“I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin. I, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors. All of us against the foreigner.”
– Bedouin proverb

Almost from its beginning, Islam has been a religion divided by warring camps. The tragedy of Islam is that Muslims are far more likely to die at the hands of their co-religionists than by those outside their faith. All religions have their sects and divisions, but Islam’s history is particularly defined by the violence that began shortly after the death of its founder, Mohammed.

If the turmoil in Egypt is about freedom than recent history gives little evidence that Arabs have any talent for it. Iran is a prison-nation. Syria is ruled by the son of its former dictator. Hamas rules Gaza. Monarchies. Et cetera.

I am beginning to think that the world is actually witnessing a repeat of the dispute between the two main branches of Islam, the Shias (also called Shiites) and the majority Sunnis. Meanwhile, in Egypt the killing of Christian Copts continues unabated while Iraqi Christians are being driven from that nation.
When the prophet Mohammed died in 632 AD, what followed was a struggle for control of Islam. Sunni Muslims, the largest of the two branches, believe that Ali, a cousin of Mohammed, was the fourth and last of the “rightly guided caliphs”, successors to Mohammed. Shias believe that Ali should have been the first caliph.

Preceding Ali were Abu Kakr (632-634), Umar (634-644), and Uthman (644-656). Uthman was murdered while at prayer and Ali then became the caliph. He was, however, opposed by Aisha, Mohammed’s widow and the daughter of Abu Bakr. A number of battles ensued. Ultimately, Mu’awiya declared himself caliph.

Here’s where it gets very odd. The line of Mohammed’s direct decedents through Ali ended in 873 CE when the last Shia Imam, Muhammed al-Mahdi disappeared within days of inheriting the title of caliph. He was four years old at the time!

Shias refused to believe he had died, concocting a story that he was merely “hidden” and would return.
This latter version of Shia is the heart of Iranian Islamic theology which includes the belief that, in order to facilitate his return, the world must first sink into complete chaos with massive loss of life, a kind of Islamic Armageddon.

Thus, the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran is looked upon by Sunnis and everyone else as truly a matter of life or death on a global scale. It would be the prelude to World War Three.

Sunnis take their lead from Saudi Arabia where the royal family is seen as the protectors of the faith and the two most holy sites of Islam, Mecca and Medina.

Muslims can be found in more than 200 nations these days and represent 23% of the world’s population. One out of every four people on planet Earth is a Muslim. Only 20% live in the Middle East and North Africa, the site of present conflicts.

It has been the fate of Middle Eastern and other Muslims to live with a conflict that began in the seventh century. Islam’s Sharia laws reflect seventh century values. They are at odds with hard won modern values of civilization.

The culture of the Middle East and northern Africa, dominated by Islam, has kept the people of that region in poverty and under the fist of oppression for the last 1,400 years. Mideast Muslims in the modern era have been striking out at the world blaming it, not Islam, for their problems. Al Qaeda is an example of this, along with the Taliban, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The reappearance of a modern state of Israel in 1948 brought everything to a boil. If Islam is the one true faith, the presence in its midst of a Western, democratic, militarily powerful and economically successful Israel severely challenges that belief.

After successive wars on Israel, Arab nations were repeatedly defeated. Further aggravating Muslims is that Israel is holy to both Judaism and Christianity. Jerusalem is not even mentioned by name in the Qur’an.

Sunni-Shia battles commemorate its schism and include Suffin, Karbala, and Zab, the last having been fought in Egypt.

In the last century the Middle East has been treated as the West’s fiefdom, divided among colonial powers, manipulated for control of its oil.

In recent times Middle Eastern nations were invaded, first by the former Soviet Union invading Afghanistan and, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and 9/11, the U.S. invaded Iraq twice. From 1980 to 1988, Iraq waged a long war against Iran that ended in a stalemate. Syria occupied Lebanon for decades. There have been clashes as well between Muslim Pakistan and largely Hindu India.

President Obama’s insistence that the Muslim Brotherhood play a role in any future government of Egypt ignores the fact that it is sworn to kill Christians and Jews or make them dhimmi, subject to taxes and humiliation.

In its own words the Brotherhood’s guiding principles are, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The Mubarak regime ruthlessly suppressed the Brotherhood that, among other deeds, assassinated his predecessor, former prime minister, Anwar al-Sadat and just tried to assassinate his vice president, Omar Suleiman. Not exactly democracy in action.

Those who rule Egypt are sorting out their difficulties and will resume power, but while all eyes are on the land of the pharaohs, it is Iran that threatens World War III.

© Alan Caruba, 2011

 

WesternFront America

Muhammad, the self-proclaimed prophet of Allah, died in 632 AD. As historian James Carroll notes in his forthcoming book about Jerusalem, “The next year, only two years after the Byzantine Christians had reconquered Jerusalem…a mounted force of Bedouin fighters who revered the Prophet’s memory invaded the Byzantine-controlled territory of Palestine, near Gaza.” They called themselves Muslims.

Only five years after Muhammad’s death, Umar ibn al-Khattab, his successor “led tribal bands as one army, quickly taking control of lands from Iraq to Egypt.” In 637 AD, “Muslim forces laid siege to Jerusalem.” With the exception of a brief period in the twelfth century, Muslim rule of Jerusalem, a city sacred to Jews and Christians, “would last one and a third millennia until 1917.”

A recent survey taken in Islamic countries by the Pew Research foundation revealed that a majority in the Muslim world still favor cutting off hands for theft, stoning people to death for adultery, and insist that Islam play a major role in politics. What many in the West still fail to understand is that the grip of Islam and its seventh century mindset remains fully intact for many of the more than a billion Muslims worldwide.

The resurgence of a militant Islam threatens to drag the entire world back to an era of barbarity and ignorance banished by Western civilization, the enlightenment, and the spread of Democracy. The brief period of tolerance for other faiths exhibited during the Islamic conquest of Spain was the exception, not the rule.

In our era it was George W. Bush who thwarted Muslim dreams of world domination. Following 9/11 it was his resistance that protected Americans against further attacks during his two terms in office.

In a November commentary, Dr. Walid Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and author of “Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America”, noted that “Throughout the summer and fall, U.S. authorities witnessed a significant rise in jihadist activity, using increasingly sophisticated operational strategies.”

“According to open-source reports, between 2001 and 2008, U.S. agencies stopped one or two terror attempts a year. However, from 2009 until today, the government has been uncovering one or two cases a month, a troubling growth in jihadist activities.”

It should be lost on no one that the increase coincides with the advent of the Obama administration and his absurd claims that America is not a Christian nation or that Muslims played any role in its history other than as Barbary pirates.

Largely unreported, on a weekly basis throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, Islam’s holy warriors continue to kill Muslims and Christians. In the West, they have perpetrated terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, and on 9/11 in New York.

On December 9, federal officials arrested a Maryland man and charged him with plotting to blow up an Army recruiting center near Baltimore. Antonio Martinez, a 21-year-old Muslim convert who calls himself Muhammed Hussain, wanted to kill as many U.S. soldiers as possible.

Earlier, in Portland, Oregon, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a Somali youth, was thwarted from killing Americans during a Christmas tree lighting celebration. Farooque Ahmed, a Virginia man, was arrested in connection with a plot to attack the Washington, D.C. subway system; Ahmed, a native of Pakistan, had been granted U.S. citizenship.

Only the failure of his car bomb prevented Faisal Shahzad, also formerly of Pakistan and a U.S. citizen, from killing and injuring Americans in New York’s Times Square. A trial is set for Najibullah Zazi, the father of Mohammad Wali Zazi who pled guilty to a terrorist plot involving the New York subway system.
It is folly to think that America will not continue to be subject to terror attacks, but the Obama administration has largely refused to publicly confront this reality except in the form of the intrusive and objectionable airport pat-downs and scans. If a commercial airliner is bombed, it will surely have begun its flight in a foreign airport.

Incredibly, Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security recently announced that Ari Alikhan, who DHS identified as “a devout Muslim”, as the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and swore in Kareem Shora, another “devout Muslim” born in Damascus, Syria, as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council.

How crazed is this? Or are we meant to wait until President Obama is voted out of office until we can begin to feel safe anywhere in America?

Alan Caruba writes a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com. An author, business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

 

WesternFront America

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

Barenaked Islam quoted  a New York Times article: Across Nation, Mosque Projects Meet Opposition,  which first lists several locations where opposition  to Mosque construction has arisen and then brings out the key revelation.

“In all of the recent conflicts, opponents have said their problem is Islam itself. They quote passages from the Koran and argue that even the most Americanized Muslim secretly wants to replace the Constitution with Islamic Shariah law.”

Either the opponents have begun to study the enemy’s canon or they have been emboldened to  use to a new level of direct counter attack on the ideological plane. The next paragraph trots out the implicit false premise: “Islam is a religion, equal  to Christianity and must be tolerated as such as a matter of First Amendment right.”

“These local skirmishes make clear that there is now widespread debate about whether the best way to uphold America’s democratic values is to allow Muslims the same religious freedom enjoyed by other Americans, or to pull away the welcome mat from a faith seen as a singular threat.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Many left wingers are slick in their use of loaded expressions.  “America’s democratic values” is heavily laden with all things bright and beautiful.  The use of that expression lays the foundation for accusing Islam’s opponents of racism, bigotry & xenophobia.    They are off to a fast start, ahead of the starter’s pistol, mis-framing the debate.  Only religions are protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.  They have evaded\ the crucial question: “Is Islam a religion worthy of First Amendment protection?”.

It has a scripture, it has theology, it has cosmology, it prays, it sways, it practices charity; it must be a religion.  Yeah, right.  Islam is a deen: way of life which dictates all aspects of human life. One critical aspect of that way of life makes it incompatible with our Constitution and intolerable in our society.  Open your eyes and prepare to learn; I am about to show you something that nobody else will expose you to.  This oral tradition exposes the reality of the Islamic deen.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: 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.

Moe presented jihad and agriculture as alternatives, the former being acceptable to Allah and the latter carrying a curse.   Allah will curse the Muslims if they abandon jihad in exchange for agriculture.  Jihad Akbar is striving against your ego and temptations.  Is Jihad Akbar an alternative to farming for a living?  Jihad asghar is defined in Islamic law as “to war against non-Muslims“.  Is that an alternative to farming as a way of making a living?   For the answer, examine this hadith, which Khan bowdlerized but Aisha Bewley included in her translation of Sahih Bukhari.

Bukhari  Ch 61 # 2756: …It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

How did Moe make his living?  By his spear.  Was it by hunting wild game?  Is the life style of a hunter/gatherer consistent with making commands; abasing and humiliating anyone who disobeys? What kind of command is involved in that saying? Here is one sample.

… I do not intend to wage war against you till you receive my written reason for it. It is better for you, either to accept Islam or agree to pay Jiziya and consent to remain obedient to Allah, His prophet and his messengers. My messengers deserve honour. Treat them with respect. Whatever pleases my messengers, will also please me….[LETTER TO THE CHIEFS OF AQABA]

Moe sent a letter to Christians, giving them the choice of conversion to Islam, dhimmitude & Jizya or war.  He commanded people to submit to Islam and attacked them if they refused.   What is consistent with issuing commands and punishing the disobedient?  Pillage & plunder.   Do you see the pattern yet?

For those who can not perceive the pattern, I have more clues from the Qur’an: Surah al-Anfal:; “Spoils of War”.  To whom do the spoils belong? How are they allocated?  What was Moe’s motivation?

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.

8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad )], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad ) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) – And Allâh is Able to do all things.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

Moe gets the spoils; the  best 20% off the top. Moe’s motivation was the spoils & ransom for captives.  We  have it on Allah’s authority.   But spoilation was taboo among Arabs, how did Moe get away with it?  Allah gave him special dispensation.  Nay more! Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world.  How did Allah make Moe wealthy?

Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 …3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

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).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah’s Apostle he would ask, “Has he left anything to repay his debt?” If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend’s funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, “I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs. ”
[Emphasis added for clarity.]

Islam’s mission is mercenary, neither spiritual nor eleemosynary. This fact alone is sufficient to disqualify Islam from First Amendment protection.  There is another fact, equally potent as a disqualifier:  Islam is permanent war.  Moe created Islam for his personal emolument & empowerment, which were dependent on constant warfare. He began with razia on camel caravans,  graduated to ghazwat against local Jewish settlements, and went on to conquer Mecca and threaten nearby kingdoms and empires.

Since Moe was  the self-appointed spokesman for Allah, he had Allah issue commandments.  Two of them are crucial to the question before us.

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.

• Ibn Kathir
• al-Jalalayn
• Ibn Abbas
• Maududi
• Reliance of the Traveller

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.

• Ibn Kathir
• al-Jalalayn
• Ibn Abbas
• Maududi
• Reliance of the Traveller

Those are commands, imperatives, not suggestions; not metaphors, not allegories.  They have neither geographic nor chronological limits; they are outcome oriented, of global scope.  I gave you links to four tafsirs and Islamic law for a reason: so that you can verify what I have written.  Those tafsirs  deny the mercenary motivation clearly exposed by Allah’s own testimony in 8:67: “You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives)”. None of them denies the fard al-kifaya of annual ghazwat.  None of them asserts limits of time or geography.  None of them asserts an expiration date.

Besides bing fard al-kifaya, jihad is the essence of the relationship between Allah and the believers; he purchased them as slaves so that “…they kill (others) and are killed.“.

What makes  jihad  holy?  Is it fighting to establish the religion? [Read the footnote to 2:190.] No!  Jihad is only holy if nobody embezzles the spoils!

Sahih Muslim 19.4294: “…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….”

Jihad would be profaned by embezzling the spoils, which belong to Moe, fleeing from battle and mutilation  which was another  taboo.  Killing women and children  is prohibited because they were part of the booty, dead bodies had no value on the slave market. If you retain any doubt about this disgusting fact, I have some references for you: 33:26-27, Ibn Kathir and  Ibn Taymiyyah {“property for Muslims”}.

What is the importance of Jihad?

“Abdullah Humaid (Shaykh). “… Besides these acts of worship, a Muslim is directed to abstain from evil deeds and to perform good deeds, so that he may achieve success in the Hereafter, as well as, in the life of this world. But, as regards the reward and blessing, there is one deed which is very great in comparison to all the acts of worship and all the good deeds-and that is Jihad!”

By what stretch of the imagination is a mercenary and martial institution which wages war against us to be greeted with a welcome mat and given the protection which the First  Amendment extends to legitimate religions?  Given the fact that offensive jihad is a required  part of the practice of Islam, how can there be a right to practice Islam here?

The Times tells us that there is a “growing cottage industry of authors and bloggers”  who testify against Islam and “interfaith groups led by Protestant ministers, Catholic priests, rabbis and clergy members of other faiths” who defend Mosques.  They don’t tell us about the fact that only one side has relevant, verifiable evidence to support its case.  Throughout this post you will find links to source documents.  They are bold, blue underlined text. When clicked, they open  a relevant document in a new window.

At the end of the article, the times quotes a spokeswoman for one Mosque.

“Camie Ayash, a spokeswoman for the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, lamented that people were listening to what she called “total disinformation” on Islam. … “A lot of Muslims came to the U.S. because they respect the Constitution,” she said. “There’s no conflict with the U.S. Constitution in Shariah law. If there were, Muslims wouldn’t be living here.”

Does Shari’ah conflict with our Constitution and laws or not?  Reliance of the Traveller is a 1251 page book, translated from Umdat as Salik.  It is acknowledged by the Sheikhs at Al-Azhar University to be an authentic handbook of Islamic law.  We  have freedom of religion. American citizens can choose their own religion, and switch at will.  Muslims governed by Shari’ah can not. A Muslim who  apostatizes must be executed.

O8.1  When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2  In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.  http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html

Does that Islamic law conflict with our organic law or does it not?

Islamic law concerning marriage and divorce can be somewhat shocking to the western mind.

M3.13: Guardians Who May Marry a Virgin to a Man Without Her Consent

Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.

-1- The only guardians who may compel their charge to marry are a virgin bride’s father or father’s father, compel meaning to marry her to a suitable match (def: m4) without her consent.

-2- Those who may not compel her are not entitled to marry her to someone unless she accepts and gives her permission.
Whenever the bride is a virgin, the father or father’s father may marry her to someone without her permission, though it is recommended to ask her permission if she has reached puberty. A virgin’s silence is considered as permission.

As for the nonvirgin of sound mind, no one may marry her to another after she has reached puberty without her express permission, no matter whether the guardian is the father, father’s father, or someone else.

The father of a prepubescent girl can marry her off without her consent.  Is that or is  that not in conflict with our laws?   What if she refuses

O1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
…
-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) fir killing their offspring, or offspring’s offspring;
-5- nor is retaliation permissible to a descendant for (A: his ancestor’s) killing someone whose death would otherwise entitle the descendant to retaliate, such as when his father kills his mother.

Honoricide, anyone?  But, of course, there is no conflict between Shari’ah and our Constitution.

Now, back to the topic of divorce.

Chapter N3.0: The Words that Effect a Divorce
N3.2 Using plain words to effect a divorce means expressly pronouncing the word divorce (O: or words
derived from it).  When the husband says’ “I divorce you,” or “You are divorced,” the wife is divorced
whether he has made the intention or not.
(A: Here and in the rulings below, expressions such as “The wife is divorced,” or “The divorce is effected,” mean just one of the three times (def: n9.0(N:) ) necessary to finalize it, unless the husband thereby intends a two-or threefold divorce (dis: n3.5) or repeats the words three times.)

Is the Islamic law of divorce consistent with ours, or does it conflict?

Lets touch upon a subject which, though not directly  involved in the federal  organic law,  does involve the Constitutions of the several states: duties of the governor.

O25.9  Authority in view of merit is that which is freely invested by the caliph through his own choice, and entails delegating a given limitary function and the use of judgement within a range of familiar alternatives. This investiture consists of the caliph appointing an individual to independently govern a city or region with authority over all its inhabitants and discretion in familiar affairs for all matters of government, including seven functions:

-1- raising and deploying armies on the frontiers and fixing their salaries, if the caliph has not already done so;
-2- reviewing laws and appointing judges and magistrates;
-3- collecting the annual rate (khiraj) from those allowed to remain on land taken b Islamic conquests, gathering zakat from those obliged to pay, appointing workers to handle it, and distributing it to eligible recipients;
-4- protecting the religion and the sacrosanct, preserving the religion from alteration and substitution;
-5- enforcing the prescribed legal measures connected with the rights of Allah and men;
-6- leading Muslims at group and Friday prayers, whether personally or by representative;
-7- facilitating travel to the hajj for both pilgrims from the regian itself and those passing through from elsewhere, that they may proceed to the pilgrimage with all necessary help,
-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.

Revisit the last item in that list. The local governor has a duty to undertake jihad against neighboring enemies and dividing the spoils.  Does that or does that not conflict with our federal and state Constitutions?  We have been assured that there is no conflict between Shari’ah and our Constitution.   What is the truth of the matter?  Does our Constitution guarantee freedom of religion?  How about 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 and link added for clarity.]

The caliph makes war upon Jews & Christians until they become Muslim or pay extortion, in obedience to 9:29.  But, we are assured that this does not conflict with our Constitution.  I doubt that many Muslims have read it.  Of course there is a perfect right to build Mosques & Madrassahs wherein to preach the obligation (fard al-kifaya) of jihad. And its perfectly alright to  send 1\8 of the charity collected to those waging war against us.

H8.7: The Eight Categories of Recipients

It is obligatory to distribute one’s zakat among eight categories of recipients (O: meaning that zakat goes to none besides them), one-eighth of the zakat to each category. (n: In the Hanafi school, it is valid for the giver to distribute his zakat to all of the categories, some of them, or to confine himself to just one of them (al-Lubab fi sharh al-Kitab(y88), 1.155). ) …

H8.17: Those Fighting for Allah

The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration).  They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).

Didn’t President Obama have something to say about Zakat at Cairo?  “That’s why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill Zakat.”  Who did the Holy Land Foundation send $13. million to?  Why was that a big deal, requiring two trials in federal court?

Originally posted at Ben’s Blog © Dajjal

 

WesternFront America

The Kafir

By Bill Warner

Until now we have looked at the big picture of Sharia and then the position of women in Sharia. We now come to a new subject–the unbeliever or non-Muslim. The word “non-Muslim” is used in the translation of Sharia law, but the actual Arabic word used is “Kafir”. But the word Kafir means far more than non-Muslim. The original meaning of the word was “concealer”, one who conceals the truth of Islam.

The Koran says that the Kafir may be deceived, plotted against, hated, enslaved, mocked, tortured and worse. The word is usually translated as “unbeliever” but this translation is wrong. The word “unbeliever” is logically and emotionally neutral, whereas, Kafir is the most abusive, prejudiced and hateful word in any language.

There are many religious names for Kafirs: polytheists, idolaters, People of the Book (Christians and Jews), Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and pagans. Kafir covers them all, because no matter what the religious name is, they can all be treated the same. What Mohammed said and did to polytheists can be done to any other category of Kafir.

Islam devotes a great amount of energy to the Kafir. The majority (64%) of the Koran is devoted to the Kafir, and nearly all of the Sira (81%) deals with Mohammed’s struggle with them. The Hadith (Traditions) devotes 32% of the text to Kafirs¹. Overall, the Trilogy devotes 60% of its content to the Kafir.

Hadith – 37%

Sira – 81%

Koran – 64%

Total – 60%

Amount of Text Devoted to the Kafir

The Sharia does not devote nearly that much to the Kafir since Sharia law is primarily for Muslims. Besides, the Kafir has few rights, so there is little to expound on.

Religious Islam is what Muslims do to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. What Mohammed did to Kafirs was not religious, but political. Political Islam is what is of concern to Kafirs, not the religion. Who cares how a Muslim worships, but every one of us is concerned as to what they do to us and say about us. Political Islam should be of concern to every Kafir.

Here are two Sharia references about Kafirs:

w59.2 [...] And this clari?es the Koranic verses and hadiths about hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah, Al Walaa wa al Baraa, being unyielding towards the Kafirs, hard against them, and detesting them, while accepting the destiny of Allah Most High insofar as it is the decree of Allah Mighty and Majestic.

Hatred for the sake of Allah and love for the sake of Allah is called Al Walaa wa al Baraa, a fundamental principle of Islamic ethics and Sharia. A Muslim is to hate what Allah hates and love what Allah loves. Allah hates the Kafir, therefore, a Muslim is to act accordingly.

40:35 They [Kafirs] who dispute the signs [Koran verses] of Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers [Muslims]. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart.

h8.24 It is not permissible to give zakat [charity] to a Kafir, or to someone whom one is obliged to support such as a wife or family member.

Here are a few of the Koran references: A Kafir can be mocked–

83:34 On that day the faithful will mock the Kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the Kafirs be paid back for what they did?

A Kafir can be beheaded–

47:4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battle?eld, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

A Kafir can be plotted against–

86:15 They plot and scheme against you [Mohammed], and I plot and scheme against them. Therefore, deal calmly with the Kafirs and leave them alone for a while.

A Kafir can be terrorized–

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!”

A Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir–

3:28 Believers should not take Kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah’s protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

A Kafir is evil–

23:97 And say: Oh my Lord! I seek refuge with You from the suggestions of the evil ones [Kafirs]. And I seek refuge with you, my Lord, from their presence.

A Kafir is disgraced–

37:18 Tell them, “Yes! And you [Kafirs] will be disgraced.”

A Kafir is cursed–

33:60 They [Kafirs] will be cursed, and wherever they are found, they will be seized and murdered. It was Allah’s same practice with those who came before them, and you will ?nd no change in Allah’s ways.

KAFIRS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK

Muslims tell Christians and Jews that they are special. They are “People of the Book” and are brothers in the Abrahamic faith. But in Islam you are a Christian, if and only if, you believe that Christ was a man who was a prophet of Allah; there is no Trinity; Jesus was not crucified nor resurrected and that He will return to establish Sharia law. To be a true Jew you must believe that Mohammed is the last in the line of Jewish prophets.

This verse is positive:

5:77 Say: Oh, People of the Book, do not step out of the bounds of truth in your religion, and do not follow the desires of those who have gone wrong and led many astray. They have themselves gone astray from the even way.

Islamic doctrine is dualistic, so there is an opposite view as well. Here is the last verse written about the People of the Book (A later verse abrogates or nullifies an earlier verse.). This is the final word. It calls for Muslims to make war on the People of the Book who do not believe in the religion of truth, Islam.

9:29 Make war on those who have received the Scriptures [Jews and Christians] but do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day. They do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden. The Christians and Jews do not follow the religion of truth until they submit and pay the poll tax [jizya] and they are humiliated.

The sentence “They do not forbid…” means that they do not accept Sharia law; “until they submit” means to submit to Sharia law. Christians and Jews who do not accept Mohammed as the ?nal prophet are Kafirs.

Muslims pray five times a day and the opening prayer always includes:

Koran 1: 7 Not the path of those who anger You [the Jews] nor the path of those who go astray [the Christians].

LANGUAGE

Since the original Arabic word for unbelievers was Kafir and that is the actual word used in the Koran and Sharia law, that is the word used here for accuracy and precision.

It is very simple: if you don’t believe Mohammed and his Koran, you are a Kafir.

Publication notice: this book is now available to buy on our website HERE.

You can see the entire book on pdf HERE.

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

 

WesternFront America

By Bill Warner.

Family Law.

ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CLAIM: The perfect Islamic family law is sacred law since it is based upon the words of Allah in the glorious Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. All other laws are man-made and must submit to the will of Allah; therefore, only Sharia law is suitable for Muslims. For Muslims to be ruled by Kafir laws is an abomination.
THE SHARIA:

m3.13 Guardians are of two types, those who may compel their female charges to marry someone, and those who may not.
m6.10 It is unlawful for a free man to marry more than four women.
m8.2 A guardian may not marry his prepubes­cent daughter to someone for less than the amount typically received as marriage payment by similar brides

ADULTERY

[Bukhari 3,38,508] Mohammed said, “Unais, confront this man’s wife and if she admits committing adultery have her stoned to death.”
[Bukhari 8,82,803] Ali had a woman stoned to death on a Friday and said, “I have punished her as Mohammed would have.”

ml0.4 The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home. But if one of her relatives dies, it is preferable to let her leave to visit them.
m5.0 conjugal rights, the wife’s marital obligations
m5.1 It is obligatory for a woman to let her hus­band have sex with her immediately when:
(a) he asks her
(b) at home
(c) and she can physically endure it

[Abu Dawud 11, 2138; 2139] Muawiyah said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth (tilth is a plowed field, a term for the vagina) when or how you will, …

The most important thing that a woman brings to the marriage is her vagina.

[Bukhari 7,62,81] Mohammed said, “The marriage vow most rightly expected to be obeyed is the husband’s right to enjoy the wife’s vagina.”

Allah curses the woman who resists sex.

[Bukhari 7,62,121] Mohammed: “If a woman refuses her husband’s request for sex, the angels will curse her through the night.”

From the Sira, we have some more about a husband’s rights:

Ishaq 957 Mohammed sent Muadh to Yemen to proselytize. While he was there he was asked what rights a husband has over the wife. He replied to the woman who asked, “If you went home and found your husband’s nose running with pus and blood and you sucked it until it was cleaned, you still would not have fulfilled your husband’s rights.”

CHILD BRIDES
Mohammed, age 51, proposed marriage to Aisha when she was six years old. Marriage to a child is Sunna.

[Bukhari 7,62,18] When Mohammed asked Abu Bakr for Aisha’s hand in marriage, Abu replied, “But I am your brother.” Mohammed said, “You are only my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, so it is lawful for me to marry her.”

Publication notice: this book is now available to buy on our website HERE.
You can see the entire book on pdf HERE.

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

 

WesternFront America

by Kenneth Roberts

Mohammed was the dominant alpha male in his society. Mohammed was the quintessential alpha male. His unlimited polygamy, his monopoly on the use of force to dominate others, his monopoly on divine revelation, his claim of special powers not given to others, such as superhuman eloquence (Sahih Bukhari 9,87,127), his claim of 20% of all the plunder stolen in raids…all expressed and reinforced his alpha-ness.

We see alpha male behavior throughout the animal kingdom, for instance, in a troop of baboons or a pride of lions. Everyone around the alpha male is subservient to him and exists only to satisfy his urges and to comply with his demands. Of course, the underlings in the group must constantly show the alpha male respect and ‘honor’, otherwise the alpha male will growl, bare his teeth and bite if necessary, even to the extent of killing to restore his honor. Political Islam works the same way. The Muslim response to disrespect towards Islam is one of the most visible signs of this alpha male instinct to defend ‘honor’ through violence.

The alpha male in Islam is under no obligation to give anything to or help the ‘other’ outside his immediate group-in any way, shape or form–but only to protect those within his group. The Golden Rule has no place in the animal kingdom, or in Islam. Violence is their mechanism of survival.

In Muslim society, the Muslim alpha male respects only another Muslim alpha male and only if he can demonstrate that he has everything under control; otherwise he will be despised. The non-Muslim is at the bottom of the hierarchy and is treated with the utmost contempt. Kafirs are dirty subhumans to a Muslim. The kafir is similar to an animal that has no right to graze the land or drink at the water-hole…an animal, whose only right is to be preyed upon for food. This is the meat of Islamic morals.

Jewish ethics are based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, but Mohammed brought a new theocracy based on the primacy of the alpha male. Allah substituted the Arabs for their Jewish cousins… not on the basis of ethics…but on the Arabs’ ability to act like alpha males.

The Ten Commandments were tossed out and were replaced by Mohammed’s ‘alpha-ness’. Islamic Sharia law is based on the alpha-ness of Mohammed. An action is ‘good’, not because God said so on a table of stone, but because Mohammed did so…from stabbing his verbal critics, to raping war captives, to genocide, to plundering unarmed caravans.

Mohammed dispensed with the Golden Rule and most of the Ten Commandments, since they were incompatible with his opportunistic ethics…the survival of the fittest…the supremacism of ‘the best of people’ (i.e. the Arabs), whom Mohammed conscripted to usurp the Israelites, Persians and Romans as the new alphas on the world stage.

Mohammed’s world is a theocratic dictatorship in which human behavior is motivated by the desire to dominate on the part of those who are allowed to, and fear on the part of those who are selected to be dominated…the dirty kafirs (‘najis kufar’ in Arabic).

Soul-searching is an alien concept in Mohammedan supremacism. In Mohammed’s society, there is no need for self-evaluation or self-criticism, apart from asking whether the alpha male is getting his rightful share and his due respect. There is no need for any Muslim to evaluate his behavior beyond this point. The dominance of the Islamic male is proof of Allah’s support for Islam, thus, the more domineering a Muslim is, the more Allah is seen to support him.

If a Muslim bows to the narcissism of Mohammed or to that of his Islamic head of state, he is ethical enough. Giving to ‘others’, without being forced to do so, is seen as a sign of weakness unfitting for the alpha male. What generally distinguishes the alpha male is his opportunism. Opportunism is the opposing principle to the Golden Rule. With no Golden Rule, Islam is intrinsically opportunistic.

A number of ancient rulers were notable alpha males: Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Nero and Genghis Khan. Mohammed clearly patterned himself on historic examples of pathological narcissism, particularly that of Alexander the Great. For some reason, Mohammed was enraptured by the legend of world-conquering Alexander the Great and claimed this vicious killer as a monotheist and even a proto-Muslim.

To the contrary, the historical Alexander was a confirmed polytheist and even claimed for himself the title of ‘Son of Amon’…making Alexander the ‘Son of God’…of Amon, the principle Egyptian god, ‘Lord of truth, father of the gods, maker of men’. Amon-Ra was associated with alpha male dominance, as a woolly ram-headed deity with curved horns. Since rams were considered a symbol of virility, due to their rutting behavior, Amon also became thought of as a fertility deity.

The Koran is filled with ancient legends and stories plagiarized from a plethora of pagan, Jewish and Christian texts. Textual analysis has identified precisely what they were.

Mohammed’s saga of the alpha male Alexander did not come from history…clearly, Mohammed did not get his information that way…but from ‘legends’. Due to the discovery of 3rd century texts, we now know where Mohammed got his ideas about Alexander. A highly-romanticized Christian legend composed in the 3rd century A.D. in Alexandria implied that Alexander was a monotheist (far from the truth). However, coins and monuments of Alexander depicted him with ram’s horns on his head.

‘Dhul-Qarnain‘ (‘the two-horned one’) features prominently in the Koran. Mohammed’s biographer Ibn Hishaq claimed, ‘Dhul-Qarnain is Alexander the Greek, the king of Persia and Greece, or the king of the east and the west, for because of this he was called Dhul-Qarnain’.

It requires no Sherlock Holmes to see that Mohammed’s persona was constructed from that of world-conqueror Alexander the Great, combined with that of Moses, conqueror of Canaan. Mohammed’s intoxicating fantasy captured the romance, theocracy and military genius of both men and presented him (Mohammed) to the Arabs as the combination of all their alpha qualities rolled into one.

Apart from the story of Alexander, the Koran contains aggressive alpha imagery:

‘We hurl the truth at falsehood and it knocks out its brains.’ (K.21.18)

In the Islamic paradise, it is the most aggressive alpha males who receive the highest rewards. (cf. K. 9:111)

All in all, we require no message from an Arabian moon god to reveal alpha male behavior to us. Alpha behavior is well known in much of the animal kingdom, as well as in criminal enterprises…such as biker gangs…and in fascist politicians who impose their cult of personality on vulnerable populations.

Much of current Islamic rage takes place at the inchoate, psychological level of alpha male narcissism. Alpha behaviors such as honor-killings and cartoon riots defend the ‘honor’, misogyny and supremacism that Muslim males have a vested interest in maintaining.

Of course, Mohammed’s supremacist model for society is incompatible with a pluralistic democracy based on non-violence, equality and tolerance in the public and personal spheres. The two models contradict one another.

Whether Mohammed’s alpha male fantasy has the slightest chance of surviving in the Age of Aquarius, well, that’s another story.

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

 

WesternFront America

An  email from Newsmax  contained this link Lieberman Slams Obama on Radical Islam Silence which contained a few provocative quotes but no link to the source.  They did mention that their source was an op ed piece at the Wall Street Journal.  Google came to my rescue.

Throughout this blog post, blue, underlined text is hyperlinked to a source document. Clicking any link will open the source in a new window.  Through some of those links you can gain access to the Qur’an & hadith which form the core of Islam.

Who’s the Enemy in the War on Terror?

I do not know who supplied the head & sub head, but I will  begin my criticism there because the head & sub head contain egregious deceptions which deserve to be exposed.

“War on Terror”  implies that  terror is the enemy.  In reality, terror is a psychological and physiological state in which the mind and body are so agitated that immediate effective defense becomes impossible.  The heart races and palpitates, the hands and knees shake, and the mind is filled with a forboding of doom and despair.  Flight takes precedence to fight when terror reigns.

Terror is a condition, instilling terror is an enemy tactic. Identify the entity which uses that tactic and you have identified the enemy.  I am about to perform an act most bloggers, commentators, news media and politicians will not do.  I am about to bore you with the most vital facts which will enable you to identify the enemy who is waging war against us.

The following quotation is from the bottom of  page 58 of The Qur’anic Concept of War, a strategic training manual written by Brig. S.K. Malik for the  army of Pakistan.

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 opponenfs 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 decinbn we wish to impose upon him.

Inflicting terror is both a means and an end which makes victory possible. No, Pakistan is not the enemy; don’t jump to conclusions. Look at the title of the book.  What is the origin of the tactical use of terror?  If you answered “the Qur’an”, you are beginning to catch on.  If not, I suggest that you take a remedial reading course to improve your comprehension skills.

The Qur’an is the scripture of Islam, its guide to all aspects of life including warfare.    Allah said that he would cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers. That statement is found in 3:151 and 8:12. In the latter verse, he told the angels and the Muslims what to do to cast terror.  In 8:57, he commanded Muslims to inflict a severe defeat on their victims in order to affect the psychology of future victims; to terrify them.   In 8:60, he commanded the Muslims to maximize the power of their army so as to terrify their enemies.

Allah said that he cast terror, resulting in victory for the Muslims.  In 33:26-27, we learn that Allah’s casting of terror resulted in the killing of the men of one tribe and the enslavement of their widows and orphans. It also resulted in the seizeure of their  real and personal property.  In 59:2 we learn that casting terror resulted in the defeat of another tribe who destroyed their own homes. At the conclusion of the latter verse, we find something special. “Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).” As hinted in 8:57, Allah is setting up the destruction of one set of victims as an example to instill terror in future victims.

The Qur’anic sanctification of terrorism might be dismissed as metaphorical or apocryphal but for the ample confirmations found in hadith, the oral traditions of Moe’s companions on the battlefield.  Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 lists five special gifts that distinguish Moe from other Prophets. The first of those five items is most instructive: “Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month’s journey.”.     Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 tells us how Moe was made victorious: “…I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), …”.

The tactic  of casting terror is sanctified by the Qur’an and exemplifed by  hadith.  Now we know who owns it: Islam.  That is standard, off the shelf, orthdox, mainstream Islam, not some imaginary “radical”, “extremist” or “fundamentalist” sub set or offshoot.

Perpetual warfare is another sacrament of Islam, mandated by 2:216 and commanded in 8:39, 9:29 and 9:123. The imperative is confirmed in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.  The perpetual duration of jihad is confirmed in Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526.

Attacks on us, threatened and performed by Muslims, flow directly from the venomous verses of the Qur’an & Hadith.  The identity of the enemy is no mystery; it is Islam.

The U.S. is at war with violent Islamist extremism, and the Obama administration does moderate Muslims no favor by refusing to recognize this.

The sub head, reproduced above, contains two egregious lies, disguised by code words: “violent Islamist extremism” & “moderate Muslims”.  I already proved the fact that offensive jihad using terrorism as a tactic is an intrinsic sacrament of  Islam as Moe preached and practiced it.  Muslims who reject the sacrament of offensive jihad are not moderates, they are hypocrites.  That term is used in 18 of the 114 Surahs. 3:156 denounces them as cowards.   In 9:38, Allah threatens the hypocrites with hell fire for refusing to join the jihad.  in 9:68 he converts the threat into a promise.

In his  opening paragraphs, Senator Lieberman compares the current National Security Strategy, which does not identify Islam as the enemy, to the 2006 ecition. Here is the money quote: “It correctly identified our enemy as “the transnational terrorists [who] exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision.” “.    We need to  identify the most egregious lie in that quote, it is contained in this clause: “exploit the proud religion of Islam to serve a violent political vision’.  Islam is a violent political vision!  I gave you links to the jihad imperatives and a hadith which confirms  them.  That is standard mainstream Islam, not bi’da.

The third paragraph contains a repetition of the big lie: “violent Islamist extremism”.  Islam is intrinsically violent. Muslims engaged in terroristic jihad are obeying Allah and emulating their profit. They are zealots; believers [8:2, 49:15 ], not extremists.

Senator Lieberman correctly identifies the weakness in identifying al-Qaeda as the enemy, but in the process, he repeats the big lie.

First, it is not fully accurate. Defining the enemy by reference to al Qaeda implies that this war is primarily about destroying an organization, rather than defeating a broader political ideology. This war will not end when al Qaeda has been vanquished—though that, of course, is a critical goal—but only when the ideology of violent Islamist extremism that inspires and predates it is decisively rejected. That ideology motivates many other groups and individuals.

I added bold face emphasis to the critical clause and red font color & italics to the big lie.  The quote would be true if Islam were substituted for the big lie.

Lieberman seems to make a habit of skirting close to the edge of truth without crossing over from the lie.  I will add emphasis to this quote to make the lies stand out for you.

Finally, characterizing this war as being against a specific organization risks distracting our government from important policy questions about how to combat the ideological dimensions of the war that is taking place within Islam. It also may send a message to moderate Muslims that they can and should remain on the sidelines of this fight, while governments use conventional means to defeat al Qaeda.

A specific organization is waging war against us: Islam. Senator Lieberman, like most politicians, won’t acknowledge that fact,  though it is obvious that he  is aware of it.

Senator Lieberman swerved near to the truth before quickly counter steering: ideological dimensions.  The ideas that Allah is the deity, that he mandates global conquest, that Islam must be made to dominate the world are central to this war.  This war can not be won without breaking the Muslim’s faith.   One man leads the way: Father Zakaria Botros; follow his lead!!! It all rests on one man’s image: Moe.  We must make Muslims aware of his true charactr and conduct. Fr. Botros knows how to do that, and he does it. We must scale up his mission.

The other big lie: war taking place within Islam.  Hypocrites are not fighting. They are not armed. They are not motivated to take militant action. They are intimidated; they will be easily killed by believers.  The believing salafists have the texts on their side; hypocrites nave nothing with which to argue against believers.  The hypocrites have no viable option unless they unite, arm themselves, kill the believers and apostatize.

Al-Qaeda and Islam are one.  Islam can not be defeated conventionally  short of complete extermination.  Is anyone willing to do that?  If not, then we must defeat Islam ideologically.

Just when I start to think that Senator Lieberman might be redeemable, he comes up with  another restatement of the big lie.

Muslims in fact understand better than anyone else the enormous difference between their faith and the terrorist political ideology that has exploited it.

Islam is a way of life: intra-species predation.  What did Allah say?  What did Moe do?  Get a clue!

It appears from the next  quote that Senator Lieberman may be living in fantasy land.

We must encourage and empower the non-violent Muslim majority to raise their voices to condemn the Islamist extremist ideology as a desecration of Islam, responsible for the murder of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims and people of other faiths. How can we expect those Muslims to have the courage to stand and do that if we are unwilling to define and describe the enemy as dramatically different from them?

Islam is the enemy, of the hypocrites as much as us. Allah lumps them in with us, to be killed and gathered into Hell.  Muslims are the enemy; they are not different from the enemy, they are part of it.   Islam is what Moe preached and practiced; Muslims are believers in what Moe preached, who attempt to emulate his works.  Moe’s preaching & example are not moderate, they are not peaceful and anodyne.

There is no end to ignorance & insanity.

We must recognize the nature of the fight we are in, not paper it over. The United States is definitely not at war with Islam. But a group of self-identified, extremist Muslims has definitely declared war on us, a war which they explicitly justify by reference to their religion. Muslims across the world see the ideological nature of this struggle. I believe it is disrespectful to suggest they cannot understand these distinctions and act on them.

The first sentence of that quote is entirely true. It is papered over  by the traitors who mislead us, including Senator Leiberman, because, from their viewpoint, recognizing the enemy would require making the enemy extinct, which they foolishly equate with genocide.  Doing to the enemy what they are trying to do to you does not lower you to their level, it leaves you alive and more secure.  “Never Again!” refers to the murder of innocents, not to the extermination of predators.

The second sentence is also true. We should be at war against Islam, a declared war, as provide for by the Constitution, but we fail to identify and recognize the enemy.

Usama bin Laden’s declaration of war against us is not the first.  The first Islamic declaration of of war against us was not specific, it was generic and global. It is contained in 8:39 & 9:29, which are codifed in Shar’iah as Book O, Chapter 9.8 & 9.9 of Reliance of the Traveller.  Sentient people will read them and curse Islam.

• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-8.html The caliph makes war on Jews… codification of 9:29.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-9.html The caliph fights all other people… codification of 8:39.

When Caliph Umar sent his army to Persia, his general made a statement you need to know about. It is found in Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386.

Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.”

Compare the quote above to the response given to Adams & Jefferson when they asked by what right the Barbary Pirates attacked our shipping.  The quote comes from Wikipedia.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [3]

The “ideological nature of this struggle” boils down to: Allah’s exclusive right to be worshipped, Allah’s exclusive right to rule and the Muslim’s obligation to enforce them.   If you can’t comprehend that, Senator, then step down; you are not intelligent enough to be a legislator.  If you can not acknowledge the truth, Senator, then step down; you are not honest and courageous enough to be a legislator.

The real disrespect is underestimating the intelligence of the American electorate, urinating  on our shoes and swearing that it is raining.  We know the difference.  A growing number of Americans are wising up to the fact that Islam is the enemy and terrorism is motivated by its intrinsic doctrines, not be your mythical extremism.

Originally posted at Ben’s Blog © Dajjal

 

WesternFront America