MUST READ: Robert Spencer’s Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 3, ‘The Family of Imran’

1379610730_Quran_cover(Read prior installments here: parts one, two, three, four, five, and six.)

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, April 13, 2015:

Are you a non-Muslim? Then Allah hates you (Qur’an 3:32).

Are you Jewish or Christian? In the Qur’an’s third chapter, Allah will tell you why you’re following a false religion.

The Qur’an’s third chapter is entitled “The Family of Imran” — that is, Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:20), who is mentioned in verses 33 and 35. Like most titles in the Qur’an, this title doesn’t denote the sura’s theme, but is just a word taken from within the chapter that is simply a means to distinguish it from other chapters.

According to Maududi, Sura 3, which is a Medinan sura, is “especially addressed” to Jews and Christians, as well as to Muslims.

It contains, he says, a “continuation of the invitation in Al-Baqarah [Sura 2], in which they have been admonished for their erroneous beliefs and evil morals and advised to accept, as a remedy, the Truth of the Quran.” Likewise Bulandshahri says that Sura 3 is a “talking proof” against the Jews, Christians, and idolaters, since it addresses them all. ”It invites them towards the truth and refutes their false beliefs, which includes the blasphemous ideologies concerning Sayyidina [Masters] Isa and Ibrahim [Jesus and Abraham].”

That concern is evident from the beginning of the chapter. Allah proclaims that the Qur’an now revealed to Muhammad confirms what was written in the Torah and the Gospel (v. 3). Ibn Kathir explains that “these Books testify to the truth of the Qur’an, and the Qur’an also testifies to the truth these Books contained, including the news and glad tidings of Muhammad’s prophethood and the revelation of the Glorious Qur’an.”

Unknown-1

Allah teaches that the Torah was originally Islamic, but was rewritten by the Jews.

This again explains why mainstream Islamic tradition regards the Jewish and Christian Scriptures as corrupted: they don’t, after all, confirm what is in the Qur’an, and so Jews and Christians must have dared to alter them — and now, Allah says, “they were deluded in their religion by what they were inventing” (v. 24).

Asad therefore emphasizes:

It is to be borne in mind that the Gospel frequently mentioned in the Qur’an is not identical with what is known today as the Four Gospels, but refers to an original, since lost, revelation bestowed upon Jesus and known to his contemporaries under its Greek name of Evangelion (‘Good Tiding’), on which the Arabicized form Injil is based. It was probably the source from which the Synoptic Gospels derived much of their material and some of the teachings attributed to Jesus. The fact of its having been lost and forgotten is alluded to in the Qur’an in 5:14.

In contrast to the Jews’ and Christians’ corrupted scriptures, Allah has now revealed the “Criterion” (Arabic فُرْقَانَ — furqan, v. 4), which is, as Ibn Kathir puts it, “the distinction between misguidance, falsehood and deviation on one hand, and guidance, truth and piety on the other hand.” According to Qatada and many other Islamic authorities, this “criterion” is the Qur’an itself, although others say it refers to all the revealed scriptures — in their uncorrupted form, of course.

The same verse also promises a “severe punishment” to those who “disbelieve in the verses of Allah.” The 20th century Indian Muslim scholar Allama Shabbir Ahmed Usmani sees this as proof that Jesus cannot be divine, for while “God is powerful to venge [sic] and punish whenever He deems fit,” Jesus “cannot be a sovereign like God because he could not overcome the miscreants who were chasing him to kill.”

After saying that he has revealed this great Criterion of what is right and wrong, Allah cautions believers against getting carried away, explaining that some verses in the Qur’an are clear and some aren’t, “such as,” says the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, “the opening verses of some sūras,” including the opening verse of this sura.

These are not to be explored too deeply by the Muslims (although they have been): Allah warns that it is only “those in whose hearts is deviation” who “follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation. And no one knows its interpretation except Allah” (v. 7).

Why would Allah include material in his “clear” revelation of guidance to human beings that only he knows the meaning of? He doesn’t say.

Allah then exhorts the believers not to reject faith in him (vv. 8-27), and warns the unbelievers that grievous punishment awaits them in hell.

He refers to the Battle of Badr (v. 13), the first great victory for the Muslims, when a small force prevailed against a much larger army of pagan Arabs from Muhammad’s Quraysh tribe (they had rejected his prophetic claim). Maududi says that the first thirty-two verses of Sura 3 were “probably revealed soon after the Battle of Badr,” and this verse says that it was a “sign” when the two armies met; “one was fighting in the cause of Allah, the other resisting Allah.”

These armies “saw as twice their number,” which Ibn Kathir explains: “When the two camps saw each other, the Muslims thought that the idolaters were twice as many as they were, so that they would trust in Allah and seek His help. The idolaters thought that the believers were twice as many as they were, so that they would feel fear, horror, fright and despair.”

Allah, Maududi says, “gives victory to His believing servants in this life” — that is, the Muslims’ victory was due to their obedience to Allah. The reverse is also true: when Muslims suffer, all too often they ascribe their suffering to being insufficiently Islamic, and the remedy is always more Islam. There is no idea in Islam of the Biblical principle that the wicked may prosper because of the fallen nature of the world — in Islam, if the wicked prosper, it is because the Muslims aren’t Islamic enough.

Allah declares that “the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِندَ اللّهِ الإِسْلاَم) (v. 19), and that the People of the Book reject it only “out of jealous animosity between themselves.” The Jews and Christians, says Bulandshahri, recognized Muhammad “to be the final Prophet but their obstinate nature prevented them from accepting.” Allah says that they will be saved if they submit to Allah (v. 20); Bulandshahri continues: “One cannot force these people to accept, but can merely advise them. Inviting them to accept Islam is the duty of the Muslim.”

After that, Allah warns of his judgment, and above all warns believers not to take unbelievers as “friends or helpers” (َأَوْلِيَا — a word that means more than casual friendship, but something more like an alliance), “except when taking precaution against them in prudence” (v. 28). This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure.

The word used for “guard” in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan — hence the increasingly familiar term taqiyya. Ibn Kathir says that the phrase “except when taking precaution against them in prudence” means that “believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers” may “show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda’ said, ‘We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.’ Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, ‘The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.’”

Read more

Obama Cites Ayatollah’s Fatwa on Road to Nuclear War

354x199xobama-iran2Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, March 26, 2015:

As Iran continues edging closer to developing nuclear weapons—a major threat to the entire Mideast region, especially longstanding U.S. ally Israel—U.S. President Obama has come to the aid of the Islamic Republic, by citing an Islamic fatwa no less. In a video recording posted on the White House’s website, Obama said, “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”

This is the same Rouhani who, after recently showcasing Iran’s newly developed missiles, described his nation’s diplomatic talks with the U.S. as an active “jihad”: “Our negotiations with the world powers are a source of national pride. Yesterday [during the Iran-Iraq War], your brave generals stood against the enemy on the battlefield and defended their country. Today, your diplomatic generals are defending [our nation] in the field of diplomacy–this, too, is jihad.”

Other administration officials—such as Secretary of State John Kerry and Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes—have previously referred to the ayatollah’s reported fatwa in the context of the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.

The Obama administration’s citation of this fatwa is utterly wrongheaded on many levels.

First, the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to deceive non-Muslims. Islamic prophet Muhammad himself regularly lied to his infidel enemies, often resulting in their murder (such as the case of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf). He also proclaimed that lying was permissible in three contexts, one being war. Moreover, throughout the centuries and due to historic circumstances (discussed here), taqiyya became second nature to the Shia—the sect currently ruling Iran.

Then there is the fact that Islamic law takes circumstance into account. When Muhammad was weak and outnumbered in Mecca, he preached peace and tolerance (hence why Meccan Suras appear peaceful); when he became strong in Medina, he preached war and went on the offensive (hence why Medinan Suras are violent and intolerant). This dichotomy—preach peace when weak, wage war when strong—has been Islamic modus operandi for centuries.

Speaking of fatwas, Dr. Yusuf Burhami, a prominent Islamic cleric in Egypt, recently said that destroying churches in Egypt is permissible if not advisable—but not if doing so prompts Western infidels to intervene and occupy Egypt, which they could do “because the condition of Muslims in the current era is well known to the nations of the world—they are weak.” Burhami further added that circumstance is everything, “just as the prophet allowed the Jews to remain in Khaibar after he opened [conquered] it, once Muslims grew in strength and number, [second caliph] Omar al-Khattab drove them out according to the prophet’s command, ‘Drive out the Jews and Christians from the Peninsula.’”

And who can forget Yasser Arafat’s reference to Muhammad’s Hudaybiya pact? In 1994, soon after negotiating a peace treaty criticized as conceding too much to Israel, Arafat addressed an assembly of Muslims and said: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the [infidel] Quraysh in Mecca.” In other words, like Muhammad, Arafat gave his word only to annul it once his ranks became strong enough to go on the offensive.

In short, it’s all very standard for Islamic leaders to say they are pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while they are weaker than their infidel foes—as Iran is today—but once they acquire nukes the jihad can resume in earnest.

Then there is the fact that Shia theology is rife with apocalyptic aspirations. An August 2007 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service said: “Ahmadinejad [previous president of Iran] believes his mission is to prepare for the return of the 12th ‘Hidden’ Imam, whose return from occultation [i.e., “hiding”] would, according to Twelver Shi’ite doctrine, be accompanied by the establishment of Islam as the global religion.”

Like other Iranians, Ahmadinejad cited the eschatological (and canonical) hadith wherein Muhammad said: “The Hour [Judgment Day] will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and until the Jews hide behind the trees and rocks and the trees and rocks will say, ‘O Muslim, O Servant of God! Here are the Jews! Come and kill them!”

Indeed, during a recent speech, supreme leader Khamenei—whose fatwa Obama is now citing—boasted about Iran’s uranium enrichment, even as his military commanders shouted, “Allah Akbar. Khamenei is the leader. Death to the enemies of the leadership. Death to America. Death to England. Death to hypocrites. Death to Israel.”

Yet despite all this—despite the fact that Islamic doctrine mandates lying to infidels; despite the fact that the Shia—Iran’s leadership—have perfected taqiyya into an art; despite the fact that Islamic law holds that Muslims should preach peace when weak, war when strong; despite the fact that Iranian leadership openly boasts that its nuclear negotiations are a “jihad” against the infidel; despite the fact that Iran has previously been exposed developing uranium enrichments suitable for nuclear warheads—here is Obama and his administration relying on the “word” of the ayatollah of Iran.

Watch What Happens When 3 Muslim Spokesmen Are Asked About Islam’s Death Penalty for Apostasy

A case study in Islamic supremacist deception.

PJ Media, by Robert Spencer, March 24, 2015:

A recent episode of the BBC program The Big Questions was anomalous: instead of pumping out more of the usual fog of obfuscation and denial regarding the aspects of Islamic law incompatible with Western standards of human rights and human dignity — as do most BBC shows — it actually featured an honest discussion of Islam’s death penalty for apostasy.

Or it would have, that is, if the Muslim spokesmen on the show had been remotely honest about that penalty. Instead, they offered an instructive case study in how Islamic supremacists deal with uncomfortable aspects of Islam when speaking with infidels.

Despite denials from Muslims in the West, Islam’s death penalty for those who leave the faith is abundantly established.

The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated:

The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-`ashriyyah, Al-Ja`fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.

There is only disagreement over whether the law applies only to men, or to women also — some authorities hold that apostate women should not be killed, but only imprisoned in their houses until death.

The BBC program begins with ex-Muslim Amal Farah of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain (CEMB) and several Muslim spokesmen discussing Islamic law’s death penalty for apostasy. Farah, despite her affiliation with CEMB — which is often more concerned with smearing and demonizing genuine critics of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism than with actually defending apostates from Islam — is the one sane and rational voice in the discussion.

The Muslim spokesmen, by contrast, practice various forms of evasion and deflection, claiming victim status repeatedly. Abdullah al-Andalusi of the ironically named Muslim Debate Initiative is the worst, ascribing Islam’s death penalty for apostasy to “Victorian translations,” claiming that it is only a law in “post-colonial secular states,” and pouting that the BBC is conducting an “Inquisition court.” Note also how he dodges the question of whether or not he condemns the words of UK imam Haitham al-Haddad, who has defended the death penalty for apostasy.

After that, Usama Hasan, author of The Way of the Prophet: A Selection of Hadith, comes across as honest and forthright, but in reality, his obfuscation is just more sophisticated than al-Andalusi’s. He claims that the apostasy law is a product of the early Muslim states, never mentioning what the author of a hadith collection should know and undoubtedly does know: that according to a hadith, Muhammad said:

Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him (Bukhari 9.84.57).

This distinction is important, because if the death penalty for apostasy comes from the early Muslim states, it can be changed, but if it comes from Muhammad, the supreme example of conduct for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21), it can’t.

Finally there is Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, who claims that “we believe in religious freedom. People are free to leave Islam.” Then he is exposed as having branded as a “defamer of the prophet” the professional moderate Maajid Nawaz for tweeting a Muhammad cartoon — a term that carries the death penalty in Pakistan. He backpedals here, while insisting that he was right to “defend” Muhammad.

The yawning absence here is that of a Muslim voice who will simply acknowledge that Islam has a death penalty for apostasy and say that it has to be reconsidered and reformed. There are no such voices. Instead, it’s the same as always: claims of victimization, deflection, blaming of the infidels, claims of hatred for Muslims — the usual responses we have seen thousands of times from Muslims in response to critics of jihad terror.

Produce the Fatwa

Weekly Standard, MAR 20, 2015, by THOMAS JOSCELYN:

In his annual statement marking the Persian new year, President Obama said he believes that Iran and the U.S. “should be able” to resolve the dispute over the mullahs’ nuclear program “peacefully, with diplomacy.”

With his very next words, Obama said the following: “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.”

Of course, the existence of Khamenei’s alleged fatwa is hotly disputed. If the president is so confident it exists, then his administration should be able to produce a copy of the fatwa, revealing when it was written and what it says. The Washington Post’s fact checker went looking for the fatwa in November 2013, as administration officials were citing it at the time, and couldn’t find it.

The Iranians are well aware of the controversy over Khamenei’s supposed declaration. They have countered by pointing to Khamenei’s public statements, in which he has said that Iran considers “the use of such weapons as haram (religiously forbidden).” In 2013, USA Today’s Oren Dorell reported that Iran’s press office at the United Nations cited one of Khamenei’s speeches in 2006 as evidence that the fatwa was real. With respect to building nuclear weapons, Khamenei said, “any benefit would not be worth the cost.”

The Iranians were, therefore, trying to substitute Khamenei’s public rhetoric for a formal, binding religious edict. (The very nature of such edicts, and whether they are binding or not, is itself in dispute.) Importantly, the Iranians’ argument at the time was an implicit concession that no such edict, or fatwa, actually exists. If it did, then they could easily produce it. They still haven’t.

There is another basic logical problem with the Iranians’ argument. Khamenei says all sorts of things, many of which we know are false – blatantly so. For example, he has repeatedly claimed that the Obama administration supports the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

And Khamenei has clearly lied about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In February 2012, Khamenei reportedly said the following (emphasis added):

The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.”

No one seriously believes this. The U.S. intelligence community, which erroneously argued in 2007 that Iran had “halted its nuclear weapons program” in 2003, doesn’t think this is true. Even at that time, the intelligence community noted Iran had been pursuing a bomb. The Iranians couldn’t halt those efforts if they didn’t pursue them in the first place. There are conflicting assessments about how quickly Iran can assemble a bomb, but the intelligence doesn’t support Khamenei’s claim that Iran “has never pursued” such a weapon. The evidence collected by the IAEA also shows the opposite is true.

Amazingly, according to a column by the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, Obama believed that these same remarks by Khamenei in February 2012 marked “a potential starting point” for serious negotiations. That is, Obama viewed a blatant lie about Iran’s nuclear past as a diplomatic opening.

Khamenei was indeed lying in 2012 when he said Iran had “never pursued…nuclear weapons.” It stands to reason, therefore, that none of his public statements on Iran’s nuclear program can be taken at face value, let alone portrayed as a binding religious ruling.

If Khamenei issued such a fatwa, then the Iranians and the Obama administration should be able to produce it. Many have searched for the fatwa. None have found it.

Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Sharia, Permissible Lying, and the Duality of the Message

taqiyya1-300x225By John Guandolo at his blog, Understanding the Threat, 6/18/14:

“You send two messages, one to the Americans and one to the Muslims.”

Omar Ahmad
Chairman of the Board
Hamas (dba CAIR), 1994-2005

“It is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.”

Um Dat al Salik
Islamic Sacred Law (Reliance of the Traveller)

While there are individuals who identify themselves as Muslims who do not seek to impose Sharia on the world, there still exists a Global Islamic Movement which seeks to do just that through all means possible including armed conflict. Woven into Sharia is the self-protective measure of lying to the unbeliever in order to further the Jihad until the war is won. As a matter of fact, lying to the infidel is obligatory if the goal is obligatory—Jihad is obligatory in the Sharia until the world is claimed for Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (all 57 Islamic States in the world represented at the Head of State/King level) all seek to impose Sharia on the rest of us per their stated doctrine.

So when Western leaders turn to their left or to their right to get advice from their “Islamic Advisors” and these advisors can be easily identified as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, we know our leaders are most likely being lied to. The strategic loss in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq despite overwhelming U.S. military victories there is just one example of the cost of relying on men who we know are not telling us the truth about the reality on the ground.

The US v Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF”) was the largest terrorism financing and Hamas trial ever successfully prosecuted in American history (Northern District of Texas, Dallas, 2008). When HLF was indicted immediately after 9/11 it was the largest Islamic charity in America, and it was Hamas. HLF was one of four entities created by the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee (Hamas) in the United States. The other three organizations were the UASR (United Association for Studies and Research), IAP (Islamic Association for Palestine), and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations).

During a 1993 meeting of the U.S. Palestine Committee in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Hamas leaders from all over the country attended including senior Hamas official Omar Ahmad, founder of CAIR. The FBI wiretapped phone conversations, microphones meeting rooms, and conducted physical surveillance the attendees because this was a meeting of Hamas leaders in America. During a meeting on October 2nd, Omar Ahmad – who helped plan and organize this meeting—was recorded discussing his assessment of where Hamas was in the United States and how to move forward. Specifically, he stated:

“I believe that our problem is that we stopped working underground. We will recognize the source of any message which comes out of us…the media person among us will recognize you send two messages; one to the Americans and one to the Muslims. If they found out who said that – even four years later – it will cause discredit to the Foundation as far as the Muslims are concerned as they will say ‘Look, he used to tell us about Islam and that it is a cause and stuff while he, at the same time, is shooting elsewhere.’ Then if we want to do something like that it is better that it is an independent, separate and new organization and no one knows any connections it has with Holy Land.”

In very practical terms, Omar Ahmad was restating what Sharia demands – there must be a duality of communications from Islamic leaders. It is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim something that is false about Islam, yet it is obligatory for Sharia adherent Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in pursuit of Jihad and the imposition of Sharia globally. Therefore, Sharia adherent Muslims must “send two messages” that necessarily contradict one another – one to the Muslim community and one to the non-Muslim community.

The key to Ahmad’s above mentioned recorded conversation is he is articulating what all of the Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood leaders understand—if we (Americans) find out these Muslim leaders are lying to us, it will discredit them. Then we would realize the same guys telling us they mean us well and want to help us are actually a part of a larger jihadi organization killing people elsewhere. Well, that wouldn’t be good for business.

Factually, we know the Muslim Brotherhood, in the form of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the Fiqh Council of North America (which ensures everything the Muslim Brotherhood does in North America is done in accordance with the Sharia) has its authoritative stamp of approval in the front of the Reliance of the Traveller—14th century authoritative Islamic Sacred Law published in Beltsville, Maryland. As is true with all authoritatively published Islamic Law, this MB-approved Sharia law only defines Jihad as “warfare against non-Muslims” (Book O, Justice) and makes it obligatory until the world is under the rule of the Sharia. This same book, quoted above, obliges Muslims to lie to non-Muslims in the pursuit of obligatory objectives (e.g. JIHAD).

Therefore, if we can identify Muslim leaders as being a part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s movement, we know they are obliged to lie to us regarding these matters. This might explain why 100% of Sharia is in agreement on the matter of Jihad and its obligation by the Muslim community, but why all of our American leaders argue Islam “doesn’t stand for” what Al Qaeda is doing. Despite the fact Al Qaeda has never misquoted Islamic Law, our leaders call Al Qaeda’s pursuits “extreme” or a “warped version” of Islamic Law.

When we see Muslim Brotherhood leaders like Imam Mohamed Magid, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) sitting on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, giving presentations at CIA Headquarters, and briefing the National Security Council, the one thing we know is this—when his lips are moving, he is lying.

Finally, we must ask ourselves a question – at what point do U.S. officials hold these Muslim leaders accountable for providing years of counter-factual information to our National Security apparatus which has led to catastrophic decisions in our war planning, foreign policy, and domestic counterterrorism strategy. More to the point, when do Americans hold our leadership accountable for the criminal negligence of utilizing such enemies to “help” us while citizens are dying on the battlefield and places like Little Rock, Boston, Fort Hood and elsewhere?

Imam made a Mockery of Pope Francis at Vatican Ceremony

20140617_VatikanImame1402954514108Family Security Matters, by ALAN KORNMAN:

On June 8, 2014 at a ‘Peace Gathering’ in Vatican City, prayers from a Christian, Muslim, and Jewish cleric that were meant to draw different faiths together, got horribly derailed by the truth.

The Palestinian Imam, in Arabic, who called for “victory over the nation of unbelievers” knowingly made a mockery of the Pope’s attempt at interfaith dialogue and reconciliation between the Israelis and Palestinians.  The Imam quoted the last Ayat of Surah Baqara which calls for Islam to reign supreme over all the non-Muslims.

This Palestinian Imam did us all a huge favor by spelling out in clear Arabic what the definition of Peace is for the followers of Islam.  When Islam is victorious over the non-Muslims, then and only then, will there be Peace between the Christian, Muslim, and Jews on earth.  That my friends is a call for domination and submission not equality and tolerance.

 

The Vatican Response 

On June 10th, Jesuit, “Fr.” Bernd Hagenkord, SJ, editor at the German-speaking offices of Vatican Radio, says the claim that the Muslim cleric ended his prayer with a quote from the Koran or with a petition against infidels is “nonsense” (source here )

On June 12th, Vatican Radio acknowledges the Palestinian Imam recited the controversial Qur’an passage but said it doesn’t matter, one has to understand how Muslims pray. 

Conclusion 

Hamed Abdel-Samad who originally exposed what the Palestinian Imam said in Arabic explains what happened this way.

“Pope Francis had invited two political leaders in a prayer of “prayer for peace” in the Vatican gardens, 8 June 2014…by using the usual ploy when Palestinian say they want peace when they speak English, and war when speaking in Arabic. The Imam did not produce the text in English that he knew would be refused. The Imam expressed to the world who speaks Arabic he was not about peace with Israel, but to ask that Allah gives victory to the Palestinians. 

Palestinian Arabs have benefited from the international forum that offered them the Pope to advance peace, and they have deceived, betrayed, and planted him in Arabic, a knife in the back.” 

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam.  This fact was validated less than a week ago when Sunni Islamic terrorists ran their successful offensive Jihad taking over Iraq and replacing it with the Black Flag of Islamic Jihad and strict Shariah Islamiyya (Islamic Law).

The only thing separating the Palestinian Imam truth teller in this story and the violent Jihadis are tactics.  This Palestinian Imam may not be carrying an AK-47 at the moment but he is advancing the Civilization Jihad against the non-Muslims.

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

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

Gates of Vienna Reveals Cover Up of Imam’s Prayer at Vatican, by Jerry Gordan:

Our colleagues at Gates of Vienna posted a translation of a Muslim Imam prayer  captured on video at the Vatican on June 8, 2014 that exposed the real message, “Make us Victorious Over the Tribe of Unbelievers“.  The Vatican edited a video of  the Imam’s prayer to exclude a crtical portion of  the Sura upon which his personal prayer was based. Essentially,  he went off message. Instead of conveying the taqiyyah of peace and tolerance, the Imam opted for praying to his God Allah for supremacism over his unbelieving Vatican hosts. The irony was that in the process of the cover up  the Vatican committed the religiously sanctioned act under Islamic doctrine of Kitman, not telling the whole truth by omission thereby excluding the full context. The oh so politically correct Vatican under Pope Francis simply air brushed the Imam’s prayer so as to avoid controversy. However, in the end through diligence, translation and exegesis, the cover up was revealed. Many thanks to Baron Bodissey, Vladtepes.blog and  Dr. Andrew Bostom for revealing the missing context of the Imam’s personal prayer with its anti-Christian and anti-Semitic context by two recognized Islamic commentators .

Here’s the story:

As we have reported extensively over the past week, a Muslim imam who was invited to participate in the “prayer for peace” event at the Vatican on June 8 went off-script and asked Allah to help him gain victory over the unbelievers. The Vatican at first denied that any such thing had happened, and an edited video of the event was released that supported their denial — the end of Sura 2 Verse 286 that the imam quoted from the Koran had been judiciously removed from the publicized version.

Below is the full video of the imam’s part of the Vatican ceremony, as provided by an Arabic TV channel. Many thanks to ritamalik for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the editing, subtitling, and general project management.

The translator notes that the personal prayer with which the imam concluded was not the controversial part of the ceremony, since his choice of prayer was generally unexceptional. His quotation of the last verse (286) of Sura 2 of the Quran, however, is what made his words controversial.

Read more with transcript of the video

 

Deception in Political Islam

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

Islam is a political system that includes deception and lying. Many people have heard of taqiyya, but there is a lesser known form of deception called tawriya.

 

That was taqiyya 101. You may now proceed to the advanced course:

Taqiyya about Taqiyya

raqBy Raymond Ibrahim:

I was recently involved in an interesting exercise—examining taqiyya about taqiyya—and believe readers might profit from the same exercise, as it exposes all the subtle apologetics made in defense of the Islamic doctrine, which permits Muslims to lie to non-Muslims, or “infidels.”

Context: Khurrum Awan, a lawyer, is suing Ezra Levant, a Canadian media personality and author, for defamation and $100,000.  Back in 2009 and on his own website, Levant had accused Awan of taqiyya in the context of Awan’s and the Canadian Islamic Congress’ earlier attempts to sue Mark Steyn.

For more on Levant’s court case, go to www.StandWithEzra.ca.

On behalf of Awan, Mohammad Fadel—professor of Islamic Law at the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law—provided an expert report to the court on the nature of taqiyya, the significance of which he portrayed as “a staple of right-wing Islamophobia in North America.”

In response, Levant asked me (back in 2013) to write an expert report on taqiyya, including by responding to Fadel’s findings.

I did.  And it had the desired effect.  As Levant put it in an email to me:

It was an outstanding report, very authoritative and persuasive. Of course, we don’t know what the plaintiff’s [Awan’s] private thoughts about it were, but we do know that after receiving the report, he decided to cancel calling his own expert witness [Dr. Fadel]—who happens to be a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer. After reading your rebuttal, he decided he would rather not engage in that debate.

My expert report follows.  In it, I quote relevant portions of Fadel’s expert report (which can be read in its entirety here).  Most intriguing about the professor’s report is that it’s a perfect example of taqiyya about taqiyya.  By presenting partial truths throughout the report, Fadel appears to have even employed taqiyya’s more liberal sister, tawriya.

Accordingly, readers interested in learning more about the role of deception in Islam—and how to respond to those trying to dismiss it as an “Islamophobic fantasy”—are encouraged to read on.

Raymond Ibrahim’s Expert Report on Taqiyya

Instructions: I have been asked to assess a report concerning the doctrine of taqiyya in Islam, written by one Mohammad Fadel; and, if I disagreed with any parts of it, to explain why—objectively, neutrally, and in a non-partisan manner.  My findings follow.

 Introduction

The Islamic doctrine of taqiyya permits Muslims to actively deceive non-Muslims—above and beyond the context of “self-preservation,” as is commonly believed.

One of the few books exclusively devoted to the subject, At-Taqiyya fi’l-Islam (“Taqiyya in Islam”) make this unequivocally clear. Written (in Arabic) by Dr. Sami Mukaram, a former Islamic studies professor at the American University of Beirut and author of some twenty-five books on Islam, the book demonstrates the ubiquity and broad applicability of taqiyya in its opening pages:

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[1]

The following report is written as a response to Mohammed Fadel’s report (henceforth referred to as MFR) which deals with the topic of taqiyya and its place and usage in Islamic jurisprudence.   Because MFR is written in a premises-conclusion format, the following report will follow MFR’s numbering schemata, pointing out which premises are agreeable and which are not—offering correctives to these latter resulting in an antithetical conclusion.

Numbers/Premises of MFR in Order:

1-3: Preliminary statements.

4: Agreed.

5:  Agreed, with the following caveat:  To many Muslims, jihad, that is, armed struggle against the non-Muslim, is the informal sixth pillar.   Islam’s prophet Muhammad said that “standing in the ranks of battle [jihad] is better than standing (in prayer) for sixty years,”[2] even though prayer is one of the Five Pillars, and he ranked jihad as the “second best deed” after belief in Allah as the only god and he himself, Muhammad, as his prophet, the shehada, or very First Pillar of Islam.[3]

All this indicates jihad’s importance in Islam—and thus importance to this case, since, as shall be seen, taqiyya is especially permissible in the context of jihad or struggle to empower Islam and/or Muslims over non-Muslims.

6: Agreed.  Qiyas, or analogical reasoning, the practice of finding antecedents in the teachings of the two revelatory sources (Qur’an and Hadith) and rationalizing their applicability to modern phenomena, also belongs to usul al-fiqh, or Islam’s roots of jurisprudence.  It gives more elasticity to Islam’s rules (a major theme throughout this report).  Qiyas, for example, is the way al-Qaeda and other jihadi organizations justify suicide attacks: although killing oneself is clearly forbidden in Islam, in the context of jihad—in the context of trying to empower Islam—suicide attacks are rationalized as legitimate forms of stealth warfare, since those giving their lives are not doing so out of despair but rather for Islam (as in Qur’an 9:111).[4]

7-19: Generally agreed (or indifferent to: some information in these numbers is not necessarily germane to the issue at hand and did not warrant confirmation).

20:  “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth.”

This is the first of many statements/premises that are only partially true.

For starters, Islamic jurisprudence separates humanity into classes.  The rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a fellow Muslim differ from the rules concerning the relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim.

First there is the umma—the “Islamic nation,” that is, all Muslims of the earth, irrespective of national, racial, or linguistic barriers.  Many of the Qur’an’s and Hadith’s teachings that appear laudable and fair are in fact teachings that apply only to fellow Muslims.

For example, although the Qur’an’s calls for Muslims to give charity (zakat) appear to suggest that Muslims may give charity to all humans—in fact, normative Islamic teaching is clear that Muslim charity (zakat) can only be given to fellow Muslims, never to non-Muslims.[5]

As for legal relations between Muslims and non-Muslims—or kuffar, the “infidels” (kafir, singular)—within the Islamic world, these fall into two main categories: first, the harbi, that is, the non-Muslim who does not reside in the Islamic world; if at any time a Muslim comes across him in the Muslim world, according to classic Islamic doctrine, he is free to attack, enslave, and/or kill him (the exception is if he is musta’min—given a formal permit by an Islamic authority to be on Muslim territory, such as the case of the many foreigners working in the Arabian Peninsula).[6]

Second is the dhimmi, the non-Muslim who lives under Muslim domination (for example, all the indigenous Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Berbers, etc. whose lands were conquered by Muslims beginning in the 7th century).   By today’s standards, the rules governing the dhimmi, most of which are based on the so-called “Conditions of Omar” (sometimes the “Pact of Omar”) are openly discriminatory and include things such as commanding non-Muslims to give up their seats whenever a Muslim wants it.[7]

It is, then, in this divisive context that one must approach the Qur’an, keeping in mind that most of the verses discussing human relations are discussing intra-relations between Muslims, not Muslims and non-Muslims.  For examples of the latter, see Qur’an 9:5, 9:29, 5:17, and 5:73 for typical verses that discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, verses which have further abrogated the earlier, more tolerant ones. [8]

As for the Qur’an verses listed in MFR 20—which are meant to support the statement that “Normative Islamic doctrine places strong emphasis on the obligation to speak the truth,” a close reading, supported by mainstream Islamic exegeses, demonstrates that the true function of those verses is to portray true believers (Muslims) and Islam’s prophets as the epitome of honesty and sincerity.  Significantly, none of the verses mentioned in MFR 20 actually exhort Muslims to be honest and truthful, including to fellow Muslims, in the same vein as, for example, unequivocal statements such as Do not lie to one another” (Colossians 3:9) and “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16).

The fact is, other Islamic teachings and caveats have permitted Muslims to deceive even fellow Muslims.  For example, the doctrine of tawriya allows Muslims to lie in virtually all circumstances provided that the lie is articulated in a way that it is technically true.

The authoritative Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary defines tawriya as, “hiding, concealment; dissemblance, dissimulation, hypocrisy; equivocation, ambiguity, double-entendre, allusion.” Conjugates of the trilateral root of the word, w-r-y, appear in the Quran in the context of hiding or concealing something (e.g., 5:31, 7:26).

As a doctrine, “double-entendre” best describes tawriya’s function. According to past and present Muslim scholars (several documented below), tawriya is when a speaker/writer asserts something that means one thing to the listener/reader, though the speaker/writer means something else, and his words technically support this alternate meaning.

For example, if someone declares “I don’t have a penny in my pocket,” most listeners will assume the speaker has no money on him—though he might have dollar bills, just literally no pennies.

This is legitimate according to Islamic law, or shari‘a—the body of legal rulings that defines how a Muslim should behave in all circumstances—and does not constitute “lying.”

In a fatwa, or Islamic decree, popular Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajid asserts that, “Tawriya is permissible if it is necessary or serves a shari‘a interest.”  As mentioned, empowering Islam is one of the highest shari‘a interests [9] (hence why jihad, so lauded by Islam’s prophet as aforementioned, is sometimes seen as the “sixth pillar”).

Read more at Front Page

What U Penn Teaches Muslim Law Students

20140304_burkajusticeUSAby LANCE SILVER, ANDREW PALASHEWSKY:

Saturday evening, Feb. 22nd, University of Pennsylvania Law School hosted the “Eighth Annual Muslim Law Students Conference,” on the topic of “MUSLIM OBLIGATIONS IN PROMOTING JUSTICE IN AMERICA.” Our interest in Islamic law as American citizens is to learn first-hand exactly what Muslim American law students are being taught.

The fairly innocuous and well-meaning title of the program masked the true intent, which we believe is to lull the audience and our society into a false sense of complacency regarding the real aims and effects of Islamic incursion in our society – which Stephen Coughlin covers in his must-read thesis, ” To Our Great Detriment.”

We were greeted with “As-Salamu ‘ Alaykum” (Peace be upon you), upon entering the conference and by each speaker, prior to presentation. What a comforting greeting. I responded with “Aslim Taslam.”

As is typically the case, conference attendees were highly educated and polite. This is a high-end mix of people who are difficult to fault on any personal level.

The attendees, primarily American and foreign Muslim law students, as well as a few foreign lawyers, presented a mixed canvas racially, yet each person is culturally Islamic and a member of the ummah, the global body of believers. The speakers and each future American lawyer we spoke with advised us that Islam has been misinterpreted for 1,400 years. Isn’t that amazing? As if we had no ability to study the history of Islam from both Muslim and non-Muslim sources on our own.

We are authoring this report in response to what we believe is attempted hoodwinking, enabled by the practice of Taqiyya and Kitman, forms of lying encouraged in Islam, if such lying is to be useful for the spread of Islam. No other religion/culture encourages its adoption by lying. But, because Islam is also a political theory that embodies military notions, the ability to further aims by deception is enshrined in the Qur’an and in Shari’ah, as it would be on the battlefield. The intended recipients of this mendacity were not only us, but the attendees and the law school itself.

The first speaker, Professor Faisal Kutty, presented us with a bogus definition of the terms “jihad” and “Islamophobia.” He spoke of jihad, as if it were apple pie with vanilla ice cream, splitting the term jihad into its normative components – the “Lesser Jihad,” meaning defensive or offensive military struggle, and the “Greater Jihad,” meaning, personal struggle for good against evil. She downplayed the importance of Jihad’s military meaning to relative insignificance, ignoring the vast majority of references in the Qur’an on Jihad, compelling Muslims to wage a military struggle as the Sixth Pillar of Islam.

Jihad is offensive.  Duplicity and deception as tactics to throw off the opponent are inherent in Islam and that’s why Islam states that jihad is purely defensive. In fact, jihad was, and is still, used as the normative call to action in the military conquest of vast tracts of formerly Christian, Jewish ,Hindu lands within 100 years of its founding by Muhammad. That empire still stands in terms of the Islamic culture it forced on the conquered Nations and cultures.

The reality of jihad is that Islam considers itself to be supremacist and must triumph, be victorious, over all other religions and cultures. Islam compels Muslims to spread Islam to all corners of the earth, first by invitation, Aslim Taslam, which means, “Submit and Be At Peace.”

And, if that isn’t effective, then by the sword or forcing subject people to accept Dhimmi status.  Living in dhimmitude relegates subjects to second-class status, with vastly diminished rights, including no right for the Dhimmi peoples to defend themselves.  Muhammad conquered many with that simple statement, Aslim-Taslam, which was intended to strike terror into the hearts of those offered the choice, and it did. This is the beginning of the Muslim Mafia mentality, perfected by the Ikhwan, Wahhabis, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas etc.

Likening it to the Mafia is no facile rhetoric. Islam offered three choices to the people of the book; Convert, Pay the Jy’izia tax or lose the right to life and property. So when Islam characterized this choice as the benefit of protection, one must ask, protection from whom? Obviously, the answer is protection from Islam, which reserved the right to take life and property if the conditions of conversion or the payment of the Jy’izia tax were not met. How different is this from the Black hand extorting protection money from the neighborhood grocer?

If Islam does not succeed in becoming the world’s only true religion, then Muslims will not have fulfilled Allah’s commands in the Qur’an. Thus, Muslims are obligated to proselytize Islam throughout the world through da’wa and Jihad. Whether violently or nonviolently, this is accomplished with 100% impunity from Allah, as per the Qur’an. One could make the comparison with Christianity being a proselytizing religion, but Christianity as found in the Gospels does not allow the use of violence to spread the faith, whereas, Islam specifically does. Muslims may quote the Koran saying, “There is no compulsion in religion.” But, that statement is superseded and abrogated by later statements in the Koran that enthusiastically endorse violent compulsion in the spread of Islam.

Professor Faisal Kutty went on to make further incredible claims, saying that Terrorism had only killed 5 people in the last ten years. In this, presumably he was referring to within the US, and ignoring events like Major Hassan’s slaughter of fellow military personnel at Fort Hood, Texas. But, he also ignored the more than 10,000 terror attacks worldwide, in the last 10 years; almost all committed by Muslims and in which, ironically, many of the victims were fellow Muslims as well. Thousands of Christians, Jews and Hindus were victims as well.

He also claimed that the popular definition of jihad is only accepted by the Taliban and by al-Qaeda, stating that they had sought to reinterpret the historical meaning of jihad to support their violent means. In this, he ignored 1,400 years of written teaching on Islam readily available from Muslim sources, as well as established treatment of jihad in recognized Sharia sources like, “The Reliance Of The Traveller,”  Shafi’i Shari’ah , Section O9.1- Page 600 – Justice-jihad.

In reality, his analysis is Taqiyya and Kitman. Is this what the law students are taught about jihad by a respected law professor?

Read more: Family Security Matters

Sunna – Deceiving the Politically Gullible

TAQIYYA+SOftening+hearts+of+non+believer+fingers+crossedPolitical Islam, By Bill Warner:

One of the most discouraging things about dealing with Islam is how our leadership has learned nothing in the years since Sept 11, 2001. Leadership’s favorite fantasy is that Islam is whatever a Muslim wants to say it is. So if you want a nice Islam, ask a nice imam. But, would a Muslim deceive the Kafir (non-Muslim)? Mohammed did.

 

Obama Laughs When Questioned About Benghazi Terror Attack

Barack-Obama-laughing-at-mention-of-Benghazi-and-Susan-RiceWeasel Zippers:

During the interview today, Bill O’Reilly brought up Benghazi and this one makes my blood boil.

O’Reilly says General Carter Ham testified he told Leon Panetta it was a terror attack. Then Panetta went right into speak to Obama. So O’Reilly asked “did Panetta tell you it was a terrorist attack”?

Obama dances this way and that and refuses to answer the question. It’s very simple. Either he did or he didn’t. But Obama refuses to say. O’Reilly says the question about whether it was a terrorist attack matters because of Susan Rice (because she was sent out to lie on the Sunday talk shows and say it was all because of the video). At this point, Obama broadly smiles and laughs dismissively about the question at around 4:10 of the video.

 

 

He repeats that he called it an “attack of terror” the next day, but then says any attack is one of terror by definition. He is thus on all sides of the question at the same time. Yet he still doesn’t explain, if in fact, he knew if was a terror attack why he sent Susan Rice out to lie. They had immediate intel as to the nature of the attack. Yet, even had they not, Sept 11, 2012 was a Tuesday. They would have known by Sunday. Yet still they sent her out.

Around 6:10, Obama also laughs when O’Reilly says that people think he didn’t call it a terror attack for political reasons. “They believe it because folks like you are telling them that”. No one is entitled to question him, and if they do, they must be under someone else’s dictate, the evil Fox News.

He also lies, saying we all said it a week later, that it was a terrorist attack. Well, now, no you didn’t you lied for at least two weeks, until you were forced to admit that it wasn’t what you had been saying. In the interim, Hillary lied to the parents of the dead and Obama talked about the video at the U.N.

Will the Real Muslim ‘Moderates’ Please Stand Up?

Abu Hamza, an honest Muslim

Abu Hamza, an honest Muslim

By Paul Wilkinson:

Britain has numerous so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims aka self-righteous ‘media-whores’, who carve a living from shamelessly denying all the nasty things clearly written in the Qur’an. They publically espouse equal rights and state how they are against any form of discrimination, yet on the other hand are all religious zealots who follow the Qur’an to the letter and worship the Prophet Muhammad and his teachings.

Many Brits do not have a great knowledge of Islam; certainly the overwhelming majority have not read the Qur’an and rely on the media for ‘enlightenment’. Qur’an inspired violence, terrorism and civil wars are on the news daily, but self-appointed spokesmen will feed off the public’s ignorance and tell the largely gullible audience this is all a contradiction to the real, ‘true Islam’.

At the other end of the spectrum are ‘hate preachers’ who are really being honest like Anjem Choudary, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, who at times may be portrayed as ‘pantomime villains’, but the media does not tell us that they are simply obeying the Qur’an’s commands which do incite hatred and violence.

Hence the reason why Robert Spencer and Pam Geller were banned from entering Britain, because they would have challenged these ‘moderates’ and told the uncomfortable truth about what the Qur’an actually says. This is not what the multiculturalists in the media want you to hear… Not to mention the fact that Muslims would have been violent- remember, “Islam is peace”!

There is no Islamic caliphate anymore (thankfully), but having no ‘Pope-like’ leader gives rise to all these ‘spokesmen’ who claim they speak for 99% of Muslims. However they are ‘stealth jihadists’ who want to spread undiluted Islam, but their tactics are tailored differently and so do not publically admit to this. The only ‘moderate’ trait is by not personally partaking in or publically condemning violence, and misleading people by making Islam not appear extreme.

Other than in the public sphere many of these moderates are all essentially ‘nobodies’ and only have value due to the exposure they get from the media, like the BBC putting them on television most Sunday mornings. They effectively have carte blanche as they are totally unchallenged by the politically correct media and certainly never have Islamic scripture quoted at them. Their modus operandi is the ‘non-violent form of Jihad’, as Jon MC explains:

“Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) and/or jihad by the pen (jihad bil qallam). This might sound like simple proslytisation, but in essence Islam recognises any method including lying or dissimulation (Taqiyya/Muda’rat, Kitman, Tawriya and Tayseer) to ‘spread Islam’ to win converts, or gain acceptance for Islam within a host society, or disguising elements of Islam (hence the ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ statement). It also includes attempting to silence criticism by labelling critics as ‘racists’, ‘fascists’ or ‘Islamophobes’ or any verbal/written means to promote/defend Islam and/or silence opposition and critics.”

Read more at Cherson and Molschky

 

Ali Sina: Peeling Back The Layers Of Taqiyya

onion-300x199By Ali Sina:

Who has not heard of taqiyah? But did you know that it is onion shaped? It is an Arabic word and it means dissimulation. Another word used synonymously is kitman, which means concealment.

This concealment has many layers.  The most common form of taqiyah is when Muslims deny that certain Islamic behaviors have anything to do with Islam.

On October 27, the BBC aired a documentary in which Mo Ansar, a Muslim activist in UK, was shown addressing a group of English Defense League members. He wanted to meet them in order to dispel their misunderstandings of Islam and to prove that Islam poses no threat to their country and their way of life.  How could he do that when Islam’s goal is to become dominant over all religions and nations? Well, he did it like any Muslim would do. He lied.  (Mo’s speech to EDL is at minute 10).

 mo ansar

Mo starts by saying “as somebody who was born in this country and is British, I think I uphold British values. I am also a Muslim.  Islam is not here to take over the country. Islam is not here to take over the world. That is not the Islam that I know. Islam that I know is one that believes in co-existence and honors and respects British values.”

Nothing can be further from the truth. The British and Islamic values are diametrically opposed. They cannot co-exist. The British values are based on democracy. Democracy implies equality.  Iranian Journalist Amir Taheri says, “Equality is unacceptable in Islam. Un-believers cannot be equal to believers and women are not equal to men. Even the non-Muslims are not deemed to be equal. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are accepted as second class citizens and allowed to live in an Islamic state provided they pay the protection tax; Jizyah. But the pagans, atheists and idolaters are not regarded as fully humans. According to the Quran, the idolaters are to be killed wherever they are found.” (9:5)

In the April 9, 2002 issue, The Wall Street Journal published the concept of blood money in Saudi Arabia. If a person has been killed or caused to die by another, the latter has to pay blood money or compensation, as follow.
100,000 riyals if the victim is a Muslim man,
50,000 riyals if a Muslim woman,
50,000 riyals if a Christian man,
25,000 riyals if a Christian woman,
6,666 riyals if a Hindu man,
3,333 riyals if a Hindu woman.

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and the Sharia. How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

This is not a quirk of Saudi Arabia. The prophet of Islam advised Muslims not to aid non-Muslims to seek justice if they are abused by a Muslim. In his much celebrated edict of Medina, he declared, “A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer.”  The same document states, “Whoever is convicted of killing a believer… the believers shall be against him as one man, and they are bound to take action against him.”

The Quran 3:28 prohibits Muslims to take non-Muslims as their leaders, or even as friends. If Muslims tell the truth about their hostile intention, they will be kicked out from the countries that they intend to overtake. The same verse allows them to lie, “by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from them.

Co-existence? Yes there is co-existence in Islam, but only if the non-Muslims are reduced into dhimmis, and accept to pay tributes to Muslims while feeling themselves humiliated and subdued. (Q. 9:29)

One characteristic of democracy is freedom of belief. This is utterly alien to Islam. The Quran 3: 85 says, “whoso desires another religion than Islam it shall not be accepted of him.”  The punishment of apostasy in Islam is death. No Islamic country allows its Muslim citizens to change their religion.

Mo also assured his audience that Islam is not here to take over the world. He lied. People often make the mistake of comparing Islam to Christianity and other faiths. All religions are personal. They are about enlightenment or relationship with God.  Islam is about world domination. The focus of Islam is on expansion. A hadith narrated by Bukhari (4: 53: 386) makes this clear. It says that when Umar sent Muslim army to Persia, “the representative of Khosrau came out with 40,000 warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, “Let one of you talk to me!” Al-Mughira replied, “Ask whatever you wish.” The other asked, “Who are you?” Al-Mughira replied, “We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life. We used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

The order to fight till the non-Muslims worship Allah has not changed. Muslims will not abandon their quest for domination until they succeed or they are defeated. They have no choice in this.  They are programmed to spread Islam through deception or war.  They can’t be a Muslim and not advance their religion. The obligation to spread Islam is on every Muslim.  But we e have the choice. We can submit, or fight back and defeat them.  But how can we do that if we are not even aware that we are under attack? Taqiyah is what Muslims do to keep us in the sedated state.

Muhammad said al Islamo deenun va dawlah, (Islam is religion and state).  The goal of Islam is to take over the world and establish a world caliphate.  Without this goal Islam becomes meaningless.  The whole idea of jihad, which is an obligation on every Muslim, is to expand the Islamic domain.  It is also said that the bigger jihad is the struggle against one’s self. This is a lie too. Many scholars of Islam have refuted this as an innovation, something that was never said by Muhammad.

Jihad is through war, through financing the war (zakat) and through deception. The disagreement between Muslims is not in whether the west should become Islamic or not, but in whether it should be annexed through qital (fighting) or through taqiyah (deceiving).

The Quran 9:33 says, Allah will cause Islam to prevail over all religions. One does not have to read the history of Islamic conquest and oppression of their vanquished nations throughout the last 1400 years to know Muslims have no regards for the human rights of the non-Muslims. A look at how the minorities are treated in Muslim majority countries in the 21st century can make that point clear.

When Muslims become the majority, they deny the minorities any participation in political life. No non-Muslim is allowed to run for the head of any Islamic country and where they are allowed to become a member of parliament, it is only as a representative of their people. They are like ambassadors of their co-religionists in the Islamic state. They have no role in how the country should be run, but only as a liaison between the state and their co-religionists who are regarded as second class citizens.

Read more at alisina.org

‘Islam, Shariah, and the Brotherhood Make Inroads at Chautauqua’

20130726_feisalabdulrauf__large

 Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf

By Clare Lopez:

The Chautauqua Institution, located amidst lovely natural surroundings on the shores of Lake Chautauqua in southwestern New York State, is home to a “unique mix of fine and performing arts, lectures, interfaith worship and programs, and recreational activities,” according to its online Home Page. Drawing tens of thousands of visitors each year, Chautauqua is also one of the most liberal organizations one could possibly imagine anywhere on earth….especially about topics involving faith-based belief systems, like Islam. Regular summer program speakers who downplay and whitewash the counter-Constitutional aspects of Islamic jihad and shariah are not balanced with others who might address the issue with more honesty. The name of Chautauqua’s 2013 Week Eight lecture theme offers a glimpse of its delusions about Islam-dominated societies: “Turkey: Model for the Middle East.” But the introduction to the 2013 “Pursuit of Happiness” lecture series is the dead giveaway:

“The goal of every religion is to help seekers everywhere learn to cultivate true and lasting happiness within themselves.”

If they were referring to Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, or any of a number of other great world religions, this quote would make perfect sense. With reference to Islam, though, not so much, as its own founding figure, Muhammad made quite clear in everything from the Qur’anic verses Muslims believe he received from Allah, to his recorded biography (the Sirat), to the actions and sayings recounted by his followers (ahadith). A few examples will illustrate:

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.” (Qur’an 8:12)

Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.  (Qur’an 98:6)

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)”  Hadith of Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)

Putting the seal of immutable law on these authoritative Islamic sources, the shariah (Islamic Law) likewise codifies Islam’s rejection of any other faith, even Christianity or Judaism.

… It is unbelief (kufr) to hold that the remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions, such as “Christianity” or “Judaism,” are acceptable to Allah Most High after He has sent the final Messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) to the entire world. (Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, ‘Umdat al-Salik, w4.0[2])

And yet, deliriously heedless of what Islam really says about how Muslims should think of non-Muslims, the Chautauqua Institute continues to feature honey-tongued apologists for interfaith dialogue on its annual program line-up. In July 2012, Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf spoke to rapt audiences about the non-existent Islamic commandment to “love thy neighbor” while his wife, Daisy Khan is reported to have played the gullible Chautauqua audience with shovels-full of taqiyya about how gender equality is an intrinsic part of the Islamic faith. She is said to enjoy speaking at Chautauqua because “she has found audiences are mature concerning religious and faith-based arguments.” Utterly clueless about Islam would seem to be a more accurate description.

Read more: Family Security Matters