Examiner Rejects Facts about Islam

The Examiner  published an article by Armir Taraj  entitled:  Park51 Opponents Linked to Admirer of Terror Group Founder.   The article presented ad hominem arguments against Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer and appealed to biased authority figures without presenting  relevant, verifiable facts to refute the arguments presented by Geller and Spencer.  

    Presuming that their comment system would not allow links, I responded with references to Islam's canon.

Liberals resort to argumentum ad hominem because they have no relevant, verifiable facts with which to defend their emotion based positions  . 

The fact is that Islam is intrinsically evil, by design . Its mission is mercenary. Anyone can  confirm that fact by reading the Qur'an & hadith: 8:1, 41, & 67; 33:26,27; 48:20, Sahih Muslim 19.4327, Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331, 4.52.220, 3.37.495 & 4.52.267 You can look up those references or you can search for and read "Islam's Mercenary Mission".

The fact is that Islam is martial, it ordains warfare for Muslims, the relationship between Allah and Muslims is master:slave; purchased to fight in his cause, kill and be killed.  Allah commanded Muslims to wage war against pagans until only Allah is worshiped and to wage war against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated & make annual extortion payments. Moe confirmed those imperatives, declaring that he was "ordered to fight".

You can confirm those facts by reading the Qur'an & hadith: 8:69, 9:29, 9:123 & Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. 

Moe sent out extortion letters and followed up with his army. You can search for Muhammad's letters and treaties and you can read Sahih Bukhari's books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition.  Or you can search for, download and read Jihad.chm. 

Moe was a terrorist and bragged about it.  You can verify this fact by reading Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 & 1.7.331  or you can search for, download and read Islamic Terror.chm. 

You can find a substantial subset of the relevant quotes, linked to source, in my blog post: "What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims?" You could look up the writings of Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Taymiyya, Qutb & Maududi.  You could look up Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9 to verify the fact that the jihad imperatives are  codified in Shari'ah.   You could look up the "science of Naskh" to discover that the relatively tolerant and peaceful early Meccan verses have been abrogated by Surah al-Anfal & at-Taubah. 

You could do the research, but you won't, because you are a Liberal, and liberals know that they are superior, intellectually and morally.  Liberals know that their instincts are obviously correct, they do not require relevant, verifiable factual evidence.   

    The Examiner's automated system responded with this message:




    My comment did not contain any profanity, so I decided to go all the way with another attempt at commenting.

Fighting facts with personal denigration is unfair. Robert Spencer posts facts at Jihad Watch. I attempted to post references to the source documents, your automated system accused me of trying to post profanity and rejected my comment. 

I will attempt to post links to my blog posts and compilations of posts which contain the relevant facts with links which will allow you to verify them and explore the context.

http://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/whats-wrong-with-islammuslims/
http://snooper.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/islam-vs-kuffar-adv-war/
http://snooper.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/park-51-place-of-salat/
Islamic Terror.chm:  http://www.box.net/shared/l9kl2j3xju
Jihad.chm:  http://www.box.net/shared/kpg3rjaqof

    The second attempt produced exactly the same result.  When I attempted to post a message announcing my intent to create this post, I got a message saying that I had failed to enter the correct  characters, but no capcha form was visible. A latter attempt  was successful, but there was no capcha.  

    It is evident that LibTards are repelled by relevant, verifiable facts.  They do not want their emotion driven assumptions to be refuted with truth.

    Here is the money quote (from FAIR):

"By selectively ignoring inconvenient Islamic texts and commentaries, Spencer concludes that Islam is innately extremist and violent."

Lets get specific, which the LibTards won't do.  Here is a sample of the "peaceful, tolerant ayat" which supposedly contradict Spencer's evidence.

• 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.
• 5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!. 
• 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.  
• 109:6. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâmic Monotheism)." 
• 16:125. Invite (mankind, O Muhammad ) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islâm) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Qur'ân) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided.
  

    The self-anointed experts who would so blithely dismiss Spencer's arguments overlook the science of Naskh. When two ayat conflict, the ayeh revealed later abrogates the older ayeh. [2:106, 16:101]  Examine the sequence of revelation.

18

Kafirun

6

Mecca

109

51

Yunus

109

Mecca

10

70

Nahl

128

Mecca

16

87

Baqarah

286

Medina

2

88

Anfal

75

Medina

8

112

Maidah

120

Medina

5

113

Taubah

129

Medina

9

    8:39 & 9:29  cancel out the more tolerant, peaceful verses.  Even though 5:32  is canceled out by Surah at-Taubah, lets consider the ayat which Muslims and their apologists never quote.

• 5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh 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.
  

    If you "wage war against Allah", you  "shall be": killed, crucified, have hand & foot cut off or exiled.  Why do Muslims practice kitman by concealing this verse?  Because of the definition of "wage war against Allah".  Ibn Kathir provides that definition in his tafsir. [Emphasis added.]

• `Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. [The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land]

Disbelief in Allah constitutes waging war against him, subjecting one to the hudud listed in 5:33.   And they accuse us of cherry picking!

    Examine  Surah at-Taubah 29 carefully, what does it command Muslims to 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.
  
  

What does Islamic law say about that?  Lets consult Umdat al-Salik.

• THE OBJECTIVES OF JIHAD
  o9.R Thc caliph (025) 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 nonMuslim
  poll tax (jizya, def: 01 L4)-which is the
  significance of their paying it, not the money
  itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions)
  (0: and the war continues) until they
  become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll
  tax (0: 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)).

    And the Jurists?  What did  Al-Shafi'i say?

"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 did Al-Ghazali say?

…one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...

    There is more Fiqh!

al-Shaybani, d. 803 / 5, Hanafi. Siyar, transl. Majid Khadduri, The Islamic Law of Nations: Shaybani's Siyar (Baltimore 1966), p. 76-7, 87, 95-6, 100-1.

Quote:

Fight in the name of God and in the ”path of God” [i.e. truth]. Combat [only] those who disbelieve in God. Whenever you meet your polytheistic enemies, invite them [first] to adopt Islam. If they do so, accept it, and let them alone. […] If they refuse [to accept Islam], then call upon them to pay the jizya; if they do, accept it and leave them alone. If you besiege the inhabitants of a fortress or a town and they try to get you to let them surrender on the basis of God’s judgment, do not do so, since you do not know what God’s judgment is, but make them surrender to your judgment and then decide their case according to your own views.

Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, d. 996, maliki. Cit. ur Leon Bercher, La risala ou epitre sur les elements du dogme de la loi d’Islam (Algiers 1945).

Quote:

Jihad is a precept of Divine institution. We Malikis maintain that it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax, short of which war will be declared against them.

Sheikh Burhanuddin Ali of Marghinan, d. 1196, hanafi. The Hidayah, cit. ur T.P. Hughes, A Dictionary of Islam (London 1895/1994), s. 244-5.

Quote:

The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect. […] When the Muslims enter the enemy’s country and besiege the cities or strongholds of the infidels, it is necessary to invite them to embrace the faith, because Ibn Abbas relates of the Prophet that he never destroyed any without previously inviting them to embrace the faith. If, therefore, they embrace the faith, it is unnecessary to war with them, because that which was the design of the war is then obtained without war. […] If the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax, it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them […]

Molla Khosrew, d. 1480, hanafi. Kitab al-Gihad, övers. Nicola Melis, Trattato sulla guerra (Cagliari, Italien 2002), s. 95-6.

Quote:

[…] jihad is a fard al-kifaya, that is, that one must begin the fight against the enemy, even when he [the enemy] may not have taken the initiative to fight, because the Prophet […] early on […] allowed believers to defend themselves, later, however, he ordered them to take the initiative at certain times of the year, that is, at the end of the haram months, saying, ”Kill the idolaters wherever you find them” (Q9:5). He finally ordered fighting without limitations, at all times and in all places, saying, ”Fight those who do not believe in God, and in the Last Day” (Q9:29); there are also other [similar] verses on the subject. This shows that it is a fard al-kifaya.

    "Islam is a great religion of peace", yeah, right.   LibTards will never accept the evidence, no matter how much we present.  Evidence does not count, only emotion based assumptions count to LibTards.