Thoughts and Truth from the Impossible Life

PYEM Ministry

Advertisements

February 7, 2011 Posted by | Christianity / God, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 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

Muslim Zombies

Muslim Zombies Spreading Islam

There is no God but Allah because we are deceived.

False God Allah’s false prophet is Mohammad, damnable be his name.

If you do not accept our false God, we will kill you because Islam is a religion of peace.

If you tell the truth about the false God Allah, we will kill you because Islam is a religion of peace.

If you tell the truth about our pedofile, murderer, rapist, thief false prophet, we will kill you because Islam a religion of peace.

If you tell the truth about the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ, we will lie that Jesus was not the Son of God and the Savior of the world, and we will kill you because Islam is a religion of peace.

If you question that Islam is the religion of peace, we will lie to you as Mohammad taught. This is called Taqiyya, then we will kill you because Islam a religion of peace.

If you stop being deceived and leave Islam, we will kill you because Islam a religion of peace.

If a Muslim woman disobeys a Muslim man, we will kill you because Islam a religion of peace.

February 2, 2011 Posted by | Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Islam By Their Law Shall We Know Them

The ideology of Islam fully implemented under Sharia Law, consistent with the koran, sira and hadith, condemns freedom (speech, conscience, religion association, press, petition of government), forbids equality (between men and women, muslims and non-muslims) and denies traditional sovereignty (national boundaries, secular law, native culture). Any form of sharia, implicit (in mosques and ‘at home’) or explicit (as practiced in UK civil courts, as promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to the United Nations), denies human rights to women, children and non-muslims. Therefore, allowing sharia in this Constitutional Republic or any non-islamic nation violates our basic laws of freedom, including freedom of choice. The tenets of islam as codified in sharia are supremacist, discriminatory and misogynist; they invite or encourage deception toward non-muslims and mandate perpetual hostility to that which is not islamic. Sharia must be banned as being unConstitutional and its promotion labeled seditious, as it calls for the replacement of man-made law with “divine” sharia.

Whatever in islam that may be spiritual and promote the salvation of the soul is of little interest to me, unless and until it affects non-muslims, at which point it becomes political doctrine. And if this political doctrine calls for harm, subjugation, taxation, terrorizing and death, it is a free-people’s right and obligation to resist.

Speak about islam and sharia in this way. Challenge your listeners not to believe anything about islam that is not consistent with the foundational texts of islam and its body of law, for to do so is to be deceived and ignorant.

ORIGINAL POSTING Website:

January 30, 2011 Posted by | Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

New Ground Zero imam Apostates against Islam must be jailed

New Ground Zero imam: ‘Apostates against Islam must be jailed’
Posted on January 26, 2011 by creepingsharia

Moderate face of Islam says jail apostates. So much for freedom of religion and speech.

via Aaron Klein at WND, Ground Zero imam: ‘Apostates against Islam must be jailed’

Those who leave Islam and preach against the Muslim religion must be jailed, declared the imam who has become the new face of the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero in New York City.

“If someone leaves the din, leaves the path privately, they cannot be touched. If someone preaches about apostasy, or preaches their views, they’re jailed,” stated Imam Abdallah Adhami in a November lecture obtained and reviewed by WND.

Adhami was discussing the Quranic view of apostasy, or Muslims who decide to leave the Islamic religion.

According to Shariah, or Islamic law, the consensus view in Sunni Islam is that a male apostate must be put to death unless he suffers from a mental disorder or converted against his will.

There are, however, differing views on the subject, with some contemporary Islamic scholars differentiating between public and private apostasy and arguing for actions ranging from death to nothing.

Adhami, speaking to a non-Muslim audience, claimed Islamic law only calls for punishment for public apostates and that most Islamic scholars demand only that public apostates be jailed as opposed to killed.

He claimed Islam was “revolutionary” for purportedly only punishing those who preach apostasy publicly, as opposed to other religions, which, he claimed, punish both public and private apostates.

“The Quran distinguishes between public and private apostasy,” he said, failing to note most medieval Islamic scholars did not make such a distinction.

Adhami admitted, “Yes, many jurists said [public apostates] have to be killed. … But the position of the state was the position of Islamic scholars – they must be jailed so they are contained.”

He said, “In Islam, in the Quran, theoretically, if you look over the Quran from cover to cover, you literally have the right to the choice to reject God’s message. The only thing you do not have the right to do is to spread this conviction, lest you, quote unquote, pollute others.”

Last week, WND broke the story that Adhami declared in a lecture Muslims have “more of a right” than Jews to the biblical prophet Moses.

In the same lecture, Adhami urged Muslims to “compete” with other religions.

Meanwhile, others have been scrutinizing Adhami’s background.

Writing at the NewsReal blog, writer Joseph Klein revealed Adhami was a guest speaker at the annual convention of the Islamic Association for Palestine in 2000. T he theme of the convention was “All Palestine is Sacred!”

Adhami was reportedly joined at the speakers’ rostrum by Dr. Sami Al-Arian, who pled guilty in 2006 to conspiracy to contribute services to or for the benefit of the Palestine Islamic Jihad.

IAP went defunct in 2005. It was established in 1981 by Hamas political operative Mousa Abu Marzook.

Like the ISNA, the IAP was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document – titled “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” – as one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends.”

RESPONSE ON Originial Posting:

Pawndad, on January 26, 2011 at 1:03 PM said:

It would be kinda nice if someone mentioned Adhami’s remarks to NYC mayor Bloomberg. and for that matter get Obama;s reaction. Of course it’s not going to happen because the MSM will not allow it.

ORIGINAL POSTING:

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

Proof For Muhammad’s Prophethood – video

December 15, 2010 Posted by | Christianity / God, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sharia = Sedition

Consider this a tutorial on why the active and purposeful pursuit of Shariah in the U.S. has implications for the federal criminal law of sedition (notably Title 18, Section 2385 of the U.S. Code) and why Jewish law and Christian dogma or Catholic canon do not. Specifically, I present here a brief discussion of whether such application of federal criminal law to Shariah would have an impact on the practice of Jews who observe Jewish law and the private adjudication of religious and commercial matters before a bais din or Jewish court of law (or, for that matter, Christians or Catholics submitting arbitral matters before private ecclesiastical boards or panels).

To begin, by Shariah we mean the authoritative and authoritarian corpus juris of Islamic law as it has been articulated by the recognized Shariah authorities over more than a millennium. The term Shariah as used herein, therefore, does not refer to a personal, subjective, pietistic understanding of the word or concept of Shariah. This latter understanding of the word Shariah is closer to its literal meaning in Arabic without any of the legalistic connotations it has developed as an authoritative institution in Islamic history; as it is currently practiced in such countries as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan; and as it is meant when referred to in the various laws and constitutions of most Muslim countries.

I have written extensively on the question of the practice or advocacy of Shariah by Shariah authorities as a violation of the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385) on the grounds that throughout the long 1200-year history of the development of Shariah, and across all five major schools of Shariah jurisprudence, five salient facts are embedded in a deep consensus among all authoritative Shariah authorities:

1. The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.
2. Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non- violent means. But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.
3. The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.
4. The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,
5. Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.

Much of my work in this area has drawn upon original Shariah-based works and the academic scholarship relating to that body of work, but also includes the scholarship of others. I especially owe much to Stephen Coughlin (Major U.S. Army Reserves, military intelligence) and his work for the Joint Chiefs while assigned to USCENTCOM.

Because Jihad necessarily advocates violence and the destruction of our representative, constitution- based government, the advocacy of Jihad by a Shariah authority presents a real and present danger. This is sedition when advocated from within our borders; an act of war when directed at us from foreign soil.

This is especially true because a Shariah authority commands the absolute allegiance of the Shariah faithful Jihadist. As Professors Frank Vogel and Samuel Hayes explain, both distinguished professors at Harvard University and proponents of Shariah-compliant finance, Shariah is not some personalized, subjective, pietistic approach to Islam but an institutionalized legal-political-normative doctrine and system:

Islamic legal rules encompass both ethics and law, this world and the next, church and state. The law does not separate rules enforced by individual conscience from rules enforced by a judge or by the state. Since scholars alone are capable of knowing the law directly from revelation, laypeople are expected to seek an opinion (fatwa) from a qualified scholar on any point in doubt; if they follow that opinion sincerely, they are blameless even if the opinion is in error.[1] (Emphasis added.)

Shariah, as it is described on its own terms, is fundamentally and critically unlike Jewish law and any form of Christian canon or ecclesiastical law. Specifically, because neither Jewish law (halacha) nor Christian canon or ecclesiastical law obligates the Jew or Christian, respectively, to violently impose theo-political tenets in lieu of the Constitution, there is simply no basis to apply the laws of sedition to the application of Jewish law or Christian dogma within private religious or commercial contexts. While Jews and Christians may advocate and petition their government for laws that reflect their moral and theological worldview (as may Muslims or atheists), neither Jewish law nor Christian dogma permits the forceful imposition of a theocracy in lieu of representative government or the replacement of our constitution with theocratic legislation.

The contrast between Jewish law and Shariah makes this point vividly. After the fall of the Jewish Commonwealth and the dispersion of the Jews into lands ruled by non-Jews following the Roman destruction of the Second Holy Temple (the current Exile, which includes the modern State of Israel), Talmudic and Jewish legal authorities developed several fundamental principles of Jewish law. The first is dina d’malchuta dina – or, the law of the land in commercial matters is the law (see, e.g., BABYLONIAN TALMUD, Baba Kama 113a, Baba Basra 54b, Gittin 10b, and Nedarim 28a). In other words, the sovereign’s secular commercial laws control Jewish law.

The second post-Exilic legal ruling which separates Jewish law from traditional and still quite contemporary Shariah is that Jewish law on its own terms no longer grants jurisdiction over criminal matters or any form of civil or administrative penalty to a Jewish bais din or court. At best, a Jewish court established by the community may render decisions about money judgments for actual damages as a kind of private arbitration (see, Rabbi Joseph Caro, SHULCHAN ARUCH, Choshen Mishpat, Chapter 1:1-2.) Thus, Jewish law does not allow a bais din, even in modern Israel, to issue a ruling that could have any penal or even compensatory function for non-money damages – such as embarrassment or shame.

It is also worth noting that there is no Jewish legal or normative doctrine for taking lives – others’ or one’s own – as a martyr in fulfilling Jewish law. Specifically, Jewish law requires a Jew to violate Jewish law and to follow the law of the land rather than suffer death except in three cases[2]: (i) if the local law requires a Jew to murder someone (fighting and killing in a legal war of the nation is of course not murder so Jews have no basis for resisting a military draft); (ii) if the local law requires the Jew to engage in some sexual perversion (incest, rape, or homosexuality); and (iii) if the local law requires the Jew to worship idols. But even in these three cases, a Jew must simply allow himself to be punished or martyred by the authorities for his refusal to violate one of these fundamental sins. That is, Jewish martyrdom is a passive act of resistance. There is no concept of a Jewish martyr who dies murdering his enemy.

Shariah turns the Jewish legal doctrine of martyrdom on its head. As noted above, Shariah demands that its law dominate and it is a fundamental crime under Shariah for a Muslim to adhere to a secular law that does not make clear that Shariah is the “highest law of the land”. If a Muslim adheres to a secular constitution deemed the “highest law of the land”, even if the secular constitution and the laws of the land allow for Shariah adherence, the Muslim is considered a Mushrik or polytheist – subject to capital punishment because he has implicitly acknowledged a law giver higher than Allah.[3] Moreover, according to Shariah, a Muslim is a martyr when he dies killing/murdering the infidel. There is nothing passive about the act which awards the Jihadist this appellation.

And, returning to the Jewish legal concept of “the law of the land is the law”, this Jewish legal doctrine is true according to most authorities precisely because a legitimate sovereign acting as a representative of its people passing laws for just and peaceful relations is participating itself in the divine plan for human existence. Jewish law recognizes this divinity and does not seek to deligitimatize secular or foreign law by rendering it, as Shariah does, an affront and illegal challenge to supreme divine law and punishable by death.

Further, the only method available to the contemporary bais din to enforce its rulings is by the imposition of a kind of communal excommunication (i.e., herem, niddui, or nezifah).[4] As a practical matter, because the post-Exilic Jewish legal structure is not hierarchical, no bais din can force its ruling on any other and this leaves even this enforcement action as little more than local, voluntary censure.

To a Shariah-adherent Muslim, however, contemporary Shariah has lost none of its political clout and continues to have the power of state action. Thus,

Since Islamic law reflects the will of [Allah] rather than the will of a human lawmaker, it covers all areas of life and not simply those which are of interest to a secular state or society. It is not limited to questions of belief and religious practice, but also deals with criminal and constitution (sic) matters, as well as many other fields which in other societies would be regarded as the concern of the secular authorities. In an Islamic context there is no such thing as a separate secular authority and secular law, since religion and state are one. Essentially, the Islamic state as conceived by orthodox Muslims is a religious entity established under divine law.[5]

To conclude, it should be clear with but a cursory analysis, because Shariah calls for the destruction of our constitutional republic and for our conversion, subjugation, or murder it is criminal. There simply is no basis to suggest that either Judaism or Christianity, or in fact any other well-known religious dogma or doctrine, falls within the statutory coverage of our extant laws criminalizing sedition.

December 10, 2010 Posted by | Christianity / God, Constitutional Issues, Politics/Government/Freedom, Societal / Cultural Issues, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

middle east info dot org

December 10, 2010 Posted by | Politics/Government/Freedom, Understanding Islam, World Affairs | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: