Muslims Are Super Sad Because Tennessee Middle Schoolers Will No Longer Learn The FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM

Getty Images, YouTube screenshot/qrnano

Getty Images, YouTube screenshot/qrnano

Daily Caller, Eric Owens, October 3, 2016:

Newly-revised world history and social studies standards for taxpayer-funded Tennessee middle schools will no longer include teaching students the Five Pillars of Islam while pointedly ignoring the basic tenets of Christianity.

A group of teacher created the draft of Tennessee’s new “Islamic World” standards, reports Nashville CBS affiliate WTVF.

Students will also no longer be required to learn about the teachings of Muhammad; the Quran, Islam’s primary text; or the Sunnah, a statement of Muslim religious practices.

Other rejected curriculum standards include material about the political rise of Islam, the geography of the Arabian Peninsula and differences between the Sunnis.

According to the Kingsport Times-News, the new draft standards will include excerpts from “The Hadith” — various sayings attributed to Muhammad — and from “The Book of Golden Meadows,” a collection of anecdotes by Arab historian and geographer Al-Masudi which charts the beginning of the world from Adam and Eve through the later period of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Also, Tennessee middle schoolers will have to be able to “explain the importance of the Malian king, Mansa Musa, and his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1324” and to “describe the diffusion of Islam, its culture and the Arabic language.”

State Board of Education policy director Laura Encalade described the revisions as but a small part of “a wide variety of changes to the standards” “across all grade levels and content areas,” according to WTVF.

Kasar Abdullah, a Muslim living in the Nashville area, expressed disappointment that all Tennessee children will no longer be required to learn about the teachings of Muhammad in public schools.

“How does it impact that Muslim child who never seems to hear anything about who they are?” Abdullah asked in an interview with the CBS affiliate, “It seems to me it tells that child you’re not important.”

“The question we should ask ourselves is what is the purpose of our schools our institutions,” Abdullah also said. “Are we to teach our students just a singular narrative?”

In a press release sent to The Daily Caller last week, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) described Tennessee’s proposed new curriculum standards as “Islamophobia.”

Last fall CAIR called on Tennessee residents to oppose state legislation that would have prevented public schools from teaching the principles of Islam and every other religion until students reach the 10th grade. (RELATED: CAIR Demands Tennessee 7th Graders Learn ‘Muhammad Is The Messenger Of God’)

The legislation authored by Republican Sheila Butt was largely in response to a grassroots campaign across the state by parents — primarily evangelical parents — against what they perceive as an inappropriate focus on Islam in history and social studies courses in taxpayer-funded middle schools.

Complaining parents from across Tennessee had expressed alarm because their children in public middle schools were learning about the Five Pillars of Islam in a world history and social studies classes. (The first and most important pillar is roughly translated as: “There is no god but God. Muhammad is the messenger of God.” (RELATED: Public School Parents Angry After Middle Schoolers Instructed To Write ‘ALLAH IS THE ONLY GOD’)

The angry parents observed that the state’s curriculum material pointedly ignores Christianity. At no point do Tennessee middle school students study Christianity per se, they said. There is not, for example, one class day dedicated to the basic Jesus story.

A local school district official, Jan Hanvey, told The Daily Herald that students in Maury County students would eventually come across a reference to Christianity when history teachers reach the “Age of Exploration” in eighth grade. Then, Hanvey said, students hear about Christians persecuting other Christians in some countries in Western Europe.

A committee appointed by Tennessee state lawmakers is expected to give final approval to the new standards after a public comment period ends on Oct. 28.

After final approval, local school districts will draft their own local curriculums, based on the new state standards, and choose textbooks.

Some 17,000 people have already viewed the draft standards online, notes WTVF. (All of the standards are available here.)

For reasons that are not entirely clear, Tennessee appears to be an epicenter for America’s continuing encounter with Islam.

In July 2015, lone Muslim gunman Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez, a 24-year-old naturalized citizen from Kuwait, brutally murdered four Marines at a military recruiting center and a Naval reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn.

Back in February, leaders of ISIS took to the group’s propaganda magazine to urge followers to assassinate Houston, Texas-born Yasir Qadhi, a professor who teaches at Rhodes College in Memphis. (RELATED: ISIS Is Now Threatening To Murder A COLLEGE PROFESSOR IN TENNESSEE)

In 2013, officials at Sunset Elementary School in the affluent Nashville suburb of Brentwood rescinded a ban on delicious pork just one day after it went into effect because parents complained. The parents and other locals believed that the prohibition on pork had been an attempt to defer to the sensibilities of unidentified Muslim students. (RELATED: Tennessee Elementary School Lifts Fatwa Against Pork After Parents Complain)

Over 80 percent of the residents of Tennessee identify as Christian, according to a 2014 Pew poll. About one percent of Volunteer State residents call themselves Muslim.

CAIR is most notable, of course, because the organization was listed by the U.S. government as an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme that provided funding to the terror group Hamas.

In 2014, the United Arab Emirates officially designated 83 groups as terrorist organizations, including CAIR.

Follow Eric on TwitterLike Eric on Facebook. Send education-related story tips to erico@dailycaller.com.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/03/muslims-sad-because-tennessee-schools-drop-five-pillars-of-islam/#ixzz4M3fQ37bw

God vs. the Sociologists: the Role of Religion in Terrorism

word-cloud-615-407

The civil war that is happening within Islam across the globe has much more to do with fault-lines within the religion than it does with economic or sociological factors.

Those fault lines originated with the death of Mohammed, and they come down to two key questions: Who is the successor to Mohammed, and what are the sources of authority in Islam?

Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, by Katharine Cornell Gorka, September 23, 2016:

Two of the predominant ways of looking at the problem of ISIS are either as a sociological problem or as a theological problem.  The Obama administration takes the first view; its critics take the second.

From the beginning of his presidency, President Obama has deflected blame for terrorism away from the religion of Islam. For him and his administration, the fault lies not with the religion but in ‘upstream factors’: economic, political, and sociological causes.

President Barack Obama speaks at Cairo University in Cairo, Thursday, June 4, 2009. In his speech, President Obama called for a 'new beginning between the United States and Muslims', declaring that 'this cycle of suspicion and discord must end'.  Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy

President Barack Obama speaks at Cairo University in Cairo, Thursday, June 4, 2009. In his speech, President Obama called for a ‘new beginning between the United States and Muslims’, declaring that ‘this cycle of suspicion and discord must end’.
Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy

In his seminal Cairo speech, delivered at Al-Azhar University in Egypt on June 4, 2009, President Obama identified three explanations for Muslim discontent and violence:

  • colonialism, by which the West denied rights and opportunities to Muslims;
  • the Cold War, which led the West to treat Muslims as proxies and to disregard their aspirations; and
  • modernization and globalization, which bred Western hostility toward Islam.

According to this view, Muslim extremism is driven by legitimate grievances and has nothing to do with factors that might lie within the religion itself. The policies that naturally follow from such a view gloss over the role of religion and focus instead on addressing those alleged grievances.

Thus has the administration proceeded. In numerous speeches President Obama has expressed his support for Islam and its importance to the United States. He provided verbal, financial and technical support for anti-government forces during the Arab Spring (which included support for both secular forces as well as Islamist parties). And he withdrew nearly all combat troops from Iraq in 2011 and from Afghanistan in 2014.

If U.S. “meddling” in the region as well as perceived Western hostility toward Islam were in fact the root causes of Islamist terrorism, then these new policies could reasonably have been expected to bring about the demise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, al Nusra Front, Boko Haram and other Islamist groups.

But they did not. Indeed, we have seen the very opposite.

When President Obama came into office, Osama bin Laden was in hiding and Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) had all but disappeared. Since that time,

  • AQI evolved into ISIS, declared the Caliphate, and took over a territory the size of Great Britain with fully functioning affiliates in 18 countries;
  • Syria erupted into a civil war that has now raged for more than 5 years, claiming the lives of more than 400,000 and setting off the largest refugee crisis the world has seen;
  • Osama bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is resurgent under the leadership of Ayman al Zawahiri;
  • Libya is roiled by civil war and chaos;
  • Boko Haram continues its war against Christians and moderate Muslims in Nigeria;
  • the Taliban rules in much of Afghanistan; and
  • the jihadists have brought their violence to the West with deadly attacks throughout Europe and the United States.

There could be no clearer evidence that the current strategy against Islamist violence is failing.

REASSESSING THE THREAT

Where does the solution lie? First, it requires a revised assessment of the threat. The sociological assessment of the threat is wrong. A growing body of evidence demonstrates that grievances are not the key cause of extremism. Jihadists, as a rule, are not undereducated or underprivileged.

While upstream factors might be exacerbating, ideology is a far more important motivator. The problem is that the ideology of jihad is inextricably rooted in religion and this notion makes most Americans profoundly uncomfortable.

From 4th grade civics classes onwards, Americans are schooled in the notion that others should not be judged for their religion. It is far easier and more comfortable to blame poverty or tyrants or even ourselves for Islamist terrorism. But we must get over this squeamishness when it comes to talking about religion, because religion is central to the conflicts in the Middle East.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (Aljazeera)

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi (Aljazeera)

When Abu Bakr al Baghdadi declared the establishment of the Caliphate on June 29, 2014, his concern was not poverty or modern nation states or democracy; it was Islam. A word-cloud analysis of his speech makes that incontestably clear:

word-cloud-web

All the evidence that has since emerged from the Islamic States only serves to reinforce that fact. Most recently, a defector from ISIS, Mohammed Imal Khweis, said, “Our daily life was prayer, eating and learning about the religion for 8 hours.”

FAULT LINES WITHIN ISLAM

The civil war that is happening within Islam across the globe has much more to do with fault-lines within the religion than it does with economic or sociological factors.

Those fault lines originated with the death of Mohammed, and they come down to two key questions: Who is the successor to Mohammed, and what are the sources of authority in Islam?

After Mohammed completed his last pilgrimage and shortly before he died, in 632 A.D., he is said to have preached for three hours in the blistering sun to more than 100,000 of his followers at Ghadir Khumm. There, he took the hand of Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, and said, “For whomever I am his Leader, Ali is his leader.”

Was Mohammad appointing Ali his successor, as the Shi’a believe? Or was he merely saying that Ali was deserving of esteem and affection, as the Sunni believe?

This lack of clarity over Mohammed’s successor led to the assassination of three of the first four caliphs and the eventual division of the Muslim community into Shi’a and Sunni.

Today, this debate over the rightful successor to Mohammed continues to fuel enmity between Sunni and Shi’a: it drives Turkey’s and Saudi Arabia’s support for Sunni Islamists in Syria against Iran’s support for the Shia in Syria and Iraq.

The second fault line within Islam today arises over the question of who has authority in Islam, particularly with regard to the law. During Muhammed’s lifetime, the putative revelations he received helped him to elaborate the faith. Some of the pre-Islamic tribal laws and practices remained in place, but in many instances Muhammad laid down new laws and new ways of conducting oneself.

Indeed a part of what makes this body of rules—Sharia, as it has come to be known—so distinctive from the Western concept of law is that it is not merely a set of laws but rather an all-encompassing way of life. Sharia includes laws on ownership, inheritance, divorce, and slavery, but it also includes guidelines on how to pray, how to wash, how to relate to others, even how to enter a room.

This was distinct from the Christian tradition. Jesus Christ had introduced a new set of rules for the spiritual life, to be practiced by his followers while living under Roman laws (the “Render unto Caesar” passage). Mohammad presented a comprehensive system which provided both spiritual guidelines as well as laws. Christians saw themselves as a subset that had to live within a broader society. Islam saw itself as the whole society.

Thus those Muslims who argue for theocracy have all the theological ammunition they need to justify it.

As long as Mohammad was alive, he was the arbiter of the law because he was both the leader of the community and the conduit to Allah. He delivered the word of Allah on what was right and wrong, allowed and forbidden. The Muslim community thus lost its direct access to divine revelation when Mohammed died.

Only a handful of crimes had been explicitly named in the Qu’ran: theft, fornication, false accusation, and the waging of war against Islam or “spreading disorder in the land.”

What happens when situations are encountered that had not been specifically addressed by Mohammad?

POST-MOHAMMAD DIVISION

Since the Qu’ran was the word of Allah, as conveyed by Mohammad, was the Qu’ran the only legitimate source of law? Or since Muhammad was the chosen messenger of Allah, were his words and deeds outside of the Qu’ran also an authoritative source?

And what about the Rightly Guided Caliphs, those companions of Muhammad who had lived and worked alongside the Prophet and after his death had been so favored by Allah with victory in expanding the empire of Islam? Were not their elaborations of the law in those first decades after the death of Muhammad also an authoritative source? Similarly, were not the scholars and inhabitants of Medina a source of authority by virtue of having preserved the practices of Mohammad?

And finally, what about the role of human reason? Could man use reason to draw analogies between circumstances encountered by Muhammad and the present day?

These are the contours of the debate that ensued in the centuries following the death of Mohammad.

Four principal schools of law emerged, all of which agreed on the most important sacred sources, albeit with differences of emphasis among them:

  • the Qu’ran,
  • the words and actions of Muhammad (as preserved in the hadith and the sunna),
  • the example of the Companions of the Prophet, and
  • tradition.

THE ROLE OF REASON

But passionate and murderous debate ensued over the role of reason.

A group of scholars who came to be known as the Mu’tazalites emerged around the 8th century. They argued that there is an objective moral order that man can know through reason, and therefore human reason must be considered a legitimate source of authority in Islam. (This is an argument very similar to theories of Natural Law that had been developed from Greek philosophy and later Christian theologians, and to which the Mu’tazilites were exposed through translations.)

For a brief time, the Mu’tazalites held sway, and those who argued that reason had no role to play were threatened, flogged, imprisoned, banished, even murdered—indeed this period is referred to as Islam’s Inquisition (Mihna). But then the tables turned and those who stood in favor of reason were themselves quashed.

One of the most contentious debates sparked by the Mu’tazalite movement concerned the nature of the Qu’ran.

Not dissimilar to debates in the early Church over the nature of Jesus Christ—is Christ human or is He divine?—for Muslims the question was whether the Qu’ran was uncreated, co-eternal with Allah, or created. According to the Mu’tazalites, logic dictated that the Qu’ran could not be co-eternal with Allah because Allah must have preceded his own speech.

Why does this seemingly obscure point matter so much today? Because if the Qu’ran was uncreated, co-eternal with Allah, then it must remain true for all time and its laws and proscriptions must be followed to the letter.

This is the foundation of the argument of groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS in establishing 7th century rules and punishments. If, on the other hand, the Qu’ran was created for a specific time and place, then it can be adapted and amended for a new time and place.

Here lies the greatest potential for Islam to adapt to the modern world, to live peacefully alongside other religions, to end Islamist violence. Unfortunately, the Mu’tazalites were thoroughly defeated by about the 10th century, and those who have tried to revive the Mu’tazalite argument have been equally plagued.

These are the very profound fault lines within Islam, of which ISIS and Al Qaeda are but one manifestation. Asserting that terrorism has nothing to do with religion, as President Obama has done, is to ignore the very real conflict within the Muslim world.

To think that the United States can have a constructive role in this process by merely taking out key leaders of terrorist groups with drone strikes is to miss the point entirely. This is not a conflict of our making, nor is it ours to solve, but without a doubt the United States has an important role to play. Understanding the religious dimension of the conflict is the starting point in ensuring that it is not an exacerbating one.

Katharine Cornell Gorka is the President of the Council on Global Security and co-editor of Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism. In her current position, Katharine focuses on the threat posed by Islamic terrorism and radical ideologies. She works closely with U.S. government agencies, law enforcement and the intelligence community. Katharine is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and received a master’s degree in International Political Economy from the London School of Economics.

Print Version PDF

On the Worthlessness of Islamic Studies Departments, Programs, & Scholars

Screen-Shot-2016-09-01-at-8.12.42-AMPolitichicks, by Alexis Jemima, Sept. 3, 2016:

I’m a graduate of one such program myself–[I did my doctorate in Near East Studies (classical Arabic and Persian languages; dissertation on the history of Mecca and early Islam) at the Near East Department at a major university]–and I’m dismayed when I see the proliferation of such programs in our universities and colleges. They add more to the darkness than they do to the light.

The reason is almost as simple as it is largely ignored. It’s the same reason Islam gets away with being the single greatest source of murder, terror, torture, oppression, mutilation, slavery, and destruction the world has ever seen, over the entire 1400 years of its existence–and still gets a free pass and an open door from the pinnacle of freedom-and-tolerance-loving, liberal, advanced civilizations, the 21st century West.

The matter hinges on the protective cover of the word “religion”. Maybe I should say, “deceptive cover”. It was a stroke of genius. And so easy, the wonder is that more power-and-wealth-hungry would-be world conquerers haven’t thought to use this trick.

Here’s how it was done:

When Muhammad began his preaching (around the year 610 AD), he didn’t need to come up with material out of thin air. Much of the contents of the Qur’an ‘revealed’ to him while he was at Mecca, which was during his first 12 years as a prophet, are borrowings straight out of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. He took all the important names: Abraham (rendered into Arabic as Ibrahim), Moses (Musa), Joseph (Yusuf), Ishmael (Ismail) etc. He took many of the customs, such as the weekly Sabbath day, the Holy Book or written Scripture, foreswearing of idolatry, and the concept of monotheism, from the Christians and Jews who at that time constituted a large proportion of the population of Arabia. He took stories from the Bible, in fractured form, in some places replacing Jewish characters with Arab ones (e.g., Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, near Jerusalem, in the Qur’an becomes a near-sacrifice of Ismail, near Mecca). He lifted whole verses of the Psalms, translated into Arabic, verbatim–some even keeping their original Hebrew vocabulary.

By borrowing the name of Abraham and co-opting the story of his history with Isaac, Muhammad gave Islam its astounding designation as “one of the world’s 3 great Abrahamic faiths”. And the most useful part of that, as it turns out, is its designation as a ‘faith’.

He could not have anticipated the doors this term would open for his followers more than a thousand years later, throughout the modern western world. In 7th century Arabia, after Muhammad fled Mecca for Medina in 622 (which ‘flight’ or ’emigration’–“hijrah”–is the official starting moment of Islam), the nature of his ‘revelations’ changed from fractured liftings from the Bible to administrative rules and justifications for his own totalitarian authority and the waging of war.

The Qur’an revealed in Medina presented a world divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’–‘us’ being Muslims, those who ‘submitted’ (literal meaning of Muslim) to Allah and therefore, to Muhammad; and ‘them’ being infidels–everyone who does not submit–who are to be subjugated, converted by the sword, raped, tortured, enslaved, or killed.

The Islamic view of the earth to this day divides it into two: the Dar al-Islam (“the realm of Submission”, that is, Islamic lands ruled by a caliph under Shari’ah)–and all the rest of the earth: the Dar al-Harb–which means, “the realm of war”.

Once arrived at Medina, Muhammad began gathering armies of mainly illiterate Bedouin from the deserts of Arabia, and demanding their absolute loyalty to him; to kill and die for him and obey his commands without hesitation or question. The faith he invoked was a strong recruitment tool, with its promise that in killing “for Allah” you are pleasing the supreme being and bringing glory to his name and eternal reward to yourself.

This promise, added to Muhammad’s skills as a warlord and the earthly booty promised to fighters who survived (not only plundered loot, but captive women and children as sex slaves–all taken with the blessings of Allah) meant that a soldier joining his side couldn’t lose. Survive and you get plunder and captives to rape and enslave; die and you go to the highest rung of Paradise, with unimaginable luxury (spelled out in detail) plus an eternity of carnal satisfaction with 72 ever-renewing virgins of either sex and any age, shape, appearance that you want.

There was a strong disincentive to resisting recruitment, too: refuse to join Muhammad’s army–or opt to leave it–and you’ll suffer a gruesome death.

Within Muhammad’s lifetime the whole of Arabia was conquered.

So why are western scholars so confused?

If you look at the Qur’an, you’ll find verses revealed at Mecca (bits and pieces from Judeo/Christian lore and from the Bible); and verses from Medina (a manual for totalitarian control, subjugation, warfare, and world conquest). These are intermingled, as the Qur’an is not printed in chronological order but rather in order of longest-to-shortest chapters.

If all its verses are analyzed and quantified, however, you’ll find that the vast majority of the Qur’an’s contents (and even more of its companion books, the Hadith and the Sira, which clarify any ambiguities found in the Qur’an) are about totalitarian control and war.

And then, you’ll find something even more startling: the Bible-lifted, religion-sounding verses from the Meccan period have been replaced and cancelled–abrogated–by the intolerant, murderous ones from the Medinan period. This is explained in the Qur’an itself, which reports that Allah revealed to Muhammad that wherever two verses contradict each other, the later one abrogates the former. All the violent, Medinan verses came after the more peaceful ones, which were from Mecca.

So, if we look at Islam as a whole, what we find is essentially a totalitarian political system for war, subjugation of all others, and world conquest…disguised in a thin veneer of vaguely religious-sounding ornamentation. It must be said, that even the ‘do this for Allah’ verses are–quite unlike what we usually call ‘religion’–demands for blind obedience to Muhammad and justification for all manner of cruelty done with the aim of spreading Islam.

If I were to characterize Islam with one image, it would be of a huge, ferocious war elephant with bloodied tusks. This war elephant is covered, however, in a beautiful thin blanket richly embroidered.

The Islamic Studies programs, without exception in my experience, spend all their time and attention focused on the embroidery on that blanket.

Alexis Jemima did her doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, with a focus on Early Islam. She reads Arabic, Persian, and Hebrew (among other languages), and has lived and studied in Muslim countries as well as in Israel. Alexis loves animals of all kinds, and worked through graduate school as a Middle Eastern dancer

Islam, Child Marriage, and the Washington Post

maxresdefault (4)Answering Muslims, by David Wood, August 2, 2016:

The Washington Post recently published an article titled: “Six-Year-Old Afghan Girl Reportedly Sold in Marriage.” The article claims that child marriage is an Afghan tribal practice that violates the teachings of Islam. Apparently, writers at the Washington Post have never studied Islam. In Islam’s most trusted sources on the life of Muhammad, we read:

Sahih Muslim 3480—It was narrated that Aishah said: “The Prophet married me when I was six years old, and consummated the marriage with me when I was nine years old.”

Sahih Muslim 3482—It was narrated from Aishah that: “The Messenger of Allah married her when she was six years old and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine years old, and he died when she was eighteen years old.”

Muhammad and Terror

What is the difference between a Muslim who applies henna to his beard and a Muslim who beheads someone for rejecting Islam?

Answer: There is no difference.  Both are following the example of the behavior of Muhammad — his sunna.

This is an important word, because it is where the Sunnis take their name.  The Sunnis, who make up 90 percent of all Muslims, are the followers of the ways of Muhammad, his behavior in all areas of his life.  The Shias also follow the ways of Muhammad, as do Muslims from every minor sect.

The imitation of Muhammad could be as innocuous as wearing a full beard and applying orange coloration by dyeing it with henna, or stepping into a mosque with the right foot, but stepping out of it on the left foot.  It is recorded that Muhammad did such things.  Because Muhammad did it, imitating him is a way of racking up points with Allah.

Muhammad’s sunna including dyeing his beard with henna so that it appeared orange. Many fundamentalist Muslims will dye their beards because that’s what Muhammad did.

Muhammad’s sunna including dyeing his beard with henna so that it appeared orange. Many fundamentalist Muslims will dye their beards because that’s what Muhammad did.

Thus is also considered praiseworthy to eat with two fingers and lick them three times after a meal, and triply praiseworthy to lick three fingers three times.  And much more.  An entire book held in great esteem by Muslims is the Shamail by Tirmizi, which gives an account of Muhammad’s mannerisms, habits, and physical characteristics.  Osama bin Laden was known to model his mannerisms and habits by imitating what is found about Muhammad in the Shamail.

Muhammad also gave the example of horrific barbarity. His biography is a chronicle of assassinations, mass murder, genocide, plunder, and the enslavement of men, women, and children — all against people who refused to accept him as “the last and final prophet,” as he claimed about himself.  Osama bin Laden followed Muhammad’s example of mass murder, and it cost 3,000 people their lives on Sept. 11, 2001.

Muhammad beheaded people who rejected him, making it part of his sunna. Because he chopped off heads, Muslims today chop of heads of people who reject Islam

Muhammad beheaded people who rejected him, making it part of his sunna. Because he chopped off heads, Muslims today chop of heads of people who reject Islam

If Muslims were to limit their imitation of Muhammad to brushing their teeth the way he did, Islam might have a legitimate place in the non-Muslim world.  But Muslims cannot pick and choose.  Once they believe that he was the “Messenger of God” — the affirmation of faith contained in the shahada, the Muslim declaration of faith — they are declaring their faith that everything he did was good because it was in furtherance of God’s cause — including his violence against people who rejected him

Muhammad’s body was reduced to dust nearly 14 centuries ago, but his spirit lives on in his Koran, which contains numerous incitements to violence against people who rejected him, and in the example of his behavior — his sunna.   Every time suicide bombers blow themselves up, killing other people along with them, there is Muhammad.  When the 9/11 hijackers slammed their passenger airplanes into buildings, there was Muhammad in the cockpit with them.  Just today, as 50 people fell to the machine gun bullets of a Muslim who walked into a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, and opened fire, the spirit of Muhammad hovered in the background, nodding with approval.

The saying, “Know your enemy,” is attributed to Sun Tzu, the 6th century BC Chinese military strategist and author of The Art of War.  If you don’t understand your enemy, but your enemy understands you, you lose.  Islam understands the West, but the West does not understand Islam.  The proof is that the West allows not just immigration from Muslim countries, but massive immigration of people who are committed to bringing about a world dominated by Islam.  That is what Islam aspires to do because that is what Muhammad commanded it to do and showed how to do it by his example, his sunna.

Sun Tzu also said that all warfare is based on deception.  Muhammad knew this and said the same to his followers.  This is the practice as Islam spreads in the West: Show a friendly smile, insist that Islam is a religion of peace, but lay the groundwork to take over.

In the West some feeble efforts have begun to deal with Islam, such as banning the wearing of burkas and hijabs in public.  These measures would be laughable if they weren’t such chilling evidence of ignorance about Islam.

The only way to save your family, your country, and your civilization from Islam is to get rid of it, but most people still have a long way to go before understanding that this must be done.  It took Europe centuries of suffering Muslim predation before it finally organized crusades against Islam, ultimately pushing it back and containing it.  Today, the non-Muslim world does not have the luxury of waiting centuries to defend itself.

It is important to consider the concept of critical mass in the formation of political will to take action.  Without a critical mass of citizens who understand that Islam is their implacable enemy, and that it is implacable because it is founded on the behavior of Muhammad, his sunna, meaningful action will never be taken against it.  At best, the wearing of hijabs in public will be forbidden.  Critical mass can be achieved when those who have taken the trouble to understand that Islam is all about Muhammad teach what they know to others, and thus the knowledge spreads, and if this process is pursued aggressively, critical mass will eventually be achieved.  The political will to take meaningful action will be there.

The burden for this is on the shoulders of those who have already become enlightened.  In its perverse way, Islam is a helpmate in this, for every mass murder event such as the one in Florida encourages more people to understand what is behind it.  Be there with the answers.

This process of education would accelerate if enlightened people who also happen to possess financial resources step into producer shoes and develop movies depicting Muhammad — films that show this “Messenger of God” committing the atrocities that are attributed to him in Islam’s own literature.

Teach the grotesque truth about Muhammad, do so aggressively, and you will save your country and preserve your civilization.

This article may be reproduced in whole or in part provided the following attribution is given: Article by F. W. Burleigh, author of It’s All About Muhammad, a Biography of the World’s Most Notorious Prophet. He blogs atwww.itsallaboutmuhammad.com

Video: Robert Spencer on wasn’t Muhammad peaceful?

RS-on-Muhammad1115

Published on Apr 25, 2016 by JihadWatchVideo

In this third segment of his Basics of Islam series, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses whether or not Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, was peaceful, and the implications of his behavior for Islamic doctrine.

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

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

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

A Dozen Bad Ideas for the 21st Century

bad-ideas

Written in 2011, timeless wisdom from Mark Durie:

By Mark Durie, Feb. 10, 2011:

Here is a list of false beliefs and modes of thought which make it hard for people in the West to come to terms with the challenge of Islam today.  If you are deeply attached to any of these ideas or ways of thinking, you will have difficulty accepting the truth about Islam’s teachings and their impact.

  1. The belief that all religions are the same. They are not.  Different faiths make different claims about what is true, and about what is right and wrong and produce radically different societies.  The same is true for different political ideologies: consider the different trajectories of North and South Korea.  Atheists have helped entrench this belief, because to acknowledge material differences between religions would undermine the atheist (and radical secularist) narrative.
  2. The belief that religion is irrelevant as a cause of anything.  According to this view, religion can be exploited or hijacked as an excuse or an instrument (e.g. of oppression – such as an ‘opiate of the masses’), but not an underlying cause of anything.  Marxist ideology has made a significant contribution to establishing this belief. In accordance with this assumption, security analysts all over the Western world presuppose that religion cannot be the cause of terrorism: so they and the politicians they advise must say that terrorists have ‘hijacked’ religion.
  3. The belief that we all worship the same God. We do not. Thousands of different gods are worshipped by people on this earth.  These gods manifest different characteristics, and make different demands.  The worship of them forms very different kinds of people and communities.
  4. The belief that one can justify anything from any sacred text. This is not true.  It is a postmodern fallacy that all meaning is in the eye of the beholder.  Certain texts lends themselves to supporting particular beliefs and practices much more than others.
  5. The belief that the Christian Reformation was a progressive movement. This is not true.  In fact the Christian Reformers aimed to go back to the example and teaching of Christ and the apostles.  Throughout the  whole medieval period reformatioalways meant renewing the foundations by going back to one’s origins.   Understanding ‘reformation’ in this way, Al Qa’ida is a product of an Islamic reformation, i.e. it is an attempt to go back to the example and teaching of Muhammad.
  6. The belief that dispelling ignorance will increase positive regard for the other. This was the message of Harper Lee’s powerfull novel To Kill a Mockingbird(pub. 1960). Although it is true that racial hatred can feed on and exploit ignorance, accurately dispelling ignorance sometimes rightly increases the likelihood of rejecting the beliefs or practices of another. It is illogical to assume that those opposed to a belief are the ones who are most ignorant about it.  Ignorance can breed positive regard for what is wrong just as easily as it can breed prejudice against what is good.
  7. The belief that everyone is good and decent, and if you just make a sincere effort to get to know another person, you will always come to respect them.This is not universally true.  Holding this view is a luxury.  Those who have experienced life under evil governments or in dysfunctional societies are shocked at the naivety of this assumption.
  8. The belief that putting something in context will always produce a more innocuous interpretation.This is not true.  Attending properly to context can make a text even more offensive than it would otherwise have been.  Conversely, if you take something out of context you may regard it more positively than you ought to.  In reality, radical interpretations of the Qur’an, such as are used to support terrorism, almost always involve an appeal to a rich understanding of the context in which the Qur’an was revealed, including the life of Muhammad.  On the other hand, many have taken peaceful verses of the Qur’an out of context, in order to prove that Islam is a peaceful religion.
  9. The belief that extremism is the problem, and moderation the solution. Warnings against taking things to extremes are as old as Aristotle.  More recently the idea was promoted by Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer(pub. 1951) that mass movements are interchangeable, and an extremist is just as likely to become a communist or a fascist.  He claimed that it was the tendency to extremism itself which is the problem.  This idea has become very unhelpful and generates a lot of confusion. ‘Moderation’ or ‘laxity’ in belief or practice can be destructive and even dangerous, e.g. in medical surgery or when piloting a plane.  Ideas that are good and true deserve strong, committed support, and the best response to bad ideas is rarely lukewarm moderation.
  10. The belief that the West is always guilty. This irrational and unhelpful idea is taught in many schools today and has become embedded in the world views of many.  It is essentially a silencing strategy, sabotaging critical thinking.
  11. Two wrongs make a right reasoning.E.g. Someone says that jihad is a bad part of Islam, to which a defender of Islam says ‘What about the crusades?’  Someone says the Qur’an incites violence, to which someone else replies ‘But there are violent verses in the Bible.’  This kind of reasoning is a logical fallacy. A specific sub-type of this fallacy is tu quoque reasoning:

    Tu quoque (‘you too’) reasoning: you can’t challenge someone else’s beliefs or actions if you (or your group) have personally ever done anything wrong or have objectionable characteristics. E.g. A Catholic says jihad is bad, but someone counters that popes supported the Crusades. This is a sub-type of the ‘two wrongs make a right’ reasoning: it too is a logical fallacy.

  12. Belief in progress: everything will always get better in the end. This is a false, though seductive bit of wishful thinking.  Bad ideas have bad consequences.  Good societies can easily become bad ones if they exchange good ideas for bad ones.  Bad situations can last for a very long time, and keep getting progressively worse.  Many countries have deteriorated for extended periods during the past 100 years.  It is not true that ideologies or religions will inevitably improve or become more ‘moderate’ as time passes, as if by some magical process of temporal transformation.  But things are not always going to get better.

Video: Ex-Muslim uses Qur’an and Sunnah to answer question: Is the Islamic State Islamic?

islamic-state-topic-original-1407866105JIHAD WATCH, MARCH 12, 2016 BY

In these three videos, Hazem Farraj, an ex-Muslim, examines the question of whether or not the Islamic State is Islamic. He gives the answers straight from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Update: new video

Which Muhammad Rules?

unnamed (5)

NPR ignores a powerful question in Islamic law.

By Counter Jihad, March 11, 2016:

It is not every day that Islam’s Muhammad gets such good press as he did from America’s National Public Radio today.  The author, Tom Gjelten, wants you to know what a wonderful person Muhammad was.  He liked cucumbers, dying his hair, cool drinks, and clean fingernails.  He cites a Knoxville imam’s method as useful:

Even what seems like the most trivial detail — what kind of sandal he wore, for instance — serves a purpose: humanizing Muhammad, making it easier for Muslims to emulate him.

Hassan argues that if Muslims had more knowledge of how the Prophet Muhammad actually lived and what he taught, they would be less vulnerable to extremist propaganda….

He cites the abundance of examples from the Hadith that emphasize charity and respect for other faiths.

The tradition associated with the Prophet Muhammad, Hassan says, “has never been radicalized and has always produced beauty, always produced involvement in the community, always produced tolerance.”

The danger of speaking this way is partly that it ignores the other example left by the very same man, the example of murderous war against non-believers.  The other danger is that it ignores a well-established tradition in sharia law about how to understand Muhammad’s instructions.  The tradition uses the principle of naskh, an Arabic word that is often translated as “abrogation.”  Under this principle, what Muhammad said last governs in the case of a conflict between verses said by Muhammad.  The violent verses came last, because Muhammad’s wars were waged toward the end of his life.

This is an old and well-established standard of Islamic law.  “[T]he principle of abrogation of an older verse by a new verse of Quran, or within the Hadiths became a well established principle in Sharia at least by the 9th century.[3][4][5”  

This tradition of Islamic law has thus held firm for many centuries.  It could change, of course, and there are some within the Islamic world who would like to change it.  The Herald of Malaysia recently interviewed one Muslim scholar who would like to reverse the principle of naskh, interpreting Muhammad’s earlier and more peaceful verses as being the ones that govern.  Islam will not survive if it fails to do this, he argues.  His arguments are worth quoting at length, because they are the arguments of a real scholar from the Islamic world engaged in the problems that NPR paints over.

[E]xtremism has been endemic in Islam, present almost from the beginning of Islamic history. Muslims fought among themselves and quite vehemently even before the collection of Hadith and codification of [sharia], over a hundred to up to 300 years after the demise of the Prophet (pbuh), but they now consider them divine.Muslims have still not found an antidote to militant verses in the Quran that are now available to anyone with access to internet….  Saying that it is a Muslim’s primary religious duty to help establish God’s sovereignty on earth and impose “divine” [sharia] Laws is only a way to deepen extremism…  Muslims will just have to abandon the generally accepted current theology that leads to violence and supremacism and evolve a new theology, a coherent theology of peace and pluralism, consistent in all respects with the teachings of Islam, and suitable for contemporary and future societies….

ISIS may be militarily defeated tomorrow and even go out of existence. But this will not solve the problem of Muslim radicalisation. If our madrasas and educational institutions continue to prepare the ground for self-segregation and militancy, expounding the current theology… Muslims will continue to struggle to fit in the way of life in the contemporary world.

Unfortunately, the task is not so easy. For hundreds of years now, major Muslim theologians have been engaged in creating a coherent theology of intolerance and violence in order to expand the Islamic reach. They have conclusively made the lower form of Jihad, i.e., warfare, compulsory for all able-bodied Muslims.

That is the real work that has to be done if Islam and the West are to live together.  Being honest about the challenge is the first step.

Also  see:

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.

Abrogation in Islam: the Uniqueness of Duality

b2891bff8bec583930a24fd93c9066ee_L

Modern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, Feb. 27, 2016:

Jamal Badawi, concludes his propagating claims in his e-mail to Robert Spencer, on February 14 2005, by declaring: “Those who erroneously claimed that all such definitive verses have all been ‘abrogated’ by what they called ‘the verse of the sword’ were mistaken and failed to give any definitive evidence of their claims.

There is no single verse in the Qur’an properly interpreted in its context and historical circumstances that ever allowed the Muslim to fight non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims…”

Well, even if Badawi ignores the 109 verses that call for violence of Jihad and slaughtering against the infidels and hundreds of verses that call for incitement and hatred against the other, he still deceives and misleads in his propagation. Contrary to his words, the mild verses that call for avoidance and against retaliation are all from the Meccan period and were all abrogated, nullified and rendered void when Muhammad became strong and victorious at Medina. Western politicians, members of the academia and the media are not only unaware and perhaps ignorant of this reality, just because they don’t learn, but at the same time disseminate, intentionally or unintentionally, the tidings of the Islamic propaganda.

When one opens the Qur’an, he sees at the top of the page in brackets the words Makki or Madani, meaning Sûrah from Meccan period or Medinan period. This differentiation is according to Islamic exegesis, since the Qur’an is organized neither chronologically nor topically but in order of the length of the Sûwar: from longest to shortest. The line of differentiation was in September 622, when Muhammad ran away from Mecca and went to Yathrib (later called Medina, or Madinat al-Nabī). This event was so significant in Muslim history that it is called Hijrah, meaning emigration, but also ‘separation,’ ‘breaking of relations.’

Most importantly, it marks the beginning of the Muslim Calendar. This is something to bear in mind concerning Islamic doctrine and teaching. Muhammad began his prophecy from year 610 in Mecca. The total majority, 90 Sûwar of the Qur’an, out of 114, are from Meccan period. Yet, Islamic exegetes preferred the Hijrah as the founding event of Islamic history. The reason is clear: at Mecca, after 12 years of preaching Muhammad had a total 80 believers and the Muslims were weak and persecuted. Only at Medina, Muhammad became the leader of a religion, a military hero who fought his enemies at the battleground and won over. The Medinan Sûwar, only 24 in number, reflect this reality, being much more belligerent and warmongering, and the Calendar emphasizes this reality: they are more important.

However, from Islamic perspective, it was essential to find out the exact chronology and the historical settings of the Qur’an Sûwar, as the order of their revelation is not known from reading the Qur’an. This problem was recognized by early Muslim scholars who devoted much attention to it. They have investigated this realm and developed it almost as a science called Asbāb al-Nuzûl, “the causes of descend,” the circumstances and reasons of revelation of the Qur’an’s Sûwar.

For the Muslims the Qur’an is miraculous (I’jāz) and has been revealed for all times and situations from the beginning of history to the end of the world. However, the many repetitions in the Qur’an, the arbitrary order, the mixture of styles and genres are indicative of human process in its creation. The Qur’an being collated piecemeal, still exacerbates the determination of the chronology of the verses and their orderly appearance. From here the principle of abrogation (al-Nāsikh wal-Mansûkh) has developed. The Arabic words ‘Nāsikh’ and ‘Mansûkh’ are derived from ‘n.s.kh.’, means ‘to abolish, to replace, to withdraw, to abrogate’. It appears four times in the Qur’an.

Arthur Jeffery explains: The Qur’an is unique among sacred scriptures in teaching a doctrine of abrogation according to which later pronouncements of the Prophet abrogate, i.e.: declare null and void, his earlier pronouncements. The importance of knowing which verses abrogate others has given rise to the Qur’anic science known as ‘Nāsikh wa-Mansûkh,’ i.e. the Abrogator and the Abrogated. So, rather than attempting to explain away the inconsistencies in passages giving regulations for the Muslim community, Qur’an scholars and jurists came to acknowledge the differences while arguing that the latest verse on any controversial subject abrogates all earlier verses that contradicted it.

According to a Hadīth: the Messenger of Allah abrogated some of his commands by others, just as the Qur’an abrogates some part of it with the other. Muhammad was accustomed to stating something to his followers with the claim that it was revealed to him from Allah, then later on he would change it and tells them that Allah had invalidated it. The Qur’an is confusing and there are revelations which might have been forgotten, changed or eliminated. There is no agreement even to which was the first Sûrah to be revealed to Muhammad (Sûrat al-A’laq, 96 or Sûrat al-Muddaththir, 74). One example of the jumbled chronology is that Sûwar 2:193 and 2:216, 2:217 were revealed just after Muhammad arrived in Medina, about six years before Sûwar 2:190–2:192 were revealed. Yet Sûrah 2:193 was inserted to follow 2:190-192.

What are the Qur’anic sources of abrogation?

When we cancel a message, or throw it into oblivion, we replace it with one better or one similar. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? (Sûrat al-Baqarah, 2:106).

When we replace a message with another, and Allah knows best what he reveals, they say: you have made it up. Yet, most of them do not know (Sûrat al-Nahl, 16:101).

Allah abrogates or confirms whatsoever he will, for he has with him the Book of the Books (Sûrat al-Ra’d, 13:39).

If we pleased we could take away what we have revealed to you. Then you will not find anyone to plead for it with us (Sûrat Bani Isrā’īl, 17:86).

There is also references in the Hadīth:

“The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath'” (Sahīh Bukhāri, 7:427).

“The Prophet said, ‘It is a bad thing that some of you say, ‘I have forgotten such-and-such verse of the Qur’an.’ For indeed, I have been caused to forget it. So you must keep on reciting the Qur’an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than a runaway camel'” (Sahīh Bukhāri, 6:550).

The assertion of the scholar Ali Dashti is explains the problems:

“It must always be borne in mind that most of the Qur’anic laws and ordinances were formulated in response to random incidents and petitions from aggrieved persons. There are inconsistencies in them and in the reasons that there are abrogating and abrogated ordinances….

Muslim exegetes agreed that Muhammad was prepared to change his mind, vows, and rules according to the circumstances. Ahmad von Denffer, a German converted to Islam exegete, summarizes the issue that the knowledge of al-‘Nāsikh wal-Mansûkh bears important perspectives: It is concerned with the correct and exact application of the laws of Allah; it is one of the important pre-conditions for interpretation (Tafsīr) of the Qur’an and the application of the Islamic law (Sharī’ah); it sheds light on the historical development of the Islamic legal code; and it helps to understand the immediate meaning of the verses concerned.

According to the narration of Ibn `Abbas, one of the most acclaimed transmitter of the Qur’an and the Hadīth:

“Sometimes the revelation used to descend on the Prophet during the night and then he forgot it during daytime, thus Allah sent down this verse’ [2:106]. Such behavior led the infidels to say that Muhammad was preaching contradictory and opposite commands. He does not receive inspiration from Allah, for he changes his mind whenever he wishes. Thus, this verse was written… Muhammad used to order something and then change it the next day whenever he found it too difficult to be implemented. Lastly, Muhammad did not want to embarrass the men around him who memorized his sayings.”

Read more

An Ex Muslim Speaks of Islam

geert-wilders-anti-islam-stickerEN1-545x304
Faith Freedom, by Ali Sina, Dec. 9, 2015: (h/t The Muslim Issue)

While the main stream media is so concerned in portraying the best image of Islam and particularly the leftists and liberals become even vile and violent towards anyone criticizing Islam, this ex-Muslim woman does not fear to speak her mind and tell the truth about the religions of peace to anyone who cares to listen. Truth is coming out whether the leftists like it or not.

Pleas share this video.

 

Lies, Lies, Beautiful Lies

Steve Amundson, president of CJC

Steve Amundson, president of CJC

Citizen Warrior, Oct. 27, 2015:

We received the article below from Chris at the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC), a group that mans an information booth every Saturday night to expose Islam for what it is to passersby (read more about it here). 

When Chris sent us the article, he added, “We had an interesting encounter on the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica Saturday night. A pro-Islam group set up a table right between the Counter Jihad Coalition table and a table set up by a Christian street evangelist, Louis Lionheart. The people behind the table were not bearded or wearing thobes, as the Islamic dawa folks usually are. Their message was ‘coexist,’ but there was also an anti-Zionist spin to their materials as well. In an ‘open mic’ session I read several passages from Reliance of the Traveller to demonstrate that there is no equality in Islam. The moderator, ‘Mecca Mona,’ claimed that she had never heard of Reliance of the Traveller. End of conversation.” 

Here is the article by Chris:

After bombing Pearl Harbor in 1941, Japan created “Tokyo Rose” to undermine American soldiers’ morale by giving them false information about the war effort. Now, after the Islamic terror attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, local Muslims have created their own charming “Mecca Mona” to provide shoppers on Santa Monica’s Third Street Promenade false information about Islam.

Charming “Mecca Mona” set up her information table, complete with a handsome, muscular bodyguard wearing an Abercrombie and Fitch T-shirt and a bearded wali (guardian) stage-managing the whole operation from a safe distance right between the Counter Jihad Coalition table and the table set up by the Christian street evangelist, Louis Lionheart.

The problem is that most of her “information” was false or misleading, beginning with the headline. Islam wants Americans to be tolerant of Muslims, but Islam is the most intolerant religion in the world. In 1991, the Muslim Brotherhood developed a 10-Year Plan of action called “An Explanatory Memorandum On the General Strategic Goal for the [Muslim Brotherhood] Group In North America” which stated that their mission for America was “a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” In 1996, Omar Ahmad the founder of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations said, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

“Mecca Mona’s” poster makes a number of false statements about Islam, seven of which are listed below. We will take each statement from her poster (in bold below) and then show how those statements are contradicted usually by the Quran itself.

1. All are treated equally in Islam.

  • Men are superior to women – Surah 4:34 and Surah 2:228
  • Males inherit twice what women inherit – Surah 4:11
  • A male’s testimony is twice that of a woman – Surah 2:282
  • Unbelievers are the basest of creatures – Surah 8:56

2. Islam teaches acceptance and not intolerance.

  • “He that chooses a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” – Surah 3:85
  • Followers of Muhammad are described as “ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another” – Surah 48:29
  • The full quote of the Arabic text of Surah 109 on “Mecca Mona’s” poster “lakom deenakom wlya deen” is “I don’t worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.”

The context of the quotation above is important for understanding Islam’s intolerance:

According to Muslim chronicler Baihaki in “Proof of Prophecy,” Muhammad has been insulting the Gods of the Ancient Arabs in Mecca for years. His disciple, Amru ibn al-Aas, testified about the Quraysh leaders’ discussion about Muhammad one day: “Never have we had to tolerate from anyone what we have had to tolerate from this man. He slanders our fathers, criticizes our religions and divides our people, and blasphemes our gods. Such grievous things have we tolerated from this man…” The Prophet who was nearby and hearing this conversation, he responded, “Men of Quraysh! I will surely repay you for this with interest.” Finally, the elders of the Qurash decided to talk with him. In trying to prevent Muhammad’s insults, the Quraysh sat with him in their sacred shrine of Ka’ba in 615 and requested him to desist from reviling and speaking evilly of their Gods. They offered to worship his God for one year, if Muhammad would reciprocate by worshipping theirs for the same period. Can you imagine something more tolerant than this offer? And what did Muhammad answer? In rejection, he responded with Surah 109, quoted above. And he went on slandering the gods worshipped by other people until one day the Quraysh got sick of this and decided to arrest and judge him. When he learned about this, he fled from Mecca to Medina.

3. Islam is an Abrahamic religion, same as Judaism and Christianity.

  • Muslims are commanded not to take Jews or Christians as friends – Surah 5:51
  • The Koran claims that Jews are descendants of apes and swine — Surah 2:65 and 5:60
  • The Koran denies the three principal tenants of Christianity – that Jesus was the son of God (Surah 19:35), that Jesus was Crucified (Surah 4:157), that Jesus was resurrected (Surah 4:158).
  • The one aspect of Abraham that Islam rejects was his forgiving his father for not being a Muslim. — Surah 60:4

4. One’s belief in Islam is incomplete without the Torah, Bible, and Quran.

  • Possessing a Bible is forbidden in the following countries according to Gideon’s International: Afghanistan, Algeria, China (People’s Republic), Comoros, Djibouti, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Yemen. All but two countries on the list are Muslim majority countries. Saudi Arabia has imposed the death penalty on anyone importing Bibles.

5. Islam upholds the utmost respect for women.

  • Muslim men are commanded to beat their wives – Surah 4:34
  • Muslim men may marry up to four wives – Surah 4:3
  • Muslim men may marry prepubescent girls – implied by Surah 65:4
  • “Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please.” – Surah 2:223

6. Some of the world’s most significant scientists and doctors that molded our understanding of matters till this day were Muslims.

  • The Koran says the sun sets in a pool of black mud – Surah 18:84
  • The Koran implies that babies are formed from a clot of blood – Surahs 23:12 and 75:38
  • The Muslim lunar calendar is 11 days short of an actual year, and using a solar calendar is a “grossly impious practice in which the unbelievers are misguided.” — Surah 9:37
  • Eight hundred Nobel Prizes have been awarded to individuals since 1895. Muslims, who represent 23 percent of the world’s population, have been awarded only 1.4 percent of the awards.

7. Muhammad was ranked in 1992 by Michael Hart as the most influential person in history.

  • The ranking said nothing about Muhammad’s character, as other high-ranking historical figures were Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin
  • In 2013, Time Magazine ranked Jesus as the most significant figure in history. Other web surveys with Jesus ranked #1 include Listabuzz, thetoptens, and ranker.

A handout offered by “Mecca Mona” claims that the Islamic faith has been unfairly stigmatized by the extremely polarized media. “[T]he actions of certain extremist individuals taken out of context do not reflect upon the beliefs and ethical views of a nation.” Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Islamic State don’t represent Islam in her view. She urges people to refer to original primary sources. A handy source for the Quran is: https://puneymir.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/pdf147.pdf

We also urge people to read the Quran for themselves and confirm that “Mecca Mona’s” entire presentation is made up of lies, lies, beautiful lies.

Beheading in Islam

Islam-BeheadPolitical Islam, by Bill Warner, Aug. 11, 2015:

When you hear of beheading, do you assume that Islam is involved? Beheading is an integral part of Islam. Mohammed repeatedly ordered people beheaded and the Koran even includes beheading. Beheading is threatened to settle arguments about Islam. Men were threatened with beheading if they did not become a Muslim. Beheading is mentioned nine times in the Hadith of Bukhari, once in the Koran and 41 times in the Sira. Beheading is recommended and common in the doctrine of Islam.

To see the references go to: http://cspipublishing.com/statistical/beheadings.html