THE KORAN
BIBLE OF THE
MUSLIM TERRORIST:
“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world
where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the
petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
Koran 2:191
"slay the unbelievers wherever you find them"
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
Koran 3:21 "Muslims must not take the infidels as friends"
Koran 5:33 "Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam"
Koran 8:12 "Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran"
Koran 8:60 " Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels"
Koran 8:65 "The unbelievers are stupid, urge all Muslims to fight them"
Koran 9:5 "When the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you find them"
Koran 9:123 "Make war on the infidels living in your neighborhood"
Koran 22:19 "Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies"
Koran 47:4 "Do not hanker for peace with the infidels, behead them when you catch them".
“The tentacles of the Islamist hydra have deeply penetrated the
world. The Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear threat in Egypt. The
Muslim Brotherhood also wages its deadly campaign through its dozens of
well-established and functioning branches all over the world.”
“The Wahhabis finance thousands of madrassahs throughout the world
where young boys are brainwashed into becoming fanatical foot-soldiers for the
petrodollar-flush Saudis and other emirs of the Persian Gulf.” AMIL IMANI
* We will take advantage of their immigration policy to
infiltrate them.
* We will use their own welfare system to provide us with
food, housing, schooling, and health care, while we out breed them and plot against
them. We will Caliphate on their dime.
* We will use political correctness as a weapon. Anyone who
criticizes us, we will take the opportunity to grandstand and curry favor from
the media and Democrats and loudly accuse our critics of being an Islamophobe.
* We will use their own discrimination laws against them
and slowly introduce Sharia Law into their culture..
Muslim Deceit and the
Burden of Proof
In his recent defense of the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya (dismantled here), Usama
Hasan of the UK think tank Quilliam made the following admission:
It is true that hardened islamist terrorists, such as the Al-Qaeda
& ISIS supporter Usman Khan who murdered two people at Fishmongers’ Hall
[after pretending to have been “rehabilitated”], do misuse the principle of
taqiyyah in order to further their cause. However, the charge that all Muslims
are generally religiously obligated to lie, and do so routinely, is both
dangerous and untrue.
However true this may be, it is also irrelevant.
After all, how is the infidel to know which Muslim is and isn’t “misusing the
principle of taqiyyah”? Moreover, why should the burden of
proof be on the non-Muslim -- who stands to (and often does) suffer and even
die from ignoring the role of deceit in Islam -- and not on the Muslim, whose
religion allows deception in the first place? This is particularly so since
more than a few “hardened islamist terrorists” are convinced that their creed
allows them to dissimulate to their heart’s content -- so long as doing so can
be seen as helping further the cause of Islam.
In this, as in virtually all things Islamic, Muslims
have their prophet’s example -- two that are especially poignant -- to turn
to.
First is the assassination of Ka‘b ibn Ashraf (d.
624), an elderly Jew. Because he dared mock Muhammad, the latter
exclaimed, “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his messenger?” A
young Muslim named Ibn Maslama volunteered on condition that to get close
enough to Ka‘b to murder him, he needed permission to lie to the Jew.
Allah’s messenger agreed. So Ibn Maslama traveled to Ka‘b and began to
complain about Muhammad until his disaffection became so convincing that Ka‘b
eventually dropped his guard and befriended him.
In another account, after Muhammad and his followers
had attacked, plundered, and massacred a number of non-Muslim Arabs and Jews,
the latter assembled and were poised to defeat the Muslims (at the Battle of
the Trench, 627). But then Naim bin Mas‘ud, one of the leaders of
these non-Muslim “confederates,” as they came to be known in history, secretly
went to Muhammad and converted to Islam. The prophet asked him to return to his
tribesmen and allies -- without revealing that he had joined the Muslim camp --
and to try to get them to abandon the siege. “For,” Muhammad assured him,
“war is deceit.”
Mas‘ud returned, pretending to be loyal to his former
kinsmen and allies, all while giving them bad advice. He also subtly instigated
quarrels between the various tribes until, no longer trusting each other, they
disbanded -- thereby becoming a celebrated hero in Islamic tradition.
In the two well-known examples above, Muslims deceived
non-Muslims not because they were being persecuted for being Muslim but as a
tactic to empower Islam. (Even the Battle of the Trench was precipitated
precisely because Muhammad and his followers had first attacked the
confederates at the Battle of Badr and massacred hundreds of them on other
occasions.)
Despite these stories being part of the Sunna to which
Sunnis adhere, UCLA’s Abou El Fadl -- the primary expert the Washington Post once
quoted to show that Islam does not promote deceit -- claims that “there
is no concept that would encourage a Muslim to lie to pursue a goal. That is a
complete invention.”
Tell that to Ka‘b ibn Ashraf, whose head was cut off
for believing Muslim lies. The prophet of Islam allowed his followers to
deceive the Jew to slaughter him -- even though Ka‘b posed no threat to any
Muslim’s life.
Especially revealing is that, in Dr. Sami Makerem’s seminal book on the topic, Al-Taqiyya fi’l Islam (Taqiyya
in Islam), he cites the two aforementioned examples from the prophet’s
biography as prime examples of taqiyya.
It comes to this: even if one were to accept the
limited definition of taqiyya as permitting deception only
under life-threatening circumstances (as Usama Hasan and any number of
apologists insist), the fact remains: Islam also permits
lies and deception in order to empower itself. Accordingly, and
considering that Islam considers itself in a constant state of war with
non-Islam (typified by the classical formulation of Dar al-Islam vs. Dar
al-Harb) any Muslim who feels this or that piece of deception over the infidel
is somehow benefiting Islam will believe that he has a blank check to
lie.
That’s the inconvenient fact -- passingly admitted to
by Usama Hasan -- that needs addressing; and that’s why the burden of proof
belongs on Muslims, not non-Muslims.
Raymond Ibrahim, author of Sword and Scimitar, is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom
Center; a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the Gatestone Institute; and a Judith
Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
Duping Americans on Sharia
A detailed look at how
Islamic apologist extraordinaire John Esposito whitewashes Islamic terror.
Raymond Ibrahim
Raymond
Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Does Islam itself promote
hostility for and violence against non-Muslims, or are all the difficulties
between the West and Islam based on secondary factors—from “radical”
interpretations of Islam, to economics and grievances?
This is the fundamental
question.
Obviously, if “anti-infidel”
hostility is inherent to Islam itself, then the conflict becomes existential—a
true clash of civilizations, with no easy fixes and lots of ugly implications
along the horizon.
Because of this truism, those
whose job it is to whitewash Islam’s image in the West insist on the
opposite—that all difficulties are temporal and not rooted to innate Islamic teachings.
Enter Shariah: What Everyone Needs to Know,
co-authored by John Esposito and Natana J. Delong-Bas. The authors’ goal
is to exonerate Shariah, which they portray as enshrining “the common good (maslahah), human
dignity, social justice, and the centrality of the community” from Western
criticism or fear, which they say is based solely on “myth” and
“sensationalism.”
In their introductory chapters
they define Shariah as being built upon the words of the Koran and the Sunna
(or example) of the Muslim prophet Muhammad as contained in sahih (canonical)
hadiths. They add: “Shariah and Islamic law are not the same thing.
The distinction between divine law (Shariah) and its human interpretation,
application, and development (Islamic law) is important to keep in mind
throughout this book…. Whereas Shariah is immutable and infallible, Islamic law
(fiqh) is
fallible and changeable.”
Next the authors highlight how
important Shariah is to a majority of Muslims. They cite a 2013 Pew Poll
which found that 69% of Muslims in the Middle East and North Africa, 73%
in South Asia, and 55% in Central Asia believe that “Shariah is God’s [Allah’s]
divine revelation.”
Even larger numbers “favored
the establishment of Shariah as official law”: 99% in Afghanistan, 84% in South
Asia, 74% in the Middle East and North Africa, and 64% in sub-Saharan Africa.
So far so good. The
authors’ introductory claims (that Shariah is fundamental to Islam) and
statistics (that hundreds
of millions of Muslims revere and wish to see it implemented)
are correct.
But they also beg the
aforementioned question: is Shariah itself behind
the intolerance, misogyny, violence, and terrorism committed in the name of
Islam?
Here, the hitherto objective
authors shift gears and take on the mantle of apologists. Their thesis is
simple: Any and all negative activities Muslims engage in are to be pinned on
anything and everything—so long as it’s not Shariah.
In order to support this
otherwise unsupportable position, and as might be expected, the remainder of
the book consists of obfuscation, dissembling, and lots and lots of contextual
omissions and historical distortions.
A small sampling follows:
Shariah on Women
The authors quote and discuss
at length many Koran verses about women that seem positive (Koran 30:21, 3:195,
and 2:187), without alluding to counter verses that permit husbands to beat
their wives (4:34) and treat them as “fields” to be “plowed however you wish”
(2:223). Nor do they deal with Muhammad’s assertions that women are
“lacking in intelligence” and will form the bulk of hell’s denizens, as
recounted in a canonical hadith.
They partially quote Koran 4:3:
“…marry those that please you of other women, two or three or four. But if you
fear that you will not be just, then marry only one.” This suits the
authors’ purpose, which is to present the Koran as implicitly recommending only
one wife, since it acknowledges the near impossibility for a man to treat all
wives equally. Yet the authors deliberately cut
off the continuation of that verse—which permits Muslim men to copulate with an
unlimited amount of sex slaves (ma malakat aymanukum) even if they
are married.
They also dissemble about child
marriage, saying “classical Islamic law” permits it, but only when “the child
reaches a mature age.” Yet they make no mention that, based on
Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha—that is, based on his Sunna, which is immutable
and part of Shariah—nine is considered a “mature age.”
Freedom of Religion and
Non-Muslims
The authors claim that “There
are more than 100 Quranic verses that … affirm freedom of religion and
conscience.” They quote many at length and assert that “The guiding
Shariah principle … underscored by Quran 3:28, 29:46, and 60:89, is that
believers should treat unbelievers decently and equitably as long as the
unbelievers do not behave aggressively.”
Yet they fail to mention or
sideline the many contradictory verses that call for relentless war on non-Muslims—who
are further likened to dumb cattle in Koran 25:44 —until they surrender, one
way or another, to Islam (e.g., 8:39, 9:5, 9:29).
They fail to quote the verses
that form the highly divisive doctrine of al-wala’ w’al bara’ (“Loyalty
and Enmity”), including Koran 5:51, which forbids Muslims from befriending Jews
and Christians, and Koran 60:4, which commands Muslims to harbor only “hate”
for non-Muslims, until they “believe in Allah alone.”
Needless to say, they ignore
Koran 3:28, which permits Muslims to feign friendship for non-Muslims, whenever the former are under the latter’s authority (such is
the doctrine of taqiyya;
see here, here, here, here, and here for examples).
It is, incidentally, because of
all these divisive Koran verses—because
of Shariah—that the Islamic State forthrightly explained, “We hate you, first and
foremost, because you are disbelievers.”
The closest the authors get to
address these issues is in a section titled, “Can Muslims in the West be Loyal Citizens.”
They respond with a yes—but the evidence they cite are polls (based on wishful
interpretations), which of course tells the reader little about the topic they
purport to “de-mythologize”: Shariah.
Jihad
As might be expected, when the
authors reach the topic of jihad, their dissembling reaches a new level.
They repeatedly insist that jihad, as enshrined in Shariah, is simply the
Muslim counterpart of Western Just War theory, which teaches that war and
aggression are permissible, but only in defense or to recover one’s territory
from occupiers: “The lesser or outer jihad involves defending Islam and
the Muslim community.” As usual, they spend much time quoting and
elaborating on Koran verses that comport with this position, while ignoring or
sidelining the many contradictory verses. In reality, mainstream Islam
holds that the Koran’s “Sword Verses” (especially 9:5 and 9:29) have abrogated all the peaceful
ones, thereby making warfare on non-Muslims—for no less a reason than that
they are non-Muslims—obligatory.
Consider Koran 9:29:
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, nor forbid what
Allah and his Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth
[Islam] from the People of the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the
jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
What, exactly, is “defensive”
about this verse?
Similarly, they claim
that dar al-harb,
or “abode of war”—Islam’s designation for all those non-Muslim territories
(such as Europe) that Muslims were historically in a permanent state of war
with—“applied to other parties with whom Muslims were in conflict.” Again, they
fail to mention that the primary reason Muslims were “in conflict” with them
was because they were non-Muslim,
and that all non-Muslim territories were by default part of the “abode of war,”
except when treaties advantageous to Islam were drawn.
Instead, the authors say, “The
territories classified as the abode of war were those that refused to provide
such protection to Muslims and their clients”—thereby implying Muslims were
hostile to, say, Europe, because Europe was first hostile to Muslims.
(Reality, as chronicled in Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and
the West, was the exact opposite.)
Miscellaneous Subterfuge
One can go on and on; the
authors engage in other forms of subterfuge to exonerate Shariah. They
frequently project a Western veneer to Islamic terms and concepts, saying for example
that Shariah is ultimately about “promoting good and preventing evil”—which
sounds admirable—without pointing out that, based on the Koran and Sunna (that
is, Shariah),
conquering non-Muslim territories is about “promoting good” and keeping women under
wraps and indoors, beating them as required, is about “preventing vice.”
While admitting that Christians
and other non-Muslim minorities are currently being persecuted, not only do the
authors insist that this has nothing to do with Shariah, but they invoke
relativistic thinking: “Just as Muslims living in non-Muslim countries are
often concerned with their rights and civil liberties as minorities,” they say,
“so some consider the rights and status of non-Muslim minorities living in
Muslim countries to be a parallel issue.” In other words, because some
Americans view Muslims in their midst with suspicion, the ongoing enslavement
and slaughter of Christians—more than 6,000 in Nigeria alone since
January 2018—and ban on or destruction of churches is a sort of tit for tat, a
“parallel issue” that can only be solved when the West becomes less critical
about Islam.
Relativism is also invoked during
the authors’ brief treatment of apostasy in Islam: “Historically, apostasy was
sometimes punishable by death in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.” They
claim that apostasy is still a major issue in Islam due to “radical”
interpretations or politics—bolstering their position by again quoting the same
Koran verses that seem to support freedom of religion—without mentioning, say,
the canonical hadith (meaning part of Shariah) where Muhammad said, “Whoever
leaves his religion [Islam], kill him.”
Such is how Islam’s skilled
apologists dupe the West: they admit to some of the more controversial aspects
that many other apologists shy away from—namely that Shariah is indeed
foundational to Islam and that hundreds of millions of Muslims revere and wish
to see it implemented—but then, having established trust with the reader, they
slip back into the “game,” portraying all the intolerance, misogyny, violence,
and terrorism daily committed in the name of Islam as products of anything and
everything—fallible Muslim interpretations, self-serving clerics and
terrorists, socio-economic pressures, Western criticism or encroachments—never
Shariah itself.
Contrary to its subtitle, then,
John Esposito’s and Natana J. Delong-Bas’s Shariah is not “what everyone
needs to know”; rather, it is what non-Muslims need to believe in order to
give Shariah—which is fundamentally hostile to all persons and things
un-Islamic—a free pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment