Imam Rauf's Veilled Threat

In the fog of ideological & psychological warfare, with conflicting claims of  a face saving compromise which would relocate the Ground Zero Mosque  of triumph and save the Florida Qur'ans from a fiery fate,  we need to get back to basics and focus on the significant core issues.

    The Imam behind the Ground Zero Mosque of Triumph, Feisal Abdul Rauf,  issued a  thinly veiled threat in an interview with The Larry King Show. The Washington post included a video clip in their article., headlined: "Imam Rauf: National security hinges on Mosque debate".

    The Post placed this quote  above the video: "Our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it."

This was a particularly difficult interview to transcribe because both the interviewer and interviewee spoke rapidly and  with soft voices.  The video buffers too slowly on my connection, my  eustachian tubes were not clearing, and my hearing aids are incompatible with my headset.  I had to use the telecoils, and my monitor is louder than my headset.  I did not get everything, but this should be close enough to convey the important meaning. 

..."But I also have a responsibility. If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse, the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack. And I am less concerned by the radicals in America than I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. ... the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security--to the nationals security of our troops- I have a niece who works in the Army in [inaudible] Iraq-- the concern for American citizens who live and work and travel overseas will increasingly be compromised if the radicals are strengthened.

If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression. The idea of [inaudible] is to create something like a Muslim Y. The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions by having young men and young women, of course they were separate at that time; YMCA/YWCA, common bond you know, by doing sports together and other programs together. [inaudible]
And that second street Y was an attempt by the Jewish community  to create a center where you'd create that kind of bonding.   We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that.

(What's on the table now?)
The biggest issue is the national security issue.
(How do you pull out without looking like you've lost?)

Without making it look both in this country and in the Muslim world.  You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world.  And we are very engaged with the Muslim world.  And our security is really number one, our national security, our personal security is extremely important. And this issue has become now a national security issue. And therefore in our conversations, in our decision making process, we have to weigh many many factors and that has been dominant among them.

(Is there a middle ground that has you pull out of the center and do something else? that's what it sounds like you are saying.)  We are discussing many things right now but, you know, we haven't found yet an option  that would work in a safe way.

(What are ... what you are considering?)

As I said,. we consider everything in life. but we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation.

(Given what you know now, would you have built?)

As I mentioned it, this story is not new. People knew about it.  ...(Right, but given what you know now would you have said 'listen, lets not do it there because...'  because it sounds like  you are saying, in retrospect , you wouldn't have done it? )

Well,yes, if...if...(You would not have done it?)
If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,

(...There are so many people who say... if you are saying it was a mistake, then why can't you get out of it and not do it?)

because we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict.

(Why do you think this structure is causing all this controversy now? )

Well there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country (what now?) and we have seen it in the attacks upon mosques in various parts of the country in the last several weeks. So it is clear that this issue is not just about our center which is an attempt to create peace between Muslims and  non-Muslims but this has aroused a certain anti-Islam sentiment which is unfortunate in this country--we need to look at it and have a discourse about it and make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms.  So this is the conversation we need to have right now.

(Lets talk about money: one hundred million dollars is the price tag for this Islamic cultural center, where are you going to get the money?)

Well we have yet to raise a capital campaign...(You have no money for it yet?)

We haven't raised any money for it yet.  .

(Where will you get the money?)

We'll get the money from whatever sources we can, domestically especially, and be very transparent about how we raise the money. This has been something that we have committed ourselves to . (Meaning you will list whoever is giving you money?) Yes.  ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) Absolutely. (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do.

(Which means what exactly? Because that's an extra condition?)  You see, I'm the visionary behind it, I'm not the actual builder, I'm not the financial expert, I'm not  the legal expert on these things, but I have a vision here of  establishing something which I know, in my heart of hearts, will be a powerful instrument of peace.

(  Who would you not take money from, who would you say no to, who would you turn away?)

We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process.  (People I think, here in New York and around the country would say ' that is sacred land, that is a special place for everyone in America-- is that a step toward peace?) As Clyde Haberman [sp?] and many many people have said, "look what exists in that neighborhood", look what exists around the corner.  ( Oh, I believe you, I've lived downtown, so I know the neighborhood very well. )

So lets be clear, calling this particular block sacred  ground is and what exists there... you know...(strip clubs and delis, I've been there a million times, but I think when people call it sacred ground, they're saying something terrible  happened on this spot and and we've...)

We've got to be fair you can't say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground. We've got to be just, we've got to speak the truth we've got to have justice for everybody,  we're a country of justice for all, not just for non-Muslims only or some groups and not for others This is what America is all about, Solidad. We've got to really mean what we say and say what our values  are truly about.

This isn't... the discourse has been hijacked by people who say "no".

(you've heard about this Pastor in Florida, Terry Jones,who is proposing burning Qur'ans on 9/11,  what do you think of that?)

I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. ...
.
(Do you  think he has a right to do it?)

And more importantly, well, we have freedom in this country, freedom of speech, but with freedom comes responsibility.  It is a famous saying to shout fire in a crowded theatre, this is dangerous for our national security, and also the un-Christian thing to do.  Jesus Christ didn't teach us to do that, we Muslims have a ... we look to the example of our Prophet- to our Prophet's sunnah. Many Christians say, 'What would Jesus do"
Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, Jesus taught us to love your enemy, we are not your enemies.  This is what Jesus taught us to do, and I would like to suggest that  you know--we all have to live  by the highest principles of our faith traditions  

• "If we move from that location the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse" 

I presume he means  us, the Americans who resist the erection of a victory Mosque on the scene of the  accursed abomination.

• "the headline in the Islamic world will be that Islam is under attack."

The finger of blame switches from those who are poking a gigantic middle finger in our eye to those of us who are vociferously resisting  the attack.

• "I am concerned  by the radicals in the Muslim world. "... 
• "the danger from the radicals in the MW to our national security"

    "Radical" Muslims are likely to throw stones and bombs at our troops, assault tourists and businessmen overseas, and terrorize us at home because we vocally resist the erection of  their symbol of triumph in the place where they murdered 2700 people nine years ago.   We are accused of provoking our tormentors by resisting them.   Does anyone else perceive the moral inversion performed in this case?

    Muslims are taught that any step taken to injure or anger us is imputed to their credit as a deed of righteousness, to be weighed against their sins on Judgment Day.  You'd learn that fun fact in 9:120, if you'd read that damn Qur'an instead of ignoring or burning it. They don't need any incentive from us to attack us. 

• "If we do move it, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit  and their increasing aggression."

    If they relocate the project, moderate Muslims will be radicalized and recruited by terrorists.  The difference between a moderate and a radical is that the latter is fully aware of Allah's imperatives and seeks to implement them.  Moderates are either ignorant or indolent,  those whom Muhammad called hypocrites whose Islam goes no deeper than their throats.  They profess but do not practice.   We have been told that  relocating the project from Ground Zero will cause more Muslims to seek to implement Allah's imperatives.  In that case, is there any real difference in the beliefs of radicals and moderates?

• "The YMCA was created one hundred and thirty years ago. to improve relationships between what was then called the American protestant religions"...
• "We are now, today, where the Jewish community and the Catholic community was maybe seventy years ago, a century ago and this is our time; our turn to do that."

    A Young Muslim's Christian Association?  Oh, right, a Young Muslim's Association.   The Y serves 45 million people in 120 countries. Guess which countries ain't served.  No Y in Arabia or North Africa, why is that?  But we need another Muslim (terrorist) recruiting station in New York. Yeah, right.

• "The biggest issue is the national security issue."

    How big is it?  How many more attacks, how much increase in the scale of those attacks? If that face saving compromise Pastor Terry Jones thought he had worked out was genuine, would that result in a national security problem?

• "You must remember that what we do is watched all over the world."
• this issue has become now a national security issue.

    The question was one of  relocating the project without the appearance of defeat. How about the reality?  It would be a strategic setback because any alternative location would not have the psychological effect of the Ground Zero location, it would contribute much less to the Muslim's sense of triumph.  The answer speaks volumes.  Rauf is concerned about defeat in the eyes of the Ummah.  But anything that deflates their egos should bring about some reduction in recruitment and enthusiasm for terrorism. That would make a positive contribution to peace and security.  Strategy is inverted along with morality.

• "we haven't found yet an option  that would work in a safe way"

    No options that would not increase the security risk?  We get more attacks unless the symbol of Islamic supremacy is erected on the site of the abomination?

• "we have to be very cautious here because the voices of the radicals have ratcheted up and we must make sure that the moderates take over the conversation"

    The emphasis is on "radicals" and "moderates". The moderate voice is quiescent because "moderates" are not zealots; they are not empowered and motivated to speak out and act; they are passive.  The "radicals" have the mission, motivation and machine guns; they are activated.

    Did anything escape your attention in that quote? Look again.  Who is Rauf concerned with?  Only Muslims; our perceptions, attitudes, feelings and interests don't count, they are not under consideration. He ain't interested in anyone but Muslims.

• "If I knew this would happen, this would cause this kind of pain, I wouldn't have done it.  My life has been devoted to peace making,"

    Rauf was not expecting a vigorous, vociferous reaction.  He was not expecting intensive and extensive news coverage.  Did he make a war?  No, he made a controversy, and that ain't exactly the polar opposite of "peace making".  Of course, Muslims make peace by subjugating disbelievers. Peace follows victory.

• "we have to now make sure that whatever we do actually results in greater peace, not in greater conflict."

    He can not admit defeat and back down because that would result in "greater conflict".  If we surrender, that results in peace; if he surrenders, that results in conflict.  Got a clue yet?

• "there is a certain amount of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country"
• " it is clear that this issue is not just about our center"
• "make sure this does not dominate the discourse between us because Americans believe fundamentally  and in a very fundamental strong way about freedom of religion, about separation of governments and churches, in separation of church and state which means the power of the government should not be used to coerce people to believe in any religion but it should be used to defend and protect religious rights and freedoms."

    Nineteen Muslims hijacked four airliners and flew three of them into office buildings.  Their act was motivated by the preaching and example of Muhammad bin Abdullah, the founder of Islam.  Their act was celebrated by Muslims all over the world.  What sort of fool expects us to have a neutral or pro-Islamic sentiment after that?   A cockpit voice recorder was recovered, exposing  exclamations of "Allahu akhbar" as the flight crew was murdered.   People wondered why, and research was done; books and movies were created which expose the doctrines and practices of Islam.  Some of us looked up the Barbary Wars, and what we discovered in  the historical recored confirmed what we learned  from your texts and outraged us.

    How is it possible to have a discourse not dominated by the fact that your demon demands that you conquer and subjugate us?   Freedom of religion means that we can choose any religion or none at all. Islam demands that it have a monopoly, that only Allah be worshiped.  The two are not compatible, they are polar opposites.

    Separation of Church and state means that the two institutions are independent, they do not interfere in each other's affairs. Islam demands that all law be Allah's law, Shari'ah, not man made legislation.  That is the polar opposite of separation of church and state.   Freedom of religion and separation of church and state do not serve as your license to wage war on us or dominate us by out breeding us, subversion & sedition.

• ( Will you turn down money from people who give money to say, HAMAS?) "Absolutely". (No question about it; anyone who gives money to HAMAS can not give money to you ?) "We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and safe thing   to do."
• "We would turn it from anybody who was deemed to be a danger to this process."

    Wear your black dot garden gloves to keep a grip on this snake. Why is HAMAS an issue?  Rauf will not acknowledge the fact that it is a terrorist organization.  Neither would he acknowledge the fact, if asked, that there is no difference between HAMAS  and Islam.

    Giving money to HAMAS is illegal. Taking money from HAMAS donors is not illegal.  Their willingness to donate to you  as well as  to HAMAS tells us  who & what you are. The fact that you want to disassociate yourself from them provides the same information.  But we already knew that you are Muslims.  What constitutes a "danger to this process" ?  The implication is that you would reject money from anyone whose reputation or associations would impair your false image of peaceful  moderation.

• "We've got to be fair you can't say a place that has strip joints is sacred ground."
  

    What makes any ground sacred?  What desecrates it?  If the flesh, bone & blood of your family and associates is finely divided and splattered over several city blocks by an aircraft  impact   and the subsequent collapse of  the impacted building,  are that place, those scattered remains and their memories any less sacred  to you than they would be in a consecrated cemetery  in your church yard?  In fact, there was a church on that site.  Is the site desecrated by the presence of strip joints and other business establishments which pre-existed the accursed abomination?

    If your loved one and  colleagues were murdered by assassins motivated by the damnable doctrines of an accursed war cult, what is the effect on your psyche of the erection, on the site where the ash and smoke of your loved one settled, of a shrine where the war cult's devotees will remind their  demon seventeen times every day of how your loved one and you have "earned" his wrath & "gone astray"; a place where they will curse us and supplicate their demon for "victory over the disbelieving folk"?  Does that or does that not impair the sanctity of the site more than a strip club around the corner?  

• "I would plead with him to seriously consider what he is doing. (Why?)  Its going to feed to the radicals in the Muslim world.  Its dangerous, General Petraeus has said that. It is something that is not the right thing to do on that ground. ..."

    Burning a Qir'an as a symbol of objection to the damnable doctrines enshrined therein and the accursed actions inspired thereby and to the erection of a  shrine to them  in a place where those  damnable doctrines and accursed actions resulted in more than 2000 deaths  "feeds radicals"  but burning the American flag, the symbol of liberty and justice for all, chanting "death to America" ,  and bearing signs reading "Islam will dominate the world" and "freedom go to Hell" along with "behead those who Insult Islam"  are innocent acts of no import or impact whatsoever, though they are carried out by thousands where as Terry Jones has fifty in his congregation.  Proportionality, anyone?  Can you perceive moral inversion??

• 'What would Jesus do" 

    He lectures us  by Jesus?  Unholy sacrilege!!! The Islamic version of Jesus is Allah's slave, not God's son, was not crucified, neither was he killed nor resurrected.  And he will return to lead the Muslims in  battle against us, the final and ultimate genocide.  He will rule the world by the Qur'an.   The arrogance of Muslims knows no bounds.  If you have any doubt about the veracity of this paragraph, read this blog post: The Defamation of Jesus Christ. Feisal Abdul Rauf,Park 51.Terry Jones,Quran burning,moderate,radical,Muslims

Blogburst: Alan Keyes against the Flight 93 memorial

Alec Rawls sent out another blogburst, updating the protest planned for Saturday September 11, 2010. Unfortunately I got behind in reading my email and neglected it.

    As previously promised, Alec included an image of  his newspaper advertisement and a link to the pdf file which you can print and mount on  poster board or in  a window.

    Please do whatever you can to  stop the erection of a symbol of Islamic triumphalism at the crash site!

---

Conservative hero Alan Keyes is asking whether there is a pattern of submission surrounding the nation's 9/11 sites. Apparently he has seen our video expose of Islamic and terrorist memorializing features in the crescent memorial to Flight 93 (now called a broken circle). Like any straight-thinker, he doesn't like what he sees. The Flight 93 crash site is no place for a giant Islamic-shaped crescent, no matter what it is called. On this point, Keyes cites Colorado Representative Tom Tancredo's 2005 objection to the newly unveiled Crescent of Embrace design:

Back in 2005, then-Rep. Tom Tancredo was reported to have sent a letter to the National Park Service "asking the Interior Department to reconsider the crescent-shaped design of the memorial to those aboard a plane hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001, because some may think it honors the terrorists." Tancredo quite sensibly argues that "regardless of whether 'the invocation of a Muslim Symbol' was intentional, 'it seems that such a symbol is unsuitable for paying appropriate tribute to the heroes of Flight 93 or the ensuing American struggle against radical Islam.'"

Keyes notes our claim that the design is still replete with terrorist memorializing features and he seems to find it credible. Why shouldn't he? The damning features are all right there in architect Paul Murdoch's design drawings. Thank you Doctor Keyes! "It’s not just embarrassing. It is a dangerous willful blindness, spurning the woken vigilance of Flight 93." That's the last line of the full-page advertisement that Tom Burnett Senior and Alec Rawls will be running in the Somerset Daily American this Friday and Saturday (when the two first ladies will be in town for the 9/11 anniversary): Click for legible image. Full ad-copy PDF here (large file warning). We are hoping that visitors will hold onto our ad, maybe even tape it to their car windows, and most especially, show it to any press people they come across. Hey, if the Park Service can use 9/11 to plant the world's largest mosque on the Flight 93 crash site, we can use 9/11 to object. To join our blogburst against the crescent mosque, just send your blog's url.

Qur'an: Read it before Burning it

General Petraeus is quoted by the Associated Press (on Yahoo! news) as saying that Qur'an burning would inflame passions.

"Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence,"

    The Secretary General of Nato is quoted in a similar vein.

"would be in a strong contradiction with the all the values we stand for and fight for."

    Did Christians riot, destroy property and kill people when a photograph was published as "art" showing a crucifix immersed in urine?  Did they riot when elephant dung was used in ersatz  iconography?  But Muslims, whipped to a frenzy by rabid clerics in Juma Salat  riot on the basis of unfounded rumors as well as such egregious offenses as the Motoons & Fitna.

    If rabid Muslims are going to harm our troops because a few Qur'ans are burned,  they will also use  blog posts, books, videos and articles exposing the intrinsic evil of Islam as a pretexts for outrageous acts of violence.  If we follow the General's illogic, we must forbid all criticism of Islam, effectively annulling the First Amendment.

    CNN quotes General Petraeus as saying that the Qur'an burning could "endanger" our troops and the mission.  CNN quotes a statement from our Embassy in Kabul in which the Embassy condemns the Qur'an burning. in terms such as "acts of disrespect against the religion of Islam", "deliberate attempts to offend members of religious or ethnic groups"  and "offensive messages, which are contrary to U.S. government policy ".

    Msnbc  reports on the remarks of Attorney General Eric Holder and other critics.  They quote Holder as calling the burning "idiotic and dangerous" . They quote a group of religious leaders as referring to "anti-Muslim frenzy"  and  "disrespect for a sacred text".

"To attack any religion in the United States is to do violence to the religious freedom of all Americans," 

    State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley is quoted  in a fulminating denunciation

"We think that these are provocative acts, they are disrespectful, they are intolerant, they are divisive,"

Crowley called the burning "inconsistent with our American values" and "un-American".

    Our servicemen are in harm's way in Afghanistan, viewed by the locals as "occupiers" to be tormented, killed and driven away. When  Dar ul-Islam is invaded, jihad to repel the invaders is fard ayn, an individually binding religious obligation upon all able bodied male Muslims. I direct the attention of doubters and dissenters to Reliance of the Traveller, Book o9.1. They do not need any additional provocation.

    Dove World calls Islam Satanic.  It intends to protest Islam's attacks on us by burning Qur'ans. Is that  an attack on a religion?  Is Islam a religion?  Muslims do use that word, but the principal term used to describe Islam is Deen: way of life.  What is that way of life?  What is its economic base, is it agriculture? Is it construction? Is it manufacturing? Is it trade and commerce?  One saying  attributed to Muhammad answers these questions for us. Read it carefully; I added emphasis to  make critical points clear to you.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.

    Muhammad told the Muslims that if they engage in trade & agriculture to the exclusion of jihad Allah will curse them until they return to "your original religion". What did they give up? What must they return to? Jihad.  What is jihad?  Is jihad an-nafs, the struggle against ego and temptation an alternative to agriculture? How  would it produce food or income with which to purchase food?   What is jihad, and how does it rival  agriculture as an economic activity?

    Fortunately for us, Islamic law includes a clear and unambiguous definition of jihad. For clarity and ease of exploration, I have added emphasis and links to external references.

o9.0: Jihad

(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs), which is why the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said as he was returning from jihad.

``We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad.''

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

-1- ``Fighting is prescribed for you'' (Koran 2:216);

-2- ``Slay them wherever you find them'' (Koran 4:89);

-3- ``Fight the idolators utterly'' (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

``I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah'';

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

``To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.''Details concerning jihad are found in the accounts of the military expeditions of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), including his own martial forays and those on which he dispatched others. The former consist of the ones he personally attended, some twenty-seven (others say twenty-nine) of them. He fought in eight of them, and killed only one person with his noble hand, Ubayy ibn Khalaf, at the battle of Uhud. On the latter expeditions he sent others to fight, himself remaining at Medina, and these were forty-seven in number.)

    Jihad means "to war on non-Muslims".  How does it produce income?  The Qur'an has the answer to this question, distributed over several surahs. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.

8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.

    Al-Anfal is variously translated as "The Spoils", "War Booty" or "The Windfalls". If Islam is a "religion of peace", why does its scripture tell us that Moe gets the loot, specifically the top 20%. That top 20% is called Khums.  In Bukhari's collection of authentic hadith, the Book of Khumus describes the division of the spoils.    Of course, that must be a rare and occasional  necessity, because Islam is a "religion of peace".  So why does that book contain 88 ahadith?

    In Surah Al Fath, we learn that Allah has promised the Muslims "rich spoils" that they will capture.

48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.

48:20. Allâh has promised you abundant spoils that you will capture, and He has hastened for you this, and He has restrained the hands of men from you, that it may be a sign for the believers, and that He may guide you to a Straight Path.

48:21. And other (victories and much booty there are, He promises you) which are not yet within your power, indeed Allâh compasses them, And Allâh is Ever Able to do all things.

    Did Allah deliver on his promise of "abundant spoils"?

33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.

33:27. And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.

    In another ayeh, Allah reveals Moe's motivation: "the good of this world".  What does that mean?

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.

    The translators included a parenthetical expression taken from tafsir. That expression tells us what Moe wanted: ransom money.  The mission of Islam is mercenary, neither beneficent, spiritual nor anodyne.  "Religion of peace"?  Waging war, making a great slaughter is one of the duties of a Prophet.  Got a clue yet?

    The hadit have more clues for the clueless.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4327:
The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us, This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.

    Taking spoils was taboo among the Arabs. Allah gave Moe special dispensation because he saw Moe's weakness and humility.  Lets take a good, close look at that humility. Khan bowdlerized this hadith when he translated Bukhari. Aisha Bewley did not.

Bukhari  Ch 61 # 2756: ...It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.

    How did Moe get his provision? What happened to anyone who disobeyed his command?  So Allah saw his weakness and humility..... Humility?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
 Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

    How was Moe made victorious?  Who brought him the keys to the treasures of the world?  What of those treasures?

 Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 267:
    Narrated Abu Huraira:
    The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'.  

    How about those treasures, did they inure to Moe's benefit?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495:

    Narrated Abu Huraira:

    Whenever a dead man in debt was brought to Allah's Apostle he would ask, "Has he left anything to repay his debt?" If he was informed that he had left something to repay his debts, he would offer his funeral prayer, otherwise he would tell the Muslims to offer their friend's funeral prayer. When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, he said, "I am more rightful than other believers to be the guardian of the believers, so if a Muslim dies while in debt, I am responsible for the repayment of his debt, and whoever leaves wealth (after his death) it will belong to his heirs. "

How did Allah make Moe wealthy?

    I have presented proof of the centrality of Jihad in Islam, that it is a predatory way of life, predation upon the non-Islamic human race, Dar ul-Harb, the land of war.  Why is it the land of war?  Because it is not yet under Islam's domination.

    The entire world must be brought under Islamic domination because Allah's word must be made superior.

9:33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâm), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) hate (it).

48:28. He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâm), that He may make it (Islâm) superior over all religions. And All-Sufficient is Allâh as a Witness.

61:9. He it is Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâmic Monotheism) to make it victorious over all (other) religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh and in His Messenger Muhammed ) hate (it).

    Two ayat declare that Islam must be made superior, one declares that it must be made victorious.  How would that happen?  The  context has a clue for you.

61:10. O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment.

61:11.  That you believe in Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad ), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know!

61:12. (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of 'Adn ­ Eternity ['Adn (Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success.

    "Strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allâh"; whatever could that mean?  How would that make Islam victorious & dominant?

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 65:

Narrated Abu Musa: A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

13:41. See they not that We gradually reduce the land (of disbelievers, by giving it to the believers, in war victories) from its outlying borders. And Allâh judges, there is none to put back His Judgement and He is Swift at reckoning.   

   
    Muslims fight in Allah's cause, to make Islam dominant. Allah gives them the  disbeliever's land in war victories.  Got a clue yet?

    Two ayat in Surah Al-Anfal tell us most of what we need to know about Islam.

8:38. Say to those who have disbelieved, if they cease (from disbelief) their past will be forgiven. But if they return (thereto), then the examples of those (punished) before them have already preceded (as a warning).

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.

    Who: disbelievers.  What? Fight them until resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped in the whole world.  Got a clue yet?  Surah At-Taubah has another clue for  the clueless.

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.

    But Islam is a "great religion of peace".   Surely those conquest imperatives must be  metaphorical, allegorical or anachronistic. Yeah, right. I already showed you one of the confirming ahadith, in that quote from Reliance. "commanded to fight the people until"... . That same section told you that jihad is warfare against disbelievers.  But you did not get a clue.  Shari'ah has another clue for you.  Those conquest imperatives are codified into Islamic law and one of them specifies its scriptural basis.
   

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) ).

    The caliph makes war on  "people of the scripture"  until they are subjugated and  make annual extortion payments.  The scriptural basis is At-Taubah 29.
Allah said "fight them" ; Moe said " I am commanded to fight" .  What did Moe do?  What did his rightly guided caliphs do?  How did Islam build an empire that stretched from the border of China to the border of France?

    When America won its war of revolution, it no longer had the protection of the British fleet. Her shipping was sacked by the Barbary Pirates. The young nation was nearly bankrupted by paying tribute.  Adams & Jefferson asked by what right they attacked us.  The answer has another clue for you.

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [Wikepedia]

    Examine the crucial elements.

• Laws of the Prophet
• written in their Koran
• who should not have answered their authority were sinners,
• right and duty to make war upon them
• make slaves of all they could take as prisoners
• every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven

    Can you connect the dots?  If not, you are a certified LibTard, like Holder, Clinton & Obama.  The ambassador's obnoxious statement is strikingly similar to a statement made  to a Persian general on a battlefield. This quote comes from Sahih Bukhari 4.53.386

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."

Examine the crucial elements.

• ordered us to fight you
• until you worship Allah alone
• or give jizya
• martyrs go to Paradise
• survivors enslave you

    Are you intelligent enough to connect the dots or are you a LibTard, impervious to all evidence?  Why do Muslims attack us; are they grievance driven or doctrine driven?  Is Islam a "religion of peace" ? Has it been "perverted",  "twisted" or "hijacked"?

    Is the Qur'an a holy book, the sacred word of Allah or was it contrived by a venal con man, woven of plagiarized pseudepigrapha  and situational scripture?   You won't find the answer from the Qur'an alone, you need  hadith to complete the puzzle. Moe, like modern cult leaders, had groupies. Moe wanted to accept their sexual advances. Allah accommodated his wishes.

33:50. O Prophet (Muhammad )! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those (captives or slaves) whom your right hand possesses - whom Allâh has given to you, and the daughters of your 'Amm (paternal uncles) and the daughters of your 'Ammah (paternal aunts) and the daughters of your Khâl (maternal uncles) and the daughters of your Khâlah (maternal aunts) who migrated (from Makkah) with you, and a believing woman if she offers herself to the Prophet, and the Prophet wishes to marry her; a privilege for you only, not for the (rest of) the believers. Indeed We know what We have enjoined upon them about their wives and those (captives or slaves) whom their right hands possess, - in order that there should be no difficulty on you. And Allâh is Ever Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

    Moe lusted after Zainab, whose father rejected him.  Moe fixed up his adopted son with her, later taking advantage of a convenient divorce to snatch her.

33:37. And (remember) when you said to him (Zaid bin Hârithah; the freed­slave of the Prophet ) on whom Allâh has bestowed Grace (by guiding him to Islâm) and you (O Muhammad  too) have done favour (by manumitting him) "Keep your wife to yourself, and fear Allâh." But you did hide in yourself (i.e. what Allâh has already made known to you that He will give her to you in marriage) that which Allâh will make manifest, you did fear the people (i.e., Muhammad  married the divorced wife of his manumitted slave) whereas Allâh had a better right that you should fear Him. So when Zaid had accomplished his desire from her (i.e. divorced her), We gave her to you in marriage, so that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the believers in respect of (the marriage of) the wives of their adopted sons when the latter have no desire to keep them (i.e. they have divorced them). And Allâh's Command must be fulfilled.

33:38. There is no blame on the Prophet () in that which Allâh has made legal for him.That has been Allâh's Way with those who have passed away of (the Prophets of) old. And the Command of Allâh is a decree determined.

Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3330:

Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported: When the 'Iddah of Zainab was over, Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to Zaid to make a mention to her about him. Zaid went on until he came to her and she was fermenting her flour. He (Zaid) said: As I saw her I felt in my heart an idea of her greatness so much so that I could not see towards her (simply for the fact) that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had made a mention of her. So I turned my back towards her. and I turned upon my heels, and said: Zainab, Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) has sent (me) with a message to you. She said: I do not do anything until I solicit the will of my Lord. So she stood at her place of worship and the (verse of) the Qur'an (pertaining to her marriage) were revealed, and Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) came to her without permission. He (the narrator) said: I saw that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) served us bread and meat until it was broad day light and the people went away, but some persons who were busy in con- versation stayed on in the house after the meal. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) also went out and I also followed him, and he began to visit the apartments of his wives greeting them (with the words): As-Salamu 'alaikum, and they would say: Allah's Messenger, how did you find your family (hadrat Zainab)? He (the narrator) stated: I do not know whether I had informed him that the people had gone out or he (the Holy Prophet) informed me (about that). He moved on until he entered the apartment, and I also went and wanted to enter (the apartment) along with him, but he threw a curtain between me and him, as (the verfes pertaining to seclusion) had been revealed, and people were instructed in what they had been instructed. Ibn Rafii had made this addition in his narration:" O you who believe, enter not the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you for a meal, not waiting for its cooking being finished..." to the words"... Allah forbears not from the truth."

   Moe's favorite, his child bride was onto him. This hadith lets the cat out of the bag

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:

Narrated Aisha:

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

Now we know: the Qur'an ain't sacred, it is situational scripture, a fraud.  Allah is no god, it is Moe's dummy.

    If burning the Qur'an is an attack on Islam, it is a counter attack, subsequent to Islamic attacks upon us.  Did you know that Islam denies the divinity, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?  Did you know that Islam curses Jews & Christians, that it calls us the worst of living creatures?  Did you know that Allah turned some Jews into apes and swine?  Why not?  Because you have not read  the Qur'an.  

    I admit that the International Burn a Quran Day may irritate Muslims. But it serves a larger purpose: it gives me and others a good excuse to  expose the fatal facts of Islam to a curious public.  The constant drumbeat of news coverage is raising interest and curiosity.  A few more people will read this blog post. A few more will click the links and explore Islam's canon of scripture, tradition and jurisprudence than otherwise would.  And I view that as a good thing.

    So read the Qur'an  already. Then piss on it, let it dry and  burn it.   

Dr. Tawfik Hamid's Radical Islam Test

A wall post at the Stop the Islamization of America page attracted my attention because it purported to be a statement by Dr. Tawfik Hamid calling on Muslims to  renounce several key Islamic doctrines as radical and unacceptable in modern times.   The content of that wall post aroused my skepticism  so I did a search, which turned up this ABCs Test of Radical Islam.

The time has come to define Radical Islam. Please ask your local mosque, Islamic Shool, and Islamic organization to clearly, unambiguously and publically denounce the following concepts:
Apostates killing
Beating women and stoning women to death for adultery
Calling Jews pigs and monkeys.
Declaring war on Non Muslims to spread Islam after offering Non Muslims three options – subjugate to Islam, pay Jizia (a humiliating tax), or be killed.
Enslavement of Other Human Beings.
Fighting and killing Jews before the “End of Days”.
Gay killing.
A true moderate person or organization must be able to immediately denounce the above concepts and stand publicly and unambiguously against them.
The Muslim world must not expect the world to call Islam peaceful as long as they teach and promote the above teaching.
A clear stand is needed from leading Islamic Scholars all over the world against the above ABCs.

That did not exactly match what was posted  on the wall, so I checked a link in the left sidebar, which only duplicated the original content.  Further searching turned up text exactly matching the wall post. I found this at Stop Radical Islam.

Is Your Local Mosque 'Moderate' or 'Radical'? 
Ask the Imams of Mosques, the Muslim leaders, and the Islamic organizations in the US and worldwide to sign this declaration (See below)  
by Tawfik Hamid 
www.tawfikhamid.com  
After the problem of Ground Zero Mosque has escalated it becomes an urgent necessity to distinguish 'Moderate' from 'Radical' Islam. Without making such a distinction the US and the rest of the world will remain divided regarding this issue. Debates about the issue can be endless unless we define the words 'radical' and 'moderate'.
Mosque leaders, Islamic scholars, and organizations who want to be considered Moderates MUST clearly and unambiguously declare the following declaration in their media outlets and on their websites.
I suggest that you send this declaration to Mosque leaders and the Islamic organizations inside the US and worldwide to see if they are ready to accept such a declaration or not.
Please feel free to circulate this newsletter so that we can start a process that allows us to distinguish radical from moderate Islam.
Declaration of Beliefs of Muslim Moderates -
 I (We) are Muslims who want contemporary understandings of Islam to replace currently predominant harsh and radical (Salafi/Wahabbi) interpretations of our religion. We therefore declare that:
 1-    Redda Law, the Sharia Law that allows the killing of Muslims who convert to other faiths, must be banned in Islamic teachings and in Sharia legal doctrine.  Islamic countries that practice Sharia must stop the practice of this law and must admit that Freedom of belief and the right to convert to other faith or believe is a basic right that must be given to all Muslims.
 2-    Current mainstream Sharia doctrines justify the use of violence against women.  They encourage men to beat their wives to discipline them.  They allow women accused of adultery to be stoned to death.  These doctrines are barbarically inhumane, non-egalitarian, and teach Muslim children to be violent.  These teachings must be ended by reinterpreting the Islamic text that justifies such violence.
 3-    Traditional Sharia doctrines teach Muslims that they must engage in war so that Islam will dominate the world.  When Islam becomes dominant, Non-Muslims are offered three options: to convert to Islam, to pay Jizzia (a humiliating tax), or to be killed.  These doctrines run contrary to modern respect for diversity and for personal freedom of speech and belief.  This understanding of Jihad that seeks domination of Islam over other peoples must no longer be regarded as an Islamic value and its teaching as a duty for Muslims must end.
The early Islamic wars known as "Futohaat Islameia" were fought to implement this doctrine of Jihad. These wars therefore should now be regarded as un-Islamic and un-justifiable.  
4-   Jews are individuals who deserve the same respect accorded to all individuals.  They should not be called "pigs and monkeys."  The Islamic teaching that Muslims must fight and kill all Jews before the end of days is totally incorrect and unacceptable as it does not exist in the Quran.  All teachings that encourage anti-Semitic attitudes, violence or disrespect toward Jews must be declared un-Islamic.
5-    Slavery is a crime against humanity. All Sharia laws that justify slavery in our modern times must not be taught any more. Muslim scholars must have a clear and loud voice against slavery.
6-    Islamic Sharia laws currently permit the killing homosexuals.  These laws also are advocating a crime against our fellow human beings.  They must be declared un-Islamic and their implementation must be considered criminal.
Signed,
Dr. Tawfik Hamid
The above violent teachings, which currently are taught in mainstream Islamic books in America, are implemented in countries that allow governance according to Sharia Law. Future Muslim generations must be protected from these destructive doctrines, interpretations and customs.

These violent Sharia doctrines must be replaced with clear and unconditional explanations of why they no longer are valid.

Anything short of a fully clear and unequivocal stand against these doctrines indicates passive approval. Therefore, all Islamic leaders who genuinely consider themselves to be Muslim moderates must post these principles in English and in Arabic in full public view on their websites and declare them in their media outlets.

Failure to publically post and support these principles should be interpreted as clear evidence that a leader's mosque or Islamic organization must be considered radical.

    I found the same text at Act! For America. I guess I should be more regular in reading my email; I see that some of my friends beat me to this.

    I want to focus first on one key clause from the comment: "unconditional explanations of why they no longer are valid".  Were those doctrines ever valid?  Why were they valid then, and what terminated their validity?  Has Allah changed his will or his word since 632?

1. 4:88. Then what is the matter with you that you are divided into two parties about the hypocrites? Allâh has cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they have earned. Do you want to guide him whom Allâh has made to go astray? And he whom Allâh has made to go astray, you will never find for him any way (of guidance).
   
   4:89. They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allâh (to Muhammad ). But if they turn back (from Islâm), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliyâ' (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.
   
   Was it invalid when Allah said it? If  so, why is it no longer valid?  If not, why did he say it?
   
   Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
   
   Narrated 'Ikrima:
   
   Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"
   
   Was that valid when Moe said it?  If so, why was it valid then but not now?  Here is the Islamic law which is founded on those revelations and sayings.
   
   08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
   
   08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is
   accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.
   
   Was that provision of Shari'ah valid when it was codified?  Why is it invalid now? 
2. 4:34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill­conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.
   
   "...I (the narrator Laqit) then said: Messenger of Allah, I have a wife who has something (wrong) in her tongue, i.e. she is insolent. He said: Then divorce her. I said: Messenger of Allah, she had company with me and I have children from her. He said: Then ask her (to obey you). If there is something good in her, she will do so (obey); and do not beat your wife as you beat your slave-girl. " Sunan Abu Dawud 1.0142
   
   24:2. The woman and the man guilty of illegal sexual intercourse, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allâh, if you believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. (This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime but if married persons commit it, the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allâh's Law).
   
   Were those rulings valid when they were issued? If so, why are they now invalid? 
3. 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.
   
   9:33. It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad ) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islâm), to make it superior over all religions even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh) hate (it).
   
   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."
   
   o9.1 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.
   
   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
   o9.9    The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim
   
   Were those imperatives valid when issued?  Were the confirmation and codification valid?  If so, why are they no longer valid? 
4. 5:60. Say (O Muhammad  to the people of the Scripture): "Shall I inform you of something worse than that, regarding the recompense from Allâh: those (Jews) who incurred the Curse of Allâh and His Wrath, those of whom (some) He transformed into monkeys and swines, those who worshipped Tâghût (false deities); such are worse in rank (on the Day of Resurrection in the Hell­fire), and far more astray from the Right Path (in the life of this world)."
   
   7:167. And (remember) when your Lord declared that He would certainly keep on sending against them (i.e. the Jews), till the Day of Resurrection, those who would afflict them with a humiliating torment. Verily, your Lord is Quick in Retribution (for the disobedient, wicked) and certainly He is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful (for the obedient and those who beg Allâh's Forgiveness).
   
   ...In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews. This will occur just before the end of this world....Ibn Kathir's Tafsir
   
   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.
   
   Was 5:60 valid when it was revealed?  Was the genocidal prophecy valid when it was revealed?  If so, whey are they invalidated?  
5. 33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
   
   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.
   
   Were that exemplar & ruling valid when they were issued?  If so, what has happened to invalidate them? 
6. 27:55. "Do you approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, but you are a people who behave senselessly."
   27:58. And We rained down on them a rain (of stones). So evil was the rain of those who were warned.
   
   Sunan Abu Dawud Book 38, Number 4447:
   Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:
   The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.
   
   o12.2  If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death...
   Were those rulings valid when issued? If so, what has robbed them of their validity?
   

    A decent respect for human rights & dignity requires a rational person to reject those Islamic laws entirely.  It is not possible that they could ever possess any validity.  But Allah's word  declares that it is perfected. Alllah's word also says that it can not be changed and that it must be entirely accepted.

    By what  scripture or tradition will the moderates justify abjuring the above listed  ayat, ahadith & Shari'ah?   And how shall they evade this trap?
Reliance of the Traveller, o8.7 lists 20 acts which entail apostasy.  The seventh item in that list is:  "(7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;".  One of the rules they want to declare invalid subjects them to the death penalty as apostates!  They deny no less than 10  ayat.

    I admit that normative Islam is actually "radical"  as  it was when Moe preached and practiced it.   If any Imam  makes a public endorsement of Dr. Hamid's statement, I will be as surprised as I would be if they signed the Ground Zero Declaration.  If any Muslim who reads this presents the test and statement to his Imam and governing board, I hope that he will come back and report the results in a comment. 

Flight 93 on 9/11: Ride to Stop the Crescent Mosque

Alec Rawls  sent out another blogburst on the Flight 93 memorial issue. The Crescent of Embrace is, effectively, the first 9/11 Victory Mosque, Park 51 is the second.  

    A group of motorcyclists will be riding to Somerset to protest. Alec is urging others within riding distance to join them on the ninth anniversary of the accursed abomination.  This will be your best opportunity to demonstrate opposition to the Victory Mosque with extensive media coverage.

    The blogburst includes four embedded videos. In some venues, they may not work, so I have included links to YouTube.

Flight 93 on 9/11: Ride to Stop the Crescent Mosque

Anyone live within driving distance of Somerset Pennsylvania? It's a beautiful place to visit and a group of motorcyclists from Indianapolis is already going. Tom Burnett Senior and Alec Rawls are buying full page color ads in the Somerset Daily American for both Friday the 10th and Saturday the 11th, so anyone who makes the trip will have a ready made protest sign waiting for them. Just buy a newspaper, tape the ad to a piece of cardboard, and let the massed national media know what side you are on. That's right. With Barbara Bush and Michelle Obama both attending, it's going to be a media circus, and a rare opportunity to force coverage of our issue. Just self-organize. Ad-holders will show a core of united opposition (and the media might even be forced to read our brief expose). A PDF of the ad will be posted in another blogburst next week for anyone who wants to make signs ahead of time. There is also a set of small posters that were put together for a previous talk by Mr. Burnett. Just print with tiling to make the finished product as large or small as you want:

Board 1: The giant crescent Board 2: It points to Mecca Board 3: The gigantic Islamic sundial Board 4: The 44 glass blocks

Petition to stop the Flight 93 memorial passes 10,000 signatures Including a spate of dozen or so by 9/11 family members that feature some very strong comments. (See pages 198 and 199.) It Points to Mecca video nearing 20,000 hits Thanks to big fat repostings by Creeping Sharia and Atlas Shrugs. Thank You!
Click here to watch on YouTube if embedding does not work.
Here are parts 2, 3 and 4 (also worthy):
Click here to watch on YouTube if embedding does not work.
Click here to watch on YouTube if embedding does not work.
Click here to watch on YouTube if embedding does not work.
 If you haven't been to Shanksville before, there really is no lovelier place on earth than an open field in that sprawling Sherwood Forest that is Western Pennsylvania. Drink it in. There is something in the air at that patriots' grave. To join our blogburst against the crescent mosque, just send your blog's url.