Ever since 9/11, mosques and “Islamic centers” have been conducting campaigns of determined “outreach” to non-Muslims. The point of this “outreach” is to present Islam as the least threatening of faiths, one which has been too often misunderstood and its adherents unfairly maligned, and those adherents are only too glad to clear up misconceptions about their faith. One such gathering was held on September 16 at the Islamic Center of Boston in Wayland, Massachusetts, billed as “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors.”
The first “misconception” that the Muslim hosts thought needed to be cleared up had to do with how long Muslims have been in America. “People think that Muslims have just come here to this country,” said Shaheen Akhtar, who is an “interfaith liaison” and runs an “interfaith book club” at the Center. She told her audience that Jefferson and John Adams had both owned copies of the Qur’an. Her implication was clear: these men took a sympathetic interest in Islam. She even described Jefferson as “advocating for the rights of the practitioners of the faith.” This implies special pleading on his part for Islam. What Jefferson actually did was “advocate” for the principle of religious freedom in general, and famously quoted a line from John Locke’s 1698 A Letter Concerning Religious Toleration: “neither Pagan nor Mahamedan [Muslim] nor Jew ought to be excluded from the civil rights of the Commonwealth because of his religion.”
However, there were those whom Locke expressly excluded from toleration, and applying his own criteria, Muslims might well have been among them.
At the website of Apologetics Press:
Dr. Dave Miller has noted that in a section of A Letter Concerning Toleration dealing with those whom a civil magistrate “cannot” tolerate, Locke lists the following (page numbers refer to the 1796 edition of Locke’s Letter):Those whose religious opinions are contrary to “those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society” (1796, p. 53);
- The religion that “teaches expressly and openly, that men are not obliged to keep their promise” (p. 54);
- “[T]hose that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion…and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long, until they find themselves strong enough to [seize the government]” (p. 55);
- All those who see themselves as having allegiance to another civil authority (p. 56). Specifically, Locke gives the example of the Muslim who lives among Christians and would have difficulty submitting to the government of a “Christian nation” when he comes from a Muslim country where the civil magistrate was also the religious authority. Locke notes that such a person would have grave difficulty serving as a soldier in his adopted nation (cf. the 2009 Fort Hood shooting spree by a Muslim soldier who shouted, “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 32; see Stewart, 2010).
- “[T]hose are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God” (p. 56).
#1-#4 would all seem to disqualify Islam from such toleration.
But what did those visitors to the Islamic Center know about Jefferson’s reliance on Locke, and Locke’s criteria, that would have excluded Islam from “toleration”? And what did they know about, what could they reasonably conclude, from the Qur’ans owned by Jefferson and Adams?
Both Jefferson and Adams were intellectually voracious; they were curious about Islam, as they were curious about so many things; curiosity is not endorsement. Jefferson purchased his Qur’an, translated by the English lawyer and Orientalist George Sale, in 1765. Later, dealing with the problem of the Barbary Pirates, the North African Muslims who attacked Christian shipping and Christian sailors (and enormous sums were being spent by the young Republic to buy off these Muslim marauders), Jefferson, along with John Adams, met with the Tripolitanian envoy Sidi Haji Abdrahaman in London in 1786. Perhaps reading the Qur’an helped Jefferson to understand the motivations of this unexpected enemy; certainly by the time he became President in 1801, he was determined not to negotiate with the Barbary Pirates, but to implacably oppose with force these Muslims whom, he knew, were permanently hostile to all non-Muslims.
In London, Jefferson and Adams had queried the Tripolitanian ambassador”concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury” for the Americans had done nothing to deserve being attacked, and the ambassador replied, as Jefferson reported:
It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.
And later, Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay and to Congress at greater length:
The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
These reports do not sound as if they came from someone who thought well of Islam. The more dealings Jefferson had with the representatives of the Barbary states, and the more he studied the tenets of the faith, the more he began to grasp the aggressive nature of Islam, the centrality of Jihad, the inculcation of permanent hostility toward non-Muslims, and the heavenly reward for Jihadis slain in battle.
As for John Adams, his owning a Qur’an did not signify an endorsement of Islam. While Jefferson’s Qur’an was that translated by George Sale, the Qur’an that Adams owned was translated by the Sieur de Ryer in 1647 into French, and from that an English translation appeared in 1649, and then published in the United States in 1806. And that edition of the “Alcoran of Mahomet” is prefaced by this: “This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible.”
On July 16, 1814, in a letter to Jefferson, John Adams described the Muslim prophet Muhammad as one of those (he listed others as well) who could rightly be considered a “military fanatic,” one who “denies that laws were made for him; he arrogates everything to himself by force of arms.” Adams is nowhere on record as praising any aspect of Islam, nor even “advocating” its toleration.
Visitors to the Islamic Center of Boston were told only that Adams and Jefferson both owned Qur’ans, and that Jefferson “advocated” for Islam. They were not told what Jefferson and John Adams themselves had concluded about Islam and Muhammad (see above), or what their experience of dealing with Muslim powers had been, for that might have given those visitors pause.
And they were certainly not told that another American president, the formidable scholar John Quincy Adams, had studied the Qur’an, and the history of Islamic conquest, more thoroughly than any of our presidents before or since, and even felt impelled, from his study of both Islamic texts and of the history of Islamic conquest, to write a longer work on Islam. Here is some of what he wrote:
He [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.
In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE [Adam’s capital letters]….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.”
As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated. They [The Russians — J. Q. Adams was here discussing the endless war of the Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.
Clearly, neither Jefferson, nor John Adams, nor his son John Quincy Adams had anything good to say about Islam. Indeed were they to utter such sentiments today they would most likely be declared “right-wing islamophobes” and consigned to the outer darkness. But the visitors to the Islamic Center were deliberately left with the impression that Jefferson and Adams were defenders, not detractors, of Islam.
The Islamic Center “has long prided itself on its interfaith services,” but what does that mean? Does it mean that non-Muslims can watch, or even participate in, the regular Muslim services? Or does it have to do with charity? Mention is made of “resources for homeless families.” Ordinarily, zakat (charitable giving), many Muslim websites insist, should be limited to fellow Muslims, but if it is given to non-Muslims, it can be justified as helping to “promote Islam” by burnishing its image. It is too bad that the “moderate voices” that Shaheed Akhtar says “need to be heard” did not openly discuss this matter with their guests. They might have said, for example, “you know, there are Muslims who believe that the recipients of zakat can only be other Muslims but we, the moderates, disagree.” That would have won points, but would also have required, however, the admission that many Muslims think otherwise.
Adil Najam, a Pakistani American, gave a presentation about “the experience of being a Muslim in America.” He has himself led a charmed academic life, and is now that appetizing thing, a full professor and Dean of the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University. How unfair it was, he smilingly implied, when he appeared on a TV news show after 9/11/2001 and was unpleasantly introduced as an “expert on hate” because he was a Muslim, at the very time when, Najam said, “everyone was talking about why they hate us.” Muslims should be seen as not experts on, but victims of hate, when they wish only, joked Najam, to someday become regarded as “experts on love.” Muslim love for non-Muslims, reciprocal non-Muslim love for Muslims, the promise of a Peaceable Kingdom if only the Islamophobes could be silenced, what a comforting prospect..
Along with attempts to enroll the Founding Fathers in the campaign to burnish Islam’s image, Muslims, and not just in CAIR, like both to backdate and exaggerate the Muslim presence in America. Broad claims have been made for an early Muslim presence. Najam did not disappoint, for he stated, almost offhandedly and, without reference to any supporting evidence, that “around 30 percent of the slaves brought over to the United States were Muslim.” No such certainty exists among those who have researched the question of slaves who were Muslim; figures range from 5% to 10% to 15% to the fantastic figure of 30%. Najam chose not to discuss the complexity of the issue, but plucked out of the air the highest figure that anyone has ever mentioned, 30%, and presented it as indisputable fact. He did not discuss another aspect of this matter, which is that even those slaves who came as Muslims found it impossible to keep up the observance of Islam and within a few generations, as Syviane Diouf has pointed out, the observance of Islam practically, and swiftly, died out: “Islam as brought by the African slaves has not survived….in the Americas and the Caribbean, not one community currently practices Islam as passed on by preceding African generations.” The absence of Qur’ans, madrasas, mosques, and the pressure to convert to Christianity, all contributed to this rapid disappearance of Islam.
Adil Najam wanted to convey to his non-Muslim audience the challenge of being a Muslim in America, and the “difficult conversations” so many of them had to have with their children. “How do you explain to your child that someone who has a name like his, someone who claims to be from the religion that he has grown up in, would do a horrible thing”? Notice how Najam suggests by sleight of word that anyone who “would do a horrible thing” (a terrorist attack) only “claims” to be a Muslim, but cannot really be one. And it is the good, kind, peaceful and therefore “authentic” Muslims who are also victims of Islamic terrorism, for it is they who suffer the consequences of the acts of bad (and therefore “false”) Muslims. Yet Najam passes over in silence – does not attempt to explain — the disturbing habit those “false” Muslims have of quoting passages from the Qur’an to justify their every act. Did they make those passages up?
Adil Najam isn’t sorry for Muslims alone. He emphasized that non-Muslims also had to have “difficult conversations” with their children, too. What kind of conversations? Perhaps, you are thinking, conversations about safety, because children have learned about Boston and San Bernardino and Fort Hood and Chattanooga and Orlando, and about dozens — or hundreds, or thousands — of other Muslim terrorist attacks, in London and Paris and Brussels and Amsterdam and Madrid and Moscow, in Nigeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Libya. There have been, after all, nearly 30,000 terrorist attacks by Muslims since 9/11/2001. This might naturally cause some anxiety, and not only among children. The heightened security at airports, railroad and bus stations, subways, sports events, concerts, political rallies, any place where large numbers of people gather – all this is in response to, and reminds us constantly of, the threat of Islamic terrorism.
But it’s not reassurances about safety that Adil Najam thinks non-Muslim parents must offer their children. He does not think that the “difficult conversation” non-Muslim parents need to have with their children should be about terrorism, even if it were in the context of an attempt to reassure them, by possibly minimizing the danger. No, the conversation that he thinks non-Muslim parents need to have with their children is not about terrorism at all but should be “about how to deal with Islamophobia, too.”
So the problem for all of us, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is not the steady stillicide of Muslim attacks on non-Muslims (in this country, in Europe, around the world) but, rather, the attitudes such attacks give rise to among non-Muslims (fear, suspicion, hostility), attitudes that the adil-najams of this world insist on dismissing as the bigotry of “Islamophobia.” Adil Najam was in his element at this Meet Your Muslim Neighbors event, encouraging the belief that any suspicion or hostility felt by non-Muslims reflected a baseless and irrational fear, an “Islamophobia” that we are all supposed to reject as we learn to meet and trust Our Muslim Neighbors. Others might beg to differ, might even argue that it would be irrational, given the observable behavior and attitudes of so many Muslims, not to be exceedingly wary of Islam and its adherents.
The non-Muslim visitors to this “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors” farce were eager to signal their acceptance of Najam’s victimization narrative. “You can’t be a bystander,” said Elizabeth Jonczyk, who was visiting the center with her sister to learn about Islam. “You have a duty to stand up and say, ‘That’s just wrong,’ and that you don’t stand with the people who have this hateful rhetoric.” Music to the ears of CAIR.
One wonders what exactly Ms. Joczcyk learned about Islam during her visit. Whose “hateful rhetoric” was she deploring? Has she been made aware of any “hateful rhetoric” in the Qur’an? Has she glanced at even one of the thousands of Muslim websites spewing “hateful rhetoric”? Or is “hateful rhetoric” what comes only from “right-wing” Islamophobes? Was she made aware, in meeting her Muslim neighbors, of any of the more than 100 Jihad verses in the Qur’an? Did she learn anything about the life of Muhammad? Did she find out – and please pardon the repetition, but these things must be repeated again and again — about as his attack on the Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, or his marriage to little Aisha when she was six and consummation of that marriage when she was nine? Did she learn of the satisfaction he expressed at the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak for mocking him, or his viewing of the beheading of the 600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza? Did anyone at the Islamic Center let her know that despite all this, Muhammad is considered by Muslims to be the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), the Model of Conduct (uswa hasana)? Did she find out that Muslims are called the “best of peoples” and non-Muslims the “vilest of creatures” in the Qur’an?
I would bet my bottom dollar she learned none of that from her hosts at “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors.” All she heard was that it is hard for Muslims in this country, for they are so unfairly tarred with the brush of terrorism, when we all know, don’t we, that these attacks by people who “claim” to be Muslims have “nothing to do with Islam.” Yet Muslim parents have to have that “difficult conversation” with their children, in this climate of right-wing hate speech (add any other epithets you like) and Islamophobia, and non-Muslim parents have a similar duty, too, to make sure their own children become aware of this “Islamophobia” phenomenon and are properly immunized against it.
Adil Najam, who grew up in Pakistan, knows what is in the Qur’an and Hadith. He knows perfectly well the Qur’anic verses that call for Jihad, knows the description of non-Muslims in the Qur’an, knows about Aisha and Asma bint Marwan and the Khaybar Oasis and the Banu Qurayza. He knows the significance of the Hadith as a gloss on the Qur’an, perhaps even more disturbing than the Qur’an. But he does not wish to share that knowledge with his trusting non-Muslim guests. He would prefer that whatever they learn about Islam not be anything that might alarm or worry them. And he wants them to think that any anxiety about Islam is merely the result of motiveless malignity, irrational hatred, “Islamophobia.”
What might Adil Najam, Dean of the Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies, and a Professor of More Than One Thing at Boston University, have done differently that Saturday morning at the Islamic Center? He might have said that yes, there are many passages in the Qur’an that call for Jihad against the Infidels. He might have admitted that these passages had proven dangerous to the well-being of all non-Muslims, as over the past 1400 years Muslims had repeatedly shown that they took the duty of Jihad to heart, and had conquered many lands and subjugated many peoples.
Professor Najam might have said that it was up to Muslims, like himself, to own up to the centrality of Jihad in Islam. It was imperative for Muslims, Dean Najam might have argued, “to put Islam back into history,” as Christians and Jews had learned to do with their holy books, instead of treating it as uncreated and immutable. It was up to Muslims, he might have continued, not to try to protect their faith from the prying eyes of Infidels, but to own up to the texts and teachings of Islam in the hope of finding ways to contextualize or re-interpret the offending passages in the Qur’an and Hadith.
Adil Najam might have said that many events in Muhammad’s life were deeply disturbing, and ought to be recognized as such by mainstream Muslims, rather than denied or explained away, and non-Muslims had a perfect right to be alarmed at those events, particularly since Muhammad was regarded by Muslims as “the Perfect Man.” Professor Najam might have said that Muslims should try always to enlighten, and never to mislead, their non-Muslim Neighbors.
Yes, he might have said any of these things, and by now in these paragraphs you have been asked to believe, if my aging abacus is accurate, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast. But if Adil Najam, Professor and Dean of the Frederick S. Pardee Etc., were to say or do even one of the things just suggested, he would not be Adil Najam, but instead be Maajid Nawaz, or Pervez Hoodbhoy, or Ibn Warraq, or Wafa Sultan, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali. And he would then not only have, but would actually deserve, the trust of those who came to Meet Their Muslim Neighbors.

gravenimage says
Hugh Fitzgerald: “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors”
……………………….
Because it’s lovely to put a face to the people who are going to be bombing and beheading you…
Did the oh-so-reasonable Shaheed Akhtar tell the filthy Infidels that his name refers to those who “kill and are killed in the way of Allah”–in other words, those who are killed while waging violent Jihad–and that these are the only Muslims who are held to have a sure spot in Paradise? Of course not.
mgoldberg says
I missed the obvious, which you so keenly caught here….my word, what a precise, blunt and obvious
insight.
Mark
gravenimage says
Thank you, mgoldberg. 🙂
miriamrove says
Yes. His name does mean mrtyre. GI: Have ever wondered the 72 virgins waiting for shaheeds, how can they entertain so many of them?!!
gravenimage says
Well, these “Martyrs” are supposed to have round-the-clock erections, miriam.
Of course here, we know that if someone has ‘an erection lasting over four hours’, that they should head for the nearest emergency room…
Biff H says
As a man going by the name of The Christian Prince often points out, the wording is a penis that goes on forever…one that would wrap about the world countless times unable to jockey for position with the supernatural fembot’s sweetspot. The imagery of standing around with a raging hard-on for all eternity is grotesque in the extreme. How do they expect to bob and weave in Paradise worshipping Allah with their stuffy being constantly rammed into their prayer mats? Will their be 90 foot celestial whores positioned beneath them to soften the blow? Only Allah knows best.
gravenimage says
Hilarious, Biff.
whirlwinder says
His name is SHAHEEN which means “royal falcon”.
A martyr is SHAHID OR SHAHEED, neither of which is Mr. Akhtar’s first name.
We must be careful with words because they mean so much. It was a nice sentiment and he is just as bloodthirsty as the rest of them but lets call them by their correct names.
Michael Copeland says
Apt enough. A falcon is a raptor, a predator.
gravenimage says
Well, you are right–I misread the name. Thanks for pointing that out. I stand by the rest of my comments, though.
Kay says
Thank you for doing the research to write this article.
There are so many sound bites and falsities circulating that I really appreciate reading some history.
Charles Martel says
It’s referred to as the “Milestones Process” or the “Methodology of Dawa”.
gravenimage says
Yes–from Sayyid Qutb’s “MIlestones”, for tricking Infidels into Islam. As he notes, the bridge between Islam and unbelief is only to go one way.
Michael Laudahn says
It’s a real pity we have to waste so much time and effort to keep on unmasking the same old mohammedan hypocrisy everyone in his right mind has long ago recognised.
gravenimage says
True–but we have no alternative.
JAR says
I guess the Islamic Center left out a detail or two in their welcome orientation. I’m shocked. Well, admittedly one can’t cover everything in a short time. We have to allow fellowship time for camel pee and crumpets. Maybe the sordid specifics will be shared in their follow-up “outreach” event.
Thanks to Hugh F for really helping us to Meet Your Muslim Neighbors.
Biff H says
They could regale the audience with the hadith about how the Impostor’s companions used to fight over the dung of Aisha’s camel. So compelling a story it was reenacted in a movie for Abduls to marvel at feces sweeter than musk. I’ll not take the time to search for this nuggets link on YouTube – you’ll just have to trust me when I say it’s hilarious.
Angemon says
Why is it the American’s responsibility to go and meet the people who willingly left their land and move to America? Where I come from, it’s customary to have strangers presenting themselves, not segregating themselves.
Wellington says
Deception of all sorts is often times imperative in order for Islam to advance itself, thus serving as one of many justified reasons for loathing this freedom-crushing religion.
And yes, Islam is a religion. No doubt abut that and those arguing otherwise, well intentioned though they be, do so with an erroneous implicit assumption, that being that for a religion to be a religion it must be good. Well, where is that written? Religions can be religions and be bad, Satanism for instance. Islam, however, would be my first choice in this infamous category.
No Fear says
Aztec human sacrifice? There have been many violent religions.
I know a Fijian man who says his ancestors were cannibals. He has chosen Wesleyanism as an upgrade. I salute him for his actions in choosing what he describes as “a better way”..
quota raven says
To Wellington, who posits ” Islam is a religion. No doubt abut that and those arguing otherwise, well intentioned though they be, do so with an erroneous implicit assumption, that being that for a religion to be a religion it must be good.”
I agree it’s a religion, Wellington, but I am uncomfortable leaving it at that. Critically important to understanding Islam is being secure in the knowledge that it is more than a religion per se. It is a theocracy, which encompasses many more aspects of the lives of its subscribers and embodies military, political, judicial, social, sexual control over its adherants. It is totalitarian, despotic and motivated to expand…big time and by any means remotely possible. As we know.
Cheers!
quota raven
Wellington says
Well,, as I wrote, quotq raven, I would put Islam first in the category of infamous religions for many reasons, some of which you mentioned. It’s as awful as a religion can get, especially when taking into account how huge a deluded following it has. I mean if only a million or so people believed in this wretched faith, it wouldn’t be all that much of a problem, but well over a billion do. Oh yean, big problem here. Enormous.
Cheers,
Wellington
gravenimage says
Yes, Islam is a religion. As you note, it is an evil one–and by far, the worst practiced in this day and age.
John Stefan says
You remember that there is the king in the Old Testament that fell away from Jahweh so very far that he sacrificed his own daughter because of the stupid vow that he had made which he should not have honored.
citycat says
“THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND JUST TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE”
Yeah, therein lies a clue maybe also to
‘something’.
Someone here said it was a spiritual war.
Increase the spiritual, stop drinking, taking drugs, having constant sex orgies, etc etc etc.
The consciousness over Earth may be a factor in this war, there seems to be a lack of awareness, in the western mind, with respect to the encroaching negativity of YKW.
Muslims will not adopt a thing that is not Islamic, they will use that thing against the infidel, and doing that is in almost every Muslim mind.
Islamophobia- can one express joyously the truth of Islam?
Islam is great, you can rape your wife, rape infidel girls, kill infidels and be praised.
There’s so many wonderful things in Islam, prayer five times a day, in case Allah didn’t get it first time, it’s a wonder Allah has not a headache from the constant repeats.
A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. I don’t know if Muslims really want to be Muslims. Some have escaped and are not going voluntarily back.
anno nimus says
jihad dhimi fatwa burka … islamic contribution to modern knowledge and parlance keeps getting bigger:
https://www.rt.com/news/364356-india-man-raped-wife-friend/
gravenimage says
Yes–I have learned more about Islam than I ever would have cared to know–and all of it is hideously ugly.
Ali Bey says
Meet your non-Muslim neighbours (adressed to Muslims)
gravenimage says
They are fine with meeting us–and robbing us, raping us, and mass-murdering us.
Marty says
In short.
Colonising us.
quota raven says
To Gravenimage – who lists a few social aspects of muslims…”They are fine with meeting us–and robbing us, raping us, and mass-murdering us.”
.. to which I would add “deceiving, cheating, controlling and taxing us”
A lovely bunch. Tempted to have them over for dinner?)))) Well, maybe not.
Cheers!
quota raven
mccode says
Excellent piece.
The cult of Mohammed once again laid bare in all its treachery, deceit and barbarisms.
Michael Copeland says
Your muslim neighbours are given instructions in their book, the one that is “universal and trans-time”, and “valid from eternity to eternity”, and which they are not allowed to deny on pain of death (vigilante-style, penalty free). Here are two:
“Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find in you harshness”, K.9:123.
“…an excellent pattern ….between us and you enmity and hatred forever”, K.60:4.
Mark A says
An excellent article Hugh Fitzgerald.
JW, please keep these Hugh Fitzgerald articles coming in future.
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
Ashley says
“Meet Your Muslim Neighbors”…
_______________
No thank you.
PRCS says
“And that edition of the “Alcoran of Mahomet” is prefaced by this: “This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible.”
Given that Islam is the creation of a man or men–not some guy in the sky–the “royal we” meme simply fails the test of reason.
The “we” being Muhammad–or whomever concocted the Allah and Mo tag team.
somehistory says
John Q.’s one line…a portion thereof…says it all:
“treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion:”
This meeting was of the treachery part, full of lies, deception and deceit. If the non moslims don’t listen and do, the violence part kicks in.
billybob says
A brilliant piece of work! I hope it is read by some of the participates of the Dawh that inspired it.
I rarely read HUGH FITZGERALD’s work only because of the sheer length of the articles. I regretted that I never had the time to devote to it. However, I read this article in its entirety, and now have come to learn what I have been missing out on.
Holy Tshinge Maduha Ncube says
Islam is fraud from a demon inspired paedophile ..pervert..bandit ..murderer called Mahamad..Allah is the devil himself.Islam is not an accident.It is deleberate creation by the devil to mislead many..Its not an accident too that it came through Mahamad.a descendent of the slave woman Hagar..who was a servant slave of Sarah..Abrahams wife.Islam came about 600 years after the resurrection and ascenstion of Jesus Christ..As a true deceiver.the devil..through this miscreant Mahamad..borrowed this and that from the Jewish Christian Scriptures.
No merciful God would condone the bloodletting..the babarism..rapes..paedophilia and a host of other evils espoused in the satanic koran
TopDrifter says
My thoughts on this, “Religion” has killed more people and started more wars on this planet than any other ideology. Whether it be Islam, Christianity, Paganism, Buddhists, and esp Hinduism. Death by Religion has been the top of the line method of death throughout the ages, since Religions were created…
gravenimage says
Uh huh. It is not “religion” that is the problem–no other faith is doctrinally violent as is Islam.
Paul Ashley says
Uh, not true.
Paul Ashley says
A good read about this false contention:
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/clues/war/
Ted Tyler says
Top, as I see it, there are many forces at play here. In most cases, religious motivation is strong. The conquest of Constantinople and the Battle of Tours were religiously motivated. That is, the participants fought to propagate or maintain their particular religion. On the other hand, the battle of Kadesh between Ramses II and the Hittites was simply fought for power. Stalin was motivated by pure power – no religion. Hitler was part religion – but mainly power. And then there was lust. The DNA of Genghis Kahn is found in a very large number of people today! So for the great military campaigns of History, the question of “Was it a religious war or a non-religious war?” might best be replaced by the question “How much of a role did religion play in the conquest of ……..”.
Mazo says
John Locke was against Catholics in accordance with #3.
Angemon says
Locke wrote:
Last time I checked, muslims were not Catholics. In fact, the Catholic Church made a smashing job keeping muslims out of Europe going as far back as the First Crusade.
Mazo says
Mufti was a code word for Pope.
Muslims were allowed to immigrate to Hungary from the steppes in the 10th century. Böszörmény Muslims served in the Hungarian army at the time of the first Crusade.
The Catholic Hungarian King Coloman ordered his Böszörmény Muslim cavalry to slaughter the participants of the People’s Crusade. The Muslims annihilated the Crusader army in Hungary.
The Catholic Kings of Poland allowed Lipka Tatar Muslims from the Golden Horde to migrate into Poland where they married the local Skavic women and their descendants serve in the Polish armies down to the present day.
Angemon says
Mazo posted:
“Mufti was a code word for Pope.”
Right – there was allegedly a “Pope” in 1639 Constantinople, despite it being taken by muslim hordes in 1453…
What was “Ottoman Emperor” code for? God?
gravenimage says
Of course, Catholics have proven themselves loyal citizens for centuries.
Would that this were true of Mohammedans.
dumbledoresarmy says
I went and had a look at the report on this Dawa-and-Disinformation session at the mosque, that appeared in the “Boston Globe”.
Yup, this particular exercise in nonsense-and-lies, otherwise known as Lulling the Stupid Infidels to Sleep So They Can Be Killed or Subjugated More Easily and Quickly, took place in Boston: the same Boston within which a number of citizens have been atrociously maimed for life by the setting-off of bombs, by jihad-waging Muslims, namely, the Muslim Brothers Tsarnaev, at the conclusion of the Boston Marathon, not so very long ago.
However. The “Boston Globe” permitted Comments. There weren’t a great many, but a significant percentage showed that those commenting had done their homework, and that they were not fooled at all; their comments were intended to prevent others – casual readers of the article plus comments – from being fooled. To get them to *think*. And the mohammedan commenter who turned up, frantically attempting to *suppress* these alternative voices, was not allowed to have things all his own way.
gravenimage says
Excellent to hear, DDA.
Frank Courtney says
Thank you Hugh Fitzgerald for another superb article. I wish that, in what would be a sane world, I could have read it in the (London) Times or Telegraph. In the real world, of course, that could never happen. The hacks there believe we should be shielded from the truth about Islam. As do our politicians, hence the shameful banning from the UK of Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller. The British political elite and their media lackeys are acting in tandem with these Mohammedan taqiyya merchants in their attempts to deceive us. I like to think that they are not succeeding but then I reluctantly and with great regret often come close to agreeing with Robert’s oft repeated opinion that “Britain is finished”. If Britain is to be “finished” by Islam it will be after a gun, to quote a great man, has to be prised “from my cold dead hands”.
Florida Jim says
Despite how muslims lie their religion is incompatible with freedom hence they must leave America and return to the land of the dying-The Mideast hellhole from whence they came.
David says
It is true. Our “Founding Fathers” knew well the self made hell on Earth that islam is. With Satan himself as the master puppeteer, all of islam’s adherents are made to do the bidding of the Dark prince.
From rape, to torture, to mass slaughter of your innocent (and non-muslim) neighbors,
Islam has been a blight on this Earth and a bane to all mankind since it’s beginning long ago.
Several times it’s Soldiers of Satan have went forth trying to enslave the entire planet. And each time been fought back by the forces of Goodness and Sanity.
They are soon to be beaten back again. But at great cost in Blood and treasure. Untill the muslim’s stop following SATAN and his demons, there can be no other future for them on this planet.
quota raven says
Superior work, Hugh. Very edifying, and written with elan. Keep up the good work!
Cheers!
quotha raven
simpleton1 says
We ;have to become more skilled at asking simple questions on the koran, such as on the point of (paraphrased) ‘in the koran;’;–
“Muslims are the best of people and the unbeliever is a most vile creature.”
‘Do you agree Mr.Shaheen Akhtar? ‘
To hold him to a Yes or No answer, publicly !. The more they ‘dance on head of the pin’ the more it will expose them, as one can quietly keep asking, does that mean, yes or no?
Plus, then get them agree that it should be pulled out of the koran..
For affect a page of that verse to be symbolically ripped out of the koran and screwed up and/or burnt, with his public affirmation as a witness.
If we could have a formulated but very simple series of questions that should be really have just a yes or no answer, to be asked of a muslim, or better still an imam, sheikh or mufti, all in public.
It is all to be patiently done in small steps where ever the opportunity arises.
Once a series of questions are formulated, to be asked through out the koran and spread,
It is a campaign that has started with the aid of HUGH FITZGERALD, Robert Spamcer and many others.
It needs a general ground swell of many others as has been done one way or the other, through the centuries. It should be the beginning of an ongoing “knowledge campaign/crusade” to ask muslims. and their leaders..
If just some major debaters could do a part of this publicly, then just maybe some of the media may pick up on it, to ask that so called “expert” who is trying to explain away some terror, lone wolf, brain dead, action;.then about a verse in that do they agree with that? Well, , , does that mean ;yes or no?
A lot of that koran would be simply ripped out, screwed and burnt, with the public support of muslims. .:-)
Rventually, a reciprocal affirmation for them about the couple of pages showing the peaceful benefits, that are left in the koran.
Then I may believe in a unicorn, of a moderate islam, and that moderate muslims will not stray of the path and remain righteously guided by a defanged koran…
Thank you HUGH FITZGERALD and many others. for the years of dedication of exposing islam and informing us of the inherent subterfuge and problems of islam.
Jay Boo says
“Now watch as I do a hand-puppet impression of dirty old man prophet Muhammad thumping and grinding on a little six year old girl named Aisha.”
Carmel says
For more information, go on YT to Hazem Farraj : A tribute to Thomas Jefferson Potus #3 vs Potus #44.
davej says
How tenderly they pull the softened wool over our vapid eyes.
Would that modern Americans had the curiosity of the Founding Fathers who took the time to study the Koran and inevitably came to the correct conclusions. They came to know the enemy, describe it accurately and fight it in firm opposition. To say they advocated for Muslims is the opposite of the truth, yet this is what these deceivers expect and wish for in the present day.
The world should be widely exposed to the Satanic Verses (as Pamela Geller and others are attempting to do) so that the starry eyed lambs amongst us are forewarned to the dangers of swallowing whole these well crafted deceptions.
Excellent article that should be reprinted in pamphlet form and distributed to the non-Muslims as a prophylactic prior to “meeting their Muslim neighbors”.
Crusades Were Right! says
It starts with “Meet Your Muslim Neighbors”…
…continues with “Don’t Offend Your Muslim Neighbors”…
…and ends with “Submit To Your Muslim Neighbors…
…Or Else!”
UNCLE VLADDI says
PLANET OF THE LIE
In our new libertine might-makes-right world of openly bribed and blackmailed, completely delinquent and criminally negligent “authorities,” – including educational authorities – where, “since all facts are really only opinions anyway,” people think they *are* “entitled to their own facts,” it seems that PUBLIC FRAUD is no longer considered a “CRIME,” but only another, diversely-equal a “point-of-view!”
But “DIVERSITY” is simply a synonym for “difference” and when one chooses to adopt a position which is DIFFERENT from the actual TRUTH, one is simply WRONG at best, and a lying criminal FRAUD at worst.
In fact, deliberately presenting one’s opinion AS a fact, is indeed only to LIE and commit criminal fraud.
RL Robison says
American parents need to be more involved in their children’s education; every weekday, parents need to ask their kids “what did you learn in school today”. Islamic propaganda is being surreptitiously inserted into school curriculum throughout this country and parents are on the front line to detect that propaganda and to force its removal.