Tag Archives: Jihad

My Name is Bosch and I’m a Recovered Muslim

Posted on by
4

bosch1By Bosch Fawstin:

Author’s note: This was originally published in Dec. 2011 in Front Page Magazine and it was the most popular piece I’ve written until this piece of mine. I’m a cartoonist, so the only essays I write are ones that I cannot express in any other way but words, and here- in light of the latest Jihad attack in London, and the latest “Islam vs “Islamism”” debate going on- is what I think is my most comprehensive piece on Islam, Muslims & Jihad.

My name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim.

That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.

But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.

Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.

The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.

In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.

Read more at Front Page

 

The New, Improved Axis of Jihad

Posted on by
1

images (58)by Clare M. Lopez:

Two years into the seismic shift that brought the forces of Islamic jihad and Sharia law to power in country after country in the Middle East and North Africa — with the astonishing and extensive assistance from the U.S. — Iran, Hizballah and al-Qa’eda apparently judge that the U.S. and its Western allies still need another nudge to ensure their complete retreat from “Muslim” lands. That nudge, according to independent, reliable and mutually-corroborating sources, has now been prepared by this Axis.

Indicators and warnings continue to grow concerning the resurgence of an “Axis of Jihad” comprised of Iran, Hizballah, and al-Qa’eda. This axis is not new: its three actors, both national and sub-national, have been working together in an operational terror alliance for over two decades. Still, so many seem unaware not just of this alliance, but of the ideological bonds that brought them together in Khartoum, Sudan, in the early 1990s and have kept them together to the current day. The bond is as old as Islam, and includes the commitment to jihad [war in the name of Islam] and Islamic Shariah law; the threat is to all free and democratic societies which stand in the way of global Islamic government and the forcible application of Islamic Shariah Law.

Foundation of the Axis of Jihad

This modern-day Axis of Jihad was formed in the Sudan under the aegis of the Muslim Brotherhood regime of Omar al-Bashir and his sometime political ally, National Congress Party chairman Hassan al-Turabi. Al-Qa’eda as such had not yet taken its current form, but after the end of the 1980s Afghan war against the Soviet Union, Usama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri had found safe haven in the Sudan. Al-Bashir and Turabi are pan-Islamists, meaning they see the world in terms of the Dar al-Islam (House of Islam, where Shariah is enforced) versus the Dar al-Harb (everywhere that is not under Islamic Law). Such a worldview chooses to disregard the ancient intra-Islamic schism between Sunni and Shi’a and instead to unify the entire Islamic world in jihad against the “infidel.”
So it was that al-Bashir and Turabi invited the Iranian regime leadership and its Hizballah terror proxies to Khartoum in late 1990 to meet with the future leadership of al-Qa’eda. Then-Iranian president (and once again a 2013 candidate for the office) Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, intelligence director Ali Fallahian, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Mohsen Reza’i and other top Iranian leadership figures accepted al-Bashir’s invitation and traveled to Khartoum, along with Islamic jihadis from around the region.

There, and in subsequent meetings that took place in Khartoum throughout the early 1990s, the alliance was formed among Iran, Hizballah, and what soon would be known as al-Qa’eda. Usama bin Laden was especially interested in the explosives expertise coupled with a “martyrdom” mentality he had seen demonstrated by Hizballah with such deadly effect against Western targets. It was arranged that Imad Mughniyeh, Hizballah’s top terror operative, would commit to training Usama bin Laden’s growing cadre of terrorists in explosives techniques, especially those involving suicide truck bombings that could bring down large buildings. Training camps were set up in Sudan, Lebanon, and elsewhere where al-Qa’eda’s would-be shahid recruits could learn this craft. The attacks at Khobar Towers, the U.S. East Africa Embassies in Dar Es-Salaam and Nairobi, against the USS Cole, and eventually the 9/11 attacks themselves were all the result of this terror alliance.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

Denial is still a river in Londonistan

Posted on by
4

images (55)By Melanie Phillips:

On one thing the British liberal class is certain – the hacking to death of a soldier in a Woolwich street yesterday had absolutely nothing to do with religion.  The murderers screamed ‘Allahu akhbar’ as they tried to decapitate the soldier (a barbaric hallmark of Islamic terror), announced proudly that ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you’ and quoted the Koran as religious justification.

But the atrocity, we have been repeatedly told, had nothing to do with religion. Ever since 9/11, the UK and US political and media establishment, along with much if not most of the British security service and increasingly the US security establishment, has repeated this mantra. Killing in the name of Islam is a warped hijacking of the religion, a perversion of the religion, the very antithesis of the religion. But based on the precepts of the religion itself? Good heavens, no.

For more than two decades, the British political and security establishment has gone to extreme lengths to deny the true religious nature of the Islamic jihad, or holy war, against the free world and ‘backsliding’ Muslims (who are the jihad’s most numerous victims). There are several reasons for this state of denial, of which in my view the key is that to the official mind a holy war is such a fearsome prospect – it’s uncontrollable, can last for decades, is driven by wholly irrational motives immune to negotiation and is characterised by unmitigated savagery — they cannot admit that this is what it actually is.

So instead they come up with absurd statements like the one made to me some years ago by a very senior security official, who said this couldn’t be an Islamic religious war because to say it was would demonise all Muslims.

This was clearly a risible non sequitur. The fact that many Muslims not only do not support the jihad but are being themselves persecuted by it does not make it any less of a holy war against their perceived backsliding or heresy.

Nor can anyone plausibly claim that the jihad is based on a ‘warped’ or ‘perverted’ form of Islam and is therefore not actually Islam at all. It is clearly an interpretation of Islam which, whatever you may think of it, is grounded in the religion. The fact that many Muslims reject this interpretation – and that there are indeed other rival interpretations — is irrelevant to this point. It is arguably as authentic as more pacific interpretations – and more to the point, dominates the Islamic world today. To deny that is to deny its endorsement by the world’s leading Islamic jurists and scholars – or to pretend that they, too, are somehow not ‘real’ Muslims.

Read more at Melanie’s blog

Related articles

The Islam I Knew

Posted on by
4

islam_title1By M. Kamal:

In my work revealing the destructive menace of Islam, I receive messages from Muslims everywhere accusing me of, and calling me, everything imaginable and unimaginable .

I have been accused of being a hate monger bent on deforming the image of Islam. I am called a Zionist, a liar, and every insulting name a woman can be called.  Although I was raised in Egypt and educated in a Muslim school system and indoctrinated on the “glories” of Islam since birth, I am also accused of being ignorant about Islam itself. In their critiques against me, many of them are practicing what is called “Taqqiya”.

Taqqiya or the holy lie, is permissible in Islam in order to deceive non Muslims about the true Islamic agenda; complete domination, by force if necessary.

Many Muslims are actually ignorant of the biggest part of their own Islamic doctrine: Jihad, derived from the Arabic root-word mujahada, meaningwarfare to establish the religion. While jihad is physical, there are other forms of jihad that are practised as well: funding terrorism, making propaganda, converting non-Muslims to Islam (even by force like in the case of Egypt and Pakistan), suing those who dare to criticize islam or to reveal its truth, islamic immigration to non-muslim lands, breeding so much, electronic jihad etc……

Many Muslims instead compel themselves to live with one perspective about Islam; that it is being hijacked by terrorists and extremists and that Islam teaches peace and love toward all of humanity, friend or enemy, Muslim or infidel.

Amazingly these relatively peaceful people think they are the “True” Muslims and the representatives of Islam’s real image… And some naive non-Muslims swallow this bait, failing to detect the hook and fire that waits behind it.

It is easier and mentally more secure for them to accept at face value that Islam contains no evil. Ironically, many of the same people believe that guns, not the people who pull their triggers, bear the destruction, injury, and death they deliver. As such, non-Muslim defenders of relieve themselves of inquiry and accept the Muslim apologist defence that Islam is innocent of all charges of evil.

As a former Muslim, who is not ignorant of its worldview, requirements, and laws, I want to attract your attention to one very important fact: You may meet or know some relatively peaceful Muslims around you, but that does not mean that Islam itself is peaceful, which will be their claim. It must be. They are not permitted by their own law to portray Islam in a negative light, particularly to non-believers, even if they are discussing Qur’anic or legal elements (those that outside observers find unsavoury).

Most Muslims have ever read very little of the Qur’an, let alone read, or understand, most of it . Lot of them learned to recite some verses from the Qur’an without understanding its meanings . Most Muslims in non-Arabic speaking countries (which comprises most of the world’s Muslims) who memorize the Qur’an in Arabic do so only phonetically, not understanding a word they are reciting.

They have been taught that the poetic rhythm of the Qur’an alone, is sanctifying and will reward them with favour in the hereafter. Most Muslims know only of the Qur’an what is read to them on Friday prayers.

Read more at No Compulsion

Connecting the Dots 101

Posted on by
2

-213433477By Frank Gaffney:

The dramatic events in Boston last week have given rise to what President Obama would call a “teachable moment.”  The question is, will we “connect the dots”?  And, more to the point, will our leaders, the media and the rest of us have the intellectual integrity and courage to learn the evident lessons?

The initial indicators are not encouraging. We now know that, despite the unconcealed hopes of some elected officials, elite journalists and most especially the self-appointed arbiters of “hatred” – the hate-mongering Southern Poverty Law Center, the perpetrators of murderous attacks at the Boston Marathon and in the days that followed turned out not to be white Christian or anti-tax extremists, but Caucasians of a very different stripe.  Yet, their true character and motivations continue to be obscured.

In fact, Timerlan and Dhozkhar Tsarnaev were jihadists, born in the turbulent Russian republic of Chechnya – a honing fire for terror-wielding Islamists – and named, respectively for prominent figures in that movement’s distant and more recent past.

Here’s what we have learned from this episode that is highly instructive about the wider war we are in:

  • The Tsarnaev brothers became “radicalized” as they embraced their Muslim faith.  The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that their mother encouraged this course, that the elder boy brought along his younger sibling and that they attended the Islamic Society of Boston/ISB.  As a powerful video produced by Americans for Peace and Tolerance makes clear, the ISBCC is closely tied to the Muslim Brotherhood – a group that seeks to impose its supremacist Islamic code of shariah worldwide.  Shariah commands its adherents to engage in or otherwise support jihad (or holy war).
  • Sources at the Tsaraevs’ mosque are spinning the press with stories that Timerlan was ejected at one point for challenging an imam’s endorsement of Martin Luther King. Also, shortly after the Marathon bombings, the ISBCC issued a press statement condemning the terrorist attack.  Yet, these deflections cannot be allowed to obscure the reality that this mosque – like many others in America – promotes shariah and jihadism.  (See the peer-reviewed study published in 2011 by the Middle East Quarterly in which a random sample of one hundred such institutions found that 80% of them are associated with both shariah and jihad.)  As such, mosques like the Islamic Society of Boston must be considered to be part of the problem.
  • The FBI interviewed Timerlan Tsarnaev in 2011 at the request of a Russian government evidently concerned about the jihadist inclinations of this Chechen expat.  The Bureau says it “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the [Russian] government in the summer of 2011.”  Unfortunately, this statement seems to say more about the politically imposed limitations on the Bureau’s ability to understand and identify the roots in jihad of such terrorism than provide an accurate assessment of the elder Tsaraev’s behavior.
  •  Among such political constraints is President Obama’s assiduous rejection of any  association between terrorism and Islam.  In fact, his administration has gone so far as to characterize the former as “violent extremism,” “man-caused disasters” and “workplace violence.”  In response, the FBI has purged its files of training materials that might “offend” Muslims. That would, it seems, include any information about the direct connection between shariah, jihad and “terrorism.”  Like other government agencies, moreover, the Bureau has been directed to consult with “community partners” – which seems to mean Muslim Brotherhood front organizations – before engaging trainers or their curricula.
  •  Then there is this:  In 2012, the FBI adopted “Guiding Principles” that say, among other things, that “mere association with organizations that demonstrates both legitimate (advocacy) and illicit (violent extremism) objectives should not automatically result in a determination that the associated individual is acting in furtherance of the organization’s illicit objective(s).”  In other words, Timerlan Tsarnaev could not be considered dangerous as long as his jihadist affiliates also engaged in “legitimate” (that is, non-violent) efforts to bring about the triumph of shariah.
  • This absurd justification apparently underpins as well the Obama administration’s engagement with the Muslim Brotherhood, both at home and abroad, resulting in the latter’s legitimation, empowerment, funding, arming and ascendancy – with our help – throughout the Sunni Muslim world.  The strategically disastrous consequences of this policy are now becoming manifest.

Given the foregoing problems, it is hardly surprising that the American people are largely uninformed about the true nature of the threat we are facing.  As a result, they are not being engaged, as they must be, in the defense of our republic against enemies foreign and domestic.

Read more at Center For Security Policy

He Seemed Like Such a Nice Guy

Posted on by
1

images (51)Bill Warner:

The news is filled with comments made by people who knew the Boston Marathon bombers that they were “nice”, regular people. They cannot believe that the Tsarnaev brothers could be violent. This is not the first time we have heard such observations, but there is an added dimension. What happened was not just violence, but jihad.

By jihad I mean the “kill the Kafir” (non-Muslim), not the spiritual struggle that the apologists for Islam like to dwell on. References to jihad as “spiritual struggle” are minimal. As one measure, Bukhari collected the most important traditions of Mohammed, called Hadith. Out of 7000 of these traditions, about 1500 of them are about jihad. Of these 1500 jihad hadiths, nearly 1400 are about “kill the Kafir” jihad and only a 100 or so are about jihad as spiritual struggle. This indicates Mohammed thought that jihad as war was the much more important aspect.

Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and converted only a 150 people. He was driven out of Mecca and went to Medina. In Medina he became a politician, jihadist, and warlord. He averaged a jihad event on the average of 1 every 6 weeks and as a result every Arab was converted to Islam. The religion of Islam was a failure, but politics and jihad triumphed absolutely. Mohammed talked a lot about jihad, because it worked.

The important factor here is that Mohammed is believed to be the perfect Muslim. The Koran says so over 90 times. If the perfect Muslim is a jihadi, and Allah loves a jihadi, then jihad is a sacred act. That means that the Tsarnaev brothers had an internal guidance system provided by Islamic jihad doctrine.
Read more at American Thinker

Bill Warner is the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam

Related articles

Walid Phares: We Are At War With Jihadist Ideology

Posted on by
2

images (16)

Walid Phares:

A film that triggered the “Jihad against Walid Phares”

According to analysts looking at the roots of the CAIR-led and Iranian supported bashing campaign against me in March and in October of 2011, this appearance in the movie “America at Risk” along with other major statements exposing the Muslim Brotherhood and their fronts in the US, was one of the triggers to the attacks. Another trigger was the movie “Iranium.” More to come.

 

At the tenth anniversary of 9/11, Professor Walid Phares comments in the movie “America at Risk: The War with no name”, produced by Newt and Callista Gingrich, were posted in one compilation. As we thank the producers of this powerful film, the excerpts are offered to educate the public at this important benchmark of American history. Professor Phares reminds us that the 9/11 Commission asked why America wasn’t prepared by its academia for the nature of the threat. He explains that the precursors to the Jihadists rose in the 1920′s under the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabis and later on under the Khomeinists. Phares argues that the Jihadists use all means at their disposal: diplomacy, military, and petrodollars when they decide to do so. The US is dealing with strategies developed by the Jihadists worldwide and in the homeland. He explains that the most important counter strategy for the US to develop is to identify the ideology of the Jihadists, without which the conflict cannot be won.

http://www.americaatrisk.com

http://www.walidphares.com

Shaikh Al-Qaradawi: Muslim ‘Moderates’ endorse aggressive jihad

Posted on by
2

Cartoon for 3/23/06By Mark Durie Sunday June 5, 2011:

Two important modern reference works on jihad in Islam are Muhammad Haykal’s Jihad and Fighting according the the Shar‘i Policy (Al-Jihad wa-l-qital fi al-siyasa al-sharia’iyya) and Yusuf Al-Qaradawi’s Jurisprudence of Jihad (Fiqh al-jihad).  Both these works give the lie to apologies offered by many western scholars for Islam’s militancy, such as the claim that jihad is purely defensive.

As yet, neither work is available in English translation.  Remarkably, Haykal attempts in his copyright statement to forbid anyone from quoting from or translating his work into any language other than its original Arabic.  (However David Cook’sUnderstanding Islam gives a useful overview of Haykal on pp.124-127).

The TranslatingJihad website has recently posted a translation from a key section in Al-Qaradawi’s Fiqh al-Jihad (see here), which discusses the issue of whether ‘moderate’ Muslims support aggressive jihad.  This was translated from a fatwa posted on IslamOnline.net. The fatwa is by Dr. ‘Imad Mustafa, professor at Al-Azhar University, who relies upon a passage from Al-Qaradawi’s Fiqh al-Jihad to support his ruling in support of aggressive jihad.

Al-Qaradawi is one of the most influential public intellectuals in the world today.  He is a trustee of Oxford University’s Centre for Islamic Studies, and his program on Al Jazeera reaches an estimate audience of 40 million world wide.

In the passage cited by Dr Mustafu, Al-Qaradawi defends ‘moderate’ Muslims from the charge, made by ‘extremists’, that they do not support ‘offensive jihad’, which is aggressive warfare to conquer non-Muslim territory for Islam.

That Al-Qaradawi feels the need to mount such a defense at all is in itself a matter of considerable interest.

Jihad is a highly prestigious concept in Islam.  The traditional view has always been that Islam’s conquest of non-Muslim civilizations was one of its greatest achievements, and certainly not something to be embarrassed about or to resile from.  To accuse a group of Muslims of rejecting aggressive jihad is a tactic which will discredit them in the eyes of many other Muslims.  Thus it is not surprising that Al-Qaradawi feels the need to defend ‘moderates’ – such as himself – from this charge.  He writes:

I want to clarify here the difference between the moderates and extremists, or the “defensive (jihadists)” and “offensive (jihadists)”, as they are called by some.

Some of the offensive (jihadists) have not been fair to those who hold the opposing view. They have put words in their mouths which they did not say, and accused them of that which they are innocent. They say: “They (the defensive jihadists) do not accept offensive jihad under any circumstance, in any form, or for any reason. They do not believe jihad is legitimate except in one condition, which is if Muslims are attacked in their homes and lands.” This is how they depict the opinion of the moderates or the defensive (jihadists).

I think they are not being fair with the opposing side, and are not being precise or honest in presenting their views. Whoever reads their [i.e. the moderates'] opinions, will find that they accept offensive jihad, and attacking the infidels in their lands, for several reasons…

There is a great irony here.  On the one hand, many Western scholars defend ‘moderate’ Islam on the basis that the concept of jihad is merely defensive, or not even militaristic at all.  On the other hand, as prominent and influential a scholar as Al-Qaradawi feels the need to defend ‘moderate’ Islam on the grounds that itendorses aggressive jihad.

Al-Qaradaqi lists four conditions under which aggressive jihad would be supported by ‘moderate’ Muslims:

  1. To remove all obstacles to the propagation of Islam.
  2. Preemptive warfare in the interests of the Islamic state.
  3. To rescue people (Muslims and non-Muslims) from oppressive rulers.
  4. Religious cleansing of Arabia to eliminate all non-Muslim religions (‘Allah’s favour to the Arabs’).

There is ample provision in these principles to support just about any jihad conquest of non-Muslim lands.  Just as Hitler termed the conquest of Poland an act of ‘liberation’, since time immemorial ambitious rulers have used the language of benevolence and liberation to justify their acts of aggressive conquest.

Read more at Mark Durie’s blog

pic20Author of “The Third Choice“, Dr Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist and pastor of an Anglican church. 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.

 

What Muslim Leaders Say About Islam Dispels the Myth that Jihadists are a “Fringe” Element

Posted on by
5

Ali-GomaaCitizen Warrior:

WHEN WE discover some basic facts about Islam, our first impulse is to think, “But surely it’s only a small minority of extremists!” If you’ve looked into it, and especially if you’ve read the Quran, you realize the “extremists” are following standard, mainstream Islamic doctrine. That’s a real shock when this first dawns on you.

One day when I was reading yet another popular Muslim leader giving a speech and saying something that would be considered “inflammatory rhetoric” if I said it, but that was nothing more than just plain, ordinary Islamic teachings, I thought I should start collecting a list. Here’s what I have so far (below). I’m sure I’ll add to it as I go along, and I hope you to add to it in the comments.

I thought you could send this list of quotes to those people who tell you “the terrible stuff you say about Islam” only applies to a fringe group of nutcases who have hijacked Islam and twisted and distorted peaceful Islamic teachings into something bad. You could quote chapter and verse from Islamic source books until you’re blue in the face without making a dent because they’ll think hardly any Muslims nowadays believe in that stuff.

This list should disabuse anyone of the notion that the incessant intolerance, hatred, and even violence against non-Muslims is “fringe.” This is not just a small group of “radicals.” This is Islam, plain and simple. The leaders quoted below are hugely popular,even famous mainstream leaders in the Islamic world. For each quote, I’ve provided an online source. Let’s begin:

Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt, the highest Muslim religious authority in the world, supports murdering non-Muslims. In the daily Al Ahram (April 7, 2008), he said, “Muslims must kill non-believers wherever they are unless they convert to Islam.” He also compares non-Muslims to apes and pigs. Source

Muhammad Sayyid Al Tantawi, president of Al Azhar University (the most prominent and authoritative institute of Islamic jurisprudence in the world) also approves of killing and maiming Christians, Jews, and other infidels. He added, “This is not my personal view. This what the Shari’a Law says, the law of Allah, the only valid law on the earth.” Source

Syed Abul Ala Maududi, founder of the Pakistani political party Jamaat-e-Islami, said non-Muslims have “absolutely no right to seize the reins of power in any part of God’s earth nor to direct the collective affairs of human beings according to their own misconceived doctrines.” If they do, “the believers would be under an obligation to do their utmost to dislodge them from political power and to make them live in subservience to the Islamic way of life.” Source

The Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid teaches that “at first fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory.” He clearly identifies two groups Muslims are obligated to fight: “(1) they who start fighting against Muslims, and (2) they who worship gods other than Allah.” Source

The most prominent Muslim scholar of the 20th century, Sheikh Abu Ala Maududi, stated in his book, Islamic Law and Constitution, on p. 262, that the Islamic State “seeks to mould every aspect of life and activity. In such a state no one can regard any field of his affairs as personal and private. Considered from this aspect the Islamic State bears a kind of resemblance to the Fascist and Communist states.” Maududi added “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam.”Source

There is much more at Citizen Warrior. Bookmark it.

 

From #MeinKampf to #MyJihad

Posted on by
1

Front Page, By :

You may have noticed the #MyJihad ad campaign that the jihadist front group CAIR has been pushing down our throats recently. For years, we’ve been hearing the Big Lie that “Islam means peace.” Now comes the Big Lie that jihad means whatever you personally want it to mean. Here are some examples from the enemy’s latest plot to keep us in the dark about what they’re up to:

“#MyJihad is to build friendships across the aisle. What’s yours?”

#MyJihad is to be united in our diversity. What’s yours?”

#MyJihad is to break stereotypes with humor. What’s yours?”

“My Jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule. What’s yours?”

With that in mind, here’s the jihad of Islam’s Favorite Infidel…

MyJihad-hitler-small