Authentic Muslim Moderate Cleric: ISIS Is Following Established Islamic Jurisprudence – You Can’t Have Democracy and Sharia

 

NRO, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

If you want to understand the challenge Western liberalism faces from Islamic supremacism, take six minutes to watch this extraordinary interview of Ayad Jamal al-Din, a Shiite cleric, Iraqi intellectual, and former member of the Iraqi parliament who campaigns for a democratic Iraq that separates mosque and state. Mr. al-Din was in Washington for the October 17 interview by al-Iraqiya TV in Iraq, and the interview with English subtitles (which I’ve reproduced as a transcript below) was publicized on Monday by the invaluable MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute).

While President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Prime Minister Cameron absurdly contend that the Islamic State, or ISIS, is not Islamic, al-Din – an authentic moderate Muslim who regards the Islamic State as the enemy – patiently explains that the jihadist organization adheres to a firmly established interpretation of Islam that is based on sharia and fiqh (jurisprudence).

I have repeatedly argued that classical, mainstream sharia is repressive, discriminatory, and anti-democratic, and thus that it was self-defeating for the United States to sponsor new constitutions in Iraq and Afghanistan that attempted to meld Western democratic principles with sharia (see here, here, and here). It is especially gratifying to hear a passionate, articulate explanation of the incompatibility of Western democracy and Islamic jurisprudence from someone who reveres the former, is steeped in the latter, and understands the stakes.

Moreover, for those of us who frequently point out that mosques – which Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna described as the “axis” of his ideological movement in every city and town – are often centers for jihadist incitement, recruitment, training and fundraising, it is refreshing to hear someone intimately familiar with this phenomenon explain that there are mosques throughout the world directly and indirectly championing the Islamic State by glorifying jihad and the caliphate.

Our national security will not be well served until the United States government ends its futile search for “moderate Islamists” and realizes our allies in the Muslim community are the real moderates, meaning pro-Western democrats who reject the imposition of sharia on civil society. Supporting our enemies only undermines our friends.

Here is the transcript

Geert Wilders: Special California Appearance

 

Published on Sep 16, 2014 by Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors

Geert Wilders appeared in Los Angeles for a special address and screening of his film, FITNA. He is a parliamentary leader in the Netherlands and is Europe’s most eloquent defender of freedom of speech and conscience. Banned from speaking in England and under 24 hour protection, Mr. Wilders cannot be silenced. Through his eye-opening film, FITNA, and his public appearances, Mr. Wilders has continued to stand up against radical Islam and for the defense of Western Civilization. Net proceeds went towards the Geert Wilders Legal Defense Fund and are tax deductible.

*********

 

FITNA – Geert Wilders’ Unedited Film from Jewish Pulse Radio on Vimeo.

Islamic State Atrocities the Product of ‘Grievances’?

Barack ObamaFrontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, September 17, 2014:

While many have rightfully criticized U.S. President Obama’s recent assertion that the Islamic State “is not Islamic,” some of his other equally curious but more subtle comments pronounced in the same speech have been largely ignored.

Consider the president’s invocation of the “grievances” meme to explain the Islamic State’s success: “At this moment the greatest threats come from the Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL—which calls itself the Islamic State.”

Obama’s logic, of course, is fortified by an entire apparatus of professional apologists who make the same claim.  Thus Georgetown professor John Esposito—whose apologetics sometimes morph into boldfaced lies—also recently declared that “The “primary drivers [for the Islamic State’s violence] are to be found elsewhere,” that is, not in Islam but in a “long list of grievances.”

In other words and once again, it’s apparently somehow “our fault” that Islamic State Muslims are behaving savagely—crucifying, beheading, enslaving, and massacring people only on the basis that they are “infidels”:  thus when IS herds and slaughters “infidel” men (citing the example of the prophet)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS captures “infidel” women and children, and sells them on the sex-slave market (citing Islamic teachings)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did; when IS bombs churches, breaks their crosses, and tells Christians to convert or die (citing Islamic scriptures)—that’s because they’re angry at something America did.

Although the “grievance” meme flies in the face of logic, it became especially popular after the 9/11 al-Qaeda strikes on America. The mainstream media, following the Islamist propaganda network Al Jazeera’s lead, uncritically picked up and disseminated Osama bin Laden’s videotapes to the West where he claimed that al-Qaeda’s terror campaign was motivated by grievances against the West—grievances that ranged from U.S. support for Israel to failure for the U.S. to sign the Kyoto Agreement concerning climate change.

Of course, that was all rubbish, and I have written more times than I care to remember about how in their internal Arabic-language communiques to fellow Muslims that never get translated to English, Osama, al-Qaeda, and virtually every Islamist organization make it a point to insist that jihad is an Islamic obligation that has nothing to do with grievances.

Consider Osama’s own words in an internal letter to fellow Saudis:

Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue — one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice — and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually?

Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: [1] either willing submission [conversion]; [2] or payment of the jizya, through physical, though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; [3] or the sword — for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42)

Conversion, submission, or the sword is, of course, the mission of the Islamic State—not alleviating “grievances.”  Yet it’s worse than that; for unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, from day one of its existence, has made it very clear—in Osama’s words, “with power and determination, with one voice”—that its massacres, enslavements, crucifixions, and beheadings of “infidels” are all based on Islamic law or Sharia—not silly “grievances” against the West. Unlike al-Qaeda, the Islamic State is confident enough to avoid the grievances/taqiyya game and forthrightly asserts its hostility for humans based on their religious identity.

Yet by slipping the word “grievances” to explain the Islamic State’s Sharia-based savageries, Obama apparently hopes America has been thoroughly conditioned like Pavlov’s dog to automatically associate Islamic world violence with “grievances.”

What Obama fails to understand—or fails to mention—is that, yes, the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and countless angry Muslims around the world are indeed often prompted to acts of violence by “grievances.”  But as fully explained here, these “grievances” are not predicated on any universal standards of equality or justice, only a supremacist worldview.

Three Choices and the Bitter Harvest of Denial: How Western denial about Islam has fueled Genocide in the Middle East

 

Published on Sep 14, 2014 by Q Society of Australia Inc:

Dr Durie speaks at the Q Society event in Melbourne together with Clare Lopez on the evening of 2 September 2014. His topic “Three Choices and the Bitter Harvest of Denial: How Western denial about Islam has fueled Genocide in the Middle East.”

Not many non-Muslim Australian scholars understand Islam and the underlying motivation of radical Muslims like Dr Durie. Q Society hopes this very timely and in-depth analysis will help many Australians to better respond to the challenges we face.

Make sure to view the Q&A section for valuable advise how to help those still caught up in Islamophilia.

Muslims Sexually Enslaving Children: A Global Phenomenon

FrontPage Magazine, by Raymond Ibrahim:

As shocking as the Muslim-run sex ring in Rotherham, England may seem to some—1,400 British children as young as 11 plied with drugs before being passed around and sexually abused in cabs and kabob shops—the fact is that this phenomenon is immensely widespread.  In the United Kingdom alone, it’s the fifth sex abuse ring led by Muslims to be uncovered.

Muslim_Rape_Gang_Girls_England_Rotherham_UKSome years back in Australia, a group of “Lebanese Muslim youths” were responsible for a “series of brutal gang rapes” of “Anglo-Celtic teenage girls.” A few years later in the same country,four Muslim Pakistani brothers raped at least 18 Australian women, some as young as 13.  Even in the United States, a gang of Somalis—Somalia being a Muslim nation where non-Muslims, primarily Christians, are ruthlessly persecuted—was responsible for abducting, buying, selling, raping and torturing young American girls as young as 12.

The question begs itself: If Muslim minorities have no fear of exploiting “infidel” women and children in non-Muslim countries—that is, where Muslims themselves are potentially vulnerable minorities—how are Muslims throughout the Islamic world, where they are dominant, treating their vulnerable, non-Muslim minorities?

The answer is a centuries-long, continents-wide account of nonstop sexual predation.  Boko Haram’s recent abduction and enslavement of nearly 300, mostly Christian, schoolgirls last April in Nigeria is but the tip of the iceberg.

The difference between what happens in Nigeria and what happens in Western nations is based on what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers.”  Wherever Muslims grow in numbers, Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, the sexual abuse of “infidel” children and teenagers—comes along with them.

Thus in the United Kingdom, where Muslims make for a sizeable—and notable—minority, the systematic rape of “subhuman infidels” naturally takes place.  But when caught, Muslim minorities, being under “infidel” authority, cry “Islamophobia” and feign innocence.

In Nigeria, however, which is roughly 50 percent Islamic, such “apologetics” are unnecessary.  After seizing the nearly 300 schoolgirls, the leader of Boko Haram appeared on videotape boasting that “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah….  There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.”

It’s the same in Pakistan—the nation where many of the United Kingdom’s Muslims, including the majority involved in the Rotherham sex ring, come from.  See this article for a long list of Christian children—as young as 2-years-old—who were targeted by Muslim men for abduction, enslavement, and rape.  In every single case, police do nothing except sometimes side with the Muslim rapists against their “infidel” victims.

For example, last Easter Sunday, four Muslim men gang-raped a 7-year-old Christian girl named Sara, leaving her in “critical condition.”  According to Asia News, “the police, instead of arresting the culprits, helped the local clan to kidnap the girl’s father… to ‘force the family not to report the story, to reach an agreement with the criminals and to avoid a dispute of a religious background.’”

As for systematic child grooming, in 2010, Kiran George, a Christian girl who was “enslaved by a woman, Sama, a dealer of youth to be sold as prostitutes or slaves to wealthy Muslim families,” was doused with gasoline by a police officer involved in the sex ring, set on fire, and burned to death.

And a recent report confirms that “an estimated 700 cases [of abduction, enslavement, and/or rape in Pakistan] per year involve Christian women, 300 Hindu girls”—very large numbers when one considers that Christians and Hindus each make for one percent of the population of Pakistan, which is about 97 percent Muslim.

One can go on and on.  In 2011 a Christian group in Muslim-majority Egypt

exposed a highly organized Muslim ring centered in the Fatah Mosque in Alexandria. The investigation also uncovered a systematic “religious call” plan, where young Muslim males in high school and university are urged to approach Coptic girls in the 9-15 age group and manipulate them through sexual exploitation and blackmail. The plan … aims at sexually compromising Christian girls, defiling them and humiliating them in front of their parents, thereby forcing them to flee their homes, and use conversion to Islam as a “solution” for their problems.

Approximately 550 Coptic Christian girls have been abducted and sexually abused by Muslim men during the last three years—especially under the Muslim Brotherhood’s aegis, when sexual crimeswere particularly widespread.

So what animates this phenomenon of Muslim on non-Muslim rape?  And we must call it Muslimrape since Islam is the common denominator in all these cases from otherwise diverse nations that have little in common except for large numbers of Muslims.

As for the pedophilia aspect, Muhammad—the prophet of Islam whom the Koran exhorts Muslims to emulate in every possible way—was “betrothed” to a six-year-old girl, Aisha, “consummating” their marriage when she was nine-years-old.   Accordingly, Islam’s clerics routinely defend child “marriage”—sometimes even if the girl is still in the cradle—based on the example of the prophet.

As for the subhuman treatment of “infidel” children, this is seen as a right by supremacist Muslims.  Discussing the 2010 rape of a 9-year-old Christian girl, local sources in Pakistan put it well: “It is shameful. Such incidents occur frequently. Christian girls are considered goods to be damaged at leisure.  Abusing them is a right. According to the [Muslim] community’s mentality it is not even a crime. Muslims regard them as spoils of war.”

“Spoils of war” is quite correct. Here is how the late Majid Khadduri, “internationally recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on Islamic law and jurisprudence,” explained the idea of “spoils” in his War and Peace in the Law of Islam:

The term spoil (ghanima) is applied specifically to property acquired by force from non-Muslims. It includes, however, not only property (movable and immovable) but also persons, whether in the capacity of asra (prisoners of war) or sabi (women and children). … If the slave were a woman, the master was permitted to have sexual connection with her as a concubine.

Nor is this limited to academic talk.  Last year, Jordanian Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni  said Muslims fighting to topple “infidel” president Bashar Assad in Syria are permitted to “capture and have sex with” all non-Sunni women, including Shia Muslims, Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Yazidis.

Before him, Egyptian Sheikh Ishaq Huwaini lamented how during the heydays of Islam, “You [could] go to the market and buy her [enslaved, infidel concubines for sale]….  In other words, when I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.”

In order to eliminate sexual immorality from among male Muslim youth, Kuwaiti political activist Salwa al-Mutairi suggested the formal reinstitution of sex-slavery—not unlike what was recently exposed in Rotherham.  She said on video that Islam’s greatest authorities from Mecca, the city of Islam, all confirmed the legality of sex-slavery to her.  According to the Kuwaiti woman:

A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the bellybutton on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that….  For example, in the Chechnya war, surely there are female Russian captives. So go and buy those and sell them here in Kuwait; better that than have our men engage in forbidden sexual relations. I don’t see any problem in this, no problem at all.

What happened in Rotherham is hardly an aberration.  Rather, it is Islam coming to town, Muslims growing in numbers.   Even Dr. Taj Hargey, a British imam, just confirmed that the majority of theUK’s “imams promote grooming rings.”  He said Muslim men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority” and that the imams preach a doctrine “that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt.”

Change “whites” to “non-Muslims”—this is not about race but religion—and the experiences of those 1,400 children in Rotherham is one with the experiences of countless non-Muslim minorities throughout the Islamic world.

The Islamic State Is Nothing New

pic_giant_090314_SM_ISIS-FightersBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

The beheading of yet another Western journalist, Steven Sotloff, has ignited another round of commentary suggesting that the Islamic State is the worst terrorist network ever. There is value in this: The current jihadist threat to the United States and the West is more dire than the threat that existed just prior to the 9/11 attacks, so anything that increases pressure for a sea change in our Islamic-supremacist-enabling government’s policies helps. Nevertheless, the perception that the Islamic State is something new and different and aberrational compared with the Islamic-supremacist threat we’ve been living with for three decades is wrong, perhaps dangerously so.

Decapitation is not a new jihadist terror method, and it is far from unique to the Islamic State. Indeed, I noted here over the weekend that it has recently been used by Islamic-supremacist elements of the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Armyagainst the Islamic State. It was only a few years ago that al-Qaeda beheaded Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. Jihadists behead their victims (very much including other Muslims) all the time — as Tom Joscelyn notes at the indispensable Long War Journal, the al-Qaeda-tied Ansar al Jerusalem just beheaded four Egyptians suspected of spying for Israel.

Yet, the recent Islamic State beheadings, in addition to other cruelties, is fueling commentary portraying the Islamic State as more barbaric and threatening than al-Qaeda. This misses the point. The Islamic State is al-Qaeda. It is the evolution of the ruthless al-Qaeda division that grew up in Iraq under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

In order to make the Islamic State seem different from al-Qaeda — i.e., to make it seem like something that has spontaneously appeared, rather than something Obama ignored and empowered — some reporting claims there are “ideological” and “doctrinal” differences between the two. This is true in only the most technical sense, a sense that is essentially irrelevant vis à vis the West.

What is going on among the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood (including Hamas), and other factions is a power struggle for leadership of the Sunni side of the global Islamic-supremacist movement. Because of the audience to which these actors play, some of their differences are framed as sharia-based. Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda leaders (who are allied against Assad in Syria and were allied with the Islamic State until fairly recently) contend, for example, that the Islamic State’s unilateral declaration of a caliphate transgresses Islamic principles that call for consultation and consensus among sharia-adherent Muslims. They argue that Islamic-supremacist groups should work cooperatively in the formation of local or regional emirates, with an eye toward eventually assembling the global caliphate.

From our perspective, so what? Both sides regard the West as the enemy to be conquered. Their differences are germane only to the extent that sharia fidelity, in addition to sheer brute force, will determine who comes out on top in their intramural warfare. As we have been observing here for years with respect to al-Qaeda and the Brotherhood, their disputes are mostly tactical; their splits on the finer points of Islamic-supremacist ideology bear only on how they regard each other. When it comes to the West, both see us as the enemy — and they put aside their differences to attack us.

The same has also always been true of the ideological/doctrinal divide between Sunni and Shiite jihadists. For example, al-Qaeda has had cooperative and operational relations with Iran since the early 1990s. Iran collaborated with al-Qaeda in the 1996 Khobar Towers attack that killed 19 U.S. airmen; probably in the 9/11 attacks; certainly in the aftermath of 9/11; and in the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies. Al-Qaeda would not be what it is today without state sponsorship, particularly from Iran. The Islamic State might not exist at all.

The point is that al-Qaeda has never been anything close to the totality of the jihadist threat. Nor, now, is the Islamic State. The challenge has always been Islamic supremacism: the ideology, the jihadists that are the point of the spear, and the state sponsors that enable jihadists to project power. The challenge cannot be met effectively by focusing on one element to the exclusion of others.

Read more at National Review

 

Islamic Supremacism and Rape

67497087_vxpc19itNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy:

As recounted in Ian Tuttle’s bracing reports (here and here) about rapes committed by Muslims in Rotherdam, England, this is a longstanding European scandal the cover-up of which brings shame – more shame – to the Western media. In my 2010 book The Grand Jihad, on the Islamist-supremacist threat to the West, I described rape by Muslim immigrants as “the unspoken epidemic of Western Europe.” The book goes on to discuss the unmentionable Islamic doctrinal and cultural underpinnings of the epidemic:

As a violent jihadist tactic, [rape] has long been an infamous weapon in the Sudanese Islamist regime’s genocidal arsenal, used first against Christians and animists in the south in the early Nineties and, more recently, in western Sudan against the Muslims of Darfur, whom Islamists judge to be insufficiently Islamic.  Now, with the tide of immigration, jihad by rape has been imported to Europe, where indignation by the politically correct press is predictably reserved not for the perpetrators but for the few journalists willing to report on it.

Consistent with [top Muslim Brotherhood sharia jurist] Sheikh [Yusuf] Qaradawi’s aforementioned view that the rape victim is to blame for her plight if she has failed to adhere to fundamentalist protocols for women’s attire, Shahid Mehdi, a top Islamic cleric in Denmark, has explained that women who fail to don a headscarfare asking to be raped (an admonition also given voice by SheikFaiz Mohammed, a prominent Lebanese cleric, during a lecture he delivered in Australia) (See Sharon Lapkin, “Western Muslims’ Racist Rape Spree”, FrontPageMag.com, Dec. 29, 2005). Not surprisingly given such encouragement, Fjordman painstakingly documents that it has become a commonplace for young Muslim men to participate in sexual assaults and absolve themselves from culpability. (See here, here and here.) As a psychologist working in the prison system, the incomparable Theodore Dalrymple witnessed the six-fold spike in Britain’s Muslim inmate population between 1990 and 2005.  He bluntly notes that “thanks to their cultural inheritance, [the Muslims’] abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic as it is with” white and black inmates. (See Theodore Dalrymple, “Our prisons are fertile ground for cultivating suickde bombers”, The Times of London, July 30, 2005.) Robert Spencer elaborates [in “The Rape Jihad”, FrontPageMag.com, Sept. 24, 2004]:

The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates:  “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.”  Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors.  The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls:  “Forbidden to you are . . . married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

As atrocious as rape is on its own, the Sudanese experience demonstrates that it is even more harrowing as a component in a broader intimidation campaign.  Writing in Frontpage Magazine, the former Australian army officer Sharon Lapkin has recounted (article linked above, my italics in excerpt):

Retired Australian detective Tim Priest warned in 2004 that the Lebanese gangs, which emerged in Sydney in the 1990s—when the police were asleep—had morphed out of control. “The Lebanese groups,” he said, “were ruthless, extremely violent, and they intimidated not only innocent witnesses, but even the police that attempted to arrest them.”  Priest describes how in 2001, in a Muslim dominated area of Sydney two policemen stopped a car containing three well-known Middle Eastern men to search for stolen property. As the police carried out their search they were physically threatened and the three men claimed they were going to track them down, kill them and then rape their girlfriends. . . .  As the Sydney police called for backup the three men used their mobile phones to call their associates, and within minutes, 20 Middle Eastern men arrived on the scene. They punched and pushed the police and damaged state vehicles. The police retreated and the gang followed them to the police station where they intimidated staff, damaged property and held the police station hostage.  Eventually the gang left, the police licked their wounds, and not one of them took action against the Middle Eastern men. Priest claims, “In the minds of the local population, the police are cowards and the message was, ‘Lebanese [Muslim gangs] rule the streets.’”

The situation, Lapkin learned, was the same in Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city, where police concede that they are no longer in control.  Muslim immigrant gangs rule the streets.  To make their dominion emphatic, even ambulance personnel are routinely attacked and abused.  They won’t go into many neighborhoods without police protection, and the police, in turn, will not enter without additional back-up.

Islamists are taking the measure of the West and finding it to be a shallow, self-loathing husk.  When Muslims riot over mere cartoons, the intelligentsia’s first impulse is to condemn the publisher.  After an Islamist terrorist’s brutal murder of Theo van Gogh, who directed Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s screenplay “Submission,” about the treatment of women in Islam, the first impulse of the Netherlands was to encourage Ms. Hirsi Ali to leave the country.  In Birmingham, a conservative group called the “English Defense League” has demonstrated in opposition to what it is careful to call militant Islam, stressing that it has no quarrel with Islam or with Muslims who do not wish to change British law or life.  Predictably, Muslim groups reacted violently, exhorted by imams at the Birmingham Central Mosque to show the umma’s“solidarity.”  The first impulse of the British media?  To side with the rampaging Muslims, whom they portrayed as heroic “anti-fascists”—fighting side-by-side with their socialist allies, to challenge the “anti-Islamic” activists of the right-wing.” (See hereand here.)

These are but a surface scratch of the mosaic that gives Sheikh Qaradawi such confidence that Islam will “conquer” Europe—that Islam is this minute conquering Europe—and that it will eventually bring America to heel as well.

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

“From Pakistan to the Streets of Oxford – Understanding the Ideological Foundation of Sexual Abuse in Islam”

 

Also see:

Christians are ‘asking’ to pay jizya: reflections on the Islamic State

the-islamic-state-full-length-1408013927By Mark Durie, AUGUST 14, 2014:

An important documentary by VICE News has been published which uses extensive footage gained by a journalist embedded with Islamic State forces.  The youtube video linked here is set to start at 29m 58s, just before a section in which it is declared that Christians had asked for a dhimma pact,requesting to pay jizya.

 

There are many noteworthy things about this documentary.

Theology Rules

One is the intensely theological content of the IS fighters and leaders.  Their speech is littered with references to the Qur’an, the Hadiths (traditions of Muhammad) and the Sira (biography of Muhammad).  This shows that the jihadis’ worldview is profoundly shaped by Islam’s scriptures. Islam is their driving motivation, determining – at least in their eyes – the boundaries of their behavior, their goals, and their morality. Whatever else Muslims find in Islam’s scriptures – including words of peace or reconciliation – it is abundantly clear that the Qur’an and Sunna are more than adequate to sustain the ideological base which drives the IS actors.  This conforms to the pattern of other jihad wars throughout the history of Islam.

Euphoria

Another notable feature of this documentary is joy;  the joy of the jihadis; the joy of local Muslims about the caliphate; the joy of young boys who are being recruited to become jihadis for the Islamic State.  The Islamic State is being established on a wave of the pious, exuberant joy of its supporters.  Islamic State soldiers do not suffer from morale-sapping doubts about what they are doing. They believe they are making great sacrifices to what they consider to be the noblest of causes.  If morale were enough to guarantee victory, these men would sweep all before them.

Grooming Young Boys

Another thing that struck me about the documentary is the reality that the Islamic State is intentionally gathering young boys, grooming them, and placing them in training camps to become a  jihad generation.  Some of the youth who appeared in the documentary were full of excitement and anticipation about this.  The current Islamic State fighters have been drawn from all over the Muslim world, including from Western states, and are bound together by their creed.  Now that they are establishing themselves in Iraq and Syria, they are raising up a jihad generation from the sons of the local people.  Judging from the pattern established by Muhammad’s example, these boys will include young Christians who have been converted to Islam by the jihadis and are even now being trained for war.  This is consistent with the practice of jihad campaigns down through history.

Fear

Another thing that struck me was the undercurrent of fear.  On jihadi declared that weapons are the best way to establish Islam.  The Islamic State jihadis consider it perfectly righteous to impose Islam by force, which means through fear.  This is, in their view, Allah’s way.  I was reminded of the words of the Qur’an:  “I will strike fear in the hearts of the unbelievers” (Sura 8:12); “If you come upon them in war, deal with them so as to strike fear in the hearts of those who are behind them” (Sura 8:57); “Soon we shall strike fear into the hearts of the unbelievers” (Sura 3:151); and Muhammad’s own words “I have been victorious through terror” (Sahih Bukhari).  Fear was etched onto the smiling faces of men, interviewed in prison, who were awaiting sentence by an IS sharia court.  As they eagerly praised the Islamic State, and confessed their gratitude for being brought to a correct understanding of Islam, their own fear was standing in the background, monitoring everything they said.

‘Willingly’ the Christians pay Jizya

An IS leader made the memorable claim that Iraqi Christians have asked to pay the jiyza. They have asked, he said,  for a dhimma pact – the alternatives were to convert to Islam or be slaughtered.

The idea that the dhimmi status is willingly accepted by Christians and other non-Muslims living under Islamic rule – that they want and choose to be dhimmis – is reflected in the statements of many jurists and Islamic commentators from the past.

Here is what I wrote about the ‘willing’ submission of dhimmis in The Third Choice (pp. 140-141), in a discussion of the annual Islamic jizya payment ritual, in which non-Muslim men of past generations received a ritual blow on the neck to symbolize their escape from beheading through paying the non-Muslim tax.
“The 18th century Moroccan commentator Ibn ‘Ajibah said that [paying jiyza] represented the death of the ‘soul’, through the dhimmi’s execution of their own humanity:
[The dhimmi] is commanded to put his soul, good fortune and desires to death. Above all he should kill the love of life, leadership and honor. … [He] is to invert the longings of his soul, he is to load it down more heavily than it can bear until it is completely submissive. Thereafter nothing will be unbearable for him. He will be indifferent to subjugation or might. Poverty and wealth will be the same to him; praise and insult will be the same; preventing and yielding will be the same; lost and found will be the same. Then, when all things are the same, it [the soul] will be submissive and yield willingly what it should give. [Tafsir al-Bahr al-Madid fi Tafsir al-Quran al-Magid. Commentary on Sura 9:29 ]The intended result of the jizya ritual is for the dhimmi to lose all sense of his own personhood. In return for this loss, the dhimmi was supposed to feel humility and gratitude towards his Muslim masters. Al-Mawardi said that the jizya head tax was either a sign of contempt, because of the
dhimmis’ unbelief, or a sign of the mildness of Muslims, who granted them quarter (instead of killing or enslaving them): so humble gratitude was the intended response:

The jizya, or poll tax, which is to be levied on the head of each subject, is derived from the verb jaza, either because it is a remuneration due by reason of their unbelief, for it is exacted from them with contempt, or because it amounts to a remuneration because we granted them quarter, for it is exacted from them with mildness. This origin of this impost is the divine text: ‘Fight those who believe not in God …’ [Q9:29] [Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyya]Although some today falsely claim that the jizya tax was simply a tax like any other tax, or merely a payment to exempt dhimmis from ‘military service’, the remarks of al-Mawardi and Ibn ‘Ajibah make clear that its true meaning is to be found in psychological attitudes of inferiority and indebtedness imposed upon non-Muslims living under Islam, as they willingly and gratefully handed over the jizya in service to the Muslim community.”Many have claimed that Islam’s historical record has been maligned by ‘Orientalist’ western historians.  To understand the dynamics of jihad across the generations, and the meaning in Islam of  Al-Futuh ‘conquest’ (literally:  ‘the opening’ of a nation to Islam) one only need look at what the Islamic State is doing in Iraq.

What about the future?

Finally, let us consider the future.  I venture to make a few predictions.  The lack of air power of the Islamic State means that it cannot sweep all before it.  Nevertheless it is here to stay.  The movement will continue to excite the Muslim world and draw recruits to its cause, as well as funding.  It will also continue to destabilize surrounding states.

The utopian promises the Islamic State has made to Sunni Muslims under its rule will prove in the end to be a profound disappointment to almost everyone.  Prosperity, morality and justice will not flourish under the rule of the caliphate.  The application of unfettered power, together with abuses of that power under strict Islamic conditions will corrupt the utopian rule, and will turn the current euphoria into a symphony of pain, including for Sunni Muslims.  Force can win power, but it cannot make people good, despite what the jihadis believe.  As in Iran, revivalist fervor will eventually give place to cynicism and despair about Islam itself, so the on-going crisis within Islam, namely the failure of revivalist movements to deliver on their utopian promises, will continue to unroll.

The most vehement rejectors of Islamic utopianism will eventually be the Muslims who have had the misfortune to live under the regimes it has created.  We are already seeing the outworking of this process in Egypt and Iran.  At the same time, it will be in the West that Islamic utopian sentiment, with all its dangers, will continue to thrive, for this will be the place where revivalist Muslims do not have to actually live under the conditions created by their ideal of a strict Islamic state.  For this reason it will be in the West that many will persist in remaining true believers in the coming Islamic world order, despite what is happening before their eyes across the Middle East.

The tragedy for the areas now occupied by the Islamic State is that the loss of the dream will take years, and in the meantime the rising jihad generation will kill and be killed in large numbers.

What is also certain is that the refugees will continue to come.  For now the ones fleeing the Islamic State are Christians and others for whom radical Sunni rule is an existential threat.  In time however the disillusioned Sunnis of northern Iraq and Syria will make their own exodus.  Just as post-revolutionary Iranian Shi’ites are now fleeing Iran’s failed sharia utopia, so also will the Iraqi Sunnis.  They will want a better life than the Islamic State can offer.

Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness. 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.

GLOSSARY

dhimma – covenant or pact of surrender, by which a conquered non-Muslim community have agreed to live under Islamic rule, and by virtue of which this community is protected from jihad

dhimmi – a non-Muslim living under Islamic rule, who is considered to be subject to the conditions of a dhimma pact

hadith – traditions, first spoken and later written, which record things which Muhammad is believed to have said or done, as well as things said and done by his companions

jizya – tribute paid to Muslims to prevent jihad attack; for dhimmis this is payable as an annual ‘head tax’ by adult dhimmi males

Qur’an – Allah’s revelation to Muhammad, believed to be dictated to him by the angel Jibril (Gabriel); also spelled Quran or Koran

Sunna the example and teaching of Muhammad, recorded in hadith and sira literature; the word sunna also means religiously recommended

sira – biography (of Muhammad)

Defensive or offensive Jihad: History, exegesis vs. contemporary propagation

ShowImage (8)Jerusalem Post, Feb. 13, 2014, By David Bukay: (h/t Bill Warner)

Part one: the religious aspect.

The issue at stake is the deep gap between the horrific acts of terrorism coming from the World Jihad groups, and, at the same time, the propagation emanating from Islamists, Muslims and Westerners; firstly, that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, hijacked by extremists; secondly, that there is only one Jihād, the spiritual, that means to worship Allah; and thirdly that the Muslims are ordered to fight their enemies only defensively.

The stunned Free World witnesses atrocious acts of terror, such as slaughters and beheadings, yet is simultaneously being told that this is only a retaliation towards the Western colonialism and neo-imperialism, or, that these groups are outliers, a small minority; that the threats of demolishing modernity and bringing it back to the 7th century are only because World Jihad wished to defend its land, its lives and its honor against Western aggression.

Hence, the question that arises here is whether Jihād is defensive or offensive? The answer to this will become apparent through analyzing Islamic sources and Muslim exegetes in comparison to contemporary Islamists propagators of the West.

The Arab-Islamic terrorist organization’s strategy against the Free World is comprised of two parallel but coordinated arms: Jihād – a holy war against the infidels, and Da`wah – the persuasive methods used to convince people to join Islam. Both arms are intended to achieve the same objectives, yet both are used at the same time by different activists and are aimed against different targets. However, between both, Da`wah is more dangerous to the Free World. Jihād appears 41 times in 18 Suwar (plural of Sûrah) in the Qur’ān, mostly coupled with fi-Sabīlillah (in the way of Allah; for the sake of Allah), which transforms it into a religious sanction. Da’wah is the Islamic concept of missionary activity, aimed at persuading all human beings to believe in Allâh. Da`wah is the moderate and graceful opening address used to approach non-believers and convince them to submit to Islam, and if it fails, it is the duty of Jihād to achieve the Islamic goals.

According to a Muslim exegete, there are seven major features of the superiority of Arab-Muslims over others, based on the Qur’ān. Firstly, they are the best Ummah ever brought forth to men, bidding good (Ma’rûf) and forbidding evil (Munkar). Secondly, the Muslims are the last of all nations in history and the first on the day of resurrection. Thirdly, their Scriptures are in their breasts (they know it by heart). Furthermore, they take their own alms, yet are rewarded as if they give them away. In addition to this, they have the privilege of intercession (Shafā’ah), which is a pillar of the superiority of the Islamic community over all other communities. Moreover, they answer and are answered, which means that they are distinguished from other communities in their obedience to Allah, as well as in having invocation answered by Allah. Lastly, they will wage war on the people of error and the Anti-Christ.

As the Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone within the human race and should be expanded as a leading religion, until all human beings proclaim that “there is no God but Allâh and Muhammad is his messenger.”Jihād is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described copiously in many well-respected Islamic religious works. It is called “the neglected duty” or “the forgotten obligation,” and regarded as the sixth pillar of Islam. Professor Bernard Lewis finds that an “overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists… understood the obligation of Jihād in a military sense.”

All four Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence and most of Islamic exegetes agree that the aims of Jihad are to remove the infidel’s oppression and injustice, to eliminate the barriers to the spread of Allah’s truth, and, to establish Islamic justice universally. There are four different ways in which the believer may fulfill his obligations: a) by his heart; b) by his tongue; c) by his hands; d) by the sword. This demonstrates the close connection between Jihād and Da’wah, as well as the fact that they are aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth, until either the non-believers embrace Islam (as a result of Da’wah), or submit to Islamic rule and agree to pay the tax poll, the Jizyah; or be killed in the battleground (as a result of Jihad war).

From the Islamic viewpoint, all wars in Islam are religious; the concept of “secular war” does not exist; and Jihād is the only just war known. So, even according to Islamic Jurisdiction, one can wage the most aggressive war using atrocious evil deeds and still see it as a defensive war. The Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist in conjunction with idolatry. This is Shirk, meaning association of other gods and idols with Allah. According to a Hadīth related to Muhammad, he declared: “I am ordered to fight polytheists until they say there is no God but Allah.” Muslims are under the Qur’ān Commandments’ obligation to slay the idolaters. Hence, terrorizing Islamic enemies is Allah’s commandment.

There are four Qur’ān “sword verses” relating to different types of people against whom the believers are obliged to fight: a) Sûrah 9 (verse 5): Fighting the Idolaters; b) Sûrah 9 (verse 29): Fighting the People of the Book, Ahl al-Kitāb; c) Sûrah 9 (verse 73): Fighting the Hypocrites and the infidels; and d) Surah 47 (verse 4): Fighting the Enemies of Islam whoever they are and whenever they can be found. Of these, Sûrah 9 (verse 5) is considered to be the most important. Most Islamic exegetes claim that this verse abrogates 114 or 124 other non-militant verses from Mecca.

The Shahīd is one who is killed and has achieved martyrdom in the battle of Jihād. Islamic exegetes claim that the Shahīd is granted seven glorious gifts: a) He is forgiven at the first drop of his blood; b) He is dressed in the clothes of Imām and sees his status in paradise; c) He is protected from the punishment of the grave; d) He will be safe from the great fear of the Day of Judgment; e) A crown of glory will be placed on his head; f) He will intercede on behalf of 70 members of his family; g) He will be married to 72 Houris. Islamic exegetes take the Qur’ān statements that the Shuhadā’ are alive living beside Allah and enjoying all his grace.

According to Majid Khadduri, Muslims view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective, by defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy, until Islam controls the whole world. They might come to terms with the enemy, provided that they resume the Jihād after the expiration of the treaty. Defeated Muslims maintained that their battle with the enemy would resume, however long they had to wait for the second round. By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and non-Muslim territories are not peaceful, but war-like.

Khadduri states that Muhammad has set the classic example by concluding the Khudaybiyah Treaty, in 628 with the Meccans: a peace treaty with the enemy is a valid instrument. That is, if it serves Muslim interests. Muhammad and his successors always reserved their right to repudiate any treaty or arrangement which they considered as harmful to Islam. Muslim authorities might have come to terms with the enemy, provided it was only for a temporary period. In practice, however, Jihād underwent certain changes in its meaning to suit the changing circumstances of life. This change, did not imply an abandonment of the Jihād duty; it only meant the entry of the obligation into a period of suspension – it assumed a dormant status, from which the leader may revive it at any time he deems necessary.

Also see:

Why the Arab World Is Lost in an Emotional Nakba, and How We Keep It There

A Palestinian protester aims sparks from a flare toward Israeli security forces during clashes near the Israeli checkpoint in Hebron on Feb. 25, 2013. (Hazem Bader/AFP/Getty Images)

A Palestinian protester aims sparks from a flare toward Israeli security forces during clashes near the Israeli checkpoint in Hebron on Feb. 25, 2013. (Hazem Bader/AFP/Getty Images)

But the problem goes far beyond Israel and her neighbors. As anyone paying attention knows, the Salafi-Jihadis, who have “hijacked” Islam the world over, embody this self-same honor-shame mentality in its harshest form: the existential drama of humiliate or be humiliated, rule or be ruled, exterminate or be exterminated. Dar al Islam must conquer dar al Harb; independent infidels (harbismust be spectacularly brought low, their women raped; Islam must dominate the world … or vanish. The language of Shia and Sunni Jihadis alike reverberates with the sounds of honor, plunder, dominion, shame, humiliation, misogyny, rage, vengeance, conspiracy, and paranoid fear of implosion.

By Richard Landes:

Anthropologists and legal historians have long identified certain tribal cultures—warrior, nomadic—with a specific set of honor codes whose violation brings debilitating shame. The individual who fails to take revenge on the killer of a clansman brings shame upon himself (makes him a woman) and weakens his clan, inviting more open aggression. In World War II, the United States sought the help of anthropologists like Ruth Benedict to explain the play of honor and shame in driving Japanese military behavior, resulting in both intelligence victories in the Pacific Theater and her book The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Taking her lead, the great classicist E.R. Dodds analyzed the millennium-long shift in Greek culture from a “shame” culture to a “guilt” culture in his Greeks and the Irrational, where he contrasted a world in which fame and reputation, rather than conscience and fear of divine retribution, drive men to act.

But even before literary critic Edward Saïd heaped scornon “honor-shame” analysis in Orientalism (1978), anthropologists had backed off an approach that seemed to make inherently invidious comparisons between primitive cultures and a morally superior West. The reception of Saïd’s work strengthened this cultural relativism: Concerns for honor and shame drive everyone, and the simplistic antinomy “shame-guilt cultures” must be ultimately “racist.” It became, well, shameful in academic circles to mention honor/shame and especially in the context of comparisons between the Arab world and the West. Even in intelligence services, whose job is to think like the enemy, refusing to resort to honor/shame dynamics became standard procedure.

Any generous person should have a healthy discomfort with “othering,” drawing sharp lines between two peoples. We muddy the boundaries to be minimally polite: Honor-killings, for example, are thus seen as a form of domestic violence, which is also pervasive in the West. And indeed, honor/shame concerns are universal: Only saints and sociopaths don’t care what others think, and no group coheres without an honor code.

But even if these practices exist everywhere, we should still be able to acknowledge that in some cultures the dominant voices openly promote honor/shame values and in a way that militates against liberal society and progress. Arab political culture, to take one example—despite some liberal voices, despite noble dissidents—tends to favor ascendancy through aggression, the politics of the strong horse,” and the application of “Hama rules”—which all combine to produce a Middle East caught between prison and anarchy, between Sisi’s Egypt and al-Assad’s Syria. Our inability, however well-meaning, to discuss the role of honor-shame dynamics in the making of this political culture poses a dilemma: By keeping silent, we not only operate in denial, but we may actually strengthen these brutal values and weaken the very ones we treasure.

Few conflicts offer a better place to explore these matters than the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Read more at Tablet

The Conditions Of Omar

caliph-omar-conditions-ofCitizen Warrior:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that brings us to the here and now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more at Citizen Warrior

Tens of thousands demand Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia be turned into a mosque

1299668013-z9ura808IPT, by John Rossomando

Tens of thousands of Turkish Islamists held a triumphalist gathering outside Istanbul’s Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday. Originally built as a cathedral in 537 by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian, it was converted into a mosque by the Ottomans following the fall of Constantinople in 1453.The former religious site was re-opened as a museum in 1935. The Islamists who prayed at the site on Saturday did so with the hope that it would be converted back into a mosque by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The protest also coincided with the anniversary of the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, an event for which Erdogan has encouraged the celebration.

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the modern Turkish republic, converted the massive structure into a museum in 1935.

For Turkey’s Islamists, Hagia Sophia serves as a symbol of Islam’s triumph over Christianity.

“Ayasofya is a symbol for the Islamic world and the symbol of Istanbul’s conquest. Without it, the conquest is incomplete, we have failed to honor Sultan Mehmet’s trust,”Reuters quoted Salih Turan, head of the Anatolia Youth Association, as saying. The association claims it has collected 15 million signatures asking for Hagia Sophia to reopen as a mosque.

Details of the conquest and Hagia Sophia’s conversion from being a church into a mosque stand in stark contrast to the picture of Islam that Islamists want to portray – that of a tolerant and ethical faith. Islamic law might forbid the slaughter of innocent non-combatants during times of war, but that was not what happened in Hagia Sophia the day Constantinople fell.

The late Sir Steven Runicman, widely regarded as one of the greatest scholars of Byzantine history, noted that Ottoman soldiers under Sultan Mehmet’s command entered the cathedral and indiscriminately slaughtered men, women, children and the elderly. Mehmet’s personal imam then climbed into the pulpit to proclaim the shahada, transforming Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

Sheik Abdullah Basfar, the imam of the Ka’aba in Mecca, who led Saturday’s prayer gathering outside Hagia Sophia, has a history of extremist rhetoric. In a translation provided by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), he notably stated in September 2005 that funding the Palestinian jihad against Israel was a religious “duty” of all Muslims.

Erdogan’s government, however, says no plans currently exist to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque.

The world’s 350 million Eastern Orthodox Christians still look to Hagia Sophia as one of the most sacred places in their faith – a reminder of the Christian Byzantine Empire that stood for over 1,000 years.

Hagia Sophia’s place in the Orthodox consciousness was such that a group of American Greek Orthodox Christians similarly and unsuccessfully tried to hold services there in 2010. Talk about converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque has provoked strong condemnation from the Greek government, which issued a statement in November 2013, saying talk about “converting Byzantine Christian churches into mosques [is] offending the religious feeling of millions of Christians.”

The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew I, the world’s most senior Orthodox bishop, similarly condemned the effort, saying it should remain a museum or be reopened as a church.

Transforming Hagia Sophia back into a mosque would necessitate the whitewashing of priceless treasures of Byzantine iconography.

Turning Hagia Sophia into a mosque reinforces the narrative that Muslims seek to subordinate other religions to Islam, and it reinforces the idea of a clash of civilizations.

“It would strengthen the mutual suspicion and polarization between the West and the Muslim world,” Sahin Alpay, professor of political science at Bahcesehir University,told Reuters. “All hell breaking loose is a high price to pay.”

Pope’s Visit Coincides With Campaign Against Christian School

by Khaled Abu Toameh:

“It is a Christian school and if you want to put on a hijab, go to a Muslim school.” — Razan, east Jerusalem.

Some Christian families said they considered bringing the issue to the attention of the Pope and his entourage but were afraid to do so for fear of retribution.

It remains to be seen whether the Pope or the Vatican will do anything to help the school’s administration in the face of the campaign of intimidation and threats.

Pope Francis was probably unaware that during his visit to Bethlehem earlier this week, a Christian school in east Jerusalem was being attacked by Palestinian families for allegedly banning their daughters from wearing the hijab, the veil that covers the head of Muslim women.

The families claimed that the administration of Rosary Sisters’ School had prevented their daughters from attending a graduation ceremony because they were wearing the hijab.

The school decided several years ago that it would not allow Muslim girls to attend graduation ceremonies while wearing the hijab. The decision has triggered a war of words between supporters and opponents of the ban and highlighted tensions between Christians and Muslims.

On May 22, the families, in an unprecedented move, staged a demonstration against the Rosary Sisters’ School, accusing its directors of “racism” and “intolerance”.

The demonstration is seen as a sign of long-simmering tensions between Muslims and Christians in Jerusalem and the West Bank, especially Bethlehem.

Palestinians often avoid any public discussion of tensions between Muslims and Christians due to the sensitive nature of the issue. The Palestinian Authority, for its part, went to great pains to show the Pope and the rest of the world that Muslims and Christians live in harmony and mutual respect.

During Pope Francis’s visit, Palestinian Authority leaders and spokesmen blamed Israel for the plight and exodus of Palestinian Christians. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told the Pope during their meeting in Bethlehem on May 25 that Israeli actions have driven “many Christians and Muslims to emigrate.”

Of course the Palestinian Authority did not tell Pope Francis anything about the smear campaign that was being waged by Muslims against the Rosary Sisters’ School in east Jerusalem.

At the demonstration outside the girls’ school in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina, protesters shouted slogans against the administration and carried placards that read, “No To Racism,” “Hijab Is A Personal Freedom” and “Enough To Racism.”

Some of the protesters pointed out that the hijab had “triumphed in France and Europe” while it was being banned by a school in east Jerusalem.

It was the first time that Muslims had demonstrated against a Christian institution in the city. The families of the 17 girls who did not attend the graduation ceremony were joined by dozens of Palestinian Muslims who joined the campaign against the Christian school.

 

Three of the hijab-wearing students pictured at a demonstration against Rosary Sisters’ School.

Um Mohamed, the mother of one of the girls who were reportedly banned from attending the graduation ceremony, said she and other parents had reservations about their daughters being forced to appear in public without the hijab.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Key Tenets of Shariah

Shariah the threat
Excerpt (pp.41-54) -from Shariah: The Threat To America: An Exercise In Competitive Analysis (Report of Team B II)  Center for Security Policy Press. (PDF)

By Patrick Poole; Joseph E.Schmitz ;  William J.Boykin ;  Harry Edward Soyster, ; Henry Cooper ; Michael Del Rosso ; Frank J. Gaffney Jr.; John Guandolo; Clare M. Lopez ; Stephen C. Coughlin;  Andrew C.McCarthy

The following are some of the most important – and, particularly for Western non-Muslims, deeply problematic – tenets of shariah, arranged in alphabetical order.  The citations drawn from the Quran, schools of Islam and other recognized sources are offered as illustrative examples of the basis for such practices under shariah.

Abrogation (‘Al-mansukh wa al-nasikh’ in Arabic—the abrogated and the abrogating): verses that come later in the Quran, chronologically, supersede, or abrogate, the earlier ones. In effect, this results in the more moderate verses of the Meccan period being abrogated by the later, violent, Medinan verses. “When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” (Quran 2:106)

Adultery (‘Zina’ in Arabic): unlawful intercourse is a capital crime under shariah, punishable by lashing and stoning to death. “Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful deed and an evil, opening the road to other evils.” (Q 17:32)  “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication, flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness the punishment.” (Q 24:2) “It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except for one of three sins: a married person committing fornication, and in just retribution for premeditated murder, and [for sin of treason involving] a person renouncing Islam, and thus leaving the community [to join the enemy camp in order to wage war against the faithful].”  (Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, Tirmidhi, and An-Nasa’i[s2] )

Apostasy (‘Irtidad’ or ‘Ridda’ in Arabic): The established ruling of shariah is that apostates are to be killed wherever they may be found. “Anyone who, after accepting Faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith—but such as open their heart to Unbelief—on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” (Q 16:106)

“Some atheists were brought to Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn Abbas who said, ‘If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s messenger forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’  I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.’” (Bukhari, Volume 9, #17)

“Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed…There is no indemnity for killing an apostate…” (‘Umdat al-Salik, Reliance of the Traveler, Chapter o8.0-o8.4)

Democracy & Islam: Any system of man-made law is considered illicit under Islamic law, for whose adherents Allah already has provided the only law permitted, shariah. Islam and western-style democracy can never co-exist in harmony. “And if any fail to judge by the light of what Allah has revealed, they are no better than unbelievers.” (Q 5:47)  “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Almighty Allah alone. He is the absolute arbiter of values and it is His will that determines good and evil, right and wrong.” (Mohammed Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, 3d rev. ed., (Cambridge, UK:  The Islamic Text Society, 2003), 8.)

“The shariah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards.  Rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform.” (Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi[s3] )

Female Genital Mutilation: “Circumcision is obligatory….for both men and women.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, e4.3)

Gender Inequality: Shariah explicitly relegates women to a status inferior to men. ·      Testimony of a woman before a judge is worth half that of a man: “And get two witnesses, not of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose for witnesses.” (Q 2:282)

  •  Women are to receive just one half the inheritance of a male: “Allah thus directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females….”   (Q 4:11)
  •  Muslim men are given permission by Allah in the Quran to beat their wives: “As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill conduct, admonish them first, next refuse to share their beds, and last, beat them.”  (Q 4:34)
  • Muslim men are given permission by Allah to commit marital rape, as they please: “Your wives are as a tilth unto you, so approach your tilth when or how ye will….” (Q 2: 223)
  •  Muslim men are permitted to marry up to four wives and to keep concubines in any number: “…Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with them, then only one, or a captive that your right hands possess…”  (Q 4:3)
  •  Muslim women may marry only one Muslim man and are forbidden to marry a non-Muslim: “And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikun [non-Muslims] till they believe in Allah alone and verily a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik, even though he pleases you….” (Q 2:221)
  • A woman may not travel outside the home without the permission of her male guardian and must be accompanied by a male family member if she does so: “A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin….accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her.”  (‘Umdat al-Salik, m10.3)
  • Under shariah, to bring a claim of rape, a Muslim woman must present four male Muslim witnesses in good standing. Islam thus places the burden of avoiding illicit sexual encounters entirely on the woman. In effect, under shariah, women who bring a claim of rape without being able to produce the requisite four male Muslim witnesses are admitting to having had illicit sex. If she or the man is married, this amounts to an admission of adultery. The following Quranic passages, while explicitly applying to men are cited by shariah authorities and judges in adjudicating rape cases: “And those who accuse free women then do not bring four witnesses (to adultery), flog them…” Q 24:4) “Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? When they have not brought the witnesses, such men, in the sight of Allah, stand forth themselves as liars!” (Q 24:13)
  •  A Muslim woman who divorces and remarries loses custody of children from a prior marriage: “A woman has no right to custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending the child.”   (‘Umdat al-Salik, m13.4)

“Honor” Killing (aka Muslim family executions): A Muslim parent faces no legal penalty under Islamic law for murdering his child or grandchild: “…not subject to retaliation” is “a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring.”  (‘Umdat al-Salik, o1.1-2)

Hudud Punishments:  The plural of hadd, is “a fixed penalty prescribed as a right of Allah. Because hudud penalties belong to Allah, Islamic law does not permit them to be waived or commuted.”[69]

  •  “Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of believers witness their punishment.” (Q 24:2)
  • “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a [Muslim] person – unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew the whole people….The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land…” (Q 32-33)
  • From the Kitab al-kaba’ir (Book of Enormities) of Imam Dhahabi, who defines an enormity as any sin entailing either a threat of punishment in the hereafter explicitly mentioned by the Koran or hadith, a prescribed legal penalty (Hadd), or being accursed by Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace).  (‘Umdat al-Salik, Book P “Enormities,” at § p0.0)
  •  [s4] “Shariah stipulates these punishments and methods of execution such as amputation, crucifixion, flogging, and stoning, for offenses such as adultery, homosexuality, killing without right, theft, and ‘spreading mischief in the land’ because these punishments were mandated by the Qur’an or Sunnah.” (Islamic Hudood Laws in Pakistan, Edn 1996, 5.)

Islamic Supremacism: belief that Islam is superior to every other culture, faith, government, and society and that it is ordained by Allah to conquer and dominate them: “And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.” (Q 3:85):

  •  “Ye are the best of Peoples, evolved for mankind.” (Q 3:110)
  • Non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings” (Q 98:6)
  •  Be “merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbelievers” (Q 48:29)
  •  “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” (Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood)
  •  “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant[s5] . The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.” (Omar Ahmad, Council on American Islamic Relations co-founder/Board Chairman, 1998[s6] )

Jew Hatred: Antisemitism is intrinsic to shariah and is based on the genocidal behavior of Mohammed himself in wiping out the entire Jewish population of the Arabian Peninsula.

  •  “And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, as we said to them: Be as apes, despised and hated.” (Q 2:65)
  •  “And you will most certainly find them [the Jews] the greediest of men for life, greedier than even those who are polytheists…” (Q 2:96)
  •  “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; for they are friends but of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Q 5:51)
  • “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they be of the People of the Book [Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” (Q 9:29)

Jihad: Jihad is warfare to spread Islam:

  • “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war…”  (Q 9:5)
  •  “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”  (Q 9:29)
  • “So fight them until there is no more fitna and all submit to the religion of Allah alone.”  (Q 8:39)
  •  “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammed is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay the zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah” (Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim – agreed upon – as cited in ‘Umdat al-Salik o9.1 Jihad)
  • “Jihad means to wage war against non-Muslims and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.”  (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.0, Jihad)
  •  “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world…. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war.  Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!”  (Ayatollah Khomeini as quoted by Amir Taheri.)
  •  “Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies].  Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender [to the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Quranic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”  (Ayatollah Khomeini as quoted by Amir Taheri.[70])

Lying/Taqiyya: It is permissible for a Muslim to lie, especially to non-Muslims, to safeguard himself personally or to protect Islam.

  •  “Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way, unless you indeed fear a danger from them.  And Allah warns you against Himself, and to Allah is the final return.” (Q 3:28)
  • “‘Unless you indeed fear a danger from them’ meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers.  In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly…We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 2, 141)
  •  “Mohammed said, ‘War is deceit.’”  (Bukhari vol. 4:267 and 269)
  •  “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.”   (Bukhari vol. 3:857 p.533)

Slander/Blasphemy: In shariah, slander means anything that might offend a Muslim, even if it is true: “… The reality of tale-bearing lies in divulging a secret, in revealing something confidential whose disclosure is resented.  A person should not speak of anything he notices about people besides that which benefits a Muslim to relate or prevent disobedience.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, r3.1)

Underage Marriage:  Islamic doctrine permits the marriage of pre-pubescent girls. There is no minimum age for a marriage contract and consummation may take place when the girl is age eight or nine.

  •  “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses [periods], for them the ‘Iddah [prescribed period before divorce is final], if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.”   (Q 65:4)
  • “Aisha narrated: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).”   (Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 7, Book 62, Number 64; see also Numbers 65 and 88)“They may not have menstruated as yet either because of young age, or delayed menstrual discharge as it happens in the case of some women, or because of no discharge at all throughout life which, though rare, may also be the case. In any case, the waiting-period of such a woman is the same as of the woman who has stopped menstruation, that is, three months from the time divorce was pronounced.
  • “Here, one should bear in mind the fact that, according to the explanations given in the Qur’an, the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible.”   (Syed Abu-Ala’ Maududi, Towards Understanding the Qur’an, volume 5, p. 620, note 13)

Zakat: the obligation for Muslims to pay zakat arises out of Quran Verse 9:60 and is one of the Five Pillars of Islam. Zakat may be given only to Muslims, never to non-Muslims.

  • Zakat is for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); for those whose hearts have been (recently) reconciled (to Truth); for those in bondage and in debt; in the cause of Allah; and for the wayfarer: (thus is it) ordained by Allah, and Allah is full of knowledge and wisdom. (Q 9:60) “Of their goods take alms so that thou mightiest purify and sanctify them….” (Q  9:103) “Zakat is obligatory: (a) for every free Muslim and (b) who has possessed a zakat-payable amount [the minimum that necessitates zakat] (‘Umdat al-Salik, h1.1)
  • According to shariah, there are eight categories of recipients for Zakat: The poor; Those short of money; Zakat workers (those whose job it is to collect the zakat); Those whose hearts are to be reconciled; Those purchasing their freedom; Those in debt; Those fighting for Allah (Jihad); Travelers needing money (‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.7-h8.18)
  • “It is not permissible to give Zakat to a non-Muslim…” (‘Umdat al-Salik, h8.24)

 

 

 

Robert Spencer Defines the War Against Jihad

976_largeby Andrew E. Harrod:

“America is at war; and has been since at least September 11, 2001, but no one is really sure who with,” Robert Spencer writes in his recently released Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth about the War We’re In. Thankfully, Spencer’s important book makes a significant contribution in clarifying this catastrophic confusion.

That “Islam is a fundamentally peaceful religion” no different from…other faiths” in multicultural ecumenism, Spencer observes, forms a Western policy “cornerstone” and “cherished dogma of today’s political correct elites.” Yet President George W. Bush’s claim before Congress on Sept. 20, 2001, that al-Qaida terrorists “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism” does not “become any truer for being oft repeated.”

“[U]unlike other modern faiths, Islam is a political religion” whose “comprehensiveness is often a matter for boasting among Islamic apologists” in comparison to “Christianity’s vague set of moral precepts,” Spencer writes. Such detail includes a “denial of basic rights…integral” to Islamic law despite attempted Muslim portrayals of sharia as “so amorphous as to defy characterization.” Islam’s death penalty for apostasy, for example, gives it something in common with cults, making leaving in one piece difficult.

Sharia interpretations “more compatible with Western pluralism and liberal democracy…have never gained any significant traction among Muslims.” However undesirable, centuries-old Islamic orthodoxy invariably and unsurprisingly has controlling legal authority.

“Jihad” in particular, “behind all the obfuscation and denial, is in fact primarily an Islamic doctrine of warfare,” drawn from the Qur’an’s “open-ended license to wage war against and plunder non-Muslims.” Despite various references to righteousness (e. g. Sura 5:8), the “Qur’an doesn’t teach that all are equal in dignity.” Rather, Islamic conversion can mean rejecting “nation and people as infidel” in favor of a “new loyalty instead to the supranational Islamic umma.”

Spencer offers plenty of examples, including Fort Hood terrorist Major Nidal Hasanhad a “broad tradition within Islamic teaching” justifying his killings with “numerous proponents.” Although “not the only understanding of Islam…even the larger number of Muslims who do not adhere to it have failed to work in any effective way to rein it in.” Accordingly, “Al Qaeda and other groups like it make recruits among peaceful Muslims” as “exponents of true and authentic Islam.” Unfortunately, faith fundamentals in Islam do not necessarily favor freedom over sectarian force.

Indeed, Muslim groups have no programs demonstrating “how the true Islam eschews violence against and hatred of unbelievers,” Spencer criticizes. Similarly, “over twelve years” after 9/11, no “sincere and effective effort within mosques to expose and report those who hold to the beliefs that led to those attacks” has developed. Groups like the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) “are ready with the condemnations after arrests and explosions, but why wait passively?” Muslim communities must “demonstrate (not just enunciate) their opposition to jihad terror Islamic supremacism,” Spencer demands. Any silent Muslim majority in an oft-proclaimed “religion of peace” must preemptively speak out, both for its own credibility’s sake and for the wider community’s security.

A “Jihad against Talking about Jihad” by Muslim groups and others, meanwhile, brands as an “irrational hatred of Muslims and Islam” any “resistance to jihad” in attempts at “demoralization and marginalization.” Objective discussion of Islam’s less savory aspects has become the “third rail of American public discourse.” Here “tuxedoed barbarians” like the writer Reza Aslan, an Islamic Republic of Iran apologist, play a role, along with leading officials like President Barack Obama, who pledged in his June 4, 2009, Cairo address “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam.” Obama “didn’t explain where in the Constitution he had found this awesome new responsibility,” Spencer says.

Read more at IPT