Recently in Taqiyya Category

Counter-jihadists have known about taqiyya for years, but they've been dismissed as greasy Islamophobes with no credibility. Mainstream (i.e. politically correct, as you can see from the denials below that there is anything distinctively Islamic about taqiyya) counterterrorism experts, however, are now beginning to realize that the "Islamophobes" were on to something.

Qur'an 3:28 warns believers not to take unbelievers as "friends or helpers" (َأَوْلِيَا -- a word that means more than casual friendship, but something like alliance), "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them." This is a foundation of the idea that believers may legitimately deceive unbelievers when under pressure. The word used for "guard" in the Arabic is tuqātan (تُقَاةً), the verbal noun from taqiyyatan -- hence the increasingly familiar term taqiyya.

Ibn Kathir says that the phrase Pickthall renders as "unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them" means that "believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers" may "show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, 'We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, 'The Tuqyah [taqiyya] is allowed until the Day of Resurrection." Abu Ad-Darda' was a companion of Muhammad.

While many Muslim spokesmen today maintain that taqiyya is solely a Shi'ite doctrine, shunned by Sunnis, the great Islamic scholar Ignaz Goldziher points out that while it was formulated by Shi'ites, "it is accepted as legitimate by other Muslims as well, on the authority of Qur'an 3:28." The Sunnis of Al-Qaeda practice it today.

Also, there is Muhammad's statement, "war is deceit." He also allowed for lying in battle and between a husband and wife. And when he gave permission to one of his followers, Muhammad bin Maslama, to murder one of his critics, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, he also gave Muhammad bin Maslama permission to lie to Ka'b in order to lure him close enough to be killed.

And Muhammad is the "excellent example of conduct" for Muslims (Qur'an 33:21).

"Taqiyya, or the terrorist ‘art of deception,'" by Anne-Diandra Louarn for France 24, March 14 (thanks to Rosine):

A year after the Toulouse attacks by Mohamed Merah..., French counterterrorism experts are monitoring the practice of "taqiyya" - or deceiving society by concealing one’s faith – and its uses in jihadist circles.

Nearly a year ago, as one of France’s longest-ever police sieges was about to end on the morning of March 22, 2012, Mohamed Merah – also known as “the Toulouse gunman” – uttered a cry that seemed enigmatic to the uninformed, but was weighted with meaning for counterterrorism experts.

“It’s not the money, it’s the deception that’s critical,” said the 23-year-old French-Algerian shortly before he jumped off his Toulouse apartment window and was gunned down by an elite French anti-terror unit.

The somewhat cryptic cry was a likely reference to “taqiyya” – a form of religious dissimulation or legal dispensation in which believers deny their faith or even commit blasphemous acts as a deception if they are seriously threatened or at risk of persecution.

"Concealment is a technique as old as the world," explained French anti-terrorism judge Marc Trévidic in an interview with FRANCE 24. “It’s also an essential component of any war strategy, regardless of the people involved.”

Sure, but Islam is unique among religions in having a "war strategy."

In Islam, taqiyya dates back to the time when Shiite Muslims were hounded and persecuted by the Sunni caliphs following the 7th century schism between the followers of the Prophet’s son-in-law, Ali, and the Sunni caliphate.

For the traditionally persecuted Shiite minority, deception – or taqiyya – was considered a matter of survival. Although the term does not exist in Sunni jurisprudence, there have been rare cases of Sunnis practicing taqiyya in extraordinary circumstances.

Actually, because it is based on the Qur'an, many Sunnis practice it, even if they don't refer to it as such.

But it was not until the term was recovered by Sunni jihadists trained in the Afghan terror camps that it began to get the attention of counterterrorism experts as trained and radicalised young men began practising taqiyya as a means of integrating and disguising themselves in Western societies.

“Taqiyya, as it’s understood today, is actually a radicalised version of concealment, in the sense that some religious extremists have found 'dalils' (or 'evidence') in the Koran that would justify their actions,” said Trévidic.

Actually, it isn't just "extremists" who have found evidence for taqiyya in the Qur'an, but venerable centuries-old and mainstream Muslim authorities, as explained above.

From Afghanistan to Europe and Canada

In France, intelligence agencies have been aware of the radicalised adoption of taqiyya since the mid-1990s, when al Qaeda began to advocate this technique among recruits plotting attacks on Western targets. The message was also targeted at French citizens of North African origins.

“These people who took the path of taqiyya were called ‘sleepers’. This is when we began to discover that after their passage through the jihadist training camps in Afghanistan, the recruits were sent home and directed to make a show of their ordinary, integrated lives - sometimes even masquerading as unbelievers,” said Trévidic.

One of the best-known jihadist sleepers was the "Hamburg cell", the infamous group of radicalized students in that German city who went on to execute the September 11, 2001, attacks – including 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta.

Another example of a terrorist in disguise was Fateh Kamel, a handsome Algerian-Canadian who was sentenced to eight years in jail by a French court in 1999 for supporting a terrorist plot against targets in Paris.

Assessing the danger of Islamists

But while Merah’s behaviour may have been deceptive in keeping with taqiyya norms, his activities were well known to the French secret services, according to Trévidic.

According to the anti-terror judge, the challenge for French authorities is not so much to identify the followers of taqiyya, but to assess their threat levels. "That is the whole problem of the DCRI [Direction centrale du renseignement intérieur – or the French domestic intelligence agency] in the Merah case," noted Trévidic.

If Merah’s suspicious trips to places like Pakistan were being monitored and French intelligence agents were aware that he belonged to a small Toulouse-based Salafist group, they failed to distinguish between a low-level delinquent and a potentially dangerous Islamist militant – or at which point the former could become the latter.

Trévidic acknowledges that it’s a challenge for the DCRI to identify radicalised youth ready and capable of putting their plans into action. But that’s the strength of taqiyya followers: in the impoverished, immigrant-dominated French suburbs – or banlieues in French - they often behave like local gangsters or gang leaders. To escape the counterterrorism radar, it’s not uncommon for potential terrorists to engage in minor acts of delinquency.

‘Rediscovering what we already know’

"No country is truly equipped against concealment. What we know today is that practices such as taqiyya require a deep infiltration of our territory, an in-depth knowledge of groups and individuals, as well as an effective system of recovering and retrieving information in the field,” said Trévidic.

The dismantling of suspected sleeper cells, such as the March 7-8 arrests of three terror suspects in the southern French town of Marignane (a suburb of Marseille), has intensified in the wake of the Merah case. "In terrorism, we are constantly rediscovering what we already know," notes Trévidic.

It’s a view mirrored by Alain Gresh, deputy director of the left-wing monthly Le Monde Diplomatique. In an interview with FRANCE 24, Gresh noted that taqiyya is not a new phenomenon. "Who are the terrorists who shout their intentions from rooftops?" he asked.

In a blog post published on March 2, Gresh argued that the media treatment of taqiyya has sometimes been “racist” and inappropriate. "Some journalists have suggested that Arabs have a perverse way of thinking that is permitted by their religion. Concealment is not limited to radical Islam. It is found in all religious doctrines and even in political doctrines,” he noted.

Alain Gresh should know better. Taqiyya is a doctrine of Islam, not of Arabs. Does he think that all Muslims are Arabs? And no, there is nothing comparable to taqiyya in Christianity -- the Roman Catholic understanding of mental reservation probably comes closest, but is still miles away from the sophisticated and elaborate deception of unbelievers that taqiyya can involve. Christianity never encourages concealment of one's faith -- the stories of Christian martyrs frequently involve refusal to renounce one's faith even when under pressure of death. This is in sharp contrast to the Qur'an's excusing of people who deny their faith under pressure: "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief -- except for one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith -- but those who open their breasts to disbelief, upon them is wrath from Allah, and for them is a great punishment" (Qur'an 16:106).

A church in Pakistan after Muslims got through being peaceful in it

Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan's Foreign Minister, here retails comforting fictions that, as common as they are, fly in the face of reality. But given the state of the world today, I am sure her brand of deceptive "dialogue" would be welcome at the upcoming Catholic conference in Worcester, Massachusetts, which barred me from speaking after getting pressured by the mainstream media and Islamic supremacists (sign the petition here).

She was speaking at a book launching ceremony; apparently the book is called "Churches of Pakistan." I expect it's a glossy, coffee table book full of attractive photos of churches in Pakistan. I'd be very surprised if it included anything about the reality for churches in Pakistan, or else Hina Rabbani Khar would almost certainly not have appeared at the launch. A few recent examples of the all too common experiences of the churches of Pakistan:

Muslim mob fires on Christians celebrating Christmas -- December 29, 2012

Muslims threatened to bomb church school unless it paid them $51,000 -- December 14, 2012

600-strong Muslim mob attacks church -- October 17, 2012

Muslims beat bishop as he was leaving church -- September 29, 2012

Pakistan: Christians demand reconstruction of church Muslims burnt during Muhammad movie riots -- September 22, 2012

Muslims open fire on Catholic cathedral and shoot at nun -- September 19, 2012

Armed Muslims attack Christians, collect jizya from Christian merchants -- August 31, 2012

But don't be concerned. Both Islam and Christianity teach peace! To call attention to any of this might harm Catholic/Muslim relations!

"Islam‚ [sic] Christianity stand for peace: FM Khar," from the Frontier Post, February 2:

ROME (NNI): Foreign Minister was speaking at book launching ceremony of "Churches of Pakistan" in Rome.

Speaking at book launching ceremony of "Churches of Pakistan" in Rome the Foreign Minister said both Pakistan and Italy share the conviction that dialogue fosters tolerance‚ mutual understanding and respect for peace and harmony.

She said both Islam and Christianity stand for peace and common brotherhood of all mankind.

The courageous ex-Muslim Ali Sina of Faith Freedom International and SION's Board has penned an extraordinary evisceration of Hamas-linked CAIR's cynical and sinister #MyJihad campaign. Pamela Geller comments here, and be sure to read the whole of Sina's piece here. Here's an excerpt:

MY JIHAD PUTTING A HAPPY FACE ON EVIL 

FROM JOSEPH GOEBBELS TO AHMED REHAB                  

In response to the campaign of Pamela Geller (http://www.atlasshrugs.com/) and Robert Spencer (http://www.jihadwatch.org/)  exposing the evil Quranic verses of Islam - Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) started a MyJihad campaign displaying Happy Faces of young Muslims and their MyJihad personal struggles (greater jihad) masking the evil of the real jihad (lesser jihad) not of personal struggle but the conquest and extermination of non Muslims.  (For pictures created by Joseph Goebbels aptly named Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Enlightenment masking Hitler's personal struggle MyJihad against the Jews and pictures of young happy faces of fatherland pioneers masking the MyJihad of communism - read on.) 

Ahmed Rehab, executive director of  Propaganda and Enlightenment for CAIR-Chicago, and creator of the campaign, said the goal is to explain the very misunderstood and sometimes seemingly controversial concept of Jihad.

“Jihad in Islam simply means the struggle to a better place,” Rehab said. “Whatever barrier or burdens that you have in your life, you are asked, you are tasked to muster in the inner courage, the inner resolve, the inner determination to overcome those personal barriers, personal issues.”

He said the word has been misconstrued by Muslim and anti-Muslim extremists and it’s time to re-educate the public about Islam and its concepts. Often the term “Jihad” is associated with violence and those waging “unholy war.”

“The only two things that God judges you by in the tradition of Islam are the two things that you control, your intentions and your effort,” Rehab said. “Your intention being sincere and your effort being for the best. That effort is Jihad.”

THE TRUE REALITY OF JIHAD

Jihad is 24% of the Medinan Koran and 9% of the total of the entire Koran. Jihad takes up 21 of the Bukhari material and the Sira devotes 67% of its text to jihad

Amount of Islamic TrilogyText Devoted to Jihad (politicalislam.com)

Meccan Quran      0%

Medinan Quran    24%

Sira                       67%

Hadith                   21%

 Total Trilogy         31%

Percentage of Koran Text Devoted to Jihad 

Statistics gives us a measure of the claim that the real jihad is inner struggle, the so-called “greater jihad”, whereas the jihad of the sword is the “lesser jihad”. These quasi - greater jihad hadiths total 2% of the Bukhari hadiths that relate to jihad. Of course, the other 98% of the hadiths devoted to jihad claim that jihad of the sword is the supreme act. The statistical answer to the true nature of jihad is that the “greater jihad” of inner struggle is 2% and the “lesser jihad” of the sword is 98%. In other words, jihad is overwhelmingly violent and a little inner struggle.

MYJIHAD AGAINST LESSER JIHAD

In their greater jihad personal struggle to build friendships across the aisle - CAIR and ALL American Muslims must reach out in friendship across the aisle to Pamela and Robert and join forces with them to struggle against the 98% teachings of  Islamic Jihad - the lesser jihad - that orders unholy war against non Muslims until they are totally conquered by Islam and either convert or submit to dhimmi status if peoples of the book or be murdered.  

The 9/11 attacks, Ft Hood and Mumbai, London and Madrid massacres were all carried out by Muslims obeying the 98% of lesser jihad teachings of God and the Sunnah of Muhammad who ordered 62 lesser jihad massacres against kafirs and personally participated in 27. Since 9/11 there have been 20,133 (increasing daily) lesser jihad attacks by Muslims following EXACTLY the lesser jihad teachings. During the past 1400 years of Islam, 270,000,000 have perished in the Islamic holocaust lesser jihad.  Millions of women were raped and enslaved.

CAIR must organize an immediate 5 million American Muslim (10 million greater MyJihad boots on the ground) march on Washington hand in hand friendship across the aisle with Pamela and Robert and all Americans to declare MyJihad against all the teachings of  lesser jihad. They will renounce, denounce and demand an end not only to all jihad attacks from Muslims following (again) EXACTLY Islamic teachings not only in the United States (of which there have been many and thankfully although all have failed mostly because of incompetence, it is just a matter of time before luck runs out) but worldwide and  renounce, denounce and demand an end to ALL these murderous lesser jihad teachings.  At this great assembly - the largest in US history - MyJihad Muslims will declare MyJihad against not only lesser jihad but also:

MYJIHAD FOR THE WORLDWIDE TOTAL EQUALITY OF NON MUSLIMS WITH MUSLIMS DECLARING THEIR GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS LIVING THEIR LIVES IN DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM.

In "The Meaning of Jihad," the ever-vigilant Kamala explores a popular Muslim text's teaching on jihad to expose the hypocrisy and deception of Hamas-linked CAIR's #MyJihad campaign:

CAIR's Ahmed Rehab describes their #MyJihad ads this way: "The campaign is about reclaiming Islam, and not just ‘jihad,’ from both Muslim and non-Muslim extremists... Whether it’s the bin Ladens and the al-Qaidas of the Muslim world, or the Pam Gellers and Frank Gaffneys of the non-Muslim world, ironically — even though they come from the two opposite ends of the spectrum — they agree exactly on the same definition of ‘jihad’ and on the same worldview of Islam versus the rest of the world.”

CAIR would have you believe that "extremists" like bin Laden and al-Qaeda are the only Muslims that think Jihad means anything other than to "build friendships across the aisle," to "not judge people by their cover," or to "stay fit despite [a] busy schedule."

But if that's the case, then extremists like al-Qaeda must be running the San Francisco Bay Area Muslim Community Association, the Islamic Circle of North America in New Jersey, the Muslim and Islamic Center in Willowbrook, Iillinois, and the Dar Elsalam Islamic Center in Arlington, Texas.

All of these American Muslim organizations teach and/or promote a book on Islam called Minhaj al-Muslim. This book offers a simple definition of Jihad that has little to do with fitness or friendships:

"The specific ruling of Jihad – which is fighting against the disbelievers and those who wage war against Islam – is that it is a collective compulsory duty." (Vol. 2, p. 165)

This book is sold by the MCA bookstore, among a small number of "authentic" books about Islam. It's also sold by the bookstore of the New Jersey chapter of the Islamic Circle of North America.

On YouTube, you can find multiple video lectures of this book, taught at the Dar ElSalam Islamic Center in Arlington, Texas. It's also taught in a weekly college student "Halaqa" (religious gathering for learning) in Willowbrook, Illinois.

For more detail about Minhaj al-Muslim's take on Jihad, here's an excerpt from a previous article analyzing Minhaj's perspective on Jihad and Islamic positions on other subjects such as homosexuality, apostasy, and women's rights:

Four types of jihad are listed. The first: "Performing Jihad against disbelievers and those who wage war against the Muslims." Number two is jihad against "rebellious sinners," and number three is jihad against "Satan." Only the fourth type is "Jihad against one's self." While Minhaj acknowledges that this type "has even been called the greatest Jihad," this claim is accompanied by a footnote pointing out that "this is based on a weak Hadith [saying by or about Muhammad]..." (Vol. 2, p. 167)

In his fascinating book, Inside Jihad, former Egyptian Islamic Jihad member Tawfik Hamid explains the significance of this specific attribution:

Abu Bakr Al-Jazairy – a lecturer in the Nobel Prophetic Mosque in Saudi Arabia – wrote in his well-known, widely-distributed book, Minhaj Al-Muslim, that this hadith "...is based upon a weak Hadith..." As we can see, on the one hand Islamists show non-Muslims a peaceful Hadith to improve Islam's image, and on the other teach Muslims, that it is weak (and by implication, that Muslims should not follow it). In contrast, Islamists teach Muslims that the following hadith is sahih, or "strong,"accurate" and "authentic," and thus cannot be ignored:

I have been commanded to fight all mankind until they testify that none has the right to be worshiped except Allah and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah... (Agreed upon) – Minhaj Al-Muslim, Vol 1, p. 402

The phrase "agreed upon" at the end of the above hadith means that it is narrated as sahih by both Al-Buchary and Muslim, which communicates to Muslims that it is extremely powerful... In this case, Muslims are taught that the violent hadith is strong and the peaceful hadith is weak. This theological tactic deceives countless non-Muslims. (pp. 106-107)

Feisal Abdul-Rauf, of Ground Zero Mosque infamy, explains in his 2000 book, Islam: A Sacred Law, that a weak hadith "is a hadith against which serious doubts can be raised." (p. 151) Thus, the notion that self-Jihad is the "greatest Jihad" – a view Islamic spokesmen are always quick to espouse – is a dubious one.

Read it all.

Sinem Tezyapar was so proud of this article that she sent it to me directly. I read it with great interest, as we're constantly told by Muslim and non-Muslim spokesmen in the U.S. that when jihadis justify their violence by referring to the Qur'an and Sunnah that they are misinterpreting and misunderstanding those sources, and that they really teach peace and tolerance. But rare indeed is a detailed explanation of exactly how the Qur'an and Sunnah teach peace and tolerance. So I read this to see if it could fill that gap. No such luck.

In this entire lengthy piece that purports to establish that Islam "does not command war against Jews," Tezyapar never mentions Qur'an 5:82, which designates the Jews "the most hostile of men to the believers." She never mentions 5:51, which tells Muslims not to take Jews or Christians as friends and protectors. She never mentions Sahih Muslim 6985, in which Muhammad says that “the last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him.”

In an article purporting to show that Islam doesn't command war against Jews, these omissions (and there are others) make the whole piece highly questionable. If Sinem Tezyapar really wanted to strike a blow against Islamic Jew-hatred, she could have explained why those and other passages should not be taken at face value, and shown how Islamic antisemites were actually misunderstanding them (if such a thing could really be done). Pretending they do not exist may fool credulous kuffar into complacency, but it will do nothing to stop Islamic Jew-haters from reading such passages and acting on them.

So why did the Jewish Press publish this exercise in soothing deception?

"Listen to Me: Islam Does Not Command War Against Jews," by Sinem Tezyapar in the Jewish Press, January 6:

In an op. ed. piece for the Jewish Press, I cited from the Qur’an to show that war is an exceptional matter for Muslims, an unwanted obligation to be fulfilled in limited circumstances, and for defensive purposes only.

In response, I’ve been denounced and accused of being a Trojan horse, the wolf trying to devour Little Red Riding Hood, of not being a Muslim or being the worst kind of liar, misguided, deceiver, of practicing taqiyya, of disseminating propaganda with the intention of deceiving Israelis & Westerners, of using jihadist tactics in disguise, etc.

The most moderate reaction has been that I am young, naive… and don’t know my religion and the real world.

Despite the criticism, I stand behind my words, and I say further that Hamas or any other Islamic group that uses violence against civilians is doing wrong according to the Qur’an and that Jews, Christians, and Muslims must and can live co-exist together in harmony and peace. The reactions to my statements have been along the following lines: “What about the jihad verses in Qur’an? What about taqiyyah? What about abrogation of the verses which counsel peace?”

Let me clarify these misconceptions about Islam so that there is no excuse for warmongers and those who wish to shed oceans of blood.

She then goes on at great length, sidestepping the real issues, and thereby raising the question of whether she really wants to take away the "excuse for warmongers," or aid and abet them.

The thoroughly mendacious Zahra Billoo of Hamas-linked CAIR says that it's a "misconception" that jihad means "armed struggle or holy war." She doesn't bother to explain why so many Muslims worldwide every day buy into this "misconception."

Jihad in Arabic does indeed mean “struggle,” and the Arabic word carries as many connotations as the English one. One may struggle to lose weight or to exercise regularly, and the same word is used for great struggles, such as those against Nazism and Communism. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Department of Agricultural Jihad, which has nothing to do with blowing up farm implements, but merely concerns itself with the struggle to increase crop yields.

However, the principal meaning of jihad throughout Islamic history and in Islamic law is armed struggle against unbelievers to subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Sharia. The four schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence are clear about jihad:

Shafi'i school: A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.” ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes "obligatory for everyone" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: 'Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until "the final descent of Jesus." After that, "nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent" (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

"SF buses help teach what 'jihad' really means," by Ama Daetz for ABC7 News, January 3 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Buses in San Francisco are carrying messages of jihad, but it's not what you might think. It's a campaign to educate residents about the real meaning of the word. It's a campaign that began in Chicago and has now reached the Bay Area.

One statement on the side of a Muni bus reads: "My jihad is to stay fit despite my busy schedule. What's yours?"

It's part of an educational campaign created by CAIR -- the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The group has put 35 ads on buses rolling through the streets of San Francisco.

"The intention of the campaign is to educate our fellow Americans about what the word jihad means," said Zahra Billoo, the executive director of the Bay Area office for the Council on American-Islamic Relations. She said, "A common misconception of the word jihad is that it means armed struggle or holy war and that is something that has been perpetrated by many who've made careers out of pushing anti-Muslim sentiment."

We asked some Muni riders if they knew the definition of jihad. Most of the answers we got were "a religious war" and "a holy war".

Miriam Webster also defines it as a holy war, but it lists a second definition -- one that Billoo says is much more appropriate.

"The proper meaning of jihad as many of us frequently describe it is to struggle. And that's it. For many, that is anything from building relationships with their neighbors to making it to work on time or doing better on their diets," said Billoo.

It's a meaning many don't know.

"I didn't know the definition either. It's interesting to be educated on it," said one Muni rider.

But Muni rider Nicholas Thomas doesn't know how big an impact the ads will make. He said, "I think for so long it's been ingrained in people's heads that it has such negative connotation, that I think that's sort of rooted in people and that for that idea to change, it would probably take a little bit more than just people talking about it."

Yes, it would take peaceful Muslims taking some real action against their coreligionists who further violent jihad. Meanwhile, the ads we have developed telling the truth about jihad are still awaiting approval in Chicago -- doubtless dhimmi officials are trying to figure out a way to block them:

Usually Islamic supremacists tell lies with imperturbable serenity, but even Awad appears to be a bit nervous in this clip when he talks about Islam advocating freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and protection of minorities. To be sure, Islam does literally guarantee minorities "protection," i.e., dhimmitude. The dhimmis are "protected people," who, like victims of the mafia, pay protection (in the form of jizya) to their oppressors in exchange for their lives. That "protection" also comes with the price of a complex of humiliating and discriminatory regulations that enforce their subjugation.

So much for freedom of religion: Islam only guarantees religious freedom to non-Muslims once they submit to this subjugation. And freedom of speech? Awad knows that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been waging a campaign against the freedom of speech for years, trying to intimidate Western nations into criminalizing criticism of Islam. And Hamas-linked CAIR has aided and abetted that campaign by carrying out a relentless campaign of defamation and vilification of any and all foes of jihad and Islamic supremacism.

"CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad: Islam and the U.S. Are Twins, Linked by Common Values, There Are Accounts that Muslims Discovered America before Columbus," from MEMRI, December 27 (thanks to all who sent this in):

Following are excerpts from an interview with CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, which aired on Iqra TV on December 27, 2012:

Interviewer: Once again, I greet you from the USA, and specially, from New York. Today’s topic is the American Islamic organizations.

Nihad Awad: In my view, Islam and the US are twins, linked by common values. The values on which the US was founded are the same values advocated by Islam: freedom, and especially freedom of religion, freedom of speech, protection of minorities, and spreading justice among all sectors of society.

[...]

The combination of my American nationality and the practice of my Islamic religion creates a beautiful blend, I believe. This is a civilized blend, which proves that Islam flourishes in an atmosphere of freedom, and spreads freedom, justice, and equality. Every day I live as an American-Muslim citizen, I rediscover the firm bonds between the humane system that the US created for its people, and the values advocated by Islam. This marriage of Islam and the US will be the best suited for humanity, because the Islamic values are divine values, conveyed by Allah. The Prophet Muhammad lived by these values, and Muslims today must rise to their level. The US is not perfect, but it is moving “toward a more perfect union.”

[...]

It is extremely important to know how Islam began in the US. There are historical accounts according to which the Muslims preceded Columbus, who is said to have discovered the US. Some documents and accounts indicate that Muslim seafarers were the first to reach the US. The bottom line is that Islam played a part in the establishment and development of the US.

This is more than just Islamic supremacist fantasy: it is a statement of hegemony. Islamic law teaches that any land that has once belonged to Islam belongs to it by right forever. That is why Islamic supremacists can never accept the existence of Israel -- or non-Muslim Spain.

Islam’s worldview is one of coexistence, of respect for pluralism, and of peace. Allah says in the Koran: “Oh Mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes so that you may know one another. The noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the most pious among you.” This is a very important humane, social, and political principle. This is the principle of interacting with the other, be it nations, individuals, institutions, or countries. This verse was conveyed 1,400 years ago. This is a very important principle on how we should interact with others. As Muslims, we are not hostile to other societies. The underlying principle guiding our relations with them is one of respect for the natural differences between individuals, nations, and societies, but there are also common interests. Diversity in Islam is a good thing, not a shortcoming. Most of the wars waged between nations were the result of failure to respect and acknowledge the other.

[...]

When I said that Islam and the US are twins, I was referring to the values upon which the US was founded. I was talking about domestic affairs. US society consists of all of humanity – all the ethnicities, a society of immigrants. The US is the most diverse human union. How did the US manage to create this human fabric? This human experience was, undoubtedly, based on very important principles, which are identical to the Islamic values. The problem lies in the foreign policy. We are not talking about the foreign policy. I am one of the most adamant opponents of my country’s policy... Foreign policy is another matter altogether.

[...]

After 9/11, we saw great interest among the American public in becoming better acquainted with Islam by studying and reading about it. We found that very few books on Islam were available in the public libraries, which are frequented by many Americans, and that most of these books were misleading or anti-Islamic. Therefore, we decided to publish several books on Islam, written by Muslims and non-Muslims. We decided to send them free-of-charge to the American public libraries.

[...]

There are 16,200 public libraries in the US, serving 300 million Americans. We managed to provide this collection, free-of-charge, to half of these libraries.

And the clueless and compromised dhimmis of the American Library Association were no doubt thrilled to receive this propaganda.

Then Awad defends jihad terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who tried to murder Americans while screaming "Death to America," and boasts about his ongoing work to manipulate dhimmi government officials to try to obtain her release:

With regard to our sister Aafia Siddiqui, this is undoubtedly a sensitive criminal case and a security issue.

Interviewer: Who is she?

Nihad Awad: Aafia Siddiqui is originally from Pakistan, as far as I know. She is incarcerated in the US, having received a long prison sentence, for her alleged involvement in – quote, unquote – “terrorist acts.” We are in CAIR are following this case, through our New York chapter. In 2013, in the coming weeks, we will dedicate more attention to her. We will follow the case, and see what we can do.

[...]

I personally intervened in this case, without talking about it in the media. I can reassure the brothers and sisters who called this show that I have personally dealt with this case on a high level in the US, and even in diplomatic circles. When we have any news, we will let you know.

In "#MyJihad: CAIR’s New Twitter Campaign to Whitewash Islam" at PJMedia today, I expose the dishonesty and hypocrisy of Hamas-linked CAIR's cynical new ad and Twitter campaign to confuse Americans about the meaning of the word jihad:

Here’s the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.

Lady Macbeth could have been describing the cynical new ad campaign sponsored by the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which attempts to make Americans believe that “jihad” is all about taking the kids to school and smiling at surly checkout clerks, rather than flying planes into office buildings and blowing up pizza parlors full of infidels.

Like all Big Lies, it has a grain of truth to it. Jihad in Arabic means “struggle,” and the Arabic word carries as many connotations as does the English one. One may struggle to lose weight or to exercise regularly, and the same word is used for great struggles, such as those against Nazism and Communism. The Islamic Republic of Iran has a Department of Agricultural Jihad, which has nothing to do with blowing up farm implements, but merely concerns itself with the struggle to increase crop yields.

And so Ahmed Rehab of Hamas-linked CAIR asserted to one of a seemingly endless stream of eagerly credulous reporters:

Jihad in Islam simply means the struggle to a better place. Whatever barrier or burdens that you have in your life, you are asked, you are tasked to muster in the inner courage, the inner resolve, the inner determination to overcome those personal barriers, personal issues.

Rehab retailed a half-truth. A manual of Islamic law certified by the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community” explained: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the greater jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self (nafs).” After thus acknowledging the spiritual, “greater jihad,” the manual never mentions it again, but goes on for many paragraphs about the “lesser jihad,” that “war against non-Muslims,” giving rules for the taking of prisoners, the legal status of captive women, the subjugation of the infidels, and more.

This legal manual stipulates that Muslims must make war “upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.” After that, “nothing but Islam will be accepted from them.”

Another manual of Islamic law, from the Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence, repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must receive the call to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.”

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering Muslim historian and philosopher, wrote that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

There is more.

Hizb ut Tahrir is an organization of Islamic supremacists around the world, dedicated to imposing Sharia. Apparently they didn't get the memo about how the witless unbelievers need to be deceived about the nature and meaning of jihad, and so they're taking issue with Ahmed Rehab and his cosmetics. Blazing Cat Fur has the link to the HuT forum:

There seems to be a new push by western Muslims, pushed to counter "extremists" and those that may have been contaminated by "moderate Islam" to reclaim "Jihad". They will be using tools such as social media -"facebook/twitter" - how influential are they in the battle of ideas for the west. Other methods will include advertisements and posters/billboards....

It was sparked by a series of hateful ads calling Muslims “savages” and urging people to “defeat jihad” that were plastered on buses and trains in New York, Chicago and San Francisco.

But it also speaks to a larger frustration among “mainstream” Muslims with how a basic tenant of their faith has been distorted and demonised, said Ahmed Rehab who helped launch the campaign.

What a load of .... If this is Jihad - what Jihad were the Muslims doing under Rasul'Allah (Saw) Abu Bakr (ra), Umar Ibn Al Khattab (RA), Uthman ibn Affan (RA), Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA) and others? It seems like the apologetics are being drawn into this battle and are pushing the west's campaign to weaken and attack the ideas of Islam - especially the noble and integral idea of Jihad.

Quote: “Jihad is a term that has unfortunately been widely misrepresented by the actions of Muslim extremists first and foremost, and by attempts at public indoctrination coming from Islamophobes who claim that the minority extremists are right and the majority of Muslims are wrong,” said Rehab, who is the executive director of the Chicago branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

It is widely being misrepresented by the "my Jihad" campaign - its sad that the Muslims have been drawn into promoting such ideas, whether its reactionary or not.

Quote: “The MyJihad campaign is about reclaiming Jihad from the Muslim and anti-Muslim extremists who ironically, but not surprisingly, see eye to eye on Jihad.”

Jihad is Jihad and will remain Jihad, no matter if the apologetics portray it as "myJihad" or the west demonise it as attacking innocent people and blowing up buildings. Amazing how the west always push the Muslims under the defensive, reactionary angles. Its almost a reverse psychology effect - to counter the efforts of the west Islamaphobes and the extremists we must portray it as something else which in the end plays into the hands of the west and her plans - to push their version of Islam, an Islam that fits in with their idea. Clearly the battle of idea is taking place with attacks on jihad. Its sad that the Muslims are being dragged in and are pushing the west's line by choosing the wrong side. If we remember speeches where it was said this battled against the "ideology", the battle of ideas is ongoing and can only be won from within....

Ahmed Rehab: No stranger to cosmetics

Here’s the smell of the blood still. All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand.

And all the perfumes in Ahmed Rehab's purse will not sweeten the concept of jihad. His attempt to take out his lipstick (what's your favorite shade, Ahmed?) and apply it to jihad is foredoomed to failure. It will fail the next time a Muslim commits murder in the name of jihad -- and unfortunately for Rehab's cosmetic efforts, that happens pretty much every day somewhere in the world.

This deceptive campaign was formulated in response to our AFDI ad campaign, which is entirely truthful: Muslims do quote verses of the Qur'an such as 3:151 to justify violence against infidels. The Chicago Sun-Times and the rest of the mainstream media will continue to charge us with "hate," but unfortunately for them as well as for the cosmetic-minded Rehab, reality will keep breaking through.

"Local Muslim group reclaiming ‘Islam’ with ‘MyJihad’ campaign," by Tina Sfondeles in the Chicago Sun-Times, December 14:

A month after an ultra conservative group plastered controversial “Defeat Jihad” ads on 10 CTA buses and likened Muslims to “savages,” a local Muslim group countered back with a campaign to “reclaim Islam” and educate the country about the true meaning of the word “Jihad.”

In the Chicago Sun-Times, you're "ultraconservative" if you oppose jihad and Sharia. But for the Associated Press, you're "ultraconservative" if you want Sharia and brand its opponents "followers of infidels."

Note also Tina Sfondeles's flagrant dishonesty: our AFDI "Defeat Jihad" ad didn't liken Muslims to savages. The ad read: "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad." Thus the "savages" are those who pursue jihad attacks against Israeli civilians. By equating those who are undeniably savages with all Muslims, Sfondeles is painting all Muslims with a broad brush and committing "Islamophobia," no?

Through CTA bus and train ads and a social media campaign on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, participants are being asked to express what their Jihad is with the hashtag #MyJihad.

By Friday morning, more than 3,000 users had “liked” the campaign’s Facebook page. And on Twitter, thousands have posted what their “struggle” or Jihad is.

“#myjihad Is to have the serenity to accept things I can’t change. The courage to change the things I can, & the wisdom to know the difference,” a man in Saudi Arabia Tweeted.

Ahmed Rehab, executive director of CAIR-Chicago, and creator of the campaign, said the goal is to explain the very misunderstood and sometimes seemingly controversial concept of Jihad.

“Jihad in Islam simply means the struggle to a better place,” Rehab said. “Whatever barrier or burdens that you have in your life, you are asked, you are tasked to muster in the inner courage, the inner resolve, the inner determination to overcome those personal barriers, personal issues.”

He said the word has been misconstrued by Muslim and anti-Muslim extremists and it’s time to re-educate the public about Islam and its concepts. Often the term “Jihad” is associated with violence and those waging “holy war.”

“The only two things that God judges you by in the tradition of Islam are the two things that you control, your intentions and your effort,” Rehab said. “Your intention being sincere and your effort being for the best. That effort is Jihad.”

Naperville mom Angie Emara is featured in one of the ads with her children. She said her Jihad is getting over the loss of her son, and also raising another son with special needs.

“For me it’s personal. I don’t want my kids to grow up in an environment where they’re immediately rendered suspect for nothing of their doing,” Emara said. “...My Jihad is an ongoing struggle…My Jihad is to hold back the tears when I see my son live past Adam’s years and do things he never could. My Jihad is to push forward past the grief, past the second guessing.”

CAIR-Chicago’s campaign, in part, was spurred by the anti-Muslim ads that turned up on CTA buses last month. The ads, financed by conservative blogger Pamela Geller and her organization American Freedom Defense Initiative, have caused controversy — and some legal challenges — in Detroit, New York City and Washington D.C.

“In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad,” the ad reads.

The #MyJihad effort is staffed by CAIR volunteers, and the group paid for the CTA ads. But part of the campaign is aimed at seeking sponsors. For $500, a group can sponsor a bus. The group’s goal is to have enough sponsors so that the campaign can reach New York, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Seattle and Houston.

The four schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence are clear about jihad:

Shafi'i school: A Shafi'i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians...until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh ‘Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)...while remaining in their ancestral religions.” ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad. But they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad, which needs no state authority to call it, and becomes "obligatory for everyone" ('Umdat al-Salik, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked. The end of the defensive jihad, however, is not peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals: 'Umdat al-Salik specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until "the final descent of Jesus." After that, "nothing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus' descent" (o9.8).

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world....The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari'ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: "Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book...is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah." Nyazee concludes: "This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation" of non-Muslims.

Here is the latest press release from Hamas-linked CAIR:

CAIR Repudiates Egypt 'Blasphemy' Death Sentences

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/28/12) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties organization, today repudiated death sentences handed down by an Egyptian court for charges linked to the anti-Islam film "Innocence of Muslims" that attacked the Prophet Muhammad....

In a statement, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

"We repudiate this un-Islamic attempt to impose the death sentence for blasphemy, a sentence that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself never imposed, despite being attacked both rhetorically and physically.

"One Islamic tradition (hadith) states in reference to the Prophet: 'You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness.' (Sahih Al-Bukhari) Muslims in Egypt and worldwide should choose the same path of kindness and reconciliation followed by the Prophet himself.

"We ask civil and religious authorities in Egypt to honor the legacy of the Prophet by following his example and rejecting these death sentences.

"To do otherwise violates Islamic principles and offers support to those -- like the extremists who produced this despicable film -- who seek to defame Islam and Muslims."...

That all sounds great. The only problem with it is that it isn't honest. It is noteworthy that Awad tacitly acknowledges that Islam does indeed have a death sentence for blasphemy, which most Islamic apologists in the West deny; however, Muhammad did actually have people murdered for insulting him. Awad almost certainly knows this, and the Egyptian authorities undoubtedly do. So when Hamas-linked CAIR asks "civil and religious authorities in Egypt to honor the legacy of the Prophet by following his example and rejecting these death sentences," they're talking to people who believe they're following the "legacy of the Prophet" by imposing the death sentences. There is absolutely no chance that Egyptian authorities will heed CAIR's call, and CAIR knows this.

This makes it clear that Hamas-linked CAIR's repudiation of the death sentences is not designed to bring about any real change in Egypt, but only to lull more Americans into complacency about the reality of the contents of Sharia.

Islam mandates death for non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state who mention "something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam" ('Umdat al-Salik, o11.10), and such laws go back to passages in the Hadith and Sira in which Muhammad orders the murders of people who have insulted him, including Abu ‘Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Abu ‘Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad's question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)

Then there was Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama answered, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." Muhammad responded: "You may say it." Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka'b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, book 59, number 369)

And another incident:

A blind man had a slave-mother [a slave who bore children for him] who used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. He [the blind man] forbade her but she did not stop. He rebuked her but she did not give up her habit. One night she began to slander the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and abuse him. So he [the blind man] took a dagger, placed it on her belly, pressed it, and killed her. A child who came between her legs was smeared with the blood that was there. When the morning came, the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) was informed about it.

He assembled the people and said: I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right to him that he should stand up. Jumping over the necks of the people and trembling the man stood up.

He sat before the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: Apostle of Allah! I am her master; she used to abuse you and disparage you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not abandon her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was my companion. Last night she began to abuse and disparage you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her.

Thereupon the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Oh be witness, no retaliation is payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, book 38, number 4348)

And:

A Jewess used to abuse the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and disparage him. A man strangled her till she died. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) declared that no recompense was payable for her blood. (Sunan Abu-Dawud, book 38, number 4349)

(Thanks to Jihad Watch reader Traeh for those last two.)

Likewise Islam QA calls for death for blasphemers, using both Qur'an and Hadith to make its argument. “The scholars are unanimously agreed,” the site explains, “that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir [unbeliever] and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others.”

Is Hamas-linked CAIR really unaware of these traditions, and of these unanimous rulings of Islamic law, and consensus among Islamic scholars? Of course not. And that is the difference between reform and deception. If they were really "moderates" or "reformers," they'd refer to this material in some way and explain why Muhammad's example in this should not be normative. Instead, they take advantage of the fact the hardly any Americans know anything about this material, and so they know they can lie about it and get away with it.

Except at Jihad Watch.

Who else? Murad Ali Baig knows that the Jews are, according to the Qur'an, the worst enemies of the Muslims (cf. 5:82). Of course, the Jews might have put that passage in as well. You never know what those Zionist black arts can accomplish!

"The burden of history," by Murad Ali Baig in the Hindustan Times, October 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

On October 9, Malala Yusufzai, 14, was shot by the Taliban for promoting education among girls. On September 9, the US ambassador to Libya was killed by extremists protesting against a film that allegedly insulted the Prophet. Such acts of crime are not allowed in the Koran or Hadis, the most-sacred sources of Islamic law. Both say little on blasphemy, heresy or sacrilege, issues that seem to upset Muslims today. Naturally, very few dare to question the scriptural authority when Muslim clerics themselves pronounce the death sentences. But such actions are against the wishes of the Prophet who said: "… anyone who sets another… even an ant… on fire commits the greatest sin and is destined to the fires of Hell".

The Koran does not contain a legal code and most of the legal injunctions were to regularise pre-Islamic tribal customs. After the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, the Islamic polity changed fundamentally: the civil and religious order expanded beyond Arabia to create a huge Arab-Islamic imperial caliphate.

As Islam became an urban movement, it became difficult for the caliphs to administer their complex, multi-cultural realms without mosques, centres of learning, bureaucracies and other institutions essential for governance. Islamic law had to evolve continuously with changing social and economic pressures during the period of the Ummayids, Abbasids, the Caliphs of Cordoba, the Seljuks and Turks and finally during the years of decline after the rise of the European nations.

The main source of Islamic authority was the Koran and Hadis but many new laws were derived from the Jewish Torah, which was later included in the 104 holy books of Islam. One of its five books is the Book of Leviticus that covers Jewish law.

This book, belonging to an era when small bands of Jews were oppressed, lists all 'The Lord's' laws that are harsh and has many prohibitions concerning circumcision, food, suppression of women and lists draconian punishments like death by stoning, burning, strangulation and beheading for a long list of offences, including adultery, worshipping other gods, blasphemy, witchcraft, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.

By contrast to Yahweh, the angry god of the Jews, the Allah of Muhammad was a merciful god. Some scholars believe that many Jews who had converted to the triumphant Islam were probably responsible for fusing Jewish laws into the evolving Islamic tradition after the 10th century.

If this were remotely true and not just churned out to throw sand in the eyes of the kuffar, then there would be a movement within Islam to jettison the death penalty for adultery, apostasy, etc. But there isn't.

This may explain why the laws of the Prophet and the laws of the later Islamic clerics are different. Muhammad had, for instance, prescribed 100 lashes for a woman who committed adultery, which was much milder than stoning her to death as was the later practice.

Actually, numerous hadiths depict Muhammad enjoining stoning. Here are a few. The caliph Umar, according to Islamic tradition one of Muhammad's closest companions, even maintained that it was originally in the Qur'an:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him." (Bukhari, vol. 8, bk. 82, no. 816)

"Allah's Apostle" is, of course, Muhammad, who did indeed carry out stonings. Here is the hadith in which he challenges the rabbis about stoning, and in which there is amidst the barbarism and brutality a final act of love and compassion:

The Jews came to Allah's Apostle and told him that a man and a woman from amongst them had committed illegal sexual intercourse. Allah's Apostle said to them, "What do you find in the Torah (old Testament) about the legal punishment of Ar-Rajm (stoning)?" They replied, (But) we announce their crime and lash them." Abdullah bin Salam said, "You are telling a lie; Torah contains the order of Rajm." They brought and opened the Torah and one of them solaced his hand on the Verse of Rajm and read the verses preceding and following it. Abdullah bin Salam said to him, "Lift your hand." When he lifted his hand, the Verse of Rajm was written there. They said, "Muhammad has told the truth; the Torah has the Verse of Rajm. The Prophet then gave the order that both of them should be stoned to death. ('Abdullah bin 'Umar said, "I saw the man leaning over the woman to shelter her from the stones." (Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 56, no. 829)

Even the monkeys practiced stoning, according to another hadith:

During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it, because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse. I too, stoned it along with them. (Bukhari, vol. 5, bk. 58, no. 188)

Muhammad's example is, of course, normative for Islamic behavior, since "verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much" (Qur'an 33:21).

The article goes on:

Similarly, the Jewish laws of that time regarding blasphemy, heresy and apostasy, not found in the Koran, are now pronounced even by small town clerics. The bigoted mullahs do not also seem to understand that these ancient laws can be misused by the enemies of Islam to cause death and disturbance.

These are not Jewish laws. They are Islamic laws rooted in hadiths that Muslim scholars consider authentic.

It is now necessary to educate the Muslims, who memorise the Koran in Arabic (a language they do not understand) making them vulnerable to bigots who give their own distorted interpretations. For peace, leading Islamic scholars must use the media to explain the words of the Prophet and not the draconian injunctions of a repressive outdated law.

That's Qur'an 8:39, and Abu Hamza, who acted upon it

The deceptive and misleading #MyJihad campaign was born in response to Pamela Geller's AFDI pro-freedom ad, which says, "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad." Certainly "jihad" does indeed mean all kinds of struggles, including the struggle for self-improvement, but the purpose of the campaign is to obscure, if not deny outright, the primary meaning that the word has had in Islamic theology and law throughout the history of Islam: warfare against unbelievers in order to bring about their submission to Islamic law.

This campaign is designed to foster complacency among Americans, and to blind them to the fact that Islamic jihadists are committing violence in the name of jihad around the world every day. Somehow the jihadists aren't getting these #MyJihad memos, that jihad is all about buying a kid ice cream or helping your neighbor mow his lawn.

The Body of Truth debunks the campaign here. And see here for my own jihad.

In "Muslim Mobs Insult Muhammad's Legacy," in the Huffington Post, September 13 (thanks to Robert), David Liepert, a "Canadian Muslim Leader and Spokesperson, Interfaith Advisor to the Canadian Council of Imams," asks plaintively: "How can we expect non-Muslims to believe that Islam is a religion of peace, when Muslim mobs around the world make liars of us all, Muhammad included?"

Liepert claims: "Those mobs of angry Muslims, even if they believed they were marching for the sake of Muhammad, are ignorant of his legacy. Because a careful and historically accurate study of Muhammad's life confirms he didn't care about his own personal honor at all."

But actually, Islam mandates death for non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state who mention "something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam" ('Umdat al-Salik, o11.10), and such laws go back to passages in the Hadith and Sira in which Muhammad orders the murders of people who have insulted him, including Abu ‘Afak, who was over one hundred years old, and the poetess ‘Asma bint Marwan. Abu ‘Afak was killed in his sleep, in response to Muhammad's question, “Who will avenge me on this scoundrel?” Similarly, Muhammad on another occasion cried out, “Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan?” One of his followers, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Adi, went to her house that night, where he found her sleeping next to her children. The youngest, a nursing babe, was in her arms. But that didn’t stop ‘Umayr from murdering her and the baby as well. Muhammad commended him: “You have done a great service to Allah and His Messenger, ‘Umayr!” (Ibn Ishaq, 674-676)

Then there was Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf. Muhammad asked: "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" One of the Muslims, Muhammad bin Maslama answered, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" When Muhammad said that he would, Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab)." Muhammad responded: "You may say it." Muhammad bin Maslama duly lied to Ka'b, luring him into his trap, and murdered him. (Sahih Bukhari, volume 5, book 59, number 369)

Likewise Islam QA calls for death for blasphemers, using both Qur'an and Hadith to make its argument:

I heard on a tape that whoever insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be executed even if he shows that he has repented. Should he be killed as a hadd punishment or because of kufr? If his repentance is sincere, will Allaah forgive him or will he go to Hell and his repentance will be of no avail?

Praise be to Allaah.

The answer to this question may be given by addressing the two following issues:

1 - The ruling on one who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) becomes a kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi 'Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16

This ruling is indicated by the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

In the Qur'aan it says (interpretation of the meaning):

"The hypocrites fear lest a Soorah (chapter of the Qur'aan) should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts. Say: '(Go ahead and) mock! But certainly Allaah will bring to light all that you fear.'

If you ask them (about this), they declare: 'We were only talking idly and joking.' Say: 'Was it at Allaah, and His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) and His Messenger that you were mocking?'

Make no excuse; you disbelieved after you had believed"

[al-Tawbah 9:64-66]

This verse clearly states that mocking Allaah, His verses and His Messenger constitutes kufr, so that applies even more so to insulting. The verse also indicates that whoever belittles the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also a kaafir [unbeliever], whether he was serious or joking.

With regard to the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (4362) narrated from 'Ali that a Jewish woman used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him, so a man strangled her until she died, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ruled that no blood money was due in this case.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (1/162): This hadeeth is jayyid, and there is a corroborating report in the hadeeth of Ibn 'Abbaas which we will quote below.

This hadeeth clearly indicates that it was permissible to kill that woman because she used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Abu Dawood (4361) narrated from Ibn 'Abbaas that a blind man had a freed concubine (umm walad) who used to insult the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and say bad things about him. He told her not to do that but she did not stop, and he rebuked her but she did not heed him. One night, when she started to say bad things about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and insult him, he took a short sword or dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it and killed her. The following morning that was mentioned to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He called the people together and said, "I adjure by Allah the man who has done this action and I adjure him by my right over him that he should stand up." The blind man stood up and said, "O Messenger of Allaah, I am the one who did it; she used to insult you and say bad things about you. I forbade her, but she did not stop, and I rebuked her, but she did not give up her habit. I have two sons like pearls from her, and she was kind to me. Last night she began to insult you and say bad things about you. So I took a dagger, put it on her belly and pressed it till I killed her." Thereupon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Bear witness, there is no blood money due for her."

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 3655)

It seems that this woman was a kaafir, not a Muslim, for a Muslim could never do such an evil action. If she was a Muslim she would have become an apostate by this action, in which case it would not have been permissible for her master to keep her; in that case it would not have been good enough if he were to keep her and simply rebuke her.

Al-Nasaa'i narrated (4071) that Abu Barzah al-Aslami said: A man spoke harshly to Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq and I said, 'Shall I kill him?' He rebuked me and said, 'That is not for anyone after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) .'" (Saheeh al-Nasaa'i, 3795)

It may be noted from this that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) had the right to kill whoever insulted him and spoke harshly to him, and that included both Muslims and kaafirs.

The second issue is: if a person who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, should his repentance be accepted or not?

The scholars are agreed that if such a person repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

But they differed as to whether his repentance should be accepted in this world and whether that means he is no longer subject to the sentence of execution.

Maalik and Ahmad were of the view that it should not be accepted, and that he should be killed even if he has repented.

They quoted as evidence the Sunnah and proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

In the Sunnah, Abu Dawood (2683) narrated that Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqaas said: "On the Day of the Conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) granted safety to the people except for four men and two women, and he named them, and Ibn Abi Sarh... As for Ibn Abi Sarh, he hid with 'Uthmaan ibn 'Affaan, and when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called the people to give their allegiance to him, he brought him to stand before the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He said, "O Prophet of Allaah, accept the allegiance of 'Abd-Allaah." He raised his head and looked at him three times, refusing him, then he accepted his allegiance after the third time. Then he turned to his companions and said: "Was there not among you any smart man who could have got up and killed this person when he saw me refusing to give him my hand and accept his allegiance?" They said, "We do not know what is in your heart, O Messenger of Allaah. Why did you not gesture to us with your eyes?" He said, "It is not befitting for a Prophet to betray a person with a gesture of his eyes."

(Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood, 2334)

This clearly indicates that in a case such as this apostate who had insulted the Prophet (S), it is not obligatory to accept his repentance, rather it is permissible to kill him even if he comes repentant.

'Abd-Allaah ibn Sa'd was one of those who used to write down the Revelation, then he apostatized and claimed that he used to add whatever he wanted to the Revelation. This was a lie and a fabrication against the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it was a kind of insult. Then he became Muslim again and was a good Muslim, may Allaah be pleased with him. Al-Saarim 115.

With regard to proper understanding of the ahaadeeth:

They said that insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has to do with two rights, the right of Allaah and the right of a human being. With regard to the right of Allaah, this is obvious, because it is casting aspersions upon His Message, His Book and His Religion. As for the right of a human being, this is also obvious, because it is like trying to slander the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by this insult. In a case which involves both the rights of Allaah and the rights of a human being, the rights of the human beings are not dropped when the person repents, as in the case of the punishment for banditry, because if the bandit has killed someone, that means that he must be executed and crucified. But if he repents before he is caught, then the right of Allaah over him, that he should be executed and crucified, no longer applies, but the rights of other humans with regard to qisaas (retaliatory punishment) still stand. The same applies in this case. If the one who insulted the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) repents, then the rights of Allaah no longer apply, but there remains the right of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which still stand despite his repentance.

If it is said, "Can we not forgive him, because during his lifetime the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forgave many of those who had insulted him and he did not execute them?" The answer is:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438

Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir. If he repents sincerely and regrets what he has done, this repentance will benefit him on the Day of Resurrection and Allaah will forgive him.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) wrote a valuable book on this matter, entitled al-Saarim al-Maslool 'ala Shaatim al-Rasool which every believer should read, especially in these times when a lot of hypocrites and heretics dare to insult the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) because they see that the Muslims are careless and feel little protective jealousy towards their religion and their Prophet, and they do not implement the shar'i punishment which would deter these people and their ilk from committing this act of blatant kufr [unbelief].

And Allaah knows best. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions.

Of course, the rioters around the world are targeting innocent people, but they consider them to be representatives of the U.S., which they hold responsible for the blasphemy. If Liepert were forthright about the entire tradition of Muhammad, he would admit that the Islamic prophet would be pleased by what has been going on these days.

In "Huffington Post Whitewashes Sharia" at Atlas Shrugs, August 26, Pamela Geller obliterates the lies and obfuscations about Sharia retailed by Islamic supremacist Qasim Rashid:

The following piece (below) is from last November, but in the rush of events at that time I missed it, and since it so fully displays the Islamic supremacist/enemedia strategy to full-on whitewash Sharia and sell it to the American public, it is worth revisiting now -- especially since the voices of truth are silenced, shut out of the public discourse. Big broadcast news and print media offer Islamic supremacists and their leftist shills unfettered access to defame, lie about, smear and give misleading information about freedom's fiercest defenders, without giving the victims of these vicious defamation campaigns the opportunity to rebut the false charges. This is twenty first century Goebbels-style propaganda. Islamic supremacists and their useful idiots on the left are given enormous power, the kind of  influence and access to deceive and mislead the  American people that Nazi propagandists were given in Germany. The fact that people like myself and Robert Spencer have any influence at all is a testament to the American people, who love freedom and seek out the truth.

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know by Qasim Rashid at the HuffPo 11/04/11

1. What does Shariah mean?

Shariah is the law of the Qur'an and literally means "A path to life giving water." In fact, the word Yarrah (i.e. the root of the Hebrew word Torah) means precisely the same thing. Therefore, Shariah is actually ingrained in Abrahamic tradition.

Rashid is implying that Shariah and Jewish law are essentially equivalent. That claim is a staple of the whitewashes of Shariah in the American media and courts. But my lawyer David Yerushalmi, who has represented me in numerous groundbreaking free speech cases, explains why the two are not equivalent here. [UPDATE: David Yerushalmi has sent me this: "This writer's linking the Hebrew root Y-R-H to sharia is absurd. He is trying to link sharia as 'the right path' as in Islamic law to the Hebrew root for what is Torah. That is, the Hebrew root of Torah is H-R-H, meaning to instruct. A cognate of this is Y-R-H which is the root for shoot (as in shoot an arrow) or in some cases direct/instruct. But this has nothing to do with 'the right path to the water' because Y-R-H can also mean a bad instruction or a shot off target. The only possible comparison at the level of meaning between Sharia and a Hebrew word is to Halacha, which shares no etymological connection to sharia. It does have the same kind of meaning as in 'the way' and is the word for Jewish law. The point of all of this is that 'scholarship' on these matters by the MB and by the leftists is almost always just wrong and bad."]

Shariah is comprised of five main branches: adab (behavior, morals and manners), ibadah (ritual worship), i'tiqadat (beliefs), mu'amalat (transactions and contracts) and 'uqubat (punishments). These branches combine to create a society based on justice, pluralism and equity for every member of that society. Furthermore, Shariah forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. Islam's founder, Prophet Muhammad, demonstrated that Shariah may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves--never through forced government implementation.

"Shariah forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person"? Is Qasim Rashid serious? Apparently he would have us believe that anyone can opt out at any time? A thief can decide that he isn't willing to have his hand cut off? An adulteress can say, "No, thank you, I would prefer not to be stoned to death"? Can non-Muslims say, "I'd prefer not to be a dhimmi, and would like to have equal rights with the Muslims, please?" Look at the two premier Sharia states in the world today: Saudi Arabia and Iran. Both are repressive, coercive, authoritarian regimes with dismal human rights records. Nor do the oppressed Shi'ite minority in Saudi Arabia or the oppressed Bahais in Iran ever get asked if they are willing for Shariah restrictions to imposed upon them. If they dare to complain, life gets even worse for them.

Additionally, the Qur'an does not promote any specific form of government, but requires that the form people choose must be based on adl or "absolute justice." The Qur'an says, "Verily, Allah enjoins justice, and the doing of good to others; and giving like kindred; and forbids indecency and manifest evil and transgression. He admonishes you that you may take heed" (16:91). Notice, religious preference is never mentioned. Therefore, in ruling with absolute justice, for example, the righteous Jewish King Solomon ruled as a just monarch based on this fundamental principle of Shariah Law--justice.

The trick here is that Shariah's idea of justice and Western principles of justice are very different. Under Shariah, Muslims deny the freedom of speech, execute apostates from Islam, cut the clitorises, beat and honor-kill women, and deny basic rights to non-Muslims, and more -- and call it all justice.

2. Do Muslims want Shariah to rule America?

No. Remember, the Qur'an teaches that religion must not be a matter of the state. Shariah is a personal relationship with God. Prophet Muhammad, even as the de facto ruler of Arabia, wrote the Charter of Medina in which Muslims were held to Shariah Law, and Jews to the Law of the Torah. Not a single non-Muslim was held to Shariah because Shariah itself forbids compulsion. The Qur'an clearly says, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:257). Furthermore, Shariah obliges Muslims to be loyal to their nation of residence. Therefore, American Muslims must adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Shariah is a personal relationship with God, and religion must not be a matter of the state? Then why is it that everywhere Shariah is in force now, and everywhere it has ever been adopted, it is a matter of the state, and covers every aspect of political life, not just one's "personal relationship with God"? Qasim Rashid would have us believe that all the great Islamic empires of the Middle Ages, and Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Sudan all misunderstand Sharia as having something to do with the governance of the state, and not just with private religious matters.

And no Muslims want Shariah to rule America? Qasim Rashid didn't check with Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram, who wrote in "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America" the Brotherhood's strategy document for the U.S., that the Muslim Brothers "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions."

3. If Muslims don't want Shariah to rule America, then so what if it's banned?

First, Shariah is a personal relationship between a Muslim and God. The First Amendment forbids Congress from passing laws that restrict the free exercise of religion--particularly private exercise. Second, if Shariah was banned, then American Muslims could not marry, inherit, write wills or choose to divorce per Islam's guidelines. If similar restrictions were imposed for other faith groups, then no Minister could conduct a marriage ceremony, no Catholic Bishop could read the last rites and no Rabbi could perform circumcision on an infant male Jewish child--because these are all Judeo-Christian religious laws. Even within our current legal system, American Jews regularly resolve civil matters through rabbinical courts known as beit din. American Muslims simply want to enjoy their same constitutionally guaranteed right.

This is a hysterical false charge. Anti-Shariah laws aren't designed to restrict Muslims' personal religious freedom. I don't care if you worship a stone; just don't stone me with it. The anti-Shariah laws are designed to restrict the political and supremacist aspects of Shariah -- the elements of Islamic law that are incompatible with our freedoms. That's all.

4. What does Shariah say about other religions?

Shariah law champions absolute freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. For example, the Qur'an goes as far as to oblige Muslims to fight on behalf of Jews, Christians and people of other faiths and to protect their churches, synagogues and temples from attack. (22:41) Furthermore, Shariah holds that to be a Muslim, a person must testify to the truth of all past prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Krishna and Buddha--and must respect their adherents. When Prophet Muhammad peacefully became the ruler of Arabia, his primary condition for non-Muslims (and Muslims) to reside in Arabia was that they allow all people of all faiths--be they Jews, Christians, Muslims or idol worshipers--to worship in peace and without oppression.

Just as Shariah offers a different understanding of "justice" from that which prevails in the West, so also it has a different understanding of what constitutes "oppression." Under Shariah, the dhimmis -- Jews, Christians, and other "People of the Book" in the Islamic state -- are subjugated under the rule of the Muslims and denied basic rights. They have to pay a special tax (jizya) from which Muslims are exempt. Reliance of the Traveler, a manual of Islamic jurisprudence certified as "reliable" by Egypt's Al-Azhar University, the foremost authority in Sunni Islam, explains that non-Muslims are "forbidden to ring church bells or display crosses, recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays, and are forbidden to build new churches" - o.11.5 (6,7). They're also forbidden to hold authority over Muslims, and so are relegated to the most menial jobs in society. If they complain about their lot or "insult" Islam or Muhammad, they can lawfully be killed.

Qasim Rashid calls this being able to "worship in peace and without oppression."

5. What about countries that oppress people and claim they follow Shariah?

Such countries have ignored the fundamental tenet of justice inherent in Shariah Law, and have instead used Shariah as an excuse to gain power and sanction religious extremism. To be sure, not a single example of a "Shariah compliant" country exists. In fact, the most "Muslim country" in the world is likely America, because America guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought--all hallmarks of Shariah Law. Those nations that oppress in the name of Shariah are as justified in their claims, as the slave owners who claimed their right to slavery was based on the Bible.

As for the "violent" verses from the Qur'an that are cited by both extremists and critics--honest legal interpretation abhors quoting an excerpt as a means to understand the full law. Unfortunately, both extremists and critics refuse to adhere to this basic principle. In sum, Shariah law guides a Muslim's personal relationship with God, just as the Old and New Testaments guide Jews and Christians in their personal relationships with God. These paths to life-giving water are nothing to fear.

Rashid is forced to say this because Shariah states are so savage. But his argument falls on one key point: if there is no real "Shariah compliant" country in the world today, why are all those countries that claim to be implementing Shariah misinterpreting it in the same way? Shariah states today and throughout Islamic history have oppressed women and non-Muslims, executed heretics, apostates, blasphemers, gays, and others, and ruthlessly punished those who dared to speak out against all this. Those have been features of every single Shariah state that has ever existed.

But Qasim Rashid wants you to believe that they all got Shariah wrong. And at the PuffHo, there's a sucker born every minute.

Here is an interesting anecdote of taqiyya—the Islamic doctrine that permits lies and hypocrisy whenever Muslims fear their stronger adversaries, including fellow Muslims: Soon after the clash between Egypt’s military and Islamists at al-Abbassia, Sheikh Hassan Abu al-Ashbal, one of the leaders of the Salafi party, declared a full-blown jihad against the military—only to retract it, once the Egyptian media exposed it. Backing down, al-Ashbal said that he was “angry at the spilling of innocent blood by the military,” and so he “spoke words he did not mean,” including his “declaration of war and the raising of the banner of jihad in Egypt.”

Instead, the sheikh redirected his rage at those who exposed him—the “rabid media,” which he proceeded to blame for the chaos in Egypt. This, of course, is reminiscent of the recent threats Egypt’s On TV received from the “Jihad Group to Cleanse the Country,” which blamed the media station of "seeking to destroy the nation and create chaos to implement the American and Zionist agenda.” Apparently, some Egyptian media are not as sympathetic or apathetic to the Islamist agenda as are their media counterparts in the West, no doubt because the threat is much closer to home.

Your tax dollars at work. "Focus on Faith: Combating Islamophobia," by Melissa Riopka for WAAYTV.com, May 13 (thanks to David Pietrusza):

Huntsville, AL -- On Thursday, May 17th, people representing a cross-culture of Madison County will come together to learn more about Islam. "Combating Islamophobia: Truths and Myths About Islam" is a community engagement workshop sponsored by the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Department of Justice, UA-Huntsville, and the Huntsville Islamic Center, among others. Aladin Beshir, director of community outreach for the Huntsville Islamic Center, hopes the event will help build bridges in the community. "This is a very, very small step and a very focused and great grand scheme of cooperation among law enforcement and the Muslim community, sending the message that we are all united to protect America."

Beshir says there are many misconceptions about Islam that have arisen, in part, by people taking portions of the Quran out of context. He says, "Islam does not teach violence. People love to pick and choose," adding, "the Holy Quran states, one destroys one soul as if he killed the whole humanity, and one saves one soul as if he saves the whole humanity." When it comes to addressing myths about Muslims, Beshir says the media represents one of the biggest challenges because, "if you listen to the media, you will think they're under the bed and coming to get you!"...

This is the passage Beshir is referring to: "Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; and whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth." That's Qur'an 5:32. Note the except about "corruption done in the land." What happens to those who commit this ill-defined sin? "This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement." That's Qur'an 5:33. What do you bet Beshir doesn't mention that during this taxpayer-funded lovefest? And what does that omission indicate?

KUALA LUMPUR: Muslims should promote moderate values so that they can counter Islamophobia worldwide, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

He said extremism had led some to question the nature of Islam and portray it in a negative and hostile light.

These 'extremists' are from which religion, Mr. Prime Minister? And how are they 'extremist'? As usual, he never gets around to laying out such troublesome details.

Najib said he hoped the new Global Movement of Moderates Foundation would be able to play an important part in fostering tolerance and understanding.

“I am convinced that the moderation that runs through the very heart of Islam will come to stand as the enduring value of our times,” he said during his keynote address at the World Congress of Muslim Philanthropists Global Donors Forum 2012 yesterday.

Najib said the negative publicity on Islam had at times limited Muslims' philanthropic efforts.

Muslims can't give money to charity or charitable causes because of Islamophobes and Islamophobia? How outrageous!

More than ten years after the September 11th attacks, after more than 18,000 terror attacks have been committed by Muslims around the world, and after tens of thousands have been slaughtered at the hands of jihadists, we are still waiting to be convinced, Mr. Prime Minister. We have been waiting, and waiting, and waiting to be convinced that 'moderation' (however you may define it) somehow runs through the heart, liver or other internal organs of Islam. How much longer would you like us to wait?

Muhammad Merah called himself an "Islamic warrior," but Mohammed Moussaoui asserts that he actually misunderstood the religion to which he had dedicated his life and for which he was fighting. So what is Mohammed Moussaoui doing in mosques in France to make sure that more Muslims there don't misunderstand Islam in the same way that Muhammad Merah did? In fact, no Muslim community in any Western country has any such program or activity -- nothing at all to fight in mosques and madrassas against this disturbingly pervasive understanding of Islam that they insist is in error.

One can only conclude that they don't do anything serious against this understanding of Islam because they don't really think it "contradicts Islam" at all. Western authorities should act accordingly. But they won't, of course. They will take Mohammed Moussaoui's words at face value and go away confirmed in their complacency.

"French shooter's acts contradict Islam: Muslim leader," from Expatica, March 21 (thanks to Inexion):

France's top Muslim leader said Wednesday that a besieged suspected Islamist who claims to have carried out a string of shootings to avenge Palestinian children had acted against Islam.

"These acts are in total contradiction with the foundations of this religion," said the head of the French Muslim Council, Mohammed Moussaoui. "France's Muslims are offended by this claim of belonging to this religion."

Muhammad Merah himself is responsible for such a claim, but Moussaoui's words here are consistent with the general tendency of Muslim leaders to pretend that the connection between Islam and jihad violence is being made by non-Muslim analysts, not by the jihadists themselves.

Moussaoui and Richard Prasquier, the head of France's main Jewish organisation, the CRIF, were to meet Wednesday with President Nicolas Sarkozy as the siege outside the shooter's apartment continued in the southwestern city of Toulouse.

The joint meeting shows "an important thing," Prasquier said, "that it is absolutely impossible to confuse this person and the Islamist, jihadist, al-Qaedist movement that he represents, with Islam in France, which is a religion like any other."

"There are French Muslims among this man's enemies," he said, adding that nonetheless: "We must avoid all complacency with regard to these movements, which represent a true danger to our republic."

Sounds as if you're quite complacent already, Prasquier. The "French Muslims among this man's enemies" were fighting for France, aligning themselves with the infidel -- something forbidden in the Qur'an (3:28, 5:51, etc.). Not just Muhammad Merah, but many other Muslims in France take those verses seriously today.

Once again, the tacked-on charges seem to have evaporated, and Nadarkhani is said to have somehow "humiliated" and "offended" Islam even as the Iranian "human rights envoy," Mohammad Javad Larijani, claims changing religions is no big deal. But as even CNN has observed, as of 2010, the only charges against Nadarkhani were about apostasy.

As taqiyya goes, this is pretty lousy. Way to phone it in, Larijani. "Iran Denies Christian Pastor Faces Execution; Restates 'Faith-based' Charges," by Perry Chiaramonte for Fox News, March 14:

Under fire from a United Nations Human Rights panel, a top Iranian official claims a Christian pastor insulted Islam but denies he faces execution.

The UN Human Rights Council met in Geneva Monday, where Ahmed Shaheed, a "special rapporteur for human rights in Iran" delivered a report on human rights abuses in Iran and called for the release of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani. The pastor has been held in prison for nearly three years and was convicted on charges that Tehran has described in conflicting terms, first as apostasy and other faith-based crimes, then as rape and extortion.

Responding to Shaheed's presentation, Iranian human rights envoy Mohammad Javad Larijani denied that Nadarkhani faces the death penalty, though the sentence was spelled out in a ruling handed down by Iran's highest court last fall. Larijani also offered a new set of charges against Nadarkhani, including preaching to youth without their parents' permission, converting his home into a church and offending Islam.

"In the last 33 years after [the Islamic] revolution, no single person has been put to death or executed or pursued for changing his religion from Islam," he told the council. "Hundreds of people are changing from other religions to Islam. Why we should be so sensitive about a few people to change their religion from Islam?"

"Christianity and Judaism are preached in Iran," Larijani said. "We have a number of synagogues; we have a number of churches. But there is no need to humiliate, to offend Islam."

How again does one man's act of conscience "humilate" one of the world's largest religions? Either your egos are fragile, or Nadarkhani is the Iranian Chuck Norris.

Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice, told FoxNews.com that it was noteworthy Larijani did not mention the rape and extortion charges that Tehran lodged against Nadarkhani amid mounting international pressure following his conviction for apostasy.

"He reads off the charges which are all faith-based, while denying that Nadarkhani received a death sentence for apostasy," Sekulow said."They are admitting the pastor is being charged for his faith."

In recent months, there has been an increasing international outcry for Iran to release Nadarkhani. At the council session, representatives of the European Union expressed concern over numerous human rights violations and the pastor's case in particular. Representatives from Norway and Germany also have urged Iran to review Nadarkhani's case.

The vice president of Brazil, along with other governmental officials, is in direct talks with Larijani, demanding that Iran release Nadarkhani. Nadarkhani was arrested more than three years ago after voicing concern that his son was forced to participate in a class about the teachings of Islam. He was then found guilty of apostasy by a lower court in the Gilan province.

Nadarkhani was offered the chance to recant his Christian faith and return to Islam, but he refused. He was sentenced to death and has been held in captivity ever since.