President Obama recently assured the “Muslim World” that we are not war with Islam, and never will be. The response has been less than encouraging. The lack of buy-in to Obama’s message of friendship and pandering to the “Muslim World” is because while we may not be at war with them, they are certainly at war with us.
Throughout history there have been civilizations that are so fundamentally different from one another that no interaction or accommodation between them could be possible. This is the situation with Islam. Because Islam is at war with every kafir state and religion everywhere and forever, accommodation or understanding with Islam in the Obama model cannot be successful.
The doctrine of Islam states that no religion is acceptable other than Islam; it asserts Islam’s superiority over every political and religious system anywhere and for all time. Adherents to the ideology of Islam are required to “fight in Allah’s cause” even though they’d not prefer to be involved in such things. Allah commands that all must be involved in Jihad or at least support those who are. Islam is much more than a religion, it is also a political, cultural, legal, and military system that encompasses the entirety of existence from birth to death; it is a comprehensive ideology.
Because the majority of the Koran discusses how adherents are to interact with non-believers the Koran is the foundational document of a political ideology whose purpose is the conversion and destruction of all non-Muslim states and cultures and peoples everywhere and forever. This conversion and destruction of non-Muslim peoples is acccomplished through Jihad.
Jihad is asymmetrical war. This is the kind of warfare we now face in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is about propaganda, street violence, assassinations, church burnings, brutality and barbarism and small unit actions of violence and mass-murder that terrify the kafirs into inaction. There are no mass armies on the move in this war (though some jihad actions in the past have involved such kinds of warfare), no massive air bombing campaigns like those of WW2 there is only constant strife and conflict at the street level and into the institutions of the host culture whereby they are undermined and prevented from mounting an effective defense.
There are two phases of Islamic jihad, active warfare and hudna. Hudna is not peace because no Muslim is bound by any treaty of word or paper with a non-Muslim. Treaties between Muslims and kafirs are worth less than the paper that they are printed upon. Mohammed broke treaties, and encouraged lies and deceptions in Jihad and that is exactly what we see today.
“The Quran also allows them to be “disobedient towards the disbelievers and their governments and strive against the unvlievers with great endeavour.” (25:52)
- Shoebat, Why We Want to Kill You, p214
Westerners confuse the temporary period of non-fighting which is “hudna” with actual peace. The truth is that hudna is just a period of time that passes without conflict while the forces of jihad regroup, rearm and wait for new opportunities to fight the kafir unbelievers. Mohammed used this tactic to great success as do all of his followers over time.
There is no peace with Islam and with Jihad, there is only a temporary pause as the jihadists await better opportunities. For many it is difficult to conceive that this status quo of fighting punctuated by pauses could be a tactic rather than a situational response to political conflict (e.g., Israel-Palestine). Our leaders say that we are not at war because they cannot conceive that this kind of warfare can be real, but it is. This is entirely an ignorance-based position. We are very much at war with Islam but we do not defend ourselves because our leadership has deluded itself into believing that the war is not real.
But the war is very real, and we are losing it because we will not take action for defense.
We are overrun and in retreat everywhere even as we apologize to our enemies and pretend that their culture is foundational to our own, which is false. We cannot fight a war that is waged against us when we pretend that it is not happening. Jihad has never stopped since the founding of this ideology, it only pauses. So long as the trilogy doctrine of Islam requires adherents to “fight in Allah’s Cause” everywhere and forever, we are at war with Islam because they are at war with us. This is not a matter of opinion it is rather a matter of the acceptance of an ugly reality.
In the Islamic world honor and pride override all boundaries and linkages of kin and morality. Those who offend the honor and pride of their Islamic familiesdo so at their peril. Family bonds and responsibilities are subsumed by the demands of Islam. The Umma of Islam is the family to adherents. This is contrary to our western concepts of the overriding value of family connections. One’s connection to Islam is more important than one’s connections to family, father and children, sister and brother, etc.
In their investigation, PCHR said police sources “revealed that the victim’s father issued a confession to the police” that he had killed his daughter to “preserve family honor.” (Maan News, see link above)
In the first incident of its kind, a Palestinian family has killed its 15-year-old son in the West Bank after accusing him of “collaboration” with Israel.
Raed Wael Sawalha’s body was discovered in the basementof a house in his village of Hijjah in the Kalkilya area on Wednesday.
The Palestinian Authority security forces announced that they have arrested a number of the boy’s family members in connection with the killing. (Jerusalem Post)
This kind of barbarity is fundamentally in opposition to our concepts of morality and family relationships. This is a civilizational conflict.
Several weeks ago, a US Army private was killed in front of an army recruiting center in Little Rock, Arkansas. The killer was a Muslim jihadist. A memorial service for this victim of Islamic jihad was held in Little Rock. A Muslim woman in a burka showed up at the event screaming Islamic supremacist and Jew hatred slogans, interfering with the memorial. This was all captured on video. (See below).
Why would someone interfere at a memorial event for an innocent American murdered by a new-fangled Muslim jihadist killer? Interfering in the service was this woman’s jihad, fighting in Allah’s cause against the kafir. No compassion is extended to the kafir unbelievers in jihad, no basic courtesy even in mourning is given. Kafirs are less than human, they do not merit any courtesies from Muslims. Terrorizing kafirs, confusing them, and preventing them from following their own traditions of remembrance and respect are all jihad actions.
The kafir culture and kafirs themselves merit no respect by Islam and its adherents. Because kafirs have not accepted Allah and Mohammed so they are therefore the enemy. Islam knows its enemies – all non-believers wherever they might be. We do not know ours. ”The sheep do not know the wolf, but the wolf knows the sheep.” (Walid Shoebat)
Deconstruction of western traditions and even funeral observances are all part of the ongoing jihad. This is asymmetrical warfare in this civilizational conflict. We pretend it is not real – but it will not go away nevertheless.
It is inaccurately understood that the United States remains in Iraq and Afghanistan because we are creating democratic states (where previously there had never been such things). This is the common (mis)conception of our mission in these two countries where trillions in American treasure and thousands of American lives have been sacrificed. There is a problem, however.
What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is nation-building. This is not the same thing as building democratic states. If our mission is to build democracies, we have failed.
The constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan are both available online. A review of both documents shows that we have failed in building democracies in both places because both countries are Islamic Sharia states, as far from democracy as Nazism and Stalinism. But we remain, nevertheless, pouring in blood and treasure to prop up these phantasm entities whose existence is contrary, in every respect, to our own continued existence and prosperity.
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:
A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established. (Source)
The inherent contradiction between Article 2/First and the statement that “no law that contradicts the principles of democracy” may not be as clear as it should be. The first statement is an assertion that Islam is the law of the land; the law of Islam is Sharia law.
Sharia is the Islamic system of law that provides for the subjugation of women, the brutal killing of gays, the mistreatment of those of other faiths and the complete supremacy of Islam and its adherents in all aspects of the operations and life of the state. This is fundamentally opposed to the inclusiveness, openness, and freedoms guaranteed to the invidual in a democracy. In previous generations we fought such states that espoused systems like Sharia and intolerance of others. But we do not now; we prop them up. Why?
Ch. 1. Art. 1
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.
Ch. 1, Art. 2
The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.
Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law. (Source)
The wording of Afghanistan’s founding document is similar to that of Iraq’s; both are Islamic states, Sharia is the law of the land.
Afghanistan makes the claim that followers of other religions are free to exercise their faiths “within the limits of the provisions of law”, unfortunately for such kafirs (unbelievers) the “law” of the land is Sharia.
In Islamic law it is illegal to leave Islam and take another religion; in fact, this is considered one of the greatest of sins in Islam. The punishment for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death.
One might reasonably ask how a “religion of peace” could require death for those whose paths and personal life journeys take them in a different direction away from the Umma? In Islam, if the ruler so desires, other religions may be tolerated, but they must live as “dhimmis” (semi-slaves) and pay the punishing jizya tax (poll tax). No religions and no political systems other than Islam are allowed by the doctrine of Islam. Dhimmitude is tolerated as it benefits the rulers.
The doctrine of Islam states that there are three options open to the kafir; conversion, dhimmitude, and death. Dhimmitude is meant to take advantage of the labor of the dhimmi and propel them to convert to ease the burden of their lives. It is a brutally effective system – diabolical, brutal, heartless, cruel, savage - but very effective.
Our relationship with Islam is not a relationship of mutual aid. It is a relationship of give and take with the Muslim world taking and demanding ever more from us, while we continue to give and give while our own country and economy fail. This is lunacy and national suicide; it is not any kind of statecraft that can be supported by reasonable people.
If Saddam was unpalatable, we wanted a change for the Iraqi people and ousted him; if the Taliban were unpalatable, we wanted a change for the people of Afghanistan and ousted them. Just as in the Gaza Strip where Hamas was democratically elected by a landslide, the followers of the so-called religion of peace across the world will use democracy to vote in anti-democratic institutions, the institutions of political Islam (which they favor and espouse). Anti-democracy is the fundamental concept of Islam. Democracy and Islam are incompatible. Read the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Hamas “Charter”. Tx`here is no doubt on these points.
The Universality of Hamas
By virtue of the distribution of Muslims, who pursue the cause of the Hamas, all over the globe, and strive for its victory, for the reinforcement of its positions and for the encouragement of its Jihad, the Movement is a universal one.
Islam is a reactionary, global, revolutionary movement of intolerance and violence whose purpose as stated in its doctrine and innumerable following documents is the destruction of all kafir peoples, religions, states, institutions and cultures. Our leadership says that we are not at war with Islam. This is very convenient for Islam and a disaster for us because Islam is very much at war with us.
President Obama campaigned on the concept of “change”. We brought change to both Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is not the kind of change that any lover of freedom can support. Anti-war partisans of the left said, during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, “no blood for oil”. With oil at 70/barrel and gas again approaching 3/gallon in the US clearly this is not a war about oil. So then, what is this about? The Taliban are still active in Afghanistan and poised to overthrow nuclear-armed Pakistan. Internecine fighting continues almost daily between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq with American soldiers in the middle.
During the Second World War we allied with Communist Russia so that both could defeat Nazism – a common enemy. Russia later bankrupted itself fighting Islamists in Afghanistan, the same path that we tread now. Why?
These foundational questions are not being asked and they should be. Why do we support totalitarian Islamic Sharia states in Iraq and Afghanistan when we fought wars against totalitarian regimes in the not so distant past? Who is the mutual enemy for whose defeat our purposes are allied? If there is a greater enemy that a strengthened Iraq and Afghanistan can assist us in opposing who is it?
At this time we fight our wars in a vacuum with no clear purpose, no clear cause to follow, no clear mission; and a totally confused foundational concept of why we are there. And when we leave, with two Islamic Sharia states of jihad and intolerance behind us, what will we have accomplished?
Defeating totalitarian movements like the Taliban is essentially good. Defeating dictators like Saddam Hussein is essentially good. But what is the essential good in creating and propping up Islamic Sharia states whose purpose is our own eradication? These explanations have never been provided. Now is the time.
There is no Amish Jihad. There is no Jewish Jihad and no Christian Jihad. There is only Islamic Jihad. Why?
The failure to acknowledge the unpleasant truths of Islam, its intolerance, violence, cruelty, misogyny, and hatred is fundamental to multiculturalism. Moral relativism is multiculturalism. We are told that we cannot discuss Islam because Islam is a religion and that therefore what Islam is about is the business of Muslims only. This is a confusion of purpose and a lack of understanding of daily events whereby Muslims kill and abuse non-believers with Western multiculturalists defending their right to such activity on the basis of ”its their religion”.
The greatest mistake of President Bush’s administration was in stating that Islam is a “hijacked” “religion of peace”. The statement is false. Acceptance and tolerance of a political political ideology that is existentially opposed to everything that Americans say that they hold dear in the name of “tolerance” is national suicide and nothing less.
A recent ethical and core mission failure on the part of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is illustrative. Geert Wilders the Danish parliamentarian and creator of the film Fitna has been a lightning rod of controversy across the world for his outspoken views on the dangers that Islam and the ever-increasing Muslim population of Europe and in the US (and the concomitant shrinking of the populations of host countries) pose to the West. Wilders is only one of very few European politicians who are speaking out on these issue. He is several years ahead of the curve, though Europe is probably ten years late in responding to this very serious problem. At a recent speech in Florida Mr. Wilders was condemned by the state director of the ADL.
The Florida area director of the ADL, one Andrew Rosenkranz, attacked Wilders who has been speaking at synagogues across Florida. Rosenkranz condemned Wilders’ alleged “message of hate” which refuses to distinguish between the religion of Islam and Jihadism. A great many scholars of Islam would not affirm Mr. Rosenkranz’s simplistic bifurcation (however civic-minded). Making that distinction is, in fact, a far more difficult intellectual and theological undertaking than he recognizes. While in a narrow sense Islamism with a capital “I” is a recent historical development – we associate the derivation of the term with the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 under the leadership of Hasan al-Banna – Islamism/Jihadism has been a foundation stone of Islam from its inception, and any close reading of the Qur’an, the Hadith, or familiarity with the Sunnah or the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence makes the point incontestable.
The ADL’s embrace of tolerance for all includes tolerance for those whose ideology tells them to kill Jews wherever they are found. It is a moral and ethical failure to recognize a conflict between good and evil.
Without an apology by the ADL, the ADL’s effectiveness as a defender of Jews is at an end, and their new mission of defending liberal concepts of multiculturalism and inclusiveness has now come to the fore. The irony of defending those whose ideology promotes absolutism and intolerance under the banner of tolerance is likely lost on the leadership of ADL.
Americans confuse tolerance and inclusiveness far too often with a complete laissez-faire political and cultural milieux that simply does not exist; it pretends that the world is not what it is and immediately forgets 9/11, Mumbai, London, Paris, Beslan, Khobar, USS Cole, Pentagon, Flight 93, Kenyan embassies, Bali, etc.
This blind tolerance of intolerance is founded upon anti-intellectualism and a firmly held disconnect from the realities that surround us and of those forces of brutality and death whose goal is our destruction. Only a society in danger can actively defend those whose mission is the destruction of that society. We did not defend the rights of Nazis during the Second World War; we fought them.
We have dealt with absolutist and cruel ideologies in the past; and we have gone to war against those ideologies. Americans oppose ideologies that value death over life or, at least we did so in the past. Cultures that cannot identify cruelty and violence as something to be opposed are fertile ground for absolutist ideologies, be they cults or “religions”.
Many multi-culturalists and defenders of Islam, those who generally know nothing of Islam and its doctrine, often look to the Holocaust. They say that criticism of Islam is akin to the criticism of the Jews by the Nazis prior to the Holocaust. They say that criticism of a religion or group of people must then inevitably result in some horrible reaction against adherents of such groups.
But there is no underlying hatred of Muslims in the United States, nor in Europe, as there was extreme Jew hatred across Europe prior to the war, and now resurgent again today. The West opposed Communism and Nazism because the ideologies of these movements were fundamentally antagonistic to our own American culture and political system. These were ideologies of cruelty and expansion and a total deconstruction and debasement of the individual to the system. The doctrine of Islam is similar.
In Islam the individual Muslim is not alone with God. Instead, he is a “slave of Allah” and the rules of his mental and moral and other kinds of servitude are all set out in the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam. So you’ve Got Friends. Every Muslim is your new true-blue friend. And, because of how Muslims are taught to view the world, every Infidel who somehow makes problems for Islam, who insists, for example, on the right of free peoples in the West to exercise their freedoms — freedom of speech, freedom of conscience — is now your enemy. (Fitzgerald)
This is not to say that there aren’t nice Muslims; there are. This discussion is not about individuals but about a political ideology of warfare, conquest, cruelty, and intolerance.
Many Muslims know less of their doctrine than non-believers. But, since the Koran is the actual word of Allah the Koran cannot be changed, ever. Because the Koran is very clear that Jews are to be killed; that no religion can exist other than Islam; that Islam is at war with all unbelievers everywhere and forever; that those captured in war can be enslaved; that slaves can be raped and sold; that torture and brutality, theft, murder, pedophilia, and a demand for total submission to this doctrine by all adherents are fundamental requirements; and that leaving the religion is a sin punishable by death – what is the nice Muslim who does not know the doctrine to do when he/she finds out about it?
The context of world events in which cruelty and barbarism are seen daily as perpetrated by Islamists is the doctrine of Islam. The majority of the Koran is not about how to be a Muslim but is about how Muslims are to interact with non-believers. This means that Islam is a political ideology.
Because Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion adherents must behave towards the unbelievers as commanded by Koran (the never-changing perfect word of Allah) to war against them forever until they are conquered or until they submit to Islam. This means that an observant Muslim must embrace the political concepts and commands of the doctrine if they are to be a devout religionist in Islam and properly submit to Allah and the commands of Mohammed.
According to statistical analysis, “the amount of text in the entire Koran devoted to kafirs is 61%.” A kafir is non-believer, all non-Muslims are kafirs.
Defenders of Islam, mainly those who know nothing of the doctrine, say that the violence in the Koran is echoed by similar violence in the major religious books of Judaism and Christianity. This is not so.
The violence in the old and new Testaments is temporaryand localized; the violence in the doctrine of Islam is permanent and universal. Islam is always at war with the unbelievers, forever and everywhere; Islam is always desirous of the death of Jews, everywhere and forever; Islam requires kafirs to be conquered, converted, or killed, everywhere and forever. Those multiculturists and leftists who defend Islam and its doctrine usually know nothing of its doctrine and usually explain away all terror attacks and daily events of cruelty and violence done because of the doctrine of Islam as further evidence of the “hijacking” of Islam rather than further proof of its actual cruel and barbaric nature.
It is critical to bear in mind that Muslims cannot view the Qur’an as Westerners do their Holy Scripture as a smorgasbord from which to pick and choose in the interest of the most humane exegesis. In Islam, one cannot retain the nice bits and leave out the nasty ones. That’s because there’s no parallel between the status of the Qur’an in Islam and that of the Hebrew Bible in Judaism or the New Testament in Christianity. The great majority of Jews and Christians (excluding the relative handful of true literalists in both faiths) understand scripture as the divinely inspired words of human beings who were children of their time, whose values were historically conditioned. If an ancient text has become an ethical anachronism (such as passages in Leviticus recommending stoning homosexuals or adulterers) we no longer consider them binding. But Muslim believers see the Qur’an in very different terms. It is the literal word of God transmitted whole and perfect – perfect for all time – to Mohammed by the Angel Gabriel. It is thus an extension of God himself; the analogy would not be the Hebrew Bible or New Testament but rather to the Christian Eucharist. No human being can change what is written or reinterpret it in light of contemporary understanding. It is neither historically nor socially conditioned. What was true when the revelation was allegedly made to Mohammed in the seventh century is equally true now. Passages that strike a modern Western ear as utterly barbarous and malevolent – because they are – retain all their sanctity for an authority over believers. (Stephen Steinlight, FrontPage Magazine, source)
Defenders of Islam, those who say that Islam is “peaceful”, are generally unaware that there were previous holocausts perpetrated by Islam against Jews, Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians, and many other religions and cultures. The body count of jihadis in the hundreds of millions since the inception of this cruel ideology 1400 years ago. The extreme cruelty of Islam is ignored by multiculturalists who prefer to see Islam and the world itself as they would prefer it to be rather than acknowledge the truth.
Tolerance of ideologies that oppose our existence is not rational. Opposing an ideology that is brutal and cruel and intolerant itself is not hate-mongering or “racism” or “bigotry”. Islam is not a race.
The discussion of the doctrine of Islam, in particular Islam’s holiest book the Koran, holds all the answers. The cruelty of the Koran and its almost unbelievable commands to adherents for perpetual war, slaving, barbarity and hatred is too much for many in the West to accept. Every day we see proofs that the ideology of Islam is alive and well, and motivating many across the world to do deeds that we consider outside the family of humanity.
There are no Amish jihadis. If there were, would they hassle you with annoying encomiums of their religion and suggest strongly that you convert, and give you a headache? Yes. This is not the approach of Islam. In Islam, all kafirs(non-believers) must submit to Allah and Mohammed – they will not give you a headache, they will remove your head.
We have daily reports of the brutality of the ”religion of peace”, but many will not listen choosing not to believe it. Read the Koran yourself.
We have fought cruel ideologies in the past. We have faced Nazis and Communists, and destroyed them. We destroyed them because if we did not, they would destroy us.
All kafirs are to be conquered, converted, or killed. Any philosophy that raises death over life we have in the past and should today condemn and oppose. Amidst a devastating ideological war that involves the killing and brutalization of Jews, Christians, Americans, and non-believers across the world it is absurd that we should pretend that such a conflict does not exist.
Suggesting that this conflict is not real, and that Islam is the “religion of peace” is contrary to the doctrine of Islam and the daily activities and stated aims of those who submit to Islam. Suggesting that Islam is the religion of peace – hijacked, is akin to suggesting that there are Amish jihadists.
There is no Amish jihad.
Walid Shoebat, the former PLO terrorist, recently said about the Jews, “The sheep do not know the wolf, but the wolf knows the sheep.” It is not only the Jews who do not know the sheep, it is the majority of western society that does not oppose those whose mission is the destruction of everything that we hold dear. Our lack of knowledge of Islam is a moral failure, our failure to oppose cruelty and barbarity is the seed of our national destruction. Knowledge is the foundation of any response to this existential threat that is political Islam. Pretending that Islam is the “religion of peace” is a convenient sop for the majority but it is not so.
Too many in the West prefer to fight dead Nazis, and Amish jihadists while the real battle continues without them. The forces of Islamic jihad prefer that we fight Amish jihadists. If only we should be so lucky in that Islam’s foundation would be non-violence (instead of warfare and cruelty) like those concepts embraced by the Amish. We are not so blessed. We must accept the world for what it is, and the nature of Islam for what it is also. To do otherwise is national suicide.
The late 1970s conversion to Islam of Cat Stevens, the most popular singer-songwriter in the world at the time, came as no surprise to those who followed the deep threads of searching that he wove throughout his songs. Cat had always been a searcher, searching for “something” as was the popular motif during those days.
Always searching, he finally found what he didn’t know he had been looking for, Islam. His embrace of religion was the not-surprising conclusion to his extensive songbook of yearning and searching for “something”, his selection of Islam and his subsequent and continuing embrace of jihad is a profound disappointment and a deep betrayal of the entirety of western culture and the finer concepts of love and brotherhood, forgiveness and humanity about which he so consistently wrote and sang.
For me personally, I learned the guitar because of my affection for Cat Stevens’ music. I learned his songs, playing them for hours at a time. His conversion to Islam and his embrace of Islamic domination of all others; his support of the death of Salmon Rushdie, his financial support of terrorist organizations that eventually got him placed on a US “no-fly” list was a personal disaster to me. Owning all his records, and now CDs as I do, they sit now unlistened.
But it is also a cultural disaster for the world because his music was so stunningly beautiful and so indicative of acceptance and love. I do not listen to the music of pseudo failed artists who support global jihad - neither should you.
Last week, Cat Stevens played a venue in Los Angeles for the first time in 20 years. The review in the LA Times was sycophantic, fawning, and as out-of-context as it possibly could have been. There was no mention of his Islamism, Rushdie, terrorism links, nothing. They failed to mention this:
He also courted controversy by allegedly funding charities that were fronts for the Islamic militant group Hamas. Israeli authorities have barred Islam twice from entering the country because of his alleged ties to Hamas. (source)
There were some Hollywood glitterati in attendance. There is no question, his voice is astounding, but his ethics are revolting. The Hollywood types cared not a whit.
It was an invitation-only event, potentially a prelude to an actual concert tour, and the audience was dotted with celebs, including Josh Groban, Colin Farrell, Rosanna Arquette, Cameron Crowe and Jake (Body by Jake) Steinfeld.
In the now obvious theme of journalistic ignorance, intellectual dishonesty (bias) and white-washing the “reviewer” commented that Cat Stevens, now an entirely different entity named “Yusuf Islam” was not proselytizing but was “reconnecting” with his old fans who appeared to know nothing about his new self, or don’t care. The truth is that everything “Yusuf Islam” does in public is dawa, converting people to Islam with propaganda and falsehoods.
He also made it effortless for fans to reconnect with him personally, even for those who can’t fully comprehend the scope of his conversion three decades ago to the Islamic faith. His new songs reflect a perspective of one who, unlike Bono, has found what he’s looking for spiritually, but never in a proselytizing or patronizing way. (Source: LA Times)
Mr. Stevens/Islam is now two people; he is a man with a laudable past, a man who once embraced brotherhood and peace but now an emissary of a totalitarian ideology who embraces a brutal and intolerant way of life whose purpose is global expansion and the destruction of every culture and form of religion or government that is not Islamic. This is the doctrine of Islam, and as a total believer Mr. Stevens/Islam embraces this horrific ideology in its entirety.
In 2007, Mr. Stevens/Islam received an “award” from MEDEA for his work in bridging the gap between the Arab world and Europe. Unfortunately, the Islamic concept of “peace” only includes a world in which there are no other religions; this is the concept of “dar al-Islam”. There is only “peace” where Islam reigns; everywhere else is war “dar al-harb”.
Yusuf is being awarded the prestigious award as a result of the work he has done to increase peace in the world. (Source, Gates of Vienna)
Stevens/Islam said that he has read the Koran and that is why he converted to Islam, you know, for the message of peace that he found there. He said, in August, 2005, that
The message I picked up from the Qur’an was quite different. I found the light of knowledge and godliness shining from the verses and stories, linking mankind together as one family, regardless of color, status or nationality. It told me of the wondrous universal teachings of peace and unity advocated by the greatest of educators, people such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others. (source)
The Salmon Rushdie affair is illustrative of the profound change that has occurred within this person formerly known as Cat Stevens. Once a global spokesman for peace, understanding, tolerance, love, and goodwill, Mr. Stevens/Islam called publicly for the death of a writer whose book he does not approve (because his new “ideology” does not approve it). This is anti-art, anti-intellectualism, anti-creativity, and anti-human, all foundational principles of the doctrine of political Islam. This is the polar opposite of what Cat Stevens used to be.
May 22, 1989: The musician known as Cat Stevens said in a British television program to be broadcast next week that rather than go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie, ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing.” …
He also said that if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ”I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like.”
”I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is,” said Mr. Islam, who watched a preview of the program today and said in an interview that he stood by his comments. (source)
Interviewed on Larry King’s show in early October of 2004, Mr. Stevens/Islam let it “all hang out”.
“And the first thing that came so clear to me was this declaration in the belief in one God in this universe. You know, now that’s powerful. That’s powerful. Of course, in the Jewish faith, you know, that’s fairly well known but — but here, it was a universal approach. It wasn’t now, you know, if you like a racial approach where it was only owned by Arabs. The Quran was talking to me in terms of humanity. I’d never heard that before.
When I saw the name of Jesus and Moses, Abraham, along with the prophet Mohammed, of all these prophets mentioned in the Quran, that was quite startling. I never expected that.” (Larry King interview, transcript)
This is taqiyyah, sacred deception. Mr. Stevens/Islam must know that the Koran is very clear about universality, in that there isn’t any. Muslims are not allowed to befriend Jews and Christians and any unbelievers; the Jesus, Moses, and Abraham stories of the Old and New Testaments are lifted from the original holy books so that all of them are Islamic prophets in Islam. Mr. Stevens/Islam’s education in Koranic studies perhaps was not as thorough as it should have been. And, after all this time, one would think he would have done his homework and “caught up”. This is likely.
He is “caught up” now but he is no longer Cat Stevens the lover of humanity; he is now the creature “Yusuf Islam”, the perpetrator of deception and falsehoods, and the proponent of global jihad. There have been fewer more public transformations than his.
The Larry King interview performance is textbook taqiyyah.
KING: So a Muslim who commits terrorism is going totally against his faith?
ISLAM: Yes. I mean, this is obvious. And the Quran is very clear about it. You know, if you look at the teachings of Quran, which I learned when I became a Muslim, you know, what does it say? It says belief, you know, and good deeds. Well, you tell me how to do good deeds. Good deeds is prayer, it’s charity, it’s fasting, it’s speaking the truth. It’s being honest.
So you know, it’s an antithesis of what Islam stands for, and therefore, you know, we completely condemned it. It’s abhorrent.
And if you study the history of Islam — when it was correctly applied in this world, it was tolerant, there’s always the room for people of different faiths living together.
If only this were truth. It is not.
There is no tolerance in Islam for unbelievers, and little for Muslims themselves. The 1.5 million people fleeing the Taliban, the great implementers of the doctrine of Islam, is evidence of this. The doctrine is cruel and brutal to everyone, believers and unbelievers alike. Those who know it, flee.
The suggestion that Islam is tolerant is false. Islam is not tolerant of any other faith, culture or political system. Islam is a form of totalitarianism akin to Stalinism and Nazism. Mr. Stevens/Islam knows this, but he does not care. He is a believer, woe to the unbeliever. (Was “Woe to the Unbeliever” ever a Cat Stevens tune? No.)
A statistical study of Islam recently undertaken by Mr. Bill Warner shows that there is a peaceful component of Islam.
The Sirais Mohammed’s biography (sira is an Arabic word that means biography, but Sira is reserved for Mohammed) and has three versions by three authors. The most definitive is by Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, translated by A. Guillaume as The Life of Muhammad….
Based upon the Sira, Islam is 2% peace, 28% argument and threats, and 70% jihad. If the Sira were a two-hour movie, then the peaceful part would last for nearly 3 minutes, the fist fights, brawls, arguments and threats would last 34 minutes and the killing would take up 83 minutes. But the movie ends with the beaten kafirs saying that they will do whatever Mohammed wants, if he will only stop the jihad. (Bill Warner, PoliticalIslam.com)
A great deal of the doctrine of Islam deals with the Jews. Islam does not like the Jews. The Jews rejected Mohammed’s prophethood, Mohammed hated them for it, so then do all Muslims. Mr. Stevens/Islam has another interpretation for those who know nothing of the matter.
KING: Does the Quran at all attack Judaism? I’ve never read the Quran, but I’ve heard this through the years that the Quran — parts of the Quran are anti-Semitic.
ISLAM: Well, I think part of the New Testament would be too if you analyze it. I mean, Jesus is reported at some point to have been correcting certain Pharisees and scribes and saying, oh you, whatever.
Of course, there are verses in the Quran which try to, if you like, correct maybe some deviations, but as far as the Jewish faith is concerned, let me tell you a verse in the Quran, a very important verse. It says: “Those who believe,” means Muslims in this case, “and those who are Judized (ph) and those Sadains (ph) and the Christians, whoever believes in God and the last day and does good works, no fear shall come upon them, neither shall they grieve.”
That is a verse of the Quran, Larry. Now, a lot of people don’t get to that part. They look at some of the sections, which, yes, they talk about certain wars which took place. Again, some of those are historical and have to be read in context. But the general principle is that there is no compulsion in religion and life is sacred, simple as that.
Islam hates all non-believers (kafirs), but reserves a special hatred for Jews. There is this “PeaceTrain” for all unbelievers, it is a train to Auschwitz:
Koran, 2:191 – And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (source)
For the Jews, there are many doctrinal comments about killing:
Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176: Narrated by ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar: Allah’s Apostle said, “You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, ‘O ‘Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.’” Sahih Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177: Narrated by Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.” (source)
Things are not much better for those who want to leave Islam. Islam is something like LaCosaNostra, or “the Company” – nobody leaves:
Koran: 4:089 – They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (source)
One wonders which Koran Mr. Stevens/Islam read when he converted to Islam. There is one Koran, wherein it says to kill Jews and hate the unbelievers and kill and hate those who want to leave Islam. There is but one God this God says the same, there can be no religion but Allah’s religion. All kafirs must convert, be enslaved, or die.
Where is the beauty in Koran? Perhaps there is some small speck left of what was Mr. Cat Stevens. Perhaps the Islamic concepts of charity are what got him so interested in Islam, interested enough to embrace its totalitarian concepts of existence. Many searchers finds absolutism attractive, this is likely what happened with Cat Stevens. It does not matter that Islam is opposed to everything he ever said, ever sang about prior to his conversion; what matters is that his searching is over, his questions (every one of them forever) are now answered, and he can rest.
You learn fasting. You learn — well, you might already be giving charity, but here you learn how to give — you have to give charity. It’s not a question of an option or a voluntary choice. You have to give charity. (Larry King interview, see above)
Islam believes in charity… but only for Muslims; the kafir, the unbeliever is not considered worthy of Islamic charity.
A person who calls himself or herself a Muslim might offer help to a kafir out of true generosity. But let’s closely examine the psychology of this event. The only way for a Muslim to give freely to a kafir is to not see him as a kafir, but as a fellow human being, an equal deserving compassion and empathy. But a kafiris not ever equal to a Muslim. Seeing humanity as one is contrary to the Islamic doctrine of kafir and believer found in the Koran. Humanity-as-one is a kafir concept, not an Islamic concept. ….
The zakat is the Islamic charity.
The zakat is to be given to eight categories: the poor, those short of money, administrative costs, those whose hearts are to be reconciled, slaves to buy their freedom, those in debt, jihadists, and travelers who need assistance. A kafir (a non-believer) is forbidden to receive money from the zakat.
So Islam, as a corporate body, does not give charity to kafirs. (Warner, PoliticalIslam.com)
What Mr. Islam has lost is his soul, what we have all lost is a great artist and humanitarian. Cat Stevens is gone, he is a wisp in YouTube movies and captured on CDs and LPs around the world. His lyrics are beautiful as are his guitar work, and singing. Mr. Stevens repudiated and abandoned the principles and moral/ethical concepts that are the foundation of his music and artistic output. So much of his lyrics talk of searching. Mr. Islam believes he is found, but he is truly lost.
Now theres a way and I know that I have to go away.
Koran, 3:156 – O you who believe, do not be like those who disbelieved and said of their kinsmen who traveled or mobilized for war, “Had they stayed with us, they would not have died or gotten killed.” GOD renders this a source of grief in their hearts. GOD controls life and death. GOD is Seer of everything you do. (source)
Koran, 3:157 – The forgiveness and mercy they, who die or are killed for Allah’s cause (jihad), will receive from Allah will be far better than anything they could have gained. If you die or are killed, then surely you will all be gathered before Allah.
Qur’an (33:50) – “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.”
Qur’an (24:32) – “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…”
She must be hurt very badly.
Tell me what’s making you sadly?
Open your door, don’t hide in the dark.
You’re lost in the dark, you can trust me.
cause you know that’s how it must be.
Islam, Wife Beating
Koran, 4:34 - “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” (source)
Muslim (4:2127) – Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”
Oh, baby, baby, it’s a wild world
I’ll always remember you like a child, girl
You know i’ve seen a lot of what the world can do
And it’s breakin’ my heart in two
Because i never wanna see you a sad, girl
Don’t be a bad girl
But if you wanna leave, take good care
Hope you make a lot of nice friend out there
But just remember there’s a lot of bad and beware
Islam - Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 years old, consummated the marriage when she was 9. In the Islamic doctrine whatever Mohammed has done, since he is the perfect example of humanity, is the right thing to do, even if it’s wrong.
Interview with Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-’Ubeidi, an Iraqi expert on Islamic law, which aired on Al-Rafidein TV on March 14, 2008:
Many criminals, the enemies of Islam, ask: “How could the Prophet Muhammad, at 52 years of age, marry ‘Aisha when she was only 8 years old, and consummate the marriage when she was 9 years old?” I say to them: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Why do you permit your young girls to fornicate? They consider it one of their liberties. Therefore, in these stupid countries, you rarely find girls aged 10 or 12 who are still virgins. They permit this. They have even legislated laws stating that if a girl is under the age of 18, and her girlfriend [sic] or whatever has had sex with her, she has the right to have an abortion. How can you permit the outcome without accepting the cause? Why do you allow your girls to have sex and say this is an individual liberty? It is okay to fornicate with girls there or force them to have sex, and so on, and they have the right to have an abortion. If you permit all this before the age [of 18], without a marriage contract and without any legal grounds – how come you forbid marriage? (source)
Koran, 2:190: – ..fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you…[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (source)
Koran, 4:89- …take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back [to their homes], then seize them and kill them wherever you find them… Koran, 4:91 – seize them and kill them wherever you find them…(source)
Koran, 5:51 – Oh, believers, do not take the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another’s friends. If any one of you takes them for his friends, he surely is one of them. Allah will not guide the evildoers. (source)
There is no Peace Train; there is only Universal JihadTrain. This is a train that must be derailed. Cat Stevens is gone, don’t let Yusuf Islam tell you otherwise.
What is Lost
Note: This is not Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, the placard represents the belief system of his adopted ideology. Cat Stevens is gone.
The violent conflict between orthodox and non-orthodox Islam that is ongoing in Pakistan is instructive. If the purpose of Islam is to live life according to the Koran, Sunna, and Hadith, and follow the perfect example of Mohammed, why do hundreds of thousands flee the Taliban, instead of embracing them as they advance on the capitol?
According to M. A. Khan, author of Islamic Jihad, the Talibanization of Pakistan is nothing less then the fulfillment of the founders’ vision of that country. Khan suggests that the failure of Pakistan’s government and conquest of the Taliban are essentially “inescapable”.
“Pakistan” means “land of the pure”. In Islam, non-Muslims are filthy, impure (Quran 9:28). So the name “Pakistan” was carefully chosen to make it exclusively an abode of a pure people, Muslims—completely disconnected from the filthy non-Muslims. And Jinnah’s tool to create this pure, organically Islamic, state was “Jihad” or holy war: he tried to emulate Prophet Muhammad’s model of Jihad that he had applied to create the first Islamic State in Arabia by slaughter, expulsion, enslavement and forced conversion of the infidels en masse. (M. A. Khan, Talibanization of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers, Islam-Watch.org)
Khan, one of the top scholars of Islamic history and jihad explains that the purpose of Pakistan was to be a “pure” Islamic state. The purpose of the Taliban is to be the purest Islamic movement. It seems a perfect fit; a purist Islamist movement is significantly challenging the non-purist Pakistani government for supremacy.
The recent treachery of the cancellation of the Swat Valley peace agreement after the Taliban was granted ownership of that region and the right to implement Sharia law is easily understood in the context of Islamic history and from the actions of Mohammed himself.
In Islam, if Mohammed “did it”, because Mohammed is the perfect example for all humans to follow, then it is “good” and something that should be emulated; it’s ok for you to do it, too (if you’re a Muslim – in fact, Mohammed is your model). If Mohammed breached a treaty, then so can you, and that is exactly what the Taliban did after they got what they wanted in Swat. When Islam is strong, it is to be unrelenting and unforgiving; treaties are a means to an end, and the end is not peace. the “end” is the total supremacy of Islam. Khan shows that Pakistan is now fulfilling its original purposes.
Pakistanis have been fooled for too long by Jinnah [Muhammad Ali Jinnah, one of the "founding fathers" of Pakistan] to begin with, depriving them of a truly Islamic state. Thanks to the Taliban, they are about to realize their ‘dream state’, for which they relentlessly fought and sacrificed immensely. On this, the words of Qazi Hussain Ahmad, the ever-honest leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, is most instructive:
“Complete Islamisation of Pakistan has been the genuine and long-standing demand of the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. Not only that, it is also the appropriate answer to the lurking fears of Talibanisation, growing rapidly with every passing day, as a natural response to the suppression of this public demand at the state level.” (M. A. Khan, Talibanisation of Pakistan: Realizing the Dreams of Founding Fathers, Islam-Watch.org)
If, as Khan suggests, the current rise of the Taliban in Pakistan is the fulfillment of the original concept of the kind of Islamic state that Pakistan was always meant to be – why then are so many thousands of Pakistanis fleeing the Taliban? The answer is that though Islamic doctrine is a monolith, the implementation of it is not.
Speaking to thousands of followers in an address aired live from Swat on national news channels, cleric Sufi Mohammed bluntly defied the constitution and federal judiciary, saying he would not allow any appeals to state courts under the system of sharia, or Islamic law, that will prevail there as a result of the peace accord signed by the president Tuesday.
“The Koran says that supporting an infidel system is a great sin,” Mohammed said, referring to Pakistan’s modern democratic institutions. He declared that in Swat, home to 1.5 million people, all “un-Islamic laws and customs will be abolished,” and he suggested that the official imprimatur on the agreement would pave the way for sharia to be installed in other areas. (Washington Post, 4/20/2009)
It is clear that though the doctrine of Islam commands adherence to Sharia and the law of Allah and Mohammed as forwarded to all the world by jihad; not all Muslims embrace this idea. Because they do not embrace this idea, they are considered something less than Muslim by orthodox absolutist Muslims like the Taliban.
It would be wrong to think that all Muslims adhere to the ideology of jihad for, in fact, many Muslims reject it. Some have fallen victim to it, as is the case in Algeria, where jihadists carry out violence against moderates in an attempt to enforce Shari’a (Islamic law). There are many other Muslims around the world fighting for values of freedom.(Bat Ya’or)
The brutality of life under the Taliban was clear to the world, prior to the American invasion of that country in 2001. The Taliban are the strictest adherents to Sharia and insist on a literal interpretation of the commands of Allah and the doctrine of Islam. This is orthodoxy, but it is also moderation (this is duality, fundamental to Islamic doctrinal logic) as implementation of Sharia and the rule of Allah is commanded in the doctrine.
The Koran is clear on these points.
“We bring misfortune to mankind in turns so that Allah can discern who are the true believers, and so that We may select martyrs from among you.” Koran, 3:140
“If you follow the unbelievers, they will cause you to reject the faith and lead you to eternal damnation.” Koran, 3:149
“Anyone who opposes the Messenger after having received Our guidance and follows a path other than that of the true believer will be left to their own devices. We will lead them into Hell, an evil home.” Koran, 4:115
Muslims who are not as exacting in their implementation of Koranic law are not considered proper Muslims by the Taliban. Therefore, the Taliban can make war upon them to bring them into alignment with the way of Islam as it is written in the Koran, Sira, and Hadith.
In fact, people under the Taliban who are outside of the doctrine of Islam often face the death penalty. The brutality of the Taliban has made the world cringe since their activities in Afghanistan became widely known prior to 9/11. Cruelty is an ongoing theme in the Islamic world. This is the way of Mohammed, if Mohammed was cruel, then so can Muslims be cruel as Mohammed is the perfect example of humanity for all Muslims to follow. This is particularly seen often with torture and beheading cases across the Islamic world. The recent case of the torture video that shows a UAE prince brutally torturing a man (a fellow Muslim) is only the most current in this nauseating, anti-human theme of cruelty that runs throughout Islamic history and current practices.
Daniel Pipes, noted authority on Islamic and Middle East politics and culture wrote recently on this case,
That cruelty, usually at a remove from outsiders, became cinematically vivid on April 22, 2009, when ABC News aired a tape of a prince from the United Arab Emirates sadistically torturing an Afghan merchant he accused of dishonesty. No less instructive were the passive reactions of his government and of American officials. The story reveals much and is worth pondering. (The Culture of Cruelty, Daniel Pipes, May 15, 2009)
When put in context of Pakistan and the cruelty of the Taliban against their fellow Muslims, the UAE torture tape is illustrative. It does not matter that the torture victim in the tape is a fellow Muslim, just as it does not matter in Swat, or anywhere in Pakistan that a victim of Taliban brutality is a fellow Muslim. Islam is a brutal ideology to both believers and non-believers.
Cruelty is at the foundation of Islamic doctrine. Mohammed tortured people, so the UAE prince feels it’s alright to torture. This is the way of Mohammed, the perfect example for all Muslims to follow.
“Muhammed therefore ordered his fellow Zabeer Bin Awwam to torture Kinanah until he confessed. He burned Kinanah’s chest and body until he fell unconscious. When Kinanah woke up, Muhammed ordered another follower called Muhammed Bin Mosalamh to torture Kinanah and eventually behead him. (Bukhari,6947; quoted in Living by the Point of My Spear” by Zaki Ameen, p116)
Islam is totalitarianism. When Islam is implemented according to the doctrine it is a system of cruelty and injustice that is rarely if ever surpassed for brutality. Those unfortunate enough to live under Sharia know its cruelties and savageries. We see the Taliban and their cruelty, and its defense in Islamic doctrine. The United States drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan just for this brutality and savagery as well as their support of the terrorists/jihadists who attacked the US on 9/11. We are not the only ones who watch the Taliban with growing concern.
Those whose fate it will be to live under Taliban orthodoxy flee in the hundreds of thousands to escape a form of civilization whose cruetly and violence is mandated in the doctrine of Islam. The fact that the civilization they flee is their own, is cause for deep reflection in the Muslim world, and a cause for hope in the west. The New York Times puts the number of those fleeing the Taliban at 1.3 million. The high cost of jihad has been documented.The cruelty of Islam comes directly from the doctrine. The brutality of its followers can be seen daily.
Mr. John David Lewis, in a lecture presented at the Ayn Rand Institute’s OCON conference “The Jihad Against the West,” in Boston, MA, on October 21, 2006 states the case quite clearly. He explains why political Islam is inherently contrary to freedom and the rights of individuals, and why everything in the world is subsumed to the purposes of jihad and the spread of this cruel ideology as described in the doctrine of Islam. This is why the people of Pakistan flee the Taliban.
A government that turns its force against its own citizens, especially to impose an ideological doctrine on them, subordinates the rights of individuals to the demands of the State. This is statism—the elevation of the State over the individual, and the inversion of the very purpose of government. Statism is the greatest killer in history—dwarfing all attacks by criminals—precisely because it is motivated by some form of mystical political ideology. Because statists claim an authority that is above the rights of man—whether the Fuehrer’s master race, the communists’ dialectic, or the theocrat’s God—they do not recognize the principle of individual rights or the self-ownership of men on earth; rather, they claim the right to rule men, and to kill with impunity anyone who disobeys the ideology or regime.
…The all-encompassing, totalitarian nature of Islamic Law—its claims to divine origin, its commitment to uphold “Allah’s” will, and its ultimate goal of making everyone on earth submit to it—leaves no room for individual rights or freedom. This code is barbaric and tribal, frozen in time for over a thousand years, not open to rational scrutiny but only to unquestioned obedience (as the Indonesian cleric emphasized). To impose this primitive code by force is to inject religion into every aspect of human thought and action—which is the ultimate goal of Islamic Totalitarianism. (Source)
If Muslims reject Talibanism and flee from them, preferring not to live under their rule, what then does this mean about the nature of Islam itself? Hundreds of thousands of people are running from the Taliban but the Taliban promises a true implementation of the commands of Allah and Mohammed. Wouldn’t most if not all Muslims want to live in this way, live according to the foundational concepts of Islam and the commands of Allah and Mohammed? Apparently, the answer is “No”.
The Taliban is extraordinarily unattractive because of their rigidity, brutality, and totalitarian absolutism. There are fewer less attractive political groups in the world today. But the Taliban are Islamic foundationalists, they implement what they are told to implement according to the doctrine of Islam. The knock on the door by the Taliban, is similar to the knock on the door of the Gestapo. Brutality and barbarism are the same throughout time; a total disregard for morality, ethics, and a total devaluation of others, particularly those who do not follow the ideology of the oppressor.
The pounding on the door became louder, and we heard male voices shouting something in a language I did not understand. As we started toward the door its latch shattered and it swung open; soldiers rushed in with rifles and fixed bayonets extended before them.
Suddenly she heard shots, and the screaming grew louder: “Long live Taliban! Death to infidels!”
The men forced their way into her house, hurled loose tiles and a glass at her and fired a shot. She fainted.
-GoogleNews, Pakistan’s religious minorities report violence
The rise of the Taliban in Pakistan may indeed be the fulfillment of the original concepts of Pakistan the “state” as envisaged by its founders as M. A. Khan stated above. But perhaps there is something else going on in Pakistan. Perhaps the rejection of the Taliban by so much of Pakistan’s population is a wider rejection of the brutality of the doctrine of Islam itself by Muslims.
The conflict in Pakistan may actually be cause for hope in these dark times of global jihad and cruelty. If the thousands of people fleeing from Taliban brutality have rejected what the Taliban stand for, haven’t they also rejected the cruel nature of the doctrine of Islam itself? Events in Pakistan are a cause for soul-searching in the Muslim world and a time for awareness of an existential danger in the kafir (unbeliever) world.
Lee himself repudiated one of the foundational components of the Confederacy for which he fought when he wrote,
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished.”
In that case, the society that perpetuated slavery (the society that Lee fought for) was destroyed and overturned, and those who supported it often came to very different realizations after the war than could have been expected from them during the war itself. Lee’s rejection of slavery and embrace of the union after the Civil War in the United States gives us hope generations later that those who fight and kill for an idea can change.
The rejection of the Taliban is a rejection of the fundamentals of Islamic doctrine, its cruelty, its barbarity and absolutism. We do not know for certain why so many have fled the Taliban, but it is easy to venture a guess.
Most people, Muslim or kafir, prefer not to live under totalitarianism if they can avoid it. So, they run, and fight.
If Lee is right perhaps this is a moment of hope. There is little in the history of jihad that provides any cause for hope for kafirs; the death toll from jihad is in the hundreds of millions. Rarely have we seen a rejection of Islam from Muslims as wide spread as the rejection of the Taliban by so many Pakistanis, the pure Islamic state. Perhaps the cycles of history are turning, and Lee’s idea is again in force and this is the moment where those after us will say, “This was an important moment when we had cause to hope.”
We are not all ignorant of the purposes and history of political Islam. Our greatest weapon is understanding why Islam does what it does. And when we understand, we can and must reject it.
Recently, the David Horowitz Freedom Center released a very disturbing online video about the ongoing Muslim persecution of Christians. The news is very bad, and the images in this movie are very disturbing. If you are squeemish, do not watch this video.
To Islam, Christians are people of the book, those who have rejected the message of the prophet Mohammed and his god Allah. Just as the Jews have done, they have refused to convert to Islam. For this reason, Islam hates Christians and Jews… passionately.
This is a very old hatred that began when Mohammed was rejected by the Jews of Medina, and was not embraced by Christians in Arabia. But this hatred is still very much alive.
“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers] Islam says Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us Islam says Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy Islam says Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” (Ayatollah Khomeni, 1942; the founder of the Iranian Islamic Revolution)
For followers of Islam, befriending non-believers is a sin.
“O you who believe! do not take for intimate friends from among others than your own people, they do not fall short of inflicting loss upon you; they love what distresses you; vehement hatred has already appeared from out of their mouths, and what their breasts conceal is greater still; indeed, We have made the communications clear to you, if you will understand.” (Koran, 3:118)
“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Koran, 5:51)
It is a sin to befriend unbelievers unless such friendship is false and furthers Islam. What is mandated is jihad against the unbelievers.
“We will strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers because they worship others besides Allah, which He gave them no permission to do. Their home will be the fire, a terrible resting place for the evil doers.” (Koran, 3:149)
If you’ve ever wondered why Islamic jihad mobs burn down churches and homes, the above quote explains it. Read the following, and put them into the context of the images you will see in the following film, if you can handle it.
“The flames of Hell are sufficient punishment for them [the people of the book]! Those who reject Our revelations We will cast into the fire. As soon as their skins are burnt away, We will give them new skins so that they will truly experience the torment.” (Koran, 4:53)
“As for the unbelievers, they will be punished with excrutiating agony in this world and the world to come. They will have noone to help them.” (Koran, 3: 54) (source)
Jihad is about bringing agony, terror and death to the unbelievers everywhere in this world and the next. Followers of Islam take the Koran, Hadith (traditions of Mohammed), and Sira (the biography or Way of Mohammed) very, very seriously. This seriousness is an existential threat to all kafirs (unbelievers) everywhere.
A final warning: Please do not watch this movie if you are squeemish or if horrible, violent, murderous images disturb you. Jihad is upon us. We must learn and respond.
Jihad was first developed from the eighth century by theologians and jurists who divided the world in two: Muslims and infidels. Infidels, as they saw it, included all non-Muslims and those Muslims not pious enough according to them. The jihadists concluded that Muslims have a sacred duty, mandated by Allah, to defeat the infidels and to impose Qur’anic law [Sharia] upon them. – Bat Ye’Or, Global Jihad and America’s War.
Click the image, a new window will launch. Allow a few moments for the movie to load.
Yesterday, CNN posted a lengthy condemnation of a Saudi judge by a female Saudi doctor. Titled, “Wife Slapping Not OK in Islam”, CNN led with this story on their website for a part of the afternoon. The photogenic doctor was condemning the judge in very strong language for having stated publicly that husbands may beat their wives but only if the wife was guilty of lavish spending.
The Arab News, as quoted in the Times of Malta said this of the story from early May.
Arab News says a Saudi judge’s remarks that that a man could slap his wife for lavish spending, have sparked an outcry at a seminar on the role of judicial and security officials in preventing domestic violence. Saudi women have become more vocal about the problem of husbands beating wives and fathers mistreating children. But the judge said some of the blame must be shouldered by wives for their behaviour.
RIYADH (AFP) — A Saudi judge has told a seminar on domestic violence that it is okay for a man to slap his wife for lavish spending, a local newspaper reported on Sunday.
Jeddah judge Hamad al-Razine gave the example of overspending to buy a high-end abaya, the head-to toe black shroud Saudi women have to wear in public, as justifying a smack for one’s wife, Arab News said.
“If a person gives 1,200 riyals (320 dollars) to his wife and she spends 900 riyals (240 dollars) to purchase an abaya from a brand shop, and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” he said.
The judge in this case is entirely wrong. He is astoundingly wrong, but not in the way that you might think (if you are a non-Muslim reading this post). The judge is wrong because it is perfectly OK for husbands to beat their wives in Islam, but they must never strike them in the face. This is an astounding error for a Saudi judge to make because it shows that he is (apparently) not knowledgable on the doctrine of Islam and Sharia law. As Saudi Arabia is under Sharia Law, one would think that this would be a serious problem for the judge but he, like the doctor in the CNN story may be stretching the truth (i.e., lying/practicing taqiyyah) rather than demonstrating ignorance of the ideology of Islam.
The doctrine of Islam is clear on this point.
Koran 4:34 – “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.” (Click here to see Imams talking about how beating of wives is to be done.)
One of the foundations of Islamic doctrine is the submission of women. The Saudi doctor can say all she wishes, but it does not change the truth of the doctrine and the reality of life for women across the Islamic world. The judge can mistakenly say that wife beating is not ok unless the wife has over-spent and she can only be struck in the face.
Beating the Muslim wife is not to be done in outrage. No, the husband is putting the world into Islamic order of duality and submission. The husband submits to Allah and the Sunna of Mohammed. The wife must submit to Allah, the Sunna and her husband. Her lack of submission is a fault in the world and the beating restores the proper order of submission. Beatings are justice. So when the husband beats his wife, both are partaking in a sacred moment of good (what is permitted). (Warner.)
In the Muslim world the example of Mohammed the prophet is the perfect example for all Muslims to follow. His perfect example is one of the core components of Islamic doctrine; if Mohammed did it, it’s alright (no matter how horrible it was); if Mohammed saw others do it, and said it was alright, then it is. Unfortunately, Mohammed’s concepts of morality were very different from ours.
A woman came to Mohammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that she it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires. (Bukhari, Hadith, 72:715)
Our understanding of Mohammed is limited because we are not taught his history and his ideology in school and we are not taught it by our religious and political leaders. They have entirely failed us. We must learn this ideology, and quickly.
The purpose of Islam is submission. The meaning of the word “Islam” is submission. This message is very clear. The message is for all unbelievers. All unbelievers must submit to Islam.
Koran 8:38 “Tell the unbelievers that if they change their ways, then they would be forgiven for the past. If, however, they continue to sin [ed. not accept Islam and convert], let them remember the fate of those who came before them. Fight against them until they stop persecuting you, and Allah’s religion reigns sovereign over all others. If they cease, Allah knows all they do, but if they turn their backs know that Allah is your protector-an excellent helper.”
A man can divorce his wife as he wishes; Muhammad bin Laden, father of Osama, accumulated more than twenty wives—married and divorced—in his house. Since a Muslim man can only take four wives at a time, he would divorce one of the four wives, not attractive any more, to add a new one in his harem. The divorced wives stayed in his house as unwanted slaves; men are divinely sanctioned to keep unlimited number of slave-concubines in Islam [Koran, 70:29–30, 23:5–6].
As a result of the Personal Status Law enacted by the Afghan parliament in February and signed by President Karzai in March, Shiite men may force their wives to yield to intercourse, bar them from going to work or school and even demand that they wear cosmetics. Widely viewed as a ploy to attract Shiites’ support in his upcoming re-election bid, the statute was passed in an atmosphere of strong pressure and scare tactics.
Specifically, the marital rape provision compels a woman submit to sex with her husband every four nights. Its proponents note in its defense that the law excuses her from this duty if, for instance, either party suffers from a sexually transmitted disease or the woman is preparing to go on a pilgrimage or fasting for Ramadan.
Now that the foundation has been established we can close the circle and return to the photogenic Saudi doctor and the confused Saudi judge. There are two Islamic terms that must be learned, taqiyyahand kitman. Taqiyyah allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers. Since Muslims are not allowed to take unbelievers as friends, this is not a difficult matter. A total separation from non-Islamic life is fundamental in Islam.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427:
“By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that. Then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’ ”
Do not take unbelievers as friends; caution is necessary to befriend the unbelievers (the foundation of Islamic taqiyya and kitman;). (Do not befriend the deniers, even if they are among the closest relatives. In case of danger, Allah allows Muslims to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. The taqiyya is allowed until the Day of Resurrection. Allah has reserved unremitting torment for those who give their support to His enemies, and those who have enmity with His friends.-ibn Kathir; it is all right to tell lies/ adopt deception (taqiyya and kitman) for the sake of Islam. Maududi 3/25: This means that it is lawful for a believer, helpless in the grip of the enemies of Islam and in imminent danger of severe wrong and persecution, to keep his faith concealed and to behave in such a manner as to create the impression that he is on the same side as his enemies. A person whose Muslim identity is discovered is permitted to adopt a friendly attitude towards the unbelievers in order to save his life. If he considers himself incapable of enduring the excesses to which he may be subjected, he may even state that he is not a believer.)…3:28 (Warner.)
Taqiyyah and kitman are Islamic concepts that allow the followers of Islam to lie to non-believers whenever such lying may forward the purposes of Islam. This explains how Yassir Arafat could speak peace in english, then talk of jihad in Ramallah the following day.
Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) ‘condemning’ the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences . (source)
There is no basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse of any kind and specifically none pertaining to the matter of a wife’s spending pattern.
Now that we have the background doctrine and history explained we can see the Saudi doctor’s comments of taqiyyah in a clearer light.
Islam is very clear on this issue: Both a husband physically chastising his wife for “overspending” and a judge “upholding justice” by sanctioning this abuse would be acting counter to Islam’s ideals of compassion and justice., she says on CNN.
This is a lie. The doctrine of Islam specifically hates women, considers them far beneath men, and gives specific permissions and directions for husbands to beat their wives. There certainly is a great deal of basis in Islamic theology to support domestic abuse. We see this daily, if we look. It is almost impossible not to see.
Abuse of women is sanctioned by the doctrine of Islam. The doctor continues at length on CNN describing all the opportunities for women in Saudi Arabia and suggests that women own 40% of the country’s wealth. She does not hint or explain that women are 2nd class citizens in Saudi Arabia; she does not explain the horrors of Sharia for women in her country and across the Islamic world; she does not explain that her husband, if she has one, has every right to beat her upon her arrival home from her CNN interview, for whatever reason he wishes. He is not allowed to strike her in the face.
On January 14, 2004, Sheikh Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of the mosque of the city of Fuengirola, Costa del Sol, was sentenced by a Barcelona court to a 15 month suspended sentence and fined € 2160 for publishing his book ‘The Woman in Islam.’ In this book, the Egyptian-born Sheikh Mustafa writes, among other things, on wife-beating in accordance with Shar’ia law.
On pages 86-87, Mustafa states: “The [wife-]beating must never be in exaggerated, blind anger, in order to avoid serious harm [to the woman].” He adds, “It is forbidden to beat her on the sensitive parts of her body, such as the face, breast, abdomen, and head. Instead, she should be beaten on the arms and legs,” using a “rod that must not be stiff, but slim and lightweight so that no wounds, scars, or bruises are caused.” Similarly, “[the blows] must not be hard.”
What is this lying about? Why tell falsehoods about the doctrine of Islam? This is called jihad. Jihad is the obligation of all Muslims. There are several kinds of jihad – through violence, the pen, words, and money. All are commanded to fight, if they cannot fight, they must support those who do; there are many ways to do this.
Telling untruths and sugar-coating the unpleasant and violent history and doctrine of Islam is one kind of jihad. Taqiyyah, in this case is the doctor’s jihad against the kafir, can be a kind of jihad; she is fulfilling her duty to Islam. She must know, as the judge must know, that what she has said on CNN will be read by many unknowing and uneducated kafirs; she is doing her duty in falsifying the truth of Saudi Arabia, and the truth of the doctrine of Islam.
Taqiyyah is a weapon of Islam that is used against the kafir. Islam is so strong not because it is great or grand, but because we are ignorant of it. The adherents of Islam use our ignorance against us. Political Islam uses dhimmis like CNN to advance their message of taqiyyah, their false telling of conditions in their cultures and living under Sharia law. CNN is a dhimmi organization because they publish Islamic taqiyyah without comment. Some will be fooled. We are not.
At this time knowledge is our greatest defense; learn.
Many relativists who know nothing of Islam and its doctrine of jihad suggest that the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East specifically focused on the destruction of Israel are a shared problem caused by Israel and her neighbors. Relativists criticise Israel for defending itself and equate self-defense with aggression. This is a bizarre and failed logic.
There is no peace on the borders of Israel because those who live outside the borders of Israel are at war with Israel and have no interest in peace. When one party wants peace and the other party does not, the only way to actually have peace is for one party to defeat the other militarily. In such cases where outright defeat of the aggressor is not possible inflicting enough damage upon them so that they will stop attacking is the next best thing.
There is no peace in Israel because those who live in neighboring states are not interested in peace. In a recent speech to a Palestinian youth group the PA president Mahmoud Abbas said the following regarding Israel. His words brought “enthusiastic applause” from the audience.
“The ‘Jewish state.’ What is a ‘Jewish state?’ We call it, the ‘State of Israel’. You can call yourselves whatever you want. You can call yourselves whatever you want. But I will not accept it. And I say this on a live broadcast. It’s not my job to define it, to provide a definition for the state and what it contains. You can call yourselves the Zionist Republic, the Hebrew, the National, the Socialist [Republic] call it whatever you like. I don’t care.” (Click here to see a video of Abbas delivering this quote.)
The derision of Abbas for Israel is clear. Israel is the front line of jihad. Jihad is the commandment of Islamic doctrine to fight all kafirs everywhere and forever. The Jews in particular have seen the brunt of Islamic hatred for centuries. In fact, Jihad began in the koran with the massacre of the Jews of Kaybar by Mohammed and his jihadists. Andrew Bostom has documented this history of Islamic jew hatred in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. The Palestinian Authority is run by a terror group, Fatah. Abbas is its chief. It was recently ejected from the Gaza Strip by another terror group, Hamas, elected in a landslide by the Palestinian people. Jihad and hatred of Jews and Israel was part of Hamas’ campaign strategy.
Hamas and Fatah take the doctrine of Islam very seriously. Here is an illustrative quote from a Hamas Imam:
Imam Yousif al-Zahar of Hamas said in his sermon at the Katib Wilayat mosque in Gaza that “Jews are a people who cannot be trusted. They have been traitors to all agreements. Go back to history. Their fate is their vanishing.”
Hamas takes this hadith particulary seriously.
Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah’s promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim). (Hamas Charter, here.)
All muslims are required to participate in jihad. This is a sacred religious duty. The Jews and Christians are particularly offensive to Islam as they are “the people of the Book”, the people with the incorrect Torah and New Testament of Jesus Christ (a Muslim prophet). Because the Jews and Christians rejected Mohammed and would not convert Islam is at war forever with them, and all non-believers. The house of peace (dar al-Islam) is reached only when all kafirs are conquered and enslaved, or converted to Islam.
The moral and ethical relativists say, well, there is violence in the New Testament and in the Torah, just as there is violence in the koran. There is a serious difference that they do not know, or will not admit. The violence in the Torah and New Testament is localized and temporary; violence in the koran is permanent and universal. Islam is at war with all kafirs forever. This is why, for Islam, the world is in the house of war, “dar al-harb”.
There is a wider context into which the ongoing struggles of Israel must be placed. This is the context of jihad. Israel is the front line of jihad specifically because of its geographic location in the middle of the so-called Muslim world. Think: If Israel were populated by Christians, Hindus, or atheists, and not a Jew lived there (as in Arabia – no Jews) the region would still be at war because Islam is at war with all kafirs, everywhere and forever. How do we know that Israel is the front line of jihad? We know it for two reasons: 1. This is the doctrine of Islam, and 2. A leading PLO terrorist told an interviewer that this was exactly the case.
Zuheir Mohsen a PLO terrorist let the cat out of the bag during an interview with a Dutch newspaper in 1977.
The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct “Palestinian people” to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.
The so-called Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not a political issue. Israel is one of the strongest democracies in the world and deserves our support. Their culture is ours, their world view is ours, they are our only ally in the region. Israel is our friend, and we support our friends. Israel is at the front line of global jihad.
Koran, 2:216 – “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.” (source)
Islam is at war with Israel just as it is at war with every kafir country in the world including the United States. As a fellow kafir culture Israel is our natural ally and friend in this existential struggle for the human race and freedom against the forces of darkness, cruelty, violence, and barbarism that is Islam.
Israel’s struggle for survival is our fight, too. As the front line against global jihad we owe them our support. We are brother kafirs fighting totalitarian forces whose sole purpose is our destruction. When we turn our back on our kafir friends we add arrows to Islam’s overflowing quivers. When we abandon our kafir friends to the horrors of Sharia and the cruelty and mind-numbing dhimmitude of life under Islam, we hurt ourselves. We are in a global struggle whose front line is Israel. The line is moving rapidly. Across the world global jihad advances because kafirs are not united, and our understanding of Islam, its doctrine and purposes so limited. Our future is our present – a growing conflict with Islam that will never end, regardless of the opinions of the dhimmis and the relativists.
If Islam overruns the kafir world, relativists are the first to fall. First by the horror of what they have done in empowering the forces of darkness with their hard ignorance, and second under the sword of Islam, the sword of the religion of peace.
The brazen, unhindered advance of Taliban militants in Pakistan threatens the world once gain with the specter of universal jihad.
The consolidation of Islamic imperialism in the Pakistani heartland underscores the futility of U.S. efforts to prop up Pakistan’s ruling generals with massive amounts of foreign aid. The military, riddled with Taliban sympathizers in its lower ranks and corruption at the top, has looked the other way while the militants gained strength, and has ceded swaths of territory to them.
Given Pakistan’s complicity with the Taliban, it is foolhardy for the Obama administration to attempt to buy security. Money sent to Islamabad will fall into the wrong hands and come back to haunt the U.S. and its allies. It will be used in attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan; it will be used to terrorize India and Israel.
It is only a matter of time until the Taliban has imposed its ironclad will on the people of Pakistan, much as it did in Afghanistan before 9/11. U.S. bankrolling of a Pakistani regime rife with Taliban proxies will not succeed; it is like putting a Band-aid on leprosy. America needs to unite and work with nations that historically have been victims of jihad, not those that are its progenitors.
Radical Islam is implacable. Its ideology does not admit competitors. It is the enemy of democracy wherever it encounters it. The Islamists will not be content until they have Talibanized the world, imposing their fundamentalist variant of Sharia law on true believers and infidels alike. Terrorism is a means to that end for the Islamists, who have a long, successful history of ideological conquest. America’s “War on Terror” has erred by treating terrorism as an end in itself.
The time has come for the world’s infidels to unite against the tidal wave of jihad before it engulfs them. Because demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest, it is imperative that the West halt all immigration from Sharia-practicing nations before it is subverted from within.
The only lasting solution to the threat of universal jihad is to demilitarize, secularize and democratize the nations that promote it, specifically Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Unless this axis of jihad forgoes its fundamentalist and militarist theology and joins the world of secular humanity, the world will have no lasting peace. The West cannot buy its way out of this threat with another stimulus package.
This article appeared in the Tennesseantoday. Mr. Kumar was a candidate for Congress in the 5th Congressional District (Davidson County/Nashville) in 2008.
Islam is not strong because it is a loving religion; Islam hates all unbelievers (kafirs).
Islam is not strong because it is inclusive; Islam hates all other religions and political systems, and cultures. No other religion is acceptable to Islam, only Islam is acceptable.
Islam is not strong because it is forgiving; all unbelievers must become Muslim, this is the mission of jihad – destroy all kafir religions and states so that they become Muslim.
Islam is not strong because it is kind to women; Islam is a misogynist ideology. Men have multiple wives, women must have one husband. Women are not considered equal to men in any aspect of life in Islam. Men can beat their wives. Women are considered chattel, slaves.
Mohammed was quite clear on the matter of women.
“When I stood on the door of hell, I saw most of its inhabitants were women.”
“Women lack brain and religion.”
“If a man summoned his wife for intercourse and she refused, the angels will curse her till the dawn.” (Hadiths, Bukhari)
Islam is not strong because it is just; Islam is a slave holding system. Islam believes that all kafirs are potential slaves. Sharia law of Islam is cruel and brutal; Gays and accused adulterers are tortured and executed.
Islam is not strong because it is compassionate; Islamic charity is reserved only for Muslims to other Muslims.
Islam is not strong because Islam is friendly; Muslims are forbidden from befriending any non-Muslims, this is a sin in Islam.
Islam is not strong because it is forgiving; Mohammed held grudges for years, never forgetting a slight and taking revenge years after the slight itself had occured.
Islam is not strong because it is the religion of peace; all Muslims are obligated to fight the unbeliever forever and everywhere. This is an obligation for all Muslims. Non-participation in jihad is a sin.
Islam is not strong because of anything about Islam itself.
Islam is strong because we are weak. Western nations that do not defend their borders, control immigration, identify Islam as a threat, and protect the institutions and foundational concepts that make them particularly American, British, French, Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish, Canadian, Norwegian, etc. are nations in twilight to the rise of Islam.
Islam grows because we will not learn, will not accept the truth of Islam, and will not defend ourselves and our friends from this existential threat.
Islam does not need bombs, or terrorism; Islam needs only for us to not appreciate our own countries and cultures and defend them.
Islam grows because we are weak; we mistake the processes of democracy for Democracy itself and Freedom and thus sow our own disasters and destruction by empowering anti-freedom ideologies (lslam). We cannot allow the processes of democracy to bring about the end of Freedom. This is national and cultural suicide and this is exactly what is happening. There is no ideology or religion that is more intolerant, warlike, cruel, and brutal as Islam. There is no ideology that is more anti-freedom than Islam. This is not opinion, this is the doctrine of Islam itself. All humanity that does not believe in Islam and that Mohammed is Allahs messenger are kafirs; Islam is at war with kafirs forever.
The following quote from a new biography of Mohammed is important. Living by the point of my spear, Zaki Ameen, is written by a former Imam. If anyone should understand the true nature of Islam and Mohammed, an Imam is considered such a person.
Apparrently, they (the Bedouin tribes) did not understand the real meaning of Mohammed saying: ‘I have been sent to kill humans til they say there is no god except Allah and Mohammed, Allah’s messenger.’He did not specificy a single people, he did not say ‘I have been sent to kill ‘Bedouins’ or ‘Arabs’ so he was literally fighting everybody who didn’t believe that he was Allah’s messenger. This was a big misunderstanding by the Bedouin tribes.
(quoting Ibn Hisham, pt 4, p179.)
Islam is not strong because Islam is great, Islam is strong because we will not defend what is dear and true and good. This is national and cultural suicide it must stop and quickly!