• April 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Mar    
  • Truth about Islam and Shari’a law

  • Blog Stats

    • 45,730 hits
  • Must Read! Click Picture!

  • Must Read: click picture!

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 29 other followers

  • Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

    Order the Self Study Course on Political Islam

  • We love & support Israel!!!

  • Get Educated & Educate Others!! Click the Picture!



  • Key Strategies for the Counter Jihad!

    Click on image above - read about strategies!

Koran Index To Hatred, Terror and Intolerance by Book and Verse

If you go to this web page, you will see where in the Qur’an you can find all the verses on hatred, terror and intolerance…and as you know, because it is written in the Qur’an, it must be obeyed by all Muslims.



Click here if you want to go to the web page and copy the index. The Index shows you all the Koranic verses that pertain to hatred of Jews, Christians, and all kafirs, the 2nd class citizenship of women, everything…it is a great study file so you can learn about what the Koran teaches Muslims. Remember this, even though CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other radical moderate and apologetic Muslim groups, as well as Muslims, claim that the Qur’an is the most holiest of books, and is not wrong at all, and will give other Qur’anic scriptures to try and prove the index is incorrect…remember they believe in abrogation, which means that whatever Mohammed, I mean allah wanted to change for allah’s benefit, allah changed it, so in my opinion (as a kafir, as well as a Bible thumping, Elohim/Yahweh believing reverend) it shows that either the Qur’an has errors in it, or their “god” doesn’t have a clear train of thought when he decides to write a “sacred book”.

Does the Quran really contain dozens of verses promoting violence?

There are a plethora of Qur’anic suras (chapters/verses) that teach Muslim basically to hate and kill Christians, here are a few.

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers.  Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding.  Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most of the verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text.  They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed.  Muhammad’s own martial legacy and the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have resulted in a trail of blood and tears across world history.

The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193)“And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]… but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful.   And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.”  The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries.  In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did).  The use of the word “persecution” by some Muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual Muslim words for persecution – “idtihad” – and oppression – a variation of “z-l-m” – do not appear in the verse).  The actual Arabic comes from “fitna” which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation.  Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until “religion is for Allah” – ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:244)“Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

Quran (2:216)Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.”  Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time.  From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56)“As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Quran (3:151)“Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”.  This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Quran (4:74)“Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.”  The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter.  These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah.  Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76)“Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…”

Quran (4:89)“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”


Posted by thereligionofpeace.com

Top Muslim Declares All Christians ‘Infidels’

Quoting the Quran (correctly) may be fueling the recent slaughter of Christians in Egypt.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article mis-identified Ali Gomaa as the “grand mufti of Al Azhar.” Gomaa is the grand mufti of Egypt, the nation’s second highest religious position, and a member of Al Azhar’s Council for Islamic Research.

To what extent was Egypt’s Maspero massacre, wherein the military literally mowed down Christian Copts protesting the ongoing destruction of their churches, a product of anti-Christian sentiment?

A video of Sheikh Ali Gomaa (or Gom’a), the grand mufti of Egypt, which began circulating weeks before the massacre, helps elucidate.  While holding that Muslims may coexist with Christians (who, as dhimmis, have rights), Gomaa categorized Christians as kuffar — “infidels” — a word that connotes “enemies,” “evil-doers,” and every bad thing to Muslim ears.

After quoting Quran 5:17, “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, [Jesus] son of Mary,” he expounded by saying any association between a human and God (in Arabic, shirk) is the greatest sin: “Whoever thinks the Christ is God, or the Son of God, not symbolically — for we are all sons of God — but attributively, has rejected the faith which God requires for salvation,” thereby becoming an infidel.

Gomaa then offered a hypothetical dialogue between Christians and Muslims to illustrate further:

Christians: You have the wrong idea about us; we don’t worship the Christ.

Muslims: Okay, fine; we were under the wrong impression — but, by the way: “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, son of Mary.”

Christians: But these are philosophical matters that we are unable to explain.

Muslims: Okay, fine; God is one—but, by the way: “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, son of Mary.”

As a graduate of and long-time professor at  Al Azhar  university before being named grand mufti, Ali Gomaa represents mainstream Islam’s — not “radical Islam’s” or “Islamism’s” — position concerning the “other,” in this case, Christians. Regardless, many in the West hail him as a “moderate” — such as this U.S. News article titled “Finding the Voices of Moderate Islam“; Lawrence Wright  describes him as “a highly promoted champion of moderate Islam”:

He is the kind of cleric the West longs for, because of his assurances that there is no conflict with democratic rule and no need for theocracy. Gomaa has also become an advocate for Muslim women, who he says should have equal standing with men.

How does one reconcile such sunny characterizations with reality?  The fact is, whenever top Muslim authorities like Gomaa say something that can be made to conform to Western ideals, Westerners jump on it (while of course ignoring more “extreme” positions).  It is the same with Gomaa’s alma mater, Al Azhar, the “chief center of Islamic and Arabic learning in the world.”

MEMRI, for instance, recently published a report titled “The Sheikh of Al Azhar in an Exceptionally Tolerant Article: Christianity, Judaism Share Basic Tenets of Islam.”  Of course, the day after this report appeared, the same sheikh insisted that the American ambassador wear a hijab when meeting him: just as Muslim “radicals” compel Christian girls to wear the hijab, “moderate” Al Azhar compels U.S. diplomats.

In short, yes, there are commonalities, but they are secondary to the differences, which are more final and define the relationship. Or, to put it in Ali Gomaa’s paradigm: Fine, Christianity and Islam share similar tenets — but, by the way: “Infidels are those who say God is the Christ, son of Mary.”

The fact is, this Qur’anic verse is as much a cornerstone of Islam’s view of Christianity as the unity of God and Christ is a cornerstone of Christianity, articulated some 1700 years ago in the Nicene Creed. The issue is clear cut for all involved.

Accordingly, how can one fault Gomaa? As grand mufti, he is simply being true to Islam’s teachings. Indeed, his consistency is more commendable than the equivocations of Western ecumencalists who, by falling over themselves to assure Muslims that they all essentially believe in the same things, demonstrate, especially to Muslims, that they believe in nothing.

Incidentally, if Gomaa upholds the plain teachings of the Quran concerning who is an infidel, is it not fair to assume he also upholds the Quran’s teachings on how to treat them, as commanded in Quran 9: 29: “Fight … the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”  Of course, prudent Muslims, undoubtedly like Gomaa himself, know that now is not the time to talk openly about such things.

Either way, here is another reminder of how Qur’anic verses and terms that Western people brush aside as arcane or irrelevant have a tremendous impact on current events — such as the Maspero massacre: For the same word Gomaa used to describe Christians is the same word Muslim soldiers used when they opened fire on and ran over Christians; the same word twenty Muslim soldiers used as they tortured a protesting Christian; and the same word Muslims hurled at Christians during the funeral procession for their loved ones slain at Maspero: infidel.

Posted 28 Oct 11 by PJM

FBI, Homeland Security Warn of Small Airplane Terror Threats

Sunday, 04 Sep 2011

WASHINGTON — The FBI and Homeland Security have issued a nationwide warning about al-Qaida threats to small airplanes, just days before the anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

There is no specific or credible terrorist threat for the 10-year anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, authorities said. But they have stepped up national security as a precaution.

Al-Qaida was considering ways to attack airplanes, as recently as earlier this year, according to a five-page law enforcement bulletin issued Friday.

The alert, issued ahead of the summer’s last busy travel weekend, said terrorists have considered renting private planes and loading them with explosives.

“Al-Qaida and its affiliates have maintained an interest in obtaining aviation training, particularly on small aircraft, and in recruiting Western individuals for training in Europe or the United States, although we do not have current, credible information or intelligence of an imminent attack being planned,” according to the bulletin, which The Associated Press obtained.

The bulletin also says al-Qaida would like to use sympathetic Westerners to get flight training, then get them to become flight instructors.

Matthew Chandler, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, described the bulletin as routine.

“We shared this information with our partners to highlight the need for continued awareness and vigilance,” he said.

Aviation security is much tighter than it was a decade ago, but al-Qaida remains keenly interested in launching attacks on airplanes, believing large attacks with high body counts are more likely to grab headlines.

Threats to small airplanes are nothing new. After the 2001 attacks, the government grounded thousands of crop dusters amid fears the planes could be used in an attack.

In 2002, U.S. officials said they uncovered an al-Qaida plot to fly a small plane into a U.S. warship in the Gulf. And in 2003, U.S. officials uncovered an al-Qaida plot to crash an explosives-laden small aircraft into the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan.

Posted on 4 Sep 11 by Newsmax.com

MUSLIMS BEING MUSLIMS: Libyan father honor kills 3 daughters after they were raped

Posted: September 1, 2011 | Author: barenakedislam

A Libyan father killed his three daughters, in an attempt to rid the family of the shame after pro-Gaddafi soldiers raped them. Soldiers raped the sisters aged 15, 17, and 18, in the town of Tomina.

SMH (H/T Alastair) When they returned home, their father slit their throats in what the rights group said was most likely an honour killing.

The Gaddafi regime used civilians as human shields and placed children on tanks to deter NATO air strikes, the organisation said. It also found evidence of a pattern of murders, rapes ”disappearances” and other war crimes during an investigation in the city of Misrata in June.

”Four eyewitnesses reported that troops forcibly detained 107 civilians and used them as human shields to guard military munitions from NATO attacks south of Misrata,” the report said. The group also said a witness reported that a primary school in the city had been turned into a detention site where Gaddafi troops” raped women and girls as young as 14 years old”.

Posted on 1 Sep 11 by BNI

HLF Defense Argues to Overturn Convictions

IPT News
September 1, 2011

Holy Land Foundation, an unindicted criminal foundation started by the Muslim Brotherhood

NEW ORLEANS – A federal judge abused his discretion in admitting key evidence and testimony used to prove that zakat (charity) committees inside the West Bank funded by an American Muslim group were Hamas-controlled, defense attorneys argued Thursday before a three-judge appellate panel.

In November 2008, five former Holy Land Foundation (HLF) officials were convicted on 108 counts of illegally routing money to Hamas through those committees. HLF had been one of the nation’s largest Muslim charities.

In their briefs filed last October, the five defendants asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn the convictions. Anonymous testimony by Israeli intelligence and military witnesses, and evidence seized from Palestinian Authority offices during an Israeli raid, are among the things the presiding judge allowed jurors to hear in error, the defendants argue in their appeals.

During Thursday’s hearing, defense attorney John D. Cline, who represents former HLF Chairman Ghassan Elashi, called the government’s case a “textbook on evidentiary error.”

One Israeli witness, identified only as “Avi,” was key to the government’s case. Avi linked together documents to show that the committees which HLF sent money to were funding Hamas.

“Avi was a critical, critical witness in this case,” Cline said. Avi linked together a volume of government documents and created an easy-to-understand narrative for the jury. “He wove that all together in a nice, neat package.”

The government’s refusal to identify Avi’s true identity hindered the defense attorneys’ ability to conduct a background investigation on the witness, Cline said. But Justice Department attorney Joseph Palmer said the Israeli witnesses’ lives could have been endangered if their identities had been disclosed in public. The defense was still able to place “Avi” in a proper context before the jury.

Avi’s cross examination “was rigorous and it was effective,” Palmer said. He pointed to a separate case upheld by the 4th Circuit, in which a police officer from El Salvador was allowed to testify as an expert on a gang called MS-13, without disclosing his identity.

Cline also criticized the court for allowing prosecutors to use Avi instead of another witness identified in a government document – retired Israeli military officer Jonathan Fighel – who could have covered the same subject as Avi.

“The government, with the district court’s blessing, made a tactical choice,” said Cline.

Cline and his colleagues also challenged the credibility of government exhibits found in the West Bank. But Appellate Judge Emilio M. Garza countered that those documents taken from Palestinian Authority (PA) offices “have a certain amount of credence.”

In his remarks during oral argument, Judge Garza noted that the documents were found at the PA headquarters in Ramallah, which was then controlled by Hamas rival Fatah. It was in Fatah’s interest to have accurate information on Hamas support. “Fatah found these documents important,” he said. “The possession of these documents [by the PA] is in and of itself important.”

Cline singled out one exhibit for its illegible signature. He also said that it had no date or letterhead, making its reliability unclear. Cline argued that under rules of evidence, the government had a “heavy burden” to show why the exhibit is reliable and relevant. Judge Carolyn Dineen King called that argument “powerful.”

The defense also took issue with the use of documents found in the homes of Hamas activists Ismail Elbarasse and Abdelhaleem Al-Ashqar. These documents are hearsay, argued defense attorneys, and date back to a time period before Hamas’ designation as a foreign terrorist organization.

One exhibit introduced during the trial was a handwritten document addressed to defendant Shukri Abu Baker, who was HLF’s chief executive. In rebuttal, Cline said that the document was simply addressed to “Shukri.”

“It could have said ‘Dear John,’ but that doesn’t mean it was written to me,” said Cline.

That evidence from the contested documents can be corroborated with other exhibits in the case, Palmer countered, such as the testimony of convicted Hamas supporter Mohamed Shorbagi, phone records showing the defendants’ personal relationships with Hamas leaders, and transcripts and documents from a 1993 Philadelphia meeting of the Palestine Committee, a U.S.-based Hamas support network.

Additionally, he argued, there is “circumstantial evidence” inside those Elbarasse and Ashqar documents themselves, such as organizational charts.

All five HLF defendants had counsel at trial. The HLF charity itself did not, however, but attorney Ranjana Natarajan filed an appeal on the charity’s behalf.

Prosecutors say that she is unable to represent the charity before the court and the appeal should be dismissed.

During the 2007 trial, Shukri Abu Baker’s attorneys dropped HLF as a client, leaving it unrepresented. That proceeding ended in a mistrial when jurors deadlocked on most counts. U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis, who presided over the 2008 trial, was never informed that HLF was not represented by any of the defense lawyers at the second trial.

You can listen to the arguments here. A decision from the appellate court is expected later this year.

Posted on 1 Sept 11 by Investigative Project on Terror

Is the Quran Hate Propaganda?

TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:

Is the Quran Hate Propaganda?

A Beslan massacre victim

What the Holiest Book of Islam Really says about Non-Muslims

Why the Violence?  Why the Indifference?

When Islamic terrorists massacred 186 children and 148 other mostly non-Muslim innocent people on the morning of September 3rd, 2004 at a schoolhouse in Beslan, Russia, very few Muslims celebrated the high-profile event and some even took the time to denounce it.  But, in a community renowned for its peevishness, there was very little passion over such slaughter in the name of Islam.

While rumors of a Quran desecration or a Muhammad cartoon bring out deadly protests, riots, arson and effigy-burnings, the mass murder of non-Muslims generally evokes yawns. In the six years following 9/11 more than 10,000 acts of deadly Islamic terrorism were perpetrated, yet all of them together fail to provoke the sort of outrage on the part of most Muslims that the mere mention of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo inspires.

This critical absence of moral perspective puzzles many Westerners, particularly those trying to reconcile this reality with the politically-correct assumption that Islam is like other religion.  The Judeo-Christian tradition preaches universal love and unselfishness, so it is expected that the more devout Muslims would be the most peaceful and least dangerous… provided that Islam is based on the same principles.

But beneath the rosy assurances from Muslim apologists that Islam is about peace and tolerance lies a much darker reality that better explains the violence and deeply-rooted indifference.  Quite simply, the Quran teaches supremacy, hate and hostility.

Consider the elements that define hate speech:

  • Drawing a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it
  • Moral comparison based on this distinction
  • Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of one’s own
  • The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
  • A call to violence against members of other groups

Sadly, and despite the best intentions of many decent people who are Muslim, the Quran qualifies as hate speech on each count.

The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims and non-believers, lavishing praise on the former while condemning the latter with scorching generalizations.  Far from teaching universal love, the Quran incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah’s hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture.  Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.

So, what does the Quran, believed by Muslims to be the literal and eternal word of Allah, really say about non-Muslims?

The Quran Distinguishes Muslims from Non-Muslims
and Establishes a Hierarchy of Relative Worth

The Quran makes it clear that Islam is not about universal brotherhood, but about the brotherhood of believers:

The Believers are but a single Brotherhood (49:10)

Not all men are equal under Islam.  Slaves and the handicapped are not equal to healthy free men, for example (16:75-76).  The Quran introduces the “Law of Equality,” which establishes different levels of human value when considering certain matters, such as restitution for murder (2:178).

Neither are Muslim believers equal to non-Muslims:

Are those who know equal to those who know not? (39:09)

Is the blind equal to the one who sees”  Or darkness equal to light? (13:16)

The Quran plainly tells Muslims that they are a favored race, while those of other religions are “perverted transgressors”:

Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. (3:110)

As we shall see later, Allah condemns non-Muslims to Hell based merely on their unbelief, while believers are rewarded with the finest earthly comforts in the hereafter, including never-ending food, wine and sex (56:12-40).  In fact, much of the Quran is devoted to distinguishing Muslims from non-Muslims and impugning the latter.

The first sura of the Quran is an example of this.  It is a short prayer that is repeated by devout Muslims each day and ends with these words:

Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray. (1:6-7)

Muhammad was once asked if these words pertained to Jews and Christians.  His response was, “Whom else?” (Bukhari 56:662).

Since Allah makes such a strong distinction between Muslims and those outside the faith, it is only natural that Muslims should incorporate disparate standards of treatment into their daily lives.  The Quran tells Muslims to be compassionate with one another but ruthless to the infidel:

Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves (48:29)

Allah intends for Muslims to triumph over unbelievers:

And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way to triumph over believers [Pickthall – “any way of success”] (4:141)

The only acceptable position of non-Muslims to Muslims is subjugation under Islamic rule:

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath 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. (9:29 Jizya is the money that non-Muslims must pay to their Muslim overlords in a pure Islamic state.)

A common criticism of many Muslims is that they often behave arrogantly toward others.  Now you know why.


Sharia Law and Polygamy in America

The column below (highlights added) by Andrew Bostom zeroes in on one aspect of the threat of sharia to the West: Islamic polygamy. An NPR article in 2008 cited sources estimating that as many as 100,000 Muslims live in polygamous families in the U.S.

Note that the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has issued fatwas sanctioning polygamy, in keeping with sharia law. One ruling declares American law prohibiting polygamy “against Islamic law.”


Australia: Sharia-Sanctioned Polygamy and Child Marriage
Posted By Andrew Bostom On July 21, 2011


Despite an overall apologetic tone borne of transparent obeisance to cultural relativism, two legal academics, Dr Ann Black and Dr Kerrie Sadiq from The University of Queensland TC Beirne School of Law are “suggesting [2]” in their research publication, “Good & Bad Sharia: Australia’s mixed response to Islamic Law” (due to be published in the University of New South Wales Law Journal on Monday July 25, 2011) that,

Australia is right to act with caution in dealing with Sharia law.

Why are even these obviously [2] devout votaries of the academic social religion of cultural relativism concerned about the practice of Sharia in Australia at all, or what they term, with revealing euphemism, “legal pluralism?”

One reason was extracted from the forthcoming paper of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and cited by The Australian’s legal affairs editor, Chris Merrit [3]:

Valid Muslim polygynist marriages, lawfully entered into overseas, are recognized, with second and third wives and their children able to claim welfare and other benefits.

Merrit’s background article on Black and Sadiq’s findings also noted [3] how this practice of Muslim polygamy in Australia involved “marriages where one party is under the lawful marriage age.” And Merrit provided this additional context [3]:

The findings come soon after Ikebal Patel, president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, triggered a backlash inside the Islamic community when he called for Australia to compromise with Islam and embrace legal pluralism …The latest research has found that while polygamy is unlawful, mainstream law accommodates men who arrive in Australia with multiple wives and gives some legal standing to multiple partnerships that originate in Australia.

More alarming “context” not addressed by the report of Drs. Black and Sadiq, and in fact dismissed by Dr. Black [2] in these words, “The ‘foreignness’ of Sharia law is increased by media reports which highlight ‘differences’ and feed into fears about the Muslim presence in Australia,” was provided by The Australian Daily Telegraph [4]:

On Sunday, a recent convert to Islam in Sydney was allegedly lashed 40 times with electrical cable by men from his mosque, in a terrifying home invasion, as punishment for drinking alcohol – forbidden under Shariah law. Two people have been arrested in connection with the attack.

The staid report by two Australian cultural relativist academics should (but won’t) make our mainstream media talking heads curious about how mainstream Islamic opinion views polygamy in the United States. For example, what have the esteemed mainstream Islamic clerics of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) opined regarding polygamy? The AMJA [5] mission statement maintains:

[The AMJA was] founded to provide guidance for Muslims living in North America. … AMJA is a religious organization that does not exploit religion to achieve any political ends, but instead provides practical solutions within the guidelines of Islam and the nation’s laws to the various challenges experienced by Muslim communities.

A report in The Muslim Observer [6] published October 21, 2010, highlighting AMJA’s “seventh annual American conference of imams,” confirms that the organization is accepted [6] as such by the mainstream American Muslim community. AMJA and its recent “training” conference for American imams were described [6] in these banal terms:

The organization AMJA (Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America) has a list of scholars associated with it which stretches from Al-Azhar University to Virginia’s Open University, and back across the ocean to the professors at Saudi universities. Its website, amjaonline.com, provides fatawa on many issues and promises 24-hour access to scholars who can give legal opinions on the issues people face. AMJA focuses on providing fatwas to Americans, and believes it is able to provide culturally appropriate fatwas although many of their scholars are not American–because they have some American scholars and because of the technological ties that bind AMJA’s American scholars with those abroad. AMJA just had, in Houston, its seventh annual American conference of imams, and two local Michigan imams attended, namely Imam Musa of Bloomfield’s Muslim Unity Center, and Imam Ali of MCWS. Mr. Sadiqul Hassan of AMJA explained that “the event was the 7th annual imam workshop.” Mr. Hassan said that AMJA is “a fiqh council basically,” with “scholars who live abroad and inside the U.S.; we have experts in different fields to educate about life in the U.S. — fatwa are based on life in the U.S.”

Not only does AMJA extol polygamy in accordance with the Sharia, AMJA endorses its extra-legal (i.e., vis a vis US law) application here in America, as can be readily gleaned from these two “fatwas” or Islamic legal rulings:

Fatwa 2134[7] Dr. Main Khalid Al-Qudah Date 2006-10-27

>Polygamy in Islam is permissible for different reasons, like:
1- The sexual energy of men is more than that of women in general. So, in some cases, one wife is not enough to fulfill the conjugal desire of her husband
2- Pregnancy and delivery negatively affect the shape and physical attraction that women have.
3- Worldwide, the percentage of females is always more than that of males, eventually, there must be a solution, either to permit adultery and prostitution, or to allow polygamy
4- One husband could take care of more than one wife at the same time; socially, financially, and even sexually as I mentioned above. However, the opposite is not right because of the physical and psychological capability that Allah the all mighty gave men.

Fatwa 3370[8] Scholar Dr. Hatem al-Haj Date 2007-08-08

Comment from Muslim questioner: We know that polygamy is against USA law. But I heard from my friend that as long as you don`t register your marriage to the registrar, it is okay to have more than one wife here in the states, i.e., all the wives are living here. The argument that he made was that the law that prohibits marrying more than one is against the shaariah so, it is okay for us to break it…There are some scholars in the USA are practicing polygamy without the knowledge of the authorities using that argument….

Dr. Hatem al-Haj’s response: Polygamy is halal in Islam and may be highly recommended when the number of females is bigger than that of males to afford all females a decent life that suffices their physiologic, emotional and other needs. The US law about polygamy is against the Islamic law, for no one can make prohibited that which Allah specifically made allowable.

The news items, blogs, educational materials and other information in our emails and on our website are only intended to provide information, news and commentary on events and issues related to the threat of radical Islam. Much of this information is based upon media sources, such as the AP wire services, newspapers, magazines, books, online news blog and news services, and radio and television, which we deem to be reliable. However, we have undertaken no independent investigation to verify the accuracy of the information reported by these media sources. We therefore disclaim all liability for false or inaccurate information from these media sources. We also disclaim all liability for the third-party information that may be accessed through the material referenced in our emails or posted on our website.

Koran lesson:

“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” — Qur’an 8:67

“Robert D. Crane’s lies and empty boasts in The American Muslim

In the truth-challenged American Muslim, Robert Crane says:

“Fortunately, the run-of-the mill Islamophobes, like Robert Spencer, shoot themselves in the foot by attempting patently to pervert Islam through the mouths of the worst Muslim extremists in order to prove their superficial and easily demolishable case.”Unfortunately for Crane, he flagrantly lied when attempting to demolish my case in the past, claiming that a Qur’anic passage that quite obviously mandates the killing of enemies as preferable to the taking of hostages (“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” — Qur’an 8:67) as meaning just the opposite. I had said that it meant that making “slaughter” was preferable to taking hostages. Crane claimed that I was lying, and that this passage meant that “the proposed execution of the prisoners would have constituted an awesome sin and warranted a ‘tremendous chastisement.’”

Unfortunately for Crane, even Muslim translators of the Qur’an say that the “tremendous chastisement” will come because the Muslims took hostages and demanded ransom instead of killing those they took hostage. Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates 8:68 as “Had it not been for a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe penalty would have reached you for the (ransom) that ye took.” Yet despite Ali’s gloss that the “severe penalty” would come because of the “ransom,” which is just what I said, Robert D. Crane has never called Abdullah Yusuf Ali an “Islamophobe.”

Sure, Mr. Crane, it’s easy to “demolish” me when you lie to make your case. But despite your shaky relationship with honesty and truth, I still invite you to demolish me face-to-face. All the time I hear from you and your coreligionists — such as CAIR’s Ahmed Rehab — that my “case” is “easily demolished,” and yet none of you mighty men are willing to meet me in an honest discussion and debate, and prove your assertion.

Now, why is that?”

Posted on an Islamic web site Winds of Jihad

This is an actual Islamic website, trying to belittle anti-Islamic, anti-terrorist, anti-shari’a groups/people warning the average, non-Muslim populace about what is really going on in the world. In this article, we see what the Qur’an really says, as it is pointed out to us…looks like a devout Muslim experts (Robert Crane) misunderstood the Qur’an (Qur’an 8:67) as to meaning that the Qur’an isn’t telling Muslims to behead or kill non-Muslims, but to make them surrender unconditionally…and Sheik Yer’mami jumps in in his article here and points out that Crane, even being a Muslim doesn’t know anything because what Crane said was not true…the Qur’an does not mean unconditional surrender, it does, in fact, mean kill. Kill the non-Muslims. That was what the key point in Islam is…as by what high powered, all knowing leader types confirm…KILL NON-MUSLIMS…

Funny how a U.S. Muslim is trying to perform taqiyya to fool American about Islamic world domination and takeover, and a big sheik calls the taqiyya’er a liar and tells us the truth what the verse means…maybe he doesn’t know the qur’an or the ideology as well as he thinks he does…but all is good, because it just confirms what we all know…Islam’s primary goal is to kill people of the Book and non-Muslims, surrender and captives are secondary.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29 other followers

%d bloggers like this: