Founded by Dr. Bill Warner in 2004. Powered by CSPII.
Implied Pressure: Mr. Albanese, Jew hatred, and the Education We Were Afraid to Teach
Naming the Game Without Saying the Name
When Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, announced the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion (RCA), he did something both cautious and daring at once. The Commission’s terms of reference call for examination of the nature and drivers of Jew hatred, including “ideologically and religiously motivated extremism and radicalisation”, alongside measures to strengthen social cohesion and public safety.¹
Yet conspicuously absent is any explicit naming of Islam or its doctrine. That omission matters, because the current global wave of Jew hatred, particularly in its post-2001 manifestations cannot be examined seriously without confronting politics, violent jihad, Sharia and the treatment of non-Muslims embedded within Islamic primary texts.
The result is a paradox. Mr. Albanese has invited scrutiny of “extremism” while leaving the ideology, Political Islam, which is embedded in the Islamic primary doctrine, unnamed. He has, in effect, opened the door without putting a sign on the room.
Mr. Albanese’s approach is not weakness but tactical courage. He is attempting to keep his eye on the ball of Jew hatred and social cohesion, while the powerful doctrinal and political pressures attempt to divert attention away from full and accurate disclosure of Islamic political teaching.
Doctrine and the Prohibition of Critique
Classical Islamic jurisprudence does not treat critique as neutral scholarship. It treats it as moral offence. In Reliance of the Traveller (RoT) , an authoritative manual of Sharia in the Sunni tradition, the definition of slander (ghiba) is remarkably broad:
“If he notices something bad, it is unlawful to mention it, as this is slander.” (RoT g2.5)
And further:
“Slander means mentioning anything concerning a person that he would dislike.” (RoT r2.2)
Applied doctrinally, this framing means that critical examination of Islamic political and legal content is not merely disagreement; it becomes prohibited speech.
The Koran reinforces obedience over inquiry:
“And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.” (Koran 33:36)
“O ye who believe! Come, all of you, into submission [Islam] (unto Him); and follow not the footsteps of the devil. Lo! he is an open enemy for you.” (Koran 2:208)
“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion. And Allah sufficeth as a Witness.” (Koran 48:28)
Taken together, these sources frame Islam not simply as faith, but as complete civilization. Legal, political and social ideology. Questioning its structure is, as described by the Islamic doctrine itself, an act bordering on blasphemy.
This matters for the RCA because any investigation into “religiously motivated extremism” that touches doctrine is immediately subject to pressure not to ask certain questions, not to use certain words, and not to disclose certain texts.
That pressure is not accidental. It is doctrinal.
Rushdie and the Cost of Looking Too Closely
The sensitivity of doctrinal exposure is not hypothetical. Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, a fictional and indirect engagement with Mohammed’s Hadith material, resulted in a fatwa that remains in effect decades later. Mr. Rushdie did not run a Royal Commission. He wrote a novel.
If a novelist’s imagination can trigger such reaction, one should not underestimate the resistance faced by political leaders who are tasked with asking whether religious doctrine itself contributes to hostility, violence, or antisemitism.
Mr. Albanese’s RCA, although far more cautious, nonetheless places pressure on a protected zone: doctrine itself. It asks whether antisemitism arises socially alone, or whether theological and legal frameworks embedded in religious systems play a role.
The difficulty is that Islamic jurisprudence traditionally frames such inquiry not as civic necessity, but as insult. The fatwa on Mr. Rushdie is an implied pressure that many dare not test.
Education Without Disclosure
Before the RCA, Mr. Albanese appointed two special envoys — one on antisemitism and one on Islamophobia, whose reports called for education almost one hundred times. Education is presented as the cure-all.
The Endless Answer to the Wrong Question
Education, apparently, is our national incense: wave it at any problem and hope the smoke clears.
Yet Australia already teaches Islamic studies extensively. Hundreds of units, thousands of books, decades of scholarship. What exactly remains undiscovered?
The issue is not absence of education, it is selective education.
Victorian research into 21 years of Islamic studies examinations found that only 3 (1.5%) of questions addressed management, subjugation, or violence against non-Muslims. The overwhelming majority focused on devotional, ethical and domestic matters. The fact is that 6.7% of the Koran’s content is an anti-Jewish text, 8.7% is dedicated to jihad. All together Koran focuses 64% of its content to non-Muslims. This is not balance. It is structurally and systemically selective.
CSPII’s statistical methodology shows a similar pattern in Western security discourse. For example, in the USA, words such as jihad, Islamic, Sharia, and Islamist quietly disappeared from official lexicons after 2007, replaced with generic euphemisms (Acts of Violent Jihad and Ideological War of Political Islam 2020).² The doctrine did not change; the language did.
Education became reassurance rather than instruction.
As a result, students graduate knowing how followers of Islamic doctrine pray and eat, but not how the doctrine governs law, authority, obedience, jihad, or relations with non-Muslims, the very elements relevant to antisemitism, extremism and a fracturing of social coehesion.
Parliament’s Long Memory, Academia’s Short One
Hansard from the early post-9/11 period reveals that Australian leaders from Canberra to all corners of Australia called for deeper, not shallower, inquiry. Parliamentary debates recognized that ideology, political doctrine mattered.
At the same time, representatives also warned about sensitivities. One 2002 ACT Assembly debate argued that repeatedly linking terrorism and Islamic doctrine would provoke division.³ That caution gradually hardened into avoidance.
Instead of confronting doctrine carefully, institutions learned to scope it out.
Ironically, Australia’s own terrorism cases Jack Roche, Joseph “Jihad Jack” Thomas and others explicitly referenced doctrinal motivation in legal proceedings.⁴ These were not sociological accidents. They were ideologically informed acts.
Yet doctrine vanished from education while remaining central to security law.
Implied Pressure and the Art of the Mark
Implied pressure on our leaders can be found in the wider civilizational context surrounding the issue, reflected starkly in more than 49,000 recorded jihad events worldwide.5 These are not merely statistics; they form a background hum of consequence that shapes political behaviour. In such an environment, leadership decisions are rarely made in a vacuum. They are influenced by anticipation of reaction, backlash, and destabilisation long before any policy is publicly articulated.
Here the Australian football metaphor becomes useful. When a player goes back with the flight of the ball, the hardest part is not the mark itself; it is the implied pressure. Knees rise, bodies close, eyes wander. The instinct is to look for who is coming rather than where the ball is. Fear diverts attention. The mark is missed not because the ball is difficult, but because the player becomes preoccupied with impact. The best players don’t do this. They absorb the risk, block out the noise, and keep their eyes on the ball.
In the present debate, Islamic doctrine exerts precisely this kind of implied and actual pressure. It pressures institutions, politicians, and academics to look sideways: toward offence, toward community backlash, toward reputational risk anything except full disclosure of texts, law, jihad, authority structures, and the doctrinal treatment of non-Muslims. The consequence is hesitation disguised as sensitivity, avoidance framed as tolerance, and silence justified as prudence. Only through careful management of political levers and disciplined public discourse can such a delicate subject be explored without dire consequences and only if leaders, like elite players, keep their eyes on the ball rather than the oncoming collision.
Many drop their eyes.
Mr. Albanese, however, has not. By establishing the RCA around antisemitism and extremism, he is going for the mark. It is clear that criticism will come. But he has kept the ball in sight: understanding the real drivers of antisemitism rather than merely its social symptoms. It is courage under pressure.
Conclusion: Education, But Not as Before
Education will indeed be central to the Royal Commission’s work as evidenced by the government’s establishment of an Antisemitism Education Taskforce and its endorsement of curriculum reform. (Department of Education)
But the critical question remains: education about what? Unless Australians confront the doctrinal dimensions underlying current global wave of antisemitism and ideological violence, we risk producing more textbooks than understanding, more institutions than insight.
As Louie Simmons used to say: “Doing the same bad drills and expecting a different result is nuts.”
The RCA has begun a conversation that many have avoided. The next step is ensuring what is taught includes the elements long excluded. Only then can education fulfill its promise — and the implied pressure exerted by this Commission be translated into structural clarity, not just cautious rhetoric.
Gregory Francis Hearn
CSPII 🇦🇺 Education Director & C4WU Director [email protected]
Sources
Letters Patent, Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, Terms of Reference, Commonwealth of Australia.
Center for the Study of Political Islam International (CSPII), Acts of Violent Jihad and Ideological War of Political Islam, statistical analysis of lexicon disappearance.
Hansard, ACT Legislative Assembly, 12 November 2002, debate on terrorism and religion.
R v Roche (2003); R v Thomas (2006), Australian terrorism prosecutions referencing ideological motivation.
Pickthall, Marmaduke. 1930. The Meaning of The Glorious Koran, An Explanatory Translation, New York: Alfred AKnopf.
Keller, Nuh Ha Mim, Reliance of the Traveller: A Classical Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, Amana Publications.
This year, the Islamic festival of Ramadan begins around February 18th. Most non-Muslims (Kafirs) are at least somewhat familiar with Ramadan in terms of its rituals and customs because of demands on schools, workplaces, and societies at large to accommodate them. One of the best known Ramadan customs is the month-long fast that Muslims observe from dawn to dusk, when they are expected to abstain from food and drink as well as any activity generally regarded as sinful.
Kafirs are told that Ramadan is a holy month because it was during this time that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed. In addition to fasting, there are extra prayers, particular focus on reading and reciting the Koran, and emphasis on charitable giving. But Ramadan’s religious aspects conceal a deep connection to jihad. The story of Ramadan is the story of Islamic conquest and it begins with Mohammed.
When Mohammed first began to preach monotheistic Islam publicly in Mecca, the Meccans were indifferent and he didn’t gain many converts. In an effort to attract more followers, he gradually amped up his rhetoric, threatening people with hell and telling them their polytheistic religion was evil. This put him on a collision course with his own tribe, the Quraysh, the ruling tribe of Mecca and the custodians of the great pagan shrine known as the Kaaba.
Mohammed’s preaching wasn’t merely critical of Arabian religious beliefs; it was often critical of the Quraysh themselves and it was bad for their yearly pilgrimage business. Mohammed’s clan, the Banu Hashim, was a powerful family of the Quraysh tribe. Their leader, his uncle, Abu Talib was well-respected and he protected Mohammed from the rest of the Quraysh and their allies. After Abu Talib died, things became more dangerous for Mohammed and his followers. Luckily for them, an invitation to relocate came from the people of Medina, who were looking for a neutral arbiter to help them with their own political issues. They chose Mohammed.
After Mohammed and his followers left Mecca to settle in Medina—an event known as the Hijra—it quickly became apparent that the Muslims had no ability to participate in the local economy. Islamic texts report that the Muslims left Mecca without any form of wealth or property. Whatever they left behind had been confiscated by the Meccans, but many of his followers were just poor to begin with. Not only were they penniless, but there were no jobs available for them in Medina.
Mohammed and his followers were wholly dependent on the hospitality of the Medinans. How long could that last? How could they support themselves? Mohammed began to consider the idea of robbing Meccan caravans. He reasoned that the Meccans owed him and his followers and in a place where resources were always in short supply, raiding was a deeply ingrained cultural practice, anyway. So, raiding was what they did.
The first few excursions were mainly about reconnaissance. Then the Nakhla Expedition turned into an illegal raid on a small trade caravan. Its owner was killed, his employees held for ransom, and his goods confiscated. The raid was conducted by some of Mohammed’s followers during the sacred month of Rajab in the second year after the Hijra (624 CE). Fighting was prohibited in sacred months and the Meccans were furious that the Muslims would dare to attack at such a time. But as was so often the case when Mohammed or his followers broke the rules, Allah sent down a verse to justify the wrongdoing:
“They question thee (O Muhammad) with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: Warfare therein is a great (transgression), but to turn (men) from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in Him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing. And they will not cease from fighting against you till they have made you renegades from your religion, if they can. And whoso becometh a renegade and dieth in his disbelief: such are they whose works have fallen both in the world and the Hereafter. Such are rightful owners of the Fire: they will abide therein.” (Koran 2:217)
The Meccans were enraged and the Muslims were emboldened. Several weeks later on 17 Ramadan (13 March, 624 CE), Mohammed led his followers on a caravan raid that escalated and became known as the Battle of Badr. It was Mohammed’s first major military victory. This battle kicked off the six-year Muslim-Quraysh War, which ended in the month of Ramadan (December 629 CE or January 630 CE) with the conquest of Mecca.
In Ramadan 636 CE, Islamic forces routed the Persians in the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah. The Persians never recovered from this loss and it led to the eventual annexation of Persia by the Rashidun caliphate. During Ramadan in 711 CE, Islamic forces conquered the Iberian peninsula and ruled Spain for nearly 800 years until Spanish forces under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella finally defeated and drove them out in 1492 CE. The Battle of Hattin, fought during the month of Ramadan in 1187 CE crushed the Crusaders and paved the way for Saladin to return Jerusalem to Islamic rule. The historical record shows that Ramadan is indeed the month of jihad.
Ramadan is not just about conducting violent jihad. It’s also about making the money needed for jihad. Zakat, a religious tax payable by Muslims each year, is generally collected during Ramadan. There are eight categories of people who are entitled to receive funds from zakat, one of whom is the jihadi, the one who struggles for the cause of Allah:
“The alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to free the captives and the debtors, and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarer; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is Knower, Wise.” (Koran 9:60)
While in Kafir countries Ramadan is touted only as a month of peaceful religious devotion, in Islamic countries it is recognized as both a month of worship and a time of military struggle and triumph. Iranian dictator Ayatollah Khamenei declared that Ramadan is the month of jihad. Kafirs are ignorant of these facts but the connection between Ramadan and jihad is well-known in the Islamic community. It is a history in which much pride is taken.
Violent, armed jihad is the technique with which people are most familiar, but jihad is not always violent. The goal of jihad is for Political Islam to dominate and control the entire planet, so any activity meant to spread Islam or give it a positive image in the eyes of Kafirs can be considered jihad.
“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.” (Koran 9:33)
The idolators are not the only people that Allah is not so fond of:
“Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.” (Koran 3:110)
Islam divides the world into two factions—Muslims and Kafirs. This division is not religious. It is political. When you see your city centre decked out in Ramadan lights, when the crowd praying at the mosque becomes so large that it spills out onto the street and stops traffic, and when permission has been given for the call to prayer to wake you up before dawn during the month of Ramadan, you are witnessing a virtue-signalling display of dominance and power. You are witnessing non-violent tactics of jihad. Ramadan is the ultimate embodiment of Political Islam right under the Kafir’s nose.
We can and we should stop Ramadan from being celebrated in public, since public celebration is not about religiosity, but rather about making a political statement. In Islamic societies that allow religious celebrations such as Christmas, the expectation is that respect for the host Islamic culture will be shown by keeping celebrations quiet and private. It is time for Kafir societies to demand the same respect.
The most famous African American convert to Islam is Malcolm X. He was an active member of an obscure Islamic sect, the Nation of Islam, and later left the sect to join traditional Sunni Islam. He was murdered by a member of the Nation of Islam for leaving the sect. He was an inspiration and a role model for many Black Americans during the civil rights movement.
While it is difficult to quantify Malcolm X’s causal impact on conversion rates within the Black American society, there are qualitative studies showing that many of them followed Malcom X’s example and became converts to Islam. (sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 and more). He became part of the pop culture and merchandize is still being produced with his name and portrait. Malcom X’s public profile was an indivisible fusion of a Muslim man and a civil rights activist and his example leads to the conclusion that Islamic teachings are a good and fitting choice for African Americans.
To answer the question, “Is Islam a good fit for Black Americans and the right world view for them?” they must separate Malcom X’s civil rights activities from his submission (a literal translation of the word Islam) to Mohammed and Allah. Those inspired by Malcom X need to evaluate Islamic teachings and doctrine separately from the personality they admire. And in the bigger world picture, is Islam the right choice for any Black community?
Islamic proclamation of faith is called the Shahada: “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah.” Anyone who wants to become a Muslim must pronounce the Shahada in front of Muslim witnesses to express their full submission to the will of Allah and their obligation to follow the example of Mohammed. The words of Allah are found in the Koran. Mohammed’s examples are found in his life story known as the Sira, and his traditions are called the Hadith. These texts are the foundation of the Islamic primary doctrine that all Muslims must obey.
African Americans are sensitive to the idea of slavery as they have wrestled with it for over 150 years. So, they need to understand the extensive doctrine of slavery made sacred by the Koran, the Hadith and the Sira before they submit to an ideology that requires a penalty of death if its members leave. And they need to know that slavery still exists in Africa and countries in the Mid-East.
The General Concept of Slavery in Islamic Primary Doctrine
Slavery is an integral part of the Islamic doctrine. Every Muslim is the slave of Allah, according to the Koran. Mohammed is referred to as Allah’s slave, and, he also refers to himself in this way. However, slavery in this specific case, is only conceptual. It is a mental state the doctrine asks of Muslims to perceive oneself as a slave of Allah. It does not mean that their freedoms are taken away from them in any way. Even so, it is still interesting to understand the psychology behind this concept and how it shapes their world view.
Koran 2:23“And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.”
Bukhari 3445Narrated `Umar: “I heard the Prophet saying, “Do not exaggerate in praising me as the Christians praised the son of Mary, for I am only a Slave. So, call me the Slave of Allah and His Apostle.”
It is important to know that Islamic doctrine does not allow a Muslim to enslave another Muslim. Only non-Muslims can be made slaves with no individual freedoms or civil rights, while physically, sexually or otherwise serving their slave masters.
If non-Muslims convert to Islam, they can (but don’t have to) be freed by their Islamic master. A non-Muslim slave can never be freed. Freedom comes only by conversion.
Bukhari 2517“Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave.”
Marriage to captive slaves, even if they were already married, is allowed as well as having sex with them unless they are pregnant or menstruating:
Muslim 1456a“It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive after it is established that she is not pregnant, and if she has a husband, then her marriage is annulled when she is captured
Abu Sa’id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:
“And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)” (i. e. they were lawful for them when their ‘Idda period came to an end).” See also Koran 4:24
Islamic doctrine has a very detailed language with a vocabulary of many words (see the appendix) defining a complete and sophisticated system of slavery.
Mohammed: Slave Trader & Slave Master
Mohammed’s importance stretches far beyond his life into the 21st century. It says 89 times in the Koran that Muslims must imitate Mohammed, since he is a perfect role model and example for all humanity and every human being. Everything that Mohammed did, said or tacitly approved of is to be perceived as sacred, moral and ethical.
Here is what we know about Mohammed and his attitude towards slavery and slaves:
Mohammed owned slaves [all references above and below]
Mohammed ate food prepared by a slave [Bukhari 2456]
Mohammed was medically treated by a slave [Bukhari 2281]
Mohammed tacitly approved beating of slaves [Sira 735]
Please, note that the references in this article are not complete. There are so many references to slavery in the Islamic primary doctrine that they cannot be listed here.
Special Category: Black Slaves
One of the strangest things which would be usually weird to mention, but is very important, especially in connection to this article is that Mohammed is described in the Hadith as a white man, a white man who owned both black as well as white slaves.
Islamic slave masters paid more for eunuch slaves as they could be used in their harems as guards. They were considered trustworthy because they could not conceive a child and have allegiance to a family. These slaves were usually castrated by removing not only their testicles, but by amputating their penises as well:
Muslim 2771Anas reported that a person was charged with fornication with the slavegirl of Allah’s Messenger. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger said to ‘Ali: Go and strike his neck. ‘Ali came to him and he found him in a well making his body cool. ‘Ali said to him: Come out, and as he took hold of his hand and brought him out, he found that his sexual organ had been cut. Hadrat ‘Ali refrained from striking his neck. He came to Allah’s Apostle and said: Allah’s Messenger, he has not even the sexual organ with him.”
The hadith above suggests that the slave that was mentioned was a black African. There are also multiple racial remarks in the Islamic doctrine like this one:
Bukhari 7142Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah’s Messenger said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin.”
Aisha, Mohammed’s wife whom he married when she was 6 years old and consummated their marriage when she was 9, was allowed to watch black slaves in the mosque when they were disciplined:
Bukhari 987Narrated ‘Urwa on the authority of’ Aisha: On the days of Mina, (11th, 12th, and 13th of Dhul-Hijjah) Abu Bakr came to her while two young girls were beating the tambourine and the Prophet was lying covered with his clothes. Abu Bakr scolded them and the Prophet uncovered his face and said to Abu Bakr, “Leave them, for these days are the days of `Id and the days of Mina.” `Aisha further said, “Once the Prophet was screening me and I was watching the display of black slaves in the Mosque and (`Umar) scolded them. The Prophet said, ‘Leave them. O Bani Arfida! (carry on), you are safe (protected)’.”
So, if Malcolm X knew the information above, what would he say? If Black Americans knew, would they still follow Malcolm X’s example and become Muslims? Shouldn’t all Americans know that Islamic slavery is sacred, for eternity and immutable and there can never be an Emancipation Proclamation to change the doctrine?
Please, help us spread this information about slavery around the world, especially in the Black communities, so everyone can make an educated choice as to convert to Islam or not.
To have a complete picture of slavery in Islamic doctrine, we suggest reading:
The Doctrine of Slavery: An Islamic Institution by Bill Warner, PhD., can be purchased in our online bookstore or at on Amazon. One of the core messages of the book is that the black and white people alike have a common history of enslavement. Many sources state that the word slave is derived from “Slavs” in Europe taken captive by Islamic slave traders.
Appendix:
From the “The Doctrine of Slavery: An Islamic Institution” by Dr. Bill Warner
Islamic Slavery Lexicon
abd — a slave, usually a black slave. Abd is also the word for any African or any black person.
abiq — a fugitive slave.
amah — a female slave.
ghilman — a male sex slave, usually a boy.
ghulam — a modern term for a slave.
ghurrah — a slave worth 500 dirhams.
ibaq — the freeing of slaves.
ibnu baydailjabin — the son of a mother with a white forehead [a free mother].
ibnu jurratin — the son of a free mother.
istilad — a legal term signifying that a Muslim master has freed a female slave who has born his child.
istibra — the waiting period for determining whether the slave is pregnant or not.
itaq — freeing a slave.
khaadim — a servant/slave.
kinn — a slave who is not mukatab, nor mudabbar, nor umm walad, nor mubaad, but entirely unfree.
kitaba — a form of a slave buying their freedom.
madhun lahu — a slave who can make business agreements for his master.
mamluk — a slave, usually a white slave.
ma malakat aimanukum — that which your right hand (the sword hand) possesses, a slave taken in jihad. Used in the Koran.
maula — a term used in Islamic law for a slave.
mubaad — a slave with several owners.
mudabbar — a slave who is freed on his master’s death.
mukarkas — people having slaves mothers among their ancestors.
mukatab — slaves who ransom themselves from their master.
mustabad — slave.
mutaq — a freed slave.
mutiq — the master who frees a slave.
qinn — a slave born from slave parents.
raqabah — the term used for a captured slave.
raqiiq — slave.
surriyah — a Kafir woman slave used for sex. She may be bought, taken as a captive, or descended from a slave.
tadbir — a legal term for freeing a slave after the death of the master.
ubudiyah — slavery.
ummu al walad — a legal term for a slave who has borne the master’s child.
umm walad — the enslaved mother married to a slave, who gives birth to his child.
wala — when freed slaves die, their estate goes to the one who freed them.
walau l ataqah — the relationship between a master and the freed slave.
zall — a fugitive child slave.
The vast majority of Islamic clerics and leaders admonish Muslims not to participate in Christmas celebrations. The Koran exhorts Muslims not to imitate Kafirs (non-Muslims) lest they become like them. Allah hates the Kafir, so Political Islam demands that Muslims hate the Kafir, too.
One of the ways this hatred manifests itself is through violent jihad attacks that specifically target places and events such as Christmas markets and churches. Some German Christmas markets were canceled this year because the security required to keep these events safe from acts of jihad is prohibitively expensive. The tradition of the Christmas market began in Germany in the middle ages and spread to many other countries over the centuries. Now, this beloved custom is under threat in its very birthplace. Talk about getting a proverbial lump of coal in the collective German stocking!
Mullahs give Muslims other reasons to shun Christmas, as well. One reason they give for declaring Christmas an abomination that should not be observed by anyone is the pagan customs of the celebration, such as feasting, exchanging gifts, and the Christmas tree. They make this declaration while completely ignoring the pagan customs connected with Islamic feasts such as Ramadan and the yearly pilgrimage to the Kaaba in Mecca, known as the Hajj.
The festival of Ramadan is observed during the 9th month of the Islamic (lunar) calendar, beginning with the first appearance of the razor-thin crescent of the new moon. It lasts until the appearance of the next new moon. The pre-Islamic Arabs worshiped a lunar deity, and the connected symbolism of this religion was absorbed by Islam instead of being replaced with different symbolism that could be considered uniquely Islamic. One of Ramadan’s key activities is fasting, a custom which the pagan people also observed.
In fact, many, if not all of Islam’s rituals are pagan in origin. There is an account in the Hadith about a night journey that Mohammed took on a magical flying beast. During this trip, he is taken to Heaven where Allah tells him the people are commanded to perform 50 daily prayers. The story says that Mohammed negotiated with Allah to bring that number down to a more reasonable five daily prayers; however, historical evidence suggests that this prayer custom and structure was adopted from the Sabians or perhaps even the Zoroastrians. Whatever the origin of the five daily prayers is, it isn’t Islamic.
The paganism and idolatry don’t end with Ramadan. The yearly pilgrimage to the Hajj in Mecca is also steeped in pagan imagery and customs. The Kaaba, a cubic structure that Muslims ritually circumambulate during Hajj is an ancient shrine that was once home to 360 different idols. When Mohammed conquered Mecca around the end of 629 CE, he did not destroy the Kaaba and replace it with a new building. He simply evicted the pagans and demolished the old religion by smashing the statues and claiming the space for Allah and Muslims.
But Mohammed’s “new religion” maintained old pagan customs. Before Islam, Arabian worshipers made pilgrimage to Mecca, circumambulated the Kaaba seven times, touched or kissed the black stone, walked back and forth between the hills of Marwa and Safa seven times, threw stones at the ceremonial pillars, and conducted animal sacrifice just as Muslims do today.
With the exception of the concept of jihad, Mohammed was not an original thinker. Rather, he appropriated stories and customs from disparate cultures and religious traditions, cobbled them all together and re-branded the combo as Islam, even claiming that this “knowledge” came directly to him from his god Allah through the angel Gabriel from Jewish and Christian traditions. Mohammed’s companions assumed that embracing Allah and monotheism would abolish pagan customs such as journeying back and forth between Marwa and Safa until Mohammed said:
“Lo! (the mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwah are among the indications of Allah. It is therefore no sin for him who is on pilgrimage to the House (of Allah) or visiteth it, to go around them (as the pagan custom is). And he who doeth good of his own accord, (for him) lo! Allah is Responsive, Aware.” Koran, 2:158
Mohammed’s companions found his reluctance to let go of pagan customs perplexing; however, they still continued to follow his example:
Umar came near the black stone, kissed it and said “No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah’s Messenger kissing you I would not have kissed you.”Sahih al-Bukhari, 1597
People enjoy their rituals and traditions, so it’s understandable that Islam, like Christianity, continued the same practices and started telling different stories around them. It helps convert people. But to then ignore the originof these customs and falsely claim they are purely Islamic while putting down others for keeping their own traditions is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Speaking of hypocrisy, where do you suppose these same mullahs stand on the subject of halal Christmas turkeys? If it’s not OK for Muslims to celebrate Christmas, how can it be OK for them to market halal Christmas turkeys to Kafirs? This company in the UK talks about how a halal turkey makes your Christmas dinner more inclusive. If Muslims are not allowed to celebrate Christmas, then who does the halal turkey make dinner more inclusive for? This Canadian company wants you to know that turkey is not just for special occasions, but that being said, its turkeys are perfect for halal Christmas parties. Halal Christmas parties? Seriously? Who is doing that?
Or, if you don’t like turkey, you can help yourself to some halal ham. Humor aside, halal certification fees are subject to zakat tax, which in turn funds jihad against Kafirs. Since selling these goods to Kafirs actually helps Political Islam in its mission to conquer the world, there is no moral dilemma and the mullahs do not call out the hypocrisy.
Christmas may not be everyone’s idea of a good time, but for the majority of people living in societies that were founded upon Christian principles, it is a cherished tradition, a joyful time to share with family and friends. With its feasts and parties, festive decorations and markets, customs like kissing under the mistletoe, and gifting, Christmas can be enjoyed by everyone regardless of their religious beliefs.
Christmas is a celebration that lifts us out of the mundane world and reminds us of the spirit of love, good will and peace on earth that makes life worth living. Embracing multiculturalism should not mean relegating one’s own culture to the dustbin of history, especially those traditions that are positive and uplifting.
Unfortunately, Political Islam declares our culture corrupt and orders Muslims to spread its divisive and harmful doctrine until everyone on Earth has submitted to Mohammed and Allah. When people cannot even enjoy Christmas in peace because of violent jihad, so-called Islamophobia is not the problem.
The Jews, originally known as Hebrews, have maintained a presence in the area once called Canaan (now called Palestine) since antiquity. They are descended from the Canaanites, a semitic people who lived in the Levant during the late second millennium BCE.
Palestine is probably one of the most contested pieces of real estate in human history. It was once part of the Akkadian Empire. Later, it was an important trading partner and tributary state of Egypt before the Bronze Age collapse in the 12th century BCE, out of the ashes of which rose the kingdoms of Judaea and Israel. No kingdom lasts forever, and beginning in the 8thcentury BCE, this coveted land fell over and over to a series of conquerors: Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans. In fact, it is because of the Roman conquest of Israel and Judaea that the region is called Palestine today.
The Bar Kokhba Revolt of 70 CE resulted in mass expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem, as well as a rebranding of Judaea and Israel as Syria Palestina (Syrian Palestine) in an attempt to permanently sever the connection between the Jewish people and their homeland. However, not all Jews were driven from the land. The number of Jews in the area has fluctuated over the centuries. At times, the Jewish presence in Palestine has been miniscule, having been subjected to so many pogroms and expulsions, but it has never been completely extinguished.
While today’s Palestinian Arabs can also trace their lineage back to the original Canaanites and claim indigeneity to the area, Hamas’ claim that the Israelis are colonists stealing Islamic lands is patently false. Islam was never even a presence in the Middle East until the 7thcentury CE.
At the time that the first caliph, Umar, rode into Jerusalem to accept the city’s surrender, it was predominately Christian. Under Roman and Byzantine rule, Jews had been banished from their holy city except for specific religious celebrations a few days a year, so they must have been happy at first when Umar entered Jerusalem and proclaimed that Jews were free to return. That happiness was likely short lived since the Pact of Umar came into effect soon after.
Although the Pact in its original form is between the conquering Muslims and the Christian majority, it applied to Jews as well, since they were also “People of the Book.” This treaty created a second-class citizen known as the “dhimmi.” People are told now how wonderful life was for non-Muslims under Islamic rule, but the truth is that life as a dhimmi was miserable due to crippling (jizya) taxes, constant demoralization, and the threat of pogroms.
Muslims were encouraged by their leadership to move to conquered lands and exploit the resources there. Between the Pact of Umar grinding people down until they either left Palestine or converted to Islam, the pogroms, and the influx of Muslim settlers, the demographics of the area gradually shifted to an Islamic majority. Arabic displaced Aramaic and Greek and became the lingua franca of the region.
Political Islam claimed Judaism’s holiest site, the Temple Mount as its own, outlawing Jewish prayers on the premises and constructing the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. Christians were able to wrest control of this sacred place from the Muslim conquerors in 1099 during the First Crusade, and they controlled Jerusalem for 88 years. Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem fell under Islamic control once more in 1187 when Saladin’s army marched into the city. Islamic control of the Temple Mount was re-established and made permanent by the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf.
Of the various religious and ethnic groups currently inhabiting Palestine, the Jews have the deepest and oldest roots, going back over 3000 years. Eventually, most of the area became Christian, but Christianity was born in Jewish lands, brought to the Jewish people by one of their own. It was not brought by invaders; rather, the Roman and Byzantine invaders were eventually converted to Christianity by the people they conquered.
The Muslim armies that conquered Palestine in the 7th century CE were composed of people not indigenous to the area. They were foreign invaders who came in with a foreign ideology. During the Arab expansion in the Middle East, Arabic-speaking people of the Islamic caliphate were encouraged to settle in newly-conquered areas and take advantage of the local resources. Indigenous peoples were killed, converted to Islam, driven out, or made dhimmis. Local language and culture were forcefully displaced by Arab language and Islamic culture.
A political and class system was created that separated people into groups and discriminated against them based on religion, creating an upper class of Muslims and a lower class of everyone else in accordance with Islamic political doctrine and Mohammed’s example. Political Islam also appropriated the most holy site in Judaism, the Temple Mount, a highly psychologically demoralizing move meant to send a clear message about who was in control.
People accepted Islamic civilization not because it was superior but because the cost of maintaining their own religion and culture simply became too high to bear. It was a case of, “If you can’t beat them, join them.”
Settler colonialism is defined as a type of colonialism where the indigenous population is displaced by settlers who form a permanent colony in their stead. This definition accurately describes what happened to Jews in Palestine and to ignore this history and call Jews the colonizers is intellectually dishonest. To repeatedly exile Jews from their homeland, dispersing them far and wide and then claim the returning diaspora has no genetic lineage from Palestine is also dishonest.
Israel’s struggle to exist is not settler colonialism. It is an on-again, off-again response to Political Islam’s attempt to conquer the original Jewish homeland.
