Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers a one-week course for all those engaged in combatting the efforts of Islamic jihadists. (And yes, he and I really are available to teach it, and more.)
Islam for Infidels. A one-week course. Instructors: Hugh Fitzgerald and Robert Spencer.Day One:
Sura 9.29. Read it. Now read all of Sura 9. Now reread all of Sura 9. Let's discuss. What is an "Unbeliever"? What are "People of the Book"? What is the difference in the treatment of Hindus under Muslim rule and of Christians and Jews? What is a "dhimmi"? Name six disabilities to which dhimmis were subject under Muslim rule. Describe any changes over time in the Qur'an and the Hadith that would lead one to believe that Islam now offers a different view of the non-Muslim than the one that has been filling Muslim minds for the past 1350 years. Remember that Sura 9 has not been abrogated in whole or in part. It is the immutable word of God. Nothing about it can be questioned. How would you attempt to get around what it says?
Day Two:
You will spend today, and tomorrow, reading the Qur'an. Notes have been supplied for particular linguistic difficulties. You have at each desk a sheet which explains the doctrine of "naskh" or abrogation. Read all the Jihad verses assembled in the Calcutta Qur'an Petition.
Day Three:Read Sura 5.32. Now read Sura 5.33. You have a handout that offers the Muslim view of the meaning of the phrase "There is no compulsion in religion," which is taken from Sura 2.256. Read it carefully before class discussion.
Day Four:
The Hadith. Isnad. The problem of authenticity. Levels of authenticity. Bukhari. Muslim. The significance of the Sunnah to Muslims.
Day Five:
The life of Muhammad: Sirat al-Rasul. Ibn Ishaq. Other versions: Arthur Jeffery, Sir William Muir, Tor Andrae. The significance of Muhammad: 83% of the Qur'an and Hadith devoted to him; 17% to Allah. Muhammad as the Perfect Man: uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
Banu Qurayza decapitations. Attack on the farmers of the Khaybar Oasis. Asma bint Marwan and Abu Afak. Aisha. Why did the Ayatolah Khomeni, as virtually the first law of his regime, reduce the marriageable age of girls to Iran to nine years?
Day Six:
Muslim websites. Ask Mr. Fatwa. Islamonline. What is a "fatwa"? What does the phrase "And Allah knows best" mean? What is Haram? What is Halal? Why does Islam "command" the doing of certain things and "forbid" the doing of certain other things? What kinds of things are regulated by Islam? Provide a list of what Islam "forbids" and "commands" in the following categories: clothing, facial hair, personal hygiene, food, statuary, music, speech, lying, Infidels, Muslim children of Infidel parents, discussion of Islam with non-Muslims, the duty to spread Islam, instruments of Jihad. Be specific as to whether or not the relevant authority is to be found in the Qur'an, or the Hadith, or in the model of the Perfect Man, Muhammad.
What other sources of authority does Islam possess? Briefly describe them.
Day Seven:
A brief course in taqiyya.
This will consist of a mock-debate between the instructors, followed by a taking of questions from the audience of students, offering the full gamut of devices -- highly selective quotation, insistence that non-Arabic speakers cannot "understand" the Qur'an, tu-quoque appeals -- that fill those "Muslim-Christian" and "Muslim-Jewish" and other "dialogues" conducted in Muslim outreach sessions. One would go through the whole shtick, as veterans of the Borscht Belt might put it -- including the "we all share the one Abrahamic faith" and "we all share monotheism" and "we respect Jesus and Moses as prophets." Each of these misleading pseudo-statements can be taken apart -- beginning, for example, with whether or not the "Jesus" or the "Moses" of Islam has anything to do with the Jesus or Moses of Christianity or Judaism, and pointing out that the inclusion of all the major figures and sites of the two prior monotheisms in Islam was an act of deliberate appropriation.
For Islam itself is a belief-system that was offered to justify and promote conquest by Muslims of much larger, more settled, wealthier, altogether more advanced populations of Christians and Jews in Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, Egypt, North Africa, and Spain. The conquests of Sassanian Persia, and later of the Hindus (and Buddhists) of India required other adjustments -- including, in the end, treating the Hindus almost as "People of the Book" because there were simply too many of them to completely wipe out, and besides, the Muslim rulers wanted to keep them alive -- as everywhere in the Muslim lands, it was the forced contributions from non-Muslims, the jizyah and kharaj, that paid for the Muslim state.
An hour presentation will be given -- using virtually every trick, every bit of misrepresentation, every sly eliding of the truth -- including, most obviously, the 1350 year history of Muslim Jihad-conquest and the imposition of dhimmitude.
Another feature of such an effort at mentally preparing INS agents (as well as innocent police, F.B.I. men, and others) would be to explain just how minor are the parts of Islam that get so much attention -- essentially, Ramadan -- which poses no threat, and is simply an element of individual worship. Because it involves families (Families! Family Values! Good Islamic Family Values!) and seems to be analogous to the observance of Lent by some Christians or the avoidance of pork by some Jews (and Muslim propaganda depends on the use of false but comforting analogies) it gets more attention than it should.
But that's it. Beyond Ramadan, and those five canonical prayers, there is the whole world of Qur'an Sura 9, and throughout, more than a hundred mentions of Jihad -- and 27 of qital, or combat.
There has to be set up, by the INS or the F.B.I. or the Pentagon, essentially an Academy of Muslim Propaganda, where non-Muslims well-versed in the techniques and even the precise plausible phrases (for they are used again and again by Muslim propagandists -- or non-Muslims mindlessly repeating the propaganda) that non-Muslims will be exposed to will alert those non-Muslims to what is being done.
One has witnessed, in mosques, the damage that a single well-informed Infidel can do to a whole evening of propagandistic nonsense -- simply by referring to Khaybar, or the Bani Qurayza, or Aisha, or mentioning the hadith (usually the hadith are never mentioned, nor the sira -- the dumb Infidels are kept from learning about those).
All one has to do is properly inform oneself. And that goes not only for individuals, but for INS agents, F.B.I. agents, local police, journalists, and others. There is no justification, none, for not learning what is in Qur'an and hadith and sira -- and learning not from apologists, but from the very best sources of all -- including, most obviously, such scholars of Islamic history as Bat Ye'or and such ex-Muslims as Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, and Anwar Shaikh.
Yes, your work will be graded. But not by us.
you forgot the state department...a must do course for state.
This sounds like a great course –it should be mandatory for those named as well as for the general infidel public!
Be sure, however, to stress the importance of how they view their ‘holy’ book compared to how others view their books as analogous stories for their time, not as the final, perfect word of God. Stress how the Qur’an and the words of Muhammad are immutable, forever, and unbendable until the final day along with the violent passages mentioned and how that means these views are intended to be held by Muslims (either outwardly or inwardly) forever.
I’d love to hear the classroom discussions over this!
Khaybar, or the Bani Qurayza
What are these things?
I ask, specifically, because I want to become a more effective anti-da'wa agent. Perhaps this course of study might apply to mere citizens like myself? If so, where might I begin? The amount of material regarding Islam and what I need to read seems daunting and intimidating. I ask because I think my life and liberty depend on it.
May Islam wither and die, for it deserves to.
and a must do course for all who want to be president.the comments of gen wesley clark are even worst than the islam is peace and has been hijacked statements of President Bush.
How about JW online Web courses, with participation? This will also allow for anonymous enrollment, something secuirty and government agencies may prefer.
Get serious Robert and Hugh!
Ali Sina at Faith Freedom always has short pieces on such things.
Khaybar:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sira/20.htm
Bani Qurayza:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/sina/b_quraiza.htm
All,
I agree that there should be more courses about Islam in Amriki.
Why not fund to bring in Imams from say Pakistan
to open up a madrassah in most Amriki town and cities.
What better way to learn true Islam than from muslims...and don't settle for Infedel instructors....get value for money.
Where do I sign up.
And Naseem you can keep the vile peddlers of your filth in the umma. We need rational analysis from well trained professionals. Not taqiya spewing agent provecators who's ultimate goal is dawa and jihad.
Keep the immams of hate with you, you will need them as we begin to crush the spine of Islam vertebrae by vertebrae.
yes indeed a course from toyko rose Naseem....course heading how to fool a kafir!
Been there, done that. We’ve already tried that and it’s done nothing but bring filth and criminals onto our shores and has spread a pretty, flowery version to the dolts who are wandering around with their eyes closed and believing whatever taquiyya they’re fed. It’s certainly way past time that we learn the truth about this dire plague on humanity. It’s been a curse that has passed itself off as religion for far too long.
The truth will be discovered. I have confidence that this disease will have the light of truth cast upon it and it will wither and die simply due to its own ineptitude, inconsistencies, and lack of respect for humanity in general.
I'm not sure a course like this is either sufficient or necessary. After all, as some other folks have pointed out, they (and I) became fully aware of the dangers posed by the worldwide Islamic jihad against the West, even though we've never taken such a course. How? Through such sources as the Politically Incorrect Guide; the painstaking work by MEMRI.org; and actual public opinion polls taken of Muslims in both Muslim countries and in Western lands. I'm a newcomer to JW but I knew of all that before I ever showed up here. When polls show that 40% of Muslims living in Great Britain would prefer to live under Sharia, and you know even some of the tenets of Sharia, you don't need to be an expert in Islam to know you've got a real problem.
Yet even these simple facts, which don't involve all the arcana of Islam, are not being dealt with. We've heard government officials in Britain, right up to Cherie Blair, flatly refuse to face them, not even to face any connection between Islam and terrorism! That's not a question of education. It's a question of policy. If you have already ruled out by policy the theory that support for jihad is widespread within the Muslim community and not just the usual cliche "tiny minority of extremists," then a course won't fix that, or even be funded.
There's no point in trying to educate any government agents in the FBI or elsewhere when their own bosses have ruled out the philosophical basis of the course. Leaders ideologically committed to multiculturalism, open borders, globalization (including a continued acceptance of Western dependence on Muslim oil), can't be reached and neither can any other government officials in their chain of command. This must be a grass-roots level action, to educate the public (many of whom haven't yet done their homework about the Islamic threat as we have) to demand different answers from their leaders--or else to demand different leaders.
Though someone felt it was unnecessary and my greeting was deleted, you know what I said and it still applies to you, Naseem, and the other billion or so idiots who follow the death cult…
illustr8rg8r
I thought it was a classic.
I think this course (and the second one too) sound great. But it sounds as if they will be actual courses, in a place - or am I mistaken? Could they not be given online (even if discussion becomes difficult - it is not impossible as these comments show)
It would be great idea to have this course taught in Pakistan. Maybe assistance could be sought from the UN or an alliance of consular and or cultural exchange organisations.It would be a healthy counter-balance to the teaching of extremist islamic ideology. For example in all towns with the traditional madrassa one could set up a school/institute which teaches about islam from the above point of view, along with courses, libraries and audio-visual facilities explaining other religions and philosophies. It would set up a situation and a space in which ordinary Pakistanis can step back and take a good look and genuinely choose a religion or philosophy which suits them. I'm sure they would be popular, for the last fifty years the Pakistanis have shown themselves to be a people with great courage and curiosity witnessed by the large scale emigration of millions to Europe and North America to create a new life and improve their lot. Institutes dealing such courses would be very popular with Pakistanis and would give them a great opportunity to understand the outside world and other points of view. They would even contribute to the general educational and ultimately, I believe, political health of Pakistan. Well done Mssrs. Spencer and FitzGerald!
ME!?? The Absolute best idea would be this:
I am thinking series of Cable TV shows, like maybe 1-6 hour long episodes..
.....maybe with some humor mixed in ala Penn/Teller's B*LLSH*T shows.
fieldvole
Do you have any idea why Pakistan exists?
Infidel Pride - er, well, yeah, nearly - something to do with being pure, five provinces, being scared of Ghandi, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs and Buddhists, and a lawyer from Mumbai called Mo Jinna who loved ciggies and and the odd naggin of whiskey.
Pakistan exists mainly because most of the Muslim elite, unlike the Hindus, had dismissed, with disdain, the opportunity of acquiring an education in western style schools and colleges. They preferred their own religious establishments. With independence on the horizon they suddenly realised that they just weren't qualified to compete for top positions with the Hindus and therefore had to form a seperate state.
Both of you - fieldvole and wallyUK - are mistaken: the reason Pakistan was demanded in the first place was that without it, Muslims would be a minority in India - a country that was headed to be democratic, and thereby, Muslims would not get to impose Shariah on Hindus and other infidels, the way the Moghuls did. Hence that demand.
The reason I posed that question, fieldveld, was not due to ignorance, but because your suggestion
has no foundation: if Pakistanis wanted freedom of religion to start with, they would have been a part of India, where everyone, including Muslims, have freedom of religion. You further go on to say As is seen today, that experiment has proved disastrous for Europe, particularly Britain (which at some level must be regretting entertaining the demand for Pakistan at all). While some may have emigrated to the West to improve their standard of living, enough of them have clearly emigrated to effect a demographic conquest of the West for dar ul Islam. They know that they can't pull that off in India - despite the Dhimmitude of almost all political parties (including the BJP), one thing no Indian politician can defend is letting Pakistanis emigrate to India. Even the large scale infiltration of Bangladeshis into India is very unpopular in Eastern India, although no political party has tried to capitalize on that.wallyUK, the part about Muslims rejecting Western education in toto is not totally accurate - Aligarh Muslim University was founded by a Muslim who tried to get Muslims to gang up with the Brits against the Hindus. However, most Muslims who followed him effectively transformed that institute into a glorified madrassah.
"anti-uffe" has asked the $64,000 Question: When Bush or Blair spout the "Islam is peace" stuff or that "every Muslim secretly yearns for the same freedoms we have" and so on, do they really believe this crap, or is it some kind of clever ploy for public relations or to try to detach the non-terrorist Muslims from the terrorist ones?
I think that recent events have finally answered the question. The rise of sharia in Afghanistan and Iraq, the narrow escape of Abdul Rahman from the charge of apostasy, and the landslide election of Hamas by the Palestinians in a free and fair election, came as no surprise to anyone here on JW, who understands how Islam works, and how Muslim culture works. Had Robert or Hugh been asked ahead of time, they would have predicted such things would happen, and maybe even suggested how to prepare for such eventualities. But these events seem to have caught the Bush Administration completely flat-footed. As regards the landslide election of Hamas, Secretary of State Rice publicly admitted "We didn't see that one coming" (her words). I'm positive that the reason she "didn't see that one coming" was because she assumed that free people, Muslim or otherwise, would always vote "for the good guys" and "do the right thing." Whereas if the "Islam is peace" line were only a public facade and our elected officials secretly knew the truth, they would have had contingency plans in place for such eventualities.
Recent polls taken in both Europe and America are showing that more and more citizens are coming to believe that Muslims really do have an especial problem with violence. The fact that our elected officials have ruled this issue out of bounds, not to be raised, let alone discussed, suggests that their commitment to the contrary is due to rigid ideology, not ignorance. The fact that most of our elected leaders won't even speak the word "jihad," even off the record, even though it is the chosen tactic of our enemies, is the sort of bizarro behavior you get when they are committed to an ideology that is just out of phase with reality.
Steven,
the election of Hamas in the palestinian authority zones was not "free and fair." After all, that nice guy in the suit [abu mazen] and his fair-minded Fatah friends and minions were trying to rig the elections in their favor. So they sent busloads of goons around from one pollng place to another. The cheating was more flagrant than when, so Americans say, Richard Daley voted the graveyards in Chicago. Of course, the hamas doesn't even pay lip service to democracy. They plainly say that kuffar are inferior, that is, not only Jews but the Christian Arabs. So maybe it's better that they won, at least for us, although maybe not so much for the Christian population in the PA zones. There is a story in the Talmud that, on his deathbed, an ancient Jewish king told his wife: "Don't fear the Pharisees and don't fear those who are not Pharisees. Fear the hypocrites." Abu mazen and his gang, especially "spokespersons" like Hanan Ashrawi and Sa'ib Erikat, are big hypocrites, and more dangerous for all that.
Surrender or Submission.
Neither word is palatable.
Both words are fundamental clues.
think about this:
Submission is the diametric opposite of "live free or die"
The very premises of the United States and the Nation of Islam (ummah) are polar opposites.
Surrender is a plague on both houses.
Please give this course even if it is an online course. Thank you