Jihad Defined In Shari'ah

Jihad Defined and Exemplified

Pamela Geller Reams Them a New Orifice

Pamela Geller Reams Them a New Orifice. Pamela Geller is fast, frustrated & furious in this 40 minute video she reams indolent society a badly needed new orifice.  She has much more than she can say in such a short time, but she gives us a very good outline, drawing her points together to form a circle which encompasses the globe full of issues.

    Its war, and you are an army of one. Pamela is your General.  She gives you your orders: learn and teach others.  If you do nothing more, at least watch this video and share it with everyone who will listen.  Thanks and a tip of the hat to Front Page Magazine
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/09/23/pamela-geller-wednesday-morning-club/

    Reading the Qur'an is not easy because it is archaic, redundant and jumbled, lacking context & chronology.  The Noble Qur'an, translated by Hilali & Khan, is reputed to be 95% accurate and contains parenthetical expressions from tafsirs and the translator's footnotes.  Several Surahs are essential to understanding the malignantly militant nature of Islam: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 33, 47, 48, 49 & 61.  You can select them from a pick list at the top of the page.

    Hadith are sayings of Muhammad, passed down from mouth to ear by his companions.  They have been collected by several scholars, the most widely accepted collection being that of Bukhari. Like the Qur'an, hadith collections suffer from redundancy.  Begin with Books 52, 53 & 59, then read the others if you have sufficient patience. 

    Tafsir are scholarly explanations of the Qur'an. They use parallel verses and relevant ahadith to clarify the verses. Tafsir Ibn Kathir is fairly complete and easily accessible. You can select the Surahs listed above and read them instead of the Qur'an & hadith to save time and effort. 

    Islamic biography and history are also important, but less easily accessible than the Qur'an, hadith and tafsir.  Craig Winn compiled  selections  of the canon into a 1000 page book with the quotes compiled into handy appendices  "The Prophet of Doom". 

    For those lacking the time, patience and ambition to tackle the large tomes, there is a short book which encapsulates the  most essential information: Suhas Majumdar's "Jihad: The Islamic Doctrine of Permanent War".

    Pamela Geller raises the issue of Shari'ah: Islamic law based on the Qur'an & hadith.  Much of it is arcane, dealing with matters of prayer & ritual purity.  The really important parts deal with "justice", marriage & divorce.  It will be easier for you go go to Amazon and buy a hard copy of Reliance of the Traveller.  If you can tolerate a low resolution scan and large, pdf, this link will get you into Chapter 9 of Book O; "Justice".You can scroll up to Books  N & M.

    If you delve deeply into Reliance, you will discover that divorce is affected by the husband's thrice repeating "I divorce you".  You will discover that a father can force his virgin, pre-pubescent daughter to marry the man of his choice.  You will learn that a Christian woman married to a Muslim can not obtain child custody in divorce. 

Iowa Debate: No Guts, No Glory

 I missed the debate Saturday night. Monday night I found it on the web, and share the link with you. The program, which began with some introductory speeches and ceremony, runs 178 minutes of which the "debate" takes two hours. 

    This debate differs from the others because the questioners expressed and exercised respect for the candidates and avoided "gotcha" questions.  Civility prevailed. 

    There was plenty of emotion in this debate, and a great deal of deliberateness.  While issues of morality, marriage, abortion, education and health care took up most of the time, I am most interested in the final subject of the night, which begins at 158:36.

    What follows is strictly an amateurish attempt at transcription.  I type very slowly, and my memory is not the best. I take in a few words, pause the video and type what I have heard before restarting the video. Due to system lag, I lose some audio in the process.   My transcription  is not perfect, but it should be good enough to give you a good idea of what transpired in the last round of answers. 

    The final question: "Every one of you talked about the importance of preserving life.  Nothing takes life more than the declaration of war. I would like to hear from you, because nothing frightens a mother more, than watching her son or daughter go off ...Their pride in their country and their fear for their child...what is--can you define the moral justification for war? ...Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria --what is the moral justification? "

• Rep. Paul:  The early church struggled with this, I mean, Christ came  and Christ taught about peace and Christ was to be the prince of peace and we were to defend that.  But early on in the church, struggled with this and St. Augustine came up with the principles of the just war.  I believe in and I think we should follow, from the religious viewpoint, that we have a Constitution that is very clear to guide us to try to prevent these wars and that is that we don't go to war without a declaration .  The wars that we have fought since World War2 were all . illegal, unconstitutional and all were un-winnable and it was tragic-- it was tragic, we did it by failing the rule of law and the tragedy let out of these wars the last ten years, that we have been so ... added ten billion dollars to our national debt, ...Americans have been killed in these wars, 44 thousand have come home wounded and crippled, hundreds of thousands are looking for help and we went to blind ourselves to this.  It is not in our national defense, it is mischief, it is getting involved where we don't need to be involved.  I think it is an utter tragedy in  what is happening.  You wanna talk about a family life --there has to have been somebody in this audience who has been the bearer of news, either a loved one lost or a loved one crippled.  It is on and on  I had one soldier come to me the other day and he was so against the wars, he spent three or four tours over there, that he says "I lost too many buddies and I don'd know why we were there. " And theres no signs of progress over there.  He says "now I'm losing my buddies to suicide."  The wars destroy the family, I'm the ...as does the economic climate-- the bad economics  -- war is the most destructive things to the family and we oughtta concentrate on it and you can't concentrate on the economics unless we look at the business cycle, why we have inflation busts and booms  otherwise we will continue on a downhill path. 
• Rep. Bachmann I am a mother and I have made  the most difficult calls of my live which has been when servicemen and women have lost their lives in my  congressional district and I have picked up that phone and I've called mothers and I've called fathers and I have wept with them over the phone because nothing is more difficult to lose than a child.  [Luntz: "So what is the definition--the moral justification for war?"]  The moral justification for war is if the United States is attacked or we are  threatened with attack, then we have a decision that we have to make because the number one duty of the commander in chief is to secure the safety of the American people, that is the duty, and in order to do that, I have to be convinced as commander in chief that we have a clearly defined American vital interest in that area and I need to know that we have a clear mission to go forward. ... have a plan and an exit strategy and we go in, I will commit overwhelming force and then we get out. Now some situations are ones where you can have special operations forces and then you have to have the tools to be able to deal with interrogation, which we don't have now under Obama.  You have to have the capacity for detention, which we don't have now under President Obama.   But we have to have a clearly defined interest and I think we also have to take advice from George Washington, who told us, rightly so, I'm not an isolationist,  but he said very carefully be very fearful of unnecessary foreign entanglements and if there is anything we have learned from the last twelve years, once you get in, its very difficult to get out.  So you go in wisely.
• Cain: In the declaration where it says "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights",  and then it delineates three of them: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It says that among these are those three, I happen to think that there is another that is implied: the right to protect yourself, your family and to protect your property. So the defense of freedom and the defense of liberty I believe, is the moral justification for going to war. Secondly, as commander in chief, I will not send our young men and women into war unless it is clear why --the mission and the definition of victory... And thirdly, I would not send them into war unless I would send my own and daughter. 
• Gov. Perry: As a former individual who has worn the uniform of his country, as the commander in chief of over twenty thousand troops that are my command today,in the state of Texas with our Guard, I've been dealing with this issue for ten years.  And clearly, when America's interests are in jeopardy, there is a time and a place for us to intervene and intervene militarily.  But when we intervene militarily, we best make the decision of how we are going to win and how we are going to win convincingly and quickly.  Send those young men and women with the equipment to win.  Don't let some congressman sitting in an air conditioned office  in Washington DC decide what the rules of engagement are.  Let those war fighters win the war.  Let them come home victorious.  That is what the American military man and woman is all about.  And for us to micromanage them in a civilian way without their commanders truly being in charge, is absolutely irresponsible and as commander in chief of this country I will not let it happen.  
• Santorum: Let me maybe try to drill it down to a more practical application.  We are engaged in what many people call the long war.  Americans are known to have a rather short attention span.  As we are a young country, an antique for us is a hundred years old. In the Middle East its two thousand years old. They have a very  different view of time and history.  As a result, when we are engaged in this long war, long to us is not the same as long to them.  What we are facing right now is a, again, read our history-- is a thousand year conflict between radical Islam and the West that ended only because of the West's great technical superiority that was able to defeat them and drive them back and eventually colonize the Middle East. But that changed with one three letter word: oil.  .  Oil allowed the radical elements within the Islamic world to be able to get access to technology, and now we have in the case of Iran, to drill it down even more, a radical theocracy that has been at war with us since 1979.  It has done more to kill our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan because they are the makers of the IEDs that are killing our troops.  They've attacked this country on repeated occasions from the Khobar Towers to ...their proxies in Beirut.  They've attempted the assassination of an Ambassador.  They have threatened  openly and repeatedly our closest allies.  They hold conventions in Tehran denyiug the Holocaust-- in fact most of the aea of the Middle East  now believes that the Holocaust didn't really occur so there is no justification for the state of Israel.  They are now developing a nuclear weapon. It is now apparent that they are doing so; international agencies, not necessarily the boldest group of folks have suggested that that is the case.  We have a moral obligation to partner with the state of Israel to make ... to assure their survival and to make sure that this radical regime that wants to spread its virulent form of radical Islam not just throughout the Middle East but throughout the world is stopped from having the ability to do so with impunity because that's the thing a nuclear weapon does, it gives you a nuclear shield.  It must be stopped.  I laid out a plan the other day and I know we are short of time that lists four major things that we should be doing: covert activities, sanctions, overturning the regime but also working with Israel right now to plan a military option to strike and destroy these facilities.  And let the Iranians know, that unless they open up their facilities [to inspection] and shut them down, that that is an option that will be used period. 
• Gingrich: First of all In Christian theology, there is a clear development of a concept of just war. which people like Augustine developed because they were seeing the rise of pagans that wee actually threatening the very survival of the country. In fact, Augustine is buried in Italy because hes body was taken out of North Africa when the Christians lost North Africa.  So these things become very real.  My Dad spent twenty seven years in the Army, I watched my mother through that whole period in WW2, Korea and Vietnam.  . I think what makes us different and what makes us in some ways... much more ruthless and much tougher ... is we don't send soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen to war, we send our children, we send our fathers, we send our brothers and sisters; we send our mothers and therefore there is a preciousness to this decision unlike any other country that I know.  I think our position historically ...the Declaration of Independence was signed by people who were going to fight an eight year war. It was  a declaration of war in effect.  Washington was in the field eight years with one week at Mount Vernon.  These people who wrote those documents understood the grim reality.  I believe we should not go to war if we can avoid it.  And when we have to go to war we should do so decisively,  with overwhelming power to seek the quickest possible victory and we should in fact be prepared to do whatever it takes to win  when we begin an engagement.  But I think that there is no question ...this is the only place where I disagree with some of my friends-- you come into our country and you kill 3100 people and we will do whatever it takes to eliminate your capacity to threaten us ever again and I would be tougher and more decisive and I agree entirely with Senator Santorum--I would say to the government of Iran today: we have a very short time to solve ... and you should solve it on your own or we will solve it for you and frankly, we couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks ; we're gonna get it done. 

    In my view, Frank Luntz  probed the candidates for their views  on the morality of our invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq and our intervention in  Libya.  The answers seem to center on just war theory in general and how to bring war to a good end. 

    Congressman Paul mixed just enough truth into his spiel to make it attractive to the middle range of Morons.  Its a good thing that I was not in the audience, because I would have violated the decorum of the debate by booing.  The fact that wars should be declared, for good cause and with clearly stated objectives should go without saying, it is simply too obvious.  The jerk elevates my blood pressure too much.

    As I was listening, Congresswoman Bachmann sounded good. As I review the transcript, I get a sense of disappointment.  When America is threatened or attack, the vital national interest is clear on the face of the matter, no divination is required.  Victory is the exit strategy.  Commitment o overwhelming force is the part I liked, lacking in Afghanistan & Iraq, along with a  sane definition of strategic objectives.

    Cain made the right points about cause, clarity and mission definition.  I though his answer was brief and sensible, with just the right amount of emotion, somewhat overstated. I would have omitted the part about sending my own offspring, which would have fitted better if we still had an army of conscripts.

     Gov. Perry spoke with passion and conviction, with slightly clumsy rhetoric initially.  If he brought up the issue of defining victory, I overlooked it.  Since Vietnam, the micromanagement seems to me to be Presidential, not Congressional.  President Obama instituted the suicidal rules of engagement from which our troops are currently suffering.

    I wish that Santorum would drop the R word; it does not belong in discussions of national security issues.  As the wise man said "Its Islam, stupid!".  I think that he knows it, and is pandering to the politically correct crowd.  Of course he is correct about the need to support Israel and prevent Iran's nuclear ascension.

    Like Santorum, Gingrich brought in the theological and emotional elements, adding his own historian's perspective. The good part comes at the end when he said "whatever it takes".

    We got into this bind because, when I was too young to realize what was transpiring, we were terrified of the prospect of nuclear war with Russia & China. We therefore fought a half-assed war in Korea,  unwilling either to suffer an outright loss or exert sufficient force to win. 

    In Vietnam, we got in, sank in the quagmire, and escalated, once again unwilling to risk all out conflict with Ho Chi Minh's powerful patrons.  In the end, we allowed the media to defeat us with propaganda.

    President Carter began digging our grave when he gave Iran to Khomeini. His dithering while our Embassy staff sat in durance vile and his quarter-assed rescue attempt, which cost more lives,  let the enemy smell blood.

    I voted for President Reagan once at least, probably twice, but memory has faded and there is a strong chance that I wrote in Jesus Christ in '84. The Beirut fiasco caused me to demand that my Congressman introduce articles of impeachment.  In my opinion, nothing contributed more to our present situation than
Reagan's suicidal blunder.

    Sending the Marines to save Arafat's bacon was a blunder of momentous proportions.  Arafat was an enemy and his defeat was in our short and long term national interest.  Allowing the Beirut Massacre to go unpunished signaled weakness to the enemy, a fatal error.

    President Clinton dug the grave deeper and wider by affording impunity to Iran in the Khobar Towers bombing & other incidents, Mogadishu not being the least of them. Sending the Marines without the equipment they needed was a bad idea.

    Shrub installed the vault and set up the straps to lower the coffin by failing to recognize and declare that which, with the benefit of hindsight, the debate participants hinted at but failed to openly express. 

    In view of the antagonistic media, which defeated us in Vietnam, world public opinion and the UN allied with the media and our own diminished patience for long wars, common sense dictated the use of such overwhelming force that the war would be over in a few days.  Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq & Pakistan should have disappeared from the globe in a flash of fire.  Disproportionate, overwhelming, terrifying force, signifying exhausted patience and the will to win, immediately and finally was required. 

    Victory is defined, in this conflict, as the extinction of Islam in the nations where the plot was conceived, assisted, expedited & celebrated.  So long as the populations of Afghanistan Iran & Pakistan are alive and Islamic, they will provoke, incite, promote and perpetuate terrorism. No other outcome is possible because of Allah's promise and threat. Go to war; go to Paradise or go to Hell.  For extra credit, injure or enrage the enemy and get more "virgins" & wine. If you doubt this, obtain a clue from Allah's perfected, immutable word: 8:12, 39,  57, 60 , 65, 9:5,29, 38, 39, 111, 120, 123, 33:26, 27, 59:2, 13, 61:10-12 & Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220 from whence issue war & terror.  If they believe, they will terrorize to avoid Hell and gain admission to Allah's celestial bordello. 

    Truth is not hate speech. Advocacy of effective national defense is not warmongering neither is it inciting violence.  Terrorism is not the enemy, it is a tactic. Al-Qaeda is not the enemy, it is a branch of al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen.  Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen is not the enemy, it is a branch of Islam.  Islam is the enemy. This is a fatal fact which the candidates for the Republican nomination seem to lack the courage to clearly state.

    The strategic objective is permanently terminating Islamic terrorism against the U.S.A.  Only exterminating Islam can achieve that objective. While there is Islam, there is war.  If we eliminate Islam in those nations most directly involved, we can temporarily intimidate the remainder so that they will delay the resumption of attacks.  That would buy us some time for the vital task of inducing mass apostasy among the remainder.

    So long as Afghanistan & Pakistan are populated by Muslims, they will host terrorist training camps and export terrorism.  Installing democracy does nothing to change that. Partially defeating the Taliban and al-Qaeda does nothing to change that.  Victory requires their apostasy from Islam or death. No other option exists.  They are not liberated if they are still Muslims; they remain enslaved to the demon who demands "great slaughter".

Murderer Celebrated

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mumtaz-Qadri-hero-of-Islam/183355685017398?v=wall

Last Friday Facebook arbitrarily  deleted the International Judge the Koran page.  Today a new page appears, celebrating the handiwork of the perfidious body guard who murdered the Governor he was sworn to protect.  I have reproduced screen shots of the wall and information page below. Click them for the full sized image.

    A page announcing an upcoming event: investigation into the content & meaning of the Qur'an is arbitrarily pulled down, Then Muslims put up a page celebrating the murder of a critic of Islamic blasphemy law by his own bodyguard. 

    Here is one of the search engine results, the link will take you to the Facebook "news feed", not to the page described because it was deleted.

International Judge the Koran Day | Facebook

Welcome to a Facebook Page about International Judge the Koran Day. Join Facebook to start connecting with International Judge the Koran Day.
www.facebook.com/.../International-Judge-the-Koran-Day/171630126209459 - Cached

    Reverend Terry Jones plans to judge the Qur'an for two hours from 6 to 8 pm. March 20, 2011.  In reality, it should be judged constantly by an unending stream of new readers. 

7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

    (King James Bible, Matthew)

    Examine the root and stem first. See for yourself exactly what is in the Qur'an. The following links, where possible, are directed to Surah Al-Anfal 39, which commands Muslims to wage perpetual war against pagan disbelievers.

• USC-MSA, displaying translations by Pickthall, Shakir & Abdulah Yusuf Ali
• King Fahd Complex, displaying the Hilali/Khan translation with commentary
• Islam Awakened, displaying 33 parallel translations
• Quranic Arabic Corpus, displaying the individual Arabic words with English literal English translations
• Alim, where you can view and compare translations by Asad, Pickthall, Malik & Yusuf Ali and search hadith including: Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi
• Maududi's Tafsir; his translation & commentary
• Qtafsir, search any word, phrase or verse by numbers and read Tafsir Ibn Kathir

    Taste the fruit, is it sweet or bitter and salty from spilled blood?

• Sahihi Bukhari, considered to be the most authentic of the six canonical hadith collections. 
  • Book 52: Jihad
  • Book 53: Khumus [division of the spoils]
  • Book 59: Military Expeditions
• Sahih Muslim Book 19: Jihad
• Sunan Abu Dawud
  
  • Book 14: Jihad
  • Book 37: Battles
• Malik's Muwatta Book 21: Jihad
• Riyad us-Saliheen Book 11, Ch. 234 an excellent collection of relevant ahadith & commentary concerning the incentivization of jihad

    What are the relevant provisions of Islamic law?

• Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9 which defines Jihad, the obligation to perform it, perpetual warfare and other relevent matters
• Al-Risala; Maliki Fiqh: Turn to Ch. 30 on page 284
• Al-Hedayah, Vol II,  Book IX, Chapter 2; Hanifi Fiqh

    Last but not least, we turn to Sira: Islamic biography of the Profit.

• Hisham's Recension, abridged; the struggles
• Guillaume's translation of The Life of Muhammad, 141MB archive of 432 jpg files each bearing two pages. You will probably http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 61&l=eng&nAya= .001# 61_ .001http://www.qurancomplex.com/Quran/Targama/Targama.asp?nSora= 61&l=eng&nAya= .001# 61_ .001prefer to buy a hard copy from Amazon.This book describes the raids and battles, with restatements of several ayat which clarify matters a great deal.
• The Sealed Nectar, a popular biography of the Profit; it details many of the battles and a significant subset of the extortion letters which preceded them.

    I do not demand that you take my word as gospel. I exhort you to investigate for yourself. Read the Qur'an, these Surahs at minimum: [Hilali/Khan]

• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 8
• 9
• 33
• 47
• 48
• 61

    It will be easiest to sample the ahadith in Riyad us-Saliheen, which are selected from several collections. Then sample one of the books of Fiqh and one Sira.
Discover what "Allah said', what Moe said and what he did before making a final judgment.

Coming Soon to a Courtroom near You

Citizen Warrior posted a video  about  Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff's case, also linking to a very informative  previous  article.  Wolff & Wilders are on trial in Europe, accused of  insulting & inciting hatred against Muslims.  Jail terms and heavy fines hang over their heads because they spoke openly and honestly about the damnable doctrines & practices of Islam revealed in its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.   Others have been persecuted  for truth in Australia, Canada, England and Scandinavia.

    In America, at present, we can not be brought up on criminal charges for revealing the demonic core of Islam because we are protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment.  But Justice Stephen Breyer has brought our umbrella of protection into doubt: "And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?"

    In the current political climate, Democrats are desperately seeking ways to squelch criticism of their policies & corruption.  Some seek to resurrect the "fairness doctrine", others look to changes in the licensing requirements for radio stations.  They need to silence Rush Limbaugh and others  who speak truth to power.

    Unfortunately, that domestic threat converges with a parallel international threat,  Bolstered by the controversy of International Burn a Qur'an Day.  The OIC and its member states have been screaming for international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.  At the opening of the 15^th  session of the  Human Rights Council, they urged "internationally oriented preventive measures to combat negative religious stereotyping
including denigration of religions"¹  and  "It is through an outright  rejection of such acts and sustained engagement at evolving norms to deal with them that we would prevail against the extremists who are out to rock the very foundations of peaceful coexistence."²

    Two phrases in that last quote need elaboration.  "such acts" is a direct reference to International Burn a Qur'an Day but it expands to encompass all questioning & criticism of Islam.  "Evolving norms to deal with them"  may be wrongly assumed to refer to the annual Combating Defamation... resolutions but it has a more sinister reference.  Few beyond the ivory tower heights of international human rights NGOs are aware of this threat to our precious liberty.

    The HRC  appointed an ad hoc committee  to explore and elaborate "complementary international standards"³.  The committee's lofty title and charge tell us nothing  useful.  It is only by scratching beneath the surface that we discover  their mission: to write a binding protocol to ICERD which will give the force of international law to the defamation resolutions.  

    By encoding the content of the resolutions ⁴ into a protocol attached to ICERD⁵, they will be made enforcible by the World Court.  Signatories will be required by international law to legislate and enforce acts prohibiting criticism of Islam.  

    Steve Malzberg had a masterful rant on the subject of "hate speech" laws in the opening hour of his September 13 radio show.

..."Even Republicans-Even the great Peter King, Congressman-said that 'Terry Jones is putting our troops at risk; I agree with General Petraeus'  blah blah blah. ladies and gentlemen, if our freedom of speech can be seen as putting our troops at risk, then our freedom of speech is going away.  Make no mistake about that--our freedom of speech is going away.  In Canada, you can't say anything that would offend a group, like Muslims, for instance, that they might consider offensive, oh gee, they call it hate speech. Ya can't say it. ...

    Who is to blame for the escalating violence over the Qur'an burning, is it the Pastor himself, is it the Obama Administration or is it the media? I said: common, you left out choice D, which is the correct choice, where it it? Those were the choices, ladies and gentlemen, A, B & C.  The correct choice is .... the people responsible for the threat of violence are the scumbag terrorists. Duh.  Don't you see how this makes Terry Jones's point?  When he says that there's something wrong with portions of Islam?  Do you see where we've progressed to or digressed to, on this issue?  You can't burn a Qur'an, you can't incite the poor terrorists, you can't do something that will give Usama bin Ladin a recruiting poster, even if it is protected by freedom of speech; the First Amendment, you can't do it; we'll send the FBI to your church,  we'll take files out, we'll have somebody close down/ whoever runs your web  site/ your provider close it down, which is what happened. The FBI came, the provider said 'oh, you violated such and such a rule-no more web site for the church  ' . And they read him the riot act. God knows what they told him.  Who knows how they threatened him to get him to stop?  God spoke to him and told him not to do it.  Of course, first he said he had a deal 'the mosque will not be built there', yeah right, ... but don't you for one minute think that this is not the beginning of the end of the United States of America as you know it.

    Remember after 9/11 some started saying well, ... how is this different from the Imam himself who said that we were 'accesory to 9/11, and Usama
bin ladin was made in the united states, that we have Muslim blood on our hands'  ?  So shat do you expect, how is this different from Rev. Wright; 'the chickens have come home to roost.' 'cuz we support the Israelies & dropped bombs on Hiroshima? How is this different than what they're saying, when you tell a Pastor 'if you burn that book, the terrorists are going to strike and its your fault', how is it different than what Reverend  Wright and Imam Rauf and the rest of the skunks say about 9/11 and about this country deserving it ?  And whose to blame for 9/11; I always thought it was the terrorists, but  if you follow Barack Hussein Obama's logic; Hillary Clinton's logic' General Petraeus's logic; Defense Secretary Gates's logic and I'm sorry to say, just about everybody I've heard from's logic  if he';d burned the Qur'an and something had happened, it'd be his fault. How is that?

    Now, next in line will be, and we've already heard it,   We've heard it from the Imam: he can't move the mosque  from where he wants to build it; absolutely not, do you know why?   he can't do it ('Our national security now hinges on how we do this and how we speak about it and what we do . It is important now for us to raise the bar...
if we move the radicals have  shaped the discourse --the radicals have shaped the discourse on both sides and those of  us who are moderates on both sides ..')...

What will they demand next?  People like me, speaking up; 'you're inflaming the terrorists'; its our fault. Its terry Jones's fault, its the people who want the mosque moved's fault .  Its my fault, don't you get it?  Just like  its the U.S. Government's fault that 9/11 happened,
And now we, not me, are starting to accept it in this country.

Well, you'd better not burn the Qur'an, don't want to inflame the terrorists, well we don't do anything to  upset them-screw'em!    What the Hell is going on here?  

    Wolff & Wilders are on trial for "hate speech"  It is assumed  by LibTards that revealing the core doctrines & practices of Islam  inculcate hatred & incite violence. while in reality, the hatred is inculcated and the violence incited by the Qur'an, hadith, Sira & kutbah based upon them, preached in every mosque  every Friday afternoon.

    View Fitna. You saw the Qur'an, in Arabic and English. You heard it recited. You saw the Imam's preaching it. You saw the rioting, death and destruction which result.  Which is hate speech:  the sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest or exposing it to the world?   The Imams who preach from that accursed book should be in the dock, not Geert Wilders.  

    This is what the Secretary General of the U.N. said about that 17 minute video.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:

“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”

    The right of  free expression is at stake; there is ample justification for Fitna; none for the Qur'an.  Ban  ki-Moon is guilty of inverting morality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgkN42uAJQ&feature=player_embedded



    Wilders & Wolff are being tried under existing national hate speech legislation.  If the OIC prevails in its pursuit of tyranny, our nation will emulate those laws and our liberty will be lost forever.

    The annual resolutions are getting all the press. Who is paying attention to the activity of the Ad Hoc Cmte. which  presents the real threat?  The OIC outnumbers us and can out vote us.  We can not prevail by lobbying efforts. We can not prevail with bland, inoffensive petitions  calling for the defeat of impotent resolutions.  We need to raise the  political/public relations cost of  the OIC's mission to enslave us.  We need to use their own methods against them.

    Who has the SISU to reveal the truth about Islam?  Who will point out the fact that Islam's Qur'an & Sunnah are egregious static violations of existing human rights covenants?

ICERD. [Emphasis added.]

Article 4

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of this Convention, inter alia:
(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;
(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
(c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or incite racial discrimination.

States Parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin,

ICCPR

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

3:110. You [true believers in Islâmic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad  and his Sunnah (legal ways, etc.)] are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islâmic Monotheism and all that Islâm has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islâm has forbidden), and you believe in Allâh. And had the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) believed, it would have been better for them; among them are some who have faith, but most of them are Al-Fâsiqûn (disobedient to Allâh - and rebellious against Allâh's Command).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

2:91. And when it is said to them (the Jews), "Believe in what Allâh has sent down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us." And they disbelieve in that which came after it, while it is the truth confirming what is with them. Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allâh aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?" 
98:6. Verily, those who disbelieve (in the religion of Islâm, the Qur'ân and Prophet Muhammad  from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al-Mushrikûn will abide in the Fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.
9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in Allah's Cause. Killing him is a small matter to us." [Quoted by Craig Winn.]

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article 3

The following acts shall be punishable:

• (a) Genocide;
• (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
• (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
• (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
• (e) Complicity in genocide.

8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Sahih Muslim Book 041, Number 6985:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

    ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG require that Islam and its canon of scripture & tradition be condemned and proscribed by law.  Who will enforce those provisions?  They want to amend ICERD to use against us while it already condemns them!   How shall we deal with those arrogant violators of human rights?  Hoist them on their own petard!  Sign, publicized & promote the International Qur'an  Petition.  You can copy the full, html format petition, complete with  links to the evidence and a link to the signature page and paste it into an email, with an exhortation to sign and forward it.

---

1. Statement of   The OIC Secretary General His Excellency Prf. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu  Before the 15^th  Session of the Human Rights Council
   16 Sept. 2010  http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/8864sggenevaoic.pdf
2. ibid
3. The blog posts listed here contain quotes from & links to the few available documents related to the cmte. 
• Syria Spews al-Taqeyya 04/13/10 On April 12, 2010, Syria’s U.N. Ambassador addressed the 14^th session  of the  Ad Hoc Committee on Measures to eliminate international terrorism on behalf of the OIC.  I have selected three crucial excerpts from his prepared remarks.
•  Ad Hoc Committee: New Resolutions  03/20/10  Competing Nigerian & American drafts in  pursuit of a binding protocol to ICERD for the purpose of outlawing these blog posts.
• Letter from OIC to Ad Hoc Committee 11/13/09  This is about the drive to criminalize criticism of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished  Our freedom of expression is almost safe until their next session. 10/30/09
• Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper  08/04/09  The cmte. President's outline of the program of censorship. This document is crucial to comprehending the related posts which follow in this list.
• AdHoc Committee: African Submission  08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the Africa group's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• AdHoc Cmte USA Submission  08/03/09 This nation is governed by irrational idiots & traitors. Read it and weep.
• AdHoc Cmte: Pakistani Submission  08/03/09  Detailed analysis of the OIC's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee: Iranian Submission  08/03/09 Detailed analysis of Iran's proposal to censor critics of Islam.
• Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards 08/01/09  They aim to add a protocol to ICERD to criminalize these blog posts.
4. Combating defamation of religions
• A/HRC/RES/13/16  
• Defamation of Religions UNHRC March 25 ’10
• A/RES/64/164
• Combating Defamation of Religions: the Substance
5. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Terrorism Fatwa: Feces!

Shaykh-ul-Islam Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri has issued a 600 page fatwa, written in Urdu, which he hopes to have translated and published in English.
The fatwa is entitled: FATWA ON SUICIDE BOMBINGS AND TERRORISM. I have linked the title to an 88 page English summary in pdf format. It is likely that when published in English, the fatwa will appear on or near this minhaj books page.


Taken at face value, the fatwa appears to condemn violence against civilian populations without reservation. It places the greatest emphasis on condemning attacks against Muslims, particularly against Mosques. Unfortunately, I can not accept the fatwa at face value.

Cherry Picking: quote out of context

Beware of trickery: quoting the Qur'an out of context to distort the meaning of an ayeah, giving it a false application.
This occurs on page 52 of the description & summary where, writing about the terrorists, this citation is made:

The Holy Qur’an has vividly described them in this verse:
“It is those whose entire struggle is wasted in worldly life, but they presume they are doing very good works.” (Al-Qur’an, 18: 104)

In fact, that verse describes disbelievers; Jews & Christians. Observe the context. [Hilali & Khan quoted, linked to Pickthall, Shakir & Yusuf Ali; links below to Hilali & Khan and ten parallel translations Emphasis added for clarity.]

18:100. And on that Day We shall present Hell to the disbelievers, plain to view,

18:101. (To) Those whose eyes had been under a covering from My Reminder (this Qur'ân), and who could not bear to hear (it).

18:102. Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves [i.e., the angels, Allâh's Messengers, 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.] as Auliyâ' (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism).

18:103. Say (O Muhammad ): "Shall We tell you the greatest losers in respect of (their) deeds?

18:104. "Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life while they thought that they were acquiring good by their deeds!

18:105. "They are those who deny the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and the Meeting with Him (in the Hereafter). So their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection, We shall not give them any weight.

18:106. "That shall be their recompense, Hell; because they disbelieved and took My Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and My Messengers by way of jest and mockery.

Hilali & Khan
Qur'an Browser

Al-Taqeyya

On page 33, a new section begins, entitled "THE QUESTIONS THAT SPRING TO MIND AND THEIR BRIEF ANSWERS"

Q: The first question in this connection that concerns all relates to use of force to spread beliefs: is it lawful for a group or organisation to use force to promote and put into effect their own creed and beliefs in the name of reforming others’ beliefs and ideologies, presuming themselves to be on the right path? Does Islam allow, somehow, the killing of people because of ideological differences, looting their wealth and properties and destroying mosques, religious places and shrines?.

A: Islam is a religion of peace and safety that champions love and harmony in society. According to Islamic teachings, only such a person will be called a Muslim at whose hands the lives and properties of all innocent Muslims and non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt. The sanctity of human life and its protection occupies a fundamental place in Islamic law. Taking anyone's life for nothing is an act that is forbidden and unlawful. Rather, in some cases, it amounts to infidelity.[...] [Emphasis added, spelling original.]

Is it lawful for Islam to use force to promote and establish itself'; to make it superior over all other religions? Let us consult Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shari'ah.

O9.8: The Objectives of Jihad

The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) -which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral religions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High,

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled" (Koran 9.29),

the time and place for which is before the final descent of Jesus (upon whom be peace). After his final coming, nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent (upon him and our Prophet be peace), which is the divinely revealed law of Muhammad. The coming of Jesus does not entail a separate divinely revealed law, for he will rule by the law of Muhammad. As for the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"I am the last, there will be no prophet after me,"

this does not contradict the final coming of Jesus (upon whom be peace), since he will not rule according to the Evangel, but as a follower of our Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) ). [Emphasis & link added.]

Does Islam allow killing people because they are not Muslims and seizing their property? Once again, we turn first to Shari'ah for the answer. Book O, Chapter 9, Section 25 lists eight duties of subordinate rulers. The last item in the list is of interest to us.

O25.9

-8- and if the area has a border adjacent to enemy lands, an eighth duty arises, namely to undertake jihad against enemies, dividing the spoils of battle among combatants, and setting aside fifth (def: o10.3) for deserving recipients.

Of course that could only refer to established enemies of Islam who have been harassing & attacking Muslims, right? Wrong!

O9.1The Obligatory Character of Jihad

[...] In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

The first is when they are in their own countries, in which case jihad (def: o9.8) is a communal obligation, and this is what our author is speaking of when he says, "Jihad is a communal obligation," meaning upon the Muslims each year. [...]

Muslims have an annually recurring communal obligation to attack disbelievers even though they are in their own countries, peacefully attending their own domestic affairs. Allow killing people and taking their property? No, it is required, not allowed.

According to the Sheikh, " Islam is a religion of peace...at whose hands the lives and properties of all ...innocent non-Muslims remain safe and unhurt". The truth is that Allah issued imperatives to wage jihad against pagans until resistance ceases and Allah has a monopoly; against Jews & Christians until they are subjugated and make annual extortion payments. When we read Surahs al-Anfal & at-Taubah, we learn that Islam is permanent war.

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

So all innocent people remain safe and secure in their property? Caution! Words spoken by Muslims do not mean what you want them to mean, their meaning is assigned by the Muslims who speak them. Innocent means Muslim. If you are not Muslim, you are a rebel against Allah, waging war against him.

Another question and answer, found on pages 36 & 37 respectively, provides more proof that the fatwa is malignant maundery.

Q: The third question arises: does Islam offer clear commands on the sanctity of human life? Is it lawful to
kidnap and assassinate foreign delegates and innocent and peaceful non-Muslim citizens to avenge the
injustices and disruption of the non-Muslim global powers?

A: The importance Islam lays on the sanctity and dignity of human life can be gauged from the fact that
Islam does not allow indiscriminate killing even when Muslim armies are engaged in war against enemy
troops. The killing of children, women, the old, infirm, religious leaders and traders is strictly prohibited. Nor
can those who surrender their arms, confine themselves to their homes and seek shelter of anyone
be killed. The public cannot be massacred. Likewise, places of worship, buildings, crops and even trees
cannot be destroyed. On the one hand, there is a clear set of Islamic laws based on extreme discretion, and on
the other, there are people who invoke the name of Islam to justify the indiscriminate killing of people,
children, and women everywhere, without any distinction of religion or identity. It is a pity that such
barbaric people still refer to their activities as Jihad.

Lets see what Muhammad, the founder of Islam said about the sanctity of human life.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslim. Now let us examine the proscription on killing women and children; surely it must be founded on morality?

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. [...]

Note the acts which would defile and profane a holy war; two of them are relevant to our quest for truth.

• Make a holy war
• do not embezzle the spoils
• do not kill the children

What do embezzlement and killing children have in common? Our first hint will come from Shari'ah.

O9.13

When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Is it clear to you yet? If not, Ibn Taimiyyah has the final clue for you, from The Religious and Moral Doctrine On Jihad.

As for those who cannot offer resistance or cannot fight, such as women, children, monks, old people, the blind, handicapped and their likes, they shall not be killed, unless they actually fight with words [e.g. by propaganda] and acts [e.g. by spying or otherwise assisting in the warfare].

Some [jurists] are of the opinion that all of them may be killed, on the mere ground that they are unbelievers, but they make an exception for women and children since they constitute property for Muslims.

I emphasized the most critical clause in case there might be some readers with limited comprehension skills. The proscription on killing women and children is economic, not moral.

In the matter of those who surrendered; the Sheikh asserts that they must not be killed. Muhammad's excellent companions reveal the truth.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280:

Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri:

When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

So, what did Muhammad do?

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4390:
Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:
I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

They surrendered after a long siege, Muhammad decapitated them and threw them into a trench, then he did the same to their adolescent sons. Can you say genocide? Can you recognize the fact that, like all Muslims, the learned Sheikh is a liar; that his fatwa is malignant manure? If not, then do the nation a favor, burn your voter registration card.

Geert Wilders Trial: Deceptive Commentary

One of my Google Alerts led me to a post at Islam In Europe which disclosed the existence of an open letter from a group of Islam experts to the court In Amsterdam which is persecuting Geert Wilders.

a letter to the court



De Volkskrant, the Dutch newspaper used by the prosecutors to document what Geert Wilders allegedly said in violation of Dutch hate speech law, published a letter from a group of six Islam experts. It appears that this is the first of four "fact sheets" they intend to issue on the subject.

Unfortunately, the experts have engaged in the Islamic art of al-taqeyya & kitman. This blog post exposes their lies.

Deen Research Center posted the original Dutch letter and an English translation on their blog . Their translation is easier to read than the Google translation.

• Dr. Fred Leemhuis, Arabist, professor emeritus University of Groningen, vertaler De Koran, Unieboek 2007 The Koran translator, Union Book 2007
• Published Dutch translation of the Qur'an in 1989. http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2008/opinie20_08?lang=en
  
• Dr. Jan Michiel Otto, Recht en bestuur 3e wereld, Sharia, Directeur van Vollenhove Instituut, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Leiden
• Dr. Gerard Wiegers, hoogleraar Religiestudies aan de Faculteit der -Professor Gerard Wiegers, Professor of Religious Studies at the Faculty of Geesteswetenschappen van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) Humanities of the University of Amsterdam (UvA)
• Dr. Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus hoogleraar islamologie Univ.Leiden Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus professor of Islamic studies Univ.Leiden
• Dr. Ruud Peters, Arabische Taal en Cultuur, Sharia expert, UVA -Professor Dr. Mr. Ruud Peters, Arabic Language and Culture, Sharia expert, UVA
• Dr. Marlies ter Borg, auteur Koran en Bijbel in Verhalen, Unieboek 2007, redacteur Marlies ter Borg, author Koran and Bible Stories, Book Union in 2007, editor

Islam is a violent religion.

Rebuttal:

Mr Wilders refers, in support of its truths, often to the Koran. Please bring our professional knowledge of the Koran, to review his statements and method of quoting. We rely on taking the authoritative view of Professor F. Leemhuis, (Union Book 2007, www.bijbelenkoran.nl).

• Wilders said: "Islam means submission and conversion of non-Muslims." "A religion that seeks to eliminate others." Dv 14
• But in the Qur'an: "No compulsion in religion." K. 2:256

The experts like Pickthall's translation, so I will quote it, with a link to a table of ten parallel translations.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

To discover the circumstances behind the revelation of this ayeh, read Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: No Compulsion in Religion. Some of the Ansar had sworn to raise their children as Jews. When those Ansar converted, Muhammad did not force them to convert their children. Despite this specificity, Ibn Kathir says that the ayeh has general applicability. Another ayeh bears directly on this issue.

10:99. And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?
10:100. It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.

Unfortunately for the experts, other ayat contradict those three cited above. At first glance, Surah Al-Imran 110 appears to be irrelevant. But there is a hadith which clearly explains the meaning of the clause I have highlighted.

3:110. Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Verse:--"You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind." means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.

The wording varies slightly because Khan prefers his own translation of the Koran. It is obvious that bringing disbelievers to Islam in chains is not congruent with "no compulsion". It is also obvious that hadith which contradict the Koran can not be authentic. How then do you explain its inclusion in the most authentic of the six canonical collections? Is there something more? Of course there is.

8:39. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.

This ayeh answers two questions:

1. Is Islam violent?
2. Is Islam compulsive?

The verb is clear and obvious: fight. Al-Anfal 39 is in the form of a fight until loop, with a compound terminal condition.

• persecution is no more
• religion is all for Allah.

Persecution is a reference to the Meccan habit of hassling Muslims, who were viewed as a threat to their livelihood. The second part of the compound terminal condition is absolutely clear: only Allah is worshiped. Click through to the parallel translations and observe the wording of the other translations. The obvious meaning is confirmed by confirmed by Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.

One hadith confirms the meaning of this ayeh with extreme clarity. I have added emphasis to make the critical sentence stand out.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah." Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, "O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?" He replied, "Whoever says, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah', faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have."

Besides several variants of that hadith, there are two others which remove all doubt. I will quote excerpts, linking them to the hadith at USC-MSA for those who wish to read the context.

...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them...

...Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." ...

Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Islamic law, provides the ultimate confirmation. The clause I emphasized says it all.

O9.9

The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

The six eminent professors claimed to refute Wilders with a single ayeh. Is it possible that those scholars with doctoral degrees in the field are unaware of the conflicting ayat, hadith and Shari'ah, or were they practicing the art of kitman, lying by obfuscation?

• Wilders says: "And the Qur'an is the Mein Kampf of a religion that seeks to eliminate others ..."
• Mein Kampf (My struggle) calls for no more war. The Koran is sometimes called for violence, in other cases to peace and reconciliation, for example:
• "You will not shed each other's blood." K.2: 84-
• "God calls for the house of peace." K.10: 25
• "Does God not an obstacle ... to ... peace among the people. "K.2: 224
• "Think of God's mercy to you when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and by His grace you became brethren;" K.3: 103

It seems that Hitler was intent on imposing his racist system by force, invading much of Europe. History shows us that Muhammad and his rightly guided caliphs acted the same way in Arabia, Africa, Asia & Eastern Europe.

Take a good close look at the expert's citation to 2:84. What does it mean? Perhaps we should examine the full ayeh.

2:84. And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto).

This ayeh is about infighting among the nation, it is not about attacking other nations. Lets give the next citation the same treatment.

10:25. And Allah summoneth to the abode of peace, and leadeth whom He will to a straight path.

This ayeh is explained in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: Invitation to the Everlasting Gifts that do not vanish.

...(And Allah calls to the Abode of Peace) When Allah mentioned the swiftness of this world and its termination, He invited people to Paradise and encouraged them to seek it. He called it the Abode of Peace....

See how passive Islam is? Allah invites people to Paradise, the house of peace. Do the experts understand what a Muslim must do to gain admission to Paradise? He must fight in Allah's cause, participating in Jihad, killing and being killed to gain one of the best seats. See At-Taubah 111 & As-Saff 10-13 for the gritty details. Would they try to fool us again? Examine their next citation to find out.

2:224. And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

Ordinarily, I would quote the context to show you the egregious nature of the expert's deception, in this case I will not, because of the sexually explicit nature of the ayeh which proceeds 224. Instead, I will provide a link to three parallel translations hosted by USC-MSA, which you can easily scroll to view the context without clicking extra links. 2:223. Once again, Ibn Kathir's Tafsir gives us a vital clue to the meaning of the ayeh in question: The Prohibition of swearing to abandon a Good Deed.

...Allah commands, `You should not implement your vows in Allah's Name to refrain from pious acts and severing the relations with the relatives, if you swear to abandon such causes.'... (And make not Allah's (Name) an excuse in your oaths) means, "Do not vow to refrain from doing good works. (If you make such vow then) break it, pay the Kaffarah and do the good work.''...

Click the link to the tafsir, click the previous button, scroll to the bottom of the page and read the ayeh which is explained on the page I linked to. If you did not read the full context earlier, click the next button in the tafsir, scroll down to the bottom and read 2:226. It will then become clear to you that the experts misquoted an ayeh out of context for the purpose of deceiving the court by perverting the meaning of the verse. Lets check the next citation.

3:103. And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah's favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided,

To discover the context, begin at 3:98 and keep reading through 3:198. Ibn Kathir explains this ayeh in his tafsir: The Necessity of Holding to the Path of Allah and the Community of the Believers. I have removed the Arabic script and emphasized the key part of this excerpt.

(And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves.) It was said that, (to the Rope of Allah) refers to Allah's covenant, just as Allah said in the following Ayah, (Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah, and from men;) ﴿3:112﴾, in reference to pledges and peace treaties. ... (and remember Allah's favor on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His grace, you became brethren) ﴿3:103 ﴾.This was revealed about the Aws and Khazraj. During the time of Jahiliyyah, the Aws and Khazraj were at war and had great hatred, enmity and ill feelings towards each other, causing long conflicts and battles to occur between them. When Allah brought Islam, those among them who embraced it became brothers who loved each other by Allah's grace, having good ties for Allah's sake and helping each other in righteousness and piety.

This ayeh is about Muslims being united in warfare against disbelievers, not about making peace with disbelievers. Another ayeh, which Muslims will not quote to us, exposes the reality of Islam's attitude toward peace.

47:35.So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions.

The meaning should be obvious to you. If it is not, refer to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir: Nullifying the Disbelievers' Deeds and the Command to chase Them.

(So do not lose heart and beg for peace while you are superior.) meaning, in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the other hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah's Messenger did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years. Consequently, he agreed to that.

Fitna

The experts advance to charges related to the short documentary created and published by Geert Wilders.

• In the film Fitna quotes below were presented, together with "images of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York (11/9/2001), and the attacks by Muslim extremists in Madrid and London, accompanied by images of victims." DV7

• Wilders cites a half sentence from Surah 47 verse 4
  "If you have an encounter with those who disbelieve than hew the necks of them and when ye have caused a bloodbath bind them in chains." (Translation unknown, Theo van Gogh in focus)

• Wilders suggests that this called for a Muslim in peacetime 'infidels' to kill. This suggestion is reinforced by the images of bombings of civilians in peacetime. With this half quoting of the Quran verse, he in trouble: the enemy is apparently slain first and then be bound in irons. Why corpses seem to be put in chains is not clear.
  
  The same verse, is now complete:
  
  "And when you have those who disbelieve [in battle] meet, turn them dead, but if you then prevail over them have obtained fascinates them firmly,
  later as a favor to them or release them or to buy them separately, when the burden of the war are made. "Sura 47 verse 4 Leemhuis:
  
  The full quote shows:

• that this is a war is to kill enemy troops on the battlefield, and not to attack civilians in peacetime,
• according to the Koran quote must stop killing one soldier when once more prevails. There is no elimination of the enemy.
• the enemy from that moment must be captured to him after the war to be released.

This is in line with modern international law on war prisoner of war.

Lets take a close look at the cited ayeh.

47:4. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Did the experts quote the full verse? Is the translation accurate? Several translators use different expressions:

• when you have killed and wounded many of them
• made wide slaughter among them
• until ye have massacred them
• till ye have made a great slaughter among them
• until ye have made a great slaughter among them

http://www.openburhan.net/ displays a break down of the Arabic text: اثخنتموهم - you (p) exceeded in killing them/you weakened them; the dictionary they link to defines the Arabic word as subdued. Note the phrase I highlighted; how does it compare to the variant expressions in the other translations?

Ibn Kathir has something important to tell us about this ayeh. The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom

...It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy's soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them.... (It is not for a Prophet to have captives of war until he had made a great slaughter (among the enemies) in the land. You desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. Allah is Mighty and Wise. Were it not for a prior decree from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took.) (8:67-68)...

The experts have played fast and loose with the facts. They cited page 7 of the indictment as linking the images of the devastation in London, Madrid & New York to 47:4. The Koran references on that page, associated with those images, are: 8:60 and 4:56, associated with the next frame.

47:4 is not displayed until three frames later. The learned expert professors took the Koran out of context, but were not satisfied with that trick, they also took the indictment out of context!

8:60, which is associated with the images of devastation, commands Muslims to accrue weapons and war horses to strike terror into the hearts of enemies, both known and unknown. 8:57, not cited in the documentary, commands Muslims to punish their victims severely to serve as an example for others they wish to threaten.

If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.

• Wilders Sura 8 verse 60: "Make preparations against them with what you can to force people to take this horse and to terrorize, terrorize Allah's enemy and your enemy." Dv7
• Surah 8: 60-61 Pickthall: "And to make them as good as you can and deployable armaments horses ready for God's enemy and your enemy so intimidating and apart from those others that you do not know, but God knows . And what you also helping to give God's way, you will be reimbursed and you will not be wronged. And if they are inclined to peace, make this tendency and also put your trust in God; "
• The translation of Wilders appears without a source, wherein 'terrorize' ie "the systematic instill terror by violence, by terrifying violence and control." Leemhuis translates 'instill fear' "This is equal to scare away someone: a proven military strategy by means of war drums, production of weapons-without actually use - to persuade the enemy to refrain from violence. The deterrence strategy shown to prevent weapons of war. Compare the NATO strategy against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The slogan of the NATO armed to the teeth at the time was "Peace is our Profession". It worked.

Lets compare translations.

Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.[Pickthall]

• to strike terror into . [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
• frighten thereby the enemy [Shakir]
• terrify thereby [Arberry]
• strike terror into [Rodwell]
• strike a terror into [Sale]

Lets see what Muhammad had to say about terrorism.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy),

What is the practical application of this tactic?

33:26. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.

• "Destroy the infidels and polytheists, your (Allah's) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them until the very end. And let no one about. "Dv 7
  
  This sentence, with no source, is contrary to the Koran above quotes in their entirety in that direction, rather than a controlled 'total war' pages, and contrary to the Koran quote "no compulsion in religion. 2:256

But it is not contrary to 8:39 & 9:29 nor is it contrary to the infamous genocide hadith. The quote is from a video of an Imam rousing the rabble to Jihad.

• The comparisons between the texts as presented by Mr Wilders and the existing scientific knowledge of the contents of the Koran, we conclude first that the conclusion of Mr Wilders is not based on facts, but only on improperly constructed "facts".

Scientific knowledge? Being Muslim makes them scientists, no reference to tafsir, hadith or jurisprudence is required, just scientific expertise.

• Second, a more general question arises about the statement of Mr Wilders that Islam is a violent religion. Could it actually be true that a religion is violent?

So Islam is peaceful, not violent? How then do you explain the title of the 8:^th surah: "The Spoils" ? Why does the "religion of peace" need rules for allocation and division of spoils of war? Why does it need terms such as fei & ganimah to describe spoils of war? Why did Allah give Muhammad special dispensation to accrue spoils? Why did Allah say "Ye desire the lure of this world" to Muhammad in 8:67? Why did Allah promise "abundant spoils that you will capture". Why does Shari'ah say :"the caliph makes war on Jews and Christians" and "the caliph fights all other peoples"?

• Religion is a set of values, norms, and writings. Religion is preached and adhered to by people. Violence is an action committed by people and groups of people, not a religion. Religion itself is not violent or peaceful.

How do you explain the existence of Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which are entirely dedicated and devoted to warmongering? How do you explain the existence of books of jihad or expedition in four of the six canonical hadith collections? How do you explain the communal obligation to attack disbelievers at least once in every year? Doubt this? Click the link above to Reliance of the Traveller, Search for Book O, Search for Chapter 9 and start reading.

• Claiming a religion as violent is a suggestive way to accuse a group of people, some believers, as being violent.

How did Hindu Kush get its name? What does it mean? Why are Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Egypt Islamic? Was violence involved?

• Scientific research indicates that in the Quran, as in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, both incitements to violence and peace are to be found. This can be verified by anyone.

Show me the New Testament book, chapter and verse in which Jesus Christ issues open ended, outcome oriented commands to engage in conquest without geographic or temporal limits; the equivalent of 8:39 & 9:29. The ancient Hebraic conquest/genocide imperatives were limited to particular places and people, once they were completed, they expired. Islamic jihad continues from 610 to Judgment Day.

The lesson learned: Islam is not more violent than Christianity.

• Christianization and Islamization have been globally accepted voluntary and partly by force, if .., because fair to say that much about that history is not known.
• It is known that many more victims died in internal conflicts among Christians, than the relatively few wars between Christians and Muslims. Conflicts such as the Thirty Years War or the war between Turkey and Persia dragged on longer and cost more casualties than the war against the Turks eg culminating in the Battle of Vienna.
• The time when it was generally accepted that one faith is spread by the sword has passed. This applies to both Islam and Christianity. Extremists are an exception to the general consensus.

Christianity was co-opted by the Roman Empire. Unlike Islam, it has no intrinsic war imperative. Islam has a 1400 year record of rapine, accruing an estimated total of 270*10⁶ victims.

Those are not extremists, they are salafists, emulators of Muhammad. Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his Messenger. "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow" . What did he do?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 59, Number 285:

Narrated Abu Ishaq:

Once, while I was sitting beside Zaid bin Al-Arqam, he was asked, "How many Ghazwat did the Prophet undertake?" Zaid replied, "Nineteen." They said, "In how many Ghazwat did you join him?" He replied, "Seventeen." I asked, "Which of these was the first?" He replied, "Al-'Ashira or Al-'Ashiru."

Terrorism

• Terrorists are not representative of Islam
  
  Radical Islamists committing attacks and now regularly seek to acquire state power in Muslim-majority countries. The latter, however, they very rarely succeed, what makes them resentful, and leads to new attacks. Most of the terrorist attacks by Islamists, have Muslim victims. Logically, the vast majority of Muslims disapproves of this violence.

Islam is not logical, it is a way of life imposed on people by force. 3:151 & 8:12 sanctify and mandate terrorism. 33:26 & 59:2 exemplify it. Islam's founder declared that he was made victorious by terror.

• There are also peaceful sounds within Islamic circles.
  
  Every Muslim knows that the word "Islam" comes from the same root as the word 'salaam' (Hebrew: "Shalom"), in both languages it means 'peace'. With this knowledge, 138 (grown to 307) authoritative Muslims, political and spiritual leaders and intellectuals, have sent in 2007 an open letter to their Christian counterparts.
  
  "The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians. The basis for peace and understanding already exists ... the love of God and neighbor in both religions and preached in both the Bible and the Koran can be found. "

Wikiislam has an etymology chart which makes the matter clear:

Word	Arabic	Meaning
Islam	اسلام	Submission
Salam	سلام	Well-being/Peace

The Ulema's missive "A Common Word between Us and You". is an obvious deception, it is an extortion letter cleverly disguised as an overture of peace. One blog: Go Burn With Muhammad is entirely devoted to pointing out the malignant malarkey in that missive.

---

Arabist Hans Jansen wrote a brief rebuttal, this is a Google translation. .

The letter of retired professors, Wilders on the process, about the peacefulness of Islam, a trifle late to be desired. There are no references to sermons in the mosque, to manuals of Sharia, or Koranic commentaries. Also, the letter was not by Muslim religious leaders meeondertekend. The most important Muslim theologian is Tofiq Dibi agrees. The letter is a dream: if only that Islam is like the letter writers make.

In sermons in the mosque, in the manuals of the sharia and the Koran commentaries calling for the harassment, murder and make war on dissent. It is very easy to control. The Koran itself can very easily be interpreted as an instruction to intimidation, assassination, murder, and war - but when the Amsterdam court says that the true meaning of the Qur'anic text is just very peaceful, then all the problems with Islam course solved in one stroke. It is inconceivable for Muslims the Koran as a license to kill would dare conceive as the Amsterdam court maintains that the Koran is not actually a license to kill is.