What Are Muslims Taught About Non-Muslims?

“(Unbelievers/Non-Muslims) are the worst of all creatures.”  Koran 98:6

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, June 18, 2017:

Why is it obligatory for muslims to lie to non-muslims?  Why is it obligatory for muslims to kill non-muslims who do not convert to Islam or submit to sharia in an Islamic State?

The reason is simple.  Allah commanded his law (sharia) to be the law of the entire earth.  All people must convert to Islam or submit to Allah’s law (sharia).  Islam’s prophet Mohammad said he was commanded by Allah to fight the non-muslims until they testify there is no god but Allah and then Mohammad went out and waged war on non-muslims.

Therefore, muslims can do whatever needs to be done to advance Islam, including lying, terrorizing, and killing.

In the most authoritative reports about what Islam’ prophet Mohammad said, we get:  “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the Cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya.’” [Bukhari 2222: Book 34, Hadith 169]  Islam teaches the Islamic prophet Jesus will return and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam, and he will kill all the Jews so muslims can enter paradise.

How do we do “interfaith outreach” from a place of “mutual respect” when we actually understand these things?

The Tafsir legally defines every verse in the Koran.  Koran 9:29 states:  “Fight against those who believe not in Allah nor the last day…even if they are People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

The Islamic legal definition of “with willing submission” is “in defeat and subservience” and “feel themselves subdued” legally means “disgraced, humiliated, and belittled.  Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”

This is how Islam views the non-Islamic world.

Please help your pastors, local elected officials, and others – who still have some semblance of common sense – become aware of this information so they can stop falling over themselves to appease the “religion of peace.”

Islam enslaves its adherents to a system which obliges them to view everyone outside of Islam as people to be killed or conquered.  There is very little “common ground.”

***

UNDERSTANDING THE THREAT RADIO: JUNE 19, 2017

This week’s UTT radio show comes to you from South Dakota where the UTT team spoke with nearly 600 citizens in Rapid City and Aberdeen.  Citizens were given evidence Hamas doing business as CAIR has a presence in South Dakota, the Islamic Society of Sioux Falls is a jihadi organization, and much more.  Get perspectives from UTT’s radio broadcast you cannot get anywhere else.  UTT is putting freedom back on the offensive where it belongs!

Download File Here

Sharia Commands Muslims To Lie To Non-Muslims

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, February 5, 2017:

KORAN  98:6

The Koran says non-Muslims are the worst of all creatures (98:6), so it should be no surprise the Koran and the Sunna (example of the Islamic prophet Mohammad) allow and oblige Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-11-07-16-pm-768x507

All authoritative Islamic law (sharia) obliges jihad until the world is under Islamic rule.

Therefore, when Muslim leaders are speaking to non-Muslims about Islam, there is a high probability they are lying.

It is not just a few “radicalized” Muslims who want sharia and all that goes with it.

At the Norway Peace Conference, the founder of Islam.net and host of the conference Fahad Qureshi polled the audience of hundreds of Muslims who unanimously raised their hands indicating they want sharia to be the law of the land to include stoning for adultery, death penalty for homosexuals, and everything that comes with it because their law comes from Allah in the Koran and the example of their prophet Mohammad.

Qureshi stated, “These are general views that every Muslim actually has.  Every Muslim believes in these things.  Just because they’re not telling you about it or just because they’re not out there in the media doesn’t mean they don’t believe in that.”

A 2013 Pew poll reveals most Muslims want sharia to be the law of the land, and most of the Muslim world believes there is only ONE version of sharia – not the “thousands of interpretations” Islamic advisors to the U.S. government have lied about for the last 15 years (and beyond).

Specifically, a sampling of 10 countries/areas of all the Muslim areas polled – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, and the Palestinian Territories – reveals out of 785 million Muslims living in these areas, 617 million told the Pew pollsters they want to live under sharia (Islamic law).

For those of you without calculators handy, that is 79% of the Muslim world.  That is a big number.  So is 617 million Muslims, and that’s just a sampling of the world’s Muslims.

The majority of the Muslim world wants the sharia that:  commands pagans to convert to Islam or die; commands Christians and Jews to convert to Islam, submit to sharia and pay the non-Muslim poll tax, or die; calls for apostates to be killed; identifies woman as property; and commands jihad as perpetual warfare until sharia is the law of the land over the entire world.

This is also the sharia that obliges Muslims to lie to non-Muslims.

As UTT’s own Chris Gaubatz experienced in his recent encounter with a sharia scholar and Imam from Texas, they will lie to your face and then feign offense when you call them out on their lies.

See the video HERE.

screen-shot-2017-02-05-at-11-20-54-pm-768x473

Think about this the next time an Islamic scholar, leader of an Islamic organization, the local Imam, or any prominent Muslims are talking to you about Islam.

Dominance and Submission in Cologne and the Persian Gulf

Mideast-Iran-US-sailors-660x350-1453185532

Crisis Magazine, by William Kilpatrick, Jan.

Under the Islamic dhimmi system, when Christians paid the jizya tax, they were often required to kneel before the local Muslim dignitary as a sign of submission. Sometimes the tax collector would deliver a slap to the face as an added humiliation. This was in accordance with the Koranic injunction that non-Muslims must not only pay the tax, but also “feel themselves subdued” in the process (9:29).

What is the meaning of the word “Islam” again? “Peace?” Er, no. That was what the vast majority of Americans thought it meant circa 2001. But since then, most of us, with the exception of a couple of presidents and Secretaries of State, have discovered that it actually means “submission.”

Islam is a very tolerant religion. It doesn’t require that you convert to it as long as you submit to it. All they are asking for is a little groveling. Thus, if you are a Christian living in the Ottoman Empire you kneel while you pay the eighty-percent tax, and if you’re a sailor in the U.S. Navy whose boat mysteriously falls into Iranian hands you kneel and then offer apologies for your behavior while thanking your captors for their “fantastic” hospitality. Oh, and if you’re a female sailor, all you have to do is don a hijab as a sign of respect for, and submission to, the codes of Islam.

In the meantime, be assured that your Secretary of State will back you up by offering his own profound appreciation for “the quick and appropriate response of the Iranian authorities.” At the same time, your president can be relied on not to mention the incident at all, he having made some sort of gentleman’s agreement with the Iranians which requires him to pretend that everything they do is both fantastic and appropriate.

About two weeks prior to the naval incident, the German nation was subject to another form of humiliation. On New Year’s Eve, a group of 1,000 North African and Arab men sexually assaulted women outside the main train station in Cologne. The total number of victims who were either robbed or sexually assaulted was about six hundred. Many of the women were forced to run through a gauntlet of their tormentors. Similar occurrences took place in about 17 other major European cities that night.

In a sense, this was the logical conclusion to Europe’s inability to resist other Islamic advances. European leaders had opened their borders, their welfare coffers, and their public housing to well over a million Muslim immigrants (seventy percent of whom were male) in less than a year. Coming from cultures where yielding is a proof of weakness, the Muslim invaders concluded that they could take what they wanted—both the welfare and the women.

A large part of the West’s difficulty in dealing with Islamic aggression can be traced to a massive identity crisis. Having traded its traditional identity markers for multicultural ones, the West no longer knows how to act when it is threatened. Being multicultural means being tolerant of every diversity. But if you’re tolerant of everything, the end result is that you stand for nothing.

More and more, it seems that Westerners will stand for just about any humiliation. While Muslims in madrassas are learning that they have the superior culture and the superior religion, Western students learn that no Western value is worth defending—including the traditional notion that women should be protected from rampaging males. At one time, both men and women acknowledged that there are differences between the sexes, that one of those differences is physical strength, and that, as a consequence, there are circumstances where male protection is desirable. Having dispensed with that “quaint” notion, Western societies seem to have fallen back on the notion that, given the right multicultural conditions, people will naturally behave in harmonious ways. When you put that assumption into practice, what you get, of course, is smaller, more multiculturally sensitive police forces.

According to one report, police in Cologne were unable to control events because they were “overwhelmed.” In other words, they lacked the manpower to be of much help that winter’s night. “Manpower.” It’s a curious word. Even today it would seem odd to say that a police force lacked “womanpower,” although men-only police forces are a thing of the past. Women do have various kinds of power, but it’s still understood that “manpower” and “womanpower” are not quite the same thing.

In any event, the Cologne police lacked manpower in both senses of the word. They were lacking in numbers that particular night, but even when in full force they seem to lack the instinctive masculine response that was once expected of civilized males. As I have written elsewhere, “the multiculturalist code is essentially an emasculating code. It has the effect of paralyzing the normal masculine response of coming to the protection of those in danger.”

In the case of the Cologne police and other state authorities, this lack of response would include not having the foresight to anticipate that German women would be at heightened risk once a million-man army newly arrived from misogynist cultures made its appearance. The problem is that European authorities are more committed to protecting multicultural pieties than to protecting ordinary citizens from Islamists gone wild. Thus, the initial police report of the evening’s events read: “A mood of exuberance—largely peaceful celebrations.” That’s “largely peaceful” if you don’t count the thousand marauding Muslims outside the train station and the cathedral. Anyone who follows the goings-on in Europe knows that the authorities’ top priority is to protect the sensitivities of the newcomers from the outrage of “Islamophobia.” As for the common folk, they are expected to do their best to understand the other culture and adjust to it. If they protest, the penalties can be severe. In the UK, when Tommy Robinson, the leader of the counterjihad movement in England, was jailed, it was for the horrific crime of having exaggerated his income on a mortgage application. When he arrived in prison, he was thrown into a cell containing several Muslims who brutally beat him—as the prison warders knew they would.

No doubt there are some tough fellows in the Cologne police force, but their toughness has been enlisted in the service of political correctness. When, a week after the New Year’s Eve assaults, the anti-immigration group, PEGIDA, rallied to protest the attacks, a massive force of Cologne police wearing riot gear broke up the demonstration using water cannons and pepper spray. The PEGIDA people have become used to that sort of treatment. They have been repeatedly attacked by German politicians and the German press as “extremists,” “xenophobes,” “racists,” and “Nazis.” And German police have on several occasions left them to the mercy of the brutal and usually much larger leftist or “anti-fascist” gangs.

The police and the politicians can be quite tough in enforcing multicultural codes, but their toughness is in the cause of cultural soft-headedness. That’s because multiculturalism is basically the process by which a culturally confused society surrenders itself to a more confident and aggressive culture. You can call the current conflict between Islam and the West a “clash of civilizations,” but that’s rather like describing the encounter between a sadist and a masochist as a clash. As I wrote a few years ago:

It’s difficult to conceive of a more disastrous combination of events than the simultaneous emergence on the world stage of a fiercely passionate ideology dedicated to conquering the West, and of another, dangerously naïve ideology, eager to dismantle it from within.

What the West sees as signs of tolerance and sensitivity are seen by Muslims as signs of submission and also as a validation of their belief that theirs is indeed the superior culture. Western appeasement will not garner more respect from the Muslim world, but it will bolster the jihadi recruitment campaign. After the navy crew surrendered in the Persian Gulf, an Iranian commander remarked:

I saw the weakness, cowardice, and fear of American soldiers myself… American forces receive the best training and have the most advanced weapons in the world, but they did not have the power to confront the Guard due to weakness of faith and belief.

Gestures of compliance do not convince Islamists that we are an admirable people, it only convinces them that they have the winning hand. Unless Western leaders get a better grip on the realities of Islamic culture, they will continue to set up their own citizens for one humiliation after another. The only consolation is that after a while, they may learn to adjust to their dhimmi status. When they kneel to pay the jizya, it may well be with expressions of gratitude for the “fantastic” and “appropriate” behavior of their masters.

Also see:

Prisons: Microcosms of Islamic Supremacy and Western Idiocy

muslim-convictsAnother example of Islam’s Rule of Numbers.

Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, Nov. 9, 2016:

Islam’s Rule of Numbers holds that, wherever and whenever Muslims grow in numbers, the same acts of “anti-infidel” violence that are endemic to the Islamic world grow with them.

This has become especially evident in one Western institution that has a disproportionately large number of Muslims: prisons.  Several anecdotes just surfaced last month alone.

Whitemoor prison in Cambridgeshire recently became the first Muslim-majority prison in Britain.  Between the ages of 22 and 39, Muslims now represent 56 per cent of the population there.  “Prisoners and staff found the Muslim presence overwhelming” says a recent report. Non-Muslims “were often bullied into converting to Islam, and those who resisted were too scared to cook pork in communal kitchens in case it caused offence.”

As for those non-Muslim inmates who refuse to convert, they are being pressured to pay a “protection tax”—or in Islamic parlance, jizya—to Muslim gangs.  Along with Whitemoor prison, the collection of jizya is taking place in at least three other of Britain’s largest prisons.  According to a new investigation “religious extremists in prison are using bullying tactics and violent threats to force prisoners to convert or pay money.  Tobacco and other luxury commodities smuggled inside prisons are often used by non-Muslims to pay the tax, while some victims said they had to ask friends and family for money….  Faced with the option of paying up or suffering at the hands of the radicals, some prisoners have been pressured into converting to Islam to ease their time in prison.”

A Whitehall source said that “the tax may have been inspired by the actions of ISIS, who are well known to demand jizya from non-Muslims living in Syria and Iraq.”

In fact, it is the Koran, Islam’s holy book, that calls for the collection of jizya from subdued Christians and Jews:

Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the jizya with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued” (Koran 9:29).

In other words, Muslim prisoners are not copying ISIS; rather, both they and ISIS are obeying the Koran.

Meanwhile, down under, in Australia’s highest security prison, “an extremist ISIS gang … has threatened to behead correctional officers and inmates unless they convert to radical Islam.”  At least 30 Muslim gang members residing in Goulburn jail “have engaged in warfare against ‘infidel’ that oppose their religious ideologies.”

“They were going to take a hostage — one of the six Christians in the yard — and behead them,” reported a prison guard.

Bullying and threatening non-Muslims into converting to Islam or else demanding money (jizya) from them if they refuse is a regular occurrence around the Muslim world, wherever “infidel” minorities live side by side with Muslim majorities.  As Muslims make for disproportionately large numbers in Western prisons—another fact that speaks for itself—it should come as no surprise that coercion, threats, and extortion in the name of Islam are also becoming a regular occurrence.

Ironically, one may have supposed that, if anywhere, it would be in prisons that the Muslim sense of supremacism would be broken.  Far from it; Western prison policies—whether banning pork for all inmates to appease Muslims (in an Ohio prison), allowing prayer mats where knives are concealed and used, spending thousands of tax payer dollars to rebuild toilets to face away from Mecca, apologizing for serving non-halal food to Muslim criminals, or possibly accommodating the Salafi beard against prison policies—all serve to confirm Muslims in their sense of supremacy.

This is to say nothing about the fact that lax and politically correct policies have made prisons prime recruiting grounds for the jihad.  One U.S. prison was referred to as a “terrorist university” for the Islamic State and one U.K prison allowed the distribution of a jihadi book calling on the slaughter of non-Muslim “infidels.”

Thus prisons have become microcosms of Islamic behavior vis-à-vis “infidels”—replete with a sense of violent Islamic supremacism on the one hand and craven political correctness on the other.

Islamic Jizya: Fact and Fiction

Jizya (1)Frontpage, by Raymond Ibrahim, May 29, 2015:

 The Return of Jizya

Muslim demands for non-Muslim “infidels” to pay jizya on pain of death are growing, even as the West fluctuates between having no clue what jizya is and thinking that jizya is an example of “tolerance” in Islam.

In the video where the Islamic State slaughters some 30 Christian Ethiopians in Libya last April, the spokesman repeatedly pointed out that payment of jizya (which the impoverished Ethiopian migrant workers could not render, nor the 21 Copts before them) is the only way for Christians around the world to safeguard their lives:

But whoever refuses [to pay jizya] will see nothing from us but the edge of a spear. The men will be killed and the children will be enslaved, and their wealth will be taken as booty. This is the judgment of Allah and His Messenger.

When the Islamic State invaded ancient Christian regions around the Ninevah Plain last June,  it again declared: “We offer them [Assyrian Christians] three choices: Islam; the dhimma contract—involving payment of jizya; if they refuse this they will have nothing but the sword.”

The Islamic State—which most Western politicians ludicrously insist “has nothing to do with Islam”—is not alone in calling for jizya from Christian “infidels.”  In 2002, Saudi Sheikh Muhammad bin Abdul Rahman, discussing the Muslim prophet’s prediction that Islam will eventually conquer Rome, said, “We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it. Yes, the Christians . . . will yet pay us the jizya, in humiliation, or they will convert to Islam.”

And in a video recently posted, Sheik ‘Issam Amira appears giving a sermon in Al Aqsa Mosque where he laments that too many Muslims think jihad is only for defense against aggressors, when in fact Muslims are also obligated to wage offensive jihad against non-Muslims:

When you face your pagan enemy, call them—either to Islam, jizya, or seek Allah’s help and fight them.  Even if they do not fight [or initiate hostilities], fight them!… Fight them!  When?  When they fight you?  No, when they refuse to convert to Islam or refuse to pay jizya….  Whether they like it or not, we will subjugate them to Allah’s authority.

In short, if the Islamic State is enforcing jizya on “infidels,” demands for its return are on the increase all around the Muslim world.  Put differently, if Abu Shadi, an Egyptian Salfi leader, once declared that Egypt’s Christians “must either convert to Islam, pay jizya, or prepare for war,” Dr. Amani Tawfiq, a female professor at Egypt’s Mansoura University, once said that “If Egypt wants to slowly but surely get out of its economic situation and address poverty in the country, the jizya has to be imposed on the Copts.”

The Doctrine and History of Jizya

So what exactly is jizya?

The word jizya appears in Koran 9:29, in an injunction that should be familiar by now: “Fight those among the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth, until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (emphasis added).”

In the hadith, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, regularly calls on Muslims to demand jizya of non-Muslims:  “If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay jizya, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

The second “righteous caliph,” Omar al-Khattab, reportedly said that any conquered “infidel” who refuses to convert to Islam “must pay the jizya out of humiliation and lowliness. If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”

This theme of non-Muslim degradation appears regularly in the commentaries of Islam’s authorities.  According to the Medieval Islamic Civilization Encyclopedia, Muslim “jurists came to view certain repressive and humiliating aspects of dhimma as de rigueur. Dhimmis [subjugated non-Muslim Christians and Jews] were required to pay the jizya publicly, in broad daylight, with hands turned palm upward, and to receive a smart smack on the forehead or the nape of the neck from the collection officer.”

Some of Islam’s jurists mandated a number of other humiliating rituals at the time of jizya payment, including that the presiding Muslim official slap, choke, and in some cases pull the beard of the paying dhimmi, who might even be required to approach the official on all fours, in bestial fashion.

The root meaning of the Arabic word “jizya” is simply to “repay” or “recompense,” basically to “compensate” for something.  According to the Hans Wehr Dictionary, the standard Arabic-English dictionary, jizya is something that “takes the place” of something else, or “serves instead.”

Simply put, conquered non-Muslims were to purchase their lives, which were otherwise forfeit to their Muslim conquerors, with money. Instead of taking their lives, they took their money.  As one medieval jurist succinctly put it, “their lives and their possessions are only protected by reason of payment of jizya.”

Past and increasingly present, Muslims profited immensely by exacting jizya from conquered peoples.

For instance, Amr bin al-As, the companion of Muhammad who conquered Christian Egypt in the early 640s, tortured and killed any Christian Copt who tried to conceal his wealth. When a Copt inquired of him, “How much jizya are we to pay?” the Islamic hero replied, “If you give me all that you own—from the ground to the ceiling—I will not tell you how much you owe. Instead, you [the Christian Copts] are our treasure chest, so that, if we are in need, you will be in need, and if things are easy for us, they will be easy for you.”

Yet even that was not enough. Caliph Uthman later chided Amr bin al-As because another governor of Egypt had managed to increase the caliphate’s treasury double what Amr had. In the words of Uthman, the “milk camels [Egypt’s Christians, that is] . . . yielded more milk.”  Years later, yet another caliph, Suliman Abdul Malik, wrote to the governor of Egypt advising him “to milk the camel until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood.”

Little wonder Egypt went from being almost entirely Christian in the seventh century to today having a mere 10%—and steadily dwindling, thanks to ongoing persecution—Christian minority.

Related to the idea of institutionalized jizya is the notion that non-Muslims are fair game to plunder whenever possible.  The jizya entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam states that “with or without doctrinal justification, arbitrary demands [for money] appeared at times.” Even that medieval traveler, Marco Polo, whose chronicles appear impartial, made an interesting observation concerning the Muslims in Tauris (modern day Iraq) in the thirteenth century:

According to their doctrine [Islam], whatever is stolen or plundered from others of a different faith, is properly taken, and the theft is no crime; whilst those who suffer death or injury by the hands of Christians [during the course of a plunder-driven raid], are considered as martyrs….  These principles are common to all Saracens [Muslims].

All this is echoed in recent times by the words of  Sheikh Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini, spoken a few years ago, concerning what the Muslim world should do to overcome its economic problems:

If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on earth would become Muslims. And if anyone prevents our dawa [invitation to conversion] or stands in our way, then we must kill or take them as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children. Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid [holy warrior] who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children. This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham. This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads.

So it was for well over a millennium: Muslim rulers and mobs extorted money from “infidels” under their sway as a legitimate way to profit.

Much of this financial fleecing came to an end thanks to direct European intervention. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, one Muslim region after another abolished the jizya and gave non-Muslims unprecedented rights—originally to appease Western powers, later in emulation of Western governance. The Ottoman Empire’s Hatt-i Humayun decree of 1856 abolished the jizya in many Ottoman-ruled territories. Elsewhere in the Muslim world, the jizya was gradually abolished wherever Western powers were present.

Today, however, as Muslims reclaim their Islamic heritage—often to the approval and encouragement of a West, now under the spell of “multiculturalism”—jizya, whether institutionalized as under the Islamic State, or as a rationale to plunder infidels, is back.

Even in the West, in 2013, a UK Muslim preacher who was receiving more than 25,000 pounds annually in welfare benefits referred to British taxpayers as “slaves,” and explained:  “We take the jizya, which is our haq [Arabic for “right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [infidel], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money—you work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar [“Allah is Great”]. We take the money.”

Academic Lies about Jizya

Yet if Muslims—from Islamic State jihadis to Egyptian university professors—know the truth about jizya, the West is today oblivious, thanks to its leading authorities on Islam: Western academics and other “experts” and talking heads.

Consider the following excerpt from John Esposito, director of the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a widely acknowledged go-to source for anything Islamic:

In many ways, local populations [Christians, Jews, and others] found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the “protected ones” (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy (emphasis added) …

Despite the almost gushing tone related to Muslim rule, the idea that jizya was extracted in order to buy “Muslim protection from outside aggression” is an outright lie.  Equally false is Esposito’s assertion that jizya was paid to “exempt them [non-Muslims] from military service”—as if conquering Muslims would even want or allow their conquered “infidel” subjects to fight alongside them in the name of jihad (holy war against infidels) without first converting to Islam.

Yet these two myths—that jizya was for “Muslim protection from outside aggression” and exemption from military service—are now widely accepted.  In “Nothing ‘Islamic’ About ISIS, Part Two: What the ‘Jizya’ Really Means,” one Hesham A. Hassaballa recycles these fabrications on BeliefNet by quoting Sohaib Sultan, Princeton University’s Muslim chaplain, who concludes: “Thus, jizyah is no more and no less than an exemption tax in lieu of military service and in compensation for the ‘covenant of protection’ (dhimmah) accorded to such citizens by the Islamic state.”

In reality and as demonstrated above via the words of a variety of authoritative Muslims, past and present,  jizya was, and is indeed, protection money—though protection, not from outsiders, as Esposito and others claim, but from surrounding Muslims themselves.  Whether it is the first caliphate from over a millennium ago or whether it is the newest caliphate, the Islamic State, Muslim overlords continue to deem the lives of their “infidel” subjects forfeit unless they purchase it, ransom it with money.  Put differently, the subjugated infidel is a beast to be milked “until it gives no more milk and until it milks blood,” to quote the memorable words of an early caliph.

There is nothing humane, reasonable, or admirable about demands for jizya from conquered non-Muslim minorities, as the academics claim. Jizya is simply extortion money. Its purpose has always been to provide non-Muslims with protection from Muslims: pay up, or else convert to Islam, or else die.

And it is commanded in both the Koran and Hadith, the twin pillars of Islam.  In short, jizya is yet another ugly fact of Islam—add to offensive jihad, imperialism, misogyny, slavery, etc.—one that, distort as they may, the academics cannot whitewash away, even as the world stands idly by watching its resumption in the twenty-first century.

Note: Most quotations not hyperlinked are sourced from Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.  Full references can be found there.

Pamela Geller and the hijacking of America

1281
American Thinker, By Larissa Scott, May23, 2015:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, I couldn’t help thinking, I could have been a passenger on one of those planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. Today the feeling is back, as if we are all passengers on a hijacked plane the size of America, heading towards an imminent crash. The question is, knowing what we know now, what are we going to do about it?

Shortly before American Airlines Flight 11 hit the North Tower, an Egyptian-born jihadi, Mohammed Atta, addressed the passengers over the intercom:

“Just stay quiet, and you’ll be okay.  We are returning to the airport… Nobody move.  Everything will be okay.  If you try to make any move, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane.  Just stay quiet… Nobody move, please…  Don’t try to make any stupid moves.”

Twenty minutes later they died a horrible death, accompanied by hundreds of people inside the North Tower. Had the passengers known the real plan, they might have attempted to take matters into their own hands and possibly avert a bigger disaster. But they likely believed Mohammed Atta, especially since no hijacker had deliberately crashed a plane before.  Many were probably thinking, Let the government sort it out, that’s whom the terrorists always blackmail. We just need to stay quiet and make no stupid moves. Of course we’ll be okay.

Tactical deception, especially when lying to non-Muslims, is legally sanctioned under Sharia, which is a mainstream, universal Islamic law.  In Sunni Islam, such practice is referred to as mudarat, or taquiyya.

Fast-forward fourteen years to Garland, TX.  Jihadists drove a thousand miles to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. The cop who shot them to death likely prevented a gruesome massacre. We are now being told that this would not have happened and everything would have been okay if Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer had stayed quiet and didn’t make any stupid moves, such as, organizing the exhibition of Mohammed cartoons.

This is exactly the behavior of passengers on a hijacked plane. We hope that everything will be okay as long as we remain quiet and make no stupid moves. We willingly trust the voices on TV and hope the government will sort it out. We want to believe that every act of Islamic terrorism is an isolated incident, that they only target the government, and that the 58% of Muslim-Americans in a 2012 survey who think that that critics of Islam in the U.S. should face criminal charges, with 12% of them favoring the death penalty for blasphemy, are not part of a bigger phenomenon. Just stay quiet and nothing bad will happen. After all, no terrorist has ever hijacked and crashed an entire nation before.

Alas, nations have been consistently hijacked and crashed throughout history. This has always been executed according to the same blueprint, which originated in the 7th century Islamic conquests and is known to Islamic jurists as the Pact of Umar.

While the ‘s precise origins are a matter of legend, its conditions, based on Muhammad’s treatment of conquered people, have gained a canonical status in Islamic jurisprudence with regard to relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, otherwise known as dhimmis, and as such became a subset of Sharia law.

Given that Sharia by definition cannot be altered any more than one can alter the Koran or the Sunna, and even talking about reforming Sharia is considered blasphemous, its medieval rulings about what dhimmis are allowed or not allowed to do, are still in effect today. According to a recent Pew survey, the majority of Muslims worldwide want Sharia to be the law of the land everywhere; that includes the Conditions of Umar, even if those who practice them may not necessarily refer to them by that name.

Settling in non-Muslim countries, Muslim minorities traditionally bring with them Sharia law, which prescribes them to punish dhimmis who overstep certain boundaries regardless of what the local law says, because the “God-given” Sharia law will always be superior to the “man-made law” of the dhimmis.

Under the many Conditions of Omar, dhimmis aren’t allowed to criticize anything that has to do with Islam, including the very conditions of subjugation under which they live. Dhimmis are supposed to remain ignorant about Islamic teachings and can only refer to Islam in positive terms. Mocking, insulting, cursing, or even upsetting Muslims in any way, testifying against a Muslim in court, or raising a hand against a Muslim, even in self-defense, is forbidden.

Criticism of a Muslim person by a dhimmi — even if it’s based on undeniable facts, constitutes “slander” and is punishable by death. In contrast with the Western definition of slander — false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation — Sharia defines slander as any statement a Muslim would dislike, regardless if its degree of accuracy. This works in conjunction with another Sharia ruling, which gives all Muslims an open license to murder the offender wherever they find him. That doesn’t mean all Muslims will do it, but if someone volunteers to do the killing, he will not be punished under Sharia. In modern times, this means an open season of vigilante street justice on any critic of Islam anywhere on the planet.

Suddenly, the medieval choices jihadis place before their victims are all over today’s news coverage, just as they were originally set out in the Koran:  convert to Islam, submit to the Muslim rule and pay a non-Muslim religious tax called jizya, or die by the sword. Those who submit, as we’ve seen in the territories conquered by ISIS in Iraq and Syria, are doomed to a life of humiliation, subjugation, discrimination, and confiscatory taxation.

Dhimmi translates as “protected person,” which is similar in meaning to protection racket: what a nice dhimmi community you have here, shame if anything were to happen to it. You are protected from violence as long as you obey the conditions and pay the protection money. But if any of the dhimmis act up or “made a stupid move,” his or her action puts the entire dhimmi community in jeopardy of jihadi retaliation, where anyone is fair game for collective punishment.

Western nations with a significant share of Muslim immigrants are now learning to live in a state of permanent vulnerability and fear that one of them might upset a Muslim and thus provoke rioting or jihad slaughter. As a result, Western dhimmis are learning to police each other and make sure no one in their community makes any “stupid moves.”

Pamela Geller just did that. Her exhibition of Mohammed cartoons has crossed the line of permissible dhimmi behavior, and for that she has become a target of criticism by the American media, including some conservative commentators. Among the many stated reasons why Pamela should have “just stayed quiet,” the main argument remains unstated: she made a stupid move and now we’re all in danger of retaliation.

The real questions the media should be asking is, if we aren’t already living under the Conditions of Umar, what would we do differently if we did?

The Ideology Problem in Timbuktu Is Not al-Qaeda’s Making — It Is Classical Islam

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy:

Andrew’s post describing the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Mali is essential, if excruciating, reading. Beyond the monstrously cruel but all too usual punishments being imposed, I’m struck by two things, which really show how willful blindness leads inexorably to spring fever: The Guardian attributes the atrocious penalties to the “menace of al-Qaida”; it also notes, however, that the “ban [on music] comes in the context of a horrifically literal and gratuitous application of Sharia law in all aspects of daily life.”

Much as I hate to be the bearer of bad news, al Qaeda did not make up sharia law. Islam did. And in the West, it is a key tenet of due process that law is imposed literally — ambiguous laws violate the principle that people of ordinary intelligence must be on fair notice of what is prohibited. There’s nothing “gratuitous” about applying as it is written.

16044762We can keep our heads tucked snug in the sand, or we can recognize the source of the problem. As I detail in Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the literalist construction of sharia that al Qaeda’s local franchise is enforcing in Mali is “literal” because it comes from Islamic scripture, not from some purportedly “extremist” fabrication of Islam. Moreover, while it seems only militant jihadists proudly urge this construction in practice, it is enthusiastically endorsed in principle by two of the most influential institutions in the Islamic Middle East: al Azhar University and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Don’t just take my word for it. Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law is not some al Qaeda pamphlet. It is a renowned explication of sharia’s reliance (1)provisions and their undeniable roots in Muslim scripture. In the English translation, before you get to chapter and verse, there are formal endorsements from the International Institute of Islamic Thought — a U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood think-tank begun in the early eighties (and to which American administrations of both parties have resorted as an exemplar of “moderation”) — and from the Islamic Research Academy at al Azhar University, the ancient seat of Sunni learning to which President Obama famously turned to co-sponsor his cloyingly deceptive 2009 speech on relations between Islam and the West (“We certify,” the famed scholars wrote, that the “translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni Community…. There is no objection to printing it and circulating it…. May Allah give you success in serving Sacred Knowledge and the religion.” There could be no more coveted stamp of scholarly approval in Islam.).

#more#

Reliance is also endorsed by Islamic authorities in Jordan (leading influences on a largely Palestinian population that may well overthrow the pro-Western monarchy) and Syria (leading influences on the “rebels” on whose side interventionists — including both presidential candidates — would have us jump to abet the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing campaign to oust the minority Alawite Assad regime).

Here, as I summarize in Spring Fever – quoted verbatim and supported by citations — is what Reliance has to say about the arts:

It is forbidden to make pictures of “animate life,” for doing so “imitates the creative act of Allah Most High”; “Whoever makes a picture, Allah shall torture him with it on the Day of Judgment until he can breathe life into it, and he will never be able to.” (Reliance w50.0 & ff.)

“Musical instruments of all types are unlawful.” Singing is generally prohibited (for “song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage), and “[o]n the Day of Resurrection Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.” However, if unaccompanied by musical instruments, song and poetry drawn from Islamic scripture and encouraging obedience to Allah are permissible. Ironically, although music is generally forbidden, dancing is permissible “unless it is languid, like the movements of the effeminate.” (Reliance r40.0 &ff.)

Those sharia provisions are complemented by these — again, endorsed by al-Azhar, the Muslim Brotherhood, and our “moderate” “allies” in the region:

Apostasy from Islam is “the ugliest form of unbelief” for which the penalty is death (“When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”). (Reliance o8.0 & ff.)

Apostasy occurs not only when a Muslim renounces Islam but also, among other things, when a Muslim appears to worship an idol, when he is heard “to speak words that imply unbelief,” when he makes statements that appear to deny or revile Allah or the prophet Mohammed, when he is heard “to deny the obligatory character of something which by consensus of Muslims is part of Islam,” and when he is heard “to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law.” (Reliance o8.7; see also p9.0 & ff.)

[Note: These latter prohibitions against denying or reviling any aspect of Islam, Allah or the prophet are the basis for imposing death for blasphemy. The call to kill apostates for such offenses obviously applies with equal or greater force to non-Muslims, who are pervasively treated worse than Muslims by sharia (see, e.g., Sura 9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold forbidden which had been forbidden by Allah and his Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the people of the book [i.e., Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [the poll tax imposed on non-believers for the privilege of living in the Islamic state] and feel themselves subdued.”)]

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.” (Reliance o9.0.)

It is an annual requirement to donate a portion of one’s income to the betterment of the ummah (an obligation called zakat, which is usually, and inaccurately, translated as “charity” –zakat can only be given to Muslims and is designed strictly to fortify the Muslim community, not benefit the less fortunate generally); of this annual donation, one-eighth must be given to “those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster…. They are given enough to suffice them for the operation even if they are affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing and expenses.” (Reliance, h8.1-17.)

Non-Muslims are permitted to live in an Islamic state only if they follow the rules of Islam, pay the non-Muslim poll tax, and comply with various adhesive conditions designed to remind them that they have been subdued, such as wearing distinctive clothing, keeping to one side of the street, not being greeted with “Peace be with you” (“as-Salamu alaykum”), not being permitted to build as high as or higher than Muslims, and being forbidden to build new churches, recite prayers aloud, “or make public displays of their funerals or feast-days.” (Reliance o11.0 & ff.)

Offenses committed against Muslims, including murder, are more serious than offenses committed against non-Muslims. (Reliance o1.0 & ff; p2.0-1.)

The penalty for spying against Muslims is death. (Reliancep50.0 & ff; p.74.0& ff.)

The penalty for fornication is to be stoned to death, unless one is without the “capacity to remain chaste,” in which case the penalty is “being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81 km./50mi. for one year.” (Relianceo12.0 & ff.)

The penalty for homosexual activity (“sodomy and lesbianism”) is death. (Reliance p17.0 & ff.)

A Muslim woman may only marry a Muslim man; a Muslim man may marry up to four women, who may be Muslim, Christian, or Jewish (but no apostates from Islam). (Reliance m6.0 & ff. – Marriage.)

A woman is required to be obedient to her husband and is prohibited from leaving the marital home without permission; if permitted to go out, she must conceal her figure or alter it “to a form unlikely to draw looks from men or attract them.” (Reliancep42.0 & ff.)

A non-Muslim may not be awarded custody of a Muslim child. (Reliance m13.2-3.)

A woman has no right of custody of her child from a previous marriage when she remarries “because married life will occupy her with fulfilling the rights of her husband and prevent her from tending to the child.” (Reliance m13.4.)

The penalty for theft is amputation of the right hand. (Relianceo14.0.)

The penalty for drinking alcohol is “to be scourged forty stripes.” (Reliance o16.3; p.14.2.)

The penalty for accepting interest (“usurious gain”) is death (i.e., to be considered in a state of war against Allah). (Reliancep7.0 & ff.)

The testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man. (Relianceo24.7.)

If a case involves an allegation of fornication (including rape), “then it requires four male witnesses.” (Reliance o24.9.)

The establishment of a caliphate is obligatory, and the caliph must be Muslim and male. “The Prophet … said, “Men are already destroyed when they obey women.” (Reliance o25.0 & ff; see also p28.0, on Mohammed’s condemnation of “masculine women and effeminate men.”)

This is not al Qaeda doctrine. This is sharia, authoritatively explained and endorsed. It is not the construction of Islam that many Muslims in the West wish to live under. But it is the mainstream supremacist Islam of the Middle East, which Islamic leaders — including those who come to the West to preach it — would not dream of discrediting, even if they are not as enthusiastic as al Qaeda where imposing it is concerned.

The State Department and the leading foreign policy voices of both major American political parties say sharia is perfectly compatible with “democracy” and the Western conception of human rights — of liberty and equality. Sure it is. And then you wonder why the Obama administration opens a consulate in Benghazi, one of the most perilous places in the world for Americans, refuses to safeguard it despite multiple pleas for beefed up security, and then fraudulently claims a pluperfectly predictable atrocity was caused by a video no one ever saw. If you’re going to live in a dreamworld, better get used to nightmare consequences.