Islam

• Page 2.  Please visit Page 1

 Islam supersedes all pre-Islamic teachings. (al Azhar, Cairo)

Fitzgerald’s Prayer

Stop, for god’s sake stop, importing trouble—and Muslim immigrants, as a whole, necessarily mean trouble, in all lands where the political and legal institutions, and social arrangements, are flatly contradicted by the Shari’a. Muslims are obligated to change or tear down those institutions, in order to remove all “obstacles to Islam.” It is not special or individual malice that prompts that attitude. That is their duty, a central duty. Why not come to fully and soberly understand that duty, and out of a minimal sense of self-preservation, cease to import those into our lands (America, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and every other place that has so generously admitted, under a twisted definitiion of “refugees,” people who do not, and can not, wish our ways or institutions or constitutions well.

Hugh Fitzgerald

No, Islam is not a ‘religion of peace’

“Listen, and understand. That Islam is out there. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.”

The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa’l-Siyar)

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim, book 019, Number 4294)   (Source)

Shaming the Muslims Out of Islam

This is a terrific interview with the author of “Islamic Jihad,” one of the best new books on Islam.

• Please visit ourcurrent site

“The Qur’an Can Only be Understood in Arabic”

90 % of Muslims cannot speak  (or read) Arabic, in fact, 70 % of Muslims are illiterate, stoopid and poor because of Islam. But this they all understand:

The Killing of Umm Qirfa by Prophet Mohammed

• Embracing Dhimmitude

No, Muslims are not ‘new Jews’

Miriam Shaviv/Jewish Chronicle

Britain’s first Muslim government minister, Shahid Malik, thinks that many British Muslims feel like “the Jews of Europe”.“I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust,” the Dewsbury MP said last week on Channel 4, “but in the way that it was legitimate almost — and still is in some parts — to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.”

Indonesian headbanger-Jew-hater…

It is a perverse comparison. Unlike Europe’s Jews under the Nazis, UK Muslims face no legal restrictions on their movements, occupations, or marriage partners; have a vote; are not forced to wear identifying clothing; and certainly do not face physical annihilation. Moreover, the Jews were targeted for their ethnic identity alone, whereas the Muslim community could do much to stem anti-Islamic feeling by doing more to confront the extremists in its midst.

Yet the accusation has become fashionable, repeated lately by former London mayor Livingstone and Sunday Times columnist India Knight, among others.

The irony, of course, is that in today’s Britain, Jews are four times more likely to be physically attacked because of their religion than Muslims, according to police figures from 2006. And a large percentage of these attacks — between 27 and 38 per cent in the past four years, according to the CST — are by people of “Asian or Arab appearance”. For Mr Malik — who was guest speaker at the Liberal Judaism patrons’ dinner earlier this year — to use the Jews in order to claim the mantle of victimhood under such circumstances is cynical in the extreme.

Militant breeders in the UK

Why JFS is wrong

Europe’s largest Jewish day school, JFS, has spent £100,000 defending in court its decision to refuse entry to a boy whose mother had converted through a Progressive beth din. This in addition to the time and energy it has spent keeping out the children of two women who converted Orthodox in Israel, but were deemed “insincere” by our own Office of the Chief Rabbi. But is this really a sensible use of the school’s resources? JFS pupils in Year 7 spend just five hours a week on Jewish subjects, including Hebrew; and less in later years. This is only marginally more than they would receive in cheder. Perhaps if the school focused less on keeping supposed non-Jews out, and more on offering a thorough Jewish education to the kids they let in, the entire community would benefit.

Media’s horror

The Telegraph’s coverage of the terror attack in Jerusalem last week was sickening. Accompanying a full-length report — which did not even name the victims — was a box focusing solely on the murderer. And the paper seemed to have swallowed whole the story spun by his family, that it was — yup, you guessed it — the Jews’ fault: he had his “heart broken by a Jewish girl”, and “never recovered from [the] doomed romance”, which ended years ago. As if this could ever explain or justify murder; as if this is where our sympathies should lie. What on earth were they thinking?

Back of the bus

Religious coercion in Israel continues apace. Last week, the “Rabbis of the Commission on Transportation Issues” sent a letter to students at the girls’ Bais Yaakov schools, and published ads in the Charedi press, asking girls to sit at the back of buses. The aim is to force the transport companies to segregate lines running through Charedi areas by gender, and let women board buses via the back door. This, said the ads, was “halachic travel” — although mixed buses seem acceptable to Charedim across the world, and even in Israel until recently. There have been several incidents of women, including frum novelist Naomi Ragen, being physically beaten for refusing to vacate their seats at the front of unsegregated buses. Once again, in the Israeli Charedi world, the law and the wishes of the majority of the population don’t count — might is right.

Koran lesson:

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” — Qur’an 8:67

Robert D. Crane’s lies and empty boasts in The American Muslim

In the truth-challenged American Muslim, Robert Crane says:

Fortunately, the run-of-the mill Islamophobes, like Robert Spencer, shoot themselves in the foot by attempting patently to pervert Islam through the mouths of the worst Muslim extremists in order to prove their superficial and easily demolishable case.

Unfortunately for Crane, he flagrantly lied when attempting to demolish my case in the past, claiming that a Qur’anic passage that quite obviously mandates the killing of enemies as preferable to the taking of hostages (“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” — Qur’an 8:67) as meaning just the opposite. I had said that it meant that making “slaughter” was preferable to taking hostages. Crane claimed that I was lying, and that this passage meant that “the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin and warranted a ‘tremendous chastisement.'”

Unfortunately for Crane, even Muslim translators of the Qur’an say that the “tremendous chastisement” will come because the Muslims took hostages and demanded ransom instead of killing those they took hostage. Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates 8:68 as “Had it not been for a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe penalty would have reached you for the (ransom) that ye took.” Yet despite Ali’s gloss that the “severe penalty” would come because of the “ransom,” which is just what I said, Robert D. Crane has never called Abdullah Yusuf Ali an “Islamophobe.”

Sure, Mr. Crane, it’s easy to “demolish” me when you lie to make your case. But despite your shaky relationship with honesty and truth, I still invite you to demolish me face-to-face. All the time I hear from you and your coreligionists — such as CAIR’s Ahmed Rehab — that my “case” is “easily demolished,” and yet none of you mighty men are willing to meet me in an honest discussion and debate, and prove your assertion.

Now, why is that?

*****

Abdullah Saeed’s Steaming Pile of Taqiyya

Abdullah Saeed paints Islam as a peaceful religion, and that any religion can be twisted to support evil intent. These views do not stand up to scrutiny

Robert Spencer: “… peaceful Muslims have never formulated an Islamic response to the jihadists’ claim to represent pure and true Islam—and as long as they do not and apparently cannot do so, the jihadists will continue to hold the intellectual initiative within Islamic communities worldwide… no one, Muslim or non-Muslim, has ever yet refuted the contention that Islam teaches warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. And so one thing is certain: that warfare will continue”.

”For while the Bible contains descriptions of violent acts committed in the name of God, nowhere does it teach believers to imitate that violence. Where people are commanded to commit acts of violence, these are commands directed to specific individuals or groups in particular situations; they are not universal commands.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, quite clearly does teach believers to commit acts of violence against unbelievers—see 2:190-193, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc. There are no equivalents to such open-ended and universal commands, addressed to all believers to fight unbelievers, in the Bible.”

Saladin: Hero of Villain?

The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam

Citizen Warrior

HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED why millions of Muslim men are dedicated to killing Americans? Or why so many are willing to blow themselves up to kill Israelis? Or why they are so committed to blowing up random people in Bali, London, Madrid, etc.?

Islamic supremacists are doing this all over the world, attacking Westerners and their own fellow Muslims alike. Why?

Because of a doctrine. A doctrine is a collection of ideas. These could be customs, words, beliefs, etc. A religion is not a single idea; it is a collection of ideas. The collection of ideas that make up the religion of Islam makes Muslims behave and feel as they do.

Collections of ideas compete with each other in the same way that collections of cells (organisms) compete with each other. And because idea-collections compete, and because new ideas can often be added or subtracted from the collection, and because some collections gain more believers than others, collections of ideas can actuallyevolve.

Let’s look at how religious idea-collections evolve and compete. To begin with, let’s assume we already have a religion established. It already has a holy book and millions of people are already believers.

And then there is a slight variation.

The original version had a “live and let live” attitude, and never tried to encourage its followers to get converts. But then someone comes up with the idea that if you can persuade a non-believer to become a believer, you earn some sort of spiritual merit. You are saving souls, and your chances of getting into heaven are better.

Okay, now you have two variations on the same religion: One contains the idea that it doesn’t really matter if you get anyone else to join the religion. The other motivates its believers to persuade others to join.

After a thousand years, which of the two variations will have more believers? I’m betting on the motivated-to-spread-it version.

Let’s assume, for the moment, that the motivated version gets far more followers. Does that mean it makes people happier? Or more successful in life? Or have healthier children? No. Just because a collection of ideas successfully gains followers does not mean it benefits any of the people believing those ideas.

The same is true in genetics. Contrary to common sense, a successful gene doesn’t necessarily benefit the organism. It is “successful” in the sense that it has made lots of copies of itself and is found in many organisms. But it may actually be harmful for the organism.

For example, if there is a gene for alcoholism, and if drinking causes someone to start having children youngerthan someone who doesn’t drink, over thousands of years, the alcoholism gene might be more successful (the gene makes its way into more offspring) than the non-alcoholism gene, even though it is bad for each individual person carrying the gene.

In the same way, the success of an idea-collection doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for the people who believe it or follow it.

If an idea-collection says it is wrong to use contraception and wrong to masturbate, over time, that idea-collection would probably be followed by more people than the version that says these things are just fine (assuming people normally teach their children to believe as they do).

So the hapless believer of a particular idea-collection will try to follow the rules and be a good person by avoiding the evils of contraception and masturbation, and what will be the result for him personally? He may have more children than he might want or could afford, causing him to work overtime to support them — working two jobs if he must. This may send him to an early grave, but his effort creates more believers of that particular collection of ideas than someone who doesn’t hold those ideas.

So in a sense, the idea-collection has used the man for its own purposes, or at least that’s one legitimate way to look at it. And it’s a way that sheds new light on Islamic supremacism, which is why I’ve spent so much time explaining it.

If you were going to deliberately design a collection of ideas with the purpose of making one that might eventually dominate the world — one that would eventually out-compete every other religion or political system — you would be hard-pressed to do better than Islam.

Let’s look at some of the individual ideas within the collection. Many of the ideas enhance each other. In other words, adding one idea to the others can make the whole collection much more effective because some ideas work synergistically.

Here are some of the key components of the idea-collection known as Islam:

1. A standardized version of the idea-collection iswritten down. This is something basic to several religions and isn’t an Islamic invention, but it is an important factor in the success of Islam.

Something only transmitted orally can change over time, but something written will be identical a thousand years from now, and with modern printing presses, can be reproduced in the millions, giving it an enormous advantage in spreading identical copies of the idea-collection.

2. The Qur’an includes instructions for its own spread.It tells believers they must spread Islam. It is their holy duty to bring Mohammad’s warnings and Islamic law to every corner of the world.

3. The idea-collection includes instructions for its own preservation, protection, and replication fidelity. The Qur’an, the most important of the Islamic holy books, directly tells its followers that they can never change or modify or “modernize” any of the teachings within the idea-collection. It is perfect as it is. It is a capital sin to try to do so. This idea ensures the preservation of the whole collection.

These first three ideas are pretty standard for several successful religions. But now it gets interesting…

4. Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it. This may be one of the most ingenious ideas in the whole collection. Islam is the only religion that uses it. Other groups of religious people have had political aspirations, but no other major religious group orders its followers — as a religious duty — to create a government that follows its own system of law.

Islam has a system of law, called Shari’a, and all Muslims are obligated to continually strive to make their government — wherever they are — follow it. Because of some of the other ideas added to Islam, you will see that this political addition to the idea-collection has significant consequences. Not only is this perhaps Islam’s most brilliant innovation, it is also the most terrifying to non-Muslims.

5. Permission to spread the religion by war. This is another brilliant innovation. Although some other religionshave spread themselves using force, they had very little justification from their own religious doctrines to do so.

Not so with Islam. Expanding by conquest is very much accepted and encouraged by the idea-collection. Islamic teachings present it this way: The poor non-Muslims not living in an Islamic state need to be saved from the sin of following laws other than Allah’s. If they won’t voluntarily change their laws to Shari’a, then it is the duty of Muslim warriors to insist. The world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah.

Mohammad’s own experience showed the example — an example, says the Qur’an, that every Muslim should follow. At first, Mohammad tried to spread Islam by peaceful means. After thirteen years he had a paltry 150 converts.

But then he changed tactics and started using warfare, slaughter, executions, and assassination, and within ten years he converted tens of thousands, and after he died, they used the same tactics and converted millions. And by simple population increase, it is now over a billion.

The use of warfare combines synergistically and powerfully with the instruction to create an Islamic state. So Islam spread quickly as their armies got bigger. They conquered and set up Islamic states, most of which have lasted to this day, and the laws within an Islamic state make Islam very difficult to dislodge. The laws also make it very advantageous to convert to Islam.

This is one of the most effective methods ever invented for getting an idea-collection into huge numbers of minds. It’s a method of control and indoctrination similar to those used successfully in communist and totalitarian states. But as you’ll discover below, Islam makes unique use of the power of the law to enforce complete conversion to the religion.

6. Lands must be conquered. Lands that Islam has lostmust be reconquered, like Spain and Israel, for example. The Islamic empire must continually expand. Contraction is bad, expansion is good. So if a land was once Islamic and now it is not, that’s contraction, and must be remedied.

According to Islamic teachings, the earth is Allah’s. If there are parts of the earth not following Islamic law, it is the duty of the faithful to gain control of that land and establish Shari’a. It is a sin to let it be.

7. The idea-collection provides for new soldiers by allowing polygamy. A Muslim man can marry up to four wives, and he can have sex with as many slave girls as he wishes.

The Qur’an especially encourages men to marry widows. This is an important idea to add if you are going to be losing a lot of soldiers in war. You need some way of replenishing your army. Otherwise the idea-collection could die out from a lack of offspring.

8. It is a punishable offense to criticize Islam. You can see why this one is a good supporting idea for the collection. It helps suppress any ideas that would reduce the authority of Islamic ideas. This one, like many of the others, is good for the idea-collection, but bad for people. This one limits freedom of speech.

9. You can’t leave Islam once you’re in. This is an interesting one. It is actually illegal in Islamic states to convert out of Islam. This is a critical part of Shari’a law. Someone who has rejected Islam who was once a Muslim is an “apostate.” This is a crime and a sin, and the punishment for it is death (and eternal damnation in hell thereafter).

Obviously, you can see why this idea has been included in the collection, but this one has actually caused Islam a problem because those who are following Islam to the letter consider more “moderate” Muslims (those who want to ignore or alter the more violent passages of the Qur’an) to be apostates. Since the punishment for apostates is death, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting modernizing Muslims all over the world, and keeping many rebellious, modernizing Muslims (or MINOs) from speaking up for fear of death.

Every time a group of Muslims decides that maybe Islam should be updated for the 21st century and maybe women should have some rights or maybe the government should be more democratic, the devout Muslims call them apostates and try to kill them.

The idea-collection protects its own fidelity (the original idea-collection cannot be altered). This is not good for the organisms (the Muslim human beings), but it’s great for the collection.

Another idea in Shari’a law says it’s against the law for anyone to try to convert a Muslim to another religion.

10. Islam must be your first allegiance. This is a great idea to add to the collection if the goal is world domination. You are a Muslim first, before any allegiance you give to your family, your tribe, or your country.

This does two things: It causes a unity of people across borders which allows the group to grow bigger than any other entity. In other words, the “Nation of Islam” can grow bigger than any country, no matter how large (which gives the group a massive numerical advantage).

11. Dying while fighting for Islam is the ONLY way to guarantee a man’s entrance into Paradise. This is a great idea for creating fearless, enthusiastic warriors, especially given the Qur’an’s vivid descriptions of the sensuous delights of Paradise.

A Muslim man has a chance of getting to Paradise if he is a good Muslim, but it is not guaranteed. However, if he dies while fighting for Islam, he is guaranteed to get in, and that’s the only thing he can do to guarantee it.

12. You must read the Qur’an in Arabic. This unites believers by language, and language is a very powerful unifying phenomenon. For added incentive to learn Arabic, another idea in the collection says you can’t go to Paradise unless you pray in Arabic.

So all Muslims all over the world share a language. This makes it easier to coordinate far-reaching campaigns of protest, political pressure, and war. I doubt if Mohammad foresaw this possibility, but this idea is brilliant, even if it was an accident.

13. You must pray five times a day. This is one of the five “pillars” — that is, one of the five central practices — of Islam. Within an Islamic state, it is enforced by law. Every Muslim must pray five times a day. The practice helps the idea-collection dominate a Muslim’s life, infusing his daily rhythm with Islam.

It would be impossible to forget anything you deliberately do so often. Five times a day, every day, a Muslim must bow down and pray to Allah.

Research has shown the more effort a person expends for a cause, the more he is likely to believe in it and value it. So this is a good way to eventually make believers out of people who became Muslims through coercion.

Islam completely takes over every aspect of Muslims’ lives. Not only are they required to pray five times a day, they have to go through a washing ritual beforehand. Islam dictates the laws, and the laws cover many public and private behaviors. In an Islamic state, it is impossible to be a casual Muslim.

14. The prayers involve moving together in time. When Muslims pray, they all face the same direction, they bow down, get on their hands and knees, and put their face on the mat, all in unison, and then rise back up. Again and again.

When people move together in time, whether dancing or marching or praying, it creates a physical and emotional bond between them. That’s why all military training involves close-order drill (marching in unison), even though it has been a long time since military groups have actually marched into combat. There is no longer a need for the skill, but military training retained the practice because it is so effective at creating a strong feeling of unity between soldiers.

The same is true of any physical movements people make in unison. So the method of prayer in Islam is a unifying idea added to the collection.

15. A woman is in a thoroughly subordinate position.This idea really helps support other ideas in the collection, like five and six. If women had too much influence, they’d try to curb the warring. Women in general don’t like to send their husbands and sons off to war. But if women have no say, then the rest of the ideas can express themselves without interference. By subordinating women, the idea-collection prevents their effective vote against war, violence, and conquest.

The rules and laws within Islam that keep women subordinate are numerous. For example, she is not allowed to leave her house unless she is accompanied by a male relative. Under Islamic law, a woman is forbidden to be a head of state or a judge. She can only inherit half of what a man can inherit. In court, her testimony is only worth half of a man’s. She is not allowed to choose where she will live or who she will marry. She is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim or divorce her husband. Her husband, however, can divorce her with a wave of his hand. And according to Shari’a, he can (and should) beat her if she disobeys him.

All of these ideas keep her subordinate, which helps keep the war machine going unimpeded by domestic rebellion.

16. The only way a woman can get into Paradise for sure is if her husband is happy with her when she dies. When I read about this one, I thought, “Mohammad, you are a crafty one.”

This idea obviously helps with the subjugation of women. It motivates her to subjugate herself. It gives her a strong motivation to subordinate her wishes to her husband’s, because while she might have a chance to get into Paradise if she’s a good Muslim, the only way she canguarantee she will go to Paradise (and avoid eternal suffering in hell) is to make sure her husband is happy with her when she dies.

17. Allah gives Himself permission to edit his own work. This is an interesting one. It says in the Qur’an that if a passage written later contradicts an earlier passage, then the later one is the better one. The Qur’an was written in sections (Mohammad’s revelations, each written as asura or chapter) over a period of 23 years. The circumstances of Mohammad’s life and his religion changed quite a bit over those 23 years.

One of the ideas in the Qur’an is “this is the word of Allah.” People had already memorized his earlier revelations, so Mohammad couldn’t just change his revelations. It would look a little strange to for the all-knowing, infinitely wise Allah to change something He had already said.

But with this new idea — that later revelations abrogated or overwrote any earlier revelations they contradicted —Allah’s methods could change as Mohammad found more effective ideas.

As I pointed out earlier, in his first 13 years of peacefully preaching, Mohammad only managed to win 150 followers. But as a military leader and violent conqueror, he was able to subjugate all of Arabia to Islamic law in less than 10 years. The peaceful ways were too slow. Conversion by conquering and establishing Shari’a was much faster and more efficient. So later, violent, intolerant verses abrogate the earlier peaceful, tolerant passages.

18. The Qur’an uses the carrot and stick to reinforce behavior. Throughout the book are vivid descriptions of hell, where sinners and non-Muslims will have to drink boiling, stinking water, will be thrown face down into a raging fire, and will be there for eternity, suffering endless torments in agony.

There are also vivid descriptions of Paradise. In Paradise, it says, believers will wear green silk robes and recline on plush couches. Trees will shade them, fruit will dangle nearby. They’ll have tasty food and refreshing drinks served in silver goblets. To have a chance of achieving this, they must be devout Muslims. To guarantee it, they must die in jihad (for men) or make sure their husbands are always happy with them (for women).

19. It provides a huge and inspiring goal. Leaders of countries or companies or religions have all discovered that you can get the most motivation and enthusiasm from your followers if you provide them with an expansive vision — an enormous goal. In the Islamic idea-collection, the goal calls for a continuous effort to expand the domain of Islamic law until all the world is subjugated to it.

Many religions have the goal of converting everyone, but Islam has a method available nobody else has: To expand by seizing and converting governments to Shari’a.

Once the whole world is Islamic, peace will reign. That’s why even terrorists can say with complete sincerity, “Islam is a religion of peace.”

The Qur’an says it is best if non-believers accept Islam and become Muslims without force. But if they refuse, then you must fight them and conquer them and save their poor souls by insisting they live by the laws of Allah.

Once all countries are conquered, the world will be at peace. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.

It is an enormous and inspiring goal, and a strongly unifying purpose. It creates motivated, enthusiastic followers.

20. Non-Muslims must pay a large tax. Once Muslims conquer a country and convert the government to Islamic law, any non-Muslims have the choice between becoming Muslim or becoming a dhimmi. Dhimmis are allowed to practice their non-Muslim religion if they pay the jizya (a tax). If they convert to Islam, they no longer have to pay a tax, so there is a practical incentive to convert.

But another aspect of this makes it a brilliant idea to add to the collection. The tax takes money away from the non-Muslims and their competing idea-collections and gives that money to support Islam. This is pure genius!

The income from these taxes (usually a 25% income tax) helped fund the Islamic conquests during the first two major jihads. They conquered vast lands, most of them already filled with Christians and Jews, many of whom did not convert at first, and their jizya poured huge sums of money into the Islamic war machine.

Eventually, the numbers of Christians and Jews dwindled down as they converted or escaped, until now, in most Islamic countries, Jews and Christians are very small minorities.

The tax-the-non-Muslims idea helps the Islamic idea-collection make more copies of itself by suppressing competing religious idea-collections and financially supporting the Islam.

Several ideas within Shari’a law extend this effect. For example, non-Muslims are not allowed to build any new houses of worship. They’re not even allowed to repair already-existing churches or synagogues. This puts the houses of worship of any competing idea-collection in a state of permanent decline. Brilliant.

Also, non-Islamic prayers cannot be spoken within earshot of a Muslim — again, preventing Muslims from being infected by a competing religion. No public displays of any symbols of another faith may be shown either.

All of this prevents the spread of any competing religion, and makes competing idea-collections die out over time. That’s why today there are so many “Muslim countries.” Almost every other country in the world is made up of many different religions.

One added idea makes it that much easier for Muslims to dominate non-Muslims within an Islamic state: Non-Muslims are not allowed to own weapons of any kind. To subjugate a people, all dictatorial rulers in the history of the world have done the same thing: Disarm the subjugated people. They are much easier to manage, less dangerous, and less capable of upending the status quo.

21. A Muslim is forbidden to make friends with an infidel. A Muslim is allowed to pretend to be a friend, but in his heart he must never actually be a friend to a non-Muslim. This is one of the best protections Islam has against Muslims leaving the faith because in every other religion conversions to the religion are usually made because a friend introduced it. Being forbidden to make friends with infidels effectively prevents that from happening.

22. The Qur’an counsels the use of deceit when dealing with infidels. Mohammad instructed one of his followers to lie if he had to (in order to assassinate one of Mohammad’s enemies). The principle was clear: If it helps Islam, it’s okay to deceive non-Muslims.

This principle has served Islamic goals very well through history. And it serves those goals today. On the DVD,Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, you can watch real-life examples of Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the Western press, and saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days later.

Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war, and Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari’a law. All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are enemies. So deceiving Westerners is totally acceptable. It is encouraged if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.

And so we have the strange phenomenon covered by Steven Emerson in Terrorists Among Us, where organizations in America were ostensibly raising money for orphans, but really giving the money to terrorists. They deceived good-hearted Western infidels into giving money to organizations that were actively killing Western infidels. As it says in the Qur’an, “War is deceit.” This idea gives Islam a tremendous advantage over idea-collections that encourage indiscriminate truthfulness.

23. Islam must always be defended. This idea is a primary linchpin that gives justification for war with almost anybody, as you’ll see in the idea below. After the enemy is defeated, of course, Muslims are required to establish an Islamic state.

24. Islamic writings teach the use of pretext to start wars. The Qur’an devotes a lot of time complaining about people who did not support Mohammad when he first started his religion, with Allah often condemning them to torment in hell in the hereafter.

Mohammad was rather pushy and insistent with his religion, and when others felt intruded upon and protested, Mohammad took that to mean they were trying to stop Allah’s holy prophet from bringing the revealed word of Allah to the world, so he was justified to fight them and destroy them as Allah’s enemies. This is a demonstration of the principle of pretext.

Non-Muslims of the world need urgently to become aware of this principle. Of all the ideas in the Islamic collection, this is the most dangerous to the West because it removes our natural self-preserving defenses. The use of pretext tends to make the West defenseless against the Islamic invasion now underway. Muslim terrorists are not naive people. They are smart, educated, well-funded, and being used by a very clever idea-collection.

The invasion of the West is underway, and it is being done so cleverly, most Westerners don’t even know it is happening. (Read more about their 20-year plan to overthrow the government of the United States. Also, read about the Shariatization of Europe.)

The use of pretext means you need only the barest excuse to begin hostilities. It means you’re actually looking for an excuse, and even trying to provoke others into striking the first blow (“starting” the hostilities).

If the only way to get to Paradise is dying while fighting for Islam, you need war. And if it is your holy duty to make all governments use Shari’a law, you need to conquer those governments. But you don’t really want to look like the aggressor. Appearances count. All throughout the Qur’an, Mohammad tries to justify his aggression as defendingIslam.

The Qur’an repeats over seventy times that followers of Islam should use Mohammad as a model and imitate him. So Muslims the world over try to find or create grievances, so they can get a holy war started, so they can fight and die in Allah’s cause and help make the world ruled by Allah’s laws.

And because of the rise of multiculturalism (respect for all other cultures) in the West, the use of pretext is very effective against people who are unfamiliar with Islam. Many people think al Qaeda is angry at the West for having troops in Saudi Arabia, for example. That’s merely a pretext. They want all non-Muslims out of the Middle East. Then they say they will cease hostilities. It is a ridiculous and impossible goal, so they are justified in permanent war against the West.

It’s surprising that so many Westerners accept this particular pretext because it flies in the face of a fundamental Western principle: Equality. What Osama bin Laden is saying is “infidels are so undeserving, their very presence defiles our holy places.” Wow. What does that say about the non-Muslims?

Why doesn’t this kind of racism or prejudice or infidelphobia (or whatever you want to call it) outrage more Westerners? Instead, many think we ought to pull out of the Middle East so these poor offended Islamic supremacists aren’t so angry with us any more!

The principle of pretext means you try to provoke a hostile reaction and then use the hostile reaction as a reason to escalate hostilities. It’s the same method schoolyard bullies have used for thousands of years: “What are you looking at? You got a problem?! You wanna take it outside, punk?”

25. The explicit use of double standards. Islam has one standard for Muslims, and a different standard for non-Muslims, which always gives the advantage to Muslims and within a Muslim country, it provides incentives to convert.

For example, Islam must be spread by its believers, wherever they are. But when other religions try to spread their own idea-collection, Muslims are supposed to see it as an aggression against Islam — an act of aggression that must be “defended.” Remember, Islam must always be defended.

Another example of how the double standard idea gives Islam an advantage: When Islam is defamed in any way, Muslims should violently defend it. Even in a cartoon. But Muslims can and should defame Jews and Christians inMuslim newspapers and television, and they should defame any infidel or enemy, as they defame the U.S. today.

Here’s another example: The Islamic supremacists of Saudi Arabia are pouring money into building mosques all over the free world. But according to Shari’a law, which is the law in Saudi Arabia, no non-Muslim religious structures are allowed to be built.

Muslims all over the world protest loudly and violently when anyone in Europe or America resists the building of more mosques in their countries.

Islamic supremacists don’t see the irony in it. They don’t feel strange having such an obvious double standard. They are, after all, Allah’s followers and everyone else is deluded. Fairness and equality with such unworthy infidels would seem very out of place. A double standard seems completely appropriate from that perspective.

The double standard principle is a key part of the idea-collection, and it has been a great advantage in the spread of Islam (and the suppression of competing religions).

26. It is forbidden to kill a Muslim (except for a just cause). It is not forbidden to kill an infidel. This causes a bond between Muslims, fear in non-Muslims, and motivation to become Muslim. This is also another example of an explicit Islamic double standard.

WE CAN ADMIRE the brilliance of the Islamic idea-collection in an abstract, intellectual sort of way, but it is terrifyingly real. Millions of people try to follow these ideas to the letter. And their belief in the idea-collection is strongly supported by the side-effects of Shari’a law. By making the government and laws ruled by Islam, the idea-collection applies two powerful principles of influence:social proof, and authority.

Everyone practices the religion in an Islamic state (or they are flogged, taxed, or killed) and no one can criticize it, not friend-to-friend, and not through any media. The psychological impact of this is enormous. Three generations later, it would be almost impossible for any Muslim living in that state to think outside of Islam. The authority and social proof would be overwhelming.

Of course, just because I admire the genius of the idea-collection doesn’t mean I’m in favor of it. As a non-Muslim, I am wholeheartedly against it. Remember, the success of an idea-collection has nothing to do with making people happy or healthy. “Success” only means it propagates well.

The same is true for genes. A successful gene is one that gets the most copies of itself into future generations. The genes making up a deadly virus may kill millions of people and cause untold misery, but from a genetic point of view, the virus is successful. Genes don’t care about people. They don’t try to make us happy. They are cold and indifferent to our plight.

Same with ideas. An idea-collection will use up and spit out human lives in the service of its propagation, indifferent to the pain, misery, or death it causes.

An idea-collection, well-drilled into someone’s head and reinforced by the powerful authority and social proof of his whole society, can cause him to blow himself up just to kill others for the fulfillment of a fantasy goal of ultimately attaining world peace and the triumph of Allah (and a harem of 72 dark-eyed voluptuous beauties devoted to his every wish).

The Islamic idea-collection is formidable. It is a force to be reckoned with and we ignore it at our peril. It has already taken hold of the minds and lives of almost one and a half billion people, and it’s the youngest of the major religions.

And yet, I don’t think the situation is hopeless. Many Muslims now living in Islamic states are trapped andwould defect from Islam if it were safe to do so.

The first thing we in the multicultural and tolerant West need to do is help each other become aware of the formidable idea-collection threatening to overtake us. We need to help our fellow citizens awaken to the fact thatIslamic supremacists will deliberately take advantage of our tolerance and our freedom so as to ultimately eliminate it.

This is an ideological war, so the ideas in the heads of your fellow Westerners makes all the difference. And youcan help turn the tide. Find ways to introduce this information to your fellow non-Muslims. Here are a few ideas to help you.

You will be shocked at how little most people know about Islam. And they will be shocked to find out. And when enough non-Muslims know about it, Islamic tactics like pretext and deceit will be seen for what they are, and will no longer make us defenseless. When we know more about the founder (the one all Muslims should imitate) and the goals of Islam, our collective decisions and actions can effectively thwart their plans. Our collective grasp of the real situation will bring more rational changes to our laws and policies (such as our current immigration policies).

But to do this kind of innoculation, you have to have a pretty good handle on the Islamic teachings. That will require some study. I know you have other things to do, and you can’t make this a full-time occupation, but I also know how serious this is, so it will require some sacrifice on your part.

I have created a curriculum of sorts. I tried to figure out what would be the material you could study that would give you the most critical knowledge in the easiest way with the smallest investment of time. You can see my curriculum here.

Study that material, and start right away. After millions of people have fought against tyranny and died to gain the rights and freedoms we enjoy today, we are now confronted with a pernicious idea-collection hell-bent on taking them away. And the Islamic idea-collection couldrealistically succeed with terrifying brilliance.

Take action today. Learn about Islam. With every new understanding you have, and with every new certainty and clarity you gain, you will feel more bold in speaking up, and speaking up is exactly what we must do to win.

Islam: Fourteen Centuries of Military Campaigns

by Baron Bodissey

We have often asserted in this space that Islam is not a religion, but a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

It is not, however, a political ideology in a vacuum: from its inception, Islam was a tactical and strategic blueprint for military victory. It was designed to motivate and instruct the tribes of the Arabian peninsula as they went forth in jihad against non-Muslims (and non-Arabs) in the name of Allah.

Our Flemish correspondent VH has compiled a report on the military nature of Islam. He includes this introduction:

The Eid al-Adha, the Islamic “Sacrifice Feast” — which this year will be on Friday, November 27 — has the character of a practice operation. Often the slaughtering is even done in the presence of children (boys), which adds to the hardening of these children.

These children are used to seeing throats cut. They are used to the idea that apostasy leads to execution, which also has a military aspect: it is similar to the punishment for desertion.

If you look further, a mass open prayer, like the recent one in Washington, is a symbolic siege by an army. A show of strength to raise fear in the enemy and cause him to surrender voluntarily, etc. I was therefore fascinated by this excellent short article by Mat Herben (pdf) when it appeared earlier this year.

VH begins his survey with excerpts from Mat Herben’s article, and supplements it with further material:

A Soldiers’ Religion

By Mat Herben^[1]

As a politician and military expert, I have always been surprised that Islam in general is looked upon as a universal religion and hardly ever as a state religion, which is what was needed for its founder to achieve his political ambitions on the Arabian Peninsula. Some parts of the Quran, rather than a holy book, seem derived from rules for the military discipline of an advancing army.

The Quran is the book of a typical soldiers’ religion that is about destroying enemies, the splitting up of booty, and rewards for warriors. The death penalty for apostasy is not a religious requirement, but is military criminal law on desertion in wartime. And Islam is always at war with the infidels; it is a sacred duty.

The Islamic civilization was able to flourish as a war economy, as long as the armies were advancing in victory and returning with booty and slaves. The military defeats in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries therefore announced the collapse of the economy. In the early twentieth century Islam had about 200 million adherents, from whom no danger was apprehended. Without the medical advances that the West has brought — which created a demographic explosion — and the stream of plentiful petrodollars [and the present migration conquest — translator], Islam would have become an insignificant religion.

Recently a number of studies have been published that finally do examine the true Islam from a political-military angle. The London professor Dr. Efraim Karsh describes the centuries-old struggle for power and the political game of shifting alliances with European powers [“Islamic Imperialism: A History”]. He concludes that it is not about a clash of civilizations, nor a battle between Christianity and Islam, but the aspiration of an imperial power for political domination^[2].

Gilbert Taylor on Amazon:

Middle East scholar Karsh surveys for a general audience the region’s Islamic political past. Parallel to his narrative, Karsh frequently contrasts the universalistic proclamations of Islam with cycles of imperial consolidation and fragmentation. After recounting the Prophet Muhammad’s religio-political establishment of Islam, and the discord about his legacy that continues today, Karsh narrates the battles over Muhammad’s caliphate that eventuated in the Umayyad and Abbasid Empires. Karsh’s commentary often looks forward to contemporary ideologues of Islam who ransack history to justify grievances. In Karsh’s coverage, the irruption of the Crusaders into the Levant hardly provoked a jihad to eject them; that occurred, in his account, through politically ordinary processes of empire building, eventually by the celebrated Saladin. Islamic unity and zeal, however, had always to be affirmed by reestablishers of the caliphate, a theme Karsh incorporates into his chronicling of the rise and decline of the Ottoman Empire, the distribution of its territories after World War I, and varieties of pan-Arabism prevalent after World War II. An informative foundation for further exploration of Islamic history

Charles Moore in The Telegraph:

From its beginnings, he argues, Islam was a creed that made no separation between temporal and religious power. Mohammed never thought of ruling solely in men’s hearts: he ruled in Medina. He set out to conquer the Arab world, and he laid down a justification for all conquest everywhere. Whereas Jesus, in his “great commission”, commanded his apostles only to go out into the world “and preach the Gospel to every creature”, Mohammed, in his farewell address, explicitly justified the sword, telling his followers to “fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’ “ Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden quoted these words as validation for his actions. Karsh, professor of Mediterranean studies at King’s College, London, agrees that a great many Christians have been imperialists too, but because the history of Christianity as a political power only began nearly 300 years after the death of its founder, its roots were not in any imperium, and its message is therefore not, at heart, political. It is interesting that the most important split within Islam — that between Sunni and Shia — is about who is the rightful earthly ruler (the caliph). […]

Having established the outlines of the argument, Karsh then races the reader rather too breathlessly through the whole history of Muslim power, from the seventh century to the present. He relates tales of great glory and success, even of great civilisation, but more of cruelty, waste, corruption, and, for the past 1,000 years or so, failure. The author believes Islam provides Muslim leaders not only with a justification for violence, but also with a permanent excuse. They can always blame things on the infidels, and at the same time conceal their real aims under the mantle (such a garment was sometimes literally used) of the Prophet. He demonstrates, for example, how Arab nations have again and again avoided helping the Palestinians or coming to terms with Israel, because the settlement of that cause would turn the focus on to their own failings. To understand what is happening in the Muslim world, it seems, we in the West must not imagine that we can have a decisive effect for good or ill. We must recognise the “supremacy of indigenous dynamics”: what really matters is not the clash of civilisations but the clashes within Muslim civilisation. Even in the Crusades, the great Saladin (whom bin Laden takes as his explicit model) was much more concerned to bash up fellow Muslims, thus securing his own power, than to advance his religion, though he naturally thought his own faith superior and didn’t mind killing infidels one little bit. Muslims suffer the rule either of cynics or fanatics.

Efraim Karsh in a review of a book by Karen Armstrong:

That these acts of violence make a mockery of protestations of Islam’s tolerant spirit has been totally lost on the pope’s critics. And why shouldn’t it? Not only did the Vatican issue a prompt apology in a desperate bid to defuse the unfolding crisis, but in the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, a vast cohort of Western apologists has consistently painted a surrealistic picture of Islam’s political agenda. Depicting jihad as an inner quest for personal self-improvement, rather than the “holy war” claimed by countless Muslim dynasties and leaders throughout history, they dismissed the worldwide wave of Islamic terrorism as an excessive reaction by misguided fringe groups to America’s arrogant and self-serving foreign policy. “Muslims have never nurtured dreams of world conquest,” wrote Karen Armstrong, a prominent representative of this view, shortly after September 11. “They had no designs on Europe, for example, even though Europeans imagined that they did. Once Muslim rule had been established in Spain, it was recognized that the empire could not expand indefinitely.”

This assertion couldn’t be further from the truth. Not only was the conquest of Spain, some 2,000 miles from the Arabian homeland, a straightforward act of imperial expansion, it hardly satisfied Islam’s territorial ambitions. No sooner had the Muslims established themselves in that country than they invaded France in strength. Had they not been contained in 732 AD at the famous battle of Poitiers in west central France, they might well have swept deep into northern Europe.

A review of the book by Efraim Karsh by Yale University Press:

From the first Arab-Islamic Empire of the mid-seventh century to the Ottomans, the last great Muslim empire, the story of the Middle East has been the story of the rise and fall of universal empires and, no less important, of imperialist dreams. So argues Efraim Karsh in this highly provocative book. Rejecting the conventional Western interpretation of Middle Eastern history as an offshoot of global power politics, Karsh contends that the region’s experience is the culmination of long-existing indigenous trends, passions, and patterns of behaviour, and that foremost among these is Islam’s millenarian imperial tradition. The author explores the history of Islam’s imperialism and the persistence of the Ottoman imperialist dream that outlasted World War I to haunt Islamic and Middle Eastern politics to the present day. September 11 can be seen as simply the latest expression of this dream, and such attacks have little to do with U.S. international behaviour or policy in the Middle East, says Karsh. The House of Islam’s war for world mastery is traditional, indeed venerable, and it is a quest that is far from over.

In 2007 the U.S. veteran and military historian Dr. Richard A. Gabrielpublished the first military biography of the Prophet [“Muhammad: Islam’s First Great General (Campaigns and Commanders)”].^[3] His conclusion is that Muhammad could only succeed as Prophet because he was a strategic genius. A man who in his struggle for power did not shrink from unconventional means, such as guerrilla tactics, robbery, bribery, and political murders. A sobering conclusion for the gullible and the pacifists who place Muhammad in line with Jesus and Buddha, but it is a fact that Muslims are proud of Muhammad’s military “merits”:

– – -  – – – – –

Muhammad was unique in his leadership style in Arabia in that he put his followers under his unified command. The tribes of Arabia usually did not have a unified commander. They were very clannish, fighting only for their clan or family honor or for their own personal advancement, whereas Muhammad’s formed his followers into a community called “ummah”. The community was made up of many tribes, but all individuals were personally loyal to Muhammad instead of to their clan or family.

A review:

Richard Gabriel presents the battles Muhammad was personally involved in, as well as those that were commanded by his subordinates. Muhammad’s way of warfare was implemented by his successors in the expansion of the Islamic Empire, which grew by the sword, persuasion, and other means. Richard Gabriel mainly studies the expansion by the sword in his book, since this is a military history and religion was a motivation for men to sacrifice their lives whenever Muhammad ordered an attack on his enemies or to defend the community. This was considered martyrdom, and its influence is seen today with terrorists like al-Qaeda and other groups.

Christians, on the other hand, are embarrassed by the violence that has been committed in the name of their religion. It is this history of militant Islam that justifies the title of the book Eindstrijd [“The Final Battle”]. The influential British Muslim cleric Yusuf Qaradawi predicted in 2002 that Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror and victor, after the religion had been expelled twice: in 732 at the Battle of Poitiers, and in 1683 at the relief of Vienna. The objective does not necessarily have to be achieved with the sword, he writes, but can also be achieved through demographic growth. A new round — some speak of the second, others the third — of an age-old conflict.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Notes

The above is an excerpt in the preface by Mat Herben to the [Dutch language] book “The Final Battle [Eindstrijd], the final clash between the liberal West and a traditional Islam”, edited by Hans Jansen and Bert Snel. A bundle with contributions from such critical-Islam authors as Paul Cliteur, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom, Lars Hedegaard, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye’or Daniel Pipes, Barry Oostheim, Mat Herben and others. [Uitgeverij Van Praag, ISBN 978-90-490-2404-8] A pdf of the preface and chapter written by Hans Jansen, can be downloaded here.

[1]		Mat Herben is Secretary of the Prof. Dr. W.S.P. [Pim] Fortuyn Foundation and a former spokesman for Pim Fortuyn. He has been the fraction leader in the Dutch Parliament for the LPF [List Pim Fortuyn].
[2]		An overview of writings by Dr. Efraim Karsh on Middle East Forum is here.
[3]		An overview of publications by Dr. Richard A. Gabriel is here.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Further Material:

This issue also had been stipulated in The Calcutta Quran Petition”, edited by Sita Ram Goel [Voice of India, New Delhi, 1986-1999]. An excerpt fromChapter 8:

Muslim Ummah is a Military Machine

The teeming tomes on orthodox Islamic theology devote plenty of space to non-warlike subjects, such as faith, purification, prayers, alms, fasting, pilgrimage, marriage, divorce, business transactions, inheritance, gifts, bequests, vows, oaths, crime, punishment, government, hunting, food, drink, dress, decoration, greetings, magic, poetry, visions, dreams, virtue, last day, repentance, etc. But the rules laid down for every Muslim, everywhere and at all times, are the same. In the final analysis this uniform pattern of belief and behaviour erases the individual in man and turns him into a member of a close-knit collective, the Ummah.

The Ummah, however, acquires an altogether new colour when juxtaposed with jihad, on which subject also the tomes wax no less eloquent. It looks too much like a military machine to pass as a peaceful society. The rules laid down by the Shariat read like a manual compiled for use in military barracks — waking up every morning to the call of a bugle, rolling up the bed, sweeping the floor, pressing the uniform, polishing the shoes, rushing for a bath, moving the body in different ways in mass drills, sharing meals in the mess-hall, drinking from a common canteen and, finally, facing the court martial for mistakes made in any part. One is amazed as well as amused when this mechanical conformity to a set pattern of external exercises is presented by the spokesmen of Islam as the very essence of universal spirituality and morality.

Prayers of Military Parade?

David Samuel Margoliouth [Laudian Professor of Arabic at the University of Oxford from 1889 to 1937] cites several early Muslim sources regarding what the Muslim ranks looked like, on the eve of the Battle of Badr: “Of the battle that followed we have no clear or detailed account: but we know at least some of the factors which brought about the result. The discipline of the salat or ‘prayer’, in which the Moslems were arranged in rows, and had to perform after a leader certain bodily exercises, and falling out of line was threatened with divine punishment, had served as a rough sort of drill, and Mohammed before the battle discharged the duty of making the troops fall into line. The Meccan general Utbah, son of Rabiah, was struck with their appearance; they were keeling on their knees, silent as though they were dumb, and stretching out their tongues like snakes. They were all subject to the single will of their Prophet, who was aware that the general should not risk his life; for him therefore in the rear of the army a hut was built, where attended by his most trusted counsellors, he could issue orders; and to which camels were tied ready to be used by the leaders for flight in case of disaster.” [Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, pp. 258-59]

Observations of Count Keyserling

This militarization of everyday Muslim life was noticed with keen interest by Graf Hermann Alexander von Keyserling (1880-1946) during his travels in Islamic countries. He summed up his over-all impression in his “The Travel Diary of a Philosopher” [London, 1927]. “Islam is a religion,” he wrote, “of absolute surrender and submissiveness to God — but to a God of a certain character — a War-Lord who is entitled to do with us as he will and who bids us stand ever in line of battle against the foe. The ritual of this belief embodies the idea of discipline. When the true believers every day at fixed hours perform their prayers in serried ranks in the mosque, all going through the same gestures at the same moment, this is not, as in Hinduism, done as a method of self-realization, but in the spirit in which the Prussian soldier defiled before his Kaiser. This military basis of Islam explains all the essential virtues of the Musalman. It also explains his fundamental defects — his unprogressiveness, his incapacity to adapt himself, his lack of invention. The soldier has simply to obey orders. All the rest is the affair of Allah.” [History of Aurangzib, Volume III, Calcutta, 1928. p. 171]

Congregational or Friday Prayers

“In the early days of Islam,” writes Professor Kishori Saran Lal (1920-2002), “the main features of the Friday service were prayers in congregation with worshippers standing in straight linear rows. Attendance was compulsory and military discipline was maintained. The sermon was like the order of the day; it comprised advice, reprimand and directions on religious and political obligations of the faithful. A sense of awe pervaded — raising the number of worshippers.” [Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India, op. cit., pp.83-84]. Small wonder that great importance is attached to congregational or Friday prayers in Islam. “The ahadis[sayings of the prophet] declare that namaz [praying according to a method, described in great detail, like: “stand so that there is a gap of four fingers between your feet.”, and is different for woman] said in congregation is twenty-five times superior to namaz said alone at home. Muhammad was very strict about attendance in congregational prayer.” [Ibid., p.82] The Prophet is reported to have said that he felt like burning down the houses of those who did not attend the Friday prayers. In the history of Islam in India, Friday sermons “result in working up the feelings of the namazis, and sabre-rattling and street riots generally take place on Friday after the afternoon prayers” [Ibid., p.93].

* The prophet actually did burn the houses of those who did not come to the prayers…

From poster DP111 on Gates of Vienna:

1.Islam is a totalitarian political ideology masquerading as a religion.

2. The death penalty for apostasy is not a religious requirement, but is military criminal law on desertion in wartime.

3. Mosques should be looked as forts.

Been pointing the above out since 9/11, mainly on LGF as it was the premier anti-Jihad site at the time.

There is another aspect to this military aspect of Islam, it is the immediate mobilisation of young Muslim men at the drop of a hat. Fjordman writes, that in Europe, any altercation on the street involving Muslims and other people, or the police, leads to hundreds of Muslims gathering at the spot in a matter of minutes. This can only happen if the there is a communication, command/control and conveyance system to facilitate such a rapid response.

1. Communication – the mobile phone does that

2. Command centre – the mosque or its affiliates

3. Conveyance – in most European cities the taxi service is operated by Muslims. This provides a quick and reliable service to take Muslim units to the confrontation zone.

4. Combat ready young men.

The result of this integrated system is that in any confrontation, Muslims, though a minority, are able to have local superiority in numbers at the confrontation zone. This system allowed them to gain superiority even over the London MET, as apparent in demonstrations.

What Muslims have done is something quite unique for a group of people who have come as immigrants. They have set-up Rapid Response units in all the major cities of Europe. From these locations they can mount effective responses in smaller towns, even when they do not have any presence there.

All these aspects confirm that all ABLE Muslims are members of an Islamic militia. This militia can also call on international support, both civilian and state.

It is truly frightening what we have let in to our societies.

Author sees Islam’s 20-year plan for U.S.

20-year strategy to undermine country (World Net Daily)

A refugee from the Muslim Middle East thinks he has discovered Islam’s 20-point plan for conquering the United States by 2020 – a plan revealed in the latest issue of Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

Anis Shorrosh, author of ”Islam Revealed” and ”The True Furqan,” is a Christian Arab-American who emigrated from Arab-controlled Jerusalem in January 1967.

”The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020,” Shorrosh says. ”Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?”

1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ”Abed.”

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ”foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

• Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

• Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

• Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can’t legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

• Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ”sleeper cells” have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America’s high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ”Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America’s justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. ”Islam Revealed” is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ”Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.”

”The True Furqan” is also available for viewing on Islam-Exposed.org. Shorrosh’s new website isFocusing-on-Islam.com.

How Islam will take over:

1. Terminate America’s freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ”Abed.”

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell ”foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran” anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can’t legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ”sleeper cells” have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America’s high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ”Centers for Islamic studies” with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America’s sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America’s justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America’s campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Read it all

Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. ”Islam Revealed” is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ”Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.”

How Islam takes over

Here’s some very well researched statistics on how Muslim immigrants progress as their population increases in the host country:

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called “religious rights.”

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to “the reasonable” Muslim demands for their “religious rights,” they also get the other components under the table.Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States — Muslim 1.0%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1%-2%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2. 7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halaal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Isla mic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.

Hat Tip to New English Review

Arab-Israeli Fatalities Rank 49th

Who kills whom?

By: Gunnar Heinsohn and Daniel Pipes

FrontPageMagazine

ACT has posted a set of statistics that demonstrates the real violence against Muslims, it is not Jews, Christians or even America that is leading the pack in Muslim Genocide, but rather other Muslims. These numbers (almost 10 million killed by other Muslims) defy rationality and surely anyone with half a brain can see where the real problem lies. Islam may or may not be a peaceful religion, but the people who dominate the religion and are the face that the world sees as representation of the religion, surely are far from peaceful.
“some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.”
By Gunnar Heinsohn and Daniel Pipes, FrontPageMagazine, October 8, 2007
The Arab-Israeli conflict is often said, not just by extremists, to be the world’s most dangerous conflict – and, accordingly, Israel is judged the world’s most belligerent country.
For example, British prime minister Tony Blair told the U.S. Congress in July 2003 that “Terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine. Here it is that the poison is incubated. Here it is that the extremist is able to confuse in the mind of a frighteningly large number of people the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel.”
This viewpoint leads many Europeans, among others, to see Israel as the most menacing country on earth.
But is this true? It flies in the face of the well-known pattern that liberal democracies do not aggress; plus, it assumes, wrongly, that the Arab-Israeli conflict is among the most costly in terms of lives lost.
To place the Arab-Israeli fatalities in their proper context, one of the two co-authors, Gunnar Heinsohn, has compiled statistics to rank conflicts since 1950 by the number of human deaths incurred. Note how far down the list is the entry in bold type.
Conflicts since 1950 with over 10,000 Fatalities*
1 40,000,000 Red China, 1949-76 (outright killing, manmade famine, Gulag)
2 10,000,000 Soviet Bloc: late Stalinism, 1950-53; post-Stalinism, to 1987 (mostly Gulag)
3 4,000,000 Ethiopia, 1962-92: Communists, artificial hunger, genocides
4 3,800,000 Zaire (Congo-Kinshasa): 1967-68; 1977-78; 1992-95; 1998-present
5 2,800,000 Korean war, 1950-53
6 1,900,000 Sudan, 1955-72; 1983-2006 (civil wars, genocides)
7 1,870,000 Cambodia: Khmer Rouge 1975-79; civil war 1978-91
8 1,800,000 Vietnam War, 1954-75
9 1,800,000 Afghanistan: Soviet and internecine killings, Taliban 1980-2001
10 1,250,000 West Pakistan massacres in East Pakistan (Bangladesh 1971)
11 1,100,000 Nigeria, 1966-79 (Biafra); 1993-present
12 1,100,000 Mozambique, 1964-70 (30,000) + after retreat of Portugal 1976-92
13 1,000,000 Iran-Iraq-War, 1980-88
14 900,000 Rwanda genocide, 1994
15 875,000 Algeria: against France 1954-62 (675,000); between Islamists and the government 1991-2006 (200,000)
16 850,000 Uganda, 1971-79; 1981-85; 1994-present
17 650,000 Indonesia: Marxists 1965-66 (450,000); East Timor, Papua, Aceh etc, 1969-present (200,000)
18 580,000 Angola: war against Portugal 1961-72 (80,000); after Portugal’s retreat (1972-2002)
19 500,000 Brazil against its Indians, up to 1999
20 430,000 Vietnam, after the war ended in 1975 (own people; boat refugees)
21 400,000 Indochina: against France, 1945-54
22 400,000 Burundi, 1959-present (Tutsi/Hutu)
23 400,000 Somalia, 1991-present
24 400,000 North Korea up to 2006 (own people)
25 300,000 Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, 1980s-1990s
26 300,000 Iraq, 1970-2003 (Saddam against minorities)
27 240,000 Columbia, 1946-58; 1964-present
28 200,000 Yugoslavia, Tito regime, 1944-80
29 200,000 Guatemala, 1960-96
30 190,000 Laos, 1975-90
31 175,000 Serbia against Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, 1991-1999
32 150,000 Romania, 1949-99 (own people)
33 150,000 Liberia, 1989-97
34 140,000 Russia against Chechnya, 1994-present
35 150,000 Lebanon civil war, 1975-90
36 140,000 Kuwait War, 1990-91
37 130,000 Philippines: 1946-54 (10,000); 1972-present (120,000)
38 130,000 Burma/Myanmar, 1948-present
39 100,000 North Yemen, 1962-70
40 100,000 Sierra Leone, 1991-present
41 100,000 Albania, 1945-91 (own people)
42 80,000 Iran, 1978-79 (revolution)
43 75,000 Iraq, 2003-present (domestic)
44 75,000 El Salvador, 1975-92
45 70,000 Eritrea against Ethiopia, 1998-2000
46 68,000 Sri Lanka, 1997-present
47 60,000 Zimbabwe, 1966-79; 1980-present
48 60,000 Nicaragua, 1972-91 (Marxists/natives etc,)
49 51,000 Arab-Israeli conflict 1950-present
50 50,000 North Vietnam, 1954-75 (own people)
51 50,000 Tajikistan, 1992-96 (secularists against Islamists)
52 50,000 Equatorial Guinea, 1969-79
53 50,000 Peru, 1980-2000
54 50,000 Guinea, 1958-84
55 40,000 Chad, 1982-90
56 30,000 Bulgaria, 1948-89 (own people)
57 30,000 Rhodesia, 1972-79
58 30,000 Argentina, 1976-83 (own people)
59 27,000 Hungary, 1948-89 (own people)
60 26,000 Kashmir independence, 1989-present
61 25,000 Jordan government vs. Palestinians, 1970-71 (Black September)
62 22,000 Poland, 1948-89 (own people)
63 20,000 Syria, 1982 (against Islamists in Hama)
64 20,000 Chinese-Vietnamese war, 1979
65 19,000 Morocco: war against France, 1953-56 (3,000) and in Western Sahara, 1975-present (16,000)
66 18,000 Congo Republic, 1997-99
67 10,000 South Yemen, 1986 (civil war)
*All figures rounded. Sources: Brzezinski, Z., Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the Twenty-first Century, 1993; Courtois, S., Le Livre Noir du Communism, 1997; Heinsohn, G., Lexikon der Völkermorde, 1999, 2nd ed.; Heinsohn, G., Söhne und Weltmacht, 2006, 8th ed.; Rummel. R., Death by Government, 1994; Small, M. and Singer, J.D., Resort to Arms: International and Civil Wars 1816-1980, 1982; White, M., “Death Tolls for the Major Wars and Atrocities of the Twentieth Century,” 2003.
This grisly inventory finds the total number of deaths in conflicts since 1950 numbering about 85,000,000. Of that sum, the deaths in the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1950 include 32,000 deaths due to Arab state attacks and 19,000 due to Palestinian attacks, or 51,000 in all. Arabs make up roughly 35,000 of these dead and Jewish Israelis make up 16,000.
These figures mean that deaths Arab-Israeli fighting since 1950 amount to just 0.06 percent of the total number of deaths in all conflicts in that period. More graphically, only 1 out of about 1,700 persons killed in conflicts since 1950 has died due to Arab-Israeli fighting.
(Adding the 11,000 killed in the Israeli war of independence, 1947-49, made up of 5,000 Arabs and 6,000 Israeli Jews, does not significantly alter these figures.)
In a different perspective, some 11,000,000 Muslims have been violently killed since 1948, of which 35,000, or 0.3 percent, died during the sixty years of fighting Israel, or just 1 out of every 315 Muslim fatalities. In contrast, over 90 percent of the 11 million who perished were killed by fellow Muslims.
Comments: (1) Despite the relative non-lethality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, its renown, notoriety, complexity, and diplomatic centrality will probably give it continued out-sized importance in the global imagination. And Israel’s reputation will continue to pay the price. (2) Still, it helps to point out the 1-in-1,700 statistic as a corrective, in the hope that one day, this reality will register, permitting the Arab-Israeli conflict to subside to its rightful, lesser place in world politics.
Professor Heinsohn is director of the Raphael-Lemkin-Institut für Xenophobie- und Genozidforschung at the University of Bremen. Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum.

Our Ancestors Knew About Islam. No Politcal Correctness Here:

If you take a short romp through history you’ll see the realization that Islam is a threat to civilization is not new. Check out these quotes.

Lord Tebbit

“The Muslim religion is so unreformed since it was created that nowhere in the Muslim world has there been any real advance in science, or art or literature, or technology in the last 500 years”

Vernon Richards

“The true Islamic concept of peace goes something like this: “Peace comes through submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah” (i.e. Islam). As such the Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war. It was inevitable and unavoidable that the conflict would eventually reach our borders, and so it has.”

Andre Servier

“Islam was not a torch, as has been claimed, but an extinguisher. Conceived in a barbarous brain for the use of a barbarous people, it was – and it remains – incapable of adapting itself to civilization. Wherever it has dominated, it has broken the impulse towards progress and checked the evolution of society.”

Winston Churchill

“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism”.

John Quincy Adams

“The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force”.

John Wesley

“Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it…have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind”.

Hilaire Belloc

“Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world, which will shake off the domination of Europeans — still nominally Christian — and reappear as the prime enemy of our civilization? The future always comes as a surprise, but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam”.

Bishop Fulton J Sheen

“Today (1950), the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world Power”.

William Eaton, US Consul to Tunis, wrote in 1799:

“Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives…The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…”

Ayatollah Khomeini

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

These men saw something then that we are just beginning to see now. We should heed their counsel.Seeing the Threat of Islam is Not New

Islam Q & A: The verse of the sword (9:5)  and  Abrogation

Should Muslims kill the infidel “wherever and whenever”? This Muslim scholar tries to clarify the controversy over the “Verse of the Sword” and winds up confusing everyone. The only value in this article is the list of abrogated verses.

Which Verses Does 9:5 Abrogate?

Salam, Rawa.

The verse referred to in your question states what means:

*{And so, when the sacred months are over, slay those who ascribe divinity to aught beside God wherever you may come upon them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every conceivable place ! Yet if they repent, and take to prayer, and render the purifying dues, let them go their way: for, behold, God is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace.}* (At-Tawbah 9:5)

The historical context of the verse, in the ninth year of Hijrah, is that of a war between Muslims and the pagans of Makkah. The thematic context of the verse in chapter nine is also the context of the same war, which the chapter is addressing.

However, the verse was taken out of its thematic and historical contexts and claimed to have defined the ruling between Muslims and non-Muslims in every place, time, and circumstance.

Hence, it was perceived to be in disagreement with more than two hundred other verses of the Quran, all calling for dialogue, freedom of belief, forgiveness, peace, and even patience. Conciliation between these different evidences, somehow, was not an option for most scholars.

To solve the disagreement, based on the method of abrogation, most exegetes concluded that this verse (9:5), which was revealed towards the end of the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) life, abrogated each and every ‘mutaarid‘ verse that was revealed before it.

Therefore, the following verses were considered abrogated:

*{No compulsion in the religion}* (Al-Baqarah 2:256);

*{Forgive them, for God loves those who do good to people}* (Al-An`am 6:13);

*{Repel evil with that which is best}* (Al-Mu’minum 23: 96);

*{So patiently persevere}* (Ar-Rum 30:60);

*{Do not argue with the People of the Book except with means that are best}* (Fusslilat 41:46);

and *{Say: You have your religion and I have my religion.}* (Al-Kafirun 109:6)

In addition, a large number of prophetic traditions that legitimize peace treaties and multi-cultural co-existence, to use contemporary terms, were also abrogated.

One such tradition is ‘The Scroll of Madinah’ (Sahifat al-Madinah), in which the Prophet and the Jews of Medina wrote a ‘covenant’ that defined the relationship between Muslims and Jews living in Madinah.

The scroll stated that, ‘Muslims and Jews are one nation (ummah), with Muslims having their own religion and Jews having their own religion.’ (Burhan Zuraiq, Al-Sahifah: Mithaq Al-Rasul, 1st ed. (Damascus: Dar al-Numair and Dar Maad, 1996, p. 353)

Some commentators on the Sahifah render it ‘abrogated,’ based on the verse of The Sword and other similar verses. (216)

Seeing all the above scripts and narrations in terms of the single dimension of peace versus war might imply a contradiction, in which the ‘final truth’ has to ‘belong’ to either peace or war. The result will have to be an unreasonable fixed choice between peace and war, for every place, time, and circumstance.

What added to the problem is that the number of cases of abrogation claimed by the students of the companions (al-tabiun) is higher than the cases claimed by the companions themselves.

After the first Islamic century, one could furthermore notice that jurists from the developing schools of thought began claiming many new cases of abrogation, which were never claimed by the tabiun. Thus, abrogation became a method of invalidating opinions or narrations endorsed by rival schools of law.

Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi (d. 951 CE), for one example, writes: “The fundamental rule is: Every Quranic verse that is different from the opinion of the jurists in our school is either taken out of context or abrogated.”

Therefore, it is not unusual in the jurisprudential literature to find a certain ruling to be abrogating (nasikh) according to one school and abrogated (mansukh) according to another. This arbitrary use of the method of abrogation has exacerbated the problem of lack of multi-dimensional interpretations of the evidences.

Now, had you not mentioned in your question the ‘truth’ in scholars’ and exegetes’ opinions, I would have given you only the above ‘apologetic answer’ as you put it.

However, since you mentioned that there must be some ‘truth’ in the opinion that says that Muslims have to kill non-Muslims ‘wherever and whenever’, allow me to add a few words on the scholars you mentioned.

I think that we need to revise the way we look at scholars, jurists, narrators, and exegetes from the past. We view their views, somehow, as more “authentic” and more “divine” than contemporary views of today, which is not true.

In fact, contemporary views are more “authentic” and more “divine”, for the simple fact that they are coming from people who live in the same era as we do.

Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Katheer lived in a very different world, a world in which the only international border, if you wish, that they knew was the border between Muslims (Islamic State/Khilafa) and non-Muslims, with an ongoing and never ending war, which had shaped their views about the world. They did not have a globe on their desks which shows clear political borders as we do today.

Thus, it is crucial to realize that an exegete does not represent any “truth” about the script more than representing the “truth” about his/her own world.

The eyes by which an exegete reads the Script is totally subject to his world and there is no view from nowhere, as they say. Thus, when Al-Qurtubi talks about war with non-Muslims, he was basically talking about the siege of Cordoba at his time and the ongoing war which lasted until the final ‘fall of Cordoba’ soon after his time. And so on.

Now, when a scholar from today talks about the relativity of the verse and that there are many other verses that talked about peace and treaties, and so on, and that we have to place each verse in its correct context, then this scholar is also speaking with his or her current international scene in his or her mind.

The current international scene does not have one Islamic/non-Islamic border, as was often the case in the past. It is full of all sorts of borders and various international relations that vary from war, conflict, and sanctions to treaties, cooperation protocols, and transnational unions.

Thus, there is more “truth” in today’s view that places the verse only in the context of war, where the rulings of war are indeed part of the Islamic Shariah and part of the realities of politics. Yet, today’s view should not exclude all other shades and hues of international relations.

I hope this answers your question. Please keep in touch.

Salam.

Useful links:

Do Muslims Want to Kill People of the Book?

Did Islam Grow By Killing Non-Believers?

Killing Enemies Slowly?

Killing the “Other”…

Killing non-Muslims

Killing the “Other” to Please the “Lord”!

When and How to Fight

Fighting Non-Muslims During Peace

Fighting Verses in the Quran

Permit to Fight…

Malaysian Islamic scholars: Hey, we just discovered that “Allah” is not an accurate translation for “God”

Muslims seem to always want to have it both ways. The Quran says in Surah 29:46, “Our God (Ilalhuna) and your God (Ilahukum) is one.” Then in Surah 109:1, the Quran says, “Say, Unbelievers: I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship, nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your own religion, and I have mine.”

This is why it is difficult to have a “dialogue” with Muslims over theology, because their theology is so contradictory. It’s like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Islam Explained for Those Who Do Not Read the Koran

Gates of Vienna

The French Counterjihad site Truth, Values, and Democracy (Vérité Valeurs et Démocratie) has posted an excellent short guide designed to help people who are otherwise unfamiliar with Islam understand Muslim practices and priorities.Gandalf has kindly translated the article into English for us.

Update: This article was actually written by Gandalf, and translated by L’échappée belle. Also, a minor change of wording in the translation has been made, at the request of the author. Sorry for the mix-up:

Islam explained for those who do not read the Koran

Islam is not as complicated as they would have you believe.

You have the Koran: a hodgepodge written by unknown men under poorly understood conditions. But this doesn’t matter, because even Muslims don’t really care about the Koran’s historical origins. Only its current contents have importance in their eyes.

You have a prophet: Muhammad, whose deeds are known thanks to the following texts:

• The Sira, which is a biography of Muhammad
• The Hadith, which are records of oral testimony about the acts and words of Muhammad

From these basics, the Islamic doctrine is simple:

• To establish an Islamic society arranged by the rules contained in the Koran and in the words of the Prophet, which are grouped under the name “Sharia”.
• To faithfully imitate the conduct of Muhammad, who is the archetype of the perfect Muslim.

That’s all you need to understand Islam.

What is a “Muslim”?

A Muslim (“one who submits” in Arabic) is one who accepts and seeks to conform to the rules of Sharia and tries to imitate Muhammad. If you do not fall into this category, you are a “kafir”.

What is a “kafir”?

– – -  – – – – –

A kafir is not equal to a Muslim. He is an inferior, despicable and impure, cursed by the god of the Muslims and destined to burn in hell.

What does it mean to imitate Muhammad?

To eradicate the kuffar (plural of kafir), to destroy their cultures and their societies in order to erect in their place an Islamic society ruled by Sharia.

The example of Muhammad shows that all methods are possible: proselytism, threats, rape, torture, pillage, trickery, and/or murder. No tactic is better than another and all are fair game depending on conditions. The goal is the same: the disappearance of the kuffar.

Islam is thus a process working towards the elimination of the kuffar and the destruction of their societies in order to install a universal Islamic civilization.

The ostensible complexity of Islam is simply due to the different interpretations as to how to achieve this goal, but they all involve the disappearance of the kuffar at some stage…without exception.

That’s it. As you can see, Islam is not complicated at all.

If you want to know the details, you can always read the Koran, the Sira, and the Hadith.

“But that cannot be the whole story,” you will object. “My Muslim friends and neighbors are perfectly respectable and pleasant!”

Indeed, outside the context of Islam, they are human beings like anyone else, neither better nor worse. But this does not change the fact that when they act as Muslims, even in a courteous and friendly manner, they are participating in a system that is working toward your extermination and the destruction of your society.

People are not the problem here; the source of the problem is the Islamic ideology that demands the extermination of kuffar like you.

Finally, there is only one really useful thing to know about Islam:

A kafir can expect nothing good from Islam, absolutely nothing.

Comment:

Great summary, BUT abrogation and slander are also very important tenets of Islam.

Abrogation: Often, Muslims will trot out the few peaceful verses from the Koran to show the infidel that Islam really is a religion of peace. However, Muslims uniformly believe in abrogation which means that Muhammad’s later revelations overrule any earlier revelations including any of his own as well as those of Moses and Jesus. Guess what? Muhammad’s later revelations give Muslims free reign to slaughter and enslave the infidel.

Slander: In Islam, slander is any communication that fails to further the cause of Islam. Thus, when Geert Wilders quotes Islam to its detriment, Wilders is committing Islamic slander.

In contrast, a radical imam can quote Islam with impunity because the imam intends to further the cause of Islam.

Of course, the cause of Islam is the creation of a worldwide caliphate. One world under Islam.

Stephen Coughlin’s presentation below is also quite fabulous to explain Islam. Page 207-208 defines Islamic slander.

Jihad:

Here are just a few of the forms that jihad can take, no doubt you can think of others:
BOMBING JIHAD – The objective is not only to cause death and destruction, but also to force the kuffars to waste vast amounts of money and military manpower on security , thus furthering the Economic Jihad.

CENSORSHIP JIHAD – The Islamic belief system is primitive, tribal and illogical and cannot withstand the light of rational analysis. All criticism of Islam must be shut down especially within universities.

CONTAMINATION JIHAD – Jihadists contaminate food to be served to kuffars with their faeces and urine

CORRUPTION JIHAD – The objective is to undermine kuffar public confidence in institutions such as the police , medical profession and immigration service.

DEMOGRAPHIC JIHAD – The objective is for Muslims to gain power by breeding faster than other sections of the population. Muslim women are breeding machines who produce vast numbers of children, and now that polygamy has been legalised Muslim men are free to import up to four wives each.

EDUCATIONAL JIHAD – Muslims are seeking gradually to remove non-Islamic subjects from the school curriculum and to Islamify schools by introducing Muslim observances and revisions of history.

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL JIHAD – The objective is to weaken the economies of kuffar nations and if possible get control of their major assets. Sharia finance requires kuffars to mortgage their countries’ infrastructure to Muslims.

HUMILIATION JIHAD – Islam is a culture obsessed with honor/shame and domination/subjugation. Islam will therefore look for any opportunity to degrade and humiliate the kuffars, such as the popular ‘jihad-snuff videos’ where kuffars are made to beg for their lives and then ritually slaughtered anyway.

IMMIGRATION JIHAD – Muslims are illegally swarming into Western Europe. Once established they bring in their very extended families by ‘chain-migration’ so that before you know it one Muslim has brought in his entire village.

INFILTRATION JIHAD – Similar to Corruption Jihad except that the objective is to infiltrate institutions in order to make them useful to Muslims.

INTIMIDATION JIHAD – Muslims are quick to take offence at the slightest provovation, even something so trivial as an ice cream wrapper. This makes the kuffar eager to appease their demands to avoid trouble. Of course appeasement only gives rise to further demands – give an inch and they’ll take a mile.

LITIGATION JIHAD – Offended Muslims are very keen to sue kuffars on the slightest pretext. The objective is not necessarily to win the case but to harass the kuffars and force them to spend vast amounts of money on their legal defence, eg the security-probing
Flying Imams who sued the passengers who reported their suspicious behaviour to the authorities, the
hijab-wearing Muslima who didn’t get the hairdressing job and Mark Steyn sued in a Canadian kangaroo court for telling the truth about Islam.

NARCO JIHAD – Muslims are the major suppliers of heroin. This trade supplies funding for jihad and helps destroy kuffar society. The drugs are also used to lure kuffar children into Islamic paedophile rings.

SEXUAL JIHAD – Rape and paedophilia are and always have been essential weapons in jihad. Kuffar women and children are booty to be enjoyed by their conquerors. Paedophile abductions of kuffar children by Muslim pimps have become commonplace.

STREET JIHAD – Young kuffar boys, usually alone or in small groups, are set upon and viciously attacked by much larger groups of older youths and men. These crimes are usually hushed up by the media eg Kriss Donald castrated, blinded and burned alive; Henry Webster skull smashed in three places and permanently brain-damaged, and many more only reported in the local press. .

Pamela on infiltration Jihad:

Journalist Paul Sperry says that Norquist’s strategy has been to “dress Islamists up as patriotic Republicans so they can infiltrate the government.” According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

Grover Norquist hoped to…harness votes from the country’s growing Muslim population by creating the Islamic Free Market Institute in 1998. He did so with significant financial help from Abdurahman Alamoudi, then one of America’s most influential Muslim activists and head of the American Muslim Council. Today, Alamoudi is serving a 23-year prison sentence after admitting to illegal transactions with Libya and being part of a plot to assassinate the then-Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Alamoudi was also found to be a long time secret financial courier for Al Qaeda while at the same time being routinely invited to the Clinton White House for receptions and meetings.

But the ten thousand great Americans who attended CPAC were not Sharia compliant. The patriots attending CPAC were not Islamists. They were not willing to hand America over to sharia (Islamic) law. We needed to reach them. We needed to educate them. They know they are being deceived. They look around their towns and cities and see the unremitting capitulation to Islamic supremacism.

What we say about Islam:

What Muslims say about us:

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says, kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! …Whatever good there is, exists thanks to the sword, and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient, except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! …Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”—Ayatollah Khomeini (1902-1989) Iran’s Supreme Leader from 1979 to 1989—the highest ranking political and religious authority of the nation.

Robert Spencer On Islam & The Crusades

Jawa Report

This is a bit old, but the information contained is timeless.

This fascinating interview took place shortly after Robert Spencer released his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)”. The host is Bill Handel at KFI AM 640.

————————

The Myths of Islam – The Quran Is The Muslim Counterpart to The Bible

In the last of TheReligionOfPeace.com ‘Myths of Islam’ series, we examine the Quran and its relation to the Bible and Torah. Muslims often compare their own holy book to Christian holy book, while attributing the stark differences to the “corruption” of the New Testament.

One significant difference is that the Bible stands alone. It contains the chronological and historical details necessary to understand the scriptures.

The Quran, on the other hand, stresses the morality and behavior of Muhammad, without ever providing any details about Muhammad’s morality and behavior. One must examine other texts to fully understand specific verses. Not to mention the confusing arrangement of each chapter, which is crudely based on the length of the chapter rather than any logical order.

The Myth:The Qur’an is to Muslims what the Bible is to Christians (and the Torah to Jews).

Read More “The Myths of Islam – The Quran Is The Muslim Counterpart to The Bible”- Jawa Report