Islam 101

May 16, 2008 at 8:32 pm (Miscellaneous)
Tags: ,

If you would like to discover the fundamentals of Islamic theology and belief system, as well as the Koran and Islamic history, and the expansion of Islam, Dr. Spencer of Jihad Watch has an excellent overview of “Islam 101″ on his blog.

Here are a few “goodies”.

The Koran:

Those Westerners who manage to pick up a translation of the Quran are often left bewildered as to its meaning thanks to ignorance of a critically important principle of Quranic interpretation known as “abrogation.” The principle of abrogation — [...] — directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career “abrogate” — i.e., cancel and replace — earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. [...] The Quran’s commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet’s career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a “religion of peace.”

Mohammed’s Killings (Proof that he was a bandit, a marauder and a murderer. These battles were iniated by Mohammed either completely unprovoked, or else he was engaged in them because another group was defending themselves against his attacks):

The Battle of Badr: The Battle of Badr was the first significant engagement fought by the Prophet. Upon establishing himself in Medina following the Hijra, Muhammad began a series of razzias (raids) on caravans of the Meccan Quraish tribe on the route to Syria.

The Battle of Uhud: The Meccan Quraish regrouped for an attack on the Muslims at Medina. Muhammad got wind of the Meccan force coming to attack him and encamped his forces on a small hillock north of Medina named Uhud, where the ensuing battle took place. [...] As Muhammad had neutralized the Jewish tribe of Bani Qaynuqa after Badr, he now turned to the Bani Nadir after Uhud. According to the Sira, Allah warned Muhammad of an attempt to assassinate him, and the Prophet ordered the Muslims to prepare for war against the Bani Nadir. [MV: Note that "according to a warning from Allah"...in reality there was no proof of an assination plan and therefore he effectively attacked the Bani Nadir un-provoked. This is is rather like "the devil made me do it".]

The Battle of Medina: [...] Thus do we find the clear precedent that explains the peculiar penchant of Islamic terrorists to behead their victims: it is merely another precedent bestowed by their Prophet. Following yet another of the Muslims’ raids, this time on a place called Khaibar, “The women of Khaibar were distributed among the Muslims” as was usual practice. (Sira, p511)

The Conquest of Mecca: Muhammad’s greatest victory came in 632 AD, ten years after he and his followers had been forced to flee to Medina. In that year, he assembled a force of some ten thousand Muslims and allied tribes and descended on Mecca. [...] It is from such warlike pronouncements as these that Islamic scholarship divides the world into dar al-Islam (the House of Islam, i.e., those nations who have submitted to Allah) and dar al-harb (the House of War, i.e., those who have not). It is this dispensation that the world lived under in Muhammad’s time and that it lives under today. Then as now, Islam’s message to the unbelieving world is the same: submit or be conquered.

The Sharia (Islamic Law which guides every part of life in totality):

Unlike many religions, Islam includes a mandatory and highly specific legal and political plan for society called Sharia [...] Sharia is the legal code ordained by Allah for all mankind. To violate Sharia or not to accept its authority is to commit rebellion against Allah, which Allah’s faithful are required to combat. [...] There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. [MV: "For all mankind". Not just for Muslims. For Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, Angelina Jolie, and George Bush. Oh yeah, you and me, too.]

 

2 Comments

Just Like Us! Really?

May 16, 2008 at 7:56 pm (Miscellaneous)
Tags:

No, but of course not. Because “us” doesn’t believe that murder and mayhem are ever justifiable. Because “us” doesn’t believe in radical, oppressive and violent methods to promote our religion and/or cultural and political idealogy. Because “us” doesn’t believe in waging cultural and/or violent forms of rebellion on the whole world in order to advance our culture and replace the constitutions and way of life of other sovereign nations. Because “us” believes in freedom and fair treatment for all including those who are different from us and with whom we disagree. Because “us” doesn’t believe that homosexuals deserve to be persecuted, tortured and put to death. Because “us” believes it is cruel, barbaric and uncivilized to castrate the sexual organs of little girls (so-called “circumcision” performed on 5 and 6 year old girls to “keep them chaste”). Because “us” doesn’t believe it is lawful or even human for husbands to punish, humiliate, shun and then beat their wives into submission. Because “us” believes that the body of a woman is a temple, that it is sacred and beautiful, and not a “piece of meat”, “a temptation for men to sin”, and that neither the arms nor hair of a woman need be covered in order to constitute “modesty”. Because “us” believes that human beings were created in the image of a Higher Being, created to love and to be loved, and that this Higher Being (by whatever name “us” shall call Him/Her) is all loving, all merciful, all-forgiving and intimately concerned with our happiness and well-being. No, they are NOT like us.

Just Like Us! Really?  (Full article. Excerpts below.)
by Robert Satloff
05/12/2008

Who Speaks for Islam? is written by John L. Esposito, founding director of Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, and Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies. As the authors state at the outset, the book’s goal is to “democratize the debate” about a potential clash between Western and Muslim civilizations by shedding light on the “actual views of everyday Muslims”–especially the “silenced majority” whose views Esposito and Mogahed argue are lost in the din about terrorism, extremism, and Islamofascism.

[...]

The real debate about the “clash of civilizations” is about whether a determined element of radical Muslims could, like the Bolsheviks, take control of their societies and lead them into conflict with the West. The question often revolves around a disputed data point: Of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, how many are radicals?

[...]

The book draws on a mammoth, six-year effort to poll and interview tens of thousands of Muslims in more than 35 countries with Muslim majorities or substantial minorities. The polling sample, Esposito and Mogahed claim, represents “more than 90 percent of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims.” To back up the claim, the book bears the name of the gold-standard of American polling firms, Gallup.

[...]

With remarkable exactitude, they argue: “If the 7 percent (91 million) of the politically radicalized continue to feel politically dominated, occupied and disrespected, the West will have little, if any, chance of changing their minds.” There is no need to worry about the 93 percent because, as Esposito and Mogahed have already argued, they are just like us.

[...]

The not-so-hidden purpose of this book is to blur any difference between average Muslims around the world and average Americans, and the authors rise to the occasion at every turn. Take the very definition of “Islam.” From Karen Armstrong to Bernard Lewis–and that’s a pretty broad range–virtually every scholar of note (and many who aren’t) has translated the term “Islam” as “submission to God.” But “submission” evidently sounds off-putting to the American ear, so Esposito and Mogahed offer a different, more melodious translation–”a strong commitment to God”–that has a ring to it of everything but accuracy.

[...]

Twice, for example, they cite as convincing evidence for their argument poll data from “the ten most populous majority Muslim countries,” which they then list as including Jordan and Lebanon, tiny states that don’t even rank in the top 25 of Muslim majority countries. Twice they say their 10 specially polled countries collectively comprise 80 percent of the world Muslim population; in fact, the figure is barely 60 percent.

[...]

Mogahed publicly admitted they knew certain people weren’t moderates but they still termed them so. She and Esposito cooked the books and dumbed down the text. Apparently, by the authors’ own test, there are not 91 million radicals in Muslim societies but almost twice that number. They must have shrieked in horror to find their original estimate on the high side of assessments made by scholars, such as Daniel Pipes, whom Esposito routinely denounces as Islamophobes.

[...]

And then there is the more fundamental fraud of using the 9/11 question as the measure of “who is a radical.” Amazing as it sounds, according to Esposito and Mogahed, the proper term for a Muslim who hates America, wants to impose Sharia law, supports suicide bombing, and opposes equal rights for women but does not “completely” justify 9/11 is .  .  . “moderate.”

Remember, the Koran permits Muslims to “lie and deceive” but only if it serves the cause of Islam and is for the purpose of deceiving unbelievers.  

Leave a Comment

History Books Promoting Islam

May 16, 2008 at 7:21 pm (Miscellaneous)
Tags: ,

New report says Muslim activists ’succeeding’ in expunging criticism (Full Article)

Please read the whole article to get the full load of this garbage. You will see concrete, fact-based examples of Muslims re-writing history and shilling it to American schools to promote a totally unfactual account of Islamic history, Islamic culture and Islamic theology. Below are some vital excerpts.

History textbooks being used by hundreds of thousands of public school students across the U.S. are blatantly promoting Islam, according to a new report by an independent organization that researches and reviews textbooks.

The new report is from the American Textbook Council, which was established in 1989 as an independent national research organization to review social studies textbooks and advance the quality of instructional materials in history.

In the two-year project, whose report was authored by Gilbert T. Sewall, the ATC reviewed five junior and five high school world and American history texts, concluding: “Many political and religious groups try to use the textbook process to their advantage, but the deficiencies in Islam-related lessons are uniquely disturbing. History textbooks present an incomplete and confected view of Islam that misrepresents its foundations and challenges to international security.”

[...]

“Islamic activists use multiculturalism and ready-made American-made political movements, especially those on campus, to advance and justify the makeover of Islam-related textbook content,” the report continued.

[...]

“The upsetting part is not only do they go into the history (which would be acceptable) but also the teaching of Islam,” she said. “This book does not really go into Christianity or the teachings of Christ, nor does it address religious doctrine elsewhere to the degree it does Islam.”

[...]

“None of this is accidental. Islamic organizations, willing to [provide] misinformation, are active in curriculum politics. These activists are eager to expunge any critical thought about Islam from textbook and all public discourse. They are succeeding, assisted by partisan scholars and associations… It is alarming that so many individuals with the power to shape the curriculum are willfully blind to or openly sympathetic to these efforts,” the report said.

Example of a piece of lying text from one of the schoolbooks:

 Q: How did the caliphs who expanded the Muslim Empire treat those they conquered?

 A: They treated them with tolerance.

Welcome to Islam: The religion of lies, manipulation and deceit.

Leave a Comment

The Myth of Moderate Muslims

May 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm (Miscellaneous)
Tags: , ,

Super fantastic interview from Front Page Magazine featuring Bill Warner, director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CPSI). Front Page is really an excellent, wonderful online journal so if you’ve haven’t seen it please check it out some time.

Below are only some excerpts from Bill’s interview and even these excerpts are split. To understand this very important message Bill is sharing you need to read the entire interview. It is an extremely important read.

FP: I’d like to talk to you today about how many of the names, words and phrases we use about Islam are muddled and incorrect. Many non-Muslims create certain terms about Islam to try to make the world seem safer and to feel good about themselves. But many of these terms have no actual basis in Islamic theology or culture and have no real meaning in an Islamic context.

Warner: “Moderate Muslim” is a perfect example of the muddle and incorrect terminology that kafirs (unbelievers) use.

This term is intended to describe a Muslim who doesn’t seem dangerous or advocate violence. But “moderate Muslim” is a non-Muslim name, one that kafirs made up.

Islamic doctrine defines what is moderate and not moderate. Since we are dealing with Islam, we need to know that the doctrine is dualistic. Islam can have two doctrines about any issue. This follows from the Koran. [...]

So we have the possibility of two kinds of moderate Muslims, since we have two doctrines. Osama bin Laden is a moderate Muslim, who follows the Koran of Medina, the Koran of jihad. Kafirs call him an extremist or radical Muslim. Actually, Osama obeys the Koran of Medina and the Sunna of Mohammed, so he is a moderate, pious Medinan Muslim. The jihadists on September 11, 2001 were all moderate Medinan Muslims. They were not extremists or radicals.

The other kind of moderate Muslim follows the Koran of Mecca and he is more generally what kafirs mean when they say “moderate Muslim”. But how moderate is a Meccan Muslim? A moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir, but he isn’t violent, just antagonistic.

FP: So tell us exactly what “kafir” means. We take it to mean unbeliever but I presume it is more complicated than that.

Warner: The usual translation of this Arabic word is unbeliever, but unbeliever is only a very small part of its meaning. It is the Koran that defines the word “kafir” and it says the most terrible things can happen to them. The Koranic doctrine about kafirs says they are hated and are Satan’s friends. Kafirs can be robbed, killed, tortured, raped, mocked, cursed, condemned and plotted against. The Koran does not have one good thing to say about kafirs. (There are some psuedo-good words, but more about them later.)

For over the last 1400 years, 270 million kafirs have died as a result of the political doctrine of Islam. It is the biggest single source of suffering in the history of the world. [READ THAT AGAIN. Now read it again. And again. And again. Now go repeat it from memory to everyone you know.]

The word kafir is the worst word in the human language. It is far worse than the n-word, because the n-word is a personal opinion, whereas, kafir is Allah’s decree. Nearly two thirds of the Koran is devoted to the kafir. Islam is fixated on the kafir and the moderate Muslim thinks that you are a kafir. How moderate is that?

FP: I guess not very moderate.

PLEASE READ IT ALL!  

1 Comment