Views on Islam

From: kamal sharma < >

Views on Islam

 

Kindly circulate to your kafir groups

 

John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams (1767 – 1848) was the sixth President of the United States. He was also an American diplomat and served in both the Senate and House of Representatives.

 

…he [Muhammad] declared un​-​distinguishing, distinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.[66]

 

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic Law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adam’s capital letters]….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.

As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practiced, and would without scruple have practiced himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.

 

Had it been possible for a sincere and honest peace to be maintained between the Osmanli and his Christian neighbors, then would have been the time to establish it in good faith. But the treaty was no sooner made than broken. It never was carried into effect by the Turkish government.

 

[From the Ottoman Reis Effendi, to his Russian counterparts] ‘The present friendly letter has been composed and sent, to acquaint your Excellency. with the circumstance; when you shall learn, on receipt of it, that the Sublime Porte has at all times; no other desire or wish than to preserve peace, and good understanding; and that the event in question has been brought about, entirely by the act of the said minister, we hope that you will endeavor, do every occasion, to fulfil the duties of friendship.’ But precisely at the time when this mild, and candid, and gently ex pustulary epistle was dispatched for St. Petersburg, another state paper was issued, addressed by the Sultan to his own subjects-this was the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of December, sent to the Pashas of all the provinces, calling on all the faithful Mussulmen of the empire to come forth and ‘fight for their religion, and their country, against the infidel despisers of the Prophet. The comparison of these two documents with each other, will afford the most perfect illustration of the Ottoman faith, as well as of their temper towards Russia.

 

The Hatti Sheriff commenced with the following admirable com­mentary upon the friendly profession, which introduced the letter to count Nesselrode. ‘It is well known (said the Sultan) to almost every person, that if the Mussulmen naturally hate the infidels, the infidels, on then part, are the enemies of the Mussulmen: that Russia, more espe­cially, bears a particular hatred to Islamism, and that she is the principal enemy of the Sublime Porte.’

 

This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels, is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The document does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the ne­cessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them—the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions. The funda­mental doctrine of the Christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomina­tion of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknow­ledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse.

If ever insurrection was holy in the eyes of God, such was that of the Greeks against their Mahometan oppressors. Yet for six long years, they were suffered to be overwhelmed by the whole mass of the Ottoman power; cheered only by the sympathies of all the civilized world, but without a finger raised to sustain or relieve them by the Christian governments of Europe; while the sword of extermination, instinct with the spirit of the Koran, was passing in merciless horror over the classical regions of Greece, the birth-place of philosophy, of poetry, of eloquence, of all the arts that embellish, and all the sciences that dignify the human character. The monarchs of Austria, of France, and England, inflexibly persisted in seeing in the Greeks, only revolted subjects against a lawful sovereign. The ferocious Turk eagerly seized upon this absurd concession, and while sweeping with his besom of destruction over the Grecian provinces, answered every insinuation of interest in behalf of that suffering people, by assertions of the unqualified rights of sovereignty, and by triumphantly retorting upon the legitimates of Europe, the consequences naturally flowing from their own perverted maxims.”

 

This pretended discovery of a plot between Russia and the Greeks, is introduced, to preface an exulting reference to the unhallowed butchery of the Greek Patriarch and Priests, on Easter day of 1822, at Constantinople, and to the merciless desolation of Greece, which it calls ‘doing justice by the sword’ to a great number of rebels of the Morea, of Negropont, of Acarnania, Missolonghi, Athens, and other parts of the continent. The document acknowledges, that although during several years, considerable forces, both naval and military, had been sent against the Greeks, they had not succeeded in suppressing the insurrection.

 

John Wesley

John Wesley (1703 – 1791), was a theologian and founder of the English Methodist movement.

 

Let us now calmly and impartially consider what manner of men the Mahometans in general are.

 

An ingenious writer, who a few years ago published a pompous translation of the Koran, takes great pains to give us a very favorable opinion both of Mahomet and his followers. But he cannot wash the Ethiop white. After all, men who have but a moderate share of reason, cannot but observe in his Koran, even as polished by Mr. Sale, the most gross and impious absurdities. To cite particulars is not now my business. It may suffice to observe in general, that human understanding must be debased to an inconceivable degree, in those who can swallow such absurdities as divinely revealed. And yet we know the Mahometans not only condemn all who cannot swallow them to everlasting fire; not only appropriate to themselves the title of Mussulman or True Believers: but even anathematize with the utmost bitterness, and adjudge to eternal destruction, all their brethren of the sect of Mi, all who contend for a figurative interpretation of them.

That these men then have no knowledge or love of God is undeniably manifest, not only from their gross, horrible notions of him, but from their not loving their brethren. But they have not always so weighty a cause to hate and murder one another, as difference of opinion. Mahometans will butcher each other by thousands, without so plausible a plea as this. Why is it (so) that such numbers of Turks and Persians have stabbed one another in cool blood? Truly, because they differ in the manner of dressing their head. The Ottoman vehemently maintains, (for he has unquestionable tradition on his side) that a Mussulman should wear a round turban. Whereas the Persian insists upon his liberty of conscience, and will wear it picked before. So, for this wonderful reason, when a more plausible one is wanting, they beat out each other’s brains from generation to generation.

It is not therefore strange, that ever since the religion of Mahomet appeared in the world, the espousers of it, particularly those under the Turkish emperor, have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations; rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth: that numberless cities are razed from the foundation, and only their name remaining: that many countries which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished away from the earth ! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of humankind!

 

Louis Bertrand

Louis Bertrand (1866 – 1941) was a French novelist, historian and essayist. He was the third member elected to occupy seat 4 of the Académie française in 1925.

Arabs have never invented anything except Islam… they have made absolutely no addition to the ancient heritage of Greco-Latin civilization.

 

It is only a superficial knowledge that has been able to accept without critical examination the belief current among Christians during the Middle Ages, which attributed to Islam the Greek science and philosophy of which Christianity had no longer any knowledge. In the centuries that have followed, the Sectarian spirit has found it to be to its interest to confirm and propagate this error. In its hatred of Christianity it has had to give Islam the honor of what was the invention, and, if we may so express it, the personal property of our intellectual ancestors.

On the influence of Islam on Christian Europe:

 

The worst characteristic which the Spaniards acquired was the parasitism of the Arabs and the nomad Africans: the custom of living off one’s neighbor’s territory, the raid raised to the level of an institution, marauding and brigandage recognized as the sole means of existence for the man-at-arms. In the same way they went to win their bread in Moorish territory, so the Spaniards later went to win gold and territory in Mexico and Peru.

 

They were to introduce there, too, the barbarous, summary practices of the Arabs: putting everything to fire and sword, cutting down fruit-trees, razing crops, devastating whole districts to starve out the enemy and bring them to terms; making slaves everywhere, condemning the population of the conquered countries to forced labor. All these detestable ways the conquistadores learnt from the Arabs.

For several centuries slavery maintained itself in Christian Spain, as in the Islamic lands. Very certainly, also, it was to the Arabs that the Spaniards owed the intransigence of their fanaticism, the pretension to be, if not the chosen of God, at least the most Catholic nation of Christendom. Philip II, like Abd er Rahman or El Mansour, was Defender of the Faith.

 

Finally, it was not without contagion that the Spaniards lived for centuries in contact with a race of men who crucified their enemies and gloried in piling up thousands of severed heads by way of trophies. The cruelty of the Arabs and the Berbers also founded a school in the Peninsula. The ferocity of the emirs and the caliphs who killed their brothers or their sons with their own hands was to be handed on to Pedro the Cruel and Henry of Trastamare, those stranglers under canvas, no better than common assassins.

 

Maimonides

Moses ben-Maimon called Maimonides (1135 – 1204) was a preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher and one of the greatest Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages.

 

After arose the Madman [Muhammad] who emulated his precursor [Jesus], since he paved the way for him. But he added the further objective of procuring rule and submission and he invented what is well known [Islam].[76]

 

Let Ye understand, my brothers, the Holy One Blessed HE through the trap created by our iniquities cast us amongst this nation, the people of Ishmael [Muslim Arabs] whose oppressiveness is firmly upon us and they connive to do us wrong and despicably downgrade us as the Almighty decreed against us (Deuteronomy 32:31, “Your enemies shall judge you”).

 

There never came against Israel a more antagonistic nation. They oppress us with the most oppressive measures to lessen our number, reduce us, and make us as despicable as they themselves are. King David, may he rest in peace, saw through Divine Inspiration all the calamities that were destined to come upon Israel. Nevertheless [even though he saw all the other troubles], he still began to shout out and lament in the name of the whole nation against the oppression that would be occasioned by the Ishmaelites. David said, “Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech that I dwell in the tents of Kedar!” [Psalms 120:5].

 

Notice how David emphasizes “Kedar” out of all the other Children of Ishmael. This is because that Mad Man [Muhammad] came from Kedar according to what has been published concerning his genealogy.

 

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881 – 1938) was a Turkish army officer, revolutionary statesman, writer, and founder of the Republic of Turkey as well as its first president.

 

Turks were a great nation even before they adopted Islam. This religion did not help the Arabs, Iranians, Egyptians and others to unite with Turks to form a nation. Conversely, it weakened the Turks’ national relations; it numbed Turkish national feelings and enthusiasm. This was natural, because Mohammedanism was based on Arab nationalism above all nationalities.[84]

 

For nearly five hundred years, these rules and theories of an Arab Shaikh and the interpretations of generations of lazy and good-for-nothing priests have decided the civil and criminal law of Turkey. They have decided the form of the Constitution, the details of the lives of each Turk, his food, his hours of rising and sleeping the shape of his clothes, the routine of the midwife who produced his children, what he learned in his schools, his customs, his thoughts-even his most intimate habits. Islam – this theology of an immoral Arab – is a dead thing. Possibly it might have suited tribes in the desert. It is no good for modern, progressive state. God’s revelation! There is no God! These are only the chains by which the priests and bad rulers bound the people down. A ruler who needs religion is a weakling. No weaklings should rule.[85]

 

Our life here is truly hellish. Fortunately, my soldiers are very brave and tougher than the enemy. What is more, their private beliefs make it easier to carry out orders which send them to their death. They see only two supernatural outcomes: victory for the faith or martyrdom. Do you know what the second means? It is to go straight to heaven. There, the houris, God’s most beautiful women, will meet them and will satisfy their desires for all eternity. What great happiness!

 

Omar Khayyám

Omar Khayyám (1048 – 1131 AD), was a Persian polymath, mathematician, philosopher, astronomer, physician, and poet. He wrote treatises on mechanics, geography, and music.

 

Allah, perchance, the secret word might spell;

If Allah be, He keeps His secret well;

What He hath hidden, who shall hope to find?

Shall God His secret to a maggot tell?

The Koran! well, come put me to the test—

Lovely old book in hideous error drest—

Believe me, I can quote the Koran too,

The unbeliever knows his Koran best.

 

And do you think that unto such as you,

A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew,

God gave the secret, and denied it me?—

Well, well, what matters it! Believe that too.[87]

 

Oriana Fallaci

Oriana Fallaci (1929 – 2006) was an Italian journalist, author, and political interviewer. A former partisan during World War II, she had a long and successful journalistic career, interviewing many internationally known leaders and celebrities.

 

Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense… I am an atheist, and if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true. There must be some human truth that is beyond religion… I am disgusted by the anti-Semitism of many Italians, of many Europeans… Look at the school system of the West today. Students do not know history! They don’t know who Churchill was! In Italy, they don’t even know who Cavour was!… Servility to the invaders has poisoned democracy, with obvious consequences for the freedom of thought, and for the concept itself of liberty… State-run television stations contribute to the resurgent anti-Semitism, crying only over Palestinian deaths while playing down Israeli deaths, glossing over them in unwilling tones… The increased presence of Muslims in Italy and in Europe is directly proportional to our loss of freedom… The Muslims refuse our culture and try to impose their culture on us. I reject them, and this is not only my duty toward my culture-it is toward my values, my principles, my civilization… The struggle for freedom does not include the submission to a religion which, like the Muslim religion, wants to annihilate other religions… The West reveals a hatred of itself, which is strange and can only be considered pathological; it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive… These charlatans care about the Palestinians as much as I care about the charlatans. That is not at all… When I was given the news, I laughed. The trial is nothing else but a demonstration that everything I’ve written is true… President Bush has said, ‘We refuse to live in fear.’ Beautiful sentence, very beautiful. I loved it! But inexact, Mr. President, because the West does live in fear. People are afraid to speak against the Islamic world. Afraid to offend, and to be punished for offending, the sons of Allah. You can insult the Christians, the Buddhists, the Hindus, and the Jews. You can slander the Catholics, you can spit on the Madonna and Jesus Christ. But, woe betide the citizen who pronounces a word against the Islamic religion.[88]

 

The problem is that the solution does not depend upon the death of Osama bin Laden. Because the Osama bin Ladens are too many, by now: as cloned as the sheep of our research laboratories. In fact, the best trained and the more intelligent do not stay in the Muslim countries… They stay in our own countries, in our cities, our universities, our business companies. They have excellent bonds with our churches, our banks, our televisions, our radios, our newspapers, our publishers, our academic organizations, our unions, our political parties. Worse, they live in the heart of a society that hosts them without questioning their differences, without checking their bad intentions, without penalizing their sullen fanaticism.[88]

To make you cry I’ll tell you about the twelve young impure men I saw executed at Dacca at the end of the Bangladesh war. They executed them on the field of Dacca stadium, with bayonet blows to the torso or abdomen, in the presence of twenty thousand faithful who applauded in the name of God from the bleachers. They thundered “Allah akbar, Allah akbar.” Yes, I know: the ancient Romans, those ancient Romans of whom my culture is so proud, entertained themselves in the Coliseum by watching the deaths of Christians fed to the lions. I know, I know: in every country of Europe the Christians, those Christians whose contribution to the History of Thought I recognize despite my atheism, entertained themselves by watching the burning of heretics. But a lot of time has passed since then, we have become a little more civilized, and even the sons of Allah ought to have figured out by now that certain things are just not done. After the twelve impure young men they killed a little boy who had thrown himself at the executioners to save his brother who had been condemned to death. They smashed his head with their combat boots. And if you don’t believe it, well, reread my report or the reports of the French and German journalists who, horrified as I was, were there with me. Or better: look at the photographs that one of them took. Anyway this isn’t even what I want to underline. It’s that, at the conclusion of the slaughter, the twenty thousand faithful (many of whom were women) left the bleachers and went down on the field. Not as a disorganized mob, no. In an orderly manner, with solemnity. They slowly formed a line and, again in the name of God, walked over the cadavers. All the while thundering Allah–akbar, Allah–akbar. They destroyed them like the Twin Towers of New York. They reduced them to a bleeding carpet of smashed bones.

 

I am not speaking, obviously, to the laughing hyenas who enjoy seeing images of the wreckage and snicker good–it–serves–the–Americans–right. I am speaking to those who, though not stupid or evil, are wallowing in prudence and doubt. And to them I say: “Wake up, people. Wake up!!” Intimidated as you are by your fear of going against the current—that is, appearing racist (a word which is entirely inapt as we are speaking not about a race but about a religion)—you don’t understand or don’t want to understand that a reverse–Crusade is in progress. Accustomed as you are to the double–cross, blinded as you are by myopia, you don’t understand or don’t want to understand that a war of religion is in progress. Desired and declared by a fringe of that religion, perhaps, but a war of religion nonetheless. A war which they call Jihad. Holy War. A war that might not seek to conquer our territory, but that certainly seeks to conquer our souls. That seeks the disappearance of our freedom and our civilization. That seeks to annihilate our way of living and dying, our way of praying or not praying, our way of eating and drinking and dressing and entertaining and informing ourselves. You don’t understand or don’t want to understand that if we don’t oppose them, if we don’t defend ourselves, if we don’t fight, the Jihad will win. And it will destroy the world that for better or worse we’ve managed to build, to change, to improve, to render a little more intelligent, that is to say, less bigoted—or even not bigoted at all. And with that it will destroy our culture, our art, our science, our morals, our values, and our pleasures…Christ! Don’t you realize that the Osama Bin Ladens feel authorized to kill you and your children because you drink wine or beer, because you don’t wear your beard long or a chador, because you go to the theater or the movies, because you listen to music and sing pop songs, because you dance in discos or at home, because you watch TV, wear miniskirts or short–shorts, because you go naked or half naked to the beach or the pool, because you  **** when you want and where you want and who you want? Don’t you even care about that, you fools? I am an atheist, thank God. And I have no intention of letting myself be killed for it.

 

Islam’s Doctrine of Deception

From: Deva Samaroo < >

Islam’s Doctrine of Deception

 

Beware Islam’s Doctrine of Deception

 

by Raymond Ibrahim

 

Originally published under the title “Ben Carson Exposes Islamic ‘Taqiyya,’ But There’s Even More You Should Know.”

 

Of all the points presidential candidate Ben Carson made in defense of his position that he “would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” most poignant is his reference to taqiyya, one of Islam’s doctrines of deception.

 

According to Carson, whoever becomes president should be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran”:

 

“I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country,” Carson said, referencing the Islamic law derived from the Koran and traditions of Islam.

 

“Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.”

 

Carson said that the only exception he’d make would be if the Muslim running for office “publicly rejected all the tenets of Sharia and lived a life consistent with that.”

 

“Then I wouldn’t have any problem,” he said.

 

However, on several occasions Carson mentioned “Taqiyya,” a practice in the Shia Islam denomination in which a Muslim can mislead nonbelievers about the nature of their faith to avoid religious persecution.

 

“Taqiyya is a component of Shia that allows, and even encourages you to lie to achieve your goals,” Carson said.

 

There’s much to be said here. First, considering that the current U.S. president has expunged all reference to Islam in security documents and would have Americans believe that Islamic doctrine is more or less like Christianity, it is certainly refreshing to see a presidential candidate referencing a little known but critically important Muslim doctrine.

 

As for the widely cited notion that taqiyya is a Shia doctrine, this needs to be corrected, as it lets the world’s vast majority of Muslims, the Sunnis, off the hook. According to Sami Mukaram, one of the world’s foremost authorities on taqiyya,

 

 

Taqiyya is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it … We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream … Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.[1]

 

 

Taqiyya is often associated with the Shias because, as a persecuted minority group interspersed among their Sunni rivals, they have historically had more reason to dissemble. Today, however, Sunnis living in the West find themselves in the place of the Shia. Now they are the minority surrounded by their historic enemies—Western “infidels”—and so they too have plenty of occasion to employ taqiyya.

As long as they are allegiant to Islam in their hearts, Muslims are permitted to behave like non-Muslims.

 

Nor would making Muslims swear on Bibles be very effective. As long as their allegiance to Islam is secure in their hearts, Muslims can behave like non-Muslims—including by praying before Christian icons, wearing crosses, and making the sign of the cross[2]—anything short of actually killing a Muslim, which is when the taqiyya goes too far (hence why Muslims in the U.S. military often expose their true loyalties when they finally reach the point of having to fight fellow Muslims in foreign nations).

 

For those with a discerning eye, taqiyya is all around us. Whether Muslim refugees pretending to convert to Christianity (past and present), or whether an Islamic gunman gaining entrance inside a church by feigning interest in Christian prayers—examples abound on a daily basis.

 

Consider the following anecdote from Turkey. In order to get close enough to a Christian pastor to assassinate him, a group of Muslims, including three women, feigned interest in Christianity, attended his church, and even participated in baptism ceremonies. “These people had infiltrated our church and collected information about me, my family and the church and were preparing an attack against us,” said the pastor in question, Emre Karaali. “Two of them attended our church for over a year and they were like family.”

 

If some Muslims are willing to go to such lengths to eliminate the already downtrodden Christian minorities in their midst—attending churches and baptisms and becoming “like family” to those “infidels” they intend to kill—does anyone doubt that a taqiyya-practicing Muslim presidential candidate might have no reservations about swearing on a stack of Bibles?

 

A taqiyya-practicing Muslim presidential candidate would have no reservations about swearing on a ‘stack of Bibles.’

 

Precedents for such treachery litter the whole of Islamic history—and begin with the Muslim prophet himself: During the Battle of the Trench (627 AD), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes collectively known as “the Confederates,” a Confederate called Naim bin Masud went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered the Confederates were unaware of Masud’s deflection to Islam, he counseled him to return and try somehow to get his tribesmen to abandon the siege. “For war is deceit,” Muhammad assured him.

 

Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowledge that he had switched sides and began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also intentionally instigated quarrels among the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded and lifted the siege, allowing an embryonic Islam to grow. (One Muslim website extols this incident for being illustrative of how Muslims can subvert non-Muslims.)

 

In short, if a Muslim were running for president of the U.S. in the hopes of ultimately subverting America to Islam, he could, in Carson’s words, easily be “sworn in on a stack of Bibles, not a Koran” and “publicly reject all the tenets of Sharia.” Indeed, he could claim to be a Christian and attend church every week.

It speaks very well about Carson that he is aware of—and not hesitant to mention—taqiyya. But that doctrine’s full ramifications—how much deceiving it truly allows and for all Muslim denominations, not just the Shia—need to be more widely embraced.

 

The chances of that happening are dim. Already “mainstream media” like the Washington Post are taking Carson to task for “misunderstanding” taqiyya—that is, for daring to be critical of anything Islamic. These outlets could benefit from learning more about Islam and deception per the below links:

  • My expert testimonyused in a court case to refute “taqiyya about taqiyya.”
  • The even more elastic doctrine of tawriya, which allows Muslims to deceive fellow Muslims by lying “creatively.”
  • My 2008 essay, “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception,” commissioned and published byJane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst.
  • Recent examplesof how onetime good Muslim neighbors turn violent once they grow in strength and numbers.

 

Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

 

[1] Sami Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam (London: Mu’assisat at-Turath ad-Druzi, 2004), p. 7, author’s translation.

[2] Mukaram, At-Taqiyya fi ‘l-Islam, pp. 30

Muslims Advised to Not Work for Kafir Law Enforcement

 

From: S Turkman < >

 

From AINA.org 04/13/2012..

American Muslim Group Warns Muslims Against Working in Law Enforcement

www.translatingjihad.com

Posted 2012-04-13 19:25 GMT

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) cautioned American Muslims in a 22-page Arabic-language paper in 2008 against working in law enforcement in countries which do not rule by Allah’s dictates. One of their main concerns was that such work might cause Muslims to gain love and respect for secular laws:

…there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah. (italics added)

AMJA provided some allowances for Muslims to work in certain law enforcement professions, fearing that a lack of Muslim representation in this sector could bring negative effects for the Muslim community. They also reasoned that Muslims working as police officers might be able to use their positions to help the Muslim community, such as helping out with traffic near their mosques and protecting their mosques. Still, there was concern that some of these might be required to enforce laws contrary to the shari’a, such as “arrest[ing] a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her.”

The AMJA paper specifically forbade Muslims from working for the FBI or in national security positions, due to their alleged arbitrary targeting of certain Muslims for “their political beliefs, charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari’a”–an apparent reference to counterterrorism investigations against Muslim suspects.

The paper also made clear that Muslims are to seek justice not in secular courts, but in Islamic courts which are compliant with their shari’a: “It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari’a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one’s rights and working out one’s grievances” (see my translation of another AMJA paper on working in the judiciary here).

Throughout the paper it is made clear that the duty of Muslims is not to uphold and respect the laws of the land in which they reside, but rather to do everything in their power to make the laws of Allah–the shari’a–supreme:

[Muslims are] to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar’ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.

The duty to make Islam supreme comes above all, even preserving one’s life:

We must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self, mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. […] But if saving [the individual’s] life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth.

It is worth stressing once again that AMJA–whose stated purpose is to “clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America”–is a mainstream American Muslim organization. Their membership list contains a large number of highly-influential American imams and Muslim leaders, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia; Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of the financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions; Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America.

 

E-mail to Media (UK) on MMM (Mass Muslim Migration)

From: Rajput < >

To: xxxxxx Radio Station

Sir,

Thank you for the discussion on migrants from the countries where killing and destruction are the norm, and who want to come to the well settled civilized European lands.

The first question is, “WILL THEY NOT RE-CREATE THE SAME KIND OF SOCIETY HERE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ESCAPE FROM?”

Our second reaction is the sad fact that, there being NO family planning, “MUSLIMS PRODUCE EXPONENTIALLY BUT EXPECT THE NON MUSLIMS TO FEED!”

It is a FACT that no Islamic country is, or can be, a secular democracy. In Islam these two concepts do not exist.

In the Muslim belief system all mankind is divided between Kafir (infidel) and Momin (Believer) and that leads to PERMANENT rift and struggle of life & death to eliminate the other side.

All Muslim countries practice, and live in, “MACHO MASCULINE” CULTURE with women subdued. This is so from the days of prophet Mohammed who himself was the Warlord and an ABSOLUTE ruler.

An average Muslim is compelled by indoctrination to hold Mohammed as his role model in every aspect of life including the shape of beard, number of wives a man can have, how to treat Jews & Christians, which food to avoid and which animal to hate, to the direction to face while praying!  Hence the drive to JEHAD, following his example.

JEHAD is the struggle to put the Muslims (Islamic way of life as practiced by the TALIBAN and the so-called Caliphate, or ISIL) on top of social hierarchy over the graveyard of civilization.

Unfortunately now in this age of Knowledge, Information Technology, world wide web, individual freedoms and women’s rights & emancipation, rigid & inflexible Islam is breaking up from within.

The  result is the endless stream of those fleeing their own Islamic regimes. That is why we find even Pakistanis joining the mass exodus in large numbers.

Out of love of Islam & fanaticism they separated from secular democratic India in 1947 but out of frustration, disappointment and despair they now wish to come to Christian West. The same goes for every other Muslim on earth- total disillusionment with their own Islamic “way of life”.

Europe must be prepared to receive tens of millions of more “gate crashers” from the Islamic lands in the centuries ahead.

Rajput

Copy to

Mr xxxxxx, MEP, who spoke in the discussion this morning (8 or 9 Sep 2015).

Quotes On Islam By Eminent Indians

 From: Deva Sarran Samaroo< >

Indians Who Questioned Congress Islamic Policies

Very Eminent Indians Spoke Their Heart Out

But Congress Party Never Listened…

 

Quotes On Islam By Eminent Indians

 

Rabindranath Tagore

A very important factor which is making it almost impossible for Hindu-Muslim unity to become an accomplished fact is that the Muslims cannot confine their patriotism to any one country. I had frankly asked many Muslims whether, in the event of any Mohammedan power invading India, they would stand side by side with their Hindu neighbors to defend their common motherland, I was not satisfied with the reply I got from them.

 

Rabindranath Tagore

We want to draw a veil over our past to appease the Muslims…. We have done it for a long time. It is time we lift the veil from our eyes.

 

Lala Lajpat Rai

I have devoted most of my time during the last six months to the study of Muslim History and Muslim Law and I am inclined to think that Hindu-Muslim unity is neither possible not practicable… I do honestly and sincerely believe in the necessity and desirability of Hindi-Muslim unity. I am also fully prepared to trust the Muslim leaders, but what about the injunctions of the Koran and Hadis. The leaders cannot override them.

 

Sarat Chandra Chatterji

If we go by the lessons of history we have to accept that the goal of the Hindu-Muslim unity is a mirage. When Muslims first entered India, they looted the country, destroyed the temples, broke the idols, raped the women and heaped innumerable indignities on the people of this country. Today it appears that such noxious behavior has entered the bone marrow of Muslims. Unity can be achieved among equals…. I am of the view that Hindu-Muslim unity, which could not be achieved during the last thousand years, will not materialize during the ensuing thousand years.

 

Annie Besant (The founder of the Congress Party)

The inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ‘unbelievers’ has spring up naked and unashamed…. We have seen, revived, as guide in practical politics, the old Muslim religion of the sword…. In thinking of an independent India, the menace of Mohammedan rule has to be considered.

 

Sri Aurobindo

I am sorry they are making a fetish of this Hindu-Muslim unity. It is no use ignoring facts; some day the Hindus may have to fight the Muslims and they must prepare for it. Hindu–Muslim unity should not mean the subjection of the Hindus. Every time the mildness of the Hindu has given way to barbarism of Islam. The best solution would be to allow the Hindus to organize themselves and the Hindu-Muslim unity would take care of itself, it would automatically solve the problem.

 

Sri Aurobindo

You can live amicably with a religion whose principle is toleration. But how is it possible to live with a religion whose principle is ‘I will not tolerate’? You cannot build unity on such basis. Perhaps the only way of making the Mohammedans harmless is to make them lose their faith in their religion.

 

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

To talk about Hindu-Muslim unity from a thousand platforms or to give it blazoning headlines is to perpetrate an illusion whose cloudily structure dissolves itself at the exchange of brickbats and desecration of tombs and temples….Nothing I could say can so well show the futility of Hindu-Muslim unity. Hindu-Muslim unity up to now was at least in sight although it was like a mirage. Today it is out of sight and also out of mind.

 

Dr.B.R. Ambedkar

The brotherhood of Islam is not the universal brotherhood of man. It is brotherhood of Muslims for Muslims only. There is a fraternity but its benefit is confined to those within that corporation. For those who are outside the corporation, there is nothing but contempt, slavery and enmity.

 

Ram Swarup

Religious harmony is a desirable thing. But it takes two to play the game. Unfortunately such a sentiment holds no position in Islamic theology.

 

Shiv Prasad Roy

Pakistan and Bangladesh are their fixed deposits. Those are Islamic states. No one else can lay claim on them. India is a joint account. Plunder it as much as you please.

 

Francois Gautier

This is a profession of faith of a Muslim: ‘I certify that there is no God other than Allah, of whom Mohammed is the only prophet’, which means in effect: After and before Mohammed, there is nobody else…’Thus the whole religion of Islam is based on negation: nobody but us, no other religion but ours’. And if you disagree, you shall die. This puts a serious limitation to tolerance and from this strong belief sprang all the horrors of the Muslim invasion of India.

 

Francois Gautier

Let it be said right away: the massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger than the holocaust of the Jews by the Nazis; or the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks; more extensive even than the slaughter of the South American native populations by the invading Spanish and Portuguese in early days of America.

 

Will Durant

The Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history.

 

Alain Danielou

From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 A D, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions.

 

Rizwan Salim

Their minds filled with venom against the idol-worshippers of Hindustan, the Muslims destroyed a large number of ancient Hindu temples. This is a historical fact, mentioned by Muslim chronicles and others of the time.

 

Rizwan Salim

Savages at a very low level of civilization and no culture worth the name, from Arabia and west Asia, began entering India from the early century onwards. Islamic invaders demolished countless Hindu temples, shattered uncountable sculpture and idols, plundered innumerable palaces and forts of Hindu kings, killed vast numbers of Hindu men and carried off Hindu women..….. But many Indians still do not seem to recognize that the alien Muslim marauders destroyed the historical evolution of the earth’s most mentally advanced civilization, the most richly imaginative culture, and the most vigorously creative society.

 

Irfan Husain

The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed many dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed. Indeed, the presence of Muslim historians on their various campaigns has ensured that the memory of their deeds will live long after they were buried…..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

 

Dr. Younis Shaikh

….eighty million were slaughtered and millions of women were raped…..it was standard practice for Islamic warlords like Ghori and Ghazni to unleash the mass rape and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of women after the slaughter of all males.  An extremely large percentage of Muslims in South Asia today are the progeny of forcible conversions and systematic rape campaigns by marauding Muslim invaders.

 

Koenraad Elst

..the number of victims of the persecutions of Hindus by Muslims is easily of the same order of magnitude as that of the Nazi extermination policy, though no one has yet made the effort of tabulating the reported massacres and proposing a reasonable estimate of how many millions exactly must have died in the course of the Islamic campaign against Hinduism (such research is taboo). On top of these there is a similar number of abductions and deportations to harems and slave-markets, as well as centuries of political oppression and cultural destruction……

 

Dr K D Prithipal

Muslims will only live as an oppressive majority and a turbulent minority.

 

Sardar Vallabha bhai Patel

A nationalist Muslim is only a contradiction in terms.

 

 

 

Book – Understanding Islam Through Hadis

Understanding Islam through Hadis

Religious Faith or Fanaticism?

Ram Swarup

Exposition Press                   Smithtown, New York

Contents

Introduction

  1. Faith (ImAn)
  2. Purification (TahArah)
  3. Prayer (SalAt)
  4. The Poor Tax (ZakAt)
  5. Fasting and Pilgrimage (Sawm and Hajj)
  6. Marriage and Divorce (Al-NikAh and Al-TalAq)
  7. Business Transactions, Inheritances, Gifts, Bequests, Vows and Oaths
  8. Crime and Punishment (QasAmah, QisAs, HadUd)
  9. Religious Wars (JihAd)
  10. Government (Al-ImAra)
  11. Hunting, Food and Drink
  12. Clothing, Decorations, General Behavior, Greetings, Magic, Poetry, Visions, Dreams
  13. Muhammad on Muhammad
  14. The Prophet’s Companions
  15. Virtue, Destiny, Knowledge, Remembrance of God
  16. Paradise, Hell, Their Inmates, the Last Day
  17. Repentance (Tauba), I
  18. Repentance, II  (The Self-Criticism of Ka’b b. MAlik)
  19. Hypocrites (MunAfiqIn)

Bibliography

When (and Why) Good Muslim Neighbors Turn Bad

“Muslims will ONLY live as an Oppressive Majority

and a Turbulent Minority.”   – Prof. K.D. Prithipal, Professor Emeritus, Professor of Comparative Religion, University of Alberta, Canada

—————————————————————————-

http://www.meforum.org/5371/why-muslims-bad-neighbors

When (and Why) Good Muslim Neighbors Turn Bad

Raymond Ibrahim

08 July 2015

[Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers: and whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions. – Koran 3:28]

Days ago, after the Islamic State [IS] entered the Syrian city of Hassakè, prompting a mass exodus of Christians, a familiar but often overlooked scene took place: many otherwise “normal” Muslims joined ranks with IS, instantly turning on their longtime Christian neighbors.

This is the third category of Muslims that lurks between “moderates” and “radicals:” “sleepers,” the Muslims who appear “moderate,” but who are merely waiting for circumstances to turn to Islam’s advantage before they join the jihad; Muslims who are waiting for the rewards of jihad to become greater than the risks.  There is no lack of examples of these types of Muslims.

The following are testimonials from non-Muslims, mostly Christian refugees from those regions of Iraq and Syria now under Islamic State (or other jihadi) control.

Consider what they say about their longtime Sunni neighbors who appeared “moderate”—or at least nonviolent—but who, once the jihad came to town, exposed their true colors:

Georgios, a man from the ancient Christian town of Ma’loula—one of the few areas in the world where the language of Christ was still spoken—told of how Muslim neighbors he knew all his life turned on the Christians after al-Nusra, another jihadi outfit, invaded in 2013:

“We knew our Muslim neighbors all our lives. Yes, we knew the Diab family were quite radical, but we thought they would never betray us. We ate with them. We are one people.  A few of the Diab family had left months ago, and we guessed they were with the Nusra [al-Qaeda front]. But their wives and children were still here. We looked after them. Then, two days before the Nusra attacked, the families suddenly left the town. We didn’t know why. And then our neighbors led our enemies in among us.”

The Christian man explained with disbelief how he saw a young member of the Diab family, whom he knew from youth, holding a sword and leading foreign jihadis to Christian homes.

Continues Georgios:

“We had excellent relations. It never occurred to us that Muslim neighbors would betray us. We all said: “please let this town live in peace — we don’t have to kill each other.” But now there is bad blood.

They brought in the Nusra to throw out the Christians and get rid of us forever. Some of the Muslims who lived with us are good people, but I will never trust 90 per cent of them again.

A teenage Christian girl from Homs, Syria—which once had a Christian population of approximately 80,000, but which is now reportedly zero—relates her story:

“We left because they were trying to kill us. . . . They wanted to kill us because we were Christians. They were calling us Kaffirs [infidels], even little children saying these things. Those who were our neighbors turned against us. At the end, when we ran away, we went through balconies. We did not even dare go out on the street in front of our house. I’ve kept in touch with the few Christian friends left back home, but I cannot speak to my Muslim friends any more. I feel very sorry about that. (Crucified Again, p. 207)”

When asked who exactly threatened and drove Christians out of Mosul, which fell to the Islamic State a year ago, another anonymous Christian refugee responded:

“We left Mosul because ISIS came to the city. The [Sunni Muslim] people of Mosul embraced ISIS and drove the Christians out of the city. When ISIS entered Mosul, the people hailed them and drove out the Christians….”

“The people who embraced ISIS, the people who lived there with us… Yes, my neighbors. Our neighbors and other people threatened us. They said: “Leave before ISIS get you.” What does that mean? Where would we go?… Christians have no support in Iraq. Whoever claims to be protecting the Christians is a liar. A liar!”

Nor is such Muslim treachery limited to Christians.

Other “infidels,” Yazidis for example, have experienced the same betrayal.

Discussing IS invasion of his village, a 68-year-old Yazidi man who managed to flee the bloody offensive—which included the slaughter of many Yazidi men and enslavement of women and children—said:

“The (non-Iraqi) jihadists were Afghans, Bosnians, Arabs and even Americans and British fighters…. But the worst killings came from the people living among us, our (Sunni) Muslim neighbors…. The Metwet, Khawata and Kejala tribes—they were all our neighbors. But they joined the IS, took heavy weapons from them, and informed on who was Yazidi and who was not. Our neighbors made the IS takeover possible.”

Likewise, watch this 60 Minutes interview with a Yazidi woman.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/14e7bae2e0ce50fb?projector=1

When asked why people she knew her whole life would suddenly join IS and savagely turn on her people, she replied:

“I can’t tell you exactly, but it has to be religion. It has to be religion. They constantly asked us to convert, but we refused. Before this, they never mentioned it. Prior, we thought of each other as family. But I say, it has to be religion.”

Lest it seem that this phenomenon of Sunni betrayal is limited to Islamic jihad in Mesopotamia, know that it has occurred historically and currently in other nations. (It has happened many many times in India in last 1000 years. – Skanda987)

The following anecdote from the Ottoman Empire is over 100 years old:

“Then one night, my husband came home and told me that the padisha [sultan] had sent word that we were to kill all the Christians in our village, and that we would have to kill our neighbors. I was very angry, and told him that I did not care who gave such orders, they were wrong. These neighbors had always been kind to us, and if he dared to kill them Allah would pay us out. I tried all I could to stop him, but he killed them — killed them with his own hand.  (Sir Edwin Pears, Turkey and Its People, London: Methuen and Co., 1911, p. 39)

And in Nigeria—a nation that shares little with Syria, Iraq, or Turkey, other than Islam—a jihadi attack on Christians that left five churches destroyed and several Christians killed was enabled by “local Muslims”:

“The Muslims in this town were going round town pointing out church buildings and shops owned by Christians to members of Boko Haram, and they in turn bombed these churches and shops.”

Such similar patterns of traitorous behavior—patterns that cross continents and centuries, patterns that regularly appear whenever Muslims live alongside non-Muslims—are easily understood by turning to Koran 3:28:  Let believers [Muslims] not take infidels [non-Muslims] for friends and allies instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with God—unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions. But Allah cautions you [to fear] Himself. For the final goal is to Allah.

Here is how Islam’s most authoritative ulema and exegetes explain Koran 3:28.

Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari (d. 923), author of a standard and authoritative commentary of the Koran, writes:

If you [Muslims] are under their [non-Muslims’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them with your tongue while harboring inner animosity for them … [know that] Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels rather than other believers—except when infidels are above them [in authority]. Should that be the case, let them act friendly towards them while preserving their religion.

Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), another prime authority on the Koran, writes:

The Most High said, “[U]nless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions”—that is, whoever at any time or place fears their evil may protect himself through outward show—not sincere conviction. As al-Bukhari records through Abu al-Darda the words [of the Prophet], “Truly, we grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them.”

In other words, Muslims are not to befriend non-Muslims, unless circumstances are such that it is in the Muslims’ interests to do so.

For example, if Muslims are a minority (as in America), or if their leaders brutally crack down on jihadi activities (as in Bashar Assad’s pre-Islamic State Syria): then they may preach and even feign peace, tolerance, and coexistence with their non-Muslim neighbors.

However, if and when circumstances to make Islam supreme appear, Muslims are expected to join the jihad—”for the final goal is to Allah.”[1]

 Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

 

He is the author of ‘ Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians ‘ (2013) and ‘ The Al Qaeda Reader ‘ (2007).

[1] For more on Islamic sanctioned forms of deception, read about taqiyya, tawriya, and taysir. For more on how Muslims are never to befriend non-Muslims—except when in their interest—see Ayman al-Zawahiri’s “Loyalty and Enmity,” The Al Qaeda Reader, pgs., 63-115.

Sex Slavery and the Islamic State

From: Mohan Natarajan < >

Sex Slavery and the Islamic State

Mark Durie

03 July 2015

Why does Islamic State’s enslavement of women seem to appeal to potential recruits, and why is it not challenged more vigorously by mainstream Muslims?

Jamie Walker, Middle East correspondent for The Australian, asked two critical questions in a recent article that discussed the involvement of two Australian citizens, Mohamed Elomar and Khaled Sharrouf, in Islamic State sex slavery.

In 2014 Elomar purchased sex slaves, of whom four, all Yazidis, later escaped to a refugee camp, where the ABC caught up with them and interviewed them.

Elomar had also boasted on Twitter that he had “1 of 7 Yezidi slave girls for sale” at $2500 each.

Walker’s questions were “why this debased appeal seems to be gaining traction with Islamic State’s target audience, which increasingly includes women, and why it’s not challenged more stridently in the public arena.”

The Islamic State has given its own answer to the first question.

In the fourth edition of its magazine Dabiq, it aggressively promoted sex slavery as an Islamic practice, arguing that the practice conforms to the teaching and example of Muhammad and his companions.

Does this argument have any wider appeal than among Islamic State recruits?

The reality is that many Muslim scholars have upheld the practice of enslaving captives of war.

For example Islamic revivalist Abul A’la Maududi wrote in his influential and widely disseminated tract Human Rights in Islam that for Muslims to enslave their captives was “a more humane and proper way of disposing of them” than Western approaches.

Enslavement by Muslims, he argued, is preferable to the provisions of the Geneva Convention because of the value of this policy for fueling the growth of Islam:

The result of this humane policy was that most of the men who were captured on foreign battlefields and brought to the Muslim countries as slaves embraced Islam and their descendants produced great scholars, imams, jurists, commentators, statesmen and generals of the army.

Islamic revivalist movements that look forward to the restoration of an Islamic Caliphate have repeatedly endorsed the practice of slavery in the name of their religious convictions.

For example the (now banned) Muhajiroun movement in the UK announced in an article, “How does Islam Classify Lands?” that once a true Islamic State is established, no-one living in other nations (which it calls Dar al Harb, ‘house of war’) will have a right to their life or their wealth:

[H]ence a Muslim in such circumstances can then go into Dar Al Harb and take the wealth from the people unless there is a treaty with that state. If there is no treaty individual Muslims can even go to Dar Al Harb and take women to keep as slaves.

It is a problem that the Qur’an itself endorses having sex with captive women (Sura 4:24).

According to a secure tradition (hadith)attributed to one of Muhammad’s companions, Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, this verse of the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad at a time when Muslims had been ‘refraining’ from having sex with their married female captives. Verse 4:24 relieved them of this restraint by giving them permission to have sex with captive women, even if the women were already married.

Abd-al-Hamid Siddiqui, a Fellow of the Islamic Research Academy of Karachi and the translator into English of the Sahih Muslim, commented on this tradition, saying:

When women are taken captive their previous marriages are automatically annulled. It should, however, be remembered that sexual intercourse with these women is lawful with certain conditions.

There have been many cases reported across the centuries of Islamic armies using captive women for sex slavery, but is this any different from all wars?

It is different in one important respect — that the mainstream of Islamic jurisprudence has justified and supported this practice on the basis of Islam’s canonical sources, including Muhammad’s own example and teaching. Islamic sex slavery is religiously sanctioned ‘guilt-free sex’.

This religious teaching is impacting our world today because the global Islamic community has been deeply affected by a grassroots religious revival, which seeks to purify Islam and restore it to its foundational principles, which include rules for war and the treatment of captives.

This leads us to Walker’s second question: why is the Islamic State’s ‘debased appeal’ not ‘challenged more stridently in the public arena’?

An obstacle that stands in the way of such a challenge is that it would require a sober evaluation of the Islamic character of sex slavery.

However, even suggesting a link between Islam and ‘terrorism’ has become taboo to those who are afraid of being judged intolerant.

Not only do some impose this taboo upon themselves, but they are quick to stigmatize those who do not partner with them in this ill-considered ‘tolerance’.

The taboo attached to making any link between Islamic State atrocities and the religion of Islam was apparent in comments by Greg Bearup on his interview with South Australian politician Cory Bernardi.

During the course of the interview Senator Bernardi linked the Islamic State with Muhammad’s example, to which the interviewer wrote “Kaboom!”, and called the comment a ‘hand grenade’, ‘inflammatory’ and ‘divisive’.

While it is a hopeful sign that some Muslims, such as Anooshe Mushtaq, have been willing to explore the Islamic character of the Islamic State, non-Muslim opinion-makers should show more backbone by engaging with the issue at hand.

It is not a sign of tolerance when free people deliberately silence themselves about the ideological drivers of sex trafficking.

The same can also be said of acts of terrorism, such as the world has witnessed over the past week in France, Tunisia and Kuwait.

Until societies are able and willing to have a frank and free discussion of the ideological drivers which motivate acts of terror and abuse, they should not expect to be able to develop effective strategies to contain or wind back such atrocities.

A state of denial is a state of defeat.

Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

————————————————————-

RELATED PLEASE :

Can we separate ISIS from Islam? Politically correct DE hyphenation won’t work

  1. Jagannathan

01 July 2015

The world is in denial about the reality of Islamic terrorism by trying to dehypenate the two – the Islamic part from the terrorism.

At a time when the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), or simply Islamic State, uses holy texts to behead women for “sorcery”, kill Muslims for not fasting during Ramzan, or launch terrorist attacks against “infidels” in several countries simultaneously (France, Tunisia and Kuwait were targets last week), it is disingenuous to pretend that this violence is unrelated to the faith.

Commonsense tells us that when an act is committed in the name of a religion – and additionally justified by quotes from scripture – it has to be called by the right name.

But this is what everybody is in denial about.

http://www.firstpost.com/world/can-separate-isis-islam-politically-correct-dehyphenation-wont-work-2321160.html

A true story of Islamic gratitude towards non-Muslims!

From: Deva Sarran Samaroo < >

==

How Muslims Think?

 

By Dr. Arieh Eldad an MD At Hadassah Hospital in Israel.

 

A true story of Islamic gratitude towards non-Muslims!

  

 I was instrumental in establishing the “Israeli National Skin Bank,” which is the largest in the world. 

The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day     needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

 

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of Plastic Surgery.

 

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned her.  Such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair. Men can have affairs but not women though women are the user.

 

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment.  She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Professor Lior Rosenberg, and discharged to return to Gaza.

 

She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheva.

 

IN GRATEFUL APPRECIATION TO THE ISRAELI MEDICS SHE BECAME A SUICIDE BOMBER One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt.  She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life.  It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her and she would go to heaven. (After her death?) This Muslim GOD must be MAD

 

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel.  It is not a territorial conflict.  This is a civilization conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.

 

Bibi (Netanyahu) gets it, Obama does not.

 

I have never written before asking everyone to please forward something so as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits the world if it is not stopped.

 

Dr Arieh Eldad