The Ontological Metaphysics behind the Physical Manifesto of Islam

Discussion in 'A Ontological Metaphysics of Islamic Ideology' started by admin, Dec 18, 2015.

  1. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    The Ontological Metaphysics behind the Physical Manifesto of Islam
    The Jihad of Islam and the Hadji of Logos

    The Resistance or Counter Movement to the Islamisation of Western Civilization by the Rationalisation of Fundamental Christianity as an Eschatological Alternative to Islam's "Islamic Nation" as a Politico-Religious Movement and Organization.

    An Open letter to all liberty centred individuals and political affiliates or friends of Roger Spencer, Pamela Geller and Geert Wilders.

    A Historical background of Islam as a Political-Religious Ideology and Organisation

    The fall of the orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire (New Eastern Rome, centred on Constantinople) in the seventh century to the Arabs in the Muslim conquests following the assassination of Maurice (reigning from 582-602) and the Byzantine-Sasanian war of 602-628 coincided with the establishment of what is called Islam in the historical records.;

    The Old Roman Empire (Old Western Rome) had deteriorated and lost its political influence by 530 and the Arab conquerers of the Byzantine Empire realized the attempt and success of its Roman predecessor to unify their jurisdictions by a religious philosophy or clerical rule for political purposes.
    So the 'times and life' of Muhammad ( 570-610- 632) can be associated with the political establishment of the Arab jurisprudence over their conquered territories, beginning in the historical records with the Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali - {Sunni lineage 632-661 with Shia lineage beginning with Ali 656-661}), followed by the Umayyad dynasties as successors after the supposed death of Muhammad in 632.
    The Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (646-685-705) is said to have collected the Qur'an under editorial access by Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, the then governor, general and administrator of Iraq.
    The actual historical manifestation of the Qur'an and the appearance of Muhammad in the records does not appear until the caliphate of Abd al-Malik and even the canonical Islamic records show no distribution of the Qur'an until the the appearance of that caliph, said to have 'collected' and edited the Qur'an during his time of Arab-Islamic rulership.
    The name Muhammad and the present unfoldment of the Islamic ideology so begins to enter recorded history in this caliphate, the label of the Qur'an then becoming more prevalent in other non-Islamic Jewish and Christian accounts and records from the eighth century onwards.
    A case so can be made, that the prophet Muhammad of the Qur'an and the construction and dissemination of the Qur'an is rather closely associated with the Umayyad caliphate of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.

    The prophet Muhammad could also be a label for a title or office for an exemplary personage, military leader or administrator to render the character and conduct of this model to become enshrined as 'holy law' and as infallible behavior, which should be copied and repeated as idealization. Additionally, 'Muhammad' as a title could become identified as the Muslim name for an equivalent signum such as 'Krystos' or 'Kristos' or Christ from an earlier tradition and as found within the remnants of the conquered territories, say the religion of an exiled Byzantine gnostic sect.
    The construction of 'Muhammad the servant and apostle or prophet of Allah' in the 8th Century in the Umayyad dynasty then could be an adaptation of Muhammad/Jesus, the Prophet of Allah as the Arabic translation for 'Jesus, the Prophet of Jehovah/Abba' from the earlier Christian tradition and without any then existing agenda for this conquest to become a self reenforcing validation of the political agenda as a veiled context of infallible and so coercive divinely inspired and transmitted lexicon of instructions named the 'Holy Qur'an'.
    The success of the Arab invasion in a military sense, so formed a valueable platform for the caliphates to establish political order and jurisdiction in the 'New Arabia' in the establishment of an overarching 'new religion', which could replace the older priesthoods as remnants found in the conquered lands.

    A distinction between Jehovah as the YHWH of Judaism and 'Abba the Father of Jesus in Heaven', (encoded as YHWHY and as a resymmetrisation of the Judaic Tetragrammaton into a Christian Pentagrammaton) must be made in the context of this article.
    Many of the physical atrocities committed by Islamic State and much of its global domination agenda is also found in a certain ultra orthodox interpretation of the Torah and Talmudic codices sans the New Testament.

    Robert Spencer's propositions as to the derivative of Islam as the youngest worldwide religion from older traditions based on Zoroastrianism, Judaism and Christianity so is fully supported in this essay, descriptive for the metaphysical or 'spiritual' ontology and purpose of Islam.
    Once Islam had become the official clerical administration in the Arabian kingdom, the amalgamation of those parts of the older religions considered suitable by the muslim administrators became the backbone and core for the Qur'an as the validation of Islam as being the final word of the creator.

    As 'Muhammad' could be used as a title and the claim of Christianity to the 'Krystos' was well established in Byzantine Christendom; the Islamic clerical administration decided to absorb the 'Krystos' title as the 'Prophet or servant or apostle of God' in 'Muhammad'. In this manner could the claim for Muhammad being the final and last prophet be justified, rendering Jesus Muhammad's forerunner or predecessor and who then had prepared the way for the final prophet Muhammad, apostle of Allah.
    This then became the absorption of the New Testament by Islam, centred on the title of 'Jesus the Christ' and omitting the rest of the New Testament and including the basic tenets of it, such as the death and resurrection of Jesus in the process as an irrelevant and unsuitable hindrance to the core political motivations of the by now muslim Arab nation.
    Orthodox Judaism rejected the New Testament as well and so to absorb Judaism, Islam was more sympathetic and akin to the Old Testament, the Torah and the Talmudic traditions. Islam so fully embraced the laws of Jehovah in terms of the 'conquering and administration' of the 'holy promised land' and those laws can be found in various details and derivatives in the Qur'an.
    The Torah also contains poetic treatizes of harmony and peace and love, even aligned to somewhat obscured sexual references, such as the Song of Songs of Solomon and the Psalms of David and the Proverbs and also futuristic dispensations in the Book of Isaiah, which contra more detailed actual historical accounts, such as the Books of Jeremiah and Daniel can easily be associated with any timeframe not particular to historical records in some chronological order, despite encompassing some historically verifiable references, such as to Assyria in Isaiah.37. It stands to reason then, that universal principles of poetry, art and cosmic harmony are also found in the Qur'an as adaptations from the Torah and older traditions from Zoroastrianism, if not from the New Testament and the literature of the pre- and post Christians sects such as can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran (essenes) in Israel or Nag Hammadi (gnostics) in Egypt.

    The western world in its blatant scientific materialism fails to understand that the motivation of Islamic State to act as it does is in no way a misrepresentation of islam as a religion of peace and love.
    Those tenets are indeed found in the Qur'an, but as a core copying effect from the Old Testament, such as its poetry and wisdom sayings found in many places.
    So the visions of the 'Greater Israel' as say portrayed in Isaiah as the Utopian New World and not placed into a particular timeframe becomes simply mirrored in the 'Great Nation Islam', the caliphate of Islamic State.
    The chronologies in the Torah, subject to historical analysis are all omitted in the Qur'an, such as Chronicles and Kings and time specific books like Jeremiah and Daniel.
    The name of the god of Judaism is well known from Exodus.3.14 as the 'I Am That I Am' and as the mystification in the kabbalistic tetragrammaton in YHWH. The 'prophet Moses' as a conquering patriarch, eliminating any resisting populations encountered in the conquered lands so fits in rather well into the Islamic agenda to conquer the world as the 'holy land' of Islam. So 'Moses' and a name which has more pharaonic linguistic derivatives, than Hebrew ones in Thutmosis and Ahmose and Rameses can also be considered a title which can be muslimized in 'Muhammad'. In this way then Islam blends the 'physically conquering 'Moses' with the 'spiritual' conquering of the 'Krystos' in the one honorific of 'Muhammad'.

    So if the god Jehovah of Judaism as found in the Torah is essentially the template god of Islam as Allah; then what is the difference?

    Jehovah has a son called Adam as his own 'perfect image' or veritas eikona. The reason of why Jehovah requires a son who then becomes a son with a daughter from the son is explored later; but Allah has no son, but both gods correlate in that both do not have a female companion to birth any sons or daughters. The reason for Eve the daughter is of course found in this physical dilemma. If Jehovah is male then where is the female? In the physical reality this becomes a paradox, but in the metaphysical ontology it becomes a cosmology preceded by a cosmogony.
    The cosmology is creation inclusive of an entire Quantum Big Bang Cosmology based on the 'Laws of Nature' and related to a 'Natural Philosophy' which unfortunately for the present invasion of the western civilization by islam has distanced itself in a blindfolded secularism from the original philosophy, which might be called a 'Perennial Philosophy' and which preceded and is the parent of the 'Scientific Philosophy'. If this cosmogony then can be modeled and constructed in a self consistent manner and (mathematical) logic; then the origins of space and time and any following cosmology such as a Quantum Big Bang creation event would be easily understood as the ontology for this cosmology.
    So then what is called the ''rationale of secular scientific-economic materialism' is like the world view or cosmology as believed in by a wayward 'prodigal son', who has forgotten or is in amnesia that he actually owes hisher existence to a mother and a father who together form his cosmogony or 'Genesis' and an origin which could be termed the 'Omni-Science of the Logos', encompassing and blending the physical realism of the cosmology with the metaphysics or spirituality of the cosmogony.

    Islamic State as the 'Eternal Nation Islam' with its value system based on a strict adherence to perceived spiritual principles became the replacement for the metaphysical omission of western civilization. Western culture in its 'political correctness' and multicultural sameness and economic priorities opened its cultural gates or Ba'bs (Arabic gate) of its own 'spiritual emptiness' or void in ignoring well understood 'dangers' to its long fought for principles of freedom of the individual and expression from other diametrically opposed principles, such as prioritizing the economic security of supplies over the danger of losing the valued and historically timeframe evolved principles of its 'free and democratic standards of society'. Appeasing the 'Nation of the Brotherhood of Islam' in the context of the United Nations and in the form of granting nationalistic group privileges becomes a treason by the political western administrators towards its own constituency in the betrayal of its stated constitutional egalitarianism for its citizenry.

    A true muslim, following his allegiance to his religion of Islam could never agree to forsake hisher spiritual fundamental position to assimilate and accept the basically anti-spiritual value system of the western civilization. So a true muslim is not a terrorist according to his metaphysical tradition, if he in any manner destroys parts or principles of any part of the 'Islamic State' not yet conquered by the 'Servants of Allah' in the model of Muhammad.
    A true muslim so cannot be assimilated into any value system which is not Islam.

    So what then is a secular muslim?
    A secular muslim is a true muslim who also fully adheres to the principles of Islam and as clearly stated in the Qur'an as the master guide book.
    A true muslim is invited to pretend not to be a true muslim, if this behavior and agenda serves Allah. In other words deception and lies (Taquia) are fully endorsed and in divine order, should such deception serve the overall islamic agenda of creating the global caliphate.

    The western assimilators and including youth workers and counsellers of 'radicalised' young muslims fail to realise that imploring the parents and the families of the 'radicalised' are not the 'unradicalised' and 'normal' and moderate muslims, who will be able to correct the aberrant behavior patterns of their misguided children of Islam.
    Would the parents and families do so, they would betray Islam and the Qur'an.
    To seek assistance from the imams and the muftis and the administrators of the islamic mosques indicates even more so, how the western assimilators have become blinded by their own sense of what a democratic civilization's citizenry should or must be.

    In terms of the metaphysics then, the great distinction between Judaism and Islam becomes the notion of a secular Jew and a secular Muslim.
    The westernization of Judaism has succeeded to a large extent in that the metaphysical core of Judaism has become the ultra orthodox faction in Israel and whilst this faction can be said to be the spiritual brother of the muslim in terms of their 'holy literature'; this spiritual brotherhood manifests iitself in a physics of total opposition as the war between the Arab and the Jew. As Pamela Geller has often said, it is not about the land it is a religious war, a war of ideas and information and there can never be a two-state solution of peaceful coexistence as is the dream of the assimilators.

    If there is a solution to the 'Middle East Crisis', then this solution must be metaphysical and not political. But the western mentality has eschewed and dismissed the metaphysical reality in its stated scientism and materialism. This 'prodigal spiritual son' is now reaping the consequences of hisher neglectfulness in the imminent loss of his own civilization. This civilization has reformed itself and has created and seeks the democratization of the world in its own image. This is precisely what Islamic State is doing and so despite the proclamations of the intelligentsia and the elitist political and economic classes in the western worlds, that this is not a clash of civilizations, it is just that.
    What the remnant of the western civilization fails to do, but Islamic State does rather well; is to present the 'Dream of Islam' as say in the 'Eternal Nation Islam'. Where is the 'Dream or Ideal Image' of the western world? Is it consumerism and advertising?
    Is it Individualisation at all costs and a separation of the group-consciousness into pockets of personal preferences, likes and dislikes?
    Is it about the relativity of truth, as the final climax of the relativism of opinion? Is it the godless world of a purposeless universe hosting purposeless individuals seeking and pursuing an ultimate meaningless existence?
    The Jihadist of Islamic State does not think so, but the elitist governors and administrators throughout western civilization do.
    Because science can explain the physical reality, in time all will be understood in a reductionistic materialistic realism?!
    Can science explain the metaphysical reality, which is rather real to Islamic State?
    It can, it has all the parts to do so. To blend the brilliant cosmology and technology and artistic culture it has developed with the ontology of this cosmology called cosmogony or the Ontology of a Science of the beginning, its own scientific genesis.
    But the elitists know almost nothing about it. So you cannot go to some library or university to find the metaphysical reality of modern science.
    Just like the Islamic State and Jihadism are dismissed as aberrations, as some punctuated equilibrium in the history and evolvement of the paradigm of science and a nexus in the timeframe of a civilization, so is the solution to the physical crisis mirrored in the world dismissed as fantasy and as valueless.
    The solution is translation of the archetypology and symbolism and language of Islam into a universal language. Doing this will harmonise and unify all religions and all the sciences in a 'New World' which then is the 'Eternal Nation Islam' and the 'New Israel Jerusalem' and a 'New Planetary Civilization' enabled to travel to the stars to explore the extraterrestrial universe.

    But here is the problem for the western civilization and which is no problem for Islamic State.
    The solution is not hidden; it is easily accessible by anyone. But it requires translation and the attempt to translate is disallowed by the western elitists and controlleurs as it is said to be divisive and private and has no place in the secularization and relativism of perception in a purposeless world of ultimate meaninglessness.
    As an example, one might present a scripture passage from the Old Testament or the New Testament or the Qur'an and state that this is more than is seen - it is a cosmic universal code as all such things are and including the suras and the hadiths of the Qur'an.

    But how does the western scientism believer react to it? Heshe dismisses it as some form historical text from the past and localized and individualized to personal preferences of both authors and readers.
    How does the jihadist react to it? He personalizes it just as the western scientist does, but the jihadist perceives immediate and present value and potency in what he processes in hisher mind contemplating the code.
    The code might be a letter or a word or a symbol or a sentence. Whatever it is; it is a means to create a mental image, a meme or a collection of memes called a memeplex.
    Memeplexes are the metaphysical reality, however dependent on some physical reality existing as a reference within say space or spacetime to create the memeplex.
    The Jihadist fully 'believes' in the reality of his own memeplex creation, whilst the western scientist dismisses it as some unreal imaginary fantasy in hisher head and brain. The belief of the scientist in the western civilization gives no credence to the memeplex of being in any way 'real' in the physical universe he explores and analyses.
    And so only the global scientist of both the figurative east and the reflective opposite west can even begin to use the western potency of analysis and criticism to find the solution to the 'wayward and radicalised' memeplexes the Jihadist eats for breakfast, lunch and tea.

    The secular Israeli fully embraces the scientism of the western civilization and many have greatly supported and added to its lexicon. Albert Einstein is a secular Jew and one of the pillars of the western scientific paradigm and he is also a pacifist and believer in the rights of the individual.
    Did Albert Einstein deny his Jewish heritage - No?! Did he in any way feel, he betrayed the ultra-orthodox interpretation of the Torah and the Talmud of his countrymen - No?!
    Did he believe in the god of Judaism at all? Did he believe in the Christian god of the New Testament, the 'Father in Heaven' called Abba by Jesus and which might not be Jehovah at all and yet being related to the god of Moses at the 'Burning Bush' via the 'unspeakable' name of the YHWH? Did he believe in some mathematical and logical order inherently discoverable in the universe and which he might have called 'The Old One'?

    Then modern Israel is just that 'modernized' and reformed in the evolvement of its political history; secular in many parts and encompassing the principles and values of western civilization into which it has integrated and assimilated easily, whenever it did not practise its particular and specific memeplexes as held divine and sacrosanct by the ultra-orthodox parts of its family. The coexistence of the ultra-orthodox Jew with the orthodox Jew with the secular Jew then is encompassed by a common bond of a shared history and past, but the general evolution of the 'Family of Israel' within a greater global context is and was fully accepted.
    But if the general Jew would consider his nation's or family's memeplex regarding their sacred scriptural legacy as serious as the muslim does, then any Jew but the ultra-orthodox Jew would become a traitor and heretic relative to the letter of the law of Jehovah and Jehovah's prophet.

    But here is the key. Where is the 'Prophet of Jehovah'? It is not Moses, because the mosaic covenant and the prophets of the Torah predict the coming of a Jewish messiah and therefore Israel is still awaiting their redeemer.
    Orthodox Jewry has rejected Jesus of Nazareth as the prophet of Jehovah and therefore Jesus became the prophet of Abba. Abba so redeemed Jehovah in the form of the metaphysical order of the cosmogenesis of the creator memeplexes at the timeframe of 2 millennia ago. Why Jehovah requires redemption relates to his and Allah's self imprisonment in the said order of the memeplexes, which ultimately relate to the existence of the codes to which all memeplexes and so all religions and philosophies and belief systems and so on owe their existence. And it is there, where the western scientific rationalism would, if it had the necessary mentality and aptitude, would find its very own raison d etre'.

    All true muslims are ultra-orthodox and cannot be assimilated into any culture except Islam, but all true Israelites are secular to various degrees and only the ultra-orthodox Jew cannot be assimilated in the individual sense, but as a group within groups heshe nevertheless integrates in the greater context of the nation Israel. This integration is also a memeplex; namely the Nation Israel is also the patriarch Jacob renamed to Israel and so the individual Jew is the Nation.
    In eschatological terms, when the 'Prophet of Jehovah' appears in the orthodox group, it will also appear in the secular group as the 'Prophet of Abba' because the god of Christianity is Abba and not Jehovah and through the New Testament and the memeplexes related to Abba and Jesus and the Apostles and Disciples there are no longer any goyim or gentiles or infidels in the 'New Jerusalem' as an 'Eternal Nation Israel' which is both the global nation of a 'New World' and the Individual belonging to it as per the New Testament memeplex as a 'universal cosmic thoughtform' energized by the 'spirit' and a 'quantum wave' which can be translated into the omni-scientific code of 'electromagnetic monopolar radiation' (EMMR) as a memeplex transformation of abstract, but mathematical archetypes and symbols.

    The history of islam and its prophet, so can be reconfigured in the light of a non Islamic account of its own data base and infused with a rationale for the secular political reason for its existence. This agenda then can be compared and contrasted with the importance and influence of the philosophies and religious administrations contemporary with the islam of the caliphates.

    • No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
    • A Christian account apparently dating from the mid-630s speaks of an Arab prophet “armed with a sword” who seems to be still alive.
    • The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,” “Muhajirun,” and “Hagarians” but never “Muslims.”
    • The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
    • The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650’s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabian nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.
    • During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661-680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross.
    • We begin hearing about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself in the 690’s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik. Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
    • Around the same time, Arabic became the predominant written language of the Arabian Empire, supplanting Syriac and Greek.
    • Abd al-Malik claimed, in a passing remark in one hadith, to have collected the Qur’an, contradicting Islamic tradition that the collection was the work of the caliph Uthman forty years earlier.
    • Multiple hadiths report that Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, governor of Iraq during the reign of Abd al-Malik, edited the Qur’an and distributed his new edition to the various Arab-controlled provinces— again, something Uthman is supposed to have done decades earlier.
    • Even some Islamic traditions maintain that certain common Islamic practices, such as the recitation of the Qur’an during mosque prayers, date from orders of Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, not to the earlier period of Islamic history.
    • In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynastic supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik. The Abbasids charged the Umayyads with impiety on a large scale. In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Mohammed began to proliferate. The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era—at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death.
    • The biographical material that emerged situates Muhammad in an area of Arabia that never was the center for trade and pilgrimage that the canonical Islamic account of Islam’s origin depend on it to be. (pp.205-206)


    Contemporary Islam as a Political-Religious Ideology and Organisation

    Worldwide caliphate

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A worldwide caliphate is the concept of a single theocratic one-world government as proposed by many devout Muslims, in particular Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.[1][2] In 2014, Baghdadi claimed to have succeeded in the creation of a worldwide caliphate.[3] On April 8, 2006, the Daily Times of Pakistan reported that at a rally held in Islamabad the militant organization Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan called for the formation of a Worldwide Caliphate, which was to begin in Pakistan.[4]
    Hizb ut-Tahrir, a pan-Islamic political organization, believes that all Muslims should unite in a worldwide caliphate[5][6] that will "challenge, and ultimately conquer, the West."[7] While extremists often commit acts of violence in pursuit of this goal, it is alleged to lack appeal among a wider Islamic audience.[8] Brigitte Gabriel argues that the goal of a worldwide caliphate is central to the enterprise of radical Islam.[9]


    In his 2007 book, Islamic Imperialism: A History Efraim Karsh explains the concept's origin:[10]

    As a universal religion, Islam envisages a global political order in which all humankind will live under Muslim rule as either believers or subject communities. In order to achieve this goal it is incumbent on all free, male, adult Muslims to carry out an uncompromising struggle 'in the path of Allah,' or jihad. This in turn makes those parts of the world that have not yet been conquered by the House of Islam an abode of permanent conflict (Dar al-Harb, the house of War) which will only end with Islam's eventual triumph.
    In his 2007 book, Islamic Imperialism: A History Efraim Karsh explains the concept's origin:[10] ;

    The SWORD of Allah's Jihad and the 'Islamic State Caliphate' as the WORDS of Post-Christian WORDS of the 'New Jerusalem'

    jer1. jer2. jer3.

    The recipients of this message are well informed about the status quo of the islamisation of Western Civilization and as encapsulated in the descriptors above and many more informative media presentations from Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Geert Wilders, David Horowitz, Brigitte Gabriel, Gregory M. Davies, Walid Shoebat, Jay Smith, Raymond Ibrahim and Pat Cornell and the political root organisations addressing this issue are available through the appropriate and associated channels of data information, public addresses, websites and conferences.

    The supporters and organisers of the resistance movement against the political islamisation of western civilization, face however a difficult task to inform the greater public about the nature of this 'coup etat' of the islamic agenda to establish a global caliphate under islamic political rule under sharia law.

    Due to the support of mainstream media and all political systems in the Western world, operating under a perceived egalitarian agenda of 'freedom of religion' and a non-discriminatory approach to minority groups, this sense of libertarianism affiliated with the executive and jurisprudential enforcement of this administration, has allowed the political intent of islamisation to become obscured by utility of its mantle or facade of being 'only' a religion and not a political movement with its own agenda.

    In other words, the political establishment of the 'social justice' and 'progressive liberalism' or the 'left wing' has become as compromised and mentally hoodwinked by its own political motivations and stated intents, as has the politics of the right wing of the 'fundamental' conservatives.
    As the mainstream media outlets for the populations in the western countries are more or less sponsored and reliant on their governmental regulations and affiliations, the prevalent 'administrative norms' regarding information dissemination to the public are dependant on the 'current mentality and mindform or memeplex of their political administrations.
    Because of the prevailing memeplex of 'political correctness' regarding the 'freedom of religious expression' and a perceived or 'wished for' multicultural integration of Islam just as a 'religion of peace' and completely separated from possible abstractions or corruptions of that religion; the path of sharing the information about the political nature of Islam with the general populations and constituency in the 'infiltrated' nations cannot take the path of the official channels of the mainstream media and public forums.


    This is the unedited version of Fitna prior to Live Leak editing it down after receiving death threats if they did not remove FITNA immediately.
    Geert Wilders brings us the truth about Islam and the Koran.​

    The rise of Islamic State as a 'fundamental' and true form of Islam and in full adherence, affiliation and obedient observance to the Qur'an has been analysed as a purely terrorist movement of 'religious madmen or crazies' of the Islamic religion and so has been dismissed by the mainstream administratons and intelligentsia as having anything to do with its political motivations and agendas.
    This course of political deception is perfectly acceptable to political Islam as clearly stated in the Qur'an as a way and method to 'please Allah' and to further the ultimate motivation of islam to establish global governance and domination in a political sense, expressed under religious sharia law.

    A new form of the Vox Populi is accessible through 'alternative and social media' however and a unifying force of the resistance to islamisation of western civilization can use this medium to enhance its seedling presence in the nations in the form of grass root political alternatives.

    The 'mad terrorists' of Islamic State and as portrayed by the mainstream media to the general citizenship of nations infected by the 'memeplex virus of Islam' are no 'crazies' at all, but fully motivated and well intentioned citizens of the new caliphate of the 'New Islamic Nation'.
    The label of the 'religion deluded fanatic terrorist' might seem appropriate to a secular and generally atheistic 'disbeliever' 'believing' instead in scientific rationalism; but becomes a 'heroic member' of the islamic community and family in the all conquering and divine islamic paradise of the 'New Nation of Islam' relative to the 'believer' in Allah, its prophet Muhammad and the Qu'ran.

    The mere idea of Islam represents a thoughtform, a meme or image created from say an universal or cosmic library of memories and like an empty canvas for a painter can become expanded and embellished by colours, hues and context to form a memeplex or collective memory bank as part of a 'cosmic story' or Logos script; so can the conceptualization, invention, system or religion of Islam become a mental belief system and realism for its creators, adherents and believers.
    Then the more this islamic memeplex is 'fed' by believers, the more energy and potency this thoughtform will carry to affect and interact with the physical and metaphysical environment in which it resides.
    The imagination defining and creating of this conceptualization can be said to become a metaphysical precursor or 'parent' for this 'image making' of this imaginary concept or 'mental energy'.

    Once the 'making of the mental images' centered on the concept of the islamic memeplex has attained certain points of saturation, say akin the boiling- or freezing point of water; it will become enabled to assume a more and more increasing concrete form and manifest itself in a shared memeplex called the religion of Islam.
    The physicalisation of the islamic memeplex will then become increasingly more potent in the creation of a physical objectification of the subject matter of the thoughtform in say literary representations like the suras and hadiths and sayings found in the Qur'an and the physical representations of islamic symbols on coins and tapestries and citadels and mosques and other artifacts.
    The manifestation of the islamic memeplex, just as any memeplex in any form of physicalisation from its metaphysical or mental definition, is however subject to reconfiguration and modification within the process of its growth and progressive expansion.

    Should now the initial creator meme, say called 'Allah' in Islam; become in some way restricted to engage in its own self evolution; then the islamic memeplex could grow in an evergrowing linear spacetimed extent; but remain dimensionally restricted in that same cosmological spacetime.
    This then constitutes the root cause for the failure of the islamic memeplex to reform or reconfigure itself in the linear unfoldment of its linear timeline of its own history.
    It is literally 'stuck in a timewarp' and unable to escape its own definition entrapment due to its original universal self definition or original originality.
    Initial conditions of the encountered physical environment and circumstance at the institutionalization of Islam, then became 'frozen in time' as a definition for the nature of Allah as unchangeable, eternal and undefinable.
    This status quo becomes Allah's restriction and inability to evolve past the environmental canvas of its own conception.
    The offspring or progeny of Allah in its 'Children of Islam' then places a time evolving restriction or imprisonment upon the mentality of the believers and adherents to the family of Allah in the evolving concept of the 'Eternal Nation of Islam'.

    It is of course possible and feasible in the metaphysics to define a creator memeplex like Allah to be unchangeable and undefinale or unimage makeable; but doing this will have consequences in the physical manifesto of Allah's family; just as is witnessed in the activity of the fundamental nature and definition of Islam.
    This realization can now be used to define a 'family' or genus of creator memes of similar disposition.
    The Allah creator meme so becomes a direct image or mirror for the Jehovah meme of fundamental Judaism, sharing the same nature of literay constancy and unchangeability.

    But in the case of the time evolvement of Judaism, the offspring of Jehovah in Adam and the continuity of Eve from Adam as the second generation from the initial creator memeplex allowed a cosmogenetic succession for Jehovah in his Son-Daughter Adam-Eve also related to a subsequent redefinition or reconfiguration of the maleness of the Son cosmogenetically inherent in Eve to become supramentalised in an evolving Jehovian memeplex and the evolution of a separate femaleness in the separation of the original Eve from the original Adam in the doubling or twinning of the maleness and the femaleness in a newly created world differing in the dimensional constitution.
    Then despite the definition of an unchanging Jehovah, the Sondaughter of a New Adam and the Daughterson of a New Eve; both and within a form of sexually differentiated archetypological twinship; could allow the Old Jehovah memeplex to eventually evolve in a new and renewed image making of the original mirror between Jehovah and Adam as a maleness and before Eve became the medium of transformation, say as the 'rib of Adam' as the original femaleness.
    Returning the 'rib of adam' as Old Eve into the original old Adam so would also mirror and redefine Old Jehovah into a New Jehovah which is called or named Abba by the 'Prophet of Abba' known as Yeshuah Jesus ben Joseph bar Thomas de Nazareth Naassenis and also as Jesus of Nazareth, the Logos of Abba redefined with the Gate or Baab of Abba also known as Barbelo Mother of the Creation Worlds of the 'Perfect Shining One' as the Father Creator.
    As Allah has no Son, Allah cannot mirror himself in a 'veritas eikona' or 'perfect image' and so Allah remains trapped in his own archetypically stipulated constancy and resides in a warpzone of universal or cosmic self imprisonment of its own orginal cosmic selfhood definition.
    Therefore Allah can be said to mirror and define a creator memeplex brotherhood in Jehovah, so uniting or contrasting this cosmic brotherhood in the religions of Islam and Judaism, in their native self similarity and definition and subject to environmemtal physical stimulus, creating the potential for war and peace and harmony and conflict.

    How then can Allah escape his selfmade imprisonment?
    Allah was defined by the creators and image makers of the Qur'an; but those creators drew on a previous creator memeplex, namely the image making of Jehovah creating a codex known as the Torah and the Old Testament of Judeo-Christianity. So the brotherhood of the creator memeplexes is mirrored and physicalized in the brotherhood of the two religion memeplexes called 'Logos or Words of Judaism' and 'Logos or Words of Islam'.

    A simple code so indicates the metaphysical dilemma for Allah archetyped and symbolized by the SWORD of ALLAH in a cosmic argument and jealousy between the two creator brothers Allah and Jehovah; Jehovah also being defined in the SWORD of JEHOVAH in the Torah and the Old Testament of Judaism.
    The two SWORDS so compete with each other in their constancy of definition and express themselves in physical image makings in environments of space and times occupied and enlivened by their respective 'Children of Jehovah' and the 'Children of Allah'.

    This conflict, physically manifested and expressed, however metaphysically defined in respective memeplexes or cultures or religions or belief systems and so on is trapped in the eternity of archetypical universal definition due to the original unchangeability of the two creator memeplexes.

    But the second generation of Jehovah has reconfigured Jehovah into Abba or more precisely AbbaBaab depending on the second generation of Jehovah becoming the first generation of Abba also twinning the original creator-creation modality into a AdamEve and a EveAdam HeShe-Shehe memeplex which can mirror Abba into Jehovah as a transformed 'New Heaven' of abstraction and a 'New Earth' of physicality, labeled as AbbaBaab.
    So Old Jehovah transfiguring into AbbaBaab will also mirror Old Jehovah in Old Allah in an extended and grafted blending of their respective families in the 'New Nation Islam' and the 'New Jerusalem'. The 'Children of Old Jehovah' so become adopted 'Children of Old Allah' and vice versa, the 'family of Allah' becomes the 'family of Jehovah' with both Jehovah and Allah renamed as AbbaBaab*, say as a Cosmic Universal Twinship of CreationCreator memeplexes, which are defined in another linguistic Logos code as 'Möbius the Klein Bottle Dragon who bites its own tail'. It is Möbius in this other nomenclature or language code, which allows the metaphysical or mathematical nature of the 'Old Heaven' as the abode of both Allah and Jehovah to encompass their eventual realization as waveformes of structural geometry in physical similarity or holographic universality. Because it is only in the Old Heaven, where the archetype of the eternity can be assigned a linguistic translation into a symbolic representation or code for a time independent evolution of the defined undefinable eternity as a definable infinity in asymptotic progression or approach. But the translation of the semiotics between corresponding memeplex definitions are not required for the purpose of this message and letter to the addressed.

    It suffices to say that the precanvas origin for all thoughtforms from the metaphysics and including all creator memeplexes like Jehovah and Allah can be said to derive from the manifestation of the metaphysics from an eternal or by definition undefined Void for the purpose to follow the path of the imagination metamorphosing into image making. Once the 'making of the images' from the imagination has sufficiently advanced a physical realization in what is called the 'Laws of Nature' and the 'Omni-Science' of the Universal Logos encompassing all Logii of the creator modalities occurs and is based on the metaphysical energy of the Void albeit defined in a created spacetime to transform in particular energy modes from the energy continuae and discretizations of defined 12-dimensional supermembranes into their lower dimensional expressions of vibration patterns of energy.
    A parent 'energy' defined in the physics of monopolar electromagnetic physics which derives from the angular radially and inertia independent acceleration of magnetopolar charges then transforms from the higher dimension into the inertia associated acceleration of Coulombic electropolar charges to create a light-matter interaction of well known and analysed electromagnetic energy patterns.
    But it is this transformation of energy patterns from the metaphysical higher dimensions into the lower dimensions of the physical adaptation and expression which defines the original memeplex potentials as the say 'collective memory vaults' or data storage banks definable as mathematical or abstract conceptualities of 'physical consciousness' and 'space awareness', (meaning the dynamics of objects occupying space relate to the consciousness and information exchange potential of that space) in the parameters of the aforementioned 'Laws of the Natural Sciences' encompassing the physicality of those expressions of existence as their seedling patterns.

    As said, the reconfiguration of Jehovah into AbbaBaab from a separated Abba Creator and a Baab Creation in the metaphysical 'Old Heaven' of the higher dimensionality also requires the transformation of the old environment as an 'Old Earth' in the lower dimensionality into a 'New Earth' and this evolvement in the physical beingness or reality requires a prior metaphysical reformation of Abba into AbbaBaab, which is the unification of the 'Perfect Shining One' as encoded 'Forethought' with 'Barbelo' as the 'Afterthought' from a particular lexicon related to the initialization of the third generation of Jehovah in the 'Logos of Abba' also known as the New Testament of Jesus the Christ.

    There exists a number alpha-omega code related from the 'Prophet of Abba', which rescues Allah from his eternal imprisonment.
    one such code is found in a particular database called the Nag Hammadi codex of Egypt (1945) and more are found in the New Testament of the third generation of Jehovah being the second generation of Abba:

    In this code, the "Old Man" is Allah and the 7-day old child defines a recreation of the 7 millennia code as a 7-day period for the Old Creation redefined in a rebirth of the Old Creation as a New Creation in the Sabbath or Mirror of the 7th day as the closure of the circle in Möbius the Klein Bottle Dragon who bites its own tail of the Omega after having chased it for a while.
    The SWORD of Allah so carries the Old Head as the S of the SWORD as alpha and becomes redefined or renamed in the WORDS of New Jehovah as Abba, the Father of Jesus with the WORDS placing the Alpha-S of the beginning of the 'Old Man Allah' as the Omega-S of Abba as his Logos. In that way is saying #4 of the Gospel of Thomas related to the alpha-omega codes found in the New Testament's 'Book of the Revelation, the apocalypse of the Christian Eschatology of John as the ARMAGEDDON or DRAGON MADE of the Old World and of Old Allah himself.
    In this way of metaphysical definition then is found the redemption of Allah's SWORD in the WORDS of ABBA through the Logos of Jesus Christ and of Christ Jesus in the eternal twinship of the second generation of AbbaBaab unified.

    The Time of the Present in Timeframes Messianic Israel-Jihadic Islam

    The potential for a physical resolution of the century old war between Israel and Islam in its physical manifestation so becomes possible, as soon as the metaphysical reconfiguration is established and made manifest in the timelessness of the higher dimensional 'heavenly abodes' of both Jehovah-Abba and Allah.
    And this is the nexus, the global populus on planet Earth finds itself from November 2015 to December 2018 as a particular form of the timeline encoding of the universal logistics.
    This timeline can be constructed in divers ways, but its historical indicator spans both the historically encoded (Jeremiah) 70-Year 'Babylonian Captivity' of Israel from the original Battle of Harmageddon-Meggido of 609-586-538BC to the Edict of Cyrus the Great of 538BC and the other historical timeline can become defined from the creation of political Israel from November 29th, 1947 in the UN partition resolution and the declaration of the Jewish Nation in the British mandate and the statehood Israel Eretz of May 14th, 1948 in a 70-year existence or timespan.
    A 40 year 'time in the wilderness' both as days and as years (Noah's flood with 430+40 years of Egypt divided into two sieges of 390 left-Israel and 40 right-Judah also apply in a 40-43 year period from 1975 to 2015 to 2018 in interwoven encoded patterns of dates and time markers found in Noah's Covenant, the dispensations of Daniel in the Old Testament synchronised and extended in the Book of Revelation in the New Testament and Ezekiel:4) also can be assigned within an encompassing 70 year timeframe for political and current historical Israel.

    The Persian revolution in 1979, displacing the Western associated and friendly, relatively secular and pragmatic Shah of Iran (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi dynasty) by the theocratic-republican Shia Cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini also began the overall current memeplex of the Islamic State and resurrected its 'dream and desire' of Allah to manifest its agenda of the worldwide caliphate of the 'New Islamic Nation'. Khomeini began the resistance to the perceived westernization of Islamic culture at a timemarker mirrored in today in the resistance movement of the islamisation of western culture and civilization.
    The deterioration of the Words of Abba of the Western Judeo-Christian in Iranian culture so began the rise of the Sword of Allah in the period of time climaxing in the Iranian revolution under Grand Ayatollah Khomeini.
    The present timeframe of 2015 so indicates the mirror for the Sword of Allah to reflect in the Words of Abba renewed and beginning its ascent to mirror the Iranian revolution in a reformation of Western Civilization.
    This effect is testified by a gradual awakening of a remnant or small part of the populus within the western civilization aware about the nature and happenstance of the islamisation process made manifest in a form of apocalyptic manifesto by Jihadic Islam and triggered by the Iranian reformation in the pendulum of historical times.
    Due to a commonly shared metaphysical brotherhood between Jehovah-Abba and Allah and in effect since Islam's creation in the Qur'an and the muslimisation of the previous Arabian identification however; the pendulum of history will not swing into more continuing and repeating reflective modes.
    Both Islam and Judeo-Christianity share a similar eschatology in a perceived and archetypological 'time of the end' and universal judgement.
    This eschatology is defined in the metaphysics of both physicalizations of the creator memeplexes and so must in some manner be 'fulfilled'.
    Islamic State so represents a well planned and archetypically energized medium for the islamic eschatology as its apocalypse of the Old World and climaxing in the creation and universal domination or supremacy of a New World called 'Eternal Islamic Nation'.
    The Judeo-Christian eschatology carries the same parameters in a different naming of the messianic and antimessianic symbols and labels; but it is defined not in the 40 Year timeframe of Islam with a naturally defined nexus point of the Iranian revolution.
    The 70- Year timeframe of political Israel then becomes the applicable chronos for the Judeo-Christian religion, but is skewed by the difference between the Jewish and the Christian memeplexes for their respective eschatologies and as defined in the Torah for the Jews and in the New Testament by the Christians.


    by Lance S. Owens

    These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down. And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."
    In its opening words the Gospel of Thomas offers a stunning hermeneutic challenge: "whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death." Unfortunately, modern reader comes to this incipit devoid of a technique of interpretive reading -- an hermeneutics -- that grants entry into the mysterious meaning vouchsafed by such words.

    Current academic studies respond to the challenge of the text with modest modern techniques of historical and sociological analysis, conceptual dissections of parallelisms, and suppositions about obscuring temporal stratifications within the compilation of the sayings. Unable to find any hermeneutic method for unlocking a coherent meaning in the Gospel of Thomas, some critics simply deny the organic function of this incipit relative to the remaining logion. In sum, they conclude the sayings of the living Jesus collected in the Thomas gospel are a hodgepodge with no integral, coherent intention.

    The question I pose is this: Was there an original tradition of interpretation – a hermeneutic technique – implicit in early transmissions of the Thomas tradition that gave an organic coherence to readings of the text, and if so, is that hermeneutic method still accessible? Can modern readers meet the challenge of the Thomas incipit?

    In attempt to answer this question, I start with a consideration of saying 12 of the Gospel of Thomas and its reference to "James the Just", then extend discussion to an overview of Jewish apocalyptic traditions in the intertestamental period, moving forward to the Sophianic tradition, and the tradition of vision in early Christianity. From there I finally circle back, by way of the twelfth logion, to elucidate an original interpretive technique -- an anagogical, visionary hermeneutics -- implicit in the Gospel of Thomas.

    I. The Mysterious James

    Saying 12 – The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."

    Reference to James as an authoritative figure in saying 12 of the Gospel of Thomas has caused difficulty for scholars attempting to date the Gospel’s composition to a period after the first century. The community of James, historical associated with Jerusalem, ceased to exist after the Roman destruction of Palestine around 70 CE. If the text of the Gospel of Thomas was produced subsequent to that date, or if the version we now possess underwent later redactions with intent of conforming the text to theological and sociological views of a period foreign to the earliest formative years of Christianity, then why was this authoritative reference to James retained in the twelfth logion? And if the saying indeed dates to the earliest decades of Christian tradition, what significance does reference to James hold for interpretive readings of the Gospel?
    As Robert Eisenman details in his controversial book, James: The Brother of Jesus, several persons named James appear in accounts of the early Christian community. Exactly which James was "James the Just" remains historically ambiguous, though the ecclesiastical importance of the James identified as "the Lord’s brother" is clearly evidenced in the earliest documents of Christianity, the Pauline letters. Eisenman argues James the Just is this same "brother of the Lord", and his compilation of source materials on the James tradition merits close reading. Central to his discussion is the twelfth logion of Thomas:
    "This statement [logion 12] is pregnant with implications where the pre-existent ‘Just One’ or Zaddik’, so important in Jewish mystical tradition or Kabbalah, is concerned. It is also at odds with the orthodox tradition of the succession of Peter. It represents nothing less than the lost tradition of the direct appointment of James as successor to his brother. It is upheld by everything we know about groups that were expelled from orthodox Christianity…." (p53)
    While the thesis Eisenman develops from his sources, and the conclusions he forms about the James tradition are at best highly tentative, the question from which his discussion takes flight deserves consideration: Was James associated with a "lost tradition" in early Christianity? And if so, how was this tradition related to the tradition of the Gospel of Thomas? To answer those questions, we must consider the environment from which early Palestinian Christianity arose.

    II. Jewish Apocalyptics

    The first century was a "super-saturated" cauldron of spiritual aspirations awaiting the nidus of new formation. Jesus appeared at a kairos – an auspicious moment – a moment ripe for renewal, and he was anointed by that age as a messiah. Regardless of how one understands the historical personage named Jesus of Nazareth, a new religious tradition crystallized around his life, words, and name. The tradition he catalyzed cannot, however, be entirely dissociated from preexistent aspirations of the epoch transformed by his appearance.

    Central to the foundation of Christian tradition was the formation of a new story, or myth, about the relationship of God and humankind. Preexistent "apocalyptic" aspirations of the age clearly helped nurture development of this new myth. (The Greek word apocalypse, meaning a "revelation" or an "uncovering" of something hidden, refers in biblical scholarship to a genera of visionary writings common in the intertestamental period. I will use the term here in its broader connotation of "revelation", and without implying a cataclysmic context.) Mythopoetic (or, "myth creating") apocalyptic vision was not the idiosyncratic provenance solely of second-century Gnosticism, a fact often overlooked by students of early Christianity. This mythopoetic tendency associated with second-century Gnosticism stands in context of a preexistent and perpetuating tradition. As early as the second century BCE, the Enoch literature documents a strongly visionary mythopoetic inclination in intertestamental Judaism. Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran further detail the burgeoning apocalyptic creativity of the century preceding Christianity’s birth. Indeed, the formation of Christianity itself reflects a vast mythopoetic creativity – though, of course, by creedal affirmation this story is uniquely sanctified by divine authorship. (Within the visionary tradition, of course, each story mediated by the creative force of a prophetic voice is understood to be of divine authorship; faiths divide in selecting their prophets, but unite in affirming the validity of a prophetic voice and story.)
    In first-century Palestinian, the cultural forces of unrest were not solely fomenting political renovation of the Jewish state, a theme often emphasized in sociologically biased considerations of the period. It was an age of equally intense spiritual unrest, expectantly awaiting manifestation of a divine touch and of a human ascendance. The transformative event would be mediated through a Teacher of Righteousness, a Zaddik, a messiah. Through him, living waters would come to those in thirst.

    The Thanksgiving Hymn (found among the Dead Sea Scrolls) reads, "But Thou, O my God, hast put into my mouth as showers of early rain for all who thirst and a spring of living waters…. Suddenly they shall gush forth from the secret hiding places…" (Logion 108 in GTh vaguely echoes this same image, "Whoever drinks from my mouth will become like me; I myself shall become that person, and the hidden things will be revealed to him.") In this broad cultural setting there was a spiritual longing that sought after the living water of a human-divine communication. It sought after and claimed reception of revelation, vision, and prophecy. From experience of the visions vouchsafed these seekers there crystallized a new canon of salvific stories (or "myths") about the relation of humankind and God.

    Christianity in earliest form should be understood within this associated matrix of traditions. Jesus’ proclaimed initiator, John the Baptist, and several of his first disciples, had links to a broad milieu of Jewish apocalyptic traditions represented by the Enoch literature and Essene communities. Eisenman even suggests in a tenuous argument that the early Jesus movement was essentially contiguous with the Essene tradition.
    To better understand this history, one must place apocalyptic ("revelatory") experience in its human context. Western humanity has repeatedly told a story of an experienced intimate relationship that constitutes supreme communion with Divinity. Whatever it "be", it is a reality deeply entwined in the history of religions. The words religion and experience have, of course, been disconnected by the thrust of rational theology endured by our age. But in primordial origin and in ongoing life, religion is intrinsically experiential. And visionary experience was alive in the matrix of Jewish apocalyptics that gave rise to early Christianity.

    In the scientific bias of our age, such "revelatory experience", or "experience of God", has become the dream of diseased minds, or the aura produced by a brain in the midst of the aberrant neurochemical events we call a seizure ( I speak as a doctor well versed in this cognitive-neurophysiological model of understanding the events of human consciousness). Such linguistic amulets of reason cannot, however, ward off the fact that human history flows and eddies and takes course around the contours of this experience’s reality: evidence Jesus, Paul, Mani, Mohammed, all men anointed by the charisma of experience, all transformers of history. In the experience which we call sometimes vision, sometimes prophecy, there abides an intimate relationship between the experienced transcendent, named with the name of God, and the imminent Man. The conduit of that relationship is a living being, the human who touches and is touched by an experience of "Other". From his mouth their flows the living water that gives to religion new life.

    The above statement is not intended as a metaphysical declaration. Nor am I speaking here of religious concepts. It is simply an empirical fact. Humans have given repeated testimony of experiences which they interpret as "transcendent", whatever the experiences' "psychological" or "spiritual" or "neurophysiological" source. History evidences well that there is an experience of transcendent vision which leaves upon heart and tongue the savor of Divine communication. This experience was most certainly alive among first century men and women stirred by the words of the living Jesus.

    III. The Sophianic Tradition

    The writings of Philo of Alexandria and the Alexandrian Jewish author of Wisdom of Solomon evidence another crucial motif of the visionary tendencies within intertestamental Judaism. Bringing the Sophianic (or "Wisdom") tradition represent by these works into context, however, requires, a consideration of the mythic domain of Sophia as she was developing in the age of Jesus: during the first century She was emphatically not just a philosophical concept, but a divine hypostasis of implied feminine gender with whom the seeker sought union.

    David Winston, in his introduction to the Anchor Bible edition of the Wisdom of Solomon (WS), refers to Her as "Dame Wisdom". By the time Philo and the author of WS put pen to parchment in the Middle Platonic atmosphere of early first century Alexandria, her story had been developing for over two hundred years as an expression of a renewed Jewish mythopoetic vision. We find her in Proverbs and Job, and later in Ecclesiasticus (also known as in the Wisdom of ben Sirach). She was a "charming female figure playing always before Yahweh, after having been created by Him at the beginning of his work." (p 34) To know her – so the story tells – was a rapture, an experience. The author of WS describes the event with frank sexual imagery: she is the Bride with whom one entered the bridal chamber. Union with her is a union with God, a conjunction of immanent and transcendent. As Winston states in his introduction,
    "There appears to be good reason, then, to conclude that the author’s highly charged language concerning the pursuit of Wisdom and her promised gifts, may allude to a mystical experience through which, he believes, man is capable of some measure of union with Deity, at least under the aspect of Sophia." (p 42)
    Who Sophia was she alone could reveal, and so She did: "Generation by generation she enters into the holy souls and renders them friends of God and prophets" (WS 7:27). But it must be understood that Sophia’s story was still very much in a process of "becoming" during the first century. While Philo and WS offer literary evidence of her myth at a critical stage of formation, its development was certainly not confined to the philosophical discourse of Alexandria, nor was it restricted to the philosophical forms in which these writers appear to cast it – even if we understand the word "philosopher" within its full sense as a "lover of Sophia". Their writings are only two temporal "snapshots" of Sophia’s myth within a broader cultural context and an extended organic process of formation. At the time of Philo (c. 30 CE) the Sophianic myth had been in development for at least two hundred years. It yet would see further metamorphosis within the visionary context of the next century’s Gnostic exegesis.

    This approach to Wisdom/Sophia as a myth in formation, and the assertion that at center the myth spoke of an experience of Divine-human intercourse, will be foreign to some readers. Nonetheless, there is ample evidence that the Sophianic tradition was rooted in – or at very least nurtured by – an experiential, visionary (and, thus, "myth making") tradition that sought after something quite beyond the joys of "wise thought." It was not solely a "literary" tradition, even if literary manifestations are signal evidences of its existence. In the Palestine of Jesus, the myth of Sophia very probably found forming and sustaining voices within communities of individuals seeking direct, experiential, visionary contact with Divinity – the "holy souls and friends of God". In several of the Qumran documents we find Her spirit present. (Winston, p 31) She appears in subtle form as the Logos-Sophia of the Gospel of John. And Her gift reflects from within the Logion of Thomas.

    The assumption that it is entirely a "philosophical" Middle Platonic concept that forms the Wisdom tradition in its intersection with the early Christianity discounts a fundamental fact of the Sophianic quest. The seeker of Sophia sought union with a Bride: he wished to experience Her, to be made a prophet by Her, to love Her, to enter the ecstasy of Her embrace. Note that throughout the Sophianic literature, it is never stated what Sophia teaches. We are only told that Her gift is a wonder and the most worthy quest of humankind. One might suggest this reticence is based in the fact that the experience of Sophia’s embrace is completely beyond the bounds of exegetic expression.

    IV. Formation of the Jesus Tradition in Palestine

    Though every religion develops with sociological underpinnings, historical antecedents and political consequences, the formation of a "new" religion invariable is firmly rooted in charismatic mystery – the mystery of "spiritual gifts" and events. Again, let me make clear that this statement is not a metaphysical declaration, but a reflection of the long human record of empirical facts: humans experience relationship with "something" transcendent which – using a word born in time immemorial – they call God. By nature, religion links transcendent and immanent realities, it gives expression to the relationship of humanity and divinity. In the Western world, particularly amongst the children of Abraham, religious metamorphosis takes form in a human experience of divine revelation – an experience which makes of men prophets and visionaries in the mold of the prototypical prophet of the West. Whatever its "true source", there is an "event", a moment of epiphany, an intimate experience of intercourse between man and God: a prophet, or apostle, or visionary, or Zaddik is called by the divine voice. He subsequently speaks with the power of that charismatic anointing.

    Regardless of how radically "new" a great religion-forming vision may seem in the perspective of Western history, its first formative voice – be it Jesus or Mani or Mohammed – invariably stands itself within the context of prophetic tradition. Vision itself is, after all, a tradition amongst the children of Abraham. The reality of a new prophet’s vision places him "at one" with all true revelation. His revelation – so it will be claimed – is the vision anticipated by every true revelation.

    Of course the socially appointed guardians of "tradition" perpetually judge such deconstructive prophetic readings of "conveyed tradition" as misreadings – as heresies, as deviant aberrations of the received truth. And indeed they are. But the strongest of these strong misreadings (to use a term coined by Harold Bloom) make new religions. The prophetic voice speaks religious metamorphosis; it is the living reality of prophetic tradition. Henceforth all conveyed tradition – the cultural legacies of myth, text and memory – are reformed within the creative fire of reborn prophetic vision. Vision becomes the hermeneutics by which tradition is read and defined. However seemingly new, the inspired misreading of vision claims its primacy in a source older than time. It is the original, true and everlasting tradition.

    The tradition which coalesced around Jesus in Palestine was built upon a foundation of apocalyptic and Sophianic aspirations that characterized the visionary zeitgeist of the age. In the Jesus tradition, the epoch’s creative spirit found both perpetuation and new avenues of maturation. It can be argued that the story or "myth" which developed around Jesus had been seeking various forms for two hundred years: it was presaged by the Teacher of Righteousness in Essene tradition; in Hellenistic culture Osiris, Hermes, Sarapis and Dionysus had all played roles that took new cast in the emergent story of Jesus. But the story of Jesus was clearly not just a "rehashing" of old motifs. In final development, it was a bold new creation of vision: a prophetic vision come to form in an age alive with visionary creativity.

    Whatever the mythic underpinnings or visionary embellishments to his story, Jesus of Nazareth did apparently exist. His life was the nidus that initiated formation of a tradition. He walked and taught in Judea and Galilee. Disciples came to him and saw in him something extraordinary. Through him – through the story they found in him – they experienced a new vision of God and man. As indicated by the reported events on the Mount of Transfiguration, his disciples apparently shared visions with him. And after his death, they had visions of him. Though dead, he lived with them and in them. He spoke to them. Through them, his words reached out across the world.

    In searching source for the "words of the Living Jesus", it is essential that we keep in mind the visionary proclivity of the age. Whatever Jesus said in life, those sayings were given significant new depths of meaning by events perceived to have followed upon his death. After his death the "living" (redivivus) Jesus was claimed by his disciples to have appeared to them and to have given them further teachings. Metaphysical or "faith-based" affirmations aside, this was the certain perception of those apostles who perpetuated his teachings and memory.
    The four canonical gospels all end with assertion of this appearance (though textual evidence suggests the final verses of Mark dealing with the post-resurrection appearance, from 16:8 forward, are a later emendation). Continuing the story of the post-mortal ministry found in the Gospel of Luke, Acts begins:
    "He showed himself to these men after his death, and gave ample proof that he was alive: over a period of forty days he appeared to them and taught them about the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:3-4)
    While the four canonical Gospels and Acts are all late first century accounts, Paul gives very early evidence of a widespread witness to the perceived post-mortal ministry of Jesus in I Cor. 15:5-8 (dating to around 48-52 CE):
    "…he appeared to Cephas and afterwards to the Twelve then he appeared to over five hundred of our brothers at once, most of who are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James and afterwards to all the apostles. In the end he appeared even to me."
    The Gospel of John, textually the latest and the most unique in heritage of the Gospels, gives the longest account of this ministry of the resurrected Jesus (making frequent mention of Thomas "the twin" in the account). The rendition ends with these words: "There is much else that Jesus did. If it were all to be recorded in detail, I suppose the whole world could not hold the books that would be written." (John 21:25)

    Accounts from the first century seem in accord that there were transformations in the disciples’ understanding of Jesus and his words during the period immediately following his death. The John gospel gives insight into the transformative spiritual force that was perceived to awaken this new perspective: "I have told you all this while I am still here with you; but your Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and will call to mind all that I have told you." (John 14:25-26) Assuming the Gospel of John took final form at least fifty years after the events it discusses, one might read this verse as reflecting ongoing perceptions within the Johannine community not about how the words and teachings of Jesus would be recollected, but about how they had been recollected by his disciples: and that recollection involved a spiritual anamnesis. Of course the reputed ministry of Jesus redivivus and the subsequent anamnesis (or "remembering") of his words mediated by the Holy Spirit played a continued role for segments of the second century Christian community eventually characterized as "Gnostic". One might suggest this Gnostic penchant for spiritual anamnesis was a process organically rooted in first-century traditions dating to the post-resurrection teachings received by the disciples.

    Undoubtedly the mortal Jesus deeply influenced his disciples. But the words he spoke to them took multiple levels of new meaning in spiritual manifestations perceived to follow his death. These manifestations emphatically confirmed to the disciples the meaning of his life and ministry. Any orally or textually transmitted record of the "sayings of the Living Jesus" originating among the original disciples of Jesus in Palestine would certainly have been formed and influenced by "apocalyptic" manifestations of meaning developed in the period following his death. The original disciples knew him in life and they experienced him again as living after his death. They gave apostolic testimony to their knowledge of this still-living Jesus.
    It seems likely that there were words of Jesus redivivus recollected by some early disciples which would have been guarded and conveyed only within chosen communities. Teachings endowed with deeper levels of meaning – meanings "called to memory" by spiritual agencies – are the types of sayings most likely to have been held in limited circulation. The sayings recorded in Thomas are in large measure the very type of verbal recollections that might exemplify a collection of "hidden sayings", words endowed with profound implications "to be understood only through the spirit of revelation" (perhaps an implication of the common refrain in Thomas, "he who has ears, let him hear"). In making this assertion, I emphasize again the apocalyptic tenor of the time. Revelations and spiritual manifestations were formative forces in the early Christian community, and they undoubtedly influenced every recollection about Jesus shared by the first disciples.

    V. Paul, Jerusalem and James

    The Pauline letters – our earliest primary record of the new Jesus tradition – evidence the crucial role played by "revelation" and "spiritual manifestations" during the tradition’s formation. Paul claimed knowledge of Jesus granted to him in its entirety through revelation. The story of Paul’s vision of Jesus on the road to Damascus is well known. In his letter to the Galician’s, dated between 48 and 58 CE, Paul boldly declares the exclusive revelatory source of his knowledge:
    "I must make it clear to you, my friends, that the gospel you heard me preach is no human invention. I did not take it over from any man; no man taught it me; I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. ...When that happened, without consulting any human being, without going up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, I went off at once to Arabia, and afterwards returned to Damascus. Three years later I did go up to Jerusalem to get to know Cephas. I stayed with him a fortnight, without seeing any other of the apostles, except James the Lord’s brother." (Gal 1:11-12, 16-19. The point is restated in the pseudepigraphic Pauline letter to the Ephesians, 3:3-5.)
    Whatever the disagreements between Paul and the disciples residing around Jerusalem, those earliest disciples did apparently accept Paul as an apostle of Jesus. Paul’s visionary encounter with Jesus and his claims of knowledge gained through revelation were acknowledged as valid by disciples who had known Jesus in his mortality. It is difficult to imagine why this select group would have granted the Pauline revelation validity if it were not that they themselves had shared similar experiences. Gospel accounts document that they did have such analogous visionary experiences. Paul authenticates this fact in his letter to the Corinthians (quoted above), wherein he gives context to his own revelation through an affirmation of the original disciples’ visions of Jesus.

    But there was a crucial (and perhaps insurmountable) difference between Paul and the disciples in Jerusalem: They had walked with Jesus for several years and heard him teach. Paul had not. Some of them had been influenced by preexisting apocalyptic spiritual aspirations (broadly characterized as "Essene influences"), some may have been earlier followers of John the Baptist. Paul most certainly had not. While the original disciples developed a deepened understanding of Jesus after his death – through the mediation of an experience called "revelation" – for many of them this revelatory experience would have been an amplification of teachings they had heard Jesus offer during his mortality. Paul had not shared in that experience.

    The Pauline revelation thus stands in ambivalent relationship to the "words of Jesus" which would have been recollected by early disciples. Jesus did speak. His words and their meanings were recalled after his death within an ambience claimed to have been enlightened by "spiritual" agencies bestowing revelatory anamnesis. While Paul professed access to the same "gifts of the spirit", he had limited access to the spoken heritage of Jesus’ words. In his many epistles he seldom referred to or reflected specific knowledge of Jesus’ words. History of course witnesses the profound charismatic power granted Paul by the spirit of revelation alone: he is the first chosen voice of Christianity. Nonetheless, it remains quite likely that there was another understanding of Jesus – a tradition rooted in words verbalized by Jesus to a select group of mortal men and women, a tradition subsequently nurtured by those same individuals’ vision of their risen Lord – to which Paul had little access. The Gospel of Thomas may contain a remnant of that tradition.

    And so we finally come back to Logion 12 and the mystery of James the Just:
    The disciples said to Jesus, "We know that you are going to leave us. Who will be our leader?" Jesus said to them, "No matter where you are you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being."
    In Paul’s polemic, the name of James was associated with a Jesus tradition mired in Jewish cultural precedents and unwilling to break free of the "the Law". But in light of the above comments, it might also be suggested that within this Jerusalem community there existed a memory of Jesus’ teachings – a memory importantly augmented by revelatory events – to which Paul did not have ready access. Knowledge of sacred words was sacred. Its transmission was probably guarded. What we know of Paul’s visits to Jerusalem does not suggest he gained intimacy with the inner community of original disciples. At various places in his letters Paul makes clear his competition with, and even antagonism toward, the church at Jerusalem, as well as toward others he refers to as "superlative apostles" – teachers apparently associated with a Jesus tradition not embraced by Paul.

    In this context Logion 12 is quite understandable -- if it is dated to a period within the first decades after the death of Jesus, the period in which the original disciples were "recollecting" the words of Jesus. James the Just, "the brother of Jesus", would quite naturally have been accorded a role of leadership and honor by the community of disciples gathered in Palestine after the ascension of their Lord. James had evidently walked beside Jesus, he may have experienced visions with Jesus during his life, and he had seen the risen Jesus in vision after his death – the last a fact affirmed by Paul. He may even have verbally received from Jesus the commission memorialized in Logion 12. Though conjectural, one might further suggest James the Just had links to influences infusing the Jesus movement from preexistent apocalyptic strains of Judaism (Eisenman attempts this argument), including (I suggest) the epoch’s Sophianic aspirations.

    If one wishes to go even further and intuitively impute an esoteric tenor to logion 12, this saying may have been read within an early community of understanding as affirming the priority of a "non-Pauline, non-Petrine" lineage of knowledge linked in memory to apocalyptic aspirations extant in non-normative Jewish traditions – a heritage understood by early disciples as having been consummated and vitally transformed by the Living Jesus. Such an argument accords well with what we know about early origins of the Jesus tradition. It is certainly not counter-intuitive to suppose some members of his incipient movement remembered and considered important what we have also finally come to understand, even at great temporal distance from the fact: the Jesus tradition had roots in, and was influenced by, Jewish apocalyptic culture of the first century.

    VI. Thomas and the Hermeneutics of Vision

    Among the first disciples of Jesus in Palestine there were at least some who did not see their movement as a "new religion". Instead, I suggest they understood it within the context of their time as the manifestation of a perpetual stream of living water flowing from the most ancient source of tradition: the vital, renewing intercourse between God and man. By nature, the "vision tradition" radically deconstructs a received tradition in the name of "true tradition". Apocalyptic tradition – the tradition of vision – is mediated neither by ritual nor text nor dogma, but by the immediacy and verity of a unique human experience. This experience reads the prophetic past through the medium of its asserted origin: primary revelation, the experiential event of vision. At the beginning of the deconstruction mediated by new vision, exoteric vessels of tradition may persist even as they are being emptied, recast and refilled. Ritual behaviors – the outward inherited forms of tradition – take new meanings. Traditional texts are not rewritten but selected and reread (or mis-read) to reveal previously unanticipated implications.
    One need only examine the later history of Kabbalah – "the tradition" of Jewish mysticism – for repeated evidence of this deconstructive process. Moses de Leon’s masterful compilation of the Zohar in the thirteenth century and Isaac Luria’s bold restatement of the Kabbalistic mythos in the sixteenth century were both unprecedented, and yet each was embraced in its time as a verity of immemorial tradition – a prophetic tradition reaching back to the first Adam, a tradition which allowed (or even demanded) its own restatement by primary, mythopoetic vision. The thirteenth century Islamic mystic Ibn Arabi stands as another example of a visionary "revisioning" redefining tradition within the prophetic legacy of Abraham. In each of these instances the exoteric forms of tradition were maintained while being reformed from within by a new mythos replete with new perceptions of symbolic meaning.

    The hermeneutics embraced by the vision tradition is seldom properly understood. Following a schema proposed by Dante at the beginnings of fourteenth century, theories of hermeneutics continue to delineate four interpretive techniques that are typified in readings of sacred text: literal, moral, allegorical and anagogical. The last and most nebulous category, "anagogical interpretation", offers best entry point for understanding the radical hermeneutics of the vision tradition. Taken from Late Greek, the word anagoge roughly means "spiritually uplifted". An anagogical interpretation – as usually defined – "lifts" the text from its concrete form into a spiritual dimension of outwardly hidden meaning. In the vision tradition, the "lifting up" occurred specifically through the imaginative power of vision. It was not a rational, intellectual or discursive process, but an experiential, apocalyptic revelation that drove this hermeneutics.
    Historically, Kabbalah is perhaps the most obvious and approachable tradition to embrace anagogical hermeneutics. Prophetic Kabbalah asserted that one could only understand the meaning of prophetic writings by personally entering into the primary experience of prophetic vision. Only an experience of primary vision granted understand of the meanings hidden within the prophetic and sacred texts of the Torah. Of course it was understood in Kabbalistic tradition that few men were blessed to reach such an exalted threshold of vision. But in every age some did. (This is a complex line of discussion. In addition to the prophetic aspect of Kabbalah, their developed philosophical and theosophical manifestations of Kabbalah in the fourteenth through seventeenth centuries that were more intellectually speculative and less primarily centered on pursuit of prophetic vision. I direct those interested to the extensive writings of Gershom Scholem and Moshe Idel.)

    The Gnostic hermeneutics of the second century was anagogical in the same sense: through imaginative vision pseudepigraphical accounts were authored and myths were "remembered". Apocalyptic Gnostic writings were granted authority within their own community not by virtue of their historical provenance, but by the perceived primacy of their source, the prophetic imagination. This is the conundrum presented by the vision tradition that so infuriated more rational and prosaic minds in the second century: when does vision transform into immutable text, where does revelation stop and dogma begin? Or to use the terms of the sociologist Max Weber, how and when is charisma institutionalized?

    I suggest that at a very early stage in the development of the Christian tradition there were disciples who gave primacy to an anagogical hermeneutics – a hermeneutics I choose to call "the hermeneutics of vision". In my comments above I have briefly indicated evidences that might suggest existence of a visionary hermeneutics within the early Jesus movement. I further suggest this hermeneutics of vision persisted as an accepted form of tradition into the second century and was organically linked to development of what later was termed Gnosticism. Within Jewish culture, it found independent early expression in Merkabah mysticism and then a later and more general acknowledgment in Kabbalah.

    It is my opinion that the Gospel of Thomas represents an early ramus of this tradition – a tradition which predated Jesus and flourished under his influence. This tradition is defined by its hermeneutics: Only one who understands the method of interpretation will understand the message. It is a psychological paradox: the message is the method; the method is vision – a perceptive, spiritually uplifted, visionary encounter with the message. The Words of the Living Jesus presented in Thomas became doorways to an experience of knowing. Implicitly and explicitly, they demand from their interpreter an anagogical hermeneutics – a technique of interpretation vouchsafed by vision. This argument does not date the origins of Thomas into a second century "Gnostic milieu" but rather asserts the hermeneutics of vision that engendered Gnostic Christianity was taking form around Jesus at a very early date.

    The vitality inherent in this imputed visionary hermeneutics might suggest inevitable instability in the textual forms of the logion of Thomas. But here an important distinction must be made: visionary mutability of a text’s meaning does not necessarily demand redaction of the conveyed verbal forms of the text – indeed, quite the contrary. Its was the interpreter who was to be changed by the text, and not the text that needed to be change by the interpreter! The words of the logion are a doorway to visions of meaning. By passage through that door the interpreter met radical transformation: "he will not taste death". A tradition of visionary hermeneutics might actually tend to preserve the integrity of a text more faithfully than did traditions of textual transmission focused on literal, moral or allegorical interpretation. By anagogically placing meaning above the concreteness of words, there was arguably less motive for a redactor familiar with anagogical tradition to reform the text in order to achieve conformity with literal (and temporally mutable) dogmatic demands. I suggest for this reason that the synoptic tradition was probably less stable within its provenances than were the logion of Thomas within their lineage of transmission. Within the vision tradition, the words of the Living Jesus were endowed with a spiritual or magical potential – they had intrinsic transformative power.
    Secular discussions of Thomas usually become mired in moral, literal and allegorical techniques of interpretation, accompanied by their sociological congeners. The hermeneus who will meet the challenge of the Gospel of Thomas’ incipit needs enlist another type of hermeneutic technique – a technique hidden and obvious, ancient and modern, simple and complex. Unfortunately our human record documents well that this technique avails only those who have ears attuned to hear it. Without the grace of that gift, the hermeneutics of vision is an obscure and meaningless concept.

    Last edited: Mar 19, 2019
  2. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    December 3, 2015

    The Logic of Islamic Intolerance

    By Raymond Ibrahim

    A sermon delivered by popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid clearly demonstrates why Western secular relativists and multiculturalists -- who currently dominate media, academia, and politics -- are incapable of understanding, much less responding to, the logic of Islamic intolerance.

    During his sermon, al-Munajjid said that “some [Muslim] hypocrites” wonder why it is that “we [Muslims] don’t permit them [Western people] to build churches, even though they allow mosques to be built.” The Saudi sheikh responded by saying that any Muslim who thinks this way is “ignorant” and

    …wants to equate between right and wrong, between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], monotheism and shirk [polytheism], and gives to each side equal weight, and wants to compare this with that, and he asks: “Why don't we build them churches like they build us mosques? So we allow them this in return for that?” Do you want another other than Allah to be worshiped? Do you equate between right and wrong? Are Zoroastrian fire temples, Jewish temples, Christian churches, monks’ monasteries, and Buddhist and Hindu temples, equal to you with the houses of Allah and mosques? So you compare this with that? And you equate this with that? Oh! Unbelievable, for he who equates between Islam and kufr [non-Islam], and Allah said: “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers” (Koran 3:85). And Prophet Muhamad said: “By Him in whose hand is the life of Muhamad (By Allah) he who amongst the Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent, and dies in his state (of disbelief), he shall be of the residents of Hellfire."

    What’s interesting about the sheikh’s zealous diatribe is that, although “intolerant” from a Western perspective, it is, in fact, quite logically consistent and reveals the wide gap between Islamic rationalism and Western fantasy (despite how oxymoronic this dichotomy might sound).
    If, as Munajjid points out, a Muslim truly believes that Islam is the only true religion, and that Muhammad is its prophet, why would he allow that which is false (and thus corrupt, cancerous, misleading, etc.) to exist alongside it? Such gestures of “tolerance” would be tantamount to a Muslim who “wants to equate between right and wrong,” as the sheikh correctly deplores.
    Indeed, not only does Islam, like traditional Christianity, assert that all other religions are wrong, but under Islamic law, Hindus, and Buddhists are so misguided that they must be warred against until they either accept the “truth,” that is, converting to Islam, or else being executed (Koran 9:5). As for the so-called “people of the book” -- Jews and Christians -- they may practice their religions, but only after being subdued (Koran 9:29) and barred from building or renovating churches and synagogues and a host of other debilitations that keep their (false) religious practices and symbols (Bibles, crosses, etc.) suppressed and out of sight.

    From an Islamic paradigm -- where Allah is the true god and Muhammad his final messenger -- “intolerance” for other religions is logical and difficult to condemn.
    The “altruistic” aspect of Islamic “intolerance” is especially important. If you truly believe that there is only one religion that leads to paradise and averts damnation, is it not altruistic to share it with humanity, rather than hypocritically maintaining that all religions lead to God and truth?
    After blasting the concept of interfaith dialogue as beyond futile, since “what is false is false -- even if a billion individuals agree to it; and truth is truth -- even if only one who has submitted [a Muslim] holds on to it,” the late Osama bin Laden once wrote that “Battle, animosity, and hatred -- directed from the Muslim to the infidel -- is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them” (The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs. 42-43).

    Note the altruistic justification: It is a “justice and kindness” to wage jihad on non-Muslims in the hopes that they convert to Islam. According to this logic, jihadis will always be as the “good guys” -- meaning that terrorism, extortion, sex-jihad, etc., will continue to be rationalized away as ugly but necessary means to altruistic ends: the empowerment of, and eventual world conversion to, Islam.

    All of this logic is alien to postmodern Western epistemology, which takes for granted that a) there are no objective “truths,” certainly not in the field of theology, and that b) religion’s ultimate purpose is to make this life as peaceful and pleasant as possible (hence why “interfaith dialogue” in the West is not about determining the truth -- which doesn’t exist anyway -- but finding and highlighting otherwise superficial commonalities between different religions so they can all get along in the now).

    The net result of all this? On the one hand, Muslims, who believe in truth -- that is, in the teachings of Islam -- will continue attacking the “false,” that is, everything and everyone un-Islamic. And no matter how violent, Islamic jihad -- terrorism -- will always be exonerated in Muslim eyes as fundamentally “altruistic.” On the other hand, Western secularists and multiculturalists, who believe in nothing and deem all cultures and religions equal, will continue to respect Islam and empower Muslims, convinced that terrorism is an un-Islamic aberration destined to go away -- that is, they will continue disbelieving their own eyes. Such is the offspring of that unholy union between Islamic logic and Western fallacy.

    Raymond Ibrahim, author of Crucified Again, is Shillman Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center, and Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow, Middle East Forum

    Read more:
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    Sex Jihad and Western Disbelief

    By Raymond Ibrahim on September 26, 2013 in From The Arab World, Islam

    Human Events
    The sex jihad is back in the news. Last Thursday, September 19, during an address to the National Constituent Assembly, Tunisian Interior Minister Lotfi Bin Jeddo announced that Tunisian girls who had traveled to Syria to perform “sex jihad” had returned after being sexually “swapped between 20, 30, and 100 rebels and they come back bearing the fruit of sexual contacts [from pregnancies to diseases] in the name of sexual jihad and we are silent doing nothing and standing idle.”

    Sixteen-year-old Rahma: Her parents appeared in tears on TV bemoaning how she was “brainwashed” to join the sex jihad.​

    Several video interviews with Tunisian females who went to the sex jihad further testify to the veracity of this phenomenon. For example, 19-year-old Lamia, upon returning, confessed how she was made to have sex with countless men—including Pakistanis, Afghanis, Libyans, Tunisians, Iraqis, Saudis, Somalis, and a Yemeni, all in the context of the “sex jihad,” and that she and many other women were abused, beaten, and forced to do things “that contradict all sense of human worth.” Now back in Tunisia, Lamia has been to a doctor finding that she is five months pregnant. Both she and her unborn are carrying the aids virus (read her whole story).

    Other interviewed women have told of how they were “fooled,” or how their husbands (they being one of four wives) divorced and sent them to Syria for the sex jihad, with assurances that they would be guaranteed paradise in the afterlife. One 16-year-old explained how her father ordered her to have sex with several jihadi “liberators.”
    Due to the severity of this matter, since March, 6,000 Tunisians were banned from travelling to Syria; 86 individuals suspected of forming “cells” to send Tunisian youth to Syria have been arrested.
    Back in April, Sheikh Othman Battikh, former Mufti of Tunisia, said before reporters that, “For Jihad in Syria, they are now pushing girls to go there. Thirteen young girls have been sent for sexual jihad. What is this? This is called prostitution. It is moral educational corruption.”
    He was dismissed from his position as Mufti of Tunisia days later.

    However, as I wrote back in June when reporting on the sex jihad phenomenon:
    Muslim women prostituting themselves in this case is being considered a legitimate jihad because such women are making sacrifices—their chastity, their dignity—in order to help apparently sexually-frustrated jihadis better focus on the war to empower Islam in Syria.
    And it is prostitution—for they are promised payment, albeit in the afterlife. The Koran declares that “Allah has purchased of the believers their persons [their bodies] and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain (Yusuf Ali trans. 9:111).
    At any rate, while news that Muslim girls in hijabs are prostituting themselves in the name of Islam may be instinctively dismissed as a “hoax,” the fact is, Islamic clerics regularly issue fatwas permitting forbidden, if not bizarre, things.

    The fundamental criterion is that they help the jihad to empower Islam.
    For instance, not only did the original “underwear bomber” Abdullah Hassan al-Asiri hide explosives in his rectum to assassinate Saudi Prince Muhammad bin Nayef—they met in 2009 after the 22-year-old Asiri “feigned repentance for his jihadi views”—but, according to Shi‘ite talk-show host Abdullah Al-Khallaf, he had fellow jihadis sodomize him to “widen” his anus to fit more explosives.
    Al-Khallaf read the fatwa that purportedly justified such actions during a 2012 Fadak TV episode. After praising Allah and declaring that sodomy is forbidden in Islam, the fatwa asserted:
    However, jihad comes first, for it is the pinnacle of Islam, and if the pinnacle of Islam can only be achieved through sodomy, then there is no wrong in it. For the overarching rule of [Islamic] jurisprudence asserts that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” And if obligatory matters can only be achieved by performing the prohibited, then it becomes obligatory to perform the prohibited, and there is no greater duty than jihad. After he sodomizes you, you must ask Allah for forgiveness and praise him all the more. And know that Allah will reward the jihadis on the Day of Resurrection, according to their intentions—and your intention, Allah willing, is for the victory of Islam, and we ask that Allah accept it of you.
    Two important points emerge here: first, jihad is the “pinnacle” of Islam—for it makes Islam supreme; and second, the idea that “necessity makes permissible the prohibited.” Thus, because making Islam supreme through jihad is the greatest priority, anything and everything that is otherwise banned becomes permissible. All that comes to matter is one’s intention, or niyya (see Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s discussion along these lines).

    Hence the many seeming contradictions in Islam: Muslim women must chastely be covered head-to-toe—yet, in the service of jihad, they are allowed to prostitute their bodies. Sodomy is forbidden—but permissible if rationalized as a way to kill infidels and/or apostates. Lying is forbidden—but permissible to empower Islam. Suicide is forbidden—but permissible during the jihad—when it is called “martyrdom.” Intentionally killing women and children is forbidden—but permissible during an Islamic jihad raid, as happened last weekend in both Peshawar and Nairobi.
    One may therefore expect anything from would-be jihadis, regardless of how un-Islamic their actions may otherwise seem.
    And yet, here in the West, many still refuse to believe the existence of such fatwas, habitually dismissing them as “hoaxes”—despite all the evidence otherwise: from a top Tunisian government official openly bemoaning the effects of the sex jihad on Tunisian girls, to several Arabic-language videos and reports of women discussing their experiences in the sex jihad.

    Few things are more demonstrative of the arrogant mindset that proliferates amongst Western “progressives” than this inability to believe.

    And it’s quite ironic: for while supposedly “closed-minded” and “bigoted” conservatives tend to take the words, teachings, and deeds of Muslim clerics and jihadis at face value—and thus respect them as autonomous individuals—liberals, who always claim to “respect other cultures,” often reject as “hoaxes” any news that contradicts their culturally-induced worldviews—since apparently everyone in the world shares in their standards.
    If that’s not an ethnocentric position—an especially dangerous one at that—what is?

    Brook wrote:

    I do have this to add today however given the current state of affairs at 'home' and abroad;

    Carl Jung on “Man’s Stupidity”


    Our striving focused on sagacity and intellectual superiority, and we hence developed all our cleverness.

    But the extraordinary extent of stupidity inherent in all men was disregarded and denied.

    But if we accept the other in us, we also evoke the particular stupidity of our nature.

    Stupidity is one of man's strange hobbyhorses.

    There is something divine about it, and yet something of the megalomania of the world.

    Which is why stupidity is really large.

    It keeps away everything that could induce us to intelligence.

    It leaves everything not understood which is not naturally supposed to demand understanding.

    This particular stupidity occurs in thought and in life.

    Somewhat deaf somewhat blind, it brings about necessary fate and keeps from us the virtuousness coupled with rationality.

    It is what separates and isolates the mixed seeds of life, affording us thus with a clear view of good and evil, and of what is reasonable and what not.

    But many people are logical in their lack of reason"

    Page (P.487). ~Liber Novus, Page 316, Footnote 277.



    Megalomania is a psycho-pathological condition characterized by fantasies of power, relevance, omnipotence, and by inflated self-esteem. Historically it was used as a name for narcissistic personality disorder.


    noun: megalomania

    obsession with the exercise of power, especially in the domination of others.
    synonyms: delusions of grandeur, folie de grandeur, thirst/lust for power; self-importance, egotism, conceit, conceitedness
    "he's blinded by his own megalomania and quest for historic recognition at any cost"
    delusion about one's own power or importance (typically as a symptom of manic or paranoid disorder).

    Translate megalomania to
    Use over time for: megalomania




    noun: saviour; plural noun: saviours; noun: savior; plural noun: saviors

    a person who saves someone or something (especially a country or cause) from danger, and who is regarded with the veneration of a religious figure.

    Savior or Saviour may refer to:

    a person who helps people achieve salvation, or saves them from something


    Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!! See ya on the flip side


    Anyone for the Preservation of the Pyramids?
    What really happened to the Arabian Springtimes in Egypt's Revolution 2011


    Egypt, 2012: The Year In Fatwas

    By Raymond Ibrahim on January 30, 2013 in From The Arab World, Islam

    Published on FrontPage Magazine

    In previous decades in Egypt, the fatwas, or legal decrees issued by learned Muslims and based on Sharia law, revolved around questions like proper prayer, when and where women should wear the hijab, and if smoking was forbidden or permissible.
    That was then.
    The fatwas issued in the year 2012—the year when Islamists, spearheaded by the Muslim Brotherhood, assumed formal power—are, as one would expect, markedly different, that is, much less restrained. The popular Egyptian Arabic website El-Watan News recently compiled a list of 2012’s most “notable” (a euphemism) fatwas. I translate a summary of their findings below, augmented with additional observations:

    Destruction of the Pyramids and Sphinx
    In November, Sheikh Murjan Salem al-Jawhari, a Salafi leader, called for the destruction of all idols, relics, and statues in Egypt, specifically mentioning the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids. He called on Muslims to destroy such “idols” just as they destroyed the Buddha statues in Afghanistan. Of course, several months earlier, in July, I reported how several prominent Islamic clerics were calling on President Morsi to “destroy the Pyramids and accomplish what the Sahabi Amr bin al-As [the first Muslim invader of Egypt] could not.” Then and now, the MSM scoffed at the very idea, portraying it as a “hoax.” To date, reports from Egypt confirm that “some of the statues have already been destroyed by those belonging to the political Islamist parties.”

    Marrying Minors (i.e., Pedophilia)
    Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, Vice President of the Salafi Da‘wa movement, and thus an authoritative figure among Egypt’s Salafis, who are playing a prominent role in the nation’s new parliament, opposed setting a minimum age in the new constitution concerning the marriage of minor girls, saying “they can get married at any time,” and insisting that Sharia law is clear on this matter. Indeed, earlier, another cleric and member of Saudi Arabia’s highest religious council, after saying that girls can be married “even if they are in the cradle,” explained the fundamental criterion of when they can copulate: whenever “they are capable of being placed beneath and bearing the weight of the men,” which has less to do with age and more to do with individual capacity.

    Permitting Lies and Hypocrisy
    Dr. Yassir al-Burhami also permitted wives to “lie to their husbands” about their whereabouts—if they were going to go and vote “yes” on the Sharia-heavy constitution in Egypt, and if their husbands would otherwise have disapproved. The ever-expedient Salafi leader also permitted Egypt to borrow money from the IMF, rationalizing the “forbidden” interest rate away as “administrative charges.” (Islam forbids Muslim participation in monetary loans that charge interest, as does the IMF.)

    Scrapping Camp David Accords
    Sheikh Hashem Islam, member of the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, said that the peace treaty with Israel contradicts the teachings of Sharia and should be annulled, quoting the Koran: “So do not weaken and call for peace while you are superior; and Allah is with you and will never deprive you of [the reward of] your deeds” (47:35). He added that “Jews cannot be trusted.” The Islamic logic he and others use is that peace treaties with infidels are legitimate only when Muslims are weak and in need, whereas now that Egypt is under proper Muslim leadership, Allah will help it to defeat Israel.

    Killing Anyone Protesting Islamization of Egypt
    Sheikh Hashem Islam also permitted the killing of anti-Islamization protesters, portraying them as traitors committing “high treason.” The Sheikh also exempted the murderers from having to pay the restitution required by Sharia to a Muslim victim’s family. Sheikh Wagdi Ghoneim issued a similar fatwa, proclaiming any Muslim who rejects the Sharia-heavy constitution of being an apostate who must be fought and killed.

    Obeying President Morsi
    Sheikh Ahmed Mahlawi, the leader of an Alexandrian mosque, denounced all Muslims opposed to President Morsi, pointing out that the Koran declares it to be forbidden to disobey those in authority: “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger [Muhammad] and those in authority among you” (4:59). He added that Morsi should be obeyed whether he was elected or not—as long as he enforces the laws of Allah. In fact, according to Sharia, the Islamic ruler must always be obeyed—except whenever he fails to enforce Sharia.

    Banning Greeting Christians
    The Committee for Rights and Reform issued a Fatwa against congratulating Christian Copts on their religious holidays, notably Christmas and Easter, since Muslims do not share the beliefs specific to those holidays. As for the ever-reliable Salafi Sheikh Burhami, he further forbade Muslim cab and bus drivers from transporting Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as “more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar.”

    Banning Saluting the Egyptian Flag
    Abd al-Akhir Hamad, the mufti of the notorious Gama’a Islamiya (Islamic Group), denounced and forbade the saluting of the flag and the Egyptian national anthem, saying that doing so glorifies that which is other than Allah—not to mention music is simply “haram,” that is, forbidden. Dar Al-Ifta’ issued a counter-fatwa to allow for saluting the flag and standing up for the national anthem.

    Banning TV Shows Mocking Political Islamists
    A fatwa banning TV viewers from watching the very popular shows of Bassem Yusif, who routinely mocks Egypt’s Islamists and their fatwas, appeared and was originally attributed to Dar Al-Ifta’, though it later denied issuing it.

    Banning Marriage to Mubarak-Regime “Remnants”
    Sheik Omar Stouhi, Secretary General of the Supreme Committee for Islamic Da‘wa at Al-Azhar, forbade all Muslim women from marrying any of the sons of the “remnants” of the old regimes, portraying them as non-pious Muslims.

    Banning Joining the Dustor Political Party
    Sheikh Muhammad Nazmi issued a ban on people from joining Egypt’s Dustor political party, headed by Dr. Muhammad al-Baradei, saying that the latter is a secularist and opposed to the implementation of Allah’s laws.

    The Jihad on Egypt’s Pharaonic Antiquities

    By Raymond Ibrahim on November 14, 2012 in From The Arab World

    Published on Jihad Watch
    While Islamic hate for idols is a well documented phenomenon—permeating both the whole of Islamic doctrine and history—the “Arab Spring” has given greater rise to this hate, as it has to all uniquely Islamic phenomena.

    Sheikh Badri calls for the demolition of Egypt’s pre-Islamic past

    Soon after Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Morsi became president of Egypt, calls to demolish the Great Pyramids—long seen as the ultimate in idol effrontery to Islamic sensibilities—began. When I reported this, and documented the long paper-trail of Muslims, beginning with their prophet, destroying the antiquities of their pagan ancestors, the apologists, including at Huffington Post and New York Times cried “hoax,” to lull the world back to sleep.

    Yet the cries to destroy Egypt’s Pharonic—that is, pagan—past continue. According to a Watan report, Sheikh Yusif al-Badri, a popular preacher, recently declared that “Allah created people to worship him, but demons misled them to worship other creatures in his place.”

    Accordingly, Sheikh al-Badri is calling for “the demolition of monuments [e.g., pyramids] and all idols and statues in Egypt,” characterizing it as “a religious duty, lest they [monuments and idols] create sedition, and cause people to return to worshiping idols instead of Allah.” Likewise, he pointed to the fact that “the noble prophet [Muhammad] ordered the destruction of idols and statues [when he conquered Mecca] lest they be glorified for worship instead of Allah.”

    The report continues by quoting various other Islamic figures, including from the Muslim Brotherhood, who all agree that any idol that has the potential to awe Muslims “instead of Allah” must be destroyed, though some argue that the antiquities of Egypt do not inspire Muslims to worship them and help the nation’s economy, and thus should be spared.

    Even so, the Watan report concludes by saying that, according to Egypt’s Minister of Antiquities “some of the statues have already been destroyed by those belonging to the political Islamist parties.”

    Islamic State: Militants blow up tower tombs at Syria's Palmyra, antiquities chief says

    Updated 5 Sep 2015, 9:10amSat 5 Sep 2015, 9:10am
    Photo: An antiquities expert says the celebrated Tower of Elahbel was one of the tombs destroyed by Islamic State. (Supplied: Wikimedia Commons)

    Related Story: Satellite images confirm destruction of Palmyra's Temple of Bel: UN
    Related Story: Historic Temple of Bel damaged by Islamic State militants

    Map: Syrian Arab Republic
    Jihadists of the Islamic State group have blown up three of the famed tower tombs of Syria's ancient desert city of Palmyra, the country's antiquities chief says.
    "They blew up three tower tombs, the best preserved and most beautiful," Maamoun Abdelkarim said.
    News of the destruction at the world-renowned site, captured by the jihadists in May, follows their demolition of the ancient shrine of Baal Shamin and the 2,000-year-old Temple of Bel.
    "We received reports 10 days ago but we've just confirmed the news," Mr Abdelkarim said.
    "We obtained satellite images from the US-based Syrian Heritage Initiative, taken on September 2."
    He said the tombs destroyed by IS included the most celebrated — the Tower of Elahbel.
    The whole of Palmyra, including the four cemeteries outside the walls of the ancient city, has been listed as a world heritage site by UNESCO since 1980.
    In its listing, the UN agency singles out the tower tombs as the "oldest and most distinctive" of Palmyra's funerary moments — "tall multi-storey sandstone buildings belonging to the richest families".
    "On the fronts of those that survive, foremost among them the Tower of Elahbel, there is an arch with sarcophagus halfway up, which in ancient times supported a reclining statue," it said.
    "Corridors and rooms were subdivided by vertical bays of loculi [niches for dead] closed by slabs of stone carved with the image of the deceased and painted in lively colours."

    What is Palmyra?

    • UNESCO describes Palmyra as a heritage site of "outstanding universal value"
    • Palmyra first entered recorded history in the early second millennium BC as a caravan stop for travellers
    • The ancient city stood on a caravan route at the crossroads of several civilisations; the place where the ancient Greek and Roman worlds met the ancient Persian and Parthian worlds on the Silk Road
    • Its first and second century temples and colonnaded streets mark a unique blend of Graeco-Roman and Persian influences
    • It is strategically important, placed in the centre of the Syrian desert, and is the crossroads for roads going to Jordan, Iraq, and Damascus.
    Mr Abdulkarim said the Tower of Jambalik, built in 83AD, was also destroyed along with the Tower of Ketout built in 44AD and famed for vivid scenes etched into its walls.
    He said the tower tombs were symbols of the economic boom of Palmyra in the 1st century AD when it dominated the caravan trade between east and west from its oasis in the desert.
    Some of Palmyra's monuments still remain intact, including its grand amphitheatre and the Temple of Nabu.
    The amphitheatre has instead been exploited by IS to parade its brutal version of Islamic justice since it captured the city in May.
    In one macabre display, child recruits executed 25 Syrian soldiers on the stage.

    Jihadists keen to sell artefacts on black market

    According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights monitoring group, IS addressed a letter to Palmyra's residents promising further destruction.
    Gruesome violence and the destruction of priceless artefacts have become hallmarks of IS as it has expanded its so-called caliphate straddling Iraq and Syria.
    The Sunni extremist group considers pre-Islamic monuments, tombs and statues to be idolatrous and worthy of destruction.
    But experts say that while the jihadists prize the shock value of demolishing ancient sites, they are also keen to preserve some artefacts to sell on the black market to raise funds.
    According to Cheikhmous Ali of the Association for the Protection of Syrian Archaeology, upwards of 900 monuments and archaeological sites have been damaged or destroyed during more than four years of civil war.
    In addition to damaging sites in Syria, IS has also carried out widespread destruction in neighbouring Iraq, demolishing statues, shrines and manuscripts in second city Mosul, and razing the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud.

    Raymond Ibrahim is a Middle East and Islam specialist and author of Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians (2013) and The Al Qaeda Reader (2007).
    His writings have appeared in a variety of media, including the Los Angeles Times, Washington Times, Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, Middle East Quarterly, World Almanac of Islamism, and Chronicle of Higher Education; he has appeared on MSNBC, Fox News, C-SPAN, PBS, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, NPR, Blaze TV, and CBN.
    Ibrahim regularly speaks publicly, briefs governmental agencies, provides expert testimony for Islam-related lawsuits, and testifies before Congress.
    He is a Shillman Fellow, David Horowitz Freedom Center; a CBN News contributor; a Media Fellow, Hoover Institution (2013); and a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow, Middle East Forum .
    Ibrahim’s dual-background -- born and raised in the U.S. by Coptic Egyptian parents born and raised in the Middle East -- has provided him with unique advantages, from equal fluency in English and Arabic, to an equal understanding of the Western and Middle Eastern mindsets, positioning him to explain the latter to the former.

    Iran-Shia-(?Israel?)-----Russia-Orthodox-----(Western Alliances?)-Sunni-Islamic State
  3. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    3,437 Guide to Understanding Islam

    What does the Religion of Peace Teach About...

    Question: Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

    Summary Answer:

    The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
    Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.
    The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God; however this works both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.
    Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

    The Quran:

    Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

    but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

    Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
    but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

    Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

    Quran (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 Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

    Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

    Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

    Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

    Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

    Quran (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 Allah (From what is forbidden). 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."

    Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). According to the verse, Allah will allow the disabled into Paradise, but will provide a larger reward to those who are able to kill others in his cause.

    Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

    Quran (5:33) - "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"

    Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

    Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

    Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals."

    Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

    Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."

    Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

    Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..."

    Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam (prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars). This popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.

    Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "healing" the hearts of Muslims.

    Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.

    Quran (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." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has charted them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

    Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

    Quran (9:38-39) - "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 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." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

    Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

    Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

    Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

    Quran (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 Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer?

    Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

    Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam).

    Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. (Note: This is one reason why honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.1-2).)

    Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

    Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

    Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

    Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Those who reject Allah are to be killed in Jihad. The wounded are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test.

    Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you,"

    Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell.

    Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that there are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26..

    Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought.

    Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn - Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle in order to make Islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

    Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

    Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at

    From the Hadith:

    Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

    Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... 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)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

    Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word, Islam, should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.

    Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

    Abu Dawud (14:2526) - The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist)

    Abu Dawud (14:2527) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious

    Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah

    Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally."

    Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah."

    Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'."

    Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

    Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..."

    Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!"

    Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'"

    Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

    Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... 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."

    Bukhari 1:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)."

    Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim.

    Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam.

    Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.

    Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

    Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: - Lest anyone think that cutting off someone's head while screaming 'Allah Akbar!' is a modern creation, here is an account of that very practice under Muhammad, who seems to approve.

    Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

    Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief.

    Additional Notes:

    Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with little resistance. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism.

    The reasons are obvious and begin with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are obviously abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change.

    Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They prefer a more narrow interpretation that is closer to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Some just ignore harsher passages. Others reach for "textual context" across different suras to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message fits their personal moral preferences. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret verses without their "assistance."

    The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in very real massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was very nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran.

    Violence is so ingrained in Islam that it has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself.

    Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered.

    It is important to emphasize that, for the most part, Muslim armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by the actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death.

    The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islamic hegemony. Although modern apologists often claim that Muslims are only supposed to "attack in self-defense", this oxymoron is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad.

    Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war:

    "It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al—Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected... In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms."

    Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage").

    One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Elsewhere, he notes: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life."

    The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur'an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect."

    Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule - bound only by the capacity for success. (source)

    Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought afterwards to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then the violence turned within. Early Meccan converts battled later ones as hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.

    The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.

    This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them as literally as anything else in their holy book, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of personal opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it's little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims personally prefer not to interpret their religion in this way.

    Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "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", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. In the West, it is typical for believers to think that their religion must be like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance - because Muslims are taught that Islam is supposed to be superior in every way. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that this is contradicted by the Quran and the bloody history of Islam's genesis.

    Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest.

    For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that this it is both different and dangerous.

    There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam. Home Page

    © 2006-2016 All rights reserved.

    Last edited: Dec 18, 2015
  4. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    "There are moderate and peace-loving muslims, there is no moderate islam!"


    Women have the right to wear a sheet covering their entire body or risk rape or acid thrown in their face.
    Women get to pick from the many shades of black for their Burka, Abaya or Jalbeeb.
    Women have the right to have male escorts whenever they leave their house or risk rape or arrest
    Women have the right to genital mutilation. Then they have the right to get sewn up so they can’t hardly piss.
    Women have the right to have 4 male witnesses to testify she was NOT raped
    Women have the right to have their hand cut off for using a cell phone in public
    Women have the right to be honor killed
    Women have the right to be forced to become human incubators for future terrorists.
    Women have the right to be stoned to death for the crime of NOT being able to produce 4 male witnesses in the case of adultery
    Women have the right to be treated like shi20 by their husband, their children and just about any muslim man
    Women have the right to get beat with a chair because they got their husband angry.
    Women have the right to be married off at ANY age to ANY man (most likely their first cousin) their father SELLS them to.
    Women have the right to get only half of what their brother gets of an inheritance.
    Women have the right to obligatorily have another woman assist them at testifying in court, because their minds are too feeble and only half as good as a man's.
    Women have the right to not report rape, sodomy, incest, assault in Islamic countries because these crimes are never recorded by officials and not used in statistics.
    Married girls have the right to walk themselves to one of the many Obstetric Fistula Clinic (Only available in Islamic countries) where they can get the hole between their vagina and urethra repaired, after being raped at too young an age by their husband.
    Married girls have the right to go to Jannah early when they die in childbirth because their immature bodies can't handle pregnancy.
    Women have the right to share their husband’s earnings with up to 3 more women.
    Women have the right to a divorce, in a sharia court, after they obtain a lawyer to represent them, and only if their husband agrees, (Otherwise they can just hope their husband utters the words "i divorce you" thrice)
    Women have the right to have traffic stopped in the middle of a Saudi street intersection, so they can be quickly decapitated in said intersection for suspected witchcraft.
    Women and girls have the right to be traded as war booty sex slaves if their family belongs to the losing side of any battle started by men.
    Women and girls have the right to be sexually harassed and groped, in the streets and in broad daylight, if any man or boy thinks her female form isn't concealed enough
    Women or girls have the right to be buried chest deep in a pit and pelted with stones until they die if they are suspected by their husbands of infidelity.
    Women used to have the right to suicide to escape the ecstasies of islam until Suicide amongst women was at record highs in Iran and a Mullah enacted a fatwa to prevent further suicides...
    "Any woman who commits suicide will have her daughters executed"
    This has stopped many unappreciative women from leaving the most perfect religion in the world.
    And women’s rights even extend to Janna where virgins have the right to work in a heavenly whorehouse where they can be abused in every way possible by muslim men and then their merciful and most beneficent pimp, alla, turns them back into virgins so the next muslim man can make them bleed and hear them scream. And they don’t even get paid whore wages.

    Now where oh where are the 'politically corrected' multicultural feminists of the western civilization?
    Ah I forgot, the 'same sex marriage' and the sexploitation of the 'Hollywood Industry', the Kardashian attires and body things and the Zionist conspirators are keeping the ardent defenders of 'women's rights' a little preoccupied!

    Daniel 11:36-38 - King James Version (KJV)
    36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
    37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
    38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

    And now something rather different!
    A TRUE Moderate Muslim with a fake disguise versus a FAKE Moderate Muslim without a fake disguise and a sheik aka 'islamic scholar' - no other 'western' input religious or secular required
  5. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Truth is the New Hate Speech of Islamophobia


    I think it is very naive to assume that Islam believes in individual freedom and the American way of life. While some might actually want American freedoms and values Islam forbids it. There very well may be moderate Muslims all over the world but there is no moderate Islam.

    Islam - A Religion Based on Terrorism

    To understand Islam, you have to accept certain facts about this religion.
    The impact of Islam on the daily life of Muslims is far greater than that found in the Western Culture since the Middle Ages.
    Muslims advance a definition that Islam is a shinning beacon against the darkness of repression, segregation, intolerance, and racism.

    Nothing could be further from the truth!
    Islam has no fundamental concept of Inalienable Rights as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Islam does not permit the individual to enjoy the freedoms of action and association characteristic of the Democracy that so many Western cultures currently enjoy today. Islam is a religion in name only because of a reference to "Allah" as their Deity. A well known fact is that Islam is a totalitarian ideology that rejects Democracy, personal freedom, and every other religion. The ideals of anti-Semitism and anti-Western Culture run rampant throughout Islam. The Laws of Man are meaningless and have absolutely no relevance in Muslim culture because they are without any direct reference to the Koran or Shariah Law and therefore they have no place in Muslim life.
    Islamic law/Shariah Law is completely incompatible with Freedom, Democracy, and Liberty, or any other government where the people have an actual voice in government or the will of the people matters.

    For example, in Saudi Arabia, a country ruled by Islamic law, sorcery, witchcraft, and blasphemy are all crimes punishable by death... they behead people convicted of these "crimes" in the public square. This is what Islamic law advocates. Saudi Arabia holds to Shariah Law and has a Religious Police to enforce all the aspects of Shariah Law. Christian Bibles are destroyed by the thousands like book burnings in Nazi Germany. This is not a religion of tolerance as so many Muslims claim.

    "True Islam permits neither elections nor democracy."
    -- Sufi Mohammed, Muslim Cleric


    Saudi Arabia infuses Islam in all aspects of daily life. The practice of any other religion is against the law and there is an actual Religious Police to enforce this law. This ends any discussion concerning Islam's tolerance of other religions. All laws come from Shariah Law and with its foundation in the Koran, it is the law. Muslims are convinced that this is the way all life should be lived. The belief is, "If Shariah Law is good for now, then it is good for all times," and they firmly believe that concept because Shariah Law comes directly from the Koran, which they believe is the direct word of Allah.
    Islam, as practiced by the "Radical" fundamentalists that lead the religion, does not encourage the pursuit of knowledge outside of itself as can be seen by their attitude toward other cultures especially Western Culture. This is the reason Islam is often referred to as "the religion which has produced nothing but religion". Essentially, anything that is not Islamic is not encouraged and in many instances, it is outright forbidden. Ideals Americans take for granted such as Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press have absolutely no meaning or place within Islamic culture. Islam with Shariah Law constitutes a totalitarian means of ruling society at EVERY level, including ritual worship, transactions and contracts, morals and matters, beliefs and punishments, the servitude of women, etc, etc, etc...

    The words "peace" and "tolerance" are not defined in Islam as it is defined in the West. It does not mean ceasefire or compromise. That is a temporary illusion that people of the western culture are encouraged and fooled into believing.

    The Prophet Muhammad defined the state of peace and tolerance as a moment when the entire world submits to Allah and embraces Islam and that is the way that Islam defines "peace" and "tolerance".

    In Islam, the way to achieve peace is through settlement, jihad, and the institution of the Sharia (Islamic law)... not compromise... not tolerance of other religions... not allowing non-Muslims to exist and live their lives as they wish.

    And before the State of Universal Islamization, "It is the duty of every Muslim male to wage war against Infidels" – not just by preaching and persuading, but by any means necessary and as the world has seen, by extreme violence whenever possible. It is one of the core beliefs of Islam.

    The idea that Islam has any real degree of tolerance as defined in the Western World is not only fallacious but it is dangerous, especially to non-Muslims.

    "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir (leader) and give allegiance to him... Take my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us."
    -- Siraj Wahaj, a black convert to Islam and the recipient of some of the American Muslim community's highest honors, had the privilege of becoming the first Muslim to deliver the daily prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives

    Three Things You (Probably) Don't Know About Islam

    In Islamic states, where there is no formally recognized separation between religion and law, mosque and state, Shariah Law is a cornerstone and is often implemented as the final and ultimate formulation of the law of God, not to be revised or reformulated by mere mortal and fallible human beings. Freedom does not exist in Islam. Only Islam exists in Islam. Ideally, Islam and its teachings would run the State and all laws would be based on criteria from the Koran.

    "Islam is a revolutionary faith that comes to destroy any government made by man. Islam doesn't look for a nation to be in better condition than another nation. Islam doesn't care about the land or who own the land. The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal, Islam will fight and destroy."
    -- Mawlana Abul Ala Mawdudi, founder of Pakistan's Fundamentalist Movement

    Their goal is to make Islam a Worldwide State sanctioned religion led by religious leaders having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all aspects of life based on Islamic teachings, and emphasizing Islam to the detriment of any and all other religions and secular beliefs.
    For people that have grown up with Freedom and Liberty, this is often a hard realization to comprehend. Islam as a religion requires mandatory implementation and participation as a way of life and is the goal of all Muslims. For Muslims, Islam is the only true religion. All other religions are false and an insult to Allah, Islam, "the prophet" Muhammad, and all Muslims. Under Islamic law, infidel religions and beliefs will not be tolerated. With Islam, there is no Freedom of Religion, there is no Individual Freedom; there is only Islam and the Islamic way of life.

    "He who fights that Islam should be superior fights in Allah's cause."
    -- Muhammad, Prophet of Islam

    "By their acts, we shall know them and so we know them."
    -- Pamela Gella, 06 November 2009

    Once you understand this concept, it is easy to comprehend what Islam really is. As a religion, Islam is run by Radical Muslims. They are the loudest and most vocal on Islam. The Radical Muslims are the true Muslims that dictate and control Islam. They are the ones that fight to get what they want based on Islamic Law. This webpage aims to show what they have done, what they are doing now, and the role they want for Islam in the future.
    The term "Radical Islam" is often used when describing Islam. It is a deceptive term in that it assumes there is a more moderate and peaceful version of Islam... there is not! Islam is a Radical ideology on its own as can be seen in its doctrine. There is no need to use the word "Radical" as though there was a "Non-Radical" form of Islam. There is only one Islam and it is at war with the rest of world for planetary control and domination. It is not just a war with an ideology, but with a people, including their elderly, their women, and their children. There is no war with a separate entity of Islam called "Radical Islam"... THE WAR IS WITH ALL OF ISLAM.

    Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you believe it or not, Islamic Terrorists are the cause for almost all of the world's terrorist attacks. There are always detractors that will advance the notion that these "Islamic Terrorists" are not true Muslims, but such is not the case. These terrorists are dedicated Muslims and serious students of Islam and its teachings. They understand what Islam is, what it means to be a defender of Allah and of Islam, and what is required to be a good Muslim. Remember, Muslims believe that Islam is the only true religion, superior to all other religions and beliefs. They also believe there are no innocent people other than Muslims therefore killing non-Innocents is acceptable to Allah as some legitimate form of retribution as they believe they are on a mission with orders directly from Allah as written in the Koran to destroy anything they see as a threat or an insult to Islam and Allah. Unbelievers are not worthy of living; they deserve to die.

    Examine a somewhat hidden concept of Islam. To advance the cause of Islam is to implement the complete domination of Islam over all other religions with the goal being the eventual elimination of other religions. When a Muslim dies while attempting to advance the cause of Islam, including by warfare and killing, it is not considered suicide, but a glorious act worthy of a secured place in Paradise. Islam is unique among major world religions in this concept. The Koran teaches salvation through fighting and killing non-Muslims. We see this reality whenever a suicide bomber strikes, Muslims are quick to heave praise on the terrorist and on the family of the suicide bomber. There is nothing but contempt given to the victims.

    There is one historical precedent rarely discussed about Islam that helps to explain the terrorist mentality commonly associated with Islam. The bloody legacy of Muhammad is a constant challenge for anyone living within the borders of Islamic belief. The violence that Muslim armies would level on people across North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and Asia as far as India is a tribute to a founder who condoned slavery, rape, murder and forced conversion in the cause of spreading the rule of his religion. This concept established by Muhammad as a fundamental tool to spread Islam is certainly the basis for terror campaigns against Western infidels and the general apathy that Muslims around the world have to the violence against non-Muslims.

    There are a lot of myths about Islam as to whether it is a Religion of Peace and Tolerance and what that actually means. The following link addresses ten of those myths.

    Ten Myths About Islam


    Why We Fear Islam, Why We Should Fear Islam

    As Americans who were brought up in a prodominately Judeo-Christian society, when we look at others, it is common to see other people that worship other religions as just peaceful people and we want to believe they only want to live in peace as we do. They live their day to day lives much like us... going to work, coming home, spending the weekends doing chores that could not be done during the week. We see pretty much all people as equal. That is not the way Muslims see us. Make no mistake, non-Muslims are clearly seen as Kafirs... second class citizens that should be subjegated under the control of Islam. After all, Islam means "Submission" and that is exactly what the religion means to do to non-Muslims. And until we have the courage to understand and know the real history of Islam and how Muslims have treated non-Muslims, we are going to continue to die by the edge of the Islamic sword.
    Very few Americans actually know anything about how Islam has changed the world and how many hundreds of millions of non-Muslims have suffered and died under the tyrany of Islam. The following video will explain this history and the extremely violent nature of Islam. Just remember, Islam is the only religion that proudly makes videos of the beheading non-Muslims.

    Under Islamic Law, There Are Guidelines For Beating Your Wife

    For those Liberals that love to make excuses for Muslims and blame the Jews, America, or anyone else they like to blame for Islamic hatred, please enjoy this explanation of the guidelines for beating your wife entitled "How To Beat Your Wife". Believe it or not, there is actually a specific etiquette for a man to beat his wife. In Islam, a woman must be honored by a good beating for her own good. This is necessary in order to instill disipline. But do not believe us, just see what Islam has to say on the subject in this very enlightening video broadcasted on MEMRI-TV.

    If you are Pro-Islam, then you are by definition you understand the necessity for beating your wife when she does not perform as she should. This makes training your new 9-12 year-old bride to service her new husband when he wants to be serviced, as is the custom in Islam, very easy. As an Islamic man, if your wife ever refuses to have sex when you want, you are free to beat her until she will never entertain the thought of refusing to have sex with you again. For you Liberal women, expecially those associated with CodePINK, reading this editorial, this observation might be eye-opening if you really want to see the truth.


    Islam And Muslims Are Responsible For The African Slave Trade

    What most people do not realize is that the slave trade that brought Africans from Africa to North and South America and throughout parts of Europe was due to the tireless efforts of Muslims and in accordance with Islamic Law.


    Just another set of facts illustrating the truth about Islam.
    The Threat Of Islam


    I was born and raised as Muslim. My whole family is still Muslim. I know every genetic code of Muslim. I know Islamic brain. I live and breathe with them. I am an insider. I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. The following are the Islamic message to the West.
    To the infidels of the West:

    The Constitution for the new Islamic Republics of EuroArabia and AmerIslamia is under construction.
    We will fight the infidel to death.

    • Democrats and Leftist will support us.
    • N.G.O.s will legitimize us.
    • C.A.I.R. will incubate us.
    • The A.C.L.U. will empower us.
    • Western Universities will educate us.
    • Mosques will shelter us
    • O.P.E.C. will finance us
    • Meanwhile American laws will protect us.
    • Hollywood will love us.
    • Kofi Annan and most of the United Nations will cover our asses.

    Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our children's educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools.

    We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad.
    We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost. Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country's interest than US interest.

    We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won't hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US.

    Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will mix with intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we?

    We are the "sleeper cells".

    We will raise our children to be loyal to Islam and Mohammad only. Everything else is secondary.
    At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armor. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine the news in the world "Death of Muslim babies by infidels".

    We know CNN, ABC, CBS are broadcasting live. Al-Jazeera will pour gasoline on the fire. The news will spread like wildfire. "Americans killed 6 babies, 10 babies" and "Jews killed two women".
    Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carrier or high-tech weaponry in the showcase. You can't use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your higher moral standard and use it against you. We won't hesitate to use our children as suicide bomber against you.

    Visualize the news flash all over the world ...Muslim mother is sobbing ...crying. ...Her babies are killed by Jews and Americans, the whole world is watching live. Hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the world are boiling. They will march through Europe. We will use our women to produce more babies who will in turn be used as armor/shield. Our babies are the gift from Allah for Jihad.
    West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We will manufacture our military force by natural means, by producing more babies. That is the way it is cheaper.

    You infidels at this site cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion. We will double again. Do you have enough bullets to kill us?
    On the camera:

    • We will always say, "Islam is the Religion of Peace."
    • We will say, "Jihad is actually inner Jihad."
    • Moderate Muslims will say there is no link between Islam and Terrorism and the West will believe it because the West is so gullible.
    • Moderate Muslims all over the world will incubate Jihadist by their talk by defending Islam.
    • Using the Western Legal system we will assert our Shariah Laws, slowly but surely.
    • We will increase in number. We will double again.

    You will be impressed when you meet a moderate Muslim personally. As your next-door neighbor, coworker, student, teacher, engineer, professionals you may even like us. You will find us well mannered, polite, humble that will make you say, "Wow, Muslims are good and peaceful people", but, we will stab you in your back when you are sleeping as we did on 911.

    There will be more 911 in Europe and in America. We will say, "We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved."
    Muslims, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other international Islamic Organization will unite. We will partner with Leftist, ACLU, with Koffi Annan, and the UN, and if we have to then even with France. Fasten your seatbelt. The war of civilizations has just begun.
    We will recite Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will video tape those and send it to all infidels to watch. They will surrender - ISLAM means surrender.
    We will use your own values of kindness against you.

    You are destined to lose.
    Must be very depressing for you, isn't it?

    Allah-Hu-Akbar as we say just before beheading.

    France Raids Mosques, What Was Found Should Have Us Demolishing Them All
    Tuesday, December 8, 2015 9:25

    “Following the Islamic terror attacks in Paris that killed over 130 people, France has begun raiding mosques, despite cries of “Islamophobia” and racism. However, what police found Muslims hiding there is more than enough to have us demanding they all be torn down. In a controversial move, a mosque in Lagny-sur-Marne was thoroughly raided by French authorities Sunday after its members were suspected of supporting the Paris terror attacks and the Islamic State (ISIS/Daesh). What they found was absolutely chilling.
    France 24 reports that police uncovered massive stash of 7.62mm Kalashnikov ammunition and ISIS propaganda videos. A revolver and “jihadist documents” were also found at the home of one of the mosque leaders. At least 334 weapons were confiscated and 232 Muslims were arrested, with 22 under surveillance with travel bans and 9 placed under house arrest. This is the third mosque to be closed in France since the Paris attack on November 13. As a result of the terror attacks, 2,235 homes have been subsequently raided.
    “In 15 days we have seized one-third of the quantity of war-grade weapons that are normally seized in a year,” France’s Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve told Express. Police also found recordings of religious chants “glorifying the martyrs of jihad linked to the terrorist organisation Jabhat al-Nusra,” the Syrian branch of Al-Qaeda, the prefecture added. While those of us on the right warn that more gun control will only leave us defenseless, France has proven it with their own failed policies. All but banning weapons hasn’t stopped Islamic terrorists from obtaining them, as these raids have shown. This is one instance where we should learn from the mistakes of others, rather than making more of our own — mistakes that will cost more American lives…”

    ORTHODOX MUSLIMS cannot wage all out war on the U.S. and expect to win. But they have a religious obligation to participate in jihad in some way in order to eventually subjugate all countries under Islamic law, including the U.S. There are more devious ways to conquer than straightforward war, however. In the excerpt below, from an article by Anis Shorrosh, author of Islam Revealed, shares what he sees as the "Islamists' 20-year plan" to conquer the U.S. As you will see, many of these things are already being done.

    1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with statewide and nationwide hate-crime bills.

    2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities who promote Islam as the religion of African-Americans while insisting Christianity is for whites only. What they fail to tell African-Americans is that it was Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves. In fact, the Arabic word for black and slave is the same, ''Abed.''

    3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

    4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office to bring about favorable legislation toward Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

    5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the Internet as possible by buying the related corporations or a controlling stock.

    6. Yield to the fear of the imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America – black gold. America’s economy depends on oil and 41 percent of it comes from the Middle East.

    7. Yell ''foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un- American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran'' anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

    8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions and get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. (Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?) Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way.

    9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

    * Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961).

    * Use no birth control whatsoever – every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.

    * Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years – since one can't legally marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.

    * Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2,000 released inmates have joined al-Qaida worldwide). Only a few ''sleeper cells'' have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil.

    10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1,500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are currently 300 exclusively Muslim schools in the U.S. which teach loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution. In January of 2002, Saudi Arabia’s Embassy in Washington mailed 4,500 packets of the Quran and videos promoting Islam to America's high schools – free of charge. Saudi Arabia would not allow the U.S. to reciprocate.

    11. Provide very sizable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish ''Centers for Islamic studies'' with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher-education institutions.

    12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have hijacked Islam, when in truth, Islam hijacked the terrorists.

    13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

    14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans with reports of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls.

    15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not America's justice system.

    16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S., but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

    17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting freshman take at least one course on Islam.

    18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by Internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media.

    19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

    20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the U.S. by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

    Shorrosh is a member of the Oxford Society of Scholars, has traveled in 76 countries, and is a lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. Islam Revealed is a bestseller now in its eighth printing. His forthcoming 10th book, from which the 20-point plan is abridged, is titled ''Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.''


    Anonymous 5:06 AM
    This plan is most definitly being carried out. One doesn't have to look far to see what's going on. If you pay attention to the news on these topics, it confirms all of this. The biggest problem for America is that you have idiots like Oprah Winfrey telling everyone Islam is a sister religion to Christianity...that it promotes peace and love and that we as Americans should be accepting of it. I think most Americans are blind to what is going on and desperately need to be educated before it's too late!

    Mike 5:40 AM
    We as Americans need to get our heads out of the sand! All you have to do is pay attention to the headline news to see what's going on. We have influential idiots like Oprah Winfrey telling people that Islam is a sister religion to Christianity and that it is a religion of peace and love. The worst part of it all is that many people take her word for it and are misled to believe a lie.

    coldjoint 5:44 PM
    don't politicians have computers, it seems only the people reading this stuff know what is going on, that can't be. what islam is doing is obvious. what we should do is obvious too. grab your balls america and defend the liberty so many have died for. do not give away through tolerance what we can not tolerate.LIBERTY

    Citizen Warrior 1:50 AM
    Read how one man near Washington, D.C., influences his fellow Americans to wage jihad from within: Jihad By Subversion.
    Anonymous 7:44 PM
    We all need to join together , our churches need to join together ,as an army warriors to fight back ,reclaim back our freedom , and our inheritance , now , dont wait for tommorow , be here now .

    Anonymous 9:29 PM
    That 20 year plan i taking place and almost fullfilled. I hate those people with a passion. That bunch has no concept of the spirit of the Law that is supposed to govern the meaning of the Laws of this Land. They should all be tried for treason. They say it over and over that they have an agenda and want a "new world order." He is who he surrounds himself with. He said that also. Where are all the lawmakers who supposed to protect the law of the great land? Try to overthrow the government in the land of the sand and see what happens. They are laughing at our spineless lawmakers and enforcers. Nancy Pelosi hould be flogged in public.

    Anonymous 12:16 PM
    I second A good old fashion stoning of Nancy Pelosi and all the godless liberals. God will have judgment on those who sin. The axis of evil starts with Liberals and Radicals like Barack Obama. Barack has dedicated Nasa to helping Muslim countries as their number one priority. Aren't those the people that want to slit our throat?

    SecularDemocraticIran 8:35 PM
    As a person who lived more than 2/3 of my life in Islamis countries & communities, grew up under a Sharia school system & laws and hated Islam (along almost anyone I knew growing up) more than enything else in my life, I agree w/ that article 100%. This is the most realistic analysis of the situation I've ever seen.
    I've been personally fighitng for Iranian secular democracy for most of my life and my main targets in this battle are normally the various kinds of Islamic (pro-IR) lobbyists. They come in all forms and much of the western media is hijacked by them w.o realizing. They have brainwahing & recruiting cells in almost any university in America. There are billions of $coming from MUSLIM nations and US charity organizations to fund their growing underground empire. They have become experts in $ laundering, drug, cigarett and conterband smuggling and there is more tax fraud by Muslims than any other because they consider paying taxes as feeding the infidel enemy of Islam while even the millionare Muslim kids receive social welfare, food stamps andgoverntment benefit. I can write a whole book about how much they abuse American liberty against America itself.
    I am an Iranian and grew up in the Muslims world, also during my first years in America, my situation forced meto live in majotity Arab/Muslim communities which I really hated.
    I warrned Americans about the threas of growing Muslim communities in America and the Americans laughed at me or ignored me calling me over reacted because I was suffered living under an Islamic dictatorship.
    When 9/11th terrorist attack took place, once again I had to deal with idiots who thought anyone from the Middle East must be a Muslim and so a terrorist. Even when they heard me cursing Islam and let them know that I was an athiest from non-Muslim parents, the idiots didn't understand.
    When I heard Bush engaged Iran in Iraq & Afghanistan, I warned anyone I knew that Iran was going to take over Iraq and turn it into a Juhadist capital and still Americans didn't believe me.

    Even my predictions about Iran uprising turned to reality because the opposite what it seems, over 70% of Iranians under the age of 40 are non-Muslims meaning that they were born of Muslim parents, but hate Islam more than anything else in their lives & never worship it. The young Iranians fighting the barbaric regime in Iran are the future allies US & Israel need in the middle east and the west should capitilize and invest in them because they'll change the future of middle east and the world.
    When Obama prases Islam and pays respect to the occupying regime of Islamic Republic, Iranian people feel betrayal from the free world that instead of hearing their cries, our fanatic president praises their barbaric oppressors. They even chanted "Obama, Either w/us or w/them(regime)"

    SecularDemocraticIran 8:43 PM
    I am an Iranian and grew up in the Muslims world, also during my first years in America, my situation forced meto live in majotity Arab/Muslim communities which I really hated.
    I warrned Americans about the threas of growing Muslim communities in America and the Americans laughed at me or ignored me calling me over reacted because I was suffered living under an Islamic dictatorship.
    When 9/11th terrorist attack took place, once again I had to deal with idiots who thought anyone from the Middle East must be a Muslim and so a terrorist. Even when they heard me cursing Islam and let them know that I was an athiest from parents who also hate religion, the idiots didn't understand.
    When I heard Bush engaged Iran in Iraq & Afghanistan, I warned anyone I knew that Iran was going to take over Iraq and turn it into a Juhadist capital and still Americans didn't believe me.

    Even my predictions about Iran uprising turned to reality because the opposite what it seems, over 70% of Iranians under the age of 40 are non-Muslims meaning that they were born of Muslim parents, but hate Islam more than anything else in their lives & never worship it. The young Iranians fighting the barbaric regime in Iran are the future allies US & Israel need in the middle east and the west should capitilize and invest in them because they'll change the future of middle east and the world.
    When Obama prases Islam and pays respect to the occupying regime of Islamic Republic, Iranian people feel betrayal from the free world that instead of hearing their cries, our fanatic president praises their barbaric oppressors. They even chanted "Obama, Either w/us or w/them(regime)"
    My email contact:

    feelingelephants 4:53 PM
    Do you truly think the American democracy is not strong enough to defend against any attack?

    I believe in the vision of America our founders (Masons and Christians, slave-owners and abolitionists all, democratic and republican, trusting of the will of the people and less so) laid down in the Constitution:

    1) Pluralism,

    2) Freedom of speech, religion, and advocacy,

    3) Debate as a vetting process for ideas.

    If there is any threat to the United States, from without or within, I believe these freedoms will allow us to deal with it. That the Muslim population of the world is no different than the Christian or Jewish or Hindu--all people, faulty, common and brilliant people--may be uncomfortable, but it is no less true.

    Come what may, the American system will adapt and stand. And Muslim-Americans will be there supporting it.
    Citizen Warrior 12:16 AM
    feelingelephants said...

    "That the Muslim population of the world is no different than the Christian or Jewish or Hindu--all people, faulty, common and brilliant people--may be uncomfortable, but it is no less true."

    My response: I have no problem with the PEOPLE. The threat is the ideology, and the unrelenting drive to accomplish Sharia by gaining one small, incremental concession or accomodation at a time until it is past the point of no return, all happening so gradually that nothing raises a flag to alarm enough people.

    The greatest danger is that the Muslim population gets large enough to create a voting block that is too large and too united for politicians to ignore. It does not have to be but five or ten percent of the population to change who wins and who loses at the ballot box.

    That's why the first thing that needs to happen is for non-Muslim in the country to read the Quran. This is the version I recommend: An Abridged Koran.

    And the second thing that needs to happen as soon as enough people have read the Quran to influence the vote, is to vote to stop all Muslim immigration to the United States. In the meantime, please sign this petition: No More Muslim Immigration.
    Anonymous 10:25 PM
    2 SUICIDE bombings in downtown Stockholm, Sweden - enuff is enuff - DEPORT all Muslims and Arabs from every single wrestern country NOW before it is toolate. Was done before in Europe it needs to be done now. There is no choice and if war breaks out Islamic cities must be nuked. Only way our way of life will ever exist in future.

    Yazidi Boy and the Religion of Peace and Love
  6. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    The Usurpation of Cultural Identity by Islam
    [8:09:28 AM-December 15th, 2015] Sirius 17:

    I just did a little post but i have to head out now and get some errands done, feel free to fix or add to this or share it around Tony. I shared this article on my wall in response to one my aunt shared. I am so sick of the BS that I had to respond.

    She shared this article with this statement:
    "A huge amount of Muslims specifically come to America because of our respect for freedom of religion. Many of them serve in our military to protect that very American principle. When I was in the Navy, a shipmate who happened to be Muslim told me he considers the U.S. Military to be "Freedom's Army." I never forgot it."
    I guess quoted from the article

    [8:13:18 AM] ShilohaPlace: Yes and this is of course ok, but any such folks are actually betraying islam.
    [8:13:45 AM] Sirius 17: yes why i said what i said at the beginning

    [8:14:25 AM] ShilohaPlace: I saw a clip from C.A.R - Central African Republic and where two camps muslims and xtians want to live in peace together but can communicate because respective militias are killing each other and the civilians.
    But ask yourself. Who started the killings?
    [8:14:53 AM] Sirius 17: right
    [8:15:06 AM] ShilohaPlace: The islamists did and then the xtians fought back same with the buddhists in Thailand. I recall your silly aunt mentioning that xtians are killing muslims in Africa.
    [8:15:38 AM] Sirius 17: yes and the Tibeteans in Tibet against China, well until they wiped them out and subdued them
    [8:15:38 AM] ShilohaPlace: This is why - Self Defence becoming mutual hatred.
    [8:15:58 AM] Sirius 17: yes, well her logic doesn't hold up to snuff as we know. She is defending a religion she knows zero, zip, nada, nothing about and THAT is ridiculious
    [8:16:41 AM] ShilohaPlace: Same everywhere -
    [8:17:10 AM] ShilohaPlace: This is the slow revival. But the world must get rid of islam not muslims!
    [8:17:35 AM] Sirius 17: yes well i have no problem with that i did read bits of it; but yes Islam is a farce
    [8:18:03 AM] ShilohaPlace: I'll reply with this to your post

    The curious rebirth of Zoroastrianism in Iraqi Kurdistan

    By PS21 on November 26, 2015 • ( Leave a comment )


    Lara Fatah is a communications consultant based in Iraqi Kurdistan. She is also a PS21 global fellow.

    Faced with the barbaric actions of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) on their doorstep, a growing number of Kurds, particularly among the youth, are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the various interpretations of Islam on offer in the region.

    There is an age-old Zoroastrian mantra: “Good words, good thoughts and good actions.”

    It still holds for the small but growing number of Zoroastrians living in Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdistan Region.

    While some look to secular, Western cultural ideals, others are looking to the past and exploring ancient Kurdish beliefs. Up until the seventh']]seventh[/URL] century Islamic conquests, Kurds across the region were followers of various pre-Abrahamic faiths, such as Zoroastrianism and Yazidism.

    In August this year, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) officially recognised Zoroastrianism as a religion. The move elicited mixed reactions.

    According to local media reports, around 10,000 have converted to Zoroastrianism in the last year alone. Some local']]local[/URL] media reports purport this figure to be as high as 100,000.

    The search for identity

    Kurds across the Middle East have generally clung to their ethnic identity rather than their religion. Though Islam has played a more pivotal role in marking out regional identities in recent years, this has not really been the case among Kurds. Islamic parties usually garner only 10-15 percent of the vote in the Kurdistan Regional Government and Kurdish Provincial council elections.

    With the Kurdish identity and culture under threat from ISIL, the perceived “Kurdishness” of Zoroastrianism adds to its appeal.

    “All Kurds are nationalists and we take pride in our heritage, so of course the Kurdish nature of the religion influenced my decision to convert,” says Shwan Rahman, a recent convert to Zoroastrianism.

    Rahman, 30 grew up in London and was a devout Muslim for most of his teenage years, but became an atheist when he returned to live in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region in 2010 and work as a lawyer. He says that the peaceful, Zen-like, philosophy of the religion was its greatest appeal.

    “The main principles of Zoroastrianism coincide with my way of thinking, good words, good thoughts, good actions,” he says.

    Mullah Abbas Khidir Faraj, preacher at Awal Bakrajo Mosque and Head of Public Relations for the Islamic Scholars Union in Sulaimania, concedes that ISIL has had a negative impact on the public’s perception of Islam.

    “ISIL are criminals and they claim to act in the name of Islam, of course this has an impact on us, but they are not true Muslims,” he says.

    Arguably the world’s oldest monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism – or Zardashti, as it is called in Kurdish – stood out from its polytheistic counterparts during the Bronze Age.

    Once the official state religion of three Persian empires (Achaemenid, Arsacid and Sassanian) there are now thought to be less than 200,000 followers worldwide. The most active communities are in Iran and India, though there are a handful of diaspora communities across Europe and the United States. However, there are a growing number of activists in Iraq’s Kurdistan Region trying to reverse that trend.

    One activist, Awat Taeeb, along with a friend set up the NGO Yasna (which is the name of one of the texts in the Zoroaster holy book the Avesta) to promote the cultural aspects of Zoroastrianism. The NGO was started in London in 2006 and after a failed attempt to open a branch in 2012 in the KRG, a branch of Yasna was successfully opened in March.

    Taeeb, who was raised as a Zoroastrian, is passionate about her religion, talking animatedly about its peaceful and environmentally friendly nature as well as pointing out that it promotes equality between men and women, as it doesn’t differentiate between the roles and status of the sexes in the same way Islam does.

    In recent months, they have used a combination of seminars and social media to promote their cause and recruit new followers.

    “We have held a number of seminars in Sulaimania and also in the surrounding rural areas such as Darbandikhan, Rania and Kifri, as well as cities such as Hawler and Kirkuk,” she says.

    “What has become clear to us is that people have been truly shocked by the acts of ISIL – they feel this interpretation of Islam doesn’t represent them and it is attacking Kurdish identity. They feel that what they are learning about Zoroastrianism feels more Kurdish, more familiar.”

    But some, including Mullah Faraj, question exactly how “Kurdish” Zorastrianism is and think that this will limit its appeal.

    “Zoroastrian Kurds were always in Iranian Kurdistan and not in this area. There is no history in this area of Kurds being Zoroastrian. For this reason, I think it will be hard for them and it’s unlikely they will be successful.”

    Sulaimania resident Galawizh Ghulam is also sceptical as to how successful they will be in recruiting followers.

    “I find the numbers quoted in the newspapers to be very high. I can see that the younger generation might be turned off by Islam because of ISIL, although personally I don’t think ISIL represents Islam. Even if the youth are turned off, I don’t see large numbers converting,” she says.

    It was through their Facebook presence that Rahman became more aware of the teachings of Zoroastrianism.

    “At the beginning of this year, I started to consider converting to Zoroastrianism after finding a page on Facebook that posted information about the religion on a regular basis,” he says.

    Converting from Islam is controversial, and society in the Islamic world will not be sympathetic.

    Asked his opinion on the matter, Mullah Faraj said that he did not feel people would face reprisals and that, whilst no one likes to lose followers, one had to accept their decision.

    “You cannot force someone to follow you. If they believe they will choose to follow you,” he explains.

    However, both Awat Xan and Rahman have reservations as to how easy it will be for large numbers to convert. Despite the potential for broad appeal, conversions will no doubt be resisted by the dominant religious forces in the region.

    Awat Xan says that they have already received threats from various Islamic groups and for that reason they have so far stuck to preaching about the culture of Zoroastrianism. The NGO focuses its efforts solely in this direction.

    “We have received many threats and people try to spread falsehoods that we are fire worshipers, but that is not true,” she says. “We will have to work slowly and cautiously, but we are a peaceful religion and we believe in free will.”

    It is not always easy to have an open debate about the role of religion in politics in the Kurdistan Region. Many, though not all, politicians fear harsh rebuttals – even reprisals – from Islamist groups and shy away from discussing the issues in hand, from whether ISIL is truly Islamic in nature to whether or not the Kurdish constitution should be completely secular so that women can have equal status to men. Previous attempts at instituting gender equality in the charter have been shut down by Islamist factions even though they represent only 10-15 percent of the voting population. The lack of tolerated open debate is leading to black and white views on many sides.

    Is the revival of Zoroastrianism in Iraqi Kurdistan a reaction to the increasing role of Islam in politics and the presence of ISIL?

    In my opinion, nothing ISIL have done up until now conflicts with the principles of Islam,” says Rahman. “This has definitely taken a lot of people away from Islam, especially amongst the younger generations.”

    While it is natural that there will be some resistance to a new or returning religion trying to gain ground in the Kurdistan Region, Taeeb is quick to point out that they have had support from various individual members of all the main secular parties in the Kurdistan Region. They are now lobbying the KRG to set up a directorate of Zoroastrian Affairs in a similar way to that of the Yazidis. They have also asked for land to be provided for the construction of a new temple.

    Ghulam, however, remains unconvinced,

    “I think young people are more likely to just move away from all religions. They will either become more secular or be non-observant Muslims. Myself, for example, I believe in God but I don’t pray on a regular basis.”

    It is unlikely that large swathes of people will suddenly forsake Islam, but in the face of extremism, there is some heated debate over the role religion should play within society and politics. Whether or not Zoroastrianism is actually Kurdish in nature is also being debated. Non-Kurdish academics generally posit that it originated with the Persians and possibly from further East.

    It is encouraging to see that cautious attempts to create a space for discussion and tolerance are emerging. However, in order to truly move forward, the debate must also consider the similarities and perhaps even influences that Zoroastrianism has had on the Abrahamic religions. They all believe in heaven and hell, redemption, the Messiah, the existence of an evil spirit and judgement day. A greater awareness and understanding of other religions would help to create a more tolerant atmosphere and debate.

    Yet sadly, subversion and manipulation of religion throughout the centuries for political gain have left the region struggling with its identity and stability.

    Arabs and Muslims and a Loss of a 'Stolen' Cultural Identity

    Islam as a Vehicle for Arab Supremacism

    July 20, 2015 9:09 am By Hugh Fitzgerald

    Long ago, Bernard Lewis wrote about the “multiple identities” of the peoples of the Middle East. By that he meant that one could be Muslim, but not necessarily Arab — as Berbers and Kurds were also Muslim. One could be Arab, but not necessarily Muslim, or identify by language and culture with Arabdom, as some Arab Christians (especially “Palestinians”) do, while Copts and Maronites may not. Then there are Shi’ite Iranians, but also Shi’ite Arabs, as in Syria, who might favor one part of their identity over another. And then there were smaller peoples in the area whose identity was neither Muslim nor Arab, which made them particularly vulnerable to aggression, having no one to call upon, for they stood alone — such as the lamented Yazidis.

    The recent fighting between Berbers and Arabs in a town — Ghaadia — in southern Algeria reminds us of this crazy-quilt of peoples and tugging identities in North Africa and the Middle East. To the extent that a Berber is keenly aware of being a Berber, he is less likely to be a keen embracer of fanatical Islam, for Islam is identified with ‘Uruba, or Arabdom, the “gift of the Arabs” that demanded of non-Arab Muslims that they pray five times a day in the direction of Arabia (Mecca), ideally take Arab names, read the Qur’an in Arabic, and sometimes even construct a false Arab ancestry (as the “Sayeeds” of Pakistan) that links them to the Prophet. Not all Berbers want to be told they must ideally be Arabs.
    The clashes in Ghaadia between Arabs and Berbers offer a chance to consider how those “multiple identities” can be played upon, or appealed to, to lessen the tug of Islam among non-Arab Muslims.
    It is no mystery as to why Christian missionaries might be having their greatest success in the Kabyle, which remains the Berber heartland in Algeria. It is where the Berbers are concentrated, that is, those who were not forcibly transformed, during the centuries of Arab rule (interrupted by 132 years of French rule) into “Arabs.” (How many of those “Arabs” who now persecute the Berbers realize that they themselves are a generation, or two, or five, removed from their clearly Berber origins?)

    The cause of the Berbers is hardly known in this country. Yet the writer Kateb Yacine, a Berber who refused to write in Arabic, but chose French, is celebrated in France, especially among Berbers — but unknown in this country, and his anti-Arab rage is not likely to cause his books to be included in the syllabuses of courses on “Francophone” literature, given that so many such courses are now taught by French-speaking Arabs.
    What is that cause? In the first place, it is linguistic and cultural. In Algeria, where the French saw the Berbers as superior to the Arabs — one French general wrote a book about the “Europeanness” of the Berbers — the Berbers were not discriminated against, but as soon as the French left, the forced arabisation of the Berbers started up at once, as if the French interregnum, with the wider possibilities that French education made possible to both Berbers and Arabs, had never existed. Older people in Algeria speak and use French; the younger ones are forgetting. And meanwhile, the Berbers were forbidden to use their own language, Tamazight, in their schools or in their institutions, and even, at times, they could be punished for using it among themselves, on the street. Berber culture was officially ignored.

    About thirty years ago, news of Berber agitation began to reach the outside world. There were riots in Tizi-Ouzou that were reported in France, but hardly anywhere else in the Western world. In America, of course, we had all been sufficiently subject to ARAMCO propaganda (performed as a “public service” by the big oil companies, as part of their propaganda payoff to the Saudis for allowing them to find, produce, and then pay exorbitantly for the oil that happens to lie under the malevolent sands of “Saudi” Arabia), to believe that there is something called “the Arab world,” and in this “Arab world” there are no Copts, no Armenians, no Assyrians, no Chaldeans, no Turkmen, no Mandeans, no Maronites, and of course no Berbers, no Jews (no, there never were any Jews in North Africa or the Middle East — they all came to Israel, you see, from Europe), for everyone in the Arab world was an “Arab.”
    The discovery or re-discovery of a Berber identity (and, again, how many of those North African “Arabs” should begin to realize that they are Berbers?) is or could be an important weapon in unsettling the world of Islam, and perhaps causing the Maghreb to see itself, as it should, not as “Arab” but as the victim of Arab imperialism.
    For what is Islam if not a vehicle of Arab imperialism, and what are the Berbers, if not the victims of that Arab imperialism, an imperialism far more potent and long-lasting than the European kind, for it attempts to efface the historic identity of whole peoples?

    And it makes perfect sense that Berbers in the Kabyle, having felt along their pulses the Arab imperialism of which Islam is the vehicle, would be more open to the efforts of Christian missionaries, or more likely, are not so much responding to missionary activity, but to their own observations as to what Christianity is like, and what Islam has brought them.
    In this respect, one should not underestimate the fact that many Berbers now live in France, that they make up most of the membership of such groups as the “maghrebins laiques,” and that they, not the Arabs whose ethnic identity is so bound up with Islam, are capable, in some cases, not of identifying with the Arabs, but more closely with the French. And those Berbers communicate with Berbers at home, or through the Internet. And sometimes they return to Algeria and Morocco to see their families, and bring with them their own observations on the relative merits of the Islamic world, a world suffused with Islam, and the non-Islamic world, the one they have experienced in France.

    The more the non-Arab Muslims of the world, and 80% of the world’s Muslims are not Arab, come to realize — and it would not be hard to help them to realize, for they will not be able to deny the facts, having experienced so much of it themselves — that Islam is a vehicle for Arab supremacism, the more likely it is that at least some of them will fall away. And others, who may believe in a kind of Islam not dominated by Arabs, a “non-Arab” Islam (as if such were possible) will, in so doing, at least help to divide, and therefore to weaken, the Camp of Islam.
    Ideally, one would wish this Total System, that has held so many hundreds of millions in thrall, and thwarted over so many centuries so much human potential (think of the art, think of the science, that might have resulted in the absence of the dead hand of Islam on so many people, prevented from so many forms of artistic expression, from so many avenues for free and skeptical inquiry that are necessary for the enterprise of science, think of so much dull fanaticism, so much boredom, so much violence, in posse and in esse) will be seen, by Berbers, by Kurds, by people in the subcontinent (why should Muslims in India not “rediscover” their own history, their Hindu, or Buddhist, or other non-Muslim roots?), by those in Malaysia and the East Indies, with its rich pre-Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist past, as having helped to make them forget their own history, and this history deserves to be rediscovered.
    Meanwhile, start reading and promoting those Berber sites. And hope that the French state, instead of “integrating” its Muslims by government-supported mosques, will try to work with Berbers in France, work to make them see the light, work to help them to achieve their own destiny, one different from, and superior to, that of the Arabs whose method of cultural and linguistic domination comes from, and is supplied by, Islam.

    We should help those in North Africa (and in France) who know, are well aware, of their Berber identity. DNA could come to the rescue. There is a genetic marker that, in studies by French geneticists in Tunisia, shows that Berbers and Arabs can be easily distinguished. Some who proudly identify themselves as “Arabs” will resist. But others may listen. And as they recognize the violence, the “culture of death” of Islam, in its fanatical form, perhaps those who wish to make a break from Islam, and recognize that such a break is hardest of all for Arabs, and that another identity needs to be accepted, invented, believed in, will manage to discover, and embrace, their Berber “roots.”
    It seems fanciful, just as it seems fanciful that Iranians, those who are not merely disgusted with the mullahs running things, but are coming to be disgusted with Islam — that “gift of the Arabs” — itself, may wish to rediscover Zoroastrianism. Not because of any particular wonderfulness in what Zoroastrianism has to offer, but simply because it offers another identity (see Bernard Lewis’s excellent “The Multiple Identities of the Middle East,” to which I referred earlier), in a part of the world, and among people, who believe that “everyone simply has to be something.” And that “something” cannot be, as it is in the advanced West, a collection of ideas or ideals — as an American might define himself as loyal to the American Constitution, and wishing to defend the political and legal institutions of this country, fortunately fashioned by an inimitable group of geniuses, and fortunately, not yet made complete hash even by those who embody the degradation of the democratic dogma.

    Some Berbers accepted being considered as “Arabs,” the way some Copts and Maronites have had a false “Arab identity” pushed on them, or have only semi-accepted it, an “identity” constructed out of nothing more than the fact that they are speakers, “users,” of Arabic, and may have had Arabic names forced on them over time. Indeed, there are differences between Arabs who have become Christians (as a few did in the 19th and early 20th centuries) and those Arabic-using Christians — Maronites, Copts, Assyrians, Chaldeans — who are not Arabs, but some of whom have, in order to survive in an ever-threatening Muslim sea, had to find their role as “Arabs” or even, in the manner of the Christian Syrian Michel Aflaq (one of the founders of Ba’athism), become hyper-Arab nationalists, as promoters of an Arab identity, pan-Arabism, the whole works — an alternative to Islam (they were fooling themselves, because pan-Arabism for Muslim Arabs was never a real alternative to Islam, but merely a temporary goal, a subset, of the goal of a reunified Muslim world. In the end Islam triumphed).
    Not every ill that befell the non-Muslims in the Muslim world, or non-Arabs in the Muslim Arab world, can be attributed to colonial powers. There were French, during the time of the “presence francaise” who brought schools, hospitals, modern agriculture, and other elements of modern civilization, to North Africa (in Morocco and Tunisia, over about half-a-century; and in Algeria, over a 132-year period) who were quite capable of distinguishing Berbers from Arabs, and it was not their pressure that caused some Berbers to forget their own identity, any more than it was France as the guarantor of the Christians in Lebanon and Syria who caused some to make themselves hyper-Arabs. Aflaq co-founded the Ba’ath party with two associates not when the French seemed to be there to stay, but when it was clear that they would, in a few years, be leaving, and Arab nationalism would be the cover to protect the Arab Christians from Islam.

    Aflaq’s “Ba’athism” came to dominate only two countries, and for two similar reasons. The first was Syria, with a large Christian population, and with a powerful military caste, the Alawites, who were not regarded as orthodox Muslims, were indeed disliked by orthodox Muslims for the obvious elements of syncretism in their worship (go to an Alawite village and see the pictures of Mary everywhere), these Alawites who had been miserable under the domination of Sunni Islam but under that of the French formed part of the Troupes speciales, were trained to fight, and when the French left, the Alawites remained in the army, and the air force (with Colonel Hafez al-Assad), and gradually took over, in the way that people or groups always take over in the Muslim Middle East — through the application, or threat, of military force. In Syria Ba’athism tried to disguise, was the facade, for the rule by the Alawites.
    In Iraq, Ba’athism took a different turn. There, the Sunnis knew that they were numerically far inferior to the Shi’a, even if they kept denying it. Nonetheless, once they were put in control of modern Iraq, by the British, they never lost their grip until the Americans arrived in 2003 and overturned the old order.

    The Hashemite king, Feisal, a Sunni, was put in control of Iraq, and aided throughout the 1920s by British troops, and such British civilians as the celebrated archaeologist Gertrude Bell, until finally, the expense of suppressing the tribes, and the obvious hopelessness of it all, caused the British to leave. It was Winston Churchill who described Mesopotamia (Iraq) as an “ungrateful volcano.” And when the British left, the local Arabs solemnly promised not to harm the local Christians, and five months after the last British troops pulled out, Muslim Arabs killed up to 100,000 largely helpless Assyrians. (William Saroyan wrote a book about it).
    Everywhere Muslims spreading Islam are careful to present it as the vehicle for whatever grievance the potential local converts may have. If it is black prisoners in the United States, then Islam is presented as the vehicle both of “social justice” (see how Muslim ruling classes everywhere seize the national wealth, see how well the poor are treated in Muslim countries), and against “racism.” And the Infidels do little or nothing. Have you seen any campaigns of deliberate counter-Da’wa anywhere in the prisons of the West? It would be easy to show, and to keep showing, perhaps by organizing the “Lost Boys” of the Sudan, that anti-black racism, of the purest and most virulent kind, is found among the Arabs. Anyone who has studied in an Arab country returns amazed at what is openly said about blacks, and not a few are shaken. Anyone who looks into the history of African slavery soon discovers that the Arab slave trade began earlier, and ended later, than that of the Europeans – or rather, ended formally later, but actually continues, in several countries, to this day. Why is this not screamed from every housetop? Why have the countries of the advanced world, that have poured $400 billion into aid to black Africa, not tried to halt the spread of the most retrograde force, a force which encourages the habit of mental submission, and which, in its inshallah-fatalism, is in fact fatal to economic development, not tried to stop the spread of Islam? If they have the wellbeing of black Africans at heart, they must begin to understand, and to share their understanding, that Islam has been, is, and always will be, a force that hinders, with that inshallah-fatalism and that habit of mental submission, any possibility of either economic or intellectual development.

    The evidence is there. What sustained the Muslims for centuries, at a low level, was simply the accumulated intellectual capital of those peoples whom they conquered, and slowly leached of life, and of property as well. Now North Africa and the Middle East are virtually emptied of the local non-Muslims who once provided a certain supply of Jizyah. What sustains the Arabs and Muslims are two things, and only two things; the new disguised Jizyah of Western foreign aid (which should be ended, and used to meet the new expenses of monitoring Muslim populations in the West), and the manna of oil wealth, entirely undeserved, and the only conceivable way that the Arabs and Muslims might acquire great wealth – through an accident of geology. Are the peoples of black Africa to be misled into thinking that they, too, will somehow share in that wealth if they are Muslim?

    There was once a very large and intelligent, because it focused on small-scale, doable projects, aid effort by Israel in black Africa. It was the most successful of all such foreign aid efforts. It was widespread. It was widely welcomed. But it came to an end, after the Six-Day War, under Arab pressure, and bribery – the same bribery that caused several dozen African states, under Arab command, to break diplomatic relations with Israel. Some of those African states no doubt thought that the Arabs would share just a little of that vast unearned wealth – if only to replace what Israel, a tiny country, had so remarkably provided. It was not to be. It will never be. The Arab Muslims are trying in Africa to dominate the Continent. They are patient. They are methodical. In West Africa, where Islam is already dominant, as in uranium-rich Niger, they have transformed the easygoing, syncretistic practice of Islam to something much more akin to what can be seen in Saudi Arabia. And everywhere mosques are becoming subject to the strictures of those who pay for them, or pay the imams – and that usually means the Saudis. In some countries that once had a clear Christian majority, such as the Ivory Coast, the Christians are feeling besieged by Muslims who come in from the north, and the French government under Chirac understood their fear, but did not support the local black Christians, but rather attempted to appease the world’s Muslims. Boko Haram has not been stopped; it becomes more powerful every day and not just in Nigeria.

    In East Africa, when the black Africans rose up against their Arab masters in Zanzibar and Pemba some decades ago (the slave trade by the Arabs in East Africa had been centered there – indeed, the Sultan of Muscat and Oman had for a time ruled directly from Zanzibar), little was made of this in the West. No one discussed the long history of the Arab slave trade, with its practice of castrating black children when they were first caught, and then taking them by slave coffle or dhow to the slave markets of Islam, a trip which about 10% survived (see “The Hideous Trade” by Jan Hogedorn). And so the Arabs have continued their march southward. The Sudan had very few Arabs in the southern part one hundred years ago. But steadily they have taken territory, pushed back, killed, black Africans. 1.8 million non-Muslim blacks were killed, or deliberately starved to death, in the southern Sudan in the last two decades. Not content with that, not content with having seized complete control of the oil wealth that lies under the Christian and animist areas of the artificial state of Sudan, the Arabs are now trying to seize, by mass murder, the lands as well of the Muslim, but non-“Arab” blacks of Darfur. The campaign of mass rape, destruction of property, and killing of every man, woman and child they can get their hands on has been reported and reported, and reported. It has been reported without any understanding of Islam as a vehicle for Arab supremacism (the nicholas-kristofs of this world never bothered to figure out what was going on, what ideology prompted the Janjaweed and the Sudanese government that supported it, or the other Arab and Muslim governments that ran interference for that Sudanese government), but are content with writing endless columns of easy anguish.

    Americans and other Infidel peoples should be supporting Ethiopian efforts to halt the spread of Islam, or of the purest kind of Islam, whether in Somalia or in Ethiopia itself, and to help Ethiopia remain a Christian kingdom that can help prevent the takeover of southern East Africa by Islam. Muslims owe their loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya, to fellow Muslims. It would make sense, in Africa, for the Americans not only to have handfuls of advisors and troops here and there, but to engage in propaganda. This propaganda, which happens to be the truth simply megaphoned to make a point, should describe in vivid detail the history of the Arab slave trade. It should explain to Africans that slavery is permanently sanctioned by both Qur’an and Sunnah, and can therefore never, within Islam, be banished. It should detail the continuing racism of the Arabs. And it should show how Islam stands in the way of economic and other kinds of development in two ways: in the encouragement of the habit of mental submission, central to Islam, and in the inshallah-fatalism that limits economic activity, and how Islam has relied on two kinds of manna: the Jizyah that is demanded from, or voluntarily supplied by, non-Muslims, and the oil wealth that has resulted from an accident of geology. And despite the thirty trillion dollars that the Arab and Muslim states have received from oil revenues since 1973, not a single one has managed to create a real economy, not a single one–those, like Turkey or Tunisia or Lebanon, that had both a large non-Muslim or secular class, and income from tourism and trade to count on — has ceased to be hopelessly dependent on oil.

    Islam, as it spreads, will merely guarantee that the countries and peoples of sub-Saharan Africa will be forced to endure the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states and societies – failures whose source can be found in Islam itself.
    Do we wish black Africa well, or ill? If we do wish to help the peoples of black Africa, preventing or halting the spread of Islam makes sense. And it makes sense for us to help others, such as the Berbers who were fighting in Ghaadia, to regain their history, their language and their culture, and it makes sense for us, in other ways, as well to promote pride in pre- or non-Islamic culture, among the many peoples called “Muslim” who have another identity to look to, if they feel the impulse to do so.

    Charlie Hebdo surrenders, will no longer draw Muhammad
    UK jihadi who supported Taliban returns to UK after release from US jail
  7. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Op-Ed: Who Converts to Islam, and Why?

    The people converting to Islam seem to be looking for an opportunity to be violent. They say so themselves. And their actions speak louder than words.

    Published: Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:49 PM

    Hugh Fitzgerald

    Hugh Fitzgerald is an American lecturer on politics and language, with...
    ► More from this writer
    Isn't that the question that ought to be asked all over the Western world? Not to try to say that the mentally ill, who just happen to be converts to Islam, kill people, but that those who are psychically off, if they convert to anything, nowadays will almost certainly to convert to Islam.
    So what is it about Islam that makes it so attractive to them?
    Let's give the answers now, again, before some clever fellows apply for a government grant of five or perhaps ten million dollars to answer, after ponderous studies, involving lots and lots of researchers, and papers, and conferences, and come, finally, tortuously, to the conclusions which you and I can come to right now, and spoil their well-paid, overpaid, fun.

    Have you heard of any homicidal maniacs who decided to convert to Judaism or Buddhism? No, I haven't, either.

    1. Islam offers a Total Regulation of Life. Like the Junior Woodchucks of America, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, you get special Arabic words to learn: Allahu Akbar, alhumdulillah, Jihad, Kuffar, things like that. You get to make up a special name, in Arabic, for yourself. It can express your origin in a particular country: Al-Amriki, Al-Frangi, Al-Britani, just the way those to the manner born can be called Al-Misri (from Egypt) or Al-Shami or Al-Hijazi. You can give yourself a new first name: Stephen might choose to become Suleiman. It's such fun. A new identity, and an instant Community of Bruvvers, fellow Believers, one for all and all for one (that can be especially important in prison).

    2. Islam offers a Compleat Explanation of the Universe. Life is so confusing, so overwhelming. But to the True Believer, life suddenly beomes simple. See Eric Hoffer. There is the Enemy -- in Islam,it's the non-Muslims, the Unbelievers, the Kuffars, the Ungrateful Ones. .There is the Cause for which one subsumes one's own personality (not that such people ever had much of one to begin with), ready to do everything, ideally, for that Cause. And Islam is all about a Cause -- the Cause of Islam itself. The true object of worship in Islam is not Allah, but Islam. It is for Islam that we live and die. And Muslims, to the precise extent that they take Islam to heart (and someone may not take Islam to heart, and then do so, but converts ordinarily are among the most fanatical, the least willilng to modify their behavior, or to embarrassedly or uneasily try to ignore some of the tenets and teachings of Islam).

    3. Islam is attractive as a Gang. In prisons in the Western world, where Musliims represent such a disproportionate number of those incarcerated (in France Muslims may be 5% of the population, but constitute 60% of the prison population, and similar figures can be found in every other country in Western Europe) Islam is attractive as a Gang, the biggest and most dangerous Gang, and the one you want to belong to, for your own protection against others, and of course, against that Muslim Gang. Western governments have yet to do the obvious and sane thing, which would be to put Muslims in prisons for Muslims only, keeping them away from others who might otherwise convert to this dangerous doctrine.

    4. Islam legitimizes criminal behavior. It makes the convert feel good about his behavior, not ashamed or guilty. Have you raped, or stolen from, or killed people, peope who are not Muslims? That's not only not a crime, but they have it coming to them. Not only have you not done wrong, but if you continue to do what you are doing, you can see it in a new light: you are merely helping yourself to the Jizyah that the Infidel nation-state, for now, prevents you from claiming. If you rape seductively-dressed Western women, that is women who aren't wearing a niqab, or chador, or even a hijab, and whose skirts may be short, and who may wear lipstick and rouge, then they are asking for it. The little English girls who were made sex slaves deserved what they got. So for a certain kind of convert to Islam, his life now becomes justifiable; he's been a warrior for Islam all along.

    5. Islam provides a permanent source of enmity -- the Infidel -- whom you can blame for all of your woes. That's very relaxing. In the Western world, we find so many different things to blame if things go wrong -- and things always go wrong. But in Islam, you can always blame the Infidel for everything. And that's what Musilms do, with their conspiracy theorizing, all the time.
    So that's why criminals and homicidal maniacs find Islam so attractive. Have you heard of any homicidal maniacs who decided to convert to Judaism or Buddhism? No, I haven't, either. And if a criminal converts to Christianity, say in prison, aren't we all relieved to hear it, don't you feel he's done the one thing that might help change him? Of course you do. Now imagine the glad tidings reach you that that same prisoner converted not to Christianity, but to Islam. Now how do you feel?

    Op-Ed: The Two-State Solution is Folly Based on Folly

    Find out about Muslim views on war and peace.

    Published: Thursday, August 02, 2007 10:09 AM

    Hugh Fitzgerald

    Hugh Fitzgerald is an American lecturer on politics and language, with...
    ► More from this writer

    Mahmoud Abbas, smarting from Fatah's defeat in Gaza by Hamas, is now cleverly out for a full-court "peace" press. He knows George Bush has only eighteen months left, plus the mess in Iraq, which will remain a mess whatever the American administration now does. And Bush is apparently incapable of welcoming the internecine strife, or at least divisions, sectarian and ethnic, that were made inevitable by the removal of Saddam Hussein's iron grip, and that if allowed to fester, can only divide and demoralize, and thereby weaken, the camp of Islam and Jihad.

    Whenever a "victory" is needed, it's Peace Process Time.


    But Bush and Condoleezza Rice and Co. are desperate for a "victory." And whenever a "victory" is needed, it's Peace Process Time in the Middle East. That's always good for all kinds of sentimentality, exaggerated false hopes, and studied inattention to the dismal facts; including the central fact - the unavoidable fact, the absolutely critical fact - of Islam and the impossibility of Arab Muslims ever, ever conceivably accepting the permanence of the infidel (and what's still worse, Jewish) state of Israel.

    Peace treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims are always truce treaties, to be broken at the earliest opportunity. Yet, American and Israeli leaders refuse to read and find out about Muslim views on war and peace. They pretend that Majid Khadduri and everyone else who has studied the Law of War and Peace in Islam never wrote what they wrote. Has Rice ever read, has the State Department ever circulated, the description by Khadduri of such treaty-making? Has Bush, has Dick Cheney, have any of them read about and grasped the significance of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 CE, then broke as soon as he could (in 630 CE), following his own prescription that "war is deception"?

    Only a fool, a willful ignoramus, at this point, could seriously believe that further concessions by Israel will lead to, or could possibly lead to, a permanent peace. It isn't possible. Only deterrence keeps the peace between Israel and all those who are conducting Jihad against Israel, whether they are waging jihad by qital (combat), by terrorism, by the economic pressure (the money weapon) of boycotts, or by demographic pressure (those huge Arab families, so rapidly and deliberately out-breeding the Jews). It is only darura, that is, the principle of "necessity," that can conceivably keep the peace.

    Right now it is necessity, darura, that causes Mahmoud Abbas, that corrupt collaborator with Yasser Arafat, to do his best to imitate a mild-mannered casper-milquetoast of an accountant. And a foolish and desperate Ehud Olmert, and a desperate and foolish Bush, for their own personal reasons, wish to arrive at an agreement, any damn agreement. Where are the sensible heads in Israel and America, the people who understand, or can be made to understand, the principles of Muslim treaty-making, and the clear doctrines of Islam on this score?

    So many mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere can be attributed to ignorance.

    q_bottom. anything at all save whet Arab appetites for more. So many mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere can be attributed to ignorance

    It is a fantastic idea to believe that Israel yielding more territory to the Arabs can do about the texts, tenets, attitudes and atmospherics of Islam. Now the biggest mistake of all, the one that has been repeatedly made by successive Israeli governments, may be repeated again, unless the informed and the un-swayable come to the fore.

    Bush will get his little "victory" and Olmert his, but, in fact, these victories will endanger, possibly mortally, the people and state of Israel. The Israelis do not deserve that. They do not deserve a government, or so-called "friends" elsewhere, willing to force upon them a "two-state solution" that makes no sense, and that flies directly in the face of the commands and demands of Islam.

    Abbas and the Slow Jihadists of Fatah want that infidel aid in the biggest way. They also want, as a first step, as much of the West Bank as they can get. And with such permanently hopeful and uncomprehending naifs as now rule Israel (Olmert at the helm, and his second-in-command Haim Ramon, who was such an enthusiast for the destruction of Israeli villages in Gaza, some built decades before the State of Israel came into existence, and finally, the terminally confused Tzipi Livni), Abbas knows that the next year, when these people are still (unaccountably) in office, and when Bush will be desperate for a "victory," will bring him even more infidel aid.

    All the Arabs have tacitly agreed to be as outwardly full of sweet reason as they can until the Muslim populations have another few years to be fruitful and multiply all over Western Europe. Oh, they know exactly what they are doing. They are playing for time, stalling for time, in reaction to the shock of discovering that many in the United States, and even in Western Europe, are beginning to wake up. And they are doing so despite the army of Western hirelings and the careful infiltration and takeover of so many "sources of information," such as academic centers and departments devoted ostensibly to the study of Islam and the Middle East.

    Right now the Saudis, for example, are all reason and light - see recent issues of Aramco World (always a good indicator). See also the letters campaign from supposedly aw-shucks down-home American-as-apple-pie Muslims. See the barrage of Op/Eds, from Tariq Ramadan's serpentine hiss on up, or down, telling us that "European Islam" or "American Islam" will be so very different from the other kind - the kind one sees all over the Lands of Islam, and always has seen. Of course, no one ever satisfactorily explains just how this "European Islam" or this "American Islam" will be different from the Islam we have always seen. It will be based on the same immutable texts of Islam, those studied at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, by the Islamic scholars of Saudi Arabia, and by those mullahs and ayatollahs now running the Islamic Republic of Iran. The texts are always the same, whatever the emphasis. They are the same ones read and memorized by Muslims everywhere over the past 1,350 years.


    His goal remains, as of course it must remain, the disappearance of an Infidel sovereign state.

    They are right now, temporarily, engaged in an act of smiles and wiles. And Mahmoud Abbas is no different. His goal remains, as of course it must remain, the disappearance of an Infidel sovereign state in the midst of Dar Al-Islam. If he has to lie, briefly, to get it, of course he will. And even if, for some reason, he was not meretricious, but had had a conversion on the non-road to Damascus, it would mean nothing. Other Muslims, who do take their Islam seriously, would follow him.

    The decisions to be taken by the likes of Olmert and Bush are momentous. They may decide whether the Jewish state, built by the Jewish people - who had to wait 2,000 years to rebuild the Jewish commonwealth - will live or die. If it dies, they will get no second chance. And the world's Christians, too, will be unlikely to have free access to Jerusalem. The hearts and minds of Muslims will not have been "won," but rather, will swell with an ominous triumphalism that will be dangerous for what of the non-Muslim West remains.

    The "Two-State Solution" is a folly based on folly. Clearer minds and purer hearts are needed, in the government of Israel, and in the government of the United States.

    This article originally appeared on on July 28, 2007.

    Last edited: Dec 18, 2015
  8. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex


    Have you ever wondered why so many Muslim men are dedicated to killing Americans? Or why so many are willing to blow themselves up to kill Israelis? Or why they are so committed to blowing up random people in Bali, London, Madrid, etc.?

    Orthodox Muslims are doing this all over the world, attacking westerners and their own fellow Muslims alike. Why?

    Because of memes. A meme is anything that can be copied from one mind to another. The custom of shaking hands, for example, is a meme. A melody is a meme. A recipe for lemonade is a meme. Even the word "meme" is a meme, which has just made a copy of itself in your mind.

    One of the characteristics of memes is they can evolve because some memes are better at making copies of themselves than other memes. They get more copies of themselves into other minds.

    So memes compete with each other and evolve. Part of the way they become better at making copies is to join together with other memes in a mutually-supporting group. A combination of memes (known as a "memeplex") is often able to get itself into more minds than single memes.

    From a memetics standpoint, a religion is a memeplex — collection of memes. One of the memes might be, for example, "This is a holy book."

    And the holy book itself is, of course, a collection of memes.

    Let's look at how religious memeplexes evolve and compete. To begin with, let's assume we already have a religion established. It already has a holy book and millions of people already have a copy of the memeplex in their minds.

    And then there is a slight variation.

    The original memeplex had a "live and let live" attitude, and never tried to encourage its followers to get converts. But then someone comes up with the idea that if you can persuade a non-believer to become a believer, you earn some sort of spiritual merit. You are saving souls, and your chances of getting into heaven are better.

    Okay, now you have two variations on the same memeplex: One says "live and let live." The other motivates people to spread the memeplex to others.

    After a thousand years, which of the two variations will have more copies in the minds of people? I'm betting on the motivated-to-spread-it version.

    Let's assume the motivated memeplex is more successful. Does that mean it makes people happier? Or more successful in life? Or have healthier children? No. Just because a memeplex is successful doesn't mean it benefits any of the people holding the memeplex.

    The same is true in genetics. Contrary to common sense, a successful gene doesn't necessarily benefit the organism. It is "successful" in the sense that it has made lots of copies of itself and is found in many organisms. But it may actually be harmful for the organism. For example, if there is a gene for alcoholism, and if drinking causes someone to have more children (or start having children younger) than someone who doesn't drink, over thousands of years, the alcoholism gene would be more successful than the non-alcoholism gene even though it is bad for each individual person carrying the gene.

    In the same way, the success of a meme doesn't necessarily mean it's good for the person holding that meme.

    If a memeplex says it is wrong to use contraception and wrong to masturbate, that memeplex would get itself copied into more minds than an identical memeplex without these two added memes (assuming offspring would be taught the memeplex too).

    So the hapless believer, trying to follow the rules and be a good person by avoiding the evils of contraception and masturbation, would have more children than he might want or could afford, causing him to work overtime to support them — working two jobs if he must. It sends him to an early grave, but puts more copies of that memeplex into the minds of future generations than someone without those two memes.

    So the memeplex has used the man for its own purposes, or at least that's one legitimate way to look at it. And it's a way that sheds new light on Islamic terrorism, which is why I've spent so much time explaining this idea.

    The three elements that make for a successful meme are fecundity, fidelity, and longevity. In other words, if a meme makes lots of copies of itself, copies itself accurately, and lasts long enough to make copies into other minds, it is a successful meme. All else being equal, the meme that makes more copies, or copies with more fidelity, or lasts longer in the mind, will always out-compete a meme that does any of these less effectively.

    Now, with that understanding, here's my point: If you were going to deliberately design a combination of memes with the purpose of making a memeplex that could eventually dominate the world — one that would eventually out-compete every other memeplex — you would be hard-pressed to do better than Islam.

    Let's look at some of the individual memes within the Islamic memeplex:

    1. A standardized version of the memeplex is written down, which makes for perfect replication fidelity. This is something basic to several religions and isn't an Islamic invention, but it is an important factor in the success of Islam.

    Something only transmitted orally can change over time, but something written will be identical a thousand years from now, and with modern printing presses, can be reproduced in the millions, giving it enormous fecundity and fidelity.

    2. The Koran includes instructions for its own spread. It tells believers they must spread Islam. It is their holy duty to bring Mohammad's warnings and Islamic law to every corner of the world.

    3. The memeplex includes instructions for its own preservation, protection, and replication fidelity. The Koran, the most important of the Islamic holy books, directly tells its followers that they can never change or modify or "modernize" any of the teachings within the memeplex. It is a capital sin to try to do so. The memeplex ensures its own preservation this way.

    These first three memes are pretty standard for several successful religions. But now it gets interesting...

    4. Islam commands its followers to create a government that supports it. This may be one of the most brilliant innovations in Islam. Islam is the only religion that uses it. Other groups of religious people have had political aspirations, but no other major religious group orders its followers — as a religious duty — to create a government that follows its own system of law.

    Islam has a system of law, called Shari'a, and all Muslims are obligated to continually work toward making their government — wherever they are — follow it. Because of some of the other memes added to Islam, you will see that this political addition to the memeplex has significant consequences. I think this is Islam's most brilliant innovation, and also the most terrifying to non-Muslims.

    5. Permission to spread the memeplex by war. This is another brilliant innovation. Although some other religions have spread themselves using force, they had very little justification from their own religious doctrines.

    Not so with Islam. Expanding by conquest is very much accepted and encouraged by the memeplex. The poor non-Muslims not living in an Islamic state need to be saved from the sin of following laws other than Allah's. If they won't voluntarily change their laws to Shari'a, then it is the duty of Muslim warriors to insist. The world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah.

    Mohammad's own experience showed the example — an example, says the Koran, that every Muslim should follow. For ten years Mohammad tried to spread Islam by peaceful means. After ten years he had a paltry 150 converts. But he changed tactics and started using warfare, slaughter, executions, and assassination, and in a relatively short time, he converted tens of thousands, and after his followers died, they used the same tactics and converted millions.

    The use of warfare combines powerfully with the instruction to create an Islamic state. So Islam spread quickly as their armies got bigger. They conquered and set up Islamic states, most of which have lasted to this day, and as you'll see, the laws within an Islamic state make it very advantageous to convert to Islam.

    This is one of the most effective methods ever invented for getting a memeplex into huge numbers of minds. It's a method of control and indoctrination similar to those used successfully in communist and totalitarian states. But as you discover below, Islam makes unique use of the power of the law to enforce complete conversion to the memeplex.

    6. Lands must be conquered. Lands that Islam has lost must be reconquered, like Spain and Israel, for example. The Islamic empire must continually expand. Contraction is bad, expansion is good. So if a land was once Islamic and now it is not, that is contraction, and must be remedied.

    According to this meme, the earth is Allah's. If there are parts of the earth not following Islamic law, it is the duty of the faithful to gain control of that land and establish Shari'a. It is a sin to let it be.

    7. The memeplex provides for new soldiers by allowing polygamy. A Muslim man can marry up to four wives, and he can have sex with as many slave girls as he wishes.

    The Koran especially encourages men to marry widows. This is an important meme to add if you are going to be losing a lot of soldiers in war. You need some way of replenishing your army. You don't want the memeplex to die out from a lack of offspring.

    8. It is a punishable offense to criticize Islam. You can see why this one is a good supporting meme for the memeplex. It helps curb any memes that would reduce the authority of Islamic memes. This one, like many of the others, is good for the memeplex, but bad for people. This one limits freedom of speech.

    9. You can't leave Islam once you're in. This is an interesting one. It is actually illegal in Islamic states to convert out of Islam. This is a critical part of Shari'a law. Someone who has rejected Islam who was once a Muslim is an "apostate." This is a crime and a sin, and the punishment for it is death (and eternal damnation in hell thereafter).

    Obviously, you can see why this meme has been included in the memeplex, but this one has actually caused Islam a problem because those who are following Islam to the letter consider more "moderate" Muslims (those who want to ignore or alter the more violent passages of the Koran) to be apostates. Since the punishment for apostates is death, fundamentalist Muslims are fighting modernizing Muslims all over the world, and keeping many rebellious, modernizing Muslims from speaking up for fear of death.

    Every time a group of Muslims decides that maybe Islam should be updated for the 21st century and maybe women should have some rights or maybe the government should be more democratic, the devout Muslims call them apostates and try to kill them.

    The memeplex is protecting its own fidelity (the original memeplex cannot be altered). This is not good for the organisms (the Muslim human beings), but it's great for the memeplex.

    Another meme in Shari'a law says it's against the law for anyone to try to convert a Muslim to another religion. Again, this is a meme to help protect the fidelity of the memeplex.

    10. Islam must be your first allegiance. This is a great meme to add if the goal is world domination. You are a Muslim first, before any allegiance you give to your family, your tribe, or your country.

    This does two things: It causes a unity of people across borders, and it allows the group to grow bigger than any other entity. In other words, the "Nation of Islam" can grow bigger than any country, no matter how large (which gives the group a massive numerical advantage).

    11. The only guarantee of a man getting into heaven is if he dies fighting for Islam. This is a great meme for creating fearless, enthusiastic warriors, especially given the vivid description of the sensuous delights of heaven.

    A Muslim man has a chance of getting to heaven if he is a good Muslim, but it is not guaranteed. However, if he dies while fighting for Islam, he is guaranteed to get in, and that's the only thing he can do to guarantee it.

    12. You must read the Koran in Arabic. This unites believers by language, and language is a very powerful unifying phenomenon. For added incentive to learn Arabic, another meme says you can't go to heaven unless you pray in Arabic.

    So all Muslims all over the world share a language. This makes it easier to coordinate far-reaching campaigns of protest, political pressure, and war. I doubt if Mohammad foresaw this possibility, but this meme is brilliant, even if it was an accident.

    13. You must pray five times a day. This is one of the five "pillars" — that is, one of the five central practices of a Muslim. Within an Islamic state, it is enforced by law. Every Muslim must pray five times a day. The practice helps the memeplex dominate a Muslim's life, infusing his daily rhythm with Islam.

    It would be impossible to forget anything you deliberately do so often. Five times a day, every day, a Muslim must bow down and pray to Allah.

    Research has shown the more effort a person expends for a cause, the more he believes in it. So this is a good way to eventually make believers out of people who became Muslims through coercion.
    Islam completely takes over every aspect of Muslims' lives. Not only are they required to pray five times a day, they have to go through a washing ritual beforehand. Islam dictates the laws, and the laws cover many public and private behaviors. In an Islamic state, it is impossible to be a casual Muslim.

    14. The prayers involve moving together in time. When Muslims pray, they all face the same direction, they bow down, get on their hands and knees, and put their face on the mat, all in unison, and then rise back up. Again and again.

    When people move together in time, whether dancing or marching or praying, it creates a physical and emotional bond between them. That's why all military training involves close-order drill (marching in unison), even though it has been a long time since military groups have actually marched into combat. There is no longer a need for the skill, but all military training has retained this method because it is so effective at creating a strong feeling of unity between soldiers (read more about that).

    The same is true of any physical movements people make in unison.

    15. A woman is in a thoroughly subordinate position. This meme really helps support the war meme. If women had too much influence, they'd try to curb the fighting. Women in general don't like to send their husbands and sons off to war. But if women have no say, then the rest of the memes can express themselves without interference. By subordinating women, the memeplex prevents their effective vote against war, violence, and conquest.

    The rules and laws (memes) within Islam that keep women subordinate are numerous. For example, she is not allowed to leave her house unless she is accompanied by a male relative. Under Islamic law, a woman is forbidden to be a head of state or a judge. She can only inherit half of what a man can inherit. In court, her testimony is only worth half of a man's. She is not allowed to choose where she will live or who she will marry. She is not allowed to marry a non-Muslim or divorce her husband. Her husband, however, can divorce her with a wave of his hand. And according to Shari'a, he can (and should) beat her if she disobeys him.

    All of these rules keep her subordinate, which helps keep the war machine going unimpeded by domestic conflict.

    16. The only way a woman can get into heaven for sure is if her husband is happy with her when she dies. When I read about this one, I thought, "Mohammad, you are a crafty one."

    This meme obviously helps with the subjugation of women. It motivates her to subjugate herself. It gives her a strong motivation to subordinate her wishes to her husband's, because while she might have a chance to get into heaven if she's a good Muslim, the only way she can guarantee she will go to heaven (and avoid eternal suffering in hell) is to make sure her husband is happy with her when she dies.

    17. Allah gives Himself permission to edit his own work. This is an interesting one. The Koran was written in sections (Mohammad's revelations) over a period of 23 years. The circumstances of Mohammad's life and his religion changed quite a bit over those 23 years. It says in the Koran that if a passage written later contradicts an earlier passage, then the later one is the better one.

    One of the memes in the Koran is "this is the word of Allah." People had already memorized his earlier revelations, so Mohammad couldn't just change his revelations. It would look a little strange to go change anything that Allah already said.

    But with this new meme — that later revelations abrogated or nullified any earlier revelations it contradicted — Allah's methods could change as Mohammad found more effective ideas.

    In his first ten years of peacefully preaching, Mohammad only managed to win 150 followers. But as a military leader and violent conqueror, he was able to convert all of Arabia. The peaceful ways were too slow. Conversion by conquering and establishing Shari'a was much faster and more efficient. So later violent, intolerant verses abrogated (nullified) the earlier peaceful, tolerant passages.

    18. The Koran uses the carrot and stick to reinforce behavior. Throughout the book are vivid descriptions of hell, where sinners and non-Muslims will have to drink boiling, stinking water, will be thrown face down into a raging fire, and will be there for eternity, suffering endless torments in agony.

    There are also vivid descriptions of heaven. In heaven you'll wear green silk robes and recline on plush couches. Trees will shade you, fruit will dangle nearby. You'll have tasty food and refreshing drinks served in silver goblets. To have a chance of achieving this, you must be a devout Muslim. To guarantee it, you must die in jihad (for men) or make sure your husband is always happy with you (for women).

    19. It provides a huge and inspiring goal. Leaders of countries or companies or religions have all discovered that you can get the most motivation and enthusiasm from your followers if you provide them with an expansive vision. An enormous goal. In the Islamic memeplex, the goal calls for a continuous effort to expand the domain of Islamic law until all the world has submitted to Islam.

    Many religions have the goal of converting everyone, but Islam has a method available nobody else has: To expand by seizing and converting governments to Shari'a.

    Once the whole world is Islamic, peace will reign. That's why even terrorists can say with complete sincerity, "Islam is a religion of peace."

    The Koran says it is best if non-believers accept Islam and become Muslims without force. But if they refuse, then you must fight them and conquer them and save their poor souls by insisting they live by the laws of Allah.

    Once all countries are conquered, the world will be at peace. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace.

    It is an enormous and inspiring goal, and a strongly unifying purpose. It creates motivated, enthusiastic followers.

    20. Non-Muslims must pay a large tax. Once Muslims conquer a country and convert the government to Islamic law, any non-Muslims have the choice between becoming Muslim or becoming a dhimmi. Dhimmis are allowed to practice their non-Muslim religion if they pay the jizya (a tax). If they convert to Islam, they no longer have to pay a tax, so there is a practical incentive to convert.

    But another aspect of this makes it a brilliant meme. The tax takes money away from the non-Muslims and their competing memeplexes and gives that money to support Islam. This is pure genius!

    The income from these taxes (usually a 25% income tax) helped fund the Islamic conquests during the first two major jihads. They conquered vast lands, most of them already filled with Christians and Jews, many of whom did not convert at first, and their jizya poured huge sums of money into the Islamic war machine.

    Eventually, the numbers of Christians and Jews dwindled down as they converted or escaped, until now, in most Islamic countries, Jews and Christians are very small minorities.

    The tax-the-non-Muslims meme helps the Islamic memeplex make more copies of itself by suppressing competing religious memeplexes and financially supporting the Islamic memeplex.

    Several memes within Shari'a law extend this effect. Non-Muslims are not allowed to build any new houses of worship. They're not even allowed to repair already-existing churches or synagogues. This puts the houses of worship of any competing memeplex in a state of permanent decline. Brilliant.

    Also, non-Islamic prayers cannot be spoken within earshot of a Muslim — again, preventing Muslims from being infected by a competing memeplex. No public displays of any symbols of another faith may be shown either.

    All of this prevents the spread of any competing memeplex, and makes competing religions die out over time. That's why today there are so many "Muslim countries." Almost every other country in the world is made up of many different religions.

    One added meme makes it that much easier for Muslims to dominate non-Muslims within an Islamic state: Non-Muslims are not allowed to own weapons of any kind. To subjugate a people, all dictatorial rulers in the history of the world have done the same thing: Disarm the subjugated people. They are much easier to manage, less dangerous, and less capable of upending the status quo.

    21. A Muslim is forbidden to make friends with an infidel. A Muslim is allowed to pretend to be a friend, but in his heart he must never actually be a friend to a non-Muslim. This is one of the best protections Islam has against Muslims leaving the faith.

    In any other religion (except Islam) conversions to a new religion are made because a friend introduced it. This rule effectively prevents that. This meme effectively prevents competition from other memeplexes.

    22. The Koran counsels the use of deceit when dealing with infidels. Mohammad instructed one of his followers to lie if he had to (in order to assassinate one of Mohammad's enemies). The principle was clear: If it helps Islam, it's okay to deceive non-Muslims.

    This principle has served Islamic goals very well through history. And it serves those goals today. You can watch on the DVD, Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West, real-life examples of Islamic leaders saying one thing in English for the western press, and saying something entirely different to their own followers in Arabic a few days later.

    Deceiving the enemy is always useful in war, and Islam is at war with the non-Islamic world until the whole world follows Shari'a law. All non-Muslims living in non-Islamic states are enemies. So deceiving westerners is acceptable. Even encouraged if it can forward the goals of the spread of Islam.

    And so we have the strange phenomenon covered by Steven Emerson in Terrorists Among Us, where organizations in America were ostensibly raising money for orphans, but really giving the money to terrorists. They deceived good-hearted western infidels into giving money to organizations that were actively killing western infidels. As it says in the Koran, "War is deceit." This meme gives Islam a tremendous advantage over memeplexes that encourage indiscriminate truthfulness.

    23. Islam must always be defended. This meme is a primary linchpin that gives justification for war with almost anybody, as you'll see in the meme below. After the enemy is defeated, of course, Muslims are required to establish an Islamic state.

    24. The memeplex instructs on the use of pretext to start wars. The Koran devotes a lot of time complaining about people who did not support Mohammad when he first started his religion, with Allah often condemning them to torment in hell in the hereafter.

    Mohammad was rather pushy and insistent with his religion, and when others felt intruded upon and protested, Mohammad took that to mean they were trying to stop Allah's holy prophet from bringing the revealed word of Allah to the world, so he was justified to fight them and destroy them as Allah's enemies. This is a demonstration of the principle of pretext.

    Non-Muslims of the world need urgently to become aware of this principle. Of all the memes in the memeplex, this is the most dangerous to the West because it removes our natural self-preserving defenses. The use of pretext tends to make the West defenseless against the Islamic invasion now underway. Muslim terrorists are not naive people. They are smart, educated, well-funded, and being used by a very clever memeplex.

    The invasion of the West is underway, and it is being done so cleverly, most westerners don't even know it is happening. (Read more about their 20-year plan to overthrow the government of the United States. Also, read about the Shariatization of Europe.)

    Pretext means you need only the barest excuse to begin hostilities. It means you're actually looking for an excuse, and even trying to provoke others into striking the first blow — of "starting" the hostilities.

    If the only way to get to heaven is dying while fighting for Islam, you need war. And if it is your holy duty to make all governments use Shari'a law, you need to conquer those governments. But you don't really want to look like the aggressor. Appearances count. All throughout the Koran, Mohammad tries to justify his aggression as defending Islam.

    The Koran repeats over seventy times that followers of Islam should use Mohammad as a model and imitate him. So Muslims the world over try to find or create grievances, so they can get a holy war started, so they can fight and die in Allah's cause and help make the world ruled by Allah's laws.

    And because of the rise of multiculturalism (respect for all other cultures) in the West, the use of pretext convinces people in the West who are unfamiliar with Islam. Many people think al Qaeda is angry at the West for having troops in Saudi Arabia. That's merely a pretext. They want all non-Muslims out of the Middle East. Then they say they will cease hostilities. It is a ridiculous and impossible goal, so they are justified in permanent war against the West.

    And it's surprising that so many westerners are fooled by this one because it flies in the face of a fundamental western principle: Equality. What Osama bin Laden is saying is infidels are so undeserving, their very presence defiles their holy places. Wow. What does that say about the filthy infidel?

    Why doesn't this kind of racism or prejudice or infidelphobia (or whatever you want to call it) outrage more westerners? Instead, many think we ought to pull out of the Middle East so these poor offended terrorists aren't so angry with us any more!

    The principle of pretext is to provoke a hostile reaction and then use the hostile reaction as a reason to escalate hostilities. It's the same method schoolyard bullies have used for probably thousands of years: "What are you looking at? Hey, you bumped into me! Now you're going to pay! Nobody disrespects me!"

    25. The explicit use of double standards. Islam has one standard for Muslims, and a different standard for non-Muslims, which always gives the advantage to Muslims and provides incentives to convert.

    For example, Islam must be spread by its believers, wherever they are. But when other religions try to spread their own memeplex, Muslims are supposed to see it as an aggression against Islam — an act of aggression that must be "defended." Remember, Islam must always be defended.

    Another example of how the double standard meme gives the memeplex an advantage: When Islam is defamed in any way, Muslims should violently defend it. Even in a cartoon. But Muslims can and should defame Jews and Christians in Muslim newspapers and television, and they should defame any infidel or enemy, as they defame the U.S. today.

    Here's another example: The Islamic fundamentalists of Saudi Arabia are pouring money into building mosques all over the free world. But according to Shari'a law (Islamic law), which is the law in Saudi Arabia, no non-Muslim religious structures are allowed to be built. However, Muslims all over the world protest loudly and violently when anyone in Europe or America resists the building of more mosques in their countries.

    They don't see the irony in it. They don't feel strange having such an obvious double standard. They are, after all, Allah's followers and everyone else is deluded. Fairness and equality with such unworthy infidels would seem very out of place. A double standard seems completely appropriate from that perspective.

    The double standard principle is part of the memeplex, and it has been a great advantage to the spread of Islam (and the suppression of competing memeplexes).

    26. It is forbidden to kill a Muslim (except for a just cause). It is not forbidden to kill an infidel. This causes a bond between Muslims, fear in non-Muslims, and motivation to become Muslim. This is also another example of an explicit Islamic double standard.


    We might admire the brilliance of the Islamic memeplex in an abstract, intellectual sort of way, but it is terrifyingly real. Millions of people try to follow these memes to the letter. And their belief in the memeplex is strongly supported by the side-effects of Shari'a law. By making the government and laws ruled by Islam, the memeplex applies two powerful principles of influence: social proof, and authority.

    Everyone practices the religion in an Islamic state (or they are flogged, taxed, or killed) and no one can criticize it, not friend-to-friend, and not through any media. The psychological impact of this is enormous. Three generations later, it would be almost impossible for any Muslim living in that state to think outside of Islam. The authority and social proof would be overwhelming.

    If you were trying to come up with a memeplex to take over the world, I don't know if you could do better than Islam.

    Of course, just because I admire the genius of the memeplex doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. As a non-Muslim, I am wholeheartedly against it. Remember, the success of a meme has nothing to do with making people happy or healthy. Memetic success only means it propagates well.

    The same is true for genes. A successful gene is one that gets the most copies of itself into future generations. The genes making up a deadly virus may kill millions of people and cause untold misery, but from a genetics point of view, the virus is genetically successful.

    Genes don't care about people. They don't try to make us happy. They are cold and indifferent to our plight.

    Same with memes. A memeplex will use up and spit out human lives in the service of its propagation, indifferent to the pain, misery, or death it causes.

    A memeplex, well-drilled into someone's head and reinforced by the powerful authority and social proof of his whole society, can cause him to blow himself up just to kill others for the fulfillment of a fantasy goal of ultimately attaining world peace and the triumph of Allah (and a harem of 72 dark-eyed voluptuous beauties devoted to his every wish).

    The Islamic memeplex is formidable. It is a force to be reckoned with and we ignore it at our peril. It has already consumed the minds of one and a half billion people, and it is the youngest of the major religions. And it is growing.

    And yet, I don't think the situation is hopeless. Many Muslims now living in Islamic states are trapped and would defect from the memeplex if it were safe to do so.

    And even those who like being Muslims can be released from the hold the memeplex has on their minds. Like suddenly "coming to" when you're being hypnotized, I think an understanding of memetics itself can help undermine the hypnotic effect of the religious beliefs.

    And the first thing we in the multicultural and tolerant West need to be aware of is the formidable memeplex threatening to overtake us. The memeplex takes advantage of our tolerance and our freedom so as to ultimately eliminate it.

    This is an ideological war, so the ideas in the heads of your fellow westerners makes all the difference. And you can help turn the tide. Find ways to introduce these ideas to your fellow westerners. Here are a few ideas to help you.

    And we can help Muslims trapped in Islamic countries find their way to snapping out of their trance. Muslims have submitted to Islam, many of them because they felt they had no choice (or their parents or grandparents felt they had no choice). They are being used by the memeplex. Individual Muslims can free themselves from Islam, and many have, thanks to the web sites like, and books like Leaving Islam.

    I would suggest we not judge Muslims too harshly. Many of them are in some way rebelling against some of the memes, but out of custom, guilt, or because their Islamic government violently enforces the rules, they practice the rest of the religion.

    "Muslims are the first victims of Islam," wrote E. Renan. "Many times I have observed in my travels in the Orient, that fanaticism comes from a small number of dangerous men who maintain the others in the practice of religion by terror. To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him."

    Fortunately, Muslims the world over have rebelled against this rigid and restricting memeplex, and that's the only reason Islam has not already taken over the world: Good people, coerced for generations to be Muslims, have slowed its spread by ignoring (probably with some guilt) the worst parts of the Koran.

    It would be nice if we didn't have such a memeplex to deal with. It would be nice if we could all just get along. But sometimes things like this just have to be faced and handled, regardless of what we might rather be doing.

    If you are a non-Muslim and you want to get started helping to curb the spread of the Islamic memeplex and the terrorism it produces, the best thing you can do is learn more about Islam and then speak up to your fellow westerners.

    You will be shocked at how little most people know about Islam. And they will be shocked to find out. And when enough westerners know about it, Islamic tactics like pretext and deceit will be seen for what they are, and will no longer make us defenseless. When we know more about the founder (the one all Muslims should imitate) and the goals of the memeplex, our collective actions can effectively thwart their plans. Our collective grasp of the real situation will bring more rational changes to our laws and policies (such as our current immigration policies).

    The key is what happens in one-on-one conversations throughout the West.

    When you hear people saying things like, "We should pull out of Iraq," or "We're just in it for the oil," or "Islam is a religion of peace," that is a time to speak up, calmly and simply. Tell them about the Islamic memeplex. Tell them what they don't know. Help them update their understanding of the situation. Do this wherever you go, and start now. The situation is urgent.

    Many of the memes that help Islam spread are in your head and in the heads of your fellow westerners. That's the first place to start to fight against the viral spread of this clever memeplex.

    The memes in your head (such as a blind faith in multiculturalism) are not the kind that will convert you into a Muslim, but they help the spread of Islam by taking down your defenses, and even encourages you to spread information that makes the West easier to defeat. You can play an important role in curbing the spread of the Islamic memeplex by speaking up within your own sphere of influence.

    How? When you hear a meme, stop it from spreading. For example, "Actually, what they mean by 'Islam is a religion of peace' is that their mission is to make the whole world submit to the law of Allah (Shari'a), and once that is accomplished, there will be peace in the world. Therefore, Islam is a religion of peace. That's not really peace as we know it."

    But to do this kind of inoculation, you have to have a pretty good handle on the memeplex itself. That will require some study.

    I know you have other things to do, and you can't make this a full-time occupation, but I also know how serious this is, so it will require some sacrifice on your part.

    I have created a curriculum of sorts. I tried to figure out what would be the material you could study that would give you the most critical knowledge with the smallest investment of time. Here is my curriculum:

    Books to read:

    Islam and Terrorism
    The Sword of the Prophet

    Audiobook to listen to in your car:

    Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam

    If you listen to this program six times over the next year, you will have a grasp of the whole scope of the most important parts of the Islamic memeplex. If you only do one of the things I recommend here, this is the one you should do.

    DVDs to watch:

    Islam: What The West Needs To Know
    Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West

    These DVDs are not only good for your own education, they are an excellent way to introduce the ideas to your fellow westerners. After you've watched them a couple of times, start loaning them out to friends. Keep them in circulation. Buy several copies if you need to.

    You can stop the spread of the memes that make the West defenseless only by having a sufficient amount of knowledge.

    When you hear someone imply that the United States brought the terrorists into existence with their bad foreign policy, how will you answer? One possible way to bring the whole thing into perspective is to give a brief history of jihad. During the last great jihad, Islamic forces conquered Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia, and they were at the Gates of Vienna in Austria in 1683, when their forces were finally defeated.

    In other words, they were violently attacking and defeating westerners (non-Muslims) before the United States had even been created.

    This is not to say some of the United States foreign policies have left much to be desired. But the Islamic memeplex has a longer history and has merely used political mistakes as a pretext to engage in warfare, as they have since the beginning. If you don't know any of this, it would be easy to see things as the terrorists want you to see them, and in fact, many westerners have bought the pretexts hook, line, and sinker.

    Study that material, and start right away. The Islamic memeplex is out to take away freedoms and human rights. After millions of people have fought against tyranny and died to gain the rights and freedoms we enjoy today, here comes a pernicious memepex to take them away. And the Islamic memeplex could realistically succeed with terrifying brilliance.

    Take action today. With every new understanding you have, and with every new certainty and clarity you gain, you will feel more bold in speaking up, and speaking up is exactly what you must do to fight a war of memes.

    I have also created a version of the above article edited for readers who know nothing about Islam so you can share the information with a broader audience. Check it out: What Makes Islam So Successful?
    Also, the Koranic expert at Islam Exposed has provided chapter and verse for many of the memes above. Find them here: Amplification of Key Concepts from The Terrifying Brilliance of Islam.

    Last edited: Dec 18, 2015
  9. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member

    December 18, 2015
    Trump and the Hazards of Muslim Immigration

    By Jared E. Peterson

    Donald Trump’s December 7 call for at least a temporary halt to all Muslim immigration to the United States reinforced his position as the presidential candidate most willing to ignore the stifling restrictions limiting American political discourse to boundaries set by the Left. His proposal also aligned Trump with the thinking of an enormous segment of the American public … including and especially a large majority of likely Republican primary voters.

    In a poll published by Rasmussen on December 10, 2015, 66% of Republican voters favored at least a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration to America (24% were opposed, 10% undecided); and 46% of the American electorate as a whole favored the same proposal, with 40% opposed and 10% undecided.
    Once again, as with his proposal to deport illegal aliens and build a physical barrier on America’s southern border, Trump has proposed a measure congruent with the views of large majorities of his own Party and at least a substantial plurality of the entire American electorate. Once again, the Republican Party establishment -- presidential candidates, major office holders, large contributors, and paid consultants -- was caught flat-footed and out of touch. Who knew, after fifteen years of unabated Islamist terrorism all over the world, that large segments of the American public might question the prudence of continued substantial immigration from the Muslim world?

    The political establishment’s condemnation of Trump’s proposal was instantaneous and predictably consisted of single phrase epithets, ad hominem and empty invective: “…prejudiced and divisive…” (Clinton), “… xenophobia and racist (Sanders), “…fascist…” (O’Malley), “… unhinged…” (Bush), “…offensive and outlandish…” (Rubio), “…outrageous divisiveness…” (Kasich), and the list could go on. Noticeably absent from the initial torrent of Republican vitriol was any substantive discussion of Trump’s actual proposal.
    Which made it especially satisfying a week later to watch the December 15 Republican debate. Given a week to read the polls and reflect a little, hysterical adjectives and sanctimonious hyperventilation had disappeared from the arsenals of Trump’s rivals in the main debate. At the debate Trump stuck to his guns, and, with the exception of the irrelevant Lindsey Graham in the second tier debate, the critics of Trump’s proposal were suddenly timid and occasionally sympathetic. Cruz said he understood the basis for Trump’s proposal, and then reminded voters he had proposed banning refugees from any country where either ISIS or Al Qaeda controls substantial territory. The most severe criticism Rubio could choke out was “… it’s not going to happen,” before quickly moving to less dangerous subjects. Even Jeb Bush, still critical, actually tried to articulate a real argument against Trump rather than repeat anything like his one word condemnation of a week earlier. In short, the candidates back-pedaled hard from their initial, ill-considered denunciations. If they were honest, they would have to concede that, yet again, Trump’s defiant indifference to PC strictures had moved discussion on a significant issue away from terms dictated by the Left and into the realm of reality.

    Trump’s proposal deserves serious and thorough public debate.
    Islam is inarguably unique among the world’s major religions in continuing to produce a steady stream of ideologically motivated mass killers. Islamist acts of violence continue to produce slaughter among its own contending factions and among the adherents of every other major religion (and of no religion), and that violence, far from abating, seems to be increasing in lethality and reach. No sooner is one murderous Jihadist group apparently defeated (e.g., The Taliban, Al Qaeda) than others spring up (e.g., ISIS, Boko Haram). No other religious or ideological group is afflicted with anything remotely comparable to the cult of violence today emanating from Islam on every continent. Islam’s leaders -- religious and political -- have shown little ability and less inclination to take the risks that might stem the spread, or diminish the allure, of the intolerant fundamentalism that undergirds Jihadist terror. “Moderate” Islamic voices, when they are heard at all, seem tardy, meek and ineffective. Islamic states that claim to be friends of the West, most notably, but not solely, Saudi Arabia -- continue to fund the Salafist version of Islam all over the world, including in Europe and America, a theology whose Quranic fundamentalism and intolerance leads directly to Jihadi violence.

    The idea of a ban, or at the very least a great reduction, in Muslim immigration to the West is long past due for serious consideration. The proposal is subject to reasonable debate, in scope, duration, and efficacy. But it is high time that debate was conducted, exhaustively and with reference to the facts.
    That Islam is beyond dispute the preeminent source of ideologically motivated terror in today’s world is beyond dispute. But another fact bearing directly on the wisdom of continuing to welcome Islamic immigration to the West is much less widely known or acknowledged.

    The fiction that there is no substantial support among Muslims for terrorist atrocities

    The trope that “overwhelming numbers of Muslims condemn terrorism,” manifestly false measured against mountains of polling data, refuses to go away. In one form or another it is trotted out by Jihadist apologists after each and every Islamist atrocity, always without factual support.
    Polls of Muslims in Western and majority Muslim countries consistently reveal numerically significant support for Islamic terrorism. The percentage of Muslim support for terrorism may be “low” among Western Muslim communities (as is the consistent headline by the Pew Research Center, many of whose reports are cited below); but, given the size of those communities (e.g., at least 5 million in France, about 2.5 million in America), those percentages translate into significant absolute numbers of Muslim sympathizers for terrorism within all Muslim communities.
    On this subject we don’t have to guess. Highly reputable polling firms -- indeed, firms such as Pew, which obviously wishes its results were different -- have studied Muslim attitudes for many years, in both Western and majority Muslim countries. Their results, in plain view on the internet, are chilling. But, like most facts that undermine the purely relativist multicultural narrative, the American Left and its media allies refuse to acknowledge these facts, let alone to discuss their implications for continued mass migration of Muslims to the West.
    Consider the following:

    1. In 2010 and 2011 the Pew Research Center (which a Slate writer described as “… one of the least biased, most reliable polling organizations in the country”) polled American Muslims and found that approximately 13% thought that under at least some circumstances acts of terrorism against civilians are justified. Assuming a U.S. Muslim population of approximately 2.5 million, that figure would translate into somewhat more than 300,000 American Muslims who, under some circumstances, support murderous attacks against civilians. In the same 2011 survey 27% of US Muslims self-reported their belief that there was either a “great deal” or a “fair amount” of support for “extremism” within the US Muslim community.

    2. The attitudes toward terrorism among Muslims living in other Western countries are no more comforting. Pew reports that in 2010 up to 35% of French Muslims, 25% of Spanish Muslims and 24% of British Muslims expressed some level of support for suicide attacks against civilians under some circumstances.

    3. And the BBC -- hardly noted for anti-Muslim bias -- sponsored a study of the attitudes of British Muslims on various subjects that found 32% of British Muslims did not express agreement with the statement, ”Acts of violence against those who publish images of the prophet can never be justified.” The same study revealed that among British Muslims 51% of the respondents could not agree with the statement, “Muslim clerics who preach that violence against the West can be justified are out of the mainstream.”

    4. In 2005 the British government leaked a report that concluded, based in part on the Yougov polling firm’s work, that approximately 16,000 British Muslims were “willing or eager” to embrace violence in the effort to bring an end to “decadent and immoral” Western society.”

    5. In a poll published by Newsweek in August of 2014, 16% of French Muslims expressed favorable views of ISIS.

    6. A British polling firm found that one in four British Muslims believed the July 7, 2005 London train bombings were justified.

    7. A Dutch language Belgian newspaper reported in April of 2013 that 16% of young Muslims living in Belgium stated that “terrorism is acceptable.”

    8. Viewing the attitudes towards violence among Muslims in majority Muslim countries, Pew once again reported that in Afghanistan 39% of Muslims (who are 99% of the population) support suicide bombings in some circumstances while 29% of Egyptian Muslims do. Both countries continue to supply “refugees” to Europe and America.

    9. In a 2013 survey Pew reports that 16% of Turks supported suicide bombings (up from 13% in 2012, which, disturbingly, was up from a “mere” 7% in 2010). The trend in Turkey, a nation with a population of 77,000,000 that seeks entry to the EU, is not encouraging. By Pew’s 2013 survey, at least 10,000,000 Turks to one degree or another support terrorism against civilians.

    10. In a December 2013 publication, Pew released the results of its study of the attitudes of Muslims in 11 majority Muslim countries, with the finding that terrorist groups still enjoyed double-digit support in many: Specifically, among Egyptian Muslims 28% supported the Taliban, while in Indonesia that percentage was 20%. Despite widespread killing of Muslims, Al Qaeda enjoyed the support of 23% of Indonesians and 20% of Egyptians.

    11. In its most recent 2015 survey Pew reported the disturbing results of its survey on attitudes towards ISIS among Pakistani Muslims: 28% expressed a negative view of ISIS; 9% a positive view (that would translate to 19,000,000 Pakistani supporters of ISIS); while an overwhelming and worrying 62% expressed no opinion or refused to respond. In that same 2015 survey Pew reported that 20% of Nigerian Muslims hold a favorable opinion if ISIS (to which the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram has sworn allegiance). And in its 2015 survey, Pew reiterated its 2011 finding that 86% of American Muslims condemn acts of terrorism (i.e., 14%, to some degree, do not).

    The foregoing is far from exhaustive of the information readily available in the public realm. Much of it was drawn from the scrupulously non-ideological Pew Center. The links above allow the reader to peruse and reflect for him/herself on the more detailed findings. There is much more to be found, as anyone who spends an hour or two on Google with searches like “Muslim attitudes to terrorism” will discover.
    But some conclusions that are beyond reasonable doubt can be drawn:

    1. In the Muslim communities of the West -- Europe and America -- there is numerically significant support for atrocities against civilians, though the percentage of such support appears to remain low. In the US, some level of support for such acts appears to hover around 300,000 persons, based on the most recent Pew findings. In Europe, given the higher percentages of such support for terrorism within European Muslim communities and the larger number of Muslims living in Europe, the number of European Muslims who to some degree support violence against civilians is much higher than in the US.

    2. In majority Muslim countries there is even greater support for terrorist atrocities, including in at least one country seriously seeking membership in the European Union (Turkey), and two countries from whom substantial numbers of Muslims are presently moving, or seeking to move, into Europe (Afghanistan and Egypt). What the figures would be for the countries presently sending streams of refugees into the West (Syria and Iraq) is anyone’s guess. But there is little reason to suppose those numbers would differ markedly from those known for nearby majority Muslim states (e.g., Turkey, Egypt).

    The focus of this article has been the prudence of continued substantial Muslim migration to the West as that question is affected by only by two factors: Islam’s unique status as the source of world-wide, religiously/ideologically motivated terrorism; and the presence in Muslim communities of large numbers of those who sympathize with that terrorism.

    At least two other considerations not dealt with here bear on the wisdom of continued Muslim immigration: First, the degree to which actual terrorists, as opposed to mere sympathizers, are secreting themselves within the minimally vetted masses now moving from the Middle East to the West; and second, the intensity of the desire of large percentages of Muslims already living in the West, and even larger percentages of those who wish to come, to live under Sharia law, a system of Islamic law indisputably at variance with Western values of religious freedom, equality of the sexes, and freedom of expression. Both subjects would require separate articles, and both considerations would provide further support for Trump’s proposal.

    But, considering only what we know now about Islam as a unique source of terror and about the attitudes towards that terror among all Muslim communities, Trump’s proposal deserves a thorough and intellectually honest public debate.
    We are long past the point where proposals to reduce or eliminate, at least for a time, Muslim immigration to the West can be dismissed with epithets such as “Islamophobia,” “xenophobia” or “bigotry.” Trump’s proposal arises out of unpleasant but unavoidable facts two of which are discussed above. Those presidential candidates, Republican or Democrat, who dismiss that proposal with the usual invective drawn from the Left’s phrase book are signaling their lack of either the analytical ability or the courage to lead the West in its current struggle with militant Islam.
    Once again, in his brash indifference to the rules imposed by America’s self-appointed betters, Trump has raised an important issue. Once again, whatever one thinks of him, the US electorate owes him a thank you note.

    Read more:

    Last edited: Dec 18, 2015
  10. admin

    admin Well-Known Member Staff Member


    Israel and Palestine - Facts and Fictions

    We cannot pretend, as Malcolm Turnbull does, that Islam is as cheek-turning as Christianity

    October 14, 2015 9:00pm
    ANDREW BOLT - Herald Sun:

    Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.​

    MALCOLM Turnbull is very right to reach out to Australian Muslims. He is wrong, though, to tell untruths to non-Muslims. And the Prime Minister, a Catholic, is particularly wrong to suggest that a key moral teaching of Christianity — a “golden rule” — is that of Islam, too.

    Last week Turnbull urged “mutual respect” between Muslim and non-Muslim Australians, even though most of the disrespect so far — as measured by bomb plots, sieges and attacks on police — seem to come from the extremist Muslim side.
    Still, mutual respect is indeed critical if we’re not going to kill each other, so give Turnbull credit for at least winning the trust of many Muslim leaders.

    But to back his appeal he added this: “Every religion, every faith, every moral doctrine, understands the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    First, an apology. I’m going to quote Christian and Islamic scripture.
    Heavy, I know. But too many of us have forgotten how Christianity shaped our society, and are blind to how the Koran created radically different societies.

    If we don’t understand those things, we’re clueless in dealing with the cultural clash we’ve so recklessly imported into our own suburbs.
    What Turnbull claims is the “Golden Rule” of all faiths is in fact a direct quotation from just one — from the Christians’ New Testament.

    Luke’s Gospel quotes the alleged words of Jesus Christ himself: “Love your enemies … If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also … Do to others as you would have them do to you.”

    Ultra-Orthodox Jews at the site of one of the stabbings in Jerusalem.​

    These are powerful words of immense resonance in Christian countries, even if hardly a Christian alive has lived up to this ideal.

    It’s this ideal that gives such moral weight to Turnbull’s offer of “mutual respect” to a community that has produced 21 jihadists jailed for terrorism offences, and three more shot dead during attacks.
    But contrast Christ’s “Golden Rule” and turning of the cheek with the Koran’s commands to strike hard at the enemy: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger ... 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.”

    True, the sacred Hadith do quote the Muslims’ prophet Muhammad, founder of their faith, stating: “None of you have faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.” But that version of the “Golden Rule” seems limited to fellow Muslims, and has been interpreted that way by many scholars for many centuries.
    No wonder, given that the Koran and Hadith give repeated examples of Muhammad and his followers killing his critics, including even women and poets who mocked him.

    No turning of the cheek there.

    In vivid contrast, Christ would not let his disciples fight even to save him from capture and crucifixion.
    There is another critical difference between the two religions that has helped set up this clash here of Christian and Muslim cultures.
    The Jesus of the Gospels drew a line between church and state, which is why the Christian West has secular governments, not religious ones such as Iran’s and Saudi Arabia, which even bans the public practice of Christianity.

    As John’s Gospel notes: “Jesus replied, ‘Mine is not a kingdom of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my men would have fought to prevent my being surrendered to the Jews.” And from Matthew, when Jesus was asked whether fellow Jews should pay taxes to the pagan Roman emperor: “Pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar — and God what belongs to God.”

    In the Koran, the message is very different. Muslims should live under Muslim law where possible: “Allah hath sent down no authority: the command is for none but Allah ...”

    This is why extremists refuse to stand in court for our judges or call our democracy “haram” — sinful.
    Moreover, the sacred Sahih Muslim urges Muslims to make nonbelievers submit to Muslim rule.

    “Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them,” it says. “If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya (a tax on unbelievers) … If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.”

    True, many Muslims do not live up to these ideals and don’t want to, either. But it is foolish to pretend these Koranic teachings don’t exist or aren’t influential.

    For instance, the Islamic State quoted holy scripture at least 25 times in its infamous statement last year ordering Muslims around the world to kill unbelievers — to “smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car”.
    Those quotations included this, from the Koran: “Kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush.”

    Last week gave another example of Muslim preachers citing the Koran to urge the killing of unbelievers.
    Israel’s Jews have suffered a wave of stabbings by young Muslims over the past fortnight. On Tuesday alone there were four attacks. In the worst, two men got on board a public bus, locked the doors and shot and stabbed passengers, killing two.

    In another, a driver rammed his car into people at a bus stop and jumped out to hack at his victims with a knife, killing an elderly rabbi.
    What motivates such savagery?
    Here’s a clue. Giving the Friday sermon last week at the Al-Abrar Mosque in the Gaza strip, Sheik Muhammad Sallah waved around a knife and shouted for Muslims to stab Israeli Jews. “Attack in threes and fours,” he bellowed, and “cut them into body parts. Some should restrain the victim, while others attack him with axes and butcher knives.”

    And to justify this slaughter he quoted the example of Muhammad himself — “recall what He did to them in Khaybar” — in attacking and subjugating a Jewish tribe in a battle in 629.
    Yes, moderate Muslims insist other parts of the Koran invalidate the passages quoted by extremists.

    Good luck to them. Let’s back their attempts to reform Islam and make it safe for our multi-religious secular democracy. But to reform Islam we must first admit there is something to reform. We cannot pretend, as Turnbull does, that Islam is as cheek-turning as Christianity.
    Leave Islam out of the discussion and we’re just left with all this useless yammer about terrorism just being about “marginalised” youths facing “discrimination” and needing only a job or sympathetic ear to become as peaceful as, well, Buddhists or Presbyterians. And we then get the list of demands from people from whom more should be demanded — demands to ban criticism of Islam, to issue more grants and to scrap foreign policies that help Israel or hurt Islamist groups abroad.
    No, Islam needs reform. Without that, we’re left only with only two dark choices: submission or even more policing of our streets and our tongues.

    On November 24th, 2015, the Australian Prime Minister (Liberal Conservative Party) stated: "Islam is the enemy of Islamic State!" - An unaffiliated politically incorrect observer would ask: Really???

    This statement is 'believed' by 80%-90% of all western political administration, irrespective of their intranational political persuasions.


Share This Page