I know that many will attack this as hate speech and me as a racist but that is not the case. However, I see much dishonesty in Islam’s representatives. Making that observation does not make me a bigot. Attacking me is just is the typical weak Muslim defense and is an indication of the dishonesty of the Ummah. The first lie is to say that Islam is the Religion of Peace. Although, if what I have presented here is true then perhaps I’d be foolish not to hate Islam.
As it is, I have no reason to hate but I am critical of the religion. So let’s leave that attack at the door.
I welcome anyone to prove me wrong in a non violent manner provided that Islam is indeed the Religion of Peace.
But the thing is is that I don’t think anyone can...
This is the core of Muslim belief...
Saying that the enemies of Islam (or non believers) are ignorant is establishing a core belief of Islam. That non believers are inferior and being inferior are targeted to be mocked, deceived and lied to.
3:110 – “You are the best nation ever to be produced before mankind. You enjoin the right, forbid the wrong and believe in Allah. If the People of the Book were to believe, it would be better for them. Some of them are believers...”
People of the Book then, are also inferior *AND* have corrupted the scripture. On a side note that since the Renaissance, Christendom and Islam have been going in the opposite directions. It’s clear that today, no Muslim nation can be considered close to even one of the best produced before mankind.
5:13 – “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.”
It’s quite easy to pardon them while beating them into submission.
So the first question is what makes enemies of Islam? Or what threatens the Ummah? Sin threatens the Ummah; something that goes against Muslim sensibilities. Anything that brings sin amongst the Ummah then threatens it, whether it may be unintentional in a peaceful pilgrimage or all the way up to a violent invasion. And of course, some things are subjective as to what constitutes a threat, although there could never be any confusion when it comes to the major sins. And the next question is how do non believers become enemies of Islam? The answer then is that they are already enemies of Islam (their existence creates mischief through the land) and not to obey Muslims or to convert (emigrate) keeps them enemies. By not emigrating, the non believer remains in sin. That is very straight forward. There is no confusion here. That shows the ultimate of hatred and intolerance (xenophobia) toward non Muslims.
When Muslim and non believer mix, can only bring the beginnings of Muslims straying from Islamic dogma. It encourages the Muslim to think differently, to think for themselves. Most in the West will ask what’s wrong with that?
From a pro Islamic website (http://www.islam44.n...s-in-islam.html) lists 10 major sins in Islam. I will not argue that some could modify this list, there are something like 70 sins overall. But the first one seems to always be at the top of any list you look at.
1) Shirk
2) To not call kafir, a kafir
3) Blasphemy
4) Renouncing Islam (Apostasy)
5) Innovation (Bida)
6) Rejection of hadith
7) Murder
8) Suspicions
9) Lies and back biting
10) Jadu-magic
Of these top ten, let’s look at several.
1) Shirk (ascribing partners with Allah).
In short, this would be the equivalent of making Jesus, Buddha, or even Brahma equal to Allah. The rest of the world would accept this, except for Islam. Ideally, this would occur [in Muslim nations] when the non Muslim population gets more than say 10%. At that point the non Muslim faith reaches a critical mass that would start influencing the laws and attitudes of the Muslims away from Allah. That threatens the Ummah. This is what Muslims do in other non Muslim nations. By the time the local Muslim community reaches 5% or 6%, they start making major demands in changing the laws and culture instead of absorbing into their new culture. They start demanding that Sharia Law is brought into the land. That is intolerant and shows disrespect to the new host nation. The only reason to do that is a precursor to invasion and conquest. Invasion and conquest does not need to start with air strikes. If these nations had the same laws as in Islam then the Muslim troublemakers would be put to death.
4:116 – “Indeed, Allah does not forgive association with Him, but He forgives what is less than that for whom He wills. And he who associates others with Allah has certainly gone far astray.”
5:72 – “… Indeed, he who associates others with Allah - Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.”
Close to Shirk is Idolatry. When the Taliban took control in Afghanistan, they destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan. That was a crime against humanity. The US Supreme Court building has a frieze in the main chamber honoring 18 law givers from history. One is Mohammed, putting Islam on an equal footing with the others, especially Mosses and Jesus. If Muslims ever conquer the US, this will be one of the first buildings torn down, not only because of Shirk but also of Idolatry.
16:36 (mc) – “And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], "Worship Allah and avoid Taghut. …"”
2) To not call kafir, a kafir.
First off, yes Kafir is a very derogatory reference. The language of Islam is dualistic. As an example, there is never any reference to humanity as a unified whole. Instead there is a division into the Ummah and kafir (non believer). Humanity is not seen as one body, but is divided into whether the person believes Mohammed is the prophet of Allah or not (dar al-Islam vs dar al-Harb). This sets up a legal situation in the Quran of how Muslims are to treat Muslims (represented by peaceful ayahs) and how Muslims are to treat non Muslims (represented by violent ayahs). This is also how Muslims confuse non Muslims because non Muslims think in terms of the whole of humanity.
40:35 (mc) – “Those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without an authority having come to them - great is hatred [of them] in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who have believed. Thus does Allah seal over every heart [belonging to] an arrogant tyrant.”
83:34 (mc) – “So Today those who believed are laughing at the disbelievers,”
25:77 (mc) – “Say, "What would my Lord care for you if not for your supplication?" For you [disbelievers] have denied, so your denial is going to be adherent.”
5:33 – “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption (mischief through the land) is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,”
3:28 – “Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination.”
And of course:
9:29 – “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.”
All throughout the Quran, it states that the non believer is inferior and deserves ridicule and death in this life and the next. How anyone can say that that is misinterpreting the scripture has never presented a logical reason why this is wrong. Any such argument usually leads to Muslims retreating into a defense mode. This action reveals that there is something to the claim and that they can’t put up a defense.
4) Renouncing Islam (Apostasy).
16:106 (mc) –“Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief... except for one who is forced [to renounce his religion] while his heart is secure in faith. But those who [willingly] open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah , and for them is a great punishment;”
4:89 – “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.”
The first ayah is ambiguous enough to claim this is punishment in the afterlife. But it does introduce the concepts of Taqiya and Kitman. Taqiya is basically to lie about your faith and Kitman is to pay lip service to the local non Muslim authority; both techniques Muslims will try to use to discredit this treatise. The second one clearly states punishment in this life. What’s also interesting is that Allah forced them to disbelieve and then ordered their deaths. For a clearer picture, I have this current incident that happened a few years ago, that helps explain the Muslim mindset.
In 2007, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, stated In regard to a Muslim’s right to renounce Islam and to join another (apostasy), his initial rulings sounded lenient. The Washington Post-Newsweek forum in English was one of the forums that published his decisions. BTW, he is Sunni (Shafi’i).
“The essential question before us is: Can a person who is a Muslim choose a religion other than Islam? The answer is yes, they can, because the Quran says, ‘Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion,’ (Quran 109:6mc) and, ‘Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosever will, let him disbelieve,’ (Quran18:29mc) and, ‘There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is distinct from error’ (Quran 2:256).”
He added, “These verses from the Quran discuss a freedom that God affords all people. But from a religious prospective, the act of abandoning one’s religion is a sin punishable by God on the Day of Judgment. If the case in Question is one of merely rejecting faith, then there is no worldly punishment.” He went on to state, “If, however, the crime of undermining the foundations of the society is added to the sin of apostasy, then the case must be referred to a judicial system whose role is to protect the integrity of the society…..According to Islam, it is not permitted for Muslims to reject their faith, so if a Muslim were to leave Islam and adopt another religion, they would thereby be committing a sin in the eyes of Islam. Religious belief and practice is a personal matter, and society only intervenes when that personal matter becomes public and threatens the well-being of its members.”
A few days later, the Grand Mufti, issued another statement. This time he was speaking in Arabic in Cairo and what he said was completely different: “What I actually said was that Islam prohibits a Muslim from changing his religion and it’s a crime that must be punished.”
One of the first things to notice is that 2:256 never defines what is meant by “The right direction is distinct” to the non believer – what is the right direction? The non believer will insert their own understanding here and that is the desired affect because now, the rest of his message is hidden. The next part of his statement is double talk. “A freedom that God affords all people” does sound inviting but when you consider that Allah allows non believers (when he isn’t forcing them not to) to reject the true faith are condemned. And then states that “But from a religious prospective…” that at least Muslims are not afforded this freedom. But because most non believers do not understand the hierarchy Muslims put on humanity, it sounds perfectly intuitive to them. The next part, he distinguishes “merely rejecting faith” from “the sin of apostasy”. This plays on the sensibilities of the non believer. Knowing that in Islam there are situations where one can publicly reject the faith but it’s not what the non believer understands that to mean. The sin of apostasy is a threat to the foundation of the Ummah; the Muslim society is in danger and must be defended. It cannot allow even just one to leave the faith. And that will usually lead condemnation in a “Muslim” judicial system and probably put to death. In Christianity, people are free to come and go within the faith. Or more precisely, the culture. There are no more witch hunts for non believers.
5) Innovation. (Bida).
In this context, Bida Sayyiah refers to adding something that changes the meaning in the Quran in a meaningful way (detrimental). It is the opposite of Hasanah. As an example of Hasanah, this is equivalent in how to deal with life going into space or using a nuclear bomb to kill non believers since these things were not originally mentioned in the Quran. Sayyiah is where you do something like try to reform the concept of Shirk or accept Apostasy.
2:170,171 – “ And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided? - The example of those who disbelieve is like that of one who shouts at what hears nothing but calls and cries cattle or sheep - deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not understand.”
5:3 – “This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islam as religion.”
"Whoever innovates into this affair of ours something that we have not commanded it is to be rejected" - Al-Bukhari and Al-Muslim.
This means that there is no possible way for Islam to reform to the modern age. It must remain stuck in time. No enlightenment. Therefore the faith will remain violent.
The Christian Church did go through the Reformation after the schism caused by Martin Luther that divided the Church between Catholic and Protestant. Both sides thought the other were heretics (Bida Sayyiah). There was a lot of violence in the name of GOD and eventually unofficially ended with the Peace of Westphalia. Each side (grudgingly in some cases) basically accepted the other. And began a period where conversion at sword point and inquisitions would begin to dwindle. Vatican II and not condemning Jews for the death of Christ was an eventual outcome of Westphalia. The Christian Church did indeed reform and it continues to do so. Reform is a sign of maturity.
There has been no *Peace of Westphalia* for Sunni and Shiite has there? The Christian Reform took on a growing of faith and enlightenment. Today, the faith challenges itself in popular culture. When Andres Serrano exhibited his “p*** Christ”, it caused riots for some but for the majority, it was an awakening. Kevin Smith released the movie “Dogma” which was an attack on the Church but it didn’t cause it to collapse. It allowed us to laugh at ourselves and to look retrospectively into our own faith and pull strength from it. And that has allowed a change in mindset in the body of Christ all the way up to the last few Popes albeit slowly. Dan Brown released the “Da Vinci Code” and the interest in lost scripture and ideas has wetted our curiosity in an attempt to learn more about Jesus. Surely, several hundred years ago such persons would have been burned at the stake for heresy, but no longer. We find that questioning our faith strengthens the faith, it doesn’t endanger it.
It can’t happen in Islam because too many Muslims would end up being as critical as I am. That would completely destroy the Ummah. Some do as in Salman Rushdie writing “The Satanic Verses” and he has to fear for his life under a fatwa. Let’s not forget the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons. Yes, Islam is far from being reformed. People are hungry to seek the truth and Islam is not it. It doesn’t have to be that way if Islam can reform. The Ummah doesn’t have to dissolve.
7) Murder.
4:93 – “But whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.”
5:32 – “Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land (spreading mischief in the land) - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.”
Many times it is just expressed as “One who kills an innocent has killed the whole of humanity.” For one thing, why is there a need to reinforce “Thou shall not kill” among Jews? That is already part of their credo. Therefore it must mean something else. Here, we see a dualistic meaning. It says “killing a soul” which implies a Muslim. There doesn’t seem to be a restriction of a Muslim killing a Jew or a non believer. Here Mankind refers to the Ummah.
There is Murder and there is Killing. The taking of a [innocent] life of a believer is Murder. The taking of a life of a non believer is just killing. Even non believer children are not innocent. The term used a lot is “Killing a Human Being” when referring to Murder (of a Muslim). The North American Indians had the same concept. An Indian was considered a Human Being, but the White Man was considered to have no soul. It was perfectly acceptable to kill a White Man. Although, it could be a delicate matter as killing one in the open could bring more. But in Islam I doesn’t seem to matter.
9:5 – “And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”
So basically, this is saying that after a treaty has terminated with the non believer (for whatever reason) and the waiting period of 4 months has passed, then Muslims are free to attack. Muslims are free to kill the non believer in order to dominate and subjugate.
Here are the words of Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja of Algiers in 1786, when Thomas Jefferson asked him why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts and Adja had answered that “Islam was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
This was very honest because no one would have guessed that the US would be able to stand up for themselves and successfully fight back. Shortly after that the beginning of the end of the Ottoman Empire was under way. However, this explanation and the explanation that Bin Laden gives in his Letter to America (http://www.theguardi.../24/theobserver), separated by over 200 years is the same. It’s the same as it was 1400 years ago. Bin laden asks us two questions: (Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you? & (Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?. It doesn’t take long to understand that Q1 is more or less excuses and BS. Q2 is the pertinent question and the reason that Bin Laden attacked us, because the Quran gives him the right to kill non believers. Bin Laden was an extremist. Someone like Anjem Choudary is a moderate and his message is basically the same.
In 2010, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, stated that he was going to build a Muslim cultural center in the shadow of the WTC footprint. He said that he wanted to build a bridge between Christian and Muslim faiths. Actually, that wasn’t a bad idea because Muslims had died there too. However, his true intentions became known when he wanted to call it Cordoba House, which to most people means nothing but in Islamic history it is the site of a major victory. Mosques are built on the site of great Muslim victories. This insensitivity to American sensibilities damaged his credibility but has shown what is in the minds of even moderate Muslims.
The Conquest of Andalucía was an expansion of the Umayyad Empire in 711ce. After the fall of Cordoba the population still outnumbered the Muslim conquerors. The Cathedral of Cordoba (the greatest in Europe at the time) was the icon of Christianity but that couldn’t stand for long as no Muslim can allow other authority to be equal to Allah. So they took over half of the Cathedral and turned it into a mosque. In time, the Christian population slowly diminished and the Umayyad rulers forced the sale of the other half. Christians were allowed to rebuild minor churches but they had become subordinate to Islam (as it is in Muslim countries today). This is how Islam spreads. In 732, the Battle of Tours, lead by Charles Martel stopped the Muslim encroachment of Europe and started the reclaiming of Andalucía and by 1492, la Reconquista established Spain as a nation by removing the last vestment of Muslim rule in Granada. The loss of al Andalus 500 years later still resonates in the Muslim world. And is the reason that Islam feels threatened.
So there might be many that will be furious with this and that is fine. The truth hurts. What is desired is not your expression of how insulted you are. But if you think this is wrong then provide evidence. I’ve already have laid out what does not constitute evidence. If this was the Christian faith, many would say that I am absolutely right. But then Christianity doesn’t try to hide its intentions....
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment