French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Discuss Hispanic gangs, Southsiders, Sureños in LOS ANGELES COUNTY ONLY. There are four general geographic categories Hispanic gangs fall into for LA.
karim
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 174
Joined: July 18th, 2006, 7:14 am

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby karim » January 19th, 2015, 12:36 pm

I've saw on a French Channel that the Fox News journalists apologized about all those falses informations they had given about the so called no go zones.

cliffard
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 687
Joined: March 20th, 2007, 5:03 pm

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby cliffard » January 30th, 2015, 1:59 pm

im a white dude from inner city birmingham uk, and what that talking head from faux news says is pure verbal diarrhea...im not shitting it every time i walk out the gate, laughable...

karim
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 174
Joined: July 18th, 2006, 7:14 am

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby karim » January 31st, 2015, 2:16 am

For sure Cliffard... Whites American canot go in certain areas without being in troubles.
Us in Europe ? Yes we can !!!
But it´s true that some areas|neiborhoods can be dangerous but certainly not no~go zones that´s a lie !
Anyway, I'd like to hear you about living in Birmingham Cliffard...
Do you live in an estate ? Are you at war with Blacks, Pakis, Turcs ? Maybe only tensions here and there I Guess...
I was a fan of UB40 when I was younger and planned numerous times to visit but I was always adviced to stick to London as foreigners aren't specially welcomed in Birmingham ... And that it was so depressing and that it was not to visit as a tourist... You know those kind of BS commonly said about your city...

Excuse my bad English I hope you got me fine... Did you ???

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » January 31st, 2015, 12:06 pm

Yea i heard someone telling that joke, that Birmingham is a no go area for all people, because its so depressing and boring. (No offense Cliffard)

karim
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 174
Joined: July 18th, 2006, 7:14 am

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby karim » February 1st, 2015, 1:14 am

There is plenty of places/towns like that. If you're not from there no need to come in such unattractives places...

Adobo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 133
Joined: November 5th, 2013, 12:48 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: C_ArSoN

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Adobo » July 15th, 2015, 7:10 pm

What's the latest in France? Since the Charlie Hebo (sp) incident??

alsheikh971
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 123
Joined: February 13th, 2008, 10:11 am
Location: 93

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby alsheikh971 » July 17th, 2015, 7:08 am

Same old, same old !
Some youngsters were plotting an attack, that's what the media said ...
A so called terrorist beheaded a man last month ...
Another so called terrorist killed a woman and and stole her car, plotting to attack churches ...
I could go on and on.
Yeah, sure there are feeble-minded people that happen to be Muslims, who are plotting or committing horrible things.
But guess, what, it has always been that way => Now, that US voted the patriot act, many countries are following this trend, the French parliament has voted, almost the same, for two months.
By the time our debt is increasing, France is on its knees, our gvt is trying to divert us from the real problems !
Now Big brother is really watching you, ... but We asked for , grinning (stupid phock).
Our freedom has been gradually reduced since 2001-9-1, and most of us are happy with that.
After laughters come tears !!!
We're just living like in 1936 around the Sudetes' crisis !
We have learned nothing from History, really sad ...
Salaam

Adobo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 133
Joined: November 5th, 2013, 12:48 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: C_ArSoN

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Adobo » July 17th, 2015, 3:06 pm

Bro, theers some facts when it comes to Muslims..

Can't deny their ideology as 'only Allah'. They are making worse on themselves. Here in America we just had a demotic attack by a Muslim. Personally, I don't trust them. Go back to your land if you want Sharia Law.

alsheikh971
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 123
Joined: February 13th, 2008, 10:11 am
Location: 93

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby alsheikh971 » July 18th, 2015, 5:58 am

I understand what you mean !
But just keep in mind, what this fool did in Charleston, shooting in a church to kill as many Negroes that this P.O.S could.
Yet I don't think you can tell/think that your average white boy is a brain-dead racist, even when many of them are ... And, don't get me wrong there are P.O.S in the Black community (I despise the term African-American, but I'm an outta states black so...), like that dude that raped the old woman in NYC.
Don't put all the muslims in the same net, I hate what some of them are doing.
To me, Islam is, in its present form, bad for black people, yet I'm not against it, I think Islam is, more or less, in the same state of mind that Christianity was 600 years ago.
There is deep humanity in it, like in each religion save maybe one or two ... :cry:
The New world order that is coming upon Us makes things more difficult to apprehend.
Informations, real, unreal, truth, false, are coming from everywhere ... yeah it is democracy but we are drowning. There's a tale about a little frog :
- put it in a boiling water, it reacts and jumps around
- put it in in a warm water, cook it slowly and it drowns !
That's what we're all about to witness
Salaam
(Hope, you all can catch my words)

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » July 18th, 2015, 6:15 am

I am wondering why particularly France has so many islamic nutcases.
I know there are a lot of right wing extremist idiots too, but lately it became apparent that France has a problem with mislead islamic terrorists....what went wrong?

alsheikh971
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 123
Joined: February 13th, 2008, 10:11 am
Location: 93

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby alsheikh971 » July 18th, 2015, 7:23 am

Hi Eastern Neighbor !
To reply quickly,
Because France has the largest community of muslims in western hemisphere !
Like, you may know, ethnic and religious census are forbidden in Gaul. It is estimated that there are between 4 or 6 millions muslims. But to speak frankly, most people see an arab looking and think muslim. It might be the case but Arab or Turk or african doesn't mean muslim.
Why are there so many nutcases ?
I don't know, maybe it's the air, the water or the despair... ?
On a serious side, I would point that many muslims are of Algerian, Tunisian, Malian or Kurdish decent. These are countries where terrorism was at work these last twenty, or more, years. They may have relatives involved in these warfares, and imported it in France. An other explanation could be that, various govts (right or left) tried to organize Islam in France, but there weren't enough imans, so they "imported" some with the financial aid from Petro-Terrorist monarchies of the gulf ( Saoudi-Kuwait-UAE and others). So they ask for imans and basically got "worms" like with your computer, Now ... Tada
These are the "results" !
I won 't say that each muslim is a peaceful citizen, nor are any citizens of any background, but 9 out of 10 are like your average guy.
That leaves 10% who should be in check, but how can we spot them in a country of 65 millions person, that means beetween 400k and 700k. That's lot and even further, these "guesstimates" doesn't mean that all are aiming to slaughter Christians just to build a Califate !
Police stated that there are beetwen hundreds and thousands people that have been on the battle fields, in either Afghanistan, Bosnia, Syria, Lybia, Mali, Algeria. These are those who are "Dangerous" but we should not forget about the knucklehead indoctrinated via the web.
I can't see, for now, how our "democracies" could solve all these problems with all the extremists knocking at the door ...
Sad, really sad
But as long there's life there's hope (I'm sure about how this one translates in English)
We're not in hell, but it's an overlook with this heatwave in Gaul/France !
Salaam
( I hate these long-ass posts :lol: )

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » July 18th, 2015, 3:49 pm

The heatwave has hit us too. A few days ago it was hottest day on record in germany of all time.

I would say that 10% is the rate of idiots/scumbags/fuckups in every group of people, doesnt matter if muslim, christian, german, arab or american.
But when you look at the numbers it really its noticeable that the number of recruits from arab countries exceeds those from turkey or kurdish background. Of course they have their share of terrorists and people who join IS/EI, but they are far fewer in numbers.
I think it has got to do with the way Islam is taught to many people in combination with arab youth having problems to integrate.
But really, if you look at the way Islam is practiced in most arab countries it doesnt surprise me that they find a grip of people willing to run amok..
On top of that they become radicalized by the developments in their home countries...
And France has the biggest share of those people, thats my guess why it is the way it is...
These countries need to find a way to make their version of Islam compatible with democracy and western countries need to stop messing with them, otherwise shit will hit the fan even more..

Adobo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 133
Joined: November 5th, 2013, 12:48 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: C_ArSoN

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Adobo » July 18th, 2015, 4:40 pm

What I don't understand is how can you migrate to a 'Westernized' country, take advantage of its prosperity, then turn around and curse/blame/destroy the same society that you've benefited from?!?

I see how Muslims don't want to be 'lumped' together but where are the 'good' ones that should be coming out, denouncing the radicalism, shaming those that are apart of it?? How come they aren't coming to the aid of the families hurt by certain tragedies? Instead, they grant interviews PRAISING their sons/daughters as good Muslim people. BS :evil:

We westernized society don't want your thinking and radicalism. Go the fuck back to your Arab shit holes and enforce shit there. And if you do decide to migrate to our lands, be thankful, say thank you, and integrate!

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 18th, 2015, 5:57 pm

I have actually studied Islam on my own just out of curiosity. One of their main objectives is to spread sharia law throughout the world. They could care less what you Beleive. In their eyes sharia is Gods will and they will stop at nothing to implement it everywhere. Islam is hostile towards all faiths! There are over a hundred verses in the Koran alone calling for violence against Christians, Jews, homosexuals, polytheists etc. What a lot of people don't understand is that they also follow two other books. The Hadith and the Sunna are held as Gospel to them as well. These deal with the life and traditions of Mohammed. He is considered the most perfect person to have ever lived. Therefore anything he ever did has to be perfect and correct. A lot of the BS you see in the Muslim world come from those books. Marrying underage girls are a good example. Mohammad did it so it can't be wrong in their eyes. I hate to say it but everything that ISIS does is actually Islamic. They literally comb the Koran, Hadith and Sunna to find justification for every barbarous act they commit. If its not referenced in those books or by sharia which is based on them to they don't do it. Another thing to be aware of is the Koran is organised by chapters, biggest to smallest. Its not written in the chronological order. This is important because Muslims follow a rule called abrogation. This means that anytime an example on how to deal with a situation comes up the later verse abrogates the earlier verse. This is important because as I stated above the Koran is not written in chronological order. Anyone who has studied the Koran knows that all the peaceful verses are at the beginning. The violent ones are at the end and abrogate all the earlier peaceful verses. Another thing they believe in is a principal called taquiya. This is religiously sanctioned lying. They do this every time something happens like the shooting of the Marines in Chattanooga. Their apologists will come on TV and say that Islam is a religion of peace knowing full well that the actions of the perpetrator are justified in Islam. They Beleive in this infiltrating every country on earth and deceiving the population as to what their true motives are. When they gain enough numbers and power they will try and take over. I strongly suggest to all you readers to follow up on this. It will affect all of us in the future. Take a look at all of the nations around the world where Muslims are the majority. Do other religious groups enjoy freedom to follow their religion of their own choosing or are they living on the edge, always vulnerable to attack by Muslims. Let me tell you Christians are going extinct in the middle east! So are all other minority groups. Islam is not about peace, it is about total domination. Educate your minds people! They are out breeding everyone. In 50 years they will be a majority in many European countries. Then they will have the power to threaten the rest of the world. Real talk right here!

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » July 18th, 2015, 5:57 pm

Adobo wrote:What I don't understand is how can you migrate to a 'Westernized' country, take advantage of its prosperity, then turn around and curse/blame/destroy the same society that you've benefited from?!?

I see how Muslims don't want to be 'lumped' together but where are the 'good' ones that should be coming out, denouncing the radicalism, shaming those that are apart of it?? How come they aren't coming to the aid of the families hurt by certain tragedies? Instead, they grant interviews PRAISING their sons/daughters as good Muslim people. BS :evil:

We westernized society don't want your thinking and radicalism. Go the fuck back to your Arab shit holes and enforce shit there. And if you do decide to migrate to our lands, be thankful, say thank you, and integrate!


I agree, but i care less if someone wants to impose, christian, jewish, muslim or hindu rules on me, i'm not interested.
A lot of the people who migrated came from a generation which was pretty secular and didnt really care about religion, they were just trying to make ends meet.
Their home countries were in a shitty state and they tried to make a living in europe, its what all of us would do.
It was the time when socialism was very popular in middle eastern countries and Al-Qaida or IS were not heard of.
Its their children and grand children who faced problems with language, education and culture and some of them dropped out turning to what they idealized as their roots and became very susceptible to rat-catchers...
Today i celebrated Bayram (the most important muslim holiday of the year) with friends and we discussed this topic.
All of them are staunch enemies of any islamist idiot. They said that those guys need to be whiped out, in harsher words....

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » July 18th, 2015, 5:58 pm

silentwssj wrote:I have actually studied Islam on my own just out of curiosity. One of their main objectives is to spread sharia law throughout the world. They could care less what you Beleive. In their eyes sharia is Gods will and they will stop at nothing to implement it everywhere. Islam is hostile towards all faiths! There are over a hundred verses in the Koran alone calling for violence against Christians, Jews, homosexuals, polytheists etc. What a lot of people don't understand is that they also follow two other books. The Hadith and the Sunna are held as Gospel to them as well. These deal with the life and traditions of Mohammed. He is considered the most perfect person to have ever lived. Therefore anything he ever did has to be perfect and correct. A lot of the BS you see in the Muslim world come from those books. Marrying underage girls are a good example. Mohammad did it so it can't be wrong in their eyes. I hate to say it but everything that ISIS does is actually Islamic. They literally comb the Koran, Hadith and Sunna to find justification for every barbarous act they commit. If its not referenced in those books or by sharia which is based on them to they don't do it. Another thing to be aware of is the Koran is organised by chapters, biggest to smallest. Its not written in the chronological order. This is important because Muslims follow a rule called abrogation. This means that anytime an example on how to deal with a situation comes up the later verse abrogates the earlier verse. This is important because as I stated above the Koran is not written in chronological order. Anyone who has studied the Koran knows that all the peaceful verses are at the beginning. The violent ones are at the end and abrogate all the earlier peaceful verses. Another thing they believe in is a principal called taquiya. This is religiously sanctioned lying. They do this every time something happens like the shooting of the Marines in Chattanooga. Their apologists will come on TV and say that Islam is a religion of peace knowing full well that the actions of the perpetrator are justified in Islam. They Beleive in this infiltrating every country on earth and deceiving the population as to what their true motives are. When they gain enough numbers and power they will try and take over. I strongly suggest to all you readers to follow up on this. It will affect all of us in the future. Take a look at all of the nations around the world where Muslims are the majority. Do other religious groups enjoy freedom to follow their religion of their own choosing or are they living on the edge, always vulnerable to attack by Muslims. Let me tell you Christians are going extinct in the middle east! So are all other minority groups. Islam is not about peace, it is about total domination. Educate your minds people! They are out breeding everyone. In 50 years they will be a majority in many European countries. Then they will have the power to threaten the rest of the world. Real talk right here!



Are you christian?

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » July 18th, 2015, 6:11 pm

I forgot to add this

Adobo wrote:
I see how Muslims don't want to be 'lumped' together but where are the 'good' ones that should be coming out, denouncing the radicalism, shaming those that are apart of it??








There are A LOT of examples...

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 18th, 2015, 6:53 pm

Yes, I am a Catholic Christian! You are probably going to say that I am biased against Islam because of this. Not at all. You will never see me criticize other faiths throughout the world like I do Islam. I don't Believe what those other faiths teach but I respect them because they are not out to kill everyone else. I already know this question is going to come up, so I will address it now. What about the violence in the Bible? well let me tell you it was a one time event. God lead the Israelites into the promised land. You may be asking yourself well why would a God of love command them to kill the people who were there before the Israelites? they were sacrificing their babies to the Moon God Molech! They literally erected a bronze statue with outstretched hands and would burn their children alive in the hands as an offering to Molech the moon God. God sentenced them to death at the hands of the Israelites because of this. It was a one time event in history. Another good point to make is that I have never in my life or in history anywhere heard of Christians taking these verses out of context and killing people because it happened in the old testament. You also may say what about stoning people in the old testament. well the New Testament replaces the old! Yes the moral laws still stand such as the ten commandments. The other part of the law which is the ceremonial is all negated! The New testament which is all about love supercedes the Old! It is also interesting to note that Allah is Molech the moon God! Not a lot of people realize this. if you dont believe me look it up! Personally I believe that is a foreshadowing of the final battle between good and evil in the battle of Armageddon. Satan is a deceiver. In Islam you have a religion founded by a God that the real God already slaughtered people over. These same people implement sharia law which on the surface seems like its righteous. In fact all it does is prescribe brutality and death. Once again Satan is a deceiver. He gets them to kill people and calls it Gods law. When in fact all it is doing is sending them straight to him which is his plan anyway! Islam will one day most likely become dominant throughout the world and the caliph or antichrist will be put into power. then the end will come! Be aware!

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 18th, 2015, 7:23 pm

You have to understand that in Islam Apostates are sentenced to death! When you see video of other Muslims protesting the Islamic state you need to ask yourself what kind of Muslims are these? ISIS routinely kills Shiite Muslims because they are not Sunni and therefore are considered as apostates from the true faith! Do your research! This is why there is the myth that they are not true Muslims. Actually they are the ones who follow Islam to a T!

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 18th, 2015, 7:25 pm

The Islamic State and Islam

by Raymond Ibrahim on October 17, 2014 in Islam
Print Friendly

PJ Media




Danish

What relationship does the Islamic State have to Islam?



“Absolutely nothing” is the answer almost every Western politician gives. For example, U.S. President Obama adamantly stated in a televised speech that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.”

This begs the question: How does one determine what is—and is not—Islamic?

The traditional answer, the Islamic answer, has been as follows:

What do the core texts and scriptures of Islam say about the thing in question, call it “X”? Does the Koran, believed by Muslims to contain the literal commands of Allah, call for or justify X? Do the hadith and sira texts—which purport to record the sayings and deeds of Allah’s prophet, whom the Koran (e.g., 33:21) exhorts Muslims to emulate in all ways—call for or justify X?

If any ambiguity still remains concerning X, the next question becomes: what is the consensus (ijma‘) of the Islamic world’s leading authorities concerning X? Here one must often turn to the tafsirs, or exegeses of Islam’s most learned men—the ulema—and consider their conclusions. Muhammad himself reportedly said that “My umma [Islamic nation] will never be in agreement over an error.”

For example, the Koran commands believers to uphold prayers; accordingly, all are agreed that Muslims need to pray. Yet the Koran does not specify how many times. In the hadith and sira, however, Muhammad makes clear believers should pray five times. And the ulema, having considered all these texts, are agreed that Muslims are to pray five times a day.

Thus, it is most certainly Islamic for Muslims to pray five times a day.

But while both Western politicians and Islamic apologists readily accept such methodology to determining what is Islamic—prayer is in the Koran, Muhammad clarified its implementation in the hadith, and the ulema are agreed to it—whenever the thing in question deals with anything that makes Islam “look bad,” then the aforementioned standard approach to ascertaining what is Islamic is wholly ignored.

Let us consider some of the most extreme acts committed by the Islamic State—beheadings, crucifixions, enslavements, sexual predations, massacres, and the persecution of religious minorities—and put them to the test, see if they fill the same criteria, see if they are Islamic or not, especially in the context of jihad, which has its own set of rules.

Beheadings

The Islamic State beheads “infidels,” including women and children. This aspect of the Islamic State has provoked horror around the world.

Is it Islamic?

The Koran calls for the beheading of Islam’s enemies, especially in the context of war, or jihad: “When you encounter infidels on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely” (47:4). Another verse states: “I will cast terror into the hearts of infidels—so strike off their heads and strike off all of their fingertips [i.e., mutilate them]” (8:12).

As for the other criteria—the example or Sunna of the prophet and the consensus of the umma—Timothy Furnish, author of the 2005 essay, “Beheading in the Name of Islam,” writes:

The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. Ibn Ishaq (d. 768 C.E.), the earliest biographer of Muhammad, is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him. Islamic leaders from Muhammad’s time until today have followed his model. Examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead, in Islamic history are myriad…. For centuries, leading Islamic scholars have interpreted this verse [decapitation verse, 47:4] literally…. Many recent interpretations remain consistent with those of a millennium ago.

Crucifixions

As for crucifying people, which the Islamic State has been doing regularly, Koran 5:33 asserts that “the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.”

Accordingly, crucifixions are common throughout Islamic history. After Islam’s prophet died in 632, many Arabs were accused of apostasy. The first caliph, Abu Bakr, launched a jihad campaign on them, and many “apostates” were crucified as an example to the rest. In the book Witnesses For Christ: Orthodox Christian Neomartyrs of the Ottoman Period 1437-1860, crucifixion is listed as one of the many forms thousands of Christians were executed by the Muslim Turks.

More dramatically, in her memoir, Ravished Armenia, Aurora Mardiganian described how in the early twentieth century she saw 16 girls crucified, vultures eating their corpses: “Each girl had been nailed alive upon her cross, spikes through her feet and hands,” wrote the Armenian survivor. “Only their hair blown by the wind covered their bodies.”

More recently, people (including children) have been crucified by self-proclaimed jihadis in the name of Islam in countries as diverse as the Ivory Coast and Yemen.

Slavery and Rape

What of slavery—especially the enslavement of non-Muslim women for sexual purposes—which the Islamic State has been engaged in?

Again, from the highest scriptural authority in Islam—the Koran—to the greatest role model for Muslims—Muhammad; from Islamic history to current events, the sexual enslavement of “infidel” women is a canonical aspect of Islamic civilization.

Koran 4:3 permits men to have sex with “what your right hands possess,” a term categorically defined by the ulema as “infidel” women captured during the jihad.

The prophet of Islam himself kept and copulated with concubines conquered during the jihad. One captured Jewish woman, Safiya bint Huyay, was “married” to Muhammad right after the prophet had tortured her husband to death to reveal hidden treasure.

And before this, Muhammad’s jihadis had slaughtered Safiya’s father and brothers.

Unsurprisingly, she later confessed that “Of all men, I hated the prophet the most—for he killed my husband, my brother, and my father,” right before marrying (or, less euphemistically, raping) her.

Khalid bin Walid—the “Sword of Allah” and hero for aspiring jihadis around the world—raped another woman renowned for her beauty, Layla, on the battlefield—right after he severed her “apostate” husband’s head, lit it on fire, and cooked his dinner on it.

Massacres

What of wide-scale massacres? In this video, for example, the Islamic State appears herding, humiliating, and marching off hundreds of male hostages (the number often given is 1,400) to their trenches, where Islamic State members proceed to shoot them in the head—all while the black flag of Islam waves.

In fact, the prophet himself ordered merciless massacres of “infidels.” After the battle of Badr, where Muhammad and the first Muslims prevailed over their enemies, Muhammad ordered the execution of a number of hostages. When one of the hostages, ‘Uqba, implored the prophet to spare him, saying “But who will look after my children, O Muhammad?” the latter responded, “Hell.”

More famously, Muhammad ordered the execution of approximately 700 Jewish men from the Banu Qurayza tribe. According to the sira account, after the Jewish tribe surrendered to his siege, Muhammad had all the men marched off to where ditches were dug and promptly executed by beheading—just like the Islamic State marched off and executed its victims near trenches in the video.

Dhimmitude

The Islamic State is even responsible for resurrecting a distinctly Islamic institution that was banned in the 19th century thanks to the intervention of colonial powers: “dhimmitude,” that is, exacting tribute (jizya) from conquered Christians and Jews and subjecting them to live as third-class citizens who must embrace a host of debilitating and humiliating measures, including not to build or repair churches, not to ring church bells or worship loudly, not to display crosses, not to bury their dead near Muslims, etc.

These measures are also derived from the core texts of Islam. Koran 9:29 calls on Muslims to fight the “People of the Book” (interpreted as Christians and Jews) “until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” And the Conditions of Omar—named after one of the “righteous caliphs”—explains how they are to “feel themselves subdued,” that is, the exact way the Islamic State decreed.

Past and present ulema are confirmed that Koran 9:29 and the Conditions of Omar mean what they plainly say. Thus, according to Saudi Sheikh Marzouk Salem al-Ghamdi speaking during a Friday mosque sermon:

If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet—there is nothing wrong with it provided they pay Jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions [reference to Conditions of Omar] are … that they do not renovate a church or a monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed … that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit… do not show the cross, do not ring church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer …. If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.

—–

Based on the above exposition, it is false to say, as President Obama does, that the Islamic State “is not Islamic.” Indeed, even in the most savage of details—including triumphing over the mutilated corpses of “infidels” and laughing while posing with their decapitated heads—the Islamic State finds support in the Koran and stories of the prophet.

It is dishonest to accept the methodology of Islamic jurisprudence—is X part of the Koran, hadith, sira, and does it have consensus among the ulema?—but then to reject this same methodology whenever X is something that makes Islam look “bad.”

In the context of jihad, all that the Islamic State is doing—beheadings, crucifixions, massacres, sexual enslavements, and the subjugation of religious minorities—is Islamic.

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 18th, 2015, 8:54 pm

Islamic State: Qur’an says that fighting Infidels takes precedence over fighting Israel
JULY 8, 2014 9:57 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER

ISISfightersparade“The greatest answer to this question is in the Qur’an, where Allah speaks about the nearby enemy – those Muslims who have become infidels – as they are more dangerous than those which were already infidels.” When are the moderate Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. going to deign to explain to us how the Islamic State is misusing and misunderstanding the Qur’an? We all have to believe that on pain of charges of “Islamophobia,” so can’t we get them to explain how it is so even once?

“ISIS: Fighting ‘Infidels’ Takes Precedence Over Fighting Israel,” by Elad Benari, Arutz Sheva, July 8, 2014:

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), which is now known as the “Islamic State” after declaring an Islamic caliphate, says it won’t fight Israel – for the time being.

According to Israel’s Channel 2 News, an ISIS spokesman said Monday on Twitter, in response to questions about the organization’s intentions with regards to Israel, that ISIS first has to deal with “Muslims who have become infidels”.

“The greatest answer to this question is in the Qur’an, where Allah speaks about the nearby enemy – those Muslims who have become infidels – as they are more dangerous than those which were already infidels,” the spokesman tweeted, according to Channel 2 News.

“There is another answer that gives priority to fighting those who have become disbelievers over conquest of Jerusalem,” continued the spokesman.

“Jerusalem will not be freed until we get rid of the idolaters, such as the wealthy families and the players appointed by the colonial government and who control the fate of the Islamic world,” he was quoted as having said.

In Syria, ISIS fighters already control large swathes of territory in Deir Ezzor near the Iraq border, Raqa in the north, as well as parts of neighboring Aleppo province.

In Iraq, they have spearheaded a lightning offensive, capturing sizeable territories in the north and west of the conflict-torn country.

Former National Security Council director Yaakov Amidror warned last week against ISIS moving in on Jordan and posing a threat to Israel, adding that if Jordan requested Israeli assistance in preventing its border with Iraq from being overrun by ISIS, Israel would have little choice but to help.

A video released last week showed members of ISIS parading some of the advanced weaponry it has captured in its blitz conquest of Iraq to Syria, including long-range Scud missiles which could threaten Israel, as they have been fired at Israel in the past from Iraq during the Gulf war.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » July 19th, 2015, 5:14 am

silentwssj wrote:Yes, I am a Catholic Christian! You are probably going to say that I am biased against Islam because of this. Not at all. You will never see me criticize other faiths throughout the world like I do Islam. I don't Believe what those other faiths teach but I respect them because they are not out to kill everyone else.


Yes there are versions of all faiths who preach violence towards others. Have you ever researched Hindutva, militant Buddhism (yes it exists) or Haredim teachings? They have no room or respect whatsoever for any other religion.
As a matter of fact all of those persecute and oppress muslims, christians and other religions alike.

silentwssj wrote:You have to understand that in Islam Apostates are sentenced to death! When you see video of other Muslims protesting the Islamic state you need to ask yourself what kind of Muslims are these? ISIS routinely kills Shiite Muslims because they are not Sunni and therefore are considered as apostates from the true faith! Do your research! This is why there is the myth that they are not true Muslims. Actually they are the ones who follow Islam to a T!


According to Wahabis/Salafis, which the IS are, 95% of all Muslims in the world are infidels. 95% of all Muslims, not only Shiites, but also Sunnis.
And thats one reason why the vast majority of muslims reject the Islamic State. Most Muslims would also reject the notion that the IS is following the true version of Islam.They follow their own interpretation of it, thats it.
Muslim Scholars Release Open Letter To Islamic State Meticulously Blasting Its Ideology
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/2 ... 78038.html

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 19th, 2015, 7:44 am

SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 4:11 PM BY ROBERT SPENCER

ibrahim-hooper-mahdi-bray-nihad-awad-2009-12-10-10-10-18The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Fiqh Council of North America held a press conference in Washington today at which they declared that they had refuted the religious ideology of the Islamic State. They issued this lengthy “Open Letter” (not, interestingly enough, a fatwa) addressed to the Islamic State’s caliph Ibrahim, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, explaining how he was misunderstanding Islam. Is this an Islamic case against the Islamic State’s jihad terror that will move Islamic State fighters to lay down their arms? Or is it a deceptive piece designed to fool gullible non-Muslim Westerners into thinking that the case for “moderate Islam” has been made, but which will not change a single jihadi’s mind? Unfortunately, it is the latter.

To be sure, Hamas-linked CAIR and the Fiqh Council and all the signers of this Open Letter really do oppose the Islamic State. But they don’t oppose it because it is transgressing against the commands of what they believe to be a Religion of Peace. They oppose it because they want to establish a caliphate under the auspices of or led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Islamic State constitutes competition. This is clear from their sly endorsements in this document of jihad, the Sharia, and the concept of the caliphate.

It begins with an “Executive Summary” which is then filled out in greater detail. I will intersperse commentary below, first in general terms on the Executive Summary, and then taking up the arguments on each point in detail.

Executive Summary
1- It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry- pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.

This is a null argument designed to appeal to non-Muslims who don’t know what is in the Qur’an. For unless one quotes the entire Qur’an and Hadith, this argument can be leveled against anyone: anyone can be accused of leaving out important points and ignoring contradictory material. Whether or not one has actually done so, however, is another matter.

2- It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.

Red herring. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the caliph of the Islamic State, is a native Arabic speaker with a Ph.D in Islamic Studies.

3- It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.

Again, this is an empty charge, as it can be leveled against anyone.

4- It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.

No doubt the caliph would agree with Hamas-linked CAIR and the Fiqh Council on this. He might differ with them on what exactly constitutes “fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.”

5- It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.

This one is quite telling. It suggests that there is a certain accommodation Muslim believers must make to the times and to circumstance, without changing core principles — i.e., the problem with the Islamic State is not its beliefs, but their application, and the time may be right for the application of those beliefs at some other time, but not now.

6- It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.

Indeed, but who is innocent? The Islamic State jihadis don’t believe they are killing the innocent.

7- It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

None of these are blanket prohibitions; infidels considered to be at war with Islam can be killed and, according to Islamic law, must be killed.

8- Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.

Disingenuous. Islamic law holds that the caliph alone has the authority to wage offensive jihad. The Islamic State considers itself to be the caliphate, and thus considers its caliph to have that privilege and responsibility.

9- It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.

What constitutes an open declaration of disbelief? The Sudanese government executed Mahmoud Mohammed Taha for heresy after he said that the Qur’an’s Meccan suras, which are more peaceful, should supersede the Medinan suras, which are more violent. He wasn’t expressing disbelief in Islam, but was nonetheless executed as someone who had departed from the faith of Islam.

10- It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.

The Qur’an says to fight against and subjugate them (9:29). Once they submit, they should not be harmed or mistreated. But if they are considered to be in rebellion or war against the Muslims, they must be fought.

11- It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.

Here again, in a hadith, Muhammad instructs Muslims to invite the unbelievers to Islam, and subjugate them or go to war with them if they refuse. If the Yazidis refused the invitation to convert, they could lawfully be fought.

12- The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.

This is flatly false. Slavery is still widely practiced in North Africa, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere because it is sanctioned in Islam.

13- It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

True, but the laws of dhimmitude are designed essentially to make life miserable for non-Muslims until they opt to convert as their only means to a better existence. Thus the boundaries of what constitutes coercion are somewhat blurred.

14- It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

Indeed. But what are those rights?

15- It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.

Indeed. But what are those rights?

16- It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

This one is noteworthy, for by it Hamas-linked CAIR and the Fiqh Council and all these scholars affirm that hudud punishments — stoning for adultery, amputation for theft, death for leaving Islam, etc. — can be enacted as long as one is following the correct procedures.

17- It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

At Khaybar, Muhammad ordered that a fire be lit upon Kinana’s chest until he told the Muslims where the Jews’ treasury was hidden. So what constitutes “torture” is, like so many things in Islam, subject to interpretation.

18- It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

“When the prophet ordered that the corpses of the polytheists be dropped in to a well… He stood over the bodies of twenty-four leaders of Quraish, who had been thrown into one of the wells and started call them by name and by the names of their fathers…” (Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, The Battle of Badr, p. 271)

19- It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.

Once again, a subjective and empty argument — no doubt the Islamic State would deny doing this.

20- It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

“Ali ibn Abi Talib said to me: “Shall I not send you on the same mission as the Messenger of Allah sent me? Do not leave any statue without erasing it, and do not leave any raised grave without leveling it.” (Muslim 969).

21- Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.

The Islamic State has stated that the rulers against whom they are fighting have expressed clear disbelief.

22- It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

This is pure fiction. None of the historic caliphates were established by consensus from all Muslims. Even the first three “Rightly Guided” caliphs were chosen over bitter opposition from the party of Ali, the shiat Ali, which ultimately became the Shi’ites. Also, note that Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars take for granted that the concept of a caliphate is legitimate; they just don’t like this particular one.

23- Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

This one is rich in light of Hamas-linked CAIR’s opposition to all counter-terror measures. And you never hear them affirming this when it comes to “Palestinians” living in Israel.

24- After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

Not required. I.e., permissible.

And now to the fuller document:

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds,
Peace and Blessings be upon the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers
By the declining day, Lo! man is a state of loss, Save those who believe and do good works, and exhort one another to truth and exhort one another to endurance. (Al-‘Asr, 103: 1-3)

Open Letter

To Dr. Ibrahim Awwad Al-Badri, alias ‘Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi’, To the fighters and followers of the self-declared ‘Islamic State’, Peace and the mercy of God be upon you.

During your sermon dated 6th of Ramadan 1435 AH (4th July 2014 CE), you said, paraphrasing Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq: ‘If you find what I say and do to be true, then assist me, and if you find what I say and do to be false, then advise me and set me straight.’ In what follows is a scholarly opinion via the media. The Prophet said: ‘Religion is [rectifying] advice [1].’ Everything said here below relies completely upon the statements and actions of followers of the ‘Islamic State’ as they themselves have promulgated in social media—or upon Muslim eyewitness accounts—and not upon other media. Every effort has been made to avoid fabrications and misunderstandings. Moreover, everything said here consists of synopses written in a simple style that reflect the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Sunni scholars over the course of Islamic history.

In one of his speeches [2], Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani said: ‘God bless Prophet Muhammad who was sent with the sword as a mercy to all worlds.’[3] This statement comprises compounded confusions and a mistaken paradigm. Yet it is often repeated by followers of the ‘Islamic State’. Now God sent the Prophet Muhammad as a mercy to all worlds: ‘We did not send you, except as a mercy to all the worlds.’ (Al-Anbiya’, 22: 107). This is true for all time and place. The Prophet was sent as mercy to people, animals, plants, to the heavens and to subtle beings—no Muslims disagree about this. It is a general and unconditional statement taken from the Qur’an itself. However, the phrase, ‘sent with the sword’ is part of a Hadith that is specific to a certain time and place which have since expired. Thus it is forbidden to mix the Qur’an and Hadith in this way, as it is forbidden to mix the general and specific, and the conditional and unconditional.
Moreover, God has prescribed mercy upon Himself: ‘… Your Lord has prescribed for Himself mercy …’ (Al-An’am, 6:54). God also states that His mercy encompasses all things: ‘… My mercy embraces all things …’ (Al-A’raf, 7:156). In an authentic Hadith, the Prophet said: ‘When God created Creation, He wrote in place above His throne, with Himself “Truly, My mercy is greater than My wrath [4].”’ Accordingly, it is forbidden to equate ‘the sword’—and thus wrath and severity—with ‘mercy’. Furthermore, it is forbidden to make the idea ‘mercy to all worlds’ subordinate to the phrase ‘sent with the sword’, because this would mean that mercy is dependent upon the sword, which is simply not true. Besides, how could ‘a sword’ affect realms where swords have no effect, such as the heavens, subtle beings and plants? The Prophet Muhammad’s being a mercy to all the worlds cannot possibly be conditional upon his having taken up the sword (at one point in time, for a particular reason and in a particular context). This point is not merely academic. Rather, it reveals the essence of much of what is to follow since it erroneously equates the sword and Divine mercy.

Muhammad is represented as having said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords” (Bukhari 4.52.73). This is in Bukhari, the hadith collection considered most reliable by Muslim scholars. Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars say that “the phrase, ‘sent with the sword’ is part of a Hadith that is specific to a certain time and place which have since expired” and ask, “How could ‘a sword’ affect realms where swords have no effect, such as the heavens”? So was Paradise once under the shades of swords but is no longer? Or are the authors ignoring this inconvenient hadith because it doesn’t fit their argument? The problem with that is that the Islamic State jihadis read Bukhari.

1. Legal theory (usul al-fiqh) and Qur’anic exegesis: With regards to Qur’anic exegesis, and the understanding of Hadith, and issue in legal theory in general, the methodology set forth by God in the Qur’an and the Prophet in the Hadith is as follows: to consider everything that has been revealed relating to a particular question in its entirety, without depending on only parts of it, and then to judge—if one is qualified—based on all available scriptural sources. God says: ‘… What, do you believe in part of the Book, and disbelieve in part? …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2:85); ‘… they pervert words from their contexts; and they have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded of…’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5:13); ‘… those who have reduced the Recitation, to parts’ (Al-Hijr, 15:91). Once all relevant scriptural passages have been gathered, the ‘general’ has to be distinguished from the ‘specific’, and the ‘conditional’ from the ‘unconditional’. Also, the ‘unequivocal’ passages have to be distinguished from the allegorical ones. Moreover, the reasons and circumstances for revelation (asbab al-nuzul) for all the passages and verses, in addition to all the other hermeneutical conditions that the classical imams have specified, must be understood. Therefore, it is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the Qur’an and Hadith relate about that point. The reason behind this is that everything in the Qur’an is the Truth, and everything in authentic Hadith is Divinely inspired, so it is not permissible to ignore any part of it. Indeed it is imperative to reconcile all texts, as much as possible, or that there be a clear reason why one text should outweigh another. This is what Imam Shafi’i explains in his Al-Risalah, with a universal consensus among all usul scholars. Imam al-Haramayn, Al-Juwayni, says in Al- Burhan fi Usul Al-Fiqh: Regarding the qualities of a mufti and the disciplines that he must master: … it is imperative that the mufti must be a scholar of language, for the Shari’ah is [in] Arabic. … it is imperative that he be a scholar of syntax and parsing … it is imperative that he be a scholar of the Qur’an, for the Qur’an is the basis of all rulings … Knowledge of textual abrogation is indispensable; and the science of the fundamentals of jurisprudence (usul) is the cornerstone of the whole subject … He should also know the various degrees of proofs and arguments … as well as their histories. [He should also know] the science of Hadith so that he can distinguish the authentic from the weak; and the acceptable from the apocryphal … [He should also know] jurisprudence…. Moreover, having ‘legal intuition’ (fiqh al-nafs) is needed: it is the capital of anyone who derives legal rulings … scholars have summarized all this by saying that a mufti is ‘someone who independently knows all the texts and arguments for legal rulings’. ‘Texts’ refers to mastering language, Qura’nic exegesis and Hadith; while ‘arguments’ indicates mastering legal theory, analogical reasoning of the various kinds, as well as ‘legal intuition’ (fiqh al-nafs). Al-Ghazali has said similar things in Al-Mustasfa (Vol. 1, p.342), as did Al-Suyuti in Al- Itqan fi Ulum Al-Qur’an (Vol. 4, p.213).

A null argument unless they make the case that the Islamic State is really disbelieving in part of the book or ignoring inconvenient data. They don’t make this case.

2. Language: As mentioned above, one of the most important pillars of legal theory is the mastery of the Arabic Language. This means mastering Arabic grammar, syntax, morphology, rhetoric, poetry, etymology and Qur’anic exegesis. Without mastery of these disciplines, error will be likely, indeed inevitable. Your declaration of what you have termed ‘the Caliphate’ was under the title ‘This is God’s Promise’. The person who phrased this declaration intended to allude to the verse: ‘God has promised those of you who believe and perform righteous deeds that He will surely make them successors in the earth, just as He made those who were before them successors, and He will surely establish for them their religion which He has approved for them, and that He will give them in exchange after their fear security. “They worship Me, without associating anything with Me”. And whoever is ungrateful after that, those, they are the immoral.’ (Al-Nur, 24: 55). But it is not permissible to invoke a specific verse from the Qur’an as applying to an event that has occurred 1400 years after the verse was revealed. How can Abu Muhammad Al-Adnani say that ‘God’s promise’ is this so-called Caliphate? Even if it were supposed that his claim is correct, he should have said: ‘this is of God’s promise’. Moreover, there is another linguistic error; wherein he has appropriated the word ‘istikhlaf’ (succession) to refer to the so-called caliphate. Proof that this is not the correct usage of the word can be seen in the following verse: ‘He said, “Perhaps your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you successors (yastakhlifakum) in the land, that He may observe how you shall act”.’ (Al-A’raf, 7:129). Succession (istikhlaf) means that they have settled on the land in place of another people. It does not mean that they are the rulers of a particular political system. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, there is no tautology in the Qur’an [5]. There is a difference between ‘khilafah’ and ‘istikhlaf’. Al-Tabari says in his exegesis (tafsir) of the Qur’an: ‘make you successors (yastakhlifakum): Meaning He will make you succeed them in their land after their destruction; do not fear them or any other people. [6]’ This proves that the meaning of ‘istikhlaf’ here is not rulership but, rather, dwelling on their land.

“It is not permissible to invoke a specific verse from the Qur’an as applying to an event that has occurred 1400 years after the verse was revealed.” Doesn’t the Qur’an apply to all times, according to standard Islamic belief? And Islamic apologists see contemporary events in it all the time — scientific discoveries, the Moon landing, etc., and Hamas-linked CAIR never denounces them. And the whole argument about “istikhlaf” is ridiculous, for “khalifah” means “successor.” They bring up Qur’an 7:129, which uses a related word in a different context, as if it refuted the idea of the caliph as the successor of Muhammad. Yet this, too, is standard Islamic belief.

3. Oversimplification: It is not permissible to constantly speak of ‘simplifying matters’, or to cherry-pick an extract from the Qur’an without understanding it within its full context. It is also not permissible to say: ‘Islam is simple, and the Prophet and his noble Companions were simple, why complicate Islam?’ This is precisely what Abu Al-Baraa’ Al-Hindi did in his online video in July 2014. In it he says: ‘Open the Qur’an and read the verses on jihad and everything will become clear … all the scholars tell me: “This is a legal obligation (fard), or that isn’t a legal obligation, and this is not the time for jihad” … forget everyone and read the Qur’an and you will know what jihad is.”’ People need to understand that the Prophet and his noble Companions made do with as little material means as possible, without complicated technology, but they were greater than all of us in understanding, jurisprudence and intellect, and yet only a small number of Companions were qualified to issue fatwas. God says in the Qur’an: ‘… Say: “Are those who know equal with those who do not know?”…’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 9). God also says: ‘… Ask the People of the Remembrance if you do not know.’ (Al-Anbiya’, 21: 7); and: ‘… If they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority among them; those among them who are able to think it out, would have known it from them …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 83). Thus, jurisprudence is no simple matter, and not just anyone can speak authoritatively on it or issue fatwas (religious edicts). God says in the Qur’an: ‘… But only people of cores remember.’ (Al-Ra’d, 13:19). And the Prophet Muhammad said: ‘Whoever speaks about the Qur’an without knowledge should await his seat in the Fire [7].’ It is also high time to stop blithely saying that ‘they are men, and we are men’; those who say this do not have the same understanding and discernment as the noble Companions and the imams of the Pious Forebears (al-Salaf al-Saleh) to whom they are referring.

This is another subjective argument: the Qur’an says that it is a “clear book” (5:15), and that there are parts of it that are clear and parts that are not clear (3:7). The Islamic State spokesmen are asserting that the jihad passages are clear. Telling them that jurisprudence isn’t simple doesn’t exactly refute that.

4. Difference of Opinion: In regards to difference of opinion, there are two kinds: blameworthy and praiseworthy. Regarding blameworthy difference of opinion, God says in the Qur’an: ‘And those who were given the Scripture did not become divided, except after the clear proof had come to them.’ (Al-Bayyinah, 98: 4). As for praiseworthy difference of opinion, God says: ‘… then God guided those who believed to the truth, regarding which they were at variance, by His leave…’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 213). This is the opinion expressed by Al-Imam Al-Shafi’i in Al-Risalah, the other three imams and all the scholars for over a thousand years. When there is a difference of opinion among eminent scholars, the more merciful, i.e. the best, opinion should be chosen. Severity should be avoided, as should the idea that severity is the measure of piety. God says: ‘And follow the best of what has been revealed to you from your Lord …’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 55); and: ‘Indulge [people] with forgiveness, and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant.’ (Al-A’raf, 7: 199). God also says: ‘[Those] who listen to the words [of God] and follow the best [sense] of it. Those, they are the ones whom God has guided; and those, they are the people of pith.’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 18). In an authentic Hadith, it is related that the Lady Aisha said: ‘Whenever faced by more than once choice, the Prophet always chose the easiest one [8].’

The more severe opinion should not be considered more pious, religious or sincere to God. Indeed, in severity there is exaggeration and extremism; God says in the Qur’an: ‘… God desires ease for you, and desires not hardship for you …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 185). Moreover, the Prophet said: ‘Do not be severe with yourselves lest God be severe towards you. A people were severe with themselves and then God was severe towards them [9].’ There is delusion and vanity in severity, because severe people naturally say to themselves: ‘I am severe. Anyone less severe than me is deficient’; and thus: ‘I am superior to them.’ Herein lies an inherent attribution of ill-intention to God, as if God revealed the Qur’an to make people miserable. God says: ‘Tā hā. We have not revealed the Qur’an to you that you should be miserable’. (Ta Ha, 20: 1-2).

It is worth noting that most of the people who became Muslims throughout history, did so through gentle invitation (the’wah hasanah). God says: ‘Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and dispute with them by way of that which is best. Truly your Lord knows best those who stray from His way and He knows best those who are guided.’ (Al-Nahl, 16: 125). The Prophet said: ‘Be gentle, and beware of violence and foul language [10].’ And while Islam spread politically from Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these lands remained Christian for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion. Indeed large countries and entire provinces became Muslim without conquest but through invitation (the’wah), such as: Indonesia; Malaysia; West and East Africa, and others. Hence, severity is neither a measure of piety nor a choice for the spread of Islam.

This again is a subjective argument: who judges what is gentle and what is severe? The Islamic State is applying Islamic law, which they consider to be justice; how could that be too severe? And as for this: “And while Islam spread politically from Central Asia (Khurasan) to North Africa due to Islamic conquests, the majority of the inhabitants of these lands remained Christian for hundreds of years until some of them gradually accepted Islam through gentle invitation, and not through severity and coercion,” it is false. These people were subjected to the deprivations and humiliations of dhimmitude; they converted to Islam to be able to be free of all that and live a decent life.

5. Practical Jurisprudence (fiqh al-waq’i): What is meant by ‘practical jurisprudence’ is the process of applying Shari’ah rulings and dealing with them according to the realities and circumstances that people are living under. This is achieved by having an insight into the realities under which people are living and identifying their problems, struggles, capabilities and what they are subjected to. Practical jurisprudence (fiqh al-waq’i) considers the texts that are applicable to peoples realities at a particular time, and the obligations that can be postponed until they are able to be met or delayed based on their capabilities. Imam Ghazali said: ‘As for practicalities that dictate necessities, it is not far-fetched that independent reasoning (ijtihad) may lead to them [practicalities], even if there is no specific origin for them [11].’ Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah said: ‘Indeed, [a jurist] must understand people’s propensity for plotting, deception and fraud, in addition to their customs and traditions. Religious edicts (fatwas) change with the change of time, place, customs and circumstances, and all of this is from the religion of God, as already elucidated. [12]’

Again, the Islamic State clearly doesn’t consider itself to be misapplying Islamic law or straining people beyond their capabilities. This point isn’t going to make any of its adherents think twice.

6. The Killing of Innocents: God says in the Qur’an: ‘And do not slay the soul [whose life] God has made inviolable, except with due cause …’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 33); and ‘Say: “Come, I will recite that which your Lord has made a sacred duty for you: that you associate nothing with Him, that you be dutiful to parents, and that you do not slay your children, because of poverty – We will provide for you and them – and that you do not draw near any acts of lewdness, whether it be manifest or concealed, and that you do not slay the life which God has made sacred, except rightfully. This is what He has charged you with that perhaps you will understand.”’ (Al-An’am, 6: 151). The slaying of a soul—any soul—is haraam (forbidden and inviolable under Islamic Law), it is also one of the most abominable sins (mubiqat). God says in the Qur’an: ‘Because of that, We decreed for the Children of Israel that whoever slays a soul for other than a soul, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers have already come to them with clear proofs, but after that many of them still commit excesses in the land.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32). You have killed many innocents who were neither combatants nor armed, just because they disagree with your opinions [13].

Outstandingly disingenuous. Qur’an 5:32 is followed by 5:33: “Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,” The Islamic State is killing those whom it considers to be striving on earth to cause corruption. Telling them that they’re killing innocents, without explaining why its victims are innocent, will not convince them.

7. Killing Emissaries: It is known that all religions forbid the killing of emissaries. What is meant by emissaries here are people who are sent from one group of people to another to perform a noble task such as reconciliation or the delivery of a message. Emissaries have a special inviolability. Ibn Masoud said: ‘The Sunnah continues that emissaries are never killed [14].’ Journalists—if they are honest and of course are not spies—are emissaries of truth, because their job is to expose the truth to people in general. You have mercilessly killed the journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff, even after Sotloff’s mother pleaded with you and begged for mercy. Aid workers are also emissaries of mercy and kindness, yet you killed the aid worker David Haines. What you have done is unquestionably forbidden (haraam).

The problem with the verse I quoted regarding the previous point, Qur’an 5:33, is that “striving to cause corruption on the earth” is an extremely vague and elastic charge. It can give an Islamic justification for killing virtually anyone — including emissaries and journalists.

8. Jihad: All Muslims see the great virtue in jihad. God says: ‘O you who believe, what is wrong with you that, when it is said to you, “Go forth in the way of God’, you sink down heavily to the ground”’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 38); and: ‘And fight in the way of God with those who fight against you, but aggress not; God loves not the aggressors.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 190); and many other verses.

These passages refer only to defensive jihad. There is also offensive jihad, which is the prerogative of the caliph to initiate: “The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: 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 and His messenger have forbidden-who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book-until they pay the poll tax out of hand and are humbled’ (Koran 9.29)” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8). The Islamic State considers itself to be a caliphate, and thus exercises that prerogative.

Imam Shafi’i, the other three imams, and indeed all the scholars see that jihad is a communal obligation (fard kifayah) and not an individual obligation (fard ayn) because God says: ‘yet to each God has promised the goodly reward, and God has preferred those who struggle over the ones who sit at home with a great reward’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 95).

The inclusion of this sentence seems to be to suggest that the Islamic State is wrong in exhorting everyone to wage jihad. But in Islamic law, while only the caliph can declare offensive jihad, all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that when a non-Muslim force enters a Muslim land, defensive jihad becomes the individual obligation of every Muslim (fard ayn) rather than a collective obligation of the entire umma, and need not be declared by anyone. As the Islamic State is being warred against by the U.S., it considers both offensive and defensive jihad to be in order. Bulghah al-Salik li-Aqrab al-Masalik fi madhhab al-Imam Malik (“The Sufficiency of the Traveller on the Best Path in the School of Imam Malik,”) says this: “Jihad in the Path of Allah, to raise the word of Allah, is fard kifayah [obligatory on the community] once a year, so that if some perform it, the obligation falls from the rest. It becomes fard `ayn [obligatory on every Muslim individually], like salah and fasting, if the legitimate Muslim Imam declares it so, or if there is an attack by the enemy on an area of people.” The Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i schools of Sunni jurisprudence further declare that jihad, once it is fard ‘ayn, is no different from prayer and fasting — in other words, to engage in warfare with non-Muslims in that case is a religious devotion that cannot lawfully be evaded. Hashiyah Ibn `Abidin, an authoritative text of the Hanafi school, says that jihad is “fard ‘ayn if the enemy has attacked part of the Islamic homeland. It thus becomes an obligation like salah [prayer] and fasting which cannot be abandoned.”

The word ‘jihad’ is an Islamic term that cannot be applied to armed conflict against any other Muslim; this much is a firmly established principle.

Indeed, Muslims are forbidden in the Qur’an (4:92) to kill other Muslims. But if they’re apostates or heretics, then they must be killed: “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (4:89)

Furthermore, all scholars agree that jihad is conditional upon the consent of one’s parents. The proof for this is that a man came to the Prophet asking him to permit him to perform jihad, upon which the Prophet asked him: ‘Are your parents alive?’ to which he replied: ‘Yes.’ And the Prophet told him: ‘Then perform jihad (struggle) through [serving] them. [15]’

But if defensive jihad becomes obligatory on every Muslim if an Islamic land is attacked, then parental consent is not needed: “If jihaad becomes fard ‘ayn, then it is not obligatory to seek permission, because in the case of things which are fard ‘ayn, there is no need to seek the permission of anyone.” (Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid)

Moreover, there are two kinds of jihad in Islam: the greater jihad, which is the jihad (struggle) against one’s ego; and the lesser jihad, the jihad (struggle) against the enemy. In regards to the greater jihad, the Prophet said: ‘We have returned from the greater jihad to the lesser jihad [16].’ If you say that this Hadith is weak or apocryphal,

It doesn’t appear in any of the Sahih Sittah, the six hadith collections that Islamic scholars consider to be most reliable.

the answer is that evidence for this concept is in the Qur’an itself: ‘So do not obey the disbelievers, but struggle against them therewith with a great endeavour [lit. a great jihad].’ (Al-Furqan, 25:52). ‘Therewith’ in this verse refers to the Qur’an, which is ‘a healing for what is in the breasts’ (Yunus, 10: 57). This is clearly understood from the Hadith in which the Prophet said: “‘Shall I tell you about the best of all deeds, the best act of piety in the eyes of your Lord which will elevate your status in the Hereafter and is better for you than spending gold and paper and better than going up in arms against your enemy and striking their necks and their striking your necks?’ They said: “Yes.” The Prophet said: “Remembrance of God. [17]”’ Thus, the greater jihad is the jihad against the ego and its weapon is remembrance of God and purification of the soul. Furthermore, God has clarified the relationship between the two kinds of jihad in another verse: ‘O you who believe, when you meet a host, then stand firm and remember God much, that you may succeed.’ (Al-Anfal, 8: 45). Thus, standing firm is the lesser jihad and is dependent on the greater jihad which is the jihad against the ego through the remembrance of God and purification of the soul.

Even granting all this, the greater jihad does not preclude or cancel the lesser jihad.

In any case, jihad is a means to peace, safety and security, and not an end in itself. This is clear from God’s words: ‘Fight them till there is no sedition, and the religion is for God; then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). In your speech of July 4th, 2014, you said: ‘There is no life without jihad’. Perhaps this was based on Al-Qurtubi’s exegesis of the verse: ‘O you who believe, respond to God and the Messenger, when He calls you to that which will give you life …’ (Al-Anfal, 8: 24). True jihad enlivens the heart. However, there can be life without jihad, because Muslims may face circumstances where combat is not called for, or where jihad is not required, and Islamic history is replete with examples of this.

This is quibbling over minutiae. Clearly the Islamic State is waging jihad in order to establish an Islamic state, within which jihad will no longer be waged. Jihad will continue, however, outside its borders. Note also Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars affirming that “jihad enlivens the heart.”

In truth, it is clear that you and your fighters are fearless and are ready to sacrifice in your intent for jihad. No truthful person following events—friend or foe—can deny this. However, jihad without legitimate cause, legitimate goals, legitimate purpose, legitimate methodology and legitimate intention is not jihad at all, but rather, warmongering and criminality.

a. The Intention Behind Jihad: God says: ‘and that man shall have only what he [himself] strives for’ (Al-Najm, 53: 39). Prophetic Tradition relates that on the authority of Abu Musa Al- Ash’ari, a man came to the Prophet and said: ‘A man may fight out of zeal, out of bravery or out of pride. Which of these is in the path of God?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Whoever fights for the Word of God to be supreme is in the path of God [18].’ The Prophet also said: ‘The first to be judged on the Day of Resurrection is the man who died as a martyr. He will be brought forth and [God] will make His favours known to him, which he will recognize. He will be asked: “What did you do with them?” to which the man will reply: “I fought for your sake until I was killed.” He [i.e. God] will say: “You have lied. You fought so that it would be said that you are bold, and so it was said.” He will then be ordered to be dragged on his face and flung into the Fire …[19]’.

Another null argument, as the Islamic State clearly considers itself to be fighting for “the Word of God to be supreme.”

b. The Reason behind Jihad: The reason behind jihad for Muslims is to fight those who fight them, not to fight anyone who does not fight them, nor to transgress against anyone who has not transgressed against them. God’s words in permitting jihad are: ‘Permission is granted to those who fight because they have been wronged. And God is truly able to help them; those who were expelled from their homes without right, only because they said: “Our Lord is God”. Were it not for God’s causing some people to drive back others, destruction would have befallen the monasteries, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which God’s Name is mentioned greatly. Assuredly God will help those who help Him. God is truly Strong, Mighty.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 39-40). Thus, jihad is tied to safety, freedom of religion, having been wronged, and eviction from one’s land. These two verses were revealed after the Prophet and his companions suffered torture, murder, and persecution for thirteen years at the hands of the idolaters. Hence, there is no such thing as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imams Malik and Ahmad and all other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school [20].

“Hence, there is no such thing as offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions. This is the position of Abu Hanifa, the Imams Malik and Ahmad and all other scholars including Ibn Taymiyyah, with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school.” The key phrase here is “with the exception of some scholars of the Shafi’i school.” If some Shafi’i scholars allow for “offensive, aggressive jihad just because people have different religions or opinions,” can it really be said to be un-Islamic? The Shafi’i school is one of the four great schools of Sunni jurisprudence. Is Hamas-linked CAIR pronouncing takfir on the Shafi’i school? Or just deceiving gullible non-Muslims? The answer is clear.

c. The Goal of Jihad: Scholars are in agreement regarding the goal of jihad, because God says: ‘Fight them till there is no sedition, and the religion is for God; then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). The Prophet further said: ‘I have been ordered to fight people until they say: “There is no god but God”, so whoever says: “There is no god but God” is safe in himself and his wealth except as permitted by law, and his reckoning is with God [21].’ This is the goal of jihad once war has been waged on Muslims.

Extraordinary that they would quote that, as it is a call for endless warfare against all who do not profess Islam, and a license for them to be plundered.

These texts specify what victory looks like in the case that Muslims are victorious, and that the reason for jihad must not be confused with the goal of jihad; all scholars are in agreement on this matter. The Hadith above refers to an event that has already taken place and is conditional upon God’s words: ‘It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all religion. And God suffices as witness.’ (Al-Fath, 48: 28). It took place in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet, for God says: ‘… and that you may warn the Mother of Towns [Um al-Qura] and those around it …’ (Al-An’am, 6: 92); and: ‘O you who believe, fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 123). The Prophet also said: ‘Evict the idolaters from the Arabian Peninsula.[22]’ How could this not have come to pass when God promises the Prophet: ‘It is He Who has sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it prevail over all [other] religions, though the disbelievers be averse.’ (Al-Saff, 61: 9). What is meant here must be the Arabian Peninsula since this is what happened during the life of the Prophet.

Yet Muhammad is the supreme example of behavior for Muslims (cf. Qur’an 33:21). Here the authors make the case that these verses apply to the expulsion of the non-Muslims from Arabia, which they clearly endorse, but do not make the case that they apply only to the expulsion of non-Muslims from Arabia. The Qur’an is supposed to apply to all times and places, and Islamic scholars going back to Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad’s first biographer, and including Ibn Qayyam, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Taymiyya and many others, have that the Qur’anic verses mandating warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers are not just valid for the 7th century, but for all time. The Islamic State jihadis know this.

In any case, if the commanders of jihad see that it is in the best interest of Muslims, it is permissible for them to cease combat, even if this goal has not been achieved, because God says: ‘… then if they desist, there shall be no enmity, save against evildoers.’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 193). The circumstances and events of Sulh al-Hudaybiyah are proof of this.

“Permissible.” I.e., not required.

d. The Rules of Conduct of Jihad: The rules of conduct of jihad are summarized in the words of the Prophet Muhammad: ‘Wage war but do not be severe, do not be treacherous, do not mutilate or kill children …[23].’

Mutilate: “‘Abdullah bin Masood found him on the verge of death breathing his las… Ibn Masood then cut off his head and took it to Allah’s Messenger who, on seeing it, began to entertain Allah’s praise: Allahu Akbar.’ (Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, 267)

Kill children: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321)

“Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4390) Pubescent boys were thus killed, whether they had been combatants or not.

The Prophet also said on the day of the Conquest of Mecca: ‘Those retreating are not to be killed, nor are the injured to be harmed, and whoever shuts his door is safe [24].’ Similarly, when Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq prepared an army and sent it to the Levant, he said: ‘You will find people who have devoted themselves to monasteries, leave them to their devotions. You will also find others whose heads are seats for devils (i.e. armed deacons [25]), so strike their necks. However, do not kill the old and decrepit, women or children; do not destroy buildings; do not cut down trees or harm livestock without good cause; do not burn or drown palms; do not be treacherous; do not mutilate; do not be cowardly; and do not loot. And truly God will support those who support Him and His Messengers while not seeing Him. Truly, God is Strong, Mighty [26].’

Again: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Muslim 4321)

As for killing prisoners, it is forbidden in Islamic Law. Yet you have killed many prisoners including the 1700 captives at Camp Speicher in Tikrit in June, 2014; the 200 captives at the Sha’er gas field in July, 2014; the 700 captives of the Sha’etat tribe in Deir el-Zor (600 of whom were unarmed civilians); the 250 captives at the Tabqah air base in Al-Raqqah in August, 2014; Kurdish and Lebanese soldiers, and many untold others whom God knows. These are heinous war crimes.

“When an adult male is taken captive, the caliph considers the interests … (of Islam and the Muslims) and decides between the prisoner’s death, slavery, release without paying anything, or ransoming himself in exchange for money or for a Muslim captive held by the enemy.” (‘Umdat al-Salik o9.14)

“As for the captives, the amir has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first, to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale or manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them.” (Al-Ahkam As-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance), 4.5)

If you claim that the Prophet killed some captives in some battles, then the answer is that he only ordered that two captives be killed at the Battle of Badr: Uqbah ibn Abi Mu’ayt and Nadr ibn Al-Harith. They were leaders of war and war criminals, and the execution of war criminals is permissible if the ruler orders it. This is also what Saladin did upon conquering Jerusalem, and what the Allies did during the Nuremberg trials after World War II. As for the tens of thousands of captives that fell under the jurisdiction of the Prophet over a span of ten years and 29 battles, he did not execute a single regular soldier; rather, he entrusted that they be treated with kindness [27]. The Divine Decree regarding captives and prisoners of war is in God’s words: ‘…Thereafter either [set them free] by grace or by ransom …’ (Muhammad, 47: 4). God commanded that captives and prisoners of war be treated with dignity and respect: ‘And they give food, despite [their] love of it to the needy, and the orphan, and the prisoner.’ (Al-Insan, 76: 8). Indeed, the true Sunnah of the Prophet regarding captives is pardon and amnesty, as was demonstrated during the Conquest of Mecca when the Prophet said: ‘I say as my brother Joseph said: “There shall be no reproach on you this day”. Go, for you are free! [28]’

As quoted above, Islamic law clearly allows for the killing of captives if the ruler deems it advantageous for the Muslims.

Finally, one of the most important principles when it comes to the manner of jihad is that only combatants may be killed; their families and non-combatants may not be killed intentionally. If you ask about the instance when the Prophet was asked about bystanders and women being killed with idolaters and he said: ‘They are from them [29]’, this Hadith refers to the killing of innocents by accident and in no way indicates that the intentional killing of innocents—such as in bombings—is permitted. As for God’s words: ‘… and be harsh with them …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 73); and: ‘… and let them find harshness in you …’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 123), this is during war, not after it.

I quoted the “They are from them” hadith twice above. Look at it again. The Open Letter says: “this Hadith refers to the killing of innocents by accident and in no way indicates that the intentional killing of innocents—such as in bombings—is permitted.” But the hadith says that the women and children of the polytheists were being killed during the night raid. They were collateral damage of the raid, just as they today might be collateral damage of a bombing — and Muhammad allows for that. Hamas-linked CAIR, the Fiqh Council and the scholars are here obscuring the plain meaning of the passage.

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 19th, 2015, 7:46 am

9. Declaring People Non-Muslim (takfir): Some misunderstandings about takfir are a result of the exaggeration of some Salafi scholars in matters of takfir (declaring people non-Muslim), and in their exceeding of what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim have said in many important aspects. In brief, takfir can be summarised correctly as follows:
a. Quintessentially in Islam, anyone who says: ‘There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ is a Muslim and cannot be declared a non-Muslim. God says: ‘O you who believe, when you are going forth in the way of God, be discriminating and do not say to him who offers you peace: ‘You are not a believer, desiring the transient goods of the life of this world. With God are plenteous spoils. So you were formerly, but God has been gracious to you. So be discriminating. Surely God is ever Aware of what you do.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 94). The meaning of ‘be discriminating’ in the above verse is to ask them: ‘Are you Muslims?’ The answer is to be taken at face-value without questioning or testing their faith. Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad  said: ‘Woe to you! Look! After I die, do no return to being non-believers, striking each other’s necks [30].’ The Prophet also said: ‘… so whoever says: “There is no god but God” saves himself and his wealth except as permitted by law, and his reckoning is with God. [31]’ Ibn Omar and the Lady Aisha also said: ‘Declaring the people of the Qiblah as non-Muslim is not permissible [32].’
b. This issue is of the utmost importance because it is used to justify the spilling of Muslim blood, violating their sanctity, and usurping their wealth and rights. God says: ‘And whoever slays a believer deliberately, his requital is Hell, abiding therein, and God is wroth with him and has cursed him, and has prepared for him a mighty chastisement.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 93). Moreover, the Prophet said: ‘Whoever says to his brother “O disbeliever”, it will certainly be true of one of them [33].’ God has warned, in the strongest terms, against killing anyone who verbally declares his Islam: ‘… And so if they stay away from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace, then God does not allow you any way against them.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 90). The Prophet warned against accusing people of polytheism and of taking up the sword against them; he said: ‘The person I fear for you the most is the man who has read the Qur’an … cast it off and thrown it behind him, and taken up the sword against his neighbour and accused him of polytheism [34].’

Here Hamas-linked CAIR contradicts itself quite brazenly, for it has declared the Islamic State to be the anti-Islamic State, and yet the Muslims of the Islamic State say, “There is no god but God; Muhammad is the Messenger of God.”

It is not permissible to kill any Muslim, (nor indeed any human being), who is unarmed and a non-combatant. Usamah Ibn Zayd narrated that, after he killed a man who had said: ‘There is no god but God’, ‘the Prophet asked: “He said: ‘There is no god but God’ and you killed him?!” I replied: “O Messenger of God, he only said it out of fear of [our] arms.” He said: “Did you see inside his heart to know whether or not he meant it? [35]”’

This only establishes that unarmed Muslims must not be killed, and doesn’t supersede the Qur’an verse enjoining the death of someone who joins the Muslims and then leaves them (4:89, quoted above).

Recently, Shaker Wahib—who was affiliated with what was known at the time as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)—appeared in a YouTube video where he stopped unarmed civilians who said they were Muslims. He then proceeded to ask them the number of prostrations (rak’ahs) in specific prayers. When they answered incorrectly, he killed them [36]. This is absolutely forbidden under Islamic Law and is a heinous crime.

He killed them because their wrong answers revealed them to be Shi’ites, whom Sunnis consider heretics, or non-observant Muslims, i.e., apostates. Both heretics and apostates are to be killed according to Islamic law.

c. Peoples’ deeds are tied to the intent behind those deeds. The Prophet said: ‘Actions are but by intention, and every person will have what they intended …[37].’ Furthermore, God says: ‘When the hypocrites come to you they say: ‘We bear witness that you are indeed the Messenger of God’. And God knows that you are indeed His Messenger, and God bears witness that the hypocrites truly are liars.’ (Al-Munafiqun, 63: 1). God thus describes the words of the hypocrites regarding the Prophet’s message—an indisputable fact—as lies, because their intention when saying it was to lie even though it is true in itself. It is a lie because they uttered with their tongues a truth that God knows their hearts reject. This means that disbelief requires the intention of disbelief, and not just absentminded words or deeds. It is not permissible to accuse anyone of disbelief without proof of the intention of disbelief. Nor is it permissible to accuse anyone of being a non- Muslim without ascertaining that intention. It is, after all, possible that the person was coerced, ignorant, insane or did not mean it. It is also possible that he misunderstood a particular issue. God says: ‘Whoever disbelieves in God after [having affirmed] his faith—except for him who is compelled, while his heart is at rest in faith—but he who opens up his breast to unbelief, upon such shall be wrath from God, and there is a great chastisement for them.’ (Al-Nahl, 16: 106).

Hamas-linked CAIR again contradicts itself: it has called the Islamic State un-Islamic, thus essentially calling its leaders unbelievers, and yet it does not know their hearts or have proof of the intention of disbelief.

It is forbidden to interpret the implications of a person’s deeds; only the person himself or herself may interpret their own deeds—particularly when there is a difference of opinion among Muslims regarding that particular deed. It is also forbidden to declare others non-Muslim (takfir) based on any matter in which there is a difference of opinion among Muslim scholars.

Hamas-linked CAIR is guilty of that.

It is forbidden to declare an entire group of people non-Muslim. Disbelief applies only to individuals depending on their deeds and intentions. God says: ‘No laden soul will bear another’s load.’ (Al-Zumar, 39: 7). Finally, it is forbidden to declare people who do not doubt the disbelief of others, or refuse to declare them non-Muslim, as non-Muslim.

The reason this point has been discussed in such detail is because you distributed the books of Muhammad bin Abdel-Wahhab as soon as you reached Mosul and Aleppo. In any case, scholars— including Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah—distinguish between the actions of a disbeliever (kafir) and declaring people non-Muslim (takfir). Even if a person performs a deed that has elements of disbelief, this does not necessitate that that person be judged as a disbeliever for the reasons presented earlier. Al-Dhahabi [38] related that his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, used to say near the end of his life: ‘I do not declare any member of the ummah non-Muslim … The Prophet said: “Anyone who maintains his ablution is a believer”, so whoever observes the prescribed prayers with ablution is a Muslim.’

This is a crucial point; the Prophet said: ‘Subtle shirk [i.e. associating partners with God] is when a man stands to pray and embellishes his prayer for an onlooker [39].’ He thereby described ostentation in prayer as ‘subtle shirk’, which is minor shirk. This minor shirk, which some worshippers fall into, is not considered major shirk and cannot lead to takfir or to being cast out of the fold of Islam. For other than prophets and messengers, everyone else worships God according to their capacity, and not as God deserves. God says: ‘They measured not God with His true measure …’ (Al-An’am, 6: 91); and: ‘And they will question you concerning the Spirit. Say: “The Spirit is of the command of my Lord. And of knowledge you have not been given except a little”.’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 85). Nevertheless, God accepts such worship. And people are not able to conceive of God, because: ‘…There is nothing like Him …’ (Al-Shura, 42: 11); and: ‘Vision cannot attain Him, but He attains [all] vision …’ (Al-An’am, 6:103). Nothing is known of Him except for what He has revealed through revelation (al-wahy) or He imparted to the Prophet Muhammad: ‘… He casts the Spirit of His command upon whomever He will of His servants …’ (Ghafir, 40: 15). So how can anyone take up a sword against others just because he or she believes that they do not worship God as He deserves? No one worships God as He deserves except by His permission. More fundamentally, the issue of shirk among the Arabs is moot, as the Prophet said: ‘The Devil has lost hope that those who pray in the Arabian Peninsula will worship him, but [aims] to sow discord among them [40].’

“If we want to stop ISIS, we must deny it any claim to represent Islam…” — Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nihad Awad. In this, he essentially accuses Islamic State jihadis of apostasy and heresy, which is just what the authors here are saying is so wrong.

10. People of the Scripture: Regarding Arab Christians, you gave them three choices: jizyah (poll tax), the sword, or conversion to Islam. You painted their homes red, destroyed their churches, and in some cases, looted their homes and property. You killed some of them and caused many others to flee their homes with nothing but their lives and the clothes on their backs. These Christians are not combatants against Islam or transgressors against it, indeed they are friends, neighbours and co- citizens. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they all fall under ancient agreements that are around 1400 years old, and the rulings of jihad do not apply to them. Some of their ancestors fought alongside the Prophet’s army against the Byzantines; and thus have been citizens of the State of Medina since that time. Others are under agreements that were guaranteed to them by Omar ibn Al- Khattab, Khalid ibn Al-Walid, the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the Ottomans and their respective states. In short, they are not strangers to these lands, but rather, of the native peoples of these lands from pre-Islamic times; they are not enemies but friends. For the past 1400 years they have defended their countries against the Crusaders, colonialists, Israel and other wars, how, then, can you treat them as enemies? God says in the Qur’an: ‘God does not forbid you in regard to those who did not wage war against you on account of religion and did not expel you from your homes, that you should treat them kindly and deal with them justly. Assuredly God loves the just.’ (Al- Mumtahanah, 60: 8).

As for jizyah, there are two types of jizyah in Shari’ah (Islamic Law). The first type is that which is levied while the subjects are ‘readily being subdued’. This applies to those who fought Islam, as is understood from God’s words: ‘Fight those who do not believe in God, nor in the Last Day, and who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, nor do they practise the religion of truth, from among of those who have been given the Scripture, until they pay the jizya tribute, readily being subdued.’ (Al-Tawbah, 9: 29). As is clarified by a preceding verse in this Surah (chapter of the Qur’an), those intended by this verse are parties who pre- emptively attacked Muslims: ‘Will you not fight a people who broke their oaths and intended to expel the Messenger – initiating against you first? Are you afraid of them? God is more worthy of your fear if you are believers.’ (Al-Tawbah, 9:13) [41]. The second type of jizyah is levied on those who do not wage war against Islam; it is levied on them instead of zakat (which only Muslims pay and which is higher in percentage than the jizyah) through a covenant and without harshness. Omar ibn Al-Khattab agreed to call it ‘charity’ (sadaqah). The jizyah is then deposited to the state treasury and is distributed among citizens, including needy Christian citizens as Omar did during his caliphate [42].

This point is self-contradictory. First it says that the Arab Christians are friends of the Muslims, they “did not wage war against you” and thus should not have been subjugated as dhimmis. Then in the next paragraph it says that “the second type of jizyah is levied on those who do not wage war against Islam.” Thus how is the Islamic State transgressing against Islam by levying the jizya on those who did not wage war against Islam. In this the authors also contradict their earlier claim that jihad is only defensive; now “those who do not wage war against Islam” are to be made to pay the jizya, which results from Muslims fighting the People of the Book: ““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.” (Qur’an 9:29)

11. Yazidis: You fought the Yazidis under the banner of jihad but they neither fought you nor Muslims. You considered them satanists and gave them the choice to either be killed or be forced into Islam. You killed hundreds of them and buried them in mass graves. You caused the death and suffering of hundreds of others. Had it not been for American and Kurdish intervention, tens of thousands of their men, women, children and elderly would have been killed. These are all abominable crimes. From the legal perspective of Shari’ah they are Magians, because the Prophet said: ‘Treat them as you treat People of the Scripture [43].’ Thus they are People of the Scripture. God says: ‘Truly those who believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and the Christians, and the Magians and the polytheists – God will indeed judge between them on the Day of Resurrection. Assuredly God, over all things, is Witness.’ (Al-Hajj, 22: 17). Even if you doubt that they are People of the Scripture, from the legal perspective of Shari’ah, many scholars of the Pious Forebears considered them to be commensurate with Magians based on the aforementioned Hadith. The Umayyads even considered Hindus and Buddhists to be dhimmis. Al-Qurtubi said: ‘Al-Awza’i said: “Jizyah is levied on those who worship idols and fire, as well as on unbelievers and agnostics.” This is also the Maliki position, for Imam Malik’s opinion was that jizyah is levied on all idol worshippers and unbelievers, be they Arab or non-Arabs … except for apostates [44].’

So these “moderates” are saying that the Yazidis should have been subjugated as dhimmis instead of killed. How wonderfully moderate! And if they are not People of the Book, “The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim” — that is, or are killed (‘Umdat al-Salik 09.9).

12. Slavery: No scholar of Islam disputes that one of Islam’s aims is to abolish slavery. God says: ‘And what will show you what the obstacle is?, the freeing of a slave, or to give food on a day of hunger’ (Al-Balad, 90: 12-14); and: ‘… then [the penalty for them is] the setting free of a slave before they touch one another …’ (Al-Mujadilah, 58: 3). The Prophet Muhammad’s Sunnah is that he freed all male and female slaves who were in his possession or whom had been given to him [45]. For over a century, Muslims, and indeed the entire world, have been united in the prohibition and criminalization of slavery, which was a milestone in human history when it was finally achieved.

This is absolutely false. Neither the Qur’an nor Muhammad ever say that all slaves must be freed. And this statement, “For over a century, Muslims, and indeed the entire world, have been united in the prohibition and criminalization of slavery,” is a howler. Saudi Arabia only abolished slavery in 1962. Yemen and Oman both ended legal slavery in 1970. Mauritania only abolished it in 1981 and made it a crime in 2012, but it is still widespread there — because it has Islamic sanction. Niger only abolished it in 2004. In Niger, the ban is widely ignored, and according to a Nigerian study, as many as one million people remain in bondage there.

The Prophet said regarding the pre-Islamic ‘League of the Virtuous’ (hilf al- fudul) during the time of Jahiliyyah: ‘Had I been asked to fulfil it in Islam, I would oblige [46].’ After a century of Muslim consensus on the prohibition of slavery, you have violated this; you have taken women as concubines and thus revived strife and sedition (fitnah), and corruption and lewdness on the earth. You have resuscitated something that the Shari’ah has worked tirelessly to undo and has been considered forbidden by consensus for over a century. Indeed all the Muslim countries in the world are signatories of anti-slavery conventions. God says: ‘… And fulfil the covenant. Indeed the covenant will be enquired into.’ (Al-Isra’, 17: 34) You bear the responsibility of this great crime and all the reactions which this may lead to against all Muslims.

“After a century of Muslim consensus on the prohibition of slavery…” As shown above, this consensus does not exist, and has never existed.

13. Coercion and Compulsion: God says: ‘you are not a taskmaster over them’ (Al-Ghashiyah, 88: 22); and: ‘There is no compulsion in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error …’ (Al- Baqarah, 2: 256); and: ‘And if your Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Would you then compel people until they are believers?’ (Yunus, 10: 99); and: ‘And say, “The truth [that comes] from your Lord; so whoever will, let him believe, and whoever will, let him disbelieve”.’ (Al-Kahf, 18: 29); and: ‘You have your religion and I have my religion’ (Al- Kafirun, 109: 6).

It is known that the verse: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ was revealed after the Conquest of Mecca, hence, no one can claim that it was abrogated. You have coerced people to convert to Islam just as you have coerced Muslims to accept your views. You also coerce everyone living under your control in every matter, great or small, even in matters which are between the individual and God. In Al-Raqqa, Deir el-Zor and other areas under your control, armed groups who call themselves ‘al-hisbah’ make their rounds, taking people to task as though they were assigned by God to execute His commandments. Yet, not a single one of the Companions did this. This is not enjoining the right and honourable and forbidding the wrong; rather, it is coercion, assault, and constant, random intimidation. If God wanted this, He would have obliged them over the minutest details of His religion. God says: ‘… Have they not realised, those who believe, that had God willed, He could have guided all mankind? …’ (Al-Ra’d, 13: 31); and: ‘If We will We will send down to them a sign from the heaven before which their necks will remain bowed in humility.’ (Al-Shu’ara’, 26: 4).

Coercion, like so many things in Islam, is a matter of subjective judgment. A belief system that mandates systematic discrimination against unbelievers but promises the lifting of that discrimination for those who convert is already practicing coercion, but this would not be judged coercion by Islamic jurists. So likewise it is unlikely that the Islamic State considers itself to be practicing un-Islamic coercion. Also, contrary to the claim that 2:256 was never abrogated, according to an early Muslim scholar, Mujahid ibn Jabr, it was actually abrogated by Quran 9:29, which commands Muslims to fight the People of the Book. Others, however, according to the Islamic historian Tabari, agree that 2:256 was never abrogated, but was revealed precisely in reference to the People of the Book. They are not to be forced to accept Islam, but may practice their religions as long as they pay the jizya (poll-tax) and “feel themselves subdued” (9:29).

As a side note, Islamic apologists routinely claim that the principle of abrogation cannot be applied to Qur’an verses at all. Yet here, the authors take for granted that it can.

14. Women: In simple terms, you treat women like detainees and prisoners; they dress according to your whims; they are not allowed to leave their homes and they are not allowed to go to school. Despite the fact that the Prophet said: ‘The pursuit of knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim [47]’, and despite the fact that the first word revealed of the Qur’an was: ‘Read’. Nor are they allowed to work or earn a living; nor allowed to move about freely and they are forced to marry your fighters. God says: ‘O people, fear your Lord, Who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate, and from the pair of them scattered many men and women; and fear God by whom you claim [your rights] from one another and kinship ties. Surely God has been watchful over you.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 1). And the Prophet said: ‘Treat women well [48].’

“They dress according to your whims”: “A majority of scholars (n: with the exception of some Hanafis…) have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the house with faces unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation.” (‘Umdat al-Salik m2.3)

“Not allowed to leave their homes”: “A husband may permit his wife to leave the house for a lesson in Sacred Law, for invocation of Allah (dhikr), to see her female friends, or to go to any place in the town. A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin … accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to….The husband may forbid his wife to leave the home (O: because of the hadith related by Bayhaqi that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said. ‘It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse’).” (‘Umdat al-Salik m2.3-4) If women can be forbidden to leave the house, obviously they can be forbidden to go to school or work.

15. Children: You have made children engage in war and killing. Some are taking up arms and others are playing with the severed heads of your victims. Some children have been thrown into the fray of combat and are killing and being killed. In your schools some children are tortured and coerced into doing your bidding and others are being executed. These are crimes against innocents who are so young they are not even morally accountable. God says: ‘What is wrong with you, that you do not fight in the way of God, and for the oppressed men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, bring us forth from this town whose people are evildoers and appoint for us a protector from You, and appoint for us from You a helper”.’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 75).

The Qur’an verse doesn’t establish what they claim it establishes. The Islamic State obviously does not think that its training of children to be jihadis constitutes “oppression.”

16. Hudud (Punishment): Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law. However, they are not to be applied without clarification, warning, exhortation, and meeting the burden of proof; and they are not to be applied in a cruel manner. For example, the Prophet avoided hudud in some circumstances, and as is widely known, Omar ibn Al-Khattab suspended the hudud during a famine. In all schools of jurisprudence, hudud punishments have clear procedures that need to be implemented with mercy, and their conditions render it difficult to actually implement them. Moreover, suspicions or doubts avert hudud; i.e. if there is any doubt whatsoever, the hudud punishment cannot be implemented. The hudud punishments are also not applied to those who are in need or deprived or destitute; there are no hudud for the theft of fruits and vegetables or for stealing under a certain amount. You have rushed to enact the hudud while, in reality, conscientious religious fervour makes implementing hudud punishments something of the utmost difficulty with the highest burden of proof.

“Hudud punishments are fixed in the Qur’an and Hadith and are unquestionably obligatory in Islamic Law.” This is a telling admission, since usually Islamic apologists in the West deny that these punishments — stoning amputation, etc. — are really part of Islam or Sharia at all. Hamas-linked CAIR has led campaigns against anti-Sharia laws that depend in large part on the claim that these punishments are not part of Sharia. Now Hamas-linked CAIR has admitted otherwise. The claim that the Islamic State has not implemented them properly is just a judgment call, not a refutation of the Islamic State’s practices.

17. Torture: Your captives and some of those who were under your control have said that you tortured and terrorized them through beatings; murder and various other forms of torture, including burying people alive. You have decapitated people with knives, which is one of the cruellest forms of torture and is forbidden in Islamic Law (Shari’ah).

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” (Qur’an 47:4)

In the mass killings you have committed— which are forbidden under Islamic Law—your fighters mock those they are about to kill by telling them that they will be killed like sheep, bleating and then indeed butchering them like sheep. Your fighters are not satisfied with mere killing, they add humiliation, debasement and mockery to it. God says: ‘O you who believe, do not let any people deride another people: who may be better than they are …’ (Al-Hujurat, 49: 11).

Humiliation is promised by Allah to the unbelievers: “They have been put under humiliation wherever they are…” (Qur’an 3:112)

And Muhammad indulged in obscene mockery: “Ubayy b. Ka’b told that he heard God’s messenger say, ‘If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, and do not use a euphemism.’ It is transmitted in Sarah [sic] as-sunna.” (Mishkat Al Masabih, English Translation With Explanatory Notes By Dr. James Robson [Sh. Muhammad Ashraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore, Pakistan, Reprinted 1994], Volume II, Book XXIV — General Behaviour, Chapter XIII. Boasting and Party-Spirit, p. 1021) And: “Then ‘Urwah said: “Muhammad, tell me: if you extirpate your tribesmen, have you ever heard of any of the Arabs who destroyed his own race before you? And if the contrary comes to pass, by God I see both prominent people and rabble who are likely to flee and leave you.” Abu Bakr said, “Go suck the clitoris of al-Lat!” — al-Lat was the idol of Thaqif, which they used to worship — “Would we flee and leave him?” “ (The History of al-Tabari — The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany 1997], Volume VIII (8), p. 76)

“And in the words of Abu Bakr As-Sideeq to ‘Urwah: ‘Suck Al-Lat’s clitoris!’ — there is a permissibility of speaking plainly the name of the private parts if there is some benefit to be gained thereby, just as he permitted a plain response to the one who made the claims of the Jahiliyyah (i.e. claims of tribal superiority), by saying: ‘Bite your father’s penis!’ And for every situation there is a (fitting) saying.” (Provisions for the Hereafter (Mukhtasar Zad Al-Ma’ad), by Imam Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, summarized by Imam Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab At-Tamimi [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, First Edition: September 2003]

18. Mutilation: Not only have you mutilated corpses, you have stuck the decapitated heads of your victims on spikes and rods and kicked their severed heads around like balls and broadcast it to the world during the World Cup—a sport that is permissible in principle in Islam and which allows people to relieve stress and forget their problems. You jeered at corpses and severed heads and broadcast these acts from the military bases you overran in Syria. You have provided ample ammunition for all those who want to call Islam barbaric with your broadcasting of barbaric acts which you pretend are for the sake of Islam. You have given the world a stick with which to beat Islam whereas in reality Islam is completely innocent of these acts and prohibits them.

Note that no Islamic authority is quoted to back this up. The authors are just arguing that the Islamic State has made Islam look bad: “You have provided ample ammunition for all those who want to call Islam barbaric…”

19. Attributing crimes to God in the name of humility: After tying Syrian soldiers of the 17th Division in North-eastern Syria to barbed wire, you cut off their heads with knives and posted a video of this on the internet. In the video you said: ‘We are your brothers, the soldiers of the Islamic State. God has favoured us with His grace and victory by conquering the 17th Division; a victory and favour through God. We seek refuge in God from our might and power. We seek refuge in God from our weapons and our readiness.’ You thus attributed this heinous crime to God, and made as if this were an act of humility to God, by saying that He did it and not you. But God says: ‘And when they commit any indecency they say, “We found our fathers practising it, and God has enjoined it on us”. Say, “God does not enjoin indecency. Do you say concerning God that which you do not know?”’ (Al-A’raf, 7: 28).

Yet another null argument, as the Islamic State would argue that this is not indecency.

20. Destruction of the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions. You have blown up and destroyed the graves of Prophets and Companions. Scholars disagree on the subject of graves. Nevertheless, it is not permissible to blow up the graves of Prophets and Companions and disinter their remains, just as it is not permissible to burn grapes under the pretext that some people use them to make wine. God says: ‘… Those who prevailed regarding their affair, “We will verily set up over them, a place of worship”.’ (Al-Kahf, 18:21); and: ‘… Take to yourselves Abraham’s station for a place of prayer …’ (Al-Baqarah, 2: 125). The Prophet said: ‘I had previously prohibited you from visiting graves. Permission has been granted for Muhammad to visit his mother’s grave, so visit them [i.e. graves] for they remind [one] of death and the Hereafter [49].’ Visiting graves reminds people of death and the Hereafter; God says in the Qur’an: ‘Rivalry [in worldly things] distracts you until you visit the graves.’ (Al-Takathur, 102: 1-2).

Your former leader, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi said: ‘In our opinion, it is obligatory to destroy and remove all manifestations of shirk (idolatry) and to prohibit all means that lead to it because of Muslim’s narration in his Sahih: on the authority of Abu Al-Hiyaj Al-Asadi, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib said: “Should I not tell you what he [i.e. the Prophet] sent me to do: not to leave a statue without obliterating it nor a raised grave without levelling it.”’ However, even if what he said were true, it does not apply to the graves of Prophets or Companions, as the Companions were in consensus regarding burying the Prophet and his two Companions, Abu Bakr and Omar, in a building that was contiguous to the Prophet’s Mosque.

“Scholars disagree on the subject of graves.” Indeed, and the Islamic State can point to Islamic authorities who justify the destruction of graves and shrines. The graves of prophets are destroyed as being temptations to idolatry.

21. Rebelling against the leader. It is impermissible to rebel against the leader who is not guilty of declared and candid disbelief (al-kufr al-bawwah); i.e. disbelief that he himself admits to openly and where all Muslims are in consensus regarding such a person being a non-Muslim—or by his prohibiting the establishment of prayers. The evidence of this is in God’s words: ‘O you who believe, obey God, and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 59). The Prophet also said: ‘Listen and obey even if an Abyssinian whose head is like a raisin is given authority over you [50].’ The Prophet also said: ‘The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God’s blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): “Shouldn’t we overthrow them by the sword?” He said: “No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them, you should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience [51].”’ As for a ruler who is a reprobate or corrupt, he is to be removed by those qualified to elect or dispose a caliph on behalf of the Ummah (nation) (ahl al-hall wal- ‘aqd)—if possible— without sedition (fitnah), armed rebellion or bloodshed. However, he is not rebelled against. It is forbidden to rebel against a leader even if he does not implement the Shari’ah or a portion of it, for God says: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed – such are the disbelievers.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 44); and: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed, those are the evildoers.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 45); and: ‘… Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed – those are the wicked.’ (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 47). So, there are three levels of those who do not implement the Shari’ah: disbelief (kufr), evildoing (fusuq) and wickedness (dhulm). Whoever prevents the Shari’ah from being practiced at all in a Muslim country is a disbeliever, but one who does not implement part of it or only implements its higher purposes is merely an evildoer or wicked. In some countries, the implementation of Shari’ah is restricted due to matters of sovereignty on which national security depends, and this is permissible. In summary, Ibn Abbas52 says that whoever does not implement Shari’ah is a wicked evildoer, but he is not a disbeliever and rebelling against him is forbidden. Ibn Abbas said that ruling by other than God’s commandments is ‘disbelief short of disbelief.’ He also said: ‘It is not the disbelief that they mean; it is not a disbelief that casts one from the fold of religion.’

“It is impermissible to rebel against the leader who is not guilty of declared and candid disbelief” — but the Islamic State asserts this about those leaders against whom they are fighting.

22. The Caliphate: There is agreement (ittifaq) among scholars that a caliphate is an obligation upon the Ummah.

A notable and extremely important admission.

The Ummah has lacked a caliphate since 1924 CE. However, a new caliphate requires consensus from Muslims and not just from those in some small corner of the world. Omar ibn Al-Khattab said: ‘Whosoever pledges allegiance to a man without due consultation with Muslims has fooled himself; and neither he nor the man to whom he pledged allegiance should be followed for he has risked both their lives [53].’Announcing a caliphate without consensus is sedition (fitnah) because it renders the majority of Muslims who do not approve it outside of the caliphate. It will also lead to many rival caliphates emerging, thereby sowing sedition and discord (fitnah) among Muslims. The beginnings of this discord reared its head when the Sunni imams of Mosul did not pledge allegiance to you and you killed them.

Throughout Islamic history, no caliphate has ever been established by universal consensus, and there have been rival caliphates. The Abbasids, for example, defeated the Umayyads at the Battle of the Zab in 750 and supplanted them not by universal consensus, but by force.

In your speech you quoted the Companion Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq: ‘I have been given authority over you, and I am not the best of you.’ This begs the question: who gave you authority over the ummah? Was it your group? If this is the case, then a group of no more than several thousand has appointed itself the ruler of over a billion and a half Muslims. This attitude is based upon a corrupt circular logic that says: ‘Only we are Muslims, and we decide who the caliph is, we have chosen one and so whoever does not accept our caliph is not a Muslim.’ In this case, a caliph is nothing more than the leader of a certain group that declares more than 99% of Muslims non- Muslim. On the other hand, if you recognize the billion and a half people who consider themselves Muslims, how can you not consult (shura) them regarding your so-called caliphate? Thus, you face one of two conclusions: either you concur that they are Muslims and they did not appoint you caliph over them—in which case you are not the caliph—or, the other conclusion is that you do not accept them as Muslims, in which case Muslims are a small group not in need of a caliph, so why use the word ‘caliph’ at all? In truth, the caliphate must emerge from a consensus of Muslim countries, organizations of Islamic scholars and Muslims across the globe.

The Islamic State is appealing to so many young Muslims in the West because of its claim to reconstitute the caliphate. Caliphates are established and sustained on the principle of Might Makes Right. If the Islamic State sustains itself and survives, more and more Muslims will pledge allegiance to it.

23. National affiliations: In one of your speeches you said: ‘Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis54.’ In the same speech, you called on Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant. By doing so, you take the rights and resources of these countries and distribute them among people who are strangers to those lands, even though they are of the same religion. This is exactly what Israel did when it invited Jewish settlers abroad to immigrate to Palestine, evict the Palestinians and usurp their ancestral rights and lands. Where is the justice in this?

Simply, patriotism and loving one’s country does not contradict Islam’s teachings, rather, loving one’s country stems from faith, being both instinctual and a Sunnah. The Prophet said, addressing Mecca: ‘How goodly a land you are, and how beloved you are to me. Were it not that my people forced me to leave, I would not have lived anywhere else [55].’ Patriotism and love for one’s country have many proofs from the Qur’an and Sunnah. God says in the Qur’an: ‘And had We prescribed for them: “Slay yourselves” or “Leave your habitations”, they would not have done it, save a few of them …’ (Al-Nisa’, 4: 66). Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi commented: ‘Leaving one’s land is equal to slaying oneself [56].’And on the authority of Anas Ibn Malik, the Prophet ‘would, upon seeing the walls of Medina when returning from travel, hasten the pace of his she-camel. If he was riding a mount, he would move it out of love for [Medina] [57] .’ Ibn Hajar said: ‘This Hadith is proof of the virtue of Medina, and of the legal validity of loving one’s country and longing for it [58].’

The authors are on extremely shaky ground here, for according to Islamic tradition, Muhammad wasn’t from Medina. He was from Mecca. He moved to Medina and called on Muslims to immigrate there. The Islamic State is imitating him.

24. Emigration. You invited Muslims from across the globe to immigrate to lands under the control of the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant. [59] Abu Muslim Al-Canadi, a soldier of the ‘Islamic State’, said: ‘Come and join us [in Syria] before the doors close [60].’ It suffices to repeat the words of the Prophet Muhammed who said: ‘There is no emigration after the Conquest [of Mecca], but jihad and [its] intention [remain]. And when you are called to war, march forward [61].’

As they so often accuse others of doing, Hamas-linked CAIR is taking this out of contect. It actually refers to the emigration to Medina: “It has been reported on the authority of Mujashi’ b. Mas’ud as-Sulami who said: I came to the Prophet to offer him my pledge of migration. He said: The period of migration has expired (and those who were to get the reward for this great act of devotion have got it). You may now give your pledge to serve the cause of Islam, to strive in the way of Allaah and to follow the path of virtue.” (Muslim 4594). Emigration elsewhere, especially to further the cause of Islam, is not forbidden.

Conclusion

In conclusion, God has described Himself as the ‘Most Merciful of the merciful’. He created man from His mercy. God says in the Qur’an: ‘The Compassionate One has taught the Qur’an. He created man’ (Al-Rahman, 55: 1-3). And God created man for His mercy: ‘Had your Lord willed, He would have made mankind one community, but they continue to differ, except those on whom your Lord has mercy; and that is why He created them …’ (Hud, 11: 118- 119). Linguistically, ‘that’ refers back to the closest noun, which is ‘mercy’, not ‘differ’. This is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, who said: ‘He created them for mercy [62].’

The soundest way to attain this mercy is the worship of God. God says: ‘And I did not create the jinn and mankind except that they may worship Me.’ (Al-Dhariyat, 51: 56). Worshipping God is not a favour that one bestows upon God, but rather, sustenance from Him: ‘I do not desire from them any provision, nor do I desire that they should feed Me. Indeed it is God Who is the Provider, the Lord of Strength, the Firm.’ (Al-Dhariyat, 51: 57-58). Furthermore, God revealed the Qur’an as a mercy from Him: ‘And We reveal of the Qur’an that which is a cure, and a mercy for believers …’ (Al-Isra’, 17:82). Islam is mercy and its attributes are merciful. The Prophet, who was sent as a mercy for all the worlds, summarized a Muslim’s dealings with others by saying: ‘He who shows no mercy, will not be shown mercy [63]’; and: ‘Have mercy and you will be shown mercy [64].’ But, as can be seen from everything mentioned, you have misinterpreted Islam into a religion of harshness, brutality, torture and murder. As elucidated, this is a great wrong and an offence to Islam, to Muslims and to the entire world.

Harshness? “O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers and let them find in you harshness.” (Qur’an 9:123) The Open Letter quotes this twice above, and never quite manages to show why the Islamic State should not behave this way.

Reconsider all your actions; desist from them; repent from them; cease harming others and return to the religion of mercy. God  says in the Qur’an: ‘Say [that God declares]: “O My servants who have been prodigal against their own souls, do not despair of God’s mercy. Truly God forgives all sins. Truly He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.”’ (Al-Zumar, 39:53).

And God knows best.
24th Dhul-Qi’the 1435 AH / 19th September 2014 CE

The Saying of Ali bin Abi Talib (k.)

Nu’aym ibn Hammad narrates in Al-Fitan, that the 4th Caliph, Ali ibn Abi Talib said:
When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet. Thereafter there shall appear a feeble insignificant folk. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron. They will have the state. They will fulfil neither covenant nor agreement. They will call to the truth, but they will not be people of the truth. Their names will be parental attributions, and their aliases will be derived from towns. Their hair will be free-flowing like that of women. This situation will remain until they differ among themselves. Thereafter, God will bring forth the Truth through whomever He wills65 .

People are asking: does this narration by Ali bin Abi Talib (k.)—that is related by Al- Bukhari’s teacher (Nu’aym bin Hamad) over one thousand two hundred years ago in his book Al- Fitan—refer to the ‘Islamic State’?

Is it possible to understand the narration as follows?
‘When you see the black flags’: The flags of the ‘Islamic State’ are black.
‘Remain where you are’: i.e., stay where you are, O Muslims, and do not join them.
‘And do not move your hands or your feet’: i.e. do not help them financially or with equipment. ‘Thereafter there shall appear a feeble insignificant folk’: i.e. ‘weak’ and ‘insignificant’ in terms of understanding of religion, morality and religious practice.
‘Their hearts will be like fragments of iron’: i.e. they will ruthlessly kill prisoners of war and cruelly torture people.
‘They will have the state’: For almost a century, no one has claimed to be an Islamic Caliphate other than the current ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and the Levant.
‘They will fulfil neither covenant nor agreement’: The ‘Islamic State’ did not fulfil its agreement with the Sha’etat tribe after the tribe pledged allegiance to them; indeed the ‘Islamic State’ slaughtered them by the hundreds. They also killed journalists.
‘They will call to the truth’: The ‘Islamic State’ calls to Islam.
‘But they will not be people of the truth’: The people of the truth are merciful. The Prophet Muhammad  said: ‘Have mercy and you will be shown mercy.’
‘Their names will be parental attributions’: Like: ‘Abu Muthanna’, ‘Abu Muhammad’, ‘Abu Muslim’ and so on.
‘And their aliases will be derived from towns’: Like: ‘Al-Baghdadi’, ‘al-Zarqawi’, ‘al-Tunisi’ and so on.
‘Their hair will be free-flowing like that of women’: ‘Islamic State’ fighters have hair precisely like this.
‘Until they differ among themselves’: Like the differences between the ‘Islamic State’ and its parent, the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria). The fighting between these two has led to around ten thousand deaths in a single year.
‘Thereafter, God will bring forth the truth through whomever He wills’: through a clear and correct Islamic proclamation (like this open letter).
The sage Luqman says in the Qur’an:
‘O my son! Even if it should be the weight of a grain of mustard- seed, and [even if] it be in a rock, or in the heavens, or in the earth, God will bring it forth. Truly God is Subtle, Aware.’ (Luqman, 31: 16)

Disingenuous. They quote a weak (if not forged) hadith of Ali about the group with black flags but ignore the other sahih (reliable) hadiths that say that the group with black flags should be joined, not shunned, such as this: “The black banners will come from the east, with hearts like iron bars. So whoever hears of them, let him go to them and give them bay’ah, even if he must crawl over ice.”

Then there are the signers, which includes:
Prof. Mustafa Abu Sway, The Integral Professorial Chair for the Study of Imam Ghazali’s Work, Jerusalem — and a Hamas activist; Nihad Awad of Hamas-linked CAIR; Dr. Jamal Badawi, an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding case; Prof. Mustafa Ceric, Former Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, who has called for Sharia in Bosnia; Prof. Caner Dagli, Professor of Islamic Studies, USA, a venomously hateful Islamic apologist at Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts, who traffics in Nazi imagery about “unclean” unbelievers; Sheikh Dr. Ali Gomaa, Former Grand Mufti of Egypt, who endorses wife-beating, Hizballah, and the punishment of apostates from Islam; Sheikh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Founder and Director of Zaytuna College, USA, who blamed the West for Muslim riots over a teddy bear named Muhammad; Ed Husain, Senior Fellow in Middle Eastern Studies, (CFR), UK, who recently claimed that seizing British jihadis’ passports so that they couldn’t return to the UK from the Islamic State would only create more jihadis; Dr. Muhammad Tahir Al-Qadri, Founder of Minhaj-ul-Qur’an International, Pakistan, who drafted Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy law and issued his own disingenuous and hypocritical Fatwa Against Terrorism; and Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, Chairman of the Fiqh Council of North America, USA, and former head of the Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Hardly a group that inspires confidence in their “moderation.”

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 19th, 2015, 7:49 am

Here is a good rebuttal! It is very lengthy but very thorough! I will check out Hindutva! I never heard of that before!

alsheikh971
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 123
Joined: February 13th, 2008, 10:11 am
Location: 93

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby alsheikh971 » July 19th, 2015, 1:06 pm

Well Fellows, I really wish to have time to read all of your posts.
This sounds really interesting !
Whenever I find 2 consecutive hours, I"ll get more involved ...
Amongst Muslims there is a rumor, that the quran had been written by a Jewish writer, because Mahomet was analphabet, so this man was supposed to write down what the prophet was saying.
A friend of mine is an Iman (or trying to be), and it's been a long time I didn't hear anything about him so I will ask.
I'm Christian and don't think any religion is superior to another (except one or two), as long as it is based on loving Humanity and Planet Earth
Salaam

Adobo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 133
Joined: November 5th, 2013, 12:48 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: C_ArSoN

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Adobo » July 19th, 2015, 1:26 pm

The differenceSentenza is that Jews, besides those in Israel, and Christians ARE NIT VIOLENTLY forcing their religion on ppl..Not one place in the world where this is happening.

And we've heard it all before. "Plenty of Muslims that denounce" Yada Yada Yada..I say BS. Of course the everyday westernized Muslim is gonna denounce radicals but we NEED ALL Muslims to denounce radicalism. That just like Sillent said, they won't. They know deep down they actually believe in that shit.

We as a global entity, have seen enough violence to know Islam is a sham and teaches nothing but hate and violence. We've turned the other check for numerous years now. Everywhere from all of Europe to China to The Phillipines and now more and more in America, we're starting to see terrorist attacks by these sick fuckers. We need to stop making excuses and deport all these camel fuckers back to their own shit holes. I am proudly anti Islam. I've seen too much hate and it's time to take a stand.

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 19th, 2015, 2:01 pm

I feel you Adobo! Normally as I said in the previous posts, I am all about live and let live. Islam is different. People need to be made aware of this. I suggest you check out these websites. Jihadwatch, islamwatch and barenaked Islam if you want to learn more. Barenaked Islam is brutally Corey so beware. The show pictures and videos of be headings. Don't go there if you don't want to see that stuff! The other two sites are very good. Also check out Raymond Ibrahim. He speakers Arabic fluently and grew up over there. I have read a number of Robert spencers books. They are excellent. After reading all of this I went out and bought a Koran. I can cross check everything being said on these websites and find it to be true. I also have gone on Islamic websites and looked up definitions of terms like Abrogation and Taquiia. Its all true! In Islam they Beleive in Jesus but not his divinity. They are true Anti Christ's. Islam is an attempt to call Christians and Jews liars! They claim that they changed the truth. Scary stuff when you into the meat and potatoes of what they actually Beleive. In Christianity you have people who claim to be Christian but can't justify their actions by anything taught in Christianity. In Islam you have a religion founded on violence. The Koran, Hadith and Sunna are riddled with violent passages. They are literally told to lay low when in a position of weakness. When their strength is great enough they are commanded to conquer and subjugate all other groups. Look at the history of jihad. 1400 straight years of rape, subjugation and slaughter! I can't Beleive Obama is giving the Iranians the ability to enrich uranium. World war 3 is on the horizon.

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 19th, 2015, 2:52 pm

Here is one for you Adobo!


Before Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer shot up a military recruiting center in Chattanooga from a car and then sped away, another Mohammed, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad did much the same thing in 2009.

Both struck military recruiting centers in the South, but the 2009 Mohammed had a message for B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzQuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tLy1ud0lfeENuT05ncy9WYXZLd0xiVkNKSS9BQUFBQUFBQVBQRS92NUdaX0VIRC1YTS9zMzIwL3R1cmJhbmJvbWIxLmdpZg==Americans that we unfortunately failed to heed.


“This is not the first attack, and won’t be the last,” Muhammad warned. “I’m just one Muhammad. There are millions of Muhammads out there. And I hope and pray the next one be more deadlier than Muhammad Atta!”

There are millions of Mohammeds out there. It took exactly six years for one of them to finish what his predecessor started. In a world with lots of Mohammeds, we really need to consider whether we want Mohammed becoming the most common name for a boy in America, as it already has in countries like the UK.

The murderous Mohammeds embody the values of the original Mohammed, the founder of their brutal ideology. They kill like him. They kill in his name.

A country with more Mohammeds, is a country with more Muslim terrorism. And if the first Mohammed doesn’t kill enough people, the next one will. We have to be lucky every time. The Mohammeds only have to be lucky once for there to be a bloody scene, handfuls of wilted flowers at makeshift memorials on concrete and Americans crying because a Mohammed has struck again.
Americans that unfortunately went unheeded.

The family that names a son Mohammed believes that the warlord who raped and murdered his way across Arabia in a manner that ISIS copied was a model for human behavior. Is it any surprise that the model Mohammed eventually imitates his bloody namesake’s crimes?

When a Mohammed rapes young girls in the UK, as quite a few of them have, he is only doing what his prophet did. When a Mohammed opens fire on American soldiers, he is following the teachings of his namesake and prophet. Why blame a Mohammed for acting like Mohammed?

During WW2, we would not have allowed millions of Germans named after the Fuhrer, who admired him and worshiped him, into the country. And if we had done something that stupid, we would have had only ourselves to blame when the darling Adolfs shot and bombed their way across America.

A country with more Mohammeds is a more dangerous place. If a million mothers named their offspring after Charles Manson and raised them to embody Manson Family values, America would be a much scarier place. An America with a million Mohammeds will be even worse.

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzQuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tLy1feWhMVng5NGFGWS9WYXZLZ0djY1F6SS9BQUFBQUFBQVBQQS9Qb3dMVzB0MDc2SS9zMzIwL21vaGFtbWVkJTJCYm9zY2guanBn
The mass murdering Mohammeds offer us a simple choice. Do we want to keep allowing people named after the Muslim Charles Manson whose big goals in life were killing non-Muslims and raping their wives and daughters in the name of tolerance or do we want to end this threat of terrorism?

Importing Mohammeds and Adolfs is no way to be tolerant. It feeds the cycle of terror, the bombs, the rapes, the shootings, the whines, the protests and the falling buildings. The first Mohammed kills and another Mohammed pops up to protest that he was only acting out of outrage. A third Mohammed emerges to kill because we arrested the first Mohammed. A fourth Mohammed demands that we free all the Mohammeds or he won’t be able to stop the fifth Mohammed from becoming radicalized. Then the sixth Mohammed kills a bunch of people and the seventh Mohammed claims that he has nothing to do with Mohammedanism, which is a peaceful religion, but that we must stop offending Mohammeds or he won’t be responsible for what the next thousand Mohammeds do.

Enough.

If we don’t want Mohammedan murders, we should stop importing Mohammeds. If we keep importing Mohammeds, then nothing we do, including electing a President Mohammed on a platform of non-stop apologies and free nukes to every terrorist, will stop Mohammedan terrorism.

When there’s a hole in a boat, you stop drilling. When a bunch of people named Mohammed keep killing Americans, it’s time to tell the next million Mohammeds applying for a visa, “Sorry, no.”

America does not need immigrants who view mass murderers as role models. On the list of the least desirable immigrants, Mohammed should rank somewhere below a leprous beggar, a convicted rapist with AIDS and Piers Morgan.

In a country where the Dukes of Hazzard is now a hate crime, we seem bent on importing people who model racist murders, slavery and rape as the highest of all human virtues. And then we’re baffled when a Mohammed acts like a Mohammed. The clue is right in the name.

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzEuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tLy1ibG1KbjUzUHhaZy9WYXZMUlFvMFFwSS9BQUFBQUFBQVBQTS9NQ3FXTnl4cHV6dy9zMzIwL2JlaGVhZC1pbnN1bHQtaXNsYW0tbW9oYW1tZWQuanBnMuslims and the left are united in suppressing any discussion about Mohammed because if we were to recognize that the very model of a major Muslim prophet would be serving a life sentence in solitary confinement if he were alive today, much like many of his Mohammed disciples are serving today, then maybe there’s something wrong with all the Mohammeds and with Mohammedanism.

Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer boasted that his name triggers security alerts. And it should have. Instead he was allowed to work in a nuclear power plant despite his father’s donations to Hamas.

Being named after a mass murderer is bad. Being named after a mass murderer by a cult that worships him to the degree that they won’t even allow his image to be depicted is a scary sign. If we don’t want the seventh century crimes of Mohammed being repeated in our own countries today, then the name Mohammed should trigger security alerts and flight bans.

We need to have a serious dialogue about what to expect from a boy named after a serial killer by a cult that worships that serial killer. And we need to have it before the next Mohammed shoots up the place.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Sentenza
Super Heavy Weight
Super Heavy Weight
Posts: 6507
Joined: January 17th, 2005, 10:48 am
Country: Germany
If in the United States: American Samoa
What city do you live in now?: WestBerlin
Location: Overseas

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Sentenza » July 19th, 2015, 4:32 pm

Adobo wrote:The differenceSentenza is that Jews, besides those in Israel, and Christians ARE NIT VIOLENTLY forcing their religion on ppl..Not one place in the world where this is happening.

Its because Christianity has no political power anymore. And as far as europe is concerned it doesnt have much influence on most peoples everyday life either...Religion, when it takes over political power, always oppresses and discriminates people of other beliefs. Islam is no exception to this.
And we already know that Christianity is no different when it has the power. The proof is there, in history.

Adobo wrote:And we've heard it all before. "Plenty of Muslims that denounce" Yada Yada Yada..I say BS. Of course the everyday westernized Muslim is gonna denounce radicals but we NEED ALL Muslims to denounce radicalism. That just like Sillent said, they won't. They know deep down they actually believe in that shit.


So you believe that unless all white people denounce racism at the same time, deep down all white people believe in racism?
The people who denounce it dont believe in it and those who dont do believe in it. Same goes for Muslims. They are no different from us.

Adobo wrote:We as a global entity, have seen enough violence to know Islam is a sham and teaches nothing but hate and violence. We've turned the other check for numerous years now. Everywhere from all of Europe to China to The Phillipines and now more and more in America, we're starting to see terrorist attacks by these sick fuckers. We need to stop making excuses and deport all these camel fuckers back to their own shit holes. I am proudly anti Islam. I've seen too much hate and it's time to take a stand.


All religions are a sham and are made up if you ask me. And they all have the potential for violence, oppression and genocide, but also for peace.
It all depends on how they are interpreted and every religion can be interpreted in different ways, ranging from peaceful to militaristic. All religions are the same in that aspect.

silentwssj
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 866
Joined: November 27th, 2013, 6:13 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: SJ

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby silentwssj » July 19th, 2015, 6:32 pm

There are some crucial differences. I don't deny that Christianity has a violent past. There have definitely been periods in church history that we Catholics would like to forget or apologize away. The truth is you can't though. It is what it is. One thing I can say though is the violence that occurred is nowhere to be found in the teachings of Christian scripture or in our faith and morals. Yes there were many Catholic and protestant Christians that did bad things many centuries ago. Non of it can be traced to the teachings of the faith though. I Beleive that in every instance the perpetrators were acting outside the boundaries of what is acceptable Christian behavior. They allowed themselves to get caught up in the politics of the world and ended up giving Christianity a bad name in the process. Islam on the other hand has a much worse history. 1400 years of straight oppression, lopping off heads, sexual slavery, and various abuses of every kind imaginable. The difference is this all comes directly from their faith! I think we need to be real and truthful here. When Christians commit acts of violence they do so by acting contrary to the set principals of their faith. When Muslims commit violent acts of Jihad, it is because that is what their faith teaches. This is not to say that individual Muslims don't ever commit crimes on their own and outside their faith, they do. What we are talking about here is religiously sanctioned violence. In Islam it is explicitly taught as religious doctrine to cut of your enemies heads, take sex slaves, reduce other religious groups to Dhimmi status. The difference is very pronounced. Islam prescribes violence in its teachings. Christianity teaches love. Both groups have individuals that act violently but in the case of Islam they are simply following the teachings of their religion! Never loose sight of that fact when comparing the two groups.

Adobo
Middle Weight
Middle Weight
Posts: 133
Joined: November 5th, 2013, 12:48 pm
Country: United States
If in the United States: California
What city do you live in now?: C_ArSoN

Re: French Thugs, Rap and Islam...@BG Casper

Unread postby Adobo » July 21st, 2015, 12:23 am

Sentenza, the road to radicalism and genocide is paved w/ indifference. Indifference from people saying 'well that's just radicals doing it'. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

The difference between white people and Muslims denouncing certain issues is that not all white people believe in racism and they DENOUNCE racists but ALL Muslims to believe in the Koran the DO NOT denounce Islam or the Koran. Muslims are not the same as 'us'. They do not tolerate 'us'. If a white person denounces, or not, a racists person, that's fine. Nothing happens to them. But if a Muslim denounces another Muslim or Islam or radicalism Islam, they will get their heads lopped off also. Try asking a Muslim to denounce fanatics in the Middle East, see what happens...oh wait, we are, look at the Shias being slaughtered by Sunnis...never mind :roll:


Return to “Gang Questions & Info: Hispanic gangs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests