Bill Warner, PhD: No Sympathy for Kafirs

Published on Jun 28, 2016 by Political Islam

Brain physiology is such that we feel good when we help others. The Golden Rule, treating others as we would be treated, is hard wired into our physical makeup. However, Mohammed attacked each and every neighbor. Attacking your neighbors is not an expression of the Golden Rule. But, there is no Golden Rule in Islam.

A Kafir is worse than an animal and is hated by Allah. Twelve verses in the Koran say that a Muslim can be friendly to a Kafir, but should never be a true friend. Sympathy allows us to put ourselves in the place of others. This sympathy is outside of Islamic doctrine. In Islamic doctrine those Muslims who are true friends with a Kafir are not truly Islamic.

My personal opinion is that this lack of sympathy for Kafirs is the worst part of Islam. The Koran places barriers between Muslims and Kafir, which violates the idea of humanity being of one spirit.

TrilogyKafir_72dpi

Homeland Security Advisory Council: Covering for the Enemy Threat Doctrine

Terror Trends Bulletin, by Christopher W. Holton

America is at war and we continue to be prevented from identifying and understanding our enemies as a result of influence operations targeting our bureaucratized counterterrorism apparatus.

The latest evidence of this long-standing and, unfortunately, very effective influence campaign comes from the revelation that the “Countering Violent Extremism Subcommittee” of the Homeland Security Advisory Council to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has issued a recommendation that urges rejecting use of Islamic terms such as “jihad” and “shariah” in communications about the threats that we face….

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/homeland-security-report-calls-rejecting-terms-jihad-sharia/

This is nothing new. We have heard CIA director John Brennan reject the term “jihadist” and the State Department under Condoleezza Rice rejected the use of the term as well.

We have covered the damaging efforts by our enemies to prevent the actual correct use of the term “jihad” extensively here on Terror Trends Bulletin in the past…

https://terrortrendsbulletin.com/2013/01/13/cairs-new-disinformation-campaign-on-jihad/

But the effort to suppress even mere mention of the word “shariah” is actually much more damaging than the suppression of the word “jihad.” That’s because shariah is THE enemy threat doctrine.

To understand our enemies, their motivations, their intentions and their strategy, one must study shariah. Shariah is everything to the jihadists. It is the code that they follow and its full implementation is their goal.

Forbidding the use of the term shariah, much less suppressing study of shariah in the present conflict is the equivalent of forbidding intelligence agencies from studying Mein Kampf in World War II or the works and words of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao during the Cold War.

Anyone who would recommend that we avoid studying and talking about shariah simply must have a nefarious purpose.

By way of review, shariah is Islamic law. The terms shariah and Islamic law are completely interchangeable; they refer to exactly the same thing. Shariah is an immutable theo-political-legal-military code derived from the Islamic doctrinal trilogy, made up of the Quran, the Sirah (the biography of the prophet Mohammed) and the Hadith (traditions, sayings and stories compiled about the life of Mohammed).

Every single Jihadist terrorist group in the world–without exception–has as its stated goal the imposition of shariah: the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, Lashkar e Taiba, Abu Sayyef, Jemaah Islamiyah, Boko Haram, the Taliban, Al Shabaab–all of them.

So, while the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will be carefully avoiding the use of the term shariah, our enemies have been using it quite commonly, frequently and prominently, as if to illustrate the absurdity of the DHS recommendation.

What follows is a compilation of quotes from jihadi leaders and Al Qaeda and Islamic State documents that reveal the central importance of shariah to their movement. This is why Americans must familiarize themselves with shariah.

SHARIAH ACCORDING TO THE JIHADISTS THEMSELVES

• The sharia has forbidden us from taking infidels as confidants, inducting them into our secrets.
• The sharia forbids us from appointing infidels to important posts.
• The sharia forbids us from adopting or praising the beliefs and views of the infidels.
• The sharia forbids us from assisting infidels against Muslims; even the one who is coerced has o excuse to fight under the banner of infidels.
• The sharia commands us to battle infidels—both original infidels and apostates, as well as hypocrites. As for waging jihad against the infidels who have usurped the lands of Islam, this is a duty considered second only to faith, by ulemaic consensus.
• The sharia does not accept the excuses made by hypocrites—that they befriend the infidels because they fear the vicissitudes of time.
• We are duty-bound by the sharia to help Muslims overcome the infidels.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Al Qaeda leader

Osama bin Laden sits with his adviser and purported successor Ayman al-Zawahiri during an interview in Afghanistan, Barack Obama

Democracy is based on the principle of the power of creatures over other creatures, and rejects the principle of God’s absolute power over all creatures; it is also based on the idea the men’s desires, whatever they may be, replace God absolutely, and on the refusal to obey God’s law. In Islam, when there is a disagreement or a difference of opinion, one refers to God, his Prophet, and the commands of sharia.

Ayman al-Zawahiri
Al Qaeda leader

Read more

The Basics of Islam 5: Robert Spencer on the Peaceful Verses in the Qur’an

Published on May 9, 2016 by JihadWatchVideo

In this fifth segment of his Basics of Islam series, Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer discusses the verses of the Qur’an that appear to teach peace and tolerance of non-Muslims.

Koran at a Glance

define-abrogation-islamCitizen Warrior, April 30, 2016:

A new online version of the Koran is available, with some unique and useful features:

  1. It is in chronological order.
  2. It gives a visual impression of how Mohammed’s message changed over time.
  3. Verses relating to different themes (Allah, Believers, Unbelievers, Jihad) are color-coded and highlighted.
  4. All abrogated verses are highlighted with popups of their abrogating verses.

Check it out: Koran at a Glance.

Mohammed, ISIS and Women. ((This is actually taught))

islam koran beat women
Published on Apr 15, 2016 by Hazem Farraj

In this video, we will search Islam’s past to conclude whether ISIS’ abuse of women and their slave-trade is warranted or not. The answer may surprise you. The ONLY valid opinion to believe is the source of authentic Islamic doctrines. Everything used within this video is considered authentic credible sources.

Ancient Qur’an Discovery Proves Islam Really Is A Religion of Peace

Mahdi Watch, by Dr. Timothy Furnish, April 1, 2016:

(AP) Last month, construction workers in the Saudi Arabian city of Mecca demolishing a medieval mosque to make room for a new Ritz-Carlton aimed at high-end Muslim pilgrims uncovered fragments of an old Qur’an, the holy book of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims.  Before it could be disposed of properly by Saudi clerics, several of the workers—apparently on orders from their employer, Bin Ladin Construction—smuggled the pages out of the Kingdom and delivered them (after, reportedly, huge bribes) to the newly-created  “Institute for the Study of the Noble and Peaceful Qur’an” at al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt.

mosquee bombed

Islamic scholars and Qur’an experts studied the surviving pages round-the-clock for several weeks and were shocked to discover that this text—which had somehow survived the burning of “heretical” versions of the Qur’an under the reign of the third Caliph of Islam, Uthman, in 652 CE—apparently includes a heretofore-unknown 115th sura, or “chapter,” of the Qur’an.  Entitled Sura al-Mazzah, it’s one of the shortest chapters but based on intense textual study these experts have determined that it is almost certainly the last, chronologically, revealed to the Prophet Muhammad—thus making it binding under the exegetical doctrine of naskh in which the later revelations from Allah to Islam’s founder are the more authoritative ones.

q

However, it is what Sura al-Mazzah says which, if verified and accepted, could prove explosive for not just Muslims but the entire world. The key verse translates as “O Believers! Believe not that ye should kill the infidels but rather know that the Iblis [Satan] was whispering to God’s apostle for too long, telling him [Muhammad] falsely.  Know that indeed Islam is a religion of peace and all the verses before this one are wrong desires injected by Iblis.  Therefore heed not the lying admonitions to swords, but rather heed the Christians, whose Lord `Isa truly is….”  At this point the text breaks off.

The lead researcher on this project, Qur’an  expert Dr. Mahmud al-Hallaj, mysteriously and abruptly committed suicide last week.  Several other key members of the project have also disappeared.  The remaining experts, as well as the Qur’anic fragments themselves, are said to be under the protection of President al-Sisi’s personal bodyguard.   How the government of Egypt intends to proceed is unknown, but ISIS, al-Qaida, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have all vowed to attack Egypt if this claim is not immediately retracted and the manuscript fragments burned in a fire “hotter than the blazes of hell and damnation itself.”

President Obama, when asked in a press conference about the findings, remarked that, if true, they showed  that “I was right all along” and that “Republicans were wrong” about Islam.  And that if Iblis had a modern incarnation, it would be as Donald Trump.

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.

Da’wah in the West: Islamic “Just War”

70eaefc5bc6bfbfdd6ffa7ba31cfa7c1_LModern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, March 8, 2016:

In a research under the title “The Qur’an and War: Observations on Islamic Just War,” from 2012, Dr. Joel Hayward says that his purpose is to analyze the holy text which underpins Islam and articulates its mandatory codes of conduct in order to determine what that text, the Qur’an, actually requires or permits Muslims to do in terms of military violence….

This article is intended to be useful — sufficient to dispel any assumptions that the Qur’an advocates the punishment, subjugation or even killing of “infidels” as well as to reveal its key concepts governing justice during wartime…

Even a cursory reading of the Qur’an will draw the reader’s eyes to hundreds of scriptures extolling tolerance, conciliation, inclusiveness and peace, but also to a few scriptures that seem to be more aggressive…

“my conclusion (and that of every authoritative Islamic scholar) that the Qur’an is unambiguous: Muslims are prohibited from aggressive violence and are compelled, should war prove unavoidable, always to act within a code of ethical behavior that is closely akin to, and compatible with, the western warrior code embedded within Just War.

Hayward chooses to confirm his above-written assertions by trying to analyze verses that are used as warmongering by the “enemies of Islam.” He claims that “many critics assert that verses 9:29 and 2:190-194 directs Muslims to wage war against any and all disbelievers anywhere who refuse to embrace Islam or at least to submit to Islamic rule.” However, he says “they do not mandate Muslims to wage aggressive war or to inflict disproportionate or indiscriminate brutality.”

Then surprisingly he turns to analyze the abrogation doctrine. He claims that “The Qur’an itself states in several Surah that Allâh’s words constitute a universally applicable message sent down for ‘all of mankind’ and that it was a ‘reminder’ (with both ‘glad tidings and warnings’) to ‘all’ of humanity (Surah 34:28, Surah 39:41 and Surah 81:27). But what is the connection between abrogation and Islamic just war?

Hayward tries to prove the abrogation doctrine is non-existent. How he does so? Very simple: he just dismisses all Islamic classical exegetes and totally relies on the fresh new Islamic propagators in the West. Here is the main problem: the disqualification of Islamic classic and most important exegetes. In his words: “certainly most Islamic authorities on the Qur’an and Muhammad today, as opposed to scholars from, say, the more ambiguous medieval period (author’s emphasis), are firm in their judgement that the most warlike verses in the Qur’an, even those revealed very late in Muhammad’s mission, do not cancel out the overwhelming number of verses (author’s emphasis) that extol tolerance, reconciliation, inclusiveness and peace.

Who are the exegetes that cancel these most important doctrine? Well, the oracles of Hayward are three, in fact four:

The British scholar Dr Zakaria Bashier (War and Peace), who claims that “all the beautiful verses throughout the Qur’an which instruct Muslims to be peaceful, tolerant and non-aggressive are No reason exists at all to think that they have been overruled.”

The “Prolific British scholar Louay Fatoohi (Jihad in the Qur’an: The Truth from the Source), arguing that “overwhelming number’ of Muslim scholars reject the abrogation thesis regarding war (author’s emphasis). Fatoohi highlights the fact that throughout history the Islamic world has never acted in accordance with this extreme view, that Muslims have co-existed very well with other faith communities and that the 1600 million peaceable Muslims in the world today clearly do not accept the view otherwise, if they did, they would be at war as we speak.”

Muhammad Abu Zahra (Concept of War in Islam), an important and influential Egyptian intellectual and expert on Islamic law, summed up the mainstream Islamic view by rejecting any abrogation thesis pertaining to conflict and stating that “War is not justified… to impose Islam as a religion on unbelievers or to support a particular social regime. The prophet Muhammad fought only to repulse aggression.”

Sohaib Nazeer Sultan (The Koran for Dummies) makes the same point that the martial verse and the sword and those like it do not abrogate the more numerous peaceful, tolerant and inclusive verses.

However, not only we do not have any corroboration for these claims, we just have to believe they know better than Ibn Salama, al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh; al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh Wal-Mansukh; al-Baydawi, Anwar at-Tanzil wa-Asrar at-Ta’wil; al-Zarkasi, al-Burhan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an; al-Suyuti, al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an; and Lubab an-Nuqul fi Asbab an-Nuzul; Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, al-Tafsir al-Kabir; Ibn Hazm, al-Nasikh wal-Mansukh; al-Zamakhshari, al-Kashshaf; al-Tabari, Tafsir; al-Wahidi, Kitab Asbab Nuzul al-Qur’an; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir.

You see, all these esteemed exegetes, biographers of Muhammad, highly acclaimed interpreters of Qur’an in Islamic religious history are put aside and thrown away by the new scholars of the 21st century, who use Da’wah as a diplomacy of deceit to mislead the infidels. It is as if James Madison and Thomas Jefferson have not written the US constitution, or that Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay have not written the “Federalist.” Even better say, it is as if these personalities have nothing to do with the US constitutional and political establishment, and they all must be null and void compare to new propagators claiming totally the opposite about the history of the US.

Then, Hayward turns “the so-called ‘verse of the sword of Surah 9:5.” He claims

“Bin Laden certainly did draw upon the verse of the sword and other seemingly militant Qur’anic scriptures in his August 1996 ‘Declaration of War against the Americans occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places’ as well as in his February 1998 fatwâ.”

However, Bin Laden “is not representative of Islamic belief or behaviour.” For Hayward

“It is quite true that, taken in isolation, Surah 9:5 seems an unusually violent pronouncement for a prophet who had for twenty years preached tolerance, peace and reconciliation (my emphasis). Yet it is equally true that, when read in the context of the verses above and below Surah 9:5, and when the circumstances of its pronouncement by Muhammad are considered, it is not difficult for readers without preconceptions and bias to understand it more fully… It is thus not as bloodthirsty as Robert Spencer and his colleagues portray it… it would only nowadays have any relevance and applicability if polytheists and idolaters ever tried to undertake and re-establish pagan practices in the Saudi Arabian cities devoted only to Allâh: Mecca and Medina. In other words, in today’s world it is not relevant or applicable (author’s emphasis and double emphasis).

Moreover, Hayward says Ibn Kathir said no such thing that the verse of the sword abrogates all peaceful verses ever previously uttered by the prophet, as Spencer claim: “Spencer mistakenly extrapolates this to claim, baselessly.”

Well, the reader in Arabic and in English who reads Ibn Kathir classical Tafsir, is sure Ibn Kathir said verse 9:5 abrogates all the so-called peaceful verses. If one wonders how Hayward misunderstands what Ibn Kathir said, well here is Hayward’s interpretation to another warmongering verse (4:89), which clearly claim to “seize and slay the infidels wherever you find them.” This verse, Hayward says,

“is surrounded by so many other explanatory and qualifying verses that its superficially violent meaning is immediately moderated by its context of tolerance and understanding. First, it threatened violence in self defence only … Secondly, it stated that, if those aggressors left the Muslims alone and free to practice their faith, and if they did not attack them, but offered them peaceful co-existence, then Allâh would not allow Muslims to harm them in any way… The verse not only offered peaceful co-existence to those who formally made peace with the Muslims, but also to anyone…”

Well, this is indeed an interesting interpretation, yet it has nothing to do with the reality. What ridicule the situation is Hayward own words: first, there is a war against the infidels, but it is only “self-defense.” Second, “if those aggressors left the Muslims alone and free to practice their faith, and if they did not attack them, but offered them peaceful co-existence, then Allâh would not allow Muslims to harm them in any way” (my emphases). In other words, if those “aggressors” yield to the Muslim demands, than peace prevails according to the Muslims’ terms. This “coexistence” has one meaning: a total defeat and surrender to Islam, as those aggressors must to live under Muslims’ terms. This is not exactly a peaceful coexistence.

Read more

Defensive or Offensive Jihad: Classical Islamic Exegetes Vs. Contemporary Islamist’s Propagation

d9fc17f32b375e9eeed63a6c2d3200a4_L

Modern Diplomacy, by David Bukay, Jan. 24, 2016:

The main objective of Islam is to implement Allah’s divinely ordained religion on Universe in its entirety. It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated; to impose its belief system on all the nations, not to be imposed upon religiously; and to extend its power to the entire planet, not to be governed by infidels.

To achieve its objectives, Islam justifies all means by the use of Jihad against the infidels. Claiming they do it for the defense of their religion, the Muslim lands, and the Muslims’ honor, Jihad is permitted and lawfully justified.

The issue at stake is the deep gap between the horrific acts of terrorism coming from the World Islamic Jihad groups, and at the same time the propagation coming from the Islamists, Muslims and Westerners. Firstly, they claim that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, hijacked by extremists; secondly, that there is only one Jihad, the spiritual, that means to worship Allah; and thirdly that the Muslims are ordered to fight their enemies only defensively.

The stunned Free World witnesses the atrocious acts of terrorism, slaughtering and beheadings, and at the same time is being told that this is only retaliation to the Western colonialism and neo-imperialism, that these groups are only a small minority, weeds; that the threats of demolishing modernity and bringing it back to the 7th century are only because World Islamic Jihad wishes to defend its lands, its lives and honor against Western aggression. However, as Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone in the human race and should be expanded as a winning religion, until all human beings proclaim that “there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.”

Jihad appears 41 times in 18 Sûwar in the Qur’ān, mostly coupled with fi-Sabīlillāh (in the way of Allah), which gives it a religious sanctioning. There are 527 verses in the Qur’an that show deep intolerance towards the infidels, and 109 verses straitfully call to fight the infidels, with all kinds of slaughtering. Contemporary world statistics is very clear and horrifying: over 90% of world terrorism and over 70% of world violence is perpetrated by Muslims. As for 2015, the statistics is stunning and dramatic: 451 of 452 suicide terror attacks in 2015 were perpetrated by Muslims. The remaining one in Turkey was perpetrated by a Russian woman. It is now investigated that she was radicalized by Wahhabi ideology.

Jihad is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. It is sometimes called “the neglected duty” or “the forgotten obligation,” and regard as the sixth pillar of Islam. Lewis finds that “overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists and traditionalists… understood the obligation of Jihad in a military sense.” The elevation of Allah’s word cannot be achieved without Jihad (al-Baqarah, 2:251; al-Nisā’, 4:75; al-Anfâl, 8:39; al-Hadīd, 57:25).

All four Islamic Schools of Jurisprudence (Madhāhib al-Fiqh) and most of Islamic exegetes agree that the aims of Jihad are at removing the infidel’s oppression and injustice; eliminating the barriers to the spread of Allah’s truth; and establishing Islamic justice universally. There are four different ways in which the believer may fulfill his obligations: a) by his heart; b) by his tongue; c) by his hands; d) by the sword. They are aimed at establishing Allah’s rule on earth, until either the infidels embrace Islam; or submit to Islamic rule and agree to pay the tax poll, the Jizyah; or be killed in the battleground by Jihad war.

From the Islamic vantage point, all wars in Islam are religious; there is no concept of secular war” and Jihad is the only just war known. So, even according to Islamic Jurisdiction, one can wage the most aggressive war using atrocious evil deeds and still see it as a defensive war. Muslim legal theory states that Islam cannot exist together with idolatry. This is Shirk, meaning association of other gods and idols with Allah (al-Nisā’, 4:48, 166; al-Qasas, 28:17; al-Luqmān, 31:13; Yā Sīn, 36:74; al-Sāfāt, 37:158). According to a Hadīth related to Muhammad, he declared: “I am ordered to fight polytheists until they say there is no god but Allah.” Muslims are under the Qur’an Commandments’ obligation to slay the idolaters (al-Baqarah, 2:193; al-Taubah, 9:5; al-‘Imrān, 3:167-168; al-Nisā’, 4:84, 88-89). Terrorizing Islamic enemies is Allah’s commandment (Bukhāri, 1:24, 6:19).

There are four Qur’an “sword verses” relating to different types of people against whom Muslims are obliged to fight: a) Surah 9 verse 5: Fighting the Idolaters; b) Surah 9 verse 29: Fighting the People of the Book, Ahl al-Kitāb; c) Sûrah 9 verse 73: Fighting the Hypocrites and the infidels; and d) Surah 47 verse 4: Fighting the Enemies of Islam whoever they are and whenever they can be found. Most Islamic exegetes claim that Surah 9 verse 5 abrogates 114 or 124 other un-militant verses from Mecca.

The Shahīd is one who is killed and has achieved martyrdom in the battle of Jihad, and he is granted seven glorious gifts. Islamic exegetes take the Qur’an statements that the Shuhadā’ are alive living beside Allah and enjoying all his grace (al-Baqarah, 2:154; al-‘Imrān, 3:169).

Muslims view peace as a tactical means for achieving their strategic objective, by defeating the enemy. Peace constitutes a temporary break in the ongoing war against the enemy, until Islam controls the whole world. They might come to terms with the enemy, provided that they should resume the Jihad after the expiration of the treaty. By their very nature, treaties must be of temporary duration, for the normal relations between Muslim and the infidels are not peaceful, but warlike.

In spite of the extensive agreement among Islamic classical exegetes based on the Sharī’ah, Islamists in the West emphasize the milder verses from the Qur’an, actually showing the abrogated `Meccan Islam’ in order to camouflage the living `Medina Islam’. They state that Islam is defensive and the fighting injunctions in the Qur’an are only in self-defense. They carefully hid the unconscionable and intolerable verses that litter from all the Medinan Sûwar by saying that ‘those verses were taken out of context’ and that they were not applicable to the infidels. Ali Cheragh brings verses from the Qur’an which he claims are limited or conditional, and “only two verses in the Qur’an containing an absolute or non-conditional injunction for making war against the un-believers.” however, for Cheragh it is very simple: wherever you find verses contradictory to his opinion about the interpretation of the Qur’an, it is ruled out as non-operative. Therefore, if Muslims summon their enemies to embrace Islam and they refuse to accept it, then all the Islamic wars are defensive by definition. All those who disagree with him are “wrong in history, chronology, as well as in understanding the general scope of the Qur’an and the tenor of the Sûwar.”

Mahmoud Shaltut comments are also indicative: “People would do well to learn the Qur’an rules with regard to fighting, its causes and its ends, and recognize the wisdom of the Qur’an. The role of the Qur’an is to summon humanity to submit to Allah, as the natural process. As about war verses, they all deal with the defense of the Islamic community, and are fully legitimate.

Jamal Badawi, a member of the Fiqh Council of North America, claims that Jihad is a struggle against inner desires and a fight against social injustices. Combative jihad is not only restricted in terms of what may or may not justify it, and also strictly regulated. War should not be resorted against peaceful and just but to stop aggression or oppression. There must be a declaration of war by a legitimate authority after due consultation; noncombatants should not be hurt; and Prisoners of war and the injured must be treated humanely.

The main of the Muslim propagators is to clearly lie and mislead the ignorant infidels of the meaning of Jihad, claiming it means the spiritual struggle of the believer to Allah. This is untrue. j-h-d, on the first Arabic conjugation, means indeed to make efforts, to strive. However, Jihad and Mujāhadah are the noun of the third conjugation, Jā-h-d, which means to fight, to make war against. Muslim propagators know Arabic and they just evade the truth. They also ignore the physical military aspect of Qitāl, as fighting and slaughtering to make Islam prevail over all other religions and governmental systems.

Indeed, these statements are pure fraud propagation. Of all the Islamic duties (A’māl), Jihad is considered the noblest, next to belief (Imān) and prayer (Salāh). The one who died without waging Jihad against the infidels, nor intended to fight Jihad in the way of Allah in his heart, he died like a hypocrite (Munāfiq). From its beginning, the Islamic movement had struggled aggressively to subdue religiously, to conquer politically, and to expand territorially other peoples and to bring the Islamic mission to all mankind. This was an offensive Jihad proper, and nobody recognized any other kind of Jihad.

Read more

‘Scientific’ Claim: Christian Bible More ‘Bloodthirsty’ than Quran

Islamic_Wallpaper_Quran_004-1366x768.sized-770x415xc (1)PJ MEDIA, BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM, FEBRUARY 12, 2016:

A new “data-based” study published on Yahoo News, Huffington Post, and elsewhere purports to have proven that the Bible — including the New Testament — is more violent than the Quran.

From Tom McKay’s article about the study: “Fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam” thanks to a “laundry list of misinformation about the faith’s holy text, the Quran.” He continues:

But a recent project by data analyst and research marketer Tom Anderson turns one common misconception on its head: that the Quran is more consumed by blood thirst than the Christian Bible. … Of the three books [Old Testament, New Testament, Quran], the project found, the Old Testament is the most violent, with approximately 5.3% of the text referring to “destruction and killing” — the Quran clocked in at just 2.1%, with the New Testament slightly higher at 2.8%.…

According to Anderson, the findings challenge the popular notion among Westerners that Muslims subscribe to a particularly violent faith. Indeed, he concluded, “of the three texts, the content in the Old Testament appears to be the most violent.”

So this study suggests what Islam’s apologists have long claimed: that the Bible contains more violence and bloodshed than the Quran. That said, the intelligence and sincerity of anyone — including supposed scholars — citing this fact as proof that the Quran cannot incite violence more than the Bible is doubtful. For starters, this argument fundamentally ignores the context in which violence appears in all three scriptures.

Comparing violence in the Bible — both Old and New Testaments — with violence in the Quran conflates history with doctrine. The majority of violence in the Bible is recorded as history; a description of events. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of violence in the Quran is doctrinally significant. The Quran uses open-ended language to call on believers to commit acts of violence against non-Muslims. (See “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” for my most comprehensive and documented treatment of this tired apologia.)

 This study also fails to consider who is behind the violence. It simply appears to count the number of times violent language appears. Due to this, New Testament descriptions of Christians — including Christ — being persecuted and killed are supposedly equally inciting to Christians as Allah’s commandments for Muslims to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them — seize them, besiege them, and make ready to ambush them!” (Quran 9:5). This study sees no difference between the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7-8) and Allah’s words: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip” (Quran 8:12).

The claim behind this study — that “fifty-eight percent of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam” apparently because of “misinformation about the faith’s holy text, the Quran” — is a strawman argument. “Islamophobia” is based less on what Americans think about the Quran and more on the violence, terrorism, and atrocities they see and hear Muslims commit in the name of Islam on a daily basis. Ironically, the whole point of appealing to a strawman argument is that the argument itself is ironclad, even if it doesn’t address the real issue. As seen here, however, even the straw argument itself — that the Bible has more potential to incite violence than the Quran — is full of holes.

This is to say nothing of the fact that Islamic teaching is hardly limited to the Quran. Volumes of canonical (sahih) Hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad) equally inform Muslim actions. As one Muslim cleric put it:

Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith.

As it happens, calls to anti-infidel violence in the Hadith outnumber the Quran’s.

There are other problems with this study. For example, it doesn’t seem to take into consideration that the Bible is roughly ten times longer than the Quran. Due to the study’s many shortcomings, even Anderson admits that his “analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive.” So why are several media outlets highlighting the conclusion of a study which readily admits it does not prove what its champions claim?

Apparently the politically correct conclusion — that Islam cannot be any worse than Judaism and Christianity — is all that matters here, gaping holes in methodology be damned.

Bill Warner Gives Talking Points on Tough Questions for Islam

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

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

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

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

Also see:

Islam: At war with the world (and itself)

islam-is-the-religion-of-war11American Thinker, by Dan Calic, Feb. 12, 2016:

The most significant undeclared war of our time — a war with Islam — began November 4, 1979, the day Iran took US citizens hostage in Tehran and held 52 of them against their will for 444 days.  While 9/11 was the worst single event by far, it wasn’t the beginning.

Some may suggest there is no such war. Others claim it is the West that has declared war on Islam. Neither statement is correct. The fact is that Islam has declared war. War on democracy, the West, the US, Jews, Christians and all “infidels,” which includes other Muslims. We are in perilous times. The very fabric of the free world is under attack. Unless democratic nations, especially the US, acknowledge this and take steps to combat the threat, it’s possible Islam will eventually engulf everyone and everything.

The most important and powerful leader in the free world is the President of the United States. He should be at the forefront of this battle. Yet President Obama has steadfastly refused to correctly identify what everyone else knows — the United States (and the free world) is in the crosshairs of Islam. Their goal is to see the Islamic flag over the White House.

New normal

If you are one of those who don’t think we are in a crisis, consider this. Prior to the takeover of the US embassy in Iran, how often did you hear these terms: “Islam,” “jihad,” “Islamic fundamentalist,” “martyr,” “Allah,” “alluah Akbar,” or “Sharia law?”

Today they are commonplace and exemplify the new normal the US and the world lives with.

I recall when it was possible to walk out to the gate at the airport to meet an incoming passenger. How about when there was no such thing as an airport security check? I guess I’m only showing my age….

Not all Muslims

Before going further, an important distinction should be made. Am I suggesting this war is with all Muslims? No. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists. In fact the majority are not. Yet the terror from the minority is affecting almost everyone in one way or another.

An obvious question becomes how many fundamentalists are there?

Estimates vary widely. From as low as 3% up to as much as 50% or more, depending on your source. This is where some simple math is quite telling. Current estimates indicate there are 1.65 billion Muslims worldwide. For the sake of this article I’ll use a conservative estimate of 10% being fundamentalists. That means 90% are peaceful.

If 10% are fundamentalists, that translates to 165 million. If all of them lived in one country it would rank #8 in the world. These are numbers no one should dismiss or take lightly.

True Muslims

So who are the “true” Muslims, the 90% or the 10%? Sheer numbers tend to suggest the 90%. Yet is this really the case? Let’s dig a bit deeper.

The non-violent Muslims will tell you Islam is a religion of peace and the fundamentalists have high jacked it. While peaceful Muslims may indeed be sincere in their commitment to non-violence, are they correct by accusing fundamentalists of high jacking Islam? This needs to be addressed soberly.

Those who commit violence in Allah’s name (fundamentalists) consider themselves to be the true Muslims. In fact they will tell you the ones who accuse them of high jacking Islam are not true Muslims.

Yet both peaceful and fundamentalists look to the Quran as their holy book.

How can two different groups both claiming to be Muslim read the same holy book and see things so differently? Is one group making claims about the Quran that are false?

Before examining this closer keep one thing in mind. There are approximately 40,000 Christian denominations. Wide differences exist among them on numerous topics. Yet would it be fair for a Pentecostal to accuse a Presbyterian of not being a Christian?

There is one holy book for those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: the Bible, albeit different books are used by Christians and Jews, and some differences exist between Catholic and Protestant versions.  While there is a wide range of interpretations of scripture, a Presbyterian considers himself just as much a Christian as a Pentecostal.

This same principle applies to Muslims.

Due diligence requires looking at the Quran to see if there are verses which substantiate the fundamentalist view of condoning violence.

Some Quranic examples include:

  • Kill them (disbelievers) wherever you find them (2:191)
  • War is ordained by Allah. All Muslims must be willing to fight whether they like it or not. (2:216)
  • Allah turned the Sabbath breaking Jews into apes. (2:65)
  • Believers must retaliate. (2:178)
  • Jews and Christians are rebellious against Allah (5:59)
  • Do not take Jews and Christians as friends (5:51)

Violence condoned

These are but a few of numerous verses in the Quran which make it clear that violence is not only condoned, it is required against disbelievers. This includes peaceful Muslims who do not engage in violence as instructed in the Quran. Altogether there are over 160 verses in the Quran which support violence or jihad.

Plus, there is clear disdain for Jews and Christians.

What’s also noteworthy is Mohammed himself supported violence. He was responsible for numerous killings, which included massacring several hundred Jews of the Qurayza tribe in Medina in 627.

Today Muslim religious leaders continue their calls for Jewish blood.

Based on the aforementioned information, I believe some conclusions can be drawn-

  • There is a wide range of Muslims
  • The Quran sanctions violence
  • The Quran indicates disdain for non-Muslims
  • Muslims are both peaceful and violent
  • Fundamentalists are Muslims and have not high jacked Islam

With respect to whether Islam is a peaceful religion, after confirming what the Quran says, it would seem such a characterization is not only naïve, it’s incorrect, possibly dangerous. Further, if a Presbyterian doesn’t have the right to say a Pentecostal is not a Christian, it follows that a peaceful Muslim doesn’t have the right to say a fundamentalist is not a Muslim.

If a “true believer” is one who follows everything in their holy book, and the fundamentalists are adhering to this, how should we view peaceful Muslims? While I believe they are indeed Muslims, can it be the fundamentalists are actually the true Muslims?

What’s the takeaway?

The free world should open its eyes, understand there is a war going on. Ignoring it won’t eliminate it. It will allow it to continue unabated. We should stop letting naïveté and political correctness govern our views or our laws. Difficult decisions will need to be made, and soon.  If the status quo continues the lifestyle free people are accustomed to will soon become a thing of the past.

Years ago there was a commercial by a manufacturer of engine oil filters that suggested not to ignore the importance of changing filters when necessary. The closing words of the commercial were “pay me now… or pay me later.”

Dan Calic is a writer, history student and speaker. See additional articles on his Facebook page.

Where is the Mystical “Peaceful” Version of Islam Taught?

UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 12, 2016:

American and European leaders tell us that Islam is a “wonderful” “religion” which teaches peace and love among all peoples.  Officials often quote the Koran in order to demonstrate the truth of this narrative.  Yet, the question remains:  Where do MUSLIMS teach other MUSLIMS that Islam requires them to love all other people in the world, and “do unto others?”

The answer:  Nowhere on the planet except in Muslim homes where parents teach their children these principles, which are entirely contrary to the teachings of Islam.

Islam is Sharia and Sharia is Islam.  Sharia (Islamic Law) comes from the Koran (the direct word of Allah) and the example of the prophet Mohammad (Sunnah) – the most perfect man according to Islam.  Allah in the Koran said whatever was revealed to Mohammad chronologically last overrules what was revealed before it (Koran 16:101, 2:106).  The last chronological verses in the Koran to discuss jihad include Sura (chapter) 9 verse 5 which says, “Fight and slay the unbeliever wherever you find them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush.”

islam (3)

Verses in the Koran such as “Let there be no compulsion in religion” are overruled (abrogated) by verses like Koran 3:85 stating that all people who are not Muslim go to hell, and Koran 5:51 which states, “Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends…”  Muslims who do will go to hell.

In fact, the Koran says that non-Muslims are the “worst of creatures.”

“Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.” (Koran 98:6)

Mohammad himself, in the most authoritative reports (hadith) in Islam, said, “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Mohammad is the Messenger of Allah.”
(Bukhari 385 / Muslim, Book of Faith, 29)

In fact, Mohammad called for all Jews to be killed when he said in the most authoritative hadith in Islam: “The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. It will not come until the Jew hides behind rocks and trees. It will not come until the rocks or the trees say, ‘O Muslim! O servant of God! There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.” (Al-Bukhari: 103/6, number 2926)

Authoritative Islamic hadith by the most revered hadith scholar (Bukhari) says the Muslim prophet Jesus will return at the end of days to kill all the Jews and cast all Christians into hell for not converting to Islam.

The purpose of Islam, according to Islam, is to eliminate all places on the earth where sharia is not the law of the land (Dar al Harb/House of War), until the entire world is made the Dar al Islam (House of Islam) under sharia.  Then you have “peace.”  The vehicle to do this is called “jihad.”

So, Islam is the religion of peace, so long as you remember to translate English to English through the filter of sharia and how it defines “peace.”

Back to the question:  Where is the Mystical “Peaceful” Version of Islam Taught?

It is not taught in Islamic elementary, junior high, or high schools anywhere on the planet.

It is not taught in the most prestigious and oldest Islamic schools of jurisprudence, such as Al Azhar in Egypt.

It is not taught in Islamic Centers/Mosques anywhere in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, Africa, or North America.

It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims at the Department of Defense.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims inside American churches and synagogues.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, CIA, and elsewhere in our intelligence and law enforcement services.  It is taught by Muslims to non-Muslims to Members of Congress, National Security staffs, state legislators, and many other elected and appointed officials in the United States.

It appears many people may be unaware it is a capital crime in Islam for a Muslim to teach another Muslim anything that is untrue about Islam, but it is obligatory for a Muslim to lie to a non-Muslim when the goal is obligatory – like in Jihad.

President Obama’s Speech at Islamic Center of Baltimore: A Fact Check

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Breitbart, by Clare Lopez, Feb.5, 2016:

Perhaps it’s because he was making faces in Qur’an class instead of paying attention to his teacher. Or maybe he just has a selective memory about what he was taught as a young Muslim student in Indonesia.

Whatever the reason, President Barack Obama got a lot of things factually wrong in his 3 February 2016 speech at the Islamic Center of Baltimore. Things that are basic to doctrinal Islam are not only knowable because they are readily available in English but, it might be argued, obligatory that an American commander-in-chief should know in fulfillment of his oath to defend the Constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic.”

First, Mr. President, a mosque is not simply the Muslim version of a church, synagogue or temple. Because of the example of Muhammad, who is called the perfect man in the Qur’an (believed by Muslims to be the exact words of Allah), we know that mosques are established not only as places of prayer and worship, but also as centers for indoctrination, the dispensing of shariah justice, the stockpiling of weapons, and the launching of jihad. If in doubt about any of this, please check with the French police, who recently have been conducting raids on mosques and Islamic Centers in the wake of horrific jihadist attacks in Paris.

The president must have missed more than one lesson on Arabic grammar, too. When he claims that “the word itself, Islam, comes from salam—peace,” he is mistaken. While the words “Islam” and “salam” share the same three root letters—s, l, m—they are, in fact, very different words with completely different meanings. While “salam” indeed means “peace” in Arabic, “Islam” means “submission.” Submission to what? To Allah and Islamic Law. A “Muslim” is a person who submits. Surely the president knows this. Or maybe the White House Arabic language translator needs to be replaced.

Unfortunately, in pursuit of that submission, Islamic doctrine obligates Muslim conquest of the Dar al-Harb (places not yet subjugated to shariah). We know this not only from the example of Muhammad’s own life as taught to Muslim students from the 1st grade, but also from the Qur’an and hadiths. For example, Qur’an verse 9:29 says: “Fight those who believe not… until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” The Qur’an is quite clear in verse 3:85 as well: ‘Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam will never have it accepted of him…’ Islamic Law defines jihad quite simply: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

This is not cherry-picking Qur’anic verses. This is Islamic doctrine as uniformly presented in the Qur’an, hadiths, biography of Muhammad, and Islamic Law. It is the agreed consensus of all authoritative Islamic scholars throughout the centuries. We may wish that more Muslim scholars would teach the prohibition of terror (jihad). But of course, they cannot teach what is contrary to Islamic doctrine. For the Qur’an itself commands Muslims to “make ready your strength to the utmost of your power… to strike terror into the hearts of the enemy.” (Q 8:60)

And when the President purports to quote the Qur’an about killing an innocent, he either willfully or out of ignorance is misquoting Islamic scripture. In fact, Qur’an verse 5:32cites from a Jewish commentary on the Talmud: “On that account, We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people…” This is the definition of killing without right in Islam. The takeaway here is that a Muslim may not kill except those who themselves have killed without right or perpetrated “mischief in the land”—which may include failing to accept Islam. What the President and others too often leave out is the next verse, Q 5:33, which lays out the punishments for those who disobey 5:32. They are: “death, crucifixion, amputation of the hand and foot on opposite sides or exile from the land.” The President might be asked why he left those out, when they are precisely the punishments the Islamic State (IS) is applying to those under its control in faithful obedience to what they believe is the word of Allah. This isn’t an IS version or interpretation of the Qur’an. It is what the Qur’an actually says.

These are just a few of the things the President might have said, were his intention to be accurate about the enemy we fight. He might have added that we are not actually fighting terrorism: we are fighting to defend the Constitution from attack by forces of jihad seeking to impose shariah. This does not mean we must be at war with all Muslims. But all those who fight or support the Global Jihad Movement are on the wrong side of our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the way of life Americans treasure because, unlike Islamic doctrine, they enshrine principles of individual liberty, equality before man-made law, government by consent of the governed, and the right to freedoms of belief and speech.

Those, Mr. President, are the “first things” principles we Americans are willing to fight and die for. American Muslims who accept and defend them are patriots, too—but unfortunately, these are not principles to be found anywhere in the authoritative Islamic canon—and Americans need to know that.

Clare M. Lopez is Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy.

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.