By Bill Warner

A common complaint against Islam is that the “good” Muslims don’t condemn the Muslims who are terrorists.

Lately, an old declaration by a fiqh council has been popping up. [A fiqh council is made of Islamic jurists who are experts in Sharia law and it applications.] Dozens of imams and Islamic groups condemn terrorism by signing a fatwa [judgment]. It sounds great, but how does it look under closer examination? Take this sentence:

“Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives.”

What could be possibly wrong with this strict condemnation? The possible splinter in the banister is what specific words mean. Take “extremism” for example. The average Kafir (non-believer) thinks of terror. Terror is extreme, by definition, but what we are actually talking about is religious extremism, in particular, Islam. What is extreme Islam? Surely Islamic terrorism is extreme Islam.

Before we can examine “extreme Islam”, we must define Islam. Islam is the political/religious doctrine found the Koran and the Sunna (Mohammed’s perfect life-example.) The Sunna is found in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and the Hadith (the Traditions, small Mohammed stories). The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith compose the Trilogy. The Trilogy defines Islam. If it is in the Trilogy, it is Islam. If it is in the Trilogy it is normal Islam.

What is the content of the Trilogy? Murder, plots against the enemies of Islam, assassinations, mass executions, sneak attacks, torture, Jew-hatred, theft, kidnappings, open warfare, and more. Since they are in the Trilogy, these actions are normal, not extreme. September 11 attack on the World Trade Center was not extremism.

So far as terror goes, terror is as Islamic as a call-to-prayer.

Koran 8:12 Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, “I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into the Kafirs’ hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!”

Bukhari 1,7,331 Mohammed:
I have been given five things, which were not given to any one else before me:
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, by His frightening my enemies for a distance of one month’s journey.

The fiqh council’s fatwa includes a quote from the Koran:

Koran 5:32 whoever killed a human being, unjustly, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind.

The problem is that this quote from the Islamic scholars is taqiyya (sacred deception). Look at what they left out:

Koran 5:32 That was why We laid it down for the Jews that whoever killed a human being, unjustly, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind

That advice was for the Jews–the Jews, not the Muslims. Let’s examine the next two verses that advise the Muslims:

Koran 5:33 Those that make war against Allah and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land. They shall be held up to shame in this world and sternly punished in the hereafter: except those that repent before you reduce them. For you must know that Allah is forgiving and merciful.

Koran 5:35 Believers, have fear of Allah and seek the right path to Him. Fight valiantly for His cause, so that you may triumph.

When Muslims kill a Kafir, it is regarded as a sacred act, jihad.

Now look at the word, “innocent”. Mohammed sent out his jihadists on seven raids before they were successful on their eighth attempt to destroy the Kafirs’ caravan. It is significant that they used deception to accomplish this task. The jihadists disguised themselves as “religious” pilgrims to approach the caravan drivers. They murdered one, captured those who did not escape and stole their merchandise.

What was the guilt of the caravan drivers? They were Meccan Kafirs. That was their only guilt. We might say that they were innocent, but they were part of a group that denied the fact that Mohammed was the prophet of the only god, Allah. That is guilt enough to be murdered. No one who denies that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah is innocent.

If you know the doctrine of Islam, the entire fatwa condemning terrorism is pure deception. Why be surprised? Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive if it would advance the Islamic cause, and the fiqh council follows the Sunna of Mohammed to the letter.

The reason that this deception works is the average Kafir politician, reporter, pastor, priest or rabbi is deliberately and willfully ignorant. It is not that Islam is so skillful; but that Kafir leaders are such ignorant, politically correct cowards who refuse to educate themselves to the detriment of their own religious faith and their own country.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

By Bill Warner

One of the many attacks that Muslims and their apologists make against their opponents is that Kafir (non-Muslim) critics are self-educated. They say the only way to understand Islam is to ask a Muslim or a university trained “expert”. What could be wrong with this advice?

Let’s use an actual problem; today Sharia law is being used to show how Islam works at the political level and how it is a disaster for our civilization.

Sharia is such a horror show for Kafirs that Islam and its apologists say many things to draw attention away from it. They say that Sharia is an antique from the year 1400 and no one really uses such an old text (an example is the Traveller, see below). In short, it is a relic of history; it doesn’t really apply today. Don’t worry.

A professor says that the Sharia is not really important; Sharia is flexible; it changes; there are different schools; no nation is actually ruled by Sharia. Sharia is nothing to worry about. So says the “expert”. This judgment is delivered by a “university expert”. We know this is not true. We know that Sharia is a driving force in Islam. How could an “expert” be wrong?

How do we determine the true nature of Islam? How do we prove anything about Islam? How can you refute an “expert”?

A classic Sharia text, Reliance of the Traveller, has no less than four high scholars, who say that in 1991 that the Reliance is to the benefit of the Muslim community and the path of Muslims today. The university experts dismiss the Sharia as being irrelevant today. Who are we to believe, the professors or the prominent Islamic scholars?

This question can be answered by the fact that all Sharia is based on Koran and Sunna. Sunna is pure Mohammed and Koran is the delivered by Mohammed, so we can say that Mohammed is the only standard for truth in Islam.

If an expert gives advice about Islam or Sharia that agrees with Mohammed, the expert is right. If the expert disagrees with Mohammed then the expert is wrong. Hence, the only way to know Islam is to know Mohammed. This translates into knowing Hadith (Traditions) and Sira (life of Mohammed). If you would read Hadith and Sira (which are well translated), you would not need an expert, you would be an expert.

However, the experts denigrate any knowledge based on the actual reading of Islamic texts. Sir Isaac Newton was self-educated about physics. Einstein was self-educated in relativity. Indeed, people who are self-educated in their area of advancement have done the greatest work in humanity. However, for you to be self-educated is an act of bigotry.

The highest goal of education is that the students will be able to educate themselves after school. The elites do not want any ideas that do not come from “experts”. You might get ideas that are not elitist approved. The elites all favor Islam and never advance any critical ideas.

We have to educate ourselves because the universities are bankrupt on the subject of Islam. They do not allow any teaching about Islam that is critical and uses critical thought from the standpoint of the Kafir. No debate is allowed. Only Muslims and dhimmi apologists are allowed to speak about Islam. Anyone who disagrees based on their own understanding is a bigot.

The first European universities were based on the study of authorities. One day in class the discussion was about how many teeth a horse had. Aristotle said one number and Galen said another. The way to resolve this was to establish who was the greatest man. While the argument about whether Aristotle was a greater scholar than Galen went on, a student went out into the courtyard and counted the number of teeth in a tethered horse. When he returned with the number, the teacher beat him. Knowledge that was based on experimental data and self-education was forbidden. That is the nature of the academic “authorities” and the media today.

To know which expert is right is not a matter of college credentials or religion, but knowing which expert agrees with Koran and Sunna. Islam begins with Mohammed and ends with Mohammed.

Get to know Mohammed. To know Mohammed is to be an expert. Be self-taught and read the foundational books-Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Note: Don’t think that you can pick up any biography of Mohammed and get to know the true man. Almost every biography of Mohammed is whitewashed. The Sira (Ishaq’s Sira Rasul Allah can be found in Mohammed and the Unbelievers) is the gold standard. If the bio does not include the annihilation and subjugation of the Jews, torture, slavery, plots, raids, assassinations, battles, secret agents and spies, then it is not a complete biography. Mohammed’s rise to power included an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, www.politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

By Bill Warner

One of the most frequently used arguments heard in the defense of Islam is that the Bible is just as violent as the Koran. The logic goes like this. If the Koran is no more violent than the Bible, then why should we worry about Islam? This argument is that Islam is the same as Christianity and Judaism. This is false, but this analogy is very popular, since it allows someone who knows nothing about the actual doctrine of Islam to talk about it. “See, Islam is like Christianity, Christians are just as violent as Muslims.” If this is true, then you don’t have to learn anything about the actual Islamic doctrine.

However, this is not a theological argument. It is a political one. This argument is not about what goes on in a house of worship, but what goes on the in the marketplace of ideas.

Now, is the doctrine of Islam more violent than the Bible? There is only one way to prove or disprove the comparison and that is to measure the differences in violence in the Koran and the Bible.

The first item is to define violence. The only violence that matters to someone outside of either Islam or Christianity or Judaism is what they do to the “other”, political violence. Cain killing Abel is not political violence. Political violence is not killing a lamb for a meal or making an animal sacrifice. Note, however, a vegan or a PETA member considers both of these actions to be violent, but it is not violence against them.

The next item is to compare the doctrines both quantitatively and qualitatively. The political violence of the Koran is called “fighting in Allah’s cause”, or jihad.

We must do more than measure the jihad in the Koran. Islam has three sacred texts: Koran, Sira and Hadith, the Islamic Trilogy. The Sira is Mohammed’s biography. The Hadith are his traditions—what he did and said. Sira and Hadith form the Sunna, the perfect pattern of all Islamic behavior.

The Koran is the smallest of the three books, the Trilogy. It is only 16% of the Trilogy text . This means that the Sunna is 84% of the word content of Islam’s sacred texts. This statistic alone has large implications. Most of the Islamic doctrine is about Mohammed, not Allah. The Koran says 91 different times that Mohammed is the perfect pattern of life. It is much more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. This is very good news. It is easy to understand a biography about a man. To know Islam, know Mohammed.

It turns out that jihad occurs in large proportion in all three texts. Here is a chart about the results:

It is very significant that the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad. Mohammed averaged an event of violence every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Jihad was what made Mohammed successful. Here is a chart of the growth of Islam.

Basically, when Mohammed was a preacher of religion, Islam grew at the rate of 10 new Muslims per year. But when he turned to jihad, Islam grew at an average rate of 10,000 per year. All of the details of how to wage jihad are recorded in great detail. The Koran gives the great vision of jihad—world conquest by the political process. The Sira is a strategic manual and the Hadith is a tactical manual of jihad.

Now let’s go to the Hebrew Bible. When we count all of the political violence, we find that 5.6% of the text is devoted to it. There is no admonition towards political violence in the New Testament.

When we count the magnitude of words devoted to political violence, we have 327,547 words in the Trilogy and 34,039 words in the Hebrew Bible . The Trilogy has 9.6 times as much wordage devoted to political violence as the Hebrew Bible.

The real problem goes far beyond the quantitative measurement of ten times as much violent material; there is the qualitative measurement. The political violence of the Koran is eternal and universal. The political violence of the Bible was for that particular historical time and place. This is the vast difference between Islam and other ideologies. The violence remains a constant threat to all non-Islamic cultures, now and into the future. Islam is not analogous to Christianity and Judaism in any practical way. Beyond the one-god doctrine, Islam is unique unto itself.

Another measurement of the difference between the violence found in the Judeo/Christian texts as opposed to that of Islam is found in the use of fear of violence against artists, critics and intellectuals. What artist, critic or intellectual ever feels a twinge of fear if condemning anything Christian or Jewish? However, look at the examples of the violent political threats and murders of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, Kurt Westergaard of the Danish Mohammed cartoons, and many others. What artist, critic or intellectual has not had a twinge of fear about Islam when it comes to free expression? The political difference in the response to the two different doctrines is enormous. The political fruit from the two trees is as different as night and day.

It is time for so-called intellectuals to get down to the basics of judging Islam by its actual doctrine, not making lame analogies that are sophomoric assertions. Fact-based reasoning should replace fantasies that are based upon political correctness and multiculturalism.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink /blog/the-political-violence-of-the-bible-and-the-koran/
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

By Bill Warner

What is Sharia Law?

Sharia law is Islamic law. Sharia is the basis for every demand that Muslims make on our society. When schools are asked to give up a room for Islamic prayer, that is asking us to implement Sharia law. When a Muslim wears a head scarf, that is in obedience to Sharia law. When our newspapers would not publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, our newspapers were submitting to the demands of Sharia law. When demands are made for our hospitals to treat Muslim women in special ways, that is Sharia. When our textbooks have to be vetted by Muslim organizations before they are used in our schools, that is in accordance with Sharia law.

The attack on the World Trade Center was done in adherence to the rules of war, jihad, found in Sharia law. Sharia law is the basis for the religious, political and cultural life of all Muslims.

Sharia law is being implemented more and more in America and yet there is no knowledge about what Sharia actually is since public, private or religious schools do not teach it.

THE GOOD NEWS

The easiest way to learn about Islam is through Sharia law. Through learning about Sharia you are introduced to the Koran and Mohammed in a practical manner. It is easy to learn when you can see the direct application and examples.

When you know Sharia, Islam suddenly makes sense, it all fits together. Most people think Islam is complicated or even impossible to understand, but when you understand its principles, Islam is very, very logical. It is based on different views of humanity, logic, knowledge, and ethics. Once you understand the principles and logic, you not only can explain what and why something is happening, but you will be able to predict the next step in the process.

UNDERSTANDING THE REFERENCE NUMBERS

Before you can understand Sharia, you have to learn about three books that are the basis of Sharia.
Each ruling or law in Sharia is based on a reference in the Koran or the Sunna, the perfect example of Mohammed (found in two texts-Hadith and Sira). Each and every law in Islam must come from the Koran and the Sunna.

We know the Sunna by knowing about the personal details of Mohammed’s life. We know how he cleaned his teeth and which shoe he put on first. We know the Sunna because we have the Sira and the Hadith.

You probably think that the Koran is the bible of Islam. Not true. The bible of Islam is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. These three texts can be called the Trilogy.

The Koran is a small part, only 14% of the total words, of the doctrine that is Islam. The text devoted to the Sunna is 86% of the total textual doctrine of Islam. Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed.

Sharia is nothing more than a condensation and extrapolation of the Koran and the Sunna. Therefore, it is impossible to understand the Sharia without some understanding about the doctrine found in the Koran, Hadith and the Sira. Turn to any page after this chapter and you will find that most of the paragraphs have an index number.

The classic Sharia law text is the Reliance of the Traveller, N. Keller, Amana Publications. (Yes, the correct spelling is Traveller with a double l.) It is a 1,200 page book devoted to such subjects as: political control of non-Muslims, prayer, jihad, wills and estates, punishment, court rules, and land use. It covers legalities and theology.

Here is a typical paragraph:

08.0 APOSTACY FROM ISLAM

08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane, voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
[Bukhari 9,83,17] Mohammed: “A Muslim who has admitted that there is no god but Allah and that I am His prophet may not be killed except for three reasons: as punishment for murder, for adultery, or for apostasy.”

The o8.1 is an index number in the Sharia law text, The Reliance of the Traveller. The text is divided into divisions, a, b, c, … This particular law is found in division o; section 8; subsection 1. With the index number, o8.1, you can read the source, The Reliance of the Traveller.

We not only have the law, apostates (people who leave Islam) should be killed, but we have the supporting doctrine found in a hadith, a sacred text used along with the Koran. A hadith is what Mohammed did or said. This particular hadith is by Bukhari, the major collector of Mohammed’s stories. Notice the index number–9,83,17. This is like a chapter and verse index so that you can go and read the original. All of the Hadith, including Bukhari, can be found on many university Internet sites.

Here is a Sharia law supported by the Koran:

09.0 JIHAD
Jihad means war against Kafirs to establish Islam.
Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislke it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not.

Here we have the Sharia defining what jihad is and then gives its foundational reference for the authority. Again, you can verify the accuracy of the Koran verses and the original reference, 09.0, in the Reliance of the Traveller.

There is one last type of reference to a supporting document.

DEALING WITH A REBELLIOUS WIFE
m10.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness…
Ishaq969 … Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons.

Here we have the usual Sharia reference number, m10.12, which allows you to read the original reference. The Ishaq index number, 969, is a margin note reference that allows you to look in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography-The Life of Muhammad, A. Guillaume) and verify the truth of the reference.
BELIEVABLE AND AUTHORITATIVE

This is fact-based knowledge based upon critical thought and analysis. What you see here can all be independently verified for yourself.

This is a very different approach than asking a Muslim or an “expert” in the media. If a Muslim or any expert says something about Islam that disagrees with the Koran or Sunna, then the expert is wrong. If the expert says something that agrees with Koran or Sunna, then the expert is right, but redundant.

Once you know Koran and Sunna, you don’t need anybody else.

POLTICAL ISLAM

The largest part of the Trilogy is not about how to be a good Muslim. Instead most of the text is devoted to the unbeliever. The Koran devotes 64% of its total words to the unbeliever and the Trilogy, as a whole, devotes 60% of its text to the unbelievers.

Islam is NOT a religion. It is a complete civilization with a detailed political system, religion and a legal code-the Sharia. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and got 150 Arabs to convert to Islam. He went to Medina and became a politician and a war-lord. After 2 years in Medina, every Jew was murdered, enslaved, or exiled. He was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Mohammed died without a single enemy left standing.

This was not a religious process, but a political process. Jihad is political action with a religious motivation. Political Islam is the doctrine that deals with the non-Muslim.

Mohammed did not succeed with his program of religion, but his political process of jihad triumphed. Sharia law is the political implementation of the Islamic civilization.

The political nature of Islam is what creates the major difference between Sharia and Jewish religious law, halaka. Jewish law has nothing to say about non-Jews and explicitly says that the law of the land trumps halaka.

Sharia has a lot to say about Kafirs and how they are to be treated, subjugated and ruled. Sharia claims political supremacy over the Constitution.

There is nothing good for non-Muslims in the Sharia. This is why every unbeliever has a reason to know Sharia law, especially those in politics, policy, regulation and legal matters. Sharia law is about the unbeliever as well as the Muslim. Islam’s attitudes and actions about unbelievers are political, not religious.

Even though Sharia violates every principle of our Constitution, it is being implemented today, since Islam is seen as only as a religion.

MUSLIMS AND SHARIA

Non-Muslims call Muslims that seem nice, moderate Muslims. This use of the word “moderate” is not based on Islam.

A moderate Muslim is one who follows the Sharia. As much as they follow the Sharia, they are a Muslim. To the degree they don’t follow the Sharia, they are a failure at being a Muslim.

The Sharia is based on the perfect, unchanging Koran and Sunna. Therefore, the Sharia is perfect and unchanging. If every Muslim in the world wanted to change a single letter of the Koran, the Sunna or the Sharia, they could not. How can perfection be improved? How can an eternal text be changed? Since the Sharia is nothing more than a codification of perfect, unchanging, universal texts, it is a perfect, unchanging and universal legal code.

TECHNICAL DETAILS

If you read something in this book and want to know more, most paragraphs have an index number. You can look it up.
Koran 1:2 is a reference to the Koran, chapter 1, verse 2.
Ishaq 123 is a reference to Ishaq’s Sira, margin note 123.
[Bukhari 1,3,4] is a reference to Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, book 3, number 4. (Sahih means authoritative and authentic.)
[Muslim 012, 1234] is a reference to Sahih Muslim, book 12, number 1234.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com

 

WesternFront America

Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has issued a 600 page fatwa, written in Urdu, which he hopes to have translated and published in English.

The fatwa is entitled: FATWA ON SUICIDE BOMBINGS AND TERRORISM. I have linked the title to an 88 page English summary in pdf format.  It is likely that when published in English, the fatwa will appear on or near this minhaj books page.

Taken at face value, the fatwa appears to condemn violence against civilian populations without reservation. It places the greatest emphasis on condemning attacks against Muslims, particularly against Mosques.  Unfortunately, I can not accept the fatwa at face value.

Cherry Picking: quote out of context

Beware of trickery: quoting the Qur’an out of context to distort the meaning of an ayeah, giving it a false application.
This occurs on page 52 of the description & summary where, writing about the terrorists, this citation is made:

The Holy Qur’an has vividly described them in this verse:
“It is those whose entire struggle is wasted in worldly life, but they presume they are doing very good works.” (Al-Qur’an, 18: 104)

In fact, that verse describes disbelievers; Jews & Christians. Observe the context. [Hilali & Khan quoted, linked to Pickthall, Shakir & Yusuf Ali; links below to Hilali & Khan and ten parallel translations Emphasis added for clarity.]

18:100. And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,

18:101. (To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Qur’ân), and who could not bear to hear (it).

18:102. Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allâh's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliyâ’ (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism).

18:103. Say (O Muhammad ): “Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?

18:104. “Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!

18:105. “They are those who deny the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.

18:106. “That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.

Hilali & Khan
Qur’an Browser

Al-Taqeyya

On page 33, a new section begins, entitled “THE QUESTIONS THAT SPRING TO  MIND AND THEIR BRIEF ANSWERS”

Q: The first question in this connection that concerns all relates to use of force to spread beliefs: is it lawful for a group or organisation to use force to promote and put into effect their own creed and beliefs in the name of reforming others’ beliefs and ideologies, presuming themselves to be on the right path? Does Islam allow, somehow, the killing of people because of  ideological differences, looting their wealth and properties and destroying mosques, religious places and shrines?.

A: Islam is a religion of peace and safety that champions love and harmony in society. According to Islamic teachings, only such a person will be called a Muslim at whose hands the lives and properties of all innocent Muslims and non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt. The sanctity of human life and its protection occupies a fundamental place in Islamic law. Taking anyone’s life for  nothing is an act that is forbidden and unlawful. Rather, in some cases, it amounts to infidelity.[...]  [Emphasis added, spelling original.]

Is it lawful for Islam to use force to promote and establish itself’; to make it superior over all other religions? Let us consult Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shari’ah.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled” (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

“I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,”

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ). [Emphasis & link added.]

Does Islam allow killing people because they are not Muslims and seizing their  property?  Once again, we turn first to Shari’ah for the answer. Book O, Chapter 9, Section 25 lists  eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest to us.

O25.9

-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

Of course that could only refer to established enemies of Islam who have been harassing & attacking Muslims, right?  Wrong!

O9.1The Obligatory Character of Jihad

[...] In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, “Jihad is a communal obligation,” meaning upon the Muslims each year. [...]

Muslims have an annually recurring communal obligation to attack disbelievers even though they are in their own countries, peacefully attending their own domestic affairs.  Allow killing people and taking their property?  No, it is required, not allowed.

According to the Sheikh, ” Islam is a religion of peace…at whose hands the lives and properties of all …innocent non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt”. The truth is that Allah issued imperatives to wage jihad against pagans until resistance ceases and  Allah has a monopoly; against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments.  When we read Surahs al-Anfal & at-Taubah, we learn that Islam is permanent war.

8:39. 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 ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

So all innocent people remain safe and secure in their property?  Caution!  Words spoken by Muslims do not mean what you want them to mean, their meaning is assigned by the Muslims who speak them. Innocent means Muslim.  If you are not Muslim, you are a rebel against Allah, waging war against him.

Another question and answer, found on pages 36 & 37 respectively,  provides more proof   that the fatwa is malignant maundery.

Q: The third question arises: does Islam offer clear commands on the sanctity of human life? Is it lawful to
kidnap and assassinate foreign delegates and innocent  and peaceful non-Muslim citizens to avenge the
injustices and disruption of the non-Muslim global powers?

A: The importance Islam lays on the sanctity and dignity of human life can be gauged from the fact that
Islam does not allow indiscriminate killing even when Muslim armies are engaged in war against enemy
troops. The killing of children, women, the old, infirm, religious leaders and traders is strictly prohibited. Nor
can those who surrender their arms, confine themselves to their homes and seek shelter of anyone
be killed. The public cannot be massacred. Likewise, places of worship, buildings, crops and even trees
cannot be destroyed. On the one hand, there is a clear set of Islamic laws based on extreme discretion, and on
the other, there are people who invoke the name of Islam to justify the indiscriminate killing of people,
children, and women everywhere, without any distinction of religion or identity. It is a pity that such
barbaric people still refer to their activities as Jihad.

Lets see what Muhammad, the founder of Islam said about the sanctity of human life.

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 Muslim.  Now let us examine the proscription on killing women and children; surely it must  be founded on morality?

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. [...]

Note the acts which would defile and profane a holy war; two of them are relevant to our quest for truth.

• Make a holy war
  • do not embezzle the spoils
  • do not kill the children

What do embezzlement and killing children have in common?  Our first hint will come from Shari’ah.

O9.13

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Is it clear to you yet?  If not, Ibn Taimiyyah  has the final clue for you, from The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad.

As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare].

Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.

I emphasized the most critical clause in case there might be some readers with limited comprehension skills. The proscription on killing women and children is economic, not moral.

In the matter of those who surrendered; the Sheikh asserts that they must not be killed. Muhammad’s excellent companions reveal the truth.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad’s judgment, Allah’s Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah’s Apostle said (to the Ansar), “Stand up for your leader.” Then Sad came and sat beside Allah’s Apostle who said to him. “These people are ready to accept your judgment.” Sad said, “I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners.” The Prophet then remarked, “O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah.”

So, what did Muhammad do?

Sunan  Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

They surrendered after a long siege, Muhammad decapitated them and threw them into a trench, then he did the same to their adolescent sons. Can you say genocide?  Can you recognize the fact that, like all Muslims, the learned Sheikh is a liar; that his fatwa is  malignant manure?  If not, then do the nation a favor, burn your voter registration card.

Originally posted at Ben’s Blog © Dajjal

 

WesternFront America

Regular readers of my blog posts know that I waste few opportunities to blast Islam with facts. They must be wondering why I have not written about the Nov. 29 referendum which banned new minarets in Switzerland.  There are two primary reasons. First, I am not entirely in agreement with the concept. Second, I wanted to let others write first so that I could take the role of clean up writer.

First and foremost, I am opposed to superficial, symbolic attacks which accomplish nothing beyond the counter productive stimulation of Islamic resentment.  Beards, burkas & hijabs  are symbolic, but they are not more important to the wearer as they are to us. Their value is more than symbolic, they are warning signs. Like a skunk’s stripes and a rattle snake’s noisy tail, they serve to alert us to the proximity of danger.

Second, I perceive the vote to be a temporary victory.  I have little doubt that the result will be overturned in the courts. The vote serves mainly as a signal of rising public awareness of Islam’s true nature and the existential threat it poses to Western Civilization.
My readers know that I will take on anyone, without fear or favor.  While other writings have been more deserving of criticism, My choice did a better job of clarifying some of the issues involved.  Dr. Sami Alrabaa wrote an exclusive for Family Security Matters:  Minarets are Symbols of Bigotry. I will quote some good parts, but you really should click the link and read the entire article because the quotes which follow are taken out of context. .

It is also true that huge lavish mosques funded by petrodollars are being constructed to prove that Islam is omnipresent everywhere and Islam – the best religion on earth! – is increasingly being accepted and practiced all over the world.

The huge mosques & soaring minarets are symbols of Islamic supremacism & domination.

Minaret construction is an exhibition of political power spearheaded by Islamists. These “towers” are simply aggressive symbols of fanatic defying power.

Minaret construction has nothing to do with freedom of religion. It is a symbol of bigotry.

If we allow the erection of minarets without offering resistance, our silent acquiescence is a token of surrender. The Swiss electorate decided not to surrender, but they stopped short of effective resistance. They attacked symbolism, not substance.

But when it comes to referendum, the majority in the Western world would also reject Islam as a stone-age “religion.” I am pretty sure that if the Swiss referendum were held in other European countries, the majority would also vote in favor of banning the construction of minarets. The European public is better informed than their self-appointed defenders of Islam.

I am not yet convinced that a majority are fully aware of the nature of Islam. But the Swiss vote may indicate a trend of increasing awareness.  Lapidation may be a stone age execution method, but Moe had weapons made of more advanced materials. 610 was hardly part of the stone age.

It is also true that the Swiss and the rest of the world are not against Muslims practicing their own religion in peace like all followers of other religions.

Islam can not be practiced in peace. Jihad is an intrinsic and inseverable part of Islam. Al-Anfal & At-Taubah are permanent parts of Islamic scripture. If we are not against the practice of Islam, then we are passively surrendering.

If, however, people around the globe, especially in the West, read the Koran and Hadith and realize how this religion incites to hatred and violence against non-Muslims, and discrimination against women, they would classify it as an extremist ideology, as politically incorrect and demand banning it like all extremist organizations. Check out “Is Islam a Violent Faith?” and “Women in Hadith.”

Nevertheless, the world community, including Switzerland, accepts Islam as a “religion” and allows its followers to practice it under the principle of religious freedom.

We accept Islam as a “religion” and allow its practice, but if we read Islam’s canon of scripture and tradition we would reject it. Will anyone get a clue from those vital paragraphs?

Before the West accepts Islam as a religion it must demand that Muslim states reform Islam; accept/apply universal human rights and religious freedom in their societies.
Preaching hatred and violence must be banned and their perpetrators must be punished. Additionally, the free civilized world must demand from Muslims and their religious institutions and states: Drop all those atrocious passages from your Koran and Hadith if you want to be part of the civilized world.

So Islam must be reformed; the violent passages must be removed from its canon of scripture & tradition. You forgot one, Dr. Alrabaa :  Shari’ah.  Islamic law reflects Islamic scripture & tradition.  How many of those texts exist in book stores and in libraries all over the world?  How many exist in computer hard disks and web pages?  How do you hope to edit all of them?  Who will edit all the copies of Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir and Riyad us-saliheen?

Allah tells us in 5:3 & 11:1 that Islam and its scripture are perfected. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. Allah tells us in 6:115,  10:64 and  30:30 that the Koran and the  “religion” of which it is the foundation can not be changed. In Sahih Bukhari 9.78.174 Moe is on record cursing anyone who changes Islam after his death, saying that they will be far removed from mercy.  Abu Dawud 23.3455 has Moe saying that if Muslims abandon Jihad in favor of agriculture, “Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.” [Emphasis added.]

Muslims who would reform Islam risk fatwa as apostates. Muslims Against Sharia is a prime example.  Their Koran revision leaves As-Saff 10-13 intact.  while Surah At-Taubah has been entirely excised. Surahs 8 & 47  lose context & continuity when the violent ayat are removed.

Perhaps you’d prefer to re-interpret the Koran. But the gates of ijtihad have been closed for 900 years. They are not about to spring open.  Who knows the interpretation better than the one who revealed it?  His Sunna & Sira show us what the Koran means.  What does this mean?

8:39. 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 ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Moe will tell you what it means!

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.”  [Emphasis added.]

Allah’s jihad  imperatives mean exactly what they say. They can not be edited, and if they were, they would eventually be restored.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 37, Number 4278:

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah will raise for this community at the end of every hundred years the one who will renovate its religion for it.

The Swiss initiative is symbolic, with no effect beyond giving visibility to the rising tide of rejection of Islam. Islam is an intolerable predator which can not be reformed. That leaves Western Civilization  one alternative: Islam must be prohibited by law. Ban the substance, not its symbols.

Dr. Sami Alrabaa asserts that we would reject Islam and favor banning it if we understood it from reading the Koran & hadith.   You can test that hypothesis without slogging through thousands of pages of musty text. The ayat most relevant to Islamic aggression, the tafsir which explain them and the ahadith which confirm them are contained in EgregiousAyat.chm, along with the most important part of Shari’ah which codifies them into law.

The practical application of those texts is found in fiqh: rulings by Islamic jurists. FOMIJihad.chm‘s Jihad in Fiqh chapter presents a significant sample of relevant rulings.  For those who prefer the hard slog method, the Muslim Student Association at USC maintains a data base containing  three parallel translations of the Koran and four of the six canonical hadith collections.

For those who need the look, feel, permanence & aroma of printed text:

• The Meaning Of The Holy Quran by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Hardcover – May 2004) Buy new: $24.95 $20.60
• The English Translation of Sahih Al Bukhari With the Arabic Text (9 volume set) by Muhammad Ibn Ismail Bukhari and Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Hardcover – Oct 1996) 2 new from $158.98 2 used from $169.23
• Tafsir Ibn Kathir (10 Volumes; Abridged) by Hafiz Ibn Kathir (Hardcover – Sep 1, 2000) Buy new: $279.50
• Reliance of the Traveller: The Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Umdat Al-Salik by Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib and Noah Ha Mim Keller (Hardcover – Jul 1, 1997) Buy new: $29.95 $25.60

——————————————————–

Originally posted at Ben’s Blog © Dajjal

 

WesternFront America

Now comes World Net Daily suggesting that President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, seeks a policy of “engagement” with Hezbollah. WND quotes snippets of Brennan’s August 6 address to CSIS, and links to more quotes at Independent Media Review Analysis, which links to a 23 page transcript in  pdf  format.

I addressed a few of the deceptions in Brennan’s address in a previous blog post: Obanination: High Treason, which concentrates on the Al-Qaeda/Islam identity. In this post, I will address the issue of “engagement”   with the “Party of  Allah”.

Observe the cognitive dissonance clearly evident in this excerpt [emphasis added]. Brennan is erecting a false premise: grievance driven terrorism, even while denying it.

The president has been very clear on this. Poverty does not cause violence and terrorism. Lack of education does not cause terrorism. But just as there is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents, there is no denying that when children have no hope for an education, when young people have no hope for a job and feel disconnected from the modern world, when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death.

Extremist violence and terrorist attacks are therefore, often the final, murderous manifestations of a long process rooted in helplessness, humiliation and hatred. Therefore, any comprehensive approach has to also address the upstream factors, the conditions that help fuel violent extremism. Indeed, the counterinsurgency lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan apply equally to the broader fight against extremism.

We cannot shoot ourselves out of this challenge. We can take out all the terrorists we want – their leadership and their foot soldiers – but if we fail to confront the broader political, economic and social conditions under which extremists thrive, then there will always be another recruit in the pipeline, another attack coming downstream. Indeed, our failure to address these conditions also plays into the extremists’ hands, allowing them to make the false claim that the United States actually wants to keep people impoverished and unempowered.

Are Usama bin Ladin, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Khalid Sheikh Mohammad illiterate, uneducated indigents? No, they are educated professionals, with the potential to earn good incomes and accrue wealth. Usama had inherited wealth.

Ideologies of violence and death? What are those?  Has Brennan read the Qur’an, hadith, Sira or Shari’ah?  Islam is an ideology of violence and death, this fatal fact is clear on the face of the Qur’an. Violence and death are the rule, not the exception.  The elected and appointed leadership of this nation denies objective factual reality in order to promote their Socialist agenda. They pretend that education, development and social welfare programs will prevent ‘radicalization’. They can not explain the fact that the majority of the Magnificent Nineteen came from middle and upper class families in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Brennan attributes Islam’s violence to helplessness, humiliation and hatred, completely ignoring the fact that Allah ordained Jihad in 2:216 and commanded it in 8:39 & 9:29, as he commanded terrorism in 8:12 and exemplified it in 33:26.  Islamic humiliation is the result of loss of empire. Islamic aspiration is the recovery and expansion of empire. Has Brennan read the hadith? If he has read Sunan Abu Dawud 23.3455, then he intentionally ignores its clear lesson: ” When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.”
The clear implication is that remaking Islamic states in our image will prevent them from sponsoring terrorism. The concept is worse than cretinous, it is treacherous. It promotes the waste of blood & treasure without any possible benefit. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and the rest will engage in Jihad and sponsor terrorism so long as they remain Muslim. There is no other possibility, regardless of how much tribute we pay.  Jihad is a ‘religious obligation’, established in the Qur’an, exemplified in the Sunnah & Sira,  codified in Shari’ah; taught in every Madrassa  and preached in every Mosque. Denial of this fatal fact is suicidal.

If we could succeed in making those states productive, wealthy and prosperous, they would export more, import less, and devote more wealth to Jihad & terrorism.

This is why the president’s approach includes a critical fourth element – the recognition that addressing these upstream factors is ultimately not a military operation, but a political, economic and social campaign to meet the basic needs and legitimate grievances of ordinary people – security for their communities, education for their children, a job and income for parents and a sense of dignity and worth.

Their grievances are loss of empire & our existence. Their needs are weapons of war, material and transportation infrastructure to get them to the battlefront. Their dignity and worth are measured in participation in Jihad, which is the best act a Muslim can perform.

The extremists know this. Wherever governments are unable to provide for the legitimate needs of their people, these groups step into the void. It is why they offer free education to impoverished Pakistani children, where they can recruit and indoctrinate the next generation. It is why Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaze provide so many social services to the poor even as they commit heinous acts of terror. It is why the terrorist warlord in Somalia can so easily recruit a destitute teenager who sees nothing but a future of poverty and despair.

Governments do not provide the needs of people,  the people do. Governments interfere with the creation and enjoyment of wealth through excessive taxation and regulation. Brennan is setting up an alternative outlook on terrorists as social welfare activists.  Hezbollah is a social welfare agency, not a violent terrorism promoter.  In Gaza, the UNRWA provides social welfare programs. Has their provision of food, clothing, shelter, education & medical care reduced the incidence of terrorism against Israel?  Why not?

President Obama understands that successfully defeating these extremists over the long term requires breaking this bond, exposing al-Qaida as nothing but the death cult it is and isolating extremists from the people they pretend to serve. Often, the extremists do this themselves. Time and again, their barbarism, brutality and beheadings have provoked backlashes among ordinary, good people, from Afghanistan under the Taliban to al-Qaida in Iraq, and increasingly in Pakistan today.

There are no extremists. The acts of al-Qaida, Hamas, etc. are standard Islam, not extremism. They were mandated by Allah and exemplified by his messenger. Those who will not read the Qur’an & hadith can not comprehend this crucial fact.  The bond which must be broken is Allah’s yoke of slavery. 9:111 informs us that Allah has purchased the Muslims so that they fight in his cause, kill and are killed in return for the promise of the celestial bordello. The death cult is Islam. Al-Qaida is another name for Islam; same people, same ideology, same actions.

Going forward, people must come to see that it is the likes of al-Qaida and the Taliban, Hezbollah and Hamas, not the United States, that is holding their aspirations hostage. That of all those al-Qaida have killed, most have been Muslims; that the murder of innocent civilians, as the president said in Cairo, is not how moral authority is claimed, but how it is surrendered; that the future offered by extremists is not one of peace, but of violence, not of hope and opportunity but of poverty and despair.

Brennan wants his listeners to believe that Joe Camel aspires to the good life, home, health, happiness, running water, warmth in winter, cool in summer, and a good education for his children. Brennan is a deceiver. Joe Camel aspires to be part of the winning team, to conquer and enslave the entire world and live the high life off of the labor of others through spoils of war and extortion payments. You need to read the Qur’an to comprehend this fatal fact. The people are subject to deception because of  their ignorance.

Governments that provide for basic security and needs of their people, strong and transparent institutions free from corruption, mainstream clerics and scholars who teach that Islam promotes peace, not extremism, and ordinary people who are ready to choose a future free from violence and fear.

Those who do not read the Qur’an & hadith do not realize that Brennan is the worst sort of liar. Standard, off the shelf, orthodox Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a war cult. Mainstream clerics and scholars teach Jihad because that is what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified.

For even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent, which leads to the fifth and final part of the president’s approach – integrating every element of American power to ensure that those upstream factor discourage rather than encourage violent extremism.

The list of tactics which legitimize aggressive world conquest is a null set; there ain’t any. The legitimate needs and grievances of Joe Camel are irrelevant, they are not the motivating factor of Jihad. Jihad is doctrine driven, not grievance driven. To discourage ‘violent extremism’, we must make Islam extinct. There is no other way to accomplish that objective. Islam is Jihad; Jihad is Islam, that identity can not be broken except by breaking Allah’s yoke of slavery. Either we induce mass apostasy, nuke them all or suffer the consequences of allowing a vicious predator to prey upon us. There are no other alternatives.

After all, the most effective long-term strategy for safeguarding the American people is one that promotes a future where young man or woman never even considers joining an extremist group in the first place, where they reject out of hand the idea of picking up that gun or strapping on that suicide vest; where they have faith in the political process and confidence in the rule of law; where they realize that they can build, not simply destroy and that the United States is a real partner in opportunity, prosperity, dignity and peace.

While they are Muslims, they will not reject the idea of Jihad, if they do, they cease to be Muslims and become hypocrites, condemned to eternity in the fire. The political process and rule of law have nothing to do with Jihad. Muslims must obey Allah’s imperatives, regardless of their form of government. Brennan needs to open Reliance of the Traveller to Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1 and familiarize himself with the collective obligation of Jihad. If Jihad is neglected in any year when it was possible, all who knew of it and did nothing are sinners. Please don’t hand me the standard line of crap about Jihad Akhbar/Asghar. Paragraph 0 defines Jihad with extreme clarity as making war upon Kufar.

Islamic prosperity comes from spoils of war and tribute payments. Islamic dignity comes from successful conquest. Peace is the condition after they conquer the entire world.

That is why President Obama is committed to using every element of our national power to address the underlying causes and conditions that fuel so many national security threats,  including violent extremism.

Islam is doctrine driven, not grievance driven. Jihad, terrorism & genocide are driven by Allah’s demonic imperatives and Moe’s excellent example, which are the foundation of Islamic law. Brennan should open Reliance of the Traveller to Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraph 8 and see exactly what drives Jihad.  To fully comprehend the fact that our leaders are treacherous liars, you need to know the fundamental facts of Islam, which you will only learn by reading its canon of scripture, tradition and jurisprudence; that is why I post links to them.

We will use our military power not only to take down al-Qaida and its allies, but to train and build up the capacity of foreign militaries and security forces, as we are doing from Iraq to Afghanistan to Africa, because if these militaries and security forces can uphold the rule of law, if these countries can take responsibility for their own security, then militias, warlords and terrorists will find it harder to win sympathizers and recruits with the false promise of security and stability.

Building up military and ‘security forces’ is a great idea. Tell me how well that is working out in Gaza? When have they been used against terrorists? When have they not been used against Israel?  The concept is the Acme of counter productive idiocy!!

Rule of law? What law? Shari’ah is the source of law in Afghanistan & Iraq. What does Shari’ah say about Jihad? Hint: I gave you a link to it four paragraphs back. It is a huge text file, you will need to use the Windows search function [Ctrl f] to search for O9.0 and start reading.

In the question & answer period, we get down to business: engaging Hamas & Hezbollah.

Q: Good morning, John. I’m Bob Dreyfuss from The Nation magazine. It’s good to see you. You mentioned the long term and the short term. My question is, maybe there’s a medium term in between I wanted you to address. In between al-Qaida and general violent extremists, there are other organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, even the Taliban, that seem amenable to
the kind of persuasion that you said that al-Qaida, the president believes, is not amenable to. And we’ve discussed this in the past, and you’ve suggested that it might be possible to have a dialogue with Hamas and Hezbollah, and I think the president himself has said the Taliban. So I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about disaggregating these movements, which the Bush administration was so prone to rolling up into one, big Islamo-fascist ball of wax. Talk a little bit about how we could deal with some of the other formations that exist and whether or not it might be prudent to start talking to them, now.

MR. BRENNAN: Well, the two cases that you give, Hamas and Hezbollah, are
interesting case studies. Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization back in the early
’80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the
cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization.
However, within Hezbollah, there’s still a terrorist core. And hopefully those elements
within the Shia community in Lebanon and within Hezbollah at large – they’re going to continue
to look at that extremist terrorist core as being something that is anathema to what, in fact,
they’re trying to accomplish in terms of their aspirations about being part of the political process
in Lebanon. And so, quite frankly, I’m pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in
fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political
process in a very legitimate fashion.

Muslims are not amenable to persuasion. They are obligated by Allah’s command and Moe’s example to attempt to conquer the entire world, eliminating all non-Muslim rule and religion.  What part of 8:39 & 9:29 does Brennan not comprehend? [Links to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, which includes the Arabic ayeh, translation and explanation of  its meaning.]

Brenan hints that Hezbollah is evolving. So, they have members in the parliament and cabinet; they are succeeding in subverting the government of Lebanon. That does nothing to dilute their zeal for Jihad. They have doctors and lawyers in their ranks, but ‘extremism’ is supposed to be driven by ignorance and poverty. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a doctor, has that stopped him from Jihad?

Terrorist core? It is Islam!!! Nothing special, just Allah’s commands and Moe’s example. These traitors will never tell us the truth. I will repeat it here for the benefit of anyone who has not read my previous posts.

• 8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. 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.”
• 33:26-27. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (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. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
• Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
  Narrated Abu Huraira:
  Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

What did Allah command? What did Allah do? How was Moe made victorious?  If you can’t answer those questions, go back to school for a remedial reading course. If you don’t understand that Islam is terrorism and terrorism is Islam, then ask your proctologist to perform an optorectomy.

Hamas, on the other hand, started out as a very focused social organization that was providing welfare to Palestinians, primarily in Gaza. Over time, it developed an extremist and terrorist element to it that, I think, has unfortunately delegitimized it in the eyes of many, not just throughout the world, but also in the territories. And its continued embrace of violence and terrorism is something that the Palestinian people, I think, have to continue to tell Hamas leaders that this is not going to bring them what they truly deserve, which is a Palestinian state side-byside with Israel.

Has this traitor ever read the Hamas Charter? It is extremely explicit about its provenance, objective & strategy.  The “continued embrace of violence and terrorism” describes Hamas, Hezbollah & Islam.  They do not want a state beside Israel, they want a province instead of Israel. It is all about reconquest; policide & genocide. The Falestinians deserve to be ushered into hell.

So you’re absolutely correct. There are a number of different organizations that have both political and terrorist dimensions to it. Unfortunately, it’s the terrorist dimension that, as I pointed out in my remarks, really holds the aspirations of the people. There are disenfranchised Shia within Lebanon that Hezbollah is trying to represent. But they’re doing it in a corrupted and twisted manner. They’re not going to help to realize those aspirations of the Shia people if they continue to embrace that violence – same thing with Hamas. And I think these aspirations of the people need to be realized, and it’s not going to be through the terrorist agenda.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an agenda. The agenda is reconquest of Israel, followed by regional and world conquest. Jihad is Jihad, whether conducted by massed armies or small bands of terrorists. In either case, innocent people are dispossessed, displaced, killed  or enslaved.  Conquest is not acceptable whether carried out by massed armies or small bands; intensive or low intensity warfare on whatever scope and scale.

Q: So what do we do? What is America’s role?

MR. BRENNAN: I think what we’ve done is to demonstrate both in Lebanon and to the Palestinians that we, the United States, are willing to engage and have a dialogue with any organizations or groups that are, in fact, dedicated to realizing peaceful solutions to existing problems. And I think those elements within Lebanon, be they Hezbollah or others, know that
the United States has tried to be a very honest broker there, providing support to Lebanese institutions.

And those who shun and eschew that terrorism will, in fact, gain favor with the United States. The same thing in the Palestinian community – those Palestinians that are really going to ensure that they pursue a path towards peace that does not bring terrorism to bear are going to be partners with the United States.

The “problem” is the existence of a Jewish state on soil  conquered by Islam in 638. Caliph Umar’s conquest makes the Levant permanently Islamic. Israel’s recovery of a tiny fragment of her ancient patrimony proves Allah to be an impotent idol whose promises are vain.  Muslim pride can’t live with that; they must destroy Israel at any cost, no matter how long it takes or how many lives are spent in the process.  What is the difference if they drive the Jews into the sea with masses of tanks and aircraft or thousands of rockets and hundreds of homicide bombers?  Or one Iranian nuke, that would  be ok with Brennan because it ain’t terrorism. Why is one tactic acceptable and the other to be rejected?

Brenan has admitted that all Hamas & Hezbollah must do to get the Obama regime on their side is make a false declaration rejecting terrorism.  They can do whatever they want, but they must mouth the words for the cameras, then Obama will negotiate with them and hand Israel to them on a silver platter.

 

WesternFront America