Islam = Jihad??

This post continues a critical examination of the assertions expressed in and implied by these statements from the current and proposed resolutions combating defamation of religions.

Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism...

Is Islam wrongly associated with violence? A critical examination of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence will provide the answer. The word associated with this question is Jihad. What is the meaning of Jihad and what is its importance? Turning to 2:216 , we find the definition.

216. Jihâd ^[1] (holy fighting in Allâh’s cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

^[1] (V.2:216) See the footnote of (V.2:190).

The parenthetical expression is editorial, not Allah's word. We need to discover what differentiates holy fighting from secular fighting and we need to define Allah's cause. Lets follow the footnote.

^[1] (V.2:190) Al-Jihâd (holy fighting) in Allâh’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islâm and is one of its pillar (on which it stands). By Jihâd Islâm is established, Allâh’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lâ ilaha illallâh which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allâh), and His Religion (Islâm) is propagated. By abandoning Jihâd (may Allâh protect us from that) Islâm is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihâd is an obligatory duty in Islâm on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.
Narrated ‘Abdullâh bin Mas‘ûd رضي الله عنه: I asked Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم "O Allâh’s Messenger! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the Salât (prayers) at their early fixed stated times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihâd in Allâh’s Cause." I did not ask Allâh’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more. (Sahih Al-Bukhâri, Vol.4, Hadîth No.41).

Contrary to the footnote, Jihad is not generally recognized as one of the pillars or Islam. We learn that it is:

• physical fighting
• of utmost importance
• establishing Islam
• making Allah's word superior
• propagating Islam.

We also learn that abandoning Jihad has consequences:

• Islam is destroyed
• inferiority
• dishonor
• loss of
• land
• authority
• rule.

Lets look to Umdat as-Salik for confirmation.

O9.0: Jihad (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

Islamic law confirms the definition of Jihad as physical warfare to establish Islam. We still lack a firm fix on Allah's cause. Perhaps the hadith will provide an answer.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 65:

Narrated Abu Musa:

A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

Now we know that Allah's cause is making Islam superior.

The argument over lesser/greater Jihad is a distraction which should be eliminated. How great is the risk of being injured or killed in Jihad an-Nafs?

4:74. ...whoso fights in the Cause of Allâh, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward....

What differentiates holy from secular war? Sahih Muslim 19.4294 includes this clue.

...Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children....

Moe took the top 20% of the spoils, which explains the first element in the list. The pledge of loyalty to Moe involved not fleeing from battle. Mutilating corpses was a social taboo in Arabia and killing children would amount to wasting the spoils because captured children were enslaved.
A search (http://www.quranbrowser.com) of the Hilali & Khan translation finds 369 instances of fight and 22 instances of Jihad. Noel Yatom published a list of 164 violent verses. The bottom line is this: Allah issued timeless and unlimited enjunctions to make war upon pagans and Jews & Christians. Moe is quoted confirming those imperatives in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. Riyad us-Salaheen Book 11, Chapter 234 contains many of the hadith which prove the status & significance of Jihad. Sahih Bukhari: Jihad, Khumus & Expedition reveal much of what Muhammad said and did concerning Jihad.

The following listed titles from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir display the ayat & ahadith which mandate conquest and promise victory. Each of them is linked to the corresponding page at http://www.tafsir.com. Those tafsir establish, beyond doubt, Islam's intrinsic violence & triumphalism.

• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book

Shari'ah, codified in Umdat as-Salik, clearly confirms the Jihad enjunctions and establishes the minimum requirement for their performance. To read the full context, click the link and enter the book letter, chapter & section numbers in the search engine in the frame surrounding the text image. [Emphasis added.]

O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad
...If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

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

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

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

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim...

O25.9 ...

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

Even this brief examination of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence proves that the association of Islam & violence is well founded.

Islam = Terrorism??

This post begins a critical examination of the assertions expressed in and implied by these statements from the current and proposed resolutions combating defamation of religions.

Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism...

Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism? The assertion implies that Islam does not sanction terrorism. An examination of Islam's canon of scripture & tradition discloses the truth.

Terror is mentioned in the Qur'an, in both eternal and temporal contexts; only the latter are relevant to this discussion. [Emphasis added.]

3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers).

...Allah next conveys the good news that He will put fear of the Muslims, and feelings of subordination to the Muslims in the hearts of their disbelieving enemies, because of their Kufr and Shirk. ... The Prohibition of Obeying the Disbelievers; the Cause of Defeat at Uhud

7:4. How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.

(Our torment came upon them by night or while they were taking their midday nap. ) means, Allah's command, torment and vengeance came over them at night or while taking a nap in the middle of the day. Both of these times are periods of rest and leisure or heedlessness and amusement. Nations that were destroyed

8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."

...(I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.) means, `you -- angels -- support the believers, strengthen their (battle) front against their enemies, thus, implementing My command to you. I will cast fear, disgrace and humiliation over those who defied My command and denied My Messenger, (so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.) strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet....Allah commands the Angels to fight and support the Believers

8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

(and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah

59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).

...Therefore, Allah sent His torment down on them; it can never be averted, and His appointed destiny touched them; it can never be resisted. The Prophet forced them to evacuate and abandon their fortified forts that Muslims did not think they would ever control. ...Then take admonition, O you with eyes.) meaning, "Contemplate the end of those who defied Allah's command, contradicted His Messenger and denied His Book. See how Allah's humiliating torment struck them in this life, as well as, the painful torment that Allah has reserved for them in the Hereafter.''... The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered

59:13. Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.

...(Verily, you are more fearful in their breasts than Allah.) meaning, the hypocrites fear you more than they fear Allah, as He says; (Behold! a section of them fear men as they fear Allah or even more.)... The False Promise of Support the Hypocrites gave to the Jews

Allah said that he would cast terror. He commanded Muslims to participate in it. He cast terror so that two Jewish tribes were conquered, their defenders killed & survivors enslaved. The second cited instance is established as a warning to future victims. That concept is reinforced by another ayeh.

8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.

...(then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely punishing ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This Ayah commands punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties on them. This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a lesson from their end,... Striking Hard against Those Who disbelieve and break the Covenants

By reading those ayat, we discover that Allah sanctified & mandated terrifying those Islam sets out to conquer. In addition to the exemplification in 33:26 & 59:2, two ahadith confirm that Moe was a terrorist.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. ...

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Made victorious by awe / with terror; what could make it more clear? It becomes obvious to all but bigots that the association of Islam with terrorism is well warranted by the evidence.

How Censorship Could Become Binding

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [Dead links removed, emphasis added.]

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 51

1. Any State Party to the present Covenant may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to the States Parties to the present Covenant with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.

2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. 3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.

Reservation:

(1) That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Understanding:

(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status - as those terms are used in Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 26 - to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of Article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based "solely" on the status of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status.

Problematic definitions:

• advocacy of
• religious hatred
• constitutes incitement

In a previous post, I showed how Masooud Khan & Ban Ki-moon define those terms as exemplified by their condemnation of Fitna.
I have no doubt that anticipation of such egregious abuse of semantics was behind reservation number one cited above. Were it not for the election of an appeaser to the Presidency along with a like minded Senate majority, our liberty might be secure.

What will happen if Article 20 is amended to conform to the recent & pending resolutions combating defamation of religions & Durban II draft? I expect that President Obama will sign it, the Senate will ratify it, and the Supreme Court will lack the will & resolve necessary to rule it unconstitutional. It would then be possible to persecute American critics of Islam in foreign and international courts, contravening the first amendment.

Seekers of detailed legal analysis of the issue should refer to Why the U.S. Should Oppose "Defamation of Religions" Resolutions at the United Nations, a Heritage Foundation report and the bibliography in its footnotes.

Combating Defamation of Religions

A/63/53 2008 944kb .pdf resolution begins on p.126, 16 item enumerated list, 3 pgs.

A/HRC/10/L.2 2009 approx 35kb, Microsoft Word format. 18 item enumerated list.

Both of these sources have other related documents available, visit them to learn more.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain http://www.eyeontheun.org/

[Emphasis added.]

Concern:
2008

1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;
2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;
3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;
4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation;
   

2009

Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and in this context stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,

7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;



Action items:
2008

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;
9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

2009

10. Reaffirms that General Comment 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;
11. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where required, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to deny impunity for those who commit such acts;
12. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs;
13. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness building;
14. Calls upon all States to exert the utmost efforts, in accordance with their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights and humanitarian law, to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are fully respected and protected, and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to desecration or destruction;

Compare Item #2 from '08 with #7 from '09.

• attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations
• Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism

The source is easily identifiable.

• Three, Islam is deliberately equated with terrorism and extremism. Those whipping up frenzy against Muslims use fundamentalism as a pretext but they are really concerned about the growing influence of the educated, modern and moderate Muslims in Europe, and North America who are moving into mainstream politics and businesses. http://missions.itu.int/%7Epakistan/2005_Statements/CHR/stoicpope_21sep06.htm

In Moral Standing: the Complaint I established the fact that Fitna is one of the chief targets of the continuing campaign to impose censorship. Accurate description of the doctrines & works of Islam is broadly equated with "against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general". When the Danish cartoons and Fitna were published, did Christian mobs chant threats & execrations? Did they attack embassies, shoot or stab religious workers or burn buildings?

Pointing out the the Qur'an's Jihad, genocide & terror enjunctions, confirmed by hadith & codified in Shari'ah, is not hate speech, neither is it racism. As if the remarks of Masood Khan were not enough, examine the condemnation issued by the Secretary General of the U.N.

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.” Reuters

I detailed the hypocrisy of that statement in You’ve Been Mooned! The right of free expression is at stake whenever the U.N. and its appendant bodies are in session. They seek to criminalize the uttering & publishing of information essential to collective recognition of and defense against a barbarian campaign of genocidal conquest which has cost 270 million lives in the last 1400 years.

Moral Standing: the Complaint

In Hints of Compulsory U.N. Censorship, I propounded a rhetorical question concerning the moral qualifications of Islam & the U.N. to persuade the U.S.A. to accede to demands for censorship. This post begins the process of answering that question. Lets begin with an examination of Ambassador Masood Khan's statement of 04/01/08.

Without explicitly naming Geert Wilders or his video, Ambassador Khan expresses the O.I.C.'s appreciation to the Dutch government for its unsuccessful attempt to prevent its publication and the Prime Minister's rejection of "the interpretation given to the Quran in the documentary and equation of Islam with violence".

He expresses their agreement with "Mr. Jorge Sampaio, Secretary-General's High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations", providing this outline of his statement.

1. the insulting and defamatory film is a deliberate incitement to discrimination, violence and hatred on grounds of religion, aimed at provoking and promoting social unrest, and encourages extremist groups within European societies to discriminate and marginalize Muslims immigrants;
2. freedom of expression does not preclude the protection of people from racist, discriminatory and xenophobic language; and
3. We will be losers if we fail to defuse this potential crises.

Ambassador Khan follows up with his own list of accusations against Fitna.

The documentary violates letter and spirit of

1. The UN Charter;
2. The covenants on civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights;
3. Articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that proscribe any advocacy of racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; and
4. Security Council resolution 1624 of 2005 which calls upon states to prevent targeting of different religions and cultures;

First and foremost, is Fitna. [First Ed. 03/27/08] factually false? If not, then it can not be defamatory. Is it a rude statement intended to offend? This is a good time to click the link and view the 17 minute video, which begins with display & recitation of 8:60.

• Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.[Abdullah Yusuf Ali]

That verse is followed by the awful image of aircraft striking the World Trade Towers, flames, smoke & falling bodies. Did not Allah say "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve"? Did not Allah say "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."? Did not Allah issue a commandment ordering Muslims to attack "people of the book" saying "fight those who... until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" ? How then is the association of Allah's commandment with the act of the "magnificent nineteen" a calumny?

Wilders follows up with images of Imams calling for Jihad and rail cars torn apart by bomb blasts. We see bloodied victims as well. Next, he shows us 4:56.

Surely! Those who disbelieved in Our Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) We shall burn them in Fire. As often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for other skins that they may taste the punishment. Truly, Allâh is Ever Most Powerful, All­Wise.

Other than illustrating Islam's hatred of disbelievers, I see no reason for including that verse, it deals with the next world, not this one. That image is followed immediately by an Imam quoting a genocidal hadith.

Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

We see the Imam drawing his sword, waving it in the air, shouting takbir & "Jihad for the sake of Allah",. then we see the crowd reaction: pure anticipatory hatred.

That blood chilling scene is followed by an interview with a little girl who informs us that Jews are "apes and pigs"; she learned it from the Koran [2:65, 5:60, 7:166]. Succeeding scenes of bodies being dragged and a buss torn asunder by a bomb are followed by an Imam ranting that the Jews must be massacred. Next, we see placards carried by Muslims demonstrating their hatred, with such messages as "be prepared for the real holocaust" and "God bless Hitler".

Next, 47:4 is displayed.

So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh'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). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh'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 Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost,

The token of genocide {till when you have killed and wounded many of them} is confirmed by Ibn Kathir in his tafsir. The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

Guiding the believers to what they should employ in their fights against the idolators, Allah says, (So, when you meet those who disbelieve (in battle), smite their necks) which means, `when you fight against them, cut them down totally with your swords.' (until you have fully defeated them,) meaning, `you have killed and utterly destroyed them.'

That recitation is followed by images of the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Next, we hear a Saudi cleric saying that throats must be slit and young men sacrificed. So of course, there is the obligatory decapitation scene. Have we so soon forgotten Nick Berg & Danny Pearl?

The bloody image is followed by 4:89, wherein Allah commands not to befriend Kuffar & hypocrites and to kill the latter.

They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

We next discover a sidewalk interview in which the death penalty for apostasy is mentioned. Supremacism is openly expressed, followed by a series of news headlines. 8:39 follows.

And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

Next we hear a cleric saying that "Islam is a religion that wants to rule the world.". He is followed by confirmation from the President of Iran. Other expressions of supremacism & triumphalism follow.

The video continues with Dutch demographics & politics, with more images including lapidation & hangings. What part of Fitna is not true? The Qur'an quotes are easily verified and confirmed by the most widely accepted exegeses. I have shown you one tafsir, you can search for the others at http://www.qtafsir.com.

The hadith quoted is also easily verifiable. We have seen most of the images in magazines and on the internet. The ranting & raving Imams are available in Memri's archives.

Jorge Sampaio's assertion of "deliberate incitement to discrimination, violence and hatred" is egregious hypocrisy. Wilders reports part of what Allah said and his obedient slaves do in obeying his word. Wilders did not incite his viewers to discrimination, violence or hatred against anyone. Fitna did not incite Kuffar to engage in anti-Muslim pogroms; nor was it intended to.

The second slur is extremely telling: "racist, discriminatory and xenophobic language" accurately describes what the Imams were saying about massacring the Jews, it does not accurately describe the video at which it was directed. Islam is not a race; it began by victimizing Arabs, but it expanded to victimize Jews, Africans and Asians. Most Muslims are descended from Asians who were give a choice: convert or die.

The hypocrisy of Ambassador Khan's accusations is exposed through dissection of other outrageous statements he made to the UNHRC September 21,'06. [See the list of links in my previous post.] Allah commanded his slaves to make war upon the entire non-Muslim world: 8:39 commands fighting pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. 9:29 commands making war upon people with scriptural religions until they are subjugated and submit to extortion. Those two links are to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, which displays the ayeh along with confirming hadith. Abu Dawud Book 14.2526 prophesies that Jihad will continue to Judgment Day. Abu Dawud 23.3455 curses Muslims if they take up farming instead of Jihad, which it calls their "original religion".

In consideration of insult & defamation, I leave you with a list of relevant ayat from Allah's book. After reading these, you will understand why Islam has no moral standing on which to make its outrageous demand.

• 2:221
• 3:85
• 4:125
• 4:157
• 5:36
• 5:116—118
• 6:22—23
• 6:148
• 7:173
• 8:22
  
• 8:38
• 9:30--34
• 15:2
• 16:20—21
• 21:66—67
• 21:98—100
• 22:19—21
• 22:56—57
• 24:3
• 25:17—19
• 25:27—29
• 26:96—99
• 29:41—42
• 31:13
• 37:22—25
• 37:26—32
• 38:55—57
• 41:33
• 68:8—13
• 98:6
  

hint

Yesterday I received a fund raising email from the American Center for Law and Justice. The following inflammatory paragraph was included in that missive.

Meanwhile, at the United Nations, a drastic move is reportedly underway to make the anti-Christian measure, ''Combating Defamation of Religions,'' BINDING - MANDATORY - for member nations, including America.

It would criminalize proclamation of the Gospel around the globe. Speaking out against Islam, for example, would be an international crime.

The inordinantly curious can find a copy of the missive at Free Republic. I spent several hours searching for more detailed information with little success. Most of the information traces back to one blog: U.N. May Try to Criminalize Criticism of Islam which contains the following interesting paragraph.

In November, when the most recent version of the anti-blasphemy resolution was introduced, Pakistan's Ambassador Masood Khan told the Human Rights Council the OIC wants to see a "new instrument or convention" that addresses the issue of blasphemy, one that would be binding on member states, according to Canwest News Service.

I was unable to find any evidence of such a message being delivered last November. Instead I discovered a statement delivered by Masood Khan April 1 of '08, which includes the quote cited above. [Emphasis added.]

We fear that such incidents are the tip of the iceberg. We should not let them spin out of control. Collectively, we should use political and legal instruments, and develop new ones, to stop willful and mischievous defamation of religions. The Council should explore new space to address this issue beyond condemnations and adoption of resolutions. The OIC has consistently called for drafting a new instrument or convention to combat defamation of religions. [Statement of Ambassador Masood Khan]*

In reality, the statement on behalf of the O.I.C. only mentions one "incident": the publication of Geert Wilders' Fitna. [First Ed. 03/27/08] Both Fitna and the Danish Cartoons have been alluded to in recent resolutions.

UN Watch issued a press release today.

Geneva, March 11, 2009 — A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.) [Emphasis added by UN Watch.]

While the press release recognizes the fact that the proposal is in the form of a non-binding resolution, it states that the resolution:.

would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."

It is my understanding that U.N. resolutions & conventions are only binding on those states who sign & ratify them. Why should the U.S.A. sign & ratify a blasphemy convention which would contravene the first amendment? Do Islam the U.N.H.R.C. have any pedestal of moral suasion to stand upon?

*[To read my detailed dissection of a previous screed by Masood Khan, visit Islamophobia Exposed and read Jihad Means, Violence is Alien to Islam, Extremism is Integral to Islam, Terrorists Don't Speak for Islam, Violated Islamic Law, Islam Forbids Violence, Spread by the Sword, and Moe's Legacy of Violence.]

Specter's Payoff?

Senator Specter’s payoff for betraying his party: betrayal of his state We now know one of the payoffs that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter received for being one of three Republican Senators who allowed President Obama’s trillion-dollar Spendulus bill to become law. WPXI in Pittsburgh reports that Specter has a 5.5 million dollar earmark for the crescent-shaped Flight 93 memorial in the omnibus spending bill just passed by the Senate. Much as the people of Pennsylvania want to see a fitting memorial built, they yanked support for the crescent design in August 2007 after Tom Burnett Sr., father of Flight 93 hero Tom Jr., started warning the country that the memorial design is STILL packed to the gills with Islamic symbolism. Since that time the Memorial Project has hardly raised a dime, and a September 2007 interview with State Senator Jane Orie, who sponsors the Hearts of Steel memorial fund, makes clear that concerns about Islamic symbolism predominate. Here is her exchange with Pittsburgh talk-radio host Fred Honsberger:

Orie: "No matter who it is, and no matter where I went today for 9/11 events, everybody brought up this crescent. Whether it is intentional or not, it is disturbing to people." Honsberger: "So everyone is bringing it up to you." Orie: "Absolutely."

Orie is talking here about the so-called “redesign.” The people of Pennsylvania know that the giant crescent, which the redesign was supposed to remove, is still there. The Park Service calls it “Circle of Embrace” now, but the circle is still broken, and the unbroken part of the circle——what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11——remains exactly as it was in the original Crescent of Embrace (pictured above). Architect Paul Murdoch's design is still a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, still pointing to Mecca. Pennsylvanians have voted with their pocketbooks to reject this memorial to the terrorists, but Arlen Specter is determined to cram it down their throats anyway, the same way he helped Obama cram a trillion dollars of socialist pork down America’s throat. Specter knows better than any other politician not just that the giant Islamic-shaped crescent is still there, but that it points to Mecca Our group was actually very hopeful back in 2007 that Senator Specter might put and end to the memorial debacle. After Mr. Burnett’s public appeal, Specter’s office wanted a briefing on the Islamic symbolism that we have found in the crescent design. One of our most knowledgeable people then spent 45 minutes with Stan Caldwell, Executive Director of Senator Specter’s Pittsburgh office, explaining in detail the Islamic and terrorist memorializing symbolism. Caldwell had no trouble understanding our graphical proof that the giant crescent points almost exactly at Mecca: A person standing between the tips of the Crescent of Embrace and facing into the center of the crescent (red arrow) will be facing within two degrees of the Muslim prayer direction (qibla), which is calculated as the great circle direction to Mecca. (Green qibla graphic produced by the Mecca-direction calculator at Islam.com. Another calculator is available at QiblaLocator.com.) Caldwell also had no trouble understanding that the giant crescent is still there. All the redesign did was place an extra arc of trees out behind the mouth of the crescent, an arc of trees that according to the Park Service’s own website explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle: Animation starts with the bare naked Crescent of Embrace. The re-colored Circle of Embrace site plan is superimposed on top, then everything but the changes are removed. The only change is extra arc of trees (flashing) that explicitly represents a broken off part of the circle. Every particle of the original Crescent of Embrace design remains completely intact. Our man also explained the significance of the Mecca orientation: that it turns the giant Islamic-shaped crescent into a mihrab (the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built). The planned memorial is actually the world’s largest mosque, and Arlen Specter’s office is fully aware of it. Do Specter and Caldwell have some explanation? The press will never ask, but we can:

DC Phone: 202-224-4254 DC Fax: 202-228-1229

Another Washington Post cover-up Dan Eggen reports how Families of Flight 93 (an adjunct to the Memorial Project, representing only those families who are backing the crescent design) have been in Washington seeking federal money. He includes no mention of WHY the private fundraising effort has failed. But State Senator Orie’s discussion of her fundraising difficulties is not hard to find. Any reporter doing a story on the memorial’s fundraising problems would presumably start here: The whole first page of search results is our blogburst post about Orie. (“Fundraising difficulties” yields the same result.) Either Dan Eggen is completely incompetent, or the Post is taking sides, refusing to report the facts that don’t support the terrorist memorializing side. Perhaps ombudsman Andrew Alexander should weigh in on this. The Post has NEVER reported on Mr. Burnett’s long battle to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Islamic-shaped crescent atop his son’s grave. Mr. Burnett left a long comment on Dan Eggen’s article which Eggen simply ignored, along with private offers to talk. So which is it Mr. Alexander? Is the Post incompetently ignorant of a controversy that has raged for years, or is it intentionally suppressing the facts about the giant Mecca-oriented crescent? To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url. 1389 Blog - Antijihadist Tech A Defending Crusader A Fine Line Between Stupid and Clever A Liberal's Worst Nightmare ACT Golden Gate Al Salibiyyah All American Blogger Almost Midnight in the West American Commentaries And Rightly So Anne Arundel Maryland Politics Alamo City Pundit ARRA News Service Atlas Shrugs Auntie Coosa Campfire Journal Bare Naked Islam Battle Dress U Because I'm Right Best Destiny Big Dog's Weblog Big Sibling Blackboot Jacks blogito, ergo, sum Bob McCarty Writes Boston Maggie Cao2's Weblog Cao's Blog Chaotic Synaptic Activity Chester Street Chicago Ray Christmas Ghost Classic Liberal Clay Ritter Clay's Rants and Musings Cocked and Loaded Colonel Robert Neville Always Dresses for Dinner Common Sense Junction Concrete Bob Covertress Creeping Sharia DC Protest Warrior Democrat = Socialist Dr. Bulldog and Ronin Error Theory EW1's Intercept Log Faultline USA Flanders Fields Flopping Aces Founding Fathers of the Vast Right Wing Four Pointer Francase Place Freedom's Enemies Freedom Warrior Fried Green Onions From My Position On the Way! Ft. Hard Knox Freedom Ain't Free Garbanzo Toons General Rachel's weblog GM's Corner Green Country Values Gunservatively Haid Dasalami Hard to Swallow Holger Awakens Hollywood Conservative Hoosier Army Mom iOwnThewWorld.com Ironic Surrealism v3.0 Ivy League Conservatives Jack Lewis Jihad Press Jim-Rose - the Libertarian Popinjay Judge Right Just Barking Mad kae's bloodnut blog Kender's Musings Lemur King's Folly LGF 2.0: Little Green Blogmocracy Maggie's Notebook MELAMPUS'S MENAGERIE!!!! Miss Beth's Victory Dance Monkey in the Middle Muslims Against Sharia My Own Thoughts Neoconstant Nice Deb No Apology No Compromises When It Comes To Being Right! Noli insipientium iniurias pati Not A Sheep Redesigned Flight 93 memorial still an Islamo-fascist shrine Ogre's Politics and Views Old Soldier Papa Mike's blog Part-Time Pundit Political Islam Principally Political Protest The Church Protest The Left Publius' Forum Race, Politics, and Religion in the USA Rayra.net Republican Attack Machine Right on the Right Right Truth Ron's Musings Rosemary's Thoughts Sarah Palin in Español Seattle Express Sharia Finance Watch Sheepdog Barking Shot in the Dark Sad Old Goth Smooth Stone Space 4 Commerce by Brian Dunbar Stix Blog Stop the ACLU Teen Pundit the Avid Editor The Conservative Guy The Gadfly The Great Lie of Islam The Grid The Hinge of Fate Liberalguy The Loyal Eagles The Midnight Sun The Mountain The Paradigm Shift The Political Octagon The Renaissance Biologist The Sanity Sentinel The Sisyphus Files The Strata-Sphere The Truth of Islam The View From the Turret The Wide Awakes Talk Wisdom Thunder Run Tizona's Weblog Tough Girl 101 Traction Control United Conservatives War of 2 Worlds We Have Some Planes Yes, but can I dance to it?

Obamination: Treacherous Idiocy

One News Now alerted me to a hint that President Barack Hussein Obama "says he hopes U.S. troops can identify moderate elements of the Taliban and move them toward reconciliation.". That story did not include the actual statement. A search through Google turned up a Deseret News story , derived from the New York Times News Service. The Deseret News included questions and answers from the NYT interview, including this, which appears to be the source of the many articles suggesting the possibility of "reconciliation" with the Taliban.

Q: Do you see a time when you might be willing to reach out to more moderate elements of the Taliban, to try to peel them away, toward reconciliation?

A: If you talk to Gen. Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida in Iraq.

There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region. But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex. You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes. Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.

The problems associated with the Sons of Iraq short term strategy are discussed in this AP article published by the Washington Post:. U.S. Unsure About the Future of Iraq's 'Sons'. The same principles of common sense should apply to Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

• You can rent loyalty, you can't purchase it.
• You can be outbid.
• You can not trust those whose loyalty you have rented.

Taliban means students of the Qur'an. Taliban member are Muslims first. They have studied the Qur'an & hadith and practice Salafism. The bottom line: total world conquest & domination, so that only Allah is worshiped on a global scale.

• Jihad is:
• "holy fighting in Allah's cause"
• to make Islam dominant
• the means of propagating Islam. {"His Religion (Islam) is propagated."}
• "the original religion" of Islam
• Islam's "highest peak"
• mandatory, not optional.

Under Islamic law offensive Jihad, when Muslims invade Dar al-Harb, is fard kifaya: obligatory on all able emancipated adult male Muslims until a sufficient number have answered the call to battle. Defensive Jihad, when Dar al-Islam is invaded by Kuffar, is fard ayn: obligatory on all Muslims jointly and severally regardless of age, gender or condition. Muslims who sincerely side with us in Afghanistan & Iraq have signed their death warrants; they will be killed when we pull out.

If they are Muslims, obedient to Allah, emulators of Muhammad, they are not our friends nor are they our allies. Friendship and alliance with disbelievers is explicitly forbidden by the following ayat.

• 3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
• 3:118
• 4:89
• 4:144
• For context, begin with 4:135.
• 5:51
• Continue context to 5:56.
• 5:57
• 58:14
• Continue context to 58:22
• 60:1

Allah grants implicit permission to trick & deceive Kuffar through al-taqeyya & kitman.

• 2:225. Allâh will not call you to account for that which is unintentional in your oaths, but He will call you to account for that which your hearts have earned. And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most-Forbearing.
• 3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
  
• 5:89. Allâh will not punish you for what is uninentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; ...
• 16:106. Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allâh, and theirs will be a great torment.
  
• (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''
• "War is deceit'"

Do you have a clue yet, or are you one of the lemmings? There can be neither compromise nor alliance with Islam. This is an existential conflict; them or us. They started it, let us finish it. There is nothing to discuss with Islam except the time, place and manner of their induction into Hell.