Dance of the Liars

Bare Naked Islam posted a video of Attorney General Holder's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. In this video, Eric Holder is being questioned by Rep. Lamar Smith R, Tx., who is trying to coax the A.G. into giving a straight answer to a crooked question. This dialog demands close attention, there is some cross talk involved. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQt_mP6Pgg&feature=player_embedded



I have attempted to format Rep. Smith's questions in Century Gothic and A.G. Holder's answers in Ariel.

In the case of all three attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

Because of? --Radical Islam.--There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. Its hard--I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean we are in the process now of talking to Mr. Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action he took.

But radical Islam could have been one of the reasons ?

There are a variety of reasons--But was radical Islam one of them? -- There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious convictions--But all I'm asking is if you think among those variety of reasons, radical Islam might have been one of the reasons that the individuals took the steps that they did?-- We say radical Islam...I think those people who espouse a version of Islam that is not--Are you uncomfortable with attributing any of their actions to radical Islam it sounds like it?--No, I don't want to say anything negative about a religion that is not appropriate--I'm talking about radical Islam, I'm not talking about the general religion--Right and I'm saying that a person like Anwar Awlaki,-- for instance, who has a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of of it and espouses a radical version--Could Radical Islam have motivated have motivated these individuals to take the steps that they did? --I certainly think that it is possible that people who espouse a radical version of Islam have had an ability to have an impact on people like Mr. Shahzad.--And could it have been the case in one of these three instances ?--Could that have been the case?--Yes--again, could one of these three individuals have been incited by radical Islam? Apparently you feel that they could have been.-- I think potentially incited by a view of Islam that is inconsistent with--It is hard to get an answer yes or no but let me go on to my next question, ...

Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity had fun with this video clip, playing the sound track for their audiences. They drew attention to the fact that Holder carefully avoided attributing terror attacks to "radical Islam". Since I am an amateur, not dependent on advertisers for revenue, I can analyze the dialog more deeply than the professionals who are beholden to political correctness.

There are two critical statements in the dialog.

• "No, I don't want to say anything negative about a religion that is not appropriate"
• "I'm talking about radical Islam, I'm not talking about the general religion"

These politicians are trying to convey a false concept of Islam: that it is a religion with 'radical' and 'moderate' forms. Islam is a way of life, not a religion. Its religious component is a social control mechanism which shields the aggressive way of life from recognition while it motivates Muslims to participate in genocidal conquest. Their tactic has two objectives: first, to avoid being labeled "racist" & "bigot", second to avoid offending potential voters.

Some insightful person whose identity I have forgotten, said "Its Islam, Stupid.". Qualifiers such as 'radical' and catch phrases such as 'Islamofascism' distract us from objective factual reality which few are willing to acknowledge.

This hadith reveals too much about Islam, pay close attention to the parts I have emphasized.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

Jihad and agriculture are presented as alternative ways of life, agriculture is rejected in favor of jihad. Jihad is their "original religion". That should give you a clue.

Don't hand me the standard line of crap about jihad being a struggle against your ego. Moe waged war against anyone he could plunder, he did not struggle against temptation. After all, he married a six year old girl. He also married the wife of his adopted son and seven other women besides captives and slaves he sexually exploited. Jihad is defined in Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims".
One Qur'an verse conveys vital knowledge, affording you another clue.

9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

Fight in Allah's cause, kill & be killed; its what Muslims do. Got a clue yet? The Qur'an mandates jihad, declaring that it is ordained for Muslims. It also commands Muslims to wage war against disbelievers. Surah Al-Anfal 39 commands Muslims to fight pagans until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped. Surah At-Taubah 29 commands them to fight "people of the book" until we are subjugated and submit to annual extortion demands. Moe confirmed those imperatives, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.

Think back to the playing of the cockpit voice recorder after 9/11. What did they say while they slit the throats of the crew? What did Nidal Malik Hasan say when he opened fire at Fort Hood? Why shout "Allāhu Akbar"? Mohammad Atta has the answer for you: "When the confrontation begins, strike like champions who do not want to go back to this world. Shout, 'Allahu Akbar,' because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers." Allah is greatest just happens to be what they say when they slaughter a goat for eid and when slitting the throat of a captive.

What is the objective of striking fear? It is done for the purpose of rendering us confused, agitated and unable to mount an effective defense; to make us easy prey. It is commanded in Surah Al-Anfal 12 & 60. It is exemplified in Surat Al-Ahzab 26 & Al-Hashr 2. It is celebrated in Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220. Terrorism is not exceptional. Terrorism is not radical. Terrorism is not extreme; it is an intrinsic part of orthodox Islam.

Full documentation of the fatal facts outlined in this blog post is freely available.

• Islamic Terror.chm [30.4KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free.
• Jihad.chm [45KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free.
• What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims.chm [23KB].
• Islamic Supremacism [49KB] A 3 part series from Freedom Ain't Free.
• Islam's Mercenary Mission 08/30/09 Full exposure of the dirty details of Islam's foundational purpose: accrual of spoils & sex slaves. It is a war cult, not a 'religion of peace'. This post is intended to serve as a reference link for bloggers & forum participants who expose Islam to the ignorant. Post a link to it instead of re-inventing the wheel.
• FOMIJihad.chm [163.4KB] The Offensive Jihad thread from the old FOMI anti Islam forum. This thread contains several significant quotes from Fiqh, both ancient and modern.
• What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims? 10/10/09 If nothing else, read this post and share it with all your family, friends & associates. This post contains the most vital information about Islam, fully documented and including common sense refutations of the most popular objections raised by bigoted multicultural idiots. Copy this post, paste it into an email, and send it to everyone you can hope to influence. Exhort the recipients to forward it.

Now is the time for the electorate to disrespectfully demand honesty from our deceptive and cowardly politicians. Tell them that if they continue to lie to us, we will remember Nov. 2 ' 10.

Fallen Crusaders: In Memorium

Facebook, like other politically correct organizations, has a nasty tendency to disable and delete the accounts of members who criticize Islam & left wing politicians. It also deletes groups those members have created and participated in.

Members who had spent years building their social networks and many hours writing discussion thread posts suffered the instantaneous, total and permanent waste of their efforts. Many interesting and informative debates and discussions vaporized, deleted without a trace.

A new Facebook group has been created for the purpose of memorializing those fallen Crusaders and groups: Fallen Crusaders: In Memoriam. If you know someone who was deleted from Facebook for telling the truth, you can join this group and post their name on the wall. An Administrator will then transfer that name to the Group News column as a permanent memorial.

Islam is the Enemy

A blog titled 'YARDY YARDY YARDY" published a post about moves to ban the burqa and minarets. I will quote and refute the concluding paragraph.

But isn't that confusing moderate Islam, with the extremists who kill and bomb in the name of their wild interpretations of the Qur’an? Yes, the memories of 9/11 will forever demonise Islam, but in reality it should only demonise those carrying out the terrorist attacks.
Islam is not the enemy: its radical variants are.

Moderate Islam is a figment of fertile imagination, it does not exist. Islam is not moderate, it is a demonic mandate to terrorize the entire world and subject it to genocidal aggression. Islam is what Allah said, Moe repeated & exemplified. Allah said that fighting is ordained for Muslims. He ordered Muslims to fight pagans until resistance ceased and only Allah was worshiped. He ordered Muslims to fight "people of the book" until they are subjugated and submit to extortion. Moe confirmed the orders, then he invaded his neighbors.

Allah said that he would cast terror. He ordered Muslims to build a strong army to strike terror into their enemies. Then he cast terror, so that one of the local Jewish settlements was conquered, the men killed and their widows & orphans enslaved. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror.

There is only one correct interpretation of the Qur'an, Moe's interpretation which is exemplified by his military career of 86 battles. To discover what Moe said and did about the Qur'an, exemplifying his interpretation of his recitation, turn to

Ignorant idiots think that Moe was a benign saint, the best and greatest of men. They are blissfully unaware of the fact that he dictated extortion letters to his scribes and had them hand delivered to neighboring kings and emperors. He followed up those missives by sending his army.

The founder of Islam was a barbarian warlord who preached and practiced genocidal aggression. How then can anyone assert that the institution he founded is benign and anodyne?

Islam is a deen: way of life; intra-species predation. Muslims are people who believe in and implement that deen. They are the enemy. The assumption that Muslims accept the "good parts" and reject the rest is based on false hope and misunderstanding. Islam is all or nothing, not a la carte.

Ignorant Comment Answered

One reader comment appended to a New York Times article about the Times Square bomber deserves a detailed reply. The article included a photograph of the bomber's copy of the Noble Qur'an. That translation is available on the web, it can be downloaded in pdf format. The chm version is more than 29mb, I don't know the size of the pdf version. If you don't want to clutter up your hard disk, you can read it on line at the King Fahd Complex. The Hilali & Khan translation does contain parenthetical expressions from tafsir to clarify ambiguous verses. It also includes the translator's commentary. The link to the on line version is to 2:190, which is about defensive jihad, but the translator's comment defines offensive jihad with extreme clarity and accuracy.

It is important to note that this book is not the Koran, but "The Noble Koran", which is a version of the Koran with commentary woven into the text. It is widely distributed by Wahabis and extremists in the U.S. Its intention is to distort the Koran and spread an extremist view of Islam. This book does not represent the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Muslims, and we should not make them the enemy.

Muslims consider all translations of the Qur'an to be non-canonical. They assert that it is impossible to translate it from Arabic to another language without sacrificing accuracy.

The true meaning of the Qur'an can only be discovered by observing how the man who revealed it followed its dictates. The experts who explain the Qur'an in tafsir compare parallel verses and hadith to determine their meaning.

The comment author asserts that the Noble Qur'an is intended to distort the Qur'an with an extreme slant. The assertion is offered without evidence to prove it.

The assertion can be tested by comparing multiple translations. http://www.quranbrowser.com/ displays a table of ten parallel translations. http://www.openburhan.net displays 17 translations including a literal translation and a word by word breakdown of the Arabic text linked to an Arabic/English dictionary.

The ayat most significant to the jihad issue are 2:216, 8:39, 8:60 & 9:29. When you compare the translations, you will discover that the main difference is that Hilali & Khan tried to modernize 8:60 by inserting a parenthetical list of modern weapons.

The titles of Ibn Kathir's explanations of 8:39 & 9:29 make their meanings extremely obvious:

• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah

The jihad imperatives are confirmed in this hadith: Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387. Allah said "fight them"; Moe said "I have been ordered to fight". The ultimate confirmation is found in Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9 tells us what the caliph does as a normal course of action.

• O9.8 The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice,...
• O9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim...

The Qur'an may not represent the beliefs of hundreds of millions of Muslims, but it sets the standard of conduct for more than a billion Muslims. It commands them to wage war against us. Why did Muslims march from Mecca to conquer the Arabian peninsula, North Africa, Southern & Eastern Europe and nearly half of Asia?

The issue is not moderate : extremist, it is hypocrite : believer. The hypocrite's Islam "will not go beyond their throats". Believers are only those who "strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh". What does that mean? The answer is in 9:111.

• 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

Got a clue yet? "They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed." I have two more ayat for the terminally clueless.

• 4:57. But those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, We shall admit them to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), abiding therein forever. ...
• 9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. ...

Angering and injuring disbelievers are deeds of righteousness. Re-read 9:120 , paying close attention to the clause I emphasized with bold face.

Islam is the enemy. Without Muslims who believe in it and attempt to implement it, Islam would be harmless words in musty old books. But so long as there are Muslims, the risk remains that some of them will believe in and attempt to implement Allah's jihad imperatives.

Another Attack on the Ban Islam!! Group

A group styling itself Anti Freemason and Illuminati sent a representative to the Ban Islam!! group, where he posted this:

The significant text reads as follows: "

Islam is a religion of peace. Islam have an enemy. Islam invaded the Illuminati city of Constantinople. And now we shall burn the city to the ground..."

Does that seem like a threat to you? It does to me. I followed the link and found this on their wall:

The text reads as follows: "

A sister calling us to launch attack at a group called "Ban Islam" how manhy of you united Anti-Masons of the world shall do so? Even if it means "Ban Christianity" we must spread the truth "BAN ILLUMINATI And FREMASONRY".. How many of you agree?"

That is a great question; how many of their 17,081 members will join the jihad against the Ban Islam !! group? So far, it appears that Muhammad is the only member of his group to spam the wall at Ban Islam!!. He has pretty well filled up the page with malicious malarkey.

Watch this SIOA Video

Bare Naked Islam posted this powerful video.. I want you to view it. I want you to share it with others. The electorate needs to know the truth about this issue. Geller & Spencer have started the ball rolling. BNI has boosted it. Others must kick the ball and keep it rolling. I am passing the ball to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY1o3_YCPg8&feature=player_embedded



In the video, Rifqa Barry pours out the heart of her story, one of honor killing. Honoricide is widely considered to be a cultural issue separate from Islam. Those harboring that misconception ignore the fact that Islam is not a religion, it is an all-encompassing way of life. In fact, Islamic law is not silent on this issue.
Under Islamic law, Rifqa's father can kill her with impunity. The following quote is from Reliance of the Traveller.

-4- a father or mother (or their fathers of mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring;

That quote is part of a list of killings for which there is no indemnity (blood money). The list is given in Book O, Chapter 1.2.

Rifqa Barry is subject to the death penalty for rebellion against Allah. In Islam's eyes she deserves to be killed.

O8.1

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

O8.2

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

O8.4

There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).

O4.2

The indemnity for killing a male Muslim is 100 camels.

Pay particular attention to the clauses I emphasized in the quote below; they speak directly to the issue of inequality.

O4.9

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )

The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.

The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim.

When a miscarriage results from someone having struck the stomach of a pregnant woman (O: or other part of her, or when someone frightens her, resulting in a miscarriage), the indemnity for the fetus is a male or female slave worth one-twentieth of the indemnity payable for killing the fetus's father, or one-tenth that of its mother. (A: The indemnity is whatever they agree upon.)

Is this clear to you yet? Killing a male Muslim will cost you 100 camels. Killing a female Muslim will cost you 33 camels. Killing a Christian will cost you 33 camels. Killing an apostate is free. Killing your own offspring is free. Get a clue, for Chrissake!!!

Every time a Muslim, politician, preacher, commentator or academic tells you that Islam:

• is great
• is a religion
• is peaceful
• is an equally valid pathway to God
• respects human dignity
• respects human equality

he or she is a damn liar deserving all the contempt & detestation you can muster. Voting for such a politician is a suicidal act of treason.

Interviewer Tries to Trap Geert Wilders

I found this video at Bleed the Soul, through a Google Alert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lMkwH9ODCU&feature=player_embedded



I have attempted to transcribe the interview. Unfortunately, there is a lot of fast talking, and parts of the audio track are unintelligible. I can't speak a word of Dutch, so I should not knock Geert's fluency in English, but his syntax could be improved.

The point I really want to make is that the Islamic ideology is facing a real threat to our freedom--to our western society so the values of our society are based on Judaism and Christianity; on humanism. And I'm also here in the United States to learn, I mean, the United states is the country when it comes to freedom of speech and I'm here to learn in order to propose a European kind of First Amendment because unfortunately, free speech is on trial In Europe today.

It ain't the ideology that poses a threat, it is the believers' attempt to actualize it that threatens us. The European legal system is so different from ours that I' doubt that our concept of free speech can be adapted to fit the European system. The change would be so revolutionary that I doubt that it can be done in the short term.

You know, I watched the film on line and I would call it fearmongering at best, at worst, it really reminded me of a kind of propaganda thats been used to trigger violence and discrimination from Nazi Germany to Rwanda.

If vampirism was real instead of mythological, and vampires were sucking blood, killing people and turning them into vampires, would exposing them be 'fearmongering'? I would call it sounding a warning. Fitna demonstrates the connection between the words of the Qur'an and the action of Muslim mobs stirred up by Muslim clerics. Arabia, North Africa, nearly half of Asia and a considerable part of Southern and Eastern Europe were conquered by Islam in the past. Millions of people were slaughtered in the process. Europe is in danger of demographic conquest as well as terrorist attacks. The interviewer seems to feel that we should keep silent in the face of those imminent dangers.

Well, unfortunately, this is not true, I mean, I didn't use any actors in the movie, the movie was made by radical Muslims themselves. I used certain Surahs and verses from those Surahs and I used real images from 9/11 and the radical Imam who said that he would conquer the whole world and the death of one of my fellow countrymen in Amsterdam. And so, unfortunately I could not have made such a movie about Christianity; I have to say fortunately I could not make such a movie about Christianity or Judaism. Of course it would be ridiculous to say that all Muslims are terrorists, this is nonsense, but unfortunately, most of the terrorists in the world today are Muslims. And the ideology of Islam is really, and I truly believe that, is a threat to our free society.

Islam is terrorism; therefore Muslims are terrorists. In 3:151, Allah said: "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers). In 8:12 Allah again declared that he would cast terror. In 33:26 & 59:2, Allah provides examples of his casting terror and describes the results.
Islam's founder bragged about being made victorious by terror, as recorded in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. Terrorism is a tactic of Jihad. In 8:60, Allah commands Muslims to build the largest possible arsenal, for the purpose of terrifying their perceived enemies. That is related to 8:39 & 9:29 in which Allah comands Muslims to wage war against pagans, Jews & Christians until only Allah is worshiped and the Jews & Christians are subjugated and extorted.

Islam divides the world into two houses: the house of Islam and the house of war. Dar al-harb is wherever Allah's writ don't run. Dar al-harb must be conquered and subsumed into Dar al-Islam. . Islam is perpetual war; terrorism. Without Muslims it would be totally impotent, just books on a shelf.

But you use the extremes of that and in the film...the extremes of people that have, you know, who have lost all reason and I have to ask you: Is it freedom of speech you are talking about or freedom of hate speech?

There are no extremes; there is only Islam as revealed and exemplified by Moe. Those people depicted in the Islamic promotional videos included in Fitna never had any reason to lose, they were brainwashed with Islam from birth. Jihad, terrorism & genocide are not exceptional, they are standard issue Islam.

The Qur'an is a combination of hate speech and incitement to violence.

No. I am not somebody who is in favor of hate speech at all. I want to open the eyes of the political elite in Europe, and maybe even the United States that Islam is not just another religion it can not be compared with Christianity or Judaism. I believe that Islam is more like a totalitarian ideology that rules all aspects of life; it wants to rule all aspects of society, it doesn't want to integrate in society but it wants to submit. So I think it is more to be compared with other totalitarian ideologies like Communism or Fascism. And, of course, I make a distinction between the people and the ideology. I have nothing against Muslims, I hate nobody and the majority of Muslims in our society are law abiding people like you and me. But I have a lot of fear of the influx of the Islamic totalitarian ideology that at the end of the day, I'm sure, unfortunately, will cost us our freedom if we don't stand up and fight to preserve our own identity.

Maududi described Islam as a revolution. Moe called it a deen: way of life. What is it really? Perpetual war. Islam is perpetual war, propagated for the ostensible purpose of making the entire world submit to Islam; for the real purpose of accruing spoils, tribute, power and sex slaves for Moe and his successors. You who doubt this fatal fact need to read the Qur'an & hadith to comprehend objective factual reality. The parts you need to read have been concentrated in "Islam's mercenary Mission"; read it and follow the links to the source documents.

Muslims are here to dominate; to take over and subjugate us, not to assimilate. They intend to force us to submit. Rational and informed lovers of liberty have something against Muslims: Islam. Islam imposes on Muslims a demonic mandate to conquer the entire world and confers upon them a license to kill, rape, enslave and pillage, open season with no bag limit. Participation in Jihad is the only guarantee a Muslim has of not being condemned to eternal damnation. Being killed in Jihad is the only guarantee a Muslim has of obtaining one of the best seats in Paradise.

You know, moderate Muslims in the United States and beyond -- they don't like the extremists either; they don't like the calls to kill non-believers as they are called in the terminology that you quoted. Have you ever thought about joining hands with them to fight the extremism rather than attacking their faith?

Extremists are a figment of your imagination. There are believers and there are hypocrites, whose Islam goes no deeper than their throats. Allah tests them by Jihad to determine which is which. What you call extremism is the doctrine of their faith; its fundamental core tenets. No Muslim can abjure the ayat which command perpetual warfare, terrorism & genocide. To do so is tantamount to apostasy, the penalty for which is immediate death. If you don't believe this or can't comprehend it, then you need to sample Islamic law. Don't worry, the vital parts have been extracted from the 1200 page book and documented for your reading displeasure.

• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-0.html Jihad defined as making war on kuffar.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-1.html The communal obligation to attack kuffar at least once each year.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-8.html The caliph makes war on Jews... codification of 9:29.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-9.html The caliph fights all other people... codification of 8:39.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO25-9.html The eighth duty of subordinate rulers: to undertake Jihad.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO11-5.html Restrictions on dhimmis.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO11-10.html Acts which violate Dhimma, subjecting the violator to the death penalty.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO9-13.html Women & children enslaved by reason of capture.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-7.html List of acts entailing apostasy.
• http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/RelianceO8-2.html Penalty for Apostasy.

So, like I said before, sir, I am not against--I don't have a problem with Muslims as persons and of course I acknowledge the fact that there are persons who call themselves .....

That is pandering to political correctness; it ain't a good sign.

But wouldn't you admit that the film Fitna is an assault; an attack on the Qur'an and on and the verses in it?

The question implies that there is something wrong about challenging and exposing evil.

Of course, but the Qur'an, according to me, is a fascist book, so my aim is to attack and to expose the real nature of the Quran.

Have you read some of the passages in the Old Testament?

That is the standard diversionary attack: argumentum tu-quoque: "You're one, too!". It belongs in the elementary schoolyard, not in a serious interview about a live and death issue of existential conflict.

Of course I did, and, as you know, the Old testament and I know--everybody knows that passages of the book [unintelligible] and you know, that after the more harsh parts of the Old testament there was a New Testament and the New Testament was more moderate and Christianity went to a place of enlightenment and separation of church and state. And, unfortunately, there is no new Qur'an. I would be very much in favor if the Muslims would get rid all the violent passages from the Qur'an--get rid of it, tear it out of the Qur'an and build it a new, more moderate Islam ...

Muslims can't get rid of the violent passages, because they are Allah's perfected, immutable word, any attempt to alter his word earns the editor a place in Hell fire.

Should all of the violence in the Old Testament and all the calls to kill people and slaughter them--should that also be eliminated; should Christians today and Jews go back and purge their books?

The diversionary attack is repeated, in different terms. The Hebrew genocide mandate expired with the conquest of Canaan. It has no modern validity. Christ did not issue any genocide edicts. There is no New Testament equivalent of Al-Anfal 67.

No, like I said...

No? Just the Muslims...

The interviewer persists in postulating a false equivalence between Christianity and Islam.

Like I said, The Old Testament was followed by a more moderate New Testament whereas we have not seen because Muslims believe its the word of Allah and it can not be criticized there has not been and there probably will not be a new Qur'an and at the same time we have in the world no problem with Christians or Jews with few exceptions, of course out there we have a problem, and all over the world, with the ideology of hatred which is called Islam.

Islam is an ideology of supremacism, genocidal conquest and domination.

The movie Fitna is still available on line. The Qur'an quotes used in Fitna and Wilders' address to the Dutch Parliament are documented in this blog post.

Media Won't 'Get Islam Right'~We Will

A new post at Logan's Warning alerted me to a post on Islam Online titled "Media should get Islam right" under the byline of Hind Al-Subai Al-Idrisi .
The post pulls many of the standard strings of al-taqeyya. If the media would "get Islam right", they would be subjected to fatwas, threats, boycotts and litigation. Those of us who do not make our living by the word have a greater license to be accurate and honest. I have therefore extracted the most egregious lies from Hind's stream of malignant malarkey and will expose them below.

Rabat - Given the amount of violence and instability in countries with Muslim majorities, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, some people mistakenly assume the violence stems from Islamic teachings, when in fact Islam does not condone such actions. The media does not help the matter, often focusing on the activities of terrorists who claim to be Muslims, instead of identifying these individuals as criminals and shedding light on the true essence of Islam.

The internecine violence between Sunni & Shi'ia is, technically, un-Islamic conduct, forbidden by Allah & Moe. Surah An-Nisa' 92 & 93 make this fact abundantly clear.

• 4:92. It is not for a believer to kill a believer ...
• 4:93. And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allâh are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.

The paragraph cited above serves as a distraction, to divert our attention away from the real issue: Jihad, which is defined in Islamic law as "to war against non-Muslims" A similar, and more complete definition and explanation are provided in the translator's footnote to 2:190. The purpose of Jihad is to establish Islam and make it dominant.

Jihad is made mandatory for Muslims in Surah Al-Baqarah 2:216. Warfare against pagans & atheists is commanded in Surah Al-Anfal 8:39. Warfare against Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians is commanded in Surah At-Taubah 9:29. Those imperatives are codified in Shari'ah.

• The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians....
• The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim...

Those are not anachronisms; Allah's Jihad imperatives have no expiration date. Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526 makes this fact clear.

• ...jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)....

The media shows Muslim terrorists with guns performing prayers but rarely associates terms like terrorist, fanatic and fundamentalist with any other religious group.

Is terrorism a sacrament of any other religion? Which scripture contains functional equivalents of these gems of holiness?

• 3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, ...
• 8:12. ...I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes." ...
• 8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know.... [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
• 33:26. ...Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives. ...

Did Jesus Christ or the founder of any other religion brag about victory through terrorism?

• ...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), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand. ...
  

The vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and coexist harmoniously with those around them; they would say that the core of Islam is tolerance, co-existence and respect for all religions. In fact, Prophet Muhammad was known for his superior manners, merciful demeanor and tolerance toward all people, regardless of their race or religion.

Three cheers for the "vast majority of Muslims"; they are not the root of the problem. Believers are another matter, as Surah Al-Hujuratt 49:15 and Al-Anfal 2-8 reveal.

• 8:2. The believers are only those who, when Allâh is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Qur'ân) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone);
  8:3. Who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât) and spend out of that We have provided them.
  8:4. It is they who are the believers in truth. For them are grades of dignity with their Lord, and Forgiveness and a generous provision (Paradise).
  8:5. As your Lord caused you (O Muhammad ) to go out from your home with the truth, and verily, a party among the believers disliked it;
  8:6. Disputing with you concerning the truth after it was made manifest, as if they were being driven to death, while they were looking (at it).
  8:7. And (remember) when Allâh promised you (Muslims) one of the two parties (of the enemy i.e. either the army or the caravan) that it should be yours, you wished that the one not armed (the caravan) should be yours, but Allâh willed to justify the truth by His Words and to cut off the roots of the disbelievers (i.e. in the battle of Badr).
  8:8. That He might cause the truth to triumph and bring falsehood to nothing, even though the Mujrimûn (disbelievers, polytheists, sinners, criminals, etc.) hate it.
• 49:15. Only those are the believers who have believed in Allâh and His Messenger, and afterward doubt not but strive with their wealth and their lives for the Cause of Allâh. Those! They are the truthful.

Spend, strive and go out are euphemisms for Jihad. If you doubt this fact, visit http://www.quranbrowser.com/ search for those terms and examine the context in which they are used. 8:1 & 8:7 are sufficient to establish the connection between the second ayeh and Jihad. Those who do not enthusiastically participate in Jihad are not believers, they are hypocrites

The quote above contains three egregious lies: tolerance, respect and co-existence. Anyone who asserts that those values are the core of Islam is either an ignorant fool or an accursed liar of the lowest order.

I took care of the co-existence deception when I cited the ayat which command Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims. Co-existence and perpetual warfare are not compatible, they are mutually exclusive.

The tolerance deception falls to the same evidence. War is not toleration. But there is more, found in Surah Al-Imran 3:85.

• 3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
  

The respect deception falls to similar evidence found in Surah Al-Baiyyinah 98:6, Surah Al-Taubah 9:30 and Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387.

• 98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad ) from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.

• 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
• 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 Muslims. Declaring open season on us is hardly a token of respect, tolerance & co-existence.

There are many verses in the Qur’an that support this message of peaceful coexistence and harmony. Among the basic features of Islam is freedom of religion and non-compulsion: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256) and “If it had been the Lord’s will, they would all have believed – all who are on earth. Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will to believe?” (10:99).

"No compulsion in religion" does not mesh with "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 ]". The two are polar opposites. The conflict can only be resolved by the science of Naskh.

• 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things?
  

Newer revelations abrogate earlier revelations. Which came first, 2:256 or 8:39? Surah Al-Baqarah was #87 in sequence of revelation and Surah Al-Taubah was #88. [http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/chapters_chronological_sequence.html] 2:256 has been abrogated, it is null and void. But I have further proof. Surah Al-Imran was # 89 in sequence of revelation. Examine 3:110 and Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80, which explains its meaning.

• 3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).
• 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.
  

If dragging us with chains on our necks is not compulsion, what is?

When the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) established the first Muslim community in Mecca, he guaranteed freedom of religion, the sanctity of the human soul, and the right to security for non-Muslims, including Christians and Jews – the “People of the Book”, as they’re referred to in the Qur’an. They were privy to the same rights and subject to the same duties as Muslims, and were granted protection from outside threats.

What Moe tried to do was recruit the Jews & Christians into Islam, and when they rejected him, he attacked and plundered them. His military career began with raids on camel caravans returning to Mecca. As his army grew larger, fed by the spoils from those raids, he turned against the local Jewish population. His extortion letter to and attack on the Jews at the Khaibar Oasis [and 4.52.143]are exemplary.

The egregious assertions of sanctity and equality have already been dealt with above, completely disproved by reference to Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387. You have already discovered, if you followed the links immediately above, that Islam sold protection from itself. Note the reference to jizya in 9:29.

The malignant malarkey about "freedom of religion" is best disproved by reference to Shari'ah. Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 11.5 lists several restrictions imposed on Jews & Christians under Islamic domination.

• Forbidden to:
• ring church bells
• display crosses
• recite the Torah or Evangel aloud
• make public display of funerals or feasts
• build new churches.

The teachings of Islam encourage acquaintance and communication among all people, as well as the blending among societies: “O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another” (49:13).

Allah strictly forbids friendly relations between Muslims and kuffar in the following ayat, from which I will quote one exemplar: 3:118, 4:144, 5:51, 5:57, 60:1 & 60:13.

• 3:118. O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitânah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.
  
  

A similar ayeh serves as one of the foundation stones of al-taqeyya. I have added emphasis to make the critical clause stand out.

• 3:28. Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Auliyâ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allâh in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allâh warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allâh is the final return.
  

Surah An-Nahl 16:106 is another foundation stone of Islamic dissimulation.

• 16:106. Whoever disbelieved in Allâh after his belief, except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith but such as open their breasts to disbelief, on them is wrath from Allâh, and theirs will be a great torment.
  
  

Ibn Kathir's Tafsir quotes a hadith allegedly from Bukhari, which is not found in the collection at USC-MSA.

• ...For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection....

Because of the Islamic practices of dissimulation and obfuscation, it is necessary to check their references and search out the conflicting ayat & hadith which disprove them. Only ignorant fools will accept statements by politicians and Muslims at face value. Yet Another Qur'an Browser, to which I link ayat, displays a table of ten parallel translations. USC-MSA displays parallel translations by Pickthall, Shakir & Yusuf Ali. The same site has four of the six canonical hadith collections. You can use the navigation links on its pages to access them. The King Fahd Complex displays the Hilali & Khan translation with their footnotes. You can search and read Reliance of the Traveller, the all purpose handbook of Shari'ah at Scribid. Ibn Kathir's Tafsir displays the Arabic text of the Qur'an, an English translation and the parallel ayat & ahadith which explain its meaning A search engine for the tafsir is available at http://www.qtafsir.com/

Links to on line texts, search engines, texts you can download and links to many of my blog posts are available at http://www.crusadersarmory.co.cc/ .