ROPMA

ROPMA

Update 02/20/12: The demise of tafsir.com broke the links to Tafsir Ibn Kathir.  The links have been changed to point to equivalent text at Islam-Universe.Relevant  references to Shari'ah have been added because they confirm the obvious better than anything else can. 

 

So Islam is "a great religion of peace" ? Explain these topic titles from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir. Click them and read their contents.  Why did Allah  command and order Muslims to commit aggression?

• The Command for Endurance when the Enemy Engaging
• The Command for Jihad against the Disbelievers and the Hypocrites
• The Command to fight Those Who fight Muslims and killing Them wherever They are found
• The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites

So terrorism is haram? Explain these tafsir which explain 8:60 and 8:12!!

• Making Preparations for War to strike Fear in the Hearts of the Enemies of Allah
• Muslims invoke Allah for Help, Allah sends the Angels to help Them

    In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, you see the ayat which enjoin offensive warfare and the ahadith which confirm them, but you do not see their practical application.  For that you must turn to Shari'ah: Islamic law which is based on the Qur'an & hadith.

    Reliance of the Traveller is the most well known codification of Shari'ah. It reflects the fiqh of the Shafi'i school of Islamic law.  It is divided into books, each of which bears a letter as its name. Book O codifies the laws related to justice, including the definition, communal obligation & performance of jihad. 

    Reliance defines Jihad as "war against non-Muslims". It is a communal obligation, binding on all eligible male Muslims until a sufficient number have responded to the front.  Jihad must be performed in every year, and it is performed against disbelievers while they are in their own countries, peacefully minding their own affairs.

    The caliph makes war against Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion payments called jizya.  He fights all other peoples until they become Muslims. 

    That is not my opinion, I did not pull it out of any orifice, it is plain and clear on the face of the text of Reliance of the Traveller, which is certified authentic and accurate by sheikhs of  al-Azhar University at Cairo.  

• http://www.islamicbulletin.com/free_downloads/resources/reliance_complete.pdf#page=617

    Would you like a second opinion? Try Risala, the handbook of fiqh belonging to the Maliki school of Islamic Law.  Risala defines jihad as " a technical term for the Muslim fighting the unbelievers who have no treaty with the intention of elevating the word of Allah or presenting Islam". Muslims must invite disbelievers to Islam. If they reject Islam, they must demand jizya. If  refused, they must wage war. 

• http://www.baytulislam.org/Documents/fiqh/imammalik/The-Risala-A-Treatise-on-Maliki-Fiqh.pdf#page=284

    Would you like a third opinion?  Try Hedaya, the handbook of fiqh belonging to the Hanifi school of Islamic Law.  From Hedaya, we learn that jihad must be undertaken at all times by some party of the Muslims.  We learn that "destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels even though they be not the first aggressors".   We also learn that jizya is a punishment for infidelity and a payment in lieu of destruction. 

• http://ia700204.us.archive.org/10/items/hedayaorguideac00hamigoog/hedayaorguideac00hamigoog.pdf#page=154

Sphere: Related Content

No Compulsion in Religion & Defamation from MPAC

http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-defamations-of-religion.pdf

   
MPAC takes a legalistic & libertarian tack against blasphemy laws, asserting that the Qur'an supports open debate, not compulsion.  Lets look a little deeper, below the surface of a few crucial citations.  [Links added to quotes.]

Let there be no compulsion in religion, the truth stands out clear from error… (2:256)

 Say: O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that
which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye
worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine (109:1-6)

He was not permitted to force people to believe. (17:53-54; 88:21-22)

If the Prophet was commanded directly by God to just advise and persuade, who are we as ordinary
human beings to claim a higher mantle of authority and impose our beliefs on others?

2:256 Tafsir Ibn Kathir  mentions relation to the Ansar, whose children were among the Banu an-Nadir who were exiled from Medina. Unfortunately, Ibn Kathir leaves the story open ended, I suspect that there was an editing error somewhere along the way.  Other tafsirs complete the story and add more details.

    Certain women among the Ansar, whose sons died in infancy would swear to raise one who lived as a Jew.  Evidently they farmed their surviving sons out to wet nurses among the Banu an-Nadir.   When Moe drove the Banu an-nadir from their fortifified settlements [59:2, The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered] some of the Answar offspring opted to remain among the exiled Jews. Their mothers ran complaining to Moe, who revealed 2:256 to fit the occasion.  The story finds its fullest explication in these tafsirs:

• Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi
• Tafsir Al-Mizan [Select Surah 2 and enter 256 in the text box.]

    Mufti Shafi Usmani brings in a related argument not raised by the others in this context: the relationship between non compulsion and jihad, holding that the two are not in conflict. 

Keeping this verse in view, some people raise objections. They say
this verse tells us that there is no compulsion in faith, although the
teaching of jihad and qital (fighting) in Islam appears contrary to this
principle.
Looking at this a little carefully, we can find out that the objection
is not valid, since the teaching of jihad and qital in Islam is not to
coerce people into accepting Faith. Had it been so, why would there be
Islamic injunctions of jizyah to provide an umbrella of security for
kuffar (disbelievers) which protects their life, property and honour? [...]

It is for this reason that Allah Almighty has ordained that the
fasad created by these people should be removed by jihiid and qitl. So,
killing such people is like the killing of serpents, scorpions and their
harmful likes.

   
Usmani asserts that jihad is for the purpose of eradicating people who cause fitna, not about compelling them to convert to Islam. Note that he claims that jijya provides security for kuffar, protecting their life and property.  From whom does jizya protect them?  I have three clues for you, and will allow you to draw your own conclusion.

• These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived.

  If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners. [Letter to the rulers of Aqaba]

• [...]And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' saves his wealth and his life from me[...] [Sahih Bukhari 9.92.388]
• Capitation tax is to be imposed  upon  Kitabees, because  this is mentioned in the Koran: and it is in the same manner to be imposed upon Majoosees, as the prophet imposed capitation-tax upon Majoosees.-- Capitation-tax is also to be imposed upon the idolaters of ajim (Persia) this is contrary to the opinion of Shafii, for he argues that destruction is incurred by all infidels; but the legality of abstaining from it, in sconsideration of a capitation-tax, with respect to Kitabees, is known from the word of the Koran, and with respect  to Majoosees, from the traditions; any others, therefore,  than those, (namely idolaters,) remain subject to the original penalty, which is destruction. [Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter VIII, Page 212]

    In the matter of Surah Al-Kaafiroon, Tafsir Ibn Kathir informs us that the surah was revealed about Kafirs who challenged Moe to swap religions for a year. Rather than a statement of tolerance, it is a statement of rejection and immunity from their shirk.  [He commanded His Messenger to disavow himself from their religion completely]   Tafsir al-tustari informs us that Surah 109 was abrogated by 9:5; Tafsir al-Jalalayn & Tafsir Ibn Abbas cuncurr, citing   the "command to wage war" and "verses of fighting" respectively.

    Surah Al-Kaafiroon  was # 18 in seqeuence of revelation , Surah Al-Baqarah was # 87, both are abrogated by conflicting  ayat in Surah At-Taubah which was next to last in revelation. 

    Does Surah Al-Isra' 53-54 forbid compulsion?  Perhaps we should examine the context.

17:53. And say to My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islâmic Monotheism) that they should (only) say those words that are the best. (Because) Shaitân (Satan) verily, sows disagreements among them. Surely, Shaitân (Satan) is to man a plain enemy.

17:54. Your Lord knows you best, if He will, He will have mercy on you, or if He will, He will punish you. And We have not sent you (O Muhammad ) as a guardian over them.

17:55. And your Lord knows best all who are in the heavens and the earth. And indeed, We have preferred some of the Prophets above others, and to Dawûd (David) We gave the Zabûr (Psalms).

17:56. Say (O Muhammad ): "Call unto those besides Him whom you pretend [to be gods like angels, Iesâ (Jesus), 'Uzair (Ezra), etc.]. They have neither the power to remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another person."

17:57. Those whom they call upon [like 'Iesa (Jesus) ­ son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra), angel, etc.] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allâh), as to which of them should be the nearest and they ['Iesa (Jesus), 'Uzair (Ezra), angels, etc.] hope for His Mercy and fear His Torment. Verily, the Torment of your Lord is something to be afraid of!

17:58. And there is not a town (population) but We shall destroy it before the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with a severe torment. That is written in the Book (of our Decrees)

    I do not see mention of compulsion or toleration in that context, but I do see a threat of destruction, before the day of judgment. Perhaps you can find something of interest in Ibn Kathir tafsir of 17:53.

    Surah Surah Al-Ghaashiyah 21-22  looks swell until we examine the context. Of course, Muslims, who accuse us of "cherry picking" are prone to engage in selectivity. 

88:21. So remind them (O Muhammad ()), you are only a one who reminds.

88:22. You are not a dictator over them.

88:23. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves

88:24. Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment.

    Moe is only one who reminds, not a dictator; then comes the exception clause, which MPAC did not cite for us.  Allah will punish the disbelievers.  Of course, punishment is not coercion.  Of course, Ibn Kathir had something to say about that. [The Messenger is only charged with delivering the Message]

(You are not a Musaytir over them.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said, "You are not a dictator over them.'' This means that you cannot create faith in their hearts. Ibn Zayd said, "You are not the one who can force them to have faith.'' Imam Ahmad recorded from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said,
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah). So if they say that, they have safeguarded their blood and wealth from me - except for what is rightfully due from it - and their reckoning is with Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.)'' Then he recited, (So remind them - you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them -) This is how Muslim recorded this Hadith in his Book of Faith, and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i also recorded it in their Sunans in the Books of Tafsir. This Hadith can be found in both of the Two Sahihs.

you are not a taskmaster over them (a variant reading [for musaytir] has musaytir, that is to say, [not one who has been] given authority over them) - this was [revealed] before the command to struggle [against the disbelievers]. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]

Moe can't make us believe, but he has been commanded to wage war upon us until we recite Shahada.  That is a clue for the clueless.    Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah contain the jihad imperatives refered to above. Because they were among the last to be revealed, they abrogate earlier verses whith which they are in conflict. [2:106 & 16:101 establish the rule of abrogation.] The jihad imperatives are  commands to fight idolaters until only Allah is worshiped and people of the book until they are subjugated & extorted. 

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

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

    Those imperatives are codified in Shari'ah, best exemplified by Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.8 & 9.9. No compulsion?  Fighting Arabian pagans until they become Muslim is not compulsion. 

O9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

    I am not arguing with MPAC about the negative impliciations of the "defamation of religions" meme. The points raised fy Freedom House and other critics are valid, based on solid facts and logic.  I simply pointed out their practice of kitman: deception by obfuscation.   But this subject is raised in the context of two resolutions passed this year by the Human Rights Council and General Assembly. 

• A/HRC/16/L.38
• Draft resolution XVII

    The name has changed; the language has changed, but the meme has not changed. The OIC & UN have not abandoned "combating defamation of Islam".

Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;

¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII,  "Adopting measures to criminalize" is a code phrase for legislation. They are demanding passage & enforcement to establish criminal punishment for publications such as Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post. Remember, Ban Ki-Moon defined the terms for us. 

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

The resolutions demand passage and enforcement of legislation to criminalize criticmsm of Islam.  Another resolution, flying below the radar, passed the GA by concensus, without a vote.  ¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII,  emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism   Equation with terrorism fits the defamation meme, and it has not been dropped or abandoned by the UN, it lives on in a concurrent resolution.

Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;

    The obvious was confirmed by our own Department of State last summer when they met the OIC at Istanbul to discuss implementation of the resolution.  This quote from the Secretary of State requires a little decoding. for the meaning of "intolerance" Refer back to the quote from Ban Ki-moon. [Following quotes from OIC Journal.]

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits
religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we
are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight
intolerance wherever it occurs.

    Our Ambassador to the HRC piled on.

A positive aspect of Resolution 16 /18 is that it did not
pit the principle of freedom of religion against freedom of
expression, said Ambassador Donahoe, rather it combined
them. “We believe that through free expression we are better
able to combat intolerance.”

    In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

    In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

"Intolerance" and "incitement to violence" mean: International Burn the Qur'an Day and the Motoons, just as Ban mischaracterized Fitna. 

    Allah had something to say about blasphemy. 

3:78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: "This is from Allâh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.

7:37. Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allâh or rejects His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? For such their appointed portion (good things of this worldly life and their period of stay therein) will reach them from the Book (of Decrees) until, when Our Messengers (the angel of death and his assistants) come to them to take their souls, they (the angels) will say: "Where are those whom you used to invoke and worship besides Allâh," they will reply, "They have vanished and deserted us." And they will bear witness against themselves, that they were disbelievers.

6:93. And who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: "I have received inspiration," whereas he is not inspired in anything; and who says, "I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed." And if you could but see when the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers, etc.) are in the agonies of death, while the angels are stretching forth their hands (saying): "Deliver your souls! This day you shall be recompensed with the torment of degradation because of what you used to utter against Allâh other than the truth. And you used to reject His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) with disrespect! "

10:17. So who does more wrong than he who forges a lie against Allâh or denies His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? Surely, the Mujrimûn (criminals, sinners, disbelievers and polytheists) will never be successful!

    Moe's reaction to criticism is instructive: he had them murdered. I direct doubters & dissenters to List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad.

 Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

   
    Killing critics of Islam is not just sunnah, it is Islamic law. I invite doubters & dissenters to examine the relevant passages of  reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi'ite manual of fiqh, to verify the fatal fact. A conquered Jew or Christian, remaining in Dar al-Islam as a Dhimmi, who "mentions something impermissible" about Islam, reverts to the status of a prisoner of war who may be killed.

• Apostasay: penalty: O8.1
• definition: O8.7
• application to Dhimmis O11.10
• penalty applied to Dhimmis: O9.14

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Religions vs Negative Stereotyping: SCIRF Gets It Wrong

 Leonard Leo, chairman of the board of SCIRF, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights  on the International Religious Freedom Report. There is a move underway to defund SCIRF, presumably because its mission conflicts with Obamination's Islamophilia.

    While I sympathize with the SCIRF and believe that it should be preserved, I take issue with Leo's position on the resolution passed by the HRC last March and currently before the 3^rd Committee prior to a General Assembly vote in December.

    I do not contest the fact that SCIRF was instrumental in steering the resolutions in a new direction, I take issue with the assertion that the  resolution has been substantially improved and its negative impact on freedom of belief & expression substantially reduced.  Only the rhetoric has improved, the meaning, intent and effect are not improved.

Defamation of Religion in the United Nations -- Intolerance Resolution Takes the Place of Defamation Resolution: Over the past decade, resolutions in the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council on the so-called defamation of religions sought to establish a global blasphemy law.  USCIRF’s engagement with the State Department, the U.S. Congress and specific UN member states helped bring about a notable decrease in support for these resolutions over the past three years.  It is an example of the catalytic and coordinating role that the Commission has played.

  Since 2008, the resolutions were supported by only a plurality of member states.  Due to this loss of support, the UN Human Rights Council in March 2011 adopted, in place of the divisive “combating defamation of religions” resolution, a consensus resolution on “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  The resolution properly focuses on protecting individuals from discrimination or violence, instead of protecting religions from criticism.  The new resolution protects the adherents of all religions or beliefs, instead of focusing on one religion.  Unlike the defamation of religions resolution, the new consensus resolution does not call for legal restrictions on peaceful expression, but rather, for positive measures, such as education and awareness-building, to address intolerance, discrimination, and violence based on religion or belief.

intolerance

    I can not and will never tolerate the practice & propagation of a doctrine which mandates that we be killed or subjugated, our property seized and our widows raped and our orphans sold into slavery.  By God, I stand on the rights seized by the founders, which they enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.  I will not accept demands that I tolerate the intolerable.  I will not abide by laws, national or international, demanding silence in the face of approaching evil.

stereotyping

    Allah commands Muslims to wage war against us in 8:39 & 9:29. Those imperatives are confirmed by Moe's Sunnah in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 and other hadith. They are codified in Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller O9.8-9.9. Allah promises Muslims admission to his celestial bordello if they wage war and threatens them with eternal damnation if they shirk.  Allah gives extra credit for a better seat in his bordello if they take any step to injure or enrage us.

    So most Muslims "don't do that / don't believe that". Oh, don't they? Islam is not cafeteria Catholicism, as made clear by 2:85: "Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. ".

    If Muslims "don't do that", then how did the Hindu, Assyrian & Armenian genocides happen?  How do you explain shouts of Takbir in the school at Beslan and the aircraft over New York City? 

    Which Muslim is a believer who fights in Allah's cause, killing and being killed [9:111] and which is a hypocrite whose Islam "will not exceed their throats." [Sahih Bukhari 5.59.638]?

protects individuals

    Who is going to go to Egypt and protect the Copts and their homes, businesses & churches?  Will you send the Marines to Kenya & Nigeria to protect Christians there?  Who will protect Christians in Pakistan?  You and whose army, 24/7/365? 

    You do not protect individuals by passing resolutions, you protect them with "boots on the ground".  You can only protect indigenous Christian minorities by eliminating the Muslims who murder them with impunity. 

    The cartoonists did not assault or kill any Muslims; they did not destroy any property. Muslims, stirred up by rabble rousing Imams at Jumah Salat did that. Exactly how do those resolutions protect Muslims? 

    Islam is not defamed by revelation of the fatal facts linked in previous paragraphs. Muslims are not threatened or stereotyped by revealing those facts. Silencing criticism of Islam would not protect Islam from defamation, neither would it protect Muslims; it would only remove our ability to warn our fellow citizens of approaching danger. 

education

    The malignant & malicious practice of al-Taqiyya & kitman is not education, it is indoctrination.  Islam is not a religion, neither is it peaceful nor is it great. Islam is intra-species predation.  Education will happen if intelligent and rational people read the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah.  What currently happens in our educational & religious institutions is indoctrination.

concrete details

    I have prepared two tables comparing the defamation & stereotyping memes. The tables are complemented by relevant quotes from the Secretaries General of the OIC and UN, followed by evidence to further clarify the issue. Bold, blue, underlined text is hyperlinked to source documents.

defamation	stereotyping
Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.	Muhammad had coitus with a nine year old girl.
God would never select an unrepentant sinner as his final prophet.	Muslims tend toward pedophilia because Muhammad is their role model.

Regardless of which standard of conduct is adopted, stating the fact revealed by Aisha, that she was nine years old when Moe consummated their marriage, will be criminalized and condemned. 

defamation	stereotyping	no religion should be equated with terrorism
I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terror	I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terro	I will cast terror to strike terror Allah cast terror You are more awful as a fear victorious with terro
Islamic doctrines incite terrorism.	Muslims are terrorists because they emulate Moe.	Islam = terrorism.

    No  matter how you slice it; whichever protocol  they follow, truthful statements about Islam must be outlawed and condemned.  Defamation || negative stereotyping is a distinction without a difference.

concrete examples

    In this quote from a speech to the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu implies that  Geert Wilders' Fitna and the Danish Cartoons incite religious hatred & violence.

It is clearly established that international law and in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 forbids any incitement to religious hatred. Article 20 of this Covenant stipulates that “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” Despite this clear stipulation, the Attorney General of Denmark failed to see in the infamous Danish Cartoons issues on Prophet Mohamed, any incitement to hatred on bases of religion or belief. The same authority in the Netherlands did the same thing in the case of the film Fitna, produced by a Member of Dutch Parliament. Such negative or indifferent attitudes adopted by officials in certain Western countries which seem to condone acts of an Islamophobic nature, can only lead to legitimizing Islamophobia and enhancing discrimination against Muslims and exposing their well-being and safety to danger. [Speech 0f His Excellency Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General 0f the Organisation 0f the Islamic conference, at Columbia University 21/09/2008]

    Ban Ki-moon also condemned Fitna.

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

incitement ? 

Fitna

 Fitna juxtaposes violent Qur'an verses and hadith with the rabid hate speech & incitement of several Imams and the resulting terrorism & riots. Fitna does not incite, it exposes incitement.

Motoons

    The Motoons depict Moe as a terrorist.  They are humorous; they do not exhort or incite Kuffar to assault Muslims. Moe died before the invention of gun powder, but he was a terrorist by his own admission, having declared that he was "made victorious with terror". He deliberately built a reputation for egregious barbarian rapine so as to terrify his intended victims, rendering them disorganized and effectively defenseless.

Quran burning

    Pastor Terry Jones planned to hold a Qur'an burning 09/11/10. He chickened out, but in March of '11, he held a four hour mock trial of the Qur'an with Arabic speaking experts on both sides of the debate and, having found the Qur'an guilty of inciting violence, burned it. 

    Muslims in Pakistan, on exiting from Jumah Salat, rioted, resulting in several deaths and considerable property damage. Pastor Jones did not incite violence, the Pakistani Imams incited violence in their rabid rants at Friday prayer services.

Ihsanoglu's jaundiced view

The publication of offensive cartoons of the Prophet six years ago that sparked outrage across the Muslim world, the publicity around the film Fitna and the more recent Qur’an burnings represent incidents of incitement to hatred that fuel an atmosphere of dangerous mutual suspicion. Freedom of expression has to be exercised with responsibility. At the same time, violent reactions to provocations are also irresponsible and uncivilised and we condemn them unequivocally.[http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=239]

We have to be sure about what constitutes criticism but not incitement to hatred. For example, when somebody calls for burning of our holy book Qur`an, can it be considered as mere criticism? [http://71.18.253.18/en/topic_details.asp?tID=39]

The most recent and unfortunate in the series of such events was the announcement
pertaining to Bum a Koran Day. It was highly provocative towards the religious sentiments
of Muslims everywhere in the world and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
[Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu's speech to the HRC Session 15.]

legal foundation

    Moe ordered the murder of his critics; an example to be emulated.

Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

Shari'ah

    Reliance of the Traveller, O11.10  lists five acts which break the treaty of protection exposing a Dhimmi to execution. This is the fifth item in that list: "or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam."  What is impermissible to mention? O8.7 contains a list of 20 items including: "to revile Allah or His messenger ", "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 ", "to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat",  "to deny any verse of the Koran ", and "to revile the religion of Islam".

    In reality, the OIC seeks, through the UN, to impose Islamic blasphemy law on us, denying our right to warn our fellow citizens of the existential threat Islam poses to our lives, liberties & prosperity.   We were not stupid enough to outlaw criticism of Communism during the cold war, why should we outlaw criticism of Islam?

Sphere: Related Content

Islam Demands Censorship!!!

Thanks and a tip of the hat to Creeping Shariah for the tip off.  A search for transcripts proved fruitless. It appears that the Daily Caller is the root source for the crucial quotes.  The Justice Department met with Islamicists to discuss discrimination: "Confronting Discrimination in the Post-9/11 Era: Challenges and Opportunities Ten Years Later"

to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz,

Read more:

The word “Muslim,” she said, “has become racialized. … I don’t accept this formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion.”

Read more:

Aziz’s advocacy was supported by a second Islamist advocate, Islamic Society of North America president Mohamed Magid. He argued that “teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country… is against the law and the Constitution.”

"redefine criticism as discrimination"  

    A Muslim law professor expressed confidence that the sharp DOJ lawyers can redefine criticism of Islam as discrimination to make it illegal.  The familiar context of discrimination is "whites only", excluding racial minorities from public accommodations. 

   

"formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion"

    Your race; skin color & physiognomy ain't at issue; neither is religion. The issue is adherence to a set of doctrines which inculcate hatred of and incite violence against all non-Muslims.  The redefinition concept is neither original nor an empty threat. The UN has already proclaimed it. 

The following quote is from Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference  [Emphasis added.] 4.  Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

“teaching people that all Muslims are a threat to the country"

    All Islamic believers are threats to the country. This is because they are obligated to participate in global conquest. I refer doubters & dissenters to the all purpose handbook of Shafi'ite fiqh aka Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller.

O9.1: The Obligatory Character of Jihad

Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2).  When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet's saying (Allah bless him and give him peace),

"He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,"

and Allah Most High having said:

"Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah's path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each, Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95).

If none of those concerned perform jihad, and it does not happen at all, then everyone who is aware that it is obligatory is guilty of sin, if there was a possibility of having performed it. In the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) jihad was a communal obligation after his emigration (hijra) to Medina. As for subsequent times, there are two possible states in respect to non-Muslims.

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

The second state is when non-Muslims invade a Muslim country or near to one, in which case jihad is personally obligatory (def: c3.2) upon the inhabitants of that country, who must repel the non-Muslims with whatever they can).

All Muslims are potential threats.

    Secular o in name only Muslims can 'get religion' and become believers without warning.  Islamic hate literature, web sites, clerics and friends may convince a secular Muslim of the validity of Allah; his jihad imperative, threat and promise. 

    When someone believes that his eternal destiny: paradise or the fire is dependent on his participation in genocidal conquest, what will he do?  Once their numbers are sufficient to confer a degree of  impunity, they will obey Allah, emulate Moe, and attack the disbelievers nearest them. 

   

But they aren't all attacking us.

    Did every Muslim participate directly in the conquests of Arabia, Egypt, Syria & India?   Islamic conquest is fard al-kifaya, binding on all until a sufficient number have responded, not fard ayn.  Read Reliance O9.1 again.  Muslims are obligated to join the jihad when called. 

criticism of Islam: illegal

    How is it possible that revealing these fatal facts about Islam is "discrimination" and "against the Constitution"?  Only when we are intimidated or conquered!
When Muslims conquer dar ul-harb,  Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians living in the former domain of war are subjected to Islamic law.  Reliance of the Traveller, O11.10 lists five acts which break the contract of dhimmitude, subjecting the violator to the death penalty.

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

    What is "impermissible to mention" ? Reliance O8.7 lists 20 acts which entail apostasy. Here are the most relevant items from that list. 

-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;

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). )

    Reviling Islam, Allah or Moe gets one killed; any and all criticism of Islam is fatal under Islamic law. That is what they are seeking to subject us to.  The purpose is to render us defenseless against demographic subversion & militant jihad alike.  This is akin to outlawing criticism of Nazism during  WW2.

Sphere: Related Content

King Hearing: Ellison's Excuses

This video features a Congressman and a comedian discussing Islam. I won't accept either of them as an authoritative source.  For the purpose of this post I ignore the comedian's comments and questions, concentrating on the Congressman's misrepresentations.   Thanks and a tip of the hat to Logan's Warning.

"They're not getting it from the Qur'an, lets use this point for a moment, because as you know as a student of religion, books are complex, they are compiled, taking them out of context is a very easy thing to do.

Why don't you read the part where it says that anyone who takes a life its as if he killed the whole world and anyone who saves a life its as if he saves the whole world?

What about the one where it says that there should be no compulsion in religion and that its literally wrong...

Like any ideologue, they will take things out of context. to do what they want to do.  If you listen  to terrorist rhetoric, Bill, what they do is they cite politics, they cite political grievances, they don't really do too much religion, as a matter of fact, when you find Muslims who reject terrorism  as I do and almost everyone does, its often its for spiritual and religious reasons, and moral reasons; but people who want to justify it, they justify it on political reasons.  This is well documented, check out the Gallop poll check out and study this stuff. One of the things that I think we can do to undermine terrorist ideology is actually to use people who know the Qur'an and to go after people like Anwar al-Awlaki who misquote it, misuse it and don't really understand it. "

    Ellison asserts that terrorists don't get their doctrine from the Qur'an.  In fact, that is their primary source, which I detailed in a recent blog post:
Terrorism is an Intrinsic Sacrament of Islam.  Allah said that he would cast terror, did cast terror resulting in the enslavement of one Jewish village and the destruction of another. Moe said that the was made victorious by terror.  Allah commanded Muslims to terrify their victims.

    The Qur'an was not written, it was spoken; it is a partial record of Moe's rabble rousing rants, arranged according to the length of the chapters, not thematically or chronologically.  Allah's commands are contained in clear verses,  Tafsir Ibn Kathir has some guidance for us.

[...]The Muhkamat are the Ayat that explain the abrogating rulings, the allowed, prohibited, laws, limits, obligations and rulings that should be believed in and implemented. As for the Mutashabihat Ayat, they include the abrogated Ayat, parables, oaths, and what should be believed in, but not implemented.[...] The Mutashabihat and Muhkamat Ayat

    When they quote Allah with "Allah said...", quoting the jihad imperatives, they are not quoting out of context; 8:39, 8:57, 8:60 & 9:29 are commands, to be believed in and implemented. 

    5:33 is a favorite of deceivers.  Take a close look at it and its successor, which they never quote.  Why do they cite this one verse out of context?  Because they are practicing kitman: deception by obfuscation.

5:32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!.

5:33. The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land [...]`Wage war' mentioned here means, oppose and contradict, and it includes disbelief, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil.[...]

    Waging war against Allah includes disbelief, subjecting the disbeliever to being killed or mutilated.  Now do you have a clue why Muslims select 5:32, avoiding 33? 

    No compulsion in religion?  Yeah, right.

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Tâghût and believes in Allâh, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allâh is All-Hearer, All-Knower.

10:99. And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you (O Muhammad ) then compel mankind, until they become believers.

    Who quotes the Qur'an selectively, out of context?  I will show you what nobody else will. Read and learn from this verse which reveals the truth and hadith which explains it so that anyone not using his brain for a butt plug can comprehend it.

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

3:111. They will do you no harm, barring a trifling annoyance; and if they fight against you, they will show you their backs, and they will not be helped.

3:112. Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allâh, and from men; they have drawn on themselves the Wrath of Allâh, and destruction is put over them. This is because they disbelieved in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh and killed the Prophets without right. This is because they disobeyed (Allâh) and used to transgress beyond bounds (in Allâh's disobedience, crimes and sins).

Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 80:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

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

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

    Take a good look at 3:110 and Bukhari 6.60.80. Bringing us with chains on our necks until we embrace Islam is not consistent with "no compulsion".  3:111 indicates Moe's intention to attack the neighboring Christians. 

    Note the how the highlighted phrases in 3:112; how they are congruent with those in the quote from Aisha Bewley's translation of Bukhari. Khan bowdlerized that hadith; Bewley did not.

    Muslims are not permitted to reject terrorism.  Islam is a package deal, all or nothing.

2:85. After this, it is you who kill one another and drive out a party of you from their homes, assist (their enemies) against them, in sin and transgression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their expulsion was forbidden to you. Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allâh is not unaware of what you do.

13:36. Those to whom We have given the Book (such as 'Abdullâh bin Salâm and other Jews who embraced Islâm), rejoice at what has been revealed unto you (i.e. the Qur'ân) , but there are among the Confederates (from the Jews and pagans) those who reject a part thereof. Say (O Muhammad ): "I am commanded only to worship Allâh (Alone) and not to join partners with Him. To Him (Alone) I call and to Him is my return."

    Islamic law is explicit on this matter, Reliance of the Traveller contains a list of twenty acts which entail apostasy, the punishment for which is execution.

-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;

Rejection of terrorism: 8:39, 8:57, 8:60, 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13 warrants the death penalty!  Ellison claims to embrace morality & doing good deeds. There is a related verse he won't cite for you but I will. Acts of terrorism are good deeds according to Allah.

9:120. It was not becoming of the people of Al-Madinah and the bedouins of the neighbourhood to remain behind Allâh's Messenger (Muhammad  when fighting in Allâh's Cause) and (it was not becoming of them) to prefer their own lives to his life. That is because they suffer neither thirst nor fatigue, nor hunger in the Cause of Allâh, nor they take any step to raise the anger of disbelievers nor inflict any injury upon an enemy but is written to their credit as a deed of righteousness. Surely, Allâh wastes not the reward of the Muhsinûn.

    Any act to enrage or injure disbelievers is imputed to Muslims as a deed of righteousness!!!  Islam  is a lie. Muslims are liars. Muslims are terrorists.  Do not take my word for it; click the links and read the citations in context. Then contact your Congressman & Senators; disrespectfully  demand that Islam be stripped of its 'religion' status & outlawed and Muslims be expelled & excluded. 

Sphere: Related Content