’s last words before being slaughtered by the rebels were: “I am a Christian, and if you want to kill me for that, I do not object to it.” A nun involved with humanitarian relief said the man “is a Martyr in Christ in the full sense of this word, since he was murdered solely because of religious hatred!”

The Christian Post reports:

Jihadists reportedly forced one man to convert to Islam at gunpoint and slit the throat of another Christian woman’s fiancé and then [mockingly] told her, “Jesus didn’t come to save him.”…. “I saw people wearing Al-Nusra headbands who started shooting at crosses,” the Christian senior told the AFP. One of the shooters, he said, “put a pistol to the head of my neighbor and forced him to convert to Islam by obliging him to repeat ‘there is no God but God’ [Islamic shehada]…Afterwards they joked, ‘he’s one of ours now.’”

In al-Thawrah, Syria, Christians were also singled out for attack by jihadi invaders. In one incident, they stopped three residents, released two who identified themselves as Muslims, and bludgeoned to death the third after he identified himself a Christian (graphic image). They also destroyed, among other churches, the Antiochian Orthodox church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus.

In Raqqah, a city in northern Syria, the al-Qaeda linked “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” broke the crossesoff the area’s two Christian churches and placed on them al-Qaeda’s Islamic flags. They also set the contents of the Church of the Annunciation and the Church of Martyrs aflame. In one video, a Muslim “freedom fighter” smashes a statue of Virgin Mary to shouts of Islam’s war-cry cry, “Allahu Akbar!” ["Allah is Greater!"]

These latest attacks come in the context of yet another fatwa that appeared in September, and issued by 36 Islamic scholars who legitimized “the right of the faithful Sunni Muslims to seize and take possession of goods, homes, property belonging to Christians, Druze and Alawite and members of other religious minorities ‘who do not profess the Sunni religion of the Prophet.’” (Earlier, before the “sex jihad” solved the problem by luring Muslim women from Tunisia and elsewhere to provide their sexual services to jihadis in Syria fighting to make Allah’s word supreme, another fatwa permitted jihadis to rape all non-Sunni women.)

Meanwhile, when publicly asked about the jihadi nature of the rebellion and that the rebels often shout Islam’s supremacist war cry, Allahu Akbar (such as when firing at Chrisitan churches), U.S. Senator John McCain insisted that shouting “Allahu Akbar!” is equivalent to a Christian saying “Thank God,” and that the rebels in Syria are “moderates and I guarantee you they are moderates.”

Similarly, when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was also asked in September about the jihadi and al-Qaeda elements of the Syrian rebels, he argued that, “The opposition has increasingly become more defined by its moderation … more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution”—an assertion that prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin openly to call Kerry a liar.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Bearing Witness: Survivor Describes Nigerian Islamist Terror

MI5: Radicalized Britons Fighting in Syria Cause Concern

radicalization

Exclusive video showing British Muslims fighting in Syria alongside Al Qaeda jihadi militias. Head of MI5: This is reason for concern.

Clarion Project:

There is growing concern in the British intelligence agency, MI5, that radicalized citizens who have fought alongside Al Qaeda militias in Syria will return to Britain to carry out terror attacks.

Channel 4 prepared the following video report which examines the process of radicalization of these young Muslims, usually recruited through extremist websites and social media networks which glorify the idea of becoming a martyr, promising paradise to anyone dying fighting against Assad’s regime in Syria. Shiraz Maher, a senior fellow at the Int’l Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, shows the pictures used to entice the young men to join the Islamist militants.

Watch video here

****************

via The Blaze: ‘WE WILL BLEED YOU TO DEATH’: BRITISH JIHADIS DESCRIBE THEIR AIMS FOR AMERICA AFTER SYRIA FIGHT

British men fighting alongside Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria have said that after Syria, they aim to take the battle to the United States and Britain.

Vice News posted video with interviews of British men who traveled to the combat zone to pair up with the jihadi groups Jabhat al-Nusra (Nusra Front) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“I say to United States that your time will come and we will bleed you to death and, inshallah [Allah willing], will raise the flag in the White House,” a 26-year-old Briton told the Vice News interviewer.

“My feeling is great, hamdullallah (thank Allah), I’m happy I’m here. And I’m here to please Allah… and I’m not here to please anyone else but Allah,” he added, describing his aim as contributing to jihad on behalf of Muslims.

During the entire video, all of the men were masked, revealing only their eyes, and none provided their names.

A second British citizen blamed his government and prime minister for perpetrating “crimes” against Muslims. He tied his objectives with those of the killers of Lee Rigby, the British soldier who was hacked to death in the London neighborhood of Woolwich in May. The perpetrators – both Muslim converts – described their motives as revenge for the killing of Muslims by British forces serving in the Middle East.

“Like the guy in Woolwich, he explained that [Prime Minister] David Cameron would never walk on the street, and he’ll never get shot in the face, whereas you guys who are soldiers, or just normal folk, will take the blame for the crimes that are committed worldwide by Britain itself so we have to fight. It’s part of our obligation…to protect our honor, to protect our women,” the Syrian rebel from the UK said.

After Syria, the aim is “to bring back the honor of Islam from Filastine [Palestine] to Al Aqsa to all over the Muslim world, and Britain will be next,” said one of the British jihadis.

“From this land we will march toward the Al Aqsa mosque [in Jerusalem] in the name of Allah. Allahu Akbar! [Allah is the greatest],” said another.

***

According to a Daily Beast report last month, U.S. intelligence estimates vary about the number of Americans who have gone on jihad in Syria, ranging from 10 to 60.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers has called the Syrian civil war a “jihadist magnet.” He told the Daily Beast in September, “At some point all of these people from Europe are going home. All the folks there from all over the world, including the United States, will be coming home if they do not meet their end on the battlefield.”

Read more

 

Sunni Muslim Pope Sanctions Islamic Jew-Hatred Based Upon Koran 5:82

al azhur ImamBy Andrew G. Bostom:

Since its founding in 973 C.E., Al Azhar University (and its mosque) have represented a pinnacle of Islamic religious education, which evolved into the de facto Vatican of Sunni Islam. Unfortunately, during that same millennium, through the present era, Al Azhar and its leading clerics have represented and espoused the unreformed, unrepentant jihad bellicosity and infidel hatred at the core of mainstream, institutional Islam.

Al Azhar’s contemporary espousal of sacralized Islamic animosity has been directed, unsurprisingly, against Jews and Israel,dating back to the 20th century origins, and ultimate creation, of the modern Jewish State. Despite nearly universal willful blindness by media, academic, and policymaking elites, this critical issue of sacralized incitement of Muslim Jew-hatred by Islam’s Sunni Muslim Vatican, remains center stage.

4

Ahmad Al-Tayeb, as current Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, is the Sunni Muslim Papal equivalent. During an interview with Al-Tayeb, which recently aired on Channel 1, Egyptian TV, October 25, 2013, the Al-Azhar Grand Imam gave a brief explanation of the ongoing relevance of the Koranic verse 5:82 (sura, or chapter 5, verse 82) has been invoked—“successfully”—to inspire Muslim hatred of Jews since the advent of Islam:

A verse in the Koran explains the Muslims’ relations with the Jews and the polytheists. The second part of the verse describes the Muslims’ relations with the Christians, and the third part of the verse explains why the Christians are the closest and most friendly to the Muslims. This is an historical perspective, which has not changed to this day. See how we suffer today from global Zionism and Judaism, whereas our peaceful coexistence with the Christians has withstood the test of history. Since the inception of Islam 1,400 years ago, we have been suffering from Jewish and Zionist interference in Muslim affairs. This is a cause of great distress for the Muslims. The Koran said it and history has proven it: “You shall find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers to be the Jews and the polytheists.” This is the first part. The second part is: “You shall find the closest in love to the believers to be those who say: ‘We are Christians’.” The third part explains why the Christians are “the closest in love to the believers,” while the Jews and the polytheists are the exact opposite.

Grand Imam Al-Tayaeb’s assessment is upheld by a continuum of authoritative Koranic exegeses that span over a thousand years, till now. The classical Koranic commentaries on Koran 5:82 by al-Tabari (d. 923), Zamakashari (d. 1143), Baydawi (d. 1316), and Ibn Kathir demonstrate a uniformity of opinion regarding the animus of the Jews toward the Muslims, which is repeatedly linked to the curse of Koran 2:61 (i.e., for killing prophets, and transgressing against the will of Allah, repeated at verses including 2:90-91, 3:112, 3:181, and 4:155):

[Tabari]: In my (Tabari’s) opinion, (the Christians) are not like the Jews who always scheme in order to murder the emissaries and the prophets, and who oppose Allah in his positive and negative commandments, and who corrupt His scripture which He revealed in His books.

[Zamakshari]: Here Allah portrays the Jews as being unyielding and as acknowledging the truth only grudgingly. . . . On account of their vehement enmity against the believers, Allah places the Jews together with the idolaters; indeed, going even further, he shows them to be at the head, since they are mentioned before the idolaters. Allah does the same in his words: “And thou shalt find them (the Jews) the eagerest of men for life—even more so than the idolaters. Each of them wishes he could be given a life of a thousand years; but the grant of life would not save him from chastisement—for God sees well all that they do!” (sura 2:96/90). The Jews are surely like this, and even worse! From the Prophet (the following is related): “If a Muslim is alone with two Jews, they will try to kill him.”. . . The Jews focused their hostility to the Muslims in the most overt and intense manner . . .

[Baydawi]: [B]ecause of [the Jews’] intense obstinacy, multifaceted disbelief, and their addiction to following their whims, their adherence to the blind following of their tradition, their distancing themselves from the truth, and their unrelenting denial of, and hostility toward, the prophets . . . [the Christians] . . . easiness to deal with, the softness of their hearts, their dismissal of gain in this world, and their serious concern with learning and good deeds . . .their acceptance of the truth as soon as they understand it; or, because of their humility as opposed to the arrogance of the Jews.

[Ibn Kathir]: Allah said, “Verily you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers the Jews and those who commit Shirk [i.e., the polytheists, or idolaters].” This describes the Jews, since their disbelief is that of rebellion, defiance, opposing the truth, belittling other people, and degrading the scholars. This is why the Jews—may Allah’s continued curses descend on them until the Day of Resurrection—killed many of their Prophets and tried to kill the Messenger of Allah several times, as well as performing magic spells against him and poisoning him. They also incited their likes among the polytheists against the Prophet.

Read more at PJ Media

 

Islamic ‘Racism’: Muslim Blood Superior to Infidel Blood

123by Raymond Ibrahim:

Arguing that Muslim blood is more precious than infidel blood, Muslim clerics in and out of Sudan are outraged because a Sudanese court has condemned a Muslim man to death—simply because he murdered a non-Muslim, the American diplomat John Granville on January 1, 2008.

A 2009 report offers context:

The court had sentenced the men [originally four] to death in June for killing Granville and his driver in January 2008, but the sentence was cancelled in August after [his Muslim driver] Abbas’s father forgave the men.

Under Islamic law, the victim’s family has the right to forgive the murderer, ask for compensation (fedia) or demand execution.

Granville’s mother, Jane Granville, at the time had asked for the men’s execution, but her letter was rejected because it was not notarized.

The judge said the sentence was confirmed because Granville’s family, from Buffalo, in northern New York State, had requested it.

Then, in 2010, the four men convicted of murder, in the words of the U.S. State Department, “escaped from a maximum security prison” in Khartoum. One of the men, Abdul Ra’uf Abu Zaid Muhammad Hamza, was recaptured and is currently in prison awaiting execution.

Finding the punishment unjust, several international Islamic organizations, most recently, the London-based Islamic Media Observatory, have been trying to commute the death sentence, mostly by arguing for Abdul Ra’uf’s “human rights.”

However, the Legitimate League of Scholars and Preachers in Sudan (an influential body of Muslim clerics) issued a statement last month titled “Let no Muslim be killed because of an infidel”—a verbatim quote, in fact, from Islam’s prophet Muhammad—revealing the true reason why so many Muslims are trying to overturn the death sentence.

John Granville and his murderers.

John Granville and his murderers.

The Arabic language statement begins by asserting that “Allah has honored human beings over creation and multiplied the Muslim’s honor over the infidel’s, because Islam elevates and nothing is elevated above it. The value of the blood of Muslims is equal, or should be, but not so the value of the blood of others.”  (The Koran itself, e.g., 2:221, confirms this idea that even the lowliest Muslim is superior to any non-Muslim.)

Next, the statement quotes the clear words of Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, as recorded in a canonical hadith: “Let no Muslim be killed because of an infidel.”  It then elaborates on the meaning of this statement by quoting from “the consensus of Islamic scholars,” or ijma‘, a legitimate source of Islamic jurisprudence.

The Legitimate League of Scholars and Preachers then elaborate on the prophet’s injunction as meaning that, when judging between Muslims and non-Muslims, under no circumstances are Muslim rulers ever permitted to execute Muslims—even if they murder non-Muslims in cold blood, including those groups that are nominally “protected” by Islamic law, such as dhimmis(subjugated, tribute-paying non-Muslims) and foreign non-Muslims granted aman, or a pledge of security to enter Muslim lands.

Abdul Ra’uf triumphantly holds a Koran while in prison for murdering an “infidel.”

Abdul Ra’uf triumphantly holds a Koran while in prison for murdering an “infidel.”

Finally, after chastising the offending judge of North Khartoum’s felony court, Sayed Ahmed al-Badri, the statement concludes by warning all Muslim rulers and judges “to fear Allah, to apply Allah’s law in every matter, whether big or small, to seek justice according to the consensus of Islamic scholars, not to seek to please the infidels, not to rush the verdict, and to know that Allah prefers the annihilation of the entire earth over the spilling of the blood of one innocent Muslim” (emphasis added).

When American soldiers desecrated copies of the Koran—a book—media maelstroms occurred and grandstanding politicians condemned.  But when the scholars of Islam, quoting the words and teachings of their prophet, openly assert that the blood of non-Muslims is cheaper than the blood of Muslims—and hence the murder of an American “infidel” by a Muslim cannot be punished blood-for-blood—such hate-filled supremacy and racist-like contempt is not even deemed worth reporting by Western media or condemned by Western politicians.

 

 

Defending Islam: The Height of Leftist Hypocrisy

By: Amber Pawlik

Ever since 9-11, Islam has been a topic of debate in many circles.  President George Bush announced that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  Leftists, though, in particular have convinced us that to criticize Islam is to be “intolerant.”  This has created a culture unwilling to call Islam for what it is.  Here is a list of common debate arguments in defense of Islam, usually given by leftists, and quick rebuttals to them, proving otherwise.

 

You are a racist if you condemn Islam.  

As soon as you go to criticize Islam, the first response you always get hit with is “you are a racist.”  This is not true.  Islam is an ideology not a race.  You can criticize Islam in the same way that you can criticize communism, liberalism, feminism, etc.   

In fact, the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims themselves.  Every Muslim I have ever met is bright and hard working.  It is unfortunate that Muslims are under the spell of Islam, which prevents them from making the kind of scientific and technological progress they clearly could otherwise make.

 

Christianity can be just as violent as Islam.  

When you point out the verses in the Koran which call for the murder of Christians and Jews, etc., or point out that Muslims are killing people in the name of Allah, the instant response you get is, “Christianity has violent passages too, and people have killed other people in the name of Christianity too.”  

All I have to say is:  and?  If people are using Christianity as a reason to kill innocent people, guess what:  they are wrong too.  You can’t excuse one evil by pointing to another evil.   

Besides that, there are no Christian nations right now that are responsible for killing 3000 Americans or 200 Spaniards.  It is the Islamic nations and organizations that are.   

 

It’s the wrong interpretation of Islam that is the problem.  

Leftists insist that the Koran isn’t bad; it is the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran.  I’m not sure how anyone can fail to correctly interpret statements like, 

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, Surah4:89, Nobel Koran) but I guess that’s just me.

When leftists say it is the “wrong interpretation” of Islam that is wrong, really what they mean is “why can’t Muslims just ignore the bad parts of the Koran?”  Leftists don’t understand the psyche of the person who takes things literally.  To them, things are just suggestions not commandments – even the law, as evidenced by the San Francisco mess.  

It’s not the wrong interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists; it is an exact interpretation of the Koran that produces terrorists.

 

Most Muslims are nice people.  

The more emotional appeal is that most Muslims are nice, hard working people and criticizing Islam is to criticize these nice people.  Of course most Muslims are nice people.  The problem is in the leadership, i.e. people who are responsible for taking the Koran seriously and literally, not the naïve followers.   

It is not limited to leadership in the Middle East either. Representative Peter T. King said publicly while promoting his book Vale of Tears that he estimates 80-85% of the Muslim leadership in America supports “Islamic fundamentalism.”   

Islam is not benign.  To ignore this, being politically-correct, is to ignore a very large, deadly pink elephant in the room. 

 

Islam has produced scientific achievements.  

Lots of people insist that Muslim culture has produced various scientific achievements. The biggest “Muslim” achievement that they point to is that they supposedly discovered Algebra.  This isn’t true.  It wasn’t Muslims or even Arabs that invented Algebra:  it was the Iranians. The Iranians have had a very enlightened culture – one that radical Muslims have waged a war against, in an effort to Islamicize them (which you will never hear leftists condemn).   The Iranians also had their own religion, Zoroastrian, which was as opposite as you can get from Islam.    

Something else Islam defenders might point to as proof that Islam can produce scientific progress is a man named Razi, who they say was Muslim.  Razi made several findings in medicine.  But Razi, again, was not Arab or Muslim but Iranian.  In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason, and became a heretic.  Razi, an enlightened Iranian, was to the Muslim world what Galileo or Copernicus was to ours.  After treating these men of scientific achievement as heretics forced to live like gypsies, claiming them as proof that Islam can produce scientific achievement is a bit much.   

There is my short list of common arguments regarding Islam.  This brings me to what I believe is the biggest issue of our time and one of the largest hypocrisies. 

Leftists try to claim they are enlightened, sophisticated people, supporting the mind not faith – therefore denounce religion, especially Christianity.  Yet it is these very leftists that are most sympathetic to Islam: one of the most faith-based and anti-enlightened religions that has ever existed.   

Despite their theatrics, announcing they are intellectual, leftists are not enlightened or intellectual.  Genuine enlightenment came when men discovered reason and reality.  It started with one man:  Aristotle.  Accepting that reality was firm and external to man and that men can use reason to understand and explore it allowed for an explosion of scientific progress, technology, and civilization, as we know it.   

Read more at Faith Freedom

Early non-Muslim Sources Concerning the Advent of Islam

The Saracen [Muslims] Joust in Via Larga, Florence, 1555

The Saracen [Muslims] Joust in Via Larga, Florence, 1555

By Jon MC at Islam Watch:

Preface: This article, whilst a separate piece in it’s own right, forms part of my series on Jihad which comprises the articles: Jihad – the four forms and the West“Greater Jihad”, “Lesser Jihad” and “Jihad in the Way of Allah”The Pact of Umar and Allah’s war covenant with the Muslims, pt.1pt.2 and pt.3.

As such this article demonstrates that the attitudes inherent in, and the aims of, Jihad as set out in the previous articles were put into practice from the earliest post-Muhammad period of Islam, which thus provides historical validation of the previous articles.

Introduction

Whilst Muslims (reasonably enough) use their own sources as to the behaviour of early Islam in the attempt to show that it was either peaceful or only “fighting defensively against the multitude of enemies, hell-bent on Islam’s annihilation, that surrounded it”, what is less well known is that there are a number of non-Muslim sources that view the advent of Islam from an external perspective.

That these sources are mostly Christian should not be a surprise given that by 600 A.D. the whole of the Mediterranean basin was part of Christian lands that stretched from Ireland to China and from Axum (Ethopia) and Nubia in the South to Scotland in the North{1}.

A second, much rarer source of such evidence comes from Jewish writers.

Robert G. Hoyland in 1997 published an important book entitled Seeing Islam as Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. This is a comprehensive source.

Peter Kirby wrote this summary (2003): http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html in which he abstracted the references themselves. His article, though well worth a read, is over 20,000 words long.

Thus I thought it worthwhile to condense this further and summarise what the various sources said.

To place this work into its historical context I have included a limited Islamic time-line below which shows the main Theological developments within Islam across this period.

Islamic Time-line

Death of Muhammad: 632 A.D.

Uthman’s Koran:    ~650 A.D. (compiled during Uthman’s Caliphate. It is probably the textus receptus.)

First Islamic Civil War:    656–661 A.D.{2}. Fought between Ali and Muawiyah.

Caliph Muawiyah:    661 A.D.  Crowned as caliph in Jerusalem. First Ummayid Caliph.

Earliest Sharia “school”:    ~750 A.D. Hanifi school of jurisprudence.

First extant Sharia work:    ~820 A.D. The Risaala of al-Shaafi’i

Earliest Biography:    ~830 A.D. This is that of ibn Hisham and is a recension of the earlier (no  longer extant) work of Ibn Ishaq. It is known under both names.

Major Sunni Hadiths:    ~850 A.D. The “two Sahihs”, Bukhari and Muslim.

First Tafseer:    ~900 A.D. Al-Tabari. The partial Tafseer of Tustari dates to ~890 A.D.

*************

(go to the article at Islam Watch to see the survey of excerpted writings by non-Muslims about their encounters with early Islam)

****************

Conclusion

At the time of the advent of Islam the Christian Church was thoroughly established throughout the fertile crescent of the Mediterranean basin and thus we must take due account of its natural dislike for, and resistance to, the upsetting of the status quo. We can see a marked difference between those Christians who suffered the first contacts between an aggressively expanding Islamic hegemony and those who were accustomed to living life as Dhimmis under Muslim subjugation.

These later accounts show that once the Muslim “Muhajirs” (immigrants) were settled in subjugated lands and were sufficiently remote from Islam’s borders as to be freed from the need for continual sword-jihad that courteous and inquiring dialogue between the Dhimmi Christians and their Muslim overlords took place. Some, such as John of Damascus, are quite courageous though careful to avoid any “insult” in their challenges, which can only be a reflection of the confidence that they felt in their “protected” status as Dhimmis and probably the decreasing religious fervour of the later generations of Muslims themselves.

As such this reflects one aspect of the non-Muslim experience of being under Islamic domination.

But those who suffered the first contacts recount a different aspect of Islam.

There can be little doubt that the first contacts between nascent Islam and the Christian world were one-sidedly violent and bloody and that they brought much suffering on the populations of the Christian Countries attacked.

These accounts show that offensive sword-jihad was the modus vivendi of the early Muslims and that sack, pillage, the taking of (sex-)slaves and the ravaging of the land were commonplace{16}.

The sources also show that the Muslim sense of a “god-given” entitlement to Judea-Samaria, and thus modern Israel, goes back to the foundations of Islam itself.

There is evidence of the establishment of Dhimmitude and payment of Jizya{8,9} and other taxes{10} that destroyed the wealth of the non-Muslims.

The explanations for much of this can be found within the Koran, Biographic and Hadith literature.{17,18}.

Some Modern Muslims are inclined to say that the Hadith and Biographies are “inaccurate” or that they “reflect the views of the Muslims of the times [a century or more after Muhammad] rather than the truth about Islam”. What the above demonstrates is that the “views” expressed in the Ahadith and Biographies reach back to, if not the time of Muhammad himself, then to within a year or two of his death.

Given that the early records date to before the time of the textus receptus of the Koran and thus pre-date by centuries other Muslim sources and further that they reflect the actions of the Sahaba{19}, we can be quite certain that the attitudes in the later Muslim sources which reflect these earlier sources are genuine in that they are accurately accounting the beliefs of the Sahaba.

What this means is that the violence towards non-Muslims that we find in the Islamic Canon{20}is not, as some Muslims would have us believe, any later accretion as a result of the wider world’s violence towards Islam, but rather a true reflection of the militant attitudes and beliefs of the first Muslims as reflected in their violence towards the wider world.

 

Islam is a Belief of Blood

number-3By Amil Imani:

From Peshawar Pakistan to Nairobi Kenya, from Damascus Syria to Benghazi Libya, Muslims are on a killing rampage. The civilized world is shocked and distressed. Some mutation seems to take place in the humanness of the person the minute he announces his subservience to Islam by reciting the Shahada: “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” The individual becomes intolerant, violent and the shedding of blood becomes central to his life.

The Greek had their gods, so did the idolater Arabs before Muhammad appeared on the scene. Muhammad chose a minor idol as god and the only god and elected the name of Allah for him. According to Muhammad, Allah is not only the god; he is the all-everything god, embodying all imaginable attributes that were previously monopolies of different gods of the polytheists.

What in fact stands out as Allah’s dominating attribute, is his intolerant and violent nature. He is nothing like the all-merciful the Quran claims. But he certainly is the most wrathful. Since commissioning Muhammad as his emissary and giving him the manual of mayhem called the Quran, the world has never seen a day of peace. Apparently that’s just the way Allah likes it.

“The religion of peace,” is in fact the religion of blood.

Distressed by the Muslims’ trouble-making and killing sprees, civilized nations are bending over backward in the hope of placating them and helping them join the family of humanity by admitting hordes of immigrants and affording them all manner of hospitality and assistance. All seems to no avail. Many of the new arrivals, deeply infected by the Islamic ethos, find it impossible to assimilate in the host countries. Instead, they strive to impose their defunct order that is the cause of their backwardness and inhumanity on the host people.

The non-Muslim world is at the end of its wits. No accommodation or kindness seems to stem the tide of Islamic violence. Countless numbers of proposals have been advanced in dealing with Islamic mayhem. Some feel that, in general, Muslims are law-abiding citizens of their adopted countries and it is a minority that is responsible for acts of atrocities. Thinking along these lines has prompted people to say that the solution to Islamic violence rests with Islamic leaders. That is, Islamic leaders should speak up and condemn jihad and jihadists.

To begin with, renouncing jihad violates the repeated commands of the Quran and the Hadith. No Islamic leader would dare to attempt that abrogation.

Read more at Islam Watch

 

Jihadi Leader: Jihad Against Egyptian Military a ‘Religious Duty’

Morsi supporters protest in Cairo Nov. 4, 2013 / AP

Morsi supporters protest in Cairo Nov. 4, 2013 / AP

BY: :

A top jihadi leader is urging Egyptian supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood to cease peaceful demonstrations and take up arms against the Egyptian military, which he dubbed “an army of infidels and apostates,” according to a translation of his remarks.

Egyptian Muslims should “come and respond to the call of jihad” and “come and shed blood for the sake of establishing Allah’s law,” Sheikh Abu al Mundhir al Shinqiti said recently according to the Arabic media.

Waging jihad against the Egyptian military is “a religious duty and divine obligation,” he said.

Shinqiti is a well-known radical thinker and jihadist who is close with the spiritual adviser of prominent terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Shinqiti’s call for jihad in Egypt came as the country’s court system upheld a ban on the Muslim Brotherhood, a decision that some fear could spark increased violence in a country already reeling from months of civil discord.

Shinqiti said that it is acceptable under Islamic law to kill Egyptian soldiers because “this army is apostasy from Islam and a pledge of allegiance to the enemies of Allah,” according to his remarks, which were translated from Arabic and republished by theLong War Journal.

“Muslim women married to a member of the army should know that their marriage is nullified because [their husbands] are apostates,” Shinqiti said.

Terrorism expert Aaron Zelin said that Shinqiti’s call for violence could reverberate on the ground in Egypt, where the military continues to struggle against pro-Muslim Brotherhood agitators and other terrorist forces.

“I believe Abu Mundhir al Shinqiti’s release is quite serious,” said Zelin, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). “It is very important for jihadis on the ground for one of the top global jihadi scholars to confer legitimacy on the jihad in Egypt and the Sinai.”

Read more at Free Beacon