Posts

Intolerance is a Virtue

Tolerance is a virtue and intolerance is hate, or so we are told. This ideology has led to the toleration of evil. After all, who wants to be a hater? Those who condemn the evil caused by the doctrine of political Islam are called intolerant and haters.

But we must realize that intolerance of evil is a virtue.

Things to be intolerant of: killing Christians and Yazidis in the Middle East and Africa; jihad of rape, inbreeding, child marriage and female genital mutilation.

To reduce human suffering, we must all become intolerant of evil.

The Mind of the Islamic State — Part 3

In part 3 of this Micro Series we will delve into the mind of the Islamic State terrorist. Why killing Jews, American, and infidels is his or hers only option. In the Islamic State’s online publication Dabiq the Islamic states depicts clearly their purpose and Islamic world view.

As ten’s of thousands flock to the Islamic State worldwide, this series will illustrate motivations, desires and tactic for world domination.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arabic is Most Common Language of Refugees in America; 91% on Food Stamps

Iran runs the table at Lausanne, then brags about U.S. nuke concessions

Husband of NY jihad plotter “shocked,” but had black flag of jihad at Muslim Day Parade

Pakistan: Police on high alert guarding churches against Easter jihad attacks

Australian jihadi was worried his Infidel family would burn in hell

UK: Six Muslims arrested for “Syria-related terrorism offences”

Florida: Broward Democrat Chair Speaks at Radical Muslim Event

The Fallacy of the Innocent Muslim

There is no nice or politically correct way to write this article without offending Muslims, the media, liberals, Allah’s Muslim Terrorist, people who skim the article instead of reading it completely line by line, or our Sunni Muslim President Obama.

To put it as polite as humanly possible there are no innocent Muslims. Continue reading before you judge. Many readers are saying to themselves that they know good Muslims they work with, have as neighbors, or have met
at school. If they are indeed good people then they are not Pure Muslims.

Islam does not allow anyone to be a good person. Meaning, if you follow Islam as the Prophet Mohammed intended, you must have in your heart everything he demanded and represented. You must adhere to ALL aspects of Sharia law, good or bad. If a Muslim decides he/she does not want war with non believers, or does not want to educate his/her children that a Muslim must endorse physical Jihad against oppressors, Christians, or Jews, then this person is doing a good deed, but has become an apostate of Islam as mandated by the Islamic ideology. These are some of the good people Obama and the media (including FOX) falsely describe as innocent Muslims. Again they may be good people but they have turned their backs on the Islamic faith.

The people who are practicing Islam and are the type people Mohammed wanted describes as a good Muslim are the members of Allah’s Muslim terrorists such as, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, and other acronyms. They are following Islam and Sharia exactly as Mohammed and the Quran demands.

Many people are led to believe the people who attend one of the 2300 mosques in America are for the most part innocent Muslims. This is false. I have been to hundreds of mosques. The people in the mosque are being taught from the same material as ISIS. Year after year they continue to attend the mosque that advocates violence and the hatred of non believers. These people are not innocent Muslims. These are people who desire to live their lives as the violent child rapist Mohammed. No easier way to put it. Just as Obama attended Jerimiah Wright’s church for 20 years, that on a regular basis preached the hatred for America, Obama is no more innocent than Wright is. The people who attend Wright’s church on a regular basis are not innocent Christians or Americans. These people are supporters of hate.

People need to compare Nazi’s to Pure Muslims. If a German citizen or others who followed to the letter Hitler’s ideology, they are not innocent Nazi’s. They are 100% Nazi. No in between. they are followers of a violent and dangerous ideology. The same is for people who practice Islam or are supporters of the Islamic ideology.

The son (Franklin) of Billy Graham tells it straight to the liberal conservatives of Fox News. There is no such thing as radical Islam. It is Islam pure and simple and should be referred to as Islamic terrorism and not radical terrorism.

The ONLY way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to defeat and demonize the ideology of Islam itself. Ponder that,my friends.

Obama accidentally draws a picture of Mohammed

Most of us have probably seen Obama’s recent video in which he makes faces, poses in front of the mirror, blames himself over cookies, and draws a picture of Michelle Obama.

It is a little known fact, however, that when the President first took the pencil and focused on random visual ideas, he accidentally drew a picture of Mohammed. The filming stopped. The ruined sheet was ripped out of the sketchbook and tossed into the waste basket.

On the second attempt, as Obama sat in front of the blank sheet and tried not to think about Mohammed; his hand moved making random lines, which in the end, taken together, looked like Mohammed. That sheet also went into the waste basket.

Obama draws a picture of Mohammed

On the third, fourth, and fifth attempts Obama kept drawing Mohammed, in spite of his sincere efforts to draw just some random doodle. When on the sixth try Obama drew another picture of Mohammed, he asked for a break. The filming crew and the President had some milk and cookies, chatting about random things, like Tourette syndrome, Freudian slips, Rorschach blots, and obsessive-compulsive behavior exhibited by various random folks.

When, after the break, Obama drew the seventh picture of Mohammed, one of the filmmakers volunteered to draw a different picture for the President. This man was a storyboard artist, and even though he was not a real artist, he could still trace an image from a photograph. The only photograph in the room was that of Michelle Obama, and that’s what the man drew in the President’s sketchbook.

Obama then took the pencil and pretended that he was drawing his wife for the camera, but everyone in the room knew that he didn’t draw that.

A similar story happened with a different scene in the film, in which Obama was directed to try to dip an oversized oatmeal cookie into a narrow glass of milk. According to the script, the cookie wouldn’t fit and Obama was supposed to say sarcastically, “Thanks, Obama!” thereby gently mocking his critics who tend to blame everything on the President.

Instead, Obama kept trying to dip the cookie into the glass over and over for eleven minutes without saying anything. “No, Mr. President,” said the film director. “Try to dip it twice, then say sarcastically, ‘Thanks, Obama!'” The camera started rolling again. Obama tapped the cookie on the rim of the glass and said, “I know, this is Bush’s fault.”

Obama draws a picture of Mohammed

It took seven more takes for the film crew to finally tape the President dipping the cookie correctly while saying the scripted sarcastic words “Thanks, Obama!” instead of blaming Bush and insisting that he inherited this glass of milk from the previous administration.

It was already getting late, so the film director decided to abandon the script and asked the President to simply do random things he usually does when no one can see him. “I like to play air basketball and make faces in front of the mirror. Oh, and I also like to wear sunglasses and pretend to be a cool dude shooting random folks,” said Obama.

Obama draws a picture of Mohammed

And that’s what they did, so the rest of the film was improvised and everyone had a lot of fun doing it.

And now you know the rest of the story.

WATCH THE VIDEO: Hilarious video reveals what President Obama does when he thinks no-one else is around

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

A Historical Perspective on Violence in Islam: Why Mohammed hated the Poet [media]

Sarwait Husain

Sarwait Husain. Photo: San Antonio Express News.

Sarwait Husain’s guest commentary entitled “Blame Islam?” begins the common narrative of Islamic apologists, “Islam is a religion of Peace” with the inevitable peaceful Quranic quotes.

She describes Muhammad’s first 13 years in Mecca suffering “demeaning abuse, mockery and torture”. Mecca in reality was at its pinnacle of multiculturalism, with followers of 360 pagan religions, as well as of Judaism and Christianity.

What changed in those ten years to make Meccans eventually exile Muhammad?

For ten years he reached out and the Meccans were initially tolerant.  What’s another religion when you already have more than 360!  However, Muhammad’s aggressive tendency to denounce, demean and belittle the Jews and Christians and pagans was met with greater resistance.

Imagine a street vendor who starts off quietly but becomes bolder and louder over time.  When the inevitable pushback began and poets began following Muhammad to mock his sermons and dispute   tales of Abrahamic lineage, Muhammad portrayed himself as the “victim” of abuse and intolerance.

Aggressive street-preaching is met with the same reaction today as it was in the 7th century,  that is negatively.   Any mockery or verbal abuse was exactly that, verbal attack only. Muhammad was grazed in one physical attack but it was certainly not “torture” as Ms. Hussain claims.

Why poets?  Poets were the “media” of the day.  Muhammad expressed his hatred toward the power of the pen and on multiple occasions asked his supporters “who will rid me of (the poet)”

In the last ten years of Muhammad’s life Islam had a much more ominous tone.  Retribution began in 624 AD as his followers swelled with “convert or die” followers. Violent revenge became a part of Islamic history.

In the Battle of Badr all but two prisoners were given the option to have their lives spared by the payment of a ransom.  The two who were not spared and beheaded by Muhammad’s followers were poets/critics of Muhammad.

A poetess and pagan mother of five children who mocked Muhammad, Asma bint Marwan, was murdered in her bed while her sleeping child rested on her chest.  Muhammad said, “Who will rid me of this Marwan’s daughter?” A convert to Islam from her tribe thrust a sword through her chest granting Muhammad his wish.

The Quran, the Hadiths and Muhammad’s biography capture many more of these vicious attacks.

Can we agree that if Muhammad encouraged acts of violence in his day it is understandable why Boko Haram and other terrorists groups make the claim today they are following the “will of Allah”?

Is asking one’s followers, “who will rid me” not justification for questioning the peacefulness of Islam and Muhammad?

Were the Muslim terrorists in France not “ridding” critics of Muhammad’s in the same way?

The contrasts between the peaceful narrative given by Ms. Husain and the violence depicted in Islamic texts are easily explained.  The Islamic concept of “abrogation” allows later Quranic revelations to overrule earlier revelations. The result, more violent passages revealed in the later years of Muhammad “abrogated” earlier peaceful verses in the Quran. Ms. Husain fails to include this fact when addressing an unknowing audience. The Islamic terrorists know this but many Muslims and nearly all non-Muslims don’t.

Like the poets in Muhammad’s day, the French cartoonists fell victim to the same fate.  The Islamic terrorists were simply following the “latest” teachings of Muhammad.  We must ask Ms. Husain who is to be held accountable for this if not Muhammad and the Islamic ideology?

Most Muslims reject the violent tenets of Islam but it does not erase Muhammad’s complicity in promoting Islam through violence. Wishing it so doesn’t make it so.

Peace-loving Muslims who know of this “dark-side” (and many don’t) are not going to be encouraged to speak out about this unless “kafirs”, non-believers do.  The social, economic and personal consequences often are too great thereby preventing Muslims from speaking out but non-Muslims can empower Muslims by speaking out.

Ms. Husain may have forgotten that the biggest abuser of Muslims are other Muslims, all in the name of Allah. An honest debate on the connection between Muhammad and violence toward non-Muslims and Muslims is the path to less violence. As General Sisi, President of Egypt said, a reformation needs to occur within Islam. Amen!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic State threatens to kill 2 Japanese hostages unless Tokyo pays $200 million

UK: Muslim leaders demand apology for letter urging them to do more to root out “extremists” and stop “radicalization”

Chechnya: 800,000 Muslims protest Muhammad cartoons; protests also in Iran, Pakistan, Ingushetia, elsewhere

Germany: Soap brand withdrawn for being insulting to Muslims

EDITORS NOTE: In the January 18, 2015 edition the San Antonio Express News, Sarwat Husain, Executive Director of the Council of American Islamic Relations published her defense of why Islam should not be blamed for the violence  of a few. The platform Ms. Husain has been provided by the San Antonio Express News since 2007 to voice her opinion is far greater than any persons who reasonably disagrees with some of her opinions on Islam. For example since 2010, she’s been granted space for 15 guest commentaries on the editorial page and been a part of at least 10 articles where her opinion has been aired on various aspects of Islam. These two numbers combined have allowed her to share 10,000 words of opinions on Islam. In doing a search on the San Antonio Express News website, Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese Christian and founder of ACT! for America has never had one of her editorials printed.

Huge lines to get new edition of Charlie Hebdo — Sells out within Minutes

The people are unbowed and ready to stand for freedom. The mainstream media and the leaders of the West, not so much. “Charlie Hebdo ‘All Is Forgiven’ edition sells out in minutes,” Reuters, January 14, 2015:

The first edition of Charlie Hebdo published since last week’s deadly attack by Islamist gunmen sold out within minutes at newspaper kiosks around France on Wednesday, with readers queuing up for copies to support the satirical weekly.

It came as al Qaeda in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack, saying it ordered the killings because it deemed the weekly to have insulted the Prophet Muhammad. A total of 5 million copies of the so-called “survivors’ edition” are to be printed, dwarfing the normal 60,000 print run.

“I’ve never bought it before, it’s not quite my political stripes, but it’s important for me to buy it today and support freedom of expression,” said David Sullo, standing at the end of a queue of two dozen people at a kiosk in central Paris.

“It’s important for me to buy it and show solidarity by doing so, and not only by marching,” said 42-year old Laurent in the same queue, adding he had no guarantee he would get a copy because he had not reserved one the day before.

A few streets away, by Jules Joffrin metro station in northern Paris, one newspaper seller said people were already waiting outside her shop when she opened at 6 a.m. “I had 10 copies — they were sold immediately,” she said….

In a video posted on YouTube, al Qaeda in Yemen said its leadership had ordered last Wednesday’s attack.

“As for the blessed Battle of Paris, we, the Organization of al Qaeda al Jihad in the Arabian Peninsula, claim responsibility for this operation as vengeance for the Messenger of God,” Nasser bin Ali al-Ansi, a leader of the Yemeni branch of al Qaeda (AQAP), said in the recording.

Ansi, the main ideologue for AQAP, said without elaborating that the strike was carried out in “implementation” of the order of overall al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri, who has called for strikes by Muslims in the West using any means they can find.

It was not immediately possible to verify the authenticity of the recording, which carried the logo of al Qaeda’s media group al-Malahem….

Dieudonne M’bala M’bala — a French comedian who has been convicted in the past for anti-Semitic comments — was detained for questioning Wednesday for writing on his Facebook account “Je suis Charlie Coulibaly,” adding the surname of one of the gunmen to the ubiquitous “I am Charlie” vigil slogan.

Bordeaux mosque rector Tareq Oubrou urged French Muslims not to overreact.

“I don’t think the Prophet of Islam needs stupid or excited reactions,” he told BFM-TV. “Freedom has its down sides and we must live with them.”

Egypt’s Grand Mufti on Tuesday warned the newspaper against publishing a new Muhammad caricature, saying it was a racist act that would incite hatred and upset Muslims around the world.

What race is insulting Muhammad again? I keep forgetting.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Steve Emerson, Reza Aslan, and the mainstream media: some errors are more erroneous than others

Video: Robert Spencer on Sun TV on Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism” summit

Video: Robert Spencer on Newsmax TV on Obama’s response to the Charlie Hebdo jihad attack

Did Muhammad approve of torture?

In FrontPage today I discuss yet another dishonest attempt to portray Muhammad as a man of peace — an attempt that appears especially cynical and dishonest in light of the Sydney and Peshawar jihad attacks:

Did Muhammad approve of torture? For Ahmadi Muslim leader Qasim Rashid, the answer is “no” – a “no” so unequivocal that Rashid holds up Muhammad as an example for the U.S. – newly sullied, in his view, by the just-released torture report – to follow in its treatment of prisoners of war.

This all sounds like a mainstream media dream: a moderate Muslim invoking Muhammad to rebuke the U.S. for its torture practices. The only problem with this gloriously multicultural scenario is that Qasim Rashid is a relentlessly disingenuous writer. Previously he has whitewashed the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression; dissembled about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; and called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive. When challenged about the “facts” he has presented, he (like virtually all other Islamic supremacists) responds with furious ad hominem contempt, but no substance.

But he tells the mainstream media establishment what it wants to hear and fosters the complacency and ignorance of non-Muslims regarding jihad terror, and so his abject inability to defend his preposterous claims is of no import: he continues to be given a platform all over. Here he takes advantage of the controversy over the just-released torture report to claim that Muhammad rejected torture — while cynically refraining from mentioning all the evidence to the contrary.

In “5 Lessons From Prophet Muhammad to Stop Torture” in the Huffington Post (of course) last Wednesday, Rashid claimed:

…Were the world to adopt Muhammad’s example of compassion, tolerance, and civility, such a torture report would not exist, because torture itself would not exist.

Yes, because Muhammad would never have approved of harsh interrogation techniques, would he? Well, let’s see: Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, records that when Muhammad was trying to determine whether or not his favorite wife, Aisha, was guilty of adultery, he asked a slave, Burayra: “So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying ‘Tell the Apostle the truth.’” (Ibn Ishaq 734) Muhammad is not recorded as having rebuked Ali for violently beating this woman.

Nor was that an isolated incident, as we shall see.

Rashid continues:

Here are five lessons the CIA, ISIS and humanity at large can learn from Prophet Muhammad on how to stop torture.

1. Stop engaging in pre-emptive war

Prophet Muhammad forbade pre-emptive war, all forms of terrorism, violently revolting against a government no matter how unjust, and even went to the extent of forbidding civil disobedience lest it lead to violence.

All forms of terrorism? But Muhammad is reported as having said: “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror…” (Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220). One may argue that he didn’t mean modern-day terrorism, but given the other incidents that I will recount in this article, the claim that he forbade “all forms of terrorism” is fanciful in the extreme.

While not mentioning that hadith or the Qur’an verse telling Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60), Rashid plows on:

When Muslims faced incessant and brutal persecution in Mecca from 610-620, Muhammad forbade any violent or incendiary response to the governing authorities. He offered his companions three options — remain and bear the persecution, try to change laws through peaceful argumentation, or leave.

Many Muslims left — some to Abyssinia where they sought and received refuge under the righteous Christian King Neghus. Others left to Medina, where they forged a peaceful alliance with the Jews and soon established a unified secular state governed by the Charter of Medina. Fighting was then only permitted in self-defense once Muslims were pursued and attacked, just as the Qur’an 22:40 allows: “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them.” Once in defensive war, the Qur’an only permits killing active combatants, as elaborated next.

Rashid omits all mention of the Qur’an’s teaching on offensive fighting. Ibn Ishaq explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.” The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193; cf. also 8:39) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped.

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

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

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

As an Ahmadi, Rashid may reject this understanding of the Qur’an and jihad, but it does exist, and he must know it exists. To ignore it entirely and give the impression that it doesn’t exist is cynical and deceptive.

And his cynicism and deceptiveness don’t end there. He continues:

2. Stop justifying collateral damage

Drone strikes, indiscriminate bombing, and collateral damage have each sadly become part of the American military experience. Prophet Muhammad categorically condemned any act of violence in which civilians, property, or places of worship were harmed.

Following Muhammad’s guidance, Abu Bakr the first Khalifa commanded to the Muslim army about to embark on battle,

“O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well… for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”

As history’s first major figure to condemn collateral damage in word and in deed, Prophet Muhammad demonstrated a high precedent that even the most advanced nations today cannot match. Today’s leaders can end the war atrocities engulfing our world by following Muhammad’s example of justice and compassion.

Collateral damage: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321)

There is still more. Rashid says:

3. Stop indefinite detention for POWs

The Afghan and Iraq wars are long over. Yet, America continues to maintain numerous POWs in Guantanamo Bay, and likely in other undisclosed locations. Prophet Muhammad categorically condemned this practice. After permitting Muslims to only fight in self-defense, the Qur’an 47:5 next commands Muslims to release POWs immediately as war comes to an end.

Actually, Qur’an 47:5 says: “Soon will He guide them and improve their condition.” That is not in any clear sense a command to release POW’s immediately as war comes to an end. Ibn Abbas in his commentary on this verse explains: “He will give them success to perform righteous deeds (and improve their state) and improve their condition and intention; it is also said that this means: He will save them in the Hereafter and improve their state and accept their works on the Day of Judgement.” To whom is Ibn Abbas referring? Not to prisoners of war, but (according to his gloss on 47:4) to “those who are killed in obedience of Allah on the Day of Badr, referring here to the prophetic Companions.” Ibn Kathir interprets the verse in a similar way, without any reference to freeing prisoners of war at the end of the war.

Without mentioning this anomaly, Rashid goes on:

Maintaining POWs well after the war has ended creates distrust and animosity among allies and enemies alike, and is beneath the standard of a civilized country. Rather than usurp human rights with indefinite detention, rather than provide propaganda material to extremists, rather than violate its own Constitution and international law, we should all learn from Prophet Muhammad’s example, and justly release POWs.

4. Stop mistreating POWs

POWs, during and after the war must be treated with the dignity all human beings deserve. Historian Sir William Muir well records how Prophet Muhammad commanded his companions to treat POWs:

The Refugees had houses of their own, received the prisoners with kindness and consideration. “Blessings on the men of Medina!” said one of these in later days: “they made us ride, while they themselves walked afoot; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.” It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the captives, yielding to these influences, declared themselves Believers, and to such their liberty was at once granted. The rest were kept for ransom. Such as had nothing to give were liberated without payment; but a service was required… To each were allotted ten boys, to be taught the art of writing; and the teaching was accepted as a ransom.

Mind you, this was at a time in Arabia when Muslims captured during battle suffered the fate of torture and death. Yet, in response, Muslims demanded the ransom of education, fed POWs with their own food and sheltered them with their own shelter. Once war ended, Muhammad immediately released all POWs. This is how he brought lasting peace to a former Arabian wasteland engulfed in constant war.

Mistreating POW’s: “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.” (Al-Tabari, vol. 7, p. 133; cf. Ibn Ishaq 387)

And: “Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels’) milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.” (Sahih Muslim 4131)

Rashid concludes with a dishonest coup de grace:

5. Stop justifying torture

Nothing justifies the torture the CIA meted out to those 119 human beings. Indeed, in response to those arguing safety, the report concludes that America was not made any safer as a result of these barbaric practices. This was just one among many reasons Prophet Muhammad categorically forbade torture.

For example, as recorded in Sahih Muslim, “Hisham ibn Hakim passed by some people in Syria who had been made to stand in the sun and had oil poured over their heads. He asked, “What is this?” It was said,

“They are being punished for not paying taxes.” Hisham said: I heard Prophet Muhammad say: “Verily, Allah will torture those who torture people in this world.” Likewise, Jabir ibn Abdullah reported that Prophet Muhammad commanded: “Do not torture the creation of Allah the Exalted.”

Indeed, Prophet Muhammad’s compassion extended beyond humans as he also specifically forbade torturing animals, declaring, “A woman was punished because of a cat she had imprisoned until it died; thus, she entered Hellfire because of it. She did not give it food or water while it was imprisoned, neither did she set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth.”

Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, didn’t just justify torture. He ordered it: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) 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 b. 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.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).

After his tour de force of disingenuousness, Rashid concludes:

It is not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of morality that permitted this barbaric act of torture to occur at all. The CIA, ISIS, and indeed the world at large can learn volumes about compassion, justice, mercy, and morality from Prophet Muhammad, the man who successfully brought peace to a warring world.

The world is warring all over today because of Muhammad’s teachings. It is a peculiar lack of morality that would create this deceptive piece, with its calculated omissions and frankly false conclusion. If Rashid is asked about this post, he will sneer that it is not peer-reviewed; he will not answer any of its substantive refutations of his dishonest claims. He cannot do so — both because the traditions about Muhammad don’t bear out his claims, and because of his own intellectual and moral dishonesty.

Qasim Rashid apparently doesn’t want the world to know that Muhammad commanded and approved of torture. He wants people to think that he forbade it. The effect of this will be to foster ignorance and complacency about the jihad threat. The blood of the next victims tortured by Islamic jihadists will cry out to Qasim Rashid from the ground on which it is spilled.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan: Jihadis burn teacher alive in front of students, behead children

Sydney jihadi’s ex-wife sought refuge in US before she was murdered

Islamic State propagandist’s parents: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.”

VIDEO: Understanding Mohammedanism in 15 minutes

A Mohammedan is one who follows the teachings of Mohammed regardless of nationality, ethnicity, race, color or creed. Mohammedans are orthodox believers and follow the Quran, Hadith and Surah as Mohammed’s followers did 14 centuries ago. I use Mohammedan versus Muslim to describe those who follow the teachings of Mohammad. Mohammedans are pure Islam and follow shariah (Islamic) law.

The more shariah compliant an individual Mohammedan, Islamic organization or nation state the more dangerous and deadly.

There is much public discussion about radical Mohammedans versus moderate Mohammedans. The answer to any difference lies in this short 15 minute video showing moderate Mohammedans, those preaching violence on the street, versus those Mohammedans who carry out violence on the street.

It is critical to take a Mohammedan at his word. Not to do so is naively dangerous. To call Mohammedans peaceful is Orwellian.

Hat tip to Aya for sending us this video:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why beheading? — The Boston Globe

Navy SEAL shot 27 times by four al-Qaida leaders tells miraculous story: ‘God, get me home to my girls’

Commander in chief Obama has no war-fighting creds, won’t listen to those who do

Naming The Enemy – 2 Million Bikers to D.C.

The 2 Million Bikers to DC rally is to honor the victims of 9-11, the survivors and first responders.

We salute our members of the Armed Forces and their families who have sacrificed so much in the name of duty, honor, and country. God bless America and God bless our troops.

Our country is rooted in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and rule of law. Our national identity of freedom and liberty is what we’ve been fighting for since the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. The names have changed but our enemies who hit us on 9/11, all fly under the black flag of Jihad. It is also under that black flag of Jihad they will be defeated.

Everyone is invited to join together, on the National Mall, in a celebration of American Exceptionalism.

People will be coming from all over the country by motorcycle, plane and car to remember 9/11 in our nations Capitol.
Last year a group called The American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) led by Rabbi MD Alam were granted permits for a 9/11/2013 Million Muslim March on the National Mall.

AMPAC picked the anniversary of the largest terrorist attack on United States soil surpassing even Pearl Harbor, to hold their Million Muslim March. The devout followers of Islam coordinating the Million Muslim March knew they would offend most every American in the country who watched our commercial airliners hijacked by Islamic terrorists, fly into the Twin Towers, Pentagon, and the last plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA.

AMPAC did not realize its insensitivity toward the American people would result in the largest motorcycle rally ever to descend on our nations capitol.

When word began to spread about the 2013 Million Muslim March a grassroots counter demonstration called 2 Million Bikers To DC was started on a single lonely Facebook page. Belinda Bee and the original group of founders joined forces and upwards of 80,000 bikers descended on Washington D.C. capturing the imagination of the nation.

Belinda Bee, Mike Belair along with their army of volunteers say the 2014 2 Million Bikers To DC Rally will be far bigger than last year. Madison Rising will provide the live entertainment along with a host of speakers. Sponsors include Harley Davidson, Budweiser, Breitbart, The United West, Operation 300, Tea Party Community and America The Movie.com.

Speakers include Dinesh D’Souza, Jan Morgan, Tom Trento, Carl Higbie – Former Navy SEAL, Karen Vaughn, Pastor Manning, Pope Dan Johnson, Manny Vega and more than we can name here.

Islam is the Face of Evil

“ISIS is not Islamic”, said  Barack Obama as he gave yet another vapid speech to say what he will or will not do next about the threat of Islam. What he said is both idiotic and a lie. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State.

Obama used the word “war” only once, but ISIS is all about war—an Islamic holy war that has been waged since 632 AD.

The one person neither named, nor blamed is the so-called prophet, Mohammad, yet everything being done by the jihadists today is being done in his name.

In his memoir, “Dreams from my Father”, Obama, in the preface to its second edition, wrote: “Nor do I pretend to understand the stark nihilism that drove the terrorists that day (9/11) and that drives their brethren still. My powers of empathy, my ability to reach into another’s heart, cannot penetrate the blank stares of those who would murder innocents with abstract, serene satisfaction.” And therein is the problem that he, as President, and we as citizens must address.

Political correctness is so dominant in the Obama White House that no one in the U.S. government dares say anything that might be deemed critical of a so-called “religion” that sanctions beheadings, amputations, stoning, kidnapping hostages, ransoms, polygamy, and slavery. To anyone deemed an infidel or unbeliever or a Muslim who questions anything about Islam, death is the only option other than dhimmitude, a second-class citizenship.

The pure evil of Islam was seen most recently in the two videos of American hostages being beheaded by the Islamic State, but despite decades of attacks on U.S. embassies, the taking of U.S. hostages in Beirut and Tehran, attacks in Bali, Madrid and London, and the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon, Americans have been slow to realize the intensity and size of the threat that the Middle Eastern and North African nations represent along with wherever else a large Muslim population exists.


As the U.S. and threatened Middle Eastern nations hurtle toward a military confrontation with the Islamic State, the name it has given to territory it has seized from northern Syria and into Iraq, a new book, Fault Lines: The Layman’s Guide to Understanding America’s Role in the Ever-Changing Middle East, ($00.00, Elevate, Boise, Idaho, softcover) provides one of the best, short histories on U.S. involvement and why, at this point, its influence has reached a low point.

Liebich writes of the way the U.S. policy regarding the Middle East changed over the years, particularly in the wake of World War II and the Cold War that followed as the Soviet Union challenged us for the implementation of communism worldwide. Dependent on the flow of oil from the Middle East, much of our strategic interest in the region was based on exercising our influence, often bringing about the removal of leaders whom we regarded as a threat to that necessity. After 9/11 that went into overdrive.

Liebich notes that our concept of nation-building proved costly, not just in the lives of our troops, but which included $50 billion in Iraq “and it didn’t work. Before you can build a nation you have to have a nation and only the citizens of that nation can decide what kind of a country they want to have.” The problem the U.S. encountered was that “In the Middle East, people related much more to the Ummah (the Muslim community) and to their own tribes.”

The problem that George H.W. Bush and his son, George W. Bush, encountered was that “The Middle East is a part of the world where many odd alliances appear. One is never sure who is allied with whom and whatever one thinks may all change tomorrow.”

Liebich takes note of the “Arab Awakening” that followed the U.S. invasion of Iraq that deposed Saddam Hussein. It began “with so much promise” followed by “its subsequent descent into chaos, has drastically changed the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East and North Africa.”

Liebich says “My definition of a vital national interest is one that deals with an existential threat to the United States, and one for which the U.S. is willing to spill its blood and to spend its treasure in order to accomplish its objectives. By this definition, the U.S. has no vital national interest in events in the Middle East.” Written prior to the emergence of the Islamic State, a new existential threat is facing the U.S.

Liebich says our strategic interests in the Middle East for many years included access to stable supplies of oil at reasonable prices; support for the state of Israel; preventing adversaries or potential adversaries from coming to power or achieving influence in the region; improving life for the people of the region; and preventing terrorist attacks on U.S. territories and citizens.

“The region has become the epicenter for terrorist groups, some of which have ambitions for a global reach.” That alone will require a renewed military involvement by the U.S. as we are the only nation with the capacity to alter the facts on the ground.

It comes at a time when the U.S. is close to having developed its oil reserves to a point where the oil of the Middle East will not determine our policies, but it is that oil which other nations such as those of Europe depend upon. China and India need it as well so its protection by and for the West as well as the developing Asian nations affects our decisions. Even Russia whose economy is dependent on oil and natural gas has cast its support for Syria along with Iran.

Everything, though, depends on understanding the true nature and intent of Islam.

Liebich ends his book with a quote from Winston Churchill who said, “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”

Right now, the right thing is the destruction of the Islamic State.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED ARTICLE: Sorry Mr. President, ISIS Is 100 Percent Islamic

The Death of Free Speech: British Citizen Arrested for quoting Churchill

Paul Weston, able leader of LibertyGB, whom we interviewed for the New English Review, epitomizes the Hyde Park corner free speech tradition that many in the UK and even here in the United States have taken as an article of faith. His arrest in Winchester for reading a quote about Islam by Sir Winston Churchill from the latter’s acclaimed The River War  wouldn’t have occurred here in the United States under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

However, in a UK obsessed with political correctness and tolerance of rejectionist Islamic representatives like Anjem Choudary and other Jihadists, revealing the truth about Islamic doctrine from an historical figure like Sir Winston Churchill is tantamount to sedition. We trust that our friend Paul Weston made bailment after his arrest and can bring a cause of action in the law courts for his wrongful arrest exercising his free speech. Onward Liberty GB!

This just in from Liberty GB:

Today Paul Weston, chairman of the party Liberty GB and candidate in the 22 May European Elections in the South East, has been arrested in Winchester.

Weston speech

Paul Weston speaking at Winchester Guildhall.

At around 2:00 pm Mr Weston was standing on the steps of Winchester Guildhall, addressing the passers-by in the street with a megaphone. He quoted the following excerpt about Islam from the book The River War by Winston Churchill:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the faith: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith.”

Reportedly a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him “It’s disgusting!” and then called the police.

Six or seven officers arrived. They talked with the people standing nearby, asking questions about what had happened. The police had a long discussion with Mr Weston, lasting about 40 minutes.

At about 3:00 pm he was arrested. They searched him, put him in a police van and took him away.

RELATED VIDEO:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/HQzV_-latew[/youtube]

 

RELATED STORIES:

UK: Liberty GB’s Paul Weston, arrested for quoting Churchill, could face two years in jail
‘Muslim Brotherhood in UK warns of attacks in response to government probe’
UK: Churchill quotation gets Liberty GB leader Paul Weston arrested
UK: Lloyds drops overdraft fee on Islamic accounts
Major Islamic conference in Paris: “All the evil in the world originates from the Jews and the Zionist barbarism”
New York: Muslim group’s libel suit dismissed against book saying it held terror training
Raymond Ibrahim: Muslim Brotherhood Member Rapes Boy for Supporting Anti-Brotherhood Revolution
Muslims seeking sharia state kill more than 2,596 Nigerians in three months

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The New English Review.

Sharia and the Virtue of Hate

If you present inconvenient facts about Islam, you will be called bad names, like hater. But it turns out that hate can be more virtuous than the silence of “tolerance”.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/ZOWsQ9dM3NI[/youtube]

 

This video commentary is courtesy of Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam, copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, PoliticalIslam.com. Use as needed, just give credit to Political Islam and please do not edit the video.

ABOUT POLITICAL ISLAM

Islam is a cultural, religious and political system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated. The Islamic political system is contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira. Our mission is to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.

The Five Principles

  • Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.
  • All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—Koran, Sira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions). Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.
  • Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.
  • Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.
  • Kafirs must submit to Islam in all politics and public life. Every aspect of kafir civilization must submit to political Islam.

These Five Principles can be put in five words—Trilogy, politics, kafirs, dualism and submission. These five words bring clarity and ease of learning about political Islam.

Up until now Islam has been hard to understand because it seemed complex and contradictory and did not make sense. But, once you see how the Five Principles work, everything falls into place. Complexity becomes simplicity. Chaos becomes order.

Learn more by clicking here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the cover of a Quran taken by ~crystalina~. This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. The use of this photo in no way suggests that they endorse this video or the use of the work

Huffington Post: “Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights”

This article is as risible as Karen Armstrong’s likening Muhammad to Gandhi, and is as gracefully written as a seventh grader’s book report. But for the Huffington Post, accuracy and quality are of no import: if it downplays the grim reality of Islamic jihad terror, then it’s good enough for them.

The author of this piece is Craig Considine, who has likened Muhammad to George Washington and claimed that Christianity has a concept of jihad just like Islam’s. He pulls off these feats of legerdemain by employing a very simple method: ignoring what doesn’t fit his thesis, as he does here.

“What Studying Muhammad Taught Me About Islam,” by Craig Considine in the Huffington Post, January 21:

Muslims worldwide have recently joined together to celebrate Mawlid al-Nabi, the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad. This day is an opportunity for Muslims and non-Muslims, such as myself – a Catholic – to reflect upon the life and legacy of the prophet of Islam. In this short essay, I want to share with you what I have learned about Muhammad and how his legacy informs my understanding of Islam.

Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for minorities to have protection during times of strife.

Muhammad initiated many legal covenants with Christians and Jews after establishing his Muslim community. For example, in one covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Egypt, Muhammad called on Muslims to respect Christian judges and churches, and for no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister. Through this agreement, Muhammad made it clear that Islam, as a political and philosophical way of life, respected and protected Christians.

This document, the Achtiname, is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632; the Muslims conquered Egypt between 639 and 641. The document says of the Christians, “No one shall bear arms against them.” So were the conquerors transgressing against Muhammad’s command for, as Considine puts it, “no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister”? Did Muhammad draw up this document because he foresaw the Muslim invasion of Egypt? There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a).

The document exempts the monks of St. Catherine’s monastery from paying the jizya. While it is conceivable that Muhammad, believing he bore the authority of Allah, would exempt them from an obligation specified by Allah himself in the Qur’an (9:29), the Achtiname specifies that Christians of Egypt are to pay a jizya only of twelve drachmas. Yet according to the seventh-century Coptic bishop John of Nikiou, Christians in Egypt “came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month.” The Achtiname, in short, bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery and Egyptian Christians from the depredations of zealous Muslims.

Similarly, in the Treaty of Maqnah, the Prophet stated Jews “may be in peace… you are in security [under Muhammad’s rule]… Towards you is no wrong and no enmity. After today you will not be subject to oppression or violence.” In the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.” In safeguarding the rights of Jews, Muhammad made it clear that a citizen of an Islamic state did not have to follow Islam and that Muslims should treat Jews as they would their own friends. In developing these agreements with his fellow Muslims, Christians, and Jews, Muhammad clearly rejected elitism and racism and demanded that Muslims see their Abrahamic brothers and sisters as equals before God.

Here again, both the Treaty of Maqnah and the Constitution of Medina are of doubtful authenticity. The Constitution is first mentioned in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, which was written over 125 years after the accepted date for Muhammad’s death. Unfortunately for Considine, Ibn Ishaq also details what happened to three Jewish tribes of Arabia after the Constitution of Medina: Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” Funny how we never hear Muslims chanting, “Relax, relax, O Jews, the Constitution of Medina will return.”

According to Muhammad, humanity was at the heart of Islam. In my reading and interpretation of his last sermon at Mount Arafat in 632 AD, I learned that the Prophet fought against racism long before the days of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela. In the sermon, he argued “An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab… a white person has no superiority over a black nor does a black have any superiority over white except by piety and good action.” Muhammad’s final sermon informed me that Islam teaches Muslims to be tolerant of difference and welcome to diversity.

Yet all too many Arab Muslims have lorded it over non-Arab Muslims throughout Islamic history, and some do today. Why are there so many who misunderstand Muhammad’s clear words here?

My research has also highlighted how Muhammad had similar beliefs to that of George Washington, a key founding father of America. In a January 2013 article for the Huffington Post titled “An Unlikely Connection Between Muhammad and George Washington,” I examined how these two great men virtually shared identical opinions on social conduct, modesty, humility, respect, and even hygiene. In making these connections, it seems to me that Islamic values as expressed by Muhammad, and American values as expressed by Washington, are quite similar. Muslims and non-Muslim Americans can look to the example of Prophet Muhammad and George Washington as a way to build bridges of cross-cultural understanding.

Yes, Muhammad was exactly like George Washington. You remember the stories: George consummated his marriage with Martha when he was 54 and she was nine, and she was one of about a dozen wives of the first President; Washington once personally beheaded between 600 and 900 Redcoats; married his former daughter-in-law; declared that he had been commanded to fight against people until they confessed that there was no Constitution but the Constitution and he was the first President — so many similarities. Pamela Geller ably dismantled Considine’s nonsense about Washington and Muhammad here.

Studying Muhammad has taught me invaluable lessons on the fundamental principles of Islam, but more importantly, principles of life itself. His treatment of religious minorities and his basic moral beliefs have encouraged me to further promote dialogue between Muslims, Christians, and Jews, and to improve my own everyday character and conduct. Without a doubt, my research into the Prophet’s life has showed me that he is a role model for both Muslims and non-Muslims and that humanity can benefit from Islam.

Dialogue is great if it’s honest. This article by Craig Considine is not remotely honest. One wonders also how he, as a self-proclaimed Catholic, thinks “humanity can benefit from Islam,” a religion that says he is accursed for believing that Jesus is the Son of God (cf. Qur’an 9:30) and that he should be warred against until he submits (Qur’an 9:29), and that he is the most vile of created beings (Qur’an 98:6). Is it by the virtues of magnanimity and tolerance for which he extols Muhammad on false pretenses in this article? Does he really think those virtues don’t exist outside Islam? Given the abysmal level of general education these days, it’s possible.