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.

Who is to Blame for Muslim Gang-Rapes? – The Girls and Women of Course


This brave gal is interviewing Muslims in Bangladesh but it is a prime example of the Muslim male mindset where Islam has a dominating influence. Do you want Muslim men to immigrate to your neighborhood?

 

JRH 5/11/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Who is to Blame for Muslim Gang-Rapes? – The Girls and Women of Course (Shocking Video)

 

Posted by Sharia Unveiled

May 1, 2016

 

I think if women cover themselves up …

Lady Interview with Muslim police on gang rape

A young female investigative reporter enters into an all Muslim community in Bangladesh, to investigate the commonality and ever-increasing occurrences of gang-rape. The act of gang-rape is ‘almost’ exclusive to the Muslim community and what she discovers is simply astonishing…

 

The mindset of the Muslim male is astoundingly dumb-founding and void of any resemblance of intellect, nor accountability for one’s actions.

 

VIDEO: Who is to Blame for Muslim Gang-Rapes? – The Girls and Women of Course  [English subtitles]

 

 

Posted by sharia unveiled

Published on May 1, 2016

 

Video courtesy of: Vice News | Poltisk Infarkt | sharia unveiled

_________________________

Sharia Unveiled – The Truth

 

This site is dedicated to pulling back the veil that enshrouds the truth about islam and sharia law.  There is an evil core beneath the doctrine of al-Qur’an & al-Hadith and we will illuminate that darkness, as well as the minds of those who seek the truth.

 

Islam is a perversion of the truth.  It is a cult of indoctrination.  It is a method of spiritual enslavement and physical subjugation.  We do not speak against islam, but rather we allow islam to speak for itself:

 

Islam and sharia law teach, preach and carry out the following acts:

 

– In accordance with the surahs of al-qur’an and teachings of al-hadith

 

  1. STONING: Burying women in the ground, up to their chest and stoning them to death.

 

  1. ACID BURNING: Throwing acid on the faces of women and ocassionally [sic] men, causing blindness, permanent [sic] severe disfiguration and sometimes death.

 

  1. HONOUR KILLING: The murdering of young girls and women for “dishonouring” the family.  The most common methods used are:   Beheading, stabbing to death or setting the woman on fire and burning her to death.

 

  1. BEHEADING: Cutting off the head with a knife or sword, at the neck/throat.  This act is usually carried out against “infidels” (non-muslims), Jewish People and Judeo-Christians.  Also, anyone who converts from Islam to another religion.

 

  1. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION (FGM):  The practice of slicing off the genitalia of all very young muslim girls with a blade or piece of broken glass.  This includes the clitoris and labia minora.  This is a practice that the males in islam demand to prevent the females from receiving any pleasure from intercourse.  The males essentially believe that, “… if the woman is unable to derive pleasure from intercourse, she will not cheat and will remain faithful in marriage.”  – – (Keep in mind that muslim men are allowed to have as many wives and girlfriends as they desire.)

 

  1. ENSLAVEMENT: Slavery is still practiced in almost every one of the 65 islamic nations of the world today.  Most of these slaves are of African descent.      

 

There is another veil that requires removal and that is the veil of deception that has been placed over the eye’s [sic] of the world.  We have ALL been indoctrinated by deception, conditioned by censorship and desensitized by lies… into believing islam is a “religion of love and peace.”  Hmmm… well, let’s see…

 

Europe: Suicide by Jihad


EU Multicultural Effect

Author Guy Millière writes about how European leaders are killing Europe by a suicidal policy of promoting Multicultural diversity as a new cultural era that is destroying a European cultural heritage that has a foundation of a couple thousand years of building blocks.

 

In essence Islamic culture is stuck in the days of its founder Mohammed and Europe (as all influenced Western culture) has moved from intolerant politics to tolerant representative government (for the most part). Islam is stuck in a 7th century mindset and Europe – for all its current plusses and minuses – is at a 21st century stage. As Islam is allowed to infect Europe with Islamic 7th century thinking, it will be inevitable that a return to an intolerant ruling political principle will return to Europe. If allowed to continue Europe will experience its second Dark Ages – all thanks to Islam.

 

As you read Millière’s essay, you should think of some similarities America is even now in the beginning stages of experiencing under the Multicultural guidance of President Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic Party. In my God! A significant amount pro-Dem Party voters are seriously considering to have a bald-faced liar or an open prominent of socialism! AND there is actually a statistical possibility that American voters will select a liar or a socialist (or both for that matter) as the President of the United States of America ensuring a likelihood of a European-style cultural regression.

 

JRH 4/16/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Europe: Suicide by Jihad

 

By Guy Millière

April 16, 2016 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively replaced Belgian law.

 

  • One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal. Police did not ask him anything about the jihadist networks with which he worked. Officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who hid him were not indicted.

 

  • Europe’s leaders disseminated the idea that the West was guilty of oppressing Muslims. They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among Muslims in Europe.

 

  • Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe could understand their “grievances,” they placed pressure on Israel. When Europeans were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done their best to please the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists.

 

The March 22 jihadist attacks in Brussels were predictable. What is surprising is that they did not take place sooner. What is also surprising is that more people were not killed. It seems that the authors of the attacks had larger projects in mind; they wanted to attack a nuclear power plant. Others may succeed in doing just that.

 

In the last two decades, Belgium has become the hub of jihad in Europe. The district of Molenbeek in Brussels is now a foreign Islamist territory in the heart of Belgium. It is not, however, a lawless zone: sharia law has effectively replaced Belgian law. Almost all the women wear veils or burqas; those who do not take risks. Drug trafficking and radical mosques are everyplace. The police stay outside and intervene only in cases of extreme emergency, using military-like commando operations. Other areas of Belgium, such as Shaerbeek and Anderlecht have the same status as Molenbeek.

 

The Belgian authorities have allowed the situation to deteriorate. The situation in the country now is virtually equivalent to a surrender.

 

They seemed to hope that willful blindness and accepting the unacceptable would permit the country to be spared. It did not.

 

The attack on Belgium’s Jewish Museum on May 24, 2014 should have served as a warning. It did not. That “only” Jews were the target led the Belgian government to underestimate the threat. The jihadi who wanted to kill passengers on train from Amsterdam to Paris, on August 21, 2015, prepared his attack in Brussels. That three American heroes neutralized him before he could start shooting again led the Belgian government to think the danger was not large.

 

The jihadis who struck Paris on November 13, 2015 had also organized their attacks from Molenbeek, but the blood was not spilled in Belgium. Belgian authorities perhaps assumed that Belgium would be spared. They spoke of “imminent danger” for a day or so, but never increased security.

 

One of the organizers of the Paris bombings, Salah Abdeslam, Europe’s most wanted terrorist criminal, was able to live peacefully in Molenbeek for four months until police decided to arrest him. Belgian police knew exactly where he was, but did nothing until French authorities asked them to. After his arrest, he was treated as a petty criminal, not a jihadi terrorist. Police did not ask him anything concerning the jihadist networks with which he worked. Because he was hurt during police operations, officers who interrogated him were ordered to be gentle. The people who agreed to hide him for so long were not considered suspects and were not indicted.

 

The Brussels jihadist attacks took place two days later.

 

Despite the worst attacks on Belgium soil since World War II, Belgian authorities do not seem ready to change their behavior.

 

Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left) - Philippe Moureaux (right)

Abdelhamid Abaaoud (left), one of the planners of the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, was — like many terrorists in Europe — from Molenbeek, Belgium. Philippe Moureaux (right) was mayor of Molenbeek for 20 years, thanks to his alliance with radical Islamists.

 

After the attacks, Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel denounced “violent and cowardly acts” and stressed his “determination,” without saying what he intended to do. He did not speak of the necessity of changing the Belgian laws to make them more effective. He did not mention any enemy. He never used words such as “jihad” or “radical Islam.”

 

He behaved and talked as most of his European counterparts did. French Prime Minister Manuel Valls used more courageous words and said many times he is fighting “radical jihad” and “Islamism.” The French parliament passed laws allowing what is still impossible in Belgium: police searches at night. But France stands alone, and effectively the situation in France is no better than in Belgium. Islamist enclaves exists in many suburbs. Whole cities are controlled by thugs and radical imams: cities such as Roubaix, Trappes, Aubervilliers and Sevran in the northeast of Paris.

 

Islamist enclaves also exist in other European countries: Spain, the Netherlands, Germany, the United Kingdom and Sweden.

European leaders have been making choices. After World War II, they decided Europe would be a region of the world where war would be banished and all problems solved through diplomacy and appeasement. They gradually abandoned financing defense and security activities. Instead, they built welfare states. They thought that taking care of people from cradle to grave would suppress anger and conflicts. They denied the existence of totalitarian dangers and the necessity of showing strength. To this day, their statements indicate that European leaders think both the Berlin Wall and the Soviet empire fell thanks to the benevolence of Mikhail Gorbachev, not thanks to the determination of Ronald Reagan. To this day, they seem to think that Islam is essentially a religion of peace and that the jihadis belong to a tiny, marginal sect.

 

Decades ago, Europe’s leaders adopted a general policy of “openness” to the Islamic world in general, and the Arab world in particular. They decided to welcome migrants from the Muslim world by hundreds of thousands but without asking them to integrate. They made cultural relativism and multiculturalism their guiding principles. They acted as if Islam could mingle in the Western world harmoniously and without difficulty. Europe’s leaders disseminated the idea that the West was guilty of oppressing Muslims and had to pay for its sins. They therefore sowed the seeds of anti-Western resentment among Muslims in Europe.

 

When in the Muslim world jihadis started to kill, Europe’s leaders wanted to believe that the attacks would take place in the Muslim world only. They thought that by not interfering with what European jihadis were planning, they would not risk jihadi attacks on European soil.

 

When Jews were attacked, Europe’s leaders decided that the problem was not jihad, but Israel. They stressed the need not to “export Middle East conflict in Europe.” Hoping to please followers of radical Islam and show them Europe could understand their “grievances,” they placed increasing pressure on Israel. They also increased their financial and political support for the “Palestinian cause.”

 

When Europeans were attacked, they did not understand why. They had done their best to please the Muslims. They had not even harassed the jihadists. They still do not know how to react.

 

Many of them now say privately what they will never say in public: it is probably too late.

 

There are six to eight million Muslims in France, and more than thirty million in Western Europe. Hundreds of jihadis are trained and ready to act — anytime, anyplace. European intelligence services know that they want to make “dirty bombs.” Surveys show that tens of thousands of Muslims living in Europe approve of jihadi attacks in Europe. Millions of Muslims living in Europe keep silent, behave as if they see nothing and hear nothing, and protest only when they think they have to defend Islam.

 

European political leaders know that every decision they make may provoke reactions among the Muslims living in Europe. Muslim votes matter. Riots occur easily. In France, Belgium, other European countries, Islamists are present in the army and police forces. In the meantime, Islamist organizations recruit and Islamic lobbies gain ground.

 

European governments are now hostages. The European media are also hostages.

 

In most European countries, “Islamophobia” is considered a crime — and any criticism of Islam may be considered “Islamophobic.” People trying to warn Europe, such as the Dutch MP Geert Wilders, despite an apparently biased judge and forged documents against him, are now on trial.

 

Books on radical Islam are still published but surrounded by silence. Books praising the glory of Islam are in every bookstore. When Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia was published in Europe, she was denounced and received hundreds of death threats. Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept, published in the U.S., was not even available in Europe. Ten years later, the situation is worse.

 

Political movements expressing anger and concerns are rising. All are demonized by political power holders and the media. They have almost no chance of gaining more influence.

 

Populations are gnawed by fear, frustration and impotence. They are looking for answers, but cannot find them. A few hours after the attacks on Brussels, a man on Belgian television said that Europe is on the verge of suicide.

 

Europe looks like a dying civilization. European governments created a situation that can only lead to more attacks, more massacres, and maybe unspeakable disasters. Europe’s leaders continue to react with speeches and a few police operations.

 

If some European governments decided to restore their abolished borders, it could take years, and most European leaders would probably disagree with such a policy. Meanwhile, millions more “migrants” will enter Europe, and among them many more jihadis. In spite of the mayhem created in Germany by “migrants” who arrived in 2015, Angela Merkel said she would not change her decisions. No Western European government dared to disagree with her, except Viktor Orbán in Hungary, a lone voice of dissent.

 

In Brussels, as in Paris earlier, people gathered where the attacks took place. They brought candles and flowers to mourn the victims. They sang sentimental songs. They cried. There were no shouts of revolt against jihad. Members of the Belgian government called on the Belgian people to avoid reactions of violence, and declared that Muslims are the main victims of terrorism.

 

In Europe’s near future, more people will bring candles, flowers and songs to mourn victims. Another two or three jihadists will be arrested. But nothing will be done.

 

_____________________

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

 

© 2016 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: In full disclosure I have cross posted this fantastic essay without permission. If someone at Gatestone emails me and instructs me to take it down I will comply. Ergo you should note if you choose to cross post without Gatestone permission you are taking a risk.]

 

About Gatestone Institute

 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.”
— John Adams

 

Gatestone Institute, a non-partisan, not-for-profit international policy council and think tank is dedicated to educating the public about what the mainstream media fails to report in promoting:

 

  • Institutions of Democracy and the Rule of Law;

 

  • Human Rights

 

  • A free and strong economy

 

  • A military capable of ensuring peace at home and in the free world

 

  • Energy independence

 

  • Ensuring the public stay informed of threats to our individual liberty, sovereignty and free speech.

 

Gatestone Institute conducts national and international conferences, briefings and events for its members and others, with world leaders, journalists and experts — analyzing, strategizing, and keeping them informed on current issues, and where possible recommending solutions.

 

Gatestone Institute will be publishing books, and continues to publish an online daily report, www.gatestoneinstitute.org, that features topics such as military and diplomatic threats to the United States and our allies; events in the Middle East and their possible consequences, and the transparency and accountability of international organizations.

 

Gatestone Institute is funded by private donors and foundations. We are grateful for your support.

 

Ambassador John R. BoltonChairman

 

Nina RosenwaldPresident
Naomi H. Perlman, Vice President

 

Board of Governors (in … READ THE REST

 

Contribute to the Gatestone Institute

Islam and Hatred: Why the Free World Civilization is at Risk


I belong to a Yahoo Group that calls itself the Conservative Christian Counselors. The group has created an acronym for their group which is “ccpga.” I am ashamed to say that I am at a loss to how the group derived the acronym “ccpga” from Conservative Christian Counselors. I’m guilty of being an off and on again participator over a number of years and I have never paid much attention to anything but the posted messages which are quite good most of the time.

This Yahoo group is listed as “restricted” so there is a good chance you will not be able to read any of those posts without becoming an approved member. The link I provided above is to the about page.

So, what the heck with the minor group history?

A prominent posting member that goes by the Pseudonym Beowulf found a David Bukay who is a professor at a university in Israel. The original post, “Islam and Hatred: Why the Free World Civilization is at Risk,” was posted at Modern Diplomacy on January 27. This is the version I am cross posting here. Beowulf cross posted the ccpga version on February 7.

JRH 2/7/16

Please Support NCCR

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

Islam and Hatred: Why the Free World Civilization is at Risk

 

By David Bukay

January 27, 2016

Modern Diplomacy in New Social Compact

Hatred to the other is one of the main sources as much as commandments in Islam. It is this old inherent religiously commanded hatred that is behind the terrorism of Jihad against the infidels and the criminality of the Muslims in so many places and regions around the world.

Hatred cannot be detached from Islam because it is in fact indoctrinated and motivated by Islam. The Nazi era has taught us that hatred is one of the most important policies that lead to apartheid and genocide. The Qur’an teaches hatred and commands to hate the infidels. The Islamic Caliphate State (ICS) is proving it time and again, even by destroying the archeological sites, the wonders of the old Middle East.

Consider the elements that define hate speech: drawing a moral comparison based on distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside of it; dehumanization of other groups and insistence of personal superiority against these groups; and a call to all kind of atrocities perpetuated against other groups.

The Islamic Shari‘ah qualifies as hate religion on each and every count by which we define hate speech. There is no other religion that draws such sharp distinction between its community of believers and others outside Islam.

a) Its message inspires loathing for others and the Qur’an mandates the superiority of Islam by all means. According to Muslim exegetes, there are seven major features of the superiority of Arab-Muslims over others, based on the Qur’an, among them, they are the best Ummah ever brought forth to men, bidding good (Ma’rûf) and forbidding evil (Munkar); they hold the pillar of superiority over all other world communities; and they will wage war on the people of error and the Anti-Christ.

b) It draws a deep distinction between Muslims and the others, called Kuffār, and it incites to violence and hatred. Islam is ethnocentric religion and political culture. It differentiates the world between Dār al-Islām against Dār al-Harb; between the good and righteous society and the bad and unclean society. It is Halāl against Haram; it is the right against wrong; it is the pious against the evil-doers; it is Paradise or Hell. There is nothing positive in the Qur’an and the Sharī‘ah for non-Muslims who are all infidels.

c) It perpetuate legitimizes atrocities and butchering of non-Muslims whenever they are. There are 527 verses that are intolerant to the infidels, and 109 verses calling on Muslims to make war on the infidels. As Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone in the human race and should be expanded as a winning religion, by force or persuasion, until all human beings proclaim that “there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.” Jihad is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works.

In ancient as much as in contemporary world, Islamic dominance is characterized by the oppression and discrimination of non-Muslims, all defined as infidels (Kuffār, Kāfirun). There are no “unbelievers” or “disbelievers” in the Qur’an and the Sharī‘ah at large but only infidels or apostates. This is not only a subjective issue, but deep categorical. ‘Unbeliever’ can get neutral in conception, ‘infidel’ is totally different. The pattern of aggressive violence and disregard for human suffering is persistent in Islam and reflects the message of the Qur’an, which is one of superiority, loath and hatred. 64 percent of the Qur’an and 61 percent of the overall Sharī‘ah is related to the infidels, and there is not even one positive stand in favor for them. They are all an integral part of the abode of Hellfire.

The Kuffār are the vilest animals and beasts; the worst of creatures and demons, perverted transgressors and partners of Satan (al-‘Imrān, 3:82, 110; al-Nisā’, 4:76; al-A‘arāf, 7:176; al-Anfāl, 8:55). The Kuffār are to be beheaded. Muslims must strike off their heads and their fingertips (al-Anfāl, 8:12; Muhammad, 47:4). The Kuffār are to be terrorized. Muslims are to cast terror into the hearts of the infidels, their abode is the Hell-fire (al-‘Imrān, 3:151; al-Anfāl, 8:12, 8:60; al-Ahzāb, 33:26; al-Hashr, 59:2). The Kuffār are to be annihilated until the religion of Allah is the only one. They are to be killed wherever they are found, since persecution is severer than slaughter. Muslims are obliged to slay them until there is no persecution, and religion is only Allah’s. This commandment includes not only the infidels and the idolaters, but also the hypocrites and the polytheists, as their abode is Hell-fire (al-Baqarah, 2:191; 193; al-Nisā’, 4:89, 91; al-Anfāl, 8:39; al-Taubah, 9:36, 73, 111, 123; al-Tahrīm, 66:9). The Kuffār are to be crucified (al-Mā’idah, 5:33). They are the constant fuel of the fire burn in Hell (al-‘Imrān, 3:10; al-Taubah, 9:17; Ibrāhīm, 14:30; al-Nahl, 16:29; al-Anbīyā’, 21:98; al-Hajj, 22:19; al-Ahzāb, 33:64; al-Saff, 61:11; al-Mû’min, 48:13). “Hostility and hate” exist between the Kuffār and the Muslim believers forever until they “believe in Allah alone” (al-Taubah, 9:28, 32, 69).

The Egyptian intellectual Sami al-Rabbā’ has elaborated:

If you say that Islam is a violent faith, you are accused of being anti-Islam and “Islamophobe”. Yet, the main of the Qur’an are passages full of incitement and hatred, Jihad-killing and war-mongering.

The educational system is the main source of indoctrination and socialization to hatred and it works almost as a production line. The Muslims start the politics of hatred and Jihad ideology from infancy. The children learn to hate before everything, even without knowing why: at home, in the mosques and in schools, Madāris. They hate the infidels, because they are what they are, and not because they know anything about them. The hatred is in their drink and foods, and this fuel directs and motivates the massacres and lynches that are so pervasive around the world.

The contemporary radicalization of the Muslim youth, the “third generation” Muslims living in the Western world is enormous and alarming. A report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization in London claims that “European jihadists in Syria are more numerous than official statistics indicate. Indeed, they point to the existence of entire French-speaking and German-speaking brigades in the Aleppo region.” Many of them are radicalizing through the Internet extremist websites and YouTube videos; others are led by imams at mosques; and others, converted to Islam, men and women, volunteer for sex Jihad.

Sa’id al-Hamad, a liberal thinker from Bahrain

The ‘culture of backwardness’ dominates the Arab world, and it includes ‘culture of terrorism,’ which adopts beheading and lynching people; and the ‘culture of hatred,’ which propagates in the minds and consciousness of the youth deep hatred to the world.

Islam’s conceptions and behavior

Muslim groups and organizations are violent politically and fanatic religiously. Muslims cover their activities by using religious argumentations as an excuse and motivation to their behavior towards the other. Whether they butcher and cut-off heads of infidels of the West; or terrorize their own Muslim believers, Sunnis and Shiites; or massacre minorities of all kinds, mainly Christians; or when they establish Islamic institutions and mosques in Western states; or when they commit acts of horrible homicide bombings and terrorism; or when they conquer, Islamize and Arabize vast territories; or when they commit ethnic cleansing, apartheid and mass holocausts — for example, the Hindus and the Armenians in the past, and Christians today; or when they coerce and intimidate, Muslims always claim they do it in defense.

Another astonishing issue is that Muslim exegetes, preachers and propagators speak only in complete and absolute terms about their religion’s values, without the slightest self-criticism and doubts: ‘Islam is absolutely a religion of peace and harmony;’ ‘Islam is totally devoted to promote peace around the world;’ ‘Jihad is absolutely and totally defined in terms of defense;’ ‘aggression is used only rarely, when the Muslims have no other choice to defend their religion and their self;’ ‘there is nothing in Islam that is against tolerance, democracy and peaceful relations;’ and ‘Islam tolerates all other religions, acts peacefully and preaches for human cooperation and collaboration.’

One finds these slogans abound in books, article, and media resources. It is so pervasive and so totalistic that it becomes almost impossible to argue and to debate with them. Their cultural conceptions; their totalistic approach as being always and under all circumstances the righteous side; and their ethnocentric conceptions make it impossible to argue with them in rational and according to the ‘golden rule’ values.

However, when one elaborates the many verses of the Qur’an and the commandments of the Shrī’ah, he immediately attacked and mocked off as an ignorant of Islam and dismissed as being biased evil Muslim: “you don’t understand the real true meaning of the scriptures;” “you don’t know Arabic;” “you hate Islam and prove Islamophobia exists;” “you prove by your words the white man discrimination of imperialism and colonialism;” “you are racist and oppressive;” and other accusations according to Arab-Islamic imagination and aggression.

What Arab-Islamic history and contemporary tell us?

This is the political language of the Muslim scholars, spokesmen and propagators. Yet, one has to recall the following: the origin of the Arabs and Islam is in Arabian Peninsula. All the vast areas that have been conquered from year 632 on are the result of one of the deepest colonialist and imperialist occupation characterized by process of Arabization and Islamization of the occupied territories. The Middle East was mainly Pharaonic; Phoenician; Babilonian; Ugarit; Chaldean; Jewish, and Berber in North-Africa. Iran was Sassanid; Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan were Buddhist. Indeed, Islamic occupations of the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe and Asia were all imperialist-colonialist of the worst kind, as they have constantly become Arabized and Islamized.

The invasion out of Arabia was conducted under political ideological ambitions clocked in a religious banner and as an intrinsic part of Islamic doctrine. This process of occupation ended by ethnic cleansing and deportations of the indigenous population; massacres and genocide of peoples; huge slavery by hundreds of millions; and racist policies of Apartheid.

The Palestinian sociologist, Ali ‘Issa Othman, states his conviction that

The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency to apologize for this, and we should not. It is one of the injunctions of the Qur’an that you must fight for the spreading of Islam.

Indeed, Islam has never been a tolerant, peaceful religion. It is not intolerant as a response to other’s intolerance, but it is inherently intolerant, racist and war-mongering by itself, according to its religious doctrine. Islamic hostility that practices a policy of systematic Jihad against the other are not a modern phenomenon, but deeply rooted in the Qur’an. It has been operated systematically from the 7th century on until today.

Moreover, against the religious command to love their own fellow believers, Muslims massacre by millions other Muslims. Today, it is represented by the emergence of groups and organizations that follow the Islamic ancestors’ tradition, Salafiyah, with the following division: traditional (Salafīyah Taqlīdīyah), represented by the Muslim Brotherhood parties; Jihadi (Salafīyah Jihadīyah), represented by al-Qaeda and its regional organizations (like AQAP, AQIM, al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria); and Takfīri (Salafiyah Takfīrīyah), represented the Islamic Caliphate State.

The objectives of Islamic hatred

The Qur’an makes it clear that Islam is not about universal brotherhood and cooperation, but the brotherhood of the community of believers. The Qur’an says that all other religions as such are cursed by Allah. Whoever does not believe in Muhammad and totally follow him; whoever contends with Muhammad and Islamic tenets it means heresy that deserves death. It is the nature of Islam to dominate and not to be dominated; to rule and not to be ruled; to be superior on all the infidels. The Muslim vision is clear: there is one universe, and it must be under the banner of Islam. All humanity must submit to Islam as the supreme religion.

The Islamic excuses of the past are no more relevant. The claims they revenge only at acts that are committed against them; acts that humiliate their honor and their souls; or for defense of their nation and soil; and all other sorts of fairy-tales for the consumption of Western media to publish and public opinion to impress – these excuses are no more relevant. The fact is that Muslim groups and organizations murder and butcher and operate all kinds of horrible atrocious acts of violence are exactly for political reasons under the cloak of religious issues and as a result of cultural reasoning. They wish to conquer the world, to impose their religion and culture, and they do not feel any shame or guilt remorse. From their vantage point, they are entitled to possess everything, as it is promised in the Qur’an. They have never given up the prophetic message that Islam must dominate the entire world, and they have all the patience (Sabr) in time to bring these ambitions come true.

The Saudi legal expert, Basem ‘Alem states it clearly:

As a member of the only true religion, I have a greater right to invade others in order to impose the Shari’ah, which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of Jihad. When we wage Jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.

This is apparent in an interview with Ayat Allah Kamil, a Palestinian woman who had tried to carry out a suicide bombing. When asked by the Guardian journalist: “Do you have any dreams for the future?” She responded

My deep belief and wishes that the whole world becoming Islamic, a world in which we will all live in peace, joy, and harmony, all of us, human beings, animals, flowers, plants, and stones. Islam will even bring peace to vegetables and animals, the grass and the stones… And you will be able to remain Jewish, whatever you want; it doesn’t matter, but only in an Islamic world.

…and its consequences and repercussions

The Western world reaction to this reality if fear and intimidation. One of the fresh examples is the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a victim of genital mutilation in infancy and a victim of Islamic persecution today. Now she has been subjected to yet another example of Western cowardice and hypocrisy. Brandeis University has decided not to award her an honorary degree. As Arnold Ahlert observes, Brandeis honored Desmond Tutu who was an overt anti-Semite, and asserted that the Holocaust’s gas chambers made for “a neater death” than did Apartheid. He regularly accuses the Jewish State of ethnic cleansing, and insists that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism.” Brandeis also honored the playwright Tony Kushner, despite his overt anti-Semitism for Israel. He also accused the Jewish State of ethnic cleansing, and insisted its creation “was a mistake.”

Nevertheless they have been given the honorary degree. A similar case was also the University of Haifa decision not to grant an honorary doctorate to Nobel Prize laureate Yisrael Aumann, “because of his political views,” but has awarded the extreme leftist anti-Zionist Shulamit Aloni the honorary degree without hesitation.

The question is why the academia, the media, and governments in the West, founded on liberalism and secularism, would not only refuse to counter Islamic Jihad and Da‘wah onslaught against other civilizations but even deny that Islam is not compatible with the basic values of freedoms and civil rights? The answer is surprisingly simple: because they are frightened, because they are intimidated and terrorized. They are frightened of being accused of Islamophobia and racism; they are intimidated by brutal savage forces that threaten and actually attack them; they are terrorized by anarchic and chaotic groups of ruffians; and they are paralyzed by Islam’s real intent to bring us all to its 7th century traditions and way of life. Part of them, mainly the academia and the cultural hedonists, act along these lines because they hate the west and its values and they perceive Islam as a cure to what they call ‘Western malaise;’ as they embrace sick and twisted ideologies based on neo-Bolshevism and neo-Fascism.

The best to exhibit the mired reality of this Western world’s situation is the example of the British newspaper, the Guardian’s cartoonist and head of the British Cartoonist Association, Tim Benson. Anti-Semite in profession, he often sketches horrible graphic cartoons against Israel, but never against Islam and the Palestinians. When asked about this, his answer was pure and simple: I am afraid. It means, he can draw anything against Israel, the Jews, Christianity and Buddhism, and nothing happens, but he would not dare to do that when Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians are concerned. He does not want to be persecuted like Salman Rushdie, or be butchered like Theo Van Goch [sic], to mention the few.

The academia and the media worldwide are sick, and Israeli academia and media represent a pure tragic example of this sickness, because Israel is in the forefront of the war of civilizations, the last fortified dam before the deluge. Unless these two important organs of Western society’s body that hold crucial influence on the governmental apparatus decision making stop their submission and capitulation to the forces of evil, the Western world is doomed.

Those in power are still terrified of offending Islam. Honor killing is still overwhelmingly an Islamic tradition; gender equality simply does not exist within Muslim culture and jurisprudence; women still have very few rights and are treated like beasts in Muslim states; women rape victims are punished even to death in large parts of the Middle East; and women are still forced to cover their entire bodies in dark tent. Islamic immigration wrack and havoc Western societies; and the Muslim’s third generation proves to be the most extremist and fanatic, and still Western governments appease Islam and actually even unintentionally promote its victory.

The Muslim women’s clothing is the symbol to Western world’s sick era. If “Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” then Western civilization is marching courageously to a dark era in which Islam determines the values of the future. This is a darkness era that clouds the minds of those in power in the West, as much as in the academia and the media, not to see the bright sights of Islam’s brutal onslaught of Jihad; not to hear the clear voices of Islam’s targets operated by Da‘wah; and not to smell the scent of Islamic blood-hunt that wishes to smash our freedoms and civil rights and to re-mold Western civilization according to their traditions.

This almost constitutes a perpeteum [sic?] mobile, which leads to a simple mathematics: if the number of the Islamic fanatics produced by hatred is higher than those the Free World can neutralize, it means that it is losing the war of civilizations. Indeed, the Western world’s mired situation is so intimidating that it refuses to tell even to itself that Islam is engaging in a Third World War against us, and we even do not fight back, but appease and pay protection money. What we are really dealing with is not Islamophobia, but the acute danger of Islamophilia and Islamization of the Free World’s civilization.

____________________

© 2015 Modern Diplomacy All rights reserved.

About MD

February 16, 2015

The Modern Diplomacy is a leading European opinion maker – not a pure news-switchboard. Today’s world does not need yet another avalanche of (disheartened and decontextualized) information, it needs shared experience and honestly told opinion.

Determined to voice and empower, to argue but not to impose, the MD does not rigidly guard its narrative.

Contrary to the majority of media-houses and news platforms, the MD is open to everyone coming with the firm and fair, constructive and foresighted argumentation.

Balanced geographic, political and generational participation is essential to us. You will hardly find a North Korean and an American from Pentagon sitting in the same Advisory Board as we do have in the MD.

If you ask yourself what connects an Artic polar environmentalist and a tropical country traditionalist, a young businesswoman entrepreneur from north of Europe or South Africa and the former Secretary General of the eldest European institution – Council of Europe, or what puts together a musician from New York, with a President of Constitutional Court in Europe or with a scientist from Japan, a poet and a cabinet minister – it is a honesty and authenticity that we offer – and therefore, all of them are proudly in our Board.

The Four Jihads


A few days ago Bill Warner posted a three and one-half minute teaching moment video about Jihad on his blog Political Islam. The blog title is “The Four Jihads.” The video title is “The Many Jihads.” Warner’s blog begins with the video then at the end adds some thoughts. In this cross posts I am posting Warner’s thoughts first as an introduction followed by the video.

JRH 1/15/16

Please Support NCCR

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

The Four Jihads

By Bill Warner

January 11, 2016

Political Islam

Whenever there is Islamic violence the media uses the word “terror” not jihad. The problem is that the jihad of murder is only one of the four jihads and it is the least of jihads. The jihad of murder will kill people, but the jihad of money, speech and writing brings us closer to Sharia. Sharia annihilates a civilization.

Civilizational jihad is found in the content of our new textbooks which praise Islam as the greatest of civilizations. These new textbooks are filled with half truths, which cannot be challenged. The jihad of textbooks will destroy the thinking of a generation.

The jihad of money has invaded our universities which reject critical thought about Islam in exchange for donations from the Saudis. The Islamisation of universities is far worse than murder.

Another jihad that is killing us is found in religious dialogues. The idea sounds wonderful, but the ignorant Jews and Christians just smile and nod their heads as they agree that Islam is so wonderful. Debate is absent by consent. And another nail is driven into the coffin of our civilization.

The jihad of murder is the very least of our problems.

VIDEO: Bill Warner, PhD: The Many Jihads

 

Posted by Political Islam

Published on Jan 11, 2016

_________________________

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

About Political Islam 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—Koran, Sira (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 READ THE REST

Islam: A Permanent World War


You will hear Multiculturalists, Muslim apologists and deceptive Muslims tricking a non-Muslim to convert to Islam way that Islam is peace. The pseudonymous writer Fjordman explains that Islam actually means submission. AND the followers of Islam are to use any means necessary – deception, violence and/or war – to get all the people of the world to submit to Islam either by keeping their religion (officially only the people of the Book; i.e. Jews and Christians) but submitting to the rules of Islam, convert to Islam or die for refusing submission to Islam.

Fjordman essentially posits that this very nature of submission means Islamic terrorism will be a permanent state of war (or terrorism) until total Islamization is achieved. Don’t be fooled by the propaganda of peace!

This was originally posted just after the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, but the recent violence of the San Bernardino Massacre still applies and will undoubted apply wherever literal allegiance to the Muslim belief of perfection in the Quran and Mohammed exist.

JRH 12/17/15

Please Support NCCR

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

Islam: A Permanent World War

By Fjordman

Posted by Baron Bodissey

November 17, 2015 9:34 pm

Gates of Vienna

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

Fjordman Logo

On the evening of Friday November 13th 2015, Paris was shaken by a coordinated series of extremely brutal Islamic terror attacks that left at least 129 people dead and hundreds wounded. It is strongly suspected that the Jihadist group known as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was behind these bloody attacks against multiple targets in the French capital.[1] This happened after the city had barely recovered from the Islamic massacre on the staff of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo some months earlier.

Jihad Attack in Paris 11/13/15

On October 31, 2015, a Russian passenger plane crashed over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, killing 224 people. Russian and Western intelligence services have concluded that the crash was an act of terrorism caused by a bomb.[2] Jihadists associated with the Islamic State have claimed responsibility for this terror attack. If this is true, it means that militant Muslims from the Islamic State brutally murdered more than 350 Europeans in just two weeks.

Apologists claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam means peace. This is not true. The Arabic word Islam means “submission,” not peace. A Muslim is a person who submits. Technically speaking, it is true that the terms Islam and Muslim are derived from the same three-letter root (s-l-m) as the word salaam. Salaam means peace, just as shalom does in the related Semitic language Hebrew. Yet that does not mean that Islam is peaceful. On the contrary, it indicates that peace is only possible after submission to Islamic rule and Islamic law. Peace is identical with submission to Islam. The absence of sharia law is the absence of peace. Islam is therefore essentially an ideology of eternal global war. It advocates the permanent incorporation of the non-Islamic Dar al-Harb, the “House of War,” into the Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam” or “House of Submission.” The term “House of War” indicates that all areas under non-Islamic rule are viewed as a place of war until such areas cease to exist worldwide and submit to forces which are loyal to Allah and his Prophet. Some Islamic theologians use intermediate categories where Islam is making progress, yet does not yet reign supreme. However, the basic divide in Islamic theology is between the House of War and the House of Islam.

“It follows,” wrote the Islamic scholar Majid Khadduri, professor of the Middle East Studies Program at Johns Hopkins University, “that the existence of a dar-al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence… The universality of Islam, in all its embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”[3]

MB Logo with Hassan al Banna

Western audiences are perhaps familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood, a revivalist organization founded by Hassan al-Banna, which has included such individuals as the al-Qaida ideologue Sayyid Qutb and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State (ISIS). Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Pakistan’s Jamaat-e-Islami (Party of Islam), was also one of the most influential Islamic ideologues of the twentieth century. He explained that the objective of Jihad, Islamic Holy War, “is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single state or a few countries; the aim is to bring about a universal revolution.” Maududi emphasized that while Jihad involves armed combat, Jihadists include all those who help achieve the ultimate goal of worldwide Islamic domination. Not just those who fight in the battlefield, but also the millions behind them who contribute to the effort.[4]

The scholar Andrew Bostom and others have clearly proven that Islamic culture has never been “tolerant” in any meaningful sense of the word. This is a modern myth. Constant humiliations and occasional outbursts of deadly violence against non-Muslims have been a continuous feature of Islamic life for centuries, encouraged by Islamic religious scriptures. This is not a recent phenomenon, and it goes for both major branches of Islam. There are theological differences between Shias and Sunnis, but while these matter to Muslims themselves, they are of secondary importance to non-Muslims. Both Shia Islam and Sunni Islam encourage Jihad expansion, doctrines of Islamic supremacy and violent hatred of non-Muslims.

According to traditional Islamic history, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was an agreement between Mohammad and his early Muslim followers in Medina, and the pre-Islamic pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca. This is alleged to have taken place in the year 628 of our era. It affirmed a ten-year truce, a “hudna” or period of temporary calm. However, this truce was broken as soon as the Muslims felt that they were in a stronger position vis-à-vis their non-Muslim neighbors. A true and lasting peace on equal terms with non-Muslims is impossible, according to Islamic law. In the end, Islam can and should be globally triumphant. It is important to recall that the Sunna or personal example of Islam’s founder Mohammed and his early followers is intended to be valid for all times and all places. The Treaty of Hudaybiyya is therefore not merely of historical interest; it remains crucial for understanding how devout Muslims relate to non-Muslims today.

The traditional hadith literature of Sunni Muslims confirm Mohammad’s tactical formulation when waging Jihad: “War is deceit.” (Hadith Bukhari 4:269).[5] In addition to this, we encounter the Islamic doctrines of taqiyya and kitman (concealment and disguise). This allows for Muslims to lie and cheat to others, if this can be used to further Islam’s cause. Such tactics are employed by Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims alike.

Muslim Terrorist with Quran & Gun

Jihad is eternal. It entails a conflict that will never end, until the supremacy of Islam, Islamic rule and sharia laws have been established worldwide. Any agreement with non-Muslims is viewed as a hudna, similar to the Treaty of Hudaybiyya which Mohammed himself made with his non-Muslim opponents. Such a truce exists only so that Muslims can grow in strength and regain the upper hand. As soon as they feel they have the advantage, Muslims are encouraged to go on the offensive against the infidels again. As Andrew Bostom notes:

“In fact the consensus view of orthodox Islamic jurisprudence regarding jihad, since its formulation during the 8th and 9th centuries, through the current era, is that non-Muslims peacefully going about their lives—from the Khaybar farmers whom Muhammad ordered attacked in 628, to those sitting in the World Trade Center on 9/11/01 — are — muba’a, licit, in the Dar al Harb. As described by the great 20th century scholar of Islamic Law, Joseph Schacht, ‘A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, — ‘in a state of war’, — ‘enemy alien’; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…’ And these innocent non-combatants can be killed, and have always been killed, with impunity simply by virtue of being ‘harbis’ during endless razzias and or full scale jihad campaigns that have occurred continuously since the time of Muhammad, through the present. This is the crux of the specific institutionalized religio-political ideology, i.e., jihad, which makes Islamdom’s borders (and the further reaches of today’s jihadists) bloody, to paraphrase Samuel Huntington, across the globe.”[6]

Islam contains elements of a traditional religion, but also elements of a totalitarian belief system centered around a personality cult of Mohammad. Islam is a creed of war, not a religion of peace. In theory, this war will end when all human beings on Earth have submitted to Islamic rule and eventually become Muslims. In practice, experience show us that Muslim societies are far from peaceful. Muslims will continue to fight amongst themselves over who are the best and truest Muslims. Islam can with some justification be classified as a permanent world war, a war that has so far been raging for fourteen centuries and claimed countless lives.

Notes:

1. www.foxnews.com/world/2015/11/17/france-carries-out-fresh-isis-airstrikes-as-report-claims-allies-targeted-paris/ Russia joins France striking ISIS stronghold in Syria. November 17, 2015.

2. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34840943 Russia plane crash: ‘Terror act’ downed A321 over Egypt’s Sinai. Nov 17, 2015.

3. Majid Khadduri, War and Peace in the Law of Islam (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955), page 64.

4. Quoted in the book Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me, by Geert Wilders, page 78.

5. www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_272.htm Hadith 4:269. Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah: The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”

6. Iran’s Final Solution for Israel. By Andrew G. Bostom, 2014. Page 44.

DONATE TO FJORDMAN: To contribute to Fjordman you need to go the bottom of this post at the Gates of Vienna looking for the Fjordman Logo with the words “Donate to Fjordman”.

For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

________________

Baron Bodissey posts

Gates of Vienna Homepage

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