Archive for the ‘Quran’ category

Takfir is extremism’s demonic fruit

July 18, 2017

Takfir is extremism’s demonic fruit, Al ArabiyaMohammed Al Shaikh, July 18, 2017

We must admit – as I’ve repeatedly said – that the murder and Islamized bloody revolutions we’ve witnessed in the past three decades were based on texts from our inherited legacy, and they are not related to conspiracies as naïve men think. Most of this legacy is the result of man’s interpretation of godly texts – interpretations that are not necessarily the only possible ones for this or that Quranic verse or hadith.

The second substantial point regarding the massive amounts of fatwas (religious edicts) and jurisprudential stances we’ve inherited is that there are fixed principles which jurists call “pillars of Islam.” There are variables which are related to man’s life and not to his religion as they depend on his interests and the society he lives in. Therefore, it’s not necessary for what was good years ago to be good for applying now. What matters at all times is achieving interests and warding off evil.

**********************************

Al-Ghazali once said: “Only ignorant men rush to accusing others of apostasy.” I’ve memorized this quote ever since I read it and I recall it every time someone makes rushed judgments accusing others of apostasy. When I listen to how they ended up with this dangerous conclusion, I realize that Ghazali’s statement was accurate and true.

If we delve into inherited jurisprudential legacies, we’d notice that takfir, i.e. accusations of apostasy, were common during times of political strife and unrest.

The seriousness of such accusations is that they justify wars, murder and rebellion against political rulers. This is why ambitious politicians and figures behind political revolutions resort to this method to attract followers and break free from loyalty to the current system of governance.

When the first Khawarij rebelled against the man whom the pledge of allegiance was made to, they justified their political revolution with the slogan “There’s no rule but for Allah.” They justified their political differences with others via religious and opportunist excuses. The new Khawarij, i.e. the Islamized Brotherhood and branching groups like Sururists and politicized Islamized revolutionary movements, used that same slogan.

They also adopted the approach of accusing others of apostasy. These takfirist movements, which are called Sahwa, ended in tragedies, destruction, bloodshed and strife. The atheism phenomenon, which has recently spread in modern Arab societies, was mainly due to the violent repercussions and violations of security and stability that rivals committed in the name of religion.

Murderous screams

The murderer screams “Allah Akbar” when he kills and the killed screams “Allah Akbar” while defending himself. Meanwhile, someone else raises religious slogans to justify some actions and another raises different slogans to defend his words and so on.

We must admit – as I’ve repeatedly said – that the murder and Islamized bloody revolutions we’ve witnessed in the past three decades were based on texts from our inherited legacy, and they are not related to conspiracies as naïve men think. Most of this legacy is the result of man’s interpretation of godly texts – interpretations that are not necessarily the only possible ones for this or that Quranic verse or hadith.

The second substantial point regarding the massive amounts of fatwas (religious edicts) and jurisprudential stances we’ve inherited is that there are fixed principles which jurists call “pillars of Islam.” There are variables which are related to man’s life and not to his religion as they depend on his interests and the society he lives in. Therefore, it’s not necessary for what was good years ago to be good for applying now. What matters at all times is achieving interests and warding off evil.

I was one of those thrilled when Saudi King Salman and his guest US President Donald Trump inaugurated the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology (Etidal) during the latter’s visit to Riyadh. If this center succeeds in monitoring the phenomenon of extremism that leads to terrorism and manages to identify the manifestations of extremism in the inherited legacy and works to correct them through educating and raising awareness via the media, then we will be taking practical measures and making our first step on the right path.

Tarek Fatah on M-103: “Replace the word Islamophobia with Islamofascism”

May 7, 2017

Tarek Fatah on M-103: “Replace the word Islamophobia with Islamofascism” CIJ News, May 7, 2017

Tarek Fatah. Photo screenshot YouTube Mobile TV

I have to say one thing clear that if my holy book says cut off the hands of someone and the left foot I do not accept that. If somebody wants to say you can say that, I said it. I will not accept it because I do not believe that even the Quran was collected according to the revelations that it was revealed, the Quran as it was revealed does not exist. And I willing to talk to anyone who says that, it is, but seriously why can’t we discuss this? That is what M-103 is about. That when I say what I just said I should be charged with the crime of Islamophobia, which is a code word to say the crime of apostasy, which is the code word for the word blasphemy, and punishment that is beheading as Muslims it is a job to make sure that laughter is stopped. 

**********************

On Sunday, April 9, 2017 a panel of prominent Muslim journalists and activists presented their arguments against Motion 103, also known as the anti-Islamophobia motion.

The “Muslims Against M-103” panel featuring Tarek Fatah, Tahir Gora, Asif Javaid and Shaan Taseer, titled took place at the Royal Banquet Hall, 185 Statesman Drive in Mississauga, Ontario.

In his speech, Tarek Fatah, a Canadian writer, broadcaster, secularist and liberal activist who founded the Muslim Canadian Congress, emphasized the duty upon moderate Muslims to fight M-103 to defend the Western civilization from the radicals who adhere to extremist Islamic ideology. The following are excerpts from Fatah’s speech:

Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. The point is that there are a million Muslims who came to Canada because they had a fear of IslamWe live in a world where the stark reality that from all over the Muslim world not a single Muslim goes to a Muslim country.

There are 6 million Syrian refugees and not one of them wants to go to Saudi Arabia. It’s right next door. It’s right next door. No ESL process [meaning no need to learn foreign language]…

Who killed Muslims? Muslims. Who killed through, the Sarin gas attacks? Muslims threw it on Muslims. Had Syria had M-103 resolution, I swear by the Great Allah, nobody would have been killed… Five years of slaughter and you blame it on who? America… You killed and slaughtered Prophet’s Mohammad’s own family and you’re lecturing Canadians about Islamophobia?…

They have been killing Muslims ever-since the Prophet died. The first wars of Islam are called the wars of apostasy. Anyone who said: I don’t understand how this guy became the new Caliph of Islam. He said: Oh you don’t think I should be the Caliph of Islam. No sir, I don’t know who you are. Well, kill him.

Here’s a Quran… it is not in the compilation as it was revealed. I’m saying it to the record… It is not in the way Allah revealed it to the Prophet Mohammad. It was compiled in a way by the third Caliph who burnt 300 Qurans. Was he an Islamophobe? Othman [bin Affan]… he just got murdered but other Muslims. Before him Omar, the Caliph, he too got murdered and then came Mohammad’s cousin Ali, one of the biggest intellectuals of the Islamic world. He was praying Friday prayers. One of the guys came saying I don’t like him. Killed. He died…

The only Muslim politician of character that this country has ever elected is [MPP] Fatima Houda-Pepin who was deputy speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, who got all parties in Quebec into a unanimous motion to ban Sharia [Islamic Law] for all times in the province of Quebec. That’s my kind of Muslim. That’s the type of Muslim we are. When we were fighting against Sharia [Islamic Law] in 2005 there was nobody with us. We were only five or six people… We defeated Sharia [Islamic Law] and got it banned in Ontario by being straightforward not hateful and sticking to our principles…

The game has just begun. We will make sure, and as God is my witness, we will not let this become law in this form… I promise you this. Even if we have just one person, we will lock ourselves to the gates of Parliament and asked them to replace the word Islamophobia with the word Islamofascism

The last fighters who defeated who defeated Hitler came from Stalin’s Muslim armies from Tajikistan, Kazakhstan who fought in Stalingrad and then defeated. Those are the Muslims who want here. The people who love Hitler want them out of here. Now and if you want to call me an Islamophobe, Praise be to Allah, I am. Yes I am.

I have to say one thing clear that if my holy book says cut off the hands of someone and the left foot I do not accept that. If somebody wants to say you can say that, I said it. I will not accept it because I do not believe that even the Quran was collected according to the revelations that it was revealed, the Quran as it was revealed does not exist. And I willing to talk to anyone who says that, it is, but seriously why can’t we discuss this? That is what M-103 is about. That when I say what I just said I should be charged with the crime of Islamophobia, which is a code word to say the crime of apostasy, which is the code word for the word blasphemy, and punishment that is beheading as Muslims it is a job to make sure that laughter is stopped. That the people creating this mess in the world are confronted but not with hate. Mahatma Gandhi’s ways are still alive today.

We have to fight hate and not with that Christian love that you talk about, you know, let’s have an interfaith talk. No, resolute, straightforward, secular, absolutely Rousseau, Karl Marx, Adam Smith and the whole of what that comes from Western civilization, from Socrates to Aristotle. We are the product of Western civilization. We are not the product of any other civilization. We invented the aircraft, insulin, vaccination, microphone, iPhones, even the damn paper. Because the Quran was written on skins and bones till we got paper from the Persians and the Greeks. Islam owes a lot to Eastern Orthodox Church, to the Zoroastrians and to the Hindus.

And it [Islam] is fundamentally Judaism planted on a pagan culture. If we cannot accept that we are doomed as a Muslim community, and no amount of M103s will ever be able to stop the tide that I have seen in anger coming up during the Dutch elections, doing the Swiss elections, during the Indian elections. We have Muslim women in burqas voted against their husbands advice…

 

Saudi Arabia is already here, in Toronto

November 25, 2016

Saudi Arabia is already here, in Toronto, CIJ NewsDiane Weber Bederman, November 24, 2016

islam-awareness-week-at-york-u-4-photo-cijnewsIslam Awareness Week at York U. Photo: CIJnews

Well, Mr. Prime Minister, you don’t have to move Saudi Arabia to live in that culture, because under your government, these intolerant, abhorrent teachings are here in Canada, at universities and in our bookstores and shared in public places like Dundas Square in downtown Toronto. They are teachings that Muslims are trying to have accepted here in Canada.

***********************

Dear Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau,

If you were to take your family, your wife and children and move to Saudi Arabia, as an immigrant, not an expat, how long do you think it would take you to embrace the culture of your adopted country?

How long would it take before you preached the need for women to wear a Burka when leaving home, and that they must be accompanied by a male relative at all times?

Or how long before your beautiful, independent wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau (she has kept her maiden name and said in Havana that women “can no longer be ignored”), would accept that she cannot drive, can no longer be independent of you, that her husband has not only the right but the responsibility to punish his wife for not performing her wifely duties, and that it is appropriate to beat your wife to bring her into line? Would Mme Grégoire Trudeau accept a lashing in the street from the religious police for any perceived infraction of the laws regarding modesty?

How long would it take the two of you, Sir, to teach your sons that women are inferior to men and your daughter that she has few civil rights, and that Muslims are superior to all others? And how would you explain to your children, Xavier James , Ella-Grace Margaret , and Hadrien the sight of men hanging from cranes in the middle of the square-guilty of being gay?

And what would you say to your children as you walked along the streets and saw people without hands or feet-amputated in the name of Islamic justice? And how would you explain to your children that it is appropriate to refer to Jews as pigs and descendants of apes? That is acceptable to call for “Death to the West” and “Death to Israel”?

Well, Mr. Prime Minister, you don’t have to move Saudi Arabia to live in that culture, because under your government, these intolerant, abhorrent teachings are here in Canada, at universities and in our bookstores and shared in public places like Dundas Square in downtown Toronto. They are teachings that Muslims are trying to have accepted here in Canada. They are using the false claim of freedom of religion when in fact this has nothing to do with religion and everything, Sir, to do with trying to bring Sharia Law, the ethic that underpins the ideology of Islam and undermines western freedom into law in Canada.

I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you would never embrace those teachings-that ideology. That you and your wife would enver accept the teachings in “Women in Islam & Refutation of some Common Misconceptions,” authored by the Saudi scholar Dr. Abdul-Rahman al-Sheha and printed by the Saudi Dawah organization Muslim World League (رابطة العالم الاسلامي) Or teachings being promulgated in Canada in the book “The Quran” (Saheeh International) shared now at York University during Islam Awareness Week.

The following are excerpts from the book that include Quranic verses followed by a modern interpretation:

Surah (chapter) Al-Baqarah

Verse 79

So woe 32 to those who write the “scripture” with their own hands, then say, “This is from Allah,” in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

Footnote 32

i.e., death and destruction.

Verse 131

When his Lord said to him, “Submit,” he said, “I have submitted [in Islam] 45 to the Lord of the worlds.”

Footnote 45

The meaning of the word “Islam” is “submission to the will of Allah.” This is the way of life ordained by Allah and taught by all of the prophets from Adam to Muhammad (PBUH). A Muslim is one who submits himself to Allah.

Verse 191

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah 69 is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al-Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

Footnote 69

Among the meanings of fitnah are disbelief and its imposition on others, discord, dissension, civil strife, persecution, oppression, injustice, seduction, trial and torment.

Or Surah (chapter) Al-Maidah

Verse 33

Indeed, the penalty 262 for those who wage war 263 against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Footnote 262

Legal retribution.

Footnote 263

i.e., commit acts of violence and terrorism against individuals or treason and aggression against the Islamic state.

Or this:

Verse 75

And among the People of the Scripture is he who, if you entrust him with a great amount [of wealth], he will return it to you. And among them is he who, if you entrust him with a [single] silver coin, he will not return it to you unless you are constantly standing over him [demanding it]. That is because they say, “There is no blame upon us concerning the unlearned.” And they speak untruth about Allah while they know [it].

Footnote 133

The Jews do not consider it a sin to cheat or lie to a gentile or a pagan.

Verse 112

They have been put under humiliation [by Allah] wherever they are overtaken, except for a rope [i.e., covenant] from Allah and a rope [i.e., treaty] from the people [i.e., the Muslims]. 144 And they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah and have been put under destitution. That is because they disbelieved in [i.e., rejected] the verses of Allah and killed the prophets without right. That is because they disobeyed and [habitually] transgressed.

Footnote 144

Once they have surrendered, the People of the Scripture retain their rights and honor (in spite of their refusal of Islam) through payment of the jizyah tax in place of zakah and military service due from Muslims. They are then under the protection of the Islamic state.

Just take a walk with your family along Dundas Square or stroll through York University. You can talk to people who share these beliefs openly and proudly and are expending great energy in proselytizing them. So, Sir, as a proud feminist and supporter of LGBTQ2 rights, a man who cherishes diversity, accommodation, inclusion, and tolerance, how do you defend these teachings in our cities and universities, let alone to your wife and children? And will these ideals be taught during Muslim Heritage Month?

As always, Sir, I look forward to your comments. I am ever hopeful that one day you will take the time to respond to my concerns, Sir, for I have no doubt that there are millions of Canadians who would like to hear the answers to these questions. And, Sir, we have that right and you, Sir, have the obligation to respond.

Islamic literature in Toronto deals with wife beating, stoning, crucifixion, amputation

Muslim Dawah (outreach, “call to Islam”) activists at Toronto’s Dundas Square distributed during recent years a variety of Islamic literature (click HERE)

The following are the highlights of some of the Islamic books/booklets which were obtained by CIJnews:

  • Homosexuality is a major sin

  • Liberated’ Western women… are trapped in a form of slavery
  • Polygamy is permitted in certain conditions

  • Wife must obey the “commands” of her husband

  • Wife beating is permissible in certain conditions (“Submissive or subdued women… may even enjoy being beaten”)

  • Muslims have a duty to spread the message of Islam in society

  • Prayers to Allah to give Muslims victory over the disbelievers
  • Non-Muslims of an Islamic State have to pay the jizya (poll-tax) tax
  • Punishment of flogging for public intoxication and traffickers

  • Punishment of stoning to death for married adulterers

  • Punishments of amputation (hand and leg), crucifixion and execution in serious crimes
  • Punishment of cutting off the hand for the thief

  • Punishment of execution for apostates
  • Possession of slaves is permissible in certain conditions.

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus: women are inferior to men, Western civilization “enemy” (clickHERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus: Songs, music, jesters, buffoons are “satanic work” (click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus: Muslim wife must obey her husband when he calls her to bed(click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus: “majority of the dwellers of Hell are women” (click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus: pregnant adulteress to be stoned after giving birth (click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus on wife beating (click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus on stoning adulterers, chopping off thieves’ hands (click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus on wearing hijab and honour killing in Islam (click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s online syllabus legalizes “slave-girls” (click HERE)

ICNA Canada online syllabus: “Muslims will dominate the Jews”, kill them (click HERE)

ICNA Canada syllabus: “give us victory over the disbelieving people” (click HERE)

ICNA Canada’s syllabus explains ruling on ‘sex slaves’ in Islam (click HERE)

ICNA Canada free book: “Every human being is born as a Muslim” (click HERE)

ICNA – Canada’s senior official appears to blame gays for Ontario “lurid” sex education (clickHERE)

Trudeau: We strive to show that “Islam is not incompatible” with Western values (click HERE)

Muslim persecution forces convert from Islam to Christianity to flee home under armed guard…in the UK

November 5, 2016

Muslim persecution forces convert from Islam to Christianity to flee home under armed guard…in the UK, Jihad Watch

No one should be surprised that this kind of thing is happening in Britain. It’s going to happen a great deal more, too, because the death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law. It’s based on the Qur’an: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Qur’an 4:89)

A hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him” (Bukhari 9.84.57). The death penalty for apostasy is part of Islamic law according to all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

This is still the position of all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, both Sunni and Shi’ite. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the most renowned and prominent Muslim cleric in the world, has stated: “The Muslim jurists are unanimous that apostates must be punished, yet they differ as to determining the kind of punishment to be inflicted upon them. The majority of them, including the four main schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and Hanbali) as well as the other four schools of jurisprudence (the four Shiite schools of Az-Zaidiyyah, Al-Ithna-‘ashriyyah, Al-Ja’fariyyah, and Az-Zaheriyyah) agree that apostates must be executed.”

Qaradawi also once famously said: “If they had gotten rid of the apostasy punishment, Islam wouldn’t exist today.”

nissar-hussain-and-family

“‘Persecuted’ family forced to flee Manningham home as threats escalate,” by David Jagger, Telegraph & Argus, November 4, 2016:

A FATHER who said he suffered “seven years of persecution” has been forced to flee his home under armed guard amid fears for his safety.

Nissar Hussain was with his family when police arrived and moved him to a safe place.

Mr Hussain said the culmination of the “extreme persecution” had devastated his family and the dramatic arrival of armed police was a complete surprise.

“My family are distraught and extremely traumatised to be leaving,” said Mr Hussain.

“But when your life is at stake there is no other choice.”

Mr Hussain converted to Christianity 20 years ago, but says in recent years he has been subjected to harassment and violence by sections of the Islamic community.

“This extreme persecution by certain people in the Muslim community because we are converts has broken us as a family,” he said.

“We are fragmented and I do not know how we will recover from this. We haven’t functioned properly for years.”

He said “serious questions” needed to be answered.

Last year, Mr Hussain was hospitalised after his kneecap was smashed and his hand broken during an attack outside his home in St Paul’s Road, Manningham.

Two hooded men, one armed with a pick-axe handle, assaulted him in a vicious attack caught on CCTV.

At the time, Mr Hussain said he and his family were being driven out of the city and he was making plans to leave. This week he had started packing up his belongings when the police arrived on Thursday.

He briefly returned home yesterday to collect more items, with police guarding, before leaving Bradford for good.

The 50-year-old, who was a nurse before leaving work due to post-traumatic stress disorder, said his six children, aged eight to 24, and wife would never see their friends again.

He had been expecting an attack for some months, but when the police arrived he was “none the wiser” that he was at such serious risk.

“The armed police arrived at about 3pm on Thursday,” he said….

Hugh Fitzgerald: Teaching About Islam In Tennessee

October 2, 2016

Hugh Fitzgerald: Teaching About Islam In Tennessee, Jihad Watch, October 2, 2016

A Bangladeshi Muslim student reads the holy Quran at an Islamic school during Ramadan in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Wednesday, June 29, 2016. Muslims throughout the world are marking the holy month of Ramadan, during which they fast from dawn till dusk. (AP Photo/A.M. Ahad)

A Bangladeshi Muslim student reads the holy Quran at an Islamic school during Ramadan in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Wednesday, June 29, 2016. (AP Photo/A.M. Ahad)

For nearly a year some Tennessee parents have been up arms about the teaching of Islam to seventh graders in their public schools. They are disturbed that more attention has been given to “studying” Islam than to Christianity or Judaism. And they especially were upset that the students were asked to recite and write out the Shehada, in a unit on the Five Pillars of Islam: “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet.” Some called it “indoctrination.” And the Tennessee State Board of Education, in response, has decided to omit the section “Islamic World, 400 AD/CE-1500s” from the seventh-grade social studies curriculum. Instead, the schools will, in a “streamlined” form, still teach 7th graders about Islam, but now in a history section titled “Southwest Asia and North Africa: 400-1500s,” and omitting subjects previously taught, such as “the origins of Islam” and “the life of its founder Muhammad.”

It is easy to imagine how this played out in the mainstream press. Tennessee, the buckle on the Bible Belt, where less than a century ago a certain Mr. Scopes was put on trial for teaching evolution, is at it again. A bunch of narrow-minded parents in Maury County, rubes right out of central casting, pitchforks at the ready, have managed to show just what prejudice and Islamophobia can do, and have forced an end to seventh-graders in Tennessee from learning all about the “religion of 1.6 [sic] billion people.” One of the photographs accompanying an article about the parents’ protest shows the hand of a student pointing to a page in an open Qur’an; the caption underneath readsParents fear their kids will know too much about this book.

But was this really a victory for the Know-Nothings, the haters of diversity, the right-wing Christian fundamentalists who don’t want their children to learn anything about the faith of more than a billion people? Or did those parents have a point? And if they had a point, might there be another way of making it?

The teaching of Islam, if done rightly, would not eliminate but, rather, reinforce, any sensible Infidel’s deep doubts about the “religion of peace.” What the students were taught was comically superficial, but they no doubt came away thinking that they had learned something about Islam, and discovered there was nothing to worry about. After all, these are 7th graders.

They learned that Muslims are monotheists, just like Christians and Jews. A comforting thought. But they did not learn that Muslims are taught to regard those fellow monotheists as the “vilest of creatures,”and Muslims as the “best of peoples.” They did not learn that Islam divides the world uncompromisingly between Muslims and non-Muslims, and that a permanent state of war exists between them, and will continue to exist, until Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. They learned that, as one of the fill-in-the-blank questions given to them asked, “the Muslim word for God is Allah.” But they did not learn that the Muslim God is different in almost every respect from the Christian one. They did not learn that the expression “Allahu akbar” does not mean that “God is great,” but that “Our Muslim God is greater than yours,” and that it is a war-cry.

They did learn to write down the Five Pillars of Islam: Shehada, Salat, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj, but what did they find out about what those words mean?

They not only wrote out but recited the Shehada, the declaration of the Oneness of God: “There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” They learned that the Shehada is what non-Muslims recite in order to become Muslims, to join the faith, the community, the umma of Islam. But they were not told that once you become a Muslim, you can’t get out, that the punishment in Islam for apostasy is death. So these American kids recite and write out the Shehada in class, you can imagine with what naïve solemnity (or on the playground, as they talk about it later, hilarity), and begin to think that “Wow, I could be a Muslim now if I wanted” or at home, reciting it to annoy their parents, “See Ma, I said it and nothing happened. I didn’t turn into a terrorist, I didn’t start throwing bombs. Chillax.” The parents are annoyed, of course, but do not think to ask their children if they realize why anyone can become a Muslim merely by reciting the Shehada, when to become a Christian or a Jew requires extensive study. The reason, they could tell their children if they knew it themselves, is that Muslims want to make it easy for non-Muslims to convert, for these converts are seen not so much as individuals learning about, and wrestling with, theological matters of moment, but regarded more like recruits to an army – just recite here — the Army of Islam.

When the students were taught about the Second Pillar of Islam, Salat, they learned that it is the ritual prayer said five times a day by all Muslims. They may have been impressed with how devoted Muslims must be. But they did not learn the contents of those prayers. How many Americans know that every Muslim, in saying his daily prayers, is denouncing the Kuffar – Christians and Jews — seventeen times a day? Do you think the teachers in Tennessee knew this? Do you think, if they learned it, they would dare to mention it to their classes? Wouldn’t that get them in trouble with a cheerfully denying local member of CAIR (“who told you this nonsense”?), or with some self-righteous journalist who insists that this cannot possibly be true, it’s one more Islamophobic canard? Of course it would.

Of what conceivable value is memorizing the word “Salat” and learning “Muslims pray five times a day” unless students find out what those prayers contain, and especially what they say about Infidels? As with the Shehada, something very important has been left out.

Robert Spencer explains what is in the five canonical prayers:

In the course of praying the requisite five prayers a day, an observant Muslim will recite the Fatihah, the first surah of the Qur’an and the most common prayer in Islam, seventeen times. The final two verses of the Fatihah ask Allah: “Show us the straight path, the path of those whom Thou hast favoured; not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.” The traditional Islamic understanding of this is that the “straight path” is Islam — cf. Islamic apologist John Esposito’s bookIslam: The Straight Path. The path of those who have earned Allah’s anger are the Jews, and those who have gone astray are the Christians.

This is not my interpretation; it comes from the classic Islamic commentaries on the Qur’an. The renowned Qur’anic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that “the two paths He described here are both misguided,” and that those “two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them.The path of the believers is knowledge of the truth and abiding by it. In comparison, the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians.”

Students learn that Zakat is the charitable giving required of Muslims. Admirable, they think, good for Muslims. But what is not said is that in the giving of Zakat, the recipients of that charity are only other Muslims. It would make no sense for Muslims to support those who have not accepted Islam. As Quran 8:55 puts it: “Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve” And the Quran (28:86) adds: “Never be a helper to the unbelievers.” The Quran (48:29) also says: “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves.”

How many of those students in Tennessee do you think were told that “Zakat” can only go to fellow Muslims? Or, even more unlikely, how many might have had that practice explained to them by reference to 8:55 and 28:86 and 48:29? Why none, of course. The students will learn, and their teachers too may well think, that Muslims are unusually generous because one of Islam’s Pillars is this required giving of alms. But the alms are only intended to support and promote Muslims, not to help humanity.

The last two pillars – Sawn and Hajj — are in themselves inoffensive. But piquant details connected to their observance could have been added.

Sawm is the dawn-to-dusk fasting, during the month of Ramadan. Some liken it to Lent, though it requires refraining, during the day, from food altogether, and not, as for Christians at Lent, giving up this or that pleasurable practice (e.g., drinking wine, smoking, eating a particular food). Do you think the students knew that Ramadan is associated with an upsurge in violence by Muslims? Or learned that Muslims have been known to attack, and even kill, Infidels for eating during Ramadan?

Hajj is the fifth pillar of Islam. Muslims are required to make, at least once in their lives, the pilgrimage to Mecca, to circumambulate the Ka’aba seven times widdershins, and perform certain other rituals, such as the flinging of pebbles at the Devil, represented by three pillars in Mina. Muslims of every race and sect, make the hajj. But beneath the outward display of unity, sectarian strife continues, even in regard to the hajj. The Iranian government, for example, this year did not permit its own citizens to make the hajj, as a way of expressing displeasure with the Saudis. And the Saudis have always forbidden Ahmadis, whom they regard as not real Muslims, from making the hajj. Was any of this mentioned?

The objection to the teaching about Islam should not have been that students learn too much about Islam, but that they learn too little. The recital of the Shehada, as we noted above, is a quick and easy way to swell Muslim ranks. But having these American students recite the Shehada, and merely pretend to “be Muslims,” is not without consequences. They may have imprinted on their young brains an impression of a harmless Islam that later will be hard to dislodge. Some people think, for example, that Obama’s memories of being a child in Indonesia, where he was taken with the muezzin’s call to prayer (“the call to prayer is “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset”) may partly explain his consistently sympathetic – and wildly inaccurate – descriptions of Islam.

But what else has been left out? Why, in what is effectively an “Introduction to Islam” unit, was the duty of Jihad apparently not mentioned? Shouldn’t Islam be described properly as a “fighting faith”? How did Islam spread, so rapidly, across North Africa, and through the Middle East? What happened to the many non-Muslim peoples subjugated by conquering Muslims? And if Jihad was mentioned after all, was the word glossed as “an internal struggle to be a better Muslim” or as what it is, a real war for territory, to enlarge Dar al-Islam, and to subdue the Infidel? Of course not.

We are told that the “life of Muhammad” was taught to students in Tennessee. But what about his life was taught? That he raided camel caravans, and received messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel? Do you think the students were also told that he took part in dozens of military campaigns? That he observed with pleasure the decapitation of several hundred bound prisoners? That he led a raid, for women and loot, on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis? That he consummated his marriage to little Aisha when she was nine years old? That he was delighted when his followers killed Asma bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak for mocking him? That – despite or because of this record — Muhammad is considered the Model of Conduct (“uswa hasana”) and Perfect Man (“al-insan al-kamil”) for all Muslims, and for all time? Parents should demand not that the life of Muhammad be omitted from the curriculum, but that it be taught in greater detail.

If you are not Muslim, what would you most want to know about Islam? Surely you would want to find out what is said about non-Muslims in the Qur’an and Hadith. Students should not be shielded from the many passages in the Qur’an that denounce the Unbelievers; they have a right to know, and teachers a duty to teach, this aspect of Islam, rather than have it remain unremarked, or deliberately hidden. It is not too late for the parents to draw up their own syllabus, one that they should make public, in order to force discussion of all of these unpleasant but indispensable matters. Instead of allowing themselves to be caricatured as the “parents who fear their kids will know too much about this book”— the Qur’an — the parents in Tennessee might consider demanding a fuller study of Islam in the schools, “because we want our children to be able to answer such questions as these”: Why is it so easy to convert to Islam by reciting the Shehada? And why is it so hard – and so dangerous — to leave Islam? Why is Zakat limited only to other Muslims? Why, in the five required daily prayers, is an imprecation against Jews and Christians repeated seventeen times? Why does Islam still permit slavery? Who are the “vilest of creatures”? Who are the “best of peoples”? Who was Aisha? Who was Asma bint Marwan? What is “Jihad”? What is a “dhimmi”? What is “jizyah”?

That’s a start.

What can CAIR and its willing collaborators respond?

Reasoning about Islam

September 27, 2016

Reasoning about Islam, Bill Warner Political Islam via YouTube, September 27, 2016

The blurb beneath the video states,

The first key is do not use the Koran and Allah, because the Koran is structured to be hard to understand. Instead, use the Sunna of Mohammed. The Koran says 91 times that Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and he is very easy to understand. We find Mohammed in his traditions, the Hadith, and his biography, the Sira.

When we use Mohammed to explain Islam, we do what the Koran commands. Some Muslims might say that a particular hadith may not valid (meaning they don’t like what it says), but know that almost every hadith that I use is called Sahih (authentic), since I use Bukhari and Abu Muslim.

Sometimes you meet a Muslim who rejects all of the Sunna, so how do you use Mohammed? Simple, the Koran by itself cannot be understood by any person, without knowing the life of Mohammed. No Mohammed equals no understanding of the Koran.

Actually, there is an oddity about the Koran. It is said to be the perfect, exact words of Allah. However, the perfect Koran cannot be understood without knowing Mohammed. However, the life of Mohammed and his traditions were written by people who never met him, but wrote down what they heard from others. In a court of law, this is called hearsay. Hearsay is usually not admissible in our courts. So the perfect book cannot be understood without evidence that cannot be used in our courts. Odd, isn’t it?

AP Claims ISIS Recruits Have a Poor Grasp of Islam

August 24, 2016

AP Claims ISIS Recruits Have a Poor Grasp of Islam, PJ MediaRobert Spencer, August 24, 2016

quran1

At last the universal claim has been proven: Islamic terrorism has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with Islam! The proof?

A new report from the Associated Press claims that recruits to the Islamic State (ISIS) knew little or nothing about Islam. After all, if they did, they would have known Islam is a religion of peace. So they wouldn’t have joined an outfit as violent and brutal as ISIS, right?

Wrong, of course.

This AP study is one of an endless stream of mainstream media articles intended to show us that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam, that the real Islam is peaceful and benign, and therefore we need have no concern about the elites’ suicidal Muslim immigration policies.

The study is, as one might expect, vague and anecdotal. Apparently much of the AP’s assumptions rest on jihadis’ self-evaluation of how much they knew about Islam, as well as their refusal to expound on Islamic theology in court. The AP tells us about a “jihadi employment form”:

[The form] asked the recruits, on a scale of 1 to 3, to rate their knowledge of Islam. And the Islamic State applicants, herded into a hangar somewhere at the Syria-Turkey border, turned out to be overwhelmingly ignorant.

AP also notes:

[W]hen pressed by the judge on his knowledge of Shariah and how the IS group implements it, Mohammad-Aggad, a former gas station attendant, appeared dumbfounded, saying repeatedly: “I don’t have the knowledge to answer the question.”…

[O]ne of his co-defendants, Radouane Taher, was also pressed by the judge on whether beheadings carried out by the IS group conformed to Islamic law. He couldn’t say for sure, answering: “I don’t have the credentials.”

Very well. But even if jihadis might rate their knowledge of Islam as low, and not feel competent as non-clerics to explain the teachings of the religion, that does not imply they are “ignorant” of Islam. Further, it answers nothing about whether the Islamic State has anything to do with Islam.

Meanwhile, in selecting its anecdotes, the AP ignored those that don’t fit its agenda. We hear nothing in the AP report about the Islamic State propagandist whose parents said of him:

Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.

Nor does the AP say anything about the Muslim politician from Jordan who said:

[ISIS] doctrine stems from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

Most telling about the AP’s motives, their report ignores the central importance that the Islamic State places upon the Qur’an: In its communiqués, it quotes the Qur’an copiously. They quote it in threats to blow up the White House and conquer Rome and Spain; in explaining its priorities in the nations it is targeting in jihad; in preaching to Christians after collecting the jizya (a Qur’an-based tax, cf. Qur’an 9:29); in justifying the execution of accused spies; and in its various videos.

ISIS’s beheadings (47:4), sex slavery (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:30), subjugation of Christians (9:29), global imperative (8:39) and more are all based upon the Qur’an.

ISIS has also awarded $10,000 prizes and sex slaves in Qur’an memorization contests. One of its underground lairs was found littered with weapons and copies of the Qur’an. Children in the Islamic State study the Qur’an and get weapons training.

As for misrepresenting the Qur’an? One Malaysian Muslim said that the Qur’an led him to join the Islamic State. A Muslima in the U.S. promoted the Islamic State by quoting the Qur’an.

AP also hauls out the evergreen anecdote that two jihadis ordered The Koran for Dummies andIslam for Dummies from Amazon. This factoid has been seized upon before by apologists for Islam — including Mehdi Hasan and Karen Armstrong — as evidence that Muslims going to Syria and Iraq to join the jihad don’t really know anything about Islam and are motivated by other factors.

However — and of course — no one actually knows why the jihadis ordered the books. Maybe they wanted to learn how to explain it better, or were planning to give the books to others relatives, or had one of any number of other possibilities in mind. But any irrational argument will do for the likes of the AP, Hasan, or Armstrong when it comes to exonerating Islam from all responsibility for crimes committed in accord with its texts and teachings.

The AP even invokes Tariq Ramadan to emphasize that Islam forbids the killing of innocents.

But it doesn’t ask Ramadan to explain the Islamic perspective that considers all non-Muslims to be guilty, or the Islamic State’s view that they are fighting against people who are not innocent because they have rejected the authority of the ISIS caliphate.

Not in the AP report, of course, is any information about the slick pseudo-moderate Ramadan himself, the grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna and formerly a paid employee of the Iranian mullahcracy. Ramadan is skillful at manipulating credulous infidels into thinking that he is the very model of the modern moderate Muslim.

In reality, Ramadan has never called for any genuine reform or rejection of any Sharia provision — including jihad warfare against infidels. In the eye-opening book Brother Tariq, Caroline Fourest examines Ramadan’s positions and actions in immense detail. She concludes: “[Ramadan is] remaining scrupulously faithful to the strategy mapped out by his grandfather, a strategy of advance stage by stage” toward the imposition of Sharia in the West.

In the course of this work, says Fourest, Ramadan “disarms those who are wary of Islamism.”

Disarming those who are wary of the jihad threat is what this AP report is all about.

Government Says Wearing “Don’t Tread on Me” Insignia Might be Unlawful Racial Harassment

August 5, 2016

Government Says Wearing “Don’t Tread on Me” Insignia Might be Unlawful Racial Harassment, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, August 5, 2016

Instead of summarily dismissing this complaint, the EEOC concluded “in light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which [the hat wearer] displayed the symbol in the workplace.” It noted that “in June 2014, assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las Vegas, Nevada shooting spree.”

The argument is laughable. Muslims have shouted passages from the Koran while killing Americans. Does this mean that if someone complains about a Muslim carrying the Koran to work the EEOC will investigate “the context” in which [he] carries the Koran?

********************

The Gadsden flag dates back to the Revolutionary War. It depicts a rattlesnake coiled and ready to strike, along with the words “DONT [sic] TREAD ON ME.”

The flag was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a delegate to the Continental Congress and a brigadier general in war that made the U.S. independent. In modern times, it has been used by the Tea Party and by supporters of the U.S. national soccer team.

Eugene Volokh reports that when an employee of a private company wore a hat with the “Don’t Tread on Me” insignia to work, a co-worker complained to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that wearing the cap constituted racial harassment on the part of the employer, which apparently did not ban the hat. The employee said he found the cap to be racially offensive to African Americans because the flag containing the slogan was designed by Christopher Gadsden, a “slave trader & owner of slaves.”

The argument is laughable. The Declaration of Independence was written by a slave owner. Does quoting it constitute racial harassment? Plenty of slave owners participated in the drafting and enactment of the U.S. Constitution. Is it racial harassment for the U.S. to abide (to the extent it still does) by the Constitution?

Instead of summarily dismissing this complaint, the EEOC concluded “in light of the ambiguity in the current meaning of this symbol, we find that Complainant’s claim must be investigated to determine the specific context in which [the hat wearer] displayed the symbol in the workplace.” It noted that “in June 2014, assailants with connections to white supremacist groups draped the bodies of two murdered police officers with the Gadsden flag during their Las Vegas, Nevada shooting spree.”

The argument is laughable. Muslims have shouted passages from the Koran while killing Americans. Does this mean that if someone complains about a Muslim carrying the Koran to work the EEOC will investigate “the context” in which [he] carries the Koran?

No it does not. The EEOC isn’t articulating a theory of workplace harassment; it is cracking down on political speech.

Everyone understands that “Don’t tread on me” is an anti-government slogan. Gen. Gasdsen used it in opposition to what he considered the tyranny of the British government. Tea Party activists use it in opposition to what they consider the tyranny of the liberal U.S. government. (Soccer enthusiasts presumably use it because it’s cool).

Now, the government is going to determine whether an employer violates the law by permitting an employee to wear a hat with this anti-government slogan. By doing so, it treads on our liberty and validates the concern of Tea Party activists, and many others, that we are drifting towards tyranny.

Volokh examines the First Amendment implications of the EEOC’s abuse of state power:

Imagine that you are a reasonable employer. You don’t want to restrict employee speech any more than is necessary, but you also don’t want to face the risk of legal liability for allowing speech that the government might label “harassing.”

An employee comes to you, complaining that a coworker’s wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” cap — or having an “All Lives Matter” bumper sticker on a car parked in the employee lot, or “Stop Illegal Immigration” sign on the coworker’s cubicle wall — constitutes legally actionable “hostile environment harassment,” in violation of federal employment law. The employee claims that in “the specific context” (perhaps based on what has been in the news, or based on what other employees have been saying in lunchroom conversations), this speech is “racially tinged” or “racially insensitive.”

Would you feel pressured, by the risk of a lawsuit and of liability, into suppressing speech that expresses such viewpoints? Or would you say, “Nope, I’m not worried about the possibility of liability, I’ll let my employees keep talking”? (Again, the question isn’t what you may do as a matter of your own judgment about how you would control a private workplace; the question is whether the government is pressuring you to suppress speech that conveys certain viewpoints.)

The EEOC’s abusive approach might also limit speech about an election campaign:

Say someone wears “Trump/Pence 2016” gear in the workplace, or displays a bumper sticker on his car in the work parking lot, or displays such a sign on his cubicle wall, or just says on some occasions that he’s voting for Trump. He doesn’t say any racial or religious slurs about Hispanics or Muslims, and doesn’t even express any anti-Hispanic or anti-Muslim views (though even such views, I think, should be protected by the First Amendment against the threat of government-imposed liability).

But in “context,” a coworker complains, such speech conveys a message “tinged” with racial or religious hostility, or is racially or religiously “insensitive.” The coworker threatens to sue. Again, say you are an employer facing such a threat. Would you feel pressured by the risk of liability to restrict the pro-Trump speech?

I think many employers would.

Now permit me to quote myself. The other day, I wrote:

[I]n the aftermath of the Freddie Gray trials, we see the same imperative of outcomes that drives the war on standards prompting stirrings for something potentially more disturbing — an attack on liberty.

In “context,” as the EEOC likes to say, its stance on “Don’t Tread on Me” is another example of how far-fetched claims of racial injustice can become the platform for an attack on liberty.

Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma

August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma, Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, August 1, 2016

(Please see also, The Disingenuous Outrage Over Khan-Gate. — DM)

kahn

The mainstream media is wild with enthusiasm these days over Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim soldier, Humayun Khan, who was killed fighting in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, brimming with self-righteous anger, spoke at the Democratic National Convention, where he delivered what the Washington Post dubbed a “brutal repudiation of Donald Trump.” Trump responded, elevating Khizr Khan to the status of full-fledged flavor-of-the-moment media celebrity. There’s just one catch: Khizr is using his son’s memory not to advance the cause of the United States, as his son apparently died trying to do, but to advance a quite different cause: that of the global umma.

The well-heeled and powerful backers of the global jihad – those who have enabled the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and other jihad groups to grow as powerful as they have today — are enraged at Donald Trump. They are deeply worried by his call for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the United States, as that will make it much more difficult for jihadis to get into this country. They are anxious to stigmatize any and all resistance to jihad terror – and so, happily enough for them, is the Democratic Party, which has eagerly signed on to the longtime strategy employed by Islamic supremacist advocacy groups in the U.S., to demonize all effective measures against jihad terror as “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”

So it was that Khizr Khan, in the full fury of his indignation at the DNC, trotted out a straw man, falsely claiming that Trump wanted to “ban us from this country.” Trump has said nothing about banning Muslim citizens of the U.S. from the country, only about a temporary moratorium on immigration from terror states. Even worse, all the effusive praise being showered on Khizr Khan in the last few days overlooks one central point: he is one man. His family is one family. There are no doubt many others like his, but this fact does not mean that there is no jihad, or that all Muslims in the U.S. are loyal citizens.

Khizr Khan is enraged at Donald Trump, but is Trump really the cause of his problem? Jihad terrorists, not Donald Trump or “Islamophobes,” killed his son in Iraq. And if Donald Trump or anyone else looks upon Muslims in the U.S. military with suspicion, it is with good reason: does any other demographic have as high a rate of treason as Muslims in the U.S. military? In 2003, a convert to Islam, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, murdered two of his commanding officers in Kuwait. In 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood.

Other than those attacks, a Muslim in the U.S. Navy discussed sniper attacks on military personnel. A Muslim U.S. naval engineer allegedly gave an Egyptian agent information on how to sink a U.S. carrier. In 2015, a Muslim National Guard soldier in Illinois planned an Islamic State jihad attack against a U.S. military base. Last February, a U.S. Army enlistee who vowed to “bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep” pleaded guilty to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas. Just days ago, a U.S. Air Force veteran was convicted of trying to join the Islamic State.

Then there is the U.S. Muslim who gave the Islamic State U.S. military uniforms, combat boots, tactical gear, firearms accessories, and thousands in cash. Where are those uniforms now?

It is good that there are Muslims in the U.S. military who are loyal. But can we have a discussion about those who aren’t, and why they aren’t, and what can be done about it? Such a discussion is vitally necessary, but it wouldn’t serve the classic objective of the global umma, to increase the dar al-Islam (house of Islam) at the dar al-harb (house of war). Nor would an open discussion of Khan’s Sunday morning assertion on Meet the Press that terrorists “have nothing to do with Islam.”

We constantly are told this, but the repetition doesn’t make it true. In the first place, jihadis repeatedly make clear that they think what they’re doing has everything to do with Islam:

“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30

“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants

“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud

“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad

“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari

All of these, of course, may be dismissed as “extremists,” although they were also all devout Muslims who were determined to follow their religion properly. And then there are the many passages of the Qur’an exhorting Muslims to commit acts of violence:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”

4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”

8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”

8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”

To be sure, there are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history.

According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

How does Khizr Khan explain all that? He doesn’t — and he knows that no one in the mainstream media will ask him to. All this disinformation and obfuscation he is perpetrating serves the interests of the global umma – but not in any sense those of the United States.

Why I Renounced Islam, Allah, and Muhammad

June 24, 2016

Why I Renounced Islam, Allah, and Muhammad, Front Page MagazineDr. Majid Rafizadeh, June 24, 2016

gh (1)

I never thought I would have the courage to publicly announce that I have left Islam. I have been hesitating to openly declare this; according to many Muslim leaders, I am now an “infidel,” the worst thing I can possibly be in their eyes. I was mostly concerned about the repercussions and risks to my family and relatives. But, in the face of the horrors that have spread throughout the world, I have finally made the decision to write my life story in “The Muslim Renegade: A Memoir of Struggle, Defiance, Enlightenment, and Hope.”

A Muslim believes that the Qur’an contains the verbatim words of Allah and should be implemented without reservation, regardless of time and geographical location. The Islamic reward for killing an unbeliever or apostate, someone who departs from Islam and renounces Allah and Muhammad, is receiving the best place in heaven, according to some Islamic teachings. The penalty for renouncing Islam is execution, legally administered in Islamic societies by governments, Islamic courts, or some religious groups and individual Muslims who desire to fulfill their duty prescribed by God (Allah), Muhammad, and the Qur’an. These Islamic and Sharia laws did create some concerns, fear and caution in me to tell my story.

If you are born into, or become a follower of Islam, abandoning it is not an easy task. A Muslim is indoctrinated from the early childhood. I believe the indoctrination evolves and transforms into deep-seated fear about questioning, let alone rejecting, Allah, Islam, and Muhammad’s rules. Deciding to be free and independent, liberating oneself from being the slave of Islam, become inconceivable and out of question. Once one becomes the slave of Islam, it kills his/her courage and will to leave it. As was also mentioned, Islam and Muslim leaders also punish abandonment of Islam, Allah, and Muhammad with death.

I grew up in a religious family in Islamic societies until a few years ago. I was one of the few who genuinely read the whole Qur’an word by word. I read it several times, and attempted to follow the rules meticulously, line by line. I didn’t just see my religion as a title; I wanted to live it as a devout Muslim. To do that, I had to be a strict follower of Islamic rules. I was the “good” Muslim according to many imams I spoke with.

But who is this “good” Muslim, according to Islamic teaching? A good Muslim follows Allah’s verses word by word. You cannot cherry pick the rules that you like or that you want to apply in certain situations. You must follow every legal, social, and spiritual rule. Not just anyone can be a good Muslim; a good Muslim feels a deep-down belief that they have been “chosen.” Only you are on the right path, and everyone else from other religions, even other Muslims, is not on this sacred path that leads to salvation. A good Muslim must also be a follower of his imam or ayatollah in addition to Allah, Muhammad and the Qur’an. Socially and legally speaking, according to Allah’s words in the Qur’an, you must accept “Allah’s rules” that a man can marry more than one wife simultaneously without asking for their permission (as my father did), that the testimony of a woman is not equal to that of a man in the court of law, that women inherit much less than men (half of what their brothers inherit), that you can have as many temporary marriages as you want, that having slaves is not an issue, that you should not be a passive Muslim, but you should be a jihadist who is willing to impose Allah’s rules in any society by following three steps: telling those who are not following Islam the correct path, if they do not listen, warn them, and if they still defy, punish them (resort to violence). A good Muslim believes in the superstitions that the Qur’an details such as the “evil eye.” A good Muslim hides some of his/her true feelings, avoids having normal fun, and views other religions as incomplete since Allah states in the Qur’an that Islam is the last religion that completes all the deficiencies of other religions, and so on.

When I came to the United States a few years ago — before the Paris, Orlando, San Bernardino, London and other recent terrorist attacks — I attempted to raise awareness and warn about the inevitable terrorist attacks that were going to happen in the name of Islam. Islam can provide a powerful language and tool to commit some of the worst crimes against humanity, while simultaneously the perpetrators of those attacks feel blessed, privileged, rewarded, and on the winning side.

Unless we gain a better understanding of the nature of Islam, its transformation and reliance on Qur’anic verses, as well as its norms, values, principles, and ideology in the modern world, we will not be capable of addressing this threat. It will only to continue to increase in intensity and spread further than most can imagine.

I am not suggesting this based solely on an academic and epistemological view of world cultures, but on my first-hand experience of growing up, studying, and working in predominantly Muslim societies for most of my life. I was born in the Islamic Republic of Iran and grew up in both Arab and Persian cultures.

It is my opinion that those who try to convert people into Islam first begin with some appealing notions from Islam. Once you sign up to the religion (by pronouncing two sentences: Ash hadu an la ilaha ill Allah wa ash hadu anna Muhammadar Rasul Allah; “I declare there is no god but Allah and I declare that Muhammad is the Messenger”), then gradually the restrictions, discriminatory rules against women, etc. will slowly follow. Without the new convert noticing, he/she becomes the slave of the Islamic ideology as well as the imam. Your freedom will be taken, and a new world, new God (Allah), and new set of rules will be created for you. Once you submit to Islam, there is no way to return, because if you leave this ideology, you are an infidel, an apostate who deserves to be killed, according to Allah’s words in the Qur’an.

In my book I share my own experiences in part because I believe deeply that as people become more interconnected, the most dire challenge to the current world order—to Western democratic values, universal human rights, the rule of law, social justice, gender equality, civilized society and all of humanity—is not nuclear bombs, chemical weapons, or other military capabilities, but it is modern Islamic ideology. For how long will the mainstream media and politicians remain “politically correct” on this issue? My intent is to raise awareness of what is happening in the very shielded and silent corners of fundamental Islam. To me it is imperative that the American people be educated about extremist Islamists who view them with such intense hatred.

Is the Islamic ideology an ideology of peace as many Muslims and imams argue? There are some verses and ideas in the Qur’an (likely plagiarized from the ideas of Christianity and Judaism) that do promote positive things.

But the violent and discriminatory rules in the Qur’an overshadow any hint of peace.

Would you consider an ideology or a leader peaceful if that leader tells you one good thing, but, at the same time, tells you that you can kill in the name of this ideology (as stated by Allah in the Qur’an)? Will you follow someone who tells you one good thing, but then tells you that women should not be considered equal to men in the legal system?

The Islamic ideology, its harsh teachings, and impossible rules, created contradictions inside me. I began soul-searching, which led to my inner transformation and revolution. I was born as a slave into this ideology, and finally I had to be free to make my own life choice (when I was in Iran few years ago) to liberate myself from the chains of this ideology. Doing so, leaving everything I had been taught for more than two decades, was not an easy task.

If you are born into a Muslim family and live in a Muslim society, where Sharia and Islamic laws are being legally implemented by the system, it is heartbreaking and dangerous. The fear of violence and death has permeated my life from the moment I was born — up to this very moment. Despite the risks, I feel I must speak my truth. The chains and cruel threats of this ideology will haunt you wherever you are. Knowing that I would become a target, along with my family and friends, knowing that I would lose everything I ever held dear (including many of my family and friends), I could have given in to my fear. Instead, I decided not to. It was a decision I had no choice but to make.