Stetson University & Amer Ahmed Support Islamic Religious Apartheid

20131121_4069318520_7a56be0a39By Alan Kornman:

On 10/30/13, Stetson Universities Cross Cultural Center and Multicultural Student Council presented a lecture on ‘Addressing Islamophobia: Proactive Efforts to Address Hate and Bias on and off Campus’  led by Amer F. Ahmed.

Amer F. Ahmed, Associate Director, Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs, University of Michigan  supports Islamic Religious Apartheid and called all non-Muslims a violent threat to Mecca.  Ms. Yolany Gonell, Director of Diversity & Inclusion stood silent as Mr. Ahmed was making these vile statements during his lecture.  Mr. Ahmed’s comments make a mockery of diversity and Inclusion.

Mr. Ahmed’s lecture was advertised as open to the public and all were welcome.  I had my video camera set up to document the event when Stetson Public Safety Officer Sgt. Casey told me I could not film under threat of arrest.

To follow is an exchange between Mr. Ahmed and myself focusing on the fact all non-Muslims are not allowed to enter Mecca and Medina.

Mecca and Medina Islamic Apartheid Cities – A Dialogue 

Audience member asks Mr. Ahmed:  “Is it true that your God is the same as our God, like the Christian God?”

Mr. Ahmed: “That’s what Muslims view the same God and we view our religion as an extension of the same traditions, so in the Islamic tradition it is believed that those who believe the teachings of the previous prophets are our brothers and sisters, because we are all worshipping the same God.  And its the same message that has come over and over again by all the prophets.”

I ask:  “If we are all brothers and sisters why is it illegal for non-Muslims to step foot in Mecca or Medina and not just during the Hajj, but we’re talking the whole city, its like apartheid on steroids.”

Mr. Ahmed responds:  “so Medina anyone can go into Medina, its Mecca that only Muslims can enter.”

I say:  “If we are all brothers and sisters why is that?”

Mr. Ahmed responds: “Because it has been a place that has been under attack in the past, and so it is a place which there are very sacred rituals partaken upon so its a holy sacred site, so if you just open it up it leaves room for those who can do things that might be problematic in the broader sense.”

I say:  “So your saying that non-Muslims are going to attack Mecca?”

Mr Ahmed says: “Its happened before, so (stops mid sentence).

I say: “So non-Muslims are not allowed in the city limits of Mecca because we are a threat.  I take offense at that because it is hateful and hurtful to me.”

Mr. Ahmed does not respond, moves on to another subject but says he will get back to this exchange.

Before I tell you the rest of the dialogue between Mr. Ahmed and myself lets do a little fact checking on Mr. Ahmed’s statements of fact.

1. Medina is open to non-Muslim (Lie):  According to the US Department of State Bureau of Consular Affairs it says, “Non-Muslims are forbidden to travel to the holy cities of Makkah and Madinah.”

2.  Mecca is closed to non-Muslims under threat of arrest (True).

3.  Non-Muslims Attacked Mecca before: (Lie)  The last attack on Mecca was in 1979  by the devout Muslims of Juhayman al-Otaybi, who belonged to the powerful family of Najd.  There is nothing in the historical record validating Mr. Ahmed’s claim.

20131121_20111123_MeccaSign11The Mecca and Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid is a commonly accepted cultural practice by most every Mosque here in the United States.  Mosques across the United States encourage every Muslim to visit the Islamic Religious Apartheid Cities of Mecca and Medina even though they know it is illegal for Christians, Jewish, Hindu, Agnostics, and all non-Muslims to do the same.  Islamic Religious Apartheid is happening today despite all the talk that we non-Muslims are brothers and sisters of the Abrahamic traditions.

Mr. Ahmed,  true brothers and sisters would not practice Islamic Religious Apartheid like Islam does in Saudi Arabia. True Muslim brothers and sisters would scream from the roof tops and minarets this bigoted exclusionary practice be stopped.  True Muslim brothers and sisters would demand the opening of Mecca and Medina to all people.

Ahmer Ahmed realized in our exchange he exposed his heartfelt beliefs supporting the Mecca/Medina Islamic Religious Apartheid against all non-Muslims. Mr. Ahmed made these hate filled views in a failed effort to defend the 5th Pillar of Islam.

Read more: Family Security Matters 

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Alan Kornman is the regional coordinator of The United West-Uniting Western Civilization for Freedom and Liberty. His email is: alan@theunitedwest.org

Islam: Against All Mankind

By Y.K. Cherson

When Islam’s prophet Muhammad, the very first Muslim immigrant, arrived at Yathrib, or Medina, he and his followers began military preparations and partook in a series of attacks, over 100 in one year. But against whom were all those preparations?

The answer was given by Muhammad himself: against all non-Muslims. And since then nothing changed; Islamic immigration is aimed against all non-Muslims in the host countries, with the final goal of converting them into countries ruled by Islam.

The persecuted Christians of Egypt are only one of Islam's targets. (Source: http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/in-egypt-media-sympathizes-with-muslim-brotherhood-persecution-of-christians-ignored/)

The persecuted Christians of Egypt are only one of Islam’s targets. (Source:http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/in-egypt-media-sympathizes-with-muslim-brotherhood-persecution-of-christians-ignored/)

Muhammad planned his immigration like a military campaign, carefully eliminating any chance of error. And he had good reasons; his situation in Mecca became perilous. Of course, the wealth he inherited after his wife Khadija’s death was with him, and this wealth was enormous; the monthly business turnover of Khadija’s business was equivalent to a whole year’s balance for the entire tribe of Quraish. But after Khadija and his uncle Abu Talib died in 620, Muhammad lost the political protection and became very vulnerable for the attacks of his enemies. Those enemies were practically all the Quraish tribe whom he deeply insulted by the continuous and fierce attacks of their gods. The situation was aggravated by the fact that all the tribal leaders of the near-by towns Muhammad tried to approach seeking refuge and protection from Quraish turned him down.

Finally, he decided to run to an oasis town, Ta’if, situated some 40 miles from Mecca. Together with his adopted son he arrived to Ta’if, but evidently, “the local muscle” he bought was not strong enough, and the citizens of the town chased him out in a very “undemocratic” manner; Muhammad was hounded and beaten. Besides, they informed Quraish about Muhammad’s attempt. By the time he reached Mecca, the news had preceded him, and he did not dare enter Mecca for fear of his life. Instead, he contacted one of the members of the board of elders of Mecca, Mutaeam bin Adi, asking him for help. And he got it!

Why a pagan Mutaeam bin Adi all of a sudden decided to give his protection to the Muslim Muhammad who was hated by all the Quraish could be a theme for a separate investigation, but the sources carefully mention that there were benefits on both sides. Putting it simple, Muhammad  bought protection of the local Quraish leader- and that let him stay in Mecca for some more time. But Muhammad understood that this time was quickly running out and that the second failure could be the last one.

Hindus are yet another target. In Bangladesh in March 2013, Muslims slaughter Hindu children, torched at least 700 houses and 47 Hindu temples. (More horrific photos from the ordeal: http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/muslims-unleash-holy-hell-in-bangladesh-slaughtering-hindu-children-torching-47-hindu-temples-and-700-hindu-homes/)

Hindus are yet another target. In Bangladesh in March 2013, Muslims butchered Hindu children and torched at least 700 houses and 47 Hindu temples. (More horrific photos from the ordeal: http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/03/17/muslims-unleash-holy-hell-in-bangladesh-slaughtering-hindu-children-torching-47-hindu-temples-and-700-hindu-homes/)

In 620 CE, six men of the Yathrib Arab pagan tribe Aws arrived to Mecca to seek an alliance against another Arab tribe of Yathrib: Khazraj. Muhammad did a wonderful job of convincing them against this alliance and making them his allies instead (for more details, see “Muhammad, The First Muslim Immigrant, Part 2: Buying Off The Local Muscle.”) The enemy was very clearly defined: those who had to be attacked and destroyed were Jews, Christians and the people of his own tribe Quraish. The idea was received with enthusiasm. Yathrib was founded by Jews, and at that time was a Jewish city. There were three very rich and powerful Jewish tribes there. Another part of the citizens of Yathrib was formed by pagan Arabs of two bitterly rivalling tribes, Aws and Khazraj. Arabs dreamed about snatching the rule from the Jews, but they did not have either money or enough military strength to throw an open challenge to them. Besides, Aws and Khazraj were constantly fighting each other, and Jews skilfully supported this or that side depending on the current situation.

Muhammad offered to both Aws and Khazraj something they could only dream about.

In 621, already 12 local Arab leaders from Yathrib: six from Aws and six from Khazraj, arrived to Mecca and made the first pledge of loyalty to Muhammad. This is known as the “First Pledge of Aqaba.”

In 622, Mecca saw already 75 tribal leaders of both Aws and Khazraj coming to have a talk with Muhammad. They made a “Second Pledge of Aqaba”, and it was decided that Muhammad and his followers would be welcomed to Medina. From the beginning it was clear to all that the pledge was an Alliance of War. When Muhammad’s uncle Abbas bin Abdel Muttalib asked Aws and Khazraj leaders if they knew and understood what they were supporting and what they pledged their alliance for, they all answered affirmatively, confirming they knew they pledged the alliance to fight against all mankind. I am not exaggerating, the answer was exactly this: AGAINST ALL MANKIND.

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

Muslim migration was ultimately a conquest. Its goal was to establish an Islamic State ruled by Shari’a laws, and all non-Muslims had to be either subdued or annihilated.

Muslim immigrants individually can be – and many of them are- very good people, polite, hospitable and nice. But Muslim immigration is a death threat to the native population of any country that was stupid (if you wish, you can use the term “politically correct”) enough to accept it.

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

Subjective Fundamental Errors

 

Bill Warner

Bill Warner

Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

[This newsletter is the continuation of a debate begun with a rabbi’s criticism of an earlier essay, Fundamental Errors. The set off text is the rabbi’s comments.]

###
Your response [referring to the newsletter Fundamental Errors] here is filled with errors of fact as is almost everything people like you publish about Islam.
###

This is an excellent starting point—facts. When it comes to Islam, I use the facts of the Koran, Sira and Hadith. Briefly, the Koran says over 90 times that Mohammed is the perfect life example. Where do we find Mohammed? We find him in the Sira (his biography) and the Hadith (his traditions). Since most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, it is interesting to see the relative sizes of the three texts:

Koran Sira Hadith
14% 26% 60%

Relative Sizes of Islamic Texts

Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed. Islam can be defined as the political/religious doctrine found in the Trilogy. If it is in the Trilogy it is Islam. To know Islam, know Allah and Mohammed, the only two Muslims you need to know. Said another way, if a claim is made about Islam that cannot be traced back to Mohammed and Allah, then it is not Islam. And Islam cannot be reformed, by its very structure. Reforming Islam means reforming Allah and Mohammed. One does not reform perfection.

###
The basic error is in trying to attribute to Islam in general what is only true of the kind of political Islamists who are trying to remove modern influences from the Muslim world.
###

Islam is not defined by Islamists or any other kind of Muslim. The attributes of Islam come from its source texts, influences that are 1400 years old—Mohammed and Allah. It is critical to understand that Muslims do not cause Islam. Islam causes Muslims. Islam is a doctrine that insists that every Muslim submit to a perfect, universal, eternal Koran, the exact words of the only god. A Koran that is perfect down to the smallest detail. Interpretation and context do not allow any escape from this boundary. A Muslim’s only practical way to temper Islam is by denying or ignoring the texts.

There is a confusion about Islam that comes from the Trilogy. There are two Korans and two Mohammeds, hence two Islams. The first Islam is found when Mohammed lived in Mecca and was a religious teacher. The second Islam is found in Medina and is political and mostly about jihad. His two careers are found in the Sira. He preached Islam for 13 years and garnered about 150 Muslims. He went to Medina, where be became a politician and jihadist. In three years he annihilated the Jews. In the last 9 years of his life he averaged a jihadic event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks. When he died every Arab was a Muslim. Politics is what made Mohammed successful. It is the politics that I care about. I don’t give a rip about the religion of Islam.

So here we have two very different Mohammeds. Both are pure Sunna and hence pure Islam. The logical problem this dualism causes is when people meet a nice Muslim, they think that Islam is nice and hence, jihad is not Islam. But both the religious Muslims and the jihadists are all good Muslims. They just follow two different Islams and can go back and forth as needed.

###
You plainly depend on most of your readings never having read the Koran or studied Islamic history, culture, philosophy, etc. Most of the Koran is about how to live a good life.
###

I have a library of about 250 books on Koran, Mohammed, Islamic history and culture and have studied Islam since 1970. For about 10 years after 9/11 I read the Koran every day, many days for hours. I publish 3 different Korans.

Actually, most of the Koran is not about how to lead a good life, or a least not a life that is not harmful to others. Here are three examples:
1. About 24% of the Koran written in Medina is about jihad
2. About 17% of the Medinan Koran is devoted to Jew hatred.
3. 71% of all mentions of women in the Koran subjugate women.

###
Your assertion that Islam has no version of the Golden Rule is patently false. Here are two examples from the Hadith.
“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[63]
Those are two of several.
###

[I cannot locate the second reference about mankind, the first is from Bukhari, the primary hadith collector.] The word brother is used in two ways in Bukhari. The first meaning is an actual blood brother, sharing the same mother or father. The second meaning is another Muslim. There are a total of 209 hadiths that refer to the word “brother” and of these, 113 hadiths are about spiritual brotherhood. In every case a brother is a brother to another Muslim, not a Kafir.

Bukhari 3, 43, 622 Allah’s Apostle said, “A Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, so he should not oppress him, nor should he hand him over to an oppressor. Whoever fulfilled the needs of his brother, Allah will fulfill his needs; whoever brought his (Muslim) brother out of a discomfort, Allah will bring him out of the discomforts of the Day of Resurrection, and whoever screened a Muslim, Allah will screen him on the Day of Resurrection . “

Hadiths that say a Muslim is to love his brother do not apply to Kafirs. The Kafir is outside the Islamic pseudo-Golden Rule.

Let us go one step further with the Golden Rule. Mohammed is the perfect Muslim. Let us examine his status a good neighbor. When he was in Mecca, he argued with every Meccan. The reason that the Meccans drove him out of town was he was so divisive. When he moved to Medina, as soon as he consolidated his political power, he started jihad against the Meccans and after that all pagans. He destroyed the half of Medina that was Jewish. After his jihad against the pagans was successful, he turned north to attack the Christians in Syria. Mohammed attacked every single neighbor he had. Mohammed was a neighbor who caused every neighbor to suffer. So much for the Golden Rule.

This Golden Rule is so important that we need to drive the final nail in the casket. There are 13 verses in the Koran that refer to friendship. Each of them declares that a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir. Here is one verse:

Koran 5:51 Oh, believers, do not take the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you take them for his friends, he surely is one of them. Allah will not guide the evildoers.

There is no Golden Rule in Islam.

###
In the usual passive aggressive manner you accuse me of “Christo-phobia.” In fact I have been actively involved with interfaith activities since I was a teenager. In my community I am very welcome as a teacher in local churches.

I am quite familiar with the dark side of Islamic history and also the dark side of Christian history, neither of which is over. The army of the Lord in east and central Africa. There are hundreds of Christian hate groups in our country. None of these is normative Christianity just as Al-Qaeda is not normative Islam.
###

I cannot comment on hundreds of Christian hate groups. Please name a few. Why is it that you cannot discuss Islam without bringing in Christianity? I hold that Islam is sui generis, a thing unto itself, without parallel. You seem to hold that Islam cannot be discussed without a comparison to Christianity. Why?

But I can deal with al Qaeda as being normative. In Islam normative can have only one meaning—adherence to Islamic doctrine as found in Koran, Sira and Hadith. To imitate Mohammed is Islamic normal and al Qaeda follows the example of Mohammed, the jihadist. Do you ever read their writings? They are constantly quoting the Medinan Koran and Sunna. Of course, the nice Muslim you meet at work is also normative Islam and quotes Meccan Koran. Dualism again. The nice Muslim and the jihadist are both true Muslims.

###
The concept of jihad is misused alike by today’s Jihadists and by Islamophobes. The term primarily refers to the personal struggle of the individual to overcome temptation and like a good life. The lesser jihad refers to holy wars in defense of Islam. Jihadis comfort themselves for their crimes by thinking that fighting against the West and modernity in general even as they violate the explicit rules of jihad against attacking noncombatants.
###

Jihad is NOT primarily about personal struggle. Bukhari contains 645,745 words and he devotes 132,315 words to jihad. Of these words devoted to jihad, 2347 words can be interpreted as spiritual jihad. Only1.7% of all jihad hadiths (2347 / 132,315 = 0.017, 1.7%) are devoted to spiritual jihad. According to Bukhari, 98.3% of all jihad hadiths are about killing Kafirs and 1.7% of them are about spiritual struggle. The jihadists and the “Islamophobes” (and I am an Islamo-critic) have it correct and you, sir, are wrong. So says Bukhari.

If you would read the Sira (Mohammed’s canonical biography) you will notice that 68% of the text is devoted to jihad and each and every event of jihad is about war against the Kafir. There is no jihad as spiritual struggle in the Sira.

And now let’s deal with “not harming non-combatants”. You are half right, but since Islamic doctrine is always dualistic, that means there are hadith which say the opposite. Here are two examples that determine the rules of jihad. They contradict each other, so the resolution is that either can be used as needed. (The M in the index number means abu Muslim, a canonical hadith collector)

M019,4319 in one of Mohammed’s battles, it was discovered that a woman had been killed by the Muslims; however, he did not approve of killing women and children.

M019,4321 Mohammed said, “they are from them,” when told of the killing of women and children by Muslims during a raid.

###
I am guessing that you are a fundamentalist Christian and an adherent of right-wing politics, because that is where most of this kind of literature comes from these days.
###

Actually, your guess is wrong. I am an apostate of liberal/progressive politics. I reject both political parties and consider them to be the Party of Evil and the Party of Stupid. I am probably more libertarian than anything else. I was raised a Christian, but practiced Buddhism up until 9/11. I claim no religion since that date.

###
I have been active in standing up to Islamic hatreds for decades including as an NGO delegate at UN meetings. I have done it on campus, in communal settings, and elsewhere.

I became active in interfaith work because I grew up in a community with a lot of Holocaust survivors. My rabbi, who was a survivor who had grown up in Nazi Germany, believed that it was poor relations among different faith groups that allowed the Nazis to sell the German people on demonizing Jews.

I know where teaching hate leads to and that is Auschwitz. Your response to me denies you are a hate group publishing hate literature. I have dealt with such things all of my life and I know it when I see it and I see it in you.
###

Since you claim to have the power to detect hate, give me your hate evaluation about this event taken from the Sira:

Ishaq554 The Apostle of Allah said, “Kill any Jew who falls into your power.” Hearing this Muhayyisa fell upon a Jewish merchant who was a business associate and killed him. Muhayyisa’s brother was not a Muslim and asked him how he could kill a man who had been his friend and partner in many business deals. The Muslim said that if Mohammed had asked him to kill his brother he would have done it immediately. His brother said, “You mean that if Mohammed said to cut off my head you would do it?” “Yes,” was the reply. The older brother then said, “By Allah, any religion which brings you to this is marvelous.” And he decided then and there to become a Muslim.

You see, I hate this kind of Jew hatred material. I also hate the Koranic subjugation of women. I hate jihad. I hate Islamic dualistic ethics. I hate the Islamic war against Christians. I hate the Islamic slave doctrine. I hate the persecution of pagans. I hate child brides. I hate the Sharia which says that I am a third class citizen. Where do you stand on these issues?

“I know it [hate] when I see it” Your standards of “hate” are subjective. No where do you advance a single objective rule to be used to determine whether something is hate or not. If you don’t like it, it is hate, but it is your personal subjective judgment. And on this issue we see the great divide between us. My statements are based on facts that can be verified by any third party. That is the basis of objectivity.

###
I am saddened and frightened by the promotion of hatred you represent. I know all too well how similar it is to accusations against Jews in the last century. You are no better than Fr. Coughlin and seem to me to be his spiritual brother.
###

The “hatred that I represent” is fact-based reasoning. Go back over what is here—extensive use of Islamic source doctrine. Why is that hate? Why is your righteous fantasy so virtuous and why is my fact-based reasoning called hatred? What is your moral basis?

I respect you and assume that our differences are about reason and logic. Even though I have studied Islam for over 40 years, you assert that I am ignorant and I am morally impaired. Facts are never hatred. Since your arguments fade in the light of Islamic doctrine, you turn to name calling. You shoot the messenger.

I look forward to your response.

How Islamic Doctrines Justify Sex Jihad

5897620602068754133-450x337By :

As news of the sex jihad continues to proliferate in Mideast media, and as the West continues to bury its head in the sand—here for example is Der Spiegel’s attempt to portray as “false” the “tales of rebels engaging in ‘sex jihad’ and massacring Christians”—it is instructive to note that even the practice of sex jihad has specific doctrinal validation in Islam (which should not be surprising, considering that so too do things like “adult breastfeeding”).

First there is the general justification for sex jihad, namely that, because Muslim men waging jihad have become sexually frustrated in their camps, losing morale and quitting the theatre of war, it is permissible, indeed laudable, for Muslim women to volunteer to give up their bodies to these men so that they can continue the jihad to empower Islam, in accordance with the Koran: “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Yusuf Ali trans. 9:111).

While this verse has traditionally been understood as Muslim men selling “their persons,” that is, their bodies, in the jihad in exchange for paradise, in the context of sex jihad, Muslim women are also selling “their persons” (their bodies to be used for sex) to help empower the jihad, in exchange for paradise.

Aside from this logic which involves intention (niyya) and the idea that the ends justify the means—this is the same rationale, for example, used to justify Islamic suicide attacks (“martyrdom operations”)—in the hadith and teachings of early Islam, precedents exist that Islam’s ulema use to justify the sex jihad.

Recorded in Sahih Bukhari—for most Sunni Muslims, the second textual authority after the Koran itself—is an anecdote of one Muslim giving another Muslim one of his wives for sexual purposes.  The story is as follows: When some of Muhammad’s followers from Mecca migrated to Medina, a complaint was raised that the people of Medina had better profited from following Muhammad than his original Meccan followers who had suffered more deprivations.  In this context, Muhammad paired up the Meccan Abdul Rahman bin Awf with Sa‘ad bin Rabi‘a of Medina, for the latter to share some of his possessions with the former. So Rabi‘a offered to Rahman half of all his possessions, adding, “Look at my two wives, and whichever of them you desire, I will divorce her so you can have her” (Sahih Bukhari: 118, 1943)

Based on this, divorcing one’s wife for the use of another Muslim became acceptable—indeed, laudable and generous behavior.  Indeed, Sahih Bukhari has an entire chapter (bab) on the jurisprudence of this practice. Nor should it be forgotten that, recorded in the Koran itself, one man divorced his wife and gave her to Muhammad simply because the prophet desired her.

Read more at Front Page

 

Fundamental Errors

Bill Warner

Bill Warner

 Political Islam, By Bill Warner:

The article, Separating the Kafirs from the Muslims, drew a comment from a rabbi. His comments are prototypical of many apologists for Islam, so it is worth responding to. Let’s take it one point at a time:

[this article] takes a particular version of Islam and claims that the claims of those who follow it are representative of the entire faith. They claim this, but the claim is false. An analogy would be a non-Christian saying that the KKK is typical of Christianity and, as those in the KKK insist, this is the truest form of that faith. This is false logic.

Actually, the article does not say that the al Shabaab jihadists represent Islam. What the article says is the language of the jihadists comes from the Islamic doctrine of jihad. This mistake is the crux of the matter. No one Muslim represents Islamic doctrine since Islam has a dualistic ideology. Let’s take the Islamic attitude about Jews. In the early Koran written in Mecca, it is very favorable towards Jews, since Mohammed makes the claim to be of the Jewish lineage of prophets. But when he moved to Medina, which was half Jewish, the rabbis of Medina informed Mohammed that he was not a prophet in their linage and rejected him. The Koran takes a turn for the worse and calls the Jews apes and pigs. The shift in attitude can best be seen in a simple word count:

Meccan Koran 960 words 0.99% of Meccan Koran
Medinan Koran 9282 words 16.9% of Medinan Koran

Amount of Koranic Text Devoted to anti-Jew

So is the Koran pro Jew or anti Jew? Yes, it is both. That is the neat thing about dualism; you can get either answer. The point here is that there are always two choices in dualistic Islam. In the end, Mohammed annihilated all of the Jews in Medina in about three years. Medina was Judenrein. But in the beginning, he was friendly and charming about the Jews.

The point here is that Muslims can be friendly to Jews or Jew haters and in both cases be Islamic. It is the same with jihad. Islam is peaceful; Islam is jihad. So al Shabaab is based on the Medinan part of Islam; the Muslims at the Family of Abraham religious dialogue are following the Meccan Islam.

The word “Kefir” is cognate to the Hebrew “kofer” which means “apostate.” From the Muslim point of view they represent the true Abrahamic faith while Jews and Christians, in denying the validity of Islam, are apostates or infidels. I’ve met plenty of Christians who believe the same about Muslims and Jews. Jews do not need such a doctrine because we believe that all people who live an ethical life get a reward in the next world.

The rabbi brings up the very important aspect of ethics. Islam is the only “universal” religion that does not have Golden rule. Indeed, Islamic ethics are dualistic, with one set of rules for Muslims and a separate set of rules for Kafirs. I wonder if apostate Jews are under a death ruling as Muslim apostates are?

But, there is another ethical issue here. The worst human rights violation of today is the jihadic murder of nearly 100,000 Christians every year in the most horrible ways. I wonder if the rabbi ever brings up this issue to Muslims. If not then he is guilty of silence in the face of evil. Islamic law treats silence as consent, so in the eyes of Islam, the rabbi supports the oppressor, Islam, and abandons the victims—Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists (Kafirs all).

The assertion that most of the Koran is about Kefirs and not about how to be a Muslim is plainly false as anyone who actually reads the Koran knows.

Not only is my count correct, here is the data for the Meccan Koran and the Medinan Koran Not only do I assert that the majority of the Koran is about the Kafir, but will go further and say that the majority of the Sira, 82%, (the canonic biography of Mohammed, a sacred text) is about Kafirs, as well.

The Meccan suras of the Koran discuss “peoples of the book” (Jews and Christians with the book being the Bible). They are not to be persecuted so long as those who live in the Muslim world follow the law of the land and respect Islam.

This deceiving statement puts a pleasant face on 1400 years of political and social subordination by Islam against all Kafir religions. The law of the land for Islam is the Sharia, a legal code of pure evil. Here are some details of respecting Islam taken from the Treaty of Umar written about Christians (Jews were under similar dhimmi laws):

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Koran to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.

The Koran says “there shall be no compulsion in religion.” That, of course, has been violated in some times and places. Also in practice, non-Muslims have a kind of second-class citizenship called dhimmi.

The “no compulsion in religion” is an early verse. The Koranic law of abrogation says that the later verse is stronger or better than the earlier verse. Verses written after the nice “no-compulsion” verse say that the Christians and Jews who do not submit to Islamic supremacy can be killed. The man who does not understand abrogation should not use the Koran.

Mohammed treated everybody well upon the first meeting. But when they did not submit to his ways, they were enslaved, murdered, raped and annihilated. The record is very clear. Mohammed, the perfect model of a sacred life, was a Jew killer, a pagan killer and a Christian killer. So says the Sira.

This brief essay is intentionally inflammatory and there are many other errors of fact in it as well as misuse of the terms cited. This is hate literature.

And now the rabbi fires his best shot—“this is hate literature”. Go back and read the article this is in response to. It addresses the actual language of the jihadist killers of Kafirs. It then shows that this language is taken directly from Islamic war doctrine. Next the article says that all people, not just Muslims, should use the correct naming and verbiage of the Islamic doctrine. Nowhere is any individual demeaned and not even the hateful doctrine even criticized. Show me the hate.

Muslim jihadist murder innocents, but I am the hater for talking about it. Go figure. What his term “hate” means is that the article violates the progressive multicultural dogma. The word “hate” no longer means immorality but political disagreement. This is an example of name calling, the weakest logical position.

I will give you an example of the falsity of this anti-Muslim literature. The practice of female genital mutilation is frequently cited. In fact this is not a requirement of any faith and it is practiced by ethnic groups that are Christian as well as Muslim. It is connected to ethnicity rather than religion, but Islamophobes frequently falsely claim it is a specifically Muslim practice.

Since the article makes no mention of female genital mutilation, where does this come from? It is a straw man. But now that the rabbi has brought the Islamic treatment of women up, let us take note of the fact that the Koran, 4:34, and the Sunna say that women can be beaten. Mohammed advises: Never ask a man why he beats his wife. Allah says that wives who do not obey the husband can be beaten. Wife beating is pure Islam. I would love to hold a talk with the rabbi about the treatment of women under the Sharia.

People like Warner use an academic disguise to give weight to their promotion of hate and fear. The problem, is not Islam, but fundamentalism, including Christian fundamentalism. Those who think they represent ultimate truth perversely often think they have a license to lie.

Let’s take these insults one a time. “academic disguise” is what he calls facts from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Islamic political history.

“The problem is not Islam” Really? The Islamic doctrine is one of jihad, oppression of religious minorities, violence against women, enslavement and hatred of the Kafir. Islamic jihad has murdered 270 million over the last 1400 years and there have been over 22,000 jihad attacks since September 11, 2001. Islam is the problem.

In a discussion about Islam, we come to his crabbing about Christians. The rabbi’s comments have a slight flavor of Islamo-philia and Christo-phobia. Muslim jihadists kill Christians in the Westgate Mall (Kenya is about 90% Christian) which is owned by Jews and he speaks negatively about Christians.

I find that when a discussion about Islam turns to the Christians, it is because the person does not know enough about Islamic doctrine to carry forward. So they change the subject to one they know about.

What our rabbi does not seem to realize is that under Sharia law, Christians and Jews are in the same boat. After the Saturday people come the Sunday people.

As to “fundamentalism”, every Muslim believes the Koran is the exact, complete and perfect words of the only god. Every Muslim believes that Mohammed is the perfect model for all behavior. When Muslims say that they are believers that is what they mean. Every Muslim is a literalist; does that make every Muslim a fundamentalist? And why is being a fundamentalist bad? The case that a liberal interpretation is a better intellectual choice is not advanced, just assumed. It is not a matter of fundamentalism, but the truth of the Koran and the Sunna. Any scholar who reads the Koran and has studied world religious literature sees that the Koran is actually a derivative work that only advances two new ideas:

1. Mohammed is the prophet of Allah is the new truth introduced in Mecca.
2. The Medinan Koran introduces the new idea that if you do not accept Mohammed as the prophet of Allah, then you can be harmed.

The rabbi does not actually comment on whether he submits to the “truth” of the Koran. Rabbi, is the Koran true or false? Is Mohammed the divine human prototype? I hold that the Koran is a man made document and that Mohammed was deluded. That is why I am a Kafir.

L’shalom,

After calling me a hater and a liar, the rabbi signs off with peace.

There is a tragedy that goes far beyond his ignorance. Imagine that he is giving advice about the threat to Israel. Since he argues that jihadists are not real Muslims, he cannot understand the jihad against Israel as an expression of Islamic political doctrine. He cannot even use the jihad doctrine as a plan B to interpret political action on the ground to defend Israel.

What will this rabbi do when a woman of his congregation comes to him for advice about marrying a Muslim? Will he be able to tell her the facts about a Sharia marriage or will he give her his romantic fantasy about how we are all one happy family of Abraham?

Knowledge must come before wisdom. Rabbi, get yourself a copy of Mark Durie’s The Third Choice (he is an Anglican priest) or if you cannot read what a Christian writes about Mohammed, then read Andrew Bostom’s Islamic Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism (warning, it is a more difficult read) so that you can take the first step towards being a wise leader of the Jews. Or, if the rabbi can stand the vitriolic Jew hatred from Islamic clerics (yes, they are real Muslims practicing real Islam), check out the MEMRI website .

See The Counter Jihad Report’s Bill Warner youtube playlist 

Saudi braces for Hajj Brotherhood protests

0001-1024x440By FRANCE 24:

With supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood calling for demonstrations backing ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi during the Hajj pilgrimage, Saudi Arabia has tightened security for the annual event.

Every year before the start of the Hajj, Saudi authorities warn the faithful against using the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca as a platform to air their grievances or make political statements.

Amid heightened tensions gripping the Arab world – from Syria to Egypt – Saudi authorities this year are taking no chances.

As millions of Muslims converge on Mecca to make the five-day Hajj, which starts on October 13, Saudi Arabia has mobilised additional security. It wants to ensure that the Muslim Brotherhood does not hijack attention at the annual pilgrimage – and that includes ensuring that a certain four-finger political symbol is not displayed.

On Thursday, Egypt’s minister of religious endowments, Mokhtar Gomaa, said Muslim Brotherhood members were planning to disrupt the annual pilgrimage.

“We all know that the Brotherhood is an international organisation and that some members might plan political protests during Hajj to drive a wedge between Egypt and Saudi Arabia,” said Gomaa.

His comments followed media reports that Morsi supporters have called on Brotherhood sympathisers to flash the “Rabba” sign during the Hajj. This would be in memory of  demonstrators killed around Cairo’s Rabba al-Adawiya mosque in August following Morsi’s overthrow.

“Rabba” in Arabic means “four” or “fourth”. It has become the name for a four-finger hand sign that in some quarters has replaced the two-fingered “V for Victory” gesture adopted during the 2011 Arab uprisings.

Morsi supporters also use yellow posters emblazoned with the four-finger Rabba symbol during protests.

Read more

 

Islam: Religion of Bigots

Picture-5-230x350By :

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that Islam is “a religion of peace.”  His administration has accused those who do not agree with this proposition — or who dare mention Islamic violence against women and homicidal oppression of homosexuals — of “Islamophobia.”

These are fictions and the President has done the country a fundamental disservice by promulgating them.  The truth?  The true religious bigotry is the one that exists in the heart of Islamic orthodoxy.  In Saudi Arabia, the existence of Christian churches is prohibited, along with the Bible itself; no Christian or Jew can enter Mecca or Medina lest their mere footsteps desecrate Islam’s holiest sites.  In Pakistan and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world, conversion from Islam to Christianity is punishable by death.  In Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and even the President’s beloved Indonesia, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other “infidels” often face acts of religious genocide by fundamentalists who invoke core Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions.

In short, as Robert Spencer shows in his alarming new pamphlet, Islam: Religion of Bigots, the creed of Muhammad, far from being a religion of peace, has revealed itself in the post-9/11 world to be a religion of bigotry.

To order the pamphlet, click here.

Islam: Religion of Bigots

by Robert Spencer

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance,” proclaimed President Barack Obama during his appeal to the Muslim world from Cairo on June 4, 2009. “We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country.”1

Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. Even during what is generally considered to have been the Golden Age of Islamic “tolerance,” it is more accurate to say that non-Muslims were tolerated as second-class subjects rather than respected as equals under Islamic regimes. They were regarded as dhimmis, whose residence was conditioned on their submission to humiliating regulations that ensured their subjugation to the Muslim population. They had to pay an onerous special tax (jizya) mandated by the Qur’an (9:29), for example, and wear special marks identifying their second-class status.

Moreover, unlike Christendom, whose leaders have issued apologies for past mistreatment of Jews and condemned the scriptural justifications for that mistreatment, authorities in the Muslim world from Muhammad’s day to this have never thought twice about referring to Jews as “apes and pigs” (cf. Qur’an 2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166), or regarding them as destined by God’s will for destruction. These are some of the salient facts that Obama’s charitable view obscures at a time when prominent Muslim leaders including Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the world’s most prominent Muslim cleric, are calling on the faithful to finish the extermination of the Jews that Hitler began.2

In countries where Muslims are a small minority, such as the United States, there is a surface plausibility to Obama’s claim. Muslim groups have so far accommodated themselves to a democracy whose secular faith is one of diversity and tolerance. But in countries and communities where Muslims constitute a national majority, the face of Islam looks quite different. In Saudi Arabia, the existence of Christian churches is prohibited, along with the possession of Christian Bibles; no Christian or Jew is allowed to enter the cities of Mecca and Medina lest their footprints defile Islam’s sacred sites. As the Kingdom of the Two Holy Places, Saudi Arabia has a unique status in the Islamic world. One aspect of this status is that Mecca and Medina are realizations of Muhammad’s command to remove all but Muslims from the Arabian Peninsula.Mecca and Medina represent the aspirations of the Muslim world, the vision of a quintessential Islamic society: one in which there are no non-Muslims.

In Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere, conversion from Islam to Christianity is already punishable by death, in accord with Muhammad’s command. In Thailand, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, and even Obama’s beloved Indonesia, religious minorities — Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and non-believers –face harassment and often violent religious persecution. These persecutions are carried out by jihadist Muslims who invoke core Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions. In short, in the Muslim world itself, which since 9/11 has been increasingly swept up in the tide of Islamic supremacism, the creed of Muhammad reveals itself to be a religion of bigots rather than, as President Obama would have it, a religion of peace.

There is a theological foundation for Islamic bigotry. The Qur’an calls the Jews and Christians who reject Muhammad “the most vile of created beings” (98:6). It says that the “polytheists are unclean” (9:28), and since it claims that Jews consider Ezra the Son of God the way Christians consider Jesus the Son of God (9:30), and that “it is not befitting for Allah to take a son” (19:35), in Islamic theology, Jews and Christians are as much polytheists as are Hindus and hence just as unclean.

Read more 

THE MUSLIM MOSQUE: A STATE WITHIN A STATE

Muslim pilgrims circle the Kaaba and pray at the Grand mosque during the annual haj pilgrimage in the holy city of Meccaby Vijay Kumar

THE KABAH IN MECCA WAS NOT BUILT AS AN ISLAMIC MOSQUE. It was an ancient temple that had been shared by polytheists, Christians, Jews, and Hindus, honoring 360 different deities. In 630 A.D. the Kabah was captured by Islam in its military invasion and conquest of Mecca.

On the day of its capture, Mohammed delivered an address at the Kabah in military dress and helmet, according to Ayatullah Ja’far Subhani in his book, “The Message”:

“Bear in mind that every claim of privilege, whether that of blood or property is abolished . . . I reject all claims relating to life and property and all imaginary honors of the past, and declare them to be baseless . . . A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim and all the Muslims are brothers of one another and constitute one hand as against the non-Muslims. The blood of every one of them is equal to that of others and even the smallest among them can make a promise on behalf of others.” —Mohammed

Mohammed’s address at the Kabah overthrew the Meccan government and declared all of Islam, anywhere in the world, to be a political and military state against all non-Muslims, regardless of the non-Muslims’ political, geographical, or national origins.

“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him.” —Koran 3:85

Although the rightful owners of the Kabah are the many religions that shared it before the Islamic military conquest of Mecca, according to Subhani the Kabah today is under the control of a hereditary regime going back to Mohammed: “currently the 12th Imam from the direct descent of the Prophet of Islam is the real protector, its custodian and guardian.”

All Islamic mosques everywhere in the world are required to have a clear visible indication pointing in the direction of Mecca and the Kabah, where the international political and military state of Islam was founded. In most mosques there is a niche in the wall—the mihrab—that points toward the seat of Islamic power. Each mosque, like the Kabah, is governed by an Imam in compliance with the political documents of Islam.

Mosques and the Political Documents of Islam

The Koran is the supreme political document of Islam—its political manifesto and political constitution. It is the only constitution of the nation-state Saudi Arabia, which is the home of Mecca and the Kabah, where all mosques point, and is the birthplace of Islam.

The Koran is a totalitarian constitution. It demands submission by anyone within its jurisdiction. The Koran governs all mosques everywhere in the world.

As a political document, the Koran asserts that everyone in the world is within its jurisdiction. So far, Islam has not been able to enforce that totalitarian claim on the entire world, but has managed to do so through threat, infiltration, violence, terrorism, and coercion on roughly 20% of the world. It is engaged in a 1400-year-long Universal Jihad to dominate the rest of the world. All mosques are its outpost headquarters.

Central to the Koran’s political mandates is prohibition of religious freedom and religious tolerance, along with denouncements of religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

 

“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” —Koran 5:51

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)” —Koran 9:5

All mosque leaders must be loyal to and supportive of these political and militaristic mandates.

The Koran as a political document also forbids separation of church and state. That is why every Islamic nation, where Islamic leaders have managed to gain power, is a theocracy, ruled by the Koran and Islamic Sharia law.

The Hadith (reported sayings and acts of Mohammed) and the Sira (the official biographies of Mohammed) are the other political documents that, along with the Koran, constitute the basis for Islam’s Sharia law.

“There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Sharia.” —Syed Qutb

Sharia law is administered by Islamic Imams who interpret the law and hand down rulings in their sole discretion. Sharia law does not allow trial by jury. Sharia law also mandates a double standard of laws for Muslims (believers) and infidels (non-believers). Sharia law mandates a discriminatory tax, called jizya, on non-Islamic religions and nations:

“Fight those who believe not in Allah…until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” —Koran 9:29

Sharia law also mandates discrimination toward women, and forbids any criticism of Islam or its founder, stifling freedom of speech.

Sharia law also mandates that all men are slaves with no right to freedom of religion:

“Allah’s right on His slaves is that they should worship Him (Alone) and should not worship any besides Him.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:108, Narrated Mu’adh

Sharia law does not allow for separation of church and state. Sharia regards church and state as one inseparable entity governing every aspect of individual and social life, both spiritual and secular. That is why all Islamic nations are theocracies.

In short, Sharia law stands in direct opposition to the American Constitution and Bill of Rights. The implementation of Sharia law demands the overthrow of the American Constitution and our form of government and system of laws. Mosque leaders, in every nation in the world, are loyal to the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, and consider them divine law, and therefore supreme over all manmade laws.

Other political and military documents of Islam include treaties of Mohammed, which are held in reverence by Islam as models of conduct in relations between nations.

“Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for anyone whose hope is in Allah.” —Koran 33:21

“War is deceit.” —Mohammed, Sahih Bukhari 4:52:268, Narrated Abu Hurarira

In one treaty proposal, to Jaifer and Abd, Mohammed wrote:

“If you two accept Islam, your country will, as usual, remain with you. But if you refuse or object, it is a perishable thing.” —Mohammed

In another, to the Chiefs of Aqaba, he wrote:

“It is better for you either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jizya and consent to remain obedient to Allah . . . If you do not accept these terms . . . I shall have to wage war (to bring peace and security).” —Mohammed

These same patterns and political mandates have been used over and over by Muslims since 610 A.D. to invade and conquer many civilizations and nations throughout the world, and to eradicate human rights and freedoms in those lands. Iran once was called Persia and was Zorastrian. Egypt was Christian. What was once a Hindu civilization was conquered and made into Pakistan, which is now part of the Axis of Jihad, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was Buddhist for thousands of years. Now its chief exports are heroin and Islamic terrorism.

“When We decide to destroy a population, We (first) send a definite order to those among them who are given the good things of this life and yet transgress; so that the word is proved true against them: then (it is) We destroy them utterly.” —Koran 17:16

In every instance where Islam has conquered and “destroyed utterly” a nation or civilization, the key to the conquest was the establishment of mosques, which are political and military command and control centers for Islam, and which all point toward the seat of Islamic power: the Kabah.

Mosques and the Fallacy of the “Moderate Muslim”

The majority of Germans during World War II were not active members of the Nazi party, were not waging war, and were not involved in the holocaust. The leaders, though, were active members of the Nazi party, were waging war, and were involved in the holocaust.

The majority of Russians and eastern Europeans under the rule of the U.S.S.R. were not trying to spread Communism throughout the world, and were not threatening and waging war and revolution, but were going about their daily lives trying to survive. The leaders, though, were doing everything they could to spread Communism throughout the world, and were threatening and waging war and revolution.

Throughout history, since 610 A.D., the leaders of Islam have been waging Universal Jihad around the world for the purpose of Islamic totalitarian domination of the world. It has never mattered what percentage of the Muslim population was “peaceful” or “moderate.” Peace and moderation are not relevant to the totalitarian mandates of Islam’s political documents, and Islam’s leaders always follow the totalitarian mandates of Universal Jihad contained in them.

There are post-Nazi democracies. There are post-Communist democracies. There are no post-Islamic democracies. Literal Islam, as contained in its political documents, is the consummate totalitarianism. Neither Nazism or Communism had a metaphysical factor, as does Islam. Islam uses its metaphysics as a wedge to drive in its totalitarian political doctrines.

Once Islam has established itself sufficiently in any nation, it seeks to overthrow any existing regime or constitution or law, and replace it with Islamic theocracy. Even the most “moderate” Muslim is bound to obey Islamic law, and so is bound to fight if ordered to fight:

“When you are called (by the Muslim ruler) for fighting, go forth immediately.” —Hadith Sahih Bukhari 4:52:79:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas

All Islamic mosques have Islamic leaders (rulers) who can call Muslims for fighting, and as such are satellite headquarters for spreading Literal Islam’s political doctrine of world domination and totalitarianism—no matter how many “moderate Muslims” they serve.

Read more at Political Islam

 

Subjective Islam – Objective Islam

By Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam:

Some people don’t want to learn about Islam from someone who was not a Muslim, a professor or some other “approved” source of information. How can someone without a degree in Islam be an expert on it?

The question is who can we trust to tell the truth about Islam? The answer you will get by going by talking to Muslims has the advantage that if you choose the right country and the right Muslim, you will get the “right” answer. But if you ask the “wrong” Muslim (usually called an extremist or radical Muslim) you will get the answer you won’t like. Is Saudi Arabia or Turkey the right country to go to? Is a Wahabbi imam or a Islamist scholar of Islam the right person to ask? Subjective Islam is a polling problem. Who you ask determines the answer you get. Apologists for Islam ask the “expert” who gives them the answer they want—Islam is wonderful.

But there is one source of knowledge about Islam that is not subjective. If you talk to Muslims, you will find that there is one thing that they all agree on: There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger. This statement is the beginning of Islamic objective knowledge, since 100% of all Muslims believe it.

Allah is found in the Koran. When you read and understand the Koran, you find that there are 91 verses that command all Muslims to imitate Mohammed, the divine human prototype. We find out what Mohammed did and said in order to imitate him in two places – Mohammed’s biography, the Sira, and his Traditions, the Hadith. And that is all there is to know about Islamic doctrine:

• Koran
• Sira
• Hadith

Objective truth: if it is in the Koran, Sira and Hadith, it is Islam. Islam is Allah and Mohammed, no exceptions. So skip asking a Muslim, going to a Muslim country or asking a professor. For objective answers, ask Mohammed and Allah. In other words, read the Koran, Sira and Hadith. The problem is that no one reads them is because they used to be difficult. Today are available because simple scientific methods have produced versions that anybody can read. For one example, see the Trilogy Project.

Mecca medina graph

Statistical methods reveal that there are two Korans, Mecca and Medina, and that there are two Mohammeds. In Mecca the Koran is religious, but only a 150 people became Muslims in 13 years time. Later in Medina, Mohammed became a politician and a jihadist, and the Koran becomes jihadic and political.

There are two Islams, two sets of facts – Mecca and Medina. Preaching the religion in Mecca was a failure. But, Mohammed averaged an event of jihad every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life, and by the time he died, every Arab was a Muslim. So if you want peaceful Islam go to Mecca. If you want politics and violence, go to Medina. Islam is a dualistic system where peace and jihad exist side by side. Dualism allows “experts” to get what they want, a peaceful Islam in Mecca. See, there it is in the Meccan Koran—peace. Just don’t ever mention Medina and the news is good.

However, the only trustworthy experts are Mohammed and Allah, found in Islam’s texts. They will tell you the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So, here is the rule to grade your experts: listen to those who quote Mohammed and Allah. And ask the expert: What else does Islam teach about this? Get the whole truth, the whole story.

Better yet, since the Koran, Sira and Hadith have been made readable by the average person, read the texts and become an expert yourself by quoting Allah and Mohammed. You will bring objective Islam to your world.

 

For more Bill Warner videos go to The Counterjihad Report’s Youtube Channel Playlist

“Islamic Science” or Islamic Propaganda?

sultans_of_scienceBy :

For years now, as we all know, newspapers, magazines, and book publishers around the Western world have shrunk from publishing texts that touch on some of the more uncomfortable truths about Islam, preferring instead to give us all but idyllic accounts of Muslim history and belief and hagiographies of its prophet. Similarly, film, TV, and theater producers have gotten into the habit of scrubbing scripts free of anything that might be considered critical of Islam, even as they’ve given the green light to one project after another that has done a thoroughgoing job of whitewashing the Religion of Peace.

Museums, too, have played this same timid game, quietly removing centuries-old images of Muhammed from display and putting them into storage for fear of offending believers. Meanwhile, museumgoers have been treated to shows that are sheer Islamic propaganda.

Last year, Nick Cohen wrote in the Observer about one such exhibition that was then on display at the British Museum. It professed to present an informed view of the history of the Hajj – the pilgrimage to Mecca – going all the way back to Muhammed. But, as Cohen observed, the museum’s version of Muhammed’s life stuck to “the authorised version of ‘religious scholars,’” ignoring actual findings by real historians. It also excluded “evidence that might embarrass the Saudi royal family,” such as the fact that those royals have “wrecked Mecca,” destroying “the remnants of the 7th-century city.”

Why should the British Museum be so concerned about Saudi sensitivities? Simple: because a Saudi library was the museum’s partner in putting on the exhibition; because Saudi authorities had loaned key items to the show; and because financial sponsorship had been provided by (or through?) a bank that “issues sharia-compliant loans.”

The exhibition dropped other things down the memory hole, too. It included no mention of terrorist acts that have occurred during the Hajj. Nor did it acknowledge “the stampedes, bridge collapses and fires that have claimed the lives of thousands of pilgrims” year after year. When asked by Cohen about these major omissions, museum officials “waffled” that such details “did not fit into the exhibition’s remit.”

Cut to Oslo, Norway, a year later. Tomorrow, an exhibition entitled “Sultans of Science: Islamic Science Rediscovered” will open at the Norwegian Museum of Science and Technology (an independent institution, but one that receives considerable financial support from the Norwegian state). According to the museum, “Sultans of Science” is “the largest science exhibition that has ever been seen in Norway.” Although, over the last few years, it has been on display in venues “in New Jersey, South Africa, Toronto, Edmonton, San Jose, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia,” this marks its first appearance anywhere in Europe. “We are proud to bring this exhibition to Norway and delighted to unfold the knowledge of a great civilization which will be an engaging and educating experience for our visitors,” museum director Hans Weinberger said in a press release.

On its website, the museum invites adults and children alike to come see “Sultans of Science” and thus “get acquainted with an important scientific legacy from Islamic culture.” Singing the praises of “the golden age of Islamic science,” during which “science was encouraged and supported” by “the great Islamic caliphates,” the museum’s website informs us that “the development of European culture was…directly influenced by Islamic culture,” but that the traces of this influence were eventually, and tragically, “erased.” Simply put, the purpose of this show is to acquaint Western audiences with the riches of Islamic science and its immense impact on Western science and technology.

In short: a giant tsunami of propaganda is about to hit Norway.

Needless to say, there are two main points to be made whenever the words “Islam” and “science” come up. The first is that Islamic culture, like none other on earth, has proven to be a remarkably powerful impediment to the development of anything remotely deserving of the name of science. The second point, a corollary of the first, is that the relatively few worthy scientific discoveries and inventions for which Islamic cultures can take credit have occurred in spite of, and not because of, any identifiable “Islamic” influence.

Read more at Front Page

 

Islam Coexists?

By Bill Warner:

There is an enormous irony contained in the Boston Marathon bombing. When the jihadi Tsarnaev brothers carjacked a Mercedes, it had a Coexist bumper sticker.

The Coexist bumper sticker is the religious symbol of the multicultural crowd — you know — all religions are the same. Well, the leading symbol of those who want to Coexist is the star and crescent Islam. And exactly how well has Islam coexisted with all the others? What kind of neighbor has Islam been over history?

Start with Mohammed. We know an enormous amount about Mohammed as a neighbor to Kafirs (non-Muslims), pagans, Jews, and Christians.

When Mohammed was in Mecca before he became a Muslim, he was a good neighbor who was prosperous and helped to settle disputes. But, that all changed when he became the prophet of Allah. Once he became a public preacher of Islam, he became an irritant to his neighbors. You see, not only did Mohammed know what was right, he demanded that everybody do everything his way, Allah’s way. He was a neighbor who was always right and you were always wrong. Not only were you wrong, but your parents and grandparents were wrong. Mohammed no longer settled arguments; he created arguments. After 13 years of this, the Meccans told Mohammed to leave Mecca.

So he went to the town of Medina, which was half Jewish. And what kind of neighbor was Mohammed to the Jews? Put briefly, two years later, Medina was Judenrein (cleansed of Jews). When he arrived, there were three tribes of Jews. In rapid order, the first tribe was driven out of town, bereft of its goods. Then the second tribe of Jews was exiled. They were lucky. The last of the Jewish tribes suffered the most. The women were enslaved and sold wholesale for money to purchase horses and arms for jihad. For the rest of his life, Mohammed used slavery to help finance his jihad. The children were kidnapped and adopted into Muslim families to be raised as Muslims. Then the 800 male Jews were all beheaded.

But wait. Mohammed was not through coexisting with the Jews. Later he left Medina and went to Khaybar and attacked them. Mohammed crushed them, took their wealth and put them to work under the Sharia s dhimmis and give him half of what they earned.

That was how Mohammed coexisted with the Jews.

But Mohammed was not through with coexisting with the Arabians. He attacked the Meccan caravans. His jihadists killed, kidnapped, stole, assassinated and fought the pagan Arabs at every turn. Mohammed’s coexistence policy with the Arabs was jihad. This went on until every Arab became a Muslim.

After Mohammed made every soul in Arabia convert to Islam, he turned his coexistence policy to the Christians north of Arabia in Syria. He attacked the Christians, with the losers becoming dhimmis just like the Jews.

Dhimmis are the way that the Sharia allows Kafirs to coexist within a Muslim society. The dhimmi is a third-class non-citizen who pays special taxes and has no real civil rights. A dhimmi cannot testify against a Muslim in court, for instance.

Look at how Islam coexisted with Africa. A clue as to the nature of that coexistence is that Arabic has one word, “abd”, that means both black slave and African. Context must supply which meaning is used. Islam ran the slave trade on the West coast, East coast and Mediterranean coasts of Africa. Islam sold every slave that was brought to the Americas. Conservative estimates are that 120 million Africans were killed in the jihad that produced all of the slaves in Africa.

How did Islam coexist with the Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan? Jihad annihilated every single Buddhist and their libraries and monasteries.

There is a massive database of the coexistence between Islam and the rest of the world at thereligionofpeace.com. It catalogs more than 20,000 jihad attacks around the world since 9/11 2001.

Read more at American Thinker

He Seemed Like Such a Nice Guy

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

Saudi Arabia Tears Down Column Marking Muslim Claim to Jerusalem

no-flying-horse-for-you-267x350By :

For those who are fans of imaginary archeology, the Muslim claim to Jerusalem is based on the “night journey” that Mohammed took on a flying horse from Mecca to Jerusalem.

The Night Journey was a fiction of mythological colonialism allowing Muslims to lay claim to Jewish sites and their history. It also played a role in the Muslim infighting that led to a boost in the importance of Jerusalem after its conquest. Developing the legend compensates for the fact that Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran.

Muslims seized the holiest site in Judaism, planted a mosque on the site and routinely wail about Jewish incursions on a Jewish holy site. (This isn’t unique, Muslims have done the same thing to Christian and Hindu holy sites. Not to mention outright destroying Buddhist holy sites.)

One problem.

Muslim vandalism isn’t just limited to other people’s holy sites. Islamists are notorious for destroying even Muslim shrines. That is how Wahhabism began. It’s what Salafis are now doing in Libya and Mali.

And now the Saudi royal family has destroyed a whole bunch of Islamic heritage sites… including the column from which Mohammed supposedly took off on his flying horse from Mecca.

Read more at Front Page

 

Islam and Environmentalism: United in Anti-Humanism

Picture-7-450x286

By Theodore Shoebat

With Al Gore’s Current TV now sold to Al Jazeera, Woodstock and Mecca now unite, and Allah and Mother Earth are joined together in marriage. The purchase brings us to a much deeper topic, and that is that the ideology of Islam coincides with much of what the environmentalists uphold. Al Gore claims to be a Christian, but in fact he would rather praise Islam than subscribe to any Christian ideals. Gore actually once wrote:

Islam, for example, offers familiar themes. The prophet Muhammad said, “The world is green and beautiful and God has appointed you His stewards over it.” The central concepts of Islam taught by the Qur’ân – Tawheed (unity), khalifa (trusteeship), akharah (accountability) – also serve as the pil- lars of the Islamic environmental ethic. The earth is the sacred cre- ation of Allah…The Qur’ân declares that “we have created everything from water.” In the Lotus ‘Sutra,’ Buddha is presented metaphorically as a “rain cloud,” covering, permeating, fertilizing, and enriching “all parched living beings, to free them from their misery to attain the joy of peace, joy of the present world and joy of Nirvana…”

Islam really is rooted in naturism. Allah is a product of the Venus goddess Athtar, and is the male counterpart to the earth goddess Allat. The Blackstone itself, the holiest idol in Islam, was originally a fertility symbol, which is still placed in a frame shaped in the form of a vulva.

The result of wholly accepting environmentalism is the exalting of animals and the belittling of man. Hence why the Quran says that humans are of lesser value than is creation: “The heavens and the earth is greater than the creation of man; but most people know not” (Q 40:57). Even the animal kingdom is on par with humans: “No creature is there on earth nor a bird flying with its wings but they are nations like you” (Q 6:38). Abdul Haseeb Ansari, in Islamic Law, explaining the significance of this verse, warns against arrogance and says that the believers (Muslims) are “no better than other creatures” (p. 34). This reminds me of when Ingrid Newkirk, the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), declared: “When it comes to feelings, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights.”

The result of disrespecting human life is collectivism, since the individual is trampled upon and made no better than a herd servile to the state. Human life does not belong to God, but to the government. This is exactly what Thomas Malthus, the father of modern human population paranoia, wanted when he wrote:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.

To deem human life as no better than an animal leads to actions such as those committed by these Syrian jihadists, who opened fire on innocent people driving in their car:

 

Or to purely evil practices, such as burning human beings alive simply for being Christians:

Christianity is the greatest foe to the demeaning of human life, and to the anti-human movement found in both environmentalism and Islam.

Read more at Front Page

 

Muslim MasterCard: Compass pointing to Mecca embedded in new bank card

Daily Mail:

A compass pointing the way to Mecca is embedded in a new MasterCard aimed at Muslims.

Gulf state-owned bank Al Hillal in the United Arab Emirates has rolled out the new bank card which complies with Islamic laws banning charging interest on loans in a bid to appeal to the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.

Islamic law or Shariah forbids ‘riba’, the charging of interest on loans, because it enables the rich to exploit the poor, creates social and economic tension and encourages risk, according to scholars.

MasterCard spokesman James Issokson said, according to NBCNEWS.com: ‘We continue to see a growing demand, especially in the Middle East, for Islamic banking in general, and more specifically in our case, for cards that are Shariah-compliant in accordance with the tenets of the Islamic faith.’

As well as the compass which allows the cardholder to orientate themselves towards prayers five times a day, the new MasterCard has other benefits.

Cardholders have access to travel vouchers to pay for the Haj pilgrimage to Mecca, which Muslims are required to do at least once in their lifetime if they have the means.

Mr Issokson said: ‘A percentage of the money spent using the card is donated to local charities.’

Read more