DEVOUT MUSLIMS AND TERROR
Islam’s ‘Reformation’ Is Already Here—and It’s Called ‘ISIS’
MAY 12, 2015
BY RAYMOND IBRAHIM
The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. While Hirsi Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform—and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures she suggests to do so—many of her critics offer a plethora of opposing claims, including that Islam need not reform at all.
The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below—namely, that Islam has already “reformed.” And violence, intolerance, and extremism—typified by the Islamic State (“ISIS”)—are the net result of this “reformation.”
Such a claim only sounds absurd due to our understanding of the word “reform.” Yet despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.”
Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve”—splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western connotations.
Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West—from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality—is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view.
In short, an Islamic reformation will not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society—simply because “we” are not Muslims and do not share their first premises and reference points. “Reform” only sounds good to most Western peoples because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word.
Historical Parallels: Islam’s Reformation and the Protestant Reformation
At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture—in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura.
Islam’s current reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation—specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate—but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam.
As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema—literally, “they who know”—were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.”
In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’ words, translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands… [However,] While the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists (emphasis added).
This vulnerability has now reached breaking point: millions of more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions of more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet—including every atrocity ISIS commits, such as beheading, crucifying, and burning “infidels,” even mocking their corpses—is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the Internet—where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iphone.
In this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished. Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white teachings of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism—just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did.
Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it exclusively with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it” (Bernard Lewis,The Middle East, p. 333).
The unadulterated words of God—or Allah—are all that matter for the “reformists,” with ISIS at their head.
Note: Because they are better acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing—whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after becoming better acquainted with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures, and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them are the topic of this essay.
Christianity and Islam: Antithetical Teachings, Antithetical Results
How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings.
Obviously a point by point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment).
Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset):
• The New Testament preaches peace, brotherly love, tolerance, and forgiveness—for all humans, believers and non-believers alike. Instead of combatting and converting “infidels,” Christians are called to pray for those who persecute them and turn the other cheek (which is not the same thing as passivity, for Christians are also called to be bold and unapologetic). Conversely, the Koran and Hadith call for war, or jihad, against all non-believers, until they either convert, accept subjugation and discrimination, or die.
• The New Testament has no punishment for the apostate from Christianity. Conversely, Islam’s prophet himself decreed that “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”
• The New Testament teaches monogamy, one husband and one wife, thereby dignifying the woman. The Koran allows polygamy—up to four wives—and the possession of concubines, or sex-slaves. More literalist readings treat all women as possessions.
• The New Testament discourages lying (e.g., Col. 3:9). The Koran permits it; the prophet himself often deceived others, and permitted lying to one’s wife, to reconcile quarreling parties, and to the “infidel” during war.
It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
The Islamic Reformation Is Here—and It’s ISIS
Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation—with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition—and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) But because the core teachings of the founders and scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation is producing something markedly different.
Put differently, those in the West calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity; the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society. That is precisely what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing. Some of her reforms as outlined in Heretic call for Muslims to begin doubting Muhammad (whose words and deeds are in the Hadith) and the Koran—the very two foundations of Islam.
That would not be a “reformation”—certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation.
Habitually overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal.
Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular—or any—state. Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar [temporal] and unto God the things of God [spiritual]” (Matt. 22:21). For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law… for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16).
On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law; and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law—Sharia—and the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that “It is not fitting for true believers—men or women—to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18).
Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and the example of Muhammad as laid out in the Hadith—in a word, Sharia.
And Sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib).
Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception).
Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law—without Sharia—becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith—the very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting.
The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—secularization not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history.
Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.
Tackling the Totalitarianism of Islam
By Eileen F. Toplansky
October 28, 2012
As the Arab Spring model implodes in the Middle East, it is even more urgent that the West understand that behind this ongoing violence is the inexorable Muslim adherence to sharia law. Sharia is the unremitting lodestar for their actions.
In his latest magisterial work, entitled Sharia versus Freedom: The Legacy of Islamic Totalitarianism, Dr. Andrew Bostom adds another enlightening tome to supplement The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (2008).
Honest scholarship in our politically correct world is a hard commodity to find. Thus, a debt is owed to Bostom for his continuing contributions as he give numerous examples to prove that it is the "centrality of Islamic jihadism" (26) that motivates, inspires, instigates, arouses, and stirs its adherents toward the unrelenting goal of a global caliphate. During the recent Ramadan, for example, there were 260 jihad attacks in 23 countries, with 1,209 dead and 1,910 critically injured. The so-called religion of peace is extraordinarily bloody, yet leaders of the free world prevaricate about its violence.
The culture of death, destruction, and deceit that is Islam is painstakingly exposed by Bostom. The deep and abiding anti-Jewish animus in Islam is shown to be integral to Islam. Neither a byproduct of Western anti-Semitism nor a result of alleged Western imperialism, to say nothing of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Muslim-inspired anti-Jewish sentiment actually dates back to before 869 A.D.
Bostom affirms that this legacy of "Muslim anti-Jewish hatred and violence" is not some aberrant vision of radical Islam, but rather is "rooted in mainstream, orthodox Islamic teachings" (83). Bostom explodes the oft-repeated idea that "Islam's society's hostility is non-theological" and "not related to any specific Islamic doctrine" (74). He proves that, a thousand years before any "serious colonial penetration of the region" (38) could influence views about Jews, there is evidence that Jews were hated by the Muslims because they stubbornly denied Muhammad's message.
In fact, the Jews of the period even "coined their own terms for hatred directed at them by Muslims" (38). Jews used the terms sinuth for Muslim hatred of Jews and sone for the Muslim hater, thus confirming that Islamic anti-Jewish hatred existed a millennium ago.
Another myth central to the discussion of Islam is that Jews and Christians -- i.e., dhimmis -- were well-treated. Blasting the oft-repeated notion of cordial Muslim relations toward Jewish and Christian subjects in Muslim-dominated Spain, Bostom cites one pogrom after another within the Muslim world, and he underscores that Koran 9:111 "provides an unequivocal, celebratory invocation of martyrdom during jihad" (82).
Repeatedly, Bostom examines the "contract of the jizya" or "dhimma," which "encompasses ... obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim" (70). In the last thirty years, Europe has not withstood the onslaught of Muslims, who deliberately do not assimilate into society, who demand that the countries in which they reside bend to Islamic will, who hysterically call for sharia-imposed judicial decisions, who have made sharia-controlled zones that even police are afraid to enter, who have relegated women to second-class status, and who intimidate and threaten their host governments with violence.
As Bostom emphasizes, each time that Islam gains ascendancy in an area, such transition to dhimmi status results in enslavement, forcible conversion to Islam, and death to the non-believer.
It is no exaggeration to state that there is an ongoing ideological war against the West. In only thirty years, European support for "common Euro-Arab positions" now finds itself in a perpetual state of "dhimmitude and rabid Judeophobia" (170). For example, Muslims living in Germany believe that the "German Constitution [is] irreconcilable" with the Koran (172). Muslim immigrants who demand European welfare benefits actually view these entitlements as a form of jizya to be paid by dhimmis, aka the host country (188).
Particularly revelatory is the chapter entitled "Sayonara Shari'a: Japanese Lessons, Lost?," where Bostom relates that after World War II, "under stern American guidance" (440), Japan was forced to delegitimize its state religion of Shintoism. In other words, the state would no longer be able to impose religious belief; nonetheless, the practice of Shintoism as a "private, demilitarized, and depoliticized personal faith" was protected (441). Individual religious liberty was maintained but could not be imposed upon the general populace.
Sadly, this lesson, which produced a vibrant Japanese reconstruction while protecting individual rights, has been entirely ignored following the U.S.-led military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Rather than neutralizing the bellicose religious-political-economic creed of Islam, we have actually helped to promote sharia imposition.
How galling it is to learn that there is a tried and true antidote to counter the totalitarianism of state-imposed religion, but that the West ignores it? It is vital to note that there "has never been a sharia state in history that has not discriminated ... against the non Muslims (and Muslim women) under its suzerainty" (447).
Islam refuses to reform. Thus, it consigns its followers as well as non-Muslims to an existence where no "freedom of conscience" can occur. The modern-day sermons of jihadists receive their script lines from the ideas of a thousand years ago. Islam, by its very nature, is unyielding.
Freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of speech, assembly, or petition -- all of which are cardinal ideas enshrined in the American Bill of Rights -- simply do not exist, will never be permitted, and are tantamount to sacrilege within the Islamic world. In fact, dhimmis possess no rights.
Islamic law and American law are antithetical. There can be no conciliation because sharia "compromises the tradition of equality for all under the law." Sharia consists of draconian punishments such as stoning for adultery and homosexuality, death for apostasy, amputation of hands and feet for highway robbery, and lashing for drinking wine.
Lest one minimize the Koranic influence in the political Islamic world, it should be "noted that Koran 3:112 is featured before the preamble to Hamas's foundational covenant" (76). This verse is related to Koranic verses 5:60 and 5:78, which describe the Jews' transformation into apes and swine (5:60). And at Palestinian Media Watch, one can read about the demonization of Jews through these vicious canards. Furthermore, as Bostom points out, the Iranian theocracy sanctions Jew-hatred through its national teacher training programs (78).
Bostom enlightens the reader with background information about the grand mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin el-Husseini, who played a pivotal role in Hitler's Final Solution. This non-Aryan was warmly welcomed (243) by Hitler because both men had the same goals: worldwide domination and the extermination of Jews.
It behooves the West to learn from the past. Bostom discusses the experiences of Whittaker Chambers (497) and Arthur Koestler (508), who initially succumbed to the alleged idealism of communism only to speak out once this dream of utopia revealed itself to be one of the most horrific periods in human history. Chambers in his book Witness writes a searing expose of communism, and we would be well-served to perceive the similarities between communism's rejection of freedom and Islam's totalitarian system. Bolshevism and Islam share a fanatical worldview and are "impervious to reason."
Those who fell under the spell of communism soon learned of the dimension of its absolute control. Millions of people were killed under Stalin. Deliberate mass starvation coupled with purges and slavery were the hallmarks of communism. Intellectual reasoning was destroyed. The same thing happens in the Muslim-dominated world. Muslims refuse to become citizens of Western countries because for them, the world, in all its entirety, is to be conquered. Where they reside is secondary, as it is the "strong port" from which an Islamic attack is launched. Islam, like communism, is an ideology that "is fiercely paranoid [and] conspiratorial" (505).
The jihadist is counting on American ignorance of the ideas in the Koran and of the overarching history of Muslim conquest. As Andrew McCarthy has explained, the jihadists "make Islam appear unthreatening to limn its detractors as irrational and unracist" (47). Thus, the jihadist controls the narrative.
Ex-communists enlightened us about the horrors of communism. Muslim apostates keep warning us about the dangers of Islam. Yet we ignore it "at our existential peril." Bostom proves that any sort of Muslim dialogue or interfaith discourse is pointless because Islam permits no other way of thinking. At Al Azhar, the center of Islamic studies, a 2008 paper was presented that concluded with the following:
... Muslim dialogue with Jews in Italy is only possible once Israel has been eliminated.
Thus, genocide is a holy duty for the practicing Muslim, as dictated by the Koran and other theological sources of Islam.
Islamic law is totalitarianism. There can be no freedom in the Western sense of the word, since the "Islamic understanding of 'freedom,' or hurriyya means perfect slavery" (524), and this slavery is between Allah the master and his human slaves.
It is vital that the West never forget that taqiyya, the Muslim doctrine that allows lying in certain circumstances, and tawriya, a doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances, are permitted as long as they advance sharia.
As Bostom explains, Muslims who emigrate to Europe and America have the same determination to modify and change their host countries' laws and cultural mores. They wish to "supersede Western conceptions of human rights" with sharia. Thus, "[u]nder the rule of Islam, there is no equality among people. Absolutely not" (123).
Why do so many express surprise about Islamic global intentions when repeatedly, Muslim leaders exhort their followers and state that "Islam will return to Europe as a conqueror" (133)? There is abundant evidence that Muslim leaders wish to transplant the draconian, stultifying laws of sharia onto the world.
The Nazis murdered six million Jews and destroyed millions of other groups during WWII. Under Stalin, Communism was responsible for the death of 20 million human beings. Islam has the same global aspirations. Andrew Bostom's indefatigable quest to educate is monumental. To receive such an encyclopedic edification is a gift. To use it as a vantage point for action is an obligation. To do less means that we will go down the road to dhimmitude, just as the imam wants.
Pakistanis oppose assisting US terror fight
By ROBERT KENNEDY (AP)
October 1, 2009
ISLAMABAD — An overwhelming number of Pakistanis believe their leaders should not cooperate with the U.S. fight against terrorism, according to a poll released Thursday, amid a spate of American missile strikes aimed at Islamist militants that have also killed civilians.
Eighty percent of people surveyed said "no" when asked if Pakistan should assist the U.S. in the "war on terror," according to the poll by the International Republican Institute, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization. That response surged 19 percentage points from 61 percent when Pakistanis were asked the same question in March.
Washington says defeating insurgents in Pakistan is vital for stabilizing neighboring Afghanistan, where violence is on the rise eight years after the U.S.-led invasion toppled the Taliban. The U.S. believes much of the Afghan insurgency is directed by militants who have sought safe haven in Pakistan's lawless border regions.
The poll said 76 percent of respondents also opposed Pakistan's helping the United States with its missile attacks against extremists. Washington rarely acknowledges that it is behind the strikes, carried out by unmanned drones, and Islamabad publicly protests them. But it is believed that the Pakistani government quietly cooperates with the campaign.
More than 70 missile strikes have been carried out in northwestern Pakistan over the last year, killing top militant commanders and fighters — along with civilians. The former leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, died in an Aug. 5 drone attack.
American officials have said they are considering a strategy of intensified drone attacks combined with the deployment of special operations forces against al-Qaida and Taliban targets on the Pakistani side of the border — part of an alternative to sending more troops to Afghanistan in what is an increasingly unpopular war.
Since Monday, four U.S. missile strikes have killed at least 18 militants in the northwest, according to officials and witnesses.
The drone strikes are unpopular among the public, nationalist and Muslim politicians, and activists but have become so routine that they attract little media attention or public protest in Pakistan these days.
Asked about the possibility of the U.S. launching military incursions into tribal areas, 77 percent of respondents said they were opposed.
The poll also found only 13 percent cited terrorism as the most important issue facing Pakistan. Instead, inflation, unemployment and poverty topped the list, with 72 percent saying their personal economic situation the past year had worsened.
The survey was conducted with 4,900 people in face-to-face interviews between July 15 to Aug. 7. It had a sampling error of plus or minus 1.4 percentage points. The International Republican Institute receives U.S. government funding for its democracy-promotion activities and ties to prominent Republicans, though it's not affiliated with the party.
The poll was released amid continuing violence in northwest Pakistan on Thursday. A suicide bomber drove his explosives-packed vehicle toward an army convoy but soldiers opened fire, unleashing an explosion that wounded four troops and killed the attacker, said government official Hafeez Khan.
Also, the military said Thursday a suicide bomber blew himself up and wounded two troops as they conducted a raid on an insurgent hide-out in the Swat Valley. Another militant also died in the explosion, it said in a statement.
The northwest has series of recent insurgent attacks. Twenty-two people were killed and more than 150 wounded last Saturday in two suicide car bombings.
A struggle for peace inside Islam
THE NEWS AND OBSERVER
July 20, 2005
By RICK MARTINEZ, Correspondent
For too long our political leaders, Western-based Muslim clerics and so-called experts have minimized the threat of radical Islam. Given the popular notion that poverty and social isolation fuel Islamic anger, we've been led to believe that a combination of Western military muscle, financial aid and democracy will eventually defeat terrorism. Conspicuously absent has been the call for Islamic leaders to fully engage in the theological war that rages within their religion.
Thankfully, that's changing. On Tuesday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair cast aside political correctness and challenged his nation's Muslim leaders to actively participate in counter-terrorism efforts by monitoring what's taught in mosques, Islamic schools and community organizations. They were also asked to support tough anti-terrorism legislation that's been introduced in the wake of the 7/7 suicide bombing attacks.
The British are teaching the world valuable lessons. First, the "war on terror" is a misnomer. Terror is simply a tool. And second, defeating terrorism isn't possible until non-radical Muslims win the ideological war within Islam.
Moderate Muslims can no longer afford to stand on the sidelines. They have much at stake in this fight -- their own survival. In the radicals' eyes, any Muslim who veers from their narrow and dark misinterpretation of Islam is a nonbeliever, a classification that deserves death. Islamic terrorists have proven they will kill a follower of Islam just as coldly as they will an American soldier.
Radicals have not only perverted theology, they've corrupted Islam's proud tradition of achievement. Terrorists have turned it into a culture that thrives on resentment and grievance. Even moderate Muslim leaders have become too comfortable blaming the economic and political shortcomings of Islamic nations on Israel and the West.
The war in Iraq is just the latest excuse Islamic leaders have allowed radicals to use to justify a doctrine of hate. Islamic jihadists were killing innocents long before the invasion of Iraq, and even today they use the teachings of the Quran to justify torture, decapitation and the killing of innocent Muslims, including children.
Non-radical Muslims must become more militant in exposing the human failure of radical Islam. If they don't and radicals prevail, the tyranny in Afghanistan under the Taliban would be the standard of a modern Islamic state. Under radical Islam, there is no room for secularism, freedom or tolerance. These are the truths that non-radicals must communicate to their youth who mistakenly believe the West is their oppressor.
As Blair asks Muslims leaders to contribute their ideas and theology to the war on terror, Westerners must reciprocate by strengthening our resolve. We must not underestimate radical Islam's long-term view. While on the surface it appears foolish to continue suicide bombings that kill only a few people at a time, body counts aren't important to them. Car and suicide bombings aren't military acts, they're political ones. Terrorists know they can't defeat the West militarily. It's in the political arena where they've won before.
It took Islamic jihadists (along with other forces) 10 years to harass the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan and deliver the country to the Taliban. They have a similar strategy in mind for Iraq. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi don't believe Americans have the will to tolerate almost daily casualties in Iraq for 10 years.
Once the coalition departs, the goal will be to further infiltrate Iraq and launch a campaign of terror that will eventually topple Middle Eastern governments friendly to the West. After that, they believe Western nations will have no option but to abandon Israel in order to fuel their economies with Middle Eastern oil. Without the West's military and economic assistance, the terrorists believe, Israel will eventually fall. That's their ultimate goal, one that it would put all Islamic holy lands under Muslim control.
Sound irrational? Not to me. Radical Islamists are convinced that economics, time and growing Muslim discontent are on their side. That's why we must take the battle to them not only in the streets but in the mosques as well.
The Long and Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism
Written by Barbara J. Stock
Saturday, July 16, 2005
About the Writer: Barbara J. Stock is a registered nurse who enjoys writing about politics and current events.
War on Terror - Lt. Col. Michael Burkert, US Army (ret.)
January 6, 2006 - Worldwide Revolution is in the making. Revolution fomented and advanced by Islam! Islamic revolution is most certainly in the works for Europe. Whether or not the Europeans wake up in time remains to be seen. The Worldwide Islamic Revolution has fooled the politicians in our country as well.
I believe deep down that President George W. Bush understands what lies ahead, but most certainly our congress does not. The “progressive” liberal elements definitely have no concept of the future we face in the War with Islam. They are more interested in tearing down our sitting president and re-establishing liberal control in Washington than bringing a favorable conclusion to the conflict we face as a nation and society.
The revolution that will soon explode in our faces may well serve as a catalyst that brings about the rapid political destruction of the European Union, as we know it today. The realized threat of Islam may create a situation where a powerful German dictator appears suddenly on the scene with the promise to save Germany and Europe from the Islamic menace. You scoff at this statement? What do you think would happen in Germany, if a nuclear device were detonated in Frankfurt, or Munich? Do you think that the current socialist government would survive? It most likely would not!
Already in Brussels, the EU Capitol – and the various other member capitols – the nations of the EU cannot even begin to agree on how to combat the growing menace of Islam.
The French, naturally, are inclined to bury their heads in the sand and hope that the Islamics will simply go away. The Germans are also doing their share of hand wringing and while they’ve passed some new, tough laws that deal with “Hate Preachers,” they remain clueless. The Belgians and Danes have a severe problem as well, and so far have made no progress on dealing with the growing Islamic threat. Disharmony over the fear of Islam is beginning to manifest itself amongst the various nations of Europe.
Islamic radicals have begun using the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as the focal point for fomenting worldwide Islamic revolution. Naturally, Jerusalem is to be the capitol of a worldwide Islamic Empire. One of the most prominent groups advocating worldwide Islam is known as Hizab Altahrir (Party of Islamic Liberation). This “party” is in close alliance with Al-Qaeda, and espouses the same hard-line orthodox Islam of the Wahhabi’s most known proliferator, Osama Bin Laden.
Make no mistake about it; there are dark forces out there that fully intend to bring about worldwide Islam through revolution! Revolution brought about by uncompromising Jihad. This is the top political agenda of a growing number of Muslim ideologues. Islam has long been a political philosophy as well as a “religion.”
Europe has been specifically targeted by Hizab Altahrir and operates in most all EU nations today. Denmark is of particular interest to the Islamics because of the high concentration of Muslims extant. Over 3% of the population of Denmark is Muslim. Sheikh Issam Amira, a renowned Muslim scholar and “holy man,” recently had this to say about Islamic goals and objectives in Denmark:
“Listeners! Muslim population in Denmark is now 3% and rising! They already pose a serious threat to the future of the Danish Kingdom. It’s no surprise that in Medina the Prophet (Mohammed) found fewer than 3% of the population, Muslim, but succeeded in overthrowing the regime in Medina and established Islam!
“It’s no surprise that our brothers in Denmark have succeeded in bringing Islam to every home in Denmark. Already they fear us, and no doubt will soon embrace Islam. Their weak and decadent monarchy will soon flee the Islamic onslaught that will consume this nation of Infidels. Allah will grant us victory in their land and we will establish the Islamic Empire in Europe, from our revolution in Denmark. Denmark is our land!”
If I were a Dane, I’d be concerned. If I were a European, I’d be concerned, as the Islamic revolution will most certainly not end with Denmark. Sheikh Issam’s plans intend for the Islamic revolution to spread to the Scandinavian countries, first Norway, then Sweden and Finland. From there he reckons that the “holy jihad” will take root on the continent of Europe and “following much slaughter” sweep Islam to power. The stated goal is to unite the entire world under the green flag of Islam.
If you ask a Muslim why he wants to send you to hell, he will tell you that he doesn’t, Allah does! He will also tell you that only Muslims are eligible to go the heaven. All infidels, no matter how pious and good, automatically go to hell! He will also tell you that Jihad is a “holy duty,” and that a Muslim cannot refuse uncompromising Jihad. The question is how many Muslims really believe that? The answer is shocking. A majority of Muslims hold this attitude as a core belief of their faith!
The deeply held faith that “martyrdom” brings on the seventy-two perpetual virgins and little boys called “pearls” in the Koran is a widely held belief as well. Dying in the furtherance of Islam is a Muslims most cherished duty. That theme is becoming more and more pronounced in the Muslim pulpits of the world, to include Muslim pulpits in the United States!
The more I learn about the growing threat of Islam in Europe, as stated by an increasing number of Islamic “holy men,” the more parallels I see to Adolf Hitler and his 1925 bestseller, “Mein Kampf.” The reason I’ve come to this conclusion is that the Koran itself, is a chronicle of hatred, confusion and revolution. The Koran is specific in the use of terror and warfare to spread Islam and to ultimately triumph over all others. This was Hitler’s stated intention as well. Yet Europe failed to react in time to avoid a world war.
The Koran itself holds the key to defeat Islam. In defeating Islam, Islam is the answer. Yet our leaders are unable to comprehend the enemy we face. All they need do is read the Koran and take it at face value. Of course in the 1920’s and 30’s, the leaders in Europe could have read Hitler’s book and seen what was coming. Only Winston Churchill was astute enough to see the handwriting on the wall while most everyone else was blinded by liberalism. World War II was the most preventable war in history, yet it happened. The perpetrators of the Worldwide Islamic Revolution could be cut off now and stopped, but they won’t be.
Political correctness, modern day liberalism and the “progressive” left’s national quest for “multiculturalism” clouds our collective minds regarding the threat at hand and the necessary steps we need to take in order to avoid a serious and prolonged WAR. Sadly, we are doomed to a great conflagration of two worlds that will soon collide. That war is the final showdown between Islam and all others. Although the world war has already begun, we as a nation have yet to realize just how serious things are. That will change shortly.
The Islamic enemy still has the initiative in this war. Essentially, he can attack us when it benefits him to do so. That our protectors, the NSA, CIA, FBI, our Customs Service and military have thwarted a number of attacks is commendable. The enemy will continue to probe our defenses and strike whenever he is able to do so. When the next strike occurs, it will be on the enemy’s terms.
It’s sad that it will most likely take another severe blow to our nation, before people wake-up and demand victory over Islam. Our president has stated the obvious, that we must achieve victory, yet our congress and a large percentage of our populace doesn’t see it that way at all. The “cut and run crowd” personified by our “progressive” liberal democrats is ever present and serves to undermine the will of our nation to see this thing through to victory.
What’s needed immediately, is a congressional declaration of war against the Islamic enemies of our country, whoever, and wherever they are. Unfortunately, Congress is too weak and wimpy to face reality. They fear big media more than our Islamic enemies. That too will change, once a WMD is used against downtown America. If we have a WMD detonation, it just may sweep “progressive” liberals, once and for all into the “dust bin of history.” Just like what happened to their communist soul mates in Russia.
United 93 And The Religion Of The Sword
by Randall James
May 23, 2006
I just saw the movie United 93. I will never view Islam the same. Moreover, I will never be the same.
Qur'an 9:73 "...make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate."
In this article I want to treat Islam and the Qur'an with all due respect, but is this verse and others like them -- coupled with Islamic terrorism such as what we witnessed on 9/11 and around the world -- not inspired by the Qur'an? If I'm wrong, help me on this, but first let me explain why I feel this way. This is not a viewpoint you're going to hear anywhere in the mainstream media -- but you should.
I've heard all sorts of Muslim scholars try to dilute or dismiss the verses in the Qur'an that explicitly incite violence against all non-Muslims, but these verses are what they are, and I've listed some of them throughout this article.
I voted and campaigned for President Bush and I still support him. I like the man. He's a man's man who doesn't cave in because of public opinion. However, he is also a mortal man with mortal failings. How can he publicly call Islam "A noble faith" or "A great religion"? A noble religion would not fly planes into buildings intentionally killing thousands of innocent civilians. By most accounts, 2,986 innocent Americans died painful and horrible deaths on 9/11. Many jumped to their deaths to avoid being burned alive. I'll never forget the video of one couple holding hands as they leapt to their deaths.
Islam is, was, and always will be, the "Religion of the Sword". If it's not, let Muslims around the world prove it to the rest of us by their peaceful actions. But we need to finally understand that appeasement didn't work in 1939 and it will not work now. Both fire and the devil can never be appeased.
Islam is an enemy of the West. The core of the controversy is this: Islam asks your sons to die for Allah, while the Christian God sent His Son to die for you. It could not be clearer to me. Let me say that there are some Muslims who might not be our enemy: for example, there are the Fundamentalists in places like Iran and Syria who are our enemy vs. the Secularists in some parts of Iraq who might not be our enemy.
But all that aside, unless we wake up and realize that we are in a war with Islam, we WILL lose this war. Liberals can say it's not a "war", but it is. According to the Department of Defense as of May 17th, 2006, 2,672 Americans have died in Iraq, so don't insist that it's only a "war on terror". Christians or Jews haven't killed the nearly 3,000 innocent civilian Americans and nearly 2,700 Americans soldiers -- Muslims have. And by all accounts, the future death toll will only escalate. Al-Qaeda and Islam will simply not cease and desist until millions of Americans, Christians and Jews everywhere are murdered and swept away in a similar tide of violence. Make no fatal mistake about it, 9/11 was another overt act of infamy.
It will the beginning of the second Holocaust. Will we idly stand by and allow this to happen?
Only Muslim Extremists?
How can anyone say that it's only "Muslim extremists" who are killing Americans?? For the Muslim who ignores the verses in the Qur'an that basically mandate 'all Muslims kill any non-Muslim', he has violated his religion just as surely as if I were a murderer while claming to be a Christian, despite the numerous verses in the Bible that say that a murder cannot be a Christian, sincere repentance aside. You can't simply throw out portions of the Bible that you don't like. In doing that, you dilute the Truth. And for a Muslim to disregard the 'kill the infidel' verses is to imply that the average Muslim is betraying his god. Period.
You're either a terrorist or a hypocrite -- a terrorist if you believe all that is in the Qur'an, and a hypocrite if you don't. But make no mistake about it: Islam is the religion of the sword. Just look at how the many hundreds of thousands of Muslims in dozens of countries openly rejoiced and paraded on video as the Twin Towers fell. Muslims around the world rejoiced as thousands of Americans were crushed, trapped, burned alive, jumped to their deaths or, as in the case of Flight 93, courageously died as they basically said "No, we will take a stand and fight back!"
Will we fight back? In order to effectively win the war, we must definitively discern who the enemy is. Islam is the religion of the sword, or more recently, of the bomb.
Islam is the enemy of the West. Jeff King, Director of www.Persecution.org and International Christian Concern told me today that: "Western leaders are afraid to say we are war with Islam for fear of inflaming the Islamic world. The truth is we are at war. In fact, Islam has been at war intermittently with the world since its founding. People need to wake up and realize that we have an enemy, and that they are deadly-serious about bringing death and destruction to their doorstep."
Indeed. He also told me that 75% of references to jihad have to do with war, political control, the violent expansion of the religion, and the forced subjugation of the conquered. Take these two verses for example:
Qur'an 8:12 "I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels: Strike off their heads. Strike off the very tips of their fingers."
Qur'an 8:39 "Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and Allah's religion shall reign supreme everywhere."
That doesn't sound peaceful to me. Does it sound peaceful to you? How can Islam be peaceful with verses that say "strike off their heads" or "kill or crucify all infidels"?
Mr. King is also of the opinion that much of this hate against the West is birthed from inside Saudi Arabia. Heaven help us if this is true.
And recently, just what group was it that rioted and burned over 9,000 cars in France? Were they all just Muslim "extremists"??? Impossible. They were, by and large, average everyday Muslims who have harbored a deep and long held anger and hatred of the West and of Christianity or Judaism, even though France and much of Europe have long since departed, to their shame, from Christian and Judeo-Christian precepts.
The long held quote that 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend' is unfortunately true. We in the West must unite, all other differences aside, against our apparent common enemy -- Islam. If I'm wrong, help me out here, please.
It is not only a "war on terror". It is partly that, but maybe it should be a specifically declared war on Islam. Anything short of that might possibly bring defeat. This is a new type of war -- kind of like fighting a systemic bodily infection. And like a good doctor confronting a patient that has cancer cells spreading throughout the body, we must correctly diagnose the problem and appropriately treat the illness, however harsh that treatment might seem. Chemotherapy can be quite unpleasant, having many serious side effects, but if the patient wishes to root out the lethal cancer cells and survive, the patient must undergo this treatment.
Similarly, if we wish to survive the escalating onslaught, we must do likewise, as unpleasant as this might initially seem.
You simply cannot fight a "politically correct" war, as we apparently are doing, unless you don't want to win.
We have the best trained military in the world, and I have the greatest respect for those brave warriors who consistently put all on the line for America. May God bless and protect them. We owe them nearly everything.
However, in WWII, if a sniper was shooting at American or Allied troops from a church steeple, we took the church out. Yet mosques that have had snipers and weapons caches in them remained free from fire; in essence, we do nothing. It reminds me of LBJ's micro-management of the Vietnam War, when the President of the United States actually selected the individual targets to be bombed himself. You simply cannot fight a politically correct war, then or now. Take the handcuffs off our troops. Let them win.
Let them win.
To slit the throat of innocent stewardesses and passengers on the planes in the air on 9/11, who were doing nothing more than traveling and working to provide for their families, is just beyond the pale. But this is what Islam apparently wants -- the murder of any and all non-Muslims. Their intent is to achieve their goal in a murderous and violent way. Let the fruit of their actions judge them and their religion.
Qur'an 47:4 "When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly. Then grant them their freedom or take ransom from them, until War shall lay down her burdens."
So I issue this challenge to the Islamic leadership and insurgents in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere: if Islam is not the religion of the sword, PROVE IT. Suspend all terrorist acts. Reign in your followers and make peace with the rest of the world.
Consider some of the events inspired by this religion and the violent history of Islam:
• Pan Am Flight 103 was blown out of the sky by Muslims in 1988, not long ago.
• The U.S. Marine Barracks in Beirut, Lebanon was bombed by Muslims, as was our military barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996.
• Muslims also bombed the American Embassies in Africa in 1998.
• Muslims blew a hole in the side of USS COLE.
• In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslims.
• Now, in the Sudan, Islamic vigilante groups, with the express backing of the Sudanese government, are slaughtering Christians and are engaged in making other Christians slaves. This can be easily verified.
• Daniel Pearl, Paul Johnson, Nicholas Berg, Eugene Armstrong, and many others, have had their throats cut or their heads slowly sawed off by whom? Muslims. I've seen some of the videos. Make no mistake about it; should you or members of your family fall into their hands, the same fate, or worse, will befall you.
• The years 622-632 -- A jihad against idolatry among Arab tribes saw Islam conquer the tribes and Islam become the religion of the Arabs.
• 632-1097 -- A jihad against Christians preceded the proclamation of the Crusades.
• 652 AD -- Middle East & North Africa completely conquered.
• 781 AD -- Ephesus and South Turkey were overrun.
• 903 AD -- Most of Greece conquered.
• 1064 -- Georgia, Armenia and Sicily occupied.
• 1453 -- Constantinople falls.
• 1097-1574 -- This jihad successfully defended most of the conquered territories, except in Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Greece.
• 1574-1681 -- Era of forced Islamic colonialism in Eastern Europe.
• 1681-1699 -- Jihad defeated in Vienna, Greece and Hungary.
• 1700-1973 -- The quiet period.
• 1973-1980's -- Oil wealth increases the violent appetite for jihad. Massive funding begins for world-wide terrorist training.
• 1980's-to-the-present -- The present and most violent third wave of Jihad. Innocents are targeted.
Qur'an 5:33-34 "The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet and alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom; save those who repent before ye overpower them..."
The above is not an exhaustive list. There were many more such incidents and more are planned -- and are being planned. In event after event in recent times, it was Muslims who initiated terribly violent and unprovoked attacks on America and her allies. I could a-l-m-o-s-t understand it if these attacks were done against purely military targets, but they were not. The foremost example is obviously the civilian World Trade Center attack, as were the many discotheques where innocent people were also blown up and murdered without any provocation by Muslim suicide bombers.
Travelers at leisure are now legitimate targets according to Muslim theology. Leading Muslims may argue that these terrorist are an extremist fringe, but how many such attacks have been committed by Christians or Jews??
Why am I telling you all this? Partially because I am disturbed and yet energized by the fact-based movie "United 93". Please, I urge you -- I ask you -- go see this movie this week. When I saw the movie Tuesday night, there were only seven people in the entire theater. How sad. So go see it, please. Go see it to honor all those who died without notice, and who also courageously fought back.
Do it to inform yourself.
United 93 is a very accurate fact-based movie. In fact, many of the people who played a role on that fateful day also play themselves in the movie. And I also ask you to forward this article to any and all of your friends, and ask them to do the same. Get the message out. Sun Tzu said "Know your enemy", so if you haven't seen the movie, I urge you to do so.
Qur'an 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush..."
So again, I issue this challenge to the Islamic leadership around the world: if Islam is not the religion of the sword, PROVE IT. Suspend all terrorist acts. If Islam is not our enemy, PROVE IT. Reign in your followers and make peace with the rest of the world. We are a forgiving and understanding people. We will be awaiting your reply by venue of your actions.
References and related material:
A Moral Outrage
By Mortimer Zuckerman
U.S. News & World Report
March 14, 2008
The world applauded when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, forcibly removing Jewish settlers. At last, the Palestinians were free to show how they could build their own society.
But what did they do with their freedom? They elected the terrorist organization Hamas in 2006. First Fatah and now Hamas have rained 4,000 rockets on Israel, killed 24, and wounded 620—the equivalent of killing 1,200 Americans and wounding 31,000. The citizens of Sderot and Ashkelon have suffered a collective trauma; children fear that when parents leave for work, they will never see them again.
And what does the world do?
It criticizes Israel—Israel!—for a "disproportionate" response. Israel is discriminating in trying to defend its people. It attacks Gaza's rocket launchers, weapons factories, and terrorists, all hidden in civilian areas.
What is a proportionate response? None at all, it seems.
Hamas kills indiscriminately. It makes no distinction between civilians and combatants. But it is Israel that earns the opprobrium. The moral equivalency was evident in a New York Times headline: "Hamas and Israelis Trade Attacks, Killing at Least Nine." Nor did TV broadcast pictures of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza celebrating the news that eight teenagers had been shot dead and many more injured in the library of a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem.
Would Paris, London, Bonn, or New York sit back quietly if terrorists attacked from sanctuaries somewhere just off their borders?
Silent voices. Where is the world's outrage against these Palestinian war crimes? Twelve resolutions have passed the United Nations Human Rights Council on the conflict, but not one has made even a passing reference to the terrorism against Israel.
Where is the appreciation that while under attack, Israel has continued to supply its enemies with electricity and with 2,500 tons of food and medicines every day? Last year, 14,000 Gazan Palestinians were treated in Israeli medical facilities.
But Palestinians continue to get away with their confidence trick of persuading the world that they are the victims. The death of every Arab woman and child is a propaganda victory for Hamas, so it uses women and children as human shields and then exaggerates the casualties. The distortion foisted on the world is manifest in the celebrated case of the death of Mohammed al-Dura, who was alleged to have been shot by the Israelis in Gaza on the first day of the intifada. Now an independent French ballistic expert reports that he could not have died from Israeli gunfire. The technical analysis shows the shots could have come only from Palestinian positions.
And what of the Palestinian leader supposed to be leading the peace effort? Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas says, "What is happening now in Gaza is more than a Holocaust." Absurd? This from the "peacemaker" whose doctoral dissertation included the theory that European Zionists conspired with the Nazis to push for the Holocaust so that it could ultimately result in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. According to Abbas's writings, 6 million Jews were not sent to the gas chambers to be killed but were among corpses cremated for sanitation reasons.
Some suggest Israel should deal with Hamas; there is talk of Egypt negotiating a truce. But why negotiate with an enemy dedicated to Israel's destruction? Recognition of Hamas would prove that terrorism, not diplomacy, is the way to gain Israeli concessions—not to speak of international support—and would strengthen Hamas in the West Bank. Any truce would protect the smuggling of arms and munitions until Hamas can attack again, with missiles that can reach Tel Aviv.
This current turmoil is a direct outcome of Bush administration misjudgments. We forced the Israelis and the Palestinians to include Hamas in the 2006 election. Later, we caused the removal of Israeli control of the Philadelphi road, a crucial barrier in the protection against the smuggling of arms, insisting it be left to the Palestinians under Egyptian and European supervision. Israeli protests that foreign troops would not stop either terrorists or arms from making their way into Gaza went unheeded.
America has an extra moral obligation to defuse this crisis. We should pressure Egypt by both political and economic means to stop the smuggling. Hamas must be contained. In the meantime, we have a war of attrition with Hamas determined to show Fatah's Abbas that terrorism is the only path. In the process, Hamas has made a mockery of President Bush and the Annapolis process. It has made it clear in blood that it will not permit Abbas to conduct real diplomatic negotiations.
The entire Arab world watches to see if Israel can find a way to deter Hamas—or if terrorism, with the acquiescence of the hand-wringers, can win.
WORD FAITH INDEX
CATHOLIC CHURCH INDEX