Islam: Reformation or Transformation


Radical-Moderate Islam

John R. Houk

© March 29, 2011

 

Christopher Logan of Logan’s Warning is very displeased with Brigitte Gabriel’s distinction between Moderate Islam and Radical Islam. Logan is one of those that believe Islam is Islam as is inherent in Islamic holy writings.

 

I have long struggled back and forth internally about the existence of a Moderate Islam. I am fully aware that in America a significant amount of the Muslim community subscribe to America’s concept of constitutional freedom as is guaranteed by the first ten Amendments which are called the Bill of Rights. Of those ten Amendments the First Amendment is the big dog of civil liberty guaranteeing Free Speech, Religious Freedom, Free Press, Free Open Protest, Freedom to petition the government without fear of retribution and no government interference of the practice of religion.

 

I also know that most of the Mosques in America receive their Islamic religious and theological literature from the Saudi Arabian dime. This means that purist Islam of the Wahhabis (and Muslim Brotherhood) niche, which the Western media asserts is a minute minority in Islam, is what American-Muslims read. Also if one ever takes a peek at angry Muslims in Islamic dominated lands it is difficult to believe that those who are supposed to be the Islamic majority subscribe to a moderate interpretation of Islam. When one reads about mass Muslim protests over idiotic cartoons of Mohammed in an unflattering expression, there was not so much a demonstration of a religion of peace and more of a demonstration of  religion threatening violence and calling for murder and revenge on embassies that allowed Mohammed cartoons to be freely published in Western media. Also it is becoming common in Muslim dominated lands for hateful and violent persecution to be executed upon Christians. This violence leads to pogrom-style destruction of Christian Churches and property that often leads to rape and kidnapping of women as well as death to Christians that are in the way of the Islamic pogrom-style madness.

 

Now back to those Muslims that wish us non-Muslims to believe most Muslims are moderate and religion of peace kind of guys, I need to refer to a Muslim that has really become the face of Islamic “reform” in America – Dr. Mohammed Zuhdi Jasser.

 

Dr. Jasser is very anti-Islamist and pro-Moderate Islam. No one disputes his antagonism toward radical Islam and his complaint that the most known Muslim organizations in America have an Islamist and/or Muslim Brotherhood connection. The many that are critical of Dr. Jasser dispute his claim that most Muslims in America are moderate because they don’t actually attend the radicalized Mosques (which seems to be the majority) in America. This criticism goes back to those that believe Islam is Islam as it is recorded in the Quran, Hadith and Sira (combination of Sunna and Hadith). This is the very purist Islam that the Muslims we call radical subscribe to. The actual reform movement in Islam is the call to a return to the Islam established by Mohammed and congealed by the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs. This is the very purist Islam that the Muslims we call radical subscribe to. The reform called by Dr. Jasser is the eschewing of the violent concepts in Political Islam which is the majority portion of Sharia Law. Though many of us kafir (non-Muslims) might call this reform, it is actually a transformative call by Dr. Jasser and the few that follow his (what I believe to be) noble call to change Islam into an actual religion of peace.

 

Dr. Jasser’s assertion that most American-Muslims are moderate is because American-Muslims do not follow the radical Islam that permeates most American Mosques. Dr. Jasser’s critics believe that is a deluded fallacy. Ergo, if Dr. Jasser is preaching a fallacy he must be a deceiving liar. Debbie Schlussel who complains about many prominent exposers of radical Islam as being con artists and/or plagiarists of her journalistic pieces says this about Dr. Jasser:

 

You see, the message Mr. Jasser is spreading is contrary to the one he claims in the movie. The movie warns of the homegrown jihad we’ve been warning about for years, since before 9/11. But Jasser’s statements regularly contradict the movie. He’s two-faced, and a liar. And you simply can’t believe a single piece of fertilizer coming out of his mouth. He openly lied to me in an e-mail, claiming he’d never discussed a topic on Detroit radio, which he expressly did discuss on the air for a full half-hour.


Jasser has consistently appeared on Detroit radio shows and TV and radio shows around the country, saying the usual bullcrap, i.e., that Islam is a peaceful religion, that the majority of Muslims are peaceful because they don’t belong to a mosque, that CAIR and MPAC and ISNA, etc. don’t represent Islam.

 

 

Sorry, but that’s baloney. Islam is not peaceful. Whether or not Muslims belong to a mosque is not the determinant of their radicalism, only an adding factor. I know some extremely secular Muslims who drink alcohol and haven’t been to a mosque in decades. But they love Hezbollah and HAMAS and hate Jews, Christians, America, and Israel. If the majority of Muslims are really peaceful and don’t support terrorist groups, why did I see ten thousand Muslims–during the workday–marching on the streets of Dearborn and Detroit in support of Hezbollah and HAMAS in both 2006 and early 2009? Why do Bin Laden, HAMAS, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah remain the most popular figures and entities in poll after poll of Muslims? Why do a third of young American Muslims support homicide bombings?

 

Dr. Jasser was kicked out of his mosque in Arizona, a pretty good sign that Islam is, in fact, radical, and they don’t want his pretentious claim otherwise. I’m sorry, but CAIR, ISNA, and MPAC do represent Islam more than he does. Far more, despite his claims otherwise. It’s like when Communist fantasists and utopians used to tell me that I can’t judge Communism by its manifestation and practice in the Soviet Union or Cuba or China, because they don’t practice “real” Communism and don’t represent this silent, imaginary majority of Communists worldwide who love peace and don’t throw people in jail for a life of torture for writing a poem. Sorry, Zuhdi, but you know better. And yet, you continue to lie. I asked Jasser how many Muslim members he has in his organization, the “American Islamic Forum for Democracy,” and he didn’t respond. He’s told others it’s about 100. That’s not even negligible. It’s downright embarrassing.

 

Not negligible are the speaking fees and other payments and funding Dr. Jasser is getting from this speaking tour, a good chunk of it courtesy of the Clarion Foundation, which in using him as its two-faced spokesman seems not to heed its own eponymous clarion call. I dream (and will forever dream) of the day we will see a Muslim (which means an ex-Muslim) or an Arab who is actually putting forth a consistent, truthful, truly peaceful message . . . and not some uninformed double-talk, milked as a money-making enterprise. Jasser, Hanan Tudor a/k/a “Brigitte Gabriel,” Walid Shoebat, and other frauds have all made a mint after they opened up shop post-9/11 (and lying about what and who they are). Before then, they were nowhere to be seen. Apparently, the underside of the rock was quite cozy ’til then, but afterward the outside suddenly became far “greener.” (The Sad Truth About Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser–Star, Narrator, & Producer of “The Third Jihad” Mar. 12, 2009 2:45 PM)

 

As you can see Schlussel is not pleased with a lot of people that actually have the same agenda of exposing Islam. Schlussel seems to believe that any defense of the existence of “Moderate Islam” must have an agenda of self-aggrandizement for gain; thus the Gabriels, the Jassers and the Shoebats criticizing Radical Islam deceive to make money because they lie or are plagiarizing the Schlussel journalism. Honestly I believe every one of the people Schlussel castigates has accomplished a great service in exposing the agenda of Islam in America. I have never heard that Brigitte Gabriel’s name is Hanan Tudor (Where did that come from?). If Gabriel had an alternative name, what is the implication?

 

I have kind of taken the middle road about the nature of Islam. According to Islamic holy writings that affect non-Muslims, the religion of Islam is evil. Muslims that declare they practice a moderate path of Islam simply means that Moderate Muslims wittingly or unwittingly disregard the portions of Islam that are doom and gloom in this present physical time for non-Muslims. All Muslims that call for a return to the practices of the early days of Islam are calling for a reformation to the pure days of Islam. The Muslims that call for an updated or a modernized Islam are calling for the elimination of the portions that call for defending the faith with a good physical offence (i.e. with violence) to propagate or to force submission of non-Muslims to the supremacy of Allah and Islam. Frankly my friends if you find a Muslim that denies that all of the examples of the perfect man, their prophet Mohammed, that Muslim person is part of a very miniscule minority in which the Muslim will find their life is endangered.

 

Does this mean that Muslims no matter how few they are, such as Dr. Jasser, should be criticized because they have a vision for an Islam that is actually a religion of peace in more than in mere deceptive propaganda? As long as the desire for a new kind of Islam exists among Muslims, it will be a noble desire.

 

I have to admit I sense it is a bit of dangerous territory for non-Muslims to believe in an Islamic transformation. Multicultural diverse Leftists that are deluded about the validity of all cultures whether evil, good or foreign are understandable. However, for Conservatives and those that wish to expose the nature of Islam by writing about the tenets of radical Islam as distinct from Islam itself is a path with good intentions yet probably doomed to failure. The only way for a transformed Islam is for a charismatic figure within the substructure of the Islamic faith that has the ability to catch the mind of Muslims to abandon the medieval-intolerant-global empire mindset of purist Islam. I am afraid such a person would be a miracle for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It would be a miracle for Muslims in the sense that the Clerics are self-indoctrinated and they indoctrinate their followers that Islam is pure and all else is false; even if the defense of the faith requires a violent action to correct even the least insult to Islam, Mohammed and Allah. Centuries of Islamic programming among Muslims has entrenched intolerance and Islamic Supremacy into their minds. I dare say that non-Muslims living in Muslim dominated lands have also been brainwashed to the point of accepting the supremacy of Islam; i.e. in following the rules of Sharia as it applies to non-Muslims not offending anything to do with Islam. So a Muslim willfully believes a dhimmi or pseudo-dhimmi life is better Islam. The offering of basic human right to religious freedom, free speech and freedom of conscious is anathema to the Islamic Supremacist mind especially in Muslim dominated lands.

 

In this sense Debbie Schlussel’s castigation of Brigitte Gabriel (Christian from Lebanon) and Walid Shoebat (Converted Christian and former Palestinian terrorist) might be a bit justified except for her use of bridge burning words that offends an ally in exposing Islam. It also brings one to an understanding of Christopher Logan’s frustration with Brigitte Gabriel and Dr. Jasser for looking for a Moderate Islam.

 

There was a serious effort in the nineteenth century to transform Islam away from its violent nature. Islamic Supremacism marginalized and persecuted that transformation attempt. The attempt of transformation was initiated by an Iranian by the name of Sayyid ‘Ali Muhammad Shirazi. Shirazi declared himself to be the Bab which translated into English means the gate or gateway or doorway and probably other synonyms I didn’t take time to look for. The Bab imagined himself to be the Hidden Twelfth Imam of the Twelver portion of Shias who are predominantly Iranian (once called Persians). The Bab’s effort to declare himself the Hidden Imam was a transformation movement within Shia Islam. Here is a summary of the Bab’s idea of Islamic transformation:

 

Babism (bä’bizum) [key], system of doctrines proclaimed in Persia in 1844 by Ali Muhammad of Shiraz. Influenced by the Shaykhi Shiite theology that viewed the Twelve Imams as incarnations of the Divine, Ali Muhammad proclaimed himself the Bab, the living door to the twelth Imam and the knowledge of God, and sent missionaries throughout Persia. He also announced a series of revelations, detailing the cosmogonic sequence, abrogating Islamic obligations and replacing them by a new set, structured around esoteric concepts such as the importance of the number 19. The year was hence divided into 19 months of 19 days each; the community was led by a council of 19 members. The movement placed special emphasis on the coming of the Promised One, who would embody all the tenets of the new religion. In 1848 the movement declared its complete secession from Islam and all its rites; upon the accession of a new shah, the Babi (the Bab’s followers) rose in insurrection and were defeated. Many of the leaders were killed, and the Bab was executed at Tabriz in 1850. Two years later, after an attempt on the life of the shah, there followed more persecutions. In 1863 the Babi were removed to Constantinople and later to Adrianople and Cyprus. After 1868 one group had its center in Acre under the leadership of Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (known as Baha Ullah), the founder of the Baha’i faith, who declared himself the Promised One. (Babism; Fact Monster)

 

 

When the Bab was captured and tried for heresy by the Twelvers and imprisoned, the Babi followers went off on a jihad that turned into a Persian civil war. During this time the Bab was executed by firing squad. The Babi Jihad went on for a couple of years until it was ruthlessly put down resulting in the deaths of most of the leadership and thousands of Babis. One of the survivors of the lost Babi revolution was Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri. Husayn Ali was disturbed by the violence of the Bab, Babism and Islam. After a period of hiding Husayn Ali eventually ended up Acre (Akka and present day Israel) of the Syrian Magistrate of the Ottoman Empire. Husayn Ali was part of a split between the Babis. At that time a greater amount of Babis joined Husayn Ali’s version of a spiritual evolution of the Bab’s teaching. Husayn Ali became Baha’u’llah the founder of the Baha’i faith.

 

Baha’i is a religious movement founded in the 19th century by the Persian Bahaullah. It claims members in practically every country of the world. Objecting to polygamy, slavery of any kind, religious prejudices, and politicized religion, Baha’is call for world peace and harmony. The ideals of a world federalist government and a new world language are also a part of their teachings. Recognition of the common ground of all religions is seen as fostering this move toward global unity; Krishna, Buddha, Moses, Zarathustra, Jesus, and Muhammad are all recognized as divine manifestations, a series of prophets culminating in Bahaullah. Nonresistance, respect for persons, and legal recognition of the equal rights of both sexes constitute additional aspects of Baha’i teaching.

 

Baha’u’llah survived brief imprisonment in Iran/Persia and then was exiled to the Ottoman Empire who basically imprisoned him or placed on virtual house arrest for the rest of his life. Effectively Baha’u’llah was persecuted as a heretic from Islam by both the Shias of his homeland and the Sunnis of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Considering all that had happened in the 48 years beginning with the declaration of the Báb in 1844, Bahá’u’lláh’s passing on May 29, 1892 at about 3:00 A.M. might seem anticlimactic. He died quietly at the age of 75, still marginally a prisoner but permitted to live outside the walls of Akká in a mansion known as Bahjí. The relative tranquility of His final days on Earth stand in marked contrast to the tumult that had surrounded Him for much of His life, yet it proved to be merely the calm before another storm for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, His oldest son and appointed successor. (Read the rest of essay at Reflections on the Ascension of Bahá’u’lláh; Dale E. Lehman; Revised: 05/25/2001)

 

From a Christian perspective Baha’i is part of the many paths that are wide and lead to the destruction of the soul in which the human spirit is in danger of experiencing the second and final death. From an Islamic perspective Baha’i is the transformative path that would truly evolve Islam into a religion of peace.

 

Reformation in Islam is a return to Mohammed’s wickedness. A transformation in Islam will lead to the Mecca-Mohammed before the Hegira to Medina in which Mohammed became mad with power. Without that transformation there will be definitely a clash of civilizations between the West and the violent culture that is Islam.

 

JRH 3/29/11

Rep. Elect Allen West Knows Islam


Allen West - Florida 22

John R. Houk

© November 14, 2010

 

I received an email from Keith Davies the Executive Director of the Walid Shoebat Foundation pointing Representative Elect Allen West (Lt. Col. U.S. Army retired) simultaneously became the poster boy of the Left and the Right. In the eyes of the Left Lt. Col West was the embodiment of all that is evil in the American Army. In the eyes of the Right he is an American hero protecting the lives of the soldiers under his command and striking fear into the enemy.

 

What was Lt. Col. West’s moment of notoriety?

 

West spent 22 years in the military, serving in the Gulf War, serving in the Iraq War, and earning a chestful of medals. In 2003, he was commanding a battalion in Iraq when a “career-ending incident,” as they say, occurred. In brief, West was interrogating an Iraqi who he believed was involved in an imminent plot to kill him and his men. He fired a couple of shots, scaring the man, who then sang.

 

West had departed from rules and regulations, and was hauled before a hearing. He said, “I know the method I used was not right, but I wanted to take care of my soldiers.” He also said, in a much-quoted line, “If it’s about the lives of my men and their safety, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.” West could have been court-martialed, but was allowed to retire, paying a $5,000 fine.

 

Back home, he became a symbol: of military roguery to some liberals, of heroism and loyalty to many conservatives. FrontPage Magazine made him its man of the year, saying, “Col. West is the model leader, precisely the kind of man any soldier would want watching his back in combat.” Asked today whether he has any regrets about the “incident,” West says, “The thing is, every day of my life, I can look at myself in the mirror,” knowing he did his utmost to protect lives. (National Review Online)

 

Col. West was bounced out of the military for the aggressive 2003 interrogation of a civilian Iraqi police officer who was suspected of having information about an ambush on American soldiers. When the officer wouldn’t cough up information that would protect American lives, Col. West fired his pistol past the detainee’s head into a clearing barrel. It did not harm the detainee in any way, but frightened him into giving Col. West information about the planned attack.

Not only did this information enable the military to thwart this particular ambush, there were no further ambushes on U.S. forces in this area until Col. West was relieved of his leadership post.

Col. West was asked at his hearing if he would do it again. “If it’s about the lives of my men and their safety, I’d go through hell with a gasoline can.”

In other words, Col. West is a genuine American hero. He should have received another medal for his actions instead of being driven from the U.S. military. He is exactly the kind of officer I want protecting the lives of my wife and children. (Renew America)

 

West beat an incumbent Democrat in the November 2 election representing Florida’s 22nd District. Incidentally the Florida 22 has a majority of Democratic Party registered voters of which some must have voted for one of most Conservative members of Congress elected this year.

 

None of that piqued my interest in Rep. Allen West Elect, rather my interest in West is in the politically incorrect public stand he has taken pertaining to the theopolitical religion known as Islam but should have the better appellation of the old Western term known as Mohammedanism after its founder.

 

The email from Shoebat.com reads as follows:

 

Friends:

Progress at last!

First member of Congress (elect) to express the truth publicly loud and clear, with a full grasp of the history and issues which so far all our other members of Congress skirt or use PC words and flowery language including the Republican caucus

.

Col Allen West is a war hero, served in Afganistan, is articluate, knowledgeable and I as most other conservative thinking people would be proud to have him as our second black president one day. It would sure give me a better thrill up my leg than what we got in the White House today.

G-d Bless Col Allen West, may we wish him the best in his first term as a Congressman.

Please share the link below with as many as possible, it is very important!

http://shoebat.com/videos/alanWest.php

Keith Davies
Executive Director Walid Shoebat Fdn

 

The link is to a very short video of Allen West publicly speaking the truth that Islam is not a religion of peace. Be sure to watch it.

 

JRH 11/14/10

Believe me when I say Quran, Hadith and Sira doesn’t promote violence


Bin Laden Hippie peace sign

John R. Houk

© November 13, 2010

 

Below is an ongoing comment to the post “Let’s All Join Islam for its Moral Purity”. A Muslim apologist who goes by the name Dinopak has been writing the typical Islamic Taqiyya defending Islam, its holy writings and Mohammed as perfection embodied by peace. I have been responding but it is like speaking to a wall of denial. This post was originally posted at my primary blog SlantRight.com. Below is the last comment of Dinopak in which he defends his faith as a religion of peace. My response became so large that I decided to post as a blog.

 

JRH 11/13/10 (More after Dinopak’s comment)

*************************************  

Dear John,

I do know what I am talking about. Believe me when I say Quran, Hadith and Sira doesn’t promote violence. The only ‘violence’ Quran ever spoke about is defending yourself from aggression. Can you quote one example of (what according to you is) “the sex with captured females, pedophilia, humiliation in picking up the the (sic double word) jizya”. You should study Islamic history unbiased so that you may be able to create your own opinion about it.

 

Islam was never spread on sword, though I must accept later on some ‘warlords’ tried to gain their way by ‘using’ Islam as a tool. More or less like what the Christians did in their dark era. You might be familiar with the Inquisition.

 

My point is, just because ‘some’ individuals are hell bent upon taking power they will stop at nothing, they will not even back down from making religion as their tool for their interests.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Much of the following are based on the copy and paste of the links below with some of my thoughts interjected.

 

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Bible-Quran-Violence.htm

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-raid-caravans.htm

 

Quran and violence that is NOT defensive:

 

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that the historical context is not embedded within the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

 

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  This proclivity toward violence – and Muhammad’s own martial legacy – has left a trail of blood and tears across world history.

 

Quran (2:216)

 

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” 

 

Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.

 

Hadith about this Quranic verse from Ibn Ishaq:

 

[A Muslim raider] who had shaved his head, looked down on them [the Meccan caravan], and when they saw him they felt safe and said, “They are pilgrims, you have nothing to fear from them.”  (Ibn Ishaq 424)

 

[The Muslim raiders] encouraged each other, and decided to kill as many as they could of them and take what they had.  Waqid shot Amr bin al-Hadrami with an arrow and killed him…  (Ibn Ishaq 425)

 

The Quraysh said that Muhammad and his Companions violated the sanctity of the Sacred Month and shed blood, confiscated property and took prisoners during it. Those who refuted them among the Muslims who remained in Makkah replied that the Muslims had done that during the month of Sha`ban (which is not a sacred month). (Ibn Kathir)

 

Muhammad sent his men on seven unsuccessful raids against Meccan caravans before finally finding one, whereupon they murdered the driver and plundered the contents. This particular caravan was especially vulnerable because the attack came during the holy months, when the merchants were least expecting it due to the generally agreed upon rule that the tribes of the area would not attack each other during that time.

 

The shaved head caused the Muslims to look like pilgrims rather than raiders, which instilled a false sense of security in the drivers.  However, Islam was a different sort of religion than what the Meccans were used to.

 

According to Ibn Kathir, the Muslims living in Mecca did not dispute that their brethren in Medina had killed, captured and stolen from the Quraish, but they were reluctant to accept that this had occurred during the sacred months.

 

Faced with to losing face by admitting his error, Muhammad went into his tent and then later emerged with a convenient and timely revelation from Allah that provided retroactive permission for the raid (and, of course sanctioned the stolen possessions for his own use).

 

Notice that the Qur’an does not say that the Meccans were guilty of killing Muslims, only that they were “persecuting” them by preventing them from the ‘sacred mosque’ (the Kaaba).  The killing of the Meccan driver by the Muslims was the first deadly encounter between the two adversaries.  This is of acute embarrassment to contemporary Muslim apologists, who like to say that Islam is against killing for any reason other than self-defense.

 

For this reason, there has arisen the modern myth that the Muslims of that time were simply “taking back” what was theirs – rather than exacting revenge and stealing.  Contemporary apologists like to say that Muhammad and his followers were basically robbed by the Meccans on their way out of town. 

 

Apologists are somewhat vague as to how property theft justifies killing (particularly on the part of someone they otherwise like to portray as the paragon of forgiveness), nor do they attempt to explain how the particular victims of subsequent Muslim raids (usually the caravan drivers and laborers) were directly responsible for this supposed theft.  This is the least of their problems, however, since not only is there no evidence to support the misconception that the Muslims were “taking back what was theirs” but it is specifically contradicted by the early historical record.

 

The event of the first attack on Meccan caravans is detailed quite well by Muhammad’s biographer, Ibn Ishaq.

 

Here are more Quranic surahs that have ZERO to do with self-defense:

 

Quran (4:95) – “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-“

 

Murdering someone for rejecting Islam for another faith or mere atheism is not exactly something to maintain self-defense.

 

Quran (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”

 

The application is not self-defense. Rather after the offer to convert is refused by the Kafir then Muslims invaded the Middle East, North Africa and India. If the Kafir-Non-Muslims resisted they were fighting against Allah. Ouch! This sura tells what happens to those who fight against Allah in resistance to conquest or in retrieving what was conquered. AGAIN, this is NOT self-defense!

 

Quran (8:12)“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

 

This is not exactly a description of self-defense or the so-called Greater Jihad/Inner Spiritual Struggle.

 

Quran (8:39) – “And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah” 

 

The context of this sura is NOT suffering persecution from invading non-Muslims. Rather the persecution was the refusal of Arab polytheist Meccans refusing to allow expelled Mohammed from performing a pilgrimage to the Kaaba. Mo had to conquer Mecca to be able to do this pilgrimage. AGAIN, this was not self-defense.

 

Dinopak, you get the idea.

 

Check out the Quran and sex slavery:

 

Quran Sura 23:5-65 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy.

 

The key words are “those who are legally in their possession.” Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave-girls is lawful.

Maududi writes:

Two categories of women have been excluded from the general command of guarding the private parts: (a) wives, (b) women who are legally in one’s possession, i.e. slave-girls. Thus the verse clearly lays down the law that one is allowed to have sexual relation with one’s slave-girl as with one’s wife, the basis being possession and not marriage. If marriage had been the condition, the slave-girl also would have been included among the wives, and there was no need to mention them separately. (Ibid. p. 241, note 7)

 

Now Maududi was a Salafist that Moderate Muslims like to classify as out of the mainstream of Sunni Islam even though Salafi Islam is actually a reform movement to bring Islam back to its purist roots as espoused by Mohammed, Quran, Hadith and Sira. Keeping in mind Maududi though considered radical is merely deducing the literal meaning of that which Muslims believes is the perfect word of Allah. Check out these other Quranic suras that allows a Muslim male to rape a kafir captive in war even though the helpless female may be married – courtesy Global Politician:

 

Raping slave girls:

QURAN – 70:22-30: “Not so the worshippers, who are steadfast in prayer, who set aside a due portion of their wealth for the beggar and for the deprived, who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and their slave girls, for these are lawful to them: he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor…” This verse shows that Muslim men were allowed to have sex with their wives (of course) and their slave girls.

QURAN – 23:5, 6: “…who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave girls, for these are lawful to them…” Again, Muslim men were allowed to have sexual relations with their wives and slave girls.

QURAN – 4:24: “And all married women are forbidden unto you save those captives whom your right hand possess (slavery). It is a decree of Allah for you.

 

QURAN – 33:50: “Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives whom you have granted dowries and the slave girls whom God has given you as booty;…”

 

Now let’s address Pedophilia, especially by the Muslim considered perfect man Mohammed. As a Muslim you probably know what the term “iddah” means. To the majority of us kafir in America the explanation of iddah is simple. A Muslim male may divorce his wife for nearly any reason even something as unjust that his wife no longer pleases him. Iddah is the period of time a woman must wait if she was a good Muslim and submitted to sex from her divorcing husband before she can remarry another male. The iddah principle is directly from the Quran and the concept behind it is if a gal has a menstrual cycle she did not become impregnated before she was divorced. Now here is when it gets interesting. Check it out if a gal can prove she had no sexual relations with her husband, she does not have to wait for remarrying unless the new groom wants to be sure. In the case of first time marriage of a maiden, guess what age has never had a menstrual cycle. Ding-Ding-Ding! That is correct if you guessed a pre-pubescent gal; i.e. a child female. This is the justification for Child-Brides in Muslim dominated nations AND Mohammed marrying 6 year old Aisha (daughter of Mo’s brother and future Caliph Abu Bakr) is the Islamic example as the perfect man for other Muslim males to follow. At least Mohammed waited a whole three years to consummate (i.e. coitus) his marriage to Aisha at age 9. How commendable is that?

 

Quran 65: 4 (Hilali-Khan) – And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubts (about their periods), is three months, and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise, except in case of death]. And for those who are pregnant (whether they are divorced or their husbands are dead), their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is until they deliver (their burdens), and whosoever fears Allah and keeps his duty to Him, He will make his matter easy for him.

 

The Hadith gives the example of Mohammed to extrapolate a pedophiliac marriage (Thanks to ex-Muslim Ali Sina):

 

The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable people. It is difficult to accept that the Holy Prophet married Aisha when she was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3310:
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married me when I was six years old, and I was admitted to his house when I was nine years old.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 65
Narrated ‘Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ‘Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).” what you know of the Quran (by heart)’

 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 88
Narrated ‘Ursa:
The Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with ‘Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death).

 

Some Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof.

 

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated ‘Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for ‘Aisha’s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said “But I am your brother.” The Prophet said, “You are my brother in Allah’s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.”

 

Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.

 

Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when she was only six years old.

 

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.

 

Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, “Won’t you marry the daughter of Hamza?” He said, “She is my foster niece (brother’s daughter).”

 

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.

 

In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.

 

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated ‘Aisha:
Allah’s Apostle said to me, “You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, ‘Uncover (her),’ and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), ‘If this is from Allah, then it must happen.

 

Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that Ayesaha was a baby being “carried” by an angel when the Prophet dreamed of her.

 

There are numerous hadithes that explicitly reveal the age of Ayesha at the time of her marriage. Here are some of them.

 

Sahih Bukhari 5.236.
Narrated Hisham’s father:
Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married ‘Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old.

 

Sahih Bukhari 5.234
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.

 

And in another Hadith we read.

Sunan Abu-Dawud Book 41, Number 4915,  also Number 4916  and Number 4917 
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu’minin:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) married me when I was seven or six. When we came to Medina, some women came. according to Bishr’s version: Umm Ruman came to me when I was swinging. They took me, made me prepared and decorated me. I was then brought to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him), and he took up cohabitation with me when I was nine. She halted me at the door, and I burst into laughter.

 

In the above hadith we read that Ayesha was swinging, This is a play of little girls not grown up people. The following Hadith is particularly interesting because it shows that Ayesha was so small that was not aware what was going on when the Holy Prophet “surprised” her by going to her.

 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 90
Narrated Aisha:
When the Prophet married me, my mother came to me and made me enter the house (of the Prophet) and nothing surprised me but the coming of Allah’s Apostle to me in the forenoon.

Must have been quite a surprise! But the following is also interesting because it demonstrates that she was just a kid playing with her dolls. Pay attention to what the interpreter wrote in the parenthesis. (She was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty)
 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 151
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah’s Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for ‘Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3311
‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) married her when she was seven years old, and he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.

 

The holy Prophet died when he was 63. So he must have married Ayesha when he as 51 and went to her when he was 54.

 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 33 
Narrated ‘Aisha:
I never felt so jealous of any woman as I did of Khadija, though she had died three years before the Prophet married me, and that was because I heard him mentioning her too often, and because his Lord had ordered him to give her the glad tidings that she would have a palace in Paradise, made of Qasab and because he used to slaughter a sheep and distribute its meat among her friends.

Khadija died in December of 619 AD. That is two years before Hijra. At that time the Prophet was 51-years-old. So in the same year that Khadija died the prophet married Ayesha and took her to his home 3 years later, i.e. one year after Hijra. But until she grow up he married Umm Salama.

 

In another part Ayesha claims that as long as she remembers her parents were always Muslims.

 

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 245 

Narrated ‘Aisha:
(the wife of the Prophet) I never remembered my parents believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam),

 

If Ayesha was older i.e. 16 or 18 as some Muslims claim, she would have remembered the religion of her parents prior to becoming Muslims.

 

Now someone may still claim that all these hadithes are lies. People are free to say whatever they want. But truth is clear like the Sun for those who have eyes.

 

No sane person would be aroused by a 9-year-old child. Decent people wince at the thought of this shameful act. Yet some Muslims deny them. The question is why so many followers of Muhammad would fabricate so many false hadithes about the age of Ayisha, which incidentally confirm each other?

I can tell you why people would attribute false miracles to their prophet. Babis believe that Bab started to praise God as soon as he was born. There is a Hadith like that also about Muhammad. Christians believe the birth of the Christ was miraculous and the Jews believe Moses opened a dry passageway through the Red Sea. Believers love to hear these stories. It confirms their faith. There are many absurd miracles attributed to Muhammad in the hadiths, despite the fact that he denied being able to perform any miracles. But why should anyone fabricate a lie about the age of Ayisha that would portray his Prophet as a pedophile?

 

The concept that Islam spread by the miraculous enlightenment of the kafir that were conquered is an idea only an idiot would believe. Muslim conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe (Spain/Portugal and parts of the Balkans) and the part of Asia that maneuvered toward the Indian Sub-Continent was brutal and heinous. The brutality was the influence to convert Kafir to Islam so much more than peaceful persuasion as was the case of early Christianity prior to the Roman Empire making Christianity a State religion.

 

MA Khan is his book “Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism and Slavery;” utilizes Muslim source material and not Kafir source material writing on how an Islamic empire progressed by the sword in some of most brutal fashion conceived by mankind. Khan begins with Mohammed then focuses on the Kafir genocide perpetuated by invading Islamic forces in search of conquest, booty, slaves, sex slaves and forced conversions to Islam.

 

Andrew Bostom’s book “The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims” writes about the same kind of brutality of forced Islamic conversion from the Arabian Peninsula across the Middle East, North Africa, Western Europe via Spain (Stopped at Tours/Poitiers in 732), in Greek Anatolia (later to be Ottoman Turkey) and Eastern Europe (pushed back at Vienna in 1683).

 

Between Bostom’s book and Khan’s book utilizing Muslim sources it is evident that Islamic conquest was not a peaceful proposition. Rather Islamic conquest was a bloody and gruesome proposition that led to the desecration of Christian Churches, initial massacres of the conquered and followed by the fear factor forcing conversion from Christianity to Islam. Once one was Islamized then the indoctrination followed coupled with a death threat if one chose to apostatize away from Islam. Where Islam remained entrenched for generations indoctrination and anti-apostasy laws inculcated Islam as the dominate religion. Where reconquest by Christian forces occurred, Islam logically faded when an actual choice (and yes the Christian persecution of recalcitrant Muslims) became available. In most cases the Christian version of convert or die (WHICH IS NOT BIBLICAL) occurred to the ding dongs that chose to remain Muslim rather than be expelled. Christians in Muslim lands did not have the choice of expulsion. Muslim dominated Christians had the choice of convert, pay the humiliation tax of a dhimmi or die.

 

I have one last thought on Dinopak’s last paragraph of his comment:

 

My point is, just because ‘some’ individuals are hell bent upon taking power they will stop at nothing, they will not even back down from making religion as their tool for their interests.

 

Dinopak is absolutely correct. Conquest perpetuated by individuals or the elite rulers of a nation often use religion to shore up their local power base to get support from their masses to achieve the goals of conquest. The difference between Islam and any other religion utilized by a conqueror is that the sword, violence and intolerant oppression are encoded in Islam. Most other religions are more concerned with the individual discovering that religion’s truth for Salvation, Release from the cycle of life or just plain union with a deity or divine principle. Since I am a Christian I do know that there is no Scriptural mandate to kill the unbelievers unless they convert to Christianity. In fact the Good News (Gospel) of Jesus Christ is a choice of Redemption from the dark twisted world that exists by the deception of Satan (Adversary, Deceiver and etc.). The tenets of Christianity call for the faithfulness to that Redemptive Salvation by resisting the dark forces that persecute the individual into resubmitting to that which a Christian was Redeemed from. Martyrdom for a Christian is dying by refusing the death threat to recant or to be honored to be killed by entities that are hateful toward the Truth embodied in Christ. Martyrdom in Islam is dying while in the process of killing Kafir (unbelieving non-Muslims) in the war of Jihad. In the more radical Islamic schools of thought this martyr/shahId death extends to homicidal suicide in taking as many kafir victims as possible while you are killing yourself.

 

JRH 11/13/10

Do NOT Allow European Free Speech Limitations in USA


Battle of Vienna 1683 - Polish Hussars vs Ottomans sm

 John R. Houk

 © October 24, 2010

 

I am a member of a Facebook group called 1683 AD. The year is a reference to the last time Islamic military invasion attempting to enslave Europe to Political Islam. In this case King Jan III Sobieski decisively won the battle that prevented the conquest of Vienna from Ottoman Turks. I am an American; however if anyone spends anytime at Facebook 1683 AD it is apparent most of the members are European. And I am guessing the Europeans in this case are mostly citizens of the United Kingdom (UK) because the predominant language is English.

 

Since the 1683 AD group members are quite anti-Islamist and has a message to prevent the Islamization of Europe (and/or the UK); I am certain these brave fellows are branded as racists and promulgators of hate-speech. After all Dutch politician Geert Wilders has been under prosecution for hate-speech and incitement to violence with his film Fitna. The film Fitna merely utilizes quotes from the Quran, the words of Muslim Clerics and footage that verifies the blight of Political Islam. The plight of Geert Wilders in Netherlands is the Free Speech limitations imposed by a European culture that is moronically so into Multicultural Diversity they are willing to sacrifice their Western heritage to an immigrant Islamic culture that is increasingly becoming anchored in Europe by a high birthrate and demanding that the practices of Islamic Culture such as Sharia Law become accepted and supersede the Rule of Law. This is the very rule of law that still has some Leftist accepted Freedoms.

 

Now that I have talked up 1683 AD, I feel constrained to cross post a very lengthy post from the 1683 AD blog version of the Facebook group. The information disseminated is about the difficulty of developing Conservative Talk Radio on the level that exists in America. You see the European governments and the EU have control of the spoken media. Anything of a Conservative nature or anti-Islamist nature has to go through the approval path of government influenced and Leftist controlled media. Without that approval there is no alternative for voters to fully comprehend that Socialist practices are destroying government budgets and that the purist nature of Islam is a threat to the Freedoms still available to Europeans.

 

Another reason I am cross posting the 1683 AD post is because the American Left wishes to impose European Multicultural Diversity and limits on Free Speech in American Islamism is using First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Religious Freedom to overthrow the Constitution and replace the greatest Document outlining Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness with despot theopolitical Islam and Sharia Law.

 

My fellow Americans take the time to read the 1683 AD post to understand that which could be instituted in America.

 

JRH 10/24/10 (The Cross Post: SlantRight 2.0)

Statistical Islam, Part 2 of 9


Uthman Ibn Affan 3rd Caliph

Below is Part Two of Bill Warner’s Statistical Islam. Other than Warner’s Political Islam website you can find Part One HERE.

 

In Part Two Warner explains the Quran. He writes that the Quran of today (yes even the Muslim-considered Arabic language version) is different than the original Qurans (plural) prior to Caliph Uthman burning the originals and a single Quran written not in chronological order but with the longest suras in the beginning and the shortest at the end.

 

JRH 10/17/10