Facebook Censorship

In October of '09, a group of Muslims who demanded the deletion of an anti-Islamic Facebook group organized a boycott of Facebook The blog post I wrote about their boycott is still receiving views from all over the world, long after "Qur'an Toilet Paper Roll" was deleted, recreated and deleted again.

My involvement in Facebook resulted from a Google Alert for "Ban Islam" which linked to a post on the "Ban Islam!!" group. That post included an error which I wanted to correct. That is how I got hooked. I had to register a Facebook account and join the group in order to comment on the post. "Ban Islam!!" grew to more than 3000 members. It was a lively forum with many informative articles.

Then it was gone. No notice, no warning, no chance to save content; it was arbitrarily deleted March 8. I immediately invited my friends to join the smaller, less active group "Ban Islam". Other members invited their friends, and the group grew rapidly. Then, when I refreshed a page after commenting, it disappeared, arbitrarily pulled down just as its larger brother had been. The groups creator started over, and the group was deleted again the next day.

Yes, we did bash Islam. I, for one, cursed it. I tried to concentrate on well documented and logical arguments, but almost everyone backslides occasionally. Muslims joined our groups to comment and sometimes to debate with us. Many of them confined their activities to the wall, posting obscenities, suggestions related to sexually deviant status & activities and insults.

On February 17, two new wall posts appeared, posted by unfamiliar persons: "Ahmad Faris" and "Steve Brule", who posted a list of the administrators of "Ban Islam!!' followed by "they must die", linking the posts to a new Facebook Group "DELETE GROUP = BAN ISLAM!!". One of the members had read the wall posts and saved a screen shot, tagging other members with it. In my haste, I overlooked the death threat, concentrating on the fact that they copied our admin list. I followed the link and saw this.


The Admin list from "Ban Islam!!" in the left sidebar.


Why list our administrators on a page demanding our deletion? There is only one possibility: intimidation. They later added the death threat, in a foreign language. We followed up by reporting them to Facebook, who took no action. At the time of this writing, it is still available. The page has been edited to remove the death threat. I would like to show you the screen shot of the threat. Unfortunately, it was stored in the group's photograph section, which was deleted with the group.

Facebook also deleted several smaller anti-Islamic groups with offensive titles. It appears that Facebook has acted to appease the demands of Muslim groups. Observe the size of some of them. (Click the image for enlargement.)



Unfortunately, Facebook's aversion to "hate speech" seems to be monopolar. Each item in the following list is a link to a Facebook group which attacks Judaism or Christianity. Most of them have an obscenity in their names. Do not click on these if you are easily offended!!!!

• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6727627346
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51606817657
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5217004763
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5495283726
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=40252079273
• http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=352583432196

In protest of this evident bias, members of the deleted groups are organizing a three day boycott of Facebook commencing at 12:01 am March 31 through 12:01 am April 2.

Answering Ima Muslim

Terrorism Fatwa: Feces

That blog post drew a series of comments from Ima Muslim, the most recent of which deserves a post of its own. Due to the target rich environment, I have reproduced the comment in a block quote. I will mark selected important points with superscripts, linking them to my responses in an enumerated list below.

War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193). Therefore, if non-Muslims are peaceful or indifferent to Islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them. ¹

the Qur'an also says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256).

Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam is an idea that is foreign to Islam in spirit and in historical practice. There is absolutely no question of waging a "holy war" to "spread the faith" and compel people to embrace Islam; that would be an unholy war and the people's forced conversions would not be sincere.

Another of the more repeated fallacies by those who hate Islam, and by those who do not understand.Jizyah is a tribute paid by non Muslims under the rule of the Muslim nation; be that direct or indirect rule.

Like any country, the Muslim territories require money for facilities and running of people's affairs. What we know today as taxation. Those who hate Islam though make it sound like it's something out of the ordinary, and that Islam is unjust because it taxes non Muslims! That is like calling every country in the world unjust because people pay taxes for the running of the country!

Non Muslims on the other hand, pay Jizyah according to the following rules:

1. The non Muslims that will pay Jizyah are only those capable of fighting. The Muslim army is made of Muslims. Therefore non Muslims will not be enlisted -unless they want to- in case of war. So the Jizyah here is to equip a replacement for this fighter.

2. Jizyah is not collected from elderly non Muslims, women, children or anyone who is unable to fight.

3. Jizyah is taken only from freemen and not from slaves .

Successive Muslim scholars and Caliphs made sure this was the case during their lives. Imam Al Qortoby says about Jizyah:"Our scholars said: What the Quran stated is that Jizyah is to be taken from fighters... This is a unanimous opinion of all scholars that Jizyah is to be only collected from free, mature men who are capable of fighting, not women, children, slaves, crazy, dumb or the weak old men".²

Albert Einstein wrote: Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance...

---

1. That statement is the most malignant maundery possible. There are three Islamic dispensations of warfare: forbearance, defensive and offensive. While Moe and his companions were in Mekkah, few in number and overpowered, he preached tolerance & forbearance. In Medina, as he began to accrue an army, he preached defensive jihad. Later, as his army grew in numbers and skill, he preached offensive warfare. These three dispensations are exemplified by 2:256, 2:190 & 8:39 respectively. Download Moe's biography, turn to page 221 and read the first paragraph very carefully. The assertion that Islam only fights defensively is extremely false and malicious. Al;-Baqarah 190 was cited in Ima's first paragraph. Although that ayeh relates directly to defensive jihad, the translators of the Noble Qur'an included a footnote there which defines jihad.

   Al-Jihad (holy fighting) ln AlIah's Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, (His Word belng La Haha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.[...]

   Would defensive jihad establish Islam and make Islam dominant? What will? Offensive jihad!! That is why Moe revealed al-Anfal 39 & at-Taubah 29.

   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.

   Those fight until loops are confirmed by this hadith and several variants.

   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."
   

   Those fight until loops are codified into Shari'ah, as proof of which I submit these quotes from Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.
   

   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) ).
   
   O9.9
   
   The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).
   
   

   Those offensive jihad imperatives are amplified by two relevant rulings. the first is from O9.1, which describes the obligation of Jihad.
   

   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 Muslims are obligated to attack their peaceful neighbors, on Islam's initiative, annually. Did you miss the last clause in the last sentence of the quote? Is its meaning obscure? This ruling from al-Shafi'i should clear it up for you.
   

   "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."

   O25.9 lists eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest because it explicitly defines an obligation to attack neighboring kuffar.
   

   -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.

   
   Allah commanded Muslims to engage in offensive warfare. Moe confirmed that order. It is codified into Islamic law. Islam invaded and conquered nearly half the world. Denial is a token of insanity and/or dishonesty.
   
2. The tax on Dhimmis is called Jizya. Muslims attempt to distract us by falsely equating Jizya with ordinary taxation or taxation in lieu of military service. There is one vitally significant fact which they don't want us to perceive: Jizya is only levied on Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians who have been conquered or intimidated. Without conquest or intimidation, there would be no Jizya. Scroll up to the quotes from Reliance and re-read them carefully. Jizya is only imposed upon victims with scriptural religions. The polytheists are converted, killed or enslaved. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's footnote to 9:29 is an excellent example of the diversion tactic.

   v.29 : Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi’i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able- bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. But see the next note.
   * ’An Yadin (literally, from the hand) has been variously interpreted. The hand being the symbol of power and authority. I accept the interpretation "in token of willing submission." The Jizya was thus partly symbolic and partly a commutation for military service, but as the amount was insignificant and the exemptions numerous, its symbolic character predominated. See the last note.
   

   Complete clarity requires reference to another hadith which describes the orders Moe gave to his commanders in the field I will provide a link to the hadith and quote only the most relevant part.
   

   Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 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. [...]
   

   Moe hired scribes to whom he dictated extortion letters which he dispatched by private courier. This excerpt from his letter to the rulers of Aqaba says it all. [Emphasis added.]
   

   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.

While composing my response, I became suspicious; sensing plagiarism, I entered "Forcing someone at the point of a sword to choose death or Islam" into the Google search bar. Google returned 16 matching records. A search for "War is waged only to defend the religious community" turned up 21 matching records. This is one of them.

Terrorism Fatwa: Feces!

Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has issued a 600 page fatwa, written in Urdu, which he hopes to have translated and published in English.
The fatwa is entitled: FATWA ON SUICIDE BOMBINGS AND TERRORISM. I have linked the title to an 88 page English summary in pdf format. It is likely that when published in English, the fatwa will appear on or near this minhaj books page.


Taken at face value, the fatwa appears to condemn violence against civilian populations without reservation. It places the greatest emphasis on condemning attacks against Muslims, particularly against Mosques. Unfortunately, I can not accept the fatwa at face value.

Cherry Picking: quote out of context

Beware of trickery: quoting the Qur'an out of context to distort the meaning of an ayeah, giving it a false application.
This occurs on page 52 of the description & summary where, writing about the terrorists, this citation is made:

The Holy Qur’an has vividly described them in this verse:
“It is those whose entire struggle is wasted in worldly life, but they presume they are doing very good works.” (Al-Qur’an, 18: 104)

In fact, that verse describes disbelievers; Jews & Christians. Observe the context. [Hilali & Khan quoted, linked to Pickthall, Shakir & Yusuf Ali; links below to Hilali & Khan and ten parallel translations Emphasis added for clarity.]

18:100. And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,

18:101. (To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Qur'ân), and who could not bear to hear (it).

18:102. Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allâh's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliyâ' (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism).

18:103. Say (O Muhammad ): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?

18:104. "Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!

18:105. "They are those who deny the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.

18:106. "That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.

Hilali & Khan
Qur'an Browser

Al-Taqeyya

On page 33, a new section begins, entitled "THE QUESTIONS THAT SPRING TO MIND AND THEIR BRIEF ANSWERS"

Q: The first question in this connection that concerns all relates to use of force to spread beliefs: is it lawful for a group or organisation to use force to promote and put into effect their own creed and beliefs in the name of reforming others’ beliefs and ideologies, presuming themselves to be on the right path? Does Islam allow, somehow, the killing of people because of ideological differences, looting their wealth and properties and destroying mosques, religious places and shrines?.

A: Islam is a religion of peace and safety that champions love and harmony in society. According to Islamic teachings, only such a person will be called a Muslim at whose hands the lives and properties of all innocent Muslims and non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt. The sanctity of human life and its protection occupies a fundamental place in Islamic law. Taking anyone's life for nothing is an act that is forbidden and unlawful. Rather, in some cases, it amounts to infidelity.[...] [Emphasis added, spelling original.]

Is it lawful for Islam to use force to promote and establish itself'; to make it superior over all other religions? Let us consult Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shari'ah.

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) ). [Emphasis & link added.]

Does Islam allow killing people because they are not Muslims and seizing their property? Once again, we turn first to Shari'ah for the answer. Book O, Chapter 9, Section 25 lists eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest to us.

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.

Of course that could only refer to established enemies of Islam who have been harassing & attacking Muslims, right? Wrong!

O9.1The Obligatory Character of Jihad

[...] 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. [...]

Muslims have an annually recurring communal obligation to attack disbelievers even though they are in their own countries, peacefully attending their own domestic affairs. Allow killing people and taking their property? No, it is required, not allowed.

According to the Sheikh, " Islam is a religion of peace...at whose hands the lives and properties of all ...innocent non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt". The truth is that Allah issued imperatives to wage jihad against pagans until resistance ceases and Allah has a monopoly; against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments. When we read Surahs al-Anfal & at-Taubah, we learn that Islam is permanent war.

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.

So all innocent people remain safe and secure in their property? Caution! Words spoken by Muslims do not mean what you want them to mean, their meaning is assigned by the Muslims who speak them. Innocent means Muslim. If you are not Muslim, you are a rebel against Allah, waging war against him.

Another question and answer, found on pages 36 & 37 respectively, provides more proof that the fatwa is malignant maundery.

Q: The third question arises: does Islam offer clear commands on the sanctity of human life? Is it lawful to
kidnap and assassinate foreign delegates and innocent and peaceful non-Muslim citizens to avenge the
injustices and disruption of the non-Muslim global powers?

A: The importance Islam lays on the sanctity and dignity of human life can be gauged from the fact that
Islam does not allow indiscriminate killing even when Muslim armies are engaged in war against enemy
troops. The killing of children, women, the old, infirm, religious leaders and traders is strictly prohibited. Nor
can those who surrender their arms, confine themselves to their homes and seek shelter of anyone
be killed. The public cannot be massacred. Likewise, places of worship, buildings, crops and even trees
cannot be destroyed. On the one hand, there is a clear set of Islamic laws based on extreme discretion, and on
the other, there are people who invoke the name of Islam to justify the indiscriminate killing of people,
children, and women everywhere, without any distinction of religion or identity. It is a pity that such
barbaric people still refer to their activities as Jihad.

Lets see what Muhammad, the founder of Islam said about the sanctity of human life.

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."

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslim. Now let us examine the proscription on killing women and children; surely it must be founded on morality?

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. 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. [...]

Note the acts which would defile and profane a holy war; two of them are relevant to our quest for truth.

• Make a holy war
• do not embezzle the spoils
• do not kill the children

What do embezzlement and killing children have in common? Our first hint will come from Shari'ah.

O9.13

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.

Is it clear to you yet? If not, Ibn Taimiyyah has the final clue for you, from The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad.

As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare].

Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.

I emphasized the most critical clause in case there might be some readers with limited comprehension skills. The proscription on killing women and children is economic, not moral.

In the matter of those who surrendered; the Sheikh asserts that they must not be killed. Muhammad's excellent companions reveal the truth.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

So, what did Muhammad do?

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

They surrendered after a long siege, Muhammad decapitated them and threw them into a trench, then he did the same to their adolescent sons. Can you say genocide? Can you recognize the fact that, like all Muslims, the learned Sheikh is a liar; that his fatwa is malignant manure? If not, then do the nation a favor, burn your voter registration card.

How to Find UN Documents

This blog post results from the discovery of the following search through Google.ca: A/64/439/Add.2 (Part II), proj. de rés. XV someone at the Canada Council for the Arts inquired about a United Nations document. The link to the Crusaders Armory blogspot was near the bottom of the first page of results. It is safe to assume that the searcher went through several other results before visiting my blog.

Many, if not most UN documents contain references to other UN documents. Tracking down those references can be extremely difficult unless you have the right search engine. Most of the search engine results will be to documents which reference the one you seek, few if any of them will provide a link to the desired document.

United Nations Publications has several interesting categories to check and a search window at the top of the page. That search produced irrelevant results. It did, however, display a link to another General Assembly Document Search. which produced a report declaring that there is no matching document.


By removing the suffix from the search term, I got this result, a 151 page pdf. file; a report on the Third Committee's Human Rights Protection & Promotion efforts.

If you can not find the document you need with that search engine, and it is directly related to human rights, there is another search engine you can tap. It is not my first choice because its output is in the form of a multi page table of descriptions and links. If you have the document symbol, try using it first to narrow the search results.


I recently discovered this resource: United Nations Dag Hammarskjöld Library which offers a wide variety of search categories but requires omission of all punctuation from the search phrase. I was not able to find the Third Cmte. report there. By back checking the link to the main library, I discovered a new resource: UN Pulse, which alerts users to newly released documents. This may prove to be an extremely valuable resource for those who are interested in specific issues before UN bodies.

Someone jumped the gun with the link to UN Pulse. The page is blank; there is nothing within the body tags. I will check it periodically and issue a new post about it after it goes live.

Obamination: Obama Don't Care !

"Walk Through the President's Proposal":

[Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in quotes is mine.]

The proposal aims to give the American people and small business owners more control over their health care choices by building on the progress Congress has already made, and including new ideas from both parties and the President himself.

With the exception of that one idiotic statement, the walk through page lacks substance. It has only a few links:

• the President’s proposal in a new section of WhiteHouse.gov.
• what the President’s proposal means to you in plain English
• Read specifically about the President’s proposal,
• the Republican ideas included the President’s proposal.
• more background on the meeting itself

The White House press release begins with this exemplar of demagoguery:

President Barack Obama used his weekly address to call on Democratic and Republican leaders to attend next week’s health care meeting in good faith to find reforms that work for American families and small businesses.

At no point in this process has the President or the congressional leaders of his party spoken or acted in good faith. Does anyone remember the promise to broadcast the deliberations on CSpan? The promise was made but not kept. Republicans were excluded from the committee markup process. They were not allowed to offer substantial amendments. Parliamentary rules and procedures were stretched and violated with abandon. A provision was inserted to prevent future congresses from repealing or amending critical parts of the legislation. The whole process has been an exercise in tyrannical arrogance and deception.

Planning to circumvent the Senate's deliberative process is not a sign of good faith. Releasing the President's proposal four days prior to his so called bipartisan meeting so that the CBO will not have time to analyze its costs is not a sign of good faith. These are signs of the arrogance of absolute power gone mad.

Consumers can neither retain nor increase their control over their health care options by allowing bureaucrats to decide what tests, procedures and drugs will be available. Nor can consumer options be increased by allowing bureaucrats to set prices or allocate resources. Consumer options can only be increased by removing artificial barriers to the free market.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by price controls and restricting entry into medical professions, those policies can only lead to rationing; reduced and delayed access to care.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by increasing inflation. Irresponsible fiscal policies can only result in increased inflation and stagflation, such as we experienced under the Carter regime.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by increasing demand for medical services. By moving new demand into the market, from uninsured and indigent consumers, seeking care for increasingly minor conditions, can only increase over time costs and require construction of new infrastructure and increased staffing, resulting in increased, not decreased costs.

There is no free lunch, there is no magic wand. The fixed and variable costs of clinics and hospitals must be met or they won't be able to remain open in the long term. If average premiums do not exceed average benefits in the long term, insurance companies will not be able to stay in business.

Cost controls requires increased supply & competition and tort reform. The high cost of malpractice insurance can not be reduced without curbing excessive and unreasonable malpractice litigation & settlements. That is not going to happen because the majority party is firmly ensconced in the tort lawyer's pockets.

Costs can not be reduced or limited by doubling energy costs. Hospitals and clinics need lights and HVAC. Cap & Tax will double those costs, which can only be passed on to consumers.

With several health insurance companies announcing steep hikes in their rates – from 10 to over 30 percent – it is clear that the status quo, while good for the insurance industry, is bad for the American people. After a year of exhaustive debate, it is time to move forward on reform.

Insurance premiums must exceed payouts for benefits, otherwise the insurers will go out of business. We live in the real world, not fantasy land. To the extend that insurers are profitable, premium reduction can only result from increased competition. That means making the insurance market national instead of limiting it to the 50 states.

Now, after their announcement stirred public outcry, Anthem agreed to delay their rate hike until May 1st while the situation is reviewed by the state of California. But it’s not just Californians who are being hit by rate hikes. In Kansas, one insurance company raised premiums by 10 to 20 percent only after asking to raise them by 20 to 30 percent. Last year, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield raised rates by 22 percent after asking to raise them by up to 56 percent. And in Maine, Anthem is asking to raise rates for some folks by about 23 percent.

What do you expect, Moron? Insurers make money by charging more than they pay out, investing their reserve funds in stocks and bonds for income and growth of principal. Your party facilitated the creation of a real estate inflation bubble. When the bubble burst, the stock and bond markets plummeted, drastically reducing the income of the insurers. They must make up the difference through premiums or go out of business.

The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.

President Obama is setting up a straw man to be burnt. The name of this game is anti-corporatism; a form of class warfare. It is an old Communist tactic.
Visit the Aug. 5 '09 Wall Street Journal for a reality check.

"For every premium dollar that they take in, about 83 cents goes out in medical costs -- doctors, hospitals, and drugs," says Carl McDonald, health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The rest is spent on overhead. Net income comes to just a few cents per dollar of premiums.

Consider WellPoint, the biggest private health insurer on Wall Street, which has about 35 million customers nationwide. Last year, it paid out 83.6% of revenues in expenses. Net, after-tax income as a percentage of total revenue came to a princely 4.1%.

According to analysis by FactSet, WellPoint's ROA has averaged 5.8% over the past five years, Aetna's, 4.2%.

Brett Arends compares that modest ROA to 9.2% for Wal-Mart and 12.4% for Dell.

Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do. I think both of these are good ideas – so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people.

It would be better to substitute those Republican suggestions for the whole damn package rather than adding them to the worst legislation ever. When you add a pint of ice cream to a gallon of manure, its still going to taste like manure.

To members of Congress, I would simply say this. We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system.

Last month, the electorate of Massachusetts sent a different message, but the President was not listening. They elected a Republican to a Senate seat that has been in Liberal Democrat possession for nearly 50 years. Opposition to Health Care Destruction was the main issue in that election.

It’s our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they’ll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most.

The promise is false, because it is impossible to fulfill, and anyone who passed Econ. 101 should be able to figure out why. In Britain & Canada, there are long waiting periods to get care and the systems are starved for money. That should tell us something.

What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem. Right now, Americans are understandably despairing about whether partisanship and the undue influence of special interests in Washington will make it impossible for us to deal with the big challenges that face our country. They want to see us focus not on scoring points, but on solving problems; not on the next election but on the next generation. That is what we can do, and that is what we must do when we come together for this bipartisan health care meeting next week. Thank you, and have a great weekend.

President Obama is demanding that the Republicans abandon their principles and allow the LeftTard majority to ruin our health care system, bankrupt the treasury, enslave the population in a state of permanent dependency on government and abandon the Constitution all to give him the privilege of saying that he "solved" a problem. In reality, his solution is no solution, but will make matters far worse. His 'cure' will kill the patient. It must be stopped!

Throughout the debate, President Obama has spewed a litany of lies which have been frequently refuted. He has tried to rush legislation through so fast that the opposition can not read and comprehend what they are voting on. Those behaviors should be red flags in the eyes of a skeptical electorate. The time has come to make a final push to resist tyranny.

We must impress the depth and intensity of our revulsion and outrage upon our elected representatives. We must tell the Democrat Congressmen that they will be replaced in the next election if they continue to push their flawed packages. We must tell the Republican Congressmen that they will have well financed primary opponents in their election cycle. The spineless, neutered Republican 'leaders' who were reluctant to use every possible parliamentary tactic to stop the demagoguery must be told that they can and will be replaced.

http://www.congress.org/ makes it easy to send a single email to President Obama, your Representative & Senators. You don't need to know their names or district numbers, you only need to know your Zip Code. You enter your Zip Code, and the web site looks up your elected officials. You click the Federal Officials link, and it presents a simple form

Tell them that you see through their lies. Tell them that you want to keep your own insurance and care providers. Tell them that you do not want any bureaucrats between you and your doctor. Tell them that you do not want artificial restrictions on medical services, you don't want price controls, you don't want to be put on a waiting list and you don't want to be told to go home and die quietly. If you don't want escalating costs coupled with delays and denials of care, then act now, before they jam their irrational, counterproductive and unconstitutional plans down our throats.

As soon as I get this posted, I will go to congress.org, and I will insert the following link into my email:

Gd'd HELL NO!!!

If the recipient or a staffer clicks on that link, they will see a brief explanation of my objections to their plans, followed by the biggest, brightest, boldest flaming execration the blog format will bear.

Our lives, liberty and prosperity are on the line. We must spare no effort in their defense. Please join me in cursing our Congressmen!!! We have no other recourse.

License to Speak & Write?

License to Speak & Write?

Recent reports¹ indicate that Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer suggested at the Davos Economic Forum that licensure should be required for access to the internet.

What Mundie is proposing is to impose authentication. He draws an analogy to automobile use. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a license (not to mention an inspection, insurance, etc). If you do something bad with that car, like break a law, there is the chance that you will lose your license and be prevented from driving in the future.[Barbara Kiviat, Time]

Most cars are operated on public streets, roads & highways, giving the government a hook for the legal requirements related to safety. But the internet is not public property. The phone lines, micro wave relays, servers and routers involved are privately owned and operated. Our internet traffic is no more the government's business than our telephone conversations.

Intoxicated or distracted drivers can cause death, injury and property damage. Drunk, drugged or multi-tasking bloggers and forum participants can't harm you. A malevolent chat room participant may be able to hack into your computer and do some damage, but not if you take proper security precautions.

No system of identification can protect us from those who maliciously spread false information or attempt to steal identifying information. Caveat emptor is the watch word. Paranoid web users can turn off browser cookies and Java Script interpreters. Every internet user is identified by a unique ISP number. When my email address was spoofed, I looked up the sender's ISP:#, and sent an email to the service provider, who notified the sender that his computer had been hijacked.

The hackers who release malicious code are likely to hide behind multiple proxies to frustrate tracing. License requirements won't alter that behavior nor will they overcome it.

Legal requirements intended to prevent anonymity present a threat to bloggers who write about controversial subject matter. The content of many of my blog posts is highly offensive to Muslims, some of whom are willing and able to kill anyone who offends them. For that reason, I avoid posting identifying information that would allow them to find me. My real name would neither increase nor decrease the authenticity or accuracy of the content I post. No license law will prevent foolish or dishonest people from posting or repeating false or malicious content.

Authority is a false god. Possession of a Phd. does not guarantee accuracy or objectivity. Interposition of an editor and publisher between the writer and reader is no guarantee either. This fact becomes clear when we reflect on the main stream media's biased reporting in the '08 Presidential campaign.

So, why should anyone want to impose licensing on bloggers? Why did King George want to limit the Colonist's access to printing presses and their output? Why do the Chinese, Iranian & Egyptian regimes imprison and torture bloggers? Censorship is the tyrant's way of preserving his grip on power. In a relatively free society, censorship is the first rung on the ladder to tyranny.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Emphasis added.]

Two centuries ago, speech and press were the most efficient means of communication. The founding fathers enshrined freedom of speech and press in the Constitution as a safeguard against establishment of tyranny. We remain free to criticize candidates for elective office as well as sitting officers. In modern times we have new technologies, the use of which should be protected by the same organic law for the same reason. While the technology has changed, the basic concept remains unchanged. We need to be free to communicate facts and opinions about issues related to our liberty and prosperity.

ICCPR: Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. [Emphasis added.]

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

• abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
• Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Censoring Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues would impair our right to listen as well as their right to speak. Censoring our web sites would impair right of our audience to seek and receive information as much as it would impair our right to impart it. Because both media involve a one to many relationship, censorship has a greater impact on the receiving end.

Even if Mundie is not motivated by political considerations, the Democrat Party is, as evidenced by several Senators who advocate the restoration of the "Fairness Doctrine". His suggestion, along with the "Net Neutrality" movement, can only increase the urge to censor.

When CBS News published a false and malicious story about Shrub's military career, based on forged documents, it was an unlicensed blogger whose expert consultants exposed the documents as forgeries. Because the forgeries fit their template, the main stream media resisted the truth for an extended period of time. That incident, more than any other that comes to mind, illustrates the need to maintain freedom of communication.

---

¹ http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/01/30/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet/
http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/02/08/drivers-licenses-for-the-internet-part-2/?xid=rss-topstories
http://holycoast.blogspot.com/2010/02/am-i-going-to-need-bloggers-license.html

Geert Wilders Trial: Deceptive Commentary

One of my Google Alerts led me to a post at Islam In Europe which disclosed the existence of an open letter from a group of Islam experts to the court In Amsterdam which is persecuting Geert Wilders.

a letter to the court



De Volkskrant, the Dutch newspaper used by the prosecutors to document what Geert Wilders allegedly said in violation of Dutch hate speech law, published a letter from a group of six Islam experts. It appears that this is the first of four "fact sheets" they intend to issue on the subject.

Unfortunately, the experts have engaged in the Islamic art of al-taqeyya & kitman. This blog post exposes their lies.

Deen Research Center posted the original Dutch letter and an English translation on their blog . Their translation is easier to read than the Google translation.

• Dr. Fred Leemhuis, Arabist, professor emeritus University of Groningen, vertaler De Koran, Unieboek 2007 The Koran translator, Union Book 2007
• Published Dutch translation of the Qur'an in 1989. http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2008/opinie20_08?lang=en
  
• Dr. Jan Michiel Otto, Recht en bestuur 3e wereld, Sharia, Directeur van Vollenhove Instituut, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Leiden
• Dr. Gerard Wiegers, hoogleraar Religiestudies aan de Faculteit der -Professor Gerard Wiegers, Professor of Religious Studies at the Faculty of Geesteswetenschappen van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) Humanities of the University of Amsterdam (UvA)
• Dr. Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus hoogleraar islamologie Univ.Leiden Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus professor of Islamic studies Univ.Leiden
• Dr. Ruud Peters, Arabische Taal en Cultuur, Sharia expert, UVA -Professor Dr. Mr. Ruud Peters, Arabic Language and Culture, Sharia expert, UVA
• Dr. Marlies ter Borg, auteur Koran en Bijbel in Verhalen, Unieboek 2007, redacteur Marlies ter Borg, author Koran and Bible Stories, Book Union in 2007, editor

Islam is a violent religion.

Rebuttal:

Mr Wilders refers, in support of its truths, often to the Koran. Please bring our professional knowledge of the Koran, to review his statements and method of quoting. We rely on taking the authoritative view of Professor F. Leemhuis, (Union Book 2007, www.bijbelenkoran.nl).

• Wilders said: "Islam means submission and conversion of non-Muslims." "A religion that seeks to eliminate others." Dv 14
• But in the Qur'an: "No compulsion in religion." K. 2:256

The experts like Pickthall's translation, so I will quote it, with a link to a table of ten parallel translations.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

To discover the circumstances behind the revelation of this ayeh, read Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: No Compulsion in Religion. Some of the Ansar had sworn to raise their children as Jews. When those Ansar converted, Muhammad did not force them to convert their children. Despite this specificity, Ibn Kathir says that the ayeh has general applicability. Another ayeh bears directly on this issue.

10:99. And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?
10:100. It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.

Unfortunately for the experts, other ayat contradict those three cited above. At first glance, Surah Al-Imran 110 appears to be irrelevant. But there is a hadith which clearly explains the meaning of the clause I have highlighted.

3:110. Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

The wording varies slightly because Khan prefers his own translation of the Koran. It is obvious that bringing disbelievers to Islam in chains is not congruent with "no compulsion". It is also obvious that hadith which contradict the Koran can not be authentic. How then do you explain its inclusion in the most authentic of the six canonical collections? Is there something more? Of course there is.

8:39. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

This ayeh answers two questions:

1. Is Islam violent?
2. Is Islam compulsive?

The verb is clear and obvious: fight. Al-Anfal 39 is in the form of a fight until loop, with a compound terminal condition.

• persecution is no more
• religion is all for Allah.

Persecution is a reference to the Meccan habit of hassling Muslims, who were viewed as a threat to their livelihood. The second part of the compound terminal condition is absolutely clear: only Allah is worshiped. Click through to the parallel translations and observe the wording of the other translations. The obvious meaning is confirmed by confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.

One hadith confirms the meaning of this ayeh with extreme clarity. I have added emphasis to make the critical sentence stand out.

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."

Besides several variants of that hadith, there are two others which remove all doubt. I will quote excerpts, linking them to the hadith at USC-MSA for those who wish to read the context.

...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...

...Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." ...

Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Islamic law, provides the ultimate confirmation. The clause I emphasized says it all.

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

The six eminent professors claimed to refute Wilders with a single ayeh. Is it possible that those scholars with doctoral degrees in the field are unaware of the conflicting ayat, hadith and Shari'ah, or were they practicing the art of kitman, lying by obfuscation?

• Wilders says: "And the Qur'an is the Mein Kampf of a religion that seeks to eliminate others ..."
• Mein Kampf (My struggle) calls for no more war. The Koran is sometimes called for violence, in other cases to peace and reconciliation, for example:
• "You will not shed each other's blood." K.2: 84-
• "God calls for the house of peace." K.10: 25
• "Does God not an obstacle ... to ... peace among the people. "K.2: 224
• "Think of God's mercy to you when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and by His grace you became brethren;" K.3: 103

It seems that Hitler was intent on imposing his racist system by force, invading much of Europe. History shows us that Muhammad and his rightly guided caliphs acted the same way in Arabia, Africa, Asia & Eastern Europe.

Take a good close look at the expert's citation to 2:84. What does it mean? Perhaps we should examine the full ayeh.

2:84. And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto).

This ayeh is about infighting among the nation, it is not about attacking other nations. Lets give the next citation the same treatment.

10:25. And Allah summoneth to the abode of peace, and leadeth whom He will to a straight path.

This ayeh is explained in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: Invitation to the Everlasting Gifts that do not vanish.

...(And Allah calls to the Abode of Peace) When Allah mentioned the swiftness of this world and its termination, He invited people to Paradise and encouraged them to seek it. He called it the Abode of Peace....

See how passive Islam is? Allah invites people to Paradise, the house of peace. Do the experts understand what a Muslim must do to gain admission to Paradise? He must fight in Allah's cause, participating in Jihad, killing and being killed to gain one of the best seats. See At-Taubah 111 & As-Saff 10-13 for the gritty details. Would they try to fool us again? Examine their next citation to find out.

2:224. And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Ordinarily, I would quote the context to show you the egregious nature of the expert's deception, in this case I will not, because of the sexually explicit nature of the ayeh which proceeds 224. Instead, I will provide a link to three parallel translations hosted by USC-MSA, which you can easily scroll to view the context without clicking extra links. 2:223. Once again, Ibn Kathir's Tafsir gives us a vital clue to the meaning of the ayeh in question: The Prohibition of swearing to abandon a Good Deed.

...Allah commands, `You should not implement your vows in Allah's Name to refrain from pious acts and severing the relations with the relatives, if you swear to abandon such causes.'... (And make not Allah's (Name) an excuse in your oaths) means, "Do not vow to refrain from doing good works. (If you make such vow then) break it, pay the Kaffarah and do the good work.''...

Click the link to the tafsir, click the previous button, scroll to the bottom of the page and read the ayeh which is explained on the page I linked to. If you did not read the full context earlier, click the next button in the tafsir, scroll down to the bottom and read 2:226. It will then become clear to you that the experts misquoted an ayeh out of context for the purpose of deceiving the court by perverting the meaning of the verse. Lets check the next citation.

3:103. And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah's favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided,

To discover the context, begin at 3:98 and keep reading through 3:198. Ibn Kathir explains this ayeh in his tafsir: The Necessity of Holding to the Path of Allah and the Community of the Believers. I have removed the Arabic script and emphasized the key part of this excerpt.

(And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves.) It was said that, (to the Rope of Allah) refers to Allah's covenant, just as Allah said in the following Ayah, (Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah, and from men;) ﴿3:112﴾, in reference to pledges and peace treaties. ... (and remember Allah's favor on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His grace, you became brethren) ﴿3:103 ﴾.This was revealed about the Aws and Khazraj. During the time of Jahiliyyah, the Aws and Khazraj were at war and had great hatred, enmity and ill feelings towards each other, causing long conflicts and battles to occur between them. When Allah brought Islam, those among them who embraced it became brothers who loved each other by Allah's grace, having good ties for Allah's sake and helping each other in righteousness and piety.

This ayeh is about Muslims being united in warfare against disbelievers, not about making peace with disbelievers. Another ayeh, which Muslims will not quote to us, exposes the reality of Islam's attitude toward peace.

47:35.So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions.

The meaning should be obvious to you. If it is not, refer to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: Nullifying the Disbelievers' Deeds and the Command to chase Them.

(So do not lose heart and beg for peace while you are superior.) meaning, in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the other hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah's Messenger did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years. Consequently, he agreed to that.

Fitna

The experts advance to charges related to the short documentary created and published by Geert Wilders.

• In the film Fitna quotes below were presented, together with "images of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York (11/9/2001), and the attacks by Muslim extremists in Madrid and London, accompanied by images of victims." DV7

• Wilders cites a half sentence from Surah 47 verse 4
  "If you have an encounter with those who disbelieve than hew the necks of them and when ye have caused a bloodbath bind them in chains." (Translation unknown, Theo van Gogh in focus)

• Wilders suggests that this called for a Muslim in peacetime 'infidels' to kill. This suggestion is reinforced by the images of bombings of civilians in peacetime. With this half quoting of the Quran verse, he in trouble: the enemy is apparently slain first and then be bound in irons. Why corpses seem to be put in chains is not clear.
  
  The same verse, is now complete:
  
  "And when you have those who disbelieve [in battle] meet, turn them dead, but if you then prevail over them have obtained fascinates them firmly,
  later as a favor to them or release them or to buy them separately, when the burden of the war are made. "Sura 47 verse 4 Leemhuis:
  
  The full quote shows:

• that this is a war is to kill enemy troops on the battlefield, and not to attack civilians in peacetime,
• according to the Koran quote must stop killing one soldier when once more prevails. There is no elimination of the enemy.
• the enemy from that moment must be captured to him after the war to be released.

This is in line with modern international law on war prisoner of war.

Lets take a close look at the cited ayeh.

47:4. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Did the experts quote the full verse? Is the translation accurate? Several translators use different expressions:

• when you have killed and wounded many of them
• made wide slaughter among them
• until ye have massacred them
• till ye have made a great slaughter among them
• until ye have made a great slaughter among them

http://www.openburhan.net/ displays a break down of the Arabic text: اثخنتموهم - you (p) exceeded in killing them/you weakened them; the dictionary they link to defines the Arabic word as subdued. Note the phrase I highlighted; how does it compare to the variant expressions in the other translations?

Ibn Kathir has something important to tell us about this ayeh. The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

...It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy's soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them.... (It is not for a Prophet to have captives of war until he had made a great slaughter (among the enemies) in the land. You desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. Allah is Mighty and Wise. Were it not for a prior decree from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took.) (8:67-68)...

The experts have played fast and loose with the facts. They cited page 7 of the indictment as linking the images of the devastation in London, Madrid & New York to 47:4. The Koran references on that page, associated with those images, are: 8:60 and 4:56, associated with the next frame.

47:4 is not displayed until three frames later. The learned expert professors took the Koran out of context, but were not satisfied with that trick, they also took the indictment out of context!

8:60, which is associated with the images of devastation, commands Muslims to accrue weapons and war horses to strike terror into the hearts of enemies, both known and unknown. 8:57, not cited in the documentary, commands Muslims to punish their victims severely to serve as an example for others they wish to threaten.

If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.

• Wilders Sura 8 verse 60: "Make preparations against them with what you can to force people to take this horse and to terrorize, terrorize Allah's enemy and your enemy." Dv7
• Surah 8: 60-61 Pickthall: "And to make them as good as you can and deployable armaments horses ready for God's enemy and your enemy so intimidating and apart from those others that you do not know, but God knows . And what you also helping to give God's way, you will be reimbursed and you will not be wronged. And if they are inclined to peace, make this tendency and also put your trust in God; "
• The translation of Wilders appears without a source, wherein 'terrorize' ie "the systematic instill terror by violence, by terrifying violence and control." Leemhuis translates 'instill fear' "This is equal to scare away someone: a proven military strategy by means of war drums, production of weapons-without actually use - to persuade the enemy to refrain from violence. The deterrence strategy shown to prevent weapons of war. Compare the NATO strategy against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The slogan of the NATO armed to the teeth at the time was "Peace is our Profession". It worked.

Lets compare translations.

Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.[Pickthall]

• to strike terror into . [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
• frighten thereby the enemy [Shakir]
• terrify thereby [Arberry]
• strike terror into [Rodwell]
• strike a terror into [Sale]

Lets see what Muhammad had to say about terrorism.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),

What is the practical application of this tactic?

33:26. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.

• "Destroy the infidels and polytheists, your (Allah's) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them until the very end. And let no one about. "Dv 7
  
  This sentence, with no source, is contrary to the Koran above quotes in their entirety in that direction, rather than a controlled 'total war' pages, and contrary to the Koran quote "no compulsion in religion. 2:256

But it is not contrary to 8:39 & 9:29 nor is it contrary to the infamous genocide hadith. The quote is from a video of an Imam rousing the rabble to Jihad.

• The comparisons between the texts as presented by Mr Wilders and the existing scientific knowledge of the contents of the Koran, we conclude first that the conclusion of Mr Wilders is not based on facts, but only on improperly constructed "facts".

Scientific knowledge? Being Muslim makes them scientists, no reference to tafsir, hadith or jurisprudence is required, just scientific expertise.

• Second, a more general question arises about the statement of Mr Wilders that Islam is a violent religion. Could it actually be true that a religion is violent?

So Islam is peaceful, not violent? How then do you explain the title of the 8:^th surah: "The Spoils" ? Why does the "religion of peace" need rules for allocation and division of spoils of war? Why does it need terms such as fei & ganimah to describe spoils of war? Why did Allah give Muhammad special dispensation to accrue spoils? Why did Allah say "Ye desire the lure of this world" to Muhammad in 8:67? Why did Allah promise "abundant spoils that you will capture". Why does Shari'ah say :"the caliph makes war on Jews and Christians" and "the caliph fights all other peoples"?

• Religion is a set of values, norms, and writings. Religion is preached and adhered to by people. Violence is an action committed by people and groups of people, not a religion. Religion itself is not violent or peaceful.

How do you explain the existence of Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which are entirely dedicated and devoted to warmongering? How do you explain the existence of books of jihad or expedition in four of the six canonical hadith collections? How do you explain the communal obligation to attack disbelievers at least once in every year? Doubt this? Click the link above to Reliance of the Traveller, Search for Book O, Search for Chapter 9 and start reading.

• Claiming a religion as violent is a suggestive way to accuse a group of people, some believers, as being violent.

How did Hindu Kush get its name? What does it mean? Why are Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Egypt Islamic? Was violence involved?

• Scientific research indicates that in the Quran, as in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, both incitements to violence and peace are to be found. This can be verified by anyone.

Show me the New Testament book, chapter and verse in which Jesus Christ issues open ended, outcome oriented commands to engage in conquest without geographic or temporal limits; the equivalent of 8:39 & 9:29. The ancient Hebraic conquest/genocide imperatives were limited to particular places and people, once they were completed, they expired. Islamic jihad continues from 610 to Judgment Day.

The lesson learned: Islam is not more violent than Christianity.

• Christianization and Islamization have been globally accepted voluntary and partly by force, if .., because fair to say that much about that history is not known.
• It is known that many more victims died in internal conflicts among Christians, than the relatively few wars between Christians and Muslims. Conflicts such as the Thirty Years War or the war between Turkey and Persia dragged on longer and cost more casualties than the war against the Turks eg culminating in the Battle of Vienna.
• The time when it was generally accepted that one faith is spread by the sword has passed. This applies to both Islam and Christianity. Extremists are an exception to the general consensus.

Christianity was co-opted by the Roman Empire. Unlike Islam, it has no intrinsic war imperative. Islam has a 1400 year record of rapine, accruing an estimated total of 270*10⁶ victims.

Those are not extremists, they are salafists, emulators of Muhammad. Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his Messenger. "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow" . What did he do?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 285:

Narrated Abu Ishaq:

Once, while I was sitting beside Zaid bin Al-Arqam, he was asked, "How many Ghazwat did the Prophet undertake?" Zaid replied, "Nineteen." They said, "In how many Ghazwat did you join him?" He replied, "Seventeen." I asked, "Which of these was the first?" He replied, "Al-'Ashira or Al-'Ashiru."

Terrorism

• Terrorists are not representative of Islam
  
  Radical Islamists committing attacks and now regularly seek to acquire state power in Muslim-majority countries. The latter, however, they very rarely succeed, what makes them resentful, and leads to new attacks. Most of the terrorist attacks by Islamists, have Muslim victims. Logically, the vast majority of Muslims disapproves of this violence.

Islam is not logical, it is a way of life imposed on people by force. 3:151 & 8:12 sanctify and mandate terrorism. 33:26 & 59:2 exemplify it. Islam's founder declared that he was made victorious by terror.

• There are also peaceful sounds within Islamic circles.
  
  Every Muslim knows that the word "Islam" comes from the same root as the word 'salaam' (Hebrew: "Shalom"), in both languages it means 'peace'. With this knowledge, 138 (grown to 307) authoritative Muslims, political and spiritual leaders and intellectuals, have sent in 2007 an open letter to their Christian counterparts.
  
  "The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians. The basis for peace and understanding already exists ... the love of God and neighbor in both religions and preached in both the Bible and the Koran can be found. "

Wikiislam has an etymology chart which makes the matter clear:

Word	Arabic	Meaning
Islam	اسلام	Submission
Salam	سلام	Well-being/Peace

The Ulema's missive "A Common Word between Us and You". is an obvious deception, it is an extortion letter cleverly disguised as an overture of peace. One blog: Go Burn With Muhammad is entirely devoted to pointing out the malignant malarkey in that missive.

---

Arabist Hans Jansen wrote a brief rebuttal, this is a Google translation. .

The letter of retired professors, Wilders on the process, about the peacefulness of Islam, a trifle late to be desired. There are no references to sermons in the mosque, to manuals of Sharia, or Koranic commentaries. Also, the letter was not by Muslim religious leaders meeondertekend. The most important Muslim theologian is Tofiq Dibi agrees. The letter is a dream: if only that Islam is like the letter writers make.

In sermons in the mosque, in the manuals of the sharia and the Koran commentaries calling for the harassment, murder and make war on dissent. It is very easy to control. The Koran itself can very easily be interpreted as an instruction to intimidation, assassination, murder, and war - but when the Amsterdam court says that the true meaning of the Qur'anic text is just very peaceful, then all the problems with Islam course solved in one stroke. It is inconceivable for Muslims the Koran as a license to kill would dare conceive as the Amsterdam court maintains that the Koran is not actually a license to kill is.