John R. Houk
© May 18, 2013
Many a Muslim in defending the theopolitical cult of Islam will quote this phrase to emphasize the propaganda and false perception that Islam is peace: There is compulsion in religion.
The phrase is straight from the Quran which Muslims consider the infallible directs words of Allah passed onto Mohammed who then shared them with his adherents. It can be referenced as Quran 2:256 or as Al-Baqara 256.
Here are a few English translations of Quran 2:256:
THERE SHALL BE no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error: hence, he who rejects the powers of evil and believes in God has indeed taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way: for God is all-hearing, all-knowing.
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.
Compulsion is incompatible with religion, therefore let there be no compulsion in religion. Now the path of righteousness has been distinguished from the path of error and holiness distinguished from vindictiveness. Therefore, he who rejects false beliefs and turns his attention to Allah with a religious mind, will have firmly grasped the eternal, unchangeable and most secure handhold which shall never separate, nor shall it suffer a break, and Allah is Sami‘un and ‘Alimun.
** Read more translations from Islam Awakened
There are Muslim scholars of considerable weighty importance that have written the Quran 2:256 has been abrogated by Quran 9:29:
Sahih International: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
Pickthall: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
Yusuf Ali: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Shakir: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
Muhammad Sarwar: Fight against those People of the Book who have no faith in God or the Day of Judgment, who do not consider unlawful what God and His Messenger have made unlawful, and who do not believe in the true religion, until they humbly pay tax with their own hands.
Mohsin Khan: Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Arberry: Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.
** From Quran Arabic Corpus
You can understand why many Muslim scholars claim Quran 9:29 abrogates (or nullifies) Quran 2:256’s “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to 9:29 Muslims are to fight non-believers in Islam and Mohammed’s version of the Last Day. The Last Day meaning all non-Muslims will be confined to the torments of hell. Thus if you believe in the Muslim way you are worthy of death. That sounds like compulsion to me!
Fascinatingly there are Muslim scholars that claim 9:29 does not abrogate 2:256. This Muslim thinking works something like this: The fight against unbelievers is not an invocation to kill but rather to submit to the Islamic theopolitical culture as subservient. A lack of subservience does mean brutal measures up to and including death. So thinking is not compelling one to convert to Islam but create a dhimmi class that pays the jizya tax (poll tax to stay alive) in humiliation so that the dhimmi knows their place in Muslim world. Breaking the dhimmi deal requires punish according to how Islam has been violated or insulted. Guess what the conquered people chose to do rather than suffer the humiliations of dhimmitude. If you guessed conversion to Islam you are the big winner!
In essence dhimmitude was the long term path to convince the conquered to convert to Islam. The plan might be long term but it still is compulsion in religion.
Here are some thoughts written more articulately on the issue of abrogation or non-abrogation of Quran 2:256 by Quran 9:29:
Immediately following is the famous statement that “there is no compulsion in religion” (v. 256). Islamic spokesmen in the West frequently quote it to disprove the contention that Islam spread by the sword, or even to claim that Islam is a religion of peace. According to an early Muslim, Mujahid ibn Jabr, this verse was abrogated by Qur’an 9:29, in which the Muslims are commanded to fight against the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, say that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).
Many see v. 256 as contradicting the Islamic imperative to wage jihad against unbelievers, but actually there is no contradiction because the aim of jihad is not the forced conversion of non-Muslims, but their subjugation within the Islamic social order. Says Asad: “All Islamic jurists (fuqahd’), without any exception, hold that forcible conversion is under all circumstances null and void, and that any attempt at coercing a non-believer to accept the faith of Islam is a grievous sin: a verdict which disposes of the widespread fallacy that Islam places before the unbelievers the alternative of ‘conversion or the sword.’” Quite so: the choice, as laid out by Muhammad himself, is conversion, subjugation as dhimmis, or the sword. Qutb accordingly denies that v. 256 contradicts the imperative to fight until “religion is for Allah” (v. 193), saying that “Islam has not used force to impose its beliefs.” Rather, jihad’s “main objective has been the establishment of a stable society in which all citizens, including followers of other religious creeds, may live in peace and security” – although not with equality of rights before the law, as 9:29 emphasizes. For Qutb, that “stable society” is the “Islamic social order,” the establishment of which is a chief objective of jihad.
In this light verses 256 and 193 go together without any trouble. Muslims must fight until “religion is for Allah,” but they don’t force anyone to accept Allah’s religion. They enforce subservience upon those who refuse to convert, such that many of them subsequently convert to Islam so as to escape the humiliating and discriminatory regulations of dhimmitude — but when they convert, they do so freely. Only at the end of the world will Jesus, the Prophet of Islam, return and Islamize the world, abolishing Christianity and thus the need for the jizya that is paid by the dhimmis. Then religion will be “for Allah,” and there will be no further need for jihad. (Excerpted from Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 2, “The Cow,” verses 222-286; By Robert Spencer; Hot Air; 7/15/07)
Now here is the reason I thought it important to understand the Islamic notion of there being no compulsion of religion. Raymond Ibrahim wrote a no holds barred expose on how Muslims indeed compelled Christians to convert or die throughout the centuries to this present day. Ibrahim describes some savage historical incidents in which Muslims butchered Christians for not converting to Islam. The essay is entitled “Islamic Forced Conversions — Past and Present”.
The blog Political Islam posted a ‘wake-up and see the real Islam’ essay yesterday. The theme is the treatment of Christians in Muslim dominated lands with a focus on Christmas.
Un-merry Christmas to Christians from Islam
By Kenneth Roberts
December 23, 2012
Is Islam tolerant of Christianity? Muslims say yes, but what are the facts?
Mullahs around the world warn Muslims not to respond to the words ‘Merry Christmas’. If Jesus is the ‘prince of peace’, it makes Mohammed look bad. In the last years of his life, Mohammed led and commanded violent aggression every six weeks. Mohammed was the ‘prince of jihad’.
Muslims believe angels announced the birth of Jesus, but Muslims do not believe the Gospel where the angels said, “Peace on earth.” Peace with Kafirs is not possible. The Christmas greeting to Christians around the world is still the same as it was in 630 AD: “Aslim, Taslam!” (Surrender to Islam and be safe). Where Christians do not surrender to Islamic terrorists, their lives are now in danger.
For the Muslim, the world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah. The duty of Muslims is to create the conditions that drive non-Muslims into the arms of Sharia law, ‘whether by persuasion or by force’ as ibn Khaldun wrote.
If Christians won’t voluntarily change their laws to Shari’a, then it is the duty of every Muslim to induce Christians in three ways: violence, extortion or enslavement.
Muslims around the world are particularly aware of Christianity at Christmas time when they become even more determined to impose Sharia. This leads to jihad attacks in churches in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia. Attacking worshipping Christians is jihad. The purpose is to discourage them from their non-Islamic worship. In Nigerian churches, most women have been asked not to bring a purse and armed guards stand at the door with metal detectors to screen every worshipper. This is because jihadists are taught in the hadiths to lull enemies of Allah into trust before betraying them. Every person entering a church might be a jihadist.
The purpose of jihad is to implement discriminatory Sharia. Sharia is not benign to Christians.
The purpose of Sharia is to destroy Christian and other cultures and replace them with theocratic totalitarianism. Jihad is the method for imposing Sharia. Jihad is aggressive: it can take the form of deception or disinformation, robbery, lawsuits or it can be violent with the destruction of property or assassination of church leaders. All jihad is good because it is Mohammed’s sacred method.
Since 1990 in Nigeria, some 1000 Christians have been murdered by jihadists every year. Probably, the number is much higher with many jihad-motivated murders being put down as ordinary homicides or accidental manslaughters. Most of the jihad murders take place in northern Nigeria where Islamist want to impose Sharia law.
Nigeria has one of the highest scholarship rates in Africa. As Nigerians gain graduate and post-graduate degrees, they often leave Islam and switch to Christianity which they identified with Western progress. Islamists see going to university as the problem. Better to stay at home, memorize the Koran and remain loyal to Mohammed, the perfect man, than to learn to improve society, build infrastructure, services, health sciences or engineering in the country.
Boko Haram (meaning ‘Western education is taboo’) is the main Islamic terror group fighting the rapid Christianization of Nigeria. They are now allied with Al Qaeda. Their trademark is to attack congregation while they are worshipping or throw bombs into restaurants where Christians eat after services. This is ethnic cleansing and genocide. Mohammed ethnically cleansed the Jewish tribes in Arabia, so it is normative Islam. Boko Haram wants to ethnically cleanse Christians from northern Nigeria. Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing method goes like this: intimidate, humiliate and expropriate until you can annihilate.
Most of the countries that are now Islamic were once Christian. The Christian presence in Turkey is almost nil, and in most of North Africa it is tiny, but it was once close to 100% in all of them. What changed things was Sharia law. Under discriminatory Sharia law, Christians must live in an inferior social status to Muslims, they must wear clothing that humiliates them, they must never ride on a horse, they must pay a punitive tax, they must never speak about Islam or the Koran, they must never ring their church’s bell, they must never have an outdoor religious ceremony or speak to a Muslim about Christianity, they must move aside when a Muslim walks down the street. As well, no new churches may be built and old ones may never be repaired unless hefty bribes are given to the authorities. The policy of Sharia is to systemically make life difficult for Christians to practice their faith, all the while encouraging them to convert.
Then there is the ‘love jihad’. Mohammed started this with the comment ‘marry one woman (out of four wives) for the religion’. Muslim men have taken this as a commandment to abduct a Christian girl, confine her and then declare her to be married without her consent. The girl’s family is then told she has converted to Islam and they may never see her. Police do nothing, because it’s Sharia and Sharia trumps any man-made law. No one can estimate how many Christian girls have been abducted and sequestered in the ‘love jihad’, but the fact that many African Christians tattoo a cross on the forehead and cheeks of their girls speaks volumes.
The reason Christians were not substantially cleansed from Islamic countries until the Turkish genocides of 1915-1924 is because Christians were used for a supply of jizzya [dhimmi tax] and they were very useful in medicine, the arts, building and garbage removal. Turkey ethnically cleansed three million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians to confiscate their wealth and properties for a government at war that was strapped for ready cash. The Young Turks were also jihadists hoping to make Turkey the capital of a global caliphate promoting Sharia law. Discriminatory Sharia law is like a ratchet that only tightens a bolt even though it apparently moves back and forwards. Sharia only benefits Islam.
So when Americans hear the church bells ring on Christmas Eve, remember that Christians worshipping in Islamic regions like northern Nigeria may hear the sound of bombs thrown in the church door, guns shooting down the main aisle or the sound of fire on the church roof.
Written by Kenneth Roberts
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
John R. Houk
© July 21, 2012
WND has undoubtedly paid attention to a little known Radical Islamic group known as United Muslim Nations International since the group threatened WND with an or else if the Internet magazine did not cease from criticizing Islam.
On July 7, 2012 WND released an article entitled, “Muslims: Wipe Christianity from Face of Earth.” The article caused quite a stir among expose Islam bloggers big dog and little dog. The thing is WND did not post the link to the UMN Intl. 23 page document. In fact Pamela Geller’s post on the WND article linked to Michael Rubin and Robert Spencer saying to the effect the 23 page document was typical Radical Islamic material; however the links at Atlas Shrugs pointing Rubin and Spencer are now dead links. Now I don’t know if the links were posted incorrectly or if the Rubin and Spencer sources links were removed or changed. I would not have thought anything about it except a Google+ friend found the PDF 23 page document she believes that WND is referring to. She did not find a specific reference of any outright call to wipe Christianity off the face of the Earth. She asked for my thoughts and sent me a link she had found.
I went to the PDF document and downloaded it in case it disappeared from the Internet. I have now just finished reading it fairly close manner.
I have to concur with Linda that the PDF document does not specify the genocide of Christians from planet Earth.
However, the PDF document is clearly written in the purist style of Radical Islam and once you get past the flowery theology of what a good Muslim is, the document indeed push Muslim readers to follow the example of Mohammed and the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs in its brutal conquest and conversion of NON-Muslims to Islam. Of the author does not write of the brutality of conquest but of the glory of Islam and how good old Allah was their protector and guide for the Islamic Golden Age.
There are definite references to NON-Muslims and Muslims described as hypocrites (i.e. Moderate Muslims) are kafir (unbelievers). The kafir are not to be trusted or treated nicely, indeed they must be punished and killed if they withstand the author’s perceived New World Order of a new Islamic Caliphate.
So there is an insinuation to wipe Christians off the face of the Earth but in all honesty not just Christians. Any kafir is worthy of death in resisting Islam and Islamic Sharia Law.
There are a lot of references that Muslims must treat Mohammed as the perfect example of how a Muslim should live and how a Muslim should treat NON-Muslims. Let’s look at this perfect man.
Muhammad was born around 570 AD to a widowed mother who died just six years later. He grew up poor and orphaned on the margins of society, which was controlled by tribal chiefs and trading merchants. He worked for his uncle, Abu Talib, as a camel herder. Although his uncle had some standing in the community, Muhammad himself did not rise above his lowly station until he was 25, when he met and married a wealthy widow, Khadija, who was 15 years older.
His wife’s trading business not only nurtured Muhammad’s natural talents of persuasion, but it also gave the successful salesman an opportunity to travel and acquire knowledge that was not as accessible to the local population. He would later use this to his advantage by incorporating the stories that he had come across into his “revelations” from Allah, particularly the tales from the earlier religions, Judaism and Christianity.
Having attained a comfortable lifestyle and the idle time that wealth affords, Muhammad would wander off occasionally for periods of meditation and contemplation. It is quite likely that he was experiencing the symptoms of a midlife crisis, including a desire for personal accomplishment and meaning.
One day, at the age of 40, he told his wife that he had been visited by the angel Gabriel in a dream. Thus began a series of “revelations” which lasted almost until his death 23 years later. The Qur’an is a collection of words that Muhammad attributed to Allah. The Hadith is a collection of narrations of the life and deeds of Muhammad. The Sira is his recorded biography. The Sunnah is said to be Muhammad’s way of life, on which Islamic law (Sharia) is based.
With his wife’s influence and support, Muhammad proclaimed himself a prophet in same “lineage” as that of Abraham and Jesus, and began trying to convert those around him to his new religion. He narrated the Quran to those who believed him, telling them that it was the word of Allah (heard only by himself, of course).
Relations with the Meccans turned particularly sour after an episode known as “the Satanic Verses” in which Muhammad agreed to recognize the local gods in addition to Allah. This delighted the Meccans, who generously extended their welcome. But Muhammad soon changed his mind after his own people began to lose faith in him. He claimed that Satan had spoken through him, and he rescinded recognition of the Meccan gods (Tabari 1192, Quran 22:52 & 53:19-26).
To deal with this unpleasant truth, sympathetic narratives of the early Meccan years usually exaggerate the struggle of the Muslims with claims that they were “under constant torture.” They may also include apocryphal accounts that are unsupported by earliest and most reliable historians (see MYTH: Persecution of Muslims at Mecca – Many Deaths).
Modern storytellers and filmmakers (such as those behind 1976′s The Message) have even been known to invent fictional victims of Meccan murder, either to dramatize their own tale or to provide justification for the “revenge killings” that followed. But, in fact, the only Muslim whose life was truly in danger was that of Muhammad – after 13 years of being allowed to mock the local religion. (See also MYTH: Muhammad was Tortured at Mecca).
It was at Medina that Islam evolved from a relatively peaceful religion borrowed from others and into a military force that was intended to govern all aspects of society. During these last ten years of Muhammad’s life, infidels were evicted or enslaved, converted upon point of death and even rounded up and slaughtered depending on expediency.
To fund his quest for control, Muhammad first directed his followers to raid Meccan caravans in the holy months, when the victims would least expect it. This was despite the fact that the Meccans were not bothering him in Medina (see MYTH: Muhammad and his Muslims were Persecuted by the Meccans at Medina).
Muhammad provided his people with convenient revelations “from Allah” which allowed them to murder innocent drivers and steal their property (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 426). The people around him gradually developed a lust for things that could be taken in battle, including material comforts and captured women and children. (See also MYTH: Muhammad Raided Caravans to Retrieve Stolen Property).
Often the people captured in battle would be brought before the self-proclaimed prophet, where they would plead for their lives, arguing, for example, that they would never have treated the Muslims that way. The traditions are quite clear in portraying Muhammad as largely unmoved by their pleas, and ordering their deaths anyway, often by horrible means. In one case, he orders a man slain, telling him that “Hell” will take care of the poor fellow’s orphaned daughter (Ishaq 459). (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Captives)
The raids on caravans preceded the first major battle involving a Muslim army, the Battle of Badr. This was the spot where the Meccans had sent their own army to protect their caravans from Muslim raiders. Although, Muslims today like to claim that they only attack others in self-defense, this was clearly not the case in Muhammad’s time. In fact, he had to compel his reluctant warriors with promises of paradise and assurances that their religion was more important than the lives of others. (See also MYTH: The Battle of Badr was Defensive).
First, to try and gain their favor, Muhammad briefly preached that Christians and Jews could attain salvation through their own faith. In fact, he changed his followers’ direction for prayer from Mecca to Jerusalem, which prompted the Jews’ tolerance of him while he worked surreptitiously for the power to evict them. These earlier concessions and teachings were later revoked by Muhammad, since the Jews ultimately refused his religion. The rare early verses of tolerance in the Quran are abrogated by later verses such as 9:29.
While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, “Let us go to the Jews” We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.” Bukhari 53:392
The Jews of Mecca were the first in a very long line of unfortunate people to be offered the opportunity to convert to Islam under obvious duress. Forcible conversion is very much a Muslim tradition started by Muhammad (see MYTH: Muhammad Rejected Conversions to Islam made under Duress)
Since they chose to hold on to their religion (and their property) Muhammad looked for reasons to go to war against the Jews at Medina. According to some Muslims, the first tribe, the Qaynuqa, were driven from their homes and land on the pretext that one of their own had harassed a Muslim woman. Although the offender was killed prior to this by a Muslim, the Muslim was also killed by Jews in retaliation for the first murder.
After laying siege to the entire community and defeating the tribe, Muhammad wanted to put every male member to death, but was talked out of it by an associate – something that Allah later “rebuked” him for. The Qaynuqa were forced into exile and the Muslims took their possessions and property, making it their own. Muhammad personally reserved a fifth of the ill-gotten gain for himself (a rule that he was sure to include in the Quran).
The Jews of the Banu Qurayza tasted Muhammad’s wrath after their leader half-heartedly sided with the Meccan army during a siege of Medina (the Battle of the Trench). By then, Muhammad had evicted the other Jews and declared that all land at Medina belonged to him, so the original constitution of the town was no longer in effect. It is important to note that the Qurayza did not attack the Muslims, even after switching loyalties (contrary to another popular myth).
Although the Qurayza surrendered peacefully to the Muslims, Muhammad determined to have every man of the tribe executed, along with every boy that had reached the initial stages of puberty (between the ages of 12 and 14). He ordered a ditch dug outside of the town and had the victims brought to him in several groups. Each person would be forced to kneel, and their head would be cut off and then dumped along with the body into the trench.
Between 700 and 900 men and boys were slaughtered by the Muslims after their surrender. (Bold Emphasis Mine)
The surviving children of the men became slaves of the Muslims, and their widows became sex slaves. This included the Jewish girl, Rayhana, who became one of Muhammad’s personal concubines the very night that her husband was killed. The prophet of Islam apparently “enjoyed her pleasures” (ie. raped her) even as the very execution of her people was taking place.
At one point following a battle, Muhammad provided instructions on how women should be raped after capture, telling his men not to worry about coitus interruptus, since “Allah has written whom he is going to create.” (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Approved of Rape)
Following the battle against the Hunain, late in his life, Muhammad’s men were reluctant to rape the captured women in front of their husbands (who were apparently still alive to witness the abomination), but Allah came to the rescue with a handy “revelation” that allowed the debauchery. (This is the origin of Sura 4:24 according to Abu Dawud 2150).
Not content with waiting for Allah to act on his behalf, Muhammad had personal critics executed, including poets. One of these was a mother of five children, who was stabbed to death by Muhammad’s envoy after a suckling infant was removed from her breast (see MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Women). Other innocent people were killed merely because they were of a different religion, sometimes including children (see MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed Children).
An elderly woman named Umm Qirfa once ran afoul of Muhammad merely by fighting back when her tribe was targeted by Muslim raiders. Muhammad’s adopted son tied the woman’s legs separately to two camels, then set the camels off in opposite directions, tearing the woman’s body in two. He also killed her two sons – presumably in gruesome fashion – and made her daughter into a sex slave. (See also MYTH: Muhammad Never Killed the Elderly).
… (The Life of Muhammad: An Inconvenient Truth; TheReligionofPeace.com; Read Entirety)
I apologize for the time spent on Mohammed’s real biography. In some fair play for Muslims that have been indoctrinated on the goodness of Mohammed, there are plenty of Quran, Hadith and Sira that do indeed show a good Mohammed. The good Mohammed is what is preached to Muslims at their Mosques. Just as there is plenty of bad news in the Bible of people considered good men in the Old and New Testament it exists for humanity to know that as people we are not perfect. The Christian Bible points to Jesus the Christ as both fully man and fully God. Christ’s humanity was needful for humanity to be Redeemed from Satan’s grasp. Thus Christ in the New Testament is often referred as the Last Adam because as a man he born perfect because His Father is God. Mohammed on the other hand example of a typical man that may have indeed started out with a good agenda; however as Mohammed increased in power, power definitely corrupted.
This is the document [That can be read below this point at SlantRight 2.0] that WND claims a Muslim Cleric is to have said all Christian must be killed. Portions I placed in Bold Italics followed by “Mine” are sections to take notice as misleading, deceptive or downright violent.
JRH 7/21/12 (Hat Tip: Linda Strawn)
John R. Houk
© June 4, 2012
Islam is peace, right? In Islam there is no compulsion in religion, right?
The purist religion of Islam as espoused by its founding prophet Mohammed evidently spoke the “peace” and “no compulsion” junk as a propaganda tool of compassion. There is equal if not more hatred, violence and zero compassion in the Quran and Hadith.
You have to be aware that Muslim-American organizations in the USA that purport to be the preeminent representatives of Muslims in America subscribe to the purist Islam often described in America as Radical Islam and academically as Salafist and/or Wahhabi Islam. The Salafi-Wahhabi form of Islam though considered a minority is actually a reform movement to bring Islam back to the purity of the founding prophet Mohammed. Many Muslim-American organizations have direct ties to the premier international Salafi group known as the Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan) or to the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia.
Off the top of my head some of these organizations in America are:
Raymond Ibrahim believes Muslim Brotherhood candidate for President wants to take Egypt back to the days of Mohammed and the so-called Four Rightly Guided Caliphs in which the Islamic maxim of the day was convert, submit as a dhimmi or die was the rule. Part of this paradigm was if any Muslim left Islam for another religion – usually Christianity – they were to be put to death as an apostate from Islam.
This is extremely relevant to the 21st century because of the Arab Spring that garnered so much attention for bringing down dictatorships. It is turning out that the unified groups that rebelled against dictatorship are beginning to be dominated by purist Islam proponents.
Ibrahim reports such a case in Tunisia which was one of the governments brought down by the so-called Arab Spring. Ibrahim has a graphic video of some Muslims decapitating a man who converted from Islam to Christianity because he refused to recant Christianity and come back to brutal Islam.
I am cross posting the Ibrahim article at my SlantRight 2.0 blog including the video; however I am placing the video at the very end as opposed to the near top and side of Ibrahim’s article. The video is gruesome, wicked and bloody; nonetheless people need to know the kind of Islam that is gaining ground in Muslim nations everyday and the sleight of hand of Muslim-American organization that support this wicked purist Islam.
Bill Warner has posted an article on Political Islam that explains the real Islam. The article is by Kenneth Roberts. The real Islam is not what Muslim Apologists and Left thinking Multiculturalists.
Check it out.
Mohammed’s Litmus Test (…of Original Islam)
By Kenneth Roberts
May 23, 2012
What is the original Islam?
Muslim apologists claim that original Islam meant ‘peace’, but what is the evidence? Mohammed claimed the opposite.
According to Mohammed, original Islam is jihad.
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah say: When you enter into the inah transaction (become businessmen), hold the tails of oxen (become cattlemen), are pleased with agriculture (become farmers), and give up conducting jihad, Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion. – Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455
Conducting jihad is the ‘original religion’ of Mohammed. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.
Mohammed’s Litmus Test
Just as adherence to the U.S. constitution is the litmus test of American identity, so adherence to jihad is Mohammed’s test of loyalty to Islam.
Mohammed’s litmus test is the willingness of Muslims to conduct jihad. That is how Mohammed determined who is a genuine Muslim and who is a lukewarm ‘hypocrite’.
Lukewarm Muslims do not go on jihad. Lukewarm Muslims go into trades or farming. By this test, most Muslims today are condemned. Non-jihadist Muslims have abandoned original Islam.
Lest this be considered too hasty, let’s examine further evidence.
Narrated Mujashi: My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, “Migration has passed away with its people.” I asked, “For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?” He (Mohammed) said, “I will take (the pledge) for Islam and jihad.” – Bukhari 4,52,208
In the above quote, Mohammed says that allegiance to Islam includes a commitment to the political action of jihad.
In addition, the Koran says lukewarm Muslims can be recognized because they avoid jihad.
“It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from jihad).” – K. 9.45
“But when a decisive surah (explaining and ordering things) is sent down, and fighting (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) looking at you with a look of one fainting to death…” – K. 47:20
So not going on jihad is a disease or mental illness in Muslims according to Allah/Mohammed.
Non-Jihadists are ‘Rubbish’
Not content with calling non-jihadists ‘diseased’, Mohammed insults them further; they are ‘garbage’:
“Prophet Muhammad said; It is expected that the nations will call other nations to share them against you (Muslims) as the eaters call each other to eat from the food in front of them in a large wooden plate A person asked, Will that happen because of our small number on that day? The Prophet said, No. Your number will be great, but you will be rubbish like the rubbish of flood-water. And certainly Allah will remove from the hearts of enemies the fear of you and surely Allah will throw Wahn in your hearts. A person asked, What is Wahn, O Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, Wahn is to love this world and to hate death.” – Abu Dawud 4284
The Messenger of God said: The nations are about to flock against you [the Muslims] from every horizon, just as hungry people flock to a kettle. We said: O Messenger of God, will we be few on that day? He said: No, you will be many in number, but you will be scum, like the scum of a flash-flood, without any weight, since fear will be removed from the hearts of your enemies, and weakness (wahn) will be placed in your hearts. We said: O Messenger of God, what does the word wahn mean? He said: Love of this world, and fear of death.
In this hadith, lukewarm Muslims love their earthly life and seek comfort and safety, whereas, real Muslims are jihadists who love death. Real Muslims are feared by kafirs. Fear of Muslims is what Allah wants.
But Islam is fatalistic. Allah controls people’s wills and causes lukewarm Muslims to rebel against him by placing ‘wahn’ in their minds. Kafirs have no reason to fear lukewarm Muslims, because they do not go forth in jihad. Lukewarm Muslims are no different from kafirs…they are ‘rubbish’…so they must be replaced by real Muslims who conduct jihad.
“O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah (jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life as compared with the hereafter. Unless you go forth He will punish you with a grievous penalty and put others in your place; but Him you would not harm in the least. For Allah has power over all things.” – K. 9:38-9
Mohammed’s Allies Agreed to Unending Jihad
When Mohammed arrived in Medina with few followers, he needed allies to begin jihad. Those tribes that made an alliance with Mohammed understood jihad as their main task.
“We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live.” – Bukhari 4,52,87
According to the above, jihad is unending. Other hadiths also confirm that jihad is endless:
“As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us.” – Tabari IX: 69
“‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’” – Ishaq: 204
Jihad is the Proper Career for Muslims
Furthermore, according to Mohammed, jihad is not just a job, but a career.
…It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.” – Bukhari 61, 2756
Good Muslims imitate Mohammed. Good Muslims threaten kafirs to submit: ‘Accept Islam and you will be safe’. Good Muslims make war on kafirs to remove their possessions and human rights. Kafirs are despoiled for the political crime of disobeying Mohammed.
‘Abasement’ and ‘humility’ mean making kafirs captive nations under discriminatory Sharia law. Thus, the purpose of jihad is to rob and subjugate non-Muslims and enrich and empower Muslims.
Jihad Brings Wealth
“O you who believe! If you will aid (the cause of) Allah He will aid you and plant your feet firmly.” – K. 47:7
As well, Mohammed is owner of the earth and Muslims will gain the treasures of Rome and Persia and the world through jihad (q.v. Bukhari 4,52,220).
Jihad makes Muslims Strong through Plunder
“The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us. This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.” – Sahih Muslim 19,4327
Jihad is More Religious than Kind Deeds
Allah, the Exalted, says, Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong (by avoiding jihad). Those who believe and suffer exile and strive with might and main in Allah’s cause with their goods and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: They are the people who will achieve (paradise). – K. 9:19-20.
It is not pious deeds, but the political act of jihad that guarantees religious salvation.
Jihad as Defined in Sharia Law
The legal definition of jihad is given in the authoritative Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0:
“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”
The Reliance of the Traveller is Sunni Islam’s authoritative volume on Sharia law. It is endorsed by Alazhar University, Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican.
Eminent Islamologist Hans Jansen points out that, to the original Muslims, jihad only meant violence: “The first generations of Muslims never understood anything else but ‘waging war’ when they heard the word jihad.”
Up to this point, the evidence has shown that…real Muslims are those who follow original Islam; they conduct war against non-Muslims; Mohammed says jihad is the proper career of Muslims; peaceful civilian jobs are a way of avoiding jihad.
But is this condition permanent in Islam? Can Islam be changed?
Can Jihad be abandoned? Can Islam be reformed?
Unfortunately, no. Jihad—warfare against non-Muslims—is the perfectly revealed ‘original religion’ of Islam declared in various ways by the final Messenger himself. It may not be changed.
‘Far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! – Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174
Allah brings Muslims back to Original Islam
Islam may go off track for brief periods, but Allah will send someone to return it to his path.
Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion. – Sunan Abu Dawud 37, 4278
‘Revival’ in Islam means the revival of conducting jihad.
Modern Teachings on Jihadism
Jihadism is the teaching that jihad is the central mission of Islam.
In his 2008 sermon “Allah is Preparing us for Victory” , the late Anwar Awlaki wrote:
“Some Muslims say the way forward for this Ummah is to distance itself from terrorism and spend their time in becoming good in Business, good in technology, agriculture, and the rest; and this is how we can compete with the rest of the world. The commentators on this hadith (Abu Dawud 23:3455) say going back to the (religion) here means going back to (Jihad for Allah); the only way to go back to the (religion) is to go back to (Jihad for Allah); so Jihad becomes equal to the religion; the solution of the Ummah is to go back to Jihad fe Sabeelillah.”
Awlaki goes into details of jihadism as a money-making technique for modern Muslims:
“Leave the farming to the people of the book (Jews and Christians), you go and spread the religion of Allah (through jihad); they will farm and they will feed you; they will pay Jizya (poll tax), they will pay Kharaaj (tribute), if the (sustenance) of (the Messenger) was through Ghaneema (plunder) it must be the best (sustenance) and better than farming, business, shepherding and better than anything else because (the Messenger) said: “My (sustenance) comes beneath the shadow of my spear.”
Awlaki then argues that through robbery and extortion at the expense of kafirs, no Muslim will ever need to pay taxes. This will succeed because it is Mohammed’s original Islam.
Muslims Demand a Global Caliphate and Sharia
Opinion surveys consistently find that around 65% of Muslims worldwide approve of a global caliphate under discriminatory Sharia law. This state of affairs could only be achieved through a general jihad by Muslims, since a caliphate would be resisted by the superpowers. Nevertheless, Islamic dictatorship is a majority opinion among Muslims.
Is Jihad a Suicide Pact in the Nuclear Era?
Jihad is original Islam and Mohammed’s method. Consequently, Muslims are caught in this logical dilemma: If Mohammed’s method is still valid, therefore Islam is a suicide pact in the nuclear era; but if endless jihad is no longer valid, therefore Mohammed was wrong and original Islam is false. Muslims tiptoe around nuclear annihilation, rather than say Islam is false. Today, many Muslims hope to conduct jihad by other, stealthier means…since jihad may be conducted by word, by money or by the pen.
All the same, modern Muslims are aware that jihad is the litmus test for Mohammed’s original religion, but they are patiently awaiting the right leader.
This inspiring leader—a religious warlord—will call Muslims to a general jihad and establish a utopian dictatorship under discriminatory Sharia law. Muslims balk at imagining how apocalyptic this general jihad would be, even though it is obvious.
Using mathematical analysis, Bill Warner has revealed that jihad is the preponderant theme of the Islamic Trilogy.
Jihadism is thus not a far-fetched aberration promoted by a small minority of Muslims…it is the hidden agenda of Muslims…it is foundational Islam…the ‘original religion’ of Mohammed.
Original Islam is jihad, not peace.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
© 2007-2012 Political Islam
Fjordman has written an essay that focuses on Geert Wilders because of the May 2012 release of the book “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me.” The book is about Geert’s realization about the dark side of Islam and how Muslims have responded to him for exposing the dark side of Islam.
Fjordman takes up from the book to defend this bastion of Free Speech in the Western World. The West is under a huge dose of Leftist Multiculturalism in which it is politically correct to disdain Christianity and politically incorrect to speak or write the truth about Islam. In writing the truth of Islam a person like Geert Wilders is then labeled a hate-bigoted Islamophobe. Muslim Apologists and Leftist Multiculturalists consider the term Islamophobe an epithet; however I personally where the term as a badge of honor. The honor is not living in fear and loathing of Islam rather the honor is in not becoming intimidated by the intolerance of Islam.
Geert Wilders in the irony of defending Free Speech has landed into the position of being the focal point of Islamic hatred with his life under constant threat.
Here is Fjordman’s essay.
JRH 5/11/12 (Hat Tip: Gates of Vienna)
Geert Wilders: Marked for Death
May 11, 2012 @ 12:30 am
The courageous Dutch politician Geert Wilders released his book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me in May 2012. The foreword to this title was written by the eloquent Canadian-born political commentator and cultural critic Mark Steyn, who has a special talent for writing about serious topics in a humorous way. He has published several books and written essays for publications ranging from the Jerusalem Post and the Chicago Sun-Times to the National Review, The Australian and Canada’s National Post.
Steyn is honest enough to admit that when he was first asked to contribute to Wilders’ new book, his initial reaction was to say no. The main reason for this is the potentially high cost of being associated with a man who lives with constant death threats.
Yet, after taking a stroll in the woods, Mark Steyn felt ashamed at the ease with which he was caving in to the enemies of freedom, and decided to accept the offer after all. He recalled how the Canadian Islamic Congress boasted that their attempts by legal aggression to silence Steyn’s critical writings about Islam had cost his magazine substantial sums, and thereby attained their “strategic objective” of increasing the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.
In the case of Geert Wilders, that cost is not merely limited to money. Despite being an elected Member of Parliament in what used to be one of Europe’s freest and most tolerant countries, he is regularly vilified by Western mass media. When trying to enter Britain, a nation that once was a champion of liberty, he was detained by plainclothes border guards on arrival at London’s Heathrow airport in February 2009 and deported from the country.
The democratic Dutch MP had been invited to the House of Lords, where Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson wanted to show his 17-minute Islam-critical film Fitna. The Home Office refused him entry on the grounds he “would threaten community security and therefore public security,” not because he threatened to use violence, but because Muslims might use it.
Lord Ahmed from the Labour Party, Britain’s first Muslim member of the House of Lords, the upper house of the British Parliament, pledged to bring a 10,000 strong force of angry Muslims to lay siege to Parliament. A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain claimed that Wilders has been an open and relentless preacher of “hate.” At the same time, London has become a notorious intentional center for Islamic militants, who spew hate on a daily basis.
Geert Wilders accused the Labour government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown of being “the biggest bunch of cowards in Europe.” He was later allowed entry to the UK, however. He was also put on trial in the Netherlands accused of criminally insulting religious and ethnic groups. Wilders was eventually found not guilty in 2011, but the entire process took several years.
As Mark Steyn puts it, “He is under round-the-clock guard because of explicit threats to murder him by Muslim extremists. Yet he’s the one who gets put on trial for incitement. In twenty-first century Amsterdam, you’re free to smoke marijuana and pick out a half-naked sex partner from the front window of her shop. But you can be put on trial for holding the wrong opinion about a bloke who died in the seventh century. And, although Mr. Wilders was eventually acquitted by his kangaroo court, the determination to place him beyond the pale is unceasing: ‘The far-right anti-immigration party of Geert Wilders’ (the Financial Times)… ‘Far-right leader Geert Wilders’ (the Guardian)… ‘Extreme right anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders’ (AFP) is ‘at the fringes of mainstream politics’ (Time). Mr. Wilders is so far out on the far-right extreme fringe that his party is the third biggest in parliament.”
Maybe those who are out on the fringe are the ones who think that disliking Islam is “far-right.”
Yet it’s not just Wilders himself who is being attacked in this fashion. Those who dare to meet him or support some of his views could find themselves attacked by the mass media and the political elites in a comparable manner. Cory Bernardi, born and raised in Adelaide and currently representing the state of South Australia for the Liberal Party in the Australian Senate, in 2011 came under fire not only from members of other parties but also from his own — allegedly conservative — party when he wanted to facilitate a trip to Australia by Wilders.
The Sydney Morning Herald simply labeled Geert Wilders “an Islamaphobic Dutch politician.” The Melbourne-based The Age claimed that Wilders’ “objectionable” and “poisonous anti-Islam views” are “abhorrent and plainly wrong” and that his ideas are self-evidently “repugnant.” The newspaper continued to suggest that if Senator Bernardi did not dissociate himself from Mr. Wilders’ views, then perhaps his own party should demote him.
Wayne Swan, Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister of Australia under PM Julia Gillard, said Bernardi has right-wing extremist views. Other senior Labor Party members indicated that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott should discipline the senator and remove him from his portfolio responsibilities. Labor frontbencher Peter Garrett declined to say whether he believed Abbott should have Bernardi expelled from the Liberal Party, or copy the way former Prime Minister John Howard had Pauline Hanson disendorsed as a candidate ahead of the 1996 national election due to her vocal opposition to non-European mass immigration. Australian Greens senator Richard Di Natale also condemned Bernardi’s associations with Wilders. “Multiculturalism is one of this country’s great successes and it must be defended,” he stated.
Wilders commented in an essay published in The Washington Times on May 4 2012 that “As I write these lines, there are police bodyguards at the door. No visitor can enter my office without passing through several security checks and metal detectors. I have been marked for death. I am forced to live in a heavily protected safe house. Every morning, I am driven to my office in the Dutch Parliament building in an armored car with sirens and flashing blue lights. When I go out, I am surrounded, as I have been for the past seven years, by plainclothes police officers. When I speak in public, I wear a bulletproof jacket. Who am I? I am neither a king nor a president, nor even a government minister; I am just a simple politician in the Netherlands. But because I speak out against expanding Islamic influence in Europe, I have been marked for death. If you criticize Islam, this is the risk you run. That is why so few politicians dare to tell the truth about the greatest threat to our liberties today.”
Wilders received his first death threats in 2003 after asking the government to investigate a radical mosque. In November 2004, after a Muslim fanatic murdered filmmaker Theo van Gogh, policemen armed with machine guns pushed him into an armored car and drove him off into the night. That was the last time he was in his own house. Since then, he has lived “in an army barracks, a prison cell and now a government-owned safe house.” The security detail has become part of his daily routine, but it must still be hard getting used to being a virtual prisoner in your own country and unable to visit a restaurant or cafe in a normal manner.
Hostile journalists often denounce Wilders and his Party for Freedom as “populists,” but they are popular for a reason: They state uncomfortable truths that the ruling elites want to sweep under the carpet. The natives are rapidly being turned into a harassed minority in Amsterdam, Rotterdam or The Hague, a pattern that can now be seen in far too many European cities.
Fifty-seven percent of the Dutch people say that mass immigration was the biggest single mistake in Dutch history. Yet what is arguably the greatest change their country and their continent have experienced in historical times is beyond honest discussion in the mainstream media.
Wilders goes on to note that “I have read the Koran and studied the life of Muhammad. It made me realize that Islam is primarily a totalitarian ideology rather than a religion. I feel sorry for the Arab, Persian, Indian and Indonesian peoples who have to live under the yoke of Islam. It is a belief system that marks apostates for death, forces critics into hiding and denies our Western tradition of individual freedom. Without freedom, there can be no prosperity and no pursuit of happiness. More Islam means less life, less liberty and less happiness.”
Geert Wilders has sacrificed his personal freedom of movement and the prospects of a normal life in order to warn his country, his continent and his civilization against serious threats to their freedom. We should honor that sacrifice by listening carefully to what he has to say.
For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.
Copyright© 2012 FrontPageMagazine.com
An Introduction by John R. Houk
October 25, 2011
Introduction is to IslamReform.net Below
Here is some food for thought to the reasoning Islam is a religion of hate rather than peace from Islam’s own holy writings.
As a Christian I have to be honest. A lot of this stuff of hate applies to the future of non-Muslims in the next life. In Christianity there is a fiery fate reserved that reject Jesus Christ as the Lord and Savior of humanity in believing in the Lord’s death, burial and Resurrection as the Son of God. I call this Christian Supremacism.
So what is the difference between Christian Supremacism and Islamic Supremacism?
In Christian Supremacism 99% of negativity specified about non-Christians is in life after death. Christian Scriptures call for tolerance of non-Christians in this life in order for the non-Christian to make a free will choice to believe in Christ. Scripturally there is NO physical punishment to be applied to non-Christians concerning matters of faith in belief and non-belief. Now historically those holding power to apply in a political manner (Christian Clerics held considerable power either nationally or locally in the Christian past) to human individuals often executed that power in a non-Scriptural manner falsely in the name of Christ or the Church.
Islamic Supremacism is applied politically and with physical harm in this life and the next when Islamic holy writings are violated or Sharia Law is violated. When Muslims act in violence it is in accord with their holy writings. This makes Islam a religion of hate and not peace or love.
I performed a spell check. Much of the original grammar I left intact. I left alone words that I was not sure. There was a huge amount of italics. Due to the length of document I might have missed some in reformatting.
Christians or Muslims
John R. Houk
© September 23, 2011
You know when Islam is exposed as violent rather than a religion of peace, Muslim apologists love to tell you that Christians have a huge history of killing in the name of Jesus. The Muslim apologists love to specify two Christian historically violent periods as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. The Muslim apologists love to point the torture, blood and guts that were spilled by Christians.
My primary response to the evils perpetrated by those calling themselves Christians and executing torture and killing in the name of Jesus Christ did so contrary to the Holy Scriptures (primarily the New Testament). Jesus Himself warned of future wars and rumors of wars; however the sense was that the Christ was speaking of turbulence that Christians would have to deal with in the future. The meaning of wars and rumors of wars was it would be the beginning of planet earth’s birth pangs of travail that will produce the New Earth and New Heaven with the Jesus the Son of God as the King both religiously and politically. The return of Jesus is the one actual time that politics and religion merge symbiotically and operate according the goodness of God.
Then I continue my response that Islam’s holy writings have the diametric opposite focus from Christianity’s goal to the straight path to Oneness with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Quran, Hadith and Sira of Islam are filled with ways to kill the kafir (Islam for unbeliever) along the way to a global Caliphate in which the Muslim version of Jesus and Mohammed come back to wrap up the job of kill or convert the kafir.
Here is something else you should know about the Muslim apologists’ claim that the historical warring Christians were as reprehensible if not more so than Muslim imperialistic wars that were justified to liberate kafir (Christians, Jews, Hindus et al) from their deceived path to the correct path of submission to Allah and the deity’s prophet Mohammed. That “something” is the death toll.
Now here is a shot of truth. Those that died by the hand of nations and religious orders in the name of Christ but contrary to Christ’s commandments is a quite huge number – 17,000,000:
It is true that in the world’s history of beliefs and practices, there have been many wars and cruel inhumanities conducted in the name of different religions and ideologies. Those notorious events stand rightly condemned. The total number of deaths estimated to lie at the feet of humanity’s poor practice of Christianity is approximately 17 million. This number would include ancient wars, the Crusades, the Inquisitions, various European wars during the Middle Ages, and witchcraft trials. (Isn’t religion to blame for most of history’s killings? ProveTheBible.net)
Here is some clarity: people killed in the name of Jesus but not according to the commands of the New Testament were 17,000,000 fellow Christians (disputes over theology), Crusaders (attacking Eastern Orthodox Christians, Muslims and Jews) and the Inquisition (primarily aimed at Jews and Muslims).
Now that 17,000,000 sure is a huge number of people killed contrary to the Word of God! How dare Christians declare themselves as followers of a peaceful religion when so many human souls were senselessly kill in the name of Jesus, right? AGAIN, the deaths occurred contrary to the Prince of Peace and not according to the Prince of Peace.
If you think 17,000,000 is a huge number check out how many people died by the imperialist sword of Islam that happened by specific Quranic, Hadith and Sira instructions on how to spread Islam: Conquer, Humiliate, Convert OR live the humiliating Dhimmi life or DIE for refusing to the suzerainty and submission to Allah: 270,000,000 human souls died by Muslims fulfilling their holy writings.
TWO-HUNDRED-SEVENTY-MILLION non-Muslims killed is nearly SIXTEEN TIMES more killed by Christians acting outside of Christian Holy Scriptures! A probable exaggerated figure of Muslims killed during the Crusades by Rhonda Roumani is “… several million Muslims” (Crusades-Encyclopedia: The Hall of Shame; Point 2). The death of millions of Muslims is bad. The death of 270,000,000 non-Muslims by the instrumentality of the Islamic death cult is force worse.
Bill Warner writes essentially about how political correctness how historians (authentic, revisionist and Muslim Apologists) muse over the horrors of the West and Christian culture yet ignores the truth of the Muslim horrors of the past. You need to read the Warner article entitled, “The Victim’s View of Islam”.
John R. Houk
© April 13, 2011
The Quran Burning incident sponsored by Pastor Terry Jones has moved into the old news of the past. The incident that occurred on March 19 caused an outrage in the Muslim world that resulted in Muslims attacking Christians and their property. This was particularly the case in Afghanistan in which some U.N. workers that I presume the crazed Muslims believed were Christians (chances are the U.N. workers were Western secularists more than practicing Christians) were assaulted, killed and beheaded.
Of course condemnations came from the West and even the U.N. which was levied at Muslims who were probably connected to the Taliban enemies American troops are fighting. Unfortunately though, the condemnations of the murdering Muslims were soon followed by denunciations of the considered outrageous act of burning the Quran from Western and American outlets.
I have to qualify my reason for saying “unfortunately”. I say unfortunately because I do not consider the Quran burning an outrageous act. I do consider Pastor Jones’ publicizing of the event and the national MSM picking up the story as bad judgment on Pastor Jones’ part.
Part of the mission of NATO coalition under American leadership to secure Afghanistan from the radical Islam of the Taliban and al Qaeda is to win the support of supposed sane minded Muslim citizens. This was the success point of the Iraq Surge that has rendered Islamic terrorism into incompetence and has given the new Iraq government a good path to govern their own nation without massive American troops entrenched into a quagmire of blood. The Muslim populace became weary of Islamic terrorism targeting Muslim citizens and began to choose American troops as the lesser of two evils in their perspective of living lives without daily violence and murders.
If the American strategy is similar in Afghanistan then the public nature of burning a Quran which was picked up on rapidly by Taliban propagandists did indeed harm the military mission in Afghanistan. In other words Burn the Quran day did not help our American troops fighting for the American way of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Thus we see and hear of military leaders like General Petraeus condemning the Quran burning in no uncertain terms.
Now here is an angle to the Quran burning that I discovered thanks to (STOP) RadicalIslam.com. That website did a cross post of Raymond Ibrahim’s article entitled, “Destroying One Koran vs. Destroying Many Christians – Which is Worse?”
Ibrahim’s point is that the MSM went out of its way to condemn Pastor Terry Jones and the burning of the Quran as an evil incitement and a hate-act effrontery toward Islam. AND YET, the MSM never places front and center the worse effrontery toward Christianity of Muslim Supremacism continually persecuting Christians by suspending their civil rights, assault, property destruction (including Churches), defacing of Christian symbols of worship (INCLUDING THE BIBLE), forced conversions, murder and rape. These horrendous acts occur in the Muslim Middle East on a habitual basis. The persecution is not an odd exception to the rule. The persecution of Christians is THE RULE!
Pastor Terry Jones sponsored one Quran burning in 2011. Did you read that? ONLY ONE! If chose to look for it you will discover the persecution of Christians occurs at least on a weekly basis in the Muslim world. The Christian fear of persecution is undoubtedly on a daily basis in the Muslim world. A good place to check on the constant persecution of Christians is the website ironically named The Religion of Peace.
So let’s rethink this question in light of what really happens in the Muslim world: Which is worse – burning a Quran in America or the torturous daily fear of persecution in Muslim dominated nations?
Be sure to check out Raymond Ibrahim’s article on this kind of thinking.