Thoughts and Truth from the Impossible Life

Muslim Brotherhood: A Global Terrorist Influence
Many analysts believe that the radical organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood will gain great influence with a change of government in Egypt.

A closer examination of the secretive group provides insight as to why its possible climb to power has Western observers so uneasy.

Before Osama bin Laden formed al Qaeda, he belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood. So did his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

In addition, the terrorist group Hamas identifies itself as the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Why are there so many jihadists drawn to the Brotherhood? The group’s official motto may tell the story.

It reads:

* Allah is our objective.
* The prophet is our leader.
* Qur’an is our law.
* Jihad is our way.
* Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 in Egypt, with the goal of spreading Islamic Sharia law worldwide and uniting all Muslim nations into one Islamic super state. It was eventually banned in Egypt, but for the past several decades has worked behind the scenes to the point where it’s now considered the most influential Islamist organization in the world — with chapters in more than 100 countries.

“It has been repressed in Egypt and in many other countries where the Brotherhood has affiliates and entities,” said retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Myers, who has called the Brotherhood an “insurgency movement.”

“The state security services work against them because they are a subversive insurgent organization and they conduct terrorist acts and have been involved in violence as well,” Myers told CBN News. “Seeking to overthrow and change the governments where they’re represented.”

Although the group has been severely repressed in Egypt for years, it represents that country’s most organized and powerful opposition force.

Former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo told CBN News the United States must become more aware of the Brotherhood’s growing influence.

“Here in the United States, virtually every prominent Islamic organization is controlled and led by the Muslim Brotherhood,” said Gunadolo. “Why this is key, is because they see that they are going to destroy our Western civilization from within.”

The Brotherhood’s immediate goal, though, is an Islamic state in Egypt — and an end to that country’s peace treaty with Israel.

October 9, 2012 Posted by | Islamorealism, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Why We Are Afraid of the Evils of Islam, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

Why We Are Afraid of the Evils of Islam, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner



September 9, 2012 Posted by | Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Islam’s doctrines of deception

The below article from the The Middle East Forum reveals in vivid details the truth regarding Islam’s official policy of deception and lying to achieve its end of spreading itself and achieving a world wide caliphate in which all non-muslims are forced to convert or killed.

When ever a website or any media exposes any truth that puts Islam in its true light, muslims immediate dismiss it as a “hate” site.  Obviously, they HATE the truth being revealed.  Even this blog has been called a hate site for exposing the truth.  That is really a compliment as it shows that the truth on this blog has touched the accusers in some small way with the truth. (For a further understanding of the Islamic “hate” card being played please see:

In any case, the The Middle East Forum is a respected and fair website and I recommend it for the article below and every other article I’ve read on it for its accuracy.

The Middle East Forum

by Raymond Ibrahim
Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst
October 2008

To better understand Islam, one must appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of the religion. According to sharia (Islamic law) every conceivable human act is categorised as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory.

“Common sense” or “universal opinion” has little to do with Islam’s notions of right and wrong. Only what Allah (through the Quran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the Hadith) have to say about any given issue matters; and how Islam’s greatest theologians and jurists – collectively known as the ulema, literally, “they who know” – have articulated it.

According to sharia, in certain situations, deception – also known as ‘taqiyya’, based on Quranic terminology, – is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.

Origins of taqiyya

As a doctrine, taqiyya was first codified by Shia Muslims, primarily as a result of their historical experience. Long insisting that the caliphate rightly belonged to the prophet Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali (and subsequently his descendents), the Shia were a vocal and powerful branch of Islam that emerged following Muhammad’s death. After the internal Islamic Fitna wars from the years 656 AD to 661 AD, however, the Shia became a minority branch, persecuted by mainstream Muslims or Sunnis – so-called because they follow the example or ‘sunna’ of Muhammad and his companions. Taqiyya became pivotal to Shia survival.

Interspersed among the much more numerous Sunnis, who currently make up approximately 90 per cent of the Islamic world, the Shia often performed taqiyya by pretending to be Sunnis externally, while maintaining Shia beliefs internally, as permitted by Quranic verse 16:106. Even today, especially in those Muslim states where there is little religious freedom, the Shia still practice taqiyya. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Shias are deemed by many of the Sunni majority to be heretics, traitors and infidels and like other non-Sunni Muslims they are often persecuted.

Several of Saudi Arabia’s highest clerics have even issued fatwas sanctioning the killing of Shias. As a result, figures on the Arabian kingdom’s Shia population vary wildly from as low as 1 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. Many Shias living there obviously choose to conceal their religious identity. As a result of some 1,400 years of Shia taqiyya, the Sunnis often accuse the Shias of being habitual liars, insisting that taqiyya is ingrained in Shia culture.

Conversely, the Sunnis have historically had little reason to dissemble or conceal any aspect of their faith, which would have been deemed dishonorable, especially when dealing with their historic competitors and enemies, the Christians. From the start, Islam burst out of Arabia subjugating much of the known world, and, throughout the Middle Ages, threatened to engulf all of Christendom. In a world where might made right, the Sunnis had nothing to apologise for, much less to hide from the ‘infidel’.

Paradoxically, however, today many Sunnis are finding themselves in the Shias’ place: living as minorities in Western countries surrounded and governed by their traditional foes. The primary difference is that, extremist Sunnis and Shia tend to reject each other outright, as evidenced by the ongoing Sunni-Shia struggle in Iraq, whereas, in the West, where freedom of religion is guaranteed, Sunnis need only dissemble over a few aspects of their faith.

Articulation of taqiyya

According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: “Taqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream…Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.”

The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: “Let believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah – unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.)

Al-Tabari’s (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: “If you [Muslims] are under their [infidels’] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them… Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers – except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.”

Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: “Whoever at any time or place fears their [infidels’] evil, may protect himself through outward show.”

As proof of this, he quotes Muhammad’s companions. Abu Darda said: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Al-Hassan said: “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment [in perpetuity].”

Other prominent ulema, such as al- Qurtubi , al-Razi, and al-Arabi have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Muslims can behave like infidels – from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses to even exposing fellow Muslims’ “weak spots” to the infidel enemy – anything short of actually killing a fellow Muslim.

War is deceit

None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the “most perfect human” is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception. For instance, Muhammad permitted deceit in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties; husband to wife and vice-versa; and in war (See Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an “authentic” hadith).

During the Battle of the Trench (627 AD), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes collectively known as “the Confederates”, a Confederate called Naim bin Masud went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered the Confederates were unaware of Masud’s conversion, he counseled him to return and try somehow to get his tribesmen to abandon the siege. “For war is deceit,” Muhammad assured him.

Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowledge that he had switched sides and began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded and lifted the siege. According to this account, deceit saved Islam during its embryonic stage (see Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaq’s Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).

More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception with respect to non-Muslims is the following account. A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, had offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse about Muslim women. Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: “Who will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?”

A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed.

Maslama traveled to Kab and began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough for Kab to take him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kab’s guard was down, they assaulted and killed him. They ran to Muhammad with Kab’s head, to which the latter cried: “Allahu akbar” or “God is great” (see the hadith accounts of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Sad).

The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the “best deceiver” or “schemer.” (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.

The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into sharia’s worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation – naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses “revealed” later in Muhammad’s career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.

Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.

According to this standard view, circumstance dictates which verses are to be implemented. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh.

War is eternal

The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.

However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): “The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”

The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam’s dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: “In the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammad’s example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the “peace-treaty” (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427).”

This might be what former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat meant when, after negotiating a peace treaty criticised by his opponents as conceding too much to Israel, he said in a mosque: “I see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.”

On several occasions Hamas has made it clear that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel destroyed. Under what context would it want to initiate a “temporary” peace with the Jewish state? When Osama bin Laden offered the US a truce, stressing that “we [Muslims] are a people that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying,” what was his ultimate intention?

Based on the above, these are instances of Muslim extremists feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to bide time.

If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world – which need not be physical, as radicals among the ulema have classified several non-literal forms of jihad, such as “jihad-of-the-pen” (propaganda), and “money-jihad” (economic) – and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty to the infidel to further their war efforts, offers of peace, tolerance or dialogue from extremist Muslim corners are called into question.

Religious obligation?

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.

Bin Laden castigated them, saying: “As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most High’s Word: ‘We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us – till you believe in Allah alone’ [Quran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility – that is battle – ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi – a non-Muslim subject living as a “second-class” citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.”

This hostile world view is traceable to Islam’s schools of jurisprudence. When addressing Western audiences, however, Bin Laden’s tone significantly changes. He lists any number of grievances as reasons for fighting the West – from Israeli policies towards Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women and US failure to sign the Kyoto protocol – never alluding to fighting the US simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. He often initiates his messages to the West by saying: “Reciprocal treatment is part of justice.”

This is a clear instance of taqiyya, as Bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault garners him and his cause more sympathy. Conversely, he also knows that if his Western audiences were to realise that, all real or imagined political grievances aside, according to the Islamic worldview delineated earlier, which bin Laden does accept, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be compromised. As a result there is constant lying, “for war is deceit”.

If Bin Laden’s words and actions represent an individual case of taqiyya, they raise questions about Saudi Arabia’s recent initiatives for “dialogue”. Saudi Arabia closely follows sharia. For instance, the Saudi government will not allow the construction of churches or synagogues on its land; Bibles are banned and burned. Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Muslim converts to Christianity can be put to death in the kingdom.

Despite such limitations on religious freedom, the Saudis have been pushing for more dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. At the most recent inter-faith conference in Madrid in July 2008, King Abdullah asserted: “Islam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions.”

Days later, it was revealed that Saudi children’s textbooks still call Christians and Jews “infidels”, “hated enemies” and “pigs and swine”. A multiple-choice test in a book for fourth-graders asks: “Who is a ‘true’ Muslim?” The correct answer is not the man who prays and fasts, but rather: “A man who worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the infidels”. These infidels are the same people the Saudis want dialogue with. This raises the question of whether, when Saudis call for dialogue, they are merely following Muhammad’s companion Abu Darda’s advice: “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them”?

There is also a philosophical – more particularly, epistemological – problem with taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophet’s example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education. Deception becomes second nature.

Consider the case of former Al-Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammad. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terrorism network, Mohammed’s confidence at dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. People who knew him regarded him “with fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalism”, according to Steven Emerson. Indeed, this sentiment sums it all up: for a zealous belief in Islam’s tenets, which, as has been described above, legitimises deception, will certainly go a long way in creating incredible self-confidence when deceiving one’s enemies.

Exposing a doctrine

All of the above is an exposition on doctrine and its various manifestations, not an assertion on the actual practices of the average Muslim. The deciding question is how literally any given Muslim follows sharia and its worldview.

So-called “moderate” Muslims – or, more specifically, secularised Muslims – do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, “radical” Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a “divinely sanctioned” right to deceive, until “all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah” (Quran 8:39).

November 23, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Romney only chance to defeat Obummer

The only really chance of defeating Obummer is Romney. Any other presently announced Republican means the general voting public will again be Pied Pipered into surrendering the USA to several forces whose aim is our destruction as the last front of freedom and democracy. The general voting public in any match up will vote Obummer and be complicit in the surrendering of America to the global Islamic Jihad to establish a world wide Islamic Caliphate under Sharia Law, the destruction of the border with Drug Cartel controlled Mexico (which are receiving training in our destruction from Hezbollah right on the border in places like Nuevo Larado) and the implementation of socialism such as Obamacare and the new Executive Branch Controlled “medical” army and its internment camps. Vote for Obummer and shred what is left of the Constitution and play taps for freedom and for America. Romney may be less than the perfect choice, but he IS the only good choice.

August 26, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Islam Definition of Terms

Glossary of Terms

Allah: “God”; Arabic Christians also worship “Allah,” but an Allah of a very different sort as they refer to the Real One True God.

Allahu Akhbar: “God is Great (-est)”; term of praise; war cry of Muslims.

AH: “after Hijra”; the Islamic calendar?s system of dating; employs lunar rather than solar years; as of January 2007, we are in AH 1428.

Ansar: “aiders” or “helpers”; Arabian tribesmen allied with Muhammad and the early Muslims.

Badr: first significant battle fought by Muhammad and the Muslims against the Quraish tribe of Mecca.

Caliph: title of the ruler or leader of the Umma (global Muslim community); the head of the former Islamic Empire; the title was abolished by Kemal Attaturk in 1924 following the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the founding of modern Turkey.

dar al-Islam: “House (Realm) of Islam”; Islamic territory ruled by Sharia law

dar al-harb: “House (Realm) of War”: territory ruled by infidels

dar al-sulh: “House (Realm) of Truce”: territory ruled by infidels but allied with Islam; territory ruled by Muslims but not under Sharia law

Dhimma: the pact of protection extended to non-slave “People of the Book”, usually Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, which permitted them to remain nominally free under Muslim rule. Subjegated and oppressed people in Islamic countries and to refer to those in non-Islamic countries that willingly help advance the cause of global Islamic domination whether through intent or ignorance.

dhimmi: “protected”; people under the protection of the dhimma. Subjegated and oppressed people in Islamic countries and to refer to those in non-Islamic countries that willingly help advance the cause of global Islamic domination whether through intent or ignorance.

dhimmitude: word coined by historian Bat Ye’or to describe the status of dhimmi peoples

hadith: “report”; any of thousands of episodes from the life of Muhammad transmitted orally until written down in the eighth century AD; sahih (reliable or sound) hadiths are second only to the Quran in authority.

Hijra: “emigration”; Muhammad’s flight from Mecca to Medina (Yathrib) in AD 622.

Islam: “submission” or “surrender.”

jizya: the poll or head tax prescribed by Sura 9:29 of the Quran to be paid by Christians and Jews in Muslim-held territory.

Kaba: “cube”; the Meccan temple in which numerous pagan idols were housed before Muhammad’s conquest of Mecca in AD 632, which is still the most venerated object in Islam; the Kaba’s cornerstone, which is believed to have fallen from heaven, is the stone on which Abraham was to sacrifice his son, Ishmael (not Isaac).

Mecca: holiest city of Islam; place of Muhammad’s birth in AD 570; its Great Mosque contains the Kaba stone; early period in Muhammad’s life where more peaceful verses of the Quran were recited from half remembered Christianity, Judaism and local pagan customs, when these failed to convert many people, they were replaced with later verses invented in Medina, the policy of replacing older verses with new is called subligation making the old more peaceful verses no longer valid; site of Muhammad’s victory over the Quraish in AD 630.

Medina: “city,” short for “city of the Prophet”; second holiest city of Islam; destination of Muhammad’s Hijra (emigration) in AD 622; later period in Muhammad’s life where more violent verses of the Quran were invented to justify Mohammed’s actions as being approved or ordered by Allah; site of third major battle fought by Muhammad against the Quraish tribe from Mecca; formerly called Yathrib.

Muhammad: “the praised one.”

Muslim: one who submits.

Quran (Kuran, Qu’ran, etc.): “recitation”; according to Islam, the compiled verbatim words of Allah as dictated by Muhammad.

razzia: “raid”; acts of piracy on land or sea by Muslims against infidels, this is allowed and encouraged in Islam

Sira: “life”; abbreviation of Sirat Rasul Allah, or “Life of the Prophet of God”; the canonical biography of the Prophet Muhammad written in the eighth century by Ibn Ishaq and later edited by Ibn Hisham; modern translation by Alfred Guillaume.

Subligation: the policy of replacing older verses with new, making the old more peaceful verses no longer valid

Sunnah: the “Way” of the Prophet Muhammad; includes his teachings, traditions, and example.

Sura: a chapter of the Quran; Quranic passages are cited as Sura number:verse number, e.g., 9:5.

Taqiyya: In practical terms it is manifested as dissimulation, lying, deceiving, vexing and confounding with the intention of deflecting attention, foiling or pre-emptive blocking. It is currently employed in fending off and neutralising any criticism of Islam or Muslims. Falsehoods told to prevent the denigration of Islam, to protect oneself, or to promote the cause of Islam are sanctioned in the Qur’an and Sunna, including lying under oath in testimony before a court, deceiving by making distorted statements to the media such as the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace”. A Muslim is even permitted to deny or denounce his faith if, in so doing, he protects or furthers the interests of Islam, so long as he remains faithful to Islam in his heart.

Uhud: second major battle fought by Muhammad against the Quraish tribe of Mecca.

Umar: second “rightly-guided” Caliph; ruled AD 634–44, succeeded Abu Bakr; conquered the Holy Land.

Umma (ummah): the global Muslim community; the body of Muslim faithful.

Uthman: third “rightly-guided” Caliph; ruled AD 644–56, succeeded Umar; compiled the Quran in book form.

Yathrib: city to which Muhammad made the Hijra (emigration) in AD 622/AH 1; renamed Medina

March 31, 2011 Posted by | Pending Classification, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

British Muslims Reveals Plan for Islam to Dominate America and World

This is Islam’s plans for the West. A British Muslim is telling us in plain English what to expect.

March 15, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Why are Muslims Afraid of the Congressional Radicalization Hearings

Why are Muslims Afraid of the Congressional Radicalization Hearings?

Having read the article below, I am at a loss as to why Muslims are in such opposition to these hearings. My only thought is they are in opposition because the TRUTH regarding their religion’s tenets, the true nature of Islam’s founder, will be revealed. In that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, that it is in fact a religion of hate, violence, subjegation, oppression, and death is most likely what they are afraid to be revealed. They may lie to America, which Islam’s founder taught them to do to deceive the infidels (all non-Muslims), but the truth is out there and it is coming to the light.


The one true God and His Son Jesus Christ, not the false god of Islam.


A number of activities taking place next week are setting the stage for a confrontation between the Muslim American community and those who have reservations about its presence in the U.S. Congressman Peter King (R-NY), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has scheduled a congressional hearing on the “radicalization” of Muslim Americans on March 10. In response, Muslims and Arab Americans in New York and Washington D.C. will be demonstrating about what they see as an attack on their civil rights. Meanwhile, opponents of Park51 are rolling out a “documentary” nationwide about the proposed project to build an Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan.

From the outset, many Muslims and Arab Americans have opposed Rep. King’s plan to hold hearings on, “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.” Over 80 people of different faiths from his district on Long Island, including Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and interfaith leaders sent a letter to King urging him to cancel the hearings.

“These diverse faith leaders believe the singling out of the Muslim community undermines fundamental American values and is counterproductive to improving national security,” the letter said.

After Rep. King turned rebuffed their calls, Muslim and Arab American communities decided to raise their voices on the streets of New York, Washington D.C. and other cities across the country.

On Sunday March 6, a broad coalition of over 75 interfaith, nonprofit, governmental, and civil liberties groups are scheduled to rally “in support of equitable civil rights for all Americans” in New York’s Times Square.

The Muslim Peace Coalition has also announced a rally and march scheduled for April 9 at Union Square in New York. The slogan of this demonstration will be “Standing Up Against Islamophobia, War and Terrorism.”

According to the House Homeland Security Committee’s chairman the hearing is needed to explore terror threats posed by radical American Muslims.

“[Due to] The measures taken after 9/11, al Qaeda has realized the difficulty it faces in launching attacks against our homeland from overseas. Thus it has adjusted its tactics and is now attempting to radicalize and recruit from within our country. In the last two years alone more than 50 Americans have been charged with terror related crimes,” Rep. King said in a letter responding to Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Minority Member of the committee on Homeland Security.

In its email to members of the Muslim American community, the Muslim Peace Coalition wrote, “Democracy is not a spectator sport and Muslims are not a football to be thrown around. We are people with rights and responsibility to speak up.”

Regarding homegrown terrorism, the Muslim Peace Coalition asked Rep. King to hold a hearing on the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. They also suggested he ask the FBI for statistics on the profiles of the two million first time gun owners in the USA. “Who are these people and why are they buying guns. What is their faith?”

“The hearings will send the wrong message and alienate American Muslims instead of partnering with them, potentially putting their lives at risk by inciting fear and enmity against them,” the coalition stated in its statement about the Times Square rally. “Organizers of this rally believe one can be a loyal Muslim as well as a loyal American without conflict, and a great number of our fellow Americans support this view.”

Amidst the background of a growing controversy between the Muslim American community and the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, a new documentary produced by the leading opponents of the Park51 Islamic Cultural Center, often dubbed the “Ground Zero Mosque,” is being shown around the country. At a recent screening in a church near the proposed site in downtown Manhattan, Pamela Geller, one of the producers of the documentary, vowed to continue her efforts to stop the project.

March 7, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Islam and the End Times

Hopefully, everyone who reads this will have the epiphany after they read the quote below and just “Get It”, that Islam Is a ‘Vehicle’ Of Satan. The quote below is from the book

    “The Islamic Antichrist”

by Joel Richardson. I can not say for 100% surety IF this is how the One True God will usher in the second coming of His Son Jesus Christ, but there is no question what-so-ever that Islam is the great deceiver’s masterful work to bring eternal damnation to BILLIONs of people and that Muhammad (continued eternal damnation be upon him) is the “False Prophet” of the End Times. No one has ever been so evil in the history of mankind than Muhammad, not Hitler, not Gingas Kahn, not Vlad the Impaler, no one.

So maybe you now agree that it is important to become informed regarding Islam, but you may wonder why it is important to understand Islamic eschatology specifically. That’s a good question. Please think through some of these points carefully: The Bible makes it clear that the Devil’s primary plan for the last days has been, for the past few thousand years, to raise up two men, the Antichrist and the False Prophet, as his primary instruments to deceive the inhabitants of the earth. How do you suppose that Satan has planned to include the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims in his grand end-time deception? Did Satan fail to foresee and strategize regarding the global spread of Islam? Or has Satan included the Muslims of the world in his end-time strategy? Will Islam, the world’s third monotheistic religion, also undergo the persecution of Satan along with Christians and Jews as they all resist the Antichrist together? Or will Islam — the religion that prides itself on resisting any form of idolatry — simply submit to a demonic and false religious leader without putting up any real fight? For years, I questioned the Lord about these issues. In time, as my knowledge of Islam deepened, the answers to my questions became very clear. This book is my attempt to share with you what I have learned. I understand that this may sound like a strong statement to make, but I believe that the information presented in this book will establish the fact that Islam is indeed the primary vehicle that will be used by Satan to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible about the future political/religious/military system of the Antichrist that will overwhelm the entire world just prior to the second coming of Jesus Christ. [The Islamic Antichrist, Pages 11-12]

February 18, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Doctrine of Abrogation

@umersultan There is no error in what was posted. All of it is completely accurate and comes directly from accepted authentic Islamic scholars, just not from Islamic Apologists that are obeying their religion through Taqiyya. When Osama bin Laden says Islam will dominate the world and that all is justified by the Qu’ran, Hadith, Sunnah/Sunnat and Islamic Apologists say Islam is a religion of peace, it is bin Laden who is being truthful.

And before you find it necessary to start quoting the Qu’ran about its peaceful Suras, they are subject to abrogation.

It is because Christians, and many Muslims, do not understand this doctrine of abrogation coupled with the nonchronological order of the Quran that they do not understand what is going on in the Islamic world at this time. On the one hand, many Islamic leaders will claim that their religion is a peaceful one, and quote passages from the Quran to prove it. On the other hand, other Islamic leaders will call for terrorism and jihad and base their call on the same Quran. Most of us would view this a simple matter of how the Quran is interpreted, but such is not the case. The peaceful passages within the Quran are found in the early days of Muhammad’s recitations, during a time when he felt that his new religion would be a unifying factor among “People of the Book” (Jews, Christians and Muslims). When his doctrine was ultimately rejected by Jews and Christians he turned on them and “was given” new “revelations” of war and hate to replace the former ones of peace. The surahs, which teach jihad against Jews, Christians and unbelievers, are all found in the later time frame of the Quran. Passages of a later date include 2:190-193,216; 4:74,89,91,95,101-102; 5:33,51; 8:12,39,60,65,67,69; 9:5,29,30,73; 47:4; 59:2-4,5,14 and 61:4. While such passages are scattered throughout the Quran, they are all chronologically of later origin and have, according to the doctrine of abrogation, replaced the former teachings on peace.

February 7, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Will Muslim Brotherhood Terrorists Run Egypt

Suddenly, Washington is consumed with a question too long ignored: Can we safely do business with the Muslim Brotherhood?

The reason this question has taken on such urgency is, of course, because the Muslim Brotherhood (or MB, also known by its Arabic name, the Ikhwan) is poised to emerge as the big winner from the chaos now sweeping North Africa and increasingly likely to bring down the government of the aging Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

In the wake of growing turmoil in Egypt, a retinue of pundits, professors and former government officials has publicly insisted that we have nothing to fear from the Ikhwan since it has eschewed violence and embraced democracy.

For example, Bruce Reidel, a controversial former CIA analyst and advisor to President Obama, posted an article entitled “Don’t Fear Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood” at the Daily Beast. In it, he declared: “The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced violence years ago, but its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme vilification by more radical Islamists. Al Qaeda’s leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, started their political lives affiliated with the Brotherhood but both have denounced it for decades as too soft and a cat’s paw of Mubarak and America.”

Then, there was President George W. Bush’s former press spokeswoman, Dana Perino, who went so far on January 28th as to tell Fox News “…And don’t be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This has nothing to do with religion.”

One reason we might be misperceiving the MB as no threat is because a prime source of information about such matters is the Muslim Brotherhood itself. As the Center for Security Policy’s new, best-selling Team B II report entitled, Shariah: The Threat to America found:

“It is now public knowledge that nearly every major Muslim organization in the United States is actually controlled by the MB or a derivative organization. Consequently, most of the Muslim-American groups of any prominence in America are now known to be, as a matter of fact, hostile to the United States and its Constitution.”

In fact, for much of the past two decades, a number of these groups and their backers (including, notably, Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal) have cultivated extensive ties with U.S. government officials and agencies under successive administrations of both parties, academic centers, financial institutions, religious communities, partisan organizations and the media. As a result, such American entities have been subjected to intense, disciplined and sustained influence operations for decades.

Unfortunately, the relationships thus developed and the misconceptions thus fostered are today bearing poisonous fruit with respect to shaping U.S. policy towards the unfolding Egyptian drama.

A notable example is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). A federal judge in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial – which successfully prosecuted the nation’s largest terrorism financing conspiracy – found that CAIR was indeed a front for the Ikhwan’s Palestinian affiliate, Hamas. Nonetheless, Fox News earlier today interviewed the Executive Director of CAIR’s Chicago office, Ahmed Rehab, whom it characterized as a “Democracy Activist.”

True to form, Rehab called for the removal of Mubarak’s regime and the institution of democratic elections in Egypt. This is hardly surprising since, under present circumstances, such balloting would likely have the same result it did in Gaza a few years back: the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood and the institution of brutally repressive theocratic rule, in accordance with the totalitarian Islamic politico-military-legal program known as shariah.

An important antidote to the seductive notions being advanced with respect to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt – and, for that matter, in Western nations like ours – by the Ikhwan’s own operatives, their useful idiots and apologists is the Team B II report. It should be considered required reading by anyone who hopes to understand, let alone to comment usefully upon, the MB’s real character and agenda.

For example, Shariah: The Threat to America provides several key insights that must be borne in mind in the current circumstances especially:

* “The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. Its express purpose was two-fold: (1) to implement shariah worldwide, and (2) to re-establish the global Islamic State (caliphate).

* “Therefore, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them.

* “The Brotherhood’s creed is: ‘God is our objective; the Koran is our law; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.’”

* It is evident from the Creed, and from the Brotherhood’s history (and current activities)…that violence is an inherent part of the MB’s tactics. The MB is the root of the majority of Islamic terrorist groups in the world today.

* The Muslim Brotherhood is the ‘vanguard’ or tip-of-the-spear of the current Islamic Movement in the world. While there are other transnational organizations that share the MB’s goals (if not its tactics) – including al Qaeda, which was born out of the Brotherhood – the Ikhwan is by far the strongest and most organized. The Muslim Brotherhood is now active in over 80 countries around the world.

Of particular concern must be the purpose of the Brotherhood in the United States and other nations of the Free World:

* “…The Ikhwan’s mission in the West is sedition in the furtherance of shariah’s supremacist agenda, not peaceful assimilation and co-existence with non-Muslim populations.”

* “The Ikhwan believes that its purposes in the West are, for the moment, better advanced by the use of non-violent, stealthy techniques. In that connection, the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to establish relations with, influence and, wherever possible, penetrate: government circles in executive and legislative branches at the federal, state and local levels; the law enforcement community; intelligence agencies; the military; penal institutions; the media; think tanks and policy groups; academic institutions; non-Muslim religious communities; and other elites.

* “The Brothers engage in all of these activities and more for one reason: to subvert the targeted communities in furtherance of the MB’s primary objective – the triumph of shariah.”

In short, the Muslim Brotherhood – whether it is operating in Egypt, elsewhere in the world or here – is our enemy. Vital U.S. interests will be at risk if it succeeds in supplanting the present regime in Cairo, taking control in the process not only of the Arab world’s most populous nation but its vast, American-supplied arsenal. It is no less reckless to allow the Brotherhood’s operatives to enjoy continued access to and influence over our perceptions of their true purposes, and the policies adopted pursuant thereto.

Original Posting Here

February 1, 2011 Posted by | Politics/Government/Freedom, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Islam Compels

“No Compulsion in Religion” 2:256 (early Mecca verse as Mr. “Love & Peace™” still wore a mask to woo new converts and his preaching was sugary) Abrogated (Naskh) “canceled” through the later (Medina) “Verse of the Sword” 9:5 “Kill the infidels wherever you find them.” (9:1-4 grace period, 4 holy months, “treaty” for pagans pilgrimate)

January 22, 2011 Posted by | Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Middle East Christians Under Attack

A few years ago I was in the West Bank with a Christian missionary who worked among Jews and Muslims. The Jewish converts came to his home for Sunday services that were held in both English and Hebrew. But to gather with Arab converts he had to meet them secretly on the outskirts of their town lest his mere presence put their lives in jeopardy.

“My brother became a Christian at the same time as I did,” one Palestinian told me. “But neither of us knew of the other’s conversion for many years. It would have been too dangerous, until the missionary was certain of our conviction.”

We were sitting in a clearing in the brush that was one of the converts’ meeting places. I imagined that Jesus and his disciples must have prayed in places like this, maybe even here. An Israeli Defense Forces patrol passing on the nearby road stopped to see what was going on. The missionary explained to the officer in charge, who nodded and went on his way.

“My brother and I converted because we knew we needed love in our lives,” the Palestinian continued. “I think that Jesus is going to bless the Palestinian people by spreading his gospel of love here.”

Perhaps someday, but for now the Christians of the Middle East are facing danger. Both recent converts and ancient congregations—the Assyrians in Iraq, the Copts in Egypt, Lebanon’s Maronite Catholics, and more, long antedating Islam—are under fire. The land where Christianity began is being cleansed of Jesus’ followers. It is possible that we will soon see an event without precedent: the end of a living Christian witness in this region after more than 2,000 years.

So why now? And how did Christians manage to thrive here in the past?

“We survived, but not the way we wanted to,” says Habib Efram, president of the Syriac League of Lebanon, which represents some 60,000 Syriac Christians. Efram often visits the much larger Syriac Christian community in Iraq, which is under siege. “Some were forced to leave the country, and there have been massacres,” Efram tells me on the phone from Beirut.

“The Christians have always been under attack,” explains Lebanese political analyst Elie Fawaz. “Our numbers used to be much higher throughout the Middle East. We were here centuries before the Muslims, so there used to be many more Christians, until the raids and conversions to Islam.”

In Mt. Lebanon, the country’s Christian heartland, there’s a valley called Wadi Qadisha where the Maronites held off the Mamluk sultans in the 13th century. It was partly geography that ensured the survival of Lebanon’s Christian community. The Mediterranean coast provided access to European powers—the Vatican and France—that have long seen themselves as the protectors of Lebanon’s Christians; and the high mountain passes afforded a vantage point that turned hostile incursions into suicide missions as the Christians picked off intruders one by one. It is no coincidence that Hezbollah has bought and expropriated property in Lebanon’s mountains. There the party can survey not only its Israeli enemy, but its local Christian foes as well, whom Hezbollah and its pro-Syrian allies have targeted in a series of assassinations over the last six years.

“The Maronites are politicized,” says Fawaz. “You cannot compare them to Iraqi Christians.” That is, Lebanon’s Christians are under attack from rivals who wish to take their power, while Iraq’s and Egypt’s besieged Christian sects are powerless to defend themselves against superior numbers, and no one is willing or able to protect them.

Even rhetorical defenses of the Christians are cautious. Pope Benedict, like popes before him, chooses his words carefully when addressing the situation of Middle Eastern Christians, lest they be made to pay for perceived slights. Arab nationalists and Sunni Islamists assume that any discussion of regional minorities—whether Christians, Jews, or even Shia—by outsiders is coded language for a project to colonize the Middle East on behalf of the great powers. To be sure, the French did come to the aid of the Maronites in Lebanon in 1860 to end the war between them, the Druze, and their Ottoman overlords. And after the First World War, France held the mandate for Lebanon and rewarded what was then a Christian majority with a constitution that gave most of the power to the Maronites.

Lebanon’s civil war from 1975 to 1990 was largely a product of shifting demographics and a changing political culture. While the Christian community fought to preserve the state’s territorial integrity and avoid war with Israel, the country’s increasingly numerous Sunnis wanted to attach themselves to the great Arab cause—Palestine—and open the border with Israel to the Palestinian resistance. After the war, the Taif Agreement of 1989 gave more political say to the Sunnis and Shia. It made official what everyone knew: Lebanon’s Christians had lost.

“We don’t want foreign support,” says Habib Efram, by which he means a Western military adventure on behalf of the Christians. “We don’t want the West thinking of Christians as puppets of the West, using us for their agenda. We are from the Middle East and belong here.”

What they want, he says, is something like a Marshall Plan for Middle East Christians—“Some money to build schools and other programs.” “The United States,” he continues, “can also ensure that Christian minorities are fairly represented in their parliaments. The Copts make up 10 percent of Egypt’s population, and yet there are only 2 or 3 elected Coptic representatives and another few named by the government. The Copts should have at least 40 seats out of the 500-seat parliament. In Iraq, even with only 3 percent of the population the Christians should have 14 members of parliament.” Instead, they have only 2.

It is a fantasy of U.S. omnipotence familiar in the region. It would take U.S. troops, of course, to ensure the safety of U.S.-backed programs; nor could a more robust representation of Christians in weak Arab assemblies—even if the United States had a way of bringing it about—prevent the murder of Christians by mobs or terrorists. Efram’s hazy plan seems the wishful thinking of a minority under fire with nowhere to turn.

Efram attributes the rise in anti-Christian violence to the virulent strain of radical Islam that began with the Muslim Brotherhood and now comes in both Sunni and Shia variants. Arab security services fight Islamist groups when it suits regime interests—and it is dangerous for regimes to be perceived as siding with Christians against the Muslim majority. Thus, every day brings a fresh outrage against Egypt’s Copts, while the Cairo government’s notoriously active, and vicious, security services sit idly by. In Iraq, some Christians even long for the reign of Saddam Hussein and his Christian deputy, Tariq Aziz, who protected them.

That notion of “protection” has a particular history. Since the Arab conquests beginning in the mid-seventh century, Christians and Jews under Muslim rule were recognized as “people of the book.” In theory, they were protected minorities, or dhimmi. But they could not enjoy equality with the Muslim, typically Sunni, majority, and the lot of dhimmis varied with the disposition of the rulers. That Saddam, for instance, “protected” Christians to some degree did not ensure that his sons would have done the same.

And as for the glory days of Middle Eastern coexistence that supposedly preceded the rise of the present extremists, the Ottomans’ slaughter of the Armenians and other Christians belies it. As long as believers are without legal rights guaranteed by governments willing and able to enforce them, the Christian presence in the region will be in peril.

Lee Smith is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

Original Article Here:

January 20, 2011 Posted by | Christianity / God, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Let’s go on to your next two books, the Koran and the Hadith. Can you tell me a little bit about them and why you chose them?

The Koran is supposed to be the words of God and the Hadith are the sayings and deeds of the prophet. The Koran has the basic commands; the Hadith or the Sunna, is a sort of manual. It is supposed to be a guideline of how to understand the Koran, because people say that it’s not explicit enough. The Hadith is a compilation of six volumes and they are called the Sahith Sitta – Sitta just means six and Sahith means authentic.

So what I did after September 11 was I analysed bin Laden’s words, his quotations, his explanations, and his mission statement which is: ‘We are at war with the West. They want to destroy Islam and we need to fight back.’ I know scripture, and when Islam is attacked you all become warriors, all of you. And so I wanted to know, ‘Am I a warrior of Islam now?’ Also, are all these things that bin Laden is saying really in the Koran and in the Hadith? And, to my shock, they were. A lot of people say they are taken out of context, but they are completely not taken out of context. They are in context. They only thing that is out of context is the fact that this very old book which was put together by – well, we don’t know who the authors are, but it’s definitely more than one author – is considered to be valid in the 21st century. That’s what’s out of context. Everything else is consistent with what that book says, what the founder of Islam, Mohammed, envisioned, how he practised in his lifetime, with his religion, and the legacy he left behind. And the question that I had to answer for myself was, did I want to belong to that, or not?

For the Full Interview go to:

January 20, 2011 Posted by | Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Breaking the manacles of Islam

A specter is haunting the Mullahs. The specter of Islamic truth. Pardon me for paraphrasing those two famous lines of Karl Marx from his ‘The Manifesto of the Communist Party.’ I could find no better sentences than those two lines about the frantic efforts by the Mullahs to cover up the true colors of Islam in the world of Internet. Many recent essays in NFB (News From Bangladesh), secularIslam, Rational Thinking, etc., have exposed the other side of many religions including the Islam. The writers of these essays have taken great risks in terms of their personal safety to expose the intolerance, cruelty, injustices and irrationalities of many facets of Islam, the religion of “Peace.” Their forceful arguments, painstaking researched and extraordinary dedication are really going to shake the very foundation of the religion. I think the Mullahs could never believe that there is so much of disgust and disdain for the irrationalities and the backwardness in Islam in the present-day context. They thought that the fear of death sentence and the declaration of Jihad (Holy War) would silence the voices of rationality, logic and progress. No wonder, the Mullahs are desperate to counter attack with theirs every possible means. Amongst them are the illogical blind quotations of fear, the mindless hate, personal attacks, intimidation, charges of apostasy and blasphemy and what not. If only they could identify and catch those Kafirs and the infidels, I am sure they cannot wait to hang them in public. Unfortunately, the cyber world is too huge for them to start the killing spree. Therefore, they have little choice but to resort to intellectual assassinations.

After reading through a number of those venomous essays by these Islamists, I could categorize them into two broad groups; namely:

1 . The hard-core bigots. These Mullahs preach nothing but hatred towards anyone suspected of uttering a single word against Islam. They are completely devoid of any logical or rational thinking. Their languages are filthy (mostly four letter words), full of personal threats, distasteful and incomprehensible writings, etc. They usually judge a Muslim through his/her name. They challenge the writers to declare their apostasy in public so that they can take care of them (that is, kill them). They usually send their threats through the personal e-mails of the authors. So, many readers may not be aware of these threats. They do not realize that a person’s name has very little to do with his/her religion although it (the name) may be useful in many cases. I know many Lebanese whose names sound like Muslims but I see them wearing crosses on their necks that tells me what is his/her real religious affiliation is (that is they are actually Christians). Bertrand Russell seems to be a Christians name, but he wrote the book ‘Why I am not a Christian.’ The name given to a person during his birth is beyond his/her control. Similarly, the birth religion of a person has nothing to do with his/her personal belief when he grows up and starts to think and act on his/her own. This is a fundamental human right. Thus, a person being born in a Muslim family and given a Muslim (or rather Arabic) name does not necessarily must follow Islam when he grows up. But these fanatic bigots will not accept this basic right of a human being. When the bigot finds that a person has a Muslim name and he argues certain points in Islam, he is immediately declared as an apostate and, therefore, that person automatically becomes a target for annihilation. I just do not understand this mindless thinking. Never have I seen a secularist/humanist declare any person who does not agree with him or who talks and writes against the secularists/humanists/atheists should be killed. These people will not accept the truth that a person has every right to examine critically his/her birth religion. What kind of religion these bigots are preaching to the civilized world?

Readers, have you seen that these hard-core bigots are greatly alarmed even though they know that it is not that simple to kill people in the cyber world? Their frustration is then manifested in the personal attacks to the writers. There are many examples that can be found in many criticisms of the essays written by the secularists/humanists authors. A recent example is the criticism of Kamran Mirza’s two essays; one was on the ancient Arabian practices of worship of the Moon God Allah and the other was the serious questions about fasting in Islam. The Islamic critics resorted to severe personal innuendoes, abusive languages and false accusations. I cannot quote all those remarks. Please refer to NFB back issues if you want details. Another example is the personal and shameless attack on Taslima Nasrin in an article titled ‘True color of Taslima Nasrin.’ The bigoted writer of this article has tried to depict Taslima as a sex maniac and has delved into her private married life with her deceased husband. They wanted to finish her off physically by slaughtering her but that did not happen. They grossly underestimated her courage and conviction. So, now they are trying to kill her through character assassination. Nothing could be more unjust than this type of intrusion in some ones personal and private life. But then, again, we cannot expect anything more decent from these hard-core bigots.

These types of bigots have very little understanding even the religion that they love so much and not to talk of their knowledge of other religions or other philosophical/belief matters. Their main language is violence, Jihad, and terrorizing people to the extent that the author is compelled to stop disseminating his/her views. This tactic is nothing new in religion. Terror and violence had always been used in Islam (and some other religion too) to silence it’s critics. You will find many references to these types of activities if you read the relevant passages in Koran and the Hadiths.

2 . .The intellectual bigots: These bigots have very good knowledge of Islam, Koran Hadiths……etc. They are fully aware that what is being written by the Kafirs and the infidels are very difficult if not impossible to refute. These intellectual bigots are frustrated by the logic, rationality, coherence and the realistic arguments extended by the authors. They too wished that these writers were eliminated but then they also feel a little guilty about the open call for their annihilation. So, they resort to psychological killing. This involves the quotations from Koran and Hadiths about the dreadful punishments that will be meted out to those who dare to criticize Islam. They openly declare that whoever questions Islam is no more a Muslim. Of course, the infidel writers are very little concerned whether they are considered Muslims or not. But then, the declaration by this group of bigots has some significance. What are those? The significance is that the author becomes an enemy of Islam and therefore, subject to all the punishments that are applicable to non-believers and the apostates.

These bigots are very shrewd and intelligent. They will extend subtle threats to the authors, like becoming an outcast in society, to rot in hell, not to have the advantages of the petrodollars, not to be favored by the Arabs, etc. etc. This type of threat is designed to instill the fear and greed in the minds of the authors. A preferred fear is the fear of death. The greed is the greed of going to heaven/petro-dollars, etc. They will quote from their scriptures about the terrible death that awaits those who question and doubt the religion (Islam). Most of the time these bigots will avoid going into logical or rational reasoning because they know rather well that that won’t be fruitful. Their main armor is the quotations and the regurgitation of only what they know about their religion. For example, when the question of haram/halal food is raised, they will give no reason as to why the halal food should be eaten except that religious scriptures have decreed so. And, therefore, it should not be questioned. The nutritional values of haram/halal foods are irrelevant in this case. All that matters is that the religion has approved certain foods and to the contrary has banned certain foods. Many haram foods are as nutritional as many halal foods are if not better. If halal foods are good, then the Muslims must be the healthiest people in the world. How come then that those who eat haram foods have better physique? This is a commonsense question. However, the religious bigots will never answer this question in an honest and straightforward fashion. They will simply hide behind the cloak of their scriptures and confuse people more. Similar examples can be cited on many other archaic practices in Islam. Like fasting, performing haj, praying five times every day, etc. These bigots will never give any good reasons as to their practices except to say that they are the pillars of Islam. Is there anything wrong in knowing the reasons behind them? Many of these rituals were actually practiced by the pagan Arabs long before the advent of Islam. However, if this question is put to the bigots, all you get is personal vilification and branding you as an enemy of Islam. This reminds me my childhood. As a child, I was asked to memorize the verses of Koran. I used to ask the Hujur (Mullah) what meanings were conveyed by those verses? The reply I used to get from the Hujur was a few strokes of the cane and rebukes. He used to say that one should never ask any question on the matter of Islam especially on Koran. The penalty for asking questions is whipping. So, I stopped questioning and memorized the verses without understanding anything. The Hujur was a symbol of terror to me. I had no choice but to follow whatever he asked of me. That was how fear was and still is being introduced in the minds of the people and these bigots are repeating the same things over and over again. This is what is called a mass hypnotization induced through intimidation and fear. The fact is that if the real truths about the religion leak out these Hujurs will be out of work. Pure and simple.

Another ploy employed by these people is to blame the translators of the Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah. Even the eminent translator like A. Yusuf Ali is not considered as authentic translator. These bigots will never say which one is the authentic English version of the Koran, Hadiths, Sunnah, etc. They will simply say that one must be very good in Arabic to interpret Koran. This is akin to saying that one must be very good in Aramaic and Hebrew languages to understand the Bible and the Talmud. Or that you must be very good in Greek, Latin and Dutch languages to understand Aristotle, Roman laws, Copernicus’ ‘laws of heavenly bodies,’ etc. These are absolutely illogical ideas. Strangely though, you will notice that these bigots will use the English translation of the Koran when it suits their purposes. But when the inconsistencies, irrationalities and illogical things are pointed out, these bigots will simply say that the English translation is perverted. What kind of hypocrisy is that? In many cases, they warn people that the interpretations will vary depending on who is interpreting as well as the context of interpretation. This means that only those interpretations offered by them are valid and the rest are simply invalid. At the same time, these Mullahs also insist by quoting from Koran that the mishandling (wrong interpretations) is a great sin and the interpreter/s will have to face severe penalty No wonder, it is next to impossible to gauge any logic from these talks of the Mullahs.

Has it occurred to the readers of NFB that these bigots give them the impression that the Koran is an extremely difficult piece to understand and to interpret. Why should Allah make his words so difficult that ordinary people have great difficulties in understanding them? It simply doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever. One does not need a Ph.D in the ancient Arabic language and culture to understand the Koran. Then, why do these Mullahs insist so much on the mastery of the Arabic language? They know that most followers of Islam do not know Arabic and even if they know their skill in the language is not enough to interpret the ancient language of Koran. Furthermore, it takes many years to master a language. Most people have no time, patience and the motivation for that. So, they simply take the advantage of people’s ignorance and pretend that they are the sole agents of the Koran and it’s interpretations. Many people are not conversant in the English language as well. So, they do not know the exact meanings in many verses of the Koran. How about the Bangla and other translations of Koran? The Mullahs simply ignore them while accepting only those that suit them. Ironically, think about what will happen to the Mullahs if every Muslim masters the Arabic language! People will start interpreting the Koran in the way they understand and not be dependent upon the Mullahs. This may open the eyes of the masses and dehypnotize them. These Mullah’s will then simply be defeated in their own game, will they not?

This is what the Mullhas fear most. The Mullahs desperately need the uneducated, ignorant and fearful mass to perpetuate their stranglehold on the salesmanship of Islam.

However, the development in new technology and the introduction of the Internet has really alarmed the Mullahs. Many people are now able to exchange ideas almost instantly on any matter including religions. Many Mullahs could never believe that there are so many born Muslims who dare to question Islam and challenge its archaic practices. This was unthinkable even a few years ago. The reason is very simple. Many of these thinkers always had doubts about what they were supposed to believe but thought that they were alone and hence they were fearful about speaking their minds in public or to their peers. They kept that question to themselves. The Internet and the modern electronic mass media had opened an opportunity for them to be united if not physically at least electronically. This is a very bad news for the Mullahs. They simply cannot digest the truth that one day Islam will not go unchallenged. This is now happening as it had already happened with Christianity and with other religions as well many years ago. The innate nature of humanity to seek the truth, to explore the unexplored, to question and to innovate can never be suppressed. One day Islam will surely realize that.

By the way, it is interesting to note that innovation in Islam is haram. The dictionary definition of innovation is to introduce changes or to introduce new things. This is the foundation of civilization. Imagine what would have happened if mankind was not innovative. The people of other religion prospered only when they freed themselves from their religious irrationalities and started innovating. That is why Islam is so paranoid about innovative ideas and free-thinking. These two things hit at the heart of Islam.

Curiously, you will notice that many of the innovative ideas and inventions are used by the Mullahs to propagate their doctrines. You can see many examples of these. Like TV, Radio, modern appliances and the latest is Internet. They have realized the immense power of modern science and technology. When you ask them why should the Islamic people accept these innovative things that are mainly due to the innovative ideas of the Kafirs and the infidels, the Islamists have ready answers. The answer is that these inventions are the gifts of Allah. Some will even say that science and technology are Allah’s blessings to mankind. I have no problem in accepting the compliment. How about the Islamic bomb? This maut be the greatest gift of Allah to His followers. How about the Hindu bomb? Since Allah is the only god could it be that Allah is also responsible for this great gift to the Hindus as well? And how about the Christian and the Buddhist bombs? If these questions are asked to the Islamists I do not know what will be the answer? The other question is that why is it that the followers of Islam have next to nothing contribution to the modern science and technology? Isn’t that because Islam had kept its followers blind for centuries? Now, many of these blind people are getting their sights back. What were impossible to think for centuries for many innocent followers of Islam, are now having a second look at their ancestor given faith. It is simply a matter of time before the arrogance and the irrationality of Islam becomes a distant history. And with that, is the demise of the Mullahs like, Ayatollahs, Talibans, Golam Azam, Maulana Nizami, etc.

Finally, I must pay homage to the few braves who took the risk to demystify Islam. You are the pioneers. You have taught me how to think the unthinkable. You have taught me how to be courageous. You have taught me how to rekindle the human spirit. You have taught me how to fight for the justice. You have taught me how to accept merciless criticisms with grace. You have taught me how to conquer the unconquerable. A hundred years from now humanity will remember you as the greatest innovators in finding a cure for the religious blinds. That is because you dared to think differently. Truly, you are the alarm bells of the Mullahs. History won’t forget you for being the Agradoot (harbinger) who are bent on breaking the manacles of Islam.


By Abul Kasem.


January 19, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment


January 18, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment