Hollywood’s Islam-Free Terrorism

Mark Tapson, a Hollywood-based writer and screenwriter, is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He focuses on the politics of popular culture.


ironThe Los Angeles Times reported Friday that terrorism is making a comeback in Hollywood films after a dozen post-9/11 years in which they shied away from dealing with a topic that studios deemed too sensitive. The report credits this new trend to filmmakers attempting to bring to their fictional films some “real-world relevance.” There’s just one problem: Hollywood’s terrorism is still devoid of real-world terrorists.

The Times article points out that the filmmakers of several of the summer’s blockbusters feel safe again to depict acts of terrorism: “collapsing skyscrapers, spaceships flying into densely populated cities and bombers run amok… With the terror attacks more than a decade in the past, they say they no longer have to worry about alienating audiences.”

First of all, terror attacks are not “more than a decade in the past.” Sure, they aren’t on the scale of 9/11, but America has continued to endure attempted and successful terror attacks since then, all the way up to the recent Boston bombing. As for alienating audiences, did it ever occur to those filmmakers that movies in which America proudly and unapologetically kicked Islamic terrorist butt might provide audiences with that tremendous collective catharsis that Aristotle noted was the aim of good drama? That movies which affirmed our freedoms and our superior cultural values – that’s right, I said superior –might have united, inspired and empowered those audiences? That such movies might have sent a message to the world that we are unbowed by barbarism?

Instead, when Hollywood did address the clash of civilizations in those post-9/11 years, it pumped out movies disapproving of the CIA and/or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every one of them reeked with the message of moral equivalence that we’re no better than the terrorists. Every one depicted our soldiers as PTSD-ravaged. Every one condemned our presence in Iraq as a Bush lie. And every one of those films about our clash of civilizations bombed, if you’ll pardon the pun, including Syriana, The Green Zone, Stop-Loss, In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Brothers, Lions for Lambs, Rendition, The Kingdom, Body of Lies, and more. Why did they bomb? Because Americans don’t want to see movies loaded with those defeatist, self-flagellating messages. So Hollywood ended up alienating those audiences anyway.

“[Y]ou write about the times you live in,” said James Vanderbilt, screenwriter of White House Down, about an aspiring Secret Service agent protecting the president when the White House is taken over by – wait for it – domestic terrorists. “I was always fascinated with the idea of how you could take over the country — who would be able to do that,” said Vanderbilt.

I have a suggestion: if he wants to write about the times we live in, why not address credible, real-world enemies like Iran, Hezbollah, or al Qaeda and “its affiliates” (as President Obama calls them)? If he wants to imagine who could take over the White House, how about the Muslim Brotherhood, who traffic in and out of the White House now like it’s Grand Central Station? But he won’t because the truth is, too many in Hollywood are multiculturalist cowards who have already chosen to submit to Islam.

The latest Star Trek sequel is “about terrorism,” says the actor who plays Capt. Kirk, “about issues we as human beings in 2013 deal with every day, about the exploitation of fear to take advantage of a population, about physical violence and destruction but also psychological manipulation.” And yet the actor doesn’t explicitly make the obvious connection to those threats from Islamic fundamentalists. (In fact, nowhere in the Times article do the words “Islam” and “Muslim” appear in any form.)

Nor does Shane Black, director and co-writer of Iron Man 3, whose “ultimate terrorist” called “The Mandarin” “has this driving hatred for America which fuels his rhetoric with which he recruits these legions of followers.” Sounds like a clear stand-in for bin Laden or any number of Islamic terrorist leaders. And yet Black takes the safe route and makes his ultimate villain a vague fantasy figure.

In the new Superman reboot Man of Steel, director Zack Snyder said he was trying to evoke the 9/11 attacks “in a mythological rather than literal sense, using Superman as something like a therapist,” as the Times reporter puts it. “[Superheroes are] helping us understand the weird psychological and big horrible events that happen all the time,” Snyder said. “These guys deal with them in a dream-like way that makes it OK. A modern problem — a city getting destroyed — a superhero can help you understand that.”

Are we children who need to be coddled, who need help “understanding” “big horrible events”? During World War II Americans didn’t have to wrestle with the concept of Nazism or of Japanese imperialism in metaphorical terms. We didn’t have to undergo therapy to overcome our murky inner fears to confront those ideologies. We simply recognized them as evil and set out to eradicate them by laying waste to our enemies and their war-making capabilities.

As quoted in the Times article, Michael Taylor, chair of film and television production at USC’s School of Cinematic Arts, wishes filmmakers would use their platforms to explore “the root causes of terrorism” and its consequences. “Maybe there is a missed opportunity — where they can include an issue of positive social change in the narrative,” said Taylor, who also founded USC’s Media Institute for Social Change. “What can we be doing about terrorism, and how do we feel about it?”

How do we feel about it? This is typical touchy-feely nonsense from the left, whose first response to a terrorist threat is to blame America for it, then to organize a white privilege workshop or a gender-neutral drum circle to work out their deep-seated cultural guilt. Meanwhile Islamic terrorists – not Tea Partiers, not “anti-government types,” not angry vets, not anyone that Homeland Security considers a primary terrorist threat – continue blowing up children on our own soil.

Hollywood movies during WWII reflected an unconflicted confidence in our values and in the rightness of our purpose. Today, thanks in no small part to Hollywood’s deeply subversive cultural influence, it is our Islamic enemies who have that confidence, while America is paralyzed by navel-gazing, hand-wringing, moral confusion – and filmmakers who see their work as collective therapy rather than an inspirational call to arms.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • Adam

    If Hollywood did make an honest movie about the threat of Islamism, it would result in the same protests and violence as the 14 minute YouTube video ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ . CAIR would sue the film company and MSA chapters would protest and the films stars would be blackballed.

    • WhiteHunter

      Agreed, Adam. But I’m not sure cowardice is the whole story. The other half, I’m convinced, is that these fools don’t even recognize islamism as a threat (a “threat,” in their minds, is the Tea Party, or Evangelical Christianity–and they’re not bashful about saying so). Maybe, in their halfwitted ignorance of the brutal, bloody realities of life under mohammedism (how, many of them have actually read even a single page of the koran–which is the arab equivalent of “The Turner Diaries”? Probably as few as have ever opened the New Testament to read The Sermon on the Mount), they may even agree with those who want to “change” us into a culture that a Dark Ages, caravan-raiding precursor of Charles Manson would approve of.

      • Uzoozy

        You live in Lala land, get in touch with reality.
        Half the doctors in the world are Muslims , we are in the enlightened age.
        If you remember Jesus used to ride a donkey everywhere he went.

        • WhiteHunter

          “Half the doctors in the world are Muslims….” That would be commendable, if were true, my good friend, and if Muslim researchers had contributed anything–anything at all–to the science and practice of modern medicine.
          And if so many of these “doctors” hadn’t also, as we’ve found, turned out to be terrorists and assassins too. We’re not disagreeing about the level of education, you and I; we’re just disagreeing about why a wealthy, educated man might want to be a mass-murdering terrorist.
          Nothing–repeat, not a single important medical or scientific discovery–can be legitimately claimed by a single arab or muslim for the past thousand years.
          Every–repeat, every–important invention and modern scientific advance in technology and medicine that makes our lives easier, healthier, safer, and/or more pleasant, including the ones you use to kill us now, has been a Western discovery or invention, developed by us “infidels.”
          Keep reading your Koran, and following its commands, my friend; and stay where you’ve been since the Dark Ages. And watch out, because the next time you insult my Savior, somebody might do to you what you mohammedans always do when somebody “insults” your “Prophet,” or his beard, or so much as draws a picture of him, or points out, truthfully, what he really was.

          • Uzoozy

            Muslims 50 years of advancement to science.
            The Doctors identified so many diseases.
            I am not going thru the hole list.
            You are naïve and uneducated the buck stops here.
            Even the slaves from Africa were more educated than their slave masters.
            You even count on Arabic numerals.
            You are Bigoted

          • WhiteHunter

            And with this, your latest post, my good friend, you are a perfect example of exactly what I was talking about. You have proved my point, with your own words, better than I could have hoped to
            While your “prophet” commands you to cut off my head, I shall pray to my Savior, as He commanded me, to open your eyes to the Truth and change your heart. That’s one big difference between your cult and my True Faith.
            Good night, my friend. Repent, and abandon Satan. You will be in my prayers, and Christ will welcome you when you come to Him.

          • Uzoozy

            Jesus is dead and gone a vey longtime ago.
            One cannot pray to a dead man, Jesus was the messiah . the Christ however he remained as a man, with no extra benefits. I pray five times to ask God for forgiveness , I may have to say an extra prayer for you.
            Sharia is a good thing. Many parts of sharia are somewhat like the Christians teaching, Sharia allows for forgiveness while cannon law has no mercy.
            Christian cannon requires that a promiscuous ladies to be stoned to death. If you had studied the bible you would have known. Alas uneducated people have this problem.

          • WhiteHunter

            Save yourself. Abandon Satan and his slave Mohammed. Embrace Christ, and beg His forgiveness for your hideous, blasphemous sins.

          • jackdiamond

            No, Sharia is a bad thing for all civilized beings. For anyone who believes in freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of religion. Sharia (every mainstream school) makes apostasy (leaving Islam) a capital crime. Makes blasphemy a capital crime. Sharia is apartheid, for non-Muslims living in Muslim lands. Sharia, the real Sharia, makes non-Muslims pay ransom for their lives (jizya). Sharia is oppression of women. Sharia enshrines JIhad- war- religious war, against non-Muslims to remove the obstacles to the rule of Islam. (btw that’s how it is defined in the manuals of Islamic law). And any Jihadist worth his salt will be happy to tell you exactly why he is killing you, straight from the Qur’an, if that “Allahu akbar” isn’t clue enough.

          • Uzoozy

            Allahuakbar means God is great

          • jackdiamond

            Allahu akbar means “God is greater” as in Allah is greater than your god.

            Tafsir Ibn Kathir (9) discussing Allahu Akbar, Allah is the Great, “It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance & the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions even though the idolators hate it… none has the right to be worshiped but He..there is no deity or Lord worthy of worship except Him.”

            He means the religions of the Jews & Christians, especially.

            You also know full well it is the war cry Muhammad taught his soldiers to scream in order to instill fear in the hearts of his enemies. Just as it used today. It’s what they scream before crashing an airline into a building. Before beheading a helpless victim. Before detonating their suicide bomb.

            Bukhari V5B59N516 “When Allah’s Apostle fought the battle of Khaybar, or when he raided any other people, we raised our voices crying ‘Allahu Akbar! None has the right to be worshiped except Allah!’” It is a shortening of Allahu akbar minkullishay “Allah is greater than everything.”

            Is that really your only response to my posting? Trying to tell me Allahu akbar is just some innocent statement?

          • Uzoozy

            I do not want to talk to an as, hence my refrain/disdain from discussion, a donkey carrying books does not become wise .(hint) What they did 1400 years ago is of no consequence . 38 persons killed by violence each day, 1 rape every 7 seconds. What a civilization?

          • jackdiamond

            A donkey carrying your books and just repeating it’s asinine contents back to you. 21,171 deadly Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. All in the name of your religion, buddy. Not 1400 years ago. Why recite the Qur’an or study Muhammad if you don’t care what happened in the 7th Century, you liar. The rape capitals of the world are all Islamic, you hypocrite. Nothing is more oppressive and brutal towards women than Islam. Everyone knows this now. Everyone is becoming wise to you, even the donkeys.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “What they did 1400 years ago is of no consequence”

            Aren’t Muslims supposed to emulate Mohammed?

            “38 persons killed by violence each day, 1 rape every 7 seconds. What a civilization?”

            Crime statistics for Egypt under sharia? I think there are far more rapes than that.

            But stay focused please. We’re looking at ideology to see if we can find triggers and root causes for the behaviors we observe from people that tell us they want to control the world under sharia.

          • Drakken

            You really should give it up devil worshipper, us infidels ain’t buying what you selling.

          • Uzoozy

            I give the Word and rest is for the audience to understand.

          • Drakken

            Come on down muzzy, I’ll leave the light on for you.

          • OfficialPro

            The word is gobbledegook. Islam holds half truths not full truths. Understand this: Allah cannot love nor comprehend the emotion. I will not worship a sociopath.

          • OfficialPro

            Sweden has a much higher rape rate than United States. And it’s almost ALL being done by…. MUSLIMS!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Allahuakbar means God is great”

            Allahuakbar means the specific God of Islam is greater / greatest and the rest are false.

            But the point is that when we see a person committing violence and shouting about Allah, we can infer then that his belief in Allah influenced this violence.

            And when statistically many of them additionally leave behind final testaments that verify this fact directly, we ca be sure that when violent maniacs should allah akbar, they are doing it out of religious conviction.

            This conviction is not that Islam is a religion of peace.

          • WhiteHunter

            A perfect triumphal shout when cutting off someone’s head to the cheers of the mob!

          • Uzoozy

            Now they shoot them in USA 38 + murders every day.
            One rape every 7 seconds , now that is the civilized society

          • OfficialPro

            The shootings are by black gang members.

          • Uzoozy

            They will cry WhiteHunter coming, aborigines run

          • OfficialPro

            so? That’s the islamic equivalent of “my god can beat up your God”

          • knowshistory

            your evil “god” should be praying to us for forgiveness. I would be willing to forgive the criminal god you pray to if he would just start doing his own killing, and tell his murderous adherents that their assistance is no longer necessary. but that would require your evil god to actually have god-powers, wouldn’t it? and you dam well recognize that your evil god has no power, and that is why you find it necessary to do your god of evil’s killing for him. go away, fool.

          • Uzoozy

            May the Lord show you the correct path of love and respect ,happiness ,
            I love the people of America you are one of the exceptions.
            Stay cool.

          • knowshistory

            has your evil “god” decided to do his own killing? have you been instructed by your archcriminal prophet, pbuh, to stop murdering infidels, and stop spreading taqiyya? if not, it is expected that you would love the spineless, suicidal, dhimmified traitors of America, but not me. I don’t want your prayers (to an evil nonexistent god) or your good will, which you extend only to traitors who welcome enemies who desire to genocide them. the only thing I want from you is away, and I am not leaving. so please ess tea eff yew, and get out of my country.

          • Uzoozy

            Your thought process is directed in the wrong direction.
            You should go back to Timbuktu where you came from.
            This is my country and I am here to stay , take away your bigotry and live a peaceful life as directed by your bible.
            Only red letters are the alleged words of God rest is man made.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Only red letters are the alleged words of God rest is man made.”

            Where did you get that from?

          • OfficialPro

            You want the truth? Pick up a New Testament, if you think you can handle it.

          • Drakken

            All that head pounding really has done wonders for you, please continue, but please pound a little harder.

          • OfficialPro

            Jesus is dead? Uh, no. He LIVES. Jesus is God, therefore we can pray to him.

            Praying 5 times a day? What a waste of time. We only need to pray once for forgiveness. God forgets sins that are forgiven, looks like Allah is having trouble in that department. Or needs more convincing. That’s not a god I want to pray to, that demands a set number of prayers per day. Maybe Allah is insecure?

            Sharia is a BAD thing. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. You know why? Because it has less mercy in it than ancient Talmudic Law. It was out of date when Mohammed invented it!

            You have no clue about canon law, because that’s not all there is. There is gospel which Islam does not have. Gospel is “good news” meaning people can be assured of being forgiven and going to Heaven not Hell. Islam requires you die in “jihad” for that to be possible. That is why Islam is a train wreck and always will be.

            What’s this about christian canon requiring promiscuous ladies be stoned to death?
            No it does not. You are mistaken. That’s ancient Israelite Law. Such has not been practiced in millenia. Sharia DOES require it, NOW, the Bible does not.

            You lack education which is indicated by your post. You don’t know as much as you think you know.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Muslims 50 years of advancement to science.”

            Aha.

            “The Doctors identified so many diseases.”

            No, I did that.

            “I am not going thru the hole list.”

            There’s a big hole in your list. It’s nothing but hole.

            “You are naïve and uneducated the buck stops here.”

            We reject Islamic education and all Islamic circular logic.

            What buck? Never mind.

            “Even the slaves from Africa were more educated than their slave masters.”

            Even the slaves from Africa were more educated than their Muslim slave masters? OK. I’ll buy that.

            “You even count on Arabic numerals.”

            They’re referred to as “Arabic” because the jihadis learned from the Hindus, and Westerners found them easier for Western math.

            Jihadis only invent new ways to kill.

            “You are Bigoted”

            We discriminate based on facts, which is legitimate and laudable. It’s just offensive to jihadis.

          • Uzoozy

            The world population has 5 % Arabic blood.
            I am very pious and I like to be a good person, you should try the same.
            Bye

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The world population has 5 % Arabic blood.”

            I’m not sure how you would measure that, but I’m not talking about genetics. I’m talking about ideology and culture.

            “I am very pious and I like to be a good person, you should try the same.”

            I’d applaud if I was certain we shared the same definitions for what it takes to be “good.”

          • Drakken

            Please say hi to uncle Dad and Aunty mom for me will you?

          • Uzoozy

            Same to you

          • OfficialPro

            arabic blood has nothing to do with Islam. there are arab christians, arab druze, arab atheist…

          • Uzoozy

            Muslims and Christians have lived together for many centuries and are considered as brothers.

          • knowshistory

            thus sayeth the author of “I am not going thru the HOLE list.” note to anyone stupid and ignorant enough to be influenced by uzoozy: “the proper spelling of “hole” is WHOLE. the rest of us already knew that.

          • Uzoozy

            A.. hole. Is an alternative noun

          • William James Ward

            The hole in your head is and alternative Universe.
            William

          • Gerald

            There never was such a thing as Arabic numerals. The Arabs copied the Indian numerals and claimed it as their own just like they copied large tracts of the Torah and the Bible, twisted it to suit thier nefarious purposes and claimed the Torah and the Bible were corrupted.

          • Uzoozy

            The Torah, Bible and the Holy Quran the author is the same.
            Its the first two were twisted screwed modified to suite peoples needs not God Words.
            Reading the many(40) gospels you cannot find out, was Jesus really crucified , did Jesus really had a miraculous birth and was Jesus really lifted to heaven.
            For the correct answers to all the above need to refer to the Glorious Quran, which has all the correct answers, because its the direct word of God .
            1) Jesus was not crucified nor did he die on the cross.
            2) Holy Mary has a miraculous birth of Jesus Christ.
            3) He was taken up to heaven before the alleged crucifixion, where he abides in heaven.
            Islam is a religion of peace and only way for humanity to follow.
            Jesus in the bible never states that he was God and people were to pray to him. These were added on in 353 Nicia meeting.

          • jackdiamond

            Yes Muslims really believe this. Because it is a heresy, a replacement religion, the Qur’an replaces the Torah & Gospels, Islam replaces the “corrupted” Judaism and Christianity. Muhammad replaces Jesus with the “message”. Muslims are the real Jews now, with Allah’s favor transferred to them. They are also the real Christians. That’s why Jews & Christians thereafter can be called the worst of creatures and consigned to Hellfire.

            3;19 the religion before Allah is Islam. He recognizes no other religion.

            3;85 whosoever desires any other religion it will not be accepted

            3:67 Abraham was neither Jew or Christian. He was a Muslim. (Allah makes everyone a Muslim from birth; that means if you are not a Muslim you are either in ignorance or a renegade).

            7:172-172 all human beings are created Muslims

            2:136, 3:84 All Biblical Prophets were Muslims; all the Prophets (Abraham to Jesus) bow their will to Allah in Islam

            Jesus himself is a Muslim and will return on the Day of Judgment as a Muslim to “break the cross” destroy the false Christianity. 4:159 “(On the Day of Resurrection) ‘Isa (Jesus) himself will be a witness against Jews & Christians for believing in his death…. Allah will taunt Christians on the day of their doom, saying ‘Where are my partners whom ye imagined?’” 78:62-64

            From the Bukhari hadith: “Allah’s Apostle said, how will you be when the son of Mary (Jesus) descends among you and will judge people by the law of the Qur’an and not by the law of the Gospel?” V4B60n3449

            Islam’s Jesus is one unrecognizable to a Christian, for, though Islam foretells his return, it will be to destroy Christianity “By Him in whose hands my soul is, surely (Isa) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind, justly he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and there will be no Jizya.” (Ending the Jizya means ending the protection enjoyed by Christians to keep their faith, it announces open-season on them).

            The Qur’an tells you who Allah’s enemies are and who must be fought against. What does the Qur’an say Muhammad came to do? Muhammad who dares call himself the Prophet of God after Christ… 18:4 “that he may warn those who say ‘Allah has begotten a son’.” He announces he came expressly to deny the message and mission of Christ of the Gospels.

            So what did Jesus come to earth for? Jesus came only to…proclaim Muhammad!
            61:6 ‘Jesus said I am the Messenger of Allah sent to you confirming the law (which came) before me and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad (Muhammad).”

            7:157 “Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures) in the Law and in the Gospel, for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil, he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure).”

            The Bible speaks only of Muhammad, according to Islam. 6:20 “those whom we have given the Book know this as they know their own sons.”
            But they changed the scriptures, that’s why you don’t find Muhammad in the Bible! 2:75 “a party of them heard the word of Allah and perverted it knowingly after they understood it.” The People of the Book were only given a portion of the Book (4:51-52) and have gone astray and earned Allah’s wrath ( exactly how Christians & Jews are referred to in the prayer Muslims pray five times daily).

            Now you understand the context for 58:22 “You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger even though they be their fathers, sons, brothers or kindred.

            5:82 the worst, most venomous (enemies of Allah) are the Jews and those polytheists who said Allah has a son. (that’s you Christians).

        • jackdiamond

          Yep. Doctors like Ayman Zawahiri, surgeon and head of Al Qaeda; pediatrician and Hamas leader Abdel Rantissi; the terrorist doctors behind the London/Glasgow bombings; how about Mahmoud al-Zahar, medical doctor and Hamas bigshot who described what he did best to the NY Times in 2006: “Thyroids: I’m very good at cutting throats,’ Dr. Zahar said, drawing his forefinger across his neck as a rare smile spread across his face; Rafiq Abdus Sabir an emergency room doctor and convert to Islam living
          in Boca Raton Florida who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for swearing an oath of allegiance to Al Qaeda and scouting locations in Long Island to set up a jihad camp; and how about that army psychiatrist Nidal Hassan? There were doctors working at Auschwitz too, right Mr. Enlightened?

          • Uzoozy

            People were burnt alive and flesh eaten at the stakes.

            These stories are fake , the witch hunt is continuing since 1400 CE
            Nothing new , I do not for a moment believe these fake stories , 98.7 percent of all Muslims are pious law abiding citizens who never even break a single law.
            Due to power shortage enlightenment was switched off

          • jackdiamond

            All jihadists are pious, sharia law abiding Muslims. It even trumps a doctor’s oath to “do no harm.” You are against the doctrines of jihad and sharia supremacy? Then say so! State it bold, my law abiding friend. Condemn & denounce all the Muslims I’ve named. Denounce all those horrible verses of the Qur’an. Calls to hate and to murder disbelievers simply because they disbelieve! Calls to war against them until they convert or subjugate themselves. Ancient history you say? Says who? Tell that to your Imam! Condemn laws like killing apostates or killing blasphemers, or stoning adulterers, or the laws of dhimmitude for non-Muslims. Do you even know what Al-Hijra is and means, you who claim to defend Islam? Do you even know what Muhammad said about Muslims living in kaffir lands? Shall we even get into the life of Muhammad? Do you think we don’t know all about his example?

            No one believes in witches or witch hunts anymore. Just Muslims. They still execute people for witchcraft in places like Saudi Arabia. Muslims believe in the Jinn, those little demons. They have to because the Qur’an (Muhammad) says they are true.

          • jackdiamond

            When I say pious, it doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy kaffir women who are lawful when there is jihad. Just as the pious Anwar al-Awlaki frequented prostitutes and Muhammad’s soldiers were allowed to enjoy captive women, what the Qur’an called “right hand possessions” that is, slaves. By enjoy I mean sex. By sex with captive women I mean rape. That thing you find so horrible. The Qur’an has a whole chapter called “Spoils of War” and women are part of that. War booty is the expression. Did you know that?

            4:23-24 Prohibited to you are: your mothers, your daughters, sisters..also women already married
            except slaves who are captives whom your right hand possess; 23:5-6 “who abstain from sex except those joined to them in the marriage bond or
            (the captives) whom their right hands possess.
            33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers and those
            (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war

            From an Islamic Q & A site: Right Hand’s Possessions
            ‘Question: What is the meaning of right hand possession and what was the purpose of having them? Some brothers in America think it is okay to have right hand possessions now in the USA .

            Answer: Right hand possessions (Malak-ul-Yameen) means slaves and maids, those came in possession of Muslims through war or purchase. After having the possession of slave maid it is lawful and correct to have sexual relation with them. Even today if Muslims get possession over infidel country, this condition is possible, lawful and correct.’

            Even today? Not just 1400 years ago? I guess you could ask the women of Darfur or the schoolgirls at Beslan or any number of women in Pakistan or Sweden or even the young victims of the rape-grooming gangs in England right now if the rules of “rape” jihad belong to the ancient past. More ancient history: “Some of the Companions of the Apostle were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse “and all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) who your right hands possess.” that is to say they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.” Sunan of Abu Dawud vol2 #2150

            Oh, remember when the Pakistani Islamic army raped 250,000 Bengali women during the Jihad of 1971?

            You don’t? More fake witch hunting, no doubt.

            One more thing. From Qur’an 2:282 Qur’an 24:13
            a woman’s testimony in court is worth half of a man.
            and In the case of sexual misconduct, four male witnesses are required and must have seen the act itself. The genesis is an incident in Muhammad’s life when wife Aisha was accused of infidelity. He had a revelation as to her innocence and then stipulated four witnesses were required for sexual sins “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah.”
            Qur’an 24:13

            As a result (since Islam is based on what Muhammad said and did) it is almost impossible to prove rape in Sharia dictated lands. And if a woman cannot prove rape she may end up jailed for admitting to fornication.(75% of the imprisoned women in Pakistan are behind bars for the crime of being victims of rape.

            Now do you want to deal with the Muslim rape problem before you start casting stones?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “All jihadists are pious, sharia law abiding Muslims. It even trumps a doctor’s oath to “do no harm.””

            I often forget to mention that one. Scary stuff. That’s the most serious sharia appeasement so far in my opinion.

          • Uzoozy

            If anyone does wrong thing like killing innocent people it is wrong. Muslims are not allowed to kill anyone without proper cause.

            Islam has been hijacked by extremists(n Ireland style) , their acts are being condemned by every muslim.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If anyone does wrong thing like killing innocent people it is wrong. Muslims are not allowed to kill anyone without proper cause.”

            The problem is that so many jihadis can represent the Islamic texts as supporting killing for the “proper cause” of advancing sharia.

            The reasoning goes something like; Allah would not have put this person in the way of my objectives if he was innocent. Must be guilty, so he dies.

          • Uzoozy

            The crusaders killed, rape murdered everyone from Europe to middle east, its probably the insane way of thinking.

            Anyone can justify and crime, but that does not make it right.

            Those people kill for killing sake are not considered muslims

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The crusaders killed, rape murdered everyone from Europe to middle east, its probably the insane way of thinking.”

            The narratives told are controversial and difficult to construct accurately in order to compare those actions to what we consider justice today. However, the salient questions are related to lessons from history that help guide us in the future.

            Today, we have jihadis who use medieval principals of justice with no objective process. That is completely in contrast with Western justice.

            That’s the bottom line. That’s why we object to using any religious standards of justice that want to replace our objective standards based on consensus and consent, and why we take the threat of sharia so seriously.

            Americans are very tolerant of individuals. We are not tolerant of ideas that threaten our way of life because we believe our way is superior. We believe it is superior because we’ve been working on objective standards of justice, including due process, for many centuries now. And we don’t mind at all learning about true improvements, like forensic sciences and so forth.

            The only thing we can learn from Islam is what not to do. The only thing Islam gets right it took from Judeo Christian texts. We still value the rights of each individual to worship as he pleases. When that worship leads to actions against our sovereignty and or against the rights of others, then that “other” worship should not be tolerated.

            We’re getting to that point it seems.

            If you are sincere, you would be better off trying to convince others to behave as you rather than trying to convince me that I should not worry about millions of jihadis.

          • Uzoozy

            Crusaders atrocities are a fact, also fact is that during the 800 years of the various Inquisitions over 95 Million Muslims/Jews were killed by the Christian church. Kings and Queens and other were killed
            Justice under Islam is very fair much better than the USA in every way. Much of Islamic teachings and Judicial law are in the American Justice System. In Usa you have money you will go Scott free. That is no justice at all.

            Jihad can only be declared by country leaders , personnel jihad is not allowed at all.

            Sharia law is our personnel law like the Cannon law, the teachings of Quran are there, since the Quran is Allah word it is correct in everyway. There is no dispute in my mind.
            You should have no fear of Sharia Law it does not apply to non-muslims , in Sharia we are supposed to follow the law of the land we live in as long its morally right.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In Usa you have money you will go Scott free.”

            Have you ever set foot in the USA? How about in a US courtroom?

            Your little grievance rant is so pathetic. Even if it was true, all you have to argue against Western justice is the claim that it’s all about money. That’s what communist and jihadist liars always say.

            The truth is that you can get your own lawyer with your own money and that can some times help. It’s also true that without money, you might have to serve jail time when in contrast with those who can pay the fine instead. On the other hand, usually the fine is adjusted according to ability to pay.

            If that’s your best “attack” against our justice system, your delusion is great as any I have ever heard.

            Your dependence on allah is not justified since you have no evidence at all that Mohamed was not merely a violent thief who simply plagiarized the Bible and Catholic traditions, wove it with Arab Paganism and used all of that to justify acting like one assumes Satan would have one act like.

            But since circular logic is the only thing Islam has going for it, you find it difficult to break out and see how silly you sound when you make these ridiculous arguments.

            “You should have no fear of Sharia Law it does not apply to non-muslims , in Sharia we are supposed to follow the law of the land we live in as long its morally right.”

            While carefully planning on how to overthrow the stronger government, always working towards that day. Even lying is honorable in Islam it if serves that end.

          • Uzoozy

            I live in USA , we already know the inside story.
            America is a beautiful country with mainly good people.
            Love this country

          • objectivefactsmatter

            As much as I’d like it to be even better, I don’t know a better place in time or history than the USA to seek justice for rich or poor.

          • Uzoozy

            There is no justice for poor and homeless.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            You’re totally without a clue.

          • jackdiamond

            The Crusades followed and were a response to 400 years of savage Jihad conquest of Christian lands. They were short lived, as opposed to the Jihad, which never stops. Offensive Jihad can only be declared by the the caliph (and is required to be declared yearly). There is no caliph or caliphate. But defensive jihad is an obligation upon all Muslims and every jihad today is termed defensive. A defense of Islam under attack everywhere, not the least by the USA. According to Islam, I’m waging war on it right now with these words.

            The idea Islamic law is compatible with the U.S. Constitution is laughable. You must be insane. Nor is it compatible with the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which is why the Muslims created an alternative, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights which put Sharia first, to save Muslim countries from such un-Islamic kaffir notions as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equal rights for women or non-Muslims. Sharia law applies to non-Muslims in Muslim countries. That’s what the Dhimmi were, non-Muslims. Sharia law covers the totality of life, there is no end to it once it is allowed, in our countries. It metastasizes. It must. That is the whole point of Al-Hijra, Muslim migration.

          • OfficialPro

            They did it because they learned it from the Muslims.

          • jackdiamond

            no kaffir is innocent.

          • OfficialPro

            unfortunately to Muslims, being Kuffar (unbeliever) IS proper cause when it comes to justifying killing people.

          • Uzoozy

            Kuffar are people other than Jews and Christians ,that means Jews and Christians are people of the book and not considered Kuffars

          • Uzoozy

            Who cares what you think.
            For Islam Truth prevails

          • Adrian_of_Dapto

            Then why does Islam not acknowledge Jesus who said “I am the Truth” as being God and as having died for the sin of the world?

          • jackdiamond

            I haven’t posted a thing about what I think. This is what Islam teaches and what Muslims have always practiced.
            And you, like Islam, cannot bear close scrutiny. That’s why Muslims so much want to impose Sharia blasphemy laws on all of us (criminalize free speech on Islam to shut us up).

            Since no jihadi is a real Muslim according to you, show me the mainstream Islamic authorities, at Al Azhar for instance, Mecca or Medina, who have specifically denounced their killings, denounced their groups, who have officially declared them to be outside of Islam for betraying it and becoming apostate (pronounced Takfir), who have even asked forgiveness of the victims of said terrorists? Name one.

            Who cares what you think.

          • jackdiamond

            When I say pious, it doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy kaffir women who are lawful when there is jihad. Just as the pious Anwar al-Awlaki frequented prostitutes and Muhammad’s soldiers were allowed to enjoy captive women, what the Qur’an called “right hand possessions” that is, slaves. By enjoy I mean sex. By sex with captive women I mean rape. That thing you find so horrible. The
            Qur’an has a whole chapter called “Spoils of War” and women are part of that. War booty is the expression. Did you know that?

            4:23-24 Prohibited to you are: your mothers, your daughters, sisters..also women already married
            except slaves who are captives whom your right hand possess; 23:5-6 “who abstain from sex except those joined to them in the marriage bond or (the captives) whom their right hands possess.33:50 O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war

            From an Islamic Q & A site: Right Hand’s Possessions
            ‘Question: What is the meaning of right hand possession and what was the purpose of having them? Some brothers in America think it is okay to have right
            hand possessions now in the USA .

            Answer: Right hand possessions (Malak-ul-Yameen) means slaves and maids, those came in possession of Muslims through war or purchase. After having the possession of slave maid it is lawful and correct to
            have sexual relation with them. Even today if Muslims get possession over infidel country, this condition is possible, lawful and correct.’

            Even today? Not just 1400 years ago? I guess you could ask the women of Darfur or the schoolgirls at Beslan or any number of women in Pakistan or Sweden or even the young victims of the rape-grooming gangs
            in England right now if the rules of “rape” jihad belong to the ancient past. More ancient history: “Some of the Companions of the Apostle were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence
            of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse “and all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) who your right hands possess.” that is to say they are
            lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.” Sunan of Abu Dawud vol2 #2150

            Oh, remember when the Pakistani Islamic army raped 250,000 Bengali women during the Jihad of 1971?

            You don’t? More fake witch hunting, no doubt.

            One more thing. From Qur’an 2:282 Qur’an 24:13
            a woman’s testimony in court is worth half of a man.
            and In the case of sexual misconduct, four male witnesses are required and must have seen the act itself. The genesis is an incident in Muhammad’s
            life when wife Aisha was accused of infidelity. He had a revelation as to her innocence and then stipulated four witnesses were required for sexual sins “Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah.”
            Qur’an 24:13

            As a result (since Islam is based on what Muhammad said and did) it is almost impossible to prove rape in Sharia dictated lands. And if a woman cannot prove rape she may end up jailed for admitting to
            fornication.(75% of the imprisoned women in Pakistan are behind bars for the crime of being victims of rape).

            Now do you want to deal with the Muslim rape problem before you start casting stones?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I do not for a moment believe these fake stories , 98.7 percent of all Muslims are pious law abiding citizens who never even break a single law.”

            Which law?

            “Due to power shortage enlightenment was switched off”

            That makes sense now.

          • Uzoozy

            Sahih
            International: Or do they say, “He has invented about Allah a lie”? But
            if Allah willed, He could seal over your heart. And Allah eliminates falsehood
            and establishes the truth by His words. Indeed, He is Knowing of that within the
            breasts.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If I’m going to run around telling lies, I might also warn that I will be accused of lying. Because I’m already a deceiver. See?

            Trying to make it sound poetic does not change the fact that it’s a lie.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        The cultural impact of the Koran and Islamic ideology on Islamic societies is undeniable, no matter how many or how few read it directly. Many or even most don’t or would not tolerate other cultures when they travel.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Yep.

    • jackdiamond

      Hollywood could only make the Michael Taylor film, explore the “root causes of terrorism”, something socially positive, you know. Root causes meaning poverty, illiteracy, western colonialism-imperialism- since Muslims are the new ‘wretched of the earth’ in that narrative (a narrative based upon complete and utter ignorance of both Islam’s most basic texts and of the real history of Islam). Only a movie filled with the commonplaces (and escapism) of the moment could ever be made. Real movies about Islam get film makers killed. Hollywood does actually know who Theo Van Gogh was. They know how Rushdie or the people who published the Danish cartoons of Muhammad have had to live since their fatwas. They’re not the kind of people who care to die over a film. Now that doesn’t mean decent films about actual jihadists and what they do (say Imad Mugniyah) couldn’t get made (it wouldn’t have to say everything that could be said, as long as it didn’t say things that were false and wrong..such as exploring “root causes”).

      For anyone who buys into “root causes” let me quote a former terrorist, Dr. Tawfik Hamid from Egypt’s Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, who trained under Ayman Zawahiri:

      “The first thing you have to understand is that it has nothing to do with poverty or lack of education. I was from a middle class family and my parents were not religious. Hardly anyone in the movement at University came from a background that was different than mine. I’ve heard this poverty nonsense time and time again from Western apologists for Islam, most of them not Muslim. Most of those who do the killing are wealthy, privileged, educated, and free. It is middle class Muslims, never poor Christians, who become suicide bombers in Palestine. I can tell you what it is not about. Not about Israel, not about Iraq, not about Afghanistan, they are mere excuses. Algerian fundamentalists murdered 150,000 other Algerians Muslims, sometimes slitting the throats of children in front of their parents. Are you seriously telling me this was because of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians or American foreign policy?

      (the jihad genocide in Sudan–2 million people– another example).

      “Stop asking what you have done wrong. Stop it! They’re slaughtering you like sheep and you still look within. You criticize your history, your institutions, your churches. Why can’t you realize that it has nothing to do with what you have done but with what they want.”

  • WhiteHunter

    “Positive social change,” Professor Taylor? Meaning WE, here in the U.S., should bring ourselves into alignment with sharia? So we should force American women to dress head-to-foot in black tents, with only an eye slit (maybe not a bad idea for Hillary, Lerner, and Pelosi, on second thought)? Stone Monica and behead Bill for adultery? Beat our wives when they “mouth off” to their husbands? Convert every synagogue and church to a mosque? Burn down every diner that has a BLT on the menu? Arrest Michelle for going off on vacations without her husband as a chaperone? Execute, on the spot, anyone caught with drugs (who would be left in Hollywood to make these idiotic films, if we did that?)?
    Thank you, Prof. Michael Taylor, for your sage, insightful suggestion. Now, what have YOU been smoking or ingesting lately?

  • dizzyizzy

    Hollywood is playing to a mood of induced regression and apocalypse. And TV too: witness The Following and the new Under The Dome. I wrote about this here: http://clarespark.com/2013/06/21/apocalypse-and-the-escape-artist/. “Apocalypse and the escape artist.” Visions of decadence emanating from some Rightist don’t help.

  • cxt

    Can you imagine a World War 2 movie that refused to name the Nazi’s as our foes for fear of “alienating” the Germans?

    • jackdiamond

      There could have been a real movie made about Bin Laden but there wasn’t because the film couldn’t have avoided talking about Islam, because that’s all he talked about and how he justified himself to fellow Muslims. That movie would also have had to deal with touchy matters like the immense support of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs for the Global Jihad.

      No Hollywood film can compete with the jihadists own spectaculars, anyway. Like the Syrian rebels the U.S. want so badly to triumph, some of whom posted a video beheading a Catholic priest, the bloodthirsty demonic choir screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as the poor martyred man’s head is held aloft to the delight of his murderers. Hollywood can’t compete with the cinema of real evil.

  • kevinstroup

    Hollywood, on their knees, ready and willing to orally service their koranimal masters. Pathetic.

  • ratonis

    They don’t deal with the terrorist reality because they are cowards and quislings. They are scared dupes, claiming status as “creative” artists.

    • Uzoozy

      The are more American terrorist than any other countries.
      Half truths is not truth but remain half truth(lies)

      • WhiteHunter

        Come again, ‘zoo? If you can’t even master our language at the same level that any three-year-old American child automatically does (assuming you or some other mohammedan doesn’t cut her throat first), how can you expect us to understand why you hate us so much and want to kill us?

      • jackdiamond

        Is this the best CAIR can produce?

      • Drakken

        It comes down to us versus yours, love us and ours, eff you and yours, Happy Nakba muzzy, may you enjoy many more.

      • OfficialPro

        You don’t know what terrorist definition means then.

    • Uzoozy

      The worst terror group was the IRA terrorism lasted for over 100 years

  • Blake hitler

    funny how before 9/11 most terrorists in movies were muslims. now they’re all Russian or some “far right group”.

  • CowboyUp

    Someone that’s always dragging me to movies offered to buy me a ticket to WH Down Saturday, and I passed. When Hollywood quits making movies and shows for morons, unintentional comedies, and insulting my intelligence, I’ll waste my time, and maybe even my money on them.

  • Douglas Mayfield

    The Left has always been dedicated to destroying America and Hollywood is no slouch in helping out. The trend to all bad guys being those who support the US military, want this country to actually defend itself against the Communists and more recently Islam, and/or oppose the ‘dedicated peacemakers’ who simply want the US to surrender forthwith, goes all the way back to movies such as ‘Seven Days in May’ and ‘Failsafe’, which at least had strong casts and good scripts.
    The trend continued with Paramount and the director gutting Tom Clancy’s exciting novel ‘The Sum of All Fears’ by changing the bad guys from Islamics in partnership with Left Wing American Indians to the standard Hollywood ‘Right Wing Extremists’.
    That Islam is evil is an observable fact if indeed you are willing to simply see what goes on in Islamic countries around the world on a daily basis, rape, murder, atrocities, all inspired by Sharia and the bearded poisonous little ‘wanna be’ tyrants and sanctioned by cowards running the governments.
    It’s pathetic that Hollywood which has benefitted enormously from doing business in a free country is dedicated to knocking America and those who defend us at every possible opportunity.

    • Raymond_in_DC

      I don’t know how it was in the book, but in the movie the nuclear bomb that destroyed Baltimore was made by … Israel, lost in the Sinai and forgotten about. As if… So apparently, Hollywood feels comfortable blaming Israel for an attack on America, but not Arabs or Muslims.

      • Douglas Mayfield

        That’s the way it was in the book. The Israeli bomb goes astray ?20 years earlier but in the book, Islamic terrorists are behind recovering the bomb, rebuilding it (it has deteriorated while buried all those years in the desert), and detonating it in Denver at the Super Bowl. They get significant help from American Indians angry at the US and the government.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Clancy is a sellout. He just wasn’t that way from the start of his career.

          • Douglas Mayfield

            I have wondered why Clancy, who is very wealthy, approaching or exceeding a billionaire, did not keep more control over how the book was handled. Then again, he may have thought that the studio which handled adapting Hunt For Red October, Clear and Present Danger, and Patriot Games (in my view) well, would also deal properly with adapting The Sum of All Fears.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Given the diversity of projects he became involved in, I think he cared less and less over the years about his own original vision.

            His politics seem to have changed too, but I can only say that by inference. I don’t like reading him any more. I only enjoyed his first few books.

            Cardinal of the Kremlin was probably the best. Clear and Present Danger was still pretty good. I thought Sum of All Fears was where he started to slip. Even as I read it.

            I still read his books after that, but didn’t get as much out of them. I did like Clark and Chavez in the later books though. Without them his books wouldn’t have been worth reading after Cardinal.

            Rainbow Six is when his globalist leanings started to emerge. A lot of conservatives became delusional in the 1990s. Bear and the Dragon was the last one I read. I forget the plot at this point.

            Celebrity success can some times make people think they got more than they deserve. It makes people accept socialism because they don’t feel rich people earn their money. They’re projecting their own sense of guilt. And it doesn’t help that they hang around with other idiots that know they get paid more than they’re worth.

  • glpage

    “ ‘I was always fascinated with the idea of how you could take over the country — who would be able to do that,’ said Vanderbilt.”

    Well, first off, make sure that you do everything you can to make sure that the people are confused as to who is the real enemy.

    • Gee

      And then disarm the population and take away their rights to free speech

  • Sajil Shahid

    This article has a clear point, freedom of speech should not be denied but
    how can the abuse of freedom of speech help anyone live in peace? How
    are you making a difference when you are calling out hate slogans
    against Islam? Slogans like: Destroy ‘Islam’ before its too late! Death
    to ‘Islam’.

    I mean what the difference between us and them if our slogans are exactly the same?

    Those who have killed our innocent children and vulnerable wives. How
    are we any different from them if we say the same thing? Whilst we use
    the word ‘Islam’ in our slogans they use word ‘America’. – I know what a
    ‘huge’ difference.

    And just for your information, the religion which you call unjust and
    intolerance, the religion which apparently preaches its followers to
    suck blood – I am part of this religion and no I have not sucked a
    single human beings blood and yes I am a proud Muslim and I have never
    ever in my entire life thought about killing one single human being let
    alone a thousand human beings. And no I am not a weak Muslim who prays
    one prayer a year, I am a proud Muslim who performs all 5 prayers and
    for your kind we are told to love humanity and love God’s creation. Nothing else, the purpose of my life is simple: Worship god and love humanity.

    • Uzoozy

      Sajil, I commend you for writing in response to the usual rhetoric of hate and bigotry.
      Compared to the high moral standards of America , one rape every 7 seconds. 38 Persons are killed by gun every day.
      Since Boston over 4000 persons have been shot and killed.
      There is no comparison
      Islam is a religion of peace, our Mosques give out cash to the needy, we provide free medical clinics to over 10 mosques one a month. Our mosques provided space to Church for Easter services( in Sacramento). We provide shelters to women in distress. Free pantry for grocery pick up. Umma clinic in Los Angeles providing free medical to the poor brothers and sisters.
      These are some of the examples I know personally, mosques are busy helping humanity , we are doing our part to help humanity, you are not helping by writing bigoted blogs/article,

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “one rape every 7 seconds”

        Oh please. Show your work. But it won’t mean anything. Show how sharia reduces rape without redefining it. It’s a ridiculous question. Sharia probably leads to more rape but we would never know because the statistics would be outlawed.

        Show me the rape statistics for Saudi Arabia or Iran. How about Egypt. Don’t ask Morsi though.

        “Islam is a religion of peace, our Mosques give out cash to the needy, we provide free medical clinics to over 10 mosques one a month. Our mosques provided space to Church for Easter services( in Sacramento). We provide shelters to women in distress. Free pantry for grocery pick up. Umma clinic in Los Angeles providing free medical to the poor brothers and sisters.”

        Hudna. Just a modern hudna with media awareness.

        “These are some of the examples I know personally, mosques are busy helping humanity , we are doing our part to help humanity, you are not helping by writing bigoted blogs/article,”

        How is it that *Islam* helps humanity? These people you mention would not be helping others without Islam? Can you support that statement objectively?

      • WhiteHunter

        Your remarks are so dishonest, so false, so absurdly the opposite of reality, that one doesn’t know where to begin. BTW, your English is (a little) better this time. Who wrote it for you?

        • Uzoozy

          I have nothing to say except may God bless you .

          • WhiteHunter

            Thank you, my Moslem friend. And may He bless you, too. It matters much less to me whether you call yourself a Christian or not, than that you follow Christ’s admonitions to His followers. Which, in this case, you have done. May you continue to do so.

      • OfficialPro

        There are far more rapes in Muslim ruled countries. The difference is, women are punished for reporting rape because Mohammed wanted men to be able to get away with it.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “This article has a clear point, freedom of speech should not be denied but how can the abuse of freedom of speech help anyone live in peace? How are you making a difference when you are calling out hate slogans against Islam? Slogans like: Destroy ‘Islam’ before its too late! Death to ‘Islam’.”

      If we show conclusively that Islam is an ideology that leads to evil acts, can we then should we not destroy it? It’s not like people are calling for the death of all Muslims. Some times it sounds that way, but this is because people are getting angry at the lies from appeasers. They should not say that. But that’s not a defense of Islam. It’s an argument that people should be careful about being understood.

      And that’s not an argument against protecting speech.

      “I mean what the difference between us and them if our slogans are exactly the same?”

      The difference is that Islamic imperialism and deception is evil. We’re only evil when we appease jihadis and communists. We’re honest about that too.

      “Those who have killed our innocent children and vulnerable wives. How are we any different from them if we say the same thing?”

      Our system of justice is vastly superior. Human justice is imperfect, so coming up with statements that remind us of these imperfections doesn’t even come close to showing how Islam is somehow not distinctly evil in comparison with Western liberal democracy.

      “Whilst we use the word ‘Islam’ in our slogans they use word ‘America’. – I know what a ‘huge’ difference.”

      What tired, stale absurd logic. Words have meanings. Sharia and Western liberal democracy have little in common, most particularly when it comes to due process and reasonable tolerance of dissent.

      “And just for your information, the religion which you call unjust and
      intolerance, the religion which apparently preaches its followers to
      suck blood – I am part of this religion and no I have not sucked a
      single human being’s blood and yes I am a proud Muslim and I have never ever in my entire life thought about killing one single human being let alone a thousand human beings.”

      Well I guess sharia is OK then. We don’t need the US constitution after all. Throw away everything that is not acceptable to the clerics.

      What a waste of time our ancestors went through resisting sharia!

      “And no I am not a weak Muslim who prays one prayer a year, I am a proud Muslim who performs all 5 prayers and for your kind info we are taught to love humanity and love God’s creation.”

      Wow. You’re awesome. Islamic love. Hmmm. Excuse my skepticism.

      “Nothing else, if there is a purpose of my life its simple: Worship god and love humanity.”

      We’ll reserve judgment on you. But you’ve done nothing to defend Islam.

      • WhiteHunter

        Bravo, Objective. One tires of the endlessly repeated (both by moslems and by their useful fools here in America) slander that we’re maliciously and needlessly “killing innocent moslem women and children.”
        If that were true, then no one in bin Laden’s hideout would have been left alive. Instead, the SEALs went out of their way to avoid harming his multiple concubines and their offspring, all of whom survived without a scratch. Compare this to the intentional massacres of truly innocent noncombatant men, women, and children by the terrorists. Q.E.D.
        If any “innocent women and children” want to avoid being killed as unavoidable collateral damage in a missile strike, then they’d be well advised to stay safely a mile away from the known terrorists who are, indeed, our legitimate targets. Then they’ll just hear the bang and see the smoke, and walk away unscathed.

        • Charlie97

          For someone who apparently condemns loss of life, you appear extremely blasé about the loss of the lives of innocent Muslims. You placed the phrase, innocent women and children, in quotation marks. Why?

          If you believe that the lives of Muslims are worth less than those of Christians, or white people, then just say so, and be done with it. If you truly do not believe that, then perhaps you have no idea how callous your last post appears.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “For someone who apparently condemns loss of life, you appear extremely blasé about the loss of the lives of innocent Muslims. You placed the phrase, innocent women and children, in quotation marks. Why?”

            That’s a fair question.

            We’re skeptical about claims because of the known perfidy discovered in among other places, the fighting in Israel by jihadis. Our own “press” also errs on the side of criticizing our military since they’ve been taken over by radicals once part of the Soviet-funded “peace” movement.

            Truly, few if any people want innocents to die. I tell you this because I’ve never heard anyone complain about how much we spend just on ammunition alone. Have you any idea at all the astronomical amount of money we spend to avoid killing anyone outside of the target?

            Seriously. look it up. Most of our expenses on weaponry are due to our obsession with precision lethality (the opposite of overkill). This long after we deployed enough nuclear weapons to destroy any enemy.

            All of this is due to our obsession with justice. The problem is that so many Westerners have been indoctrinated with arbitrary definitions of justice, and an inability to look at comprehensive analysis to help decide what is the highest justice we can achieve?

            Justice is imperfect. But Americans strive harder for justice than any other people I’m aware of. If only we were more consistently grounded in reality and building consensus based on objective facts, there’d be a lot more peace in the world and a lot fewer innocents killed.

          • WhiteHunter

            You clearly didn’t bother to read my post, or are incapable or understanding it. Repeat: One big difference between us and the muzzy terrorists is that they intentionally target noncombatants. We don’t. Get it? Or do I need to explain that to you a third time?
            But you did get one thing right: 1 million mohammedan lives are worth less than a hangnail on a single U.S. Marine’s little finger. Infinitely less.

          • OfficialPro

            I think you have that backwards. It’s the Muslims who believe that the lives of Christians are worthless.

          • Charlie97

            “It’s the Muslims who believe that the lives of Christians are worthless”. What, all 1.6 billion of us?

            I comment on a single post, taking issue with a single person’s viewpoint, and you respond with an utterly fatuous, sweeping generalisation that impugns the entire Muslim people! Do you not have something valuable to add to the discussion, rather than just aimlessly repeating some of the absolute rubbish that abounds on this website?

    • WhiteHunter

      Hmmnnn. I pay very close attention to the news, but haven’t seen “destroy islam” or “death to islam” on a sign, or heard it shouted by anybody, ever, not even once. I HAVE, however, heard ‘death to America!’ and ‘death to the great satan’ a lot, though. And I’ve seen the obscene video footage of palestinians dancing in jubilation on the afternoon of 9/11/2001.

      Is it your prophet’s command to his followers that it is permitted, indeed required, to lie and deceive the infidel in defense of islam that makes you do it, or is there some other reason that we haven’t heard yet?

      • http://azbishowto.co.nr/ Sajil Shahid

        Thank you for your response sir, I am sure that I did not say “on the news”, all I said was “Slogans like: Destroy ‘Islam’ before its too late! Death to ‘Islam” and for your reference here are the websites where I have seen these slogans:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_Islam
        https://www.facebook.com/DESTROY.ISLAM
        http://crombouke.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/how-to-destroy-islam-non-violently.html
        http://www.theislamicmonthly.com/want-to-destroy-islam-try-sectarianism/
        http://www.topix.com/forum/world/denmark/TR2RNE8AE9ONRAEIP

        I hope this should have answerd your question.

        • WhiteHunter

          As we all know, one can find literally anything on certain web sites if one searches diligently enough–including instructions on how to make a pressure cooker bomb to kill and maim spectators at the Boston Marathon in the name of koranically sanctioned jihad. I hope you will admit that we Americans–and certainly our government–have shown extraordinary deference to the sensibilities of Moslems. A deference that, unfortunately, is almost never reciprocated.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          In Western culture, if one believes an idea is evil, it’s totally acceptable to proclaim a desire to destroy that idea.

          It’s not longer acceptable to leftist appeasers, but Americans especially have always required others to develop thick skin as opposed to trying to limit our expressions, especially over ideology.

          Shouting “destroy all Muslims” would be a different matter. I think that happens when people are angry and thinking abstractly. I doubt many people would seriously suggest that if they truly thought about children too young to even understand jihad, etc. that they meant it literally. Most of the time it comes from people paraphrasing. People have quoted me as saying that before and I never once have. Not even close. It’s absurd, yet idiots here almost daily claim that I say that.

          Anger and fear lead to tunnel vision. I think people should be forgiven for imprecision in speech when real world violence is committed in the world daily by jihadis.

          It’s always best to educate people with the nuanced truth. If you seem to be equivocating, you’ll fail to impress anyone the way that you want to. If you care about changing these things, address our concerns after you show that you take them seriously. Then you can push for non-Muslims to take a calmer approach to their criticism.

          But still, it’s just criticism. It’s free speech and when Muslims try to attack free speech without really addressing the root causes, it reminds us of CAIR. Which reminds us of the MB. Which reminds us of sharia.

    • jackdiamond

      If you are a true and pious Muslim you follow the Qur’anic doctrine of Al Wala Wal Bara. Don’t you? Loyalty and enmity. Loyalty to fellow Muslims, “hate and enmity” to disbelievers. What do you say to Muslims who point to 5:51 “take not the Jews or Christians for your friends or protectors”– and if you do, you will be one of them, meaning an apostate from Islam. There are many similar verses. Does that sound like the Golden Rule to you? Does that sound like peace? Does Islam anywhere teach peaceful permanent coexistence with non-Muslims, except as a temporary condition from Muslim weakness? Does Islamic scholarship and Islamic law affirm abrogation in the Qur’an and that the later “revelations” on war, such as 9:5 and 9:29 which declares war on mankind (echoing Muhammad in the hadith ‘I have been sent to fight with mankind until they proclaim Allah and His Messenger’)? including Jews & Christians (“the worst of all creatures” among the many many Qur’anic insults)? What do you say to Muslims who really know their Qur’an, like the Blind Sheikh Rahman, head of Qur’anic studies at Al-Azhar, the most respected university in all Islam? The Blind Sheikh who said “Jihad and killing are the head of Islam. if you take them out you cut off the head of Islam.” How does he misunderstand the Qur’an so badly???? Did you know Abdullah Azzam, the founder of Al Qaeda, had a PhD is Sharia law? Why do they think Islam is something you don’t? (and what do you do about the Muslims who DO kill other human beings and do not love the non-Muslim part of humanity?)

      • Sajil Shahid

        Thank you for your response, I have been waiting for a response like this and for your kind info sir, I did not even think about keeping my mouth shut as for every argument there is a valid and solid answer, let us start dealing with all the allegations you made against Islam:

        Allegation 1:
        “If you are a true and pious Muslim you follow the Qur’anic doctrine of Al Wala Wal Bara. Don’t you? Loyalty and enmity. Loyalty to fellow Muslims, “hate and enmity” to disbelievers…..take not the Jews or Christians for your friends or protectors”

        Answer to Allegation 1:
        Nope Sir. Any man or woman who preaches hate speech cannot be logically and/or spiritually my role-model can he?

        Anyway keeping history and context in mind is extremely important when reading the Quran. [5:52] O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They
        are friends one to another. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people.

        There is a fallacy that the Quran commands Muslims to not befriend Jews and Christians based on Chapter 5
        verse 52. If we look at the context of the verse, we see that it refers to the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammadsa
        when Jews and Christians were at war with Muslims. If you consider enemies at war with each other, it makes perfect sense to discourage friendships between them because of that situation. Even so, the subsequent verses 58 and 59 clarify the reasons for discouraging friendships with Jews and Christians of that time, who used to make fun of Muslims for adhering to their faith. (5:58) O ye who believe! take not those for friends who make a jest and sport of your religion from among those who were given the Book before you, and the disbelievers. And fear Allah if you are believers

        Interestingly, many topics in the Quran are continued in other places for the purpose of clarification. Consider Chapter 60 verses 8-10, with the suggestion that God may bring
        about love between the Muslims and their enemies. [60:8] It
        may be that Allah will bring about love between you and those of them with whom you are now at enmity; and Allah is All-Powerful; and Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

        These verses enjoin Muslims to be kind and generous towards others regardless of their religion, and that war is only permissible against hostile tribes who persecute Muslims on account of religious differences. In any case, remember that rather than creating differences, Islam teaches respect and acceptance of all prophets including Jesus and Moses, thus
        uniting us under one God.

        Reference: http://alislam.org/e/811

        Allegation 2:
        “Revelations” on war, such as 9:5 and 9:29 which declares war on mankind (echoing Muhammad in the hadith ‘I have been ordered to fight with mankind until they proclaim no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’)”

        Answer to Allegation 2:
        “Revelations” on war, such as 9:5 and 9:29 which declares war on mankind – please present to me the exact quotes and references where it apparently says “declares war on mankind” and I will certainly respond to this allegation aswell.

        I have been ordered to fight with mankind until they proclaim no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger – This is an clear example of a cut and paste quote from the holy Quran
        where neither the context or the situation at the time it was mentioned was put in to consideration thus creating this misunderstanding. This hadith was put into effect by Abu Bakr after the death of the Holy Prophetsa when he was elected as the first Caliph.

        The story was that after the death of the Prophet’sa in 11 AH/AD632 confronted the young Muslim administration with a major crisis. Disorder broke out in parts of the peninsula and many tribes detached themselves from Medina by refusing to pay zakat.This movement is known as Al-Riddah. The main task of the Prophet’ssa successor, Abu Bakr, was to put down this unrest. His first job, however, was to send the expedition the Holy Prophetsa had ordered before his death. So an army under the command of Usamah b. Zayd b. Harith was sent to the Syrian border on the second day after the proclamation of his caliphate.

        After Usamah and his army had departed, most of the tribes fell away from Medina. Only Mecca, Medina and their surroundings remained loyal to the central administration. Muslim agents appointed to the rebel tribes by the Prophetsa just before his death were forced to flee their posts and to return to Medina. It was a full-fledged revolt.

        Having decided to fight the rebels, Abu Bakr sent messengers to some loyal tribes calling them to come to his aid. While Abu Bakr was waiting for reinforcements, Kharjah b. Hism, led by Unaynah b. Hism al-Fazari and Al-Aqra b. Habis al-Tamimi, staged a surprise attack on the Muslims. The Muslims fled in confusion, but they re-assembled and counter-attacked
        Kharjah’s men, who were defeated.

        Before the skirmish at Dhu al-Qassa, a delegation of Arab tribes went to Medina to negotiate with Abu Bakr over the question of zakat, but Abu Bakr refused. Some early and prominent muhajirun disagreed with Abu Bakr’s decision to fight those who withheld the zakat.That these tribes were anxious to negotiate showed they had not recanted, and did not want to sever their relations with Medina, yet were not prepared to accept Medina’s control over them. The issue was not belief in Allah and His Prophet, but the zakat (tax). A group of well-known friends led by Umar objected to Abu Bakr’s decision to fight the rebels. Umar is reported to have said to Abu Bakr: ‘What
        right do you have to fight these people? The Prophetsa has said, “I was ordered to fight people until they say there is no God but Allah. If they say this, they safeguard themselves and their property from me.”‘26

        After the departure of the delegation from Medina, Abu Bakr gathered the Muslims of Medina and addressed them as follows:

        ‘The delegation has observed just how few of you there are in Medina. You do not know whether they will attack you by day or night. Their vanguard is only a stone’s throw from Medina. They wanted us to accept their proposals and make an agreement with them, but we have rejected their request. So make ready for their attack.’ Within three days they attacked Medina.27

        The war of Riddah caused a great deal of bloodshed. It was inexplicable to the subsequent historians of the Arabian state that after the death of Muhammadsa so many wars were necessary on Arabian soil; they accounted for this fact by a Ridda,28 a religious movement against Islam. The jurists, who had failed to find Quranic or sunnah authority for the execution of Muslims accused of kufr, or war, against opposing Muslim political powers, accepted the assumption without more
        ado.

        Discussing the legality of Abu Bakr’s war against Muslim rebels, Imam Al-Shafi’i says: ‘Riddah is falling back from a previously adopted religion into disbelief and refusing to fulfil previously accepted responsibility.’29 Recantation is not enough. It must be aggravated by allegations of the breach of an agreement. Ibn Abi al-Hadid, a scholar of a very different school, in his commentary of the Nahj al-Balaghah, clarified the matter when he said: ‘The tribes which refused to pay zakat were not recanters, they were called so, metaphorically, by the
        Companions of the Prophetsa.’30

        According to Wellhausen, Riddah was a break with the leadership in Medina and not with Islam itself. Most of the tribes wanted to continue worshipping Allah, but without paying tax. Caetani agrees with Wellhausen and says the Riddah was not a movement of recantation and that these wars were purely about politics. Becker, following Wellhausen and Caetani, concludes:

        The sudden death of Mahomet gave new support to the centrifugal tendencies.The character of the whole movement, as it forces itself on the notice of the historian, was of course hidden from contemporaries. Arabia would have sunk into particularism if the necessity caused by the secession
        of Al-Riddah had not developed in the State of Medina an energy which carried all before it. The fight against the Ridda was not a fight against apostates, the objection was not to Islam, per se, but to the tribute which had to be paid to Medina; the fight was for political supremacy over Arabia.31

        Bernard Lewis makes it quite clear that Riddah ‘represents a distortion of the real significance of events by the theologically colored outlook of later historians.’ He goes on to say:

        The refusal of the tribes to recognize the succession of Abu Bakr was, in effect, not a relapse by converted Muslims to their previous paganism, but the simple and automatic termination of a political contract by the death of one of the parties. The tribes nearest to Medina had in fact been converted and their interests were so closely identified with those of the umma
        that their separate history has not been recorded. For the rest, the death of Muhammad automatically severed their bonds with Medina, and the parties resumed their liberty of action. They felt in no way bound by the election of Abu Bakr in which they had taken no part, and at once suspended both tribute and treaty relations. In order to re-establish the hegemony of Medina, Abu Bakr had to make new treaties.32

        Reference: http://www.alislam.org/library/books/mna/chapter_6.html

        26 – Muhammad Idris al Shafii, Kitab al-Umm, ed. Muhammad Zahri al Nadjjar (Cairo, n.d.), vol. VIII, 256.

        27 – Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Tarikh al-Rasul wa al-Muluk , ed. M.J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1964), vol. IV, 1874.

        28 – C.H. Becker, ‘The expansion of the Saracens’, The Cambridge Medieval History (New York: Macmillan, 1913), vol. II, 335.

        29 – Muhammad Idris al-Shafii, op.cit ., 255–6.

        30 – Abd al-Hamid Hibet-u-Allah ibn al-Hadid, Sharah Nahj al-Balaghah , ed. Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim (Cairo, 1956–64), vol. XIII, 187.

        31 – C.H. Becker, op.cit ., 335.

        32 – Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History (London, 1958), 51–2.

        To be cont. in next reply.

        • Sajil Shahid

          Allegation 3:
          “This including Jews & Christians (“the worst of all creatures” (98:6) among the many many Qur’anic insults).”

          Answer to Allegation 3:
          Sir
          I think you have quoted the wrong verse that’s if you quoted it… as
          this chapter does not mention any thing about “the worst of all
          creatures” – And they were not commanded but to serve Allah, being
          sincere to Him in obedience, and being upright, and to observe prayer,
          and pay the Zakat. And that is the religion of the people of the right
          path. (Quran 98:6).

          Allegation 4:
          “What do you say to Muslims
          who really know their Qur’an, like the Blind Sheikh Rahman, former head
          of Qur’anic studies at Al-Azhar, the most respected university in all
          Islam, now in prison as a terrorist? The Blind Sheikh who said “Jihad
          and killing are the head of Islam. if you take them out you cut off the
          head of Islam.” How can he misunderstand the Qur’an so badly???”

          Answer to Allegation 4:
          Sir
          before I start answering this question may I ask you a question? Do you
          think that in this world every human being is good and has no evil
          desires? Do you believe that just because someone is highly educated he
          cannot be a nutcase? Do you think just because someone may have a PhD he
          is suddenly saint like?

          Part I of Allegation 4
          “Jihad and
          killing are the head of Islam.” – We briefly mentioned that the real
          reason of the display of the religious extremism, oppression, violence,
          and terrorism by some unwise
          Muslims, is the wrongful
          interpretation of the issue of jihad adopted by some of the so-called
          Islamic scholars known by the name of Maulvies.

          The Prophet of
          the time, the Arbiter and the Judge, Hadhrat Aqdas (as), has shed
          comprehensive light on various aspects of this issue in his two books,
          ‘British Government and Jihad’ and ‘Damima RisalaJihad’. In these
          books, in addition to the description of the real concept of Jihad with
          reference to the Qur’an, and Ahadith, and the practice of the Hadhrat
          Muhammad (saw), he also refuted the wrong concept of Jihad practiced by
          certain Muslims. Similarly, pointing out the real perpetuators of the
          wrongful concept of Jihad,
          he described details of their method of
          crime, and the dangers faced by the humanity from them, and gave very
          solid and important
          suggestions for the eradication of the
          religious terrorism, and the establishment of general peace, without
          which, it is not possible to eradicate religious fanaticism. He says:

          “The
          method of Jihad practiced by most of the barbarians of this age is not
          the Islamic Jihad, rather these are the passions of the Nafs-e-ammarah
          (obstinate self that incites to evil), or treacherous acts based on the
          vain desires to achieve heavens that have spread among the Muslims.”
          (British Government and Jihad, Roohani Khaza’in, Volume 17, p.9,10)

          Similarly,
          he said:“The current practice found among the Muslims to attack
          people of other religions, which they call by the name of Jihad is not
          Jihad according to the Shariah (Islamic law), rather, it is clearly
          violation of the instructions of God and the Messenger (saw) and a
          grievous sin.” (British Government and Jihad, Roohani Khaza’in, Volume
          17, p.17)

          He further said:
          “In fact, the concept of Jihad as
          found in their hearts is not right, and it begins with the murder of
          the human sympathy.” (British Government and Jihad, Roohani Khaza’in,
          Volume 17, p.8)

          He says:
          “Could it be considered a good act,
          for example, there is a person walking in a bazaar engulfed in his own
          thoughts, and is a complete stranger to us, and we do not even know his
          name, and neither does he know us, but we fire a gun at him with the
          intention of killing him? Is this a religious act? If this is a good
          act, then the beasts are far better than human beings in carrying out
          good deeds…Did God instruct us to cut
          a person into pieces without any proof of crime, or kill him with a
          gun
          while we do not even know him, and neither does he know us? Can such a
          religion be from God that teaches to start killing sinless and innocent
          people of God without any excuse and reservation, and without even
          delivering them the message, and that it would lead us to heavens? It
          is pitiful and shameful that a person, with whom we have no previous
          enmity, and is a complete stranger to us, and while he is buying
          something for his children from a store, or is busy in some other
          lawful act, and we, without any reason, fire a gun at him, and make his
          wife a widow and his children orphans, and turn his house into
          a
          place of mourning. Which Hadith mentions this practice? Which verse of
          the Holy Qur’an mentions this? Is there any Maulvi who could answer
          this? The unwise people have heard the name of Jihad, and using it as
          an excuse are fulfilling their vain selfish desires, or are carrying out
          gory acts because of their insanity…When no one kills Muslims for the
          sake of religion, I wonder, under what authority
          they kill innocent people?” (British Government and Jihad, Roohani Khaza’in, Volume 17, p.11-13)

          These
          days, the killings of innocent and sinless people in the mosques,
          places of worship, planes, trains, buses, public places, and public
          gatherings by using remote control devices or suicidal bombs, or
          indiscriminate firing, is also a dangerous and ferocious form of the
          aforementioned terrorism.

          Reference: http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/Religious_Terrorism_Causes_and_Remedies-20081006MN.html

          Part II of Allegation 4
          “How can he misunderstand the Qur’an so badly???” – Shariah

          is a misunderstood and misused concept. Critics of Islam frequently
          employ terms like “creeping shariah” to stoke fear amongst the masses.
          The Park 51 controversy and the increasing media focus on Islam provide
          an opportunity to educate Americans about the true teachings and
          practices of Islam concerning shariah.

          Shariah literally means
          “a path to life-giving water,” and refers to a defined path upon which
          all God-fearing people are advised to tread. It is grounded in the
          recognition of God’s existence. Shariah presupposes that there is a God.
          God reveals His desire of how man should shape his destiny, and God’s
          will is manifested in the form of certain laws or principles. These
          laws or principles constitute shariah.

          Shariah is not unique to
          Islam. Every faith has its own form of shariah. In the United States,
          for example, our legal system already permits some narrow civil matters
          to be settled through alternative dispute resolution. Among such
          alternative mechanisms is the beit din, or rabbinical law courts.
          American Jews routinely go before beit din to arbitrate real estate
          deals, divorces and business disputes.

          In Islam, shariah can be
          divided into five main branches: ibadah (ritual worship), mu’amalat
          (transactions and contracts), adab (behavior)> (morals and manners),
          i’tiqadat (beliefs), and ‘uqubat (punishments). Islam prescribes certain
          laws or principles that govern all five main branches. At its core,
          shariah is intended to develop and sustain a moral and just society.

          The
          Qur’an does not specify any specific form of government other than a
          beneficent one that is based on adl or absolute justice:

          “Verily,
          Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like
          kindred; and forbids indecency and manifest evil and transgression. He
          admonishes you that you may take heed.” (16:91).

          There is no
          mention of religion in this verse. Pluralism and religious tolerance
          are Islamic values. The Qur’an stresses: “There is no coercion in
          religion” (2: 257). Legislating shariah would mean imposing practices on
          people who do not share the underlying beliefs behind those practices.
          Shariah mandates the strict practice of absolute justice regardless of
          differences in faith, race, creed or any other distinction. True Islamic
          teachings, as practiced by the Prophet of Islam, promote a secular
          government with equal rights and privileges for its citizens and a
          separation of mosque and state. For example, the Prophet of Islam
          famously applied Talmudic law in resolving disputes among the Jews.

          Unfortunately, certain Islamic countries have failed to observe the
          precondition of absolute justice before imposing shariah. Instead, they
          have unjustly imposed shariah as an instrument of power and control.
          Western nations scrutinize and magnify these examples. Countries such as
          Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have enmeshed religious extremism with
          political power resulting in a brutal brand of governance they brand
          “shariah.”

          Extremists and their religious clerics invoke shariah
          to justify the killing of the innocent and vulnerable. They abandon the
          Quranic principles of governance in favor of discriminate and grossly
          improper applications of Islamic law. They view shariah as an
          instrument of conquest and carnage instead of justice and decency.

          Religion should not be the business of the state. As Muslims who believe in the Messiah, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian,

          the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has a clear vision that religion should
          not legislate in the domain of man’s relation to God. Islam offers
          guiding principles in matters of man’s relation to man. These
          principles can easily be translated into secular laws based on justice,
          tolerance and love for mankind. The law of one’s homeland has
          predominance over all other laws. True shariah is conducive to a system
          of government that is beneficent, ensures universal human rights and
          minority protections and dispenses absolute justice for all people.

          The
          Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, the oldest Muslim organization in North
          America, has consistently advocated the principles of non-coercion,
          absolute justice and separation of mosque and state. Its motto is: “Love
          for all hatred for none.” For the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, there can
          never be any contradiction between being observant Muslims and being
          loyal, law-abiding citizens

          Written by Nasim Rehmatullah, a
          physician, is Vice Chairman of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA.
          Amjad Mahmood Khan, an attorney, is National Director of Public Affairs
          for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA.

          Source: http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/10/demystifying_shariah.html

          Reference: https://www.alislam.org/egazette/updates/demystifying-shariah/

          Allegation 5:
          “What do you do about the Muslims who DO kill other human beings and do not love the non-Muslim part of humanity? ”

          Answer to Allegation 5:
          In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful. O

          Lord, our God, help us to have our hearts united in nourishing and
          serving Life, and grant us wisdom and strength to counter the evil of
          those who preach violence and promote death!
          O our Loving God, let
          the compassion, mercy, and forgiveness — as preached and practiced by
          Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) against his
          bitterest of enemies — replace anger, revenge, violence and oppression!
          O
          Lord, our God, let the unconditional love — as taught by Jesus Christ —
          prevail over hatred and animosity that over-shadow our times!
          O our
          Merciful God! Let the light of Justice and Peace dispel the pitch
          darkness of war and injustice! Enable us — the Children of Abraham
          —Christians, Muslims and Jews — to stand together in unity to help those
          who are victims of transgression in any form at any place! Amen.

          As
          the term Jihād” has been repeated many times in the documentary,
          therefore, please allow me to explain what Jihād in Islām is! It is a
          great tragedy in the history of Islām that the concept of Jihād was
          distorted by over-zealous preachers and radical Muslim scholars. The
          founder of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad
          (may peace be on him) recognized this dangerous trend that was entirely

          contrary to the teachings of the Qur’ān. More than 100 years ago, in
          his book entitled “The British Government and Jihād,” published in AD
          1900 in India, he wrote, It should be remembered that today’s Islāmic
          scholars (who are called maulawīs) completely misunderstand Jihād and
          misrepresent it to general public. The public’s violent instincts are
          inflamed as a result and they are stripped of all noble human virtues… I
          know for certain that the maulawīs who persist in propagating these
          blood-spattered doctrines are in fact responsible for murders committed
          by ignorant, egotistical people… They should remember that their
          understanding of Jihād is not correct, and human sympathy and compassion
          are its first casualties.
          (Pp. 8-9)

          May God bring these
          maulawīs back to the right path! They have misled the populace into
          believing that the keys to Paradise lie in beliefs that are oppressive,
          cruel, and completely immoral…

          Is it not shameful that a
          complete stranger should be unjustly killed while occupied in his daily
          affairs, thus widowing his wife, making his children orphans, and
          turning his house into a funeral parlor? Which Ḥadīth (saying of the
          Prophet) or verse of the Qur’ān authorizes such behavior? … Foolish
          people hear the word Jihād, and make it an excuse for fulfillment of
          their own low desires. Or perhaps it is sheer madness that inclines them
          towards bloodshed. (Pp. 14-15)

          The tradition prevalent among
          the Muslims of attacking the people of other religions, which they call
          Jihād, is not Jihād of the Divine religious Law (Islāmic Sharī‘ah).
          Rather, it is a grievous sin and a violation of the clear instructions
          of God and His prophet. (P. 20)

          Thus, he gave a clear verdict
          that to kill innocent people in the name of Jihād is forbidden in Islām.
          Anyone who wages war on false pretext is an enemy of God. Furthermore,
          he predicted that those who engage in terrorist acts in the name of
          Jihād shall be utterly humiliated and defeated in the end!

          Sanctity
          of Life: The Holy Qur’ān teaches sanctity of human life and reaffirms
          the Biblical teachings that whosoever unjustly kills a single person, it
          shall be as if he slaughtered all mankind; and whosoever saves the life
          of one, it shall be as if he had protected the life of all mankind
          (5:33). “You kill not the life which God has made sacred” (6:152).
          Killing of the innocent and committing suicide both are grievous sins in
          Islam. The Quran forbids suicide (4:30), and it is an unforgivable sin in Islam.

          The
          Qur’ān gives comprehensive instructions against all evil thoughts and
          plans, all kinds of abusive behavior and every form of cruelty and
          inequity. The Qur’ān gives injunctions to protect the person, property,
          honor or good name of another person. The Qur’ān declares it in
          unambiguous words, God does not love those who create disorder on earth
          (5:65) and (28:77); He does not love who are unjust (3:57); and does not
          love those who exceed the limits (2:191) and (5:88).

          What is the true meaning of Jihād?

          Jihād does not mean “Holy War.” It means striving, contention and
          taking action dedicated to a noble cause: In Arabic language, Jihād is
          averbal noun derived from the root jahada, which is defined as exerting
          one’s utmost power, effort, endeavor, or ability in contending with an
          object of disapprobation (An Arabic-English Lexicon, Edward Lane).

          As
          a matter of fact, Jihād in Islām is of different kinds. Various terms
          have been used to make distinction between them, such as: Jihād of the
          heart, Jihād of the tongue, and Jihād with the pen. The greatest Jihād
          in Islām is remaining firm in faith, and to overcome sinful temptations
          of one’s own self.

          Jihād in the Bible: For Christians it would be
          easy to understand the concept of Jihād by some examples taken from the
          Bible: In Luke 13:22-24, the Bible says about Jesus Christ, “And he
          went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying towards
          Jerusalem. Then said one unto him, ‘Lord, are there few to be saved?’
          And he said unto them: Strive to enter in that narrow gate: for many, I
          say unto you, will seek to enter
          in, and shall not be able.” This
          striving and making an utmost effort to enter the narrow gate–(that the
          Holy Qur’ān calls it the straight path) is the highest form of Jihād in
          Islām.

          From Islāmic perspective, St. Paul was asking the
          Philippians to engage in a Jihād when he wrote to them, That ye stand
          fast in one spirit, with one mind, striving together for the faith of
          the gospel. (Philippians 1: 27) In Islām, striving by means of the
          Qur’ān is called the Great Striving—Jihādan Kabīran (25:53).
          Again,
          in the First Epistle to Timothy, St. Paul wrote, This charge I commit
          onto you … fight a good fight; holding faith, and a good conscience.
          (Timothy, 1:18)

          In the same Epistle, St. Paul wrote, But they
          that will be rich fall into temptation and snare, and into many foolish
          and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For
          the love of money is the root of all evil which while some coveted
          after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through
          with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee from these things and
          follow after righteousness, goodness, faith, love, patience, meekness.
          Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto you
          are also called, and have professed a good profession before many
          witnesses. (Timothy, 6:9-12)

          This fighting the good fight,
          holding faith and good conscience, laying hold of eternal life is what
          we call the real Jihād in Islām. It is entering through the narrow gate.
          It is staying on the straight path.

          The next form of Jihād is
          the struggle to improve the quality of social life by removing societal
          evils and establishing good moral values. This is Jihād against poverty,
          ignorance, disease, hunger, immorality and crime. Social and moral
          reformation under the guidance of the Qur’ān is called the “Jihādan
          Kabīran”—a “mighty striving”—the Great Jihād (25:53). The last form of
          Jihād is to repel an armed aggression in self-defense for maintaining
          religious freedom. As compared to other forms of Jihād, fighting against
          an armed and aggressive enemy is called in Islām Jihādan Saghīran—the
          lesser Jihād.

          The Qur’ān says, Permission to fight is given to
          those against whom war is made because they have been wronged—and Allāh
          indeed has power to help them—Those who have been driven out of their
          homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is Allāh’—And if Allāh
          did not repel some men by means of others, there would surely have been
          pulled down cloisters and
          churches and synagogues and mosques
          wherein the name of Allāh is oft commemorated. And Allāh will surely
          help one who helps Him. Allāh is indeed Powerful, Mighty— (22:40-41)

          This
          concept of Jihād is closer to the Christian doctrine of “just war.” But
          it is not called a “holy war” in Islām. Modern Western thought,
          strongly influenced by Crusades-era terminology of “holy war,” tries to
          portray Jihād as an Islāmic war against all the non-Muslims. But most
          clearly, the permission to fight back is not to destroy the churches,
          temples or synagogues. On the contrary, the Qur’ān makes clear that it
          is to protect them along with protecting the mosques. In other words, it
          is to protect religious freedom for all those who worship God in
          accordance with their own faith traditions.

          The great spiritual Jihād of standing firm in faith against satanic
          temptations
          and social evils is of permanent nature—an ongoing obligation for all
          the Muslims. But the lesser Jihād, fighting in self-defense is only
          occasional and isolated, and is to be conducted only in a crisis
          situation. Only a legitimate head of state has the authority to declare
          war. Any preacher or so-self-made leader, or scholar has no right to
          pronounce an armed struggle against an aggressor. Moreover, the strict
          rules governing the conduct of warfare are to be obeyed; for example,
          non-combatants cannot be killed. Women,
          children, elderly and the
          clergy or monks cannot be targeted. Property cannot be destroyed.
          Disfiguring of dead bodies is prohibited. Prisoners of war are to be
          treated humanely.

          The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community believes that
          the doctrine of Jihād has been entirely perverted by the so-called
          “fundamentalists” and it needs to be rescued, and the offenders stopped
          by all possible means.

          Reference: http://www.alislam.org/topics/jihad/Obsession_Radical_Islam_War_Response-20081009MN.html

          • jackdiamond

            Thank you for Own Private Islam and the book-length cut and paste. I’m dealing with the Real Islam as taught and understood for centuries. Not your re-invention of it. The Ahmadiyya btw are considered apostate by orthodox Muslims, which is why they are persecuted in Pakistan. There is only time to dismantle a few of your arguments..

            In regards to whether you believe in Loyalty and Enmity you respond .”Nope Sir. Any man or woman who preaches hate speech cannot be logically and/or spiritually my role-model can he?” I don’t know who can be your role model as a good Muslim if not Muhammad but I’m glad you know hate-speech when you see it. Your denial of so basic a Qur’anic doctrine is an indication of how little you seem to understand your own religion. You then try to say the verse about not taking Jews & Christians as friends and protectors is out of context, it is limited to an historical time and place. You try the same in explaining Surah 9 and Muhammad’s own words from the most reliable hadiths. All of Islam is about dividing the world into two camps, believers and unbelievers, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb and ultimately dar al-harb being subsumed. The HATE Allah has and therefore Muslims are to show for disbelievers is absolute. You deny it at your own risk.

            What is the context for 5:51?

            “They do blasphemy who say God is Christ, the son of Mary. They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity…verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them…Christ, the son of Mary was no more than a messenger” ( 5:17; 5:72-73,75).

            9:30– Christians are cursed by Allah) “and the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah and Christians say, Messiah is the son of Allah…Allah’s curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth”.

            4:101 ” for the unbelievers are open enemies to you.”

            “But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads (22:19);

            “Fight the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you” (9:123)

            “I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve, smite the necks and smite of them each finger” (8:12).

            (3:85) “If anyone of you desires a religion other than Islam it will never be accepted of him.”

            “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Qur’an 9:29

            There is no sense in which these verses or the doctrine of Loyalty & Enmity are buried in the past. “Allah Most High forbade all believers from taking Jews and Christians as supporters and allies..He declares that whoever takes them as supporters, allies or friends, in the place of Allah, his Messenger and the believers, this same one sides with them against Allah, His Messenger, and the believers.” (Al-Tabari). The enmity results in jihad.

            Umdat al-Salik is a classic manual of Sharia law endorsed by Al-Azhar. It enshrines verses you say are falsely interpreted. Jihad is “a communal obligation” to make “war against non Muslims. The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians…until they become Muslims or else pay the non Muslim poll tax…the Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” (and if there is no caliph, jihad must still be carried out) ” in accordance with the word of Allah Most High “fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah & His Messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth (Islam) being those who have been given the Book (Jews & Christians) until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (Koran 9:29)

            This wrongly understood verse became the basis for the institution of the Dhimma. The dhimmi people are the subjugated people who pay jizya, the ransom for their lives..protection money, and must follow the rules of dhimmitude lest open war be declared on them (9:5).

            The intent of the Jizya, set out in verse 9:29, is described in the commentary by ibn Kathir: “with willing submission in defeat and subservience and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled” (in return for letting People of the Book live);

            and in Jalaluddin Suyuti: “this is the basis for accepting Jizya from the People of the Book, a state of abasement.

            Al-Maghira told Rustam ‘I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.’ He said ‘What does a state of abasement mean?’ He replied ‘You pay it while you are standing & I am sitting and the whip is hanging over your head.’ ”

            More ibn Kathir: “until they pay the Jizya” means that this is done if they don’t convert to Islam; “with submission” means that they are forced to pay and should be downcast…reviled, disgraced & debased…the People of the Book are despicable, lowly & rebellious.”

            The People of the Book are despicable, lowly and rebellious! This is the Qur’anic judgment of its most prestigious commentator, ibn Kathir.

            9:33 “He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance of the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.”

            “When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to only fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (surah 9) was revealed, God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim whether they fought him or not.” — al-Jawziyya, Saudi scholar.

            This is the orthodox understanding of the matter.

            “Jihad… is etymologically derived from the word ‘mujahada’ signifying warfare to establish the religion…the duty of Jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained ‘until the end of the world’.”

            “So at first the fighting was prohibited then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory …Allah revealed in Surah 9 the order to discard all obligations (treaties)and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans well as the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued’ “–
            –Dr. M. Mushinkhan, Medina Islamic University introduction to Sahih Bukhari.

            Before you quote me 5:32 let me deal with it ahead of time. “Muslims have always believed ‘Who so slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it should be as if he had slain mankind altogether.”(5:32)

            Now 5:32, also translated as: “unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land” is linked in meaning to the next verse 5:33, which lists the punishments for said mischief or “waging war against Allah & His Messenger”–

            Islamic scholar Aga Mahdi Puya: “Waging war against Allah and his Prophet means hostility against his chosen representatives, or deviation from his laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him.. or attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims.”

            This verse incriminates anyone seen as hostile to Islam and dictates murder, crucifixion, amputation, imprisonment as suitable punishments in 5:33:

            Ibn Kathir : “the punishment of those who wage war against Allah & His Apostle & strive to make mischief (fasadan)* in the land is only this, they should be murdered or crucified or their hands & feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned” [* fasad meaning corruption, creating disorder by opposing God.]

            Corruption in the land is…disorder by opposing God. Fitna. Fitna is worse than slaughter, the Qur’an states.
            Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief, persecution) and religion will be for Allah alone (in the whole world).” Ibn Kathir, commenting on verse 8:39: “(it is) the order to eradicate Shirk & Kufr. Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (trial in religion) & the religion will be for Allah alone (so that there is no more “Kufr”, disbelief).

            “Rebellion against God’s will is termed as ‘fitna”. Fitna refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms & expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority, who alone is sovereign.”

            Qur’an teaches believers to commit violence against unbelievers–Qur’an 2:190-193; 9:29; 9:5; 47:4 and a hundred others, violence with divine sanction. These are open ended and universal commands, in no sense limited and historical in context. Islamic terrorists act on these teachings. Islamic supremacists act on the teachings that Islam and Allah’s law must rule the earth.

            They have better arguments than you do.

            The Verse of the Sword. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers
            in the Oneness of Allah) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” 9:5

            Verses before 9:5 are about peace treaties which are dissolved after 4 months notice–with exceptions until the agreed termination –i.e. Damra tribe given 9 months. That’s it. 9:5 then frees all obligations to all treaties: Ibn Juzayy, it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qu’ran; Ibn Kathir, ‘slay the unbelievers wherever you find them’is not limited to pagans in Arabia but “on the earth in general.” (verse 9:6 only allows protection for some idolators for the purposes of converting them to islam or allowing them to spread the message of Islam.)

            Ibn Kathir is the most renown scholar of the Qur’an :”this honorable ayat (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword…it abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty and every term. These ayat allowed fighting people
            unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations…

            “Fighting the non Muslims was prohibited in the 4 holy months..at the end ‘kill them wherever you find them’ means in ANY PART OF THE EARTH; “take them” means take them a prisoner of war if you want or kill them if you want. “and besiege them anbd lie in
            wait for them in each and every ambush” means do all this to make it harder for them and to put them in a position to repent and become a Muslim or to be in reach of your hand so that you can CUT THEM AND KILL THEM. And abu Bakr, the first Caliph, based
            the War of Conversion upon that verse when he killed the people who refused to pay the zakat. And in the hadith narrated by Ibn Omar the messenger of Allah said “I was commanded to fight ALL MEN until they confess there is no God but Allah and
            Muhammad is His Messenger and do the prayer and give the zakat.” Ibn Kathir (commentray on the Quran vol2 pt4 pg8-9)

            The War of Conversion like the Jihad that follows, the Islamic conquests of other countries, are based on 9:5. In no way is it understood as something consigned to the past. Other scholars: 9:5 ibn Juzayy: abrogating EVERY peace treaty in the Qur’an. as-Suyuti 9:5 abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives (besiege them) permission for raiding and
            attacking by night…everything in the Qur’an about forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5″
            Jalaluddin Suyuti 1497 AD Itqar fi ‘ulum-il-Quran; Al-Shawkani “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam, submitting and paying Jizya tax or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated..by the obligation of fighting.” (The Jalalan published by Azhar 1983) “Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them (infidels) not to kill them. After that,
            this verse was given in order to free God and Muhammad from any convenant with the infidels..it gives them a 4 month grace period, then kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are
            forced to accept Islam or be killed.”

            “When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance was revealed God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim..whether they fought him or not.” Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

            This verse cancels all previous verses of mercy tolerance and forgiveness to non Muslims and announces open aggression against them. Exactly as the successors of Muhammad understood it. Surah Nine is invoked in Islamic law in defining Jihad. Not as some piece of history limited to a specific place and time. Jihad is considered hukm shari, a Right of Allah creating an obligation of man which man can never overrule. Just as 9:29 became the basis for the dhimmi and jizya institutions, 9:5 becomes the basis for the Jihad institution. This has been consistent for 1400 years. All schools confirmed jihad does not end until the world is dar al islam and all scholarly discussion of jihad reflected the consensus and the primacy of Surah Nine, the last revealed, in discussing jihad. Because there is agreement it belongs to the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law that can never be changed.

            Encyclopedia of Islam: “the duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained..’until the end of the world.’ Peace with non Muslim nations is therefore a provisional state of affairs only”…

            Read that last paragraph a few times. You stand refuted.

            It is not only the scholars and how these verses passed into law that refute the idea they belong to some limited historical context. They are the history of Islam, how Muslims have behaved from understanding them from the time Islamic armies left Arabia to conquer the world.

            This understanding of Islam is not of a tiny minority of extremists, folks. What bin Laden writes here is echoed by many:

            “There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission, or payment of the jizya thereby physical, though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam, or the sword–for it is not right to let him live (an infidel). The matter is summed up for every person alive; either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.” (Note–What does this have to do with any specific political grievances? This is permanent eternal religious war)

            “Muslims and especially the learned among them, should spread Sharia law to the world, that and nothing else…(Muhammad:)”I have been commanded to battle mankind until they declare there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…He also said, per Berida..”Call them to Islam, if they respond (convert) accept this… if they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya…if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them. Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority, corporeally if
            not spiritually? Yes.”

            “In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Shari’a from being publicly voiced among the people as was the case at the dawn of Islam…They say that our Shari’a does not impose our particular beliefs upon others, this is a false assumption. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others.”

            “Offensive Jihad is an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded. Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya with willing submission and humility. The Prophet was “sent in the final hours with the sword so that none is worshiped but Allah alone, partnerless.”

            —-”Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West”
            Osama bin Laden

            “Islam has approved war so that the word of God becomes supreme…this is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab peninsula to call them to embrace Islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them”– –Dr. Afifi Abdul-Fattah (“The Spirit of Islamic Religion” p 382).

            Ibn Hisham “Biography of the Apostle”, p134:
            Muhammad sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him “Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them… if they refuse, fight them” They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad: Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet.”

            From ‘The Book of the Islamic State’ (1953) by al-Nabhani: “The foreign policy of the Islamic state must be to carry the Islamic mission to the world by way of Holy War. This process has been established through the course of the ages…this process has never been changed at all. The Apostle Muhammad from the time he founded the State in the city of Yathrib, prepared an army and began holy war to remove the physical barriers which hinder the spread of Islam….by holy war, kingdoms and states were removed and Islam ruled the nations & peoples. The glorious Qur’an has revealed to Muslims the reasons for fighting, to carry the message of Islam to the entire world.”

          • jackdiamond

            I wrote and posted a long reply to you and it seems to have vanished. Hopefully it will reappear

          • defcon 4

            The 1001 lies of islam. The actions of your fellow islamo-nazis all over the world speak much louder than your puerile lies.

          • jackdiamond

            As to 98:6 “Indeed they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the Polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” and the tafsir of Ibn Kathir “(6. Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Scripture and idolators, will abide in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.) (7. Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures.)”

            Loyalty and enmity in a nutshell. Islamic supremacism too.

        • jackdiamond

          Thank you for Own Private Islam and the book-length revisionism. I’m dealing with the Real Islam as
          taught and understood for centuries. Not your re-invention of it. The Ahmadiyya btw are considered apostate by orthodox Muslims, which is why
          they are persecuted in Pakistan.

          In regards to whether you believe in Loyalty and Enmity you respond .”Nope Sir. Any man or woman who preaches hate speech cannot be logically and/or spiritually my role-model can he?” I don’t know who
          can be your role model as a good Muslim if not Muhammad but I’m glad you know hate-speech when you see it. Your denial of so basic a Qur’anic
          doctrine is an indication of how far away you are from orthodox Islam. You then try to say the verse about not taking Jews & Christians as friends and protectors is out of context, it is limited to an historical time and place. You try the same in explaining Surah 9 and Muhammad’s own words from the most reliable hadiths.

          This does not square with how those verses have been understood by scholars, by Islamic law and by Muslims acting upon them through history. All of Islam is about
          dividing the world into two camps, believers and unbelievers, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb and ultimately dar al-harb being subsumed. The HATE Allah has and therefore Muslims are to show for disbelievers is
          absolute. You deny it either from ignorance or a rather futile attempt to obfuscate what is glaringly obvious.

          What is the context for 5:51?

          “They do blasphemy who say God is Christ, the son of Mary. They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity…verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them…Christ, the son of Mary
          was no more than a messenger” ( 5:17; 5:72-73,75).

          9:30– Christians are cursed by Allah) “and the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah and Christians say, Messiah is the son of Allah…Allah’s curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth”.

          4:101 ” for the unbelievers are open enemies to you.”
          “But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads (22:19);

          “Fight the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you” (9:123)

          “I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve, smite the necks and smite of them each finger” (8:12).

          (3:85) “If anyone of you desires a religion other than Islam it will never be accepted of him.”

          “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of
          the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Qur’an 9:29

          There is no sense in which these verses or the doctrine of Loyalty & Enmity are buried in the past. “Allah Most High forbade all believers from taking Jews and Christians as supporters and allies..He declares that whoever takes them as supporters, allies or friends, in
          the place of Allah, his Messenger and the believers, this same one sideswith them against Allah, His Messenger, and the believers.” (Al-Tabari). Apostasy is a capital crime (treason) in all mainstream schools of Sharia.

          Umdat al-Salik is a classic manual of Sharia law endorsed by Al-Azhar. It enshrines verses you say are falsely interpreted. Jihad is “a communal obligation” to make “war against non Muslims. The Caliph
          makes war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians…until they become Muslims or else pay the non Muslim poll tax…the Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” (and btw if there is no caliph,
          jihad must still be carried out) ” in accordance with the word of Allah Most High “fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah & His Messenger have forbidden-who do not
          practice the religion of truth (Islam) being those who have been given the Book (Jews & Christians) until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (Koran 9:29)

          This “wrongly understood” verse became the basis for the institution of the Dhimma. The dhimmi are the subjugated people who pay jizya, the ransom for their lives…protection money, and who must follow the rules
          of dhimmitude apartheid lest open war be declared on them (the condition of 9:5, the Verse of the Sword).

          The intent of the Jizya, set out in verse 9:29, is described in the commentary by ibn Kathir: “with willing submission in defeat and subservience and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and
          belittled” (in return for letting People of the Book live);

          and in Jalaluddin Suyuti: “this is the basis for accepting Jizya from the People of the Book, a state of abasement.” Al-Maghira told Rustam ‘I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a
          state of abasement.’ He said ‘What does a state of abasement mean?’ He replied ‘You pay it while you are standing & I am sitting and the whip is hanging over your head.’ ”

          More ibn Kathir: “until they pay the Jizya” means that this is done if they don’t convert to Islam; “with submission” means that they are forced to pay and should be downcast…reviled, disgraced & debased…the People of the Book are despicable, lowly &
          rebellious.”

          The People of the Book are despicable, lowly and rebellious! This is the Qur’anic judgment of its most prestigious commentator, ibn Kathir. Feel the love.

          Now Jihad.

          9:33 “He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance of the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.”

          “When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to only fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (surah 9) was revealed, God commanded his Prophet to fight
          anyone who did not become a Muslim whether they fought him or not.” — al-Jawziyya, Saudi scholar.

          This is the orthodox understanding of the matter.

          “Jihad… is etymologically derived from the word ‘mujahada’ signifying warfare to establish the religion…the duty of Jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained ‘until the end of the world’.”

          “So at first the fighting was prohibited then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory …Allah revealed in Surah 9 the order to discard all obligations (treaties)and commanded the Muslims to fight
          against all the pagans well as the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued’ “–
          –Dr. M. Mushinkhan, Medina Islamic University introduction to Sahih Bukhari.

          A side note: before you quote me 5:32 let me deal with it ahead of time. “Muslims have always believed ‘Who so slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it should be as if he had slain mankind altogether.”(5:32)

          Now 5:32, also translated as: “unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land” is linked in meaning to the next verse 5:33, which lists the punishments for said mischief or “waging war against Allah & His Messenger”–

          Islamic scholar Aga Mahdi Puya: “Waging war against Allah and his Prophet means hostility against his chosen representatives, or deviation from his laws by overstepping the boundaries laid down by Him.. or
          attempts to undermine the cause of Islam and the overall interests of the Muslims.”

          This verse incriminates anyone seen as hostile to Islam and dictates murder, crucifixion, amputation, imprisonment as suitable punishments in 5:33:

          Ibn Kathir : “the punishment of those who wage war against Allah & His Apostle & strive to make mischief (fasadan)* in the land is only this, they should be murdered or crucified or their hands & feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned”
          [* fasad meaning corruption, creating disorder by opposing God.]

          Corruption in the land is…disorder by opposing God. Fitna. Fitna is worse than slaughter, the Qur’an states.
          Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief, persecution) and religion will be for Allah alone (in the whole world).” Ibn Kathir, commenting on verse 8:39: “(it is) the order to eradicate Shirk
          & Kufr. Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (trial in religion) & the religion will be for Allah alone (so that there is no more “Kufr”, disbelief).

          “Rebellion against God’s will is termed as ‘fitna”. Fitna refers us to misconduct on the part of a man who establishes his own norms & expects obedience from others, thereby usurping God’s authority, who
          alone is sovereign.”

          and to return to Jihad:

          Qur’an teaches believers to commit violence against
          unbelievers–Qur’an 2:190-193; 9:29; 9:5; 47:4 and a hundred others, violence with divine sanction. These are open ended and universal commands, in no sense limited and historical in context. Islamic terrorists act on these teachings. Islamic supremacists act on these
          teachings.

          They have better arguments than you do.

          The Verse of the Sword. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the
          Oneness of Allah) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their
          way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 9:5)

          Verses before 9:5 are about peace treaties which are dissolved after 4 months notice–with exceptions until the agreed termination –i.e. Damra tribe given 9 months. That’s it. 9:5 then frees all obligations to all treaties: Ibn Juzayy, it abrogates “every peace treaty in the Qu’ran; Ibn Kathir, ‘slay the unbelievers wherever you find them’is not limited to pagans in Arabia but “on the earth in general.” (verse 9:6 only allows protection for some idolators for the purposes of converting them to islam or allowing them to spread the message of Islam.)

          Ibn Kathir is the most renown scholar of the Qur’an :”this honorable ayat (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword…it abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty and every term. These ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations…

          “Fighting the non Muslims was prohibited in the 4 holy months..at the end ‘kill them wherever you find them’ means in ANY PART OF THE EARTH; “take them” means take them a prisoner of war if you want or kill them if you want. “and besiege them and lie in
          wait for them in each and every ambush” means do all this to make it harder for them and to put
          them in a position to repent and become a Muslim or to be in reach of your hand so that you can CUT THEM AND KILL THEM. And abu Bakr, the first Caliph, based
          the War of Conversion upon that verse when he
          killed the people who refused to pay the zakat. And in the hadith narrated by Ibn Omar the messenger of Allah said “I was commanded to fight ALL MEN until they confess there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger and do the prayer and give the zakat.” Ibn Kathir (commentray on the Quran vol2 pt4 pg8-9)

          The War of Conversion like the Jihad that follows, the Islamic conquests of other countries, are based on 9:5. In no way is it understood as something consigned to the past. Other scholars: 9:5 ibn Juzayy: abrogating EVERY peace treaty in the Qur’an. as-Suyuti 9:5
          abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives (besiege them) permission for raiding and
          attacking by night…everything in the Qur’an about
          forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5″ Jalaluddin Suyuti 1497 AD Itqar fi ‘ulum-il-Quran; Al-Shawkani “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam, submitting and paying Jizya tax
          or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated..by the obligation of fighting.” (The Jalalan published by Azhar 1983) “Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them (infidels) not to kill them. After that, this verse was given in order to free God and Muhammad from any convenant with the infidels..it gives them a 4 month grace period, then kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to
          accept Islam or be killed.”

          “When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (surah 9) was revealed God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim..whether they fought him or not.” Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

          This verse cancels all previous verses of mercy tolerance and forgiveness to non Muslims and announces open aggression against them. Exactly as the successors of Muhammad understood it. Surah Nine is invoked in Islamic law in defining Jihad. Not as some piece of history limited to a specific place and time. Jihad is considered hukm shari, a Right of Allah creating an obligation of man which man can never overrule. Just as 9:29 became the basis for the dhimmi and jizya
          institutions, 9:5 becomes the basis for the Jihad institution. This has been consistent for 1400 years. All schools confirmed jihad does not end until the world is dar al islam and all scholarly discussion of jihad
          reflected the consensus and the primacy of Surah Nine, the last revealed, in discussing jihad. Because there is agreement it belongs to the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law that can never be changed.

          Encyclopedia of Islam: “the duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained..’until the end of the world.’ Peace with non Muslim nations is therefore a provisional state of affairs only”…

          Read that last paragraph a few times. You stand refuted.

          It is not only the scholars and how these verses passed into law that refute the idea they belong to some limited historical context. They are the history of Islam, how Muslims have behaved from understanding them from the time Islamic armies left Arabia to conquer the world.
          This understanding of Islam is not of a tiny minority of extremists, folks. What bin Laden writes here is echoed by many:

          “There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission, or payment of the jizya thereby physical, though not spiritual submission to the authority of Islam, or the sword–for it is not right to let him live (an infidel). The matter is summed up for every person alive; either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die.”
          (Note–What does this have to do with any specific political grievances? This is permanent eternal religious war)

          “Muslims and especially the learned among them, should spread Sharia law to the world, that and nothing else…(Muhammad:)”I have been commanded to battle mankind until they declare there is no god but Allah
          and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah…He also said, per Berida..”Call them to Islam, if they respond (convert) accept this… if they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya…if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them. Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority, corporeally if not spiritually? Yes.”

          “In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Shari’a from being
          publicly voiced among the people as was the case at the dawn of Islam…They say that our Shari’a does not impose our particular beliefs upon others, this is a false assumption. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others.”

          “Offensive Jihad is an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded. Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya with willing submission and humility. The Prophet was “sent in the final hours with the sword so that none is worshiped but Allah alone, partnerless.”

          —-”Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West”
          Osama bin Laden

          “Islam has approved war so that the word of God becomes supreme…this is war for the cause of God (Holy War). Muhammad therefore, sent his ambassadors to eight kings and princes in the neighborhood of the Arab peninsula to call them to embrace Islam. They rejected his call. Thus, it became incumbent on the Muslims to fight them”– –Dr. Afifi Abdul-Fattah (“The Spirit of Islamic Religion” p 382).

          Ibn Hisham “Biography of the Apostle”, p134:
          Muhammad sent Khalid ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him “Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them… if they refuse,
          fight them” They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad: Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet.”

          From ‘The Book of the Islamic State’ (1953) by al-Nabhani: “The foreign policy of the Islamic state must be to carry the Islamic mission to the world by way of Holy War. This process has been established through the course of the ages…this process has never
          been changed at all. The Apostle Muhammad from the time he founded the State in the city of Yathrib, prepared an army and began holy war to remove the physical barriers which hinder the spread of Islam….by holy war, kingdoms and states were removed and Islam ruled the nations & peoples. The glorious Qur’an has revealed to Muslims the reasons for fighting, to carry the message of Islam to the entire world.”

          Oh and 98:6?

          Sahih International “Indeed,
          they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and
          the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally
          therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” Tasfir Ibn Kathir: ”
          (6. Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Scripture
          and idolators, will abide in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of
          creatures.) (7. Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds,
          they are the best of creatures.) (8. Their reward with their Lord is
          Eternal Gardens, underneath which rivers flow. They will abide therein
          forever, Allah will be pleased with them, and they well-pleased with
          Him. That is for him who fears his Lord.)

          Loyalty and enmity in a nutshell.
          Islamic supremacism as well.

        • jackdiamond

          Thank you for Own Private Islam
          and the book-length revisionism. I’m dealing with the Real Islam as taught and understood for centuries. Not your re-invention of it. The Ahmadiyya btw are considered apostate by orthodox Muslims, which is why
          they are persecuted in Pakistan.

          In regards to whether you believe in Loyalty and Enmity you respond .”Nope Sir. Any man or woman who preaches hate speech cannot be logically and/or spiritually my role-model can he?” I don’t know who
          can be your role model as a good Muslim if not Muhammad but I’m glad you know hate-speech when you see it. Your denial of so basic a Qur’anic
          doctrine is an indication of how far away you are from orthodox Islam. You then try to say the verse about not taking Jews & Christians as friends and protectors is out of context, it is limited to an historical time and place. You try the same in explaining Surah 9 and Muhammad’s own words from the most reliable hadiths. All of Islam is about dividing the world into two camps, believers and unbelievers, dar al-Islam and dar al-harb and ultimately dar al-harb being subsumed. The
          HATE Allah has and therefore Muslims are to show for disbelievers is absolute. You deny it either from ignorance or a rather futile attempt to obfuscate what is glaringly obvious.

          What is the context for 5:51?

          “They do blasphemy who say God is Christ, the son of Mary. They do blaspheme who say God is one of three in a Trinity…verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them…Christ, the son of Mary
          was no more than a messenger” ( 5:17; 5:72-73,75).

          9:30– Christians are cursed by Allah) “and the Jews say Ezra is the son of Allah and Christians say, Messiah is the son of Allah…Allah’s curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth”.

          4:101 ” for the unbelievers are open enemies to you.”

          “But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads (22:19);

          “Fight the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you” (9:123)

          “I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve, smite the necks and smite of them each finger” (8:12).

          (3:85) “If anyone of you desires a religion other than Islam it will never be accepted of him.”

          “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of
          the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Qur’an 9:29

          There is no sense in which these verses or the doctrine of Loyalty & Enmity are buried in the past. “Allah Most High forbade all believers from taking Jews and Christians as supporters and allies..He declares that whoever takes them as supporters, allies or friends, in
          the place of Allah, his Messenger and the believers, this same one sides with them against Allah, His Messenger, and the believers.” (Al-Tabari). Apostasy is a capital crime (treason) in all mainstream schools of Sharia.

          Umdat al-Salik is a classic manual of Sharia law endorsed by Al-Azhar. It enshrines verses you say are falsely interpreted. Jihad is “a communal obligation” to make “war against non Muslims. The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians…until they become Muslims or else pay the non Muslim poll tax…the Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” (and btw if there is no caliph,
          jihad must still be carried out) ” in accordance with the word of Allah Most High “fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah & His Messenger have forbidden-who do not
          practice the religion of truth (Islam) being those who have been given the Book (Jews & Christians) until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled.” (Koran 9:29)

          This “wrongly understood” verse became the basis for the institution of the Dhimma. The dhimmi are the subjugated people who pay jizya, the ransom for their lives…protection money, and who must follow the rules
          of dhimmitude apartheid lest open war be declared on them (the condition of 9:5, the Verse of the Sword).

          The intent of the Jizya, set out in verse 9:29, is described in the commentary by ibn Kathir: “with willing submission in defeat and subservience and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and
          belittled” (in return for letting People of the Book live);

          and in Jalaluddin Suyuti: “this is the basis for accepting Jizya from the People of the Book, a state of abasement.” Al-Maghira told Rustam ‘I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a
          state of abasement.’ He said ‘What does a state of abasement mean?’ He replied ‘You pay it while you are standing & I am sitting and the whip is hanging over your head.’ ”

          More ibn Kathir: “until they pay the Jizya” means that this is done if they don’t convert to Islam; “with submission” means that they are forced to pay and should be downcast…reviled, disgraced & debased…the People of the Book are despicable, lowly &
          rebellious.”

          The People of the Book are despicable, lowly and rebellious! This is the Qur’anic judgment of its most prestigious commentator, ibn Kathir. Feel the love.

          Now Jihad.

          9:33 “He it is Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance of the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.”

          “When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to only fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (surah 9) was revealed, God commanded his Prophet to fight
          anyone who did not become a Muslim whether they fought him or not.” — al-Jawziyya, Saudi scholar.

          This is the orthodox understanding of the matter.

          “Jihad… is etymologically derived from the word ‘mujahada’ signifying warfare to establish the religion…the duty of Jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained
          ‘until the end of the world’.”

          “So at first the fighting was prohibited then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory …Allah revealed in Surah 9 the order to discard all obligations (treaties)and commanded the Muslims to fight
          against all the pagans well as the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued’ “–
          –Dr. M. Mushinkhan, Medina Islamic University introduction to Sahih Bukhari.

        • jackdiamond

          98:6 Indeed, they who disbelieved
          among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are
          the worst of creatures.

          Tafsir Ibn Kathir “(6. Verily, those who disbelieve from among the People of the Scripture
          and idolators, will abide in the fire of Hell. They are the worst of creatures.) (7. Verily, those who believe and do righteous good deeds, they are the best of creatures.) ”

          Loyalty and enmity in a nutshell. Islamic supremacism too.

        • jackdiamond

          Qur’an teaches believers to commit violence against
          unbelievers–Qur’an 2:190-193; 9:29; 9:5; 47:4 and a hundred others, violence with divine sanction. These are open ended and universal commands, in no sense limited and historical in context. Islamic terrorists act on these teachings. Islamic supremacists act on the
          teachings that Islam and Allah’s law must rule the earth.

          They have better arguments than you do.

          The Verse of the Sword. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the
          Oneness of Allah) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their
          way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (Qur’an 9:5)

          Verses before 9:5 are about peace treaties which are dissolved after 4 months notice–with exceptions until the agreed termination –i.e. Damra tribe given 9 months. That’s it. 9:5 then frees all obligations to all treaties: Ibn Juzayy, it abrogates “every peace treaty in the
          Qu’ran; Ibn Kathir, ‘slay the unbelievers wherever you find them’is not limited to pagans in Arabia but “on the earth in general.” (verse 9:6 only allows protection for some idolators for the purposes of converting them to islam or allowing them to spread the message of Islam.)

          Ibn Kathir is the most renown scholar of the Qur’an :”this honorable ayat (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword…it abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty and every term. These ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations…

          “Fighting the non Muslims was prohibited in the 4 holy months..at the end ‘kill them wherever you find them’ means in ANY PART OF THE EARTH; “take them” means take them a prisoner of war if you want or kill them if you want. “and besiege them anbd lie in
          wait for them in each and every ambush” means do all this to make it harder for them and to put them in a position to repent and become a Muslim or to be in reach of your hand so that you can CUT THEM AND KILL THEM. And abu Bakr, the first Caliph, based
          the War of Conversion upon that verse when he
          killed the people who refused to pay the zakat. And in the hadith narrated by Ibn Omar the messenger of Allah said “I was commanded to fight ALL MEN until they confess there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger and do the prayer and give the zakat.” Ibn Kathir (commentray on the Quran vol2 pt4 pg8-9)

          The War of Conversion like the Jihad that follows, the Islamic conquests of other countries, are based on 9:5. In no way is it understood as something consigned to the past. Other scholars: 9:5 ibn Juzayy: abrogating EVERY peace treaty in the Qur’an. as-Suyuti 9:5
          abrogates pardon, truce and overlooking (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives (besiege them) permission for raiding and
          attacking by night…everything in the Qur’an about
          forgiveness is abrogated by verse 9:5″ Jalaluddin Suyuti 1497 AD Itqar fi ‘ulum-il-Quran; Al-Shawkani “Islam is unanimous about fighting the unbelievers and forcing them to Islam, submitting and paying Jizya tax
          or being killed. The verses about forgiving them are abrogated..by the obligation of fighting.” (The Jalalan published by Azhar 1983) “Muhammad had earlier made a covenant with them (infidels) not to kill them. After that, this verse was given in order to free God and Muhammad from any convenant with the infidels..it gives them a 4 month grace period, then kill the infidels wherever you find them. Capture them besiege them in their castles and fortresses until they are forced to
          accept Islam or be killed.”

          “When the Prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (surah 9) was revealed God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim..whether they fought him or not.” Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

          This verse cancels all previous verses of mercy tolerance and forgiveness to non Muslims and announces open aggression against them. Exactly as the successors of Muhammad understood it. Surah Nine is invoked in Islamic law in defining Jihad. Not as some piece of history limited to a specific place and time. Jihad is considered hukm shari, a Right of Allah creating an obligation of man which man can never overrule. Just as 9:29 became the basis for the dhimmi and jizya
          institutions, 9:5 becomes the basis for the Jihad institution. This has been consistent for 1400 years. All schools confirmed jihad does not end.until the world is dar al islam and all scholarly discussion of jihad
          reflected the consensus and the primacy of Surah Nine, the last revealed, in discussing jihad. Because there is agreement it belongs to the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law that can never be changed.

          Encyclopedia of Islam: “the duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained..’until the end of the world.’ Peace with non Muslim nations is therefore a provisional state of affairs only”…

          Read that last paragraph a few times. You stand refuted.

    • OfficialPro

      Um, there is such a thing as metaphor. They do not mean blood sucker literally. It is a figure of speech.

  • zaggle

    This is a good and at the same time, entertaining read on the subject, http://www.amazon.com/Islamophilia-ebook/dp/B00D454GV2

  • FalkoBaumgartner

    In all fairness, there were some blockbusters depicting Islamist terrorists. Like Schwarzenegger’s True Lies (1991) and Leonardo di Caprio’s Body of Lies (2008).

  • OfficialPro

    what do you expect from a business that builds its reputation and earns its money on promoting FANTASY?

  • carol_36

    The cowards in Hollywood are afraid of making a movie about the real terrorists as they are well aware of what retaliation they can expect from the “Religion of Peace”. Expect to see remakes of movies portraying the evil ideology of National Socialism (Nazis) as the enemy trying to take over the world instead of the actual existing enemy of Islam with its demented dream of world conquest!