A Most Imperfect Man

Center for Security Policy, by Frank Gaffney, June 7, 2017:

In America’s heartland, a much-needed debate has been prompted by an unlikely muse: a pair of billboards in Dallas and Indianapolis.  They simply list six attributes of “The Perfect Man.”

Sharia-supremacists like Indiana Congressman André Carson, however, have recognized the description of this so-called exemplar as, for example, a “rapist,” “mass murderer” and “slave-trader” as their prophet, Mohammed.  They are furious, and insist that the billboards are mischaracterizing the founder of their faith and are “Islamophobic.”

In fact, the sacred texts of Islam make clear that the perfect Muslim – and the Sharia code his life and conduct make an obligatory model for its adherents – revere personal qualities and behavior completely at odds with our Constitution and civilization.

Let the debate begin – but let it end with an affirmation that the model for Americans, Muslim and non-Muslims alike, should not be that of Mohammed.

Also see:

Bill Warner Gives Talking Points on Tough Questions for Islam

hqdefault (5)Political Islam, by Bill Warner, Feb. 17, 2016:

When people go to an event where they might be able to ask questions of a Muslim, what is the best way to ask?

I recommend a specific technique. Do not ask about the Koran. Do not ask about Islam, instead ask about Mohammed. State some idea from the Sunna (what Mohammed did or said) and then ask the Muslim a question about obeying that Sunna. Your goal is to educate the audience.

Here is an example: The Sunna of Mohammed includes wife beating, as does the Sharia. Do you agree that wife-beating is a good practice?
You will never get a straight answer, but the audience learns about Mohammed and Islamic doctrine from your question.

Also see:

Facing God

sistine

Frontpage, by Danusha V. Goska, Nov. 11, 2015:

The Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the individual, apart from the mob. That individual is invited to meet and talk, face to face and utterly spontaneously, with God, without interruption from any earthly authority. That encounter is the life spark of Western Civilization.

We define, and recognize, by contrasts. I learn much about Christian prayer and Christian monasticism by comparing them with their opposites. I think of Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” and what it says about my faith – specifically, what it says about the Judeo-Christian concept of God, of man, and of prayer. I think of how that artwork and its implications contrast with other belief systems: modern Atheism, ancient Paganism, and Islam.

Between 1508 and 1512, on the ceiling of the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo depicted the spark of life in the fingertip-to-fingertip, eye-contact encounter between one, loving, creator God and one human being – not a teeming mass – just one person. In Michelangelo’s fresco, we see Adam’s full naked form, from head to toe. God looks like Adam, and Adam looks like God. They are the same size. Every detail here matters – that Adam is just one man, that he is naked, that he is anatomically detailed, that he is the same size as God, that God and Adam are fundamentally structured the same, that Adam is making eye contact with God, that God looks upon Adam with fiercely attentive love – every detail here has an impact on the life anyone can live in a Judeo-Christian society.

Organized Christophobes and anti-Semites have targeted Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam” for attack. They call themselves “The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.” They blather, “Oh, you Christians and Jews are so stupid; you think God is an old man in the sky with a long, white beard.” They insist that it doesn’t matter what story a society tells itself about its origins. They say that the Judeo-Christian God may as well be a monster made of spaghetti. They are ignorant and childish enough to believe that if we told ourselves that story, we’d be able to have the same society that we have now. They are wrong on every count.

“God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them”: Sofers, ancient Jewish scribes, committed these words to print in the book of Genesis thousands of years ago. Each individual person is the image of a loving God – “tzelem elohim” in Hebrew, “imago dei” in Latin. Michelangelo used the language at which he was fluent – his gift for accurately depicting anatomy and physiology – to communicate the essence of the relationship between the Judeo-Christian God and each individual person.

Adam and God meet face to face, eye to eye, in the Sistine Chapel fresco. Exodus 33:11 tells us that “The Lord spoke with Moses face to face, just as a man speaks with his friend.” Deuteronomy 5:4 tells us that “the Lord spoke to his people Israel” face to face as well. In Numbers 6:25, God blesses thus “The Lord let his face shine upon you.” The Bible repeatedly adjures us to seek God’s face. “When thou saidst, Seek ye my face; my heart said unto thee, Thy face, Lord, will I seek” Psalm 27:8. “Face to face:” this metonym has meant intimate connection – human and spiritual – for the past four thousand years. “To face” means “to meet.” The sixth amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to face one’s accuser. “Face” often means “dignity,” e.g. “To save face.” This is true not just of English, but of many languages. In Medieval Slavic languages, “without face” means “shame.” In China and other Asian cultures, face is reputation, honor, and dignity.

Adam is an individual, apart from a mob. The Talmud teaches that God created only one Adam, rather than a group of men at once, to emphasize the value of each, individual life. One man, in himself, is an entire universe. The Bible teaches: you matter. Not some ideal you. Not you as a cog in a big machine. You who you are, right now. You matter. The God who created the universe wants contact with you. Bring your moment-by-moment concerns to God. Suffering? Pray. Rejoicing? Pray. Sick? Pray. Worried about someone else? Pray. Anxious for yourself? Pray. (James 5 13-18, Philippians 4:6). David, Mary, and Jesus model candid, spontaneous prayer. David nags God in the Psalms, Mary spikes the ball in the Magnificat, and Jesus on the cross holds back nothing. No prayers are as poignant as the prayers of desperate women. Hannah is reprimanded for the intensity of her prayer – “Lady, are you drunk?” – and the woman with a hemorrhage prays her tentative, tiny prayer silently, “If only I can touch the hem of his garment.”

Read more

Submission – Islam does not mean peace

Submissiony-Position-for-PJ (1)By Bill Warner, July 30, 2015:

The word “Islam” means “submission”. In Islam one submits to the Koran, the words of Allah, and to the Sunna, the life example of Mohammed. One does this by following them without question. One also submits to the “umma”, the community of Islam, and to the “Sharia”, the divine law of Allah.
The problem is that submission does not just apply to Muslims, it applies to the Kafir, the non-believer as well.

The Search for “Moderate Islam”

Goodbye Cruel WorldPhilos Project, by Andrew Harrod, April 8, 2015:

Critical observers should be cautious when presented with the idea of a moderate Islam. While keynote speakers at a recent Washington Institute for Near East Policypresentation asked their audience to believe that this ideal is not only attainable, but already a reality, their articulation of a true Islamic religion of peace fell short of convincing the crowd – and rightly so.

“Fighting for Moderate Islam: Ideas and Activism on the New Front Line” was headlined by The Washington Institute’s David Pollock, who opened the event by explaining that would-be Islamic reformers like Washington Institute colleague Mohammed Dajani are in considerable danger because of their beliefs. Assailants torched Dajani’s car at his Jerusalem home the day his article “A Plea for Moderate Islam” appeared, and this was only one of many threats to the man’s life. Dajani described the about-face he made after witnessing the generous humanity of his “perceived enemy,” Israel, and recounted how ill-received his Saul-to-Paul-like conversion was from his fellow Palestinians.

During his tenure as a professor at Jerusalem’s Al Quds University, Dajani faced accusations of CIA recruitment and the teaching of “American Islam.” Experiences he faced while leading a 2014 student trip to the Nazi death camp memorial at Auschwitz, a topic of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories among majority-Muslim communities, finally forced his resignation.

American Islamic Congress co-founder and executive director Zainab Al-Suwaij said that she is constantly worried about threats similar to Dajani’s – not just abroad, but here at home. Al-Suwaij, the Iraqi granddaughter of a Shiite ayatollah, fled Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship after participating in the 1991 post-Gulf War revolt to overthrow Hussein before establishing her career and family in the United States. Soberly, she said that Al-Qaeda’s Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States made her realize that “the terror I had left behind is not always back there.”

Al-Suwaij said that extremism within the American Muslim community is dehumanizing and is “spreading like a cancer – quietly.” She pointed out that this form of jihadism in America has often been masked by moderation since the events of 9/11, giving the false illusion that “we are now in a safer place.”

An attendee at President Barack Obama’s Countering Violent Extremism summit, Al-Suwaij said that she would have preferred that the event be titled “Countering Radical Islamism,” which was the actual focus of the president’s summit. Although Al-Suwaij said that “Muslims and Islam – their religion – are the first victims of this dangerous ideology,” she was reticent to give specifics about the Islamist backgrounds of groups like theCouncil on American-Islamic Relations or the Islamic Society of North America.

Al-Suwaij said that what she sought most of all was “a voice of moderate Islam” that involved a reinterpretation of Islamic canonical texts. She said that this was not unheard of, but had occurred fairly often in Islamic history – albeit mostly due to pressure from Islamic regimes, not from the Muslim grassroots. She accused groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria of their own kind of brutal revisionism.

In all, Al-Suwaij said that she was optimistic that the social climate within Islamic communities would change for the better. Although extreme groups like ISIS have limited appeal among Muslims, she attributed deficient American Muslim anti-extremism efforts to the widespread desire of those who simply want to live a “normal life” without political fights. After all, many American Muslims simply do not care to air their dirty laundry for the world to see.

Seconding Al-Suwaij’s call for ideological warfare, Dajani said that another “version of Islam” is needed, in the face of groups like the Islamic State. He said that it was wrong for struggles against jihadist threats to consume so much military attention while “soft messages” that can influence Islam get little notice. Hence his assertion that Israel’s anti-terrorism barrier (the “wall”) was ineffective and consumed resources that would be better spent winning Palestinian friendship with development aid. His overgenerous spirit also included former ISIS fighters who were disillusioned when they returned to their home countries. His prescription: “Don’t treat them like criminals; embrace them.”

Dajani’s devil came in his theological details. To promote his vision of Islam, he founded the Wasatia Reconciliation Center, an organization whose name is derived from the Arabic word wasat from Quran 2:143, a word that can mean “middle ground.” Although Dajani said that he seeks to avoid extremes, his online explanatory documents note that, in the “Holy Quran,” wasat also “means justice, righteousness and goodness,” as various English Quran translations indicate. A writer at Islamic Revival argued that wasat “is unrelated to being extreme or moderate,” but requires the Muslim community to “resume the Islamic way of life by re-establishing the true State of Islam.”

Similarly shallow canonical foundations can also be found in Dajani’s rejection of Islamic anti-Semitism. He failed to counter copious instances of Islamic anti-Semitism such as a well-known, infamous canonical saying – or hadith – of Muhammad that predicted a genocidal end-times battle with the Jews. While Dajani called this hadith “fabricated,” Islam scholar Martin Kramer countered by saying its authenticity is “rated triple-A.”

Dajani also cited a hadith that described the Prophet Muhammad’s standing in respect for the funeral bier of a Jew, but more detailed Islamic interpretations explained that the prophet had merely stood for the angels who were receiving that Jew’s soul.

In a later interview, Dajani clarified that he hopes most of all to build “bridges of understanding” between people of various faiths whose values are common among religions. He rejected a “radical school” that believes “Islam has come to correct the other religions, rather than to complement other religions,” even though such correction is standard Islamic dogma. “Taken as a whole, the Quran’s moral message is consistent,” he said, but his evaluation rejects Islam’s abrogation doctrine, under which chronologically later, aggressive Quran verses replace earlier, tolerant passages.

Dajani’s presentation expressed optimism in winning over the Muslim people, but conceded that “people tell me that this is a one-man effort.” He and Al-Suwaij undoubtedly mean well, but Islam’s often violent, intolerant canons present steep theological hurdles to developing an Islam with a human face. Al-Suwaij and Dajani’s well-wishers should look before they make any leap of faith on the basis of an Islamic reform project.

Islamic State – Do We Believe Obama or Mohammed?

Political Islam, by Bill Warner:

We’re at the time in history when ISIS, also called Islamic State or ISIL, has cut off the head of someone in the media. And it was so atrocious that many chose to speak out against it and one of them was Obama.

Here’s what Obama says about Islamic State, “They’ve rampaged across cities and villages killing innocents. They abduct women and children, subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They’ve murdered Moslems, both Sunni and Shia, by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them because they practice a different religion. ISIL speaks for no religion.”

Well, really what Obama’s saying here is Islamic State is not Islamic. That’s really what he’s saying briefly. But, you know it’s not up to Obama to tell us what Islam is. Islam is defined by Mohammed and Allah.

Now, let’s see what happened in the Sira, the life of Mohammed, his official biography, about all these points and let’s start with of all things, rape. On the occasion of Khaybar, once the Jews had been crushed, Mohammed put forth new orders as to how sex would be had with captured women. They were not to be had sex with when they’re having their period, nor if they’re pregnant.So here we have Mohammed giving orders on how to have sex with captives. This is called rape. It is pure Mohammed.

Now, what about the issue of torture. Well, on the same event, once he crushed the Jews at Khaybar, he knew they had buried treasure and so he questioned the chieftain. “Where’s the money? Where’s the gold? Where’s the silver?” And he wouldn’t tell him. So, Mohammed ordered the chieftain staked out on the ground and a small fire built on his chest. Still he would not speak. And so they unstaked him and took him to a man who had lost a brother in the fight against the Jews at Khaybar and he beheaded the Jewish chieftain.

So, here in one event we have torture, we have Jew hatred and we have beheading. All of these are pure Islam.

Now, let’s deal with sex slaves. From the lot of the women, Mohammed had chosen three to give as gifts of pleasure to his chief lieutenants. He gave one to Umar, gave one to Ali and one to Uthman. Oddly enough, Umar passed his sex slave on to his son. So, sex slavery is pure Mohammed.

Now, what about slavery? I’m going to read you a list of things that Mohammed was involved in with slavery. All of these come from the Sira. And by the way, all of these references can be found on politicalislam.com. He was involved in every aspect of slavery. He had Kafir men killed so their women could be made slaves. He gave away slaves for gifts. He owned many slaves, many of them black. He stood by while others beat slaves. He shared the pleasure of forced sex with women conquests. He captured slaves and wholesaled them and retailed them for the profit of jihad. His favorite sexual partner was a sex slave, a Christian woman, who bore him a son. He got slaves as gifts. His pulpit was made by a slave. He ate meals prepared by slaves. His robes were repaired by slaves. And he approved of having sex with your slaves. And if a slave didn’t obey his master he would not go to paradise. Well, that’s pretty clear about the slavery, an issue in Islam.

Now, let’s deal with the last thing, killing Christians. Mohammed had two records in dealing with Christians in Arabia. One was he was kind to them and listened to them. But, once he had crushed the pagans and once he had crushed the Jews, he then turned his attention to the Christians. He sent Khalid, also known as The Sword of Allah, to the fort of a Christian ruler and when the ruler and his brother rode out they killed one and captured the other and subjugated the Christian tribe, made them obey the Sharia and pay the jizyah.

Let me be very clear, Mohammed was a pagan killer, a Jew killer and a Christian killer. Now, let’s go back to what started this off. Who is to determine what Islam is, Obama? No. Mohammed tells us what Islam is and we need to listen to Mohammed and we can ignore Mr. Obama.

Thank you.