Huffington Post: All Islamic Violence Comes From Hadith, NOT Quran

hadith.sized-770x415xc

PJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, AUGUST 12, 2016:

The Huffington Post recently published an article titled “The Source of Muslim Extremism” authored by Mike Ghouse. He is described as “a speaker, thinker, and a writer” who “offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day.”

Ghouse argues that all violence and intolerance committed under the banner of Islam is not due to the Quran:

[Islamic violence and intolerance is] coming from a single source; the secondary books. The Quran is the only authentic book and we cannot go wrong with it. Until we reject those other books, we don’t have a prayer.

Among these “secondary books,” Ghouse identifies the Hadith. The Hadith contains the words and deeds of Muhammad:

As a first step towards fixing our problems, we need to rehabilitate the Hadith.

By “rehabilitate,” Ghouse wants to expunge … :

 … [any hadith not] compatible with the statements that God is just and the Prophet is a mercy to the mankind.

Concludes Ghouse:

Let’s stick to the Quran, we simply cannot go wrong.

What to make of this argument?

Unfortunately, its thesis is built on a faulty premise. Even if every single Muslim was to reject the Hadith and other “secondary books,” that wouldn’t change the fact that the Quran is saturated with violent and intolerant teachings that need no clarification from supplemental literature.

First, it should be noted that Quranism is not original to Ghouse. This position belongs to a small sect of reformist/heretical (depending on who you ask) Muslims known as “Quranists.” Their movement, Quranism, traces back decades, with echoes even earlier. Quranism holds:

… the Qur’an to be the only authentic source of Islamic faith. Quranists generally reject, therefore, the religious authority and authenticity of hadith, Sunnah, and reject traditional Sharia Law, with the assertion that they are false attributes to the Islamic Prophet Muhammed. This is in contrast to the Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi doctrines, which consider hadith necessary for Islamic faith.

The benefits of rejecting all textual sources but the Quran should be obvious. The corpus of Hadith literature is immense, and seems to have something to say about every conceivable topic. Sahih Bukhari — the most authoritative collection of Hadith, which Sunni Muslims hold second to the Quran in legislative importance – consists of nine volumes of Muhammad’s words and deeds on countless minutiae.

(For example: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘When you drink (water), do not breathe in the vessel; and when you urinate, do not touch your penis with your right hand. And when you cleanse yourself after defecation, do not use your right hand.’”)

Many forms of appalling behavior — from drinking camel urine to “adult breastfeeding” — are justified by finding some reference in the Hadith.

Although the Quran suggests that only Allah may torture with fire, a Sahih Bukhari hadith documents Muhammad using fire as a form of torture. Accordingly, the Islamic State referenced this hadith in their fatwa to justify burning a Jordanian pilot alive.

While Quranism resonates with the Western mentality — it’s simply the Islamic version of Protestantism’s sola scriptura — it is heresy in the Muslim world. Mainstream Muslim scholars, including so-called “moderates,” regularly and often denounce Quranists as apostates from Islam. They point out that Quran 33:2 commands Muslims to follow Muhammad’s example. And his example — his sunna, which 90 percent of the world’s Muslims are named after — is derived from the Hadith.

Of course, this is precisely why many lackadaisical Muslims (quietly) favor the elimination of the Hadith. As one more fervent cleric put it:

[M]uch of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith.

Surely then, Quranism is welcome news to lukewarm Muslims? Unsurprisingly, Quranists are regularly persecuted and killed for their position:

— Rashad Khalifa, an eccentric Quranist, was found stabbed to death in Tucson, Arizona in 1990.– India’s Chekannur Maulavi disappeared in 1993 under “mysterious circumstances” and is believed to be dead.

— Egypt’s Ahmed Subhy Mansour was denounced by and fired from Al Azhar University (The world’s most influential Islamic university), imprisoned, and finally exiled.

Of all strategies dedicated to creating a “moderate Islam” — most of which have no theological basis, and are simply built on Western projections of itself onto Islam — Quranism is commendable in that it is at least methodologically viable.

But it rests on an immediately negated claim about the Quran.

Well over one hundred verses within the Quran itself call for nonstop war, or jihad, on non-Muslims. If “infidels” are beaten and still refuse to convert to Islam, they must live as third class subjects and pay tribute “while feelingly humbled” (e.g., 9:29).

The Quran itself prescribes draconian measures — crucifixions, whippings, amputations, stonings, and beheadings — as punishments.

The Quran itself requires the absolute subjugation of women (e.g., 4:34), with particularly devastating results for non-Muslim women.

In short, the first premise of Quranism — that “The Quran is the only authentic book and we cannot go wrong with it,” to quote Ghouse — may only ease the daily life of the Muslim.

But Quranism brings no solace at all to the “infidel.”

The Basics of Islam 5: Robert Spencer on the Peaceful Verses in the Qur’an

Published on May 9, 2016 by JihadWatchVideo

In this fifth segment of his Basics of Islam series, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the verses of the Qur’an that appear to teach peace and tolerance of non-Muslims.

Koran at a Glance

define-abrogation-islamCitizen Warrior, April 30, 2016:

A new online version of the Koran is available, with some unique and useful features:

  1. It is in chronological order.
  2. It gives a visual impression of how Mohammed’s message changed over time.
  3. Verses relating to different themes (Allah, Believers, Unbelievers, Jihad) are color-coded and highlighted.
  4. All abrogated verses are highlighted with popups of their abrogating verses.

Check it out: Koran at a Glance.

Why SO Much Confusion regarding Islam? 3 words: Law of Abrogation

define-abrogation-islam
Published on Apr 22, 2016 by Hazem Farraj

Perhaps the number one reason there is conflicting ideas regarding Islam is due to this law in Islam. Its called the Law of Abrogation. This video will explain this theological Islamic practice and how it only fuels the conflicting topic.

Mohammed, ISIS and Women. ((This is actually taught))

islam koran beat women
Published on Apr 15, 2016 by Hazem Farraj

In this video, we will search Islam’s past to conclude whether ISIS’ abuse of women and their slave-trade is warranted or not. The answer may surprise you. The ONLY valid opinion to believe is the source of authentic Islamic doctrines. Everything used within this video is considered authentic credible sources.

A Comparison of Violence in the Bible and the Koran

April 13 2016, by Bill Warner

A recent study  makes the claim that the Bible is as violent as the Koran. Hence there is no need to worry about with Islam. It is just like Christianity and Judaism.

My only interest is in political violence, not when Cain killed Able. Political violence is when a group attacks those outside of it. It is political when Muslims kill Kafirs in jihad, for instance. This eliminates counting personal violence and internal wars.

We want to measure ideas, so we count more than individual sentences. We need to count all the content that applies to the political violence.

There is no political violence in the New Testament, There are 34,000 words about political violence in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and 328,000 in the Koran, Sira (life of Mohammed) and the Hadith (his traditions). In short, there is nearly 10 times as much political violence in Islamic doctrine than there is in the Bible.

The violence in the Old Testament is historical in nature, not prescriptive. The violence in Islam is prescriptive applicable to all people and times. Jihad is forever.

violence in texts

This data all makes sense. It will be Muslims committing murder in the morning news, not Methodists or Mennonites.

Ancient Qur’an Discovery Proves Islam Really Is A Religion of Peace

Mahdi Watch, by Dr. Timothy Furnish, April 1, 2016:

(AP) Last month, construction workers in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca demolishing a medieval mosque to make room for a new Ritz-Carlton aimed at high-end Muslim pilgrims uncovered fragments of an old Qur’an, the holy book of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.  Before it could be disposed of properly by Saudi clerics, several of the workers—apparently on orders from their employer, Bin Ladin Construction—smuggled the pages out of the Kingdom and delivered them (after, reportedly, huge bribes) to the newly-created  “Institute for the Study of the Noble and Peaceful Qur’an” at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt.

mosquee bombed

Islamic scholars and Qur’an experts studied the surviving pages round-the-clock for several weeks and were shocked to discover that this text—which had somehow survived the burning of “heretical” versions of the Qur’an under the reign of the third Caliph of Islam, Uthman, in 652 CE—apparently includes a heretofore-unknown 115th sura, or “chapter,” of the Qur’an.  Entitled Sura al-Mazzah, it’s one of the shortest chapters but based on intense textual study these experts have determined that it is almost certainly the last, chronologically, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad—thus making it binding under the exegetical doctrine of naskh in which the later revelations from Allah to Islam’s founder are the more authoritative ones.

q

However, it is what Sura al-Mazzah says which, if verified and accepted, could prove explosive for not just Muslims but the entire world. The key verse translates as “O Believers! Believe not that ye should kill the infidels but rather know that the Iblis [Satan] was whispering to God’s apostle for too long, telling him [Muhammad] falsely.  Know that indeed Islam is a religion of peace and all the verses before this one are wrong desires injected by Iblis.  Therefore heed not the lying admonitions to swords, but rather heed the Christians, whose Lord `Isa truly is….”  At this point the text breaks off.

The lead researcher on this project, Qur’an  expert Dr. Mahmud al-Hallaj, mysteriously and abruptly committed suicide last week.  Several other key members of the project have also disappeared.  The remaining experts, as well as the Qur’anic fragments themselves, are said to be under the protection of President al-Sisi’s personal bodyguard.   How the government of Egypt intends to proceed is unknown, but ISIS, al-Qaida, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have all vowed to attack Egypt if this claim is not immediately retracted and the manuscript fragments burned in a fire “hotter than the blazes of hell and damnation itself.”

President Obama, when asked in a press conference about the findings, remarked that, if true, they showed  that “I was right all along” and that “Republicans were wrong” about Islam.  And that if Iblis had a modern incarnation, it would be as Donald Trump.

‘Scientific’ Claim: Christian Bible More ‘Bloodthirsty’ than Quran

Islamic_Wallpaper_Quran_004-1366x768.sized-770x415xc (1)PJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, FEBRUARY 12, 2016:

A new “data-based” study published on Yahoo News, Huffington Post, and elsewhere purports to have proven that the Bible — including the New Testament — is more violent than the Quran.

From Tom McKay’s article about the study: “Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam” thanks to a “laundry list of misinformation about the faith’s holy text, the Quran.” He continues:

But a recent project by data analyst and research marketer Tom Anderson turns one common misconception on its head: that the Quran is more consumed by blood thirst than the Christian Bible. … Of the three books [Old Testament, New Testament, Quran], the project found, the Old Testament is the most violent, with approximately 5.3% of the text referring to “destruction and killing” — the Quran clocked in at just 2.1%, with the New Testament slightly higher at 2.8%.…

According to Anderson, the findings challenge the popular notion among Westerners that Muslims subscribe to a particularly violent faith. Indeed, he concluded, “of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent.”

So this study suggests what Islam’s apologists have long claimed: that the Bible contains more violence and bloodshed than the Quran. That said, the intelligence and sincerity of anyone — including supposed scholars — citing this fact as proof that the Quran cannot incite violence more than the Bible is doubtful. For starters, this argument fundamentally ignores the context in which violence appears in all three scriptures.

Comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Quran conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Quran is doctrinally significant. The Quran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. (See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tired apologia.)

 This study also fails to consider who is behind the violence. It simply appears to count the number of times violent language appears. Due to this, New Testament descriptions of Christians — including Christ — being persecuted and killed are supposedly equally inciting to Christians as Allah’s commandments for Muslims to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them — seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them!” (Quran 9:5). This study sees no difference between the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7-8) and Allah’s words: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip” (Quran 8:12).

The claim behind this study — that “fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam” apparently because of “misinformation about the faith’s holy text, the Quran” — is a strawman argument. “Islamophobia” is based less on what Americans think about the Quran and more on the violence, terrorism, and atrocities they see and hear Muslims commit in the name of Islam on a daily basis. Ironically, the whole point of appealing to a strawman argument is that the argument itself is ironclad, even if it doesn’t address the real issue. As seen here, however, even the straw argument itself — that the Bible has more potential to incite violence than the Quran — is full of holes.

This is to say nothing of the fact that Islamic teaching is hardly limited to the Quran. Volumes of canonical (sahih) Hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad) equally inform Muslim actions. As one Muslim cleric put it:

Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith.

As it happens, calls to anti-infidel violence in the Hadith outnumber the Quran’s.

There are other problems with this study. For example, it doesn’t seem to take into consideration that the Bible is roughly ten times longer than the Quran. Due to the study’s many shortcomings, even Anderson admits that his “analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive.” So why are several media outlets highlighting the conclusion of a study which readily admits it does not prove what its champions claim?

Apparently the politically correct conclusion — that Islam cannot be any worse than Judaism and Christianity — is all that matters here, gaping holes in methodology be damned.

President Obama’s Speech at Islamic Center of Baltimore: A Fact Check

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by Clare Lopez, Feb.5, 2016:

Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia.

Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong in his 3 February 2016 speech at the Islamic Center of Baltimore. Things that are basic to doctrinal Islam are not only knowable because they are readily available in English but, it might be argued, obligatory that an American commander-in-chief should know in fulfillment of his oath to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

First, Mr. President, a mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple. Because of the example of Muhammad, who is called the perfect man in the Qur’an (believed by Muslims to be the exact words of Allah), we know that mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad. If in doubt about any of this, please check with the French police, who recently have been conducting raids on mosques and Islamic Centers in the wake of horrific jihadist attacks in Paris.

The president must have missed more than one lesson on Arabic grammar, too. When he claims that “the word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace,” he is mistaken. While the words “Islam” and “salam” share the same three root letters—s, l, m—they are, in fact, very different words with completely different meanings. While “salam” indeed means “peace” in Arabic, “Islam” means “submission.” Submission to what? To Allah and Islamic Law. A “Muslim” is a person who submits. Surely the president knows this. Or maybe the White House Arabic language translator needs to be replaced.

Unfortunately, in pursuit of that submission, Islamic doctrine obligates Muslim conquest of the Dar al-Harb (places not yet subjugated to shariah). We know this not only from the example of Muhammad’s own life as taught to Muslim students from the 1st grade, but also from the Qur’an and hadiths. For example, Qur’an verse 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” The Qur’an is quite clear in verse 3:85 as well: ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him…’ Islamic Law defines jihad quite simply: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

This is not cherry-picking Qur’anic verses. This is Islamic doctrine as uniformly presented in the Qur’an, hadiths, biography of Muhammad, and Islamic Law. It is the agreed consensus of all authoritative Islamic scholars throughout the centuries. We may wish that more Muslim scholars would teach the prohibition of terror (jihad). But of course, they cannot teach what is contrary to Islamic doctrine. For the Qur’an itself commands Muslims to “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power… to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” (Q 8:60)

And when the President purports to quote the Qur’an about killing an innocent, he either willfully or out of ignorance is misquoting Islamic scripture. In fact, Qur’an verse 5:32cites from a Jewish commentary on the Talmud: “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people…” This is the definition of killing without right in Islam. The takeaway here is that a Muslim may not kill except those who themselves have killed without right or perpetrated “mischief in the land”—which may include failing to accept Islam. What the President and others too often leave out is the next verse, Q 5:33, which lays out the punishments for those who disobey 5:32. They are: “death, crucifixion, amputation of the hand and foot on opposite sides or exile from the land.” The President might be asked why he left those out, when they are precisely the punishments the Islamic State (IS) is applying to those under its control in faithful obedience to what they believe is the word of Allah. This isn’t an IS version or interpretation of the Qur’an. It is what the Qur’an actually says.

These are just a few of the things the President might have said, were his intention to be accurate about the enemy we fight. He might have added that we are not actually fighting terrorism: we are fighting to defend the Constitution from attack by forces of jihad seeking to impose shariah. This does not mean we must be at war with all Muslims. But all those who fight or support the Global Jihad Movement are on the wrong side of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the way of life Americans treasure because, unlike Islamic doctrine, they enshrine principles of individual liberty, equality before man-made law, government by consent of the governed, and the right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Those, Mr. President, are the “first things” principles we Americans are willing to fight and die for. American Muslims who accept and defend them are patriots, too—but unfortunately, these are not principles to be found anywhere in the authoritative Islamic canon—and Americans need to know that.

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

If You Don’t Know Abrogation You Don’t Know Sharia

shariadfgs-300x199UTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 15, 2015:

One of the facets of sharia (Islamic Law) that turns the light bulb on in people’s minds more than anything else seems to be the moment they grasp the Koranic concept of abrogation and progressive revelation.

Islam teaches that Allah (the god of Islam) revealed Islam to mankind throughout history progressively. Allah revealed the Law to Moses which predicted the coming of Mohammad.  Those who did not accept the Law of Moses were lost.  When Allah revealed the Evangel to Jesus, which also foretold of the coming of Mohammad, it abrogated the Law of Moses, and those who did not accept it were lost (hellbound).  When the final seal of the prophets – Mohammad – came and revealed the Koran to all of mankind, it abrogated all that came before it, and those who did not accept it were lost.

According to Islam, the original Law of Moses and revelations given to Jesus were corrupted by the Jews and Christian Priests and, therefore, do not exist on the planet today in their “original” form.  In other words, Islam teaches that all Bibles in the world today are corrupt because the fore-tellings of Mohammad were all intentionally removed.

According to Islam, the message of the Koran was revealed to Mohammad via an angel over a period of approximately 23 years – progressively over time.

The Koran is organized into 114 chapters called “Suras.”  These suras are not organize chronologically, but generally by size of the chapter from largest to smallest with the exception of Sura 1 which is only several lines long.

Three times in the Koran (2:106, 16:101, 17:106) Allah says that whatever he reveals chronologically later abrogates (overrules or cancels) what he previously revealed.  Allah commands Mohammad to bring the community of people from their unbelief to full compliance with sharia progressively in stages.  This is exactly what we are seeing on the ground today across the world.  The Muslim community is slowly moving from living however they want to live to living in communities that are adhering to the sharia to a greater and greater degree.

According to Islam, Mohammad first received revelations in Mecca for a period of thirteen (13) years.  He was completely rejected as a “prophet” by the religious scholars (Jewish, Christian) of the time.  During those years only approximately 200 people converted to Islam – in 13 years.  This is the time of “tolerance” where Mohammad had to tolerate the non-Muslims and there were no revelations of jihad.

Then Mohammad made the hijra to Medina, and was called to become a political and military leader. There he raised an army and gained many converts to Islam as he began to get revelations of jihad.  First Mohammad received revelations of defensive jihad, then limited offensive jihad, and finally, the command to wage jihad as a permanent obligation until the entire world is under sharia.

Allah said it last (chronologically) in the Koran, then Mohammad said it, and then Mohammad did it.  This is why there is no gray area in sharia as to the permanent command for all Muslims to wage jihad until the entire world is under sharia when they have the strength and ability to do so.

The Law of Jihad provides for how jihad can be waged by Muslims depending on where they are and their abilities.

Bringing greater sharia adherence to the world via jihad is the Muslim Brotherhood’s entire focus of all they do, and the stated objective of all of the jihadi organizations on the planet.

Therefore, it is logical, when seen from the perspective of Islam, that if the Koran abrogated all that came before it Allah would say “Whoever accepts a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him and he will be of those who truly fail in the hereafter (go to hell).” (Koran 3:85)

This logically leads to the requirement of the Koran for Muslims to never take Jews and Christians as friends (Koran 5:51), for pagans to be given the option to convert or be killed (Koran 9:5), and for the “People of the Book” (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians) to be given the option – if they choose not to convert to Islam and do not want to be killed – to submit to Islam under sharia, pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya), and “feel themselves subdued.” (Koran 9:29)

Islamic scholars have come to an agreement on the chronological order of the suras.  While there are slight differences in some of the listings, Sura 5 is always the last sura (chronologically) to discuss relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, and Sura 9 is the last to discuss jihad.  These are the last words from Allah on these issues, and Islam teaches they abrogate all that came before them.

Screen-Shot-2015-09-08-at-3

Individuals who convert into Islam are also taught Islam progressively and not all at once.  The Muslim Brotherhood’s “How To” manual entitled Methodology of Dawah Ilallah in American Perspective has this to say about converting a non-Muslim to Islam:

“Some rituals of religion and traditions of the Muslim Community are explained.  A short account of the Prophet’s (PBUH) life is presented, without the revolutionary aspect.  When Islam is acceptable to the new entrants in this concocted or abbreviated form, the ceremony of Shahadah is performed with great reverence.  A non-Muslim thus becomes a Muslim, obedient to Allah (SWT) alone.  The revolutionary aspect of Islam is rarely brought before the new converts, as in most cases the Da’ee (the one bringing the non-Muslim to Islam) himself is not conversant with it.”

When individuals or communities come to Islam, it is done progressively and in stages.  Unlike when people join into other groups, Muslim do not tell new converts the whole story.  They bring it to them over time.  Mohammad had 23 years to bring people from where they were to full obedience to Allah.

Looking at today’s world events through this lense, we can see the move in the Ummah (global Muslim community) towards greater sharia adherence.  We see it in their dress, how they behave, how they pray, and in many other ways.  We also know that the more we visually see sharia adherence, the more violence is being taught within the Muslim community.

This progression over time from little sharia adherence to full sharia adherence is the mirror of Mohammad receiving the revelations of the Koran progressively and moving the Muslim community towards complete obedience to Allah and his law – sharia.

The focus is on the Muslim community first, as we see the military jihadi organizations like ISIS and Al Qaeda doing today.  They are forcing Islamic nations to adhere to sharia.

Soon we will see, and are seeing, the HIJRA into non-Muslim lands – also known as the “refugee” surge into Europe and the United States.  Finally, we will see the call for all non-Muslims to convert to Islam, submit to Islam or be killed.  While some of this is beginning to happen, when the Global Islamic Movement assesses Muslim lands are sharia compliant, they will focus their attention on the West.

All of this is the mirror image of the progressive revelation of Islam as revealed to the world over history, and specifically to Mohammad during the 23 years he received the Koran from Allah.

We are all watching it practically play out today in real time, and this is something the suit-wearing jihadis in America are not telling our leaders.

THE KORAN IS NOT A HOLY BOOK: IT IS A ROADMAP TO TOTAL WAR

leytonstone-attack-02Liberty GB, by IQ al Rassooli, Dec. 6, 2015:

War is an act of faith for Muslims since physical supremacy is the foundation of Islam. It is a Quran-mandated, non-negotiable imperative.

To believe in Islam is to have faith in Allah’s Sharia that commands Muslims that they must and will conquer and subjugate the entire world to believe in Muhammad and Allah. Hence to be a true Muslim, one is called upon to assist in global conquest, whether it is by stealth jihad (providing money, intelligence, safe havens, propaganda and other resources) to the jihadists or by being an active war jihadist (slaughtering unarmed and unsuspecting civilians with bombs, guns and knives).

Violence against non-Muslims / infidels / kuffar becomes the essence of their cult belief system, because as I said before, Islam and Muslims express themselves in physical omnipotence. Hence anything that insinuates Islam is not absolutely superior touches on Islamic lack of self-worth and insecurities, is seen as an attack on Muslims and Islam and called blasphemy, racism or Islamophobia.

Please remember how a cartoon or a comment by anyone about their cult belief system or their mentor Muhammad has produced in Muslims paroxysms of violent rage over these trivial things, because to Muslims, any loss of face for Islam is the worst kind of blasphemy.

Because Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, anything that challenges that supremacy is interpreted by them as a direct attack on their beliefs.

Readers should bear in mind, on the one hand, the harsh, even fanatical reaction of Muslims worldwide to what they perceive as the profanation of their holy sites or any slur on their culture, or the enthusiastic and self-assured way they go about spreading their faith and imposing it on others; but on the other hand, the intolerable ease with which they deny others’ religious rights, and even step in to obliterate the religious heritage of other faiths.

The aim of every apologist for Islam will always be to construct a sanitized, modernity-friendly Islam, albeit a non-existent and mythical version of Islam, as a counterpoise to the very violent and utterly intolerant Islam, the Islam that exists in the world today, just as it has been for the last 1,400 years since the time of Mohammed.

The advocacy by most of the left-liberal media, academia, clergy and politicians on behalf of an Islam that has never existed, that will never exist, but nonetheless they insist does exist, will soon be exposed (through European elections) as nothing short of the fanaticism synonymous with so many other extremist belief systems.

Dear readers, what the resurrection of Jesus means to the Christian or the Ten Commandments are for the Jew, physical dominance of Islam over the whole world is to the Muslim. Political supremacism is the be-all and end-all of a Muslim’s faith and it is not an aberration or ‘twisting’ or ‘perversion’ of Islam, but the real and purest form of Muhammad’s Islam.

Al Imran 3:85 – “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah) never will it be accepted of him …”

Al Tauba 9:33 – “It is He (Allah) who hath sent His apostle (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to proclaim it over all other religions …”

Al Anfal 8:55 – “For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe (la you^minoona)…”

These beasts that Allah is mentioning are all unbelievers! Currently, unbelievers / infidels / kuffar represent 80 percent of humanity: all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, pagans, atheists, agnostics etc. That is, any and all those who are not Muslims!

******

Muhammad 47:4 – “Therefore when ye meet the unbelievers / infidels chop off their necks …”

The very verse that ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram and every believing Muslim agrees to and tries to fulfil.

******

Al Baqara 2.216: – “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.50, narrated by Anas bin Malik – “The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavour of fighting in Allah’s cause (Qital fi Sabil Allah) (jihad) is better than the world and whatever is in it.'”

Sahih Muslim Hadith 4631 & 4626 Abu Huraira – “I heard Muhammad say: … I love that I should be killed in Allah’s cause; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in jihad.'”

Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.73, narrated by Abdullah bin Abi Aufa – “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.'”

These verses remind me of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the Nazi Master Race creed.

******

Al Anfal 8.12: – “[O Muslims] Remember thy Lord inspired the angels [with the message]: ‘I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'”

Al Mai’da 5:51 – “O ye who believe (Muslims)! take not the Jews (Yahood) and the Christians (Nasara) for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them [for friendship] is of them …”

The implication of the last sentence is of immense importance: “And he amongst you that turns to them is of them …” – meaning that any followers of Muhammad who befriend or are under the rule of Christians or Jews (or any non-Muslim group) would be considered apostates to Islam, outsiders to Islam, enemies of Islam who must be slaughtered.

In a nutshell, no Muslim in the UK can ever be loyal to British Laws because they are man-made, not from Allah’s Sharia, nor can any Muslim in the UK (or any non-Muslim country) be a loyal citizen because non-Muslim British people are infidels /kuffar / unbelievers / kafiroon to be either subjugated or exterminated.

Al Tauba 9:29 – “Fight (qatiloo) those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle (Muhammad) nor acknowledge the religion of truth (Islam) [even if they are] of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) until they pay the jizya (onerous tax for not being a Muslim) with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated.”

******

Just to make sure that readers believe what I am revealing, I would like to put forth a challenge worth $200,000 to the first person who can show us all a single operative verse in Muhammad’s Quran that demonstrates any compassion and mercy to all unbelievers.

As mentioned earlier, unbelievers represent 80 percent of humanity: all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, pagans, atheists, agnostics etc. That is any and all those who are not Muslims.

$200,000 for just one verse from over 6,200 verses in Muhammad’s Quran!

******

Al Imran 3:118 – “O you who believe (Muslims)! Take not into your intimacy those outside your religion. They will not fail to corrupt you. They only desire your ruin. Rank hatred has already appeared from their mouths. What their hearts conceal is far worse …”

Al Imran 3:56 – “As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them.”

Al Imran 3:110 – “Ye (Muslims) are the best of peoples evolved for mankind enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) had faith it were best for them; among them are some who have faith but most of them are perverted transgressors.”

Al Bayinah 98:6 – “Those who reject [the truth of Islam] among the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) and among the polytheists (pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), will be in hell-fire to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.”

Please tell me, is there anything ambiguous about the contents of these verses, even though they are in English?

The Quran is not a holy book.

The Quran is a roadmap to total war.

The Quran is Muhammad’s early version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.

IQ al Rassooli

******

IQ al Rassooli is Liberty GB’s expert advisor on Islam.

Also by IQ:

A Poor Exchange

IQ al Rassooli Challenges ‘Moderate’ Ed Husain of Quilliam

IQ al Rassooli on Violence in the Bible and the Koran

IQ al Rassooli on Islamophobia

Liberty GB Advisor’s $100,000 Challenge: “Prove the Koran is Not a Book of Hate”

Can Islam Be Reformed? IQ al Rassooli Responds To Daniel Pipes

Virgins in Islamic Paradise

IQ al Rassooli on the Islamic Murder in Woolwich

IQ al Rassooli: The Islamisation of Europe

How Expert Are the BBC’s ‘Islam Experts’?

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

kelly_terrorist_111715

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

Fox News Insider, Nov. 17, 2015:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Islam and the Siege of Paris

islam-in-paris

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

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

The Most Misleading Passage Ever Quoted From the Koran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Broadest Interpretation of Islam

shutterstock_image-of-KoranPolitical Islam, by Bill Warner, Oct. 13, 2015:

The liberal media is beginning to admit that Islam has a formal doctrine of jihad. They have been forced into this admission due to the constant propaganda of jihad doctrine by ISIS. Now the media says that Islamic State, ISIS, has a narrow interpretation of Islam. But, it is just opposite, ISIS has the broadest interpretation of Islam.

Islamic doctrine is slowly revealed, just like the Koran. It has an early form in Mecca and a fully developed later form in Medina. Now these may contradict each other, but both are true. The law of abrogation says that the later doctrine is better or stronger than the earlier doctrine.

ISIS uses all of the doctrine, including Medina. The so-called peaceful Muslims do not use all of the doctrine, just the early Meccan form. So the peaceful Muslims have the narrow, exclusive interpretation. ISIS and all of the jihadis have the broadest interpretation, which is inclusive.