Saturday, May 26, 2012

The Two Witnesses of Revelation 11

Taken from the Chapter 7 of Islam in the End Times

Revelation is not a mystery, but God’s solution of one. Consequently, we can’t go to that book with our doctrines in place and expect to learn what the Lord may have in store for us there. The Two Witnesses of Rev 11:3-7 are good examples of why. Most believe these two witnesses to be a couple of Old Testament saints like Enoch and Elijah, but they might be someone else entirely:

Rev 11:3 “... and I will grant authority to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for twelve hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.”

Since the day-year principle fits our history so far, it’s likely those two witnesses will witness for 1260 years. No one in any age lived 1260 years so this can’t be about two individuals. We need another clue:

Rev 11:4 “These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.”

Hmm... olive trees and candlesticks. What can those figures mean? Unless the Lord’s Two Witnesses are a pair of real elderly fruit-bearing olive trees and a couple of really ancient, oildripping candlesticks, then like it or not, we are dealing with figurative language. So let’s see if we can find biblical definitions for olive trees and candlesticks.

To sort these figures out we probably need to apply one of the rules of hermeneutics. Now, hermeneutics is not a discipline we play games with to fit our doctrines. It is a sound study of how to interpret either the spoken word or a written document. Hermeneutics has some excellent, time-tested rules. Among them is the rule of “scriptural adjacency.” That rule states: When you read something you don’t understand, first study the surrounding text, then the chapter, then the book in which that chapter appears, then the testament that contains that book, and finally, relate the verse to the whole Bible. That is one of the rules, and it’s a very sound one. In other words... 

We don’t go to the Old Testament for definitions of New Testament figures when there are New Testament definitions that fit perfectly!

In Rev 11:4 quoted above, the Two Witnesses of the Christian Era are described as olive trees and candlesticks. To find the correct definition for those figures, we should find the closest contextual address that explains them. Lo and behold, right in Revelation we find candlesticks defined:

Rev 1:20 “The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in My right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”

Right in Revelation 1, candlesticks are defined as churches. Now if candlesticks are churches in Rev 1, then guess what? Candlesticks are still churches in Rev 11. The only way they would not be Churches is if God Himself changed the symbolic meaning of that word somewhere between Rev 1:20 and Rev 11:4. No change of definition appears there (or anywhere else in Scripture for that matter) so the candlesticks of Rev 11:4 are churches. That interpretation is not the product of some clever theologian’s overactive imagination. Candlesticks are churches because the Bible itself defines them as such.

So, if the seven candlesticks of Rev 1 are seven churches, what do you suppose the two candlesticks of Rev 11 might be? Why, two churches of course. But if the Two Witnesses are only two churches, which churches are they? Probably every denomination in the world would like to believe it is one of the Two Witnesses (with the rest of Christendom being heretics, of course), but God’s churches of the Christian Era are far broader than man’s sectarian restrictions, and the Olive Trees figure positively identifies who
they are.

Still applying the principle of scriptural adjacency, we first try for a definition of olive trees in Revelation and then in the rest of the New Testament. Four times in the Old, and twice in the New, Israel is defined as an olive tree. Old Testament verses are included in footnote, but we still don’t use Old Testament definitions to define New Testament figures when there are New Testament definitions that fit perfectly:

Rom 11:17 “And if some of the [Jewish] branches be broken off, and thou [the Gentile church], being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree.”

Rom 11:24 “For if thou [the Gentile Church] wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree [the Jews]: how much more shall these [Jews], which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?”

Revelation is a New Testament book, and a New Testament definition for olive trees appears in Romans 11.1 According to that whole chapter, the Gentile church is one olive tree, and the Jewish people are the other. As a result...

One witness is the Jewish people
and the other witness is the Gentile church!

That’s not optional. If we just accept the scriptural definitions for olive trees and candlesticks, we are not left with a lot of doctrinal options. Take a realistic look at history. The nation of Israel could not have maintained its identity through nineteen centuries of dispersion, under constant persecution, were it not for the protecting hand of the Lord our God. The Bible itself affirms it. Listen to what Scripture says:

Jer 31:35-37 “Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever. Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.”

Our Heavenly Father has not forgotten those words. He stated right there that the children of Israel would be a nation before Him forever, so He has remembered His chosen people all along. The Lord’s plans for the physical seed of Israel throughout all time, including the Christian Era, is recorded in too many Scriptures to ignore.

Replacement theology notwithstanding, from the multitude of verses cited in the footnote, it appears that the Lord never intended to forget the physical seed of Israel. Let me tell you how important that is. If the Jews could not trust the promises God made to them in the Old Testament, how can the Church trust the promises God made to us in the New? Despite man’s doctrines to the contrary, it is comforting to know that the God of the Bible keeps His Word eternally.

Psalm 33:11 “The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.”

But if the Two Witnesses are two churches, when are they going to witness? If we stand by the day-year principle, they would have to witness for 1260 years: Rev 11:3 “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days.”

The time of the Two Witnesses cannot come after the time of the Gentiles because Jesus told us there would be only ONE generation following 1967: “This generation (after the time of the Gentiles) will not pass away until all things are fulfilled” (Luke 21:24, 32). A generation cannot be over 70 years (Psalm 90:10), and is usually considered to be 40 years, so we have to look back in history for these 1260 years. The author could find only one 1260 year time period that had any spiritual significance at all during the whole Christian Era:

1948AD - 1260 = 688 AD and the Dome of the Rock!

And this fits history perfectly! As of 1948, the Jews are no longer witnessing in the nations. The “Abomination that maketh Desolate” was set up in 688, and the Jews were driven into the “wilderness” of the nations at that time.1 Now, 1260 years later, there is a new autonomous nation of Israel, and the Jews are back in the Holy Land again. So the Jewish people are one of the Two Witnesses of the Christian Era.

The Other Witness

We can see 688 to 1948 as the time of Jewish witness, but what about the second witness, the Church? How can the church’s time of witness be over since we are still here? Well, look at what has happened to the Church since 1948. Most Christian homes have a Bible, but few Christians still read them or continue to witness to the lost. The immorality, involvement in the occult and satanism in the western nations has mushroomed since 1948, and the church has done little to slow the decay. As a result of our apathy and the questionable lifestyles that follow, much of the Gentile church has fallen into apostasy.

Many churches in America are terminally ill and most in Europe no longer hold Christian services. Many are beyond reach, “the sin unto spiritual death” (1 John 5:16). Since our battle is really spiritual, one is inclined to wonder if the coming destruction of the visible Church may not be more spiritual than physical. If it is, we are frighteningly close to that hour:

Two Witnesses

Rev 11:3-4 “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two Candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.”

Note: Before 688, both Christians and Jews could freely worship in Jerusalem, and on the temple mount. They were not prophetically in the nations until the Moslems made it unsafe for them to worship in that city. That is why the time of the Two Witnesses began in 688.

Rev 11:7 “And when they [the Two Witnesses] shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.”

One way or another, in the final hours of this age, the Two Witnesses are going to be destroyed. Read Rev 11:7 in the original Greek or any translation you like. All predict the end of the visible Church. How can that be? Didn’t Jesus promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His church? Yes, but the true Church that remains are not all those big buildings out there, the Church is only a remnant now . . . a few hairs hidden in a hem of the Lord’s garment (Eze 5:3).

For the first time since the invention of the printing press, books on astrology, satanism, and the occult are outselling the Bible. Truth has fallen in the street (Isa 59:14), and the consciences of our people have been seared as with a branding iron (1Tim 4:2). This will eventually lead to a worldwide rejection of God and of His Word. As the spiritual decay deepens, a ruthless and devastating evil is being unleashed upon this planet, and it is coming with an intensity unknown since the flood.

You Must Accept My Religion

By Citizen Warrior

I may have been dead for over 1000 years but I am still very much alive.

I told my people I was a prophet — in fact, not just any prophet but the last one. Posing as a prophet is really very simple. First and foremost you have to believe in yourself. Then people will start to believe in you. The more people who believe in you, the more others can be persuaded to believe in you. It snowballs. Today I still live through my followers and the rules I gave them to live by.

What is my religion? My religion is my ambition.

My ambition was to dominate all the peoples of the world and to have them all living by my rules. I wanted total obedience. I wanted to be praised and revered by everyone on earth. I was careful to cover my ambition in the cloak of religion so that my authority had the backing of the Almighty. Who would dare disobey me then?

The cloak of religion has served me very well. It has inspired my credulous followers to kill and be killed in the service of my ambition; it has allowed them to cast their bloodshed in the light of holiness.

My religion only demands one thing: TOTAL OBEDIENCE. Obey my rules and serve my ambition and you will be rewarded, in this life and the next.

My followers are busy working to enforce my rules across the whole world today. They call this their religion. They do this in all manner of ways: by persuading, persecuting, cajoling, threatening, soothing, confusing, bullying, terrorising, silencing, migrating, breeding — whatever it takes to spread my religion and ensure it becomes dominant.

The main purpose of my religion is to destroy all other religions.

“So what are your rules?” I hear you ask. Very well, here are my life or death rules:

1) If you reject my religion, then you must be fought — to the death.

2) If you leave my religion, you must be killed.

3) If you mock, insult, or work against my religion you must be killed.

4) If you die fighting for my religion you will go straight to paradise.

Remember that total obedience is the only measure of devotion to me. If you follow my rules without question you will be rewarded. Even when my rules demand cruelty or ferocity, you must obey. In fact, your willingness to do what you would rather not do is the best sign that you are obedient and thus truly devoted to my religion.

Everything you do must proclaim the same message: “Accept my religion or else!” This is my message and this is the message of my followers. Watch them carefully; they always bear the same message.

Today my ambition is enjoying remarkable success. Everywhere my followers go they simply have to say they must be allowed to do this or that because it is their religion and the unbelievers fall over themselves to allow it — even when it secretly disgusts them.

For all the technical wizardry of these modern unbelievers, I must say they are the greatest fools I have ever seen. Their biggest weakness is that they want peace. This makes them easy people to conquer. My followers just have to threaten disorder and the unbelievers find a sneaky way to concede defeat. The violence of my followers terrifies the unbelievers into paralysis and submission. There are a few among the unbelievers who have become alarmed but they are ignored or vilified.

In fact, when my followers murder some unbelievers due to some trivial insult, these foolish cowards come to them with grovelling apologies and promises to punish anyone else who offends my religion: my religion, which hangs over them like a death sentence! They truly are the most ridiculous people. I think they will sell their own children into slavery for the sake of a little more “peace”.

My soldiers only have to use words like “justice”, “liberation”, “freedom” and the unbelievers will send their armies to help them. But my followers have no intention of creating “liberty”, it’s against my religion. Nor do the unbelievers understand what I mean by “justice”. They are too lazy to find out!

I have nothing but contempt for these people. They are weak and cowardly and stupid.

These fools think that by tolerating my religion they are accepting it. This will do for now because it allows my followers to gather strength, but in the long run it will not suffice. To accept my religion is to obey my rules and just tolerating my religion is not obeying my rules. If they refuse to obey my rules, they are rejecting my religion and must be fought — to the death. That is rule number one.

Is It Still Possible to Question Islam?

By Robert Spencer

Is it “Islamophobic” to question whether or not the standard picture of Muhammad as depicted in Muslim texts is historically accurate?

Certainly many people think so, notably the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The OIC is a fifty-six nation body (plus the Palestinian Authority) that, since the demise of the Soviet Union, comprises the largest voting bloc at the United Nations. It has been working for years to compel the UN to criminalize “Islamophobia.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a closed-door meeting with the OIC in December 2011, apparently to facilitate just that and figure out ways to circumvent the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech.

Journalist Claire Berlinski notes [1] that “the neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo”:
It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. … Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”
Yet the mainstream media has for the most part bought into this perspective, treating all investigation of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism as “Islamophobic,” however useful it might be to understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the U.S. and Western civilization. Into this atmosphere comes my book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam’s Obscure Origins [2], which doesn’t touch directly on terror issues at all, but does demonstrate that Islam was political, supremacist, and violent before it was religious — a fact with considerable implications for today’s political scene.

In broad outline, the accepted story of Islam’s origins is well known. It begins with an Arabian merchant of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, known to the world as Muhammad, a name that means the “praised one.” He rejected the polytheism of his tribe and was given to frequent prayer in the hills and caves outside Mecca. In the year 610, when he was forty, he was praying in a cave on Mount Hira, about two miles from Mecca, when he was suddenly confronted by the angel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite.

For the next twenty-three years, until his death in 632, Muhammad did just that: He recited the messages he received from Gabriel, presenting them to his followers as the pure and unadulterated word of the supreme and only God. Many of his followers memorized portions. The Arabia in which Islam was born was an oral culture that respected poetic achievement, and thus the prodigious feats of memory required to memorize lengthy suras were not so unusual. After Muhammad’s death, the revelations he had received were collected together into the Qur’an, or “Recitation,” from the accounts of those who had memorized them or written them down.

Muslims around the globe are not the only ones who take this account for granted; even non-Muslims generally accept the broad contours of this narrative, which has been told and retold for centuries. However, virtually none of that standard account stands up to historical scrutiny, for several key reasons:
  • No record of Muhammad’s reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
  • The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur’an. They call the conquerors “Ishmaelites,” “Saracens,”“Muha- jirun,” and “Hagarians,” but never “Muslims.”
  • The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don’t mention Islam or the Qur’an for the first six decades of their conquests. Mentions of “Muhammad” are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross. The word can be used not only as a proper name but also as an honorific.
  • The Qur’an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s. Contradicting that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention the Qur’an until the early eighth century.
  • During the reign of the caliph Muawiya (661–680), the Arabs constructed at least one public building whose inscription was headed by a cross – a symbol abhorrent to Islam.
The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

Unmistakably historical, however, are the Arab conquests and the empire they produced. Every empire of the day was anchored in a political theology. The Eastern Roman Empire was Christian; the Persian Empire was Zoroastrian. The realm of political theology offers the most plausible explanation for the creation of Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur’an. The Arab Empire controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated. Islam began as an umbrella monotheistic movement that presented itself as encompassing the true forms of the two great previous monotheistic movements, Judaism and Christianity.

Historical records make clear that toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the Umayyad leaders of the Arab domains began to speak much more specifically than anyone had before about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book. Muhammad, if he did not exist, or if his actual deeds were not known, would certainly have been politically useful to the new Arab Empire as a legendary hero. The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power. It needed a common religion—a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire’s unity and would secure allegiance to the state.

In any case, the late appearance of the biographical material about Muhammad, the fact that no one had heard of or spoken of Muhammad for decades after the Arab conquests began, the changes in the religion of the Arab Empire, the inconsistencies in the Qur’an—all of this needed to be explained. But is attempting to do so “Islamophobic?” Or can disinterested historical investigation still be carried out in the free West?

It is most interesting that the book Did Muhammad Exist? has been greeted with silence or opprobrium. Yet now, more than ever before, historical investigators have the opportunity—in fact, the responsibility—to usher Islam’s origins out of the shadows and into the light, and the responsibility not to be cowed by Islamic supremacist intimidation in doing so. Were they not to discharge that responsibility fully or properly, we will all be the poorer.

Should critically discussing Islam be a form of hate speech? 

By Benjamin Bull

Several days ago, I noted with interest that Danish journalist and historian Lars Hedegaard has been acquitted by a unanimous Dutch Supreme Court of charges that he violated Holland's notorious "hate speech" laws.  His crime?  He made a public utterance that state prosecutors concluded was "denigrating" of Islam.

Hedegaard dared say that Islam should be criticized for  referencing a Norwegian book concerning the high frequency of sexual abuse in Muslim families, stating, "We hear about that all the time."  The prosecutor never alleged that anything Hedegaard stated was untrue.  Truth under the Dutch hate speech law is largely irrelevant.

The acquittal follows on the heels of the more widely publicized dismissal of charges against flamboyant Dutch politician Geert Wilders for violating the very same law.  Wilders' crime was the production of the film Fitna, which had the audacity to draw a connection between certain passages of the Koran and Islamist jihad.  Like the Hedegaard prosecution, Wilders' prosecutor never alleged that anything in the film was untrue.

While the ultimate acquittals were encouraging, the fact that these men were forced to spend years in court fighting such frivolous charges is more than a travesty.  And this doesn't begin to take into account the small fortune such legal disputes cost both the state and the defendants.

The irresponsible willingness of governments to promulgate and encourage the prosecution of truthful but critical comments on Islam needs to be closely scrutinized.

In the U.S., voices have been heard calling for Muslim communities to circumvent the federal Constitution and govern themselves using the socio-political component of Islam called sharia.  Sharia itself may fairly be characterized as hatching the monster of all "hate speech" laws.  It calls for capital punishment of anyone who utters criticism of Muhammad or the religion he founded.  The U.K. already is allowing several Islamic communities to govern themselves according to sharia.

For the last several years, Pakistan and its friends have attempted to push a U.N. resolution through the Human Rights Council calling for an international ban on any criticism of Muhammad or Islam.  Such criticism, truthful or otherwise, would fall within the gambit of a new kind of "hate speech" regulation called "Islamophobia."  What is perhaps most frightening is that this effort is taken quite seriously and backed by almost a dozen U.N. member-nations.

In another startlingly shocking application of such laws, Daniel Scot and Danny Nalliah, both pastors in Melbourne, Australia, were sued for their alleged "hate speech" violations.  In March 2002, they held a religious seminar that factually critiqued Islam.  Three Muslims attending the seminar reported what they heard to the local Islamic Council.  Soon afterward, it brought suit against Scot and Nalliah under the state's then-new "hate speech" law.  The court ruled that the pastors, in criticizing Islam, had violated the law, ordered them to apologize publicly, and banned them from making similar comments anywhere in Australia.  Most notably, as in the cases mentioned earlier, it was never alleged that anything the pastors said was false.

Several years ago, a complaint was filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission related to an article titled "The Future Belongs to Islam," written by commentator Mark Steyn and published inMaclean's magazine.  In a straightforward and factual way, the article outlines the growing influence of Islam in Europe and the West.  In a typical knee-jerk reaction, an Islamic group filed a complaint alleging that Steyn's work was "hate speech."  While the commission properly declined to pursue an action against Steyn, it issued a purely gratuitous public statement that condemned the article and characterized it as "hate speech."  Once again, there was never an allegation that anything contained in the article was factually incorrect.  Sensing a pattern here?

And, of course, we are familiar with well-publicized Islamic groups in America, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which routinely classify true statements about Islam, sharia law, and jihad as "hateful."

Several years ago, CAIR began a campaign against National Review magazine because of a biography of Muhammad the magazine was then advertising.  CAIR did not assert that anything in the book orNational Review's advertisement was in any way inaccurate.  Accuracy and truth were seemingly irrelevant.  What was important to CAIR was that Muhammad was being subjected to unflattering criticism and critical analysis.

Prominent Canadian lawyer Roger D. McConchie, speaking out against British Columbia's hate speech laws, sums up the problem.  When it comes to hate speech laws:

[I]nnocent intent is not a defense. Nor is truth. Nor is fair comment on true facts. Publication in the public interest and for the public benefit is not a defense. Opinion expressed in good faith is not a defense. Responsible journalism is not a defense.
As far as I can observe, he is entirely correct.

Indonesia is No Model for Muslim Democracy

By Andreas Harsono

It is fashionable these days for Western leaders to praise Indonesia as a model Muslim democracy. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has declared, “If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women’s rights can coexist, go to Indonesia.” And last month Britain’s prime minister, David Cameron,lauded Indonesia for showing that “religion and democracy need not be in conflict.”

Tell that to Asia Lumbantoruan, a Christian elder whose congregation outside Jakarta has recently had two of its partially built churches burned down by Islamist militants. He was stabbed by these extremists while defending a third site from attack in September 2010.

This week in Geneva, the United Nations is reviewing Indonesia’s human rights record. It should call on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to crack down on extremists and protect minorities. While Indonesia has made great strides in consolidating a stable, democratic government after five decades of authoritarian rule, the country is by no means a bastion of tolerance. The rights of religious and ethnic minorities are routinely trampled. While Indonesia’s Constitution protects freedom of religion, regulations against blasphemy and proselytizing are routinely used to prosecute atheists, Bahais, Christians, Shiites, Sufis and members of the Ahmadiyya faith — a Muslim sect declared to be deviant in many Islamic countries. By 2010, Indonesia had over 150 religiously motivated regulations restricting minorities’ rights.

In 2006, Mr. Yudhoyono, in a new decree on “religious harmony,” tightened criteria for building a house of worship. The decree is enforced only on religious minorities — often when Islamists pressure local officials not to authorize the construction of Christian churches or to harass and intimidate those worshiping in “illegal” churches, which lack official registration. More than 400 such churches have been closed since Mr. Yudhoyono took office in 2004.

Although the government has cracked down on Jemaah Islamiyah, an Al Qaeda affiliate that has bombed hotels, bars and embassies, it has not intervened to stop other Islamist militants who regularly commit less publicized crimes against religious minorities. Mr. Yudhoyono’s government is reluctant to take them on because it rules Indonesia in a coalition with intolerant Islamist political parties.

Mr. Yudhoyono is not simply turning a blind eye; he has actively courted conservative Islamist elements and relies on them to maintain his majority in Parliament, even granting them key cabinet positions. These appointments send a message to Indonesia’s population and embolden Islamist extremists to use violence against minorities.

In August 2011, for example, Muslim militants burned down three Christian churches on Sumatra. No one was charged and officials have prevented the congregations from rebuilding their churches. And on the outskirts of Jakarta, two municipalities have refused to obey Supreme Court orders to reopen two sealed churches; Mr. Yudhoyono claimed he had no authority to intervene.

Christians are not the only targets. In June 2008, the Yudhoyono administration issued a decree requiring the Ahmadiyya sect to “stop spreading interpretations and activities that deviate from the principal teachings of Islam,” including its fundamental belief that there was a prophet after Muhammad. The government said the decree was necessary to prevent violence against the sect. But provincial and local governments used the decree to write even stricter regulations. Muslim militants, who consider the Ahmadiyya heretics, then forcibly shut down more than 30 Ahmadiyya mosques.

In the deadliest attack, in western Java in February 2011, three Ahmadiyya men were killed. A cameraman recorded the violence, and versions of it were posted on YouTube. An Indonesian court eventually prosecuted 12 militants for the crime, but handed down paltry sentences of only four to six months. Mr. Yudhoyono has also failed to protect ethnic minorities who have peacefully called for independence in the country’s eastern regions of Papua and the Molucca Islands. During demonstrations in Papua on May 1, one protester was killed and 13 were arrested. And last October, the government brutally suppressed the Papuan People’s Congress, beating dozens and killing three people. While protesters were jailed and charged with treason, the police chief in charge of security that day was promoted.

Almost 100 people remain in prison for peacefully protesting. Dozens are ill, but the government has denied them proper treatment, claiming it lacks the money. Even the Suharto dictatorship allowed the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit political prisoners, yet the Yudhoyono government has banned the I.C.R.C. from working in Papua.

Instead of praising Indonesia, nations that support tolerance and free speech should publicly demand that Indonesia respect religious freedom, release political prisoners and lift restrictions on media and human rights groups in Papua.

Mr. Yudhoyono needs to take charge of this situation by revoking discriminatory regulations, demanding that his coalition partners respect the religious freedom of all minorities in word and in deed, and enforcing the constitutional protection of freedom of worship. He must also make it crystal clear that Islamist hard-liners who commit or incite violence and the police who fail to protect the victims will be punished. Only then will Indonesia be deserving of Mr. Cameron and Mrs. Clinton’s praise.

Andreas Harsono is a researcher for the Asia division at Human Rights Watch.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Wafa Sultan vs. Omar Bakri

Sheikh Bakri Helps Wafa Sultan Educate All Americans on Islam

By Andrew Bostom

The courage of Western convictions
Dr. Wafa Sultan, a remarkably courageous and thoughtful Muslim freethinker, recently debated Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad. Dr. Sultan watched passively while the good Sheik expressed without equivocation his pious views—in full accord with classical, mainstream Islamic doctrine on jihad—and then politely added her own plain spoken commentary in response.

This less than 8-minute video segment, if viewed objectively and dispassionately, could do more to educate the American public on the theory animating the practice of “Islamic international relations,” without any further explanation required.

In brief, the video exchange confirms State Department consul Edward A Van Dyck’s didactic characterization from 1880, before the malign influence of post-modern self-loathing crippled the ability of our diplomatic corps, and policymaking elites to think and act clearly:

In all the many works on Mohammedan law no teaching is met with that even hints at those principles of political intercourse between nations, that have been so long known to the peoples of Europe, and which are so universally recognized by them. “Fiqh,” as the science of Moslem jurisprudence is called, knows only one category of relation between those who recognize the apostleship of Mohammed and all others who do not, namely Djehad [jihad[; that is to say, strife, or holy war. Inasmuch as the propagation of Islam was to be the aim of all Moslems, perpetual warfare against the unbelievers, in order to convert them, or subject them to the payment of tribute, came to be held by Moslem doctors [legists] as the most sacred duty of the believer. This right to wage war is the only principle of international law which is taught by Mohammedan jurists; …with the Arabs the term harby [harbi] (warrior) expresses not only an unbeliever but also an enemy; and jehady [jihadi] (striver, warrior) means the believer-militant. From the Moslem point of view, the whole world is divided into two parts—“the House of Islam,” and “the House of War;” out of this division has arisen the other popular dictum of the Mohammedans that “all kinds of unbelievers from but one people.”

The danger of Islamic convictions
Moreover, Sheikh Bakri reiterates the heinous conception—and practice—concordant with mainstream Islamic law, sharia, and the ugly history of Islamic depredations, that the very lives of non-Muslim “harbis” are licit. The great modern Western scholar of Islamic law, Joseph Schacht described this “legal” concept, succinctly, as follows:

A non-Muslim who is not protected by a treaty is called harbi, “in a state of war”, “enemy alien”; his life and property are completely unprotected by law…

Finally, Armand Abel, the renowned Belgian analyst of jihad doctrine, elaborated on the extortion inherent to such “treaties” imposed by Islamic imperialists, lest potential non-Muslim victims suffer worse fates as “harbis”—points omitted by Sheikh Bakri.

Thus the [Byzantine] Empress Irene [d. 803] “purchased peace at the price of her humiliation”, according to the formula stated in the dhimma contract itself, by paying 70,000 pounds in gold annually to the Caliph of Baghdad. Many other princes agreed in this way to become tributaries – often after long struggles – and to see their dominions pass from the status of dar al Harb to that of dar al Sulh.  In this way, those of their subjects who lived within the boundaries of the territory ruled by the Caliphate were spared the uncertainty of being exposed arbitrarily, without any guarantee, to the military operations of the summer ghazu and the winter ghazu:  indeed, anything within the reach of the Muslim armies as they advanced, being property of impious men and rebels, was legitimately considered their booty;  their men, seized by armed soldiers, were mercilessly consigned to the lot specified in the Koranic verse about the sword,and their women and children were treated like things.

Below is the full transcript of the English translation but I encourage all to watch the video.

Host: Sheikh Omar, what are human rights under the shari’a? Can you explain this for us?

Omar Bakri: The shari’a has defined human rights for Muslims and for non-Muslims. The non-Muslim has chosen not to accept |the judgments of Allah. Therefore, yes, his rights differ from |those of a Muslim. I say that they are not equal. The other party might disagree with me, that’s fine. That’s her opinion. But Islam gave rights to man, in order to satisfy his needs and take care of his affairs. Muslims and non-Muslims who have previously made a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact, are equal when it comes to citizenship. In other words, they are the same. The Islamic state and the Islamic shari’a, when governed thereby, guarantee their political needs, such as shelter, food, clothing, security, education, and health care, for they are under the care of the Islamic state.

However, this equality does not mean that you are exactly like us. Yes, a non-Muslim under the Islamic shari’a cannot have any rights except those which Allah has legislated for him. Allah has legislated that he may have his belief, religion, clothes, and everything which is needed by all citizens, Muslim or non-Muslim.

Now the Muslim has greater rights and respect because he is Muslim, for Islam is above others, and never below, so the Muslim is above others, and never below.

Omar Bakri (continues): I don’t believe in the equality of man, because men are not equal in the eyes of Allah. He commanded us to not make them equal. For example, I have the right to marry a Christian or Jewish girl, but it is not permissible for a Jewish man |to marry a Muslim girl.

This is correct. I am not calling for equality. When I go to Britain or Europe, I have the same right– my blood and property are inviolable. In exchange, their blood and property are also inviolable through this peace treaty. Their blood and property have no protection except through a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact. Thus Allah has commanded — you can either accept it or reject it.

Wafa Sultan: So when you travel to a Western land you consider it the land of Allah, and you want your beliefs to apply there?

Omar Bakri: Yes.

Wafa Sultan: You want to dictate to the native inhabitants |of the country what they can do?

Omar Bakri: I invite them, and if they accept the command of Allah, then they may do so. If they don’t accept, and kick me out of the country, then we will fight against them. The relationship between us is either a pact of belief in Allah, or a peace treaty, or war. The general rule is that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for us. Their blood and property are not inviolable. It is in their interest to have a peace treaty or dhimmi pact with me. It is in your interest, you who say that you do not believe in Islam, to accept that there be a peace treaty or dhimmi pact between us. The dhimmi pact falls under the Islamic shari’a, but the peace treaty does not subject you to the shari’a. That’s the way it is. Either you accept it, or we live in a state of war. The general rule is that the blood and property |of infidels are permissible for Muslims.

The Prophet Muhammad even said, “I was sent to fight against the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, |and I am the apostle of Allah.” Therefore if he said, “Their blood and property |are inviolable from me,” then their blood and property would be inviolable if they believed in Islam or accepted a peace treaty. It is either through faith or a peace treaty that man lives with his neighbor. But a Muslim coexists with an infidel either through a peace treaty, a dhimmi pact, or a state of war. This is the basic relationship between a Muslim |and an infidel.

Host: Thank you, Sheikh Omar. You went over your time, but it helped us gain a complete understanding of the topic. Dr. Wafa, what do you think about what Sheikh Omar Bakri said?

Wafa Sultan: I think that Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response should be recorded here. He was clear and frank, and explained the doctrine of Islam to the point that there is nothing left for me to reveal of that repulsive truth.

Muslims here in America boast that the human rights recognized worldwide are the same as the rights under Islam. They boast that men’s rights are the same as women’s rights. They boast that Muslims’ rights are the same as non-Muslims’ rights. They boast that the shari’a can coexist with the American constitution. Therefore we should record Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response, for he did not dissemble, but instead manifested the truth of his religion in all its ugliness and hideousness.

Under the shari’a he is required to fight against others until they believe what he believes. Is there anything uglier than this shari’a on the face of the earth? Is there anything uglier than that this should be imposed upon me by force, by arms?

When we tell Americans here that Islam was spread by the sword, Muslims scream that this is not true, that it was spread by tolerance and the free word. But I want to stress what Sheikh Omar Bakri said, for he is a true Muslim, and has revealed to us the truth of Islam without equivocation. All the world should take note of the danger of this doctrine and fight against it with all their strength, for we cannot accept that any man on the face of the earth should force us to believe in his god.

Thanks to Vlad Tepes blog and Translating Jihad for the video and translated captions.

Friday, May 18, 2012

Terrorists’ Bill of Rights

By Amil Imani

The Constitution of the United States is one of the most glorious documents ever written promoting individual liberty.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution. It reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The framers of the Constitution were acutely aware of the danger of religious infringement in the affairs of the State or the State’s sponsorship of a particular faith. Recalling the tragic clashes of the two in Europe, the founding fathers aimed to guard against either religion or the State transgressing in the purview of the other.

In the interest of impartiality, the authors of the constitution did not define what constitutes a religion. Presently, a plethora of sects, cults, orders—all claiming to be religion—cover the length and the breadth of the land. So long as these “religions” minister to the legitimate spiritual needs of their congregation without threatening the rights of others, there is no reason for concern. However, when one or more of these claimants strive to undermine the very Constitution that protects them in order to impose their belief and way of life, serious problems arise.

One such religion is Islam in all its forms. Islam is more than a religion. It is an ideological superstructure encompassing all institutions, social, economic, political, military, civil, legal, educational, and even private affairs. It is of relatively recent arrival in this continent and is rapidly burgeoning in number and influence. Therefore, it is imprudent to ignore the threat it poses to the larger religious and secular communities.

Can a religion or a cult become so powerful and so uncivilized that it can hide behind the Constitution to preach an ideology of hatred and advocate a plan to destroy our society and subvert our government? We need to consider whether our Constitution enables and protects “religions” that are being used to put our very society and our freedoms in jeopardy.

Islam seeks nothing less than a total global domination. The word Islam literally means “submission” or “surrender”, the kind that comes by force or fraud. Its scripture must be taken literally; its provisions are intended to dominate every waking moment in the life of a believer. There is no room for being a half-hearted Muslim and no toleration of watering down its invocations.

The true nature or the threat of Islam is evident in the Quran—a document of exclusion, hatred and violence that shapes the Muslims’ thinking and behavior.

The Quran was perhaps appropriate for a different people of a bygone era—a people of stunted development, a people who preferred to blindly follow someone than to think for themselves, to hate than love, and to seek and inflict death than to nurture and celebrate life.

Freedom is very fragile. Anything that protects freedom can also become an Achilles heel for those blessed with freedom. This is because freedom always entails the unfortunate ability to use one’s rights to destroy the freedoms and rights of others. People can use the protections afforded them by the Constitution to inflict great harm to those who live within the law. We know this is the main argument against the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment institution protects private firearms ownership, yet we are endlessly reminded by some politicians that gun ownership can be dangerous, and like any freedom the right to own and use firearms can be misused. This is why an unfettered right to own a gun has been subject to a multitude of regulations and restrictions.

Since Islam is an explosive and destructive ideology and is growing faster than one might think that in America, it would be even more expedient for the American citizens to protect the right to bear arms.

Given that the formerly vast and largely segregated planet has shrunk into a “global village,” the disparate peoples isolated from one another for millennia are now a village community. These thrown-together diverse people are in urgent need of a set of common rules that would allow individuals as well as groups maximum latitude of faith, coupled with responsibility, and free of any practices that infringe on the rights of others or demonizes them.

Islam with its rule of Sharia presents an imminent threat to subvert and replace the Constitution that governs our lives. Unlike Muslims who practice Taqiyya —lying or dissimulation—I proudly speak the truth. Truth should never be sacrificed at the altar of any goal. I firmly believe that truthfulness is indeed the foundation of all virtues.

Faithful Muslims believe that sovereignty belongs to Allah. They believe the only important “constitution” is the Quran, and before allegiance to a nation comes fidelity to Allah. Islam of all sects demands obedience to Islamic law, not the laws of men or political institutions. A Muslim will never abide by an oath of office when Islamic principles are at stake. When they swear an oath on the Quran, it is to show Islamic supremacy, not to prove they are telling the truth.

Please understand that Islamic principles cover every conceivable action and interaction of people living under Islamic law.

“It is not fitting for a Muslim man or woman to have any choice in their affairs when a matter has been decided for them by Allah and His Messenger. They have no option.” Qur’an 33:36

So our Constitution and even State and local laws are essentially meaningless to a Muslim, and the Bill of Rights, once its usefulness as a means to perpetuate Islam in America is no longer necessary, will certainly be disparaged and ignored.

In fact, Islam is incompatible with democracy and subversive of the way of life that blesses this nation. It is fascist and evil by its very definition. Thus, it is imperative that we fight Islamofascisim with the same determination that we fought other enemies of freedom such as Nazism , Fascism, and Communism. And that imperative starts with our lawmakers constitutionally reevaluating the definition of religion. Islam must be curbed or it will curb us.

How are Islamists taking control? They do it first by establishing Mosques in every town and city. These meeting places are perfect warehouses of not only indoctrination, but future terrorists, who are made to read and understand the principles of Jihad, martyrdom and Dar ul Harb (“land of war”—anyplace not Islamacized.) Mosques cost money, and the money for these warehouses of hate is coming straight from Saudi Arabia. These mosques are being infused with an activist strain of Islam, Wahabism. If you have to ask where the Saudi’s are getting their money, you are not paying attention…it’s coming from you. According to a National Portrait, a survey released in April 2001, there are at least 1,209 mosques in the US and numbers are doubled since then and they continue to increase.

Mosque elders tend to be sent to the US with one clear mission: Make Islamic religion, laws, and life supreme within the United States, using any and all tactics necessary. Next, from within the safety of their local mosques, they begin to use their revolting practices, riotous youth, and wild sermonizing to force the genteel Americans to relocate to safer, less threatening neighborhoods and cities. Of course, not all Americans will move or can afford to do so. And to take control of a town, Muslims will not need to evict everyone. They probably need about 25% in order to make life very unpleasant for those who do not go along with their demands.

They will elect Muslims to all positions of local influence, who will create and enforce policy according to the Quran. Once they have control over a town, they will begin to establish informal Sharia, and there’s nothing the government can (or will want to) do about it. Sharia is the brutal means by which Islam controls its populations by force, intimidation, and punishments for offenses to Allah. Already in many European countries, national governments have out of fear, given Islamic fascists the right to establish their own shadow governments within the borders of countries like Sweden and England, where they can control their own populations without accountability. Proposals for Sharia are being taken seriously by Canada.

This is an admission that Islam is not just a religion. It is a cult. It seeks total control over a person’s mind and body. And, as such, our Constitution is totally incompatible with it. They will push politicians for local control and self-determination of their own laws. In this way, America will become two nations; a weakened traditional one, and a growing, menacing Islamacized one.

At the same time, Muslims will ally with leftist politicians who will gladly cede some of their power to this group of enforcers, so conservative politicians and Christians who advocate self defense and sane social policies are kept out of office. Money that was once used to build mosques will now be used to buy politicians. On university campuses, Islam will be portrayed as righteous and peaceful, while Christianity will be associated with evil Western and American values. The rebellious American youth will eat it up.

There will be increasing local and regional incidents of crimes and threats against Christians, Jews, and anybody who speaks out against the religion of hate. Terrorism is a completely legitimate tool of Islam, and was widely practiced and advocated by Muhammad. Remember, all words in the Quran are perfect, immutable laws defining an eternal ethic:

“Against them (the unbelievers) make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.” Quran 8.06.

Leftist politicians will continue to hold the Bill of Rights over anyone who dares to accuse this religion of wrongdoing. While crime and threats skyrocket, Islamacized citizens will ignore the wrongdoing, just like in Iraq. They will look the other way for fear of retribution, honor killings, and punishments from those who uphold the Islamic requirement to seek revenge on anyone who dishonors or disagrees with Islam.

Eventually, America will become weakened and politicians will allow the Muslims to do whatever they want, as long as the infidels are allowed to be free of terrorist threats. As Christianity wanes, people will reject it as an anachronism that is irrelevant to modern trends. Islamic ethics will prevail and Muslim sects will gain members, money, and influence. As government policies lean toward Islamic ideals, the Bill of Rights will be seen as archaic and out of touch with contemporary values and the new direction of the country. It will be just a piece of parchment in a museum, lacking anyone who would so bold and revolutionary as to fight against a religion, even a religion of hate.

The first problem is that we don’t have centuries to wait for reform. But more to the point, Islam does not tolerate revisionism in its beliefs or practices over time. Reform is not at play, because one cannot point to Jihadists or terrorists and say Muhammad did not advocate it. He most certainly did, and he delighted in his evil thoughts.

Islam is a literal religion, taking unabrogated scripture as eternal and absolute. Moreover, there are no compensating scriptures that can be used to substitute for the barbaric avocations. There are no calls in Islam for compassion, forgiveness, non-violence, and brotherly love. Instead there are specific prescriptions for “an eye for an eye”, eternal warfare, religious hegemony, slavery, killing Jews, taxing nonbelievers, stoning, promulgating terror, establishing a caste social system, and the perpetuating discrimination against women. The only way to reform it is to censor vast sections of the Quran and Hadith, which would be absurd.

This is why there is truly no such thing as a “moderate” Muslim. Moderate Muslims or in other words “non-practicing Muslims”, like millions of Iranians, are Muslims by default, who were born into a faith they did not choose, a faith that was “inflicted” upon them by invaders of a foreign culture, a faith that forbids them to leave or revert to their pre-Islamic heritage and religions. Therefore, vast majority of Iranians remain Muslims in name only.

The other type of moderate Muslim is the “ignorant” Muslim who does not understand the Qur’anic “requirement” to wage war and submit to the Sharia, thereby “unknowingly” violating Qur’anic law. This latter type of Muslim is found in the rest of the Muslim countries. Hence, there is no such thing as “radical Islam”, since by its true definition Islam is nothing but radical. Those who espouse a “liberal” view of Islam should be forced to back up their nouveau interpretation with unabrogated scriptural facts.

Unless such would-be “reformists” can categorically denounce Islamofascisim based on sound evidence from the Qur’an, they prove to be the true radicals, which is why we never see the Islamic apologists point to scriptural arguments against jihad. They simply cannot, because there is none, and they simply disguise and distort the truth.

The terrorists are not radicals from their interpretation of their doctrine–they are only doing exactly what Muhammad demanded of them, and his demands were not suggestions and they where not ephemeral. They were “perfect”, eternal ultimata. The terrorists are faithful and true to what is written in the holy Qur’an. A Muslim is forbidden to think critically about the Qur’an. He must blindly obey it and accept it passively and should memorize all of it. Being thus filled with the spirit of Islam (literally meaning “submission”), he instinctively walks in accordance with Allah’s law in his daily life in a state of disempowered stupor.

It would be wonderful to believe that if only a quiet reform could mend the hearts of Muslims, and that much of their sacred writings could be overlooked and forgotten, or perhaps just re-interpreted, then all of the Islamic world could join the community of modern, civilized humankind. Unfortunately, this plan can never work. It might work for a while, but then some Muslims might take to reading, and the whole jihad, terror, coercion, Sharia trend would start over. You cannot reform that which is central to a religion.

Regretfully, a vast ignorance prevails in this sphere. Academic pundits, leftist journalists, and hired Islamic apologists, better known as “Useful Idiots”, proclaim that Islam is a religion of peace and that the great majority of Muslims are not party to any plans and actions of the radicals.

So how do we stop this sequence of events? How can our government, which has so effectively protected the rights of peaceful religions, protect us from an aggressive one?

America, with a long history of protecting religious freedom, still clings to the “hands off” practice of leaving alone any doctrine or practice billed as a religion. Deciding what constitutes a religion and who is to make that call is a thorny problem. The dictionary supplies a sociologically useless definition of religion: “The expression of man’s belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe.” Just about anyone or any group under this definition can start a religion, and they indeed do—and some do so at a significant cost to others.

Perhaps it is time to realize that not all religions are the same. If a religion is evil, it must lose its right to exist under First Amendment protections. If it advocates that which is wrong and immoral, and it seeks to control all aspects of your life by force and fraud; if it seeks exemption from national laws protecting constitutional rights, then it must not be considered a religion. It must be called something else, and it cannot be recognized as a protected ideology under the First Amendment. We have hate-crime laws. How about admitting that there is a hate religion, and its name is Islam, cult of fascism?

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guides not a people unjust.” Quran 5:51

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Bible (Matthew 5:44)

Any religion that seeks to create its own “State” and its own legal system and seeks to mobilize its own militia is itself not interested in separation of church and State, and has no right to use that separation to create hegemony. In fact, such a doctrine is not even a religion at all. It is a totalitarian regime, and must be considered the enemy of everything Americans believe in.

It’s time to shut down juggernaut Islam. This begins by removing First Amendment protections and revealing Islam’s beliefs to America, including its thoroughly anti-American ideology. It begins by admitting that no matter how many recruits it has acquired by force and fraud, that Islam is a cult, not a religion. I’d welcome an inspection of other religions to determine if they are truly peaceful, and I am confident all other doctrines will remain protected and unaffected, because religions are by definition peaceful. Cults are not. Let’s single out the cause of our problems. Let’s remove the tumor of Islam from our country before it is further metastasized.

Islam is not Part of Western Civilization

By Bill Warner

Obama said at the latest White House Iftar dinner:
Like so many faiths, Islam has always been part of our American family, and Muslim Americans have long contributed to the strength and character of our country, in all walks of life.
These words have no basis in fact. Islam is not part of our civilization because its foundational principles are opposite to ours. Our civilization is built on the foundation of critical thought (how we think) and the Golden Rule (ethics). Islam is built on submission (authoritative thought) and ethical dualism.

Let’s compare the principles, of these different thought systems, starting with authoritative thought and critical thought. Critical thought (also: analytic thought, scientific thought) is the necessary reasoning or intellectual basis for our culture of democracy. Critical thought is objective--no matter who does the work, they get the same results. It is fact-based, uses cause and effect, and is intellectual, not emotional. Critical thought’s tie into morals is that you don’t lie or cheat about data.

Let’s look at some authoritative reasoning. Authoritative reasoning is based on expert opinion and asserts its truth by power. It is so, because the Establishment says it is so.

The Meccan Koran, the early Koran, has one new idea—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah. (The ideas found in the Koran are derivative.) The proof of Mohammed’s prophecy is repetition of “Mohammed is the prophet” and what happens if you don’t accept that. The reasoning is circular—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, because Allah says so. (Actually, the archangel of Allah says so.) How do we know what Allah says? Mohammed tells us what Allah says.

The Koran of Medina (the later Koran) contains one new idea—if you don’t believe that Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you can be murdered in jihad. If you are not persuaded, then you can be eliminated. Now that is authoritative reasoning.

More on authoritative reasoning can be found in the Sharia. The Sharia says that apostasy (leaving Islam) is a capital offense. And what entails apostasy?

• To be sarcastic about Allah or any verse in the Koran
• To deny the consensus of the Islamic scholars
• To deny that Islam is to be the world’s only religion
• To be sarcastic about Sharia

And people say that Islam just needs to be reformed. Good luck on dealing with the authoritative rules of thought and reform. It is not that you are wrong, you are dead wrong. Want more examples of authoritative thought? Try Salman Rushdie, the author of the Satanic Verses, a novel. Islam’s reaction to the novel was a death fatwa. When the Mohammed cartoons were published, people died in riots.

So far in America what happens if you differ with Establishment thought about Islam, you are called names, such as bigot or hater, and insulted as a punishment. However, the Establishment keeps flirting with the expanded versions of hate speech being criminalized. Hate speech is speech that the Establishment doesn’t like.

Critical thought does not deal with punishment, just cause and effect along with Aristotelian logic. If you lose an argument under the rules of critical thought, you have had a learning experience, not a life threatening experience. Nor do insults and threats play a part in critical thought.

Now to ethics, the Golden Rule is that we should treat ALL others as we would be treated. This is a unitary ethic, one rule for all peoples. Islam does not see it that way. Islam has one set of ethics for the Muslim and another set for the Kafir. The Hadith and the Koran are very clear that a Muslim is a brother to all other Muslims. A Muslim is a brother to any Muslim before he is the brother to any member of his Kafir blood family.

Look at Mohammed’s ethics. Mohammed is the divine human prototype, the perfect man, as it says in 91 Koranic verses. How did Mohammed treat his neighbor? In Medina he gave neighboring tribes the chance to become become Muslims and to submit to Islam. If they did not, he attacked them. Submit or die--no Golden Rule.

Mohammed repeatedly said that Muslims should lie to Kafirs if it would advance Islam—pure ethical dualism. Here we have the hadith:
Bukhari 5,59,369 Mohammed asked, “Who will kill Ka’b, the enemy of Allah and Mohammed?”
Bin Maslama rose and responded, “O Mohammed! Would it please you if I killed him?”
Mohammed answered, “Yes.”
Bin Maslama then said, “Give me permission to deceive him with lies so that my plot will succeed.”
Mohammed replied, “You may speak falsely to him.”…
Our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is an expansion on the Golden Rule. We eliminated slavery based on the Golden Rule. Do we live up to the Golden Rule on every occasion? No, but that does not diminish its guidance, because we can use the Golden Rule to criticize those that fail to meet it.

To sum it all up: our civilization is based on the principles of the Golden Rule and critical thought. Islam is based on dualistic ethics and authoritative thought. There is no compromise between the opposites of the Golden Rule and dualistic ethics. There is no half-way between authoritative thought and critical thought. Islam’s principle of submission means that only active resistance can let us survive.

We have a 1400 year history of the interaction between Islam and Kafir nations. The data matches the theory. Centuries after Islam enters the culture, the host culture is annihilated--see Turkey. There is no compatibility between Islam and us. Islam is not now, nor can it ever be, a part of our civilization. It is the final goal of Islam to annihilate all Kafir civilizations. Its first stage of--we are just like you, only different—should be seen for what it is. No amount of preaching by apologists can change Islam’s political doctrine and history.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...