The Qur'an: Israel Is Not for the Jews

Here is an understand Islam moment thanks to Robert Spencer and The Middle East Quarterly. The subject is roughly, who does the Holy Land belong to: Jews or Muslims?

JRH 9/16/09

The Christian ‘Jesus’ is not the Muslim ‘Jesus’

Here is an Islamic education moment from Christopher Logan. Many Muslims claim they respect Jesus to Christians. The implication is that Christians and Muslims revere the same person.

Logan goes out of his to insinuate that Muslims openly deceive Christians. The Muslim Jesus and the Christian Jesus are about the same as water mixing with oil. However, I think Logan is a bit off base to imply that Muslims as a whole group deceive Christians.

Muslims simply believe the Quran as the divine word of Allah and regard the Bible as writings that have been drifting into error at points that disagree with the Quran. Except for a few similar stories the Quran and the Bible have zero in common as to the message of love viewed through the Christian perspective. Even the similar Quranic stories are obviously skewed alterations from the Biblical account that was written WAY BEFORE Mohammed put it to voice and someone’s memory put it into writing. Even the New Testament had taken its final form before Mohammed was born. Thus the Quranic/Biblical similarities were created by Mohammed to entice Jews and Christians to accept his prophethood as authentic and the express will of God.

Hence I don’t believe Muslims set out to deceive Christians about Jesus in da’wah anymore than Christians will use the same “Jesus” strategy to convince Muslims in evangelism.

However, the Jesus in the Bible is the Prince of Peace and a person of the Godhood. The Jesus of the Quran is a man subservient to Mohammed that apparently will come back to life with Mohammed to terminate Judaism and Christianity by converting them to Islam or dying.

The Quranic Jesus offers Christians death while the Biblical Jesus offers Christians and ALL who believe willingly LIFE. Those who refuse to believe in Jesus have condemned them self without the hand of man killing them.

Here is Christopher Logan’s explanation that the Quranic Jesus is not the Biblical Jesus of Christianity.
JRH 9/6/09

Exposer of Virulent Islam

Ben’s Blog is one of my favorite sources of anti-Islamist information. The thing is “Ben” is probably a pseudonym. I also know that the same person blogs elsewhere as Dajjal. Due to the multiplicity of pseudonyms I suspect Ben/Dajjal also blog under other names or perhaps no names at all.

I can make an educated as to why Ben blogs anonymously. Ben’s knowledge of Islam/Mohammedanism is probably as good as or better than an Islamic theologian. This means Ben is likely more familiar with the tenets of Mohammedanism than is the typical Mohammedan.

Here is the thing that probably drives Leftists and Mohammedans crazy if they read Ben’s insights about Islam and Jihadism. Ben lays out the facts concerning Mohammedanism and makes conclusions that have more than a bit of animus projecting from his writing.

The animus is definitely not diplomatic yet it is accurate. I think those that might believe Ben goes a bit overboard should realize he is not writing to impress Mohammedans, rather Ben is writing to enlighten non-Mohammedans about very relevant concerns about the Theo-political elements which are intrinsic to Mohammedanism.

I have been called an Islamophobic racist by trying to be diplomatic so I can imagine the flack that Ben receives. This is probably the reason for the anonymity in Ben’s blog posts. Mohammedans do have the reputation to act out in violence to that which is perceived as offensive – real or imagined.

With all this in mind here are a couple of posts of Ben’s insight.

JRH 5/17/09

Islam: Religion or Ideology

If you have been reading my posts on Islam/Mohammedanism you may be aware I have been working out a stand concerning the religion founded by Mohammed (e.g. Here and Here).

The decision is between banning Mohammedanism in America or considering Mohammedanism a religion protected by Free of Religion and Free Speech ala the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Cornell University Law School)

There are three points that need to be examined pertaining to Islam:

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

2. (Congress shall make no law) prohibiting the free exercise thereof (i.e. religion).

3. (Congress shall make no law) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

A few other points could well be addressed pertaining to Islam however without an understanding of these three points the later is irrelevant or relevant depending on the conclusions of those points.

The first point about the Law and the establishment of religion is one of my pet peeves because Leftists over the last sixty years or so have extrapolated ex nihilo that this means a wall of separation exists between the government (Federal, State and Local) and religion.

This extrapolation has zero to do with the Constitution or with those attributed to reasoning out the meaning of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers. Rather it comes from a letter (A LETTER!) to the Danbury Baptists in which President Jefferson trying to calm the fears of Baptists about the traditional concept of Christian nations establishing a State Church.

Baptists had never been privy in any nation as a State Church. In those days part of taxation was to support the State Church. Many of the Thirteen Colonies and then the Thirteen States of the United States of America initially had State Churches on the State level.

Saying all this, the majority of America’s ruling elite from the Revolutionary War days considered the rule of law and morality based on Christian principles. My conclusion (though admittedly an opinion) is that the First Amendment did not prohibit religion from being involved in the State; rather it prohibited the State from being involved in religion. The religions of the day were the varieties of Christianity in the new USA with a smattering of Judaism. The Courts of the day would not even consider extrapolating ex nihilo a law prohibiting the involvement of religion in the government apparatus.

The second point is that Congress shall make NO laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This opened the door for religions other than Christianity to practice freely in principle; however you have to be aware the populace in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s would look with prejudice upon a non-Christian religion such as Islam/Mohammedanism. Nonetheless the letter of the law in the Constitution is very concrete. The specific word “religion” was used rather something such as the “religion of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Although Christianity would have been considered the faith of America in post Revolutionary War days, an extrapolation of diverse religious worship is free to occur.

An uncorrupt Court would have to rule to prevent public or private harassment of non-Christian religions in America because Congress can make NO law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

There are over a billion people who consider Mohammedanism a religion. At this point one has to realize my quandary about banning Mohammedanism. I’ll back to this thought in a moment.

The third point is that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. This takes care of America’s atheists who choose to live by a philosophy, philosophical principle or merely not care about the existence of religion/deity one way or the other. It is the freedom of conscience without fear of retribution.

Even today ideologies such as Communism or Nazism are allowed freedom of expression in America as long as the expression does not lead to breaking the law via murder, assault, theft, incitement to riot disturbing the public welfare and so on.

Thus today fringe Leftist and fringe Rightist groups test how close they can get to the line of the rule of law without crossing it. Prosecution followed Communists in what was known as the McCarthy Era and today White Supremacists are prosecuted for arms violations and the breaking of other citizens’ civil rights.

It is the THIRD POINT I believe that Mohammedanism crosses the line.

Mohammedanism as a religion simply has too many tenets in their revered books or traditions that cross the line of the rule of law according to the American Constitution. Mohammedanism is a warrior religion that its revered books call to establish the ideological-religion globally first by peace. If peace does not work then war is forced on unbelievers of Mohammedanism until there is Mohammedan conversion or submission to second class citizenship forced to not do anything anti-Islamic or death in a heinous way.

So even though there is a theological nature of otherworldliness to Mohammedanism, the political nature of Mohammedanism in practice in this world tends toward an ideology of political world domination. This world domination mentality has the ferocity inspired by Adolf Hitler’s Nazis on the German population of a superior race. In the same way the German Nazis sought to exterminate human beings (not just Jews) considered as subhuman as not worthy of life. Those outside the Nazi vision of the Germanic Aryan nation not deemed subhuman would be second class citizens serving the Nazi German State.

The Mohammedan ideology of the days of Mohammed in which one can label as radical Islam today is really a Reformation movement on the scale that Protestantism was a movement to reform the Catholic Church to a return of the perception of the Early Church and Patristic Church.

Ali Sina has an awesome essay that points out that “reform” is a movement to go back to the way it was rather than a transformation to another a better way of thinking. The appellation of “Progressive” Churches is a case in point. Progressive Churches are not reforming Christianity; rather they are inserting Leftist humanism to eliminate what is perceived as archaic and of no value in today’s society.

Ali Sina thus stipulates Mohammedanism is not able to be reformed. If there is any reformation occurring in Mohammedanism it is the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, Wahhabi and Shi’ite aims to bring Mohammedanism back to a closer vision of the Prophet Mohammed.

The implication is that Mohammedanism would have progressive thinking added to it to bring it back to a religion that is otherworldly seeking inner peace in this life and the life to come. For this to happen a progressive Mohammedanism would have to deny Mohammed’s revelation from Allah pertaining to convert or die, sex slavery, honor killing and intolerance of everything non-Islamic.

Part of Sina’s point is to not trust Mohammedans that claim to be reform minded. Sina does not specifically point to a website called Muslims Against Sharia but implies that one should not trust Muslims who say they wish to reform Islam. The link for Muslims Against Sharia does not have its name in it, rather the link is http://www.reformislam.org/.

Sina implies there is a religion that is a progressive version of Mohammedanism. That religion is known as Bahá’í.

The Bahá'í's believe in an essential unity of the great religions of the world. However, this does not mean they believe the various religious creeds and doctrines are identical. Rather, they view all religions as having sprung from the same spiritual source. The social and outer forms of different religions vary due to the circumstances at the time that they were founded. Other differences in doctrine and belief can be attributed to later accretions, after the death of the founder.

…

Bahá'í beliefs promoted major social changes when they were first circulated in the 19th century: they supported gender and race equality; world government; freedom of expression and assembly; world peace; religious tolerance, and religious cooperation. In many ways, they were a century or more ahead of many other faiths. Their followers are heavily involved in promoting these concepts today. Also, unlike many other religions, Bahá'ís view scientific inquiry as essential to expand human knowledge and to deepen their members' faith. They feel that science needs to be guided by spiritual principles so that its applications are beneficial to all humanity. (Excerpted from Bahá'í Faith: Beliefs and Practices)

I have come around to the conclusion that if Mohammedanism wishes to evolve into a true religion of peace (Note as a Christian I did not say the true religion) then Muslims would embrace Baha’ism which is an actual root from Mohammedanism.

So now I am pretty much in the “Ban Islam” crowd even though it is not completely etched into stone in my thoughts. It is entirely reasonable to view Mohammedanism as a Theo-Political cult with the emphasis on political ideology. The inherent political ideology of Islam definitely crosses the line of American Constitutionalism and the rule of law to protect citizens from harm.

Thus to ban Islam could be viewed as terminating an ideology which would harm the Constitution of the United States of America.

Choose One: Free Speech for All or Hate Speech for All

If you pay any attention in the blogosphere it is not news that Geert Wilders is being prosecuted in his own nation of the Netherlands (i.e. the Dutch boys and girls) for incitement of hatred. The accused crime is producing a movie short called Fitna that compares the present day actions of Islamic terrorists to the very words of the Quran.

It is not surprising to me that the Left of Wilders’ Europe and of America equate this not to Free Speech but to the equivalent to falsely yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre. The metaphor being if people are trampled to death, the yelling perpetrator is a murderer.

The problem with the Leftist mindset is this: yelling FIRE falsely is indeed a crime that can evolve into a heinous if death occurs. Yet yelling FIRE when there is a fire and people panic and trampling and deaths occur is not a crime. That is a failure of organization and planning for a potential hazardous situation.

Geert Wilders is yelling FIRE! Islam is not fit for Western Culture. The essence of the Theo-political cult is incitement to violence for everything not submitting to Islamic Supremacism. The societal danger is not in the warning of the danger it is in the NOT preparing for what the danger is able to conflagrate in society.

Now that takes care of the Left.

Here is some Free Speech nonsense from a combination of Left and Right:

“Whether Mr. Wilders has deliberately insulted Muslim people is for the judges to decide. But for a man who calls for a ban on the Koran to act as the champion of free speech is a bit rich.” – Ian Buruma – NYT.

Or this:

“However, Wilders himself does not deserve to be called an icon of free speech, since he explicitly wants to ban the Koran and make Islam illegal in Europe; in other words, he wants to take away other people’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and that is simply wrong. Book banning is what totalitarians do, not believers in free speech.” – Charles Johnson – LGF.

I found these quotes at Jihad Watch.

Do you see what these guys are saying? Banning the Quran or inhibiting the practice of violent Islam is an infringement of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion; thus defending Wilders’ Free Speech is agreeing to dampen or eradicate the Free Speech and Freedom of Religion of Muslims (or anyone for that matter).

These guys have abandoned the FIRE approach to an obfuscation sure to tip the emotions of Americans centered on the right to freely practice religion or freely not to practice religion.

The Jihad Watch poster to which these quotes were found I believe is Robert Spencer. Spencer does a marvelous job of showing the fallacy of applying freedom of religion to stifle Geert Wilders.

Spencer basically demonstrates that which good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words if the rule of law applies a hate speech or incitement for one person or group of like minded people, the rule of law should also apply to the offended person or group of like minded people.

If Wilders is inciting Muslims, are not Muslims inciting non-Muslims (defined as kafir by Muslim Supremacists) with their Theo-Political writings such as the Quran, Hadith and Sira?

The key word of application for Spencer is CONSISTENCY.

Check out the Jihad Watch post entitled, “Is Geert Wilders inconsistent in calling for banning the Qur'an and defending free speech?”

JRH 2/11/09

Wilders Prosecution a Threat to Liberty

Have you seen the movie short entitled Fitna? Well if you have not you should. The movie is an expression of Freedom of Speech put together by Geert Wilders.

The Netherlands justice system has decided to prosecute Wilders for this free speech because to criticize the ideology of Islam in a politically correct egalitarian society is a hate crime.

The irony is Wilders uses actual Quranic scriptures and matches them up with present day atrocities committed by Muslims who in reality are merely practicing what there Prophet Mohammed did by example.

Someone in the Dutch legal system has been talked into believing this is offensive to Islam.

So let us consider why this would be offensive to Muslims.

Are Muslims embarrassed about their Prophet who disseminated the word that became the Quran? That cannot be for then that would deny there faith.

Are Muslims offended because fellow Muslims deemed radical by the West are practicing the example of Mohammed by killing innocent men, women and children kafir (unbelievers) in an effort to strike fear and terror to convert Kafir to Islam or merely to kill kafir? If Muslims are offended by the murder of kafir a huge majority are not denouncing the terror.

Are Muslims offended because Fitna demonstrates Islam to be an archaic religion based on violent conquest that is evil by today’s standards? I am certain people who feel they have attained inner peace and fulfillment are extremely adverse to the concept their faith is violent; nonetheless to be a true follower of Islam is to believe the Prophet Mohammed and the Quran are infallible. That center piece of Mohammedan faith renders the practicing of peace Islam as a denial to the example of Mohammed and the Quran (not to mention the Hadith, the Sunna and so on).

Now let us consider why Secularists, atheists and people practicing a different religion other than Islam should be offended Islam.

Should kafir (unbelievers of Islam) be offended at Muslims who practice a faith that brings inner peace and fulfillment to their lives? That should ring a definite NO.

Should the kafir be offended about the way women are treated in Islam (believing and non-believing)? This is a definite YES. Islamic women at best are treated as inferior to their husbands or father. Islamic women at worst are treated as chattel or sex slaves diminishing their human rights and denigrating their humanity. It should be amazing to the kafir that a majority of Muslim women are in total acceptance of the Quranic position of women. They buy into the lie that the burka syndrome places women on a pedestal of purity and respect while being in denial of the position women lead in a Quranic-Sharia Law society. Honor killings have been on the rise in Western societies because younger Muslim women are assimilating some of the ways of Western liberty.

Should the kafir be offended that Sharia Law in general represents everything that is NOT Western Liberty and Civil Rights (especially in America).

Should the kafir in the West be offended that Muslim adherents are explosively demanding that special privileges be given them even though the same privileges are denied other religions in the West that are still the majority? YES ABSOLUTELY!

I could go on and on as to ascertain that the kafir should be offended by Mohammedanism but honestly I grow weary of researching the infamy of Islam.

In lieu of my unwillingness to carry on, you kafir must read Caroline B. Glick’s essay on supporting Geert Wilders and Freedom of Speech – Western Style.

JRH 1/27/09

The Brutal Reality about Islam

I almost hate to say the Theo-cult religion known to most as Islam (I often prefer Mohammedanism) is an inherently evil religion. The number one reason I hate to say this is because I know there are good and decent people who call themselves or identify on some level with Mohammedanism.

If there were not good people practicing Mohammedanism such websites as Muslims Against Sharia would not exist. I also realize there are Mohammedans that believe such notions that “Jihad” is all about the “Inner Struggle” more than make war on unbelievers to force them to be believers even if it means the Kafir’s death.

Nonetheless, even a brief cursory examination of writings considered holy to Mohammedans demonstrate this is not the case. Mohammed was an inherently violent man who liked his women (even if he had to force them) and encouraged his hoards of followers to war against the Kafir yet really the goal was to amass wealth and slaves (FIRST for Mohammed then for his followers).

Thus these “Inner Struggle” Mohammedans are not practicing the dominant tenets in their theo-political faith (Thank God!).

Places in the Middle East that PC Westerners might label practitioners of Mohammedanism as Radical Islam are actually closer to following the theo-political cult laid by Mohammed and carried by his Companions.

Saying that I came across a post on the social blogosphere known as VOX with the name Ben’s Blog. It is an awesome work of research that Politically Correct hide their eyes from and Mohammedan theologians DO NOT want readers to view. Hello CAIR and such American Muslim organizations that claim representation of American-Muslims yet support the radical Islamic terrorists and the theology of Saudi Wahhabis and Egyptian Ikhwan.

The peace is quite honest so I am certain some nitwit will call Ben a racist when in actuality he is a watchmen on the wall saying the enemy is at the gates. Check it out.

JRH 11/24/08
*************************

Why We Waste Blood & Treasure in Afganistan [sic]
Posted by Ben
Nov 24, 2008 at 2:11 AM
Ben’s Blog (Vox)

An important question was propounded in the Gathering Storm Newsletter. It happened in their Winston Churchill Golden Balls Award section from which I quote.

The Golden Balls Award goes each week to the most flagrant Appeaser or Apologist or those that outright lie that has done most to undermine our defense against Islamists. This weeks Golden Balls Award goes to: Hamid Karzai

Afghan leader pledges to protect Taliban from US

Mr Karzai said he would go "to any length" to protect Mullah Mohammad Omar, who has a $10 million price on his head from the US government.

He challenged his Western backers to leave the country or remove him if they disagreed.

"If I hear from him that he is willing to come to Afghanistan or to negotiate for peace... I, as the president of Afghanistan, will go to any length providing protection," Mr Karzai told a press conference.

"If I say I want protection for Mullah Omar, the international community has two choices - remove me or leave if they disagree," he said.

Tell me again why our troops are fighting and dying to keep this 'Mayor of Kabul' in power?

We are wasting blood & treasure in Afghanistan because our elected leaders are ignorant damned fools with neither knowledge, courage nor convictions. We sent an invasion force where we needed to send thermonuclear weapons.

The stated strategic objectives are absolute impossibilities; they can never be obtained by invasion.

Afghanistan; free & independent, democratic with:

· full human rights & liberties

· education

· prosperity

· not a haven for terrorists

· a state sponsor of terrorism.

Our elected leaders can not identify the enemy:

it ain't:

· Afghanistan

· Iraq

· Iran

· al-Qaeda.

it is:

· ISLAM

All worshipers of Allah; admirers & emulators of Muhammad, jointly and severally, wheresoever dispersed over the face of the earth, in all their Mosques, Madrassahs and Islamic Cultural Centers are the enemy.

The various wars ongoing in:

· Israel

· Lebanon

· Afghanistan

· Iraq

· Algeria

· Morocco

· Nigeria

· Kenya

· Somalia

· Sudan

· Indonesia

· Philippines

· Chechnia

are battlefronts in one war: Islam's global conquest of Kuffar. They are not separate, unrelated incidents. Our elected leaders are unaware of this fatal fact; unable to perceive the big picture because they have not read and comprehended Islam's canon of scripture, tradition and jurisprudence.

What our leaders don't know will cost us much treasure and, ultimately, our lives, liberties and culture. All will be lost because they are neglecting our defense. They don't know who the enemy is or why he is inimical. They don't know that this enemy can not be placated. It can not be appeased. It will not tire. It will not quit until it has conquered the entire world.

Muslims are not freemen; they are Allah's slaves, having sold their lives and their earthly prospects to Allah in return for admission to gardens flowing with rivers of wine & honey , with trees of low hanging fruit always in season and full breasted maidens who remain virgins no matter how often the Muslims sport with them. For that, the Muslims sold themselves, so that they fight, kill and are killed in Allah's cause. Our elected leaders are unaware of this fatal fact because they have not read Islam's canon of scripture. Go to 55:46 and 78:31 and read about the Paradise.

Al-Taubah 111 discusses the bargain between Allah and his slaves. Go now and read it. This is reinforced in As-Saff 10 -13, which explicitly sets Jihad as the price of admission to Paradise. Go read it. The gardens are mentioned often as a reward for those killed in Jihad. Why don't you believe me?

2:25

3:15

3:136

3:195

9:21

You think I'm a liar, taking things out of context, twisting, perverting, distorting or mis-interpreting? Then go to http://www.quranbrowser.com/ and search for gardens. Search for rivers while you're at it.

Why the war? Because Moe was a pirate, deriving his revenue from ghazwat. I must be a liar and a damned fool; Moe was a Prophet. Yeah, right. Which one of us has read the Qur'an & Hadith? Somebody does not know his subject, and it ain't me. I have something you do not have: proof.

Bukhari Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

That ahadith has been Bowdlerized from other on line texts but it is still in some hard copies. Moe got his living by his spear. For the abasement & humility part, see 3:112 . But you need confirmation, don't you. I have it.

Muslim Book 019, Number 4327 :The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.

Allah gave Moe special dispensation to accrue spoils. One hadith lists five special qualities that set Moe apart from other Prophets. One of them is relevant to this matter.

Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331 : 3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

In another hadith collected by Bukhari, Moe brags about victory through terrorism and claims all the world's wealth for himself.

Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220 :

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

How did Moe become wealthy?

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495 :

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs."

How are the spoils to be allocated?

8:1 . They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allah and the Messenger." So fear Allah and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.

8:41 . And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allah and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allah is Able to do all things.

In one ayeh, Allah specifies genocide as a prerequisite for ransoming captives and tells us explicitly what motivated Moe. Read it and curse Islam.

8:67 . It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Of course, as always, you require confirmation. I have it for you.

33:26 . And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27 . And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allah is Able to do all things.

What did Allah do to that Jewish settlement? What did Moe receive as a result?

Now you know the why, and you have a hint of what. I will now provide more explicit detail: Allah's open ended, outcome oriented, unlimited Jihad imperatives. Read them and curse Islam.

8:39 . And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29 . Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Al-Anfal 39 specifically refers to the pagans at Mekkah. But, unfortunately, it contains more general language. One of the compound terminal conditions is that only Allah be worshiped. Note the expression in brackets The translators got that from a tafsir. I have quoted the Hilali & Khan translation. Click the link I provided and read Abdullah Yusufali's translation.

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do

Al-Taubah 29 declares war upon anyone having a scriptural religion who does not convert to Islam. They are to be fought until they are subjugated and pay extortion. Click the link I provided and read Rodwell's translation.

Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled.

But of course those are anachronisms, not applicable to modern times and conditions. Yeah, right. Moe had something to say about that, why won't you listen? I made the crucial clause bold red so you can spot it.

Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2526

Narrated Anas ibn Malik:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist). The tyranny of any tyrant and the justice of any just (ruler) will not invalidate it. One must have faith in Divine decree.

Jihad continues from 610 to Judgement Day! What is Jihad? Hilali & Khan define it in a footnote to 2:190 .

V. 2:190) Al-Jihad (holy fighting) ln Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbersand weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (onwhich it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior, (HisWord belng La Haha illallah which means none has the right to be worshiped butAllah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allahprotect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferiorposition; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish.

Jihad is an obligatory duty In Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escapefrom this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies withone of the qualities of a hypocrite.

Narrated Abdullah bin Masud I asked Allah's Messenger, 'O Allah's Messenger!
what is the best deed?' He replied, "To offer the Salat (prayers) at their early fixed stated times.' I asked, 'What is next ln goodness?" He replied, 'To be good and dutlful to your parents." I further asked, 'What is next in goodness?' He replied,'To participate in Jihad in Allaha's Cause.' I did not ask AIIAh's Messenger anymore and if l had asked him more. he would have told me more. (Sahi Al-Bukhari VoI.4. Hadith N¤.41).

Holy fighting in Allah's cause. With full force . Shariah: Islamic law, also defines Jihad. Refer to Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller . I have added links in the text to facilitate your research. .

Chapter O9.0: Jihad

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216 );
-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89 );
-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36 );

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';
and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it. ''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

How frequently must Jihad be performed? Paragraph one provides this detail for us, as regards fighting Kuffar in their home countries.

As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year.

In case that is not entirely clear, another quote from al-Shafi'i should clear it up for you, if not, you are too stupid to breathe, let alone read.

Al-Shafi'i (God have mercy on him) said: "The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse." He said: "If he did not undertake the sending of enough troops to fight, those who are absent (must) go out, and consider as an obligation that which God (who is praised) said."

So, the Muslims are legally obligated by Allah's command & Moe's example, to make war on somebody every year. Who, exactly are they to do it to? For this, we turn to Book O9.8 & 9.9. Read it and curse Islam!

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),
"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ).

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshipers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshipers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya Shariah Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

Why does the Caliph make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians? Because of Allah's divine command in Al-Taubah 29. Got a clue yet? Shariah is explicit; read O9.8 again! Why does the Caliph fight all other peoples? Could it be Al-Anfal 39?. Could it be Moe's declaration that he was ordered to fight the people?


Whoopee!! We're home free! Attaturk dissolved the Caliphate so they can't make war any more. Yeah, right.

O9.6

It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the caliph's permission (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).

The fools have one last refuge: mis-translation, mis-interpretation, out of context and ignoring peaceful verses. I have one resource which trumps those moronic assertions. Ibn Kathir spent his adult life studying the Qur'an & hadith. His tafsir is the most widely accepted exegeses of the Qur'an. In 3:7, Allah tells us that his book contains commands in clear verses.

3:7 . It is He Who has sent down to you (Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'an). In it are Verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the Book [and those are the Verses of Al-Ahkam (commandments, etc.), Al-Fara'id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)]; and others not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof, seeking Al-Fitnah (polytheism and trials, etc.), and seeking for its hidden meanings, but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear Verses) are from our Lord." And none receive admonition except men of understanding. (Tafsir At-Tabarî).

Ibn Kathir tells us that those commands are to be believed and implemented.

The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented.

The titles which Ibn Kathir gave to some of his tafsir topics should give us pause. These tafsirs present the Arabic text, English translation, related ayat and hadith. Read them and comprehend the fact that Allah's damn book means exactly what it says in plain language.

· The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them

· The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

· The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah

· Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group

· Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad

· The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas

· The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr

· The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah


· The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites

· The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World

· The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book

· The Good News that Islam shall prevail

Remember the reference in Reliance to Moe's activities? His recitation & works are freely available for you to read at USC-MSA's Compendium of Islamic Texts. There are links to the Qur'an & Sunnah in the left side bar. Bukhari:

.Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)

.One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)

.Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)

Muslim:

.The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar)

Abu Dawud:

.Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad)

Malik's Muwatta:

.Jihad

Violent, hateful & antisemitic verses are scattered throughout the Qur'an, which is about one third of the Bible's length. Both the Qur'an and hadith contain considerable redundancy. These Surahs

8 AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY)

9 AT-TAWBA (REPENTANCE, DISPENSATION)

33 AL-AHZAB (THE CLANS, THE COALITION,THE COMBINED FORCES)

48 AL-FATH (VICTORY, CONQUEST)

61 AS-SAFF (THE RANKS, BATTLE ARRAY)

are required to develop a full comprehension of the Jihad imperative.

President Bush talks about the war of ideas, but he never identifies the ideas.

. Supremacism

. triumphalism

. tribalism

. literalism

. absolutism

and, most important, the mandate to conquer the entire world; those are the ideas we must fight. We must show the Ummah al-Islamiyya exactly who Moe was and what he did. They believe him to be the best and greatest of men, worthy of emulation. Most of them have not read the hadith. Reading and comprehending the Qur'an & hadith causes many Muslims to apostasize.

Read the Qur'an and understand that Muslims are required to obey Allah's commands and emulate Moe's example. Read the Hadith and understand that Moe committed genocide & terrorism. They can't get to Paradise and claim their Houris & wine until they convert or kill us. Do you comprehend what that means? Islam is eternal war. We must rid the earth of it.

The unlearned lessons of Vietnam:

· territory

· seize

· hold

· secure

· sanctuaries must be denied.

The unlearned lesson of Afghanistan & Iraq:

· break Allah's yoke of slavery

· induce mass apostasy

· kill the recidivists.

The unlearned lesson of Israel:

· allow no Muslims within rocket range.

Over simplified & brutal. Yes, it is, and vital. Anything less is a complete waste of blood and treasure; treason against the human race. See my recent blog post:
Victory: the Path to Peace .

This blog post is placed in the public domain for non-commercial use. Please copy, cross post and distribute it by email' send a link to your Congressman and Senators.

Islam is a Violent “Faith”

Act for America sent an email yesterday with a September 7 link to a reformist minded Muslim by the name of Dr. Sami Alrabaa. The link is to Europe News and the article is entitled “Islam is a Violent ‘Faith’”.

Dr. Alrabaa appears to be a Muslim devoted to his faith yet embarrassed about the violent nature of Islam as represented in the Quran and the Hadith.

Check out what he has to say!

JRH 9/24/08

Allah or God?

Islam Watch is one of those websites a non-Mohammedan can go to receive an understanding of the theo-political teachings of Mohammedanism (better known as Islam).

More and more anti-jihadists and anti-Islamists are beginning to sway to the opinion that Mohammedanism is a religion that is more political and militaristic in ideology than a personal faith in which a human seeks peace with a personal God.

I myself waver back and forth on this opinion because (finally) there are a few Muslims that are eschewing the murderous, lack of rights and intolerance that are indeed inherent in the Mohammedan holy scriptures.

There is a small group of Muslims that have a blog (MuslimsAgainstSharia) with a home site with the same name but a different URL (http://www.reformislam.org/).

Now I am not endorsing a reformed Islam as a faith for I am a devout Charismatic/Pentecostal; however I am also an American. As an American I do believe in freedom of Religion. I wonder how a reformed peaceful Islam would stand against a missionary Christian. I suspect without the threat of violence for becoming an Islamic apostate, the religion of Islam would shrink. Of course that is my Christian opinion. A reformed Mohammedan certainly would have a different opinion.

Nonetheless, without reform Mohammedanism is a deadly theo-political cult bent on intolerant subjection of the globe and the termination of Freedom and Liberty.

Thus you need to read this Islam Watch essay entitled “Why Allah is not God?”

JRH 8/12/08

Fitna and Appeasing Islam—Is It Worth Doing?

Abul Kasem writing for Islam Watch wonders why the Western World and Mohammedans themselves are upset with Geert Wilders’ movie “Fitna” when the five quotes used were from the Quran itself.

One point I would like to draw attention in Kasem’s essay is the thought to why so many Mohammedans (Western World and Dar al-Islam) reacted with threats of death and violence when so many Mohammedans proclaim the faith is a religion of peace?

JRH 4/2/08

Geert wilders film: The important points it missed

Larry Houle writing for Islam Watch feels that Geert Wilders did not go far enough in exposing the violent side of Islam.

READ HOULE

JRH 3/29/08

FITNA

Geert Wilders is a far Right MP in the Netherland’s States Generals (Dutch version of the English Parliament). Wilders seems to have a following among the Dutch which are tired of foreign incursion of other nationalities (particularly of the Islamic persuasion) in the Netherlands. Wilders leads the Freedom Party (PVV) which only holds 9 seats in the States Generals; however polls show that if elections were soon that number may double. It is an indication of the typically very Leftist Dutch people becoming fed up with the Mohammedan violence ever growing in their small nation.

With that little update on Wilders, here is the controversy he is stirring up in the Netherlands. Wilders has put together a short film entitled Fitna, which is a play on words from the Arabic language used to be critical of the Mohammedan holy book known as the Quran.

The film's title means 'trial' or 'tribulation' in Arabic. The word, which originally meant 'sledgehammer', refers to the struggle within the faith for the essence of Islam. (Expatica.com)

The States Generals is doing its political best to keep Fitna off of Dutch television because of the dhimmi attitude (probably a certainty) that the significant Mohammedan minority in The Netherlands will erupt into typical Religion of Peace mode and use criticism of their faith as an excuse to go on a violent rampage.

So the issue is – or maybe a better choice of words – the choice of The Netherlands Government is to either bow down in dhimmitude to the global and local demands of Mohammedans or respect the Western Heritage of Freedom of Speech even if it causes a Jihadist rampage.

Is the Netherlands and by proxy the European Union entering the dhimmi zone of appeasement minded squeamishness or will a back bone of heroism stand up to overcome the Mohammedan cultural invasion.

Charles “The Hammer” Martel we need you back in Europe!

JRH (Hat tip to Klein Verzet)

Ignorant Christians Criticize Rep. Duncan of Oklahoma

I stand behind Rep. Rex Duncan and his fellow Congressional members for refusing Quran’s as gifts.

I can hardly believe moronic people who call themselves Christians are calling Duncan and Company religious bigots. They are American patriots standing for what America was founded on: Christian morality.

The Tulsa World has one minister standing in front of photo Mecca criticizing Duncan. What makes Rev. Marlin Lavanhar a moron is that if he would venture to Mecca and defend Mohammedanism and simultaneously announce he is a Christian Reverend, the Mohammedans would lop off his head.

It is like Duncan says:

"Most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology."

The Quran and the Hadith include the killing of any non-Mohammedan that announces a different religious predilection.