I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Connolly vs Robertson

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D.,Va., issued the following statement in regards to comments made by Rev. Pat Robertson.

“In the week since Mr. Robertson’s statement that Islam is ‘not a religion’ but a ‘violent political system’ whose adherents should be treated like members of the communist or fascist party, I have heard from hundreds of outraged Northern Virginians – Muslim and non-Muslim. Here in the 11th Congressional District of Virginia and, in fact, across our Commonwealth, Muslim-Americans are a vibrant part of our communities. They serve in our nation’s military, contribute to our economic growth, and in myriad other ways, help form the diverse tapestry that is Virginia in the 21st century.

“Some will dismiss Mr. Robertson’s comments as the strange ramblings of a man stuck in a bygone era. But when a prominent Virginian chooses to engage in hate-filled rhetoric that divides us and has the potential to fuel real discord in our polity, leaders cannot remain silent. That is why I am calling on Mr. Robertson to apologize to my constituents – Muslim and non-Muslim – for the hurt he has caused and the damage he has done. It is a week overdue.”


The following is my own rough transcription of Rev. Robertson's statement.
Worry about backlash but the truth is this guy was off his trolley and they should have gotten him out but nobody wanted to go after him because of political correctness.

We just don't talk about somebody's "religion" even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats. But he wasn't hiding it.

I tell ya what should happen and I think is going to happen is the families of those soldiers who were killed have an absolute major lawsuit for damages against the United States government.

There was a failure there was a failure, they should have -- as Senator Lieberman said, this man should have been gone -- he should have been out of the service.

But just imagine, how a young man, brave defenders of the freedom we enjoy, having to sit in psychological evaluation in front of this man. Just think what that means, think what this would do to their psyches.

It was a horrible chapter, but if we don't stop covering up what Islam is--Islam is a violent-- I would say religion but its not a religion, its a political system, its a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination. That is the ultimate aim and uh, they talk about infidels and all this but the truth is, that's what the game is so you're dealing with a political system and I think we should treat it as such and treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group.

Well, its a tragedy, our hearts go out to the families who suffered but those in the army should be held to account for the fact that they let this man loose.

I will proceed to take on Rev. Robertson point by point.
  • "this guy was off his trolley"
I do not agree; Major Nidal Hasan is a Muslim, not insane. His act was motivated by the ideology of Islam imparted in the Mosque. If you doubt that fact, view the slide show with which he illustrated a lecture on Islam. Muslims shout takbir when slaughtering sacrificial animals and going into battle. Nidal Hasan shouted it when he opened fire on unarmed colleagues. That cinches the matter.
  • "they should have gotten him out"
Blessed right; Hasan should have been cashiered and deported!
  • "even if the religion involves beheading infidels and pouring boiling oil down their throats"
Decapitating disbelievers is Islamic, but drenching them with boiling oil is a reference to one of the torments of Hell, not something to be done in this world.
  • "Islam is a violent"
An estimated 270*106 people have been slain by Islam in the last 1386 years. Is it peaceful or violent? Allah commanded warfare against pagans and people of the book. Moe said that he was "ordered to fight". One of his 86 wars was defensive, the rest were aggressive, on his initiative. Because of what Allah commanded and Moe exemplified, Shari'ah requires a minimum of one military expedition against Kuffar in every year. Islam is violent, Rev. Robertson is right.
  • "its not a religion, its a political system"
Islam is not a religion, neither is it a political system. Islam is a deen: a way of life. Islam prescribes everything from conception to burial. Its religious component: theology, cosmology, iman & salat are parts of a control mechanism used to motivate mujahideen to kill and be killed fighting, ostensibly to propagate Islam, in reality, to finance Moe's lifestyle. If you doubt that fact, then read Islam's Mercenary Mission.

Islam's religion is jihad. Jihad is "to war against non-Muslims" [Reliance O9.0]. "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." [Noble Qur'an, Hilali & Khan, footnote to 2:190.]
  • "bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination."
Islam divides the world into Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. The former is where Allah's writ runs. The latter is every where else; the land of war. In Al-Anfal 39, Allah commands Muslims to fight disbelievers until only Allah is worshiped, on a global scale. If any doubt remains, read these tafsir.
  • "treat its adherents as such as we would members of the Communist Party or members of some fascist group"
Muslims are not equivalent to Communists. Islam is at war against us, that makes them equivalent to the Barbary pirates of the 18th century or the Waffen SS of the 20th . They should be expelled, not recruited and promoted in the armed forces, FBI & CIA.
  • "that they let this man loose"
That is not what they did, they retained and promoted him to the rank of Major, enabling him to slaughter unarmed enlisted men in a place where they had a right to feel secure. He should have been cashiered and deported.

Muslims residing in Virginia complained to Rep. Connolly, who, in turn issued his statement, which was reported by the Augusta Free Press, where you can read a sampling of public opinion on the issue. From my point of view, complaining to a Member of Congress was the wrong response. Offended viewers should have responded to Rev. Robertson or through blog & forum posts or CAIR.

Rev. Robertson's truthful statement of fact is not the proper subject of government action. He has a First Amendment right of free expression, which entitles him to speak the truth about Islam.

In making his inappropriate statement, Rep. Connolly was acting as a follower, not a leader. In doing so, he pandered to a vocal and demonstrative minority which does not have this nation's best interests at heart. I do not find any "hate-filled rhetoric" in Rev. Robertson's remarks. Instead, I found truthful statements of fact. Instead of division and discord, Rev. Robertson spoke truth: adherents of radical Islam should be discharged from our military services before they take the opportunity to murder our servicemen. The same truth was spoken by Major Hasan in his lecture to fellow students. Evidently someone was not paying proper attention before the fact. Rep. Connolly should have paid proper attention after the fact.
Thanks and a tip of the hat to Christopher L. of Islam In Action.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

Mohammed Haider Ghuloum PhD. quotes an AP Article from the Seattle Times about the OIC's campaign to impose Islamic blasphemy laws upon us. He then gives a good analysis of the problem, only to spoil the post with his conclusion.

I have a better idea: let’s have a new international law on religious tolerance and freedom. Mosques (Sunni and Shi’a), churches, synagogues, and temples of all faiths can be allowed to be freely built in any country. Be it Switzerland, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia. Nobody will be hassled for arriving at an airport carrying a copy of the Quran, the Bible, the Torah, Das Kapital, or Sarah Palin’s Confessions.. Would not that be much better?
International law on freedom of religion already exists.


Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Unfortunately, nobody will enforce it and Islam denies it, imposing their own malicious substitute.

The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Article 1
(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, language, sex, religious belief, political affiliation, social status or other considerations. True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.
(b) All human beings are God’s subjects, and the most loved by him are those who are most useful to the rest of His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.

Article 9
(a) The quest for knowledge is an obligation, and the provision of education is a duty for society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee educational diversity in the interest of society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and the facts of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.
(b) Every human being has the right to receive both religious and worldly education from the various institutions of education and guidance, including the family, the school, the university, the media, etc., and in such an integrated and balanced manner as to develop his personality, strengthen his faith in God and promote his respect for and defence of both rights and obligations.

Article 22
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
(d) It is not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of racial discrimination.

Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

Article 25
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

Art. 9 should be your first hint. The last two articles seal the deal. Shari'ah is what Allah & Moe said and did. It is codified in Reliance of the Traveller and you have no rights or freedoms not therein established if Islam has its way.

Do you have the right to convert from Islam to atheism, Judaism or Christianity?


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


In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Do you have the right to practice your religion?


Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:


-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Do you have the right to question & criticize Islam?


The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:


-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

What would be impermissible to mention?

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam

(O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:


-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;


-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

Of course you have the right to live in peace, secure in your person and property?

Article 18
(a) Everyone shall have the right to live in security for himself, his religion, his dependents, his honour and his property.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to privacy in the conduct of his private affairs, in his home, among his family, with regard to his property and his relationships. It is not permitted to spy on him, to place him under surveillance or to besmirch his good name. The State shall protect him from arbitrary interference.
(c) A private residence is inviolable in all cases. It will not be entered without permission from its inhabitants or in any unlawful manner, nor shall it be demolished or confiscated and its dwellers evicted.

Sorry, sucker. Refer to Art. 24 "All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.". Reliance O9.0 defines jihad and gives a partial scriptural basis for it. It also quotes a relevant hadith which should open your eyes.

"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah"

Your blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until you become one of them. You are their prey and its open season.

I have a better idea: lets enforce the provisions of ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG violated by Islam's immutable intrinsic doctrines and outlaw it entirely. You can advance this cause by signing the International Qur'an Petition, sending it to everyone you can hope to influence, and exhorting them to sign and forward it.

Petition for Investigation of CAIR

Act! for America is calling on Congress to open an official investigation of CAIR in the wake of their designation as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case and the publication of Muslim Mafia.

We Call on the U.S. Government to Conduct an Immediate and Thorough Investigation into the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Interest of National Security

We are GREATLY CONCERNED about past and ongoing activities by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and look to our U.S. Government to immediately commence a thorough investigation into the organization, including its leadership, affiliates and activities.

We REMIND our elected officials that CAIR has documented ties to the terrorist organization Hamas and that CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial (a trial that ended with guilty verdicts on 108 counts of funneling $12 million to Hamas).

We REMIND our elected officials that CAIR has individuals either under its current or former employ, or as its affiliates, who have direct ties to terrorism both in the U.S. and abroad: such as Nihad Awad, CAIR’s current national executive director, who participated in a meeting about how to disguise payments to Hamas terrorists as charity; Abdurahman Alamoudi, a CAIR director who is now serving 23 years in federal prison for plotting terrorism; and Omar M. Ahmad, CAIR’s founder and former chairman, who was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land case, to name but a few examples.

We are deeply CONCERNED at recent reports that CAIR has worked to undermine U.S. law enforcement by tipping off suspected terrorists under investigation, and by directing Muslim-Americans to not cooperate with the F.B.I.

We are DISMAYED that, despite these facts, CAIR continues to be the primary group consulted by both media and government agencies with regard to the Muslim-American community.

In the name of true transparency, therefore, we REQUEST that Congress and the Administration support the following investigative actions:

  • The U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE share with each member of the U.S. Congress an executive summary of the findings that led them to name CAIR as a co-conspirator in a terrorism case.
  • The House Sergeant at Arms work with all Members of Congress and their top staff, particularly those Members who sit on the House Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Intelligence Committees, to perform background checks on staff under their employ, considering evidence that CAIR has strategically worked to place staffers there.
  • The U.S. Internal Revenue Service perform a full and thorough investigation into the business activities of CAIR, specifically their lobbying activities, to judge if they are in violation of their federal non-profit status as a 501c3 organization.
Further, we REJECT all attempts by CAIR to discredit those who call for a formal investigation into their organization by falsely arguing such action is “anti-Muslim.” This has been an oft-used distraction tactic of theirs, and it is time it came to an end. This issue is about CAIR and only CAIR.

We REMIND our elected officials that their primary responsibility to our nation’s citizens is to PROTECT AND DEFEND, and we therefore URGE them to take immediate action on this matter.

Please click this link to join the 28,249 who have already signed the petition. Share this information with everyone you can hope to influence. Members of the anti-terror caucus need evidence of massive public support in order to overcome the prevailing PC prejudice and get the ball rolling in Congress. Its up to us. If not us, who? If not now, when?

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Comparative vs Absolute Violence

Sheila Musaji responded to Condemning Religious Extremism with a new article containing two rhetorical questions in its title.
Is Islam more violent than other religions?: Is the Qur’an inherently violent?

Dajjal, the author, then lists verses in the Qur’an which he believes to mean that my condemnation would call for me to condemn God and/or the Qur’an, or Islam. He goes on to repeat that “Islam not only encourages but mandates violence”. He repeats this process for each of the condemnations in my article, giving his interpretation of particular Qur’anic verses to “prove” that his understanding of Islam is more accurate than that of the majority of Muslims (including Muslim scholars), and that any moderate interpretation is a lie.
Sheila Musaji follows up with a recapitulation of her earlier article before listing several verses which she finds inspirational, including: 2:190, 8:61, 5:28, 60:8, 2:193, 2:256, 18:29, 10:99, 24:54, 109:1-6, 3:134 and 3:186.

The list of inspirational verses is followed by this:
Some time ago I wrote an article entitled The Use and Abuse of Scriptures and I believe that it responds very clearly to the problem of “quote mining” the scriptures.
The cited article was reproduced after that introduction. It lists Qur'an & Bible verses which are supposedly abused by cherry pickers. This brings me back to the list of verses which inspire the author. Why does she find them inspirational? She uses the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. You can find it, with the translator's commentary, at altafsir.com. Lets examine the first verse she cited, linked at the end of the preceding sentence
Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.

* v.190 : War is only permissible in self-defence, and under well-defined limits. When undertaken, it must be pushed with vigour, but not relentlessly, but only to restore peace and freedom for the worship of God. In any case strict limits must not be transgressed: women, children, old and infirm men should not be molested, nor trees and crops cut down, nor peace withheld when the enemy comes to terms.
" War is only permissible in self-defense" goes far beyond the text of the verse, if we interpret it literally. Is it true? "Those who fight you" implies that this verse is about defensive warfare. But look closely, it says "who fight you", not "who attack you". Lets turn to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir.
Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants.

Women & children should not be killed. Why not? Is that ruling based on moral premises? Examine Malik's Muwatta 21.3.10, which contains several prohibitions.
  • Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person
  • Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees
  • Do not destroy an inhabited place.
  • Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food.
  • Do not burn bees and do not scatter them.
  • Do not steal from the booty, and do not be cowardly
Notice that the first five prohibitions are all members of a set defined by the first clause in the last prohibition. Everything protected by the prohibition is booty! The economic foundation of the prohibition is confirmed in Shari'ah. We turn next to Reliance of the Traveller. [Emphasis added.]


When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Ok, so non-combatants are not to be attacked, just enslaved or held for ransom. What about people passively minding their own business, in their own homeland, who were not attacking Muslims? [Emphasis added.]

O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"

and Allah Most High having said:

"Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

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.

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

Jihad against Kufar in their own countries is a communal obligation binding upon the Muslims each year. Let Al-Shafi'i clarify the issue.
The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

What must the imam do? [Emphasis added.]

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

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

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

The caliph invites people of the book to embrace Islam or submit to extortion. If they decline, he makes war on them. "Fight those who fight against you:" evidently means 'after you attack them'. Why would Muslims attack people who had not attacked them? Because Allah commanded it in 8:39 & 9:29. Moe dispatched armies, giving their commanders orders which were recorded in Sahih Muslim 19.4294.

[...]If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them.[...]

There is another source of verification which Muslims would prefer that we not be aware of. I learned of this resource by lurking in a Muslim chat room on Pal Talk a few years ago. Moe dictated extortion letters and dispatched them by couriers, later following up with his army. He sent one to the Byzantine Emperor before launching the ghazwat on Tabuk. He sent another to the Jews at the Khaibar Oasis prior to attacking them. But this exemplary gem of extortion letters is far more explicit than the others, leaving little to the imagination.


In the name of ALLAH the compassionate, the Merciful
From Muhammad, Prophet of Allah
To the People of Aqaba

May peace be on you. I praise Allah who is one and except whom there is nobody else to be worshipped.

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

These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived.

If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners.

I assure you that I am a true Prophet of Allah. I believe in Allah, and His Books, and His Prophets and am of the faith that Maseeh (Messiah) son of Mariam (Mary), is a Prophet of Allah and His word.

Hurmala (Raziallah AnhoA.) who brought to me 3 wasaq (about 6 quintals) of barley, recommended your case. Had it not been in compliance of the command of Allah and the good opinion of Hurmala for you, it would not have been necessary for me to correspond with you and instead of it, there would have been a war. If you will obey my messengers, you shall immediately have my support and the help and support of everyone who is attached to me.

My messengers are Shuraih-beel, Obaiy, Hurmala and Hurais (Raziallah AnhoA.) and whatever decision they take in respect of you, shall be acceptable to me.

Your people are under the protection and responsibility of Allah and His Prophet.

Supply provisions to the Jews of Maqna, for their journey to their country.

If you accept obedience, may peace be on you.'

Seal: Allah's Prophet Muhammad .

Citing 8:39 & 9:29 might be cherry picking if their meanings were not so obvious, but they are clear verses, the foundations of the book. Furthermore, they are confirmed by Islamic oral tradition as well as by Shari'ah. [Emphasis added.]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Classical Arabic of the time of the revelation of the Qur'an lacked vowels and diacritical marks. It was not much more than a memory aid. One man was an expert in the meaning of the Qur'an, the one who received and recited the revelation. He told his companions what it meant and demonstrated its meaning. His companions passed that information down from mouth to ear for generations before it was codified. Because Islamic traditions were codified and translated, we have access to them and can see what the Qur'an meant to Moe, the real expert.

Many Muslims will answer by denying the authenticity of hadith, asserting that the Qur'an is the only revelation of divine will, protected by Allah from all contamination. Of course, there are some problems with that assertion. Only Moe received the revelations, sometimes in the form of a bell ringing in his head.
Moe could say anything, asserting that it was from Allah, and he did. His child bride was wise to him. [Emphasis added.]

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:

Narrated Aisha:

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

The Qur'an was largely transmitted from mouth to ear, just like the hadith. Fragments were written on various materials, but when the Qur'an was codified, parts of it were only available from hafiz. If the hadith are not reliable, neither is the Qur'an. How is a Muslim to obey Muhammad and emulate his conduct without knowing what he commanded and exemplified? Does the Qur'an tell you how to perform Wudu? Does it tell you what to do if water is not available? So, how do you know?

What is Shari'ah based upon? It has two primary sources: Qur'an & hadith, extended by analogy. If you disclaim hadith, then how can you claim that Shari'ah has any validity?

Muslims assert that 2:256 & 10:99, quoted by Sheila Musaji, forbid compelling anyone to revert to Islam. There is a reason for that: Jizya was only collected from people of the book who had been conquered or intimidated. If they were reverted, they would cease to pay Jizya. Dhimmis were a source of Income for Moe.
2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

10:99. And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad ) then compel mankind, until they become believers.

10:100. It is not for any person to believe, except by the Leave of Allâh, and He will put the wrath on those who are heedless.
It says you can't force us to revert, it does not say you can't attack us. Where is the conflict between those verses and the Jihad imperatives?
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
"Religion will all be for Allah alone", a terminal condition for warfare in 8:39, is obviously in conflict. But there is an out: abrogation.
2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?
Later revelations abrogate earlier revelations with which they conflict. Which came first? Surah Al-Baqarah was #87 in sequence of revelation; Surah Al-Anfal was #88. 2:256 is abrogated.

Of course I don't know a character of Arabic, so I am not qualified to interpret the Qur'an, as if Allah's commandments required interpretation. Will you take the word of one who was qualified? Here is a fragment from the Wikipedia entry about Ibn Kathir.

Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary on the Qur'an named Tafsir ibn Kathir which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation. Tafsir Ibn Kathir is famous all over the Muslim world and among Muslims in the Western world, is one of the most widely used explanations of the Qu'ran today.

Ibn Kathir was renowned for his great memory regarding the sayings of Muhammad and the entire Qur'an. Ibn Kathir is known as a qadi, a master scholar of history, and a mufassir (Qur'an commentator). Ibn Kathir saw himself as a Shafi'i scholar. This is indicated by two of his books, one of which was Tabaqaat ah-Shafai'ah, or The Categories of the Followers of Imam Shafi.

. The titles of the following tafsir topics should be sufficient to convince any sane person. If they don't convince you, click them and read the tafsir.
Did Jesus Christ preach or practice conquest, genocide & terrorism? In what New Testament book, chapter & verse is such preaching or practice recorded? The Qur'an hadith show us that Moe preached & practiced those evils. Islamic tradition & exegeses also depict Jesus as a genocidal warmonger. If you doubt those facts, follow these links and see for yourself.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Condemning Religious Extremism

On November 15, 09, The American Muslim published Muslims Must Condemn Religious Extremists by Sheila Musaji. She expressed a desire to "go on record as condemning all religious extremism, bigotry, violence, hatred, and terrorism by both Muslims and non-Muslims." [Bold face in original.] She follows up by citing several "false claims" about Islam and sets out to disprove them by listing evil acts and obnoxious statements performed or made by Jews or Christians.

In the process of listing the relatively small number of evil acts & statements, Sheila Musaji tacks around the unpleasant & incontrovertible fact that terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam. Extraordinary claims require proof, don"t they? I submit as proof, the ample testimony of Allah and his messenger.

The testimony of Allah as recorded in the Qur'an. [Emphasis added.]
  • 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers).
  • 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."
  • 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.
  • 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; compare with
    Arberry, Rodwell & Sale.]
  • 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh 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.
  • 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).
  • 59:13. Verily, you (believers in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) are more awful as a fear in their (Jews of Bani An-Nadir) breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not (the Majesty and Power of Allah).
The testimony of Moe as recorded in hadith. [Emphasis added.]
  • Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [...]
  • Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 [...]I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) [...]

A counter at Religion of Peace indicates that Muslims have perpetrated 14,392 terror attacks since 09/11/'01. How many have Jews & Christians perpetrated in the last eight years? Besides lists of recent and prior year attacks, that web site lists these facts which help to put things in perspective..
  • More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)
  • Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)
  • More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)
  • 19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years. (source)
Sheila Musaji lists several ayat which guide her understanding of the Qur'an. Her list includes Al-Ma'idah 32 and skips directly to Surah Ghafir 40-43.
“If anyone slays a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew all people. And if anyone saves a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all people.” Qur’an 5:32.
“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree), but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God, for God loves not those who do wrong. But indeed, if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong done to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men with wrongdoing and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice. For such there will be a penalty grievous (in the Hereafter). But indeed, if any show patience and forgive, that would truly be an affair of great resolution.” Qur’an 42:40-43.
Why did she skip the context of 5:33 and turn so far away to complete the concept? For the same reason that other Muslims skip over that ayeh

: kitman. They don't want you to know its contents or its meaning. Lets take a close look at what they conceal from you. [Emphasis added.]
  • 5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
What is the meaning of "wage war against Allah", which subjects one to the listed hudud? Ibn Kathir answers the question in his tafsir of 5:33.
If you do not believe in Allah, you are waging war against him and are subject to the listed hudud.

Sheila Musaji lists some actions and attitudes which she condemns. I will sample them out of context.
I condemn any individual who encourages others to commit violence, murder, or terrorism.
Does she condemn Allah & Moe? Qur'anic incitement to terrorism is listed above. Quranic incitement to violence include: 2:216, 8:39, 9:29 & 9:123.
I condemn any organization which encourages extremism, bigotry, or violence
Does she condemn Islam, which not only encourages but mandates violence?
I condemn anyone who attempts to degrade or insult the religion of others!
Does she condemn Allah? 1:7 says that Jews earned Allah's wrath and Christians went astray, 3:85 expresses intolerance, 8:22 expresses contempt for Jews & Christians and 9:33 curses us.
I condemn anyone who thinks that collective punishment, group responsibility, ethnic cleansing, or genocide is the solution to anything!
Does she condemn Allah? 9:14 & 3:12 involve collective punishment, 8:67 & 47:4 sanctify genocide.
I condemn anyone who thinks that membership in their faith group makes them superior to other human beings
Does she condemn Allah, who said that Muslims are the best of peoples in 3:110 and Moe who explained in Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 that it means "the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam."?

Petition of Ignorance

Muslim Thought Re-published Dr. Hasan Yahya's "Petition of Ignorance: Banning of Islam" dated 02/18/09.

Dr. Yahya's critique derisively focuses on form, but his original post was mis formated, and several cross posts which I have seen, including the present case, copy that mis format, making them difficult to read. To make matters worse, the article has no indentations or double spacing, it is one large block of text. These brilliant, wise, all knowing scholars don't know how to use html or make their writing readable.

The article criticized the Ban Islam Petition, which has, at the time of this writing, 889 signatures. Since the petition does not supply evidence to support the charges it makes, its appeal is to people who are already familiar with the evil doctrines and practices of Islam.

I have extracted selected statements from Dr.Yahya's article, placing them in the outer level of an unordered list, with my own comments and evidence in deeper levels of the list. .

  • [H]e brings the honorable Prophet of Islam, which Bernard Shaw, the Irish philosopher described as the top of 100 historical personalities in history, found on earth as a great leader.
  • The petition wanted to bring Muhammad (SAAS) the Prophet of Islam like Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and Hitler for the Holocoust, and the Butcher of Bosnian Muslims of Checkoslovakia. Which I believe is a completely ignorant and unfounded claim.[...]
    • Moe died in 632, he is beyond the reach of the World Court. His 'crimes' were cited in the petition because they are sunna, exemplary acts to be emulated by Muslims in all places, at all times. It is Islam, not Moe in the dock, Dr.Yahya resorts to reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that petitions against David and Solomon would be parallels to the petition against Islam. He ignores the fact that Judaism & Christianity underwent reformations while Islam remains and will always remain fixated in the 7th century.
  • In this petition there is comment number: 16, which shows Sir Winston Churchill stated in 1899, that Muslims utilize cruel rules and practices early in his life when he was ignorant in politics and of Islam as a great religion. By generalizing his view for all Muslims. [...]
    • Churchill served as a British Army officer & war correspondent in Somalia & India where he had ample opportunity for exposure to Islam.
    • Not withstanding the incomplete sentence, Churchill wrote about Islam, not Muslims. The cited comment does not appear at the specified location in the petition signatures, but may be seen in a blog comment.
  • Then you have comment number: 184, for William S. Arnott, Ph.D who strongly encourages such petitions.
    My comment: He has a Ph.D, to say the man is an authority, in fact the carrier of this Ph.D wrote: “Their [the Muslims] deterministic religion is not for the freedom of anyone but is for control of everyone.” I think the use of “anyone,” and “everyone” over generalizes in a situation when specificality is needed rendering his opinion out of the scientific circle by any quantitative or qualitative measurement.
    • With a little research, I discovered that Dr. Arnott is a retired psychologist, with degrees appropriate to his occupation. His critic has degrees in Educational Psychology & Sociology. How does Dr. Yahya have any more credibility than Dr. Arnott?
  • In support of this position the petitioner cites comments from a range of contributors listed by numbers as follows: 16, 184, 536, 518, 82, 653, 655, 654, and 659. Comment number 536, which he breached as an innocent adolescent shool boy that “the muslims are a victim of islam. make no mistake about that.” And calls to rescue “the helpless victims of islam” and help them to be “a free people” He then proceeds to call on Saudi Arabia to change its ways. This stikes me as somewhat odd. Someone as learned as the petioner would claim to be would undoubtly understand that Saudi Arabia is a small portion of the Muslim world, which includes over 1.5 Billion followers. Its population according to almanac 2007, was 27 million. That is less than 2% of the overall Muslim population worldwide. Thanks for the advice, I am sure Saudi Arabia appreciates it.
    • The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contains the focal point of Islam: the Kaaba, in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The K.S.A. finances the spread of fundamentalist Islam all over the globe.
  • Comment 518, the comment is written in French. Unfortunately, I do not speak French. I did, however, recognize some catalystic words. Words such as; Islam, Cathiliques, genocide, massacre, religions, Bouddiste, hindu, religion impose, and psychologiques, and sects, among others. My ethical resolve does not allow me to comment on something that I do not fully understand. I only wish the petitioner had such ethical standards.
    • Without reading the comment, Dr. Yahya concludes that the commenter has low ethical standards, writing about a subject he does not comprehend. Dr. Yahya's hypocrisy is obvious.
      • L'Islam appelle à l'esclavage des musulmanes envers les musulmans, des Juifs et des Catholiques. Cette religion appelle au génocide par le massacre en masse des athés et des autres religions qui ne sont pas "du livre" (bouddiste, hindou, etc). cette religion impose une loi (la charia) qui est épouvantable pour l'humanité (ex la lapidation des femmes, l'esclavage sexuel des non musulmanes, etc). Cette religion utilise des outils de manipulations psychologiques que l'on retrouve dans les sectes.
      • Google Translation:
        • Islam calls for the enslavement of Muslims against Muslims, Jews and Catholics. This religion calls for genocide by the mass slaughter of atheists and other religions are not "book" (Buddhists, Hindu, etc.). that religion imposes a law (Sharia), which is terrible for humanity (eg stoning of women, sexual slavery of non-Muslim, etc.). This religion uses psychological manipulation tools found in sects.
    • Upon examination of the translated comment, I find therein nothing contrary to the truth; it is an accurate description of Islam.
  • Comment 655. a comment from someone; s/he says: “The use of religion to torture, kill, malign, coerce and condone maltreatment of any living creature is heinous.” I agree so far. But on this statement I disagree. s/he said: “Islam does all of these things.” According to whom? This is your basic stereotypical mentality and wreaks of ignorance. Many of the comments are like this, one persons account or opinion but completely unsubstantiated and lacking in real value in understanding.
  • Comment 654. says:”In the interest of world peace ban islam.” S/he agrees on false claim or petition to ban Islam. I wonder to myself as I am reading this comment: what level of bigotry and racist view are these? I am appalled as a sociologist to see such free acceptance of illogical statements in a petition that is to be taken seriously. This comment is written by a blind follower. You could say anything and the “yes, count me in” mentality kicks in. I could probably go around and gets quotes from random people saying that they hate football. That doesn’t mean I will go forward with a petition to ban football.
  • Finally, the sponsor of the petition, his name is Lorenzo Bouchard, and his email, is labouchard@shaw.ca
    A final comment is what about the other numbers of comments which may be redicule the petition or call for peace and harmony in America in logical sense From the 659 or may be more comments? Just a question. Americans are not fools to accept such a racist and discriminative petition. Forty years ago, blacks compared with whites were less intillegent and some racist scientist like the one with Ph.D, the petitioner brought, claimed that in the 1980s, Today, Obama proved that blacks are not less than any person on earth if they have the chance and opportunity. For this I proudly say, long live America. And I feel sorry for this ill-guided petition to incite hatred in a healthy society like the USA.
    • What is the relevance of the name and contact information of the author of the petition? Let the petition stand or fall on its intrinsic merit.
    • Dr. Yahya arbitrarily dismissis comments in support of the petition. Why should we blindly accept criticism of it?
    • The petition is not racist; Islam is a war cult, not a race. Islam is not limited to Arabia, Arabs conquered North Africa, nearly half of Asia and much of Southern & Eastern Europe. It has enslaved people of several races. Rejecting a pseudo religion which commands its votaries to conquer the world, performing acts of terrorism & genocide in the process is not evil, it is a wise decision based on verifiable facts and sound judgment.
A newer petition, urges the World Court to grant injunctive relief against Islam.It presents evidence of Islam's static violation of international human rights conventions. It is carefully formatted and its evidence is linked to source documents for easy verification & contextual exploration. The International Qur'an Petition, published August 18, has 116 signatures at present.

Muslims, seeking to impose their blasphemy laws onto the entire world, assert that all criticism of islam is racism and hate speech, intended to incite violence against Muslims. Those assertions are intended to shut off debate, precluding all questioning of Islam's bona fides. That is the purpose of the Defamation of Religions resolution being debated by the Third Committee and a proposal to add a protocol to ICERD, being written by the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

The resolution and the protocol seek to use international human rights law against us, rendering us defenseless in the ideological war which Islam is waging against our liberties. The International Qur'an Petition is our way of turning the tables on Islam, using their tactic against them. Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence contravenes ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG. The petition offers proof of that fact. If the international human rights covenants are to have any meaning and effect, Islam must be proscribed by law.

I am asking you to read the International Qur'an Petition and evaluate the evidence for yourself. If you agree that Islam must be proscribed, sign the petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward it. You can copy the petition's text and paste it into an email or download it in the form of a 14kb pdf file for use as an email attachment.

Proscribe Islam Petition Rough Draft is a71kb pdf file containing the full quotes of the the evidence of Islam's guilt. .Islam vs Human Rights 64kb chm file compiled from 7 blog posts exposing Islam's static violations of ICCPR.

The fact, revealed by the codified oral traditions of Moe's companions, is that Islam's mission is mercenary, its method is martial and its founder was a lecher, pedophile and suborner of murder. That is truth, not hate speech. That is condemnation of Islam, not an exhortation to assault or murder Muslims.

The Danish Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist. They exaggerate; Moe never possessed a bomb because he died before the invention of explosives. But he was, by his own admission, a terrorist. The cartoons do not suggest attacks against Muslims. The violence was spawned by the preaching of radical clerics, not by the cartoons. Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders, illustrates that fact most effectively. It shows Allah's commands and the cleric's raving along with the resultant rioting. Fitna is neither hate speech nor incitement, it is an expose of Islam's hate speech and incitement to violence.