Islam, Page 5

The Five Stages of Islam

By Richard Butrick

Forget the Five Pillars of Islam.  It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of  Western Democracy.  Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press.  We should never forget that “Islam” means submission — the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment  values.
Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam.  The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression.  Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket.  The demographics change but the story is the same.  First comes the taqiyya and the kitman; then comes the Sword of Islam.  Imam Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque promoter, is the current master of taqiyya.  He has gulled everyone from Bloomberg to Maureen Dowd of the NYT — who fanaticizes over male Muslims.  Expect doppelgangers of Khomeini for stage 5 and Islamic PEACE at last.
Stage 1. Establish a Beachhead
Population density à 2% (US, Australia, Canada).
Muslims are conciliatory, deferential but request harmless special treatment (foot bath facilities, removal/elimination of that which is offensive to delicate Muslim sensibilities – like walking dogs near Mosques).
Stage 2. Establish Outposts
Population density 2% – 5% (UK, Germany, Denmark).
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs.  A recent example is that of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal who is back in Jamaica after being kicked out of the UK.  Sound harmless?  Read on:
The dispatch, dated February 2010, warns that that Jamaica could be fertile ground for jihadists because of its underground drug economy, marginalized youth, insufficient security and gang networks in U.S. and British prisons.
Stage 3. Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities.
Population density 5% – 10%  (France, Sweden, Netherlands).
First comes the demand for halal food in supermarkets, and the blocking of streets for prayers; then comes the demand for self rule (within their ghettos) under Sharia.  When Muslims approach 10% of the population the demands turn to lawlessness.  In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings.  Any criticism of Islam results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam.  In France which may be over the 10% range, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law.  The national police do not even enter these ghettos.  There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities.  In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large.  The children attend madrassas.  They learn only the Koran.  To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.
Population density 20%  -  50% (Europe 2020?).
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.
Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.
Population density >  50%.
Unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels.  As Muslim population levels increase and all infidels cower in submission there will peace at last.  Dar al-Islam is achieved and everyone lives under Sharia and the Koran is the only word.
Our current Western world leaders are suckered by taqiyya and kitman and steering us into stage 3.  Allen West seems to get it but I can’t see that any of the crop of current GOP contenders really get it.  Fear of bigotry at stage 2 is the Islamists’ greatest weapon.  Crucified on the cross of bigotry — is that the future of the Western democracies?  Bigotry is only bigotry if it is out of touch with reality and it is the suckers who believe the stage 1-2 peace pitch of Islam who are the ones who are out of touch with reality — not to mention our mesmerized President.  The first GOP candidate who announces to Imam Rauf and his supporters, “Fine. A Mosque at ground zero.  But how about a cathedral in Mecca first?  It is part of our Christian outreach program of bridge building.” will be the first to get it and a big boost in the polls.
———————————————————–
What is it with Christian Bishops and the Pope? Are they victims or perpetrators of spiritual harlotry?
[Surat 4.171 – "O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa (Jesus) son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three.  Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one Godfar be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector."]

Collective Guilt:

Islam uses the argument that if some of a people have guilt, then all associated with that “some” are guilty. The antithesis of this would be that if some muslims are guilty of terrorism, that is, wanton murder, then all of Islam is guilty – if not directly guilty then by omission through failure to directly oppose and punish offenders, or at the very least openly declare that offenders are under eternal condemnation and separated (excommunicated) from Islam.

Not all Muslims are Jew-killers

Canadian Broadcast Standards Council uses our enemies’ ‘not all…’ rhetorical trick to punish host who said Koran orders Muslims to kill Jews

by Kathy Shaidle on Thursday, June 23rd, 2011 | 3 Comments

Of course, the Koran doesn’t bother with all that “not all…” nonsense, but we dhimmis are expected to.

“Not all…” is a relatively new rhetorical “rule”.

Paul Revere did not feel obliged to shout “some of the British are coming.”

If I say “Germans make good cars,” even the stupidest, craziest individual knows I don’t believe that all German citizens are employed in the automotive industry.

Yet all because of belligerent Muslims and their braindead dupes, we are suddenly supposed to say “not all Muslims.”

I refuse to acquiesce to this made up rule.

Because once we start playing by their rules, they win.

This is appeasement disguised as “civility.”

Sick of it. Sick of the lies. Besides:

“When judgment day arrives, Allah will give every Muslim a Jew or Christian to kill so that the Muslim will not enter into hell fire” (Mishkat Al-Messabih, vol. 2, no. 5552.).

How we are losing our Free Speech Rights:

What on earth is wrong with governmental officials in practically every free country?

The same thing that is wrong with many of us here — we write anonymous criticisms of Muhammad on the internet, but fail to be open about our views except in relatively limited contexts. To be open about Islam is to risk getting hit coming and going. Coming, you may get insulted, fired, sued, isolated, ostracized by ignorant people who think you are a bigot, when in fact you just do not want to have your right to freedom of thought and expression tread under by a growing worldwide totalitarian cult. Going, you may get death threats and violence from Muslims. The double-whammy, coming from Muslims on one side, and ignorant non-Muslims on the other, makes resistance challenging. A bit like jumping off a high cliff into a body of water. Most people won’t do it. Of those who will, most want to have acquired a great deal of experience with easier dives as practice. Becoming an expert capable of persuading many others that Islam is uniquely totalitarian can’t be easy.

What is wrong with officials in practically every free country? Most of the officials who know about Muhammad and Islam self-censor. And that self-censorship keeps in the dark officials and the portion of the public who don’t know about Muhammad and Islam.

ARE THE LIGHTS GOING OUT?

Here’s a very incomplete list of organizations or people self-censoring, or hiring bodyguards, or going into hiding, or taking other precautions, and sometimes getting killed or wounded after receiving death threats and violence from Muslims following the example of Muhammad, who said there would be no punishment for murdering someone who had insulted him.

Yale University Press (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Metropolitan Museum of Art (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

National Archives of Canada (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Director of the museum in the Hague, Wim van Krimpen (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

UK religious studies teacher Gary Smith (Muslims hit him over the head with an iron bar, fracturing his skull, hemmorhaging his brain, breaking his jaw, and slashing his face, for not teaching Islam as they deem apprpropriate)

State Senator Greg Ball (receives suspicious package with greeting “Asa Lamu Laikum Dead Man Walking,” (the first part of which is Arabic for “peace be upon you”) ;

2010 Tennessee candidate for Congress Lou Ann Zelenikj (death threats from Muslims);

Barrister Tom Zreika (seeks police protection after non-stop phone threats from Muslims);

Japanese translator of Rushdie, Hitoshi Igarashi (murdered);

Norwiegan translator of Rushdie, William Nygaard (shot);

Italian translator of Rushdie, Ettore Capriolo (knifed);

French singer Veronique Sanson (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Artist Molly Norris (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats, changed name, went into hiding);

The producers of South Park (self-censor in response to Muslim death threats);

Journalist Lawrence O’Donnell (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Cartoonist Lars Vilks (house firebombed);

Philosopher Robert Redeker (in hiding, under government protection);

Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (murdered);

Author and former member of Dutch parliament Hirsi Ali (full-time bodyguards);

Author Salman Rushdie (in hiding, under UK govt. protection);

Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten (bodyguards hired);

And again Jyllands Posten (five jihadists discovered planning to shoot as many people as possible);

Atheist Sabri Husibi (death threats from Muslims);

Lyricist Javed Akhtar (death threats from Muslims);

Cartoonist Kurt Westergaard (almost killed by a Muslim with an axe);

Director of the film 2012; the comedian Penn Jillette; the British potter Grayson Perry(all three self-censor in response to Muslim death threats);

Lawyer Majed Moughni (death threat from Muslim);

Author Taslima Nasreen (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Disc jockey/musician Jakub Rene Kosik (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Coptic Orthodox priest Zakaria Botros (Al Qaeda bounty of $60 million on his head);

Pop star Deeyah (hires extra bodyguards);

Politician Shiria Khatun (forced by Muslim threats to her children to dress in a “less Western” manner);

Christian minister Dr. Peter Hammond
(death threat from Muslim);

Actor Omar Sharif (Muslims call for his murder);

Artist Sooreh Hera (self-censors in response to Muslim threats and forced into hiding);

Artist Sarah Maple (gallery workers threatened, gallery window smashed, 24-hour police protection);

Beatle Paul McCartney (death threats from Muslims);

150 Austrian Coptic Christians (Austrian interior ministry found jihadist list targeting each of them for violent attack);

100+ Canadian-Arab Christians (each one targeted on an Al Qaeda website);

Volvo and Ikea (threatened by terrorist group);

UK Muslim scientist Usama Hasan (self-censors in response to Muslim death threats);

Islam expert Robert Spencer; and again Robert Spencer; and again Robert Spencer; and again Ro…well, you get the idea.

Countless others are self-censoring in response to the climate of intimidation. The lights are going out. The growth of Islam means the death of civil liberties. It’s time to resist.

 In their own words:

Islam is not a ‘curried Christianity’

by Eeyore

“Islam is not Christianity …Islam is the religion of agitation, revolution, blood, liberation and martyrdom”

Shaikh Morteza Mathari

“Those who are against killing have no place in Islam. If the survival of the Faith requires the shedding of blood, we are there to perform our duty.”

Ayatollah Sadegh Khalkhali, IRI Judge

“It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its laws on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet”

Shaikh Hassan Al-Banna, founder and Supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood

“Killing is a great Divine gift.”

“Those who say Islam should not kill don’t understand [it]. Killing is a great [divine] gift that appears [to man]. A religion that does not include [provisions for] killing and massacre is incomplete. Those who claim that Jesus was averse to killing and war, harm his prophetic mission… Killing is the same as mercy.”

Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Islamic Republic

“Violence is the heart of Islam.”

“We must wipe away the shameful stain whereby some people imagine that violence has no place in Islam… we have decided and are determined to argue that violence is the heart of Islam.”

Ayatollah Yazdi – Senior Advisor to Ahmadinejad and IRGC Leaders

Lost and found:

I’ve been looking for this quote for quite a while:

“Islam is not Christianity …Islam is the religion of agitation, revolution, blood, liberation and martyrdom”

Shaikh Morteza Mathari

sheik explains:

whereby ‘liberation’ means freedom to enslave and murder unbelievers without being punished and the freedom to treat women like shiite.

Of course the concept of ‘martyrdom’ is also extremely warped, just like their morals and their non existent ethics.

“Killing is the same as mercy.” – Ayatollah Khomeini.

That is one of the most evil things I have ever heard. It belongs right next to “freedom is slavery” and “Arbeit macht frei”. I want that bastard to be rememberd for those six words.

****

Jews and Christians, called dhimmis

Kelly OConnell

Non-Believers Under Muslim Law

Discussed in this essay are the laws and status of those persons in Islamic lands who are not Muslims. This group is mainly composed of Jews and Christians, called dhimmis. What is important about this topic is it communicates better than any other method the true historic beliefs of Muslims towards Westerners. Therefore, it indicates how a good Muslim should view a non-believer, especially if they ever achieve control of a formerly non-Islamic state, like America.
Every Islamic country has different application of Shari’ah law. Further, modernity has made great inroads against regimes attempting to use primitive Muslim law. But enough Shari’ah remains in various countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to cause concern. Also, bear in mind America’s worst Muslim enemies call for pure Shari’ah. But the main lesson to take from this study is how Muslims see unbelievers and how they choose to treat them when no one is looking. This alone should help us better understand people like the Ground Zero Mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, and hissecret aspirations.The problem in Muslim lands fordhimmis (protected non-Muslims) is summed up by Patrick Sookhdeo, inFreedom To Believe, where he explains that most Muslim countries have dual justice systems with Western civil courts, and also MuslimShari’ah (Islamic Law) courts. Most of these countries have signed various world human rights agreements. So how do these Islamic states get away with categorizing Muslim and non-Muslim with different status in the Muslim courts? By subverting these agreements under the Shari’ah, according to Sookhdeo.

I. World View of Islam

Islam is a survivor of the crucible of war. Muhammad’s society was quite warlike, and this ethos is fixed within the Islamic religion and societal norms. Thus we have the doctrine of jihad, which has been historically tied to battling the unbelieving world (jihadis best translated as “battle,” revealing the word can both mean “holy war” and “to struggle against” without any contradiction).

Also, strong is the Bedouin tribal ethos in the Arab mind to this day, according to Raphael Patai, in The Arab Mind. And the Islamic worldview is steeped in religion in a way Westerners cannot fathom, but the religion itself is bent on subjugation of each individual in the society, not mere conversion. This is why the very term Islam meanssubmission.

A. House of War v. House of God

Muslims believe that the world is composed of two entities—Non-believers in theHouse of War; and Muslims in the House of Allah. One website writes:

Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual conflict: The House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam (dar al-Islam) embraces territory where Islamic law (Sharia) is the law of the land, while the House of War (dar al- Harb) comprises the rest of the world. The House of Islam is enjoined by Allah to make war upon the House of War until the latter is permanently assimilated into the former.

B. Jihad: War as Mission

Jihad means to struggle or battle. While many Muslims and Western liberals insist the term is used primarily in a non-violent sense, this is misleading. The world view of Islam is based upon an us-versus-them model. Islam is doctrinally in a state of perpetual war against non-Muslims, even when a truce has been signed. This constant state of war-readiness of Islam is a key to understand their view of the world. Daniel Pipes explains:

Jihad is “holy war.” Or, more precisely: It means the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad, in other words, is not directly to spread the Islamic faith but to extend sovereign Muslim power (faith, of course, often follows the flag). Jihad is thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.

Jihad in the sense of territorial expansion has always been a central aspect of Muslim life. That’s how Muslims came to rule much of the Arabian Peninsula by the time of the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632. It’s how, a century later, Muslims had conquered a region from Afghanistan to Spain. Subsequently, jihad spurred and justified Muslim conquests of such territories as India, Sudan, Anatolia, and the Balkans.

C: Muslims in Foreign Climes

One of the great questions in the history of Islam is whether a Muslim living in non-Islamic lands must still follow all the dictates of the Shari’ah. Writes Michael Mumisa, inIslamic Law, Theory & Application,

While a non-Muslim under the protection of an Islamic government [dhimmi] is expected to obey all the laws of the Islamic state, is a Muslim under the protection of a non-Muslim state expected to obey all the laws of the host country most of which conflict with the Shari’ah law? These are questions whose answers are absent from classical or medieval Islamic literature or from a historical critical reading of the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Yet, another eminent Islamic legal scholar, Abdur Rahman I. Doi, says in Non-Muslims under Shariah (Islamic law), that since the Shari’ah is God’s perfect law for mankind representing his infallible will, it is imperative that all believers obey this at all times, regardless where they reside.

This then sums up a conundrum: Whether a Muslim believes he should follow the complete Shari’ah, there exists a problem for conscientious Muslims in foreign lands as to which law is preeminent. This problem was addressed for Christians by Jesus inLuke 20:25 when He taught, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and Render unto God what is God’s.” So, an upstanding Christian can be both a good citizen of an earthly state and also of God’s Kingdom.

D. Muslim States

Muslims have a different idea of what constitutes a “state,” as opposed to Western practice. Samuel Shahid, in The Myth of Islamic Tolerance cites how prominent Pakistani scholar Maududi explains this difference:

  1. An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe.
  2. Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state “should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology.” Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking.
  3. An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law “Shari`a” guarantees to non-Muslims “certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology.” Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they “become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government.”

Categories of Acceptable Unbelievers

A. Dhimmi: Jew & Christian

dhimmi is a member of the class of persons in an Islamic country not Muslim but who follow the Bible, being Jews and Christians (other can include Sabians andZoroastrians). Dhimmis are given a kind of protection in an Islamic state which is neither complete in scope, nor equal in application, as the following will show.

Warrant for Dhimmi comes from the chapter the Cow in the Qur’an 2:62:

Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.

In accepting dhimmitude, the non-believers have to enter a pact called the Covenant of Umar, according to Bat Yeor in Dhimmi Peoples, Oppressed Nations. The Covenant dates from the 7th century, not long after Muhammad died, and outlines what dhimmishad to do then to stay in an Islamic state.

Jizyah: To have any status, whatsoever, a non-believer in a Muslim country must immediately enter into a treaty of war. This is essentially an agreement of a truce between the non-believer and the Islamic state. This only makes sense when considering that in Islam, there is a metaphorical House of War in which abide only enemy combatants, where non-Muslims reside. Then there is the House of Peace, or Allah, which is where all Muslims abide. Therefore, if a non-Muslim wants to reside in an Islamic state, he or she must officially renounce war through the Jizyah.

This is according to the Submission chapter in the Qur’an 9:29:

You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth – among those who received the scripture – until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

Jizyah literally means “penalty,” according to Shahida. It is described as a “fixed poll tax” by Joseph Schacht in Introduction to Islamic Law. It is described as a 10% tax and meant to cover the costs of defending the dhimmi, etc. Yet the jizyah is also meant to humble the dhimmi. According to Ye’or, the Jizyah “…symbolizes the subjugation and humiliations of the vanquished.” Ye’or details another tax put, being the kharadj, a land tax placed on lands where indigenous dhimmis reside, meaning these are at a decided economic disadvantage to Muslims.

Legal Status: A position of Muslim Shari’ah law is that under it, all are equal. This proposition is highly misleading. Not everyone has access to these rules. For example, a Dhimmi is not the legal equal of a Muslim, but a “second-class citizen,” according to Patai. So a Dhimmi can only give testimony against another Dhimmi, but not against a Muslim. This embargo is much more damaging than it sounds because the only form of acceptable evidence allowed in Shari’ah courts is verbal testimony. It also acts to keep dhimmis from suing or taking Muslims to court.

Further, all laws are said to apply to dhimmis, but if a dhimmi were attacked and killed by a Muslim, the latter cannot be put to death, but only forced to pay a fine based on status, or “blood price.” Since Islamic law generally does not impose imprisonment, this leaves dhimmis in a highly precarious position as regards enemies and safety. Many more examples like this abound.

Religion: According to Islam, both Jews and Christians are characterized by disobedience and by refusing to accept the Last Prophet—Muhammad. This lack of religious integrity is damning and so these dhimmis cannot express their religious beliefs without poisoning the Muslim state.

A realistic view of Islam, in terms of civil and human rights, is within the Muslim state no person has these types of American constitutional rights. They are unimagined in theQur’an. But if anyone had such rights, it certainly would not be dhimmis. Shahid explains the basic modern restrictions against dhimmis in an Islamic state, which takes much from the Covenant of Umar.

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on dhimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

  1. Dhimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. “Old churches” are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.
  2. Dhimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.
  3. Dhimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.
  4. Dhimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.
  5. Dhimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines.
  6. Dhimmis are not allowed to congregate in the streets during their religious festivals; rather, each must quietly make his way to his church or temple.
  7. Dhimmis are not allowed to join the army unless there is indispensable need for them in which case they are not allowed to assume leadership positions but are considered mercenaries.

Other Dhimmi Restrictions: According to Ye’or, dhimmis were historically forbidden from raising a hand against a Muslim in self-defense, even if the aggressor is trying to kill them; to criticize Islam, the Prophet, or angels; to convert to any religion other than Islam; to marry a Muslim woman or concubine; to hold authority over a Muslim; to enter certain restricted towns; or have articles of clothing that were similar to Muslim styles.

Dhimmis also had to live in a separate part of town where their gates closed in the evening; have shorter houses than Muslims; to practice their religion only in secret; to bury their dead quickly and in silence in a non-Muslim style tomb; to wear special clothes not only indicating their dhimmihood, but also which sub-group they belonged to.

Dhimmis must walk humbly with lowered eyes and accept insults without answering back; to keep a humble and respectful attitude when encountering a Muslim; to leave Muslims the best seats; and to make haste when walking through Muslim town. When encountering a Muslim, these must pass on the (impure) left, while the anointed were encouraged to press them against the wall to rub in their loathsome status.

Dhimmis were not allowed to ride horses or camels, since this would create unjustified social status. Unbelievers could use donkeys, but only outside of town. These were often left the most socially debased professions such as grave-digger or garbage collector. Muslims were encouraged to not have social intercourse with dhimmis, but if this was necessary, to do so with utmost brevity while expressing unbridled contempt in the same breath.

Jews, in particular, are not to raise their voices in front of Muslims, practice the same trade as a Muslim; claim that Shari’ah Muslim law could be defective; rise an animal astraddle; mention religion to Muslims; squint to try and imagine Muslims in the nude; sound their ram-horn bugle the shofar; or lend money with interest—by which, it is warned, they could end up destroying the world, writes Ye’or.

Conclusion

The enormous difference between ideas of equality and fairness that separate the Islamic world and the West are so colossal it defies easy explanation. In fact, we must study Islam in pieces to really understand the whole. This matters, because—before long—each big US city will undoubtedly have Muslims similar to Rauf seeking to influence policies and get involved in political life, and put the imprint of Muhammad upon all they touch.

Unless we understand the grave differences between the two world views, representing not just rules, but also principles and values, we will be at severe disadvantage in defending our ancestral freedoms against incursion of foreign belief. This matters because Islam has always been a missionary religion, propagated by force and invasion. If we don’t understand its virulence and fatalistic determination, and that there is no alternative peaceful view in traditional Islam, great and quick may be our fall.

 

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

sheikyermami October 26, 2011 at 12:49 pm

Timeless Islamo-Realism from Princeton’s Patricia Crone

Muhammad’s God endorsed a policy on conquest, instructing his believers to fight against unbelievers wherever they might be found…Arab soldiers were told on the eve of the battle of Qadisiyya [as recorded by the great Muslim historian Tabari], with reference to Iraq; ‘if you hold out…then their property, their women, their children, and their country will be yours.’ God could scarcely have been more explicit. He told the Arabs that they had a right to despoil others of their women, children, and land, or indeed they had a duty to do so: holy war consisted in obeying. Muhammad’s God elevated this tribal militance and rapaciousness into supreme religious virtues: the material interests were those inherent in tribal society, and we do not need to compound the problem by conjecturing that others were at work. It is precisely because the material interests of Allah and the tribesmen coincided that the latter obeyed him with such enthusiasm…In short, Muhammad had to conquer, his followers liked to conquer, and his deity told him to conquer: do we need any more?

Found on Andrew Bostom’s blog

sheikyermami March 14, 2012 at 2:30 am

Founder of International Law Thought Islamic States Should be Excluded from the Family of Nations

Posted by Cheradenine Zakalwe

It’s always interesting to read perspectives on Islam from the era before political correctness cast its blight upon the western world, driving honest discussion from mainstream public discourse out to the margins, before it finally made a glorious comeback on the blogosphere.

I was reading a book about the history of “human rights” and came across a reference to a James Lorimer who, in the nineteenth century, argued that Islamic states should be excluded from the family of nations. Intrigued, I did some googling.

Lorimer, it seems, was a Scottish professor of law and one of the founders of the Institut du Droit International, an organisation that played a leading role in shaping what is called (wrongly, in my view) international law.

Lorimer believed that the Islamic ethical system was so radically distinct from that found among the rest of humankind that Islamic nations should be excluded from the sphere of international relations and not granted recognition as legitimate sovereign actors. In his book “The institutes of the law of nations; a treatise of the jural relations of separate political communities” (1883), he wrote:
To talk of the recognition of Mahometan States as a question of time, is to talk nonsense. Unless we aie all to become Mahometans, that is a time which
Mahometanism itself tells us can never come. We are thus
driven to assume towards it the same uncompromising attitude
which it presents to us. So long as Islam endures, the recon-
ciliation of its adherents, even with Jews and Christians, and
still more with the rest of mankind, must continue to be an
insoluble problem; and it is a problem, unhappily, which
presents itself not only to the whole of Europe in the Eastern
question, but to the Russians and to us in Asia, and to the
French in North Africa, in each case on a prodigious scale.
To us it is aggravated by our national traditions and feelings,
which forbid us to refuse to any portion of mankind the
ultimate prospect of self-government. But prejudice, when
based on false dogma, is the toughest of all forms of error,
and these religions will die hard. For an indefinite future,
however reluctantly, we must confine our political recognition
to the professors of those religions which, by conscious or
unconscious processes, have been reasoned out from the facts
of nature, and which preach the doctrine of ”live and let
live.”

Now that we know so much more about the unique evil of Mohammedanism, it behooves us to take note of the few discerning minds who perceived it long ago. We should pay their prescience the tribute it is due.

sheikyermami July 9, 2012 at 11:09 am

Slander in Islam

The Jewish Federation permitted itself to be used as an enforcer of Islamic Shari’ah Law. Under Shari’ah law, slander forbids the mere criticism of Islam. In Reliance of the Traveller: A Classical Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, slander is defined as follows:

Slander (ghiba) means to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike, whether about his body, religion, everyday life, self, disposition, property, son, father, wife, servant, turban, garment, gait, movements, smiling, dissoluteness, frowning, cheerfulness, or anything else connected with him.

Note that this statement is diametrically opposed to the U.S. definition of slander. In Shari’ah Law, a statement is considered slander if it is critical of Islam, regardless of whether it is true or false. Under U.S. law only false statements are considered slander. From Black’s Law Dictionary:

Slander, n: 1. A defamatory statement…

Defamation. 1) The act of harming the reputation of another by making a false statement to a third person. If the alleged defamation involves a matter if public concern, the plaintiff is constitutionally required to prove both the statement’s falsity and the defendants fault. 2) A false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation.

This is not a secret. Islamists state it openly. From the site, IslamHelpline:

One of our brothers/sisters has asked this question:

Dear Brother Assalaamualaikum

I would like guidance on how I should view the Hadith quoted as under_

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 38, Number 4349

Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

I am sure it can be explained in and with proper context.

Please help me.

Jazak Allah Khairan.

Answer:

Kill one who abuses reviles Prophet (saws)

Examples of the enforcement of Shari’ah Law include:

Gillian Gibbons, threatened with death for calling a bear “Mohammed:”

Breitbart has more

sheikyermami October 4, 2012 at 4:31 pm

Once again, the good imam Maududi:

[on 9:29] The purpose for which the Muslims are required to fight is not, as one might think, to compel the unbelievers into embracing Islam. Rather their purpose is to put an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of the unbelievers so that the latter are unable to rule over men. The authority to rule should only be vested in those who follow the true faith [Islam]; unbelievers who do not follow this true faith should live in state of subordination. Unbelievers are required to pay jizyah [the deliberately humiliating Koranic poll tax] in lieu of the security provided to them as the Dhimmis [non-Muslim, non-citizen pariahs vanquished by jihad] of an Islamic State. Jizyah symbolizes the submission of unbelievers to the suzerainty of Islam. “To pay jizyah of their own hands humbled” refers to payment in a state of submission. “Humbled” also reinforces the idea that the believers, rather than the unbelievers, should be the rulers in performance of their duty as God’s vicegerents. Initially the rule that jizyah should be realized from all non-Muslims meant its application to Christians and Jews living in the Islamic state. Later on the Prophet extended it to Zoroastrians as well, granting them the status of Dhimmis. Guided by the Prophet’s practice the Companions applied this rule to all non-Muslim religious communities living outside Arabia. Some nineteenth century Muslim writers and their followers in our own times never seem to tire of their apologies for jizyah. But God’s religion does not require that apologetic explanations be made on its behalf.

Fabiana January 20, 2013 at 10:44 pm

Al-Maghrib is the best. They have very good instructors. It is also very eduactional and the lectures are very interesting. The volunteers are very helpful. I recommend this institute to everyone that wants to seek knowledge about Islam.

Leave a Comment