Reading the Koran, a Guest Op Ed

an_abridged_koran-400x533-334x450Political Islam, October 3, 2016:

This is a guest post on Bill Warner’s site by a first-time reader of the Qur’an who comes from a Buddhist/Hindu background & writes how shocked he was by the aggressive hatred toward all that is not Muslim. H/T Clare Lopez

I have never read the Koran before despite having travelled extensively in Muslim countries and read on many Eastern religions.

It took me two days to read the ‘Abridged Koran’ of Dr. Warner, which as the author himself writes is more of a study guide before beginning to read the real Koran. Now I have the context of history and other Muslim scriptures in order make sense of the Koran.

The Abridged Koran is an easy read but a disturbing read. You have heard of Christian and Hindu monks take a bath before reading their scriptures? I had to take a shower *after* reading the Koran because I felt spiritually unclean. It was like sitting through a non-stop horror movie with no breaks. I kept waiting for the good parts, the positive sections to begin. They never did. I found a minority of moral teachings scattered here and there, and just a few poetic descriptions in a very hateful book. About 3/4 of the way through it became as if a blur of hurtfulness and arrogance. The task felt like counting the flies on a corpse, it was so grotesque. I kept wondering ‘how could any rational and kind person, any normal human being actually accept this book as scripture?’ and ‘If they do and can, do we want such people in our country?’ After I completed my read, all I could think of was: ‘We must take steps to see this religion far away from us, and if possible destroyed permanently, erased from the planet except in history. I don’t care if people become Bahai’s, atheists, agnostics, Baptists or worship trees and dance around the Maypole naked. *Anything* but Islam will be a vast improvement’ in individual and group consciousness.

I learned why Muslims do things, why some get very upset and even violent when certain things happen. There are scriptural precedents. For example, ‘preventing’ Muslims from going to pray. Abu Jahl is criticized in the Koran for holding back a Muslim, his servant, who wants to pray. Perhaps employers at companies that do not eagerly pay for and permit pray times are likewise considered evil. Why ISIL Muslims degrade and abuse their enemies by placing a foot on the head and then turn the heads backwards after decapitating. Again Koranic precedent.

I made notes by colour-coding five tabs and writing succinct words according to my needs…

Priority 1, essential: red – fascinating fact or dangerous alert Priority 2, very important: orange – very interesting, a warning or something unique about Islam Priority 3, not so important: yellow – curiosity, something I didn’t know, a lead to something else, or an unanswered yet question Priority 4, useful to know: green – Islamic trilogy facts (Koran, Hadith, Sira) Priority 5, extra: blue – detail about the method or structure of Warner’s book

I ended up with 86 red, 129 orange, 143 yellow, 16 green and 15 blue. I find this curious because when I use a similar system reading other books, concerning the top three priorities, the ratio is usually much more bottom heavy versus top heavy. For example reading the encyclopedic Siva Purana of medieval Hinduism, or the mixed mythic and philosophical Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods, the ratio is closer to 20/120/400. Even the brutally caste-ridden Laws of Manu of Brahminism has some nobility. The war-themed Mahabharata of the epic period of Hinduism is replete with universal teachings. By comparison, Buddhist and Christian texts have much more humanistic themes than the Koran. The only thing I felt inspired to do after reading the entire Abridged Koran, was to get out in the fresh air and sunshine. So, be prepared with some drinking water and a place to take a break, otherwise you might feel sad and negative. Reading the Abridged Koran was a pivotal experience for me, unfortunately verifying my worst fears.

With The Abridged Koran, the tag ratio from my reading was skewed to the most alarming, a lot of ‘read this and weep.’ I made almost no notes of interest regarding Dr. Warner’s book itself, further reading or even the Trilogy of Islam. The content rests squarely on the malicious, envious and otherwise anti-civil society things that the Koran itself has to say.

While a considerable amount of Abridged Koran is contextual (i.e. explanation from author but more so information from other trilogy sources such as Hadith and Sira) herein I offer only Koranic verses. So, this is an assessment of the Koran itself not Dr. Warner’s study guide to it. My next step will be to read the Koran as it commonly presented, ordered according to length not chronological (real) history, and translated by a mainstream Islamic source which presumably has no anti-Islamic ‘axe to grind’. I am giving Islam the benefit of the doubt, even though it looks like an exercise in futility.

My list is not complete, it is just what I made notes on, and a conclusion based on the gist of it. For brevity, I have reduced my own tagged quotes to a fraction or what caught my attention. I suspect that the verse numbers I quote are inaccurate as I sometimes quote the entire group of verses and Dr. Warner does not itemize them but instead writes full thoughts. All of these assessments of categories I made after reading the Koran. Although I have read and heard of others repeat some of them as part of their arguments against the atrocity and obscenity of Islam these are taken directly from my reading, not from third party sources such as websites or other books. And if I made a tag on one section of verses I didn’t necessarily add other tags if another group of verses following saying similar followed. So, in other words, these are the *minimums*, there are more than I count herein.
…………………………………………………………………………………

The following list is based on my own assessment, disregarding everybody else’s read (including the author’s), whether they agree with my own assessment or not.

Top seven themes of the Koran

1. All non-Muslims are bad just by virtue of not being Muslim. And for other reasons too 2. Non-Muslims deserve to be killed, taxed and forced to submit, simply because they are non-Muslim 3. Non-Muslims are going to hell 4. Christians are bad, Jews are really bad, Idolaters are the worst 5. Good Muslims finance holy war and if possible engage in it themselves 6. Heaven is a comfy and scenic banquet hall with beautiful women and boys, tasty drinks and lots of fountains.
7. Hell is fire with torture, and it goes on forever.

The Koran spends a lot of text space criticizing other religions and in particular the *followers* of other religions, especially Jews and Christians. The Koran doesn’t observe the nicety of distinguishing between Jews and Judaism, for example. Coming from a background of Hinduism and having a fascination for the many streams of Buddhist traditions all over the world, I find the Koran bizarre and appalling. This ‘our way or the highway’ (the ditch actually) is contrary to any Indian-origin Dharmic religion or Indian-influenced religions, which generally have a compassionate and accepting attitude to other religions, accommodating them even into their own systems (for example the historical Buddha being considered as the ninth incarnation of Vishnu). The Koran is the antithesis of Indian Islam – with its the saint worship, festivals and music . I have spent considerable time upcountry and in the cities of India (as well as lived in Buddhist regions of Southeast Asia) and pure Islam, not tempered by the modifications of Java and Cambodia etc is like something from another planet. I find Koranic Islam’s stated objections to other religions so severe as to be anti-religion. They make the Catholic Church’s ‘we know best’ perspective seem downright cosmopolitan. Bishops might disagree with my critique of their Church, even vociferously. But they are not going kill me. Probably not even mock me. Maybe ignore me. Basically, Islam as presented in its primary scripture, the Koran, is completely incompatible with diversity and human rights. After reading the Abridged Koran I do not see Islam as a religion at all.

Read more

***

Totalitarian Islam

maxresdefault (6)Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Aug. 25, 2016:

Totalitarianism is a political doctrine that seeks to control all aspects of a society, its economy, its laws and government, its culture.

Islam is a complete way of life, a total civilization, not just a religion. It is also a culture and a political system of Sharia laws which establish its supremacy. There is no aspect of personal and public life that is not included in the Sharia.

Not just Muslims but all people must submit to the Sharia. The very name, Islam, means to submit, submit to Mohammed and the Koran in all things: religious, political and cultural.

Mohammed practiced totalitarianism. All people around him had to submit to his demands. After Arabia submitted, Mohammed left Arabia and began his mission to have Sharia rule the world.

Both the Koran and Mohammed command the terror of jihad on non-Muslims or Kafirs until Islam dominates. After Mohammed died, the caliphs killed all apostates and conquered all the Middle East and northern Africa.

After Islam enters a society, over time, the society becomes totally Islamic. This is totalitarianism.

The Qur’an Test in Dhaka

bangla-2

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, July 4, 2016:

As Ramadan draws to a merciful close, we have in Bangladesh yet another Islamic jihad massacre, followed by the now drearily familiar attempts to obscure the Islamic character of the massacre, and to keep the public ignorant and complacent regarding the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat. But with this particular mass killing it will be harder for the political and media elites to cover up the attackers’ motives and goals, since they subjected their victims to an increasingly familiar feature of jihad attacks: the Qur’an test.

After Islamic State jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” murdered twenty hostages at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on the night of July 1, the serially deceptive Islamic apologist Qasim Rashid tweeted: “In #Ramadan’s final 10 days, Daesh has mass murdered dozens in three Muslim majority nations Please tell me more about how Islamic they are.” In another tweet, he included a photo captioned: “So you’re telling me they killed Muslims during Ramadan and you still blame Islam? Are you that incompetent or that bigoted?” To that, Rashid added: “Likewise, how I feel when I hear Islamophobes claim Islam was somehow behind the #DhakaAttack.”

Echoing Rashid was no less illustrious a personage than Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who insisted: “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”

Unfortunately for Hasina and Rashid, however, the killers themselves made it abundantly clear what they were all about. According to Rezaul Karim, the father of a young man who was held hostage inside the Holey Artisan Bakery for more than ten hours, “The gunmen were doing a background check on religion by asking everyone to recite from the Quran. Those who could recite a verse or two were spared. The others were tortured.”

A Qur’an test for determining who was tortured and who wasn’t? That certainly seems to have something to do with Islam. Nor is this the first time that Islamic jihadis have employed this tactic. In September 2013, Islamic jihadis murdered 68 people at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. According to the Daily Mail, “the attack saw men, women and children slaughtered if they could not recite the Koran or name the mother of the [Islamic] Prophet Mohammed.”

In June 2014, again in Kenya, in the coastal town of Mpeketoni, Muslims murdered people who could not pass an Islam quiz. In November 2014, Muslims hijacked a Kenyan bus and murdered 28 non-Muslims who couldn’t recite Qur’an verses.

Then in April 2015, Islamic jihadists murdered 147 people at Garissa University College, once again in Kenya. The jihadis here again ordered their captives to recite passages from the Qur’an. Then, screaming “Allahu akbar,” they gunned down those who could not.

The practice wasn’t limited to Kenya. In November 2015, Muslims firing guns and screaming “Allahu akbar” stormed the luxury Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, the capital of Mali, and took 170 people hostage. Those hostages who could recite Qur’an verses were freed. Around 27 others who could not expatiate on the glories of Allah and the torments awaiting unbelievers were massacred.

And now this test has come to Dhaka, and its import is plain. Those who insist that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that we must look elsewhere to discover the terrorists’ motives and goals, should kindly explain why the textbook for this sinister and murderous little exam is always and everywhere the Qur’an. Terrorists never demand that their captives recite, on pain of death, passages from the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or the Bhagavad Gita, or Das Kapital.

Not coincidentally, the Qur’an is singular among books that are by some considered holy in containing clear, open-ended and universal commands to believers to kill unbelievers wherever they are found (cf. 2:191, 4:89, 9:5; see also 9:29, 47:4, 8:60, 8:39, 8:12, etc.). What the political and media elites would have us believe is that Islamic jihadis misunderstand the clear import of those passages, foolishly assuming that “kill the idolaters” means something like, say, “kill the idolaters,” when every right-thinking person knows that if only one understands the nuances of classical Arabic, it really means “give the idolaters a hug.” They would further have us believe that any Muslim who actually goes out to kill those whom he deems to be idolaters is gravely misunderstanding the message of the Qur’an and Islam.

The time for these comforting fictions is long past. Sheikh Hasina and Qasim Rashid (to whom Megyn Kelly recently accorded a platform for his slick falsehoods) are just two exponents of a years-long campaign of deception and lies that now must be decisively repudiated. If authorities don’t drop their politically correct fantasies and address the jihad threat realistically, we will be seeing the Qur’an test administered inside the U.S. before too long. Instead of studying to pass, Americans should be making it abundantly clear to those administering such tests, and to the deceivers running interference for them in government and media, that their days of perpetrating their evils unchallenged are rapidly drawing to a close.

***

Also see:

CAIR’s ‘Islamophobia’ List Is a ‘Hit List,’ Say Critics

Screenshot

Screenshot

Breitbart, by Neil Munro, June 23, 2016:

Americans are being marked for murder whenever their names appear on the annual list of so-called “Islamophobes” posted by the jihad-linked Council on American Islamic Relations, say two Americans on CAIR’s 2016 enemies list. 

“This is a hit list,” said Nonie Darwish, a former Egyptian Muslim, now living in America. CAIR “should be held legally responsible for inciting violence against us,” she said, after citing several Muslims and non-Muslims who have been personally targeted by Muslims sharing CAIR’s Islamic ideology.

“They want to shut us up by putting us in a position of fear,” said Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, which is pushing for modernization of Islam in the United States. “Not only does their list put our lives at risk, but it is full of false information [and] they’ve never called us.”

At least two of the people cited in the report have been targeted for murder by jihadis. Pam Geller, who is described by the new report as “Islamophobe Pamela Geller,” has survived two plots attempts because the Muslim attackers were successfully killed by police. Similarly, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim and a former legislator in Holland, has a security detail to protect her from attacks. 

CAIR’s report “is certainly intended to be [incitement],” said David Yerushalmi, a lawyer at the American Freedom Law Center. “But it is not [punishable] incitement under First Amendment principles,” partly because judges requires an “imminent” threat to justify a charge of incitement, he said.

CAIR’s new report is titled “Confronting Fear“, and it was slated for publication June 14. But on June 12, the release was delayed six days because a Muslim murdered 49 Americans in a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida.

The report lists a series of domestic enemies of Islam, its portrays them as mentally ill phobics, and also conflates occasional attacks and vandalism against Muslim people and buildings with various forms of democratic criticism of Islam. For example, comedian Bill Maher is on the list.

The group defines “Islamophobia” as “a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure.”

The problem, say Jasser and Darwish, is that CAIR’s message will reach people who believe that opponents of Islam deserve death. In fact, Pam Geller, a favorite hate-figure at the CAIR, has been the subject of at least two jihad plots. Two gunmen were killed by thefirst attack in May 2015. A second man, who carrying a knife, was killed by FBI officers in Boston in June 2015.

Other critics, such as Robert Spencer, who runs JihadWatch.com, has received myriad death threats from believers in Islam.

Islam’s politicized ‘sharia law’ endorses the murder of Islam’s critics and of ex-Muslims — repeatedly, endlessly, forcefully — and its recommendations are deemed divine commandments by numerous killers and would-be killers.

For example, the Koran — which observant Muslims say is a list of verbatim commands from their deity, Allah — tells Muslims to “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah [penalty tax] willingly while they are humbled.”

Islamic scriptures say that Islam’s reputed founder, Muhammad, personally ordered or supported the death of many enemies, including at 10 critics and poets, who were the pre-modern equivalent of modern journalist and writers — such as the machine-gunned cartoonists at the Paris-based Charlie Hebdo magazine. Traditionalist or orthodox Muslims says Muhammad is a perfect model of behavior and should be emulated by Muslims.

Because of this theological hostility to criticism, “I cannot go to any Islamic majority country — I would be killed on the street, and the killer would be called a hero,” said Darwish.

CAIR is extending those threats into the United States, she said. “The culture of Al Capone is the culture of Islam — when you put up a list of Islamic foes, this is a hit list,” she said.

In Western democracies, where law and religion both condemn violence, people can criticize and be criticized without the intimidating fear of violence, she said. With CAIR’s enemies list, “the difference is that you have a whole Islamic theology behind, the sharia law that [CAIR] support[s], that condemns people to death if they dissent,” she said.

If a journalist [criticizes] Republicans or Democrats, he does not have a whole legal system to condemn him to death. What makes CAIR different is that they support a legal system, they support HAMAS, they support the Muslim Brotherhood, and just by their affiliation and support of sharia law, the show they agree to the death penalty for apostates and blasphemers, and … by making a list for their sharia lovers and supporters, they are making it easy for their followers to find the blasphemers and apostates.

U.S. court documents and news reports show that at least five of CAIR’s people — either board members, employees or former employees — have been jailed or repatriated forvarious financial and terror-related offenses.

Breitbart has also published evidence highlighted by critics showing that CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Texas-based criminal effort to deliver $12 million to the Jew-hating HAMAS jihad group, that CAIR was founded with $490,000 from HAMAS, and that the FBI bans top-level meetings with CAIR officials. “The FBI policy restricting a formal relationship with CAIR remains … [but] does not preclude communication regarding investigative activity or allegations of civil rights violations,” said an Oct. 2015 email from FBI spokesman Christopher Allen.

The United Arab Emirates has included CAIR on its list of Muslim Brotherhood groups. CAIR has posted its defense here.

For Jasser, CAIR’s hate list is also a threat to the many members of his pro-modernity Islamic coalition who don’t want to be linked to anti-Islamic activists. “We are a modern [classic] liberal islam that believes in universal declaration of human rights [and] we reject theocratic islam,” he told Breitbart. “Our brand is about loving Islam and loving America,” he said.

“Our board members are devout Muslims, our families go to the mosque, we are celebrating Ramadan now, and for us to described under ‘Islamophobia’ … is the greatest smear I can think off… and that’s the intention,” Jasser said.

“There’s no doubt that CAIR is all about monopolizing the voice of Islam [in the United States], and the way they prevent any debates is the term ‘Islamophobia’ … they want to prevent any criticism of Islam,” he said. It “is their way of making a blasphemer’s list — they use it as a way to shame anyone who would question the need for reform,” he said.

But CAIR is safe from a lawsuit or criminal charges unless there’s testimony from a whistleblower or an email showing CAIR officials linking their claims with hopes that someone else launches a violent attack, said Yerushalmi.

Racketeering lawsuits likely won’t work either, he said, because the court has restricted their use to criminal gangs and drug-sellers, he said. “I don’t think you get a RICO case unless an individual or a group of individuals who were physically [harmed] or their business were harmed ….[and] where you can show CAIR’s fingerprints,” he said.

CAIR’s press aide, Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment. 

CAIR’s list of “Islamophobic” actions include many normal examples of civic criticism of Islam’s doctrines. For example, the report slams comedian Bill Maher, saying ;

Maher acts as the liberal counterpart to Fox News when it comes to broadbrush attacks on Islam. While discussing Boko Haram’s kidnapping of a large number of female students in 2014, Maher asserted, “There’s no mention here of connecting this to the religion, which is always what I am seeking to do because I think that’s the elephant in the room. And that in the religion at large, women are seen as property, second-class at best, often property.”

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.

Acknowledge, Don’t Apologize

Political Islam, Mar 29 2016, by Bill Warner:

Every time jihadis kill Kafirs, our leaders and Muslims launch another “Don’t blame Muslims” campaign. The latest campaign is presented by Omar Alnatour. He takes the approach of Muslims should not apologize for what criminals do, because terrorists have nothing to do with Islam.

OA: “Radicals have hijacked his religion”
If a Muslim imitates Mohammed, he is following the Sunna, which the Koran commands Muslims to do. It is not a crime, if you do what Mohammed did.

OA: “Islam teaches peace”
Islam does preach peace, but it also preaches jihad. Mohammed rose to power on politics and jihad, not peace.

OA: “Islam says not to kill the innocents”
Yes, but Kafirs are guilty of rejecting Mohammed and are not innocent.

OA: “Muslims are not terrorists”
No, Muslims are called to be jihadis, not terrorists. The Koran devotes 24% of the Medinan Koran to jihad.

OA: “Muslims condemn terrorism”
Perhaps, but will Muslims acknowledge that they cannot condemn what Mohammed did? They cannot condemn Mohammed’s jihad.

OA: “Good Muslims have no relationship to terrorists”
Peaceful Muslims say the same prayers, read the same Koran and follow the Sunna as the jihadis.

Also see:

Does Islam ‘Hate’ Us?

AP_863864811400-640x480Breitbart, by Frank Gaffney, March 16, 2016:

In remarks last week, Donald Trump once again made headlines about the threat we face from Islamic supremacism. As he succinctly put it, “Islam hates us.”

In the course of the most recent Republican debate, he refused to back away from that assertion, bringing a variety of responses from his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination and harsh criticism from some Muslims, their allies on the left and media outlets.

This is a conversation that is long overdue and needs to be had as we decide not only on the next Commander-in-Chief, but whether to provide a national security mandate for our 45th President.

It would be a more illuminating conversation – and a better guide for policy – if we are clear about our terms. There is no getting around the fact that the practice of Islam as defined by the faith’s authorities (e.g., Al-Azhar University, the clerical leaders of Saudi Arabia, the mullahs of Iran, etc.) is hateful towards those like us, who believe that our government should be defined by a man-made Constitution, not by the dictates of a deity like Allah codified in a doctrine like sharia.

That said, there are Muslims who do not practice Islam in accordance with sharia. They generally don’t want to live under its brutal repression, let alone seek to impose it on others. In fact, many of them came to this country to get away from that totalitarian program in their native lands.

Unfortunately, the folks who define Islam don’t think, as we do, that such folks are “good Muslims.” They think they are apostates. And that can be treated as a capital offense under sharia.

But ignoring these non-sharia-adherent Muslims or, worse yet, lumping them in with those who do follow sharia, is not only inaccurate. It is counterproductive. The former do not necessarily hate us; the latter are obliged to do so by what they consider to be divine direction.

For this reason, we should define the problem as the hateful doctrine of sharia and the Islamic supremacists who are determined to ensure that the entire world submits to it. Sharia not only hates us. If not thwarted, the successful imposition of sharia will achieve the end to which those who hate us – Muslim and non-Muslim alike – aspire: our destruction as a free nation and people.

Our understanding of this reality is made more complicated by the lengths to which those who should know better are going to obscure it. That’s the subject of a new book my colleague Clare Lopez and I have just published entitled See No Sharia: ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ and the Disarming of America’s First Lines of DefenseIt chronicles how this administration and the preceding one have insisted that “Islam is a religion of peace,” that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that those engaged in such terror are hijacking and perverting the Islamic faith.

Such comments ignore sharia and its animating of jihad, including both the violent kind and the pre-violent, stealthy sort the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.” Bad as the implications of such official dissembling or willful blindness are, matters are made worse by the fact that other influencers, including the mainstream media, are also aiding and abetting the enemy.

A prime example of the sort of propagandizing being done by some in the press was aired by National Public Radio last week. During NPR’s Morning Edition, reporter Tom Gjelten fawningly and at great length profiled an initiative called “Celebrate Mercy.” Gjelten uncritically repeated incorrect claims by Dalia Mogahed, who had previously worked in the White House as an advisor to President Obama and who even the far-left Daily Kospegged correctly as “a Muslim Brotherhood apologist.” Mogahed claimed Mohammed’s time in Medina showed him to be an exemplar of peace and tolerance and, if only Muslims model their lives on his, they will eschew radicalization.

In point of fact, the Medina period of Mohammed’s life as depicted in Islam’s revered texts is the feedstock of sharia’s doctrine of conquest, submission and jihadism. Efforts to urge conformity with it as the perfect model for the faithful Muslim is actually the agenda of so-called “radicals” and “violent extremists.” Kyle Shideler makes this point in the Federalist:

What Moghed does not say and the entire NPR article fails to address is that Islamists view Mohammed’s behavior in Medina as an example for establishing Islam as the dominant political system, at the expense of the Jews, which Islamic historiography identifies as being massacred and expelled. Moghed herself can scarcely be unaware of this, seeing as ISPU is itself a pro-Islamist think tank include numerous Muslim Brotherhood-associated thinkers.

What makes matters worse is this bottom line: Our ignoring, downplaying or misrepresenting the virulent hatred felt by sharia-adherent Muslims towards those of us in what they call the Dar al Harb, or House of War (i.e., the non-Muslim world), is seen by the jihadists not as “political correctness” or diversity sensitivity. Instead, they perceive it as evidence of the West’s submission. And, according to sharia, the appropriate response is for Islamists to redouble their efforts to make the infidel, in the words of the Koran, “feel subdued.” That means more jihad, not less.

In short, sharia hates us, its adherents are obliged to try to make us submit to their repression and, when we show signs of doing so, they will use whatever means are at hand – including more violence – to finish our destruction. We need a Commander-in-Chief who gets all that and will respond effectively.

To that end, let’s hope that Donald Trump’s latest comments about Islam will be but the beginning of a serious and informed national debate.

“Islam Hates Us” More Than You Know

fvf-1-850x500-1-850x500By Raymond Ibrahim, March 13, 2016:

Donald Trump’s latest politically incorrect comment concerning Islam is much truer than most know.  After being asked last week on CNN if he believed the West was at war with Islam, the Republican presidential candidate simply said:

I think Islam hates us.  There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.

While millions of Americans undoubtedly agree with Trump’s assertions—at least those who have eyes and ears to see and hear with—few realize that this “tremendous hatred” is not a product of grievances, political factors, or even an “extremist” interpretation of Islam; rather, it is a direct byproduct of mainstream Islamic teaching.

According to the ancient Islamic doctrine of al-wal’a wa al-bara’, or “loyalty and enmity”—which is well grounded in Islamic scriptures, well sponsored by Islamic authorities, and well manifested all throughout Islamic history and contemporary affairs—Muslims must hate and oppose everyone who is not Muslim, including family members.

Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this doctrine and speaks for itself: “You [Muslims] have a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, for they said to their people, ‘We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah.  We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone’” (Koran 60:4, emphasis added).

Koran 58:22 praises Muslims who fight and kill their own non-Muslim family members: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.”

According to Ibn Kathir’s mainstream commentary on the Koran, this verse refers to a number of Muslims who slaughtered their own non-Muslim kin (one slew his non-Muslim father, another his non-Muslim brother, a third—Abu Bakr, the first revered caliph of Islamic history—tried to slay his non-Muslim son, and Omar, the second righteous caliph, slaughtered his relatives).  As Ibn Kathir explains,[1] Allah was immensely pleased by their unwavering zeal for his cause and rewarded them with paradise.

In fact, verses that support the divisive doctrine of “loyalty and enmity” permeate the Koran (see also 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 60:1).  There is one caveat, captured by Koran 3:28: when Muslims are in a position of weakness, they may pretend to befriend non-Muslims, as long as the hate carries on in their hearts.  (Read here for several recent examples of Muslims living for years at peace and in friendship with non-Muslims, but then violently turning on them once they became stronger.[2])

Because enmity for non-Muslims is so ironclad in the Koran, mainstream Islamic teaching holds that Muslim men must even hate—and show that they hate—their non-Muslim wives, for no other reason than that they are “infidels.”

If Muslims must hate those closest to them—including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives—simply because they are non-Muslims, is there any surprise that so many Muslims hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans away—such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Islamic world as trying to undermine Islam?

Thus, even America’s supposed best Muslim friends and allies—such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar—are on record calling on all Muslims to hate us.  According to a Saudi governmental run website,  Muslims must “oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”

In short, Trump’s assertion that “Islam hates us” is demonstrable by the plain words and teachings of the Koran, by the plain words and teachings of past and present Islamic clerics, and by the past and present actions of Muslims around the world.

But, as usual, instead of discussing these problematic facts, the powers-that-be are much more interested in portraying Trump as the one who hates.

—————————————————-

 

[1] Koran 58:22 in full reads:  “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.  Allah has inscribed the faith in their very hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. He will admit them to gardens watered by running streams, where they shall dwell forever.  Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him.  They are the party of Allah, and surely it is the party of Allah that shall triumph!”   According to Ibn Kathir’s commentary: “It was said that the phrase from the Most High—‘even if they be their fathers’—that it was revealed about Abu Ubayda when he slew his father at [the battle of] Badr; ‘their sons’ was about Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s successor and first caliph] when he intended to slay his son, Abd al-Rahman; ‘their brothers’ was about Mus’ab bin Umayr, who slew his brother, Ubayd bin Umayr; ‘or their kin’ was about Omar, who slew one of his relatives. Also Hamza, Ali, and Ubayda bin al-Harith: They slew Utba, Sheeba, and al-Walid bin Uitba [their kin] at that battle. Allah knows [best]. Moreover, when the Messenger of Allah consulted with the Muslims regarding the captives of Badr, Abu Bakr advised that they should pay ransom, thereby enabling the Muslims to grow stronger. Also, since they [captives] were cousins and relatives, perhaps Allah Most High would have eventually guided them. But Omar said: ‘This goes against my thinking, O Messenger of Allah. Let me slay so-and so (a relative of Omar), and let Ali [slay] Aquil [Ali’s brother], and so-and-so [slay] so-and-so—so that Allah may know that there is no love in our hearts for the idolaters. ..’ This is the whole story.” Excerpted from Ayman al-Zawahiri’s “Loyalty and Enmity,” The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs., 63-115.

[2]For more on Islamic sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir.

Interfaith Forum Ignores Islamic Immigration Questions

unnamed (4)

Juicy Ecumenism, by Andrew Harrod, March 10, 2016:

“Just using that expression ‘illegal immigrants’ is a form of oppressing the stranger,” a “very painful…inappropriate language biblically,” stated Rabbi Gerald Serotta at a Fairfax, Virginia, February 25 panel before about 50 listeners. Like him, “Welcoming the Stranger: Refugees and Immigrants in Our Midst,” a presentation of the controversial Islamic Gülen movement‘s Rumi Forum, was uniformly uncritical towards current Middle Eastern refugee issues.

Serotta, an advisory board member of the leftwing rabbinical organization Truah, began the panel’s presentation of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim theological perspectives on immigrants and refugees.  Love for the stranger “suffuses the Hebrew Bible” with 36 corresponding scriptural passages, he stated while repeating the talking point that “people are not illegal, they may be undocumented.” He noted Judaism’s forefathers like Abraham migrating in the Old Testament and concluded that the “reason why we are commanded to love the immigrant is because the immigrant is us. We have moved in history.”

Patricia S. Maloof, former United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Director of Refugee Programs, reinforced Serotta’s Old Testament teachings with references to the New Testament.  Hebrews 13:2 admonition to welcome strangers recalled Abraham’s meeting with angels in Genesis while the Holy Family itself fled to Egypt when King Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents threatened infant Jesus. His discussion of any charity shown to the “least of these” being like loving Himself taught that “by helping the stranger we are seeing Christ in the stranger,” she said.

Pakistani-American researcher Naseem Rizvi completed the discussion of immigration in the context of “three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam” as “cousin religions.” Parallel to Moses and Jesus, Islam’s scriptures record the faith’s prophet Muhammad and his followers fleeing Mecca for Medina after an earlier group of about 80 Meccan Muslims had found refuge in Abyssinia’s Christian kingdom. “The Quran speaks of oppressed and weak people on Earth and suggests that they could migrate from their oppressed positions to another land of God,” she stated.

As Maloof herself once wrote in a 2003 book on Muslim refugees in the United States, “Muslim refugees share a fundamental understanding of hijra, or migration.” The “Islamic calendar begins, not at the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s birth or the first revelation from Allah, but at the time of hijra when he migrated from Mecca to Medina to escape persecution.” “In Islam, asylum is a right of anyone seeking protection,” she correspondingly claimed.

Yet the hijra understanding of Maloof and Rizvi misinterprets as a mere flight to freedom a migration remembered in Islamic orthodoxy precisely as the origin of an Islamic state that gave rise to a conquering civilization. As Indian-American Islamic commentator Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed notes, this “migration was a transitional line…from the position of weakness…to the position of strength” and exemplifies an understanding of migration serving Islam, not just individuals. While Rizvi’s presentation cited Quran 4:97‘s reference to migration, Quran commentaries describes this verse as addressing “those who wronged themselves by residing with the non-Muslims” and “acquiesced to living under an un-Islamic order.” She also quoted Quran 9:6, but this verse appears in context of, and immediately after, the Quran’s Verse of the Sword (9:5) with its notorious command to “kill the polytheists wherever you find them.”

Such Islamic canons raise the specter of Muslims migrating in the name of furthering a supremacist faith in a process called “settlement” or “civilization jihad.” As Maloof wrote in 2003, the “word Muslim literally means ‘submitter'” and “[f]or many of its adherents, Islam is a total way of life.” Yet her writing simultaneously argued that “Islam emphasizes the equality of all people” completely overlooking Islamic law or sharia doctrines of non-Muslims as second-class dhimmis subjugated by jihad, a concept whitewashed by the book. Rizvi’s statement that “Islam embraces people of different races, nationalities, and ethnicities” likewise did not address this religious repression.

Contradicting Maloof, Musab Hayatli, an Arab analyst of refugee rights, notes that it is “difficult, if not impossible, for countries wishing to adopt a shari’a legal system to adopt the UDHR” or 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Given Quran 4:11, he writes that under sharia a “woman can expect to be provided for, while men expect to inherit twice as much as the woman.” Concerning “restitution of property to refugees, for example, this would raise questions, such as what the implications are for the many female-headed households.”

Such critical inquiry apparently makes no impression upon Serotta, whose comments attributed concerns about Islam and its adherents to the “Islamophobia” previously condemned by him. What he deemed an irrational fear demonstrated the “tremendous need to counteract that xenophobia that gets stirred up every so often in American culture.” In an erroneous equation, he stated that the “Syrian crisis evokes very painful memories for the Jewish community” of past anti-Semitic influenced international denials of refuge from Nazism. Yet his concern for Jews conflicted with his past slander of Israel as a malicious destroyer of Palestinian olive trees while heading Truah’s predecessor organization that he founded.

“Some are giving in to fear, some are very misinformed,” Maloof similarly stated when discussing American opposition to Syrian refugee resettlement, a process she questionably asserted would entail strict security safeguards. Yet the Middle East’s oil-rich Gulf Stateshave refused to accept any Syrian refugees, citing precisely security concerns, a fact noted in an audience question, even though asylum in the region would be cheaper than abroad. Expressing her own embarrassment, Rizvi responded that Muslim-majority Middle East states “should be the prime states to welcome the refugees,” but “do not adhere to Quran as much as they should.” Yet Hayatli has written that, contrary to any individual asylum claim recognized by Islam, “there is no overtly stated obligation on the part of Islamic states, in shari’a at least, to provide asylum.”

Contrary to the naïve Islamophilia of Serotta and Maloof, Jews, Christians, and others wishing to exemplify Biblical precepts of welcoming strangers should temper humanitarianism with caution when approaching Islam. Unlike her fellow panelists, Rizvi actually cited no canonical references in Islam of Muslims welcoming strangers, but rather spoke of Muslims receiving refuge from non-Muslims, to the ultimate subordination of the latter. Even the Abyssinian episode cited by her denigrates Christianity, for in the Islamic account the ultimately not-so-Christian king professes an Islamic understanding of a Jesus who is not divine. As this indicates, a supremacist Islam claims to correct Judaism and Christianity’s corruption, notwithstanding Serotta’s previous claim that not just Christianity, but Islam as well, “are the daughter religions of Judaism.” As Europe is discovering, Muslim refugees might not just see themselves as supplicants, but also as religious missionaries waging various forms of nonviolent or even violent jihad.

Bill Warner: To Know Islam, Know Mohammed

4111AooQ07L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_

Published on Mar 9, 2016 by Political Islam

The easy way to understand Islam is to know the story of Mohammed. It is an incredible story that changed the history of the world, and it is even more powerful today. Mohammed is pure Islam. Ninety-one verses in the Koran say that every Muslim is to imitate Mohammed in all things.

Is sex slavery Islamic? Look to Mohammed. He had sex slaves, so when Islamic state has sex slaves, it is Islamic. What are women’s rights in Islam? Look to Mohammed. He said that women could be beaten, had to always obey their husbands and could be part of a harem. He also said that slaves were to be treated well.

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’?

The Danger in Islamic Prayer

American Thinker, by Sonia Bailley, Dec. 1, 2015:

It is crucial that Westerners discover what Muslims are saying when they recite the Islamic mandatory prayers before sharing their places of worship. A few days ago, an Ontario synagogue invited Muslim worshippers to lead the Friday prayer. This article explains what the Islamic daily prayers mean, with focus on the Friday prayer within the context of Islamic law or sharia. Being better informed will make Westerners think twice before opening the doors to Muslim for prayer.

Canadian Muslims in southern Ontario were invited to preach the supremacy of Islam at a local synagogue and church. In a goodwill gesture, Peterborough’s Mark Street United Church and Beth Israel Synagogue opened their doors to Muslims for prayer following the recent fire damage of the Masjid al-Salaam mosque. President of the Beth Israel Synagogue and his board of directors hosted two Islamic prayer sessions this past Friday with not even a suspicion that the underlying theme in Islamic prayer is to curse and do away with nonbelievers like them.

A deep hatred and rejection of Judaism and Christianity are hardwired into Islamic doctrine, including the Koran. Many of its chapters are incorporated into mandatory daily Islamic prayer. The very first Koranic chapter, considered the most exalted of all chapters, is a prayer directed to Allah asking him to keep Muslims away from the misguided path of Jews and Christians. This chapter is a necessary part of the five mandatory daily prayers, and is recited not once, but anywhere from 17 to 100 times a day by devout Muslims (or in a broader sense, 6200 to 36,500 times a year).

195677_5_-bicubicRepetition priming inculcates the notion of superiority over non-Muslims into the minds of all Muslims, instilling a deep mistrust of non-Muslims: “Guide us along the right path, the path of those whom you favored (referring to Muslims), and not along the path of those who earn your anger (referring to Jews), or those who go astray (referring to Christians). The references to Jews and Christians are in accord with Al-Tirmidhi’s authentic hadiths (or Islamic narrations attributed to Mohammed) and other venerated Islamic interpretations, as reflected in some English translations of the Koran.

Friday prayers also include recitation of Koranic chapters 62 and 63 where Jews who reject Allah’s commandments in the Torah are loathed and compared to “the likeness of a donkey carrying books but understands them not.” Jews are told to “long for death” if they pretend to be Allah’s favorite.  Nonbelievers are condemned to a state of error until Mohammed is sent by Allah to purify them “from the filth of disbelief and polytheism” with his verses or revelations from Allah.  “Hypocrites” or apostates from Islam are considered enemies, “so beware of them, may Allah destroy them!”. Is it any wonder why many Muslims are prohibited from being friends with Jews and Christians? The Koran condemns them to hell (which melts their skin and bellies) in nearly 500 verses for not believing in Mohammed and for not converting to Islam.

Such are the prayers that are recited over and over again in mosques, and now in some churches and synagogue across the world as more Muslim communities continue to grow and expand. Oblivious to the ignorant Jewish and Christian hosts — whom the Koran portrays as sons of apes and pigs and as the worst of creatures — those very same prayers were recently recited by the Peterborough mosque’s muezzin (one who recites the Islamic call to prayer) in the local church and synagogue. His sonorous and somber voice evoked emotion and tears expressing compassion and admiration of Islam during the Islamic prayer session at the Mark Street United Church a couple of Fridays ago.

Little did these people know that he was chanting verses expressing disgust and disdain for nonbelievers, such as themselves. They appeared to be in a trancelike stupor as if undergoing a spiritual awakening — despite not understanding one word of Arabic prayer that calls for their rejection and eradication due to their misguided behavior. If they only knew what Islamic prayers meant in English, they would not be shedding tears of ignorance, and certainly thinking twice before allowing Muslims to pray in their places of worship. Love thy neighbor should not be a one-way street.

The Peterborough mosque’s imam Shazin Khan, along with other imams and Islamic spokespeople, uses a common deceptive tactic to show the Church audience that Islam cares about people of all religious faiths. He repeats only part of a well-known Koranic verse taken from the Jerusalem Talmud, asserting that saving one human being is like saving all of humanity. However, unlike the original Talmudic verse that applies equally to all humans, the Koranic verse was modified and prohibits only the murder of Muslims. This verse in its entirety is in accord with Islamic law or sharia, which applies the death penalty for killing Muslims, not non-Muslims.

Referring to Judaism and Islam, Kenzu Abdella, president of the Kawartha Muslim Religious Association (in the Peterborough area near Toronto) who formed an alliance with Larry Gillman, President of the Beth Israel Synagogue, informed the Canadian Broadcasting Cooperation that “we have more similarities than differences. We have so much common”.

Contrary to his claim, the differences are so great that 57 Islamic states united in the highly influential Organization of Islamic Cooperation rejected the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that views all people as equal and free, and replaced it with the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) that views people as neither equal nor free.

The CDHRI, being subject to sharia, limits the right to freedom of religion and expression according to what sharia permits.  Women have lesser rights than men, as do non-Muslims than Muslims. Slavery is allowed as it still has not been abolished in Islam. Human rights in Islam rely upon the most illiberal, draconian, and barbaric corporal punishments imaginable. Where are the similarities?

Mr. Abdella failed to mention that Islam considers itself the mother religion of both Judaism and Christianity, that it existed prior to those two false religions that veered away from the path of strict monotheism. They became corrupt and ignorant until Mohammed was sent by Allah as a gift to set things straight and convert all back to Islam or “the religion of true unspoiled nature”, as per the CDHRI.

The Islamic end-times, according to Bukhari, the most authentic of all hadith collections, occurs when Jesus, considered the last Muslim prophet in Islam, returns to earth to destroy Christianity (“break the cross”) and forces all to convert or die. But until such a time, radical Muslims must continue waging jihad against Christians and Jews who pay an Islamic tax calledjizya that masquerades as halal products to support Islamic terrorism worldwide.

It’s long past time that Westerners familiarize themselves with Islam and think twice before rolling out the welcome mats in their places of worship, especially in light of the tens of thousands of unvetted Muslim migrants coming soon to a city near you. Westerners who remain true to their faith by reaching out to Muslim neighbors with compassion will soon find out the hard way that mutual respect can never exist amongst different religions when one views itself as the perfect and supreme religion above all others, as Islam does.

Before sharing premises with Muslim worshippers, ask yourself the following question: would Muslims anywhere ever allow Jews or Christians into a mosque sanctuary to lead a Jewish or Christian prayer service?

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 Fantasy Islam of Reza Aslan

ra_1

Frontpage, by Dr. Stephen M. Kirby, Oct. 27, 2015:

Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a “Religion of Peace,” and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.

As I have mentioned before, “Fantasy Islam” is a popular game among many non-Muslims and so-called “moderate” or “reformist” Muslims.  Reza Aslan appears to be such a Muslim.

Reza Aslan was born in Iran.  In 1979, at the age of seven, he and his family fled the Iranian Revolution and came to the United States.  At the age of 15 he converted to evangelical Christianity, but later returned to Islam.  His website states that he is “an internationally acclaimed writer and scholar of religions.”  He is currently a Professor of Creative Writing at the University of California, Riverside.

In 2005 Aslan wrote a book titled No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam. The updated edition came out in 2011.  This article addresses that updated edition.

It should be noted that in his book Aslan listed The Life of Muhammad and the multi-volume work The History of al-Tabari, as among the books he “consulted.”  These are classical works by Muslim scholars and major sources for information about Muhammad and Islam.  Aslan even specifically mentions them as among those that have “catalogued” the story of Islam (p. xxiv).  Unfortunately, although Aslan claims that he “consulted” them, we will see that he apparently overlooked conflicting information in these works in favor of playing Fantasy Islam.

Death Penalty for Apostasy is “Un-Quranic”

On p. 121 Aslan stated that the death penalty for apostasy was “un-Quranic,” and he stated that nowhere in the Koran “is any earthly punishment prescribed for apostasy.”

The only problem for Aslan is that in 4:89 of the Koran Allah commands Muslims to take hold of those apostates who have left Islam and “kill them wherever you find them.”  So the death penalty for apostasy from Islam is in the Koran.

In addition, Muhammad said that death was the penalty for a Muslim who left Islam (e.g. Sahih Al-Bukhari, Nos. 6878 and 6923; and Sahih Muslim, No. 1676).  And Muhammad even specified the nature of that death:

If someone changes his religion – then strike off his head!

Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas, 36.18.15, in a section titled “Judgement on Abandonment of Islam.”

No Foundation in the Koran for Stoning

On p. 71 Aslan wrote about the “misogynistic tendencies” of Umar, the second Caliph, and how Umar

instituted a series of severe penal ordinances aimed primarily at women.  Chief among these was the stoning to death of adulterers, a punishment which has absolutely no foundation whatsoever in the Quran but which Umar justified by claiming it had originally been part of the Revelation and had somehow been left out of the authorized text.  Of course, Umar never explained how it was possible for a verse such as this “accidentally” to have been left out of the Divine Revelation of God[.]

It is a common play in Fantasy Islam to claim that stoning is not a part of Islam because it is not in the Koran, so let’s take a look at this claim.

In the first place, it is correct to state that the Koran says nothing about stoning.  The original punishment for adultery in the Koran (4:15) focused on women and confining them to their houses until they died; but there was a key provision at the end of this verse: “or Allah ordains for them some (other) way.”

Muhammad later received a “revelation” from Allah explaining that “other way”:

‘Ubada b. As-Samit reported: Allah’s Messenger (SAW) saying: Receive (teaching) from me, receive (teaching) from me.  Allah has ordained a way for those (women).  When an unmarried male commits adultery with an unmarried female (they should receive) one hundred lashes and banishment for one year.  And in case of married male committing adultery with a married female, they shall receive one hundred lashes and be stoned to death.

Sahih Muslim, No. 1690

So now, instead of confinement, the punishment for adultery would be lashing and stoning.  The punishment of lashing was codified in 24:2 of the Koran.  Muhammad considered stoning as the appropriate penalty for adultery up to his death.  He ordered many an adulterer to be stoned, as did his successors.

Umar did make the claim that the Verse of Stoning had been left out when the Koran was compiled (e.g.Sahih Al-Bukhari, No. 6830).  But when the Koran was being compiled Umar had tried to get it included.  However, the standard for including a “revelation” as a verse was that it had to be certified by two witnesses, and there appeared to be only one witness: Umar.

But in reality there was a second witness, Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha:

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed, and the paper was with me under my pillow.  When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

Sunan Ibn Majah, No. 1944

Even though on p. 70 Aslan had written that “nearly one sixth of all ‘reliable’ hadith can be traced back to Muhammad’s wife Aisha,” the idea of using her as a witness apparently came up against 2:282 of the Koran.  This verse requires the testimony of two women in order to equal that of one man in property matters.  So even though both Umar and Aisha claimed there had been a stoning verse “revealed,” we would still only have at best one and one-half witnesses, therefore falling short of the two witnesses required to include a verse in the Koran.  It would appear that this is why there is no Verse of Stoning in the Koran.  Nevertheless, it is still a part of Islam:

Now the punishment of adultery has been fixed, which is stoning to death.  That punishment also remained in force during the times of the Rightly-Guided caliphs (successors of the Messenger of Allah) and that remained the unanimous opinion of all the jurists and scholars afterwards…The law that prescribes stoning the adultery [sic] to death is supported by authentic hadeeths, and their narrators are numerous, and hence, scholars grade those hadeeths as mutawatir [frequently reported].  A Muslim has, therefore, no choice except to acknowledge and accept it.

Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, Vol. 3, p. 665

Read more

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.