If you are an American, what would you consider too young for a female to marry a male? The age limit for every State in the Union except Nebraska for consensual marriage is 18 years of age. In Nebraska the age of marital consent is 19.
Under the age of 18 (or 19 in Nebraska) marital permission MUST be attained and that attainment can vary from State to State. According to “State-By-State Legal Age Marriage Laws” by Sheri Stritof (updated info as of 10/15/19) on The Spruce website; parental permission is at least required (some State have additional hurdles) for youngsters aged 16 and 17 years old. If a teen gal 15 and younger in some States desires marriage, a Judge has to get involved. And in most of those judicial instances proof of pregnancy or birthing a child is required. Click the embedded link in the title if you want to read State-by-State details.
By now you should be asking yourself, “Why does this Blog Editor care?” OR ask yourself for that matter, “Why should I care about the legalities of underage marriage?” (Unless such circumstance have hit home for you, then better start somewhere exploring your options.)
In my case, underage marital legalities began my pondering after reading a post by Paul Sutliff at his Civilization Jihad blog where he writes about Islamic social norms pertaining to child-marriage. AND when I say “child-marriage” I mean a little child-girl marrying (usually by force or sale or both) an adult MUCH older male.
THINK OF THAT THE NEXT TIME YOU HEAR OR READ A MUSLIM WANTS SHARIAH LAW TO BE ENFORCEABLE IN THE USA!
JRH 3/1/20
Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check
BLOG EDITOR (Notified by Fascistbook 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
***************************
Is child marriage and forced marriage part of Islamist social norms?
On March 1, 2020 The News out of Pakistan published an article on child marriage in the country. In the article an 11 year old is basically sold to a man who is 60 years old. The young girl finds herself married and is soon violated and nearly dies from the encounter. The News reminds its readers that Child Marriage is illegal in Pakistan. The News also attests that Child Marriage is indeed a forced marriage in that children are not able to make adult decisions. The News also communicates the sad truth that Child Marriages laws are rarely enforced in Pakistan for a variety of reasons, among them a lack of birth records attesting to a female’s age.
Is there another reason for the lack of enforcement? Is Child Marriage and/or forced marriage an Islamic social norm?
Child marriage is endorsed by Islam because Muhammad married a girl at the age of 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9. Aisha herself is recorded as having stated she was 9 years old. This is in lunar years not solar years, so Aisha may have still been 8 solar years old. It is one thing to hear that Muhammad had sex with a child bride who was 9 lunar years old, but when you start to look at the evidence for it in the Hadiths you learn that it is Aisha herself who says she was 9 years old.
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (ﷺ) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old. (Sahih Muslim Book 16, Hadith 83)
Narrated `Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death). (Sahih al-Bukhari 5134)
The fact that dolls were with Aisha tells that us she had not yet entered puberty. In Islamic culture, girls were allowed to play with dolls until they entered puberty. Girls Health.gov states that girls begin puberty between the age of 8 and 12. So it is entirely possible that she had entered puberty. But the fact that she was still playing with dolls calls this into question.
According to Bukhari, Muhammad exhorted his followers to marry young virgin girls as he did. The following hadith has Muhammad talking about playing with them.
Narrated Jabir bin `Abdullah:
When I got married, Allah’s Messenger said to me, “What type of lady have you married?” I replied, “I have married a matron’ He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?” Jabir also said: Allah’s Messenger said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’ (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 17)
Keep in mind that devote Muslims require more than the Quran in order to copy what Muhammad did. This imitation aspect of Islam is complete from the exact copying of the movements and words said in prayer to every aspect of his life.
Attempts to outlaw the behavior of marrying prepubescent girls and consummating the marriage have been tried in Islamic countries like Pakistan. In 2016, the country attempted to raise the minimum age for marrying to 16. “A representative from the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) had dubbed the amendment to the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2014 as “anti-Islamic” and “blasphemous” during the committee meeting.”
Any Muslim male at least fifteen years of age and any Muslim female of the age of puberty or upwards and not suffering from any impediment under the provisions of this Code may contract marriage. A female is presumed to have attained puberty upon reaching the age of fifteen. (Art. 16.1)
This looks like marriage is something equally agreed to by both the male and female. However, that is not entirely true. It is also not true that a female must have started puberty. The Primer proposes two questions that address this.
CAN A FEMALE BELOW FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE CONTRACT MARRIAGE?
Yes. The Shari’a District Court may, upon petition of a proper wali, order the solemnization of the marriage of a female who, though less than fifteen but not below twelve years of age, has attained puberty. (Art. 16.2)
IF ANY OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED AGE, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MARRIAGE?
Marriage through a wali by a minor below the prescribed age shall be regarded as betrothal. It may be annulled upon the petition of either party within four years after attaining the age of puberty, provided no voluntary cohabitation has taken place and the wali who contracted the marriage was other than the father or paternal grandfather. (Art. 16.3)
A Wali is a guardian. The male parent/guardian may arrange a marriage of a child bride after she is 12. It is stated that the bride may annul the marriage four years after, provided there has been no cohabitation.
In Reliance of the Traveller, which is shariah in English, we learn that marriage AND consummation of the marriage to prepubescent girls are permissible:
e10.3 When a woman who has been made love to performs the purificatory bath, and the male’s sperm afterwards leaves her vagina, then she must repeat the ghusl if two conditions exist:
(a) that she is not a child. but rather old enough to have sexual gratification (A: as it might otherwise be solely her husband’s sperm);
It must be said that Islamists have the only religion that defends child marriage. It is not the only culture to have child marriages. It is only a few years ago that Tennessee outlawed child marriage.
What about other forms of forced marriage? While doing research on this topic, on Google, the terms “forced marriage” and Islam were entered. The most prominent result took me to Discover-the-truth.com, where Kaleef K Karim had written a brief piece alleging that Islam requires consent of both the woman and the man. He began by giving a passage from the Quran 4:19, showing that women are considered property and can be inherited.
O you who have believed, it is not lawful for you to inherit women by compulsion. And do not make difficulties for them in order to take [back] part of what you gave them unless they commit a clear immorality. And live with them in kindness. For if you dislike them – perhaps you dislike a thing and Allah makes therein much good.
But in this sense, women as property must consent to being married. This speaks of women, not child brides. Kaleef considers this strong enough evidence to state: “So the above passage from the Quran is crystal clear that men cannot inherit women against their will. This passage alone is enough evidence that Islam forbids it, but we will go further.” Sadly, Kaleef misses that this passages is specifically talking about inheritance, which basically equates women with property.
The next passage Kaleef offers is indeed troublesome.
Abu Hurairah narrated that:
The Prophet said: “A matron should not be given in marriage until she is consulted, and a virgin should not be given in marriage until her permission is sought, and her silence is her permission.” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1107)
Equating silence with consent is problematic! What if the bride to be is scared for her life? What if she has been told if she says no, her family will be killed? But in Islam this is OK? Silence equals consent? It becomes twice as problematic when the Islamic marriage ceremony is looked at. Unlike, Judaism and Christianity, in Islam, consent is measured in a contract signed by four witnesses, two for the bride and two for the groom. If the bride is pressured to sign and the witnesses are provided by the groom, a forced marriage can occur easily. Remember here that silence of the bride to be is seen as consent. Kaleef did not address other passages which refer to marrying a slave. Slaves do not get choices.
‘If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry (other) women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (the captives) that your right hands possess. (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 2)
Narrated Abu Burda’s father:
Allah’s Messenger said, any man who has a slave girl whom he educates properly, teaches good manners, manumits and marries her, will get a double reward (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 20)
This allows Muslim men to take a captive woman as a slave and marry her. Of course, she must convert to Islam first. Historically, Islam has forced conversions through threats during conquests.
Muhammad himself presided over a marriage where the woman was given no chance to consent. In fact she offered her consent in marriage to Muhammad not to someone else!
Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`idi:
A woman came to Allah’s Messenger () and said, “O Allah’s Messenger ()! I have come to give you myself in marriage (without Mahr).” Allah’s Messenger () looked at her. He looked at her carefully and fixed his glance on her and then lowered his head. When the lady saw that he did not say anything, she sat down. A man from his companions got up and said, “O Allah’s Messenger ()! If you are not in need of her, then marry her to me.” The Prophet () said, “Have you got anything to offer?” The man said, “No, by Allah, O Allah’s Messenger ()!” The Prophet () said (to him), “Go to your family and see if you have something.” The man went and returned, saying, “No, by Allah, I have not found anything.” Allah’s Apostle said, “(Go again) and look for something, even if it is an iron ring.” He went again and returned, saying, “No, by Allah, O Allah’s Messenger ()! I could not find even an iron ring, but this is my Izar (waist sheet).” He had no rida. He added, “I give half of it to her.” Allah’s Messenger () said, “What will she do with your Izar? If you wear it, she will be naked, and if she wears it, you will be naked.” So that man sat down for a long while and then got up (to depart). When Allah’s Messenger () saw him going, he ordered that he be called back. When he came, the Prophet () said, “How much of the Qur’an do you know?” He said, “I know such Sura and such Sura,” counting them. The Prophet () said, “Do you know them by heart?” He replied, “Yes.” The Prophet () said, “Go, I marry her to you for that much of the Qur’an which you have.“ (Sahih al Bukhari Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 24)
If Muhammad required no consent in a marriage he performed how many Imam’s who are eager to copy him, will require consent? These passages explain some of the forced marriages that are now monthly making the news.
+++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR (Notified by Fascistbook 1/20/20): I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
_______________________
Thoughts Leading to ‘Is child marriage and forced marriage part of Islamist social norms?’
Paul Sutliff has a BA in religion and Philosophy from Roberts Wesleyan College, a MSEd from Nazareth College of Rochester and is completing a post-grad certificate in Intelligence Analysis. Paul is an educator, a research writer and a radio talk show host. Paul says he is only an awakened Patriot to what is happening around him. Paul first started to look into the Muslim Brotherhood after the college where he earned his MSEd took $500,000 from the international Institute of Islamic Thought. It took only a short bit of research to realize that a former Catholic college had opened its doors to an enemy of the United States.
Paul can be found on YouTube where he now places the interviews from his show CIVILIZATION JIHAD AWARENESS [Blog Editor: Paul may have redubbed show “The Sutliffian Report”] on the Global Patriot Radio network of BlogTalkRadio.com.
To book Paul for a speech in your area leave a message on hisblog.
If you’ve ever Islamic revered writings such as the Quran, Hadith, Sira and various Muslim theologians commenting on the big revered three AND you are not an adherent of Islam, YOU ARE AWARE ISLAM IS EVIL toward all things non-Islamic.
Even though those revered writings designate Jews and Christians as People of the Book (because a Muslim dare not say Holy Bible), it is written of them THAT failure to submit to the superiority of Islam is death.
I’m a Christian that refuses to relegate my faith to an inferior position submitting to Muslim lies about Jesus Christ the Son of God Crucified to death on a Cross and arisen three days later to His Glorified life fully human and fully God. Christian beliefs labeled as blasphemy in Islam.
It has been quite some time since I have posted on Islam exposing that belief system as deficient, contrary and downright anti-Christian. And so I have been saving some posts from other blogs and websites exposing a nefarious Islam (primarily from Sheaholliman’s Weblog) which I will cross post here (probably with a little spellcheck applied).
If you are Facebook poster be careful. Sharing may land you in Facebook Jail. As you will read in an Editor’s note, I’m serving restricted time in Facebook Jail until April 18. I’m restricted to only Groups I moderate, but I got a feeling a full restriction is in my future for I also will not submit to Fascistbook Censors.
JRH 1/25/20
Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
During a New Year’s Eve Islamic terror attack that took place in Russia minutes before the clock struck midnight, two Muslim men—Akhmed Imagozhev, 22 and Mikail Miziyev, 18—drove their car into and stabbed to death two police officers, one a married father of four. Other officers subsequently shot one of the jihadis dead, while hospitalizing the other.
An image of the two Muslim men posing with knives was later found on social media (right). Beneath it appears the words, “love and hatred based on Tawhid!”
This is hardly the first time this ostensibly oxymoronic phrase appears in connection with Islamic acts of terror. After launching a successful attack that killed two policemen in the Kashmir Valley, the militant commander of Kashmir’s Hizb al-Mujahidin—“the Party of Jihadis”—justified the murders by saying, “We love and hate for the sake of Allah.”
In this otherwise cryptic motto lie the roots of Islam’s conflict with the rest of the world. “Loving and hating” is one of several translations of the Islamic doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’ (which since 2006 I have generally translated as “Loyalty and Enmity”).
The wala’ portion—“love,” “loyalty,” etc.—requires Muslims always to aid and support fellow Muslims (including jihadis, for example through funds or zakat). As one medieval Muslim authority explained, the believer “is obligated to befriend a believer—even if he is oppressive and violent toward you — while he must be hostile to the infidel—even if he is liberal and kind to you” (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 64 ). This is a clear reflection of Koran 48:29: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves.”
But it is the bara’—the “hate,” the “enmity”—that manifests itself so regularly that even those in the West who are not necessarily acquainted with the particulars of Muslim doctrine sense it. For instance, in November 2015, after a series of deadly Islamic terror strikes in the West, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said, “I think Islam hates us. There’s something there that — there’s a tremendous hatred there. There’s a tremendous hatred. We have to get to the bottom of it. There’s an unbelievable hatred of us.”
This “tremendous” and “unbelievable hatred” is not a product of grievances, political factors, or even an “extremist” interpretation of Islam; rather, it is a direct byproduct of mainstream Islamic teaching. Koran 60:4 is the cornerstone verse of this doctrine and speaks for itself. As Osama bin Laden once wrote:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us—till you believe in Allah alone” [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility—that is, battle—ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [i.e., a dhimmi], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy!… Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).
Similarly, the Islamic State confessed to the West in the context of Koran 60: 4 that “We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers.” As for any and all political “grievances,” these are “secondary” reasons for the jihad, ISIS said:
The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you.
Koran 58:22 goes as far as to praise Muslims who kill their own non-Muslim family members: “You shall find none who believe in Allah and the Last Day on friendly terms with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger—even if they be their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their nearest kindred.”
According to Ibn Kathir’s mainstream commentary on the Koran, this verse refers to a number of Muslims who slaughtered their own non-Muslim kin (one slew his non-Muslim father, another his non-Muslim brother, a third—Abu Bakr, the first revered caliph of Islamic history—tried to slay his non-Muslim son, and Omar, the second righteous caliph, slaughtered his relatives). Ibn Kathir adds that Allah was immensely pleased by their unwavering zeal for his cause and rewarded them with paradise. (The Al Qaeda Reader, 75-76).
In fact, verses that support the divisive doctrine of al-wala’ wa’l-bara’[Blog Editor: an excellent post on this doctrine HERE] permeate the Koran (see also 4:89, 4:144, 5:51, 5:54, 6:40, 9:23, and 60:1). There is one caveat, captured by Koran 3:28: when Muslims are in a position of weakness, they may pretend to befriend non-Muslims, as long as the hate carries on in their hearts (such is taqiyya; see here, here, and here for examples; for other Islamic sanctioned forms of deception, read about tawriya, and taysir).
Little wonder, then, that America’s supposed best Muslim friends and allies—such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar—have issued fatwas calling on all Muslims to “oppose and hate whomever Allah commands us to oppose and hate, including the Jews, the Christians, and other mushrikin [non-Muslims], until they believe in Allah alone and abide by his laws, which he sent down to his Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings upon him.”
If Muslims must hate those closest to them—including fathers, sons, brothers, and wives—simply because they are non-Muslims, is there any surprise that so many Muslims hate foreign “infidels” who live oceans away—such as Americans, who are further portrayed throughout the Muslim world as trying to undermine Islam?
In short, jihad—or terrorism, war on non-Muslims for no less a reason than that they are non-Muslims—is simply the physical realization of an overlooked concept that precedes it: Islam’s unequivocal command for Muslims to hate non-Muslims.
In this video we: destroy the “Islamic Awareness” article related to this topic, demonstrate the Quran relies on the Alexander Myth, respond to more anticipated objections from Muslims (using Maududi), and explore some of the tangled mess of traditions elsewhere in Surah 18 and beyond. In doing so, we issue a strong challenge to Muslims regarding their theology of the Quran.
Around the world, people who leave the faith of Islam face state persecution, imprisonment, torture, and even execution, as well as violence, death threats, and ostracization from their own communities.
Many ex-Muslims risk so-called honor killing, forced marriage, kidnap, and communal violence at the hands of their families for “bringing shame” on their community. In Western countries, ex-Muslims are often thrown out of the family and face isolation and exclusion.
Mohamad grew up in a devout Muslim home, obediently following her parents’ orders to practice the rituals of Islam. But God was calling her to freedom and love. He was calling her to true faith. He was calling her to give up everything.
His Testimony is a remarkable spiritual journey from Islam to Christianity. It is also the untold story of how he ran from her father’s threats to find refuge in America. Most of all, it is the story of a young man who made life-changing sacrifices to follow Jesus—and who inspires us to do the same.
“I’d like to talk to you about what I find a fascinating topic that is the topic of Islamic ethics, but in particular, a part of Islamic ethics which is called sacred deception or Taqiyya. Let me give you a few ethical rules that come from the Hadith: a Muslim does not cheat another Muslim in business a Muslim doesn’t kill another Muslim a Muslim doesn’t touch another Muslim’s wife and a Muslim doesn’t lie to another Muslim.
You notice something here? That’s right. You and I are left out because you see Islam is not a symmetric ethical system. The golden rule is symmetric. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That is, there’s a balance here; the other and yourself are seen as equal. But in Islam if you’re a Kafir, you’re never equal to the Muslim. Islam does not have a golden rule. The Kafir is always inferior.
Now then, let’s talk about lying and deception. First let’s start with the fact that Allah has 99 names and one of those 99 names is he is the best of deceivers. But Allah is also the best of plotters and schemers so given that, it isn’t too surprising that we find in the Koran 16:106 “Those who disbelieve in Allah after having believed, who open up their hearts to disbelief will feel the wrath of Allah and have a terrible punishment.” In other words, apostates can be killed or otherwise punished. But it goes further. “But there is no punishment for anyone who is compelled to deny Allah in words but whose heart is faithful.” So in other words, a Muslim can lie about Islam if it serves Islam. And one of the ways he can serve Islam is that the Muslim is not discriminated against.
Here we have another in Koran 3:28: “Believers should not take Kafirs (unbelievers) as friends in preference to other believers. Who ever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah.” (In other words, if you’re a real friend [to a Kafir], you’re no longer friend of Allah). “ . . . unless you but guard yourself against them [Kafirs], taking precautions.” What this is interpreted to mean is that a Muslim can act friendly but he’s not actually the friend. That’s what is wrong. In other words, a Muslim may never give preference to a Kafir over a Muslim. There are, by the way, no less than 12 verses which say that a Muslim is not the friend of the Kafir.
Now let’s turn to the Hadith. “Mohammed: ‘Who will kill Ka’b bin Ashraf who has offended Allah and his prophet?’ A Muslim: ‘I will Mohammed. Would you have me do so?’‘ Yes. ’‘In order to kill him, I will need to deceive him. May I do that?’ Mohammed: ‘Yes.’” So, the Muslim deceived Ka’b bin Ashraf and he did kill him. What is this? This is the Sunna of Mohammed; it is possible to lie to the Kafir as long as it advances Islam. This is the nature of Taqiyya.
Now there is another way in which a Muslim can lie. There’s a hadith, a fairly well-known hadith, in which there are three reasons for Muslims to lie. One is jihad, that is the struggle against the Kafir. So a Muslim can lie to you anytime he needs to advance Islam. The other is a Muslim a lie to another Muslim if it will make the situation better. And a husband and wife may lie to each other as long as it smooths the relationships in the household. So deception is part of Islam. Allah is a deceiver. Mohammed was a deceiver, and therefore, every Muslim can be a deceiver. It is so special that it has a name, Taqiyya. So the next time you’re hearing something about Islam that just doesn’t sound right, and it comes from the mouth of a Muslim, you’re right. It’s not right. It’s a lie. It is Taqiyyah.
Islamic extremism is a term that will cause many of us to have nightmares, imagining some person in our dreams with a mask and a turban, screaming Islamic phrases out as they jump with no fear into a crowd of people and blow themselves up. But what is Islamic extremism?
I imagine what standards you are viewing this against would change or alter your perception of what is extremist or not, so to keep things simple, how about we stay within Western Based perceptions. These are rather simple, an Islamic extremist is anyone that feels their religion gives them the right to try to dictate to people in the West what our interactions not only with them should be, but when forceful suggestions don’t work violence is acceptable.
What is the difference between Islam and the other Abrahamic faiths
Before I get too much into this, I need all to understand the differences between the faiths. While Jews believe that their faith is held sacred, the more orthodox may turn ornery if they feel you are infringing on their right to practice their faith, but as a rule, they would never dream of trying to force others to convert, they just want to be left alone. Judaism has made conversion hard to prevent people from converting for frivolous reasons. The violence one can read in the time of the early advent of Judaism, such as the Exodus, the conquering of the land wiping out of the people, this is not pertinent to Judaism today, the violent parts are rejected universally.
Christianity while more an outgoing faith in the way of proselytizing, the true teachings of the faith teach that this must be done with love, violence is rejected, forgiveness is to be handed out freely. Before anyone says that Christianity was very violent in the past, you are correct, but this was not due to the teachings, this was due to the politicization of the faith.
But Islam is different, and please, don’t take this as saying that all Muslims are violent, in fact, that majority of Muslims are peace-loving people who as a rule have no problems living with people of other faiths. But this is where the similarities end, Islam was founded on violence, it teaches in its core teachings that violence is acceptable, in fact, will be needed in the end to force all to submit to the faith; if you are truly going to delve deep into the faith, there is little you can do to get away from this.
But what is Islam? At its most basic component, you have to look at what Islam means, it means submission. Submission to whom? It is submission to Allah, and this was directed and taught by what they consider as the highest prophet, Mohammad. Mohammad in his teachings that were recorded in the Quran left little to choice (he never wrote the Quran, he was illiterate, others recorded what they heard him say), he openly stated he was the final word on all, what he stated did change over time. Early verses of Islam more peaceful in nature, later in life Mohammad was far from peaceful, these teachings take precedence over all others, thus the more peaceful verses when it was better to live in peace due to a lack of power are superceded later with verses telling them to be not peaceful, naturally a Muslim will not ever offer up this information, instead will continue to quote the peaceful verses even though they know they gave way to the later ones.
Unlike Judaism and Christianity, both which did have parts that dictated how to treat others, with the Jewish law you have parts that dictated how a Jew should live, it never gives mention to how a none Jew should live their life. Judaism wanted their people to live separate, not make demands on the rest of the world to satisfy their faith. Christianity as well tells its people to give to G-d what is his, to man what is his, and live your life within a way that is permitted within the system, that is unless the system is in direct violation of your faith (you saw this with martyrs in Rome in the advent of Christianity).
But Islam does not make this distinction, it tells its rulers how to rule, what their outlook should be towards others. Any land conquered under the name of Islam is held in holy trust (that has always been the core of the problem with Israel, not over some imaginary right to heritage as the “Palestinians” love to claim). To this day materials in Islamic nations speak of the part of Spain by its Islamic name, Libya’s Gaddiffi made a statement once about taking back over holy land in Spain, they were going to do so not by war, rather by using the Europeans own political correctness against them; sadly this is looking more and more probable as time goes on.
In Islam Sharia is the law of the land, all laws, even in more secular nations like Egypt are still very much influenced by Sharia. A good example is if you go to the most moderate of Islamic majority of states, such an Egypt or Indonesia, it is illegal for one to convert an Islamic person out of their faith, but it is 100% legal for any Islamic person to convert or proselytize one from another faith to Islam. Even divorce in Indonesia is controlled by the Islamic faith. In their 1974 Marriage Law they have laws for each faith to marry and divorce, they set up the different customs to handle divorce, but Muslims only have unwritten customary (adat) law and Muslim religious law.
Another problem is honesty. Judaism and Christianity teach you should be honest, not lie, but Islam teaches it is perfectly acceptable to lie your head off, so long as it promotes Islam or is protecting you in some way. And this is not just my understanding, Islam teaches this rather plainly.
Quran (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly.
Quran (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals – see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49)
Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”
Quran (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
Quran (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21)
This is a problem when dealing with Muslims, more so when doing this with nation states. They are taught that they can lie if it aids them, they can make treaties with none believers, these should only be used as a means to build back up strength so you can attack again. I have told many, if you hear one thing but see another, I would never go by what I hear, rather what I see.
Treatment of none Islamic people in Muslim Majority Nations
In many places they either don’t allow other faiths to live in their land (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, EAU), or if they do they have to live in a subservient role to Islam, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, and the rest of the Arab world. In the past, all people not Muslim had to always stay in a submissive way, had to pay Jizyah {Jizhya} (الجزية) this was a tax all unbelievers were supposed to pay for not being Muslim. This was not so much intended as protection money, in the way of extortion, it was meant to humiliate, to show that they were beneath the Muslim’s, as such they were obligated to pay this, so they could live. Here is what the Quran says about it:
Quran 9:29 [Blog Editor: My Word Doc would not acquire the Arabic characters for the below translation. To read the original you will go to the LINK then scroll to this point.]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel subdued.
Dr. Peter Hammond, a researcher that has spent his life studying Islamic migration, the effect on the surrounding population, the interaction of the Islamic migrants on the general population, made a rather startling and troubling find concerning their demands on the nation and the people. In his book Slavery, Terrorism and Islam he breaks down Islam’s interactions with the society around them as they grow, rather than give my own quotes, I will quote him:
When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to ‘the reasonable’ Muslim demands for their ‘religious rights,’ they also get the other components under the table. Here’s how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
United States — Muslim 1.0% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1%-2% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.
They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States ).
France — Muslim 8% Philippines — Muslim 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad &Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris –car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam – Mohammed cartoons).
Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 10-15%
After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare:
Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
Albania — Muslim 60% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% Somalia — Muslim 100% Yemen — Muslim 99.9%
Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
I think one of the best quotes I have seen concerning this came from Leon Uris:
‘Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world and all of us against the infidel. – Leon Uris, ‘The Haj’
So are all Muslims bad? Of course not, they are far from it, the problem we have today is the press is so intent on covering for all Muslims, they either ignore or disregard the bad ones in their midst. In other cases they try to say incorrectly that groups like ISIS are not true Muslims, I would beg to differ, they are actually doing nothing that Mohammad himself did not do.
In other cases they give such low expectations, when places like Saudi Arabia say that women now have more value than livestock, the left, and feminist groups for their part, explode in their praise of them for their enlightened outlook.
Sadly these are the same feminist and women rights activist that seems to think what they stand for has no bearing with Islamic women or for Western Women victimized by Muslim males. Rather than stick up for the Western woman being attacked, sexually molested and raped by Muslim migrants, they attack them, saying it is somehow their fault, maybe they should have dressed better (we all know if it was a rape from a Western male, they would never dream of making this claim, nor would they blame the woman for such a heinous act).
Islamic Terrorism USA
You see this in the press, rather than say there is a terrible problem with Islam, they blame it on the economy, lack of jobs, western ideology being forced on these people. And while doing this they ignore there are two forces at work within Islam in the present, one is looking to bring it back to its more radical ways when it was at its height of power, they dream of recreating a Caliphate again.
The press ignores this, makes excuses for them, or says look at the peaceful Muslims, what about them? The bottom line is like with many groups, the peaceful ones are irrelevant, they do nothing to change the narrative of the radicals, thus giving them power by their silence, the ones that do speak are quickly attacked or dispatched. In other cases people who speak out are ostracized by the whole, they are seen as somehow being traitors to Islam.
In the same way that you had peaceful loving Germans in WW2, peaceful loving Chinese under Mao, and equally loving peaceful people under Stalin, they did not drive the narrative, their silence gave power to the minority, end the end they were irrelevant to what was driving the narrative in those countries.
By not exposing this you give power to the radicals and make the voices of the peace and change even more irrelevant. In the cold war, we did not say look at how peaceful the majority of the Russians were, we took groups that wanted to bring freedom to the Soviet system, recognized and gave them both support and resources to do something, they soon became many and changed the system from within. We need to do the same with Islam, stop empowering tyrants and radical dictators, we need to start aiding the ones trying to drag Islam into the 21 century.
You do have heroic people within the Islamic community, Egypt’s ruler openly called for a dialog to bring Islam into the modern age, to reject the violent bent seen in the Koran. Sadly most of the press was silent, the Western powers, for the most part, ignored this, under Obama instead we have catered to the more violent, then ignoring the radicals, calling them JV or amateurish; while the US has changed this outlook under Trump, seems he is more willing to push to call out the radicals, to be fair he is also willing to embrace the ones that started most of this last wave of radicalness, the Saudi’s.
But then even within a society as closed off and radical as Saudi Arabia is, we see cracks in that growing within that society as they try to move more towards getting away from their radical ideology. Today there are calls for women to drive, openly having a dialog with Israel, actually allowing Jews within their nation and having leaders go to Israel. The Saudi’s and other more orthodox Islamic states seem to be changing, but then there are pulls from nations like Iran that are pushing to bring more fundamentalism, just what they see as the proper way.
Islam can pull itself from the past, but if it does not, we need to be ready to call it out for this, not make excuses for them. We need to see support, aid and giving open alliance to leaders that are pushing for a more modern view of Islam, openly call out the ones that aren’t, and in nations like Saudi Arabia and the other nations around them, we need to let them be on notice, now more is the West going to turn a blind eye towards spreading of radicalism, but we will be quick to notice and praise when they make moves to stop it.
I know some will say that there is no support for this, if you feel this way, please go to this article that looks at polling around the world and in the Middle East, it is very enlightening.
0Censor.com Site owned and operated by Benton Media Corp.
+++++++++++++++++++
BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”
_________________________
Examine Islam
Don’t be Fooled by Supremacism, Lies and False Peace
Jeanine Pirro condemned Rep Ilhan Omar’s antisemitism on her Saturday (3/9/19) show on Fox News then stated the obvious:
“… She’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” (Bold text this Editor)
Pirro’s Fox News employers actually publicly rebuked her as if Pirro said something untrue or provocative. If it’s the truth it can’t be provocative!
Fox News is still the most Conservative outlet on television or shows featuring Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, et al; would not be on TV. Nevertheless, Fox News has openly and disappointingly moved more and more Left-ward.
Robert Spencer has written a well deserved rebuke on Fox News in defense of Judge Jeanine. The Gateway Pundit exposes the specific Fox News Producer rebuked Judge Jeanine. Can you guess by the Producer’s name why she heaped grief on Pirro? The name: Hufsa Kamal
Perhaps Fox viewers should send their own mass rebuke to Fox News!?
Fox Contact Info:
1 (888) 369-4762 (Customer Service according to Google)
Breitbart reported Monday that the Fox News Channel “condemned host Jeanine Pirro’s remarks on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) use of a hijab and said the issue has been dealt with directly.” Sounds serious. But what Pirro actually said was something Fox should have been applauding, if it hadn’t already become just another establishment network.
Pirro said: “Think about this: She’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”
Predictably, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on Fox to fire Pirro. Like a shark, CAIR can smell blood in the water: instead of defending Pirro for asking a perfectly legitimate question, Fox immediately reacted as if Pirro had stolen Barack Obama’s parking space, denouncing Pirro’s words with stern self-righteousness: “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”
Pirro, issued a clarification, to little effect: “I’ve seen a lot of comments about my opening statement from Saturday night’s show and I did not call Rep. Omar un-American. My intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course because one is Muslim does not mean you don’t support the Constitution. I invite Rep. Omar to come on my show any time to discuss all of the important issues facing America today.”
Fox is increasingly slipping into the Leftist echo chamber. It is terrified of discussing these issues. A few years ago, Jeanine Pirro contacted me and was going to have me as a featured guest on a special show about Sharia. She was very excited about it, and all the arrangements were made to fly me in and get me set up in the studio. Then at the last minute, everything was canceled — it was clear that Fox executives had told her she was venturing into forbidden territory. They willingly kowtow to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s defamation campaign targeting foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others. But last night, Pirro ventured off the reservation again, daring to suggest that Ilhan Omar’s hijab showed her to be Sharia-compliant.
There is so much confusion on this issue, even among people who should know better. Media critic John Nolte tweeted: “Does a Jewish man who covers his head put the Torah above the Constitution? Does a Catholic woman who covers head put the Pope above the Constitution? What a stupid thing to say.”
No in both cases, because in both cases the headwear in question is not part of a larger system that is incompatible with Constitutional rule. However, the hijab is part of such a system, and that’s all Pirro was saying. Fox should not have rebuked her, but this is the age of pandemic cowardice, so it was likely unrealistic to expect anything else.
Ilhan Omar herself, not surprisingly, was happier with Fox News than she has probably ever been, and tweeted: “Thank you, @FoxNews. No one’s commitment to our constitution should be questioned because of their faith or country of birth.”
But that wasn’t really what Pirro did. Pirro suggested that Omar’s anti-Semitism came from Sharia. And indeed, Sharia is indeed inveterately anti-Semitic: the Qur’an demonizes the Jews in numerous ways. It depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).
Sharia also mandates that women cover their heads:
“And tell the believing women to reduce their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which appears thereof and to wrap their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.” (Qur’an 24:31)
“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:59)
“Narrated `Aisha (the wife of the Prophet): `Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) “Let your wives be veiled” But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.’ Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam`a went out and she was a tall woman. `Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, ‘I have recognized you, O Sauda!’ He (`Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes).” (Bukhari 79.14.6420)
Wearing hijab is a sign that one accepts these imperatives. That is not necessarily true, as lots of women of all perspectives wear headscarves, but when a Muslim woman wears hijab, it’s reasonable to surmise that she accepts the Qur’an and Sunnah, the sources of Sharia. Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women, and the equality of rights of non-Muslims. Wearing hijab is a sign of adherence to Sharia.
So what did Judge Jeanine Pirro say that was wrong about Ilhan Omar? She asked questions that need to be asked. Fox should be apologizing to Pirro, not Omar.
++++++++++++
Muslim FOX News Producer Who Called Out Judge Jeanine has Twitter Account Littered with Vile Attacks on Conservatives
Fox News Channel issued an official statement on Sunday: “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”
FOX News released the statement after FOX producer Hufsa Kamal, a Pakistani-American, tweeted her disgust against Judge Jeanine Pirro on Sunday.
Mufsa [sic] Kamal tweeted:
@JudgeJeanine can you stop spreading this false narrative that somehow Muslims hate America or women who wear a hijab aren’t American enough? You have Muslims working at the same network you do, including myself. K thx. https://t.co/ZfKhRhlvM3
— Hufsa Kamal (@hufkat) March 10, 2019
Mufsa’s [sic] remarks made it into a report on The Hill. Mufsa [sic] inserted herself into the story.
Now it appears Hufsa Kamal, who is a producer for Bret Baier on FOX News, has a long history of vicious attacks on conservatives.
Hufsa has attacked Michelle Malkin, Candace Owens, Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk.
A Muslim commenter on my NCCR blog calling him/herself The Wannabe, disagrees with my portrayal of Islam as an Antichrist and violent religion. The Wannabe began a Muslim Apologist series of comments to a 3/8/16 post entitled, “We Don’t Worship the Same God”. The Wannabe began his comments on January 5, 2019:
In the Quran, any religious belief other than Islam is evil. Christians believe the same about their faith. The difference: Muslims ordered by Quran to kill unbelievers; Christians are taught Biblically to pray for their enemies & those who despitefully abuse you. Hmm … Which faith is perverse?
To which The Wannabe tried to be conciliatory yet firm in the defense of Islam:
I understand your opinion. I would feel the same too. Except, your source of information is wronged. Our Prophet (pbuh) was taught to be patient to all the Kuffar (disbelievers). They threw rocks at him while praying. He never got angry, the most angry he ever was, he kept silent. Killing is one of the biggest sins in Islam. How can you say we have been taught, let alone ORDERED to kill disbelievers, that too, by the Holy Qur’an? Also, I would like to know which specific line from which specific chapter of the Book you have taken the reference of “perverted religion” from.
Islam, the religion of peace?
“Kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them… And fight them until there is no more unbelief and worship is for Allah alone” (Quran 2:191-193).
“Strike off their heads and strike from them every fingertip” (Quran 8:12).
“Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties; in exchange for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they slay and are slain” (Quran 9:111).
“Truly Allah loves those who fight in His cause in battle array…” (Quran 61:4)
“The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” (Sahih Muslim 1:33).
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain (Surah 47:4, emp. added).
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil) (Surah 2:190-194, emp. added).
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not. They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel his people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can (Surah 2:216-217, emp. added).
…
Freedom from obligation (is proclaimed) from Allah and His messenger toward those of the idolaters with whom ye made a treaty: Travel freely in the land four months, and know that ye cannot escape Allah and that Allah will confound the disbelievers (in His guidance). And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfill their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him). Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 9:1-5, emp. added).
Additional allusions to warfare in the Quran are seen in the surah, “The Spoils,” dated in the second year of the Hijrah (A.D. 623), within a month after the Battle of Badr:
And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah…. If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them…. And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not…. O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty stedfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred stedfast they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence…. It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. Had it not been for an ordinance of Allah which had gone before, an awful doom had come upon you on account of what ye took. Now enjoy what ye have won, as lawful and good, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (Surah 8:39,57,59-60,65,67-69, emp. added; cf. 33:26).
…
… No wonder a substantial number of Muslims manifest a maniacal, reckless abandon in their willingness to die by sacrificing their lives in order to kill as many “infidels” (especially Israelis and Americans) as possible. They have read the following:
Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks…. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. He will guide them and improve their state, and bring them in unto the Garden[Paradise—DM] which He hath made known to them (Surah 47:4-6, emp. added).
O ye who believe! Be not as those who disbelieved and said of their brethren who went abroad in the land or were fighting in the field: If they had been (here) with us they would not have died or been killed…. And what though ye be slain in Allah’s way or die therein? Surely pardon from Allah and mercy are better than all that they amass. What though ye be slain or die, when unto Allah ye are gathered?…. So those who…fought and were slain, verily I shall remit their evil deeds from them and verily I shall bring them into Gardens underneath which rivers flow—a reward from Allah (Surah 3:156-158,195, emp. added).
Then go to TheReligionOfPeace.com for a list of 109 Surahs of wanton violence in the Quran all to promote the supremacy (NOT!) of Islam including commentary answering Muslim Apologists that utilize deceptive justifications:
Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses that sanction violence?
The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book’s call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam’s apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don’t stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
Quran (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.” (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:76) – “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”
Quran (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.” (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward ” This passage criticizes “peaceful” Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah’s eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that “Jihad” doesn’t mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man’s protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (4:101) – “And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies.“ Mere disbelief makes one an “open” enemy of Muslims.
Quran (4:104) – “And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain…” Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (5:33)– “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”(See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (8:12) – “(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels… “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are “those who disbelieve” – further defined in the next verse (13) as those who “defy and disobey Allah.” Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (8:15) – “O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey’s end.”
Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah” Some translations interpret “fitna” as “persecution”, but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there – but not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad’s intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until “religion is only for Allah”, meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that “Allah must have no rivals.”(See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (8:57) – “If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.”
Quran (8:67) – “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land…”
Quran (8:59-60) – “And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah’s Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, “Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability.” (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (8:65) – “O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight…”
Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.” According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion’s Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. (See also: Response to Apologists)
[Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers “wherever you find them“. Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those “unbelievers” who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the ‘fighting’ of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)]
Quran (9:14) – “Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even “heals” the hearts of Muslims.
Quran (9:20) – “Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah’s way are of much greater worth in Allah’s sight. These are they who are triumphant.” The Arabic word interpreted as “striving” in this verse is the same root as “Jihad”. The context is obviously holy war.
Quran (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” “People of the Book” refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam “superior over all religions.” This chapter was one of the final “revelations” from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad’s companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (9:30) – “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!” (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (9:38-39) – “O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place.” This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. The verse also links physical fighting to the “cause of Allah” (or “way of Allah”). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (9:41) – “Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew.” See also the verse that follows (9:42) – “If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them” This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and – in this case – on Christian soil, according to the historians). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (9:73) – “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today’s devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of “hypocrites” (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist’s defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad’s time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can’t Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam’s perpetual internal conflicts). (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (9:88) – “But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper.” (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (9:111) – “Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” How does the Quran define a true believer? (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (9:123) – “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.” (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (17:16) – “And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction.” Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is “utter destruction.” (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).
Quran (18:65-81)– This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with “special knowledge” who does things which don’t seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would “grieve” his parents by “disobedience and ingratitude.” He was killed so that Allah could provide them a ‘better’ son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).] (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (21:44) – “…See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?”
Quran (25:52) – “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it.” – The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse – although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca. The “it” at the end is thought to mean the Quran. Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the ‘unbelievers.’ Obviously, this changed with the hijra. ‘Jihad’ after this is almost exclusively within a violent context. The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas.
Quran (33:60-62) – “If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.” This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as “merciless” and “horrible murder” in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to “fight in the way of Allah” (3:167) and hence don’t act as Muslims should), those with “diseased hearts” (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and “alarmists” or “agitators – those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today’s terrorists do.
Quran (47:3-4)– “Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord… So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)… If it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost.” Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded. Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn’t do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. (See also: 47:4 for more context) (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (47:35)– “Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: “have the upper hand”) for Allah is with you,” (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (48:17) – “There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom.” Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means ‘spiritual struggle.’ If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.
Quran (48:29) – “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves” Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for ‘hard’ or ‘ruthless’ in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as ‘painful’ or severe’ to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..
Quran (61:4) – “Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause” Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to “rows” or “battle array,” meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the “cause”: “He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (61:10-12) – “O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of’Adn- Eternity [‘Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.” This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad.
Quran (66:9)– “O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey’s end.” The root word of “Jihad” is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include “hypocrites” – those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. (See also: Response to Apologists)
Quran (2:191-193) – “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)”(Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to “fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you” leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical contextof this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah’s rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is disingenuous – the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) – and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is ‘sedition,’ meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned “until religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor’s note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that ‘fighting’ is sanctioned even if the fitna ‘ceases’. This is about religious order, not real persecution.] (See also: Response to Apologists)
AND THAT IS AN INCOMPLETE LIST because you can read, TROP directs you to AnsweringIslam.org for more inherently violent Surahs in the Quran.
AND this cross post of TROP’s list on “Violence” is only an excerpt. The next subheading of the “Violence” post is “Hadith and Sira” on perpetuating Islamic violence.
One thing people are unaware concerning the Quran (even many Muslims). Muhammad’s words during the Mecca preaching BEFORE the Hegira (when Mo fled Mecca in fear of non-Muslim Arab animosity toward Mo’s criticism of polytheism) and Muhammad’s in the Quran DURING Medina and the CONQUEST of Mecca from Medina.
The Quran of Mecca is peace. The Quran of Medina (and return to Mecca) is about hate and kill Muhammad’s perceived enemies in the name of the moon-deity retooled as monotheistic Allah. A great summary of the Mecca/Medina Quran divide is from the pseudonymous Bill Warner:
In Mecca, the texts have nothing to say about jihad. So in Mecca we have a peaceful Islam, but in Medina we have violence. Both the Sira and Hadith confirm the peaceful nature of Islam in Mecca and its unlimited violence in Medina. (A Picture of Duality; by Bill Warner; Political Islam; 4/29/11)
Islamic duality allows contradicting concepts to both be correct and expounded authoritatively according to the circumstance of the occasion. BUT when push comes to shove, the Islamic ideology of Abrogation comes into play.
Here is the simplest to understand explanation of Abrogation: Muhammad’s Quranic words have a most valid component when contradictions are involved. Validity is measured by when Muhammad said something not what he said. All of Muhammad’s earliest sayings can be overruled by the most recent sayings. In other words, the peace/Mecca Quran is overridden by the violent/Medina Quran.
There is a problem in deciphering when the Mecca/Quran and the Medina/Quran are spoken. Why? The Quran is not put together in chronological order. The Quran is arranged by longest Surah to shortest Surah regardless of where and when the origin is. WikiIslam has arranged a chronological order comparing to the traditional (longest to shortest) that help you view what can be proclaimed abrogated – HERE.
Ergo, when The Wannabe tells you, “Our Prophet (pbuh) was taught to be patient to all the Kuffar (disbelievers).” He/she is wittingly or unwittingly (depending on the knowledge of the Islamic principles of Duality and Abrogation) IS LYING!
I ran into a couple of posts from the G+ Community Islam: The Truth penned by Michael Lederman. I like Lederman’s post because he believes the information he provides about Islam is educational rather than confrontational. “Confrontation” is probably what I’m more often accused of because I can be a bit hostile by detractors of my blog posts.
For you Counterjihadists and Conservatives as well as you Leftist Multiculturalists and pro-Islam Apologists, prepare to discover the Lederman Education Program.
(Lederman titles are this Blog Editor’s best guess according to the essay’s content.)
Muhammad and His Captives: Massacres, Atrocities, and Torture
An important test of a man’s character is his conduct towards those who are weak or in a vulnerable position. In Muhammad’s case, the group to which this description could be most readily applied was the captives who came under his control when their tribes were defeated by the Muslims. Muhammad may have been teaching his followers to call upon Allah as the ‘Merciful and Compassionate’, but his treatment of those whom his forces captured was often exactly the opposite of these values. In this section, it will be shown how Muslim forces engaged in human trafficking, rape, torture and genocide with his full approval and sometimes active participation. It should be stressed once again that what is related here comes from highly respected Muslim sources and not from raving critics of Islam. Full references are provided in case you are interested in verifying the accuracy of what is being related.
Muhammad ordered the torture of a man who had custody of a treasure.
In the aftermath of the Battle of Khaibar, Muhammad was desperate to get his hands on some of the wealth of the Jewish tribes that were vanquished by the Muslims. So desperate, in fact, that he did not shrink from torture as a means of gaining information. Ibn Ishaq106 relates the following:
Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came, to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, “Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?” He said “Yes”. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, “Torture him until you extract what he has.” So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.”
Little more needs to be added to Ibn Ishaq’s account of this horrible incident and the way in which it gives us an insight into the character of Muhammad. Suffice it to say that lighting a fire on the chest of a fellow human being to satisfy your greed is not something that we would readily associate with a “beautiful pattern of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21107).
Muhammad “married’ a woman on the same day her husband and most of her family were killed.
As if the fate that befell Kinana al Rabi was not bad enough, Muhammad also had his wife in his sights. In line with the practice of the Muslim armies, the women of the Jewish tribe were captured after the Battle of Khaibar. One of his followers named Dihya came to Muhammad and asked:
“O Allah’s Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.” Instead of scolding Dihya for seeking to enslave a vulnerable fellow human being, Muhammad says: “Go and take any slave girl.”
He took Safiya bint Huyai. It should be noted at this point that the man who requested a slave girl was probably not looking for someone to clean his house. The Qur’an makes it clear that Muslim men are allowed to have sex with “those whom your right hand possesses” (Qur’an 4:24). What is in view here is sexual slavery in other words. Encouraged by Muhammad, Dihya goes and picks a slave girl. It is, however, pointed out to Muhammad that she was the wife of the, now dead, “head of the tribe of Jews”:
“A man came to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.’ So the Prophet said, ‘Bring him along with her.’ So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, ‘Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.’ Anas added: ‘The Prophet then manumitted her and married her.’” (Sahih Bukhari 8:1:367)
So on the very day when her world is destroyed by the violent actions of the Muslims (including the horribly violent and gruesome murder of her husband) and while she was no doubt still deeply in shock she is ‘married’ to Muhammad: The leader of the group who carried out the atrocities against her and her people. It is clear that she had no say in the matter. This is confirmed by the fact that Muhammad changes her name to Safiya, a humiliating word play indicating that she is part of the fifth of the booty that is due to Muhammad (Qur’an 8:41108). This is related as follows in Sunan Abu Dawud 2987:
“Qatadah said: When the Apostle of Allah participated in a battle, there was for him a special portion which he took from where he desired. Safiyyah was from that portion.”
It is interesting to note that the memory of the shocking and terrible circumstances under which Safiya was married to Muhammad lingered on in the Muslim community, often manifesting in questions about her loyalty. At least some members of the community clearly thought that it would be only natural for her to take revenge for what was done to her.
Muhammad allowed his followers to rape captive women.
In one of the most disturbing hadiths of the Sahih Muslim collection, some of Muhammad’s followers came to him with a question about the treatment of captive women. His answer was staggering in its callousness and its implications for later Muslim conduct during war:
“We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing “azl” (withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it (withdraw before climaxing), for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.” (Sahih Muslim 3371, see also Sahih Bukhari 34:176:2229109)
So here we have a group of Muslim men raping captive women while taking care to withdraw before they reach the point of climax. Instead of furiously commanding them to stop such vile conduct and taking the women into his protection, Muhammad cheerfully instructs his followers to do to the women whatever they desired! To make matters even worse, Muslim tradition states that the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed precisely to ease the qualms of Muslim warriors about having sex with enslaved captives:
“Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess” (Qur’an 4:24)
So according to the world of Allah if “your right hand possesses” a woman, sex with her is totally lawful even if she is married!
Muhammad participated in a massacre where boys were killed simply for having pubic hair.
In the course of his campaigns, Muhammad came across the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza. This tribe surrendered to him. After being disarmed, it was judged that the men of the tribe had to be put to the sword. Muhammad declared that this was in line with Allah’s judgment (Sahih Bukhari 5:59:447110). He then proceeded to actively participate in the massacre of these unfortunate unarmed men. According to Ibn Ishaq111:
“The apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.”
At least 600 unarmed males were killed in this way. It is clear that this massacre did not only include men of fighting age but also young boys. This is the testimony of a survivor:
“Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.” (Abu Dawud 38:4390)
The common response by Muslim apologists to charges related to this terrible massacre is to point to the alleged treachery of the tribe and to say something along the lines of ‘They deserved it’. This assertion can be challenged, but I will not do so here. I want to, instead, focus on the fact that boys of around 10-11 (the average age of the onset of male puberty) were massacred. The following questions should be asked to those who attempt to defend Muhammad’s actions in this instance:
Points To Ponder
What influence could these poor children have had on the policies of their elders that would justify their execution?
Why was such an utterly arbitrary measure (looking for pubic hair) used to decide who will die?
Is this kind of rough justice really what we would expect from a ‘perfect example’?
You can post all the lovely portions of the Quran you like but we know about Islamic Abrogation and how most of these, if not all, have been replaced. Now let us not discuss what the Quran says but how Muslims, many of whom would find you to be less Islamic than they actually show the Quran’s teachings by their actions.
The fighting and killing in Islam. Well, let me tell you something. It is very interesting, really interesting that in the US we have a different kind of Islam. Muslim clerics in the US want to present to us a kind Islam, Islam of brotherly love, Islam of friendship. Is that the Islam in the Quran? It is not! The Quran is very explicit to tell the Muslims, “Go fight and kill.” And if we see a young man, 20 years, or 18 years in Palestine, and putting a bomb around themselves, and making a suicidal bomb, and kill himself and kill some Israelis, it is not an invention of the Hamas, or the Hezboulah, or anybody. It is the Quran.
The Quran says, “Go fight, fight, fight.” So if we want to see fighting, and the killing, in the Quran, let us read the words of the Quran. And I will begin with the words in surat Al Anfal, that is surat 8, and verse 65, “Oh, prophet Mohammed.” Listen, Allah is talking to Mohammed because this is what the Muslims believe. “Oh, prophet Mohammed. Urge the Muslims to fight.” What? “Oh, prophet Mohammed. Urge the Muslims to fight?”
When Jesus spoke to His disciples, He said, “Love your enemy. Pray for those who persecute you.”
But here, “Oh, prophet Mohammed. Urge the Muslims to fight,” fighting is by inciting Muslims to fight.
And then, we go to another surat, and that is in the Quran, in surat (Al Bakara, that is surat number 2, verse 216, “Jihad (this is fighting, holy fighting in Allah’s name) is ordained for you, Muslims.” Now, if someone will come and say that those who are fighting, Jews and Christians are fighting then because they are fanatics, they do not know Islam. No! When I went on the national TV, years ago, and I said in very plain words, “If you are a faithful Muslim, you are obliged to fight Jews and Christians, because Jihad, the holy fighting in Allah’s name is ordained for you, ” you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which it is good, and that you like a thing which is bad for you. But fighting is ordained for Muslims.
Then we go to another verse, in the very same surat, in verse 244, “And the fight in the way of Allah (that is in surat number 2, verse 244), and know that Allah is all hearer, or knowing.” Fight in the name of Allah? Well, in one of my books I said that, if God is almighty then he should fight for himself. In fact, one time I talked to a Muslim cleric in Egypt, and he said to me, “If I had the power, I would make all Egypt Muslim.” I said, “But what mean?” He said, “By force, by sword. Fight in the name of Allah.” And I looked at him and I said, “Listen, your god is so weak!” “What?” “Listen, let us use our brains for one second, if you will. Who will fight for whom? The weak will fight for the strong, or the strong will fight for the weak?” He said, “Of course that the strong will fight for the weak.” I said, “Then, if God is almighty, He doesn’t need you to fight for him. Leave him to fight for himself. He can do it! But to fight for him, this is an indication that god is weak. Forgive me, but this is my understanding.” But this is what the Quran is saying.
Then we continue, and we will see, in surat(Al Taouba), that is surat number 9, and verse 29, you see, Allah is telling the Muslims to fight the Jews and the Christians in particular. Sometimes when I read the Quran I think, why didn’t he insight the Muslims to fight against Buddhists, Hindus? Why Jews and Christians? Whose wars? Well, we read in surat(Al Anfal), that is surat number 8, verse 63, no, I think I misplaced that. I’ll go back to that surat (Al Taouba), surat number 29, verse 29,
“fight against those who believe not in Allah; nor in the last day, nor forbid that which have been forbidden by Allah and his messenger Mohammed; and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth, Islam, among the people of the scripture.”
Who are the people of the scriptures? Jews and Christians. “you fight them until they pay the Gizia, the poll tax, the elevated tax, with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” This is very clear command for Muslims to go and fight Jews and Christians until they defeat them. And if the Christian and the Jew want to keep his religion, he should pay taxes to the Islamic government with his feeling of inferiority. I am a Christian but I am inferior. You, the Muslim, are superior. I am inferior. And you are protecting me, so I pay a poll tax, here is my tax. You buy your religion with taxes?
Well, I commented on that verse in one of my books, and I said, “You can exchange Islam with taxes.” It is very plain. Pay taxes, keep your Jewish religion or Christian religion. You can exchange Islam with taxes, money with Islam. And this is here, kill, kill, kill. See, and in many other verses, the Quran is saying what is the punishment of those who are against Allah and his messenger, Mohammed: to be crucified, to cut their hands and their legs, or to be cast away from the society. What kind of religion is that? Killing, killing, killing.
Killing is not an invention of fanatics. Killing is in the Quran, and I want to let, to get anybody who is really honest to himself, and tell him, “Tell me, don’t talk about friendship.” It is very interesting to notice one thing, that in one of the verses of the Quran it says, “Muslims, do not befriend Jews or Christians.” Period. But it came of the invasion of Iraq, of Kuwait. The Muslims forgot all about that.
And they came to the Christian country, to the US, and said, “Please, help us.” But the Quran said don’t befriend them, don’t ask for their protection, don’t go to them for help! How come that you are coming now to the US and England, and France, “Help us!” Because when it comes to politics, the Quran is forgotten, especially in the high places. And I want any Muslim to think about it seriously. This is not an attack on Islam, this is to open the minds and the eyes of the people to think. And I want people to think. God gave us brains to use it. And if I am not going to use my brain, I will give an account. If this is light I’d say it is light. If this is darkness, I’d say it is darkness. But to say that darkness is light and light is darkness, gray places, it is not that way.
There is killing in the Quran, there is torture in the Quran; there is much pain for the people living under the Islamic society if they are Jews or Christians. They are! They are always looked at as second-class citizens. And they don’t have the right to stand up and raise their head. They are inferior, and we are the superior, and that is it. I don’t think that anybody who reads the Quran could deny what I have said. I mentioned the verse, verse after verse, after verse. But let me tell you, I didn’t mention all the verse. There are a lot of verses that tell, that is telling the Muslim, “Go, torture, kill, go, fight, kill.”
It’s time to address phobias – again. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition of phobia:
an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation
Apparently, i.e. listening to the Left, Social Conservatives, Conservatives understanding Islamic revered writings and Counterjihadists all over the political spectrum are peopled filled with “inexplicable and illogical fear.”
People that believe the Word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible) and condemn the homosexual lifestyle because God calls the practice an abomination in the Old Testament and deserving death unless the homosexual lifestyle is repented by looking up to Jesus the Redeemer in the New Testamentare vilified as homophobes. The problem I have with the epithet “homophobe,” is that Biblical Christians DO NOT have an inexplicable and illogical fear of those who practice a homosexual lifestyle.
Rather the view of a Biblical Christian is lining up with God in loathing the practice which as an unrepentant action separates one from the Presence of God. Incidentally, a spiritual state restored by believing in the price paid in death of Jesus Christ and enabling eternal life in the Presence of God participating by faith in the Resurrection to glorified Life by the man-God (both natures in one) Jesus Christ.
Christians (AND any non-Christian not a Muslim) must understand the revered writings of Islam deal in exacting death to anyone who does not submit to the authority of Islam. This especially the case in a region where Islam is the basis for the rule of law. In non-Muslim dominated areas, the Muslim is entreated to tolerate the inferior infidels until such a time Islam is the dominant theo-political reality.
It is at this point that a Leftist and Muslim apologist will scream my assertion is a lie and thus I must be a racist hater Islamophobe (expressing hatred out of an “inexplicable and illogical fear” of all things Islam).
Most egregious example – Quran 23: 91 – various translations:
Sahih International: Allah has not taken any son, nor has there ever been with Him any deity. [If there had been], then each deity would have taken what it created, and some of them would have sought to overcome others. Exalted is Allah above what they describe [concerning Him].
Yusuf Ali: No son did Allah beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have lorded it over others! Glory to Allah! (He is free) from the (sort of) things they attribute to Him!
Muhammad Sarwar: God has never given birth to a son and there is no other god besides Him. If there were, each god would have taken away his creatures and claimed superiority over the others. God is too exalted to be as they believe Him to be.
Mohsin Khan: No son (or offspring or children) did Allah beget, nor is there any ilah (god) along with Him; (if there had been many gods), behold, each god would have taken away what he had created, and some would have tried to overcome others! Glorified be Allah above all that they attribute to Him!
This Quranic Surah is only a small example of Islam’s specific antipathy of the Christian faith.
More treatment of non-Muslims that decide submission is oppression at the hands of Muslims – Quran 9:12-14 (QuranBrowser.org– under Yusuf Ali):
9:12
But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.
9:13
Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!
9:14
Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,
O you who believe! the idolaters are nothing but unclean, so they shall not approach the Sacred Mosque after this year; and if you fear poverty then Allah will enrich you out of His grace if He please; surely Allah is Knowing Wise.
9:29
Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
9:30
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
9:31
They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah, and (also) the Messiah son of Marium and they were enjoined that they should serve one God only, there is no god but He; far from His glory be what they set up (with Him).
9:32
They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.
9:33
He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse.
The Quran, Hadith and Sira are full of this hatred and oppression at non-Muslims. Although the early suras instructed Muslims to respect the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians) the later suras in date (NOT chronologically) reflects Mo’s disappointment in Jews and Christians rejecting Muhammad as a false prophet. Ergo, respect degenerated into oppression followed by destruction if there was any refusal to submit to allah as a convert or a subhuman existence. Sounds more like human emotional directives rather than divine prophecy.
The Word’s of Jesus in false prophets:
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. – Matthew 7: 13-20 NKJV
And this God-Breathed Word found in 1 John:
2 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a]Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
4 1Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. – 1 John 2: 18-19; 4: 1-3 NKJV
Do I have an inexplicable and illogical fear of Islam? NOPE!
I have a very explicable and logical loathing of Islam. The very tenets of Islam are aggressively antipathetical not only against Christians, but against ALL people who want nothing to do with the Islamic despotic totalitarian theo-political ideology.
You may wonder what motivated me to clarify my thoughts on how “phobia” is a sadly misused application to stalwart Biblical Christians. The motivation is derived from an email I received from Brigitte Gabriel of ACT for America expressing displeasure with Senator Cory Booker’s grilling of Mike Pompeo during the Senate nomination hearing for becoming Secretary of State. In the course of the grilling Booker equated Brigitte Gabriel and Pompeo as Islamophobes.
In response to Booker’s grilling, Gabriel penned a response explaining her contempt for being wrongly called an Islamophobe.
Just as a side thought. Gabriel is in the camp that only Radical Muslims need be exposed. That is a fair point as an American supporting the 1st Amendment of Religious Freedom.
Unfortunately, Gabriel and others in her camp are failing to see the big picture pertaining to Islam and the theo-political religion’s history of overt conquest and stealth eradication of cultures and faiths that are contrary to Islamic tenets. The more accepted Islamic tenets are become, the greater the potential that Islamic domination occurs ending the very Constitutional Rights guaranteed as inalienable.
With that minor divergence of thought between and Brigitte Gabriel, below is here Townhall article written on 4/14/18.
Here is the email intro from Brigitte Gabriel dated 4/16/2018 11:30 AM:
Dear John,
Last week, during the Secretary of State Nomination Hearings, Senator Cory Booker decided to use his time as a way to advance his own political career. I lived in an 8×10 bomb shelter for almost a decade because of Islamic terrorism. Yet, Cory Booker and the fake news media had the audacity to call me an Islamophobe and a Hate Monger on the Senate floor.
These shameful, baseless lies will not slow me down. As someone who has lived through terrorism, and experienced it firsthand – I will not be silenced by these leftist scare tactics. Over the weekend I published an op-ed on Townhall.com to give my perspective on what happened.
Thank you for support. I hope you enjoy my article!
Senators grilling CIA Director and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo threw out a number of charged words in an attempt to taint his reputation. Senator Cory Booker used words like “anti-Islam,” “Islamaphobe,” and the other absurd and completely unfounded clichés to describe myself, my organization, ACT for America, and anyone else whose beliefs do not conform to their politically correct fantasyland that have worked with patriots like Mr. Pompeo to expose terrorist activities both within the United States and abroad.
For the last fifteen years I’ve been traveling the world, exercising freedom of speech, as is my human right, in an effort to educate others about the threat of terrorism and radical Islam. I expose the truth behind a warped ideology that legitimizes decapitation, stonings, rape, domestic violence, female genital mutilation, and a number of other abhorrent human rights atrocities. All of these appalling acts are frequent in one particular part of the world, the Islamic world. Radical Islamists will openly cry out “Allahu Akhbar,” before committing a terrorist attack, or any of the other human rights violations aforementioned, as if their God would be pleased with their barbaric actions. I’ve got news for these politically correct senators trying to score cheap political points by slandering both myself, and patriotic officials like Mr. Pompeo; this is not a partisan issue, it’s a human issue.
But the fact that I’ve dared to call out these terrorists, and spoke the truth about the roots of their radical rage, has placed me, and those who associate with me, in the crosshairs of political smear merchants. Cliché accusations of “Islamophobia” thrown at myself and my organization, still seem to be the only defense for far-left frauds.
The term “hate group,” is another term the radical left has used to attempt to delegitimize others. The definition of this term includes “intolerance or aversion for” the object of the phobia.Am I intolerant of mass murder, justified and glorified in the name of Allah? Yes. Do I have an aversion to subway and train bombings? Yes. Do any of these locations ring a bell? Fort Hood, Texas (Nidal Hasan – NOV, 2009); the Boston Marathon bombing (APR, 2013); Charlie Hebdo massacre, Paris (JAN, 2015); the multiple restaurant and Bataclan concert massacres, Paris (NOV, 2015); the San Bernardino Christmas Party massacre (DEC, 2015); the Brussels simultaneous airport and subway attacks (MAR, 2016); the Pulse Nightclub massacre, Orlando, FL (JUN, 2016) ; Nice, France, Bastille Day truck massacre (JUL, 2016). They are all places where horrendous terrorist atrocities were committed by radical Islamists, with scores of civilian fatalities and hundreds maimed.
Senator, if my intolerance of mass murder and my aversion to human rights atrocities makes me an “Islamophobe,” then I submit that I, and everyone else with any common sense or moral compass, would fall into this category.
I am not, however, fearful of moderate, Western loving Muslims, and consequently, I’ve worked with them, and continue to do so. Most Muslims are as concerned as I am about the radicalized element of Islam, and how terrorists all over the world are perverting their hope of living in peace. ACT for America has more than a million members from all walks of life. We work with moderate Muslims, members of the LGBTQ+ community, Republicans, Democrats, and anyone willing to stand for what is right in the face of evil, and the enabling of it by the regressive left.
We defend the defenseless, those who have been terrorized for being “infidels.” Our organization works to protect women, children, homosexuals, and anyone else endangered by the radical elements that threaten their very dignity and existence in the name of their religion.
As for the moniker, “hate group,” let’s be clear, there is nothing hateful about patriotism. There is nothing hateful about defending the defenseless. There is nothing about opposing hatred, only enabling it the way that an appalling number of senators on Capitol Hill, in conjunction with the media, and anti-American political organizations do so continuously.
For years, true hate enablers, like the outrageously biased Southern Poverty Law Center, have recklessly labeled dozens of mainstream conservative organizations as “hate groups,” which has led to violent and dangerous attacks on such organizations. In fact, the SPLC has been named in court as the cause of an act of domestic terrorism, when one of their loyal followers, who soaked up their dangerous propaganda like a sponge, shot up the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington, D.C. Yet, the mainstream media still uses this disgraced organization as a neutral arbiter of hate? On what authority do they make these proclamations?
Another group which frequently traffics in false accusations such as “hate group” is the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR is an organization whose spokespersons have been linked to terrorist groups Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have been designated as a terrorist organization in Islamic countries such as the United Arab Emirates, which itself abides by Islamic law. Let me guess, the United Arab Emirates is also “Islamophobic?”
Apparently, a Muslim brotherhood front-group like CAIR can throw out accusations such as “hate group,” but accurately calling them a terrorist organization, and stating facts about their leadership and members is a bridge too far. Give me a break.
This week, in an ironic twist, the American Defamation League sent a letterto senators, yet again making this false claim about myself, and ACT for America. These days, I suppose facts are considered the new hate speech. Should anyone be surprised? The only ammunition these anti-free speech bullies have is to cry bigotry whenever facts contradict their feelings. I’ve been defamed many times over the years, and had my life and that of my family’s threatened, with public figures like the media’s favorite jihadist Linda Sarsour calling for the mutilation of my, and FGM survivor Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s, body.
We’re living in a dangerous time more akin to the Twilight Zone than reality. A time when the aggresors are the victims, and opposition to hate is considered hateful.
For the record, ACT for America is a grassroots national security grassroots advocacy organization focused on protecting our nation’s security, western democratic values, and basic human rights. ACT for America has never, and will never, tolerate any bias, discrimination, or violence against anyone, based on their religion, gender, race, or political persuasion.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again-political correctness must die so that freedom and truth can live.
___________________________
Are you Falsely Accused of Inexplicable/Illogical Fear?
The theme of Bill Warner’s to his email subscribers is about Islam’s terminology for non-Muslims and how the Islamic revered writings tell Muslims how to treat them. The “them” being “kafir”.
In Islam, Kafir women taken as slaves in jihad were raped with Mohammed’s approval. Koran: 4:24 – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those whom your right hands (sword hand) possess.”
According to Islamic doctrine, rape & sex slavery is not a sin. Rape of the Kafir is permitted by Mohammed and Allah in the Koran, enshrined in Sharia law. Under Sharia, Kafir women can be raped and there is no penalty. Islam is the only political system in the world that includes rules for rape and war. Rape is a tactic of jihad.
Apologists like to argue that Koran 4:24 only applies to times of war. In Islam, the natural state between Islam and Kafir world is war, dar al harb, not peace. Peace, dar al Islam, comes only after Sharia is implemented and there is 100% submission.
1) the believers in Allah and Mohammed his prophet, who are the best of all people and 2) their enemies, the rest of humanity, or Kafirs. Islam is so concerned with Kafirs (non-Muslims) that the Koran describes in detail their treatment. Kafir is considered the lowliest of all beings, filthy, defiled and hated by Allah. They can be deceived, robbed, beat, raped, and murdered by Muslims.
There are constant ongoing rapes by Muslims against Kafirs around the world. This is another example of the continuous 1400 year history of jihad. These crimes are political statements with ramifications for all other cultures, especially Western civilization. The most disturbing aspect of the Islamic rapes of Kafirs is not the act itself, but the Kafir dhimmi response of cowardly submission by ignoring those rapes.
The worst word in any language is not the “n” word, it’s the “K” word. In Islam, the Kafir (non-muslim) is a political class subjected to negative political consequences. I use Kafir with a capital ‘K’ to denote its importance.
[The email places the video at this point. However, both the essay and the video description have similar but different texts. At this point I am placing the essay which in not in the email.]
I came to my study of Islam late in life, but I had studied religious text all of my life starting being a teenager. I’ve studied Torah through Orthodox Synagogue. I’ve studied the New Testament a fair amount. I’ve studied Buddhist Sutras, I’ve studied the Bhagavad Gita, I’ve studied a lot of religious texts, and then I came to Islam. Islam was very different, because it was so concerned with the non-Muslim. You see, when you read Buddha’s Sutras, it’s concerned with how to be a Buddhist. It doesn’t concern itself with non-Buddhist.
Now here’s the problem – not only did Islamic doctrine concern itself with the Non-Muslim, the treatment of the Non-Muslin was terrible. There were two treatments of the Non-Muslim – one is religious in that they went to hell, but the other is political, what happened to them in life today. So we need a special name for the non-Muslim, because non-Muslim is a neutral term, and yet the non-Muslim is not treated neutrally. They can be enslaved, tortured, raped, lied to, deceived, plotted against. These are not neutral things, these are political terms and they’re very harmful.
Now the Koran has a word for the non-Muslim. It’s called Kafir. K-A-F-I-R. Now, like everything else in the Koran, the meaning slightly shifts over time. At first the word Kafir just means someone who is not grateful, or who covers the truth. But as time goes on, finally the non-Muslim, the Kafir, can be destroyed in Jihad. So there’s a progression of different meanings the Kafir but in the end the Kafir can be harmed. And that’s the reason I don’t like being a Kafir. Now you all know I like to measure things, and so one of the things I measured was how much of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith are about the non-Muslim. The answer – fifty one percent.
That is, most of Islamic doctrine concerns itself with the Kafir, which is a political problem, not just a religious problem. Now then, the Koran uses lot of different words for the non-Muslim that are religious. People of the book, pagan, polytheist, Jew, Christian apostate, infidel, but all of those who did not submit to the Sharia suffered a political consequence, which was some form of harm – death, torture, execution, assassination. These were political ends.
Now, Muslims like to tell us, we’ve seen, the people of the book, Christians and Jews, they’re not really Kafirs. They’re brothers in the family of Abraham. Let’s see how these brothers in the family of Abraham are treated. Do you think the Jews that they were executed, as people of the book, felt any different than the pagan who was executed? No.
The political consequence is the same. Submission of some form or another. There are different classes of Kafirs in the Koran. We have atheist, polytheist, deist, idolaters, and then Jews who believe in revelation but don’t believe in Mohammed’s revelation. But in the end, everyone’s a Kafir who does not believe in the Shahada. The Shahada is ‘There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.’
I view Islam as a political system, and the Sharia extends to all other religions, which is a political thing. They must all submit and run their lives according to the Sharia. The Kafir is a political class. Unfortunately, historically, their victims stand and suffer alone. That is, the Buddhists suffer and who knows about it? The suffering of the Africans under Jihad involved in slavery, who knows about that? The Hindus know about their own suffering, but they don’t really know about the suffering of the Christians who were in what was originally called Asia Minor, or what is called Turkey today. So, although the people suffer, they suffer alone. And I want to use the word Kafir to show that they all are the same political class.
Now I’m coming to one of my main points. Any time I make a video about religion that includes Christians and Jews, I get hate mail about that. People hate the Jews, they hate the Christians, they hate the Jesuits, they hate the Catholics, they hate the Protestants. Here’s the thing, go ahead and hate ’em, but know this, you, the hater, you’re going to suffer the same political result as the Jew, the Christian and everyone else.
Get the picture. You may not like other religions, but in the end, whether you’re an atheist or not, you’re going to suffer the same political consequences. This is the reason I want to use the word Kafir – to unite us politically. We’re all the same in a political class. Now then, how do you know that if you use Kafir as the right word?
And by the way, I use Kafir with a capital K, because I use it to mean a special meaning – all those who suffer under Islam. Here’s how you know you’re using the right word. You know who doesn’t want you to use that word? Muslims. You see, it’s their little dirty word that’s a secret. Now, we have a word in the English language that we can’t use and we call it the N-word. Well, Kafir is the K-word in Islam. So, Muslims hate it, which is the proof that we need to use it.
In the Arabic, the plural of Kafir is Kuffar, K-U-F-F-A-R. But I don’t use that. I want to use the English plural Kafirs, plural with an S, because I want the word to become adapted and used. We must understand that all Kafirs are the same in the end. So, therefore, we need to use the same word for each other. Thank you.
I view Islam as a political system, and the Sharia extends to all other religions, which is a political thing. They must all submit and run their lives according to the Sharia. The Kafir is a political class. Unfortunately, historically, their victims stand and suffer alone. That is, the Buddhists suffer and who knows about it? The suffering of the Africans under Jihad involved in slavery, who knows about that? The Hindus know about their own suffering, but they don’t really know about the suffering of the Christians who were in what was originally called Asia Minor, or what is called Turkey today. So, although the people suffer, they suffer alone. And I want to use the word Kafir to show that they all are the same political class.
Now I’m coming to one of my main points. Any time I make a video about religion that includes Christians and Jews, I get hate mail about that. People hate the Jews, they hate the Christians, they hate the Jesuits, they hate the Catholics, they hate the Protestants. Here’s the thing, go ahead and hate ’em, but know this, you, the hater, you’re going to suffer the same political result as the Jew, the Christian and everyone else.
Get the picture. You may not like other religions, but in the end, whether you’re an atheist or not, you’re going to suffer the same political consequences. This is the reason I want to use the word Kafir – to unite us politically. We’re all the same in a political class. Now then, how do you know that if you use Kafir as the right word?
And by the way, I use Kafir with a capital K, because I use it to mean a special meaning – all those who suffer under Islam. Here’s how you know you’re using the right word. You know who doesn’t want you to use that word? Muslims. You see, it’s their little dirty word that’s a secret. Now, we have a word in the English language that we can’t use and we call it the N-word. Well, Kafir is the K-word in Islam. So, Muslims hate it, which is the proof that we need to use it.
++++ARTICLE++++ [Email Bonus excerpt from a 2013 post about kafir]
[Email has photo with the words, “For Muslims Only – Makkah – For Non-Muslims”. There is a link to an article embedded in email photo to, “Inoculating Against Islam” dated 8/5/13]
Years ago when the al Shabaab jihadi group from Somalia attacked the mall in Kenya, they gathered the crowd together and asked who were Muslims and let them go. According to the media, they then started killing the non-Muslims who were left. But non-Muslims is not the word what the terrorists would have used. No, they would have called them Kafirs (actually they would have called them the Arabic plural of kafir, kuffar. Kafirs is the standard English plural form).
Why did members of al Shabaab do this? Why did...[click for more][Blog Editor: Article dated 9/29/13]
+++ UPDATE+++
I give daily commentary on the news. To make sure you see it, here’s what you can do:
1) If you follow me on social media, double check that you are still following me.
2) Facebook: on my page under the FOLLOWING drop down, go to IN YOUR NEWSFEED and mark “SEE FIRST”.
3) Youtube: Make sure to click the notification bell when you subscribe to my Youtube channel. I release about 2 videos per month.
4) Twitter: You can search my handle @politicalislam to find tweets.
5) You can also find my social media posts on my website homepage www.politicalislam.com
6) Gab: this is the new Twitter alternative, advertises no censorship. Click to follow
Providing you with weapons for the current ideological war.
__________________
Political Islam Press Kit
Because political Islam has subjugated other civilizations for 1400 years, Dr. Bill Warner founded the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) to further the analysis of its doctrine and the ramifications for Western Civilization. Its mission is to educate the world about the doctrine of Islamic politics through his work and CSPI research. He has written over a dozen books that make the doctrine of political Islam easy to understand. He also developed the first self-study course on political Islam.
The CSPI Group consists of the CSPI Publishing Company; CSPI International, a non-profit educational and teaching organization based in the Czech Republic with affiliate countries around the globe; and politicalIslam.com, Dr. Bill Warner’s website with commentary about the influence of political Islam on current events.
Islamophobic is a word spliced together with the English for Islam and the Greek phobia.
I have no idea if “Islam” is an English transliteration of Arabic or if it is the actual Arabic adopted into English. Frankly, I don’t care. I know that “Islam” is a theopolitical religion founded by a man that legitimate history paints as a robbing bandit that developed a loyalty-cult by calling himself a prophet of a monotheistic deity that gave him permissive justification for all sorts of vile acts to enlarge that cult and perpetuate after it after his demise.
Initially the acts began as violent robberies of Arabic tribal caravans that were not loyal to Muhammad’s (or for years known as Mohammed in English) cultic teachings. Those teachings centered around absolute submission to the deity Muhammad carved out of a polytheistic moon-god (allah) and thus that deity called for absolute submission to his prophet Muhammad. After all Mo was the only human being that called the voice of allah; ergo, when Mo spoke allah spoke.
“Phobe” comes from a Greek word that that English is phobia. If you have a phobia, you have an irrational fear. Here are some irrational fears you may have heard of:
Agoraphobia– Fear of open spaces or of being in crowded, public places like markets. Fear of leaving a safe place.
Bacteriophobia– Fear of bacteria.
Francophobia– Fear of France or French culture.
Hydrophobia– Fear of water or of rabies.
Necrophobia– Fear of death or dead things.
Xenophobia– Fear of strangers or foreigners. (via a fascinating romp through PhobiaList.com. I doubt it is comprehensive yet fun nonetheless)
Islamophobe is the word Leftists and Muslim Apologists use an epithet to describe those that sense Islam spreads hatred of non-Muslims. Thus, the epithet leads to the accusation of racism. In other words, if you fit the description of Islamophobe, then you are a racist.
I am not a racist and I definitely don’t have an irrational fear of Muslims or Islam.
So, after listening to the lame Mainstream Media (MSM or Lame Stream Media) criticize Conservatives over anger of the immigration program that brought us Sayfullo Saipov, the Islamic terrorist that killed 8 with a truck, the term Islamophobic racists became the common MSM accusation. I’ve become quite weary of the idiotic reference to critics of Islam.
Ergo, I decided to look for a better term that describes my aversion as something better than an irrational fear of Islam. Phobia comes from the Greek language. I looked for a Greek word that better fits my feelings toward Islam.
I found a Greek word in a Bible Concordance online. Biblehub.com uses the Strong’s Concordance number system. Ever since the 9/11 attack, I have been angry at all things Islam. I have boned up on Islam a lot since then. I am not an expert, but I can read well enough to know deceptive propaganda when I see it come Muslim Apologists and Leftist Multiculturalists.
The Greek word that best describes the anger I have Islam is orgizó. I’m not going to take the time to look it up, but I am fairly certain orgizó’s root word orgé is what the English word for a monster-like creature known as an ogre is derived.
Cognate: 3710orgízō – be angry, as expressing a “fixed anger” (settled opposition). 3710/orgízō (“to show settled-opposition”) is positive when inspired by God – and always negative when arising from the flesh. “Sinful (unnecessary) anger” focuses on punishing the offender rather than the moral content of the offense. See 3709 (orgē).
My anger is “fixed” as in “settled opposition”. The Word of God warns of allowing settled opposition to evolve into acts of sin:
26 “Be angry, and do not sin”:[a] do not let the sun go down on your wrath, (Ephesians 4: 26 NKJV)
Being angry is not a problem. The problem is if one takes anger to actions that are not godly:
25 Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,”[a] for we are members of one another. 26 “Be angry, and do not sin”:[b] do not let the sun go down on your wrath, 27 nor give place to the devil.
29 Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.
31 Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. (Ephesians 4: 25-27, 29, 31 NKJV)
Contrast how the Word of God tells Believers how to act in anger as opposed to the way Mo – allegedly from allah – tells his followers to deal with anger particularly when anger is insulting to Mo and allah:
Quran
57. Verily, those who annoy Allah and His Messenger Allah has cursed them in this world, and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating torment.
58. And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear on themselves the crime of slander and plain sin.
…
60. If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbours but a little while.
61. Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter.
62. That was the Way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way of Allah. (Bold Emphasis is Editor’s – Quran 33: 57-58, 60-62 TheReligionOfPeace)
For Muslim and non-Muslim alike, insulting Mo and/or allah means a horrible death in this life.
The hypocrites = Those who allow the desires of the flesh to act. Sounds universal, but it’s not. A Muslim man can have sex to assuage his desires under these circumstances:
27: And those who are fearful of the punishment of their Lord –
28: Indeed, the punishment of their Lord is not that from which one is safe –
29: And those who guard their private parts
30: Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed –
31: But whoever seeks beyond that, then they are the transgressors – (Quran 70: 27-31 SAHIH INTERNATIONAL)
Can you guess the reference of “those their right hands possess”? For clarity let’s look at other translations for 70: 30 –
Imam Iskender Ali Mihr
Except with their spouses and those whom their right hands possess (their concubines), because they surely are not blamed.
Ali Quli Qarai
(apart from their spouses and their slave women, for then they are not blameworthy;
Amatul Rahman Omar
Except from their (free) wives or those (wives of theirs) whom their right hands own (- slave wives), for which they are not to blame.
Hilali & Khan
Except with their wives and the (women slaves and captives) whom their right hands possess, for (then) they are not to be blamed,
Mohammed Habib Shakir
Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (then) they are not to be blamed, (Excerpts from Compare all English translations of Surah Al-Ma’arij – verse 30; en.noblequran.org)
“The Hypocrites” of Quran 33: 60 is ONLY telling male Muslim to NOT have carnal relations with Muslim women that are not their wives, but the non-Muslim gals that are abducted are fair game carnal relations – whether non-Muslim gal willingly participates or not. This is being called Rape Jihad in European nations that have taken-in millions of Muslim refugees. Rape Jihad has happened in the USA, but the Multiculturalists are keeping under wraps. Here’s an example from a tag search – Idaho – on SlantRight 2.0.
I am not an Islamophobe. A better word to combine with Islam is something denoting an anger that is a settled established opposition to the theopolitical religion.
So, I am a Islamorgizo. TAKE THAT all you Multiculturalist Leftists that have abandoned the Latin motto of E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One). Muslim refugees have zero intention of becoming ONE, they intend to be the diverse MANY with the hope making non-Muslim America Islamic. An Islamic America is an America without the Bill of Rights.
Conquest and forced submission is Islam became an empire in the once Christian Middle East and North Africa.
Mo was one slick operator. He discovered Jews and Christians developed a huge personal loyalty to a monotheistic God. Mo was in charge of a loyalty cult. Perhaps Mo could strengthen that loyalty if he borrowed from the Judeo-Christian traditions and perhaps entice Jews and Christians to accept him into their prophet traditions as the “final” prophet.
Yah, a majority of Jews and Christians recognized invitation as a heretical warping of their faith.
Suddenly Jews and Christians were demoted from “People of the Book” (i.e. the Bible) to the descendants of apes (Jews) and liars or idiotic deceived for believing Jesus was the Son of God, died on the Cross and arose bodily as the Redeemer of humanity co-equal with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Mo convincingly spoke of Father, Son and Holy Spirit three separate entities; hence Christians were polytheistic and not monotheistic like Mo’s moon-god allah (even though allah was once a part of Arab polytheistic pantheon).
I feel compelled to take a shot at explaining the monotheism of the Christian Trinity.
God is one in Father, Son and Holy Spirit as a human is one corporeally as a human spirit (the source of being or existence made in the image of God), a human soul (the source of thought and will) and a body (the flesh of our five senses). God is a Triune God and a human is a tripartite individual.
In full disclosure, people of the Jewish faith (Judaism) also view the Trinity as a diffusion of their primary statement of faith in the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one![a]” (Deuteronomy 6:4 NKJV) But that is a different theological discussion that is not a part of this topic. Suffice it to say, Christians view the discussion between Moses and God in Exodus 3:14-15 (NKJV):
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” 15 Moreover God said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ‘The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.’
The English translation I AM WHO I AM comes from the letters YWVH. In the old King James Version those letters were translated as Jehovah. Most Bible scholars prefer the translation of Yahweh today. It is my understanding that Observant Jews find it disrespectful to verbalize the name. Thus, you probably read YWVH or G-d when written by a person of Jewish faith.
Either way, both Jews and Christians view God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham’s oldest son Ishmael from Hagar the servant of Sarah, is not a part of that lineage as Mo preached.
As a Christian, my largest reason for having an aversion to Islam (but not to Muslims personally), is its rejection of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the denial of the Lord’s crucified death, burial and Resurrection reasserting His prerogatives as God Almighty yet as also being fully human in order to be the Redeemer of humanity.
The New Testament calls such rejection an Antichrist spirit. That’s a dangerous place to be as a human:
41Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (Bold Text Mine I John 4: 1-3 NKJV)
Islam’s revered writings (Quran, Hadith & Sira [Sunna]) specifically – not metaphorically – condemns the Divinity, Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This makes all of Islam – Sunni & Shia – an Antichrist warped religion.
In full disclosure, I believe all religions not Christian are a danger to the Salvation of an individual person. The only religion I give an exception to is Judaism. Just as an aside, without Jews there would be no Jesus. No Jesus means eternal separation from the Presence of God because there is no Redemption from Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God that began humanity’s separation from God.
Jesus told this to the Samaritan woman whose religious faith was an eclectic combination of Judaism and polytheism:
19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”
21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. (Bold Text Mine John 4: 19-22 NKJV)
It is my personal opinion and I can’t think of any Christian theologian who has said this, when Christ returns in power the second time to establish His Kingdom governance on Earth, I believe Observant Jews will recognize Jesus finally as the Messiah they watched for generations and generations.
I recognize that Observant Jews are laughing at me right now and that idiotic Antisemitic Christians are horrified, but oh well. I’ll stick with that opinion unless God smacks around to change. I’m nearly 61 and Divine slapping around has occurred. Humans slapping me around for my opinion don’t count. God’s Hand trumps humankind’s hand.
Well that is some good preaching if you receive it.
BACK TO ISLAM.
I am a huge supporter of the American First Amendment:
The government is Constitutionally prohibiting the establishment of a religion (but citizens are not prohibited to influence government regardless of SCOTUS Leftist misinterpretation – another topic), AND the government CANNOT prevent the free exercise of religion.
I do find Islam abhorrent as an Antichrist religion, but I honor the Constitution by standing with Muslims to practice their wicked religion ….
UNLESS
Islamic adherents or adherents of any religion or ideology actively or even violently, seeks to violate the Constitutional law in rebellion, squelching others’ Bill of Rights liberties. THEN Judges and Congressional legislators will have to find that fine Constitutional line that protects the Constitution from a violent termination.
If Multiculturalist Leftists persist in demonizing President Trump’s efforts to slow down the flood of Muslims devoted to the tenets of Islam which will always lead to the hatred of the U.S. Constitution and by extension all Americans that stand by the Liberty and Rights provided therein.
I am always paying catch up in reading my email alerts from the many websites I have signed up to receive an email in my inbox. I have just read one case I should have taken notice much earlier.
This is the cold hard reality that Western elites refuse to accept which is why we are losing this war. The death toll will continue to mount if the West’s continues to refuse reality.
The Muslim world has engaged in this holy war for the past 1,400 years. We will suffer untold horrors unless we change our approach.
JESUIT SCHOLAR: ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS ARE THE TRUE MUSLIMS
ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS WHO CARRY OUT ACTS OF TERROR ARE SIMPLY APPLYING WHAT THEIR FAITH REQUIRES OF THEM, ACCORDING TO JESUIT FATHER HENRI BOULAD, AN ISLAMIC SCHOLAR OF THE EGYPTIAN GREEK MELKITE RITE.
In aninterview with the National Catholic Register, Father Boulad said that “Islam is an open-ended declaration of war against non-Muslims” and those who carry out violent jihad are true Muslims who are applying exactly what their creed demands.
Those who fail to recognize the real threat posed by Islam are naïve and ignorant of history, he said, and unfortunately many in the Church fall into this category.
Citing a letter he wrote last August to Pope Francis, Father Boulad said that “on the pretext of openness, tolerance and Christian charity — the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West.”
“Anything that does not espouse this ideology is immediately stigmatized in the name of ‘political correctness,’” he said.
The priest went so far as to chastise Pope Francis himself—a fellow Jesuit—suggesting that he has fallen into this trap as well.
“Many think that a certain number of your positions are aligned with this ideology and that, from complacency, you go from concessions to concessions and compromises in compromises at the expense of the truth,” the priest wrote to Francis.
Christians in the West and in the East, he wrote the Pope, “are expecting something from you other than vague and harmless declarations that may obscure reality.”
“It is high time to emerge from a shameful and embarrassed silence in the face of this Islamism that attacks the West and the rest of the world. A systematically conciliatory attitude is interpreted by the majority of Muslims as a sign of fear and weakness,” he said.
“If Jesus said to us: Blessed are the peacemakers, he did not say to us: Blessed are the pacifists. Peace is peace at any cost, at any price. Such an attitude is a pure and simple betrayal of truth,” he said.
The priest also stated his belief that the West is in an ethical and moral debacle, and its defense of Islam is a denial of truth.
“By defending at all costs Islam and seeking to exonerate it from the horrors committed every day in its name, one ends up betraying the truth,” he wrote.
To back up his argument, Father Boulad enumerated a number of texts from the Koran that call on Muslims to employ violence in their conquest of the world for Allah.
The many passages he cited included: “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them” (Koran 2:191), “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood” (Koran 9:123), “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them” (Koran 9:5), “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” (Koran 5:33), “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies” (Koran 22:19), and “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an” Koran 8:12. [Bold text by JRH – Blog Editor]
Father Boulad is not the first Jesuit scholar to criticize the West for its naivete in dealing with Islam. Last year, Georgetown scholar Father James V. Schall contended that decades of students have been given a “sanitized education” that systematically excludes an honest portrayal of the history and theology of Islam, which limits their ability to assess what is going on in the world.
In his essay titled “Realism and Islam,” Father Schall argued that Islam “is actually and potentially violent throughout its entire history” and the basic reason for this method is religious in nature: “obedience to the Law of Allah.”
Therefore, he wrote, the Western tendency to simply call Muslim violence “terrorism” is insulting to believing Muslims who “see themselves carrying out the will of Allah, even sometimes to their own death in doing so.” Rather than terrorism, he insists, Muslims see their violence as “a religious endeavor to conquer the world,” which they understand to be “an act of piety.”
Because of this gaping educational void, “most citizens are simply not equipped to face the forces now reappearing in the world,” he wrote.
“And while it may be politically incorrect to state these things, they need to be stated and are in fact the truth—things that both Muslims and non-Muslims need to hear and consider,” he said.
I believe President Trump failed to move the U.S. Embassy due to massive political pressure from camps that pay homage to Palestinian lies and from the political Establishment too concerned with acerbating conflict with Muslim-Arab allies that align with American National Interests against ISIS and Iran.
I believe the official reason given – to promote peace between Israel and the Arabs claiming to be Palestinians is bogus.
Along the lines of bogus Palestinians, authors Klein and Dr. Mandel explain the fake Palestinian and Islamic claim in general that Jerusalem is holy to Muslims. It is a Muslim lie to perpetuate conflict with the Jewish State of Israel.
Having just marked the 50th anniversary of Israel’s reunification of Jerusalem, there is no better time to focus on the propaganda myth that Jerusalem is a holy city to Muslims.
The Muslim fixation and clamor on Jerusalem is actually a very recent development – a product of political conflict, not historical truth.
Jerusalem rates not a single mention in the Koran, and Muslims face Mecca in prayer. In the 7th century A.D., the Damascus-based Umayyad rulers built up Jerusalem as a counterweight to Mecca. This is when the important Muslim shrines the Dome of the Rock (691) and the Al-Aqsa mosque (705) were intentionally built on the site of the destroyed biblical Jewish Temples – a time-honored practice to physically signal the predominance of Islam.
Yet references in the Koran and hadith to Muhammad’s night journey to heaven on his steed Buraq from the “farthest mosque” couldn’t mean Jerusalem, because the Koran refers to the land of Israel as the “nearest” place. It couldn’t have been a reference to the Al-Aqsa mosque, for the simple reason that Al-Aqsa didn’t exist in Muhammad’s day.
With the demise of the Umayyad dynasty and the shift of the caliphate to Baghdad, Jerusalem fell into a long decline, scarcely interrupted by occasional bursts of Muslim interest in the city during the Crusader period and the Ottoman conquest. Mark Twain, visiting in 1867, described it as a “pauper village.”
Jerusalem did, however, become a Jewish-majority city during the 19th century. The 1907 Baedekers Travel Guide lists Jerusalem with a population of 40,000 Jews, 13,000 Muslims and 7,000 Christians. Jerusalem meant so little to the Ottomans that, during World War I, they let it fall into British hands without a fight and even contemplated entirely destroying the city before pulling out.
When did Jerusalem become a passionate Islamic issue? Only with the Arab confrontation with Zionism in the 20th century. It was Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin al-Husseini, a vociferous anti-Semite and later Nazi collaborator, who expended enormous energy to focus Islamic attention on the city.
Seeking to foment a Muslim war on British Palestine’s Jews, he fabricated a tradition that the wall to which Muhammad was believed to have tethered his steed Buraq was not the southern or eastern walls, as Muslims had asserted for centuries, but the Western Wall, Judaism’s holiest prayer site. (The Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian status quo agreement forbids Jewish prayer at the religion’s holiest site, the Temple Mount.) This turned the Western Wall into a flashpoint.
The massive Arab assault on Jews across British Palestine in 1929, in which 133 Jews were murdered and hundreds more maimed, was triggered by false rumors that Jews had attacked, or were intending to attack, the mosques atop the Temple Mount.
Strangely, even under the mufti, the Temple Mount was still recognized by Muslims as the site of the biblical Jewish Temples. Thus, the Jerusalem Muslim Supreme Council’s publication “A Brief Guide to theHaram Al-Sharif” states regarding Jerusalem’s Temple Mount, “Its identity with the site of Solomon’s Temple is beyond dispute.” (After 1954, all such references to the biblical temples were excised from this publication.)
During Jordan’s illegal occupation and annexation of eastern Jerusalem from 1948-1967, Amman remained the Jordanian capital, not Jerusalem. No Arab rulers, other than Jordan’s kings, ever visited.
Neither the PLO’s NationalCharternor the FatahConstitution(the latter drafted during Jordanian rule) even mentions Jerusalem, let alone calls for its establishment as a Palestinian capital.
But today, Palestinian Authority officials deny Judaism’s connection to Jerusalem. PA Mufti Muhammad Hussein sneers at Jews’ “alleged Temple” and insists “Palestinians have an exclusive right…which they share with no one” to the Temple Mount. Sheikh Tayseer Tamimi, former chief justice of the PA’s religious court, insists he does not “know of any Jewish holy sites” in Jerusalem.
And the PA uses Jerusalem as a propaganda instrument to incite violence. In 1996, Yasir Arafat used Israel’s opening of an archaeological tunnel near the Temple Mount to incite riots on the basis of the lie that the tunnel threatened the stability of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Twenty-five Israeli soldiers and 100 Palestinian rioters were killed in the ensuing violence.
In 2015, PA President Mahmoud Abbas urgedviolence over Jewsvisiting the Temple Mount, borrowing from Haj Amin al-Husseini’s playbook the fabricated claims of Jewish assaults on the mosques. More than 30 Israelis were murdered and more than 200 Palestinians, the vast majority terrorists or rioters, were killed in subsequent attacks and clashes.
When a senior White House official toldBloomberg News that President Trump –reneging on his pre-election promise – would not move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem “at this time” because “we’re not looking to provoke anyone when everyone’s playing really nice,” it gave the Palestinians their latest reason to believe violence over Jerusalem reaps rewards.
Far from aiding the cause of peace, the fabrication of Jerusalem’s importance to Islam enables the instigation of bloodshed. If the propaganda myth persists, expect no change.
Morton A. Klein is national president of the Zionist Organization of America. Dr. Daniel Mandel is director of the ZOA’ s Center for Middle East Policy and author of “H.V. Evatt & the Establishment of Israel” (Routledge, 2004).
The Jewish Press is the largest independent weekly Jewish newspaper in the United States. The paper, founded by Rabbi Sholom Klass (1916-2000) and Mr. Raphael Schreiber (1885-1980), debuted as a national weekly in January 1960 and quickly won a following for its eclectic mix of Jewish news, political and religious commentary, the largest Jewish classifieds and special features — including puzzles, games and illustrated stories — for young readers.
For over five decades now The Jewish Press has championed Torah values and ideals from a centrist or Modern Orthodox perspective. The paper has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the State of Israel, Soviet Jewry, and agunot (women whose husbands refuse to grant them a religious divorce), and has taken the lead in urging a greater communal openness in addressing domestic violence and other social ills.
Known for its editorial feistiness, The Jewish Press was politically incorrect long before the phrase was coined. The paper over the years has been home to colorful and thought-provoking writers like Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis, Dr. Morris Mandel, Louis Rene Beres, Steven Plaut, Marvin Schick, Rabbi Dovid Goldwasser, Phyllis Chesler, Rabbi David Hollander, Paul Eidelberg, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, as well as former editor Arnold Fine and current senior editor Jason Maoz.
In 2011 the JewishPress.com website and related Internet properties were relaunched as an independent, daily online newspaper, with breaking news and in-depth articles on Israel, the Jewish People and the world. The Internet edition is managed by Stephen Leavitt.
An Intro by John R. Houk
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/62799055/GettyImages_1061325392.0.jpg){kind=link}
