Muhammad himself screamed it before attacking the Jews. My latest at PJ Media:
On Halloween last Tuesday, a Muslim named Sayfullo Saipov drove a truck onto a Manhattan bike path and murdered eight people while screaming “Allahu akbar.” In response, the establishment media has gone into a full-court press to convince Americans that “Allahu akbar” is not a phrase anyone needs to be concerned about.
The worst article, among many, was published in the New York Daily News. Zainab Chaudry of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) argued that non-Muslims shouldn’t “believe the worst” about “Allahu akbar” because Muslims don’t just scream it while murdering non-Muslims, but use it in a variety of contexts.
That is true, but it doesn’t change the fact that Muslims scream “Allahu akbar” while killing infidels because the phrase means “Allah is greater” — not “God is greatest,” as she falsely claims. It is a declaration of the superiority and supremacy of Islam.
Chaudry’s conclusion is chilling:
So the next time you hear Allahu Akbar — whether it’s in a media report, on an airplane, or in a shopping mall, remember that the phrase used by millions of Muslims and Christians daily to praise God regardless of their circumstances, can never be justified for use when harming His creation.
This is deadly advice. If you hear “Allahu akbar” yelled on an airplane or in a shopping mall, you may well be in the midst of a jihad terror attack. If people on that airplane are now conditioned by Chaudry and the establishment media, they may not fight back. If people in that shopping mall listen to Chaudry, they won’t immediately run, because that would be “Islamophobic.”
And so the casualties will be maximized.
On CNN, Omar Suleiman — the imam who prevailed upon Google to alter their search results so as to bury any negative information about Islam — also argues that Muslims say “Allahu akbar” in a variety of contexts, many of them positive. He says:
[A] lone terrorist who shouts ‘Allahu Akbar’ while murdering innocent people in the streets of New York does not get to own that term.
…
[T]he way ‘Allahu Akbar’ often appears in the media seems to serve a nefarious agenda: to instill fear of anyone who utters the phrase and to raise concerns even about Islam itself.
See, if you notice that jihad mass murderers all over the world scream “Allahu akbar” as they murder people, you have a “nefarious agenda.” If you remember that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta reminded himself to “shout ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers,” you’re a hateful Islamophobe.
Suleiman — he even cites the learned imam John McCain to make his case — wants you to believe that “Allahu akbar” is benign and even beautiful, and that there is no cause whatsoever for “concerns even about Islam itself.”
There’s just one problem.
Suleiman says:
[T]he ones who get to own the term … live in a way that celebrates the greatness of God by obeying his commands and serving his creation, not those who flout those commands and attack his creation unjustly.
But did New York City jihad mass murderer Sayfullo Saipov really “flout” Allah’s commands? Did he really do something “unjust”?
The Qur’an tells Muslims to wage war against the “People of the Book” — which primarily refers to Jews and Christians — until they submit to the hegemony of Islamic law and accept second-class status (9:29).
The Qur’an tells Muslims, three times, to “kill them wherever you find them” (2:191; 4:89; 9:5).
The Qur’an tells Muslims to fight non-Muslims until “religion is all for Allah” (8:39).
And Muhammad himself — the prophet of Islam and the “excellent example” (33:21) for Muslims to emulate — says in the Qur’an:
I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah. (Bukhari 1.2.24)
Was Sayfullo Saipov flouting Allah’s commands by thinking that “kill them wherever you find them” means “kill them wherever you find them”?
Did he murder people that Islam considers innocent when Muhammad says that only the lives of those who believe in Allah are safe from him? That the only reason he won’t kill them is if they become Muslim?
Not to be outdone, the New York Times actually tweeted that the phrase “Allahu akbar” had “somehow” become “intertwined with terrorism.”
Somehow! How could this have possibly happened? Could it have anything to do with the thousands of Muslims who have screamed “Allahu akbar” while in the process of murdering infidels?
There’s no mystery here. The association of “Allahu akbar” with jihad violence is not some new practice; in fact, it couldn’t possibly be older. Muhammad himself starts the practice in the Qur’an during his surprise attack on the Jews of the Khaybar oasis in Arabia:
We reached Khaibar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaibar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, “Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” (Bukhari 64.238.4198)
Unfortunately for the media apologists, the association of “Allahu akbar” with jihad violence goes all the way back to the beginning of Islam. Right to its founding figure…
Read the rest here.
mortimer says
Mentally, ideologically and intellectually DISARMED and GULLIBEL to the protective lies of jihdists, the LEFTARDS refuse to inform themselves about the JIHAD doctrine of their strategic allies in the Red-Green Axis war against Judeo-Christian civilization. The Leftards have made a pact with one of their fiercest foes…POLITICAL ISLAM.
The Left is in complete denial about the barbaric, draconian system of Sharia law, the discriminatory Pact of Omar and the 1400-year history of slavery and genocides which is normative Islam, rather than an aberration. Throughout history, Islam has exploded every few years in outbreaks of genocidal warfare against kafirs, between which periods of ‘consolidation’ of Islamic power has ensued in which Muslims clamp down on the human rights and civil liberties of women and kafirs, reducing them to serfs and helots of the Islamic alpha males.
mortimer says
In 624, at the ‘battle called Uhud’, the war cry of the Qurayshites was, “O people of Uzzā, o people of Hubal!” (The two principal gods of Arabia were ‘Allat wa-Hubal’ or vice versa ‘Allah wa-Kubar’.)
Mohammed, using a pun, twisted the names of the divine couple into ‘Allahu Akbar’, implying that ‘Allah (Hubal-moon god) is greater than Allat’ (planetary goddess) and ‘Allah is even mightier than the goddess Uzza (mighty Aphrodite)’.
Allat or Al-‘Uzzá was called ‘Chabar’ or al-Chabra (the greatest). She was identified with the brightest Star Venus and the mighty goddess Aphrodite. Uzza means ‘mighty’ or ‘powerful’ since Venus can be seen during the daytime.
Mohammed’s cruel, misogynistic joke is smirking mockery of the old Arabian war cry. “Allah wa-Kubâr”…Allah (Hubal) and (his) Mighty (goddess Uzza…Venus).
The moon crescent of Hubal and the star of Venus are the symbols of early Islam representing the divine husband and wife. Islam continued the use of these symbols as Arabs gradually kicked Uzza out of the Arabian pantheon of gods. The Kaaba remains a female symbol of Uzza giving birth to her incestuous son Hubal. The Kaaba is a VEILED deity, showing us that no matter what Muslims may say about it, the Kaaba is actually a FEMALE SHRINE representing the WOMB (cube) of al-UZZA.
Begonejihadi says
Next time when Pope come, someone should shout “Allahu Akbar” before him. Hopefully, our Pope will not be scared.
LeftisruiningCanada says
But if he was scared, it would only show his deeply internalized bigotry and racism.
Francesca says
Allahu Akbar means Allah is greater than any other god.
That’s it.
Francesca says
It is a cry of supremacy for Islam.
Walter Sieruk says
First, it should be made clear that the jihadist/Muslim who murdered those people in NYC using a truck was yelling our “Allahu Akbar” all the while he was engaging in this brutal and deadly Islamic terrorism.on Halloween day. Second, in an essay i had posted on Facebook 0n the subject of that October 31, New York City vicious and murderous jihad truck attack. That essay exposed that this jihadist violence and killing was and s based on the Quran, 2:191. 9:123. 47:4. later a Muslim posed an attempted rebuttal of my essay .. My reply to his attempted “rebuttal” is the following .
My answer to apologist for Islam
To X , Thank you for taking the time to reply to my posting. As for your statement that I had taken verses of violence “out of context” from the Quran .meaning those Quran verse only applied to the hostile pagan and violent disbelievers in the Fourteenth century.
As for the interpretation of the words found in the Quran there are people who many Westerner s call “Moderate Muslims” The “moderate Muslims” view the violent instructions found in the Quran as “Descriptive” as in descriptive of what s to do about the vicious , violent and murdering Pagan in the time of the fourteenth century , the historical viewpoint. In contrast, the interpretation of those who many Westerner call “Radical Muslims” are the Muslims who view the instruction of deadly violence found in the Quran as “prescriptive.” As in what to do in all time and places. It’s not clear that prescriptive interpretation is wrong.
In addition ,point two you keyboarded which is “The Fundamental Quranic principal is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense. And it is against those who actively fight against you.” The reality is that many violent jihadist/Muslims strongly feel that their deadly jihad violence in “self-defense” because of the international polices in the Middle East that the don’t like . Likewise they also detest the influence of the decadence of the West. [The decadence in the West also detests but won’t become violent over it.]
In short, I’m not so naive as to think that anything I keyboard will chance your religious worldview. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your non-hostile and intelligent way you responded to my posting.
PRCS says
In short, no Muslim practices “radical” Islam.
Alpo says
“In short, no Muslim practices “radical” Islam”
In short there are only Muclims. All of them are not lethally radicalized all the time, some of them only quietly hate civilized people, and occasionally rape them. Islam is profoundly “radical” i.e. murderous both against their own flock and against civilized people, the only difference is in their mentally ill reasoning.
Alpo says
In short there are only Muclims. All of them are not lethally radicalized all the time, some of them only quietly hate civilized people, and occasionally rape them. Islam is profoundly “radical” i.e. murderous both against their own flock and against civilized people, the only difference is in their mentally ill reasoning.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“In addition ,point two you keyboarded which is “The Fundamental Quranic principal is that fighting is allowed only in self-defense. And it is against those who actively fight against you.” The reality is that many violent jihadist/Muslims strongly feel that their deadly jihad violence in “self-defense” because of the international polices in the Middle East that the don’t like . Likewise they also detest the influence of the decadence of the West.”
A good example of taqiyya on your correspondents part, ‘self defense’ seems to be a real catch all phrase of great utility to jihad minded muslims. Surely the sunnah makes it clear that the mere existence of unbelievers is enough to give such a person cause to feel attacked and offended, and that violence directed ‘back’ towards the unbeliever is thereby justified.
And if that wasn’t enough, the fact that it is the unbelievers who seem to have all the good land in the world, and are so far advanced beyond their islamic nations, is more than sufficient to cause one of ‘mankinds best’ to feel affronted and mocked. If defending onself against feelings of failure aren’t included under the heading of ‘self defense’ it would be very surprising.
I wish you well in your online outreach to muslims.
Del says
Muslims are professional victims and claim they are always being attacked. In their first cousin minds this justifies always acting violently.
Benedict says
“Allahu Akbar … can never be justified for use when harming His creation.” –
When the unspoken understanding is, that infidels, Jews and Christians are not the creations of Allah, it is very appropriate – if not obligatory- to use the expression when Muslims terrorize and kill them.
Yokel says
I thought that there was also somewhere in their compendium of evil that Allah created some folks specifically so that he could enjoy torturing them in hell. Those folks it would appear had no other purpose in life.
Strikes me as being on the same level as suggesting that Allah made flies and spiders just so that little boys could enjoy pulling their legs and wings off one at a time just for fun.
LeftisruiningCanada says
“their compendium of evil”
I like that.
Wellington says
Allahu Akbar is effectively for me the equivalent of Seig Heil!
pfwag says
Isalm and all it’s “faith” documents are so screwed, contradictory, and just plain asinine that any Muslim can make a claim that Islam means anything they want.
PRCS says
Guaranteed: Muslim “extremists” do NOT think they’re extremists or that they’ve been “radicalized”.
LeftisruiningCanada says
The Taqiya is ramping up. It’s just like they tried to do for the word “Jihad”, as if anyone else but us foolish westerners could be expected to believe it means anything but violent war against the unbelievers.
Reading “Now they call me infidel’ by N Darwish, she meantions this tactic:
“After 9/11 many muslims in the west reinterpreted the meaning of jihad as an inner struggle for self improvement. This new, mystical interpretation of jihad was designed to be more acceptable to western culture.This “inner struggle” business is hogwash. In the arab world there is only one meaning for jihad, and that is: a religious holy war against infidels. It is a fight for allahs cause. Ask anyone in the arab street what “jihad for the sake of allah” means and he will say it means dying as a shahid for the sake of spreading islam. I have never heard of any discussion of inner struggle in my thirty years living in the middle east. Such nonsense is a PR ploy for western consumption only, concocted to save face and protect the reputation of islam in the eyes of infidels whom muslims want to lure into conversion. It was made up by people who are searching for excuses for terrorism……”
Chapter 9, “Jihad comes to America”, few pages in from beginning of chapter.
Those who buy this new attempt to confuse the issue over the war cry ‘allahu akbar’ are going to end up become violent when others who know its true meaning try to help them understand – the stress caused by such a powerful cognitive dissonance will leave them little other outlet. Get ready for even more irrational hate from the Left, if such a thing were possible.
LR says
Who gives a crud if it is a term used in various contexts…This is the murderous cry Jihadis use when getting ready to slaughter infidels. Your survival instinct better kick in if you hear someone shout it..That is only normal.
Alpo says
It is a common greeting that they use e.g. when meeting and departing, when accidentally bumping with another muclim in a crowd, etc, but it is never ever shouted nor screamed in those situations.
When it is SHOUTED or SCREAMED then there absolutely is an immediate life threatening situation of some kind, no matter where it is heard. So, it marks the time to flight (or fight, if one carry a gun).
Gamaliel says
Anyone who wants to understand Allahu Akbar should read this.
http://thoughts-everything.com/allahu_akbar.htm
Screeminmeeme says
I have no doubt that if CNN’s Jake Tapper heard the cry of ‘Allahu Akbar’ in his newsroom, he would first crap his pants, and then run for his life.
So much for the ‘beauty’ of the phrase.
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer in PJ Media: The Media’s Chilling Whitewash of ‘Allahu Akbar’
…………………….
Yes–this *is* chilling. Also utter bs.