Obama’s Moral Equivalence Ignores Islamic Doctrine

isis-obama-shhhhhhPJ Media, By Andrew C. McCarthy On February 6, 2015

The insipid moral equivalence in President Obama’s apologia for Islam at the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday morning has already been deconstructed by such commentators as Roger Simon, Victor David Hanson and Jonah Goldberg. I am bothered, though, by the president’s presumption of equivalence between doctrinal apples and oranges. If, as he maintains, we must engage in comparative religion with a focus on what believers do in the name of their varying faiths, then we should also analyze what their varying faiths tell them to do.

Sounding more like the executive director of CAIR, the president of the United States warned Christians and other non-Muslims to stay off “our high horse” regarding the sadistic murder of a Jordanian pilot, Lieutenant Mouath al-Kasaebeh, by Islamic State terrorists. We must have some humility, explained famously humble Mr. Obama. After all, over the last millennium, “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

In Islamic doctrine, Jesus (Isa) is considered not God but a prophet. He is deemed to anticipate the final prophet, Mohammed, and to preach a Gospel subsequently perfected by the revelations of the Koran.

From that perspective, then, an analogous answer to Obama’s assertion could be made y recounting the terrible things Muslims have done in the name of Mohammed — an answer that wouldn’t require mining a millennium since it has been just three weeks since Lt. al-Kasaebeh’s immolation and the scene of mass-murdering jihadists braying, “Allahu Akbar! The prophet has been avenged!” as they fled the offices of Charlie Hebdo.

I’m more interested, though, in the deeds of Mohammed himself. When Christians resort to the wrongs cataloged by Obama, they are blatantly deviating from the example of Christ. Can the same be said for Muslims and the example of Mohammed?

In 627 AD, the prophet orchestrated the mass-murder of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe after they had surrendered to the Muslims. He presided over the beheadings of somewhere between 600 and 900 members of the tribe – including all young boys who had reached puberty. The women and the remaining children were taken as concubines and slaves (with some of the women sold for horses and armor). All the tribe’s wealth was confiscated.

This is not speculation. The incident is explicitly recorded in Koran. (By the way, I use the Koran approved and published in various languages, side-by-side with the original Arabic, by the Saudi government’s Ministry of Hajj and Endowments. The Kingdom has widely disseminated this version throughout the world, particularly Islamic schools.)

As recounted in Sura 33:25-27:

Allah turned back the unbelievers for (all) their fury: No advantage did they gain; and enough is Allah for the believers in their fight. And Allah is full of strength, exalted in might.

And those of the people of the book [the Banu Qurayza] 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 captives.

And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, and of a land which ye had not frequented (before). And Allah has power over all things.

Mohammed’s first authoritative biographer, Mohammed ibn Ishaq (d. 768), elaborates with this account (reproduced at wikiislam.net):

Then [the Banu Qurayza] surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina[.]… Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900.

As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, “Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!” This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, “By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.” Then he went to the men and said, “God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.” Then he sat down and his head was struck off.

Ibn Kathir, a revered fourteenth century scholar of sharia jurisprudence and biographer of Mohammed, adds:

Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.

This was six centuries after the Gospel of the New Testament. Even if he did not turn the other cheek, the prophet could have shown compassion to his enemies. They had surrendered. Even if he had been determined to seize their territory and wealth, he could have allowed them to evacuate. Instead, he killed, enslaved, and sold them off.

Some background is necessary before we get to a second incident in the life of the prophet. Earlier this week, the Islamic State released a slick video showing Lt. al-Kasaebeh being burnt alive in a cage. The Obama administration spun into action … fresh off offending both the Egyptian government and most Americans by hosting some of its friends from the outlawed and virulently anti-American Muslim Brotherhood at the State Department. Echoing Islamists, administration officials assured us that, while this sort of barbarity was a staple of fifteenth century Christianity — it was against everything Islam stands for, and thus utterly slanderous for ISIS to rationalize it as Islamic warfare.

Inconveniently, the Koran proclaims that immolation is a punishment favored by Allah, so much so that the skin is constantly replaced to prolong the agony. It is imposed, moreover, not for anything particularly treacherous — just for refusing to accept Islam. Sura 4:56 explains:

Those who reject Our signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the chastisement: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Now, according to “Muslim clerics” far and wide, as reported by Reuters, immolation is “considered despicable by Islam, no matter what the context.” How can that be when the Koran tells us Allah Himself has prescribed immolation as a suitable punishment? Because, Islam’s defenders rationalize, the immolation promised in the Koran is for Allah alone to impose in the afterlife, not for men to presume to impose in this life. “Only God tortures by fire,” tweeted Salman al-Odah, a Saudi sheikh.

That’s not very persuasive. There are, after all, numerous cruel penalties that Islamic scripture has Allah directing Muslims to impose — scourging, stoning, beheading and so on. Indeed, while in one breath condemning the torching of the pilot as a “lowly terrorist act” by a “Satanic, terrorist” group, Reuters quoted Grand Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar (the ancient seat of Sunni scholarship), as pronouncing in the next breath that the ISIS killers should be “killed, crucified of have their limbs amputated.”

As Robert Spencer points out, the grand sheikh clearly drew that sharia sentence straight out of the Koran. Specifically, according to Sura 5:33:

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, crucifixion, or the cutting of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land[.]

The verse goes on to say that, for those condemned, these punishments are to be “their disgrace in this world”; then, after death, another “heavy punishment” awaits them — presumably, the eternal barbecue foretold by Sura 4:56.

So at best, fire is frowned upon, but death by crucifixion and amputation is recommended. Not terribly comforting.

But it gets worse. There is also an eye-for-an-eye dimension of Islamic jurisprudence. Back to Sura 5, this time verse 45: “We ordained therein for them, ‘Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” This is why, for example, in Saudi Arabia, where sharia is the law of the land, the government had a prisoner’s eye surgically removed after he was found guilty of an assault that damaged his victim’s eye.

Lt. al-Kasaebeh was captured while on a mission to firebomb Islamic State targets. The jihadists thus contend that setting him on fire was the reciprocal, scripturally prescribed punishment. That rationale is disturbing to us in the West, where — unless you’re frozen, Obama-like, in the fifteenth century — we do not criminalize honorable combatants who conduct legitimate attacks on enemy forces (and we don’t, in any event, do immolation).

Nevertheless, ISIS’s argument carries considerable weight in Islam. Even in the Reuters report that tries hard to depict universal Muslim condemnation of ISIS, a Jordanian cleric known as Abu Sayaf (a/k/a “Mohamed al-Shalabi) is quoted as grudgingly saying, “Even if the Islamic State says [the Jordanian pilot] had bombed and burnt and killed us and we punished him they way he did to us, we say, ‘OK, but why film the video in this shocking way?’” In other words, burning the pilot alive is justifiable; it’s the bad PR from recording it that is unacceptable.

Now, with all that as context, let’s consider another episode from the prophet’s life, which, as Mr. Spencer points out, is conveniently omitted by al-Azhar’s grand sheikh, his fellow sharia jurists, and Islam’s Western apologists in the White House and beyond. The incident is recorded in Ibn Ashaq’s biography of the prophet (italics mine):

Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came … to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.

So at Mohammed’s direction, a man’s chest was set on fire to extract information from him before he was beheaded. Well, at least he wasn’t waterboarded.

Robert adds a hadith from the authoritative Sahi Bukari collection (No. 626 in Book 1, Volume 11) (again, my italics):

Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama [the call to prayer] and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses.

Relatedly, Raymond Ibrahim directs our attention to an incident involving the prophet, recorded in another Bukari hadith (No. 261 in Book 4, Volume 52). The story involves eight starving tribesmen who sought the prophet’s help. Mohammed directed them to a shepherd, who fed them until they recovered their health. But they turned on the shepherd, killing him, and renouncing Islam. When he was informed, Mohammed ordered that they be captured and – besides having their hands and feet cut off – that iron be heated by fire and passed over their eyes, blinding them.

President Obama says we need to approach comparisons of religion with humility. I’m all for that. In a 2011 NRO column, I traced the evolution of Christianity in America from the often harshly theocratic origins of the original colonial settlements to the tolerant pluralism of modern times. The president, however, misses the point of humility. It is to refrain from dismissing out of hand the hope that Islam, too, will eventually evolve. It is not license to remain willfully blind to the dangers posed to us by its doctrine, as widely understood and practiced by a mainstream faction of Islam for centuries, right up to the present day.

Courageous Muslim reformers are laboring to advance an evolution — and they risk death at the hands of radical Muslims who regard them as apostates, an offense Islam punishes by death. We can humbly encourage the reformers while rationally acknowledging that their labors are very uphill. To repeat what I wrote in the 2011 column:

Cultures are dynamic. They change drastically over time. [But] there are grounds for concern that Islam’s will have a harder time evolving — the blights on our history are rooted in human failure to apply Judeo-Christian doctrine, not in the doctrine itself. [By contrast,] Islam’s problems are more about Islam than about Muslims.

That remains true, Obama’s wayward moral equivalence notwithstanding. Islam regards the Koran as the immutable word of Allah. In Sura 33:21, Allah gives Muslims the following admonition regarding Mohammed, “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent exemplar for him who hopes in Allah and the Final Day.” Muslims are commanded to imitate their prophet. It is undeniable that their prophet was, to put it mildly, an aggressive warrior.

With regard to that aspect of Mohammed’s legacy, there is nothing equivalent to it in Christianity.

It is not humility but delusion to pretend that modern Islam is just fine as is. It is not humility but cowardice to indulge the suicidal notion that our own past sins render us unfit to condemn today’s atrocities.

Islamic Ideology: Identifying the Enemy

Shariah-4-UKBreitbart, by  ADMIRAL JAMES A. “ACE” LYONS, Feb. 3, 2015:

While America continues to face an expanding national security threat, President Obama has great difficulty in identifying the enemy that has been at war with the United States for over 35 years.

Using terms such as “violent extremism” and “workplace violence” does an enormous injustice to our military forces, as well as to all law enforcement agencies that must be prepared to confront the Islamic jihadis on a daily basis.  For example, the Obama administration directed all of our training manuals, that accurately portrayed the Islamic threat, to be purged by removing anything that didn’t portray Islam as a religion of peace.

Probably, the worst six words President George W. Bush ever uttered were “Islam is a religion of peace.”  He most likely was urged to make such a statement by his Muslim Brotherhood advisors who had already penetrated our government agencies during the Clinton administration.  Regrettably, those words are repeated by a number of Western leaders under the guise of political correctness and should be discarded.  Furthermore, the Obama administration’s embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood must cease.  They must be removed from all government agencies and those front groups, e.g., CAIR and ISNA, shut down.

The leading state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, has been at war with the United States since the November 1979 takeover of our Tehran U.S. embassy.  Since then, Iran has directed numerous “acts of war” against us, either using proxies (Hezbollah), or their own forces – acts of war that every administration, Republican and Democrat, has failed to find the political courage to respond.  Consequently, the surge of Islamic Fundamentalism, as espoused by the Ayatollah Khomeini’s evil regime, has continued to expand.

Iran has encouraged Islamic supremacists, both Shi’ite and Sunni, to take ever bolder action– as evidenced by the atrocities being committed by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria today, the recent Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, Canada, and Australia as well as the incessant HAMAS and Hezbollah attacks against Israel.  While President Obama tries to make the case that these atrocities are not part of the Islamic religion, Chapter 2 verse 106 (on abrogation) of the Quran makes it very clear that the later, violent verses take precedence over the early, less violent verses.

The most dramatic action by the Islamic supremacists was the 9/11 hi-jacker terrorist attack, which was the most serious attack on the United States since the 7 December, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.  It resulted in the loss of almost 3,000 innocent American lives who were doing nothing more than going to work.  It should never be forgotten that this attack could not have been successfully carried out without the material and training support of the evil Iranian regime that succeeded its founder Ayatollah Khomeini.

To understand the threat we face today, we must be clear in the terms we use.  It is not violent extremism or even radical Islam: it is Islam itself, which has remained unchanged for over 1,300 years.  The former Turkish Prime Minister and current President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated it best when he declared “Islam is Islam.  There are no modifiers,” e.g., Islamic Extremism.

Clearly, any thinking individual understands that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that is bent on world domination under one religion and ruled by the draconian Shariah.  It is totally incompatible with the Western world’s concept of freedom and democracy, and our Constitution.  Furthermore, until it is understood that Islam is a political movement (similar to communism) masquerading as a religion, we will not be successful in combating the enemy.

As the Dutch politician Geert Wilders stated, the more Islam penetrates your society, the less freedom you have.  Therefore, our current unregulated Muslim immigration and asylum policies make no sense.  They must be revised along with effective measures to secure our open borders.

The real question is, can Islam be reformed to co-exist peacefully in the 21st century?  The problem is how to modify Shariah, which has not been done in over 1,300 years.  Clearly, it would have to be done cautiously, and by Sunni clerics as well as Shi’a.  Recently, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, in a New Year’s Day speech to the leading Sunni clerics, challenged them to reform Islam.  The atrocities being committed in the cause of advancing Islam are, in his view, giving Islam a bad image.  More importantly, such an initiative would be consistent with Egyptians reclaiming their rich heritage by thinking of themselves first as being Egyptians.

We should encourage President al-Sisi to follow up his challenge to the leading Sunni clerics by proposing that they form an Islamic Forum of leading Sunni clerics to address the reformation of Islam for the 21st century.  Unless such an effort is made, the alternative will be a consistent state of war (Dar al-Harb) against the infidels as mandated in the Quran.

James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy retired Admiral, was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

Obama And Islam’s Non-Existent Golden Rule

obama1 (1)NER, by Hugh Fitzgerald, Feb. 6, 2015:

Barack Obama ended his talk at the National Prayer Breakfast with a quote from the Hadtih (Sahih Muslim):

“And, finally, let’s remember that if there is one law that we can all be most certain of that seems to bind people of all faiths, and people who are still finding their way towards faith but have a sense of ethics and morality in them — that one law, that Golden Rule that we should treat one another as we wish to be treated. The Torah says “Love thy neighbor as yourself.” In Islam, there is a Hadith that states: “None of you truly believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” The Holy Bible tells us to “put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.” Put on love….”

Quoting this Hadtih — incidentally, this is the first time that Obama has publicly used that word — from the Sahih Muslim is like quoting Quran 5.32 without its modifier 5.33, that vitiates the original verse lifted from the Mishnah, or 2.256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) without understanding what that verse means, for clearly the three possibilities open to non-Muslims under Muslim rule — death, conversion, or life as a dhimmi, with a host of economic, political, and social disabilities that for many proved unendurable.

Ali Sina, the celebrated apostate who was born and raised in Islam, has written extensively, in a debate with Yamin Zakaria, about the non-eexistence of the Golden Rule in Islam. It can be found at his website, http://www.faithfreedom.org. He also wrote, a few years after the original article, a rebuttal to the objections raised by a Muslim defending the faith:

“The Quran is a book of double standards. Indeed there are exhortations to Muslims to be kind to the poor, the traveler, the orphan and the sick. This is to be expected. If you want to start a religion you must preach something good or you”d not find anyone to believe you. You cannot preach only evil. In order to attract followers you must teach things that people like and can easily identify as good. Once they accept you as a prophet, guru or their spiritual guide, then you can do whatever you want and get away with it.

The difference between a true spiritual teacher and a conman is in their consistency. There are several teachings of Muhammad that can be compared to those of Jesus, but the teachings of Jesus are consistent while those of Muhammad are not. Even a criminal can give you good advises, this does not mean this criminal is a good person.

When I was young there was a radio show in Iran called A City within Our City. Every week the producer interviewed a prison inmate on death roll and the criminal would tell the story of his life and what brought him to crime. At the end of the program the producer would ask, whether the criminal had any advice for young people. These criminals often had the best advices. They knew exactly the difference between right and wrong. I recall thinking, if only someone complied the advices of these criminals he could write the best book of guidance. Good words are dime a dozen. If they are not accompanied by good actions they are worthless. In fact the difference between a great man and a conman is in how much their word and deed differ. Demagogy is the domain of all charlatans and they are good at it.

We find similar good exhortations in the teachings of Jim Jones who actually based his religion on “social justice”. He even adopted children from many races to set the example.

The problem with the good teachings of Muhammad is that they are reserved for fellow Muslims. When the hadith says “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself,.” it is talking about the fellow Muslims. The brotherhood in Islam does not extend to everyone. The Quran (9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers if they love Infidelity above Islam. In fact there are many verses that tell the Muslims to kill the unbelievers and be harsh to them. A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29): “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. The non believers have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Quran is a breach of the Golden Rule. The Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), smite their heads (47:4), etc. Are these verses compatible with the Golden Rule?

Islam is the only doctrine that calls upon its believers to do evil to others for the simple fact that they are not believers.

According to Muslims it is not the Golden Rule that defines the good and bad, it is Muhammad who does it. They believe that what is good for Islam is the highest virtue and what is bad for Islam is the ultimate evil. This is the definition of good and evil in Islam. This is the ethos of all cults. From Asahara’s “Aum Shinrikyo” to Jim Jones” “People’s Temple”; from Sun Myung Moon’s “Unification Chruch” to David Koresh’s “Davidian Branch”, the recurring theme is that the cult’s interests override the human understanding of right and wrong. In order to advance the interest of the cult, which is regarded as the ultimate good, everything, including lying, and even murder and assassination are permissible. The end is deemed to be so lofty that it justifies the means. This is the same idea of fascism where the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it are enforced.

None of the verse quoted above have anything to do with the Golden Rule.

Verse 13:22 tells the believers to be patient and generous with their money. This is what all cults demand from their followers. The more sacrifice the cultist makes the more he or she can be manipulated. Verse 23:96 asks Muslims to repel evil, whereas the definition of evil for Muhammad was contradicting him. Verse 41:34 is a Meccan verse where Muhammad and his followers were the underdogs and here he preached patience and said repel evil with good so your enemy becomes as friend. Could he have done anything else? These orders changed when Muhammad came to power. In Medina Muhammad banished and massacred entire populations just because he suspected that they may not be friendly to him. 28:54 is a repetition of 23:96 and 42:40 says whoever forgives and amends, he shall have his reward from Allah. However, Muhammad never forgave those who mocked him. As for Muhammad’s unforgiving nature it is enough to recall the fate of Oqba the man who when Muhammad was in Mecca used to mock him and when he was captured in the Battle of Badr, Muhammad ordered his decapitation. He ventured to expostulate, and demand why he should be treated more vigorously than the other captives who were kept for ransom. “˜Because of your enmity to God and to his Prophet,” replied Muhammad. “˜And my little girl!” cried Oqba, in the bitterness of his soul, “˜Who will take care of her?” — “˜Hellfire!” exclaimed the heartless conqueror; and on the instant his victim was hewn to the ground. “˜Wretch that he was!” continued Muhammad, “˜and persecutor! Unbeliever in God, in his Prophet, and in his Book! I give thanks unto the Lord that has slain you, and comforted mine eyes thereby.”

How do you reconcile the claim that Muhammad in his farewell sermon said, “Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.” With the fact that in his deathbed he said, “No two religions are allowed in Arabia” and ordered the forced conversion, expulsion or ethnic cleansing of the Jews and Christian and the murder of Pagans?

The sura 9, which is the last words of Muhammad, is a manifesto of discrimination and human rights abuses. This sura alone is proof that Islam is against the Golden Rule

The first requisite to feel the pain and suffering of others is to accept that they have feelings like us and they also feel hurt the way we do. If we deny such feelings on others we do not feel any remorse in abusing them. Muhammad claimed all those who disbelieve in Allah are the worst creatures. He even said that all non-believers will end up in hell where they will be tortured for eternity. How then Muslims can treat equally those whom they believe to be worst than beast and that deserve eternal punishment?

There is nothing in the Quran and Hadith that would make us believe that Islam is compatible with the Golden Rule.

———————————————————-

Obama, I suppose, has not had time — nor have his advisers and speech writers, including those who helped write that speech on Islam that Obama gave at Al-Azhar a few years ago — to read a bit more to understand what that line from a hadith that one of his advisers — Ben Rhodes? — means. It does not mean “love his brother” where “brother” stands for “fellow man.” It refers only to fellow Muslims. The Qur’an instructs Muslims not to take Christians and Jews as friends, and to make war on them if they do not convert, or submit, as dhimmis, to Islam. If Obama can quote a Hadith (that’s the first time he’s used that word in public) he can find out  what’s in the Qur’an.

When is Barack Obama going to look into Islam, and stop all this nonsense? He has a duty to instruct. And that begins with the task — possibly a little less watching of basketball games and suchlike on television is called for  of self-instruction.

Sympathy for the Iblis: ISIS and its Islamic Bona Fides

Mahdi Watch, by Timothy R. Furnish, Feb. 5, 2015:

Earlier this week I returned from teaching a workshop/seminar—over Super Bowl weekend, no less—entitled “Jihad, Apocalypse and Terrorism” at the Monterey (CA) Institute of International Studies [MIIS].  Thirty students, at least one-third of whom were Muslim, suffered through some 17 hours worth of lecture and discussion about Islamic history, Mahdist movements, types of terrorism, etc.

I also covered jihad, in all its range of meanings, from the Qur’an, Hadiths, sirat (bios of Muhammad, Islam’s founder) and historical case studies.  And I pointed out that while violent jihad to subjugate non-Muslims is only one of the understandings thereof, it IS the first and primary one—and that this theological and historical reality is, inter alia, what empowers ISIS and the other 38 Islamic terrorist groupslisted by our State Department.

Jihad: it's more aesthetically pleasing as an Arabic verb than in historical reality.

Jihad: it’s more aesthetically pleasing as an Arabic verb than in historical reality.

No students, not even the Muslims in the class, ran screaming from the room or sobbed uncontrollably; none brandished a scimitar and came at me; nary a one demanded I shut up, or bolted for the Dean’s office to demand my dismissal.  If only analysts and commentators in the major media and US government could be as open-minded and intellectually honest as the MA students in my class and the good folks who run MIIS.

Barack Husayn Obama long since abandoned any pretense of  accuracy in this realm.  From his 2009 apology tour in Cairo to his 2012 UN accession to fundamentalist Islamic norms to this morning’s National Prayer Breakfast—where Obama blamed not just the Crusades and the Inquisition, but slavery and Jim Crow, on Christianity—the 44th POTUS has spent one entire term in office, and looks to spend the rest of his second, obsessed with whitewashing Islam for any violence perpetrated in its name and blaming all religions (but especially Christianity), “nihilism,” unspecified  “violent extremism” or a combination thereof for what any rational being can see is Islam’s particularly vexing problem. (By the way: unlike the dilettante historian with a JD in the White House, I have a PhD in history and taught both world and Mideast history at the college level for seven years—and Obama’s caricature of the Crusades and Inquisition is on the level of a poorly-educated college freshman.)

This may ruin my reputation with some a millennium hence, but....what the hell! Deus vult!

This may ruin my reputation with some a millennium hence, but….what the hell! Deus vult!

For any who may still need convincing about the evils bedeviling Islam, here are some relevant facts—or at least all I have time to provide for those in inveterate denial:

*State’s 39 Islamic terrorist groups comprise 66% of the global total of 59 (only two are “Christian”—IRA offshoots that are actually Irish nationalist—and one, now defunct, Jewish).

*Since 9/11 over 80% of DOJ terrorism conviction in the US are of Muslim perps

*30 of 32 individuals on the FBI’s most-wanted terrorist list are Muslims

*Three of the four state sponsors of terrorism are Islamic ones (about to be all three, once Cuba drops off—leaving Iran, Sudan and Syria).

Outside the terrorism realm per se:

*Seven nations impose the death penalty for homosexuality—all are Muslim.

*100 million Christians are regularly persecuted—mostly in Islamic countries

*Women are more oppressed and mistreated under Islam than any other religion.

Why is there so much violence, misogyny and dislike for members of other religions in Islam?  Because the Qur’an mandates fighting fi sabil Allah, “on the path of Allah,” especially against “polytheists” (which includes Trinitarian Christians); prescribes crucifixion and dismemberment for enemies of Allah; mandates beheading for “unbelievers” (the rest of the legion of jihad verses the reader can peruse at his leisure).  Regarding women, Islam’s holy book consigns them to subordinate status and allows men to strike them;  it also permits sexual slavery of non-Muslim women.  According to dozens of Hadiths (alleged sayings of Muhammad’s), Islam’s founder extolled jihad and, according to his MUSLIM biographers, personally ordered torture by fire and decapitations.  (I shall refrain, out of civility, from discussing the inflammatory issue of whether Muhammad had sex with one of his 11 wives while she was single digits in age.)

Unlike Christianity or Judaism regarding the Bible, however, mainstream Muslims in the largest branch—Sunnism—are prohibited from reading violent passages symbolically or allegorically.  They must apply literally across space and time; so beheading cannot be construed as “defeating an opponent polemically” or said to only apply in Muhammad’s time.  Sunni Muslims, particularly Western modernist ones,  who attempt to do so are either woefully out of touch with the scholarship of the greater Islamic world,  or engaging in willfull obfuscation, if not outright mendacity, about Islam’s actual teachings.

(Some sects of Islam do allow for non-literalist interpretations, but these Ahmadis, Isma’ili Shi`is and Sufi mystics have a hard, uphill row to hoe if they hope to change hearts and minds among their much more numerous Sunni cousins.  Ironically, and perhaps counter-intuitively for many, Twelver Shi`ism may hold the best hope for a legtimate reformation within Islam—since that largest minority branch still allows for ta`wil, or “esoteric” interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadiths.  However, as long as the dour intellectual descendants of Ayatollah Khomeini run things in Iran, such will stay at best nascent.)

I guess the imam was right; we really aren't allowed to go to the bathroom!

I guess the imam was right; we really aren’t allowed to go to the bathroom!

Under the prevailing literalist exegetical paradigm, then,  when members of ISIS (or al-Qa`idah or Boko Haram or the Taliban or any of the other legion of non-state Islamic actors) behead, enslave “infidel” women/practice polygamy/marry underage girls, crucify non-Muslims, or stone adulterers, they are not engaging in “extremism” or acting as “radicals”—they are, in point of fact, simply being brutally literalist. Note, too, that not just these terrrorist non-state actors, but many majority-Muslim states—several dozen, in varying degrees—enforce at least some aspects of shari`ah law (Saudi Arabia beheads more people than does ISIS—albeit with bigger blades and, thus, more mercifully).  And this is not always done against the will of their people:  solid majorities of Muslims in many countries actually support shari`ah elements, to include stoning for adultery and the death penalty for “apostasizing” from Islam.

ISIS, then, while more ruthless in application of such norms and laws, is nonetheless clearly Islamic in doing so.  Recently POTUS did, incomprehensibly, say that ISIS is has a “nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam.”  To quote a famous rock-and-roll sage, “two out of three ain’t bad.”  ISIS (and its ilk) is decidely violent; and its Qur’an literalism really is pre-medieval, going back to 7th c. Islam.   But it is in no wise nihilistic, for ISIS has a coherent political, military and, yes, religious agenda.  Just because we Westerners may dislike something does not render it ipso facto  “nihilistic.”  Likewise, employment of violence—even horribly cruel kinds, like burning someone alive–does not equate to meaninglessness.   (Plus, it’s rather contradictory to refer to an ideology as medievally Islamic and nihilistic.  And this would seem to be contra Obama’s incessant assertions that Islam has been “hijacked” by “radical extremists.”  Was medieval Islam also hijacked?  One would think the smartest man ever to sit in the Oval Office would know that.)

Obama’s (and Eric Holder’s and John Brennan’s) willfull ignorance about ISIS’s legitimate Islamic provenance, motivation and goals has seeped down into the military ranks.  Just a few weeks ago, the head of SOCCENT, Major General Michael Nagata, said regarding ISIS that “we [still] do not understand the movement, and until we do, we are not doing to defeat it.” Well, General, as a much lower-ranking soldier—my old Army DI, SFC Ocaña—used to say when I was in basic training, “it don’t take a GED.”  In fact, it certainly doesn’t take a PhD to understand ISIS, since they have clearly told us what they believe since the days of their founder, Abu Mus`ab al-Zarqawi.

I analyzed the first five issues of ISIS’s “Dabiq” magazine on this website, in some detail—so I will not re-create that wheel here.  But here are the highlights evincing that group’s clear, indeed slavish, devotion to Islamic norms:

*The magazine is called “Dabiq”—a town in NW Syria described in Hadith as the site of the apocalyptic battle between Muslims and Christians.

*All issues of the publication are rife with Qur’an, Hadith, Sirat and Islamic scholarly references.  Issue #3, “A Call to Hijrah,” adduces the Qur’an eight times, the Hadith 35, and thinkers such as Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Kathir 17 times. Issue #4, “The Failed Crusade,” is even more steeped in Islam: 20 references to the Qur’an and 36 to Hadith.  Other issues of “Dabiq” are similar in this regard.

*Besides quantity of citations, ISIS in its publications (and videos) offers extended, qualitative explications of validly Muslim doctrines and beliefs, such as eschatology, slavery of non-Muslim women, beheading and mubahalah, or “imprecatory challenge.”  (The latter is a fascinating doctrine, to which ISIS devotes much of “Dabiq” #2, in an attempt to goad Islamic authorities into taking up that gauntlet so that the former might prove, before Allah, its Islamic bona fides.  Perhaps the rector of al-Azhar, or another Sunni cleric of such stature, should al-Baghdadi up on this—but so far has not taken the bait.)

*Decapitation and slavery are easy pickings for justification from Islamic sources and traditions, granted. But even with the horrible burning alive of Jordanian pilot Mu`adh al-Kasabeh, ISIS managed to concoct a coherent, if contrived, Islamic rationalization (as I explained to “The Washington Post” yesterday), based on the doctrine of shifa’ al-sudur, “healing the hearts” via legal retribution, and glossed by a quote from the famous 14th c. Islamic thinker Ibn Taymiyya about the acceptability of descecrating bodies in order to shock infidels who are attacking Muslims.  ISIS’s Islamic theoreticians thus immolated al-Kasabeh in the same manner as which he (and his fellow pilots, lackeys for the “Crusaders”) had been killing Muslims.   Many Muslim commentators disagree.  But, as with beheading and slavery, it is difficult bordering on impossible to ascertain which side is more correct in terms of Islamic sources and historical practice.  What is possible to say is that ISIS, while pitiless beyond measure, makes a very good Islamic case for its positions—perhaps every bit as good as its opponents make against it, and them.  I’d prefer that the anti-ISIS position of Shaykh Abd Allah b. Bayyah, et al.,  be the more authoritative, and widespread; but that is not for me to decide, but for Muslims.

Yes, “even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”  But when in the Gospels Satan tempted Christ, he only cited one verse;  ISIS, however, calls upon dozens of Qur’anic passages, as well as even more Muhammadan sayings, in its many missives.  At some point, if Iblis manifests such a command of Islamic doctrines, who’s to say his view of Islam isn’t legitimate?

Let me please introduce myself/I'm a jinn of wealth and taste....

Let me please introduce myself/I’m a jinn of wealth and taste….

Brigitte Gabriel on why Peaceful Muslims Keep Silent

Published on Feb 5, 2015 by Brigitte Gabriel
President of ACT for America, Brigitte Gabriel, talks with Don Imus about the latest and most brutal Islamic State (ISIS) video showing Jordanian pilot, Muath al-Kasaesbeh, being burned to death. They also talk about the response from moderate Muslims; and the rise of radical Islam world wide

Jordan’s Abdullah: Islamic State “does not resemble our religion in any way”

Kaseasbeh-300x174Jihad Watch, by Robert Spencer, Feb 3, 2015:

The video of the burning of the Jordanian pilot is entitled, “Healing the Believers Chests.” That’s from the Qur’an: “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you over them, heal the breasts of Believers.” (Qur’an 9:14) Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who years ago tried to murder students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the name of Islam and jihad, also referenced this verse when explaining his actions.

And then there is this story from Muhammad’s conquest of Khaybar: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).

“King Abdullah of Jordan says pilot’s reported ISIL murder does not resemble Islam,” theTelegraph, February 3, 2015:

The king of Jordan on Tuesday condemned the killing of a Jordanian pilot by militants of the Islamic State group.

Jordan’s military confirmed the death of Lieutenant Muath Al-Kaseasbeh, who fell into the hands of the militants in December when his Jordanian F-16 crashed in Syria.

A video released online on Tuesday purportedly showed the 26-year-old being burned to death by his captors following a week-long drama over a possible prisoner exchange.

King Abdullah II said: “This cowardly Islamic State group that does not resemble our religion in any way.

“It is the duty of all Jordanian citizens to stand united, to show the strength of this people in fighting this group. This will only give us more strength and resistance.”

ISIS Purifies Islam Through Fire

jpb-450x253Frontpage, by Dawn Perlmutter, Feb. 4, 2015:

On Tuesday February 3, 2015 the Islamic State released a video showing Jordanian pilot, Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, 26 being burned alive while locked in a metal cage. The 22 minute video includes footage of Jordan’s King Abdullah II declaring his support for the anti-ISIS coalition. It shows Lt. Al-Kaseasbeh, who was captured by the Islamic State in December after his aircraft crashed over Syria, being interrogated, paraded in front of heavily armed men, walking towards the cage, and then standing inside the cage wearing an orange jumpsuit that is doused in flammable liquid. The executioner uses a torch to light a trail of gasoline that leads to his feet. Lt. Al-Kasasbeh is engulfed in flames and remains alive for over 1 minute and half and collapses to the floor. Militants pour broken masonry and other debris over the cage which is then flattened with a bulldozer with the body still inside. Despite the surprise and shock of seeing a young man burned alive, this is not a new tactic. In fact it is a common method of ritual murder in Iraq and other countries particularly in honor killings and the murder of Christians. The significant difference is that the Islamic State media films the execution using sophisticated editing and highly choreographed techniques turning the killing into a scripted reality show.

Hundreds of women in the Muslim world have been murdered by fire in honor killings. The murders were often disguised as suicides or accidents. In the first six months of 2007, in Iraqi Kurdistan, 255 women were killed, three-quarters of them by burning. An earlier report cited 366 cases of women who were the victims of so called fire accidents in Dohuk in 2006, up from 289 the year before. In Irbil, there were 576 burn cases since 2003, resulting in 358 deaths. In 2006 in Sulaimaniyah, Iraq there were 400 cases of women burned. In Tunisia in May 2014 a father burned his 13 year old daughter to death for walking home with a boy. In October 2013 a 15 year old Yemeni girl was burned to death by her father for communicating with her fiancé. In March 2009, a sixteen year old Muslim girl suspected of having a relationship with a boy was burned to death by four male neighbors in her village in Ghaziabad, North India. They came to the girl’s house and demanded to know why the young man frequently visited her, and then the men beat her, doused her with kerosene and set her on fire. There are numerous more examples of women burned alive. This form of punishment is not just reserved for women. In April 2011 three men were set on fire in Iraq for being gay. A video of that incident is easily accessible online. In June 2008, the Taliban burned three truck drivers of the Turi tribe alive for supplying the Pakistan Armed Forces. There have been numerous reports of Christians burned alive by Islamist jihadists. In November 2014 a Christian couple in Pakistan Sajjad Maseeh, 27, and his wife Shama Bibi, 24, were burned alive in a brick furnace after it was rumored that they had burned verses from the Quran.”Bibi, a mother of four who was four months pregnant, was wearing an outfit that initially didn’t burn…… The mob removed her from over the kiln and wrapped her up in cotton to make sure the garments would be set alight.” These incidents are rarely reported by the mainstream media and were difficult for most people to comprehend as real until ISIS started filming documentaries of their ritual murders.

Fire is symbolic of the destruction of evil. Symbolically people who are burned alive are human sacrifices that are expiating evil from the community. Tainted victims are purified through fire. Fire is considered a powerful transformer of the negative to the positive. Because of such properties, fire is commonly found in purification rites throughout the world. In other cultures polluted persons may be required to walk around, jump over, or jump through fire. Historically, burning a person to death was reserved for the most threating evil, such as heresy or witchcraft and considered an extreme form of purification. In the context of honor killing the use of fire is not only symbolic but practical. Practical in Iraq because most of the homes do not have electricity so every house has a large supply of oil which makes it easier to conceal honor killings under the guise of suicide or kitchen accidents. In the context of the murder of Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh fire is an Islamic purification ritual that serves vengeance and restores honor and purity to the community of believers.

Islamist jihadists from different movements, countries, sects, and factions all emphasize the need to cleanse Islam of its impurities. Al Qaeda’s ideological belief is the purification of Islam through violent struggle. Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri have continually called on supporters to purify Muslim holy lands of infidels, un-Islamic beliefs, and practices. The Islamic State cleanses Islam of its impurities while protecting its territory in the same manner as Mexican cartels, using brutal tactics that are justified as vengeance.

The title of the video, Healing the Believers’ Chests, is a quote from the Quran: “Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you over them, heal the breasts of Believers.” (Qur’an 9:14). It was reported to mean ‘giving them pleasure’ – interpreted as a reference to achieving revenge. That is one interpretation, however healing is symbolic of purification, the title Healing the Believers’ Chests can be understood as cleansing the community of the contamination of impurity. Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh’s alleged crimes symbolically unleashed an epidemic of contagious evil. The function of the burning ritual is a communal act of expiation, expelling the contagious evil of an infidel enemy through fire. Having ISIS fighters participate and watch makes it a communal sacrificial ritual. Ritualizing the violence justifies it and makes it sacred. Once the transgressor is ritually killed the impurity is removed, the evil has been expelled, taboo has been ameliorated and justice is served. The body is immediately buried under the earth, another purifying element, restoring honor and purity.

Filming and disseminating the ritual killing strikes fear into the hearts of enemies and attracts new recruits. Similar to an arsonist that is fascinated with fire, disaffected young people will be attracted to this ritual burning. Like moths to a flame.

Basis in Islamic Jurisprudence (Shariah) and Scripture for Execution of Jordanian Pilot

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher Holton, Feb. 3, 2015:

“Indeed, those who disbelieve in Our verses – We will drive them into a Fire. Every time their skins are roasted through We will replace them with other skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted in Might and Wise.”

Quran Sura 4:56

In the burning scene video the Islamic State gave the Islamic edict straight from the top Islamic authority of Ibn Taymiyya’s jurisprudence:

“So if horror of commonly desecrating the body is a call for them [the infidels] to believe [in Islam], or to stop their aggression, it is from here that we carry out the punishment and the allowance for legal Jihad”

Ibn Taymiyya was one of the most esteemed Sunni Islamic scholars of all time. He is considered one of the originators of the Hanbali school of Shariah. He originated the practice of declaring Jihad on Muslims who did not follow the Shariah based on the belief that they were not true Muslims, despite their claims to the faith.

taymiyya

***

“Healing The Chests Of Believers,” And The Duty To Instruct As Well As Protect

NER,  by Hugh Fitzgerald

That was the title, that was the theme, that was the point, of the video of the burning alive of Moaz Al-Kasasbeh. Obama refers to this “bankrupt ideology” that has come, apparently, out of nowhere. King Abdullah, in Washington, is apparently amazed and flabbergasted at these people, who have absolutely nothing to do with Islam. And the rest of the world’s leaders are also horrified, and amazed, and presumably puzzled, as to this “ideology” that comes out of nowhere, that has “nothing to do with Islam” and for which no texts, not a single sentence, can be found that is not in the Qur’an, or not in the Hadith, or not in essence discoverable in the biography (Sira) of Muhammad, beginning with that of Ibn Ishaq. Perhaps someone should offer a sufficiently high reward — say, $25 million, the price the American government put on the head of Osama bin Laden — to anyone who can come forward with the presumably fictional quotes from Qur’an and Hadith that the Islamic State relies on.

If you happen to google — it takes about 30 seconds — “heal the chests of believers” or a variant, you will find what I found, in Sura 9, ayat 14.

Read here.

For a story about setting fire to someone regarded as an enemy — a Jew of the Khaybar Oasis, because he didn’t want to give up all of his property to Muhammad and his marauding followers at Khaybar — who was set alight, and then decapitated, google “Kinana” and, if you need to, “Ibn Ishaq,” and you will discover that Kinana first had his chest set alight. And then he was decapitated. And his propoerty taken. And his wife Safiya taken by Muhammad to be his sex slave. Youu can read more about it, in Ibn Ishaq and in the Hadith,here.

Obama — and other Western leaders — cannot continue this attempt to hide from those to whom they have a duty not only to protect, but to instruct — what is in the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira. They think they can continue this indefinitely. They apparently think it is possible to “keep the support” — what support, really? — of our “staunch allies” in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, and also “keep the support” — what support, really? — of Muslims in the West, and yet not lose the support of non-Muslims who in ever greater numbers will be alarmed, as they find out what is being kept from them, and will, already do, distrust their governments, distrust much of the media, and wonder why they cannot be properly informed so that they may, in turn, vote for candidates who understand the problem abroad, and the problem within our countries too.

This menace, and this misinformation about that menacee, and this growing mistrust of those all over the West who have a duty to instruct as well as protect us, will not go away. It will not lessen. It will only get worse.

***

Islamic State Justification for Burning Alive the Jordanian Pilot: Translation and Analysis 

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi  •  Feb 4, 2015

Below I have translated the document circulated by the Islamic State’s al-Eftaa wa al-Buhuth committee on the subject of the burning alive of the Jordanian pilot. This committee is responsible for providing Islamic textual justifications for various decrees on the acceptability of certain acts. This latest example is perhaps the most notorious. It is important that these documents be brought to light because as the corpus of Islamic texts- whether verses of Qur’an, the ahadith and acts from early Islamic history- is so vast, the Islamic State will likely find some reference that can justify its actions and make its supporters and members feel more sure of themselves. My friend Hassan Hassan has already noted this problem, and it presents a significant challenge to those who wish to counter the Islamic State on interpretation and counter-interpretation grounds.

Question: What is the ruling on burning the kafir [disbeliever] with fire until he dies?

Answer: […] The Hanafis and Shafi’is* have permitted it, considering the saying of the Prophet ‘Fire is only to be administered as punishment by God’ as an affirmation of humility. Al-Muhallab** said: “This is not an abslolute prohibition, but rather on the path of humility.”

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar*** said: “What points to the permissibility of burning is the deeds of the Companions, and the Prophet put out the eyes of the Uraynians with heated iron…while Khalid ibn al-Waleed**** burnt people of those who apostazied.”

And some of the Ahl al-‘Ilm have been of the opinion that burning with fire was prohibited originally, but then on retaliation it is permitted, just as the Prophet did to the people of Urayna, when he put out the eyes of the Uraynians with fire- in retaliation- as is related in Sahih [reliable] tradition, and this brought forth the words together among the proofs.

[…]

Notes

*- Two of the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence, the others being Maliki and Hanbali.
**- Early theologian in Islam- died c. 702 CE.
***- Fifteenth century imam and jurist from Egypt: bio here.
****- Companion of Muhammad who participated in early Muslim conquests in the Levant.

***

Why ISIS Used Fire to Murder the Jordanian Pilot

PJ Media, By Bridget Johnson On February 4, 2015:

After ISIS released the video yesterday of 1st Lt. Muath al-Kasaesbeh being burned to death in a cage, U.S. news reports were musing about the method of his murder as cremation is not permissible in Islam.

Pundits and anchors steered toward the conclusion that the fire was intended to be the ultimate insult to the pilot called an apostate by his captors.

ISIS supporters, though, defended burning him alive by claiming the principle of “qisas,” claiming that he burned children with airstrikes so should burn himself. They bulldozed rubble over his body, again symbolizing the airstrikes.

Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper provides a lengthy primer on qisas: “The Quran provides two options to deal with someone who is found guilty of intentional murder: qisas (ie that he/she be killed in the manner in which the victim was murdered) and forgiveness by the heir/s of the victim.”

ISIS and its supporters, which had been using the Arabic hashtag #SuggestAWayToKillTheJordanianPilotPig right after the pilot’s capture to suggest murder methods, particularly put social media effort into defending the murder of al-Kasaesbeh, himself a Muslim, as keeping with Islamic laws. There was also some debate on Twitter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Few Words on “Radical,” “Extremist,” Ideology and Doctrine

TerrorTrends Bulletin, By Christopher Holton, Feb, 3, 2015:

Over the past few months we have heard increasing calls for the Obama administration to “call the enemy what it is” or “identify the enemy by name.”

It is true that you can’t defeat an enemy you don’t identify.

These calls are invariably followed up by naming the enemy. Only the names assigned to our enemies seem to always be wrong. A few of the wrong names:

• Radical Islam

• Islamic extremism

• Radical Islamic extremism

• Islamist extremism

• Radical Islamist extremism

The problem with all these names is that they are names that we in the West have made up to describe our enemies. They don’t use any of them. No member of the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Lashkar e Taiba, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab or Abu Sayyef ever refers to himself as “radical” or “extremist.” No where in their communications will you see the modifiers “radical” or “extremist.”

They don’t subscribe to radical Islam or Islamist extremism.

In fact they claim that the basis for what they do is simply Islam. Every Jihadist organization bases its actions on Islamic scripture. Maybe they got it wrong, but seeing as THEY think that have it right, we best understand THEIR version of Islam if we are truly going to understand our enemies.

According to their own words, they are all Islamic Jihadis. That’s what they are and it’s what they call themselves.

We didn’t make up names for the Nazis in World War II. There were no “radical Nazis,” or “Nazi extremists.” There were only Nazis.

Today we have Islamic Jihadis.

And Islamic Jihad has a doctrinal basis in Islam. Which brings me to the next section of this posting.

Ideology or Doctrine?

I am hearing references to “radical” Islamic ideology on the news more and more. I try to avoid the term ideology. Jihad is based on doctrine, not on ideology and Jihad is what we’re confronted with. There IS a difference between doctrine, ideology and theology.

Doctrine is TAUGHT. For instance, Biblical doctrine is defined as those things that are taught from the Holy Bible. Islamic Doctrine is based on the Quran, the Hadith and the Sirah.

6183g0glbllIdeology and theology, on the other hand, are man-made disciplines, fields of study. Many people do not see the difference between doctrine and ideology/theology. However, there is a substantial difference in how the two are developed in a practical way and it is important that we make the distinction.

Islamic doctrine is the teaching that comes directly out of the word of allah and is founded on the very words believed by Moslems to be spoken by allah and the life of the prophet Muhammed. To teach doctrine is to begin with full faith in the words of the Quran, the life of Muhammed in the Hadith and Sirah to dig out all that Islam says about a subject, and to organize that material in the way that best agrees with the approach that allah himself makes on the subject.

Ideology, by its nature, puts greater emphasis on systems built by man. In the Islamic context, ideology tends to begin with a man-made system and then goes to Islamic scripture for support, while doctrine begins with the scripture.

This is important because ideology can be explained away as man-made perversions of Islam, whereas, doctrine by its very definition cannot be disowned…

Islamic doctrine is embedded into Muslims from the time they can talk and read.

Jihad is an integral part of Islamic Doctrine. It is not part of some ideology that someone ginned up. It’s been there right from the start.

Make no mistake, Jihad is what is being waged against us, not “terrorism.” And our enemies are Jihadis not terrorists. This is not a war on terrorism. It is a defensive war against Jihad.

The Information Age will be the Death of Islam

GERMANY-ISLAMFaith Freedom, by Eric Allen Bell, Jan. 14, 2015:

We do not vandalize. We do not engage in hate speech. We have respect for the law. We do not harm our fellow citizens. We are slow to anger and when we finally get angry, we express that anger in a civilized way. UNDER THAT BANNER, I WILL STATE THE FOLLOWING:

Follower of Islam, I do not tolerate you. Your feigned or willful ignorance, about Islam, is no longer an excuse. I hold you personally accountable.

I am offended by you. I cannot and will not tolerate a person, who follows an ideology, which teaches the inferiority of women, the killing and hatred of Jews, the execution of homosexuals, the silencing of free speech, forced amputations, the stoning of rape victims, genital mutilation, and the violent overthrow of all non-Islamic governments and civilizations.

Islam is Nazism with a god. And I cannot and will not “coexist” with Nazis. I will not patronize your places of business. I will not hire you. I will not buy your products. I will not support politicians who support you. I will not be your friend. And if I am your neighbor, I will always be suspicious of you and cautious. I want you to feel so uncomfortable in my free country, in my civilized country, that you renounce your allegiance to this savage and fascist ideology or leave.

ISLAM IS THE ENEMY of free speech, of human rights and of Liberty. If you follow Islam, you are my enemy. I encourage you now to leave Islam and take your place among the civilized people of this world. But if you insist on remaining loyal to the brutal savagery of Islam, your enemies will grow faster than can be contained, by an Islamic lobbyist group or the media or any government agency. This is a zero sum game and the Civilized World will win.

ISLAM HAS BEEN AT WAR FOR 1,400 YEARS with freedom and all that is good. But my head is no longer hidden in the sand. I am at war with you. All people who value human rights, freedom and Liberty should be at war with you. And they will be soon enough, because the enemy of Islam is information and we are spreading information faster than you can keep up with. There is no way to put this genie back in the bottle now. The information age will be the death of Islam.

Your 1,400 year reign of terror is coming to an end. And you, follower of Islam, are on the wrong side of history.

It is time for all civilized people to find the moral clarity and the courage to GET ANGRY and to BECOME INTOLERANT. You have the ability to do this in a civilized way. We must not become like the savages whom we oppose – otherwise they win. Islam is Nazism with a god. Islam must be stopped. When you support the followers of Islam, you support an ideology that promotes genocide against the unbeliever – as clearly outlined in the Quran.

THE TIME HAS COME TO BOYCOTT THE FOLLOWERS OF ISLAM. FOLLOWER OF ISLAM, I PERSONALLY HOLD YOU ACCOUNTABLE FOR SUPPORTING THIS FASCIST IDEOLOGY.

Tolerance is overrated. If you follow the Quran, you are the enemy of freedom and you are my enemy.

Eric Allen Bell is a filmmaker, columnist and Counter Jihad activist. He was banned from the Liberal-Progressive Daily Kos for writing 3 articles about Islam which ran afoul of the politically-correct mindset there. He is director of both Global Infidel TV, and Mosque Confidential and is currently in production on a documentary feature entitled, “American Infidel”. You can read more about Bell’s conversion story in “The High Price of Telling the Truth about Islam”. Visit him on Facebook at http://www.Facebook.com/EricAllenBell

Also see:

Video: Nonie Darwish on Obama and the Koran

Published on Jan 22, 2015 by The Glazov Gang

Obama’s Anti-Cop Jihad

obama-glareBy: William Michael
misterchambers

The Protests were Organized for one Specific Purpose – Dead Cops

In December 2012, a respected Egyptian news magazine named six Obama administration officials who were in fact agents of the international terrorist organization, the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed that these individuals had helped change the White House “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

One of these alleged agents was Imam Mohamed Magid, a Koranic scholar from Sudan. In the Obama administration, Magid was appointed to the Department of Homeland Security’s Countering Violence and Extremism working group in 2011. He is on the FBI’s Sikh, Muslim, and Arab advisory board (yes, we have one of those). He has trained and advised personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies.

Under Obama’s dictates since he entered the Oval Office, the United States government decided to publicly announce a softer approach to countering Islamic terrorism and the ideology behind jihad (i.e., war in the name of Islam). Imam Mohamed Magid has been a centerpiece in Obama’s show of tolerance (of violence) and diversity (of means of death), so much so that he and his organization have been “cited … as the primary means of outreach to the American Muslim community.”

It’s now known that Magid has a remarkable connection to the murderer of two NYPD officers this December.

***

Unlike his approach toward American Muslims, who apparently (at least based on policy since 2009) need the White House to reassure them that they are not “violent extremists,” Barack Hussein Obama’s attitude toward police officers has been hostile from the beginning. Multiple instances mar the six year old administration’s relationship with law enforcement.

The anti-police stance of the administration has been toxically mixed with anti-gun propaganda, and the blatant fanning of racial tensions that have resulted in violence, murder, and even city-wide chaos.

The first example came in July 2009, when Harvard Professor Henry Louis ‘Skip’ Gates was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct by the Cambridge Police department. Sgt. James Crowley saw Gates trying to break into a home, and, not realizing it was actually his own home, arrested Gates. The charges were later dropped by the police, but not before Obama said on national television that the police “acted stupidly,” and further insinuated that the arrest was racially motivated. To make everyone feel better, Obama later held a “beer summit” at the White House, hosting Gates and Crowley in what was presented as some great healing moment. (No word on whether pork or all beef hot dogs were served.)

In 2011, Attorney General Eric Holder, while noting that the number of officers killed in the line of duty jumped 13% that year, blamed the increase on illegal gun ownership. In 2013, Holder went on the record saying that he had to tell his son how to protect himself from the police, because, you guessed it, he’s black. Holder said this talk was family tradition.

For his part, Obama came out in support of the 2011 anti-cop and anarchist movement, Occupy Wall Street, who were not only occupying Wall Street, but terrorizing downtown Manhattan.

Then came the February 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Martin was shot by George Zimmerman, as he was being violently assaulted and threatened with death while on neighborhood patrol. In what has become a national tradition, Al Sharpton and Eric Holder descended to prey upon the citizens of a small community, calling for “justice.”

In fact, mob justice is what they were looking for.

The next stop for the Obama, Holder, and Sharpton anti-police racial mob circus was Ferguson, Missouri, following the death of Michael Brown by the gun of a police officer who he was attacking and threatening. The case is familiar and fresh enough in everyone’s minds not have to rehash in any detail. Once again, Obama and the administration issued thinly veiled attacks on the police and insinuated that the officers and the department were racially motivated haters.

The caustic and raw social tumult that ensued led to widespread looting, riots, arson (even by allegedly “peaceful” protestors), and even the murder of a friend one of the trial witnesses.

Obama’s, Holder’s, and Sharpton’s carnival of hate then went prime time, this time to the Big Apple. If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. And, with a little help from the all-too-willing Mayor Bill DeBlasio, in the Staten Island death of Eric Garner, which was caused not by bullets but by a lung condition, the carnival got what they were looking for all along: the blood of police officers.

On December 20, 2014, five days before Christmas, Officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu were assassinated by Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley in their patrol car in Bedford-Stuyvesant in Brooklyn. After weeks of anti-police protests, which explicitly shouted for “dead cops,” Brinsley had bragged to pedestrians just prior to the shooting that he was going to satiate the protestors with their pound of flesh.

***

At this time, you may be asking what Mohamed Magid, the alleged Muslim Brotherhood agent, has to do with the assassination of two NYPD officers. This will be clear to you soon enough. But first it is necessary to understand that the supposedly grassroots protests, in Ferguson and in New York, were anything but organic.

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton at NoisyRoom.net has documented the nefarious players behind the protests, and has an incredible list of organizations involved in the protests. One of the most prominent organizing groups is ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. ANSWER is often found alongside Occupy Wall Street. A little digging into ANSWER’s coalition partners and speakers reveal their roots; groups such as the Muslim Students Association, Free Palestinian Alliance, National Council of Arab Americans, the Nicaragua Network, and Korea Truth Commission (you got me ?).

Furthermore, ANSWER is described by DiscoverThe Networks as “a principal player in all anti-war and pro-Palestinian demonstrations… ANSWER was formed a few days after 9/11 as a ‘new anti-racism, anti-war, peace and justice’ group and led its first protest just weeks later against the impending US-led attack on Afghanistan.”

To be blunt about it, ANSWER is a pro-jihad front organization that was fully behind Hamas in this summer’s Gaza war. Hamas, it’s noted, is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood – the same Muslim Brotherhood that the Egyptian magazine claimed Mohamed Magid was a member of.

***

Isn’t it odd that a Muslim Brotherhood front group would lead protests in New York City over the accidental death of a black man in the course of an arrest? Last time I was there, Staten Island wasn’t a center of Israeli-Palestinian debate, and there are no public pictures of Eric Garner smoking hookah or riding camels in Giza. On the contrary, Garner was dealing single cigarettes, and tobacco is decisively haram (forbidden) according to Islamic sharia law.

Puzzling, perhaps, but the Facebook page of Ismaaiyl Abdullah Brinsley Muhammad ties the story’s loose ends together. According to his own biography on Facebook, Brinsely-Muhammad “Worked at: Islamic Society of North America.” The Islamic Society of North America, aka ISNA, is headquartered in Plainfield, Indiana. Hmm.

Killer's Facebook page: Obama and Magid are caught red-handed

Who is the President of ISNA, where the cop killer said he worked? That would be Imam Mohamed Magid, Obama’s advisor to DHS and the National Security Council.

Obama himself addressed ISNA’s annual convention in 2013. You can read about one of ISNA’s greatest influences, Pakistani radical Abul A’la Maududi, here.

Here are a few other facts to consider when contemplating that the Obama and Holder-inspired cop killer was, according to himself, employed at the organization of one of Obama’s most trusted security advisors, the Islamic Society of North America.

  • ISNA President and Obama advisor Imam Mohamed Magid was a lecturer at Howard University, teaching courses on the Koran.
  • The Trayvon Martin case only caught on after it was plucked from relative obscurity from a student at Howard University. This student, Kevin Cunningham, began a petition on the website change.org. Said Cunningham, a lawyer, “that’s how I think about life, is to be a social engineer.”
  • Cop killer Brinsley-Muhammad, who additionally may have attended a Brooklyn mosque associated with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, martyred himself by suicide in a subway station before being apprehended by police. He’s no longer with us to answer any questions.
  • In light of Obama’s recent embrace of Communist Cuba, it is worth noting that one of Castro’s last acts as a revolutionary leader was to order the targeted killing of Cuba’s police officers. Why? Police keep law and order on the streets, and because they’re uniformed, they’re easy targets for revolutionaries who thrive off anarchy.

Obama’s six yearlong anti-cop jihad has serious consequences. In 2014, there was an increase of 56% in police killed by guns – 50 officers, compared to 32 in 2013. Since the assassinations in New York, many infractions are going unpunished, as police are reluctant to engage with the community, fearing targeting by assassins and mobs. This is a very tenuous and delicate situation.

It might be worth mentioning, to the next person you bump into who still has a functioning brain, that Obama’s trusted advisor, Imam Mohamed Magid, had the NYPD cop killer as an employee of his nationwide Islamic organization. This, according to his own Facebook bio.

The circumstantial evidence presented above points to a deliberate plan by the administration and the Muslim Brotherhood to stoke violence that led to cop killings. These are revolutionary tactics, creating conditions that lead to chaos, anarchy, and eventually the total dissolution of societal trust. After that occurs, people beg for order, in whatever form it offers itself.

Is 2015 the year of the American Spring? In the New Year, several detailed reports will be published that point to deliberate, witting, and eager cooperation between the Obama administration and the Muslim Brotherhood aimed at precisely this end.

Debate: Is ISIS Islamic? (David Wood vs. Osama Abdallah)

Answering Muslims, By David Wood:

Politicians and the media assure us that the actions of ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria) have nothing to do with the teachings of Muhammad or the Quran. Jihadists fighting for ISIS, however, can quote Allah and Muhammad to justify their campaign of violence and terrorism. So is ISIS Islamic? In the Western tradition of open debate, Osama Abdallah and I step on stage and present our evidence.