Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

NPR Propaganda Misrepresents Islam

While I was composing another post, NPR’s Morning Edition was spewing the standard lies, denying the fatal facts of Islam and condemning FBI training materials which accurately describe Islamic doctrine & practice.  The printed word can not reproduce the arrogant condescension dripping from the narrator’s lips as she condemned the training program without demonstrating fallacy or bias.  Lets start with the transcript, when Steve Inskeep introduces the subject.

 Material from FBI courses gives agents a particular view of Muslims in America. It suggests that even mainstream Muslim Americans could be suspect. Rather than being told that terrorists were the problem, some agents were apparently told that Muslims were the problem.

even mainstream Muslim Americans could be suspect

Define “mainstream Muslim” and enumerate the distinguishing characteristics by which distinguish them from potential suspects.  Do they know and believe Allah’s word; his threat and promise? Do they obey Allah and emulate Moe or not?  Can you tell by sight or smell?

terrorists were the problem

Were the Magnificent 19 Muslims?  The confession of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad indicates that the plotters are Muslims and proud of what they did in Allah’s name. The confession indicates that they acted in conformity to religious obligation: Allah’s imperatives and Moe’s exemplary conduct.

Was Muhammad bin Abdullah a Muslim?   His bragging about being a terrorist: victory through casting terror, is recorded in two hadith in the collection of Sahih Bukhari: 1.7.331 & 4.52.220. Is mainstream Islam anything other than what he preached and practiced as recorded in the Qur’an [3:151, 8:12, 57, 60; 33:26, 27; 59:2, 13   & hadith?  Allah said that he would cast terror and that he did cast terror, resulting in the death of the men of a Jewish tribe and the enslavement of their widows and orphans. He said that the Jews were more afraid of Moe and his army than they were of him. He commanded Muslims to deal harshly with their victims to strike terror into “those behind them”. He commanded them to maximize their military strenth to “strike terror”.  But the self-annointed experts of NPR instruct us  that terrorism is not an element of mainstream Islam.  If Islam’s canonical texts do not define Islam, what does?

Muslims were the problem

Without Muslims, Islam would be nothing more than musty books on library shelves. It is Muslims who are the foot soldiers of  Islam. It is Muslims who, in obedience to Allah; in emulation of Moe, stage terror attacks all over the world.

And it came out recently in Wired magazine that a counterterrorism training session at the FBI training center in Quantico, Virginia was teaching agents that Islam was a violent religion and that basically if you are a Muslim and religious, you should be seen as suspect.

Islam was a violent religion

Where did the instructors get that idea?  Could it be from the Qur’an? [2:216, 190, 8:39,679:29, 111, 123, 47:4, 48:15-20]  Could it be from the hadith? [Riyad-us-Saliheen Book 11, Chapter 234] Could it be Islamic law? [Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1] Could it be from Moe’s biography? [The Sealed Nectar]

Muslim and religious: suspect

Exactly why should we suspect anyone who is not a Muslim of plotting an act of Islamic terrorism?  Why should we not be suspicious of Muslims?  Who is more likely than a Muslim to obey Allah and emulate Moe by attempting to cast terror into the hearts of disbelievers?  When you hear hoof beats, do you look for horses or unicorns?

[…] these were classes on Islamic doctrine that talked about the relationship between Islam and terrorism.

relationship between Islam and terrorism

Apparently there is something wrong with teaching FBI agents about the relationship between Islam and terrorism. FBI agents must be kept ignorant of Allah’s sanctification, imperative & Moe’s example of casting terror into the hearts of disbelievers.  Of course, they have no need to know about it.

And let’s be fair here, there are different interpretations of Islam, some of them certainly would seem to be violent interpretations of Islam, but most Muslims have argued that overwhelming majorities of Muslims are peaceful and that they have a peaceful religion. So did the training overstate what you can know about the different varieties of this religion?

different interpretations of Islam

What is the difference between Sunni, Shi’ia & Sufi concerning jihad & terrorism?  Which mainstream school of Islamic law rejects offensive warfare against disbelievers and terrorism?  Al-Shafi’i had something to say about the obligation to perform jihad.Compare what he said to Reliance O9.1.

“The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims’ interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse.”

How does that Shafi’ite fiqh differ from that of Al-Ghazali, a Sufi?

one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year

violent interpretations of Islam

Is anyone better qualified to interpret the Qur’an than the man who first recited it?  How did he interpret it?

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

Allah said “fight them until” Moe said “I have been ordered to fight”.  Exactly how can anyone dispute and disprove the obvious?  Would you prefer a second opinion? [Sahih Bukhari 9.84.89, Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2635 ]

majorities of Muslims are peaceful

Have they not been called to fight yet [48:16, Sahih Bukhari 4.52.79] , or are they hypocrites [9:91…129]? How did the conquests of Syria, Yemen, Egypt, North Africa and India happen if most Muslims are peaceful?

they have a peaceful religion

If they do, it ain’t Islam!  Jihad is defined in Islamic law as “to war against non-Muslims”. Islam is not a religion, it is a way of life: intra-species predation. Its religious component is jihad.

Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:

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

Jihad, commerce and agriculture are viewed as alternative economic systems; jihad is preferred over the other two. It becomes clear that jihad is their “original religion”.

The outline below has some quotes from the article in the outer node and the reality in inner nodes.

September 30, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Unholy Derision

I outgrew comic books more than forty years ago, but was drawn to a review of Frank Miller’s Holy Terror  by a Google Alert “Defamation of Islam”.  The review by  Spencer Ackerman takes a mocking and dismissive tone towards critics of Islam.

One long sentence from the review exemplifies one tactic of al-Taqiyya.

That sentiment has made its way into the halls of the FBI. In January, one of its field offices entertained a lecture on Islamic law from Stephen Coughlin, a former Pentagon consultant on the subject. Coughlin’s typical spiel contends that there’s a “ten-year plan” to make “defamation of Islam a crime” around the world.

The reference to sentiment is passed forward from the preceding paragraph which labels Pamela Geller as “self-righteous” and rejected by the mainstream. which her ilk supposedly consider as proof of their “self-evident virtue”, “a reminder that the rest of the country just can’t handle the reality of the “Muslim threat.”

“ten-year plan”

It appears that Spencer Ackerman wants his readers to believe that the “ten-year plan” to criminalize criticism of Islam is a fiction invented by a Shari’ah expert. Unfortunately, it is no fiction, it is very real.  While the remainder of the paragraph dismisses the plan, it links to another article in which Ackerman has embedded  video of a lecture by Stephen Coughlin.

In reality, the OIC formulated a Ten Year Plan of Action in 2005.  The sixth point of that plan bears directly on the issue at hand. [Bold font original, highlight added for emphasis.]

VI.  Combating Islamophobia

1. Emphasize the responsibility of the international community, including all governments, to ensure respect for all religions and combat their defamation.
2. Affirm the need to counter Islamophobia, through establishing an observatory at the OIC General Secretariat to monitor all forms of Islamophobia, issue an annual report thereon, and ensure cooperation with international Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs) in the West in order to counter Islamophobia.
3. Endeavor to have the United Nations adopt an international resolution to counter Islamophobia, and call upon all States to enact laws to counter it, including deterrent punishments.
4. Initiate a structured and sustained dialogue with the parties concerned in order to project the true values of Islam and empower Muslim countries to help in the war against extremism and terrorism.

Examine the first and third items in that list. They posit international and national responsibility to ensure respect for Islam. They want the UN to call on all members to enact laws to criminalize “Islamophobia”.  In that same year the U.N. Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution “Combating Defamation of Islam”. In later years, the CHR,  its HRC successor   and the General Assembly have passed similar annual resolutions.   See this blog post for more detail about one typical resolution.

Those resolutions are non-binding; they have no enforcement mechanism. But international human rights covenants such as ICERD can be enforced against signatories. In 2007, the HRC formed an ad hoc committee to elaborate complementary standards to be inserted into ICERD through a binding protocol. On September 27, 2012, the committee presented the report on their third session in which they remained bogged down in procedural matters.  For the dirty details, see these blog posts:

Islamophobia Observatory

One result of the ten year plan was the creation of the OIC’s Islamophobia Observatory which issues monthly reports. By reading those reports you can discover the fact that their primary concern is centered on criticism of Islam, particularly Fitna & the Motoons.

basis in Shari’ah

Fitna juxtaposes Qur’an verses and ranting clerics with  the terror attacks & riots they incite.  The Motoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which he bragged about. He died before the invention of gunpowder, but he said that he was made victorious with terror; see Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331 & 4.52.220.

The prohibition on criticism of Islam comes from Shari’ah. Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Shafi’ite fiqh,  specifies the death penalty for apostasy in Book O, Chapter 8, Sections 1 &2.

  • O8.1

    When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

  • O8.2

    In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

But we are discussing criticism of Islam; what’s the relevance of the penalty for apostasy?  The relevance is in the definition of apostasy, which is given in O8.7, which includes a list of 20 “Acts that Entail Leaving Islam”. Several of those acts are directly related to our issue.

  • -4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
  • -5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
  • -6- to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
  • -7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
  • -16- to revile the religion of Islam;
  • -19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

What is the relevance of those rulings; we are not Muslims so apostasy law does not apply to us?  Jews & Christians conquered or intimidated by Muslims and not embracing Islam remain in the Islamic state under a treaty of protection from Islam, for which they pay jizya. Certain acts violate the treaty, subjecting the violator to a harsh penalty. Five items are listed; one is relevant.

  • O11.10
    The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:
  • -5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
  • O11.11

    When a subject’s agreement with the state has been violated, the caliph chooses between the four alternatives mentioned above in connection with prisoners of war (o9.14).

  • O9.14

    When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph (def: o25) considers the interests (O: of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.

    If the prisoner becomes a Muslim (O: before the caliph chooses any of the four alternatives) then he may not be killed, and one of the other three alternatives is chosen.

What would be impermissible to mention about Islam? The items listed in O8.7, of course.  By trivializing the ten year action plan and sending us off to a half hour video which details the relevant part of the plan near the 25 minute mark, Ackerman tries to divert our attention from the fact that the OIC is pressing hard to criminalize truthful criticism of Islam.

The UN resolutions specifically condemn associating Islam with “terrorism and human rights violations”. When we cite the numerous ayat & ahadith  which sanctify & exemplify terrorism or those which sanction the rape of captive women or the slaughter of men who had surrendered, we would be subject to persecution if those resolutions were binding or if ICERD is amended to include their provisions.

In his concluding paragraph, Ackerman once again engages in mockery as a an instrument of diversion.

But it wasn’t God who knocked down the Towers. It was fanatics who believed themselves to have deciphered His true message. Miller doesn’t realize that by portraying them as true disciples of Islam, he’s giving the murderers what they want most. That’s the real terror of Holy Terror, the real lie, and the real naïveté.

Who claims that Allah knocked down the WTC? Atta and his associates were not fanatics, they were believers as defined in 9:111 & 49:15.  The terrorists do not want adulation, they want rivers of wine & honey and 72 virgins to sport with. They believe in Allah’s threat & promise.

The real lie is in Ackerman’s last paragraph.  To fully comprehend it you need to read the statement of Khalid Sheik Mohammad and his four co-conspirators, which they submitted to a military tribunal in response to the nine accusations against them.  Muslims do not decipher Allah’s message; it is not encrypted. His imperatives are contained in clear verses whose meaning is exemplified by Muhammad’s sunnah.  It is confirmed by Islamic exegesis and codified in Islamic law.  Jihad: genocidal conquest which terrorizes its victims is not extremism, neither is it a perversion of normative Islam.  It is normative Islam. Islamic law defines jihad and details the religious obligation to perform it in every year.  Open Reliance of the Traveller to Book O, Chapter 9 and read through 9.9. Of course, you will need confirmation, so open Hedaya to Volume II, Book IX, Chapter 1 and read it, too.

The useful idiots swear that terrorists are the problem, Islam and Muslims are not the problem. In reality, the doctrines of Islam, revealed in the Qur’an and exemplified by Muhammad’s sunnah are the problem. Of course, without believers, they would be no problem. As I write this, NPR’s Morning Edition is spewing the standard lies, denying the fatal facts of Islam and condemning FBI training materials which accurately describe Islamic doctrine & practice.

September 30, 2011 Posted by | Islam, Political Correctness | , , , , , , | Leave a comment


%d bloggers like this: