Former Al Qaeda Terrorist: Another Attack Coming in ‘Two Weeks’


Megyn, seemingly hearing verses from the Hadith and Quran calling for jihad for the first time, asks “is that radical Islam?”

Fox News Insider, Nov. 17, 2015:

An ex-terrorist who later became a CIA double agent says a second public attack is likely to occur within the next fortnight.

“I believe that within the next two weeks, we will have an attack,” Morten Storm, a Danish former Al Qaeda member, said on “The Kelly File” tonight.

“The people who are on the run at the moment from ISIS in Europe are very desperate, and they know their time’s up, and they will need to do as much damage as possible,” he explained.

Storm said the security situation in Europe has become “quite severe.”

“And I also believe that copycats in America will do their best to do what their brothers have done in Europe,” he said.

Staging an attack here would be “a bit different,” because borders here are more tightly controlled, Storm noted.

But on the other hand, people here have more access to firearms, he said.

He says terrorist militants may focus on “softer targets” in America, such as civilians in “shopping malls,” he said.


During the interview Storm reads from the Hadith and the Quran to get across to the audience that we need to understand where the jihadists are getting their ideology from. Megyn Kelly, looking extremely alarmed, interrupts him and asks in a shocked tone of voice, “is that radical Islam?!” as if she had never heard those verses before. ***sigh***

Islam and the Siege of Paris


Answering Muslims, by David Wood, Nov. 16, 2015:

Following the recent terrorist attacks in Paris, millions of people are once again trying to understand the relationship between Islam and terrorism. Both peaceful Muslims and jihadists quote the Quran to justify their views. In this video, David Wood examines two verses of the Quran to determine the Quranic stance on terror.

“Interfaith Outreach” Movement Led by Marxists and Jihadis

UTT, by John Guandolo, Nov. 3, 2015:

Two weeks ago the Parliament of the World’s Religions held its annual conference at the Salt Lake City Convention Center boasting “10,000 People. 80 Nations. 50 Faiths.”  Representing Islam were the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia.  That alone tells a story, but the presence of Marxists/Alinskyists and Muslim Brotherhood organizations funded primarily by Saudi Arabia driving the “Interfaith Outreach” efforts in America is a stark reminder that well-intentioned people are being duped by those with a dark agenda using the guise of “togetherness” and “tolerance” to achieve nefarious ends.

The key speakers representing Islam at the Parliament of the World’s Religions were Sheikh Salah Abdullah bin Humaid, Chief Justice and Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Abdullah bin Humaid was also the head of the Fiqh Assembly of the Muslim Brotherhood’s World Muslim League in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia’s official legal system is the Sharia (Islamic Law) including the Hudud punishments – stoning for adultery, beheading for those who apostacize from Islam, cutting off hands of thieves – which directly contradicts all Western understanding of human rights.  Those Hudud punishments come directly from the Allah in the Quran.


Sheikh Saleh Abdullah bin Humaid, Chief Justice and Imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia

Also featured as a speaker at the Parliament’s event was Saudi lap-dog and apologist for Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood, John L. Esposito of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding.  Bin Talal is one of the wealthiest Saudi princes in the world and funds the global jihad to the tune of millions of dollars annually.

Funny, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic University.


Tariq Ramadan, International face of the Muslim Brotherhood and grandson of the MB founder

Tariq Ramadan continues to travel the world with a smile on his face fooling Western leaders, especially religious leaders, who view him as a nice man with a peaceful message.  Yet, as one of the leading faces for the International Muslim Brotherhood, he supports Civilization Jihad to overthrow un-Islamic governments and replace them with Sharia because that is the Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and affiliates of these organizations are the key drivers of the U.S. Interfaith movement. ICNA is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. efforts; ISNA is a Hamas support entity; and CAIR is a Hamas organization according to evidence in the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in U.S. history (US v HLF, Dallas 2008).

“Left-wing religious” organizations like the Virginians Organized for Interfaith Community Engagement (VOICE) are directly partnered with the Saul Alinsky organization the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF). The VOICE website is directly tied to IAF –  VOICE dutifully follows the guidance provided by the Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Centers with which they work.


Saul Alinsky (photo 1965), Marxist Revolutionary, Author of Rules for Radicals dedicated to Lucifer

Saul Alinsky was a Marxist revolutionary whose book Rules for Radicals details how to penetrate and overthrow societies.  It was dedicated to Lucifer.  [note:  President Obama studied Alinsky’s lessons and became a “community organizer” – a term coined directly from Rules for Radicals].

Why is it so difficult for Christian leaders to understand Islam?

Islam divides the world into two parts: the Dar al Islam (the house of Islam) where Sharia is the law of the land, and the Dar al Harb (the house of war) – everywhere else.  The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the Dar al Islam and Sharia.  Then there is “peace.”

The vehicle to accomplish this is called “Jihad.”

The Sharia unanimously states lying to non-Muslims is obligatory in the pursuit of obligatory goals. Jihad is obligatory, and 100% of all Islamic Law only defines jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims.”

In Islam, Mohammed is considered the “insan al kamil” or “the perfect man.” Mohammed himself said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat (agreed upon by Al-Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Ibn `Umar).” Then Mohammed waged war against non-Muslims.

When Christians conduct “outreach” to Muslim communities, they must know the ground truth about what they are getting into, especially when they send others in to do this kind of work.

Should Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Marxist Revolutionaries drive American “Interfaith Outreach?”  Whether they should or shouldn’t is not truly the point.  Currently, they are.

In his seminal work, Strength to Love, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. admonished Christians to be tough minded and discerning in their approach to evil. “This prevalent tendency toward soft mindedness is found in man’s unbelievable gullibility…Soft mindedness often invades religion…Soft-minded persons have revised the Beatitudes to read, ‘Blessed are the pure in ignorance: for they shall see God.’”

It is time for the flock to demand their pastors speak the truth about Islam, no matter the cost.

The Most Misleading Passage Ever Quoted From the Koran

you just went full retardCitizen Warrior, Oct. 29, 2015:

“…if anyone killed a person, it would be as if he killed the whole of mankind; and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole of mankind…”

Have you heard this quote? It is from the Koran (5:32). It seems like a straightforward quote, and Muslim apologists use it all the time to illustrate that the Muslims beheading people or blowing up non-Muslims are going against the teachings of Islam. This is misleading. And anyone who knows the Koran and Islam knows it is misleading.

Given that Muslims often respond to violent quotes from the Koran by saying they are quoted out of context, it is ironic that one of their mainstay “positive” Koranic quotes is itself taken out of context.

When Muslims (and news organizations) use this quote, they’re trying to convey the idea that in Islam, murder is wrong and saving lives is good. But that’s not the meaning of the passage. In fact, it’s really the oppositeof what the verse conveys.

This is the whole verse (5:32): “On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person — unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land — it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

In other words, this was a commandment to the “Children of Israel” (Jews). This is not a commandment to all people. It is definitely not a commandment to Muslims, so using it as a quote from the Koran showing how peaceful Islam is definitely qualifies as misleading.

And even if this were a commandment to Muslims, it has the qualification, “unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land.” So according to this verse, someone “spreading mischief” can be killed.

That’s bad enough. But the very next verse of the Koran (5:33) goes even further. It says: “The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

This explains that the correct punishment for mischief is execution, crucifixion, etc. This is a command given to Muslims from the Almighty Himself.

As you can see, this adds up to a much different message than the one so often misleadingly quoted.

I believe that simply sharing the information above wherever that quote is used — this, all by itself — would go a long way to opening peoples’ eyes to not only the true nature of Islam, but to the effort being made to deceive us about Islam.

For more information about this passage, check out the excellent site, Answering Muslims.

The article above is also posted on Inquiry Into Islam here.

The Fantasy Islam of Reza Aslan


Frontpage, by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, Oct. 27, 2015:

Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

As I have mentioned before, “Fantasy Islam” is a popular game among many non-Muslims and so-called “moderate” or “reformist” Muslims.  Reza Aslan appears to be such a Muslim.

Reza Aslan was born in Iran.  In 1979, at the age of seven, he and his family fled the Iranian Revolution and came to the United States.  At the age of 15 he converted to evangelical Christianity, but later returned to Islam.  His website states that he is “an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions.”  He is currently a Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

In 2005 Aslan wrote a book titled No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. The updated edition came out in 2011.  This article addresses that updated edition.

It should be noted that in his book Aslan listed The Life of Muhammad and the multi-volume work The History of al-Tabari, as among the books he “consulted.”  These are classical works by Muslim scholars and major sources for information about Muhammad and Islam.  Aslan even specifically mentions them as among those that have “catalogued” the story of Islam (p. xxiv).  Unfortunately, although Aslan claims that he “consulted” them, we will see that he apparently overlooked conflicting information in these works in favor of playing Fantasy Islam.

Death Penalty for Apostasy is “Un-Quranic”

On p. 121 Aslan stated that the death penalty for apostasy was “un-Quranic,” and he stated that nowhere in the Koran “is any earthly punishment prescribed for apostasy.”

The only problem for Aslan is that in 4:89 of the Koran Allah commands Muslims to take hold of those apostates who have left Islam and “kill them wherever you find them.”  So the death penalty for apostasy from Islam is in the Koran.

In addition, Muhammad said that death was the penalty for a Muslim who left Islam (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 6878 and 6923; and Sahih Muslim, No. 1676).  And Muhammad even specified the nature of that death:

If someone changes his religion – then strike off his head!

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 36.18.15, in a section titled “Judgement on Abandonment of Islam.”

No Foundation in the Koran for Stoning

On p. 71 Aslan wrote about the “misogynistic tendencies” of Umar, the second Caliph, and how Umar

instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primarily at women.  Chief among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment which has absolutely no foundation whatsoever in the Quran but which Umar justified by claiming it had originally been part of the Revelation and had somehow been left out of the authorized text.  Of course, Umar never explained how it was possible for a verse such as this “accidentally” to have been left out of the Divine Revelation of God[.]

It is a common play in Fantasy Islam to claim that stoning is not a part of Islam because it is not in the Koran, so let’s take a look at this claim.

In the first place, it is correct to state that the Koran says nothing about stoning.  The original punishment for adultery in the Koran (4:15) focused on women and confining them to their houses until they died; but there was a key provision at the end of this verse: “or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.”

Muhammad later received a “revelation” from Allah explaining that “other way”:

‘Ubada b. As-Samit reported: Allah’s Messenger (SAW) saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me.  Allah has ordained a way for those (women).  When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year.  And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

Sahih Muslim, No. 1690

So now, instead of confinement, the punishment for adultery would be lashing and stoning.  The punishment of lashing was codified in 24:2 of the Koran.  Muhammad considered stoning as the appropriate penalty for adultery up to his death.  He ordered many an adulterer to be stoned, as did his successors.

Umar did make the claim that the Verse of Stoning had been left out when the Koran was compiled (e.g.Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 6830).  But when the Koran was being compiled Umar had tried to get it included.  However, the standard for including a “revelation” as a verse was that it had to be certified by two witnesses, and there appeared to be only one witness: Umar.

But in reality there was a second witness, Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha:

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow.  When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 1944

Even though on p. 70 Aslan had written that “nearly one sixth of all ‘reliable’ hadith can be traced back to Muhammad’s wife Aisha,” the idea of using her as a witness apparently came up against 2:282 of the Koran.  This verse requires the testimony of two women in order to equal that of one man in property matters.  So even though both Umar and Aisha claimed there had been a stoning verse “revealed,” we would still only have at best one and one-half witnesses, therefore falling short of the two witnesses required to include a verse in the Koran.  It would appear that this is why there is no Verse of Stoning in the Koran.  Nevertheless, it is still a part of Islam:

Now the punishment of adultery has been fixed, which is stoning to death.  That punishment also remained in force during the times of the Rightly-Guided caliphs (successors of the Messenger of Allah) and that remained the unanimous opinion of all the jurists and scholars afterwards…The law that prescribes stoning the adultery [sic] to death is supported by authentic hadeeths, and their narrators are numerous, and hence, scholars grade those hadeeths as mutawatir [frequently reported].  A Muslim has, therefore, no choice except to acknowledge and accept it.

Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 3, p. 665

Read more

In Light of Jeremiah Wright’s Comments UTT Asks: Was Jesus a Muslim?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Oct. 12, 2015:

Saturday at the Nation of Islam event titled “Justice or Else!” President Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright stated Jesus was a “Palestinian.”  This is historically untrue, but it opens up a door for a deeper discussion.

In light of a nationwide push by Muslim Brotherhood organizations to propagate the message that Jesus of Nazareth was a Muslim, it is time to bring some much needed light onto this subject.

abThis billboard, and many like it, are funded and sponsored by groups such as ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America) which is a leading jihadi organization in North America and a driving force in Interfaith Outreach here.

Since Islamic jihadis attacked the United States on 9/11/2001, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood has led a large-scale information operation (“propaganda campaign” if you prefer) to convince Americans – especially religious leaders – Islam is a one degree off from Christianity and Judaism.  Almost the same really.

We are told by leading Muslim scholars in America (who just happen to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood), there is “One God” and “Three Abrahamic Faiths” – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.  We are also told “Muslims respect Jesus too.”  The first is a lie according to Islamic doctrine.  The second is true if you understand Islam through the lens of Islam.

Islam and Sharia

Islam divides the world into the Dar al Islam (“House of Islam” where Sharia is the law of the land) and the Dar al Harb (“House of War” – everywhere else).  The purpose of Islam is to eliminate the Dar al Harb until the entire world is under the Dar al Islam.  The vehicle to do this is called Jihad.  Once the entire world is under Sharia, there will be “Peace.”

Islam defines itself as a “complete way of life governed by Sharia (Islamic Law).”  Sharia comes from the Quran and the Sunnah (the way of the Prophet Mohammad).


The Quran can only be understood if “Abrogation” is understood.  The Quranic concept of Abrogation comes from Quaran 16:101 and 2:106, and is understood by all Sunni Islamic scholars to mean that whatever comes chronologically last in the Quran overrules what comes before it.

It should be noted that all Islamic scholars agree Sura (Chapter) 9 of the Quran is the last (chronologically) to discuss Jihad, and Sura 5 is the last to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

An example:  the Quran says “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (Quran 2:256).  However, that is abrogated when Allah says all people who do not convert to Islam will go to hell (Quran 3:85), which is why Muslims are commanded never to take Jews and Christians for their friends (Quran 5:51).  Therefore, Muslims are commanded to “Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in every strategem of war.” (Quran 9:5)  In addition to converting to Islam or being killed, people of the book (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastians) get the third option of submitting to Islam, paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and living under Sharia with lesser rights than Muslims. (Quran 9:29)


In Islam, Mohammad is considered the al Insan al Kamil – the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. His sayings, actions, and example are codified in authoritative Hadith and in the Sira (biographies of Mohammad).  The most authoritative Hadith scholar is Bukhari.  This is critical to understanding Islam and how Muslims relate to the world.

The reason it is okay for a 60 year old Lebanese Muslim man to marry an 8 year old girl, is because Mohammad married a 6 year old and consummated the relationship when she was only 9.  The reason Muslims wage war on non-Muslims until Islam rules the world is because Allah commanded it (9:5 et al), Mohammad repeated this command as related by Bukhari, and then Mohammad waged war on non-Muslims and made them convert, submit, or die.  This is why there is no disagreement among the scholars on these matters.

One God, Three Abrahamic Faiths?

So let us go back to the question:  Can Allah be the same God of the Christians and Jews?  Can the same God who calls the Jews his chosen people (Deuteronomy 7:6-8 for example) be the same God who calls for a holocaust of the Jews?

“The Prophet said, ‘The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.’ (Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926).

How can the God of the Bible who calls us to love one another (Leviticus 19:18 and John 15:12) be the same God (Allah) who calls Muslims to “Fight them (non-Muslims), and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them.” (Quran 9:14)

Allah will “punish” non-Muslims through the hands of the Muslims.  This verse (9:14) creates a requirement for Muslims to punish non-Muslims.

Is Jesus a Muslim?

As seen through the eyes of Islam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and others are Muslim prophets.  How can that be?  We must first begin by understanding Islam teaches that no authentic Torahs, Old Testaments, or New Testaments exist on the planet today.

Islam teaches the Quran has existed for all time in Paradise.  When the authentic Law of Moses was given to the Jewish people, those who did not follow it were lost (condemned).  When Jesus brought the Gospel, those who did not follow it were lost.  When Mohammad came with the “final” revelations as the “seal” of the prophets, those who did not follow Islam were lost.

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous.” (Quran 5:46)           [emphasis added]

Islam teaches that corrupt Jews and Christian priests changed the original Old and New Testaments which, according to Islam, predicted the coming of Mohammed.

“And if only they upheld [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to them from their Lord, they would have consumed provision from above them and from beneath their feet. Among them are a moderate community, but many of them – evil is that which they do.” (Quran 5:66)

Historical accounts, biblical manuscripts, the Dead Sea Scrolls, archeology, and other tangible sources of evidence be damned.  This is what Islam teaches.

To the point…

Can the Jesus who said to his followers “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6) be the same guy about whom this is said:  “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya. Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.” (Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 425)

No one comes to our Father in heaven except through Jesus OR will Jesus return to cast all Christians into hell for not converting and kill the Jews (pigs)?  It cannot be both.

Can it be true that Jesus and the Father are one (John 10:30 and 14:9), the Holy Spirit guides his disciples since Jesus ascended to heaven, and can disciples of Jesus say the Apostles Creed with integrity while this is true:  “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Quran 5:73)

Jesus was either the Messiah and the Son of God who was crucified, died, resurrected and ascended as Christians teach and believe or he is merely a prophet as Islam believes.  It is one or the other.  He cannot simply be a “nice” guy.  Jesus himself claimed to be the Son of God and the Son of Man.  If that is not true he was a liar.

This is not a theological debate.  This is a discussion of logic and reason.  These two worlds are completely incompatible with one another in the realm of Logic 101.

Christians believe God is the Father, the Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  One God, three persons in a heroic fellowship into which mankind was invited to participate relationally.  God promises his inheritance and his Kingdom to his children whom he loves because he created them in his image.  Jesus gave all who believe in him all the authority his Father in heaven gave him to continue his work (John 14:12, Mark 16:17-18), and lifted all believers, spiritually, to sit with him at the Father’s right hand in heaven when he ascended.

Islam teaches Allah is the ultimate lawgiver and humans must obey the law or suffer punishment.  Islam teaches those who do not follow the Sharia are Apostates or unbelievers and must be converted, subjugated, or killed. Islam teaches Allah is unknowable.

From a rational, reasonable, and logical perspective, there is a difference here between love and hate – good and evil.

Islam is not a one-off of Christianity.  It sits in direct opposition to it.

Differing Views from Catholic Clergy on the Threat from Jihad and Shariah

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Pope Francis and Turkey’s Islamist leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton:

With the visit of Pope Francis to the United States, some attention has been paid to his views on Jihad in general and the September 11 attacks in particular.

On a visit to the September 11 memorial at Ground Zero, the pope made a statement that we find offensive and born of ignorance.

From USA Today:

In a remark some relatives of 9/11 victims may disagree with, the pope attributed “the wrongful and senseless loss of innocent lives” at Ground Zero to “the inability to find solutions which respect the common good.”

To what solutions could Pope Francis possibly be referring?

What “solutions which respect the common good” would have convinced Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta that violent Jihad was wrong?

Al Qaeda and all Jihadist groups have as their goal the imposition of Shariah through violent Jihad. We can only assume that the pope is unaware of this. We must also assume that he is unaware that mainstream Islamic doctrine also calls for the imposition of Shariah worldwide.

Which Catholics and other Christians should be sacrificed to live under Shariah for the “common good?”

This was not the first time Pope Francis made statements that demonstrate an ignorance of Islamic doctrine.

In his The Joy of the Gospel, the pope stated:

Faced with disconcerting episodes of violent fundamentalism, our respect for true followers of Islam should lead us to avoid hateful generalizations, for authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.

No one can study Islamic doctrine based on the Islamic trilogy–the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah–and come away believing that “authentic Islam and the proper reading of the Quran are opposed to every form of violence.”

It should be noted that when it comes to commentary on Islam, Pope Francis is merely stating his opinion; this is not a statement that has the authority of the Catholic church behind it since it applies to the interpretation of another religion.

But all one has to do to see the folly in the pope’s assertion here is to review the too numerous to count examples of Islamic religious leaders and Shariah scholars admonishing their followers to violent Jihad.

We could fill volumes with examples of violent exhortations in the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah. We could go into depth here about the principle of abrogation in the Quran. But rather than do that, we would like to point out that there are other members of the Catholic clergy and community who are more informed on Islam, Shariah and Jihad and they have put their thoughts in writing. In some cases, these good men are much closer to the tip of the spear in the clash of civilizations:

  1. Nigerian cardinal criticizes role of sharia, says Muslim leaders must ‘rein in their mad dogs’

Nigeria of course has been wracked for several years now by horrible violence committed by Boko Haram, which has recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Cardinal Onaiyekan has seen thousands of Christians in his country slaughtered at the hands of Jihadists and he knows that Boko Haram’s stated goal is the imposition of Shariah.

2. It’s Time to Take the Islamic State Seriously

Rev. James V. Schall, S.J. expresses a very different view from that of Pope Francis on the issue of the Islamic State and the role of Islam in violence.

3. Making Islam “As Banal as Catholicism”

Robert Royal, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C., also expresses a far different view of Islamic terrorism than the one expressed by Pope Francis.

Why have these three men, two American and one Nigerian, two men of the cloth and one a prominent lay Catholic, one black and two white, reached such a different conclusion than that of Pope Francis?

To those of us who have studied Islamic doctrine over the past 15 years, the clear answer is that they have studied the Quran, the Hadith, the Sirah and Shariah. Pope Francis clearly has not. Francis is not alone in that state of being; few if any world leaders in the non-Islamic world have studied Islamic doctrine.

But those who have know what it contains and it isn’t all about peace, the “opposition to every form of violence” and “solutions for the common good.”

Love in the Koran

12004871_1480256405610313_643128217634284354_nPolitical Islam, by Bill Warner, Sep. 20, 2015:

Love is not a frequent topic of Islam, but it mentions negative and positive love. An example of negative love is – don’t love money. A Muslim should love his Muslim brothers, but not his blood relatives who are Kafirs. Allah does not love Kafirs.
Allah loves Muslims. The Koran says that you not truly righteous until you give what you love to charity.

The saddest part of Islamic love is that there are twelve verses in the Koran say that a Muslim is never a true friend to a Kafir. A Muslim can be friendly to a Kafir, but must always favor other Muslims.


04_RAM_01_32-2Philos Project, by Andrew Harrod, Sep. 9, 2015:

“Islam has no family resemblance with Christianity and Judaism. The similarities are appropriated, not inherited,” the Anglican priest and theologian Mark Durie starkly stated in his book “Which God? Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity & Islam.” This volume is essential reading for Christians who wish to counter the “Abrahamic fallacy” of Islamic kinship with Judeo-Christian faith.

41V-GxEW6QL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_In his book, Durie noted the oft-touted idea of Western Abrahamic civilization in a world that once esteemed its Judeo-Christian civilization. Many assume that Islam joins Judaism and Christianity in possessing a theological lineage from the Old Testament’s Father Abraham. “This is new thinking which reflects the growing influence of Islam,” Durie said, adding that “one expression of the Islamicization of Christian thought serves the supersessionist program of Islam.”

Durie stressed that wording in the Quran recognizes Islam not as a faith that is subservient to Judaism and Christianity, but “as the primordial religion.” Those of the Islamic faith believe that other religions can be called “Abrahamic” only as concessions, because those faiths “derive their history in a confused and corrupted way from Islamic roots.” As noted in Quran 3:67, Islam proclaims that Abraham and other biblical figures were actually Muslims whose revelations Jews and Christians through the ages perverted into a “debased derivative of Islam.”

Yet the Islamic “libel that Jews and Christians have corrupted their scriptures is without historical support,” Durie wrote. While “Biblical narratives are rich with historical details – many confirmed by archeology – the Quran’s sacred history is devoid of archeological support.” Furthermore, the “Quran conflates the timelines of the Bible,” indicating that Islam’s Prophet Muhammad convolutedly pieced together Biblical tales that he had heard over the years. Quran 28:6, for example, describes Haman as a minister of Egypt’s pharaoh, not of the Persian emperor as in the Book of Esther.

Mark Durie

Mark Durie

The “prophet Isa [Jesus] of the Quran is a product of fable, imagination and ignorance,” Durie wrote, adding that the Quran is “valueless as a source of historical information on Jesus,” and that the book’s assertion that Jesus did not die by crucifixion has no support in history. The Quran’s reference to Jesus’s making clay into birds is taken from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a second-century “apocryphal text with fantastical mythical stories – some of them malevolent – about the childhood of Jesus.”

Durie sagely recognized the fact that many Christians find it difficult to embrace Islamic beliefs about Jesus, as well as the Quranic naming of Jesus. In Islamic apocalyptic prophecy, Jesus “will outlaw Christians and destroy Christianity.” And the Quranic name of Jesus – “Messiah” – finds no explanation in that book; in fact, Muslim scholars have never been able to reach a consensus about what the word means. Even stranger, “no one quite knows where Muhammad got the name Isa from. It seems to be borrowed from the Greek Iesous, from another language … Arabic-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasu(from Yeshua borrowed via the Syriac).” Similarly, the Arabic word for Abraham (“Father of Many” in Hebrew), Ibrahim, lacks a definition in the Arabic language.

Along with different scriptures come different theologies – for instance, doctrines that concern the relationship between God and believers. “The Quran does not conceive of relationship with Allah in terms of the presence of Allah, but in terms of obedience to his commands,” Durie wrote, adding that Muslims are therefore slaves (or Abdullahs) of Allah. Obedience is realized in the Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam), which is where humans implement sharia law – including “injunctions in the Quran which explicitly contradict the Ten Commandments.” By contrast, the Christian “‘Kingdom of God’ … is not understood in terms of a political kingdom, but in terms of the saving presence of God in human affairs.”

The proximity of God and believers correspondingly differs within Christianity and Islam. “Human submission is matched by Allah’s dominance in Islam,” Durie said, explaining that the people of God are termed “saints,” or “holy ones” in the Bible – pointing to their part in God’s holy nature. “The concept of submission emphasizes the otherness of God from humanity; the concept of holiness emphasizes God’s identification with his creatures,” he said. Likewise, the Bible speaks of “human beings’ being created in the image of God,” while in the Quran, “the idea that people should be like Allah, or seek to become like him in any way, is regarded as blasphemy.”

The Biblical idea of God’s love is everlasting and transcends our sin – but Allah’s love as described in the Quran is conditional upon human actions. “In the Quran, Allah loves, protects and shows mercy to those who follow his commands,” Durie explained. “But much more frequent than statements about who Allah loves are statements about who Allah does not love.”

Christian-Muslim differences continue even in the afterlife. In the heaven of “Christian theology, the ‘wow’ factor is all about being in God’s presence (Revelation 21:3-4),” Durie said, pointing out that “Allah’s presence is not center stage in the Islamic vision of paradise.” Islam’s “oasis view” of heaven focuses on “many great delights and pleasures, including – according to many authorities and the Quran itself – sexual partners.”

In summary, Durie said that “what is shared between Christianity and Islam is more than matched by the most profound contrasts in the identity of God.” He compared Islam to Haitian Creole, a language with a West African structure but a largely French vocabulary. “Islam is more like a creole faith which has borrowed much of its spiritual lexicon from Judaism and Christianity, but fits these onto pagan foundations, molded in the crucible of Muhammad’s life.”

Durie provided a sober rebuttal to the Jews and Christians who fancy Islam’s theological place in the family of Abraham, whether out of the hope of greater global harmony or a larger fellowship of God’s followers. The Islamic faith that arose among the Arab descendants of Abraham’s son Ishmael is a pretender to Father Abraham’s theological pedigree.

Armed with Durie’s insight, Christians should shine their light for those blinded by Islam and offer truth in love rather than superficial interfaith encounters. God’s blessing of the world through Abraham’s descendant Jesus demands no less for lost Muslim sheep.

Beheading in Islam

Islam-BeheadPolitical Islam, by Bill Warner, Aug. 11, 2015:

When you hear of beheading, do you assume that Islam is involved? Beheading is an integral part of Islam. Mohammed repeatedly ordered people beheaded and the Koran even includes beheading. Beheading is threatened to settle arguments about Islam. Men were threatened with beheading if they did not become a Muslim. Beheading is mentioned nine times in the Hadith of Bukhari, once in the Koran and 41 times in the Sira. Beheading is recommended and common in the doctrine of Islam.

To see the references go to:


Glazov Gang: Choudary, Spencer and Jasser Battle It Out On “Jihad in Chattanooga.”

free-672x372By Jamie Glazov July 31, 2015:

This special episode of The Glazov Gang was joined by Anjem Choudary, a London Imam, Robert Spencer, the Director of, and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, the Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy.

The three guests came on the show to discuss “Jihad in Chattanooga.”

Don’t miss the fireworks:

Bill Warner answers questions about Islam

hadith sira koran warnerBy Bill Warner, July 21, 2015:

Bill Warner answers these questions: Reliable Hadith; How to push back against Islam; Difference between a Muslim and Islam; What is the Islamic chain of authority; Sweet and kind Muslims; Muslim literacy; Mohammed and Jesus; Why are we afraid? Immigration; Koran; Catholics and the creation of Islam; Well meaning Muslims; Why do we have to obey Ramadan rules; Archeology and Islamic history; The corruption of the Koran.


Deceitful Islamic signs scattered across an English city and the truth about Islam:

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Cherson and Molschky, by Paul Wilkinson, July 13, 2015:

For some time there have been numerous Islamic signs popping up on the sides of Muslim-owned businesses and mosques in the neighbourhood in which I live.

I previously wrote a personal account of ‘How Nottingham Has Changed in the Last 15 Years’ regarding Islamisation due to a large population of Pakistani Muslims, but because these signs seem to almost sink into the subconscious, I decided to examine their messages further.

Firstly, these signs strike me as something from an authoritative state, for example George Orwell’s 1984. Daniel Greenfield highlighted in his article: ‘The Islamic Hijacking of George Orwell: Islam is peace, freedom is slavery.

“Islam is a religion of Peace. That is as certain as the three slogans of the Ministry of Truth; War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Strength. These three slogans of the Party in George Orwell’s 1984 are especially applicable to Islam; a religion of war that claims to be a religion of peace, whose political parties (such as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party) use “Freedom” in their name but stand for slavery, and ignorance of its true nature creates an illusion of strength for industrialized nations that imagine that they are only battling a tiny handful of outmatched extremists.”

Unsurprisingly, the opposite of what is portrayed in the signs is true. Muslims rely on decades of empowering political correctness and the ignorance of Islam that most of the general public possess, for a variety of reasons, to spread Islam further. Those possessing an understanding of Islam are usually unable to challenge the signs’ presence or wording due to obstacles of political correctness, stigma and even lawfare from Muslim groups.

‘Fruit of Islam’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This sign apparently informs us that the following attributes are all components of Islam: Generosity, Kindness, Forgiveness, Justice, Gentleness, Patience, Courage, Gratitude, Humility and Honesty.

How does this fare with reality?

Indeed Muhammad’s ‘virtues’ included being a thief, waging war, having concubines, encouraging rape, having sex with a child, murder, etc. Muhammad was a brutal, unforgiving warlord and painting him in a different light is plain deception.

‘Read it! The Most Positive Book in the World’
Photo by Paul Wilkinson

Photo by Paul Wilkinson

This is utterly bizarre, the sign actually challenges people to receive a free Qur’an, and see the imaginary ‘positivity’ for themselves! Most Muslims spend their time playing on nonbeliever’s ignorance to further Islam but this project should open people’s eyes to what the Qur’an actually contains!

image005Source: Twitter @mattpope123

The Qur’an could be classified as hate speech, as ‘The Religion of Peace’ site illustrates:

  • The Qur’an draws a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it.
  • Moral comparison based on this distinction.
  • Devaluation or dehumanisation of other groups and the personal superiority of one’s own.
  • The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership.
  • A call to violence against members of other groups.

“The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims (the best of people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst of creatures, 98:6).  Praise is lavished on the former while the latter is condemned with scorching generalization.  Far from teaching universal love, the Qur’an incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture.  Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.”

How this book can remotely be described as being ‘positive’ is anyone’s guess. Only if the reader believes in Muhammad and Allah I suppose, whereas for nonbelievers there is a feeling of inferiority due to its supremacist nature.

When the Qur’an is laid out in chronological order, Muhammad’s last commands were open-ended war against nonbelievers and to spread Islam by any means possible. Chapter 9 is a huge inspiration to jihadists. What better way to be a good Muslim by following in Muhammad’s footsteps and waging holy war for Allah? Why the Qur’an is not banned in civilised countries is a mystery.

Read more

David Wood: What Is the Qur’an?

Quran (2)Answering Muslims, by David Wood, June 12, 2015:

What is the Qur’an? Is it the Word of God? Is it the greatest book ever written? Are there scientific miracles in the Qur’an? Does the Qur’an promote justice, fairness, and women’s rights? Has it been perfectly preserved? Let’s find out.


Ten Fast Facts You Need to Know about the Quran

 Approximately 1.6 billion people are convinced that the Quran is the eternal Word of Allah. Given the role the Quran plays in world events, isn’t it time for the rest of us to learn about the book Muhammad delivered to his followers?

Where are Those Moderate Muslims — and How Should We Deal with Them?

American Thinker, by Steve Chambers, June 9, 2015:

Eleven months before 9/11, I heard a series of lectures from a Muslim doctor to a Protestant congregation, in which he contradicted much of what I had learned about the religion’s history and foundation when I had studied it and lived abroad among Muslims two to three decades earlier.  For example, he assured the credulous audience that Islam had never been spread by the sword, but rather that was a Western canard.  Already extremely concerned about militant Islam, I started reading updated works on the ideology.  It didn’t take me long to realize that my prior understanding hadn’t been superseded by new discoveries.  At best, the pious doctor was offering a positive spin on Islam; more likely he was actually, deliberately engaging in taqiyya – righteous deception to advance Islam.

With the attacks of 9/11, I began an extensive, deliberate effort to understand the religion and the violence that it was spewing.  I read authors across the spectrum of attitudes towards Islam, from the highly sympathetic Karen Armstrong to the implacably critical Ibn Warraq.  I also attend the lectures of Islamic scholars such as leading apologist John Esposito (“the antidote to Bernard Lewis,” one liberal minister mockingly assured me), and I interviewed pious Muslims.  I then organized my thoughts by writing them down in what eventually became a book.  One of the most significant insights I obtained from this process was that there are eight basic principles of Islam that lead to its violent aggression.  Exhibit 1 enumerates those tenets.


Each of these principles comes directly from the Qur’an, except the last.  They are all virtually universally accepted in Islam, as attested by my interviews with Muslims as well as the writings of western Islamic scholars.  These principles impel observant Muslims to struggle to advance Islam to its divinely ordained position of global dominance, and while doing so to unite with other Muslims while holding non-Muslims at arm’s length, at best.  At worst (as we have been seeing recently in Syria, Iraq, Libya, and Nigeria), Muslims should force others either to convert to Islam or take one of two other alternatives: if Christians or Jews, to submit to Muslim rule while paying a tax to show their submission; or if they can’t, or are of another or no faith, to die.

Recently a Protestant minister and I led a two man panel discussion of Islam, and when we came to this exhibit, he explained to the audience that these eight tenets makes some Muslims militant.  I had to correct him, pointing out that these tenets make Islam militant and that extremists accept them explicitly.  That distinction is vital.

Since they impel the faithful to violence, these tenets raise the question: How can believing Muslims do anything other than engage in jihad?  Put another way, how can Muslims be moderate?  That in turn raises the question, what is a moderate Muslim?

Research for the book uncovered the view, widely held across the sympathy spectrum, that “moderate” Muslims accepted a series of pacifying interpretations of Islam and its scriptures.  These interpretations, which had evolved over Islam’s first five centuries, essentially toned down its harsher messages and rubbed off its sharper edges, enabling Muslims to live harmoniously with one another and, particularly since about the 19th Century, more peacefully with non-Muslim neighbors.  The difference extremists exhibited was that they took the commands of their scriptures literally and hence acted upon them.

However, seeking to understand which Muslims were moderate and how large a portion of the 1.6 billion global Muslim community, or Ummah, they represented, it is impossible to find hard numbers: The definition of “moderate” is simply too slippery.  Is a Muslim living peacefully in rural villages of Morocco or Indonesia, practicing traditional Islam but outraged that a Jewish state took land from Muslims in direct violation of shari’a, moderate?  What if he suddenly decided to act on his outrage?  What about a Muslim of Pakistani descent living near Nottingham with similar views, at least up until he decided to go to a terrorist training camp?  (This is the real story of Kasim Hafeez before he renounced violence.)  Are Muslims living in peace on the Arabian Peninsula who donate generously to Hamas — a legitimate Islamic charity in their eyes — moderate?  Is a Muslim doing the same thing in Dearborn or a Chicago suburb moderate?  Is a Muslim moderate if he engages in non-violent jihad, such as lawfare, in order to make Islam dominant, as practiced by members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Student Association?  Bright lines don’t exist, yet virtually everyone commenting on Islam speaks of “moderate Muslims.”  Few, however, define them.

In presentations on radical Islam, one of the conceptual devices I have employed that helps people think about the ideological differences between Muslims is Exhibit 2.


The vertical axis refers to whether Muslims read their sacred texts interpretively, as has been the practice of most Muslims for about 1,000 years, or strictly literally as the Wahhabis, Muslim Brotherhood and their various ideological offspring, including al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Iranian Shi’a Islamists, insist.  The horizontal axis measures how traditional a Muslim is in his attitude towards and practice of Islam, versus how modernized he is, in one of two ways.  “Modernized” can mean adapted to modernity, but it can also mean incorporating into Islam elements of 20th Century authoritarian ideologies such as communism and fascism, again as directed by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The two dimensions are of course continua and there are no hard and fast boundaries.  In addition, one might add a third dimension, the intensity of belief.  That is probably most relevant in the upper left quadrant of traditional non-militants, where intense piety might make Muslims more likely to become militant and move downward or even to the lower right.  It is possible that among modernist literalist jihadis in the lower left there are some cynical opportunists who couldn’t care less about the spiritual aspects of Islam but are selfishly attracted to the jihad by the opportunity for power and booty.  However, such inwardly secular extremists probably represent a small portion of such militants and may be marginalized or even culled out by the true believers.

While the quadrants have equal areas, they most definitely do not represent equal proportions of the Ummah.  The upper left quadrant contains the vast majority of Muslims.  That would include Muslims not just in traditional Islamic societies from the Maghreb through South Asia and into Indonesia, but also in sequestered Muslim communities in the West.  When Muslims from that quadrant become radicalized by the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots, or to drive out infidel Russians or Americans, they descend, at least initially, into the lower left quadrant.  Some might then move to the lower right.

Those in the lower right are the highly radicalized, militant Muslims that are most aggressively pursuing the Third Jihad.  Some, such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed Khalifa Ibrahim, come from traditional, pious, even scholarly Islamic backgrounds, and have apparently imbibed inebriating amounts of the Muslim Brotherhood’s radicalizing ideology.  However, it appears that most of the older leaders came from more modern, even Western backgrounds, perhaps even indifferent to Islam early in life.  When these people first became serious about Islam, they read it literally, often with the guidance of other radicalized Muslims, and hence adopted its purest, harshest meanings.  Radicals of this sort include Osama bin Laden, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mohammed Atta, and Major Nidal Hassan, among many others.  Dr. Daniel Pipes recognized this phenomenon 20 years ago, and has since commented on it frequentlyMany others have noted it as well.  Increasingly, we are seeing young Muslims who have been deliberately radicalized by their elders, whether in Islamic countries, at radical mosques in the West, or simply online, including the Boston bombing brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

We haven’t yet addressed one quadrant, the upper right.  This holds the still practicing but interpretive, open-minded, modernized, often Westernized Muslims, whether they live in Chicago or Cairo, London or Lahore.  Widely recognized examples are Fareed Zakariah, King Abdullah and especially Queen Noor of Jordan; lesser known but still prominent ones includeTarek Fatah, Irshad Manji, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, and Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.  Some, such as Dr. Jasser, take the unusual position that the Qur’anic commands to violence and aggression were meant for 7th Century Arabia, not the 21st Century world, but most appear to have a more conventional view of the scriptures and simply interpret them more peacefully or choose to ignore the more violent commands.  They may be the Muslim equivalents of cafeteria Catholics.  Muslims in this quadrant are the ones most Westerners encounter in their daily lives as neighbors, friends, and coworkers.  Importantly, the population in this quadrant is probably quite small, but may seem representative to the typical Western, non-Muslim observer because they are the types of Muslims most Westerners encounter.  Whether there are more of them than the extremists in the lower right is debatable, but they probably have less influence on Islam overall because of the threats they face for speaking out.

So which are the elusive moderates?  While most Westerners would view those in the upper right as moderate, most pious, practicing Muslims would probably consider them liberals.  Indeed, the extremists in the lower right view those in the quadrant above not as Muslims at all, but as apostates whom they declare takfir (excommunicated) and target for “reversion” to the true Islam, or extermination.  It is no wonder that so many modernized Muslims keep their heads down and their mouths shut about militant Islam.

Read more