I.Q. al Rassooli – Lifting the Veil to View the Threat

Published on April 7, 2017 by The Official Hagmann & Hagmann Report

***

Here is a good introduction of I. Q. Rassoli and his work from an interview that Clare Lopez did with him in 2013:

The Iraqi-born native Arabic-speaker who goes by the name “I. Q. Rassooli” has lived in Europe since his university days studying engineering in England. His mind is an inquiring and a questioning one, characteristics not much appreciated among the conformist Muslim community of his origins. And so he stayed in the West and, for the next 23 years, undertook “as thorough a study of Islam as humanly possible,” as he says.

His research and analysis about Muhammad, the Qur’an, Hadiths, Shariah, Arab and Islamic history, and a comparative, contrasting study of those with the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, Zoroastrian (Persian) beliefs, pagan Arab religions and more culminated in a thesis that no publisher would print. Instead, al-Rassooli created a website, www.inthenameofallah.org that now contains over 780 chapters. He also put up over 280 audio/video chapters on YouTube that collectively received over 1.59 million visitors and 3,976 subscribers in the two years before YouTube removed took them down. Luckily, al-Rassooli had them all backed up on his blog site at www.the-koran.blogspot.com and he then put them back up on YouTube under another name. His website is at www.alrassooli.com

Al-Rassooli also founded a movement called the Ummat al Kuffar (Nation of Infidels) that he hopes will develop and grow, given that some 80% of all humanity are not Muslims but rather the object of Islamic supremacist conquest intentions. He says his mission is the exposure of the facts and reality about Islam, based on the primary Arabic language sources themselves.

More on I. Q. Rasooli from CJR archives: https://counterjihadreport.com/?s=I.+Q.+Rassooli&submit=Search

 

Video: Bill Warner Speaks at ACT Cleveland 5 Dec 2016

Published on Dec 7, 2016 by KRoseVideo

From ACT For America – Cleveland, Ohio Chapter:
=======================================
“I am pleased to invite you to come and hear our next guest, Dr. Bill Warner. He is considered by CAIR to be one of the top Islamophobes in the country. Now consider the source, LOL!

Dr. Warner is a renowned national and international speaker on the topics of Islamic doctrine and history.

Dr. Warner will explain quite clearly how and why Mohammed’s success began with migration. The Islamic calendar is based on Mohammed’s migration, the Hijra. Islamic migration is the beginning of Sharia and Jihad.

Here’s more of Dr. Warner’s Bio:

Dr. Bill Warner has been a physicist, businessman and professor. He is the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He is the first person to use the scientific method to produce a Koran that can be easily understood.

Dr. Warner made the other two sacred texts of Islam, the Sira, Mohammed’s biography, and the Hadith, his Traditions, simple to read and understand. He has written a dozen books on Islam. His Sharia Law for Non-Muslims is an international best seller.

Dr. Warner developed the first self-study courses on Islam — The Foundations of Islam and a three level training-A Self-Study Course on Political Islam, that explains Islamic political doctrine.”
======================================
see: http://www.politicalislam.com

maxresdefault-11

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

***

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

Obama’s Fantasy Eid al-Adha

3847d7d800000578-0-image-m-13_1473752928648

Front Page Magazine, by Robert Spencer, Sept. 16, 2016:

Barack Obama’s fantasy Islam made a new appearance Monday, when he issued a statement congratulating and praising Muslims on the occasion of the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha:

Michelle and I extend our warmest wishes to Muslims across our country and around the world who are celebrating Eid al-Adha. This special holiday is a time to honor the sacrifice, resolve, and commitment to God demonstrated by Abraham.

In speaking of Abraham, it is important to remember that there is no parallel in the Qur’an to Genesis 22:15-18, in which Abraham is rewarded for his faith and told he will become a blessing to the nations: “by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice.” The Muslim audiences Obama was addressing don’t read Genesis. They read the Qur’an.

In the Qur’an, Allah says that Abraham is an “excellent example” (uswa hasana, أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ, a term applied also to Muhammad in 33:21) for the believers when he tells his pagan family and people that “there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever, unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone” (60:4). The same verse goes on to say that Abraham is not an excellent example when he tells his father, “I will pray for forgiveness for you.” Hatred is held up as exemplary; forgiveness is explicitly declared to be not exemplary.

Obama was thus reinforcing a worldview that takes for granted the legitimacy of everlasting enmity and hatred between Muslims and non-Muslims — and was doing so precisely in the context of trying to build bridges between Muslims and non-Muslims.

…It is also a celebration of the ways faith can transcend any differences or boundaries and unite us under the banners of fellowship and love….

Yes, indeed. Just look at Fort Hood, and Boston, and Chattanooga, Garland, San Bernardino, Orlando, as well as Paris, Brussels, Nice, and all the rest united us under the banners of fellowship and love. Of course, Obama would insist that these had nothing to do with Islam: all the evidence that refutes his politically correct fantasies is waved away. The national conversation that needs to be had about how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism is once again kicked down the road.

As we mark Eid al-Adha this year, we are reminded of the millions of refugees around the globe who are spending this sacred holiday separated from their families, unsure of their future, but still hoping for a brighter tomorrow. And as a Nation, we remain committed to welcoming the stranger with empathy and an open heart—from the refugee who flees war-torn lands to the immigrant who leaves home in search of a better life.

Ahmad al-Mohammed and one other of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees.

In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country. Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all.

An Islamic State operative boasted in September 2015, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. On May 10, 2016, Patrick Calvar, the head of France’s DGSI internal intelligence agency, said that the Islamic State was using migrant routes through the Balkans to get jihadis into Europe.

But none of this information has been allowed to interfere with Barack Obama’s fantasies. Meanwhile, back in the real world, the Islamic State celebrated Eid al-Adha by not only slaughtering animals, but by hanging men it had designated as U.S. spies upside down from meat hooks and slaughtering them “like sheep.”

It might have been illuminating for Obama to have taken a moment to explain how and why that was not a proper celebration of this feast of “fellowship and love,” and why Muslims must reject the understanding of Islam offered by the Islamic State. But while he has repeatedly asserted that the Islamic State is not Islamic, he has never bothered to explain exactly why it isn’t, or how this misunderstanding of Islam became so widespread. That’s how things work in fantasies: we don’t know how Mary Poppins can fly or Harry Potter can make things disappear with the wave of a wand – they just can. For Obama, Islam is a religion of peace. It just is. And no proliferation of infidels hanging from meat hooks will disturb his comforting fantasy.

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

Totalitarian Islam

behead-those-who-insult-islam-600x290Political Islam, Aug 16 2016 | by Bill Warner

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.