International Qur'an Petition

A new on line petition, inspired by the Calcutta Qur'an Petition, has been created for the purpose of increasing public awareness of Islamic doctrines which are inimical to life and liberty. The petition focuses on several ayat which stand in egregious violation of important provisions of international human rights accords.

Regular readers of my blog posts know that I make frequent use of quotes from Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. To keep the petition moderate in size, those quotes were trimmed down to the most essential clauses. A separate document containing the full quotes has been published and linked in the petition.

A new Facebook group was created to aid in promoting the petition. A slightly edited version of the petition follows, including a link to the page where readers can add their signatures to it.

---

Whereas Islam and its apologists accuse Kuffar of inculcating hatred of Muslims and inciting violence against them; and

Whereas Islam is pursuing national and international legislation to impose their blasphemy laws upon us so as to prevent or punish exposure of their execrable doctrines which inculcate hatred, incite violence and sanctify & mandate genocidal, terroristic conquest; the intent of which legislative campaign is to render us defenseless;

Now, therefore, the undersigned Kufar & Harbi do declare, swear and demonstrate proof from the ample testimony of Allah and his Messenger that Islam is and will always be in egregious violation of the recognized rights of free men and must therefore be condemned and proscribed:

Article 4 of ICERD condemns "all propaganda and organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority ...or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form. Section b: "Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offense punishable by law;".

Surah Al-Imran 110 declares Muslims to be the "best of peoples ever raised up for mankind". Sahih Bukhari 6.60.80 explains the meaning of that passage thusly: " the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam". That is clear proof of supremacism related to ethnic violence.

Surah Al-Baqarah 91 contains a pretext for hatred of Jews: Say (O Muhammad Peace be upon him to them): "Why then have you killed the Prophets of Allah aforetime, if you indeed have been believers?" .

Surah Al-Baiyyinah 6 contains another pretext for hatred of Jews & Christians: "They are the worst of creatures".

Surah At-Taubah 29 commands warfare against Jews & Christians: "Fight against those who ... among the people of the Scripture until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.".

Surah At-Taubah 30 curses Jews & Christians: "And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. ... Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

It is obvious upon the face of the text that the quoted ayat incite hatred of Jews & Christians, declare war upon them and curse them. There can be no doubt that Islam's canon of scripture is in egregious violation of Article 4 and must therefore be condemned. Under section b quoted above, Islam must be declared illegal and prohibited.

Article 6 of ICCPR gurantees the right to life. "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."

By declaring perpetual war, Islam egregiously violates the right to life. We know that Jihad is perpetual because the declarations in Al-Anfal 39 & At-Taubah 29 are outcomne oriented and unlimited geographically and chronologically. Furthermore, the testimony of Islam's founder is recorded in Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526: "jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist).".

Islam's founder also testified in Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 that Islam has no respect for the sanctity of life: "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".

Article 20 of ICCPR proscribes "Any propaganda for war " and "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence", declaring that they shall be prohibited by law.

Islam's canon of scripture contains three egregious commands to aggression which obviously violate Article 20: Al-Anfal 39, At-Taubah 29 & 123. "fight them until there is no more Fitnah", "Fight against those who" & "Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you" have obvious meaning which can not be denied. The commands are confirmed by Islam's founder in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.196: " I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,'".

Surah At-Taubah 38 condemns Muslims who refuse to participate: "What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? "... "If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment.".

Surah As-Saff 10-12 incentivize participation in Jihad by promising escape from Hell and admission to Paradise in exchange for participation in Jihad:
"a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. ... and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives ... He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow".

Surah Al-An'am 115 "None can change His Words" and Surah Ar-Rum 30 "No change let there be in Khalq­illâh (i.e. the Religion of Allah Islamic Monotheism)" clearly proscribe editing the Qur'an. It can not be rendered anodyne.

The Qur'an is a violation of international law and it can't be edited; preaching it and propagating its doctrines must therefore be prohibited. One of the cited ayat: At-Taubah 29, is cited as the scriptural basis of Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraph 8 which Islamic law declares that the Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.

Islamic tradition informs us that Jihad will continue until Judgment Day, and that Muslims would be cursed for abandoning it. Sunan Abu Dawud 14.2526: "jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal ".

Sunan Abu Dawud 23.3455: "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".

From this narration, it becomes obvious that Islam and Jihad are synonymous. Since Islam asserts a divine mandate and right to wage war against us, to kill us, rape our widows, enslave our orphans and seize our real and personal property, we can not enjoy our God given right to life. We have shown the court that Islamic doctrine, practice & jurisprudence violate the international covenants which guarantee our human rights.

Since Muslims are promised eternity in a celestial bordello for participating in Jihad and threatened with eternal damnation if they refuse, it is impossible that free men can live in peace and security while Islam exists upon the face of the earth. We therefore pray for injunctive relief: proscription of the practice and propagation of Islam.

The Qur'an, hadith, Shari'ah & international law citations in this petition are quoted and linked to source documents in a blog post titled "Proscribe Islam Petition Rough Draft". The blog post is available in a 71kb pdf file which you can print (9pgs.), cross post or use as an email attachment.

This petition is intended to supplement, not supplant the Ban Islam Petition.
Signers of this petition are urged to sign and promote the Ban Islam petition if they have not already done so. Please email the urls of these petitions to your family, friends and associates with an exhortation to forward them.

Sphere: Related Content

Exposing Islam through Refutation of Lies

Go Burn With Muhammad does not draw many comments, so when a moderation notice is received, I take due notice. This blog post is my response to a comment by Carlisticeday. The post he commented on has been viewed 320 times since October 20, '07.

The post begins with a quotation from Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9. The post continues with a brief explanation of the quotes and an outline of the nature of Islam, with links to its foundation in scripture and tradition.

Carlisticeday's comment is reproduced here in block quote style & Ariel font; my responses to his points are interspersed in normal column width and Times Roman font. Unlike Akhter, Carlisticeday has written his own comment, I do not find any evidence of plagiarism in it.

What You Need to Know About Islam

Carlisticeday

Submitted on 2009/07/03 at 5:50pm

First of all, “Islam” doesn’t say or do anything – Muslims do. Ditto for Christianity.

Organized religions are fictional legal persons, governed by fallible men, who speak and act for them. Islam and Christianity have fundamental doctrines which define them and are codified in their respective canons of scripture. The doctrines of Islam, expressed in the Qur'an and exemplified in hadith are the subject of What You Need to Know About Islam.

Who in history made it a policy, indeed, a religious requirement to force people to believe as they believed or die horrible deaths by burning at the stake, torture, drowning, disembowelment and so on? Not Muslims, Christians.

Religions should be judged by their orthodox doctrines & practices, not by deviations therefrom. The Inquisition was a deviation from fundamental Christianity, not the standard.

In fact, the Qur’an explicitly forbids forced conversion, and it has been understood as such for centuries. Where is that in the Bible?

Moe revealed the Qur'an piece by piece between 610 and 622. It contains obvious situational scripture and conflicting ayat which are resolved by the science of naskh. Later revelations abrogate[2:102,16:101] earlier revelations with which they conflict. Al-Baqarah was #87 in sequence of revelation.

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.

Surah Yunus was #51 in sequence of revelation.

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.

Surah Al-Anfal was #88 in sequence of revelation, therefore it is nasikh and 2:256 & 10:99 are mansukh: the more tolerant ayat have been abrogated.

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.

Fight them until...and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone.... Allah told Moe to fight pagans until all resistance ceased and only Allah was worshiped. How did Moe interpret that?

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."

Ordered to fight until...then he is a Muslim... Got a clue yet? For the interminably recalcitrant, I offer confirmation from Shari'ah: Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraph 9.

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) ).

Islamic scripture, tradition & jurisprudence form a congruent pattern; they confirm and reinforce each other. Unfortunately, the terminally recalcitrant are blind to that pattern. Can you perceive it? Unlike Moe, Jesus did neither preached nor practiced warfare. Instead, he taught his disciples to use persuasion.

9:1 Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

9:2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

9:4 And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart.

9:5 And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.

(King James Bible, Luke)

Contrast that with the orders Moe gave to his generals in the field: Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4294.

Prior to 1900, did Muslims living under Christian rule enjoy anything like the freedoms and protections of life and property that Christians did under Islamic rule in the Middle Ages? No, not by a long shot.

Let us examine Shari'ah to discover the freedoms and protections enjoyed by Christians under Islamic rule.

O11.5

Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:

-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;

-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);

-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";

-4- must keep to the side of the street;

-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;

-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;

-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Do the Christian (or Jewish) scriptures provide in any way for these protections? No, on the contrary. Does the Qur’an? Yes, in fact it does.

At-Taubah 29 commands Muslims to make war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion.

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.

At-Taubah 123 commands Muslims to fight the nearby Christians and treat them harshly.

9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

Furthermore, if “Islam” is such a violent religion, tell me, who has been responsible for the most death, mayhem, oppression, suffering and injustice in history, Muslims or Christians? There is simply no comparison: all the deaths in wars by Islamic states don’t come close to the deaths in WWII alone – a war essentially precipitated by and led on both sides by Christians…and we haven’t even begun to talk about the colonial period.

The wars of the 20^th century were political and economic, not religious. Islam has a 1400 year track record, with 270 million victims.

Who depopulated North America so that they could own it all themselves? Not Muslims, Christians. Who enslaved millions in Central and South America for profit, and forced them to convert, to boot? Same answer.

Were the Conquistadors acting in accord with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ? Show me the Book, Chapter & Verse citations for Christ's commands to engage in conquest.

Who went around the world gobbling up everyone else’s resources and labor in the name of God and country? Who now refuses to take responsibility for any of the chaos, injustice and political unrest that has resulted from that?

Islam! These maps illustrate Islam's spread by the sword.

• first 25 years
• 750
• various Caliphates
  

Who supports the colonizer Zionist state at all costs and at the expense of the people who were displaced by it, and who refuses even to acknowledge the daily humiliation that state pours on those displaced people? Not Muslims, Christians.

That assertion inverts history, justice & morality in excellent form. Jews & Christians were living in the Roman Province of Syria in the 7^th century. Surah At-Taubah deals with the ghazwat against Tabuk, complaining of those Muslims who refused to join it. When asked which campaign a Muslim should join, Moe had a very significant answer.

Abu Dawud 14.2477
Narrated Ibn Hawalah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: It will turn out that you will be armed troops, one is Syria, one in the Yemen and one in Iraq. Ibn Hawalah said: Choose for me, Apostle of Allah, if I reach that time. He replied: Go to Syria, for it is Allah's chosen land, to which his best servants will be gathered but if you are unwilling, go to your Yemen, and draw water from your tanks, for Allah has on my account taken special charge of Syria and its people.

Moe sent an extortion letter to Heracleus, it is informative. It is in Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4380 and LETTER TO HERACLES CAESAR.

Islam's attitude is that all land they conquer is Islamic forever. Allah will not allow Kuffar to reconquer it and rule over Muslims. He promised victory to the Muslims, but they fought on the losing side of WW1 and lost the Levant, which Caliph Umar had conquered in 638. Israel regained a tiny fragment of her ancient patrimony, and Muslims immediately attacked with genocidal intent. They attacked again in 1967 and lost the Gaza Strip & West Bank which they seized in 1948. Every condition the Falestinians complain about is a consequence of their attempted genocide & policide.

I could go on, but please note that

a) none of this is meant to justify violence in the name of religion – merely to provide perspective, and

b) nowhere have I said “Christianity” here. The Bible is full of blood, injustice and crimes of all sorts, all justified by religion. Even Christ said, “I come with the sword…”, and as a result his heirs gave us the “Christian soldiers” of European fame.

The point: it’s very easy to pick out sections from text, present them out of context and then make sweeping claims about “Islam” while ignoring what Muslims actually do. Likewise it’s easy to grab legal text books and assume that they necessarily reflect actual practice, rather than an abstract ideal.

Everything must be seen in context, and you have to see these texts as Muslims have understood them at different times and in different circumstances. That’s called being fair and reasonable.

But of course, you’re not interested in THAT, are you?

Allah's word mandates and sanctifies Jihad. 2:216 tells Muslims that Jihad is ordained for them. 8:39 commands Muslims to make perpetual war upon pagans. 9:29 commands Muslims to make perpetual war upon "people of the book". 61:10-13 describe participation in Jihad as a "commerce" that saves Muslims from "painful torment". Those mandates find confirmation in hadith & Shari'ah.

How Muslims have understood those texts is illustrated by Fiqh: rulings by scholars of Islamic law. I direct doubters & dissenters to download FOMIJihad.chm and read the Jihad in Fiqh chapter. How Moe understood those texts is illustrated by the oral traditions of his excellent companions. You can read them at USC-MSI.

• Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)
• One-fifth of Booty to the Cause of Allah (Khumus)
• Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)
• The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar)
• Jihad (Kitab Al-Jihad)
• Jihad

Sphere: Related Content

Flight 93 Terrorist Memorial

Moral Muslims don't want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site Thanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia--Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.'s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave. Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:

We all know who the enemy is. It's Islamic radicals who are guided by the ideology of Islamic supremacy¹. Just as Nazis were guided by the ideology of Aryan supremacy. The only difference is that Gihadis consider it their religious duty to impose Islam all over the world and many of them yearn to die (and kill) for Allah. They use lines from the Koran such as "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" or "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" as their guiding principles.²

Islam needs to be reformed so that it rejects supremacism and violent conquest, but trying reform Islam is a difficult and dangerous business³:

Islamic radicals murder more Muslims than Christians, Jews, Hindus and everybody else combined. Gihadis may hate you for being infidels. But they really hate us for not following their demented dogma.

In this struggle for the soul of Islam, the last thing that moral Muslims⁴ want is any kind of victory for the supremacists, never mind a mind-boggling symbolic victory over the heroes of Flight 93:

What possible reason could be there for including anything Islamic or anything even resembling an Islamic symbol into Flight 93 Memorial? Inclusion of Islamic symbols memorializes murderers who brought down the plane and is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims and their families. United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked in 2001. Let's not allow hijacking of Flight 93 Memorial in 2008.

Muslims know all about facing Mecca for prayer One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be? Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin's pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismi sses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle's original concern about the giant crescent, which remains comp letely intact in the "broken circle" redesign), on the grounds that: "if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you've probably gone too far." We don't need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world's largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch's 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch's mosque. Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:

The shape of the "broken circle" resembles a crescent moon. So does the shape of the tower. Crescent moon is the most recognizable Islamic symbol. When we pray, we face Mecca and Mosques are traditionally built to face Mecca. The case could be made that the proposed design is aligned in North-Easterly direction, which corresponds with Qiblah, a direction to Mecca. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since Mecca is located to the South-East of Somerset, Qiblah cannot possibly have a North-Easterly direction. This assumption would be correct if you're using a flat map. However, if you take a globe, place pins on locations of Somerset and Mecca, and connect those pins with a string, you'll see that the string at the base of the Somerset pin points North-East. This symbolism may not be noticeable to a non-Muslim, and it is also possible, but likely improbable that the designer is ignorant of its significance. The proposed design would be perfect for EgyptAir 990 memorial. But for United 93 memorial, it is simply unacceptable.

Allahpundit is just being careless, but the willful blindness of the Park Service is foundational The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the "coincidences" pile. According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project's many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag. (Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the centerline of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.) Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can't believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can't believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93! This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish. How to distinguish a moral Muslim from an Islamic supremacist Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden's followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims⁴ reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed. Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest⁵, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of "abrogation." Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses. The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don't even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a "religion of peace." This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran's own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106)⁶. Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called "taking takfir," such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation. The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad's accusation against the Jews: that they twist the "allegorical parts" of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment--Thou shalt not murder--is binding on Muslims. Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is "wood for the fire." Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam⁷ is in systematic violation of the Koran's own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam's strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet. What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty--the great haven from which truth can be spoken--build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site? No helping hand from the land of the free If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils--condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself--thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions. That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad. The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary. Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here. To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.

---

The text above the horizontal line originated at errortheory, without the superscripts, which I added. The superscripts are linked to my comments in the following enumerated list.

1. Islamic supremacy is intrinsic to Islam, established by the Qur'an: 9:33 and Sunna: Bukhari 4.52.65 . Offensive Jihad, genocide and terrorism are intrinsic sacraments of Islam: standard, off the shelf, Islam, not some imagined radicalism. The Banu Qurayzah knew who the enemy was: "Muhammad and his army".
2. The Qur'an is given as a guide to mankind. In it, Allah issued clear commands, which are to be believed and implemented. 8:39 says "Fight them until..." ; 9:29 says:"Fight those who...until:. Why did Moe say "I have been ordered to fight the people till..."?
3. Islam can not be reformed because the Qur'an is Allah's perfected word which can not be changed. Supremacism and conquest are intrinsic to Islam, permanent parts of it.
4. Oxymoron: "moral Muslims". A moral man who adheres to Islam suffers from the most severe cognitive dissonance. He worships a blood thirsty demon as the Almighty Creator. Allah set making "great slaughter" as Moe's price of admission to Paradise. He worships a genocidal war lord as the greatest and best of men.
5. No such conversion occurred. Moe's preaching evolved as he accrued an army and gained strength. In Mekkah, vastly out numbered, he preached forbearance and tolerance. In Medina, after building an army, he preached conquest.
6. 2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allâh is able to do all things? For confirmation, see The Meaning of Naskh. Surah At-Taubah, which contains the commands to fight Jews & Christians, was among the last to be revealed, it abrogates the earlier, more tolerant verses.
7. Traditional Islam is what Moe said, speaking for Allah, and what he did, in obedience to Allah's word. Traditional Islam is authentic Islam, the real thing. The "reformers" seek to create a new religion and call it Islam.
   
   

Sphere: Related Content

The Real Attack on the Bill of Rights

The First Amendment is Under Siege

posted on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 4:30 PMBy Jonathan

Selected excerpts interspersed with my comments.

A dangerous attack on the American Bill of Rights has begun to show up on right wing blogs.

In February of '07, Pedestrian Infidel proposed a 28^th Amendment to the Constitution. I believe that blog post to be the first such concrete proposal I encountered on the web. Others had suggested a need for legislation, some had suggested the need for an amendment, but, to the best of my knowledge, there were no concrete proposals. Concern about Islam's threat to our liberties dates back more than two years, it is not a novelty.

The proposed amendment is a counter attack against Islamic supremacism, not an attack against the Bill of Rights. An outline of the proposal follows.

1. Islam is not recognized as a religion, it is stripped of First Amendment protection.
2. Declares Islam an enemy of the United States of America and prohibits its public practice.
3. Muslim institutions are to be closed and propagation of Islam prohibited. Muslim immigration is terminated.
4. Discrimination, assault & impairment of individual rights (as limited by Art. 3) of Muslims prohibited.

The threat to liberty issues from Islam, not from 'Islamophobes'.

• Islam denies freedom of conscience.

3:2. Allâh! Lâ ilahâ illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He), the Ever Living, the One Who sustains and protects all that exists.
3:85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.
9:123. O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allâh is with those who are the Al-Muttaqûn (the pious - see V.2:2).

• Islam denies freedom of speech.

O8.7: Acts that Entail Leaving Islam [If you leave Islam, you must be executed: O8.1 -.2]
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief
-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;
-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). )

• Islam denies freedom of religion.

O11.5 Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
-4- must keep to the side of the street;
-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.

Source:: Umdat as-Salik, the hand book of Islamic law.

• Allah's word is law, once Allah and Moe have decided a matter, there is no right to question their decision and no appeal.

Concerning proposals to write Islam out of the First Amendment, deport Muslims and close Islamic institutions, Jonathan responds: " These attitudes are intolerable." Either Jonathan's value system varies greatly from ours or he perceives Islam through a fact filter that prevents him from perceiving Islam's intolerance & violence, which make it intolerable to lovers of life and liberty.

Allah's word must be "made superior", as specified in 9:33 and 48:28. Supremacism & triumphalism are interwoven throughout Islam's canon of scripture. This fatal fact becomes clear when one reads the titles of related topics in Ibn Kathir's Tafsir.

• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

How will Islam conquer us? By Jihad: "Holy fighting in Allah's cause, "ordained" for Muslims,. as the price of admission to Paradise. Jihad continues from the beginning of Moe's prophetic career until Judgment Day. Jihad is the Muslim's "original. religion". Islamic law requires that offensive Jihad be performed at least once in every year[Umdat as-Salik O9.1]. That is confirmed by Al-Shafi'i: "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."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," precludes our government from discriminating against any religions. What could be a worse discrimination against a specific belief system than to legislate that it doesn't "qualify" as a religion at all.

The establishment clause precludes establishing a national church. The founders wisely decided against allowing the government to decide which church, if any, we will join.

The worst course of action is that which has been followed for the last 220 years, giving a piracy cult undeserved constitutional protection. Islam has theology, cosmology, prayer, ritual & charity and it binds men permanently to Allah, so it must be a legitimate religion, right? Wrong! Islam has a mercenary mission! When reading a book one third as long as the Bible, it is difficult to perceive certain patterns. Isolating a few critically important ayat makes the pattern perceptible by removing the chaff which otherwise occludes the pattern.

8:1. They ask you (O Muhammad) about the spoils of war. Say: "The spoils are for Allâh and the Messenger." So fear Allâh and adjust all matters of difference among you, and obey Allâh and His Messenger (Muhammad), if you are believers.
8:41. And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily one-fifth (1/5th) of it is assigned to Allâh, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al-Masâkin (the poor) and the wayfarer, if you have believed in Allâh and in that which We sent down to Our slave (Muhammad) on the Day of criterion (between right and wrong), the Day when the two forces met (the battle of Badr) - And Allâh is Able to do all things.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.
48:19. And abundant spoils that they will capture. And Allâh is Ever All-Mighty, All-Wise.

Who gets the spoils? Allah and his Messenger, who takes the top 20% with right of first selection. Since Allah is an impotent idol, Moe got the best of the loot. What did Moe want? "the good of this world" . What does Allah want? "great slaughter"! Making a great slaughter was the price of Moe's ticket to Paradise.

The clear pattern formed by the ayat cited above is confirmed and reinforced by several of the oral traditions of Moe's companions.

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

Muslim Book 019, Number 4294 [...]Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils [...]

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

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

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 37, Number 495 [...]When Allah made the Prophet wealthy through conquests, [...]

Allah made spoils lawful for Moe because of his weakness and humility. Allah gave Moe the keys to the treasures of the world. Allah allocated the spoils to Moe, who kept the top 20% for himself.

How did Allah make Moe victorious? How did Allah make Moe wealthy? Is it possible that Moe was an arrogant, belligerent narcissist, unworthy & unqualified to be a Prophet? Aisha Bewley translated part of Sahih Bukhari which Khan Bowdlerized.

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.

Those are the words of a pirate, not a Prophet. Moe founded a piracy cult, which wears a false mantle of religion as a camouflage and motivational tool. What legitimate religion says 'go to war or go to Hell'?

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.
9:90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allâh and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve.

Those clear and obvious ayat are confirmed by an equally clear hadith.

Abu Dawud Book 14, Number 2497:
Narrated AbuUmamah:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: He who does not join the warlike expedition (jihad), or equip, or looks well after a warrior's family when he is away, will be smitten by Allah with a sudden calamity. Yazid ibn Abdu Rabbihi said in his tradition: 'before the Day of Resurrection".

We have a responsibility to judge individuals by their actions, not by the books they read.

We are judging an institution, not individuals. We must judge it by its doctrines and its fruits. What legitimate religion sanctifies aggressive conquest, genocide & terrorism ? What legitimate religion enslaves people?

O9.13 When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled.

Whatever any of us believe about the tenets of the Muslim faith, it isn't anyone's place to judge their neighbor's religious beliefs, and American citizens who are Muslim are entitled to the same constitutional protections as any other American - including the practice of their religion, and obviously, not being deported. This paranoia reminds me of America's imprisoning 70,000 United States citizens during World War II - among a total of 117,000 of Japanese descent who were detained in so-called "relocation centers." Haven't we grown up since then?

What we believe about the tenets of Islam is irrelevant. The reality is relevant, and it is evident on the face of the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir & Shari'ah, which form a congruent pattern of violent, genocidal aggression. In a state of weakness, with numerical inferiority, Islam is relatively docile. As its numbers increase, it becomes increasingly aggressive. In Mekkah, vastly outnumbered, Moe preached forbearance. In Medina, when he amassed an army, he preached Jihad.

A 1400 year death toll of 270 million tells us that objection to Islam is not paranoia. Muslims form a fifth column on our own soil. Trusting them is not possible. A bullet or bomb can come from any direction at any time, as thirteen victims discovered in the metropolitan Washington D.C. area a few years ago. Since that attack, there have been several shootings, vehicular assaults and one attempted bombing.

What's the point of this post? Simply that people will always be people. Whether they read books with messages of peace or books that endorse wrath and vengeance, most people are usually peaceful, but circumstances sometimes push people to violence, and a few people will always be obsessively addicted to violence.

Most Muslims do not read the Qur'an, the last statistic I saw showed a Qur'an literacy rate of 17% among men and 13% among women. They get their ideals from the Mosque, and most Mosques in America are run by Wahhabis. The fact is that Jihad is a mandatory Islamic sacrament, not an option. A Muslim can not be absolutely assured of avoiding Hell & admission to Paradise without participation in Jihad.

If we were to discriminate against Muslims, who's next, Scientologists? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormons? Japanese? I'm saddened when fundamentalists of any faith advocate wrath and vengeance, but I support everyone's right to their books, their beliefs, and all their rights as United States citizens. This is a plea for all to put aside fear and prejudice, and to respect our American Bill of Rights and our American way of life.

While Jonathan accuses Islam's critics of paranoia, his penultimate paragraph is a clear example of paranoia. Why should anyone be next? Do they worship a blood thirsty demon who demands human sacrifice? Do they make sacraments of conquest, genocide & terrorism? Do they constitute a security threat? Are their doctrines inimical to liberty? Do they demand that their scripture be substituted for our Constitution?

Sphere: Related Content

Free Speech vs Islam

On a recent visit to California, Geert Wilders, Dutch M.P., spoke about freedom of speech and the threat posed to it by Islam & the appeasers. Front Page Magazine published a transcript of the speech: Free Speech vs. Islam in Europe, which I urge you to read. The excerpt below packs a great deal of truth into one paragraph, without furnishing proof. Wilders left it to the audience to read the Koran and verify the truth for themselves.

Allow me to give you a brief introduction to Islam, an Islam 101. The first thing everyone needs to know about Islam is the importance of the Koran. As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. The biggest problem is that the Koran is to be considered as Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. That’s the reason why the Koran is not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once said: “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam”. For once I have to agree with this islamist Turkish Prime Minister.

The Koran is available in many translations, languages and formats. I prefer the Hilali & Khan translation for research. Some prefer Shakir, and many prefer Yusuf Ali. The Resources page at Moe's Murder Cult contains links to sites from which you can download a fair variety of Korans and many other books.
For those who prefer reading on line, the Muslim Student Association at U.S.C. presents three parallel translations of the Koran and four hadith collections. Yet Another Qur'an Browser is a search engine which displays a table of up to ten translations. Search Truth has a hadith search engine which can search any of the four top hadith collections. Qtafsir has a search engine for Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, which explains that which should be obvious to you.

Shari'ah is also available on line; someone went to the trouble of scanning more than 1200 pages of Umdat as-Salik. That large, unformatted text file can be searched with the Windows search function invoked with the Ctrl F key combination. It takes a few minutes to load on dialup. Scribid displays a scanned image of the book. Somehow they arranged a means of searching it, which works much faster than I expected.

Craig Winn synthesized five major texts to produce The Prophet of Doom, which may be described as polemic. Reading it will require some patience and dedication; it stretches to 1000 pages. You can learn a great deal by browsing the Islamic Quotes section.

Sphere: Related Content

Ema Nymton said

I have quoted a recent comment. Superscripts inserted into the comment are linked to my responses in an enumerated list below the horizontal line separating the comment from my responses.

Ema Nymton said...

.

Ali Ben Ali Mohammad Abdul,

"You have neither relevant verifiable facts nor logic with which to refute the obvious truth."

Verifiable fact:

YOU, on this blog and other places, call for the mass killing¹ of over a billion unarmed and defenseless people², some of them citizens of USA.

Obvious truth:

Your hysterical efforts to incite genocide³ are subject to punishment. Your using the defense that you are not responsible for your degenerate criminal behavior⁴ because you can point to outdated documents⁵ written by backward people who have been dead for generations⁶, is not going to get you off.

-@:o?
.

April 3, 2009 2:54 PM

---

1. Prove it, Ema! Display relevant, verifiable, evidence to support your moronic accusation. I disrespectfully demand the extinction of the predator known as Islam by a rational combination of inducing the 'moderate', 'secular' masses to apostatize and killing the recalcitrant recidivists.
2. The aggressors are not unarmed nor are they defenseless. They engage in asymmetrical warfare, which is not ineffective. In the last 1400 years, Islam has caused an estimated 270 million premature deaths and untold grief & suffering.
3. Doing unto those trying to do it to you is defense, not offense. The two are not moral equivalents.
1. Genocide is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam.
1. until he had made a great slaughter
2. till when you have killed and wounded many of them
3. those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed
4. servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him
5. In the future, the Jews will support the Dajjal (False Messiah); and the Muslims, along with `Isa, son of Mary, will kill the Jews.
4. I am doing nothing criminal. I am exposing the damnable doctrines of Islam; the demonic predator which slaughtered 3000 innocents in New York & Washington, 160 at Oklahoma City, 10 in the Metropolitan Washington D.C. area, 60 in London, etc. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes it legal to alert one's fellow citizens to an existential threat, document its extent, purposes & methods and demand effective defense against it.
5. The Qur'an is timeless, not outdated. Moe declared that he was the seal of the prophets; the last. That makes his the final revelation of Allah's perfected word.
6. Perpetual conquest remains Islamic law, regardless of the date of issue and the death of the profit. It is inculcated in every madrassa and preached in every Mosque. The Middle East Media Research Institute documents numerous examples of those evils being preached in modern times. They are enshrined in the Qur'an, hadith, Shari'ah & Fiqh.

I have presented ample documentation of the true nature of Islam. Ema can not refute the fatal facts. In this post, I have presented fragmentary quotes from authentic Islamic sources. Each of those quotes is linked to its source and titled to identify the source. The titles will be revealed when you hover your mouse pointer over the links, which are bold blue underlined text.

For the benefit of newcomers who have not read the proceeding posts and comment threads attached to them, I present links to Ibn Kathir's Tafsir, which displays the Arabic text, translation, confirming hadith and Ibn Kathir's confirmation of the obvious meaning of the ayeh. The titles are sufficient to alert any competent iintellect to the arrogant, demonic evil of Islam.

Get a clue, for Chrissake!!! What Allah said is Islamic law, obligation binding upon all able bodied, adult male Muslims free born and financially able: fard al-kifaya.

• commands
• orders
• promise of conquest
• promise of domination

Click the titles, read the contents and curse Islam. Copy this blog post, paste it into an email, and send it to your friends, family and associates who remain ignorant of Moe's Murder Cult. Nobody else will carry this vital warning to the world, it is up to us. Don't break the chain; each one teach two!

• The Command to have Enmity towards the Disbelievers and to abandon supporting Them
• 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 until there is no more Fitnah
• Allah gives Victory to the Believing Group
• Permission to fight; this is the first Ayah of Jihad
• 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 People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites
• The Good News that Muslims will conquer the Known World, and ultimately the Entire World
• The Good News that Muslims will Dominate the People of the Book
• The Good News that Islam shall prevail

Got a clue yet? If not, you must be incredibly stupid, an analencephalopath like Ema. Here is another clue for you, quoted from Umdat as-Salik, the most popular codification of Shari'ah. When you read Chapter 9 of Book O you will learn the definition of Jihad. You will also learn against whom it must be performed. [Emphasis & link added.]

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).

Sphere: Related Content