Where would anyone get the crazy idea that Islam was inherently violent? Well, the day’s headlines might give us that very strong impression, but Obama would tell us (and has told us) that those Muslims who are screaming “Allahu akbar” as they murder non-Muslims are, despite appearances, not really Muslims at all, but just people who have twisted, hijacked, misunderstood the Religion of Peace.
It is, true, however, that there are plenty of Muslims who tell us that Islam is inherently violent. Here are a few of them:
“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30
“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd
“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants
“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud
“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad
“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad
“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari
Obama would dismiss all these as “extremists” who are not really Muslim at all and have nothing to do with Islam. Yet one also might get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib):
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, unless one believes the claims of the Islamic State, 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.”
This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. 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.
All this makes it clear that there is abundant reason to believe that Islam is indeed inherently violent. It would be illuminating if Obama or someone around him produced some quotations from Muslim authorities he considers “authentic,” and explained why the authorities I’ve quoted above and others like them are inauthentic. While in reality there is no single Muslim authority who can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly there are many Muslim who believe that authentic Islam is inherently violent.
One might also get the impression that Islam is inherently violent from these Qur’an verses:
2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”
4:34: “Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that Allah has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for Allah’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; Allah is All-high, All-great.”
4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”
5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah 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.”
5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”
8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”
8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”
8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to strike terror thereby into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”
9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”
9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, even if they are of the People of the Book — until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”
9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”
47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”
There are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”
The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.
The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”
In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.
Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)
Here again, obviously there is a widespread understanding of the Qur’an within Islamic tradition that sees it, and Islam, as inherently violent. And we see Muslims who clearly understand their religion as being inherently violent acting upon that understanding around the world today, in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Israel, Nigeria and elsewhere. We can hope that those who embody the true, peaceful Islam that Obama assumes to exist come forward and work against the Muslims who believe in violence, instead of just issuing pro-forma condemnations. So far we have not seen that. On the contrary, we see reformers threatened and cowed into silence. The Moroccan activist Ahmed Assid condemned violence in Islam’s name and was immediately declared an apostate and threatened with death by Muslim clerics. If the Ahmed Assids of the world represent the true Islam that is not inherently violent, the message has not gotten through to all too many of their coreligionists.
We may hope it does someday. In the meantime, it is imperative to continue to speak about how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, so as to alert all people of good will to the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, and its motives and goals. This is not indulging in hateful generalizations; it is simply to speak honestly and realistically about a threat all free people face. If we cannot speak about it, it will nonetheless keep coming, and catch us unawares.
“Obama on What Trump and Cruz Get Wrong About Islam,” by Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic, March 29, 2016 (thanks to Daniel Greenfield):
…In one of my recent conversations with Obama, he dilated on this point in an interesting way. (“The Obama Doctrine” contains many thousands of words of Obama’s thoughts on foreign policy. However, I could not, for reasons of space, include all of what he had to say. In the coming weeks, I will be highlighting some of the things he told me that did not make it into the original article.) Obama made these particular comments during a conversation about Ronald Reagan’s influence on Republican thought. His main argument here is that rhetoric that could legitimately be deployed against an ideology like communism cannot be similarly deployed against the world’s second-largest religion.Obama first praised Reagan’s “moral clarity about communism,” saying, “I think you can make a credible argument that as important as containment was in winning the Cold War, as important as prudence was in winning the Cold War, that at a time when perhaps the West had gotten too comfortable in the notion that, ‘Look, the world is divided and there’s nothing we could do about it,’ Reagan promoting a clearer moral claim about why we have to fight for freedom was useful and was important.”
The danger comes, Obama told me, when people apply lessons of the struggle against communism in the struggle against Islamist terrorism.
“You have some on the Republican side who will insist that what we need is the same moral clarity with respect to radical Islam. Except, of course, communism was not embedded in a whole bunch of cultures, communism wasn’t a millennium-old religion that was embraced by a whole host of good, decent, hard-working people who are our allies. Communism for the most part was a foreign, abstract ideology that had been adopted by some nationalist figures, or those who were concerned about poverty and inequality in their countries but wasn’t organic to these cultures.”
He went on to say, “Establishing some moral clarity about what communism was and wasn’t, and being able to say to the people of Latin America or the people of Eastern Europe, ‘There’s a better way for you to achieve your goals,’ that was something that could be useful to do.” But, he said, “to analogize it to one of the world’s foremost religions that is the center of people’s lives all around the world, and to potentially paint that as a broad brush, isn’t providing moral clarity. What it’s doing is alienating a whole host of people who we need to work with us in order to succeed.”
Obama said that the manner in which a president discusses Islam has direct bearing on the fight against Islam’s most extreme manifestations. “I do believe that how the president of the United States talks about Islam and Muslims can strengthen or weaken the cause of those Muslims who we want to work with, and that when we use loose language that appears to pose a civilizational conflict between the West and Islam, or the modern world and Islam, then we make it harder, not easier, for our friends and allies and ordinary people to resist and push back against the worst impulses inside the Muslim world.”
Obama added, “This is not speculation on my part. Let’s just track what has happened from the emergence of ISIS to the language that Donald Trump has used and his logical conclusion that we should ban Muslims from entering the country, including potentially Muslim citizens. That wasn’t by accident. I’m amused when I watch Republicans claim that Trump’s language is unacceptable, and ask, ‘How did we get here?’ We got here in part because the Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent, that this is who these folks are. And if you’ve been hearing that a lot, and then somebody shows up on the scene and says, well, the logical conclusion to civilizational conflict is we try to make sure that we’re not destroyed internally by this foreign civilization, that’s what you get.”
One answer to the challenge posed by ISIS, Obama said, is to highlight for the world the achievements of American Muslims, and also the idea that a Muslim can live in a multicultural, multi-confessional country like the U.S. without losing faith. “We have the ability to continue to promote the extraordinary success and patriotism and loyalty and success of Muslim Americans,” Obama said. “That is as powerful a message that we can send to other Muslim countries who are going through these identity crises.”
This is not a thought of Obama’s alone. Based on my own conversations at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community, I can say with reasonable certainty that there are no senior-level national security professionals in the U.S. who believe that it is in America’s best interest to risk making Islam itself the enemy. The two leading Republican candidates for president are currently out of step with this conclusion.

Alan says
Shilling for his brethren
Jayke says
There is also a “notion” that Mein Kampf is antisemitic and militaristic. Just like another book I can think of.
In his book The Second World War, published in several volumes in the late 1940s and early 1950s, Winston Churchill wrote that he felt that after Hitler’s ascension to power, no other book than Mein Kampf deserved more intensive scrutiny.
Thanks to Robert we have some good study material on that other antisemitic and militaristic book that the current occupier of the White House loves so much.
mortimer says
Islam is the most warlike religion.
Danish researcher Tina Magaard, PhD concluded that Islam is the most warlike religion. After three years analyzing the original texts of ten different religions, Tina Magaard concluded that the Islamic texts stand out by encouraging terror and violence to a larger degree than other religions do. She stated that ‘Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions. The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree.’
خَليفة says
Sorry to be a nit picker…
Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology claiming to be theological. Which is why Islam is often described by acedemics as different ( in a unspoken bad way ) from all other religions; and explains this study. Now if they just connect the dots they would say, Eureka! Islam is not a religion.
If western governments reclassified Islam as “Not a religion” that would go a long way to solving the “Islamic problem” the world is facing.
ECAW says
Wrong. Islam is both a religion and an ideology. Why should they be mutually exclusive?
aaron morand says
the muslim shia hates his sunni brother, they hate Christians, jews and other muslims
regardless of the sect…the muslim according to the book of Genesis in the Old Testament
says that the off-spring of Abraham and Hagar would be a wild ass of a man, his hand
would be against every man and every mans hand against him and he would live with
his bretheren…….the muslim kills another based on rumor and emotion…..he will abuse
his wife and children and his kin based on an unfounded rumor or emotion of the
“crowd”…..his prophet was a murderer, a pedophile, a liar, a thief and worse and mohammed is an example for the muslim????…no wonder the muslim is mentally
sick and deranged…who can trust a person whose “religion” says that it is okay to lie,
cheat, steal. kill. rape, and torture those who do not believe as they do…..Never as
long as I live will I ever trust a muslim nor respect their “religion”…theirs is not a
system of “peace” but a method of world domination and corruption…..theirs is a
belief spawned by the devil and all who believe in islam are dellusioned and oppressed
by the evil one, satan…your imams are the spokespersons of satan, your fatwahs are
the voice of satan, ……when you muslim stand before the only GOD in your pride
and dilllusionment, and He says to you depart from Me, I never knew you….you will
look at your “leaders” in horror as you see the pit open before you and you consigned
for eternity to that pit…… .
Mark Swan says
I am very concerned when I hear this President using the words national security.
The Establishment has got us to the point where we must act now and decisively.
This next President had better be ready to accumulate and listen to Real National
Security Advisors who understand the urgency to act now.
The following is from a Special Report on National Security and Defense
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/10/a-strong-and-focused-national-security-strategy
Rev g says
The west, for over a thousand years, knew this to be true.
It is recent revisionism of history that seeks to erase that knowledge, that truth.
gravenimage says
Very true, Rev g. It is only with today’s “political correctness” and willful ignorance that we have ‘forgotten’ this.
Custos Custodum says
Obama’s taqiyya would be less sickening if at least he had the “decency” to use a new set of lying techniques.
Instead, we get all the old formulas:
“Notion” = reality that O-bots are programmed to deny
“Folks” = members of the underclass, eggs to be turned into omelets by the self-anointed power elite
etc. etc.
Billy DuBose says
I can give you about 150 reasons why Americans and all Non-Muslims feel that way, Bummer! I can’t give you one reason, based on the members of the Islamic faith that have done one thing to change our minds! Which means there are more loyalties that exist between Islamic groups (Radical and Moderates) than there are loyalties between Islamic Moderates and Non- Muslims.
jihad3tracker says
If the Atlantic has comments enabled for this article, post a link to Robert’s response. If author Jeff Goldberg has an email path ANYWHERE IN ANY PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY for the entities he submits to, contact him with a link to Robert’s response. If the Atlantic’s editorial staff publishes a contact path, send a link to one or several of them.
jihad3tracker says
DEAR FRIENDS — YOU KNEW THESE ASSERTIONS HAD TO BE IN GOLDBERG’S ITEM, AND YES, HERE THEY ARE:
” . . . Islam is the solution to the ISIS problem. The great mass of the world’s billion-and-a-half Muslims are not ISIS supporters, nor sympathizers, and it is also true, of course, that most of ISIS’s victims are Muslim. Only Islam can truly defeat this movement.”
There must be a mischievous jinn lurking in the ionosphere — who waits until leftist privilege guilt elite media fools put on their pajamas and go to sleep — during which hours he sends the words quoted above irremovably down to the deepest part of their subconscious, so we read and hear them over and over and over again, ad nauseam.
aaron morand says
well hey there Mr Goldberg, tell those islamists to get off their stinking asses and get busy…
I for 1 am sick and tired of every blinking second hearing and witnessing some crazy muzzie
kill, rape or destroy…..
Jay Boo says
Jimmy Carter will back up Obama.
The alleged message versus the real message
Jimmy Carter goes on at great length (supposedly) talking about the oppression against women around the world but repeatedly avoids mentioning Islam.
In other words, the (real message) is that this has nothing top do with Islam.
Why didn’t Carter just flat out say that?
It is the same reason Obama needs a scapegoat for Islam.
Islam is indefensible when exposed.
john spielman says
because his name is DHIMMI CARTER not jimmy Carter!
davious says
I will never be able to prove this, but – I have a good friend who’s father worked in the Whitehouse for the Carter administration. This dad is still good friends with Jimmy Carter, and they frequently debate via email. Carter actually regrets his position on Israel, and the decades of Islamic aggression have worn on him. Here’s the kicker: he “doesn’t necessarily disagree” with Trump’s idea to prevent Muslim migration to the US.
RichardL says
my favourite photo of Barack Hussein: below allah and with halo around his head. He is a proponent of filth and incredibly dumb.
Mo says
This man, Obama, shows more disgust toward Republicans than he does toward the jihadists who are slaughtering their way around the world.
Champ says
Exactly, Mo.
خَليفة says
( Muslims ) show more disgust towards ( Robert Spenser ) than they do towards the jihadis who are slaughtering their way around the world.
somehistory says
More m *t* from o.
The brotherhood that started nearly a hundred years ago with violence, murder, etc. has claimed they are just like every other group…non-violent, fair, tolerant…that wants to rule over everyone else with their iron fist of evil from islam. is came from the brotherhood, just as al q did. All of them follow the evil *inherent* in islam. iran, the saudis, pakis, taliban….the 57 states and all of the terror groups and splinters from those groups…all have the same *idea*….islam is all about murder and mayhem in the cause of making everyone submit to satan.
It’s easy to lie. satan the devil started it thousands of yeas ago and has taught his children well.
Jesus said satan is the “father of the lie” and that “the truth is not in him” and that satan is a “murderer” because his lies have cost mankind thousands of years of deaths, numbering in the uncounted millions.
The evil in islam is not just a *notion*…an idea, or a belief…it is a fact. islam is evil from its i to its m and all in between.
As satan goes, so goes his beast of islam.
(Revelation)
Jaladhi says
And the Democrat base has been fed the lie that Islam is a religion of peace!! Only if you change the meaning of the word “peace”. Hussain continues the lie of Islam and his his followers just drink the cool aid without questioning!!
john spielman says
Hey Obama I mean; the Obamanation who sits in the Oval office and to all DHS spies; please read about the islamic conquests of India and learn how many nonmuslims died in that bloody conquest (conservatively 50 millions!) plus the muslism invasions of Europe! they don’t call muhammed “the prophet with the sword” for nuth’in!
Wellington says
A major reason I believe why so many people cannot bring themselves to conclude what is only too true, i.e., that Islam’s tenets promote significant violence and intolerance, is that Islam is too big to criticize, what with well over 1 billion followers. Were Islam a minor religion, with say only a few million followers, everything else being the same, I think you would find not nearly as much hesitation by many to fault it for its inherent violent and intolerant aspects. The sheer number of Muslims has the effect in the psyche of many to conclude it just can’t be true that a major religion can be rotten to the core.
But it can be true. It is true. And denying truth is never a winning strategy.
rubiconcrest says
The elephant that the president does not address is political Islam vs spiritual Islam. We have no problem with the latter, with individuals praying. We have a problem with jihad, institutionalized discrimination, violations of fundamental human rights, teachings opposed to democratically enacted laws and the constitution. I don’t believe the majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world want to fight the remaining 5.4 billion people over this issue. Neither Trump nor Cruz will make things worse. Every day we delay in acknowledging the truth, as the president is doing, makes things worse. He is afraid to lead. My guess is that more than 90% of Muslims would choose spiritual Islam and not fight to defend blasphemy and apostasy laws etc…They secretly desire safety and security from the fundamentalists as well. The Egyptian vote for Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is a sample of this sentiment. I know the road to a sharia free society will be a long road in the middle east but it should be relatively short one in the west.
Wellington says
I hope you’re right. I fear you’re wrong. Poll after poll shows that 50, 60, 70, 80% or more of Muslims in one Islamic nation after another want Sharia implemented, including death for apostasy, amputation for theft, severe bodily harm or death for criticism of Mohammed or the Koran, and the stoning to death of adulterers. I don’t see the divide you do between political Islam versus spiritual Islam. There is just Islam and the only question is how fervent the particular Muslim is in enforcing and supporting the implementation of Islamic tenets, many of which are truly barbaric.
In short, I see no hope for Islam. Does this mean the world is going to be in big trouble far into the foreseeable future? You bet it does. The burden to all mankind which is Islam is going to continue for some time to come, replete with lots of slaughter and maiming.
rubiconcrest says
I acknowledge the polls and agree with you on that. I feel the Sharia is all they know and they cannot imagine life without it. Can it be excised from Islam? That is the question. The enemies of freedom will say doing so is an attack on their faith but the truth is Muslims seem quite happy in western democracies without the Sharia cleaver hanging over them.
Wellington says
Well, a scholar like Daniel Pipes thinks that much of Sharia applied only to the early centuries of Islam. Trouble is, a huge shitload of Muslims across the world, including those who run every major school of Islamic theology to this day, Sunni or Shiite, don’t agree with him.
As for the specific matter of Muslims in Western nations, as an example of the problem here, some 42% of Muslims in Britain think that Sharia should be operative in the Sceptered Isle (and how many Muslims in Britain have clearly opposed this?——as usual, counting on so-called moderate Muslims is not, to put it mildly, a winning strategy). Ibrahim Hooper, a chief spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is on record saying he looks forward to the day when Sharia will replace the American Constitution as the law of the land. And on and on and on with disturbing stuff like this by Muslims in Western nations, never mind majority Muslim countries.
Again to your query, can Sharia be excised from Islam, my response would be that this is a pipe dream. More expansively, and as I have commented many times here at JW, if you got rid of all the rot in Islam, you’d have to gut it like a fish and whatever good would still remain in Islam can be found elsewhere, so what is the point of trying to keep Islam around at all?
I defy anyone to name me ONE THING in Islam which is good that can’t be found in other belief systems, And yet there is so much in Islam that is wrong that is difficult to find anywhere else. So, once again, what is the damn point of keeping Islam around at all? Besides, Islam, as both Bertrand Russell and Winston Churchill observed almost a century ago, is the only religion which is totalitarian and there is no reforming a totalitarian ideology. Might as well try to reform Nazism or Marxism as reform Islam.
Is Islam this awful? Yes.
gravenimage says
rubiconcrest wrote:
The elephant that the president does not address is political Islam vs spiritual Islam. We have no problem with the latter, with individuals praying.
………………….
Unfortunately, rubiconcrest, what Muslims generally pray for is for Allah to smite the Infidels.
Political Islam and spiritual Islam cannot really be separated. Islam is a system that covers every aspect of life, and that includes waging bloody Jihad and the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law.
Mark Swan says
I would Only Say That They want to Keep Their Influence…I read a list of
so-called National security professionals…All Establishment reciprocates
(No Mention of Islam)…their aim is to stop this loose cannon from bringing
in folks who will point out their incompetence…it is all sour grape nonsense…
it’s election time…so the Republicans along With the Democrats…and their
army of aids who want to continue to glom onto the government teat all know
what has been taking place in our national government for the past 23 years is
damnable and can come into public view if Mr. trump stumbles Into the White
House…especially if the public that backed Him feel they got Him there despite
an attempt to disenfranchise them.
Jay Boo…posted this link a few days ago…if you haven’t read it…it’s interesting.
http://conservativetribune.com/obama-islam-and-christianity
A very disturbing Mindset for an American President to have.
maghan says
But in its heyday Communism had more than 1.6 billion under its belt yet there were ongoing criticisms and military interventions–covert and overt–all the time. China, the Soviet Union and Soviet bloc, Cuba, North Korea, etc.
The affection for Islam has to do primarily with its dominance in all those petroleum producing countries lead by Saudi Arabia. Also Islam is no threat to Western business interests. Anything halal that Muslims come up with, Western business is all to eager to help.
Shmooviyet says
Was Bin Laden a muslim, just as one example? Was he inherently violent, or at the least an ‘inherent proponent’ of violence?
If not, why the elaborate islamic care given to his corpse, as we’ve been told ( since we were denied reviewal of anything for ourselves)? Maybe O demands that high level of respect for remains of just any old terrorist…?
I’m confused here, if it isn’t already obvious. Help, please.
El Cid says
Obama’s perspective is perfectly stated here. It is a fantasy that would be wonderful if true, and sounds true to people with big hearts and who are in denial.
It does not address his perspective that the ‘war on terror is over’. His perspective is to ignore and deny the existence of a substantial extremist movement within Islam ( many movements in fact).
His position would be fine if he were a professor at a university. Not as leader of the free world.
Tom says
Do not confuse me with facts!
Angemon says
TL;DR: you can’t criticise islam because it’s an old religion. Regarding it being a “foreign ideology”, the difference between islam and communism is a 1400 year head-start. Go ask the Copts in Egypt how islam came to Egypt.
Like the 2011-12 protesters in Iran, which you pretend not to see?
Apparently, Obama lives in a world where words shape reality and not the other way around. As such, if you repeat something enough times, it’ll magically come to pass – “islam is a religion of peace”. “Moderate muslims are our first line of defence against extremism”. “Poverty causes terrorism”. How’s that working out so far?
ISIS came into existence after decades of political elites saying “islam is a religion of peace”. Donald Trump understands how the real world works – people tend to like someone who calls a spade a spade and dislike someone who calls a spade an ox while expecting it to eventually turn into an ox.
Fed by whom?
Oh, go read a history book, you ignoramus. What happened to the civilizations pre-dating islam after their conquest by muslims waging war as ordered by muhammad and alah?
That does not follow. Whether or not a muslim can live in a multicultural, multi-confessional country like the US is up to islamic doctrine, not the achievements of American muslims. Some people achieve things despite their religion, not because of it.
No, that’s telling the 20-year-old kid in the 4th-grade spelling bee that being able to spell “me” correctly is something to be proud of. Nothing good can come of such coddling.
Huh, so what? 600 or 700 years ago most people believed the Sun went around the Earth. Appeal to numbers is a logical fallacy – how are their policies working out so far?
Curious choice of words – “out of step”. You see, there’s a “step”, a “marching order”, if you prefer, and people who are “out of step” must be excoriated for being “out of step”. Doesn’t matter if the step is right or wrong, being out of step is bad, mkay?
Christianblood says
Angemon posted:
(…Apparently, Obama lives in a world where words shape reality and not the other way around…)
Obama was twice elected to be the president of the USA by the majority of the American people. Obama reflects and is pure by product of the American society and its political and cultural ambitions.
Wellington says
Not so, Christianblood. You got things wrong again with your never-ending vitriol against all things Western.
The majority of Americans did not vote for Obama. For instance, in the 2012 election, some 66 million voted for Obama versus some 61 million who voted for Romney. Moreover, of all eligible voters, only 55% voted in the 2012 election (57% in the 2008 election). So, to assert, as you have, that “Obama was twice elected to be the president of the USA by the majority of the American people is FLAT OUT WRONG.
Here’s something else you should consider: In poll after poll, only some 20% of Americans identify themselves as liberal, some 40% identify themselves as conservative, and some 38% identify themselves as moderate (the other 2% are undecided or at the extreme ends, left or right, of the political spectrum)..
Look, if you’re going to engage in a scathing criticism of America and the West, as you regularly do, you could at least get your figures straight.
Here’s something else you could do: Quit being a rank apologist for Russia and Putin. Eastern European nations aplenty don’t share your optimism about Russia and Putin and you should wonder why and state why. Also, Putin sees NATO, the greatest military alliance in history for the defense, protection and promotion of freedom, as an enemy of Russia, yet Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, et al. do not.
Why is this, Christianblood? Yes, why is this? Yes indeed, why do all these nations look upon NATO as an ally and yet Russia looks upon this greatest military alliance for freedom (though certainly compromised as such by a post-Ataturk Turkey still in the alliance) in all of history as an enemy?
Your turn. And, boy, do you have much to answer for (including Putin providing Iran with all kinds of military technology——-but I digress).
Christianblood says
Wellington
No doubt Obama was elected twice as the USA president by Americans and we can’t deny that. As for Nato/Russian relations, it is all clear that Russia is not the (communistic USSR) and Russia wants to have normal relations with the West not as another vassal state but as an equal but the West/Nato is pushing anti-Russian propaganda to legitimize Nato’s encirclement of Russia for their own selfish, supremacist reasons.
Wellington, if you have some time to spare, please watch this lively fresh discussion on Russia/Nato relations which aired on RT today and please understand all the people in this discussion are Western Europeans and Americans. Please watch, it will broaden your perspective on this issue:
https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/337703-blame-russia-putin-scapegoating/
Angemon says
Christianblood posted:
“Russia wants to have normal relations with the West not as another vassal state but as an equal”
Then Putin should start acting as such instead of churning out anti-Western propaganda that makes Stalin look like an America-flag carrying tea-partier by comparison. He should stop fear-mongering, like saying, for example, that NATO is trying to encircle Russia. But he won’t, because the fear of a foreign enemy waiting to attack is what keeps him on power.
“but the West/Nato is pushing anti-Russian propaganda to legitimize Nato’s encirclement of Russia for their own selfish, supremacist reasons.”
See above.
“Wellington, if you have some time to spare, please watch this lively fresh discussion on Russia/Nato relations which aired on RT”
Great, Russia Today – the official propaganda channel of the Kremlin. Well, one of them. I’m sure we can only expect nothing but an unbiased, factual-based discussion, right?… /sarc. off
“today and please understand all the people in this discussion are Western Europeans and Americans.”
The implication being that if they are speaking ill of Europe, US and/or the West then they have to be right. Which is nonsense, and you should know this perfectly. You, on another topic, stated that American senators were paid directly by the Saudis. Aren’t those senators Western and American? Anyway, if we are to go by that logic of yours, then any Russian who accuses Putin of wrongdoing *has* to be right.
BTW, here’s an interview of Russian Gary Kasparov:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/putin-russia-obama-kasparov/412804/
Wellington says
I don’t want to watch a video which is almost half an hour in length. Rather, I wish you would have addressed my concerns in your own words, for instance, that 1) a great many Eastern European nations do not trust Russia, 2) such nations want to be in NATO, and 3) Putin keeps providing Iran with all kinds of military technology. Yes indeed, among other matters.
Christiablood: I have regularly criticized the West, certainly the current American President, and to some extent the previous American President. I have also criticized the current state of Western culture many, many times
You, by contrast, are all Putin and all Russia 24/7. Do you get where I am going here? Hopefully you will, but, based on your past posts, I don’t hold out much hope. In short, your capacity for objectivity, on a scale of 1 to 10 is, quite frankly, a 1. This is pathetic and you know this or should know it. I highly doubt you do or that you ever will.
gravenimage says
“Christianblood” wrote:
Wellington
…Russia wants to have normal relations with the West not as another vassal state but as an equal but the West/Nato is pushing anti-Russian propaganda to legitimize Nato’s encirclement of Russia for their own selfish, supremacist reasons…
……………………
In other words, if we dare believe that the nations Russia has oppressed and exploited should be allowed to be free, that they should not have invaded Ukraine, that enabling a nuclear Iran is a bad thing, and having journalists assassinated might not be the best policies, then this is “anti-Russian propaganda”.
Christianblood says
Wellington
The English speaking experts in the discussion do a far better job than a poor English speaker like me so please watch this very crucial discussion on Russia/West relations and the problems it is facing today. I can assure you, you cannot get this kind of very clear-minded and frank discussion on this subject elsewhere else:
https://www.rt.com/shows/crosstalk/337703-blame-russia-putin-
Angemon says
So you’re not going to answer what Wellington asked you, you’re just going to spread RT propaganda. Dully noted.
Angemon says
Christianblood posted:
“Obama was twice elected to be the president of the USA by the majority of the American people. Obama reflects and is pure by product of the American society and its political and cultural ambitions.”
I was going to say you’re wrong, but Wellington beat me to it and did a better job than I’d do.
August_West says
If I used one word to describe Obama’s approach it would be:
Hope
He HOPES that using a few examples of Muslims doing exceptional things in the US will convince the global Islamic Umma that Jihad can end and they can co-exist with the West. I would assume “clock boy” was such an example. Whatever happened to “Clock Boy” anyway?
In order to hang onto this hopeful approach he chooses to lie about Islam and patronize the Republican base (and I suspect a growing portion of his own base).
There is an interesting thread in the Goldberg piece which might get more attention. Obama attempts to differentiate Islam from Communism and suggests that the same moral/ideological solution that Reagan applied to Communism does not work with Islam.
It might help if we more clearly articulate that Islam is Totalitarian (as was Communism and Fascism) and for this reason the moral/ideological solution that Reagan/Thatcher applied to the Communist threat (and that Churchill applied to the Communist and Fascist threats) is EXACTLY the correct approach to dealing with Islamic expansion.
This is a global expansion of Totalitarianism and the same moral/ideological approaches which were successful in WWII and the Cold War are needed now.
gravenimage says
August_West wrote:
Whatever happened to “Clock Boy” anyway?
………………..
He decided he was so badly treated in America–you know, with that invitation to the White House and scholarship to MIT–that his family moved to Qatar. Yes–Qatar–that paragon of freedom that uses slave labor, flogs those who drink alcohol, that imprisons anyone who dares to criticize the government, and has stoning and death for apostasy on the books.
Last I’ve heard Clock Boy is “homesick” for the Great Satan…
ChrisLA says
At its peak in 1980, world wide Communism ruled over 1/4 of the world’s population, or about 1.11 billion people. If Islam rules over 1.5 billion people, that doesn’t make it beyond criticism or beyond efforts to eliminate it. The fact that Islam has been around for over 1,000 years is also no excuse. Actually, Islam is such a menace today because it has not changed in over 1,000 years, while other ideologies have adapted to changing times and circumstances. Obama’s arguments have a hollow, fatalist ring to them.
Walter Sieruk says
Obama needs to become objective and start to study the reality about the actual essence of Islam. For it’s only the truth that “Islam is inherently violent.” This is the truth is a Republican says it or not. For violence and killing is a large part of the teaching of the Koran. As seen in ,for example,4:89. 5:33. 9:5,111,123. 47:4. So therefore,it stand to reason the the god of Islam is a brutal violent and malicious god..As seen in those ,just given examples from the Koran. In great contrast, the God of the Bible is the only one true God and He is about mercy and peace. As seen in the Bible by the teachings of Jesus, Matthew 5:7-9. Nevertheless, there are a number of apologists for Islam, some are imams and mullahs and strangely enough, even some so called “Christian” pastors, who have the outstanding claim that Christians and Muslim both believe in and worship the same God. So it stands to reason that it’s important to know if this claims valid and true or invalid and false. The facts are that the god of Islam or the Muslims is a single being. In great contrast the God of Christianity, of the Christians consists as the Trinity. By the Trinity it means that “Within the essence of the one True God there are Three Persons. Being God the Father. God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Not three gods in one But Three Distinct Persons in One God. Being the Tri-Personal Nature of God, Matthew 3:13-17. Second Corinthians 13:14. . The Bible teaches, the Father is God, Galatians 1:1.The Son is God, First John 5:20. The Holy Spirit is God, Acts 5:3,4. Not three gods but the one and only Triune God. As further explained in the Christian book MAJOR BIBLE THEMES by Lewis Sperry Chafer on page 39 which informs the readers that “Many believe that the doctrine of the Trinity in implicit in the use of the word Elohim, as the name of God which is in a plural form and seems to refer to the Triune God. “ Likewise, in the Christian magazine PERHAPS TODAY November/December 2013 on page 8 it reads about Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning God [this is the plural noun Elohim, meaning ‘more than one’] created the heaven and the earth.” Furthermore, a bit of a view of the inner workings of the Trinity together may be seen in that the God the Father raised Jesus from the dead. Romans 10:9,10. Jesus raised Himself from the dead, John 2:19,20. The Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead, Romans 8:11.The inner-workings of the Trinity of God may also be seen in the fact that the Father sanctifies, First Thessalonians 5:23. The Son sanctifies, Ephesians 5:26. Hebrews 2:11; 9:12,14;13:12.The Holy Spirit sanctifies ,Romans 15:16. Second Thessalonians 2:13. Getting back to the Bible book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:26 in reads “The God said let US make man in Our image , according to our likeness…” The words are the plural “Us” and “Our.” As in “We the Trinity” For the very next verse, 27, it further reads “So God created man in His own image…” In verse 26 it’s the plural “Us” and “Our” to the singular “His” That is Three Persons in One God. In addition, in the New Testament in Matthew 28:19 It further reads the Jesus said “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the the Son and the Holy Spirit.” [N.K.J.V] That is “name” not “names.” In conclusion the many apologists and propagandists for Islam for Islam who make the claim that Christians and Muslims believe in and worship the same God are make an untrue and outright false claim. For the God of Christianity, Christians and the Bible is not the god of Islam Muslims and the Koran.
August_West says
Walter,
“Obama needs to become objective and start to study the reality about the actual essence of Islam”
To me the question is not whether or not Obama understands Islam. At this point, it seems to me, it is safe to say that he does. He certainly has the reason to learn and he certainly has the resources with which to do so at his disposal.
Obama must understand the nature of Islam fully. He has chosen to deal with it via an “Appeasement” strategy. A la Chamberlain.
Hope is not a strategy to fight Islam, but it is a strategy that he might successfully employ to stall until he is out of office.
In the mean time he is going to patronize and lecture how great Islam is.
I highly doubt that Obama differentiates the terrorist murders in Brussels, or any terrorist event, from any other murder that might have occurred that day in any other city.
Nero fiddled while Rome burned, Obama seems to be Doing the Wave and Dancing the Tango.
The most charitable thing that you can say about Obama is that he is willfully ignorant, willfully deceptive, and has the potential to become the Nero of the 21st Century.
mortimer says
Agree. Obama is Neville Chamberlain.
mortimer says
Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, 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.”
Summary: PRIMARY GOAL OF MUSLIMS IS JIHAD!
Sam says
“The Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent”
I wish this was true so Republicans would know the truth that “Islam is a sick, violent, disgusting cult” which has passed itself a s a religion by the sword for centuries.
Obama = A true cluless idiot
Sam says
“The Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent”
I wish this was true so Republicans would know the truth that “Islam is a sick, violent, disgusting cult” which has passed itself a s a religion by the sword for centuries.
Obama = A true clueless idiot
Troybeam says
Usually when a person knows nothing or a little bit of information on a subject they will often research to learn more, many republicans and conservatives have done just that with Islam, learned in depth what Islam is and what it wants to achieve.
This is what upsets President Obama and other liberals who side with Islam. Knowledge that proves they lie about Islam.
So the more you know the better off we the people will be prepared, when a confrontation occurs about Islam just tell the person to go and actually read the Koran, read sharia law, like many Muslims who have not read these books it wakes them up to what Islam is, a violent theocracy that has no place here in the United States.
Anthony says
Australians have been fed this notion that islam is inherently peaceful, despite all evidence to the contrary.
billybob says
Consider this: You are the president of the USA. You are the democratically elected leader of some 320 million Americans – an awesome responsibility. Among the citizens you lead are some 3 million largely peaceful Muslims. You are just as much their president as you are for the remaining 317 million non-Muslims. Your Muslim constituents have needs and hopes and desires and aspirations – just like everybody else. At the same time, though they are guaranteed freedom of religion, there is much controversy over the religion they follow, and that fact they face discrimination because of it – discrimination that stands in their way of fully participating in American society and achieving their full potential as Americans.
Meanwhile, there are well over a billion Muslims in some 53 Islamic countries around the world. While many of these countries are allies of the USA, relations with others are tense. There is a significant problem with rogue militant Islamists who threaten not only the USA but Europe and these aforementioned Islamic countries as well.
You must formulate some policy that threads the needle through these issues. Whatever choices you make will have a significant impact both at home and abroad. You were elected to lead.
You decide – how are you going to handle it?
One could label Obama’s policy towards Islam as bold, even audacious. First principle: Do no harm. Second principal: Act from a position of principal. Third principal: Demonstrate the best of America’s values – Freedom of religion, inclusiveness, tolerance, equality, champion of the little guy, helper of the oppressed, defender against tyranny, rightness and righteousness. Do you have a plan as bold and audacious as Obama’s?
Leaving that question aside for a moment, let us assess Obama’s strategy. Instead of the adjectives employed above, “bold” and “audacious”, you may have other descriptors: weak, naive, paternalistic, patronistic, expedient, short sighted, dishonest, morally bankrupt, fearful appeasement. I would suggest that his endless lies about “the peaceful religion of Islam” have created an opening for the likes of Trump and Cruz. I have no confidence that either of these really understand the depths and dimensions of the problem even as much as we do. Especially, Trump’s illiterate and ill-considered three word sentences and trite sound bites don’t give me a lot of confidence. Yet so disillusioned are we by the lies of the Democrats we would vote for anyone but.
We may look at the situation in Brussels, for an example of what not to do. There, Muslims were encouraged to immigrate without restriction, regulation, oversight, or fourthought for decades to provide cheap labour. Suddenly it is realized too late that the situation is out of control. The population of Molenbeek alone is 25% Muslim, and it appears these same are nation unto themselves whose loyalties lie elsewhere than the state. We read articles like the following and consider if that could be us another 20 years down the road…
“Officials Say Brussels Terror Cell Is Too Large To Wipe Out”
http://pamelageller.com/2016/03/officials-say-brussels-terror-cell-is-too-large-to-wipe-out.html/
Here on Jihadwatch not only do we enjoy the Islamic scholarship disseminated by Robert Spencer, we also have many erudite comments by astute readers. We are certainly abundantly informed as a group. Yet never do I see any more than endless echos about the evils of Islam, either from Robert or anyone else. I think it is time to move beyond that. I think at this point we all agree – Islam is evil. Islam is a threat Europe, USA, and to the world at large.
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
maghan says
Trump’s 3 word sentences on Islam are correct when describing a primitive but violent religion that is the fruit of bold plagiarisms. What is there that is so profound about Muslims and Islam? What have other nonsense-talkers said that would address the issue? Nothing. Hillary is an ignoramus who was totally clueless about rational foreign policy. Her wild and sociopathic destructions of Libya and South Sudan mark her out as a total incompetent but her ruthless ambition is what has driven her to extremes in search of the prize of POTUS.
Mirren10 says
billybob says;
”Here on Jihadwatch not only do we enjoy the Islamic scholarship disseminated by Robert Spencer, we also have many erudite comments by astute readers. We are certainly abundantly informed as a group. Yet never do I see any more than endless echos about the evils of Islam, either from Robert or anyone else. ”
Many regulars on Jihad Watch do far more than just comment on the posted articles. They work with organisations, and belong to them, to spread information about islam. They speak to family and friends, to spread information about islam. They support politicians who show a glimmer of commonsense about islam. They support Israel. They vote for political parties which show islamo-savviness. They belong to Pegida, AFDI, SIOA, LibertyGB, Geert Wilder’s Netherlands Party et al. Whenever they have an opportunity, they speak up against islam, *away* from Jihad Watch, whether that loses them friends or not. Robert Spencer puts his life on the line, every day, as does Pamela Geller, Paul Weston, Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, et al.
Perhaps you do the same, perhaps you don’t. What do *you* recommend we do ?
dumbledoresarmy says
billybob, above, asks ‘what are we going to do about it?’
First: keep on increasing, as rapidly as possible, the ranks of the Islamo-aware such as ourselves; because that increases the number of lobbyists and voters who can push the politicians… or identify and support *new* politicians and *new* political parties that will take the necessary actions.
If one belongs to a non-Islamic faith community – eg. Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism – one must spread Islamoawareness – awareness of the jihad agenda – among one’s coreligionists and pressure one’s religious leaders to *resist* Islamisation and criticise Islam… and they in turn can help put pressure on governments to do what needs to be done both to protect one’s countries against Islamisation and also to assist persecuted and abused non-Muslim minorities in lands dominated by Islam.
Second: where Islamoresistant politicians and parties already exist – e.g. Sweden Democrats in Sweden, Danish People’s Party in Denmark, Liberty Great Britain in the UK (led by Paul Weston), Party for Freedom in the Netherlands – the Islamoaware in those countries MUST wholeheartedly and unstintingly support them – vote for them, donate to their campaigns, object publicly when media tells lies about them. Any journalist, academic or intellectual, artist, performer, non-muslim religious leader, politician or other prominent person – or for that matter, any ordinary citizen – who stands up and says NO to Muslims and Muslim demands, on any issue, no matter how small, and who proposes *any* rational form of resistance, or who dares to publicly criticise or make fun of islam, must be supported… get behind them and PUSH. Americans have the option of joining ACT for America, which is growing at a rate of knots and lobbying hard at local, state and federal level – EVERY American jihadwatcher should be a signed-up financial member of that organisation and working to get others to join; the aim should be nothing less than for ACT for America to have more members than there are Muslims in the USA. if in the UK, join Boby’s ‘Law and Freedom Foundation’ and give it some oomph; campaign against the building of mosques here there and everywhere.
We have to have a critical mass of people in each infidel land before the most elementary measures in self-defence can realistically be taken.
However, while we work toward achieving a critical mass of the Islamoresistant, we can publicise and push for those elementary measures, anyway. Get the concepts out there, floating around, because some will stick in people’s minds.
First and foremost, demand that Muslim immigration – indeed, entry of any identifiable Muslim – be stopped. when in hole, stop digging. Point out, day in and day out, at every opportunity, to everyone, the simple observable fact – wherever there are Muslims, there, sooner or later and usually sooner, you get Jihad. it’s a very very strong correlation. exhibit A = molenbeek [damn my keyboard, the shift keys have stopped working, can’t type any exclamation marks or questions or quickly type capitals]
Second, press upon politicians the idea that any Muslims who go off to places like Syria should NOT be permitted to return. EVER. Let them go; don’t let them come back. DON’T keep them here, because then – as we have seen more than once – they wage jihad right here, and people get killed.
Demand that mosques be surprise-searched; and that if anything suspect is found there, then that mosque should be shut down – permanently. Demand that when jihad attacks occur the mosque/s the attacker/s attended MUST be surprise-searched at once. ANY mosque whose members or guest ‘preachers’ are caught inciting to jihad and advocating or indeed assisting Muslims to engage in practices that breach infidel law – e.g. child/ forced marriage, polygyny, wife-beating, ‘honour’ murders, forced veiling of girls and women [remember the ‘preacher’ at a UK mosque who stated loud and clear that girls must wear veil from age of 10 and that if she doesn’t wear hijab ‘we beat her’], and the killing of apostates and ‘blasphemers’ [such as cartoonists ] must be shut down, permanently.
push for rescinding of all existing accommodations – e.g. push against the normalising of ‘halal’ certified goods and services [they should NOT be the norm or unlabelled default], push against the involvement of infidel institutions in ‘sharia finance’, demand – on security grounds and public safety grounds – the banning of the Islamic female slave-mask, whether burqa or NIQAB.
And – never stop. Never stop. Object to every proposed mosque, object loud and clear and long, and even if the objection fails, just keep on objecting and object to the next one [whilst keeping a close and beady eye on all activity at the mosque that got through… because if anything untoward happens there, then the original campaign against its building will have been vindicated and then some, and people will need to be reminded of that].
Sam says
Don’t patronize any establishment known to be run by Muslims as chances are that they are donating to their mosques and to Jihadis directly or indirectly. Remember we are at war.
Mirren10 says
I posted before I saw your comment, dda, hear hear !
And Sam’s comment, also.
Rob says
Get this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bJJwXHLmYk
Al Azhar University is where BHO spoke immediately after his inauguration and which he praised as a beacon of Islamic thought and progress.
I wonder if he could run this past Michelle and get her reaction.
On past performance MO would probably post a hashtag #freeourknickers
abad says
Hussein Obama is in a perpetual state of denial.
I seriously cannot wait until he leaves office.
Edward says
Obama: “The Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent”
His words are his ploy to further incite fear if we vote for a Republican President, but in essence he is telling the truth… “that Islam is inherently violent”
Humanity Adhesion:
In the military adhesion of personnel is the key to survival, but sadly in real life with non regimented moral standards, we have to contend to different ethnic cultures and beliefs that tatters the unity of humans. The fact as stated in the OT’s Book of Genesis, that we all are created in God’s Image upon our conception is no guarantee that we will co- exists in peace. Tribal allegiances make for a very rocky path for our human environment. Thus, in the case why Obama’s ideo-theological concept is decaying America’s survival ability. Destroying adhesion among America’s citizens!
Our discernment of GOD’S WILL is what we need to get us out of this serious dilemma.
God Help Us All!
mortimer says
Reading material about the murder of apostates for Barak Hussein Obama:
Narrated ‘Ali: Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah’s Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). No doubt I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, KILL THEM, for who-ever kills them shall have REWARD on the Day of Resurrection.”
Sahih Bukhari 9:84:64
No violence in Islam?…what was the preceding?
elizabeth says
“ATLANTIC JIHAD: The Untold Story of White Slavery” – ICELAND – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOPYiG_FOe4 – gripping documentary accurately depicting Mohammedans engaged in purely aggressive (non-defensive), traditional Sunnah-inspired brutality and cruelty in Iceland; directed against men, women, and – most egregiously of all – children; thoroughly demonstrating the inherent, unconditional violence of Islam against any and all kafirs “By their works ye shall know them”.
Mazo says
What Obongo said about communism is true- it was because the anti-Communist west decided to terrorize non-western nations that Communism managed to spread in the third world. Without western narions trying to terrorize them then they would never have adopted communism in response.
The Communist Kurdish PKK formed in response to the western backed Turkish ultra nationalist Grey Wolves terrorists who were murdering Kurds and Alevis in the streets. Since America was backing Turkish racist death squads, some Kurds decided to have a look at and read Marxist ideology to find out what was it that Americans hated so much. They discovered Communism and founded the PKK in response to Ameican backed Turkish oppression.
The same thing happened in Papua and Timor.
Obongo as usual doesn’t acknowledge the role the west played in this.
billybob says
What a silly notion. Nobody is responsible for someone adopting the ideology of communism but the person who adopts it. We are all responsible for our own thoughts. Communism isn’t a logical response to terrorism. It isn’t an art of self defense. It is a political ideology.
gravenimage says
More claptrap from the meretricious Mazo:
What Obongo said about communism is true- it was because the anti-Communist west decided to terrorize non-western nations that Communism managed to spread in the third world. Without western narions (sic) trying to terrorize them then they would never have adopted communism in response.
…………………………
Uh huh. Not that it had anything to do with Communist savagery. sarc/off
More:
The Communist Kurdish PKK formed in response to the western backed Turkish ultra nationalist Grey Wolves terrorists…
…………………………
Mazo has made the same ludicrous claim before–that Turkish barbarism has nothing to do with Islam, but is all–somehow–the fault of those bad ‘Mericans.
More:
The same thing happened in Papua and Timor.
…………………………
No mention, of course, that the people actually terrorizing Christian-majority East Timor was supremacist Indonesian Muslims.
“Islamism’s Other Victims: The Tragedy of East Timor”
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20986
Mazo says
Cravenmirage always denies western culpability in the crimes it supported.
The west placed Grey Wolves leader Alparslan Turkes in charge of Operation Gladio’s Counter Guerilla in order to murder Kurdish and Alevi civilians. The west supported the Grey Wolves slaughter of civilians and their parricipation in military coups against elected governments.
The Communist Timorese FRETILN and Communist Papuan OPM were the ones fighting against the western backed Suharto regime in Indonesia. The CIA supported Suharto in his mass slaughter.
Western Canadian says
“What Obongo said about communism is true- it was because the anti-Communist west decided to terrorize non-western nations that Communism managed to spread in the third world. Without western narions trying to terrorize them then they would never have adopted communism in response.”
Truly amazing, the way the left left/islamic nexus produces idiots who swallow and hand out complete drivel like this…. I can’t help but wonder, do even they believe the swill they hand out??
More Ham Ed says
Most divisive “president” ever. He wears an islamic ring w/ an islamic inscription.
28056 deadly ISLAMIC terror attacks since 9/11.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
Billy DuBose says
For Sure!I can give you about 150 reasons why Americans and all Non-Muslims feel that way! I can’t give you one reason, based on the members of the Islamic faith that have done one thing to change our minds! Which means there are more loyalties that exist between Islamic groups (Radical and Moderates) than there are loyalties between Islamic Moderates and Non- Muslims.
Kepha says
On the one hand, I actually sympathize with the leaders in the Pentagon and at State who point to 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, and a vast arc of territory from Mauretania to Mindanao. Much as I honor the memory of Pres. Reagan, especially his moral clarity about Communism, I am not sure that the cases of Communism and militant Islam are necessarily comparable.
Communism has always been the faith of a self-styled vanguard elite. It’s soldiers died in droves not for any promise of 72 virgins or white raisins, or even for the sake of “revolutionary immortality”, but because Trotsky worked out a simple rule that those who fought might get shot while those who ran would certainly be shot. It’s experience in Eastern Europe, where it was imposed by Soviet bayonets after WWII, shows a pattern of small revolts, dissidence, and rapid collapse as soon as an opponent with any political will appeared. This tells me that the root of Communist adherence was probably always very shallow and limited. Even where it is supposed to be “indigenous” and a force for “liberation”, as in China, we saw the first of the waves of popular dissidence that ultimately overturned the Communist system–even if that in China survived by unleashing the system’s inherent brutality.
In contrast, Islam permeates the warp and woof of popular identity and its culture throughout a very large swathe of the world. While I have enough outsider’s knowledge of the meaning to jihad to understand why the terrorists unleash things like 9/11, the London Tube attacks, Paris, and Bruxelles, I also suspect that the concept of jihad is flexible enough to permit many Muslim populations and their leaders to find excuses to hold it in abeyance–for centuries, if need be–when dealing with the rest of us.
Hence, I am no advocate of across-the-board intercivilizational war; even if I think the late Samuel Huntington was on to something important.
This being said, it has been clear to me for some time that Obama’s real enemies are at home, not abroad, The quotes above only serve to confirm that view.
gravenimage says
Kepha, it is not that we Infidels are waging an intercivilizational war–it is that this is what pious Muslims are doing.
mortimer says
Statistics for Obama…unfortunately, Muslims largely disagree with Ayatollah Obama:
1.2012 report finds the majority of world’s terrorism committed by Muslims. Almost 9000 deaths caused by Sunni terrorists in 2011.
2.Sunni Muslim terrorists committed “about 70 percent” of the 12,533 terrorist murders in the world in 2012, according to a report by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
3.More than 95% of all suicide bombing attacks conducted worldwide are carried out by Muslims.
4.According to NCTC, of the 12,533 terrorism-related deaths worldwide, 8,886 were perpetrated by “Sunni extremists,” 1,926 by “secular/political/anarchist” groups, 1,519 by “unknown” factions, 170 by a category described as “other”, and 77 by “Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist” groups.
5.Countries with Muslim majorities such as Afghanistan “suffered the largest number of fatalities overall (in 2011) with 3,245 deaths, followed by Iraqis (2,958), Pakistanis (2,038), Somalis (1,013), and Nigerians (590).”
6.Polls in the Middle East show 75% of people in favour of martyr-bombings
7.49.9% of Arab Muslims Support Osama Bin Laden (2006)
8.about 35% of Muslims worldwide say jihad violence is a valid way of spreading Islam
9.More than a third [of Turkish Germans] insisted that if it serves the Islamic community, they are ready to use violence against nonbelievers
10.Up to 1.3 percent of Indonesian Muslims nationwide admit using violence against people or objects they consider contradictory to their beliefs, a survey found, with more than 40 percent ready to wage war for their faith.
11.March 2006, found 43.5 percent of respondents in Indonesia were ready to wage war on threatening non-Muslim groups, 40 percent would use violence against those blaspheming Islam and 14.7 percent would tear down churches without official permits
12.26 percent of Palestinians consider the Sept. 11 attacks consistent with Islamic law.[63]
13.Forty-two percent of Palestinians and 61 percent of Israeli-Arabs stated that they support the people who are attacking Americans in Iraq.
14.Boko Haram has killed about 1,000 Christians every year since 2001
15. et cetera, et cetera
sham says
STOP LYING MORTIMER WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE DATA? ITS JUST U’R PSYCHIC DISORDER ,THE TRUE EVIDENCE SAYS
ACTUAL REPORT SAYS THE TOTAL MURDER RATE PER COUNTRIES
El Salvador 71
Honduras 67
Jamaica 60
Guatemala 52
Venezuela 49
Trinidad and Tobago 43
Burundi 37
Lesotho 37
Colombia 35
nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murder-rate
Murder rate: Countries Compared
Totals Per Capita
#
COUNTRY
AMOUNT
DATE
GRAPH
HISTORY
1 Brazil 40,974 2010
2 India 40,752 2009
3 Mexico 25,757 2010
4 Ethiopia 20,239 2008
5 Indonesia 18,963 2008
6 Nigeria 18,422 2008
7 South Africa 15,940 2010
I THINK MOST OF THE ATTACK ON THE MIDDLE EAST (SYRIA ,IRAQ,,ETC) ARE FALSE FLAG FROM THE MEDIA ,THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR RECORD FROM THE AUTHORITY OF GOVT.
mortimer says
Obama said that the manner in which a president discusses Islam has direct bearing on the fight against Islam’s most extreme manifestations. “I do believe that how the president of the United States talks about Islam and Muslims can strengthen or weaken the cause of those Muslims who we want to work with, and that when we use loose language that appears to pose a civilizational conflict between the West and Islam, or the modern world and Islam, then we make it harder, not easier, for our friends and allies and ordinary people to resist and push back against the worst impulses inside the Muslim world.”
Response: Obama is all but saying he is lying to Muslims about how they have a ‘peaceful religion’ when they don’t. Obama is all but saying he is lying to Western people about how most Muslims believe Islam is not violent when in fact they believe that Islam is violent as evidenced by the sample of polls I cited above.
Obama is, therefore, lying to both sides by saying ‘Islam is peaceful’. He feels that will help Muslims to work with the US. In Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Pakistan that tactic doesn’t seem to bring confidence.
sham says
# evidenced by the sample of polls I cited above…………WHERE IS IT? SHOW ME ,U’R POST NOT ATTACHED THE LINK /SITE /AUTHORITY OF DATA ,JUST PLAYING LIKE ” MONKEY CATCHING MANGOES ”
ISLAM IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION OF PEACE…….
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 269, 268
Narrated Jabir bin ‘Abdullah:
The Prophet said, “War is deceit.”
Bukhari :: Book 4 :: Volume 52 :: Hadith 267
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah’s Cause.” He called, “War is deceit’.
2:85. After this, it is you who kill one another and drive out a party of you from their homes, assist (their enemies) against them, in sin and transgression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their expulsion was forbidden to you. Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.
86. Those are they who have bought the life of this world at the price of the Hereafter. Their torment shall not be lightened nor shall they be helped.
5: 28. “If you do stretch your hand against me to kill me, I shall never stretch my hand against you to kill you, for I fear Allah; the Lord of the ‘Alamîn (mankind, jinns, and all that exists).”
Muslim :: Book 16 : Hadith 4158
‘Abdullah b. (Mas’ud) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The first (thing) that will be decided among people on the Day of Judgment will pertain to bloodshed.
Jay Boo says
Sham said,
“Abdullah b. (Mas’ud) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The first (thing) that will be decided among people on the Day of Judgment will pertain to bloodshed.”
———————————–
Allah’s Messenger also said that he did not know whether or not he would be allowed to enter Paradise but he must have known the answer to that question (only he would not admit it). Even the Shia agree that his ‘private parts’ would go to hell.
gravenimage says
Obama: “The Republican base had been fed this notion that Islam is inherently violent”
……………………..
Gee–how could anyone have gotten that idea? sarc/off
Custos Custodum says
Sadly, the author is almost certainly correct in saying that “senior level national security professionals” (i.e. career bureaucrats and political appointees) would never express doubt over this tenet of received wisdom in a conversation.
Whether this establishment echo chamber actually reflects America’s best interests is quite another question, but it would be exceedingly gauche to raise this question in polite company, or to evince even indirect awareness that American interests might be distinct from those of Islam.
Billy DuBose says
Well Obummer, it is like this:I can give you about 150 reasons why Americans and all Non-Muslims feel that way! I can’t give you one reason, based on the members of the Islamic faith that have done one thing to change our minds! Which means there are more loyalties that exist between Islamic groups (Radical and Moderates) than there are loyalties that exist between Islamic Moderates and Non- Muslims.
Gamaliel says
Note how Obama’s enlightenment and compassion toward Muslims stops when it comes to Republicans to the point where he’ll lie to protect Muslims and lie to attack Republicans.
bruceph says
Take Marxism. Swap consumer with believer/non-believer. Swap producer with jihadist. Swap State with Islam.
Is there essentially anything different?
ECAW says
Yes.
maghan says
Trump’s 3 word sentences on Islam are correct when describing a primitive but violent religion that is the fruit of bold plagiarisms. What is there that is so profound about Muslims and Islam? What have other nonsense-talkers said that would address the issue? Nothing. Hillary is an ignoramus who was totally clueless about rational foreign policy. Her wild and sociopathic destructions of Libya and South Sudan mark her out as a total incompetent but her ruthless ambition is what has driven her to extremes in search of the prize of POTUS.
maghan says
Wrong.
Marxism–all 3 Volumes of Das Kapital–have to do with the structure and dynamics of Capitalism. It says little about consumers except that their wages as workers are less in toto than the prices of the commodities they must purchase to survive. All based on empirical observation–not nonsense verses supposedly passed on to a cruel and illiterate sociopath by some unseen sky dweller.
Marx wrote little about the state except to say that eventually it would wither away after the revolutionary workers will have established a classless society. This was never the case in any of the nations that called themselves communist. The Soviet Union and Communist China were totalitarian state capitalist societies where workers had almost zero rights and were much oppressed.
duswami says
Rasool Obama must be reading from the ‘perverted version’ of Islam…The4 other version has lots of violence and threats of violence in it…
Stephen says
This man is not a bad president he is much worse. He is a dangerous human being. No freedom is safe as long as he is within a million miles of power.
No one who has a cursory knowledge of Islam or the Koran can honestly conclude that it has any relation to peace. Those Mohammeds who do not carry out the Koran’s logical conclusion, that is, jihadism do so because the natural law written in the hearts of all men prevents their conscience from doing so no teaching of the Koran does this!
Mr. Obama knows the Koran teaches it is O.K. to lie to the “infidel” that is what he has done to the world his entire life. He is not one whose conscience prevents him from complete and utter destruction of the none Mohammedan world he is one who has no conscience and believes in it seeking to annihiltion of all who do not support the globalist agenda of the socialist/facist world. Hitler had one ally whom he completely trusted and who he and his top lieutenants sought spiritual advice from, islamic imans. Figure it out people and wake up or get use to enslavement under the Fourth Reich. Like his spiritual father and the spiritual father of Mohammed he is a liar and murderer from the beginning.
Allan L. says
You’re not convincing anyone you perfect a$$ Obumer
sham says
ISLAM PROHIBIT KILLING NON MUSLIM
3:21. Verily! Those who disbelieve in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah and kill the Prophets without right, and kill those men who order just dealings, announce to them a painful torment.
5: 32. Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land – it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land!.
6: 151. Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Come, I will recite what your Lord has prohibited you from: Join not anything in worship with Him; be good and dutiful to your parents; kill not your children because of poverty – We provide sustenance for you and for them; come not near to Al-Fawâhish (shameful sins, illegal sexual intercourse, etc.) whether committed openly or secretly, and kill not anyone whom Allâh has forbidden, except for a just cause (according to Islâmic law). This He has commanded you that you may understand.
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 371
Yazid al-Faqir said: This view of the Khwarij (i. e. those who commit major sins and would be eternally doomed to Hell)
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 159 ,160
Ubaidullah b. Abu Bakr said: I heard Anas b. Malik saying: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) talked about the major sins, or he was asked about the major sins. Upon this he observed: Associating anyone with Allah, killing of a person, disobedience to parents. He (the Holy Prophet further) said: Should I not inform you about the gravest of the major sins, and (in this connection) observed: False utterance or false testimony. Shu’ba said. It was most probably” false testimony”.
17: 33. And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed (intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heir the authority [(to demand Qisâs, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take Diya (blood money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e he should not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islamic law).
25: 68. And those who invoke not any other ilâh (god) along with Allah, nor kill such life as Allah has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment.
49: 6. O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done.
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 89 :: Hadith 320
Not to join anything in worship along with Allah, (2) Not to steal, (3) Not to commit illegal sexual intercourse, (4) Not to kill your children, (5) Not to accuse an innocent person (to spread such an accusation among people), (6) Not to be disobedient (when ordered) to do good deeds.
Bukhari :: Book 5 :: Volume 58 :: Hadith 233
Narrated ‘Ubada bin As Samit:
I was one of the Naqibs who gave the (‘Aqaba) Pledge of Allegiance to Allah’s Apostle . We gave the pledge of allegiance to him that we would not worship anything other than Allah, would not steal, would not commit illegal sexual intercourse, would not kill a person whose killing Allah has made illegal except rightfully, would not rob each other, and we would not be promised Paradise if we did the above sins, then if we committed one of the above sins, Allah will give His Judgment concerning it.
Muslim :: Book 7 : Hadith 3142
Abu Huraira, (Allah be pleased with him) reported. When Allah, the Exalted and Majestic, granted Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) victory over Mecca, he stood before people and praised and extolled Allah and then said:…………it (this territory) was not violable to anyone before me and it was made violable to me for an hour of a day, and it shall not be violable to anyone after me. So neither molest the game, nor weed out thorns from it. And it is not lawful for anyone to pick up a thing dropped but one who makes public announcement of it. And it a relative of anyone is killed he is entitled to opt for one of two things. Either he should be paid blood-money or he can take life as (a just retribution).
Muslim :: Book 17 : Hadith 4238
Ubida b. as-Samit repnrted: I was one of those headmen who swore allegiance to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) that we will not associate anything with Allah, and will not commit adultery, and will not steal, and will not kill any soul which Allah has forbidden, but with justice nor plunder, nor disobey (Allah and His Apostle), then Paradise (will be the reward) in case we do these (acts) ; and if we commit any outrage(bad, violence) (and that goes unpunished in the world), it is Allah Who would decide about it. Ibn Rumh said: Its judgment lies with Allah.
Muslim :: Book 1 : Hadith 161
It is reported on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) observed: Avoid the seven noxious things. It was said (by the hearers): What are they, Messenger of Allah? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Associating anything with Allah, magic, killing of one whom God has declared inviolate without a just cause, consuming the property of an orphan, and consuming of usury(intrest), turning back when the army advances(cowardness), and slandering(lie) chaste women who are believers, but unwary.
Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 134
…………… “I do not know that killing a person is lawful in Islam except in three cases: a married person committing illegal sexual intercourse, >>>one who has murdered somebody unlawfully<<<>>>>>A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) <<<<<<<<(2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle, and deserted Islam and became an apostate."
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 6
Narrated 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "No human being is killed unjustly, but a part of responsibility for the crime is laid on the first son of Adam who invented the tradition of killing (murdering) on the earth. (It is said that he was Qabil).
Muslim :: Book 16 : Hadith 4156
'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) having said: No person who is killed unjustly, but the share of (this offence of his also) falls upon the first son of Adam, for he was the first to introduce killing.
Dawud :: Book 39 : Hadith 4487
……..I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam, fornication after marriage, or wrongfully killing someone, for which he may be killed. ……………………
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 21
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
The Prophet said, "The most hated persons to Allah are three: (1) A person who deviates from the right conduct, i.e., an evil doer, in the Haram (sanctuaries of Mecca and Medina); (2) a person who seeks that the traditions of the Pre-lslamic Period of Ignorance, should remain in Islam (3) and a person who seeks to shed somebody's blood without any right."
Bukhari :: Book 9 :: Volume 83 :: Hadith 3
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:
One of the evil deeds with bad consequence from which there is no escape for the one who is involved in it is to kill someone unlawfully.
Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 78 :: Hadith 667
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
The Prophet said, "The biggest sins are: To join others in worship with Allah; to be undutiful to one's parents; to kill somebody unlawfully; and to take an oath Al-Ghamus.
Dawud :: Book 35 : Hadith 4247
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
AbdurRahman ibn Samurah said: I was holding the hand of Ibn Umar on one of the ways of Medina. He suddenly came to a hanging head. He said: Unhappy is the one who killed him. When he proceeded, he said: I do not consider him but unfortunate. I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: If anyone goes to a man of my community in order to kill him, he should say in this way, the one who kills will go to Hell and the one who is killed will go to Paradise.
Truth says
I quit listening to Obummers mouth in 2007. He’s an idiot.
aaron morand says
it is my opinion that mr Obama is absolutely out of his depth, has been and was at the time that the Demo.
party pushed him to the front…he might have been somewhat a success as an organizer or welfare
worker of some sort..but as a Pres!?!….absolutely NOT…..and now…the same idiots at the helm of
the Demo party are promoting another sure loser…Hillary….and we still do not know if she will wind up
weraring stripes and a number….?could she pardon herself as pres.?…perish the thought that WTP
might have to endure another Clinton for another 4 years…..
Guest says
Read the verse of the sword Obama! Maybe that will shut you up! Oh wait he doesn’t care or he’s too much of a coward to protect what is ours!