God is In Control

Have a Wonderful Life

« Merry Christ-mas, Mr. President: An Open Letter to President Obama | Main | Arab Winter »
Thursday
Dec012011

Islamophilia

True Democracy can no more take hold in Islamic soil than a rose can grow in a glass vase…no matter how much water it contains. This is a true statement and many Islamists know that this is a true statement.

Tell that to the politically correct segment of our society. This segment, whether it is the mainstream media or foreign policy makers, is afflicted with “opposite disorder” or better described as “Islamophilia.” “What is Islamophilia?,” you ask. It is the irrational and self-destructive desire to show how enlightened and morally superior you are by bending over backwards to embrace the Islamic cause.

We even see rampant Islamophilia in the highest levels of the U.S. military—and it has cost some of our brave U.S. service men and service women their lives. We all remember the attack at Fort Hood, Texas, when Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan entered the Soldier Readiness Center, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” (“Allah is greater!”), then opened fire on scores of unarmed soldiers, including a pregnant woman who later died.

By the time Major Hasan was brought down by civilian police officers (he survived with paralyzing injuries), he had killed or mortally wounded 13 people and left 29 others injured.

Soon after the attack, we learned that U.S. intelligence agencies had actually monitored emails between Hasan and the radical Al-Qaeda imam Anwar al-Awlaki. Hasan had been setting off alarms in the intelligence community for months, but the politically correct military bureaucracy ignored the warning signs.

Hasan, who had trained as a psychiatrist at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, was a frequent disciplinary problem, yet his superior officers promoted him to the rank of major, apparently to avoid appearing “intolerant” or “Islamophobic.” During his residency in psychiatry at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, he required extra supervision because of his extreme views.

While at Walter Reed, Hasan delivered a PowerPoint talk to a roomful of mental health staff members. His subject was Muslims in the U.S. military. Among the points listed in his presentation: “We [Muslims] love death more [than] you love life!” and “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam.”

One of Hasan's classmates recalled that presentation: “We asked him pointedly, ‘Nidal, do you consider Shari'a law to transcend the Constitution of the United States?’ And he said, ‘Yes.’ We asked him if homicidal bombers were rewarded for their acts with seventy-two virgins in heaven and he responded, ‘I've done the research—yes.’ Those are comments he made in front of the class. . . . I was astounded and went to multiple faculty members and asked why he was even in the Army. . . . Political correctness squelched any opportunity to confront him.”

And the political correctness continued even after Hasan killed more than a dozen soldiers at Ford Hood. Army Chief of Staff George W. Casey, Jr., sent a mass email to soldiers expressing his concern about a potential “backlash against our Muslim soldiers and civilians.” Casey went on NBC's Meet the Press and said, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse.”

Now, that is an astonishing statement. If our “diversity” ever becomes a “casualty,” that will be a worse loss than the real casualties—the dead and wounded victims of the Fort Hood shooting! At the very highest levels of our military, our leaders are so anxious to be thought of as “tolerant” and “politically correct” that they openly value cultural “diversity” above the lives of our fighting men and women. That is why the military kept promoting Nidal Malik Hasan, even though he was clearly a threat to his fellow soldiers. The military bureaucracy bent over backwards to keep the Army from appearing to be “Islamophobic.”

Islamists can never appreciate or pledge an allegiance to the constitution or the flag, only to the Shari’a and the Caliphate. That is why, to them, democracy is a folly or a tool to reach power. Once there, ALL forms and trappings of secular democracy will be swept away into the dust bin of Jihad. As a Christian who loves ALL people but not ALL systems I pray that the mainstream media and government officials will be cured of this deadly disease before it is too late for ALL of us.

Reader Comments (14)

One small detail. The Pastor was correct about the pregant woman. But, due to that fact, the death toll was actually 14.
December 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDouglas M. Hutton
I agree with you but dont forget that 2million IGBO men,women,and children were massacred in the most savage way by these muslim vandals supported by USA,BRITAIN and RUSSIA during the events of 1966 to 1970 in Nigeria.Today under the name Boko Harram they are killing men,women,and children of christian faith all over Northern Nigeria without any of these countries batting their eyelids.
THE BLOOD OF THE IGBOS MASSACRED WILL CONTINUE TO CRY OUT AGAINST THEESE PERPETRATORE FOR VENGEANCE.
December 1, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterazubuike eze
It is a bit long, but quite diverse. Something for everyone. Thanks.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF COLOUR REVOLUTION AND DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST .

“You can’t simply parachute Karl Rove into a country and manufacture a revolution”.

In the 90/00s we had the Orange revolution in Ukraine, the Rose revolution in Georgia, both of which it is now confirmed were backed and coordinated by Nato/CIA straight out of the Gladio handbook. Dr Gene Sharp’s protégé Colonel Bob Helvey (1) being in overall command of the recruitment, organization and activation of “Otpor, Kmara and Pora” resistance cells tasked with inciting insurrection and non-violent revolt in major urban population centres. This was all coordinated on the ground from the Marriot and Hilton hotels where O,K,P. apparatchiks got their marching orders from the trickle down tyranny officers tasked to spearhead the timing of the uprising. It is no different in the Middle East currently except this time AQ, who were present in Serbia’s subversion, are now more prevalent than ever before.

The main geostrategic goals are:

Maintain American energy dominance in the region.
Support NATO’s further advance against perceived Russian protectionism.

To drive the price of oil upwards aggrandizing Wall st speculation.

To further consolidate private Anglo/American central banking control over independent states.
Continued balkanization of all nonaligned states to maintain destabilized political environment. E.g. Helmand AQ pushed south into Balochistan, pinch point of Pakistan energy corridor, and to destabilize the port of Gwadar, main China sea link to Middle East oil.
To get rid of the “strong men” in the Middle East in order to install democratic (false left right paradigm) elections through which pro US puppets such as el Baradei will bring false HOPE AND CHANGE, while they acquiesce to US policies.
To deny Russian and Chinese access to gulf state and African oil. Watch Sudan as they supply China with 5% of their energy requirements.
The precursors to nuclear war are all basically summed up in these objectives. However, in nuclear proliferation the key element is Rationality, it is the cornerstone upon which all other assumptions are derived. We need look no further than the bio's of the Obama whitehouse staff to know that M.A.D. is no deterrence to these people and money is no obstacle, for now at least.

Naturally, propping up the dollar is key to the overall implementation of the wider objectives mentioned. US Treasury bill commitments are predominantly foreign held, China tops the table with +$3.2 trillion. And so rather than having to honor them, the open policy is to deny China et cie easy access to Middle East oil and to drive oil to $200 a barrel through high frequency trading and off balance sheet oil reserves accounting to preserve the dollar as the world reserve currency for a decade longer. Whereby these foreign held reserves will go into oil rather than back to the US Treasury, which even now can’t sell fully at auction without the fed, stepping in.

Oil is traded internationally in Dollars, we recall that they went back to get Saddam when he started selling oil in Euros, wmds and links to AQ being an insult to our intelligence. But even this global monopoly is not enough to sustain the egregious debts of the M.I.C. TARP, TALF and $140 trillion in FDIC backed CDS’s to top it all off. The PRIVATELY OWNED FOR PROFIT Federal Reserve is buying up US treasuries at an alarming rate, short term debt is selling as a risk hedge but who wants a 30-year bond at 3%? Current yields don’t reflect anticipated inflationary risks especially as the debt ceiling doesn’t seem to have meaning anymore. This is ultimately a CIA/ shadow government/foundation funded/ takeyourpickPAC/ central banking power coup.

The US through the empty suit Obama and the state dept Clinton are saying, “we need to listen to the people these strongmen must go”. Yet America has been instrumental in installing most of these men, they funded their regimes and supplied them with arms for decades. As Mossadeq was ousted by a CIA/SIS US/UK power coup followed by the installing of the Shah in 1953, which ultimately led to the upheaval that swept Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs into power in Iran during the late 70’s. The same geostrategic policies saw Sadat installed in Egypt giving rise to the radical jihadist ideologies of Sayyid Kutb and Zawihiri in the Middle East and the neocon Cheney, Wolfowicz, Perle faction in the west.

Considering that the further entrenchment of these policies under the Obama regime continues unabated, the destabilization, demoralization, crisis and normalization game play will continue to be waged on the entire Middle East and everywhere else for that matter for decades to come. This is the Zbigniew Brzezhinsky (Obama’s main foreign policy advisor, he also ran the Carter administration back in the 70′s) methodology of microstates and ministates. His strategy ultimately results in China and Russia starved of Middle East energy going to war over mutual reserves and destroying each other, leaving America to maintain energy dominance for the rest of the century. Prescribed reading: The Grand Chessboard, The Clash of Civilizations.

The people of the Middle East will realize in about 3-5 years that they have been duped into believing that they have won their freedom. Democracy is unfortunately, a cruel hoax and the global players are using every weapon in their arsenal to achieve it. Mubarak was ousted primarily because he stopped price controls on wheat, the staple food in Egypt. Wheat is a securitized commodity on the futures market. It has been speculatively driven up to nearly double its price in less than a year well above historical highs bar the 2008 peak computerized bonanza through Wall st, who cares that it results in starving millions of people.

The price of potatoes on the other hand has remained relatively unchanged, as they are not traded in the futures markets. Being Irish, I rather enjoy the odd spud; I wouldn’t want to be paying €50 a bag for them though. Who cares that wheat futures paper derivatives; CBOT (notwithstanding legitimate hedgers) supposedly backed by the CME vastly distorts the price discovery mechanism to the detriment of the world’s poorest people on the verge of acute poverty and the aggrandizement of traders and hedge fund operators.

Who cares that the same CME turns a blind eye to John Corzine blowing up MF Global due to bad bets on European debt, leverages to the skies and comingling of customer accounts whose $1.5 + Billion has vanished in one big margin call yet he walks off scott free. The very same John Corzine who penned Obama’s economic recovery plan, he gets a pass and walks off with millions as do the Koch bros et cie who got the call to get out before it blew up.

That is not my idea of a fair society. It is no different in Libya, the people do want a better way of life and believe that democracy is the answer, it is not the answer but it is what will happen. What have they gained? The selling off of all their state assets to corporate interests and the introduction of a debt based fractional reserve fiat monetary system. And what have they lost? Well a short list would be:

1. All newly weds used to receive $50,000 from the state.
2. A private home was the basic right of every citizen of Libya.
3. There were no electricity bills in Libya. Electricity was free. 


4. The people of Libya paid 0% interest on all loans according to Law.
5. Gadhafi increased the literacy rate from 25% to 83%. Education in state universities was free. 


6. Medical expenses in state hospitals were free. 


7. The price of the petrol was 14 cents.
8. When Libyan citizen bought a car, 50% was paid for by the state. 


9. A large loaf of bread used to cost 15 cents. 


10. A Libyan mother used to get $5000 for giving birth.

I’m not saying Libya was perfect but it was not as it was portrayed in western media. The fact that Gadhafi was to receive a UN international award for human rights endorsed by dozens of countries such as Italy, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Germany and Australia could hardly be ignored by accident. This should be a smoking gun for people with more than two brain cells, this obviously doesn’t include mainstream reporters, Sky, Fox, BBC et al who went into turbo spin mode on reality.

The false left right paradigm that will be foisted on the Libyan, Algerian, Egyptian, Syrian, Yemeni, Omani, Iranian and Jordanian peoples will facilitate the cooption, outsourcing, asset stripping and balkanization of these once independent nations and deliver them into the hands of the controlling oligarchies. The same masters fund both sides of the political spectrum, because through control of the central banking system, the international financiers and the myrmidons of finance capital dictate and control the actions of governments imposing budgetary and economic constraints at will.

Back in the 90s Turkey had 40% of the value of its currency, the Lire, wiped out in 4 days through the foreign exchange mechanism in the City of London and paid off a controlling faction of the Turkish general staff to enforce it. This was done because the incoming government threatened to close down the Central Bank of Turkey and create a system of public credit separate from the Red Shield controlled alternative, a prima facie case of economic terrorism in a modern context.

It comes as no surprise so that the Libyan NTC set up a new Central Bank of Libya no longer independent of the BIS controlled hegemonic global banking cartel as it had previously been. After all, “Competition is a sin”. This rabble band of Libyan heroes (AQ) achieved this miraculous feat a mere 13 days into their insurrection. 13 I hear the freemasons among you say, just a coincidence I’m sure.

(1) Source: Obama, The Postmodern Coup. By Webster G Tarpley. Page 253.
December 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Dwyer
It is remarkable that so many folks do not see the threat Islam poses to be an attack against Jesus. Even if some are not strong in the Christian faith does not common sense speak and say if Christianity falls to political correctness so does the soul of the USA?
December 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDion Irwin
This holds good, if democracy, be the form of Governance when the Kingdom of GOD be on earth, but then today the so called democracy, without doubts is corrupted through twisting of laws or" leavening " as the Bible says "Leaven of Herod". As is also stated "'They think to change times & laws" & is clearly seen in the works of Obama & his democrats. Is this the democracy that is being treated as god ? Be not blind, for The kingdom of GOD on earth will see no such things.
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterabey
It's difficult to digest the fact that the current President of the United States not only encourages and supports 'political correctness' within every facet and level of society, but that he harbors ulterior motives for supporting and speaking/acting in favor of it, actually wishing Islam to triumph over the American way of life. While some are so 'politically correct' they refuse to see and admit this, how many others within America are actually in agreement, faithfully working to subvert and replace the U.S. Constitution? Scripture states that the spiritually dead are blind and cannot see, having no spiritual ears or hearing. Blind to reality and deaf to God's voice, they are without Godly wisdom, possessed of an unsound mind and readily open to demonic deception (such as 'political correctness' and its horrific effects), the blind leading the blind towards a deep, dark pit, even without realizing it. The only answer is the light of God that shines the way, although people daily reject God in droves, dragging the U.S.A. nearer and nearer oblivion, national repentance and revival not exactly on the horizon. Without a return to God, America will continue to spiral downwards, just as the Bible warns, 'political correctness' only one tool Satan employs from within his grotesquely evil arsenal.
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMoe
How can you have true Democracy without God? That is the root problem with the US Democracy today - taking God out- the very foundation which this country is based on.

One Nation Under God! we will survive. One Nation under Islam - we will be destroyed.
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterBd-Michigan
This is how our country goes....bending over backwards to be politically correct, to appear tolerant of Islam, yet Islam will NOT tolerate America or her ideals. I miss the years before the 60's, when we were far more sane about our world. We knew the bad guys from the good guys. Today, you really can't tell anymore. Makes me very sad.
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterKathy
Extraordinary article also by John Dwyer! I have a deeper insight once again not only through Dr. Michael Youssef, but also from John Dwyer's article as well! I don't believe I've ever contemplated such an article as this, which gives a lot of 'food for thought' to say the least!

Thank you,
Judy
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJudy Harris
What happened here seems to be commonplace in all walks of life. Keep promoting in the hope that the person promoted reaches such a high position that no harm can be done. What the powers that be do not seem to understand is that this action is far more dangerous than getting rid of the problem immediately. Here in the United Kingdom, our troubles are just as real.
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLen Hales
It is so easy to ask ourselves how we have become so complacent and then we just have to remember what the Bible teaches. The United States is not mentioned in the book of Revelation. We do not exist. Pastor David Jeremiah taught on this and he said that there are three ways that this could happen. We are either destroyed from the outside, destroyed from the inside or both. In order for this to happen we have to become of nation of blind and misguided people and that is where we are headed fast and furiously. So, all we can do is get ready for the ride. It is going to be a wild one and pray Jesus comes to get us soon and continue to share the gospel with the lost so that all who will will be saved.
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterPeggy
Dear Dr. Youssef,

God bless you for posting this. It truly is so heart wrenching to see Islam's false teachings continually perverting our Christian nation to its own corrupt image. I'll be praying hard and again, God bless you!

John F.
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJohn
CAN A GOOD MUSLIM BE A GOOD CITIZEN OF ANY DEMOCRACY?

by X. Gomez on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at 12:08pm

(The writer lives in a Muslim country and has studied Islam in-depth)


MUSLIMS are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims. The Qur'an is very clear
that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes
political supremacy. This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become
Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you." This verse
is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is
unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.

Qur'an (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government." This was
probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the
Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly
governments.

Qur'an (4:141) - "And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to
triumphs) over the believers."

Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and
follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some
part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee" Allah's Qur'an takes
priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one
that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have
divided loyalty. It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.

Qur'an (3:28) - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers
rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from

Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But
Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." The
word 'friend' is Awliyaa which is inclusive of friends, protectors and helpers
- the components of civil society. See also verse 5:51

Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those
in authority from among you..." Oddly enough, this verse is sometimes used in
an attempt to make the case that Muslims should respect a non-Muslim civil
government. However, a careful reading makes it clear that the rulers Muslims
are to obey are from among their own body of believers. This verse commands
strict obedience to the leader (even if he steals and flogs them, according to
a hadith reported by Sahih Muslim). How can this refer to a non-Muslim leader
when other parts of the Qur'an call for violent Jihad against persecution from
non-believers?

From the Hadith: Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are
polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they
respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from
doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you,
accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to
accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from
them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help
and fight them"


Loyalty and Allegiance in Islam

In Islam, loyalty is to Allah and his religion. It cannot be to a kafir
country. As the former mufti of the Grand Mosque in Mecca put it in a recent
fatwa, "His homeland may be not Islamic, so how can he be loyal to his
homeland?" Scholar Jamal Badawi insists that, "Muslims should not melt in any
pot except the Muslim brotherhood pot." Islam teaches that nations are in one
of two major categories - Dar-al Harb (house of war) and Dar-al-Islam (Muslim
rule). Any nation that is not Muslim is therefore, by definition, at war with
Islam (or, at best, in contradiction to the preferred order). Muslims cannot
be expected to maintain loyalty to a nation that is at war with their religion.

Although Muslim apologists sometimes claim that Islamic terrorists aren't
Muslim by virtue of the fact that they kill other Muslims, the Qur'an advocates
striving against both unbelievers and hypocrites, the latter of which are
Muslims who profess Islam, but do not support Islamic rule over the way of the
infidel as required (see Muslim 20-4696). Hypocrites include any government
which does not uphold strict Sharia, as well as those that make alliances with
a non-Muslim country (thereby making covenants and truces quite difficult to
legitimize). This is the real reason terrorists kill fellow Muslims,
particularly local police, troops and officials who are in the service of such
governments.

"Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it.
Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for
freeing man. Other societies do not give it [Islam] any opportunity to
organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of
Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of
universal freedom. Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated
to Allah, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude
remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man's servitude
to man." ~Syyid Qutb [Quoted from Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad]


Duty in Islam

Elsewhere, Qutb puts it even more bluntly:

The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah (unbelievers)
from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and
enforce the particular way of life which is its permanent feature." [Quoted
from Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace?] Whether or not a Muslim believes in
active rebellion against secular or non-Muslim rule (and most may not), it is
does not change the fact that Islam is defined by allegiance to Allah and his
self-proclaimed messenger, Muhammad. Therefore any extraneous loyalty that is
in contradiction to what Allah has already established would be strictly
forbidden.

Theologically - No. Because his allegiance is to Allah.

Religiously - No. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Structurally - No. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - No. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Economically - No. Islamic banking and jurisdiction operate and formulate on a system from the Qu'ran.

Shariah Law - No. Shariah Law replaces all other form of law and legislation.

Socially - No. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make
friends with Christians or Jews, and others they assume that are aligned to
them. (Qu'ran 5:51, 5:80, 3:28, 3:118, 9:23, 53:29, 3:85, 3:10, 7:44) Muslims
in heaven will amuse themselves by looking down on non-Muslims in Hell and
mocking them while they are being tortured (see Qu'ran 22:19-22.)

Qur'an (1:5-7) - "Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast
favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go
astray" This is a prayer that Muslims are supposed to repeat each day. "Those
who earn Thine anger" specifically refers to Jews and "those who go astray"
refers to Christians (see Bukhari (12:749)).


From the Hadith:

Muslim (1:417) - Taken to mean that one's own relatives should not be taken as
friends if they are not Muslim.

Ishaq 262 - "Some Muslims remained friends with the Jews, so Allah sent down a
Qur'an forbidding them to take Jews as friends. From their mouths hatred has
already shown itself and what they conceal is worse"


POLITICALLY - NO.

Because he must submit to the mullah (spiritual leaders), who teach
annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan. All other
non-Muslims nations, governmental systems, ideologies and philosophies are seen
as inferior and subservient to Islam. Under Islam, land once possessed by
Islam, if subsequently lost to an invader, remains land that is holy to Islam.

It is especially imperative that such lost lands be restored to the rightful
rule of Islam. Historically, of course, such lost lands now lost to Islam
include not only Israel but large portions of Southern Europe, Spain and North
Africa. Since Allah's will is for the entire world to come under subjection to
the rule of Islam, Muslims are known for their zeal in spreading their
religion, whether by peaceful means or by the sword.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with
nonbelievers. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and
fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join
the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell
if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament
verses of violence, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended,
meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the
surrounding text. They are part of the eternal,unchanging word of Allah, and
just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

The Quran: (Political and Idelogical Sanction for War Against Non-Muslims)

Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of
the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse
than slaughter [of non-believers]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is
forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and
religion is for Allah." The historical context of this passage is not
defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina
and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is
possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a
thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does
this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the
myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was
obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this
verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his
people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers,
for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no
authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes
Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly
believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer
pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an
injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.
Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No
reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. Quran

(8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief)
and religion should be only for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as
"persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported
by the historical context.

The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during Haj.
Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - just not as an armed group, since
Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were
also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to
destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence
the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah",
meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the
opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further
explains that "Allah must have no rivals."


From the Hadith: (on killing every Jew)

Bukhari (52:177) - 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."


DOMESTICALLY - NO.

Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when
she disobeys him (Quran 4:34).

Muhammad - Role Model and Highest Example in Islam

Muhammad was married to thirteen women, including eleven at one time. He
relegated them to either consecutive days or (according to some accounts) all
in one night. He married a 9-year-old girl and even his adopted son's wife.

On top of that, Muhammad had a multitude of slave girls and concubines with
whom he had sex - sometimes on the very days in which they had watched their
husbands and fathers die at the hands of his army. So, by any realistic
measure, the world's most sexually restrictive religion was also one of the
most sexually indulgent in history.

The Qur'an:

Allah managed to hand down quite a few "revelations" that sanctioned Muhammad's
personal pursuit of sex to the doubters around him.

Interestingly they have become part of the the eternal, infallible word of the
Qur'an, to be memorized by generations of Muslims for whom they have no
possible relevance.

Qur'an (33:37) - "But when Zaid had accomplished his want of her, We gave her
to you as a wife, so that there should be no difficulty for the believers in
respect of the wives of their adopted sons, when they have accomplished their
want of them; and Allah's command shall be performed."

No doubt millions of young Muslims, trying to outdo one another at memorizing
the Qur'an, have wondered about what this verse means and why it is there. In
fact, this is a "revelation" of convenience that Allah just happened to hand
down at a time when Muhammad desired after his daughter-in-law, Zaynab, - a
state of affairs that disturbed local customs. The verse "commands" Muhammad
to marry the woman (following her husband's gracious divorce). As for why this
should be part of the eternal word of God...?

From the Hadith:

Muslim (8:3309) - Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha when she was only
nine. (See also Bukhari 58:234 and many other places). No where in the
reliable Hadith or Sira is there any other age given. Bukhari (62:18) - Aisha's
father, Abu Bakr, wasn't on board at first, but Muhammad explained how the
rules of their religion made it possible. This is similar to the way that
present-day cult leaders manipulate their followers into similar concessions.

Muslim (8:3311) - The girl took her dolls with her to Muhammad's house
(something to play with when the "prophet" was not having sex with her).

Bukhari (6:298) - Muhammad would take a bath with the little girl and fondle
her. Muslim (8:3460) - "Why didn't you marry a young girl so that you could
sport with her and she sport with you, or you could amuse with her and she
could amuse with you?" Muhammad posed this question to one of his followers who
had married an "older woman" instead of opting for a child.

Bukhari (60:311) - "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and
desires." These words were spoken by Aisha within the context of her husband
having been given 'Allah's permission' to fulfill his sexual desires with a
large number of women in whatever order he chooses. (It has been suggested
that Aisha may have been speaking somewhat wryly).

Muslim (8:3424) - One of several narrations in which Muhammad orders a clearly
startled woman to suckle a grown man with her breast so that he will become
"unlawful" to her - meaning that they can live under the same roof together.

Tabari IX:137 - "Allah granted Rayhana of the Qurayza to Muhammad as booty."
Muhammad considered the women that he captured and enslaved to be God's gift to
him.

Tabari VIII:117 - "Dihyah had asked the Messenger for Safiyah when the Prophet
chose her for himself... the Apostle traded for Safiyah by giving Dihyah her
two cousins. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims." He
sometimes pulled rank to reserve the most beautiful captured women for himself.

Tabari IX:139 - "You are a self-respecting girl, but the prophet is a
womanizer." Words spoken by the disappointed parents of a girl who had
'offered' herself to Muhammad (he accepted).

Muhammad passed down revelations from Allah that clearly condoned sleeping with
underage girls, even by the standard of puberty. Qur'an (65:4) relates rules
for divorce, one of them being that a waiting period of three months is
established to determine that the woman is not pregnant.

But the same rule applies to "those too who have not had their courses,"
meaning girls who have not begun to menstruate. (In my opinion, this would
have been a great time for Allah to have said something else instead like, "a
real man is one who marries a real woman"... but that's just me).

When it comes to child marriage, contemporary clerics warn fellow Muslims
against succumbing to the disapproval of the Christian West: "It behooves those
who call for setting a minimum age for marriage to fear Allah and not
contradict his Sharia, or try to legislate things Allah did not permit. For
laws are Allah’s province; and legislation is his exclusive right, to be shared
by none other. And among these are the rules governing marriage.” The
Ayatollah Khomeini, who married a 12-year-old girl, even gave his consent to
using infants for sexual pleasure (although warning against full penetration
until the baby is a few years older). In April, 2010, a 13-year-old Yemeni
girl died from injuries suffered to her womb during intercourse.

Some clerics show relative mercy on underage girls by advocating a process
known as "thighing" (also known as child molestation in the West).

According to a recent fatwa (known as 23672), the imam answers a question: "My
parents married me to a young girl who hasn't yet reached puberty. How can I
enjoy her sexually?" by telling the 'man' that he may "hug her, kiss her, and
ejaculate between her legs." Muhammad's penchant for girls so much younger
than him was such that at least two of his father-in-laws (Abu Bakr and Omar,
the first two Caliphs) were actually younger than him as well.

Terrorism in the Cause of Islam:

Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to
attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women
and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children)
are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is
permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy.

This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings.

Tabari 9:69 - "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of
Muhammad, prophet of Islam.


INTELLECTUALLY - NO.

Because he cannot accept non-Muslim Constitutions since it is based on non-
Muslim principles and believes it is subservient and inferior to the Qu'ran and
Islam. Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live,
of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching.

Unlike other faiths, Islam is not just a religion but a political system as
well. The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule. Islamic
law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate
to other legal systems.


PHILOSOPHICALLY - NO.

Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and
_expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is
either dictatorial or autocratic.


SPIRITUALLY - NO.

Because when any nation under democracy or other form of government declares
"autonomy," it violates the Qu’ran’s mandate and mission of Islam and world
dominion. The Christian's God whose attributes are grace, love and kindness is
antithetical to the nature and interpretation of the Qur’an’s Allah. Allah is
never referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's
99 excellent names.

CONCLUSION: *Therefore, after much analysis and evaluation,the evidence proves
that, there cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Muslim citizens of any non-
Muslim theocracy. It would be an overblown oxymoron.


(PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COPY THIS AND CIRCULATE WIDELY. NO COPYRIGHT)
December 2, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterTruth Shall Prevail
This is a wonderful post! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with us! I hope to read more of your post which is very informative and useful to all the readers. I salute writers like you for doing a great job!



http://www.stkildabeachhouse.com.au/
January 11, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterFun Backpackers Melbourne

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.