A 5-point plan to end “Islamophobia”

Islamispeace.jpg

In my latest Jihad Watch videoblog at Hot Air, I offer my own five-point plan to end “Islamophobia,” as an alternative to the one presented by the British “Islam is Peace” campaign.

Which one do you think is more likely to bring about an end to this pernicious phenomenon?

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    People, also concerning Britain, could someone explain to me why England doesn’t have freedom of speech? And, does this have anyhting to do with Muslims?

    I need this info. Hope someone can reply. Thanks!

  2. says

    Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever liveth to make intercession for them.

    Excellent video clip. I thank God daily for the brave men and women who are literally risking their lives to challenge these islamic campaigns, distortions, ommission and outright lies. They argue logically, objectively and persuasively.

    I’m praying for health and safety for all these champions of TRUTH.

  3. says

    Subject: Not impressed.

    You have completely and utterly failed to address concerns, thus showing yet again that mainstream ‘Islamic’ organisations wish to avoid addressing Islamism. You have yet again attempted to paint people who oppose Islam as “islamaphobes”, as if their feelings were irrational. The result of your actions shows that while I can talk to individual Muslims and get some reassurances, mainstream Muslims in British society are refusing to address valid concerns about what goes on within their communities.

    Do me a favour and write me a decent response to this video: http://tinyurl.com/2d7dff

    Lets see what they have to say.

  4. says

    The propaganda video is positively Orwellian.
    The whole video is done as if the attacks on our countries never happened, a try at mass hypnosis.
    Please tell me that the British citizens are not buying this #&*#.

  5. says

    The biggest enemies of Islam, the ones that cause the most damage to Islam and how Islam is perceived in the world, are in fact Muslims The biggest enemies of Islam, the ones that cause the most damage to Islam and how Islam is perceived in the world, are in fact Muslims themselves that oppress and kill in the name of Islam.

    For Islam to be Peace, Muslims need to believe it themselves, and, more importantly, live it by condemning unequivocally, and without assertions of fabricated victimhood, acts of violence committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Until then the statement “Islam is Peace” is just an empty advertising slogan.

    “Islam is Peace” is an equivalence that the Islamic community in Britain and around the world has not earned. As it stands it is pretentious and patronizing and does not stand up to the brutal facts.

    Live it first and earn the respect of non-Muslims. Until then, at least in my mind, “Islam is Intolerance”.

  6. says

    Islam means deception. Even on the matter of race-ethnicity they are liars. The striking thing about Muslim countries is that they are not ethnically diverse (especially among Arabs) and where they do have large ethnic minorities they they persecute or kill them. For example, there is no way Arabs would permit any large number of non-Arabs to settle among them (on any equal basis). This “religion” is deception in every way-on everything. Islam is sick from lies. Islam is deception.

  7. says

    Keep asking for proof none muslims are innocent.
    Scripture says they are not.
    Shirk is worse than Killing

    Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said:

    ﴿وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ﴾

    (And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) Meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing.” Abu Al-`Aliyah, Mujahid, Sa`id bin Jubayr, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ad-Dahhak and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that what Allah said:

    ﴿وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ﴾

    (And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) “Shirk (polytheism) is worse than killing.”

  8. says

    The more I study JihadWatch the more I admire what Robert and others are doing in exposing the propaganda campaigns. We live in the Age of Propaganda, but it is getting tougher for propagandists because of the Internet and independent and courageous folks such as those at JW. It’s remarkable how many ordinary people “get it” re Islamic propaganda. Soon the “elites” will follow.

  9. says

    The best defense against Islam is the Koran and Hadieth.

    The “Islam is peace” campaign can easily be countered with direct quotes from the Koran and Hadieth.

    Posters displaying quotes from the holy books of Islam concerning Islamic theology about Christians and Jews should be more than enough to dispel any delusions the public might have about the peaceful and tolerant religion of Islam.

    No commentary of any kind would be needed, only quotes.

    How could Muslims object to direct quotes from their holy books? If they accuse anyone of a hate crime for quoting Allah or Mohammad, they would also be indicting Allah and Mohammad for hate crimes.

    If they claim that the quotes are lifted out of context, let them explain how the context modifies the quotes, making them any less intollerant or murderous.

    The “Islam is people” people should not be allowed to spread their misinformation without an alternative view being offered to the public.

    If Muslim terrorism won’t convince people that Islam is a violent and intollerant religion, maybe Allah and Mohammad will.

  10. says

    ISLAM IS PIECE – A Body Piece Here, A Body Piece There.

    The peace of Islam is the peace of a slave under a sword.

    Robert’s response with his own five-point plan to end “Islamaphobia” is just brilliant.
    Where are the organizations to mount a counter campaign to advertise for just such a five-point plan?

    Odd that this Muslim champagne specifically calls for “friendship” between Muslims and non-Muslims, since this is expressly forbidden in the Koran.

  11. says

    People, also concerning Britain, could someone explain to me why England doesn’t have freedom of speech? And, does this have anyhting to do with Muslims?

    I need this info. Hope someone can reply. Thanks!

    Posted by: darcy

    ————————————————–

    Darcy we do have freedom of speech within limits, we can not incite people to carry out acts of violence for example.

    We have for many years been stopped/discouraged from discussing certain issues such as immigration because of a PC mentality that has been forced upon us.
    This mentality ushered in by elites and liberals over the decades to silence legitimate debate of touchy subjects, usually with the label of being racist if one does touch on such subjects, is the way freedom of speech has been curtailed.

    Muslims use this same PC mentality to close down debate when Islam is not shown in the best of light using the accusations of racisms and or Islamophobia.

    Hope this helps.

  12. says

    So can an individual buy advertizing space on British buses and just have quotes from the koran, like ‘Strike Terror Into Their Hearts’, and other islamic hits?

    .
    .
    .

    Thought so.

  13. says

    Lets see if the British Muslims can address this young Marine’s five points.

    Here is a link to his Navy Cross Citation

    http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/02_wot/nc_martinez.html

    Semper Fi all you infidels, and thanks for your service to our country Cpl Martinez.

    Marine Hero: The 5 Things I Saw that Make Me Support the War
    By Marco Martinez
    Monday, October 1, 2007

    Liberals often like to say that “violence is senseless.”

    That’s wrong.

    Violence isn’t senseless. Senseless violence is senseless. And I should know. Before being awarded the Navy Cross and having the privilege of becoming a Marine, I was a gang member. Sometimes it takes having used violence for both evil as well as good to know that there’s a profound moral difference between the two.

    People often ask me whether I still support the war. I never hesitate when answering: “Absolutely I support completing the mission,” I tell them, “Now more than ever.”

    I was honored to have been given the opportunity to fight in Iraq on our country’s behalf. And it was that experience”and five things I saw firsthand”that illustrate the foolishness of those who would equate American military power to that used by thugs and tyrants.

    1. Mass Graves

    I was part of a group that was tasked with guarding Saddam’s mass graves. And let me tell you something: anyone who could look straight down into those huge holes at the skeletons and remains and see what that monster did to 300,000 of his own people would have no doubt that we did the right thing in removing him from power. Saddam’s henchmen would tie two people together, some with babies in their arms, stand them at the crater’s edge, and then shoot one of the people in the head, relying on the weight of the dead body to drag them both into the hole. This would save on rounds and also ensure that both people died, one from a gunshot, the other by being buried alive.

    2. Tongue-less Man

    You never know how precious freedom of speech is until you meet somehow who has had it taken from them”literally taken from them. During a patrol we came upon two hungry Iraqi men scavenging for food. When our translator began speaking with the men I noticed that one of them had a stub for a tongue. Through the translator we learned that the tongue-less man had spoken against the regime and that Saddam’s henchmen had severed his tongue. Saddam had quite literally removed the man’s freedom of speech.

    3. Adrenaline-Fueled Fedayeen Saddam

    I couldn’t for the life of me understand why the ninja costume-wearing terrorists we encountered in a series of hellish firefights just wouldn’t go down”even after being shot. Once my fire team and I cleared a terrorist-filled house in a close quarters shootout, I saw dead bodies all around the kitchen. I looked up at the countertops. Scattered everywhere were vials of adrenaline, syringes, and khat (pronounced “cot”), a drug similar to PCP that gives users a surge of energy and strength. That’s when we realized that our zombie-like attackers were zealots who came to fight and die.

    4. Human Experiment Pictures

    I still can’t shake the pictures out of my head. We discovered them inside a strange laboratory we found inside a Special Republican Guard barracks that had been plunked down inside an amusement park. When I cracked open the photo album, my jaw dropped. There in front of me were the most horrifying images of experiments being performed on newborn and infant children. Picture after picture, page after page, the binder was filled with the most extreme deformities and experimental mutations one could imagine. One baby had an eye that was shifted toward the middle of its head. We turned the books over to our lieutenant as valuable pieces of intelligence.

    5. Bomb-Making Materials In a Mosque

    Well after the invasion we were tasked to conduct city patrols and build rapport with local sheiks and mosque members. On one occasion we revisited a mosque where the sheik had previously been warm and friendly. Yet this time something seemed a little off. As we made our way through the mosque compound, we were told there were certain “praying houses” we weren’t allowed to enter. But when a Marine walked through a side hallway and passed by a door that had been left ajar, he spotted a huge bottle of nitroglycerin and assorted bomb-making materials.

    When I think about my gang member past I shudder in shame. But if there was one lesson I learned from my past it is that there is a profound moral difference between using violence to destroy lives and using violence to save lives. Terrorists do the former; soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines do the latter.

    Antimilitary liberals need to learn the difference between the two.

    Copyright © 2006 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

    Marco Martinez, a recipient of the Navy Cross, is author of the new book Hard Corps: From Gangster to Marine Hero (Crown Forum).

  14. says

    Muslims use this same PC mentality to close down debate when Islam is not shown in the best of light using the accusations of racisms and or Islamophobia.

    Geeza,

    You hit the nail on the head. Hate crime laws are not intended to combat people who hate. They are intended to silence those who critize hateful people. There are respectable haters, and there are unrespectable haters. Muslims are respectable haters, and those who critize them are unrespectable, and subject to punishment under the law.

    There are no more sinister laws that have been introduced into Western socities than hate crime laws. They are a direct assault on our right to think and to express any honest opinion about anything deemed off limits by the ideologues that control the political and cultural life of our society.

  15. says

    Islam is peace? Bush and Blair say so. Better read the fine print.

    Claim: “The word ‘Islam’ means ‘peace.'”

    Rebuttal Outline:

    1. Islam means surrender/submission, not peace.

    2. Surrender/submission involves total obedience to the Islamic religion.

    3. The canonical Islamic concept of peace includes conquering the non-Muslims.

    Rebuttal:

    1. Islam means surrender/submission, not peace
    The word ‘Islam’ does not mean peace. The Koran’s verse 3:85* uses the term
    al-islami, which means “the surrender” (see Pickthall transl.) or the “submission” (see Yusuf Ali transl.). This is easily confirmed by checking several dictionary or encyclopedia definitions [1]. For one example, the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (3rd ed.) states:

    “Islam means “submission to the will of God”” [2]
    In the above quote, the phrase “to the will of God” is not part of the direct translation of the word Islam, but has been added in that source to signify how Muslims understand the basic concept of submission in their religion.

    Another claim is that the Arabic word for peace (salam) is a “root” of the word Islam. That is also incorrect. Aslama (to resign, surrender, submit), not salam, is identified as the root of Islam. The Online Etymology Dictionary states:
    “”submission” (to the will of God), from root of aslama “he resigned, he surrendered, he submitted,” causative conjunction of salima “he was safe,” and related to salam “peace.””
    [4]

    The words Islam, salam (peace), and several other different words, are related in that they share the same phonological (or grammatical) root, namely s-l-m. S-l-m itself is not a word, but rather is conceived of by linguists as a root out of which different words are formed. Also note that in other sources, istaslama (to resign, surrender, submit) has also been identified as the root of Islam. The misconception that the Arabic salam is the root of Islam may come from the fact that s-l-m words in Syriac and Hebrew can refer to peace, among other concepts:

    “Arabic ‘islām, submission, from ‘aslama, to surrender, resign oneself, from Syriac ‘aÅ¡lem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of Å¡lem, to be complete. see slm in Semitic roots.” (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed.) [5]
    For the Hebrew words having the root s-l-m, the above source states (general meaning of the words) “To be whole, sound; Common Semitic noun salam-, well-being, welfare, peace…” [6]

    Nevertheless, the claim that Islam means salam (peace) is false. In Arabic, words with different meanings can share the same grammatical root forms. Such differences do exist among the various s-l-m (Siin-Lam-Miim) words in the Koran:
    ” س ل م Siin-Lam-Miim = safety/security/freedom/immunity, to escape, salutation/greeting/peace, deliver/acknowledge, pay in advance, submit, sincerity, humility/submission/conformance, resign/quit/relinquish” [7]

    S-l-m is the shared root of a variety of words. These s-l-m words vary in terms of the positioning of the vowels in relation to the consonants (see S-L-M for a list of the various s-l-m words in the Koran, below). In addition, differences in pronunciation can be indicated in Arabic script by diacritical marks. Some of the s-l-m words have similar meanings, but others have quite different meanings, such as those that translate as ‘to escape’, ‘deliver/acknowledge’, or ‘to pay in advance’. Moreover, a derivative of salama can mean the ‘stinging of a snake’ or the ‘tanning of leather’. [8] Thus, the fact that salam (peace) and Islam (surrender/submission) share the s-l-m root does not imply that Islam means peace.

    Further, one must distinguish the usage of the word salam and another word that refers to peace, namely, suhl. When a Muslim apologist tries to associate Islam with peace, he or she is generally trying to imply peace with regards to political or military conditions. In that case, the word suhl is more appropriate than salam, because the latter has a less precise meaning that can also include ‘tranquility,’ ‘good health,’ etc. As Lev Navrozov writes:

    “Let us look at the word “peace” in An Arabic and English Literary Dictionary, published in Beirut for Moslems:
    Peace, [the word sulh in Arabic], sulh. See Quiet, Content, Amity, Silence. (1)

    That is, peace in the military and sociopolitical sense is sulh. The dictionary illustrates this meaning by examples: “To make peace,” “to renew peace,” “to sue for peace,” “to infringe the peace,” “to observe the articles of peace.” In all of these examples, sulh or its derivative assulh is used.” [9]

    Thus, Islamic apologists are misleading when they try to link the concept of political or military peace primarily or uniquely with the word salam.

    2. Surrender/submission involves total obedience to the Islamic religion

    The Koran refers to those who have submitted to Allah as مسلمون , muslimoona, (2:136*). Islam requires not just belief but submission, obedience (49:14*) to “Allah and His Messenger,” and striving for the cause of Allah (49:14-17). Verse 3:85 states that Surrender/Submission, Islam, is the only acceptable religion. If non-Muslims don’t embrace Islam, submitting to it fully, then Muslims, when they have the military means to do so, must make them face a range of penalties in this world. These punishments range from humiliating subjugation (9:29) to violent death (9:29, 9:5) [10]. According to the Koran, Non-Muslims must submit to Islam or Allah will torture and burn them for all eternity in hell (e.g., 4:56, 22:19-22, 5:10, etc.; for an extensive list, see [11]).

    3. The canonical Islamic idea of peace includes conquering the non-Muslims.

    “…Embrace Islam and you will be safe…” –From Muhammad’s Letter to Caesar (Hiraql), Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4380.

    “…A Muslim is he from whose hand and tongue the Muslims are safe…” –Muhammad, in Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Number 65.

    Ishaq, p. 326. “Then He [Allah, in Qur’an 8:61] said: “And if they incline to peace incline thou to it,’ i.e., if they ask you for peace on the basis of Islam then make peace on that basis, “and rely on God,’ verily God will suffice thee, “He is the Hearer, the Knower’.” [Brackets and bolding added. Source: The Life of Muhammad, by Ibn Ishaq, p. 326, Guillaume’s translation]

    An illuminating discussion of the notion of peace in Islam, and how this notion is reconciled with the imperialistic policies of jihad in Allah’s cause, is provided by contemporary Muslim scholar Bassam Tibi. (Note that Tibi, a political scientist, is describing, not advocating, these views):

    “At its core, Islam is a religious mission to all humanity. Muslims are religiously obliged to disseminate the Islamic faith throughout the world. “We have sent you forth to all mankind” (Q. 34:28). If non-Muslims submit to conversion or subjugation, this call (da’wa) can be pursued peacefully. If they do not, Muslims are obliged to wage war against them. In Islam, peace requires that non-Muslims submit to the call of Islam, either by converting or by accepting the status of a religious minority (dhimmi) and paying the imposed poll tax, jizya. World peace, the final stage of the da’wa, is reached only with the conversion or submission of all mankind to Islam…Muslims believe that expansion through war is not aggression but a fulfillment of the Qur’anic command to spread Islam as a way to peace. The resort to force to disseminate Islam is not war (harb), a word that is used only to describe the use of force by non-Muslims. Islamic wars are not hurub (the plural of harb) but rather futuhat, acts of “opening” the world to Islam and expressing Islamic jihad. Relations between dar al-Islam, the home of peace, and dar al-harb, the world of unbelievers, nevertheless take place in a state of war, according to the Qur’an and to the authoritative commentaries of Islamic jurists. Unbelievers who stand in the way, creating obstacles for the da’wa, are blamed for this state of war, for the da’wa can be pursued peacefully if others submit to it. In other words, those who resist Islam cause wars and are responsible for them. Only when Muslim power is weak is “temporary truce” (hudna) allowed (Islamic jurists differ on the definition of “temporary”).” [12]

    On the Islamic notion of temporary truce, or Hudna, Abd-Al Malek Dahamshe, Israeli Arab Knesset Member said:

    “Our problem with Israel is not a border problem, but an existential one…We exaggerate when we say ‘peace’… What we are speaking about is Hudna” [a temporary agreement until some future liquidation of Israel]. (September 1, 2000) [13]

    The notion of a temporary peace, to be followed by conquest when the Muslims reach sufficient strength, is reflected in the Koran. In the Meccan verse 43:89* (see tafsirs of 43:89, below), Allah instructed Muhammad to say “Peace” to the disbelievers who rejected his message, while at the same time the verse makes a threat regarding those same disbelievers.
    43:88 (Shakir). “Consider his cry: O my Lord! surely they are a people who do not believe. 43:89. So turn away from them and say, Peace*, for they shall soon come to know.”
    Salamun, سلام , (See Selected Verses and Tafsirs, below).

    Later, in the Medinan phase when Muhammad was more powerful militarily, this verse was revealed:

    47:35. (Pickthall). “So do not falter and cry out for peace* when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions.”
    *alssalmi, السلم .

    The popular and influential Muslim leader and scholar Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi presents the following quote on his website, contained within a response to a question from a reader:

    “The goal of Islam is the attainment of peace but this peace can only be experienced through that striving in Allah’s Cause (Jihad) and the use of force which begins with the disciplining of ourselves and leads to living in the world in accordance with the dicta of the Shar’ia.” [14]

    The peculiar Islamic understanding of ‘peace’ is also expressed by the violent (“fast”) jihadists:

    “No! We don’t want peace. We want war, victory. Peace for us means the destruction of Israel and nothing else.” “Yasser Arafat, 1972. [15]

    The myth that Islam is ‘a religion of peace’ is strongly promoted by the U.S. government [and many other governments throughout the West]:

    (a) “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.” –George W. Bush, September 17, 2001. [16]

    (b) “Citing recent internal memos, Department of Homeland Security employees complain their boss Michael Chertoff is hamstringing counter-terror operations with pro-Islamic political correctness. They say headquarters has cautioned officials not to describe Islamic terrorism as Islamic and to respect Islam as a “religion of peace.” ” [17]

    Links and References

    [1] http://www.onelook.com/?w=islam&ls=a
    [2] http://www.bartleby.com/59/5/islam.html
    [3]
    [4] http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Islam

    [5] http://www.bartleby.com/61/77/I0247700.html

    [6] http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/S316.html

    [7] Project Root List http://www.studyquran.co.uk/PRLonline.htm, http://openburhan.pak.net/

    [8] http://www.wikiislam.org/index.php/Islam (scroll to Etymology)

    [9] http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/7/03952.shtml (Thanks to Nathan D. Weise for drawing my attention to this distinction).

    [10] See “Islam’s Goal: A Mission to the World”
    http://islam-watch.org/CommunityServer/forums/thread/67.aspx
    [11] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
    [12] Tibi, Bassam. (1996). War and Peace in Islam, in Terry Nardin (ed.) The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives. (pp. 129-131). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
    [13] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=25704
    [14] http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503545988
    [15] Fallaci, Oriana (1976). Interview with History. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
    [16] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

    [17] http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54164 Chertoff’s ‘Islam PC’ rankles fed officials. Posted on WND: February 10, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern.

    From Project Root List:

    S-L-M

    ” س ل م = Siin-Lam-Miim = safety/security/freedom/immunity, to escape, salutation/greeting/peace, deliver/acknowledge, pay in advance, submit, sincerity, humility/submission/conformance, resign/quit/relinquish
    salima vb. (1) pcple. act. 68:43
    salam n.m. 4:90, 4:91, 16:28, 16:87, 39:29
    salam n.m. 4:94, 5:16, 6:54, 6:127, 7:46, 10:10, 10:25, 11:48, 11:69, 13:24, 14:23, 15:46, 15:52, 16:32, 19:15, 19:33, 19:47, 19:62, 20:47, 21:69, 25:63, 25:75, 27:59, 28:55, 33:44, 36:58, 37:79, 37:109, 37:120, 37:130, 37:181, 39:73, 43:89, 50:34, 51:25, 51:25, 56:26, 56:26, 56:91, 59:23, 97:5
    salim n.m. (adj) 26:89, 37:84
    salm n.m. 8:61, 47:35
    silm n.com. 2:208
    sulayman n.prop. 2:102, 2:102, 4:163, 6:84, 21:78, 21:79, 21:81, 27:15, 27:16, 27:17, 27:18, 27:30, 27:36, 27:44, 34:12, 38:30, 38:34
    sullam n.m. 6:35, 52:38
    sallama vb. (2)
    perf. act. 2:233, 8:43
    impf. act. 4:65, 24:27
    impv. 24:61, 33:56
    n.vb. 4:65, 33:22, 33:56
    pcple. pass. f. 2:71, 4:92, 4:92
    aslama vb. (4)
    perf. act. 2:112, 2:131, 3:20, 3:20, 3:20, 3:83, 4:125, 5:44, 6:14, 27:44, 37:103, 49:14, 49:17, 72:14
    impf. act. 6:71, 16:81, 31:22, 40:66, 48:16
    impv. 2:131, 22:34, 39:54
    n.vb. 3:19, 3:85, 5:3, 6:125, 9:74, 39:22, 49:17, 61:7
    pcple. act. 2:128, 2:128, 2:132, 2:133, 2:136, 3:52, 3:64, 3:67, 3:80, 3:84, 3:102, 5:111, 6:163, 7:126, 10:72, 10:84, 10:90, 11:14, 12:101, 15:2, 16:89, 16:102, 21:108, 22:78, 27:31, 27:38, 27:42, 27:81, 27:91, 28:53, 29:46, 30:53, 33:35, 33:35, 39:12, 41:33, 43:69, 46:15, 51:36, 66:5, 68:35, 72:14
    istaslama vb. (10) pcple. act. 37:26
    LL, V4, p: 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141 ” [Bolding added, see Notes]

    Notes: 3:19 islamu, 3:85 al-islami, 5:3 al-islama, 6:125 lil-islami, 9:74 islamihim, 39:22 islami, 49:17 islamakum, 61:7 al-islami

    Selected Verses and Tafsirs

    *3:85. (Pickthall). “And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.”

    61:7. (Pickthall). “And who doeth greater wrong than he who inventeth a lie against Allah when he is summoned unto Al-Islam? And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.”

    *2:136. (Pickthall). “Say (O Muslims): We believe in Allah and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received, and that which the prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered.”

    *49:14. (Pickthall). “The wandering Arabs say: We believe. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Ye believe not, but rather say “We submit [aslamna, اسلمنا ],” for the faith hath not yet entered into your hearts. Yet, if ye obey Allah and His messenger, He will not withhold from you aught of (the reward of) your deeds. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” [Brackets added]

    *43:89. Al-Jalalayn, tafsir. “God, exalted be He, says: Then disregard them, leave [them] be, and say, ‘Peace!’, [I will stay away] from you – this was [revealed] before he was commanded to fight them. For they will [soon] come to know (ya’lamūna, may also be read as [second person plural] ta’lamūna, ‘you will [come to] know’), [meant] to threaten them.”

    *43:89. Ibn Abbas, tafsir. “(Then bear with them (O Muhammad)) it was said to him: turn away from them (and say: Peace) words of truth. (But) this is a threat (they will come to know) what will be done with them on the Day of Badr, Uhud, the Troops. Then, after this, he was commanded to fight them; it is also said that this means: but they will come to know the hunger and smoke that will befall them.'”

    *43:89. Ibn Kathir, tafsir. “…Say Salam (peace!) means, ‘do not respond to them in the the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.’…(But they will come to know.) This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west.”

    48:16. (Pickthall) “Say unto those of the wandering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess, to fight them until they surrender*; and if ye obey, Allah will give you a fair reward; but if ye turn away as ye did turn away before, He will punish you with a painful doom.”
    tuqatiloonahum aw yuslimoona,* يسلمون .

  16. says

    Yeah, islam is so peaceful, that’s why I have to wear an ACH helmet, ISAPI bullet proof plates, and carry an M-4 Carbine to survive the “love” sent from its adherents!!

  17. says

    Excellent, and quite simple points by Robert to implement.

    M. Zuhdi Jasser is getting closer to echoing Robert’s position in my opinion, with the noted exception of any reference to the impetus for jihadist ideology derived and taken from the core Islamic texts.

    He chooses his words VERY carefully with regards to Islam, never using it unless in a positive light.

    http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/terrorism.php?id=1384836

  18. says

    The main intent of Islam is to damn all of humanity to hell. Islam is a lie from the pit of hell, and every Muslim who died believing in it is suffering for all of eternity IN that pit.

    Of course I will oppose ANY movement that demands that every human being conform to a theocratic sameness, whether it be Islam or any religion. Even today’s socialist “liberalism” demands a similar demand of conformity, to the detriment of personal liberty and freedom. It is why modern “liberals” find themselves so hesitant to speak out against fanatical Islamism, since their aims and opponents are essentially the same.

    So, naturally I will oppose Islamic demands of fascist-like social conformity and emasculating submission. Like today’s liberalism, Islamism would force all human beings into a social gulag, where a ruling class of the divinely enlightened can lord over us. However, the main thrust of my opposition to Islam is its aims to force all of humanity to believe in something that will damn them for all eternity.

    The thought-police of a socialist society is bad enough. The belief-police of Islamism is far worse, because the only things that a Muslim who is under their control thinks about are what he’s allowed to believe–a mind-rotting, soul-destroying lie from the pit of hell. Imagine, living in a hell like that for your tenure on Earth, only to wind up in a worse hell for all eternity.

    FANATICAL ISLAM HAS TO BE ERADICATED!

  19. says

    I got you, Geeza and rational. The culprit is “political correctness.” Before political correctness, England had no need of a First Amendment. Now, it does, and I read that there is a movement advocating such in England.

    I hope you get it. England is in dire need of a U.S. model First Amendment. Dire.

  20. says

    darcy-

    The First Amendment is the mouth.

    The Second Amendment is the teeth.

    It’s a vital combo.

    Otherwise, you end up trying to gum the jihadis into submission.

  21. says

    True, ‘beard…

    To dangle the carrot without the stick is pointless & futile lip-service that gets nowhere, save Chamberlainism.

    “Guns are Liberty’s teeth”
    (Thomas Jefferson)

  22. says

    If Islam really DID mean “peace” there would be absolutely NO need at all for campaigns like this one.

    We would all know Islam was benign (just as we all now know that Islam isn’t benign at all).

    And possibly the worst part of it is that the British government is betraying the British people by its permitting such obvious fraud to be fobbed off on the British public.

  23. says

    Great video RS. This should be shown on the MSM news everywhere. I know it won’t–but it should be. Your 5 point plan makes sense–not the muslim video bs.

  24. says

    great video RS. Your 5 points are right on–what bs is the other muslim propaganda video.
    This JW video should be shown all over the free world on the MSM news.

  25. says

    My 5 point plan to stop islamophobia are as follows;

    If Muslims want to stop this they must;

    1. Stop bullying

    2. Stop killing

    3. Stop bullying

    4. Stop killing

    5. Stop bullying and killing.

    easy really

  26. says

    My own plan:

    Send all Muslims to countries under sharia law!

    They’re so intent on pushing their beliefs, so why are they in the UK, or US, or some other non-Muslim nation?

    If they’re serious about their faith, they should stop complaining about the imagined Islamophobia in the UK and just go back to a sharia-run nation. (Where those Muslim ladies will probably not even have a chance to speak.)

  27. says

    Darcy you are correct we did not require a first amendment before ‘political correctness’ was forced upon the population.

    I’m not sure if adopting one now would be any help since it would surely guarantee the rights of Muslims first and foremost I suspect.

    Afterall they often portray themselves as vulnerable members of society fearful of a backlash from society, usually after every atrocity committed and after attempted atrocities stopped by the security services.

    Of course this backlash never materialises but it does force society to pose the difficult questions of Islam resulting in the accusations of Islamophobia etc. and also this ‘islam is peace’ campaign.

    Additionally Rational has correctly identified the true purpose of the new law banning incitement to religious hatred.
    It will not deter those preachers who incite religious hatred since we have laws already to deal with this only the government and courts do not use them.
    No this new law will be used to silence, through fear of prosecution, those that question the premise ‘islam is peace’.

    Remember the first point of the five point campaign.

    “To ‘fight’ islamophobia, to ‘monitor’ and ‘fight’ islamophobia wherever it occurs”