Eastern Christians Torn Asunder
Challenges — new and old.
By Bat Yeor
The dhimmi mentality cannot be easily defined and described. An endless variety of reactions has been provoked by the evolving historical situations in the civilization of dhimmitude, which spans three continents and close to fourteen centuries. Generally speaking, dhimmi populations can be described as oscillating between alienation and submission and, at the other extreme, a self-perception of spiritual freedom.
The basic aspects of the dhimmi mentality are related to characteristics of its status and environment, because dhimmitude operates exclusively within the sphere of jihad. Contrary to common belief, jihad is not limited to holy war conducted militarily; it encompasses all strategies, including peaceful means, aimed at the unification of all religions within Islamic dogma. Further, as a juridical-theological construction, jihad determines all aspects of relations between the Umma — the Islamic community — and non-Muslims. According to the classical interpretation, these are classified in one of three categories: enemies, temporarily reconciled, or subjected. Because neither jihad nor dhimmitude have been critically analyzed, we can say today that the Islamist mentality — currently predominant in many Muslim countries — establishes relations with non-Muslims in the traditional jihad categories of war, truce, and submission/dhimmitude.
In our times dhimmis are found among the residues of indigenous populations of countries that were Islamized during a millenium of Muslim conquests: Christians, Hindus, and a scattering of Jews and Zoroastrians. Christians would seem to be the most familiar group, closer to Westerners by proximity, culture, religion, and subject to the same status under Islam as the Jews, the other ahl al-Khitab, "people of the Book" — the Bible. But this impression is often deceiving as the reassuring appearance of similarity is misleading.
The behavior of Christian dhimmis varies according to the country, the social category, and their association with the ruling classes as, for example, their participation in the Iraqi or Syrian Baath parties or the PLO, a militarist organization engaged in the Arab jihad against Israel. Christian dhimmis appointed to important positions by Muslim rulers have often served as agents between the Arab world and strategic centers in the West: churches, governments, industries, universities, media, etc.
Because Christian dhimmi populations are on the whole highly skilled and better educated than the surrounding population, they often suffer from malicious jealousy coupled with the traditional anti-Christian prejudices of the Umma. The persistence of Christianity in Muslim environments testifies to qualities of endurance and adaptability. Yet survival in dhimmitude had its price: the dhimmi pathology.
Briefly summarized, Christian attitudes can be classified in three categories: active resistance, passive resistance, and collaboration. These three attitudes are manifest within one and the same population, but certain geographical or historical situations favor one or another.
ACTIVE RESISTANCE
Recent examples of active resistance are noteworthy. The repression of the Christian rebellion against the establishment of sharia in the Sudan in 1983 caused more than two million dead and over four million displaced. Lebanese Christians fought against the Islamization of their country during the civil war that began in 1975. At the dawn of the 20th century, Armenian and Assyrian Christians were punished by genocide for their attempts at independence. In the present day, active Christian resistance against Islamization in Indonesia, Nigeria, and other African countries is manifest in the massacre of Christian civilians, the burning of villages, the flight of populations. Westerners, and especially Europeans, turn a deaf ear to the sufferings of Christians who actively resist Islamization, frequently blaming them for their own misfortunes.
PASSIVE RESISTANCE
Examples of passive resistance can be found in Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran. Egyptian Christians denounce the violence of which they are victims and strive to protect their dignity, reduce legal and professional discrimination, and secure basic rights such as permission to build or renovate churches. Here again, the West prefers to ignore their dire situation or underplay it with episodic attention. Christians engaged in active or passive resistance exhaust their meager resources in vain efforts to alert their fellow Christians and enlist their help.
COLLABORATIONIST CHRISTIANS
Collaborators are recruited among Christians who identify themselves as Arabs. This type of collaboration, which caused endless fratricidal battles over the centuries, has been denounced by dhimmis struggling for centuries against an Islamic domination that progressed with the help of Christians.
Christian collaborationism has taken different forms in the course of history, according to circumstances and political opportunity. It is expressed today in a two-pronged political and theological project. The political project is implemented in a trans-Mediterranean fusion, with the construction of an economic, cultural, political, geographical entity composed of the European Union and Arab and African countries. This policy of association and integration, active in all international forums, works to counterbalance American policy, under cover of a notion of "international legitimacy," albeit a legitimacy of sanguinary totalitarian Arab dictators.
Collaborationist Christian dhimmis function as the intellectual and economic mechanism of this project because they belong to both worlds. Their role is to invent the idyllic Islamic-Christian past that upholds the political construction of a future Eurabia and to dissimulate the anti-Christian foundations of Islamic doctrine and history.
dhimmi collaboration on the theological level is oriented in two directions: toward Christianity and toward Islam. It finds its most radical expression in the "Palestinian Liberation Theology," meaning nothing less than the liberation of Christianity from its Jewish matrix. The spiritual center of this theology is the al-Liqa institute in Jerusalem, created in 1983 for the study of the Muslim and Christian heritage in the Holy Land. This strongly politicized institute, sponsored by international Christian organizations, specializes in disseminating anti-Israeli propaganda through its international religious and media channels.
Uniting Marcionist and Gnostic theological currents, this Palestinian theology strips away Jesus's Jewishness and turns him into a sui generis Arab-Palestinian Jesus, a twin of the Muslim Jesus (Isa). Christianity, thus liberated from its Jewish roots, can be transplanted in Arab-Islamism. This would place Palestine, and not Israel, at the origin of Christianity, making Israelis usurpers of the Islamic-Christian Palestinian homeland. This theory denies the historical continuity between modern Israel and its biblical ancestor, the locus of nascent Christianity.
The theology of Palestinism, integrating all the anti-Jewish themes of replacement theology, is reworked to fit the new Palestinian fashion and addressed to Christians all over the world, inviting them to gather together around an Arab-Palestinian Jesus, symbol of a Palestine crucified by Israel. The theme goes back to the 19th century. However, in those days when the idea of an Arab-Palestinian entity differentiated from the Arab world did not even exist, the unifying role of Palestine was assigned to Arab nationalism.
Palestinist theology shores up the Euro-Arab policy of Christian-Muslim and European-Arab fusion: the modern state of Israel — considered a temporary accident of history — is bypassed and Europe's Christian origins are anchored in an Islamic-Christian Palestine. Having fulfilled its historical role of uniting the two enemies — Christianity and Islam — opposed to its very existence, Israel can now disappear, sealing the fusion between Europe and the Arabs. The unifying role devolves on Islamic-Christian Palestine; the reconciliation of Islam and Christianity can finally be consummated on the ashes of Israel and its negation. This is why the European Union — and especially France — designates Israeli "injustice" and "occupation" as the unique sources of conflict between Europe and the Arab/Muslim world, and the cause of international, anti-Western Islamist terrorism.
The contribution of dhimmi Christian collaborationism to Islam is even more important. It satisfies three objectives: 1) its propaganda shores up the mythology of past and present peaceful Islamic-Christian coexistence and confirms the perfection of Islam, jihad, and sharia; 2) it promotes the demographic expansion and proselytism of Islamic propaganda in the West; 3) in the theological sphere it eliminates the Jewish Jesus and implants Christianity in the Muslim Jesus, in other words it facilitates the theological Islamization of all Christendom.
According to Islamic dogma, Islam encompasses Judaism and Christianity, both of which are falsified posterior expressions of the first and fundamental religion, which is Islam. All the characters of the Bible, from Adam to Abraham, Moses to David, the Hebrew prophets, Mary, Jesus, and the apostles, were Muslim prophets who preached Islam, and it is only in their quality as Muslims that they are recognized and respected. They belong to the Koran, not to the Bible. From this viewpoint the bond between Judaism and Christianity is a falsification, because the filiation of Christianity is Islamic, not Judaic. Christianity descends from Islam, the first religion of all humanity (din al-fitra). Christianity is a falsified expression of Islam, and belongs to Islam. According to a hadith, when Isa, the Muslim Jesus, returns, he will break the cross, kill the pig, abolish the jizya (poll tax for infidels), and money will flow like water. Exegetes interpret the destruction of symbols attached to Christianity — the cross and the pig — as the extinction of that religion; the suppression of the jizya means that Islam has become the only religion; and the abundance of wealth refers to the booty taken from infidels. In other words the return of the Muslim Jesus could lead to the destruction of Christianity.
The global jihad has made the problems of dhimmitude a worldwide reality. Europe's creeping dhimmitude, expressed in a refusal even to mention in its proposed constitution the "Judeo-Christian" values of its civilization, is one of the major elements of the current European-American divide.
— Bat Yeor is the author of The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to dhimmitude. Her latest book, Islam and dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, has just been reprinted. A version of this article was first published in French and is translated by Nidra Poller in collaboration with the author.
Saturday, 15 October 2011
European Fears of the Gathering Jihad
European Fears of the Gathering Jihad
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com
February 21, 2003
The pro-Saddam Hussein European manifestations of February 15th that brought millions into the streets of European capitals are the culmination of Charles de Gaulle’s political vision of a European destiny led by France. During World War II de Gaulle was the leader of French resistance against the Nazis, but his post-war anti-Americanism rallied many of his previous enemies. Hostility to America and antisemitism were strong in various French circles: the communists, the left, and particularly among the numerous politicians, civil servants, intellectuals and businessmen, who had willingly collaborated with the Germans. Those political currents had important links with the Arab-Muslim world.
De Gaulle’s vision intended to restore to France a dominant role in international affairs by the construction of a strong and united Europe as a counter-weight to American power. After the loss of Algeria in 1962, France’s last Arab colony, de Gaulle oriented his policy toward the Arab-Muslim world. During the 1960s, a French Mediterranean policy was elaborated, which would link as an economic and political geostrategical unit the European Community (EC) and the Arab League countries. But Arab collaboration had a price: the elimination of Israel. In spite of France’s efforts to bring its European partners closer to Arab views, many countries were reluctant to follow this path. At that time, the Arab-Israeli conflict didn’t provoke any interest or declaration from the EC.
After the Syro-Egyptian October 1973 war against Israel, and the third Arab defeat, the Arab oil producers proclaimed an oil embargo, increased the oil price four times, lowered the production, and classified the consuming countries into friends, enemies, or neutrals. Now, France’s maneuvers to align the EC on the Arab anti-Israeli policy in order to create a strong Euro-Arab bloc succeeded. The nine countries of the EC, meeting in Brussels (November 6, 1973) issued a joint Resolution, which endorsed the Franco-Arab policy in respect to Israel.
In 1974 the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was founded to strengthen the political, economic and cultural co-operation between Europe and the Arab world. The Association had about 600 members in 18 national Parliaments of the countries of the enlarged European Union (EU), as well as in the European Parliament – and all the major trends in European politics were represented. This Association organized regular meetings with Arab leaders and politicians and served as a channel between them and the European governments, the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers, and the Commission of the European Communities. In other words, it was a most powerful Arab lobby functioning through European functionaries, built into the European institutions to influence European policy at its summit.
In the following years, this body was reinforced by a political, economical and cultural structure, named the Euro-Arab Dialogue, which united at the highest level the EC – later to become the European Union – and the countries of the Arab League. The Europeans tried to maintain the Dialogue on a base of economic relations, while the Arab countries tied the oil and business markets to the European alignment on their anti-Israeli policies. Even though some countries were reluctant to follow this path, the joint proclamations of the EU concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict endorsed the anti-Israeli points established previously by the Second Islamic Conference in Lahore, Pakistan (February 1974).
Henceforth, an associative diplomacy binding the Arab-Muslim countries and the EU developed in international forums and especially in decisions concerning the Middle East conflict. During Euro-Arab symposiums the oil threat was brandished and pressure was exerted on the EU, as a reminder that economic relations were inexorably tied to Europe’s political alignment with Arab anti-Zionist policy. However, the Dialogue was not restricted to influencing European foreign policy against Israel and detaching Europe from America, it also aimed at establishing permanently in Europe a massive Arab-Muslim presence by the immigration and settlement of millions of Muslims with equal rights for all, native-born and migrants alike. This policy endeavored to integrate Europe and the Arab-Muslim world into one political and economic bloc, by mixing populations (multiculturalism) while weakening the Atlantic solidarity and isolating America.
To facilitate Muslim settlements in the West, cultural changes in school teaching, universities and social life were imposed. Textbooks were rewritten in view of allaying Muslim susceptibilities, and university teachings in Middle East and Islamic history soon conformed to Arab-Muslim norms and their worldview. Recommendations were emphatically and repeatedly imposed for spreading the knowledge of the Arabic language in Europe, and the learning about the superior Islamic history and civilization. As these decisions were taken, and then implemented through the mechanism of the Dialogue that covered every country of the EU, a profound cultural Islamization — through the network of schools, universities and the blessing of Islamophile clergymen — conditioned the mentalities of two generations of European youth. To this cultural transformation was added from within the demographic pressure of an ever-increasing Muslim immigration and, from without, an all-encompassing symbiosis on every level with the Arab-Muslim world. This symbiosis built on the system of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and hence approved by the higher political authorities of the EU, covered book publishing, university exchanges, television, press and radio collaboration, theological rapprochement, youth meetings, and intense collaboration between numerous ONG organizations, humanitarian activities, workers unions, economical and financial relations. Scientific, nuclear and military training were provided as, for exemple, France’s nuclear program with Iraq, culminating in the construction of the nuclear reactor Osirak, destroyed by Israel in 1981.
The development of those complex ties between the Arab-Muslim world and the EU was, at its core, conditioned by an anti-Israeli and anti-American policy, the Arab ambition being to detach Europe from its Atlantic ally. As Palestinian and Islamic terrorism developed, the EU — anxious to save its growing and multiple interests in the Muslim world — accused Israel and U.S. policy of provoking it. Rather than confronting Islamic terrorism, European leaders resorted to appeasement by condemning Israel. Anti-Zionism, integrated into the developing Euro-Arab relations became a European sub-culture of hate, denigration and disinformation, nourished by the inner dynamic of the Euro-Arab Dialogue that led to the rise of Eurabia. Opposing views were silenced to maintain a monolithic façade of Islamic correctness in the press and publications. From September 2000, the outburst of Palestinian terrorism within Israel triggered a violent antisemitic wave in Europe as if it had become the heart of Arabism.
France, Germany and Belgium, the troika leading Eurabia, imposed monolithic orders for the EU and their African satellites. An alliance with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, comprising 56 countries, would provide world supremacy at the UN in some issues. The Euro-Arab bloc’s reliance on UN “international legitimacy” is based on its virtual control of this forum. Essential to the Arab League’s policy in relation to Israel, Arafat — the godfather of international terrorism — became the key regulator between the EU and the Arabs. The EU assumed the main funding of the Palestinian Authority, and until now the European Parliament refuses any investigation of how more than a billion euros of European taxpayers’ money, transferred to Arafat, has been used.
Today the Iraqi crisis confronts the EU governments with three decades of pusillanimous policy based on oil, markets, short-term economic gains, and an imperialist ambition of domination. It is practically impossible now in Europe to control Islamic terrorism either from within or without. Nor can the EU accept the destruction of the multifarious symbiosis created by all European political parties with the Arab and Muslim world, to the detriment of their own country's security. Europe has undergone a profound structural and demographic change, which is not yet fully perceived by Europeans, even less by Americans. This transformation of a Judeo-Christian based-civilization and culture by strong trends of Islamization is creating social, political and cultural grounds for confrontations that could provoke dangerous social implosions. The drifting away of Europeans from America is not, therefore, due to their superior moral exigencies, as some superficial analysts write. Rather, this drift reveals a traumatic fear of a terrorism that the EU always refused to acknowledge, scapegoating instead Israel and America. It reveals the preservation, at all costs, of Arab and Muslim corrupt dictatorships, including Arafat, with whom the EU has built its economic and international political strategy, power and security. And, more threatening, it indicates a profound transformation, a mutation, whereby a civilization is drifting toward 'dhimmitude.'*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Author's note: Dhimmitude derives from the surrender of the Christian clergy and political leaders to the Muslim jihad armies, and their submission to Islamic domination of both their lands and peoples. In exchange, they received a pledge of protection ('dhimma') from the Muslim sovereign - and the cessation of the jihad war. This "protection" was conditioned on a ransom payment (jizya) that was extorted from the vanquished Christian and Jewish populations (dhimmis). Sometimes, Christian submission to Islam was rooted in personal ambition. Dhimmitude often induced self-hatred, and hatred against Jews and Christians who resisted the jihad and Muslim domination. Christian dhimmitude has been a world force for Islamization throughout history.
By Bat Ye’or
FrontPageMagazine.com
February 21, 2003
The pro-Saddam Hussein European manifestations of February 15th that brought millions into the streets of European capitals are the culmination of Charles de Gaulle’s political vision of a European destiny led by France. During World War II de Gaulle was the leader of French resistance against the Nazis, but his post-war anti-Americanism rallied many of his previous enemies. Hostility to America and antisemitism were strong in various French circles: the communists, the left, and particularly among the numerous politicians, civil servants, intellectuals and businessmen, who had willingly collaborated with the Germans. Those political currents had important links with the Arab-Muslim world.
De Gaulle’s vision intended to restore to France a dominant role in international affairs by the construction of a strong and united Europe as a counter-weight to American power. After the loss of Algeria in 1962, France’s last Arab colony, de Gaulle oriented his policy toward the Arab-Muslim world. During the 1960s, a French Mediterranean policy was elaborated, which would link as an economic and political geostrategical unit the European Community (EC) and the Arab League countries. But Arab collaboration had a price: the elimination of Israel. In spite of France’s efforts to bring its European partners closer to Arab views, many countries were reluctant to follow this path. At that time, the Arab-Israeli conflict didn’t provoke any interest or declaration from the EC.
After the Syro-Egyptian October 1973 war against Israel, and the third Arab defeat, the Arab oil producers proclaimed an oil embargo, increased the oil price four times, lowered the production, and classified the consuming countries into friends, enemies, or neutrals. Now, France’s maneuvers to align the EC on the Arab anti-Israeli policy in order to create a strong Euro-Arab bloc succeeded. The nine countries of the EC, meeting in Brussels (November 6, 1973) issued a joint Resolution, which endorsed the Franco-Arab policy in respect to Israel.
In 1974 the Parliamentary Association for Euro-Arab Cooperation was founded to strengthen the political, economic and cultural co-operation between Europe and the Arab world. The Association had about 600 members in 18 national Parliaments of the countries of the enlarged European Union (EU), as well as in the European Parliament – and all the major trends in European politics were represented. This Association organized regular meetings with Arab leaders and politicians and served as a channel between them and the European governments, the Presidency of the European Council of Ministers, and the Commission of the European Communities. In other words, it was a most powerful Arab lobby functioning through European functionaries, built into the European institutions to influence European policy at its summit.
In the following years, this body was reinforced by a political, economical and cultural structure, named the Euro-Arab Dialogue, which united at the highest level the EC – later to become the European Union – and the countries of the Arab League. The Europeans tried to maintain the Dialogue on a base of economic relations, while the Arab countries tied the oil and business markets to the European alignment on their anti-Israeli policies. Even though some countries were reluctant to follow this path, the joint proclamations of the EU concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict endorsed the anti-Israeli points established previously by the Second Islamic Conference in Lahore, Pakistan (February 1974).
Henceforth, an associative diplomacy binding the Arab-Muslim countries and the EU developed in international forums and especially in decisions concerning the Middle East conflict. During Euro-Arab symposiums the oil threat was brandished and pressure was exerted on the EU, as a reminder that economic relations were inexorably tied to Europe’s political alignment with Arab anti-Zionist policy. However, the Dialogue was not restricted to influencing European foreign policy against Israel and detaching Europe from America, it also aimed at establishing permanently in Europe a massive Arab-Muslim presence by the immigration and settlement of millions of Muslims with equal rights for all, native-born and migrants alike. This policy endeavored to integrate Europe and the Arab-Muslim world into one political and economic bloc, by mixing populations (multiculturalism) while weakening the Atlantic solidarity and isolating America.
To facilitate Muslim settlements in the West, cultural changes in school teaching, universities and social life were imposed. Textbooks were rewritten in view of allaying Muslim susceptibilities, and university teachings in Middle East and Islamic history soon conformed to Arab-Muslim norms and their worldview. Recommendations were emphatically and repeatedly imposed for spreading the knowledge of the Arabic language in Europe, and the learning about the superior Islamic history and civilization. As these decisions were taken, and then implemented through the mechanism of the Dialogue that covered every country of the EU, a profound cultural Islamization — through the network of schools, universities and the blessing of Islamophile clergymen — conditioned the mentalities of two generations of European youth. To this cultural transformation was added from within the demographic pressure of an ever-increasing Muslim immigration and, from without, an all-encompassing symbiosis on every level with the Arab-Muslim world. This symbiosis built on the system of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, and hence approved by the higher political authorities of the EU, covered book publishing, university exchanges, television, press and radio collaboration, theological rapprochement, youth meetings, and intense collaboration between numerous ONG organizations, humanitarian activities, workers unions, economical and financial relations. Scientific, nuclear and military training were provided as, for exemple, France’s nuclear program with Iraq, culminating in the construction of the nuclear reactor Osirak, destroyed by Israel in 1981.
The development of those complex ties between the Arab-Muslim world and the EU was, at its core, conditioned by an anti-Israeli and anti-American policy, the Arab ambition being to detach Europe from its Atlantic ally. As Palestinian and Islamic terrorism developed, the EU — anxious to save its growing and multiple interests in the Muslim world — accused Israel and U.S. policy of provoking it. Rather than confronting Islamic terrorism, European leaders resorted to appeasement by condemning Israel. Anti-Zionism, integrated into the developing Euro-Arab relations became a European sub-culture of hate, denigration and disinformation, nourished by the inner dynamic of the Euro-Arab Dialogue that led to the rise of Eurabia. Opposing views were silenced to maintain a monolithic façade of Islamic correctness in the press and publications. From September 2000, the outburst of Palestinian terrorism within Israel triggered a violent antisemitic wave in Europe as if it had become the heart of Arabism.
France, Germany and Belgium, the troika leading Eurabia, imposed monolithic orders for the EU and their African satellites. An alliance with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, comprising 56 countries, would provide world supremacy at the UN in some issues. The Euro-Arab bloc’s reliance on UN “international legitimacy” is based on its virtual control of this forum. Essential to the Arab League’s policy in relation to Israel, Arafat — the godfather of international terrorism — became the key regulator between the EU and the Arabs. The EU assumed the main funding of the Palestinian Authority, and until now the European Parliament refuses any investigation of how more than a billion euros of European taxpayers’ money, transferred to Arafat, has been used.
Today the Iraqi crisis confronts the EU governments with three decades of pusillanimous policy based on oil, markets, short-term economic gains, and an imperialist ambition of domination. It is practically impossible now in Europe to control Islamic terrorism either from within or without. Nor can the EU accept the destruction of the multifarious symbiosis created by all European political parties with the Arab and Muslim world, to the detriment of their own country's security. Europe has undergone a profound structural and demographic change, which is not yet fully perceived by Europeans, even less by Americans. This transformation of a Judeo-Christian based-civilization and culture by strong trends of Islamization is creating social, political and cultural grounds for confrontations that could provoke dangerous social implosions. The drifting away of Europeans from America is not, therefore, due to their superior moral exigencies, as some superficial analysts write. Rather, this drift reveals a traumatic fear of a terrorism that the EU always refused to acknowledge, scapegoating instead Israel and America. It reveals the preservation, at all costs, of Arab and Muslim corrupt dictatorships, including Arafat, with whom the EU has built its economic and international political strategy, power and security. And, more threatening, it indicates a profound transformation, a mutation, whereby a civilization is drifting toward 'dhimmitude.'*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Author's note: Dhimmitude derives from the surrender of the Christian clergy and political leaders to the Muslim jihad armies, and their submission to Islamic domination of both their lands and peoples. In exchange, they received a pledge of protection ('dhimma') from the Muslim sovereign - and the cessation of the jihad war. This "protection" was conditioned on a ransom payment (jizya) that was extorted from the vanquished Christian and Jewish populations (dhimmis). Sometimes, Christian submission to Islam was rooted in personal ambition. Dhimmitude often induced self-hatred, and hatred against Jews and Christians who resisted the jihad and Muslim domination. Christian dhimmitude has been a world force for Islamization throughout history.
Jihad and Human Rights Today
Jihad and Human Rights Today
An active ideology incompatible with universal standards of freedom and equality.
By Bat Ye’or
Human rights and the concept of jihad are two incompatible ideas. In Judeo-Christian societies, the concept of human rights is based on the biblical interdiction against killing, and the equality of all human beings. Though it has religious roots, this notion of human rights evolved mainly from the 19th century in a secular European and American framework. It then acquired a universal character, proclaiming the equality of all human beings and the inviolability of their natural human rights. But it was only after World War II that this concept became the core of an international legal system, as a tool to prevent political abuses and to protect civil populations from genocidal policies.
Other major civilizations — including the Chinese, Hindu, and Islamic — have also conceived legal systems which protect the rights of their citizens. However, in the Islamic case, specifically, the 54 Muslim countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have conceived their own human-rights charter, contained in the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
This document states in its preamble, and in articles 24 and 25, that all its provisions are in conformity with the sharia, the religious Islamic law, which has primacy. Moreover, it proclaims that God has made the Islamic community (umma) the best nation — and, hence, its role is to guide humanity. We can see here the differences between the Cairo Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority of any group over another, but stresses the absolute equality of all human beings.
The institution of jihad belongs to a religious, Islamic domain, outside the realm of Western universalism and secularism. These two domains do not meet. Secular laws can be changed, abrogated, or ameliorated, but jihad regulations are believed to express divine commands. By definition, human beings can neither discuss nor scrutinize the divine will, and so those jihad obligations — attributed by the theologians to Allah — place jihad in the domain of faith. I would like to emphasize strongly that jihad is a special domain of Islamic law. Not all Muslims know it, and many reject its ideology. It would be a great mistake to believe that each and every Muslim identifies with the jihad-war ideology.
The ideology of jihad was formulated by leading Muslim theologians and scholars from the 8th century onward. Their voluminous writings make clear the notion of jihad as a holy war of conquest. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 966), for example, stated,
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution... We Malikis [one of four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah, except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them...
Jihad ideology separates humanity into two hostile blocs: the community of Muslims (Dar ul-Islam), and the infidel non-Muslims (Dar ul-Harb). Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the entire world in order to rule it according to Koranic law. Hence Muslims must wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit. This is the motivation for jihad. It is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels, as was re-emphasized in the Cairo Declaration. The first is a superior group, which must rule the world; the second must submit. The current relevance of this ideology is apparent, and disturbing.
For example, Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist newspaper in London, published an article on January 27, 2001, which declared:
Upon the establishment of the Islamic State, the whole world will potentially be Dar ul Harb since the foreign policy of the Islamic state is aimed at conquering the world... Once the Islamic State is established anyone in Dar ul Harb will have no sanctity for his life or wealth hence, a Muslim in such circumstances can then go into Dar ul Harb and take the wealth from the people unless there is a treaty with that state. If there is no treaty, individual Muslims can even go to Dar ul Harb and take women to keep as slaves.
Such an attitude assumes that the infidels have no rights and are totally dehumanized. It breeds hatred and contempt and has led to historical negationism, and the destruction of non-Muslim cultures. Moreover, such views are not confined to the most radical Islamists. They were confirmed in the Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, held in 1968 (General Organization for Government Printing Offices, Cairo, 1968), and regularly since then by eminent Islamic scholars. These authoritative pronouncements have recapitulated the theory of jihad in a manner completely consistent with the Al-Muhajiroun statements.
The theory of jihad against the infidels is composed of two parts: the ideology, and the military institutions aimed at implementing this ideology. According to these rules the infidels without a treaty have no rights at all: they can be deported, reduced to slavery, abducted for ransom, or killed. Women and children can be taken into slavery. Infidels can be spared by a temporary treaty which should not go beyond ten years. The treaty must conform to Islamic rule and serve Islamic interests, hence a ransom should be paid. The infidels who submit to Islamic rulers are given a pledge of security against the rules of jihad, so long as they accept a condition of humiliation, and of total inferiority to Muslims.
Jihad is therefore a genocidal war, according to the modern definition of genocide. It encourages terrorism against civilians and does not differentiate between innocent civilians and soldiers. All infidels without a treaty of protection can be killed. Jihad does not recognize universal human rights, for there is no equality between Muslims and infidels, and no reciprocity between Muslims and infidels in legal matters. Jihad warriors do not accept that either the Geneva Conventions or the conventional rules of war have any validity for them.
Jihadists have associated the notion of a reward in paradise with the practice of killing infidels. Killing at war was, and still is, practiced by all societies. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, wars, because they imply the acts of killing, are hateful and peace is praised. In the jihadist ideology, it is war that is praised, along with the killing of the infidels. Tragically, jihad ideology will not disappear soon. It is shaping the minds of a generation of young Muslims in many countries. Jihad ideology is a well-constructed system, created after the death of the prophet Mohammed. It has remained alive and well since then — except under secularized Muslim governments like that of Turkey, after the Kemalist revolution. It is delusional and dangerous to maintain that this ideology is rooted in social deprivation, backwardness, injustice, or despair. Moreover, paying subsidies to suspend global jihad terrorism is tantamount to paying a tribute to terrorist states, and buying one's own peace and security as temporarily ransomed privileges — instead of living by the principles of universal human rights, which proclaim the inviolability of every human being. Societies that pay a tribute to survive are destined to disappear.
An active ideology incompatible with universal standards of freedom and equality.
By Bat Ye’or
Human rights and the concept of jihad are two incompatible ideas. In Judeo-Christian societies, the concept of human rights is based on the biblical interdiction against killing, and the equality of all human beings. Though it has religious roots, this notion of human rights evolved mainly from the 19th century in a secular European and American framework. It then acquired a universal character, proclaiming the equality of all human beings and the inviolability of their natural human rights. But it was only after World War II that this concept became the core of an international legal system, as a tool to prevent political abuses and to protect civil populations from genocidal policies.
Other major civilizations — including the Chinese, Hindu, and Islamic — have also conceived legal systems which protect the rights of their citizens. However, in the Islamic case, specifically, the 54 Muslim countries of the Organization of the Islamic Conference have conceived their own human-rights charter, contained in the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.
This document states in its preamble, and in articles 24 and 25, that all its provisions are in conformity with the sharia, the religious Islamic law, which has primacy. Moreover, it proclaims that God has made the Islamic community (umma) the best nation — and, hence, its role is to guide humanity. We can see here the differences between the Cairo Declaration and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not refer to any religion or to the superiority of any group over another, but stresses the absolute equality of all human beings.
The institution of jihad belongs to a religious, Islamic domain, outside the realm of Western universalism and secularism. These two domains do not meet. Secular laws can be changed, abrogated, or ameliorated, but jihad regulations are believed to express divine commands. By definition, human beings can neither discuss nor scrutinize the divine will, and so those jihad obligations — attributed by the theologians to Allah — place jihad in the domain of faith. I would like to emphasize strongly that jihad is a special domain of Islamic law. Not all Muslims know it, and many reject its ideology. It would be a great mistake to believe that each and every Muslim identifies with the jihad-war ideology.
The ideology of jihad was formulated by leading Muslim theologians and scholars from the 8th century onward. Their voluminous writings make clear the notion of jihad as a holy war of conquest. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 966), for example, stated,
Jihad is a precept of Divine institution... We Malikis [one of four schools of Muslim jurisprudence] maintain it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah, except where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be declared against them...
Jihad ideology separates humanity into two hostile blocs: the community of Muslims (Dar ul-Islam), and the infidel non-Muslims (Dar ul-Harb). Allah commands the Muslims to conquer the entire world in order to rule it according to Koranic law. Hence Muslims must wage a perpetual war against those infidels who refuse to submit. This is the motivation for jihad. It is based on the inequality between the community of Allah and the infidels, as was re-emphasized in the Cairo Declaration. The first is a superior group, which must rule the world; the second must submit. The current relevance of this ideology is apparent, and disturbing.
For example, Al-Muhajiroun, an Islamist newspaper in London, published an article on January 27, 2001, which declared:
Upon the establishment of the Islamic State, the whole world will potentially be Dar ul Harb since the foreign policy of the Islamic state is aimed at conquering the world... Once the Islamic State is established anyone in Dar ul Harb will have no sanctity for his life or wealth hence, a Muslim in such circumstances can then go into Dar ul Harb and take the wealth from the people unless there is a treaty with that state. If there is no treaty, individual Muslims can even go to Dar ul Harb and take women to keep as slaves.
Such an attitude assumes that the infidels have no rights and are totally dehumanized. It breeds hatred and contempt and has led to historical negationism, and the destruction of non-Muslim cultures. Moreover, such views are not confined to the most radical Islamists. They were confirmed in the Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research, held in 1968 (General Organization for Government Printing Offices, Cairo, 1968), and regularly since then by eminent Islamic scholars. These authoritative pronouncements have recapitulated the theory of jihad in a manner completely consistent with the Al-Muhajiroun statements.
The theory of jihad against the infidels is composed of two parts: the ideology, and the military institutions aimed at implementing this ideology. According to these rules the infidels without a treaty have no rights at all: they can be deported, reduced to slavery, abducted for ransom, or killed. Women and children can be taken into slavery. Infidels can be spared by a temporary treaty which should not go beyond ten years. The treaty must conform to Islamic rule and serve Islamic interests, hence a ransom should be paid. The infidels who submit to Islamic rulers are given a pledge of security against the rules of jihad, so long as they accept a condition of humiliation, and of total inferiority to Muslims.
Jihad is therefore a genocidal war, according to the modern definition of genocide. It encourages terrorism against civilians and does not differentiate between innocent civilians and soldiers. All infidels without a treaty of protection can be killed. Jihad does not recognize universal human rights, for there is no equality between Muslims and infidels, and no reciprocity between Muslims and infidels in legal matters. Jihad warriors do not accept that either the Geneva Conventions or the conventional rules of war have any validity for them.
Jihadists have associated the notion of a reward in paradise with the practice of killing infidels. Killing at war was, and still is, practiced by all societies. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, wars, because they imply the acts of killing, are hateful and peace is praised. In the jihadist ideology, it is war that is praised, along with the killing of the infidels. Tragically, jihad ideology will not disappear soon. It is shaping the minds of a generation of young Muslims in many countries. Jihad ideology is a well-constructed system, created after the death of the prophet Mohammed. It has remained alive and well since then — except under secularized Muslim governments like that of Turkey, after the Kemalist revolution. It is delusional and dangerous to maintain that this ideology is rooted in social deprivation, backwardness, injustice, or despair. Moreover, paying subsidies to suspend global jihad terrorism is tantamount to paying a tribute to terrorist states, and buying one's own peace and security as temporarily ransomed privileges — instead of living by the principles of universal human rights, which proclaim the inviolability of every human being. Societies that pay a tribute to survive are destined to disappear.
Are You Sure That You Are Not At War with Islam?
Are You Sure That You Are Not At War with Islam?
Jim Croft
It is important for anyone wanting to discuss Islamic issues intelligently to understand that the popular term “Moderate Muslims” is a rather misleading term. The Liberal Media and the governments of many democracies apply it to most every Muslim living anywhere and especially to those residing in their nations. They insist that only a minuscule percentage of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims have inclinations favoring Islam’s harsh intolerance of other religions and inclinations toward Jihad terrorism.
Moderate Muslim Needs Definition
Yes, there are many Muslims living in democratic countries and even in Islamic republics that are not disposed toward hyper-religious activism. They are Muslim by birth and culture. However, mosque attendance and adherence to Islam’s various laws are not front-burner concerns in their lives.
For all intents and purposes, they are secularized people who simply want to provide prosperous lives for their families and don’t mind if those of other faiths do the same. The “Moderate” term is applicable to them in the sense that they are equivalents to nominal Christians who are Christian in name only. Religious involvement is not of interest to them. Secularized Muslims are truly “harmless moderates.” They do not endorse terrorism and would try to avoid participation in enactments of Shariah Law penalties on Muslims who violate Mohammed’s policies.
Nonetheless, there is another massively larger group of Muslims that are referred to as “Moderate Muslims.” They by no means are as harmless in all respects as Islamist spokesmen and the News Media would lead us to believe. This group is comprised of the majority of the world’s Muslim population. On one hand, they do not belong to or knowingly aid and abet any international Islamic terrorist organizations. In that sense they are “Moderates.”
However, Islamic terror is not restricted to fanatics igniting bombs to kill the citizens of Christian nations. Terror is built into Shariah Law. The majority of the globe’s “Moderate Muslims of whom I’m now speaking feel obligated to live compliant to Shariah Law. That qualifies them as potential participants in terrifying acts at the societal and family level. The truth is that in order for them to be considered authentically Muslim by their peers they must comply with Shariah Law. It is like water and wet. You cannot indulge in water without getting wet.
Shariah Law calls for vehement anti-Semitism; beating wives deemed insolent; honor killings for those who marry outside of Islam; death by stoning for girls charged with premarital sex and wives accused of adultery; amputating the hands of thieves; and the public flogging of any Islamic citizen who breaks Shariah Law. In addition, Islamic Law endorses marriage to child brides and permits pedophilia with little boys and in many Islamic strongholds, a blind-eye is given to slavery.
Muslims who are labeled as “Moderates” carry out those terror ridden policies and practices everyday in cities and remote villages throughout the Islamic world. In that regard there is nothing truly “moderate” about the mass majority of the global Islamic population.
Not at War with Islam?
Western diplomats whose governments are engaged in the War on Terror frequently assert that their nations are not at war with Islam. That is accurate in that the war declarations do not include the objective of eradicating Islam as a religion.
Religionists who want to appear ecumenical and knowledgeable often stress that they are not at war with Islam. They do so out of ignorance. There is plenty about Islam that should be opposed with passion.
I must ask how the same people would respond to the following questions: Are you OK with wife beating and stoning suspected adulteresses? Do you believe that it is right for a rape victim to need four male witnesses to prove the act was not consensual? Would you enthusiastically support legislation that decriminalizes the likes of pedophilia and the marriages of girls who are under 12 years of age? Would you vote in favor of the reinstatement of slavery?
If your answers to all of the questions are affirmative, you are indeed at peace with Islam. However, if your answer to all of the questions is an adamant, “No”; you my friend are at war with Islam.
Had your understanding of Islam included the full implications of its Shariah Law, you would resist it. Like any person of sincere faith who knows the facts, you would be opposed to Islam for conscience sake. And, most likely within your heart, your opposition would carry an indignant, warlike flame.
As a youngster in 1954, I saw a terrified little girl of around 9 dragged screaming through a market in Tripoli, Libya. I asked our Muslim guide what was happening. He casually said, “She has just been purchased by that man to be one of his house servants and concubines.”
In the mid-‘80’s, I made a trip to Nigeria. I saw a young boy of 8 getting kicked to death by a group of men. His crime was stealing a piece of fruit from a street vendor. On the same trip, I learned that during any given month, hundreds of girls with torn bladders were abandoned at clinics and left to sit in their own urine. I asked why so. I was informed that the girls’ bladders had torn while in the rigors of giving birth to children. Their wealthy husbands who had purchased them from impoverished parents no longer had any use for them. I asked what I needed to do to get a team of physicians into Nigeria to help such girls. I was told, “Don’t bother to try. Even if our Muslim led government permitted it, all of the doctors would have to be women. Surely, you are aware that it is a sin for a man to look on another man’s wife and an insult to Islam.”
The incidents I have just described all happened decades prior to the now common acts of international terrorism driven by Mohammed’s Koran and his sayings in the Hadiths. What I witnessed inspired me to explore Islam. I wanted to know how a major world religion could allow and even fuel such unconscionable attitudes. My studies have revealed there is a lot that is very, very wrong with Islam.
In discussions about Islamic issues, when someone applies the term “Moderate Muslim” to most every Muslim on the planet; it is appropriate to ask the speaker how they define “Moderate.” Most likely their answer will be vague. You can enliven the discussion by giving clarity to the term through what you have learned in this article.
The same goes for broad statements about how we are not at war with Islam. At that point you might affirm that the assertion is factual in regard to armed conflict. However, you might quickly add that Islamic terror is not limited to acts of terrorism on foreign shores. Then ask them how they feel about some of the grievous policies and practices of Shariah Law that are cruel, unusual and unjust. After listing a few, you might inquire: “If you are not morally and ethically at war with such practices; pray tell, what are the societal wrongs that you would passionately decry?”
Jim Croft
It is important for anyone wanting to discuss Islamic issues intelligently to understand that the popular term “Moderate Muslims” is a rather misleading term. The Liberal Media and the governments of many democracies apply it to most every Muslim living anywhere and especially to those residing in their nations. They insist that only a minuscule percentage of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims have inclinations favoring Islam’s harsh intolerance of other religions and inclinations toward Jihad terrorism.
Moderate Muslim Needs Definition
Yes, there are many Muslims living in democratic countries and even in Islamic republics that are not disposed toward hyper-religious activism. They are Muslim by birth and culture. However, mosque attendance and adherence to Islam’s various laws are not front-burner concerns in their lives.
For all intents and purposes, they are secularized people who simply want to provide prosperous lives for their families and don’t mind if those of other faiths do the same. The “Moderate” term is applicable to them in the sense that they are equivalents to nominal Christians who are Christian in name only. Religious involvement is not of interest to them. Secularized Muslims are truly “harmless moderates.” They do not endorse terrorism and would try to avoid participation in enactments of Shariah Law penalties on Muslims who violate Mohammed’s policies.
Nonetheless, there is another massively larger group of Muslims that are referred to as “Moderate Muslims.” They by no means are as harmless in all respects as Islamist spokesmen and the News Media would lead us to believe. This group is comprised of the majority of the world’s Muslim population. On one hand, they do not belong to or knowingly aid and abet any international Islamic terrorist organizations. In that sense they are “Moderates.”
However, Islamic terror is not restricted to fanatics igniting bombs to kill the citizens of Christian nations. Terror is built into Shariah Law. The majority of the globe’s “Moderate Muslims of whom I’m now speaking feel obligated to live compliant to Shariah Law. That qualifies them as potential participants in terrifying acts at the societal and family level. The truth is that in order for them to be considered authentically Muslim by their peers they must comply with Shariah Law. It is like water and wet. You cannot indulge in water without getting wet.
Shariah Law calls for vehement anti-Semitism; beating wives deemed insolent; honor killings for those who marry outside of Islam; death by stoning for girls charged with premarital sex and wives accused of adultery; amputating the hands of thieves; and the public flogging of any Islamic citizen who breaks Shariah Law. In addition, Islamic Law endorses marriage to child brides and permits pedophilia with little boys and in many Islamic strongholds, a blind-eye is given to slavery.
Muslims who are labeled as “Moderates” carry out those terror ridden policies and practices everyday in cities and remote villages throughout the Islamic world. In that regard there is nothing truly “moderate” about the mass majority of the global Islamic population.
Not at War with Islam?
Western diplomats whose governments are engaged in the War on Terror frequently assert that their nations are not at war with Islam. That is accurate in that the war declarations do not include the objective of eradicating Islam as a religion.
Religionists who want to appear ecumenical and knowledgeable often stress that they are not at war with Islam. They do so out of ignorance. There is plenty about Islam that should be opposed with passion.
I must ask how the same people would respond to the following questions: Are you OK with wife beating and stoning suspected adulteresses? Do you believe that it is right for a rape victim to need four male witnesses to prove the act was not consensual? Would you enthusiastically support legislation that decriminalizes the likes of pedophilia and the marriages of girls who are under 12 years of age? Would you vote in favor of the reinstatement of slavery?
If your answers to all of the questions are affirmative, you are indeed at peace with Islam. However, if your answer to all of the questions is an adamant, “No”; you my friend are at war with Islam.
Had your understanding of Islam included the full implications of its Shariah Law, you would resist it. Like any person of sincere faith who knows the facts, you would be opposed to Islam for conscience sake. And, most likely within your heart, your opposition would carry an indignant, warlike flame.
As a youngster in 1954, I saw a terrified little girl of around 9 dragged screaming through a market in Tripoli, Libya. I asked our Muslim guide what was happening. He casually said, “She has just been purchased by that man to be one of his house servants and concubines.”
In the mid-‘80’s, I made a trip to Nigeria. I saw a young boy of 8 getting kicked to death by a group of men. His crime was stealing a piece of fruit from a street vendor. On the same trip, I learned that during any given month, hundreds of girls with torn bladders were abandoned at clinics and left to sit in their own urine. I asked why so. I was informed that the girls’ bladders had torn while in the rigors of giving birth to children. Their wealthy husbands who had purchased them from impoverished parents no longer had any use for them. I asked what I needed to do to get a team of physicians into Nigeria to help such girls. I was told, “Don’t bother to try. Even if our Muslim led government permitted it, all of the doctors would have to be women. Surely, you are aware that it is a sin for a man to look on another man’s wife and an insult to Islam.”
The incidents I have just described all happened decades prior to the now common acts of international terrorism driven by Mohammed’s Koran and his sayings in the Hadiths. What I witnessed inspired me to explore Islam. I wanted to know how a major world religion could allow and even fuel such unconscionable attitudes. My studies have revealed there is a lot that is very, very wrong with Islam.
In discussions about Islamic issues, when someone applies the term “Moderate Muslim” to most every Muslim on the planet; it is appropriate to ask the speaker how they define “Moderate.” Most likely their answer will be vague. You can enliven the discussion by giving clarity to the term through what you have learned in this article.
The same goes for broad statements about how we are not at war with Islam. At that point you might affirm that the assertion is factual in regard to armed conflict. However, you might quickly add that Islamic terror is not limited to acts of terrorism on foreign shores. Then ask them how they feel about some of the grievous policies and practices of Shariah Law that are cruel, unusual and unjust. After listing a few, you might inquire: “If you are not morally and ethically at war with such practices; pray tell, what are the societal wrongs that you would passionately decry?”
The Vetting of Mohammed
The Vetting of Mohammed
Would he measure up to 21st Century scrutiny for world leadership?
Jim Croft
Political parties and the US Government know the value of thorough background checks on all candidates for public office. They have learned that if they don’t examine histories to insure there are no skeletons in the closet, the Media will do it for them. Nosey investigators drag up every politically incorrect slip of the tongue and moral indiscretion. Any hints of mental instability are publicized and departures from acceptable behavior are sensationalized.
If Mohammed was subjected to 21st Century vetting, would the world applaud Islam’s claim that he was the epitome of perfection as a man? It’s doubtful. Mohammed did not have a mere skeleton in his closet. The Quran and the Hadiths reveal that Mohammed had an entire graveyard in his closet.
The Hadiths are Mohammed’s actions and sayings as recorded by devotees who knew him best. Along with the Quran, the Hadiths are considered holy writ by Muslims. Most any objective person with modern sensitivities who examines Islam’s historical writings would admit that Mohammed fails the litmus test for qualification as the political and spiritual leader of mankind.
What is stated in this article is well documented in articles published on Islam Review’s website. Much of what is asserted has been gleaned from a book titled, The Perfect Man? The effort it takes to wade through the book’s Arabic, French and English translations is well rewarded. It’s available from Islamreveiw.com. Or, for verification go to:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/07/perfect-man.html
Let us examine how Mohammed would hold up under present-day scrutiny. We will briefly explore the political correctness of his statements; his sexual practices; and his mental stability. At this juncture, any politician or self-proclaimed prophet found guilty of Mohammed’s peculiarities would be fired from his position. However, that could change. As I will explain at the conclusion of this article; if we don’t run Islam’s Mohammed through the sieve of the vetting process now, in the future his behavior might be considered acceptable.
Slips of the Tongue
Was Mohammed gender bias? Yes! He asserted that women are mentally inferior to men and that they should not be allowed to pray when menstruating. In his estimation, far more women than men will spend eternity in hell. (Hadith Sahih al Bukhari # 298)
Would Mohammed qualify as a racist? Yes! He referred to blacks as pug-nosed raisin heads. (Sahih Moslem vol 9, pp 46-47 & Sahih al Bukhari vol 1, #662; vol 9, #256)
Sexual Practices
Anything weird in regard to sex in the Prophet’s background? Yes! It’s common knowledge that he married and had sex with a 9-year-old girl. However, it’s not common knowledge that he enjoyed sucking the tongues and kissing the penises of young boys. (Sahih al Bukhari #1183; Talkhis al Habir, Ibn Hajar #60-61) Perhaps this explains why Mohammed as the role model of all Muslim warriors promised a paradise where every deviate sexual desire could be fulfilled. Not only does each Jihadist get 72 virgins, but also all of the little boys they could ever want for pedophilic acts. (Quran 52:24; Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page 83)
Was Mohammed just a bit Gay? Yes! Zahir was alarmed by the bear-hug of a man from behind and yelled, “Get off of me!” When he realized it was Mohammed, he pushed his back into the Prophet’s chest. Mohammed lifted his shirt for another man who proceeded to kiss him from his navel to his armpits. (Musnad Ahmad #12669; Sunan Abi Dawud #5224)
Did Mohammed cross-dress? Yes! He said: “Revelations never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s.” Another person reported finding Mohammed in bed dressed in his wife Aisha’s clothes. To avoid the embarrassment of English readers discovering Mohammed’s transvestite episodes, Islamic translators falsify the Arabic words for women’s clothing to beds and bed-sheets. According to Google’s Arabic Dictionary the precise definition is woman’s dress. (Sahih al Bukhari #2442 & #2402-27)
Was Mohammed guilty of incest? Yes! He claimed that Allah gave him permission to marry Zainab the wife of Zaid his adopted son. (Quran 33:37 & 50)
Psychiatric Help Needed
Did Mohammed ever practice necrophilia? Yes! Most would consider it a little odd that Mohammed is reported to have slept with a dead woman. The messenger of Allah took off his shirt and put in on Umm Ali, and slept with her in her grave. (Kanz al Ummal #37611)
Was Mohammed suicidal? Yes! On at least 2 occasions he spoke and almost acted upon intentions to kill himself. The first was after the death of his confidant, Waraqa. Another was when Mohammed suspected his revelations were demonic in origin. (Sahih al Bukhari #6581; and Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp 106)
Conclusion
Surely, what you’ve read prompts you to question Mohammed’s qualifications for Islam’s assertion that he is to be emulated in character and practice as the perfection of what a man ought to be. Keep in mind that the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are conditioned by their clerics to idolize him as the essence of godly behavior. Also bear in mind that the Shariah Law that Islamists and many of our liberal politicians are attempting to get us to swallow is based upon the writings, sayings and actions of Mohammed. If it gains a foothold, our future generations might embrace Mohammed as their role model. Please ponder the implications.
It is not unusual for the devotees of a given spiritual leader to go mutant with his excesses. They can do so in good conscience because their role models set the pattern. Normally, the further the down the generations from a leader’s reign, the more bizarre his disciples’ imitations of him become. I’ll give you and example from Islam in Iran.
As I have pointed out, Mohammed was both a heterosexual and a homosexual pedophile. Iran’s Imam Khomeini argued that it was completely reasonable for a Muslim man to sodomize an infant girl as long as he does not penetrate her vaginally. (Tehriro vasyieh, 4th edition, Qom, Iran, 1990)
This link has an interview with an Iranian Muslim cleric who is debating the practice of sex with baby girls with a radio talk show host. This sick and twisted follower of Mohammed heavily defends this hideous aspect of pedophilia. The lesson to be learned is that refusal to vet a public figure leads to the nullification of the vetting process. In other words, society becomes so calloused about evil that evil’s exposure is meaningless.
Giving Mohammed a pass on vetting in our generation, carries a heavy price-tag. At the hearing of his crimes and misdemeanors our future generations are liable to shrug and to say: “Well, so what?”
To listen and learn from this radio interview click on this link and then on the 6th box down that has the infant girl dressed in pink:
Would he measure up to 21st Century scrutiny for world leadership?
Jim Croft
Political parties and the US Government know the value of thorough background checks on all candidates for public office. They have learned that if they don’t examine histories to insure there are no skeletons in the closet, the Media will do it for them. Nosey investigators drag up every politically incorrect slip of the tongue and moral indiscretion. Any hints of mental instability are publicized and departures from acceptable behavior are sensationalized.
If Mohammed was subjected to 21st Century vetting, would the world applaud Islam’s claim that he was the epitome of perfection as a man? It’s doubtful. Mohammed did not have a mere skeleton in his closet. The Quran and the Hadiths reveal that Mohammed had an entire graveyard in his closet.
The Hadiths are Mohammed’s actions and sayings as recorded by devotees who knew him best. Along with the Quran, the Hadiths are considered holy writ by Muslims. Most any objective person with modern sensitivities who examines Islam’s historical writings would admit that Mohammed fails the litmus test for qualification as the political and spiritual leader of mankind.
What is stated in this article is well documented in articles published on Islam Review’s website. Much of what is asserted has been gleaned from a book titled, The Perfect Man? The effort it takes to wade through the book’s Arabic, French and English translations is well rewarded. It’s available from Islamreveiw.com. Or, for verification go to:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/07/perfect-man.html
Let us examine how Mohammed would hold up under present-day scrutiny. We will briefly explore the political correctness of his statements; his sexual practices; and his mental stability. At this juncture, any politician or self-proclaimed prophet found guilty of Mohammed’s peculiarities would be fired from his position. However, that could change. As I will explain at the conclusion of this article; if we don’t run Islam’s Mohammed through the sieve of the vetting process now, in the future his behavior might be considered acceptable.
Slips of the Tongue
Was Mohammed gender bias? Yes! He asserted that women are mentally inferior to men and that they should not be allowed to pray when menstruating. In his estimation, far more women than men will spend eternity in hell. (Hadith Sahih al Bukhari # 298)
Would Mohammed qualify as a racist? Yes! He referred to blacks as pug-nosed raisin heads. (Sahih Moslem vol 9, pp 46-47 & Sahih al Bukhari vol 1, #662; vol 9, #256)
Sexual Practices
Anything weird in regard to sex in the Prophet’s background? Yes! It’s common knowledge that he married and had sex with a 9-year-old girl. However, it’s not common knowledge that he enjoyed sucking the tongues and kissing the penises of young boys. (Sahih al Bukhari #1183; Talkhis al Habir, Ibn Hajar #60-61) Perhaps this explains why Mohammed as the role model of all Muslim warriors promised a paradise where every deviate sexual desire could be fulfilled. Not only does each Jihadist get 72 virgins, but also all of the little boys they could ever want for pedophilic acts. (Quran 52:24; Sahih Moslem vol. 7, page 83)
Was Mohammed just a bit Gay? Yes! Zahir was alarmed by the bear-hug of a man from behind and yelled, “Get off of me!” When he realized it was Mohammed, he pushed his back into the Prophet’s chest. Mohammed lifted his shirt for another man who proceeded to kiss him from his navel to his armpits. (Musnad Ahmad #12669; Sunan Abi Dawud #5224)
Did Mohammed cross-dress? Yes! He said: “Revelations never come to me when I’m dressed in women’s clothing except when I’m dressed in Aisha’s.” Another person reported finding Mohammed in bed dressed in his wife Aisha’s clothes. To avoid the embarrassment of English readers discovering Mohammed’s transvestite episodes, Islamic translators falsify the Arabic words for women’s clothing to beds and bed-sheets. According to Google’s Arabic Dictionary the precise definition is woman’s dress. (Sahih al Bukhari #2442 & #2402-27)
Was Mohammed guilty of incest? Yes! He claimed that Allah gave him permission to marry Zainab the wife of Zaid his adopted son. (Quran 33:37 & 50)
Psychiatric Help Needed
Did Mohammed ever practice necrophilia? Yes! Most would consider it a little odd that Mohammed is reported to have slept with a dead woman. The messenger of Allah took off his shirt and put in on Umm Ali, and slept with her in her grave. (Kanz al Ummal #37611)
Was Mohammed suicidal? Yes! On at least 2 occasions he spoke and almost acted upon intentions to kill himself. The first was after the death of his confidant, Waraqa. Another was when Mohammed suspected his revelations were demonic in origin. (Sahih al Bukhari #6581; and Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah, pp 106)
Conclusion
Surely, what you’ve read prompts you to question Mohammed’s qualifications for Islam’s assertion that he is to be emulated in character and practice as the perfection of what a man ought to be. Keep in mind that the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims are conditioned by their clerics to idolize him as the essence of godly behavior. Also bear in mind that the Shariah Law that Islamists and many of our liberal politicians are attempting to get us to swallow is based upon the writings, sayings and actions of Mohammed. If it gains a foothold, our future generations might embrace Mohammed as their role model. Please ponder the implications.
It is not unusual for the devotees of a given spiritual leader to go mutant with his excesses. They can do so in good conscience because their role models set the pattern. Normally, the further the down the generations from a leader’s reign, the more bizarre his disciples’ imitations of him become. I’ll give you and example from Islam in Iran.
As I have pointed out, Mohammed was both a heterosexual and a homosexual pedophile. Iran’s Imam Khomeini argued that it was completely reasonable for a Muslim man to sodomize an infant girl as long as he does not penetrate her vaginally. (Tehriro vasyieh, 4th edition, Qom, Iran, 1990)
This link has an interview with an Iranian Muslim cleric who is debating the practice of sex with baby girls with a radio talk show host. This sick and twisted follower of Mohammed heavily defends this hideous aspect of pedophilia. The lesson to be learned is that refusal to vet a public figure leads to the nullification of the vetting process. In other words, society becomes so calloused about evil that evil’s exposure is meaningless.
Giving Mohammed a pass on vetting in our generation, carries a heavy price-tag. At the hearing of his crimes and misdemeanors our future generations are liable to shrug and to say: “Well, so what?”
To listen and learn from this radio interview click on this link and then on the 6th box down that has the infant girl dressed in pink:
Islam, Noble & Peaceful?
Islam, Noble & Peaceful?
Examining the Absurdities of the Politically Correct Assertions
Jim Croft
Inevitably, whenever the diplomats and national leaders of America and the UK mention Islam they are quick to interject that it’s a noble and peaceful religion that’s been hijacked by extremists. The Aussies, Dutch, Danes and even the French are singing a different tune. Recent media reports indicate that history is teaching them some tough lessons. Such things as Islamic terrorists attacks, riots and looting, honor killings, bulging welfare roles and Islam’s basic tenet that Sharia Law overrides national laws are convincing them that Islam is neither noble nor peaceful.
Australia’s government has issued the decree that any Muslim who is predisposed to apply Sharia Law above its national laws will be deported. Holland’s Minister of the Interior, Hurst Wellers has stated that if Muhammad were a present-day resident of the Netherlands, he would be arrested for inciting terrorism. The Danes are recognizing that their former liberal immigration policies have put their national heritage at risk. They’re instituting stringent laws for welfare recipients and for Muslims that want to bring in family members from abroad. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidential election on a platform that took a strong stand against Islam’s efforts to replace French values. America and the UK would do well to heed and to follow suit with the democracies that are setting the prudent pace.
Noble & Peaceful
For most, the word noble evokes images of something that is dignified and lofty in principles. Peaceful is a quality that inspires harmonious relationships between those whose cultural worldviews might differ. In a disproportionate manner to any other major religion, Islam fails to meet anything akin to those definitions. Its founder, tenets, ancient and recent history and that which it fosters in all too many of its adherents are ignoble and tend to incite hostilities. Hopefully, this article will provide insights that will cause those that have not seen the light about Islam to recognize the absurdities of PC posturing.
Muhammad
The Canadian intellectual, Ali Sina is an X-Muslim of Iranian descent. He has written a psychobiography of Muhammad that is titled, Understanding Muhammad. His well-documented work describes the founder of Islam as a murderer, torturer and rapist whose alleged encounters with Allah and the Archangel Gabriel were symptomatic of temporal lobe epilepsy. He calls into question the PC assertion that Muslim women are treated like queens. To his mind, the tenets of a religion that refers to women as deficient in intelligence and espouses beatings, stoning and honor-killings for women who transgress hardly exemplifies queenly status. He advises the gullible who are taken in by diplomatic smiles of Muslim spokesmen to consider a verse from Islam’s Hadiths. Verily, we smile for some people, while our hearts curse those same people. (Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102)
The former Islamic Terrorist, Walid Shoebat is a Palestinian who has converted to Christianity. One of his recent books is, Why We Want To Kill You. He cleverly points out that a major faux pas of the naïve is to think of Islam as simply a religion. He gives ample proofs that more so than being a religion, from its formative period has been a political movement that demands global submission to its Sharia Law. A mutual friend of his and mine, Abdullah Al-Araby concurs with a quote from an Islamist to a Christian clergyman: “Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.” (The Islamization of America p8)
Shoebat does not deny that there are some Muslims who have secular mindsets. Such don’t mind letting those of other faiths live-and-let-live as they endeavor to do the same. Nonetheless, he emphasizes that it’s impossible to simultaneously be a true Muslim and a moderate. The essence of Islam places humanity in one of two camps.
One side Dar es Salaam, is The House of Peace. It’s the zone where Islam rules. The other side is Dar el Harb, The House of War. It’s the war zone that is occupied by non-Muslims. Their worldview dictates that hostilities will continue between the two until the supremacy of Islam is fully established throughout the world. The history of Islam demonstrates that their common method of transforming nations from the House of War to the House of Peace is through Jihad or holy war. Once a nation is conquered, religious persecution and discrimination are utilized to wear down the population until everyone submits to Islam.
Motivations For Jihad Martyrdom
The PC assertions are that such things as poverty and ignorance are what drive homicide-bombers. That is far from the truth. Those who plan and perpetrate such atrocities are often highly educated, multilingual and skilled in various profitable vocations. Those who kill themselves in suicide missions do so for heavenly rewards. Martyrs are guaranteed instant entrance into Allah’s paradise. Their funerals are celebrated as weddings to the 72 perpetual virgins that await them along with numerous young boys and rivers of wine. To facilitate the sexual stamina required they are taught that each man will maintain a constant state of genital preparedness to equip him for spontaneous sessions of intercourse with partners of both sexes. It’s interesting to note that the things that they decry as the satanic sins of the West are the lures used to prompt suicide-martyrdom to get them into their heaven. (Quran 47:15, 52:24, 56:17, 76:19 and Al Kushk, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, London, 5/11/01)
Dignified?
It is a well-known fact that after the Israelis reclaimed Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, they were faced with an exhaustive clean-up project at the site of the remaining wall of Herod’s temple. For decades the local Muslim Arabs had used the base of the Wailing Wall as a public toilet. This defilement was nothing less than an intentional assault on the Jew’s spiritual history. The Italian journalist, Oriana Fallaci, authored a book titled, Rage and Pride. In vivid, vernacular terms she described how offended she was about immigrant Somali Muslims defiling the grounds of a cathedral in Florence, Italy. They stained the marble edifice with their urine and filled the exterior entrance to the Bishop’s Baptistery with their excrement.
Conclusion
It’s my observation that Sufi Muslims who live in Western democracies are the most predisposed to flow smoothly in multicultural societies. The problem is that Sufis are a minority in the global Muslim population. Therefore, I urge all to explore the validity of what I’ve stated by studying the books and websites of the X-Muslims and Arabic speaking authorities cited in this piece. Just type their names into your Internet search engine. I don’t think many who do so would assess Islam as a noble and peaceful religion. To the contrary, most will recognize that if Islam were extracted from the human equation the globe would be safer and fewer of its masses would be incited to ignoble escapades. The enlightened must be activated to petition their State and Federal officials to come into line with the truth and to quit spouting the PC absurdities.
top
Examining the Absurdities of the Politically Correct Assertions
Jim Croft
Inevitably, whenever the diplomats and national leaders of America and the UK mention Islam they are quick to interject that it’s a noble and peaceful religion that’s been hijacked by extremists. The Aussies, Dutch, Danes and even the French are singing a different tune. Recent media reports indicate that history is teaching them some tough lessons. Such things as Islamic terrorists attacks, riots and looting, honor killings, bulging welfare roles and Islam’s basic tenet that Sharia Law overrides national laws are convincing them that Islam is neither noble nor peaceful.
Australia’s government has issued the decree that any Muslim who is predisposed to apply Sharia Law above its national laws will be deported. Holland’s Minister of the Interior, Hurst Wellers has stated that if Muhammad were a present-day resident of the Netherlands, he would be arrested for inciting terrorism. The Danes are recognizing that their former liberal immigration policies have put their national heritage at risk. They’re instituting stringent laws for welfare recipients and for Muslims that want to bring in family members from abroad. France’s Nicolas Sarkozy won the presidential election on a platform that took a strong stand against Islam’s efforts to replace French values. America and the UK would do well to heed and to follow suit with the democracies that are setting the prudent pace.
Noble & Peaceful
For most, the word noble evokes images of something that is dignified and lofty in principles. Peaceful is a quality that inspires harmonious relationships between those whose cultural worldviews might differ. In a disproportionate manner to any other major religion, Islam fails to meet anything akin to those definitions. Its founder, tenets, ancient and recent history and that which it fosters in all too many of its adherents are ignoble and tend to incite hostilities. Hopefully, this article will provide insights that will cause those that have not seen the light about Islam to recognize the absurdities of PC posturing.
Muhammad
The Canadian intellectual, Ali Sina is an X-Muslim of Iranian descent. He has written a psychobiography of Muhammad that is titled, Understanding Muhammad. His well-documented work describes the founder of Islam as a murderer, torturer and rapist whose alleged encounters with Allah and the Archangel Gabriel were symptomatic of temporal lobe epilepsy. He calls into question the PC assertion that Muslim women are treated like queens. To his mind, the tenets of a religion that refers to women as deficient in intelligence and espouses beatings, stoning and honor-killings for women who transgress hardly exemplifies queenly status. He advises the gullible who are taken in by diplomatic smiles of Muslim spokesmen to consider a verse from Islam’s Hadiths. Verily, we smile for some people, while our hearts curse those same people. (Sahih al-Bukhari, v7, p102)
The former Islamic Terrorist, Walid Shoebat is a Palestinian who has converted to Christianity. One of his recent books is, Why We Want To Kill You. He cleverly points out that a major faux pas of the naïve is to think of Islam as simply a religion. He gives ample proofs that more so than being a religion, from its formative period has been a political movement that demands global submission to its Sharia Law. A mutual friend of his and mine, Abdullah Al-Araby concurs with a quote from an Islamist to a Christian clergyman: “Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.” (The Islamization of America p8)
Shoebat does not deny that there are some Muslims who have secular mindsets. Such don’t mind letting those of other faiths live-and-let-live as they endeavor to do the same. Nonetheless, he emphasizes that it’s impossible to simultaneously be a true Muslim and a moderate. The essence of Islam places humanity in one of two camps.
One side Dar es Salaam, is The House of Peace. It’s the zone where Islam rules. The other side is Dar el Harb, The House of War. It’s the war zone that is occupied by non-Muslims. Their worldview dictates that hostilities will continue between the two until the supremacy of Islam is fully established throughout the world. The history of Islam demonstrates that their common method of transforming nations from the House of War to the House of Peace is through Jihad or holy war. Once a nation is conquered, religious persecution and discrimination are utilized to wear down the population until everyone submits to Islam.
Motivations For Jihad Martyrdom
The PC assertions are that such things as poverty and ignorance are what drive homicide-bombers. That is far from the truth. Those who plan and perpetrate such atrocities are often highly educated, multilingual and skilled in various profitable vocations. Those who kill themselves in suicide missions do so for heavenly rewards. Martyrs are guaranteed instant entrance into Allah’s paradise. Their funerals are celebrated as weddings to the 72 perpetual virgins that await them along with numerous young boys and rivers of wine. To facilitate the sexual stamina required they are taught that each man will maintain a constant state of genital preparedness to equip him for spontaneous sessions of intercourse with partners of both sexes. It’s interesting to note that the things that they decry as the satanic sins of the West are the lures used to prompt suicide-martyrdom to get them into their heaven. (Quran 47:15, 52:24, 56:17, 76:19 and Al Kushk, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, London, 5/11/01)
Dignified?
It is a well-known fact that after the Israelis reclaimed Jerusalem in the Six-Day War, they were faced with an exhaustive clean-up project at the site of the remaining wall of Herod’s temple. For decades the local Muslim Arabs had used the base of the Wailing Wall as a public toilet. This defilement was nothing less than an intentional assault on the Jew’s spiritual history. The Italian journalist, Oriana Fallaci, authored a book titled, Rage and Pride. In vivid, vernacular terms she described how offended she was about immigrant Somali Muslims defiling the grounds of a cathedral in Florence, Italy. They stained the marble edifice with their urine and filled the exterior entrance to the Bishop’s Baptistery with their excrement.
Conclusion
It’s my observation that Sufi Muslims who live in Western democracies are the most predisposed to flow smoothly in multicultural societies. The problem is that Sufis are a minority in the global Muslim population. Therefore, I urge all to explore the validity of what I’ve stated by studying the books and websites of the X-Muslims and Arabic speaking authorities cited in this piece. Just type their names into your Internet search engine. I don’t think many who do so would assess Islam as a noble and peaceful religion. To the contrary, most will recognize that if Islam were extracted from the human equation the globe would be safer and fewer of its masses would be incited to ignoble escapades. The enlightened must be activated to petition their State and Federal officials to come into line with the truth and to quit spouting the PC absurdities.
top
Islam Cult-ish?
Islam Cult-ish?
Apologetic for a Black pastor who dared speak his mind about Islam
By Jim Croft
Beginning in July of 2006, the Liberal Media and Islamic activists have intermittently blasted a black S. Florida clergyman. He’s the Rev. Dr. O’Neal Dozier of The Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach. Dozier has drawn fire for exercising his freedom of speech rights about two interrelated things. He voiced opposition to the city’s zoning board granting a building permit to a mosque in a location that had been closed to doing the same for Christian churches for years. Secondly, in the context of a phone interview for a radio talk show about his complaints to the zoning committee, he committed a politically incorrect blunder. In response to the host’s unanticipated inquiry about what he thought about Islam, Dozier offered that in his personal opinion Islam was a very dangerous and evil cult.
Revoked freedom of speech rights
That single response catapulted him into the vicious zone of political disfavor. Previously, he had been a heavy hitter in Florida’s Conservative politics. He was a buddy of Governor Jeb Bush and a key player in the elections of G.W. Bush and of Charles Chris as the State’s chief executive. Those whom he championed against the tide of political opinion among his fellow Blacks were unwilling to champion him against the tide of the opinions of the PC crowd and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations).
Upon hearing about his plight, I searched the Internet about what characteristics define a group as cultic. I discovered that most of the sites listed 6-10 warning signs of a cult and/or a bad religion. I also discovered that Islam routinely succeeds in satisfying 80% of the most commonly cited red flags. Any objective person who knows anything about Islam’s ancient and recent history could easily concur with Pastor Dozier’s assessment. If one accepts the cult experts’ criterion for discerning cults, Islam at best qualifies as cult-ish and at worst as a bad religion.
Disproportionate numbers
I’m not saying that all Muslims are cultist or that every Imam/Mullah (cleric) of every mosque espouses destructive views. However, I am saying that within Islam the number of mosques that incite Muslims to hold and act upon dangerous, cult-like worldviews is disproportionate in comparison with their counterparts within Christianity. The global population of Christianity’s Catholics and Protestants is 2.1 billion. The various sects of Islam number 1.3 billion. As it is with Christianity, so it is with Islam; the denominations/sects of each have conflicting views about doctrinal matters. But there are distinctions in the manner in which the respective Faiths handle such issues. Catholics criticize the Protestants for not honoring Mary and Protestants do the same about the Catholics’ veneration of Mary. Regardless of the opposing views, one rarely hears about incidents of bloodshed over such things.
Not so with Islam. If an influential Christian, Jew or Muslim of another sect publicly states contrary views; Fatwas (condemnation decrees including assassination) will ensue along with massive rioting in the city streets of the offended sect. Remember the Muslim outrage about the Danish newspaper cartoon and the lecture statements of the new Pope. Contrary to PC posturing, there were not just a few isolated incidents of a few Muslim fundamentalists threatening bloodshed over those matters. Numerous sectors of the Islamic world exploded in vehement protests.
If the shoe fits
Every year tens of thousands of Muslims butcher hundreds of thousands of their fellow Muslims over doctrinal disagreements. Such is a primary element between Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites that compels them to roadside bomb one another into oblivion. There have been reports in the USA of those sects vandalizing one another’s mosques and businesses. Similar things are inciting Muslim on Muslim genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. In the recent history of Christendom there are no parallels for such atrocities in the name of God. During the entirety of the Catholic – Protestant troubles in Northern Ireland there were fewer casualties than there are every month between the world’s Islamic sects.
Do the math
Years ago, the Jonestown mass suicide of 900 people was rightly labeled as the spawn of cult doctrines. Throughout the Middle East Muslims use the Quran and the sayings of Mohammad to justify suicide/homicide bombings. Inspired by the revelations of Mohammad the Saudis and Iranians finance such things and Muslim mothers encourage their children to volunteer for suicide missions. According to the Fox News special Radical Islam, poles among the world’s heaviest Muslim concentrations; 60-70% endorse suicide bombings. Yet, no one is allowed to refer to the culprit religion as a cult. If Mohammad, his Quran, Hadiths, Imams and religion were extracted from the human equation, the planet would instantly be a safer and more peaceful place. An old cliché dictates that if a thing has wings and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. There is no reasonable explanation for that same principle not being applicable to any major religion that exhibits cult-ish propensities. For sure Islam is way outside of the Bell Curve in its percentages of adherents and houses of worship that exhibit cult-like characteristics in comparison to other leading religions. It certainly has the wings and quacks of a cult-ish and/or a bad religion.
Signs following
Let us now explore how Islam, Mohammad and the contemporary heroes of the Muslim world would fare if the plumb line of the warning signs of a cult were dropped on them. This list is the gist of the various experts’ main red flag indicators of a cult.
1. A charismatic founder/leader who claims revelations that override those of other recognized religions. - Mohammad and/or his successors proclaimed that Allah and the Archangel Gabriel/Holy Spirit gave him revelations that surpassed those of Christianity and Judaism. He espoused that his prophetic mantle and apostleship trumped that of all who came before him. Contemporary Islam is loaded with charismatic political-religious leaders who cite Mohammad’s revelations/sayings to captivate the masses and to extend their agendas. Hezbollah’s Sayyed Nasrallah, al-Queda’s Ben Laden, Iraq’s al-Sader and Iran’s Ahmadinejad are examples. No other major religion has primary spokesmen who use the name of God and holy writ to invoke murder and mayhem.
2. The use of deception – Blacks that are targeted for conversion are frequently told that Mohammad was black and that Islam originated in Africa. Of course, those statements are blatant lies. In the same vein they neglect to divulge that Mohammad owned black slaves. There is no mention of Islam’s founder making denigrating remarks about people of color; he referred to them as raisin heads. Every effort is made to hide the fact that the first level of the slave trade was primarily a Muslim enterprise. The Arabic word for a slave and the color black are identical, Abd. Were it not for Muslim slave traders purchasing the captives of African chieftain’s inner-tribal raids, 14 million plus hapless souls would not have been crammed into European slave ships. Certain verses are drastically altered in Western translations of the Quran to disguise its barbarisms. Prospective converts are led to the verses that Mohammad penned while in Mecca. Those initial verses appear peaceful and conciliatory in regard to other religions. Wanna-be Muslims are not shown the later cruel verses that were written after the self-proclaimed prophet moved his headquarters to Medina. Furthermore, there is no mention of the Islamic principle that abrogates/nullifies the Mecca verses in lieu of the conflicting major portions of the Quran that were written in Medina. (Yes, the Bible has portions that have and do incite cruel and unusual views. The difference is, those portions of the Old Testament are abrogated by the grace-based doctrines of the New Testament. Unlike the Bible, the Quran got progressively more primitive rather than less so with its various installments). Islam is boasted as the world’s fastest growing religion. Such assertions are belied in that the Al Jazeera news network recently confided that Muslims are converting to Christianity at the alarming rate of 6 million per year. Muslim spiritual leaders can lie to non-Muslims with no pangs of conscience because of the Islamic principle called Al Takeyya. Among other motivations, it deems lying appropriate in any circumstance perceived to extend the purposes of Islam. More importantly, the holy books of Islam state that Allah himself is the arch-deceiver/trickster. That gives many Islamists license to lie; saying one thing to Western news agencies and diplomats and just the opposite behind closed doors to fellow Muslims.
3. Exclusivity and intolerance for other Faiths – Jews and Christians are referred to as pigs and worse. There are Quranic verses that forbid cultivating friendships with them. The Khomeini’s and Caliphs of Islamic nations strictly regulate the activities of Faiths other than their own. Bibles have to be smuggled into Iran to satisfy the needs of the huge numbers of progressive minded Muslims who are converting to Christianity. Egyptian Christians cannot even repair a church without going through a complicated governmental licensing process; much less build a new one. Saudi Arabia forbids Christian meetings and non-Muslim women must comply with Sharia dress codes whenever in public. Generally speaking, Christians primarily use their houses of worship on Sundays, Jews on Saturdays and Muslims on Friday. Christians and Jews are known to permit the use of their facilities by other religious groups. One would be hard pressed to find a US mosque that would do so. Such is non-existent in any country where Islam is the major religion. During most any given week there are news clips of multiplied thousands of Muslims of this Islamic stronghold or that, bellowing frenzied chants of hatred for Jews and Christianized nations. In countries that are predominantly Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian, the respective spiritual leaders of those Faiths simply don’t incite massive demonstrations of that character. Muslims are conditioned by their spiritual leaders to believe that all who don’t believe in Allah, Mohammad as his prophet and the coming judgment day are infidels.
4. Obsession with conspiracy plots about the potential for those of other Faiths to target the group for religious-political persecutions. In reaction to such myths, cults commonly advocate the takeover of established governments via political clout and guerilla style insurrections - This point is a major component in fueling international Islamic terrorism. The news agencies of Westernized/Christianized nations frequently report the alarming numbers of militant Muslim groups and Mosques that are plotting the overthrow of democratic rule. In the UK, the USA and Australia the reported numbers of such exceeds tens of thousands. No one can deny that a major tenet of Mohammad’s Quran, his Hadiths, his successors and the religion that he spawned is Religious-State governments. Without question there are fringe, wacko Christian groups in the USA with members from other Faith backgrounds. But, there are distinctions between such groups and those of Islam. Though America’s population of 290 million predominantly consists of people of Christian heritage; such produce only a minuscule number of aberrant Christian groups in comparison to the number Islam fosters. The US population of Muslims is only around 8 million and it produces, harbors and funds thousands of individuals who are involved in militant-religious/terrorist organizations. This numeric phenomenon is present in every democratic country that has welcomed Muslim immigrants. In a disproportionate manner, fewer Muslims consistently produce more religion inspired militants than greater numbers of Christians produce. Such realties heavily indicate that there is something inherent with Islam that inclines its adherents to cultivate more aberrational groups than any other major religion.
5. Drastic changes in such things as behavior, attitudes and dress that alienate new members from their friends and families - I submit beards, burkas, hijab head coverings, 5 mandatory daily prayer sessions in Arabic, fasting during Ramadan and acute condemnation of anyone who does not embrace the Quran.
6. Easy-to-join-hard-to-get-out policies – All it takes to become a Muslim is to publicly recite the Shahada 3 times. Leaving Islam for another religion and/or aiding and abetting a Muslim in doing so carries one penalty, death. Islam’s holy writings are manuals for exemplary Muslim life and attitudes. From those volumes, Arabic scholars list 35,213 references to such things as fighting, murder, bloodshed, the use of weapons and so forth. America has Hate-crime legislation. Should it be applied to those who advocate the inflammatory portions of Islam’s manuals; significant percentages of visa holding Islamic students, clerics and activists; and many second generation American Muslims might risk incarceration. At this writing, 8,000 of such are being tracked in the UK by counter-terrorism agencies.
7. Documented reports from ex-members and televised documentaries about brainwashing, physical abuse and hostile conspiracies against established governments - Beginning post 9/11/2001, such reports have escalated every year. The books, magazine articles and radio interviews that verify such things abound throughout civilized nations. The evidence is so compelling that even TV networks that prefer PC posturing in regard to Islam are airing documentaries about the prevalence of brainwashing. Insanely hateful indoctrinations begin during children’s nursery school years and continue into adulthood in Muslim fundamentalists regimes, mosques, madrasses and organizations. There is a secular website that features the testimonies and assessments of ex-Muslims about Islam. Intellectuals write most of the articles and what they say about Islam makes everything in this article seem pale. Such are exiting Islam by the droves. The views stated by these brave ex-Muslims carry a unique challenge. If any party can prove any of their assertions/complaints about Islam false, they will remove the entire website from the Internet. Curiously, the website is blocked in Islamic nations.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm
Imagine
Lets fast forward Mohammad into the 21rst Century. We’ll call him Rev. Moh who has founded a splinter group from Evangelical Christianity. Then take all the facts known about the life and exploits of 7th Century Mohammad and his successors and throw that into the mix. Add in any of the cited warning signs of a cult that you think are applicable to Islam. Now imagine that one of the journalists or politicians who has defamed Pastor Dozier for calling Islam a cult has an adult-child. Suppose that loved one joined our imaginary sect. What would be the parental reaction? Calling 911, the FBI and arranging a kidnapping by a cult-deprogramming unit would be heavy favorites under consideration.
Concluding Q & A
Western democracies have multiple governmental and private agencies that aid families in rescuing and deprogramming relatives from cults and their counterproductive doctrines. Most of the deprogrammers use the basic tenets of Judea-Christian values to rectify deranged thinking. I’m not aware of Islam having corresponding agencies that utilize the basic doctrines of the Quran to similarly deprogram members of their aberrant organizations. Why? Could it be that knowledgeable Muslims know something that pluralistic-minded Americans are unwilling to admit? Religious intolerance, gender bias, cruel and unusual punishments, emotional and physical abuse and advocating a world takeover are representative of the real Islam. The academics are likely fully aware that the entirety of what the Quran and the Hadiths state and what the life of Mohammad mirrored, will inevitably spawn significant numbers of people who defy 21rst Century human rights sensitivities. Provided even half of what ex-Muslims report and what the documentaries depict about Islam are accurate, it has and does produce far more cult-ish organizations than all other religions combined.
Apologetic for a Black pastor who dared speak his mind about Islam
By Jim Croft
Beginning in July of 2006, the Liberal Media and Islamic activists have intermittently blasted a black S. Florida clergyman. He’s the Rev. Dr. O’Neal Dozier of The Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach. Dozier has drawn fire for exercising his freedom of speech rights about two interrelated things. He voiced opposition to the city’s zoning board granting a building permit to a mosque in a location that had been closed to doing the same for Christian churches for years. Secondly, in the context of a phone interview for a radio talk show about his complaints to the zoning committee, he committed a politically incorrect blunder. In response to the host’s unanticipated inquiry about what he thought about Islam, Dozier offered that in his personal opinion Islam was a very dangerous and evil cult.
Revoked freedom of speech rights
That single response catapulted him into the vicious zone of political disfavor. Previously, he had been a heavy hitter in Florida’s Conservative politics. He was a buddy of Governor Jeb Bush and a key player in the elections of G.W. Bush and of Charles Chris as the State’s chief executive. Those whom he championed against the tide of political opinion among his fellow Blacks were unwilling to champion him against the tide of the opinions of the PC crowd and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations).
Upon hearing about his plight, I searched the Internet about what characteristics define a group as cultic. I discovered that most of the sites listed 6-10 warning signs of a cult and/or a bad religion. I also discovered that Islam routinely succeeds in satisfying 80% of the most commonly cited red flags. Any objective person who knows anything about Islam’s ancient and recent history could easily concur with Pastor Dozier’s assessment. If one accepts the cult experts’ criterion for discerning cults, Islam at best qualifies as cult-ish and at worst as a bad religion.
Disproportionate numbers
I’m not saying that all Muslims are cultist or that every Imam/Mullah (cleric) of every mosque espouses destructive views. However, I am saying that within Islam the number of mosques that incite Muslims to hold and act upon dangerous, cult-like worldviews is disproportionate in comparison with their counterparts within Christianity. The global population of Christianity’s Catholics and Protestants is 2.1 billion. The various sects of Islam number 1.3 billion. As it is with Christianity, so it is with Islam; the denominations/sects of each have conflicting views about doctrinal matters. But there are distinctions in the manner in which the respective Faiths handle such issues. Catholics criticize the Protestants for not honoring Mary and Protestants do the same about the Catholics’ veneration of Mary. Regardless of the opposing views, one rarely hears about incidents of bloodshed over such things.
Not so with Islam. If an influential Christian, Jew or Muslim of another sect publicly states contrary views; Fatwas (condemnation decrees including assassination) will ensue along with massive rioting in the city streets of the offended sect. Remember the Muslim outrage about the Danish newspaper cartoon and the lecture statements of the new Pope. Contrary to PC posturing, there were not just a few isolated incidents of a few Muslim fundamentalists threatening bloodshed over those matters. Numerous sectors of the Islamic world exploded in vehement protests.
If the shoe fits
Every year tens of thousands of Muslims butcher hundreds of thousands of their fellow Muslims over doctrinal disagreements. Such is a primary element between Iraq’s Sunnis and Shiites that compels them to roadside bomb one another into oblivion. There have been reports in the USA of those sects vandalizing one another’s mosques and businesses. Similar things are inciting Muslim on Muslim genocide in the Darfur region of the Sudan. In the recent history of Christendom there are no parallels for such atrocities in the name of God. During the entirety of the Catholic – Protestant troubles in Northern Ireland there were fewer casualties than there are every month between the world’s Islamic sects.
Do the math
Years ago, the Jonestown mass suicide of 900 people was rightly labeled as the spawn of cult doctrines. Throughout the Middle East Muslims use the Quran and the sayings of Mohammad to justify suicide/homicide bombings. Inspired by the revelations of Mohammad the Saudis and Iranians finance such things and Muslim mothers encourage their children to volunteer for suicide missions. According to the Fox News special Radical Islam, poles among the world’s heaviest Muslim concentrations; 60-70% endorse suicide bombings. Yet, no one is allowed to refer to the culprit religion as a cult. If Mohammad, his Quran, Hadiths, Imams and religion were extracted from the human equation, the planet would instantly be a safer and more peaceful place. An old cliché dictates that if a thing has wings and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. There is no reasonable explanation for that same principle not being applicable to any major religion that exhibits cult-ish propensities. For sure Islam is way outside of the Bell Curve in its percentages of adherents and houses of worship that exhibit cult-like characteristics in comparison to other leading religions. It certainly has the wings and quacks of a cult-ish and/or a bad religion.
Signs following
Let us now explore how Islam, Mohammad and the contemporary heroes of the Muslim world would fare if the plumb line of the warning signs of a cult were dropped on them. This list is the gist of the various experts’ main red flag indicators of a cult.
1. A charismatic founder/leader who claims revelations that override those of other recognized religions. - Mohammad and/or his successors proclaimed that Allah and the Archangel Gabriel/Holy Spirit gave him revelations that surpassed those of Christianity and Judaism. He espoused that his prophetic mantle and apostleship trumped that of all who came before him. Contemporary Islam is loaded with charismatic political-religious leaders who cite Mohammad’s revelations/sayings to captivate the masses and to extend their agendas. Hezbollah’s Sayyed Nasrallah, al-Queda’s Ben Laden, Iraq’s al-Sader and Iran’s Ahmadinejad are examples. No other major religion has primary spokesmen who use the name of God and holy writ to invoke murder and mayhem.
2. The use of deception – Blacks that are targeted for conversion are frequently told that Mohammad was black and that Islam originated in Africa. Of course, those statements are blatant lies. In the same vein they neglect to divulge that Mohammad owned black slaves. There is no mention of Islam’s founder making denigrating remarks about people of color; he referred to them as raisin heads. Every effort is made to hide the fact that the first level of the slave trade was primarily a Muslim enterprise. The Arabic word for a slave and the color black are identical, Abd. Were it not for Muslim slave traders purchasing the captives of African chieftain’s inner-tribal raids, 14 million plus hapless souls would not have been crammed into European slave ships. Certain verses are drastically altered in Western translations of the Quran to disguise its barbarisms. Prospective converts are led to the verses that Mohammad penned while in Mecca. Those initial verses appear peaceful and conciliatory in regard to other religions. Wanna-be Muslims are not shown the later cruel verses that were written after the self-proclaimed prophet moved his headquarters to Medina. Furthermore, there is no mention of the Islamic principle that abrogates/nullifies the Mecca verses in lieu of the conflicting major portions of the Quran that were written in Medina. (Yes, the Bible has portions that have and do incite cruel and unusual views. The difference is, those portions of the Old Testament are abrogated by the grace-based doctrines of the New Testament. Unlike the Bible, the Quran got progressively more primitive rather than less so with its various installments). Islam is boasted as the world’s fastest growing religion. Such assertions are belied in that the Al Jazeera news network recently confided that Muslims are converting to Christianity at the alarming rate of 6 million per year. Muslim spiritual leaders can lie to non-Muslims with no pangs of conscience because of the Islamic principle called Al Takeyya. Among other motivations, it deems lying appropriate in any circumstance perceived to extend the purposes of Islam. More importantly, the holy books of Islam state that Allah himself is the arch-deceiver/trickster. That gives many Islamists license to lie; saying one thing to Western news agencies and diplomats and just the opposite behind closed doors to fellow Muslims.
3. Exclusivity and intolerance for other Faiths – Jews and Christians are referred to as pigs and worse. There are Quranic verses that forbid cultivating friendships with them. The Khomeini’s and Caliphs of Islamic nations strictly regulate the activities of Faiths other than their own. Bibles have to be smuggled into Iran to satisfy the needs of the huge numbers of progressive minded Muslims who are converting to Christianity. Egyptian Christians cannot even repair a church without going through a complicated governmental licensing process; much less build a new one. Saudi Arabia forbids Christian meetings and non-Muslim women must comply with Sharia dress codes whenever in public. Generally speaking, Christians primarily use their houses of worship on Sundays, Jews on Saturdays and Muslims on Friday. Christians and Jews are known to permit the use of their facilities by other religious groups. One would be hard pressed to find a US mosque that would do so. Such is non-existent in any country where Islam is the major religion. During most any given week there are news clips of multiplied thousands of Muslims of this Islamic stronghold or that, bellowing frenzied chants of hatred for Jews and Christianized nations. In countries that are predominantly Buddhist, Hindu, or Christian, the respective spiritual leaders of those Faiths simply don’t incite massive demonstrations of that character. Muslims are conditioned by their spiritual leaders to believe that all who don’t believe in Allah, Mohammad as his prophet and the coming judgment day are infidels.
4. Obsession with conspiracy plots about the potential for those of other Faiths to target the group for religious-political persecutions. In reaction to such myths, cults commonly advocate the takeover of established governments via political clout and guerilla style insurrections - This point is a major component in fueling international Islamic terrorism. The news agencies of Westernized/Christianized nations frequently report the alarming numbers of militant Muslim groups and Mosques that are plotting the overthrow of democratic rule. In the UK, the USA and Australia the reported numbers of such exceeds tens of thousands. No one can deny that a major tenet of Mohammad’s Quran, his Hadiths, his successors and the religion that he spawned is Religious-State governments. Without question there are fringe, wacko Christian groups in the USA with members from other Faith backgrounds. But, there are distinctions between such groups and those of Islam. Though America’s population of 290 million predominantly consists of people of Christian heritage; such produce only a minuscule number of aberrant Christian groups in comparison to the number Islam fosters. The US population of Muslims is only around 8 million and it produces, harbors and funds thousands of individuals who are involved in militant-religious/terrorist organizations. This numeric phenomenon is present in every democratic country that has welcomed Muslim immigrants. In a disproportionate manner, fewer Muslims consistently produce more religion inspired militants than greater numbers of Christians produce. Such realties heavily indicate that there is something inherent with Islam that inclines its adherents to cultivate more aberrational groups than any other major religion.
5. Drastic changes in such things as behavior, attitudes and dress that alienate new members from their friends and families - I submit beards, burkas, hijab head coverings, 5 mandatory daily prayer sessions in Arabic, fasting during Ramadan and acute condemnation of anyone who does not embrace the Quran.
6. Easy-to-join-hard-to-get-out policies – All it takes to become a Muslim is to publicly recite the Shahada 3 times. Leaving Islam for another religion and/or aiding and abetting a Muslim in doing so carries one penalty, death. Islam’s holy writings are manuals for exemplary Muslim life and attitudes. From those volumes, Arabic scholars list 35,213 references to such things as fighting, murder, bloodshed, the use of weapons and so forth. America has Hate-crime legislation. Should it be applied to those who advocate the inflammatory portions of Islam’s manuals; significant percentages of visa holding Islamic students, clerics and activists; and many second generation American Muslims might risk incarceration. At this writing, 8,000 of such are being tracked in the UK by counter-terrorism agencies.
7. Documented reports from ex-members and televised documentaries about brainwashing, physical abuse and hostile conspiracies against established governments - Beginning post 9/11/2001, such reports have escalated every year. The books, magazine articles and radio interviews that verify such things abound throughout civilized nations. The evidence is so compelling that even TV networks that prefer PC posturing in regard to Islam are airing documentaries about the prevalence of brainwashing. Insanely hateful indoctrinations begin during children’s nursery school years and continue into adulthood in Muslim fundamentalists regimes, mosques, madrasses and organizations. There is a secular website that features the testimonies and assessments of ex-Muslims about Islam. Intellectuals write most of the articles and what they say about Islam makes everything in this article seem pale. Such are exiting Islam by the droves. The views stated by these brave ex-Muslims carry a unique challenge. If any party can prove any of their assertions/complaints about Islam false, they will remove the entire website from the Internet. Curiously, the website is blocked in Islamic nations.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm
Imagine
Lets fast forward Mohammad into the 21rst Century. We’ll call him Rev. Moh who has founded a splinter group from Evangelical Christianity. Then take all the facts known about the life and exploits of 7th Century Mohammad and his successors and throw that into the mix. Add in any of the cited warning signs of a cult that you think are applicable to Islam. Now imagine that one of the journalists or politicians who has defamed Pastor Dozier for calling Islam a cult has an adult-child. Suppose that loved one joined our imaginary sect. What would be the parental reaction? Calling 911, the FBI and arranging a kidnapping by a cult-deprogramming unit would be heavy favorites under consideration.
Concluding Q & A
Western democracies have multiple governmental and private agencies that aid families in rescuing and deprogramming relatives from cults and their counterproductive doctrines. Most of the deprogrammers use the basic tenets of Judea-Christian values to rectify deranged thinking. I’m not aware of Islam having corresponding agencies that utilize the basic doctrines of the Quran to similarly deprogram members of their aberrant organizations. Why? Could it be that knowledgeable Muslims know something that pluralistic-minded Americans are unwilling to admit? Religious intolerance, gender bias, cruel and unusual punishments, emotional and physical abuse and advocating a world takeover are representative of the real Islam. The academics are likely fully aware that the entirety of what the Quran and the Hadiths state and what the life of Mohammad mirrored, will inevitably spawn significant numbers of people who defy 21rst Century human rights sensitivities. Provided even half of what ex-Muslims report and what the documentaries depict about Islam are accurate, it has and does produce far more cult-ish organizations than all other religions combined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)