Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know

By David Wood at Answering Muslims:

Most Christians (myself included) don’t have Sam Shamoun’s computer-like brain to recall thousands of verses on command. Nevertheless, with a little effort, we can all learn some basic facts about Islam. In this short video, I present three Qur’an verses that every Christian should learn.

 

In case you’d like to copy them down, here are the verses:

Qur’an 4:157—They said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”—but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.

Qur’an 5:47—Let the People of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Qur’an 9:29—Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

 

Reading Is Islamophobic

Answering Muslims, By David Wood:

Some people complain about Islam because of the endless terrorist attacks they read about every day. Others complain about Islam because they read the Qur’an and Hadith and find incredibly violent teachings. No matter how you look at it, reading is a source of Islamophobia. Hence, in order to combat Islamophobia, reading must be eliminated. Join my campaign against literacy.

 

GABRIEL: ISIS is a threat beyond Iraq, with Shariah as worldwide aim

A member of an Iraqi volunteer forces group joins training near the Imam Ali shrine in the southern holy Shiite city of Najaf, Iraq, Thursday, June 26, 2014, after authorities urged Iraqis to help battle insurgents. Shiite militias responding to a call to arms by Iraq’s top cleric are focused on protecting the capital and Shiite shrines. (AP Photo/Jaber al-Helo)

A member of an Iraqi volunteer forces group joins training near the Imam Ali shrine in the southern holy Shiite city of Najaf, Iraq, Thursday, June 26, 2014, after authorities urged Iraqis to help battle insurgents. Shiite militias responding to a call to arms by Iraq’s top cleric are focused on protecting the capital and Shiite shrines. (AP Photo/Jaber al-Helo)

Washington Times , Brigitte Gabriel, June 26, 2014:

There is a great deal of confusion and ignorance about the jihadist organization ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) which has been waging a terror campaign in those two nations for some time now, culminating most recently in the seizure of Iraq’s second largest city, Mosul.

ISIS isn’t acting out of anger over borders or “politics” as the West understands the term. ISIS has a specific goal in mind and that is the formation of an Islamic state ruled by Shariah.

This is very important to understand because this is a common goal of all the major jihadist organizations across the world. It is shared by al Qaeda, Hamas, Lashkar e Taiba, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and others. The shared goal transcends any disagreements over borders and pure politics.

For instance, Israel could evaporate tomorrow and the overriding goal of the formation of Islamic states ruled by Shariah would not change a bit. It’s based in their thousand-year-old doctrine, which is far more fundamental and overarching than mere political ideology.

If we ever hope to win this war against radical Islam we better understand that the goal of establishing an Islamic state ruled by Shariah is based on doctrine and not just ideology.

Islamic doctrine is not derived from the thoughts or ideological vision of a man or woman brought to the fore in recent years. Islamic doctrine is based on the Islamic trilogy, the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira.

The Koran is the central religious text of Islam, believed by Muslims to be a direct revelation from Allah. The Hadith is a series of traditions documenting the teachings, deeds and sayings of the prophet Muhammad. The Sira is the biography of Muhammad, considered to have been the perfect man who set an example for all Muslims to follow always. In order for an individual to be a good Muslim, it is not enough for him to worship Allah, he must worship Allah in the same way that Muhammad did.

The name given to Islamic doctrine is Shariah. Not only does Shariah form the basis of the doctrine to which jihadists, such as those of ISIS, adhere, it is also the common goal of jihadists to establish rule by Shariah in an Islamic state.
All other considerations — economic, political and military — take a back seat to adhering to and establishing Shariah.

It is this doctrinal basis that is the key to understanding the threat from jihad.
Too often the West becomes tied up in contemporary considerations and issues that have nothing to do with doctrine and assign too much significance to them.
Islamic doctrine — Shariah — transcends geography, politics and even different Islamic sects. It is the common thread that ties Boko Haram in Nigeria to ISIS in Iraq and Abu Sayyef in the Philippines to Lashkar e Taiba in Kashmir.

Jihad is not a local phenomenon. When a variety of terrorist groups all wage violence for the same reasons, with the same goals, this should be considered a clue that there is something more at work here than just “local” conflicts.
Make no mistake — ISIS does not just pose a threat to Iraq. History has shown that when an Islamic state ruled by Shariah is established, such as Taliban Afghanistan, that state becomes a launching pad for jihad elsewhere.
Already we have seen reports that American jihadis have joined ISIS to fight alongside jihadists from around the globe. While the conflict in Iraq is portrayed in the Western media as a civil war, the truth is that most of the ISIS fighters are not Iraqi. They are jihadi warriors from around the world, including from the West.

What happens when these jihadists head home? Will they leave the war behind in Iraq and Syria? Or will they bring jihad home?
In warfare, your enemy’s reality becomes your reality and you must go to great lengths to understand your enemy. Unfortunately, we have largely failed on that score as a nation.

Our elected and appointed officials must come to terms with the doctrinal basis for jihad so we can properly and effectively defend America, protect American lives and face our enemies.

Brigitte Gabriel is an international terrorism analyst and the president of ACT for America.org.

Islam’s ‘Protestant Reformation’ (Part 1)

By Raymond Ibrahim, June 22, 2014:

In order to prevent a clash of civilizations, or worse, Islam must reform.   This is the contention of many Western peoples.  And, pointing to Christianity’s Protestant Reformation as proof that Islam can also reform, many are optimistic.

Overlooked by most, however, is that Islam has been reforming. What is today called “radical Islam” is the reformation of Islam.  And it follows the same pattern of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation.

The problem is our understanding of the word “reform.”  Despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply meansto “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”

Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western references.

Muslim notions of “improving” society may include purging it of “infidels” and their corrupt ways; or segregating men and women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home; or executing apostates, who are seen as traitorous agitators.

Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—can be deemed an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society.

In short, an Islamic reformation need not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their reference points and first premises.  “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they, secular and religious alike, are to a great extent products of Christianity’s Protestant Reformation; and so, a priori, they naturally attribute positive connotations to the word.

—-

At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible.  With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching.  So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.

Islam’s reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.

As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims.  Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures.  The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”

In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world.  Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words,

translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands…  [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).

This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears.  The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet, is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists.  Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.

In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished.  Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted with the often black and white words of their scriptures than their ancestors, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.

Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it more closely with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it,” in the words of Bernard Lewis (The Middle East, p. 333).

The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the reformists.

Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty).  This is an important point to be revisited later.  Muslims who do not become disaffected after better acquainting themselves with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.

Part 2 will appear later this week

Sharia and the U.S. Constitution

082411_koran-constitution-lg“(Mohammed) declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny that (Mohammed) is the prophet of God.”
President John Quincy Adams
Son of President John Adams

By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/20/14:
It is a historical fact that America’s first war following the Revolution was a war with the Muslim (Barbary) states. In 1786, two of America’s greatest founders, John Adams (Ambassador to England) and Thomas Jefferson (Ambassador to France) met with the emissary of Tripoli to Britain – Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja to discuss the Barbary Pirates demands for tribute from U.S. ships. After this meeting, Adams and Jefferson submitted a report to Congress detailing Adja’s answer to why the Muslims were attacking the U.S. ships without any provocation. The report reads, in part:
“The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that is was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

As we close this weeks series on Sharia and its importance in today’s world events, it must be again reiterated that everything the United States is dealing with in the current war is all about Sharia. Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic states around the world, and the doctrine of Islam itself all mandate Sharia be imposed on the entire world until there is “Peace.”

It seems fitting, then, to conclude our series on the most basic of questions: Is Sharia comparable with our Constitutional Republic in any way? The unequivocal answer is NO.

Article VI of the Constitution mandates that “…all Executive and Judicial officers, both of the United States and the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

By an Act of the U.S. Congress under Title 5 Section 3331 of the U.S. Code, all elected or appointed officials shall take an oath as prescribed in that law to defend the Constitution against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Former Inspector General of the United States Department of Defense and Constitutional professor Joseph Schmitz has specifically highlighted three key areas where Sharia is in direct contradiction with our Constitution: Popular Sovereignty, Supremacy of the Constitution, and Freedom of Religion.

Specifically, the U.S. Constitution, in its Preamble, identifies the People as sovereign under our system. Sharia specifically states all of mankind must submit to Islam: “Sovereignty in Islam is the prerogative of Allah Almighty alone.” (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Mohammed Hashim Kalamali)

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states “This Constitution…shall be the supreme law of the land.” As was noted in an earlier UTT Blog this week, the most popular Junior High School text in American Islamic schools – What Islam is All About – states, “The law of the land is the Shari’ah of Allah.”

Finally, the U.S. Constitution guarantees all Americans the freedom to practice their faith and religion without government interference. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” Sharia, which comes from the Quran and the example/teachings of the prophet Mohammed, states “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie and wait for them in every stratagem of war” (Quran 9:5); and “But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah. But if they turn away from Islam, seize them and slay them wherever you find them, and take no friends or helpers from among their ranks.” (Quran 4:89) In Sharia, there is no disagreement among the scholars and 100% of authoritative Islamic Law legally puts Muslims at a higher status in the community with greater rights than those of non-Muslims, and 100% of all Islamic Law mandates that all apostates from Islam be killed.

What the Global Islamic Movement intends to do, and says it intends to do, and is killing tens of thousands of people across the globe and overthrowing countries in furtherance of, is the imposition of Sharia on the world. This is not about religious freedom for Muslims in any way. It is about a violent and organized effort to impose foreign law (Sharia) on American citizens in direct conflict of the U.S Constitution and U.S. Federal Code.

Those who have sworn an Oath to protect and defend America and our Constitution must do so against any incursion into our system by Sharia. Sharia should be viewed as a cancer inside our system – a viewpoint which was crystal clear to our Founders.

The Terrorist Groups’ Interpretation Of The Koranic Verses Regarding Jihad

19401By: Tufail Ahmad:

Table of Contents

I) Introduction
II) Jaish-e-Muhammad’s Teaching Of Jihadist Verses In Pakistani Towns
III) Pakistani Militant Maulana Masood Azhar’s Interpretation Of Verses On Jihad
IV) The Interpretation Of The Koranic Verses Regarding Battle
V) The References To Koranic Verses On Suicide Bombings
VI) The Justifications For Bombings Of Churches, Synagogues, And Mosques
VII) The Verses Regarding Moderation/Compulsion In Religion
VIII)  The Targeted Killings Of Shi’ite Muslims In The Name Of Islam
IX) The Interpretation Of Verses On Media Jihad
X) The Interpretation Of Verses Regarding Financial Jihad

I) Introduction

This paper examines how jihadi organizations are using verses from the Koran to advance the cause of jihad and influence Muslim youth. In doing so, it sheds light on how liberal arguments regarding Islam, jihad, and Prophet Muhammad’s historical role are being countered by the jihadi organizations, which cite verses from the Koran and early Islamic traditions in their support.

In an editorial published in July 2013, Daily Outlook Afghanistan, a Kabul-based newspaper, warned that the Taliban are using Koranic verses to influence and prepare child suicide bombers. It observed: “Over the last decade, children, who are as innocent as angels, have increasingly been used for executing terror attacks in Afghanistan, mainly for suicide attacks. The trend, which was actually initiated by Al-Qaeda, has gained greater focus of the Taliban in the recent years. The Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan are bribing starving children as young as eight-years-old to plant deadly roadside booby traps, be decoys in ambushes, and even act as suicide bombers…

“There are 224 children in prisons in just Helmand and Ghazni who were arrested by government forces for planning or carrying out attacks. Here is another example of how the Taliban brainwash the children to use them in launching suicide attacks: they are given amulets containing verses from the Koran by Taliban commanders, who tell them they will be protected from the explosion.”[1]

In April 2013, the Al-Saadiqeen Production Center of the Toora Bora Front, a constituent of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban umbrella organization led by Mullah Mohammad Omar), released a video of jihadi commander Ustad Khwaja Maqsood Mukhlis, who urged Muslims to take part in “jihad against Jews and Christians.”[2] He stated: “Allah Almighty has ordered us [in the Koran], as for prayers, fasting, and Hajj, to be ready to fight against enemies of Islam, and get knowledge of every technique [in fighting] more than the infidels, because the war between Islam and kufr [unbelief] will continue until doomsday…”[3]

Mukhlis added: “There are many Muslims who have not seen weapons and have not fired a shot… It is such a shame, especially when all the infidels, particularly the Jews and Christians, are united and have come against us. They know the use of all kinds of weapons to wipe out Muslims. But mercy on the condition of a Muslim who is afraid to even see a weapon,” Mukhlis said, adding: “[A Muslim] will ask us about the Koranic verse on jihad. My message is particularly for those clerics who deliver Friday sermons and prayers at funerals and recite these [jihadi] verses of the Koran, but are afraid to take up arms.”[4]

The Afghanistan Islami Tehreek Fidayee Mahaz (the Martyrdom Front of Afghanistan’s Islamic Movement) is a splinter group of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban umbrella organization. The Islamic Emirate doesn’t recognize the Mahaz but the latter does exhort its fighters to follow Mullah Omar. In April 2014, Haji Omar Khattab, the emir of the Mahaz, urged his followers to wage jihad in the light of the Koran and Hadiths (sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad). In a Pashtu-language statement, he cited the Koran’s Chapter Al-Tawbah, Verse 111: “Surely, Allah has bought from the believers their souls and wealth in return for Paradise for them.”[5] He explained the meaning of the verse: “The aforementioned verse shows that those waging jihad for the supremacy of Kalmat-ul-Allah [the word of Allah] will be given paradise. Entering paradise is a big success which can only be achieved through jihad. A Muslim who wages jihad is bestowed with two titles – hero or martyr. Both positions are esteemed.”[6]

The militant commander noted that Allah orders in the Koran: “And continue your fight until there does not remain any disruption, and Deen (Islam) is devoted to Allah alone (Chapter Al-Anfal: Verse No. 39).”[7] He added: “Jihad is as mandatory on the Muslims against the hypocrites as it is mandatory against the infidels, because both the infidels and hypocrites have the same aim of enforcing the satanic system, paganism, cruelty, and vulgarity on the earth. Jihad is obligatory against both these groups so that Allah’s system can be enforced on the face of the Earth… Some stupid people say that jihad is legitimate only against foreigners [in Afghanistan], but that the killing of internal Afghans who are working for the government is wrong. We say that the Koran and Hadiths must be consulted [in this regard]. The Afghans who are supporting the slave administration, call the foreigners as friends, or use the word ‘terrorist,’ are hypocrites, and jihad is obligatory against them…”[8]

In the context of this paper, the term “jihad” is used to mean armed fighting, not striving for reforming one’s character and soul. The Koranic verses have been interpreted by different Islamic scholars, and there are some variations in their interpretations depending on the circumstances in which the verses were revealed. This paper is not an attempt at an interpretation of the verses on jihad. Relying mainly on South Asian jihadi media sources, it examines how terrorist groups interpret some of the verses regarding jihad to influence Muslim youth. The meaning of verses cited in this paper, therefore, is the meaning attached to those verses by the Islamic terrorist groups.

In doing so, this paper brings to light how the militants are using verses and prophetic traditions to answer some key questions such as: Is it justified to bomb mosques? Did Prophet Muhammad’s companions opt for suicide attacks? Are Shi’ites infidels? Does Islam teach armed fighting? Does Islam stand for the elimination of all other systems of living and governance from the Earth? Does the Koran advocate ‘no compulsion in religion’? In what manner should journalists be killed for not conforming to Islamic teachings? Did Prophet Muhammad grant amnesty to everyone, as it is generally claimed, on the day of victory of Mecca?

Read more at MEMRI

What is Shariah and What Are It’s Sources?

Shariah the threatExcerpt from Shariah: The Threat to America, An Exercise in Competitive Analysis—Report of Team B II (pp. 57-66)

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

Also see Key Tenets of Shariah and The Reliance of the Traveller

The Arabic word “shariah,” according to one modern English-language student textbook on Islam, “literally means a straight path (Quran 45:18) or an endless supply of water.  It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle (Deen) ordained for us by Allah.  In more practical terms, shariah includes all the do’s and don’ts of Islam.”[71]

In other words, shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities – not to be confused with “radical,”“extremist” or “political” elements said to operate at the fringes of Islam – to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice and thus is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of Muslims’ lives, irrespective of when or where they live.  Shariah is characterized as a “complete way of life” (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law.

While many, many millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, as this chapter makes clear, those who do practice shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one.  And those who claim that there is no single shariah – a narrative that has recently emerged from representatives of Muslim- and Arab-American groups[72] and their non-Muslim apologists[73] – are either ignorant of the facts about shariah discussed below, or deliberately dissembling (see chapter three).

WHAT ARE THE SOURCES OF SHARIA?

There are four sources for shariah that make it authoritative: the Quran, the Sunna, ijma, and qiyas.  Deemed the “uncreated word of Allah,” the Quran reflects direct divine revelation and is understood to be the primary source of Islamic law. After the Quran, Islamic jurists next turn to the Sunna, considered to be indirect divine revelation arising out of the hadiths, or sayings or acts of Mohammed. Ijma refers to the consensus of the grand mujtahids of the past, a historic process in which, once consensus attached, became a permanent part of the immutable body of Islamic law.  Finally, the fourth source for shariah is qiyas, or reasoning by analogy, which applies an accepted principle or assumption to arrive at a legal ruling.[74]

In order fully to understand shariah, it is necessary to examine each of these sources and their contributions in turn.

The Quran: In Islamic parlance, the Quran is considered to be the uncreated word of Allah. According to Muslim belief, it has existed since the beginning of time and was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel in the 7th Century to the Prophet Mohammed in the Arabic language of his homeland. It follows from the characterization of the Quran as the uncreated word of Allah that its points are timeless. Clearly, if it were possible to place the Quran in context within a certain historical period, it could be said that it has subsequently become obsolete – especially since so many of its tenets are unique to 7th Century Bedouin culture. That would be tantamount, however, to asserting that Allah’s uncreated, and therefore eternal, word is actually time-limited.  Thus, it is mandatory that the Quran be deemed as eternal and eternally applicable to everyone, not just Muslims. The preeminence of the Quran in shariah is closed to debate.  An Indian Islamic jurist, Asaf A.A. Fyzee, put it in his work Outlines of Mohammedan Law: “The Koran according to this theory is the first source of law. … It is for this reason that the verse of the Koran (ayat), although only a few of them deal specifically with legal questions, are held to be of paramount authority.” [75]

The Quran is comprised of 114 chapters (or Suras) that include some 6,236 ayat or verses, and is believed by Muslims to have been revealed over a period of 22 years (from 610 to 632 A.D., the year of Mohammed’s death). Chronologically speaking, the first 86 of the 114 chapters were said to have been revealed to the Prophet in Mecca while the remaining 28 came after the hijra to Medina in 622.

Although the chronological order of these verses is known, the Quran itself is not laid out in order of reported revelation but by length of verses (longest to shortest).  In the beginning, Quranic verses were memorized and recited orally, with some being jotted down in a haphazard manner on pieces of parchment, plant leaves, and even stones. It was not until about 650 that the third Caliph, Uthman, commissioned an official, standardized version of the Quran, after which a concerted effort was made to find and destroy any earlier remnants and versions.

It is important to appreciate that the Quran was not compiled in the chronological order of revelations, but rather organized from longest to shortest verses. This decision makes for difficult reading and even more difficult understanding of what was said and when.

In light of the Islamic doctrine of “abrogation” – which holds that the later verses supersede, or abrogate, the earlier ones – the actual chronological order of the Quranic verses makes a critical difference.  This is because there are contradictions among the verses, a delicate situation that had to be dealt with by Mohammed himself. Thus arose the device known as al-mansukh wa al-nasikh (“that which is abrogated and that which abrogates”).  The basis for this solution to an otherwise difficult conundrum in what is supposed to be a perfect book can be found in both the hadiths and the Quran itself, where verse 2:106 states: “When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar.  Do you not know that God has power over all things?” A number of other verses convey the same understanding.

All four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence are in complete agreement on doctrine of abrogation and in general agreement on the abrogating and abrogated import of shariah doctrine regarding Quranic texts.[76]  Seventy-five percent of Sunni Islamic law is recognized in common across all four schools.   An Islamic jurist does not read Islamic law and decide for himself what is or is not abrogated as this has already been determined by the school of law to which the jurist belongs.

These issues have already been decided. A Hanafi, Shafite, Maliki, and even Hanbali Islamic scholar will refer to their respective school’s books on abrogating and abrogated texts.  No one can become a shariah judge unless he knows these passages by heart; they are that important.

In practice, Quranic abrogation results in a known doctrinal footprint that subordinates the milder, more moderate verses of the Quran from the Meccan period of revelation, to the later and violent verses of the Medina period. Islamic law is substantially derived from the Medinan period. Where a conflict exists, anything said during the Medinan period overrules anything on the same subject in the Meccan. And anything said in the later part of the Medinan period either overrules or controls anything said in the earlier part.

To put a fine point on it: When our shariah-compliant enemies cite from the most violent verses of the Quran to justify their actions, they are completely aligned with Islamic law and doctrine.

As the noted scholar David Bukay wrote in a 2007 essay for the Middle East Quarterly, “Statements that there is no compulsion in religion and that jihad is primarily about internal struggle and not about holy war may receive applause in university lecture halls and diplomatic board rooms, but they misunderstand the importance of abrogation in Islamic theology.”[77]  The point also should be made here that, independent of abrogation, the forcible imposition of shariah is intended to set the pre-conditions within a society that will “open minds and hearts to Islam, and thereby encourage conversion.” (We shall discuss below the implications for national security leaders whose professional responsibility includes understanding the motivations and claimed justifications of the jihadi enemy.)

Closely related to the doctrine of abrogation is the concept of progressive revelation, which means that the Quran’s verses were revealed gradually over a lengthy period of some 20 years. As Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood strategist put it: “The Quran did not come down all at once; rather it came down according to the needs of the Islamic society in facing new problems….”[78]

According to Muslim belief, the gradual revelation of the Quranic verses tracked with the development of the early Muslim community itself under the Prophet Mohammed’s leadership. Early on, when his followers were a small, reviled group in Mecca, the corresponding revelations from Allah commanded a protective low profile.  Even in the face of harsh criticism, Mohammed instructed his followers to maintain a peaceful attitude and the Quranic verses of the period reflect that attitude.

Later on, after Mohammed’s move to Medina (the hijra), circumstances for the early Muslims improved and their numbers, and strength, grew significantly.  At this time, new revelations permitted them to fight back against those who attacked them.  This is precisely the point made by Major Nidal Malik Hasan in his pre-Fort Hood massacre presentation at Walter Reed.[79] Hasan explained the “Jihad-rule of Abrogation” in Slide 35 of his presentation.[80]

Finally, after the signal Battle of Badr in the year 624, where a relatively small Muslim force overcame a much larger enemy force of non-Muslims for the first time, revelations emerged that permitted – and then commanded – Muslims to go on the offensive from that time onward, until all the world should be under shariah.  Specifically, the chronologically last Sura to address jihad is Sura 9, the “Sura of the Sword.”  In accordance with the doctrine of abrogation, its passages represent the ultimate authority on the requirements of jihad:

Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.  (Q 9:5)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.  (Q 9:29)

Instructions on Muslim relations with Christians and Jews were laid out in the late Medinan period as well. Those familiar with Islamic concerns with regard to terrorism are familiar with the Quranic injunction: “Let there be no compulsion in religion.” (Q 5:99) This passage is a particular favorite of those Muslim Brotherhood operatives and others seeking to obscure the true character of shariah.

What most non-Muslims have not heard is Quran 3:85: “Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him, and he will be of those who have truly failed in the hereafter.” (Emphasis added.) Even more graphic is Sura 98:6 where it is asserted that non-Muslims are “the most vile of created beings.”

These verses are interpreted under shariah to mean that anyone who does not accept Islam is unacceptable in the eyes of Allah and that he will send them to Hell.  When it is said that shariah is a supremacist program, this is one of the bases for it.

And even more specifically, regarding the possibility of Muslim friendship with any but fellow Muslims: “Oh 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. Verily Allah guideth not the unjust.”(Q 5:51)

This verse lays down the rule for Muslims that “the unjust” are not only the Christians and Jews:  they are also Muslims who take Christians and Jews as friends.

And lastly, to quote just one of the Quranic verses that is used repeatedly by shariah-adherent Muslims to castigate Jews and Christians, and by extension, the West:

“Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from Allah? Those who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil….” (Quran 5:60)

So, according to Sura 5:60, Allah turned people who worshipped evil into apes and swine. The references refer, respectively, to the apes, who are the Jews (the people of the Sabbath), while the swine are Christians, the infidels who adhere to the communion of Jesus.

Apologists for shariah try to dismiss such citations as “cherry picking” from the Quran. However[s7] , these Sura are selected precisely because they are operative according to shariah’s doctrine of abrogation. This stepped process of development through which the first Muslims moved forms the model for all Muslims to the current day.

Muslim children, and those studying to become converts to Islam, are typically taught first about the gentle “your religion for you, mine for me” verses of the Quran.

Instruction to Westerners, as it turns out, is strictly limited to understanding Islam in its early peaceful phases.  In fact, it is a top priority of the Islamic Movement to discourage U.S. leaders from studying Islamic doctrine and law.  As Edward Said famously argued in his 1978 book Orientalism, only those who can speak classical Arabic can understand the true meaning of Islam, so why read anything[s8]  at all?

Muslims, however, are required to proceed on to eventual understanding of the complete sequence contained in the Quran and hadiths.  This graduated progression to manage the Muslim community is what Ikhwan strategist Sayyid Qutb made as the object of his seminal jihadist monograph Milestones. The method of graduated progression is why it is impossible to understand the full import of Islam without mastering the doctrines of abrogation and its associated “progressive revelation.”

Finally, progressive revelation along “milestones” tracks with the stepped-learning process that many national security and law enforcement officials have taken to calling “the self-radicalization process.”  Shariah itself calls for this evolution.  The practice may or may not be properly described as “radical,” but it certainly reflects the gradual revelation of Islam itself.

The Sunna: The second most authoritative source for shariah is the Sunna, commonly understood to be the actions and sayings of the Prophet. The Sunna includes the ahadith (plural of hadith), or collections by Mohammed’s contemporaries of what he did and said during his lifetime. Also within the Sunna is the Sira, which are biographical accounts of the life of Mohammed. It should be noted that the ahadith (not the Sira) constitute the legally significant element of the Sunna.[81]

The many hundreds of thousands of hadiths have been recorded in a number of hadith collections, of which six collections are held to be the most authoritative (or “strong hadiths,” meaning their chain of transmission is considered solid). The two most important collections of all are those by Sahih Al-Bukhari (collected and compiled by Mohammed bin Isma’il, known as Imam Bukhari, born 810, died 870) and Sahih Muslim (Muslim bin al-Hajjaj, known as Imam Muslim, born 817/818, died 874/875 ).

Ijma: In addition to the Quran and Sunna, there are also two accepted secondary sources for shariah: these are ijma (consensus of the scholars) and qiyas (analytical deduction). Consensus of the Islamic jurists refers to the achievement of agreement on particular legal issues and finds its justification in numerous verses of the Quran.[82] Hadith accounts also provide support with the words of Mohammed: “My followers will never agree upon an error or what is wrong.” The early Muslim scholars turned to this device of ijma only when they could not find a specific legal ruling in either the Quran or the Sunna.

Qiyas: Qiyas make up the fourth most important source for shariah. The term means “to judge by comparing with a thing.” Its methods of deductive reasoning derive from the previous three sources of authenticity, namely the Quran, the Sunna, and ijma. When a legal ruling was required but could not be found in the other sources, the Islamic jurists employed analogy, reasoning, and legal precedent to arrive at new case law. Although all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali) accept ijma as a legitimate source of shariah, Shiite Muslims do not; however, they replace ijma with aql (or reason). Considering that Shiites do not accept the authority of the Sunni Caliphs after Imam Ali, it is understandable that they would reject a source of legal authority that arose under their authority. In any case, the Shia practice of aql is essentially identical to ijma.

When Allah Contradicts Himself: The Quranic Principle of Abrogation

koran-questionPublished on Friday, 23 May 2014 at Liberty GB

Written by IQ al Rassooli:

Before we address this subject, it is imperative to point out to readers one of the most important pieces of information that not a single scholar of Islam brings to the fore. This is the fact that all that humanity knows about Muhammad’s Quran and the miracles that allegedly happened to him are the assertions by Muhammad and only Muhammad that he had encountered them.

There are no other eyewitnesses to all of these events. None of Muhammad’s wives or intimate companions ever heard Muhammad talk to the Angel Gabriel. There is not a single witness to 23 years of alleged revelations to Muhammad.

In a nutshell all that humanity knows about Muhammad are Muhammad’s unsubstantiated, unwitnessed and uncorroborated words that leave a huge question mark regarding their veracity.

Abrogation means to overrule, to make null and void or to overturn earlier revelations and or commandments by the later ones.

The Quran is unique among all the holy scriptures of other peoples since it is the only one that allows the God of Muhammad, Allah, to keep changing his mind regarding his alleged revelations to Muhammad. This means that Allah revealed something to Muhammad at an earlier time but later on changed the revelation.

Any intelligent human being would ask the following logical question: How is it conceivable for any God, any omniscient God, not to know beforehand everything?

As shocking a realisation as this is, the fact remains, none the less, that Muhammad’s Quran contains abrogated and abrogating verses in 71 suras (chapters) out of 114 – comprising 62% of all the suras of the Quran that have had verses changed, overruled or deleted.

This shows Muhammad’s Allah as a God bereft of foresight, with a fickle mind and incapable of assessing the weaknesses and strengths of Muhammad or his followers; this is of course a blasphemous characterisation of any omniscient divinity.

Neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in the New Testament are there such verses. The God of Israel is not shown to give one command one instance and then change it either immediately, shortly afterwards or much later because He did not realise that it was too onerous to be fulfilled by mere humans.

The verse that allows Allah to abrogate was revealed in

Al Baqara 2:106 “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

Why would any omniscient God not know beforehand the weaknesses or strengths of His creation? Surely it is blasphemy to impugn to the Almighty human weaknesses and vulnerabilities?

Why would any almighty God change His mind and replace earlier ordinances with others?

Why would such a God especially replace earlier ones with similar ones? Why similar? Why not reveal the better ones from the very beginning?

The reader is entitled to ask such questions that require intelligent and logical answers. Can any Muhammadan Muslim provide any logical answers?

Al Nisa 4:82 “Do they not ponder over the Qur’an? Had it been the word of any other but Allah they would surely have found a good deal of variation in it, much discrepancy and incongruity … those who check and scrutinize will know it.”

The Quran is here challenging the reader to find variations, discrepancies and/or abnormalities in its narrative. The answers to the challenge are actually – and incredibly – provided by the Quran and Hadiths themselves. An enormous deal of variation is exactly what is found in the Quranic verses.

There is also of course the issue of the Satanic Verses which were repeated by Muhamnmad who did not recognise them as coming from Satan.

It is as if by divine justice that the Quranic challenge has been met and our case against the veracity and alleged divine origin of the Quran is rested.

Al Ra’d 13:38 “It was not for any Apostle to come up with a miracle or sign unless it was granted by Our permission. For every age there is a Book revealed. Ar-Rahman abrogates, blots out, or confirms [whatever He wants].”

Al Nahl 16:101 “And when We exchange a verse in place of another verse and Allah knows very well what He is sending down they say, ‘Thou art a mere forger!’ Nay, but the most of them have no knowledge.”

The reader should be aware of the very unusual transition in the verse above from “We exchange … another verse” to “and Allah knows … down”. Why and how could Allah speak in the first person [We] at the beginning of the verse and then move immediately and without any logical or grammatical reason to the impersonal [and Allah] in the second part of the same verse? It is precisely because Allah “knows very well what He is sending down” that he has absolutely no reason to change his mind and abrogate or make forgotten an earlier ‘revelation’.

Even the illiterate and unlearned Arabs of Mecca found it intellectually and theologically fraudulent to believe in such a fickle, indecisive and fallible Allah.

Let me now give you one glaring example of what and how abrogation is achieved:

Al Anfal (Spoils of War) 8:65 “O apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you patient and persevering they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.”

In this verse, Allah is putting very onerous odds for the Muhammadans to achieve in reality. No matter how brave and capable people may be, ten to one odds in a fight are almost impossible to realise.

When Muhammad’s followers heard this verse they were appalled and correctly pointed out to Muhammad how onerous and impossible such odds are. This of course necessitated the ‘revelation’ of another verse – immediately after this one – for much reduced odds of two to one instead; as in the following abrogating verse.

This sura also clearly exposes Islam to be a belief system that not only encourages violence but actually makes it a sacred duty for Muhammadans to kill anyone who does not believe in Muhammad’s version of Islam.

Not only is the “All Forgiving Allah” exhorting his followers to kill anyone who is not a Muslim, but he is also saying that all non-Muslims are so stupid that they will be unable to defend themselves and therefore deserve death.

Al Anfal 8.66 “For the present Allah hath lightened your [task] for He knoweth that there is a weak spot in you: but [even so] if there are a hundred of you patient and persevering they will vanquish two hundred and if a thousand they will vanquish two thousand with the leave of Allah: for Allah is with those who patiently persevere.”

Verses 65 and 66 represent a major trend in the Quran whereby Muhammad, finding it difficult for his followers to achieve or implement a Quranic condition, creates a follow-up verse of made-to-order ‘revelations’ reducing and/or lightening the burden upon them, hence abrogating the earlier one.

If the Quran was given by God, these verses make a mockery of His prescience. It should be obvious that the Almighty should already know what the followers of Muhammad are or are not capable of and should not need to abrogate, change, modify or lighten any of them. Each should have been a perfect fit for the occasion (see Bukhari Hadith 6:175).

The most important abrogating verse in Muhammad’s Quran is 9.05, which is called the Fighting Verse:

Al Tauba 9.05 “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

According to Al Suyuti’s Al Itqan fi Ulum al Quran, this single verse abrogated, overruled, made null and void 124 earlier, conciliatory verses.

Since the Quran and its interpreters repeatedly mention the inviolability and eternal character of Allah’s rules and regulations, how can they at the same time explain away the most controversial cases of the abrogated and abrogating suras which number 71, that is 62% of the Quran?

In addition to the above anomaly, the reader should also be aware of the missing and forgotten verses that are mentioned in the Hadiths (traditions about Muhammad).

• Why and what for would Allah, the Omniscient, the All Knowing, change his mind at what he had already announced and ‘replace’ it with one ‘equal’ or ‘better’ than the first?

• What would the purpose be of changing one verse for an equal?

• Why change it if it is only for an equal?

• Does Allah break his own promises and instructions?

• Does Allah hence have more than one preserved tablet in Heaven?

• If so, which one of them is the correct one?

It all sounds more than just blasphemy and mumbo jumbo. It is an insult to the Almighty and to the intelligence of all human beings who accept such profanity and idiocy of a concept or dogma.

All the abnormalities, ambiguities, stupidities and contradictions in the Quran are instantly and summarily resolved when the listener/reader absorbs and accepts these simple and unchallengeable conclusions:

• There is not a single letter, let alone a word, a verse or a chapter in the Quran that could have been revealed by any omniscient divinity because in reality, every letter, word, verse and chapter in the Quran is the product of Muhammad’s imagination, his alter ego, his biography, but very cleverly projected into the unsuspecting mouths of Allah and Gabriel to give them the aura of sanctity and divinity.

• Allah, Gabriel and Muhammad are one and the same: Muhammad.

• Muhammad used Allah and Gabriel as props to give his alleged revelations a cloak of sanctity and divinity but in reality it is all otherwise totally Muhammad’s.

• The Quran was recited and authored by Muhammad over an incredibly long period of 23 years and since Allah is not God and most certainly not the God of Jesus, Moses and Abraham, then Muhammadan Islam is not a religion but a cult belief system, the Cult of Muhammad.

Those who doubt what is being revealed here can read much more on my website www.alrassooli.com and in the following written by the followers of Muhammad: Jamal al Din al Juzi in his Nawasikh al Quran; Abu Ja’afar al Nakhass, al Nasikh wal Mansukh.

——

Renowned scholar IQ al Rassooli is Liberty GB’s expert advisor on Islam. He is an Iraqi-born native Arabic-speaker who has dedicated much of his life to the study and critical analysis of Muhammad, the Qur’an, Hadiths, Shariah, Arabic and Islamic history.

IQ’s book trilogy entitled, Lifting the Veil: The True Faces of Muhammad and Islam, is available from Amazon. His Idiot’s Guide to Islam can be accessed via the ‘Resources’ menu at the top of this page.

Some other articles by IQ al Rassooli:

The BBC’s Misrepresentation of Islam

The Islamisation of Europe

I Accuse

IQ al-Rassooli on the Islamic Murder in Woolwich

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

Also see:

David Wood: The Three Stages of Jihad and the Qur’an in Context

Re-posting these classics for my new followers:

Click here for a printable PDF pamphlet on the Three Stages of Jihad.

Click here for the passages discussed in “Qur’an in Context 1.”

I. PEACE, VIOLENCE, AND ABROGATION

Muslims in the West are quick to point to passages such as Qur’an 109:6 (“You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) and 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) as evidence that Islam is a religion of peace. When confronted with harsher passages such as 9:5 (“Slay the idolaters wherever you find them”) and 9:29 (“Fight those who believe not in Allah”), Westernized Muslims interpret these verses in light of the more peaceful teachings of the Qur’an, typically saying something like: “Well, the Qur’an can’t be commanding us to kill unbelievers, since it says that there’s no compulsion in religion.”

Hence, Westernized Muslims pick the verses of the Qur’an they find most attractive, and they use these verses to sanitize the rest of the Qur’an. But is this the correct way to interpret the Qur’an? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The Qur’an presents its own method of interpretation—the Doctrine of Abrogation.

Qur’an 2:106—Whatever verse we shall abrogate, or cause [thee] to forget, we will bring a better than it, or one like unto it. Dost thou not know that God is almighty?

Qur’an 16:101—When We substitute one revelation for another—and God knows best what He reveals (in stages)—they say, “Thou art but a forger”: but most of them understand not.


According to the Qur’an, then, when Muslims are faced with conflicting commands, they aren’t supposed to pick the one they like best. Rather, they are to go to history and see which verse was revealed last. Whichever verse came last is said to abrogate (or cancel) earlier revelations. 

What happens when we apply this methodology to Qur’anic verses on peace and violence?

II. THE CALL TO JIHAD: THREE STAGES

When we turn to Islam’s theological sources and historical writings (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir), we find that there are three stages in the call to Jihad, depending on the status of Muslims in a society.

STAGE ONE—When Muslims are completely outnumbered and can’t possibly win a physical confrontation with unbelievers, they are to live in peace with non-Muslims and preach a message of tolerance. We see an example of this stage when Muhammad and his followers were a persecuted minority in Mecca. Since the Muslims were entirely outnumbered, the revelations Muhammad received during this stage (e.g. “You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion”) called for religious tolerance and proclaimed a future punishment (rather than a worldly punishment) for unbelievers. 

STAGE TWO—When there are enough Muslims and resources to defend the Islamic community, Muslims are called to engage in defensive Jihad. Thus, when Muhammad had formed alliances with various groups outside Mecca and the Muslim community had become large enough to begin fighting, Muhammad received Qur’an 22:39-40:

Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them; Those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause except that they say: our Lord is Allah. . . .


Although Muslims in the West often pretend that Islam only allows defensive fighting, later revelations show otherwise. 

STAGE THREE—When Muslims establish a majority and achieve political power in an area, they are commanded to engage in offensive Jihad. Hence, once Mecca and Arabia were under Muhammad’s control, he received the call the fight all unbelievers. In Surah 9:29, we read:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.


Notice that this verse doesn’t order Muslims to fight oppressors, but to fight those who don’t believe in Islam (including the “People of the Book”—Jews and Christians).

Not surprisingly, we find similar commands in Islam’s most trusted collections of ahadith (traditions containing Muhammad’s teachings).

Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said La ilaha illahllah, Allah will save his property and his life from me.”

Sahih Muslim 30—Muhammad said: “I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah.”


Here again, the criterion for fighting people is that the people believe something other than Islam.

It’s clear, then, that when Muslims rose to power, peaceful verses of the Qur’an were abrogated by verses commanding Muslims to fight people based on their beliefs. Islam’s greatest scholars acknowledge this. For instance, Ibn Kathir (Islam’s greatest commentator on the Qur’an) sums up Stage Three as follows: “Therefore all people of the world should be called to Islam. If anyone of them refuses to do so, or refuses to pay the Jizyah, they should be fought till they are killed.” 

III. WHEN MUSLIMS REACH STAGE THREE

Abrogation also accounts for shifting attitudes regarding Jews and Christians in the Qur’an. While Muslims are to be friendly to Jews and Christians when the former are outnumbered, the Islamic position changes when Muslims reach Stage Three, at which point Christians and Jews are to recognize their inferior status and pay the Jizyah (a payment made to Muslims in exchange for not being killed by them). Consider some of Muhammad’s later teachings about Christians and Jews:

Qur’an 5:51—O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

Qur’an 9:30—And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Qur’an 98:6—Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein. They are the worst of creatures.

Sahih Muslim 4366—Muhammad said: “I will expel the Jews and Christians from the Arabian Peninsula and will not leave any but Muslim.”

Al-Bukhari, Al-Adab al-Mufrad 1103—Muhammad said: “Do not give the People of the Book the greeting first. Force them to the narrowest part of the road.”


Needless to say, these teachings can hardly be considered peaceful or tolerant.

IV. MUSLIMS IN THE WEST

Since Muhammad obviously commanded his followers to fight unbelievers (simply for being unbelievers), why do Muslims in the West deny this? Here we must turn to Surah 3:28, which reads: 

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security.


According to this verse (which uses a variation of the word Taqiyya, meaning “concealment”), Muslims are not allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. However, if Muslims feel threatened by a stronger adversary, they are allowed to pretend to be friendly. Ibn Kathir comments: “In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly but never inwardly.” Abu Darda, one of Muhammad’s companions, put it this way: “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.”

Is Islam a religion of peace? No. Islam is a religion that pretends to be peaceful when Muslims are too weak to win a war. Of course, there are many Muslims who aren’t violent. Many Muslims in the West love peace and tolerance. But they didn’t get these values from Islam. They got them from the West, and now they’re reinterpreting Islam based on their Western values. For dedicated Muslims, however, there are only two possible situations to be in: (1) fighting unbelievers, and (2) pretending to be peaceful while preparing to fight unbelievers. Either way, fighting non-Muslims and conquering the world in the name of Allah is always the goal.

Go to Answering Muslims for more

Here are some useful links:

Blueprint for Jihadists

Jihad and QuranCitizen Warrior:

If you excerpted the parts of Islamic texts on jihad, you would get a short how-to book. That is what follows. The article below might be called, How To Wage Jihad in a Nutshell, Updated For The 21st Century, taken from the pages of Islam’s texts.

In the texts, it is clear that if you’re a believer, it is your duty to spend your time and money getting the whole world to follow Islamic law, no matter how long it takes and even if you have other things you’d rather be doing. It is your duty. Allah expects it of you, and there are serious consequences in the afterlife if you don’t. For those who choose to accept Allah’s mission, here are the instructions:

1. As a formality, always invite infidels to convert to Islam before you do anything else. They just might choose conversion rather than hostilities, and if they do, you’ve saved yourself a lot of time and money.

2. Probably they won’t take you up on your offer, so if you already have your own Islamic state, find a way to provoke a hostile response from an infidel country. Keep provoking until you get a hostile response. Don’t start outright war. Just provoke.

3. When you get a hostile response, use it as an excuse to escalate hostilities with that country. But make sure you call it “defending Islam.” Never think of it (or portray it as) an aggressive war, either to your own people or to the infidels. Only do this when you are sure you will not be wiped out by the enemy’s aggressive response.

4. When you aren’t in a position to defeat the infidel country militarily, make peace treaties with it, without actually intending to keep the treaties. Use a treaty as a way to prevent the country from attacking you while you gain enough strength to defeat it later. Pour any extra money you have into building up the power of your Islamic state and military prowess.

5. Use deception against the infidels. Lie to them. Pretend to be their friend, but never actually allow yourself any friendly feeling toward an infidel. Portray yourself in such a way that prevents them from trying to suppress you while you gain strength. Always remember, every Muslim in the world, wherever he is, is your brother. Every infidel is your enemy.

6. Do whatever you can to increase the ratio of Muslims to non-Muslims. For example, have lots of children. Try your best to convert infidels peacefully to your religion. Men can marry up to four wives. Try to marry widows and convert infidel women to Islam and marry them. Gain a Muslim numerical advantage.

7. Undermine the infidels in any way you can without weakening your position. This is your most important activity when not actually in battle. In modern days, this might mean using the press to your advantage, trying to capitalize on any division you might perceive within the infidel country, immigrating to the country and trying to undermine their laws and pressing for Islamic concessions, strongly suppressing any criticism of Islam, giving money to organizations that will lobby for Muslim rights and organizations that will use the laws to put legal pressure on anyone who might slow down your jihad from within, using the internet to your advantage, infiltrating and invading into every place you can use to your advantage, taking full advantage of any freedoms and rights available in that country to eventually use them to undermine those freedoms and rights (by establishing Sharia law) once you gain the reins of power. All of this is jihad. Jihad is not only fighting on the battlefield and killing. Jihad is total war.

8. Make jihad your overarching mission in life, but keep it a secret from the infidels, because revealing it would weaken Islam. In fact, try to convince the infidels that you only want peace. Devote your life to jihad, and use all the time and money you can spare to forward the cause. Nothing is more important than jihad. It is the supreme act of religious devotion, it proves your faith, and it is Allah’s favorite act of worship, and that’s why the only way a man can guarantee himself a place in heaven is if he dies while fighting in jihad.

9. If you cannot fight on the battlefield, fight in anyway you can, including giving money, or giving support to jihad of whatever kind. In modern days, it might include going on web sites that criticize Islam to make comments that persuade the infidels it’s not true, or at least confuse them enough they won’t be motivated to do anything about it, going into the streets and protesting loudly whenever anyone criticizes Islam, even for something minor like a cartoon, etc.

10. Find any infidel allies, even unwitting ones, and use them to advance the cause of Allah. Later, when the country has become an Islamic state, you can hang the infidels who helped you if you like. But for now, use them. For a modern example, if there is a prevailing notion in infidel lands that all belief systems must be respected, then use that to try to get Islamic propaganda into infidel schools, on their public television programs, etc.

11. Do not try to convert people to Islam by force. Your goal is to convertgovernments to Islamic law. Once a government becomes an Islamic state, if the population converts to Islam, fine. If not, then the new Islamic government will make a lot of money on the “infidelity tax” (thejizya — a tax on dhimmis, the subjugated non-Muslims). This is a good source of revenue you can then use to fund further Islamic expansion. The goal is universal Sharia law rather than trying to force every person to be a Muslim. 

There it is. That’s the blueprint in a nutshell. That’s what it says very clearly in the Islamic texts, along with repeated warnings that if you don’t believe, and if you don’t put your faith into action, you’re going to burn for eternity.

So now, what should infidels like you and me do about this? What good does it do to know the game plan of the devoted Muslims following strict Islamic teachings?

First of all, now that you know about it, you can help thwart their plans, in many different ways and in many different places. There is no need to list every possible action you could take (although here’s a start). The number of possible actions are almost infinite and new opportunities will arise constantly. The knowledge of the game plan lends itself to innumerable possible ways to thwart it.

The important thing is to know what is being planned, and that they are deliberately hiding their intentions — that’s part of the plan.

The most important thing you can do about the jihad threat is inform your fellow infidels. That’s one of the hardest things to do, and it is also something the jihad warriors are trying to make even harder with their cries of Islamophobia, hate-speech, and racism. But it needs to be done, and you need to be one of the ones doing it. There aren’t many of us right now, and we’re in a race against time. Jihadists are recruiting new warriors every day. It is crucial that each of us who are “in on the game” alert those who aren’t. And the sooner the better.

When all of us are in on the game, it will be very difficult for the jihadists to fulfill their goals. Until that time, it is relatively easy for them.

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

Also see The Counter Jihad Report’s menu item, “Islamic Texts”. Especially the page “Jihadist Ideology: The Core Texts”

Video: Dr. Mordechai Kedar on the “Good Koran” vs. the “Radical Koran”

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Dr. Mordechai Kedar, the director of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation) at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.

He joined the show to discuss The “Good Koran” vs. the “Radical Koran,” analyzing the phenomenon of Jihad-Denial and the reluctance to recognize the true threat we face.

Attempting to Rewrite the History of September 11th

september-9-11-attacks-anniversary-ground-zero-world-trade-center-pentagon-flight-93-second-airplane-wtc_39997_600x450ACT! for America, By Brigitte Gabriel:

On May 21st, more than 13 years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, the National September 11 Memorial Museum will open its doors to the public to make certain that Americans will never forget what happened that day.

Unfortunately, some are working to ensure that future generations of Americans never fully understand the attacks, which were the most deadly terrorist attacks in the history of the United States.

One of the exhibits in the museum will feature a 7-minute film called “The Rise of Al Qaeda.”

In that film, the Al Qaeda terrorists are referred to as “Islamists” who were waging “jihad” with the attacks upon America.

Those two words, “Islamists” and “Jihad” have caused a controversy, with a variety of critics calling for whitewashing the description of Al Qaeda and the attacks by sanitizing the museum commentary by removing those two words.

This would be a tragic mistake.

Despite the complaints, the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad” in no way suggest that all Muslims are terrorists or support violence. No serious analyst in his or her right mind would make such an assertion.

Nevertheless, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality, so it makes perfect sense to call Islamists “Islamists” and to call Jihad “Jihad.” After all, in World War II, Nazis were referred to as Nazis, because they themselves referred to themselves as such.

America’s enemies in the war on terror do NOT refer to themselves as “extremists,” “militants,” or “radicals.”

They refer to themselves as Jihadists and Jihadis.

Interestingly, critics on both sides of the issue seem to dislike the term “Islamist.” Apologists for organizations such as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood claim that the term too closely identifies Islam with “extremism.” Many in the countershariah and counterjihad movement say that the term “Islamist” is a term concocted in the West that has no meaning in the Islamic world.

Both are wrong.

The first known use of the term “Islamist” came from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the late dictator of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.

Khomeini said: “We are neither capitalists nor communists. We are Islamists.”

There are many different definitions listed for the term “Islamist,” but that is not the point. The point is that one of the world’s most prominent Muslim leaders coined the term to describe the revolution he led. It is entirely proper for the 9/11 museum to use the term “Islamists” to describe Al Qaeda.

The same is true for the term “jihad.” There has long been a debate about the use of the term jihad, with Muslim Brotherhood organizations such as CAIR particularly objecting to its use to describe violent warfare or terrorism.

The Muslim Brotherhood in America aims to convince Americans that Jihad only means “to struggle” or, more specifically, an internal, personal struggle.

This is only partially correct and any campaign that claims that the term Jihad only means an internal, personal struggle amounts to disinformation. The dualistic nature of Islam, in this case as it applies to the meaning of “Jihad,” is well documented both in historical Islamic doctrine and in contemporary use of the term.

And Jihad definitely does not only mean an internal, personal struggle. In fact, the most widespread meaning of the term that is of particular interest to Westerners who are threatened by Jihad does in fact entail violence.

A false and misleading statement has been attributed to the San Francisco chapter head of CAIR, Zahra Billoo:

“A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war, and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who’ve made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment.”

Such a meaning for Jihad has nothing to do with anyone with an “anti-Muslim sentiment.” It has everything to do with Islam itself.

Let us examine definitions of Jihad from two authoritative sources.

Jihad According to the Quran

The first is the Quran itself. In this case, specifically The Noble Qu’ran, translated into English by two scholars: Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, PhD, professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings at the Islamic University, Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia and Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan of the same institution. The Noble Qu’ran was published by Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. It has been catalogued by King Fahad National Library. On page 818, in a glossary accompanying the text of the Quran, The Noble Qu’ran provides the following definition of Jihad:

“Jihad: Holy fighting in the Cause of Allah or any other kind of effort to make Allah’s Word superior. Jihad is regarded as one of the fundamentals of Islam.”


Can the Quran itself be promoting “anti-Muslim sentiment” as CAIR’s Zahra Billoo asserts?

Jihad According to Shariah

Our second source is Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law.

Reliance of the Traveler is one of the world’s most widely read manuals of Shariah law. It has been endorsed by a variety of Islamic authorities, including Al Azhar University in Cairo, IIIT (International Institute of Islamic Thought) in Herndon, Virginia, the Fiqh Council of North America, the Islamic Fiqh Academy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces and the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha in Damascus, Syria.

These can hardly be termed as those pushing “anti-Muslim sentiment” as Billoo claims.

On page 599 of Reliance of the Traveler, readers can find the following passage:

o9.0 JIHAD

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion…

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight 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. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”


Jihad According to Terrorists

If Jihad truly means to “struggle” and not warfare to establish the religion, how does CAIR explain the names of all these terrorist organizations?

Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (Pakistan, Bangladesh, India)
Islamic Front for Armed Jihad (Algeria)
Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine (Israel)
Islamic Jihad Organization (Lebanon)
Islamic Jihad Union (Uzbekistan)
Jama’at al-Jihad al-Islami (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Russia)
Laskar Jihad (Indonesia)
United Jihad Council (India)

So, it is completely appropriate for the 9/11 museum to use the term “jihadist” and “jihad” to describe Al Qaeda terrorists and their activity.

Conclusion

We suspect that the sensitivity expressed with regard to the 9/11 museum goes way beyond the use of the terms “Islamist” and “jihad.”

The fact is, our country has never truly come to terms with the role that Islam plays in Jihadist terrorism.

It would be great if there was truly no connection whatsoever between Islam and Jihad. But the reality is Jihad is a tenet of Islam.

As previously stated, in warfare the enemy’s reality becomes your reality. It makes no difference what Americans think about the stated motivations and doctrine behind the actions of Al Qaeda. The only thing that truly matters is what the leaders and members of Al Qaeda think about why they wage warfare.

The fact of the matter is, Al Qaeda justify their actions by invoking Islam and Allah:

In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate,

The General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization Statement on the Succession of Sheikh Osama Bin Laden in the al-Qaeda Organization’s Command

With hearts that are satisfied with Allah’s ordainment, and assured of Almighty Allah’s promise and His good reward, the Islamic umma, the mujahideen in the al-Qaeda Organization, and in other groups received the news of the martyrdom of the reviver imam, the jihadist immigrant Sheikh Osama Bin-Muhammad Bin Laden, may Allah rest his soul in peace. We pray to the Almighty Allah to raise his rank and to reward him, on behalf of us and the Muslim umma, with the best of rewards.

Since jihad is continuing until the Day of Resurrection … the General Command of the al-Qaeda Organization announces, after completion of consultations, that Sheikh Dr Abu-Muhammad Ayman al-Zawahiri, may Allah guide him to success, has taken over command of the group…

Statement from Al Qaeda
Announcing Zawahiri as the
New leader of Al Qaeda after
Osama Bin Laden’s death


All these sins and crimes committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger and Muslims.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in every country in which it is possible to do it…

We, with Allah’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Leader of Al Qaeda


It would be a tragic mistake if the 9/11 museum was to erase the role that their Islamic faith played in the leadership and membership of Al Qaeda’s horrific actions on September 11th, 2001. 

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: (re-posting from Aug. 7, 2013)

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

Muhammad and the Birth of Islamic Supremacism: The War With The Jews 622-628 A.D.

Today’s jihadists consistently refer to the Qur’an, hadith, sira, commentaries on the Qur’an (tafsir), the shari’a (Islamic law) and the military success of the first 1000 years of Islamic history to support the idea that Islam will eventually triumph over the infidel.  They believe in the long view of history.  September 11, 1683, is a pivotal date in Islamic history.  Osama bin Laden referred to it soon after the attacks on America on 9-11.  On September 11, 1683, Ottoman Muslim forces were repulsed from taking over Vienna, Austria.  The attack on the World Trade Center was a Muslim jihadist way of saying, “We’re back.”  To repeat: today’s jihadists are motivated because of Allah’s revelations and his messenger’s words and actions.  

MuhammadFront Page, by  on November 21, 2012

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is David Hayden, the author of the new book, Muhammad and the Birth of Islamic Supremacism: The War With the Jews 622-628 A.D.  

FP: David Hayden, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Let’s begin with what motivated you to write this book.

Hayden: I’ve always had a keen interest in history, but my knowledge of Muslim history was quite deficient until the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and the failed attack on the White House on Sept. 11, 2001.  I wanted to understand the ideas and motivations of the attackers.  Powerful ideas had to support such a brazen attack on civilian populations.  All of the suicide attackers were Muslims.  What was it in their belief system that persuaded them that such heinous acts were the moral thing to do?  To answer such questions I began a search to learn everything I could about Islam.  I read well over 100 books about Islam including 14 biographies of Muhammad, the Qur’an, numerous hadith (especially Bukhari, Muslim, and Dawud), several tafsir (commentaries on the Qur’an), Muslim and non-Muslim historians and commentators, and countless articles from both print and online sources.   

FP: So what did you learn and what is your book primarily about?

Hayden: The research led me to focus on Allah’s revelations and Muhammad as the messenger and enforcer of those revelations.  Without both the revelations and the messenger the idea of Islamic supremacism would not exist.  A detailed study of the Qur’an, hadith (collected sayings and actions of Muhammad, and sira (early biographies of Muhamad) led me to this conclusion. I focused on Muhammad’s contentious relationship with the Jews of Medina and the Hejaz region of Arabia because this relationship brings into focus the birth of the idea of Islamic supremacism. 

FP: What is different about your book from other books on the subject?

Hayden: I have not encountered another source which has covered Muhammad’s war with the Jews with the same thorough depth and breadth as I have.  The book is filled with the voices of Allah, Muhammad and his companions, commentators on the Qur’an, poets, warrior/jihadists, Muslim and non-Muslim historians and commentators.  A variety of points of view are presented throughout the book as well as my interpretation of these differing views.

FP: Tell us about your research. What are some of the sources you drew most heavily from?

Hayden: As stated above, I relied heavily on the Qur’anthe hadith (especially Bukhari, Muslim, and Dawud; the three most respected collectors of the hadith); and the biographies of Muhammad (especially Ibn Ishaq, Martin Lings, Muhammad Husayn Haykal, al-Mubarakpuri,  Ibn Sa’d, Maulana Muhammad Ali,  Maxime Rodinson, W. Montgomery Watt, Robert Spencer, Karen Armstrong, Sir John Glubb,  M.J. Kister, and Gordon Darnell Newby).  

FP: Crystallize for us the foundations of Islam.

Hayden: Islam’s foundations begin with Allah’s revelations to his messenger.  According to Orthodox Islam the Qur’an has always existed and can never be changed.  Islamic law, the Sharia, has to conform with the Qur’an and the Sunna (the hadith and sira, both of which must conform to the Qur’an).  Support for the idea of Islamic supremacism can be found in all three of these documents.  Pious Muslims involved in violent jihad base their beliefs and behavior on these documents.   

FP: Share with us how you recovered the historical truth of Mohammad’s war on the Jews and how it marked his rise to power.

Hayden: I tried to find the historical truth of Muhammad’s war with the Jews through persistent research of the sources.  In each of the major points of contention during the 622-628 years, Allah through revelations and Muhammad through his words and actions tend to place the blame on the hypocrites, poets, pagans and infidels in general, but the Jews primarily received the brunt of Muslim attacks on its enemies.

Jewish poets, Asma Marwan, Abu Afak, and Ka’b Ibn al-Ashraf, criticized Muhammad for causing the battle of Badr by his failed attempt to raid a wealth-laden caravan returning from Syria; Muhammad had them assassinated. The Jewish Banu Qaynuqa tribe was accused of treachery and mockery of Muhammad; he had them exiled and their wealth confiscated after they surrendered.  The Jewish Banu Nadir tribe was accused of plotting to kill Muhammad (with flimsy evidence); Muhammad commanded them to leave “his country.”  They refused but surrendered after their castles were besieged by the Muslims.  They, too, were exiled and their wealth confiscated.  The Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe tried to remain neutral during the Battle of the Ditch between the Muslims and the Meccan-Jewish-Ghatafan confederation, but reluctantly agreed to help due to the persistent urging of a Banu Nadir leader.  But the sources show no evidence that they actually aided those who were trying to defeat the Muslims. After a Muslim victory, Muhammad had the adult males of the Qurayza Jews beheaded and their women and children enslaved, plus all of their land and wealth were confiscated.

A year later, Muhammad attacked the Jewish settlements at Khaybar, defeated them, confiscated their land and wealth, and effectively began the system of dhimmitude with the Jews who remained to work the land for the new owners.  In each of these episodes, the Jews were always the “treacherous” ones according to the Muslims who told the story. At no time, however, did a Jewish tribe attack the Muslims; the reverse was true in every case. Some Jews were reportedly involved in helping defeat Muhammad, but no evidence could be found that a Jewish tribe, as a collective group, ever attacked the Muslims.

The pattern goes like this:  the treacherous Jews are accused of some misdeed which has little factual support; the Jews are given a chance to accept Allah and his messenger; the Jews refuse and are attacked by the Muslims who further accuse the Jews of starting a war; after several weeks of trying to defend their property and lives the Jews surrender; the Muslims either exile the surviving tribe, or in the case of the Qurayza Jews, behead the males and enslave the women and children and confiscate all their land and wealth.

In every case the Muslims view the Jews as the aggressors and Muhammad and his companions as victims of such aggression.

Supporting this Muslim point of view is the Qur’an.  Numerous verses are sharply critical of the Jews, including Allah’s talk of terrorizing them himself and leading the charge in battle such as at Badr.  Muhammad had to be quite smug knowing that Allah supported his efforts to take on the Jews.  Likewise, the hadith and sira provide evidence for the aggressive behavior of Muhammad in each of these cases. Islamic supremacism for the sake of Allah permeates the early Islamic literature.  A belief in this supremacy undergirds Muhammad’s rise to power. 

FP: So, what motivated the jihadists for the 9-11 attack?

Hayden: The 9-11 jihadists believe in the idea of Islamic supremacism.  They are quite serious and sincere about their faith.  In their hearts and minds, they believe they are truly following in the footsteps of Muhammad, the perfect man, who simply carried out the commands of Allah through revelation.

Today’s jihadists consistently refer to the Qur’an, hadith, sira, commentaries on the Qur’an (tafsir), the shari’a (Islamic law) and the military success of the first 1000 years of Islamic history to support the idea that Islam will eventually triumph over the infidel.  They believe in the long view of history.  September 11, 1683, is a pivotal date in Islamic history.  Osama bin Laden referred to it soon after the attacks on America on 9-11.  On September 11, 1683, Ottoman Muslim forces were repulsed from taking over Vienna, Austria.  The attack on the World Trade Center was a Muslim jihadist way of saying, “We’re back.”  To repeat: today’s jihadists are motivated because of Allah’s revelations and his messenger’s words and actions.    

FP: Why does our mainstream media and higher literary culture never speak a word on the things your book talks about? What are the consequences of this denial and ignorance in our culture?

Hayden: Both the mainstream media and higher literary culture in the United States seem to have a penchant for believing Islam is a religion of peace. While it is probably true that a good percentage of Muslims in America are law-abiding and peaceful, my research has led me to understand that the Qur’an,  hadith, sira, tafsir, and 1400 years of Islamic history can be interpreted to support the idea of Islamic supremacism and violent jihad as core Islamic beliefs.

So why do the mainstream media and literary elites tend to ignore this interpretation and focus on the peaceful side of Islam?  Fear is one explanation.  The jihadists’ use of terror against the West has succeeded in silencing many in the media who might otherwise try to report the truth honestly.  Journalists, professors, and politicians tend to bend over backwards not to criticize the basic tenets of Islam which present the religion in a bad light.  Some of Allah’s revelations reveal the Muslim belief in the divine use of terror.  After the Muslim victory over the Quraysh (Meccans) at the Battle of Badr, Allah revealed this verse:

“When the Lord inspired the angels [saying to them], ‘I am with you; so make those who believe stand firm.  I will throw FEAR into the hearts of those who disbelieve.  Then [you angels] smite their necks and smite of them each finger’” (Qur’an 8: 12).

In another verse dealing with a battle against the Qaynuqa Jews of Medina, Allah said: “So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse [create terror in] those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson” (Qur’an 8: 57).

Allah also revealed how he cast terror into the hearts of the Qurayza Jews:

“And those of the Book who aided them–Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners” (Qur’an 33: 27).

As terror worked against the Jews in the 7th century, so has it worked with our mainstream media, politicians, and cultural elites.

Some liberals and progressives tend to not have fear of Islamic terror; they actually support the goals of jihad.  In an exchange with an editor of a progressive book publishing company, I was told that the thesis of my book was “strange.”  He went on to make this revealing statement:

“We now believe that all cultures in spite of their differences have ‘human dignity.’  There is no war of Muslims against Jews now. What we have is the last gasps of a dying Euro/America which seems determined to kill as many people of the world as it can while it still has any breath remaining.  The era of Euro/American hegemony is passing but it is not going out peacefully. There is no rationale for our current wars other than pure viciousness.  Jews are Europeans.  That’s what makes them enemies.”

He says America/Israel are the causes of the world’s problems; Islamic jihadists are simply fighting to make social justice a reality.  The left’s romance with social justice makes them bedfellows with the jihadists.  Both of them are totalitarian, against free market capitalism, and anti-liberty in their stated goals.  It is easy to understand why “they never speak a word” about the contents of my book.  But eventually, they too may well be in the crosshairs of the supremacists.

Our culture cannot afford to remain ignorant of Islamic supremacism. The jihadists have declared America enemy #1 for Islam.  Knowledge precedes understanding.

FP: What are your main conclusions and what is your advice and warning for the West and its leaders?

Hayden: My research of Muhammad’s relationship with the Jews of the Hejaz has convinced me that modern-day jihadists have a better understanding of Muhammad than do those who see his schtick as a man of peace.  Muslim supremacists do, however, believe in peace, but they say true peace will not reign until after Islam has become supreme and Allah’s law, the sharia, is accepted all over the world.  In the meantime, jihadists have the green light to create violent mayhem both in the lands of the disbelievers and against the disbelievers in Islamic lands.  They use terror or a tactic to intimidate the infidel; that includes all non-Muslims and those in the Islamic fold they consider to be heretics.  This presents an existential problem for peaceful Muslims.  As perceived enemies of Islam and Muhammad, they too are in the crosshairs of the jihadists who recognize them as apostates from the true faith.  Our political and military leaders, plus the wonks who implement U.S. foreign policy, need to drop all the political correctness and take an Islamo-Realist approach.  In order to do that, they have to understand the nature of Islam starting with the birth of Islamic supremacism which began with Allah’s revelations and Muhammad’s role as messenger/enforcer of them.

FP: David Hayden, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

David Hayden is a retired English teacher from Memorial High School in Evansville , Indiana. As an avid student of history, he began an inquiry into why Muslim jihadists killed so many innocent people on Sept. 11, 2001. The answers to this question led him to write a history of the birth of Islamic supremacism. Hayden has a Master of Arts degree in history from Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. Inquiries to the author should be sent to: birdbrainproductions@ ymail.com