"Articles of the Month"
Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West
My name is Bosch and I’m a recovering Muslim.
That is, if Muslims don’t kill me for leaving Islam, which it requires them to do. That’s just one of the reasons I’ve been writing and drawing against Islam and its Jihad for a number of years now. But fortunately for us, Islam hasn’t been able to make every Muslim its slave, just as Nazism wasn’t able to turn every German into a Nazi. So there is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t.
But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his existence somehow means that he represents more than himself.
The only reason we’re talking about Islam is because it doesn’t mean peace. Islam wasn’t hijacked by a “small minority of extremists” on 9/11, it was hijacked by a very small minority of moderates whose embarrassment in being associated with such an immoderate religion leads them to engage in moderate truth telling about it, proving their irrelevance as allies.
In addition to these politically active moderates, when you see well-assimilated Muslims in the West, you’re not seeing Islam in action, you’re seeing individuals living up to the old adage, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. They’re essentially post-Islamic Muslims who have rejected Islamic values and have embraced Western ones. But since the process of their assimilation was implicit – as it happened naturally by their exposure to Western, i.e., pro-life, values – both Muslims and non-Muslims alike prefer to generously give Islam some credit for it. But a good Muslim, by our standards is a bad Muslim by Islamic standards. Objectively good human beings, who identify themselves as Muslim, give Islam a good face, one far better then it deserves. This only gives us a false impression about what it is we’re facing, with just another excuse not to face it. And this leads to our acceptance into our culture of stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West.
In the name of distinguishing the enemy from Muslims who mean us no harm, far too many Western commentators have avoided using the name “Islam” for the enemy’s ideology, and instead have decided to create their very own terms for the threat we’re facing, terms that are alien to the enemy. Terms such as:
Islamic Fundamentalism.
Islamic Extremism.
Totalitarian Islam.
Islamofascism.
Islamonazism.
Political Islam.
Bin Ladenism.
Radical Islam.
Militant Islam.
Islamism.
Jihadism.
We didn’t use terms such as “Radical Nazism”, “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism” in the past. “Militant Islam”, Political Islam”, etc., are redundant terms. Our pretending otherwise has proven disastrous. Thousands of American lives, both civilian and military, have been sacrificed because of policies predicated on the myth that “Islam means peace.” We didn’t try to reform Shinto or Nazism during World War II; the major changes in those cultures took place only after we thoroughly de-militarized them.
And it’s no accident that Western analysts of Islam who are most informed about Islam are also most critical of it, while those least informed are least critical. But then there are those who, in their study of Islam, have become so enamored with their subject that, instead of sticking to what Islam is, they often write about what it isn’t, what they hope it might be. They seem preoccupied with doing their part to save Islam from those who have allegedly corrupted it.
The Muslim world is where the true meaning of Islam can be found in practice. Islam – not any alleged deviant form of it – means misogyny, censorship, anti-Semitism, homophobia, wife-beatings, beheadings, honor killings, pedophilia/“child marriages”, murdering infidels, etc. This is evil, and Islam sanctions every bit of it, but we’ve been told that we must respect “one of the world’s great religions” because it’s a religion. Following 9/11, the only thing George W. Bush knew about Islam was that it was a religion, and that apparently was a good enough reason for him to exonerate it as he did. And his advisor on Islam, David Forte, told Bush exactly what he wanted to hear, that “Nothing this evil could come from religion.” But 9/11 did come from a religion. Whatever else 9/11 was, it was an act of faith.
And Bush saying “Islam is peace” shortly after 9/11 gave the enemy a gift they couldn’t have foreseen. Here was the one man who was charged to defend America from their attack and here he was defending the very ideology that motivated the attackers. Honesty is the best policy in general, and when it comes to war, it’s a moral imperative to find out the truth, to tell the truth and to act on the truth, no matter what sacred cow is killed in the process. And so a big part of why nearly 3,000 victims of jihad on 9/11 haven’t been avenged is because of respect for religion, even for a religion that calls for our destruction.
Muslims who really care about Islam are part of an organized effort to spread Islam, and I sometimes refer to this collective effort by Muslims as “Organized Islam.” No matter the means involved, Muslims working towards a more Islamic world want the same thing the jihadists want. This organized effort includes Mosques, Muslim organizations, Muslim individuals writing books, blog posts, etc. And they all invariably engage in anti-Western, Anti-Israeli propaganda, at the very least.
I often hear that we should be working with the Muslim world. Working towards what? As Ayn Rand writes, “In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.” Any time we spend “working” with a culture that calls for our destruction, we are working towards our own destruction, consciously or not.
While it’s true that jihadists don’t represent most Muslims, they do represent Islam. But then why don’t most Muslims engage in jihad? Like in any culture, heroes are a small minority, and that goes for Islamic culture as well. The jihadists are Islam’s heroes; they are the ones most dedicated to following Allah’s commands and they’re celebrated in the Muslim world for it. They are also the only ones to whom Islam guarantees paradise. And their rarity was made even clearer when we learned that only the pilots of 9/11 knew it was a suicide mission. Our enemy knows that it’s tough to get even hardcore Muslims to sacrifice their lives for Islam, but they don’t want us to know that. Just as they don’t want us to know that behind their boast that they love death is the fact that they hate life.
And while Muslims who blow themselves up in order to kill non-Muslims are a small minority, Muslims who would explicitly condemn them are an even smaller minority. And while I think that Muslims are mere sheep to their Jihadist wolves, there are also too many Muslim cheerleaders for jihad. How many Muslims celebrated 9/11? Far too many. Even in my own lax Muslim upbringing in America, there was an omnipresent anti-Semitism and misogyny. Some members of my family admired Adolph Hitler, who I refer to as “Islam’s Favorite Infidel.” Regarding misogyny, the birth of a girl became a day of mourning for Muslim women in my family; they understood the suffering this girl would endure under Islam, even in America.
Though we say we’ve been at war for over ten years, we haven’t even begun to fight the war the way we should be fighting it. And those calling for a change within Islam during this war would be surprised at how much Islam can be changed through an honest war on our behalf. You can’t make a violent religion like Islam non-violent by argument, only by greater retaliatory force against state sponsors of jihad terrorism.
The future of Islam and the well-being of Muslims is said to be of importance to us. Post – 9/11, the defense of our culture, our values, our very lives has been optional, but our defense of Islam has been absolute. It began with Bush’s “Islam is peace” and it continues with Obama, who said in his Submission Speech in Egypt in 2009, in front of members of The Muslim Brotherhood, “I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” If only he felt the same about America.
We can’t be both for Islam and for ourselves. This enemy is fully on their own side and fully against us and they’ve made themselves believe that they’re the good guys and that we’re the bad guys, and our actions have done nothing but turn their hatred of us into an ever-deepening contempt. Before we see the enemy for what it is, we need to see ourselves for what we are. Only then can we, with full moral conviction, make them pay for what they’ve done and move us towards victory.
Our problem is not “Islamophobia”, but Islamophilia. It is this uncritical, uninformed, absolute defense of Islam by Western elites after 9/11 that I refer to as Islamgate. It’s a scandal for the ages that few involved would ever admit to being part of.
I care about the truth. I care about Western Civilization. I care about myself, my loved ones and my friends. I care about Iife. And that’s why I don’t care about Islam.
Our altruistic concern for the future and well being of the Muslim world has come at the expense of American lives and treasure. We’ve placed the well being of “The Muslim World” above our own self-defense. We’ve placed today’s Big Lie, “Islam means peace”, above the truth we need to act on. We’ve placed the lives of Muslim civilians above the lives of our soldiers, placing them in absolutely unnecessary danger in order to protect innocent (or even guilty) civilians. Our Rules of Engagement might as well be renamed the Golden Rules of Engagement, as our soldiers have been forced to treat the enemy the way we’d like to be treated. And the enemy takes full advantage of that, as they do of all of the policies our morally vain politicians have concocted. We need to shift the focus onto our own well-being at the enemy’s expense for a change.
We’ve tried everything since 9/11 except real war. War is the answer to Jihad.
So who cares about Islam? Muslims, Jihadists, Islamophiles, Leftists who naturally side with anti-American ideologies, guilt-ridden fellow travelers who think America is usually in the wrong, and religionists who believe any religion is better than none. But since Leftists and Islamophiles usually know very little about Islam, who truly cares about Islam? Those who are at war with us.
In the end, I care about Islam and the Muslim world as much as the Muslim world cares about America and the West. This is war. We can’t be on both sides. I’m not rooting for Islam or the Muslim world.
I’m rooting for us.
Bosch Fawstin is an Eisner Award nominated cartoonist currently working on a graphic novel, The Infidel, of which the first chapter is now available as a digital comic. Bosch’s first graphic novel is Table for One. He is also the author of ProPiganda: Drawing the Line Against Jihad, a companion to The Infidel, and the 1st print appearance of Pigman.
Posted By Bosch Fawstin On December 2, 2011 @ 12:38 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 15 Comments
Copyright © 2009 FrontPage Magazine. All rights reserved.
The Victim’s View of Islam
Recently the McCormick Foundation financed a seminar about the print media reporting about Islam. The seminar was held under the auspices of the journalism school at MTSU, a state university in Murfreesboro, TN. It is part of the Establishment program of constructing the fine details of Establishment Islam.
The lectures and workshops were lead by Muslims and supporters/apologists/defenders of Islam. The apologists and Muslims contend that the only other view of Islam is that of contemptible bigots, who are driven by the usual demons of hate and prejudice. So all the “good” people, the Muslims and their defenders, gave lectures on the beautiful truth of Islam and how to deal with the “bad” people who oppose Islam. The “good” people have the view that there is the truth of Islam and the rest of the world is morally corrupt.
This division of the world into good and evil has its benefits, but it is too broad a brush in this case. There is another view of Islam besides the “good” Muslims and their apologists. To see this, go back 1400 years to Medina. In Mecca Mohammed had “proven” his divine status by claiming to be in the same lineage of prophets such as Moses and Noah. There were no Jews in Mecca and the story played well enough. Mecca was the home of “Islam, the religion of peace”.
However, in Medina the town was half Jewish, consisting of three tribes. The Jews of Medina told Mohammed that he was not a prophet and this shattered his foundation as a prophet. Mohammed’s attitude about Jews went from being a spiritual brother to that of an archenemy.
Two years later the last of the Jewish children were kidnapped and adopted as Muslims, the Jewish women were sold into slavery and 800 Jewish males were beheaded. Medina was Judenrein, cleansed of Jews.
What are we to make of this well-documented event and the fact that it is only one of over 70 events of assassination, executions, raids, tortures, enslavements, battles and brutalization of the Kafir (non-Muslim) Arabs around Mohammed? All of this is recorded in the Sira (Mohammed’s biography).
The Muslim’s point-of-view about this vast suffering is that it was a triumph for Islam, a victory and cause for celebration.
The apologist’s point-of-view of this violence is: that was then, this is now. Christians have done worse. Let’s not be judgmental.
Then there is the third view, that of the Kafir victims of Islam. Mohammed led a nine-year rage of jihad against them. There were pagan Kafirs, Jewish Kafirs and Christian Kafirs, but they were all Kafirs who were annihilated. The cause of all of this suffering was an intellectual idea—Mohammed is the prophet of Allah and every person must declare this “truth” or be subjected to violence. The Kafirs were the victims of Islam, then and now.
The story of the jihad against the Kafirs is told in the Sira and the Hadith (the Traditions of Mohammed). No one was allowed the luxury of avoiding Islam. If you were in the neighborhood of Mohammed, then you had to be for him or suffer violence. After Mohammed had conquered all of Arabia, he died while in the next phase of jihad, the conquest of the Christians to the north of Arabia.This brutal story is told with great vehemence and force. Mohammed and Allah rejoice at the suffering of the Kafirs. And who cares? The apologist agrees that the violent triumph of Islam over all neighbors was a wonderful success for humanity. The Kafirs are human garbage to be put into the disposal of jihad. Who cares about dead Kafirs? Who cares about the annihilation of native cultures?
Why is it that the history of the Native Americans, Blacks and other minorities can be told, but not the Kafirs? Why can those victims have a place in history, but the suffering to the Kafirs is denied? Why do they have no history? Why can’t the victims of jihad and their history be given a valid seat in the marketplace of ideas?
This denial of the suffering of Kafirs can be seen in how our history books are written. The rise of Islam is glorious, but the suffering of the Christians in Turkey, North Africa, the Middle East, the suffering of the Hindus in Pakistan, the suffering of the Buddhists in Afghanistan are all denied. The victims do not exist in our history. If you die at the hands of Islam, you are invisible to history.
Notice that those who have no compassion for the Kafirs in the story of Mohammed’s martial triumph of Islam don’t care about Islam’s victims today. Islam and its apologists don’t give a damn about the suffering today of Christians in Africa, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, the Sudan and on and on. Jewish apologists for Islam do not see the 1400 year old annihilation of the Jews in Arabia being connected to the jihad to annihilate Israel today.
There is another thing about the apologists for Islam. They never refer to Islam’s doctrines of jihad, ethical dualism, subjugation of women and the rest of the Sharia. Instead, they constantly refer to the opinions of Muslim “experts”. But, those who support the victims of Islam talk about the foundational experts--Allah and Mohammed. Once you know Allah (the Koran) and Mohammed (the Sira and the Hadith) you do not need opinions of experts. Why? If the expert agrees with Allah and Mohammed, the expert is right, but redundant. If the expert disagrees with Allah and Mohammed, then the expert is wrong. So who needs the experts’ opinions if you know the facts of Allah and Mohammed?
Why is it when the foundations and the journalism schools meet to talk about how to report about Islam, the victims of Islam have no voice? Why is justice served by denying the deaths of 270 million Kafirs in the Tears of Jihad? Why is it that those who recognize the suffering of the victims of Islam today and 1400 years ago are called bigots and contemptible? Why is it that those who ask for the victims’ story to be told along side of the apologists and Muslims are said to be Islamophobic and Muslim-bashers? Why is it that those who know the doctrine of Allah and Mohammed are told they are ignorant and despicable?
There are three views of Islam. The victims’ view is as valid as the oppressor’s view or the apologist’s view. The truth of victims of Islam’s suffering must be told and heard. It is too bad that the foundations do not have the will to finance the complete truth about Islam, instead of the soothing lies told by the Muslim “experts” and their sycophant apologists.For information about the victims of Islam, see the Bulletin of Christian Persecution and the Bulletin of the Oppression of Women.
Islam Is Not Part of Our Civilization
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 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 1,400 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 --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.
Please click link and read this letter to Elected Officials from a Committee of Retired Military Generals
Sharia Law for Non-Muslims - Chapter 1
Sharia in Europe Today
When you study Islam in Europe today, you are seeing America in 20 years. Why?The actions by Muslims in Europe are based on Sharia law, the same Sharia law that is beginning to be implemented in America today.
· Traffic cannot move in London streets as Muslims commandeer the
streets to pray-a political result based on Sharia law.
· Entire areas of Europe are no-go zones for non-Muslims, this includes the police. These are Islamic enclaves where only Muslims live. The Muslim-only policy is based on Sharia.
· In England an Anglican bishop calls for the rule of Islamic law for
Muslims. The bishop is obeying Sharia law.
· In the schools only Islamic approved texts can be used. This is based on Sharia law.
· Christians may not speak to Muslims about Christianity nor may they
hand out literature. This is a political result based on Sharia law enforced
by British courts.
· Rape by Muslims is so prevalent that Sweden has forbidden the police to collect any data in the investigation that would point to Islam. Rape is part of Islamic doctrine as applied to non-Muslim women.
· In London mass demonstrations by Muslims call for the end of British law and Sharia law to rule all people. This political action is based on Sharia.
· In some English hospitals, during Ramadan fast (an Islamic religious event) non-Muslims cannot eat where a Muslim can see them. The submission of non-Muslims is based on Sharia law.
· At British hospitals, Muslim women are treated only as Sharia law demands.
· If a Dane says that he is proud to be Danish near a Muslim, it can be seen as hate speech and racism. This is in accordance to Sharia law.
Sharia in America Today
Here are current and historical events in America that are driven by Sharialaw:
· On September 11, 2001 jihadists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Center. This was in compliance to the laws of jihad found in the Sharia law. The attack was a political action based upon a religious motivation.
· All textbooks in America must be approved by Islamic councils that are controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. This is in accordance with Sharia law.
· American employers and schools are met with demands for time and
space to do Islamic prayer. These demands are based on Sharia law.
· The American banking system is becoming Islamicized with Sharia financing.Our banking system indulges in Sharia financial law and does not know therest of Sharia law.
· Universities are asked to close swimming pools and other athletic facilities to be used for Muslim women.
· Hospitals are being sued for not having Sharia compliant treatment.
· No course at the college level uses critical thinking in the history and doctrine of Islam. Under Sharia no aspect of Islam may be criticized.
· Muslim charities give money to jihadists, as per Sharia law.
· Muslim foot-baths are being installed in airport facilities, using tax
money. This is in accordance with Sharia law.
· American prisons are a stronghold of proselytizing for Islam.
· Workplaces are being made Islamic worship sites through special rooms and time off to pray. This is in accordance to Sharia law.
· Islamic refugees bring all of their wives for welfare and medical treatment to America. Authorities will not act even when presented with evidence.Polygamy is pure Sharia.
· We are fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to implement constitutions that have the supremacy of Sharia law as their first article.
Why Do We Need to Know Sharia?
ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CLAIM: Islamic law is perfect, universal and eternal. The lawsof the United States are temporary, limited and will pass. It is the duty of everyMuslim to obey the laws of Allah, the Sharia.
SHARIA: Sharia is based on the principles found in the Koran and other Islamicreligious/political texts. There are no common principles between American lawand Sharia.
Under Sharia law:
· There is no freedom ofreligion
· There is no freedom of speech
· There is no freedom of thought
· There is no freedom of artistic expression
· There is no freedom of the press
· There is no equality of peoples-a non-Muslim, a Kafir, is never equal to a
Muslim
· There are no equal rights for women
· Women can be beaten
· A non-Muslim cannot bear arms
· There is no equal protection under Sharia for different classes of people.
Justice is dualistic, with one set of laws for Muslim males and different
laws for women and non-Muslims.
· Our Constitution is a man-made document of ignorance, jahiliyah, that
must submit to Sharia
· There is no democracy, since that means that a non-Muslim is equal to a
Muslim
· Non-Muslims are dhimmis, third-class citizens
· There is no Golden Rule
· There is no critical thought
· All governments must be ruled by Sharia law
Unlike common law, Sharia is not interpretive, nor can it be changed
THE SOLUTION
This book uses a fact-based approach to knowledge that uses analytic or criticalthought. When you finish reading, you will know what Sharia law is. More importantly you will know why Sharia is what it is. You will understand how Sharia "works" and why it cannot change. For the first
time, you will understand Islam. It will all make sense.
The Three Views of Islam
There are three points of view in dealing with Islam. The point of view depends upon how you feel about Mohammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don't, you are a nonbeliever.
The third viewpoint is that of an apologist for Islam. Apologists do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they try to be tolerant without any actual knowledge of Islam.
Here is an example of the threepoints of view.
In Medina, Mohammed sat all day long beside his 12-year-old wife while
they watched as the heads of 800 Jews were removed by sword. Their heads were cut off because they had said that Mohammed was not the prophet of Allah. Muslims view these deaths as necessary because denying Mohammed's prophet-hood was an offense against Islam and beheading is the accepted method of punishment, sanctioned by Allah.
Nonbelievers look at this event as proof of the jihadic violence of Islam and as an evil act.
Apologists say that this was a historic event, that all cultures have violence in their past, and no judgment should be passed. They have never actually read any of Islam's foundational texts, but still speak authoritatively about Islam.
According to the different points of view, killing the 800 Jews was:
· A tragedy
· A perfect sacred act
· Another historical event. We have done worse.
There is no "right" view of Islam, since the views cannot be reconciled.
This book is written from the nonbeliever point of view. Everything in this book views Islam from how it affects non-Muslims.This also means that the religion is of little importance. A Muslim cares aboutthe religion of Islam, but all nonbelievers are affected by Islam's politicalviews.
This book discusses Islam as a political system. There is no need to talk about Muslims or religion. Muslims are people and vary from one to another. Religion is what one does to go to Paradise and avoid Hell. It is not useful nor necessary to discuss Islam as a religion. But we have to talk
about Islam in the political realm, because it is a powerful political system.
Sharia Law for Non-Muslims - Chapter 2
What is Sharia?
Sharia law is Islamic law. Sharia is the basis for every demand that Muslimsmake on our society. When schools are asked to give up a room for Islamic prayer, that is asking us to implement Sharia law. When a Muslim wears a head scarf, that is in obedience to Sharia law. When our newspapers would not publish the Danish Mohammed cartoons, our newspapers were submitting to the demands of Sharialaw. When demands are made for our hospitals to treat Muslim women in specialways, that is Sharia. When our textbooks have to be vetted by Muslim organizations before they are used
in our schools, that is in accordance with Sharia law.
The attack on the World Trade Center was done in adherence to the rules of war, jihad, found in Sharia law. Sharia law is the basis for the religious, political and cultural life of all Muslims.
Sharia law is being implemented more and more in America and yet there is noknowledge about what Sharia actually is since public, private or religious schoolsdo not teach it.
THE GOOD NEWS
The easiest way to learn about Islam is through Sharia law. Through learningabout Sharia you are introduced to the Koran and Mohammed in a practical manner.It is easy to learn when you can see the direct application and examples.
When you know Sharia, Islam suddenly makes sense, it all fits together. Most people think Islam is complicated or even impossible to understand, but when you understand its principles, Islam is very, very logical. It is based on different views of humanity, logic, knowledge, and ethics. Once
you understand the principles and logic, you not only can explain what and why something is happening, but you will be able to predict the next step in the process.
UNDERSTANDING THE REFERENCE NUMBERS
Before you can understand Sharia, you have to learn about three books that are the basis of Sharia.
Each ruling or law in Sharia is based on a reference in the Koran or the Sunna,the perfect example of Mohammed (found in two texts-Hadith and Sira). Each andevery law in Islam must come from the Koran and the Sunna.
We know the Sunna by knowing about the personal details of Mohammed's life.We know how he cleaned his teeth and which shoe he put on first. We know theSunna because we have the Sira and the Hadith.
You probably think that the Koran is the bible of Islam. Not true. The bible of Islam is the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. These three texts can be
called the Trilogy.
The Koran is a small part, only 14% of the total words, of the doctrine that is Islam. The text devoted to the Sunna is 86% of the total textual doctrine of Islam. Islam is 14% Allah and 86% Mohammed.
Sharia is nothing more than a condensation and extrapolation of the Koran and the Sunna. Therefore, it is impossible to understand the Sharia without some understanding about the doctrine found in the Koran, Hadith and the Sira. Turn to any page after this chapter and you will find that most of the paragraphs have an index number.
The classic Sharia law text is the Reliance of the Traveller, N. Keller,Amana Publications. (Yes, the correct spelling is Traveller with a double l.) It is a 1,200 page book devoted to such subjects as: political control of non-Muslims, prayer, jihad, wills and estates, punishment, court rules, and land use. It covers legalities and theology.
Here is a typical paragraph:
08.0 APOSTACY FROM ISLAM
08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane, voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
[Bukhari 9,83,17] Mohammed: “A Muslim who has admitted that there is no god but Allah and that I am His prophet may not be killed except for three reasons: as punishment for murder, for adultery, or for apostasy.”
The o8.1 is an index number in the Sharia law text, The Reliance of the Traveller. The text is divided into divisions, a, b, c, ... This particular law is found in division o; section 8; subsection 1. With the index number, o8.1, you can read the source, The Reliance of the Traveller.
We not only have the law, apostates (people who leave Islam) should be killed,but we have the supporting doctrine found in a hadith, a sacred text used along with the Koran. A hadith is what Mohammed did or said. This particular hadith is by Bukhari, the major collector of Mohammed's stories. Notice the index number--9,83,17. This is like a chapter and verse index so that you can go and read the original. All of the Hadith, including Bukhari, can be found on many university Internet sites.
Here is a Sharia law supported by the Koran:
09.0 JIHAD
Jihad means war against Kafirs to establish Islam.
Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislke it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not.
Here we have the Sharia defining what jihad is and then gives its foundational reference for the authority. Again, you can verify the accuracy of the Koran verses and the original reference, 09.0, in the Reliance of the Traveller.
There is one last type of reference to a supporting document.
DEALING WITH A REBELLIOUS WIFE
m10.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness...
Ishaq969 ... Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons.
Here we have the usual Sharia reference number, m10.12, which allowsyou to read the original reference. The Ishaq index number, 969, is amargin note reference that allows you to look in the Sira (Mohammed's biography-The Life of Muhammad, A. Guillaume) and verify the truth of the reference.
BELIEVABLE AND AUTHORITATIVE
This is fact-based knowledge based upon critical thought and analysis. What you see here can all be independently verified for yourself.
This is a very different approach than asking a Muslim or an "expert" in the media. If a Muslim or any expert says something about Islam that disagreeswith the Koran or Sunna, then the expert is wrong. If the expert says somethingthat agrees with Koran or Sunna, then the expert is right, but redundant.
Once you know Koran and Sunna, you don't need anybody else.
POLITICAL ISLAM
The largest part of the Trilogy is not about how to be a good Muslim. Insteadmost of the text is devoted to the unbeliever. The Koran devotes 64% of itstotal words to the unbeliever and the Trilogy, as a whole, devotes 60% of its text to the unbelievers.
Islam is NOT a religion. It is a complete civilization with a detailed political system, religion and a legal code-the Sharia. Mohammed preached the religion of Islam for 13 years in Mecca and got 150 Arabs to convert to Islam. He went to Medina and became a politician and a war-lord. After 2 years in Medina, every Jew was murdered, enslaved, or exiled. He was involved in an event of violence on the average of every 6 weeks for the last 9 years of his life. Mohammed died without a single enemy left standing.
This was not a religious process, but a political process. Jihad is political action with a religious motivation. Political Islam is the doctrine that deals with the non-Muslim.
Mohammed did not succeed with his program of religion, but his political process of jihad triumphed. Sharia law is the political implementation of the Islamic civilization.
The political nature of Islam is what creates the major difference between Sharia and Jewish religious law, halaka. Jewish law has nothing to say about non-Jews and explicitly says that the law of the land trumps halaka.
Sharia has a lot to say about Kafirs and how they are to be treated, subjugated and ruled. Sharia claims political supremacy over the Constitution.
There is nothing good for non-Muslims in the Sharia. This is why every unbeliever has a reason to know Sharia law, especially those in politics, policy, regulationand legal matters. Sharia law is about the unbeliever as well as the Muslim.Islam's attitudes and actions about unbelievers are political, not religious.
Even though Sharia violates every principle of our Constitution, it is beingimplemented today, since Islam is seen as only as a religion.
MUSLIMS AND SHARIA
Non-Muslims call Muslims that seem nice, moderate Muslims. This use of the word "moderate" is not based on Islam.
A moderate Muslim is one who follows the Sharia. As much as they follow the Sharia, they are a Muslim. To the degree they don't follow the Sharia, they are a failure at being a Muslim.
The Sharia is based on the perfect, unchanging Koran and Sunna. Therefore, the Sharia is perfect and unchanging. If every Muslim in the world wanted to change a single letter of the Koran, the Sunna or the Sharia, they could not. How can perfection be improved? How can an eternal text be changed? Since the Sharia is nothing more than a codification of perfect, unchanging, universal texts, it is a perfect, unchanging and universal legal code.
TECHNICAL DETAILS
If you read something in this book and want to know more, most paragraphs havean index number. You can look it up.
Koran 1:2 is a reference to the Koran, chapter 1, verse 2.
Ishaq 123 is a reference to Ishaq's Sira, margin note 123.
[Bukhari 1,3,4] is a reference to Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, book 3, number 4.(Sahih means authoritative and authentic.)
[Muslim 012, 1234] is a reference to Sahih Muslim, book 12, number 1234.
Shariah Law for Non-MuslimsWOMEN—CHAPTER 3
ISLAMIC SCHOLARS CLAIM:
Sharia laws concerning women is the rule of law in Islamic families.Islam was the first civilization to provide and guarantee women's rights.Mohammed gave the world the perfect example of how women are protected in Islam.Muslim women are treasured and as treasures must be protected from the evils of the kafir world.The rights of Muslim women come from Allah. THE SHARIA: Sharia law has different laws for different groups of people. Women are one of its special classes. Wife Beating
Islam's grand vision about women is given in one verse of the Koran:
Koran 4:34 Allah has made men superior to women because men spend their wealth to support them. Therefore, virtuous women are obedient, and they are to guard their unseen parts as Allah has guarded them. As for women whom you fear will rebel, admonish them first, and then send them to a separate bed, and then beat them. But if they are obedient after that, then do nothing further; surely Allah is exalted and great!
THE SHARIA: dealing with a rebellious wife
m10.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife whether in words as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful, he warns her in words without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse.
The warning could be to tell her, "Fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,"
or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, "Your obeying me is religiously obligatory".
If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (having sex) with her and refuses to speak to her, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not bruise her, break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. It is unlawful to strike another's face. He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may not hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.
Ishaq969 He [Mohammed] also told them men had rights over their wives and women had rights over their husbands. The wives were never to commit adultery or act in a sexual manner toward others. If they did, they were to be put in separate rooms and beaten lightly. If they refrained from what was forbidden, they had the right to food and clothing. Men were to lay injunctions on women lightly for they were prisoners of men and had no control over their persons.
[Abu Dawud 11, 2142] Mohammed said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.
[Bukhari 7,62,132] The Prophet said, "None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day." Most of those in Hell will be women.
THE DOCTRINE OF WOMEN
There are many ways in which the woman does not have full stature in Sharia law:
022.1 The necessary qualifications for being an Islamic judge are: (a) to be a male freeman […]
04.9 The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.
[Bukhari 3,48,826] Mohammed asked, "Is not the value of a woman's eye-witness testimony half that of a man's?" A woman said, "Yes." He said, "That is because a woman's mind is deficient."L10.3 They divide the universal share so that the male receives the por-tion of two females.
Koran 4:11 It is in this manner that Allah commands you concerning your children: A male should receive a share equal to that of two fe-males, [...]
This hadith equates camels, slaves and women.
[Abu Dawud 11, 2155] Mohammed said: If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: "O Allah, I ask You for the good in her, and in the disposition You have given her; I take refuge in You from the evil in her, and in the disposition You have given her." When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing.
Women are inferior to men in intelligence and religion.
[Bukhari 1,6,301] While on his way to pray, Mohammed passed a group of women and he said, "Ladies, give to charities and donate money to the unfortunate, because I have witnessed that most of the people in Hell are women.
They asked, "Why is that?"
He answered, "You swear too much, and you show no grati-tude to your husbands. I have never come across anyone more lacking in intelligence, or ignorant of their religion than women. A careful and intelligent man could be misled by many of you."
They responded, "What exactly are we lacking in intelligence or faith?"
Mohammed said, "Is it not true that the testimony of one man is the equal to the testimony of two women?"
After they affirmed that this was true, Mohammed said, "That illustrates that women are lacking in intelligence. Is it not also true that women may not pray nor fast during their men-strual cycle?"
They said that this was alsotrue.
Mohammed then said, "That illustrates that women are lack-ing in their religion."A woman's testimony is worth half that of a man.
Koran 2:282 Believers! When you contract a loan for a certain period, write it down, or to be fair, let a scribe write it down. The scribe should not re-fuse to write as Allah has taught him; therefore, let the scribe record what the debtor dictates being mindful of his duty to Allah and not re-ducing the amount he owes. If the debtor is ignorant and unable to dic-tate, let his guardian do so with fairness. Call two men in to witness this, but if two men cannot be found, then call one man and two women whom you see fit to be witnesses. Therefore, if either woman makes an error, the other can correct her [...]
FEMAL GENITAL MUTILATION, FEMALE CIRCUMCISION
It is unfortunate that the term circumcision is applied to both the re-moval of the foreskin of the male and the removal of the clitoris of the woman. There is no comparison.
[Bukhari 7,72,779] Mohammed said, "Five practices are characteristics of the ancient prophets: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, cutting the moustaches short, clipping the nails, and depilating the hair of the armpits."
This hadith refers to the circumcision of female genitalia. It assumes that both the man and the woman are circumcised.
[Muslim 003,0684] [...] Abu Musa then said, "When is a bath obligatory?" Aisha responded, "You have asked the right person. Mohammed has said that a bath is obligatory when a man is encompassed by a woman and their circumcised genitalia touch."
Circumcision is part of the Sharia law. Here is the deceptive translation:
e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory for both men and women. For men it consists of removing the prepuce from the penis, and for women, removing the prepuce of the clitoris (not the clitoris itself, as some mistakenly assert).
However what the Arabic actually says is:e4.3 Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the clitoris (this is called Hufaad)."
This deceptive translation obscures the Sharia law. This deception is called taqiyya, a form of sacred deception.
At the battle of Badr, we have a reference to the custom of removing the clitoris.
Ishaq 564 Hamza said, 'Come here, you son of a female circumciser.' Now his mother was Umm Anmar, a female circumciser (one who circumcised girls) in Mecca. Then Hamza smote him and killed him.
o12.0 THE PENALTY FOR FORNICATION
o12.6 If the penalty is stoning, they are to be stoned, no matter the weather, or if they are ill. A pregnant woman is not stoned until she gives birth and the child does not need to nurse.
[Muslim 017, 4206] ... There came to Mohammed a woman who said: Allah's Messenger, I have committed adultery, [...] When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him with the child who was hold-ing a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah's Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. ...
HONOR KILLING
Honor killing is not directly included in Sharia doctrine. Sharia dictates that a woman is inferior to the male and allows beatings to enforce the rule of the male, but it does not accord honor killing a legal status. However, there is no penalty for killing an adulterer:
o5.4 There is no expiation for killing someone who has left Islam, a highwayman or a convicted married adulterer...
e12.8 ... unworthy (those who may be killed) includes ... convicted mar-ried adulterers...
This seems to include equal penalties for both men and women, how-ever, a man has many legal ways to have sex, while the woman is strictly limited to her husband alone. Hence, the woman is much more likely to be killed.
The man rules the woman, and his status in the community depends upon how his women conduct themselves. Ghira is sacred jealousy, even Allah has ghira. Ghira is also self-respect and is the basis of honor killings. Notice that in this hadith Saed's threat to kill a man with his wife is not condemned, but supported. Violence in defense of a Muslim's ghira is pure Islam.
[Bukhari 8,82,829; Bukhari 9,93,512] Saed bin Ubada said, "If I saw a man with my wife, I would strike him with the blade of my sword." This news reached Mohammed, who then said, "You people are astonished at Saed's ghira (self-respect). By Al-lah, I have more ghira than he, and Allah has more ghira than I, and because of Allah's ghira, He has made unlawful shameful deeds and sins done in open and in secret. [...]
Most honor killings come from Islamic societies.
Bill Warner, Center for the Study of Political Islam
Permalinkcopyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Former Articles of the Month
(Earlier Article of the Month)
Interview with Vijay Kumar, Tennessee District 5
Congressional Candidate
Monday, April 26th, 2010 | Posted by
Ali Sina/metas
An Interview with Vijay Kumar
Great men are born in the midst of despair, when ignorance has filled the world and evil reigns. This is indeed one such time for mankind. Islam is on the rise, Islamic terrorism is destroying countless lives throughout the world and it is threatening our freedom, our countries and our civilization. Meanwhile ignorance has blinded mankind to its peril. Humanity is walking blindfolded to its doom.
Vijay Kumar is one of the few people who understand the nature of this peril. Vijay is not a politician. He does not speak the language of politicians. He speaks the truth. Truth and politics often don’t mix. In the Netherlands, the Dutch court is prosecuting a member of their parliament for speaking the truth. His prosecutor has said before the trial, “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct, what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”. In the USA, speaking the truth is not illegal yet, but it is politically incorrect. You will not be prosecuted yet, but you’ll face vilification, will be called racist, fascist and maligned. The US is not far behind Europe. Things are changing rapidly and all the freedoms that the Americans had enjoyed can be lost overnight. Politicians are fast asleep. Despite that, Kumar is running for the Congress. It is now up to the voters of Tennessee to decide whether they want to send another politician to the Congress or a man who dares to speak the truth. Faithfreedom.org is honored for this exclusive interview with Vijay Kumar, one of the few people who understands the real threat that the USA and the world is facing and has the courage to tell it like it is.The future of America and the world depends on men and women who have the wisdom to discern the truth and the courage to defend it. This is one interview you want to read. Vijay is a man you want to know. His words of wisdom must be spread. If America is to survive as a democracy, it would be because of people like Vijay Kumar. Ali Sina FAITHFREEDOM: Thank you for accepting to do this interview for Faithfreedom International. It is an honor to have you with us. You are running for the United States Congress from the 5th Congressional District of the state of Tennessee. Obviously, as a conservative you are concerned about the deficit, the takeover of industry by the government, health care and other issues that concern every patriotic American. However, you have said that stopping the Islamization of America is your priority. I know only of one politician with a similar platform: Geert Wilders, the founder of Freedom Party in Holland. Why do you think Islamization of America should be the primary concern for Americans? What dangers are you sensing that Islam poses to America?
VIJAY KUMAR: Thank for the opportunity to be with Faith Freedom. It is indeed an honor for me. Yes, I am very interested in and concerned about the economy, the takeover of industry by the government, state-regulated healthcare, and the right to life. My website at www.kumarforcongress.com/issues contains my position on those and other important issues facing the American people.The reason I believe that the Islamization of America should be the primary concern of Americans is that Islamic imperialism poses an existential threat to the United States, and, really, to all mankind. America was conceived as a free constitutional republic that is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Islam was conceived as a totalitarian theocracy that is of Islam, by Islam, and for Islam. The Quran is the antithesis of the United States Constitution. They are polar opposites. They are diametrically opposed. I don’t say that as some Hegelian abstraction: I mean that these two documents are ideological opposites of each other in their most basic purposes and goals. The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people to submit to Islam, and only Islam—not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life. These two purposes could not possibly be in greater opposition. Our constitutional republic is built upon the foundation of separation of church and state, with a representative form of government that derives all of its power from the will of the people, framed by a Constitution that is the supreme law of the land. Islam is built on a foundation of church and state being one, an inseparable autocratic form of government that derives all of its power solely from the will of Allah, framed exclusively by Islamic law—which Islam holds to be divine, supreme, and immutable. So the danger that Islam poses to America is that Islam, at its core, is ideologically at war with our Constitution. It is a declared war against everything our Constitution stands for. This is a war of polarized ideologies, and they are irreconcilable. Every conflict we have with Muslims and Islamic nations everywhere around the world arises from that one very simple fact. All other “explanations” are wrong, and so lead to no solutions, only endless turmoil. The idea that somehow the United States antagonized the current conflicts with Islamic nations and Muslim terrorists is specious. The very existence of our Constitution is what antagonizes Islam. It stands in stark opposition to Islam’s worldwide goal of domination over all mankind. We could be doing absolutely nothing anywhere in the world, and still would be an object of Islam’s contempt and aggression for the sole reason that we do not submit ourselves to Islamic law, and we further have the gall to proclaim in our Constitution that people have the right to choose a religion other than Islam—or no religion at all. One cannot serve two masters. One cannot to be loyal to the United States Constitution and to the Quran at the same time. Muslims and non-Muslims alike, need to face up to this incontrovertible fact: Islam’s ultimate goal is world domination by Islamic rule, and America stands as the single greatest barrier to the realization of that ultimate goal. That is the exact simple statement of the problem. For that reason, Islam, at its core, requires the overthrow of the American government, the destruction of our Constitution, and the cancellation of all of our laws as its ultimate goal in America, so that all of those can be replaced with the Quran and Sharia law. Islam, at its core, also demands the suppression and ultimate eradication of every other church and religion in the world: Protestant, Catholic, Coptic, Judaic, Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu, Zoroastrian—none are exempt. All paths to spiritual enlightenment and sacred belief known to man that are not Islam—and even materialism, agnosticism, and atheism—are branded by the Quran as inferior, and not really worthy of existence. Islam, at its core, also mandates inequality under Islamic law, using a double standard specifically designed to oppress to any “non- believer.” It enforces Sharia law and its inherent discrimination with draconian penalties, including selective taxes, dismemberment, and execution.Islam, at its core, also commands complete and inescapable submission of the mind and spirit to its scripture as supreme and divine law that overrides and supersedes all the human rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, hold sacred—including, ironically, freedom of religion. The Quran and Sharia law suppress all dissent, and call for the destruction of all opposition to Islamic supremacy. To leave Islam, or even to criticize it, is punishable by death. Comedy Central thought that was a joke. They’re now finding out that perhaps it’s not so funny after all. These goals and purposes of Islam I’ve stated are not “Radical Islam;” they are Literal Islam. These are the fundamental canonical goals of Islam’s most holy scripture, spelled out quite clearly in the Quran and Hadith, and being put into force right this minute in nations around the world. The Islamic theologian Syed Abul A’ala Maududi left no doubt about Islam’s ultimate goals when he said: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program.” Given that the ideology of Islam itself is opposed to human rights and freedom, that automatically, by reversal, makes every liberal democracy on Earth “opposed to the ideology and program of Islam”—as Maududi put it, typically accusing those in favor of freedom as being the offenders. I realize that reciting these goals of Islam is not popular or “politically correct” in our culture today, exactly because of the flood of propaganda insisting that Islam is merely “another religion” and “a religion of peace.” But Islam, at its core, is a faith-based political theocracy whose most basic tenets and goals are a nullification of our Constitution, and, as such, it is the single greatest threat that America—and, indeed, the entire free world—has ever faced. It is a consummate totalitarianism against which every other totalitarianism should be measured. Expressly because of its religious component, Islamic imperialism is far more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined. Hitler came to power in 1939, and World War II ended in 1945 with the defeat of Nazi Germany. Hitler was in power for about 15 years. The Communist Soviet Union lasted longer, for about 74 years. The Soviet Union and Soviet sponsored Communism died of their own internal contradictions. Yet today, Islam’s Universal Jihad has gained control of over 50 countries in the world, according to the CIA’s own World Fact Book. That’s more than Nazism and Soviet Communism combined. And Islam is well on its way to demographic control in over a dozen other countries. FAITHFREEDOM : Could you expand on what you mean by demographic control, in the context of Universal Jihad?
VIJAY KUMAR: Universal Jihad is a war that has been waged by Islam against the rest of the world for 1,400 years. It is by no means limited to violent conflict or terrorism, and demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest. Once Muslims replace enough of the population of any country, the non-believers will lose their nation, their culture, their heritage, their civilization, their laws, their land, and their fundamental human rights forever.
Instead of assimilating into any society, Islam seeks to establish a state-within-a-state, to insinuate Sharia law into the existing system of law and expand it by degrees until it can consume it.
Islam and our Constitution cannot merge. They cannot mix. The oil-and-water analogy would be the easiest to make, but the more accurate one, in the case of Islam and the Constitution, is that of a parasite and host.
As it has done with other cultures, Islam uses our religious tolerance—which is codified in the “free exercise clause” of our Constitution—first as an entrance point to insinuate itself, then as a protective cyst while it feeds on the host and grows and spreads.
There are more than a few examples in history. Zoroastrian Persia, Buddhist Afghanistan, Hindu Pakistan, and Christian Egypt all extended tolerance to Islam. All have been metamorphosed into Islamic nations. Their pre-Islamic past is all but wiped out. No one really knows the many achievements, contributions, and heritage of these once great civilizations.
The Hindu civilization today is half of what it used to be. After a thousand years of living in an undivided India, in 1947 the Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Pakistan. Similarly, in Yugoslavia, after a thousand years of co-existence, Slavic Muslims there wanted their own country, and so was born Bosnia.
America and Europe certainly will suffer the same fate of these past civilizations if effective action is not taken.
The same sort of parasitic process has taken hold today in Europe. Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Italy—all are being inundated by Muslim immigration and suffering the inevitable smothering of their traditional values, culture, and political systems by Islamic influence peddling and Sharia law.
FAITHFREEDOM: How do you see Sharia law factoring into the doctrine of Universal Jihad, and what are its implications for America?
VIJAY KUMAR: Right now, today, our banks have succumbed to Islamic insistence on separate banking terms for Muslims. Sharia forbids Muslims from paying interest, so Muslims do not get mortgages with interest. They get a loan that has a “fee” instead. Of course liberals, who are Islam’s water-carriers, defend this blatant discrimination that is based solely on religion, while speaking out the other side of their mouths about “equality for all.”
In 2008, the United Kingdom officially sanctioned Sharia courts to rule on Muslim civil matters. In much the same way that Muslims use the “free exercise” clause of our Constitution as a bludgeon against us to extort special concessions and privileges, Muslims in England found in the British Arbitration Act an entrance point to the host and a cyst to protect itself while it slowly, methodically grows and feeds. It will consume the host unless and until the British people remove it from their system.
And it is coming to the United States.
Without belaboring cites, to date our Supreme Court has made a distinction between the religious and the secular in rulings on the “establishment clause” and “free exercise” clause. So far, that has acted as at least something of an immunizing defense for our system of law against the infection of Sharia religious law. But anyone who deludes themselves into believing for a moment that Muslims are not working around the clock to find a weak spot, an open wound in our legal system, through which to invade and begin a systematic takeover is in blind, fatal denial.
Islam is not merely a personal faith like Buddhism and Christianity. It also is a complete political ideology and legal system, and that is Sharia law. It asserts the universal supremacy of Islamic law over every religion, every nation, and every other system of law and government. Those who do not share its ideology are dismissed as inferiors: “infidels.”
That is why it has to destroy the United States Constitution if it ever is to achieve its ultimate goals. That is what we face if we, as Americans, don’t come to grips with the purpose of our Constitution versus the policies that are codified in it.
There is a world of difference, and purpose is far more important than policy. Let me reiterate what I said earlier: The purpose of our Constitution is to secure and guarantee to all people the greatest possible freedom. The purpose of Islam is for all people in the world to submit to Islam, and only Islam—not just spiritually, but politically and secularly, in every aspect of law and life.
If we allow the policy of “free exercise” of religion to be used by Islam as a weapon to destroy the very Constitution that guarantees it, and to destroy the very purpose for which America was born, then we have committed national suicide and we deserve whatever fate befalls us for letting down all the people in the world who ever have looked to America as the model—and the last fortress—of human rights and freedoms.
I don’t know how there can be a greater concern to any American.
FAITH FREEDOM: Do you believe the American public is not being told the truth about this peril by the mainstream media and the government?
VIJAY KUMAR: The American public is not getting anything approaching the truth, and it’s difficult to know which is the greater offender: the government or the so-called mainstream media. Fortunately, we have FaithFreedom.org, and now a growing number of other web sites, that dare to tell the truth. But there is a continuous overwhelming flood of misinformation and disinformation that goes out from government officials and the mainstream media.
The biggest lie being told by the government and the media—and it is a lie—is that Islamic terrorism and violence, are the product of “radical” Muslims or of Islamic “extremists.” The simple truth that should be told is that Islamic terrorists and those who fight against “the infidel” are only complying with the exact commands of Allah, according to Islam’s own scripture.
Anyone who claims that world domination and the attendant eradication of the most precious of human rights and freedoms are not the ultimate goals of Islam is either grossly uninformed or is intentionally lying. In either case, given the gravity of the threat that Islam poses, politicians who deny that these are Islam’s goals are not fit for public office. They are betraying the trust of the American people, and betraying their own oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
In doing so, they are poisoning the groundwater of human knowledge with infamous falsehoods, and those falsehoods rapidly are spreading around the world by even well-meaning people.
Let me give you an example. Chana Weisberg, a Jewish educator and columnist, wrote an article called “The Threat of Extremism,” and in it she makes reference to what she calls Islam’s “fanatical Imams from the hotbed of their radical societies, like Saudi Arabia.” That is one dense package of distortion and falsehood. Saudi Arabia, a “radical” Islamic society? Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam. Saudi Arabia is the home of Muhammad. Saudi Arabia is the land of Mecca, where every Muslim in the world is obligated to go at least once in his life on pilgrimage. Saudi Arabia is the world model of the consummate accomplishment of Literal Islam. Yet Ms. Weisberg calls it a “radical” Islamic society, and calls its exported Imams “fanatical.”
They are not “fanatical” Imams at all; they are the very embodiment, the apotheosis, the epitome of orthodox, Literal Islam. It is their devout and orthodox application of Literal Islam that demands endless jihad against the infidel, until every head bows in submission before Allah. This, after all, is the entire purpose and goal of Islam.
The very use of these adjectives such as “radical” and “extremist” and “fanatical” in relation to Islamic violence and terrorism is done to construct a fiction: it pretends that there is some other brand of Islam. There is not. There never has been. That is simply propaganda. The founder of Islam honed all the tactics of Universal Jihad to a fine art 1,400 years ago and conquered Arabia using them. Those have been the same tools of Islamic imperialism ever since.
Islam’s own scripture dictates that the best deed a Muslim can do is “to believe in Allah and fight for his cause.” Islamic propagandists leap to claim that such quotations are “taken out of context.” The gullible never stop to ponder what possible benign “context” there could be for such a sweeping, absolute command. Of course there is none.
We never speak of “radical” Quakers, do we? Of course not! There is no reason to, because Quakers do not have as core principle world domination through violence and terrorism. We don’t even speak of “fanatical” physicists, yet physicists developed the most destructive weapon ever known to man. But if the government and the media were to strip away these extraneous—and entirely false—adjectives in referring to the wholesale destruction being wrought daily throughout the world by Muslims, it would lay bare the true basic nature of Islam for what it actually is.
The goal of Islam, by their own scripture, is to “fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” That fight has never stopped for 1,400 years.
So the only real “radicals” in relation to Islam are those who clamor and claim that Islam can peacefully and equally co-exist indefinitely alongside other religions, and can assimilate within other political ideologies and systems not controlled by Islam’s Sharia law. That is radical disinformation. It is entirely contrary to the most fundamental and forceful tenets of Islamic scripture.
Islam exists peacefully and quietly in such circumstances only until it is in a position of strength to change the circumstances and conquer: to take control of the host. Islam always seeks to become a state-within-a-state wherever it makes inroads, with the ultimate goal of replacing the entire law and entire civilization of any nation with Sharia law, and with the Quran as the only acceptable constitution. In short, Islam fully intends for all nations to become Islamic nations.
That is precisely what Saudi Arabia is: the pinnacle of Islamic societies. The Quran is its only constitution. Sharia is its only law. Islam is its only acceptable religion. That is not “Radical Islam;” that is the pure orthodoxy of Literal Islam. That is what Islam wants to enforce upon every nation, every culture in the world, by any means, by any strategy, by any tactic. Those methods of fighting include willful deception, infiltration, terror, violence, propaganda, psychological warfare, and demographic saturation.
That is Universal Jihad.
FAITHFREEDOM: Does America have any strategy or foreign policy recognizing or addressing Universal Jihad?
VIJAY KUMAR: None whatsoever. The administration doesn’t admit its existence. For a decade, America has spent trillions of dollars and countless lives fighting a phantom called a “terrorism.” There is no such thing as war on terror, there never has been, and there cannot ever be. Terrorism is merely one technique, one method, one tool of Islam to advance its goal of world domination.
By choosing to chase after non-state elements like al-Queda and the Taliban, our leaders are deliberately refusing to define who the true enemy is. The true enemy is not al-Queda or the Taliban. Those rag-tag groups are only disposable foot soldiers in this eternal Islamic Universal Jihad against humanity. And they are devout soldiers of Literal Islam, not “radical” soldiers of Islam.
The real architects and funders of Universal Jihad are the theocratic leaders of Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Our government, because of vested interests, embraces the latter two nations as allies and “friends.” They might as well embrace an asp.
The first thing that needs to be done is to formally declare Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as the ideological enemies of freedom that they are, and to name them as the Axis of Universal Jihad.
The second thing that needs to be done is to build a United Front of Victims of Jihad. Involve all nations who historically have been victims of Jihad. There are many.
The third thing that needs to be done is to employ that United Front of Victims of Jihad to isolate, liberate, democratize, and secularize the Axis of Universal Jihad: Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.
That would be effective. That would get the job done and the ideological war won. It could be done within five years, for less than one billion dollars, and without the further loss of American life.
FAITHFREEDOM: Mr. Obama has decided to omit terms such as “Islamic extremism” and “Islamic radicalism” from key national security documents. What do you think of that? Is there a real agenda behind Obama’s decision that the public does not know or is he merely naive and misguided?
VIJAY KUMAR: It’s just the latest foray in the endless propaganda war of redefining terms. None of it ever changes a word of the Quran, though, does it?
As we discussed earlier, “Islamic extremism” and “Islamic terrorism” are tautologies. They are superfluous. Islam at its core is “extreme” compared to every rational ideology in the world, because it does not recognize any form of pluralism. That is, it has nothing but contempt for the beliefs and faith systems of six billion infidels.
Mr. Obama’s real intention with his word shuffling is not to soft-peddle the words like “extremism” and ‘terrorism;” his real intention is to soft-peddle the word “Islam” in relation to its violent acts around the world. Barack Hussein Obama is a crypto-Muslim. He is not misguided. He is supremely articulate and very well informed. He is softening the United States foreign and domestic policy to please Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
More than any president in the history of United States, Barack Obama is extremely soft on the avowed enemies of the United States. That in itself is cause for deep concern.
And while these disingenuous politicians and bureaucrats fritter away tax dollars playing reprehensible semantic games, our American soldiers are dying right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even as our soldiers are fighting and dying to liberate both nations from tyrants, the administrations of both Afghanistan and Iraq have chosen to have Sharia as the law of the land. It is a bitter and heartbreaking irony that our young men and women are dying to defend and support Sharia law, which brands our nation as infidel and inferior, and makes a mockery of our Constitution.
Then again, so does Barack Hussein Obama.
FAITHFREEDOM: Back in late January, Mr. Obama overturned a President Bush ban on Tariq Ramadan. Mr. Ramadan is a scholar of Islam residing in UK. He is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of Muslim Brotherhood and a confidant of Hitler. In fact Hitler’s idea of the “Final Solution” came from al-Banna, who suggested it after the Muslim Turks had gassed to death 1.5 million Armenians. Tariq Ramadan recently made his first public appearance in the U.S. since the U.S. State Department barred his entry back in 2004. Do you agree with Mr. Obama for lifting the ban on Ramadan and if not, why not?
VIJAY KUMAR: Mr. Obama is simply wrong, but it is one more example of his pandering to Islamic imperialism, and further confirmation that he is a crypto-Muslim. Mr. Ramadan should be persona non grata in the United States. Armenian genocide by Turkey must be acknowledged by the United States, and if I am elected to Congress I will work hard to pass a resolution to that effect.
FAITHFREEDOM: You lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran and know them to some extent. Many people believe that the most critical political issue is the nuclear program of the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, Mr. Obama and his administration seem to not be too concerned. What dangers do you see in that and what you propose should be done?
VIJAY KUMAR: Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons under any circumstances. My proposal to create a United Front of Victims of Jihad to deal with the Axis of Universal Jihad addresses this.
Iran also is ready for a revolution by those forces within it that are against Islamic religious fundamentalism. Before being consumed by Literal Islam, Iran had a five thousand year history of a glorious civilization. Cyrus the Great, when Iran was Persia, was the first to propose a universal declaration of human rights.
I have known many young Iranians in the United States. Some of them are good friends of mine. Most of them are secular, intellectually liberal, and believe in theological and political pluralism.
I lived in Iran between 1976 in 1979—about six months in Tehran, and about two years in Bandar Abbas. The only religious and ethnic contempt I received in Iran was not from Iranians, but from fellow Indian immigrants who were Muslim, and Pakistani immigrants to Iran who were Muslim. This was just before the 1979 Islamic revolution.
It was quite remarkable to discover how westernized Iran was even in late 1970s. I think the young men and women in Iran would like to get rid of the Ayatollahs’ religious theocracy and replace it with a secular democratic republic. These are my conclusions, and, of course, my opinions are very subjective.
There is only one way the Ayatollahs can stay in power: that is to continue to demonize the specters of the United States and Israel. Otherwise, there is no logical purpose for the Ayatollah regime’s existence.
The central goal of the free world should be to demilitarize, secularize, and democratize Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. I sincerely hope that the Iranian people will revitalize the great religion of their ancestors, Zoroastrianism, and all the good that it brought to the world. A Zoroastrian Iran will be one of the great civilized and civilizing nations of the world—fulfilling the Zoroastrian belief that Spenta Mainyu, the spirit of good, will triumph over Angra Mainyu, the spirit of evil.
FAITHFREEDOM: Many Americans believe that Mr. Obama was not born in America, that he does not have American citizenship and is an illegal alien. The Kenyan lawmakers are openly saying thatObama was born in Kenyaand are praising the Americans for allowing a foreigner to become their president. But this is against the Constitution. Many U.S. lawmakers and even the courts have refused to touch this subject. What is your opinion? Do you think that Mr. Obama should prove his eligibility? Will you, if elected, ask Mr. Obama to satisfy the American citizens that he is indeed qualified to serve as their president? VIJAY KUMAR: Of course he should supply the document that would prove his eligibility because it’s a Constitutional requirement. The document the White House keeps referring to is not the actual long-form birth certificate and does not qualify. His refusal to produce the correct original document, which only he can do, is an act of arrogance toward and defiance of our Constitution. It makes mockery of the Constitution, and it ridicules the people of good faith who have asked him to comply with it. It prolongs and antagonizes the issue, and since he is the one person who could easily end it with one simple act of disclosure, it proves conclusively that he wants the controversy to go on. It is indefensible.
I’ll mention that it now look like he’s going to have to produce it if he wants to appear as a presidential candidate on the Arizona ballot in 2012: the Arizona House of Representatives just voted for a provision that would require presidential candidates to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements.
FAITHFREEDOM: There is no secret that a great part of the money we spend on gasoline finances Islamic terrorism. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia spend billions in spreading their Islamic ideology worldwide and with the spread of Islam, Islamic terrorism is on the rise. What is your position, in regards to developing our own natural resources, as Governor Palin suggested during her 2008 campaign?
VIJAY KUMAR: I am for an all-out program—and I mean comparable to John F. Kennedy’s goal for putting a man on the moon—to develop every possible natural resource we have, and to encourage research and development of every possible kind of alternative energy, now known and yet to be discovered. I am all for fully developing wind, solar and wave technology, fuel cell technology, natural gas—anything and everything that holds promise for supplying our own energy needs.
People look at me strangely, as a conservative, and ask if that means I am for green energy. Well, I don’t care if it’s green, purple, or polka-dot. I just believe that we have all the talent, skill, innovation, and determination necessary to accomplish anything, including breaking our addiction to oil, and leading the way to ending the world’s reliance on it.
I know we can do it if we only set it as an unequivocal national goal.
Your point that money spent on oil goes to fund Islamic terrorism is an important one. A recent commercial on television points out that for every dollar that gas goes up, a billion and a half dollars becomes available for funding and arming Islamic imperialism.
So, yes, we must make developing our own natural resources a national priority, both as the intelligent thing to do, and also to break the chains that hold us as hostages to Islamic imperialism.
But we must do more if we value and want to preserve our nation, our Constitution, our religious freedoms, our civil rights, and our way of life.
We must declare Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia as the Axis of Jihad. The immediate goal of the free world should be demilitarize, secularize, and democratize these three nations.
We must stop immigration from Islamic nations where Sharia is the law of the land, except for giving refuge to those escaping Islamic totalitarianism: refugees and apostates.
We must declare, correctly, that demands for implementation of Sharia law in our nation are not “free exercise” of religion, but are secular demands for the overthrow of our Constitution, and as such constitute criminal acts of sedition.
We must coalesce and organize the United Front of Victims of Jihad: Jew and
Gentile, Saxon and Slav, Hindu and Buddhist, Agnostic and Atheist, Catholic and Protestant, Orthodox and Evangelical, Norwegian and Nigerian. It is quite possible to build just such a logical and lasting political and military alliance.
We must declare throughout the world and assert without apology our unwavering dedication to human freedom, human dignity, pluralism, reason, empirical evidence, and scientific method as our rightful stand against Islamic imperialism and totalitarianism.
Our freedom, our very survival is at stake. The reason I am running for Congress is to propagate and defend these ideals.
