Trump tears into Clinton over Orlando as he says attacks prove HE’S the man to protect Americans – including gays and Muslims – and claims she would let more Islamic terrorists into the country
- Donald Trump delivered a stinging speech about terrorism on Monday in New Hampshire, hammering Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
- Said he wants to protect all Americans from jihadis and faulted the Obama administration for being asleep at the switch on immigration
- Expressed strong solidarity with gays and lesbians after an armed jihadi killed more than four dozen people at a gay nightclub in Florida
- ‘Ignorance is not bliss,’ he said of Clinton’s national security proposals; ‘It’s deadly. Totally deadly’
Donald Trump leveled a national-security flamethrower at Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, blaming her for embracing an immigration policy that would drive more Islamic radicals to stage terror attacks like the one from which Orlando, Florida is only beginning to recover.
Clinton, he said, would negligently implement a ‘catastrophic immigration plan’ that would ‘bring vastly more radical Islamic immigrants into this country, threatening not only our society but our entire way of life.’
‘Ignorance is not bliss,’ he said in a half-hour speech at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire.
‘It’s deadly. Totally deadly.’
CLOBBERING CLINTON: Donald Trump delivered a biting speech Tuesday on terrorism and national security, aimed largely at Hillary Clinton, following a deadly Islamist terror attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida
Trump castigated the former secretary of state for comments she made in November 2015 during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.
‘Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary,’ Clinton said then. ‘Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.’
‘That is Hillary Clinton,’ Trump said, hammering her for her response to the weekend’s bloodbath at a gay nightclub where more than four dozen people list their lives to a man who pledged allegiance to the ISIS terror army.
‘The days of deadly ignorance will end, and they will end soon’ if he is elected president, Trump pledged.
Clinton’s response on Monday was equal parts gun control and a motherly embrace of America’s gays and lesbians.
‘She says the solution is to ban guns. They tried that in France,’ Trump poked, referring to last year’s terror attacks in Paris. ‘One hundred thirty people were brutally murdered by Islamic terrorists in cold blood,’ he said.
‘Her plan is to disarm law-abiding Americans, abolish the Second Amendment and leave only terrorists … with guns.’
‘She wants to take away Americans’ guns and then admit the very people who want to slaughter us,’ Trump boomed, reading from a teleprompter. He pledged to meet with the National Rifle Association, the powerful lobby that has endorsed him, to ‘discuss how to make sure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of terror.’
‘CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS: ‘Hillary Clinton can never pretend to be a friend of the gay community,’ Trump said in New Hampshire, while she supports immigration policies that admit anti-gay jihadi immigrants
Trump effectively blunted Clinton’s approach on anti-gay discrimination by joining her, however, saying that ‘our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando’s LGBT community’ against a terrorist who plotted ‘to execute gay and lesbian Americans.’
He called the carnage ‘an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want, and express their identity.’
That rhetoric would have sounded at home during the Democratic primary season, or on the stage of Sunday night’s Tony Awards.
Trump, in fact, claimed that he would be a better and more effective advocate than Clinton for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.
‘Hillary Clinton can never pretend to be a friend of the gay community,’ he said, while supporting immigration policies that bring along with them the threat of more jihadi immigrants.
‘She can’t have it both ways,’ he said. ‘She can’t claim to be supportive of these communities while [increasing] the number of people who want to oppress these communities.’
He emphasized that as president he would prioritize the protection of law-abiding ‘people who are potential victims of crimes based on backgrounds or sexual orientation.’
Trump has been the Republican Party’s most consistent immigration hawk during the primary season, advocating for tighter border control and catching flak along the way.
‘We want to remain a free and open society … [but] we have to control our borders. And we have to control them now. Not later. Right now,’ he said Monday.
With dozens dead in Orlando, he said, ‘we cannot afford to talk around issues anymore. We have to address these issues head-on.’
In a tweak to his previous proposal for a ban on non-citizen Muslims coming into the United States, he said he would use existing presidential powers to ‘suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe, or our allies.’
And doubling down on identity groups that cleave to Clinton’s side, he emphasized that ‘radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.’
‘I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, Jewish people are targets of persecution and intimidation by radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.’
‘This is not just a national security issue. It’s a quality of life issue.’
TODAY OBAMA WAS MADDER AT TRUMP THAN THE SHOOTER WHO KILLED 49 PEOPLE IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. THEN HE SAID THAT BLAMING ISLAM HELPS THE TERRORISTS. I AM PRESENTING TO YOU AN ARTICLE–WRITTEN AFTER TERROR ATTACKS IN PARIS THAT SHOW KEY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS HOW THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY–AND HOW OUR SILENCE HELPS TERRORISTS.
Blaming Christianity for everything while blaming Islam for Nothing: The double standard helps Islamic violence.
By Mitchell Blatt
After Islamic terrorists invade a newspaper office and murder 12 people, the first reaction from impartial observers should most assuredly not be to condemn Catholics for the Spanish Inquisition.
Yet this is the disgusting and a historical message many liberal advocates of moral equivalence shared on social media. Remember that Christians have been violent, too, in the name of religion, and don’t say anything bad about Islam. Jon Harmon, the legislative director for Cincinnati Council member Chris Seelbach, tweeted, in an attack on CNN anchor Don Lemon, “Embarrassing. Will ask Catholics if they support molester priests or the Spanish Inquisition?”
We don’t have to ask. The Catholic Church years ago apologized for the Spanish Inquisition. On March 12, 2000, Pope John Paul II said, “We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.” In fact, Pope John Paul II apologized for a number of things during his papacy, including the crusades and the imprisonment of Galileo.
The apology doesn’t take away from the brutality of the act, but at least it acknowledges wrongdoing. What does the Inquisition have to do with the attack on Charlie Hebdo? Nothing, specifically, unless you consider how the actions of Islamic terrorist groups today such as the Islamic State are as vicious or worse than the Inquisition.
Why Is Islam Exempt from Criticism?
But it is instructive how some on the Left are so quick to condemn Christianity for anything—even for something (the attack on Charlie Hebdo) that Christianity had nothing to do with. It would be hard to imagine a liberal reminding readers about 9/11 after a Christian extremist bombed an abortion clinic, for example, or urging tolerance of the moderate Americans, the vast majority, after a bigoted extremist shoots up a mosque. In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders, the New York Times originally included a claim by a victim that an assailant spared her but demanded she convert to Islam. Later, the paper edited the passage to remove the call for forced conversion.
Who would be scared of offending the sensibilities of a follower of the ‘Religion of Peace’?
The reticence to publish cartoons of Muhammad contributes to an atmosphere where one religion is put on a pedestal above all others. On one hand, people are legitimately scared to do so. No one needs to be told why. A 2012 cartoon in The Onion after the “Innocence of Muhammad” controversy depicted Jesus, Moses, Ganesha, and Buddha engaging in a graphic orgy under the headline, “No One Murdered Because Of This Image.”
Ironically, it is the absence of Muhammad in print that speaks the most negatively about the religion. Who would be scared of offending the sensibilities of a follower of the “Religion of Peace”? It is understandable why media institutions take the policy they do for reasons of safety, but that policy should not be couched in terms of morality or sensibilities. If it were, then that would call into question why so much other imagery is fair game (as such imagery should be).
They’re Scared for Their Lives—Which Says Something
Sometimes even the most ardent atheist critics of religious fundamentalism find they must attack Christianity or “religion” before zeroing in on Islam. Beyond fearing potentially for their lives if they offend the wrong person, they also fear for their reputations, lest they get tarred as “Islamophobic.”
Salon’s Erin Kean denounced Bill Maher for ‘sounding eerily like the religious extremists,’ a claim of moral equivalence that again puts speech on the same level with murder.
Bill Maher can be praised for being consistent. After the attack, Maher went on Jimmy Kimmel’s show and said, “I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like this. But here’s the important point. Hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this.” It was an echo of his argument with Ben Affleck on his own show in October, in which he and Sam Harris pointed to surveys that showed a distressing amount of Muslims in various countries support criminalizing blasphemy with the death penalty. For that, Maher and Harris were called “racists.”
After his comments on Kimmel, Salon’s Erin Kean denounced Maher for “sounding eerily like the religious extremists,” a claim of moral equivalence that again puts speech on the same level with murder. Richard Dawkins was slammed on Salon for having tweeted, “No, all religions are NOT equally violent. Some have never been violent, some gave it up centuries ago. One religion conspicuously didn’t,” and Sean Hannity got the treatment for suggesting that immigrants should be “assimilated” so as not to support such extremism.
Earth to Liberals: Discussing Islam’s Problems Isn’t Bigotry
Of course no form of bigotry is justified, including anti-Islamic bigotry, but discussing major problems is not the same as bigotry. Liberals have spent the past few months condemning police institutions for what they view as racist policing practices that contribute to the shootings of unarmed black men. The Tea Party has been slammed by liberals as “racist” ever since it came into existence. Although the individual characterizations of both issues can be debated, no one should condemn the practice of using harsh rhetoric to confront harsh realities. Religious institutions should not be off limits just because they are religious.
Whether it’s ‘Piss Christ’ or paintings of the Virgin Mary toting a gun, Christians don’t respond by running in with guns and bombs.
If Maher and Dawkins were wrong, then why would their critics have to reach back centuries to pull out a sufficient counterexample? Organized Christianity doesn’t exert near the radical influence now as it did then. Reformations within the church and the Enlightenment have changed matters.
That we even have the debate of whether to publish the cartoons illustrates the point. Artistic exhibitions that offend Christians have been displayed in America and Europe without violent reprisal. Whether it’s “Piss Christ” or paintings of the Virgin Mary toting a gun, followers of the Virgin Mary’s religion don’t come running in with guns and bombs. There have been some exhibitions, such as Cosimo Cavallaro’s “Chocolate Jesus,” that have been canceled due to pressure from organized Christian groups, but the pressure in that case came through boycotts, not bloodshed.
A comparable depiction of Muhammad would never even get past the approval stage of a major museum. Jesus is depicted frequently in cartoons and comedic television shows, but Muhammad is almost always censored in depictions.
News Talks about…News—Not Ancient History
The reason that Islamic violence dominates the headlines today is because it happens now. News is about timeliness. The Spanish Inquisitions of centuries past were barbaric. Historian Henry Kamen estimates that 40,000 Jews were forced into exile because of the persecution, and up to 5,000 people are thought to have been executed, according to various sources. The Inquisition targeted Muslims, as well.
This is ‘debateophobia’—’fear of a free and frank discussion.”
That’s why the Inquisitors were feared at the time and why the Black Legend, a fearful reading of Spanish history, was so powerful. Some early scholarship may have posited death tolls that were higher than the true total, but even if the death toll was in the thousands and not the hundred thousands, it was still an egregious moral wrong that the whole population was denied religious freedoms and that thousands were tortured and executed.
The first response to the Inquisition should not be “Catholicism Faces Rising Tide of Bigotry” any more than the first response to the murder of journalists should be “France Faces Rising Tide of Islamophobia.” It also faces a rising tide of terrorism, which is the starting point for any broader discussion. But that was one of the headlines that ran in the Telegraph in the 48 hours after the attack. If everything must be a “-phobia”, then this is “debateophobia”—“fear of a free and frank discussion,” as sociology professor Frank Furedi called it—to condemn any attempt at understanding the underlying motivations of our current terrorists.
If those liberals who spent the past two days condemning the inquisitions truly believe forced conversions and state-backed murders are so bad, here is something they can resist now. As the Islamic State ravages Iraq and Syria, already having killed more in two years than the Spanish Inquisition killed in its entirety, including thousands of Muslims on the basis of their religious views, it won’t do the victims any good to tell them, “Centuries ago, Christians were also violent.” They are more concerned about surviving today. We should share their concerns.
Mitchell Blatt is a columnist and freelance writer based in China who covers politics and travel. He is the lead author of Panda Guides Hong Kong guidebook. He has been published at Washington Examiner.com, Daily Caller.com, The Hill.com, and Newsbusters, among other outlets.
THE MYTH OF ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE
By Ray Harris
In seeking to defend Islam against the claim that it promotes violence many Muslims have said that ‘Islam’ means peace, or that Islam is a religion of peace. Unfortunately this is just plain wrong.
Islam is derived from the Arabic “aslama”, which means ‘surrender’ (to the will of Allah). Muslimmeans ‘one who has surrendered to the will of Allah’. And unfortunately, violence, under certain conditions, is a legitimate means to affect that surrender.
The argument that Islam means peace is based on a three-fold interpretive error.
- Arabic is based on consonantal roots. Islam is derived from the root SLM. Arabic is also a poetic language that uses words derived from the same root as similes that are used to deepen the meaning of other words. SLM is also the root for the words salim, which means ‘safe’, saleem, ‘perfection’, sallama, ‘salvation’, salama, ‘blameless’ and salaam, ‘wellbeing’. Using all of these words gives an expanded meaning to the word Islam: ‘when one surrenders to the will of Allah (as revealed by His Prophet) one will find salvation, perfection, safety and wellbeing.’
- The word salaam is often translated as ‘peace’, but this is only one of several meanings. It’s primary meaning is actually ‘wellbeing’. It can also mean health, soundness, wholeness, safety and serenity. A common Arabic greeting is as-sallam alaykum, which is usually translated as ‘peace be upon you’, but it’s extended meaning is ‘may wellbeing, wholeness and tranquility be upon you’.
- The English word ‘peace’ has two meanings. The first and primary meaning is derived from its Latin root pax. This is translated as ‘cessation of conflict’. The term pax Romana described the peace secured by surrendering to Roman law. The second meaning of peace is derived from the Latin serenus, meaning serenity/tranquility – when one is serene one can also be said to be peaceful. The word salaam is actually synonymous with the second meaning of peace, serenity. The first meaning is better served by the Arabic word sulh (root SLH), from salaha, meaning; reconciliation, to make peace, or peace treaty.
In saying that Islam means peace Islamic apologists are simply indulging in word play in order to put as positive a spin on things as they can. It is an attempt to argue that Islam promotes non-violence. As we will see such a peace is only available to one who has first surrendered to Allah and it is denied to those who refuse to surrender. Mohammed would sign his treaty offers with the words,aslem taslam, ‘surrender and you will be safe’.
The key problem now revolves around what it means to surrender to Allah’s will. Here we need to introduce another controversial Arabic word, jihad. Jihad is derived from the root JHD. Many of the words derived from this root connote the idea of effort, exertion and struggle. Jihad is a derivative of jahada, to struggle or strive. Thus jihad is taken to mean the struggle to surrender to Allah’s will. The word mujahid means ‘one who struggles’, mujahideen is the plural. The root JHD also creates the word ijtihad, which means intellectual struggle.
Jihad is sometimes translated as ‘holy war’. Again apologists indulge in word play by arguing that the literal translation of holy war into Arabic, harb muqaddasah, gives a different meaning. This is perhaps true in Arabic but not true in English, where holy war is a reasonable translation of ‘spiritual struggle’.
There have been two meanings given to jihad. The original concept has been called the ‘lesser’ (asghar) jihad. This is the use of violence to defend Islam. We will have cause to examine this further. However many Muslim apologists now argue that the ‘real’ jihad is the ‘greater’ (akbar) jihad, an inner, or spiritual struggle to purify oneself. David Cook, author of Understanding Jihad says this:
Others have fallen into this error as well. They comprise two basic groups: Western scholars who want to present Islam in the most innocuous terms possible, and Muslim apologists, who rediscovered the internal jihad in the nineteenth century and have been emphasizing it ever since as the normative expression of jihad – in defiance of all the religious and historical evidence to the contrary. (my emphasis)
The idea of the greater jihad is linked to Sufism, which emphasizes the mystical or inner identification with Allah. However, mainstream Islam has often been hostile to Sufism and it prefers a literal and legalistic interpretation of the Koran and hadith (the collected saying of Mohammed). It is therefore somewhat intriguing to see orthodox clerics now argue that a Sufi concept is the real meaning. David Cook goes on to say:
There is no lack of evidence concerning the Muslim practice of jihad. The classical and modern works on the subject are voluminous, and they are documented by an examination of Muslim actions as recorded by historians. There can be no reasonable doubt that jihad is a major theme running through the entirety of Muslim civilization and is at least one of the major factors in the astounding success of the faith of Islam.
….after surveying the evidence from classical until contemporary times, one must conclude that today’s jihad movements are as legitimate as any that have ever existed in classical Islam…
One such piece of evidence is the writing of Ibn Taymiyya who is favoured by many mujahideen. The scriptural authority of the concept of the greater jihad is supposedly based on a particular hadith. It is not based on the Koran. Ibn Taymiyya says:
“There is a hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet…said after the battle of Tabuk: ‘We have returned from jihad asghar to jihad akbar.’ This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the unbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for mankind.”
Thus Ibn Taymiyya rejects the tradition of the greater jihad in its entirety. So who are we to believe? This question is actually irrelevant for it is sufficient that enough Muslims follow the tradition of Ibn Taymiyya to challenge the Sufi tradition. In fact the four schools (madhhab) of Sunni jurisprudence as well as the Shia tradition only refer to the lesser jihad. This means that for many Muslims the concept of the greater jihad is unorthodox and heretical.
…then guard yourself against the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the unbelievers. 2:23
This language clearly splits the world into two, the world of the righteous and the world of the infidel. The terms commonly used to describe this duality are dar al’Islam and dar al’harb. Dar al’Islam, following from above, means the ‘abode of safety, perfection, salvation, wellbeing and peace’. It is often translated simply as the ‘abode of peace’. Dar al’harb is the opposite. It means ‘abode of war’. It is everything that Dar al’Islam is not. It is danger, chaos, punishment, disease and conflict.
This dichotomy clearly argues that Islam is superior and the unbelievers are therefore inferior. It allows Muslims to look down on non-Muslims with derision and contempt. This has found modern expression in many a Friday night sermon. Evidence of this line of reasoning can be found in the writings of the influential radical Sayyid Qutb who said:
Humanity today is living in a large brothel! One only has to glance at its press, films, fashion shows, beauty contests, ballrooms, wine bars and broadcasting stations! Or observe its mad lust for naked flesh, provocative postures, and sick, suggestive statements in literature, the arts and mass media!
To Qutb the world had fallen into a state of jahiliyya, or ignorance of the word of Allah. The main source of this ignorance is the West which is seen in wholly negative terms. He argued that it was the duty of Muslims to wage a jihad to rid the world of jahiliyya.
There is an argument that jihad should only be declared in order to defend Muslims from attack. However, much depends on the definition of attack and defence. Qutb argued that the notion of defence should be expanded.
If we insist in calling Islamic jihad a defensive movement, then we must change the meaning of the word ‘defence’ to mean the defence of man against all those forces that limit his freedom. These forces may take the form of beliefs and concepts, as well as political systems, based on economic, racial and class distinctions. (FromTomorrow’s Islam)
To Qutb the beliefs and practices of dar al’Harb were a threat to dar al’Islam, they were responsible for corrupting Muslims. The freedom he speaks of is a specific freedom, it is the freedom to choose Islam. It is based on the idea that the freedom to choose is limited by the lies of the infidels, when the lies are exposed people will naturally convert to the one, true religion, Islam. Therefore Islam is fully justified in defending itself from aggressive and corrosive ideas by waging jihad.
Another influential thinker is Sayyid Mawdudi, a scholar of Deobandism and founder of the Pakistan party Jemaat e-Islamiya (party of Islam). He puts it this way:
Islam wants the whole earth and does not content itself with only a part thereof. It wants and requires the entire inhabited world. It does not want this in order that one nation dominates the earth and monopolizes its sources of wealth, after having taken them away from one or more other nations. No, Islam wants and requires the earth in order that the human race altogether can enjoy the concept and practical program of human happiness, by means of which God has honoured Islam and put it above the other religions and laws. In order to realize this lofty desire, Islam wants to employ all forces and means that can be employed for bringing about a universal all-embracing revolution. It will spare no efforts for the achievement of this supreme objective. This far-reaching struggle that continuously exhausts all forces and this employment of all possible means are called jihad.
THE EXEMPLARS: MOHAMMED AND HIS COMPANIONS
One of the enormous difficulties apologists have in trying to depict Islam as a religion of peace is the fact that the new religion was born in violence and that its prophet actually fought and killed.
The Koran is divided into two periods, the revelations in Mecca and the revelations in exile, in Medina. The Meccan revelations are often more peaceful and tolerant. The Medinite revelations indicate a shift towards belligerence. Qutb explains it this way:
For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.
There is a common argument that the later passages ‘abrogate’ (naskh) the earlier passages. That is, when trying to interpret apparently contradictory passages the later passages inform the earlier passages. Unfortunately the later passages are the most violent and the law of abrogation demands the peaceful passages be tempered by the belligerent passages, not the other way around. Many radical Muslims believe that the final command of Mohammed, to ‘fully’ establish Islam, has yet to be achieved.
Many apologists will however, argue that Mohammed only ever used violence in order to defend his people. This argument is based on the evidence that Mohammed made a treaty with the tribes of Medina which they later betrayed, thus he was fully justified in waging a war. And according to the traditional tribal rules of Arabia this makes perfect sense. Except that it only tells one side of the story. It ignores the fact that the tribes might have had very good reasons to break the treaty.
Mohammed had been disowned by his own tribe. He was given refuge in Medina and he made a pact with the tribes of the region, three of whom were Jewish. However Mohammed continued to claim that he was a prophet of God in the line of Abraham and that his teachings superseded the previous teachings of Judaism. This was something the rabbis of Medina could not accept and it is clear that the teachings of Mohammed became increasingly problematic. Of course, from Mohammed’s view the Jewish tribes were simply rejecting the word of God. In any case the Jewish tribes decided to rid themselves of Mohammed, who they now regarded as a false prophet, so they formed an alliance with his own tribe, the Bani Quraysh. This new alliance negated the previous treaty and so Mohammed declared war on the tribes of Medina.
The rest is well recorded history. There are a number of Islamic accounts of the various assassinations, campaigns and battles. However, there is one in particular that is often glossed over. This is the massacre of the Bani Qurayzah, one of the Jewish tribes. Most accounts agree that Mohammed’s men dug a long trench, then lined up all the males of fighting age (around 700) and then systematically beheaded them. The women and children were then handed to the victors as slaves. Now this was rather normal behaviour at the time, but it certainly challenges the idea that Mohammed was a man of peace and compassion.
Mohammed’s army went on to conquer Mecca and the defeated infidels were given a simple choice, convert or die. The atmosphere of the final revelations are the most violent. These are sometimes called the ‘sword verses’.
Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. 9:5
Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them and heal the spirit of the faithful. 9:14
Here we return to the translation of Islam as ‘surrender’
If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, they shall become your brothers in the Faith. 9:11
And it was not confined to unbelievers but also to Jews and Christians, the People of the Book (Ahl al-Qitab):
Fight those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Days, do not forbid what God and His Prophet have forbidden, and do not profess the true religion until they pay the poll tax (jizya) out of hand and feel themselves subdued 9:29
After the death of Mohammed there was a period of uncertainty because he had not left a clear successor. Eventually it was agreed that authority would pass to one of his deputies (Caliph). During this period of uncertainty a number of tribes returned to the old ways. The first Caliph Abu Bakr attacked them and forced them to recant, this has been called the ‘War of the Apostates’.
This early period was marked by a number of expansionary wars and internal civil wars. It was also marked by the assassination of two of the Caliphs, Uthman and Ali. This last civil war (Kharijites) created the schism between the Sunni and the Shia. So it can be seen that the birth of Islam was actually quite violent.
It is also interesting to note that much is made of the claim that Islam only engages in defensive war. Yet neither the Byzantine or Sasanian empires had declared war on Islam, rather the Muslims declared war on them. There is a tradition that says:
Abu Hurayra would say after these amsar (cities founded by Muslims) were conquered during the time of Umar, Uthman and afterwards, “Conquer whatever you wish, because by the One who holds the soul of Aby Hurayra in His hands, you have never conquered nor will you ever conquer any city until the Day of Resurrection without Allah having already given its keys into the hands of Mohammed previously”. (From Jihad: From Qu’ran to bin Laden )
What this means is that the success of the Muslim wars of expansion were considered to be preordained. And so the idea of the purely defensive war was quickly overturned and a tradition created to justify offensive war. Within a short time Islam had taken over the former Christian Byzantine empire and converted it’s most holiest church into a Mosque. The Muslim empire then went on to expand into Europe, Russia and Asia, to see the rise and fall of several ruling elites and periods of sectarian violence.
Perhaps the final word should go to the jurist al-Shaybani:
Allah gave the Prophet four swords (for fighting the infidels): the first against the polytheists, which Mohammed himself fought with; the second against apostates, which Caliph Abu Bakr fought with; the third against the People of the Book, which Caliph Umar fought with; and the fourth against dissenters, which Caliph Ali fought with.
DHIMMI AND MURTADD
One of the claims of apologists is that Islam is a tolerant religion. In many ways, in comparison to some other cultures of the time, it was somewhat more tolerant. However, it was a highly qualified tolerance. There is a famous ayat that says “there shall be no compulsion in religion.” There are also a number of ayat that claim that the People of the Book, that is, fellow Abrahamites and monotheists, should be free to practice their beliefs. Again such tolerance is a qualified tolerance.
However, all such acts of tolerance are denied to unbelievers, those who do not accept the god of Abraham. This caused some problems as Islam expanded and encountered Zoroastrian, Hindu and Buddhist communities. Scholars adapted the term People of the Book to include any religion that claimed to be based on revealed scripture. In the case of Zoroastrianism this was the Zend Avesta and in the case of Hinduism the Vedas. These two faiths were also called the People of the Flame. However Buddhism has never really been accepted as a legitimate faith. There have been some scholars who have developed a rather convoluted argument to accept Buddhism, but the majority opinion is that Buddhists are infidels. The principle stumbling blocks are that Buddhists worship a man, which is idolatry and that they are declared atheists (for an example of anti-Buddhist propaganda see this http://www.islamandbuddhism.com – now offline)
Yet, regardless of their special status, the People of the Book were still discriminated against. To begin with the Caliph Umar expelled all non-Muslims from Arabia. He also developed a code of behaviour detailed in the Pact of Umar, this relegated the People of the Book to second-class status who had to abide a set of humiliating rules. They were considered to be ‘protected people’ or dhimmi. Some of the restrictions placed on dhimmis were:
- To pay a special tax (the jizya)
- Not allowed to build new places of worship (but Muslims were allowed to destroy any place of worship they wished)
- Not allowed to recite prayers aloud, least Muslims hear them.
- Not allowed to publicly display their religious literature.
- Not allowed to publicly display religious symbols
- Had to always walk to the left of Muslims
- Had to stand and give a Muslim their seat
- Wear special clothes
- Remove their shoes whilst walking near a Mosque
- Never hit a Muslim (though a Muslim could hit them)
- Never build their houses higher than a Muslim house
- Not ride a horse
- Not bear arms
- Could not testify against a Muslim
If these Dhimmi laws were broken the offender was regarded as no longer a protected person and they reverted to the status of infidel, which meant they lost all legal rights, could have their property confiscated and might be summarily killed.
These laws were in effect in varying degrees of severity in every Muslim controlled area. They were even enforced in the supposedly tolerant society of Moorish Spain which still applied the jizya tax – and as far as Moghul controlled India. Some lenient rulers neglected to enforce them only to have the rulers who followed them reinstitute them. Many of these restrictions are a part of sharia law and some are enforced even today. In Aceh, Indonesia, there are restrictions placed on the construction of churches under sharia law.
Many apologists have argued that Islam did not use force to convert people to Islam. This is a distortion. To begin with infidels must convert or die, atheism or polytheism is not tolerated at all. The People of the Book are able to continue to practice their faith provided they adhere to the dhimmi laws. These laws were often so restrictive that many ordinary Jews and Christians converted simply to make their lives easier. It was only the most devout who resisted. However, in some instances particular communities, such as Egyptian Copts, were set aside for particular discrimination. The dhimmi laws could be applied harshly and even the smallest infringement could have the offender declared an infidel and their property seized. Unscrupulous Muslims could manipulate the dhimmi laws to destroy economic rivals amongst Jews and Christians. It is also fair to say that other Muslim communities were rather more lenient and provided they kept quiet some Jewish and Christian communities were able to thrive. However, it all depended on the whim of the ruling elites who could interpret the dhimmi laws as they saw fit.
Once you had converted to Islam you were forbidden to convert to another religion. Conversion, murtadd, or apostasy, is forbidden under sharia and the punishment is death. In Islam there are two types of apostasy, murtadd fitri, where someone born a Muslim converts and murtadd milli, where a convert to Islam reconverts. The rules defining apostasy can be strict. According to some jurists even to enter a church, synagogue or temple is an act of apostasy, as is questioning any aspect of Islam. It is this latter offence that allows hardliners to declare other Muslims to be apostates for daring to disagree with their interpretation. And given that the penalty for apostasy under sharia is death it is permissible to kill apostates. This excuse has been used to argue that the Muslim victims of terrorist attacks were engaged in un-Muslim activities and were therefore apostates.
So if Islam is the religion of peace and if there should be “no compulsion in religion” why is it permissible to kill atheists and polytheists, kill dhimmi as infidels if they break the dhimmi laws and kill apostates? It takes a considerable amount of rhetorical contortion to argue that Islam is a tolerant religion when these rules apply.
WHAT DO ISLAMISTS WANT?
The tern ‘Islamist’ has been used to mean anyone who supports Islam as a political solution. There are many Islamist groups and they fall into two broad categories; nationalist groups and internationalists. Nationalist groups are primarily concerned with overthrowing their own government and replacing it with a government based on Islamic principles and sharia law.
The internationalist groups would prefer to see all Muslim countries united under the traditional system of the Caliphate and the Caliphate to enforce Islamic principles and of course, sharia law. The most extreme internationalists want to restore the Islamic empire including Spain, the Balkans and India, and then to continue to expand Islam.
There are too many of these groups to name, save to mention that the ideology of Islamism has reached every Muslim community. There are five major sources of the Islamist ideology.
- Wahhabism (also called Salafi). Founded in 1745 by Mohammed Ibn Wahhab. This is the state doctrine of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, it is highly influential in the Arab states. The Saudis have funded an extensive program of expansion and have funded the construction of Mosques and Islamic schools throughout the world through a network of charitable organisations (in my own city of Melbourne a prominent Islamic school, the King Khalid College, received funding from Saudi Arabia). The Wahhabi doctrine is strict and condemns Sufism and moderate interpretations as apostasy. A proportion of this charitable money has gone to fund Salafi jihadist groups, some of it to bin Laden and al Qaeda.
- Deobandism. Founded in the Indian city of Deoband in 1866 as a rejection of Sufism and syncretism, its aim was to overthrow the British and restore Muslim rule. It is highly influential in Pakistan where they control around 65% of the Mosques and madari (religious schools). The Taliban were the students of Deobandi madari. Salafi money has gone to support the madari and the war in Afghanistan saw a coalition of Salafi and Deobandi jihadi.
- Muslim Brotherhood (Ikwhan). Founded in Egypt by Hasan al-Banna. Sayyid Qutb was influenced by the Ikwhan. The Deobandi scholar Mawdudi was an important influence on the Ikwhan and Osama bin Laden is regarded as a follower of Qutb.
- The Shia under the influence of the revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. The Iranian revolution inspired both Shia and Sunni fundamentalists with the hope that Islamic states could be created elsewhere.
- A loose coalition of fundamentalist Sufi and minority sects. The Naqshbandiya in Central Asia have formed a loose coalition with Salafi and Deobandi jihadis (see link), particularly in the war in Chechnya. Fundamentalist jihadi Sufis are influential in North Africa, particularly Sudan.
All of these groups provide a ready pool of mujahideen who are prepared to travel in order to fight the global jihad. The Indonesian group Jemaah Islamiya is a Salafi group that was funded with Saudi money and supported by members of bin Laden’s al Qaeda group. The bombings in Madrid were committed by Moroccan mujahideen operating in support of the mujahideen under Zaqarwi in Iraq. The London suicide bombers had links with Deobandi radicals in Pakistan, and so forth.
‘BUT THIS IS NOT THE REAL ISLAM!’
When confronted with the above moderate Muslims will often reply by arguing that these groups do not represent the real Islam. This is a nonsense. There is no such thing as a real Islam. Rather, there are multiple Islams. In fact the situation is quite absurd. There is no central authority in Islam and rival groups compete with each other to attract followers. As I write this a council of American Muslim scholars has issued a fatwa condemning terrorism. Yet, at the same time a council of orthodox scholars in Indonesia has issued a fatwa condemning moderates. Fatwa at twenty paces!
Authority for interpretation and judgement is usually given to theulemma, a council of recognised imams or mullahs. However their judgements are only binding on their community. Each sect and each country can have its own ulemma. This means that there can be a range of judgements made, some of them contradictory, with rival ulemma in the same country issuing fatwa against each other .
It is also possible for charismatic teachers to arise and to create their own following. There is actually no formal process by which teachers and clerics can be officially recognised. Some modern sects were created by a single charismatic figure.
The fact is that there are many rival interpretations of Islam. These rival interpretations are in a state of civil war. The Islamists believe that moderates are apostates who have betrayed Islam and have been corrupted by the Western doctrines of democracy, capitalism and also, socialism. A great many bombings and assassinations have actually been directed at moderate Muslims and those governments that have adopted non-Muslim political principles. The West has become a target because they are seen to support the moderates.
The cry that this is not the ‘real’ Islam is actually completely and dramatically irrelevant. What matters is that sufficient numbers of Muslims continue to choose to follow the radical fundamentalist interpretation.
Nor is it a question of the radicals being a minority, for even if they are a minority they are an influential minority. In fact they are actually a majority in some countries (the majority of any population are usually not involved in politics anyway and tend to passively follow political groups who promise a better future). They are able to punch above their weight because they have financial and ideological support from countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Perhaps the question that should be asked of moderates is this, if the radicals are a minority and if they do not represent the ‘real’ Islam how is it they have been able to carry on a global jihad on several fronts, jihads that include civil wars, secessionist movements, revolutions, assassinations and global terrorism? The list of countries that have been affected by this global jihad is quite long. As I write this incidents have occurred in England, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Kashmir and Bangladesh. The simple fact is that there is broader private support for the Islamists objectives than is ever admitted to publicly and a number are sitting on the fence, waiting to see which way things turn out.
A FINAL NOTE ON IRAQ
Iraq has now descended into a civil war. This is sadly something I warned about in a previous article. The Iraq war has allowed radical Islamist mujahideen to set up operations. One of the aims of Islamism is to overthrow secular and corrupt governments in the Middle East. Saddam, as a Ba’athist was always a target. The US-led war has simply done the job for them. They are now waging an insurgent war with the primary goal of taking control of Iraq. Of course they want to defeat the US, but that is only the first step. They will not stop if the US withdraws. If they can control Iraq they can control substantial oil revenue and then have a geographical and financial base from which to wage jihad on the other countries in the region. The final goal is to set up a regional Caliphate.
Islam was never a religion of peace. It is a religion based on a warrior code. The evidence is clear, it was made evident in the actions of Mohammed and his Companions. Islam means ‘surrender’. It is entirely legitimate to interpret the tradition of Islam as a state of perpetual jihad with the final aim being the defeat of unbelief and the surrender of all to the word of Allah as revealed by His Prophet, Mohammed. It is only when that surrender has been completed that the world will abide in a state of perfection and peace. Many jihadi see themselves as simply following the example set by Mohammed.
Moderate Islam realises that this goal is impossible. However, what the moderates have not yet fully realised is that it is up to them to defeat the radicals. This cannot be done until the power centres of fundamentalism are isolated and choked of support. This is not something that infidels can hope to achieve. What it calls for is a jihad of another kind, a complete reformation of Islam that reinterprets Islam in light of modern history. A reformation that demands the overthrow of sharia law and the discrediting of supremacist and fundamentalist interpretations of Islam.
There are encouraging signs that after the London bombings moderate Muslims are beginning to wake up from their state of denial. This must be carried forward to the heartlands of orthodoxy.
The West can assist this process by isolating Saudi Arabia and demanding that the Saud’s end their support of the Wahhabi doctrine. Iraq was never the problem, it was always Saudi Arabia. This will then have the effect of cutting off important sources of funding to other jihadist groups. It will then be up to the moderates in each community to name and shame the radicals.
Radical Islamism is doomed to failure, but it will sadly be a bloody fight that will take decades to complete. It may take a violent revolution in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan that may initially favour the extremists but will cause a final backlash. In many ways Islamism is the last rallying cry of a defeated cause. Islam reached it’s limit. It met infidels from east, west, north and south who refused to surrender and who fought back. Over time it began to lose territory, Spain, India, Greece, the Balkans. In many ways the defeat of the Ottoman empire in WW1 was the final defeat. Since then Islam has been struggling to find its way in a new world, a world not of all-embracing Islamic Caliphates but of independent nation-states, a world that can survive quite happily without it. This is not just a struggle against the Western enlightenment and modernity, but also a struggle against Asian values, a struggle against all that is not Islam. And perhaps this is the final humiliation – that Allah seems to have disserted Islam and the infidels are ascendant. The current violence is a futile protest against the inevitable, a protest against that those who would dare challenge Islam’s natural pre-eminence by those who believe it is they who should rule the world.
And what should we do? We should articulate a fair, free and fearless critique of Islam. We must identify those progressive Muslim voices that are calling for a reformation. And we should continue to refuse to ‘surrender’.
A note on transliteration: There are no set rules on how to spell Arabic words so any reader will inevitably come across a wide variety of spellings. Qutb is sometimes spelt Kutb and Koran as Qur’an, and so forth. I have kept the spellings as originally used in quotes but have otherwise used the spellings I am used to.
By Ray Harris
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” –Dr. Martin Luther King.
Today we see the opposite of Dr. King’s dream. We cannot judge the character of Barrack Obama because of the color of his skin. You are not allowed to judge his character.
In this final blog on Barrack Obama I will address his character, explain why this is my last blog on Obama and in the process issue a solemn warning to the Church of Jesus Christ in the United States.
In 2007 I began warning people about this man and laid out in glaring detail the calamity that is now our reality. Many rejected me as a veritable madman for saying that one day America would look exactly the way she looks right now. We are divided, we are poor, we are hated in the world and we are about to lose forever our power to get back everything that Obama stole from our children’s future.
In 2011, the blogs began. No one but God knows the price that I have paid for writing these blogs. When I began, not one preacher that I knew was willing to publicly oppose Barack Obama.
I knew what this man was the first time I laid eyes on him. He set off a universal alarm in my spirit that forced me to change the way I relate to politicians. With Obama’s arrival a misty blanket of deception fell over the nation. Suddenly, the American public was dull to common sense and lost their ability to state the obvious.
Look into this man’s eyes and what do you see? You see a sinister pathological smugness and indifference to truth. He does not even attempt to put a spin on his debacles; he simply changes the subject and then orders us to consider only what he says next.
Obama does and says things on a daily basis that would end anyone else’s career. He slept through the murders of innocent Americans in Benghazi. He used the NSA to spy on Americans. He turned the IRS into a tool for his reelection. Because of this and ten thousand other crimes, he makes Richard Nixon look like Dudley Do-Right.
The media put a force field around him. It never confronts him about his lies or wonders about what he does in secret. No meaningful questions are permitted. Any line of questioning that would undermine his messianic narrative is taboo. No wonder this man believes he is accountable to no one.
He is laying the groundwork for a world without America. What is America? America is a firewall against tyranny. North Korea, Russia, China and Iran cannot take over the world until America is weak. This man Obama has, in 6 short years, weakened America more than all previous presidents combined.
He has crushed us under debt, he has us at each other’s throats, and he promotes thugs and demotes righteous leaders. The White House is staffed with all of the competence and wisdom of a banana republic.
I will not be surprised if this man tries to invent a civil disorder just so he can stay in office.
However, I believe that his ability to lie, cheat, steal and injure with impunity is also fueled by the supernatural.
That misty blanket of deception that came on America is supernatural.
The widespread silence of American pastors is supernatural.
The moral grogginess of Americans is as if we’ve all been drugged supernaturally.
It is supernatural that the church cannot come together to answer the threat of this man.
It is supernatural that the church cannot galvanize against this man for the way he has turned on Israel in such an insulting and demeaning way. This alone proves his Antichrist spirit.
It is supernatural how Americans are not outraged by Obama’s preference for Islam.
It is supernatural that America can turn a blind eye to the world wide martyrdom of Christians. This man could not even call the 21 Coptic Christians who were beheaded, Christians.
It is supernatural that for the first time in our history the 3 most popular American pastors refuse to preach on repentance, the Cross, the Blood, the inerrancy of the Bible and the existence of hell.
It is supernatural that there are those who continue to support Barrack Obama and yet call themselves Christians. Since the teachings of Christ and the policies of this man are in perfect opposition to each other, why do they bother to call themselves Christians? Only the supernatural allows you to host such a contradiction in your mind.
It is the supernatural spirit of Antichrist that has allowed the illogical, the absurd and the inconceivable to feel normal.
And it is the supernatural power of God that has released me from writing about this man. When I began no one stood with me. Now many voices are speaking out. I pass this baton gladly.
Oh don’t think for a minute that I will stop exposing sin. I will now turn my attention to the public that is deceived and groping in darkness. I will preach revival and repentance like never before.
My energy will now go to preaching about the higher power that darkness cannot stand. I will however, remain a loving irritant in the side of pastors.
America can be brought out of this coma. God can send a divine desperation into the hearts of millions. That is now my unswerving mission…not this man.
Editor’s note: please feel free to repost this blog! Please provide a link to this site.
P.S. When you think of the 21 who were martyred by Islamic Terrorists what kind of Christians are they? Here is a worship service.
FRANKLIN GRAHAM MAKES A CONVINCING CASE AGAINST BARACK OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY
Christian evangelist Franklin Graham is making the case against Barack Obama’s presidency better than any politician has.
Last week, Rudy Giuliani landed a glancing blow when he said he didn’t think President Obama really loves America.
Tuesday, in fewer than one hundred words posted on his Facebook page, Graham laid bare the moral and political destruction that has enveloped the country in the last six years.
Graham focused on Obama’s actions, rather than what he might think or believe.
“Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has taken a lot of heat from the media for his remark that he’s not sure if President Obama really loves America,” Graham’s post began.
“I don’t know if that’s true or not, but…” Graham wrote before launching into this concise and devastating critique of the president’s actions:
“I do know that the president (1) defends Islam and (2) chastises Christians, (3) rebukes our allies and (4) befriends our enemies, and (5) fully supports gay marriages and (6)abortion but (7) denies the religious freedoms of those who don’t agree.” (Numbers added in bold for emphasis.)
Seven specific actions undertaken by the president, spelled out in 35 simple words.
Graham then synopsized where he believes we stand as a country today in another 20 words:
“Our nation is ridiculed abroad and morally crumbling within. We are in trouble. We have turned our back on God.”
Graham has demonstrated what the best speechwriters have long known, but politicians often forget.
When it comes to effective communications, there is no tool more powerful than simplicity.
THE WIMPINESS OF MODERN MINISTERS
By Mario Murillo
Dear Ministers of America,
Two forces have collided within me to cause this blog. The first is the true lions of God that I have studied in the last two weeks: David Wilkerson, Kenneth Hagin, Steve Hill, Oral Roberts, Kathryn Kuhlman, and Billy Graham. The second is the unbearable line that Obama has now crossed
I want to make it clear that this is not directed at the many faithful men and women who preach a true Gospel and work hard to hold congregations together in the face of government and cultural persecution. You are my heroes and I stand with you in the battle!
We have watched Obama run guns to Mexican drug cartels, expose Seal Team 6, refuse to save Americans in Benghazi and then cover it up, block the military from getting their votes counted, use the NSA to monitor our phone calls, emails and everything else, release drones into our own country without the benefit of the law, give 123 Technologies $300 Million and right after it declared bankruptcy and was sold to the Chinese, arm the Muslim Brotherhood, use the IRS to target conservatives and Christians, allow the Department Of Justice to spy on the press, authorize Sebelius to shake down health insurance executives, give SOLYNDRA $500 MILLION DOLLARS and 3 months later they declared bankruptcy and then the Chinese bought it, release10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons, and falsely blaming the sequester, threatened to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress, repeatedly violate the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February, had a 2012 vote where 115% of all registered voters in some counties voted 100% for Obama.
And finally at the prayer breakfast he said these words, “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”
Jim Gilmore former governor of Virginia said “The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime; He has offended every believing Christian in the United States.”
Then 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded and he cannot bring himself to call them Christians but He immediately calls the 3 students who were murdered in North Carolina Muslims.
As America and the world faces the greatest threat since Nazism, Obama refuses to name it the threat for what it is… Islamic Terror, and he has no plan to protect us from it. More to the point, Obama will not act to save Christians who are being murdered every day. He sanitizes Islam and attacks Christians is a way that is now pathologically delusional.
There is no longer any doubt what American preachers must do about Obama. Many will refuse to do what needs to be done and I am going to suggest, very strongly that they are wimps.
However, if it is any consolation, I am not going to use the names that Jesus did in the Bible for preachers who abandon their duties: Blind guides (Matt. 23:16) Fools (Matt. 23:17). Whited sepulchers…full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness (Matt. 23:27) Serpents (Matt. 23:33). Vipers (Matt. 23:33). Hypocrites! (Luke 11:44). and Hidden graves (Luke 11:44)…
I am just going to call you a wimp.
What we must do is get in our pulpits and rebuke Obama for his insulting remarks and acts toward Christians. He must be repudiated by consensus for his Christophobic, and Anti-Semitic actions. We must tell our people to openly oppose the Godless America he is building.
The church must rise up as one voice and declare that enough is enough and that we will not tolerate Obama’s persecution of the church in America or anywhere in the world.
According to statistics there are 500,000 preachers in America. Imagine if half a million voices stand together to rebuke and oppose this wannabe tyrant and his anti-Church and anti-American agenda?
There is no doubt we should do it. There is no version of what is happening today that justifies silence. But will we do it or continue to endanger our sheep by being wimps? What do you say?