Islam a peaceful religion - B/S

[american_jihad]

Read how peaceful they are.

GLOBAL JIHAD
'Anti-Islam' books spark fatwa
Author speaks out despite warning from bin Laden

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Art Moore
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

To say that Kola Boof is the target of a fatwa sentencing her to death for blaspheming Islam only begins to tell the story of this controversial Sudanese-born author.


Sudanese-born author Kola Boof

Boof, who is now under the protection of U.S. government agents, told WorldNetDaily that her first book about women who live under Islam prompted a phone call from Osama bin Laden, with whom she had become acquainted in Marrakesh, Morocco.

"If I had the time, I would come there and slit your throat myself," she recalls bin Laden saying in February 1998.

Along with bin Laden, Boof's poetry collection in 1997 angered many Muslims in North Africa, but her writing did not meet the full wrath of militant Muslims until Sept. 26, when Sudanese diplomat Gamal Ibrahim issued the fatwa.

The decree, calling for her to be beheaded, was given after a Shariah court in London's Islamic community declared her guilty of "deliberately and maliciously bearing false witness against religious sentiment and of willing treason against her Arab Muslim father's people and against her nation, the Sudan."

Supporters of Boof maintain her real offense is to speak out against oppression of women by Muslims and to cast a spotlight on the slavery and genocide carried out by Sudan's Islamist regime.

'I don't believe bin Laden's behind the fatwa,' she said. 'But I have no doubt that he would support it. He would be saying, 'They should have killed her years ago.'"

Intimidation

On Thursday, a handful of demonstrators gathered on Boof's behalf in front of the Sudanese Embassy in Washington, D.C., and outside the United Nations building in New York City. Publicists for the event included Sudan activist Maria Sliwa, who said only about a dozen showed up.

Intimidation by the Sudanese Embassy and by people claiming to be members of Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam scared away others who wanted to protest, organizers insist.

One week ago, the vice president of the Washington, D.C., chapter of the United Negro Improvement Association was told by a representative of the Sudan Embassy to not participate in the demonstration. The UNIA said it urged the embassy to issue a statement rescinding the fatwa, but was refused.

Another demonstration, in Los Angeles, had to be canceled, Boof said, "because the organizer was so terrified about Farrakhan's people calling her that she pulled out."

The author also said people claiming to represent Jesse Jackson called her, insisting that she cancel an appearance at Loveland Baptist Church in Fontana, Calif., pastored by Sudan activist Chuck Singleton.

They were saying "don't move on this, just shut up and be quiet for a minute, and let things be ironed out," she said.

Boof noted, however, that when a fatwa is put on one's life, there is no sense in being quiet.

"If I'm going to be dead soon, I might as well just go and scream," she told WND.

Jihad and genocide

Boof says that since February, she has personally received warnings from Sudanese government officials to be silent.

Sudan's National Islamic Front leader Hasan Turabi, who ostensibly is under house arrest, called Boof on Sept. 26, after the fatwa was issued.

"He said, 'Kola, you're dead,'" she recounted. "He told me point blank, 'You're going to be killed, we can't do anything with you; you don't want to shut up.'"

Some observers of the NIF government say the house arrest is mostly a show for the U.N., and that Turabi still is giving orders to the front lines of Sudan's war with the south.

Boof said she had become acquainted with Turabi, who told her, "Kola, I tried to go to bat for you, I've been warning you for almost a year now that you are causing a lot of trouble by being flamboyant."

The Khartoum regime has declared a jihad against the mostly Christian and animist south that has resulted in more than 2 million deaths and 4.5 million displaced people in the past two decades. The U.S. Congress has termed the government's actions genocide and recently passed a bill, the Sudan Peace Act, that punishes the Islamist regime for its atrocities. Secretary of State Colin Powell called the kidnappings, killings, rape and enslavement "the worst human rights nightmare on the planet."

"As a black African woman, I cannot and will not be silent as black men in Arab nations are chained up like dogs to the back doors of Muslim households and fed, literally, from doggie bowls," Boof said in a statement she issued regarding the fatwa. "I will not be silent as African women are raped, mutilated and mentally demeaned by sadistic human beings calling themselves children of Allah. I will not be silent as the number of little black boys who are sodomized by their Arab masters continues to soar, while even worse atrocities attend the lives of little black girls."

Atrocities too close to home

Boof said she was about 10 to 12 years of age – there are no records of her birth – when her Egyptian father and Somali mother were slaughtered in their backyard in 1978 by Arab Murahleen bandits for speaking out too openly about the coming Arab regime.

She was then put up for adoption by her Egyptian grandmother, who felt that because Kola was "too dark," she would not fit into the family and only be subject to ridicule.

Through UNICEF, she went to London and was adopted by an Ethiopian family, who eventually gave her up. The family thought she might be a witch, according to Boof, because she was "so talkative and intelligent for a girl child."

UNICEF eventually placed her in a black family in Washington, D.C., in 1980.

In an interview yesterday on Pacifica radio, Boof was challenged by a representative of the Sudan Embassy in Washington, who insisted that she was not Sudanese.

Boof says, however, that she was born in Omdurman, which is part of north Khartoum, a fact that has been substantiated by many members of the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement, who knew her father, including leader John Garang. Boof said she remembers being in Garang's home as a girl.

She said she is familiar with the kind of atrocities recounted by ex-slave Frances Bok, who stood with President Bush as he signed the Sudan Peace Act on Oct. 21.

"I witnessed the kind of raids he's talking about, where Arab men will come in on horses in the little villages, and they'll shoot all the men in the head, and then they'll kidnap the children and women, and you never see those people again."

The Khartoum government is paying for these militia she maintains, "no matter what they say. Everybody there knows."

As a child, she said she witnessed a woman with six daughters who could not bear a son be rolled up in her dowry carpet and burned alive after gasoline was poured on her.

Critics charge Boof is not qualified to speak about Sudan's current situation because she has not lived there for 20 years, and her most recent visit was in the mid-1990s.

"I'm saying, Sudan was just declared a terrorist nation [by the U.S.], so why should I have to have been there lately?" she asked. "It's the same thing going on."

Anti-Islam tone

Boof said she writes about black women's lives, but quotes that are negative toward Islam invariably appear throughout her work.

" I can't deny it, there is a definite anti-Islam tone to all my books," she said. "And, in fact there is an anti-Arab [tone]. That, I can't deny."

The end of her latest book includes an interview in which she confesses her prejudice against Arab people.

"I've admitted I need to work on getting over some of these traumas," she said, "But what else am I to think when Arabs have only murdered my father and mother and harassed people, burned up women in carpets? I mean, that's my view of Arab people."

She said she recognizes that there are many peace-loving Arabs who are trapped under the Khartoum regime, which she calls a "mafia government."

Though Boof considers herself a "pagan rebel" who would not vote for George W. Bush, she admires the president's stand against Iraq and warns Americans to not trust Arab nations.

"I love this country; I think this is the best country on earth, " she said, noting that while she cannot give details of the U.S. protection she is under, "they're treating me like a queen."

Selling some books

Boof admits that some of the controversy surrounding her work has to do with a contract that requires her to appear topless on the back of her books.

This is a representation of her animist African beliefs, she said.

"Even many Africans complain, [saying], 'Kola, we could use you so much better if you weren't doing that.'"

Her previous books have never sold more than 8,000 copies, but amid the current controversy, her latest title, "Long Train to the Redeeming Sin: Stories About African Women," is rocketing up the Amazon.com sales chart.

She notes that this has given some cheer to her publisher in Rabat, Morocco, which suffered the firebombing of its building because of her work.

"They're like, 'Well at least she's selling some books for a change.'"

Boof insists that she did not want to make public her acquaintance with bin Laden, but was forced to reply to recent claims in the Spanish press by a former roommate, Lourdes Harris, that she had an affair with bin Laden in Marrakesh. That claim was picked up by a "diary" column in the London Guardian on Oct. 24.

The Sudanese writer denies the story, but admits that bin Laden tried to pick up on her at a restaurant and later came to her hotel room.

"I can't deny he was in the room," she said. "He was only there because I was trying to get out of being around him without getting hurt."

Bin Laden is known to have lived in Sudan for several years after being expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991. Boof said she came across bin Laden in North Africa while trying to establish a career as an actress.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29607

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2004-16%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=Kola+Boof+fatwa&btnG=Search

Peaceful Ya Right & the walk among us telling us how
peaceful they are. Oh and watch the back door ,they
are converting south America to Islam...

[BigBro]

Good read and true, they are the Beast.
We should close Gitmo, just cut off thier
heads and be done with it, send them to
allah the Beast. :add16:

http://aina.org/martyr.htm

[Gawzi]

allah the Beast. :[/url]
ya right.. countries like america and china have robots and most advanced technology in the world and most of it is geared toward warfare...
i hope christians arent dilluded into thinking these meak muslims, whom most people make fun of because of their lack of technology, is the beast and will produce the mark of the beast.

i guess these are things american christians tell themselves to comfort their situation.

[Quiet Creeper]

ya right.. countries like america and china have robots and most advanced technology in the world and most of it is geared toward warfare...
i hope christians arent dilluded into thinking these meak muslims, whom most people make fun of because of their lack of technology, is the beast and will produce the mark of the beast.

i guess these are things american christians tell themselves to comfort their situation.


IMHO IT would be stupid to discount the danger posed by the fanatical muslim's simply because they lack the same technology we posses,tech or no tech,they are a dangerous enemy.

[Scutter]

Sure, haven't you heard? ....The mark of the beast is the mark that the evil mohammadans get on their foreheads when they bow to the ground and worship their moon-god!

[Truthsayer]

I thought the Mark of the Beast was When Chrisians sipped the blood of Jesus and ate his flesh to remember his name. I heard that Arnold was the Antichrist and Bush is the Forerunner of the Foretold Beast! :add09:

[Lotimer]

Looks like the thread starter's account was deleted.

"Another one bites the dust..."

[Quiet Creeper]

I thought the Mark of the Beast was When Chrisians sipped the blood of Jesus and ate his flesh to remember his name. I heard that Arnold was the Antichrist and Bush is the Forerunner of the Foretold Beast! :add09:


I heard that fatty arbuckle had a carbon fiber pocket pussy,how ya doing truthy? Chillin I hope.

[American_Jihad]

Its all about Good vs Evil , and make no mistake the quran is the

book of the BEAST. Allah is the beast, muhammed prophet of the beast,

islam religion of the beast , muslims slaves of the evil beast and the fanatical

islamic leaders goal is to unite the world under islam and take it back to the

7th century where the beast took control of muhammeds soul and islam was

born.

http://aina.org/martyr.htm

[American_Jihad]

Looks like the thread starter's account was deleted.

"Another one bites the dust..."

If you were in the middle east and they
found you were GAY , they would cut
off both your heads.....
:add37:

[American_Jihad]

ISLAM:
A "Peaceful" Religion?

Text of email from America Muslim leader
exposes the truly violent intent of Islam
Ever since the events of September 11th the public debate has raged about the true roots of Islam and whether the Quran (or as some spell it, the Koran - the only allegedly "inspired" book that all Muslim's agree on) teaches violence and death as a solution to eliminate those who do not convert or conform to the teachings of Mohammed.

It is no small surprise that Muslims, especially those in the west, deny the idea that their God (Allah) and his "prophet" calls for the "death of the infidels." Even when faced with quotes taken directly from the Quran which clearly call for the killing of Jews, Christians and others classified as "infidels", Muslims attempt to sidetrack the conversation or simply say that we are reading from the wrong version of the Quran or that the Sura's (verses) in question really don't mean what they say.

We've all heard the pundits and politicians defend Islam as a "great" and "peaceful" religion. While our political leaders are taking this stand to maintain their leadership in the secular affairs of government, I find it odd that so few in the media have challenged the roots of violent Islamic acts which come directly from the Quran. It is called "unloving"; it is not politically correct and it certainly goes against the grain of building the dream religion of the United Nations but the truth is the truth and Christians cannot afford to avoid it just to appear cooperative.

Franklin Graham has called Islam like it is; so has radio's Dr. Laura and even ABC's Bill Mahrer (who I find very little to agree with on his late night show Politically Incorrect). But the vast majority of voices being heard by America and the world have masked Islam as a milk toast non-threatening faith with only a few crazed extremists who strap bombs to their person or fly planes into buildings. (I wonder often how can any Christian - ANY PASTOR - stand by and through their silence act as if Allah and Jesus are somehow allies?)

The truth on the other hand is that Muslims simply CANNOT publicly agree that indeed the Quran calls for them to forcefully eliminate Christians and Jews. Herein lies the present confusion. True, many of them are "liberal" Muslims who like so-called "liberal Christians" merely claim to be followers of their religion and its god. Many others, with a sense of decency, honor for human life and the liberty of others, must be honestly troubled by some of the teaching set forth in the Quran. This denial that the Quran and historic Islam does in fact teach violence against other religions is compounded by the intense media spotlight shining directly on the likes of bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the PLO's Hamas and other groups who have gone about doing as the words of Mohammed actually command them to do. And though the best estimates tell us that only about 20% of Muslims worldwide align themselves with the so-called radical fundamentalists who pursue violence as a tenant of Islam that figure is still staggering considering there are well over one billion Muslims in the world today.

The December 13 release of the video tape showing bin Laden and others praising Allah for the ruthless destruction of thousands innocent human lives during the attack on our country has caused one of two reactions from Muslims. Either they denounce him and the terrorist actions or they clamor that the tape was "doctored" and denounce it itself. No one has heard any western Islamic leader publicly uphold terrorist bombings - until now.

Recently I received the following email which originated not from a PLO office still yet to be destroyed in the West Bank or from a cleric in Baghdad. It came from the leader of the Islamic Center of Everett, Washington. It calls the actions of suicide bombers "HEROIC ACTS" carried out by "HOLY WARRIORS!"

Obviously, this email was not meant for public consumption. It was intended for budding Islamic extremists to strengthen their resolve and plant more perverted seeds rationalizing the insanity of terrorist actions, in particular those recently perpetuated by the PLO's terrorist group Hamas in Israel.


-----Original Message-----
From: Z.Akbar [mailto:akbarzeb@xxxxxx.com] (email address withheld)
Sent: xxx, December xx, 2001 xx:xx PM-AM (time withheld)
To: (name withheld)
Subject: HEROIC ACT

AssalamoAlykumm Brothers and Sisters,

CNN the propaganda channel is calling some of the
Palestinian action as (Suicide bombers) horrific act
while we consider them to be HEROIC ACT. The so called
suicide bombers should be considered as HOLY WARRIORS
and not suicide bombers as the CNN puts it. Do they
expect people to do nothing when they have pushed
people out of their homeland with the propaganda of
the west. Little does the West know that every Muslim
in Palestine is a walking bomb, until such time
justice is served.

I have seen some of the documentary made on HOLY
WARRIORS before they go out in the path of ALLAH TALA
on a one way mission they have the last word with
their wives and children.

The HOLY WARRIOR is strapped all around with
explosives. His ultimate mission is to free his
brothers and sisters who are left behind subjected to
the oppression of Israel.

What CNN calls Horrific act We call HEROIC act
What CNN calls Suicide Bombers we call HOLY WARRIORS.

Suicide is something which a person does to put an end
to his OWN misery.

Holy Warrior does an act to free his brothers and
sisters from the oppression of Israel.

The non believers are so scare of dying, while a
Muslim knows he is going back to Allah Tala.
It is said that the Jannah is granted by Allah Tala
before the blood of the Martyr hits the ground.

What does Allah Tala says about oppression in the Holy
Quran

Translation: Shakir

[al-Baqarah 2:191] And kill them
wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence
they drove you out, and
oppression is severer than slaughter, and do not fight
with them at the
Sacred Mosque until they fight
with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay
them; such is the
recompense of the unbelievers.

I am not Alim I request all off you to do your own
reading and consult an Alim.

Please let me know if you would like an alternative
E-mail address added to the data base.

If some one is getting this E-mail more then once
plese (sic) let me know so I can delete one of the E-mail
address.

Please let me have your comments and concerns.

This article is brought to you by the Islamic Center
of Everett.


=====
It is stated in one of the Hadith that our prophet Muhammed Salella Alay Wasalm reported to have said that a person who is not interested in the affairs of the community is not one of us.

Wasslam
Aurangzeb M Akbar



As an aside let me remind you that God GAVE Israel the land it possesses and that the tiny sliver of land known as Israel is by far the most important real estate on the planet. The centuries-old conflict there is not about land. It is about the annihilation of the Jewish people - God's chosen. So make no mistake; the PLO doesn't really want land to settle on. They want the destruction of Israel as directed by the Quran. Publicly Arafat has talked peace for decades but privately and to the Moslem press, he has vowed the complete destruction of Israel.

Christians should be actively and lovingly pointing out the radical differences between Islam and Christianity; the Quran and the Bible and distancing ourselves from any so-called "Christian" who tries to integrate the notion that followers of Islam and Christianity somehow end up in the same eternal Heaven. How dare we defame the cross of Christ by silently standing by? We must point out with absolute certainty that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus - ANYONE who leaves this world without Jesus Christ's blood covering their sins is destined for eternity separated from God in Hell! Either Jesus is the only way or He is a liar.

Every American needs to be aware of the true intent of Islam. Every Christian must understand that absolute necessity of sharing their faith with Muslims who need desperately to be set free from the chains of this religion of violence. As Americans in a free society, our goal should not be to forcefully eliminate Muslims for certainly civilized people cannot take this into our own hands. Our goal as believers should be to pray and witness trusting Almighty God to release Muslims from Islam's enslaving and deadly grip - one by one.

(
http://www.ericbarger.com/islam-peace.htm

[SEVIL DOG]

I thought the Mark of the Beast was When Chrisians sipped the blood of Jesus and ate his flesh to remember his name. I heard that Arnold was the Antichrist and Bush is the Forerunner of the Foretold Beast! :add09:
No Arnold is a cybrog... :add09:

[Jack Griffin]

Its all about Good vs Evil , and make no mistake the quran is the

book of the BEAST. Allah is the beast, muhammed prophet of the beast,

islam religion of the beast , muslims slaves of the evil beast and the fanatical

islamic leaders goal is to unite the world under islam and take it back to the

7th century where the beast took control of muhammeds soul and islam was

born.

http://aina.org/martyr.htmI feel what you're saying, bro...

[American_Jihad]

http://nowscape.com/islam/islam.htm

[ProudAmerican]

If you were in the middle east and they
found you were GAY , they would cut
off both your heads.....
:add37:

Lol. They'd probably have a hard time finding the one taped to his bunghole!

[sweetchild]

If you were in the middle east and they
found you were GAY , they would cut
off both your heads.....
:add37:

nope. moslem law on gays only applies to moslems on grounds that moslems have a social duty to curb moslems from sin-ing. since he aint moslem, its moot.

[American_Jihad]

Quran 4:15
If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

Here one must note that anybody can point the finger and accuse a woman of "lewdness" meaning illicit sex and all they have to do to seal the woman's horrendous treatment is to get four other witnesses to testify against her. In case of gang rapes, there have even been situations where one of the rapists accuses the woman of "lewdness" and four of the other rapists support this charge with their testimony, in which case by Islamic law, the woman has to suffer the punishment for adultery.

Quran 4:16
If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for God is Oft-returning, Most Merciful.

The law for Muslim men who indulge in "lewdness" however is quite different. As long as the men "repent and amend" they are to be let off completely. This is a blatant instance of women being denied the rights that men enjoy in Islam.

Quran 4:34
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in absence what God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them , refuse to share their beds, beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means: For God is Most High, great.

The fate of Muslim women has been sealed by this Quranic Surah as it provides Muslim men a clear justification for physical violence against women. The verse is redolent with blatant chauvinism and declares that women should be obedient as slaves to men. What is truly shocking about this Quranic verse is that it clearly implicates that if a man even so much as suspects the fidelity of his wife, he has a right to admonish and physically abuse her by divine approval of Allah! In many cases of rape in Afghanistan, this very verse is used as justification by the victim's husbands to beat and torture her despite her innocence.

Quran 4:31
If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice.

This verse clearly illustrates that concubinage and treating Non Muslim women as sexual property is divinely sanctioned by Allah himself in Islam. A Non-Muslim woman who is taken captive in war is treated as "Ghanimah" or plunder. The captured Kafir (Non-Muslim) women snatched from their husbands can be enjoyed with absolute immunity by the Mujahids(holy warriors of Allah). Not only is it lawful to commit rape on captured women it is in fact a "pure and pious" act which earns the Muslim merit in the eyes of Allah.

Quran 2:228
And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise.

Again a clear vindication of Men's superiority over women is being sanctioned by Allah himself in this verse. In effect men have more rights than women in an ideal Islamic society.

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/keerthireddy/tapis.html

[stewey]

nope. moslem law on gays only applies to moslems on grounds that moslems have a social duty to curb moslems from sin-ing. since he aint moslem, its moot.

Is your husband going to beat you for seeing western civilization on these boards?

[ANTI-CHRIST SUPERSTAR]

yes i pointed out that this was one of Dubya Gump's biggest lies a long long time ago...so i guess better late than never :sex_01:

[Scutter]

nope. moslem law on gays only applies to moslems on grounds that moslems have a social duty to curb moslems from sin-ing. since he aint moslem, its moot.


So, according to you, is lotimer a sinner?

[Bomb Islam]

Lol. They'd probably have a hard time finding the one taped to his bunghole!
:happy_07:

[antarius]

Proof that Islam is the religion of peace. (Sarcasm).

http://www.kafirnifornia.net/?postid=67

I used statistics, and listed the sources at the bottom of the "article."

[zapcomix]

A religion that allows/calls for murder, kidnapping, torture and probably rape of innocence, whose followers are proud and offer it all in the name of GOD (what nerve) is not a "peaceful" religion. Talk about blind obedience. What kind of religion calls for murder, beheadings, kidnappings just because someone dosen't "believe." In fact a religion that says Islam is THE ONLY religion and all "non-believers " must be killed. If that doesn't sound like world domination, I don't know what does.

[sweetchild]

A religion that allows/calls for murder, kidnapping, torture and probably rape of innocence, whose followers are proud and offer it all in the name of GOD (what nerve) is not a "peaceful" religion. Talk about blind obedience. What kind of religion calls for murder, beheadings, kidnappings just because someone dosen't "believe." In fact a religion that says Islam is THE ONLY religion and all "non-believers " must be killed. If that doesn't sound like world domination, I don't know what does.

here ye here ye, Islam authority has come up with yet more credible findings. who better to know about islam than a non-moslem from a non-moslem country who happens to support a govt who fancies blasting up moslem countries 4 personal self-interests, dressed as wolf in sheep's clothing. yup yup yup, definitely the type of expert witness folk would wanna call in to testify on their behalf in courts. :)

[American_Jihad]

Check them out.
http://nowscape.com/islam/islam.htm
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/koran.html
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

Need a pop-up blocker to use this one.
http://i-cias.com/e.o/koran.htm

[zapcomix]

here ye here ye, Islam authority has come up with yet more credible findings. who better to know about islam than a non-moslem from a non-moslem country who happens to support a govt who fancies blasting up moslem countries 4 personal self-interests, dressed as wolf in sheep's clothing. yup yup yup, definitely the type of expert witness folk would wanna call in to testify on their behalf in courts. :)
Please explain in what ways I am wrong. Set me straight.

[American_Jihad]

bump

"Allah said: 'Fight them until all strife ceases and religion is professed for the pleasure of Allah alone.' He also said: 'Fight them, and Allah will punish them at your hands and will humiliate them, and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers.

[American_Jihad]

With all the controversy surrounding conditions at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib Prison and how we have alegedly been desecrating the Koran there I decided to publish this picture. It was taken in a Mosque in Iraq by one of our Marines. Notice this is an official Koran in its stand with a frag grenade set up underneath to explode and kill our military. So much for Americans desecrating their Holy Book...

http://img257.echo.cx/img257/5620/corangrenade26cu.gif (http://www.imageshack.us)

[Jack Griffin]

zapcomix opined: A religion that allows/calls for murder, kidnapping, torture and probably rape of innocence, whose followers are proud and offer it all in the name of GOD (what nerve) is not a "peaceful" religion. Talk about blind obedience. What kind of religion calls for murder, beheadings, kidnappings just because someone dosen't "believe." In fact a religion that says Islam is THE ONLY religion and all "non-believers " must be killed. If that doesn't sound like world domination, I don't know what does.
Man, you just got a part of it...the scary part is world domination...they are continually working towards that goal...

Of the 1.3 billion muslims on earth, if 1% were terrorists, how many would that be?


No other religion, right now, recruits and causes people to murder civilians, innocent women, children and men, with the sole purpose of promising them Martyrdom and Heaven, even 1/10th as much as Islam does.

As of today, there is no doubt that the largest supplier of people who kill civilians with the sole purpose of going to Heaven to meet their creator, or with the sole purpose of converting another to their religion, is Islam.

That, my friends, is not proof of a Religion of Peace.
In the civilized world, we'd call it a cult. Death Cult, to be more precise.

http://www.kafirnifornia.net/?postid=67

[American_Jihad]

The Shi'i View of Women

In the sura entitled 'Women', after listing those women to whom marriage is forbidden, the Qur'an states as follows: 'Lawful for you is what is beyond all that, that you may seek, using your wealth, in wedlock and not in licence. So those of them whom you enjoy, give them their appointed wages; it is no fault in you in agreeing together, after the due apportionate. God is All-Knowing, All-Wise' (4:24). All Shi'i ulama' and some Sunni ulama' hold that this verse-especially the words: 'Such wives as you enjoy (istamta'tum)'-refers to the permissibility of mut'a. The Shi'is present several arguments to prove this point. [1]

This verse was revealed towards the beginning of the Prophet's stay in Medina, which lasted from AH 1/CE 622 to 10/632. At that time the men of Medina used to 'seek enjoyment' from women for a limited period of time in exchange for a specified sum of money. By its revelation this verse in effect confirmed an existing situation; and it emphasized that men must fulfill their promises concerning the agreed upon sum. In Medina this custom was looked upon as one kind of temporary marriage and was referred to by the term istimta', the same word employed in the Qur'anic verse-even though the literal meaning of the word is 'to seek benefit' or 'to take enjoyment'. Hence the meaning of the Qur'anic verse must be understood in terms of the conventional usage of the time, for as is well known in the science of Qur'anic commentary and Islamic jurisprudence, the Qur'an follows the conventional usage of the people in all statutes and legal prescriptions. If someone wants to understand a word in the Qur'an in other than the conventional meaning of the time, he must supply a strong reason for doing so.

The context of the verse also indicates that it is referring to temporary marriage. In the preceding verses the Qur'an forbids acts of injustice toward women. 'Oh believers, it is not lawful for you to inherit from women against their will; neither debar them, that you may go off with part of what you have given them' (4:19). The most commonly accepted interpretation of this verse is that it forbids the pre-Islamic Arab custom of inheriting stepmothers. When a man died, one of his sons would inherit his wife, as long as she was not his own mother. The stepson would place a cloth upon his dead father's wife and thereby become her owner. If he wished he could then marry her without paying her a dower. Or he could keep her a virtual prisoner. He could also marry her to someone else and take her dower for himself, or forbid her to marry anyone as long as he was alive. If the woman possessed property, he was entitled to take possession of it for himself. [2]

The next verse reads in part as follows: ' And if you desire to exchange a wife in place of another, and you have given to one a hundred-weight, take of it nothing' (4:20). In other words, if a man divorces a wife to marry a different wife, he must not take back any of the dower that he has given the first, even if the dower is a very large one and he desires only a small part of it.

The next subject referred to in this passage is the marriage of one's father's wife: ' And do not marry women that your fathers married. ..' (4:22). Both this verse and verse 19 were revealed after Abu Qays b. al-Aslat died and his wife was inherited and married by his son Muhsin. The son refused to pay the daily expenses of his stepmother and wife, nor would he give her, her share of the inheritance or allow her to visit her relatives. She came to the Prophet and explained what had happened. He told her to return to her husband and wait, that perhaps God would send down a statute that would clarify her situation. Then these verses were revealed. [3]

In the following verse (4:23) the Qur'an enumerates the women who are forbidden to men. These are divided into seven kinds stemming from blood relationship and seven more stemming from other causes: 'Forbidden to you are your mothers and daughters. ..'. The next verse adds a fifteenth category of women forbidden to men: ' And wedded women, save what your right hands own.' It continues with the words quoted above: 'Lawful for you is what is beyond all that.' In other words, any woman not belonging to one of the fifteen categories is permitted, whether by marriage or ownership.

Much more>> http://www.al-islam.org/al-serat/muta/

Different Issues Regarding The Sharia Law
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/

[GlteByAsocashun]

Good read and true, they are the Beast.
We should close Gitmo, just cut off thier
heads and be done with it, send them to
allah the Beast. :add16:

http://aina.org/martyr.htm

Good Christian?????

Just wondering......

[American_Jihad]

This is the full text of the statement as it is published by the BBC official website:

“In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may peace be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him.

Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist Crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters.

We have repeatedly warned the British Government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid.

We continue to warn the governments of Denmark and Italy and all the Crusader
governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused.

God says: “You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) Allah, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.” IN HELL

http://www.moroccotimes.com/news/article.asp?id=7936

[American_Jihad]

check it out
http://www.werenotafraid.com/

[American_Jihad]

Revelation 13: The War against Terrorism, following the September 2001 Attack on the U.S -- A Bible prophecy and New Age analysis
http://www.revelation13.net/war.html
http://www.bibleexplained.com/revelation/r-seg09-10/r09c-like-horses-hair.htm

Count the Number of the Beast: Who is the Antichrist, the Beast of Revelation 13?
Osama bin Laden "The Destroyer" of Revelation 9:11
http://6-6-6.info
http://members.tripod.com/~beastwatch/Osama.html

[VAF]

Its all about Good vs Evil , and make no mistake the quran is the

book of the BEAST. Allah is the beast, muhammed prophet of the beast,

islam religion of the beast , muslims slaves of the evil beast and the fanatical

islamic leaders goal is to unite the world under islam and take it back to the

7th century where the beast took control of muhammeds soul and islam was

born.

http://aina.org/martyr.htm


:add09:

You're a riot.

[The man]

Alzarass

I second the motion that ur an idiot.

[American_Jihad]

Islam and Violence

After the events of September 11th, the issue of violence and religion has once again come into intense discussions and debate. It is our conviction that although various political, socio-economic and cultural factors have significantly contributed to the rise of violence and terrorism in contemporary fundamentalist Islam, we cannot ignore the religious dimension of this violence that goes back to the very heart and origin of Islam.

The point that we'd like to make is quite simple. Muslims who commit acts of violence and terror in the name of God, can find ample justification for their actions, based on the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings and examples from prophet Muhammad himself! We have often heard in the media that the relationship between Muslim terrorists and Islam is like that of KKK and Christianity. This analogy is absolutely false. Christians who have engaged in violence, are betraying the explicit teachings and examples of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Muslims who take upon themselves to destroy their alleged enemies in the name of God, can rightly claim to be following the commands of God in the Qur'an and imitating their prophet as their role model.

Our point, of course, should not be taken to imply that all faithful and devout Muslims, must become violent, in order to be true to the teachings of Islam. We will not hesitate to say that the vast majority of the Muslim world condemns acts of terror and violence. There are many schools of thought in Islam with various and often conflicting interpretations of the Qur'an. However, the important distinction that we are making is this: the minority groups in Islam who resort to violence, are not an aberration to Islam, but in fact can legitimately claim to be working within the basic parameters of Islamic Jihad. We will now turn to the evidence in support of our claim.

The following are only some of the verses in the Qur'an that can and have been used in the history of Islam in support of violence in the name of God and the glories of martyrdom in a holy war.

2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..."

2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not."

2:224 "Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things."

3:157-158 "And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together."

3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord."

3:195 "... Those who have ... fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God ..."

4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."

4:74, 75 "Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."

4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…"

4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

5:36 "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

5:54 "O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

8:12-17 "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. If any contend against God and his apostle, God is strict in punishment ... O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war ... he draws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge (indeed)."

8:59-60 "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know ..."

8:65 "O apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers, for these are a people without understanding."

9:5 "... fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ..."

9:14 "Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame ..."

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

47:4 "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) ... but if it had been God's will, he could certainly have exacted retribution from them (himself), but (he lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of God, he will never let their deeds be lost."

61:4 "Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure."

A simple reading of such Qur'anic passages makes it obvious how easy it is for many Muslims to feel hatred and enmity against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. Although, many Muslims are very fond of quoting some of the more "open-minded" and "inclusive" verses of the Qur'an, one cannot ignore the weight and impact of the above passages on a devout Muslim who wants to find and obey the will of God as found in the Qur'an. Before, we go on to other examples from prophet Muhammad himself, we need to respond to two issues that some Muslims bring up at this point.

Many have claimed that Qur'anic verses in support of fighting, were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad, was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur'an itself the above commands to fight are restricted to a special time period or against a special people group. Unlike the divine commands found in the book of Joshua in the OT, that were specific to a time, place and people group, Orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur'anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places.

A second objection that one hears is that Islam is a religion of peace and war in Islam is only for self-defense. Jamal Badawi, a popular Muslim apologist, claims, "Actual armed jihad is permissible under two conditions alone: one is for self-defense, and the other is for fighting against oppression." (cited in Diana Eck, A New Religious America, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001, p. 238). Although, Badawi is quite accurate in describing the conditions of armed jihad in Islam, what he fails to say is that the definitions of "self-defense" and "fighting against oppression" are much broader than usually understood. Many Orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation's leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are "oppressors" and thus a legitimate target for war (see John Kelsay, Islam and War, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, p. 35). Many Muslims argue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood values all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in self-defense (see the article by Mark Galli, "Now What? A Christian response to religious terrorism," Christianity Today, Oct 22, 2001). Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group can define "self-defense" and "oppression" and thus find an Islamic justification for violence.

We will now turn our attention to just a few examples of some of the actions and sayings of prophet Muhammad to see if Muslims can find any legitimacy for the use of violence as witnessed in the contemporary world. We want to remind the reader that we will only use the most ancient, authoritative and original Islamic writings in support of our thesis. The earliest biography of prophet Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era and was later edited by Ibn Hisham in the third century. This work was translated into English under the title, The Life of Muhammad, by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. The following accounts are some of the sayings and actions of prophet Muhammad and his close companions found in this biography.

In the constitution of Medina, whom prophet wrote when he and his followers migrated from Mecca in the year 622, we read, "A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer ... Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders ... The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God" (p. 232).

The first in the series of assassinations that the prophet ordered was an old Jewish man named Ibnu’l-Ashraf. His crime was writing poetry against Muslims. "The apostle said, ‘Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?’" One of his followers volunteered said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." And the prophet responded by saying, "Do so if you can." The prophet also explicitly gave his assassins permission to lie and use trickery in order to accomplish their mission. The report goes on to describe how the prophet's followers deceived the old man out of his house in the middle of the night and jumped on him with swords and daggers and brutally murdered him. After completing their mission, the followers reported back to the prophet that they "had killed God's enemy." The author concludes this incident by writing, "Our attack upon God's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life" (pp. 367-368).

In the very next incident in this biography of prophet Muhammad we read, "The apostle said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’" The author then recounts the story of two brothers, the younger one of which was a Muslim. Upon hearing this command, the younger Muslim brother kills a Jewish merchant. The older brother became very critical of the action of his younger sibling. In response the younger brother says, "Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off." The older brother exclaimed. " ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!’ and he became a Muslim" (p. 369).

In one of the battles, after one of prophet Muhammad's uncles was savagely killed, Muhammad became so angry that he said, "If God gives me victory over Quraysh in the future I will mutilate 30 of their men." Seeing the grief of their prophet, Muhammad's followers claimed, "By God, if God give us victory over them in the future we will mutilate them as no Arab has ever mutilated anyone." Thankfully, the prophet had a change of mind and later decided to forbid mutilation. (p. 387)

In another famous incident with Jewish people, after having already expelled two Jewish tribes from the city of Medina, the prophet orchestrated the execution of all the adult males of the last Jewish tribe of the city, and the taking of all the property and the women and children. The Muslim sources put the number of the Jewish men who were beheaded in one day anywhere between 600 to 900. (p. 464)

On another occasion, the prophet and his companions were looking for the hidden treasure of a conquered tribe. An individual was brought to Muhammad who was supposed to know where the hidden treasure was located. The prophet threatened to kill the individual if he did not tell the Muslims where the treasure was. Upon refusal to cooperate, "The apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head" (p. 515).

Upon conquering Mecca, a number of individuals were ordered to be killed by the prophet without any immunity. The crimes committed by the majority of these people were making "satirical songs" against Muhammad or having insulted him during his ministry in Mecca (p. 551). One person who was fortunate enough to be pardoned was Abdullah b. Sa’d. "The reason he [Muhammad] ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh." Since Abdullah was a foster brother of a close companion of Muhammad, he was able to receive a hearing from the prophet and ask for immunity. The prophet unwillingly granted the immunity. After the pardoned person left, Muhammad said to his companions "‘I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?’ He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing’" (p. 550).

To one of his commanders whom the prophet was sending on an "expedition", he gave this advice, "Fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with the spoil; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate, nor kill children. This is God's ordinance and the practice of his prophet among you" (p. 672).

Another assassination ordered by the prophet was regarding his uncle Abu Sufyan, the leader of the pagan opposition in Mecca. Muslim volunteers traveled to Mecca to carry out this mission. The assassination attempt failed, however. On the way back to Medina, one of the followers of the prophet encountered a one-eyed shepherd who confidently claimed that he would never accept Islam. We pick up the account from the Muslim assassin himself. As soon as the man was "asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck ... When I got to Medina ... the apostle asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me" (pp. 674-675).

The biography of the prophet follows this account with two more reports of successful assassinations ordered by the prophet. Abu Afak had "showed his disaffection with the apostle" by composing a poem. "The apostle said, ‘Who will deal with this rascal for me?’ whereupon Salim b. Umayr ... went forth and killed him." (p. 675). After this assassination, a woman by the name of Asma b. Marwan "displayed disaffection" and also composed a poem against the prophet. "When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?’ Umayr … who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, ‘You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr’" (pp. 675-676).

Once again, I think the above sample (which by no means is an exhaustive list of the violence found in the earliest biography of the prophet) is enough to provide more than an adequate justification for the killing and destruction of anyone who opposes the ideology of Islam and its demand for total submission. However, what is even more important for the shaping of Muslim attitude and behavior is not the reports of such a biography, but the collections of Muhammad's sayings and actions in the hadith literature. We will now look at a few examples from the hadith. The following are a few examples in the hadith collection of Bukhari, the most authoritative book in Sunni Islam, second only to the Qur'an (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 9 vols. translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Al Nabawiya: Dar Ahya Us-Sunnah, n.d.).

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.’" (vol. 4, p. 55)

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me…" (vol. 4, p. 124)

"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land…" (vol. 4, p. 161)

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (vol. 9, p. 45)

"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said (to his companions), ‘Chase and kill him.’ So, I killed him. The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy." (vol. 4, pp. 181-182)

"Some people from the tribe of Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milk) camels of charity and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." (vol. 8, pp. 519-520)

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (vol. 4, pp. 158-159)

The above tradition, like many others, is also repeated in other collections of prophet Muhammad's sayings. In the second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, the chapter that discusses this particular saying is entitled, "Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate." The author then goes on to write, "It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them" (vol. 3, pp. 946-947, Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, 4 vols.)

We will end this discussion with two more traditions from another collection, Sunan Abu Dawud. Under a chapter entitled, "Excellence of killing an infidel" we read the following saying. "Abu Harairah reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: An infidel and the one who killed him will never be brought together in Hell." The Muslim translator of this work adds the following footnote to this tradition, "This means that a person who kills an infidel while fighting in Allah's path (i.e. jihad) will have his sins remitted and forgiven, and will, therefore, go to Paradise. The infidel will inevitably go to Hell. Thus the man who killed an infidel will not be brought together in Hell with him" (vol. 2, p. 690 from Sunan Abu Dawud, translated by Ahmad Hasan, 3 vols., New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1990).

Another chapter in this collection is entitled, "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet (may peace be upon him)." The author recounts the story of a Muslim man who killed his slave and concubine by whom he had two children. Since she "disparaged" the Prophet, the slave owner, "took the dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till [he] killed her." Upon hearing the reason for this murder, the prophet said, "Oh, be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood" (ibid. vol. 3, pp. 1214-1215). The next incident in the above chapter is reported by Ali. "A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood" (p. 1215) Once again, the translator provides us with the following explanatory notes. "It is unanimously agreed that if a Muslim abuses or insults the Prophet (may peace be upon him) he should be killed ... even if a Jew or any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet (may peace be upon him) he will be killed ... The punishment for abusing or opposing the Prophet (may peace be upon him) was death" (p. 1215).

Violence in Islam, whether in the form of terrorism, or the persecution of Christians and other minorities in the Muslim world, or capital punishment for an individual who turns away form Islam or death threats on Salman Rushdie for allegedly insulting prophet Muhammad, are not simply some isolated incidents or aberrations from the true and peaceful religion of Islam. Such violence in fact goes to the very roots of Islam as found in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of the prophet of Islam himself. Osama bin Laden, quoted some of the very same Qur'anic and hadith passages that we have documented here in order to provide religious justification of his actions (see the transcript of his video tape in the New York Times, Fri, Dec. 14, 2001, B4).

We would like to conclude this section by referring to a program produced by Frontline and shown on PBS around the country, entitled "The Saudi Time Bomb." At one point in this program we were told about the state sponsored religious education in Saudi Arabia. According to Frontline, "approximately 35% of school studies is devoted to compulsory Saudi religious education." One of these textbooks published in 2000, was a collection of prophet Muhammad's sayings, which was used by middle school students in Saudi Arabia. One lesson is entitled, "The Victory of Muslims Over Jews." According to a tradition from prophet Muhammad, "The last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them so Jews would hide behind rocks and tress. Then the rocks and trees would call: oh, Muslim, oh, servant of God! There is a Jew, behind me, come and kill him." Like a good textbook, the teachings of this saying are summarized in several prepositional statements such as:

It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world.
This Hadith predicts for the Muslims God's victory over the Jews.
Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers. They will never approve of the Muslims, beware of them.
(Source: www.pbs.org./wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/textbooks.html)
Ideas have consequences. It has also become very clear for our world once again that violent ideas have violent consequences. We are not engaging in old Christian-Muslim polemics when we point out the prevalence of violence throughout the foundations and thus subsequent history of Islam. We are only exposing the teachings in the most original and authoritative sources of Islam. We believe that it is essential for people of good will around the world to know that underneath all the political, social and cultural causes for the rise of violence among Muslims, there is a religious foundation for violence deeply embedded within the very worldview of Islam. The world needs to take the challenge of Islam more seriously than any other time in the past.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Terrorism/islam_and_violence.html
:add09:

[The man]

Islam and Violence

After the events of September 11th, the issue of violence and religion has once again come into intense discussions and debate. It is our conviction that although various political, socio-economic and cultural factors have significantly contributed to the rise of violence and terrorism in contemporary fundamentalist Islam, we cannot ignore the religious dimension of this violence that goes back to the very heart and origin of Islam.

The point that we'd like to make is quite simple. Muslims who commit acts of violence and terror in the name of God, can find ample justification for their actions, based on the teachings of the Qur'an and the sayings and examples from prophet Muhammad himself! We have often heard in the media that the relationship between Muslim terrorists and Islam is like that of KKK and Christianity. This analogy is absolutely false. Christians who have engaged in violence, are betraying the explicit teachings and examples of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Muslims who take upon themselves to destroy their alleged enemies in the name of God, can rightly claim to be following the commands of God in the Qur'an and imitating their prophet as their role model.

Our point, of course, should not be taken to imply that all faithful and devout Muslims, must become violent, in order to be true to the teachings of Islam. We will not hesitate to say that the vast majority of the Muslim world condemns acts of terror and violence. There are many schools of thought in Islam with various and often conflicting interpretations of the Qur'an. However, the important distinction that we are making is this: the minority groups in Islam who resort to violence, are not an aberration to Islam, but in fact can legitimately claim to be working within the basic parameters of Islamic Jihad. We will now turn to the evidence in support of our claim.

The following are only some of the verses in the Qur'an that can and have been used in the history of Islam in support of violence in the name of God and the glories of martyrdom in a holy war.

2:190-193 "Fight in the cause of God those who fight you ... And slay them wherever ye catch them ... And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression and there prevail justice and faith in God ..."

2:216 "Fighting is prescribed for you and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth and ye know not."

2:224 "Then fight in the cause of God and know that God heareth and knoweth all things."

3:157-158 "And if ye are slain or die in the way of God, forgiveness and mercy from God are far better than all they could amass. And if ye die, or are slain, Lo! It is unto God that ye are brought together."

3:169 "Think not of those who are slain in God's way as dead. Nay, they live finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord."

3:195 "... Those who have ... fought or been slain, verily I will blot out from them their iniquities and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; a reward from the presence of God ..."

4:101 "... For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies."

4:74, 75 "Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of God whether he is slain or gets victory, soon shall we give him a reward of great (value). Those who believe fight in the cause of God and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil, so fight ye against the friends of Satan, feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan."

4:89 "They but wish that ye should reject faith as they do, and thus be on the same footing as they. But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of God. But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them…"

4:95 "Not equal are those believers who sit at (at home) and receive no hurt and those who strive and fight in the cause of God with their goods and their persons. God hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home).

5:36 "The punishment of those who wage war against God and His apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land. That is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

5:54 "O ye who believe. Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust."

8:12-17 "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers. Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips off them. This because they contend against God and his apostle. If any contend against God and his apostle, God is strict in punishment ... O ye who believe. When ye meet the unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them. If any do turn his back to them on such a day, unless it be a stratagem of war ... he draws on himself the wrath of God and his abode is Hell, an evil refuge (indeed)."

8:59-60 "Let not the unbelievers think that they can get the better (of the godly). They will never frustrate (them). Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of God and your enemies and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know ..."

8:65 "O apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred. If a hundred they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers, for these are a people without understanding."

9:5 "... fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war) ..."

9:14 "Fight them, and God will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame ..."

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and his apostle nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth (even if they are) of the people of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [religious tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

47:4 "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them) ... but if it had been God's will, he could certainly have exacted retribution from them (himself), but (he lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the way of God, he will never let their deeds be lost."

61:4 "Truly God loves those who fight in His cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure."

A simple reading of such Qur'anic passages makes it obvious how easy it is for many Muslims to feel hatred and enmity against Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims. Although, many Muslims are very fond of quoting some of the more "open-minded" and "inclusive" verses of the Qur'an, one cannot ignore the weight and impact of the above passages on a devout Muslim who wants to find and obey the will of God as found in the Qur'an. Before, we go on to other examples from prophet Muhammad himself, we need to respond to two issues that some Muslims bring up at this point.

Many have claimed that Qur'anic verses in support of fighting, were for a special historical situation concerning the beginning of Islam. They argue that since prophet Muhammad, was persecuted in Mecca for the first thirteen years of his ministry, he was justified in his military actions in the last ten years of his life in Medina and for the support of the budding Islamic movement. The problem with this reasoning is that nowhere in the Qur'an itself the above commands to fight are restricted to a special time period or against a special people group. Unlike the divine commands found in the book of Joshua in the OT, that were specific to a time, place and people group, Orthodox Muslims believe that the Qur'anic commands are universal and thus applicable for all times and places.

A second objection that one hears is that Islam is a religion of peace and war in Islam is only for self-defense. Jamal Badawi, a popular Muslim apologist, claims, "Actual armed jihad is permissible under two conditions alone: one is for self-defense, and the other is for fighting against oppression." (cited in Diana Eck, A New Religious America, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001, p. 238). Although, Badawi is quite accurate in describing the conditions of armed jihad in Islam, what he fails to say is that the definitions of "self-defense" and "fighting against oppression" are much broader than usually understood. Many Orthodox Muslims believe that if a nation's leaders do not acknowledge the rule of Islam, then those rulers are "oppressors" and thus a legitimate target for war (see John Kelsay, Islam and War, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993, p. 35). Many Muslims argue that America is a cultural aggressor by exporting its Hollywood values all over the world, and thus any fight against Americans is done in self-defense (see the article by Mark Galli, "Now What? A Christian response to religious terrorism," Christianity Today, Oct 22, 2001). Therefore, there is no end to how a Muslim group can define "self-defense" and "oppression" and thus find an Islamic justification for violence.

We will now turn our attention to just a few examples of some of the actions and sayings of prophet Muhammad to see if Muslims can find any legitimacy for the use of violence as witnessed in the contemporary world. We want to remind the reader that we will only use the most ancient, authoritative and original Islamic writings in support of our thesis. The earliest biography of prophet Muhammad was written by Ibn Ishaq in the second century of the Islamic era and was later edited by Ibn Hisham in the third century. This work was translated into English under the title, The Life of Muhammad, by A. Guillaume and published by Oxford University Press in 1955. The following accounts are some of the sayings and actions of prophet Muhammad and his close companions found in this biography.

In the constitution of Medina, whom prophet wrote when he and his followers migrated from Mecca in the year 622, we read, "A believer shall not slay a believer for the sake of an unbeliever, nor shall he aid an unbeliever against a believer ... Believers are friends one to the other to the exclusion of outsiders ... The believers must avenge the blood of one another shed in the way of God" (p. 232).

The first in the series of assassinations that the prophet ordered was an old Jewish man named Ibnu’l-Ashraf. His crime was writing poetry against Muslims. "The apostle said, ‘Who will rid me of Ibnu’l-Ashraf?’" One of his followers volunteered said, "I will deal with him for you, O apostle of God, I will kill him." And the prophet responded by saying, "Do so if you can." The prophet also explicitly gave his assassins permission to lie and use trickery in order to accomplish their mission. The report goes on to describe how the prophet's followers deceived the old man out of his house in the middle of the night and jumped on him with swords and daggers and brutally murdered him. After completing their mission, the followers reported back to the prophet that they "had killed God's enemy." The author concludes this incident by writing, "Our attack upon God's enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life" (pp. 367-368).

In the very next incident in this biography of prophet Muhammad we read, "The apostle said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’" The author then recounts the story of two brothers, the younger one of which was a Muslim. Upon hearing this command, the younger Muslim brother kills a Jewish merchant. The older brother became very critical of the action of his younger sibling. In response the younger brother says, "Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off." The older brother exclaimed. " ‘By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvelous!’ and he became a Muslim" (p. 369).

In one of the battles, after one of prophet Muhammad's uncles was savagely killed, Muhammad became so angry that he said, "If God gives me victory over Quraysh in the future I will mutilate 30 of their men." Seeing the grief of their prophet, Muhammad's followers claimed, "By God, if God give us victory over them in the future we will mutilate them as no Arab has ever mutilated anyone." Thankfully, the prophet had a change of mind and later decided to forbid mutilation. (p. 387)

In another famous incident with Jewish people, after having already expelled two Jewish tribes from the city of Medina, the prophet orchestrated the execution of all the adult males of the last Jewish tribe of the city, and the taking of all the property and the women and children. The Muslim sources put the number of the Jewish men who were beheaded in one day anywhere between 600 to 900. (p. 464)

On another occasion, the prophet and his companions were looking for the hidden treasure of a conquered tribe. An individual was brought to Muhammad who was supposed to know where the hidden treasure was located. The prophet threatened to kill the individual if he did not tell the Muslims where the treasure was. Upon refusal to cooperate, "The apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head" (p. 515).

Upon conquering Mecca, a number of individuals were ordered to be killed by the prophet without any immunity. The crimes committed by the majority of these people were making "satirical songs" against Muhammad or having insulted him during his ministry in Mecca (p. 551). One person who was fortunate enough to be pardoned was Abdullah b. Sa’d. "The reason he [Muhammad] ordered him to be killed was that he had been a Muslim and used to write down revelation; then he apostatized and returned to Quraysh." Since Abdullah was a foster brother of a close companion of Muhammad, he was able to receive a hearing from the prophet and ask for immunity. The prophet unwillingly granted the immunity. After the pardoned person left, Muhammad said to his companions "‘I kept silent so that one of you might get up and strike off his head!’ One of the Ansar said, ‘Then why didn't you give me a sign, O apostle of God?’ He answered that a prophet does not kill by pointing’" (p. 550).

To one of his commanders whom the prophet was sending on an "expedition", he gave this advice, "Fight everyone in the way of God and kill those who disbelieve in God. Do not be deceitful with the spoil; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate, nor kill children. This is God's ordinance and the practice of his prophet among you" (p. 672).

Another assassination ordered by the prophet was regarding his uncle Abu Sufyan, the leader of the pagan opposition in Mecca. Muslim volunteers traveled to Mecca to carry out this mission. The assassination attempt failed, however. On the way back to Medina, one of the followers of the prophet encountered a one-eyed shepherd who confidently claimed that he would never accept Islam. We pick up the account from the Muslim assassin himself. As soon as the man was "asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man has been killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck ... When I got to Medina ... the apostle asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me" (pp. 674-675).

The biography of the prophet follows this account with two more reports of successful assassinations ordered by the prophet. Abu Afak had "showed his disaffection with the apostle" by composing a poem. "The apostle said, ‘Who will deal with this rascal for me?’ whereupon Salim b. Umayr ... went forth and killed him." (p. 675). After this assassination, a woman by the name of Asma b. Marwan "displayed disaffection" and also composed a poem against the prophet. "When the apostle heard what she had said he said, ‘Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?’ Umayr … who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, ‘You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr’" (pp. 675-676).

Once again, I think the above sample (which by no means is an exhaustive list of the violence found in the earliest biography of the prophet) is enough to provide more than an adequate justification for the killing and destruction of anyone who opposes the ideology of Islam and its demand for total submission. However, what is even more important for the shaping of Muslim attitude and behavior is not the reports of such a biography, but the collections of Muhammad's sayings and actions in the hadith literature. We will now look at a few examples from the hadith. The following are a few examples in the hadith collection of Bukhari, the most authoritative book in Sunni Islam, second only to the Qur'an (Sahih Al-Bukhari, 9 vols. translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Al Nabawiya: Dar Ahya Us-Sunnah, n.d.).

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.’" (vol. 4, p. 55)

"Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me…" (vol. 4, p. 124)

"It is not fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he has made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land…" (vol. 4, p. 161)

"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him." (vol. 9, p. 45)

"An infidel spy came to the Prophet while he was on a journey. The spy sat with the companions of the Prophet and started talking and then went away. The Prophet said (to his companions), ‘Chase and kill him.’ So, I killed him. The Prophet then gave him the belongings of the killed spy." (vol. 4, pp. 181-182)

"Some people from the tribe of Ukl came to the Prophet and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet ordered them to go to the (herd of milk) camels of charity and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophet ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die." (vol. 8, pp. 519-520)

"The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." (vol. 4, pp. 158-159)

The above tradition, like many others, is also repeated in other collections of prophet Muhammad's sayings. In the second most authoritative hadith collection, The Sahih of Muslim, the chapter that discusses this particular saying is entitled, "Permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate." The author then goes on to write, "It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them" (vol. 3, pp. 946-947, Sahih Muslim, translated by Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, 4 vols.)

We will end this discussion with two more traditions from another collection, Sunan Abu Dawud. Under a chapter entitled, "Excellence of killing an infidel" we read the following saying. "Abu Harairah reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: An infidel and the one who killed him will never be brought together in Hell." The Muslim translator of this work adds the following footnote to this tradition, "This means that a person who kills an infidel while fighting in Allah's path (i.e. jihad) will have his sins remitted and forgiven, and will, therefore, go to Paradise. The infidel will inevitably go to Hell. Thus the man who killed an infidel will not be brought together in Hell with him" (vol. 2, p. 690 from Sunan Abu Dawud, translated by Ahmad Hasan, 3 vols., New Delhi: Kitab Bhavan, 1990).

Another chapter in this collection is entitled, "Punishment of a man who abuses the Prophet (may peace be upon him)." The author recounts the story of a Muslim man who killed his slave and concubine by whom he had two children. Since she "disparaged" the Prophet, the slave owner, "took the dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till [he] killed her." Upon hearing the reason for this murder, the prophet said, "Oh, be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood" (ibid. vol. 3, pp. 1214-1215). The next incident in the above chapter is reported by Ali. "A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood" (p. 1215) Once again, the translator provides us with the following explanatory notes. "It is unanimously agreed that if a Muslim abuses or insults the Prophet (may peace be upon him) he should be killed ... even if a Jew or any non-Muslim abuses the Prophet (may peace be upon him) he will be killed ... The punishment for abusing or opposing the Prophet (may peace be upon him) was death" (p. 1215).

Violence in Islam, whether in the form of terrorism, or the persecution of Christians and other minorities in the Muslim world, or capital punishment for an individual who turns away form Islam or death threats on Salman Rushdie for allegedly insulting prophet Muhammad, are not simply some isolated incidents or aberrations from the true and peaceful religion of Islam. Such violence in fact goes to the very roots of Islam as found in the Qur'an and the actions and teachings of the prophet of Islam himself. Osama bin Laden, quoted some of the very same Qur'anic and hadith passages that we have documented here in order to provide religious justification of his actions (see the transcript of his video tape in the New York Times, Fri, Dec. 14, 2001, B4).

We would like to conclude this section by referring to a program produced by Frontline and shown on PBS around the country, entitled "The Saudi Time Bomb." At one point in this program we were told about the state sponsored religious education in Saudi Arabia. According to Frontline, "approximately 35% of school studies is devoted to compulsory Saudi religious education." One of these textbooks published in 2000, was a collection of prophet Muhammad's sayings, which was used by middle school students in Saudi Arabia. One lesson is entitled, "The Victory of Muslims Over Jews." According to a tradition from prophet Muhammad, "The last hour won't come before the Muslims would fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them so Jews would hide behind rocks and tress. Then the rocks and trees would call: oh, Muslim, oh, servant of God! There is a Jew, behind me, come and kill him." Like a good textbook, the teachings of this saying are summarized in several prepositional statements such as:

It's fate decided by Allah that the Muslims and Jews will fight till the end of the world.
This Hadith predicts for the Muslims God's victory over the Jews.
Jews and Christians are the enemies of believers. They will never approve of the Muslims, beware of them.
(Source: www.pbs.org./wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/etc/textbooks.html)
Ideas have consequences. It has also become very clear for our world once again that violent ideas have violent consequences. We are not engaging in old Christian-Muslim polemics when we point out the prevalence of violence throughout the foundations and thus subsequent history of Islam. We are only exposing the teachings in the most original and authoritative sources of Islam. We believe that it is essential for people of good will around the world to know that underneath all the political, social and cultural causes for the rise of violence among Muslims, there is a religious foundation for violence deeply embedded within the very worldview of Islam. The world needs to take the challenge of Islam more seriously than any other time in the past.

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Terrorism/islam_and_violence.html
:add09:




Bravo for the Christian Madrassa, Bob Jones University for christian Jehadists.

[American_Jihad]

Bravo for the Christian Madrassa, Bob Jones University for christian Jehadists.
YOUR MORONIC
and i have no more time for U ,
but thanks for bumping all our posts.
:love_02:

[The man]

YOUR MORONIC
and i have no more time for U ,
but thanks for bumping all our posts.
:love_02:


Thank god, does that mean ur leaving this site for ever.

[Lone Star]

Dont you mean Allah?

[bustr]

Every American needs to be aware of the true intent of Islam. Every Christian must understand that absolute necessity of sharing their faith with Muslims who need desperately to be set free from the chains of this religion of violence. As Americans in a free society, our goal should not be to forcefully eliminate Muslims for certainly civilized people cannot take this into our own hands. Our goal as believers should be to pray and witness trusting Almighty God to release Muslims from Islam's enslaving and deadly grip - one by one.

Folks let's please not be that naive. We have to avoid doing business with them and if possible avoid working with them. Their admission price to the American dream should be the renounciation of mohammed and the condemnation of his treachery.

BTW It pains me to say that. I used to buy gas at a muslim owned station. While the owner is very nice I don't feel comfortable spending money there. I doubt he would be involved in terror intentionally but being a muslim he might be duped into it and the less funds available the better.

[The man]

Folks let's please not be that naive. We have to avoid doing business with them and if possible avoid working with them. Their admission price to the American dream should be the renounciation of mohammed and the condemnation of his treachery.

BTW It pains me to say that. I used to buy gas at a muslim owned station. While the owner is very nice I don't feel comfortable spending money there. I doubt he would be involved in terror intentionally but being a muslim he might be duped into it and the less funds available the better.


you guys remind me of that answering machine voice, wake up white people, the jews and niggers are taking over, or some shit like that.

[sweetchild]

Folks let's please not be that naive. We have to avoid doing business with them and if possible avoid working with them. Their admission price to the American dream should be the renounciation of mohammed and the condemnation of his treachery.

sure. why dont u tell that to the US business entities here where i come from. doing business with muslims, e.g. like u buying gas from that muslim gas station owner, well, it aint just YOU buying muslim stuffs, but where i come from we, MUSLIMS, are buying YOUR stuffs which i presume ends up funding WMDs to blast up Muslim countries. :)

[The man]

Originally Posted by bustr
Folks let's please not be that naive. We have to avoid doing business with them and if possible avoid working with them. Their admission price to the American dream should be the renounciation of mohammed and the condemnation of his treachery.

Fuck u and ur dream. plz don't buy shit from us and plz keep your goods in ur wearhouse too.

[bustr]

sure. why dont u tell that to the US business entities here where i come from. doing business with muslims, e.g. like u buying gas from that muslim gas station owner, well, it aint just YOU buying muslim stuffs, but where i come from we, MUSLIMS, are buying YOUR stuffs which i presume ends up funding WMDs to blast up Muslim countries.

1st. This doesn't concern you. It's an American problem. You tend to your own country's needs and keep your nose out of our business.

2nd. I like the folks at the convenience store and will gladly buy from them when I feel comfortable doing so.

[American_Jihad]

Terrorists warn missionaries to stay out

In Islamic law, the penalty for conversion from Islam is death. And dhimmis are strictly forbidden to proselytize. These warnings are in full accord with these provisions, once again illustrating that the "extremist" Muslims are the by-the-book types, and that only when moderate Muslims acknowledge, confront and repudiate what is actually taught in Islamic theology and law will reform even become possible.

From WND, with thanks to Cathy J. Palmer:

Terrorists have threatened retaliation against South Korea if the Asian nation sends missionaries to Iraq.
"We have received information that terrorists will act against South Korea if they find South Koreans have entered Iraq for the purpose of propagating Christianity,'' South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo Hyuck told reporters.

After the beheading of South Korean interpreter and businessman Kim Sun Il last month, Seoul advised all civilians to leave Iraq.

The group that murdered Kim, Tawhid wa al-Jihad, or Unification and Holy War, posted a message on its website saying the killing was linked to religious activities of the firm that employed Kim, Gana Trading Co.


Tawhid is not "unification," as it is translated here. It is the Islamic concept of the absolute unity of Allah, by which radical Muslims judge nearly every non-Muslim to be a polytheist -- and thus to be warred against, as per Sura 9:5 and many other passages of the Qur'an.

In a statement both in Arabic and English, the group said Kim, with degrees in the Arabic language and theology, wanted to be a Christian missionary in the Arab world.
The terrorist group said, "We killed him because he was a heretic who tried to spread Christianity in Iraq. The president of Gana Trading is also a sincere Christian. He contributes 10 percent of his earnings for missionary work and the company's name also comes from the Bible."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002606.php

[The man]

Terrorists warn missionaries to stay out

In Islamic law, the penalty for conversion from Islam is death. And dhimmis are strictly forbidden to proselytize. These warnings are in full accord with these provisions, once again illustrating that the "extremist" Muslims are the by-the-book types, and that only when moderate Muslims acknowledge, confront and repudiate what is actually taught in Islamic theology and law will reform even become possible.

From WND, with thanks to Cathy J. Palmer:

Terrorists have threatened retaliation against South Korea if the Asian nation sends missionaries to Iraq.
"We have received information that terrorists will act against South Korea if they find South Koreans have entered Iraq for the purpose of propagating Christianity,'' South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Lee Soo Hyuck told reporters.

After the beheading of South Korean interpreter and businessman Kim Sun Il last month, Seoul advised all civilians to leave Iraq.

The group that murdered Kim, Tawhid wa al-Jihad, or Unification and Holy War, posted a message on its website saying the killing was linked to religious activities of the firm that employed Kim, Gana Trading Co.


Tawhid is not "unification," as it is translated here. It is the Islamic concept of the absolute unity of Allah, by which radical Muslims judge nearly every non-Muslim to be a polytheist -- and thus to be warred against, as per Sura 9:5 and many other passages of the Qur'an.

In a statement both in Arabic and English, the group said Kim, with degrees in the Arabic language and theology, wanted to be a Christian missionary in the Arab world.
The terrorist group said, "We killed him because he was a heretic who tried to spread Christianity in Iraq. The president of Gana Trading is also a sincere Christian. He contributes 10 percent of his earnings for missionary work and the company's name also comes from the Bible."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002606.php


these freaks want to try to convert Muslims, I say go ahead, but what the fuck are you doing in Afghanistan or iraq in a time of war that has religion written all over it, you must be a bit responsible before you leave ur christian madrassa, think.

[American_Jihad]

IS ISLAM A PEACEFUL RELIGION?
We hear a lot today about how Islam is a peaceful religion and the acts of Muslim terrorists are outside the teachings of the Koran (Quran, Qur'ân). However, with a little research, it appears to us that the teachings of the Koran are, in fact, very violent. They call for killing the infidels or those who do not follow Islam and the Koran. The quotes below from the Koran are shocking and will likely make you come to the conclusion that "No, Islam is NOT a peaceful religion." It seems to be a recurring theme with religion: intolerance, hatred, animosity and discrimination.
One positive thing that we can say about Islam is that the religion appears to have kept alive scientific inquiry during a dark time in European history. Our research for the Ethical Atheist eBook entitled "THE FLAT EARTH: A Detailed Study of Personal Bias and Historical Thinking", along with research on historical thinking about our solar system, revolution of the planets and preservation of previous scientific works continually revealed that Islam maintained scientific knowledge while Europe floundered under the restrictions of the Church.

That said, let's examine what is held within the Koran regarding treatment of "infidels". By infidels, we mean basically anyone who doesn't share similar beliefs whether they be religious or not.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QURAN QUOTES AGAINST INFIDELS
[These quotes draw heavily on references (1) and (2), below.]

2:191, And slay them wherever ye catch them.

4:84, Then fight in Allah’s cause.

4:141, And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers.

5:33, The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

8:12, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.

8:17, It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah.

8:60, Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

8:65, O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers.

9:5, But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem.

9:14, Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

9:23, O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong.

9:28, O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque.

9:29, Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:39, Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

9:73, O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell - an evil refuge indeed.

9:111, Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur’an

9:123, O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

22:9, (Disdainfully) bending his side, in order to lead (men) astray from the Path of Allah: for him there is disgrace in this life, and on the Day of Judgment We shall make him taste the Penalty of burning (Fire).

22:19-22, These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water. With it will be scalded what is within their bodies, as well as (their) skins. In addition there will be maces of iron (to punish) them. Every time they wish to get away therefrom, from anguish, they will be forced back therein, and (it will be said), "Taste ye the Penalty of Burning!"

25:52, So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.

25:68, Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy.

37:22-23, "Bring ye up", it shall be said, "The wrong-doers and their wives, and the things they worshipped- Besides Allah, and lead them to the Way to the (Fierce) Fire!

47:4, Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.

48:13, And if any believe not in Allah and His Messenger, We have prepared, for those who reject Allah, a Blazing Fire!

48:29, Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.

69:30-37, (The stern command will say): "Seize ye him, and bind ye him, And burn ye him in the Blazing Fire. Further, make him march in a chain, whereof the length is seventy cubits! This was he that would not believe in Allah Most High. And would not encourage the feeding of the indigent! So no friend hath he here this Day. Nor hath he any food except the corruption from the washing of wounds, Which none do eat but those in sin."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References:
FaithFreedom.org - The movement of ex-Muslim secularists and humanists to lead Muslims out of faith of hate and into the fold of humanity. On the Teachings in the Koran.
Do I Spew Hate when Revealing Koran Killing Passages? - MichNews.com, J. Grant Swank Jr., 4/23/2004

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html

[American_Jihad]

Jihad sermons from all over :

Messages of peace and love from Friday khutbas from all over the Islamic world, courtesy Mideastweb.org via IMRA. Note that these sermons were broadcast by official government organs.

From Syria:

Damascus Syrian Arab Republic radio in Arabic, official station of the Syrian Government, carries on 27 February 2004 at 1010 GMT a live sermon from Al-Uthman mosque in Damascus.
Dr Abdallah Rabih delivers the sermon . . . He prays: "O God, deal with the criminal Zionists and those with them and behind them for they are within Your power. O God, scatter them, disperse their assemblies, lower their flags, destroy their economy, and make the cycles of evil turn around against them. O God, show us the miracle of Your power on them. O God, make them destroy themselves. O God, bring down your anger on them."


From Qatar, a sermon from Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, one og the star supporters of the new Boston mosque:

Doha Qatar Television Service in Arabic, official television station of the State of Qatar, on 20 February 2004 at 0858 GMT carries a live 60-minute sermon from Umar Bin-al-Khattab Mosque in Doha.
Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Egyptian cleric based in Doha, delivers the
sermon. He praises God and thanks Him for "having honored us by the best
of books and the best of prophets." Islam, he says, "has guided people to
the right path," urging Muslims not to boast about themselves. Jews, he
says, have claimed that they "are God's chosen people," calling on Muslims
"to pursue virtues as a way to salvation in this life and in the Hereafter." . . .

Regretting the imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians, the imam says: "Some people say that the Arab-Israeli conflict is no longer an Arab-Israeli conflict but is a Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Israel has everything. What do Palestinians have? They have nothing but their souls, which they sacrifice by blowing themselves up for the sake of their religion, homeland, sanctities, and cause. Therefore, some people consider them terrorists and criminals, who should be fought and resisted. Palestinians defend their right. They have no warplanes, tanks, missiles, or weapons arsenals, like those of Israel. Israel is backed by American money, American weapons, and American veto."

Regretting the fact that the 1.3-billion Muslims in the world have no political, religious, or ideological leadership, the imam says "we have no choice but to appeal to God to unite this nation." [That's just what Osama wants to do.] . . .

In conclusion, the imam prays to God: "O God, support our mujahidin brothers on the land of Palestine. O God, strengthen them, unite them, and help them score a victory. O God, turn against the arrogant, usurper, unjust, aggressor Jews and their wicked Crusader allies."


From Saudi Arabia:

Riyadh Kingdom of Saudi Arabic TV2 in Arabic, official television station of the Saudi Government, on 6 February 2004 at 0950 GMT carries a 22-minute live sermon from the holy mosque in Medina.
Shaykh Salah Bin-Muhammad al-Budayr delivers the sermon. . . . Concluding, the imam prays to God: "O God, save Al-Aqsa Mosque from the paws of the Jews. O God, help our Palestinian brothers defeat the usurper Jews."


From our ally Yemen:

Sanaa Republic of Yemen Television in Arabic, official television station of the Republic of Yemen, on February 6, 2004 at 0926 GMT carries a 21-minute live sermon from the Grand Mosque in Sanaa.
Shaykh Ahmad Abd-al-Razzaq al-Ruqayhi delivers the sermon. After praising God, the messenger, and his companions, he urges Muslims to obey and worship God, stressing that faith without virtue is useless. Although some countries have discovered the atom and controlled energy, he says, their civilization "is fragile because it has not been built on global pillars but on domination and competing to make tools of destruction." The imam asks: "Has Western civilization achieved peace, stopped destruction, and protected human rights? Has it provided security and refrained from concocting conspiracies and spreading sedition?" Everything around us, he says, shows that humanity "is looking for a solution, and the solution lies in faith, or Islam, simply because spiritual vacuum produces anxiety and trouble."

In conclusion, the imam beseeches God: "O God, have mercy on Muslims. O God, support those supporting Islam and disappoint those disappointing Muslims. O God, destroy the aggressive Zionists and the tyrant Americans and shake the ground under their feet."


From moderate Jordan:

Amman Jordan Television Channel 1 in Arabic, official television station of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on 5 March 2004 at 1002 GMT carries a 17-minute live sermon from martyr King Abdallah mosque in Amman.
Shaykh Jamal Shakir delivers the sermon. . . . In conclusion, the imam prays to God: "O God, strengthen Islam and Muslims, humiliate infidelity and infidels. O God, destroy your enemies, the Jewish and crusader enemies of Islam." He goes on: "O God, stand by our weak Muslim brothers everywhere. O God, stand by our weak Muslim brothers in Palestine, Iraq, and the other Islamic countries."


And another from Saudi Arabia, the pièce de résistance:

Riyadh Kingdom of Saudi Arabia TV1 in Arabic, official television station of the Saudi Government, carries on February 27, 2004 at 0945 GMT a live sermon from the holy mosque in Mecca.
Shaykh Salih Bin-Muhammad Al Talib delivers the sermon, which he devotes to the story of genesis and the heavenly messages brought by the prophets, beginning with Adam and ending with Prophet Muhammad and the message of Islam. All heavenly religions, he asserts, came with one message -- worship of God.

"Therefore," the imam says, "is it not time the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] pondered and acknowledged that Islam is a continuation of the messages that came before it and that it is the religion that God has chosen for the whole of mankind?"

"From the time of Prophet Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him, until the Day of Judgment, God will not accept any other religion or creed," the imam says and cites the Koranic verse: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost."

Continuing, the imam says: "Have you not noticed that in the past 15 centuries history has not recorded that one single Muslim religious scholar has entered Judaism or Christianity? On the other hand, history records with letters of light the columns of rabbis and priests who have converted to Islam and linked their messages with its final message, which God has chosen for all mankind."

The imam makes this appeal: "Therefore, from the fountain of the message, the site of its revelation, and the pulpit of the house [ka'bah], which was built by Abraham and to which Moses and Jesus, peace be upon them, made pilgrimage, I make a sincere appeal along with our Prophet Muhammad's message to non-Muslims and say: Embrace Islam so as to be peaceful. Embrace Islam so as to be peaceful. Embrace Islam so that God would reward you twice. Otherwise, you, and those that follow you out of ignorance would have to account for your sin. It is an appeal to accept the truth and study Islam; the correct Islam that the prophet of guidance, Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him, has brought; Islam as it really is, free of innovations and distortions; the Islam that is innocent of human violations and the errors made by some of its followers."

The imam then reads this Koranic verse: "Say: "O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah. If then they turn back, Say ye: Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims bowing to Allah's will)."


Then, in a nifty appropriation of the calls to Muslims to renounce terrorism, the Sheikh calls on Christians and Jews to renounce Zionism and secularism:

The imam continues with the same theme in the second sermon. He says: "What has caused misery to mankind in these times of confused ideas is when some politicians hijacked religions and used them as a means to suppress others and a tool to dominate the followers of other faiths. This is what world Zionism did to Judaism. This is also what the so-called secular governments did to Christianity. They coerced peoples and occupied states by religious motives and claims of religiousness. And, although they deny these motives in their statements, they come out in their slips of the tongue and are unequivocally explained by their statements. The clerics in those religions are called upon to clearly say that they do not approve the behavior of their governments and that what is happening is not advocated by their religions so that their followers who are used in these attacks, those who think they are doing a good thing and getting closer God, would know that they are mere tools in the hands of the politicians serving their reckless whims, which are not curbed by religion or morals. These people's [clerics] silence and shy statements would only lead to the conflict or clash of civilizations. The racial segregation wall, which usurps Muslim lands in Palestine, is one example."
The imam says: "O Muslims, and now a final word on the roots. It is the
duty of Muslims to strongly uphold their religion. The nation of Islam must
believe that it is the only one on the right path, that Islam is the last of
religions, that the Koran is the last of the Books and most importantly,
that Prophet Muhammad, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him, is
the last of the apostles, that the Islamic law [shari'a] is a copy of their
laws, and that God will not accept any other religion. Thus, it is
impermissible to concede any of that even if at the cost of our lives. We
say this at a time when some defeatists have weakened and called for mixing
distorted scriptures with Islamic religion under the claim of bringing
religions closer to one another.


"Distorted scriptures," of course, refers to the Bible of Jews and Christians — a bitterly ironic characterization in light of the dhimmitude that comes from some Christian quarters.

We say it also at a time when some people's faith is so weak as to believe that everyone is correct. This began from the statements uttered by some and the behavior and theses written by others. It is as if they did not hear God's words: "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never it will be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001150.php

[The man]

Hey shithead, what did you want, those guys to pray for your victory?

[American_Jihad]

FAS Note: The following statement from Usama bin Laden and his associates purports to be a religious ruling (fatwa) requiring the killing of Americans, both civilian and military. This document is part of the evidence that links the bin Laden network to the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. The original Arabic text of this statement may be found here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders
World Islamic Front Statement

*23 February 1998

Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin
Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt
Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Egyptian Islamic Group
Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan
Fazlur Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh


Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since Allah made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty Allah: "And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? -- women and children, whose cry is: 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

We -- with Allah's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded to comply with Allah's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.

Almighty Allah said: "O ye who believe, give your response to Allah and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that Allah cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."

Almighty Allah also says: "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For Allah hath power over all things."

Almighty Allah also says: "So lose no heart, nor fall into despair. For ye must gain mastery if ye are true in faith."
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

[VAF]

FAS Note: The following statement from Usama bin Laden and his associates purports to be a religious ruling (fatwa) requiring the killing of Americans, both civilian and mblahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda bullshit bullshit bullshit blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda bullshit bullshit bullshit yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah bullshit blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah bullshit bullshit bullshit blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blahblah blah blahblah yadda yadda blah blah blah

yawn.

[Invisoclam]

Its very simple.
scoreboard:
Casualties either directly, or indirectly attributed to Mohamed during his life:
Plenty.

Casualties either directly, or indirectly attributed to Jesus during his life:
zero.

Jesus said kill no one - quite clearly.
Mohamed said ???????????

[VAF]

Its very simple.
scoreboard:
Casualties either directly, or indirectly attributed to Mohamed during his life:
Plenty.

Casualties either directly, or indirectly attributed to Jesus during his life:
zero.

Um, the early Christians were persecuted heavily under Rome....

[American_Jihad]

Roots of Muslim Rage part 1
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/lewis1.htm

Roots of Muslim Rage part 2
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/lewis2.htm

When you get to the site, scroll down to bottom
of the page and check out the LINKS.

[Mullet Head]

Anyone who thinks Islam is a religion of peace needs to go to a doctor and get thier fucking head checked out. What do you think John Lennon was, the same as Bin Laden? Well, ...keep popping your fucking pills and eventually you'll dream up all kinds of illussions. My best bet is you need lithium!! :add01:

[American_Jihad]

http://focusonjerusalem.com/allah.html

[Truthsayer]

Its very simple.
scoreboard:
Casualties either directly, or indirectly attributed to Mohamed during his life:
Plenty.

Casualties either directly, or indirectly attributed to Jesus during his life:
zero.

Jesus said kill no one - quite clearly.
Mohamed said ???????????


But yet the Christians engaged in Crusades, burning women at the Stake. Slavery beyond anything the world had ever known, holocaust of Jews, genocide of indiginous people and the dropping of a Nuclear bomb on Japenese Bhuddist! :add09:

How peaceful the Christ followers have been.

[sods_law]

But yet the Christians engaged in Crusades, burning women at the Stake. Slavery beyond anything the world had ever known, holocaust of Jews, genocide of indiginous people and the dropping of a Nuclear bomb on Japenese Bhuddist! :add09:

How peaceful the Christ followers have been.Oh look; you found an excuse for evil Muslims to carry on killing in the name of God.
It all sounds bloody lame; if you ask me? People are still dying because of what Muhammad said.
Muhammad was so peaceful the Devil shone out of his ass. :add01:

[Kdfk]

Folks let's please not be that naive. We have to avoid doing business with them and if possible avoid working with them. Their admission price to the American dream should be the renounciation of mohammed and the condemnation of his treachery.

BTW It pains me to say that. I used to buy gas at a muslim owned station. While the owner is very nice I don't feel comfortable spending money there. I doubt he would be involved in terror intentionally but being a muslim he might be duped into it and the less funds available the better.


:mad_08: :add16:

Is it painful thinking up that nonsense?

[American_Jihad]

This is intended to be a timeline of Islam from a Christian perspective. I will not agree with some of the things that Islam states such as that Ishmael was the one honored by God.

570: Mohammed is born in Mecca

573: Abu Bekr, Mohammed's father in law and first Caliph of the Mohammedans is born

606: Fatima, Mohammed's daughter is born

610: Mohammed has a vision on Mount Hira

615: Mohammed starts teaching his religion.

622: Mohammed is forced to flee Mecca for Medina. This event is called the Hegira and is year one on the calendar for Islam.

624: Mohammed marries Aisha who is the ten-year-old daughter of Abu Bekr.

625: Mohammed begins to dictate the Koran.

627: Mohammed's enemies from Mecca besiege Medina and slaughter 700 Jews.

628: Mohammed captures Mecca and writes letters to all the rulers of the world explaining the principles of the Moslem faith.

632: Mohammed dies he is replaced by Abu Bekr who makes his capital Medina. Fatima also dies.

633: The religion of Mohammedanism as it is known spreads to Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria taking those cities from the Christians.

634: Abu Bekr dies and is replaced by Mohammed's advisor, Omar I. Omar will spread the religion to Syria, Persia, and Egypt.

635: Damascus becomes the capital of the caliphs. Gaza is captured.

637: Jerusalem is conquered by the Arabs. Arabs are exposed to Islam.

638: Persia is besieged by the Moslems and asks for help from China.

639: The Arabs attack Armenia.

641: The Library of Alexandria is destroyed by the Arabs. Omar destroys the Persian Empire. The caliphs will rule the country till 1258 and Islam will replace the religion of Zoroaster.

642: The Eastern Roman Empire is weakened by the Arab conquest of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria. The Amr Mosque is built in Cairo.

643: The Muslims conquer Tripoli. The building of the Dome of the Rock begins.

646: The Byzantine Navy recaptures Alexandria.

649: The Arabs conquer Cyprus.

650: Caliph Othman puts the Koran into chapters. He also introduces the first organized news service.

652: The Arabs reach their southern limit at Aswan.

655: A Muslim fleet destroys the Byzantine fleet at Lycia.

656: Caliph Othman murdered.

658: The Omayyad's rise to power in Damascus. They will become a family of Caliph's in 660 and start a style of building.

661: Caliph Ali, nephew of Mohammed, murdered.

670: The Arabs attack Northern Africa.

671: "Greek Fire" is used against the Arabs during their siege of Constantinople.

674: The Arabs reach the Indus River.

679: Yezid I becomes Caliph.

683: Moawiyah II becomes Caliph.

684: Abdelmelik becomes Caliph.

693: Justinian II is defeated by the Arabs at Sebastopolis, Cilicia. Justinian was a Byzantine emperor who had invaded Arab territory for Christianity.

694: Arabs overrun Armenia

695: First Arab coinage.

697: The Arabs destroy Carthage.

700: The Arabs conquer Algiers and Christianity in North Africa is wiped out.

705: Walid I becomes Caliph. The Great Mosque is built in Damascus.

711: Spain with the exception of Asturias becomes an Arab state.

712: The Muslims conquer Samarkand, Seville, and an Indian state is established in Sind.

716: The Arabs conquer Lisbon.

717: Caliph Omar II grants tax exemption to all believers.

720: The Arabs cross into France. Yezid becomes Caliph. Abu Masa Dshaffar, who invents sulfuric acid, metric acid, aqua regia, and nitrate of silver, begins work.

724: Hisham becomes Caliph.

732: Charles Martel defeats the Arabs at Tours and stops the westward expansion of the religion.

744: Mervan II becomes Caliph he is the last of the Omayyads.

748: The Arab Navy is destroyed at Cyprus.

750: The Abbasids take over the Caliph office with their first Caliph Abu-al-Abbis. This year begins the study of medicine, astronomy, mathematics, optics, and chemistry in Arab Spain.

751: Western Asia embraces Islam. Islam fractions into four sects: Sunnites, Hafenities, Shafites, and Malikites.

754: Al Mansur becomes Caliph.

755: The Cordoba family takes the Caliph office until 1031.

763: Caliph al-Mansur moves the capital to Baghdad.

775: Caliph Mahdi starts an inquisition.

782: The Arab scientist Jabir starts to separate the study of Chemistry from alchemy.

809: Caliph al-Amin takes office.

810: Arab mathematician Muhammed ibn Musa al Chwarazmi starts to study equations which he calls Algebra.

826: The Arabs take Crete and plunder the Greek isles. The following year they will invade Sicily and Sardinia.

832: The Arabs invade Egypt

833: Samarra becomes the new capital of Islam.

838: Arabs sack Marseilles and settle in southern Italy. They also manage to defeat the Byzantine Army.

846: The Arabs sack Rome and damage the Vatican.

847: Mottawakkil becomes Caliph. He is the last Caliph of the whole Islam religion. After this the religion since it has split no longer listens to a caliph from another section.

850: The Arabs invent coffee.

858: Vikings are expelled by the Arabs from their lands.

869: Malta is captured by the Arabs.

880: The Arabs lose Italy.

888: The Arabs occupy Garde-Freinet on the coast of Provence.

900: Christians begin the reconquest of Spain from the Arabs. The Arab physician Rhases declares plague, consumption, smallpox, and rabies to be infectious diseases.

904: Salonika is sacked by Muslim pirates.

916: Arabs are expelled from central Italy.

935: Algiers is built by Arabs.

939: The Arabs lose Madrid.

961: The Arabs lose Crete

968: The Arabs found Cairo and lose Antioch.

975: Arabs lose Garde-Freinet

994: Arabs destroy the monastery of Monte Cassino. This is where the first rules for monks were established.

1004: Arabs sack Pisa.

1009: Muslims sack the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.

1015: the Arabs conquer Sardinia.

1033: The Arabs lose Castile

1052: The Arabs lose Sardinia.

1075: The Turks, who are Muslim, take Syria and Palestine

1085: Toledo is taken from Arabs.

1086: The Muslims revive the Almoravid dynasty in a move to take back Spain.

1094: Valencia is taken from the Arabs.

1095: Pope Urban II starts The First Crusade.

1097: The Crusaders defeat the Turks at Dorylaeum, and take Nicaea.

1098: The Crusaders take Antioch

1099: The Crusaders take Jerusalem

1104: The Crusaders take Acre. This marks the end of the First Crusade

1125: The Almohades conquer Morocco.

1144: The Turks take Edessa.

1145: Pope Eugene III proclaims The Second Crusade.

1147: The Second Crusade ends in Asia Minor.

1176: General Saladin conquers Syria for the Arabs.

1183: General Saladin takes Aleppo.

1187: Saladin takes Jerusalem.

1189: Third Crusade is proclaimed.

1191: Richard I and his Crusade Army takes Cyprus

1193: Saladin dies and the Third Crusade ends

1200: Islam starts to replace Indian religions.

1202: The Fourth Crusade begins.

1203: The Arabs conquer Upper India.

1204: Crusaders take Constantinople and the Fourth Crusade is declared over.

1212: The Children's Crusade begins.

1217: The Children's Crusade fails to take Egypt and ends.

1228: The Sixth Crusade begins. It would end the next year with no gains.

1230: The Crusaders manage to bring Leprosy into Europe.

1236: The Arabs lose Cordoba to Castile.

1244: The Egyptians take Jerusalem.

1248: The Seventh Crusade begins. It ends in 1250 with the capture of Louis IX.

1258: The Mongols take Baghdad from the Arabs.

1270: The Eighth Crusade begins and ends the same year.

1291: The Muslim Mamelukes take Acre and end Christian rule in the East. The Crusade period is declared to be over by the Pope.

1333: Arabic Zenith in Granada

1352: Arabs explore the Sahara

1375: The Mamelukes take Sis and end Armenian independence.

1382: The Ottoman Turks capture Sofia.

1390: The Ottoman Turks capture Asia Minor from the Byzantines.

1396: The Ottoman Turks defeat a Hungarian Army at Nicopolis.

1398: The Ottoman Turks conquer Delhi.

1401: The Ottoman Turks capture Baghdad and Damascus.

1443: The Hungarians at Nish defeat The Ottoman Turks

1444: The Ottoman Turks defeat the Polish and Hungarians at Varna.

1447: The Arabs lose India, Persia, and Afghanistan.

1453: The Ottoman Turks capture Constantinople and destroy the Byzantine Empire.

1456: The Ottoman Turks capture Athens.

1463: The Ottoman Turks capture Bosnia.

1467: The Ottoman Turks capture Herzegovina

1492: The Country of Spain becomes a reality with the end of Arab rule. The Ottoman Turks invade Hungary

1493: The Ottoman Turks invade Dalmatia and Croatia.

1501: Persia officially adopts Islam.

1507: The Portuguese establish bases in the Persian Gulf.

1517: The Ottoman's take Egypt

1526: The Arabs finally take India.

1528: The Ottoman Turks take Buda in Hungary. The next year they will fail to take Vienna.

1550: Islam spreads to Java, Molucca, and Borneo

1568: All remaining Muslims in Spain are forcibly converted to Catholicism.

1571: The Spread of the Ottoman Empire ends at the Mediterranean.

1711: Russia and Turkey go to war.

1718: Turkey and Austria go to war. Turkey loses and will lose Hungary.

1722: Afghanistan becomes independent from Persia.

1804: Sudan becomes an Islamic State.

1811: British occupy Indonesia. They will give it to the Dutch in 1816.

1824: Greece becomes independent.

1827: Malaya becomes a British protectorate.

1828: Russia declares war on Turkey.

1830: French forces occupy Algeria ending Turk rule.

1839: Turkey loses Egypt.

1840: Egypt is forced to give up Syria.

1857: Great Britain takes India and ends Muslim rule there.

1859: The Islamic State of Daghestan becomes a Russian State.

1876: Britain builds the Suez Canal and takes over Egypt.

1878: Turkey sells Cyprus to Britain and Russia takes Adrianople.

1879: With the treaty of Berlin, Turkey loses 4/5 of its land in Europe.

1881: France invades Tunisia.

1901: France occupies Morocco.

1905: Islam reaches France once again as it is recognized as a religion.

1916: Arabs rebel against Ottoman Rule. They are led by Lawrence of Arabia.

1918: With the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire ceases to exist. Syria and Damascus become French protectorates. Palestine is born.

1921: The country of Transjorden is declared along with that of Iraq.

1924: Arabia is established as it gains control of Mecca and Medina.

1928: Turkey is declared a secular state.

1932: Iraq gains its independence.

1935: Persia changes its name to Iran.

1936: With increased Jewish immigration the first war occurs between Jewish and Arab people in the Holy Land.

1941: Britain and Russia invade Iran.

1943: Palestine starts a terror war in the Holy Land.

1946: Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria are granted independence.

1947: Pakistan is made a Muslim country as it separates from India.

1948: Israel becomes a country. The Arabs reject their own state and go to war with Israel. The Arabs lose their first war.

1951: Libya becomes independent.

1956: Morocco and Tunisia become independent. The Israelis take the Sinai.

1962: Algeria becomes independent.

1965: Malcolm X is assassinated in America ending for a time the Black Muslim movement in America. It would start up again in the 1970's

1967: The six-day war

1973: The Yom Kipper War.

1979: The Shah is overthrown in Iran and the country becomes a fanatical Muslim state.

1980: Israel destroys Iraq's nuclear plant and Iraq invades Iran

1989: Iraq-Iran war comes to an end,

1991: Persian Gulf War I

2001: The World Trade Center is destroyed. Later that year Afghanistan is pacified by America

2003: Iraq is freed.

[American_Jihad]

Most people realize that Islam is of the world’s major religions, but very few know much about it. Since September 11 it has received a lot of media attention, and there has been a major campaign to paint it as a religion of peace. As individuals, many Muslims may be peace loving people, but is it true of the ideology and doctrines of Islam itself?

Islam is a religion, but the core of Islamic teaching, is that religion is not a part of life, but life is a part of religion. Thus everything in life is dominated by religion. As such, Islam is a socio-political, socio-religious, socio-economical, educa*tional, legislative, judicial, and militaristic system clothed in religious terminology. Islam grants radical Muslims a mandate to change the existing society into an Islamic dominated society. How is this achieved? History proves it is by violent aggression and severe oppression, fueled by religious zeal.

Jihad – The Way to Paradise
The familiar term Jihad -- often translated holy war; literally means struggle. Many Muslims will say that jihad is about struggling against evil and, only if necessary, defending one's homeland and religious heritage. Militant Muslims will point to numerous Qur'anic texts where Muhammad (as Allah's spokesman) commands his followers to fight and subdue all who resist Islam. What leads young men to volunteer to die for the privilege of killing others “for the cause of Allah?” It may have much to do with the fact that Islam offers no certain hope of heaven, with one exception -- dying in the cause of jihad. Martyrdom is the only assured path to Paradise and acceptance into the "Gardens of Sensual Delights." A person may do many kind deeds during his life, he may even scar himself in brutal self-mutilation ceremonies for Allah, but he may only hope that he will attain heaven. These works don't guarantee success like martyrdom in the 'cause of Allah.'

The Qur’an and the Hadith
The Qur'an is the Muslim 'holy book' dating from the 6th century AD, believed by Muslims to have been given by revelation to Muhammad, "the last prophet' in the line from Abraham through Ishmael -- who is believed to be the true child of promise. The Hadith is the narrative, and record of individual sayings, actions and approvals of Muhammad, taken as the model of behavior by Muslims. Both books contain an abundance of accounts and directives of brutality and domination, and a clear call to war. Consider a few verses from the Qur'an and the Hadith:

"As for those who are slain in the cause of God... He will admit them to the Paradise He has made known to them.” (47:8)
"Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whether he dies or triumphs, we shall richly reward him. . .(47:8)
"Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. lie in ambush everywhere for them." (9:5)
"Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides..." (5:34)
"Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given... and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.” (9:29)
From the Hadith: lbn Haban in his Sahih, vol.14, p.529, narrates: Muhammad said, "I swear by Him who has my soul in his hands, I was sent to you with nothing but slaughter."

Islam Around the World
The concept of jihad is rooted in another concept -- Shari'a (Islamic law.) More than forty of the world's countries with a majority of Muslim population, have embraced Shari'a, and those that have not are under relentless pressure to do so. For example, over the past nine years in Algeria, some 100,000 moderate Muslims have been slain by militant Muslims. The reason? The militant Muslims want political control of the nation. This is a growing trend in the Islamic world.

Islam claims to be a religion that has the answers for society, a religion that offers peace and wholeness. So where should we look for an example of true Islam in practice? Iran? Afghanistan? Pakistan? Libya? Turkey? Egypt? Indonesia? How about Saudi Arabia? While many Muslims may decry the kingdom of Saudi Arabia as corrupt, it is the "keeper of Islam" and the religious center toward which more than one billion Muslims face five times a day as they repeat their prayers. In Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion is nonexistent. It is illegal to read a Bible or vocalize a non-Muslim prayer in the privacy of one's own home.

Under Islamic law, conversion to Christianity by a Saudi citizen is punishable by beheading. We have heard it said by Christian leaders in this country that the Muslims are our brothers. How can this be when one considers the persecution Christians suffer around the world under Islam?

According to Amnesty International, the persecution of Christians in Saudi Arabia has increased dramatically since the Gulf War. More than a thousand cases have been documented in which Christian foreign workers have been arrested, imprisoned and/or beaten for participating in private worship meetings. Islam teaches that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he is of the blood line of Isaac, whereas (Islam teaches) the promises of Abraham flow through Ishmael and onto Muhammad. Written on the outside of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem are the words: "The God Who Has No Son."

The harsh reality is that in every country where Shari'a is embraced, non-Muslims face, at best, discrimination, social ostracism and harassment, and at worst, prison, torture, and death for their religious beliefs. A horrifying example of Shari'a and Jihad in combination can be seen in Sudan, where since 1983, the Muslim Arab North has killed an estimated two million non-Muslim blacks in the South. Another five million have been displaced. Slavery, rape, torture, forced Qur'anic indoctrination of children, and bombings of churches are regular events. In Indonesia, the Laksar Jihad, a well-organized and well-armed Islamic militia is waging a war to annihilate the Christian population. Over the past several years, thousands of Indonesian Christians have been butchered for the crime of not converting to Islam. If Islam is for "peace and harmony," then where is the widespread outrage from Muslims over these ongoing atrocities committed in the name of Allah? As of October, of 30 wars raging in the world, 28 Involved Muslim aggression.

The Qur'an teaches that Muslims are not to initiate war. But Islam has a way around this. For example, Muslims are supposed to offer non-Muslims an 'opportunity' to embrace Islam. If they refuse, Muslim thought is that they have committed aggression against Allah and Islam. Therefore, the Muslim is allowed to fight these 'aggressors against Allah and Islam' until they become Muslims or are killed. The Qur'an also teaches that Muslims do not owe honesty to 'infidels,' therefore even world leaders can lie in high level negotiations without conscience. And their words are often doublespeak. When Arafat says, "We deplore the killing of innocent people!" He is speaking honestly. However, according to Qur'an, only very strict adherents to Islam are "innocent." Americans, Christians and Jews are not "innocent people" by Muslim standards.

Again we ask: "is Islam a religion of peace?" Consider this passage from Qur'an 4:89: "If anyone wants to leave Islam he is to be put to death." No, Islam is a religion of fear and oppression, not peace. The Islamic concept of peace is making the whole world Muslim, which is actually a mandate for war. Islam represents the greatest spiritual threat the world faces today. Arm yourself with truth and pray according to knowledge.

[Salam]

Qur'an 4:89: "If anyone wants to leave Islam he is to be put to death."

Thats is not from Qur'an....

but it is true..it is a Hadith was said by the prophet-God's blessing and peace be upon him-

Islam give the freedom of religion at first and no one is forced to be a muslem.
but if the person become a muslem he cant leave..Islam is not a toy to play with it or a dress to wear and undress according to your mood.


Allah said in Qur'an 2:256 : (There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. ).
(لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ ) البقرة256

and said also 18:29 : (And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve).
الكهف29 (وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَاء فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاء فَلْيَكْفُرْ )

[Abul-Abbas]

Qur'an 4:89: "If anyone wants to leave Islam he is to be put to death."

Thats is not from Qur'an....

but it is true..it is a Hadith was said by the prophet-God's blessing and peace be upon him-

Islam give the freedom of religion at first and no one is forced to be a muslem.
but if the person become a muslem he cant leave..Islam is not a toy to play with it or a dress to wear and undress according to your mood.


Allah said in Qur'an 2:256 : (There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. ).
(لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَد تَّبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ ) البقرة256

and said also 18:29 : (And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve).
الكهف29 (وَقُلِ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكُمْ فَمَن شَاء فَلْيُؤْمِن وَمَن شَاء فَلْيَكْفُرْ )

Assalamu Aleikum brother
Welcome here. Hope you enjoy your stay.
May Allah make benefit from you here.

[Invisoclam]

But yet the Christians engaged in Crusades, burning women at the Stake. Slavery beyond anything the world had ever known, holocaust of Jews, genocide of indiginous people and the dropping of a Nuclear bomb on Japenese Bhuddist! :add09:

How peaceful the Christ followers have been.

muslims killd more budhists thru the centuries in central asia - fact of history deal with it.
Heres what I and all others hate about the double talk here from Muslims...
Point out an historic event of Crimes agaisnt humanity by Muslims (or peopel who claim to be muslims) and we get 9 million reasons why those people were not "real " muslims,becasue they didnt do exactly what the koran says.. or they were Turks or some other lame excuse.
uh huh ok...
Make the same claimfor the Crminals thru history who committed crimes agaisnt humanity in Gods name as "Christians" and use the same logic..they werent following the examples of Jesus or what the Bible says regarding what they did and you more excuses from The World of Modern day terrorism - muslims- who say otherwise.

Any one with even rudimentary knowledge of THE PROPHET JESUS knows what he said regarding escalating violence - EVEN you Muslims know this , yet, to wish away the murder rape enslavement and destruction brought upon mankind by Muslims for centuries before Euope was even a pimple on the world scene, you ignore the facts.

Jesus and the first century christians killed no one and advocated killing no one.period.

Ho wmany people died in the first 100 or so years of Islams existence at the hands of Muslims?


please note the sources at the bottom many are from Muslim sources!
SPREAD BY THE SWORD?

Is holy war against Christians and Jews—“infidels”—a perversion of Islam? Here’s the evidence, from Islamic texts and history.

by Mark Hartwig, Ph.D.

For Westerners, the Arabic word jihad has long had an ominous ring—conjuring up a host of images, from turbaned warriors swinging scimitars to wild-eyed fanatics waving Kalashnikov rifles. We instinctively associate the word with “holy war.”

Given the history of Western-Islamic relationships, that’s not surprising. In the century immediately following the death of Muhammad (632), Muslim forces conquered lands stretching from the borders of China and India to Spain’s Atlantic coast. Historian Bernard Lewis notes:

For almost a thousand years ... Europe was under constant threat. In the early centuries it was a double threat—not only of invasion and conquest, but also of conversion and assimilation. All but the easternmost provinces of the Islamic realm had been taken from Christian rulers, and the vast majority of the first Muslims west of Iran and Arabia were converts from Christianity. North Africa, Egypt, Syria, even Persian-ruled Iraq, had been Christian countries, in which Christianity was older and more deeply rooted than in most of Europe. Their loss was sorely felt and heightened the fear that a similar fate was in store for Europe.[1]

It is not surprising, then, that the word jihad would be understood by most Westerners to mean “holy war.” But is that what it really means? And how does that square with the claim that Islam is a peaceful religion?

WHAT’S IN A WORD?

Muslims claim that jihad does not mean holy war. Technically, they are correct.

In Arabic, the word jihad literally means “struggle” or “striving.” It is related to the word, jahada, defined as “exerting one’s utmost power, efforts, endeavors or ability in contending with an object of [disapproval].”[2] In the Quran, the word is often part of a larger phrase “jihad in the path of God.”

Jihad may be waged against a variety of targets: a human enemy, one’s own evil desires, even Satan. Contemporary Muslim societies often use the word jihad the way Americans use the word crusade. Hence, authorities in a Muslim country might declare, say, a “jihad against drugs.”

So there are several kinds of jihad recognized within Islam: “Jihad of the heart,” which is the struggle against oneself; “jihad of the tongue” or “jihad of the pen,” which involve persuasion, exhortation and instruction for the cause of Islam; “jihad of the sword;” and so on.[3]

Still, the primary meaning of jihad is physical combat. According to Reuven Firestone, professor of medieval Judaism and Islam at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles, “When the term is used without qualifiers such as ‘of the heart’ or ‘of the tongue’ ... it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam (equivalent to “jihad of the sword”), and the merits of engaging in such jihad are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works.”[4]

JIHAD IN EARLY ISLAM

Jihad as physical warfare features prominently in the earliest Islamic writings. The Quran alone contains many verses about it.

Pakistani Brigadier S.K. Malik, a Muslim, points out that “the Quranic injunctions cover the causes and object of war; its nature and characteristics; limits and extents; dimensions and restraints.”[5] The Quran even goes into strategy and tactics, and critiques some Muslim battles.

Taken at face value, the verses in the Quran about warfare seem ambiguous and contradictory. In some places, for example, the Quran urges Muhammad and Muslims to confront opposition with patience and persuasion. These have been called “Verses of Forgiveness and Pardon”:[6]

Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His path, and who receive guidance. (16:125)[7]

Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel (evil) with what is better. (41:34)

In other places, it gives them permission to engage in retaliatory or defensive fighting:

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged—and verily, God is most powerful for their aid—(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right (for no cause) except that they say, “our Lord is God.” (22:39-40a)

In yet other places, the Quran seems to command offensive warfare against unbelievers:

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But God knoweth, and ye know not. (2:216)

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)

Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29).

Early Islamic scholars resolved the conflict by appealing to a kind of progressive “revelation” that was tailored to fit Muhammad’s and his followers’ circumstances.

When Muhammad first began to receive “revelations” from God, in 610, he lived in Mecca, a major center of polytheistic worship. As he preached his monotheistic message, he encountered indifference and then growing resistance. Over 13 years, persecution against him and his small band of followers eventually became so severe that they finally left Mecca and emigrated to Medina (then known as Yathrib) about 220 miles to the north.

In Medina, Muhammad gathered many followers—along with political and military power. After eight years of raids and battles, he conquered Mecca and instituted Islam in place of the city’s polytheism.

According to Firestone, “Muslim scholars came to the conclusion that the scriptural verses regarding war were revealed in direct relation to the historic needs of Muhammad during his prophetic mission. At the beginning of his prophetic career in Mecca when he was weak and his followers few, the divine revelations encouraged avoidance of physical conflict.”

After the intense persecutions that caused Muhammad and his followers to emigrate to Medina, however, they were given leave to engage in defensive warfare. As the Muslim community grew in strength, further revelations broadened the conditions under which war could be waged, “until it was concluded that war against non-Muslims could be waged virtually at any time, without pretext, and in any place.”[8]

The later verses, known as the “Sword Verses” (9:5 and 9:29), were considered by Muslim scholars to have cancelled the previous verses mandating kindness and persuasion. Expansionist jihad became the explicit norm.

Rudolph Peters, professor of Islamic Law and Law of the Middle East at the University of Amsterdam, observes, “The crux of the doctrine is the existence of one single Islamic state, ruling the entire umma [Muslim community]. It is the duty of the umma to expand the territory of this state in order to bring as many people under its rule as possible. The ultimate aim is to expand the territory of this state in order to bring the whole earth under the sway of Islam and to extirpate unbelief.”[9]

After the initial, massive conquests of Islam ended in the eighth century, Muslim jurists ruled that the caliph (the supreme Muslim ruler) “had to raid enemy territory at least once a year in order to keep the idea of jihad alive.”[10]

This was the dominant view of jihad until modern times. If anything, the last Islamic empire—the Ottoman Empire—was even more zealous about expansionist jihad than the early empires.[11]

CONVERT OR DIE

The Quran teaches that people should not be converted by force: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256a).

Nonetheless, the doctrine of jihad has led many to allege that Islam was spread by the sword. This is a fair charge, but it needs to be qualified.

Muslims follow not only the Quran, which they believe is a literal transcript of God’s words, but also the Hadith, accounts of Muhammad’s words and deeds. These words and deeds are considered inspired by God and an example for Muslims to follow. According to one widely accepted hadith, whenever Muhammad would send an out expedition, he would admonish his appointed commander:

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.[12]

The jizya, a kind of tribute, was part of a larger deal in which non-Muslims submitted to several conditions. In addition to paying the jizya, non-Muslims were also required to wear distinctive clothing and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims’ houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax.[13]

According to some Muslim jurists, the jizya had to be paid by each person at a humiliating public ceremony, in which the person was struck on the head or the nape of the neck. According to historian Bat Ye’or, this ceremony “survived unchanged till the dawn of the twentieth century.”[14]

Both the jizya and the land tax were often extorted through torture, and were frequently so exorbitant that whole villages would flee or go into hiding.

Technically, then, Christians and Jews were not forced to accept Islam at the point of a sword. But their treatment nonetheless placed them under severe pressure to convert.

And many idolaters were not even allowed to pay the jizya. They were forced to either convert or die.

BLUNTING THE SWORD

By the late 1600s, the Islamic Ottoman Empire had pushed the frontiers of Islam as far west as Austria. After being repelled from the walls of Vienna in 1683, however, the empire became less and less of a threat.

With the rise of Western power, expansionist jihad became harder to maintain. Historian Bernard Lewis observes that defense eventually “became the pattern of jihad in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as one Muslim country after another was threatened and then conquered by Christian European powers.”[15]

In addition to being put on the defensive militarily, Muslims were increasingly confronted with Western institutions and ideas. Some Muslim thinkers, notes Peters, were “convinced of the superiority of the West and Western culture [and] tried to show that Islam was a ‘respectable’ religion that fostered the same values as Christendom and Western civilization.”[16]

Other Muslims were less impressed with Western ideas and resented what they perceived as unfair criticism from Western scholars who viewed Islam as an aggressive religion. After all, during their lifetimes, they had only seen Islam on the retreat. They sought to defend Islam from what they perceived as colonialist propaganda.

Both groups of Muslim thinkers reinterpreted jihad as defensive warfare: The Sword Verses commanding Muslims to slay the pagans were directed not at unbelievers in general, but at the hostile Jews, Christians and Arab polytheists who fought against Muhammad because they hated his religion.

By this view, the Sword Verses do not abrogate the other verses. Rather, according to one of the leading Muslim scholars of the mid-1900s, the Verses of Forgiveness and Pardon remain “fixed and unassailable.”[17]

This is considered a "modernist" interpretation of jihad, and those who embrace it consequently attach a great deal of importance to the nonmilitary forms of jihad (e.g., jihad of the heart, pen and so on).

It is unclear, however, just how many people subscribe to this view. For one thing, some of the writings were designed to make Muslims look better to their colonial rulers. In India, for example, the British tended to favor Hindus over Muslims partly because of the doctrine of jihad. Some Muslim writers tried to counter that problem by denying expansionist jihad—and even some aspects of defensive jihad.[18]

Moreover, these writings exist side by side with other writings that expound the traditional view. Such traditional writings euphemize expansionist jihad, but include it as a legitimate option. One often-cited text calls it warfare for “idealistic” reasons, and justifies it by arguing, “Every nation has its own ideals which constantly inspire it. The deeper a nation is convinced of them, the greater is its effort to realize them. ... It is this mission to uproot godlessness and [polytheism] that is referred to in Islamic literature by the expression, ‘in the path of God,’ which we have translated as ‘idealistic’ reasons for waging war.”[19]

THE REVOLUTIONARIES

The modernist interpretation is also taking heat from growing numbers of Islamic fundamentalists, who contend that those promoting that interpretation suffer from “defeatist and apologetic mentalities.”[20] They have recast jihad as an ongoing “Islamic world revolution.”[21]

The intellectual father of Islamic fundamentalism is Sayyid Qutb (1903-1966). According to Bassam Tibi, professor of international relations at the University of Gottingen, his writings “can be compared, in terms of spread and influence, with the Communist Manifesto.”[22]

An Egyptian teacher, Qutb came to New York in 1948-1950 for further training. During his stay he was stung by Americans’ anti-Arab sentiments and repulsed by their materialism and sexual looseness.

As a result of this experience, Tibi said, Qutb “returned to Egypt as a furious anti-American and anti-Western Muslim intent on laying the groundwork for a vision of Islam that would offer an alternative to that of the West.”[23] His writings captured the imagination of many Muslims, and his status only grew when the Egyptian government executed him in 1966 for subversion.

Qutb believed that “mankind today is on the brink of a precipice ... because humanity is devoid of those vital values which are necessary not only for its healthy development, but also for its real progress.”[24]

He asserted that mankind will never find salvation in manmade laws—whether those of Western Europe and North America or those of the Communist countries. Salvation can only be achieved by replacing manmade laws and institutions with God’s rule alone. Mankind must adopt Islamic law in total, and give up such notions as democracy, which derives its authority from people rather than God.

Qutb declared that anyone who doesn’t accept God’s law in every respect—including professed Muslims—is an unbeliever: “Whoever observes something other than God’s revelations in his judgment not only rejects a particular aspect of Godhead but also claims for himself certain qualities of Godhead. If that is not unbelief, I wonder what is. For what use is a verbal claim of being a believer ... when such action denies such a claim?”[25]

As unbelievers, such people may be fought by physical means. Indeed, they must be fought because they will not peaceably relinquish the ability to legislate for themselves:

It is not that Islam loves to draw its sword and chop off people’s heads with it. The hard facts of life compel Islam to have its sword drawn and to be always ready and careful. God knows that those who hold the reigns of power are hostile to Islam and that they will always try to resist it.[26]

This was the ideology followed by the militants who assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. It is also the ideology that is behind most Islamic terrorism today—including that of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network.

THE REAL THING

Modernist interpretations notwithstanding, it is clear that military jihad—even in its expansionist form—is an authentic part of Islam.

No matter how you cut it, Muhammad was not only a religious leader, but a military leader who waged war against his enemies as soon as he had the means. Following his example, Muslims quickly carved out an enormous empire. And what ended Muslim expansion was not a change of heart or doctrine, but European military might.

Furthermore, the traditional doctrine of jihad remains alive to this day.

This means that Christians should not accept the sweeping claim that Islam is a religion of peace. There’s just too much contrary evidence.

On the other hand, Christians shouldn’t jump to the conclusion that their Muslim neighbors are bomb-toting fanatics: Even Muslims who believe in militant jihad don’t necessarily like violence.

Instead of fearing or hating Muslims, Christians should view them in light of our duty to preach the gospel. For as 2 Tim. 1:7 reminds us, “God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”[27]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hartwig, Ph.D., has followed Islamic issues for several years. In 1999, he traveled on assignment to Sudan, to cover the war that the Islamic government was waging against its people in the south.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Bernard Lewis, Islam and the West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 13.
[2] Edward Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, book 1 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1865), part 2, p. 473. Cited in Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 139.
[3] See Firestone, 1999; Rudolph Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam, (Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers), 1996; Lt. Col. M.M. Qureshi, Landmarks of Jihad (Lahore, Pakistan: Skeik Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, 1970); Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, Jihad in the Quran and Sunnah (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers), no date.
[4] Firestone, 1999.
[5] Brig. S.K. Malik, The Quranic Concept of War (Dehli, India: Adam Publishers, 1979), p. 1.
[6] Mahmud Shaltut, “The Koran and Fighting,” in Peters, 1996, p. 81.
[7] Unless otherwise indicated, all passages of the Quran are taken from the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran.
[8] Firestone, 1999, p. 50.
[9] Peters, 1996, p. 3.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Bernard Lewis, The Middle East: A Brief History of the Last 2,000 Years (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), p. 237.
[12] Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294.
[13] Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 131.
[14] Bat Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude (London: Associated University Presses), pp. 73-79.
[15] Lewis, 1995, p. 237.
[16] Peters, 1996, p. 109.
[17] Mahmud Shaltut, 1996, p 82. Shaltut was rector of al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, the most prestigious university in the Muslim world.
[18] Peters, 1996, p. 109.
[19] See Muhammad Hamidullah, The Muslim Conduct of State (Lahore, Pakistan: Sheik Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, 1941), p. 169.
[20] Sayyid Qutb, Milestones (Salimiah, Kuwait: International Islamic Federation of Student Organizations, 1978), p. 102.
[21] Peters, 1996, p. 129; Bassam Tibi, The Challenge of Fundamentalism: Political Islam and the New World Disorder (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), p. 56.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Tibi, 1998, p. 56.
[24] Qutb, 1978, p. 7.
[25] Sayyid Qutb, In the Shade of the Quran, Volume IV (Leicester, UK: The Islamic Foundation, 2001), p. 123.
[26] Sayyid Qutb, Volume III, p. 282.
[27] NKJV.

[Salam]

Assalamu Aleikum brother
Welcome here. Hope you enjoy your stay.
May Allah make benefit from you here.

Wa Aleikum Assalam brother ..thank you

[sidthereal]

how sweet, two moosie gay greetings

[pixikill]

i direct you to the thread i posted, about the rising hatred in australia. i tell ya, it wont be long.....ARMAGEDDON!!!!!!

[American_Jihad]

Christians threatened with terror attack from BEASTS

Jihad group warns of 'same bomb blasts as Bali' New Year's Eve

Police are on a high state of alert in a predominantly Christian province of East Timor, Indonesia, after an Islamic group threatened an attack on local churches to coincide with New Year's Eve celebrations.

According to Asia News, a cellphone text message received Wednesday by radio Timor Voice read: "On New Year Eve, 31 churches in [East Tenggara Timor's] capital of Kupang shall receive the same bomb blasts as Bali did last October. [Signed:] From the Jemaah Islamiiyah Chief of the eastern region, Jihad for the Great Prophet Muhammad."

Provincial Police Chief Robert Bellarminus Sadarum said the threat must be considered "a serious and imminent danger" for the whole Christian community.

But the local chapter of the Indonesian Ulemas Council strongly denied claims the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiiyah is operating in the province.

Nevertheless, according to Asia News, security officials have deployed about 2,250 soldiers and police officers, and Sadarum said "tighter security will be imposed around churches on New Year Eve."

Asia News said Indonesia's Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs, Widodo Adi Sutjipto, has warned of possible terrorist attacks in the next week.

His office is probing possible links between terrorism and recent bank robberies in the cities of Yogyakarta, Jakarta and Tangerang.

Proceeds from the robberies could finance terrorist activities, he said, to make up for a shortfall in foreign contributions.

The 2002 Bali bombing was preceded by a major robbery, noted retired Gen. Ansyaad Mbai, who now heads the Anti-Terrorism Unit in the Political, Legal and Security Affairs Ministry.

As WorldNetDaily reported in 2001, more than 2,000 people died in three years of clashes in Indonesia's Central Sulawesi province before a peace agreement was reached between Muslim and Christian leaders.

An Islamic terrorist group called Laskar Jihad threatened to eliminate Christians from the region but was held off by government troops.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48140

[KAOSKTRL]

Sunday, September 12, 2004




Islam and the Nazi Regime - The Unknown Story



When it comes to political correctness, History often becomes a lawbreaker...

http://teletrabajo.com/hervada/islamonazis/volunteers.jpg

There
are scores of historical events that contradict the bucolic laboratory
narration deemed, well, correct...they are befittingly condemned to
silence and obliviousness.

That is very true for the evolution of Islam through History since its inception 14 centuries ago.
Unhappily, Western journalists usually don't know much beyond a couple
of platitudes about the de-colonization process or the contradictions
with Kemalism and Nasserism... Yet there is much more…
It is
amazing, how little we know about Islamic history, even as recent as
the Islamic participation in World War II, particularly of the
Muslims from the former Soviet Union. Very
few people, beyond a hard core of specialists, are familiar with the
attitudes of Islam’s traditional notables and religious leaders towards
the Nazi regime.
Now, the jihadists of today have declared war on the “Crussaders and the Jews”
and we are confronted everyday to suicide bombers, children being
coldly murdered and the whole gallery of extreme cruelty of their war
against democracy. Have they materialized from historical nothingness?
Hardly. It is high time to look at some antecedents.
http://teletrabajo.com/hervada/islamonazis/mufti1.jpgDuring WWII, about 2,000,000 non-German volunteers fought along with the Nazi armies. Of them, 1,600,000 were from the former Soviet Union; a sizable majority were Muslims.
There was for example the 162nd Turkoman Infantry Division, composed of
Turkomans and Azerbaijanis, the Caucasian-Mohammedan Legion, made up of
Azerbaijanis, Daghestans, Ingushes, Lezghins, and Chechens. The Turkestani Legion had volunteers from the following nationalities: Turkomans, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Karakalpaks, and Tadjiks.
To give a quantitative frame to understand the avalanche of Islamic volunteers to the nazi armies, the Caucasian-Mohammedan Legion is a good example. It had 102,300 men ("Soviet Opposition to Stalin," p.51) at a time when the total population of the Northern Caucasus may have been just above 6,5 M. And they all were volunteers,
who chose to fight with the Germans driven by the religious leadership
in the region. Almost from the first days of the nazi regime there had
ben continuous contacts between Berlin and the Muslim leaders, first
and foremost, in Palestine, Iraq and Turkey.


http://teletrabajo.com/hervada/islamonazis/booklet.jpg

A relentless agitation had been beamed from the Mosques, inspired by a pivotal man, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Mohammed Amin al-Husseini,
the most prominent figure of inter-War Palestine. Besides his pan-Arab
tendencies, he hated the Jews as bearers of modern European way of
life, which confronted to the concepts of Islam as he saw them. In 1933
the Mufti took contact with Nazi Germany and said he looked forward to
spreading their ideology in the Middle East, especially in Palestine.
He secretly met with German diplomats, and later that year, the Mufti's
assistants approached Wolff, the Nazi General-Consul in the area, seeking his help in establishing a National Socialist Arab party in Palestine. But the German refused, since they didn't want at the time to get involved in the British sphere of influence and, besides, membership of the Nazi party was restricted to German speaking "Aryans" only.
But they started helping the Mufti with large sums of money and weapons
for his anti-Jewish armed groups. Soon, under the influence of the
Mufti, Palestinians were to see the Nazis as their only real friend in
Europe. In 1937, during the celebration of Mohammad's birth, the Nazi swastika flag was flying high in Jerusalem over giant pictures of Hitler.

http://teletrabajo.com/hervada/islamonazis/partisans.jpgIn September 1937 the infamous Adolf Eichmann
and another young SS officer, were sent to Palestine to organize the
pro-Nazi movement. In 1938 the Mufti was already on the payroll of
Abwehr II, the German counterintelligence. The Mufti's organization had
become massive. He then moved to Iraq, where he was accepted as an Arab
and Islamic hero, and he established his headquarters in Baghdad from
where he continued his activities through a web of clendestine cells
and private "charity" organizations.
He succeeded in establishing
a group of pro-Axis officials led by General Rashid Ali, who in 1941
ousted the pro-British Iraqi Prime MinisterNuri Said Pasha. In May he declared jihad against Britain, "the greatest foe of Islam".
However, in a few months the British managed to crush the uprising and the Mufti had fly; this time he went to Germany.
On November 21, 1941 he had a meeting with Hitler in Berlin. Hitler
accepted that, once the Nazi troops would reach South of the Caucasus,
he would help the Mufti to exterminate all the Jews in the Middle East
and establish a unified pan-Arab state.

The
Mufti's part of the arrangement was to raise support for the Nazis
among the Muslims in the Soviet Union, the Balkans and the Middle East.
The Germans founded the "Arab Bureau", under his leadership, in Berlin.
He was in charge of supervising Axis propaganda to Muslims all over the world.
His first achievement was the recruitment of tens of thousands of the Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania to the Waffen SS Handschar Division.
He was also instrumental in the creation of the Eastern Legions, the
so-called "Ostlegionen" which contained only volunteers from the
non-Russian nationalities. On December 30th, 1941 a top secret
memorandum ordered the Supreme Nazi Command to create, first the Turkestani Legion and second, the Caucasian-Mohammedan Legion. The Crimean Tartar were not only gladly collaborating with the Germans, but also supplying the Wehrmacht with 20,000 soldiers.
http://teletrabajo.com/hervada/islamonazis/mufti3.gifReichsführer SS Heinrich Himmler was the most willing promoter and collaborator of Islam among the Nazi leadership.
He hated the 'soft' Christianity and liked Islam, which he saw as a
masculine, martial religion based on the SS qualities of blind
obedience and readiness for self-sacrifice, uncontaminated by compassion for one's enemies.
Throughout the war, the Nazi Islamic units were used as auxiliary troops of the Waffen-SS, particularly to help the Germans to fight the partisan
in the Eastern front and then in Italy and the Balkans where they later
participated in massacring tens of thousands of partisan Serbs, Jews
and Gypsies. In Ukraine, to
instill more terror among the population, the Caucasian hanged supposed
partisans from the balconies and prohibited the removal of the corpses.
The Mufti found in Berlin a twin soul and admirer in Veli Kayum Khan, head of the Turkestani "government in exile", and convinced the Nazi bosses to fund a Turkestani National Committee to
agitate in the name of the independence of Turkestan and to be in
charge of the political and national leadership of Turkestani
volunteers. With the aid of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the
SS-FHA, Kayum Khan, sat up schools at Dresden and Götingen to train religious imams for the Muslim military units in the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht. They were supported by some Muslim leaders from the Caucasus, like Alibegow, Khedia, Kantimer, Mischa, and Tschamalja. A speciphic unit consisting of Muslim Tartars, the Wolgatatarische Legion, was formed in Poland on January 1942.
In
1943, the Turkestanis had 15 battalions and one year later grew-up to
26 battalions. Those battalions were usually integrated as independent
battalions within German divisions, in charge of punishing rebellious civilian populations…
On 14 December 1943, another meeting was held in presided by the Grand
Mufti Hajj Amin el-Husseini. He approved the plan to raise a
Turkic-Muslim SS division and give his "spiritual leadership" to influence the Muslim volunteers. To lead the new unit Himmler decided to appoint SS-Standartenführer Harun-el-Raschid-Bey, an Austrian Nazi officer who converts to Islam.
The Osttürkischen Waffen-Verbände der SS was formed on January 1944 and was to be expanded into a division, Muselmanischen SS-Division Neu-Turkestan. The unit was formed in Trawniki, Poland. When the SS tried to quell the Warsaw Uprising, the unit was attached to the notorious SS Dirlewanger Brigade, and participated in the brutal repression that killed 200,000 Polish civilians.
When
the mass of Soviet Muslims collaborators followed the retreating German
armies to avoid the reprisals that awaited them from the Russians, they
tried to surrender to the Western Allies but were sent back to Russia.
Many of them were executed, others lost in the Gulags. Stalin ordered
massive deportations to the east of some of Soviet Muslim nationalities
that had fraternized with the Nazis - like the Chechens, Balkars,
Ingushi, Karachais, and Crimean Tartars.





# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html)
posted by Juan A. Hervada @ 8:31 PM







Comments:



Juan, you've left me speachless! I'm stunned, my mind reeling from what
I have just read. I have goosebumps all over. The implications of what
you have written are tremendous.

Had
someone else published this post I would have doubted this as the most
unlikely and incredible of alliances. But because it is you who has
written this I cannot doubt it.

Your work is simply amazing!
Michele


# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html#109502953705239345)
posted by Anonymous : 12:52 AM









Michele, thank you so much. Well, the merit isn't really mine. It
belongs to the Net, where all the information and the graphics are
available. I just researched it and cross-referenced the data, so as to
ascertain that it was correct and put the piece together.

In
fact, I'm not a demographer, but if you think that during WW II 102,000
young men from the 6.5 M. Muslims in the North Caucasus volunteered
to fight with the Nazis, I think it is more than probable that some of
the terrorists who commited the horror in the school of Beslam the
other day had a grand father in the Waffen-SS.

# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html#109503045631535832)
posted by Juan A. Hervada (http://www.blogger.com/profile/4237654) : 1:07 AM









Congratulations for such a magnificient article!

Giuseppe Chiesa, Roma


# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html#109504866674875136)
posted by Anonymous : 6:11 AM









Thank you for the post. I will post a link and brief comment on some
other sites, because I've seen several queries about Muslim units in
Hitler's armies. Your post provides an excellent starting point.

In addition, I thank you for the post en español.


# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html#109592026966397856)
posted by The Mad Fiddler (http://www.blogger.com/profile/4181101) : 8:17 AM









To understand this history, you need to step back another 20 or so
years. The Turkomen Muslims were integrated as anti-Soviet units for
the same reason that the (much more notorious) Ukrainians, Lithuanians
et. al. also joined in large numbers: Josef Stalin.

The
Ukranian famine is well known. Less well known are the Basmachi Revolts
in Central Asia, which were crushed by the Soviet Union in a manner
that was significantly more brutal then even the recent Russian wars in
Chechnya. So it isn't surprising that the Nazis had volunteers from
Central Asia, as well as the Ukraine, the Baltics, Finland, etc.

The
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, of course, had no such excuse. Note that he
was Yassir Arafat's hero - and very probably, still is.

# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html#109631694192658982)
posted by Joe Katzman (http://www.blogger.com/profile/589044) : 10:29 PM









Very well done... if you wish to continue the theme in chiarascuro,
take a look at Lebanese Maronite Christian political connections to the
Nazis as well - they modeled many of their philosophies of government,
right down to the brown-shirt uniforms, after Hitler's... as well as
many of their tactics. The Lebanese Civil War was rife with incidents
and atrocities committed by the Maronites that could have been taken
from the pages of WWII European history.

# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html#109777282274443611)
posted by inkgrrl (http://www.blogger.com/profile/61315) : 6:53 PM
# (http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html#109777282274443611)
posted by inkgrrl (http://www.blogger.com/profile/61315) : 6:53 PM


http://netwar04.blogspot.com/2004/09/islam-and-nazi-regime-unknown-story.html

[DarkCyde]

Wait, isn't this thread a repeat?

[Dajjal]

Wait, isn't this thread a repeat?

No, it is six months old.

[DarkCyde]

No, it is six months old.

Resurrection. Right.

[American_Jihad]

Muslim rampage not about poverty, but Western weakness

When, seven months ago, I finished writing my book, "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?" (Regnery Publishing, Washington, D.C., Sept.11, 2005), London had not been attacked by Islamist terrorists, the Tate Museum in London had not removed an art exhibit because it offended radical Muslim sensitivities, and France had not yet experienced the explosion of violence from elements of its Muslim population in its "no-go zone" communities.

The fact that I predicted all those events in my book was not the result of clairvoyance. It was merely the result of a normally intelligent person looking at the facts, and their rather obvious implications, without the blinding effect of a politically correct mentality.


After studying what the radical Islamists were saying and doing in Europe, I opened my book with a scenario of a London Islamist terrorist attack and an Islamist demand for removing offensive European artwork from museums. Then I wrote: "Muslim parts of Paris, Rotterdam and other European cities are already labeled no-go zones for ethnic Europeans, including armed policemen. As the Muslim populations — and their level of cultural and religious assertiveness — expand, European geography will be 'reclaimed' for Islam. Europe will become pockmarked with increasing numbers of little Fallujahs that will be effectively impenetrable by anything much short of a U.S. Marine division."


"Thus, as the . fundamentalism expands into European (and perhaps to a lesser extent American) Muslim communities, not only will Islamic cultural aggression against a seemingly passive and apologetic indigenous population increase, but the zone of safety and support for the actual terrorists will expand as well." ("The West's Last Chance," pp 55-56).


Now, two weeks into the appalling explosion of violence in Europe (and the equally appalling French governmental passivity in the face of such violence), most of the world's media treats this huge event as the third or fourth story on the evening news. From the BBC and CNN to the major newspapers of the world, the story is underreported and mis-reported. On Monday, the Washington Post was still not reporting the story on the front page.


The big networks have consistently given only headline coverage to the story. I was in Russia last week (lecturing and doing media on my book) and actually timed the BBC coverage of the French Muslim violence story at about a minute and a half, while in the same broadcast the post-Pakistani earthquake relief story was given over 15 minutes. CNN International proportioned their coverage similarly.


Soon, the violence of the last two weeks will be seen as the opening of an event of world-historic significance.


Even when the current violence subsides — even when the French government attempts to placate their radical Muslim population by offering more welfare benefits and programs — it will not be the end of the story. A new benchmark of the possible will have been established. The flaccid and timorous response of the French government will only increase the radicalizing Muslim elements' contempt for Western cultural weakness.


As Paul Belien, writing from Brussels this weekend observed: "It is not anger that is driving the insurgents to take it out on the secularized welfare states of Old Europe. It is hatred. Hatred caused not by injustice suffered, but stemming from a sense of superiority. The "youths" do not blame the French, they despise them."


As Mr. Belien reports, look what a typical radical Muslim leader, Dyab Abou Jahjah, the leader of the Brussels-based Arab European League says: "We reject integration when it leads to assimilation. I don't believe in a host country. We are at home here and whatever we consider our culture to be also belongs to our chosen country. I'm in my country, not the country of the Westerners."


Or consider the statement of a German radical Islamists that I recounted in my book (based on a National Public Radio news story broadcast): "Germany is an Islamic country. Islam is in the home, in schools. Germans will be outnumbered. We [Muslims] will say what we want. We'll live how we want. It's outrageous that Germans demand we speak their language. Our children will have our language, our laws, our culture ("The West's Last Chance," page 75).


This is not about Muslim poverty (the Islamist terrorists who hit London all had good jobs. Mohammed Atta, who struck us in New York, was well-born and came from a prosperous family). It is about radical Islamist self-confidence and contempt for the West. And, it is about Western weakness.


We should not sneer at French weakness, but rather should encourage them to re-find their strength. It is a strength we will need to find in ourselves, as well. Vive la France!

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1105/blankley110905.php3

[RSade]

Peaceful Ya Right & the walk among us telling us how
peaceful they are. Oh and watch the back door ,they
are converting south America to Islam...

The one God of all religions is the same God,it is man who perverts all pure religion.

[KAOSKTRL]

The one God of all religions is the same God,it is man who perverts all pure religion.allah is not YHWH.
not even close ,Unless you think god is a physco, and changes his mind every feww hundred years

[RSade]

allah is not YHWH.
not even close ,Unless you think god is a physco, and changes his mind every feww hundred years



I disagree, God is alpha and omega this includes all "gods" including the Hebrew God and the God of Islam. And of course the God of modern Christianity. God int a psycho and doesn't change its mind. We cannot away see gods plan or understand his or its will, therefore we make wrong assumptions about the will of God.

[KAOSKTRL]

allah is not a god ,the god, or even a demi god.
allah was a rock presented to mohammed grand father by the sabians.
mohamed was not a prophet he was a obvious con man.
islam is a made up religion invented so mohammed could exact revenged on his uncle for denying him his share in the family business .
the entire thing is a fraud and a crime syndicate.

[RSade]

Actually Christianity and Islam are very similar and were one in the same some time ago, too bad man has twisted gods word to the point of war over these beautiful religions which were built on the word of God.

[Camp]

Actually Christianity and Islam are very similar and were one in the same some time ago, too bad man has twisted gods word to the point of war over these beautiful religions which were built on the word of God.


This is as far off-base as it gets. Man can twist the Bible, but not the other "book."

[KAOSKTRL]

Actually Christianity and Islam are very similar and were one in the same some time ago, too bad man has twisted gods word to the point of war over these beautiful religions which were built on the word of God.Ok , your're an idiot.

[Dajjal]

Actually Christianity and Islam are very similar and were one in the same some time ago, too bad man has twisted gods word to the point of war over these beautiful religions which were built on the word of God.

There is no relation between the teachings of Christ and the ranting of Muhammad. Islam goes back to Moses and undermines the role and message of Jesus. Acording to muslims the quran is the unchanged word of God so it has not been twisted by men.

But the truth is plainly that Islam is a false religion stolen from the old testament and side lining Jesus.

[American_Jihad]

HOW CAN FBI BELIEVE MUSLIMS WHEN MUSLIMS LIE?

"F.B.I. officials met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders on Wednesday in an effort to dispel anger and concern over the bureau's secret monitoring of radiation levels at Muslim sites around the country.

"John Pistole, deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and John Miller, the bureau's assistant director of public affairs, tried to reassure those at the session that the surveillance of mosques and Muslim businesses and homes had been based on intelligence leads.

"’There was intelligence that talked about the desire to use a dirty bomb in the U.S.; there were statements from bin Laden indicating that he had those materials and that there were cells in the U.S. trained to blend into Muslim communities,’ Mr. Miller said after the meeting. ‘We explained how we work with intelligence and that we did what we did based on the patterns of Al Qaeda, not because of the patterns or activities of any mosque or Muslim neighborhood.’

"F.B.I. officials struck a conciliatory tone, several attendees said, and acknowledged that the bureau could have responded to their concerns more quickly. But Mr. Pistole offered few details on the monitoring, they said, and he emphasized that the program, which began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and lasted through 2003, remained classified."

Thank God that Pistole "offered few details on the monitoring" for one can be certain that the Muslims in that room wanted to gather every bit of data they could in order to continue their overthrow of this republic. That is their final goal: Islam world rule.

Members of Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) met with FBI officials to talk about the bureau’s secret monitoring of radiation levels at Muslim locations throughout America, according to Lynette Clemetson of the New York Times.

Why should the FBI believe those MPAC representatives when they lie? They lie blatantly on their web site.

Check out the web site. Read http://www.mpac.org/ Muslim Public Affairs Council.

Now read this link http://www.archives2004.ghazali.net/html/ex-_cia_official.html

The link is entitled "Anti-Muslim Smears."

Yet what is stated there in that link is not a smear against Muslims. It is the absolute truth about Muslims.

This is a classic example of how Muslims lie by twisting truth into what they label "deceit." They even quote word for word the article, "Ex-CIA official (Bruce Tefft) says: Islamic terror based on Quran" by Sheldon Kirshner.

What Tefft says is absolute truth. But Muslims present it on their premier web site as the distortion of Islam, as a lie, as deceit coming out of the mouth of an ex-CIA official.

However, what Tefft states in his analysis of Islam is reality.

Obviously, the MPAC webmasters have learned well from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) how to take Islamic concepts and terms, then switch them to mean the opposite of what they actually mean. CAIR does this in practically every paragraph and link on its web site. CAIR is a master at lying via language change, conceptualization change.

Further, when CAIR officials meet with media and government officials, they carry over that same lying via language change, conceptualization change. They appear as the most innocent, patriotically-loyal persons on the planet when in fact they are the arch-enemy of this nation.

Read the article for yourself and see if you can find a smear in this article. See if you are not reading the absolute truth about Islam. Note particularly what the official says about the Koran. Then see the footnote following this article stating the killing and torture passages from the Koran itself.

In addition, that same Muslim Public Affairs Council web site lies in that the site changed the Koran chapter and verse from an accent on killing and maiming to making peace and goodwill.

On the Muslim Public Affairs Council web site, the webmasters have totally rewritten a killing paragraph to read as a peace paragraph.

Click onto the site: http://www.mpac.org/atc/home.asp

Now note the supposed quote from the Koran printed attractively to the right. It reads:

"Whosoever killed a human being - unless it be in punishment for murder or for spreading corruption on earth - it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind." QURAN 5:33

That is totally wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

This is how the Muslims lie. They are doing it throughout their 4000 web sites. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) web site lies most adeptly. That site changes Islamic definitions and concepts to suit the "religion of peace" propaganda of Islamic killers international.

What is the actual paragraph reading for the above chapter and verse in the Koran? Here it is:

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

Click onto the Koran site to read it for yourself:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.033

There are three translations provided for each Koran paragraph. The full three translations for this particular paragraph are as follows:

YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.

PICKTHAL: The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.

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

The above three translation options appear in the Koran.

But the MPAC web site has rewritten the "murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned" to read as a goodwill community relations encouragement to devout Muslims from Allah.

This deceit encircles the globe now as Islamic killers international lie their ways into making Islam world rule. If they can rule via lies, they will. If they can rule via beheading, they will.

Whatever works is permissible.

Did the FBI officials meeting with MPAC representatives this week realize how MPAC lies on its own premium site? Therefore, when FBI met with MPAC did the FBI really believe the sincerity of MPAC personages in the room?

Muslims were heated up over the surveillance set-up making news these days. Should not the FBI and all Americans be heated up over the MPAC lies set loose for the world to read as truth?

In that meeting between the two, Muslims attempted to convince the FBI that the Muslims were scared of US intrusions. The FBI tried to respond with assurances that there was no prejudicial treatment leveled against Muslims in America via the surveillance.

What I wanted to ask the Muslims in that room was this: What about your lying intrusions via your web sites, of which MPAC is only one site. Check out the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for more lies. And so forth.

"’This current situation reinforces the notion that our community is viewed more as suspects rather than partners,’ said one attendee, Salam Al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, a national advocacy organization. ‘Formalizing outreach sets a standard for better educating agents on the best means of acquiring information, and it demonstrates that partnership is the best way of protecting our country from terrorist attacks.’"

And why should not the "current situation" reinforce the truth that "our community is viewed more as suspects rather than partners"?

With Islamic killers international stating their global aim and sleeper cells peppered throughout the free world, why should not the Muslim settlements anywhere be suspect?

Read: YES, MUSLIMS ARE SUSPECT, THEREFORE, SUSPECTED

As far as the surveillance program is concerned, it ought to be upped at every Muslim whisper location. All Muslims in America should be suspected. All mosques. All clerics. All Muslim publications. No more Muslims should be admitted to America. Those with a shadow of suspicion should be deported.

"The radiation surveillance, conducted with the Department of Energy, is another irritant. Disclosures of such programs, attendees at Wednesday's meeting said, make it more difficult to convince people that forming ties with government agencies is productive.

"’When things like this happen, people come to us and ask, "What are you doing talking to the F.B.I.?"’ " said Imam Mohamed Magid, leader of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, a mosque in Northern Virginia commonly called the Adams Center, which serves 5,000 families."

Why are the Muslims talking with the FBI? In order to gain more data for their own aim reach—Islam world rule.

Why should the FBI talk to the Muslims? To tell them face-to-face that they lie, then show them proof beginning with their own lies on their own web sites.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11262.shtml

[KAOSKTRL]

Is that swank?

[KAOSKTRL]

You migth be interested in http://paulsperry.com
or org or net or what ever

[Sage]

I disagree, God is alpha and omega this includes all "gods" including the Hebrew God and the God of Islam. And of course the God of modern Christianity. God int a psycho and doesn't change its mind. We cannot away see gods plan or understand his or its will, therefore we make wrong assumptions about the will of God.

you dont know jack..i suggest you blow the dust off your Bible and read it instead of making idiotic statments like that that scripture does not back up

[pixikill]

Originally Posted by RSade
I disagree, God is alpha and omega this includes all "gods" including the Hebrew God and the God of Islam. And of course the God of modern Christianity. God int a psycho and doesn't change its mind. We cannot away see gods plan or understand his or its will, therefore we make wrong assumptions about the will of God.

if god isnt a psycho and doesnt change his mind, then he cant be the author of the koran, cause that is in direct contrast and direct contradiction to the bible.
therefore, islam is not the religin of god, but of gods enemy...satan.

[Sage]

if god isnt a psycho and doesnt change his mind, then he cant be the author of the koran, cause that is in direct contrast and direct contradiction to the bible.
therefore, islam is not the religin of god, but of gods enemy...satan.


right on!

[RSade]

Yesterday, 10:27 PM
Remove user from ignore listSage
This message is hidden because Sage is on your ignore list.




one god made all of us we are one in the same , the devil or what ever you call evil is driving the hate that is expressed here. I am a sinner (not to be confused with synner which would be worse) and will be one untill the day I die. We all are. God will judge us, untill then we should be against the true evil in the world and that is goverment the puppet of satan.

[RSade]

if god isnt a psycho and doesnt change his mind, then he cant be the author of the koran, cause that is in direct contrast and direct contradiction to the bible.
therefore, islam is not the religin of god, but of gods enemy...satan.


Hi pixikill!

do you have any (unmarried sisters?)

see post#90.

Satan is an influence and will become a supranatural power (on earth) for a brief period of time leading up to Armageddon. All organized religion will assist all governments in achieving this goal of the ultimate war. The best we can do is (one. dont participate or participate as little in government and or organized religion or change both. I have been working on both options.



Yesterday, 10:27 PM
Remove user from ignore listSage
This message is hidden because Sage is on your ignore list.

[Sage]

so when is someone going to prove islam peacful by its own teaching and writings?

[American_Jihad]

ISLAM - a peaceful and tolerant religion?

We see a loss of sane thinking in the popular disposition towards the Islamic religion. Political correctness states that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. History and current history state the diametric opposite to be the case. Yet in the aftermath of September 11th, Tony Blair and George Bush Jr, rush before the TV cameras to insist that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance.



· We are expected to ignore the fact that thousands of Moslems demonstrated in Trafalgar Square against the institution of democracy, demanding that Britain adopt the feudalistic Islamic form of government.

· We are expected to forget that Moslem history supports the contentions of Osama bin Laden and Yasser Arafat, that their's is the true Islam and that Moslems not agreeing with terrorism and murder have apostatized from true Islam.

· We are expected to forget that Islam admits that Mohammed was a paedophile who married a 6 year old girl Aisha, and took her virginity when she was the age of 9. And yet heathens will try explain this away by saying that Aisha had already reached puberty!
· We are expected to forget that 70-80 year old Saudi men were exposed on prime time American TV buying little girls from impoverished families in India, justifying it on the basis of the fact that their prophet Mohammed was a paedophile.

· Islam is still, we are expected to believe, a civilized religion.

· We are expected to ignore the fact that even small Christian girls, abducted in Moslem societies, are forcibly subjected to clitorectomy (female circumcision), often performed on queues of them with the same rusty razor blade under highly septic conditions, in the name of the faith of the Koran.

· We are similarly expected to ignore the fact that 1,000 British girls a year are taken to Islamic countries and forced to become one of the four wives of people they have never met, often, not infrequently, blood relatives as old as 60 years of age.

· Islam, we are told, is a moral religion and such practices, we are expected to believe, have nothing to do with Islam.

Who, other than Moslems, religiously engage in such disgusting abuses of human rights?



If Islam is a civilized faith of justice and virtue,

· where is the justice in the feudalism of nearly the entire Islamic world?

· Where is the justice and virtue in a religion that allows paedophilia in imitation of its founding prophet, polygamy and the oppression of women and even slavery?



If Islam is the faith of tolerance, as Bush, Blair and their Moslem acquaintances insist,

· where does tolerance exist anywhere in the Moslem world? The answer, of course, is that it doesn’t exist!



If Islam is a faith of peace, as the politically correct media continually misrepresents it as being,

· why are there three times as many armed conflicts in the world involving Islam today, as there are in all of the other religious groups in the world put together?



Once more, the White House, 10 Downing St, and CNN expect us to relegate common sense to the status of prejudice, in a new world view designed to facilitate a New World Order (a term first coined by Bush Snr), where reason becomes unreasonable.



In this "new think", we are expected to believe that neither Lockerbie, nor September 11th , nor the assassination of Robert Kennedy, nor the suicide bombing of American embassies, nor the endless stream of Islamic outrages perpetrated against the nation Israel, had anything to do with Islam. Who did such things? Was it the Quakers? Now a Byron California school system is requiring 7th Grade students to take courses in Islam. One thing we may be certain that the syllabus will not contain, however, is the fact that nowhere in the Moslem world would courses on Christianity be allowed, let alone required as mandatory curriculum. Such an absence of reason means that Islam will not have to destroy the West with jihad, the West has become far too adept at destroying itself.



We are expected to believe that,

· as was demonstrated by the involvement of senior Bush administration officials with Enron, and the fact that Bush and Cheney are owned and operated by Texas oil interests, has nothing to do with their unwillingness to stand up to the House of Saud and the Wahabi sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia, which decapitates Christians and finances Islamic extremism globally.

· We are expected to forget that Bush's father was vice-president of an administration that supplied weapons to the Islamic terrorist government of Iran, and then denied it.

· We are expected to forget that, as a former CIA Director, Bush Senior saw American commandos training Gadaffi's terrorists in Libya, and as President, he left Saddam Hussein in power and now the disgraceful Bush legacy of Islamic appeasement is perpetuated by his son, who appeared on TV after September 11th singing the praises of Islam at an Islamic institution in Washington and allowing the US postal service to issue a stamp commemorating Ramadan.

· Islam is a religion, which interprets kindness as weakness and by calling for a Palestinian state in the aftermath of September 11th, the only signal Bush sent to the Moslem world was that "terrorism works, we are winning the jihad, allah is giving us the victory, America is making concessions out of fear."

· We are expected to pretend that none of this has anything to do with the politics of Arab oil and the economics of petrol dollars recycled through the banks of London and New York.

· We are expected to forget that 18 months prior to September 11th, Vladimir Putin warned Tony Blair that the Islamic terrorism he was fighting in Chechnya would soon arrive in the West and that the western position towards Serbia, who was fighting the Islamic Kosovo Liberation Army, backed by Al Qaeda, was unbalanced when Blair and Clinton intervened militarily on the side of the Moslems in defiance of the NATO treaty, which only allows intervention when a NATO country is attacked.

· We are also expected to forget that prior to September 11th, the Israeli Government had repeatedly warned the White House that the Islamic terrorism they live with would soon become a reality in the American mainland, whilst Bush held a Ramadan celebration in the White House and failed to attack Kandahar and Kabul to kill bin Laden and Mohammed Omar before they were able to escape, for fear of offending the oil interests and their House of Saudi partners. No-one enjoys the death of civilians, but the priority of the Western governments must be the lives of their own citizens.

· We are expected to believe that it could have nothing to do with the oil interests who control the Bush White House, that America limited its response to September 11th to Afghanistan instead of launching air strikes against Yemen, Libya, Iraq and the Bekka Valley of Lebanon and allowing the Israelis to bomb Damascus in retaliation for the assassination of an Israeli cabinet member by a Syrian based Islamic terror organization.



Despite all of this and more, Bush still states that Islam is a religion of tolerance, and political correctness says that we are expected to believe this obvious and dangerous lie.

· We are expected to believe it despite the fact that in one poll, 40% of British Moslems expressed support for bin Laden. Instead of protecting British and American citizens, the way that Putin protected Russian citizens from the cancer of militant Islam, Blair and Bush reject the clear need for the mass deportation of Moslems not holding British or American citizenship and the closure of mosques funded by militantly orientated Islamic interests and governments; but would rather leave their own citizens at risk of further terrorism. "Islam", the politicians tell us, "is a religion of tolerance and peace that believes in justice".



In being expected to believe that Islam is a peaceable, tolerant and just religion, we are expected to suspend our powers of reason and to pretend that it is not an irrefutable fact that there is not a single Moslem country in the world that is an authentic democracy and that there is not a single Islamic country in the world where Christians are not persecuted. Our politicians expect us to believe their rhetoric and to accept at face value the propaganda of Moslems living in the West that their religion is not one of hostility towards the West, nor towards the Judeo-Christian faith, despite the fact that while the Saudi Arabians fund the construction of mosques all over Britain, America and elsewhere, these same heathens, who decapitate people for becoming Christians, will not allow the construction of a single church in Saudi Arabia. TOLERANCE??



These are blatant facts the Blair Government and the Bush White House expect us all to ignore.

· We are expected to forget the 200,000 Christian refugees in East Timor - Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

· We are expected to forget the 50,000 murdered in the Southern Philippines - Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

· We are expected to forget the World Trade Centre, Lockerbie and the Pentagon - Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

· We are expected to forget the Saudis hanging a 15 year old boy for his Christian faith while their country is under the strategic protection of America and Britain - Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

· We are expected to forget thousands upon thousands of Moslems rioting in the streets of Britain's cities, demanding the murder of Salmon Rushdie, a British citizen, for authoring a book they didn't like - - Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

· We are expected to forget the Islamic genocide in the Sudan and the church burnings in Nigeria - - Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance?

· just as we are expected to believe that the 1000 little British girls forced into arranged marriages abroad each year has nothing to do with Islam,

· we are expected to believe that the Taliban, and for that matter, the entire history of Islam, with its bloody debauchery and unspeakable oppression of human rights, which continues to this day, in one Islamic country after another, has nothing to do with Islam!



Political correctness has indeed gone mad and reason is a casualty of a misguided sense of what brotherhood and equality actually are. Now we are expected to further ignore the absolute and incontrovertible fact that in their own backward countries, Moslems uniformly deny to others the same rights and privileges they aggressively demand from Great Britain, the USA and other civilized nations.
http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/islam_peaceful.htm

[RSade]

These are blatant facts the Blair Government and the Bush White House expect us all to ignore.


I am not concerned about the governments wrath...however this brother against brother and religion against religion is of satanic origin!

And God will judge us for indulging in our blood lust. this hate for religion and the religion against religion brother against brother, has been given a long rope (5000 years).

This hate lust plays into one worldism' of the beast! It has been documented in the mainstream media that these nuts would like to destroy all but 500 million elite on earth! More than the two thirds of mankind! What do these men have to do to get our attention? we are truly SHEEP.


These One world government movers and shakers are the belly of the beast! We are thier prey!

However, these...ahhhh iggy morons do not understand the beast will destroy them as well.

Oh well its time to do somthing in the real world...god bye sheep I have to get sheared today (tax time)

[Camp]

"It has been documented in the mainstream media that these nuts would like to destroy all but 500 million elite on earth! More than the two thirds of mankind!"

Not that it matters much, but wouldn't that be 9/10th of mankind at a minimum. Very messy.

[American_Jihad]

The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

Historical facts say that Islam has been imperialistic—and would still like to be, if only for religious reasons. Many Muslim clerics, scholars, and activists, for example, would like to impose Islamic law around the world. Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.

Today, Muslim polemicists and missionaries, who believe that Islam is the best religion in the world, claim that the West has stolen Islamic lands and that the West (alone) is imperialistic.One hardline Muslim emailer to me said about the developed West and the undeveloped Islamic countries: “You stole our lands” and then he held his finger on the exclamation key to produce a long string of them.

Thus imperialism, a word that has reached metaphysical levels and that is supposed to stop all debates and answer all questions, explains why Islamic countries have not kept up with the West. The emailer did not look inwardly, as if his own culture and religion may play a role. Instead, it is always the West’s fault.

Westerners—even academics—accept the notion that the West alone was aggressive. It seems that Islam is always innocent and passive. It is difficult to uncover the source of this Western self-loathing. It is, however, a pathology that seems to strike Westerners more than other people around the globe. This anti-West pathology shows up in Westerners’ hatred for the European Crusades in the Medieval Age.

It must be admitted that there is much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the mission and ministry of Jesus and the first generations of Christians, then the Crusades do not look so good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant?

The purpose of this article is not to justify or defend European Crusades, but to explain them, in part—though scholarship can go a long way to defend and justify them

In this article, the word “crusade” (derived from the Latin word for “cross”) in an Islamic context means a holy war or jihad. It is used as a counterweight to the Muslim accusation that only the Europeans launched crusades. Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion.

We will employ a partial timeline spanning up to the first European response to Islamic imperialism, when Pope Urban II launched his own Crusade in 1095. The timeline mostly stays within the parameters of the Greater Middle East. The data in bold print are of special interest for revealing early Islamic atrocities, their belief in heroism in warfare, or politics today.

The Islamic Crusades were very successful. The Byzantines and Persian Empires had worn themselves out with fighting, so a power vacuum existed. Into this vacuum stormed Islam.

After the timeline, two questions are posed, which are answered at length

The Timeline

630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting “agreements” from northern tribes. They could enjoy the “privilege” of living under Islamic “protection” (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

632-634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al-Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616-17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today’s Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034-35).

634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al-Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: “The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.” To this Khalid retorts: “How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many” (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: “[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists” (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem’s; the second mine).

634-644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639-642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643-707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644-650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son-in-law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet’s daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman’s assassination. Ali’s partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali’s supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661-680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673-678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad’s grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad’s death.

705 Abd al-Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711-713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al-Rashid orders the destruction of non-Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al-Matawakkil orders the destruction of non-Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837-901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869-883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928-969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti-Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al-Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al-Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al-Hakim’s oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090-1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. And sometimes the Muslims behaved exemplarily. Both are true. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was not always the case.

Moreover, we should take a step back and look at the big picture. If Islam had stayed in Arabia and had not waged wars of conquest, then no troubles would have erupted. But the truth is this: Islam moved aggressively during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar in the seventh century, with other Caliphs continuing well beyond that; only then did the Western Europeans react (see 1094).

It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far.

Two questions are posed and then answered at length.

Besides following Muhammad, why else did the Muslims launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the first place?

It is only natural to ask why Islam launched its own Crusades long before Christendom did.

In the complicated Muslim Crusades that lasted several centuries before the European Crusades, it is difficult to come up with a grand single theory as to what launched these Crusades. Because of this difficulty, we let three scholars and two eyewitness participants analyze the motives of the early Islamic Crusades.

1. World religious conquest

Muslim polemicists like Sayyid Qutb assert that Islam’s mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 7, pp. 8-15). Islam is expansionist and must conquer the whole world to express Allah’s perfect will on this planet, so Qutb and other Muslims believe.

2. “Unruly” energies in Arabia?

Karen Armstrong, a former nun and well-spoken, prolific author and apologist for Islam, comes up short of a satisfactory justification for the Muslim Crusades:

Once [Abu Bakr] crushed the rebellion [against Islamic rule within Arabia], Abu Bakr may well have decided to alleviate internal tensions by employing the unruly energies within the ummah [Muslim community] against external foes. Whatever the case, in 633 Muslim armies began a new series of campaigns in Persia, Syria and Iraq. (Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, New York: Ballantine, 1997, p. 226).

Armstrong also notes that the “external foes” to Islam in Arabia in 633 are the Persians and the Byzantines, but they are too exhausted after years of fighting each other to pose a serious threat to Islam. Therefore, it moved into a “power vacuum,” unprovoked (Armstrong p. 227). She simply does not know with certainty why Muslims marched northward out of Arabia.

3. Religion, economy, and political control

Fred M. Donner, the dean of historians specializing in the early Islamic conquests, cites three large factors for the Islamic Crusades. First, the ideological message of Islam itself triggered the Muslim ruling elite simply to follow Muhammad and his conquests; Islam had a divinely ordained mission to conquer in the name of Allah. (The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton UP, 1981, p. 270). The second factor is economic. The ruling elite “wanted to expand the political boundaries of the new state in order to secure even more fully than before the trans-Arab commerce they had plied for a century or more” (p. 270). The final factor is political control. The rulers wanted to maintain their top place in the new political hierarchy by having aggressive Arab tribes migrate into newly conquered territories (p. 271).

Thus, these reasons they have nothing to do with just wars of self-defense. Early Islam was merely being aggressive without sufficient provocation from the surrounding Byzantine and Persian Empires.

4. Sheer thrill of conquest and martyrdom

Khalid al-Walid (d. 642), a bloodthirsty but superior commander of the Muslim armies at the time, also answers the question as to why the Muslims stormed out of Arabia, in his terms of surrender set down to the governor of al-Hirah, a city along the Euphrates River in Iraq. He is sent to call people to Islam or pay a “protection” tax for the “privilege” of living under Islamic rule (read: not to be attacked again) as dhimmis or second-class citizens. Says Khalid:

“I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you.” (Tabari, The Challenge to the Empires, trans. Khalid Yahya Blankinship, NY: SUNYP, 1993, vol. 11, p. 4; Arabic page 2017)

Thus, according to Khalid, religion is early Islam’s primary motive (though not the only one) of conquering people.

In a short sermon, Abu Bakr says:

. . . Indeed, the reward in God’s book for jihad in God’s path is something for which a Muslim should love to be singled out, by which God saved [people] from humiliation, and through which He has bestowed nobility in this world and the next. (Tabari 11:80 / 2083-84)

Thus, the Caliph repeats the Quran’s trade of this life for the next, in an economic bargain and in the context of jihad (cf. Suras 4:74; 9:111 and 61:10-13). This offer of martyrdom, agreeing with Donner’s first factor, religious motivation, is enough to get young Muslims to sign up for and to launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the seventh century.

Khalid also says that if some do not convert or pay the tax, then they must fight an army that loves death as other people love life (see 634).

5. Improvement of life over that in Arabia

But improvement of life materially must be included in this not-so-holy call. When Khalid perceived that his Muslim Crusaders desired to return to Arabia, he pointed out how luscious the land of the Persians was:

“Do you not regard [your] food like a dusty gulch? By God, if struggle for God’s sake and calling [people] to God were not required of us, and there were no consideration except our livelihood, the wise opinion would [still] have been to strike this countryside until we possess it”. . . . (Tabari 11:20 / 2031)

Khalid was from Mecca. At the time of this “motivational” speech, the Empire of Persia included Iraq, and this is where Khalid is warring. Besides his religious goal of Islamizing its inhabitants by warfare, Khalid’s goal is to “possess” the land.

Like Pope Urban II in 1095 exhorting the Medieval Crusaders to war against the Muslim “infidels” for the first time, in response to Muslim aggression that had been going on for centuries, Abu Bakr gives his own speech in 634, exhorting Muslims to war against the “infidels,” though he is not as long-winded as the Pope.

Muslim polemicists believe that Islam spread militarily by a miracle from Allah. However, these five earth-bound reasons explain things more clearly.

Did the Islamic Crusades force conversions by the sword?

Historical facts demonstrate that most of the conquered cities and regions accepted the last of three options that were enforced by the later Muslim Crusaders: (1) fight and die, (2) convert and pay the zakat tax; (3) keep their Biblical faith and pay the jizya tax. Most preferred to remain in their own religion.

However, people eventually converted. After all, Islamic lands are called such for a reason—or many reasons. Why? Four Muslim polemicists whitewash the reasons people converted, so their scholarship is suspect.

1. The polemical answer

First, Malise Ruthven and Azim Nanji use the Quran to explain later historical facts:

“Islam expanded by conquest and conversion. Although it was sometimes said that the faith of Islam was spread by the sword, the two are not the same. The Koran states unequivocally, ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ (Sura 2:256).” (Historical Atlas of Islam, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 2004, 30).

According to them, the Quran says there should be no compulsion, so the historical facts conform to a sacred text. This shaky reasoning is analyzed, below.

Next, David Dakake also references Sura 2:256, and defines compulsion very narrowly. Jihad has been misrepresented as forcing Jews, Christians, and other peoples of the Middle East, Asia and Africa to convert to Islam “on pain of death.” (“The Myth of Militant Islam,” Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, ed. J.E.B. Lumbard, Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2004, p. 13). This is too narrow a definition of compulsion, as we shall see, below.

Finally, Qutb, also citing Sura 2:256, is even more categorical:

“Never in its history did Islam compel a single human being to change his faith” (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 8, p. 307).

This is absurd on its face, and it only demonstrates the tendentiousness of Islamic scholarship, which must be challenged at every turn here in the West. For more information and thorough logic, see this article.

2. The historical facts

History does not always follow Scriptures because people do not. Did the vast majority of conquered peoples make such fine distinctions, even if a general amnesty were granted to People of the Book? Maybe a few diehards did, but the majority? Most people at this time did not know how to read or could barely read, so when they saw a Muslim army outside their gates, why would they not convert, even if they waited? To Ruthven’s and Nanji’s credit, they come up with other reasons to convert besides the sword, such as people’s fatigue with church squabbles, a few doctrinal similarities, simplicity of the conversion process, a desire to enter the ranks of the new ruling elite, and so on. But using the Quran to interpret later facts paints the history of Islam into a corner of an unrealistically high standard.

This misguided connection between Scripture and later historical facts does not hold together. Revelations or ideals should not run roughshod over later historical facts, as if all followers obey their Scriptures perfectly.

To his credit, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), late Medieval statesman, jurist, historian, and scholar, has enough integrity and candor to balance out these four Muslim apologists, writing a history that is still admired by historians today. He states the obvious:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. (The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to History (abridged), trans. Franz Rosenthal, Princeton UP, 1967, p.183)

When the Islamic Crusaders go out to conquer, carrying an Islamic banner inscribed in Arabic of the glory and the truth of their prophet, Ibn Khaldun would not deny that the army’s mission, besides the material reasons of conquest, is to convert the inhabitants. Islam is a “universalizing” religion, and if its converts enter its fold either by persuasion or force, then that is the nature of Islam.

Moreover, Ibn Khaldun explains why a dynasty rarely establishes itself firmly in lands of many different tribes and groups. But it can be done after a long time and employing the following tactics, as seen in the Maghrib (N and NW Africa) from the beginning of Islam to Ibn Khaldun’s own time:

The first (Muslim) victory over them and the European Christians (in the Maghrib) was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable . . . . Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the . . . Maghrib. (p. 131)

Conclusion

Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus.

In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622-632), he either sent out or went out on seventy-four raids, expeditions, or full-scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double-crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.

It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.

But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.

Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.

http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5024

[American_Jihad]

The Shame Of "Honor Killings" In The Muslim World

From where did this come? Where in the Qur'an does it sanction the murder of a woman on the mere accusation of adultery? What sort of barbarity is this?

Muqadas screamed in horror as her stepfather, Nazir Ahmed, put his hand to her mouth and cut her throat with a machete. Her screams awakened her mother, and from the corner of the room, Mrs. Bibi looked on helplessly as her husband mercilessly slaughtered her other three daughters: Bano, 8, Sumaira, 7, and Humaira, 4. He only paused to brandish the knife at this horrified wife, warning her not to intervene or raise alarm.

"I was shivering with fear. I did not know how to save my daughters," Bibi, sobbing, later said. "I begged my husband to spare my daughters, but he said, 'If you make a noise, I will kill you.' The whole night the bodies of my daughters lay in front of me." Ahmed, who was arrested the next morning, was totally unrepentant: "I told the police that I am an honorable father, and I slaughtered my dishonored daughter and the three other girls." When asked why he killed the three young girls, he replied: "I thought the younger girls would do what their eldest sister had done, so they should be eliminated."

What did their eldest sister do that she be slaughtered like an animal? She was accused of adultery by her husband, from whom she fled because he had allegedly abused her and forced her to work in a brick-making factory. Mr. Ahmed did have one regret: "I wish that I get a chance to eliminate the boy she ran away with and set his home on fire." Police have said they do not know the identity or whereabouts of Muqadas' alleged lover.

I wish I could say that the above story came from a Hollywood film. Sadly, however, the above story is the true account of a so-called "honor killing" in Gago Mandi, a village in eastern Punjab province in Pakistan, as reported by the Associated Press on December 29, 2005. The Chicago Tribune reported a similar account of an honor killing in London: Heshu Yones, a 16-year old West London girl, had her throat slit by her father because she "had sullied the family name...by dating without his permission."

The story is always the same: a woman is accused of fornication or adultery and then mercilessly slaughtered by a male member of the family in order to defend the "family's honor." From where did this come? Where in the Qur'an does it sanction the murder of a woman on the mere accusation of adultery? What sort of barbarity is this?

Yes, the Qur'an does prohibit fornication and adultery: "And do not commit adultery, for behold, it is an abomination and an evil way" (17:32). But the prohibition is general, for both male and female. Moreover, the act is equally abominable when a man commits it as when a woman does. How could it be that, today, the "family honor is stained" if a woman allegedly commits adultery, but there is no worry about the family's honor when its male members "sow their wild oats"?

How could someone like Nazir Ahmed be unrepentant about killing his own flesh and blood when the very next verse in chapter 17 says: "And do not take any human being's life - [the life] which God has willed to be sacred - otherwise than in [the pursuit] of justice..." (17:33). By no stretch of the imagination could one call "defending the family's honor" an act of "justice."

It is estimated that 5,000 women worldwide are massacred every year to "defend the family honor." What is happening here? How could this occur in the 21st Century? What's next? Burying infant girls alive? Is the Muslim world going to return to this: "for, whenever any of them is given the glad tiding of [the birth of] a girl, his face darkens, and he is filled with suppressed anger, avoiding all people because of the [alleged] evil of the glad tiding which he has received, [and debating within himself]: Shall he keep this [child] despite the contempt [which he feels for it] - or shall he bury it in the dust? Oh, evil indeed is whatever they decide!" (16:58-59)? I mean with women being killed for honor, all that is left is to start worshipping statues of wood and stone once again!

It is the return of the Jahiliyyah, or pre-Islamic ignorance, into the fabric of Muslim societies. I have heard people try to explain it away by saying, "This is their culture." This makes my blood boil in anger. The Qur'an had answered this justification centuries ago: "But when they are told, 'Follow what God has bestowed from on high,' some answer, 'Nay, we shall follow [only] that which we found our forefathers believing in and doing.' Why, even if their forefathers did not use their reason at all, and were devoid of all guidance?" (2:170)

It is a repugnant stain that has absolutely no justification in Islam whatsoever. It is a cancer that must be torn away from the body of the Muslim world, and it can only be done from within the Muslim world itself. There has to be a major process of re-education, to teach these people how Islam condemned such practices over 14 centuries ago. With such clear verses in the Qur'an such as 16:58-59, one would think such a process would be easy. Unfortunately, however, old habits die hard. But this is one habit that has to die again - and this time for good.

http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1636_0_25_0_C
They are beastly and should be hung by their balls.....

[American_Jihad]

Palestinian 'Honor' Killings on the Rise

When Israel began erecting a separation barrier in late 2003 to protect its citizens from the seemingly endless procession of suicide bombers, Palestinian society responded by redirecting its destructive urges inward. All revolutions are said ultimately to turn upon themselves and devour their own children. And, when suicide bombing became an increasingly difficult means of enhancing family prestige, Palestinians shifted the focus onto their female offspring to restore the balance.

Suicide bombings in Israel had developed into a bloody and lucrative industry for Palestinians who carried out 39 attacks in 2002. But, since Israel began constructing its anti-terrorist fence, the Palestinian human-bomb industry has been reduced to bankruptcy by producing only 11 attacks in more than two years.

Honor killing, on the other hand -- which has always been an integral aspect of Palestinian life -- began gathering momentum. With horrifying zest, weapon-wielding fathers, brothers, uncles and sometimes mothers, hunt down their daughters and sisters and commit shocking acts of violence for real and imagined immoral transgressions.

The Arab motivation for murdering their own daughters flows from the same cultural wellspring that produces suicide bombers. The defensive form of honor, called ird, is consumed with female sexual purity and manifests itself in the murder of its own to restore family honor, whereas the offensive manifestation, sharaf, requires positive actions implemented to heighten social status and increase family honor. As Palestinian society retreats from its failure to infiltrate the daily life of Israeli citizens with death and destruction, it compensates by killing its own and depositing ird in its honor bank.

Soraida Hussein, head of research for Jerusalem's Women's Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling said, "Honor killing is nothing new... what is new is the whole wave of killing in 2005."

In May 2005, the BBC reported, "In recent months there has been an increase in honour killings in the West Bank and Gaza...Women's rights activists say they cannot explain the upsurge."

During a particularly brutal spate of honor killings in early 2005, five Palestinian women were murdered in four separate incidences over a short period of time. Faten Habash spent six weeks in hospital after she threw herself from her family's fourth floor apartment window. Upon her return home, her father bludgeoned her to death with an iron bar.

Two days later, Maher Shakirat attacked his three sisters. The eldest, Rudaina, was eight months pregnant and had been admonished by her husband after he claimed she'd had an affair. Maher forced his sisters to drink bleach before strangling them. The youngest, Leila, escaped but had serious internal injuries from the effect of the bleach.

Rafayda Qaoud shared a bedroom in her Ramallah home with her two brothers. After they raped and impregnated her, she gave birth to a baby boy who was adopted by another family. Her mother then gave Rafayda a razor blade and ordered her to slash her own wrists. When she refused to commit suicide, her mother pulled a plastic bag tightly over her head, sliced open her daughter's wrists and beat her with a stick until she was dead.

Palestinian feminist Abu Dayyeh Shamas claims that: "Men feel they have lost their dignity and that they can somehow restore it by upholding the family's honour. We've noticed recent cases are much more violent in nature; attempts to kill, rape, incest. There is an incredible amount of incest." One women's group reported over 400 cases of incest in the West Bank alone in 2002.

Anthropologist James Emery explained in 2003, how "among Palestinians, all sexual encounters, including rape and incest, are blamed on the woman." Men are always presumed innocent and the responsibility falls on the woman or girl to protect her honor at all costs. When 17-year-old Afaf Younes ran away from her father after he allegedly sexually assaulted her, she was caught and sent home to him. He then shot and killed her to protect his honor.

And when a four-year-old toddler was raped by a 25 year-old man in 2002, her Palestinian family left her to bleed to death because her rape had dishonored the family.

Emery described a Palestinian merchant explaining this cultural view of femininity as "A woman shamed is like rotting flesh, if it is not cut away, it will consume the body. What I mean is the whole family will be tainted if she is not killed."

Recently in Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas has defined a new role for itself in guarding the morality of young Muslim women. A group of men who identified itself as a Hamas "morality squad" attacked 19-year-old Yousra al-Azam after she had sat at the beach with her husband-to-be and another couple. She was shot in the head and died in the street as her murderers beat her with batons. The growing influence of Hamas with its fundamentalist interpretations of Islamic law is concerning women's groups, which fear it will gain power and moral legitimacy in the coming elections.

The Guardian, reported official figures from the Palestinian Women's Affairs Ministry in 2004, where it claimed 20 girls and women were honor-killed and a further 50 committed suicide. Another 15, it claimed, had survived murder attempts. And in 2005, the official figures reached 33. However, this official recognition of the sharp rise in reported honor killings is a limp excuse by a society that condones, camouflages and ignores most of its crimes against women.

According to Dr Shalhoub-Kevorkian, a criminologist from Hebrew University, the real figures are much higher with almost all murders in the West Bank and Gaza most likely to be honor killings. In a two-year period between 1996 and 1998, Shalhoub-Kevorkian uncovered 234 suspicious deaths in the West Bank alone, which she believes were honor killings. Palestinian police do not record these deaths as murder but as deaths due to "fate and destiny." Shalhoub-Kevorkian believes the real number of honor killings may in fact be 15 times higher than the official figures.

In 2005, Amnesty International issued a public statement that called for the Palestinian Authority not to resume executions of those convicted of murder, rape or collaborating with Israelis. It simultaneously called for an end to the "impunity so far afforded to those responsible for certain crimes" including "honour killings."

A man convicted of killing his daughter or female relative can expect to serve a six-month sentence due to a 45 year-old Jordanian law still upheld in the West Bank and Gaza. More often than not, the woman's murder is reported as suicide or accident or is simply not reported at all. Anthropologist Emery claimed that many murdered women are buried in the desert: "The secret of their fate... entombed with them in the sand."

Human rights groups, amongst others, have claimed that the surge in serious crime, including honor killings, is the result of poverty and hardship created by Israel. And, while the barrier must have made life more difficult for many Palestinians, Israel cannot be seen to be responsible for the burgeoning crime rate and developing lawlessness of the Palestinian population.

In Britain, there is no physical barrier separating people and no Jewish government to blame for the dilemmas of the Muslim community. Yet a sharp increase in Islamic honor killings has been reported since the July 7 London bombings, last year.

Nazir Afzal, director of Britain's Crown Prosecution Service, told Reuters, there has been at least a "dozen honor killings in the country in the past year." This, he claims, is just a glimpse of the real problem. "There are other crimes, like rape, abduction and physical violence..."

Afzal claims that a number of Britain's 1.6 million Muslims are "turning in on themselves...When communities perceive themselves to be under threat they tend to turn in on themselves, regardless of whether that perception has any basis in fact."

This unprecedented cultural phenomenon in Britain demonstrates the senselessness of blaming Israel's Jews for the barbaric and primitive behaviour of Palestinian society. In Britain -- just as in the West Bank and Gaza -- "They try to restore and reinforce their own social norms," Afzal explains, " They put pressures on their own members to conform and if they don't...there is sometimes some kind of retribution."

Since Israel diminished the capacity of Palestinian human-bomb-making by building a barrier, the honor-making potential of the Palestinians has been considerably depleted. As they turn inward and commit savage and pitiless crimes upon their own women in order to achieve anamorphic honor, it is clear that the problem is one of cultural depravity rather than Israeli oppression.

Because Arabs employ the two societal poles of honor and shame to govern their behaviour, actions are dominated by the avoidance of shame and the acquisition of honor. Thus, every relationship and experience emanating from other, unchartered sources are inhibited and suppressed. Both honor and shame require an audience in order to become activated concepts. And the loss of the suicide bombers' audience has created a chaotic shift in focus while the perpetrators seek a new audience to restore their lagging sense of sharaf.

http://www.aina.org/news/20060119104907.htm
Islam ,what is it good for........

[American_Jihad]

Muhammad cartoons 'global crisis'

Denmark's PM has described the row over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad as a "global crisis", as he called for Muslims to refrain from violence.
How can VIOLENT CLANS & TRIBES refrain from violence, B/S.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4690338.stm

Major Anti-Semitic Motifs in Arab Cartoons
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-21.htm
Islam can say anything about others religion, but
can't take it when you make fun of theirs --B/S

Crusade time again,put the islamic beast back
in its box.
:happy_12:

[American_Jihad]

Muslims attack Indonesian pastor

Santoso," a farmer and a pastor for a small village church in Indonesia, was attacked on the way home after sharing Christ with Muslims on a farm in the city of Poso.

He and a friend, both on motorbikes, were hit with a machete wielded by a Muslim who jumped from a bush. The Muslim tried to cut off his head but missed, hitting Santoso in the mouth. He ran to his village holding his face. Because of the attack, Santoso lost 10 teeth and damaged his tongue; his friend's fingers were cut off. This was the third attempt on Santoso's life.

The Voice of the Martyrs medical staff has flown him to Java twice for treatment and is happy to report Santoso now has teeth implants. Before going into his last surgery, he told VOM: "I read Ephesians 1:19 which promises God's great power to us who believe. God sends me power so I can bear suffering. We rejoice that one Muslim has come to Christ."

Christians across the 3,000 inhabited islands of Indonesia are suffering increased attacks, church burnings, imprisonment and threats from angry mobs because of their faith in Jesus Christ. Much of the world would like you to believe that Christians are no longer persecuted, but Santoso would disagree. Now you can stay informed of what is really happening to your Christian brothers and sisters in countries like Indonesia and discover practical ways that you can get involved.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48641
:add19:

[American_Jihad]

'3rd intifada
on its way'

Terror leaders detail for WND
'massive new war' against Israel

With Hamas now in power, the long-ruling Fatah party and its "military wing" Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades forced into the opposition, and Israel announcing it will soon withdraw from the West Bank, Palestinian terror leaders tell WorldNetDaily recent events here are leading them to launch what they call a third intifada – or violent confrontation – against Israel consisting of suicide bombings, rocket attacks against Jewish communities and "a few new surprises in our arsenal."

Some terror leaders, particularly from the Al Aqsa Brigades, whose associated Fatah party scored poorly in last month's parliamentary elections, say they are planning massive violence against Israeli civilians mostly to revolt against the new Hamas-controlled Palestinian government.
"The new intifada is only a question of time and this will be the hardest and the most dangerous one. It's just about timing until the order to blow up a new wave of attacks will be given," Abu Nasser, a senior Al Aqsa Brigades leader from the Balata refugee camp in northern Samaria told WorldNetDaily in an interview.

Israel expecting new wave of terror

In the last 10 days Israeli forces intercepted 12 potential suicide bombers and have stopped several dozen bombings the past few months, prompting fears of "a new and worrisome wave of terror," said Yuval Diskin, head of Israel's Shin Bet security services.

Hamas last month catapulted to power, winning Palestinian parliamentary elections by a large margin and wresting control from Fatah. Israel has warned the losing terror groups, particularly Fatah's Al Aqsa Brigades, will try to stymie efforts by Hamas to form a new government and sign a long-term cease fire with the Jewish state. Also, members of the Islamic Jihad terror group expressed disappointment their organization decided not to run in elections, and have warned they will stop Hamas from imposing a truce.

Last week, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced his Kadima party, leading overwhelmingly in the polls for next month's Israeli elections, will seek to "change Israel's borders" by withdrawing from most of the West Bank. Some security officials told WND they fear terror groups will increase attacks to claim credit for an Israeli West Bank pull-out.

After Israel announced its withdrawal from Gaza, which it carried out this past summer, terror organizations, mostly led by Hamas and the Popular Resistance Committees umbrella group, increased attacks in the area, at one point firing an average of seven rockets per week at Gaza's Jewish communities.

Diskin warned that Iran and Syria, currently under mounting international pressure, are streaming large sums of money to Palestinian terror groups to spur on local cells to carry out attacks in hopes of starting regional violence.

The Palestinians launched their first intifada in 1987, which developed into a well-organized violent rebellion orchestrated by Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization from its headquarters in Tunis. The so-called second intifada was initiated in 2000 after Arafat rejected at Camp David an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state on most of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and sections of eastern Jerusalem. Some 993 Israelis and 3,781 Palestinians have been killed so far. Many say the second intifada is still being waged.

The terror groups themselves say they are planning a new wave of violence against Israelis, which some terror leaders are calling a "third intifada." They detailed for WorldNetDaily how they will carry it out.

Al Aqsa Brigades: 'We'll kill Israelis to revolt against Hamas'

The Al Aqsa Brigades was formed in 2000 by then-PLO leader Yasser Arafat as a military offshoot of the Fatah party. PA President Mahmoud Abbas signed a cease fire with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last February, to which the Brigades was party – but the terror group continued carrying out attacks.

Al Aqsa's Abu Nasser claims Israel put Hamas in power, and says his group is preparing a new terror onslaught as a result.

"For the last 10 months we respected a cease fire expecting to see changes in the lives of the Palestinian people, but we received from the Israeli side more assassinations ... and above all we received the Hamas victory, which seems to be the result of an Israeli and international conspiracy. They believe that Hamas will give up easier our lands and rights. I think that they are right, but we will not allow this to happen. We will fight and we will blow up the new intifada," Abu Nasser told WND.

Sources close to Al Aqsa say Abu Nasser was involved in preparing the last three suicide bombings in Israel, including the attack last month at a Tel Aviv shwarma restaurant that injured more than 30 Israelis.

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal over the weekend said his group might sign a long-term cease fire with Israel, but told reporters he will not ask other Palestinian group to stop attacks.

Abu Nasser told WND the Brigades will not respect any cease fire agreed to by Hamas and will not halt attacks at Hamas' request.

"I am sure Hamas will start arresting us, but it will not be that easy [for them]," said Abu Nasser. "We are preparing ourselves for the worst scenario."

Asked if Al Aqsa's new terror war will be launched less out of aggression toward Israel and more to revolt against Hamas, Abu Nasser replied, "This is partially true. When we were in power, we were obliged to be more sensitive and more obedient to the instructions and policies of our leadership. Now that we lost the elections, why should we obey the leaders and just who do we obey? The Hamas?

Continued Abu Nasser: "I am sure once [Hamas is] in power it is only that power that is really important for them. They will be ready to give up things that President Arafat refused to do. The proof for what I am saying is that in the last days when the Israeli army killed more than 15 Palestinian activists, most of them from our Brigades, we did not hear the voice of Hamas. Where are their resistance principles? Did they disappear after the elections?"

Abu Nasser warned the so-called third intifada will be a combination of suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Jewish towns.

"The Al Aqsa Brigades recently unified most of our cells and groups and we will wait for the most suitable moment to launch our resistance acts. As for the acts, there will be suicide attacks but there will be a massive use of rockets. These rockets will be launched against Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but also if needed against Israeli cities inside the green line."

Rocket war against Israel

Since Israel's evacuation of the Gaza Strip this past August, security officials have been warning that the Palestinian terror groups transferred their rocket capabilities to the West Bank, which is within firing range of Israel's international airport and many major Israeli cities, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Israel has confirmed that at least two rockets have been fired in the West Bank so far from the northern Samaria town of Jenin. There is information terror groups in the West Bank, particularly the Al Aqsa Brigades and Islamic Jihad, will step up attacks against the area's Jewish communities ahead of any Israeli withdrawal from the area.

WorldNetDaily caught up with Abu Oudai, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader responsible for coordinating the organization's rocket network in the West Bank. He warned that his organization is preparing a rocket war against Israel:

"We have launched [several] times and with the help of Allah we will launch these rockets regularly. There will be no calm, no cease fire until the occupation leaves our land. I don't need to tell you that the aerial distance from Jenin to Netanya, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other cities is not big without telling you what are all our plans concerning other parts of the West Bank."

Oudai said his organization and other terror groups have stockpiled Palestinian rockets, including Qassams, which can travel about 2 miles, more primitive Jenin-1 and Jenin-2s, and Arafat-1 and Arafat-2 rockets, some of which can reportedly travel up to 3 miles. He claimed his group is developing a new rocket that will put all of Israel's major cities within firing range.

"The very near future will prove their capacity to kill and destroy and to beat the Israelis in the West Bank exactly like we did with these rockets in the Gaza Strip," Oudai said.

Oudai pocked fun at Israel's West Bank security barrier, which has been credited with making it more difficult for Palestinian groups to carry out suicide bombings.

"[The Israelis] have built a huge wall on which [it] spent billions of dollars but still we are hitting Israel with our rockets and reaching every target we want. This wall will not defend [Israel] from our rockets which have defeated the wall and all the security measures taken to prevent our attacks," Oudai boasted.

Israeli military leaders previously warned that the Jewish state will launch an "unprecedented" military campaign against any rocket firing from the West Bank.

The Israeli Defense Forces did not initiate any large-scale anti-rocket operation in response to the rockets launched from Jenin. It has been largely unable to stop the rockets regularly fired from Gaza into nearby Israeli Negev towns.

The Israeli army regularly responds to Qassam firings from Gaza with surgical missile strikes and artillery fire at areas it says are used to launch rockets. In December, Israel set up a buffer zone in sections of Gaza occasionally used to fire rockets into nearby Israeli Negev communities, but the Palestinian terrorists shifted their launching sites to other areas and have continued the attacks.

Said Oudai: "Israel already has used all its tools. Tanks, aircrafts, assassinations and everything it could use. But we are still here and still fighting. We do not get excited from the Israeli threats. What can be this unprecedented reaction? They have already tried everything."

In Gaza, the Popular Resistance Committees, an umbrella organization of several Palestinian terror groups, has taken credit for many of the rockets launched from the area since 2000.
Abu Abir, spokesman for the Committees, boasted his group transported missiles to the West Bank.

"If there is need, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and everywhere in Israel can become our target. Israelis must also know that we have already transferred the knowledge and the technology of producing rockets to the West Bank," Abu Abir told WorldNetDaily.

Abu Abir said his group has "improved [our] capacities in shooting these rockets. Even the Israeli officers agreed that the improvement is at all levels, [including] the distance that these rockets can reach, the capacity of explosives and their accuracy. In the last five years, there is no doubt that our abilities have improved."

Islamic Jihad: 'The Israelis should wait for our surprises'

Islamic Jihad has claimed responsibility for every suicide bombing against Israel since last February's cease fire, including bombings in a Tel Aviv disco and restaurant and a Netanya shopping mall, among others. Al Aqsa leaders told WorldNetDaily they aided the recent bombings. Islamic Jihad also says it fired most of the rockets launched from the Gaza Strip since Israel's August withdrawal.

Israel says Islamic Jihad is directly backed by Iran and Syria. Jihad chief Ramadan Shallah operates openly from Damascus and regularly visits Tehran.

Security sources say Hezbollah headquarters in Damascus and Beirut have ordered Islamic Jihad to carry out attacks in hopes of drawing Israel into a protracted military conflict.

Israel's Diskin warned that Iran and Syria are looking to use Islamic Jihad in part to distract mounting international pressure against their respective countries.

Iran is under fire for its alleged nuclear ambitions, and the international community led by the United States has threatened to bring Syria to the United Nations Security Council for allegedly interfering in the investigation into the assassination last year of former Lebanese Prime Minister Raqif Hariri, for which Syria has been widely blamed.

WorldNetDaily spoke with Islamic Jihad's northern West Bank leader Abu Khalil, who warned his terror group is planning a terror onslaught to chase Israel from the West Bank and eventually from Jerusalem.

"We will launch very soon very painful attacks that will shake the enemy. In fact, this is more the continuation of the (second) intifada because we never said that the intifada has ended. We will never give calm and security to the enemy. This will happen only when Israel will run away from Jerusalem and the West Bank like it did in Gaza," Abu Khalil said.

Abu Khalil, like leaders from the Al Aqsa Brigades, said his group will not respect a Hamas request to halt attacks against Israel.

"I don’t believe the brothers in Hamas will ask us to stop. In any case, our only commitment is towards Allah, and the blood of our people and brothers and towards our political leadership," Abu Khalil told WND.

"Therefore we will not give up the right to defend ourselves and to launch all kinds of attacks against Israel everywhere there is an Israeli soldier or any Israeli goal in the West Bank and 1948 occupied Palestine [the entire state of Israel]."

Asked which weapons will be emphasized during Islamic Jihad's next wave of terror attacks, Abu Khalil replied, "I should not answer this question for operational reasons. But we proved that we use everything Allah enables us to achieve and to use – suicide attacks, rockets and more surprises. The Israelis should wait for interesting surprises."

Hamas: 'Our goal is to rebuild Palestinian society'

Hamas, a terror group responsible for more than 60 suicide bombings, last month won a majority of seats in the Palestinian parliament and is currently attempting to form a governing coalition.

Hamas leaders claim they will focus on rebuilding Palestinian society, and have stated they may sign a long term cease fire agreement with Israel.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, Hamas chief in Gaza, told WorldNetDaily his group will "rebuild the Palestinian life shattered by corruption in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This is our goal now. To make a better life for the Palestinians."

In a widely circulated interview, al-Zahar even recently claimed to WorldNetDaily that Hamas might negotiate with Israel using a third party.

He said his group will likely agree to a long-term cease fire with the Jewish state, but said it will not recognize Israel or renounce its charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel by "assaulting and killing."

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal this weekend said his group will not stop other Palestinian organizations from carrying out attacks against Israel.

Still, some analysts contend Hamas might use its power to halt some anti-Israel violence in hopes of receiving financial aide from international donors.

But the Al-Mustaqbal Research Center in Gaza warned that after Israel's Gaza withdrawal Hamas attacks will be focused on West Bank Jewish communities. The Center is reportedly closely aligned with Hamas and, according to Israeli security officials, it espouses Hamas ideology:

"[Hamas will be] transporting warfare technologies such as mortars and rockets from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. These will provide an easy way to bombard Israeli populated areas adjacent to the security fence, and the fence, which is currently under construction, will therefore become useless," stated a recent publication by the Research Center, according to a translation by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at Israel's Center for Special Studies.

Al-Mustaqbal stated Israel's Gaza withdrawal provided Hamas and other terror groups with a staging ground from which to launch attacks and to transport rockets to West Bank communities. It said the Gaza withdrawal proves Israel will vacate other areas in response to repeated attacks.

PFLP: Terror forced Israel out of Gaza, will get us rest of Jewish state

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has carried out recent West Bank shooting attacks and rocket firings from the Gaza Strip. The group's leader, Ahmad Saadat, is in a Palestinian jail in Jericho for allegedly planning the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavaam Zeevi in October 2001.

Israeli security officials say the PFLP has scaled back its participation in attacks the past few months, but Abu Hani, a leader of the PLFP's "armed wing," the Abu Ali Mustafa Brigades, told WorldNetDaily his group used the time earned from last year's cease fire to build its arsenal in preparation for a third intifada.

"The last months were used for a rest in order to rehabilitate forces. The Palestinian people preserves its right to fight against Israel," Abu Hani said.

He told WorldNetDaily the PFLP is "forced" to launch a new terror war.

"It is not that we prepare an intifada. It is the reality on the ground that dictates a new intifada. There is the fence, there is the building in the Jewish settlements, the daily Israeli penetration into Palestinian cities, villages and camps and of course the killing of our comrades and brothers," Abu Hani says.

Israel routinely conducts anti-terror military raids in the West Bank when it receives intelligence warning of new attacks. The Israeli Air Force fires at targets in Gaza in attempts to halt Palestinian groups from launching rockets at nearby Jewish communities.

Abu Hani warned, "The current situation does not leave to the Palestinians many choices but to fight with all the tools we have or can have. The Gaza withdrawal proves unfortunately that force, attacks and rockets is the only language and attitude that the Israelis understand. They do not withdraw unless they are hit by the Palestinian resistance. So if there is a way that has already obliged the Israelis to withdraw, why not to use it again?"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48811
:happy_12:

[exitwound]

NO.....REALLY?!

ph34r!!!! :rolleyes:

[American_Jihad]

IS ISLAM A PEACEFUL RELIGION?
NOT!!!

We hear a lot today about how Islam is a peaceful religion and the acts of Muslim terrorists are outside the teachings of the Koran (Quran, Qur'ân). However, with a little research, it appears to us that the teachings of the Koran are, in fact, very violent. They call for killing the infidels or those who do not follow Islam and the Koran. The quotes below from the Koran are shocking and will likely make you come to the conclusion that "No, Islam is NOT a peaceful religion." It seems to be a recurring theme with religion: intolerance, hatred, animosity and discrimination.
One positive thing that we can say about Islam is that the religion appears to have kept alive scientific inquiry during a dark time in European history. Our research for the Ethical Atheist eBook entitled "THE FLAT EARTH: A Detailed Study of Personal Bias and Historical Thinking", along with research on historical thinking about our solar system, revolution of the planets and preservation of previous scientific works continually revealed that Islam maintained scientific knowledge while Europe floundered under the restrictions of the Church.

That said, let's examine what is held within the Koran regarding treatment of "infidels". By infidels, we mean basically anyone who doesn't share similar beliefs whether they be religious or not.

There is more> http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/islam_infidels.html

[Sage]

these animals are never going to stop on their own, they will have to be stopped, nuke mecca and be done with it.

[RSade]

I am an open theist Christian. The bible (I am relating specifically of the old testament) is as violent or more violent than the Koran, But this is not the point!

How dumb can everyone be? The leaders are making fools out of the Muslims and the Christians! FOOLS!

DUMMIES!
Islam and Christianity are being played against each other and most people are swallowing the garbage and wanting more. It would not matter if it was snot and vacuum cleaner dust from a lice factory we would want more if these leaders said to eat it!

The One world government master planners (read a few of the super wealthy) are feeding their slaves (us) crap and we love it!

It first pisses me off then saddens me because I know what all this is leading to!

And you and I will be begging to be fed dog shit compared to what is coming!

Go ahead and eat the hate and lice dust! How does it taste fools? I myself think it tastes like shit.

[American_Jihad]

Maybe. The only true way to to respond to free speech is to exercise your own free speech. However, protesting whilst calling for more atrocities like the 7 July bombings, the beheading of infidels and general destruction is certainly NOT an appropriate response.

http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/3681/protest10bx.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img464.imageshack.us/img464/8824/protest23yc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/1233/protest38pv.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

It’s just a shame that these people have never quite gotten around to protesting against Osama bin Laden, or Omar Bakri, or Abu Hamza, or any of the other exponents of jihad violence…
Get rid of the FANATICALS moslems.
Its Crusade time again "LETS ROLL"
:add19:

[Sage]

those are the moderates

[sods_law]

:add01:

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6585/55676stereo6pu.jpg

[Elyn]

:add01: [Sorry SL - they limited me to 5 images!]



But, Islam a peaceful religion!
http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/2256/danishdeath2us4sw.gif (http://imageshack.us)

http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/9629/cartoonprotestlane8zz.gif (http://imageshack.us)


But, it's only a small handful of Islamic extremists...
http://img497.imageshack.us/img497/5420/pakistanishelterguisex6gi.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Mosques are peaceful, holy places - never used as shelters for extremists!
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2923/islam6fy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

...And if you people speak against Islam, you will be killed and your families decimated!

[American_Jihad]

Some Imams Brainwash Muslim Adolescents and Plant Bogus Ideas About Islam in Their Minds

In an article published in the London Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya, warns that religious extremism and ignorance are spreading among the young generation of Muslims in the U.S.

"At a time when Arab and Islamic leaders and organizations are investing great efforts and large amounts of money and time in order to improve the image of Islam and of the Muslims, some imams are working in an organized manner to brainwash adolescents in the Muslim community and to plant bogus ideas in their minds concerning Islam, jihad, takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy], heresy and the way [Muslim] society has strayed from the right path. They give them interpretations of Koranic verses that have been [deliberately] chosen so as to lead them to rebel against their parents, their families, and even against the society in which they live.

"[The youths] neglect their studies and spend their time watching videotapes and listening to audio tapes - most of which are given to them for free - on ways to train Muslim youth in military and ideological jihad, along with reports on the suffering of Muslims in some Muslim countries, as well as Koranic verses and sermons that encourage jihad, martyrdom, self-sacrifice, and the striking of terror into the hearts of the enemy."


"Many Muslims Families are at Risk of Falling Apart"

"The natural consequence of these misleading actions is that many Muslim families are at risk of falling apart because of the wrong turn that their children's religious thinking has taken. Some of these youths - victims [of religious brainwashing] - are awaiting trial, and some are serving time in juvenile prisons or are under close and continuous security surveillance, since they relate to others with aggression and are trying to spread [Islam] through violence and calls to jihad...

"There are agents of various nationalities - both Arab and non-Arab - who mingle with these adolescents and choose from among them individuals with specific traits that make them susceptible to brainwashing - young people who have a natural tendency for misbehavior and who accept violence as a means of imposing their views and their way."


"The Most Important Criteria for Choosing These Youths are: Propensity for Rebellion, Lack of Fluency in Arabic, and Feelings of Alienation"

"[These agents] then pass them on to religious propagandists, who live in a number of American cities. The most important criteria for choosing these youths are their natural propensity for rebellion, their lack of fluency in Arabic... [and] their feelings of alienation and suffering due to their indeterminate identity - that is, [their] identity that is neither Eastern nor Western, but split...

"Under the influence of bogus religious ideas, [these youth] are struck with a feeling of rejection of their surroundings - rejection of their families and society. At a later [stage], their relations with their parents and their friends go bad; they shatter the sculptures in their homes, rip the paintings off the walls, and destroy the television sets - since, in their opinion, these are satanic tools that inculcate heresy, polytheism, and deviation from religion and the shari'a. They demand that their fathers... wear special pants and robes, let their beards grow long, and comb their hair in accordance with the sunna. They insist that their mothers wear a headscarf, or even a full veil, and that they refrain from leaving the house. All of this occurs not in their Arab countries of origin, but in some families [that live] in the U.S.!"


Such Youth are Not Familiar With Even the Basic Principles of Islam

"In order to uncover the causes of this phenomenon, that has been presented to the reader without any exaggeration... I met with a young man whose thought and behavior exemplify this phenomenon, in order to hear his views, the justifications for his behavior, and his understanding of the basic principles of the religion... I discovered that he was not familiar with even the basic principles of Islam... and that in matters of Islamic thought and teachings he knows by heart only a few verses from the 'Al-Anfal' and 'Al-Tawbah' chapters [of the Koran] - in particular, the verses concerning jihad, takfir, infidels, striking terror into the hearts of the enemy, and the establishment of a [Muslim military] force.

"He insisted that the fundamental obligation of every Muslim in his life is to fight against the infidels - both Muslim and non-Muslim. When I asked him how he defines an infidel, he answered without hesitation: whoever fails to fulfill the obligation of jihad. When I asked him against whom the jihad should be directed, he answered, again without hesitation: the jihad should be directed against the infidels. When I tried to understand who, in his opinion, are infidels, he said: Everyone who does not believe in the truth that I believe in.

"When I heard these things, I realized the horrible disaster that might befall Islam and the Muslims in America and in other countries with [Muslim] immigration, if the young generation of Muslim youth were to embrace these ideas...

"The painful truth is that such a young man - only 16 years old - who doesn't have any life experience, any true knowledge in matters of religion, or any solid criteria for understanding the fundamentals of religious law and shari'a - is a victim of circumstances that he did not create. He is a young man who has tried to find an identity for himself in religion, and was given incorrect interpretations of the monotheistic revelations. He received his knowledge from people whom he considers authorities in religion and religious law... and at the same time, he does not find anyone who can correct his views and his understanding. Therefore, he is convinced that the way to eternal life and Paradise is through jihad [alone]...

"Who is responsible for this tragedy? Who gives material support to these religious propagandists and agents? Why do they spend all this money? Does this approach serve the interests of Islam and the Muslims, or does it serve the interests of others?..."


The Muslim Community Blames the U.S. Security Services - Both if They Intervene and if They Stay Away From the Mosques
"It is worth mentioning the dilemma of the American security services that face this dangerous phenomenon... If the security services stay away from the mosques and do not meddle in their affairs, the Muslim community will complain that the security services take no interest in the fate of their children and that they are intentionally allowing religious propagandists to lead the youth astray, confuse their thinking, and ruin their futures... On the other hand, if the security services interfere, the Muslim community will again complain, and will express its opposition to the interference of the American security services in the mosques' affairs, in the work of the propagandists, and in the spreading of Islam, and will condemn the harming of freedom of religion and worship..."


One of the Causes Preventing Effective Treatment is the School of Thought That Believes in Conspiracy Theories
"Without a doubt, there are many interrelated causes that prevent this phenomenon from being dealt with realistically and effectively... One of the most important causes is the existence of a school of thought that believes in conspiracy theories. It [claims] that there are hidden forces that abhor and fear the development of Islam and of the Muslims in America. These forces are trying to distort the image of the Muslims before they grow strong, and before their influence in society grows. Some go even further, and say that these forces are trying to turn the idea of the clash between Western and Eastern civilizations into reality, by nurturing the causes and justifications for this clash, and by creating a new generation of Muslims that act in an extremist and violent manner... The natural outcome of this [conspiratorial] way of thinking is that the Muslim community mobilizes its efforts and its thinking towards a struggle against some vague external enemy...

"There is no doubt that this phenomenon, which is spreading in the Muslim community in America, places an enormous responsibility upon the members of the community itself, and especially upon the parents and those in positions of authority, who allow their children's thinking and behavior to become easy prey for others...

"This responsibility requires parents to not allow their young children to participate unaccompanied in religious gatherings. Instead, they should go with them to hear what they are told in the mosques. They should thoroughly investigate the biographies and views of religious preachers in the mosques, and should demand... the removal of anyone who distorts religion, distorts the interpretation [of religion], and leads the youth astray."


Parents, Not Security Services or Educational and Religious Institutions, are Responsible for Cultivating a Mature, Realistic and Reasonable Generation

"This responsibility requires the building of a bridge of dialogue with the youth, and requires giving them a [positive] example, both in thought and in behavior. The crisis of identity should be discussed objectively, rationally, and in a language that the youth can understand, and they should be guided in how best to deal with life in America and its demands... Parents need to get to know their children's friends and everyone they mingle with, at school and in their free time... They need to monitor everything that their children see on the computer...

"[Responsibility for] the education and cultivation of a new generation that will be [mature], realistic and reasonable, in countries with [Muslim] immigration, lies on the shoulders of the parents and the family - more than on any security service or religious or educational institution..."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP110506
:happy_12:

[American_Jihad]

UNC Muslim Student Says Attack “Will of Allah”


By Sher Zieve – The Muslim UNC graduate student who ran down 9 students on Friday said in his court hearing, Monday, that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah." Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, 22, purposefully drove his rented Jeep Cherokee into the students.
Taheriazar said on Friday that he ran the students down to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world”. Kris Wampler, a student at UNC, member of the College Republicans and the organizer of a UNC students "anti-terrorism" rally said: “We don't want terrorism here, and we're not going to stand for that where we live and where we go to school."

Taheriazar is being held on a $5.5MM bond.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/12862.html

A Very Peaceful Religion.....NOT!!!
:add09:

[Salam]

Islam Is so peaceful but You christians are criminals

[Salam]

Jews and Catholics are criminals ..some Jwes attack by bombs a church for the arabic christians in Israel.

[American_Jihad]

September 11, 2001, means that Muslims cannot be silent. Let the Muslim community face facts.

These outrages were apparently committed by Muslims acting explicitly in the name of Islam (or their warped version of what constitutes Islam).

Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) instructed you:

"When you see an evil act you have to stop it with your hand. If you can't, then at least speak out against it with your tongue. If you can't, then at least you have to hate it with all your heart. And this is the weakest of faith." - (Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 79:)
You should practice what you preach, but it seem you can not!

Yet it would appear that there are some rather vocal Muslims among us who do not even possess this weakest of faith. There was disgusting rejoicing in parts of the Muslim world at the the massacre of thousands of innocent civilians. And in Britain the leader of the Al Muhajirun group apparently declared that 'Muslims throughout the country and across the world are celebrating today.'

Whilst there has been widespread condemnation of the attacks by mainstream Muslim leaders, even now the sickening, sanctimonious, hypocritical, paranoid, anti-American and anti-western invective continues to spew forth from some immigrant Muslims across the West who themselves benefit from the positive aspects of Western society such as freedom of speech and the ability to practice their Islam however they like.

:happy_12:

[American_Jihad]

Pics of the Beastly Bastards in action:sad_01:
Darfour

http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/9595/5372jt.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The Sudanese government has been clearing out villages of African Zaghawa, Masaalit, and Fur communities in Darfur since February 2003 in a fierce campaign of “ethnic cleansing.” Government soldiers and Arab nomad militia, called “janjaweed,” frequently surrounded groups of villages, often encircling them with trenches. In the first phase of the coordinated attacks, government air forces using Russian-built MiG and Antonov jets and attack helicopters, bomb the villages. In the second phase, the soldiers and militia move into the villages to loot, burn, kill, rape, and abduct. Bodies are left out in the open or thrown into the trenches.
In Jijira Adi Abbe village alone, 267 civilians were killed in such an attack.
http://hrw.org/photos/2004/darfur1/index1.htm

Darfour AU will transfer its mission to the UN in September
http://www.actualites-news-environnement.com/20060311-darfour-ua-un.php

[Sage]

UNC Muslim Student Says Attack “Will of Allah”


By Sher Zieve – The Muslim UNC graduate student who ran down 9 students on Friday said in his court hearing, Monday, that he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah." Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, 22, purposefully drove his rented Jeep Cherokee into the students.
Taheriazar said on Friday that he ran the students down to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world”. Kris Wampler, a student at UNC, member of the College Republicans and the organizer of a UNC students "anti-terrorism" rally said: “We don't want terrorism here, and we're not going to stand for that where we live and where we go to school."

Taheriazar is being held on a $5.5MM bond.
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/12862.html

A Very Peaceful Religion.....NOT!!!
:add09:

whenever these kooks speak up for thier moon god and the cult of mohamad it just opens more peoples eyes. good post

[American_Jihad]

Liberalism and another generation lost

Why should Islam be treated differently than feminism, animal rights, environmentalism, liberalism or conservatism?

Notwithstanding Bill Clinton's grave pronouncements that the anti-Islamic sentiments that are becoming more common in Europe are comparable to the anti-semitism of pre World War II Europe, the fact remains that any such comparisons remain absurd in the extreme.

In fact, unlike the persecuted Jews, many Muslims seek out the badge of victimhood, and wear it with pride. There are many Muslim voices that carefully craft the public perceptions of Muslims as victims of a grand conspiracy designed to perpetuate the subjugation of Muslims and strip them of their religious and cultural identities. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

Governments and communities go out of their way to accomodate Muslims- their religion, customs and culture are afforded the utmost respect and consideration. Muslim groups, Houses of Worship and social services have been geared to serve the Muslim community. Public holidays in Western countries are sensitive to Muslims, so much so that many communities go out of their way to include Muslims or deemphasize other religious beliefs and manifestations. This is hardly comparable to what the Jews were forced to endure. To even imply there is some kind of correlation to the prewar Europe is absurd and flies in the face of reality.

Many Muslims point to persecutions of Muslims, be it in Iraq, Chechnya, Guantanamo Bay or the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank. They point out that Muslims are suffering horribly.

Naturally, there has to be a suspension of reality to pursue that delusion.

In fact, the vast majority of Muslims are oppressed by other Muslims and in fact, suffer horrific fates at the hands of their co-religionists. They also suffer at the hands of those they have oppressed- and have chosen to retaliate. That truth is a constant. The slaughter at Sabra and Shatilla by the Christian Phalange, the resistance of Christians in East Timor and Nigeria and the outrage of Hindus at Muslim atrocities in India, have all been the result of a deliberate Muslim agenda to impose their political and religious will, by force, on others.

In fact, even the military persecution of Muslims by westerners came about as a direct result of actions taken by radical Muslims. The actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq and the Palestinians, have been directed at destabilizing and terrorizing innocents. There is no bias against Muslims in the west. As has been noted many times before, Muslims in the west have more freedom than their co religionists in the Arab world. The west came to the aid of Muslims in Bosnia, a truth many Muslims still refuse to acknowledge.

There is, however, a bias in the west against terror and totalitarianism, both of which are tolerated and encouraged by Muslims all over the world.

Notwithstanding that bias against terror and radicalism, Western leaders are careful to remain respectful of the faith of Islam. Contrast that with the filth that emanates from 'Islamic leaders and scholars,' as they disparage Judaism, Christianity and the Hindu religion. While Muslims insist that there is a concerted western anti-Muslim agenda, that is belied every day. Not one western democracy believed that a new Iraqi government, for example, need shun Islam as an integral part of it's identity and constitution.
There is not one single example of a Muslim regime, anywhere, at any time, that was so mindful and accommodating of another faith.

For Muslims to clam they are being persecuted in the same way that Jews were in per war Europe is absurd.

The capitulation by western journalists and others after Danish cartoon episode will prove to be the proverbial 'slippery slope' of accommodation gone wild. Notwithstanding the claim by outraged Muslims that the cartoons were a form of 'racism,' the truth is far different. There is no reason that Islam need be designated a 'sacred cow.' over any other religion. There is no reason that Muslims be afforded a superior status. The caricature of Islam is no different than the caricature of any other religion. In fact, it is no different than satirizing any other religion or set of beliefs held sacred by some. Why should Islam be treated differently than feminism, animal rights, environmentalism, liberalism or conservatism?

It is true that Muslims perceive themselves as persecuted and 'outside' the mainstream. It is certainly true that many Muslims are victims of racism. However, rather than try and overcome stereotypes and work towards a better life (as did the Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks, Asians and every other minority in free societies), Muslims are turning en masse to radical Islam as they search for an identity. That is a far easier endeavor than actually working towards a better life. Whereas Jews hated their victim status and did everything they could to become a part of society, many Muslims believe that being 'oppressed' and being defined by their religion as opposed to their behavior, bestows upon them a certain dignity. Wearing religious garb, for example, negates the hate and violence and turns that hate into something sacred, they believe. They do not see actions and behaviors as relevant to definitional to their identity.

As immigrant Jews, Catholics, Lutherans and Presbyterians built hospitals to become a part of and to serve the communities they lived in, no such effort can be found in the Muslim communities. They myopically focus on themselves and then wonder why they are not being integrated into the community at large. They do not understand that become a part of a society requires active participation and and passive demands.

All the while, western liberalism and a perverted notion of 'multiculturalism,' only serves to reinforce much of the negative behavior. Liberalism is helping to perpetuate the cycle that keep the disjointed and negative behaviors as 'acceptable.' Ambition and success, the engine that has proved to be the most powerful motivator in improving the lives of people, is given short shrift and denigrated by much of liberal ideology. Rather than focus on what is possible and within reach, many Muslims with the help and blessings of some, will place the blame of Muslim disenfranchisement in Europe and America on events in far away places and far away conflicts. They have to- they have not been the victims at the hands of free democracies, no matter how much they wish to be, or pretend they are. They want to be the persecuted Jews, because somehow, that too bestows a special status- and maybe, just maybe, they will come out of it as successful as the Jews. They do not see how very unlike the Jews they really are and how different their values are from other groups. Other immigrant groups were repulsed by the notion of victimhood. They were to prove just how strong they were by lifting themselves from the bottom rung of that social totem pole.

It is ironic that Muslims, who claim such great strength, are proving to be so weak. The need to bask in victim status and to threaten those who do not pay homage and those who refuse to celebrate that status, can only lead to one ending:

Notwithstanding Bill Clinton's grave pronouncements that the anti-Islamic sentiments that are becoming more common in Europe are comparable to the anti-semitism of pre World War II Europe, the fact remains that any such comparisons remain absurd in the extreme.

In fact, unlike the persecuted Jews, many Muslims seek out the badge of victimhood, and wear it with pride. There are many Muslim voices that carefully craft the public perceptions of Muslims as victims of a grand conspiracy designed to perpetuate the subjugation of Muslims and strip them of their religious and cultural identities. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.

Governments and communities go out of their way to accomodate Muslims- their religion, customs and culture are afforded the utmost respect and consideration. Muslim groups, Houses of Worship and social services have been geared to serve the Muslim community. Public holidays in Western countries are sensitive to Muslims, so much so that many communities go out of their way to include Muslims or deemphasize other religious beliefs and manifestations. This is hardly comparable to what the Jews were forced to endure. To even imply there is some kind of correlation to the prewar Europe is absurd and flies in the face of reality.

Many Muslims point to persecutions of Muslims, be it in Iraq, Chechnya, Guantanamo Bay or the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank. They point out that Muslims are suffering horribly.

Naturally, there has to be a suspension of reality to pursue that delusion.

In fact, the vast majority of Muslims are oppressed by other Muslims and in fact, suffer horrific fates at the hands of their co-religionists. They also suffer at the hands of those they have oppressed- and have chosen to retaliate. That truth is a constant. The slaughter at Sabra and Shatilla by the Christian Phalange, the resistance of Christians in East Timor and Nigeria and the outrage of Hindus at Muslim atrocities in India, have all been the result of a deliberate Muslim agenda to impose their political and religious will, by force, on others.

In fact, even the military persecution of Muslims by westerners came about as a direct result of actions taken by radical Muslims. The actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam in Iraq and the Palestinians, have been directed at destabilizing and terrorizing innocents. There is no bias against Muslims in the west. As has been noted many times before, Muslims in the west have more freedom than their co religionists in the Arab world. The west came to the aid of Muslims in Bosnia, a truth many Muslims still refuse to acknowledge.

There is, however, a bias in the west against terror and totalitarianism, both of which are tolerated and encouraged by Muslims all over the world.

Notwithstanding that bias against terror and radicalism, Western leaders are careful to remain respectful of the faith of Islam. Contrast that with the filth that emanates from 'Islamic leaders and scholars,' as they disparage Judaism, Christianity and the Hindu religion. While Muslims insist that there is a concerted western anti-Muslim agenda, that is belied every day. Not one western democracy believed that a new Iraqi government, for example, need shun Islam as an integral part of it's identity and constitution.
There is not one single example of a Muslim regime, anywhere, at any time, that was so mindful and accommodating of another faith.

For Muslims to clam they are being persecuted in the same way that Jews were in per war Europe is absurd.

The capitulation by western journalists and others after Danish cartoon episode will prove to be the proverbial 'slippery slope' of accommodation gone wild. Notwithstanding the claim by outraged Muslims that the cartoons were a form of 'racism,' the truth is far different. There is no reason that Islam need be designated a 'sacred cow.' over any other religion. There is no reason that Muslims be afforded a superior status. The caricature of Islam is no different than the caricature of any other religion. In fact, it is no different than satirizing any other religion or set of beliefs held sacred by some. Why should Islam be treated differently than feminism, animal rights, environmentalism, liberalism or conservatism?

It is true that Muslims perceive themselves as persecuted and 'outside' the mainstream. It is certainly true that many Muslims are victims of racism. However, rather than try and overcome stereotypes and work towards a better life (as did the Irish, Italians, Jews, Greeks, Asians and every other minority in free societies), Muslims are turning en masse to radical Islam as they search for an identity. That is a far easier endeavor than actually working towards a better life. Whereas Jews hated their victim status and did everything they could to become a part of society, many Muslims believe that being 'oppressed' and being defined by their religion as opposed to their behavior, bestows upon them a certain dignity. Wearing religious garb, for example, negates the hate and violence and turns that hate into something sacred, they believe. They do not see actions and behaviors as relevant to definitional to their identity.

As immigrant Jews, Catholics, Lutherans and Presbyterians built hospitals to become a part of and to serve the communities they lived in, no such effort can be found in the Muslim communities. They myopically focus on themselves and then wonder why they are not being integrated into the community at large. They do not understand that become a part of a society requires active participation and and passive demands.

All the while, western liberalism and a perverted notion of 'multiculturalism,' only serves to reinforce much of the negative behavior. Liberalism is helping to perpetuate the cycle that keep the disjointed and negative behaviors as 'acceptable.' Ambition and success, the engine that has proved to be the most powerful motivator in improving the lives of people, is given short shrift and denigrated by much of liberal ideology. Rather than focus on what is possible and within reach, many Muslims with the help and blessings of some, will place the blame of Muslim disenfranchisement in Europe and America on events in far away places and far away conflicts. They have to- they have not been the victims at the hands of free democracies, no matter how much they wish to be, or pretend they are. They want to be the persecuted Jews, because somehow, that too bestows a special status- and maybe, just maybe, they will come out of it as successful as the Jews. They do not see how very unlike the Jews they really are and how different their values are from other groups. Other immigrant groups were repulsed by the notion of victimhood. They were to prove just how strong they were by lifting themselves from the bottom rung of that social totem pole.

It is ironic that Muslims, who claim such great strength, are proving to be so weak. The need to bask in victim status and to threaten those who do not pay homage and those who refuse to celebrate that status, can only lead to one ending:

Another generation lost.

:happy_12:

[Sage]

Islam Is so peaceful but You christians are criminals

lol retard

http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28779

[Tomahawk]

lol retard

http://www.wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28779Yeah sage, slaman is a fukin wack job, but I knew that months ago.

[American_Jihad]

Darfur violence spills into neighboring Chad

Nearly 200,000 refugees cross the border to flee Arab militias


ON THE BORDER BETWEEN CHAD AND SUDAN - Home for Jamaya is under a tree. Two months ago, Arab militias called Janjaweed roared into her village on horseback, shouting, “You are black slaves. Black men, we want to kill you.”
She and her three children haven't seen her husband since.

Jamaya walked barefoot, leading her children on a donkey, for nearly 40 miles, before reaching a besieged refugee camp in Chad.

“People are killed,” says Marcus Prior, with the United Nation's World Food Program. “Their animals are looted. Their food stocks are burnt. They're chased from their village. It's desperate, desperate stuff.”

In fact, this is the second time Jamaya had to run.

She's one of the 200,000 people from Darfur in Western Sudan who've fled to Chad since 2003, to escape attacks by the Janjaweed — Arab militias the U.S. says are armed by the Sudanese government.

The Bush administration calls the killings in Darfur genocide, and now the violence is taking a more dangerous turn and crossing the border. The Janjaweed are accused of burning village after village in neighboring Chad. The people of Chad are now being killed and raped. The number displaced is estimated in the tens of thousands.

As you cross the border from Darfur into Chad, there are no markers and no one to stop you. It is easy for the violence in Darfur to bleed into Chad along a border that is nearly 400 miles long.

Col. Mohammed Samalah is eager to fight what he calls “this disease” of ethnic cleansing. Now, Chad, one of the world's poorest countries, is militarizing its border — just as Sudan is on the other side.

With a powder keg on his hands, Chad's President Idriss Deby, who has been blamed for encouraging the violence by supporting Sudanese rebels, now tells NBC News — in a rare and exclusive interview — his country is desperate for outside help.

“I send out a call to President Bush and the international community to act quickly,” Deby says. “I support international military intervention. If nothing is done, we will be watching a worse human tragedy than we witnessed in Rwanda.”

But a proposal to send in U.N. peacekeepers is being resisted strongly by the Sudanese government.

Jamaya is unsure where her children will be safe.

“You are saying it's very difficult,” she says, “And you are asking God to help you.”

What else can she do, she says, but have faith that help will come.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11813095/

:happy_12:

[American_Jihad]

Man faces death penalty
for becoming Christian

Despite ouster of Taliban by U.S., court still prosecutes ex-Muslim

Despite the fact the hardline Taliban regime is no longer in power, an Afghan man faces possible execution for allegedly abandoning his Islamic roots and becoming a Christian.

"Yes that's true, a man has converted to Christianity. He's being tried in one of our courts," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told the Middle East Times.

The case centers on Abdul Rahman, believed to be 41, who converted from Islam to Christianity some 16 years ago. His relatives reportedly notified authorities about the conversion.

The constitution in Afghanistan is based on Shariah law, which states any Muslim who rejects his or her religion should be sentenced to death.

"We are not against any particular religion in the world. But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law," the judge told the Associated Press. "It is an attack on Islam. ... The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."
( Change the fucking law)
If he indeed is sentenced, Rahman would be the first person punished for leaving Islam since the Taliban was ousted by American-led forces in late 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the U.S.
Prosecutor Abdul Wasi says he offered to drop the charges if Rahman made the switch back to Islam, but the defendant is maintaining his Christian beliefs. The judge is expected to rule within two months.

About 99 percent of Afghanistan's 28 million people are Muslims, with the rest mostly Hindus.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49345

Thats islam for ya !
:add09:

[American_Jihad]

Christian Convert from Islam Shot Dead

Ziwar Muhammad Isma’il, a Christian convert from a Muslim background, has been
shot and killed for his faith, according to Middle East Concern.

Ziwar, who worked as a taxi driver in Zakho, in the Kurdish authority area of
North Iraq, was shot by Abd al-Karim Abd al-Salam at a taxi rank early in the
morning on 17 February. Abd al-Salam approached Ziwar and challenged him to
return to Islam. When Ziwar refused he opened fire with an automatic rifle.
Other taxi drivers gave chase, apprehending Abd al-Salam and handing him over
to the police. Abd al-Salam claims that the Islamic prophet Muhammad appeared
to him in a dream and told him to kill Ziwar.

Ziwar converted to Christianity seven years ago. Unlike many converts from
Islam Ziwar had been quite open about his faith and, as a result, he had been
threatened by his relatives and other Muslims and twice arrested, though not
charged. Ziwar leaves a widow and five children.

DEATH FOR CONVERTS
All the major schools of Islamic law (Shari’ah) agree that Muslim men who
convert from Islam should be put to death, their marriages annulled, and their
children and property taken away. This tradition is upheld and taught by many
Muslim religious leaders around the world. In countries like Iran, Sudan and
Saudi Arabia the death sentence for leaving Islam is part of the law of the
land. In other countries they may be arrested on various pretexts and often
beaten, tortured or imprisoned. (FUCKING BEAST!)
Even under more moderate Muslim authorities, such as those in the Kurdish areas
of northern Iraq, converts may still face widespread hostility and aggression
from their own families and communities. In several countries converts have
been murdered by Islamic extremist groups, others have been killed by
individual Muslims who believe they are doing the will of Allah by taking the
law into their own hands.

PRAY
Pray for comfort, love, protection, support and care for Ziwar’s wife and
children. Ask that the Lord will be near to them in their grief, and that they
will also be practically provided for.

Pray for Abd al-Salam, that God will speak to him and guide him into the way of
truth and love.

Pray for a radical change in traditional Islamic thinking on conversion and
apostasy, so that Muslims who chose to convert to Christianity will be free to
follow their convictions without fear of persecution and death.
http://www.domini.org/openbook/iraq20030224.htm

[Tomahawk]

And THEY wonder why we don't trust them.

[American_Jihad]

Alleged UNC campus crasher said he wanted to use a gun

HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. - A man charged with trying to kill students by hitting them with a car said he would have preferred using a gun but screening laws were too stringent, according to a letter read at a hearing in his case.

mOO-HamMad Taheri-Azar drove a Jeep Cherokee into a crowd of students March 3 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and hit nine people, none of whom had life-threatening injuries.

A police officer read the typed letter in court Friday.

"I would instead use a handgun to murder the citizens and residents of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, but the process of receiving a permit for a handgun in this city is highly restricted and out of my reach at present, most likely due to my foreign nationality," the letter said.

Taheri-Azar, a 2005 graduate of the school, also had two cans of pepper spray and folding knife in the rented vehicle. He has said the act was to avenge deaths of Muslims caused by the U.S. around the world.

"I do not wish to pursue my career as a student any further because I have no desires to amass the impermanent and temporary fame and material wealth that this world has to offer," the letter said

"However, I made the decision to continue my studies and to graduate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill so that the world will know that Allah's servants are very intelligent." (NOT!!!)
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/14183154.htm

Islam must be Modified or Abolished for the good of Mankind!

[American_Jihad]

Question of Fatwa:

If a Muslim leaves Islam, what do Muslims call him? And what is the Islamic prescribed sentence for the one who leaves Islam. Please send me as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

Content of Reply:
IOL Shari`ah Researchers

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner! Thank you very much for this question that reflects deep insight and true search for knowledge. May Allah grant you success in this life and the Hereafter.



It goes without saying that, leaving Islam is the ugliest and the worst form of disbelief (kufr) in Almighty Allah. It is technically called ridda (apostasy from Islam), and someone who leaves Islam is called a murtadd (apostate).



The Qur'an makes it clear that the one who leaves Islam, hinders people from the path of Allah and then dies as such will be a loser on the Day of Judgment. His eternal abode will be Hell, where he/she will suffer severe torture and endless chastisement. Allah will not forgive him/her, nor will any of his/her good deeds be accepted from him/her. Allah Almighty says: (Lo! Those who disbelieve and turn from the way of Allah and then die disbelievers, Allah surely will not pardon them.) (Muhammad 47: 34)



Also, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: "The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.''


The prescribed punishment for a murtadd:



If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished.‏ In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.‏


No one besides the caliph or his representative may kill the apostate. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).



There is no blood money for killing an apostate (or any expiation). If he apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, his return to Islam, which occurs when he states the two Testifications of Faith, is accepted from him, although he is disciplined.



If a spouse in a consummated marriage apostatizes from Islam, the couple are separated for a waiting period (`iddah) consisting of three intervals between menstrual cycles. If the spouse returns to Islam before the waiting period ends, the marriage is not annulled but is considered to have continued the whole time.



(Based on 'The Reliance of the Traveler, by Ahmad Ibn Naqib Al-Misri, with some amendments.)



In addressing the issue of apostasy it is important to keep in mind the time, circumstances and the conditions that existed at the time of a particular ruling or judgment. Most modern governments do not apply Shari`ah law. However, this does not justify individuals taking it upon themselves to kill people if they apostatize from Islam. If this were to happen, such reckless action would only lead to a vicious circle of murder and homicide in which case a great deal of innocent people would be injured. As it stands presently, the means for dealing with apostasy are appropriate. Muslims should know that Almighty Allah has promised the apostate a severe punishment in this life, and an even greater punishment in the next life.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503544134

[American_Jihad]

Turkey: 14-year-old shoots mother in botched 'honor' killing

An older but important piece from The Guardian of Istanbul via the Taipei Times, with thanks to Twostellas:

Birgul Isik had not expected to find her oldest son waiting for her at the bus station when she and four of her children returned from Istanbul to the central Anatolian province of Elazigon on Tuesday.

She certainly wasn't expecting the 14-year-old to pull out a gun as she moved to embrace him."You've disgraced the family," he said, and shot her five times in the head and chest.

She is still in a coma.

For the police who charged the boy with attempted murder, and arrested his father and uncle on suspicion of incitement, it is just another example of the "honor" crimes that result in the deaths of scores if not hundreds of Turkish women each year. Most die for breaking the rules of propriety: they talk to men in the street, they wear the wrong clothes, they insist on education rather than an early arranged marriage.

Isik's crime was to appear on television. It was the fifth time she had fled her violent, bigamous husband. Ignored by the authorities, abandoned by her own parents, who reportedly told her "a woman's place is with her husband," she finally agreed last Friday to appear on a show many have described as Turkey's equivalent of Oprah Winfrey.

You only have to glance at Yasemin Bozkurt's daily program Woman's Voice to see why. There's the live studio audience, the frequent angry exchanges. The themes are familiar too: match-making, runaway children, violent husbands.

A radical break from Turkish TV's traditional mix of local sitcoms and Hollywood fare, the show, like its half-a-dozen competitors, has proved a hit. Despite the early afternoon slot, it regularly rates among the country's top 10. It has also courted controversy from the start.

The presenters see themselves as defenders of women's rights, confronting issues that had previously been hidden away in the silence of family homes. For their critics, they are purveyors of "victimization TV," using people's suffering to improve ratings and advertising revenue.


Of course, lurid TV shows don't cause honor killings. There must be another ingredient.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006787.php

[Camp]

Turkey: 14-year-old shoots mother in botched 'honor' killing

An older but important piece from The Guardian of Istanbul via the Taipei Times, with thanks to Twostellas:

Birgul Isik had not expected to find her oldest son waiting for her at the bus station when she and four of her children returned from Istanbul to the central Anatolian province of Elazigon on Tuesday.

She certainly wasn't expecting the 14-year-old to pull out a gun as she moved to embrace him."You've disgraced the family," he said, and shot her five times in the head and chest.

She is still in a coma.

For the police who charged the boy with attempted murder, and arrested his father and uncle on suspicion of incitement, it is just another example of the "honor" crimes that result in the deaths of scores if not hundreds of Turkish women each year. Most die for breaking the rules of propriety: they talk to men in the street, they wear the wrong clothes, they insist on education rather than an early arranged marriage.

Isik's crime was to appear on television. It was the fifth time she had fled her violent, bigamous husband. Ignored by the authorities, abandoned by her own parents, who reportedly told her "a woman's place is with her husband," she finally agreed last Friday to appear on a show many have described as Turkey's equivalent of Oprah Winfrey.

You only have to glance at Yasemin Bozkurt's daily program Woman's Voice to see why. There's the live studio audience, the frequent angry exchanges. The themes are familiar too: match-making, runaway children, violent husbands.

A radical break from Turkish TV's traditional mix of local sitcoms and Hollywood fare, the show, like its half-a-dozen competitors, has proved a hit. Despite the early afternoon slot, it regularly rates among the country's top 10. It has also courted controversy from the start.

The presenters see themselves as defenders of women's rights, confronting issues that had previously been hidden away in the silence of family homes. For their critics, they are purveyors of "victimization TV," using people's suffering to improve ratings and advertising revenue.


Of course, lurid TV shows don't cause honor killings. There must be another ingredient.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/006787.php


Ghoulish crime and happening in EU wannabe Turkey so you can hardly blame tribalism.

[American_Jihad]

Islam Doesn’t Mean Submission—It Means Death

People around the world are breathing a sigh of relief with the news that the possible execution of confessed Afghani Christian Abdul Rahman has been solved and he will now be free to return to his life. Most people also believe this is an isolated incident.

Mr. Rahman was like a snowflake in a blast furnace—he had no chance of survival in Afghanistan. If Mr. Rahman had not found refuge in Italy, he probably wouldn’t have lived 24 hours after being released from jail for his “horrible” crime. Islam would not have allowed him to live as a Christian in Afghanistan. Muslims that were his friends for years, would have torn him apart in their rage, fomented by Islamic leaders who had ordered his assassination. Allah must have his ration of blood.

"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled." Raoulf went on to tell the Associated Press reporter, "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."
Sharia law is very clear on the matter. Allah stated emphatically through Mohammed: “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.”

Frantically, the Afghani government tried to find a way to salvage Islam’s reputation by declaring this man “insane” and thus couldn’t be charged with any crime under Islamic law. Why would Mr. Rahman be considered insane? He dared to abandon Islam and turned to Christianity. In the mind of Muslims, this would be proof that he is insane. No sane person would commit such a horrible crime. The “insane” person is given three days to reconsider and remain Muslim. If he refuses, he is killed.

Another bloodthirsty aspect of Islam has been exposed to the world. Will the West realize that Islam has been hanging people since the days of Mohammed for the crime of escaping Islam? This is not new. The Quran demands it.

Then the Afghan government remembered that it had freedom of religion in its new constitution—sort of. Anything written in the Afghani constitution means nothing because Islamic law is always supreme. There are no exceptions.

Listening to many of the talking heads on television, one would believe that this behavior within Islam is new or only found in backwards Islamic countries. This simply isn’t true. Far left websites are blaming this barbaric behavior on Bush. The leftists seem to think that somehow, American “aggression” against Muslims has suddenly turned them into bloodthirsty and intolerant people. If not for the evil West, Islam would be peaceful and loving to all.

After all the free world has learned about the inner-workings of Islam, it still doesn’t get it. What the world witnessed in Afghanistan IS Islam. Islam is the only known “religion” that orders a death sentence for anyone who dares to break the chains of domination and believe in any God other than Allah.

The God of Islam, Allah, is not the God of the rest of the world. One can use the terms Islam and Allah interchangeably. America, indeed the free world, must understand this about Islam if there is to be any chance of defeating their totalitarian aggression.

Muslim scholars state that to leave Islam is an insult to Allah. If the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians is the same as the God as the Muslims, how then, could God be insulted as long as one continued to believe and worship the one true God? Leaving Islam is not an insult to God; it is an insult to Islam. It is an insult to their God, Allah, who demands that all living beings believe only in Islam…or is it Allah? It is very easy to confuse the two.

If there is not submission to Islam, there will be death at the hands of Islam. This is the way Islam has been since Mohammed walked the earth and it remains that way today. For many Muslims, it is not devotion to Islam or Allah that keeps them going to mosque, it is fear.

The clerics and imams have been carefully schooled to maintain this fear and control over the followers. They know how to speak to crowds of men that are easily moved to near insanity and in this state of mind a raging mob will carry out any order that is given to them.

If this poor man, Abdul Rahman, had been torn to pieces by the raging followers of the loving and peaceful “Allah” of Islam and had died for his belief in Christ as the Son of God, it would have been almost romantic to call him a modern-day martyr. But Mr. Rahman is only one of many these days who would be dying because they don’t believe in Allah. These people believe in a kind and loving God, not the bloodthirsty god of Islam. They die in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia and Sudan. Christians and Jews are martyred nearly on a daily basis somewhere in the world.

Betrayed by his Judas wife, Mr. Rahman was, and still is, a Christian in a sea of hateful and angry Muslims. No one knows better than he the fate that awaits them. His courage is similar to another man who abandoned the faith of his birth and believed in a new beginning for mankind.

There are many Muslims like Mr. Rahman in this world. There will be more as the hate and intolerance that is Islam becomes unbearable. There will come a day when the fear will not be enough to hold them. Mr. Rahman is just the most visible for now. This brave soul left his confinement with his head held high. Mr. Rahman stated he has no fear. "The punishment by hanging? I will accept it gladly, but I am not an infidel. I am not a traitor. I am a follower of Jesus." One man stood to die for his religion and others would kill him because their religion demands it. In today’s world, it is not hard to identify which religion is which.
http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/stock/04042006.htm

[rabzon]

Qur'an 4:89: "If anyone wants to leave Islam he is to be put to death."

Thats is not from Qur'an....

but it is true..it is a Hadith was said by the prophet-God's blessing and peace be upon him-

Islam give the freedom of religion at first and no one is forced to be a muslem.
but if the person become a muslem he cant leave..Islam is not a toy to play with it or a dress to wear and undress according to your mood.
You are a bigot.

[Camp]

You are a bigot.

You are too kind to a homocidal ideology.

They laugh at bigotry and feelings. They play for keeps.

[American_Jihad]

Speak no evil: The new EU lexicon on terrorism
Apr 24, 2006

How wunderbar, merveilleux and perfectly ripping that the European Union is creating a new "lexicon" to discuss Islam and terrorism so as never to conflate the two. The Telegraph tells us that EU officials -- having double-checked that George Orwell and his satirical pen are dead and gone -- are putting together a "non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalization."

Islamic "radicalization," that is. When it comes to dealing with Europe's Muslim populations, the old "Sticks and stones ..." proverb is out, particularly the "words can never hurt me" part. These days, the update goes: "Say words that hurt me and I'll blow up a train." As an EU official explained non-emotively, "The basic idea is to avoid the use of improper words that could cause frustration among Muslims and increase the risk of radicalization."

As they say over there: What rot. Only hothouse EU officials could believe that words such as "Islamic terrorism" cause radicalization. Fanatical bloodlust (not to mention 72-virgin-lust) inspires acts labeled "Islamic terrorism," not the other way around. But not in EU-land. "These words (Islamic terrorism) cannot sit side by side," Omar Faruk, a Muslim barrister and "adviser" to the British government, told Reuters. The phrase "just creates a culture where terrorism actually is identified with Islam," he continued. "That causes me a lot of stress."

And the EU certainly wouldn't want that. Stress leads to frustration, and frustration leads to radicalization, and radicalization leads to -- and here's where the new lexicon comes in -- to "terrorists who abusively invoke Islam." Take Flight 93: The Sept. 11 hijackers might have invoked Allah 24 times in its final minutes (also causing what Mr. Faruk might recognize as "stress"), but the new lexicon would probably tell us that wasn't "Islamic terrorism," it was an Attack of the Terrorists Abusively Invoking Islam, not to mention Allah. Not only did the hijackers hijack a passenger jet, they hijacked their religion.
This, of course, remains President Bush's general position. "I believe that the terrorists have hijacked a peaceful religion in order to justify their behavior," President Bush said yet again this month. Problem is -- to stick with the idiotic metaphor -- the "hijackers" have been piloting the plane for centuries, and the "passengers" have yet to take the controls. They go along for the ride, happy with or resigned to the anti-infidel destination because the jihadist itinerary comes straight from the Koran and other signal Islamic texts.

The grand Western strategy? Not to notice. The Guardian recently reported on a Tehran "recruitment fair" for Islamic suicide bombers. The sponsoring group asked several hundred volunteers to complete forms specifying whether they wanted to murder Israelis, Americans, Brits or, specifically, British author Salman Rushdie. As a spokesman said, "Britain and other European countries have a lot of disaffected Muslims who are ready. We understand the suspicion with which ... Western countries regard their Muslim populations. We don't condemn them for this because we believe every Muslim has the potential to turn into a bomb against the West."

The phrase "Muslim bomb potential" will surely give Mr. Faruk palpitations, but the Free World remains in denial. "Western diplomats played down the significance of the group's threat," the Guardian reported, "saying it was primarily a campaign to gather signatures of protest against Israel rather than recruit bombers."

Is this some kind of a joke? Much of the news these days ends in such harsh quasi-punch lines. Fatah terrorists demand an apology of Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for his "offense" -- condemning this week's Palestinian suicide bombing. Nuke-seeking Iran has an appointment with the U.N. Disarmament Conference -- as co-chairman. And then there was the story about the two Al Qaeda fathers discussing their suicide-bomber sons -- namely, how kids today blow up so fast.

Hang on a sec. That last one was a real joke, as told by John Vine, a senior Scottish policeman, at a gala dinner for the Perth Bar Association. It actually roused that small corner of the Western world to genuine outrage -- and not because everyone already had heard it. It was an "amazing gaffe," said the journalistic consensus. A "deeply offensive comment," commented a politician. Mr. Vine apologized ("profusely"), and the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) "welcomed the apology" (naturally).

I have to wonder on behalf of whom the MCB accepted the apology -- the Suicide-Bomber Dads of Al Qaeda support group? But never mind. Just wait until the non-emotive lexicon is in place.

That'll quiet everything.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dianawest/2006/04/24/194766.html

[American_Jihad]

ISLAM:
A "Peaceful" Religion?

Text of email from America Muslim leader
exposes the truly violent intent of Islam
Ever since the events of September 11th the public debate has raged about the true roots of Islam and whether the Quran (or as some spell it, the Koran - the only allegedly "inspired" book that all Muslim's agree on) teaches violence and death as a solution to eliminate those who do not convert or conform to the teachings of Mohammed.

It is no small surprise that Muslims, especially those in the west, deny the idea that their God (Allah) and his "prophet" calls for the "death of the infidels." Even when faced with quotes taken directly from the Quran which clearly call for the killing of Jews, Christians and others classified as "infidels", Muslims attempt to sidetrack the conversation or simply say that we are reading from the wrong version of the Quran or that the Sura's (verses) in question really don't mean what they say.

We've all heard the pundits and politicians defend Islam as a "great" and "peaceful" religion. While our political leaders are taking this stand to maintain their leadership in the secular affairs of government, I find it odd that so few in the media have challenged the roots of violent Islamic acts which come directly from the Quran. It is called "unloving"; it is not politically correct and it certainly goes against the grain of building the dream religion of the United Nations but the truth is the truth and Christians cannot afford to avoid it just to appear cooperative.

Franklin Graham has called Islam like it is; so has radio's Dr. Laura and even ABC's Bill Mahrer (who I find very little to agree with on his late night show Politically Incorrect). But the vast majority of voices being heard by America and the world have masked Islam as a milk toast non-threatening faith with only a few crazed extremists who strap bombs to their person or fly planes into buildings. (I wonder often how can any Christian - ANY PASTOR - stand by and through their silence act as if Allah and Jesus are somehow allies?)

The truth on the other hand is that Muslims simply CANNOT publicly agree that indeed the Quran calls for them to forcefully eliminate Christians and Jews. Herein lies the present confusion. True, many of them are "liberal" Muslims who like so-called "liberal Christians" merely claim to be followers of their religion and its god. Many others, with a sense of decency, honor for human life and the liberty of others, must be honestly troubled by some of the teaching set forth in the Quran. This denial that the Quran and historic Islam does in fact teach violence against other religions is compounded by the intense media spotlight shining directly on the likes of bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the PLO's Hamas and other groups who have gone about doing as the words of Mohammed actually command them to do. And though the best estimates tell us that only about 20% of Muslims worldwide align themselves with the so-called radical fundamentalists who pursue violence as a tenant of Islam that figure is still staggering considering there are well over one billion Muslims in the world today.

The December 13 release of the video tape showing bin Laden and others praising Allah for the ruthless destruction of thousands innocent human lives during the attack on our country has caused one of two reactions from Muslims. Either they denounce him and the terrorist actions or they clamor that the tape was "doctored" and denounce it itself. No one has heard any western Islamic leader publicly uphold terrorist bombings - until now.

Recently I received the following email which originated not from a PLO office still yet to be destroyed in the West Bank or from a cleric in Baghdad. It came from the leader of the Islamic Center of Everett, Washington. It calls the actions of suicide bombers "HEROIC ACTS" carried out by "HOLY WARRIORS!"

Obviously, this email was not meant for public consumption. It was intended for budding Islamic extremists to strengthen their resolve and plant more perverted seeds rationalizing the insanity of terrorist actions, in particular those recently perpetuated by the PLO's terrorist group Hamas in Israel.


-----Original Message-----
From: Z.Akbar [mailto:akbarzeb@xxxxxx.com] (email address withheld)
Sent: xxx, December xx, 2001 xx:xx PM-AM (time withheld)
To: (name withheld)
Subject: HEROIC ACT

AssalamoAlykumm Brothers and Sisters,

CNN the propaganda channel is calling some of the
Palestinian action as (Suicide bombers) horrific act
while we consider them to be HEROIC ACT. The so called
suicide bombers should be considered as HOLY WARRIORS
and not suicide bombers as the CNN puts it. Do they
expect people to do nothing when they have pushed
people out of their homeland with the propaganda of
the west. Little does the West know that every Muslim
in Palestine is a walking bomb, until such time
justice is served.

I have seen some of the documentary made on HOLY
WARRIORS before they go out in the path of ALLAH TALA
on a one way mission they have the last word with
their wives and children.

The HOLY WARRIOR is strapped all around with
explosives. His ultimate mission is to free his
brothers and sisters who are left behind subjected to
the oppression of Israel.

What CNN calls Horrific act We call HEROIC act
What CNN calls Suicide Bombers we call HOLY WARRIORS.

Suicide is something which a person does to put an end
to his OWN misery.

Holy Warrior does an act to free his brothers and
sisters from the oppression of Israel.

The non believers are so scare of dying, while a
Muslim knows he is going back to Allah Tala.
It is said that the Jannah is granted by Allah Tala
before the blood of the Martyr hits the ground.

What does Allah Tala says about oppression in the Holy
Quran

Translation: Shakir

[al-Baqarah 2:191] And kill them
wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence
they drove you out, and
oppression is severer than slaughter, and do not fight
with them at the
Sacred Mosque until they fight
with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay
them; such is the
recompense of the unbelievers.

I am not Alim I request all off you to do your own
reading and consult an Alim.

Please let me know if you would like an alternative
E-mail address added to the data base.

If some one is getting this E-mail more then once
plese (sic) let me know so I can delete one of the E-mail
address.

Please let me have your comments and concerns.

This article is brought to you by the Islamic Center
of Everett.


=====
It is stated in one of the Hadith that our prophet Muhammed Salella Alay Wasalm reported to have said that a person who is not interested in the affairs of the community is not one of us.

Wasslam
Aurangzeb M Akbar



As an aside let me remind you that God GAVE Israel the land it possesses and that the tiny sliver of land known as Israel is by far the most important real estate on the planet. The centuries-old conflict there is not about land. It is about the annihilation of the Jewish people - God's chosen. So make no mistake; the PLO doesn't really want land to settle on. They want the destruction of Israel as directed by the Quran. Publicly Arafat has talked peace for decades but privately and to the Moslem press, he has vowed the complete destruction of Israel.

Christians should be actively and lovingly pointing out the radical differences between Islam and Christianity; the Quran and the Bible and distancing ourselves from any so-called "Christian" who tries to integrate the notion that followers of Islam and Christianity somehow end up in the same eternal Heaven. How dare we defame the cross of Christ by silently standing by? We must point out with absolute certainty that Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus - ANYONE who leaves this world without Jesus Christ's blood covering their sins is destined for eternity separated from God in Hell! Either Jesus is the only way or He is a liar.

Every American needs to be aware of the true intent of Islam. Every Christian must understand that absolute necessity of sharing their faith with Muslims who need desperately to be set free from the chains of this religion of violence. As Americans in a free society, our goal should not be to forcefully eliminate Muslims for certainly civilized people cannot take this into our own hands. Our goal as believers should be to pray and witness trusting Almighty God to release Muslims from Islam's enslaving and deadly grip - one by one.

(
http://www.ericbarger.com/islam-peace.htm
:happy_11:

[American_Jihad]

Palestinian Christians Face Persecution from BEASTS

WEST BANK - Two thousand years after the birth of Christ, Christians are leaving the Holy Land in record numbers, and a new report suggests persecution against Palestinian believers is getting worse.

Little remains of 14 homes set ablaze in the West Bank village of Taybeh. An angry Muslim mob from a neighboring village attacked the Christian town last September. They said they were avenging the dishonor of a Muslim woman allegedly impregnated by her Christian employer, from Taybeh.

Taybeh is the only West Bank village completely inhabited by Christians - about 2,000 of them. It was originally called Ephraim. It is mentioned in the Old Testament and in the book of John as a village where Jesus stayed.

Mayor David Khoury said the attack would not have occurred if Taybeh were a Muslim village instead of a Christian one.

"It happened many times between a Muslim and a Muslim, and what they did was, most times they would just marry the girl off. Had they gave us a chance and prove this pregnancy was from the man from Taybeh, maybe we would have married him off to that girl," Khoury said.

The attack on the village of Taybeh is one more example of the precarious position of Christians in the West Bank and throughout the Middle East.

International Human Rights Attorney Justus Weiner has researched the plight of Palestinian Christians for more than eight years. His findings were recently published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

Weiner said Palestinian Christians are now living in fear because persecution against them is increasing.

"I think the situation has been on a steep downhill for at least 12 years,” said Weiner, “since Israel withdrew from the Palestinian populated areas of the West Bank and Gaza …they fear for their own lives, they fear for their own family, they fear for the future of their community."

It is a community that many Christians believe will be marginalized as the Palestinians move toward statehood.

One Palestinian woman suggested that the marginalization of Christians has already begun. We will call her Hannan. We have hidden her identity to protect her from retribution.

Hannan said Christians are now being treated as second-class citizens in the Holy Land because Islamists dominate the Palestinian Authority.

"Now, all the leadership and the people in authority are Muslims, and they force their laws, their teaching, their Koran, everything in the courts, in the schools, everywhere…they threaten people; people are afraid to say no," she said.

Western leaders say that elections scheduled for January prove that the Palestinians are committed to establishing a democratic society. But the draft Palestinian constitution shows a government consigned to institutionalizing Islam over secularism.

While the draft constitution pledges to guarantee freedom of worship, Islam is stated as the official religion of Palestine. Shariah law is stated as the primary source of legislation.

Under Shariah law, any Muslim who leaves Islam and converts to another faith must be killed.

And so it was for falafel stand owner, Ahmad el-Achwal. The father of eight converted to Christianity and held regular Bible studies in his home. He suffered repeated arrests and torture at the hands of Palestinian Authority police.

Weiner met and interviewed Achwal prior to his death in January 2004.

. "He showed me at the time the results of his -- what were then recent arrests -- which included burns all over his body where hot pieces of sheet metal were taken from a fire and touched to his skin…” Weiner recalled, “and on January 21, 2004, someone knocked on the door, he opened the door and he was met with a hail of bullets -- and he was shot dead in the entrance to his apartment."

Political instability, economic hardship, and human rights violations have caused a mass exodus of Christians from the West Bank and throughout the Middle East.

One recent study shows the Christian presence in Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority has declined from a population of 26.4 percent in 1914 to less than 10 percent today.

The city of Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus, was once a Christian city. Several decades ago, it was perhaps more than 80 percent Christian. Today, the Christian population has declined to less than 15 percent.

While their numbers may be fewer and persecution against them is increasing, thousands of Christians have chosen to remain in the Holy Land, and some are quietly leading Muslims to Christ.

West Bank evangelist Nadeem remarked, "When the person's faith is true, and they realize that their suffering doesn't go unnoticed by God, they see that they're doing something for the cause of Christ and furthering his kingdom…then they grow with more courage… and still the work goes on."

In his second letter to Timothy, the Apostle Paul said those who live a godly life in Christ will be persecuted. Nearly 2,000 later, those words are ringing true for Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land, where persecution is now a way of life.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/051219a.asp?option=print
:add08:

[RSade]

The true beast of old Satan or the dragon, or the most accurate term is the great deceiver, is hate. This is Satan's plan for the lost and hate is designed to keep the ignorant lost. Its working.

the beast is Christians hating their Muslim brothers and sisters through gross ignorance, Its the Muslim hating the Christians, blindly believing what their religious leader taught them. All are lost forever unless they receive the light of Jesus Christ or come to terms with their God of love.

So It seems that this forum (the religion) is blundering around groping for truth. Brothers and sisters you must forgive the sinners and then remove yourself from the snakes pit to do gods work and heal. To remain there is to die an eternal death without God !

; { >

[American_Jihad]

The true beast of old Satan or the dragon, or the most accurate term is the great deceiver, is hate. This is Satan's plan for the lost and hate is designed to keep the ignorant lost. Its working.

the beast is Christians hating their Muslim brothers and sisters through gross ignorance, Its the Muslim hating the Christians, blindly believing what their religious leader taught them. All are lost forever unless they receive the light of Jesus Christ or come to terms with their God of love.

So It seems that this forum (the religion) is blundering around groping for truth. Brothers and sisters you must forgive the sinners and then remove yourself from the snakes pit to do gods work and heal. To remain there is to die an eternal death without God !

; { >

Stoning to Death
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/media/stoning.htm

http://euro-islam.info/

http://nowscape.com/islam/islam.htm

Koran-The Ultimate Truth
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/koran.html

The Koran
http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html

They are "dripping" with love and compassion...

[Tomahawk]

The true beast of old Satan or the dragon, or the most accurate term is the great deceiver, is hate. This is Satan's plan for the lost and hate is designed to keep the ignorant lost. Its working.

the beast is Christians hating their Muslim brothers and sisters through gross ignorance, Its the Muslim hating the Christians, blindly believing what their religious leader taught them. All are lost forever unless they receive the light of Jesus Christ or come to terms with their God of love.

So It seems that this forum (the religion) is blundering around groping for truth. Brothers and sisters you must forgive the sinners and then remove yourself from the snakes pit to do gods work and heal. To remain there is to die an eternal death without God !

; { >Your take is inaccurate. (Analogy time) When an animal feels threatened, the threat is delt with.

[keith]

Discretionary or Prescribed Punishment!

By Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-`Awwa

Preface

Linguistically speaking, apostasy (ridda) in Arabic means going back (to a former state); while in the Shari`ah, it refers to the act of a Muslim becoming a disbeliever by saying or doing something that puts him or her outside the fold of Islam. The dominant opinion in Islamic jurisprudence considers apostasy to be a crime punishable by the prescribed death penalty.

The prescribed penalties are prerogatives of Allah Almighty, Who laid them down for the general interest of the Muslim community. Hence, whenever a crime punishable by one of these penalties is undoubtedly proved to have been committed, the relevant penalty in Shari`ah must be inflicted upon the perpetrator of the crime, and it is not to be pardoned or commuted in any way.

Conducting a study on apostasy requires us to consider how far the criteria of the crimes punishable by the prescribed penalties apply to it, in order to see whether it really falls under this category of crimes or under another kind of crime; and to see accordingly whether its punishment is prescribed in Shari`ah, and thus unchangeable, or included in another type of penalty.

We will focus on these points while tackling the issue of apostasy in the current study. We will first handle the Qur'anic verses concerning apostasy, and then the Prophetic hadiths in this regard. After that, we will deal with the dominant view in Islamic jurisprudence that considers apostasy to be one of the crimes punishable by the prescribed penalties and that its prescribed penalty is capital punishment.

But first of all, it is must be made clear that apostasy is a punishable crime, this is something that is taken for granted in Shari`ah. It is the categorization of its punishment under the prescribed penalties or under another category of punishments that is the subject of the argument we are presenting in this research.

In other words, we recognize that apostasy is a crime in the eyes of Islamic criminal law, but the question we are trying to answer here is as follows: "Is the punishment of apostasy included in Shari`ah as a prescribed penalty, and hence the definition and criteria of the latter apply to it? Or does it fall under another category of punishments and consequently have a different criterion of its own?"

The Qur'anic Verses About Apostasy

Apostasy is dealt with in the Qur'an in more than ten verses as follows:

[And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.] (Al-Baqarah 2:217)

[Those who turn back as apostates after guidance was clearly shown to them, Satan has instigated them and buoyed them up with false hopes. This, because they said to those who hate what Allah has revealed, "We will obey you in part of (this) matter;" but Allah knows their (inner) secrets. But how (will it be) when the angels take their souls at death, and smite their faces and their backs?] (Muhammad 47:25-27)

[Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief, except under compulsion — his heart remaining firm in Faith — but those who open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penalty. This is because they love the life of this world better than the hereafter: and Allah will not guide those who reject faith. Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed. Without doubt, in the hereafter they will perish.]‏ (An-Nahl 16:106-109)

[Would ye question your Messenger as Moses was questioned of old? But whoever changeth from faith to unbelief hath strayed without doubt from the even way.] (Al-Baqarah 2:108)

(How shall Allah guide those who reject faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that clear signs had come unto them? But Allah guides not unjust people. Of such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, of His angels, and of all mankind; in that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their (lot); except for those that repent (even) after that, and make amends; for verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.] (Aal `Imran 3:86-90)

[Those who purchase unbelief at the price of faith, not the least harm will they do to Allah, but they will have a grievous punishment.] (Aal `Imran 3:177)

[Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief, Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way.] (An-Nisaa' 4:137)

[Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.] (At-Tawbah 9:66)

[They swear by Allah that they said nothing (wrong), yet they did say the word of disbelief, and did disbelieve after their surrender (to Allah). And they purposed that which they could not attain, and they sought revenge only that Allah by His messenger should enrich them of His bounty. If they repent, it will be better for them; and if they turn away, Allah will afflict them with a painful doom in the world and the hereafter, and they have no protecting friend nor helper in the earth.] (At-Tawbah 9:74)

It is worth noting here that only one of the above verses was revealed in Makkah, that is, verse 106 of Surat An-Nahl, while all other verses were revealed in Madinah after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had migrated and established the Muslim state there. The Prophet ruled Madinah by Islamic Law, which governed all its subjects, Muslims and non-Muslims, by virtue of the covenant that he (peace and blessings be upon him) had made with the people of Madinah before his migration. Islamic law had legal authority in Madinah.

However, the Qur'anic verses quoted above did not specify a worldly punishment for apostasy. They only warned of severe punishment for apostates in the hereafter. It is only verse 74 of Surat At-Tawbah that made mention of punishment for apostates in both this world and in the hereafter.

Nevertheless, there is no mention of a specific punishment for apostasy in this verse, for it tackles the hypocrites' disbelief after accepting Islam, and it is scholarly known that there is no specific worldly punishment for them. They would hide their disbelief and pretend to be Muslims, and, according to Islamic Law, legal judgments are based on the evident statements and acts of the person to be judged, not upon his or her intentions and inner thoughts.

In this regard, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, "I am only a human being, and opponents come to me to settle their problems); maybe someone amongst you can present his case more eloquently than the other, whereby I may consider him true and give a verdict in his favor. So, if I give the right of a Muslim to another by mistake, then it is really a portion of (Hell) Fire, he has the option to take or give up (before the Day of Resurrection."

Contemplating the recurrent warnings of severe punishment for apostates in the hereafter as clarified in the above-quoted verses, one realizes how serious the sin of apostasy is (in Allah's sight). Sufficient evidence in this respect is to compare how Almighty Allah promises believers to forgive all their sins, while He threatens those who turn into disbelievers after having faith and exceed the limits in disbelief that He will never forgive them or guide them to the right path. Hence, apostasy is shown in the Qur'an to be a grave sin, though there is no specific worldly punishment for it in its verses.

Allah Almighty says, [Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand hold, never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.‏ Allah is the protector of those who have Faith: from the depths of darkness he will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject Faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them froth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (forever)] (Al-Baqarah 2:256-257).

Specifying a certain punishment for apostasy on the basis of the above-mentioned verses contradicts the following words of Allah Almighty, [Let there be no compulsion in religion] (Al-Baqarah 2:256). Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy upon him) realized this contradiction, and to resolve it, he said that the latter verse had been abrogated and, consequently, its ruling is no longer in effect, which means, according to him, that there may be compulsion in religion.

But saying that this verse was abrogated is untenable. The abrogation of verses cannot be proved unless there is a crystal clear statement reported to have been made by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), or one of his Companions, saying, "Verse number so-and-so has been abrogated by verse number so-and-so."

The abrogation of verses cannot be proved by reports of exegetes, or by personal reasoning without clear authentic statements in this respect or without there being obvious contradiction between two verses. This is because the abrogation of verses indicates that a ruling derived from a certain verse fell into abeyance, while another ruling on the same question in another verse was laid down during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon). This entails that the abrogation of a certain verse is something that is subject to both historical authenticity and sound transmission from the Prophet or his Companions. Abrogation, above all, is not subject to collective or personal reasoning (ijtihad) or juristic deduction.

Likewise, it is not tenable to say that Allah's words, [Let there be no compulsion in religion,] were abrogated by authentic hadiths, which will be mentioned later on the killing of apostates. This is because it is established in usul al-fiqh (the principles of Islamic jurisprudence) that the verses of the Qur'an cannot be abrogated except by other verses of the Qur'an or mutawatir hadiths (hadiths that bear the highest degree of authenticity).

However, Imam Ash-Shafi`i wrote, "What has been abrogated from Allah's Book is proven as such only by verses from Allah's Book itself. The Sunnah cannot abrogate Allah's words. It only asserts what is revealed point-blank in Allah's Book and explains in detail what is mentioned therein in general."

But scholars of usul al-fiqh, other than Ash-Shafi`i, hold that authentic hadith may abrogate (some) verses of the Qur'an.

Ash-Shafi`i supported his view by writing the following:

Allah says, [Say (O Muhammad): It is not for me to change it [the Qur'an] of my own accord] (Yunus 10:15). This verse supports my opinion that what is abrogated from Allah's Book is proven as such only by the Book itself. It is Allah, the Exalted, Who has laid down (the rules) therein, and it is up to Him only to abrogate or affirm what He wills therefrom. No one of His creation is entitled to do so. There is proof of this in Allah's Book, as He Almighty says, [None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?] (Al-Baqarah:2:106). Allah Almighty tells us in this verse that the abrogation of something from the Qur'an is substituted for by the laying down of an alternative ruling (on the same subject) also in the Qur'an.

The scholars who differ with Ash-Shafi`i on this point have counter-evidence for their view, but it will not be tackled here.

As-Suyuti (may Allah have mercy upon him) compiled the Qur'anic verses that are proved to have been abrogated according to Muslim scholars; these are, twenty one verses. As-Suyuti also said, "Any claims that verses other than those (twenty one verses) have been abrogated are false." Reviewing these verses, we find that the verse that reads, [Let there be no compulsion in religion,] is not included among them.

Hence, this verse is still in effect and has not been abrogated. This fact also goes in line with the other recurrent verses in the Qur'an that stress man's freedom of thinking, opinion, and choice. This indicates that these are fundamental principles of Islam that cannot be altered or abrogated.

However, it is worth mentioning that Muslim jurists do not depend primarily on the verses of the Qur'an on apostasy in determining the type of punishment to be inflicted upon apostates. Their principal evidences in this respect are the hadiths of Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). They only quote these verses in their studies to clarify the chastisement in the hereafter that Almighty Allah warned apostates against. This drives us to tackle the ruling of apostasy in the Sunnah in light of the above-established principle that says, "Let there be no compulsion in religion," as well as in the framework of the other facts derived also from the Sunnah, as will be clarified in the following points:

Hadiths About Apostasy

Every book on Islamic jurisprudence makes reference to the Qur'anic verses that deal with apostasy and the chastisement that Allah Almighty warned apostates against. These books base their conclusions about the punishment for apostasy upon several hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). The three most quoted hadiths by Muslim jurists in this respect are the following:

One hadith tells about the people from `Ukal and `Uraina who became apostates as follows:

It was reported that eight people belonging (to the tribe of) `Ukal came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) in Madinah, but they found its climate unsuitable for them; they complained about this to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who said to them, "If you so like, you may go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine." They did so and were all right. They then fell upon the shepherd; killed him and drove away the camels of the Prophet (may peace be upon him). This news reached Allah's Messenger; so, he sent them on their track and they were brought and handed over to him. He (peace and blessings be upon him) had their hands and feet cut off, their eyes put out, and then they were thrown on the stony ground until they died. (Ibn Malik)

In some other versions of the hadith, it was reported that there were other shepherds and that the apostates killed and mutilated them.

Some scholars conclude from this hadith that the punishment which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) inflicted upon those people is the penalty prescribed for apostates. Hence, they classified the hadith under categories dealing with combatants and apostates and with combatants among disbelievers and apostates. Such headings led some orientalists to claim that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used to force people to convert to Islam by torturing those who apostatized from it.

But the opinion of the majority of scholars, with which I also agree, is that the people referred to from `Ukal and `Uraina were not killed merely because they apostatized from Islam, but because they had been combatants (against Muslims). In this regard, Ibn Taymiyah wrote the following:

In addition to apostasy, those people committed murder and stole others' properties, and thus became brigands and fought against Allah and His Messenger.

Hence, the hadith concerning the people of `Ukal and `Uraina cannot be taken as proof of the opinion that the punishment for apostasy is the death penalty, as the crime of those people was not only apostasy, but it also included fighting against the Muslims. It may be also that they were punished by death in retaliation for what they had done to the shepherds.

As for the mentioning the word "apostasy" and "apostates," in some books of Hadith when they report the incident of the people from `Ukal and `Uraina, it was in the context of explaining what those people had exactly done, as they had both apostatized from Islam and fought against the Muslims. Hence, the inclusion of their apostasy in the hadith does not mean that the punishment inflicted upon them should apply to every apostate.

There is another hadith, reported by Ibn Mas`ud, that describes the three cases in which it is lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim. According to this hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) made it clear that the blood of a Muslim is not lawful to shed unless he is one of the following three: "A married adulterer, someone killed in retaliation for killing another, or someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community.'' The first two cases here have nothing to do with apostasy or its punishment. It is the third case — someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community — that according to many jurists applies to apostates. Accordingly, by virtue of this authentic hadith, they reached a judgment regarding the punishment for apostates — namely, that they deserve the death penalty.

But this explanation is controversial among Muslim jurists. For example, Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy upon him) maintained that when the Prophet said, "Someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community," he was describing the brigand who fights against Muslims, not the person who is only an apostate.

Ibn Taymiyah supported his view by quoting another version of the same hadith in which the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said the following:

The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful to shed unless he be one of three: a married person who commits adultery, in which case he is to be stoned to death; or someone who goes out waging war against Allah and His Messenger, in which case he is to be killed, crucified, or expelled from the land; or someone who killed another, in which case he is to be killed in retaliation. (Abu Dawud and `A'ishah)

Based on this hadith, Ibn Taymiyah said that the second category here stands for the same one referred to (in Ibn Mas`ud's version) as "someone who abandons his religion and the Muslim community;" as abandoning the Muslim community is achieved by waging war against Allah and His Messenger.

If this view (of Ibn Taymiyah) is correct, which I consider it to be so, then the reasons mentioned in Ibn Mas`ud's version according to which the blood of a Muslim may be shed are the same as those mentioned in `A'ishah's version of the same hadith. Hence, the person who abandons his religion and the Muslim community according to Ibn Mas`ud's version of this hadith is meant to be the person who apostatizes from Islam and then fights against Allah and His Messenger, not the person who merely becomes an apostate. Based on this, the ruling on apostates who are not involved in fighting against the Muslim community is not indicated in this hadith.

In other words, this hadith does not state the ruling concerning those who merely apostatize from Islam; but states the ruling on those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and it is established that the latter must be killed, be they Muslims or non-Muslims. Hence, it is not valid to base the view that the punishment for apostasy is the prescribed death penalty upon the Prophet's permission to shed the blood of the Muslim "who abandons his religion and the Muslim community" as mentioned in this hadith.

Another hadith is the one reported by Ibn ` Abbas about killing those who change their religion as follows:

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him." (Ibn `Abbas)

This hadith is also reported by Abu Dawud in Sunan Abu Dawud and by Imam Malik in Al-Muwatta', as well as by others to the Qur'an, which says, [Let there be no compulsion in religion] (Al-Baqarah 2:256).

Furthermore, proponents of this view argue that the generalization drawn from this hadith (with regard to the word "religion"), which extends to whoever changes his religion, whatever be this religion, cannot be accepted. This, according to them, entails that if a Jew converted to Christianity or a Christian converted to Islam, he or she would be judged by the ruling stated in the hadith, and thus be killed by virtue of the prescribed penalties of Shari`ah.

In effect, jurists do not say that the ruling stated in this hadith applies to whoever changes his religion, whatever it may be. In this regard, Imam Malik said the following:

That does not refer, and Allah knows best, to those who convert from Judaism to Christianity or from Christianity to Judaism. Whoever converts from Islam to another religion is the one who is referred to [in the hadith], and Allah knows best.

This is valid because when the word "religion" is meant to refer to the true religion (as in this hadith), it thus refers to Islam; and hence, changing religion, according to this hadith, means changing Islam to another belief.

There is no scholarly difference over this view except on the part of the Zahiris, and some Shafi`i scholars. Ibn Hazm clarified the viewpoint of the former when he stated the following:

He is not to be left without punishment; either he is to embrace Islam or be killed.

As for the Shafi`i scholars who see that disbelievers who convert to another kind of disbelief are also to be killed, their view is reported by Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar in his Fath Al-Bari and by Ibn Hazm in his Al-Muhalla.

According to the majority of scholars, the preponderant view is that this hadith was not meant to make a generalization (with regard to the word "religion"); for had it been so, it would have also included those who convert from a religion other than Islam to Islam. And all agree that this is not what to the hadith refers to. The majority of scholars support their view that the hadith does not apply to converts from a religion other than Islam to another kind of disbelief by saying the following:

All forms of disbelief are but one creed. Hence, if a Jew converted to Christianity, he is still a disbeliever; this is also the case with a pagan who converts to Judaism. This makes it clear that changing religion according to the hadith in question refers to changing the religion of Islam to another one. This is because religious forms other than Islam are true only in the eyes of their followers, while the true religion is Islam according to the Qur'an, which says, [Surely the (true) religion with Allah is Islam.] (Aal `Imran 3:19)

Hanafi scholars narrow down another generalization understood from the hadith (with regard to the word "whoever"), as they say that female apostates are not included here and thus should not be killed. According to them, the ruling stated in the hadith is confined to male apostates. They argue that women usually do not participate in fighting; and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade the killing of women, and since the prohibition here is general, it extends to all women, including women who apostatize from Islam.

The reason why male apostates should be killed according to Hanafi scholars is that they may fight against Muslims on the side of disbelievers or polytheists; but this is not likely to happen in the case of female apostates, and hence they should not be killed.

Some contemporary Hanafi scholars have counted the categories of apostates who are excluded from the ruling stated in the hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him." According to them, there are fourteen kinds of apostates. Hence, it may be said that those scholars narrow down the generalization of the hadith (with regard to the word "whoever") by means of the other evidences they cite in favor of not killing these fourteen categories of apostates.

Anyhow, restricting or narrowing down the generalizations understood from the hadith, whether they are agreed-upon or controversial among scholars, does not lead to the conclusion referred to above, which says that Islam does not state any punishment for apostasy.

It seems that the apologetic spirit that overwhelmed the followers of this view is what led them to this conclusion. But I hereby proclaim that I do not agree with them. On the contrary, I approve of the opinion of the majority of Muslim jurists that apostasy is a crime in Islamic Law. However, what I do wonder about in this regard are the following questions: What kind of punishment does Islam lay down for this crime? And does the hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him" state that the punishment for apostates is the death penalty? Or is there a possibility of a different kind of punishment?

The Punishment for Apostasy

I clarified at the beginning of this study that the Qur'an did not specify a worldly punishment for apostasy; it merely warned against a punishment thereof in the hereafter. I have also pointed out that Muslim jurists cite authentic hadiths to prove their opinion on the punishment to be inflicted upon apostates, and that they, in general, hold that apostates are to be legally killed for their crime of apostasy by virtue of the Prophet's hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him."

In spite of the apparent tendency in Islamic jurisprudence to narrow the scope of the applicability of the prescribed penalties and expand the applicability of the juristic principle that "prescribed penalties are to be fended off for the least occurrence of suspicion," one notices that there is a different disposition in this respect regarding the crime of apostasy and its punishment. There is a growing tendency nowadays to incriminate apostates and consequently judge them as deserving of the death penalty.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt that the penalty that Islam states for apostasy is capital punishment.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although we admit that apostasy is a crime, I doubt that the penalty that Islam states for it is capital punishment. I further doubt the inclusion of this form of punishment as a legal penalty prescribed by Shari`ah. The late Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut also held the same doubts, which he expressed in one of his writings. After displaying the jurists' views on the punishment for apostasy and their difference over putting into effect the Prophet's hadith about killing apostates, Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut wrote the following:

There may be a different viewpoint over the question (of apostasy), especially when noticing that many scholars see that the prescribed punishments are not proved by hadiths ahad (ahad is the hadith narrated by people whose number does not reach that of the mutawatir) and that disbelief per se is not a sufficient reason for the legal killing of a disbeliever; the cause permitting the legal killing of a disbeliever is his fighting and hostility against Muslims and attempting to lure them away from their religion. In addition, many Qur'anic verses clearly renounce compulsion in religion.

The strongest evidence cited by jurists to prove that the punishment of apostasy is the death penalty is the imperative mood (in the second clause) of the Prophet's hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him." However, an important question is raised here, which is, "Does this imperative mood indicate a binding order or something else denoted by other relevant evidence?"

But before we delve into answering this question, it is worth mentioning that the scholars of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence have differed considerably over the various linguistic forms that express "commands" in the Arabic Language. Some of them have said that the imperative form may denote more than twenty meanings; and some have said that no decision is to be given on the imperative form as indicating a certain meaning until it becomes clearly evident which meaning it refers to. X The most reliable opinion of the scholars of the principles of Islamic jurisprudence in this regard is that the imperative form is primarily used to give orders, unless there is authentic evidence which indicates otherwise.

With this in mind, let us review the hadith in question to see what the imperative form therein indicates in light of the other evidence in the Qur'an and Sunnah.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Qur'an did not mention a worldly punishment for apostasy.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first thing that may occur to us in this connection is that the Qur'an did not mention a worldly punishment for apostasy, as clarified above. But this alone is not sufficient proof that the imperative form in the hadith does not indicate a binding order, for Allah Almighty allowed His Prophet to give additional injunctions in some cases "wherein there is no explicit ruling in the Qur'an. And these injunctions are binding by virtue of Allah's ordering Muslims in His Book to obey His Messenger and abide by his commandments. Hence, one who follows the Prophet's teachings is abiding by Allah's instructions."

However, there are authentic hadiths reported on the authority of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that denote that the imperative in the hadith about killing apostates is not binding. Rather, it gives permission to kill apostates, but does not ordain killing them. Based on this, I believe that the punishment of apostasy is discretionary and is left entirely to the judiciary or rulers, or, in other words, to the concerned authorities in the Muslim state, to decide. They may give whatever punishment they deem appropriate in this regard; and there should be no criticism of their verdicts if they inflict the death penalty upon the apostate. This, and Allah knows best, is what the Prophet's hadith in question refers to. This is to say, it means that those who change their religion [of Islam] may be punished for this by being killed, not that they must inevitably be killed for this.

Evidence for Stance

The hadiths which mention that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) put to death or ordered that a certain male or female apostate be put to death are all unauthentic with regard to their chains of transmission. Hence, it is not proved that he (peace and blessings be upon him) punished a person for apostasy by putting him to death.

It was reported that a Bedouin once went to the Prophet and swore allegiance to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). He suffered from a severe fever in Madinah (and) so he came to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, "Muhammad, cancel my oath of allegiance." But Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) refused it. He again came and said, "Muhammad, cancel my oath of allegiance." The Prophet also refused it. He came to him again and said, "Cancel my oath of allegiance." But he refused again. The Bedouin, however, went away (canceling the allegiance himself); thereupon Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "Madinah is like a furnace which drives away the impurities and purifies what is good" (Al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Al-Hafiz ibn Hajar and Imam An-Nawawi mentioned, quoting Judge `Iyad, that the Bedouin had asked Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) to cancel his pledge of allegiance to Islam, which is a clear case of apostasy. However, Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not punish the Bedouin for it, nor did he order that he be punished. The Prophet just let him leave Madinah without any reproach.

It was reported that there was a Christian who had embraced Islam and read Surat Al-Baqarah and Aal `Imran, and he used to record the revelations of the Prophet. Later on, he returned to Christianity again, and he used to say, "Muhammad knows nothing except what I have written for him." Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out." (Ibn Malik). The man in this hadith converted to Christianity after he had embraced Islam and learned the two Surahs of Al-Baqarah and Aal `Imran, yet the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not punish him for his apostasy.

It is related in the Qur'an that some Jews conspired to declare their belief in Islam for some time and renounce it later, so as to confuse the Muslims and lure them away from their religion. The Qur'an says the following on this subject:

[A section of the People of the Book say: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back] (Aal `Imran 3:72)

Although that mass apostasy with its ill aim, according to the Qur'an itself, of confusing the Muslims and luring them away from their religion took place in Madinah while the Muslim state, ruled by Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), had full authority therein, yet he (peace and blessings be upon him) did not punish them.

With these numerous examples of people apostatizing from Islam without having been punished by Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), it would no longer be easy for us to admit that the punishment of apostasy in Islam is the legal death penalty; especially that, as we clarified at the beginning of this study, a characteristic of the prescribed penalties in Islam is that they must be applied whenever the relevant crimes are undoubtedly proved to have been committed.

Since the Prophet's hadith that reads, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him," is authentic with regard to its chain of transmission, we can reconcile it with the above Prophetic reports (that did not punish the apostates mentioned therein) by saying, and Allah knows best, that he (peace and blessings be upon him) meant thereby to teach his Ummah that it is permissible for them to punish apostates by death as a discretionary judgment.

This is supported by a number of examples from the lives of the righteous predecessors, as well as some juristic views that mention other punishments for apostates than death.

For example, Anas Ibn Malik ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated the following:

Musa sent me with the news of entering Tastir to `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). As six people from (the tribe) of Bakr ibn Wa'il had apostatized from Islam, `Umar asked me, "What has been done with the six people from Bakr ibn Wa'il who apostatized from Islam?" I tried to divert his attention to something else, but he again said, ''What has been done with the people from Bakr ibn Wa'il?" I said, "O Commander of the Faithful, they are people who became apostates and joined the polytheists. Was there an alternative to putting them to death?" `Umar commented, "Had they been handed over to me, this would have been the most beloved thing to me on the earth." Anas wondered, "And what would you have done with them?" `Umar replied, "I would have asked them to return to Islam, and had they refused, I would have imprisoned them." (`Abdur-Raziq)

Another example was set by `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz. It was reported that some people had embraced Islam and then became apostates therefrom. Maimun Ibn Mahran wrote to `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz to ask him what to do with them. `Umar replied, "Impose tribute upon them again and set them free."

Another governor under the rule of `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz wrote to him asking what to do with a man who had embraced Islam and then apostatized from it. `Umar replied, "Ask him about the laws of Islam. If he knows about them, then ask him to return to Islam. Should he refuse this, put him to death. But if he has no knowledge about them, then impose a doubled tribute upon him and set him free."

Ath-Thawri reported Ibrahim An-Nakha`i, an eminent scholar from the righteous predecessors, as holding that apostates are to be (imprisoned and) asked to return to Islam along their lifetime. Ath-Thawri also said, "This is the viewpoint that we also follow."

Furthermore, Al-Baji, an eminent Maliki scholar, refuting the opinion that apostates are to be killed even if they repented, wrote the following:

Apostasy is a sinful act for which there is no specific prescribed penalty, and which involves no recompense for violating someone else's right as is the case with other sinful (prohibited) acts.

There is no scholarly difference as to the permissibility of inflicting discretionary punishments for the sins that do not involve prescribed penalties or (recompense for violating) others' rights.

Contemplating the attitude of `Umar ibn Al-Khattab (when he said that he would have imprisoned the apostates until they repented) and the attitude of `Umar ibn `Abdul-`Aziz, (who differentiated between apostates who had previous knowledge of the laws of Islam and those who did not, and consequently judged that the former be made to pay tribute and be free to believe in the religion they converted to), we find that they would not have adopted these attitudes unless they had realized from the Prophet's hadith that says, "Whoever changes his religion, then kill him," that the imperative mood in the hadith indicates its being a discretionary punishment not a prescribed one.

Based on all that is mentioned above, I believe that the punishment for apostasy is discretionary and is left entirely to the concerned authorities in the Muslim state to decide. They inflict whatever kind and extent of punishment they deem appropriate in this respect, even if it includes capital punishment. This enables us to strike a balance between the narrations related on the authority of the righteous predecessors which prove that in some cases they put the apostates to death and the narrations which mention that in other cases they did not execute them. I also agree with Ibrahim An-Nakha`i and Ath-Thawri that apostates are to be imprisoned and asked to repent and return to Islam along their lifetime without being put to death.

Although this contradicts the opinion of the majority of jurists, as they believe that inflicting the death penalty on apostates is obligatory, while we see that it is only permissible, I think that the evidences I cite in favor of my views sufficiently support it. Should this view prove to be right, I praise Allah Almighty for guiding me to it; and should it prove to be wrong, I ask Allah to forgive me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-`Awwa is an Egyptian law expert and former university professor. He received his doctorate in comparative law in London in 1972. Dr. Al-`Awwa is the chairman of the Egyptian Society for Culture and Dialogue. In addition, he also works as a professor of Islamic jurisprudence and comparative law in the Islamic studies department at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. Dr. Al-`Awwa is also a member of the International Union for Muslim Scholars. He is the author of many publications, such as Ijthad in Islamic Law, On the Political System of the Islamic State, Punishment in Islamic Law, and The Basic Principles of the Islamic Penal System.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article01d.shtml

[NYer]

You Dissin' My God

Then you should take this test.

There's a lot of talk these days about people disrespecting this religion and that religion, either by doodling cartoons, or beheading people. Now a lot of folks say that we shouldn't disrespect any religion and for a while I believed that.

But now I think that a religion has to earn my respect, because these days just about anyone can slap on a robe and hang up a shingle declaring themself the one true source of all that is good and truthful in the world.


So in the interest of fairness I have created this simple, non-denominational, test to determine if your religion is worthy of respect. All you have to do is answer the questions YES or NO.

1. Do the sermons and teachings of your current religious leaders use the words: "Death to ____" when describing people of other faiths?

2. When people accuse your fellow followers of barbarism, do they cite current events instead of history?

3. Do people pay attention to the teachings of your current religious leaders, not out of respect, or intellectual or spiritual curiousity, but out of fear of what they will do next?

4. Are you compelled by your spiritual leaders to kill your fellow followers who convert to other religions?


5. Do you blame all of your problems on The Joooooos?

6. Is decapitation considered a valid form of religious expression?

7. Is laughter considered sinful in your faith?

8. Do you read a blog like this and consider it blasphemy?

9. Is your most prominent religious leader a fugitive from justice on legitimate criminal charges?

10. Does your religion justify the abuse of women based on how the women are dressed rather than the respect they are due as human beings?

11. Is anyone currently commiting genocide in the name of your religion, and your fellow followers who are considered 'moderate' and 'mainstream' won't do anything to stop it?

12. Do your religious leaders claim that any attempt to study or understand the nature of the universe (otherwise known as God's Creation) as sinful?

13. Do your religious leaders demand isolation from the rest of the world, its peoples and their cultures as part of some vague plan to preserve the purity of your faith?

14. Do your religious leaders demand that you subsume your identity and your free-will to theirs as the key to a heavenly afterlife?


If you answer YES to any of these questions, then I'm affraid your religion just doesn't deserve my respect.


Sorry to break it to you this way, but I hope it helps you understand why no one likes you.

http://vox-poplar.blogspot.com/2006/05/you-dissin-my-god.html

[American_Jihad]

You Dissin' My God

Then you should take this test.

There's a lot of talk these days about people disrespecting this religion and that religion, either by doodling cartoons, or beheading people. Now a lot of folks say that we shouldn't disrespect any religion and for a while I believed that.

But now I think that a religion has to earn my respect, because these days just about anyone can slap on a robe and hang up a shingle declaring themself the one true source of all that is good and truthful in the world.


So in the interest of fairness I have created this simple, non-denominational, test to determine if your religion is worthy of respect. All you have to do is answer the questions YES or NO.

1. Do the sermons and teachings of your current religious leaders use the words: "Death to ____" when describing people of other faiths?

2. When people accuse your fellow followers of barbarism, do they cite current events instead of history?

3. Do people pay attention to the teachings of your current religious leaders, not out of respect, or intellectual or spiritual curiousity, but out of fear of what they will do next?

4. Are you compelled by your spiritual leaders to kill your fellow followers who convert to other religions?


5. Do you blame all of your problems on The Joooooos?

6. Is decapitation considered a valid form of religious expression?

7. Is laughter considered sinful in your faith?

8. Do you read a blog like this and consider it blasphemy?

9. Is your most prominent religious leader a fugitive from justice on legitimate criminal charges?

10. Does your religion justify the abuse of women based on how the women are dressed rather than the respect they are due as human beings?

11. Is anyone currently commiting genocide in the name of your religion, and your fellow followers who are considered 'moderate' and 'mainstream' won't do anything to stop it?

12. Do your religious leaders claim that any attempt to study or understand the nature of the universe (otherwise known as God's Creation) as sinful?

13. Do your religious leaders demand isolation from the rest of the world, its peoples and their cultures as part of some vague plan to preserve the purity of your faith?

14. Do your religious leaders demand that you subsume your identity and your free-will to theirs as the key to a heavenly afterlife?


If you answer YES to any of these questions, then I'm affraid your religion just doesn't deserve my respect.


Sorry to break it to you this way, but I hope it helps you understand why no one likes you.

http://vox-poplar.blogspot.com/2006/05/you-dissin-my-god.html
GREEN :happy_01:

[MaggotBrain]

The Basic Principles of the Islamic Penal System.



Heheh you said Penal.....

[NYer]

http://drybonesproject.com/blog/D06528_3.gif

[Xenomorph]

:add09:

[American_Jihad]

You Dissin' My God

Then you should take this test.

There's a lot of talk these days about people disrespecting this religion and that religion, either by doodling cartoons, or beheading people. Now a lot of folks say that we shouldn't disrespect any religion and for a while I believed that.

But now I think that a religion has to earn my respect, because these days just about anyone can slap on a robe and hang up a shingle declaring themself the one true source of all that is good and truthful in the world.


So in the interest of fairness I have created this simple, non-denominational, test to determine if your religion is worthy of respect. All you have to do is answer the questions YES or NO.

1. Do the sermons and teachings of your current religious leaders use the words: "Death to ____" when describing people of other faiths?

2. When people accuse your fellow followers of barbarism, do they cite current events instead of history?

3. Do people pay attention to the teachings of your current religious leaders, not out of respect, or intellectual or spiritual curiousity, but out of fear of what they will do next?

4. Are you compelled by your spiritual leaders to kill your fellow followers who convert to other religions?


5. Do you blame all of your problems on The Joooooos?

6. Is decapitation considered a valid form of religious expression?

7. Is laughter considered sinful in your faith?

8. Do you read a blog like this and consider it blasphemy?

9. Is your most prominent religious leader a fugitive from justice on legitimate criminal charges?

10. Does your religion justify the abuse of women based on how the women are dressed rather than the respect they are due as human beings?

11. Is anyone currently commiting genocide in the name of your religion, and your fellow followers who are considered 'moderate' and 'mainstream' won't do anything to stop it?

12. Do your religious leaders claim that any attempt to study or understand the nature of the universe (otherwise known as God's Creation) as sinful?

13. Do your religious leaders demand isolation from the rest of the world, its peoples and their cultures as part of some vague plan to preserve the purity of your faith?

14. Do your religious leaders demand that you subsume your identity and your free-will to theirs as the key to a heavenly afterlife?


If you answer YES to any of these questions, then I'm affraid your religion just doesn't deserve my respect.


Sorry to break it to you this way, but I hope it helps you understand why no one likes you.

http://vox-poplar.blogspot.com/2006/05/you-dissin-my-god.html
:happy_11:

[Tomahawk]

:happy_11:I second that.:happy_11:

[American_Jihad]

ISLAM AND THE FINAL BEAST

http://www.answering-islam.org/Walid/gog.htm

Islam is a way of life with NO SALVATION but the Elohim of Yisrael is THE WAY, THE TRUTH and THE LIFE with SALVATION.
http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/

PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, WAKE UP!
http://www.therefinersfire.org/islam_peace_or_beast.htm

The dark mirror of Islam
http://www.richardwebster.net/thedarkmirrorofislam.html

[American_Jihad]

Islam & Peace

Muslim propagandists are nowadays making extraordinary efforts to change the image of Islam by reintroducing it to the Western society as a religion that calls for peace and rejects violence. One of the new theories that they are trying to sell is that the name of their religion Islam implies the meaning of ‘Peace’, which in Arabic is Salam. The grounds for their theory is that both words are derived from the same root in the Arabic language!

While it may be possible to deceive those who do not speak Arabic or those who do not know much about Islam, propaganda like this does not fool someone who knows the Arabic language and the teaching of Islam, a religion that was established by violence and still believes in violence as a principal and as a way of life. The relationships between Muslims themselves and between them and all other nations have always been based on terror and still is. Islam and Salam are two incongruous words that share no common ground either in name or in substance.
In order to find the meaning of a certain word in the Arabic dictionary, it is essential to search for the three letter infinitive verb which is called the root. Many words can be derived from the same root, but they don't necessarily have to have any similarity in their meaning. The word Islam, which means ‘submission’, is derived from the infinitive Salama. So is the word Salam which means ‘peace’ and so is the verb Salima which means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger’. One of the derivations of the infinitive Salama means ‘the stinging of a snake’ or ‘The tanning of the leather’. Hence, if the word Islam has something to do with the word Salam i.e. ‘Peace’, does that also mean that it must be related to the ‘stinging of the snake’ or ‘tanning the leather’?

Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always ended his letters with the following two words: "Aslem, Taslam!". Although these two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama which is the root of Salam, i.e. ‘Peace’, neither one of them implies the meaning of ‘peace’. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’. So where is the meaning of ‘Peace’ in such a religion that threatens to kill other people if they don't submit to it?

On the other hand, the Qur'an and other Islamic books like Al-Hadith and Al-Sira, i.e. the life of Muhammad, are full of evidence which proves that had it not been for violence, Islam wouldn't have existed or wouldn't have survived until today. A good example to mention would be The Wars Of Al-Riddah, i.e. ‘the wars against the apostates’, that began immediately after the death of Muhammad. Feeling relieved by the disappearance of the strong fearful leader Muhammad, the tribes which have been forced to embrace Islam, revolted and began, one after another, to renegade and to refuse paying the taxes imposed on them by the Prophet's government. In response to the revolution, the first Caliph, Abu-Bakr, ordered his army to fight the apostates. It took him almost two years of fighting to force the tribes back into the fold of Islam. These wars were not ordered only by the first Caliph, but they were also instructed by Allah and his messenger Muhammad. The Qur'an states clearly that those who go back from Islam are to be punished by death: "But if they turn renegades seize them and slay them wherever ye find them and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Al-Nisaa 4:89." Muhammad also said, as narrated by Al-Bukhari, "If somebody - a Muslim - discards his religion, kill him."

The Qur'an not only ordered the killing of those who embraced Islam and afterwards decided to renegade, but also commanded the followers to fight all nations until they either believe in it, pay the Jizya or face death:


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued. Surat At-Tauba 9:29"
And in the same Sura, verse 5, the Qur'an also states: "Fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem ..." Now doesn't the image of Islam as a religion of peace sound, after all, a little bit hard to believe? ...

http://www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/salamislam.html

[American_Jihad]

The Truth about Islam: A former Muslim Speaks

Muslim Atrocities

All other religions, despite their bloody past are now only concerned with personal piety and spiritual development of their followers. Some of them also get involved in works of charity like Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, etc. But Muslims are the only group that still thinks of Jihad, and expansion of their religion through violent means. Muslims are the only group that believes their god has given them the mission to kill those who reject him. Muslims are the only group that still endeavors to impose the antiquated misogynistic laws of their “holy” book. And Muslims are the only group that has not apologized for the crimes of their past and keeps committing those crimes even today.

Let's face it all religions have had bad and bloody pasts, but for the rest of the other religions those bridges have been burned and society has progressed, and no longer killing based on differences (in advanced societies) that is why i will only post the past century of events over the next few posts, and not include THE ENORMOUS jihads which have occured in all Islamic history, the worst being in India!! Where almost 1 million was reported to be killed in one day along in the 13th century. Unforunetly, today this is a site where MANY atrocities still occur.

7/28/05 India, Sokar A 5-year-old girl, her mother and grandmother are slaughtered in a home invasion by the Mujahideen.

7/23/05 Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt 88 killed 119 injured: More than eighty tourists and workers are killed when Islamic militants detonate three powerful car bombs outside a café and two hotels. One suicide bomber drove into the lobby.

7/20/05 Srinigar: Hizbul Mujahideen suicide bomber targets a missionary children's school in the Indian capital, killing at least six and injuring more than a dozen.

7/19/05 Chitabas, India 6 killed The Hizbul Mujahideen enter a residence and slaughter six members of a family, in a heinous attack.

7/19/05 Znamenskoye Chechnya Fourteen people, including civilians, are killed in a Jihad attack by Muslim separatists on a remote road.

7/18/05 Sala, Thailand Muslims behead a farmer and shoot at least two other people to death, including a school principal.

7/18/05 Chilas Farm, Pakistan In three separate attacks, Muslims behead a farmer and shoot at least two other people to death, including a school principal.

7/16/05 Narathiwat, Thailand 2 killed Muslim separatists attack a school, killing two security guards.

7/16/05 Baramulla India The Mujahideen shoot a man to death outside his home, and also stage a separate attack that kills a 6-year-old girl.


7/14/05Thailand,Yala Islamic militants set off four bombs in restaraunts and other business areas, killing at least two people and injuring many more.


7/15/05Thailand, Narathiwat Two female teachers are gunned down by Muslims on motorcycles as they are walking home.


7/9/05 Algeria,Tezi Ozo: A group of thirty Islamists set-up a fake roadblock, then slaughter four Algerians that are fooled into stopping.


7/7/05 London Islamic terrorists massacre more than fifty commuters on three separate subway trains and a double-decker bus on the street with four suicide bombs. Over seven-hundred people are injured.


7/2/05 Dagestan, Makhachkala 11 killed 23 injured Russian troops and civilians are casualties in a radio-controlled bomb attack outside a bathhouse blamed on Islamic militants.


6/30/05 India, Mahakund The Mujahideen kill a 20-year-old girl on the night before her wedding, along with her mother and a neighbor. A civilian is also abducted from his home and killed in the same district.


6/24/05 India Srinigar Nine people are killed and 25 injured when Islamic militants detonate a powerful car bomb at a popular tourist attraction.


6/15/05 India, Chaklas The Mujahideen assassinate a veterinarian and also set fire to another civilian's house, killing his 8-month-old daughter in the flames.


6/13/05 India.Pulwama At least thirteen people are slaughtered, and over one hundred injured when the Mujahideen set off a truck bomb near a school. Many schoolchildren are among the casualties.

6/9/05 Tver, Chechnya Seven Chechnyan police officers are killed when Mujahideen rebels fire a grenade launcher at their car.


6/7/05 Algeria, M'Sila Militants fighting for an Islamic state kill thirteen soldiers and injure six in a bombing attack on their truck.


6/4/05 Mauritania, Limgheiti al-Qaeda militants attack and kill fifteen Mauritanian soldiers and injure 19 in a remote area.


6/2/05 India, Harwan The Mujahideen abduct and later behead four members of two families


5/31/05 Pakistan, Karachi A mob of angry Shias take out their frustration at Sunnis on Kentucky Fried Chicken employees, killing six, including four who were burned alive.

5/28/05 Indonesia A priest and an infant are among the nearly two dozen Christians killed when Islamic militants detonate two bombs in the center of a village. At least sixty others are injured.

5/27/05 Islamabad, Pakistan A suicide bomber blows himself up amid a crowd of mostly Shia worhippers at a Pakistani shrine. At least nineteen are killed and dozens injured.

5/17/2005 India The Mujahideen attacks a funeral of a man they murdered, killing two additional mourners and injuring seventeen. Also, Seven family members, including women are asleep in their home when militant Muslims barge in and slit the throats of four of them while beating the rest.

5/16/05 Maluku, Indonesia Five policemen and a civilian are killed by Islamic militants in Indonesia, as they were sleeping. The militants accused them of protecting a Christian village.

5/15/05 Algeria All eleven members of a water supply convoy are blown up or machine-gunned by the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat.

5/14/05 Kalkote, India The Mujahideen murder a father and his three sons as they are returning from their work in a coal mine.

5/12/05 Srinigar India The Mujahideen target a school with grenades, killing two women and injuring about fifty others, including eleven children.

5/7/05 Jounieh LebanonTwenty-eight people injured by a bomb set in a commercial district of a Christian town.

5/5/05 Udhampar IndiaMujahideen militants lob a grenade then open fire on a Hindu wedding party, killing two teenage girls (ages 15 and 17) and injuriing twenty-two others.

4/20/05 Cairo Egypt: Two women in veils stage a shooting attack on a tour bus. They are the only fatalities, but nine innocents are injured.

4/24/05 At least six Christian villagers are killed by their Muslim neighbors after refusing to 'return to Islam.'

4/7/05 Algeria Algerian fundamentalists set up a fake roadblock then slaughter the trapped victims and set fire to their cars

4/7/05 Cairo: Islamist detonates a nail-packed bomb in a shopping area, killing a French woman and two others, including an American tourist. Eighteen others are injured.

4/7/05 Sudan Arab militia raids an African village, killing at least seventeen and torching homes. A small mosque was one of only two structures spared.

4/3/05 Thailand Islamic militants set off three bombs, killing two and injuring at least seventy. The fatalities were from the bomb set at the airport. The other two bombs were at a hotel and a department store.

3/27/05 Udhampur India: Mujahideen militants set fire to a civilian's house after killing his mother, wife and infant daughter. They also murder a neighbor.

3/23/05 Lebanon Three people are killed when Muslim terrorists detonate an 80kg bomb in a shopping center in a Christian area north of Beirut.

3/20/05 Fatehpur Pakistan Radical Sunni suicide bomber blows up a Shia religious festival near a Pakistani shrine, killing about three dozen and injuring many more.

3/17/05 Benue, Nigeria Two Muslim men rape a Christian girl and then poison her.

3/14/05 Scotland Five Pakistani immigrants abduct, torture and then burn alive a 15-year-old Scottish teen in a horrendous attack. Three later flee the country.

3/8/05 Bangaladesh Christian pastor attacked and beheaded by Muslim extremists as he is returning home from work

2/28/05 Sudan Arab militias with the support of the Islamic government attack a village and kille seventeen civilians and injure a dozen others including several women who were raped.

2/14/05 Powerful suicide bomb blast kills the former Lebanese Prime Minister and fourteen others. One-hundred and twenty are injured in the blast.

2/4/05 Demsaa Nigeria Militant Muslims attack a Christian village in Nigeria, killing at least three dozen and displacing some three thousand others.

1/31/05 Nathali-Bagwa India- Four members of a family, including three children and their mother, are killed when the Mujahideen hurl a grenade into a house after knocking down the door.

1/31/05 Inantag India The Mujahideen break into a house and kill a woman, then kidnap and hang her student son.

1/28/05 Alkan-Yurt ChechnyaJihad suicide bomber kills nine Chechan policemen after crashing his car into theirs at full speed.

1/27/05 Bangaladesh: Islamic fundamentalists lob a grenade into an opposition political rally, killing a former finance minister and at least four others. About one hundred people are injured, some badly.
Also Four people, including a 73-year-old man are assassinated by Muslim radicals in a grenade attack as they leave a public meeting.

1/19/05 Sudan The Islamic government bombs a village in Darfur, killing more than a hundred people, mostly women and children. An unknown number are wounded.

1/15/05 Bangaladesh: Islamic militants set off bombs at two different carnivals killing three and injuring about ninety others, including stage performers.

1/5/05 Grozny Chechnya A series of Mujahideen attacks across the country leaves seventeen dead, nineteen wounded and six others, including two college students kidnapped.

1/4/05 Pakistan A husband and wife, their son and two other relatives are murdered in their home in an 'honor killing' by a group of armed men.

1/3/05 Algeria's Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat bombs a convoy then rakes it with machine-gun fire, killing eighteen people and injuring an unknown number.



Okay i have decided that if i did all terror attacks since 9/11 then i would be up all night. However, i will get it done, here is attacks in 2005 for you. I know i will receive comments saying, hey what about all the Christians that kill each day in the US and abroad, or the Jews, etc. Well, yes, Christians and other religions do kill..but when Christians do kill, they aren't saying God is great while doing it and expecting some sort of reward, and how many Christians go out killing people because they are Muslims, or Hindus or whatever? How many christian, buddhist or whateverOther than Islam terrorist groups are going around killing those who disagree with them? That is the point I am making. Look where the majority of these attacks occur, in Islamic countries. There has to be more than a few bad apples, guys im not seeing the religion of peace here. What are the peaceful things in Islamic history again?

>>> MORE (http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/2005/07/muslim-atrocities.html)

[American_Jihad]

Convert from Islam to Christianity killed
Refused to join crowd chanting verses from Quran during lunar eclipse

September 16, 2006

Somali Christian sources report Ali Mustaf Maka'il, a 22-year-old college student and cloth merchant who converted from Islam to Christianity 11 months ago, was shot and killed in the Manabolyo quarter of Mogadishu.

According to a report from the Barnabas Fund, quoting a Christian source inside Somalia, the gunman was loyal to the Union of Islamic Courts, the Islamist organization that took power in Mogadishu in early June and now controls much of southern Somalia.

The report states the gunman shot Ali in the back Sept. 7 after he refused to join a crowd chanting Quran verses in honor of the lunar eclipse. Solar and lunar eclipses are significant in Islam and are accompanied by special congregational prayers. The Union of Islamic Courts confiscated Ali's body for 24 hours before delivering it to the grieving family, the report said.

The Barnabas Fund comments: "It seems that under the new Islamist rulers, who include hard-line jihadi elements, the tragic history of persecution and martyrdom for Somalia's tiny Christian community is set to continue and most likely to worsen."

The group reports that in July there were unconfirmed reports three Christians had been shot and killed by Islamists as they returned home from a prayer meeting.

In October 2005, an evangelist and house church leader, Osman Sheik Ahmed, was shot dead by Islamist radicals, Barnabas said. Also, children of Christian Somali refugees in Kenya have been kidnapped by Muslim relatives and taken to Islamic institutions in Somalia for 'rehabilitation.'"

The Barnabas Fund pointed out the leader of the Union of Islamic Courts, Hassan Dahir Aweys, promised to implement Sharia, or Islamic law, in all areas he controls.

According to Sharia, the group explained, apostates – those who leave Islam for another religion – must be killed. Union of Islamic Court leaders even have threatened to kill as apostates Muslims who are lax in their prayers, claiming this is commanded by Sharia. Several Muslims have been flogged publicly for drug-related offences since the union took control.

The Barnabas Fund report states more then 99.5 percent of Somalis are Muslims and regard Christianity as a foreign religion of their historic enemies in Ethiopia and of their former colonial masters the Italians and the British.

It adds: "There is a long history of conflict between Muslim Somalis and Christian Ethiopians, so anti-Christian sentiment runs deep. Most Somalis take it for granted that a true Somali is a Muslim and converts to Christianity must be traitors. These prejudices, widely held by Muslim Somalis, seem to be used to justify violence against Christians, both indigenous and expatriate.

The group says the inherent hostility toward the West and Christians has risen since the U.S.-led military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq and the recent Israeli campaign against Hezbollah.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52004
THEY ARE TRULY BEAST

[American_Jihad]

Muslim pilgrims waiting for paperwork to go to Mecca are killed
by agents of the the beast. See what sorry bastards they are
they kill people that worship their own beast, vary peaceful....

Suicide bombing kills 18 in Afghanistan

Muslim pilgrims among dead; separate explosion kills Italian soldier, child

LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan - A suicide bomber struck outside the compound of a southern Afghan provincial governor on Tuesday, killing 18 people, including several Muslim pilgrims seeking paperwork to travel to Mecca, officials said.

The attacker was stopped by Afghan soldiers at the compound’s security gate, where he detonated his explosive vest, said Ghulam Muhiddin, spokesman for the Helmand provincial governor.

The bomber had been walking toward a vehicle of the private military contractors who provide security for the governor, said Squadron Leader Jason Chalk, a NATO spokesman.

Nine Afghan soldiers and nine civilians were killed, said Rahmatullah Mohammdi, director of the hospital in Lashkar Gah. Seventeen people were wounded, he said.

The governor, Mohammed Daoud Safi, was inside the compound and was not injured in the attack.

Among the civilians waiting outside the compound were Afghan pilgrims seeking permission to travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, Muhiddin said. The main mosque in Lashkar Gah sits across from the compound.

Tuesday’s suicide attack was the deadliest in Afghanistan since Aug. 28, when 21 civilians were killed in Lashkar Gah by a bomber targeting an ex-police chief.

Blast kills Italian soldier, child
Meanwhile, a bomb attack Tuesday against a NATO patrol south of the Afghan capital killed an Italian soldier and a child, officials said.

A remote-control bomb planted under a bridge detonated when a three-vehicle military convoy passed by, said Ali Shah Paktiawal, Kabul police criminal director.

Chief Corp. Maj. Giorgio Langella was killed in the blast, and five Italian soldiers were wounded, the Italian Defense Ministry said in Rome.

A child riding in a car behind the NATO convoy was killed, NATO said. Four other civilians in the car were wounded.

Two people were detained for questioning in the blast, which went off about five miles south of Kabul, police said.

The bloodied body of the slain soldier, with his bulletproof vest still on, lay on the ground alongside his weapon shortly after the blast, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene.

Six Italian troops carried the victim’s body to a military helicopter that landed near the blast site. Other helicopters hovered overhead as police and Italian troops cordoned off the area.

Italy has some 1,600 troops in the 20,000-strong NATO-led force in Afghanistan.

An Italian soldier died and two were injured on Sept. 20 when their armored vehicle overturned on a steep incline near Kabul. Four Italian soldiers were wounded Sept. 8 by a roadside bomb in the western Farah province.

Taliban-linked militants have stepped up their attacks across Afghanistan the last several months, though attacks in Kabul are still much rarer than in the country’s south.

Attacks in the capital are mostly aimed at foreign military troops. On Sept. 8, a suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. Humvee, killing 16 people, including two U.S. soldiers. The attack was Kabul’s deadliest since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban.

[American_Jihad]

I often fear that the vast ignorance of Americans and others around the world concerning the history of Islam condemns them to be pawns in the hands of the Iranians and other Muslim leaders who reflect why Islam came to be and how it has conducted itself since the death of its founder.

The recent "incident" in which 15 British sailors were taken hostage by the Iranians (and you can substitute any radical Islamic group such as Hamas, Hezbollah, or al Qaeda committing other similar acts) and the subsequent "diplomatic" effort totally ignores the fact that these same Iranians took American diplomats hostage in 1979. Our subsequent failure to mete out a severe military retribution has brought us to the current prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

You may have noticed that, every time the United States leaves a war unfinished, we end up having to deal with the same bad people whether they are the North Koreans, the Iranians, or, in the case of Iraq, the return in 2003 after the botched victory in 1991. The only purpose of war is to leave one's enemies utterly without the will to repeat their bad behavior. By contrast, we have excellent relations with Japan and Germany.

It should be noted, too, that the Iranians have shown absolutely no regard for the Geneva Convention, having paraded their hostages on television and forced them to make false statements under threat of death. The loudest voices about the proper adherence to the Convention have, of course, been raised against the United States.

The powerful hold that Islam has on the minds and hearts of Middle Eastern Muslims is deeply rooted in its very beginnings. This "religion" that Mohammed invented had as its purpose a justification for looting other towns and tribes in the name of Allah. Thievery, banditry, the sale of slaves, the imposition of taxes and tribute, were all set in place when in March 623 Muhammed said, "I was ordered to fight all men until they say 'There is no god but Allah.'"

Islam, which translates "submission", is all about war, the division of the booty that results, and the subjugation of those who are conquered. This explains why, alone among the three major monotheistic religions, Islam has produced absolutely nothing that one can call progress.

Centuries later, in November 2001 Osama bin Laden announced "I was ordered to fight the people until they say there is no god but Allah, and his prophet Muhammed." Not a single new idea has issued forth from Islam since its founding.

Islam divides the world between itself and what it calls "the world of war" by which it means all others who are not Muslims. The entire early history of Islam under Muhammed was one of looting and pillage as, one by one, those who responded to his banner, calling him a prophet, realized that there were profits to be had in conquering those around them.

On Mohammed's death, Islam almost immediately divided into warring parties over who would inherit his mantle as caliph. The Sunnis and the Shiites are still fighting one another over that. Islam is one long history of war, treachery and deceit.

In his book, "Islamic Imperialism: A History", Efraim Karsh relates a story of the struggle between the Abbasids and the declining Umayyads, two Muslim dynasties in 883 AD. The leader of the Abbasids, Abul Abbas, called himself "the bloodshedder." Karsh relates:

"In an attempt to prevent any backlash from supporters of the fallen dynasty, the Abbasids embarked on a murderous spree. In Mecca and Medina scores of Umayyads were rounded up and murdered in detention. In the Iraqi garrison town of Wasit the governor laid down his weapons in return for a personal guarantee of safe conduct by the caliph, only to be treacherously murdered. In Palestine, the newly appointed governor of Syria invited a group of eighty prominent Umayyads to a banquet, slaughtered them all, then sat calmly among the corpses to finish his meal."

In the aftermath of the 1991 defeat of the Iraqis who were driven from Kuwait by a coalition led by American forces, Saddam's generals met in Safwan to accept surrender terms. What they got was a promise of U.S. withdrawal and the right to use their helicopters for "transportation." What they did was use those helicopters as gun ships to slaughter thousands of Shiites and Kurds who showed any inclination to resist the further rule of Saddam Hussein. The result of that miscalculation were "no-fly zones" over two thirds of Iraq that were maintained for twelve years until the second invasion in March 2003.

Today, as the U.S. media puts the various battles between Shiites and Sunnis on the front pages, Americans wonder why are these two Muslim groups are blowing up each other's mosques? Why are they murdering each other? Why are Iraq's neighbors, Iran and Syria, maneuvering to secure whatever they can gain from the effort to (1) rid Iraq of the American-led coalition forces and (2) pick up the spoils of a divided and easily conquered Iraqi nation?

An easy reading of Islamic history and a common sense response to today's events tell us that the Iranians will continue to probe for weakness among its enemies, the Americans, the British, the other members of the European Union, and of course, those Gulf nations who will have to confront an nuclear armed Iran if they are permitted to continue. Any failure to respond to their outrages will earn their contempt and further rumblings of war.

"We will continue to export our revolution throughout the world.until the calls 'there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah' are echoed all over the world." Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979.

Want to hear the call to prayer in your neighborhood? All we have to do is leave Iraq.

[American_Jihad]

Tell The Children The Truth (http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/)

[American_Jihad]

They're Hiding Among us (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngd9cEWdlO0) :happy_12:

[American_Jihad]

Pak minorities being victimised by blasphemy law: Priest
Jun 4, 2007

London, June 3: Christians and other non-Muslim minorities have claimed that they are being victimised by Pakistan's blasphemy law.






"Numerous Christians and others have been victimised by the blasphemy law and, it has also been widely used to silence opposition, prevent free speech and to settle scores," Michael Nazir Ali, a former Karachi priest, said.

According to Ali, who is now working as a bishop in Rochester, various human rights organisations have reported an increase in Christians' arrest on blasphemy charges.

Non-Muslim minorities, including Christians, Hindus and Parsis are helpless onlookers and are often made victims of escalating extremism in the country.

"Their treatment is an important barometer of the direction Pakistan may be taking," the Dawn quoted Ali, as saying.

The present stance of the government looks very much like an appeasement of Mullahs, Ali said.

Such a perception is reinforced when we consider another development: the introduction in the National Assembly, the lower house of the Parliament, of a bill punishing apostasy from Islam by death (for males) or life imprisonment (for females), he added.

Ali further said that Pakistan can take the path of being a sectarian, fundamentalist state ruled by clerics, or it can become an enlightened, moderate country, informed by the best traditions of Islam, tolerant of other faiths and open to change. Procrastination is not an option.

Blasphemy law in Pakistan is found in several sections of the Pakistan Penal Code, including Section 295 B and C and 298 A, B, and C.

It imposes a variety of penalties for different forms of blasphemy, including the death penalty for anyone found to have "by words or visible representation or by an imputation or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiled the name of the Moohammad of Islam".

Similarly anyone blamed, as a blasphemer against the Koran would be awarded life imprisonment under section 295/C.

In 1982, President Zia ul-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistan Penal Code punishing "defiling the Holy Qur'an" with life imprisonment. In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of derogatory remarks in respect of the Unholy Prophet". :happy_11:

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/146491.php/Pak-minorities-being-victimised-by-blasphemy-law:-Priest

[American_Jihad]

The Muslim Brotherhood "Project" (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=DMUS,DMUS:2006-48,DMUS:en&q=The+Muslim+Brotherhood+%22Project%22+)

The Muslim Brotherhood, Nazis and Al-Qaeda (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=DMUS%2CDMUS%3A2006-48%2CDMUS%3Aen&q=islam%2Cnazis%2Cbrotherhood&btnG=Search)

[NYer]

The Trouble With Islam. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781)

[American_Jihad]

Islam: Cult or Religion? (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1358699/posts)

Muslim activists, in their attempt to spread their religion in the West, have been deliberately hiding a certain side of their religion. They carefully avoid, obscure and omit any negative teachings of Islam in order to lure converts. Our mission is to expose these teachings that are withheld from seekers in order to help people gain a more realistic insight of what it is like to live under Islam. (http://www.islamreview.com/aboutus.htm)

From The Holy Koran (http://nowscape.com/islam/islam.htm)

[American_Jihad]

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5734/fteddybearpim30ba1c8ub0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
All this over ME

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/6393/sudanbeast01zo5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
A Sudanese demonstrator carries a sword as he attends a protest in Khartoum yesterday against the verdict handed down to a British teacher accused of insulting Islam.“Execute her! Kill her, kill her by firing squad.”

Hitler picked the wrong people to exterminate........:add08:

[Peace]

Read how peaceful they are

Who are they?

All Muslims?

Can I show some Christians acting like arseholes and say; "Read how peaceful they are"

[Peace]

The Trouble With Islam. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781)

Nice! Here are a couple more by the same guy that I'm sure you will enjoy it as much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zqbz563pNQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f01IBDoZGg

Enjoy :)

[Irreverent]

Who are they?

All Muslims?

Can I show some Christians acting like arseholes and say; "Read how peaceful they are"
Of course they're all muslims. Who the hell else cares about a teddy bear's name?

Show Christian mobs calling for the killing of any woman who named a teddy bear Jesus, Isaiah or Daniel. That's what I'd like to see.

[pixikill]

Of course they're all muslims. Who the hell else cares about a teddy bear's name?

Show Christian mobs calling for the killing of any woman who named a teddy bear Jesus, Isaiah or Daniel. That's what I'd like to see.
i had a teddy called jesus. i got him for chrissy, when i was about 4 or 5. i thought jesus was a good name, but everyone laughed at me, so i changed his name to "orangie"...(he's orange)

[American_Jihad]

CAIR Promoting Shari'a Through Year-Long Da'wa Course

February 14, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - The Council on American Islamic Relations [CAIR] has long operated under the guise of "civil rights" group while working to bring about the Islamization of North America. Case in point, the group, recently named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation's largest terror prosecution, announced it will be conducting a year-long seminar in shari'a. Registration ends this month and the first class is scheduled for March, 1.

The course is designed to appeal to Muslim leaders and train them in methods thought beneficial to the spreading of Islam:


"Imams of Islamic Centers and those who are working in the field of Islamic da'wah. The educational approach will add new aspects to their knowledge...Teachers/instructors, intellectual leaders, and people of influence who are helping to explain the message of Islam."
This intensive training program is to be held at the Foundation for Islamic Education, a Saudi funded, Wahhabist organization which these writers have previously covered [see, Conestoga High School Da’wa Field Trip - Visit Planned To Saudi Dominated, Terror Tied Foundation for Islamic Education and Saudi Wahhabists Promoting Islamic Extremism Through Villanova Jihad Camps] and, "is designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Principles of the Sciences of Islamic Law (usu al ulum ash Shari'a)," [source, CAIR's Academic Program on Islamic Juristic Sciences

Taha Al-Alwani is one of the proposed instructors for the course [see, http://www.cordobauniversity.org/gsiss/faculty/Alalwani.asp]. Al-Alwani is the former president of the Graduate School of Islamic Social Sciences which was raided by the FBI in Operation Greenquest [see, http://www.nbc4.com/news/3483448/detail.html]. He is also listed as co-conspirator number five in the Sami Al Arian terror prosecution.

The school is on a list of institutions under investigation for ties to terrorism.


“The U.S. government revoked the visas in 2004 of sixteen people affiliated with the Institute for Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, of Fairfax, Va. In the words of the Washington Post, "That decision followed accusations that the institute, a satellite campus of al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, was promoting a brand of Islam that critics say is intolerant of other strains of the religion as well as Christianity and Judaism." In addition, the IIASA is under investigation for ties to terrorism," [source, What Are Islamic Schools Teaching? Dr. Daniel Pipes, March 29, 2005]
CAIR has from its inception, advanced the idea of Islamic supremacy and this course meshes neatly with that ideology.


“Consistent with these origins, CAIR’s former Board Chairman Omar Ahmad told a Muslim audience in 1998: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant…The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Although Ahmad now denies saying this, the reporter who witnessed his speech stands by the accuracy of her story. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has himself said: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future," [see, http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={084A0268-5FB9-4B05-8EAE-386213E48D8E}]

CAIR offering this level of instruction in da'wa; and spreading shari'a is testament to the organization's place at the forefront of the cultural jihad being waged against the West, as if any further proof was needed.

http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=cairsharia2.14.08.htm

Saudi Arabia Bans Valentine’s Day (http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=71D2A26C-0E5B-4830-9126-C8D3F10ACF6A)

Esposito at Stanford (http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=DA3B894C-E2FB-4857-B8DA-229F59D6D7E9)

[American_Jihad]

Worshippers of Death
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
March 3, 2008

Zahra Maladan is an educated woman who edits a women's magazine in Lebanon. She is also a mother, who undoubtedly loves her son. She has ambitions for him, but they are different from those of most mothers in the West. She wants her son to become a suicide bomber.

At the recent funeral for the assassinated Hezbollah terrorist Imad Moughnaya -- the mass murderer responsible for killing 241 marines in 1983 and more than 100 women, children and men in Buenos Aires in 1992 and 1994 -- Ms. Maladan was quoted in the New York Times giving the following warning to her son: "if you're not going to follow the steps of the Islamic resistance martyrs, then I don't want you."


Zahra Maladan represents a dramatic shift in the way we must fight to protect our citizens against enemies who are sworn to kill them by killing themselves. The traditional paradigm was that mothers who love their children want them to live in peace, marry and produce grandchildren. Women in general, and mothers in particular, were seen as a counterweight to male belligerence. The picture of the mother weeping as her son is led off to battle -- even a just battle -- has been a constant and powerful image.

Now there is a new image of mothers urging their children to die, and then celebrating the martyrdom of their suicidal sons and daughters by distributing sweets and singing wedding songs. More and more young women -- some married with infant children -- are strapping bombs to their (sometimes pregnant) bellies, because they have been taught to love death rather than life. Look at what is being preached by some influential Islamic leaders:

"We are going to win, because they love life and we love death," said Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah. He has also said: "[E]ach of us lives his days and nights hoping more than anything to be killed for the sake of Allah." Shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden told a reporter: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us."

"The Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death," explained Afghani al Qaeda operative Maulana Inyadullah. Sheik Feiz Mohammed, leader of the Global Islamic Youth Center in Sydney, Australia, preached: "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid." Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech: "It is the zenith of honor for a man, a young person, boy or girl, to be prepared to sacrifice his life in order to serve the interests of his nation and his religion."

How should Western democracies fight against an enemy whose leaders preach a preference for death?

The two basic premises of conventional warfare have long been that soldiers and civilians prefer living to dying and can thus be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed; and that combatants (soldiers) can easily be distinguished from noncombatants (women, children, the elderly, the infirm and other ordinary citizens). These premises are being challenged by women like Zahra Maladan. Neither she nor her son -- if he listens to his mother -- can be deterred from killing by the fear of being killed. They must be prevented from succeeding in their ghoulish quest for martyrdom. Prevention, however, carries a high risk of error. The woman walking toward the group of soldiers or civilians might well be an innocent civilian. A moment's hesitation may cost innocent lives. But a failure to hesitate may also have a price.

Late last month, a young female bomber was shot as she approached some shops in central Baghdad. The Iraqi soldier who drew his gun hesitated as the bomber, hands raised, insisted that she wasn't armed. The soldier and a shop owner finally opened fire as she dashed for the stores; she was knocked to the ground but still managed to detonate the bomb, killing three and wounding eight. Had the soldier and other bystanders not called out a warning to others -- and had they not shot her before she could enter the shops -- the death toll certainly would have been higher. Had he not hesitated, it might have been lower.

As more women and children are recruited by their mothers and their religious leaders to become suicide bombers, more women and children will be shot at -- some mistakenly. That too is part of the grand plan of our enemies. They want us to kill their civilians, who they also consider martyrs, because when we accidentally kill a civilian, they win in the court of public opinion. One Western diplomat called this the "harsh arithmetic of pain," whereby civilian casualties on both sides "play in their favor." Democracies lose, both politically and emotionally, when they kill civilians, even inadvertently. As Golda Meir once put it: "We can perhaps someday forgive you for killing our children, but we cannot forgive you for making us kill your children."

Civilian casualties also increase when terrorists operate from within civilian enclaves and hide behind human shields. This relatively new phenomenon undercuts the second basic premise of conventional warfare: Combatants can easily be distinguished from noncombatants. Has Zahra Maladan become a combatant by urging her son to blow himself up? Have the religious leaders who preach a culture of death lost their status as noncombatants? What about "civilians" who willingly allow themselves to be used as human shields? Or their homes as launching pads for terrorist rockets?

The traditional sharp distinction between soldiers in uniform and civilians in nonmilitary garb has given way to a continuum. At the more civilian end are babies and true noncombatants; at the more military end are the religious leaders who incite mass murder; in the middle are ordinary citizens who facilitate, finance or encourage terrorism. There are no hard and fast lines of demarcation, and mistakes are inevitable -- as the terrorists well understand.

We need new rules, strategies and tactics to deal effectively and fairly with these dangerous new realities. We cannot simply wait until the son of Zahra Maladan -- and the sons and daughters of hundreds of others like her -- decide to follow his mother's demand. We must stop them before they export their sick and dangerous culture of death to our shores.

http://columbiaconservative.blogspot.com/2008/03/alan-dershowitz-worshippers-of-death.html

[American_Jihad]

The Many Forms of Radical Islam All Threaten America
April 14, 2008

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/2747/muslimprotestaf3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

“Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law.
Jihad is our way. Dying in the service of Allah is our highest hope”.
Credo of the Muslim Brotherhood

Introduction



Most of us who study terrorism focus primarily, if not exclusively, on the violence and the carnage. But there is another aspect to terrorism that that represents a long term, sub-threshold threat and highly effective form of attack to which we are subjected on a daily basis. It is a campaign of sophisticated Political Warfare that is largely unacknowledged by the government and, as a consequence, is unappreciated by the American public.

Radical Islam in a multitude of forms and guises, using a broad array of tactics and strategies represents the prime internal security threat to our country. The government focuses primarily on the external threat but for literally decades highly trained Islamist cadre have been operating successfully and with significant effect on American soil. The nature and scope of this growing and complex internal threat is rarely addressed in public forums. Some have described it as the “third rail” of American political discourse.

These American-based Islamists and the groups they represent are increasingly reliant on sophisticated Political Action operations designed to eviscerate government capabilities to uncover and dismantle terrorist cells and support mechanisms. They capitalize on our government’s failure to recognize and counter their Political Action activities, which are being promoted through a variety of instruments including seemingly independent and benign front groups established to advance the radical Islamist agenda. They use our freedoms, constitutional guarantees, and the advantages of an open society as both a sword and shield in this latest iteration of ideological warfare.

They seek to foster malignant self-doubt as best expressed by the question so many of the well meaning ask: “Why do they hate us?” The answer should be painfully obvious but, regrettably, eludes too many political figures and pundits. The truth is the Islamists do not hate us because of the freedoms we enjoy. They do not hate us because we are wealthy and powerful. They do not hate us because of our support of Israel. They hate us because they see us as the prime impediment to the realization of their messianic vision of a global caliphate under Sharia law. They recognize that they cannot conquer us through force of arms, economic warfare or even terrorism. Their strategy is one of Political Warfare to sap our strength, self-confidence and will to resist and, thereby, leave us vulnerable to more conventional forms of aggression. History has taught that once a nation’s internal defenses are compromised and the public psychologically disarmed, a country can fall into the hands of an adversary like a ripe fruit – a strategy practiced successfully by both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis.

Political Warfare

Political Warfare is an unfamiliar concept to most Americans. Essentially, it is an umbrella term that embraces a panoply of strategies, tactics and capabilities. It is, in essence, a tool kit from which the operator may draw to mount and tailor a campaign to demoralize, paralyze, bleed and, ultimately, vanquish an adversary. At its most effective it is usually a mix of Psychological Operations, Political Action, and Terror. Tactics may oscillate between extreme violence and the apparently benign, the aim being to erode the public’s will to resist and to foster a readiness to accept seemingly reasonable compromises that in reality represent a slippery slope to ultimate surrender. The approach is insidious and effective.

The term best used to describe the process, was coined by Matyas Rakosi, the Hungarian Communist Party Boss, who prided himself on his slavish devotion to Stalin and who, in a moment of cynical candor, explained how the communists seized power. Basically, it was “Salami Tactics,” Rakosi boasted – “demanding a little more each day, like cutting up a salami, thin slice after thin slice…” Salami tactics were a favorite of the Communists, the Fascists, and now have been embraced by the radical Islamists.

American as Safe Haven

Although we may be loath to admit it, for years America has been used as safe haven by terrorist groups. Shielded by our constitutional guarantees, such groups have felt free to raise funds, disseminate propaganda, recruit cadre and foot soldiers, and mount operations. One of their prime goals has been to influence the American public and our elected representatives. They lobby, lie and dissemble, counting on American naiveté and good will to cut them the slack they need to promote the revolutions they seek.

They burrow deep, and integrate themselves into our communities and political fabric. They cultivate members of Congress, media, pundits, civil rights organizations, and those the Communists labeled “useful idiots.” Through a variety of mechanisms such as political fronts, mass organizations, friendly media, NGOs, charities and agents-of-influence, they mobilize support, forge alliances, and exploit the sympathy needed to provide political advantage and expand their political base.

American-based Islamists intensively promote coalition building across divisions of class, party, religion and ethnicity. They are extremely adroit at exploiting the hubris, vanity and lust for power of politicians, pundits and opportunists; as well as, the best impulses of the well-meaning who are desperately seeking to build a better world through accommodations that too often paper over fundamental differences and promise peace in our time.

Successful terror groups demonstrate a keen appreciation of the art of Political Warfare. They capitalize on the mistakes of governments that either fail to respond to the threat they represent, or respond in a heavy-handed and predictably counterproductive fashion. Only recently have we have come to realize that organizations committed to Global Jihad are active in the United States, and for years have been engaged in operations designed to destroy the nation.

Targeting of America

Most Americans are unaware that until 9/11, the terror group HAMAS, a creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, received its primary funding not from the Middle East or the Gulf States, but from American citizens and legal resident aliens who constituted its primary source of financial support. Radical Imams and HAMAS cadre from Jordan, Egypt, Gaza and the West Bank criss-crossed the country speaking and raising funds at radical mosques, local community centers, college campuses and corporate boardrooms, as well as at gatherings in private homes where they courted the wealthy and influential. They inspired their audiences by vivid accounts of heroic sacrifice and lauded the success of suicide operations. Sometimes they would even be accompanied by a wanted HAMAS terrorist who would regale the audience with first hand accounts of mayhem and murder. These “circuit riders” galvanized support among the impressionable and the committed, generating a flow of contributions that kept HAMAS flush and lethal.

Successfully circumventing INS controls, individuals such as Abdel Aziz Odeh, the spiritual leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and an unindicted co-conspirator in the World Trade Center bombing, made multiple visits to the U.S. to fundraise and for purposes political recruitment. Yusef Al Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who has called for the taking over of the United States and for suicide bombings also traveled throughout the country, as has Kamal Hilbawi, a Muslim Brotherhood spokesman, who advocates attacks on American targets.


HAMAS and other Jihadii groups use such visits to propagandize, identify new opportunities, spot and develop new talent and, ultimately, recruit likely prospects. Young Americans – blond haired, blue eyed, and carrying American passports – are the gold standard. Former military are particularly prized. By virtue of their American citizenship, such operatives can travel the world in the cause of revolutionary Islam, and for the most part remain above suspicion.

For some 16 years, the head of the political wing of HAMAS, Mousa Abu Marzook, lived in Falls Church, Virginia. The current head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, worked as a professor at the University of South Florida. There he taught America’s children, before leaving the United States for Damascus to assume control of the PIJ. Khalid Sheik Mohammad, the architect of the 9/11 attack, went to school in North Carolina. Sami al-Arian, an engineering professor at the University of South Florida, opened a university-affiliated think tank called the World Islamic Studies Enterprise from where he ran PIJ terrorists world-wide. These American-based operatives hid in plain sight. They often chose small towns and cities because they presented, and continue to present, a permissive operational environment.

Some of the most valued al Qaeda operatives have been U.S. citizens. Wadi Al Hage, Osama bin Laden’s former private secretary and a trusted al Qaeda operative, is a U.S. citizen. He attended the University of Southwest Louisiana, and lived in Tucson, Arizona and Arlington Texas. Al Hage was a prime mover in al Qaeda’s entry into the international diamond trade which resulted in a close working relationship between Sunni (al Qaeda) and Shia (Hizbullah) Jihadists. (Jihad makes strange bedfellows.) Al Hage is now serving a life sentence in a maximum-security prison for conspiracy to commit terrorism and for his role in the August 1998 bombings of our embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Saalam, Tanzania.

Ali Muhammad, a former Egyptian Intelligence Officer, became a U.S. citizen and worked at the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Ft Bragg. There, he lectured on Middle East Culture and terrorism to some of our most sensitive and elite military units. He was widely regarded as an expert on radical Islam, a reputation that was well deserved since he also served as a key bin Laden military advisor, helping to plan some of al Qaeda’s most devastating attacks including the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi.

Adam Ghadan, convert to Islam and the American spokesman for al Qaeda, was born in California. Attracted to Islam at an early age, he ultimately embraced it in its most radical form. He promotes the concept of an Islamist America under Sharia law and owing fealty to Osama bin Laden.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1387238

[American_Jihad]

The Koranic doctrine about kafirs

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for PoliticalIslam.com.

FP: Bill Warner, welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you Jamie.

FP: I’d like to talk to you today about how many of the names, words and phrases we use about Islam are muddled and incorrect. Many non-Muslims create certain terms about Islam to try to make the world seem safer and to feel good about themselves. But many of these terms have no actual basis in Islamic theology or culture and have no real meaning in an Islamic context.

I think the best way to start this discussion is to begin with the term “moderate Muslim."

Warner: “Moderate Muslim” is a perfect example of the muddle and incorrect terminology that kafirs (unbelievers) use.

This term is intended to describe a Muslim who doesn’t seem dangerous or advocate violence. But “moderate Muslim” is a non-Muslim name, one that kafirs made up.

The doctrine of Islam does talk about the different kinds of Muslims. The measure of a Muslim is the Koran and the Sunna. Anyone who follows these teachings is a moderate Muslim, by definition.

Islamic doctrine defines what is moderate and not moderate. Since we are dealing with Islam, we need to know that the doctrine is dualistic. Islam can have two doctrines about any issue. This follows from the Koran. The early Koran, which was written in Mecca is generally religious. The Koran written in Medina is very political and includes jihad. The two Korans are not only very different, but they also contradict each other in major ways.

So we have the possibility of two kinds of moderate Muslims, since we have two doctrines. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim, who follows the Koran of Medina, the Koran of jihad. Kafirs call him an extremist or radical Muslim. Actually, Osama obeys the Koran of Medina and the Sunna of Mohammed, so he is a moderate, pious Medinan Muslim.

The jihadists on September 11, 2001 were all moderate Medinan Muslims. They were not extremists or radicals.

The other kind of moderate Muslim follows the Koran of Mecca and he is more generally what kafirs mean when they say “moderate Muslim”. But how moderate is a Meccan Muslim? A moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir, but he isn’t violent, just antagonistic.

FP: So tell us exactly what “kafir” means. We take it to mean unbeliever but I presume it is more complicated than that.

Warner: The usual translation of this Arabic word is unbeliever, but unbeliever is only a very small part of its meaning. It is the Koran that defines the word “kafir” and it says the most terrible things can happen to them. The Koranic doctrine about kafirs says they are hated and are Satan’s friends. Kafirs can be robbed, killed, tortured, raped, mocked, cursed, condemned and plotted against. The Koran does not have one good thing to say about kafirs. (There are some psuedo-good words, but more about them later.)

For over the last 1400 years, 270 million kafirs have died as a result of the political doctrine of Islam. It is the biggest single source of suffering in the history of the world.

The word kafir is the worst word in the human language. It is far worse than the n-word, because the n-word is a personal opinion, whereas, kafir is Allah’s decree. Nearly two thirds of the Koran is devoted to the kafir. Islam is fixated on the kafir and the moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir. How moderate is that?

FP: I guess not very moderate.

Warner: Well the moderation does not stop there. A moderate Muslim follows Islamic ethics. Not only is the Koran a dualistic document, but also Islamic ethics are dualistic. Islam has one set of rules for Muslims and another set of rules for the kafirs. A Muslim does not lie, cheat, kill, or harm another Muslim. But, if it will advance Islam, a kafir may be cheated, deceived, murdered, tortured and raped. Or a Muslim may treat a kafir like a brother.

It is the dualism of Islam that gives it such power. It has the entire good cop/bad cop psychology built into its very DNA. There have been other groups with dualistic ethics, the KKK for instance. But a member of the KKK hates all blacks all the time. There is a certain bald-faced honesty in the hatred of the KKK. But Islam has the good cop face to the world most of the time. The bad cop is held in reserve the same way that a police detective carries a hidden weapon.

The ethical dualism means that Islam does not take part in the shared reciprocity of altruism. As an example, Islam is very big on charity, but Islamic charity only goes to Muslims. When Saudi Arabia sent money to New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, the money only went to Muslims, not to suffering kafirs.

FP: Can you expand a bit on reciprocity of altruism?

Warner: Reciprocity of altruism[1] is the very basis of civilization. Islam does not share this trait. This is one of the reasons that Islam is not a part, nor can it be, of kafir civilization. Islam is built on different ethics and logic than the kafirs. Islam’s dualistic ethics prohibit reciprocity of altruism. Islamic civilization and kafir civilization do not share similar values.

So a moderate non-violent Muslim thinks that you are a kafir and that a kafir does not have to be treated the same as another Muslim. The moderate Muslim (Islamic meaning) thinks that you are Allah’s scum and you can be treated like trash. Or not (dualism always has options).

How can such a person be a true friend, if he believes the Koran. In some 14 verses, the Koran says that the Muslim is not the friend of a kafir. But what if the person actually is your friend? We can deal with this very important question if you wish.

In any case, the term moderate Muslim has two totally different meanings. The kafir meaning is warm, fuzzy and incorrect. The Islamic meaning is cruel, precise and correct.

FP: What are some other false kafir names?

Warner: Radical Muslim. Extremist Muslim. Reformed Islam.

What is a radical Muslim? A radical Muslim is capable of harming kafirs. A radical Muslim is a Medinan Muslim, but a Medinan Muslim follows Mohammed’s actions. So killing kafirs is not radical. Harming kafirs follows Mohammed’s example and is pure Islam, not a radical interpretation.

FP: So, overall, what is the real issue here?

Warner: Islam.

These false names used by kafirs are an attempt to humanize Islam. The kafirized naming tries to put the violence (radical, extremist) outside of Islam or suggest that violence is a bizarre interpretation of Islamic doctrine. But Mohammed was involved in a violent episode on the average of every six weeks for his last nine years. Again, Mohammed defines moderation, and the violence is integral to Islam.

The doctrine of both religious and political Islam is based on dualism and submission. The religious doctrine is of no concern to a kafir. It is the politics that concerns kafirs.

Political Islam is based upon dualism and submission. All of humanity is divided into kafirs and Muslims, with not one good word for the kafirs.

Names like “moderate” and “good” are an attempt to link goodness and Islam. But there is no goodness in Islam for the kafir, only for another Muslim. This is extremely harsh, but it is a consequence of the doctrine of political Islam.

If you are well-read in the Islamic political doctrine, you may jump in and say that the Korans says a positive things about Christians and Jews. These few good things are a very few sentences. It is sad to see how Muslims and apologists drag the pitiful few sentences out of the Koran to show the good in Islam for the kafirs. First, compared to the massive amount of hateful, hurtful and evil things said about the kafirs, the few good sentences are statistically insignificant.

But worst of all is that the good verses are contradicted by later doctrine. This is another aspect of dualism.

The doctrine of Islam is not static since it is based upon the life of Mohammed. The doctrine describes a process. The conclusion of that process was annihilation of the native Arab culture with not a single enemy of Mohammed left standing. In the end, there is no good in Islam for the kafir, nothing. That is the conclusion to the process of political Islam. Those “nice, tolerant” verses are temporary tactics to be used while Islam is weak.

Most kafirs treat the doctrine of Islam like a box of those magnetic words you can put on the refrigerator. By choosing the right words, they can make any sentence and any thought. But the doctrine of Islam is a very coherent story. It has a beginning, middle and an end. Islamic doctrine is taken from the life of Mohammed, not from a dictionary of unrelated facts. Indeed, the remarkable thing about Islamic doctrine is how systematic and logical it is. You can’t just reach in and take a sentence or verse here and there.

What is the most important thing about a story is its conclusion.

FP: And the conclusion is?

Warner: The conclusion is that political Islam is always bad for the kafir. In the end, all Christians and Jews must submit to Islam. That is the goodness of Islam for kafirs. As long as the kafirs submit to Islam’s demands, then Islam is good to them.

Dualism is the key to understanding Islam. On the surface many parts of the Koran contradict each other. The usual explanation is that the older, nicer verses are abrogated by the later verses. But in reality all of the Koran is true since it comes from the only god, Allah. Allah is perfection, and therefore, the contradictory statements in the Koran are all true. This violates Aristotelian kafir logic, but it defines the Islamic dualistic logic. In Islam two contradictory things can both be true at the same time. So for every one of those statistically insignificant “good” verses, each one is weak, and the stronger harsh and violent verses are stronger. Contradictions are integral to Islamic logic.

To put a fine point on the previous claim—the only good for kafirs in the doctrine of political Islam is negated somewhere else.

FP: So what is the good of Islam?

Warner: Islam is the cause; Muslims are the effect. So if there is no good in Islam for a kafir, how is there any good in a Muslim for a kafir? There is not any good in a Muslim for kafirs. Cause and effect. But there can be good in people who call themselves Muslims.

Now we get to our central problem. There are some nice people who are Muslims, how do we explain this?

The doctrinal problem here is that a Muslim cannot be the friend of a kafir. The Koran says this 14 times. So if a friend is a Muslim, then that friendship has to be based on something other than Islam.

Notice that Islam has a strong core doctrine of mutual Muslims friendship; indeed the Koran says that Muslims are brothers and sisters to each other. And why can Muslims be friends? Because they are equal.

But a Muslim is not the political equal to a kafir because the Koran says that a Muslim is superior. So where does the good person who is a Muslim get his basis for friendship? The same place as everyone else does—from equality, the same equality that is inferred from the Golden Rule.

Treat others as you want to be treated.

Which others? All others, without exception. The Golden Rule implies the unity of humanity. There are no limits to its application.

The Golden Rule does not apply to Islam. Indeed, Islam denies the truth of the Golden Rule. The duality of Islam divides all humanity into Muslims and kafirs. There are no two groups more unequal than kafirs and Muslims.

FP: So what do we call the Muslim that is a friend of a non-believer?

Warner: The goodness in your Muslim friend comes from the kafir civilization, not Islam. Your friend is a kafirized Muslim, but he is not a good or a moderate Muslim. Remember, Osama bin Laden is a good and moderate Muslim.

FP: A kafirized Muslim. This is interesting. Expand for us please.

Warner: A kafirized Muslim is a new naming, but an old reality. For some reason, every analysis of Muslims assumes that they are completely Muslim, without any kafir in them. But Islam does not drive all Muslims in all aspects of their life. Kafir culture has some very appealing ideals and people who call themselves Muslims are attracted to the benevolence in it. A true Muslim has absolutely no attraction to any aspect of kafir culture. The Koran and Sunna condemn 100% of kafir culture, so no Muslim has any desire to emulate kafirs. As soon as a person has any attraction to any aspect of kafir culture, they cease to be a Muslim and become kafir. That is the way the doctrine of Islam works.

The name kafirized Muslim is analytic and fits the data. But kafirized Muslim is more than a name; it is a new concept with some very profound consequences.

What are its advantages? It is better than any of the alternatives such as a “good Muslim”, a “moderate Muslim” or my “Muslim friend”. All of these names are an attempt to bring some good out of Islam. But, there is no good in Islam for kafirs, only for Muslims.

The name kafirized Muslim acknowledges a bridge between Islam and kafirs. It is bigoted to assume that every Muslim has all of their behavior based upon Islam. Islam may demand that a person be 100% governed by Islam, but the truth is that Muslims are people and as people they are capable of picking and choosing. What is wrong with acknowledging that Muslims can be part kafir? What is wrong by acknowledging that the Golden Rule attracts Muslims?

The word “Muslim” entraps a person into a small box. What we need to be able to do is recognize the person, not the Muslim. We live in a multicultural age where the majority culture is defined as oppressive. In order to distinguish yourself, you should be separated from the main body. Hence, a name like African-American exists. But these names come with a box. If you are African-American, you are supposed to have certain political and social views. Similarly, the name Muslim can become a narrow category for a person. A Muslim should only have certain views, or you are not a “real” Muslim.

The name kafirized Muslim acknowledges that we are dealing with a person, not a category.

The usual names, (good Muslim, moderate Muslim), attempt to credit the good found in Muslims to the doctrine of Islam. The term kafirized Muslim clearly states that the good comes from the kafirs, not Islam.

Now we get to the crux of the politics of the made-up naming. These names represent a desperate attempt to deal with the problem of Islamic threats, violence and destruction of kafir civilization. Very few people know much about either the doctrine or history of political Islam. So they think of Islam as only a religion and believe since Islam has so many members, it must be one of the great religions. And all religions are good, so Islam must be good. But there is a nagging dark feeling about the violence in Islam. Since Islam has been defined good, there must be an explanation. Those Muslims who kill must be “extremist” Muslims. That leaves Islam as good with a few rotten apples.

In Islam, Mohammed, Ali, Umar, Abu Bakr and all of the rest of the founding Muslims were “extremist” Muslims since they were killers over and over again. What kafirs call extremism is only Islam.

FP: In the context of everything you are saying, what is the hope, or point, of trying to “reform” Islam?

Warner: Some come up with the thinking that if Islam has nothing good for kafirs, then why not reform it? This idea comes from making an analogy to Christianity. However, Islam’s claims aside, there are almost no points of comparison between Islam and Christianity. On the issue of ethics, for instance, there is absolutely no analogy.

The religion of Islam needs no reform. Who cares about how Muslims worship? All kafirs must be concerned with Islamic politics or how Islam defines them. The Koran, the Sira and the Hadith determine the treatment of kafirs.

To reform the Koran, all of the hateful, cruel, and bigoted references to kafirs would have to be removed. If the kafir material is removed, then only 39% of the Koran remains. The greatest part of the part of the Koran, 61%, is devoted to negativity about kafirs.

The Sira (the life of Mohammed) has about 75% of its material devoted to jihad.

The Hadith has 20% of its material devoted to jihad. There is no one positive reference to kafirs.

If you delete 61% of the Koran, 75% of the Sira and 20% of the Hadith, you will have reformed Islam. You will also have destroyed it. There is a very good reason that Islam has never been reformed. It is impossible.

Is it so hard to believe that a political system with the name “submission” (that is what Islam means) is violent and can't be reformed? To submit is a demand of force.

Why would Islam want to reform? It works. You don’t fix a system that works.

The other objection to Islamic reform is that there is no central hierarchy that makes decision for Muslims. Anyone can read the doctrine and decide what to do. No one has the authority to decide what every Muslim can do. In that way, Islam is like the Internet; it is a distributed system with no central doctrinal authority. Who speaks for Islam? Mohammed. Who interprets Mohammed? Any Muslim.

You can have a kafirized Muslim, but there is no such thing as kafirized Islam. Islam cannot be reformed. Hence, the name reformed Islam is only a kafir dream.

FP: So we need to start using the right names and terms.

Warner: Of course. The right names help to think right thoughts. Muddled names lead to muddled thoughts. If we are serious, we must start using the right names to describe Islam. Our terms must be based upon Islam, not kafir dreams.

If we want to refer to the more peaceful Muslims, call them Meccan Muslims. The jihadists are Medinan Muslims.

Wrong names include: moderate Muslim, extremist Muslim, good Muslim, radical Muslim.

Right names include: Meccan Muslim, Medinan Muslim, kafirized Muslim.

We must take control of the language. Incorrect names lead to incorrect thinking. We have to use the right names to defeat political Islam.

FP: So what point of view is your argument and outlook based on?

Warner: All of this analysis is based upon a kafir-centric view. There are three ways to examine Islam—believer, kafir and dhimmi. The believer-centric view is the standard Islamic viewpoint. For the believer, the Koran is the perfect word of the only god of the universe and Mohammed is the prefect pattern for all human life and all times.

Kafir-centric analysis looks at Islam from the viewpoint of the kafir; how does this affect us?

Kafir-centric analysis is the view of the victim. As an example, in the Sira, Mohammed’s triumph over the Meccan polytheists is told as a wonderful victory. From the view of the kafir, it represents the annihilation of a tolerant society and the creation of the modern apartheid state of Arabia. As a result of Islam, the Arabs went from being a tolerant people to being the most bigoted and biased society on earth.

The kafir-centric school is skeptical and analytic.

The dhimmi-centric viewpoint is the academic school and is neither fish nor fowl. It is marked by political correctness and never refers to the deaths of the 270 million kafirs, never talks about the suffering of the dhimmis. The dhimmi-centric school is actually believer-centric lite. It rarely applies skepticism. The dhimmi-centric school is the predominate school in the universities, military, law enforcement, government and the media. The dhimmi-centric school is very fond of using modern political science to analyze Islam.

One of the marks of the dhimmi-centric school is to ignore Islamic political theory. For instance, jihad is never used to explain violence. Or Israel is seen only as a modern political state and the Palestinians are just another political group. Reading the Israelis news stories, you would never know that Islam had a doctrine of war. But when you read the communications of the Palestinian leaders, it is crystal clear that it is jihad against the kafirs in Israel. From the standpoint of Islam, if every Jew in Israel were a Hindu, nothing would change.

Multiculturalism is all the rage these days. What is strange is that only the believer-centric school and the kafir-centric theory explain Islam by its doctrine. The dhimmi-centric academic school avoids this at all costs. This is ironic since it was the academics who created multiculturalism. So the dhimmi-centric school is bigoted and euro-centric by its own standards of multiculturalism.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for this fascinating and eye-opening discussion.

Warner: You are welcome Jamie.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=76B12F33-3165-47D1-80ED-C3F1ACD07D8A

[American_Jihad]

Exclusive: Islam 101: The Aims of Islam
May 21, 2008

To virtually all of us in the West, even to those at very high levels in our government who are charged with the responsibility of knowing, Islam is poorly known and therefore not understood. It is our contention that, until we fully understand Islam, we will not be able to address it properly.

To begin our understanding, we should know that Islam is much more than a religion; it is a doctrine of law that governs all areas of life, and there exists within Islam no Western concept of the separation of church and state. Islam believes in the integration of mosque and state while the West believes in the separation of church and state. Therefore, the form of government under which many Muslims live is a theocracy...far from a democracy, which is the form of government under which we thrive in the West.

This vast disparity in how we organize our societies would not be a problem for us if it were not for the fact that Islam seeks to dominate. Simply put, the aims of Islam, according to Islamic doctrine, are:

1. To take over the world for Allah by establishing a worldwide caliphate
2. To rule the land by Shar'ia law (Islamic law)
3. To subjugate or kill infidels who are defined as:

a) those not born Muslim,
b) those who have not submitted to Islamic faith belief or
c) those who have left Islamic faith belief, and

4. To take - exile - any survivors to a safe place.

Mohammed put forth these aims early in his founding of Islam. They are repeated often in the history of the several resurgences of Islam, and most recently, loudly and clearly by most prominent Islamic voices. No true, adherent Muslim denies these aims. Rather they live by them, perhaps closeted, even living quietly among us here in the U.S.

Editor's note: For various reasons, others restate or misinterpret these aims thereby causing great confusion for the rest of us. They miss the simplicity of the aims as outlined above. They use adjectives such as "moderate" Muslims or "radical" Muslims to describe different varieties of Islam and Islamic believers.

Yet, for those who believe in the pure teachings of The Holy Qur'an, the Muslims whom we in the West deem to be "radical" are not at all radical. As an example, to the Qur'anic believer, Osama bin Laden can be seen as a "moderate" Muslim who believes in and follows the teachings of The Holy Qur'an. Indeed, bin Laden quotes The Holy Qur'an quite often to justify his actions.


To the same believer, the "radicals" or "extremists" are the very Muslims we in the West deem to be "moderate" - those who have interpreted the teachings of The Holy Qur'an to incorporate modernity. This allows them to live under other forms of law than Shar'ia (such as U.S. Constitutional law) and absolutely to reject violence and terror for reasoned debate to resolve disagreements, however serious or frivolous. To the adherent Muslim, however, these peaceful Muslims are apostates, and can be killed for their apostasy.

In quantifying into "moderates" and "radicals" what it means to be a Muslim, well-meaning people believe in their good motivations that they are being more fair and tolerant of diversity than those who stick to the simple basics, the heart, belly and soul of what it means to be a Muslim. But the truth is that when pushed, all adherent Muslims, regardless of variety or sect, cleave to Mohammed's simply-stated and oft-repeated (by his followers) aims for Islam.

We are all well motivated. We all - most Muslims and non-Muslims alike - want to live in peace and to have certain things for ourselves, children, grandchildren and all that follow in our lines of heritage. But a critical piece of understanding the desire to live in peace is this: we want to live in peace, yes, but with our own views prevailing. What could be more desirable for a true believing Muslim than a worldwide caliphate? What could be more peaceful for the same believer than a world ruled by Shar'ia law, honoring Allah and his wishes for the world as derived and described by Mohammed and others in the Hadiths? In comparison and contrast, what could be more desirable for the rest of us than living freely, enjoying our human liberty, in a Democracy?

Since Mohammed was illiterate in any language, the Hadiths are writings dictated by Mohammed to those who could write, and especially after his passing, by thousands of Ayatollahs, Imams, Sheiks, Muslim holy men by any other name. The Hadiths describe, as interpretation of the Qur'an in part, how Muslims are to live life as Muslims: like Mohammed, originally as interpreted by Mohammed.

To take over the world for Allah, to establish a worldwide caliphate, is to proselytize to convert non-Muslims (infidels, or unbelievers) to Islam. But would Westerners want to convert? We are seeing and hearing of Shar'ia law as our awareness of Islam grows. It is the cutting off of hands of thieves; the elimination of homosexuals; the stoning to death, burying alive or beheading of women, even those who are so slack as to be raped, even by multiple men at one time.

Likewise we are learning of Muslim killing of infidels. We can see Islam in practice in Indonesia, the Philippines and the Netherlands against those who dare to publish cartoons of Mohammed and Islam. We know of the man in Afghanistan who declared he had left Islam to be a Christian. Heads of state had to intercede for this man's life to be spared. He had to be declared insane for him to be allowed to leave Afghanistan for a non-Muslim state, but still hidden away from Muslims determined to kill him.

The fourth aim of Islam listed above - to take, or exile, any survivors to a safe place - appears confusing, especially given aims 1 - 3. But likely "survivors" are those who have converted to Islam, although not Arabs, and those who aid, abet, apologize for and support Islam knowingly or unknowingly. Among the ways they aid, abet, apologize for and support Islam are their being more "fair" to Muslims, tolerant of diversity, misinterpreting Mohammed's original aims, missing the simplicity of his aims, using adjectives to describe different varieties of Islam and Islamic believers and interjecting only selected Muslim practices.

It is way past time to wake up people, to stop aiding, abetting, apologizing for and supporting Islam. The burden is on Muslims - the believers in and practitioners of Islamic faith belief and its aims - to explain themselves to the rest of the world.

Let's listen carefully for Islamic leaders and followers to condemn Islamic terrorism, not to lead, participate in or sit by in silent celebrations of it. Let's see if we can hear an Islamic leader or even our Muslim personal friends utterly condemn the events of 9/11/2001 as the barbaric acts they truly were, and also condemn 9/11's perpetrators as the mass murderers they clearly were, at least as we view it in the West.

Since an adherent Muslim sees 9/11 not as a brutal attack of mass murder but rather as a way to advance Islam's aims, we may well be listening for quite some time.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.166/pub_detail.asp

[American_Jihad]

These are the Dhimmis
June 17, 2008

Useful idiots: The Maddening Complaceny of the Dhimmi (http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/06/17/useful-idiots-the-maddening-complaceny-of-the-dhimmi/)

7th-21st century. The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to non-Muslims under Islamic rule—whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan. Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to accept a pact (”Dhimma”) which rendered them inferior to their Muslim conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a formal system of religious apartheid.

Institutionalized apartheid. In Shari’a law, there are official discriminations against the Dhimmi, such as the poll-tax or jizya. R>
No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.

Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that the Jews had to wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

Conditional protection. The protection of the Dhimmi is withdrawn if the Dhimmi rebels against Islamic law, gives allegiance to non-Muslim power (such as Israel), refuses to pay the poll-tax, entices a Muslim from his faith, or harms a Muslim or his property. If the protection is lifted, jihad resumes. For example, Islamists in Egypt who pillage and kill the Copts do so because they no longer pay their poll-tax and therefore are no longer protected.
From Dhimmi.com

http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/06/17/useful-idiots-the-maddening-complaceny-of-the-dhimmi/

[American_Jihad]

"Sharia Is Hate"
Monday, October 06, 2008

Imagine Dodger Stadium full of loud and whooping fans cheering on, not baseball, but your weekly stoning and flogging of adulterers, thieves and other errant citizens of southern California.

This is America under Islamic law, or Shari’a, a system that everyone should fear. Or so, Alan Kornman, director of the United American Committee (UAC) thinks. He continues to fundraise for a freeway billboard in Florida stating, “Shari’a Is Hate,” to educate America before it’s too late.

As Kornman argues, "under Shari’a law if you are accused of stealing, a hand and foot from opposite sides are amputated. If you are caught having an affair, the woman is stoned to death and the man is given 80 lashes. If you change religions, you can be charged under apostasy laws and given the death sentence by a legal Sharia court.”

The implementation of Shari’a is much more subtle than the quotation from Kornman suggests, however.


Through Shari’a, Islamists govern the private lives of individuals as well as regulate the social, political, and economic aspects of society. Islamism crosses national borders, with the final goal of asserting the Muslim ummah globally, with all non-Muslims as second class citizens. It is a totalitarian ideology, and Islamists do want to make Europe and the US Islamist states.


Don’t wait for floggings in your local neighborhood. Consider the following incidences:




1. Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing fares where would-be passengers are carrying alcohol because it is a sin to drink in Islam:



This first example exemplifies the lack of tolerance Islamists have for non-Muslims. It is one thing to believe drinking is a sin; it’s quite another to enforce your opinion on others. Muslims aren’t alone in this belief. Consider Mormons, who don’t drink coffee because of the caffeine. The problem is the belief that you have the right to impose your opinion on people of a different faith, or no faith at all.



The Metropolitan Airport Commission (MAC), possibly fearing charges of discrimination, tried to compromise and approached Kahlid Elmasry of the Muslim American Society, who sided with the cabbies: "it is expressly stated transportation of alcohol for Muslims is against the Islamic faith, and therefore forbidden."



But this is not an Islamic country. The Constitution governs us, not Shari’a. Therefore, Elmasry’s defense of the cabbies’ position reinforced their notion that Islamic law trumps American secular law. In a later lawsuit, the cabbies lost and intend to appeal.



2. Niqabi fails to reveal face for ID purposes.



The second example concerns Muslim women and modesty. While there is no specific definition of what modesty entails in the Quran, Islamists increasingly demand the niqab, which covers a woman’s body, hair, and her face. Islamists refuse to concede that the niqab is not a requirement of Islam, but greatly debated among Muslims. Yet, when Americans raise security concerns, Islamists call them racist.



Consider, Sultana Freeman, a niqabi in Florida. She refused to remove her veil for picture identification purposes at the DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) citing modesty. In reality, she mocks any reasonable person’s definition of modesty since ID pictures have nothing to do with attraction and sexuality, completely ignoring Florida’s right to identify its citizenry for the sake of public safety. Such blind adherence to Shari’a rather than the laws of the state exemplifies the disdain Islamists have for non-Muslims wherever they may live as well as common sense.



3. Polygamy in America



Imams in the United States are obligated to perform their duties within the limits of American secular law. Yet, some Imams, like Siraj Wahhaj, prefer to ignore American law where it conflicts with Islamic law. Wahhaj stated in Paul Barrett's 2007 book American Islam* that, "If a man can have a hundred girlfriends, and it's legal, I don't say you can't have more than one wife.”



Rather than explain what is wrong with men having multiple relationships, Wahhaj greenlights it under the guise of polygamy despite American law against it. This is because he only sees relationships from a usurious male perspective when he should be teaching men to see women as equals and partners. Moreover, he ignores a woman’s perspective entirely. Subsequent wives have no legal rights. Family problems, domestic abuse, combined with economic dependency, forces women to remain silent when issues arise.



Wahhaj also ignores the criminal fraud behind polygamy as well. The UK, Canada, like the US, face welfare fraud every time polygamous marriages are made. Subsequent wives live in a marital household, yet can file for welfare as single women because they failure to register the marriage. The failure to register is not an accident. Polygamous couples know that if they file they will be arrested for violating local bigamy laws. Second, these couples realize the financial advantages given current welfare policy. Such fraud is occurring in the thousands and is a burden to all taxpayers.



It is time for policymakers to realize that Sharia is a system of hate and must not gain any influence in American society. It denigrates women, non-Muslims and the US Constitution. Policymakers must define the limits of religious accommodation in light of the Islamist agenda. Otherwise, democracy and true tolerance will be mere words with no meaning as Islamism spreads in the West. The UAC billboard is a good start in bringing the danger of Sharia to the nation’s attention.

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CF932D27-0FB4-4831-B2FB-776402756F6E

[American_Jihad]

Filmmaker Defends Anti-Islam Warnings
CBN News Reporter
October 13, 2008

CBNNews.com - Politician Geert Wilders may be the most widely known Dutchman in the world.

His short Internet film "Fitna" attacked Islam as a violent, dangerous religion, and has probably made him the most hated Dutchman in the Muslim world.

The Dutch government recently said that the threat level to the Netherlands from Islamic terrorists is "substantial" because of Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament and the founder of the Freedom Party

The politician is an atheist who defends Judeo-Christian civilization, and has attacked Islam for years, calling Islamic culture "retarded." But it was his short film "Fitna" this year, about the violence in the Koran, that has put him squarely in the crosshairs of terrorists.

Many Muslims in the world would like to kill Wilders. He's lived for the past four years under state protection, with a death threat over his head, and with a number of Islamic nations around the world wanting to put him on trial for blasphemy.

Click play to watch CBN News Reporter Dale Hurd's conversation with the controversial Wilders, or read the transcript below. (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/462094.aspx)

Dale Hurd: What was the purpose of the film "Fitna?"

Geert Wilders: Our country, the Netherlands as many other countries is based on Christianity, is based on Judaism, is even based on humanism. But not on islam. And this is what I wanted to show people, not by using actors, but by using real images and real verses from the Koran, that the Koran is not just and old book from 1500 years ago.It's a book that is still very alive today. And people get a lot of wrong incentives from it today.

So I wanted to warn the people and I was quite successful, whatever you may think about "Fitna." In the Netherlands more than 3 million people watched it after 24 hours. And worldwide more than 20 million people watched it after two weeks.

Hurd: I'm sure people who have watched you provoke Islam over the years wonder if you have a death wish. Are you secretly daring Muslims to try to kill you?

Wilders: No and I'm not even provoking them as you said. I try to warn the people in the Netherlands and maybe even abroad and Western societies about the actual danger that Islam brings to our society and to our freedom.

Hurd: Do you believe that a moderate of democratic Islam can exist?

Wilders: No. I don't believe in it. I don't think there is a European Islam. There is no moderate Islam. Islam is, as I see it, a fascist ideology, full of hatred, submission and anything else that we should fight against. However, I make a distinction between the ideology, I believe islam is more an ideology than a religion and the people. There are of course, people, Muslims.I have nothing against Muslims who are not terrorists, who are.the majority of the Muslims in my country are law abiding people; are not terrorists at all.

Hurd: I've heard you call Islamic culture "retarded."

Wilders: It is a culture of backwardness, of retardedness, of barbarism.

Hurd: You've been called a racist. Do you believe in the superiority of whites?

Wilders: No, of course not. I am not a racist. I'm not even in contact with countries, with parties like the British National Party who believe in black and white. I am a Democrat, full stop.

Hurd: In your speech to parliament a few days ago, you referred to Muslim "colonists." What did you mean?

Wilders: Well, people that are coming to the Netherlands to stir up problems or who are in the Netherlands, they are not here to integrate. But to dominate. They don't give a d---, excuse my words, for all he criticism and all the culture that we have in the Netherlands today.

That's why I call them colonists. We have immigrants from Morocco who have been living here for 30 years who don't speak a word of Dutch.

Hurd: So you see Islam growing, you see a government you don't believe cares enough. So where is the Netherlands headed on this issue?

Wilders: The biggest problem we face today is the dominant political culture is one of cultural relativism. Most of the political elite really do believe in cultural relativism - really do believe that all cultures are equal. Wereas I believe they are not equal.

I believe the Christian and the Jewish culture is far better. And I'm not ashamed to say it. I'm not a racist to say that the Christian culture is better than the Islamic culture. There is an enormous gap between the political elite and the vox populi.

The people see that our country is changing. They see in their streets, in their neighborhoods, in their cities, in their villages; they see that it's often not the Netherlands anymore. They feel they live in "Little Morocco" or "Little Turkey."

We have an Islamic intifada today. I'm not exaggerating. In many, many cities in the netherlands. This is a problem. And the government looks the other directiuon and ignores it and puts it under the carpet, all the problems.

Hurd: Are you tired of living with a death threat over your head?

Wilders: Well, not tired, but sometimes - not sometimes - I wish I didn't have it. And I am not exaggerating if I say I lost my freedom. I lived in prison cells for half a year and army barracks and moved two places.

My life changed a lot and I can manage, and people don't have to have sympathy for me because I feel I have a mission. My mission is very strong, and I really believe in it. And I know that if we really don't get a sense of urgency and act and defend our culture, defend our freedom, that it's too late.

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/462094.aspx

[American_Jihad]

Muslim Cock Sucker Anjem Choudary brands Christmas 'evil'
12/10/08



Muslim preacher Anjem Choudary has branded Christmas "evil" in a sermon posted on the internet.

The lawyer, who recently praised the Mumbai terror attacks, urged all Muslims to reject traditional Christmas celebrations, claiming that they are forbidden by Allah.

The 41-year-old shocked Christians and even those of his own faith by branding yuletide festivities as "the pathway to hellfire".

Choudary, who is chairman of the Society of Muslim Lawyers, ruled out all celebrations, including having a Christmas tree, decorating the house or eating turkey.

In the sermon posted on an Islamic website, he said: "In the world today many Muslims, especially those residing in western countries, are exposed to the evil celebration Christmas.

"Many take part in the festival celebrations by having Christmas turkey dinners.

"Decorating the house, purchasing Christmas trees or having Christmas turkey meals are completely prohibited by Allah.

"Many still practise this corrupt celebration as a remembrance of the birth of Jesus.

"How can a Muslim possibly approve or participate in such a practice that bases itself on the notion Allah has an offspring?

"The very concept of Christmas contradicts and conflicts with the foundation of Islam.

"Every Muslim has a responsibility to protect his family from the misguidance of Christmas, because its observance will lead to hellfire. Protect your Paradise from being taken away – protect yourself and your family from Christmas."

Choudary is Principal Lecturer at the London School of Shari'ah and a follower of the Islamist militant leader Omar Bakri Mohammed.

Earlier this year, he led a meeting at the heart of the area where the liquid bombers lived, which warned of a British September 11.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3699565/Muslim-lawyer-Anjem-Choudary-brands-Christmas-evil.html

[_Kona_Boy_]

Nice work Americian Jihad

[_Kona_Boy_]

Ended that topic....... memritv.org has some new stuff check it out

[American_Jihad]

French court charges teen
By Ron Kampeas · January 10, 2009

(JTA) -- A French court charged four BEASTS in an attack on a Jewish girl.

The juvenile court filed preliminary charges Friday against four youths, aged 13-15, who allegedly insulted, knocked down and kicked a 14-year old Jewish girl as she was leaving school in a Paris suburb. She suffered light injuries.

The judge charged three of the youths with "violence with a religious or ethnic motive," the Associated Press reported, and the fourth was charged with not preventing a crime.

Investigators say the alleged attackers used Israel's war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip as an excuse to attack the girl.

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/10/1002143/french-court-charges-teen

[Vancouver]

,,,,

[American_Jihad]

Prominent Orchard Park man charged with beheading his wife
02/13/09 09:54

Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.

"He came to the police station at 6:20 p.m. [Thursday] and told us that she was dead," Orchard Park Police Chief Andrew Benz said late this morning.

Muzzammil Hassan told police that his wife was at his business, Bridges TV, on Thorn Avenue in the village. Officers went to that location and discovered her body.

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light.

The killing apparently occurred some time late Thursday afternoon. Detectives still are looking for the murder weapon.

"Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible," Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said today.

Authorities say Aasiya Hassan recently had filed for divorce from her husband.

"She had an order of protection that had him out of the home as of Friday the 6th [of February]," Benz said.

Muzzammil Hassan was arraigned before Village Justice Deborah Chimes and sent to the Erie County Holding Center.

http://www.buffalonews.com/437/story/578644.html

[American_Jihad]

The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism

Historical facts say that Islam has been imperialistic—and would still like to be, if only for religious reasons. Many Muslim clerics, scholars, and activists, for example, would like to impose Islamic law around the world. Historical facts say that Islam, including Muhammad, launched their own Crusades against Christianity long before the European Crusades.

Today, Muslim polemicists and missionaries, who believe that Islam is the best religion in the world, claim that the West has stolen Islamic lands and that the West (alone) is imperialistic.One hardline Muslim emailer to me said about the developed West and the undeveloped Islamic countries: 'You stole our lands' and then he held his finger on the exclamation key to produce a long string of them.

Thus imperialism, a word that has reached metaphysical levels and that is supposed to stop all debates and answer all questions, explains why Islamic countries have not kept up with the West. The emailer did not look inwardly, as if his own culture and religion may play a role. Instead, it is always the West's fault.

Westerners—even academics—accept the notion that the West alone was aggressive. It seems that Islam is always innocent and passive. It is difficult to uncover the source of this Western self—loathing. It is, however, a pathology that seems to strike Westerners more than other people around the globe. This anti—West pathology shows up in Westerners' hatred for the European Crusades in the Medieval Age.

It must be admitted that there is much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the mission and ministry of Jesus and the first generations of Christians, then the Crusades do not look so good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant?

The purpose of this article is not to justify or defend European Crusades, but to explain them, in part—though scholarship can go a long way to defend and justify them

In this article, the word 'crusade' (derived from the Latin word for 'cross') in an Islamic context means a holy war or jihad. It is used as a counterweight to the Muslim accusation that only the Europeans launched crusades. Muslims seem to forget that they had their own, for several centuries before the Europeans launched theirs as a defense against the Islamic expansion.

We will employ a partial timeline spanning up to the first European response to Islamic imperialism, when Pope Urban II launched his own Crusade in 1095. The timeline mostly stays within the parameters of the Greater Middle East. The data in bold print are of special interest for revealing early Islamic atrocities, their belief in heroism in warfare, or politics today.

The Islamic Crusades were very successful. The Byzantines and Persian Empires had worn themselves out with fighting, so a power vacuum existed. Into this vacuum stormed Islam.

After the timeline, two questions are posed, which are answered at length

The Timeline

630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

This tax sets the stage for Muhammad's and the later Caliphs' policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

632—634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.

633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35).

634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al—Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: 'The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.' To this Khalid retorts: 'How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many' (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: '[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists' (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem's; the second mine).

634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.

635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus

636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.

637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)

638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.

638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.

639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.

641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.

643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.

644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.

644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.

656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.

656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.

657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali

661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.

661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus

673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire

680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.

691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.

705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.

710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.

711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.

719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor

732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance

749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids

756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids

762 Foundation of Baghdad

785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova

789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.

800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia

807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem

809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy

813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country

831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy

850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer

855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)

837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France

869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq

909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia

928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)

937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places

937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked

960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam

966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem

969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo

c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East

973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids

1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed

1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)

1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians

1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses

1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus

1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed

1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.

1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate

1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection

1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia

1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine

1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)

1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia

1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana

1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies

1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca

1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands

1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970

1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099

So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades.

It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. And sometimes the Muslims behaved exemplarily. Both are true. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was not always the case.

Moreover, we should take a step back and look at the big picture. If Islam had stayed in Arabia and had not waged wars of conquest, then no troubles would have erupted. But the truth is this: Islam moved aggressively during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar in the seventh century, with other Caliphs continuing well beyond that; only then did the Western Europeans react (see 1094).

It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far.

Two questions are posed and then answered at length.

Besides following Muhammad, why else did the Muslims launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the first place?

It is only natural to ask why Islam launched its own Crusades long before Christendom did.

In the complicated Muslim Crusades that lasted several centuries before the European Crusades, it is difficult to come up with a grand single theory as to what launched these Crusades. Because of this difficulty, we let three scholars and two eyewitness participants analyze the motives of the early Islamic Crusades.

1. World religious conquest

Muslim polemicists like Sayyid Qutb assert that Islam's mission is to correct the injustices of the world. What he has in mind is that if Islam does not control a society, then injustice dominates it, ipso facto. But if Islam dominates it, then justice rules it (In the Shade of the Qur'an, vol. 7, pp. 8—15). Islam is expansionist and must conquer the whole world to express Allah's perfect will on this planet, so Qutb and other Muslims believe.

2. 'Unruly' energies in Arabia?

Karen Armstrong, a former nun and well—spoken, prolific author and apologist for Islam, comes up short of a satisfactory justification for the Muslim Crusades:

Once [Abu Bakr] crushed the rebellion [against Islamic rule within Arabia], Abu Bakr may well have decided to alleviate internal tensions by employing the unruly energies within the ummah [Muslim community] against external foes. Whatever the case, in 633 Muslim armies began a new series of campaigns in Persia, Syria and Iraq. (Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, New York: Ballantine, 1997, p. 226).

Armstrong also notes that the 'external foes' to Islam in Arabia in 633 are the Persians and the Byzantines, but they are too exhausted after years of fighting each other to pose a serious threat to Islam. Therefore, it moved into a 'power vacuum,' unprovoked (Armstrong p. 227). She simply does not know with certainty why Muslims marched northward out of Arabia.

3. Religion, economy, and political control

Fred M. Donner, the dean of historians specializing in the early Islamic conquests, cites three large factors for the Islamic Crusades. First, the ideological message of Islam itself triggered the Muslim ruling elite simply to follow Muhammad and his conquests; Islam had a divinely ordained mission to conquer in the name of Allah. (The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton UP, 1981, p. 270). The second factor is economic. The ruling elite 'wanted to expand the political boundaries of the new state in order to secure even more fully than before the trans—Arab commerce they had plied for a century or more' (p. 270). The final factor is political control. The rulers wanted to maintain their top place in the new political hierarchy by having aggressive Arab tribes migrate into newly conquered territories (p. 271).

Thus, these reasons they have nothing to do with just wars of self—defense. Early Islam was merely being aggressive without sufficient provocation from the surrounding Byzantine and Persian Empires.

4. Sheer thrill of conquest and martyrdom

Khalid al—Walid (d. 642), a bloodthirsty but superior commander of the Muslim armies at the time, also answers the question as to why the Muslims stormed out of Arabia, in his terms of surrender set down to the governor of al—Hirah, a city along the Euphrates River in Iraq. He is sent to call people to Islam or pay a 'protection' tax for the 'privilege' of living under Islamic rule (read: not to be attacked again) as dhimmis or second—class citizens. Says Khalid:

'I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then [you must pay] the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will fight you until God decides between us and you.' (Tabari, The Challenge to the Empires, trans. Khalid Yahya Blankinship, NY: SUNYP, 1993, vol. 11, p. 4; Arabic page 2017)

Thus, according to Khalid, religion is early Islam's primary motive (though not the only one) of conquering people.

In a short sermon, Abu Bakr says:

. . . Indeed, the reward in God's book for jihad in God's path is something for which a Muslim should love to be singled out, by which God saved [people] from humiliation, and through which He has bestowed nobility in this world and the next. (Tabari 11:80 / 2083—84)

Thus, the Caliph repeats the Quran's trade of this life for the next, in an economic bargain and in the context of jihad (cf. Suras 4:74; 9:111 and 61:10—13). This offer of martyrdom, agreeing with Donner's first factor, religious motivation, is enough to get young Muslims to sign up for and to launch their Crusades out of Arabia in the seventh century.

Khalid also says that if some do not convert or pay the tax, then they must fight an army that loves death as other people love life (see 634).

5. Improvement of life over that in Arabia

But improvement of life materially must be included in this not—so—holy call. When Khalid perceived that his Muslim Crusaders desired to return to Arabia, he pointed out how luscious the land of the Persians was:

'Do you not regard [your] food like a dusty gulch? By God, if struggle for God's sake and calling [people] to God were not required of us, and there were no consideration except our livelihood, the wise opinion would [still] have been to strike this countryside until we possess it'. . . . (Tabari 11:20 / 2031)

Khalid was from Mecca. At the time of this 'motivational' speech, the Empire of Persia included Iraq, and this is where Khalid is warring. Besides his religious goal of Islamizing its inhabitants by warfare, Khalid's goal is to 'possess' the land.

Like Pope Urban II in 1095 exhorting the Medieval Crusaders to war against the Muslim 'infidels' for the first time, in response to Muslim aggression that had been going on for centuries, Abu Bakr gives his own speech in 634, exhorting Muslims to war against the 'infidels,' though he is not as long—winded as the Pope.

Muslim polemicists believe that Islam spread militarily by a miracle from Allah. However, these five earth—bound reasons explain things more clearly.

Did the Islamic Crusades force conversions by the sword?

Historical facts demonstrate that most of the conquered cities and regions accepted the last of three options that were enforced by the later Muslim Crusaders: (1) fight and die, (2) convert and pay the zakat tax; (3) keep their Biblical faith and pay the jizya tax. Most preferred to remain in their own religion.

However, people eventually converted. After all, Islamic lands are called such for a reason—or many reasons. Why? Four Muslim polemicists whitewash the reasons people converted, so their scholarship is suspect.

1. The polemical answer

First, Malise Ruthven and Azim Nanji use the Quran to explain later historical facts:

'Islam expanded by conquest and conversion. Although it was sometimes said that the faith of Islam was spread by the sword, the two are not the same. The Koran states unequivocally, 'There is no compulsion in religion' (Sura 2:256).' (Historical Atlas of Islam, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard, 2004, 30).

According to them, the Quran says there should be no compulsion, so the historical facts conform to a sacred text. This shaky reasoning is analyzed, below.

Next, David Dakake also references Sura 2:256, and defines compulsion very narrowly. Jihad has been misrepresented as forcing Jews, Christians, and other peoples of the Middle East, Asia and Africa to convert to Islam 'on pain of death.' ('The Myth of Militant Islam,' Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, ed. J.E.B. Lumbard, Bloomington: World Wisdom, 2004, p. 13). This is too narrow a definition of compulsion, as we shall see, below.

Finally, Qutb, also citing Sura 2:256, is even more categorical:

'Never in its history did Islam compel a single human being to change his faith' (In the Shade of the Qur'an, vol. 8, p. 307).

This is absurd on its face, and it only demonstrates the tendentiousness of Islamic scholarship, which must be challenged at every turn here in the West. For more information and thorough logic, see this article.

2. The historical facts

History does not always follow Scriptures because people do not. Did the vast majority of conquered peoples make such fine distinctions, even if a general amnesty were granted to People of the Book? Maybe a few diehards did, but the majority? Most people at this time did not know how to read or could barely read, so when they saw a Muslim army outside their gates, why would they not convert, even if they waited? To Ruthven's and Nanji's credit, they come up with other reasons to convert besides the sword, such as people's fatigue with church squabbles, a few doctrinal similarities, simplicity of the conversion process, a desire to enter the ranks of the new ruling elite, and so on. But using the Quran to interpret later facts paints the history of Islam into a corner of an unrealistically high standard.

This misguided connection between Scripture and later historical facts does not hold together. Revelations or ideals should not run roughshod over later historical facts, as if all followers obey their Scriptures perfectly.

To his credit, Ibn Khaldun (1332—1406), late Medieval statesman, jurist, historian, and scholar, has enough integrity and candor to balance out these four Muslim apologists, writing a history that is still admired by historians today. He states the obvious:

In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. (The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to History (abridged), trans. Franz Rosenthal, Princeton UP, 1967, p.183)

When the Islamic Crusaders go out to conquer, carrying an Islamic banner inscribed in Arabic of the glory and the truth of their prophet, Ibn Khaldun would not deny that the army's mission, besides the material reasons of conquest, is to convert the inhabitants. Islam is a 'universalizing' religion, and if its converts enter its fold either by persuasion or force, then that is the nature of Islam.

Moreover, Ibn Khaldun explains why a dynasty rarely establishes itself firmly in lands of many different tribes and groups. But it can be done after a long time and employing the following tactics, as seen in the Maghrib (N and NW Africa) from the beginning of Islam to Ibn Khaldun's own time:

The first (Muslim) victory over them and the European Christians (in the Maghrib) was of no avail. They continued to rebel and apostatized time after time. The Muslims massacred many of them. After the Muslim religion had been established among them, they went on revolting and seceding, and they adopted dissident religious opinions many times. They remained disobedient and unmanageable . . . . Therefore, it has taken the Arabs a long time to establish their dynasty in the . . . Maghrib. (p. 131)

Conclusion

Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it. Given this historical fact, it is only natural that the New Testament would never endorse violence to spread the word of the true God. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Jesus.

In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622—632), he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double—crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.

It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.

But this means that the Church had to fight back or be swallowed up by an aggressive religion over the centuries. Thus, the Church did not go out and conquer in a mindless, bloodthirsty, and irrational way—though the Christian Crusades were far from perfect.

Islam was the aggressor in its own Crusades, long before the Europeans responded with their own.

James Arlandson can be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

Supplemental Material

Please see this two—part article (here and here) for the rules of Islamic warfare. Too often they do not follow simple justice, but were barbaric and cruel, such as permitting sex with newly captured female prisoners of war.

This article goes into more detail on the motives for Islamic expansion and a comparison with Christianity. The second major section discusses the weak Islamic claim on Jerusalem.

This book by Andrew Bostom is the antidote to the false belief that life under Islam was always a bed of roses. Bostom provides many source documents, sometimes translated for the first time. Here are some online samples. This two—part article (here and here) recounts Muslim atrocities in Palestine. This two—part article (here and here) demonstrates that jihad produced the European Crusades.

References

Gil, Moshe. A History of Palestine: 634—1099. Cambridge UP, 1983, 1997.

Nicolle, David. The Armies of Islam. Men—at—Arms. Osprey, 1982.

———. Saladin and the Saracens. Men—at Arms. Osprey, 1986.

———. Armies of the Muslim Conquests. Men—at—Arms. Osprey, 1993.

———. The Moors, the Islamic West. Men—at—Arms. Osprey, 2001.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html

[American_Jihad]

What Islam is Not.

A study of the effects of Islamization.

http://perfectlyhuman.multiply.com/video/item/8


http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3769/phislamwilldominatespac.jpg (http://img220.imageshack.us/my.php?image=phislamwilldominatespac.jpg)

[Zakath]

The Truth about Islamic Crusades and Imperialism
Not to make too fine a point, but weren't "Crusades" the response of Christendom to Muslim imperialism?

[American_Jihad]

Not to make too fine a point, but weren't "Crusades" the response of Christendom to Muslim imperialism?

I believe they were Zak, I never followed up but you can:

Contacting James Arlandson (http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/contact.htm)

[American_Jihad]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ :happy_11:

[American_Jihad]

Muslim Demographics and Analysis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU) :add08:

[American_Jihad]

Top ten rules in the Quran that oppress women

Islam in its purest form honors and elevates women, we are often told. But does it?

All too often, textual reality (the Quran) matches up with the historical reality of seventh—century Arabia. Gender inequality and oppression in the Quran reflect the culture of seventh century desert nomads. If Allah and Muhammad improved on this patriarchy, then they did not go far enough for a religion with a claim to universality.

Here are the top ten rules in the Quran that oppress and insult women.

10. A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like . . . . (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004)

We should make no mistake about this verse. It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that 'a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.'

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad's words and actions outside of the Quran. Two reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875). The hadith come only second in importance and sacredness among the vast majority of Muslims around the world. Since the hadith is explicit, the readers are invited to click here and read for themselves, at their own discretion: Muslim nos. 3363—3365. See these parallel hadith here and here.

We should have no doubt that the husband controlled their sex life. If a woman does not want to have sex, then angels curse her.

. . . 'If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angels send their curses on her till morning.' (Bukhari)

Here is a back—up article, and another is here.

9. Husbands are a degree above their wives.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

. . . Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status . . . (Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Meaning of the Qur'an, vol. 1, p. 165)

Gender inequality shows up in a theological context. This hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.

The Prophet said, 'I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.' (Bukhari, emphasis added; see also these parallel traditions here and here)

This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands' ingratitude and harshness. See this article for details on women in Islamic hell.

Muhammad was also superstitious (see here and here for the evidence).This hadith says that women are part of an evil omen.

I heard the Prophet saying. 'Evil omen is in three things: The horse, the woman and the house.' (Bukhari)

More detail can be found here. This article also supports this ninth point.

8. A male gets a double share of the inheritance over that of a female.

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

For how this religious law works out in early Islam, see hadith here, here and here.

Malik (d. 795) is a founder of a major school of law. He composed a law book that is also considered a collection of reliable hadith: Al—Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law (rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001). Malik writes:

The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us . . . about fixed shares of inheritance (fara'id) of children from the mother or father when one or the other dies is that if they leave male and female children, the male takes the portion of two females.

This Islamic law is regressive. In the US, for example, inheritance is divided equally among all siblings, regardless of the gender. No religious law prohibits this from happening. So American secular law fits into a modern context better, where women have more economic opportunities and freedom. This online booklet has a short explanation on women's inheritance 'rights.' Click on Chapter 15.

More information can be found here and here.

7. A woman's testimony counts half of a man's testimony.

The Quran in Sura 2:282 says:

And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents [contracts of loans without interest]. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 205).

The foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may 'forget' something. This verse goes to the nature of womankind, and implies that a woman's mind is weak.

This hadith removes any ambiguity about women's abilities in Sura 2:282:

The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.' (Bukhari, emphasis added)

More information can be found here and here.

6. A wife may remarry her ex—husband if and only if she marries another man, they have sex, and then this second man divorces her.

The Quran in Sura 2:230 says:

And if the husband divorces his wife (for the third time), she shall not remain his lawful wife after this (absolute) divorce, unless she marries another husband and the second husband divorces her. [In that case] there is no harm if they [the first couple] remarry . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 165)

The finally and absolutely divorced couple is not permitted to remarry each other unless she marries another man, they have sex, and he divorces her. Sura 2:230 engenders a divorce on the road to a possible reconciliation. Why have the intervening step of a second marriage and divorce before the first couple can work out their differences and get back together?

To see this tragedy in real life, go to this question and answer feature at a traditional Muslim fatwa website. Apparently, a Muslim husband pronounced divorce three times, the divorce is final, and now he regrets his decision made in haste and anger. The cleric or scholar says that they are allowed to reconcile only if she follows the Quranic steps of her marrying someone else, consummating that marriage, and then his divorcing her. As for divorce generally,

This article analyzes the ethics behind Quranic divorce procedures and contrasts them with the New Testament. This very short article at a Muslim website shows concern for the divorce rate in Islam. This short page at a Muslim website explains divorce. This short article at a Muslim website also gives an overview on divorce, under the larger section on women.

This news report says that problems emerge in the modern world during the Islamic divorce proceedings. This news report says that Malaysia permits 'text messaging' divorce. At this Muslim website an Islamic scholar answers the question of a Muslim who wrote in about divorce. Here is a fatwa (legal decree) on divorce from a Muslim website.

These links can yield only one conclusion: Islamic divorce favors the man.

More detail can be found here. This article replies to a Muslim polemicist. It analyzes the differences between Christianity and Islam on divorce.

5. Slave—girls are sexual property for their male owners.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place? No marriage should take place between prisoners of war and their captives, married or not. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords.

Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so. For more information on this Quran—inspired immorality, see this short article. See also Suras 4:3; 23:5—6; 33:50; 70:22—30, all of which permit male slave—owners to have sex with their slave—girls. Suras 23:5—6 and 70:22—230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars in Medina.

The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one—fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law, had just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus [of the booty] and . . . Ali had taken a bath [after a sexual act with a slave—girl from the Khumus].

What was Muhammad's response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don't hate him, for he deserves more that that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave—girls.

Moreover, jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason that the reader may expect. While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists 'received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.' They asked the Prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say. He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever. Rather, he invoked the murky, quirky doctrine of fate:

It is better for you not to do so [practice coitus interruptus]. There is no person that is destined to exist, but will come to existence, till the Day of Resurrection. (Bukhari; also go here and here)

That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born.

It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

This article quotes the Quran and many hadith passages on sex with prisoners of war. It also analyzes modern Islamic scholars on the topic. They support this practice. In Appendix One, the author answers a Muslim charge that the Old Testament allows this practice. This article provides further details on Muhammad's encouragement to his soldiers to 'just do it.' In addition to the two previous links, more information can be found here and here.

4. A man may be polygamous with up to four wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:3 says:

And if you be apprehensive that you will not be able to do justice to the orphans, you may marry two or three or four women whom you choose. But if you apprehend that you might not be able to do justice to them, then marry only one wife, or marry those who have fallen in your possession. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 305)

The clause 'marry those who have fallen in your possession' means slave—girls who were captured after a war. Men may 'marry' them because slaves do not incur very much expense, not as much as free women do. This means that the limit on four wives is artificial. Men could have sex with as many slave—girls as they wanted.

Maududi paraphrases the verse: 'If you need more than one [wife] but are afraid that you might not be able to do justice to your wives from among the free people, you may turn to slave girls because in that case you will be burdened with less responsibilities' (note 6) (See Sura 4:24).
However, Muhammad would not allow polygamy for his son—in—law Ali, because an extra wife would hurt Muhammad's first daughter Fatima, by his first wife Khadija. Fatima was married to Ali.

I heard Allah's Apostle who was on the pulpit, saying, 'Banu Hisham bin Al—Mughira have requested me to allow them to marry their daughter to Ali bin Abu Talib, but I don't give permission, and will not give permission unless 'Ali bin Abi Talib divorces my daughter in order to marry their daughter, because Fatima is a part of my body, and I hate what she hates to see, and what hurts her, hurts me.' (Bukhari)

Muhammad's special marriage privileges

Moreover, it seems that Allah gave Muhammad special permission to marry as many women as he desired or take them as slaves or concubines, just as in the pre—Islamic days of ignorance.

The Quran in Sura 33:50, a lengthy verse, grants Muhammad wide latitude in his marriages:

O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave—girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers . . . . (Maududi vol. 4, p. 111, emphasis added).

This verse says that besides those women whose dowery Muhammad paid, he may marry slave—girls—that is, he may have sex with them (see this article and this one for more information on this Quran—inspired immorality). Maududi references three slave—girls taken during raids, and Mary the Copt, a gift from an Egyptian ruler. Muhammad had sex with her, and there does not seem to be a political need for this. Second, Muhammad may marry his first cousins, and Maududi cites a case in which this happened. Third, if a believing woman offers herself to Muhammad, and he desires her, then he may marry her (Maududi vol. 4, note 88).

This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave—girls.

But the capstone of these 'special' marriages occurs when Muhammad also marries the ex—wife (Zainab) of his adopted son (Zaid). His son—in—law divorced her with the Prophet standing in the background. In fact, early Islamic sources say that Muhammad catches a glimpse of his daughter—in—law in a state of undress, so he desired her. Once the divorce is final, Allah conveniently reveals to him that this marriage between father—in—law and daughter—in—law is legal and moral in Sura 33:36—44.

This hadith says that Muhammad used to visit nine (or eleven) wives in one night. See the parallel hadith here, here, and here. This article explains why Christians do not accept polygamy. This page in an online index explains polygamy. For a more thorough analysis of polygamy in the Quran, go to this online booklet and click on Chapter 12.

See this article on the number of wives and human sexual property Muhammad allowed himself. Here is yet another article. At the end, it links to more articles on the marriage and divorce of Zainab and Muhammad.

3. A husband may simply get rid of one of his undesirable wives.

The Quran in Sura 4:129 says:

It is not within your power to be perfectly equitable in your treatment with all your wives, even if you wish to be so; therefore, [in order to satisfy the dictates of Divine Law] do not lean towards one wife so as to leave the other in a state of suspense. (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 381)

Maududi provides an interpretation of the verse (vol. 1, pp. 383—84, note 161). He writes:

Allah made it clear that the husband cannot literally keep equality between two or more wives because they themselves cannot be equal in all respects. It is too much to demand from a husband that he should mete out equal treatment to a beautiful wife and to an ugly wife, to a young wife and to an old wife, to a healthy wife and to an invalid wife, and to a good natured wife and to an ill—natured wife. These and like things naturally make a husband more inclined towards one wife than towards the other.

This means that wives are the source of a man's inability to treat all of them equally. One is beautiful, while another is ugly. How can Allah demand from a husband super—human strength under changing circumstances in his wives?

Maududi continues:

In such cases, the Islamic law does not demand equal treatment between them in affection and love. What it does demand is that a wife should not be neglected as to be practically reduced to the position of the woman who has no husband at all. If the husband does not divorce her for any reason or at her own request, she should at least be treated as a wife. It is true that under such circumstances the husband is naturally inclined towards a favorite wife, but he should not, so to say, keep the other in such a state of suspense as if she were not his wife.

Maududi says here that the wife should not be suspended between marriage and divorce. If the husband stays with the no—longer desirable wife, then he should treat her fairly and provide for her.

More detail can be found here. This article (see 'the unpleasant truth behind divorce in Sura 4:130') demonstrates that Muhammad wanted to divorce one of his wives because she was overweight and old. Instead of a divorce, she gave up her turn'in the 'rotation'with the Prophet, who gladly agreed with her proposal. See these three hadith here, here and here

2. Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether they actually are highhanded).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, 'I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!' (Bukhari, emphasis added)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right—hand Companion:

'He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.' (Muslim no. 2127)

See this article for fuller details on wife—beating. It clarifies many translations of the verse. At the end, it has many links to modern interpretations of Sura 4:34 and to arguments for wife—beating today. This article is a shorter version. This article, though long, offers a clear analysis of wife—beating, examining the hadith and other early source documents, as well as refuting modern Muslim polemics.

This mid—length article answers a Muslim defense. This article is a superb analysis of the subject, giving various translations of Sura 4:34. It cites the hadith and classical commentaries and refutes modern defenses. Finally, this article is thorough in examining the Quran and hadith and Muslim polemics.

1. Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617, emphasis added)

Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:

Therefore, making mention of the waiting—period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

Divorcing prepubescent girls implies marriage to them. So the fathers of prepubescent girls may give them away, and their new husbands may consummate their marriage with them. If Islam ever spread around the world, no one should be surprised if Quran—believing Muslims lowered the marriage age of girls to nine years old.

This is precisely what happened in Iran after the religious revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. A girl's marriage age was lowered to nine years.

Why should this surprise us? After all, Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he consummated their union when she was only nine.

The hadith says:

. . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bukhari ; since this is a serious issue, see the parallel hadith here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)

This hadith demonstrates that Muhammad pursued Aisha when she was a little girl.

The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for 'Aisha's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said 'But I am your brother.' The Prophet said, 'You are my brother in Allah's religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.' (Bukhari; see this hadith that shows Muhammad's dream life in regards to his pursuit of little Aisha, and this one and this one)

This hadith recounts the fifty—plus—year—old Muhammad's and the nine—year—old Aisha's first sexual encounter. She was playing on her swing set with her girlfriends when she got the call.

. . . [M]y mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, 'Best wishes and Allah's Blessing and a good luck.' Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah's Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bukhari; see a parallel hadith here)

This hadith describes Muhammad counseling a Muslim man to marry a young virgin for the extra thrill it gives him to fondle her, and she him.

When I got married, Allah's Apostle said to me, 'What type of lady have you married?' I replied, 'I have married a matron.' He said, 'Why, don't you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?' Jabir also said: Allah's Apostle said, 'Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?' (Bukhari) See parallel hadith here and here.

This hadith describes Muhammad's and Aisha's ill—timed sexual encounters:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). (Bukhari)

For more evidence on this most outlandish of Muhammad's domestic acts even for seventh—century Arabia, readers should refer to this article. This article responds to Muslim defenses of this indefensible Quranic permission. This summary of a news reports reveals Pakistan lowering the marriage age to twelve for a girl.

Conclusion

The nightmare must end for women in Islamic countries.

But the political and legal hierarchies in the Islamic world do not seem ready to reform on women's rights. Here is a 1998 interview with Shirin Ebadi, one of the first female judges in Iran. She correctly sees abuses in Iranian law, which favors men. However, what has been done about these abuses?

Zohreh Arshadi 'was a practising lawyer in Iran prior to her forced exile to Europe. She is currently an advocate in France and is active in human rights and especially of the rights of women. She has been especially active in defence of the rights of women in Iran.' She reports on the inequities in Iranian law as it pertains to women:

The Islamic punishments have encouraged a culture of violence against women, especially within the family and has spilled into violence against children. This has been commented upon by many within the country . . . The fact that men receive a lighter punishment if they commit a violence against women undoubtedly encourages such violence. We saw how women could be killed with impunity during alleged adultery. Stoning to death for adultery, although technically admissible for both sexes, has also been carried out mainly against women.

Though these two examples come from Iran, they could multiply throughout the Islamic world. However, the legal hierarchies understand the cost of reform: abandoning many verses in the Quran and many passages in the hadith, and this they cannot do.

A sign of hope? The Iraqi Constitution, so far, says that 25% of the seats in the Parliament are specified for women. So maybe reform can be strongly encouraged in a fledgling democracy.

But if Islamic nations, especially those who follow sharia (Islamic law) closely, refuse to reform, then the second best strategy must be played out. Islam must never be allowed to impose its sharia system of 'justice' anywhere in the West and around the world. No sharia courts should be permitted outside of the Islamic world. The Quran—the ultimate source of sharia—oppresses women and people generally.

The Islamic holy book is too patriarchal and culture—bound to be relevant to the new millennium.

James M. Arlandson may be reached at jamesmarlandson@hotmail.com

Supplemental Material

Readers may go to these three sites for other translations of the Quran: this one has multiple translations; this one has three; and this conservative translation is subsidized by the Saudi royal family.

Here is the website for the online hadith.

A good online resource for the historical context of a sura is here, where Maududi provides excellent background material.

If readers would like to see many links to women's issues, they should go to this article and scroll down to the end. It has modern views in the Islamic world on wife—beating. This webpage has a number of links to women's issues, as well. This is a superb overview of the Quran and hadith on women's inferior status in Islam. This online booklet explores the differing ideas in Islam and Christianity on the place of women.

This short article reviews Jesus' attitude towards women. This short chapter has an excellent overview on the differences between Islam and Christianity and women's role in each.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/top_ten_rules_in_the_quran_tha.html

[American_Jihad]

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6500/jakartahotelblast.jpg (http://img223.imageshack.us/i/jakartahotelblast.jpg/)
A guest checks out of the Ritz-Carlton hotel in
Indonesia shortly after the Religion of Peace checks in (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/SE+Asia/Story/STIStory_404431.html).


Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace

"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam

2009.07.21 (Paktia, Afghanistan) - Women and children are among the casualties when suicide bombers dressed as women stage an attack.
2009.07.21 (Khasavyurt, Dagestan) - A man is shot to death by Muslim gunmen while sitting in a cafe.
2009.07.20 (Mahadday Weyne, Somalia) - A father of two is shot to death by Muslims for leaving Islam and becoming a Christian.
2009.07.20 (Lahore, Pakistan) - A young couple is murdered by the woman's family for marrying against their will.
2009.07.20 (Peshawar, Iraq) - Four local cops are gunned down in a brutal ambush by Lashkar-e-Islam.
2009.07.20 (Mosul, Iraq) - A young girl is among two civilians killed by Islamic gunmen.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Abu Bakar Bashir's warning: the terror will not end
July 23, 2009

ABU Bakar Bashir has endorsed the deadly work of Southeast Asia's most wanted terrorist, Noordin Top, saying Allah would protect him in his fight for Islam.

The fanatical Muslim cleric, who is the spiritual adviser to the al-Mukmin Islamic school for children on the outskirts of Solo, in central Java, said if the victims of the J.W. Marriott and Ritz-Carlton suicide bombings had ever held any thoughts against Islam, they deserved to die.

Bashir refused to condemn the suicide bombings, saying the use of terror was justified in the war against infidels, or non-Muslims.

Bashir was convicted and jailed for inciting terrorism in relation to the 2002 Bali bombings and has not since moderated his views.

He is seen as the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiah, and while he is deeply unpopular in Indonesia, he carries dangerous influence that marks him as more than a mere ranting eccentric. The 1000 boys and 1000 girls who board at the al-Mukmin school he co-founded are taught predominantly in Arabic, and are indoctrinated to his views from kindergarten through to their leaving certificate.

Bashir regularly travels across Java to other pesantrens, or Islamic schools, to speak, although on Tuesday, in the east Java town of Malang, Indonesian police reportedly banned him from giving a public lecture.

Yesterday, Bashir attacked the Australian, US and Indonesian governments. "The main cause of this disaster (the bombings) is the Indonesian government, which undermines the supremacy of Islamic law.

"This (terror) will not end until the government follows the right path."

Asked by The Australian whether he felt any sadness for the seven victims of the suicide bombings, Bashir said: "What makes me sad about the bombings was that it involved innocent people being killed.

"People such as women and children who are not involved in the fight against Muslims should not be killed.

"But the problem is we don't know for sure that the victims weren't involved in the fight against Islam. Even the thought of fighting against Islam is involvement. Everyone that thinks like that is allowed to be killed."

Fifteen of his former students are said to have been directly involved in acts of terror across the region.

Asked if he was embarrassed by this, Bashir said: "There are no Muslim terrorists. The terrorists are the CIA, the Americans and the Australians. They're the ones who terrorise Muslims.

"The Australians are making a fuss about their victims, but when it comes to Muslim victims they don't say anything about it."

One of those former students is Nur Said, who many thought was one of the hotel suicide bombers. While DNA tests from the bombers' bodies at both sites have ruled him out, there remains a view that he may have been Noordin Top's second-in-command in the operation.

In the little hillside village of Katekan, northwest of Jogjakarta, famed for its tobacco, a media crew said it had been staking out Nur Said's parents' home for days but they had gone into hiding.

Bashir said he had never met Nur Said.

Speaking within the grounds of the al-Mukmin school, where students studied a noticeboard with newspaper accounts of the attacks, Bashir was asked whether Noordin Top, who used the school as his main recruitment ground, should be apprehended.

"If Noordin M.Top has bad intentions, then he should be apprehended," said Bashir. "If he is right, then Allah will protect him. What I know about Noordin M.Top is that he is a Malaysian who fights to defend Islam."

Bashir claimed it was not Muslim terrorists who conducted the suicide bombings. "The person who bombed the Marriott is probably influenced by the CIA, which is an enemy of Islam. It will do anything to discredit and destroy Islam in Indonesia.

"In my opinion, acts of bombing are only allowed after one declares war against infidels. Such as al-Qa'ida, which has declared war on America. Go ahead (and bomb).

"I'm not saying the (Marriott and Ritz) bombers are wrong, they could have been right." But he would prefer if there was a formal declaration of jihad before targets were attacked.

Students and teachers call Bashir "Pak Ustad", meaning senior teacher. One teacher, Syehuddin, said he had no problem with the school's record of producing terrorists.

"Even though terrorists radiated from here, they also come from other places. Foreign intervention leads to all the attention on this school."

The school previously ran to university level but has since dropped off. Syehuddin would not say why this was, but it seems an al-Mukmin degree is no longer regarded as something you'd want on your CV.

Teachers claim they teach the origins of the various interpretations of the Koran and let students decide for themselves.

Bashir, who lives within the school grounds, said: "The connections between al-Mukmin and the Marriott bombing is just an allegation.

"My war is to promote Islam through preaching. God willing, if the (Indonesian) government can return to the Islamic way, we can fight the Americans because those kafirs (non-Muslims) are weak. God willing, the jihadists will prevail."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25822368-601,00.html

[American_Jihad]

Muslims Support Nidal's Actions with Enthusiam
Revolution Muslim

November 6, 2009


by Yousef Alkhattab
"An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a preemptive* attack.
Get Well Soon Major Nidal
We Love You.

We do NOT denounce this officer's actions..."

Rampage Kills 12, Wounds 31: "Devout Muslim"

http://www.actforamerica.org/index.p...rn/recent-news

http://www.revolutionmuslim.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yDuG...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhHYi...layer_embedded

[American_Jihad]

In light of the murders at Ft. Hood by a Muslim Officer
(who had sworn to defend the people, our Constitution
and the United States) this article becomes more timely
and REAL than ever. . .

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was sent to someone who worked in
Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah,
the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by
his Allah except Islam.

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars
of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca,
to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him
to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America,
the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women
and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him.

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes
the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the
Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be
very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously
cannot be both "good" Muslims and ''good Americans''.

Call it what you wish.... IT IS STILL THE TRUTH !!!

EMAIL

[American_Jihad]

Radical Movement's Leader Forecasts America's Demise
12/04/09

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/6951/assabiqun01.jpg (http://img34.imageshack.us/i/assabiqun01.jpg/)

As the spotlight moves away from the Fort Hood massacre, one of America's most openly radical Islamist organizations has taken to the murderer's defense. As-Sabiqun, a Washington D.C.-based organization with branches in four other major American cities, released a flyer labeling shooter Nidal Malik Hasan as "victimized" and the "target of psychological warfare." The handout also defended convicted terrorists and suspects.

As-Sabiqun has repeatedly predicted the demise of the United States and dreams of "the Islamic State of North America no later than 2050." It has openly declared support for terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hizbullah, and even claimed it funded anti-American militants. With concerns growing over radical Islamist propaganda in the United States, As-Sabiqun is one of the leading organizations building a bridge between international Islamism and its developing American counterpart.

As-Sabiqun is headquartered in Washington D.C., but has branches in Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and Philadelphia. Its leader, Imam Abdul Alim Musa, is well-known in Islamist circles for spreading anti-American propaganda and militancy. Last weekend, Musa addressed the annual conference of the Muslim Students Association – Persian Speaking group, a Shia branch of the national Muslim Students Association primarily for Shia Muslims. There, Musa saluted the Iranian Revolution as the "greatest epic in modern, even ancient history" and urged the students to have patience as the United States collapsed:

"Well I'm telling you, it's very simple. I think you got the message now. We're in a big war brothers and sisters. This is as big as it gets for the United States. We are just like it is during the 60s and 70s. So if you're gonna be Muslim, buckle down and be a tough one because in the final analysis the U.S. is finished."

Musa was applauded following his conclusion, in which he honored the survival of the Iranian Revolution and its student supporters in the United States:

"Your survival has made you stronger and better and better in management and organization than anybody else, just by your survival. Remember, a revolutionary do [sic] not have to win any war. They only have to survive, even if you lose 90 percent of your people. You have to understand revolutionary warfare. If you lose 90 percent of your wealth and people and you still moving around and mobile, you can come back. That's the rules of revolutionary warfare – to survive. I'm trying to tell you – the war is already won. [Musa laughs.] They just have to fall over."

This is not the first time this year that Musa has preached hate and militancy to an American Muslim student organization. In a February 19th speech to the MSA at Berkeley, Musa explained how he funneled money to African jihadists with the intention of conquering the United States:

"So we have seen movements, because although we was in (UI word) in the first stage, and the next stage we were using criminal wealth to help our brothers, you know our brothers in Algeria and in Africa, they had fought the United States government, they was in exile. They knew about a revolution, but they didn't know nothing about money. Well, since I was a criminal, I knew all about making money. So all the criminal money that I made I would take it to the brothers and say – OK, you guys, buy me some weapons, you'll go back, we'll take over the United States. That was the dream that we had. You got to dream big. Ain't no sense in dreaming small, right? Live your dreams."

Musa has traveled abroad to support Islamist movements worldwide. The As-Sabiqun website indicates that Musa traveled abroad several times to Iran. During a 1996 conference in South Africa, he stated:

"And this religion Islam will dominate all other religions whether the Americans, whether the British, whether the French, whether the Russians, whether the Japanese, whether all of them get together in one solid group to fight Islam. It don't make no difference. In the final analysis, Allah (swt) said that his religion—Islam—will rise to the forefront, will be elevated to the role of leadership in this world, whether they all like it or not."

That same year, Musa called for an Islamic state in London during a conference there that featured a wide assortment of radicals, including representatives of FIS [Islamic Salvation Front], Hizbullah and Hamas.

As-Sabiqun's website describes how, "During a rally in July 1999, Imam Musa displayed a cashier's check made out to 'Hamas, Palestine,' to protest the 1996 U.S. law which declared Hamas a terrorist organization." On a February 18 2007 broadcast of Fox News, Musa stated, "I know Hamas. They are nice people. Very nice people." Musa has repeatedly cheered Hizbullah's "victory" over Israel and has saluted suicide bombers, saying:

"When they go out and strike at the heart of Zionism. They are not suicide bombers they are heroes they are she-roes, isn't that right? That's a part of our deen, that's a part of our religion, let's not become weak boned and apologetic..."

Musa has also fueled the flames of international hatred against the United States. In an appearance last month on Iran's government-controlled Press TV, Musa pitted America against Islam:

"Islamophobia to us right now, coming out of 9-1-1 (9/11), is something that the [American] government and the Israelis did in the U.S. to justify a global attack on Islam … the perception management now by the media, gives the media and gives the military justification to invade our countries, to stop us in airports, to exclude us from society."

The extremism expressed by As-Sabiqun and Musa might easily be passed off as the bizarre ranting of a radical cleric and his hateful organization. However, as the Fort Hood massacre, the FBI shooting of Luqman Abdullah and other recent investigations show, fiery rhetoric can lead to violent plotting. The lesson of Fort Hood is not to ignore open self-radicalization, but to heed those who openly preach our destruction from within.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/1553/radical-movements-leader-forecasts-americas-demise

[American_Jihad]

Taking on Islamists’ hidden agenda
April 24, 2010

In my previous column, I wrote about the lonely effort of the Montreal-based Point de bascule (tipping point) to expose the true hidden feature of the organized Islamist effort in Quebec — as in the rest of North America — to gain acceptance of its agenda.

This Islamist effort is highly organized and globally financed, it is multi-pronged and with an outreach directed to penetrate every level of society from the highest reaches of governments to local civic organizations.

It is also exceedingly successful in manipulating support for its agenda by reaching out to the “progressives” in the West ever ready to play the role of “useful idiots,” as Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, so aptly described them.

The Islamist agenda pushed by Muslim Brotherhood and its fraternal affiliates across the Muslim world — in the case of Iran by the followers of Khomeini, the exponent of the Shiite version of Islamism and founder of the Islamic Republic — is to coerce Muslim societies to reinforce Shariah (Islamic) laws.

In the West, the Islamist agenda is to gain acceptance of Shariah for Muslims to live according to its requirements, and to have western governments adopt some of its directives as with the scheme for Shariah-based finance.

Alien interests

Western liberal democracies are highly vulnerable to such organized penetration by external and alien interests for obvious reasons.

The strength of the modern West is derived from its liberalism, secularism, democracy, rule of law, respect for individual rights, gender equity, openness to others and willingness to subject itself to public criticism.

This strength paradoxically provides enemies of the West with tools by which to subvert and weaken it, causing great harm.

The western inability or reluctance to confront Islamists ironically arises from its tolerance of and respect for all religions on the basis of freedom of conscience.

This freedom is a hard won principle that distinguishes the modern West from pre-modern cultures and, especially, the cultures of the Muslim world.

Religious tolerance, which barely exists in the contemporary Muslim societies, lends Islamists the cover with which to mask their ideology and political agenda as religion.

This ploy disarms western liberal critics of Islamism when countered with accusations of religious intolerance and bigotry skillfully made by Islamists and their “useful idiots.”

It also disarms most Muslims opposed to Islamism by the ever-present reality of violence inside the Muslim world. Muslims in the West are similarly disarmed and silenced by Islamists with their control of mosques, enabling them to spread fear of blackmail, intimidation, violence, ostracism and the stigma of betrayal among an immigrant population acutely vulnerable to such threats.

Political unrest

Yet Muslims in increasing numbers oppose Islamism, and across the Muslim world — in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Algeria, Pakistan, Indonesia or Turkey — the fight against Islamism is one of the main causes of political unrest.

It is a fight that pits on the one side Muslims who wish to see their world reconciled with modernity, and those who insist upon “Islamizing” modernity.

For Muslims, this is a historic struggle with global consequences.

And the West with an affinity for this struggle, given its history, needs to oppose Islamism without any misgiving.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/salim_mansur/2010/04/23/13697976.html

[Kdfk]

In light of the murders at Ft. Hood by a Muslim Officer
(who had sworn to defend the people, our Constitution
and the United States) this article becomes more timely
and REAL than ever. . .

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was sent to someone who worked in
Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah,
the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by
his Allah except Islam.

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars
of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca,
to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him
to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no.. Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual
leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America,
the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women
and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him.

Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American
Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes
the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not
allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot
co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the
Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as
heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation.... perhaps we should be
very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously
cannot be both "good" Muslims and ''good Americans''.

Call it what you wish.... IT IS STILL THE TRUTH !!!

EMAIL

Every word of it is Bullshit......horseshit...MANURE for my garden....One psycho bastard does not make all Muslims in the Military (and there are many) murderers like that.....they serve their country and give their lives and of their families just like every other American....

[American_Jihad]

Every word of it is Bullshit......horseshit...MANURE for my garden....One psycho bastard does not make all Muslims in the Military (and there are many) murderers like that.....they serve their country and give their lives and of their families just like every other American....

It also says (9/278):

The selection by the decision makers of the ruler and their swearing allegiance to him (bay’ah) is the basis of his taking that position. The decision makers (ahl al-hill wa’l-‘aqd) are the scholars and people of wisdom and high status, whose knowledge is accompanied by other essential conditions: trustworthiness, good character and wisdom. End quote.

Just as there are conditions that must be met by the decision makers, there are also conditions that must be met by the caliph to whom allegiance is sworn. Some of these conditions are the subject of scholarly disagreements, but on others there is consensus. Not one of the scholars disagreed with the condition that the ruler must be a Muslim, because what is implied by bay’ah (swearing allegiance) is the implementation of the laws of Allaah, carrying out of hadd punishments and guarding the borders of Islam, so how can a kaafir implement the laws of Allaah and do these things? Rather if the ruler is a Muslim and becomes a kaafir, he must be removed from office because of his kufr.

Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, discussing the conditions of leadership:

He should be a Muslim, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And never will Allaah grant to the disbelievers a way (to triumph) over the believers” [al-Nisa’ 4:141]. Rulership is the greatest of such ways. And Allaah has enjoined us to put the people of the Book in their place and to take the jizyah from them. End quote.

Al-Fasl fi’l-Milal wa’l-Ahwa’ wa’l-Nihal (4/128).

Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

Al-Qaadi said: The scholars are unanimously agreed that a kaafir should not be appointed as ruler, and that if the ruler becomes a kaafir, he must be deposed. End quote.

http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/82681

[American_Jihad]

AFGHAN PARLIAMENTARIAN CALLS FOR EXECUTION OF CHRISTIANS
Published 06/02/2010 - 3:07 p.m. CST

Taliban Ideals Alive and Well in the Parliament


WASHINGTON, D.C. – International Christian Concern (ICC) has learned that an Afghan parliamentary secretary called for the public execution of Christian converts on the parliament floor.


On Tuesday, the Associated Free Press reported that Abdul Sattar Khawasi, deputy secretary of the Afghan lower house in parliament, called for the execution of Christian converts from Islam. Speaking in regards to a video broadcasted by Afghan television network Noorin TV showing footage of Christian men being baptized and praying in Farsi, Khawasi said, "Those Afghans that appeared in this video film should be executed in public, the house should order the attorney general and the NDS (intelligence agency) to arrest these Afghans and execute them.”


The broadcast triggered a protest by hundreds of Kabul University students on Monday, who shouted death threats and demanded the expulsion of Christian foreigners accused of proselytizing. As a result, the operations of Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) and U.S.-based Church World Service (CWS) have been suspended over allegations of proselytizing. The Afghan government is currently undertaking an intensive investigation into the matter. According to Afghan law, proselytizing is illegal and conversion from Islam is punishable by death.


ICC sources within Afghanistan have reported that many national Christians are in hiding, fearful of execution. Under government pressure during investigations, some Afghans have reportedly revealed names and locations of Christian converts.


Aidan Clay, ICC Regional Manager for the Middle East, said, “It is absolutely appalling that the execution of Christians would be promoted on the floor of the Afghan parliament. Khawasi’s statement sounded a whole lot like the tyrannical manifesto of the Taliban, not that of a U.S. ally. American lives are being lost fighting terrorism and defending freedom in Afghanistan – yet Christians are being oppressed within Afghan borders. This comes after billions of U.S. dollars have been invested in the war effort, and millions more have been given in aid. The U.S. government must intervene to protect the religious freedoms and human rights of all Afghans. The U.S. is not a mere outside bystander – but, is closely intertwined within Afghan policy. Intervention is not a choice, but a responsibility, as Afghan policies reflect the U.S. government’s ability and commitment to secure a stable government in Afghanistan.”

http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/Christian_News/Christian_News_International/AFGHAN_PARLIAMENTARIAN_CALLS_FOR_EXECUTION_OF_CHRI STIANS/30654

[American_Jihad]

Behind the mosque
7/23/10

Extremism at Ground Zero?

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/6172/mosqueprotesters20300x3.jpg (http://img230.imageshack.us/i/mosqueprotesters20300x3.jpg/)
Rejecting radicalism: New Yorkers Arish Sahani (left) and Linda Rivera protesting the mosque plans at a community board meeting in May.

Imam Feisal Rauf, the central figure in the coterie planning a huge mosque just off Ground Zero, is a full-throated champion of the very same Muslim theologians and jurists identified in a landmark NYPD report as central to promoting the Islamic religious bigotry that fuels modern jihad terrorism.

This fact alone should compel Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Mayor Bloomberg to withdraw their support for the proposed mosque.

In August 2007, the NYPD released "Radicalization in the West -- The Homegrown Threat." This landmark 90-page report looked at the threat that had become apparent since 9/11, analyzing the roots of recent terror plots in the United States, from Lackawanna, NY, to Portland, Ore., to Fort Dix, NJ.

The report noted that Saudi "Wahhabi" scholars feed the jihadist ideology, legitimizing an "extreme intolerance" toward non-Muslims, especially Jews, Christians and Hindus. In particular, the analysts noted that the "journey" of radicalization that produces homegrown jihadis often begins in a Wahhabi mosque.

The term "Wahhabi" refers to the 18th century founder of this austere Islamic tradition, Muhammad bin Abdul al-Wahhab, who claimed inspiration from 14th century jurist Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah.

At least two of Imam Rauf's books, a 2000 treatise on Islamic law and his 2004 "What's Right with Islam," laud the implementation of sharia -- including within America -- and the "rejuvenating" Islamic religious spirit of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Wahhab.

He also lionizes as two ostensible "modernists" Jamal al-Dinal-Afghani (d. 1897), and his student Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905). In fact, both defended the Wahhabis, praised the salutary influence of Ibn Taymiyyah and promoted the pretense that sha ria -- despite its permanent advocacy of jihad and dehumanizing injunctions on non-Muslims and women -- was somehow compatible with Western concepts of human rights, as in our own Bill of Rights.

In short, Feisal Rauf's public image as a devotee of the "contemplative" Sufi school of Islam cannot change the fact that his writings directed at Muslims are full of praise for the most noxious and dangerous Muslim thinkers.

Indeed, even the classical Sufi master that Rauf extols, the 12th-century jurist Abu Hamed Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazali, issued opinions on jihad and the imposition of Islamic law on the vanquished non-Muslim populations that were as bellicose and bigoted as those of Ibn Taymiyyah.

Also relevant is the Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow program run by the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization founded by Rauf and now run by his wife. Among the future leaders it has recognized are one of the co-authors of a "denunciation" of the NYPD report, a counter-report endorsed by all major Wahhabi-front organizations in America. Another "future leader" of interest to New Yorkers: Debbie Almontaser, the onetime head of the city's Khalil Gibran Academy.

More revealing is the fact that Rauf himself has refused to sign a straightforward pledge to "repudiate the threat from authoritative sharia to the religious freedom and safety of former Muslims," a pledge issued nine months ago by ex-Muslims under threat for their "apostasy." That refusal is a tacit admission that Rauf believes that sharia trumps such fundamental Western principles as freedom of conscience.

Wahhabism -- whether in the form promoted by Saudi money around the globe, or in the more openly nihilist brand embraced by terrorists -- is a totalitarian ideology comparable to Nazism or, closer still, the "state Shintoism" of imperial Japan. We would never have allowed a Shinto shrine at the site of the Pearl Harbor carnage -- especially one to serve as a recruiting station for Tokyo's militarists while World War II was still on.

For the same reasons, we must say no to a Wahhabi mosque at Ground Zero.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/behind_the_mosque_yXUJDCpszRLF9dG1heLU1H?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME#ixzz0uonHKvys

[American_Jihad]

Shouting 'Fire' in a Crowded Globe
9/23/10

Can we stop calling Islam a religion of peace now? The fairy tale has been tarnished by Islamic violence, and it's undignified for children of the Enlightenment to go on repeating falsehoods.


If Islam were a religion of peace, no one would be worried about violence resulting from the burning of Korans. If Islam were a religion of peace, then a Supreme Court justice would not have compared burning a Koran to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.


The liberal Rhodes Scholar George Stephanopoulos recently reported that "Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on ["Good Morning America"] that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran-burning. ... For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion."


In discussing Koran-burning, Justice Breyer said of free speech, "Holmes said it doesn't mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." Not only did the Justice misquote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous crowded theater quote, but he did so in a way that indicates his willingness to weaken the First Amendment in favor of appeasing radical Islam.


Actually, Holmes wrote that "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater" cannot be protected. The key word "falsely," left out by Breyer, gave the phrase its legal significance. If you truthfully shout "fire" in a crowded theater, then that is dangerous but truthful, so it's protected by the First Amendment. If you falsely shout "fire," then that is dangerous and not protected. This is a very telling omission. If Breyer means what he says, then he is willing to give free-speech veto power to irrational and violent groups, regardless of whether one is criticizing -- or shouting "fire" -- falsely or truthfully. To give that power to radical Muslims would be a craven surrender of our rights and interest in open debate and criticism. It would also be an awful reflection on the hypersensitivity and inherently violent nature of modern Islam.


J. Breyer's botched invocation of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's crowded theater phrase shows that he is just as careless about free speech on this issue as Holmes was. That quote comes from Schenck v. U.S., a 1919 case where Holmes agreed that a man could be criminally convicted for handing out leaflets opposing the WWI draft. Holmes' ruling was awful; he dramatically changed his thinking later the same year, and Schenck was further altered in favor of free speech by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Breyer used a wretched example that stands for the proposition that speech can be curbed if there will be an irrational reaction to it.


As a matter of free speech, J. Breyer's remarks were sinister. As a reflection on Islamic violence and intolerance, Breyer's comments were even more disturbing -- but also a bit humorous. We just assume, correctly, that Muslims will explode upon slight provocations that would be ignored by every other religion. Yet we go on repeating the religion of peace mantra. We even make concessions -- to include entertaining limits on our rights. One has to find amusement in such a neurotic and dishonest outlook. Only Islam benefits from such low standards.


Burning a Buddhist sutra would be like yelling "fire" when you are alone in a theater; no Buddhist would kill and riot over the burning. Burning a Bible would be like passing gas in crowded theater; it would earn you contempt and not much more. But burning a Koran -- that's more like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. We simply take for granted that a significant number of the faithful will erupt in violence -- as they did in Afghanistan and Iran at the mention of burning a book across the ocean.


Members of the ruling class like J. Breyer endanger and shame us all by accommodating the growing demands of radical Islam: Disney and Abercrombie and Fitch are being sued because they won't let Muslim women wear their medieval headgear at work, where it doesn't belong. The state of New Jersey fired a transit worker for burning a Koran while off-duty. An American cartoonist for the Seattle Weekly named Molly Norris has changed her identity to avoid Muslim death threats. On top of that, we have a president whose only response to Islamic violence is to lecture non-Muslims about bigotry.


As a note on sensitivity, I use the phrase "Islamic violence" in the same sense that people talk about "male violence." Referring to "male violence" is not to say that all men are violent. People should be capable of making the same distinction with the phrase "Islamic violence". No reasonable person would take the phrase "Islamic violence" to mean that all Muslims are violent.


Our president -- in a twisted inversion of values and interests -- is lecturing us when he should be lecturing the Muslim world. Unfortunately, he appears to have at least one Supreme Court justice who shares his supine and suicidal wish for therapeutic global acceptance.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_glo_1.html

[American_Jihad]

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3893/gzmosqueprotesters.jpg (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/gzmosqueprotesters.jpg/)

9/11 families protest construction of a mosque near the grave of
their loved ones. The same Muslims who manage to be offended
by cartoons, rubber ducks and free speech have offered no
reason why they can't build their facility a few blocks further away.

Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam

2010.10.05 (Pattani, Thailand) - Three Buddhists transporting chickens are pumped full of holes by Muslim separatists at point-blank range.
2010.10.05 (Yala, Thailand) - A 33-year-old man is murdered in his driveway by Islamic gunmen.
2010.10.05 (Sindh, Pakistan) - A teacher is gunned down by sectarian assassins.
2010.10.05 (North Waziristan, Pakistan) - Two local soldiers are sent to Allah by Islamic bombers.
2010.10.05 (Kandahar, Afghanistan) - Eight civilians are among nine brutally slain in a Taliban ambush.
2010.10.04 (Mogadish, Somalia) - Two women and a child are among five civilians killed during an al-Shabaab attack along a city street.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Invisoclam]

and don't forget those peace loving scamps in Chechnya

[GreatOne]

Good thread
Fuck Islam
Its is the only religion I know that one has to make one excuse after another to justify its actions

[NYer]

The Myths of Islam - Islam Is Tolerant of Other Religions. (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/204675.php)

[NYer]

The Myths of Islam - Islam and the Golden Age of Scientific Discovery (http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/204827.php)

There are four basic reasons why Islam has little true claim to scientific achievement - Read the whole thing.

[Friend]

what a strange world you live in. does it hurt?

[American_Jihad]

what a strange world you live in. does it hurt?

It hurt for them...

Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam

2010.11.30 (Pattani, Thailand) - Jihadists shoot a school janitor to death.
2010.11.30 (Mosul, Iraq) - Islamists rush into a Christian shop and gun down the proprieter brothers.
2010.11.30 (Bannu, Pakistan) - An 8-year-old girl and 3-year-old boy are among six people sent to Allah by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2010.11.29 (Karachi, Pakistan) - A Shia leader is dragged out of his car and shot to death by militant Sunnis.
2010.11.29 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - The Taliban attack a local phone exchange, killing a guard.
2010.11.29 (Srinagar, India) - Mujahideen kill a policeman and injure a civilian with a grenade thrown into a market.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[LANMaster]

ya right.. countries like america and china have robots and most advanced technology in the world and most of it is geared toward warfare...
i hope christians arent dilluded into thinking these meak muslims, whom most people make fun of because of their lack of technology, is the beast and will produce the mark of the beast.

i guess these are things american christians tell themselves to comfort their situation.

Lumping all Christians into this soup is no different than lumping all Muslims in with the Al Qaeda terrorists.

Please be careful not to generalize the same way in which you accuse your opposition.

How ya doin' Gawzi? I hope you are well.

LAN

[Friend]

It hurt for them...

So you want to hurt, and kill people.
That why you have a gun there?
Guns don´t kill, people do, so what are guns for?

Maybe the original site: religionofpeace.com (http://religionofpeace.com/) is better to study,
as I find you are without a clue about what you are writing about,
but I am afraid you may be lost case, just a empty shell of a human being maybe,
nobody lives there anymore...



Latest Offerings from the Religion of Peace
"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam

2010.11.30 (Pattani, Thailand) - Jihadists shoot a school janitor to death.
2010.11.30 (Mosul, Iraq) - Islamists rush into a Christian shop and gun down the proprieter brothers.
2010.11.30 (Bannu, Pakistan) - An 8-year-old girl and 3-year-old boy are among six people sent to Allah by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2010.11.29 (Karachi, Pakistan) - A Shia leader is dragged out of his car and shot to death by militant Sunnis.
2010.11.29 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - The Taliban attack a local phone exchange, killing a guard.
2010.11.29 (Srinagar, India) - Mujahideen kill a policeman and injure a civilian with a grenade thrown into a market.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

This is bad news, yes, no good news, ever?
Like in a billion muslims didn´t kill anybody today? nope?

Or...
A car ran over somebody´s dog, and the driver was jewish,
so some moron with a shortcut in his head says:
"It was the jews that killed his dog! We gotta do soemthing about the jeeeews!"

And voilà! The latest news about crazy jews killing innocent people is presented thru a maniac site. (1935 like 2010)

[Invisoclam]

Nice work over the weekend by: Taymour Abdel Wahab in Stockholm of all places to shore up the "falsehoods" on this thread/topic

[Friend]

Do follow this link, Invisoclam: From whom to get this T-Shirt from (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Army-T-Shirts-Mock-Killing-Palestinian-Women-And-Children-During-Gaza-Offensive/Article/200903315245946)

http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2009/Mar/Week3/15245789.jpg


you were saying?

[Invisoclam]

@Friend :
I was saying what? This too is disgusting and deplorable, however The Israeli Army is? They do whatever they do based on? = Please do not read into the previous questions as support for those disgusting shirts. Israeli Army is secular and well, military people of all religions can be a sick and twisted bunch. A better reply to my post and disgust with Islamic suicide bombers would be perhaps a link to an abortion clinic bomber - maybe , in that the person read the bible and decided based on what they read that it was "ok" to bomb an abortion clinic. However in the case of THIS MODERN WORLD ERA -- people who have read the Koran and Follow it - ( correctly or incorrectly or interpret it correctly or incorrectly) seem to have a penchant for gettin' pissed off at stuff and to show their disgust , faithfully blow themselves up in attempts to kill others.
Yes the Israeli army shirts - if those are real are deplorable and disgusting we are both on the same page with that --- but to attempt to equate one with the other is pointless -- not even the the same thing --- when Israeli Army members start trying to blow themselves up in public places and start slamming planes into buildings etc in the Name of the Torah - your rebuttal point is valid .

Blaming the Jews for everything is old already, albeit comical sometimes:
http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/egyptian-muzzies-blame-israel-for-shark-attacks/

[Friend]

@Invisiclam:
"Blaming the Jews for everything is old already"
Blaming Judaism, blaming Islam, blaming X-ianity for the acts of few,
that was pretty much the objective of this thread so far,
just the main posters seem to think blaming it on Islam is A-okay.

Let´s see, an angry suicide bomber is a cowardly terrorist,
and a bombing crew with a pension plan who don´t see their victims are brave heroes?

Yes the Israeli army shirts - if those are real are deplorable and disgusting we are both on the same page with that --- but to attempt to equate one with the other is pointless -- not even the the same thing --- when Israeli Army members start trying to blow themselves up in public places and start slamming planes into buildings etc in the Name of the Torah - your rebuttal point is valid .

Plus the shirts are not officially representative of the IDF, which doesn´t hinder them from being terrorists upon civilians.

Oh,and the Rabbis encouraging the soldiers to murder civilians reciting the Torah are not representive (?), and yet
- there they are.

excerpt:
A leading rabbi in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar has encouraged Israel Defense Forces soldiers to make use of the outlawed "neighbor procedure" while operating in Palestinian areas.

"Anything you do to keep the war tough is permissible, and obligatory according to the torah," Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, headmaster of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva, wrote in fliers distributed to his students.

"According to true Jewish values, your lives come before those of the enemy, whether he is a soldier or a civilian under protection. Therefore, you are forbidden from endangering your own life for the sake of the enemy, not even for a civilian," Shapira declared.

Shapira was arrested over the summer for encouraging Jews to kill Gentiles in his book "The King's Torah." The preface of the book, which was published in November, states that it is forbidden to kill non-Jews - but the book then apparently describes the context in which it is permitted to do so.

The rabbi's decree came less than a month after the southern command military court convicted two IDF soldiers of using human shields during Operation Cast Lead, Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip, in the winter of 2008-2009.

The soldiers were convicted of offenses including inappropriate behavior and overstepping authority for ordering an 11-year-old Palestinian to search bags suspected to have been booby trapped.




http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/andie531/rabbi-tells-soldiers-use-palestinian-civilians-human-shields

[American_Jihad]

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3347/stockholmbomber.jpg (http://img831.imageshack.us/i/stockholmbomber.jpg/)
Islam in Europe has become a bloody mess (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337930/Sweden-suicide-bombers-wife-I-knew-husband-terrorist.html).

Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace

"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam

2010.12.17 (Heart, Afghanistan) - Fourteen members of the same family are taken apart by a Taliban roadside attack on their minibus.
2010.12.16 (Muharram, Pakistan) - A child is left dead after Sunnis throw a grenade into a funeral procession.
2010.12.15 (Quetta, Pakistan) - Sectarian Jihadis gun down two brothers and a child.
2010.12.15 (Chahbahar, Iran) - Forty-one Shias, including women and children, are blasted to death in their own mosque by a Sunni suicide bomber.
2010.12.15 (Nalchik, Russia) - A moderate cleric is shot in front of his home for 'resisting religious extremism.'
2010.12.15 (Kandahar, Afghanistan) - Three children are disassembled by fundamentalists, who hide a bomb on a bicycle.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Friend]

Islam in Europe has become a bloody mess. because of people like this:
http://www.truth-out.org/always-someones-mother-or-father-always-someones-child-the-missing-persons-iraq66028

[Friend]

The political and military leadership of the US and UK expected this to happen, and did not care. A review of previous US wars clearly predicted an expectation of several million deaths. Most likely the death toll was over 1M prior to the 2003 escalation of the war.

[American_Jihad]

Islam in Europe has become a bloody mess. because of people like this:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8733/muslimcartoonprotests.jpg (http://img340.imageshack.us/i/muslimcartoonprotests.jpg/)


http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2738/muslimbeasts.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/i/muslimbeasts.jpg/)

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/11/beheadeveryone.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/i/beheadeveryone.jpg/)



:sad_01:

[Friend]

It would be nice if you actually read my posts before responding to them,
otherwise I might get the impression you´re really not a person.

'I didn't think of Iraqis as humans,' says U.S. soldier who raped 14-year-old girl before killing her and her family
...
"Of course, he is from Texas."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340207/I-didnt-think-Iraqis-humans-says-U-S-soldier-raped-14-year-old-girl-killing-her-family.html

[American_Jihad]

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9854/pakistanmosqueblood.jpg (http://img149.imageshack.us/i/pakistanmosqueblood.jpg/)
Only in Islam would a disagreement between clerics over which one
gets to lead prayer be settled by a shootout in a house of worship (http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2010/11/eighteen-injured-in-mosque-shootout.html).

Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause"
Muhammad, prophet of Islam

2010.12.21 (Turu, Nigeria) - Angry Muslims armed with swords and machetes assault a group of local Christian villagers, killing three.
2010.12.20 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - Five civilians are killed when Islamic milita mortar a commercial district.
2010.12.20 (Dera Bugti, Pakistan) - A father and son are shot to death in their hotel in a suspected sectarian attack.
2010.12.20 (Mosul, Iraq) - A university professor and a young woman are gunned down by 'Freedom Fighters'.
2010.12.20 (Mogadishu, Somalia) - An old woman is among five who bleed out following a vicious al-Shabaab roadside bombing.
2010.12.20 (Nairobi, Kenya) - Suspected Somali Islamists plant a bomb on a bus, which leaves three passengers dead.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Invisoclam]

@Friend -Ok - Perhaps you should start a thread about the IDF/Jews / Etc, because pointing out what THEY are doing does not in any way excuse what the participants of the cited Religion of Peace's actions are doing.
The Stockholm Bomber and ALL yes ALL of the Suicide bombers who either marginally were Muslims or were fanatic Muslims all seem to have this urge to KILL others via suicide based upon THEIR personal feelings from what they have read or been taught (correctly or incorrectly) from the Koran.

In only the last 15 years:
When I look at the scoreboard for people who have blown themselves up or run airplanes into buildings, blown up Embassies etc. I see the Leaders of the pack by far claim to be Muslims. A side note on the Embassies - go back a bit further in modern history and Muslims even go after their own Embassies in Muslim Countries.
When I look at Attempts to blow up others while blowing up yourself and any and all of the above the League leaders are Muslims.

That is my point -- attempting to refute it with "what the other guys" are doing is not a valid rebuttal - it is a separate discussion and quite frankly we would probably agree with each other on the "other guys" be they Jewish Christian Zorastrian or whatever and their misgivings and penchants for violence.

My point on this thread is this and is apropos to the theme -- SUICIDE BOMBERS -- who do so in the Name of Islam -- seem to be a problem within Islam . Even the Imperial Japanese Kamikaze Pilots are embarrassed by the suicide bombings by Misguided or guided Muslims who PEACEFULLY BLOW THEMSELVES UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE OUT THE INFIDELS WHEN PISSED OFF.

[Friend]

As you seem polite enough to attempt a response somewhat related to my posts, I believe should try to return such courtesy.

The other person obviously does not have English as his first language, and can only copy and paste nonsense.


@Friend -Ok - Perhaps you should start a thread about the IDF/Jews / Etc, because pointing out what THEY are doing does not in any way excuse what the participants of the cited Religion of Peace's actions are doing.

Nope, this happens to be that thread, somebody feeds this thread for reasons, so who might that be - what motivates them?
This is the zionist thread, from the rear-side



The Stockholm Bomber and ALL yes ALL of the Suicide bombers who either marginally were Muslims or were fanatic Muslims all seem to have this urge to KILL others via suicide based upon THEIR personal feelings from what they have read or been taught (correctly or incorrectly) from the Koran.

So if you wanna kill people without having been inspired by the Quran, where does this shit come from?
This urge, this urge, the thread we are in is dripping of it, and it´s not from the Quran.



In only the last 15 years:
When I look at the scoreboard for people who have blown themselves up or run airplanes into buildings, blown up Embassies etc. I see the Leaders of the pack by far claim to be Muslims. A side note on the Embassies - go back a bit further in modern history and Muslims even go after their own Embassies in Muslim Countries.
When I look at Attempts to blow up others while blowing up yourself and any and all of the above the League leaders are Muslims.


Funny, there were no suicide bombers around 50 years ago,
and yet Islam has been around for quite a while longer than that.
So what happened 50 years ago?



That is my point -- attempting to refute it with "what the other guys" are doing is not a valid rebuttal - it is a separate discussion and quite frankly we would probably agree with each other on the "other guys" be they Jewish Christian Zorastrian or whatever and their misgivings and penchants for violence.

My point on this thread is this and is apropos to the theme -- SUICIDE BOMBERS -- who do so in the Name of Islam -- seem to be a problem within Islam . Even the Imperial Japanese Kamikaze Pilots are embarrassed by the suicide bombings by Misguided or guided Muslims who PEACEFULLY BLOW THEMSELVES UP IN AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE OUT THE INFIDELS WHEN PISSED OFF.

The other guys, that would be you, disciples of the criminal regime.
Nobody in their right mind likes you, you are but a menace,
waiting to be prosecuted.

So Obama tricked the public, offered change...
No change, the man does not want to be lynched.
The oil must flow.

[Invisoclam]

As you seem polite enough to attempt a response somewhat related to my posts, I believe should try to return such courtesy.

The other person obviously does not have English as his first language, and can only copy and paste nonsense.



Nope, this happens to be that thread, somebody feeds this thread for reasons, so who might that be - what motivates them?
This is the zionist thread, from the rear-side


So if you wanna kill people without having been inspired by the Quran, where does this shit come from?
This urge, this urge, the thread we are in is dripping of it, and it´s not from the Quran.



Funny, there were no suicide bombers around 50 years ago,
and yet Islam has been around for quite a while longer than that.
So what happened 50 years ago?



The other guys, that would be you, disciples of the criminal regime.
Nobody in their right mind likes you, you are but a menace,
waiting to be prosecuted.

So Obama tricked the public, offered change...
No change, the man does not want to be lynched.
The oil must flow.

The other person would be me? Based on what? I am the other guys? Obama is the other guys? Look again - I use other guys as in any other group.
Regarding the last 50 years and now pardon the pun but Bam! We have Muslim suicide bombers amongst us all -- Exactly -- within the the group of people on this planet who claim to be Muslims there is a problem - -- Y'all need to fix it however cause it is pissing off the rest of the world.
The rest of the world sees lots of double talk from the Muslim camp as a whole - cause most seem to be hedging their bets-- if the crazies win- then the Bomber types are coming after them next so we will look the other way by and large.
Yes the problem is new and perhaps brought on by external factors - I get that, however I do not see other groups in this modern era - however small a percentage of that group they are in ( I will give you the fact that suicide bombers are a very very very small per cent of the larger group of Islams adherents ) resorting to the same tactics, evoking - correctly or incorrectly dogma from their respective belief systems. The misguided Papal Crusaders of the Middle ages eventually stopped right?

Obama? Really what does he have to do with this thread? or My Posts?

Show me -- the exact equivalent in all aspects of the 9-11 attack in this Modern world, carried out by a bunch of Religiously charged up crazy people? The whole world saw who did it , who claimed responsibility and who was all amped up when it happened celebrating.
Did any of the Dali Lamas people ( another group of other guys) slam any planes into Chinese civilian targets? NO do they have reason to? Perhaps by your logic.
Imperial Japanese and their attack on Pearl Harbor was on a military target and was "brought on" one can argue with Imperial Japan's problems in dealing with the West and the US - that is as close as you can get with a Modern day counterpart to what the suicide bombers are doing - and even then it isnt the same --- they at least went after Military targets in a Military setting -- they did'nt send suicide bombers into New York city or other places to blow themselves up to show that are pissed off at policies that are unfair .

Kablammo! Keep making excuses for them and I sincerely hope that none of your relatives or friends get blown up by them since a majority of the Peace Loving Freedom fighters who battle against injustice by blowing themselves up blow up a lot of innocent people who believe what they believe as well - but are not pious enough to get strapped and detonate themselves like the ones you seem to be apologizing for or making excuses for.
--- It sucks for us all ----

[Friend]

And I, maybe being naive, choose to believe you didn´t just threaten to kill my relatives with the the help of suicide bombers over which you have no control.

Get out of Iraq. Get out of all countries.

Do not for one instant offer my relatives protection,
or I shall do the same for yours. Never ever.

[Invisoclam]

Believe it or not we agree on that Friend -- I am perhaps what one would call an Isolationist -- so on the point of getting out of Iraq or wherever else I agree.

Leave other people and their problems - or not problems alone.

And no Friend - in now way shape or form did I threaten your relatives or you - I was merely stating that when the Suicide bombers act - more often than not civilians with no connection get killed.
I do not agree with any of the non sense that has gone on Post 9 11.
Conversely I do not agree with any of the nonsense that has gone on in the name of "The struggles" in the ME.

[Friend]

My apologies then for being paranoid

The rules of war:
1. There are no rules
(like in: In love and war all is fair)
2. Civilians are the main casualties, and ever so often the main target.
- Break the civilian population (with terror), and the regime has nobody to govern.
3. The first victim of war is the truth.

Suicide bombers generarilly are not governed by any state authority,
so when a territorial state is beaten or neutralized they will still (potentially) be there,
feeding off feelings of revenge, a desire for justice.

So who doesn´t fear them? They (the smallest armies) can not be reasoned with.
There is no regime left to blackmail or threaten them with.

The style, something going bang, is but a weak echo of past bigger bangs.

What comes around goes around, violence begats violence.

What do you want? End violence? Then stop feeding it.
Stop ridiciouling the victims. Just stop.

The suicide bombers will still be around for a while,
but eventually the candidates will find no fuel, no support for their hatred.

Stop feeding them, stop the hate-mongerers amongst you.
Reap hatred, and ye shall harvest.

[Invisoclam]

Nicely Put. I can not disagree with any of it.

[Friend]

A suggested link explaining what incites a thread and a million other ones like this one:
Islamophobia in Western Media (http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/01/03/islamophobia-in-western-media?tempskin=basic)

some quotes...
Post-9/11, Western media, especially in America and Britain, describe Muslims as fundamentalists, extremists, terrorists, and fanatics. Throughout the West, Islam is identified with violence, when, in fact it has common roots with Christianity and Judaism.

The Runnymede Trust identifies eight components, characterizing Islam as:

-- monolithic, static, and unresponsive to change;

-- having differing values from other cultures and religions;

-- being inferior to Western societies;

-- barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist, violent, aggressive, threatening, supporting terrorism, and clashing with Western civilization;

-- an ideology used for political or military advantage;

-- irrationally criticizing Western values;

-- warranting discriminatory practices that exclude Muslims from mainstream society; and

-- believing anti-Muslim hostility is natural and normal.

...

In September 2001, hatemonger Ann Coulter wrote:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officials. We carpet bombed German cities and killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

...

Kumar considered "five key taken-for-granted" post-9/11 myths, that:

(1) Islam is monolithic. In fact, as practiced in dozens of countries globally, it's diverse within many Sunni and Shiite branches.

(2) It's uniquely sexist. In fact, no more or less than all major religions. Christian dogma says Eve was created out of Adam's rib. European and American women once were burned at the stake as witches. It took them a 100 year struggle to be able to vote. Their rights have always been attacked, including over their own bodies, Christian fascists promoting male gender dominance, and right to fetal life over pregnant women and men.

(3) It's inherently violent and intolerant, the term "jihad' wrongfully used to connote holy war. In fact, it refers both to an internal struggle to overcome one's weaknesses, as well as a lesser one for self-preservation and defense.

(4) The "Muslim mind" is incapable of reason and science. On September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI equated Catholicism with reason, saying violent Islam lacked it. Many others before him made the same argument, as spurious and racist then as now.

(5) "The West spreads democracy, while Islam spawns terrorism." As a result, Western civilization must modernize and tame it. America, of course, disdains democratic freedoms, preferring easily co-opted despots, not social justice and liberation.

Kumar fights myths with scholarly analysis, exposing them as hateful and bogus.
...

"What we are seeing is a right-wing populist movement beginning to manifest racism at its core." It's both electoral and grassroots "based on intimidating Muslim communities and Latino immigrants." Islamophobia incites "war on terror" hysteria and "serv(es) the domestic agenda of the far right in ways similar to what has gone on in Europe."

[American_Jihad]

JEWISH FAMILY MURDERED IN SLEEP BY ISLAMIC BEASTS AND PALESTENIANS PASS OUT CANDY
3/12/11

Five members of Jewish family killed in suspected Palestinian militant attackParents and three children aged between three months and 11 knifed to death in their West Bank home

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4945/110313fogel.jpg (http://img600.imageshack.us/i/110313fogel.jpg/)

Warning graphic PICS (http://muqata.blogspot.com/p/fogel-family-massacred.html)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/west-bank-jewish-family-killed


Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace
"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

2011.03.21 (Gwader, Pakistan) - Islamic militants stage a rocket attack on a construction crew, killing eleven.
2011.03.21 (Datta Khel, Pakistan) - The Taliban kidnap, execute and mutilate four tribesmen.
2011.03.20 (Diala, Iraq) - Six family members, including three children, are cut to shreads by a brutal suicide bombing at their home.
2011.03.20 (Kirkuk, Iraq) - An 18-year-old woman is abducted and executed by suspected terrorists.
2011.03.19 (Mosul, Iraq) - Terrorists open fire on a construction worker and his wife.
2011.03.19 (Pattani, Thailand) - A street vendor is cut down by Muslim gunmen.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[Friend]

Pointless copy and paste.
The violence originates from the Israelis.

[American_Jihad]

Spot on copy and paste.
The violence originates from Islamic Beasts.

Fatal blast, and Israel again confronts spectre of bus terrorism Conal
March 25, 2011

THE Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has vowed to react ''aggressively'' after a suitcase bomb exploded in Jerusalem, killing a 60-year-old woman and injuring at least 30 people, three of them seriously.

The bombing, the first in the city for almost seven years, follows several days of rising tension along the Gaza Strip border. It will take Jerusalemites and the residents of other Israeli cities back to the time when the Palestinians' second intifada was at its height between 2001 and 2004, and Israeli buses were regularly targeted by suicide bombers. Simply boarding a bus felt like a game of Russian roulette, and drivers and passengers in cars waited nervously at traffic lights if a bus was sitting in the next lane.

There has not been a bombing in Jerusalem since 2004, and there have been only a handful of suicide bombings in other Israeli cities in the past five years.

Advertisement: Story continues below Reports soon after the explosion suggested it was not the work of a suicide bomber but rather the detonation of a package left at the city's central terminus in West Jerusalem.

It was assumed Palestinian militants were behind the attack, with the Israeli military swiftly labelling it a terrorist operation. No one claimed responsibility.

''Israel will act aggressively, responsibly and wisely to preserve the quiet and security that prevailed here over the past two years,'' Mr Netanyahu said.

Earlier he told MPs: ''It could be that this matter will entail exchanges of blows, and it may take a certain period of time, but we are very determined to strike at the terrorist elements and deny them the means of attacking our citizens.''

Hamas, the Islamist group that controls the Gaza Strip, said a series of Israeli air strikes yesterday hit its training facilities and smuggling tunnels beneath the Gaza-Egypt border. It reported no casualties.

The Jerusalem bombing was swiftly condemned by the Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, who said the ''terrorist operation'' damaged the Palestinian cause and contradicted ''our people's legitimate endeavour to gain its freedom by peaceful means''.

There has been relative calm in Israel, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in the past few years

but in the past week a barrage of missiles has been fired into Israel from Gaza, followed by retaliatory air strikes and tank shelling by the Israeli military. At least 10 Palestinians have been killed, including two children.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fatal-blast-and-israel-again-confronts-spectre-of-bus-terrorism-20110324-1c8gz.html

:happy_11:

[American_Jihad]

al-Huwayni, this son of beast needs to to be gutted and boiled in pigs blood...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1DNzSJ8mVo&feature=player_embedded

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/06/02/glenns-passionate-stand-in-the-face-of-evil/

[American_Jihad]

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/433/indonesiachurchsuicide.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/indonesiachurchsuicide.jpg/)
A Holy Warrior enters a Sunday church service in Indonesia wearing a
vest packed with explosives and shrapnel that includes nuts and bolts.
According to his cleric's teachings, which are rooted in the Quran, this
young martyr is rewarded with an eternity of gluttony and sex while he
taunts his Christian victims as they are being tortured by Allah himself.


Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

2011.09.27 (Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan) - A man and boy are torn apart by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2011.09.27 (Shindand, Afghanistan) - Eleven children are among a family of sixteen shredded by Mujahideen bombers.
2011.09.27 (Sumisip, Philippines) - Abu Sayyaf members assault a village, killing six, including several residents.
2011.09.26 (Diwaniya, Iraq) - An imam nearly loses his life to Religion of Peace rivals, who do manage to kill his companion.
2011.09.26 (Kabul, Afghanistan) - An American security analyst is gunned down by a Fedayeen working as a trusted employee.
2011.09.25 (Karbala, Iraq) - al-Qaeda devotees target Shiites with four bomb blasts that leave nearly twenty dead.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

[American_Jihad]

Iranian Pastor Must Disavow His Christian Faith This Week…or He’ll Be Executed
9/28/11

Iranian Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani continues to very literally fight for his life in Iranian courts. As the Blaze reported back in July, Nadarkhani was arrested in October 2009 and charged with apostasy (the total abandonment of one’s religion) following a conversion from Islam to Christianity.

As we have already reported, Nadarkhani, now 32, made this conversion years ago when he was a teenager. While this has become the basis for the Iranian case against him, his initial arrest surrounded his public opposition to Christian schoolchildren being forced to participate in Islamic religious education. The Christian Post has more about how the pastor first came to the attention of authorities:

MORE:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/iranian-pastor-must-disavow-his-christian-faith-this-week-or-hell-be-executed/

[GreatOne]

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/433/indonesiachurchsuicide.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/820/indonesiachurchsuicide.jpg/)
A Holy Warrior enters a Sunday church service in Indonesia wearing a
vest packed with explosives and shrapnel that includes nuts and bolts.
According to his cleric's teachings, which are rooted in the Quran, this
young martyr is rewarded with an eternity of gluttony and sex while he
taunts his Christian victims as they are being tortured by Allah himself.


Islam's Latest Contributions to Peace

"Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless
to the unbelievers but merciful to one another" Quran 48:29

2011.09.27 (Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan) - A man and boy are torn apart by a Shahid suicide bomber.
2011.09.27 (Shindand, Afghanistan) - Eleven children are among a family of sixteen shredded by Mujahideen bombers.
2011.09.27 (Sumisip, Philippines) - Abu Sayyaf members assault a village, killing six, including several residents.
2011.09.26 (Diwaniya, Iraq) - An imam nearly loses his life to Religion of Peace rivals, who do manage to kill his companion.
2011.09.26 (Kabul, Afghanistan) - An American security analyst is gunned down by a Fedayeen working as a trusted employee.
2011.09.25 (Karbala, Iraq) - al-Qaeda devotees target Shiites with four bomb blasts that leave nearly twenty dead.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/



Thats some bad shit..the stronger the faith..the worse the person.

Can some one point out a peaceful majority Muslim nation

[GreatOne]

Its not looking good for Islam...can anyone refute this.
Where is the peace?
Lets face it...they are merely large groups of brainwashed people.
Hitler and the gang so to say....same motive just a different path..but in this case..many more followers