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

 

Addressing ‘mohammedbasha’ Comment Promoting Islam


John R. Houk

© November 13, 2019

 

Photo capture of website exposing Origins of Islamic Culture. CLICK HERE then scroll to bottom of page to click image info.

 

At my SlantRight 2.0 blog I have comments set for moderation ONLY. The reason most comment are of a spam advertising nature – some product oriented and some just vulgar porn. Along that same line I typically IGNORE off the bat when a comment is authored by “Anonymous”. Once in a while out of the corner of my eye I might an “Anonymous” commenter with a valid comment to a post – that person would get lucky and get added as a comment. BUT that would be few and far between and especially RARE.

 

Here is the reason for going over comment practices on the SlantRight 2.0 blog. I actually got a comment to moderate from an individual self-identified as “mohammedbasha”.  If you go to mohammedbasha’s Blogger profile page the info on identity is quite pseudonymous yet quite obviously the image of a Muslim Apologist. In case you are unaware, like American Dems Muslim Apologists at worst outright lie or at best so brainwashed by their religious leaders are sadly deceived to believe infamous actions are good for humanity. Here is a copy and paste of mohammedbasha’s Blogger profile page:

 

My blogs

 

 

Contact me

 

 

On Blogger since October 2019

 

About me

 

Industry: Religion

 

Occupation: Consultant

 

Location: Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

 

Since mohammedbasha was good enough to not post “anonymous” I first examined the post being commented on which is “Where do You Stand: Keramer vs Johnston?” posted on 11/4/17. The purpose of that post hopefully summed up in these excerpts:

 

On 11/2 I vented a bit about the hypocrisy of the Mainstream Media (MSM) reporting like wimps on the Islamic terrorist attack by Sayfullo Saipov in Manhattan. Saipov killed eight and injured many others on Halloween for Allah, Muhammad and ISIS.

 

I shared the blog post on the G+ Community Boycott!🚫CNN, MSNBC & LIBERAL MEDIA (among other Communities and Groups). Two Community commenters had an interesting enough dialogue that I have decided to cross post most of it as a standalone post. The dialogue was between “ron keramer” and “Christina Johnston”.

 

You can definitely read the ire I had with Muslims acting on Islamic revered writing in the embedded links in the first paragraph. Unfortunately G+ Communities as a social platform no longer exist ergo you cannot read those sources. The next paragraph of “Where do You Stand: Keramer vs Johnston?” clarifies the existence of the hypocrisy that Muslim Apologists and Multicultural Leftists hold against the critics of Islam:

 

The title of the post is “I Am Islamorgizo not Islamophobic”. The context of the post is being weary of the MSM insisting anyone that is critical of Islam is an Islamophobic racist. So, I found a Greek word that connotates a fixed anger akin to settled opposition. That Greek word is orgízō. Just as Multiculturalists and Islamic Apologists hooked “Islam” with the Greek derivative for “phobia” to form Islamophobe, I connected Islam with orgízō to create Islamorgizo – a settled angry opposition to Islam. Then I explained the reason why Islam deserves settled angry opposition not only for its revered writings justifying violence against non-Muslims, but also to show contrasting Quran and the Bible that Islam is specifically an Antichrist religion. Incidentally, Islam is the ONLY non-Christian religion that specifically denies the centrality of the Christian faith. You’ll have to read “I Am Islamorgizo not Islamophobic” for the details.

 

Sadly, to my knowledge, the term “Islamorgizo” has never caught on to counter calling critics of Islam Islamophobes. Allow me to reiterate that I do not have an irrational fear Islam but I have an angry opposition for what Islam stands for in that socio-political religion’s obsessed violent hatred of all things non-Islamic with the specific labelling of the “People of the Book” (meaning the Holy Bible) as the people who have twisted the so-called original revered writings (meaning the Quran that never existed in any form prior to the recollections of Muhammad’s fellow pillagers, rapists and slavers put their leader’s sayings to pen and paper) – Interesting afterthought: “The Myth: Muhammad Would
Never Approve of Rape – DEBUNKED
”)
of Islam’s Allah.

 

With all the above embedded links a non-Muslim – especially a Jew and Christian – should be concerned with the socio-political religion known as Islam, below is the brief comment (not approved to be posted to “Where do You Stand: Keramer vs Johnston?”) by mohammedbash:

 

mohammedbasha has left a new comment on your post “Where do You Stand: Keramer vs Johnston?“:

 

Misconceptions About Islam

 

Misconceptions About Islam is a website that misrepresents by misleading readers about what Islam’s revered writings stipulate AND what history records. Here’s an excerpt example:

 

Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) Founded Islam?

 

It’s been Misconceptions About Islam and misunderstood by many that Islam was founded by Prophet Muhammed around 1400 years ago in the middle of Arabia. But the truth is advent of Islam dated since origin of Adam, who was the first human being to worship the one and only God. Prophets who came later were also Muslims and propagated Allah is the true creator with no companions or children. A true Muslim submits self to the true God and accept Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) as his final messenger. [Blog Editor: A demonic lie if communicated by Quran, it was only by the lips of Muhammed later recorded into writing by a follower (or followers) of Muhammed into writing after the false prophet’s death in 632 AD (or CE for secular minded scholars).]

 

Allah; the God for Muslims Only?

 

The Real Meaning of the word Allah is “One True God” in Arabic. It also refers to the one who created heavens, earth, sea, mountain and everything that stays in the universe. Even Arabic speaking Jews & Christians refer God with the name of Allah. So essentially our faith/belief is up on one and only powerful God though cited with multiple names (Allah, Yahweh or God the Father)

 

Blog Editor: I am convinced the Muslim faith are taught and believe “Allah” means “One True God”. But that literally is not accurate.

 

From YourDictionary.com:

 

Allah: Islam – God

 

Origin of Allah

Arabic All?h from al, the + il?h, god, akin to Classical Hebrew (language) eloah, God (citing: Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fifth Edition Copyright © 2014 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

 

Allah: God, especially in Islam.

 

Origin of Allah

Arabic allāh al- the ‘ilāh god ℵl (citing: THE AMERICAN HERITAGE® DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, FIFTH EDITION by the Editors of the American Heritage Dictionaries. Copyright © 2016, 2011 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

 

Of more interest on “Allah” from webpage entitled, The pagan origin of the word, “Allah”:

 

 

The pre-Islamic origin of “Allah”

 

  1. There is absolutely no question that Allah was worshipped by the pagan Arabs as one of many polytheistic gods.

 

  1. Allah was worshipped in the Kabah at Mecca before Muhammad was born. Muhammad merely proclaimed a god the Meccans were already familiar with. The pagan Arabs never accused Muhammad of preaching a different Allah than the one they already worshipped.

 

  1. Many scholars say “Allah” is derived from a compound Arabic word, AL + ILAH = Allah. “Ilah” in Arabic is “God” and “Al” in Arabic is a definite article like our word “the”. So from an English equivalent “Allah” comes from “The + God”. Others, like Arthur Jeffery say, “The common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word for a god, and the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god,” becomes Allah, “God.” This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic.” (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)

 

  1. Although “Allah” has become known as the proper name for the Muslim god, Allah is not a name, but a descriptor that means literally, “the god”. All pagan cultures have these generic terms that refer to their “top god” as “the god”. In comparison to the perfect monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, “Allah” was originally no more a proper name for the Muslim God, than the word Hebrew “elohim” (god) or Greek “theos” (god) are proper names of the one true God of the Bible. “Jehovah” is the only revealed proper name for the “Elohim” of the Old Testament ( Ex 3:13; 6:3) and “Jesus” is the only revealed proper name of “Theos” in the New Testament. (Acts 4:12) Islam has no proper name for their god, but merely transformed, by universal use and confusion, the generic Allah into a proper name. So although today, Muslims use “Allah” as a proper name, it was never used this way originally. Allah, therefore is equivalent to “elohim” and “ho theos” but not “Jehovah” or “Jesus”. Allah is not the name of the nameless Muslim God. However Muslims will claim that Allah is the name of God that corresponds to Jehovah. Both the Father and the Son are called “ho theos” (The God). Jesus is called “The God” many times in the New Testament: John 20:28; Heb 1:8. An important conclusion from this, is that the mere fact that “Allah” is equivalent to “elohim” and “ho theos” does not mean they are directly corresponded. It certainly doesn’t prove Allah is the same as the God of the Old or New Testament. It does not prove that Muslim’s worship the same God as Christians. If this correspondence proved the Muslim god was the same as the Christian God, then because pagan religions also have generics that correspond to “the god” (Allah), this correspondence would also prove that Allah is the same god as the Buddhist god, for Buddhists also refer to their god as “the god”.

 

What scholars say about the origin of the word “Allah”:

 

  1. It is not related that the Black Stone was connected with any special god. In the Ka’ba was the statue of the god Hubal who might be called the god of Mecca and of the Ka’ba. Caetani gives great prominence to the connection between the Ka’ba and Hubal. Besides him, however, al-Lat, al-`Uzza, and al-Manat were worshipped and are mentioned in the Kur’an; Hubal is never mentioned there. What position Allah held beside these is not exactly known. The Islamic tradition has certainly elevated him at the expense of other deities. It may be considered certain that the Black Stone was not the only idol in or at the Ka’ba. The Makam Ibrahim was of course a sacred stone from very early times. Its name has not been handed down. Beside it several idols are mentioned, among them the 360 statues. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)

 

  1. “The verses of the Qur’an make it clear that the very name Allah existed in the Jahiliyya or pre-Islamic Arabia. Certain pagan tribes believed in a god whom they called ‘Allah’ and whom they believed to be the creator of heaven and earth and holder of the highest rank in the hierarchy of the gods. It is well known that the Quraish as well as other tribes believed in Allah, whom they designated as the ‘Lord of the House’ (i.e., of the Ka’ba)…It is therefore clear that the Qur’anic conception of Allah is not entirely new.” (A Guide to the Contents of the Qur’an, Faruq Sherif, (Reading, 1995), pgs. 21-22., Muslim)

 

  1. According to al-Masudi (Murudj, iv. 47), certain people have regarded the Ka’ba as a temple devoted to the sun, the moon and the five planets. The 36o idols placed round the Ka’ba also point in this direction. It can therefore hardly be denied that traces exist of an astral symbolism. At the same time one can safely say that there can be no question of any general conception on these lines. The cult at the Ka’ba was in the heathen period syncretic as is usual in heathenism. (First Encyclopedia of Islam, E.J. Brill, 1987, Islam, p. 587-591)

 

  1. The name Allah, as the Qur’an itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Arabia. The common theory is that it is formed from ilah, the common word for a god, and the article al-; thus al-ilah, the god,” becomes Allah, “God.” This theory, however, is untenable. In fact, the name is one of the words borrowed into the language in pre-Islamic times from Aramaic. (Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, Arthur Jeffery, 1958, p 85)

 

  1. “If a Muslim says, “Your God and our God is the same,” either he does not understand who Allah and Christ really are, or he intentionally glosses over the deep-rooted differences.” (Who Is Allah In Islam?, Abd-Al Masih, Light of Life, 1985, p. 36.)

 

  1. Now there dwelt in Mecca a god called Allah. He was the provider, the most powerful of all the local deities, the one to whom every Meccan turned in time of need. But, for all his power, Allah was a remote god. At the time of Muhammad, however, he was on the ascendancy. He had replaced the moon god as lord of the Kaaba although still relegated to an inferior position below various tribal idols and three powerful goddesses: al-Manat, goddess of fate, al-Lat, mother of the gods, and al-Uzza, the planet Venus. (Islam and the Arabs, Rom Landau, 1958 p 11-21)

 

… AND MORE with a total of 66 refutations about the origins of  “Allah” – The pagan origin of the word, “Allah”; Written by Brother Andrew; The Interactive Bible.

 

At this point I appreciate the Muslim Apologist going by mohammedbasha chose not to comment anonymously. But pointing to a website misleading about the reality of Islam’s animus toward non-Muslims needed to be addressed in a stand-alone post. AND THERE YOU HAVE IT.

 

JRH 11/13/19

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in 

the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

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

 

Quran Lies – The Bible is Truth


Antichrist-Islam_Connection

 

John R. Houk

© February 24, 2014

 

Here is an example of Muslim Apologists using the Word of God (i.e. the Holy Bible) to propagandize gullible Muslims and nominal Christians in promoting the idiocy that Mohammed is in the Bible.

 

19 Now this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”

 

20 He confessed, and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”

 

21 And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?”

He said, “I am not.”

“Are you the Prophet?”

And he answered, “No.”

 

22 Then they said to him, “Who are you, that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?” (John 1: 19-22 NKJV)

 

Shabir Ally says John the Baptist talks about three people he is not:

 

1)     The Baptist is not the Christ.

 

2)     The Baptist is not Elijah of old.

 

3)     The Baptist is not “the Prophet”.

 

This Shabir character tells his listeners that “the Prophet” spoken of is none other than the Muslim prophet Mohammed. Acts17Apologetics posted this video of Shabir Ally telling his listeners. This is an overt lie Shabir is telling as is refuted in the video.

 

Shabir blatantly leaves out the context of the above verses by placing them in the context of the entire first chapter of the Gospel of John.

 

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

 

15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”

 

16 And[a] of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.

 

24 Now those who were sent were from the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, saying, “Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

 

26 John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water, but there stands One among you whom you do not know. 27 It is He who, coming after me, is preferred before me, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose.”

 

28 These things were done in Bethabara[a] beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

 

29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ 31 I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water.”

 

32 And John bore witness, saying, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. 33 I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God.” (John 1: 14-16; 24-34 NKJV)

 

Scripture makes it pretty clear that John the Baptist was not the Christ but that Jesus the son of Mary and the son of God is the Christ. Clearly neither John the Baptist nor Jesus was Elijah but Scripture tells us the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah as a messenger of the coming Christ.

 

Jesus talking to the John’s disciples:

 

7 As they departed, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man clothed in soft garments? Indeed, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ houses. 9 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and more than a prophet. 10 For this is he of whom it is written:

 

‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face,
Who will prepare Your way before You.’
[a]

 

11 “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. (Bold Emphasis Mine – Matthew 11: 7-14 NKJV)

 

And “the Prophet” is a prophetic moment spoken by Moses that in later days a prophet would rise up like himself to lead Israel.

 

15 “The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, 16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’

 

17 “And the Lord said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. 18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. 19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. (Deuteronomy 18: 15-19 NKJV)

 

Muslim Apologists at this moment will try to distort the truth again and claim that the prophet that God would raise up like Moses is Mohammed. However, if you read Mohammed’s version of the Old Testament you will notice immediately that the Quran twists the Holy Bible narrative to an unrecognizable story even going so far that Ishmael the son of the slave Hagar and Abraham was the child of Promise instead of Isaac the son of Sarah (free and wife) and Abraham. Whereas the New Testament does no twisting and Peter under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit preached:

 

18 But those things which God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,[a] 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. 22 For Moses truly said to the fathers, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever He says to you. 23 And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’[b]24 Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow, as many as have spoken, have also foretold[c] these days. 25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’[d] 26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.” (Acts 3: 18-26 NKJV)

 

As you can tell I have no regard of the Quran as being holy or of divine origin. The Bible is the Word of God and any refutation of this truth is of an antichrist spirit.

 

18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the[a] Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour.19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.

 

20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.[b] 21 I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth.

 

22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. (I John 2: 18-22 NKJV)

 

Now take a look at the Acts17Apologetics video.

 

 

JRH 2/24/14

Please Support NCCR

__________________________

Is Muhammad Mentioned in John 1:19-21? (A Reply to Shabir Ally)

 

Posted by Acts17Apologetics

Published: Feb 19, 2014

 

http://youtu.be/qGP1rlCPavI

 

Popular Muslim apologist Shabir Ally claims that Muhammad is “the prophet” mentioned in John 1:19-21. We wonder if Shabir has read the rest of the chapter, and if he has thought about the implications of his argument.

_______________________________________

Quran Lies – The Bible is Truth

John R. Houk

© February 24, 2014

____________________________________

Is Muhammad Mentioned in John 1:19-21? (A Reply to Shabir Ally)

 

Acts 17 Apologetics Homepage

 

Answering Muslims: The Islamoblog of Acts 17 Apologetics

 

About

 

There are more than 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, coming from a variety of ethnic and educational backgrounds. Many of these Muslims claim that there is strong evidence supporting Muhammad and the Qur’an, as well as strong evidence against Christianity.

Answering Muslims is a Christian apologetics website dedicated to responding to the questions, objections, and arguments of Muslims. The site is run by Christian debaters, lecturers, and writers who have a special interest in Islam.

Since one of the most common Muslim arguments is that Islamic morality and law would benefit Western nations, we also report relevant current events concerning the impact of Sharia on various cultures.