Islam’s Non-Compete Clause

Kenneth Roberts

Imagine a football league where only one team is allowed to score goals or win. That’s the premise of political Islam.

Islam is the only religion with a non-compete clause. Non-compete agreements in today’s business world defend proprietary information. Proprietary ideas give companies their leading edge. Islam goes beyond branding itself ‘the best’ (which all ideologies do) Islam forbids other ideologies from competing with Islam in a number of areas. It’s like a modern corporation, but more ruthless.

Islam’s Unique Idea
Islam’s unique, proprietary idea is jihad, the holy war to eliminate competition with Islam. According to Ibn Khaldun, the holy war of jihad is not permitted to other religions or ideologies.

Non-Compete Regulations
Islam’s non-compete restrictions are summarized in the infamous Pact of Omar and Sharia law. They regulate non-Muslims from competing with Muslim males in the following areas: proselytizing, politics, employment opportunities, social status, prestige or ‘honor’, public events, using the Arabic language, teaching about Islam, marrying Muslim women, the security of possessions and the elegance or height of buildings…even in how the Kafirs dress. Nor may women compete with Muslim males, since Allah made women constitutionally inferior to men ‘in reason and religion’.

Islam’s non-compete restrictions are the Kafirs’ terms of surrender to the Islamic state. The Pact of Omar was made by eighth-century caliphs to be forced on non-Muslims against their wills. Wherever Islamists become the ruling class, the Pact of Omar is dragged out to crush whatever challenges Islamic monopolies. That makes Kafirs and women permanent underclasses in Sharia-ruled societies.

Islamists want to insinuate Sharia into Kafir societies before Kafirs and women are aware of its non-compete implications.

In a Sharia society, non-competition applies everywhere, even in the law courts where Sharia favors the inconvenience, impoverishment and humiliation of Kafirs and the inferior status of women.

How Islam defends non-competition
Islamic non-competition is defended by jihad. Jihad is a monopoly on aggression. Allah forbids Kafirs from resisting jihad in any way, since counterjihad is a way of competing with Islam.

What makes Islam’s non-compete system draconian is the normative means to enforce it: vigilantism. Since murder is reprehensible, Sharia law craftily hides the murder of Kafirs and apostates behind verbiage, mumbo jumbo and silence. Silence should not be overlooked as a powerful legal weapon!

America’s emancipation of slaves did not entirely end slavery. American slavery slyly continued as late as 1928 because no punishment was on the books for slave-owners, even though slavery was illegal. Similarly, Sharia law has no punishment for a vigilante who murders an apostate or a blasphemer. Islamic vigilantes in such cases are ‘killing by right’, that is, Allah authorizes killing apostates and blasphemers on the example of Mohammed. Vigilantes are considered auxiliary police enforcing Allah’s non-compete laws. Such vigilantes are heroes, rather than criminals.

Islam’s top authority on Sharia, the fatwa department of Al Azhar University in Cairo has sanctioned Islamic vigilantism. In theory, the death sentence for blasphemy is imposed by the Islamic state, but if the state isn’t available to act, a private Muslim vigilante may carry out a death sentence against a blasphemer. This is where Islamic law gets interesting. A self-directed vigilante may execute a fatwa issued by an imam, but even a fatwa is not necessary. When a Kafir competes with Islam or its prophet, a vigilante may murder the blasphemer even without a fatwa being issued.

We cannot imagine a Christian pastor issuing a death warrant, yet two hundred thousand imams are authorized to do so and over a billion Muslims are deputized to kill. Many writers and cartoonists around the world (such as Salman Rushdie, Robert Redecker, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Kurt Westergaard, Lars Vilks, Molly Norris, Trey Parker and Matt Stone) have a clear understanding of Islamic vigilantism, since they live with full-time security guards. Almost everyone writing about Islam has received anonymous death threats. Writing about Islam breaches Islam’s non-compete clause.

Results of Non-Compete
The cost of Islam’s non-compete contract is stagnation. ‘Innovation’ (an evil word in Islam) is forbidden, because Islam’s alleged perfection cannot be improved. The 7th century is deemed the time of perfection, so Muslims cannot progress past it. Sharia leads the world backwards to the 7th century, not forwards to progress.

Muslims want to be world leaders, but their non-compete makes them followers. Competition has everything and produces everything that the Islamic world craves and needs for its survival, but the Muslim world produces little because of its philosophy of non-competition.
Jihadists curb their cognitive dissonance by repeating their certainty of Islam’s moral perfection until they all but drown out the images and voices of modernity. They want Islamic terrorism removed from discussion, so that 7th-century-loving Muslims are not contrasted with progress-loving Kafirs. Jihadists live in denial, but many burn out: they half-heartedly see backwardness is not the answer.

What should we do?
First of all, Kafirs need to see Islam’s non-compete clause is a real threat to progress and democratic values. Islamic belief in non-competition means that no progress is needed or possible. But Islam’s allegedly perfect society never existed, unless slavery, misogyny, vigilantism, inequality and genocide are ‘perfect’. Non-competition is bad for people. Societies that imposed monopolies on thought and political power have had cycles of revolution and counter-revolution or have stalled in poverty, disease and superstition.

Secondly, we should fault Islam’s non-compete system because it spreads fear; we should ban jihad because it has caused more than 270 million deaths and always creates tyrannies.

Recognizing political Islam’s dysfunction, today’s Muslims flee from it to live in free non-Islamist countries. Surveys show 65% of Muslims are Islamists in theory, but not in practice. This contradiction is Islam’s Achilles’ heel. Westerners should highlight it, rather than flattering the Islamism of oil-rich countries in order to keep oil prices low.

Mohammed declared endless war on competition giving Muslim males monopolies on everything. Jihadists expect to win this war through high birthrates and terrorism.

Many Western leaders shield jihad and supremacism from ideological scrutiny because they underestimate the pervasiveness of Islamism. Are they fit to lead?

As Islamism spreads, the vibrancy of the competitive world will gradually be dampened by Islam’s non-competition and terrorism.

It is self-refuting to fight the jihadists militarily, without blaming Islam’s non-compete philosophy. Non-competition is what ignites the jihadist culture, so refuting the non-compete philosophy of Islam should be a top priority.

Article in Russian:

http://maxpark.com/community/3788/content/2968535

http://www.translarium.info/2014/09/islams-non-compete-clause.html

Kenneth Roberts

We in the Counterjihad need to show more righteous indignation, as did Martin Luther King, Harriet Beecher Stowe and Alexander Solzhenitsyn in their various righteous struggles. We should study their examples to see what our approach should be to defeat political Islam.

The Counterjihad is, in fact, young, only about 13 years old. We have so much to learn about getting our point across effectively and to make it reality.

Why would our struggle be safe or easy? After all, it wasn’t easy for the anti-slavery abolitionist movement or for the American civil rights movement or for the democracy and freedom movement behind the iron curtain of the evil Soviet empire. Nor did it seem obvious or easy to the Abolitionists or to King’s civil rights marchers or to the Samizdat movement in the USSR as to what they should do next! One thing that is common to those three struggles is the unrelenting moral indignation that led them to victory. Righteous, moral indignation was their strongest method.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn used this method in the dying days of the Soviet Union to oppose Godless totalitarianism. For one, he never smiled for the camera for several years, because he knew smiling photos would receive wide circulation and be used against him by the Soviet authorities to suggest ‘things aren’t so bad’. Secondly, he stayed close to the problem and refused to diminish contacts with other intellectuals or leave the Soviet Union when asked to leave. Finally, having him in the Soviet Union was causing too many public relations problems. Soviet authorities forcibly expelled him from the USSR in 1974.

There are a number of BIG factors from 1968-1990 that led to Solzhenitsyn’s vindication and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union:

• 1960s ‘Samizdat’ (self-publishing) movement: Vladimir Bukovsky summarized it as, “I myself create it, edit it, censor it, publish it, distribute it, and get imprisoned for it.”
• 1960s Solzhenitsyn, author of best-selling books, ‘Ivan Denisovich’ and ‘Gulag Archipelago’ (Russian 1968) (English 1973)
• 1968 January Prague Spring
• 1970 Solzhenitsyn wins Nobel Prize for ‘Ivan Denisovich’
• 1973 energy crisis and birth of small-is-beautiful, opposing Soviet gigantism
• 1974 Solzhenitsyn expelled from USSR
• 1977 Václav Havel, signatory of Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism (launching the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism), dissident and famous playwright, imprisoned from May 1979 to February 1983
• 1978, Pope John Paul II, an opponent of Soviet communism, elected October 1978. In June 1979, Pope John Paul II travelled to Poland where ecstatic crowds constantly surrounded him. This first trip to Poland uplifted the nation’s spirit and sparked the formation of the Solidarity movement in 1980
• 1979 Margaret Thatcher elected, PM from 1979 to 1990
• 1980-Solidarno, anti-Soviet patriotic Polish trade union federation, formed August 1980. Pope John Paul II supports Solidarno and identifies the concept of solidarity with the poor and marginalized as a constitutive element of the Gospel and human participation in the common good
• 1980 Lech Walesa, co-founder of the Solidarity trade-union, prominent in the establishment of the 1989 Round Table Agreement that led to semi-free parliamentary elections in June 1989 and to a Solidarity-led government
• 1981 Ronald Reagan, American president 1981-1989, spokesman of freedom, enunciated righteous indignation against totalitarianism
• 1985 Mikhail Gorachev General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991, began Glasnost (openness) in 1988-89. During an interview in 1989 Mikhail Gorbachev is quoted as saying “I detest lies”…showed internal doubt about totalitarian communism at the top
• 1991 office of General Secretary CPSU abolished

The above shows that Solzhenitsyn built on the work of Samizdat. That is where the Counterjihad Movement is now. I believe an inspiring writer will soon come on the scene to galvanize public opinion against political Islam.

My conclusion regarding the present state of the Counterjihad is that many factors are required for it to succeed, including 1) a big book (similar to ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ or ‘Gulag Archipelago’) and 2) some big politicians such as Lincoln, Thatcher, John Paul II and Ronald Reagan and 3) sufficient time for the fire to incinerate political Islam.

As I pointed out, we are only 13 years old. It took 23 years from Prague Spring until the abolition of the Soviet Union, but from the death of Stalin and the beginning of the Soviet dissident movement in the 1950s and early 60s…that would be 35 years.

We are now 13 years after 9/11. We are probably only one-third of the way in the Counterjihad. We are in the Samizdat (self-publishing) phase right now. We are abandoned by powerful interests and contradicted by them. But we believe in the cause of freedom and we are not wrong. We do not yet have any great politicians (save Geert Wilders) or great novelists to inspire popular imagination, but as sure as night follows day, that will come.

Christians’ support will eventually come to the Counterjihad as it came to the issues of abolishing slavery, of civil rights and of ending the Soviet empire. Our Counterjihad is a matter of ‘charity and justice’. Politicians will eventually see too that Islam is unable to detach itself from strangling the state and human rights, so they will have to oppose it. It’s a matter of time. Time is on the side of Counterjihad because of the Internet and a plumetting Muslim birthrate. However, we should not stop our efforts, but intensify them.

A new generation is growing up imbued with the wisdom of us the Counterjihad pioneers. Very soon, they will reach maturity and they will make their presence felt on the international stage. Writers will write novels, politicians will make speeches, political parties will call for reform of immigration policies, laws, international agreements and technologies that helps Islamic supremacism and misogyny. There will be a growing awareness of the evils of jihad and Islamic hatred of the Kafir and women. It is happening now.

Our moral and righteous indignation should be stirred up intensely in this historic struggle that we in the Counterjihad Movement are bringing to fruition. Islam has no moral arguments to defend itself, so it will fall. We have valid moral arguments against Islam, so we shall overcome.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/counterjihad-solzhenitsyn-and-righteous-indignation/
Copyright © 2014 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

by Kenneth Roberts, Associate Writer

There’s good reason to ask this question to ‘nice’ Muslims. It invites Muslims to declare their true values and loyalties: “When jihad comes, whose side will you be on?”

Shoppers at Westgate Mall in Nairobi and Christian students in Nigeria have recently been killed because they had the wrong religion. What will our Muslim neighbors do when the jihadists come to our neighborhood schools, churches and shopping centers in Europe and North America? Will Muslims protect non-Muslim neighbors from death or will they side with the jihadists? A shopping mall jihad has already occurred in the U.S., but it was largely ignored.

You mean, it’s already happened in America?

Yes, an event similar to the Westgate Mall attack occurred on the evening of Feb. 12, 2007. A young Muslim man walked into the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City with a pistol-grip, 12-gauge shotgun and a 38-caliber revolver and opened fire on shoppers, killing five and wounding four others, including a pregnant woman. The death toll at Trolley Square was higher than in the Boston Marathon Bombing, but the killings were misattributed to insanity, rather than jihad.

Will jihadists attack shopping centers across America? Undoubtedly! They will do so because it is the Sunna, the perfect example of Mohammed. In 627 AD, Mohammed beheaded 800 unarmed male civilians in Medina in a single day. He did so in a market.

Islam’s Dual Allegiance

Muslims have two loyalties: religious and political. Americans are loyal only to the constitution. America has no state religion to adhere to. But Islam has both. True Muslims must be loyal to the political act of jihad as well as to the religion of Islam. Islam is a religion as well as a military organization. This is not an opinion, but the decree of Mohammed:

“My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, “Migration has passed away with its people.” I asked, “For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?” He (Mohammed) said, “I will take (the pledge) for Islam and JIHAD.” – (Bukhari 4,52,208)

Mohammed says allegiance to Islam includes the political act of jihad. Jihad is holy fighting against the Kafirs; it is the personal duty of every Muslim. If a Muslim does not participate in jihad, he will die a ‘hypocrite’ and burn in hell. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.

Why don’t Muslims denounce the terrorists?

Islam is harsh on ‘hypocrites’ (munafiqoon in Arabic). Munafiqs are ‘moderate Muslims’. They give only lip service to Islam. Mohammed wanted to burn the munafiqs to death in their homes for not participating in prayers or jihad.

Nonetheless, participate or not, they must not hinder jihad by thought, word or deed. Islam’s ‘munafiqs’ sit back and look the other way, while jihadists fight the Kafirs and subdue them. When a munafiq helps Kafirs during jihad, he becomes a traitor to Islam; he is considered to be a Kafir at war with Islam, so jihadists may kill him too.

When jihad comes, a munafiq is not neutral. He is on the side of jihad, rather than on the side of Kafirs. A munafiq is silent when the jihadists knock on their non-Muslim neighbor’s door. The reason for this silence is in the Koran (28.86) ‘never be a supporter of the disbelievers’.

Munafiqs can be reactivated in jihad

One of the surprising things about Islam is how non-practicing Muslims often return to active service in jihad. Sometimes it only takes a personal contact or a rousing sermon to turn a non-practicing, ‘moderate’ Muslim into a jihadist. This is similar to the recruitment of young pacifists in time of war. The Tsarnaev brothers were nice, ‘moderate’ Muslims and then they became religious jihadists.

Boston Munafiqs

How did ‘munafiqs’ behave during the Boston Marathon Bombings? When Djokhar Tsarnaev was about to be arrested, he called his non-practicing, ‘secular’ Muslim friends to dispose of incriminating evidence in his dorm room. They eagerly complied. When members of the Tsarnaevs’ mosque were asked about the two brothers, they kept silent about what they knew. When recruited, the munafiqs acted on the side of jihad.

Munafiqs at Westgate Mall, Nairobi

When jihad came to Westgate Mall in Nairobi, there were many munafiqs shopping that day. Did those munafiqs try to convince the jihadists that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’ and to stop the executions and tortures? No, they left hurriedly and let the jihadists do their work of executing unarmed Kafirs in a market. The Westgate jihadists believed they were following Sunna.

The Westgate Mall munafiqs were not neutral. They took the side of jihad by doing nothing to stop it. Their silence gave approval to jihadic terrorism.

Salman Rushdie Fatwa

When a fatwa was declared against writer Salman Rushdie, ordinary British Muslims expressed strong support for blasphemy laws to punish critics of Islam.

The musician known as Cat Stevens was asked if he would go to a demonstration to burn an effigy of the author Salman Rushdie. ”I would have hoped that it’d be the real thing,” he replied.

Furthermore, if Mr. Rushdie turned up at his doorstep looking for help, ”I might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like…I’d try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is.” In his own words, Cat Stevens, aka Yusuf Islam, would take the side of jihad if the opportunity came. ‘Moderate’ Muslims like Yusuf Islam know which side they are on. Not on the side of the Kafir, because jihad is not a ‘peace train’.

Jihad at Broken Hill, Australia, 1915

In 1915, two Kurdish immigrants to Australia read the Sultan’s pamphlet announcing a universal jihad and planned their own self-directed jihad. They waited beside railway tracks and randomly shot Australian civilians on a train on its way to a picnic. Fatalities occurred. They then shot a police constable. It’s similar to the Boston Marathon bombings, when you think about it.

What has changed in 100 years? The doctrine is the same. The weapons are more sophisticated.

Munafiqs of the Armenian Genocide

Edwin Pears recorded this account from a Muslim woman in Turkey:
“Then one night, my husband came home and told me that the padisha (caliph) had sent word that we were to kill all the Christians in our village, and that we would have to kill our (Christian) neighbours. I was very angry, and told him that I did not care who gave such orders; they were wrong. These neighbours had always been kind to us, and if he dared to kill them Allah would pay us out. I tried all I could to stop him, but he killed them — killed them with his own hand.” (Sir Edwin Pears, Turkey and Its People, London: Methuen and Co., 1911, p. 39)

When jihad against Christian subjects of Turkey was declared in 1915, ordinary Muslim village men were led to Friday prayers. Someone read out the Sultan’s summons to jihad and the villagers proceeded to participate in the genocide of Armenians, Assyrian Orthodox and Greek Anatolians, the indigenous peoples of Turkey. Ordinary ‘moderate’ Muslims responded to the call of jihad. Three million people disappeared from the populace within ten years.

Notable Exceptions

There are some noteworthy examples of Muslims who saved lives during jihad. Khaled Abdewahhab of Tunisia was the first Arab to receive a ‘Righteous Gentile’ award from Israel. He had hidden a Jewish family at his country home until liberation came. In 1915, a Turkish doctor ‘married’ four of his Armenian patients to save them from extermination. The uncle of the Tsarnaev brothers denounced his nephews and ordered them to surrender.

So what motivates Muslims when they help Kafirs in trouble? The answer is these ‘moderate’ Muslims are disregarding the Koran (28.86) ‘never be a supporter of the disbelievers’.

We Western people need to reexamine our political correctness. We need to learn the dualistic doctrine of the Kafir that underpins jihad. Otherwise, we will continue to have attacks against Kafir civilians like those at the Westgate Mall, Trolley Square Mall and the Boston Marathon. Muslims who attack civilians are imitating what Mohammed did in Medina in 627 AD.

One of the ways to learn about Islam’s dualism is to ask a Muslim: ‘When jihad comes to our neighborhood, whose side will you be on?’

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/when-the-jihad-comes-whose-side-will-you-be-on/
Copyright © 2013 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

by Kenneth Roberts

Why do some American journalists have trouble discerning the motives behind the Boston bombings? The Tsarnaev brothers killed Bostonians for the honor of Islam. Westerners do not understand the Islamic concept of honor. ‘Honor’ to a Muslim is something as concrete and tangible as the Washington Monument, the Colorado River or the Rocky Mountains.

Honor as Plunder

To a Muslim, ‘honor’ is as real as money in the bank or gold coins hidden in a box in the drawer. Honor brings prestige to Islam, to Mohammed and to Allah. Because ‘honor’ is so important in Islam, the main goal of jihad is to acquire more ‘honor’ for Islam. How this acquisition is done is simple. It is done through by humiliating kafirs. For Muslims, honor is real and concrete, and not merely an abstract concept.

Honor always flows towards Islam. Kafirs should not have ‘honor’ because it keeps them from becoming Muslims.

If a man has honor and he is a kafir, Muslims must conduct jihad to take away some or all of his ‘honor’. When this happens, Muslim ‘honor’ increases just like money increasing in a bank account or like the heavier side of balances that drops down when it outweighs the lighter side. Plundering the honor of kafirs encourages them to convert to Islam. Every Muslim understands this concept and accepts it as normal, natural and good. Allah said so in his pre-existent Koran. That settles it.

Islamic ‘honor’ resembles the reputation of sports teams. If the Boston Bruins have won 4 games against the Montreal Canadiens while losing 5 games to them, the Bruins must win the next match to recover their honor by disgracing the Canadiens.

Muslims count Islamic honor in terms of shaming the kafirs. When Boston’s kafirs require 1,000 police officers to find and arrest a 19-year-old Muslim jihadist, it is a thousand points for Islam. When two Muslims outwit kafirs and plant bombs that kill women and children at a sporting event, it is great victory for Islam, because the kafirs with all their resources were outsmarted by only two Muslims. In addition, all Muslims are aware that when Muslims suffer anywhere in the world, kafirs must undergo retaliation to bring back honor to Islam.

Shame

The Tsarnaevs knew that Allah commands Muslims to steal the honor of kafirs. Shaming the kafirs means defeating them in jihad:

Koran 9:14 – “Fight them. May God punish them by your hands, humiliate them, give you victory over them, and delight the hearts of the believers.” (Muhammad Sarwar version)

The Tsarnaev brothers brought pride to all true Muslims by their victory. Tamerlan (named after the genocidal murderer of 20 million kafirs) is now an Islamic martyr. Tamerlan died after shooting a policemen several times in the neck and while throwing home-made grenades at police. He humiliated American police, and then became a martyr. Islamic martyrdom is the greatest honor in Islam. Martyrs prove Islam is true by giving their lives. Islamic martyrs score the greatest number of points for Islam.

Scoring Points

It’s like a sports match. Muslims notch up points on the honor scoreboard when kafirs bleed. The shame of Muslims is washed away by blood flowing from the bodies of American kafirs. The successful assassination of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda commanders must be avenged. Allah approves of such revenge in his eternally valid words. Retaliation is a non-optional Divine Command for Muslims. There are thousands of possible humiliations of Muslims by America to justify revenge against the kafirs. The first and foremost reason is that kafirs do not recognize that Mohammed is a prophet and even mock and distract from his honor by calling him names like genocide, warlord, plagiarist or pedophile. These disgraceful blasphemies against Allah’s perfect role model demand blood vengeance. Even worse, kafirs blaspheme Islam by sending their national armies to fight Allah’s legitimate warriors in Islamic countries, thereby requiring all Muslim males to fight them until they are forced to submit to Islam and pay Allah’s head tax.

Koran 9.29 “Fight those who … acknowledge not the religion of Truth (Islam) from the People of the Book, until they pay the jizya tax with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

Mohammed emphasized that unsubmitting kafirs should be humiliated:

Bukhari 61.2756 “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.”

Kafirs should be forced to submit to Islam through violence and then humiliated. The Tsarnaev brothers were motivated by such thoughts.

Americans have not yet submitted to Islam; they fight against jihad in Muslim countries; innocent non-combatants are often killed accidently while Americans pursue the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Therefore, Americans deserve retaliation just as the Montreal Canadiens should be beaten by the Boston Bruins. It’s as obvious as that to a Muslim. Humiliating America increases the honor of Islam.

Allah and Sharia approve Retaliation

When Muslims are slain ‘without right’, retaliation is obligatory. This can take the form of jihad when kafirs are targeted and self-directed jihad is allowed in the absence of a global caliphate.

Koran 2:178 – “O you who believe, retaliation is prescribed for you regarding the slain…”

(Sharia law text) Reliance of the Traveller o1.1 – “Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right.)”

No kafir ever has a right to kill a Muslim, but it is not a sin in Sharia to kill a kafir; it is at most a misdemeanor for which a fine is sufficient:

Reliance of the Traveller o1.2 – “The following are not subject to retaliation: …a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim”

When Muslims die due to kafirs, kafirs may be selected for death to balance the honor of Islam, but the reverse does not apply. Honor must only flow in the direction of Islam. All Muslims understand this.

Washing Away Shame

Islamic retaliatory violence restores the honor of the family, clan or tribe. This is sanctioned by the

Koran 11.173 – “Believers, retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed.”

This is well expressed by Abu Tammam, a ninth-century poet. “With the sword will I wash my shame away. Let God’s doom bring on me what it may!”

The Tsarnaev brothers knew all this instinctively and were willing to wash away the shame of global Islam by slaying American spectators and police at a sports event.

Al Qaeda has been unable to carry off a major terrorist action in America since 9-11. Islam’s honor is in a severe deficit. Al Qaeda needed to find American Muslim youth to carry out martyrdom operations to retaliate against America’s many successful military operations in the Near East and elsewhere.

Around the world, Muslims believe that the generous-hearted Americans will retaliate against Muslims in general, but this is merely attributing to Americans the Islamic motives of the Tsarnaev brothers.

The Boston Bombings are retaliatory killings in the name of honor in the tradition of Mohammed.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/the-boston-honor-bombings/
Copyright © 2013 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

‘The Jihad against Women’

Part 1 here

Kenneth Roberts, Associate Writer

Jihad-and-hegira (attack-and-retreat) is the third ‘essential doctrine’ (usul ud-deen) in Islam. This push-pull dynamic, applied against women, produces Islam’s Stockholm syndrome, forcing women to submit to men. Compliant women in turn create compliant families in a compliant, monocultural Muslim society.

Muslims instinctively recognize jihad-and-hegira, a dualistic pattern that allows Muslims in stages to be both militant, then conciliatory. Jihad and hegira are opposite ends of one swing or, if you will, two phases of one cycle. Militant jihad prepares the way for conciliatory ‘peaceful Islam’. ‘Peaceful Islam’ then sets up jihad/holy warfare. In this manner, Islam ratchets itself forward, just as a reaper advances into a field, cutting wheat with the forward-and-back, swinging motion of a scythe.

Dualistic Jihad-and-Hegira creates Stockholm Syndrome

Muslims instinctively expect jihadic violence to set up the conditions for conversion to ‘peaceful Islam’ (and so it does), but the ‘miracle’ they perceive is actually the Stockholm syndrome. An example from the Sira illustrates this point:

“Mas’ud leapt upon Sunayna, one of the Jewish merchants with whom his family had social and commercial relations and killed him. The Muslim’s brother complained, saying, ‘Why did you kill him? You have much fat in you belly from his charity.’ Mas’ud answered, ‘By Allah, had Muhammad ordered me to murder you, my brother, I would have cut off your head.’ Whereupon the brother said, ‘Any religion that can bring you to this is indeed wonderful!’ And he accepted Islam.” (Ishaq: 369)

This counterintuitive story from the Sira illustrates how terrorism and the startling threat of fratricide lead to Islamic conversion. After the carnage of 9-11, Muslims around the world claimed without evidence that there was an increase in conversions to Islam. Muslims sincerely believed the viciousness of 9-11 had led to a miraculous admiration for Islam, rather than revulsion. This is a telltale sign that Muslims unconsciously recognize the Stockholm syndrome.

However, victims of the Stockholm syndrome are unaware they have been programmed to endorse violence. Muslims themselves, and their victims, become dissociated through the ratcheting motion of jihad-and-hegira.

Kafirs need to recognize that militant jihadists (what politicians call ‘Muslim extremists’) and ‘nice Muslims’ (i.e. ‘moderate Muslims’) are simply opposite ends of Islam’s bipolarity…jihad-and-hegira…rather two different kinds of Muslim. Muslims shift easily between the two poles.

From Submissives to Co-perpetrators

Jihad-and-hegira is classic Islamic dualism. Dualism explains most of Islam. In dualism, there are unequal pairs in which one side must submit to the other. In the Stockholm syndrome, there is a dominator and a submissive. In Islam, women always submit to a man. Under the permanent threat of execution sanctioned by Allah in the Koran and sacred Sharia law, Islam’s unwilling female victims are transformed into willing codependents and active co-perpetrators with the jihadists.

Gendercide embedded in Sharia Law

Islamic male supremacism is embedded in the eternally valid words of Mohammed. He said that women are mentally and spiritually inferior to men, that they may be controlled by their husbands by beating them and by isolating them. Muslim husbands even have the right to honor kill their wives under Koran 4.34: “Then if they obey you, take no further action against them.”

The choice of ‘further action’ is up to the male owner of the chattels. Daughters and granddaughters may be honor killed under Koran 18.81 and Sharia law (ref. o1.1-4, ‘The Reliance of the Traveller’). In many Islamic countries, honor killings are not punished with severity, if they are punished at all. Mullahs living in Western countries sometimes claim that honor killing is ‘un-Islamic’; however, here it is clearly allowed in Sharia law. What is left unsaid in Sharia’s murder loophole is more important than what is said, because murder is morally reprehensible and the mullahs need plausible deniability.

Muslim women realize honor killing is a valid part of Islam, since it is eternally approved by Allah/Mohammed and by Sharia. Muslim women also accept that they have half the value of a man and that their entire body is a shameful sexual organ (‘awra’) that must be concealed by veils. They accept that the male head of the family is authorized under Sharia to be judge, jury and executioner within his family in the matter of honor killings. Muslim women are sociologically isolated through cousin marriage, so they accept there is nothing they can do about their lot but submit. Even so, thousands of Muslim women commit suicide every year in order to escape from Islam.

In Islam, women are ‘prisoners’ and ‘domestic animals’ of men. Noncompliant women may thus be culled in the same way a farmer culls rogue animals that exhibit behavioral problems.

Muslim males (and their female co-perpetrators) perceive honor killings as restoring family honor by removing an embarrassing behavioral problem.

Psychological Effect on Muslim Women

While jihadic violence is the initiating cause, the Stockholm syndrome is the psychological effect on Muslim women. Briefly put, jihad’s permanent, Allah-given threat of violence against women produces the astonishing psychological effect of cooperative victims.

One simple definition of jihad is the subjugation of women and ‘others’ using Mohammed’s methods. Mohammed’s methods implant the Stockholm syndrome in women.

Ideal female cooperation with the Muslim perpetrator is illustrated in Mohammed’s official biography, The Sira:

“When the apostle arrived at the home of his family he gave his sword to his daughter Fatima, saying, ‘Wash the blood from it, little one. By Allah, it has been true to me today.’ Ali, too, gave her his sword and said, ‘Take this and wash the blood from it. By Allah, it has been true to me today’. The name of the apostle’s sword was Dhul-Faqar (spine-splitter).” (Ishaq, Chap.14, Uhud)

Mohammed’s daughter Fatima is the perfect example of the Stockholm syndrome: she prepares the weapons of jihad which will in turn subjugate and enslave more women, herself included. She is a co-dependent.

Psychologically, the Stockholm syndrome is a Muslim woman’s attempt to escape from the despair of lifelong incarceration in Islam. Muslim women may be beaten, locked up and even honor-killed. Muslim women accept this abusive relationship because Allah eternally commands it in the Koran, as well as Mohammed in his final sermon. Muslim women give consent to men keeping them as ‘prisoners’ and ‘domestic animals’.

Mohammed’s chauvinistic final commands contained in his final sermon may never be abrogated, so Muslim women cannot be liberated until the end of time.

With 600 million female captives, Islam is a case of the Stockholm syndrome on an industrial scale. Muslim women cooperate in their own captivity because it is Allah’s will that they do so, even to the point of participating in the honor killing of other female relatives or their own children.

Co-perpetrators in Honor Killing

Victims of the Stockholm syndrome accept the violent ideology of their captors. They accept that the captors have the right to take hostages and even murder them in the name of their cause. As the Stockholm syndrome deepens, hostages finally become true believers and even co-conspirators as was observed in the famous case of Patty Hearst.

In Islam, all women are permanent hostages who may be honor killed by their male guardians at any moment. The justification for honor killing comes from Allah’s eternally valid words commanding the murder of apostates who leave Islam (K.18.81).

A Muslim, who refuses to be compliant to Islamic theocracy, becomes a guilty non-Muslim kafir, one who ‘hides’ the fact that Mohammed is right.

Islam’s non-compliant women have become kafirs and traitors to Islam who must be executed. Under the draconian rules of Sharia law, no blood compensation is paid to a family in the killing of an apostate from Islam nor is there any Sharia punishment for the killer (Reliance of the Traveller, o8.4). This means that murdering an apostate is normative Islam. This permanent death threat to all Muslims who rebel —and especially to all women—is the key component of Islam’s Stockholm syndrome.

A Muslim woman has three options: 1) embrace the Stockholm syndrome, 2) wait to be honor-killed or 3) flee Islam (suicide is one way of fleeing Islam).

Tragically, many victims of Islamic honor-killings have first been lulled into a sense of false security by their captors before being betrayed and honor-killed by them. Giving false assurances to victims and luring them into a trap is the sacred example of Mohammed in the Hadiths and Sira.

As lifelong prisoners of men, Muslim women are Islam’s first victims. After succumbing to the Stockholm syndrome, Muslim women endorse Mohammed’s brutal methods. The more they dissociate and identify with Mohammed, the more women act as co-dependents and co-perpetrators.

In spite of thousands of Islamic honor killings each year, Western Feminists have shown little interest in addressing Islam’s industrial-scale misogyny. Western Feminists have instead become pacified dhimmis, unconsciously embracing Islam’s Stockholm syndrome and abetting the perpetrators, rather than live under the constant anxiety of jihad. By their silence, Western Feminists have given up the fight against male supremacism and submitted to Islam.

A Successful Program of Intimidation

The stability of Islam depends on its complete control of women.

The permanent threat of death for non-compliance is the key to understanding Islam’s great psychological control over women and dhimmis. This ‘living under the avalanche’ creates the Stockholm syndrome which gives Islam its enduring stability and power.

The Stockholm syndrome is arguably Mohammed’s greatest discovery and the key to Islam’s success. Mohammed and his followers thought the Stockholm syndrome was a true miracle! But it is no miracle.

Fear transforms Islamic society through the unending threat of violence and death. The Stockholm syndrome is the psychological heart of Islam.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/women-islam-and-the-stockholm-syndrome-part-2/
Copyright © 2013 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Kenneth Roberts, Associate Writer

What causes a Muslim woman to honor-kill the children she has borne and raised? The explanation is ‘the Stockholm Syndrome’. It is one of the secret keys of political Islam and Mohammed’s greatest discovery.

The Stockholm syndrome or ‘capture bonding’ is a psychological paradox in which hostages develop empathy and positive feelings towards their captors, even to the point of adopting the captor’s oppressive ideology. One would expect captives to experience resentment and hatred towards an abuser, but that is not what occurs in the Stockholm syndrome.

Rather, the Stockholm syndrome takes hold in a few days as a result of captors performing small acts of kindness towards their doomed captives. The threat of certain death in contrast with kind gestures is thought to bring about the syndrome. The confused captive soon begins to identify with the cruel psyche of the captor in order to survive.

This push-pull dynamic of terror alternating with moments of relative benevolence produces this delusion in the mind of the captive. The captive then begins to believe the far-fetched justifications for brutality and murder that bend the minds of her or his terrorist captors.

The Stockholm syndrome is a severe form of a psychological phenomenon known as dissociation. It is the mind’s survival mechanism, the way trauma victims convince themselves that “this isn’t happening”. Mohammed discovered it by accident.

Why ‘Greatest Discovery’

The discovery of the Stockholm syndrome changed Mohammed’s life. Before discovering the Stockholm syndrome, Mohammed preached religion for 13 years and collected about 150 followers. After his discovery of capture bonding, Mohammed’s political movement grew exponentially.

How did Mohammed’s great discovery occur? It began with a problem.

Omar’s Revelations

After leaving Mecca, Mohammed’s small, impoverished movement began to pick up ruffians to assist in pillaging the Meccans. Mohammed had previously been living in a polite, middle class, business environment. He and his followers were not used to the rough, rude manners of the pillaging ‘Ansaris’ (auxiliaries) that Mohammed had hired in exchange for a share of booty on his vengeful raids against the Meccans. Even the manners of Ansari women were rough and insubordinate. The women of Mohammed’s group began to pick up the highly assertive manners of the Ansari women. At first, Mohammed took no notice, but Omar bin Khattab did. Omar pushed Mohammed to receive a revelation from Allah.

Allah soon sent Mohammed an eternal revelation that men should beat their wives into submission. Were these original Muslim women beaten ‘lightly’ as recommended by modern mullahs? Apparently not. Aisha (Mohammed’s preteen bride) later said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Bukhari 7:72:715)

Veiling and Isolation: Ingredients of Stockholm Syndrome

Veiling is another important contributor to the Islamic Stockholm syndrome. Veiling causes isolation from perspectives other than those of the captor.

Veiling came about when Omar yet again provoked a crisis, this time by following Muslim women to the privies. Omar noted that free Muslim women, if left unveiled, could not be distinguished from unveiled slaves. Since Mohammed permitted his men to ‘molest’ slaves, Omar demanded action “…as he desired eagerly that the verses of al-hijab may be revealed. So Allah revealed the verses of “al-Hijab” (Sahih Bukhari 1.14.148). Allah swiftly gave an eternal command about veiling, so that married women (including Omar’s wives) could no longer be ‘misidentified’ as kafirs and ‘molested’ by jihadists (Koran 33.59). According to Allah, unveiled women don’t get protection from rape.

Mohammed’s Prisoners

By limiting women’s independence of movement and making them indistinguishable one from another, veiling produces permanent isolation of women, a necessary condition for the Stockholm syndrome. The combination of isolation, beating and the veil turn Muslim women into passive, isolated, malleable non-persons. Muslim women live in a permanent state of dissociation and denial.

Because of Omar, the freedom of Muslim women has not increased at all in the last 1400 years, while everywhere else women’s rights have steadily evolved. Muslim women are still restricted to a form of house arrest as ‘domestic animals’ or ‘prisoners’, forced to interact only with their husbands and children (read ‘Mohammed’s Final Sermon’).

Choosing Compliance as an Alternative to Death

As the Stockholm syndrome takes hold, victims perceive they can either resist the perpetrator and meet certain death or they can comply and hope to live. The threat of certain death is a necessary factor in the Stockholm syndrome. Islam provides this permanent threat to women through the eternally existing Koran, Mohammed’s Sunna (perfect example) and sacred Sharia law.

No Islamic doctrine depends on a single verse, but on the Koran, Mohammed’s example and the canonical decisions of Islamic jurists. They create a three-dimensional picture of conduct that all Muslims must follow. Tragically, Islamic law provides broad loopholes for the honor killing of women.

The Koran says that if a Muslim woman obeys her male owner after a beating, no further action should be taken. The words ‘take no further action’ (Koran 4.34) are highly significant, since they imply that actions beyond beating may be taken, perhaps mutilation, perhaps starvation or death through honor killing. The choice of ‘further action’ is up to the male owner of the chattels. Modern mullahs often try to tone this down for Western audiences, but such moderation is not in foundational Islam. Koran 4.15 & 34 offer the basis for honor killing of women, since a husband needn’t feed a woman if her performance is unsatisfactory. She may be locked up and starved in her home.

Mohammed’s sacred example approves of a blind man who murders the mother of his children because she blasphemed Mohammed.

Sharia law also makes ample room for honor killing of women by omitting any punishment for the murderer of an apostate or the murderer of disobedient children or grandchildren. In the context of cousin marriage, Sharia leaves the door open to the honor killing of women with the blessing of the couple’s common grandparents (Reliance of the Traveller, o1.2, 1-5). Such honor killing is perfectly legal under Sharia, there being no punishment for it.

Honor killing is eternally permitted (though not commanded) in Islam. Such violence against women is part of jihad, the ‘struggle’ to force women and ‘others’ to submit without resistance to Muslim males.

Dhimmitude: a Captivity Contract

Dhimmis capitulate to Islamic rule. Captive Muslim women (as well as entire captive nations) are given the stark choice of being beaten (or dead) prisoners…or living, compliant semi-slaves to Islam. Since it is difficult to endure the despair of permanent captivity, Islam’s captives dissociate and ‘voluntarily’ choose compliance. This condition of surrender to Islam is called ‘dhimmitude’. When entire kafir nations submit to Islamic supremacism, they become pacified kafirs or ‘dhimmis’ under a humiliating ‘dhimma’ (protection) agreement. Nevertheless, if dhimmis resist their Muslim overlords even a little, they are deemed to have broken their contract of ‘protection’ and they revert to being unprotected ‘kafirs’ or ‘harbis’ who must be ‘fought’.

Sharia’s logic is that a Muslim woman who resists her owner has become an apostate from Islam, a ‘kafir’ or even a ‘harbi’ who may lawfully be murdered, since she has abandoned the rules of Islam. Under Sharia, no blood indemnity is required in the murder of an apostate, so killing defiant women is permitted. This is easily done with the consent of the parents or grandparents in a cousin marriage.

A majority of Muslim women actually marry a first cousin, so family-directed violence against women is rife in Islam. Cousin marriage places a secure sociological noose around the majority of Muslim women. Thanks to Sharia law and cousin marriage, Muslim women are Mohammed’s prisoners having no escape from violence and death.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/mohammeds-greatest-discovery-part-1/
Copyright © 2013 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Is Islam tolerant of Christianity? Muslims say yes, but what are the facts?

Mullahs around the world warn Muslims not to respond to the words ‘Merry Christmas’. If Jesus is the ‘prince of peace’, it makes Mohammed look bad. In the last years of his life, Mohammed led and commanded violent aggression every six weeks. Mohammed was the ‘prince of jihad’.

Muslims believe angels announced the birth of Jesus, but Muslims do not believe the Gospel where the angels said, “Peace on earth.” Peace with Kafirs is not possible. The Christmas greeting to Christians around the world is still the same as it was in 630 AD: “Aslim, Taslam!” (Surrender to Islam and be safe). Where Christians do not surrender to Islamic terrorists, their lives are now in danger.

For the Muslim, the world cannot be at peace until every government on earth follows the laws of Allah. The duty of Muslims is to create the conditions that drive non-Muslims into the arms of Sharia law, ‘whether by persuasion or by force’ as ibn Khaldun wrote.

If Christians won’t voluntarily change their laws to Shari’a, then it is the duty of every Muslim to induce Christians in three ways: violence, extortion or enslavement.

Muslims around the world are particularly aware of Christianity at Christmas time when they become even more determined to impose Sharia. This leads to jihad attacks in churches in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia. Attacking worshipping Christians is jihad. The purpose is to discourage them from their non-Islamic worship. In Nigerian churches, most women have been asked not to bring a purse and armed guards stand at the door with metal detectors to screen every worshipper. This is because jihadists are taught in the hadiths to lull enemies of Allah into trust before betraying them. Every person entering a church might be a jihadist.

The purpose of jihad is to implement discriminatory Sharia. Sharia is not benign to Christians.

The purpose of Sharia is to destroy Christian and other cultures and replace them with theocratic totalitarianism. Jihad is the method for imposing Sharia. Jihad is aggressive: it can take the form of deception or disinformation, robbery, lawsuits or it can be violent with the destruction of property or assassination of church leaders. All jihad is good because it is Mohammed’s sacred method.

Since 1990 in Nigeria, some 1000 Christians have been murdered by jihadists every year. Probably, the number is much higher with many jihad-motivated murders being put down as ordinary homicides or accidental manslaughters. Most of the jihad murders take place in northern Nigeria where Islamist want to impose Sharia law.

Nigeria has one of the highest scholarship rates in Africa. As Nigerians gain graduate and post-graduate degrees, they often leave Islam and switch to Christianity which they identified with Western progress. Islamists see going to university as the problem. Better to stay at home, memorize the Koran and remain loyal to Mohammed, the perfect man, than to learn to improve society, build infrastructure, services, health sciences or engineering in the country.

Boko Haram (meaning ‘Western education is taboo’) is the main Islamic terror group fighting the rapid Christianization of Nigeria. They are now allied with Al Qaeda. Their trademark is to attack congregation while they are worshipping or throw bombs into restaurants where Christians eat after services. This is ethnic cleansing and genocide. Mohammed ethnically cleansed the Jewish tribes in Arabia, so it is normative Islam. Boko Haram wants to ethnically cleanse Christians from northern Nigeria. Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing method goes like this: intimidate, humiliate and expropriate until you can annihilate.

Most of the countries that are now Islamic were once Christian. The Christian presence in Turkey is almost nil, and in most of North Africa it is tiny, but it was once close to 100% in all of them. What changed things was Sharia law. Under discriminatory Sharia law, Christians must live in an inferior social status to Muslims, they must wear clothing that humiliates them, they must never ride on a horse, they must pay a punitive tax, they must never speak about Islam or the Koran, they must never ring their church’s bell, they must never have an outdoor religious ceremony or speak to a Muslim about Christianity, they must move aside when a Muslim walks down the street. As well, no new churches may be built and old ones may never be repaired unless hefty bribes are given to the authorities. The policy of Sharia is to systemically make life difficult for Christians to practice their faith, all the while encouraging them to convert.

Then there is the ‘love jihad’. Mohammed started this with the comment ‘marry one woman (out of four wives) for the religion’. Muslim men have taken this as a commandment to abduct a Christian girl, confine her and then declare her to be married without her consent. The girl’s family is then told she has converted to Islam and they may never see her. Police do nothing, because it’s Sharia and Sharia trumps any man-made law. No one can estimate how many Christian girls have been abducted and sequestered in the ‘love jihad’, but the fact that many African Christians tattoo a cross on the forehead and cheeks of their girls speaks volumes.

The reason Christians were not substantially cleansed from Islamic countries until the Turkish genocides of 1915-1924 is because Christians were used for a supply of jizzya [dhimmi tax] and they were very useful in medicine, the arts, building and garbage removal. Turkey ethnically cleansed three million Armenian, Assyrian and Greek Christians to confiscate their wealth and properties for a government at war that was strapped for ready cash. The Young Turks were also jihadists hoping to make Turkey the capital of a global caliphate promoting Sharia law. Discriminatory Sharia law is like a ratchet that only tightens a bolt even though it apparently moves back and forwards. Sharia only benefits Islam.

So when Americans hear the church bells ring on Christmas Eve, remember that Christians worshipping in Islamic regions like northern Nigeria may hear the sound of bombs thrown in the church door, guns shooting down the main aisle or the sound of fire on the church roof.

Merry Christmas.

Written by Kenneth Roberts

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink: https://politicalislam.com/un-merry-christmas-to-christians-from-islam/
Copyright © 2012 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com
Use as needed, just give credit and do not edit.
www.politicalislam.com

Mohammed’s Litmus Test (…of Original Islam)

by Kenneth Roberts

What is the original Islam?

Muslim apologists claim that original Islam meant ‘peace’, but what is the evidence? Mohammed claimed the opposite.

According to Mohammed, original Islam is jihad.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah say: When you enter into the inah transaction (become businessmen), hold the tails of oxen (become cattlemen), are pleased with agriculture (become farmers), and give up conducting jihad, Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion. – Sunan Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455

Conducting jihad is the ‘original religion’ of Mohammed. Mohammed is the authority on Islam.

Mohammed’s Litmus Test

Just as adherence to the U.S. constitution is the litmus test of American identity, so adherence to jihad is Mohammed’s test of loyalty to Islam.

Mohammed’s litmus test is the willingness of Muslims to conduct jihad. That is how Mohammed determined who is a genuine Muslim and who is a lukewarm ‘hypocrite’.

Lukewarm Muslims do not go on jihad. Lukewarm Muslims go into trades or farming. By this test, most Muslims today are condemned. Non-jihadist Muslims have abandoned original Islam.

Lest this be considered too hasty, let’s examine further evidence.

Narrated Mujashi: My brother and I came to the Prophet and I requested him to take the pledge of allegiance from us for migration. He said, “Migration has passed away with its people.” I asked, “For what will you take the pledge of allegiance from us then?” He (Mohammed) said, “I will take (the pledge) for Islam and jihad.” – Bukhari 4,52,208

In the above quote, Mohammed says that allegiance to Islam includes a commitment to the political action of jihad.

In addition, the Koran says lukewarm Muslims can be recognized because they avoid jihad.

“It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from jihad).” – K. 9.45

“But when a decisive surah (explaining and ordering things) is sent down, and fighting (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) looking at you with a look of one fainting to death…” – K. 47:20

So not going on jihad is a disease or mental illness in Muslims according to Allah/Mohammed.

Non-Jihadists are ‘Rubbish’

Not content with calling non-jihadists ‘diseased’, Mohammed insults them further; they are ‘garbage’:

“Prophet Muhammad said; It is expected that the nations will call other nations to share them against you (Muslims) as the eaters call each other to eat from the food in front of them in a large wooden plate A person asked, Will that happen because of our small number on that day? The Prophet said, No. Your number will be great, but you will be rubbish like the rubbish of flood-water. And certainly Allah will remove from the hearts of enemies the fear of you and surely Allah will throw Wahn in your hearts. A person asked, What is Wahn, O Messenger of Allah? The Prophet said, Wahn is to love this world and to hate death.” – Abu Dawud 4284

The Messenger of God said: The nations are about to flock against you [the Muslims] from every horizon, just as hungry people flock to a kettle. We said: O Messenger of God, will we be few on that day? He said: No, you will be many in number, but you will be scum, like the scum of a flash-flood, without any weight, since fear will be removed from the hearts of your enemies, and weakness (wahn) will be placed in your hearts. We said: O Messenger of God, what does the word wahn mean? He said: Love of this world, and fear of death.

In this hadith, lukewarm Muslims love their earthly life and seek comfort and safety, whereas, real Muslims are jihadists who love death. Real Muslims are feared by kafirs. Fear of Muslims is what Allah wants.

But Islam is fatalistic. Allah controls people’s wills and causes lukewarm Muslims to rebel against him by placing ‘wahn’ in their minds. Kafirs have no reason to fear lukewarm Muslims, because they do not go forth in jihad. Lukewarm Muslims are no different from kafirs…they are ‘rubbish’…so they must be replaced by real Muslims who conduct jihad.

“O you who believe! What is the matter with you that when you are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah (jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life as compared with the hereafter. Unless you go forth He will punish you with a grievous penalty and put others in your place; but Him you would not harm in the least. For Allah has power over all things.” – K. 9:38-9

Mohammed’s Allies Agreed to Unending Jihad

When Mohammed arrived in Medina with few followers, he needed allies to begin jihad. Those tribes that made an alliance with Mohammed understood jihad as their main task.

“We are those who have given a pledge of allegiance to Muhammad that we will carry on Jihad as long as we live.” – Bukhari 4,52,87

According to the above, jihad is unending. Other hadiths also confirm that jihad is endless:

“As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us.” – Tabari IX: 69

“‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.'” – Ishaq: 204

Jihad is the Proper Career for Muslims

Furthermore, according to Mohammed, jihad is not just a job, but a career.

…It is mentioned from Ibn ‘Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, “My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command.” – Bukhari 61, 2756

Good Muslims imitate Mohammed. Good Muslims threaten kafirs to submit: ‘Accept Islam and you will be safe’. Good Muslims make war on kafirs to remove their possessions and human rights. Kafirs are despoiled for the political crime of disobeying Mohammed.

‘Abasement’ and ‘humility’ mean making kafirs captive nations under discriminatory Sharia law. Thus, the purpose of jihad is to rob and subjugate non-Muslims and enrich and empower Muslims.

Jihad Brings Wealth

“O you who believe! If you will aid (the cause of) Allah He will aid you and plant your feet firmly.” – K. 47:7

As well, Mohammed is owner of the earth and Muslims will gain the treasures of Rome and Persia and the world through jihad (q.v. Bukhari 4,52,220).

Jihad makes Muslims Strong through Plunder

“The spoils of war were not made lawful for any people before us. This is because Allah saw our weakness and humility and made them lawful for us.” – Sahih Muslim 19,4327

Jihad is More Religious than Kind Deeds

Allah, the Exalted, says, Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque equal to (the pious service of) those who believe in Allah and the Last Day and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong (by avoiding jihad). Those who believe and suffer exile and strive with might and main in Allah’s cause with their goods and their persons have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: They are the people who will achieve (paradise). – K. 9:19-20.

It is not pious deeds, but the political act of jihad that guarantees religious salvation.

Jihad as Defined in Sharia Law

The legal definition of jihad is given in the authoritative Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0:

“Jihad means to war against non-Muslims.”

The Reliance of the Traveller is Sunni Islam’s authoritative volume on Sharia law. It is endorsed by Alazhar University, Islam’s equivalent of the Vatican.

Eminent Islamologist Hans Jansen points out that, to the original Muslims, jihad only meant violence: “The first generations of Muslims never understood anything else but ‘waging war’ when they heard the word jihad.”

Up to this point, the evidence has shown that…real Muslims are those who follow original Islam; they conduct war against non-Muslims; Mohammed says jihad is the proper career of Muslims; peaceful civilian jobs are a way of avoiding jihad.

But is this condition permanent in Islam? Can Islam be changed?

Can Jihad be abandoned? Can Islam be reformed?

Unfortunately, no. Jihad—warfare against non-Muslims—is the perfectly revealed ‘original religion’ of Islam declared in various ways by the final Messenger himself. It may not be changed.

‘Far removed (from mercy), those who changed (the religion) after me! – Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 174

Allah brings Muslims back to Original Islam

Islam may go off track for brief periods, but Allah will send someone to return it to his path.
Narrated Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah shall raise for this Ummah at the head of every century a man who shall renew (or revive) for it its religion. – Sunan Abu Dawud 37, 4278

‘Revival’ in Islam means the revival of conducting jihad.

Modern Teachings on Jihadism

Jihadism is the teaching that jihad is the central mission of Islam.

In his 2008 sermon “Allah is Preparing us for Victory” , the late Anwar Awlaki wrote:

“Some Muslims say the way forward for this Ummah is to distance itself from terrorism and spend their time in becoming good in Business, good in technology, agriculture, and the rest; and this is how we can compete with the rest of the world. The commentators on this hadith (Abu Dawud 23:3455) say going back to the (religion) here means going back to (Jihad for Allah) the only way to go back to the (religion) is to go back to (Jihad for Allah) so Jihad becomes equal to the religion; the solution of the Ummah is to go back to Jihad fe Sabeelillah.”

Awlaki goes into details of jihadism as a money-making technique for modern Muslims:

“Leave the farming to the people of the book (Jews and Christians), you go and spread the religion of Allah (through jihad) they will farm and they will feed you; they will pay Jizya (poll tax), they will pay Kharaaj (tribute), if the (sustenance) of (the Messenger) was through Ghaneema (plunder) it must be the best (sustenance) and better than farming, business, shepherding and better than anything else because (the Messenger) said: “My (sustenance) comes beneath the shadow of my spear.”

Awlaki then argues that through robbery and extortion at the expense of kafirs, no Muslim will ever need to pay taxes. This will succeed because it is Mohammed’s original Islam.

Muslims Demand a Global Caliphate and Sharia

Opinion surveys consistently find that around 65% of Muslims worldwide approve of a global caliphate under discriminatory Sharia law. This state of affairs could only be achieved through a general jihad by Muslims, since a caliphate would be resisted by the superpowers. Nevertheless, Islamic dictatorship is a majority opinion among Muslims.

Is Jihad a Suicide Pact in the Nuclear Era?

Jihad is original Islam and Mohammed’s method. Consequently, Muslims are caught in this logical dilemma: If Mohammed’s method is still valid, therefore Islam is a suicide pact in the nuclear era; but if endless jihad is no longer valid, therefore Mohammed was wrong and original Islam is false. Muslims tiptoe around nuclear annihilation, rather than say Islam is false. Today, many Muslims hope to conduct jihad by other, stealthier means…since jihad may be conducted by word, by money or by the pen.

All the same, modern Muslims are aware that jihad is the litmus test for Mohammed’s original religion, but they are patiently awaiting the right leader.

This inspiring leader—a religious warlord—will call Muslims to a general jihad and establish a utopian dictatorship under discriminatory Sharia law. Muslims balk at imagining how apocalyptic this general jihad would be, even though it is obvious.

Using mathematical analysis, Bill Warner has revealed that jihad is the preponderant theme of the Islamic Trilogy.

Jihadism is thus not a far-fetched aberration promoted by a small minority of Muslims…it is the hidden agenda of Muslims…it is foundational Islam…the ‘original religion’ of Mohammed.

Original Islam is jihad, not peace.

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/mohammeds-litmus-test/

by Kenneth Roberts

Photoshopping is slang for the digital editing of photos. In photoshopping, images are edited and manipulated to create an illusion or deception.

Helicopter Shark Mohammed

The ‘Helicopter_Shark‘ was a famous example of photo manipulation in which two photographs were digitally combined to give the impression that a shark was leaping from the water to attack a military helicopter. Modern Islamic apologetics go to similar lengths to manipulate the biography of Mohammed even adding elements not in the foundational texts. A typical example of Islamic ‘helicopter shark’ is this story:

There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the Prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam.

There is no reference provided for the preceding, because it is not Islamic. The actual story is from the life of Abdul Baha, a founder of Baha’iism that has been photoshopped into Mohammed’s biography by modern Muslim apologists.

The real story of a woman who insulted Mohammed is found below with its reference:

A Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet ruled that no blood money was due in this case. (Abu Dawud 4349)

Glamour Photo Mohammed

In glamour photos, the term “airbrushing” describes the removal of physical imperfections of photo models or the enhancement of their attributes in an attempt to fabricate an image of unrealistic female perfection.
Modern Muslims similarly create an ‘airbrushed’ or ‘photoshopped’ image of Mohammed by leaving out his offensive traits and enhancing any qualities that appeal to our modern concerns for human rights and civil liberties.
Here is an example of ‘airbrushed’ Mohammed found on an Islamic website:

“He (Mohammed) suffered from all but harmed none. He was affectionate and loving towards his friends and forgiving and merciful towards his enemies. He was sincere and honest in his mission; good and fair in his dealings; and just in deciding affairs of friends as well as of enemies. In short, all goodness and excellence have been combined in the person and personality of Hazrat Mohammed”.

However, the unphotoshopped Mohammed is neither affectionate nor merciful:

“Aisha, the Mother of the Faithful, was asked, ‘How did the Messenger of Allah behave?’ She replied, ‘His eye did not weep for anyone.’” Tabari VIII:40

Object Removal

A main aim in photo editing is the removal of unwanted objects in the photo. Before photoshopping, this was done by airbrushing. Stalin routinely airbrushed his enemies out of photographs. The term “airbrushed out” has come to mean rewriting history to pretend something was never there.
Contemporary academics have called the process of removing components from an image object removal. It is considered unethical because it is an intentional misrepresentation of historical facts.

The ‘objects’ modern Islamists want to remove are Mohammed’s …

…authoritarianism
‘It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision.’ Koran 33.36

…megalomania
‘While I was sleeping, the keys to the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.’ Bukhari:V4B52N220

…misogyny
“Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it.” Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525)

…intolerance
“No two religions are to exist in the Arab Peninsula”, The Sira, pp. 50, 51

…compulsion

“The apostle of God defeated the people until they entered Islam by hook or by crook.” “The Ordinances of Qur’an”, Al Shafi, page 50

…supremacism
“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” K. 8:39

…terrorism
“How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.” K. 7:4

‘Terrorists cannot be Muslims’ or can they?

One of the claims of modern Islamists is that ‘a terrorist cannot be a Muslim’.

Just after 9-11, the late Anwar Awlaki, mentor to notable terrorists, said, “There is no way that the people who did this (9-11) could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion.” Awlaki’s later terrorism proved he did not believe his own definition.

By Awlaki’s definition, many leading Muslims of history are excluded from the religion of Islam:

Osama Bin Laden was not a Muslim when he cast terror into the hearts of Americans on 9-11.

Sayeed Maududi was not a Muslim when he wrote: “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam.” Sayeed Abdul A’la Maududi, Jihad in Islam, p.9

Sultan Mehmet V was also not a Muslim when he signed the Universal Fatwa of 1915 sanctioning the genocide of three million of his Christian subjects.

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), was not a Muslim when he wrote, “the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” (emphasis added)

Tamurlane was not a Muslim when he wrote glowingly of his mass murders: ‘I had crossed the rivers Ganges and Jumna and I had sent many of the abominable infidels to hell, and had purified the land from their foul existence….Thanks to almighty Allah.”

Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq was not a Muslim when he ordered his general Qasim to “behave in such a way that no enemy of the true faith is left in that country”.

Mohammed’s successful general Khalid ibn Walid was not a Muslim when Mohammed sent him to destroy all the pagan temples of the neighboring tribes of Mecca. Khalid reached the Jazima tribe and asked them to say, “We are Muslims”. But they said, “We are Sabians” – whereupon Khalid slaughtered the whole tribe.

By Awlaki’s definition, Mohammed could not be a Muslim either. The Sira (his official biography) is filled with violent acts initiated by Mohammed. In the Sira, Mohammed orders or leads a violent act every six weeks resulting in assassination, plundering, enslavement, rape, genocide, ethnic cleansing and territorial conquest.

The Sira explicitly states that many detractors ran away because of Mohammed’s acts of terrorism. The Sira depicts Mohammed as a successful terrorist. Muslim apologists seldom refer to the Sira…object removal.

The Ethics of Manipulating Mohammed’s Image

In Islam, it is considered moral to manipulate Mohammed’s image to create a favorable impression with kafirs. The moral basis for photoshopping Mohammed’s ‘image’ is called taqiyya.

Taqiyya is sacred concealment for the advancement of Islamic political supremacism. Taqiyya is a form of verbal jihad used to defeat Islam’s opponents by using disinformation. Mohammed used taqiyya frequently in the Sira.

Taqiyya is a doctrine of disinformation endorsed by all branches of Islam. Governments of Islamic countries use taqiyya as a normative policy technique, especially in Shi’ite Iran where taqiyya has greater acceptability.

Taqiyya is basically a kind of object removal.

Our Reaction to Islamic Photoshopping

In light of Islam’s dualistic doctrine of taqiyya, should we ever take at face value the depictions of Mohammed invented by modern apologists of Islam? Or should we rigorously investigate them and do our own research into Islam’s foundational texts to determine whether they have been photoshopped?

Should we not compare the photoshopped versions of Islam with Islam’s canonical writers and spokesmen? Should we not study orthodox authorities of Islam such as Bukhari, Ibn Ishaq, Taymiyyah, Tabari, Nawawi, Ibn Kathir, since they represent Islam’s canonical consensus?

As we saw, Muslim apologists, like the late Anwar Awlaki, use taqiyya to justify misrepresentations of Mohammed’s biography or of the supremacist agenda of jihad, Mohammed’s method.

We need to ask: ‘Has this image of a non-violent Mohammed been photoshopped?’

Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink https://politicalislam.com/photoshopped-mohammed/
Copyright © 2011 CBSX, LLC, politicalislam.com

by Kenneth Roberts

Mohammed was the dominant alpha male in his society. Mohammed was the quintessential alpha male. His unlimited polygamy, his monopoly on the use of force to dominate others, his monopoly on divine revelation, his claim of special powers not given to others, such as superhuman eloquence (Sahih Bukhari 9,87,127), his claim of 20% of all the plunder stolen in raids…all expressed and reinforced his alpha-ness.

We see alpha male behavior throughout the animal kingdom, for instance, in a troop of baboons or a pride of lions. Everyone around the alpha male is subservient to him and exists only to satisfy his urges and to comply with his demands. Of course, the underlings in the group must constantly show the alpha male respect and ‘honor’, otherwise the alpha male will growl, bare his teeth and bite if necessary, even to the extent of killing to restore his honor. Political Islam works the same way. The Muslim response to disrespect towards Islam is one of the most visible signs of this alpha male instinct to defend ‘honor’ through violence.

The alpha male in Islam is under no obligation to give anything to or help the ‘other’ outside his immediate group-in any way, shape or form–but only to protect those within his group. The Golden Rule has no place in the animal kingdom, or in Islam. Violence is their mechanism of survival.

In Muslim society, the Muslim alpha male respects only another Muslim alpha male and only if he can demonstrate that he has everything under control; otherwise he will be despised. The non-Muslim is at the bottom of the hierarchy and is treated with the utmost contempt. Kafirs are dirty subhumans to a Muslim. The kafir is similar to an animal that has no right to graze the land or drink at the water-hole…an animal, whose only right is to be preyed upon for food. This is the meat of Islamic morals.

Jewish ethics are based on the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, but Mohammed brought a new theocracy based on the primacy of the alpha male. Allah substituted the Arabs for their Jewish cousins… not on the basis of ethics…but on the Arabs’ ability to act like alpha males.

The Ten Commandments were tossed out and were replaced by Mohammed’s ‘alpha-ness’. Islamic Sharia law is based on the alpha-ness of Mohammed. An action is ‘good’, not because God said so on a table of stone, but because Mohammed did so…from stabbing his verbal critics, to raping war captives, to genocide, to plundering unarmed caravans.

Mohammed dispensed with the Golden Rule and most of the Ten Commandments, since they were incompatible with his opportunistic ethics…the survival of the fittest…the supremacism of ‘the best of people’ (i.e. the Arabs), whom Mohammed conscripted to usurp the Israelites, Persians and Romans as the new alphas on the world stage.

Mohammed’s world is a theocratic dictatorship in which human behavior is motivated by the desire to dominate on the part of those who are allowed to, and fear on the part of those who are selected to be dominated…the dirty kafirs (‘najis kufar’ in Arabic).

Soul-searching is an alien concept in Mohammedan supremacism. In Mohammed’s society, there is no need for self-evaluation or self-criticism, apart from asking whether the alpha male is getting his rightful share and his due respect. There is no need for any Muslim to evaluate his behavior beyond this point. The dominance of the Islamic male is proof of Allah’s support for Islam, thus, the more domineering a Muslim is, the more Allah is seen to support him.

If a Muslim bows to the narcissism of Mohammed or to that of his Islamic head of state, he is ethical enough. Giving to ‘others’, without being forced to do so, is seen as a sign of weakness unfitting for the alpha male. What generally distinguishes the alpha male is his opportunism. Opportunism is the opposing principle to the Golden Rule. With no Golden Rule, Islam is intrinsically opportunistic.

A number of ancient rulers were notable alpha males: Julius Caesar, Hannibal, Nero and Genghis Khan. Mohammed clearly patterned himself on historic examples of pathological narcissism, particularly that of Alexander the Great. For some reason, Mohammed was enraptured by the legend of world-conquering Alexander the Great and claimed this vicious killer as a monotheist and even a proto-Muslim.

To the contrary, the historical Alexander was a confirmed polytheist and even claimed for himself the title of ‘Son of Amon’…making Alexander the ‘Son of God’…of Amon, the principle Egyptian god, ‘Lord of truth, father of the gods, maker of men’. Amon-Ra was associated with alpha male dominance, as a woolly ram-headed deity with curved horns. Since rams were considered a symbol of virility, due to their rutting behavior, Amon also became thought of as a fertility deity.

The Koran is filled with ancient legends and stories plagiarized from a plethora of pagan, Jewish and Christian texts. Textual analysis has identified precisely what they were.

Mohammed’s saga of the alpha male Alexander did not come from history…clearly, Mohammed did not get his information that way…but from ‘legends’. Due to the discovery of 3rd century texts, we now know where Mohammed got his ideas about Alexander. A highly-romanticized Christian legend composed in the 3rd century A.D. in Alexandria implied that Alexander was a monotheist (far from the truth). However, coins and monuments of Alexander depicted him with ram’s horns on his head.

‘Dhul-Qarnain‘ (‘the two-horned one’) features prominently in the Koran. Mohammed’s biographer Ibn Hishaq claimed, ‘Dhul-Qarnain is Alexander the Greek, the king of Persia and Greece, or the king of the east and the west, for because of this he was called Dhul-Qarnain’.

It requires no Sherlock Holmes to see that Mohammed’s persona was constructed from that of world-conqueror Alexander the Great, combined with that of Moses, conqueror of Canaan. Mohammed’s intoxicating fantasy captured the romance, theocracy and military genius of both men and presented him (Mohammed) to the Arabs as the combination of all their alpha qualities rolled into one.

Apart from the story of Alexander, the Koran contains aggressive alpha imagery:

‘We hurl the truth at falsehood and it knocks out its brains.’ (K.21.18)

In the Islamic paradise, it is the most aggressive alpha males who receive the highest rewards. (cf. K. 9:111)

All in all, we require no message from an Arabian moon god to reveal alpha male behavior to us. Alpha behavior is well known in much of the animal kingdom, as well as in criminal enterprises…such as biker gangs…and in fascist politicians who impose their cult of personality on vulnerable populations.

Much of current Islamic rage takes place at the inchoate, psychological level of alpha male narcissism. Alpha behaviors such as honor-killings and cartoon riots defend the ‘honor’, misogyny and supremacism that Muslim males have a vested interest in maintaining.

Of course, Mohammed’s supremacist model for society is incompatible with a pluralistic democracy based on non-violence, equality and tolerance in the public and personal spheres. The two models contradict one another.

Whether Mohammed’s alpha male fantasy has the slightest chance of surviving in the Age of Aquarius, well, that’s another story.

Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

by Kenneth Roberts

May 28, 2010

In the TV sitcom ‘Green Acres’, Oliver Wendell Douglas, a New York attorney runs for public office against the popular incumbent. A rumor starts, suggesting that Douglas had been debarred as a lawyer. Though not true, the rural folk keep repeating the lie during the campaign, until everyone accepts it as an established fact… and besides, it’s highly amusing to repeat the slander. Candidate Douglas is frustrated beyond endurance. Even though he is an accomplished attorney, he doesn’t stand a chance against this entrenched prejudice.

In the Koran, Mohammed uses the same technique. All sorts of things in the Koran are no more than cartoonish misrepresentations of people and other religions, but Moslems have no problem accepting them as established facts, merely because Mohammed said so and repeated them over and over, giving them divine authority… and besides, Mohammed’s caricatures are highly amusing! Cartoons work. Hyperbole works. They entertain. They work viscerally by circumventing the intellect and appealing directly to the emotions through laughter and sneering mockery. A thing doesn’t have to be true to be fun!

Mocking outsiders is fun! It puts ‘them’ down, puts ‘us’ above them and thus dehumanizes ‘them’. ‘We’ get control of ‘them’.

According to Mohammed, not only do kafir-subhumans deserve to be mocked, but they basically lack a right to share the earth with Moslems. They are on earth by the kind permission and mercy of Moslems who magnanimously restrain themselves from removing the kafirs altogether. By mocking their legitimate overlords (the Moslems), kafirs lose their right to exist on earth. That is the Sunna, the example, of Mohammed.

In the TV episode, lawyer Douglas starts shouting, ‘I was not debarred!’ but no one hears him over the howls of bemused laughter. Mohammed discovered how effective laughing at one’s opponents could be. He mocked all who didn’t follow him, starting with the Jews, calling them sons of pigs and apes, and at other times calling them ‘donkeys carrying the Taurat’. Mohammed refused to pronounce it ‘Torah’. He distorted the names of people in the Bible as well, no doubt to make them sound funny. He told humiliating stories about Biblical heroes. Abraham had a humorous scrotal hernia. Talking rocks stole Abraham’s clothes and ran away with them. Solomon bends over and overhears the language of ants. Trees, clouds and other objects in nature come alive and speak. Such imagery could come out of Tom and Jerry, but it is there in Mohammed’s holy book revealed by his god, who only communicated with Mohammed. Mohammed also hired writers to lampoon his enemies in limericks. Mohammed could not take a joke at his own expense. No! Mohammed’s narcissism was sacred! And poking fun at it was an unforgivable act of high treason punishable by death! He had writers assassinated who lampooned him.

Of course, as with other matters, Mohammed gave himself a monopoly on cartoons. He wanted his opponents to be unarmed in the matter of satirizing him…as do pious Moslems today. Today, Moslems claim the right to satirize Jews, Americans, the British, the Pope and anyone else. But no one may satirize them. Moslems place themselves and their collective offended narcissism above comment. To criticize Moslems is an act of high treason against our divinely-appointed overlords!

We are never told why Mohammed’s narcissism needs defending more than another’s narcissism. We are merely told that Mohammed taught his followers to defend his narcissism by assassinating critics…and that this is confirmed in Islamic law.

Since Moslems claim a monopoly on lampooning, Moslems expect to fight opponents whose two hands are tied behind their backs. They expect to control all debate, so no one talks back. They expect to behead all verbal critique of Islam by removing freedom of speech from our writers, teachers and politicians. They would behead kafirs societies by silencing their leaders who are charged with hearing, speaking and thinking for the benefit of the body politick. They would silence opposition to Islam with a slice of the scimitar of censorship! This is being done by violence and threats of violence.

Mohammed considered resistance to his censorship as unspeakable insolence that must be attacked with the utmost fury! Mohammed’s narcissism would not bear the smallest slight. So he found a way to stop it. All laughter stops when a person picks up a knife. According to Mohammed, such murder pleases Allah.

When Mohammed sent out his followers armed with knives, the mockers stopped mockery in Arabia forever. Anyone who disagreed with Mohammed left the country immediately, leaving Mohammed in complete control of all communications.

Today Moslems still demand a monopoly on mockery, a monopoly on satire, a monopoly on cartoons. They want a safe position above the debate from which they can verbally lay into others. Islamic mockery goes only one way…towards the kafirs.

Mohammed’s mockery of Christian doctrines was as satirical as his mockery of the Jews. Mohammed’s slanders of Christianity are some of the worst examples of his cartooning! The easiest and most distinctive Christian doctrine to remember is that of the divine Trinity, three persons in one God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Rather than admit he understood the clearly worded message, Mohammed intentionally distorted it as ‘Father, Mother Mary and Son of God’. He obviously knew Mary was not part of the Trinity. He knew what he was doing. He was drawing a cartoon in which he removed the Holy Ghost from the picture. The first cult object tossed from the Kaaba by Mohammed was an image of a dove, the symbol of the Holy Spirit.

Why was the Holy Ghost such a danger to Mohammed? Sometimes people reveal what frightens them by never mentioning what they fear! Mohammed never mentions the Holy Ghost. The gentle dove represents spiritual stillness, tameness and the Golden Rule. Their opposite qualities are activity, ferocity and opportunism. A world-conquering empire needed energetic warriors with the latter qualities, rather than contemplative Christian monks in a monastery preaching benevolence towards one’s enemies.

Mohammed’s ultimate mockery of Christians was to mock the Virgin Mary by flying to heaven and make her his bride. Mohammed became the father of all Christians. His mockery of Christians was then almost complete.

Practically everything Mohammed said about Christianity was a caricature and a distortion. In a final cartoon of Christianity, Mohammed claimed Jesus would return to betray and butcher his own followers and then break the crosses they possessed as the symbols of the Golden Rule! This is an astonishing cartoon caricature of everything Christians consider holy and a revelation of Mohammed’s psychology of betrayal!

The worst part of Mohammed’s cartoons is that not only is he caricaturing the original doctrines, but he then claims that his cartoon represents THE TRUE IMAGE of them! Jewish and Christian doctrines as defined by the Jews and Christians themselves are wrong! Only Mohammed’s cartoons are THE TRUE doctrines.

No professional cartoonist would ever claim that! Cartoonists live enough in reality to know that their cartoons are highly exaggerated misrepresentations emphasizing a humorous aspect of events or personalities.

If Mohammed thought his cartoons were REAL, he had obviously left reality.

Koranic cartoons misrepresenting Jews, Christians and the pluralistic, cultured Arabs of Mohammed’s day are not reality, but Mohammed’s distorted comic strips, which Moslems have accepted as THE TRUTH ever since.

Mohammed could not tell the difference between a cartoon and reality…or at least he pretended not to, if it was in his own political interest. This makes Mohammed a cynical, scheming politician, rather than a sincere spiritual leader. Was he mad or a schemer?

Mohammed’s cartoons of ‘others’ in the Koran are no more real than the evil and dehumanizing cartoons of Jews that appeared for 20 years in the Nazi propaganda newspaper, Der Stürmer. The purpose of these cartoons was the same as Mohammed’s Koranic Kafir Kartoons …to dehumanize the victims, make them out to be diseased animals and give Moslems the emotional freedom to treat these subhumans violently.

Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

by Kenneth Roberts

“Hero-worship is strongest where there is least regard for human freedom.”
So said Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher. Think of North Korea, Stalinist Russia, the Red Guards of China, Hitler’s Germany, etc.

Now consider this: Wherever Mohammed is most admired, there is the lowest regard for human rights, civil liberties and political freedoms, such as Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, and Tunisia.

The reason for this lack of human rights is something that Muslims deny and block out of consciousness. Plainly, Mohammed was a dictator and an abuser of human rights. But Mohammed is said by Muslims to be perfect. It isn’t abuse if Mohammed did it.

Mohammed took away the human rights of peaceful, pluralistic, cultured people. He insulted, robbed, assassinated, enslaved, and then expelled the rest of them from their properties and ancestral homeland in Arabia. Since the hero Mohammed committed these crimes, they are justifiable and good. Today, we call Mohammed’s political program ethnic cleansing or ‘genocide.’ Aggressive ethnic cleansing is occurring today in Iran and Sudan. It is ‘good’, because the hero Mohammed did it.

Muslims imitate Mohammed, so Islam naturally creates a despotic form of government that represses women and minorities. It’s Islam’s DNA.

Islam, in theory, is a single imperial state. The constitution of Islam is the biography of Mohammed. The Koran calls Mohammed’s life ‘a beautiful example’. Muslims know this is true because Mohammed wrote it in the Koran.

Mohammed struggled (jihad) to create a monocultural society based on the model of the anthill. The queen ant rules; the soldier ants all think the same way, do their dance and attack the same external enemies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are either parasitized by ants or killed or expelled. Ants go out regularly to destroy other anthills.

In the ideology of Mohammed, this is the perfect model for Islamic society. There is even a chapter in the Koran called ‘The Ants’ and another called ‘The Bee’. It is easy to see why Mohammed felt these animals ran ideal societies.

Mohammed didn’t rule by popular vote. Mohammed’s god told Muslims repeatedly to obey him. Whatever Mohammed decided, Gabriel always confirmed it shortly thereafter with a message from Allah himself. Thus Mohammed was never wrong. He ruled by divine decree. Allah constantly confirmed Mohammed’s hero status in the Koran that was written by Mohammed! Mohammed further claimed he was the owner of the earth and that Allah Almighty had created the universe for the benefit of Mohammed alone! This is a universal political claim. Mohammed said so. Mohammed is a hero, so it must be true. A true hero would not call himself a hero.

Muslims are lost in hero-worship.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is defended by law in all Islamic countries. Only hero-worship of Mohammed is ever expressed in the public domain. Dissent about Mohammed’s hero status is never heard in Islamic countries, because ordinary Muslims, like the ants in their hill, immediately and instinctively rush to neutralize aliens, sting and eliminate them. Think of the cartoon riots! Think of the Teddy Bear crisis. Think of the pursuit of critics and apostates from Islam, how they are murdered by their own families or hunted by ordinary Muslims acting as vigilantes. The greatest crime in the world is to express scepticism about the hero status of Mohammed.

If an alien animal enters the anthill, perfect harmony and unity is quickly restored. The alien is surrounded by ordinary ants and cut to pieces. In Islamic countries, there is no real pluralism or the chaotic differences of opinion found in full democracies. Alien animals (such as aphids) are only allowed into an anthill so they may be parasitized for the benefit of the ants. In Islamic countries, the anthill or the beehive is the model for the organization of society. In Islamic countries, kafirs may work for Muslims, but not lead or rule over them. That is Mohammed’s method and thus it is the Islamic ideal.

Hero-worship of Mohammed is everywhere in the Islamic state. So, for decisions to be perfectly acceptable, leaders must constantly appeal to his heroic example. If Mohammed did it, it must be ‘good’. Logic has nothing to do with it.

Mohammed never defended the human rights of kafirs. In Mohammed’s Medina, jihad occurred on the average of every six weeks. Medieval Islamic jurisprudence demanded a minimum of attacks. Unprovoked jihad expeditions against kafirs should be made a minimum of once yearly . The human rights of kafirs are unimportant, since jihad against them must take place so frequently and the very purpose of jihad is to remove the human rights of kafirs. This cannot take place in a democracy.

Ordinary Muslims assume Islam is benign, so they never concern themselves with the human rights of kafirs. Besides, kafirs have misfortunes coming to them, because they did not submit to Islam. Either way, no empathy is ever wasted on kafirs. Supremacists never apologize.

Only the politics of Islam are of concern to the kafirs. The only that kafirs care about are the things that affect our rights and our pluralistic free societies. Mohammed’s method invades and destroys kafirs and their culture, just as anthills expand to annihilate neighboring anthills. This is the traditional jihad method: Invade, colonize, and then annihilate.

Mohammed is a hero, the perfect man, and so ‘good’ Muslims use Mohammed’s monocultural model. This is why Muslims always strive (jihad) to create a monoculture of hero-worshipping wherever they go.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
Copyright © 2010 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

By Kenneth Roberts

December 4, 2009

Both Sunnis and Shi’ites believe in the use of sacred violence. The right to coerce the infidels and subdue them was given by Allah to Mohammed as owner of the earth.

Theologically, mocking Mohammed’s method of controlling the infidels is blasphemy, for the violent method of Mohammed comes directly from Allah. Allah’s method trumps human logic, even the Western ideal of free speech that is based on mere human philosophy and mere human reasoning, rather than Allah’s Divine Command. In mere human philosophy, Mohammed’s fitna-prevention method is built on a fallacy of logic called the Appeal to Force in place of logical argument. But this fallacious argument is the main argument of the Koran. Muslims know that the Koranic argument for violence against the infidels takes up 2/3 of the Koran and they further know that the Koranic argument cannot be wrong, for it comes directly from Allah and Allah is not a liar.

Mohammed’s method for eliminating fitna is jihad and all Muslims should freely use Mohammed’s method, since Mohammed is their role model. This is what Muslims did in the Danish cartoon riots. It is also what motivated Dr. Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009.

Normally, Muslims will not kill infidels for merely thinking non-Islamic thoughts. After all, who knows what another person is thinking, even one’s own spouse? Sacred violence is authorized when open disagreement with Mohammed is expressed in the public domain, as with a cartoon or an anti-Islamic book. It need not be the guilty person who is punished, so we can never be sure of the physical safety of any infidels, since throughout history, jihads have often included mass slaughters and genocides of men, women and children.

Mohammed approved of such indiscriminate killing of unbelievers on occasion, if it was convenient for him. During a night-time sneak attack on a town, Mohammed was asked about his customary method of sparing women and children (so that they could be sources of revenue as slaves). According to the Hadith by Abu Muslim 19:4322 , Mohammed responded, “They are of them.” In other words, the women and children are accomplices in the fitna of the defending males. And besides, it was inconvenient to attack and carry lanterns to check everything that moves in the dark.

Here Mohammed authorized wholesale slaughter of an entire community. The justification for this was the political charge of fitna. So no infidel is ever innocent of fitna, a capital crime.

Such logic was used by Major Nidal Hasan when he committed a wholesale slaughter http://www.faithfreedom.org/islam/islamic-mind-major-nidal-hasan of 13 unarmed American soldiers: …the American army opposes Mohammed’s method…it is guilty of fitna…and the 13 slaughtered soldiers ‘are of them.’ This made Dr. Hasan a hero to the former mullah of his mosque, because he executed the enemies of Mohammed using deceit and surprise, just like Mohammed did. Mohammed frequently executed unarmed prisoners of war. Dr. Hasan is a rational, pious Muslim. His ideas agree with the official scholarly concensus of normative Islam.

Mohammed’s brilliant method of ruthless assassination silences fitna by paralyzing the brain with fear. Mohammed’s method may not be judged by any external standard, because his method is itself the standard. Forget the obvious ethical flexibility or opportunism. Mohammed’s method takes a position above human logic, ethical analysis and philosophical discourse. To analyze Mohammed’s ethical inconsistencies is fitna.

Today, Islamic governments are seeking new ways to control fitna beyond their borders. Kafir fitna is temptation or luring that tempts Muslims to question or lose their faith. Kafirs commit fitna every time they disagree with Sharia law in the public domain, when they mock Mohammed’s violent method in cartoons or use reason or logic on the Internet to show Mohammed is wrong.

Such politically incorrect utterance keeps the Islamic state from insuring all information supports the unity and power of that State and its jihadist army.

Information control is normative Islam and is fully acceptable to all pious Muslims, since it prevents fitna, the ultimate crime. Modern Muslims agree that fitna should be removed from human society through censorship of discourse that disagrees with Islam, even in the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. By removing the right to disagree with Islam at the UN, Muslim governments hope to implement global information control.

Politically, this will allow Islamic governments to totally ignore all human rights complaints by claiming Muslims have a unique human right: the right of not hearing any criticism.

When governments of the Islamic Conference say they wish to remove utterances that criticizes Islam, they actually mean ‘fitna’…public disagreement with Mohammed.

Islamic governments know fitna control is needed before discriminatory Sharia law can be fully implemented and jihad can go ahead. They seek to shut down the freedom of UN diplomats to discuss any human rights aspect of Islam. They cast a veil over Islamic discrimination against women and minorities in view of the radical claim that Muslims have a superior, unique human right which infidels do not possess.

The Islamic right to censor fitna trumps gender equality, freedom of expression, freedom to change one’s religion and other freedoms. In law, this specious argument is called ‘special pleading’. It is pure dualism and supremacism. In essence, this makes Shariah law superior to the UDHR and enshrines Islamic discrimination in the name of human rights.

Inter-Islamic fitna, i.e. dissension or discord between Muslims, is the second class of fitna. Theological disagreements between Shi’ite Muslims and Sunnite Muslims are also called fitna. Both sides believe the other worthy of death for disagreeing with Mohammed. Unfortunately, both sides do not see that their own opinion of Mohammed’s method may also be in error. Only the other fellow is in error and he is obviously a heretic. ‘And Allah knows best.’

Consequently, there is no Sunnite mosque permitted in Teheran and no Shi’ite mosque permitted in Saudi Arabia’s holy cities. Fitna/discord between Muslims themselves and between Muslims and infidels is primarily a political question about who possesses the political upper hand. This right of supremacy cannot be discussed, since it comes from Allah and is defended by sacred violence. What you believe about Mohammed determines your human rights status in an Islamic state.

Moreover, the concept of fitna makes pluralism practically impossible, since only one political party can be in perfect agreement with Mohammed. Having an opposition party in an Islamic country would be the evil of fitna…another opinion would obviously disagree with Mohammed and be condemned. Fitna paints Islamic countries into a philosophical corner where dictatorship is the only government system possible.

The ultimate use of fitna is a military one. Fitna is any utterance that demoralizes or confuses Muslim troops so they become weak as a military force, unconvinced of their political mission of world dominance and hesitant to commit jihad. Fitna undercuts the Islamic chain of command. Fitna destroys the cohesiveness and certainty of jihadists…that unquestioning certainty that makes them ready to kill the critics of Mohammed.

Faint-hearted, non-fanatical Muslims will not defend Mohammed’s method or expand their Allah-given supremacy over the infidels. If Muslims are in doubt about the rightness of Mohammed’s method, they will peter out, while the infidels win the earth for Satan. This must not be. Fitna must be stopped and reversed, since it impedes the Islamic state without borders. Fitna thus becomes a political charge of treason against the Allah-established Ummah (nation) of Islam. Fitna deserves the death penalty because Allah said it is worse than murder (Koran 2:191). It is every Muslim’s duty to use sacred violence to stamp out fitna and create the utopian Islamic world where disagreement can no longer exist.

“And fight them (all infidels) until there is no more fitnah (disagreeing with Allah/Mohammed) and the religion (all-pervasive lifestyle and system of Sharia law) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (to disagree with Allah/Mohammed) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” (Koran 8.39)

“(Allah) sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the kafirs may be averse.” (Koran 9.33)

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
Copyright © 2009 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

By Kenneth Roberts

December 1, 2009

Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing ‘The Satanic Verses’ bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is ‘FITNA‘.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means ‘tempting’, ‘enticing’ or ‘luring’ another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word ‘fitna’.

Muslims cast a veil over ‘kafir fitna’…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah’s just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention ‘fitna’ and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed’s method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah’s vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. ‘Punishment’ euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed’s religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 – “Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?” No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.

The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.

Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called ‘supremacism’.

In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam’s key doctrine of Mohammed’s supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed’s authority does more harm than anything!

As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.

In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?

The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).

Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.

Jihad is Mohammed’s method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.

The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.

Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, ‘Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.’ Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be ‘fought’ (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: ‘Don’t say Islam is violent or we’ll kill you!’

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed’s violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed’s halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah’s Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah’s divine plan and violence is Mohammed’s method.

The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…’even if the infidels are averse to it!’ (Koran 9:33)”

Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!

That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.

Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more ‘fitna’. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
Copyright © 2009 CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.