Friday, April 30, 2010

Media Won't 'Get Islam Right'~We Will

A new post at Logan's Warning alerted me to a post on Islam Online titled "Media should get Islam right" under the byline of Hind Al-Subai Al-Idrisi .
The post pulls many of the standard strings of al-taqeyya. If the media would "get Islam right", they would be subjected to fatwas, threats, boycotts and litigation. Those of us who do not make our living by the word have a greater license to be accurate and honest. I have therefore extracted the most egregious lies from Hind's stream of malignant malarkey and will expose them below.

Rabat - Given the amount of violence and instability in countries with Muslim majorities, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, some people mistakenly assume the violence stems from Islamic teachings, when in fact Islam does not condone such actions. The media does not help the matter, often focusing on the activities of terrorists who claim to be Muslims, instead of identifying these individuals as criminals and shedding light on the true essence of Islam.

The internecine violence between Sunni & Shi'ia is, technically, un-Islamic conduct, forbidden by Allah & Moe. Surah An-Nisa' 92 & 93 make this fact abundantly clear.
  • 4:92. It is not for a believer to kill a believer ...
  • 4:93. And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allâh are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.
The paragraph cited above serves as a distraction, to divert our attention away from the real issue: Jihad, which is defined in Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims" A similar, and more complete definition and explanation are provided in the translator's footnote to 2:190. The purpose of Jihad is to establish Islam and make it dominant.

Jihad is made mandatory for Muslims in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:216. Warfare against pagans & atheists is commanded in Surah Al-Anfal 8:39. Warfare against Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians is commanded in Surah At-Taubah 9:29. Those imperatives are codified in Shari'ah.
Those are not anachronisms; Allah's Jihad imperatives have no expiration date. Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526 makes this fact clear.
  • ...jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)....
The media shows Muslim terrorists with guns performing prayers but rarely associates terms like terrorist, fanatic and fundamentalist with any other religious group.

Is terrorism a sacrament of any other religion? Which scripture contains functional equivalents of these gems of holiness?
  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, ...
  • 8:12. ...I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." ...
  • 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.... [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
  • 33:26. ...Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. ...
Did Jesus Christ or the founder of any other religion brag about victory through terrorism?
The vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and coexist harmoniously with those around them; they would say that the core of Islam is tolerance, co-existence and respect for all religions. In fact, Prophet Muhammad was known for his superior manners, merciful demeanor and tolerance toward all people, regardless of their race or religion.

Three cheers for the "vast majority of Muslims"; they are not the root of the problem. Believers are another matter, as Surah Al-Hujuratt 49:15 and Al-Anfal 2-8 reveal.
  • 8:2. The believers are only those who, when Allâh is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Qur'ân) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone);
    8:3. Who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât) and spend out of that We have provided them.
    8:4. It is they who are the believers in truth. For them are grades of dignity with their Lord, and Forgiveness and a generous provision (Paradise).
    8:5. As your Lord caused you (O Muhammad ) to go out from your home with the truth, and verily, a party among the believers disliked it;
    8:6. Disputing with you concerning the truth after it was made manifest, as if they were being driven to death, while they were looking (at it).
    8:7. And (remember) when Allâh promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allâh willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).
    8:8. That He might cause the truth to triumph and bring falsehood to nothing, even though the Mujrimûn (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.) hate it.
  • 49:15. Only those are the believers who have believed in Allâh and His Messenger, and afterward doubt not but strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh. Those! They are the truthful.
Spend, strive and go out are euphemisms for Jihad. If you doubt this fact, visit search for those terms and examine the context in which they are used. 8:1 & 8:7 are sufficient to establish the connection between the second ayeh and Jihad. Those who do not enthusiastically participate in Jihad are not believers, they are hypocrites

The quote above contains three egregious lies: tolerance, respect and co-existence. Anyone who asserts that those values are the core of Islam is either an ignorant fool or an accursed liar of the lowest order.

I took care of the co-existence deception when I cited the ayat which command Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims. Co-existence and perpetual warfare are not compatible, they are mutually exclusive.

The tolerance deception falls to the same evidence. War is not toleration. But there is more, found in Surah Al-Imran 3:85.
  • 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
The respect deception falls to similar evidence found in Surah Al-Baiyyinah 98:6, Surah Al-Taubah 9:30 and Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.

  • 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad ) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
  • 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
    Narrated Anas bin Malik:
    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."
Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims. Declaring open season on us is hardly a token of respect, tolerance & co-existence.

There are many verses in the Qur’an that support this message of peaceful coexistence and harmony. Among the basic features of Islam is freedom of religion and non-compulsion: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256) and “If it had been the Lord’s will, they would all have believed – all who are on earth. Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will to believe?” (10:99).

"No compulsion in religion" does not mesh with "And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]". The two are polar opposites. The conflict can only be resolved by the science of Naskh.
  • 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?
Newer revelations abrogate earlier revelations. Which came first, 2:256 or 8:39? Surah Al-Baqarah was #87 in sequence of revelation and Surah Al-Taubah was #88. [] 2:256 has been abrogated, it is null and void. But I have further proof. Surah Al-Imran was # 89 in sequence of revelation. Examine 3:110 and Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80, which explains its meaning.
  • 3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).
  • The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.
If dragging us with chains on our necks is not compulsion, what is?

When the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) established the first Muslim community in Mecca, he guaranteed freedom of religion, the sanctity of the human soul, and the right to security for non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews – the “People of the Book”, as they’re referred to in the Qur’an. They were privy to the same rights and subject to the same duties as Muslims, and were granted protection from outside threats.

What Moe tried to do was recruit the Jews & Christians into Islam, and when they rejected him, he attacked and plundered them. His military career began with raids on camel caravans returning to Mecca. As his army grew larger, fed by the spoils from those raids, he turned against the local Jewish population. His extortion letter to and attack on the Jews at the Khaibar Oasis [and 4.52.143]are exemplary.

The egregious assertions of sanctity and equality have already been dealt with above, completely disproved by reference to Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. You have already discovered, if you followed the links immediately above, that Islam sold protection from itself. Note the reference to jizya in 9:29.

The malignant malarkey about "freedom of religion" is best disproved by reference to Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11.5 lists several restrictions imposed on Jews & Christians under Islamic domination.
  • Forbidden to:
    • ring church bells
    • display crosses
    • recite the Torah or Evangel aloud
    • make public display of funerals or feasts
    • build new churches.
The teachings of Islam encourage acquaintance and communication among all people, as well as the blending among societies: “O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another” (49:13).

Allah strictly forbids friendly relations between Muslims and kuffar in the following ayat, from which I will quote one exemplar: 3:118, 4:144, 5:51, 5:57, 60:1 & 60:13.
  • 3:118. O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitânah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.

A similar ayeh serves as one of the foundation stones of al-taqeyya. I have added emphasis to make the critical clause stand out.
  • 3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
Surah An-Nahl 16:106 is another foundation stone of Islamic dissimulation.
  • 16:106. Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allâh, and theirs will be a great torment.

Ibn Kathir's Tafsir quotes a hadith allegedly from Bukhari, which is not found in the collection at USC-MSA.
  • ...For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection....
Because of the Islamic practices of dissimulation and obfuscation, it is necessary to check their references and search out the conflicting ayat & hadith which disprove them. Only ignorant fools will accept statements by politicians and Muslims at face value. Yet Another Qur'an Browser, to which I link ayat, displays a table of ten parallel translations. USC-MSA displays parallel translations by Pickthall, Shakir & Yusuf Ali. The same site has four of the six canonical hadith collections. You can use the navigation links on its pages to access them. The King Fahd Complex displays the Hilali & Khan translation with their footnotes. You can search and read Reliance of the Traveller, the all purpose handbook of Shari'ah at Scribid. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir displays the Arabic text of the Qur'an, an English translation and the parallel ayat & ahadith which explain its meaning A search engine for the tafsir is available at

Links to on line texts, search engines, texts you can download and links to many of my blog posts are available at .

Thursday, April 29, 2010

KSM Confession Renders Trial Redundant

In December, I uttered and published a critical analysis of a confession which was signed and submitted to a military tribunal by Khalid Sheikh Momammed and his excellent companions. Since that post, a prior decision to try the terrorists in a civilian court located near the scene of the attack was withdrawn, pending a new decision which might place the trial in a different venue or transfer it to a military tribunal, where it belongs.

In reality, given the confession, there is no need of a trial. What is needed is a soaking in pigs blood and summary execution. In evidence whereof I submit to you the second and last paragraphs of the confession. They said that they participated in the attack, that it was their "religious duty" and expressed their pride in what they have done.

With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for; to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God. In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the \land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites. Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites,and their religion as a whole.

Verse 195, AI-Baqara: ((And spend of your substance in the cause of Allah, and make not your own hands contribute to your destruction, but do good; for Allah loves those who do good.))

We ask to be near to God, we fight you and destroy you and terrorize you. The Jihad in god's cause is a great duty in our religion. We have news for you, the news is: You will be greatly defeated in Afghanistan and Iraq and that America will fall, politically, militarily, and economically. Your end is very near and your fall will be just as the fall of the towers on the blessed 9/11 day. We will raise from the
ruins, God willing. We will leave this imprisonment with our noses raised high in dignity, as the lion emerges from his den. We shall pass over the blades of the sword into the gates of heaven.

So we ask from God to accept our contributions to the great attack, the great attack on America, and to

place our nineteen martyred brethren among the highest peaks in paradise.

God is great and pride for God, the prophet, and the believers....

Call a halt to the dithering. Cancel the trial and usher the demon spawn into Hell; let us be done with it, inexpensively and expeditiously. Stake them to the bottom of several pit toilets in Central Park and hold a big picnic with plenty of bbq, watermelon and beer. When the pits are full, remove the outhouses and plant apple trees in their place.

Remember those who died, those who suffered great injury and their survivors. Let us firmly resolve that the second attack on the World Trade Center will be the last; let us begin the long process of ridding the world of the demonic war cult whose doctrines mandate perpetual attacks against us.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Assumptions Make Asses of US

Bare Naked Islam brought to my attention this video in which Representative Ted Poe (TX 2) speaks out about censorship against critics of Islam. It is rare to hear a Representative speaking in support of free speech, even in special orders, so I would like to cheer. Unfortunately, I am unable to cheer because Rep. Poe peppered his speech with an unnecessary adjective which detracts from the truth of the subtext.

Those who apply adjectives such as 'radical' and 'extreme' to Islam and Muslims thereby put themselves in conflict with truth and do great harm to the cause of establishing peace and security.

'Radical Islam' presumes the existence of a mythical 'moderate'; benign and anodyne Islam which is personal and spiritual; neither political nor martial. That mythical Islam is contrasted with the real Islam, which is described as 'radical' or extreme' and presumed to comprise a trivial minority of Muslims.

Nothing could be further from objective factual reality. Islam is predatory, supremacist and aggressive. Frequent readers of this blog are familiar with the ayat which mandate and sanctify genocidal conquest which terrorizes its victims as a means of destroying their ability and will to offer effective resistance. For those who are unfamiliar with them, they are quoted and linked to source in "What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims?" and "What You Need to Know about Islam".

We are under attack by believers, not 'radicals' or 'extremists'. The Noble Qur'an, translated by Hilali & Khan, defines believers and their behavior.[Emphasis added.]
  • 8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad ) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), if you are believers.
  • 8:2. The believers are only those who, when Allâh is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Qur'ân) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone);
  • 8:3. Who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât) and spend out of that We have provided them.
  • 8:4. It is they who are the believers in truth. For them are grades of dignity with their Lord, and Forgiveness and a generous provision (Paradise).
  • 8:5. As your Lord caused you (O Muhammad ) to go out from your home with the truth, and verily, a party among the believers disliked it;
Disputing over the spoils of war is one of the tests of believers; they don't argue about the booty, accepting what Moe allocates to them. This should be your first clue: believers participate in Jihad, otherwise there would be no spoils to fight over. Believers obey Allah and his messenger. What did Allah command them to do? He commanded them to wage war on disbelievers.

Believers "spend" from Allah's provision. What is the meaning of that expression? Does it refer to charity or something else?
  • 2:195. And spend in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd of all kinds, etc.) and do not throw yourselves into destruction (by not spending your wealth in the Cause of Allâh), and do good. Truly, Allâh loves Al-Muhsinûn (the good-doers).

One phrase from that verse needs clarification: "do not throw yourselves into destruction". This sentence from Sunan Abu Dawud 14. 2506 completes the concept "To put oneself into danger means that we stay in our property and commit ourselves to its improvement, and abandon fighting (i.e. jihad). " If a qualified Muslim does not join the Jihad and stick with it to victory, he fails the test and is not a believer.

"Go out from your home" also requires clarification. This quote comes from Malik's Muwatta, Book 21.5.14:
Malik was asked about a man who pledged himself to go on a military campaign, equipped himself,and when he wanted to go out, one or both of his parents prevented him." Another verse uses the same term.
  • 9:83. If Allâh brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites), and they ask your permission to go out (to fight), say: "Never shall you go out with me, nor fight an enemy with me; you agreed to sit inactive on the first occasion, then you sit (now) with those who lag behind."
Another verse restates the definition of believers.
  • 49:15. Only those are the believers who have believed in Allâh and His Messenger, and afterward doubt not but strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh. Those! They are the truthful.
What is the meaning of "strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh"?
  • 9:41. March forth, whether you are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), strive hard with your wealth and your lives in the Cause of Allâh. This is better for you, if you but knew.
Allah's cause is to make Islam dominate the entire world; global conquest.
  • 9:33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâm), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) hate (it).
  • Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 65:

    Narrated Abu Musa:

    A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."
Islamic violence is normative, not exceptional. It is performed by true believers, not 'radicals' or 'extremists'. The founder of Islam personally participated in 26 battles and ordered many more for a total of 86 in his ten year career as warlord. Those battles are sunnah: examples to be emulated by all Muslims, in all places, at all times. Allah's imperatives to conquer the world do not have expiration dates.

Lives, liberties and civilization are at risk so long as a substantial number of people believe that they have a divine mandate to conquer the entire world. With modern weaponry, a small number of zealots can wreak great havoc.

We must cause them to quit believing or quit living. Otherwise, they will persist in threatening and attacking us.

Friday, April 23, 2010


CAIR Video: One Man's Fight Against Islamophobia
CAIR's National Executive Director, Nihad Awad was interviewed by Dan Harris of ABC News April 20, '10, stemming from CAIR's objection to an interview with Wafa Sultan. I found this eight minute, 55 second video at Bare Naked Islam.

The video begins with brief excerpts from a speech and interview with Wafa Sultan. I suspect that the excerpts come from the Freedom Defense Initiative at CPAC in March. Video from that interview was found at Atlas Shrugs. The video confirmed my suspicion. Of course, the only "islamophobia" in the video was in brief cuts from her appearances on Al Jazeera.

I hope to select and transcribe the most egregious lies from Nihad Awad's interview. Do not assume that my transcription is word for word perfect, my hearing is poor, Awad speaks softly, and my computer's sound card is weak.

Wafa Sultan was shown telling FDI that "We must deal with the evil of Islam right now" so that our children won't have to deal with it..."so that the next generation can live in peace". Harris wanted to know what bothered Awad about that interview. .

"From the beginning we strongly believe in free speech. People are entitled to their opinions no matter how wrong they are. But when a person of this nature is interviewed and not challenged; is not opposed or there is no balance in the presentation, you feel that something was missing and that the racist remarks she made and allegations that she made against Muslims as a whole defies logic--defies common sense and basic knowledge... people learn about Islam--they know about Islam--she just reinforces stereotypes and mis-information and she was not challenged."

Islam does not believe in free speech. Islam forbids denial, questioning, sarcasm & reviling Allah, his messenger, the Qur'an and the doctrines derived from it.
Mentioning anything "impermissible" about Islam is one of the violations of dhimma which can cause a dhimmi to lose his protection from Muslims and be killed. The list of attitudes and acts entailing apostasy is documented here; the list of acts prohibited to dhimmis is documented here.

There was nothing inflammatory in the brief interview with Wafa Sultan. The closest she came to "Islamophobia" was in the clip from her speech at FDI when she mentioned "the evil of Islam". There wasn't anything concrete to counter in that interview, which lacked ideological detail.

The allegation of racist remarks is absolutely unfounded. Sultan explicitly stated that her opposition was to Islam, not to Muslims. Islam is not a race; it has enslaved and victimized people of several races. What allegations did she make "against Muslims as a whole"? She said that Islam is evil, and it is. Islam is violent, ordaining warfare, praising self sacrifice in battle against disbelievers as the best deed. Allah sanctifies terrorism and demands genocide. Islam declared war, permanent war, until the entire world is conquered.

Asked about intolerance, of which Islam is accused, Awad replied:

" That is just dead wrong, because Islamic history shows different than what people claim and the Qur'an...the best answer is from the Qur'an, otherwise, if you hear from someone as he would say... trying to spin the issue... the Qur'an emphasizes freedom, freedom of thought and religion...'let there be no compulsion in religion' this comes direct from the Qur'an, nobody can misunderstand it, nobody can misinterpret it. You can not force people to believe and act ... these are the words in the Qur'an. "

Islamic history shows extreme intolerance. I refer to the Pact of Umar. Hitler did not invent distinctive clothing for Jews, he adopted it from Islam. 3:85 clearly declares that choosing a religion other than Islam will never be accepted. Muslims are instructed, when encountering Jews & Christians on the road, not to gree them first and to shove them into the ditch. Doubt me? Then look it up: Sunan Abu Dawud 41.5186.

"No compulsion..." comes from 2:256. 3:110 declares believing Muslims to be the "best of peoples"; the meaning of that verse is explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 : " means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam. ".

Asked about the treatment of women in KSA, for example:

" You have to differentiate between culture and religion and sometimes there is a big difference between the two. My understanding of my faith ... women are not only protected but they can be leaders in the Muslim World, when you look at Pakistan, Turkey and Bangladesh, they can be leaders in the Muslim world. "

Awad is playing a subtle semantic game. Islam is not a religion, it is a deen: way of life. It encompasses all aspects of human activity, culture included. Women are chattel property, "tilth", literally a field to be plowed and seeded. They are inferior to men, deemed deficient. Moe had something pertinent to say about female rulers : When Allah's Apostle was informed that the Persians had crowned the daughter of Khosrau as their ruler, he said, "Such people as ruled by a lady will never be successful."

Asked about the aftermath of 9-11; Islamophobia :

"Our job is getting more difficult every day although we see a new tone in the new administration, we see a hand extended to the Muslim world, ...we see a positive speech toward Muslims and a tone of reconciliation; but I believe the situation overall is getting worse. Islamophobia is being accelerated in the United States, I haven't seen clergy or political leader who stands up and pushes against bigotry against Muslims. "

"Islamophobia" implies irrational fear and loathing of Islam. After 9-11, considering the untimely deaths of approximately 270*106 people in the last 1400 years, fear and loathing of Islam is not irrational. Muslims label well documented blog posts such as this "Islamophobia".

If the media were more responsible, and our leaders were better, isn't your job made more difficult by the identity of the terrorists ...

"Its important to recognize that the majority of Muslims and organizations including ours, leaders and clergy in the United States and around the world have condemned 9-11 and I believe we were the first organization on the face of the earth to condemn 9-11 but months and years after that we are always confronted on some national television show: 'where are the moderate Muslims--where is the condemnation' and we say we did, but who is listening? Which national network has displayed or communicated or shown our condemnation? I think our voices are somehow excluded and ignored because as we say 'if it bleeds, it leads' . Maybe our statements are not amusing to the ear of people who are accustomed to seeing violence on television but they do not see Muslim leaders coming to condemn this violence. We are condemning the violence, but we do not want to be defined by condemning violence. There are seven million Muslims in the United States. There are engineers, doctors, public servants, educators, they do great work to make America better every day; I'd like to see stories about these people ... I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

So they condemned the attack on the World Trade Center. Wonderful, now we should form a circle, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. Yeah, right. Malicious malarkey! They condemn attacks on "innocents"; another semantic game tactic. Only Muslims can be innocent. Anyone who is not Muslim is a rebel against Allah, who deserves to be killed. 5:33 prescribes hudud for those who "wage war against Allah". That expression is defined in Ibn Kathir's tafsir of that verse:
"`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. ".

Take note of the word I highlighted in that definition; disbelief = waging war against Allah. They will not denounce, condemn and abjure the damnable doctrines which sanctify and mandate offensive conquest, genocide & terrorism because that would be an act entailing apostasy.

Seven minutes and forty eight seconds into the interview, Awad tells the big lie: " I do not want to see my faith, which has been hijacked by a very tiny minority in the world, to be defined by their acts while the majority of us are having to stand up and condemn the acts of the few. "

Islam has not been hijacked. As previously documented, casting terror is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam and offensive conquest is a permanent mandate, in the course of which genocide must be performed. The founder of Islam was a terrorist. Have you read the Qur'an? Try 33:26-27. Even if you never read another hadith, read Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220.

Eight minutes and twelve seconds into the interview, asked if he gets threats, Awad answers in the affirmative, during which statement, he is framed in the camera's viewfinder as if to simulate the view through an assassin's telescopic rifle sight. he says that when he speaks sincerely, from his heart people listen and believe him. Those must be rare occasions, rare indeed.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Judicial Hypocrisy in India: Critical Update

Update!! New information has been discovered which I was not able to find at the time of the original publication of this article.

BNET ran a Times of India article dated April 17, '10, which reports that India's Supreme Court ruled in favor of banning a book titled "Islam A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims".

Upon further research, I found that the article heralds the finalization of a ruling issued earlier this year. I also discovered two resources which should prove to be of inestimable value in the search for truth.

Particular complaint was made, illegally, according to Sundaram, of the author's quotes from the Qur'an and his interpretation of their meaning. The court appointed a special master to translate the Qur'an for them. I found that chapter 7 contains a quote of 9:29 which, while imperfect, transmits the essential meaning of the verse without distortion. Chapter 15 contains additional quotes.

After examining the second listed chapter, I find that the quotes are sufficiently full and accurate to convey their meaning. I also find this among the concluding paragraphs. It speaks directly to the issue involved in the ban.

Whereas there are yet many more Ayats that go on to speak against the non-believers in Islam. India having declared itself a secular country believes also in guarding the religious feelings of the minority communities, The Constitution of India and many laws made thereunder are specially enacted to keep the internal atmosphere within the country free of communal tensions. 1 have therefore laboured to keep away many of of the positively provocative Ayats to which all Muslims must owe their allegiance. Hence, while it is possible to add to the above number of 16 Ayats, material declared in Quaran as binding to the Muslims yet it may not be conducive for a non-Muslim writing this book to state more than what 1 have done. Indeed, It is possible for many critics to draw my own chosen path not to have included them in this publication for the reason that such further inclusion could cause bitterness in the society comprising of Hindus and Muslims living in India.

I find in chapter 16 that 18:22 is mis-cited. Other than that, the quotes are reasonably accurate. I find further that my guess that the author was influenced by the Calcutta Qur'an Petition appears to be vindicated. I presume that the book was written in another language and translated into English.

I can not dispute such of the author's conclusions as I have encountered in my brief survey of a few chapters. I am more convinced that the book was banned unjustly; the ban should have been reversed on appeal.

The rough translation and selection of background and foreground colors make the book difficult to read. In my opinion, it is well worth reading and ought to receive a wide audience.

DNA reports that the Bombay High Court upheld a state ban on the publication of Islam — A concept of Political World Invasion by RV Bhasin.
Freedom of expression granted by the Constitution, the bench said, should not be used to trigger “senseless destruction of lives and property and breach of public order”.

If a book describing Islamic doctrines and practices is judged to trigger violence, then what about the Qur'an, which sanctifies and mandates genocidal terrorism? The Calcutta Qur'an Petition was arbitrarily dismissed,. yet this case upholds this book banning. Which is worse, a book which perpetuates an order to engage in aggressive warfare or a book which describes its effects? It is obvious that the wrong book was banned.


S. Abul A'la Maududi gave a lecture about Jihad in Lahore, April 13, 1939, Jihad In Islam. Sayed means that Maududi was a direct descendant of one of Moe's daughters. He was a theologian and philosopher who founded Jamaat-e-Islami.

His major work is Tafhim al-Qur’an which explains the meaning of the Qur'an. A quick survey of his tafsir should convince you that he knew his subject matter. [Qur'an links in this post are to Tafhim al-Qur’an.]

Jihad In Islam brings up some important concepts which deserve careful consideration. On the first page, Maududi brings up the concept of Jihad, and turns it against Islam's detractors with a reverse projection. He accuses the West of making war for economic gain, contrasting that with Jihad in the way of Allah, for the holy purpose of making things right in the world. Of course, he overlooks Moe's mercenary motivation, which was revealed by Allah in 8:67.

On the second page, Maududi punches a large hole through the fiction of Islamic passivity. [Emphasis added.]

We have now officially denounced armed. struggle of all sorts just to convince and satisfy our overlords. Now the term Jihad only refers to word-war through spoken or written word.

Another significant revelation, on the third page, could be overlooked too easily. A misunderstanding of the nature of Islam is partially responsible for misunderstanding Jihad.

The first misunderstanding is that Islam is taken as a religion in the conventional I sense of the term ‘religion’.

Maududi proceeds to define that conventional sense. Pay close attention to this.

Religion as a common term means nothing more than a hotch potch of some beliefs, prayers and rituals.

Maududi told his audience that, under this definition, religion should be "a private affair". ... "There is no occasion- and justification to take up arms in this process. "

If we quit reading there, we miss the message. On the next page, Maududi deflates the balloon.

...if Islam is taken as a conventional type of religion, the institution of Jihad cannot be justified.

So why was Maududi lecturing about Jihad?

In fact Islam is neither a religion, nor the Muslims are a nation in the conventional sense of these terms. Islam, instead, is a revolutionary concept and ideology which seeks to change and revolutionise the world social order and reshape it according to its own concept and ideals.

This concept is further developed beginning on page 9.

It is the .most important, rather fundamental ideal of the Muslims, the most outstanding revolutionary party to sacrifice its life and and all the resources at its command to fight, against the evil forces. of the world, not to take their place but completely eliminate the evil and to enforce the word of Allah all over the world.

Islam is a revolutionary program to impose itself upon the entire world by force if necessary. But there is more. At the end of the page 10, another important concept is introduced: Allah's sovereignty.

No one has the right to become self-appointed ruler and order and prohibit whatever he likes on his own volition and authority.

Any ruler not ruling by the Qur'an is an evil tyrant who must be overthrown. The following verses are cited to support these ideas: 26:151-152, 18:28, 11:18-19, 12:39, 28:38, 79:24, 2:258 and 41:15.

Page 15 of the lecture spells out the intention of Islam with some clarity. [Emphasis added.]

...Islam is not merely a religious creed or a set of rituals but it is a comprehensive system that tends to annihilate all tyrannical and evil systems in the world and to enforce its own reformation programme which it deems best in the interest of mankind.

Any system that is not Islamic is necessarily tyrannical and evil. Islam decides what is good for us and imposes it by force of arms, annihilating our system of government and way of life.

On page 16 we learn that the purpose of the Party of Allah is

to eliminate the hegemony of un-Islamic aystems replacing them with a balanced social and cultural order called the Word of Allah by the holy Quran,

To support this, Maududi cites 3:110, which describes Muslims as the best of peoples. Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 explains what makes them the best: bringing us with chains on our necks until we embrace Islam.

In the lecture's next page, Maududi cites three ayat as the scriptural basis for Jihad: 2:193, 8:73 and 9:33. On that basis, the Party of Allah must "capture power".

On page 18, Maududi explains why the Muslims living among kuffar is compelled to strive for "the extirpation of the rule opposed to their ideology and bring their own ideology into power". They can't tolerate the ideological conflict.

Maududi restates Islam's strategic objective on page 20.

...that the objective of ‘Jihad’ in Islam is to liquidate the suzerainty of an un-Islamic system of life and replace it with the rule of Islam.

We learn next that Islam must be expanded, that it must be imposed globally. This is made plain on page 21. State can fully implement her ideology without expanding it to her neighbouring States.

Maududi presents the example of Islam's founder, who invited the rulers of neighboring states to embrace Islam and "resolved to take military action" against those who refused. It should become clear to you that Islam is violent, not peaceful; that it seeks to impose its will upon the entire world, destroying our way of life in the process. Islam is waging an existential conflict against us; what are we going to do about it?

While I urge everyone to read translations of the original sources: the Qur'an & Sahih Bukhari and their derivatives such as Reliance of the Traveller and Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, much can be learned from Jihad In Islam, Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah and The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad and from many secondary sources. Radical Islam: A Threat America Must Take Seriouslywill be web cast Saturday, April 24, '10 from 10 to 5 EDT.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Jihad in the Way of Allah

Jihad in the Way of Allah

This Facebook page was linked on the wall of the Ban Islam!! Group. The image above is an actual, unedited clip from a screen shot of the Wall of
Jihad in the way of Allah is best way which boasts 76 fans.

That constitutes advocacy of waging war against anyone who rejects Islam and refuses to submit to extortion. This exposes Islam for exactly what it is: a piratical predator.

Jihad is defined in Islamic law as war against non-Muslims. Jizya is a humiliating extortion demanded from conquered "people of the book". The subject is introduced in Surah at-Taubah 29.

Now there is another boycott movement, calling for a boycott of Facebook from June 9-11 if they do not remove all of the anti-Islamic groups. The group boasts 10,855 members. Meanwhile, a five month old post about a boycott protesting the Qur'an Toilet Paper Group is still getting hits.

Syria Spews al-Taqeyya

On April 12, 2010, Syria's U.N. Ambassador addressed the 14th session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Measures to eliminate international terrorism on behalf of the OIC. I have selected three crucial excerpts from his prepared remarks.

It has been very well known to the international community that the OIC Group strongly condemns all acts and practices of terrorism and remains convinced that terrorism, irrespective of its motivation, objectives, forms and manifestations, committed by whomsoever and wherever, can never be justified. [Pg. 2]

That statement needs to be juxtaposed with another which came later in the speech.
To achieve this objective the OIC Group supports a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism that must address the root causes of terrorism including unlawful use of force, aggression, foreign occupation, festering international disputes, denial of the right of peoples living under foreign occupation to self-determination, political and economic injustices, and political marginalization and alienation.[Pg.3]

First they condemn terrorism, then they make excuses for it. The cause of Islamic terrorism is not included in that list. Islamic doctrine is the cause of Islamic terrorism. Islam's strategic objective is total world conquest; to impose its system upon the entire world. Terrorism is a tactic in pursuit of that strategic objective.

Brigadier S.K. Malik wrote The Qur'anic Concept of War as a training manual for the Pakistani Army. The book reflects Pakistan's military doctrine. Pay close attention to this quote from page 59.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponents heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

Another quote from the third page of the prepared remarks contains the camel excrement which provides boilerplate for several U.N. resolutions.

The OIC Group reaffirms that terrorism should not be associated with any religion, race, faith, theology, values, culture, society or group. NO religion or religious doctrine encourages or inspires acts of terrorism, and, thus, none should be portrayed as such.

The pernicious institution which perfected terrorism continues to deny the connection, assuming that we are too stupid, ignorant and gullible to perceive the truth. Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers.
  • We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve,...[3:151]
  • ...I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes. ... [8:12]
  • ...Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Banî An-Nadîr) breasts than Allâh. ...[59:13]
Allah cast terror into the hearts of the disbelievers.
  • ...Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.[33:26]
  • ...But Allâh's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see). [59:2]
Take a close look at the last sentence in 59:2 )Then take admonition, O you with eyes) another ayeh will make its meaning crystal clear.
  • So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson. [8:59]
Muslims are commanded to punish their victims severely in order to disperse those behind them; observers are told to take admonition. Got a clue yet?
I have a clue for you, it is found in Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of 8:60.
  • Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know....
"To strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies"; the purpose of maximal armed force. I have another clue for the clueless; Moe bragged about his practice of terrorism.
  • ...1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.... [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
  • ...I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),... [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220]
Lets put the two horns of this dilemma together for easy examination.
  • "NO religion or religious doctrine encourages or inspires acts of terrorism,"
    • "We shall cast terror"
    • "I will cast terror"
    • "Allâh ... cast terror into their hearts"
      • " a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives."
    • "He cast terror into their hearts"
    • "victorious by awe"
    • "made victorious with terror"
If you believe that Islam and terrorism are not cause and effect, please explain your belief in a comment and tell us your IQ score. How stupid must one be to believe such absurd al-taqeyya?