Female Genital Mutilation and Islamic Social Norms


I realize there are Muslims that have adopted Western norms particularly in Western nations. Nonetheless, unless a Westernized Muslim is willing to condemn Quranic, Hadith, Sira or Shariah practices that are contrary to Western Culture, Western norms and Western Laws (and from my perspective – U.S. Constitutional Law) those Muslims are underserving of the benefits of residing in the West.

Yeah I know –  Multiculturalists who care little of the traditions the West has provided are beginning to experience their blood boiling. I live in America thus I am not Leftist Multicultural thought and speech laws – at least not subject for now. Americans keep voting American Constitutional Laws for American Courts.

 

JRH 2/17/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

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

Female Genital Mutilation and Islamic Social Norms

 

By Paul Sutliff

February 15, 2020

American Thinker

 

On January 30th of this year, a 12-year-old girl in Egypt died as a result of her parents having Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) performed on her. Egypt has had a law outlawing the practice since 2008. The parents have been charged.  This law was written to protect females because Islamic social norms permit and encourage this practice.

 

According to Ian Askew, World Health Organization Director for the Department of Reproductive Health and Research:

 

FGM describes all procedures that involve the partial or total removal of external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.  It has no health benefits.

 

More than 200 million girls and women alive today are living with FGM and many are at risk of suffering the associated negative health consequences as a result.

 

These include death, severe bleeding and problems urinating.  Longer-term consequences range from cysts and infections to complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

 

FGM is a grave violation of the human rights of girls and women.

 

Another term used for FGM is female circumcision.  Some countries prefer the term FGC, as it is seen as “more neutral.”  (The “C” being a reference to “cutting.”)  This “more neutral” term allows their medical personnel to package FGM into the “birth package.”  Ebony Ridell Bamber, the head of advocacy and policy at Orchid Project, a UK-based NGO working towards ending FGM, states that.  “It really contributes to legitimizing and entrenching the practice even further.”

 

In Islam, legitimization comes when shariah, Islamic law, endorses and promotes a practice.  Under shariah, female circumcision is required of Muslim females. This is documented in Reliance of the Traveller:

 

e4.3   Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women.  For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar. Bazr) of the clitoris (n: not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert).  (A: Hanbalis hold that circumcision of women is not obligatory but sunna, while Hanafis consider it a mere courtesy to the husband.)”

 

Islamic scholars have been found using this piece to declare to non-Muslims that shariah does not agree with FGM, going so far as to claim it is unIslamic if carried out to the extreme and totally removing the clitoris:

 

Female circumcision, known pejoratively in its extreme form as female genital mutilation or cutting, is not prescribed in the Quran and there are no authentic prophetic traditions recommending the practice.  The basis in Islamic law is that it is not permissible to cause bodily harm and any such practice of female circumcision proven to be harmful would be unlawful.

 

This is very deceptive.  Let’s look at what the abbreviations mean in the above section of shariah:

 

A: …  comment by Sheikh ‘Abd al-Wakil Durubi

Ar.     Arabic

n: …  remark by the translator

O: …  excerpt from the commentary of Sheikh ‘Umar Barakat

 

Taking the commentary of the translator out, the passage now reads:

 

e4. 3    Circumcision is obligatory (O: for both men and women.  For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce (Ar.  Bazr) of the clitoris.

 

Many other hadiths also back up the obligation for FGM under Shariah.  For example:

 

  • Jami` at-Tirmidhi Vol. 1 Book 1 #109

 

Aishah narrated that: the Prophet said: “When the circumcised meets the circumcised then Ghusl [full-body ritual purification] is required.”

 

 

Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab from Said ibn al- Musayyab that Umar ibn al-Khattab and Uthman ibn Affan and A’isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, used to say, “When the circumcised part touches the circumcised part, ghusl is obligatory.”

 

  • Sahih al-Bukhari 6599, 6600

 

Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger said, “No child is born but has the Islamic Faith, but its parents turn it into a Jew or a Christian.  It is as you help the animals give birth.  Do you find among their offspring a mutilated one before you mutilate them yourself.”

 

[Burka (or is it Niqab) clad Muslim gals]

 

To say that FGM only happens in third-world countries ignores the sad and sorry truth that several countries have passed laws forbidding this cruelty to their children. Egypt passed a law against FGM in 2008 and was amended in 2016. But by 2015, a “government survey discovered that 87% of Egyptian women and girls aged between 15 and 49 have been mutilated, or as the Egyptian government put it, “circumcised.”

 

February 6th was the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation. This annual day of awareness was commemorated this year by the German news source DW.com’s article, “Female genital mutilation feels ‘like living in a dead body’ by Shadia Abdelmoneim, which describes how a midwife performed FGM on her without her consent after the birth of her third child in Sudan:

 

It led to a lengthy period of shock thereafter where she found it difficult to trust anybody, but Shadia also vividly recalls the moment she realized what had happened.

 

“I wanted to go to the toilet, but something wasn’t right.  I couldn’t walk and was in considerable pain.  When I saw what she had done, I was shocked.  She’d cut everything open and then sewn it closed.  I had no idea what to do.”

 

Shadia, already fighting against female genital mutilation and for women’s rights as an activist in Sudan, was in her mid 30s at the time.  She started living in a constant state of fear for her three daughters; she could barely let them out of her sight.

 

“How could women do something like that to one another, how?” she asks, her eyes welling up with tears.  “Being circumcised is like living in a dead body.”

 

Dr.  Cornelia Strunz, who works at the Desert Flower Center, met Shadia when she came to the center for help, said Shadia needed surgery to help her live with this mutilation. According to Dr.  Strunz, there are many possible problems that result from FGM.

 

Many women have problems emptying their bladder after FGM.  Menstrual blood can’t drain properly.  For some, sex becomes practically impossible.  Women can also develop fistulas — connections between two body parts which should not exist at all in normal circumstances.  One example would be a link between the vagina and rectum, leading to them passing stools through the vagina.  Obviously, that’s not very easy to live with.

 

Social norms that allow for FGM conflict with several social norms of Western civilization.  It denies a women’s rights to have control over her own body, as it is a requirement under shariah.  It destroys a woman’s ability to enjoy partaking in sexual activity when the woman marries.  This makes the act a duty and not a pleasure. The act itself violates the Hippocratic Oath “to do no harm.” In countries where FGM is banned, parents/guardians who have this done to their own daughters are denying the validity of laws made by men.

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

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protester restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

______________________

Paul Sutliff is a federally recognized expert on Civilization Jihad. His blog can be found at https://paulsutliff.blogspot.com/. You can request him as a speaker at http://paulsutliff.com. Paul’s books are on Amazon.

 

© American Thinker 2020

 

Fox Rebukes Pirro – Viewers Should Rebuke Fox


John R. Houk
© March 12, 2019

 

Jeanine Pirro condemned Rep Ilhan Omar’s antisemitism on her Saturday (3/9/19) show on Fox News then stated the obvious:

 

“… She’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” (Bold text this Editor)

 

Pirro’s Fox News employers actually publicly rebuked her as if Pirro said something untrue or provocative. If it’s the truth it can’t be provocative!

 

Fox News is still the most Conservative outlet on television or shows featuring Jeanine Pirro, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, et al; would not be on TV. Nevertheless, Fox News has openly and disappointingly moved more and more Left-ward.

 

Robert Spencer has written a well deserved rebuke on Fox News in defense of Judge Jeanine. The Gateway Pundit exposes the specific Fox News Producer rebuked Judge Jeanine. Can you guess by the Producer’s name why she heaped grief on Pirro? The name: Hufsa Kamal

Perhaps Fox viewers should send their own mass rebuke to Fox News!?

 

Fox Contact Info:

 

  • 1 (888) 369-4762 (Customer Service according to Google)

 

 

 

 

  • Good old fashioned snail-mail:

 

Fox News Viewer Services

1211 Ave of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

 

JRH 3/12/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

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

FOX CONDEMNS PIRRO FOR ASKING IF OMAR IS PRO-SHARIA

The fair and balanced network is now as unfair and unbalanced as the rest of them.

 

Jeanine Pirro — Ilhan Omar

 

By Robert Spencer

March 12, 2019

FrontPageMag

 

Breitbart reported Monday that the Fox News Channel “condemned host Jeanine Pirro’s remarks on Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) use of a hijab and said the issue has been dealt with directly.” Sounds serious. But what Pirro actually said was something Fox should have been applauding, if it hadn’t already become just another establishment network.

 

Pirro said: “Think about this: She’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party. So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab, which according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

 

Predictably, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on Fox to fire Pirro. Like a shark, CAIR can smell blood in the water: instead of defending Pirro for asking a perfectly legitimate question, Fox immediately reacted as if Pirro had stolen Barack Obama’s parking space, denouncing Pirro’s words with stern self-righteousness: “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

 

Pirro, issued a clarification, to little effect: “I’ve seen a lot of comments about my opening statement from Saturday night’s show and I did not call Rep. Omar un-American. My intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course because one is Muslim does not mean you don’t support the Constitution. I invite Rep. Omar to come on my show any time to discuss all of the important issues facing America today.”

 

Fox is increasingly slipping into the Leftist echo chamber. It is terrified of discussing these issues. A few years ago, Jeanine Pirro contacted me and was going to have me as a featured guest on a special show about Sharia. She was very excited about it, and all the arrangements were made to fly me in and get me set up in the studio. Then at the last minute, everything was canceled — it was clear that Fox executives had told her she was venturing into forbidden territory. They willingly kowtow to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s defamation campaign targeting foes of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women and others. But last night, Pirro ventured off the reservation again, daring to suggest that Ilhan Omar’s hijab showed her to be Sharia-compliant.

 

There is so much confusion on this issue, even among people who should know better. Media critic John Nolte tweeted: “Does a Jewish man who covers his head put the Torah above the Constitution? Does a Catholic woman who covers head put the Pope above the Constitution? What a stupid thing to say.”

 

No in both cases, because in both cases the headwear in question is not part of a larger system that is incompatible with Constitutional rule. However, the hijab is part of such a system, and that’s all Pirro was saying. Fox should not have rebuked her, but this is the age of pandemic cowardice, so it was likely unrealistic to expect anything else.

 

Ilhan Omar herself, not surprisingly, was happier with Fox News than she has probably ever been, and tweeted: “Thank you, @FoxNews. No one’s commitment to our constitution should be questioned because of their faith or country of birth.”

 

But that wasn’t really what Pirro did. Pirro suggested that Omar’s anti-Semitism came from Sharia. And indeed, Sharia is indeed inveterately anti-Semitic: the Qur’an demonizes the Jews in numerous ways. It depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

 

Sharia also mandates that women cover their heads:

 

“And tell the believing women to reduce their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which appears thereof and to wrap their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed.” (Qur’an 24:31)

 

“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to bring down over themselves their outer garments. That is more suitable that they will be known and not be abused. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:59)

 

“Narrated `Aisha (the wife of the Prophet): `Umar bin Al-Khattab used to say to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) “Let your wives be veiled” But he did not do so. The wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) used to go out to answer the call of nature at night only at Al-Manasi.’ Once Sauda, the daughter of Zam`a went out and she was a tall woman. `Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her while he was in a gathering, and said, ‘I have recognized you, O Sauda!’ He (`Umar) said so as he was anxious for some Divine orders regarding the veil (the veiling of women.) So Allah revealed the Verse of veiling. (Al-Hijab; a complete body cover excluding the eyes).” (Bukhari 79.14.6420)

 

Wearing hijab is a sign that one accepts these imperatives. That is not necessarily true, as lots of women of all perspectives wear headscarves, but when a Muslim woman wears hijab, it’s reasonable to surmise that she accepts the Qur’an and Sunnah, the sources of Sharia. Sharia denies the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of women, and the equality of rights of non-Muslims. Wearing hijab is a sign of adherence to Sharia.

 

So what did Judge Jeanine Pirro say that was wrong about Ilhan Omar? She asked questions that need to be asked. Fox should be apologizing to Pirro, not Omar.

 

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

Muslim FOX News Producer Who Called Out Judge Jeanine has Twitter Account Littered with Vile Attacks on Conservatives

 

By Jim Hoft

March 12, 2019

The Gateway Pundit

 

On Sunday FOX News “strongly condemned” Judge Jeanine Pirro for asking viewers if Rep. Ilhan Omar’s hijab means she follows Sharia Law.

 

Judge Jeanine attacked anti-Semite Ilhan Omar on Saturday and asked if her hijab means she’s against the Constitution.

 

 

Fox News Channel issued an official statement on Sunday: “We strongly condemn Jeanine Pirro’s comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar. They do not reflect those of the network and we have addressed the matter with her directly.”

 

Hufsa Kamal Tweet Screen Capture

 

FOX News released the statement after FOX producer Hufsa Kamal, a Pakistani-American, tweeted her disgust against Judge Jeanine Pirro on Sunday.

 

Mufsa [sic] Kamal tweeted:

 

@JudgeJeanine can you stop spreading this false narrative that somehow Muslims hate America or women who wear a hijab aren’t American enough? You have Muslims working at the same network you do, including myself. K thx. https://t.co/ZfKhRhlvM3

— Hufsa Kamal (@hufkat) March 10, 2019

 

Mufsa’s [sic] remarks made it into a report on The Hill. Mufsa [sic] inserted herself into the story.

 

Now it appears Hufsa Kamal, who is a producer for Bret Baier on FOX News, has a long history of vicious attacks on conservatives.

Hufsa has attacked Michelle Malkin, Candace Owens, Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk.

 

Series of Hufsa Kamal Tweets Screen Capture

 

Kid Rock-Kevin Kirby-Hufsa Kamal Tweets Screen Capture

 

Ben Florence-Mediate-Hufsa Kamal Tweets Screen Capture

 

Hufsa Kamal made her account private on Monday

 

Hufsa Kamal Tweet Account Protected Screen Capture

_______________________

Fox Rebukes Pirro – Viewers Should Rebuke Fox

John R. Houk
© March 12, 2019

____________________

FOX CONDEMNS PIRRO FOR ASKING IF OMAR IS PRO-SHARIA

 

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His new book is The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2019, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM

___________________

Muslim FOX News Producer Who Called Out Judge Jeanine has Twitter Account Littered with Vile Attacks on Conservatives

 

© 2019 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

VIDEO of My AFA Speech, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’”


Islam- Sword not Pacifism

Andrew Bostom is one of my favorite Counterjihad authors. So when I discovered from the Counter Jihad Report that a Bostom speech was posted on his website a few days ago I was quite pleased to watch it. Below is the entire post from Bostom’s blog which includes the text of the speech.

Bostom talks of the failure of the Bush Administration’s concept of bringing Western democratic principles to overthrown dictatorships and hostile Muslim leadership. In hindsight, Bostom is correct to criticize this Bush Agenda; however, the concept was correct. History has shown that bringing democracy to repressive regimes (e.g. conquered Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan at the end of WWII) was and is highly successful. Not only have the citizens flourished when despotism was removed but once repressive regimes have chosen a path of peaceful dialogue and trade with their conquerors. UNFORTUNATELY, the nation-building paradigm does not work in a culture under the domination of a millennia of Islamic cultural brainwashing.

 

JRH 9/1/16

Please Support NCCR

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

VIDEO of My AFA Speech, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’”

By Andrew Bostom

August 28, 2016 1:46 PM

Uncreated, Uncreative Words

Many thanks to Scott Jacobs for uploading the video of my speech last Sunday 8/21/16 at the American Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles entitled,Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Co-Exist?”

The text in its entirety was posted at PJ Media last Monday 8/22/16, with the title, “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘Lewis Doctrine’.” I was able to present about ~70% of the full text provided below the embedded video.

VIDEO: Andrew Bostom at the AFA Conference: “Islam, Mindslaughter, & the Catastrophic “Lewis Doctrine'”

Posted by Democracy Broadcasting

Published on Aug 28, 2016

http://DemocracyBroadcasting.com Dr. Andrew Bostom at the AFA Conference: “Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic ‘The Lewis Doctrine’.” Dr. Andrew Bostom examines Dr. Bernard Lewis’ legacy at American Freedom Alliance’s “Islam and Western Civilization Conference” in Los Angeles, 8/21/16.
See: https://pjmedia.com/blog/islam-mindslaughter-and-the-catastrophic-lewis-doctrine/

Islam, Mindslaughter, and the Catastrophic “Lewis Doctrine”

Andrew Bostom

Text of a speech delivered Sunday, August 21, 2016 at the American Freedom Alliance conference in Los Angeles entitled, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can They Co-Exist?”

**

Col. Douglas MacGregor is a respected military strategist, who was a heroic tank commander during the 1991 Iraq war. As the Gen McChrystal scandal broke in 2010, Col MacGregor, who attended West Point with McChrystal, and was angered by the US military’s disastrous Iraq and Afghanistan “nation building” efforts, commented accurately,

The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense

Successful lobbying for that miserably failed utopianism was accomplished by bowdlerizing Islam—indeed mindslaughtering it, a powerful term I will introduce. My discussion will identify the ultimate source of “gravitas” for that bowdlerization process, and key elements of the Islam—not “Islamism,” or “radical Islam”—bowdlerized.

**

Tuesday August 2nd, (2016) Khizr Khan, who achieved notoriety for his condemnation of Donald Trump at the Democratic National Convention, had the temerity to tell Anderson Cooper “I do not stand for any Sharia Law because there is no such thing.” Except when he, Khan, notes it does exist, as in his 1983 essay published in the Houston Journal of International Law, “JURISTIC CLASSIFICATION OF ISLAMIC LAW”, which used the word “Sharia” 8X, including this usage:

“All other juridical works which have been written during more than thirteen centuries are very rich and indispensable, but they must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah…”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper did not even challenge Khan’s mendacious, self-contradictory assertion let alone follow-up on Khan’s effusive written praise of two prominent, modern global Sharia promoting ideologues, Said Ramadan, and A.K. Brohi, making plain Khan’s support for so-called “Sharia-based human rights.” The Khan-Cooper exchange illustrates, starkly, the contemporary equivalent of what the great chronicler of Soviet Communist mass murder, Robert Conquest, appositely characterized as MINDSLAUGHTER—a brilliantly evocative term for delusive Western apologetics regarding the ideology of Communism, and the tangible horrors its Communist votaries inflicted. Conquest decried those numerous “Western intellectuals or near intellectuals” of the 1930s through the 1950s whose willful delusions about the Soviet Union, “will be incredible to later students of mental aberration.” He observed,

“One role of the democratic media is, of course, to criticize their own govern­ments, and draw attention to the faults and failings of their own country. But when this results in a transfer of loyalties to a far worse and thoroughly inim­ical culture, or at least to a largely uncritical favoring of such a culture, it becomes a morbid affliction—involving, often enough, the uncritical accep­tance of that culture’s own standards”

His critique of Western media highlights a cultural self-loathing tendency which has persisted and intensified over the intervening decades, and is now manifest in the bowdlerized public discussion of Islam. Tragically, such MINDSLAUGHTERED Islamic discourse extends to an iconic figure in conservative punditry on Islam, while the impact of this doyen’s policymaking advice has been disastrous.

Samuel Huntington acknowledged his indebtedness to Bernard Lewis’s 1990 essay, “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” for Huntington’s book title, “The Clash of Civilizations.” Lewis, as Huntington notes (on p. 213), in 1990, had pronounced,

This is no less than a clash of civilizations—that perhaps irrational, but surely historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both.

 Oracle-like font of Islamic wisdom to a large swath of conservative policymaking elites, Bernard Lewis added this caveat:

 It is crucially important that we on our side should not be provoked into an equally historic but also equally irrational reaction against that rival.

Despite his own morally equivocating advice, Lewis himself convinced the Bush 2 administration to pursue what became known, aptly, as “The Lewis Doctrine,” which was not only an irrational, but a catastrophic response to the eminently rational Islamic doctrine of jihad.

 Peter Waldman’s methodical, well-sourced Feb 3, 2004 WSJ investigative report (“A Historian’s Take on Islam Steers U.S. in Terrorism Fight  Bernard Lewis’s Blueprint—Sowing Arab Democracy—Is Facing a Test in Iraq”) stands as important confirmation of the overarching ideology which spurred the March, 2003 Iraq invasion. Waldman meticulously documented how Lewis exerted profound influence in shaping the Bush II administration’s “Islamic democracy agenda”—invading Iraq being the sine qua non manifestation of this “Lewis Doctrine.” Lewis, as Waldman notes, began evangelizing his “Doctrine” to the highest level Bush II administration officials just over a week after 9/11, accompanied, significantly, by the late Ahmad Chalabi, a likely “vector” of Iranian influence.

Eight days after the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks, with the Pentagon still smoldering, Mr. Lewis addressed the U.S. Defense Policy Board. Mr. Lewis and a friend, Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi –now [circa 2/2004] a member of the interim Iraqi Governing Council—argued for a military takeover of Iraq to avert still-worse terrorism in the future

Call it the Lewis Doctrine.  ..Mr. Lewis’s diagnosis of the Muslim world’s malaise, and his call for a U.S. military invasion to seed democracy in the Mideast… As mentor and informal adviser to some top U.S. officials, Mr. Lewis has helped coax the White House to shed decades of thinking about Arab regimes and the use of military power. Gone is the notion that U.S. policy in the oil-rich region should promote stability above all, even if it means taking tyrants as friends. Also gone is the corollary notion that fostering democratic values in these lands risks destabilizing them. Instead, the Lewis Doctrine says fostering Mideast democracy is not only wise but imperative.

Waldman also demonstrated how Lewis successfully indoctrinated the ultimate Bush II administration leadership to pursue his utopian design: President George W. Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and most likely, National Security adviser (and later Secretary of State), Condoleezza Rice, as well.

I contend, after careful review, that the miserably failed “Lewis Doctrine” was a sham castle of dangerous, MINDSLAUGHTERED misrepresentations built upon four pillars: dhimmitude denial; Islamic Jew-hatred denial; Sharia obfuscation; and Lewis’s own inexplicable volte face on his gimlet-eyed 1950s assessments of Islamic totalitarianism, and “hurriyya,” the Islamic antithesis of Western freedom.

Regarding the imposition of the dhimma, Islam’s humiliating pact of submission for non-Muslims, per Koran 9:29, and the alleged absence of theological Jew-hatred in Islam, Lewis made these oracular, if vacuous and counterfactual, summary pronouncements, across three decades:

[1974] The dhimma on the whole worked well. The non-Muslims managed to thrive under Muslim rule, and even to make significant contributions to Islamic civilization. The restrictions were not onerous, and were usually less severe in practice than in theory. As long as the non-Muslim communities accepted and conformed to the status of tolerated subordination assigned to them, they were not troubled.

[1984] In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctrine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic history. For Muslims it is not part of the birth-pangs of their religion, as it is for Christians.

[2006] “dhimmi”-tude [derisively hyphenated] subservience and persecution and ill treatment of Jews… [is a] myth.

Shlomo Dov [S. D.] Goitein (d. 1985), unlike Lewis, was a historian, who specialized in the study of Muslim, non-Muslim relations. Goitein, whose seminal research findings were widely published, most notably in the monumental five-volume work A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (1967–1993), was Professor Emeritus of the Hebrew University, and a Lewis colleague while at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The New York Times obituary for Professor Goitein (published on February 10, 1985) noted, correctly, that his prolific writings on Islamic culture, and Muslim-non-Muslim relations, were “standard works for scholars in both fields.” Contra Lewis’s uninformed, whitewashed drivel, here is what Goitein wrote on the subject of non-Muslim dhimmis under Muslim rule, that is, “the dhimma covenant,” circa 1970:

[T]he Muslim state was quite the opposite of the ideals propagated by…the principles embedded in the constitution of the United States. An Islamic state was part of or coincided with dar al-Islam, the House of Islam. Its trea­sury was mal al-muslumin, the money of the Muslims. Christians and Jews were not citizens of the state, not even second class citizens. They were outsiders under the protection of the Muslim state, a status characterized by the term dhimma, for which protection they had to pay a poll tax specific to them. They were also exposed to a great number of discriminatory and humiliating laws. . . . As it lies in the very nature of such restrictions, soon additional humiliations were added, and before the second century of Islam was out, a complete body of legislation in this matter was in existence. . . . In times and places in which they became too oppressive they lead to the dwindling or even complete extinction of the minorities

“The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism,” my own exhaustive treatise, included voluminous materials Lewis never bothered to compile, let alone analyze with comparable intellectual honesty. My careful analyses demonstrated, irrefragably, that the Koran, its classical and modern exegeses by Islam’s greatest commentators, and the traditions of Muhammad, and the nascent Muslim community, are rife with virulent, conspiratorial Jew-hating motifs that have been acted upon by Muslims, vis-à-vis Jews, across space and time, from the advent of Islam, till now.

The Koran’s overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment, conviction, and punishment process. Presently, Al Azhar Koranic litanies of 20 to 25 verses describing fixed negative traits of the Jews are popular, widely disseminated, and endorsed in the writings and public statements of this Vatican of Sunni Islam’s last two Papal equivalents, the late Grand Imam Tantawi, and current Grand Imam al-Tayeb. Such Jew-hating Koranic “highlights” include: Jews as prophet killers, updated in the hadith to include Muhammad himself—allegedly poisoned to death by a Jewess, in a Jewish conspiracy, while the Shiite hadith further hold the Jews responsible for the deaths of Ali, and his son Hussein—meriting permanent debasement and humiliation (Koran 2:61/3:112); Jews as apes, or apes and pigs (Koran 2:65; 5:60, 7:166)—a Koranic epithet Muhammad personally directed at the Jews according to the sira before the Muslims subdued, and he personally slaughtered, by beheading, all the post-pubescent males, some 700-900, of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayza; Jews as inveterate conspirators against Islam (the ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Koran 5:64), who harbor the greatest enmity towards the Muslim creed (Koran 5:82). The Jews’ ultimate sin and punishment are made clear in the Koran: they are the devil’s minions (4:51/60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam—the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)—they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and pigs (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).

A brilliant, scrupulously documented 72pp/202 ref 1937 essay in French by rabbi, and Islamic scholar Georges Vajda on the hadith (which Lewis never analyzed, but I felt privileged to have fully translated into English for the first time, and included in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism), demonstrated that stubborn malevolence is the Jews defining worldly characteristic in these traditions. Rejecting Muhammad and refusing to convert to Islam out of jealousy, envy and even selfish personal interest, lead them to acts of treachery, in keeping with their inveterate nature: “…sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.” These archetypes sanction Muslim hatred towards the Jews, and the admonition to at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination,” as dhimmis, treated “with contempt,” under certain “humiliating arrangements.” Vajda’s research on the hadith further illustrates how Sunni Muslim eschatology emphasizes the Jews supreme hostility toward Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Antichrist— and, per other traditions, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered—everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to several canonical hadith, Muhammad himself reportedly declared if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!” Vajda also emphasizes how the notion of jihad war “ransom” extends even into Islamic eschatology:

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

Lastly, a profound anti-Jewish, and racist motif, put forth in early Muslim Sunni historiography, as well as the Shiite hadith literature, is most assuredly, contra Lewis, a part of “the birth pangs” of Islam: the story of Abd Allah b. Saba, an alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and, per Sunnis founder of the heterodox Shi’ite sect. Sunnis held him responsible—identified as a black (i.e., a racist motif, as well!) Jew—for promoting the Shi’ite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence”, culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife. Authoritative Shiite authors claimed this identifiably black Jew was guilty of perverting and warping the message of Caliph Ali’s true (Shiite) followers. Mainstream Shiites thus designated Abdullah Ibn Saba an avatar of extreme, heretical beliefs, for which Caliph Ali purportedly had Ibn Saba burned alive, as described in Shiite hadith.

The entirety of this ugly Islamic doctrine—shared, with minimal variation, by Sunni and Shiite Islam alike—begot chronic, grinding oppression, interspersed with paroxysms of violence, including sporadic, mass murderous pogroms, which affected Jewish communities in Palestine, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and even mythically tolerant Muslim Spain, to the west, as well as Turkey, to the north, and Iraq and Iran, to the east. Modern Zionism, culminating in the re-establishment of Israel, governed by Jews fully liberated from 13 centuries of jihad-imposed dhimmitude in their ancestral homeland, has re-invigorated Islam’s annihilationist strains of Jew-hatred.

During a Pew Forum interview April 27, 2006 Bernard Lewis opined rather defensively about Islam’s religio-political “law,” the Sharia:

“[W]hen we talk of Muslim law, I would remind you that we are talking about law. Sharia is a system of law and adjudication, not of lynching and terror. It is a law that lays down rules, rules for evidence, for indictment, for defense and the rest of it, quite a different matter from what has been happening recently.”

But Lewis doesn’t elaborate on those “rules,” or any of the elements of Sharia which make it so noxious! I will. Briefly.

The Sharia, Islam’s canon law is traceable to Koranic verses and edicts (45:18, 42:13, 42:21, 5:48; 4:34, 5:33-34, 5:38, 8:12-14; 9:5, 9:29, 24:2-4), as further elaborated in the “hadith,” or traditions of Islam’s prophet Muhammad and the earliest Muslim community, and codified into formal “legal” rulings by Islam’s greatest classical legists. Sharia is a retrogressive development compared with the evolution of clear distinctions between “ritual, the law, moral doctrine, good customs in society, etc.,” within Western European Christendom, and it is utterly incompatible with the conceptions of human rights enshrined in the US Bill of Rights. Liberty-crushing, and dehumanizing, Sharia sanctions: open-ended jihadism to subjugate the world to a totalitarian Islamic order; rejection of bedrock Western liberties — including freedom of conscience and speech — enforced by imprisonment, beating, or death; discriminatory relegation of non-Muslims to outcast, vulnerable pariahs, and even Muslim women to subservient chattel; and barbaric punishments which violate human dignity, such as amputation for theft, stoning to death for adultery, and lashing for alcohol consumption. Compounding these fundamental freedom and dignity-abrogating iniquities, “matters of procedure” under Islamic law are antithetical to Western conceptions of the rule of law: “evidentiary proof,” is non-existent by Western legal standards, and the Sharia doctrine of siyasa (“government” or “administration”), grants wide latitude to the ruling elites, rendering permissible arbitrary threats, beatings, and imprisonments of defendants to extract “confessions,” particularly from “dubious” suspects. Clearly, Sharia “standards,” which do not even seek evidentiary legal truth, and allow threats, imprisonment, and beatings of defendants to obtain “confessions,” while sanctioning explicit, blatant legal discrimination against women and non-Muslims, are intellectually and morally inferior to the antithetical concepts which underpin Western law.

In light of the still raging 2006 Danish cartoons controversy, regarding the “crime” of blaspheming Islam’s prophet, specifically, thus spake Lewis, the Islamic Yoda of our generation, circa April, 2006:

“The jurists on the whole tend to take a rather mild view of this offense.”

Really? Carl Brockelmann (d.1956), the renowned scholar of Semitic languages, and arguably the foremost Orientalist of his generation, made these candid observations in 1939 about the Sharia’s injunctions pertaining to penal law in general, and so-called “blasphemy and apostasy,” specifically—Islamic Law being “valid” eternally, and all too widely applied in Brockelmann’s era, through the present.

“The penal code of Islam has remained on a rather primitive level…Blasphemy with respect to Allah, the Prophet, and his predecessors is punished by death, as is defection from Islam, if the culprit persists in his disbelief.”

Consider the modern views on blasphemy articulated by the late Ayatollah Montazeri (d. Dec 2009), gushingly championed by fervent Lewis acolytes Michael Ledeen and Reuel Gerecht, and deemed the enlightened spiritual godfather of the so-called Iranian Green Movement. The good Ayatollah adhered rigorously to the traditionalist Shiite dogma on “sabb,” or blasphemy, i.e., instant, lethal punishment of the offender, declaring,

“In cases of sabb al-Nabi [blasphemy against a prophet, in particular, Muhammad]if the witness does not have fear of his or her life it is obligatory for him or her to kill the insulter.”

“Rising Restrictions on Religion,” a report by the Pew Research Center issued August 9, 2011, examined the issue of “defamation” of religion, tracking countries where various penalties are enforced for apostasy, blasphemy or criticism of religions. “While such laws are sometimes promoted as a way to protect religion, in practice they often serve to punish religious minorities whose beliefs are deemed unorthodox or heretical,” the report noted. The Pew report, consistent with Brockelmann’s assessment from 1939, found that application of the Sharia at present resulted in a disproportionate number of Muslim countries, 21—Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Brunei, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Western Sahara and Yemen—registering the highest (i.e., worst) persecution scores on their scale. Furthermore, the Pew investigators observed,

Eight-in-ten countries in the Middle East-North Africa region have laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion, the highest share of any region. These penalties are enforced in 60% of the countries in the region.

As a predictable consequence of this Sharia-based application of apostasy and blasphemy laws by Islamic governments, the Pew report also documented that,

…the share of national governments that showed hostility toward minority religions involving physical violence was much higher in countries where laws against blasphemy, apostasy or defamation of religion are actively enforced

Bernard Lewis’s April 2006 apologetic on the Sharia was complemented by the stunning claim he made during a lecture delivered July 16, 2006 about the transferability of Western democracy to despotic Muslim societies, such as Iraq. He concluded with the statement, “Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us,” which was published as, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” and disseminated widely. Yet Lewis never elucidated the yawning gap between Western and Islamic conceptions of freedom—hurriyya in Arabic. This omission was striking given his contribution to the official Encyclopedia of Islam entry on hurriyya. Lewis egregiously omitted not only his earlier writings on hurriyya but what he had also termed the “authoritarian or even totalitarian” essence of Islamic societies.

Hurriyya, “freedom,” is—as Ibn Arabi (d. 1240) the lionized “Greatest Sufi Master,” expressed it  “perfect slavery,” and following Islamic law slavishly throughout one’s life was paramount to hurriyya. Bernard Lewis, in his Encyclopedia of Islam analysis of hurriyya, discusses this concept in the latter phases of the Ottoman Empire, through the contemporary era. Lewis maintained,

…there is still no idea that the subjects have any right to share in the formation or conduct of government-to political freedom, or citizenship, in the sense which underlies the development of political thought in the West.

Lewis also makes the important point that Western colonialism transiently ameliorated this chronic situation:

During the period of British and French domination, individual freedom was never much of an issueThough often limited and sometimes suspended, it was on the whole more extensive and better protected than either before or after.

And Lewis concludes his entry by observing that Islamic societies forsook even their inchoate democratic experiments,

In the final revulsion against the West, Western democracy too was rejected as a fraud and a delusion, of no value to Muslims.

Lewis, viewed the immediate post-World War II era of democratic experimentation by Muslim societies as an objective failure , rooted in Islamic totalitarianism, which he compared directly to Communist totalitarianism, in his 1954 essay, “Communism and Islam,” noting their “uncomfortable resemblances” with some apprehension. Lewis characterized the political history of Islam,” as “one of almost unrelieved autocracy.” He added,

“[I]t was authoritarian, often arbitrary, sometimes tyrannical. There are no parliaments or representative assemblies of any kind…in the history of Islam; nothing but the sovereign power, to which the subject owed complete and unwavering obedience as a religious duty imposed by the Holy Law”

Directly comparing Islam and Communism, Lewis observed:

“Both offer an exhilarating feeling of mission, of purpose, of being engaged in a collective adventure to accelerate the historically inevitable victory of the true faith over the infidel evil-doers. The traditional Islamic division of the world into the House of Islam and the House of War, two necessarily opposed groups, of which-the first has the collective obligation of perpetual struggle against the second, also has obvious parallels in the Communist view of world affairs. There again, the content of belief is utterly different, but the aggressive fanaticism of the believer is the same…The call to a Communist Jihad, a Holy War for the faith-a new faith, but against the self-same Western Christian enemy — might well strike a responsive note.”

Consistent with Bernard Lewis’s admonition, “Bring Them Freedom Or They Destroy Us,” the US military, at an enormous cost of blood and treasure, liberated Afghanistan and Iraq from despotic regimes. However, as facilitated by the Sharia-based Afghan and Iraqi constitutions the US military occupation helped midwife—which formally negated freedom of conscience, and promoted the persecution of non-Muslim religious minorities—they,” i.e., the Muslim denizens of Afghanistan and Iraq have chosen to reject the opportunity for Western freedom we provided them, and transmogrified it into “hurriyya.” With sad predictability, Lewis, in an April 2, 2011 Wall Street Journal interview, managed to reject his own 1950s characterizations of Islam as authoritarian, even totalitarian, while burbling his subsequent oft repeated pieties about the putative tolerant, anti-authoritarian “tradition” of Islam, to cast a hopeful light on the Arab Spring:

The whole Islamic tradition is very clearly against autocratic and irresponsible rule.. We have a much better chance of establishing…some sort of open, tolerant society, if it’s done within their systems, according to their traditions.

Finally, in May, 2012, George W. Bush appeared to have learned nothing from the Iraq democratization debacle, and how it repudiated his blind adherence to the “Lewis Doctrine.” Mr. Bush hectored critics who did not share his ebullient cognitive dissonance about the then unfolding so-called Arab Spring phenomenon, declaring

Some look at the risks inherent in democratic change, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, and find the dangers too great. America, they argue, should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know, in the name of stability.

Bush II even made the outrageous claim that the, de facto Springtime for Sharia in Araby was tantamount to “the broadest challenge to authoritarian rule since the collapse of Soviet Communism.”

Far more important than mere hypocrisy—a ubiquitous human trait—is the catastrophic legacy of his own Islamic negationism Bernard Lewis has bequeathed to Western policymaking elites.

__________________

Andrew Bostom About / Contact

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ” (Prometheus, November, 2008)

You can contact Dr. Bostom at info@andrewbostom.org

For any website problems please contact the webmaster at webmaster@ndrewbostom.org

FYI — All yahoo email domains have been banned for spam abuse. Please use your own ISP to send email or get a gmail account. If you don’t your email will not be delivered or forwarded. Thanks, webmaster.

Rayhanah


Muslim Sex-Slavery

Intro to ‘Rayhanah

Edited by John R. Houk

May 28, 2016

 

Google+ pseudonymous (I assume) author Hakuna Matata Nia Nia extols Rayhana bint Zahd as a virtuous Jewish woman forced into sex-slavery after Mohammed executed all the conquered males (pubescent thru elderly) of the Jewish-Arabian tribe Banu Qurayza. The Banu Qurayza women either became sex-slave concubines or converted to Islam and became wives. Hakuna goes with the Quran account which states that Rayhana refused marriage to Mohammed out of respect to her murdered-decapitated husband. However, Hadith traditions paint the story that Rayhana at first refused marriage to Mohammed but ultimately caved in and converted to Islam and married the pseudo-prophet. Muslim tradition extols her as a Muslim wife in the Hadith.

 

This PDF history post reflects Islamic tradition:

 

[10] Amongst those who had lost their husbands in the massacre was Rayhana bint Zayd b. Umar b. Khinafa of Banu Nadir. She had been married to a man named al-Hakim from Banu Qurayza and had now become a widow. Islamic sources say that she was so young and beautiful that she impressed Muhammad, who immediately offered her the opportunity of converting to Islam and marrying him. “If you chose Allah and his Messenger,” the Prophet told her, “I shall take you for myself.” However, Rayhana had loved and respected her husband very much and said, “I will not exchange him for any other man” (Ibn Sa‘d: 8.129- 30; al-Salihi, 231-32). Furthermore, she clung to her Judaism, refusing to convert to Islam, saying that she preferred to live the life of a slave as long as she stayed a Jew. Nevertheless, Muhammad did not relent and she agreed to consider his offer (Ibn Sa‘d: 8.131; Ibn Hisham: 2.693).

 

[11] It did not take long for Rayhana to decide that she was better off converting to Islam than living the life of a slave in Hijaz. Ibn Sa’iya informed the Prophet, when he was sitting with his friends, that Rayhana had converted to Islam. The Prophet commanded her release and married her immediately. (Muhammad’s Jewish Wives: Rayhana bint Zayd and Safiya bint Huyayy in the Classic Islamic Tradition; By Ronen Yitzhak (Western Galilee College, Israel); Journal of Religion & Society (The Kripke Center); Volume 9 (2007))

 

Here is a description of Rayhana’s story at Islamnothanks.com:

 

`Umar Ibn al-Hakam narrated: “The Messenger of God freed Rayhana Bint Zaid Ibn`Amr Ibn Khunaqa. She had been married to a loving and honouring husband. She said, ‘I shall never have a husband after him.’ She was beautiful. When Banu Quraiza were taken captive, the booty was shown to the Messenger of God, and she was among the captives that were shown him so he commanded her to be set aside. He used to have a choice from each booty. She herself narrated, ‘When I was set aside, he chose me and sent me to the house of Umm al-Mundsir Bint Qais for some days till he had the captives killed and the spoils distributed. Then the Messenger of God entered upon me, and when I was too shy to meet him, he called me and sat me between his hands. He said, “If you choose God and His Messenger, the Messenger of God will choose you for himself.” I said, “I choose God and His Messenger.” So when I surrendered, he freed me, married me, and gave me twelve ounces [of gold] as a bridal gift as he would do with his wives. He consummated the marriage with me in the house of Umm al-Mundsir, and he used to distribute for me as he did all his wives, and commanded me to be veiled.’ (Shocking stories of kidnap, rape and slavery: The story of two of Muhammad’s wives, Safya and Rayhana according to the authentic hadiths like Bukhari and the al-sirat biographies, full references given thus easy to double check and confirm; Islamnothanks.comlinks)

 

Another place to examine is Wikipedia under the listing Rayhana bint Zayd.

 

In spite of the varying viewpoints, the reality is Rayhana became a widow after Mohammed’s murderous rampage in which she had to decide between sex-slavery misery and a better life as the Muslim wife of the pseudo-prophet.

 

JRH 5/28/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Rayhanah

 

By Hakuna Matata Nia Nia

May 25, 2016

Found at Google+ Community: Analyzing Islam

 

originally shared to Dr. Zakir Naik (Discussion)

 

Another victim of Muhammad was Rayhana, a 15 year old girl from the tribe of Banu Quraiza. Muhammad massacred all the men of that tribe. Then women were brought to him to pick and he chose Rayhana.

Rayhana never married Muhammad and unlike Juwairiyah and Safiyah never feigned being a Muslim to have an easier life. She preferred to remain a sex slave rather the wife of the murderer of her father, brothers and uncles

Her husband was one of the 900 Qurayza men whom Muhammad beheaded in April 627. He enslaved all the women and selected Rayhana for himself because she was the most beautiful. When she refused to marry him, he kept her as a concubine instead. She died shortly before Muhammad in 632.

“The apostle had chosen one of their women for himself, Rayhana bint Amr . . . one of the women of . . . Qurayza, and she remained with him until she died, in his power. The apostle had proposed to marry and put a veil on her, but she said: “Nay, leave me in your power, for that will be easier for me and for you.” So he left her. She had shown repugnance towards Islam when she was captured and clung to Judaism”. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)

References.

Guillaume/Ibn Ishaq page 466.

Al-Tabari, Vol. 9, pp. 137, 141; Al-Tabari, Vol. 39, pp. 164-165.

Bewley/Saad 8:92-94, 153.

The massacre of the unarmed Banu Qurayza tribe is one of the most heinous crime in the history of the world. Although it will take pages to write about it. A couple of passages and narrations from the most authentic sources on Islam to give the perspective.

The sentence: Ibn Ishaq says that the number may have been as high as 800-900 (p. 464), for the punishment of Death by decapitation of men and pubescent boys, and enslavement for the women and children

Muhammad was wise enough to have six clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds. The rest of the executions were probably carried out by Muhammad’s fellow Emigrants from Mecca, as the heads and bodies were dragged into trenches in the business district of Medina.

Source: Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, p. 174

How did the executioners decide on which boy to slaughter or leave alive? This hadith gives the obvious answer.

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Abu Dawud; see Ibn Ishaq, p. 466)

This next hadith indicates that a woman was delirious. She was killed.

Narrated Aisha . . . No woman of Banu [tribe] Qurayzah was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah . . . was killing her people with the swords. Suddenly a man called her name: Where is so-and-so? . . . I asked: What is the matter with you? She said: I did a new act. [Aisha] said: The man took her and beheaded her. [Aisha] said: I will not forget that she was laughing extremely although she knew that she would be killed. (Abu Dawud)

Left- Jewish boys slaughtered - Right- Muslim Slave MarketLeft:- Massacre of Men and pubescent boys ** Right:- Women brought and made completely naked to be examined by Muhammad and Muslims as per the traditions of Islam. After which they are selected and taken up by Muslim men.

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

Editor: I don’t have a clue on any info on Hakuna Matata Nia Nia. My interests are in his Counterjihad disposition.

Islamic Theo-Political Lying


Lie Like Mo toon

John R. Houk

© May 1, 2016

 

Nick Snyder, Sr. had an interesting comment to Jim Kouri’s post “GOWDY TO OBAMA: START PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM CRIMINAL ALIENS” found at LinkedIn’s Group – Return of the Republic. Nick is actually responding to an observation commented by Bev Farrar:

 

Didn’t Obama use the Bible when Roberts gave the oath of office incorrectly and then go into a private room to take the oath again. I’ve often wondered if his hand was on the Bible this time or some other book.

 

Nick’s thoughts on Obama’s oath of Office:

 

Nick (“Old Nikko”) Snyder, Sr. The answer Bev is…
The islamic practice of “Muruna” — using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings.

Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims show no discernible signs when they are being deceitful because there is no feeling of guilt. In their minds they are doing exactly what Allah wants them to do to advance Islam.

Obama was simply being a “good muslim” when taking his oath, no matter which book he wore his oath upon.

This is not to be confused with Takiyya or Tawriya… which are respectively: dissimulation and concealing.

There is also Kitman, which is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth.

All in all, Obama [piss be upon him] has used all of these – and to good effect on most American Sheeple. They have accepted, and believe his lies in any and all forms.

The rest of us see him for what and who he is… and what danger he represents to this nation.

 

I’ve known about Taqiyya and Kitman for some time now. The Islamic transliterations of Tawriya and Muruna are new to me. So I thought I’d do a little Googling on the four Muslim terms which all have to do with fashion or another of lying or deception in Islam. Thus this post will not really be at all original but an old fashion copy and paste exercise to make Americans and Westerners aware of the practices institutionalized in Islamic theo-political ideology to spread their cult across the globe to the detriment of free people everywhere.

 

I am taking four websites from different post years not necessarily in order. I’m going to begin with the terms I am most unfamiliar with – Muruna and Tawriya. Then follow that with the two terms I am familiar with – Kitman and Taqiyya. (Take note there are various transliterations from Arabic to English and that is the reason one may see different spellings for the same word.)

 

Muruna

 

Islam Watch – 7/31/12 04:02

Muruna means using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart.

At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. Nothing is more valuable these days to the Islamists than a blue-eyed Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Another common way of using muruna is for a Muslim to marry a non-Muslim or to behave like a non-Muslim so their true agenda will not be suspected. The 9/11 hijackers visited strip clubs and bars during …

FaithFreedom.org – 3/20/13

“Flexibility”.

Means blending in with the enemy or the surroundings. The justification for this kind of deception is a somewhat bizarre interpretation of Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Thus, Muslims may forget some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can deviate from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to lower their guard. At times, Muslims practice muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colours – to avoid detection. Muslims will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or even drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. …

Conservative Tribune – 10/10/14 7:06pm

Muruna is perhaps the biggest deception practiced by Muslims, as it allows them to be “flexible” regarding the commands of their faith in order to properly blend in with the society around them.  Muruna permits Muslims to shave their beards, wear Western clothing, listen to Western music, and even drink alcohol.

All of these deceptions go against specific commandments, as well as the overarching commandment against lying itself, that are found in the Koran.  But they are allowed so long as their use contributes to a greater goal or serves a greater commandment within the Koran, like spreading Islam among the infidels.

Americans who hold in high regard the founding principles and ideals of our country need to learn these terms, and …

ClashDaily.com – 4/1/15

Muruna is using “flexibility” to blend in with the enemy or the surroundings. Based upon: Surah 2:106, which says, “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, We will replace it by a better one or similar.” Therefore, Muslims have permission to “forget” some of the commands in the Quran, as long as they are pursuing a better command. Muslims striving to advance Islam, therefore, can diverge from their Islamic laws in order to cause non-Muslims to drop their guard and place their trust in their Muslim counterpart (this has been extremely successful in the West).

Illustration: Muslims practice Muruna in the same way a chameleon changes colors to avoid detection. They will sometimes shave off their beards, wear western clothing, or drink alcohol to blend in with non-Muslims. And Western converts are a great tool…there’s nothing more useful to Islamists than a blue-eyed, blonde-haired Caucasian Muslim willing to engage in terrorism.

Should we really be surprised about Islam’s deceit when the Quran boasts about Allah being the “master of machinations” (Sura 13:42), and “proficient at his scheming” (Sura 8:30)?

This can prove to be one of the most valuable lessons we learn …

 

Tawriya

 

Islam Watch

Tawriya is defined as concealing, and it could be called “creative lying”. It is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) …

FaithFreedom.org

Deliberate ambiguity.

What this means is that it is OK to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath. (see Reliance of the Traveler, sections o19.1 and o19.5) …

Thus, as we can see, Muslims are empowered to lie, tell half-truths and dissemble about Islam and its doctrines (provided their “heart is comfortable with faith”) if doing so will give Islam an advantage – such as “defending” Islam/Mohammed, denying its/his more unpleasant attributes, or – as in the case above – giving a positive “spin” to Islam to make it more palatable to a non-Muslim audience.

This is why, to make any study of Islam, or to stand a chance of holding a valid opinion, it is vital to go back to the original documents.

But here, too, lies a problem. According to Islam, only the Arabic Koran is really the Quran itself – that is …

Conservative Tribune

Tawriya allows Muslims to “creatively lie” by being purposely ambiguous about the real meaning of what they are saying.

ClashDaily.com

Tawriya is defined as camouflage, and it’s also referred to as “creative lying”. Based upon (Reliance of the Traveller, sections o19.1 and o19.5) “It is acceptable to break the intent of the oath, as long as you don’t break the letter of the oath.”

Illustration: Suppose someone protests that Surah 1 of the Quran demeans Christians and Jews, because it is a request Muslims make to Allah 17 times a day to keep them from the path of “those with whom God is angry” and “those who have lost their way”. A Muslim might respond, “Surah 1 never mentions Jews or Christians.” He is practicing Tawriya, because while Surah 1 does not mention Jews and Christians by name, he clearly knows that the words “those” refer to Jews and Christians.

 

Kitman

 

Islam Watch

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth. The most common example of this is when a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle. He is not telling “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, as witnesses are sworn to do in U.S. courts. Often, kitman results in a gross distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 (27%) could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the context of the surah.

Another common form of kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, contradictory verse. Here is an example:

“There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2:256) Early Medina

FaithFreedom.org

This is Taqiyya’s “little brother”. Kitman is just providing incomplete information.

A widely used example of kitman is when Muslims say:

whoever slays a soul, it is as though he slew all men” to show how highly Islam values human life (!).

However, put these verse fragments together with the start of the verse and the part omitted from the middle and the meaning changes:

For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soulunless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the landit is as though he slew all men”. (K5:32)

Now we can clearly see that this statement refers to the Jews alone (the people most reviled by Islam) and so does not apply to Muslims at all. Further …

Conservative Tribune

Kitman is a term that means Muslims are permitted to tell half-truths, or partial truths, while concealing the greater whole truth.  Discussion of “jihad” as being only an “inner” or “spiritual” struggle is an example of Kitman, as technically it is true that jihad refers to a spiritual struggle, but conceals the very real physical struggle that is also encompassed by jihad.

ClashDaily.com

Kitman is characterized by someone telling only part of the truth.

Illustration: When a Muslim says that jihad really refers to an internal, spiritual struggle, he is telling half the truth. Often, Kitman results in a glaring distortion of the truth. In the example given, the Quran uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of those, only 16 could be considered “internal” with no object as the target of the struggle based on the framework of the Surah.

Another common form of Kitman is to quote only the few peaceful passages from the Quran, knowing full-well that that passage was later abrogated by a more militant, conflicting verse.

NOTE: It must be understood that there are two categories of Quranic verses: Pre-Medina (Meccan) and Post-Medina (Medinan). The Meccan or peaceful verses were written when Muhammed was trying to persuade followers in Mecca, from the Pagans, Jews and Christians. The Medinan verses were written after Muhammed was rejected as prophet by Jews and Christians. These are the violent verses which replaced the peaceful ones.

Here are examples that …

 

Taqiyya

 

Islam Watch

Takiyya is defined as dissimulation about ones Muslim identity. It comes from the verse in the Quran that says, “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful – he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah – except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah) (Surah 3:28). This “self-defense” justifies dissimulation. Islamic Sharia Law provides, “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying isobligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2) Examples include lying to protect Islam or a Muslim.

FaithFreedom.org

Strictly, Taqiyya is a Shi’a doctrine, but Sunni Islam has its equivalent “Muda’rat”. For some reason, in the West (at least amongst non-Muslims), the doctrine is more widely known as Taqiyya.

“This is the Islamic practice of “precautionary dissimulation” [i.e. lying] whereby believers may conceal their Muslim faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion.” (Oxford Dictionary of Islam).

“The word “al-Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions [not just religious], ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.”” (Abdul Hamid Siddiqui)

Comment: Thus, if you think you may be in danger physically or mentally at some point in the future from telling the truth, you are allowed to lie.

“al-Taqiyya is the uttering of the tongue, while the heart is comfortable with faith.” (Ibn AbbasComment: What this means is that you can say something “un-Islamic”, or lie, provided you retain Islamic belief.

Hadith: Muslim #6303: Reported Umm Kulthum she heard Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: A liar is not one who tries …

Conservative Tribune

Taqiyya allows Muslims to lie and/or conceal their true faith, feelings, thoughts, plans, and character, for the purpose of protecting themselves.  It is fully based on the Koran and is agreed to and practiced by all major sects of Islam.

“When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.” (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2)

ClashDaily.com

Taqiyya is defined as concealment about ones Muslim identity. Based upon (Surah 3:28) “Let believers not make friends with infidels in preference to the faithful– he that does has nothing to hope for from Allah– except in self-defense (illaa an-tattaqu minhum tuqah).” “Self-defense” is justification for concealment.  Also based upon Islamic Sharia Law (Reliance of the Traveler, Para r8.2), “When it is possible to achieve an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and lying is obligatory if the goal is obligatory.”

Illustration: This would include lying to protect Islam or Muslims.

 

JRH 5/1/16

Please Support NCCR

 

Kafir Slaughter is the Norm not Aberration


John R. Houk

© December 5, 2015

Islamic Terrorism. Yup, I wrote Islamic Terrorism.

The butchers of San Bernardino were following their Islamic tenets as handed down by their fake-prophet Mohammed.

When a Muslim or a group of Muslims attack a group of non-Muslims with the intent to hurt, maim, rape women and/or kill people because his/her perfect man – Mohammed – set the example in the Quran and explained in the Hadith and Sira; that is terrorism based on the tenets of Islam.

Here are some excerpts from an Answering Islam essay demonstrating ten reasons Islam is NOT a religion of peace as exposed in the Quran. I’m excerpting some explanatory notes, followed by the ten reasons (read the essay for the expanded explanation for each reason) and I’ll end with some justification explanations of the ten reasons:

… In order to prevent the standard, reflexive “out of context” defense from Muslim apologists, the context of each verse in the Quran is explained either in this article or in the links provided within each of the ten reasons. No verse is taken out of context, and Muslim translations are used.

Verifiable? The readers are invited to look up each verse in the Quran in multiple translations, by visiting the website www.quranbrowser.com and typing in references, like so: 61:10-12. (61 is the chapter or sura, and 10-12 are the verses).

But first we must answer a Muslim strategy. A Muslim missionary or polemicist who believes that Islam is the best religion in the world and who wants it to spread around the globe attempted to refute this top ten list. But attempting to refute such a list is like reviewing a book only from the last chapter. The reviewer has skipped over the hard work of reading all of the chapters. In the same way, the Muslim polemicist or missionary has skipped over the hard work found in the back-up articles and the links. This top ten list is only a summary of many articles and a lot of strenuous labor from the present author and many other authors. The answers to the Muslim’s criticisms are all found in these articles. So his criticism is hollow, and his scholarship is shallow, since he has not done the hard work. He certainly does not understand the Bible. Plus, he whitewashes Islam in his attempted refutation. The back-up articles will show how. Thus, he whitewashes Islam either deliberately or unknowingly, which means he does not know his own religion or he knows it, but covers it up. Whatever the case, the truth about the real Islam must get out.

10. Muhammad nicknames his weapons.

9. Muhammad commands in his Quran that adulterers and adulteresses should receive a hundred lashes.

8. Muhammad in his Quran permits husbands to beat their wives.

7. Muhammad in his Quran commands that the hands of male or female thieves should be cut off.

6. Muhammad assassinates poets and poetesses.

5. Muhammad in his Quran commands death or the cutting off of hands and feet for fighting and corrupting the land.

4. Muhammad aggressively attacks Meccan caravans.

3. Muhammad in his Quran promises sensuous Gardens for martyrs dying in a military holy war.

2. Muhammad unjustly executes around 600 male Jews and enslaves the women and children.

1. Muhammad launches his own Crusades.

What the ten reasons mean for us today

These ten aspects of violence that have burrowed into the hemorrhaging heart of early Islam have eight implications for us today. The first three are theological; the rest are practical.

The theological implications are as follows:

First, as each reason in this article has hinted at and the links explain more thoroughly, Christ never, ever engaged in such violence. For example, he never assassinated opponents, whipped adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or launched his own Crusades (what the Medieval Europeans did is not foundational to Christianity). Christ expresses the love of God. Therefore, Christians and all fair-minded persons have the right to question whether the true God would reveal the Quran when it contains such violent verses that conveniently support Muhammad’s violence, whereas the New Testament does not have such violence.

Second, Muslims believe that the New Testament is corrupted, whereas the Quran is inerrant. Even if we assume only for the sake of argument that these claims are true (but they actually are not), then why would reasonable seekers of the truth prefer the “pure” but violence-filled Quran over the “corrupted” but peaceful New Testament?

Before Muhammad is allowed to throw around unsubstantiated charges about alleged New Testament corruption, he and his Quran must pass a down-to-earth test regarding his dubious, violent practices. But he and it fail the test badly, as this article demonstrates, whereas Christ and the New Testament pass with a perfect score. Therefore, if Muhammad is so wrong about down-to-earth matters like whipping adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves and beating wives, then he is likely wrong about unresearched accusations of New Testament corruption—and factually he is wrong.

Please refer to the articles listed on these pages for more information: [1], [2].

Third, since Muhammad who claims divine guidance is so wrong about practical matters, why should we believe him about theoretical matters like the deity of Christ and the Trinity, both of which he denies? Clearly, he was not divinely guided in practical matters because the true God would not degrade religion by endorsing such gruesome violence six hundred years after Christ came—the historical span is critical. Christ and the New Testament do not have even one example of such violence. Again, if Muhammad first fails the down-to-earth test, then he likely fails the theological or theoretical test—we have no reason to believe him in such high doctrines, especially since he was no theologian and his revelations are now empirically suspect.

The practical implications of the top ten reasons are READ ENTIRETY (Top ten reasons why Islam is NOT the religion of peace: Violence in Muhammad’s life and the Quran; By James M. Arlandson; Answering Islam)

Now let’s look at the reality of the Hadith encouraging Muslims into acts of violence especially toward non-Muslims:

Jihad in the Hadith

The Hadith are the recorded sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. It is second in authority only to the Qur’an and is often used to clarify things not specified in the Qur’an. The following is what Muhammad had to say about Jihad as recorded in the Hadith.

1) The second best deed is to participate in Jihad (Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25, Narrated Abu Huraira) – Allah’s Apostle was asked, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, “What is the next in goodness? He replied, “To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah’s Cause.” The questioner again asked, “What is the next (in goodness)?” He replied, “To perform Hajj (Pilgrimage to Mecca) ‘Mubrur, (which is accepted by Allah and is performed with the intention of seeking Allah’s pleasure only and not to show off and without committing a sin and in accordance with the traditions of the Prophet).”

2) Muhammad said if someone leaves Islam, to kill them (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260, Narrated Ikrima) – All burnt some people and this news reached IBn ‘Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish anybody with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, “If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.”

3) Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35, Narrated Abu Huraira ”The Prophet said, The person who participates in holy battles in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and his Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any saiya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah’s cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause.”

4) Volume 3, Book 46, Number 726 ”Allah’s Apostle said, A pious slave gets a double reward. Abu Huraira added: By Him in Whose Hands my soul is but for Jihad (holy battles), Hajj, and my duty to serve my mother, I would have loved to die as a slave.”

5) Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555 ”Allah’s Apostle said, Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out.” (Jihad in the Quran and Hadith; Contender Ministries)

Just to confront the Muslim apologist that claims there is a Greater Jihad and a Lesser Jihad with the “Lesser” being the violent aggressive edict and the “Greater” being the primary directive of Islam of warring with self to be a better person, here are some excerpts that relates the truth about this deceptive hogwash:

… Next to the Qur’an in importance is the Hadith, which refers to collections of traditions about what Muhammad said, what he taught, and what he did. These collections are also called Sunna or “tradition”; hence the term Sunni Muslims, or “traditional” Muslims. …

Muslims naturally felt a need to preserve traditions about the Prophet from the time of the earliest witnesses. However, over the years since Muhammad’s death some of these traditions became embellished and others were fabricated. In the ninth century a number of Islamic scholars undertook the task of sifting the genuine traditions from the spurious and of gathering the former in written collections. In Sunni Islam six of these collections in particular are considered sahih (“reliable”). These sahih sittah (“reliable collections”) are:

o Sahih Bukhari, compiled by the Imam Muhammad ibn-Ismail al-Bukhari (810-870).

o Sahih Muslim, compiled by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Qushayri (821-975).

o Sunan Abu Dawud, compiled by Abu Dawud as-Sijistani (d. 888).

o Sunan ibn Majah, compiled by Muhammad ibn Majah (d. 896).

o Sunan At-Tirmidhi, compiled by Abi ‘Eesaa Muhammad At-Tirmidhi (824-893).

o Sunan An-Nasai, compiled by Ahmad ibn Shu’ayb an-Nasai (d. 915).

All these collections of hadith are highly respected in the Sunni tradition, but the first two even more than the others, and so they are given the additional specific designation of sahih. And of those two, Sahih Bukhari is considered the most important and most reliable. Those ahadith occurring in both the Bukhari and Muslim collections have the highest status of all.

Only One Jihad

These compilations of hadith are voluminous, and they have a lot to say about jihad. However, before going to these classic collections, we should begin by looking at one hadith that is very often quoted to demonstrate a nonviolent meaning of jihad:

Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one’s soul).” (1)

This is very often cited as a proof-text for the “real” meaning of jihad being inward, spiritual struggle. But there are two problems:

1. Even a “lesser” jihad is still jihad and thus a duty and a virtue.

2. Muhammad never made such a statement.

The hadith in which Muhammad is said to speak of “greater” vs. “lesser” jihad is of doubtful authenticity. It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah. In fact, a number of scholars maintain that this hadith is a forgery (2). One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers a number of factors, such as chain of transmission and other more reliable, contradictory ahadith (3). …

This seems to leave little doubt as to how Muhammad understood jihad. But let us not make the case on just one example. There are many ahadith on jihad, and they make its meaning quite clear. First and foremost, jihad meant combat on the battlefield, and specifically against non-Muslims.

Jihad as Fighting the Nonbeliever

The following sequence of ahadith will clarify this. Many of these are extremely well attested, occurring multiple times in the most trusted collections, the Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. I will cite some of these multiple attestations just to show the high status of these ahadith.

Reading through the hadith on the subject of jihad, what we do not find is an exclusive emphasis on self-defense or on struggling with one’s desires. Jihad is physical combat, not just for self-defense but for the purpose of spreading Islam, and there is no greater virtue: READ ENTIRETY (Jihad in the Hadith; Peace with Realism – Updated website About Page)

The Sira includes the Sunna which are the sayings of Mohammed:

The easiest way to learn about Islam is to learn about Mohammed. His biography is called the Sira, and this book is a condensation of it.

The Islamic bible—the Trilogy

Islam is defined by the words of Allah in the Koran, and the words and actions of Mohammed, called the Sunna.

The Sunna is found in two collections of texts—the Sira (Mohammed’s life) and the Hadith. The Koran says 91 times that his words and actions are considered to be the divine pattern for humanity.

A hadith, or tradition, is a brief story about what Mohammed did or said. A collection of hadiths is called a Hadith. There are many collections of hadiths, but the most authoritative are those by Bukhari and Abu Muslim, the ones used in this book.

So the Trilogy is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. Most people think that the Koran is the bible of Islam, but it is only about 14% of the total textual doctrine. The Trilogy is the foundation and totality of Islam.

The Relative Sizes of the Trilogy Texts

Islam is defined by the words of Allah in the Koran, and the words and actions of Mohammed, the Sunna. (A Taste of Islam – The Life of Mohammed – The Sira; By Bill Warner; Center for the Study of Political Islam; © 2010 CSPI, LLC)

Here is an example of the wickedness of Islam displayed in the Sira courtesy the Australian Islamist Monitor:

And in the sira, endless examples of violence to others in offensive attacks: eg Sirat Rasul’allah by Ibn Ishaq.

Booty is made lawful as a gift from that compassionate allah (p 326-327 –which also notes allah telling Mohammad NOT to take prisoners until he has made slaughter in the earth —ie kill to manifest the religion!!). Page 464-466 records the beheading of ~800 males and one female, the enslavement of females and children and Mohammad taking a female for his enjoyment. This ‘pattern’ is repeated in other acts of slaughter, enslavement and rape eg p 493, p 511. In one attack over 6000 women and children plus animals were taken (p 592-593) with the remnants of the men ‘converting’ to try to retrieve their families!!! Mohammad handed out GIRLS for friends to enjoy (p 593) as sex with tiny girls is allowed in Islamic law eg Hedaya Vol 4 p 106. (see more in Islam’s genocidal slavery – Part A – Mohammad’s example 23-08-09 on site) Of some 48 -67 battles in those last 10 years, Mohammad ‘stayed home’ for some and led 27 yet still claimed 1/5th of the booty! But along with big battles were endless small attacks on others, murders, threats and demands for tribute or else! Simple farming communities were often suddenly attacked by these well armed Islamic ‘heroes.’

**Ibn Ishaq: p 572-3 (sirat rasulallah) “Muhammad is the man, an Apostle of my Lord……. Evil was the state of the B. Qasiy in Wajj…they lost the day …Fortunes change. We came upon them like lions of the thickets. The armies of Allah came openly……. almost flying at them in our rage…. We were as lions of Liya there until we destroyed them and al-Nusur were forced to surrender….. and blood flowed freely. In former days there was no battle like this. We slew B. Hutayt in the dust. ….Those who escaped were choked with terror. A multitude of them were slain. If they are guided to Islam….If they do NOT accept it THEY call for god’s war in which they will have no helper. As war destroyed the B. Sa’d and fate the clan of B. Ghaziya.” (the Muslim view is that those who resist allah/Islam CAUSE wars) (Islam is Conquest by Violence and Fear: Hadith, Sira, laws, comments part 2; By Circe; Australian Islamist Monitor; last updated – 5/9/11 18:47)

So figure it out! Islam is an inherently violent religion even if a majority of Muslims practice a peaceful version of their theopolitical religion. The reality is the Islam that Left Wingers, Multiculturalists and deceived Conservatives call “Moderate” Islam; IS NOT the true Islam of the Quran, Hadith and Sira.

In the light of the San Bernardino Massacre perpetrated by the Islamic terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook and his Pakistani wife Tashfeen Malik that went on a kafir killing spree, I became very irritated with the authorities – local, State and Federal – failing to state the obvious that this was an act of Islamic terrorism. Then of course that irritation became stoked when Obama and his Dem-Leftist cadres refused the term Islamic terrorism and followed that colossal public irresponsibility with blaming lax gun control laws for the shooting.

The gun control theme is especially idiotic considering the gun control laws in California are not exactly NRA friendly. Perhaps if

some of the good citizens of San Bernardino were packing, a couple of kafir-hating Muslims might have discovered their Allah deity is closer to an antichrist demon than a ludicrous promise of eternal virgins in Paradise fulfilling the carnal/fleshly desires of unrestrained sex and the taste of wine without becoming intoxicated quicker and with non-Muslim victims. (I’m unsure of any eternal promises for female shahids. Tough luck Tashfeen.)

I’ll culminate my thoughts by sharing the thoughts of Justin Smith I found on his Facebook page. Justin wrote his thoughts before the FBI struggled to admit the San Bernardino Massacre was an act of terrorism; however take note there is still the refusal to call the massacre an act of Islamic terrorism.

JRH 12/5/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Justin Smith Thoughts on San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

By Justin O. Smith

December 3, 2015 11:35am

Facebook Page

In light of the San Bernardino terrorist attack, I wish to reiterate the following:

Well – now. We see another example in Syed Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik of the only “contribution” I’ve seen Islam and Muslims give to America and the world over my entire lifetime — 58 years. Rest assured that this was more islamofascist terrorism, since all the evidence, the planning, the weapons and the explosive devices are indicative of such.

Most Americans, many of our leaders as well, are aware that terrorists infiltrating groups of refugees are only part of the problem. They are not speaking of imaginary space-aliens, when they cognitively and logically reason that the ideological doctrines within Islam, such as the mandated perpetual war between the House of Islam and the House of War (non-Muslims) and the supposed supremacy of Islam, creates the prime motivation for the endemic violence of Islam. Americans understand that the terrorists are found in the ranks of converts like Carlos Bledsoe, second and third generation U.S. Muslims like Anwar al-Awlaki and refugees like the Tsarnaev brothers; and, as such, it certainly does not make any sense to import tens of thousands of more potential terrorists, in the middle of a generational and civilizational war between Islamic and Western principles.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that we shouldn’t be accepting “any Syrian refugees without complete assurance those we are welcoming intend us no harm”, but when dealing with the agents of Islam, “complete assurance” would be a false assurance. One cannot offer an assurance against Muslims insidiously infiltrating any neighborhood, as they frequent ballgames, movies and restaurants and act like normal citizens, until they unleash bloodbath upon bloodbath, just like the Abdeslam brothers did in France, terrorist bomber Ramzi Yousef did at the World Trade Center in 1993, nineteen terrorists did on 9/11 and Abdulazeez did at the Chattanooga Naval facility.

_______________________

Kafir Slaughter is the Norm not Aberration

John R. Houk

© December 5, 2015

_____________________

Justin Smith Thoughts on San Bernardino Terrorist Attack

© Justin O. Smith

Intro: 2 Stories on ISIS Rapaciousness and the Quran


Edited by John R. Houk

Posted 10/13/15

Thanks to Ari Bussel my readers have become aware of the abhorrent violence committed by Muslim Arabs that call themselves Palestinians against Israeli Jews. America/Obama’s support for these heinous individuals to form a Jew-hating sovereign state is reprehensible. Now Obama is abandoning Christians and other non-Muslims (according to the eyes of Sunnis) to the butchery of ISIS! How crazy is this horror? And Obama is proud to have pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq and abandon non-Muslims to the brutality of ISIS!

Muslim War Booty

Daily Mail story behind Muslim War Booty photo. 5/22/15

VIDEO: Saudi ISIL Militants Filmed Laughing at How They Will Share Yazidi Female Sex Slaves

 

Posted by Eretz Zen

Published on Nov 1, 2014

A recent video has emerged from the northern Iraqi city of Mosul that shows militants belonging to the Islamic State (IS, aka ISIL or ISIS) excited as they discuss that they are on the day when they will sell and buy Yazidi female captives that are treated as sex slaves. Most of those filmed are believed to be Saudi from their accent.

Warning: This video might not be suitable for all ages. It is not for shock but for documenting crimes and human rights violations of ISIL militants in Syria and Iraq.

The original photos used from the below two stories are not of the actual child raped nor are the Yazidi women portrayed the mother forced to watch. I’m omitting the photo of the little girl because of the original location Mad World News borrowed it from. I will use the photo of the two women for they are portraying the horrendous grief of loss to death and it was from the pukcc English website. I haven’t been able to locate an adequate free online translator to detect the original language (I’ve checked Arabic, Farsi-Persian, Turkish and Kurdish). The irony to that is the web server seems to be in Provo, UT. And that means I don’t have a good grasp of that website’s agenda or outlook.

JRH 10/13/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Muslims Grab 9-Year-Old Child… Then Make Mother Watch The Terror That Happens Next

October 12th, 2015

Conservative Tribune

We all know, at least in abstract terms, the sort of horror caused by the Islamic State group. However, it’s almost impossible to realize just how evil these extremists are without experiencing their monstrous behavior first-hand — or listening to someone who has.

Delan Dakheel Saeed, a Yazidi doctor in northern Iraq, spoke of such horrors at a conference in London. According to Reuters, Saeed — whose brother is the only Yazidi member in Iraq’s parliament — talked last week of the sexual violence wrought by the Islamic State savages against her people.

While the tales of sexual slavery and forced marriages of young girls is enough to turn your stomach even without elaboration, the 25-year-old Erbil-based doctor told the audience a chilling story of just how far Islamic State will go.

“I myself witnessed a 9-year-old girl who was raped and bled to death in front of her mother’s eyes,” Saeed said.

“There is not even a medical cure or physical cure, not even a mental cure.”

The Yazidis, whose beliefs are a mixture of Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism, have long been a target of the Islamic State group because of what they see as the Yazidis’ heretical views.

“After 14 months, the situation is the same, nothing has changed,” said Vian Dakheel Saeed, Delan Dakheel Saeed’s brother. “Nobody supports us.”

One might think that child-rape in the name of religion is a sick perversion of any faith.

However, here’s what Quran 5:33 says about unbelievers: “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.”

Oh, and let’s talk about the prophet’s child bride, Aisha. As the Hadith (a collection of things said by Muhammad) says, “… she (Aisha) 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.” (Muslim 8.3311)

So, the prophet advocated the murder of unbelievers and countenanced the rape of children. When you read those, how on earth could this atrocity surprise you?

H/T Mad World News

Do you think that the Islamic State group is following the letter of the Quran? Let us know how you feel on our Facebook page or Twitter. [Blog Editor: In fairness to the Conservative Tribune go to their post to Facebook or Twitter this particular news story]

+++

Muslims Make Mother Watch As They Do The Unthinkable To Her 9-Year-Old

Yazidi girls in lamentation

By Dom the Conservative

October 11, 2015

Mad World News

As hordes of cowardly men flee the war-torn Middle East, the mothers, wives, and daughters they’ve left behind are forced to take desperate measures for survival. However, as ISIS sweeps through Iraq and Syria, horror stories from escapees detail exactly what happens to those who have been abandoned in the face of Islamic terror.

A mother, who was unable to escape the rampage of jihadists, was captured along with her 9-year-old daughter. In an attempt to mentally torture the woman, the Muslim militants took her little girl and gang-raped her repeatedly before her mother’s eyes — but their reign of terror didn’t end there.

Reuters reports that Iraqi Parliament member Vian Dakhil and her sister, Delan Dakhil, delivered shock reports to U.S. lawmakers about ISIS cruelty towards minorities.

“I myself witnessed a 9-year-old girl who was raped and bled to death in front of her mother’s eyes,” said Delan Dakheel Saeed, the sister of the lawmaker.

“There is not even a medical cure or physical cure, not even a mental cure,” she said.

How painful it must’ve been for a child’s tiny body to endure such horrific abuse, and equally painful for her grieving mother to watch her being raped to death.

Mad World News previously reported that the Dakhil sisters had confirmed another testimony of a young mother who had been captured by ISIS and forced to eat her own 3-year-old son. ISIS insurgents fed the starving woman rice and meat, telling her, “this is your boy — 3 years.”

We already know that ISIS is committing these atrocities, but the importance lies in the fundamentals of Islam. ISIS is not the disease, but the symptom. Islam is the disease. To understand why this terror group is doing these very specific things, we must look to the prophet of Islam.

In the entire Quran, Muhammad is the one human being that Allah commands his followers emulate. Although Muhammad admits he is sinful, Allah is clear in that his messenger is the perfect example for Muslims to follow. This means that all of his life choices are justified and should be copied.

One of the most controversial acts of Muhammad’s short existence is his marriage to Aisha. Aisha was only 6-years-old when the pedophile prophet claims Allah showed her to him in a dream. He convinced her father, most likely through intimidation, that the child should be wed to him.

Most Muslims will justify his marriage by reminding that the prophet waited until Aisha was 9 before he consummated the marriage, as if this makes the sickening perversity any better. However, a 53-year-old man forcing himself upon a prepubescent child is appalling enough. In fact, the sinister reality is revealed in the Hadith.

“…she (Aisha) 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.” [Muslim 8.3311]

Aisha, who helped narrate the Hadith and author the Quran after her husband’s death, revealed that the prophet had a lust for fondling her before he fully consummated the marriage, and after she was old enough to have a menstrual cycle.

Narrated ‘Aisha: “The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub (state of impurity after having sex). During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me.” [Bukhari 1.6.298]

Once we see how their prophet saw children, as sexual objects, we can fully understand ISIS’s logic. The only difference is that ISIS fighters are not marrying some of these children. However, Muhammad modeled many times that it was righteous to take females as “war booty.”

“O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war…” [Quran 33:50]

Because the Quran states that Muslims are in constant war “until there is no more fitnah (disbelief)” in Allah, Muslims can take women and children as sex slaves or forced brides, and this is justified by their god and prophet.

If Muslims truly believe that the Quran is Allah’s word and Muhammad his messenger, there is no man-made interpretation that can deny this is right and good in their eyes. After all, Allah has defined “good” and “right” for them, and it undeniably includes forced marriage, slavery, pedophilia, and rape.

H/T [Shoebat.com]

Photo Credit [PUKCC, RIPeace]

________________________

Muslims Grab 9-Year-Old Child… Then Make Mother Watch The Terror That Happens Next

Copyright 2015. Conservative Tribune.

_______________________

Muslims Make Mother Watch As They Do The Unthinkable To Her 9-Year-Old

Copyright © 2015

About Mad World News

Mad World News is firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the liberal media.

Beheading in Islam


In Christianity when one thinks of the Cross one should first of all understand that Jesus Christ the Son of God (and the son of man via Mary) was condemned to do die on the Cross convicted of crimes He did not commit. This the Son of God’s sacrifice and redemption price as the only sinless man to restore all believing humanity to the Presence of God. Too often early Christians suffered the same fate as Christ on the Cross. In most cases not voluntarily but as lawbreakers adhering to their faith rather than submitting to the polytheism of the then Roman Empire. TODAY Christians under the control of the ISIS/Daesh Islamic State are being crucified for their faith.

In Islam TODAY the symbol that epitomizes lack of submission to that theopolitical faith is beheading. Below is a four and a half minute video of Bill Warner explaining how beheading is part and parcel to the very nature of Islam. After the video I am cross posting Warner’s link that shows Islamic revered writings – Quran, Hadith and Sira – glorifying beheadings.

JRH 8/28/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Beheading in Islam

By Bill Warner

August 11, 2015

Political Islam

When you hear of beheading, do you assume that Islam is involved? Beheading is an integral part of Islam. Mohammed repeatedly ordered people beheaded and the Koran even includes beheading. Beheading is threatened to settle arguments about Islam. Men were threatened with beheading if they did not become a Muslim. Beheading is mentioned nine times in the Hadith of Bukhari, once in the Koran and 41 times in the Sira. Beheading is recommended and common in the doctrine of Islam.

VIDEO: Beheading in Islam

Published by Political Islam

Published on Aug 11, 2015

To see the references go to:

+++

Beheading in the Koran, Sira and Hadith


Center for the Study of Political Islam

Beheadings in the hadiths of Bukhari

Nine (9) references

Volume 2, Book 23, Number 437:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

Then the Prophet said to him, “I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)” Ibn Saiyad said, “It is Al-Dukh (the smoke).” (2) The Prophet said, “Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits.” On that ‘Umar, said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off.” The Prophet (p.b.u.h) said, “If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot over-power him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him.” (Ibn ‘Umar added): Later on Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) once again went along with Ubai bin Ka’b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet (p.b.u.h) wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet (p.b.u.h) saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad’s mother saw Allah’s Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, “O Saf! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad.” And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, “Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case.

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 829:
Narrated Aisha:

 

(the wife of the Prophet) “Whenever Allah’s Apostle intended to go on a journey, he would draw lots amongst his wives and would take with him the one upon whom the lot fell. During a Ghazwa of his, he drew lots amongst us and the lot fell upon me, and I proceeded with him after Allah had decreed the use of the veil by women. I was carried in a Howdah (on the camel) and dismounted while still in it. When Allah’s Apostle was through with his Ghazwa and returned home, and we approached the city of Medina, Allah’s Apostle ordered us to proceed at night. When the order of setting off was given, I walked till I was past the army to answer the call of nature.

By Allah, I know nothing about my family but good, and they have accused a person about whom I know nothing except good, and he never entered my house except in my company.’

Sad bin Mu’adh got up and said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! by Allah, I will relieve you from him. If that man is from the tribe of the Aus, then we will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, the Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.’ On that Sad bin ‘Ubada, the chief of the Khazraj and before this incident, he had been a pious man, got up, motivated by his zeal for his tribe and said, ‘By Allah, you have told a lie; you cannot kill him, and you will never be able to kill him.’ On that Usaid bin Al-Hadir got up and said (to Sad bin ‘Ubada), ‘By Allah! you are a liar. By Allah, we will kill him; and you are a hypocrite, defending the hypocrites.’ On this the two tribes of Aus and Khazraj got excited and were about to fight each other, while Allah’s Apostle was standing on the pulpit. He got down and quietened them till they became silent and he kept quiet. On that day I kept on weeping so much so that neither did my tears stop, nor could I sleep.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 251:
Narrated ‘Ubaidullah bin Abi Rafi:

 

I heard ‘Ali saying, “Allah’s Apostle sent me, Az-Zubair and Al-Miqdad somewhere saying, ‘Proceed till you reach Rawdat Khakh. There you will find a lady with a letter. Take the letter from her.’ “So, we set out and our horses ran at full pace till we got at Ar-Rawda where we found the lady and said (to her). “Take out the letter.” She replied, “I have no letter with me.” We said, “Either you take out the letter or else we will take off your clothes.” So, she took it out of her braid. We brought the letter to Allah’s Apostle and it contained a statement from Hatib bin Abi Balta a to (sic) some of the Meccan pagans informing them of some of the intentions of Allah’s Apostle. Then Allah’s Apostle said, “O Hatib! What is this?” Hatib replied, “O Allah’s Apostle! Don’t hasten to give your judgment about me. I was a man closely connected with the Quraish, but I did not belong to this tribe, while the other emigrants with you, had their relatives in Mecca who would protect their dependents and property. So, I wanted to recompense for my lacking blood relation to them by doing them a favor so that they might protect my dependents. I did this neither because of disbelief not apostasy nor out of preferring Kufr (disbelief) to Islam.” Allah’s Apostle, said, “Hatib has told you the truth.” Umar said, O Allah’s Apostle! Allow me to chop off the head of this hypocrite.” Allah’s Apostle said, “Hatib participated in the battle of Badr, and who knows, perhaps Allah has already looked at the Badr warriors and said, ‘Do whatever you like, for I have forgiven you.”

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 290d:
Narrated Ibn ‘Umar:

 

Umar and a group of the companions of the Prophet set out with the Prophet to Ibn Saiyad. He found him playing with some boys near the hillocks of Bani Maghala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty. He did not notice (the Prophet’s presence) till the Prophet stroked him on the back with his hand and said, “Ibn Saiyad! Do you testify that I am Allah’s Apostle?” Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, “I testify that you are the Apostle of the illiterates.”

Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet. “Do you testify that I am the apostle of Allah?” The Prophet said to him, “I believe in Allah and His Apostles.” Then the Prophet said (to Ibn Saiyad). “What do you see?” Ibn Saiyad replied, “True people and false ones visit me.” The Prophet said, “Your mind is confused as to this matter.” The Prophet added, “I have kept something (in my mind) for you.” Ibn Saiyad said, “It is Ad-Dukh.” The Prophet said (to him), “Shame be on you! You cannot cross your limits.” On that ‘Umar said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off.” The Prophet said, “If he should be him (i.e. Ad-Dajjal) then you cannot overpower him, and should he not be him, then you are not going to benefit by murdering him.”

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 558:
Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:

 

The Prophet said, “I have been made victorious with As-Saba (i.e. an easterly wind) and the people of ‘Ad were destroyed by Ad-Dabur (i.e. a westerly wind).” Narrated Abu Said: Ali sent a piece of gold to the Prophet who distributed it among four persons: Al-Aqra’ bin Habis Al-Hanzali from the tribe of Mujashi, ‘Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, Zaid At-Ta’i who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Nahban, and ‘Alqama bin Ulatha Al-’Amir who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Kilab. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, “He (i.e. the Prophet,) gives the chief of Najd and does not give us.” The Prophet said, “I give them) so as to attract their hearts (to Islam).” Then a man with sunken eyes, prominent checks, a raised forehead, a thick beard and a shaven head, came (in front of the Prophet) and said, “Be afraid of Allah, O Muhammad!” The Prophet ‘said “Who would obey Allah if I disobeyed Him? (Is it fair that) Allah has trusted all the people of the earth to me while, you do not trust me?” Somebody who, I think was Khalid bin Al-Walid, requested the Prophet to let him chop that man’s head off, but he prevented him. When the man left, the Prophet said, “Among the off-spring of this man will be some who will recite the Qur’an but the Qur’an will not reach beyond their throats (i.e. they will recite like parrots and will not understand it nor act on it), and they will renegade from the religion as an arrow goes through the game’s body. They will kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idolaters. If I should live up to their time’ I will kill them as the people of ‘Ad were killed (i.e. I will kill all of them).”

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 807:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

 

While we were with Allah’s Apostle who was distributing (i.e. some property), there came Dhu-l-Khuwaisira, a man from the tribe of Bani Tamim and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Do Justice.” The Prophet said, “Woe to you! Who could do justice if I did not? I would be a desperate loser if I did not do justice.” ‘Umar said, “O Allah’s Apostle! Allow me to chop his head off.” The Prophet said, “Leave him, for he has companions who pray and fast in such a way that you will consider your fasting negligible in comparison to theirs. They recite Qur’an but it does not go beyond their throats (i.e. they do not act on it) and they will desert Islam as an arrow goes through a victim’s body…

Volume 5, Book 57, Number 91:
Narrated Muhammad:

 

Anas bin Malik said, “The head of Al-Husain was brought to ‘Ubaidullah bin Ziyad and was put in a tray, and then Ibn Ziyad started playing with a stick at the nose and mouth of Al-Husain’s head and saying something about his handsome features.” Anas then said (to him), “Al-Husain resembled the Prophet more than the others did.” Anas added, “His (i.e. Al-Husain’s) hair was dyed with Wasma (i.e. a kind of plant used as a dye).”

Volume 5, Book 59, Number 399:
Narrated Jafar bin ‘Amr bin Umaiya:

 

I said, ‘I will go out to Musailamah so that I may kill him, and make amends for killing Hamza. So I went out with the people (to fight Musailamah and his followers) and then famous events took place concerning that battle. Suddenly I saw a man (i.e. Musailamah) standing near a gap in a wall. He looked like an ash-colored camel and his hair was dishevelled. So I threw my spear at him, driving it into his chest in between his breasts till it passed out through his shoulders, and then an Ansari man attacked him and struck him on the head with a sword. ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar said, ‘A slave girl on the roof of a house said: Alas! The chief of the believers (i.e. Musailamah) has been killed by a black slave.”

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 512:
Narrated Al-Mughira:

 

Sa’d bin ‘Ubada said, “If I saw a man with my wife, I would strike him (behead him) with the blade of my sword.” This news reached Allah’s Apostle who then said, “You people are astonished at Sa’d’s Ghira. By Allah, I have more Ghira than he, and Allah has more Ghira than I, and because of Allah’s Ghira, He has made unlawful Shameful deeds and sins (illegal sexual intercourse etc.) done in open and in secret. And there is none who likes that the people should repent to Him and beg His pardon than Allah, and for this reason He sent the warners and the givers of good news. And there is none who likes to be praised more than Allah does, and for this reason, Allah promised to grant Paradise (to the doers of good).” ‘Abdul Malik said, “No person has more Ghira than Allah.”

Beheadings in the Sira — The Life of Mohammed, A. Guillaume, Oxford University Press, 1982

Fourty-one (41) references

Abu Bakr was enraged and hit Finhas hard in the face, saying, ‘Were it not for the treaty between us I would cut off your head, you enemy of Allah!’ Finhas immediately went to the apostle and said, ‘Look, Muhammad, at what your companion has done.’ The apostle asked Abu Bakr what had impelled him to do such a thing and he answered: ‘The enemy of Allah spoke blasphemy. He alleged that Allah was poor and that they were rich and I was so angry that I hit his face.’ Finhas contradicted this and denied that he had said it, so Allah sent down refuting him and confirming what Abu Bakr had said: ‘Allah has heard the speech of those who say: “Allah is poor and we are rich.” We shall write what they say and their killing the prophets wrongfully and we shall say, Taste the punishment of burning.’– Page 263

This saying reached the apostle’s ears and he said to ‘Umar, ‘O Abu Hafs’-and ‘Umar said that this was the first time the apostle called him by this honorific-’ought the face of the apostle’s uncle to be marked with the sword?’ ‘Umar replied, ‘Let me off with his head! By God, the man is a false Muslim.’2 Abu Hudhayfa used to say, ‘I never felt safe after my words that day. I was always afraid unless martyrdom atoned for them.’ He was killed as a martyr in the battle of al-Yamama. – Page 301

My father Ishaq b. Yasar from men of B. Mazin b. Al-Najjar from Abu Da’ud al-Mazini, who was at Badr, told me: ‘I was pursuing a polytheist at Badr to smite him, when his head fell off before I could get at him with my sword, and I knew that someone else had killed him.’ – Page 303

Mu’awwidh b. ‘Afra’ passed Abu Jahl as he lay there helpless and smote him until he left him at his last gasp. He himself went on fighting until he was killed. Then ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud passed by Abu Jahl when the apostle had ordered that he was to be searched for among the slain. I have heard that the apostle had told them that if he was hidden among the corpses they were to look for the trace of a scar on his knee. When they both were young they had been pressed together at the table of ‘Abdullah b. Jud’an. He was thinner than Abu Jahl and he gave him a push which sent him to his knees and one of them was scratched so deeply that it left a permanent scar. ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud said that he found him at his last gasp and put his foot on his neck (for he had once clawed at him and punched him in Mecca), and said to him: ‘Has God put you to shame, you enemy of God?’ He replied ‘How has He shamed me? Am I anything more remarkable than a man you have killed?’ Tell me how the battle went. He told him that it went in favor of God and His apostle (374).

Men of B. Makhzum assert that Ibn Mas’ud used to say: He said to me, ‘You have climbed high, you little shepherd.’ Then I cut off his head and brought it to the apostle saying, ‘This is the head of the enemy of God, Abu Jahl.’ He said, ‘By God than Whom there is no other, is it?’ (This used to be his oath.) , Yes,’ I said, and I threw his head before the apostle and he gave thanks to God – Page 304

Then God said, ‘Then thy Lord revealed to the angels, I am with you so strengthen those that believe.’ i.e. help those that believe.

‘I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, so strike off their heads and cut off all their fingers, because they opposed God and His apostle and he who opposes God and His apostle (will find)God severe in punishment.’

Then He said, ‘O you who believe, when you meet those who disbelieve on the march, do not turn your backs. He who turns his back except in maneuvering or intending to join another section, incurs the wrath of God, and his destination is Hell, a miserable end.’ i.e. Inciting them against their enemy so that they should not withdraw from them when they met them, God having promised what He had promised. – Page 322

f B. Makhzum b. Yaaza: Abu Taw b. Hisham (Mu’adh b. ‘Ami struck off his leg. His son ‘Ikrima struck off Mu’adh’s hand and he threw it from him; then Mu’awwidh b. ‘Afra’ struck him so that he disabled him leaving him at the last gasp; then ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud quickly dispatched him and cut off his head when the apostle ordered that search should be made among the slain for him); and al-’.As b. Hisham whom ‘Umar killed; and Yazid b. ‘Abdullah, an ally from B. Tamim (511); and Abu Musafi’ al-A. – Page 338

When we met there was no way out
Save with a thrust from dun-colored straight-fashioned shafts
And a blow with swords which severed their heads,
Swords that glittered as they smote.
We left the erring ‘Utba lying dead
And Shayba among the slain thrown in the well; – Page 340

Nothing matters if you fail to take revenge on ‘Amr’s slayers.
With waving swords flashing in Your hands like lightning
Sending heads flying as they glitter.
As it were the tracks of ants on their blades
When they are unsheathed against the evil-eyed enemy. -Page 341

Who will send a messenger from me
With news that a shrewd man will confirm?
Do not you know how I kept returning to the fight at Badr
When the swords flashed around you,
When the army’s leaders were left prostrate,
Their heads like slices of melon?
A gloomy fate, to the people’s hurt,
Came upon you in the valley of Badr;
My resolution saved them from disaster
And God’s help and a well-conceived plan.
I returned alone from al-Abwa’ – Page 536

The apostle said, ‘Kill any Jew that fails into your power.’ Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Mas’ud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna (579), a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, ‘You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?’ Muhayyisa answered, ‘Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.’ He said that this was the beginning of Huwayyisa’s acceptance of Islam. The other replied, ‘By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?’ He said, ‘Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.’ He exclaimed, ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvellous!’ and he became a Muslim. – Page 368

When (war) rubbed its breast in Quba”

And the slaughter waxed hot among the ‘Abdu’l-Ashhai.

Then they were nimble in flight

Like young ostriches running up a hill.

We killed a double number of their nobles

And adjusted the inequality of Badr.

I do not blame myself, but

Had we returned we should have made a clean sweep of them,

With Indian swords above their heads

Delivering blow after blow. – Page 408

What scared them suddenly in the valley was

Squadrons of horse coming forth to the battle.

They wanted to plunder our tents,

But protecting those tents that day were shattering blows.

They were tents that have always been protected,

If a people made for them they would be spoiled and meet our rage.

The heads of the Khazrajis that morning

By the side of Sal’ were like sliced melons,

And their hands holding Yamani swords were like barwaq – Page 622

Then he went to Quraysh and said to Abu Sufyan b. Harb and his company: ‘You know my affection for you and that I have left Muhammad. Now I have heard something which I think it my duty to tell you of by way of warning, but regard it as confidential.’ When they said that they would, he continued: ‘Mark my words, the Jews have regretted their action in opposing Muhammad and have sent to tell him so, saying: “Would you like us to get hold of some chiefs of the two tribes Quraysh and Ghatafan and hand them over to you so that you can cut their heads off? Then we can join you in exterminating the rest of them.’ He has sent word back to accept their offer; so if the Jews send to you to demand hostages, don’t send them a single man.’ – Page 459

Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe (710) in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, I with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, ‘By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.’ Then he went to the men and said, ‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off. – Page 464

When he returned and told him that the apostle had spared his life he said, ‘What does an old man without family and without children want with life?’ Thabit went again to the apostle, who promised to give him his wife and children. When he told him he said, ‘How can a household in the Hijaz live without property?’ Thabit secured the apostle’s promise that his property would be restored and came and told him so, and he said, ‘O Thabit, what has become of him whose face was like a Chinese mirror in which the virgins of the tribe could see themselves, Ka ‘b b. Asad?’ ‘Killed,’ he said. ‘And what of the prince of the Desert and the Sown, Huyayy b. Akhtab?’ ‘Killed.’ ‘And what of our vanguard when we attacked and our rearguard when we fled (T. returned to the charge), ‘Azzal b. Samaw’al?’ ‘Killed.’ ‘And what of the two assemblies?’ meaning B. Ka’b b. Qurayza and B. ‘Amr b. Qurayza. ‘Killed.’ He said, ‘Then! ask of you, Thabit, by my claim on you that you join me with my people, for life holds no joy now that they are dead, and I cannot bear to wait another momentI to meet my loved ones.’ So Thabit went up to him and struck off his head.

When Abu Bakr heard of his words ‘until I meet my loved ones’ he said, ‘Yes, by Allah he will meet them in hell for ever and ever’ – Page 466

His mother said when his bier was being carried, as she was weeping:

Alas Umm Sa’d for Sa’d the brave and bold,

Leader glorious, knight ever ready,

Stepping into the breach, cutting heads to pieces. – Page 468

We besieged them for one whole month

Standing over them like conquerors.

Night and morning every day

We attacked them fully armed;

Sharp swords in our hands

Cutting through heads and skulls.

‘Twas as though their gleam when they were drawn – Page 470

Abu Qatada has been killed.’ The apostle said that it was not Abu Qatada but a man he had killed and covered with his mantle so that they might know that he was his prey. ‘Ukasha overtook Aubar and his son ‘Amr who were riding the same camel, and ran them through with his lance, killing the two of them at one stroke. They recovered some of the milch-camels. The apostle went forward until he halted at the mountain of Dhu Qarad, and the men joined him there, and he stopped there for a day and a night. Salama b. al-Akwa’ asked if he might go with a hundred men and recover the rest of the herd and cut off the heads of the band. – Page 488

Ka’b b. Malik said concerning the day of Dhu Qarad with reference to the horsemen:

Do the bastards think that we

Are not their equals in horsemanship?

We are men who think killing no shame,

We turn not from the piercing lances.

We feed the guest with choicest camels’ meat

And smite the heads of the haughty.

We turn back the conspicuous warriors in their pride

With blows that quash the zeal of the unyielding. – Page 489

‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me that ‘Abdullah came to the apostle, saying, ‘I have heard that you want to kill ‘Abdullah b. Ubayy for what you have heard about him. If you must do it, then order me to do it and I will bring you his head, for al-Khazraj know that they have no man more dutiful to his father than I, and I am afraid that if you order someone else to kill him my soul will not permit me to see his slayer waiking among men and I shall kill him, thus killing a believer for an unbeliever, and so I should go to hell.’ The apostle said: ‘Nay, but let us deal kindly with him and make much of his companionship while he is with us.’ After that it happened that if any misfortune befell it was his own people who re­proached and upbraided him roughly. The apostle said to ‘Umar when he heard of this state of things: ‘Now what do you think, ‘Umar? Had I killed him on the day you wanted me to kill him the leading men would have trembled with rage. If I ordered them to kill him today they would kill him.’ ‘Umar replied, ‘I know that the apostle’s order is more blessed than mine. – Page 492

Kinana b. al-Rabi’, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-’Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud. – Page 515

Get out of his way, you unbelievers, make way.2

Every good thing goes with His apostle.

O Lord I believe in his word,

I know God’s truth in accepting it.

We will fight you about its interpretation3

As we have fought you about its revelation

With strokes that will remove heads from shoulders

And make friend unmindful of friend – Page 531

It pained me though I did not see in Mecca’s valley

The men of Banu Ka’b with their heads cut off

By men who had not drawn their swords

And the many dead who were left unburied.2

Would that I knew if my help with its biting satire3

Would injure Suhayl b. ‘Amr, and Safwan

That old camel who groans from his arse.

This is the time for war-its girths are tightened.

Don’t feel safe from us, son of Umm Mujalid,

When its pure milk is extracted and its teeth are crooked.

Don’t be disappointed, for our swords

Will open the door to death – Page 544

The apostle summoned Hatib and asked him what induced him to act thus. He replied that he believed in God and His apostle and had never ceased to do so, but that he was not a man of standing among Quraysh and he had a son and a family there and that he had to deal prudently with them for their sakes. ‘Umar wanted to cut off his head as a hypocrite but the apostle said, ‘How do you know, ‘Umar; perhaps God looked favorably on those who were at Badr and said, “Do as you please, for I have forgiven you.’” – Page 545

Abu Sufyan was saying, ‘I have never seen such fires and such a camp before.’ Budayl was saying, ‘These, by God, are (the fires of) Khuza’a which war has kindled.’ Abu Sufyan was saying, ‘Khuza’a are too poor and few to have fires and camps like these.’ I recognized his voice and called to him and he recognized my voice. I told him that the apostle was here with his army and expressed concern for him and for Quraysh: ‘If he takes you he will behead you, so ride on the back of this mule so that I can take you to him and ask for you his protection.’ So he rode behind me and his two companions returned. – Page 547

I said to him, ‘Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,’ so he did so. I pointed out to the apostle that Abu Sufyan was a man who liked to have some cause for pride and asked him to do something for him. He said, ‘He who enters Abu Sufyan’s house is safe, and he who locks his door is safe, and he who enters the mosque is safe.’ When he went off to go back the apostle told me to detain him in the narrow part of the wadi where the mountain projected1 so that God’s armies would pass by and he would see them; so I went and detained him where the prophet had ordered. – Page 547, 548

The latter hid him until he brought him to the apostle after the situation in Mecca was tranquil, and asked that he might be granted immunity. They allege that the apostle remained silent for a long time till finally he said yes. When ‘Uthman had left he said to his companions who were sitting around him, ‘I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Then why didn’t you give me a sign, O apostle of God?’ He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing – Page 550

A traditionist of B. Jadhima who was one of our companions told me: ‘When Khalid ordered us to lay down our arms one of our men called Jahdam said, “Woe to you, B. Jadhima! This is Khalid. If you lay down your arms you will be bound, and after you have been bound you will be beheaded. By God, I’ll never lay down my arms.” Some of his people laid hold of him saying “Do you want to shed our blood? Everyone else has accepted Islam and laid down their arms; war is over and everybody is safe. “They persisted to the point of taking away his arms, and they them­selves laid down their arms at Khalid’s word.’ – Page 561

The same authority told me that she said: ‘May your life be prolonged seven and ten continuous years and eight thereafter.’ Then I took him away and he was beheaded. Abu Firas b. Abu Sunbula al-Aslami from some of their shaykhs from one who was present said: She went to him when he was beheaded and bent over him and kept on kissing him until she died at his side. – Page 564

The young man did not know him and Durayd asked him what he wanted and what was his name. He told him and said that he wanted to kill him, and struck him with his sword to no effect. Durayd said, ‘What a poor weapon your mother has given you! Take this sword of mine that is behind the saddle in the howdah and strike me with that above the spine and below the head, for that is the way I used to strike men. Then when you come to your mother tell her that you have killed Durayd b. al-Simma, for many’s the day I have protected your women.” – Page 574

A man with sharp weapons as though

When the enemy surrounded him he saw you.4

He attacked those of (his) kith and kin

Seeking only to please God and you.

I tell you I saw him charging in clouds of dust

Crushing the heads of the polytheists;

Now throttling with bare hands,

Now splitting their skulls with his sharp sword. – Page 577, 578

The day we trod down the unbelievers

And found no deviation or turning from the apostle’s order.

In a battle mid which the people heard only

Our exhortations to fight and the smashing of skulls

By swords that sent heads flying from their base

And severed the necks of warriors at a blow.

Often have we left the slain cut to pieces

And a widow crying Alas! over her husband.

‘Tis God not man we seek to please;

To Him belongs the seen and the unseen. – Page 580

By God’s command we smote those we met

In accordance with the best command.

When we met, O Hawazin,

We were saturating heads with fresh blood.

When you and B. Qasiy assembled

We crushed opposition like beaten leaves.

Some of your chiefs we slew

And we turned to kill both fugitive and standfast.

Al-Multath lay with outstretched hands,

His dying breath sounding like a gasping young camel. – Page 586

‘Asim b. ‘Umar b. Qatada told me that one of the Ansar leapt upon him asking to be allowed to behead the enemy of God, but the apostle told him to let him alone because he had come repentant breaking away from his past. Ka ‘b was angry at this tribe of the Ansar because of what this man had done and moreover the men of the Muhajirin spoke only well of him. – Page 598

Al-Zuhri alleged that when they brought him to crucify him he said:

Tell the chiefs of the Muslims that I

Surrender to my Lord my body and my bones.

Then they beheaded him and hung him up by that water.

May God have mercy on him! – Page 645

Then he said, ‘You are the people who when they were driven away pushed forward,’ and they remained silent, and none of them answered him. He repeated the words three times without getting an answer, and the fourth time Yazid b. Abdu’l-Madan said, ‘Yes, we are,’ and said it four times. The apostle said, ‘If Khalid had not written to me that you had accepted Islam and had not fought I would throw your heads beneath your feet.’ Yazid answered, ‘We do not praise you and we do not praise Khalid.’ – Page 646

Mas’ud al-Ashja’i from his father Nu’aym: I heard the apostle saying to them when he read his letter ‘What do you say about it?’ They said that they said the same as Musaylima. He replied, ‘By God, were it not that heralds are not to be killed I would behead the pair of you!’ Then he wrote to Musaylima: ‘From Muhammad the apostle of God to Musaylima the liar. Peace be upon him who follows the guidance. I The earth is God’s. He lets whom He will of His creatures inherit it and the result is to the pious.’2 This was at the end of the year 10. – Page 649

’Amr asked him who he was, and when he told him he said: ‘Let it be one of your uncles who is older than you, my nephew, for I don’t want to shed your blood.’ ‘Ali answered, ‘But I do want to shed your blood.’ He became angry, and drew his sword which flashed like fire, and advanced in his anger (it is said that he was mounted). ‘Ali said to him, ‘How can I fight you when you are on a horse? Dismount and be on a level with me.’ So he got off his horse and came at him and ‘Ali advanced with his shield. ‘Amr Aimed a blow which cut deeply into the shield so that the sword stuck in it and struck his head. But ‘Ali gave him a blow on the vein at the base of the neck and he fell to the ground. The dust rose and the apostle heard the cry, ‘Allah Akbar’ and knew that ‘Ali had killed him. [Suhayli continues:] As he came towards the apostle smiling with joy ‘U mar asked him if he had stripped him of his armor, for it was the best that could be found among the Arabs. He answered: ‘When I had struck him down he turned his private parts towards me and I felt ashamed to despoil him and moreover he had said that he did not want to shed my blood because my father was a friend of his. – Page 458

“I seem to see Ja’far when he got off his sorrel and hamstrung her and then fought until he was killed as he said:

Welcome Paradise so near,

Sweet and cool to drink its cheer.

Greeks will soon have much to fear Infidels, of descent unclear

When we meet their necks I’ll shear.’” – Page 534

I pierced Ibn Zafila b. al-Irash with a spear

Which went through him and then broke.

I gave his neck a blow

So that he bent like a bough of mimosa.

We led off the wives of his cousins

On the day of Raquqayn as sheep – Page 536

In a battle mid which the people heard only

Our exhortations to fight and the smashing of skulls

By swords that sent heads flying from their base

And severed the necks of warriors at a blow.

Often have we left the slain cut to pieces

And a widow crying Alas! over her husband.

‘Tis God not man we seek to please;

To Him belongs the seen and the unseen. – Page 580

 

Beheadings in the Koran

One (1) reference

8:12 God revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!’

______________________

Beheading in Islam

© 2007-2015 CSPI, LLC. all rights reserved.

 

Political Islam About Page

 

What is Islam?

Islam is a cultural, religious and political system. Only the political system is of interest to kafirs (non-Muslims) since it determines how we are defined and treated. The Islamic political system is contained in the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of Mohammed) and his biography, the Sira.

 

Our Mission

Political Islam has subjugated other civilizations for 1400 years. Our mission is to educate the world about political Islam, its founder Mohammed, his political doctrine and his god, Allah.

 

The Five Principles

Islam’s Trilogy of three sacred texts is the Koran and two books about the life of Mohammed. When the Trilogy is sorted, categorized, arranged, rewritten and analyzed, it becomes apparent that five principles are the foundation of Islam.

 

All of Islam is based upon the Trilogy—KoranSira (Mohammed’s biography) and Hadith (his Traditions).


Most of the Islamic doctrine is political, not religious. Islam is a political ideology.

Islam divides the world into Muslims and unbelievers, kafirs.

 

Political Islam always has two different ways to treat kafirs—dualistic ethics. Kafirs can be abused in the worst ways or they can be treated like a good neighbor.

 

Kafirs must submit to Islam in READ THE REST

________________________

Beheading in the Koran, Sira and Hadith

 

© 2007-2015 CSPI, LLC

 

About Page – CSPI Publications

 

Books, eBooks, and Audio Books by Dr. Bill Warner are available online at politicalislam.com and from popular retail distributors.

 

More Info

 

About CSPI Books

 

Our books make Islam easy to understand. There is one sure way to knowing Islam — know Allah and know Mohammed. This used to be very hard to do, but just like science made computers easy to use, scientific analysis has made Allah and Mohammed accessible and interesting.

 

Allah is found in the Koran which is famous for being impossible to read, but today anyone with curiosity can pick it up, read it and comprehend it.

 

To know Islam, you must know Mohammed. His life, called the Sira, and sayings, called Hadith, are the foundations of Islam. It is more important to know Mohammed than the Koran. Our books will show you one of history’s interesting leaders.

 

Our books will give you ease of learning and a firm foundation of understanding.

 

Primary Doctrine Books

 

Islam has three sacred texts-the Koran, the Sira (life of Mohammed), and the Hadith (traditions of Mohammed). These are the foundations of Islam. All of Islamic religious and political doctrine are found in them.

 

Until now these books were unavailable to the average reader. The READ THE REST

Truism: Abdulazeez the Islamic Jihadi Terrorist


John R. Houk

© July 21, 2015

I’ve been reading and listening to the Mainstream Media (MSM) paint the murderous actions of Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez as the work of a mentally ill person breaking down from the affairs of life causing depression followed by a mass murder spree that resulted in death by police officer.

After all Americans understand that people who draw themselves into the desperation of depression can snap and commit suicide or worse homicide/homicides. When a homicidal person is caught the courts must determine if that person is competent to stand trial and if not, sent right to the wacky bin by the white coats until some psychologist/psychiatrist decides they are no longer a harm to themself or society at large.

In the case of incompetence to stand trial the victim or victims and the victim’s loved ones will not see justice served. It is likely this scenario rubs the loved ones the wrong way from disappointment to extreme dissatisfaction depending on the heinousness of the homicide.

In the case of M.Y. Abdulazeez who died in his homicidal actions the American legal system proceeds in an investigation to see what motivated the murderous rampage. Was Abdulazeez a depressed lunatic that snapped or following an ideology that brings terror to a population intended to induce fear leading to the submission of the ideological principles that followers believe is better for society in the long view.

Most of the MSM is promoting the poor fellow who snapped from depression scenario. I’m not so sure the MSM’s analysis is accurate.

I do give the point that Abdulazeez was depressed. AND that depression led him to choices in lifestyle that a good Quranic following Muslim would feel some serious guilt over. Abdulazeez went down the road of alcohol and drugs. Such actions are specifically forbidden in Islam. If Islam has a concept of sin, Abdulazeez committed sin.

If a Christian person succumbs to an addiction and guilt surfaces three things occur:

1) The person may be so oppressed by their feelings of guilt that a false sense that life is no longer worth living – hence suicide.

2) A Christian’s guilt of sinful addiction might lead to the belief that their life is unredeemable and so a dark-side lifestyle become adopted leading to sadness of an unredeemed death. Indeed the forsaken unredeemed lifestyle probably will be an ungodly influence on others or even worse lead to murder.

3) A Christian’s guilt of sinful addiction that reaching a rock bottom situation leads to repentance and a return to God’s Grace via God’s Mercy. The addiction may not end immediately but a determination to live a life of Christ always seeking the strength of brothers and/or sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez was a Muslim. What does a Muslim do to recover from acts or lifestyles deemed sinful by Islam? Abdulazeez’s sin that has become public knowledge is drug and alcohol abuse. At QuranForAll.org this question is placed: How much alcohol and drugs does the religion allow?

Here are some excepted answers credited to “Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi”:

“The first declaration made by the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, concerning this matter was that not only is Khamr (wine or alcohol) prohibited but that the definition of Khamr extends to any substance that intoxicates, in whatever form or under whatever name it may appear. Thus, beer and similar drinks are haram.

The Prophet … was once asked about certain drinks made from honey, corn, or barley by the process of fermenting them until they became alcoholic. The Prophet … succinctly replied, “Every intoxicant is Khamr, and every Khamr is haram.” Reported by Muslim.)

And `Umar … declared from the pulpit of the Prophet … that “Khamr is that which befogs the mind.”(Reported by Al-Bukhari and Muslim.)

Islam takes an uncompromising stand in prohibiting intoxicants, regardless of whether the amount is little or much. If an individual is permitted to take but a single step along this road, other steps follow; he starts walking and then running, and does not stop at any stage. …

Prohibition of Drugs:

“Khamr is what befogs the mind.” … from the pulpit of the Prophet … providing us with a decisive criterion for defining what falls under the prohibited category of khamr. There remains then no room for doubts and questions: any substance which has the effect of befogging or clouding the mind, impairing its faculties of thought, perception, and discernment is prohibited by Allah and His Messenger … and will remain so until the Day of Judgment.

Drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, opium, and the like are definitely included in the prohibited category of khamr. …

Muslim jurists are unanimous on the prohibition of those drugs which were found during their respective times and places. Foremost among them was Sheikh al-IslamIbn Taymiyyah, who said: “This solid grass (hashish) is haram, whether or not it produces intoxication. Sinful people smoke it because they imagine it producing rapture and delight, an effect similar to drunkenness. While wine makes the one who drinks it active and quarrelsome, hashish produces dullness and lethargy; furthermore, smoking it disturbs the mind and temperament, excites sexual desire, and leads to shameless promiscuity, and these are greater evils than those caused by drinking. … The[y] had (prescribed punishment) for smoking hashish, whether a small or large amount of it, is the same as that for drinking wine, that is, eighty or forty lashes.

He explained the imposition of hadd for smoking hashish in the following manner: It is the rule of the Islamic Shari’ah that any prohibited thing which is desired by people, such as wine and illicit sexual relations, is to be punished by imposing hadd… Now hashish is something desired and craved for, and it is hard for the addict to renounce it. Accordingly, the application of the texts of the Qur’an and Sunnah to hashish is similar to that of wine. (Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah, vol. 4, p. 262 f. Also see his book, As-Siyasah Ash-Shar’iyyah.) (Islam Prohibits Alcohol and Drugs; Attributed to Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi; QuranForAll.org)

Blog Note: I am placing explanatory links to some of Arab/Islamic terms. Those links are not by QuranForAll.org.

Here is a question to ask in relation to Abdulazeez’s homicidal rampage and death by policeman: Might Abdulazeez think his sinful addiction (according to Islam) was so incurable that a way to be right with Allah was to participate in jihad against the infidel and in being killed receive the rewards of a shahid (shaheed, et al), i.e. a martyr for Allah?

What are the six characteristics of the martyrs (shahid) taught to us from our beloved Prophet Muhammad?

“The martyr (shaheed) has seven blessings from Allaah: he is forgiven from the moment his blood is first shed; he will be shown his place in Paradise; he will be spared the trial of the grave; and he will be secure on the Day of the Greatest Terror (the Day of Judgement); there will be placed on his head a crown of dignity, one ruby of which is better than this world and all that is in it; he will be married to seventy-two of al-hoor al-‘iyn [or Houris: HERE and HERE]; and he will be permitted to intercede for seventy of his relatives.”

… (8511: The six blessings of the martyrs; By Shaykh Waleed al-Firyaan; IslamQA.info)

And here:

“And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allaah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision.” (Aal-‘Imraan: 169).’

“A martyr has six bounties: He will be forgiven with the first drop of his blood that is spilt; He will see his place in Paradise (at the time of death); He will be saved from the ‘Great Horror’ (on the Day of Judgment): A Crown of Dignity will be placed on his head, which contains many corundums, each one being more precious than this life and all that it contains; He will have seventy two Women of Paradise; And, he will be allowed to intercede for seventy of his family members (who would have otherwise gone to hell).” (Tirmidhi & Ibn Maajah).

… (Khutbah – The Virtues Of Martyrdom; By Usaamah Khayyaat; trans. by Hazem Ragab; ed. by Nasim Chowdhury; alminbar.com)

Hmm … It is my opinion was less a lunatic and more a depressed Muslim who viewed being a shahid/martyr for Islam a way to end his turmoil and go straight to the Islamic conception of Paradise.

Abdulazeez’s own two-entry blog indicates he was a jihadi-shahid willing to die for Paradise to avoid hell-fire. Freedom Outpost quotes some insights from The Daily Beast pertaining to Abdulazeez’s blog/diary:

“Read Chattanooga Shooter’s Blog,” The Daily Beast July 15, 2015

The killer of four U.S. Marines in Chattanooga maintained a short-lived blog that hinted at his religious inner life. Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s blog had only two posts, both published July 13 and written in a popular style of Islamic religious reasoning. The first post was entitled “A Prison Called Dunya,” referring to the temporal world. In it, Abdulazeez uses the hypothetical example of a prisoner who is told he would be given a test that would either take him out of his earthly prison—or send him into a more restrictive environment.” I would imagine that any sane person would devote their time to mastering the information on the study guide and stay patient with their studies, only giving time for the other things around to keep themselves focused on passing the exam,” Abdulazeez wrote. “They would do this because they know and have been told that they will be rewarded with pleasures that they have never seen.” This life is that test, he wrote, “designed to separate the inhabitants of Paradise from the inhabitants of Hellfire.”

The second post is called “Understanding Islam: The Story of the Three Blind Men.” It suggests Abdulazeez felt his fellow Muslims had a “certain understanding of Islam and keep a tunnel vision of what we think Islam is.” He uses the example of blind men who feel an elephant but can’t quite tell what the creature is. He says Muslims have a similar understanding of the earliest companions of the Prophet Muhammad. That they were “like priests living in monasteries is not true,” he says; rather they were “towards the end of the lives were either a mayor of a town, governor of a state, or leader of an army at the frontlines.” We ask Allah to make us follow their path,” Abdulazeez wrote. “To give us a complete understanding of the message of Islam, and the strength the live by this knowledge, and to know what role we need to play to establish Islam in the world.”— Katie Zavadski (Chattanooga Jihad Shooter’s Blog: “We Need…to Establish Islam in the World”; By Pamela Geller; Freedom Outpost; July 17, 2015 8:58 am)

If the American media and the American Left solely blame Abdulazeez’s murder rampage on mental illness then they might consider all Muslims who believe the Quran is the uncreated word of Allah as mentally ill. Islam’s Hadith, Sira-Sunnah do not hold the same divine value to Muslims as the Quran; nonetheless those commentaries are extremely revered ESPECIALLY if they rise to the level of authentic by Islamic theologians. The Quran, Hadith and Sira according to the later surahs overrule or abrogate the message of earlier passage. AND keep in mind the order of the Quran is NOT chronological but rather is from largest to smallest in size.

The FBI seems to believe Abdulazeez had zero connection to ISIS as if that merely makes him mentally disturbed or ill. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. That which is relevant is his interpretation of the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Abdulazeez’s interpretation is to believe what it says. That makes him an American traitor devoted to the validity of Islam over the U.S. Constitution as an institution of the rule of law in America guaranteeing WE THE PEOPLE the enfranchised power over a Federal government. Islam’s Sharia Law cannot coexist with America’s Founding Documents.

Pamela Geller’s post “Chattanooga Jihadi’s Anti-American Diary: Wanted to be a Suicide Martyr for Islam” inspired my thoughts on Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez motivation to kill Americans in uniform. Below is the cross post.

JRH 7/21/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Chattanooga Jihadi’s Anti-American Diary: Wanted to be a Suicide Martyr for Islam

 

By Pamela Geller

July 20, 2015

PamelaGeller.com – Atlas Shrugs

 

He hated America and loved Islam. He wanted to be a suicide martyr. So what does the media focus on? The fact that he smoked marijuana and drank.

Millions of people smoke pot, take prescription pills, drink alcohol — they don’t carry out a premeditated slaughter of Americans in cold-blood.

Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez did not gun down US soldiers on American soil because he was high on pot.

He was waging holy war in the cause of Islam against “the great Satan.”

As for his family’s remarks, here’s all you need to know about them.

FBI recovers Chattanooga gunman’s ‘anti-American diary’ which reveals his anger at the war on terror, a growing dependence on drugs and his desire to commit suicide to become a ‘martyr’

Some of Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez’s newly uncovered writings are more than year old Representative of Abdulazeez’s family says he wrote about wanting to commit suicide as far back as 2013

The 24-year-old Kuwaiti national was thousands of dollars in debt and was considering filing or bankruptcy

Abdulazeez was struggling with addiction to prescription pills, illegal drugs and alcohol, and was battling depression, according to family spokesman

Had trouble sleeping after he took on 12-hour overnight shift at a plant
By Snejana Farberov For Dailymail.com and Associated Press Reporter

Federal investigators have discovered writings by the Chattanooga gunman in which he talked about his dissatisfaction with the US war on terror and expressed other anti-American sentiments, it was revealed today.

Two sources familiar with the case, including a law enforcement official, said some of Mohammad Abdulazeez’s writings are more than a year old and are consistent with a suicidal mindset, reported CNN.

While Abdulazeez sometimes expressed misgivings about US policy in the Mideast, his feelings didn’t seem extreme and there was no indication he was involved with terrorist groups while in Jordan, a family representative said. There was also no immediate explanation for why he targeted military sites in the attack.

Earlier today, the family of the Chattanooga shooter revealed that in his personal diary, the 24-year-old Kuwait-born man who was gunned down by police after he shot and killed five service members in Tennessee had laid out his struggles with suicidal thoughts, financial woes and legal troubles related to his drug addiction.

The gunman’s journal, according to the Abdulazeez family spokesman speaking exclusively to ABC News, paints a portrait of a troubled youth who wrote about committing suicide and ‘becoming a martyr’ as far back as 2013, around the time when he was fired from his job because of his addiction to prescription pills and illegal narcotics.

The family representative said the electrical engineering student was addicted to sleeping pills, painkillers, opioids, marijuana, as well as alcohol.

In his diary, according to the spokesperson, Abdulazeez wrote about how he struggled to work a 12-hour night shift and had to take pills so he could fall asleep during the day.

Abdulazeez was also considering filing for bankruptcy because he was heavily in debt.

On April 20, the 24-year-old Kuwaiti national was arrested on a DUI charge.

The family representative said Abdulazeez was first treated by a child psychiatrist for depression when he was 12 or 13 years old.

The 24-year-old also fought drug and alcohol abuse, spending several months in Jordan last year to help clean himself up.

The representative said relatives of Abdulazeez believe those personal struggles are at the heart of last week’s killings at a pair of military sites in Chattanooga.

‘They do not know of anything else to explain it,’ said the representative Sunday on condition of anonymity.

The claim fits a pattern of behavior by Abdulazeez that includes a drunken driving arrest earlier this year and the loss of a job over a failed drug test.

Several years ago, relatives tried to have Abdulazeez admitted to an in-patient program for drug and alcohol abuse but a health insurer refused to approve the expense, said the representative.

Two days before the deadly shootings in Chattanooga, Abdulazeez rented a silver Mustang convertible, arrived at a local mosque and took a friend on a joy ride that lasted until 3am.

‘He bragged about [the car], and was showing it off to friends about how fast it would go,’ the Abdulazeez family spokesperson said Sunday.

Teresa Jennings (2nd L) and Miranda Jennings (3rd R) hold candles as they joins others at the East Ridge United Methodist Church for a Sunday prayer service to honor the four slain Marines and one Navy sailor

Five American flags in honor of the five killed are seen lain out in the memorial near the Armed Forces Career Center/National Guard Recruitment Office

Sophia Ensley, right, and Barbie Branum embrace in front of a makeshift memorial at the Navy Operational Support Center and Marine Corps Reserve Center Saturday

Chattanooga shooting ‘being treated as act of terrorism’

FBI are now trying to shed light on the gunman’s movements and actions from the time he dropped off his friend until he pulled up to a strip mall in Chattanooga and started shooting through the glass windows of a military recruitment office at 11am Thursday.

The rampage left four Marines and one US Navy sailor dead. Two days later, a lawyer representing the family of Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez released a statement apologizing to the relatives of the victims.

‘There are no words to describe our shock, horror, and grief,’ read the statement. ‘The person who committed this horrible crime was not the son we knew and loved. For many years, our son suffered from depression. It grieves us beyond belief to know that his pain found its expression in this heinous act of violence.’

Several years earlier, relatives tried to have Abdulazeez admitted to an in-patient program for drug and alcohol abuse but a health insurer refused to approve the expense, said the family spokesperson.

‘He was medicated like many children are. Through high school and college he did a better job sometimes than others staying with it,’ the representative said.

Evangelist Andrew Green from the Highways and Hedges Ministry preaches near the Armed Forces Career Center/National Guard Recruitment Office which had been shot up on July 16 in Chattanooga

Keari Anderson walks through the memorial near the Armed Forces Career Center/National Guard Recruitment Office

Abdulazeez had spent several months in Jordan last year under a mutual agreement with his parents to help him get away from drugs, alcohol and a group of friends who relatives considered a bad influence, the representative said.

Counterterrorism investigators continued to interview Abdulazeez’s acquaintances and delve into his visit to Jordan, looking for clues to whom or what might have influenced him and set off the bloodshed.

FBI spokesman Jason Pack declined comment on whether investigators were pursuing mental health records for Abdulazeez. But FBI Special Agent Ed Reinhold told reporters at a recent news conference about the case that agents were looking into all aspects of his life and had not yet turned up any connections to Islamic terrorist groups.

The representative said Abdulazeez had owned guns for years, going back to when he was a child shooting at squirrels and targets, and called himself an ‘Arab redneck’ or ‘Muslim redneck.’

A year after graduating from college with an engineering degree, Abdulazeez lost a job at a nuclear power plant in Ohio in May 2013 because of what a federal official described as a failed drug test.

Recently, Abdulazeez had begun working the night shift at a manufacturing plant and was taking medication to help with problems sleeping in the daytime, the representative said, and he also had a prescription for muscle relaxants because of a back problem.

Members of the FBI Evidence Response Team continue to investigate the shooting at the Armed Forces Career Center/National Guard Recruitment Office July 18

FBI are now trying to shed light on the gunman’s movements and actions leading up to the moment he pulled up outside the recruitment center in Chattanooga and opened fire

It’s unknown what substances were in the man’s system at the time of the killings, but toxicology tests should provide an answer.

After returning from his time overseas, Abdulazeez was arrested on a charge of driving under the influence in the pre-dawn hours on April 20.

A police report said he told a Chattanooga officer he also was with friends who had been smoking marijuana. The report said Abdulazeez, who had white powder on his nose when he was stopped, told the officer he also had sniffed powdered caffeine.

______________________________________

Truism: Abdulazeez the Islamic Jihadi Terrorist

John R. Houk

© July 21, 2015

___________________________________

Chattanooga Jihadi’s Anti-American Diary: Wanted to be a Suicide Martyr for Islam

 

About Pamela Geller

 

Pamela Geller is the founder, editor and publisher of Atlas Shrugs.com and President of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and Stop Islamization of America (SIOA). She is the author of The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, with Robert Spencer (foreword by Ambassador John Bolton) (Simon & Schuster) and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance (WND Books). She is also a regular columnist for World Net Dailythe American ThinkerBreitbart.com and other publications.

 

Geller’s activism on behalf of human rights has won international notice. She is a foremost defender of the freedom of speech against attempts to force the West to accept Sharia blasphemy laws, and against Sharia self-censorship by Western media outlets. Her First Amendment lawsuits filed nationwide have rolled back attempts to limit Americans’ free speech rights and limit speech to only one political perspective, and exposed attempts to make an end-run around the First Amendment by illegitimately restricting access to public fora. Her free speech event in Garland, Texas led to the capture or killing of several murderous jihadists, smoking out terror cells, leading to an increase in the threat level to BRAVO and READ THE REST