Friday, January 22, 2010

Islam: Conclusion

All politics must submit to Islam. It is the purpose of Islam to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law called shariah.

Every Muslim can act in two different ways. The first is based upon the Meccan Qur'an and Meccan Sunna. The second way is the Medinan Qur'an and Medinan Sunna. But a Muslim also has a third way of acting.

Kafir civilization is very strong in many ways. Nearly everything you can pick up and hold in your hand comes from kafir civilization. Nearly all products are based upon patents and copyrights. The Islamic world does not produce any significant work in the world of ideas. All democratic politics and most media and culture are based upon kafir thought. The modern world is kafir, and Islam exists inside of that. So every Muslim is also part kafir. It is almost impossible for a Muslim not to be part kafir.

Every Muslim is part Meccan-Muslim, part Medinan-Muslim and part kafir-Muslim. So what any Muslim does is based upon which type of Muslim he is. A Muslim is a person who makes personal decisions, so it is never possible to predict what a person who calls himself a Muslim will do or say.

If you have a Muslim friend or an associate at work and they are a nice person, you must have more than once said this doctrine can't be right, because "the person I know at work is such a nice person, and all of this doctrine of Islam sounds so dreadful." Well, let's stop and ask what you mean by "a good Muslim." Is he a good Muslim or is he a good person? Those are separate questions because, quite frankly, until you know the doctrine of Islam, and until you know the history of Islam, you really can't make any judgments as to whether or not the person at work or your friend is a good Muslim or not. Being a good Muslim does not depend upon anything about the kafir and the kafir's judgments. No. Whether a person is a good Muslim or not depends upon the doctrine of Islam. It is the doctrine of Islam that makes a Muslim. We must compare the Muslim with the doctrine, not the Muslim with what we think as good.

For example, Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. He strictly follows the Koran of Medina, the greater Koran, the one that was written later, the one that Allah said abrogates the earlier. What you may mean when you say he's a 'good Muslim' is that he is simply a good person. Let's consider this.

Even in Mohammed's day, there are many references to the fact that Muslims did not want to engage in Jihad. Those Muslims were called hypocrites. Perhaps your friend who is such a good person is not really a "good" Muslim. And there's another thing about the good Muslim - you say he is your friend. How does his friendship stack up against the fourteen verses in the Koran which clearly and explicitly state that the kafir is never the friend of the Muslim?

What you probably have in your friend is a good person. A good Muslim follows the doctrine of Islam, and following the doctrine of Islam means seeing you as a kafir. Your friend is a human being before he is a Muslim, and the Golden Rule exerts a powerful force upon everyone, including those who profess the Islamic faith. Perhaps what you have in your friend is merely someone who is naturally following the Golden Rule and is therefore a good person. But notice, as long as he is actually really your friend, then he is not a good Muslim. Contradictory, isn't it? And not only is it contradictory, it's very sad.

Most Muslims are part Meccan Muslim, part Medinan Muslim and part kafir Muslim, just like your friend.

In earlier articles on this site, I mentioned that the Five Principles of Political Islam could be used as a tool to understand Islam. Let's review the Five Principles, and then see how to use them to analyze Islam by asking the right questions.

The first principle is that every word and action by Islam is based on the Qur'an, Sira and Hadith. In short, it is all based on Muhammad.

So, in analyzing anything Islamic, ask the question: What did Muhammad do or say that relates to this? Is this Meccan or Medinan Islam?

The second principle is, that if it deals with kafirs, it is political, not religious. The question is: how are kafirs involved? How is the religious "teflon shield" being used?

The third principle is that all non-Muslims are kafirs.

The question is: how is this based on the division between Islam and kafirs? Kafirs are always wrong and Muslims are always right. Ask questions like: how is it all the kafir's fault? How is the problem not Islam's fault?

The fourth principle is: dualism means that Islam can treat you two different ways.

The question is: How is dualism working here? What are the two opposing choices available here? What is the other side of the contradiction that is not being talked about?

The fifth principle is that the kafir must submit to Islam in politics and public matters.

The question is: what is the pressure to yield to Islamic values and dictates?

Really, all of the five principles can be summarized in two sentences. Everything that Islam does to kafirs is political and is based upon the Trilogy, the Qur'an and Muhammad. The treatment of kafirs is dualistic and kafirs must submit to political Islam.

Or, the five principles can be reduced to five words: Trilogy, politics, kafir, duality, submission.

Let's apply these principles by looking at an old problem---the so-called Israel - Palestinian problem.

First, there is a massive amount of the Trilogy about the Jews. Do you ever hear any news report that quotes either Muhammad or the Qur'an?

Is the interaction between the Palestinians and Israelis political or religious?

The Jews of Israel are kafirs. The kafirs are always wrong and the Muslims are always right. In any of the reporting of the conflict, do you ever read any self-examination by the Palestinians?

Duality. What is the whole truth? What are the two different ways that Islam has in dealing with Jews?

Submission. How are the kafir Israelis being asked to yield or submit to Islam? What are the demands on kafirs? How is it that Islam will not change?

In order to understand the five principles, you have to know Muhammad. If you know Muhammad, then you know Islam; if you do not know Muhammad, you do not know Islam. The five principles will allow you to understand Islam based upon its own doctrine and history.

We must have a clear and analytic study of Islam. What we want to do is to examine this ideology by giving it a cold, hard, analytic look. We need to understand that the religion is of no concern to the kafir. The religion is simply for those who want to go to Islamic heaven or avoid Islamic hell. We must take an analytic look at Islam and see its political nature and its political history.

Political Islam will continue to have its way if we don't learn about it. What is its way? It is clearly politically expansive. Our Constitution must fall, according to the doctrine of Islam. Now, you laugh, and say, "That's impossible. I mean, we're so strong, nothing could affect our Constitution." But the power of Islam grows daily in this country, and it feeds upon ignorance. The Qur'an of Mecca is used as the 'teflon shield' as more and more politics in Washington, D.C. are affected by the 'religion of peace.' Ignorant people, diplomats, congressmen, and senators don't know any better. We must demand that they educate themselves. We must demand that our leadership change and understand political Islam.

We have to ask this question: Why do our tax dollars fund universities that are formally devoid of the doctrine of political Islam? It is not taught at any university. How can this be? Why can't our tax dollars be used to teach the history of 270 million dead? Why can't our tax dollars be used to teach the real and complete history of slavery?

By educating yourself, you are making a difference. By encouraging others to learn about political Islam, you can make a huge difference. This war is not a war against terrorism. This war is a war against ignorance. And the enemy is not Islam. Islam is simply a doctrine. The enemy is our own passive ignorance. That is our enemy. We must do battle against ignorance, because this is a case in which the truth is on the side of the kafir.

It is not that Islam is so strong. The problem is that our ignorance makes us weak.

The above text is taken from the website Political Islam.

25 comments:

thekingpin68 said...

Jeff,

Thank you for the help with thekingpin68 with comments and constructive criticism.

You and Bobby kept me busy.

Your friend, Russ:)

satire and theology said...

'All politics must submit to Islam. It is the purpose of Islam to replace the U.S. Constitution with Islamic law called shariah.'

That would mean in the West, saying goodbye to basic freedoms.

thekingpin68 said...

I have been dialoguing with this guy on a couple of forums for a week and he makes some sense and gave me some good advice. So I bought this disc one from him.

Not nearly as objectionable as Don Steele...so far.


preview

Jeff said...

thekingpin68,

Thank you for the help with thekingpin68 with comments and constructive criticism.

You're very welcome. I know I can be picky sometimes, so I hope the criticism was indeed constructive.

Jeff said...

satire and theology,

That would mean in the West, saying goodbye to basic freedoms.

Yes, and some say that it may happen in the next generation. Nobody knows for sure, of course, but the way the U.S. is drawing further away from the Lord, and the way Canada and Europe have pulled away from the Lord many years ago, leaves room for such an event to occur, I think.

Jeff said...

I have been dialoguing with this guy on a couple of forums for a week and he makes some sense and gave me some good advice. So I bought this disc one from him.

Not nearly as objectionable as Don Steele...so far.


When I hold my cursor over "preview," it says, in the lower left corner of my screen where the URL of the link is previewed, "Read neocounter.neoworx-blog-tools.net," and my cursor becomes an I-beam, like when you are highlighting text. When I click on the word "preview" with my mouse, nothing happens.

satire and theology said...

preview

It appeared right before, but here goes again...

Nitewrit said...

Jeff,

I have been following all your information about Islam on your Blog and Facebook. It's been very enlightening. You are becoming an expert. It seems another step may be needed in clearing up our ignorance. A clarification of how a Christian differs, because when one reads through all the material you provided there are many statements that a person would say, "well, that's the same thing a Christian believes or does".

For instance: "The first principle is that every word and action by Islam is based on the Qur'an, Sira and Hadith. In short, it is all based on Muhammad." Someone might say, 'well, the first principle of a Christian is everything is Based upon the Old and New Testament and what Moses and Jesus say."

"The third principle is that all non-Muslims are kafirs." Someone might compare this to Christians saying "you are either Born-Again or lost".

Perhaps you could do some Posts showing how Islam and Christianity differ in areas where they seem on surface glaces to be similiar.

There are people who think we true-believing Christians are no different than the Jihadists, that we would force by threat everyone to be a Christian if given a chance, that we hold our wives in strict dominance and submission, that we hate anybody who doesn't agree with us and so forth and so on.


Larry

Jeff said...

Nitewrit,

I have been following all your information about Islam on your Blog and Facebook.

And I very much appreciate that. That is very encouraging.

You are becoming an expert.

There is still a lot I don't know, but I have taken 12 hours of classes on Islam over a period of 3 weeks (driving an hour to get there each time); attended a seminar on Islam; talked to Muslims, ex-Muslims and missionaries to Muslims about Islam; reading books on Islam; watched DVDs and CDs on Islam; and have been doing Internet research on it and blogging on it for months now. So I have learned a lot.

A clarification of how a Christian differs, because when one reads through all the material you provided there are many statements that a person would say, "well, that's the same thing a Christian believes or does".

That sounds like a very good idea.

For instance: "The first principle is that every word and action by Islam is based on the Qur'an, Sira and Hadith. In short, it is all based on Muhammad." Someone might say, 'well, the first principle of a Christian is everything is Based upon the Old and New Testament and what Moses and Jesus say."

"The third principle is that all non-Muslims are kafirs." Someone might compare this to Christians saying "you are either Born-Again or lost".


Yes, those similarities could be made. Good point.

Perhaps you could do some Posts showing how Islam and Christianity differ in areas where they seem on surface glaces to be similiar.

Excellent idea, Larry. I appreciate your insightful input, and I will plan to implement that. In fact, maybe I will do that for my next article. Thank you!

There are people who think we true-believing Christians are no different than the Jihadists, that we would force by threat everyone to be a Christian if given a chance, that we hold our wives in strict dominance and submission, that we hate anybody who doesn't agree with us and so forth and so on.

Good suggestions, Larry. I will try to incorporate as much of those ideas as I can in my next article. In fact, I may spread it out to 2 or 3 articles, and incorporate some of those ideas into them.

Jeff said...

Satire and Theology,

It appeared right before, but here goes again...

OK, now it works for me, thanks, Russ.

My mom is 9 years younger than my dad was. My sister-in-law is 13 years older than her husband, my brother. One of my cousins is 6 years older than his wife. In the past, I have dated women at least 6 years younger than me.

Some women are looking for experience, or at least confidence and leadership, in a man. I think many women are generally looking for a man who can take control of situations, rather than a wishy-washy, wimpy guy who can't make up his own mind. Of course, some younger women are also looking for excitement, and to be spoiled and taken care of. And a good-looking man who has a good job and makes lots of money is surely attractive to many women. But there are many married men who don't have great jobs and are not very good-looking. Different women have different tastes, as do men. I have heard that, generally speaking, women are basically looking for security. And I believe that love and romance are very important to most women, but it seems, from what I have heard and read, that most women basically want someone who will take care of them and protect them and meet their needs. But again, there are always exceptions to the rule, and like I said, not all women are the same. And, since women are strongly led by feelings, and since feelings can change rapidly and often, it can be hard to know what a woman wants at the time.

Jeff said...

Russ,

I have also heard that women need to be felt loved, and that it is important to most of them that their husband verbally lets them know that he loves her, on a regular basis. I have heard that, if the wife does not feel like she is loved by her husband, that can cause her not to want to be affectionate to him. I have heard that even teenage girls have a deep need to be hugged by their dad so that they know they are loved (though many of them would not admit it or show it, and would likely be embarrassed by it if done in public, especially in front of their peers).

Jeff said...

Larry (Nitewrit),

In Christianity, you get to Heaven by accepting Christ as Lord/Savior. In Islam, the only guaranteed way to get to Heaven is by dying in an act of jihad.

As Walid Shoebat put it, Christianity is Calvary; Islam is cavalry.

Christianity is the cross; Islam is the sword.

In Christianity, God died for the Elect to get to Heaven; in Islam, you yourself have to die (while killing others) to have assurance of Heaven.

Christians want all people to go to Heaven, so they tell others about Jesus. Islam says that the entire world must be forced to fall under Shari'a law, so, for 1400 years, it has been using force, including practicing slavery for 1400 years and killing an estimated 270 million people over a period of 1400 years, in order to accomplish that goal.

Jeff said...

Islam is hard for Westerners to understand. The entire concept of Islam is very foreign to Westerners, and a large part of Islam is completely different from any other religion, because it is largely political, rather than religious. Because of this, some have called Islam a "fake" religion.

In the West, we have division between state and religion. In Islamic (Shari'a law) countries, there is no such division. Islam controls the law, the politics/government, and every aspect of your private life.
In fact, Muslims in the Middle East do not understand that we have division between state and religion here in the West, and they see everything---what we show on TV and in movies, our political actions, how we dress, etc., as part of our religion (and they see all of the West as representing Christianity).

In Christianity, the only way to get to Heaven is to surrender your life to Christ, repenting of your sins, and having your sins washed away by the blood of Jesus. In Islam, the only *guaranteed* way to get to Heaven is by dying in an act of jihad (i.e., blowing yourself up as a suicide bomber).

In Christianity, men and women are equal, except that, in a marriage and in church, men are supposed to be the spiritual heads and leaders (though, thanks to the feminist movement, some Christians would disagree today). In Islam, women are compared to black dogs and donkeys, and if a woman (or a black dog or a donkey) walks in front of a man while he is praying, his prayer is nullified, and he has to start over again. Also, Muhammad said that he saw mostly women in Hell.

In his Cairo speech, Obama mentioned the copy of the Qur'an that Thomas Jefferson owned. The reason Jefferson owned a Qur'an (Koran) was to 'know the enemy,' because America was being attacked by the Barbary Pirates, who were Muslims. [The ultimate goal of Islam is to force the entire world to fall under Shari'a law.] In fact, this was the reason the U.S. Navy was created.

Did you know we have a Muslim in Congress?

Keith Ellison, from the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota, who was sworn in as a Democrat Member of the 110th Congress, admonished his fellow Muslims: “You can’t back down. You can’t chicken out. You can’t be afraid. You got to have faith in Allah, and you’ve got to stand up and be a real Muslim! On January 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I’ll place my hand on the Quran!” The crowd responded with enthusiastic applause, cheering “Allahu akbar!” (Allah is great!).

According to Snopes, although Ellison was not technically sworn in with a Qur'an, after the official swearing-in ceremony, he posed for photographs with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of them posed with their hands upon a copy of the Qur'an once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

Jeff said...

According to Wallbuilders.com:

Keith Ellison is the first Muslim to serve in the U.S. Congress. However, John Randolph of Virginia, who served in Congress from 1799-1834, expressed that in his early years, he held a position "in favor of Mahomedanism" and "rejoiced in all its triumphs over the cross [Christianity]."

Randolph was not a Muslim in the same sense as Ellison, but he certainly cultivated what he described as a position of "natural repugnance to Christianity." Francis Scott Key, author of the "Star Spangled Banner," befriended Randolph and faithfully shared Christ with him. Randolph eventually converted to Christianity and became a strong personal advocate for his newfound faith. (Interestingly, Key reached out to Muslims, sharing Christianity with them and even purchasing for them copies of the Christian Bible printed in Arabic.

There were numerous Muslims living in America at the time of the American founding. Islam had been
introduced into America during the early 1600s with the entrance of slavery. It is estimated that ten percent of slaves were Muslim [likely, these were black Africans who had originally been captured and enslaved by Muslims from the Middle East, and converted, probably forcefully, to Islam, and then sold to Americans] many of whom became free and lived in America but retained their Islamic faith. There were therefore early Muslim communities in South Carolina and Florida; and there were enough Muslims that by 1806 the first Koran was published and sold in America.

Significantly, during the Founding Era, like today, there was great concern over the possibility of a Muslim being elected to Congress. That concern was heightened by the fact that at that time, like now, America was involved in a war on terror against Islamic terrorists. That war, called the Barbary Powers War, lasted thirty-two years, involved six years of active overseas warfare against Muslim terrorists, and spanned four U. S. presidencies: those of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

The Barbary Powers conflict began during the American Revolution when Muslim terrorists from four different Islamic nations (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) began making indiscriminate attacks against the property and interests of what they claimed to be “Christian” nations (America, England, France, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, etc.).

The Barbary Powers (called Barbary “pirates” by most Americans) attacked American civilian and commercial merchant ships (but not military ships) wherever they found them. Prior to the Revolution, American shipping had been protected by the British navy, and during the Revolution by the French navy. After the Revolution, however, America lacked a navy of her own and was therefore left without protection for her shipping. The vulnerable American merchant ships, built for carrying cargoes rather than fighting, were therefore easy prey for the warships of the Barbary Powers, which seized the cargo of the ships as loot and took their seamen (of whom all were considered Christians by the attacking Muslims) and enslaved them.

(cont.)

Jeff said...

(cont.)

In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Given this “spiritual” incentive to enslave and make war, the Muslim attacks against American ships and seamen were frequent. In fact, in the span of just one month in 1793, Algiers alone seized ten American ships and enslaved more than one hundred sailors, holding them for sale or ransom. Significantly, when Adams and Jefferson queried the Tripolian Ambassador about the seizure of sailors, he explained:

It was a law that the first who boarded an enemy’s vessel should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate valor and enterprise – that it was the practice of their corsairs [fast ships] to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand and another in his mouth and leap on board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them.

The enslaving of Christians by Muslims was such a widespread problem that for centuries, French Catholics operated a ministry that raised funding to ransom enslaved seamen. As Jefferson explained:

There is here an order of priests called the Mathurins, the object of whose institutions is the begging of alms for the redemption of captives. About eighteen months ago, they redeemed three hundred, which cost them about fifteen hundred livres [$1,500] apiece. They have agents residing in the Barbary States, who are constantly employed in searching and contracting for the captives of their nation, and they redeem at a lower price than any other people can.

Ransoming Americans was no less expensive, and therefore a very profitable trade for the Muslim terrorists. As John Adams explained:

Isaac Stephens at Algiers says the price is 6,000 for a master [captain], 4,000 for a mate [officer], and 1,500 for each sailor. The Dey [Muslim ruler] will not abate [drop the price] a sixpence, he says, and will not have anything to say about peace with America. He says the people (that is the sailors, I suppose) are carrying rocks and timber on their backs for nine miles out of the country, over sharp rocks and mountains; that he has an iron round his leg, etc. He begs that we would pay the money for their redemption without sending to Congress, but this is impossible.

(cont.)

Jeff said...

(cont.)

In an attempt to secure a release of the kidnapped seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched diplomatic envoys to negotiate terms with the Muslim nations. They secured several treaties of “Peace and Amity” with the Muslim Barbary Powers to ensure “protection” of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean. And because America had no threat of force against the Muslims, she was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars (tens of millions in today’s money) of “tribute” (i.e., official extortion) to the Muslim countries to secure the “guarantee” of no attacks. In fact, one Muslim Ambassador told American negotiators that “a
perpetual peace could be made” with his nation for the price of 30,000 guineas [$2.3 million today], with an additional 3,000 guineas [$230,000] fee for himself. Having no other recourse, America paid. Sometimes the Muslims even demanded additional “considerations” – such as building and providing a warship as a “gift” to Tripoli, a “gift” frigate to Algiers, paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers, etc.

These extortion payments became a significant expense for the American government. In fact, in 1795, payments to Algiers alone (including the ransom payment to free 115 American seamen), totaled nearly one million dollars (and Algiers was just one of the four warring Barbary Powers). Significantly, America had to obtain a loan from Holland to make the payment, and the entire affair displeased Washington, who considered it a “disgrace” to remit funds for that purpose, preferring rather to inflict “chastisement” upon the terrorists. Nevertheless, the best solution at that time was to continue paying the protection money, for America lacked a military, having neither navy nor army (the army was available only on an as-needed basis to be called up from among the people in case they needed to defend themselves; America had no standing army). Disgusted with the payments, Washington lamented:

Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind – or crush them into non-existence.

By the last year of Washington’s presidency, a full sixteen percent of the federal budget was spent on extortion payments.

Thomas Jefferson, who served as Secretary of State under President Washington, believed that a time would come when not only the economic effects of the extortion payments to the Muslim terrorists would be felt by every American but also that using force would be the only practicable way to end the terrorist attacks.

Eventually, Americans reached the point Jefferson had predicted: not only did they feel the economic effects but they also resented the unprovoked attacks and paying for rights already guaranteed by international law. Therefore, tiring of the largely unsuccessful diplomatic approach, military preparations were urged.

In the last year of Washington’s presidency, he urged Congress to find the revenues to undertake the construction of a U. S. Navy to defend American interests on the high seas.

Jeff said...

According to Militant Islam Monitor, there have been 10,000 Islamist terrorist attacks since 9/11 - 60,000 dead and 90,000 injured. According to TheReligionOfPeace.com, there have been 14,719 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.

This YouTube video shows how Islam is taking over Europe and the world by population (high birth rate and immigration).

HOWEVER:

According to Al-Jazeerah's interview with Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, the president of The Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya: Every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every day, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Every year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity.

CBN News confirms this.

Millions of Muslims are coming to Christ through dreams and visions.

In addition, reports show that there are an unprecedented number of Jews turning to Christ. In Jerusalem, there is a Christian revival among Jews (becoming Messianic believers) such as not been shown before.

According to a Dec. 2008 CBN report:

"Many leaders say it's the strongest growth since the time of Jesus and that the Messianic movement could be on the brink of a great revival.

"This is the first time where we've seen Israeli society in general being so open to consider who Yeshua is," said Messianic leader Asher Intrater. "This is a real miracle, and there's beginning to be grace and favor with us in the land."

"Although nobody knows for sure how many Messianic Jews live in Israel, it's believed there are about 120 congregations now and 10,000-15,000 Jewish believers in Jesus.

That may not sound like many given Israel's nearly six million Jews, but it's a far cry from 10 years ago when there were only about 3,500 Jewish believers and 80 congregations."

Nitewrit said...

Jeff,

This is all information that we need to have today. There are many Americans, perhaps most, who don't know why the line "to the shore's of tripoli" is in the Marine's Hymn. I am not aware of any schools or textbooks teaching these things. History is being deliberately blurred or ignored in many cases.

I had a friend back in the late 1970s who could not return to his native country because he had a price on his head and it was for him dead. His name was Adberdeem Biad and his crime was becoming a Christian. He was able to flee his country and he and his wife were Missionaries on hiatus at the time I knew them. The last I heard of them was as they departed to take the Gospel to the Muslim sections in France. This was over thirty years ago.

Keep doing your research and providing this information. More people need to know these things. Our culture today is so afraid of facing the truth if it clashes with someone's idea of political correctness. Truth sets one free; political correctness can get us killed.

Larry

Jeff said...

Nitewrit,

There are many Americans, perhaps most, who don't know why the line "to the shore's of tripoli" is in the Marine's Hymn. I am not aware of any schools or textbooks teaching these things. History is being deliberately blurred or ignored in many cases.

Very good point!

I had a friend back in the late 1970s who could not return to his native country because he had a price on his head and it was for him dead. His name was Adberdeem Biad and his crime was becoming a Christian. He was able to flee his country and he and his wife were Missionaries on hiatus at the time I knew them. The last I heard of them was as they departed to take the Gospel to the Muslim sections in France. This was over thirty years ago.

Interesting. And out of all the countries of Europe, I understand that France has the most Muslims, and is the most Islamicized. That makes me think, because my aunt is from France, and she goes back there every year.

Your comment reminds me of a guy I knew when I attended Bob Jones University in '84 and '85, who I considered to be the strongest Christian out of all the students I met at that college. His name was Ziad, and he was from Lebanon. Soldiers had taken over his home, since this was during the Lebanese Civil War (1975–1990). According to Wikipedia, that Civil War devastated the country's economy and resulted in massive loss of human life and property. An estimated 150,000 people were killed and another 200,000 wounded. About 900,000 people were displaced from their homes. The war ended in 1990 with the signing of the Taif Agreement and parts of Lebanon were left in ruins. The main two religions of Lebanon are Islam (Sunni and Shia) and Christianity (the Maronite Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Assyrian Church of the East). The CIA World Factbook shows that now about 59.7% are Muslims (Sunni, Shia, Druze, and Alawites) and 39.0% are Christians (mostly Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Melkite Greek Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East, Syriac Orthodox, and Chaldean Catholic). Lebanon has a population of Kurds (also known as Mhallami or Mardinli), most of whom migrated from northeast Syria and southeast Turkey are estimated to be between 75,000 and 100,000, and considered to be part of the Sunni population. These have in recent years been granted Lebanese citizenship and hence re-tipped the demographic balance in favour of the Muslims and the Sunnis in particular. In addition, many thousands of Arab Bedouins in the Bekaa and in the Wadi Khaled region, who are entirely Sunnis, were granted Lebanese citizenship.

Keep doing your research and providing this information. More people need to know these things. Our culture today is so afraid of facing the truth if it clashes with someone's idea of political correctness. Truth sets one free; political correctness can get us killed.

Thanks very much for the encouragement, Larry, and you are so very correct about our culture and political correctness.

Thanks, Larry!

Jeff said...

Larry,

I had a friend back in the late 1970s who could not return to his native country because he had a price on his head and it was for him dead. His name was Adberdeem Biad and his crime was becoming a Christian.

I understand that there are many ex-Muslims who live under constant death threats, and the only reason they are still alive (other than the fact that God is protecting them) is that they have fled their native Muslim country.

Jeff said...

Thanks to Russ for this article:

In Germany It Is Better to Be a Muslim than a Baptist

Jeff said...

Email

* 90 trillion - The number of emails sent on the Internet in 2009.
* 247 billion - Average number of email messages per day.
* 1.4 billion - The number of email users worldwide.
* 100 million - New email users since the year before.
* 81% - The percentage of emails that were spam.
* 92% - Peak spam levels late in the year.
* 24% - Increase in spam since last year.
* 200 billion - The number of spam emails per day (assuming 81% are spam).

Websites

* 234 million - The number of websites as of December 2009.
* 47 million - Added websites in 2009.

satire and theology said...

Welcome, my friend.

Jeff said...

"Aghast" Scholarship

February 13, 2010

Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent politicalislam.com newsletter-Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim? He replied to the newsletter with his Scourge of 'Islam Experts', but he missed my point.

The point of the Nice Muslim newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times. A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:

* The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted, enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir does not have any positive attributes.
* There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir.
* Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances Islam.
* Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose to make all kafirs submit to Islam.
* A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule, a non-Islamic principle.

The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case the so-called good verses are abrogated later.

Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine.
Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:

* On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.

So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply: I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.

* There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.

What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine, not one who is likable.

* Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.

This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect. A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology,a sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Sharia law is learning about Islam.

* He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.

I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since Islam does not have a Golden Rule.

(cont.)

Jeff said...

(cont.)

All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create the Islamic civilization.

His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.

Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good reason for their appearance. The university trained 'experts' are apologists for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood and never refer to Islam.

The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa, Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course would be bigotry.

It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official Islam that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff-Official Islam. Too bad it does not exist.

So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told.

When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.

It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right. If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.

Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.

The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.

Bill Warner,
Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.