Islam’s Second Crisis: the troubles to come

sunset on Islam

Muslims will hold Islam accountable when Islamic revivalists promise utopia but deliver chaos and human rights abuses.

By Mark Durie:

In What Went Wrong, Bernard Lewis charted the decline of Islam in the modern era and the resulting theological crisis for the Muslim world.

Now Islam is going through a second crisis, caused by the repeated failures of revivalist responses to the first crisis.  This second crisis, combined with the cumulative effect of the first crisis, which remains unresolved, will lead to a long drawn-out period of political and social instability for Muslim societies.


The first millennium of Islam was a period of expansion through conquest.   However for five centuries from around 1500, Western powers were pushing back Islamic rule.  There were numerous landmarks of the ascendancy of the West (which includes Russia), such as:

  • the conquest of Goa in India by the Portuguese in 1510;
  • the liberation of Christian Ethiopia in 1543 with the aid of the Portuguese soldiers;
  • the defeat of the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna in 1683 and
  • the ensuing liberation of Hungary and Transylvania;
  • Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798;
  • the USA-Barbary State Wars of 1801-1815, which put an end to tribute payments by the US to the north African states to prevent piracy and the enslavement of US citizens;
  • a long series of defeats for the Ottomans in Russo-Turkish wars stretching across four centuries and culminating in the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish war,
  • which led to the independence of Romania, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria;
  • the overthrow of Muslim principalities in Southeast Asia by the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch and English;
  • the final destruction of Mughal rule in India at the hands by the British in 1857;
  • the defeat and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire as a result of WWI;
  • and finally, the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, in territory formerly ruled by Islam, which was considered by many Muslims to be the crowning humiliation in this long line of defeats.

We are not just talking about Western colonialism.  Some of the victories over Muslim principalities involved the occupation or colonisation of primarily Muslim lands, but many involved the liberation of non-Muslim peoples from the yoke of Muslim rule, such as in Ethiopia, Hungary and India, and some were defensive responses to Islamic aggression, such as the defeat of the Ottomans at the gates of Vienna.

While the external borders of Islam kept shrinking, its position of dominance within its own borders was also being challenged.  During this same period there were in many places improvements in the conditions experienced by non-Muslims under Islamic rule – a weakening of the dhimmi system – which communicated to Muslims an impression of their own faith’s loss of dominance and its loss of ‘success’. A landmark in this long process was the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856, which settled the Crimean War.  As part of this settlement the Ottomans were compelled to grant equal rights to Christians throughout their empire.

The gradual process of improvement of conditions for Christians and Jews under Islam was regretted by Muslim scholars, who saw it as evidence of Islam’s decline.  For example a request for a fatwa from a Egyptian Muslim judge in 1772 lamented the ‘deplorable innovations’ of Christians and Jews, who were daring to make themselves equal to Muslims by their manner of dress and behavior, all in violation of Islamic law.

In a similar vein, the Baghdad Quranic commentator Al-Alusi complained that non-Muslims in Syria during the first half of the 19th century were being permitted to make annual tribute payments by means of an agent, thus escaping the personal ritual degradations prescribed by Islamic law.  He concluded:  “All this is caused by the weakness of Islam.”

Why would Islam’s lack of dominance be evidence of weakness?

Islamic doctrine promises falah ‘success’ to the religion’s followers, symbolized by the daily call to prayer which rings out from minarets: ‘come to success, come to success’. The success promised by Islam has always been understood to be both spiritual and material: conquest and rule this life, and paradise in the next. The Qur’an states that Allah has sent Muhammad “with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to triumph over all (other) religions” (Sura 48:28).

Islam’s theology of success meant that the global failure of Islamic armies and states at the hands of ‘Christian’ states constituted a profound spiritual challenge to Islam’s core claims. Just as Muslim scholars had always pointed to the military victories of Islam as proof of its divine authority, this litany of defeats testified to its failure as the religion of the successful ones.

The urgency of the question ‘What went wrong?’ drove the Islamic revival, an interconnected network of renewal movements which have as their central tenet that Muslims will once again be ‘successful’ – achieving political and military domination over non-Muslims – if they are truly devoted to Allah and implement Islamic laws faithfully.   These are reformation movements in the original (medieval) sense of the Latin word reformatio, for they seek to restore Islam to its former glory by returning to first principles.

Some of the main formative strands of Islamic revivalism have been:

  • the Wahhabi movement which originated in the 18th century;
  • the Deobandi movement in India and Pakistan which dates from 1866;
  • Jamaat e-Islami, which was founded 1941 in India;
  • the Muslim Brotherhood, founded 1928;
  • and the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

Out of these have come a myriad of offshoots and branches such as the Taliban (from the Deobandi movement); Al Qaida (a product of the ideology of Muslim Brotherhood theologian Said Qutb); the missionary movementTablighi Jamaat; and Hizb Ut-Tahrir.

Even the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the ‘United Nations’ of the Muslim world, is a revivalist organization: this is reflected in its Charter which states that it exists “to work for revitalizing Islam’s pioneering role in the world”, a euphemism for reestablishing Islam’s dominant place in world affairs.

In essence, Islamic revivalist movements aim to restore the greatness of Islam and make it ‘successful’ again.  This hope is embodied, for example, in the Muslim Brotherhood’s slogan “Islam is the solution”.  This implies that when Islam is truly implemented all the problems human beings face – such as poverty, lack of education, corruption, and injustice – will be solved.  The flip-side of this slogan is the thesis that all the problems of the Muslim world have been caused through want of genuine Islamic observance:  Allah allowed his people to fall into disarray because they were not faithful in obeying his laws. The correction to this spiritual problem should therefore be more sharia compliance.  This is the reason why headscarves and burqas have been appearing on Muslim women’s heads with increasing frequency all around the world.

For a time it appeared to many Muslims that the revivalist program was working.  The Iranian Islamic revolution, and the later victory of jihadis in Afghanistan and the break-up of the Soviet Union was considered to be evidence of the success of the revivalist program.  This was the certainly view of the translator of Sheikh Abdullah Azzam’s jihadi tract Join the Caravan:

“The struggle, which he [Sheikh Azzam] stood for, continues, despite the enemies of Islam. ‘They seek to extinguish the light of Allah by their mouths. But Allah refuses save to perfect His light, even if the Disbelievers  are averse. It is He who has sent His messenger with the guidance and the true religion, in order that He may make it prevail over all religions, even if the pagans are averse.’ [Qur'an, 9:32-33] Since the book was written, the Soviets have been expelled from Afghanistan, by Allah’s grace, and the entire  Soviet Union has disintegrated.”

Utopian claims are risky, because they open up the possibility for even greater failure, and amplified cognitive dissonance as the gap between one’s faith and reality widens.  The first crisis of Islam was the rise of West through superior technological, economic and military prowess.  The second crisis is the failure of Islamic revivalism as a response to the first crisis.  The second crisis could prove even more painful and profound in its effects on Islam than the first.

The manifestations of revivalism’s failures are as diverse as the Islamist movements which generated them.  One could point to:

  •  the atrocities and backwardness of the Taliban;
  • the corruption and cruelty after the 1979 Iranian Revolution;
  • the failure of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to govern for the benefit of the Egyptian people, leading to a wildly popular military coup in 2013;
  • the present-day economic collapse of Turkey under big-talking Islamist Prime Minister Erdogan;
  • the genocidal campaigns of Khartoum’s military campaigns against its own citizens, causing more than a million casualties;
  • and the ongoing Iraqi and Syrian jihad-driven bloodbaths.

Everywhere one looks there are good reasons for Muslims to question the Islamic revivalist creed. The outcomes of more than two centuries of theological fervor are not looking good. Muslim states are not realizing the utopian goals set by these movements.  Indeed the opposite is the case: again and again, wherever revivalist movements have gained the ascendancy, human misery has only increased. Too many Muslim states continue to be models of poverty and economic failure, despite all those female heads being covered up.

One inevitable consequence of this trend is disenchantment with Islam, and a growing sense of alienation from the religion. The manifest failure of the revivalist creed creates a sense of anxiety that Islam is under threat, not from the infidel West, but from reputational damage caused by the revivalists themselves.  It is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

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

Fasten your seat-belts: the world will be in for quite a ride in the years to come, as Muslims – who constitute around a quarter of the world’s population – struggle to make theological sense of the trashing of their religion’s utopian vision.  It is one thing to blame the infidels for this – or the proxy tyrants which revivalists claim the West has foisted on the Muslim world – what is more threatening by far is the damage being done to Islam’s name by revivalist Muslims themselves.

Read more

Dr Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, Anglican pastor, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Adjunct Research Fellow of the Centre for the Study of Islam and Other Faiths at Melbourne School of Theology. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.

Choudary urges fanatics to scrounge for holy war

choud620_1674690aBy STEPHEN MOYES: SCROUNGING hate preacher Anjem Choudary has told  fanatics to copy him by going  on benefits — urging: “Claim your Jihad Seeker’s  Allowance.”

He cruelly ridiculed non-Muslims who held down 9-to-5 jobs all their lives  and  said sponging off them made plotting holy war easier.

The Sun secretly filmed him over three meetings also saying leaders such as  David Cameron and Barack Obama should be KILLED, grinning as he  branded  the Queen “ugly” and predicting a “tsunami” of Islamic immigrants  would sweep  Europe.

Father-of-four Choudary, who has praised terrorist outrages, pockets more  than £25,000 a year in benefits — £8,000 more than the take-home pay of some  soldiers fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.

He laughed as he told supporters:

“You find people are busy working the whole of their life. They wake up at 7  o’clock. They go to work at 9 o’clock. They work for eight, nine hours a  day.  They come home at 7 o’clock, watch EastEnders, sleep, and they do that  for 40  years of their life. That is called slavery.

“And at the end of their life they realise their pension isn’t going to  pay  out anything, the mortgage isn’t going to pay out anything.

He went on: “People will say, ‘Ah, but you are not working’.

“But the normal situation is for you to take money from the kuffar.

“So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance. You need to get support.”

Figures obtained by The Sun in 2010 showed the extremist cleric received £15,600 a year in housing benefit to keep him in a £320,000 house in  Leytonstone, East London.

He also got £1,820 council tax allowance, £5,200 income support and £3,120  child benefits — equivalent to a taxed salary of £32,500.

In another bile-filled rant, the scrounger said Mr Cameron, Mr Obama and the  leaders of Pakistan and Egypt were the shaitan (devil).

He added: “What ultimately do we want to happen to them? Maybe I’m the only  one who wants the shaitan to be killed. The shaitan should be finished.  There  should be no shaitan.

“All should be obedience to Allah, or you have no right to call yourself  Muslim.” At a three-hour meeting in a community centre in Bethnal Green,  East  London, he insisted it was wrong to deny any aspect of Islam — including jihad  or ultra-strict sharia law.

He told a 30-strong crowd: “We are going to take England — the Muslims are  coming.”

He gloated that the 9/11 terror attacks “shook the enemy” and claimed white  supremacists wished they had the “fortitude” to fly planes into buildings.  He  went on to proclaim: “You must hate in your heart — Cameron, Obama, all  that  they worship.

Read more at The Sun with video

The Salafi Crusades

greenfield121012By Daniel Greenfield

Empires leave behind a mess when they leave. And that mess acts as the building blocks of a new empire. One empire falls and another rises in its place. It’s an old story and it is what we are seeing in the Middle East.

The Islamist resurgence was fed by the collapse of two world powers, the USSR and the US. The fall of the Soviet Union robbed the Arab Socialist dictatorships of their support. The last of these, Syria, is now under siege, by Sunni Islamist militias after becoming an Iranian Shiite puppet.

Egypt’s Sadat had made the move to the American camp early enough to avoid the fate of Syria or Iraq, but instead his successor, Mubarak, encountered the fate of the Shah of Iran. With the fall of Egypt, Syria is the last major Arab Socialist holdout, and if it falls, then the Middle East will have shifted decisively into the Salafi column.

Unlike the Soviet Union, the United States has not actually collapsed, but its international influence is completely gone. Bush was accused of many things, but impotence wasn’t one of them. Obama however gave the Taliban a premature victory with a pullout deadline, ineptly waffled over the Iranian and Arab protests, before eventually getting on board with the latter, and allowed the UK and French governments to drag him into a poorly conceived regime change operation in Libya.

The Palestine UN vote, China’s South China Sea aggression and Karzai’s growing belligerence were just more reminders that no one really cared what the United States thought anymore. America had ceased to matter internationally as a great power. It still dispensed money, but its government had become an inept tail being wagged by Europe and the United Nations.

The loss of American influence was felt most notably in the Middle East, where its former oil patrons took the opportunity to back a series of Salafi crusades, the political Islamist version of which was known as the Arab Spring. The rise of political Islamists in democratic elections was however only one component of a regional strategy that depended as much on armed militias as on the ballot box.

In Egypt, protests followed by elections were enough to allow the Salafis, a category that includes the Muslim Brotherhood, to take over. That was also true in Tunisia. In Libya, a new American client, the government put up a fight, little realizing that Obama wasn’t Putin, but a horrible mashup of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Henry Wallace. Instead of getting American backing, Gaddafi got American bombs, and the Islamist militias, armed and funded by Qatar with Obama’s blessing, got Libya. In Benghazi they repaid the help they received from Obama and Stevens by humiliating the former and murdering the latter.

In Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood’s militias are racing the Al-Qaeda linked militias to the finish line in Damascus

In Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood’s militias are racing the Al-Qaeda linked militias to the finish line in Damascus, while Western pundits prattle reassuringly about a moderate and secular Syrian opposition, which is as moderate and secular as Egypt’s Morsi.

The regional snapshot of the Arab Spring isn’t reform, but a land rush as secular governments affiliated with Russia and the United States fall, to be replaced by believers in an emerging Islamist Caliphate. The Arab Spring isn’t 1848; it’s 638, the Mohamedan expansion at the expense of the ailing Byzantine Empire, a rampage that eventually ended in the Islamization of the Middle East. For Salafis, this is their opportunity to Re-Islamize the Middle East under the full force of Islamic law.

The Muslim world does not keep time by European progressive calendars. It isn’t out to recreate the republican revolutions that secularized and nationalized Europe; rather it is trying to undo the secondhand European effects of those revolutions on the Middle East. The left is celebrating this as a triumph for anti-imperialism, but it’s just a matter of replacing one empire with another.

Muslim imperialism and colonialism were far more brutal and ruthless

Muslim imperialism and colonialism were far more brutal and ruthless, as the Indians could tell you, and if the Salafis have their way, and they are having their way for the moment, it will be the beginning of a new wave of global conquests, with old sheiks using oil money from the decadent West to outfit militias of young men with top quality American and Russian weapons before sending them off to die, while they wait for news of the new caliphate and bed down with their eight wife.

This isn’t an entirely new game. Bin Laden was playing it for decades and Salafi crusaders have been fighting the Ottoman Empire and massacring Shiites for centuries. The notion of them extending their power into Cairo would have been absurd, but for the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the backlash from the efforts to modernize its former major cities which created a modernized Islamist movement inspired by Nazi politics and funded by Nazi money. A movement that we know as the Muslim Brotherhood. It took the Brotherhood a good 80 years, but they finally took Cairo.

The notion of the Salafis threatening the Middle East and the whole world would have been even more absurd if American oil companies hadn’t rewarded their tribal allies with inconceivable wealth while turning a blind eye to their ambitions. And the notion that the Salafi crusade would ever extend to Europe would have been even more absurd, if not for the jet plane and the liberal immigration policies of Socialist governments with aging populations looking for a tax base and a voting base.

The Salafis, despite their feigned obsession with the purity of the desert, have piggybacked their conquests entirely on Western technologies and policies, from the wire transfer to the jet plane to the cell phone to liberal political correctness and Third Worldism. The Salafi crusades were never any match for 19th Century policies and weapons, except in the occasional brief conflict. But they are a match for 21st Century policies and the accompanying unwillingness to use the full force of modern weaponry on people that a century ago would have been considered bloody savages, but today are considered potential peace partners.

Read more at Canada Free Press

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.

Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

Egyptian Cleric Threatens Christian Copts with Genocide

By Raymond Ibrahim

Islamic leaders continue to portray the popular protests against President Morsi and his recently passed Sharia-heavy constitution as products of Egypt’s Christians. Recently, Muslim Brotherhood leader Safwat Hegazy said in an open rally, as captured on video:

A message to the church of Egypt, from an Egyptian Muslim: I tell the church — by Allah, and again, by Allah — if you conspire and unite with the remnants [opposition] to bring Morsi down, that will be another matter…. our red line is the legitimacy of Dr. Muhammad Morsi. Whoever splashes water on it, we will splash blood on him.”

Dr. Wagdi Ghoneim

More recently, Dr. Wagdi Ghoneim — who earlier praised Allah for the death of the late Coptic Pope Shenouda, cursing him to hell and damnation on video — made another video, entitled, “A Notice and Warning to the Crusaders in Egypt,” a reference to the nation’s Copts, which he began by saying, “You are playing with fire in Egypt, I swear, the first people to be burned by the fire are you [Copts].” The video was made in the context of the Tahrir protests against Morsi: Islamic leaders, such as Hegazy and Ghoneim, seek to portray the Copts as dominant elements in those protests; according to them, no real Muslim would participate. Ghoneim even went on to say that most of the people at the protests were Copts, “and we know you hid your [wrist] crosses by lowering your sleeves.”

The heart of Ghoneim’s message was genocidal: “The day Egyptians — and I don’t even mean the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafis, regular Egyptians — feel that you are against them, you will be wiped off the face of the earth. I’m warning you now: do not play with fire!”

Along with trying to incite Egypt’s Muslims against the Copts, and threatening them with annihilation, Ghoneim made other telling assertions, including:

  • Addressing the Christians of Egypt as “Crusaders,” once again showing Islam’s simplistic, black-and-white vision, which clumps all Christians — of all nations, past and present, regardless of historical context and denomination — as one, in accordance with an Islamic tradition that states “All infidels are one religion.”
  • Comparing Christian Copts to animals: “Respect yourselves and live with us and we will protect you… Why?… because Allah has forbidden me to be cruel to animals. I’m not trying to compare you to animals … but if I am not cruel to animals or plants, shall I be cruel to a soul created by Allah? You are an infidel in Allah’s sight — and it is for him to judge you. However, when you live in my country, it is forbidden for me to be unjust to you — but that doesn’t mean we are equal. No, oh no.”
  • Telling Copts: “I want to remind you that Egypt is a Muslim country…. if you don’t like the Muslim Sharia, you have eight countries that have a Cross on their flag [in Europe], so go to them. However, if you want to stay here in Egypt with us, know your place and be respectful. You already have all your rights — by Allah, even more than Muslims… No one investigates your homes, no one investigates your churches. In fact, in the past, the Islamic groups used to fake their IDs and put Christian names on them when they would go out for [jihadi] operations, so that when the police would catch them, they would see they are Christians and be left alone.” Ghoneim misses the irony of what he says: Police know that Egyptian Christians are not going to engage in terror; Egyptian Muslims are suspect.
  • Saying, in mocking tones, towards the end: “What do you think — that America will protect you? Let’s be very clear, America will not protect you. If so, it would have protected the Christians of Iraq when they were being butchered!” — a reference to the fact that, after the U.S. ousted Saddam Hussein, half of Iraq’s Christian population has either been butchered or fled the nation, and all under U.S. auspices.
  • Claiming that the Copts are only four million while the Muslims are 85 million — even as Coptic Orthodox Church registries maintain that there are more than 15 million Copts, and most outside analysts say 10 million, in Egypt— and adding that Morsi was only being nice by saying, as he did during one of his speeches: “There are no minorities in Egypt.” Ghoneim fails to explain, if Copts are so few — four million compared to 85 million — how could they be so influential, and flood the Tahrir protests with such large numbers?
  • Mocking new Coptic Pope Tawadros—not surprising considering his great hate for the former Pope—by claiming that the new Pope urged Copts to protest; that the new Pope wants to see Morsi and Sharia law fall, and by adding, “Is it not enough that you have all those monasteries?”

 

Watch Raymond Ibrahim talk with Robert Spencer about what’s going on in Egypt, the plight of Coptic Christians, Islamic Revivalism, the Muslim Brotherhood and more:

“Whoever Fights Us, Fights Islam”

236by Raymond Ibrahim

Their more radical brethren will always say, “True Muslims support Sharia: if you reject this, you are no Muslim. You are an apostate, an infidel, an enemy.”

In the ongoing conflict between those Egyptians who strongly oppose a Sharia-based constitution — moderates, secularists, non-Muslim minorities — and those who are strongly pushing for it — the “Islamists” — are currently evoking the one argument that has always, from the very beginnings of Islam, empowered Islamists over moderates in the Muslim world: that anyone who disagrees with them disagrees with Islam.

Examples are many. According to a December 1 report from El Fagr, for example, Gamal Sabr, the former campaign coordinator for the anti-freedom Salafi presidential candidate Abu Ismail, made the division clear during an Al Jazeera interview, where he said: “Whoever disagrees with him, disagrees with Islam itself;” and that many Egyptians “are fighting Islam in the picture of President Muhammad Morsi and in the picture of the Islamists.” He was clearly implying that they are one with Islam, and to fight them is to fight Islam.

The logic is simple: Sabr, as well as those millions of Egyptians who want Sharia, presumably only want what Allah wants: that Egypt should be governed under Sharia law. According to this position, any and all Muslims who disagree, who do not want to be governed by Sharia law, whatever their arguments, are showing that they are at odds with Islam itself.

Sabr is hardly the only Egyptian Muslim making use of this age-old argument. A Dostor report, which also appeared on December 1, quotes Tarek Zomar making the same point. Zomar, a former leader of the infamous Gam’a Islamiyya, was once imprisoned for his role in the assassination of President Anwar Sadat. Released with the ouster of President Hosni Mubarak, he is a now a member of the Shura Council of Egypt’s Parliament. According to Zomor, whoever votes against the Sharia-based constitution that Morsi is trying to enforce, “is an infidel”— an apostate enemy of Allah to be killed for the cause of Islam.

Even Ahmed Morsi, President Muhammad Morsi’s son, accused the many demonstrators in Tahrir Square, who object to his father’s attempts to impose Sharia on them, of belonging to the “former regime”—code for secularist-minded people, who are opposed to the totality of Sharia law. Writing on his Facebook account, he asserted that “all the people in Tahrir Square are remnants of the old regime.” He added: “My father will eliminate them soon.”

Such is the difficulty encountered by moderate Muslims, past and present: How can they justify their rejection of Islamic teachings, as captured in the Quran, hadith [the supposed teachings and actions of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as reported 200 years after his death -- as if we were now just starting to write about George Washington], as well as the words of the Islamic scholars throughout the ages, all of which constitute the “Sharia” of Islam, a word that simply means the “Way” of Islam?

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Dr. Andrew Bostom: Muslim Leaders Seek Sharia in the US

Muslim Riots Reach Europe: Part II

by Soeren Kern:

Abu Assad al-Almani asks Muslims in Germany to attack any German citizen who supports the film by “cutting their heads from their bodies and capturing it on film so that it is accessible to the public, so that the whole of Germany, and even the whole of Europe, knows that their criminal games will be thwarted by the sword of Islam.”

 

Muslim protests over an American-made anti-Islamic YouTube film, Innocence of Muslims, have spread to more European cities. Muslim rioters had initially clashed with police in Belgium, Britain and France, but since then, protests have spread to Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Norway, Serbia and Switzerland.

 

In Germany, while thousands of Muslims took to the streets in various cities, the biggest demonstration took place in the Dortmund, where 1,500 Muslims holding Turkish flags marched through the city center on September 22. In Hanover, protests involved about 1,000 Muslims on September 23. In Baden-Württemberg, North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony police reported protests involving 1,600 people. Protests were also reported in Bergisch Gladbach, Cuxhaven, Münster, Freiburg and Karlsruhe.

 

A radical Islamist, Abu Assad al-Almani, has called for bombings and assassinations in Germany after it emerged that the actor who plays Mohammed in the anti-Islam movie was allegedly German. In an 8-page document, entitled “Settling Scores with Germany,” and posted on the Internet on September 25, Abu Assad states: “In addition to the ugly cartoons, now the Americans have produced a film in which those pigs poke fun at our dear prophet and insult him.”

 

Abu Assad continues: “The one who played our noble Messenger was a German;” he then calls for revenge attacks. He asks Muslims in Germany to attack any German citizen who supports the film by “cutting their heads from their bodies and capturing it on film so that it is accessible to the public, so that the whole of Germany, and even the whole of Europe, knows that their criminal games will be thwarted by the sword of Islam.”

 

The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) says the document has been produced by a group called the Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF), the European propaganda arm which supports Al Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations. The BKA says it is taking the threat “very seriously.”

 

In Berlin, Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich has postponed at the last minute a poster campaign aimed at countering radical Islam for fear it might have incited violence by extremists. The posters had been due to go up as of September 21in German cities with large immigrant populations. The posters were aimed at those who suspected that a friend or family member might be drifting towards radical Islam.

 

In another sign that German officialdom is coming unhinged by political correctness, the ruling Christian Democrats (CDU) lashed out at Baden-Württemberg’s Integration Minister, Bilkay Öney, for stating what many Germans believe is obvious, namely that “Islam tolerates no criticism.” She also said it was easier to dialogue with Muslims in Germany because they are relatively well educated. “In other parts of the world,” she said, “some take to the streets and set fire to embassies.”

 

CDU regional director Thomas Strobl rebuked Öney, a Turkish-born German politician, saying: “What Mrs. Öney says is surprising and shocking. Such remarks are unacceptable, as they emphasize what divides us, instead of linking and integrating.” Strobl wondered how Öney, who is a Muslim, could hold such politically incorrect views about Islam.

 

Elsewhere in Germany, more signs emerged that the threat of Muslim violence is endangering free speech in Germany. Development Minister Dirk Niebel (FDP) called for a ban on broadcasting the anti-Islam video in Germany. “Such a film should not be shown. We should not be adding fuel to the fire,” he told the newspaper, Bild. “The person who demands limitless freedom of expression has no idea what conflicts can be provoked by it,” Niebel said. His comments follow similar statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich.

 

In Greece, the center of Athens (recently dubbed the “New Kabul”) turned into a war zone (videos here) on September 23, when more than 1,000 Muslims — mostly immigrants from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh — hurled bottles and other objects at police, who were trying to prevent the rioters from descending on the American Embassy.

 

Protesting Muslims, chanting “All we have is Mohammed,” gathered in Omonia Square holding banners reading, “We demand an immediate punishment for those who tried to mock our Prophet Mohammad.” Shouting “Allah is Greater,” they then assaulted police with stones, bottles and slabs of marble they broke from the sidewalks.

 

When Greek riot police used tear gas to control the protesters and protect the security zone they had established around the embassy, infuriated Muslims responded by vandalizing streets and buildings in downtown Athens, as well as by setting fires to trash bins, smashing shops and display windows and vandalizing automobiles. Around 30 Muslims were arrested.

 

Also in Athens, Muslim inmates at the Korydallos prison (Greece’s main prison, in which an estimated 70% of the inmates are Muslim) went on a rampage and protested the anti-Islam video by burning mattresses, sheets and clothing. Security officials at the prison brought the situation under control after using teargas to force the rioting inmates to return to their cells.

 

In Austria, some 700 Muslims descended on the American Embassy in the Alsergrund district in downtown Vienna on September 22. They carried banners and shouted slogans of protest against the film, and called for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate. The protests were well organized: some Muslims wearing orange vests were waiting at the nearby metro station to guide protestors toward the embassy. According to the Austrian newspaper Tageszeitung Österreich, one young woman wearing a headscarf said, “The film has triggered such a rage in me, I had tears in my eyes.” Other protesters wondered how it was possible that the film portrayed “our beloved prophet as a child molester and misogynist.”

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

How Obama Engineered Mideast Radicalization

IBD Editorials:

The Obama Record

The Obama Record: After angry Egyptians pelted her motorcade with shoes, chanting “Leave!,” Secretary of State Clinton insisted the U.S. wasn’t there to take sides. Too late.

‘I want to be clear that the United States is not in the business, in Egypt, of choosing winners and losers, even if we could, which of course we cannot,” Hillary Clinton intoned earlier this week.

Of course, the administration could, and it did, picking and even colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood. And one of its hard-liners, Mohammed Morsi, now sits in the presidential palace, where he refused to shake unveiled Clinton’s hand.

This administration favored Islamists over secularists and helped them overthrow Hosni Mubarak, the reliable U.S. ally who had outlawed the terrorist Brotherhood and honored the peace pact with Israel for three decades. The Brotherhood, in contrast, has backed Hamas and called for the destruction of Israel.

Now the administration is dealing with the consequences of its misguided king-making. Officials fear the new regime could invite al-Qaida, now run by an Egyptian exile, back into Egypt and open up a front with Israel along the Sinai. Result: more terrorists and higher gas prices.

In fact, it was Hillary’s own department that helped train Brotherhood leaders for the Egyptian elections. Behind the scenes, she and the White House made a calculated decision, and took step-by-step actions, to effectively sell out Israel and U.S. interests in the Mideast to the Islamists.

The untold story of the “Arab Spring” is that the Obama administration secretly helped bring Islamofascists to power. Consider this timeline:

2009: The Brotherhood’s spiritual leader — Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi — writes an open letter to Obama arguing terrorism is a direct response to U.S. foreign policy.

2009: Obama travels to Cairo to deliver apologetic speech to Muslims, and infuriates the Mubarak regime by inviting banned Brotherhood leaders to attend. Obama deliberately snubs Mubarak, who was neither present nor mentioned. He also snubs Israel during the Mideast trip.

2009: Obama appoints a Brotherhood-tied Islamist — Rashad Hussain — as U.S. envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which supports the Brotherhood.

2010: State Department lifts visa ban on Tariq Ramadan, suspected terrorist and Egyptian-born grandson of Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna.

2010: Hussain meets with Ramadan at American-sponsored conference attended by U.S. and Brotherhood officials.

2010: Hussain meets with the Brotherhood’s grand mufti in Egypt.

2010: Obama meets one-on-one with Egypt’s foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who later remarks on Nile TV: “The American president told me in confidence that he is a Muslim.”

2010: The Brotherhood’s supreme guide calls for jihad against the U.S.

2011: Qaradawi calls for “days of rage” against Mubarak and other pro-Western regimes throughout Mideast.

2011: Riots erupt in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. Crowds organized by the Brotherhood demand Mubarak’s ouster, storm buildings.

2011: The White House fails to back longtime ally Mubarak, who flees Cairo.

2011: White House sends intelligence czar James Clapper to Capitol Hill to whitewash the Brotherhood’s extremism. Clapper testifies the group is moderate, “largely secular.”

2011: Qaradawi, exiled from Egypt for 30 years, is given a hero’s welcome in Tahrir Square, where he raises the banner of jihad.

2011: Through his State Department office, William Taylor — Clinton’s special coordinator for Middle East transitions and a longtime associate of Brotherhood apologists —gives Brotherhood and other Egyptian Islamists special training to prepare for the post-Mubarak elections.

2011: The Brotherhood wins control of Egyptian parliament, vows to tear up Egypt’s 30-year peace treaty with Israel and reestablishes ties with Hamas, Hezbollah.

2011: Obama gives Mideast speech demanding Israel relinquish land to Palestinians, while still refusing to visit Israel.

2011: Justice Department pulls plug on further prosecution of U.S.-based Brotherhood front groups identified as collaborators in conspiracy to funnel millions to Hamas.

2011: In a shocking first, the State Department formalizes ties with Egypt’s Brotherhood, letting diplomats deal directly with Brotherhood party officials in Cairo.

April 2012: The administration quietly releases $1.5 billion in foreign aid to the new Egyptian regime.

June 2012: Morsi wins presidency amid widespread reports of electoral fraud and voter intimidation by gun-toting Brotherhood thugs — including blockades of entire streets to prevent Christians from going to the polls. The Obama administration turns a blind eye, recognizes Morsi as victor.

June 2012: In a victory speech, Morsi vows to instate Shariah law, turning Egypt into an Islamic theocracy, and also promises to free jailed terrorists. He also demands Obama free World Trade Center terrorist and Brotherhood leader Omar Abdel-Rahman, a.k.a. the Blind Sheik, from U.S. prison.

June 2012: State grants visa to banned Egyptian terrorist who joins a delegation of Brotherhood officials from Egypt. They’re all invited to the White House to meet with Obama’s deputy national security adviser, who listens to their demands for the release of the Blind Sheik.

July 2012: Obama invites Morsi to visit the White House this September.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s sudden ascendancy in the Mideast didn’t happen organically. It was helped along by a U.S. president sympathetic to its interests over those of Israel and his own country.

Egypt Begins Descent into Tyranny

By Daniel Greenfield:

Barely two months after taking power, the Muslim Brotherhood has wasted no time in swiftly taking Egypt down the road to a totalitarian state. Its latest target is Al-Dustour, a Christian-owned newspaper, which had condemned President Morsi’s ties to Hamas as a threat to Egyptian national security. Al-Dustour was accused of sedition and stirring up sectarian discord—the latter is code for insulting Islam. Most dangerously, Al-Dustour implied that the Rafah attack had been backed by Morsi’s own Hamas allies to enable him to crack down on the domestic opposition.

Al-Dustour is not the first newspaper to be targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood has already used its parliamentary position to name dozens of new editors for Egypt’s major state-owned newspapers, including Al-Ahram. Akhbar Al-Youm, the second-largest newspaper in Egypt, will be run by a descendant of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Bana.

In response to the Islamist hijacking of the Egyptian press, many reporters have spoken out against the move and some have even gone on strike. But the Muslim Brotherhood’s assault on Al-Dustour is a warning that the days of independent newspapers opposed to the regime are numbered. Both Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood have suggested Islamist Turkey as the model for the new Egypt. Now the Muslim Brotherhood is imitating Erdogan’s crackdown on the military as well as his totalitarian control over the Turkish press.

In addition to the Muslim Brotherhood’s assault on the press, one television network, Al Fareen, has already been taken off the air. More are certain to follow. Khaled Salah, the editor of the Youm7 newspaper, was assaulted by Muslim Brotherhood protesters demanding the closure of AlFareen and the arrest of anyone who criticizes Morsi and the Brotherhood.

The Rafah attack by Islamist terrorists plotting to invade Israel that killed 16 Egyptian soldiers has been exploited by the Brotherhood to launch a domestic crackdown on the opposition. The Brotherhood has issued a statement blaming Israel for the attack. But in reality Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have been the true beneficiaries of the violence.

Morsi has used the attack to sack top Egyptian military leaders including Egypt’s Defense Minister, its Chief of Staff, its head of the General Intelligence Service, its chief of the Presidential Guard and its head of the Republican Guard.  The purge had little to do with making Egypt safer and a great deal to do with Morsi and the Brotherhood seizing the opportunity to displace their only real rivals in the country’s tangled power structure.

The Brotherhood has crowned itself with the “revolutionary” label, describing any attack on its power as an attack on the January 25 Revolution and its martyrs. That familiar use of language emphasizes that Egypt is a revolutionary state and is constantly struggling against seditious and subversive forces. And revolutionary states suppress dissent against revolutionary power through state terror.

Read more at Front Page

Muslim Brotherhood: “Yes, We Will Be Masters Of The World”

by Raymond Ibrahim

During a televised interview earlier this week, Dr. Safwat Hegazy, a popular preacher in Egypt, known for his desire to unify the Arab world into a “United Arab States“—with Jerusalem for a capital—dropped the Western language and made clear what it is the Muslim Brotherhood ultimately seeks: a caliphate and world domination, which even the Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood maintains is the group’s mission.

In the interview, which Coptic Solidarity has translated with subtitles (click here), Hegazy simply declares: “If you read the literature of the Muslim Brotherhood, you will find in the literature of the Brotherhood, that which they can never abandon: The Islamic Caliphate and mastership of the world. Yes, we will be masters of the world, one of these days” (emphasis his).

Reinvigorated Islam

By Amil Imani

Trauma, viruses, or bacteria cause the death of a biological entity.   Viruses and bacteria are major killers of human beings and present great  challenges to medicine.  They can be deadly and have the uncanny ability to  mutate.  Yet they are there for their mission of ending life.

Life exists due to balance: body and soul, good and evil, and life and death.   This holds true even to the lesser foundations of our lives, and how we  spend our time.  The small, seemingly trivial ripples that we create each  day eventually build into a wave — the wave of mankind.  The moment a new  entity is formed, an array of forces work to end it.  Death, in effect, is  pre-birth.  Without death, everything freezes in place.  Death often  provides the raw material for the new birth.  The death and decay of a  tree, for instance, supplies the needed nutrients for the seed to grow; the  Newtonian physics’ obsolescence provided the foundation for Einstein’s  relativity theory.

Death and renewal are also fundamental to religion.  It is for this  reason that many religions promised renewal in the person of a savior.  The  Jews, for instance, expect the Messiah; the Christians long for the second  coming; and some Muslims pray for the appearance of the Mahdi, while other Shia  Muslims supplicate God for the return of Imam Hussein.

Poorly understood and little-appreciated are psychosocial viruses — PSVs.   As is the case with their biological kin, psychosocial viruses also work  to corrupt any idea, mental functions, or belief and help supplant them with new  ones.  Various forms of mental disorders are the result of interaction  between the PSVs and the person’s predisposition to the condition.  Not all  mutations caused by PSVs are pathological.  Many serve to advance the human  enterprise.  Without contributions of the beneficial PSVs, humanity would  still be stunted in its development at the level of day one.

In the  case of Islam, a special group of PSVs set out to work the minute Muhammad  launched his faith, and mutation rapidly followed.  First, there was the  Islam of Mecca, or the Islam of Meekness.  For thirteen years, Muhammad’s  teachings, as recorded in the early Suras of the Quran, were about many good  things.  Very few people became attracted to what he preached.  In  fact, the people scorned the man, harassed him, and eventually made him flee his  hometown of Mecca for Medina.  Then a major mutation took place: the Islam  of Medina, or the “Islam of Tyranny,” arrived on the scene.  The Quran  Suras of Medina are replete with exhortations of intolerance, exclusivity, and  sanctioning of violence against non-Muslims.  This mutation deeply appealed  to the temperament of the Arab Bedouins, and they flocked to Muhammad’s faith.

The PSV of the time of Muhammad continued to mutate as it reached  other peoples and other lands.  Each people’s own ideas and beliefs –  their cognitive immune system — responded differently to the invader.   Some completely resisted the assault and defeated it.  Others were  overwhelmed and forced into submission.  Yet some of the vanquished, over  time, managed to repel the invader, while others incorporated it to various  extents into their own systems of belief.  In due course, the mutation  among the vanquished people became so divergent that some of the variants can  hardly be recognized as the progeny of the original.

Islam of today is  composed of a dozen major sects and hundreds of sub-sects and schools.   Just two examples should demonstrate the fact that Muhammad’s Islam has  decomposed.

One branch of Sunni Islam, the Wahhabi, has interbred with  the Pashtun culture of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the result has been the  Taliban version of Islam: a most reactionary, repressive, and savage “religion.”

On the Shiite side, for example, there is a sect of the Ghulat  Alavi that holds only to one of the five pillars of Islam: the Shehadah, an Islamic credo that says, “I testify that there is no God  but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.”  This sect does not subscribe to  the remaining four pillars of praying five times a day, fasting one month a  year, pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime, and paying the religious  tax of zakat.  The Alavi women are allowed participation in all religious  events and are not required to don the hijab — a stark contrast to the Taliban,  who deny even rudimentary education to women and forbid them from leaving home  without the accompaniment of a male relative.

The Ghulat Alavis deify  the Imam Ali and the other Imams.  They particularly revere the Imam Ali  and worship him as a co-rank of God.  They profess, ” Ali khoda neest,  valee as khoda joda neest” — Ali is not God, but he is not apart from God.   This very same sect places Imam Ali above the Prophet Muhammad.

Ideas and beliefs should thrive or fail on merit only, and not because  someone says that they are the best and that everyone must accept them without  questioning.  Let the meritorious and the fittest survive, and let the  phony and the unfit die.  It is this form of freedom that has been the  engine of progress in all fields of human endeavors.  And it is the exact  opposite practice of stifling free inquiry in many organized religions; that is  the main cause of much superstition, stagnation, and even untold suffering.

What needs to sink into the Western people’s minds is the realization that,  to the Muslims, the idea of freedom and free thinking is largely an alien  concept.

From birth onward, a Muslim’s brain is packed with the notion that everything  in life is predicated on the will of Allah.  Allah is in charge of all  things at all times.  Allah is very much a hands-on God.  He does the  thinking, he does the ordaining, and he decides the outcome for everything large  and small.  And since Allah is the all-knowing as well as the  all-everything, the duty of the faithful is unquestioned obedience in all  matters, irrespective of any and all contradictory evidence.

Islam presently has its stranglehold over a billion humans, posing an  existential threat to all non-Muslims.  When this billion and a half adhere  to the pathological belief of Islam and use it as their marching order of life,  the rest of humanity can ignore the threat only at its own peril.

Once again, Islam has risen from the ashes and  is on a campaign of conquest throughout the world.  Hordes of  life-in-hand foot-soldier fanatical Muslims are striving to kill and get killed.   All they want is the opportunity to discharge their homicidal-suicidal  impulse, on their way to Allah’s promised glorious paradise.  And in the  background, granting the foot-soldiers’ wishes, are their handlers, the  puppeteers, who pull the strings and detonate these human bombs.  Those who  cherish life must recognize these emissaries of death — what makes them, what  motivates them, and how best to defend against them.

The campaign of death waged by the Islamist jihadist, be he a puppet or a  puppeteer, is energized by the belief of delectable rewards that await the  faithful implementer of Allah’s dictates.  Through highly effective  indoctrination, the jihadist has come to believe firmly in Islam’s grand  delusion.  He believes that Allah is the one and only supreme creator of  earth and heavens, that it is his duty and privilege to abide by Allah’s will  and carry out his plans at all costs.  He believes firmly in a gloriously  wonderful immortal afterlife in paradise, for which a martyr’s death is the  surest, quickest admission.  Although the dominating theme of the delusion  is quasi-spiritual, the promised rewards of the afterlife awaiting the martyr  are sensual and material.  All the things and activities that the jihadist  desires and cannot attain or practice, and rejects in his earthly life, will be  purified and proffered to him in the paradise of the next life.  Thus goes  the promise.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Islam’s Cultural Revolution

By Giulio Meotti at Front Page:

Mao’s Cultural Revolution was one of the darkest chapters of the 20th Century: communist zealots, known as “the Red Guards,” attached revolutionary messages to Buddhist statues; seventeen professors from the Shanghai Music Conservatory committed suicide; intellectuals were harassed in public trials during which they had to confess their “sins,” kneeling on makeshift rostrums; thousands of churches, temples and monasteries were demolished; ancient libraries went up in smoke; imperial ceramics were smashed and religious relics melted down. Millions of people were killed.

A new Cultural Revolution is now taking place in the Middle East, where Islam’s Red Guards are obliterating the non-Muslim heritage. If Mao’s Guards took inspiration from the “red book,” Islamic zealots have the Koran. Their targets are Jewish shrines, Christian churches, ancient monuments and  cultural masterpieces.

A few days ago in Timbuktu, Mali, Islamists destroyed the tomb of a Sufi saint, Sidi Mahmoud Ben Amar. Timbuktu is known as “the city of the 333 saints”, classified as Unesco World Heritage Sites. Sufism is a mystical dimension of Islam, but extremists believe Sufi shrines are “sacrilegious.” The UN cultural body didn’t raise its voice against this Islamic iconoclasm.

A few weeks before, Abdulaziz ibn Abdullah Al al-Sheikh, the grand mufti of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, issued a religious fatwa, saying it is “necessary to destroy all the churches in the Arabian Peninsula.” The most important Muslim cleric in the land that gave birth to Islam called for the destruction of churches without his rule attracting any global condemnation.

While in Libya Jews have been throw out again after trying to restore Tripoli’s ancient synagogue, Egyptians are planning to block Israelis from making the pilgrimages to the tomb of a Jewish saint, Yaakov Abuhatzeira.

An Islamic mob destroyed the Institute of Egypt in Cairo, founded by Napoleon and containing 192,000 books and documents from as far back as the XIX century. Now, it’s gone. Napoleon’s legendary “Description de l’Egypte” is also lost (in 1822 Jean-François Champollion used this document to unveil the mistery of the hierogliphycs). Unesco, again, stood silent. As it stood silent when Egypt’s former cultural minister, Farouk Hosni, said he “would burn Israeli books in Egyptian libraries”.

Like in Mao’s China, Islamic salafists are trying to ban ancient statues that dot Egypt and suggested that the pagan treasures “could be covered with wax”. The sirens that embellish the fountain of Zeus in Alexandria have already been deemed “inappropriate” by the Salafist party, which decided to “veil” them completely with a sheet. Salafi leaders are also terrifying liberal intellectuals by calling for banning the novels written by Naguib Mahfouz, the only Arab Nobel Prize laureate for Literature who has been called “Egypt’s Balzac”, because his works “encourage drinking alcohol and using drugs”. Mahfouz’s novel “Awlad Haretna” is labelled as “atheistic”. Islamists also want to ban the greatest masterpiece of oriental literature, “One thousand and one arabian nights”, because it’s “depravity” and “offensive to the public good”.

In Israel, Palestinian Muslims are erasing any Jewishh trace on the Temple Mount, Judaism’s most holy site. In 2005 thousands of Arabs torched the synagogues in Gaza’s Katif Bloc. It was an orgy of hate, like that of the Red Guards. Twelve years ago, Arabs destroyed Joseph’s tomb, Judaism’s fourth holy site, smashing the stone structure and ripping it apart, brick by brick, as the Red Guards did with Tao’s temples. The arson attack on the Shalom al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho and the continuing gunfire at Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem are two other examples that come to mind in the Israelo-Palestinian conflict.

Islam’s cultural revolution began when the Taliban destroyed the two wonderful Buddhas in Bamyan, Afghanistan. It was a turning point for a proto-Nazi ideology bent on the physical eradication of its enemies and their religious symbols. If Mao’s Red Guards destroyed the imperial Chinese heritage, Islam’s Red Guards want to cancel any non-Muslim trace in the Middle East. It’s a Koranic Inquisition.

Mohammed’s Litmus Test

by Kenneth Roberts at Political Islam:

What is the original Islam?

Muslim apologists claim that original Islam meant ‘peace’, but what is the evidence? Mohammed claimed the opposite.

According to Mohammed, original Islam is jihad.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar: I heard the Apostle of Allah say: When you enter into the inah transaction (become businessmen), hold the tails of oxen (become cattlemen), are pleased with agriculture (become farmers), and give up conducting jihad, Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion. – Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455

Conducting jihad is the ‘original religion’ of Mohammed. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.

Mohammed’s Litmus Test

Just as adherence to the U.S. constitution is the litmus test of American identity, so adherence to jihad is Mohammed’s test of loyalty to Islam.

Mohammed’s litmus test is the willingness of Muslims to conduct jihad. That is how Mohammed determined who is a genuine Muslim and who is a lukewarm ‘hypocrite’.

Lukewarm Muslims do not go on jihad. Lukewarm Muslims go into trades or farming. By this test, most Muslims today are condemned. Non-jihadist Muslims have abandoned original Islam.

Lest this be considered too hasty, let’s examine further evidence.

Narrated Mujashi: My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, “Migration has passed away with its people.” I asked, “For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?” He (Mohammed) said, “I will take (the pledge) for Islam and jihad.” – Bukhari 4,52,208

In the above quote, Mohammed says that allegiance to Islam includes a commitment to the political action of jihad.

In addition, the Koran says lukewarm Muslims can be recognized because they avoid jihad.

“It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from jihad).” – K. 9.45

“But when a decisive surah (explaining and ordering things) is sent down, and fighting (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) looking at you with a look of one fainting to death…” – K. 47:20

So not going on jihad is a disease or mental illness in Muslims according to Allah/Mohammed.

Non-Jihadists are ‘Rubbish’

Not content with calling non-jihadists ‘diseased’, Mohammed insults them further; they are ‘garbage’:

“Prophet Muhammad said; It is expected that the nations will call other nations to share them against you (Muslims) as the eaters call each other to eat from the food in front of them in a large wooden plate A person asked, Will that happen because of our small number on that day? The Prophet said, No. Your number will be great, but you will be rubbish like the rubbish of flood-water. And certainly Allah will remove from the hearts of enemies the fear of you and surely Allah will throw Wahn in your hearts. A person asked, What is Wahn, O Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, Wahn is to love this world and to hate death.” – Abu Dawud 4284

The Messenger of God said: The nations are about to flock against you [the Muslims] from every horizon, just as hungry people flock to a kettle. We said: O Messenger of God, will we be few on that day? He said: No, you will be many in number, but you will be scum, like the scum of a flash-flood, without any weight, since fear will be removed from the hearts of your enemies, and weakness (wahn) will be placed in your hearts. We said: O Messenger of God, what does the word wahn mean? He said: Love of this world, and fear of death.

In this hadith, lukewarm Muslims love their earthly life and seek comfort and safety, whereas, real Muslims are jihadists who love death. Real Muslims are feared by kafirs. Fear of Muslims is what Allah wants.
But Islam is fatalistic. Allah controls people’s wills and causes lukewarm Muslims to rebel against him by placing ‘wahn’ in their minds. Kafirs have no reason to fear lukewarm Muslims, because they do not go forth in jihad. Lukewarm Muslims are no different from kafirs…they are ‘rubbish’…so they must be replaced by real Muslims who conduct jihad.

“O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah (jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life as compared with the hereafter. Unless you go forth He will punish you with a grievous penalty and put others in your place; but Him you would not harm in the least. For Allah has power over all things.” – K. 9:38-9

Mohammed’s Allies Agreed to Unending Jihad

When Mohammed arrived in Medina with few followers, he needed allies to begin jihad. Those tribes that made an alliance with Mohammed understood jihad as their main task.

“We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live.” – Bukhari 4,52,87

According to the above, jihad is unending. Other hadiths also confirm that jihad is endless:

“As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us.” – Tabari IX: 69

“‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’” – Ishaq: 204

Jihad is the Proper Career for Muslims
Furthermore, according to Mohammed, jihad is not just a job, but a career.

…It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.” – Bukhari 61, 2756

Good Muslims imitate Mohammed. Good Muslims threaten kafirs to submit: ‘Accept Islam and you will be safe’. Good Muslims make war on kafirs to remove their possessions and human rights. Kafirs are despoiled for the political crime of disobeying Mohammed.

‘Abasement’ and ‘humility’ mean making kafirs captive nations under discriminatory Sharia law. Thus, the purpose of jihad is to rob and subjugate non-Muslims and enrich and empower Muslims.

Jihad Brings Wealth

“O you who believe! If you will aid (the cause of) Allah He will aid you and plant your feet firmly.” – K. 47:7

As well, Mohammed is owner of the earth and Muslims will gain the treasures of Rome and Persia and the world through jihad (q.v. Bukhari 4,52,220).

Jihad makes Muslims Strong through Plunder

“The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us. This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.” – Sahih Muslim 19,4327

Jihad is More Religious than Kind Deeds

Allah, the Exalted, says, Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong (by avoiding jihad). Those who believe and suffer exile and strive with might and main in Allah’s cause with their goods and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: They are the people who will achieve (paradise). – K. 9:19-20.

It is not pious deeds, but the political act of jihad that guarantees religious salvation.

Jihad as Defined in Sharia Law

The legal definition of jihad is given in the authoritative Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

The Reliance of the Traveller is Sunni Islam’s authoritative volume on Sharia law. It is endorsed by Alazhar University, Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican.

Eminent Islamologist Hans Jansen points out that, to the original Muslims, jihad only meant violence: “The first generations of Muslims never understood anything else but ‘waging war’ when they heard the word jihad.”

Up to this point, the evidence has shown that…real Muslims are those who follow original Islam; they conduct war against non-Muslims; Mohammed says jihad is the proper career of Muslims; peaceful civilian jobs are a way of avoiding jihad.

But is this condition permanent in Islam? Can Islam be changed?

Can Jihad be abandoned? Can Islam be reformed?

Unfortunately, no. Jihad—warfare against non-Muslims—is the perfectly revealed ‘original religion’ of Islam declared in various ways by the final Messenger himself. It may not be changed.

‘Far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! – Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174

Allah brings Muslims back to Original Islam

Islam may go off track for brief periods, but Allah will send someone to return it to his path. Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion. – Sunan Abu Dawud 37, 4278

‘Revival’ in Islam means the revival of conducting jihad.

Read more

In Egypt Race, Battle Is Joined on Islam’s Role by Mohamed Morsi

 By  at NYT:

CAIRO — He has argued for barring women and non-Muslims from Egypt’s presidency on the basis of Islamic law, or Shariah. He has called for a council of Muslim scholars to advise Parliament. He has a track record of inflammatory statements about Israel, including repeatedly calling its citizens “killers and vampires.”

Mohamed Morsi is also a leading candidate to become the country’s next president.

Mr. Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s dominant Islamist group, declared last week that his party platform amounted to a distillation of Islam itself.

“This is the old ‘Islam is the solution’ platform,” he said, recalling the group’s traditional slogan in his first television interview as a candidate. “It has been developed and crystallized so that God could bless society with it.” At his first rally, he led supporters in a chant: “The Koran is our constitution, and Shariah is our guide!”

One month before Egyptians begin voting for their first president after Hosni Mubarak, Mr. Morsi’s record is escalating a campaign battle here over the place of Islam in the new democracies promised by the Arab Spring revolts.

Mr. Morsi, who claims to be the only true Islamist in the race, faces his fiercest competition from a more liberal Islamist, Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh, a pioneering leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who was expelled from the group in June for arguing for a more pluralistic approach to both Islam and Egypt. He is campaigning now as the leading champion of liberal values in the race.

Both face a third front-runner, the former foreign minister Amr Moussa, who argued this week that Egypt cannot afford an “experiment” in Islamic democracy.

The winner could set the course for Egypt’s future, overseeing the drafting of a new constitution, settling the status of its current military rulers, and shaping its relations with the West, Israel and its own Christian minority. But as the Islamists step toward power across the region, the most important debate may be the one occurring within their own ranks over the proper agenda and goals.

Mr. Morsi’s conservative record and early campaign statements have sharpened the contrast between competing Islamist visions. The Brotherhood, the 84-year-old religious revival group known here for its preaching and charity as well as for its moderate Islamist politics, took a much softer approach in the official platform it released last year. It dropped the “Islam is the solution” slogan, omitted controversial proposals about a religious council or a Muslim president and promised to respect the Camp David accords with Israel. Its parliamentary leaders distanced themselves from the Salafis, ultraconservative Islamists who won a quarter of the seats in Parliament.

The Brotherhood’s original nominee was its leading strategist, Khairat el-Shater, a businessman known for his pragmatism. He had close personal ties to Salafi leaders, but he did not leave much of a paper trail besides an opinion column in a Western newspaper stressing the Brotherhood’s commitment to tolerance and democracy. Mr. Shater was disqualified last week because of a past conviction at a Mubarak-era political trial. In his short-lived campaign he stressed the Brotherhood’s plans for economic development and rarely, if ever, brought up Islamic law.

By contrast, Mr. Morsi, 60, is campaigning explicitly both as a more conservative Islamist and as a loyal executor of Mr. Shater’s plans. He campaigns with Mr. Shater under a banner with both their faces, fueling critics’ charges that he would be a mere servant of Mr. Shater and the Brotherhood’s executive board.

But Mr. Morsi is also courting the ultraconservative Salafis, whose popular candidate, Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, was also disqualified. Mr. Morsi may be tacking to the right to court the Salafis as a swing vote in the contest with Mr. Aboul Fotouh, or he may merely be expressing more conservative, older impulses within the Brotherhood.

“Some want to stop our march to an Islamic future, where the grace of God’s laws will be implemented and provide an honest life to all,” he proclaimed Saturday night at his first rally, in a Nile delta town. “Our Salafi brothers, the Islamic group, we are united in our aims and Islamic vision. The Islamic front must unite so we can fulfill this vision.”

Although he received a Ph.D. in engineering at the University of Southern California in 1982, Mr. Morsi spent the past decade as a public spokesman for the Brotherhood’s political wing, where he left a far more extensive and controversial record than Mr. Shater did. Last year, for example, Mr. Morsi led a boycott of a major Egyptian cellphone company because its founder, Naguib Sawiris, a Coptic Christian, had circulated on Twitter a cartoon of Mickey Mouse in a long beard with Minnie in a full-face veil — a joke Mr. Morsi said insulted Islam.

Read the rest…

Islam Unplugged

People of all faiths across the world are witnessing the reappearance of events many hoped and believed belonged only to the pages of Islamic history. Shrieking mobs in Afghanistan spend hours, day after day, calling for blood because prison officials disposed of illicit detainee communications that happened to be scrawled on the pages of some Qur’ans. An Iranian pastor awaits hanging on death row after being convicted of apostasy by converting to Christianity from Islam. 

 Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani with his family

 A young Saudi blogger has been extradited from Malaysia with the assistance of Interpol to face a likely death penalty because comments he made on Twitter are considered blasphemous to Islam. Even in the United States of America, a Pennsylvania judge ruled against the victim of a public physical assault because the assailant is a Muslim who claimed to be defending Islam.

These incidents, shocking as they may seem to those who have no knowledge of Islamic law (shariah), in general actually accord with authoritative doctrine, law and scriptures as well as the history of Islam. While it’s to be expected that most prominent Muslim leadership figures will either remain mute or express support for what is happening in these cases, it’s still startling and frankly depressing to see Western leaders fail to speak out forthrightly in defense of those Judeo-Christian principles upon which our legal systems are founded. This is what Islamic law looks like when permitted full latitude of enforcement. This is Islam unplugged.

In Afghanistan, prison officials discovered inmates had defaced their own copies of the Qur’an for the purpose of illicit communications among themselves. Those officials quite properly confiscated the books that had such writing in them and sent them to be burned, which is the method of disposal recommended by the Armed Forces Chaplaincy Center, modern Islamic scholars and also as commanded by the Caliph Uthman, according to the authoritative hadith of Sahih Bukhari.

Pathetic, groveling apologies by the American president, top Pentagon officials as well as field commanders are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous in time of war because they encourage perceptions of the U.S. as too weak to stand in defense of its own convictions. It should be noted that the February 24, 2012, point-blank shooting inside the ostensibly secure spaces of the Interior Ministry in Kabul of two senior American NATO officials by an Afghan gunman followed after the Islamic world took the measure of America’s piteous response to mob violence in the streets. Careless handling of the Qur’an by kuffar (infidels) is an offense against Islamic law, which is enshrined in the Afghan constitution. American troops are not in Afghanistan, fighting, dying and coming home grievously injured to uphold shariah: They are there to defend the U.S. Constitution and American national security – and it is time that our senior leaders understood that.  

In Iran, a 34-year old father of two has been sentenced to death for apostasy after he refused to recant his conversion from Islam to Christianity. An Iranian trial court issued its final order of execution in mid-February, 2012. The case of Youcef Nadarkhani, who’s been held in Evin Prison for two years, has received widespread publicity, mostly because so few Westerners understand that apostasy is and always has been a capital crime under Islamic law. Iranian intransigence over its nuclear weapons program and belligerence over international efforts aimed at obtaining its compliance with United Nations Resolutions have ratcheted up tensions with the Tehran regime.

This case has outraged Christians and other faithful across the world who believe that freedom of belief is a universal right. Most, unfortunately, have no concept of Islamic law, which exists entirely outside of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, since all Muslim countries of the world (members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation—OIC) explicitly renounced it in the 1990 Cairo Declaration.

The OIC Cairo Declaration essentially defined Islamic human rights as only those which comport with shariah; it was presented formally to the UN in 1993. Shariah not only mandates amputation, crucifixion and flogging for some crimes, but also stipulates that adultery, apostasy, blasphemy/slander, homosexuality and “making mischief in the land” can all be punished by death.

Iranian courts are in full compliance with Islamic law and their own constitution. Instead of blaming the Iranian judges for this obscene death sentence, it is Islamic law itself that must be recognized as hostile and incompatible with any modern conception of human rights. Anyplace where shariah is allowed to be fully implemented and enforced, this is the result. This is Islam unplugged.

Hamza Kashgari is a young Saudi who showed an appalling disregard for his own life by posting some comments on Twitter that the Saudi legal system decided were blasphemous against the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Kashgari formerly was a columnist for Saudi Arabia’s Al-Bilad newspaper when he tweeted an imaginary conversation he was having with Muhammad. In short order, he was fleeing his homeland for his life; unfortunately, his itinerary included a plane change in Malaysia, another Islamic country where shariah is enforced. Thanks to INTERPOL cooperation with Saudi Arabia, Kashgari was arrested there and returned to Saudi Arabia, where he faces trial on blasphemy charges that could result in the death penalty. This is all perfectly legal under shariah. This, too, is Islam unplugged.

Here is a good place to note that on December 16, 2009, President Barack Obama signed an Executive Order that grants the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) rights on American soil that place it beyond the reach of our own law enforcement agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Obama’s order removed important restrictions placed on INTERPOL by President Reagan in 1983 and gave this foreign law enforcement organization the authority to avoid Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which is an important safeguard for American citizens against government abuse. This means that American citizens now lack the ability to hold INTERPOL accountable under the FOIA for potentially the same kind of arrest action that snatched Kashgari back from the brink of freedom and sent him to a possible death sentence in Saudi Arabia.

And finally, there is the mid-February, 2012, case of the Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania man who was physically assaulted on the street for wearing a Halloween costume depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad as a Zombie. There is no question about the assault, as it was captured on video. There is no question about the guilt of the Muslim immigrant who attacked him or why: He candidly admitted his guilt in a court of law and explained that he did it because the costume offended him as a Muslim. The astonishing thing is that Pennsylvania Magistrate Judge Mark Martin agreed with the Muslim assailant that he had the right and even obligation to physically bludgeon someone he perceived as insulting Muhammad.

The victim in this case, one Ernest Perce, is the PA head of American Atheists, and at the time of the attack, was walking next to another individual wearing a costume depicting the Catholic Pope as a Zombie. The Pope Zombie was not attacked.

Judge Martin’s shameful commentary from the bench was recorded on tape by the victim and provides a frightening glimpse of Islamic law being practiced in an American court of law. Judge Martin not only dismissed the charges against the Muslim assailant, but actually lectured the victim of the assault on the limits of free speech and expression under shariah.

Martin apparently served in the U.S. military in Iraq and may have converted to Islam while there (although the audio recording of his claim to being “a Muslim” is a bit indistinct). In any case, this is an American judge who is sworn under oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA and yet deliberately abrogated that solemn responsibility in order to set free a Muslim who acted in accordance with shariah in a way that would be legal in a Muslim country subjugated to Islamic law—but not in America. In Pennsylvania and the rest of these United States, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution still rules. Judge Martin acted as an Islamic qadi instead of an American judge and should be dismissed and disbarred immediately.

 

Clare M. Lopez is a senior fellow at the Clarion Fund and writes regularly for RadicalIslam.org. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on the Middle East, national defense and counterterrorism issues. Lopez began her career as an operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).